PDA

View Full Version : Law of the Hammer



Vahnavoi
2023-01-18, 03:54 PM
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument)

Law of the hammer, or law of the instrument, is a term for a cognitive bias towards over-reliance on familiar tools. Plenty of people started describing this in the thread about Unanimous Good, whether knowingly or unkowingly. So, I thought to start a separate discussion on what kind of game design principles either contribute to or alleviate it.

When faced with a player acting this way, the first question ought to be, why is there a hammer? Inclusion of an object in a game implies usage. In absence of other instruction, players will attempt to find usage through trial and error. The corollary is that if some uses are not acceptable, a player ought to be instructed on them. If no usage is intented, the object should not be handed to them in the first place.

The second question ought to be, why is there only a hammer? Quite often, the answer is, "there are a lot of tools besides the hammer", but if that is the case, why is the player acting like there aren't? Why do they pick up a screwdriver and still use it to bang nails? This relates to the above observation about trial and error. The other two basic modes of problem solving are insight and theory. In absence of insight, a player is liable to create their theory on how things work around the first solution they found via trial and error. As long as their theory works even a little bit, it may be more appealing to them to double down on it or only make minor adjustments, as opposed to learning something new.

A player who acts this way isn't usually stupid or malicious - they just can't see the other solutions. The only fast way to get them out of the rut is for someone else who already knows those other solutions to instruct them.

The most common examples of the Law as pertain to tabletop games, both on player and game design level, have to do with dice. I would go so far to say that every game that wraps its identity around rolling some particular die for as many things as possible (f.ex. the d20 system) falls afoul of it. Yes, such game rules are easy to utilize and remember, but they promote the idea that the essence of playing a roleplaying game is to roll dice, which is just silly. On the players' side, this manifests as them picking up and sometimes rolling the dice even before they have any idea of what their characters are doing - all they know is that if they roll good, they get ahead in the game, right? The obvious solution is to vary mechanics and elements of gameplay more so that players realize they can, and have to, do more than this one thing to engage with a game. Taking a good look at all other kinds of tabletop games is a good start.

Batcathat
2023-01-18, 04:09 PM
The most common examples of the Law as pertain to tabletop games, both on player and game design level, have to do with dice. I would go so far to say that every game that wraps its identity around rolling some particular die for as many things as possible (f.ex. the d20 system) falls afoul of it. Yes, such game rules are easy to utilize and remember, but they promote the idea that the essence of playing a roleplaying game is to roll dice, which is just silly. On the players' side, this manifests as them picking up and sometimes rolling the dice even before they have any idea of what their characters are doing - all they know is that if they roll good, they get ahead in the game, right? The obvious solution is to vary mechanics and elements of gameplay more so that players realize they can, and have to, do more than this one thing to engage with a game. Taking a good look at all other kinds of tabletop games is a good start.

What problem are you trying to solve? If it's specifically players rolling dice first and thinking second, then yeah, varying the mechanics probably helps. But if it's players going to mechanics first and thinking second, I don't see what having different mechanics is going to accomplish.

Vahnavoi
2023-01-18, 04:24 PM
The problem being solved is right there in the tittle, bro.

As for "going mechanics first, thinking second" , that's a meaningless statement in context of what I just described. For example, possible game mechanics involve logic and word puzzles, which perforce require thinking. There is no way promoting more and different ways of thinking leads to no thinking.

Rynjin
2023-01-19, 11:23 AM
The problem being solved is right there in the tittle, bro.

The title is three words, bro, and is not a common phrase. Maybe you should rethink whether the entire problem you're trying to solve is actually clear from the title, bro, and actually clarify it when someone asks. Like bro, if somebody asks a question it usually means like...they want you to further expound on the subject, bro, because they're interested in figuring out how to further the conversation in a way that's helpful to you.

Responses like this don't really help you get the answers you need broooooo

KorvinStarmast
2023-01-19, 01:24 PM
"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument)

When faced with a player acting this way, the first question ought to be, why is there a hammer? Inclusion of an object in a game implies usage. In absence of other instruction, players will attempt to find usage through trial and error. The corollary is that if some uses are not acceptable, a player ought to be instructed on them. If no usage is intented, the object should not be handed to them in the first place. This bit looks like a reference to Chekov's hammer.

The second question ought to be, why is there only a hammer? Quite often, the answer is, "there are a lot of tools besides the hammer", but if that is the case, why is the player acting like there aren't? Why do they pick up a screwdriver and still use it to bang nails? sometimes it is due to a game balance issue, such that all other choices are so much worse that the hammer is all that anyone picks up.

...they promote the idea that the essence of playing a roleplaying game is to roll dice, which is just silly. On the players' side, this manifests as them picking up and sometimes rolling the dice even before they have any idea of what their characters are doing - all they know is that if they roll good, they get ahead in the game, right? Since a lot of people first use dice (the standard cubes, d6 with pips) to play less complex games (Monopoly being but one example) a game with funny sided dice presents itself somewhat differently when encountered. (FWIW, my favorite d4s have 12 sides).

A useful way to get new players to not latch onto the dice immediately is to have clear, easy to follow examples of play that do not focus on the dice themselves.

Vahnavoi
2023-01-19, 03:24 PM
@Rynjin: that would be a fair criticism, if not for the fact that the first post states the law, explains the law and links to Wikipedia page explaining origin of the law.

---


This bit looks like a reference to Chekov's hammer.

That is because the advice given is logical inverse of Chekhov's gun. To wit: Chekhov's gun states that if an element is placed in a story, it ought to come into play later. Whereas I'm saying that if particular use of an element is not desired, players ought to be instructed to not use it that way, or the element ought to be removed.

It's not a reference, though. I'm not concerned with conservation of detail or how to make good drama. I'm concerned with how players behave when they come across game objects. Audience of a play might be frustrated if a gun is shown but not fired, but they don't typically have the option to pick up the gun and fire it themselves. Players in a game might.



sometimes it is due to a game balance issue, such that all other choices are so much worse that the hammer is all that anyone picks up.

This is true. However, it is just as true that subjective opinions of other options being worse are often incorrect, and the incorrect opinion can be self-reinforcing due to bumps in the learning curve. That is: if you've used a hammer for a while, you're probably better at using it than tools you've never used, such as a screwdriver. This means that if you try to transition to using a screwdriver, there will be learning period during which you'd be better off using the hammer, even though the screwdriver is ultimately better.

The corollary is that people who've been behaving in accordance with the law of the hammer for some time, are not reliable sources of information on what is balanced, and trying to correct balance according to their opinions leads to overcorrection - effectively, unskilled use of a screwdriver has to be on par with skilled use of a hammer, in order for the stubborn hammerers to switch over. Correct opinions on option balance can only come from people who've already used all of the relevant options.


A useful way to get new players to not latch onto the dice immediately is to have clear, easy to follow examples of play that do not focus on the dice themselves.

Agreed.

Rynjin
2023-01-19, 03:27 PM
@Rynjin: that would be a fair criticism, if not for the fact that the first post states the law, explains the law and links to Wikipedia page explaining origin of the law.



Yes, the first post explains the concept of the "law of the hammer".

What it doesn't explain is the problem you're trying to solve. What kind of feedback are you actually looking for?

Ways to engage players in non-mechanical solutioning in games? Ways to tweak mechanics to encourage out of the box problem solving? Advice on coming up with problems that are "hammer proof"? What are you actually looking for?

That was the simple question asked of you which you decided wasn't important enough to give a real answer to.

Vahnavoi
2023-01-19, 03:37 PM
@Rynjin:


Law of the hammer, or law of the instrument, is a term for a cognitive bias towards over-reliance on familiar tools. Plenty of people started describing this in the thread about Unanimous Good, whether knowingly or unkowingly. So, I thought to start a separate discussion on what kind of game design principles either contribute to or alleviate it.

Underlines for emphasis.

You can always claim I didn't already explain myself, but there's a point where it only demonstrates you didn't pay attention the first time around.

Rynjin
2023-01-19, 03:39 PM
I...certainly did not read the entire original thread which this is a spin-off of, yes. I don't know why providing additional context for your "discussion" is such a difficult ask, but I really don't care anymore. Have fun I guess?

Vahnavoi
2023-01-19, 04:09 PM
The specific examples from the other thread are not at all vital to the topic; if they were, I would've included them.

Easy e
2023-01-19, 04:42 PM
I see people picking up the hammer during games because the screwdriver and the pliers were boring to the player and the hammer could provide visceral pleasure.

Hammer can SMASH!

gbaji
2023-01-19, 07:03 PM
As for "going mechanics first, thinking second" , that's a meaningless statement in context of what I just described. For example, possible game mechanics involve logic and word puzzles, which perforce require thinking. There is no way promoting more and different ways of thinking leads to no thinking.

I think the "mechanics" are just different ways of rolling dice to resolve issues, which is what you seemed to be identifying as a "problem" in your OP. The poster was saying that just "changing the mechanics" can't solve the problem, if the problem itself if "people use the mechanics to resolve things in the game".

I guess I'm maybe speculating here, but what is your alternative (or do you have one)? I think that, in most games, mechanical rules (like rolling dice to resolve actions) exist in order to facilitate roleplaying. If I want to roleplay a bard, but have absolutely no singing or musical abilities myself, a system that requires that I personally come up with a song or write/perform a piece of music is not going to work, so I can't play that character. A system that has "sing" and "play instrument" and "compose music" skills allows me to do that. So yeah, when I'm thinking about having my bard try to use my bard skills to do something, I'm going to pick up my dice, think about what I want to have my bard do, declare that, wait for the GM to tell me what skills are involved, and then start rolling dice.

There's nothing at all wrong with that.


This is true. However, it is just as true that subjective opinions of other options being worse are often incorrect, and the incorrect opinion can be self-reinforcing due to bumps in the learning curve. That is: if you've used a hammer for a while, you're probably better at using it than tools you've never used, such as a screwdriver. This means that if you try to transition to using a screwdriver, there will be learning period during which you'd be better off using the hammer, even though the screwdriver is ultimately better.

The corollary is that people who've been behaving in accordance with the law of the hammer for some time, are not reliable sources of information on what is balanced, and trying to correct balance according to their opinions leads to overcorrection - effectively, unskilled use of a screwdriver has to be on par with skilled use of a hammer, in order for the stubborn hammerers to switch over. Correct opinions on option balance can only come from people who've already used all of the relevant options.

And again. Given that you gave only one actual example of a "hammer" in the context of this thread, I can only respond to that example. If not rolling dice to determine success level of proposed character actions, what should the players use? And yes, I'm aware of diceless games, or more refereed games, etc. But honestly, I'm generally not a great fan of them precisely because they often come down to incredibly subjective decisions made by a referee to determine outcomes, which itself is subject to personality issues, likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. That's not to say that die resolution systems don't also have them, but other systems have nothing but those to resolve things. The players aren't playing the game, they are playing the referee.

Assuming you meant "hammer" in a "play approach" context and not just mechanics, then we might speculate things like "player always uses combat to resolve things" as maybe a better example. And if we then speculate you are asking for ways to deal with that, it's not terribly difficult as a GM to devise scenarios where resorting first to violence will cause undesirable results for the PCs in the game.

And if you have one player who is continually messing things up for the rest of the party, you can either allow peer pressure from the other playes (upset at the one person messing up "the plan") to adjust the behavior, or devise scenarios where each PC is differently affected by outcomes based on their own choices. So the PCs who maintained the cover and used stealth walk away when the whole thing turns out to be a sting by the local law enforcement, but the one guy who decided to go in guns blazing gets arrested and charged. And maybe if that player gets enough of his own characters killed/arrested, and the rest of the table just says "that's why we wanted to avoid violence", it might just dawn on them to play differently.

Negative reinforcement tends to work. I'll leave it up to individual GMs to figure out how to implement that.

Satinavian
2023-01-20, 07:28 AM
When faced with a player acting this way, the first question ought to be, why is there a hammer? Inclusion of an object in a game implies usage. In absence of other instruction, players will attempt to find usage through trial and error. The corollary is that if some uses are not acceptable, a player ought to be instructed on them. If no usage is intented, the object should not be handed to them in the first place.
True.

But that basically boils down to "bring PCs that fit the campaign". Which is widely accepted as a thing to do and a lot of what session 0 is about.
There is not really much to discuss.


The second question ought to be, why is there only a hammer?
Some systems promote overspecialisation, making it easy/cheap to stack synergizing abilities and penalize hybrids.
Some system enforce and promote rigid roles which often are very narrow archetypes
Some players really really want to be the very best at X possible, even if they have to pay for this with wide areas of incompetence.


The most common examples of the Law as pertain to tabletop games, both on player and game design level, have to do with dice. I would go so far to say that every game that wraps its identity around rolling some particular die for as many things as possible (f.ex. the d20 system) falls afoul of it. Yes, such game rules are easy to utilize and remember, but they promote the idea that the essence of playing a roleplaying game is to roll dice, which is just silly. On the players' side, this manifests as them picking up and sometimes rolling the dice even before they have any idea of what their characters are doing - all they know is that if they roll good, they get ahead in the game, right? The obvious solution is to vary mechanics and elements of gameplay more so that players realize they can, and have to, do more than this one thing to engage with a game. Taking a good look at all other kinds of tabletop games is a good start.
I don't think "rolling dice" works as a hammer as in the metaphor. Dice rolling is a resolution mechanism not a tool players or PCs have. It is a stand in for a myriad very different tools instead.

King of Nowhere
2023-01-20, 10:10 AM
@Rynjin:



Underlines for emphasis.

You can always claim I didn't already explain myself, but there's a point where it only demonstrates you didn't pay attention the first time around.

no, what you quoted is not really an explanation. law of the hammer is too generic a concept. it applies to pretty much everything.

for example, I only dm d&d because it's the only rpg I know how to play; that's law of the hammer for you. and when I wanted to create a setting that's quite different from standard fantasy setting, I took d&d and made a bunch of houserules instead of looking for other systems - through effort I was able to use my hammer to screw nails, and I never looked to see if there was a screwdriver in the first place.
is that the kind of stuff you wanted to discuss? but then, is that even a problem? I could counterargue that, given limited time to dedicate to rpg hobby, I can either learn to use my hammer really well, or I can learn all kinds of instruments poorly. And that I find that I can do more with my lone hammer and my expertise on it, then I could do with an extensive toolkit I can't use properly.

I can talk about different ways to handle optimization and balance; I have found a way that works for my table, while quertus has found a different way that works for his table, and talekeal has found an even different way that works for his table. but is that even a "hammer" thing? or is it something that grew organically from playing with the same group of people for a long time? is that even a problem?
I can talk about different settings. Talekeal spontaneously assumes that the setting is some sparsely populated frontier with no centralized power, where you can murder people in the woods with no consequences. While I assume a setting with some forms of centralized power, and if too many people disappear in the woods the guy in charge will call in some very powerful caster to find out the culprit by any means, and then will spare no effort to punish you. and no, forget a jailbreak plot, if you mark yourself as so dangerous you are definitely not going to be put into a cardboard prison. meanwhile quertus assumes that there is a connected multiverse where is character quertus can easily jump between different settings and play in different campaigns. but is that a hammer problem, or just different styles? is that even a problem?

In short, I can see a lot of different ways that we become set in our own ways, that we develop table-specific cultures on how we play. But they don't seem much to qualify as hammer problems, and if your table went that way because the players pushed the game in that direction, then it's not a problem either. Except maybe at talekeal's table, where it's not much a case of "people got into certain routines because they were liked/acceptable by everyone" and more a case of "some problem players bullied everyone into doing things certain ways by having really short tempers, and everyone else left, adapted, and eventually developed their own psycosis if they didn't already have one in the first place"

So, your question is unclear. Do you actually want to discuss on how some tables can be overly reliant on rolling dice? do you have some specific issue in your mind that you want to discuss? do you just want to find different examples of how the law of the hammer applies to many aspects of rpg?

GloatingSwine
2023-01-20, 10:13 AM
I don't think "rolling dice" works as a hammer as in the metaphor. Dice rolling is a resolution mechanism not a tool players or PCs have. It is a stand in for a myriad very different tools instead.

Dice are a convenient way to perform a task that games need, which is to produce an outcome within a human-predictable range of probabilities that no player at the table knows in advance.

Dice are portable, cheap, readily available, and operate in the sweet spot for human-predictable outcomes.

That's important to RPGs because it's how they model the abilities and weaknesses of the characters who are real within the world of the game.

KillianHawkeye
2023-01-20, 12:49 PM
Is this some kind of weird rant against overuse of the d20? Are we looking for a new game system that uses ALL the dice equally or something? I really don't understand what the problem is here.

The game is already complex enough that it often takes more time to figure out how to do something than it would to actually do in in-game time. Throwing out the simplicity of having single, underlying core game mechanic (d20 + bonuses >= DC) would just make everything worse and undo the single best thing WotC did when the rules were revised into 3rd Edition D&D.

That isn't an issue of "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." It's "let's turn everything into nails so players only need a hammer." In other words, it's ON PURPOSE. Intentional. By design, even.

If that's not what this thread is about, then I'm as confused as everyone else. :smallconfused:

Willie the Duck
2023-01-20, 01:31 PM
bro. [and all the rest]
Vahnavoi,
When you first joined, you came in with a huge amount of aggression, antagonism, and condescension, and I think people settled back with a 'here we go again' attitude. That's because we've all been down this road before, where someone new to the forum/FLGS gaming circle/high school moves in and thinks the best way to situate themselves in the nerd social hierarchy is by picking verbal fights, talking down, and otherwise exuding 'I'm the big dog here' moxy (almost universally failing spectacularly to either cow or impress others). I think we were all pleasantly surprised when you changed gears and seemed to realize that the two ways to have an impact here were instead to 1) provide meaningful gaming insight; and 2) be engaging, mature, and convivial. You've had modest success with the former, and previously have gotten A for effort and solid marks in general on the latter. However, as of late, we're seeing this real backslide without apparent cause. Here, you've brought forth and interesting topic, had every opportunity to showcase whatever insight you have on the matter, and likely squandered the opportunity by picking an absolutely unnecessary fight that does nothing but drag down your esteem in the eyes of others. Do what you will, but for your own sake I feel you would benefit by recognizing how your own behavior feeds peoples' reaction to you.

On to the thread topic --


The second question ought to be, why is there only a hammer? Quite often, the answer is, "there are a lot of tools besides the hammer", but if that is the case, why is the player acting like there aren't? Why do they pick up a screwdriver and still use it to bang nails? This relates to the above observation about trial and error. The other two basic modes of problem solving are insight and theory. In absence of insight, a player is liable to create their theory on how things work around the first solution they found via trial and error. As long as their theory works even a little bit, it may be more appealing to them to double down on it or only make minor adjustments, as opposed to learning something new.
I think the last line is a huge factor in this. If the mechanism or strategy continues to work*, it will likely be employed well past when an outsider might notice that an alternate option would be easier or more fruitful.
*or can, through extraordinary effort, be made to work. Here I am thinking of the (apocryphal) story of NASA spending a mint on making a pen which writes in microgravity instead of using a pencil.


The most common examples of the Law as pertain to tabletop games, both on player and game design level, have to do with dice. I would go so far to say that every game that wraps its identity around rolling some particular die for as many things as possible (f.ex. the d20 system) falls afoul of it. Yes, such game rules are easy to utilize and remember, but they promote the idea that the essence of playing a roleplaying game is to roll dice, which is just silly. On the players' side, this manifests as them picking up and sometimes rolling the dice even before they have any idea of what their characters are doing - all they know is that if they roll good, they get ahead in the game, right? The obvious solution is to vary mechanics and elements of gameplay more so that players realize they can, and have to, do more than this one thing to engage with a game. Taking a good look at all other kinds of tabletop games is a good start.

Interestingly, most complex tabletop games (TTRPGs, Wargames, even Monopoly-style money-and-assets games) have some other additional mechanisms that strongly helps engagement/getting ahead. Usually that's the expenditure of some sort of resource -- spell slots, get-out-of-jail-free cards, some kind of limited ordinance*. When I hear (usually fellow gamers who started in the TSR-era) complain about newer players 'looking for solutions on their character sheet;' it tends to be because they are looking at the skills, (dice rolling), attack-abilities (mostly dice rolling, but also some resource expenditures when dealing with things like Rages, Superiority Dice, Smites, etc.), and spells/magic items (expendable resources that might require a dice roll, but oftentimes just solves the problem at hand); instead of looking to the game environment for potential solutions (rolling find/remove traps instead of looking behind curtains for the release level, etc.). For that reason (that a game can have varied solution methods already, but then players still pick just amongst the obvious ones amongst them), I think there must be at least some other factor. My guess is examples, presentation, and framing.
*warpstone crystal something somethings in Warhammer? I don't actually play, just have seen others do so.


A useful way to get new players to not latch onto the dice immediately is to have clear, easy to follow examples of play that do not focus on the dice themselves.

Yes, this is what I mean, and it leads me to an example: the Mentzer basic set of basic/classic D&D. Now, I have great fondness for this set, and for the introductory 'choose your own adventure'-style play example with Aleena and Bargle (meant to familiarize new, young players to the type of game being played and the mechanisms involved). However, that scenario showcased mechanisms such as actions and initiative, hit points, to-hit and damage, spells, saving throws, and (through exposition) thief skills. It did not showcase important game mechanics such as the dungeon-exploration turn cycle, the reaction table, or morale. For that reason, many an individual learning the game never picked up on them (or, if they did, missing their importance, and they not get used).

For that reason, I think DMs may want to structure initial adventures for new players with scenarios that -- instead of made to readily highlight learning mechanics like combat, spell and skill use -- focus significantly on solving the adventure hook by going to the right places, talking to the right people, doing the right things (things with automatic success, not skill tests), and so forth. Maybe even include some side options to showcase that thinking outside the box can lead to shortcuts (the guard can be snuck past, bribed for half the party's starting spare change, or bribed with a batch of cookies like her mom used to make). If people's initial exposure to the game highlights that solving the problems in the game world are primarily focused on the world, and not their character and what they can mechanically do, I think they'd be more likely to look through all the available options (including dice, and expendable resources, but also environment, backgrounds, or heck maybe even tool proficiencies and what they rolled on the starting trinkets table).

Rynjin
2023-01-20, 01:34 PM
*warpstone crystal something somethings in Warhammer? I don't actually play, just have seen others do so.


If the mechanics are similar in concept to the Total War games, you're probably thinking of the Winds of magic, which are a variable (semi-random) amount of magic that each spellcaster in a given army can make use of. Certain weapons also make use of warpstone tech, but that's pretty much Skaven-exclusive and I'm not sure if it's treated as a direct resource in the wargame.

GloatingSwine
2023-01-20, 02:20 PM
If the mechanics are similar in concept to the Total War games, you're probably thinking of the Winds of magic, which are a variable (semi-random) amount of magic that each spellcaster in a given army can make use of. Certain weapons also make use of warpstone tech, but that's pretty much Skaven-exclusive and I'm not sure if it's treated as a direct resource in the wargame.

Although the Winds of Magic, of course, use dice as that resource. 2+1 per wizard level in your army*, choose how many to roll up to the wizard's level when they cast a spell in order to beat a target number, 2 or more 6s mean the spell can't be countered but also damages the caster.

Skaven weaponry on tabletop was just a bit more unreliable than others' (war machines had malfunction chances and tables, Skaven had the worst tables, including fun things like "someone bribed the crew, your opponent gets to place the shot").


* Casters had a wizard level between 1 and 4 which determined how many spells they got and how many power dice they generated and could use for their own casting.

Kol Korran
2023-01-20, 02:52 PM
I think tha basic discussion about the "Law of the instrument" (including the Wikipedia link) is oversimplified, and misses on a lot, mostly- human nature and preferences. Yes, it touches on them, but mostly from a pragmatic/ logical/ analitical point of view (and this phrase itself is oversimplified, but I'm a bit too tired to use the correct nuanced terms right now), and misses a lof of other main factors.

So why do people choose a specific instrument? And how can game design help in that? A lot of reasons for the first question, and a few ideas for the second. In no particular order (again, due to being tired, my apologies for the mess):
# Why the hammer? Because hammering can be fun!
Games are (mostly) played for fun, and if using a specific approach/ playstyle/ method/ tool is fun, then you may well go for it, despite there being other tools, even if they are superior at solving the problem, because this specific tool is what makes it fun for you
# Why the hammer? Meh, it works good enough, and I can't be bothered withy the rest.
"Beer and Pretzles" games exist, right? And they usually involve lessening cognitive loads, more investment in emotional and mental reserves. The game is a way to unwind, and part of that is just picking what works decently well, and not complicating options..
# Why tha Hammer? Because I'm GREAT at hammering! Some people have more affinity/ skill/ talent/ preference towards certain tools, and can use them to greater advantage, and their natural affinities will make them botch/ screw up with other tools, even if better suited for the job.
I mostly DMed. I experimented with lots of tools (still do), and I've come to notice I excell at using some, more than their intended purpose, and can easily mess up others, despite having tried them time and again, and having watched/ read/ otherwise learned about them before hand.

Not everything is for everyone.

# Game design changes?
First of all- you'll have to really, reaaalllly narrow down first what tools, their overuse, or what underuse of other tools you are trying to improve? Use of various systems? Expansions? In game "mini-games"? Player options? Gamemaster options? In group social interactions? Rule implementation? What exactly? The question is waaaaayyy to vague to enable giving actual useful advice/ consideration.
Secondly- Is using the hammer really a problem? And if so- why? For example- is a player's prefered class and playstyle in D&D is almost always the same, but he plays well and to the enjoyment of the whole group- is that a problem? Or a group that has specific house rules, and rarely veer from them, or even check other rules, but are quite happy and content- is that a problem?

Care to elaborate on the SPECIFIC problems you encounter/ envision?

Again, I apologize for my post hasty writing, but I rarely have time to write, and preferred not to wait too long...

Vahnavoi
2023-01-20, 03:38 PM
I see people picking up the hammer during games because the screwdriver and the pliers were boring to the player and the hammer could provide visceral pleasure.


So do you have examples of game elements that provide such visceral pleasure and do you think they generalize?

---


I think the "mechanics" are just different ways of rolling dice to resolve issues, which is what you seemed to be identifying as a "problem" in your OP. The poster was saying that just "changing the mechanics" can't solve the problem, if the problem itself if "people use the mechanics to resolve things in the game".

Mechanics are not just rolling dice, and they are not just conflict resolution. If Batcathat thought that's what the word means, they were wrong. If you think that's what the word means, you are wrong. To wit, possible game mechanics for tabletop games include but are not limited to: deduction via binary logic, syllogisms, crossword puzzles, translations, encrypting and decrypting messages, whispered or written secret messages, voting via open or secret ballot, drawing pictures, reflex texts, memory tests, spoken dialogue, miming, and manipulating small objects (game pieces, Lego blocks miniatures, props etc.), so on and so forth.

This ought to have been crystal clear from me advicing to look at other tabletop games for inspiration.

So, again: there is no way promoting more and different ways of thinking leads to no thinking. It does not make sense to conceptualize "mechanics" in the abstract as a single, familiar tool, when I'm specifically calling for using more different mechanics.


I guess I'm maybe speculating here, but what is your alternative (or do you have one)? I think that, in most games, mechanical rules (like rolling dice to resolve actions) exist in order to facilitate roleplaying. If I want to roleplay a bard, but have absolutely no singing or musical abilities myself, a system that requires that I personally come up with a song or write/perform a piece of music is not going to work, so I can't play that character. A system that has "sing" and "play instrument" and "compose music" skills allows me to do that. So yeah, when I'm thinking about having my bard try to use my bard skills to do something, I'm going to pick up my dice, think about what I want to have my bard do, declare that, wait for the GM to tell me what skills are involved, and then start rolling dice.

All rules exist to facilitate a game, that's not what this thread is about. It's about how players are behaving at a table. Also about how you are behaving right now, because your example falls in line with law of the hammer.

To wit, your example assumes that in order to facilitate roleplaying a musician, you have two options:

1) Do the musical thing for reals.
2) Roll dice.

This, because dice as the familiar option is the only thing that occurred to you.

What about literally anything else? Such as the items I listed above?

Also, as a sidenote: singing, composing and performing music can be done at the tabletop and thus are viable candidates for game mechanics in a tabletop roleplaying game. It's also possible to set up a game so that playing it makes you better at all those things. Don't let your own lack of ability blind yourself to that.


And again. Given that you gave only one actual example of a "hammer" in the context of this thread, I can only respond to that example.

Horse hockey. I explained a general topic and called for discussion on it. If you understand English, you ought to be perfectly capable of giving your own examples, even if you have nothing to say on the one I gave. If you aren't, you are ill-equipped to participate.


If not rolling dice to determine success level of proposed character actions, what should the players use? And yes, I'm aware of diceless games, or more refereed games, etc. But honestly, I'm generally not a great fan of them precisely because they often come down to incredibly subjective decisions made by a referee to determine outcomes, which itself is subject to personality issues, likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. That's not to say that die resolution systems don't also have them, but other systems have nothing but those to resolve things. The players aren't playing the game, they are playing the referee.

You are simultaneously asking me for examples you claim you yourself could've given and expressing a dislike for things without specifying what they are. Saying a game is diceless only tells me what mechanics your supposed examples don't use, it doesn't tell me what kind of mechanics they do use. Hence, a proper comparison cannot be made.

At best, I can guess you are critiquing systems based on game master or player fiat decisions, to which I can only say: sorry, I don't share your hang-ups. As a long-time player of freeform games, I'm perfectly happy with letting people just decide based on their personal inclinations. I do not find such resolutions in any way inferior to rolling dice. Saying "the players aren't playing the game, they're playing the referee" is without substance, what the difference is even supposed to be is entirely ill-established at this point.


Assuming you meant "hammer" in a "play approach" context and not just mechanics, then we might speculate things like "player always uses combat to resolve things" as maybe a better example. And if we then speculate you are asking for ways to deal with that, it's not terribly difficult as a GM to devise scenarios where resorting first to violence will cause undesirable results for the PCs in the game.

Over-reliance on combat is an example you can use; it's not a better example, because both examples follow the law.

It is indeed not difficult to device scenarios where initiating violence ends up poorly for the initiating character - my question would be, is this sufficient to break a combat-happy player from their habit?

I would argue it is not. There also have to be viable and obvious non-combat solutions, otherwise it's likely the player will just wait for someone else to initiate violence.


And if you have one player who is continually messing things up for the rest of the party, you can either allow peer pressure from the other playes (upset at the one person messing up "the plan") to adjust the behavior, or devise scenarios where each PC is differently affected by outcomes based on their own choices. So the PCs who maintained the cover and used stealth walk away when the whole thing turns out to be a sting by the local law enforcement, but the one guy who decided to go in guns blazing gets arrested and charged. And maybe if that player gets enough of his own characters killed/arrested, and the rest of the table just says "that's why we wanted to avoid violence", it might just dawn on them to play differently.

Peer pressure only works to alleviate law of the hammer when said peers are able and willing to instruct a single-minded player in more diverse solutions. When this is not the case, peer pressure can actually reinforce over-reliance on familiar solutions, and indeed I find that to be more common in practice. See group think and Abilene paradox (on Wikipedia etc.)

As for making different approaches have tangibly different outcomes, I agree that this works, but there are boundary conditions to it. Namely, presuming a player learning through trial and error, they have to be able to try and re-try. In the given example, to learn value of stealth, stealth had to be possible for the character, and it has to be possible in the future. If either is false, then it's all too easy for a player to go "well it doesn't apply to me" and continue doing whatever they were doing.


Negative reinforcement tends to work. I'll leave it up to individual GMs to figure out how to implement that.

Rather rich to criticize me for not explaining something and then excusing yourself from explaining any details. Not that it matters, since your post up to this point already had ample things to discuss.

---


True.

But that basically boils down to "bring PCs that fit the campaign". Which is widely accepted as a thing to do and a lot of what session 0 is about.
There is not really much to discuss.

No, it doesn't boil to that, because player characters aren't the only elements in a game. New elements can also be introduced throughout a game, so the advice isn't limited to Session 0.

Furhermore, it's possible and not particularly uncommon for a character to fit a campaign and still follow the law. Indeed, I've seen players so single-minded they ended up playing the same character across campaigns. The issue there isn't that the individual characters do not fit their particular campaigns, it's that the player could get much more out of the game if they stopped doing the same thing over and over.


Some systems promote overspecialisation, making it easy/cheap to stack synergizing abilities and penalize hybrids.
Some system enforce and promote rigid roles which often are very narrow archetypes

Do you gave a good specific example in mind?


Some players really really want to be the very best at X possible, even if they have to pay for this with wide areas of incompetence.

Do you have any ideas on what can be done to disabuse players of such notions? Or, as above, specifix examples of game design that promotes this?


I don't think "rolling dice" works as a hammer as in the metaphor. Dice rolling is a resolution mechanism not a tool players or PCs have. It is a stand in for a myriad very different tools instead.

I hope gbaji's inability to specify which kind of mechanics the diceless games they know about actually use, shows that dice work just fine as an example. As noted, the law can apply on game design level just as much as it applies on player level. Over-reliance on familiar tool of dice demonstrably hampers even just talking about game mechanics that aren't dice-based.

Also, it doesn't matter if dice stand-in for myriad tools, on the player level they still are just one tool. Put a player who is too used to dice in a game with more varied mechanics, and they will ask to use dice in place of new mechanics, because dice are what they are familiar with.

---


Dice are a convenient way to perform a task that games need, which is to produce an outcome within a human-predictable range of probabilities that no player at the table knows in advance.

Dice are portable, cheap, readily available, and operate in the sweet spot for human-predictable outcomes.

And?

Nowhere is it argued that dice are useless, just as the law of the hammer does not argue that hammers are useless. I can agree on virtues of dice and still, without contradiction, argue both players and game designers over-rely on them due to familiarity.

A deck of cards has all the positive qualities of dice you named, with the added ability to rather easily model non-independent probabilities and situations where one (or some) players DO know something in advance. So even if a game does use dice for some thing, a deck of cards can be more appropriate for anothwr thing, and it isn't unreasonable for a game to inclide both. (To wit: many games, such as old versions of Twilight 2000, already use both.)


That's important to RPGs because it's how they model the abilities and weaknesses of the characters who are real within the world of the game.

Abilities and weaknesses of characters can be modeled in myriad other ways than rolling dice. Over-emphasizing dice as the way how RPGs model things is how you make them fall under law of the hammer in the first place.

---


no, what you quoted is not really an explanation. law of the hammer is too generic a concept. it applies to pretty much everything

I specifically called for discussion on game design principles that either contribute to or alleviate it. Yes, that is a broad topic. It's not so broad that a discussion cannot be had on it.


for example, I only dm d&d because it's the only rpg I know how to play; that's law of the hammer for you. and when I wanted to create a setting that's quite different from standard fantasy setting, I took d&d and made a bunch of houserules instead of looking for other systems - through effort I was able to use my hammer to screw nails, and I never looked to see if there was a screwdriver in the first place.

That's indeed an example of the law, but it's unclear what could've been done on the level of game design to make you act differently.


is that the kind of stuff you wanted to discuss? but then, is that even a problem? I could counterargue that, given limited time to dedicate to rpg hobby, I can either learn to use my hammer really well, or I can learn all kinds of instruments poorly. And that I find that I can do more with my lone hammer and my expertise on it, then I could do with an extensive toolkit I can't use properly.

I was talking on level of game design and play behaviour. You are talking one or two levels above that, roughly, game publishers and game masters.

In any case, yes it is a problem, and you are now demonstrating the kind of self-reinforcing bad attitude I described to KorvinStarmast. The reason it is a problem is that there are things that are very hard to do with just D&D, so people who use just D&D are unwilling to do them, meaning they see less play, there's less innovation around them, and thus the things that could make them easy go undiscovered. This includes things that are otherwise ubiquitous in tabletop gaming, such as PvP.

Yes, you have limited time. Yes, there's likely to be a period where you suck using a new tool compared to the old. Those are counter-arguments, but not great ones. People waste time hammering in screws every day, literally as well as metaphorically, because they failed to see that spending that period of time learning to use a screwdriver would save them time later down the line.


I can talk about different ways to handle optimization and balance; I have found a way that works for my table, while quertus has found a different way that works for his table, and talekeal has found an even different way that works for his table. but is that even a "hammer" thing? or is it something that grew organically from playing with the same group of people for a long time? is that even a problem?

Are they showing over-reliance on tools familiar to them?

If yes, then it falls under this topic, and we can ask what they could or should do differently.

If no, then it's something else. Even if it's a problem, it's a different problem.


I can talk about different settings. Talekeal spontaneously assumes that the setting is some sparsely populated frontier with no centralized power, where you can murder people in the woods with no consequences. While I assume a setting with some forms of centralized power, and if too many people disappear in the woods the guy in charge will call in some very powerful caster to find out the culprit by any means, and then will spare no effort to punish you. and no, forget a jailbreak plot, if you mark yourself as so dangerous you are definitely not going to be put into a cardboard prison. meanwhile quertus assumes that there is a connected multiverse where is character quertus can easily jump between different settings and play in different campaigns. but is that a hammer problem, or just different styles? is that even a problem?

Do they keep relying on these (to them) familiar assumptions even where it is not appropriate? If yes, is there anything that can be done on the game design level to make them not do this?

Personally, I've found that, for people who are not Talakeal or Quertus, making them read an introduction leaflet (or a comic or a book) is usually enough.

If no, it's again something else.


In short, I can see a lot of different ways that we become set in our own ways, that we develop table-specific cultures on how we play. But they don't seem much to qualify as hammer problems, and if your table went that way because the players pushed the game in that direction, then it's not a problem either. Except maybe at talekeal's table, where it's not much a case of "people got into certain routines because they were liked/acceptable by everyone" and more a case of "some problem players bullied everyone into doing things certain ways by having really short tempers, and everyone else left, adapted, and eventually developed their own psycosis if they didn't already have one in the first place"

Well gee, if something doesn't seem like it falls under law of the hammer, don't bring it up in discussion about law of the hammer.


So, your question is unclear. Do you actually want to discuss on how some tables can be overly reliant on rolling dice? do you have some specific issue in your mind that you want to discuss? do you just want to find different examples of how the law of the hammer applies to many aspects of rpg?

Clearly, I want to discuss how some tables can be overly reliant on dice, since I brought it up as an exanple. Clearly, I also want to discuss other game design principles that contribute to or alleviate the issue, since I said so. Clearly, other examples are welcome, since when to use dice or not are not the only game design principles that are relevant.

Again: you can always claim I didn't explain myself, but at some point it only demonstrates you didn't pay attention the first time around.

Yet, amusingly, despite me allegedly being unclear, you still managed to write a response in legible English, discussing the topic I said I wished to discuss. Which, in a normal world, people would take as a sign that I did explain myself clearly.

JNAProductions
2023-01-20, 03:41 PM
If a player has fun with their hammer, and it’s not impeding anyone else’s fun… it’s not a problem.

gbaji
2023-01-20, 03:56 PM
Trying to tie this into a broader perspective.

I think there is value as a GM to construct scenarios which do stretch the players a bit in terms of how flexible they are in their methodology. But you do have to do this gradually and ease them into it. I've found that when starting with newer players, you'll find a tendency towards "bash first, ask questions later" approaches. And to be fair, a lot of this results from even earlier learning experiences than say what RPG system you started with. Table top games, whether in the genre of Sword and Sorcery or not, tend towards "overcome things, and gain money/loot/whatever". Games like Dungeon (a classic), Talisman, Wizards (another classic), Munchkin, and a ton of games not even in a similar genre all have similar approaches. Roll some dice, make moves, pick up things that benefit you, deal with things that may harm you, and hopefully gain power/money/whatever over time to complete/win the game.

It's not shocking that many players approach situations in a full TTRPG game in a similar manner. So yeah, you have to almost wean them off of that methodology if you want to. You can certainly start out games with a simple "defeat enemies, take their stuff, repeat", but you can add in more social aspects over time (and should, because it adds a lot to a game). Getting players to think out of the box (maybe we can work with the goblins in the caves instead of just killing them all) takes some time. And yeah, some players maybe are just going to enjoy bashing things and if that's what they want, that's honestly what you should give them. Present opportunities for doing things differently, perhaps even in ways that are more beneficial, but if you're getting push back or somethimg...? At the end of the day, it's about the enjoyment of the entire group.

The GM is not the group's therapist or life coach or something.

Batcathat
2023-01-20, 04:11 PM
I find it somewhat entertaining that someone accusing others of not understanding English or ideas that are oh so clearly explained that no one could possibly need follow-up questions appears to fail to see the difference between something said by "King of Nowhere" and something said by "Batcathat".

It's an understandable mistake and not something I'd usually tease someone about, but I'm a big believer in treating others like I want to be treated and it seems some people want to be treated with condescending nit-picking, bro.

GloatingSwine
2023-01-20, 05:09 PM
And?

Nowhere is it argued that dice are useless, just as the law of the hammer does not argue that hammers are useless. I can agree on virtues of dice and still, without contradiction, argue both players and game designers over-rely on them due to familiarity.


No, the law of the hammer implies that people are reframing problems as nails when they are not nails due to their familiarity with the hammer

Using other tools to generate probabilities is just using a different tool to drive in a nail.


A deck of cards has all the positive qualities of dice you named, with the added ability to rather easily model non-independent probabilities and situations where one (or some) players DO know something in advance. So even if a game does use dice for some thing, a deck of cards can be more appropriate for anothwr thing, and it isn't unreasonable for a game to inclide both. (To wit: many games, such as old versions of Twilight 2000, already use both.)

Decks of cards can be a useful tool, especially when you want to convey a theme (eg. Deadlands' magic via poker hands), but they don't have all the positive qualities of dice. Card probabilities are not as intuitive as dice, they need to be learned (otherwise Vegas wouldn't be Vegas it'd be broke), and they vary depending on your rules for handling the cards (when you shuffle).

And that means they are more likely to impact the speed of play. More focus is moved away from the action being resolved and onto the tool being used to resolve it. If you use cards for a resolution system you are paying something (player attention, intuitiveness) and need to make sure you're getting what you pay for.



Abilities and weaknesses of characters can be modeled in myriad other ways than rolling dice. Over-emphasizing dice as the way how RPGs model things is how you make them fall under law of the hammer in the first place.


They can, but dice are the easiest, and they can also be applied in many different ways. You can do conditional probabilities in multiple ways with dice (sequential or simultaneous combinations, I even mentioned one in the Warhammer Winds of Magic explainer, any double sixes on a variable player chosen number of dice cause a double-edged special effect.)

King of Nowhere
2023-01-20, 07:19 PM
In any case, yes it is a problem, and you are now demonstrating the kind of self-reinforcing bad attitude I described to KorvinStarmast. The reason it is a problem is that there are things that are very hard to do with just D&D, so people who use just D&D are unwilling to do them, meaning they see less play, there's less innovation around them, and thus the things that could make them easy go undiscovered. This includes things that are otherwise ubiquitous in tabletop gaming, such as PvP.

Yes, you have limited time. Yes, there's likely to be a period where you suck using a new tool compared to the old. Those are counter-arguments, but not great ones. People waste time hammering in screws every day, literally as well as metaphorically, because they failed to see that spending that period of time learning to use a screwdriver would save them time later down the line.

that's demonstrably false. it depends on how much time I spend to learn the ability versus how much time it would save. if I have to spend ten hours to learn a new game that I am only going to play once in a one-shot system, then I am losing more time than I'm gaining.
actually, the issue really looks like picking skill points. I can either put all my skill points in d&d, or spread my skill points in many systems. there is no univocal better solution.
I would actually argue that this applies to most things in life, not just d&d. we are all good at some things and bad at some others. and we all try to live our lives so that we can use the stuff that we are good at, while minimizing the impact of our weak skills. I am good at logic and math, so I picked up science. I am bad at organization, so I tried to get a job where I can use my science skill without having to organize too much. I have a hammer, so I looked for a job where I could spend a lot of time hammering stuff. I trust in people who have a screwdriver to handle the screwdriving. much more efficient than trying to learn a screwdriver while putting the people with screwdrivers in charge of hammering.
I can also quote you jackie chan "i fear not the guy who practiced ten thousand kicks once, but the guy who practiced a kick ten thousand times". Sure, there are reasons to differentiate, but often investing on honing what's already your best skill pays off.



Are they showing over-reliance on tools familiar to them?

If yes, then it falls under this topic, and we can ask what they could or should do differently.


Do those tools work for them? If so, why should they bother to change anything? if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Yes, I get your point of "they are potentially losing better solutions", but really, this point applies to science and technology. where there are actual, demonstrably better solutions. by fiddling with stuff you can make a faster pc processor, and that's something that is objectively better and that's useful and worth the cost of developing it, you can put it on a chart.
But with small group dynamics among a bunch of friends gaming? how can you say that one solution is "better"?
and considering that this solution only applied to the very specific environment created by this very specific group of people, and that there's roughly a 50% chance that in 5 years marriages, changes of jobs or other accidents of life will have caused the group to disband, and the solution you found will work differently in another group... is it really worth the effort?




Do they keep relying on these (to them) familiar assumptions even where it is not appropriate? If yes, is there anything that can be done on the game design level to make them not do this?

this seems just like a baseline assumption when discussing on an internet forum. like people tend to assume a certain level of optimization, a certain campaign structure, a certain kind of enemies.there are a lot of variables in an rpg - even just in d&d played at different tables - and we take so many of them for granted. even where we acknowledge the limitation, clarifying all of of the details is mostly impossible, or too long to be worth the effort on an internet forum. I can write a dozen pages to explain my world to my players, and I expect them to read them before the campaign, but I can't write a dozen pages to explain my campaign when asking advice on an internet forum and expect that some total stranger would read that.

KillianHawkeye
2023-01-21, 02:21 AM
Okay, so now you've finally gotten really specific and we're discussing game design principles. Using a dice system versus cards versus doing something other thing.

First of all, these things are not all equal.

Secondly, most of us are not game designers. We're just playing the games that we find easiest to play. 99% of these games use dice because dice are simple and universal. And there's nothing wrong with that. As I said before (which you ignored), the simplicity is by design, and it is done for good reason.

You mention over-reliance on familiar tools, and continuing to rely on familiar assumptions even when it's not appropriate. But often times, those are the tools and assumptions that the game provides us with. Good game design, in a practical sense, requires limiting the scope of options available to players. The game, by design, offers certain paths to accomplish one's goals. Familiarity with a game system leads to an understanding and proficiency with the game's tools and assumptions, not an inappropriate over-reliance on them.

There is nothing wrong with relying on familiarity. It's something that literally everyone does, every day. Our hobbies are no different than anything else. Who is to say when reliance on the familiar becomes over-reliance? You are not the judge of this for all of us.

Duff
2023-01-23, 02:15 AM
This bit looks like a reference to Chekov's hammer.

I was thinking exactly this, but you've worded it beautifully.

Stonehead
2023-01-23, 11:57 PM
And?

Nowhere is it argued that dice are useless, just as the law of the hammer does not argue that hammers are useless. I can agree on virtues of dice and still, without contradiction, argue both players and game designers over-rely on them due to familiarity.

A deck of cards has all the positive qualities of dice you named, with the added ability to rather easily model non-independent probabilities and situations where one (or some) players DO know something in advance. So even if a game does use dice for some thing, a deck of cards can be more appropriate for anothwr thing, and it isn't unreasonable for a game to inclide both. (To wit: many games, such as old versions of Twilight 2000, already use both.)



Abilities and weaknesses of characters can be modeled in myriad other ways than rolling dice. Over-emphasizing dice as the way how RPGs model things is how you make them fall under law of the hammer in the first place.


I mean, there's something to be said about newer players assuming that every important action necessitates a die roll, but when it comes to game design, I think there's a different reason the vast majority of games use dice. Dice are by far the easiest way for human beings to generate random numbers in a relatively short amount of time.

There is an impulse to associate rpgs with dice. When you first look at your character sheet, and it says "roll this die, and add this number whenever you do this thing" it's understandable that when that player wants to do that thing, they immediately reach for their dice. Even though rolling dice for trivial actions, like ordering a drink, is generally not a great idea.

The broader point on game design though, I disagree with. There are certain problems we as a society have just found really good solutions for. You don't see a lot of new, experimental airplane shapes. It's not because airplane designers only know the modern designs, and ignorantly ignored bi-planes. Instead it's because when it comes to carrying people in the air, the modern designs are just better than biplanes.

I've played a few "diceless" games over the years. They were fun novelties, but there's a reason dice are the default resolution mechanic. For the problem of "This in-game action has an undetermined outcome, how should it be resolved?" the solution of "approximate the likelihood of success and roll dice according to those odds" is really good. Cards can be fun, just to do something different, but as a general resolution mechanic, there are some drawbacks. Off the top of my head, they're more time consuming and they lead to more metagaming about probabilities. Most other resolution mechanics, (that Jenga one I've heard about, arguing with the DM in-character, "crosswords") rely too heavily on player skill.

I'm curious if you have any examples of specific games and/or mechanics that you think would be better served by a specific, non-dice mechanic. The only thing I could come up with is if you have a set of events pre-decided, and need to determine what order they happen in, not which ones happen. But that's not something I've ever seen a system tell you explicitly to resolve with dice.

It'd be a lot easier to understand your point with specific examples, rather than vaguely waving at general design trends.

ahyangyi
2023-01-24, 01:04 AM
Learning a real-world skill takes more time than you might think. Learning a language to the level of fluency takes years. Or perhaps shorter if you give up your job and spend all your time in said language, but you won't. Learning to play an instrument to be able to play confidently in front of your friends also take a few years.

Not to mention, you might just not want to learn or practice bloodletting, herb medicines, faith healing, devil worshiping, extracting poisons and addictive substances, digging underground halls and making explosives in the real world.

Also,


And?

Nowhere is it argued that dice are useless, just as the law of the hammer does not argue that hammers are useless. I can agree on virtues of dice and still, without contradiction, argue both players and game designers over-rely on them due to familiarity.

A deck of cards has all the positive qualities of dice you named, with the added ability to rather easily model non-independent probabilities and situations where one (or some) players DO know something in advance. So even if a game does use dice for some thing, a deck of cards can be more appropriate for anothwr thing, and it isn't unreasonable for a game to inclide both. (To wit: many games, such as old versions of Twilight 2000, already use both.)


Dice default to independent. But you can model dependence with modifiers. That's why you let the wizard cast Grease first, then let the fighter hit the monster: Grease, if successful, creates the prone condition, which gives the bonus to the fighter's roll. And conditional modifiers are a universal mechanism, in the sense that they can more or less simulate the correlation matrix and achieve a mathematically correct first-order approximation of any given set of random events.

Deck default to a particular mode of sequential dependency. You do things A, B and C, then B depends on A and C depends on both B and A, in a specific mode (you can't draw what you have drawn). There are additional mechanisms you can do, like "shuffling X back into the deck" or "preview the top of the deck". Technically you can achieve independence by asking players to draw cards from many decks, or shuffle after drawing each card, but, why bother?

Which means, you can do whatever you want, but as long as you have other ways to help you decide the odds, dices are simpler, while decks involve more chore.

Anyways, having a deck for one or two parts of the game can be fun, and can absolutely belong to TTRPGs. Is Tome of Battle a new concept though???

gbaji
2023-01-24, 09:18 PM
I'm curious if you have any examples of specific games and/or mechanics that you think would be better served by a specific, non-dice mechanic. The only thing I could come up with is if you have a set of events pre-decided, and need to determine what order they happen in, not which ones happen. But that's not something I've ever seen a system tell you explicitly to resolve with dice.

This is pretty much the only reason to use cards instead of dice IMO. if you want a set of results, and each happen an exact number of times within the set, drawing cards (without resetting the deck) works. If you just want probabilities of any given outcome, you can use decks (and reset the deck each time), but why? Dice are just so much more convenient, and there's a ton of different sizes and shapes to use in different combinations, to represent any odds you want.

Satinavian
2023-01-25, 04:17 AM
I'm curious if you have any examples of specific games and/or mechanics that you think would be better served by a specific, non-dice mechanic. The only thing I could come up with is if you have a set of events pre-decided, and need to determine what order they happen in, not which ones happen. But that's not something I've ever seen a system tell you explicitly to resolve with dice.
The old Engel RPG (obviously the Arcana version, not the d20 knock-off) used Tarot cards. Those worked both as resolution mechanism and as a prompt to narrate how an action succeeded or failed.

Rynjin
2023-01-25, 09:09 AM
This is pretty much the only reason to use cards instead of dice IMO. if you want a set of results, and each happen an exact number of times within the set, drawing cards (without resetting the deck) works. If you just want probabilities of any given outcome, you can use decks (and reset the deck each time), but why? Dice are just so much more convenient, and there's a ton of different sizes and shapes to use in different combinations, to represent any odds you want.

I can also think of another potential benefit to cards instead of dice, which is giving people more control over when and how bad "rolls" happen.

Deal everybody a set of cards at the start of the combat, or session, or whenever. Players can choose when to use a specific card for a resolution.

Maybe they get dealt a 2, 6, 8, J, K or something.

They use the 8 on something their character can succeed at on an 8. They dump the 2 on a check that doesn't matter as much, etc.

Would be interesting for a more "cinematic storytelling" type of game.

GloatingSwine
2023-01-25, 09:54 AM
I can also think of another potential benefit to cards instead of dice, which is giving people more control over when and how bad "rolls" happen.

Deal everybody a set of cards at the start of the combat, or session, or whenever. Players can choose when to use a specific card for a resolution.

Maybe they get dealt a 2, 6, 8, J, K or something.

They use the 8 on something their character can succeed at on an 8. They dump the 2 on a check that doesn't matter as much, etc.

Would be interesting for a more "cinematic storytelling" type of game.

You could do that with dice rolls, of course.

Also the number of times any given card can be live in the scene is going to depend on the number of players you have. The more players the more of the deck is live. Few enough players and everyone might have a hand of trash and the scene is a farce where nobody can succeed at anything, and everyone knows it from the start.

Choosing how to allocate a randomly assigned resource pool is interesting (there's a couple of PC games that do this, Citizen Sleeper is the most recent one I can think of) but I think you want to do it with smaller variances than standard playing cards. (Citizen Sleeper and the other one I can't remember the name of use D6). A custom deck, of course, would be a good way to do it because it also gives you hidden information where you don't know who has what left to spend.

Card probabilities can do you wrong. I was once involved in playtesting a tabletop wargame that used them for wound resolution. (IIRC hearts were a wound, spades were a rout, everything else was ignored, aces let the attacking player assign that wound/rout). Because it was a reasonable scale with quite a lot of attacks being thrown every round it pretty much ran through the whole deck every turn and that basically [i]guaranteed[i] the power cards would come out every round, and if one came out when your army general was in the target regiment you just lost the game (because an army without a general was paralysed).

IIRC we kept the cards but we had to do a lot to mitigate that effect.

Stonehead
2023-01-25, 03:44 PM
This is pretty much the only reason to use cards instead of dice IMO. if you want a set of results, and each happen an exact number of times within the set, drawing cards (without resetting the deck) works. If you just want probabilities of any given outcome, you can use decks (and reset the deck each time), but why? Dice are just so much more convenient, and there's a ton of different sizes and shapes to use in different combinations, to represent any odds you want.

Exactly. I had to stretch pretty far to come up with even one use-case where cards outperform dice.


The old Engel RPG (obviously the Arcana version, not the d20 knock-off) used Tarot cards. Those worked both as resolution mechanism and as a prompt to narrate how an action succeeded or failed.

That's super cool. My gut feeling is that you'd need a DM with a lot of skill in order for it to be fun, but that's a legitimate, creative reason to use cards over dice.

Satinavian
2023-01-25, 04:20 PM
That's super cool. My gut feeling is that you'd need a DM with a lot of skill in order for it to be fun, but that's a legitimate, creative reason to use cards over dice.Oh, not just the GM. If i remember correctly (it has been around 15 years that i played it), the one who drew a card had to narrate it.

gbaji
2023-01-25, 06:00 PM
I can also think of another potential benefit to cards instead of dice, which is giving people more control over when and how bad "rolls" happen.

Deal everybody a set of cards at the start of the combat, or session, or whenever. Players can choose when to use a specific card for a resolution.

Maybe they get dealt a 2, 6, 8, J, K or something.

They use the 8 on something their character can succeed at on an 8. They dump the 2 on a check that doesn't matter as much, etc.

Would be interesting for a more "cinematic storytelling" type of game.

Yeah. I can see that working in some games (and definitely has a specific "feel" to it, with a literal hand of fate thing going on). Also gives players some latitute in terms of dealing with their hand in the course of play.

GloatingSwine
2023-01-26, 06:17 AM
Although to return to another thing discussed in the thread, if you are literally holding your options in a hand of cards, non-card actions are going to be even less considered.

I think that resolution system probably would work better in a board game that focused on it than an RPG where you also have non-numerical options from the environment or inventory.