RPG metric, simplified version

[KillianHawkeye]

Also, I’m not requiring a score of 100%. You seem to assume that any error will result in “failure to be an RPG”. The metric is simply the degree of suitability to be played as an RPG.

Wait, wait, wait.

Now you must amend your opening statement "D&D 4e is not an RPG" to something like "D&D 4e does not fail to be an RPG, is just not a suitable RPG according to Quertus' exacting standards." But we all knew that's what you were really saying all along. And the discussion can finally end.

[Telok]

Hmm. So we're talking a metric arrived at through the frequency & magnitude of fiction/rules outcome mismatches that occurr during play.

Something like a common fragmentation grenade exploding within 4 meters of someone has a 10% kill, 20% maimed, 50% hospital stay, 10% walking wounded, 10% "fully heals in 2 days without medical attention" is probably low on the mismatch scale except when "called shot grenade to the head" has the same results, but its a somewhat rare issue. So that's probably a low nuisance dissonance and you'd need then happening constantly in play to affect the metric.

On the other hand a choice between "jump in starship & chase the bad guys who have a 2 day head start to reach the superweapon thats at most 5d6 days travel away" and "spend 10d6 days upgrading the spaceship before chasing the bad guys" is a trap because you absolutely have to upgrade the ship or the inevitable "random" level appropriate space combat will be a TPK. Even outside official adventures you need to stop after a couple weeks of say, dinosaur hunting, to upgrade the ship or else the next time anything violent happens in space yoy're likely to TPK because the rules say "only party level +/-2 encounters" and "1 in 6 random combat encounter per day of space travel". That sort of thing is a bigger hit on the metric because it seriously conflicts with any coherent fiction on a regular basis.

So we're either in the "I know it when I see it" personal feeling zone or you'd need a way to measure the magnitude of the events and figure some typically allowable range.

[Khedrac]

I'm not saying that people are not having a very intersting and possibly useful discussion of the nature of RPGS, but I do think that those people who are saying that Quertus is incorrect have missed one of Quertus' stated conditions that the definition of an RPG has to meet:

So much I’d like to say. But, what can I say, I’m dedicated to being able to say, “4e is not an RPG” in peace. Even if it means more posts than I can process to get there. Hmmm… As you’ve been fond of saying, “all models are wrong, only some are useful”. You’d need to demonstrate how my model isn’t useful for me to abandon it. Which, with comments that show that my model is understood to and has value to some, that prospect would be vanishingly difficult.

Until you can factor this in to your position, Quertus is not going to accept it based on his openly stated goal.

[noob]

I'm not saying that people are not having a very intersting and possibly useful discussion of the nature of RPGS, but I do think that those people who are saying that Quertus is incorrect have missed one of Quertus' stated conditions that the definition of an RPG has to meet:

Until you can factor this in to your position, Quertus is not going to accept it based on his openly stated goal.

I did prove Quertus model was useless for him by proving that by picking the fiction and characters you can make 4e be the most rpg of all the rpgs (by picking an OOTS style setting and characters that knows the very rules of the universe like what is done in the "will save world for gold" comic) or make any game not be a rpg (by including general incompetentius which will cause a 100% mismatch between the character decisions and the game rules) thus proving his system depended on the fictions and characters you picked for evaluating rpgs thus making it not objective. Here Quertus is intentionally picking intentionally dissonant characters and settings to deRPGify 4e while with other choices on characters and settings we get vastly different results.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not saying that people are not having a very intersting and possibly useful discussion of the nature of RPGS, but I do think that those people who are saying that Quertus is incorrect have missed one of Quertus' stated conditions that the definition of an RPG has to meet:

Until you can factor this in to your position, Quertus is not going to accept it based on his openly stated goal.

My response would be goody gumdrops for Quertus, let them have at it. Quertus clearly already wants to use their model, and super-clearly doesn't think of 4e as an RPG regardless of what anyone thinks or says.

This reminds me of an meme I've seen floating around the intarwebs for a while now -- some guy with a folding table out on what looks like a college quad with a sign on the front which says something along the lines of 'the world is flat, convince me I'm wrong' (with people editing in whatever they like as the first part). The intent seems to be to lampoon 'that guy' that thinks if no one has convinced them they are wrong, then their argument must be good. It certainly fails because most people won't have a particularly strong incentive to do so, since, well why should we care?

Same applies here. Quertus can, in effect, declare, 'no, the burden of proof is on all of you!' all they want. It doesn't change anything. Unless they actually convince others that this model is meaningful and useful (or the side premise that, since the formal definition of RPG is underwhelming, that their definition is as good as any), everyone leaves the discussion exactly as they came in -- with everyone else having a relatively similar colloquial understanding (if not shared verbiage) of what an TPG is, and Quertus has their own definition they already clearly have no intention of abandoning.

[oxybe]

My response would be goody gumdrops for Quertus, let them have at it. Quertus clearly already wants to use their model, and super-clearly doesn't think of 4e as an RPG regardless of what anyone thinks or says.

This reminds me of an meme I've seen floating around the intarwebs for a while now -- some guy with a folding table out on what looks like a college quad with a sign on the front which says something along the lines of 'the world is flat, convince me I'm wrong' (with people editing in whatever they like as the first part). The intent seems to be to lampoon 'that guy' that thinks if no one has convinced them they are wrong, then their argument must be good. It certainly fails because most people won't have a particularly strong incentive to do so, since, well why should we care?

Same applies here. Quertus can, in effect, declare, 'no, the burden of proof is on all of you!' all they want. It doesn't change anything. Unless they actually convince others that this model is meaningful and useful (or the side premise that, since the formal definition of RPG is underwhelming, that their definition is as good as any), everyone leaves the discussion exactly as they came in -- with everyone else having a relatively similar colloquial understanding (if not shared verbiage) of what an TPG is, and Quertus has their own definition they already clearly have no intention of abandoning.

I think the meme you're thinking of is Steven Crowder "Change my mind" meme. I won't go in his background, you can check that out if you feel so inclined, but the idea behind the meme is that he frequently sets up these "booths" at a liberal leaning campus or town with a table, film crew & sign that says something along the lines of "male privilige is a myth" or "hate speech isn't real" and grabs whatever incensed recent high school graduate who likely hasn't done research on the given topic and "debates" them on it, usually coming out on top because no "argument" (and i use the term argument loosely. because these aren't debate team veterans with a slew of research at their side, but some recent high school graduate who are half-rambly/stumbling to make their point on the spot VS someone who's decently charismatic/boisterous and already practiced their talking points and common arguments beforehand) is likely going to change his mind (which is already set in stone anyways).

In short: it's a rather dishonest attempt at a conversation/debate.

[Willie the Duck]

I think the meme you're thinking of is Steven Crowder "Change my mind" meme. I won't go in his background, you can check that out if you feel so inclined, but the idea behind the meme is that he frequently sets up these "booths" at a liberal leaning campus or town with a table, film crew & sign that says something along the lines of "male privilige is a myth" or "hate speech isn't real" and grabs whatever incensed recent high school graduate who likely hasn't done research on the given topic and "debates" them on it, usually coming out on top because no "argument" (and i use the term argument loosely. because these aren't debate team veterans with a slew of research at their side, but some recent high school graduate who are half-rambly/stumbling to make their point on the spot VS someone who's decently charismatic/boisterous and already practiced their talking points and common arguments beforehand) is likely going to change his mind (which is already set in stone anyways).

In short: it's a rather dishonest attempt at a conversation/debate.

Genuinely interesting (and a hair's breadth from real world politics, so I'll leave it alone). I've never personally understood the appeal of trolldom, but I'm sure they get plenty of the low hanging fruit satisfaction of hijacking peoples' better judgement and 'getting one over on them' or whatever. The original intent behind the meme is rather tangential, though, as even the big bad internet seems to recognize that it's a 'what exactly do you think you've proven?' moment. For my purposes, it's the attempt to flip the script on burden of proof (and how that doesn't actually work towards any meaningful end) that is the key component of the parallel. Quertus can declare the thread purpose to be others convincing them to abandon the model if they so desire, but unless they provide a convincing (to others) argument for those others to buy into the model, everyone leaves the thread exactly as they started (and all but Quertus have no incentive to feel like they've failed in any way by not changing Quertus's mind).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Genuinely interesting (and a hair's breadth from real world politics, so I'll leave it alone). I've never personally understood the appeal of trolldom, but I'm sure they get plenty of the low hanging fruit satisfaction of hijacking peoples' better judgement and 'getting one over on them' or whatever. The original intent behind the meme is rather tangential, though, as even the big bad internet seems to recognize that it's a 'what exactly do you think you've proven?' moment. For my purposes, it's the attempt to flip the script on burden of proof (and how that doesn't actually work towards any meaningful end) that is the key component of the parallel. Quertus can declare the thread purpose to be others convincing them to abandon the model if they so desire, but unless they provide a convincing (to others) argument for those others to buy into the model, everyone leaves the thread exactly as they started (and all but Quertus have no incentive to feel like they've failed in any way by not changing Quertus's mind).

An old poem says "A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still." Since there is no objective standard for "proof" in situations like this, the whole concept of "burden of proof" isn't useful. Any of us will judge evidence that we like as being real evidence, while discounting "evidence" we don't like as long as we don't want to be convinced. That's why this whole conversation is totally pointless. As are 99.999999+% of arguments and debates, both in person and (especially) on the internet. Trying to change someone's mind about something requires first a willingness to change. And I've seen no evidence of that on, well, any side here.

(If it's not clear, I'm agreeing with you).

[JNAProductions]

An old poem says "A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still." Since there is no objective standard for "proof" in situations like this, the whole concept of "burden of proof" isn't useful. Any of us will judge evidence that we like as being real evidence, while discounting "evidence" we don't like as long as we don't want to be convinced. That's why this whole conversation is totally pointless. As are 99.999999+% of arguments and debates, both in person and (especially) on the internet. Trying to change someone's mind about something requires first a willingness to change. And I've seen no evidence of that on, well, any side here.

(If it's not clear, I'm agreeing with you).

110% of Internet statistics are made up. :P

I disagree with your hyperbole-I've seen, on this very forum, people change their minds because of well-reasoned arguments. And on another forum I frequent too! It's more common here than the other one, but it certainly happens. As for in-person, my friends and I frequently disagree initially, but come to a compromise or a shared conclusion.

I don't think this thread is going to result in any changed minds, but plenty of times, minds are changed.

[Cluedrew]

So, is this a definition that others can use? Yes, if they can abandon their preconceptions. Is this a definition that people will want to use? I believe so, even if it may take generations for people to recognize that fact.

Would you like to leave your contact information so I can send my grandchildren can continue this conversation?

More seriously, where you getting all this confidence from? You are basically claiming to be the only one in this thread and the 2-3 previous threads who understands the truth and the result of us are stumbling around in the dark.

You are the one asking for a change, the burden on proof is on you here. Although if you really are worried about preconceptions why don't we reframe the discussion a bit. Why don't you just talk about why you don't like 4e for a bit and we can talk about how that relates to its possible role-playing game status later.

[PhoenixPhyre]

110% of Internet statistics are made up. :P

I disagree with your hyperbole-I've seen, on this very forum, people change their minds because of well-reasoned arguments. And on another forum I frequent too! It's more common here than the other one, but it certainly happens. As for in-person, my friends and I frequently disagree initially, but come to a compromise or a shared conclusion.

I don't think this thread is going to result in any changed minds, but plenty of times, minds are changed.

You're right. I was being hyperbolic with the number. I'll also admit to using a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "argument" (distinguishing it from "discussion", the former being about proving the other person wrong (or yourself right), the latter being about coming to a conclusion about what the best answer is to a question). I find that attacking other people's positions (trying to prove them wrong) is only useful under very particular circumstances[1]; the more productive way is to ignore the "wrong" and build on shared, common ground and show why (you believe) your position is better, with the flexibility to abandon your position if good evidence comes up. But as I said, that requires an innate willingness to change your opinion.

Edit: I'll note that this is something I recognize, but am not particularly good at implementing personally. I try, but yeah. I fail at it a lot. Which is why it bugs me.

[1] It's worked when discussing matters of physics among equally-qualified physics students or practitioners, with the clear cultural understanding that we're attacking the position or the evidence, not the person. And working from very clear, shared understandings of what constitutes proof in those narrow conditions. Outside of that? I've not seen that style work. I've seen it make people really mad and defensive, though.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I hear ya. And agree 100% with that.

[Telok]

internet. Trying to change someone's mind about something requires first a willingness to change. And I've seen no evidence of that on, well, any side here.

Its a minor thing, but years and years ago I decided to make decisions based on evidence. It has required me to change my stance on some things and has occasionally been uncomfortable. The issue of course is reliable information & analysis. This is why when I write for gaming stuff I make simulators & spreadsheets & graphs to map out the results of subsystems. I change things based on if the subsystem returns desired results and ranges of results.

I think Quertus just has a badly expressed measurement system for the suitability of a game to be what Quertus defines as a RPG. Unfortunately, untill the measurement system & definition are very well communicated you can't have a fruitful discussion and attempts to argue the validity or accuracy are probably futile. I recall seeing some of this in the D&D 3.x tier discussions when people tried to them for more than theoretical optimization maximums.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its a minor thing, but years and years ago I decided to make decisions based on evidence. It has required me to change my stance on some things and has occasionally been uncomfortable. The issue of course is reliable information & analysis. This is why when I write for gaming stuff I make simulators & spreadsheets & graphs to map out the results of subsystems. I change things based on if the subsystem returns desired results and ranges of results.

I think Quertus just has a badly expressed measurement system for the suitability of a game to be what Quertus defines as a RPG. Unfortunately, untill the measurement system & definition are very well communicated you can't have a fruitful discussion and attempts to argue the validity or accuracy are probably futile. I recall seeing some of this in the D&D 3.x tier discussions when people tried to them for more than theoretical optimization maximums.

What counts as "evidence" is a subjective thing. Everyone must decide it for themselves. Some communities have cultural standards, but this one? Yeah, doesn't. How important is DPR? How much do the assumptions of the model bias the result? How frequent are the situations you're modeling against? Etc. And most importantly "what do you value?" Ie what are the metrics you're choosing? That's a free choice, leading to substantial room for subjective bias.

I've found that trying to be "evidence-based" in my design has made things worse. Because I end up focusing on the numbers, which are generally the part that matters least. A focus on what is measurable tends to end up being the drunk man looking for his keys under the lamp post.

I'll admit to severe personal bias here--as a teacher, I heard the admonition to be "evidence-based" in my teaching all the time. What it turned out that meant was "do whatever the fads say." When I actually read the studies (coming from a hard science PhD background), I found their standards of evidence and argumentation laughably bad. That experience poisoned my take on being "evidence based" in anything subjective.

Edit: I guess what I'm opposing here is false objectivity. Objective is not better than subjective, necessarily. When the matter at hand is subjective, trying to force it into a metric-based "objectivity" means that you fail to capture a lot of what's important. Values and tastes and priorities are inherently subjective quantities, and "metrics" and "evidence" don't help much. And it's those that are at the root of this "discussion." And most of others on this forum and in general.

[Telok]

Oh gods no. Teaching is (opinion) a bad place for forcing excessive & over generalized metrics. I'm talking about subsystems like "space travel with dangers" where the ins & outs are well defined.

Like theres a game where shooting a gun is rolling level + skill d10s and jamming a gun was set as rolling more 1s than your level (level & skill both go to 5, extra dice over 10 dice become bonuses). This meant a level 1 & skill 5 character jammed > 10%, a level 1 & skill 1 character never jammed. Then, because short range & aiming added dice, a level 1 gun bunny could get to roll 10 dice on a close & well aimed shot thus raising jamming to > 25%. Those are the sorts of things to model & look for flaws/tweaks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh gods no. Teaching is (opinion) a bad place for forcing excessive & over generalized metrics. I'm talking about subsystems like "space travel with dangers" where the ins & outs are well defined.

Like theres a game where shooting a gun is rolling level + skill d10s and jamming a gun was set as rolling more 1s than your level (level & skill both go to 5, extra dice over 10 dice become bonuses). This meant a level 1 & skill 5 character jammed > 10%, a level 1 & skill 1 character never jammed. Then, because short range & aiming added dice, a level 1 gun bunny could get to roll 10 dice on a close & well aimed shot thus raising jamming to > 25%. Those are the sorts of things to model & look for flaws/tweaks.

Yeah. Once you have a clearly-defined set of parameters, then and only then can metrics and models and numerical evidence really help. But most of what I do is building new stuff, for which metrics help very little, and a focus on metrics can reduce it to bland mush. It's more about theme and consistency; the numbers themselves are fairly "off the shelf". And if you're wrong about the numbers, well, it doesn't matter as long as you're only off a little. And the only way to really know if you're off is to playtest.

[Dr. Murgunstrum]

Ye gods, is this strawman still being bandied about?

Either D&D, the progenitor of all tabletop RPGs, is not an RPG, for a myriad of abstracted mechanics that have no place in a fictional simulation of reality (this is all editions: looking at you Hit Points)

Or salty grogs need to let go of a dead argument of how encounter or daily powers fit the fiction.

The worst example of this is the Alexandrian’s vain attempt to distinguish “story telling games” from “role playing games” trying to imply that any form of non-diagetic influence you have on your character’s story disqualifies a game from being a roleplaying game (which of course disqualifies all editions of D&D, and basically every RPG that abstracts anything)

It’s a very long walk for a sandwich that was rotten to begin with.

4e is an RPG because the players assume the role of characters and make decisions in play based on that role. All the fuss about why an archer can’t make a pinning shot twice in ten minutes is irrelevant: it’s an abstraction that represents the billions of physical interactions being simulated in narrative.

The archer can have simply gotten lucky, and luck, like magic, divine intervention, mystical or mutant power, is fickle and doesn’t exist outside of fantasy.

And of course, 4e is a fantasy game, so all dailies and encounters are governed by the fiction of that fantasy. Rejecting the fiction of that is as silly as saying “it’s impossible to store a magic spell in your brain and instantly forget it, so Vancian magic can’t be part of an RPG”

[Telok]

It's more about theme and consistency; the numbers themselves are fairly "off the shelf". And if you're wrong about the numbers, well, it doesn't matter as long as you're only off a little. And the only way to really know if you're off is to playtest.

Space travel, average crew, short easy trip on an established route with navigation aids, no penalties:
Success plotting a course 29%
Badly off course (arrive lightyears off course & retry the trip) 3%
Demon incursion 13%
Average trip time about 16 hours
Immediate emergency maneuvers required to avoid crashing into planet/station/whatever on exit from warp 24%

Some times the numbers are so wrong you don't need to playtest. Although in this case the playtest probably used PCs fling the ship themselves, with exceedingly above average abilities, to mitigate the issues.

In this example with expert PCs flying & partially gaming the system, who are also semi-superheros and like fighting demons on a regular basis, the system "worked". And for a certain style of fiction that assumes only the PCs use rules and the PCs are always trouble magnets with insane bad luck, its fine. But as soon as you aren't using a specific game style & a fiction specifically designed to justify the rules its a flop.

To my mind the system should say if it requires a particular, very specific, fiction & play style to work & make any coherent sense. Or it can run some tests (math, simulatio , & playtesting) and adjust the numbers/system to make it work with the usual & expected range of styles & fictions it claims to work for.

I suppose I dislike when a system or subsystem says "these are the rules for x" and then fails (math or making sense) when the unwritten assumptions aren't followed. The example I gave had the unwritten assumption of elite PCs running all aspects of the spaceship and all npcs getting narrative fiat successes & safe trips. So when the PC party didn't include a space navigator and elite pilot the system consistently gave nutso drama queen results. Then when they were complete passengers and npcs didn't game the system math quirks it started failing to produce believable results most of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's one reason I prefer systems that don't try to make hard and fast statements about probabilities of events. Any rule-bound system will have edge cases where the fundamental assumptions aren't met and absurdity happens. People, generally, are better about avoiding that. But there's also the drive to "obey the rules", which leaves people feeling like their hands are tied.

I prefer guidance over crunch. And yes, systems should absolutely discuss in no uncertain terms their operating assumptions and intended (ranges of) play style and genre.

[Witty Username]

So this is a definition that is less of, more of RPG rather than a yes/no RPG?

How would this list of games compare to each other on this definition?
AD&D
Call of Chultuhu
D&D 3.5
Dragon Age - 2
Talisman
Vampire the Masquerade

[False God]

That's one reason I prefer systems that don't try to make hard and fast statements about probabilities of events. Any rule-bound system will have edge cases where the fundamental assumptions aren't met and absurdity happens. People, generally, are better about avoiding that. But there's also the drive to "obey the rules", which leaves people feeling like their hands are tied.

I prefer guidance over crunch. And yes, systems should absolutely discuss in no uncertain terms their operating assumptions and intended (ranges of) play style and genre.

But these aren't mutually exclusive concepts. In the same way that "playing from the perspective of the character" can't happen to the exclusion of the rules in a system other than Calvinball.

Edge cases are edge cases. Like the OP, they're a poor metric for if the game works(or subjectively is "good") because there will always be edge cases. The best advice and the best set of numbers can never totally eliminate them. And no, that's not a judgement on which is better at handling them, which is better is entirely dependent on the sort of game you're designing and sort of gameplay you're intending to generate.

[Quertus]

As that would be a straw-man, I don't think I will bother with either. Why aren't you just giving the actual system? If its long write it out, put it in a big spoiler. I probably will not understand it all the first time but we can go back and forth a few times.

Yeah, I'm going to second this argument. The fact that we don't have a good definition to reflect the common usage doesn't mean there isn't one.

Humans are association engines, noticing similarities and patterns. So, roughly speaking, a role-playing game is something that seems similar to existing role-playing games. So if there are a bunch of features that commonly show up in role-playing games and you see it in another game, then its probably an RPG. And if you caught my change in language there, that is in fact how we got the tabletop/pen-and-paper vs. computer split, because different people focused on different parts of the D&D like role-playing game. And both populations were large enough to establish both words (or meanings of the word depending on how you want to look at it). And as of yet you have not convinced enough establish a new word, but maybe you will if you keep at it.

Of course, from earlier in this discussion (not this thread, possibly not even in A Model of Immersion but before even that) we talked about a similar thing and you said you were trying to build a more scientific definition that was testable and that is how I have been viewing your new word/definition ever since. Still not sure why you want it to be a homonym of role-playing game and I could open that one back up to, but for now I will not.

Ah, this thread is just for discussing the simple metric (which, , I realized could / should be at least 2 metrics.

But note how the 2nd is simply “higher fidelity” than the first. The “complex metric” just tries to iron out *all* the spherical cows. It’s the same core logic, but as approached by an OCD mad scientist.

It’s much easier to discuss the core logic in the simple, spherical cows versions. Even if, at times, it means that I just nod and say, “spherical cows”.

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for replying.

I think I'm going to step out of the thread at this point, though. My main purpose was to get a better idea of how you were framing your metric, to better understand it. A lot of discussion can end up in the details without trying to look the whole thing over comprehensively. It was also to see if perhaps I could learn anything from it, or getting a better understanding of things from the discussion.

I'm not sure that I did - I pretty much disagree with nearly all points you've made - but it has raised one or two questions. Not necessarily relevant questions to the discussion, but it's appreciated to get them. I do give thanks for engaging me to this point, but by now I think that I would likely just end up repeating the points I've already made so I think I'll just drop out around now.

If something else interesting pops up in the discussion, though, I might pop back in.

Hope you’re still reading: disagree, like strawberry 🍓 vs chocolate 🍫 , or think I’m straight up logic error wrong?

If the latter, think there’s any chance you can explain my error to me?

Hmm. So we're talking a metric arrived at through the frequency & magnitude of fiction/rules outcome mismatches that occurr during play.

Something like a common fragmentation grenade exploding within 4 meters of someone has a 10% kill, 20% maimed, 50% hospital stay, 10% walking wounded, 10% "fully heals in 2 days without medical attention" is probably low on the mismatch scale except when "called shot grenade to the head" has the same results, but its a somewhat rare issue. So that's probably a low nuisance dissonance and you'd need then happening constantly in play to affect the metric.

On the other hand a choice between "jump in starship & chase the bad guys who have a 2 day head start to reach the superweapon thats at most 5d6 days travel away" and "spend 10d6 days upgrading the spaceship before chasing the bad guys" is a trap because you absolutely have to upgrade the ship or the inevitable "random" level appropriate space combat will be a TPK. Even outside official adventures you need to stop after a couple weeks of say, dinosaur hunting, to upgrade the ship or else the next time anything violent happens in space yoy're likely to TPK because the rules say "only party level +/-2 encounters" and "1 in 6 random combat encounter per day of space travel". That sort of thing is a bigger hit on the metric because it seriously conflicts with any coherent fiction on a regular basis.

So we're either in the "I know it when I see it" personal feeling zone or you'd need a way to measure the magnitude of the events and figure some typically allowable range.

Ok, awesome, sounds like you’ve got a good handle on the metric!

Now, what’s the next step? Hmmm.…

Count out how many decisions the players had during the course of that session / those sessions.

Count how many of those decisions *must* be made OOC (ie, “eh have to upgrade the ship now, else TPK)”

Calculate the fraction (or percentage, or whatever number stuff you like to use) of those decisions that can be made in character.

That’s the simplest simple metric. Done.

Optional: if you want to use the slightly more mathematically complex simple metric, take those decisions that *can* be made in character (ie, “I’ll take a penalty to hit in order to guarantee that this grenade hits you in the face.… even though, mechanically, that has the same effect as the grenade exploding 4 meters away), and measure the percent / fractional efficacy of the roleplaying choice compared to the Determinator choice.

Calculate the average efficacy of the roleplaying choice for those choices that can be made in roleplaying mode.

Multiply those two fractions together.

That’s the mathematically more complex metric.

So, if a session has 20 actions, and 5 are “upgrade the ship or TPK” OOC logic, then 15, or 3/4, or 75% are doable from roleplaying stance. So the game is 75% suitable to be played as an RPG.

However, if those 15 IC actions are, on average, about 20% less effective than the Determinator answer, then you only get 80% effect on that 3/4 of the actions, so roleplaying only nets 60% of the total effectiveness available in those choices.

And a choose your own adventure book has about 0 decision points where you can make the in character choice, so it’s about 0% suitable to be played as an RPG.

The simplest simple metric measures the portion of actions that *can* be taken in character, the mathier one measures the effectiveness of IC actions.

Sound even remotely actionable?

If so, feel free to use either metric for (your memory of) the decisions from a few different systems, and let us know the results.

I'm not saying that people are not having a very intersting and possibly useful discussion of the nature of RPGS, but I do think that those people who are saying that Quertus is incorrect have missed one of Quertus' stated conditions that the definition of an RPG has to meet:

Until you can factor this in to your position, Quertus is not going to accept it based on his openly stated goal.

Touché.

So, I’m lazy, and selfish. I really didn’t think I’d get much out of this thread, and that it would be a pain. So the only reason I bothered was because I was being called out on my running gag.

So, yes, from one point of view, that was my “goal”. It’s fair to say that, if I achieved that goal, I’d be done with this topic.

Or, well, would have been, if people didn’t have any questions, and hadn’t demonstrated that the model needs some polish, and that the expression thereof needs a case or two of polish.

However, that’s not the only possible end condition. Demonstrating a fundamental logic fault in any step would force me back to the drawing board.

Would you like to leave your contact information so I can send my grandchildren can continue this conversation?

More seriously, where you getting all this confidence from?

Probably the same place your confidence that you understood me came from.

More seriously, simple pattern recognition. Or, as you might say, I’m an association engine, too. When this many intelligent people seem to want to prove me wrong, but make cases this poor, I, historically, tend to have completely failed at communication or at least have a point, if not be right. And some people getting traction on the basic concepts removes the “it’s just because I worded it too poorly” case.

People have pointed out numerous small problems, but nothing fundamentally wrong with the core logic.

You are basically claiming to be the only one in this thread and the 2-3 previous threads who understands the truth and the result of us are stumbling around in the dark.

You are the one asking for a change, the burden on proof is on you here. Although if you really are worried about preconceptions why don't we reframe the discussion a bit. Why don't you just talk about why you don't like 4e for a bit and we can talk about how that relates to its possible role-playing game status later.

Yes, I’m claiming that I was the only one who understood me. Or, well, who demonstrated sufficient understanding and engagement. Or something. However, I believe that this is no longer the case. Some people actually have traction on the idea now that I’m focusing on the simplified version of the metric. (Because, you know, I was, formerly, too daft to think of this part as being the core, having initially come at it from the opposite direction. Yeah, I thought of this as derivative initially.)

And, if someone who understands what I’m saying points out a critical flaw in the logic, then I learn something.

And, maybe, once people understand what I’m talking about.… well, honestly, I think you were the only one pestering me about my running gag, so if *you* get a good handle on my metric, we can discuss whether my running gag has grounds for existing. Of course, anyone who understands my metric could discuss how any system fairs, or what fiction they are using to evaluate a system. So it’s possible I could come to a conclusion on that topic without you.

You're right. I was being hyperbolic with the number. I'll also admit to using a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "argument" (distinguishing it from "discussion", the former being about proving the other person wrong (or yourself right), the latter being about coming to a conclusion about what the best answer is to a question). I find that attacking other people's positions (trying to prove them wrong) is only useful under very particular circumstances[1]; the more productive way is to ignore the "wrong" and build on shared, common ground and show why (you believe) your position is better, with the flexibility to abandon your position if good evidence comes up. But as I said, that requires an innate willingness to change your opinion.

Edit: I'll note that this is something I recognize, but am not particularly good at implementing personally. I try, but yeah. I fail at it a lot. Which is why it bugs me.

[1] It's worked when discussing matters of physics among equally-qualified physics students or practitioners, with the clear cultural understanding that we're attacking the position or the evidence, not the person. And working from very clear, shared understandings of what constitutes proof in those narrow conditions. Outside of that? I've not seen that style work. I've seen it make people really mad and defensive, though.

This feels like it needs / deserves a post all its own, if not its own thread. Because, yeah, that’s some good stuff there.

Not only did my player clearly dump charisma when building me, they also made me a genius in a most obnoxious way, that some things are just *obvious* to me, and I cannot even comprehend how to explain them.

Sadly, what I know here isn’t that I’m right, but what valid arguments against the core logic of what I’m saying should look like. Yeah, *really* not helpful, believe me, I know. The one thing I’m completely incapable of making progress on is helping define what constitutes proof.

But at least, unlike in other threads, there’s evidence of some people getting traction on what I’m saying.

Which, if there was some *obvious* fault in the core logic, and they trusted me to be able to listen, should have come out by this point. If there is such an obvious error, but they don’t think I’ll hear it, there should be a little dancing of establishing communication protocols, followed by them hitting me with a clue-by-four.

Given the current state of understanding, if that doesn’t happen soon, then I’ll have to conclude that there’s at least nothing *obviously* messed up in the core logic. Which, of course, still leaves many shades of subtlety of potential errors, but who has the attention span to think about those anymore?

The details, well, I’ve clearly bungled those half a dozen ways. I *really* shouldn’t be responsible for *explaining* things. Much like reading comprehension, it’s not one of my strengths.

(You and I are working from a very different set of assumptions / givens. My read of the old “what is roleplaying / what is an RPG” threads led to my summary of, “there is not a consensus, there is not a common usage of the word / phrase”. Worse, we conceptualize / use the very concept of a definition differently. For us, sadly, starting at common ground would require several threads to precede this one. And, given how all the chopped up elephant bits lie rotting, I doubt such complex interactions as starting all the way back there would require would ever obtain traction. However, I’ll not deny, it may be interesting to try nonetheless some day, just to see if anything of value can be found along the way.)

[Vahnavoi]

@Quertus: stop convoluting your measure with unnecessary additions. Namely: drop every argument and every paragraph relying on a hypothetical "determinator" to determine "efficacy" of roleplaying.

Reason: as I pointed out before, who your character is, is part of the rules in a roleplaying game. The hypothetical "determinator" is a very specific character viewpoint. If your character is a cowardly 10-year-old girl, playing them as "the determinator" is in fact against spirit (and likely, letter) of game rules. How efficient said 10-year-old girl then is compared to "the determinator" is absolutely irrelevant for measuring if game is suitable to be played as a roleplaying game.

For similar reasons, your argument for giving choose-your-adventure books (and other prescripted games) a 0 rating is fallacious. Another poster, noob, already called you out on this. When a prescripted game gives you a defined character, you aren't allowed to feed arbitrary character assumptions into the game to argue absence of choices "break character". Nowhere is it required for a game to give you unlimited choice to stay in character. Instead, you have to evaluate if the given choices make sense for the given character.

If you still don't spot the fallacy, consider: in real life, people frequently encounter situations where they have to decide from a limited set of choices. A limited set not having the one option you'd pick from an unlimited set does not mean the limited choice you do make is not informed by your viewpoint on the matter.

[Lacco]

@Quertus: stop convoluting your measure with unnecessary additions. Namely: drop every argument and every paragraph relying on a hypothetical "determinator" to determine "efficacy" of roleplaying.

Reason: as I pointed out before, who your character is, is part of the rules in a roleplaying game. The hypothetical "determinator" is a very specific character viewpoint. If your character is a cowardly 10-year-old girl, playing them as "the determinator" is in fact against spirit (and likely, letter) of game rules. How efficient said 10-year-old girl then is compared to "the determinator" is absolutely irrelevant for measuring if game is suitable to be played as a roleplaying game.

Also, the line between "upgrade ship else TPK" and "upgrade ship because my character would not feel safe venturing forward in a ship that's not state-of-the art" is...a bit blurry.

So again, very subjective. And would lead to "any D&D is not suitable to be played as an RPG".

Because you can think of IC reasons to almost anything if you bend your brain enough . Example: "I'm out of spells, let's stop and rest after 5 minutes of adventuring".

[Telok]

Also, the line between "upgrade ship else TPK" and "upgrade ship because my character would not feel safe venturing forward in a ship that's not state-of-the art" is...a bit blurry.

Actually when we played it the scenario was that we'd last leveled the ship about two levels ago, were a couple few days behind the bad guys, and the system was... numerically balanced on what I'd consider jankey principles.

In character the bad guys were potentially 5d6 days away from a superweapon that could nova multiple stars anywhere in the galaxy from anywhere in the galaxy with no warning and no known upper limit to the number of stars exploded. The bad guys knew were behind them but had set at least three deady encounters up before they left, knowledge of where they were going wasn't supposed to exist any more, and tracking ships through drift-space was impossible. As a bonus they'd never space attacked us with anything but super wimpy trash space fighters and were down (we believed) to only thier main ship.

Out of character their main ship was literally larger & more dangerous than the published level 20 ships and obviously wasn't a fight for a level 7 party & ship. On the other hand our ship point value (severe jank: ship value was a totally separate track from actual party wealth, to the point that we joked we were so broke the "good space fairies" would magically upgrade our ship out of pity because the rules said the ship got upgraded basically no matter what) had... I think about doubled over the last 2 levels. Any way, it needed everything upgraded. Even taking 10d6 days would only have about half upgraded it. There was also no expectation on (or communication to) the player side that the game would move at the speed of plot, so time could have been an actual factor.

We made the semi-in-character decision to take 4d6 days and just upgrade the real space & hyper space engines and just run from the inevitable "random" space encounter. Of course later we learned that we were doing "speed of plot" and we could have spent two months doing side quests & upping the ship while still being just a couple days behind the bad guys. As it was fleeing the "random" space encounter left us under geared (gear costs about doubled every 2 or 3 levels & system assumed you had level +/-1 gear) & about a level behind where the adventure assumed we would be (it was a triple encounter: space fight & boarding action & counter boarding all against level+1 opponents and a level +2 or +3 boss, much xp & loot).

I could be off on some details as I didn't read the adventure, but its what the DM told us later. But in character we needed to catch up as fast as possible, were broke & calling in unspecified but limited favors to get any upgrades, and could outrun anything we didn't already out gun. By the system we should have taken all the time needed to up the ship, and gone full in on killing & stripping & selling anything we possibly could even if we had to spend weeks backtracking to a major city for buy/sell.

[Vahnavoi]

That doesn't sound like a system level contrivance. That sounds like a basic scenario level contrivance, where the stated time limit is not an actual time limit.

[Quertus]

@Quertus: stop convoluting your measure with unnecessary additions. Namely: drop every argument and every paragraph relying on a hypothetical "determinator" to determine "efficacy" of roleplaying.

Reason: as I pointed out before, who your character is, is part of the rules in a roleplaying game. The hypothetical "determinator" is a very specific character viewpoint. If your character is a cowardly 10-year-old girl, playing them as "the determinator" is in fact against spirit (and likely, letter) of game rules. How efficient said 10-year-old girl then is compared to "the determinator" is absolutely irrelevant for measuring if game is suitable to be played as a roleplaying game.

For similar reasons, your argument for giving choose-your-adventure books (and other prescripted games) a 0 rating is fallacious. Another poster, noob, already called you out on this. When a prescripted game gives you a defined character, you aren't allowed to feed arbitrary character assumptions into the game to argue absence of choices "break character". Nowhere is it required for a game to give you unlimited choice to stay in character. Instead, you have to evaluate if the given choices make sense for the given character.

If you still don't spot the fallacy, consider: in real life, people frequently encounter situations where they have to decide from a limited set of choices. A limited set not having the one option you'd pick from an unlimited set does not mean the limited choice you do make is not informed by your viewpoint on the matter.

I honestly cannot imagine how you picture my metric, to cause you to make such a statement.

So, please, in your own words, explain what you think my metric is, and what it would be sans Determinator, so that I can have a clue how to respond.

[Vahnavoi]

Go back and read your own damn description. Your metric, sans any reference to "the determinator", can be expressed as either ratio of roleplaying decisions to non-roleplaying decisions, or ratio of real time spent roleplaying time ratio of real time spent on other game actions. You yourself then describe comparison to "the determinator" as an extra step taken to modify this value.

I'm telling you the latter step is unnecessary.

[Telok]

That doesn't sound like a system level contrivance. That sounds like a basic scenario level contrivance, where the stated time limit is not an actual time limit.

It was really more of a combination of two two in that exact instance, but the system issue of "the ship must keep up in level with the party or else any encounter (because all encounters should be level appropriate) will TPK" and the issue with the writers getting thier numbers right but basing everything on the party, their gear, and everything being at the right level is quite real.

That system didn't come out and tell you that everything had to be level +/- 1 or 2 in order for it to work, it was implied but not stated. Any time a DM deviated from everything about the party being on-level (usually by accident) the game started to break. Once that happened either the DM had to start breakng rules to keep the game working or they just gave up in frustration.

Part of the upshot was that the DM and/or players had to make in game choices based on the game rules in order for the game to work. Things that made sense in character or in the fiction at times had to take a back seat to what the game rules required in order to not break the game or TPK the party. The total decoupling of spaceship power with anything except party level was just one example, and it led to broader issues than just requiring one adventure to use "speed of plot".

[Cluedrew]

People have pointed out numerous small problems, but nothing fundamentally wrong with the core logic.

There are a lot of things I could say (I think I understood the simplified model, which is why I am not interested in doing that again. Yes, someone else could figure it out, but that doesn't mean I can't try) but I am going to pick on this one.

I don't think the core logic is not really the issue though. Your three opening points are basically boil down to "role-playing games should be about role-playing and to this end fiction and mechanics should match". At that level, sure, good enough. If that is what you mean by core logic then we are good. The problem is you then state that you are done and 4e is not an RPG. There is no bridge there, no way to apply that concept as a check*. All the ways suggested to bridge that so far have required play and are dependent on the group and module, not just on the system itself.

Very simple example, if everyone else plays their character like a faceless pawn, it is pretty hard to have character moments with them even if you are playing a character with a detailed personality. So other people having more interest their characters could change all the results. That doesn't seem like an objective measure to me.

So how should we standardize it? Well, standardizing it to a particular group is useless if you are not in that group (the problem with the 7-year-old measure), and at the extremes any group probably could role-play in any game (you talked about this in Chess), or avoid role-playing in any game (I've seen people approach very fiction focused games like they are D&D, the result is painful) so what does leave us?

Well that leaves us with our personal experiences. And let me tell you, I was role-playing as much in 4e as I was in 3.5e or 5e (or at least 5e & 4e, 3.5e may have been a bit worse). So I have run your simple tests already and all three systems got the same score. Woot! It turns out this was all a false alarm and 4e was a role-playing game all along. I am being silly. But the results are true, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if your results match up with what you are saying. But that's your table not mine, so why should I use them?

So yeah, I don't think you can put an objective measure on a system like that. So many other factors come into it to shift it around I don't think any measure can give you a definitive result.

* There is also the issue of whether or not it is the right check. But let's leave that for now.