PDA

View Full Version : The Curse of Content



Cluedrew
2020-10-30, 08:13 PM
Possibly my single biggest complaint with D&D and similar systems is that they are content based. I'll first explain what I mean by this and then I will explain why it is a problem. And then I will add some positivity.

So what does it mean to be content based? The high level definition it means to do something in a campaign you need a piece of content to play it. So to crawl through a dungeon you are going to need a map, it has room layouts, enemies (some of them might be custom made), traps and treasures. All of those might need to be designed themselves. OK but isn't that pretty much everything in a game? Even the PCs are content created – if not by the GM – so how is this not everything? In short I am cheating and only including content that has to/should be created ahead of time.

To illustrate, a dialog option in a computer game might be written, edited and voice acted, but in a pen-and-paper or table-top context you can just say what comes to mind. Maybe it isn't quite as refined by it works. As another example compare a system where you can say "The thugs have medium armour and good weapons." to one where every enemy has different health pools, attack values, several defences and special abilities. The first is simple, easy to make and probably isn't the focus while the second takes a lot of work but is something you can engage with. I would count the second as content but maybe not the first.

OK so why is this problem. Well first I have to rip off a bandage: You can't actually do anything in role-playing game. Sure there is a lot you can do and it is more flexible then in a computer but there are still limits. Sometimes that is intentional to make things difficult and create challenges. Other-times it is for the same problem as in a computer: there isn't any content that direction and so if you go that way it is an endless void. And the more a system is content based the easier it is for that to happen. The less a system depends on new content the less this is a problem because it is easer to reuse/adapt what you have or maybe up the little pieces you need on the fly.

And that is why campaigns in content based systems are inflexible. Not even in the railroad sense of the word but the high level plans have to go forward because we don't have content for anything else. (OK, we could have content for one or two other big things but I'm assuming limited preparation time so it probably will not be a lot.) That means big twists and turns to the campaign are almost out of the question.

And that is the curse of content, the more you depend on content the more the game is reduced to having all the same problems as a computer game; inflexible and preset.

There are upsides too. Going back to the combat example; thugs with medium armour and good weapons are quick to make but might not make for a deep and engaging combat encounter. You can also create grand set-pieces and discover huge amounts of lore about the setting. I suppose that would be the blessing of content.

Still I'll take the rules light system and an actual dynamic story more often then not.

Vahnavoi
2020-10-31, 02:03 AM
Well first I have to rip off a bandage: You can't actually do anything in role-playing game. Sure there is a lot you can do and it is more flexible then in a computer but there are still limits.

Congratulations on getting past lies to children.

Beyond that, the crux of your problem has little to do with presence or absence of content, and everything to do with lack of process: useful algorithms for how to get from one piece content to another.

Procedural generation is how you avoid the problem of "formless void" in a rules-based system. If you go into an area that wasn't defined before, you pull a terrain card from the pile or roll a random encounter from a table to get yourself started. More expansive computer games use exact same tricks to create vast terrains or to keep games fresh between playthroughs.

It's also a self-created problem. It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.

Khedrac
2020-10-31, 03:28 AM
Possibly my single biggest complaint with D&D and similar systems is that they are content based

I think I should interject at this point. I mean, you are not wrong, but there is D&D and there is D&D. I believe this is why many older players prefer "old school roleplaying" - so AD&D or (BECMI)D&D to 3.X and later (OK, or BX D&D or Classic).

I don't know 5th ed at all, and I have seen very little of 4th ed, but to me you have summed up what is to me one of the biggest problems of 3.X D&D - if there isn't a rule for it it's much harder to do it.

For me, a good example of this would be if a player said "my character crouches down just behind the warrior fighting our tank" - the idea is simple - the character cannot contribute to the melee in a conventional manner so seeks to give the party tank a terrain advantage. In OSR games the DM can make up a effect on the fly but in 3.X games there's no real rule for this so it cannot be done as described.

Personally, I think two significant parts of the cause of the problem are the SRD and the modern internet, particularly online gaming.
The SRD is a great thing, but to enable to system to be opened up to other publishers, there needs to be clarity on exactly how things work - and that means you need rules for them.
Online gaming has increased the amount of people gaming with strangers. This is not a bad thing, but it stresses the need to know what houserules are in play (also reasonable). However, the detail of the rules makes possible the optimisation culture that needs to know exactly how rules interact (usually so they can be exploited) and rules clarifications are now called "houserules" which in the OSR days wouldn't have attracted a second's thought. Add in the arm's length nature of online interaction which seems to cause many people to forget ordinary politeness and you end up in the situation where the DM cannot make up a rule for the situation not covered by the core rules because it would be an undeclared houserule...

Note: I have just addressed the problem on the "micro" level - how individual encounters flow, you have pointed out that the problem can be worse on the "macro" level - how an entire campaign flows; this is something I need to go away and think about, but is, to a degree, sandbox versus story-path.

Pleh
2020-10-31, 07:24 AM
Still I'll take the rules light system and an actual dynamic story more often then not.

Wait, please elaborate on how a rules light system is superior?

Didn't you just imply that even a rules light system needs, "an actual dynamic story" to support it? And wouldn't that itself be created content, making rules light games content based as well?

I feel like you have contradicted yourself by aiming at the wrong target. It seems to me that RPGs are inescapably content based, whether D&D, rules light, or video games.

The actual difference you are trying to talk about is how easy content is to create. Video games must rely on procedural generation algorithms to create new content, which makes their improvisation and adaptability very limited.

You seem to be arguing that D&D, and rules heavy games in general, are too cumbersome to improvise or create content reactively.

I'll give you that rules light games are *easier* to improvise, because the mechanics require less manipulation.

But counterpoint 1 is that it isn't impossible to create content on the fly for D&D. Challenging, perhaps, but not impossible.

Counterpoint 2 is that having fewer rules doesn't always make it easier to create content. Part of the fun of video games or D&D is sticking an input into the game loop and see what it spits out. From this, we can receive Emergent Story, which can inspire creative improvisation that helps us generate new content.

Rules light systems will be much less effective in providing such inspirational feedback. Essentially, it places higher imaginative creative burden on the players (including GM).

Take the most rules light system possible: freeform. What are the downsides? Seems like the answer usually boils down to:
No limitations or rules means the game cannot be balanced unless the players voluntarily limit thenselves. Then the game isn't truly freeform, they are playing a system and haven't published or given it a name yet.
The game has a certain White Canvas problem. With all input coming from the players, there is no roll of the dice to prompt them. All imaginitive, creative control is on the players, so all effort comes from their personal energy reserve.

Honestly, every rule set is like a machine. If we compare running an RPG to traveling on a journey, having fewer machinery has the advantage of less upkeep to keep it running, but puts more work on your legs to carry you. On ths other hand, if you have a good car, you can reserve almost all your energy for maintaining the vehicle and you don't need to put much personal energy into walking to your destination.

Rules light as a middle ground seems to advocate for using a bycicle. Faster and easier than walking, but requires a lot less time, money, fuel, and tools to fix or maintain.

That's fine and fair enough, but let's not misrepresent the car enthusiasts. Cars are not inferior for requiring more investment to maintain. Rules heavy games are not inferior for being more burdensome to work with under the hood.

Some people live to hear that well tuned engine roar, even if they spend probably too much time getting it to that point.

Cluedrew
2020-10-31, 08:39 AM
It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.Oh yeah I was going to talk about the random tables in the back of Blades in the Dark as an example of some procedural generation that acts as a starting point for creating content. But things like that (and a book of randomized PC backgrounds) are all I've seen in that regard. Maybe you could go further with it but honestly doing it for one area of one campaign with no story events sounds pretty hard and doing it for arbitrary campaigns and somehow working in story stuff

Also the bit about the bandage is a joke, I think everyone knows that.


Note: I have just addressed the problem on the "micro" level - how individual encounters flow, you have pointed out that the problem can be worse on the "macro" level - how an entire campaign flows; this is something I need to go away and think about, but is, to a degree, sandbox versus story-path.Yeah that is actually the level I am worried about. And there are things you can do to lessen the problem (tools above and practice below) but none of them seem to have the same effect as just starting with a simpler base.


Wait, please elaborate on how a rules light system is superior?It's not. The trade-offs strike my fancy more often then the other way around. Unless we count the times I go so far the other way it takes me out of table top games entirely. Actually I'm not even sure one should count rules-light games in general, but the dynamic story where no one truly knows what is going to happen next because everyone is shaping it is my favourite thing about role-playing games.

Maybe I should of used the preparation comparison more (The Pain of Preparation) but paragraph three is about why on the fly stuff doesn't count. Also while that kind of content creation may be possible in rules-heavy games the fact the skill floor for it is so much higher is a problem. Sure you can put in the work to get that good and that is commendable but that still takes time and energy not everyone has to give.

NichG
2020-10-31, 09:09 AM
For D&D I just try to have a general sense of how a certain amount of HP or AC or saving throws would 'feel' at different levels, and then I'll design things completely on the fly around that. So this is some high level legendary warrior? They'll need abilities so lets call this a ToB-type initiator character with what will end up being custom maneuvers. Probably needs around 150hp, should be hitting stuff with a +25 net bonus unbuffed, AC around 25 where a significant portion of that - lets say 8 points - is coming from dodge-type stuff, saves in the +18 range, and forget about skills/etc unless they come up.

The character needs about 3 offensive gimmicks and 3 defensive gimmicks:

For offense lets say a big scary status condition thing that consumes their entire attack sequence but has bad effects even on a successful save (something like a single-target full action attack that inflicts Paralysis for 1d3 rounds on a failed Fortitude save and Slowed for 1d3 rounds even on a successful save, but just normal damage); a shotgun strike swift action Boost that lets them attack everyone within a 30ft radius instead of a single target with a standard attack or attack roll based Maneuver but at the cost of -10 to-hit; an immediate action movement ability that lets them move 40ft in a line but creates a vacuum in their wake, drawing things in from 10ft to either side and causing minor damage on a failed Fortitude save.

For defense lets say Iron Heart Surge as a general 'can play at this level' pick, something that grants a bit of damage backstop in the form of 50% reduction for one round after taking a particularly large blow, and a small flat amount of self-healing whenever they land an attack no matter how much damage is dealt by it which can combo with the inverse power attack thing and the shotgun attack thing.

Theme it all as time manipulation martial arts, and call it a day.

Writing this out took about 10 minutes, so it's not instant, but it's not the end of the world to have to do this once or twice during a session.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-31, 10:46 AM
Here's my experience with 5e D&D, as a forever DM who was frequently (until this year, stupid virus) running 3 campaigns a week.

Worldbuilding: I do this all the time anyway. Even when I don't have campaigns going.
Encounter planning: Takes very little time, because I rarely worry about pushing the envelope of difficulty. Pull some stat blocks from the MM (and other resources) that look about right and are thematic, go with it. Only making battle maps takes time, and that's only because I have to do digital ones in this distanced era. When I was doing it in person, I'd sketch them as we went, completely ad libbing them.
Campaign planning: Not tons of time or effort, because most of that's covered in the worldbuilding and I ad lib the rest of the details. And I don't plan things out more than an arc at a time for the high-level and a session or so for the details I do plan.
Rules rulings: I do these on the fly. I might look something up once every few sessions. DCs are either 10, 15, or 20, with the very occasional 25.

So the key has been for me to have a really solid, really well known (to me) world as a base. I can answer almost any question off my head, because I've spent 6+ years living in the world. If I had to change worlds for every group (that whole "collaborative worldbuilding at session 0" thing), I could never do this and I'd have to use a much more rules-lite system. Which would annoy me in other ways[1].

[1] In grad school I developed what I call the "Law of Conservation of Annoyance". In every system, model, or other constructed paradigm there is a certain amount of annoyance (ie parts of the system that don't work quite right and have to be fudged). Switching systems, models, or paradigms doesn't increase or decrease the total amount of annoyance, but merely shifts it around. Sometimes that's enough if you can push it to where you don't care about it, but it's still there.

Vahnavoi
2020-10-31, 12:46 PM
Oh yeah I was going to talk about the random tables in the back of Blades in the Dark as an example of some procedural generation that acts as a starting point for creating content. But things like that (and a book of randomized PC backgrounds) are all I've seen in that regard. Maybe you could go further with it but honestly doing it for one area of one campaign with no story events sounds pretty hard and doing it for arbitrary campaigns and somehow working in story stuff.

One of the better examples I've seen belongs to Finnish RPG Franchise, Praedor. Specifically, one of its companion books, "Kirottu Kirja" and a decknof custom cards yo go with it.

To be a bit more specific, it has a table for random structures and threats, and a deck of cards to go with it. You can create landmarks in the terrain of a dead megacity by drawing cards from a deck as you go.

Though if you want to go really far back, 1st edition of AD&D had rough rules for procedurally generating dungeon floors as you explore them. A whole genre of computer games, Roguelikes, were basically founded on computerizing and emulating these rules. The contemporary culmination of this process is Dwarf Fortress, which procedurally generates massive worlds and their histories. On the tabletop, various OSR game supplements have less expansive procedures for doing similar things.

Yora
2020-10-31, 02:54 PM
That's one of the really nice things about the Powered by the Apocalypse system. The way it is designed, all the crunch is on the character sheets of the players. It is designed so that the fallout from a failed attempt to deal with a threat can be determined by a judgement call on the spot, based on what is appropriate for the context of the current scene.
All you need to improvise during play is to have an idea for a new threat. You don't need to put together any kind of stats for that threat.

Preparation comes primarily down to thinking in advance about the places the players are like to be visiting, and the people and creatures that could be encountered at those places. You don't need to nail down the specifics, like the numbers of guards, or the exact locations of rooms. But the better you understand what the places are like, and who the people and creatures are and how they think, the easier it gets to create good content on the fly that feels more thought out instead of generic stuff.


Personally, I think two significant parts of the cause of the problem are the SRD and the modern internet, particularly online gaming.
The SRD is a great thing, but to enable to system to be opened up to other publishers, there needs to be clarity on exactly how things work - and that means you need rules for them.
I don't see that as part of the issue. Blades in the Dark has an SRD, while still being a system that has no stats for NPCs, monsters, magic items, and spells. (Only a few suggestions for bombs and poisons, and those are considered setting specific and not part of the SRD.)


It's also a self-created problem. It exists because roleplayers decided procedural generation sucks and that scripted gameplay is where its at.

I blame Dragonlance for 90% of all things that are wrong with most RPGs.

Quertus
2020-10-31, 05:50 PM
I keep struggling to reply to this thread.

So... there's this notion of content that you're prepared to run, and content that you're... not.

Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?

Is the problem that that new content isn't necessarily "CR appropriate"?

Is the problem that "Oh, look, there's a lake of gold just 2 days journey away, suddenly none of the 'fighting over the copper mine' plotline we've been playing makes any sense whatsoever"?

Is the problem that that Dragon 2½ days away, that didn't get generated for another 5 sessions, might have wanted to interact with some of these events?

On the flip side, yes, manually creating content in certain systems *cough* 3e D&D *cough* is rather a pain. No question there. OK, and?

-----

When the PCs unexpectedly decide that they want to talk to a thermonuclear astrophysicist, or come crashing through a random city wall, yes, there is probably a sudden need to generate content mid-session. But I don't see where the challenge there really changes with system.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-10-31, 06:07 PM
I keep struggling to reply to this thread.

So... there's this notion of content that you're prepared to run, and content that you're... not.

Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?

Is the problem that that new content isn't necessarily "CR appropriate"?

Is the problem that "Oh, look, there's a lake of gold just 2 days journey away, suddenly none of the 'fighting over the copper mine' plotline we've been playing makes any sense whatsoever"?

Is the problem that that Dragon 2½ days away, that didn't get generated for another 5 sessions, might have wanted to interact with some of these events?

On the flip side, yes, manually creating content in certain systems *cough* 3e D&D *cough* is rather a pain. No question there. OK, and?

-----

When the PCs unexpectedly decide that they want to talk to a thermonuclear astrophysicist, or come crashing through a random city wall, yes, there is probably a sudden need to generate content mid-session. But I don't see where the challenge there really changes with system.

Generating new content that makes sense isn't something that you can do programmatically. Even procedural generation ends up looking like the same thing after a while and often needs careful curation.

If I wanted a random dungeon crawl, I wouldn't be playing a TTRPG. I want a world that could really be. And that's not something a computer can do.

Cluedrew
2020-10-31, 09:11 PM
I almost think I'm going to have to redo the first post. I feel there is something there, because honestly the biggest fault of every D&D campaign I have ever played (even if they were good overall) is pretty much the same: they were static. People talk about sessions where the campaign was completely derailed and I have played campaigns where that is most sessions. And that is a lot of fun. And not a single D&D campaign I have played was like that. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

I had a few more replies but I ended up cutting them out because they all boiled down to saying the same thing (as in this post or one earlier in this thread) to a different person.


Encounter planning: Takes very little time, because I rarely worry about pushing the envelope of difficulty. Pull some stat blocks from the MM (and other resources) that look about right and are thematic, go with it. Only making battle maps takes time, and that's only because I have to do digital ones in this distanced era. When I was doing it in person, I'd sketch them as we went, completely ad libbing them.Oh yes, there is the next big way to cut out content creation, remade and reused content. Works if you have the right pieces at hand (and if you have enough pieces you probably do). Actually to bring up Blades in the Dark (it's been coming up a lot this thread), it doesn't have any rules to create factions despite a lot of its mechanics being faction based. Partly because they are pretty simple and you could create more. Partly because it gives you a complete listing of every faction in the city as part of the core rules, except the player's.


Except... that seems solvable programmatically - simply having an engine to generate new content would solve this.

So what's the problem?Let me put it this way: Can you put one together for my next campaign?

No I can't tell you what the campaign is going to be the about, I usually decide that as part of session 1 with the players/after seeing their characters. That is all I need for a rules light system to create everything I need on the fly. Can you do the same with a rules heavy system? Taking into account theming, the characters and the kinds of tools they have and the goals they are working towards. Pick any system you like, if you can actually put this tool together I will teach myself to run it to use this tool.

Rynjin
2020-10-31, 09:16 PM
I don't have a tool I use (save the existence of the PFSRD), but yeah I seat-of-the-pants GM for a rules heavy system (Pathfinder) all the time. It's exactly the same as doing it for a rules light system, save that the barrier to entry is higher. "Procedurally generating" content on the fly for your game is one part imagination, two parts system mastery; the more you know the more variables you can input.

For a rules light system, system mastery is, however, orders of magnitude easier than a crunchier system. That is the only appreciable difference between using that GMing style for different RPGs.

Yora
2020-11-01, 04:47 AM
I almost think I'm going to have to redo the first post. I feel there is something there, because honestly the biggest fault of every D&D campaign I have ever played (even if they were good overall) is pretty much the same: they were static. People talk about sessions where the campaign was completely derailed and I have played campaigns where that is most sessions. And that is a lot of fun. And not a single D&D campaign I have played was like that. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

There are scripted campaigns in which the sequence of major scenes and their outcomes are predetermined, and there are campaigns where you "play to see what happens".
Derailing can only happen if there are any rails; that is, a script that tells you how the story plays out. Call it railroad if you want, or don't if you don't. But scripted adventures have been the standard for published D&D since Dragonlance was successful, and World of Darkness since forever.

I would guess 95% of all adventures ever released are scripts for full stories. No matter what happens, the book tells you the exact room where the final showdown will take place, exactly who will be fighting in that fight. And the same for all the other major encounters during the adventure or even entire campaign. And nobody ever really considers it a possibility thst the PCs might get defeated at some point. The players might get some options to save an NPC or not, decide what faction they want to ally with for a major fight, and little things like that. But still, the book tells you where, when, and who you will be fighting for the showdown.

Since virtually all adventures you can buy are like this, most people think this is the only way to run adventures. The rulebooks might give some lip service to telling GMs they can and should run their games interactively and responding to players' actions, but the adventures then just completely ignore it.

Spiderswims
2020-11-02, 04:13 PM
Well, my question is: What is it about the game that makes you feel it's static?

I guess your not talking about the programed path (ok, we need to find all five element idols to defeat the demon), right?

By static, I'd guess you mean the game does not move or do anything new or exciting?

I might add this might be a bit on the player(s). When the players just have their characters stand around, nothing much happens in the game.

-----

Then I think you might be stuck in the rut that a campaign must be about something. Why? That is not true.

icefractal
2020-11-02, 07:46 PM
Content is always the hard part, and there's no easy solution AFAICT.

Create it well in advance:
* Potential wasted effort.
* Can lead to inflexibility / railroading.

Create it shortly in advance (like, each session establish what the PCs will do next session, then prep accordingly):
* Requires prep time between every session.
* Still can lead to inflexibility although not as likely to.

Improvise on the fly:
* Mentally demanding, in a different way than prep is.
* Quality is highly variable.
* Easy to accidentally "soft railroad" by having all paths lead to the same result.

Procedural generation:
* It's not a silver bullet; as anyone who's flown around Minecraft in creative mode can attest, after a while of seeing the same procedurally generated landscapes they all start looking the same.
* Usually it just gives a seed to improvise from, so it has the same potential issues as improvising on the fly.

Whether prep or improv counts as "more work" is something that varies between individual GMs. For me personally, I find stuff like PbtA freeing, but also ****ing exhausting after a while of running it, so more often I stick to preparing stuff at least a bit in advance.

Also, I wouldn't say you can't improv in crunchy systems. It's harder in some cases, but for example when the PCs go somewhere like a large city, I'm not statting every NPC there individually! Instead what I do is figure out what the skill bonuses for "average professional" / "expert" / "best in the city" would be, and apply that accordingly. So say they try to use a forged document to scam the Shipwrights Guild. That's one of the larger guilds, and while not specializing in contracts they do deal with them, so they're going to have at least an "expert" appraiser scrutinizing it, but not quite "the best in the city".

Also, the humble d6. If a detail I hadn't thought about comes up, sometimes I'll just roll a d6 for it - 1 is the least favorable for the PCs, 6 is the most favorable. How well this works depends on how good your sense of what's plausible works out. For example, the PCs want to break into a noble's greenhouse. How guarded is it? 1 wouldn't be "guarded by a hundred 20th level Wizards" because that's dumb, but it would mean "regularly patrolled by the best guards he has working for him", and 6 would be "rarely patrolled, sometimes left unlocked". It's not really a content creation tool though, it's more like a 'break myself out of accidental mental ruts' device.

...

New high-op challenge - break into a greenhouse which is guarded by one hundred 20th level Wizards. :smallbiggrin:

Cluedrew
2020-11-03, 10:18 PM
I've been a bit quiet because I've (been busy and) had to reflect on some things it might be a constructed thing... an least in part.


I guess your not talking about the programed path (ok, we need to find all five element idols to defeat the demon), right?

By static, I'd guess you mean the game does not move or do anything new or exciting?Your guess is wrong but I have been kind of vague about it. By static I mean events early in the game don't "really" effect later parts of the campaign. Not in the sense that everything is random and unconnected but in that all the reasonable outcomes are accounted for and will lead you down the path. A path that might be a lot wider than a railroad but still would play out quite similarly no matter what party you put down at the beginning. Pretty much every pre-made adventure without a bunch of branching paths will by its nature have this... problem (except maybe sandboxes that aren't formatted with a main sequence of events).

And maybe I shouldn't say problem but missed opportunity. Because although that path is wider than it is in computer it still isn't anywhere as near as broad as it can be and I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.


New high-op challenge - break into a greenhouse which is guarded by one hundred 20th level Wizards. :smallbiggrin:I'm going to need all the anti-magic.

Xervous
2020-11-04, 08:07 AM
.

I'm going to need all the anti-magic.

But that unseals the rifts to the far realm! The wizards keep the place under positive pressure via called air elementals to ensure nothing gets through to our side in case of a containment failure.

Pleh
2020-11-04, 08:34 AM
I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.

Sounds like you're advocating Player Generated Content. The GM is expected to run the game based on how the players choose to interact with the game.

In essence, this is handled by GMs with improv. This is not a failure of any system, but a failure with every system.

In order to leave the player input prompt truly blank and open to being filled with any conceivable response, the GM must be either prepared for every conceivable response, or highly skilled at improvising.

Beyond procedural generation, I've seen a few mobile app games that use AI for a text based RPG. It's like a step above procedural generation, because it's like procedural generation that is drawing from examples of handcrafted roleplay to improvise similar content.

Because at the end of the day, you can't really escape the need for content. If you manage to free your game of content dependency, you have a game where the players sit in an empty void in which nothing ever happens or can happen. All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.

It's not really a curse. It's just a fundamental premise of the game.

King of Nowhere
2020-11-04, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE=Cluedrew;24785956
And maybe I shouldn't say problem but missed opportunity. Because although that path is wider than it is in computer it still isn't anywhere as near as broad as it can be and I like playing games where if anyone (any PC or the GM's responses) were replaced with someone else the game would not be the same in significant ways.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see what that has to do with d&d 3.5.
this problem is there in any game, if you want to go in the uncharted part of the map the dm will honestly tell you that he hasn't created content there and please don't go. or maybe he will concoct some half-assed stuff on the fly, which won't be particularly good because improvisation.
happens the same if you're in a rules heavy system or in freeform. and in rules heavy systems, at least you have some boundaries for what you can expect

Spiderswims
2020-11-04, 01:15 PM
Your guess is wrong but I have been kind of vague about it. By static I mean events early in the game don't "really" effect later parts of the campaign..

I'm not really following this at all. You seem to be talking about railroading, or at least an adventure path....but you don't say that, so maybe your not? Unless your game is just a random hex crawl, there has to be some sort of path.

And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take.


All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.

This is one of the basic things GMs do. Though I'd also add the skill of side trek. If the PCs really do a 180 or something, the GM just needs to toss out a side trek for them to do. Side Treks used to be in old Dungeon magazine, but you can find plenty free ones online too. They are simple and direct, but can still take an hour or more to play out. More then enough time for a GM to make something up, or for the game to end for the night.

Pex
2020-11-04, 01:50 PM
Risking making a man of straw, sounds to me you want to play a game without rules making everything up on the fly. One can do that. I tried that once. Never again. It's fine as far as your taste goes for you, but I like content. I want the stuff that gets plugged in and buttons to push to make things happen. It's all glorified Make Believe Cops & Robbers, but content is needed to prevent I shot you! No you didn't! debates. The fun is in the game mechanics, and roleplaying takes care of the rest.

Cluedrew
2020-11-04, 07:19 PM
All you can really do is learn to become skilled at making content, whether by preparing it in advance, improvising it on the spot, programming a computer to procedurally generate content, or teaching an AI to improvise content.I will forward there is a second approach, design a system that it is easy to create content for. There by lowering the skill required to make content. As an individual player it is probably way more work but as a game designer you could make the same level of improvisation a lot more accessible. Not universal, people still have to figure out what goes there at a high level, but you can make the mechanical implementation easier.


And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take.Correct, which is why I propose the following solution: Create content* only for the actions the characters take. But to do this you have to be able to generate all the content in the window between the decision and when you see the... location, encounters or characters introduced because of that decision. In a sense all I am saying is there is value in a system that helps you do that.


Risking making a man of straw, sounds to me you want to play a game without rules making everything up on the fly.I'm not going that far** here I would like to draw a line between structure and content. So a resolution mechanic is a system, rules for what stats a character has are a system or an attribute a spell can have is (part of) a system. On the other hand a map is a piece of content, a character with a filled out stat line or a custom spell is a piece of content. I feel like I should be able to rattle off dictionary definitions for these but I can't quite think of them right now, but does that help?

* I think I am going to give up on the old content divide. Or at least come back with new terms.

** At this time. I have in the past done role-playing that borders on collaborative writing exercise and it is fun but also definitely a different beast. Maybe I should

Pex
2020-11-04, 10:01 PM
To a lesser extent there is Theater of the Mind combat, which I do like and run as DM. Characters and monsters have their specific abilities, but you don't worry about the details of who is where and how far. Your targets just have to be close enough and not worry about if exactly within 30 ft. It's enough to say you Move to ensure you get in range or out of range of something as needed. Positioning of Area Effect spells only matter by saying of course you avoid hitting party members.

If you're not careful an unintended breaking of the rules can happen. I made that mistake recently. In one combat I let every individual party member Move to attack a monster when feasibly they couldn't all have room to do so, not even to surround it. The monster happened to have a breath weapon, and I used it against everyone. A player correctly questioned being able to get everyone since it's a cone, but I ruled since I let everyone be able to get an attack in when normally they couldn't it was a fair exchange. If I used a grid not everyone could attack it directly and not everyone would be hit with the breath weapon. They all Moved to be in melee area. If anyone had stayed back to attack with range or do something else they would not have been in the breath weapon, but no one stayed back.

SonglessBard
2020-11-04, 11:06 PM
This a curious conundrum to have since I don't have much experience with things feeling static. I am a DM (DnD 3.5 & 5) who generally runs a strong sandbox in well-defined world (Think 15-20 pages of lore and a MS paint map).

In my first long-form campaign, the PC's started the game by burning down a merchant's vessel, killing a prominent local politian (well-known for his corruption), and generally dismantling the port's commercial district. They prompty fled into a kingdom preparing for war instead of pursuing the other plot hooks (A vampire necromancer threatening the north, a powerful fleet of slaving pirates known as the Black Sword, and a once powerful politician revealed to be high priest of the trickster god.

An organization named the Black Sword took over the region in the chaos. Meanwhile, they found a cult offering refuge from the way by way of joining with the Gilded God, a lead on the missing prince (who could end the war, and local emissaries for either faction. They elected to find the prince, cure the ailment that sent him into hiding, and revive an earth titan that ensured he would retain his throne. By now the Black Sword was expanding, taking over bridges and threatening towns, including a few favored NPCs. Similarly, entire villages were uprooting themselves after being swayed by the Gilded God Cult which tied into 2 PC backstories. They had their allies protect the kingdom while they went to challenge the Black Sword.

Their preservation of the kingdom's unity led to their readied armies crushing the undead horde from the north but the Gilded God gained more ground. When they defeated the Black Sword, they decided to run off to a previously unexplored region of the world that gave insight into the realm of gods and the heaven and subsequently chose to come back to face off against a half-born avatar of the Gilded God, ending the campaign.

Almost all my dnd campaigns are similar to this in terms of having their pick of 3-5 plot arcs at a time. The world moves and the lore updates at the end of every plot arc (assuming they finish them). The PCs have exactly as much impact as the depth of the world allows and greater investment from players makes each piece more meaningful.

I have also run homebrew rules light systems over a deep well of lore, allowing players to explore Victorian London filled with the paranormal or a campy, "zany" space bounty hunters where the entire point of the game is to get out of debt while having fun. These games are focused on what the players find interesting. Finding threads that these things tie into a tapestry and electing to cut them or pull them only to delight in a wrinkle or a tear later on.

The game matters but I do not understand your curse of content. My players can't do anything but if they ask to do something the rules don't provide for (popping pocorn in magical fire as a combat distraction), I simply make a ruling.

But I somewhat feel like I am misunderstanding your arguement.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-04, 11:26 PM
I am a DM (DnD 3.5 & 5) who generally runs a strong sandbox in well-defined world (Think 15-20 pages of lore and a MS paint map).


Looks at my world, thinks "maybe I've over-prepared?" :smallbiggrin:

Pleh
2020-11-05, 06:17 AM
I will forward there is a second approach, design a system that it is easy to create content for. There by lowering the skill required to make content. As an individual player it is probably way more work but as a game designer you could make the same level of improvisation a lot more accessible. Not universal, people still have to figure out what goes there at a high level, but you can make the mechanical implementation easier.

I'm curious. How do you do this beyond adding random content tables to the book?

Just exactly what kind of content should systems have that makes it easier for you to develop content?

Vahnavoi
2020-11-05, 08:48 AM
And any module has to have a path as they can only have so much content. They can't make 50,000 page modules for every action a PC might or might not take..

This makes my head hurt... an obvious retort would be that there's a lot of room between "a path" and "50,000 page module", such as, maybe, a module that has two paths, or three...

But there's a more fundamental issue here. Consider Chess. The basic rules of Chess don't include an exhaustive exploration of every move (I don't even know what that number would be) one could make in Chess. No-one needs that to play Chess. You only need to know how the pieces can move on the board so you can arrive at the next game state.

So it is for roleplaying games. To have a lot of possible solutions, a module only needs a well-defined beginning state and some rules for how entities in the module would react to player action. And then when players take some action, you derive the mext state and reapply those same rules. So on and so forth until you reach an acceptable end state.

Case in point...


Unless your game is just a random hex crawl, there has to be some sort of path.

"Random hexcrawl" is an example of how to set up a game that doesn't have a path, but instead, has many paths. So are all map-based adventures, you don't need to confine yourself to a hex grid.

As long as 1) you can approach a game object from multiple directions and 2) the direction makes a difference, you have a game scenario with multiple paths through it. This is very basic, people. Basic board games manage this. Basic videogames manage it. Super Mario Bros. from 1985 has less railroading in it than many adventure modules, and it's a 2D platformer that only goes from left to right!

Yora
2020-11-05, 10:45 AM
I'm curious. How do you do this beyond adding random content tables to the book?

Just exactly what kind of content should systems have that makes it easier for you to develop content?

Speaking from personal experience, probably the worst case for how you can stat an NPC are all games base on the d20 SRD, like D&D 3rd edition.

As GM, you decide you want an NPC who is a Fighter5/Rogue5, and you want full stats for him so that you can properly run him if the players decide to pick a fight with him. The rules for assigning skill points and gaining feats are designed for PCs who advance one level at a time every three or four play sessions. You can't rally make a 10th level NPC. You have to make a 1st level NPC, then level him up to 2nd level, then to 3rd level, and so on. And then you might realize you can't get the required prerequisites for the feat combination you like with this setup, and so you have to start the whole process over and over again.
And you can easily get into situations where you end up doing 6 NPCs or more for every game session.

Say you want to set up an encounter with goblins, but they are elite goblins with 2 levels of rogue. And you have to go through the same process.

Even worse is when the players take the action in unexpected directions and decide they want to fight NPCs that you did not expect to get into a fight and so you have not prepared stats for them. Making them up in 5 minutes is impossible.

Other systems have stats for NPCs that are much simpler than for PCs, or follow completely different rules. In some cases you only need two or three numbers to sufficiently stat an NPC for a confrontation, which you can make up on the spot in 5 seconds.

Spiderswims
2020-11-05, 11:48 AM
This makes my head hurt... an obvious retort would be that there's a lot of room between "a path" and "50,000 page module", such as, maybe, a module that has two paths, or three...

I'd say most good modules do have two or three paths, but still that is only three paths at the most really. As a publisher, I can tell you every page counts and cost money. That three path module is 64 pages, but they your publisher tells you that you only have 32 pages, or 27 pages counting maps and artwork. So now you have to make that module just one path.




But there's a more fundamental issue here. Consider Chess. The basic rules of Chess don't include an exhaustive exploration of every move (I don't even know what that number would be) one could make in Chess. No-one needs that to play Chess. You only need to know how the pieces can move on the board so you can arrive at the next game state.

Chess is a bit too complicated for most people to grasp, but there is a very limited and set number of moves: in fact there is an exact number of move by move games of Chess that can be player ever. And the average Chess computer program knows them all.

A better more human example would be Tic Tack Toe. There are only a couple moves, and the basic move is just block the other player from winning: just about all games are a draw.




So it is for roleplaying games. To have a lot of possible solutions, a module only needs a well-defined beginning state and some rules for how entities in the module would react to player action. And then when players take some action, you derive the mext state and reapply those same rules. So on and so forth until you reach an acceptable end state.

The occasional module does try this, but it's not too popular for the simple reason that it does not work for most GMs. A lot of GMs can't build off a list of information, and this is very nearly true of all new and inexperienced GMs. They need the module to show them the path.




Correct, which is why I propose the following solution: Create content* only for the actions the characters take. But to do this you have to be able to generate all the content in the window between the decision and when you see the... location, encounters or characters introduced because of that decision. In a sense all I am saying is there is value in a system that helps you do that.


I'm not sure this is much of a problem or a curse. ancient Gygax Advise from long ago is to create content that can be slipped into a running game as needed. Take a couple minutes and you can make some guard or bandit NPC or a lurking monster. Once you have even five basic ones made, you can very easily make them more specialized

And if you play a popular game, like D&D, you can find tons of made content. In the past I used to take content from Dragon and Dungeon magazines, but now a days you can find tons of content online. you can take it and use it as is, or change it up some to fit whatever you need.

And you can always stall to make up new content. Just put something in the game that will take up the players attention and game time.

If it really comes down to it, you can just pause the game too. Do something else or play another game. Most players will understand.

Democratus
2020-11-05, 01:12 PM
Chess is a bit too complicated for most people to grasp, but there is a very limited and set number of moves: in fact there is an exact number of move by move games of Chess that can be player ever. And the average Chess computer program knows them all.

Not exactly true.

Most chess programs use much more simplistic, branching tree approaches based on the current state of the board. The most sophisticated programs use state-goal dynamics to try and achieve a win state.

Are over 69 trillion (69,352,859,712,417) possible chess games. And no computer that I've heard of has ever known them all.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-05, 01:32 PM
Not exactly true.

Most chess programs use much more simplistic, branching tree approaches based on the current state of the board. The most sophisticated programs use state-goal dynamics to try and achieve a win state.

Are over 69 trillion (69,352,859,712,417) possible chess games. And no computer that I've heard of has ever known them all.

And chess is closed. TTRPGs are open. So the number of branches is literally unbounded. And grows combinatorially over time.

Now you can lump a bunch of branches together (if any of {things} happen {do X})...at the cost of reducing the dynamic-ness of the response.

Pre-designed content (adventures) will always be at best branching-linear. And the longer the module, the more linear it has to be (due to that whole combinatorial explosion of possibilities issue). That's the nature of a module that tries to have somewhat of a plot. And even purely sandbox ones have interactions specified--those are going to have to be restricted in range and won't cover everything.

The only real answer is for DMs to be comfortable ad libbing stuff based on their knowledge of the world/scenario. Or have players who have accepted linear adventures. Because linear =/= railroad (nefarious meaning). Having consent in the first place makes all the difference.

Pelle
2020-11-05, 05:46 PM
I will forward there is a second approach, design a system that it is easy to create content for. There by lowering the skill required to make content. As an individual player it is probably way more work but as a game designer you could make the same level of improvisation a lot more accessible. Not universal, people still have to figure out what goes there at a high level, but you can make the mechanical implementation easier.


Making the stat blocks is the easy part, whether it is overly complex and time consuming (like D&D 3.5) or super simple (like picking a rank in Ironsworn). The harder part is to establish what exists in the world fictionwise, i.e. the content. These locations exists, these npcs have these agendas, this is the situation, etc.

What a system needs to be simple to make content for is it needs to be inspiring. As tools for this I like the oracle tables in Ironsworn and the mapping procedures and spark tables in Electric Bastionland.

Yora
2020-11-06, 03:56 AM
The only real answer is for DMs to be comfortable ad libbing stuff based on their knowledge of the world/scenario. Or have players who have accepted linear adventures.

Which is why calling the Gamemaster either Referee or Storyteller is severely misleading.
Both encourage bad practices.

Pleh
2020-11-06, 05:28 AM
Which is why calling the Gamemaster either Referee or Storyteller is severely misleading.
Both encourage bad practices.

Actually, being GM probably is equivalent to being a Referee AND a Narrator, AND an Antagonist, AND a Player (and often more than these, too).

It's not that GMs aren't these things that is misleading. It's the oversimplification of not including various other hats they wear that causes the misconception. Good GMing is about proficiency in all the hats you wear, and knowing which hats are most needed at any given moment while the game is going.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-06, 11:08 AM
Actually, being GM probably is equivalent to being a Referee AND a Narrator, AND an Antagonist, AND a Player (and often more than these, too).

It's not that GMs aren't these things that is misleading. It's the oversimplification of not including various other hats they wear that causes the misconception. Good GMing is about proficiency in all the hats you wear, and knowing which hats are most needed at any given moment while the game is going.

Yeah. Being a (D&D, as that's all I know directly) DM is a dance. You're in many roles, and context switching is a pain. But IMX, the real key is to relax and figure out that it's mostly transparent to the group. Be there, know your group, have fun, help the players have fun. Don't let them get bogged down[1]--keep things moving along in some direction. All the details and discrete roles we obsess about are froth on the wave.

[1] where the definition of bogged down will vary strongly between groups. Hence the need to know the group.

Vahnavoi
2020-11-06, 02:48 PM
And chess is closed. TTRPGs are open. So the number of branches is literally unbounded. And grows combinatorially over time.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. It's really at the root of the issue that a lot of real living humans don't have inexhaustible imagination, so when they serve as GMs, they end up creating a rather strictly bounded scenario that's presented with trappings of an unbounded one. Hence, in practice, teaching these people to make better closed scenarios will be step one to helping them make more dymamic games.

(IIRC, the simplest unbounded games are something like tic-tac-toe on an unlimited board, or Angel versus Devil.)


Now you can lump a bunch of branches together (if any of {things} happen {do X})...at the cost of reducing the dynamic-ness of the response.

Convergence happens naturally in real dynamic systems. It's better to think of this in terms of feedback loops, where some game choices lead to a negative spiral which eventually leaves just one possible outcome, while others lead to positive spirals where actions generate new possible actions.

Existing negative examples include "death spirals" in systems with wound penalties, which make getting wounded easier, leading to more penalties, until death is all but certain.

Existing positive examples include wealth and experience gain in old D&D and clones, where getting more wealth gets you more experience, which leads to increased character power, which leads to even greater wealth, continuing until some cap or diminishing returns are reached.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-06, 04:03 PM
In theory, yes. In practice, no. It's really at the root of the issue that a lot of real living humans don't have inexhaustible imagination, so when they serve as GMs, they end up creating a rather strictly bounded scenario that's presented with trappings of an unbounded one. Hence, in practice, teaching these people to make better closed scenarios will be step one to helping them make more dymamic games.

(IIRC, the simplest unbounded games are something like tic-tac-toe on an unlimited board, or Angel versus Devil.)


Two different groups running the same module with the same DM will result in situations that (barring hard railroads) differ in material aspects. Yes, the outcomes will be similar, but will not be the same. And that's before we take into consideration different settings and different DMs and homebrew. When I say unbounded, I mean it. You cannot pre-generate all the combinations, and, unlike chess, the number of possible microstates is not bounded above at the beginning of the game. During a chess match, every move reduces the remaining valid decision tree. In a TTRPG, each move may increase or decrease the size of the tree, or completely obliterate and remake the entire tree. And the interactions aren't limited just to the rules--people can interact with a TTRPG in ways that are not covered in the rules. Also unlike chess.

Oh, and people are way more sensitive to differences in microstates in a narrative than they are in a game like chess. If at one point the party does something and the NPC gains a scar as a result, he darn well better have a scar later unless explicit steps are taken to reset that state. TTRPGs are path-dependent and time-varying rule-sets. Since the rules can change at any time, so can the valid decision tree. Which means that no a priori calculation can determine a fixed number of possible microstates for the game. Thus, unbounded.

And this means that any module that has more than one "step" has to prune the results before hand (which isn't a feedback loop because it is independent of what the characters did). Or rely on the person running it to keep things in sync. Because even keeping track of the major changes well exceeds the capability of a writer and a publisher.

I do agree that we could write better modules. But procedural generation/random tables ain't the way to go. Because, frankly, those stink as content generation. The results always have to be heavily pruned to make them match the established fiction, which basically means you're rewriting your content generation tables every time you have to generate content. Or accepting that this procedurally-generated scenario just doesn't make any sense.

Procedural generation trades fidelity for simplicity. And in a TTRPG, at least for me, fidelity is more important.

And no change will help those too lazy/rushed to actually do it themselves, because the current setup (very linear paths) is basically at the optimum there for ease of use. With extreme costs, however. Which is why I don't use modules/pre-written paths at all. Everything I do is done fresh using the published stat blocks as starting points. But not every is willing to do that.

Beyond that, there are a lot of people who want linear plots. They want to be told what to do and where to go next. I've seen it myself, and reviews of some of the 5e modules (which universally panned the more sandboxy elements as being confusing and pointless) bear that out that it's a large-scale thing. That has to be considered as well at the designer level. Not at the individual game level, because I only have to worry about my table. But the game developers have to account for it if they want to sell product.

The better way, IMO, is to push a simultaneous emphasis on
a) knowing the world you're working in very very well. To the point you can make up consistent answers without having to look things up.
b) realizing that the details really don't matter that much. No one will notice or care if you re-use that stat block with only a few changes and don't fill out all the feats and skill proficiencies (3e D&D). No one will notice or care if you change your mind half way through the plot, as long as you make the juncture flow naturally. So focus on those parts and running the game and let content flow from the world and the scenario.

Pleh
2020-11-06, 04:12 PM
In theory, yes. In practice, no. It's really at the root of the issue that a lot of real living humans don't have inexhaustible imagination, so when they serve as GMs, they end up creating a rather strictly bounded scenario that's presented with trappings of an unbounded one. Hence, in practice, teaching these people to make better closed scenarios will be step one to helping them make more dymamic games.

This seems to miss the point.

I can't legally choose to move any chess piece however I want. Each piece can only make a number of legal moves at any given time. There is a definitely finite number of games of chess. But there isn't a hard limit on the number of ideas humans could have. Ideas are abstract and have very few boundaries.

Now, the subset of ideas that are useful for TTRPGS will be much smaller, so much of the question is how to sift through the surplus of options to obtain an idea that is worth capitalizing on.

The real reason human creativity *seems* limited is because humans really like patterns. We like good callbacks and references between mediums and most RPGs are deliberately trying to recreate worlds we like from other fiction mediums.

This point where we deliberately seek to recreate something that already exists gives the human creativity the seemingness of limits it doesn't actually have.

Cluedrew
2020-11-07, 06:21 PM
Making the stat blocks is the easy part, whether it is overly complex and time consuming (like D&D 3.5) or super simple (like picking a rank in Ironsworn). The harder part is to establish what exists in the world fictionwise, i.e. the content. These locations exists, these npcs have these agendas, this is the situation, etc.

What a system needs to be simple to make content for is it needs to be inspiring. As tools for this I like the oracle tables in Ironsworn and the mapping procedures and spark tables in Electric Bastionland.I don't think it matters which is harder because we can do things to make either easier. And making one easier also frees up time and energy for the other. So whichever is harder (and I think that can change depending on one's skill set and the situation, although generally I think I agree with you) I think there is value in making both easier for people.

Most of this thread is making the implementation step easier, but inspiration can also be helped along. Examples, prompts and random tables seem to be the main ways systems do it.

There is a system called Electric Bastionland? Never heard of it... its pretty rare a system I don't know comes up at this point, all the systems people around the form like seem to have been mentioned.


Which is why calling the Gamemaster either Referee or Storyteller is severely misleading.
Both encourage bad practices.Even the term game master has some problems. It might just be a too complicated to wrap up in a simple title. Unless you created a new word and that would get even less across at first.


In theory, yes. In practice, no. It's really at the root of the issue that a lot of real living humans don't have inexhaustible imagination, so when they serve as GMs, they end up creating a rather strictly bounded scenario that's presented with trappings of an unbounded one. Hence, in practice, teaching these people to make better closed scenarios will be step one to helping them make more dymamic games.I don't think that matters. Inexhaustible imagination or no all that really matters is that you can come up with an idea when the situation changes in a way you did not expect. I mean the last great campaign I ran I don't think I could - actually I know I can't because I would get board and stop - create an infinite list of ways the campaign would go. But I didn't have to, because I just accepted it could go anyway, pitched it at the players and then figured out what to do with their response. My imagination was not exhausted because it kept getting more … food/fuel from the events in the game. In fact that is the purpose of doing it on the fly, because even if you can imagine infinite situations your ability to record, organize and prepare for them all is not.

Yes feedback loops do exist, I don't understand the connection to campaign design you are trying to make. Why would "closed scenarios" be better practice for a dynamic game than a dynamic game? Are you just trying to avoid analysis paralysis?

Vahnavoi
2020-11-08, 04:16 AM
@PhoenixPhyre: your extended explanation of what unbounded means was unnecessary - I already knew it and agree that most RPGs are, theoretically, unbounded. What I said is that in practice, this does not hold, and what you call "hard railroading" is an example of it not holding.

Your opinions about procedural generation I do not share, I frequently use and see it used to build games that work better than your average railroad or linear module. If you're willing to take a look into the realm of computer games, Dwarf Fortress puts what most living GMs could do into shame. Now, you can't backport most of its processes to tabletop - they're too heavy - but it ought to demonstrate how many of your problems with procedural generation stem just from assumed lack of quality in the process.

Now, I can agree that some people want to play and run mostly linear games, but that goes back to what I said: these people are basically running closed games so you can help them by helping them make better closed games. Those who are too lazy or too rushed to do any better aren't of interest to me. (Not that I think current mainstream modules are optimally designed even for them.)

@Pleh: Real, individual humans don't have "seeming" limitations - they have actual, hard limitations. And even relatively simple games such as Chess routinely escape these limitations - a living human can imagine the state of a Chess board only few moves ahead.

But as we all know, you don't need to be able to imagine even a good fraction of all possible games of Chess to efficiently play it - you only need to know how the pieces move so you can construct the next game state. You can do the same in RPGs. Give a GM a proper algorithm about some aspect of the game, and they can tell how that aspect ought to progress, even if they never imagined it before and no-one had written it out for them.

It's the systematized version, of this:


. My imagination was not exhausted because it kept getting more … food/fuel from the events in the game.

@Cluedrew: you're confusing "open versus closed" with "dynamic versus static".

Closed games can be dynamic - Chess is dynamic. For the purposes of what I said about feedback loops, the "open versus closed" distinction doesn't matter. I'm saying that when analyzing how player actions cause events to diverge or converge in a game's decision tree, it helps to think of it in terms of feedback loops.

For purposes of designing a game, you're looking at your rules and your scenario and asking where and when player decisions can create these loops. It helps predict where the game could go and, when purposefully designed, which kind of player decisions are self-regulating, self-eliminating or self-amplifying.

EDIT: if you want to visualize this, try drawing a flowchart of a game's process. If you're only drawing decisions as branching outwards, you will quickly run out of room for even a simple game. If you allow branches to converge and form loops, a lot of decisions which would end in "game over" can now be presented in a fairly small space.

Cluedrew
2020-11-08, 06:39 PM
Your opinions about procedural generation I do not share, I frequently use and see it used to build games that work better than your average railroad or linear module. If you're willing to take a look into the realm of computer games, Dwarf Fortress puts what most living GMs could do into shame. Now, you can't backport most of its processes to tabletop - they're too heavy - but it ought to demonstrate how many of your problems with procedural generation stem just from assumed lack of quality in the process.Please, tell me your favourite stories that came from Dwarf Fortress's procedural generated history.


@Cluedrew: you're confusing "open versus closed" with "dynamic versus static".Yeah open vs. closed might not have anything to do with feedback loops but I wasn't talking about feedback loops. I was talking about how infinite vs. finite is not as significant as you might think A) because a lot of finite situations are so big we will never explore it all anyways and B) many options can be very similar to each other. Whatever words you do I just don't think a choice where the options are roughly the same isn't as interesting as a choice with radically different options even if they aren't as many in the second case.


"]Closed games can be dynamic - Chess is dynamic. For the purposes of what I said about feedback loops, the "open versus closed" distinction doesn't matter. I'm saying that when analyzing how player actions cause events to diverge or converge in a game's decision tree, it helps to think of it in terms of feedback loops.

For purposes of designing a game, you're looking at your rules and your scenario and asking where and when player decisions can create these loops. It helps predict where the game could go and, when purposefully designed, which kind of player decisions are self-regulating, self-eliminating or self-amplifying.

EDIT: if you want to visualize this, try drawing a flowchart of a game's process. If you're only drawing decisions as branching outwards, you will quickly run out of room for even a simple game. If you allow branches to converge and form loops, a lot of decisions which would end in "game over" can now be presented in a fairly small space.Wait, by negative and positive feedback loops to your mean converge and diverge? Or those would be the words I would use here. Do you mean come back do where you were or multiple ways (vs. the lack their of) to reach the same situation.

Pleh
2020-11-08, 10:15 PM
@Pleh: Real, individual humans don't have "seeming" limitations - they have actual, hard limitations. And even relatively simple games such as Chess routinely escape these limitations - a living human can imagine the state of a Chess board only few moves ahead.

But as we all know, you don't need to be able to imagine even a good fraction of all possible games of Chess to efficiently play it - you only need to know how the pieces move so you can construct the next game state. You can do the same in RPGs. Give a GM a proper algorithm about some aspect of the game, and they can tell how that aspect ought to progress, even if they never imagined it before and no-one had written it out for them.

I think you're getting lost in the fancy abstract concepts.

The reality is that Chess is evaluated by algorithms because its parameters are so well defined. I assume this is what we mean by Chess being *closed*.

By contrast, TTRPGs aren't natively so well defined. You can constrain them to make them work with such algorithms, but when you do, that game loses things based on your constraints.

Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft could be considered similar to a Random Hexcrawl style TTRPG, where pieces of the map are created by algorithm. But a Random Hexcrawls sacrifice the idea that locations are unique. Their existence stops being based on natural causation, like when you see illogically floating dirt and stone blocks in Minecraft. Taverns stop being a function of a living, breathing community and are plotted based on chance and a formula.

You could alternatively constrain a game to an adventure path. Depending on the nature of the path, it may or may not be possible to extrapolate through algorithms. The more story or character based the path, the less an algorithm will produce a coherent result.

Algorithms are useful when your parameters are well defined, particularly when they are quantifiable.

But TTRPGs are meant to be more organic than well defined, quantifiable games like Chess. Moreso than most games, TTRPGs require creative decision making and can't simply be solved or created by repeated computations.

Sometimes, you have to think outside the box. And algorithms only help you automate the process of building boxes.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-08, 10:38 PM
And algorithms only help you automate the process of building boxes.

I agree with this whole comment, but want to expand on this one line.

One of the challenges of algorithms is that they lock you into a particular mode of thinking that's convenient for computers. And that colors the whole thing. In order to make a better "procedural" game, you have to structure your entire thinking around those procedural "boxes" and parameterizing them. And the end result shows that rigid, computable mindset. And frequently and inevitably produces nonsense. Verisimilitude-shattering nonsense. Because real-seeming cultures, histories, and placement is...illogical to the extreme. And we're very sensitive to these sorts of nonsense. It's far enough into the uncanny valley to trigger all sorts of warning bells.

And even worse, a game that prioritizes algorithmic content is inflexible. You're locked into your tables--the time and effort needed to make them precludes any chance of more organic systems.

Algorithms are decent for first-pass content generation at the highest levels. Making a continent-level map. Placing biomes. Giving ideas. But it always takes a lot of human curation and refinement.

And for things like stat blocks and names? Yeah. No. Not a chance.

-----------

The problem of content exhaustion only comes up when you try to either
a) have a full pre-generated (or self-generating) sandbox.
b) have a pre-planned plot.

So the trick, IMO, is to do neither. Build a world (or steal one and find a corner). Learn that world very well. Then construct a starting scenario, place PCs in it, and build one session at a time. You get all the freedom of a sandbox without having to do all the work ahead of time; you get a coherent plot without railroading or having to deal with all the choices. All you have to do is relax and play it out. Know the people, have basic stat blocks with flexibility, and play.

Of course, this requires a system that doesn't demand exact or exhaustive numerical balance. If I have to build each NPC from scratch or if the system goes off the (numerical) rails outside of a narrow power-matching band, forget it. Not worth it. Having a large library of generic stat blocks and enough flexibility to switch, say, a sword for a spear without having to recalculate everything makes a big difference. And since they're just skeleton stat blocks, not full people, you can ad lib the rest without breaking anything.

Vahnavoi
2020-11-09, 05:30 AM
I think you're getting lost in the fancy abstract concepts.

No, it's the opposite: I'm in relatively hard disagreement with you and PhoenixPhyre about what flesh and blood GMs concretely bring to a game table. We aren't in disagreement over what terms like open versus closed or bounded versus unbounded mean in game design.


The reality is that Chess is evaluated by algorithms because its parameters are so well defined. I assume this is what we mean by Chess being *closed*.

By contrast, TTRPGs aren't natively so well defined. You can constrain them to make them work with such algorithms, but when you do, that game loses things based on your constraints.

The underlined part is what I'm contesting her. We are talking about constructive algorithms here - when you say the game "loses things" you are presuming a GM could construct everything the algorithm is supposed to and more in absence of it. When a GM might simply not have the capacity to do what the algorithm does, meaning the algorithm is actually adding to a game.

You're looking at this like a master sculptor, seeing myriad forms inside a block of marble, weeping with every stroke of the hammer because it excises some of those potential forms from existence. I'm trying to remind you that a rank beginner will only sed a stupid block of stone and won't get anything done with it without step-by-step instructions.


Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft could be considered similar to a Random Hexcrawl style TTRPG, where pieces of the map are created by algorithm. But a Random Hexcrawls sacrifice the idea that locations are unique.

Whatever idea of "uniqueness" you're appealing to is almost bound to not matter. Point one, it's fairly easy to make indivual combination in a generator rare enough that players will see it only once in a session, or even just once in a campaign. Point two, real locations have systemic similarities in them because the real world is governed by systemic processes. They are only "unique" if you focus on fine details while ignoring gross similarities in shape and function. Point three, even in absense of any generators whatsoever, real GMs do not describe every location in unique terms. A house will just be a house and left turn of the road will just be left turn of the road - unique details are only invented if players get particularly inquisitive, because they have limited signifigance to a game.


Their existence stops being based on natural causation, like when you see illogically floating dirt and stone blocks in Minecraft. Taverns stop being a function of a living, breathing community and are plotted based on chance and a formula.

[...]

But TTRPGs are meant to be more organic than well defined, quantifiable games like Chess. Moreso than most games, TTRPGs require creative decision making and can't simply be solved or created by repeated computations.
[...]

Sometimes, you have to think outside the box. And algorithms only help you automate the process of building boxes.


You are falling into a trope here. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMarigolds) Again, real world follows systemics processes, causation by and large is algorithmic, and thus we can create algorithms which are both derived from and descriptive of "living, breathing" things.

On the flipside, real living GMs routinely flub their descriptions and create glitches to which are similar in nature and just as bad as loose floating rocks in Minecraft. Besides, by focusing on those floating rocks, you are ignoring perfectly serviceable hillscapes, islands and caves the same algorithm generates. In short, you are being too generous to humans, and too unfair to Minecraft. A game is a box, and the root of the problem is that a lot of humans don't know how to build one.


You could alternatively constrain a game to an adventure path. Depending on the nature of the path, it may or may not be possible to extrapolate through algorithms. The more story or character based the path, the less an algorithm will produce a coherent result.

Coherent compared to what? A perfect three-act drama? Because there's a specific type of algorithm dedicated to creating those - a script, as in theater. I'm rather specifically concerned with algorithms alternative to strict script-based game design.

---



One of the challenges of algorithms is that they lock you into a particular mode of thinking that's convenient for computers.

Now this is a genuine pitfall for making humanly playable games. For a tabletop game, you want to keep the algorithm light enough that a real human can keep the necessary variables in their head and do the processing in small amount of real time. This said, in a day and age when a lot of players have a minicomputer always at hand, sometimes the right choice is to just use the damn computer.

Case in point:


And for things like stat blocks and names? Yeah. No. Not a chance.

Stat generation is already algorithmized in most game systems and their chief problem is that it's slow to do it by hand. By contrast, these are trivial for a computer to do and spit out ready-to-use statblocks.

Names are even simpler, because real, proper names in natural languages are frequently algorithmically constructed (and kind of dim) and recurring. If you're using real language names in your game, you're better off putting common surnames on a table and using Behind the Name database to randomly pick personal names. The work has pretty much all been done for you by sources like Wikipedia and Behind the Name.

Place names are even easier, because they really are often just nonsense. Real life examples: Pyhäjärvi, Kalajärvi, Vesijärvi, Järvijärvi. These mean, respectively, Holy Lake, Fish Lake, Water Lake and Lake Lake. These are all real place names, with the first one having dozens of examples.

The bar for plausibility here is really, really low.

Pelle
2020-11-09, 05:36 AM
I don't think it matters which is harder because we can do things to make either easier. And making one easier also frees up time and energy for the other. So whichever is harder (and I think that can change depending on one's skill set and the situation, although generally I think I agree with you) I think there is value in making both easier for people.

Most of this thread is making the implementation step easier, but inspiration can also be helped along. Examples, prompts and random tables seem to be the main ways systems do it.


I'm definitely on the rules light side personally to make it overall easier. If you want to run a more complex game, more time to generate the content is just a cost you have to pay, and there's not really much to discuss about it imo.


There is a system called Electric Bastionland? Never heard of it... its pretty rare a system I don't know comes up at this point, all the systems people around the form like seem to have been mentioned.

Electric Bastionland was published this year, and has been quite well recieved, Ennie nominated etc. It's the successor to Into the Odd.

Pleh
2020-11-09, 07:38 AM
The underlined part is what I'm contesting her. We are talking about constructive algorithms here - when you say the game "loses things" you are presuming a GM could construct everything the algorithm is supposed to and more in absence of it. When a GM might simply not have the capacity to do what the algorithm does, meaning the algorithm is actually adding to a game.

No, an algorithm can only do exactly as much as its creator designed it to do. By definition, a human could have done exactly everything any algorithm does by literally just performing the same steps. It literally can't add anything by its very definition.

For example, Rolling Dice is an analog algorithm. We set the parameters (the weight of the dice, the numbering of the sides, how they are rolled, choosing how many of what type are rolled, etc) and we are given a range of possibly outcomes along with the statistical probability of each outcome. This is incapable of giving us new outcomes. The outcomes are already defined by the parameters.

Minecraft isn't going to give us a new biome the programmers didn't design it to put in the game.


You're looking at this like a master sculptor, seeing myriad forms inside a block of marble, weeping with every stroke of the hammer because it excises some of those potential forms from existence. I'm trying to remind you that a rank beginner will only sed a stupid block of stone and won't get anything done with it without step-by-step instructions.

Actually, I'd imagine a rank beginner, as a GM, probably already has an idea of what they would like to sculpt, they just don't really know how to use the tools to make the sculpture look as refined as they imagine it in their mind.

In general, you presume a lot about what other people think. I'm not weeping about anything. I'm just plainly reminding you that if you build a robot to do sculptures for artists who have no skill in sculpting, it doesn't mean they're going to suddenly start making masterpiece sculptures. Photoshop is actually a great example of exactly what happens when you do this. Photoshop doesn't really ADD anything to Drawn Art mediums that weren't there before. It rather shifted the set of skills that artists had to learn away from pencils and brushes towards understanding digital image manipulation techniques.

In short, creating an algorithm doesn't help with mastering the original task at all. It replaces the original tasks you would be performing and saddles the operator with the task of mastering the operation of the Algorithm.

This is the pitfall 3.5e D&D fell into. They made the rules more rigorous than ever with PC and NPC transparency and the game suddenly had a very high dependency on system mastery (even if the floor was fairly low to get into the game, keeping up with the challenge curve required quickly climbing up off the floor).

Instead of getting good at making things with a chisel, you learn how to make the sculpting machine chisel the stone for you. Instead of learning how to draw the picture by pencil, you learn to draw with the mouse. Yes, there are tablets that approximate pen and paper, but there's a good reason this hasn't totally replaced old fashioned drawing techniques.

So this idea that the Algorithms are adding something the GMs couldn't is simply preposterous. What you might be referring to is the tendency for humans to become inspired by the particular quirks of an algorithm's performance and use it to pursue tasks that are more convenient for the algorithm than tasks the original tools the algorithm was meant to replace were meant for. Such as the creation of Digital Artists, who might be actually almost useless with traditional pencils or paint brushes, but create something beautiful on image editing software. This doesn't make them better in any way from counterparts who stick to pencils and paintbrushes and create equally beautiful paintings. But you will notice each style has its own limits that are distinct from one another.


Whatever idea of "uniqueness" you're appealing to is almost bound to not matter. Point one, it's fairly easy to make indivual combination in a generator rare enough that players will see it only once in a session, or even just once in a campaign.

That works for backdrop info, i.e. content that doesn't matter because the players aren't going to investigate it any further. It falls apart the moment the players start poking at it, because it literally is only a backdrop.

Now we're back to square one with the Curse of Content.


Point two, real locations have systemic similarities in them because the real world is governed by systemic processes. They are only "unique" if you focus on fine details while ignoring gross similarities in shape and function.

Sure, but if you're proposing we generate a TTRPG algorithm robust enough to recreate that level of verisimilitude, I'll have to ask exactly how many semesters of academic courses will be needed to teach GMs how to use this algorithm?


Point three, even in absense of any generators whatsoever, real GMs do not describe every location in unique terms. A house will just be a house and left turn of the road will just be left turn of the road - unique details are only invented if players get particularly inquisitive, because they have limited signifigance to a game.

Sure, but the GM will still have some locations that ARE unique, while an algorithm won't. A handcrafted world will have many non unique locations, to be sure, but a world built by an algorithm, by its very nature, won't have any unique locations whatsoever. The GM will have to go in an manually ADD unique locations. That is a big part of my primary concern here.

I have literally run dungeons created by Don Jon random dungeon creators. They are always a serviceable map, but to make it actually viable, I had to go in and do a LOT of editing. There is nothing wrong with going this route, but it's not like I could never have created those dungeons by hand without the generator tool. Would it have turned out different if I hadn't used the tool? Almost surely, since the probability of recreating a random dungeon by hand is remote at best, but the point is that since the Algorithm isn't creating a functionally unique dungeon, the differences between the map it generated and whatever I would have created are moot. That was precisely the advantage of using the generator. I didn't actually care what shape the map was. That particular part didn't need to be unique or distinct from other games. Generic maps were completely serviceable for that game.

But that is the key limitation. Algorithmic creation is fine, when the precise outcome isn't actually important.

Which rather brings us back to what I believe the original point of the thread was. What do you do when the players choose to get inquisitive with the generic backdrop stand-in filler details in your game?

GM skills tell you to improvise. An algorithm can only try to algorithmically generate more content, and there's a reason Minecraft starts to break down and generate more glitches and errors if you walk in a straight line too far.

GMs are better served to have an understanding of the world they are depicting, so they can answer a player's questions with intuition. If they rely on an algorithm to answer all the questions, they might not have the skill to improvise effectively when the algorithm starts throwing nonsense out.

Algorithms can make the game easier when your brain gets tired of creatively thinking, because it takes some of the load off your brain. It's best to still know how to do the whole job manually, so while you use the algorithm to save your strength throughout the session, you know how to patch over the holes when the algorithm occasionally breaks down.


On the flipside, real living GMs routinely flub their descriptions and create glitches to which are similar in nature and just as bad as loose floating rocks in Minecraft.

Yes, mistakes are going to happen whichever way you go. All the more important in my mind to therefore not be too reliant on an algorithm and instead to make sure your GM skills are honed.


Now this is a genuine pitfall for making humanly playable games. For a tabletop game, you want to keep the algorithm light enough that a real human can keep the necessary variables in their head and do the processing in small amount of real time. This said, in a day and age when a lot of players have a minicomputer always at hand, sometimes the right choice is to just use the damn computer.

I often do dream of a TTRPG that comes with a companion app for tracking a game's upkeep. I know lots of these get made by fans, but it would be really nice to have an official one produced by the game designers. D&D Beyond is clearly a step in that direction, but isn't quite fully realized yet.

But all too often, when I'm designing games in someone else's software, I keep running into this same problem: "Wouldn't it be really cool to have X right here? How do I do that? An online search says... download this mod/extension. Okay, what if I try and approximate with the tools I have? It's close-ish, but I can really see where the designers left this great big hole to incentivize me to buy more resource packs from them."

Algorithms are simply no catch all solution for the Curse of Content.

It isn't especially better at preventing nonsensical wrinkles than hand generated content.

It literally can't create something outside the parameters it was designed for. Sure, you can always expand the algorithm to account for more parameters, just like you can design a robot to do anything.

But notice how the more a machine can do, the more the engineers are going to charge you for it, and the higher the learning curve for operating the machine.

Sure, let's just put it on the computer. You have to, because humans can't process algorithms beyond a certain point. Are they going to charge a one time fee, or a monthly subscription? Or will it be a Free App that interrupts your game with ads every other minute?

Don Jon is completely free, but you get what you pay for. Using its maps will teach you new skills in how to curate algorithmically generated content. But the time you spend curating could be spent designing dungeons by hand.

At the end of the day, we haven't resolved the Curse of Content. We've only found another tool that has particular advantages and disadvantages.

In general, I agree that algorithms enhance the game, but only really when the GM needs to create a large quantity of mundane details in a short amount of time. It's easier to go back through and curate those fine details quickly if you're just setting the stage and none of these details have any true significance to the game.

But as soon as you start planning the adventure to depend on certain details, algorithms stop being your friend and just get in the way by filling the space with irrelevant garbage.

Spiderswims
2020-11-09, 01:58 PM
I don't think that matters. Inexhaustible imagination or no all that really matters is that you can come up with an idea when the situation changes in a way you did not expect. I mean the last great campaign I ran I don't think I could - actually I know I can't because I would get board and stop - create an infinite list of ways the campaign would go. But I didn't have to, because I just accepted it could go anyway, pitched it at the players and then figured out what to do with their response. My imagination was not exhausted because it kept getting more … food/fuel from the events in the game. In fact that is the purpose of doing it on the fly, because even if you can imagine infinite situations your ability to record, organize and prepare for them all is not.

Well, you can also limit and even eliminate when the situation changes in a way you did not expect. It takes a fair amount of skill and experience, but it is possible.

The classic silly story is the poor GM who has the would game ruined when the players change things in some way the poor GM did not expect. And, sure, that happens to some new GM for their first couple games. But if you develop some good GMing skills you can make sure it does not happen.

You don't need an infinite list, just what the players will likely think of.

-----


So...robots or programs are not going to replace GMs any time soon. A program can only do what it is programed to do vs people can think of anything.

Worse, programs are programed by people who often are not the inanimate think of anything type of people.

Just take, personified Death. What does that look like? Well, to just about all the Western world they would say 'skeleton in a black cloak with a scythe'. And that is it. Most people have a hard time getting beyond that. There are even popular shows that have a Death character that is something else, and yet fans of such shows will still say
'skeleton in a black cloak with a scythe'. Historically and world wide, Death takes lots of shapes and forms.....yet most people can't see past the Grim Reaper type.

So the above person programing 'Death Character' into a program is going to make it only the Grim Reaper.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-09, 02:46 PM
So...robots or programs are not going to replace GMs any time soon. A program can only do what it is programed to do vs people can think of anything.

Worse, programs are programed by people who often are not the inanimate think of anything type of people.


Yeah. if the game is limited to the content-creation algorithms that the developers come up with, you'd have less content. And less ability for worldbuilders like me (that's 90% of my fun--building a world and letting people do things to it) to depart from the encoded conventions. Because changing code is hard. And often the code encodes fundamental assumptions about how the worlds work that are nearly impossible to work around without rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up.

No code is as flexible as a human mind. And never will be IMO (sorry hard AI proponents--I'll believe it when I see it. But not holding my breath.)

Cluedrew
2020-11-11, 10:01 PM
Well, you can also limit and even eliminate when the situation changes in a way you did not expect. It takes a fair amount of skill and experience, but it is possible.I'm sorry if this wasn't clear but that is exactly the curse of content; making the situation inflexible or "static" to avoid creating more content.


So the above person programing 'Death Character' into a program is going to make it only the Grim Reaper.Really? Death isn't an energetic 12-year old who smiles too much?

Xervous
2020-11-12, 08:01 AM
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear but that is exactly the curse of content; making the situation inflexible or "static" to avoid creating more content.

Really? Death isn't an energetic 12-year old who smiles too much?

Death is a toddler, bound to get into everything at some point, innocent and never judging, eternally young.

Spiderswims
2020-11-13, 01:03 PM
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear but that is exactly the curse of content; making the situation inflexible or "static" to avoid creating more content.

Ok, so that is the problem your talking about. When the players go in a direction and the GM does not want to put the effort into making content for that direction.

I would agree that is a problem, but it's much more of a general GM problem. A GM that does not really want to make content will be a problem at lot during a RPG, no matter how simple it is to make the content. 1E D&D and the OSR games are very easy to make content, but if you have a GM that does not feel like it, it still won't get done. It's more then likely such a GM won't even want to make content even when the PCs stay on the path.

Psyren
2020-11-15, 03:13 AM
And that is the curse of content, the more you depend on content the more the game is reduced to having all the same problems as a computer game; inflexible and preset.

Okay - so I read the OP and most of the responses, and I think I've sussed out the major issue I have with your premise - you haven't actually articulated the problem yet. Or rather, you've highlighted something that seems like a glaring flaw (or "curse" as you put it) to you, but have not done a very good job of explaining why everyone else should care or feel the same way you do about it; I'm guessing this is due it to it feeling so self-evident from your personal perspective.

To elaborate - yes, computer games are inflexible and preset, with a limited number of possible moves and programmed outcomes. So are most board games. Books and movies are even more limited. And in fact, tabletop RPG campaigns can be mostly preset as well, if you're following a module/adventure path/etc. You seem to be implying that "preset = unfun" automatically and thus a problem to be solved, but I'm just not seeing why. Even focusing on just the interactive media, both board games and computer games are considered fun by millions if not billions of people, and form the backbone of massive industries across the globe. And tabletop modules themselves are a prominent (if not the most prominent) product line of the major players in that industry, arguably moreso than the rulesets they also sell.

So if I were to sum up my response to your "problem" in two words - they would be "so what?" Tabletop games that rely on designed content can be just as fun (and I would argue, for most people, moreso) than the ones that are less structured and more freeform. Certainly they are more accessible, which does matter - you could have the holy grail of gaming, but if nobody is willing to play it because they have to assemble all the pieces themselves, then it is still a failure of design.

Yora
2020-11-15, 06:06 AM
I see it as just a very inefficient way to run games. You get a considerably higher amount of work for the GM for a lower payoff.

Why wouldn't everyone want to get more done with less work? Other than stubbornness that the one way they know has to be the best way.

Xervous
2020-11-16, 01:03 PM
I see it as just a very inefficient way to run games. You get a considerably higher amount of work for the GM for a lower payoff.

Why wouldn't everyone want to get more done with less work? Other than stubbornness that the one way they know has to be the best way.

Sometimes it’s more about the journey than the destination.

I want RP and plot and dramatic literary painting of scenery? Free form is absolutely an option. If rules aren’t really important I might just be better served jumping all the way to free form.

I want an environment for developing characters and events with some mechanical consistency for expressing the capabilities of various actors? The framework is part of the goal, not just a tool aiding in the pursuit of the goal. To a point you’ll accept that you don’t find your answers in the book, rather that you get them from the GM. But everyone has their point where they’ll question how well the system is serving them and whether or not it’s already so lite that they shouldn’t just toss the paper mask aside and go full free form.

Cluedrew
2020-11-16, 07:30 PM
Or rather, you've highlighted something that seems like a glaring flaw (or "curse" as you put it) to you, but have not done a very good job of explaining why everyone else should care or feel the same way you do about it; I'm guessing this is due it to it feeling so self-evident from your personal perspective.I didn't explain why everyone should feel this way because I don't believe everyone should. Actually I am not even entirely on side of this back and forth, just mostly. This is my opinion on a matter, what's yours?

I can do a longer response if you like but I felt I should clarify that point.

FabulousFizban
2020-11-16, 08:37 PM
My biggest problem with d&d is that it is a business. As such, they have to continually push new content to maintain revenue, meaning every system gets a parade of increasingly less thought out splat books until it becomes broken and unusable. Then the company just releases a new edition that resets everything to zero and the process begins again.

Imagine if they kept releasing new rules to, and versions of, chess

Ajustusdaniel
2020-11-17, 08:22 AM
My biggest problem with d&d is that it is a business. As such, they have to continually push new content to maintain revenue, meaning every system gets a parade of increasingly less thought out splat books until it becomes broken and unusable. Then the company just releases a new edition that resets everything to zero and the process begins again.

Imagine if they kept releasing new rules to, and versions of, chess

They do! From variants like bughouse- played by four players on two boards, where captured pieces go to your teammate playing on the other board- to using different numbers of pieces like Dunsany's Chess (white's 32 pawns vs Black's normal array)- to inventing new pieces entirely like the Nightrider (moves like a knight, but can make multiple moves in the same direction).

Of course, by and large, only serious chess geeks care about these and they aren't, by and large, inclined to abandon the more standard chess.

At the tournament end, though, there are occasionally rule tweaks, such as going back and forth on the fifty-move rule, or exactly how much time players have and whether that amount is absolute or based on a certain number of moves.

kyoryu
2020-11-17, 10:26 AM
Part of the problem here is the very common fallacy that people play RPGs the same way and for the same reasons.


The only real answer is for DMs to be comfortable ad libbing stuff based on their knowledge of the world/scenario.

(snipped "players comfortable with linear games" but yeah that's super valid).

The way I run, ad-libbing isn't even really based on just the GM's knowledge - it's the frothy intersection of the GM's knowledge of the scenario and the player's goals and ideas.

That's kind of teh secret of ad-libbing most of the time - you're pulling as much from the players as anything else. And then add some randomization for flavor and to help inspire the improvisation and you're golden.

For a certain type of game, of course. That works best for games where the more macro-scale questions are the focus of the game, rather than the micro-level encounter/combat resolution mechanics.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-17, 11:36 AM
Part of the problem here is the very common fallacy that people play RPGs the same way and for the same reasons.



(snipped "players comfortable with linear games" but yeah that's super valid).

The way I run, ad-libbing isn't even really based on just the GM's knowledge - it's the frothy intersection of the GM's knowledge of the scenario and the player's goals and ideas.

That's kind of teh secret of ad-libbing most of the time - you're pulling as much from the players as anything else. And then add some randomization for flavor and to help inspire the improvisation and you're golden.

For a certain type of game, of course. That works best for games where the more macro-scale questions are the focus of the game, rather than the micro-level encounter/combat resolution mechanics.

I basically agree. I do tend to prepare some "fixed content" (moreso now that I have to have digital maps pre-uploaded), but it's pretty generic and only really done on a session-by-session basis. But, as you say, I'm not particularly focused on the combat metagame and providing high-difficulty encounters all the time. So I can get away with using pretty generic stat blocks (just flavored differently) and only have to go to fancy maps when they're dedicated to a particular location (in which case I can focus on that one place). The rest is basically ad-lib.

And I totally agree about pulling from the players as much as anything. I'm not particularly creative in a vacuum, but when I have players to feed (and feed off of) I can really start to get inspired. I inspire their improv; they inspire my improv. I consistently go far afield from my notes because of things they say, do, or focus on.

Psyren
2020-11-17, 11:45 AM
I didn't explain why everyone should feel this way because I don't believe everyone should. Actually I am not even entirely on side of this back and forth, just mostly. This is my opinion on a matter, what's yours?

I can do a longer response if you like but I felt I should clarify that point.

By blanketly labeling it a "curse" or a "problem" - aka something that would be seen as universally or predominantly bad - you are in fact implying everyone should feel this way. You may not have intended that, but the language you chose to use for this is conveying that message.

As for my own opinion - while I acknowledge there are benefits to more freeform and custom/table-driven campaigns, my own preferences lean towards paying for quality game design by folks with the time to dedicate to that. My groups could never run through every module in existence in the limited time we have to play, so there is always something new and exciting to be found in those pages for us. That isn't the case for everyone, and that's okay.

kyoryu
2020-11-17, 03:48 PM
As for my own opinion - while I acknowledge there are benefits to more freeform and custom/table-driven campaigns, my own preferences lean towards paying for quality game design by folks with the time to dedicate to that. My groups could never run through every module in existence in the limited time we have to play, so there is always something new and exciting to be found in those pages for us. That isn't the case for everyone, and that's okay.

Prewritten stuff has the advantage of being able to be really tight in the encounter design. The negative is that the choices the players can make at the overall level are generally more limited.

More on-the-cuff stuff has the exact opposite issue - encounters can get kind of samey in a lot of cases, but what you can do in terms of overall problem solving is greatly enhanced.

It's just a matter of which types of things are more important to you.

Psyren
2020-11-17, 04:22 PM
I don't even see it as being that hard a dichotomy. Prewritten encounters can be quite flexible if you know what you're doing. And unlike CRPGs, there's no barrier of having to program encounters to be modifiable or scalable on the fly - you can just add more monsters or change conditions of a prewritten encounter (to make it harder), or make conditions more favorable / fudge some rolls once the fight is underway (to make it easier).

Cluedrew
2020-11-17, 10:30 PM
By blanketly labeling it a "curse" or a "problem" - aka something that would be seen as universally or predominantly bad - you are in fact implying everyone should feel this way. You may not have intended that, but the language you chose to use for this is conveying that message.OK what if I just used the word "downside" instead? I'm not sure how to turn that into a snappy title but given time I probably could. Are you implying that my games don't have quality game design? Probably not but the point is implications are everywhere.

Still wording aside I would change that opening post a lot now because it seems to be much more of a culture thing. Which is to say a decision for those who know what they are doing and a... well still a decision, just not as well thought out one by those who are just figuring it out. Point is you can run any sort of game in any system. Theoretically at least, in system does matter and your system choice can help you run games that are more dynamic and flexible. And right now I think that is my main point for this thread.

Its not even anyone should make their game more dynamic. You can get pretty dynamic even in systems that were designed for mostly pre-made content if you want to and, despite the positive vibe dynamic gives off, you don't have to care at all. I don't know why people think I am trying to convince them of anything, I just like talking about ideas.

Psyren
2020-11-18, 10:52 AM
OK what if I just used the word "downside" instead? I'm not sure how to turn that into a snappy title but given time I probably could.

"The Potential Downside of Content-driven Games" would be the most accurate title from where I'm sitting. It acknowledges the problem you see, while simultaneously acknowledging it might not actually be a problem for other people, and may even be a feature.

"The Curse of Content" might be pithy, but it also reads as myopic and dismissive.


Are you implying that my games don't have quality game design? Probably not but the point is implications are everywhere.

No - what I said is that I'm willing to pay for it from other people whose job it is to create it, not that paying is the only possible source for it.


Still wording aside I would change that opening post a lot now because it seems to be much more of a culture thing. Which is to say a decision for those who know what they are doing and a... well still a decision, just not as well thought out one by those who are just figuring it out. Point is you can run any sort of game in any system. Theoretically at least, in system does matter and your system choice can help you run games that are more dynamic and flexible. And right now I think that is my main point for this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not as well thought out." I don't think you can conclude how much thought a person put into a decision from the single data point of whether they bought content from a professional/dedicated designer, or made it up themselves.

Cluedrew
2020-11-18, 07:16 PM
It acknowledges the problem you see, while simultaneously acknowledging it might not actually be a problem for other people, and may even be a feature.Wait, do you mean content-based in general can be a feature or that it being harder to run a flexible game can be a feature? The first I agree with, there is a paragraph on "The Blessing of Content" in the first post because of that and I could have made it longer. The second one though has me confused. Even if you aren't interested in doing that I feel that making something harder would be at best neutral.


I'm not sure what you mean by "not as well thought out."Just people who haven't thought through it as much. I just wrote the first half of the sentence and realized that someone just doing it that way because it was fun last time might not be analysing the design space of play or whatever but they still made a decision and put some thought into it. I suppose the only exception would be some who doesn't realize you could go past the CRPG as a board game format but you would probably figure it out pretty quickly.

Psyren
2020-11-19, 09:32 AM
Wait, do you mean content-based in general can be a feature or that it being harder to run a flexible game can be a feature? The first I agree with, there is a paragraph on "The Blessing of Content" in the first post because of that and I could have made it longer. The second one though has me confused. Even if you aren't interested in doing that I feel that making something harder would be at best neutral.

The first one. I don't think using or starting from published content makes it "harder to run a flexible game" at all. (And there again, you seem to be making an assumption that just because it would be harder for you to be flexible under such conditions, it must be true for everyone.)


Just people who haven't thought through it as much. I just wrote the first half of the sentence and realized that someone just doing it that way because it was fun last time might not be analysing the design space of play or whatever but they still made a decision and put some thought into it. I suppose the only exception would be some who doesn't realize you could go past the CRPG as a board game format but you would probably figure it out pretty quickly.

That's source-of-content-agnostic though. Players who only play a certain way "because it was fun last time" can do so whether they run pre-existing modules or their own stuff.

Dr paradox
2020-11-19, 12:35 PM
Here's what I will say: getting in the habit of making "content" for players can make it more nerve-wracking to wing it. This is mostly what I've discovered in switching to exclusively online play, because setups like Roll20 necessitate more preparation for a smooth experience.

My current campaign has been heavy on handouts, dungeon maps, and battlemaps in general. because all of these things help to keep players on the same page about what exactly they've discovered and what's in the scene in front of them. This creates a need for me to spend time making these handouts and maps, selecting and placing digital tokens, and so on. I'm pretty happy with the level of polish I've achieved in these, and the workflow that I've set up.

The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

PhoenixPhyre
2020-11-19, 02:52 PM
Here's what I will say: getting in the habit of making "content" for players can make it more nerve-wracking to wing it. This is mostly what I've discovered in switching to exclusively online play, because setups like Roll20 necessitate more preparation for a smooth experience.

My current campaign has been heavy on handouts, dungeon maps, and battlemaps in general. because all of these things help to keep players on the same page about what exactly they've discovered and what's in the scene in front of them. This creates a need for me to spend time making these handouts and maps, selecting and placing digital tokens, and so on. I'm pretty happy with the level of polish I've achieved in these, and the workflow that I've set up.

The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

I'm starting to see that a bit more myself with the digital transition. One of the reasons I dislike going digital is that I have to prepare maps ahead of time instead of always just sketching something on a dry-erase or wet-erase grid. It's harder to pull off digitally, although I'm getting better at it.

And I don't have any personal concerns about "critical path" vs "non-critical path". I'm open about when they deviate from my planning (usually by sequence-breaking, which is fine except it means I have to scramble a bit to get a map in place). And most of that is due to me being lazy about how much I plan.

But the concern is certainly there, at least digitally. And if I used more handouts, it'd be a bigger concern.

Cluedrew
2020-11-19, 08:28 PM
The first one. I don't think using or starting from published content makes it "harder to run a flexible game" at all. (And there again, you seem to be making an assumption that just because it would be harder for you to be flexible under such conditions, it must be true for everyone.)I'm talking about rules structure and not published vs. homebrewed content. The downside has nothing to do with where the content you have comes from but rather how hard it is to create new stuff if something unexpected happens and suddenly you need something you don't have.

And I've never noticed a difference based on who made the original source. In fact even in my "flexible game" model you can use either as a base. Does that make more sense?

Psyren
2020-11-20, 02:53 AM
The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

I would do some handouts (PDFs in particular) post-session for this reason.
Our GM uses the notes function in Roll20, and has gven us both prepared and on-the-fly before. I can only tell the difference sometimes because I'm around when he's preparing.


I'm talking about rules structure and not published vs. homebrewed content. The downside has nothing to do with where the content you have comes from but rather how hard it is to create new stuff if something unexpected happens and suddenly you need something you don't have.

And I've never noticed a difference based on who made the original source. In fact even in my "flexible game" model you can use either as a base. Does that make more sense?

There are different degrees of "new stuff." If for example I slap a template on a monster, or smoosh two existing magic items together, I've "created something new" but the mental and system overhead is comparatively minimal. I can't speak for every game system under the sun obviously, but D&D/PF (our primary poison) makes this kind of "content creation" rather easy, for us.