PDA

View Full Version : When the Rulebook prevents you from understanding the Game



Theoboldi
2018-08-19, 11:14 AM
This all started out as a rant on one game in particular, but soon left me with the realization that it might make for an interesting conversation in general.

Have you ever had a game that sounded really interesting and fun to you, with rules that as far as you were able to understand looked really good and a great setting, but overall you just could not understand because the rules themselves were written in such a confusing way?

I've most recently had that issue with Chuubo's Marvelous Wish Granting Engine, an otherwise brilliant game about telling character-focused stories with adventure or slice of life focuses. It's an amazingly well focused game for those kinds of experiences, providing an experience entirely unlike anything I've seen before as it eschews the idea of figuring out where a story will end up, and instead puts the focus on figuring out how the story will change the characters.

It also has the most difficult to understand, confusing rulebook I've ever seen in my life. While it's packed to the brim with charm and flavor, containing a creative base setting that has been elegantly weaved into much of the text, that very charm and flavor often gets in the way of clear rule descriptions. Often after I've read a page of the book, I found myself amused by the author's banter, but without any further understanding of what I had just read. What part of that was flavor? What part was the author's intention with the rule? What part was the actual rule itself? Who are these characters that are referenced and quoted, how do they fit into this gigantic setting I haven't read yet, and what the heck does what they said even have to do with this rule?

The names of many concepts seemed to have been picked more to be evocative and cool than to be clear, and I often found myself wondering just what they had to do with the kinds of genres they were supposedly used in. What kind of setting is 'Techno' even? Can you give some examples? Why does the 'Foreshadowing' action not do any actual foreshadowing? It says 'get caught up in something you find that you are paying a lot of attention to'? And what about the 'Gothic' setting? The name calls to mind dark stories of personal obsession that lead to grand creations and horrific evil. But here it describes pastoral stories with a twist that the characters tend to get worked up about stuff and are more melodramatic? What? Could I please have some examples of how this all is supposed to work, and what kinds of stories I could tell with these methods?

Also, if your game system is highly narrative and abstract, with a huge focus on storytelling rather than simulation, then for the love of god do not constantly introduce elements of a setting that I have not yet even read through into the pages that should tell me how the game actually functions. Especially if those setting elements are ultimately not even that relevant or make for difficult to understand examples.

The worst part of the rules for me, however, was perhaps the description of rituals. It read like a bizarre mixture of a fever dream and a precisely hewn out method of having players narrate powerful magical rituals together. And what was it, really? A montage segment. Each player goes in turn and describes something that happens as part of the montage until it's done. You can use it for anything from training montages to magical transformations and anime intros. There. I just described in two sentences what the book needed three pages to tell me. Which I had to reread several times and then spend a good 10 minutes just trying to figure out what it meant.

Overall, it's kinda weird to me. I love this book. I genuinely do. It's creative, incredibly immersive, and perhaps the most charming rulebook I've ever read in my life. There is no exaggeration when I say that it brims with personality. But actually trying to work with it and figure out how to play it on your own is nigh impossible. Which is a damn shame, given how genuinely interesting of a system it is. It just needed to more clearly divorce its mechanics from the fluff and the setting, and use a lot more examples.


I guess at this point I want to ask if others have made similar experiences with other games? Games that would be great fun for you, perhaps, but which are just written in such a way as to prevent you from using them? What do you think they could have done better to make themselves clearer to new players and GMs?

Tanarii
2018-08-19, 11:36 AM
Palladium. Anything written by Siembieda really. Or Wujcik. Neither of them seem to be able to write a rule to save their life. But they write cool settings. They really should have been authors, not RPG designers.

Scripten
2018-08-19, 12:30 PM
I actually had that exact problem with Chuubo's myself. When I asked several fans of the system for resources/advice/etc. for myself (and several of my players, whom are dyslexic and can't read a 500-page rulebook unless it's clearly laid out), I was told that we just didn't have the capacity to understand storygames and to just give up. So I did.

gkathellar
2018-08-19, 02:49 PM
Jenna Moran's games have been known to suffer from that problem, yes. Ultimately it comes down to a lack of editing, which is often just a fact of the TTRPG industry - an editor is not usually the first hire you go looking for, if you're a smaller company.

lightningcat
2018-08-19, 05:36 PM
While editing is a perennial problem for ttrpgs, I actually had this problem when reading FATE. It was almost an hour into running the game before everything clicked and I understood what I was doing. In that case it was they had written the book for a reader with a different level of understanding, so I was looking for stuff that FATE just doesn't have in the basic rules. I later read Dresden Files, and it made perfect sense.

Palladium games are a weird case. Yes they have bad editing, but they also have the problem of being designed piecemeal and poorly attached together. So many of the subsystems do not work with each other, or even the main system. It looks a lot like the various homebrew additions for older D&D games, where people just used stuff that worked from different sources, without making sure they worked together. Unlike most other games, Palladium has never stopped and looked at the entirety of their game and made a truly new edition, instead they just keep building on what is already there.

Pro Tip for any TTRPG designers: If you put it on the character sheet, make it important in the game. Especially if you put it on the first page of the character sheet.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-19, 06:25 PM
Burning Wheel.

In the case of that one, it seems like it was produced as a work of art rather than as a technical document.

And it also seems a bit jumbled and disconnected... concepts and terms are referenced on page 100 but not explained until page 500, the index is spotty, and IIRC there's no glossary.

Doorhandle
2018-08-20, 04:49 AM
I actually had that exact problem with Chuubo's myself. When I asked several fans of the system for resources/advice/etc. for myself (and several of my players, whom are dyslexic and can't read a 500-page rulebook unless it's clearly laid out), I was told that we just didn't have the capacity to understand storygames and to just give up. So I did.

To be fair, the people describing that sound like elitist bastards. Just because you can't understand their game right now doesn't mean you can't learn how to understand it in future.

Back on topic: I had a similar problem with Dungeon World. Coming from a D&d background, it's very counterintuitive to dungeon-master at first.

SimonMoon6
2018-08-20, 07:53 AM
The only time I've had trouble reading a rulebook was when I was reading the TORG rules on creating your own spells. Later, I did not find the rules so difficult to get through, but my first attempt to read these rules failed.

It's a very interested, complicated system, based on your skills (and there are many that you might have) in the various components of spellcraft, but you have to be paying careful attention as you read or you won't have a clue. And these rules are kind of important because the game doesn't really have a lot of spells already established (at least, there aren't a lot for every pairing of a "verb" with a "noun" that you might have chosen as skills), so if you want to be this kind of spellcaster, you really need to have a good grasp on the spell creation system.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-20, 09:31 AM
I actually had that exact problem with Chuubo's myself. When I asked several fans of the system for resources/advice/etc. for myself (and several of my players, whom are dyslexic and can't read a 500-page rulebook unless it's clearly laid out), I was told that we just didn't have the capacity to understand storygames and to just give up. So I did.




To be fair, the people describing that sound like elitist bastards. Just because you can't understand their game right now doesn't mean you can't learn how to understand it in future.


I've met plenty of very nice, friendly, helpful people who speak (write, to be accurate) positively about "story games" (under several meanings of the term, I think) on these forums, so I can't make a blanket judgement.

However, using postmodernist-style obscurantism, terms of art, and inflated complexity of presentation (or "artistic" presentation) as gatekeeping methods also seems disproportionately common in the "storygames" and "forge" circles overall.




Back on topic: I had a similar problem with Dungeon World. Coming from a D&d background, it's very counterintuitive to dungeon-master at first.


You're not alone -- PbtA games are based on a very different set of assumptions than some gamers are looking for.

Saintheart
2018-08-20, 09:45 AM
Continuum, also known as "The Greatest RPG you will read and never play." I wish they'd just made a series of novels out of it, because the setting is out of this world amazing, but I admit I was never smart enough to quite get how Time Combat worked and sure as hell never smart enough to be able to explain it to somebody else.

LibraryOgre
2018-08-20, 10:23 AM
Palladium. Anything written by Siembieda really. Or Wujcik. Neither of them seem to be able to write a rule to save their life. But they write cool settings. They really should have been authors, not RPG designers.

Erick wasn't that bad, and Kevin's not too bad, so long as you only look at one book at a time, and try to keep before about 1995... which, holy ****, was 23 years ago and now I feel REALLY OLD. Our joke back when CJ and Bill were writing for them was "If Kevin wrote it, it's balanced, but it makes no sense. If CJ wrote it, it makes sense, but it isn't balanced. If Bill wrote it, it is both balanced and makes sense."

Tanarii
2018-08-20, 10:36 AM
Erick wasn't that bad, and Kevin's not too bad, so long as you only look at one book at a time, and try to keep before about 1995... which, holy ****, was 23 years ago and now I feel REALLY OLD. Our joke back when CJ and Bill were writing for them was "If Kevin wrote it, it's balanced, but it makes no sense. If CJ wrote it, it makes sense, but it isn't balanced. If Bill wrote it, it is both balanced and makes sense."
I played Robotech heavily in the late 80s, as well as TMNT, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and Beyond the Supernatural. Some of them are Siembieda, other Wujcik. Even taken just as one book, they were a terrible in regards to playable rules. I didn't realize until later it was because they were basically just shoehorning settings into Siembieda's already existing universal palladium "system". The entire combat, class, and skills systems are just flat out terrible messes. Especially the combat system.

And in the case of TMNT and Robotech, they don't even get credit for writing the setting. Someone else made those awesome.

And that's leaving aside their advice on Roleplaying. They're scary elitists. Forge-level elitists. It shows in Siembeda's rants in several later Rifts books, and both of their terrible advice in various books. (In Wujcik's case mostly in ADRPG.)

-------

The Burning Wheel system and Luke Crane definitely deserve honorable mention though.

Cluedrew
2018-08-20, 11:14 AM
Back on topic: I had a similar problem with Dungeon World. Coming from a D&d background, it's very counterintuitive to dungeon-master at first.I'm not sure if that is a rule-book thing so much as the assumptions are different. I have seen people get some rather nonsense results by applying a D&D-like view point to Powered by the Apocalypse. (D&D is not unique in how it approaches things, there are a lot of other systems out their with similar ideas.)

Mind you I'm not going to claim that they are better, in fact until you learn to understand these new rules (and simply reading them will is often not enough) they will be worse. Still there are people who obviously haven't wrapped their head around it that go on proclaiming it is universally bad that annoy me. Especially when they list off inevitable outcomes that simply didn't happen in the Powered by the Apocalypse games I have played.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-20, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure if that is a rule-book thing so much as the assumptions are different. I have seen people get some rather nonsense results by applying a D&D-like view point to Powered by the Apocalypse. (D&D is not unique in how it approaches things, there are a lot of other systems out their with similar ideas.)

Mind you I'm not going to claim that they are better, in fact until you learn to understand these new rules (and simply reading them will is often not enough) they will be worse. Still there are people who obviously haven't wrapped their head around it that go on proclaiming it is universally bad that annoy me. Especially when they list off inevitable outcomes that simply didn't happen in the Powered by the Apocalypse games I have played.

I'm highly skeptical of any "defense" of a rules set based on "you need to actually play to understand it".

To me that comes across as an excuse (intentional or not) for poor presentation and/or bad design.

Tanarii
2018-08-20, 11:31 AM
I'm not sure if that is a rule-book thing so much as the assumptions are different. I have seen people get some rather nonsense results by applying a D&D-like view point to Powered by the Apocalypse. (D&D is not unique in how it approaches things, there are a lot of other systems out their with similar ideas.)
Do you have any specific examples? I'm curious, since I've never played AW, but recognize it has several radical departures in philosophy.

Cluedrew
2018-08-20, 04:38 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Maybe it is a book problem hence "I'm not sure". Maybe I can get the friend who made the home-brew system I got most of my Powered by the Apocalypse experience from. They are also the one that taught me how that system worked and it seemed pretty clear, so there is a chance they actually did a better job of it than many official sources. There is also a chance they can carry that over to their rule book. Not a great chance but it could work out.

Still the one reason I will say that you might have to play it (and play it with other people who understand how it is supposed to work) is that it is the fact that such a deep shift in how you approach the game that actually understanding all of that with no first hand experience is kind of tricky. I imaging it would be like trying to understand role-playing games in general while only playing table-top war games. There is common ground that you can reach some good conclusions. But coming to an understanding of all the changed parts from a purely theoretical standpoint seems difficult a the very least.

To Tanarii: Examples? The biggest one for me was what I have seen dubbed as "There is No Status Quo". Basically the idea that things on your character sheet are not enshrined there, not even if you spent resources picking them. You can loose very important things, vehicles, allies, tools and weapons. That sounds unfair, and it is what I thought for a little while (my initial reaction was an M&M like rule where you should then be able to find new versions of those things). But then I realized: you can gain those things just as easily. You can scavenge vehicles, gain followers, steal weapons and armour and everyone is OK with that.

Now that can happen in plenty of systems, possibly the only true difference is in the play tips section. But it is definitely a difference that I can feel when I play the game and it scared me at first. Now it doesn't, you win and you lose and you can end up in a very different position than when you started.

The biggest one I have seen at all has to do with the level of the question in the resolution system. Long story short some detractor was insisting that a success with complications was effectively a failure because of a couple of examples. One problematic was an example of sneaking with a success with complications where the complication was silencing a guard before they could raise the alarm. From a Powered by the Apocalypse point of view this is a success because the character made it into the enemy camp without raising the alarm. This detractor kept falling back to "but that isn't a success, you were seen so you can't say they successfully sneaked into camp unseen". Which is true but that isn't question being posed. The question is more like "did you get into camp without the alarm raised".

I think there were several pages of discussion trying to get this point across. It never did to my knowledge. The shift from the "action" to "conflict" (or however you want to label them) resolution system just seemed too much for this person.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-20, 07:06 PM
To Max_Killjoy: Maybe it is a book problem hence "I'm not sure". Maybe I can get the friend who made the home-brew system I got most of my Powered by the Apocalypse experience from. They are also the one that taught me how that system worked and it seemed pretty clear, so there is a chance they actually did a better job of it than many official sources. There is also a chance they can carry that over to their rule book. Not a great chance but it could work out.

Still the one reason I will say that you might have to play it (and play it with other people who understand how it is supposed to work) is that it is the fact that such a deep shift in how you approach the game that actually understanding all of that with no first hand experience is kind of tricky. I imaging it would be like trying to understand role-playing games in general while only playing table-top war games. There is common ground that you can reach some good conclusions. But coming to an understanding of all the changed parts from a purely theoretical standpoint seems difficult a the very least.

To Tanarii:

(...)

The biggest one I have seen at all has to do with the level of the question in the resolution system. Long story short some detractor was insisting that a success with complications was effectively a failure because of a couple of examples. One problematic was an example of sneaking with a success with complications where the complication was silencing a guard before they could raise the alarm. From a Powered by the Apocalypse point of view this is a success because the character made it into the enemy camp without raising the alarm. This detractor kept falling back to "but that isn't a success, you were seen so you can't say they successfully sneaked into camp unseen". Which is true but that isn't question being posed. The question is more like "did you get into camp without the alarm raised".

I think there were several pages of discussion trying to get this point across. It never did to my knowledge. The shift from the "action" to "conflict" (or however you want to label them) resolution system just seemed too much for this person.

I'm not going to get into a (an another) long PbtA debate, so I'll keep this short.

I don't need to play Dungeon World or Apocalypse World or another PbtA system to understand that "a different question" is being asked. But for me, it's not the right question, and I don't care for "conflict resolution" at all. That's just my personal preference in RPG systems and approach to gaming. As long as we all understand that people can disagree about gaming systems, and like different gaming systems or approaches to gaming, then we're all cool, right?

Worse than a book that's somehow bad at presenting a system (artistic snobbery, poor organization, too many unspoken assumptions, whatever), is the gamer who says "If you don't like system X, then obviously you don't understand it", which is a subset of the broader "If you don't agree with me, you obviously don't have the facts / comprehend the situation" fallacy.

Griswold
2018-08-20, 07:41 PM
Continuum, also known as "The Greatest RPG you will read and never play." I wish they'd just made a series of novels out of it, because the setting is out of this world amazing, but I admit I was never smart enough to quite get how Time Combat worked and sure as hell never smart enough to be able to explain it to somebody else.

I seriously read that 200+ page rulebook 4 times before I figured out how Time Combat worked. I feel like I've achieved enlightenment or something.

I frequently see massive disagreements to answers of simple questions like "can the timeline be changed or not."

My players...did not have a fun time with the rules themselves, although the 8 or so sessions we got through were a lot of fun.

Quertus
2018-08-20, 08:13 PM
I imaging it would be like trying to understand role-playing games in general while only playing table-top war games.

The biggest one I have seen at all has to do with the level of the question in the resolution system. Long story short some detractor was insisting that a success with complications was effectively a failure because of a couple of examples. One problematic was an example of sneaking with a success with complications where the complication was silencing a guard before they could raise the alarm. From a Powered by the Apocalypse point of view this is a success because the character made it into the enemy camp without raising the alarm. This detractor kept falling back to "but that isn't a success, you were seen so you can't say they successfully sneaked into camp unseen". Which is true but that isn't question being posed. The question is more like "did you get into camp without the alarm raised".

I think there were several pages of discussion trying to get this point across. It never did to my knowledge. The shift from the "action" to "conflict" (or however you want to label them) resolution system just seemed too much for this person.

As a war gamer, let just say, it worked great. Just assume everything is roughly balanced, build the strongest thing you can and/or the thing you think will be most fun, and try to win by out-strategizing your opponents. Call over the impartial referee if you think your opponent is cheating. This mindset has worked fine for me for RPGs . :P

---

As far as the stealth example is concerned, if "get noticed" were the only possible complication, it would certainly lead to it being impossible to make as character who felt stealthily. Even as it stands, how the character feels is dependent, not on build, out anything else under the player's control, but on GM whim.

Note how feel is rather important to me, as you know from my comments on things feeling Magical. But, even if the GM gets the character, and picks the correct complications, it's still like bounded accuracy, coupled with Mother May I please play a character who almost feels like what I envision.

At least, that's my take on it.

Saintheart
2018-08-20, 08:27 PM
I seriously read that 200+ page rulebook 4 times before I figured out how Time Combat worked. I feel like I've achieved enlightenment or something.

I frequently see massive disagreements to answers of simple questions like "can the timeline be changed or not."

This, to my mind, was a big problem with the game. If your game is about time travel and causality, it should be eminently clear what the position actually is. Or at least they could've hammered the point that "the causality must make sense to any time traveller who remembers the event" a lot harder. As it is, the way I understood it was that that very question -- can you alter the timeline or not -- was at the heart of the main struggle inherent in the game, i.e. the Continuum versus the Narcissists.

And I think where the game erred on that was that when it said the timeline cannot/is not/will not be altered, and proposed its idea that sentient force is what keeps the universe from falling into a Fragged mess, it was speaking solely from the Continuum point of view. I think you were sort of meant to be uncertain about the Continuum's table-pounding that the timeline could not be altered due to the very existence of the Antiquarian and Thespian groups, not to mention that certain things in the universe generated "natural Frag" -- but it was never said overtly. There was never a point where the authors got out of character, stepped back and said to the GM, "Look, the Continuum's viewpoint is all a lot of codswallop, they're a totalitarian regime terrifying in its reach and power, the timeline can be altered."

Part of that, in turn, I think was because the authors had intended on releasing the second volume, Narcissist, in which they would've argued the question in entirely the opposite direction, but obviously they never got to release the second volume because nobody understood the first one.

Knaight
2018-08-20, 08:42 PM
I'm generally able to crack them eventually, but there have been a few games which were tricky - most notably Bhailadam. The decision to make a rulebook in comic book form is itself questionable, but then there was the decision to use iconography heavily. Everywhere there was a plausible choice between a word, a symbol, or both they pick the symbol. There's a whole new specialized semiotic system to learn, and it's obnoxious.


Palladium. Anything written by Siembieda really. Or Wujcik. Neither of them seem to be able to write a rule to save their life. But they write cool settings. They really should have been authors, not RPG designers.
Their fluff isn't much better in terms of prose. For all that they have some really cool ideas (and they do), they tend not to be expressed particularly well. Granted, an editor would have helped.


However, using postmodernist-style obscurantism, terms of art, and inflated complexity of presentation (or "artistic" presentation) as gatekeeping methods also seems disproportionately common in the "storygames" and "forge" circles overall.
A lot of it is just a different set of terms of art - more conventional games also have their jargon, and the sets are different enough that you have a lot to learn to jump from one to the other, in either direction. Some of the particulars vary - weird presentation is a little more common in storygame circles, straight legalese in more conventional games, but there's a lot of parallels. Sheer quantity of acronyms to memorize is a largely conventional trait, for instance, Burning Wheel aside.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-20, 08:58 PM
This, to my mind, was a big problem with the game. If your game is about time travel and causality, it should be eminently clear what the position actually is. Or at least they could've hammered the point that "the causality must make sense to any time traveller who remembers the event" a lot harder. As it is, the way I understood it was that that very question -- can you alter the timeline or not -- was at the heart of the main struggle inherent in the game, i.e. the Continuum versus the Narcissists.

And I think where the game erred on that was that when it said the timeline cannot/is not/will not be altered, and proposed its idea that sentient force is what keeps the universe from falling into a Fragged mess, it was speaking solely from the Continuum point of view. I think you were sort of meant to be uncertain about the Continuum's table-pounding that the timeline could not be altered due to the very existence of the Antiquarian and Thespian groups, not to mention that certain things in the universe generated "natural Frag" -- but it was never said overtly. There was never a point where the authors got out of character, stepped back and said to the GM, "Look, the Continuum's viewpoint is all a lot of codswallop, they're a totalitarian regime terrifying in its reach and power, the timeline can be altered."

Part of that, in turn, I think was because the authors had intended on releasing the second volume, Narcissist, in which they would've argued the question in entirely the opposite direction, but obviously they never got to release the second volume because nobody understood the first one.

It drives me crazy when a setting is only ever presented from an in-setting POV, and we never get the damn objective facts of it.

When that in-setting POV is wrong, or deliberately deceitful, at a certain point it becomes just plain lying to the audience. :smallconfused:

Cluedrew
2018-08-20, 09:35 PM
I'm not going to get into a (an another) long PbtA debate, so I'll keep this short.Honestly I think you have a couple misunderstandings about Powered by the Apocalypse. But I decided to let those go because even if I'm right the end result of that discussion would be "so if you played it, you would dislike it for fewer reasons than you originally thought". Which doesn't strike me as a productive use of anyone's time. At least not until your opinions on some matters you seem to be spot on about.

To Quertus: First I should say: you can't build a stealthy character in Apocalypse World. Not with any of the standard playbooks. That example didn't come from the stealth skill, but the catch all "how to resolve something that is not otherwise covered" section. Other than that though... I don't actually get your take on it. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on it in this tread, but if you think more is good could you go into more detail?

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-20, 10:13 PM
Honestly I think you have a couple misunderstandings about Powered by the Apocalypse. But I decided to let those go because even if I'm right the end result of that discussion would be "so if you played it, you would dislike it for fewer reasons than you originally thought". Which doesn't strike me as a productive use of anyone's time. At least not until your opinions on some matters you seem to be spot on about.

To Quertus: First I should say: you can't build a stealthy character in Apocalypse World. Not with any of the standard playbooks. That example didn't come from the stealth skill, but the catch all "how to resolve something that is not otherwise covered" section. Other than that though... I don't actually get your take on it. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on it in this tread, but if you think more is good could you go into more detail?


I know the system(s) well enough to know that it's not what I'm looking for in a system, and it doesn't create a gaming experience that's what I'm looking for in a game.

These articles and discussions, promoting or positive about the system, describe something I don't care for, at all:

https://goatsongrpg.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/game-theory-chat-deconstructing-powered-by-the-apocalypse/
http://bullypulpitgames.com/soft-and-hard-moves-in-the-warren/
http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=g2r7hf2idrrhbph0ql0p5kboa1&topic=7563.0

And that's the same thing that happens on these forums -- the more people try to sell me on the system, the more clues they give me that it's not the system for me.


But then these two seem to nail down the exact same impression I got reading the AW and DW rules:

https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/rpg-what-is-the-appeal-of-apocalypse-world/
https://mythcreants.com/blog/dungeon-world-is-a-game-to-skip/

Which ties us back into the thread -- as presented, the rules are vague or specific in exactly the wrong places.

gkathellar
2018-08-20, 10:40 PM
The only PbtA game I'm familiar with is Blades in the Dark, but that book is never vague or hard to follow. While the game requires judgment calls regarding the exact way mechanics will meet improv, it's explicit about that, and spends a lot of time instructing you on the way it's supposed to be done. If other PbtA games come across differently, that may be a writing and presentation issue.

Saintheart
2018-08-20, 10:41 PM
It drives me crazy when a setting is only ever presented from an in-setting POV, and we never get the damn objective facts of it.

When that in-setting POV is wrong, or deliberately deceitful, at a certain point it becomes just plain lying to the audience. :smallconfused:

Put it this way, when I've spoken to (few) others who've actually played Continuum, their view actually seemed to be it was actually more fun to play as the "bad guys", i.e. the Narcissists. i.e.e. it's more fun to actually go back and actually attempt to kill Hitler in his days as a failing artist, while the default premise of the game is actually to stop that sort of paradox happening.

You have to wonder whether they'd have had an easier time playing up the Narcissists as the default character option with the Continuum as the second volume.

Tanarii
2018-08-21, 12:39 AM
Their fluff isn't much better in terms of prose. For all that they have some really cool ideas (and they do), they tend not to be expressed particularly well. Granted, an editor would have helped.
For sure. It's definitely disjointed. And as lightningcat said, Palladium sugpffers from a combination of bad editing (in all sections of the books) and too many subsystems. Revised Ninjas and Superspies was one of the worst, because it was trying to combine a poorly edited set of combat rules with revised combat rules bringing it into the more general palladium system. It was hella fun to play, but hard to figure out how many things were 'supposed' to work.

One of my favorite campaigns for Palladium was after the Rifts conversion book was released. We all made riffed characters from the N&SS, HU, BTS and TMNT universes, newly stranded on Rifts Earth. It was a mess rules wise, but still a blast.

Knaight
2018-08-21, 01:27 AM
For sure. It's definitely disjointed. And as lightningcat said, Palladium sugpffers from a combination of bad editing (in all sections of the books) and too many subsystems. Revised Ninjas and Superspies was one of the worst, because it was trying to combine a poorly edited set of combat rules with revised combat rules bringing it into the more general palladium system. It was hella fun to play, but hard to figure out how many things were 'supposed' to work.

There's a reason Ninjas and Superspies was the focus of the first season of Megadumbcast (a podcast that goes through page by page identifying the dumbest thing on each page).

Quertus
2018-08-21, 08:34 AM
To Quertus: First I should say: you can't build a stealthy character in Apocalypse World. Not with any of the standard playbooks. That example didn't come from the stealth skill, but the catch all "how to resolve something that is not otherwise covered" section. Other than that though... I don't actually get your take on it. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on it in this tread, but if you think more is good could you go into more detail?

I've been trying to put my finger on how this concept is relevant to this thread. I think I've got it.

So, most books/systems define what they are. Few are good at describing the negative space, and explaining what they aren't. Even those that are well-written from there PoV generally offer little to no help getting to their PoV.

Walk into an RPG from a war gamer PoV. Say, D&D 3e. OK, I can see how chain Gating Solars is good, but I can't see how the Rogue can keep up. Therefore, I must not understand how the Rogue works. So I'll play a Wizard, since I clearly understand them better, and, hopefully, someone will play a competent Rogue, so I can see how they're supposed to be played. Then, when my Wizard dies in a session or two, I can replace him with a Rogue. When he dies, eh, I'll just watch what others play, and what looks fun - no need to think 3 sessions ahead.

Having to have conversations where you explain that the system isn't actually balanced, that there are multiple balance points, and that it's on the players to balance the party, is evidence of the fact that, despite its war gaming roots, D&D was not written to be read by war gamers.

And it's pretty much the same in pretty much any system.

Explaining that it's on the GM to make your character feel a particular way is just my personal horror movie version of that.

Florian
2018-08-21, 08:57 AM
I've been trying to put my finger on how this concept is relevant to this thread. I think I've got it.

Explaining that it's on the GM to make your character feel a particular way is just my personal horror movie version of that.

No, you didn't get it. Missed the barn by a mile, using a giant shotgun.

Traditional gaming is a bit like old pulp literature/golden age comics: We tend to define a character concept by what that character is supposed to be good at (like Stealth) and often build up the mechanical values to the point that this:true. So, Ninja Sam, will mostly excel at stuff that Ninja Sam is designed to be good at.

Storygaming is based more on change and character development. Once Ninja Sam tries and fails, something happens and that is not as B and W as in traditional gaming.

Your character is never truly your own, you share it with the rest of the table and the gm.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-21, 09:07 AM
No, you didn't get it. Missed the barn by a mile, using a giant shotgun.

(...)

Your character is never truly your own, you share it with the rest of the table and the gm.


...

That's pretty much what Quertus just described, and said he didn't like.

It's certainly a part of those systems I have ZERO use for.




Traditional gaming is a bit like old pulp literature/golden age comics: We tend to define a character concept by what that character is supposed to be good at (like Stealth) and often build up the mechanical values to the point that this:true. So, Ninja Sam, will mostly excel at stuff that Ninja Sam is designed to be good at.


Really? Because I've long been against that sort of character-as-a-set-of-abilities approach -- and one of the things I dislike about quite a few systems and/or settings is the way in they encourage highly specialized characters, and work out such that if a character is not highly "skilled" at something, they might as well not invest in it at all.




Storygaming is based more on change and character development. Once Ninja Sam tries and fails, something happens and that is not as B and W as in traditional gaming.


That's never been how "storygaming" has come across to me... and if that's what it is, then people need to stop calling it "storygaming" and find a name that doesn't conflate narrative focus with character focus.

But then the systems often attached to "storygaming" tend to be very much systems I don't care for mechanically, regardless of what it is they're actually trying to do.

Theoboldi
2018-08-21, 10:38 AM
I think that if PbtA games are so consistently misunderstood as their fans claim they are, they must definitely deserve a spot on this thread. The fact that fanmade documents meant to explain how the darn thing is actually supposed to be run exist is only testament to that fact.

That said, this thread is more concerned with bad rulebooks, rather than bad systems. I'd appreciate it if we could stop bashing Dungenworld, and more importantly, stop bashing the people who happen not to like it.


It drives me crazy when a setting is only ever presented from an in-setting POV, and we never get the damn objective facts of it.

When that in-setting POV is wrong, or deliberately deceitful, at a certain point it becomes just plain lying to the audience. :smallconfused:

This should probably be some kind of RPG commandment. Don't write your rulebook from an in-character viewpoint. It may seem charming to you and your fans, but it ruins the book for any newbies who happen to read it and makes it impossible for most GMs to run the game's setting from an objective standpoint.

Heck, like many people here have pointed out, it can be off-putting if the IC point of view is from an unlikeable faction or character.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-21, 10:59 AM
This should probably be some kind of RPG commandment. Don't write your rulebook from an in-character viewpoint. It may seem charming to you and your fans, but it ruins the book for any newbies who happen to read it and makes it impossible for most GMs to run the game's setting from an objective standpoint.

Heck, like many people here have pointed out, it can be off-putting if the IC point of view is from an unlikeable faction or character.

I don't mind side-bars or introductory text (well marked) from an IC point of view. Same with setting-specific documents, but only if the real answer is both uncertain and unnecessary. I wrote a few of my setting documents from that perspective, but with the disclaimer "this is what people think. The real answer is all of the above, none of the above, and purple monkey dishwashers all at the same time."

But for rules? No thanks.

Knaight
2018-08-21, 11:36 AM
I think that if PbtA games are so consistently misunderstood as their fans claim they are, they must definitely deserve a spot on this thread. The fact that fanmade documents meant to explain how the darn thing is actually supposed to be run exist is only testament to that fact.

They're consistently misunderstood by people familiar with a certain narrow slice of RPGs (D&D and similar systems, mostly) and primed to think of all RPGs that way - I've not seen that sort of misunderstanding nearly as often from people either genuinely new or familiar with a different slice of RPGs, at least from people who've read the systems and not just the free playbooks. That's not to say that they couldn't be better, particularly everything that isn't Apocalypse World itself, but they're really not that bad by RPG standards.

Granted, said standards are low. Document design skills aren't really what they could be in this industry.

Theoboldi
2018-08-21, 11:42 AM
Edit: Actually, you know what? I have no interest in getting involved in a discussion about PbtA. I've seen how those turn out often enough. There is nothing interesting or useful to gain from it.


I don't mind side-bars or introductory text (well marked) from an IC point of view. Same with setting-specific documents, but only if the real answer is both uncertain and unnecessary. I wrote a few of my setting documents from that perspective, but with the disclaimer "this is what people think. The real answer is all of the above, none of the above, and purple monkey dishwashers all at the same time."

But for rules? No thanks.

Sidebars and specifically marked paragraphs are pretty much the gold standard there, I think. You get a good feel for what the setting is supposed to look like, but also clear rules language that helps you figure everything out.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-21, 12:02 PM
...and more importantly, stop bashing the people who happen not to like it.




They're consistently misunderstood by people...


Yeap, it's the fault of people who don't like it, no of the presentation or the actual mechanics.

:smallconfused:

Anyway...




Edit: Actually, you know what? I have no interest in getting involved in a discussion about PbtA. I've seen how those turn out often enough. There is nothing interesting or useful to gain from it.


Indeed. My mistake for mentioning that I find the presentation lacking, I should have known what the response from certan quarters would be.




This should probably be some kind of RPG commandment. Don't write your rulebook from an in-character viewpoint. It may seem charming to you and your fans, but it ruins the book for any newbies who happen to read it and makes it impossible for most GMs to run the game's setting from an objective standpoint.

Heck, like many people here have pointed out, it can be off-putting if the IC point of view is from an unlikeable faction or character.



Sidebars and specifically marked paragraphs are pretty much the gold standard there, I think. You get a good feel for what the setting is supposed to look like, but also clear rules language that helps you figure everything out.


Agreed. There's nothing wrong with sidebars and "special format" paragraphs that make it clear you're getting someone's in-character / in-setting perspective, that can actually be great for getting a sense of what people in the setting subjectively believe to be true.

But to have all the setting information presented from some character's bias, is counter-productive at best, and actively product-ruining at worst.

Knaight
2018-08-21, 12:25 PM
Yeap, it's the fault of people who don't like it, no of the presentation or the actual mechanics.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the people who don't like it - I'm saying that prior knowledge can really mess you up here because of similar jargon terms that mean different things elsewhere. It's like reading a textbook outside of your field, where you have reason to think that you've got an understanding of something (because it looks familiar), only for it to turn out that there's some weird difference in convention throwing you off, usually buried in base assumptions somewhere. Sign conventions jumping all over the place in anything even vaguely related to thermodynamics or heat transfer is a big one in textbooks, buried assumptions about game structure that get implied in how mechanics operate a big on in RPGs.

It's not a matter of fault at all, is my point. It's a matter of how the standard process of learning new things involves contextualizing them against things already known, and how while that standard process is incredibly useful it does occasionally have minor hiccups.

Segev
2018-08-21, 12:39 PM
I tend to like Jenna Moran's prose-disguised-as-game-rules, and she has interesting ideas (2E Nobilis is nifty, and she seemed to have a cool thesis for what Raksha should be in Exalted), but she doesn't do well with mechanics. One of the more amusing reads I ever did was her Wisher/Theurge/Fatalist "game," which really isn't a game at all but sounds suspiciously similar to what developed into Chuubo's from the description here. It's fun as a near-parody of itself, but it really isn't a game system.


It drives me crazy when a setting is only ever presented from an in-setting POV, and we never get the damn objective facts of it.

When that in-setting POV is wrong, or deliberately deceitful, at a certain point it becomes just plain lying to the audience. :smallconfused:You'd hate Continuu--


Put it this way, when I've spoken to (few) others who've actually played Continuum, their view actually seemed to be it was actually more fun to play as the "bad guys", i.e. the Narcissists. i.e.e. it's more fun to actually go back and actually attempt to kill Hitler in his days as a failing artist, while the default premise of the game is actually to stop that sort of paradox happening.

You have to wonder whether they'd have had an easier time playing up the Narcissists as the default character option with the Continuum as the second volume.Oh, hey, this is roughly what I was going to discuss in response to Max's comment.

Continuum is an interesting game, and actually has comprehensible rules. I think it likely quite playable. The whole book is written from the perspective of "loyal spanners," i.e. time travelers who actually responsibly keep time on its one true path. It's impossible to deviate from that path, but narcissists (who refuse to accept this truth and try to change things) cause a lot of the pain of that true path.

But the more I read it, the more it felt like propaganda, not a game presented from the PoV of the genuine good guys. Makes me wonder, if they'd ever released the Narcissist book I hear was once in the works, just how different the perspective would have been. I imagine I'd have found it more believably objectively true, just based on how much of the one book that got written felt like it was lying to me about its own setting.


I'm not saying it's the fault of the people who don't like it - I'm saying that prior knowledge can really mess you up here because of similar jargon terms that mean different things elsewhere. It's like reading a textbook outside of your field, where you have reason to think that you've got an understanding of something (because it looks familiar), only for it to turn out that there's some weird difference in convention throwing you off, usually buried in base assumptions somewhere.When designing a new system in an established field, it is the responsibility of the newcomer to choose his terminology to be clear to those who might have interest in it - most especially those coming from related areas of study.

Therefore, if you're designing a new RPG system, and you choose to redefine existing terminology that is commonly used in particular ways in other RPGs to mean something different enough that those coming in from having played RPGs before are going to think they know what the terms mean...and be wrong...then that's on you. That is bad design. Or at least, very bad writing. Use terms which are not common terms-of-art in the field(s) you're developing a new, novel approach for. Clarity is your friend. Proclaiming that you've refined things and have a better solution so you're coopting the language and people had best understand what you mean comes off more as arrogance than anything else.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-21, 12:59 PM
When designing a new system in an established field, it is the responsibility of the newcomer to choose his terminology to be clear to those who might have interest in it - most especially those coming from related areas of study.


I see scientists do this all the time--they re-use terms in a special way that's just different enough to cause problems. The writer always has a duty to be clear about how his notation differs from that in common use in the field. Especially when borrowing from other fields, as two fields may have very different meanings (at the detail level) for the same basic term. Neither is wrong, per se, but definitely causes unneeded confusion.

Cluedrew
2018-08-21, 01:02 PM
I wrote this post a while a go, but for technical reasons could not post it. In the mean time there have been other posts. To them I can say: Considering I didn't learn Powered by the Apocalypse from Apocalypse World, Dungeon World or any other popular game in that system. So it is entirely believable to me that they don't explain it very well. Actually, that would explain a lot. Still I do wish people would not use it as an attack the system in general here. A system being hard to understand is a separate issue than the system, once understood, being bad. Which is also a separate issues than not liking it for matters of taste which is separate from what we are supposed to be talking about in this thread so I will return to the original post.


I've been trying to put my finger on how this concept is relevant to this thread. I think I've got it.

So, most books/systems define what they are. Few are good at describing the negative space, and explaining what they aren't. Even those that are well-written from there PoV generally offer little to no help getting to their PoV.Hmm... let me try to say what you are saying in different words. Books and systems are written from a certain perspective. Most do not say what that perspective is, which means you will not understand it if you approach it from a different perspective.

If that is what you are saying... I think I agree. Although if not explaining that perspective sufficiently makes it a bad rulebook, I don't think I have ever seen a good rulebook. A great rulebook might, if it is really possible to do so. Perspective is a hard thing to share, which is why I presented a bit of the "you have to try it to know for sure" idea up thread. Although maybe they could have done a better job still.

That being said, you Quertus are possibly the last person I would recommend Powered by the Apocalypse to. You might like it but you would like it for other reasons than most of the stuff you describe. For instance the wizards tend to have a the type of magical I like, which is different than the one you do.

Knaight
2018-08-21, 01:44 PM
Therefore, if you're designing a new RPG system, and you choose to redefine existing terminology that is commonly used in particular ways in other RPGs to mean something different enough that those coming in from having played RPGs before are going to think they know what the terms mean...and be wrong...then that's on you. That is bad design. Or at least, very bad writing. Use terms which are not common terms-of-art in the field(s) you're developing a new, novel approach for. Clarity is your friend. Proclaiming that you've refined things and have a better solution so you're coopting the language and people had best understand what you mean comes off more as arrogance than anything else.


I see scientists do this all the time--they re-use terms in a special way that's just different enough to cause problems. The writer always has a duty to be clear about how his notation differs from that in common use in the field. Especially when borrowing from other fields, as two fields may have very different meanings (at the detail level) for the same basic term. Neither is wrong, per se, but definitely causes unneeded confusion.

The problem with that is that using new terms can often be clunky - there's a tradeoff between ease of learning and ease of use. This is particularly true once multiple definitions are already in place, where you could come up with something new but then you run into this classic problem, but for terminology:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

Basically, regardless of which definition you're using you're conflicting with some prior use, because there's competing standards, and if there's one thing RPGs don't need it's further proliferation of highly distinct terms for highly similar concepts (see: Burning Wheel).

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-21, 01:51 PM
I'm not saying it's the fault of the people who don't like it - I'm saying that prior knowledge can really mess you up here because of similar jargon terms that mean different things elsewhere. It's like reading a textbook outside of your field, where you have reason to think that you've got an understanding of something (because it looks familiar), only for it to turn out that there's some weird difference in convention throwing you off, usually buried in base assumptions somewhere. Sign conventions jumping all over the place in anything even vaguely related to thermodynamics or heat transfer is a big one in textbooks, buried assumptions about game structure that get implied in how mechanics operate a big on in RPGs.

It's not a matter of fault at all, is my point. It's a matter of how the standard process of learning new things involves contextualizing them against things already known, and how while that standard process is incredibly useful it does occasionally have minor hiccups.

You still seem to be implying that not liking the thing is the result of not understanding it -- rather than the result of the thing not providing the person with something they like.

Someone can fully understand what a game system is trying to do, and fully understand how that system goes about trying to do it, and still not like that game system.

And yet for some reason whenever someone mentions not liking certain games, one of the immediate responses will always be "then you must not understand it" or "you must have gotten the wrong impression of it somehow".

For example, I don't like genre emulation -- genre conceits, narrative conceits, genre conventions, genre tropes, etc. I just don't. I don't like it in fiction, and I don't like it in gaming. If a game is focused heavily on emulating genre, then it's not going to be something I care for, and that's not a matter of understanding. But for some reason, I've had countless exchanges over the years that boil down to someone saying over and over, in different ways, "but you don't understand, it's trying to emulate the genre", and failing (or refusing) to grasp that this is not a universally good thing, but simply a matter of taste, and someone who doesn't like genre emulation isn't going to like that game no matter how much they understand that it's trying to emulate this or that genre.

(And hey, guess what, PBTA games are, by their own proponents' statements, heavily focused on genre emulation.)



The problem with that is that using new terms can often be clunky - there's a tradeoff between ease of learning and ease of use. This is particularly true once multiple definitions are already in place, where you could come up with something new but then you run into this classic problem, but for terminology:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

Basically, regardless of which definition you're using you're conflicting with some prior use, because there's competing standards, and if there's one thing RPGs don't need it's further proliferation of highly distinct terms for highly similar concepts (see: Burning Wheel).

Then the developers of the new system have a responsibility to be clear and straightforward in how they're using the existing / common terms, to avoid the confusion they really should have seen coming.

Knaight
2018-08-21, 02:02 PM
You still seem to be implying that not liking the thing is the result of not understanding it -- rather than the result of the thing not providing the person with something they like.

Someone can fully understand what a game system is trying to do, and fully understand how that system goes about trying to do it, and still not like that game system.

And yet for some reason whenever someone mentions not liking certain games, one of the immediate responses will always be "then you must not understand it" or "you must have gotten the wrong impression of it somehow".

You're inferring that, but if I'm implying it it's entirely unintentional - I'm talking entirely about the process of understanding it. Liking the game is an entirely different matter. Heck, I don't like the PbtA systems. I'm just also very familiar with D&D assumptions being taken outside of where they belong, and causing confusion when people assume that a game does something because D&D does, look for how it's implemented in another game, and then don't find anything because it isn't implemented. This ranges from confusion at the very idea of classless systems ("Where are the classes in GURPS?") to confusion at a game not seeming to work particularly well for the classic adventuring party ("How does the party form in Fiasco?").

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-21, 02:11 PM
You're inferring that, but if I'm implying it it's entirely unintentional - I'm talking entirely about the process of understanding it. Liking the game is an entirely different matter. Heck, I don't like the PbtA systems. I'm just also very familiar with D&D assumptions being taken outside of where they belong, and causing confusion when people assume that a game does something because D&D does, look for how it's implemented in another game, and then don't find anything because it isn't implemented. This ranges from confusion at the very idea of classless systems ("Where are the classes in GURPS?") to confusion at a game not seeming to work particularly well for the classic adventuring party ("How does the party form in Fiasco?").

But... I don't even like D&D. :smalleek: I don't like classes, levels, escalating hit points, the single d20 mechanic, mushed-up overlapping mechanics (AC, HP, saving throws, etc) and other chunks of the darn thing.

Which brings us to another of the tiresome elements of these arguments... each not-D&D system's fans seeming to assume that it's them vs the D&D "mindset", and apparently not quite able to get their heads around the existence of gamers who aren't fans of their personal favorite system (or approach to gaming) and ALSO aren't fans of D&D (or D&D's approach to gaming).

The two systems I've enjoyed the most over the years have been WEG's d6 Star Wars, and HERO 4th/5th (despite their flaws).

Knaight
2018-08-21, 02:30 PM
But... I don't even like D&D. :smalleek: I don't like classes, levels, escalating hit points, the single d20 mechanic, mushed-up overlapping mechanics (AC, HP, saving throws, etc) and other chunks of the darn thing.
But a lot of other people do, and they dominate the general reception. More than that there are deeper, more structural assumptions that do carry through - which I'll get to later.


Which brings us to another of the tiresome elements of these arguments... each not-D&D system's fans seeming to assume that it's them vs the D&D "mindset", and apparently not quite able to get their heads around the existence of gamers who aren't fans of their personal favorite system (or approach to gaming) and ALSO aren't fans of D&D (or D&D's approach to gaming).
We get this just fine - it's just that at the end of the day the non-D&D fans who also dislike a given system are dwarfed by the D&D fans. Both of us personally fit in that category for PbtA, and a whole host of other games, but the overall dynamic is defined largely in relation to D&D.

And again, "fans" is something you're bringing to the table. I'm talking entirely about understanding a system, which is entirely different than liking it. As I said earlier, I don't like PbtA.


The two systems I've enjoyed the most over the years have been WEG's d6 Star Wars, and HERO 4th/5th (despite their flaws).
Here's where the deeper, more structural assumptions come through. Both of these systems favor some fairly conventional styles of play - the adventuring party of allied PCs with common goals, PCs defined in terms of competencies in a campaign structure based around challenges of how they accomplish goals with these competencies, etc. It's these invisible assumptions, more than individual mechanics like classes and levels, which can prove to be really big assumptions to understanding. The examples coming from mechanics are there more because it's the same general concept, but much easier to explain. They're the familiar ground which make learning new material easier, much the way that an instinctive understanding of how water moves through a pipe system makes it easier to learn the behavior of circuitry.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-21, 02:47 PM
@Knaight--

Re-define your terms all you want (or re-use established notations in a new way). Just be crystal clear about your new definitions. If you don't, any confusion is on you, not on the reader. There is a downside to trying to strictly define all your terms--it can make reading it harder as well (since every word has to be looked up in a glossary and heaven help you if the glossary gets out of sync during the editing process).

For rules, I prefer relatively verbose but plain-language systems to highly technical or terse ones. Above all, worked examples (with explanations of each step) are a key factor in comprehension.

Just as in science, finding the proper notation or terminology is simultaneously one of the most difficult and most important things you can do. Naming things is one of the two hard problems in computer science (along with cache invalidation and off-by-one errors).

Jay R
2018-08-21, 03:12 PM
Have you ever had a game that sounded really interesting and fun to you, with rules that as far as you were able to understand looked really good and a great setting, b

I guess at this point I want to ask if others have made similar experiences with other games? Games that would be great fun for you, perhaps, but which are just written in such a way as to prevent you from using them?

Chivalry & Sorcery. It's the most lush, vivid, glorious, realistic, carefully detailed, unplayable mess ever designed.


HWhat do you think they could have done better to make themselves clearer to new players and GMs?

I use it as my example for why realism from added complexity isn't inherently a goal for a game.

The ideal form of realism doesn't require more complexity and complications. Perfect examples:
In Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective, you simulate Sherlock Holmes's habit of reading the newspaper for clues by ... reading the newspaper for clues.

What is the goal of a cartoon? In TOON, you get an automatic plot point for reducing the Animator to helpless laughter.

In Flashing Blades, there are five different dueling styles. They don't match the real-world differences between, say French, Italian, or Spanish fencing manuals, but they successfully make who taught you to fence matter in combat, and gives a light tactical ability to predict your opponent's move. [Italian Style gives a +1 to thrusts or lunges, so you can expect the Italian enemy to do that more often, and thereby improve your own defenses.]

Complexity from elegant design is wonderful. Realism from complex rules makes me think about the rules instead of the realistic setting.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-21, 03:18 PM
Here's where the deeper, more structural assumptions come through. Both of these systems favor some fairly conventional styles of play - the adventuring party of allied PCs with common goals, PCs defined in terms of competencies in a campaign structure based around challenges of how they accomplish goals with these competencies, etc. It's these invisible assumptions, more than individual mechanics like classes and levels, which can prove to be really big assumptions to understanding. The examples coming from mechanics are there more because it's the same general concept, but much easier to explain. They're the familiar ground which make learning new material easier, much the way that an instinctive understanding of how water moves through a pipe system makes it easier to learn the behavior of circuitry.


I don't see how either of those systems favors or doesn't favor the adventuring party of allied PCs with common goals -- there aren't any mechanics involved that encourage or discourage either way. The setting material and play advice for the various editions of d6 Star Wars encouraged those things, but that's separate from the systems themselves. I've played "one GM, one PC" campaigns with both systems, for example. I've been in a game that used HERO and featured PCs in conflict more than cooperation. One of the great Star Wars games I was in featured a group of PCs who didn't trust each other, and multiple layers of duplicity.

Characters can be competent without being defined by their competencies. And what's the alternate to competent characters doing things? Incompetent characters never doing anything... Literary Fiction, the RPG?

On the flip side, the "playbooks" would certainly seem to serve the same function as "class" in more D&D-like* games, and to very much inherently define the characters by their competencies to a greater degree than a WEG d6 based or HERO-based game inherently would. Just looking at them, they scream "character class", at least those for AW.


( * I refuse to use "traditional" to mean "like D&D" when games very much not like D&D have been around for most of the history of RPGs -- and the fact that "traditional" sees widespread use to mean "like D&D" lends a good deal of credence to observations regarding the sadly common "but it's us against D&D" mindset.)

kyoryu
2018-08-21, 03:27 PM
I'm highly skeptical of any "defense" of a rules set based on "you need to actually play to understand it".

I'm perfectly okay with that, so long as the book is clear enough on how to play that a bunch of new players can play the game, successfully, without any reference other than the rules. And if they "fail", an experienced player should be able to identify precisely where they didn't actually do what the book said.

For some things, a description is insufficient to convey the experience. I can accept that. But so long as they book can guide you to that experience, it's doing okay in my book.

Friv
2018-08-21, 06:47 PM
I'm highly skeptical of any "defense" of a rules set based on "you need to actually play to understand it".

To me that comes across as an excuse (intentional or not) for poor presentation and/or bad design.

I mean, it can be both.

In the case of Chuubo's - I have read quite a bit of Jenna Moran's work, and interacted with her on another forum fairly frequently, and it feels pretty clear to me that her brain is just wired to see the world in a very different way than most people do. She presents stuff in a way that seems very intuitive to her, even though it is very much not intuitive to a lot of people. Her voice is a lot of what makes her games a delight, but it's also what makes a lot of her games really hard to get into at first.

I don't think I know anyone who successfully grasped Chuubo's without playing it for a session or two. Every in-person campaign, every forum game, there's always a period in which people are just staring in blank incomprehension, or only interacting with the fraction of the rules they understand. In my experience, the first session ranges from vaguely confusing to immensely frustrating, and then at various moments over the second and third session everything just kind of clicks together for one player after another, and things just gradually start picking up pace and everyone gets really into it. But if you don't have at least one experienced person for those first two sessions, it can be a real mess.

There is a Player's Guide to Chuubos that I think does a much better job of explaining the game than the core book does, but because it's listed as the "Techno Player's Guide" it's not at the top of most peoples' read list.


Related!

I recently started running Promethean 2nd Edition. The game is a lot of fun, but by god I hate that rulebook more than anything. Critical concepts are buried in the middle of long unrelated passages. Extensive discussion of subsystems is placed before the game's core rules. A lot of stuff isn't really explained well at all until you cross-reference three or four sections. It's a complete, massive mess, and it seems to have been written under the assumption that anyone picking it up had already played Promethean 1e and knew it extremely well, so they just needed to focus on the changes.

Changes are not helpful when you don't know the baseline!

Friv
2018-08-21, 06:53 PM
Characters can be competent without being defined by their competencies. And what's the alternate to competent characters doing things? Incompetent characters never doing anything... Literary Fiction, the RPG?

Just caught this. There are a few alternatives to being defined by your competencies:
You could be defined by your values, having a character sheet made up entirely of the things that you care about.
You could be defined by your dramatic role, having a character sheet made up of the ways in which you are allowed to change the story.
You could be defined by your attitudes, having a character sheet made up of personality traits (Brave +2, Curious +1, Respectable +0, Slick -1)
You could be defined entirely by a collection of mystical artifacts that you possess, which are the real important thing in this game.
You could be defined entirely by your relationships to other characters, which serve as your die pools and health bars.

There's a lot of options outside of the relatively traditional "Rank the skills and special abilities that you know."

And the alternatives to competent characters doing things could be incompetent characters doing things, or competent characters feeling things, or middling characters experiencing things, or competent characters having conversations...

Quertus
2018-08-21, 07:13 PM
No, you didn't get it. Missed the barn by a mile, using a giant shotgun.

Traditional gaming is a bit like old pulp literature/golden age comics: We tend to define a character concept by what that character is supposed to be good at (like Stealth) and often build up the mechanical values to the point that this:true. So, Ninja Sam, will mostly excel at stuff that Ninja Sam is designed to be good at.

Storygaming is based more on change and character development. Once Ninja Sam tries and fails, something happens and that is not as B and W as in traditional gaming.

Your character is never truly your own, you share it with the rest of the table and the gm.


...

That's pretty much what Quertus just described, and said he didn't like.

It's certainly a part of those systems I have ZERO use for.

Yeah, pretty much.

The sight changes Florian made just took it from "personal horror story" to something beyond horror, that I don't even have a name for.



I'm not saying it's the fault of the people who don't like it - I'm saying that prior knowledge can really mess you up here because of similar jargon terms that mean different things elsewhere.

It's not a matter of fault at all, is my point.

This is close to what I'm saying, except that I'll assigning fault to the writer.


Hmm... let me try to say what you are saying in different words. Books and systems are written from a certain perspective. Most do not say what that perspective is, which means you will not understand it if you approach it from a different perspective.

If that is what you are saying... I think I agree. Although if not explaining that perspective sufficiently makes it a bad rulebook, I don't think I have ever seen a good rulebook. A great rulebook might, if it is really possible to do so. Perspective is a hard thing to share, which is why I presented a bit of the "you have to try it to know for sure" idea up thread. Although maybe they could have done a better job still.

That being said, you Quertus are possibly the last person I would recommend Powered by the Apocalypse to. You might like it but you would like it for other reasons than most of the stuff you describe. For instance the wizards tend to have a the type of magical I like, which is different than the one you do.

You have understood what I failed to word well. It's like the story* I heard about how the US dropped food to foreign countries. Due to language barriers, they used pictures to identify the food. Pictures of corn on the corn, pumpkin on the pumpkins, etc. But the baby food, with pictures of babies, led to some rather horrific miscommunication.

By virtue of just assuming a particular frame of reference, and not giving the reader sufficient information to reach that PoV regardless of their starting point, most RPG rule books are horrible.

Not that one couldn't say the same for many of my posts, mind, but at least a forum is a discussion, where people can ask, "Quertus, wtf were you thinking?", and such issues have a chance to be corrected.

... So, can you explain what type of magical PbtA Wizard are, and why you believe I wouldn't like them?

And, more on topic, how well do you feel that the rulebooks express this information?

* I never bothered to research whether it was true or not.


and if there's one thing RPGs don't need it's further proliferation of highly distinct terms for highly similar concepts.

If only there were a web comic that taught us how important term reuse is. Oh, wait. ("http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html”)


Here's where the deeper, more structural assumptions come through. Both of these systems favor some fairly conventional styles of play - the adventuring party of allied PCs with common goals, PCs defined in terms of competencies in a campaign structure based around challenges of how they accomplish goals with these competencies, etc. It's these invisible assumptions, more than individual mechanics like classes and levels, which can prove to be really big assumptions to understanding. The examples coming from mechanics are there more because it's the same general concept, but much easier to explain. They're the familiar ground which make learning new material easier, much the way that an instinctive understanding of how water moves through a pipe system makes it easier to learn the behavior of circuitry.

Yes. Here's the kind of thing I'd love to see expressed more clearly.


For rules, I prefer relatively verbose but plain-language systems to highly technical or terse ones. Above all, worked examples (with explanations of each step) are a key factor in comprehension.

There are those who claim that brevity is the essence of clarity. I am not such a person.

Personally, I prefer to have both the lengthy, clear language and the abridged version.

Cluedrew
2018-08-22, 08:34 AM
The sight changes Florian made just took it from "personal horror story" to something beyond horror, that I don't even have a name for."Not to my taste"?


... So, can you explain what type of magical PbtA Wizard are, and why you believe I wouldn't like them?Disclaimer: as it is a family of systems so different systems will handle it differently. That being said most I have seen tend towards a few specialty spells or (inclusive) some ritual magic that is flexible. So it comes in two verities the narrow and the infrequent. In past conversations I have gotten the impression that these (especially the second) are trade offs you don't enjoy.

Also I wish we had macros/short hands on this form, I would make a magical macro.


And, more on topic, how well do you feel that the rulebooks express this information?The Powered by the Apocalypse rulebooks? Up-thread I said it would explain some stuff about them being so commonly misunderstood. Because I have never read a Powered by the Apocalypse rulebook. Not Apocalypse World, not Dungeon World, not any of the homebrew variants I have played. A friend of mine who made those homebrew variants spent about 5-10 minutes explaining me how the system works (how moves and the different hits work) and I played a session. Everything else comes from playbooks and reference sheets. Which considering how the systems tend to be laid out have a lot more information on them than say D&D or ShadowRun.

Quertus
2018-08-22, 10:06 AM
"Not to my taste"?

Disclaimer: as it is a family of systems so different systems will handle it differently. That being said most I have seen tend towards a few specialty spells or (inclusive) some ritual magic that is flexible. So it comes in two verities the narrow and the infrequent. In past conversations I have gotten the impression that these (especially the second) are trade offs you don't enjoy.

Also I wish we had macros/short hands on this form, I would make a magical macro.

A) no, more like "I shut down while trying to visualize it".

B) if I ever get around to posting my ideal Wizard, that no system has ever let me play, it may actually sound a bit like "narrow or infrequent". Probably three different levels of casting, actually. So, can you be more specific regarding what, exactly, in this implementation you believe would be a turnoff for me?

C) Magical is what copy and paste are for. I typed it out the first time, on a phone, and decided once was enough.

If I had macros, I feel that they'd have things I use more frequently, like "know your players", "balance to the group", and "talk to people". And, of course, "Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named".

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 10:21 AM
Tangent to the topic, as a contrast to some of the more muddled systems being mentioned:

I've been learning GURPS recently, and I had a couple of minor gripes with GURPS 4e. Damage codes (e.g., difference between 2d pi and 2d pi+) are buried in the back of Campaigns rather than in Characters, and the meaning of the asterisk next to some Disadvantages (they require certain die-roll checks) is buried in text instead of listed with the other symbols.

And...thus far, that's been about it with GURPS. I have other complaints about the sheer rules density and occasional overcomplexity (why use armor divisors? Why do there need to be so many interconnected moving parts to character creation and point costs? Stat blocks require so much lookup and cross-referencing of advantages and disadvantages instead of being useful at a glance. And so on), balance (point costs could really be better done, so that 20 points is worth 20 points, not wildly varying depending on what you buy with it--see the infamous 50-some point build that can obliterate all life in the universe, for instance), or the occasional annoyance with layout (trying to find all the equipment you'd want in Ultratech basically requires reading every entry on anything of your TL or lower because not much of it is put into easy-to-reference tables), etc., etc., so on and so forth...

But by and large, on the whole, GURPS 4e seems to have been written by people who are really good at writing and explaining rules clearly, if not necessarily concisely, and contrasting it with something like Burning Wheel or Rifts or even 2e AD&D or 5e D&D, it's kind of remarkable how well it makes it clear exactly how a given thing works. That thing might be excessively fiddly and detailed, and might use some dense terminology such as a plethora of icons and acronyms, but even so it's clear how it functions. Thorough explanations and hardly ever any ambiguous sentence construction or multiple grammatically-valid interpretations (*cough* 5e D&D *cough*), generally in reasonably plain language once you've familiarized yourself with the shorthand and icons; few "terms of art" or needlessly-"creative" terms for mechanics (contrast with Burning Wheel's love of terms like "die of fate" or "FORKs" and suchlike).

It's really kind of a breath of fresh air to be able to just read the blasted thing without needing to interpret it and piece it together too, gripes about excessive detail/fiddliness and the occasional bit of layout aside.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-22, 11:01 AM
Tangent to the topic, as a contrast to some of the more muddled systems being mentioned:

I've been learning GURPS recently, and I had a couple of minor gripes with GURPS 4e. Damage codes (e.g., difference between 2d pi and 2d pi+) are buried in the back of Campaigns rather than in Characters, and the meaning of the asterisk next to some Disadvantages (they require certain die-roll checks) is buried in text instead of listed with the other symbols.

And...thus far, that's been about it with GURPS. I have other complaints about the sheer rules density and occasional overcomplexity (why use armor divisors? Why do there need to be so many interconnected moving parts to character creation and point costs? Stat blocks require so much lookup and cross-referencing of advantages and disadvantages instead of being useful at a glance. And so on), balance (point costs could really be better done, so that 20 points is worth 20 points, not wildly varying depending on what you buy with it--see the infamous 50-some point build that can obliterate all life in the universe, for instance), or the occasional annoyance with layout (trying to find all the equipment you'd want in Ultratech basically requires reading every entry on anything of your TL or lower because not much of it is put into easy-to-reference tables), etc., etc., so on and so forth...

But by and large, on the whole, GURPS 4e seems to have been written by people who are really good at writing and explaining rules clearly, if not necessarily concisely, and contrasting it with something like Burning Wheel or Rifts or even 2e AD&D or 5e D&D, it's kind of remarkable how well it makes it clear exactly how a given thing works. That thing might be excessively fiddly and detailed, and might use some dense terminology such as a plethora of icons and acronyms, but even so it's clear how it functions. Thorough explanations and hardly ever any ambiguous sentence construction or multiple grammatically-valid interpretations (*cough* 5e D&D *cough*), generally in reasonably plain language once you've familiarized yourself with the shorthand and icons; few "terms of art" or needlessly-"creative" terms for mechanics (contrast with Burning Wheel's love of terms like "die of fate" or "FORKs" and suchlike).

It's really kind of a breath of fresh air to be able to just read the blasted thing without needing to interpret it and piece it together too, gripes about excessive detail/fiddliness and the occasional bit of layout aside.

I'd be interested to read that--I have had no problems reading and understanding 5e D&D, in part because I'm not trying to parse it too strictly. HTML parsing, not FORTRAN parsing. It requires reading the context and understanding the underlying philosophy but it's not convoluted. Every time I've seen a sage advice, even on bitterly disputed topics, I've always gone "yeah, that's how I read it" or "makes sense", even if I disagree that it's the best (in terms of game flow) idea.

On the other hand, reading complex things that require cross-referencing, for me, makes it much harder to know what's going on. Too many moving parts to track.

So I'd love to see what I thought about GURPS, but have never found a free/very low-cost version and since my group will never likely change...

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 12:12 PM
I'd be interested to read that--I have had no problems reading and understanding 5e D&D, in part because I'm not trying to parse it too strictly. HTML parsing, not FORTRAN parsing. It requires reading the context and understanding the underlying philosophy but it's not convoluted. Every time I've seen a sage advice, even on bitterly disputed topics, I've always gone "yeah, that's how I read it" or "makes sense", even if I disagree that it's the best (in terms of game flow) idea.

On the other hand, reading complex things that require cross-referencing, for me, makes it much harder to know what's going on. Too many moving parts to track.

So I'd love to see what I thought about GURPS, but have never found a free/very low-cost version and since my group will never likely change...

5e wasn't difficult for me to read, but as a lawyer, and just the way my brain works and with my opinions on good rule-writing, it just bugs me to no end when a rule has multiple grammatically-correct readings or is otherwise vaguely-or-ambiguously worded. IMO, if two people can read the rule and come to different conclusions about what it means and neither is grammatically wrong, otherwise misreading, or unreasonably stretching/twisting the meaning of terms, the rule is written badly, full stop. There should only ever be one linguistically-reasonable parsing of a given rule's text. 5e's devs defended the bad writing ambiguity by saying it was empowering the DM to make interpretations, which rang really hollow to me and annoyed me even worse than if they'd just said "sorry, we didn't edit that well" or given some other mea culpa--after all a rule can leave something up to the DM while being clear about it too; all it has to say is "the DM decides X" or something to that effect, instead of being open to multiple grammatically-valid readings.

I've had some disagreements with Sage Advice as well, though I'll not get into specifics to avoid derailing the thread overmuch.

GURPS does have a free "lite" version somewhere or other, if memory serves, but the full rules are rather pricey (even in .pdf form) to obtain legally. Sometimes they show up used in game stores or used-book shops for a decent price.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 12:25 PM
5e wasn't difficult for me to read, but as a lawyer, and just the way my brain works and with my opinions on good rule-writing, it just bugs me to no end when a rule has multiple grammatically-correct readings or is otherwise vaguely-or-ambiguously worded. IMO, if two people can read the rule and come to different conclusions about what it means and neither is grammatically wrong, otherwise misreading, or unreasonably stretching/twisting the meaning of terms, the rule is written badly, full stop. There should only ever be one linguistically-reasonable parsing of a given rule's text. 5e's devs defended the bad writing ambiguity by saying it was empowering the DM to make interpretations, which rang really hollow to me and annoyed me even worse than if they'd just said "sorry, we didn't edit that well" or given some other mea culpa--after all a rule can leave something up to the DM while being clear about it too; all it has to say is "the DM decides X" or something to that effect, instead of being open to multiple grammatically-valid readings.


Agreed, fully.

The reader shouldn't have to look outside the text of a rulebook, to understand the meaning of what's written in that rulebook.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-22, 12:29 PM
5e wasn't difficult for me to read, but as a lawyer, and just the way my brain works and with my opinions on good rule-writing, it just bugs me to no end when a rule has multiple grammatically-correct readings or is otherwise vaguely-or-ambiguously worded. IMO, if two people can read the rule and come to different conclusions about what it means and neither is grammatically wrong, otherwise misreading, or unreasonably stretching/twisting the meaning of terms, the rule is written badly, full stop. There should only ever be one linguistically-reasonable parsing of a given rule's text. 5e's devs defended the bad writing ambiguity by saying it was empowering the DM to make interpretations, which rang really hollow to me and annoyed me even worse than if they'd just said "sorry, we didn't edit that well" or given some other mea culpa--after all a rule can leave something up to the DM while being clear about it too; all it has to say is "the DM decides X" or something to that effect, instead of being open to multiple grammatically-valid readings.

I've had some disagreements with Sage Advice as well, though I'll not get into specifics to avoid derailing the thread overmuch.

GURPS does have a free "lite" version somewhere or other, if memory serves, but the full rules are rather pricey (even in .pdf form) to obtain legally. Sometimes they show up used in game stores or used-book shops for a decent price.

I am just the opposite. I'd rather have multiple valid meanings and get to pick which ones I like best rather than having torturously-worded legalistic jargon that I have to flip back and forth to a glossary for. Because 99% of the time, the right answer for that table is obvious. And it doesn't matter what other tables do.

That "the DM decides" part? It's right there, in the first chapter. It specifically says that the DM decides how to resolve a proposed action, and that they may roll some dice. "Make a ruling and move on" is the 5e basic philosophy, prioritizing game flow over "correctness." That's a design choice, not an editing error.

For me, RPG rules are a different breed of thing than for most games. They're merely a baseline resolution framework, not a binding code. So worrying about wording just encourages rules-lawyering and fights about semantics. Or requires a law degree to parse.

Friv
2018-08-22, 12:36 PM
For me, there are two types of vague "let the DM decide" rule sets that books can have.

You could have a power that says something along the lines of, "this power allows you to find a friend when you need one. Spend 1 Plot Energy, and then explain why you have a friend here. The GM may veto ridiculous applications of this power."

The scope of "friend" is pretty much up to the table, the GM has a lot of leeway... but also it is very clear what is happening. The specifics are left vague, but there's not a lot of room for conceptual argument.

But if your system is going in for specific language, you had damned well better make that specific language functional. D&D 5E and Exalted 3E are both great examples of games where you will have powers with a couple of paragraphs of rules, which depending on interpretation are either wildly powerful or totally dubious.

War_lord
2018-08-22, 12:37 PM
I'd be interested to read that--I have had no problems reading and understanding 5e D&D, in part because I'm not trying to parse it too strictly. HTML parsing, not FORTRAN parsing. It requires reading the context and understanding the underlying philosophy but it's not convoluted. Every time I've seen a sage advice, even on bitterly disputed topics, I've always gone "yeah, that's how I read it" or "makes sense", even if I disagree that it's the best (in terms of game flow) idea.

On the other hand, reading complex things that require cross-referencing, for me, makes it much harder to know what's going on. Too many moving parts to track.

So I'd love to see what I thought about GURPS, but have never found a free/very low-cost version and since my group will never likely change...

You can get the lite version of the rules free here:http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/ or https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/236828/GURPS-Lite-Fourth-Edition

It's enough to get a feel for the system and run a few test games to see if it's your thing. GURPS 4th edition is a good example of how good editing can make even intricate rules systems comprehensible. The two things I'll say against it is that the PDFs are very expensive, and it requires the GM to be very dedicated to prep work. It's not a system you can "wing" it in, at all.

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 01:23 PM
I am just the opposite. I'd rather have multiple valid meanings and get to pick which ones I like best rather than having torturously-worded legalistic jargon that I have to flip back and forth to a glossary for. Because 99% of the time, the right answer for that table is obvious. And it doesn't matter what other tables do.

That "the DM decides" part? It's right there, in the first chapter. It specifically says that the DM decides how to resolve a proposed action, and that they may roll some dice. "Make a ruling and move on" is the 5e basic philosophy, prioritizing game flow over "correctness." That's a design choice, not an editing error.

For me, RPG rules are a different breed of thing than for most games. They're merely a baseline resolution framework, not a binding code. So worrying about wording just encourages rules-lawyering and fights about semantics. Or requires a law degree to parse.

As Friv pointed out in their example, something can still be unambiguous without resorting to legalese. Unambiguousness does not necessarily entail pages of legalese and glossary-requiring jargon; it can be done in plain language. And if the rule is properly written, it can cut down on the fights over semantics, since there's no semantic room for intellectually-honest argument.

To borrow a couple of examples from 5e:

The spell "Conjure Woodland Beings" has the following text:


You summon fey creatures that appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears.

• One fey creature of Challenge rating 2 or lower

• Two fey creatures of Challenge rating 1 or lower

• Four fey creatures of Challenge rating 1/2 or lower

• Eight fey creatures of Challenge rating 1/4 or lower

A summoned creature disappears when it drops to 0 Hit Points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don't issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. [b]The DM has the creatures' statistics[b].

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using certain higher-level Spell Slots, you choose one of the summoning options above, and more creatures appear - twice as many with a 6th-level slot and three times as many with an 8th-level slot.

The bolded part, "the DM has the creatures' statistics," has been Sage Advice'd to read "the DM determines which creatures you summon," but on its own, could mean that or mean that the DM is expected to possess the statblocks in the MM (or the back of the PHB or from homebrew) for the creatures you choose to summon. To give the meaning they wanted, they could have written "The DM selects which particular creatures are summoned by the spell" or something to that effect. No legalese or complicated jargon or references to indexes and glossaries required, just now there's no argument over how to parse the sentence.

Or on how rests can be interrupted:

If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity--at least one hour of walking, any combat, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity--the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.

There is a dev tweet somewhere that the "at least one hour" part applies to the whole list of examples--so an hour of combat, which is a possible reading of the grammar there, but is patently absurd, since there has never been a 600-round combat in the history of D&D, anywhere on earth unless maybe it was in 4th edition's padded sumo combat. If that was the actual intent, it should have been written "at least one hour of any of the following activities: walking, combat, casting spells [...]" or something else that leaves no ambiguity. That's not legalese, it's just clearer. If that wasn't the intent and it was just Mearls being Mearls on Twitter (I think he's the one who tweeted that, not sure), it could have been written along the lines of "walking for at least an hour, participating in any combat, casting any spells, or engaging in a similar adventuring activity" or some such--no semantic ambiguity over whether the "one hour" applies to one part or the whole list anymore. (Arguably, it's grammaticlly unreasonable to read the "one hour" part as applying to the whole list, but the dev tweet's still there.)

Simple, easy-to-parse rulesets that leave a lot up to the DM and to the particular table can be written clearly and unambiguously.

The free version of FUDGE is written along those lines: in general, there's only one reasonable way to read a particular sentence, but it's fairly short, it's in clear plain English, and virtually no specifics are given whatsoever--they're practically all up to the DM and the table to decide.


For me, there are two types of vague "let the DM decide" rule sets that books can have.

You could have a power that says something along the lines of, "this power allows you to find a friend when you need one. Spend 1 Plot Energy, and then explain why you have a friend here. The GM may veto ridiculous applications of this power."

The scope of "friend" is pretty much up to the table, the GM has a lot of leeway... but also it is very clear what is happening. The specifics are left vague, but there's not a lot of room for conceptual argument.

But if your system is going in for specific language, you had damned well better make that specific language functional. D&D 5E and Exalted 3E are both great examples of games where you will have powers with a couple of paragraphs of rules, which depending on interpretation are either wildly powerful or totally dubious.

This. Exactly this. You've expressed my view much more concisely than I can.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 01:29 PM
On the "interrupted rest" example, the wording "at least one hour of walking, any combat, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" can IMO only be read as follows:

"an hour of walking OR any combat OR casting spells OR similar adventuring activity"

It really is grammatically unreasonable to read that as applying the "hour" to the entire list.

So when the dev then Tweets that the hour applies to each example, what they're actually saying is "ignore what we wrote, this is what we meant" -- a clear admission of failure to write and edit a clear presentation of their intent.

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 01:55 PM
On the "interrupted rest" example, the wording "at least one hour of walking, any combat, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" can IMO only be read as follows:

"an hour of walking OR any combat OR casting spells OR similar adventuring activity"

It really is grammatically unreasonable to read that as applying the "hour" to the entire list.

So when the dev then Tweets that the hour applies to each example, what they're actually saying is "ignore what we wrote, this is what we meant" -- a clear admission of failure to write and edit a clear presentation of their intent.

I'd tend to agree that at the very least it's not what I'd see as typical construction, but you could somewhat plausibly read a colon into the sentence after the "of" such that you get "at least one hour of: walking, any combat, [...]" which would validate the dev tweet's interpretation.


Keeping in mind that I'm a newb who hasn't played a session and is just starting to learn the rules, I have yet to read a GURPS rule where the text invited semantic argument. GURPS is overcomplicated in content, but it's crystal-clear to parse (and doesn't need a complex glossary of terms to understand; it's mainly just the amount of rules that requires any cross-referencing and index lookups). The "basic" combat rules, for example, might be considered overly-granular in that rounds are 1 second each, there's several different maneuvers available, and there's several things to track like HP, Shock, and Fatigue, but I can skim them once, without looking anything up in a glossary or putting my law degree to use, and still know unambiguously, without needing to ask the DM to interpret anything, how each combat option works by default--and the DM still has license to make rulings on a given circumstance. Rules-lawyering seems mainly only possible in finding broken combinations of advantages, disadvantages, mitigators, and gear rather than in semantic arguments. There are lists of optional modifiers that get crazy-complex and detailed, but the DM has license to ignore those options and stick to the basic rules, or make their own rulings. The complexity of content and the clarity of presentation are largely separate issues.

By and large, Savage Worlds--a much lighter, more "wing it"-friendly system than GURPS, is also largely unambiguously written, and similarly not (in general) especially subject to semantic arguments over what a given term or sentence of rules text means. Shame about the gear list being rubbish, but the rules are pretty clear textually for the most part.

Florian
2018-08-22, 02:00 PM
A) no, more like "I shut down while trying to visualize it".

Which part of it exactly?

War_lord
2018-08-22, 02:01 PM
On the "interrupted rest" example, the wording "at least one hour of walking, any combat, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" can IMO only be read as follows:

"an hour of walking OR any combat OR casting spells OR similar adventuring activity"

It really is grammatically unreasonable to read that as applying the "hour" to the entire list.

So when the dev then Tweets that the hour applies to each example, what they're actually saying is "ignore what we wrote, this is what we meant" -- a clear admission of failure to write and edit a clear presentation of their intent.

I just ignore most sage advice because most of it isn't a "clarification" or even a well considered ruling, it's very obviously Mearls or Crawford making something up while tweeting on their lunch break. Half the time they clearly don't understand what they're actually being asked or what the rule in the book is anyway (see:interrupted rest and combat. Usually the answer you get is what they'd do now not what the book as actually going for when it was written.

One of my gripes with 5th edition is that they "simplified" a lot of things by just not bothering to write well thought out rules for them at all. Grappling for example, went from being a flowchart mess in 3.5 to very simple in 5th. That's good, the problem is that grappling is fundamentally broken because of that emphasis on low word count over clarity. The PHB and MM both shipped without anyone stopping to think "hey, the NPCs and monsters in this edition usually lack skill modifiers, so isn't making grappling and grapple escapes an opposed skill check a bad idea?".

The idea that you can have either a functioning set of rules for a system that's impenetrable to understand or an understandable rulebook that's actually more of a vague guideline that throws up it's hands and gets you to make something up because rules that function can only be confusing and dense is a false dichotomy. Rules can be both extensive and clear, the problem is that this industry often treats style and editing as an optional part of professional writing when it's not.

And call me crazy, but if I buy a book for its rules content, and the writers keep expecting me to make up the rules for them, I start to question what it is I'm actually paying for.

Jay R
2018-08-22, 02:05 PM
On the "interrupted rest" example, the wording "at least one hour of walking, any combat, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity" can IMO only be read as follows:

"an hour of walking OR any combat OR casting spells OR similar adventuring activity"

It really is grammatically unreasonable to read that as applying the "hour" to the entire list.

So when the dev then Tweets that the hour applies to each example, what they're actually saying is "ignore what we wrote, this is what we meant" -- a clear admission of failure to write and edit a clear presentation of their intent.

But that is simply not how grammar works. "At least one hour of A, B, C, or D" can certainly mean one hour of one of the options. The phrase is in fact ambiguous.

For example, each day I need at least one hour of fencing drills, bike riding, or physical therapy. A thirty second bike ride does not meet this requirement.

This means that the problem isn't that they wrote something other than what they meant; it's that they wrote something ambiguous.

War_lord
2018-08-22, 02:13 PM
But that is simply not how grammar works. "At least one hour of A, B, C, or D" can certainly mean one hour of one of the options. The phrase is in fact ambiguous.

For example, each day I need at least one hour of fencing drills, bike riding, or physical therapy. A thirty second bike ride does not meet this requirement.

This means that the problem isn't that they wrote something other than what they meant; it's that they wrote something ambiguous.

So what you're arguing is that a reasonable interpretation is that you can fit a 30 minute fight to the death into your short rest. And that's really a more reasonable explanation then the ruling being ill considered?

Theoboldi
2018-08-22, 02:16 PM
I find this conversation about 5e's lack of clarity to be pretty interesting. For my own part, I never really had any trouble parsing, and only started considering the ambiguity of some of the rules when they were pointed out to me. Even though I had played the game with one of my groups several times by that point, and had seen some clashes of interpretation.

That is not to say that the rules aren't ambiguous. They most definitely are at many points. I just find it interesting that this particular lack of clarity never caused any problems for me personally. It's very cool to see just how different our approaches to learning and playing new RPGs are. :smallsmile:

Yora
2018-08-22, 02:22 PM
I think the biggest offender would probably be Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition. That game is just utterly incomprehensible when you try to understand the rules by reading the rulebooks. The organization of content ranges from confusing to nonexistent.

Apocalpyse World is another sad case. Organization is also quite confusing, but the text itself goes to such lengths in being evocative and presenting the setting, which it does very successfully, that it becomes really hard to get a grasp of what the rules are. Basic principles remain unexplained or located in a place where they are hard to find and you have to piece together yourself what they are by trying to make sense of the specific examples that reference them.

In general, I think a rule book should never use in-universe slang as terms for mechanics and then not explaining what those things mean. I mean, even D&D explains what a "round" is. But how much time did I spend trying to figure out what "seize by force" is supposed to mean. Reading the rules for "seizing by force" did not help without having any reference frame.

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 02:23 PM
But that is simply not how grammar works. "At least one hour of A, B, C, or D" can certainly mean one hour of one of the options. The phrase is in fact ambiguous.

For example, each day I need at least one hour of fencing drills, bike riding, or physical therapy. A thirty second bike ride does not meet this requirement.

This means that the problem isn't that they wrote something other than what they meant; it's that they wrote something ambiguous.

The "any" would usually imply that the term preceded by "any" is supposed to be considered separately: "I need at least one hour of fencing drills, any bike riding, or physical therapy" is somewhat different in connotation than "I need at least one hour of fencing drills, bike riding, or physical therapy."


So what you're arguing is that a reasonable interpretation is that you can fit a 30 minute fight to the death into your short rest. And that's really a more reasonable explanation then the ruling being ill considered?

The rule being good or bad in content is a separate issue from being good or bad in grammatical construction. They could have intended (and according to a tweet, did intend) a really ill-considered rule that a 30-minute (300-round) fight to the death wouldn't interrupt a long rest. The devs can intend something stupid, after all. It's not arguing that it's a reasonable rule, just that it's a grammatically-reasonable reading of the text, using one of the more egregious examples of the functional difference that results from each grammatical reading.


I just find it interesting that this particular lack of clarity never caused any problems for me personally. It's very cool to see just how different our approaches to learning and playing new RPGs are. :smallsmile:

I actually like 5e quite a bit to play and DM, on the whole, but the bad writing is just an aspect of it that particularly annoys me.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 02:28 PM
But that is simply not how grammar works. "At least one hour of A, B, C, or D" can certainly mean one hour of one of the options. The phrase is in fact ambiguous.

For example, each day I need at least one hour of fencing drills, bike riding, or physical therapy. A thirty second bike ride does not meet this requirement.

This means that the problem isn't that they wrote something other than what they meant; it's that they wrote something ambiguous.


First, take the remainder of the list out, and try to read it as "at least one hour of any combat"... doesn't that sound quite odd and unclear?

Second, to me, as soon as the word "any" is used where it is, that changes the sentence such that "at least an hour" only applies to "walking", and not the remainder of the list. (Ninja-ed by JAL_1138.)


And as noted, the interpretation the dev tweet suggests would mean that 50 minutes of combat, or 50 minutes of spellcasting, would not interrupt the rest... which doesn't make much sense... does it?

War_lord
2018-08-22, 02:34 PM
I find this conversation about 5e's lack of clarity to be pretty interesting. For my own part, I never really had any trouble parsing, and only started considering the ambiguity of some of the rules when they were pointed out to me. Even though I had played the game with one of my groups several times by that point, and had seen some clashes of interpretation.

5th edition reads fine when you're reading it to yourself. It works fine when you're playing it with a group that generally has the same idea on what the reasonable interpretation of what's in the book. It's very heavily dependent on that factor. It falls apart as soon as two or more people at a table disagree on what the reasonable interpretation is, and that doesn't necessarily involve someone contesting it in bad faith to gain a real or perceived advantage (the rules lawyer). I can't call them well written rules for that reason.

Theoboldi
2018-08-22, 02:50 PM
5th edition reads fine when you're reading it to yourself. It works fine when you're playing it with a group that generally has the same idea on what the reasonable interpretation of what's in the book. It's very heavily dependent on that factor. It falls apart as soon as two or more people at a table disagree on what the reasonable interpretation is, and that doesn't necessarily involve someone contesting it in bad faith to gain a real or perceived advantage (the rules lawyer). I can't call them well written rules for that reason.

Not disagreeing at all. I'm just saying its never been a problem for me. Perhaps my tolerance for what constitutes a reasonable ruling is bigger, or my groups are way more willing to compromise than others. Lucky me, I guess.

(I have played with less compromising players before, by the by. It was not a fun experience at all. So very glad my current groups are as they are.)

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-22, 03:21 PM
I find this conversation about 5e's lack of clarity to be pretty interesting. For my own part, I never really had any trouble parsing, and only started considering the ambiguity of some of the rules when they were pointed out to me. Even though I had played the game with one of my groups several times by that point, and had seen some clashes of interpretation.

That is not to say that the rules aren't ambiguous. They most definitely are at many points. I just find it interesting that this particular lack of clarity never caused any problems for me personally. It's very cool to see just how different our approaches to learning and playing new RPGs are. :smallsmile:

I'm very much the same. For me, for whatever reason, my default interpretation and the "accepted" interpretation of 5e are identical 99% of the time, and the rest is when I fail my "read all the words in context" test.

I see most of the problems as trying to parse word by word instead of reading the whole context (a paragraph or so). It's proof-texting. More "open"/"light" systems naturally require more context and interpretation than "heavier" systems. So complaining about ambiguity often comes down to not liking lighter systems. That's not to say there aren't editing errors--there are. But those (and grammatical ambiguity) aren't the big stickers for most people. It's wanting different rules than exist. At least that's my perception.

Jay R
2018-08-22, 03:24 PM
First, take the remainder of the list out, and try to read it as "at least one hour of any combat"... doesn't that sound quite odd and unclear?

Oh, now I see how we interpreted it differently. I thought "any combat" meant melee, or ranged combat, or even coming under attack without fighting back.


Second, to me, as soon as the word "any" is used where it is, that changes the sentence such that "at least an hour" only applies to "walking", and not the remainder of the list. (Ninja-ed by JAL_1138.)

I agree that that's the most likely interpretation. My point stands -- it can be interpreted either way, and it is ambiguous writing.


And as noted, the interpretation the dev tweet suggests would mean that 50 minutes of combat, or 50 minutes of spellcasting, would not interrupt the rest... which doesn't make much sense... does it?

Oh, yes, the best interpretation, based on the logic of the situation and not on the grammar, is that a single spell or sword stroke interrupts the rest. But that's not from the wording; it's from understanding of the situation.

JAL_1138
2018-08-22, 03:45 PM
I'm very much the same. For me, for whatever reason, my default interpretation and the "accepted" interpretation of 5e are identical 99% of the time, and the rest is when I fail my "read all the words in context" test.

I see most of the problems as trying to parse word by word instead of reading the whole context (a paragraph or so). It's proof-texting. More "open"/"light" systems naturally require more context and interpretation than "heavier" systems. So complaining about ambiguity often comes down to not liking lighter systems. That's not to say there aren't editing errors--there are. But those (and grammatical ambiguity) aren't the big stickers for most people. It's wanting different rules than exist. At least that's my perception.

Except lighter systems don't "naturally require" more interpretation. They may require more DM-created content or determination of edge cases the rules don't cover, but they don't necessarily entail that the DM has to work more to figure out what the rules actually say. I'd refer again to FUDGE (free version) and Savage Worlds--which are both written more clearly and unambiguously written than 5e. FUDGE leaves a lot up to the DM to decide, but not interpret, and Savage Worlds is about the same level of complexity to 5e but written more clearly.

For that matter, there are micro-RPGs that take up a couple-three pages of text total that are less-ambiguously worded than several bits of 5e. They're light on content, and don't give details on a lot of options or certain situations, but they're clear.

As an example, the rules being slim on overland travel speed of wagons, for instance only having a single default speed regardless of weather or terrain and a single set of stats for wagons, doesn't mean it requires more interpretation than a convoluted ultradetailed nightmare like (the internet's general opinion of) GURPS 3e Vehicles (which granted I haven't personally read). It just has less stuff, which is a different matter.

Cluedrew
2018-08-22, 04:05 PM
B) if I ever get around to posting my ideal Wizard, that no system has ever let me play, it may actually sound a bit like "narrow or infrequent". Probably three different levels of casting, actually. So, can you be more specific regarding what, exactly, in this implementation you believe would be a turnoff for me?I thought you liked spell casters who could use magic as their primary problem solving tool? The narrow means that there is often 1 type of problem they can be used to solve, it is just one of a set of tools and might not come up that often. Infrequent means... it means not very often. The spells come rarely and usually require on-screen work to create them. Maybe I misjudged in some way (in fact unless that third layer is completely different I guess I did) but it doesn't match what I understood you liked from earlier topics.


But how much time did I spend trying to figure out what "seize by force" is supposed to mean.I have heard the phrase in common circulation... I am surprised it is rare enough that it might require additional clarification. Knowing exactly what phrases and words your readers will know can be hard. To take something by violent action.

Which is just one of the issues that leads up to a simple problem: Expressing things actually unambiguously in any language is HARD. I can think of several arguments that ended when some misunderstanding was cleared up. And I know editing can and should cut it down, but getting rid of it entirely in a document the size of even a medium sized rulebook is... technically possible but it might not be a medium sized rulebook by the time you are done.

Also I'm going to say a rule being open ended is different from it being ambiguous. I think the fundamental different is the former intends multiple things while the latter intends one but it is unclear which. Well written open ended rules will clearly give the range it covers, the area over which it is open. I forget what prompted this point but here it is.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 04:23 PM
Except lighter systems don't "naturally require" more interpretation. They may require more DM-created content or determination of edge cases the rules don't cover, but they don't necessarily entail that the DM has to work more to figure out what the rules actually say. I'd refer again to FUDGE (free version) and Savage Worlds--which are both written more clearly and unambiguously written than 5e. FUDGE leaves a lot up to the DM to decide, but not interpret, and Savage Worlds is about the same level of complexity to 5e but written more clearly.

For that matter, there are micro-RPGs that take up a couple-three pages of text total that are less-ambiguously worded than several bits of 5e. They're light on content, and don't give details on a lot of options or certain situations, but they're clear.

As an example, the rules being slim on overland travel speed of wagons, for instance only having a single default speed regardless of weather or terrain and a single set of stats for wagons, doesn't mean it requires more interpretation than a convoluted ultradetailed nightmare like (the internet's general opinion of) GURPS 3e Vehicles (which granted I haven't personally read). It just has less stuff, which is a different matter.


Exactly.

We're looking at multiple different axes here, not one.

Simplicity <--------> Complexity
Ambiguous <--------> Precise / Clear
Open / Free <--------> Detailed / Constrained


The last one I'm still pondering the descriptors for, I'm not really happy with it yet, and it might even conflate different things. It's supposed to get at how many things are explicitly covered by the rules vs how many are left completely up to the GM's discretion, as a separate axis from whether the rules that exist are simple or complex.

Quertus
2018-08-22, 07:32 PM
Which part of it exactly?

I'm... Not sure. I... Think... a) I like to have primary control over how my character feels, through build and interaction with the world; b) I described disliking the GM controlling how a character feels; c) you described the whole table having dominion over how a character feels. The odds of successfully herding cats, and getting an entire table to come to a reasonable consensus on anything, let alone feel? Let alone the feel of X different characters? I can't imagine a successful game resulting from that. A horrible comedy of failure, like some anime I've seen where breaking character and the fourth wall is the norm? Yeah, I can see getting that as a result. But I see nothing of value to me coming from such an endeavor.


I thought you liked spell casters who could use magic as their primary problem solving tool? The narrow means that there is often 1 type of problem they can be used to solve, it is just one of a set of tools and might not come up that often. Infrequent means... it means not very often. The spells come rarely and usually require on-screen work to create them. Maybe I misjudged in some way (in fact unless that third layer is completely different I guess I did) but it doesn't match what I understood you liked from earlier topics.

If narrow is applied to the caster, rather than the individual spell (I can only cast spells that involve rusting or otherwise naturally decaying natural objects over 100 years old), then, yeah, usually not my thing. Although, if that one thing were animating the dead, or traveling through time / multiple realities, or one of a number of other special cases, I could probably be OK. Sightly less narrow, and I've played and enjoyed the "only mind magic", "only time magic", and built but not played the "only realities" and "only necromancy" mages.

A mage who is broad, but can only cast very narrow spells (this one opens stuck peanut butter jars, this one flushes toilets left unflushed by children between the ages of three and six, this one finds bottle caps that I, personally, have lost, this one regrows erasers on fully sharpened number two pencils, etc) would either be tedious to track, or useless without unrealistically engineered adventure, or both. Probably both. But, for a proper selection of spells, they could still use those spells regularly (light cigarette, snap fingers to open my doors even if locked, clean self, etc), and thus arguably still feel Magical, even if their magic rarely actually solves the problem / rarely is plot relevant. So long as there is enough other stuff to the character - like skills and rituals - to give them equal narrative contribution power, I can be fine.

In fact, we're almost to the Wizard I want to run.

Tanarii
2018-08-22, 08:29 PM
I think the biggest offender would probably be Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition. That game is just utterly incomprehensible when you try to understand the rules by reading the rulebooks. The organization of content ranges from confusing to nonexistent.Looking back, I've never been able to decide how much of horrible rules mistakes in early gaming were due to being brand new to the concept of roleplaying game rules, and how many were due to AD&D's godawful writing. Especially the damn DMG. But the PHB and MM weren't saints either. :smallbiggrin:


Apocalpyse World is another sad case. Organization is also quite confusing, but the text itself goes to such lengths in being evocative and presenting the setting, which it does very successfully, that it becomes really hard to get a grasp of what the rules are. Basic principles remain unexplained or located in a place where they are hard to find and you have to piece together yourself what they are by trying to make sense of the specific examples that reference them.I had to read it through once, then read a bunch of online discussions, then read it through months later, for some things to click. But I feel they were mostly drastically different conceptual things in terms of what action and resolution actually represent in game, and what the hell you're playing. Because it's sure not playing a character, they way I've always understood playing a character to be.

I really should find one of the experienced AW MCs in my area some day and see if it's totally different to play it from what I got out of reading it. I suspect it might be.

Devils_Advocate
2018-08-22, 08:39 PM
Well, that just brings us back to the earlier points that assuming too much reader knowledge is one of the ways in which rules can be poorly written, and that writing that needs to be understood from a particular perspective should, like, introduce that perspective.

But avoiding those mistakes is hard, and the field of tabletop roleplaying games is, shall we say, not known for its rigorous quality control.


Exactly.

We're looking at multiple different axes here, not one.

Simplicity <--------> Complexity
Ambiguous <--------> Precise / Clear
Open / Free <--------> Detailed / Constrained


The last one I'm still pondering the descriptors for, I'm not really happy with it yet, and it might even conflate different things. It's supposed to get at how many things are explicitly covered by the rules vs how many are left completely up to the GM's discretion, as a separate axis from whether the rules that exist are simple or complex.
Maybe Simple to Complex, Ambiguous to Clear, and Freeform to Legalistic?

"Detailed" makes me think of Specific as opposed to General, as discussed in JAL_1138's last example above. Just treating a katana as a masterwork bastard sword versus having a table of a thousand polearms, each with its own stats, would be another case of the same thing. Kind of Abstract to Concrete at the same time, or maybe that's something different too? I suppose that it also relates to a system's "granularity", as there can be more room for things to have different stats e.g. in a d100 system than a d20 system, although it also depends on the number of numbers that each thing has associated with it, and how much use is made of special abilities or properties (e.g. giving characters "Feats" in 3rd Edition D&D).

Anyway, my point is that having a low number of entries for something may just conflate vast swathes of stuff without bringing any GM interpretation into it.

Cluedrew
2018-08-22, 08:44 PM
On PbtA Quertus: Still kind of off topic so it is being hidden away.So I was thinking about it and although I haven't played a system that has had a caster like that it is starting to sound more in keeping with those that I have played and seen. There is just one hitch left.

You see Powered by the Apocalypse doesn't do much resource tracking. Little bits and pieces, but the biggest store of resource I have seen is Dungeon World's HP pools and most systems don't even have that; using small fixed tracks instead. Which means that spells can't be limited by usage. (The infrequent magic I mentioned was infrequent because it could take multiple scenes to set up.) You might be able to do it, have +1 Cast that you spend to use magic or something, I withdraw the can't.

But still more likely, especially for any class of magic you are going to be using more than twice an act, that they will be treated like other skills. Put into a move and given a miss, a weak hit and a strong hit. You can get the relevant stat up to the point missing is like a fumble, but you still have a lot of weak hits. In short you loose the reliability of D&D style magic... I'm not sure why I felt that I needed to do that long description to go up to that.

Still if that sounds OK, maybe track down the Dungeon World Wizard playbook, it will give you a less theoretical glance at it.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 08:57 PM
Well, that just brings us back to the earlier points that assuming too much reader knowledge is one of the ways in which rules can be poorly written, and that writing that needs to be understood from a particular perspective should, like, introduce that perspective.

But avoiding those mistakes is hard, and the field of tabletop roleplaying games is, shall we say, not known for its rigorous quality control.


Maybe Simple to Complex, Ambiguous to Clear, and Freeform to Legalistic?

"Detailed" makes me think of Specific as opposed to General, as discussed in JAL_1138's last example above. Just treating a katana as a masterwork bastard sword versus having a table of a thousand polearms, each with its own stats, would be another case of the same thing. Kind of Abstract to Concrete at the same time, or maybe that's something different too? I suppose that it also relates to a system's "granularity", as there can be more room for things to have different stats e.g. in a d100 system than a d20 system, although it also depends on the number of numbers that each thing has associated with it, and how much use is made of special abilities or properties (e.g. giving characters "Feats" in 3rd Edition D&D).

Anyway, my point is that having a low number of entries for something may just conflate vast swathes of stuff without bringing any GM interpretation into it.

Which is a good point -- simplicity doesn't implying "freeform", if the simplicity comes from cramming things down to a smaller set of options.

I don't know if it's even necessary to define all the axes with exacting precision, the real point for me is to avoid conflating Complex with Legalistic and/or Clear, or Simple with Freeform, or...

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-22, 10:49 PM
Here's one for me that wasn't complex, so much as just obtuse and scattered in its presentation.

L5R 4th edition. Absolutely gorgeous books, but no organization, and just to have the complete functional ruleset would be hundreds of dollars. No, it can't be played with just the base core book, not by my standards. Large chunks are missing -- such as most of the rules for defending against magic, and counter-magic, being in an entirely different "optional" book. And even what's in the core book is scattered about... to really understand how a character would use two weapons needs to be pieced together from the "Schools" and a sidebar in the Skills section, it's never actually covered in the main section on combat.

Faily
2018-08-23, 02:18 AM
Here's one for me that wasn't complex, so much as just obtuse and scattered in its presentation.

L5R 4th edition. Absolutely gorgeous books, but no organization, and just to have the complete functional ruleset would be hundreds of dollars. No, it can't be played with just the base core book, not by my standards. Large chunks are missing -- such as most of the rules for defending against magic, and counter-magic, being in an entirely different "optional" book. And even what's in the core book is scattered about... to really understand how a character would use two weapons needs to be pieced together from the "Schools" and a sidebar in the Skills section, it's never actually covered in the main section on combat.

And here I was logging on to the forums to bash on the 3rd edition book of L5R. :smallbiggrin:

L5R 4th is Corebook is still leaps and bounds better than the 3rd edition Corebook (or even the Revised 3rd Edition). Now that was a book that had no structure and one of the worst indexes possible.

4E at least has all the character creation-relevant parts in one chapter (with the optional ones in another such as ronin, monks, Imperials, Minor Clans, and Spider), almost all the GM stuff in another, and actual comprehensible rules for monsters and animals (3rd edition didn't even have stat-blocks for horses, when several schools started with one xD).

As someone who has frequently played and GMed L5R since before 3E Revised, I must say that after my initial dislike of the all-around nerfing from 3E to 4E, I've come to appriciate 4E a lot more as both a player and a GM. Rules are much less conflicting now and more clearly laid out in the Book of Earth-chapter of the Corebook than the scattering around in previous editions. I personally find you can play the game just fine with only Corebook, Great Clans, and Enemies of the Empire... and possibly Emerald Empire. The Elemental Books are... very varied in their quality, sadly.

While 3E did give us the first rendition of Emerald Empire (which is one of the coolest flavour-supplements for L5R since the Way of the Clan-books), 3E also gave us the worst book ever printed for L5R: Art of the Duel.

I'll take 4E L5R over 3E any day. :smallsmile:

-----------

EDIT: I was also going to mention A Song of Ice and Fire RPG (SIFRP for short).

I genuinly want to like this game, I really do. I love the setting, I love the ideas they present... but my goodness, I think I had to try playing the game three times to actually grasp the character creation rules. This rulebook really could not afford editors, it seems, because things are scattered out in the book and are not easy to find. There's also rule-contradictions floating about in there, which was always interesting to try to uncover while playing ("it says on pg.[number] that it works like this." "Ok... but on pg.[number] it says something else.").

And then you have the fact that there's two different editions of the game, but they are *not* easy to tell apart for your average person picking this up for the first time. You have A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, and then you have A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying - A Game of Thrones Edition. Yes, font-size was reduced deliberately because *it is* in a smaller font underneath the A Game of Thrones-line.

This has led to some amusing misunderstandings in my online playgroups, when some players have then picked up the newer AGOT-edition, while others have the older edition... most of the rules remained the same, but there are still noticeable differences. Which does lead to some problems.

halfeye
2018-08-23, 10:39 AM
Naming things is one of the two hard problems in computer science (along with cache invalidation and off-by-one errors).

That's three things. :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-23, 10:51 AM
That's three things. :smallbiggrin:

Which makes it four -- cache invalidation, off-by-one errors, naming things, and counting things.


:smalltongue:

(Unless there's a subtle joke there with "off by one errors"...)

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-23, 11:28 AM
That's three things. :smallbiggrin:


Which makes it four -- cache invalidation, off-by-one errors, naming things, and counting things.


:smalltongue:

(Unless there's a subtle joke there with "off by one errors"...)

<thatsthejoke.meme>

Yeah, it's a old joke in CS. Somewhat like the monty python spanish inquisition sketch--Our chief weapon is <names two things>, etc.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-23, 11:55 AM
<thatsthejoke.meme>

Yeah, it's a old joke in CS. Somewhat like the monty python spanish inquisition sketch--Our chief weapon is <names two things>, etc.

That's right up there (or down there) with "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't."

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-23, 12:08 PM
That's right up there (or down there) with "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Yup. Sadly I'm contractually (and physically) unable to make good jokes. That capability is surgically removed in graduate school these days. All I can do is provide proper pun-ishment when the need for humor arises.

Segev
2018-08-23, 05:06 PM
Yup. Sadly I'm contractually (and physically) unable to make good jokes. That capability is surgically removed in graduate school these days. All I can do is provide proper pun-ishment when the need for humor arises.

We do encourage clever and witty jokes, though. They just have to be Evil. Well, Masters-level students are permitted Neutral, I suppose.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-23, 05:49 PM
We do encourage clever and witty jokes, though. They just have to be Evil. Well, Masters-level students are permitted Neutral, I suppose.

Heh. Funny. The best part is that it isn't even blue--because it's totally true.

And as someone who introduces himself on day one (and to the parents as well) as Dr Evil (no, not that guy, he's a poser), I can do Evil jokes I guess. They're still bad (punny) jokes, but I fully admit to being a soulless monster and a horrible excuse for a human being. That's why the universe hates me (allergic to all living things, plus burning in the sunlight as a ginger).

Saintheart
2018-08-23, 07:38 PM
We do encourage clever and witty jokes, though. They just have to be Evil. Well, Masters-level students are permitted Neutral, I suppose.

Really? Oh, well, then I guess you've heard the old one about why you can do magic with base 16, right?









... because it's a hexadecimal system.

flond
2018-08-23, 08:56 PM
I'm... Not sure. I... Think... a) I like to have primary control over how my character feels, through build and interaction with the world; b) I described disliking the GM controlling how a character feels; c) you described the whole table having dominion over how a character feels. The odds of successfully herding cats, and getting an entire table to come to a reasonable consensus on anything, let alone feel? Let alone the feel of X different characters? I can't imagine a successful game resulting from that. A horrible comedy of failure, like some anime I've seen where breaking character and the fourth wall is the norm? Yeah, I can see getting that as a result. But I see nothing of value to me coming from such an endeavor.



If narrow is applied to the caster, rather than the individual spell (I can only cast spells that involve rusting or otherwise naturally decaying natural objects over 100 years old), then, yeah, usually not my thing. Although, if that one thing were animating the dead, or traveling through time / multiple realities, or one of a number of other special cases, I could probably be OK. Sightly less narrow, and I've played and enjoyed the "only mind magic", "only time magic", and built but not played the "only realities" and "only necromancy" mages.

A mage who is broad, but can only cast very narrow spells (this one opens stuck peanut butter jars, this one flushes toilets left unflushed by children between the ages of three and six, this one finds bottle caps that I, personally, have lost, this one regrows erasers on fully sharpened number two pencils, etc) would either be tedious to track, or useless without unrealistically engineered adventure, or both. Probably both. But, for a proper selection of spells, they could still use those spells regularly (light cigarette, snap fingers to open my doors even if locked, clean self, etc), and thus arguably still feel Magical, even if their magic rarely actually solves the problem / rarely is plot relevant. So long as there is enough other stuff to the character - like skills and rituals - to give them equal narrative contribution power, I can be fine.

In fact, we're almost to the Wizard I want to run.

Firstly, honestly, it tends more towards horror than comedy. While you can do other things and it's often fun, that sort of flexible, malleable, everyone's hands in everything type of play can be excellent for creating tragedies and honestly, if everyone's on board, some heavy, emotional fun. (It's fine of course if it's not your thing, just, y'know, it works at some tables for some people.)

Secondly. DW Wizards I think are a good example here. They get some spells, but, they also get this

Ritual
When you draw on a place of power to create a magical effect, tell the GM what you’re trying to achieve. Ritual effects are always possible, but the GM will give you one to four of the following conditions:

It’s going to take days/weeks/months.
First you must ________.
You’ll need help from _________.
It will require a lot of money
The best you can do is a lesser version, unreliable and limited
You and your allies will risk danger from .
You’ll have to disenchant __________ to do it.

So, you can generally, do things but...the cost is always the GM makes it something of a big deal.

Doorhandle
2018-08-24, 04:11 AM
I've met plenty of very nice, friendly, helpful people who speak (write, to be accurate) positively about "story games" (under several meanings of the term, I think) on these forums, so I can't make a blanket judgement.

However, using postmodernist-style obscurantism, terms of art, and inflated complexity of presentation (or "artistic" presentation) as gatekeeping methods also seems disproportionately common in the "storygames" and "forge" circles overall.



Exactly. My pint wasn't "people who play story games in general are *******s", it was "those SPECIFIC guys who refused to explain the game to you are *******s. " Just so we're clear.

Although I will say that Dungeon world's difficulty is a bit daming because it's supposed to back port D&D-stype play to Powered By The Apocalypse.

Glorthindel
2018-08-24, 05:10 AM
Just treating a katana as a masterwork bastard sword versus having a table of a thousand polearms, each with its own stats, would be another case of the same thing. Kind of Abstract to Concrete at the same time, or maybe that's something different too?

I am a big fan of WFRP. When I was first reading through the 2nd edition rulebook, the something that shocked me as "wrong" was instead of seeing the usual four-five different sized swords, two-three axes, mace, dagger, hammers, etc, there just being an entry for "hand weapon" and "great weapon". But after a moment of consideration, it dawned on me that this was actually a really clever simplification, that ruined nothing, and actually empowered players (by giving them the ability to choose a weapon by aesthetic, rather by which gave the biggest damage dice).

Tanarii
2018-08-24, 09:40 AM
I am a big fan of WFRP. When I was first reading through the 2nd edition rulebook, the something that shocked me as "wrong" was instead of seeing the usual four-five different sized swords, two-three axes, mace, dagger, hammers, etc, there just being an entry for "hand weapon" and "great weapon". But after a moment of consideration, it dawned on me that this was actually a really clever simplification, that ruined nothing, and actually empowered players (by giving them the ability to choose a weapon by aesthetic, rather by which gave the biggest damage dice).
Yeah, my experience was mostly D&D (classic and 1e), Palladium, and Runequest gamer prior to playing WFRP 1e. This shocked me as blatantly "wrong" at first too! :smallamused:

Cluedrew
2018-08-24, 10:06 AM
Ah yes, the gaming revolution that finally meant we did not have to choose between 13 varieties of pole arm. The ones that really got me are the ones with 2 or more weapons that were identical except for the name and maybe the picture if they both had pictures.

Excessive repetition of almost identical options is... not a terrible mistake but one I have seen in a lot of old school systems.

Max_Killjoy
2018-08-24, 10:19 AM
Ah yes, the gaming revolution that finally meant we did not have to choose between 13 varieties of pole arm. The ones that really got me are the ones with 2 or more weapons that were identical except for the name and maybe the picture if they both had pictures.

Excessive repetition of almost identical options is... not a terrible mistake but one I have seen in a lot of old school systems.

When I proposed cutting back weapons to only be different if they were functionally different, for a homebrew system I was helping someone create, the feedback from all the creator's playtesters was "but we like weapon crunch, we don't want generic weapons".

There is literally no making all gamers happy.

MrSandman
2018-08-24, 10:27 AM
Ah yes, the gaming revolution that finally meant we did not have to choose between 13 varieties of pole arm. The ones that really got me are the ones with 2 or more weapons that were identical except for the name and maybe the picture

And sometimes they'd also have different weights and prices, just to make it easier to identify the irrelevant one.

Segev
2018-08-24, 01:18 PM
Yeah, in general, if somebody refuses to try to explain something to you as clearly as they know how, they're full of themselves, and not really the kind of people you want to game with. It's a competition to them, where the score is based on the hipster system.


Really? Oh, well, then I guess you've heard the old one about why you can do magic with base 16, right?









... because it's a hexadecimal system.

That's a joke? ...and here I thought computer code was black magic.

Jama7301
2018-08-24, 02:15 PM
Coming at things from the D&D/Shadowrun background has made a few games a bit harder for me to parse on first reading. I stopped reading through the FATE rulebook a few months ago, because something wasn't clicking. The same thing happened when a friend wanted me to run Pokemon Trainer United. The first hit a block because it's such a departure from what I'm used to, the latter, because it was information and choice overload.

Also, I just want to give a mention to GURPS for being an intimidating game to play. With there being SO MANY SKILLS, a part of my brain wants to put a point into every non-combat skill "just in case".

Cluedrew
2018-08-24, 02:44 PM
...and here I thought computer code was black magic.Where does that superstition come from? No, computer code is green magic, having you seen those old text displays? They are green-on-black for a reason.* But computers have green magic and work more like druidic magic than necromancy. Prime example is that some people, like the druids greeted by birds, can naturally provoke a positive response in computers just by arriving. If your lucky your local IT department will have at least one of these people.

* Then again the old 7 segment displays were black-on-green, maybe that is where it comes from? It is also possible I have taken this joke entirely too far.

JAL_1138
2018-08-24, 02:58 PM
Coming at things from the D&D/Shadowrun background has made a few games a bit harder for me to parse on first reading. I stopped reading through the FATE rulebook a few months ago, because something wasn't clicking. The same thing happened when a friend wanted me to run Pokemon Trainer United. The first hit a block because it's such a departure from what I'm used to, the latter, because it was information and choice overload.

I'll confess to FATE not quite "clicking" for me as well, largely because of the way Aspects are kind of poorly explained/defined (IMO). FUDGE doesn't use them and it makes sense to me, but FATE's Aspects are so nebulous I can't quite wrap my brain around them. I think it's at least partly because they're "whatever phrase someone wants to use" rather than "one of the following clearly-defined terms with a distinct mechanical effect."

FATE also has this weird kind of disconnect where it feels like I'd be less playing a character and more directing a story about the character, if that makes sense, which isn't to my taste.



Also, I just want to give a mention to GURPS for being an intimidating game to play. With there being SO MANY SKILLS, a part of my brain wants to put a point into every non-combat skill "just in case".

The massive skill list has been rather troublesome for me in making a generally-competent, jack-of-all-trades detective-type character with only 100 points to work with.

GURPS skills often "default" to something else, though, so a sufficiently-high stat or sufficiently-good related skill can somewhat eliminate the need for grabbing dozens upon dozens of skills. There's also a frw Advantages that can allow for skill versatility, and the optional "cinematic skills" rules, which fold a bunch of skills into one (e.g., the cinematic skill "Detective!" would free up a ton of points for my detective character, if we were using those skill rules, as it rolls the majority of skills a detective needs into one). Some skills don't have defaults and require at least a point of investment to attempt, but to be fair most of those really aren't the kind of thing someone could attempt untrained and have a plausible chance of success within the probabilities a 3d6 system can cover.

For an example of Defaults at work, the Guns skill for personal firearms is divided into three specialties: pistols, rifles, and shotguns. If you specialize in Pistols, you can still use rifles and shotguns without buying the Rifles or Shotguns skills, just at a -2 penalty. Or, if memory serves (am AFB currently), you can also skip buying the Guns skill altogether and make shooting rolls at a -4 penalty to your dexterity stat. There's a bunch of skills, both combat and noncombat, that work that way.


Where does that superstition come from? No, computer code is green magic, having you seen those old text displays? They are green-on-black for a reason.* But computers have green magic and work more like druidic magic than necromancy. Prime example is that some people, like the druids greeted by birds, can naturally provoke a positive response in computers just by arriving. If your lucky your local IT department will have at least one of these people.

* Then again the old 7 segment displays were black-on-green, maybe that is where it comes from? It is also possible I have taken this joke entirely too far.

I thought it was blue magic, because if the magic blue smoke gets out of the chips, the computer stops working.

Florian
2018-08-24, 04:08 PM
When I proposed cutting back weapons to only be different if they were functionally different, for a homebrew system I was helping someone create, the feedback from all the creator's playtesters was "but we like weapon crunch, we don't want generic weapons".

There is literally no making all gamers happy.

Well, yes, people have been trained to get a "feeling" for what's going on by extrapolating rules nuances. Reading and using the "crunch" fires their imagination. The 3E dilemma.

Can't get that out of a certain generation of gamers, wasn't really necessary a few decades before...

Telok
2018-08-24, 06:06 PM
Pazio's Starfinder has some issues. My group is going to shelve it or used-book it like we did with d&d 4e.

The specific issues from the books are pretty bad. It starts with SF being Pathfinder-in-space with rule detail changes. Those changes aren't mentioned anywhere, you only find them by reading and comparing the two rule sets. Which wouldn't be a problem if we were new to the d&d 3.x and PF, but since we have played D&D and PF it's been an ongoing issue for a couple months.

Important stuff tends to be mentioned in one spot, and then never referenced anywhere else. Or parts of something are spread across three or four places in the book. For example, take the radiation poisoning rules. The radiation rules are in the DM section under environmental hazards. They reference the poison and disease rules in the injury & recovery section. Completely unreferenced is a sentence in the equipment section which notes that armor makes you completely immune or gives massive save bonuses based on the armor level and the radiation level. Then we can check the spaceship section to find that there are spaceship radiation weapons that irradiate the whole ship on a hit. That doesn't tell you anything but that it inflicts radiation on the crew for 1d4 rounds. Check the statted ships and discover that the crew stats are only a skill bonus. Reverse engineer the skill bonus through the npc rules (npcs don't follow pc rules) to find out that the crew level is equal to the ship level. So you get their stats off the npc tables in the monster manual (no stats for them in the base book). But it turns out that's only for officers, regular crew have no stats and there aren't any rules for them.

So what happens when you shoot a radiation weapon at a level 17 ship with 20 officers and 280 crew? Well, depending on the radiation level the officers are either immune or have big save bonuses. But what of the crew? It matters because poison saves also cause hp damage in SF (literally, damage = save DC - 10 when you roll a save) in addition to influcting conditions. Are unstatted crew immune? What about pc ships with crew?

We figured that we literally could not use radiation weapons because we couldn't adjucate the effects.

The adventure paths have a similar problem. They reference a monster from the beastiary without giving stats but with notes, tactics, and sometimes gear or special spell effects. The beastiary has stats & gear for the monster, but won't list gear or spell effects if they're in the basic book. So our gm has had three books open just to run one monster sometimes.

Quertus
2018-08-24, 10:00 PM
When I proposed cutting back weapons to only be different if they were functionally different, for a homebrew system I was helping someone create, the feedback from all the creator's playtesters was "but we like weapon crunch, we don't want generic weapons".

There is literally no making all gamers happy.


Well, yes, people have been trained to get a "feeling" for what's going on by extrapolating rules nuances. Reading and using the "crunch" fires their imagination. The 3E dilemma.

Can't get that out of a certain generation of gamers, wasn't really necessary a few decades before...

Tables are cool.

"Simple" and "Balanced" are worthy goals, sure, but they often come at the cost of "Cool". Which makes me sad.

Rockphed
2018-08-26, 06:33 AM
Where does that superstition come from? No, computer code is green magic, having you seen those old text displays? They are green-on-black for a reason.* But computers have green magic and work more like druidic magic than necromancy. Prime example is that some people, like the druids greeted by birds, can naturally provoke a positive response in computers just by arriving. If your lucky your local IT department will have at least one of these people.

* Then again the old 7 segment displays were black-on-green, maybe that is where it comes from? It is also possible I have taken this joke entirely too far.

Some people flip the state of how the computer feels about you just by being near. Something that was working 10 seconds ago will suddenly fail and something that was broken 10 seconds ago will work until they leave. Most annoying thing in the world to have, either way.


I thought it was blue magic, because if the magic blue smoke gets out of the chips, the computer stops working.

Electronics and hardware are blue magic. Code is a different beast entirely.

LibraryOgre
2018-08-26, 07:59 AM
Electronics and hardware are blue magic. Code is a different beast entirely.

Duh. That's why computers stop working when the blue smoke escapes. :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii
2018-08-26, 09:44 AM
Some people flip the state of how the computer feels about you just by being near. Something that was working 10 seconds ago will suddenly fail and something that was broken 10 seconds ago will work until they leave. Most annoying thing in the world to have, either way.
Whenever I fix something just by calling or showing up, and now it works perfectly, and they swear it was broken before I got there, I tell them it's because I'm magic like that.

Rockphed
2018-08-26, 04:35 PM
Whenever I fix something just by calling or showing up, and now it works perfectly, and they swear it was broken before I got there, I tell them it's because I'm magic like that.

I've actually been on both ends of this. When I was building assembly lines I would sometimes get called over to help figure out a problem and an entirely different problem would spring up as soon as I showed up. When I have been a teaching assistant, on the other hand, people's labs will stop working the moment I show up to pass them off, or the lab will suddenly work properly when I show up to help them figure out a problem.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-08-26, 06:18 PM
I've actually been on both ends of this. When I was building assembly lines I would sometimes get called over to help figure out a problem and an entirely different problem would spring up as soon as I showed up. When I have been a teaching assistant, on the other hand, people's labs will stop working the moment I show up to pass them off, or the lab will suddenly work properly when I show up to help them figure out a problem.

There's a very simple explanation for this phenomenon. Electronic devices are like children or needy pets. They want attention. There really isn't a problem, they just want you to fuss over them.

gkathellar
2018-08-26, 06:31 PM
This thread has gone to a weird place.

Rockphed
2018-08-26, 10:22 PM
This thread has gone to a weird place.

And now I want a roleplaying game where you have to keep the magic smoke inside the computer and use the appropriate circles of spells to get the computer to do what you want. I could probably use Shadowrun or Dark Heresy to do that...

Scripten
2018-08-27, 07:24 AM
And now I want a roleplaying game where you have to keep the magic smoke inside the computer and use the appropriate circles of spells to get the computer to do what you want. I could probably use Shadowrun or Dark Heresy to do that...

Sounds like Discworld to me.

I'm actually fairly surprised that I haven't run across a Discworld RPG yet. Probably would be a good candidate for this thread's original purpose, if the writers tried to mimic Pterry's authorial style.

Necroticplague
2018-08-27, 01:07 PM
This kinda of confusion in how books are written is why I've learned to look at/for the absolute basics of a system first. Because ultimately, you only need two things: How is a character generated, and what is the primary method of conflict resolution? All else can be ad-hoced or improvised from those two. So various RPGs look something like this to me:

Dnd: take levels in class,; roll 1d20+mod, roll high.
GURPS: buy traits with points; roll 3d6, roll under skill-mod
Storyteller: follow this list; roll a dice pool=skill+attribute, score successes>difficulty
Shadowrun: buy traits with points; roll a dice pool=skill+attribute, score successes>difficulty

LibraryOgre
2018-08-27, 03:56 PM
Whenever I fix something just by calling or showing up, and now it works perfectly, and they swear it was broken before I got there, I tell them it's because I'm magic like that.

"Sometimes, they just like to come see me."

Segev
2018-08-27, 04:04 PM
Where does that superstition come from? No, computer code is green magic, having you seen those old text displays? They are green-on-black for a reason.* But computers have green magic and work more like druidic magic than necromancy. Prime example is that some people, like the druids greeted by birds, can naturally provoke a positive response in computers just by arriving. If your lucky your local IT department will have at least one of these people.

* Then again the old 7 segment displays were black-on-green, maybe that is where it comes from? It is also possible I have taken this joke entirely too far.

Black magic, not necromancy. You're dealing with daemons, after all.

Doug Lampert
2018-08-27, 05:18 PM
Sounds like Discworld to me.

I'm actually fairly surprised that I haven't run across a Discworld RPG yet. Probably would be a good candidate for this thread's original purpose, if the writers tried to mimic Pterry's authorial style.

Discworld is a GURPS setting.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Discworld/
Pterry was one of the authors.

Scripten
2018-08-27, 05:47 PM
Discworld is a GURPS setting.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Discworld/
Pterry was one of the authors.

Neat, thanks! If he actually participated in authoring the books, I can see them working well.