Does Every aspect of a TTRPG need to have a Strategic Mini-game?

[Pauly]

Essentially in a RPG a character has two basic choices
1) Move i.e. change what you can interact with, and
2) Interact, most commonly resolved by rolling dice and getting a success/fail outcome.
In addition to the player choices, sometimes the environment interacts with the character, in which case usually the player rolls dice and goes to success/fail. Other times the environment will impose a condition on the player and the success/fail result is to determine the severity of the condition
This is commonly referred to as the “core mechanics”.

In game design, the designer may choose to make a particular set of interactions more detailed, which is commonly called a mini-game. In some cases the mini-game is such a large part of the game it becomes more important than the core mechanics, and D&D is a good example where the combat mini-game overshadows the core mechanics.

To go through the questions, both implied and explicit in the OP.
1) Are mini games needed?
No.
2) Are mini games desirable?
Maybe. They are desirable when they enhance the core focus of the campaign, but become less and less desirable the further you get from the core experience of the campaign. A good example is ship travel and ship to ship combat. If you’re playing a dungeon crawl campaign, then a ship navigation and combat mini-game isn’t desirable, but in a naval exploration campaign it is highly desirable.
3) what features make a ‘good’ mini-game?
i) Speed of resolution.
ii) the whole party contributes meaningfully.
iii) consistency with the core mechanics. If positive modifiers are good in the core they should be good in the mini-game. If roll over target number is the core mechanic then it should be the same in the mini-game. Using the same dice is desirable. It should feel like you are still playing the same game.
iv) meaningful choices for the players. Players shouldn’t feel that in mini-game [X] they just keep mashing button A.
v) a level of detail appropriate of the importance of the mini-game to the campaign. Too much detail and the players will get bored, too little detail and the players will feel cheated.

I think it also is helpful to focus on the campaign, not the game system. For example in D&D a trip across the desert may be decided by a single skill roll to gain passage on a caravan, a hexcrawl with 20km hexes, or a detailed map crossing done in real time. The focus of the campaign will determine what is appropriate for the that group at that time.

[Cluedrew]

Over the top? Sure. But hopefully it gets across what I mean about a strategic minigame having meaningful choices.

It... ... does not. Luckily I already know a strategic mini-game can have meaningful choices. But there are different types of meaningful choices and different ways to arrive at them. For instance D&D combat is not strategic it is tactical and by the time you have entered combat the strategic layer is mostly been passed, and while you can go back to it there is nothing in the rules to really support that.

Any honestly maybe strategic/tactical divide wasn't the best example because I don't know if people divide them up in the same way I do and even if they do that isn't a huge divide compared to some of the others in system. Like the tactical/narrative divide, and although some people say there is no need to get rules in character / personality stuff, there are certainly meaningful choices to be made.

Is it "so very slow to resolve"? I mean, I hope so, as character growth doesn’t normally happen overnight. But neither "very slow to resolve" nor "strategic" necessitate a laborious minigame.

That's opposite what I was going for; by slow to resolve I do in fact mean "a laborious mini-game" not the amount of time it takes at the table. A 5-minute conversation has the same resolution speed as a 1-hour conversation. A 5-minute combat has the same resolution speed as a 1-hour combat. Assuming the same system, and I'm talking table time (trying to resolve 600 rounds of D&D combat sounds nightmarish).

[Quertus]

D&D combat is not strategic it is tactical and by the time you have entered combat the strategic layer is mostly been passed, and while you can go back to it there is nothing in the rules to really support that.

I mean… on the one hand, I agree, D&D combat is usually tactical. OTOH, there are usually strategic considerations, like “leave the untrustworthy NPCs in a worse position than the party, to discourage their sudden but inevitable betrayal” vs “treat the NPCs well, to win their loyalty”. Or “nova to end the encounter quickly, to reduce turns opponents get, in order to reduce losses and conserve resources” vs “use weaker / unlimited options, to conserve resources”. Or “take the bandits alive” vs “kill ‘em all”. Or “gamble on SoD effects” vs… almost too many other choices to list.

So there’s plenty in the rules of D&D to support different, potentially viable strategies, even in combat. Even if, yes, those vast number of strategic possibilities are but a small fraction of those available before the initiative dice are cast.

[Vahnavoi]

We're talking about games, the line between "strategy" and "tactics" is somewhat vague on the player level. Game theoretically, "strategy" simply refers to rules a player uses to decide between available actionable options. This kind of strategy exists on every level of a roleplaying game, from combat to freeform discussions between players. Applying other definitions of "strategy" or "tactics" relies more on in-character realities. In common use sense of "tactics", yes, D&D combat is primarily tactical, but it would be odd to propose strategy is not involved anywhere, because tactics is the study of most effective means to secure objectives set by strategy. The two go together, there can be no tactics in absence of a strategy.

[Quertus]

there can be no tactics in absence of a strategy.

Well, sure. But the point is, it’s not like D&D combat strategy is limited to, “make the other side dead”. Even in the middle of combat, D&D has more strategic richness than your average RPG, board game, video game, or RPG player, IME. And a lot of that is baked pretty clearly into the rules (of some editions).

I guess what I’m saying is, wouldn’t it be nice if game designers (including GM’s “forced” to create / Flesh out new minigames) actively thought in terms of providing such a rich, layered strategic environment, with so many theoretically viable strategic options?

I feel like a lot of games just don’t get it, where the only variances are the “noob/leet” spectrum of skill, or dodging trap options to find the one true way, rather than real strategic depth.

[Cluedrew]

Stuff in meat-space getting in the way, so this reply is definitely slow. Especially since this is a short reply.

To Quertus: Look, if D&D is tactical or strategic is not the main point, the main point is that there are different types of meaningful decisions (with tactical vs. strategic being an example there) and that you don't need something like D&D's combat system to have them. Or mechanical rules at all, but not everyone clicks with free-form role-playing.

[Composer99]

I noticed that there is a strong desire on this board to create "systems" to handle all aspects of the game. So, if you want to do social skills; we need a system in order to solve who gets their way. If you are going into the woods, you need a system in order to determine how long you can survive. If you are going to intimidate somehow, you need a wide variety of choices and rolls. I understand the appeal as no matter what happens, you know what to do, and remove grey area.

Every TTRPG should have a focus or "intended state of play" in which the rules maybe more developed or focused on. For example, D&D likes to focus a lot on "tactical combat" so has a lot of rules for how to kill stuff. Those Dark Places is an industrial, sci-fi space horror game, so it has more detail mechanics on panic states. Call of Cthulthu is more of an investigation and sanity losing focus, so mechanics focus on
those game play methods. Other games have other focuses.

Mini-games and such have their place in helping create the games focus. They are also great in board games, video games, wargames, etc. However, the only way a TTRPG with a GM can cover the vast swathe of game styles, scenarios, resolutions, etc. is by letting the GM adjudicate for areas that are outside of the core "intended state of play" that make up any session. It is one of the few things that make TTRPGs unique as a game experience. Should designers lean into this advantage, or are a variety of strategic mini-games the preferred state of play?

I look forward to the discussion and solid, well thought out refutations of my poorly worded thoughts.

Every TTRPG has gameplay procedures (what you call "mini-games"). That's what separates them from pure freeform roleplaying or make-believe. So I can't agree that GM adjudication as such is the crucial advantage of TTRPGs - say rather that it is their synthesis of freeform roleplay and structured procedures, which so far as I am aware is a feature unique to TTRPGs.

As for D&D in particular, especially 5e, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, of course, it is the largest game on the market by far, and therefore is being played by gamers with many different playstyles and preferences. Second, the game has always had pretensions to being universally adaptable to different playstyles and kinds of adventures. Third, at least part of the promise of this edition (which is being recycled in the 1D&D playtest) is the idea of not only being an "evergreen" edition, but also the idea of having modularity - a slim core ruleset with the ability to bolt on gameplay procedures and content to suit the desires of the table.

So I think the answer to your question is:
- Generally speaking, the quantity and nature of structured gameplay procedures in a TTRPG versus expectation of freeform adjudication (which can be done by any of the players, not just a GM) depends on the focus of that TTRPG, how far away from that focus a given aspect of gameplay is, and how important it is to the playgroup that there be an impersonal resolution of gameplay.
- For D&D in particular, there ought to be options for both greater and lesser amounts of structured gameplay, with each table making use of structured gameplay according to its tastes and needs. (See Pauly's example of desert travel, for instance.)

[Jakinbandw]

I guess what I’m saying is, wouldn’t it be nice if game designers (including GM’s “forced” to create / Flesh out new minigames) actively thought in terms of providing such a rich, layered strategic environment, with so many theoretically viable strategic options?

I feel like a lot of games just don’t get it, where the only variances are the “noob/leet” spectrum of skill, or dodging trap options to find the one true way, rather than real strategic depth.

For the game I'm working on it. It's harder than it looks though. For example I wrote a really cool social power that allowed a class to, when someone thought they were friends, freely destroy them, and anyone under their power at the cost of a single social action and a little time.

Turns out it's a trap ability because by the time you are friends you don't need to kill them any more. So while I thought it was an awesome ability, a player in my playtest with it has never found a use for it. And when you are trying to write a lot of abilities into your game (think 3.5 srd), you can't test every single one.

That said, on the tactics and strategy side writing a system that can support that number of abilities makes the game very strategic. In combat right now there are several roles that characters can use and switch between.

First they have to decide with melee vrs ranged, as the party needs at least one character willing to get into melee. If that character goes down they need to be replaced, so an off melee character is often advisable.

Then for roles they have buffing/debuffing, battlefield alteration, damage dealing, accurate attacks, protection, horde countering, and designated survivor.

There are other options too, but those are the major ones, with characters usually being able to slip between 2 or 3 roles as they need and desire.

I'd love to get you as a playtester but I suspect it wouldn't work out, and that you wouldn't enjoy the martial/mage divide in my game. Martials in my system are as supernatural as mages, they just having a different skill set. Time mages can stop or reverse time, while an Assassin can make it so failed actions never happened, or even make perfect plans that literally can not fail (at a high cost).

[Quertus]

Stuff in meat-space getting in the way, so this reply is definitely slow. Especially since this is a short reply.

To Quertus: Look, if D&D is tactical or strategic is not the main point, the main point is that there are different types of meaningful decisions (with tactical vs. strategic being an example there) and that you don't need something like D&D's combat system to have them. Or mechanical rules at all, but not everyone clicks with free-form role-playing.

Yes, looking back, it’s fair to say that that was your main point.

Here’s mine (maybe?): if those decisions don’t involve a strategic layer, if those decisions cannot be made by employing one or more of multiple strategies, and in so doing, both the choice of strategy and the implementation thereof don’t affect the story, then they’re not worth my time to think about, and aren’t meaningful.

Let me take an example from the strength-based intimidation thread.

Goal: Having killed most of the cultists of Ytherg, get information from one of the survivors.

Strategy: intimate with threat of [pain {DC25} / contamination with salt {DC15} / killing other cultist {auto-fail} / threatening family {DC20}] vs “pull a Ramsay” vs…

Implementation: “Uh, betray us, and I will fong you, until your insides are out, your outsides are in, your entrails will become your extrails I will w-rip... all the p... ung. Pain, lots of pain.” vs Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride.

Any decision that doesn’t respond to different strategic inputs with different outputs isn’t a decision that I find worthwhile. Anything that responds to various diverse strategic inputs with corresponding different logical outputs is a strategic minigame, regardless of whether it’s white box or black box, regardless of whether it’s laborious legalese or educated fiat.

“Any sufficiently advanced fiat is indistinguishable from rules. Any sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from fiat.”

But anything worth doing in a game is worth having the depth and level of detail that the strategic layer matters.

Actually writing down the rules of the strategic minigame, and/or having them be derivable from other established facts (Salt is Ytherg‘s bane, cultists of Ytherg undergo torturous physical training, “he ate my egg, I’m glad he’s dead”) is an important tool for consistency, fairness, and actually thinking through whether your material and game actually possess strategic depth.

Any clearer?

[gbaji]

Let me take an example from the strength-based intimidation thread.

Goal: Having killed most of the cultists of Ytherg, get information from one of the survivors.

Strategy: intimate with threat of [pain {DC25} / contamination with salt {DC15} / killing other cultist {auto-fail} / threatening family {DC20}] vs “pull a Ramsay” vs…

Implementation: “Uh, betray us, and I will fong you, until your insides are out, your outsides are in, your entrails will become your extrails I will w-rip... all the p... ung. Pain, lots of pain.” vs Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride.

What about this example? You mention the example, but then don't actually use it for anything, as far as I can tell. Or is your examination of the example here?:

Any decision that doesn’t respond to different strategic inputs with different outputs isn’t a decision that I find worthwhile.

Extremely vague statement to follow an example which presumably should have had some specific cases explored, but regardless, I'm either completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree (and I'm honestly not sure which).

If you mean this to say: "If the game system allows multiple methods to generate an outcome, the outcomes must be different based on the methodology used", then I have to completely disagree. Going back to your "questioning the cultist" example, there are really only two outputs: The cultist talks, or the cultist does not talk. It's entirely reasonable to assume that there may be multiple methods the PCs may utilize to try to get the cultists to talk, and some of them may be more successful than others. But they are all aimed at the same result.

Your statement seems to be saying that the cultist should say completely different things based on what method is used to question him? Or maybe the very fact that there's only one (bi-directional) output, you're arguing there shouldn't even be rules for this, or you're not interested in having rules for this? I'm not sure. Maybe be more clear what you're actually saying? I honestly read and re-read this like 5 times and still can't quite figure out what the point you're trying to make is.

Anything that responds to various diverse strategic inputs with corresponding different logical outputs is a strategic minigame, regardless of whether it’s white box or black box, regardless of whether it’s laborious legalese or educated fiat.

Maybe define "inputs" and "outputs" here. Are you saying that if the players have multiple things they can do, with multiple possible outcomes resulting from those actions, that this is automatically a mini-game? I'm not sure that's true either. We can absolutely use some very simplistic base rules in a game to generate rolls for a whole lot of things, filling in the gaps with roleplaying alone, and not really call that a "mini-game" (as least not how I'd define it). Sure you could have a different skill for every form of interrogation and pick which ones you use, and based on that get different information, or you could have a very broad "interrogation" skill and use that, and just roleplay what specific methods you are using, and have the GM roleplay the NPC's reaction based on that and the skill roll to decide the result. No mini-game required, but plenty of options for different outputs.

Heck. You could have even more generic skills and go from there too, if you want. I could run a game where the closest applicable skill was super broad like "social skills", and still manage an interrogation session just fine.

“Any sufficiently advanced fiat is indistinguishable from rules. Any sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from fiat.”

I don't think those go both ways. Sufficiently advanced rules are entirely distinguishable from fiat. Pretty much axiomatic actually. Well, unless your rule is "what I say goes" (fiat). I'm not sure anyone would define those as "sufficiently advanced rules" though.

But anything worth doing in a game is worth having the depth and level of detail that the strategic layer matters.

I disagree. Most things can be managed with a smallish set of logical skills and a decent amount of common sense and roleplaying. I think the biggest flaws in many game systems are when they try to be too detailed. Because when you do that, you will miss things, and those gaps will be noticed.

Actually writing down the rules of the strategic minigame, and/or having them be derivable from other established facts (Salt is Ytherg‘s bane, cultists of Ytherg undergo torturous physical training, “he ate my egg, I’m glad he’s dead”) is an important tool for consistency, fairness, and actually thinking through whether your material and game actually possess strategic depth.

I think you are mixing up game rules with game content. The specifics of a group of cultists likes, dislikes, hates, etc are not part of the game system rules. They are data used within a ruleset to determine outcomes. You absolutely should not have written in your game rules specific stuff about specific people, places, events, etc. You should have rules that allow those things to be managed logically. That way you are not constrained in any way within the rules.

[Quertus]

For the game I'm working on it. It's harder than it looks though. For example I wrote a really cool social power that allowed a class to, when someone thought they were friends, freely destroy them, and anyone under their power at the cost of a single social action and a little time.

Turns out it's a trap ability because by the time you are friends you don't need to kill them any more. So while I thought it was an awesome ability, a player in my playtest with it has never found a use for it. And when you are trying to write a lot of abilities into your game (think 3.5 srd), you can't test every single one.

That said, on the tactics and strategy side writing a system that can support that number of abilities makes the game very strategic. In combat right now there are several roles that characters can use and switch between.

First they have to decide with melee vrs ranged, as the party needs at least one character willing to get into melee. If that character goes down they need to be replaced, so an off melee character is often advisable.

Then for roles they have buffing/debuffing, battlefield alteration, damage dealing, accurate attacks, protection, horde countering, and designated survivor.

There are other options too, but those are the major ones, with characters usually being able to slip between 2 or 3 roles as they need and desire.

I'd love to get you as a playtester but I suspect it wouldn't work out, and that you wouldn't enjoy the martial/mage divide in my game. Martials in my system are as supernatural as mages, they just having a different skill set. Time mages can stop or reverse time, while an Assassin can make it so failed actions never happened, or even make perfect plans that literally can not fail (at a high cost).

First things first: I’m glad you perceive me as a valuable tester (I am in some dimensions, but you’d definitely also need someone to cover my weaknesses in other dimensions) but… why would you think I’d not enjoy your system?

Hmmm…

• “a really cool social power that allowed a class to, when someone thought they were friends, freely destroy them, and anyone under their power at the cost of a single social action and a little time.” - that’s… I’m not quite sure what you’re going for here. “Those we allow in, past our defenses, can hurt us more” seems true, and doesn’t require a special power to implement. “I’m friends with your boss, so I can hurt you” can be similar, but depends on the nature of the relationship with the boss… and the boss’ actual influence over you.
• “Turns out it's a trap ability because by the time you are friends you don't need to kill them any more.” - wait, kill?! Ok, that’s… different. Huh. The Determinator might find it suboptimal to the point of being a trap, but I can see a roleplayer playing a vengeful character using it in spades.
• “characters usually being able to slip between 2 or 3 roles as they need and desire.” - can a Chronomancer choose to build their character as Melee / BFC / Survivor, or as Ranged / Buff/Debuff / horde countering, or are they limited by the roles designated by the class?
• “buffing/debuffing, battlefield alteration, damage dealing, accurate attacks, protection, horde countering, and designated survivor.” - especially with you having social powers and a “friendship” status with actual teeth, are there designated roles outside combat? Like moral support, yes man, moral compass, idea man, life of the party, coordinator, “I know a guy”, neutral third party, voice of reason? Or is the detail limited to combat?
• “martial/mage divide” - sounds limiting compared to just “characters”
• “Martials in my system are as supernatural as mages, they just having a different skill set” - ok.
• “Time mages can stop or reverse time” - that sounds like a thing that a Chronomancer could do.
• “while an Assassin can make it so failed actions never happened” - sounds like a cool ability. Not seeing how it’s logically related to being an Assassin. I can see that Power being handy for an Assassin, but I don’t see it as related to being an Assassin.
• “or even make perfect plans that literally can not fail (at a high cost).” - unless it’s “I kill the target by blowing up the planet”… no, even then, this didn’t sound like an intrinsic part of being an assassin, but of a “5d Wizard Chess” chessmaster. Also, sounds like it’d remove game play, rather than adding to it.

That last ability is about the only thing I’ve heard that I’m not a fan of, that I most likely wouldn’t enjoy. If you had a particularly limited and silly vision of what certain conceptual archetypes mean, and limit your players to those visions rather than a more open system where players build their own “firefighter” power set, then I could see me not having fun. But so long as it’s coherent, even if it’s campy or “only works for exactly one setting”? That’s fine.

Hmmm… you never said “roleplaying game”, just “game”. If this is for a multi-prong war game (like 4e, but with more support for social powers)? You’re right, I wouldn’t enjoy it if I was expecting an RPG. But viewed through the lens of a war game, I can see definite potential. In that context, my concerns about how being an Assassin helps you gain Fate-manipulation powers (Euthanatos, perhaps?), or “friendship is magical… because it can kill you, and your little dog, too” don’t matter. If I don’t have to roleplay the playing piece, if I don’t have to get inside their head and make the reality make sense to me, if it’s just a Gamist game, then… wow. The only Gamist game of such complexity I’ve played is Magic, and this sounds like it has the potential to be cooler than that (dependent upon implementation, of course).

——-

Whew, that was more virtual ink than I’d intended to spill.

——-

As far as “trap options” go… there’s a difference between a single small “whoops” in a complex game, and the Determinator attitude that 80-90% of the 3e base classes are trap options.

[Jakinbandw]

First things first: I’m glad you perceive me as a valuable tester (I am in some dimensions, but you’d definitely also need someone to cover my weaknesses in other dimensions) but… why would you think I’d not enjoy your system?

I think it's mostly because of the discussions I've seen you have over magic vs mundane. That said from a differant angle, I guess that was never really over mage vs marital, so I guess I was pretty wrong.

[LIST] [*] “a really cool social power that allowed a class to, when someone thought they were friends, freely destroy them, and anyone under their power at the cost of a single social action and a little time.” - that’s… I’m not quite sure what you’re going for here. “Those we allow in, past our defenses, can hurt us more” seems true, and doesn’t require a special power to implement. “I’m friends with your boss, so I can hurt you” can be similar, but depends on the nature of the relationship with the boss… and the boss’ actual influence over you.[*] “Turns out it's a trap ability because by the time you are friends you don't need to kill them any more.” - wait, kill?! Ok, that’s… different. Huh. The Determinator might find it suboptimal to the point of being a trap, but I can see a roleplayer playing a vengeful character using it in spades.

Yeah, it was what I was thinking when I wrote it up. Maybe it just comes down to the players I have in the current playtest, a player picked it, excited to play with it, but every time they managed to get someone to think they were friends, they ended up not wanting to use it. Maybe a different group would find it more useful.

[LIST] [*] “characters usually being able to slip between 2 or 3 roles as they need and desire.” - can a Chronomancer choose to build their character as Melee / BFC / Survivor, or as Ranged / Buff/Debuff / horde countering, or are they limited by the roles designated by the class?

So classes are just a list of abilities the character can choose from. So a chronomancer would have access to two other classes when building (for maximum freedom). That said, while they wouldn't necessary be the best at those suggested rolls with just chronomancer abilities, they could build for both and switch between them. That said, designated survivor is something of a ranged role, so while they have tools they could use to help with that, they wouldn't be able to pull it off in melee. That said, most of their abilities are utility based, and they don't have many abilities that increase their combat efficiency.

They do have an incredibly fun finishing move that allows them to completely rewrite a target's backstory and history in combat however, so they aren't entirely utility.

[LIST] [*] “buffing/debuffing, battlefield alteration, damage dealing, accurate attacks, protection, horde countering, and designated survivor.” - especially with you having social powers and a “friendship” status with actual teeth, are there designated roles outside combat? Like moral support, yes man, moral compass, idea man, life of the party, coordinator, “I know a guy”, neutral third party, voice of reason? Or is the detail limited to combat?

Mostly limited to combat. They also aren't called directly out, but rather something that players seem to fall into when trying to play optimally. Often a character will take on one or two of those roles within combat. I just ended up writing them down so that as I designer, I keep them in mind when designing abilities for classes. A paladin character gets a bunch of the extra tools to allow them to protect others more efficiently, because that's often what paladins are expected to do, as an example.

Outside of combat, the roles are much more loose. If I had to pick for social, I'd say there is the favor gainer (A character that can generate a lot of small favors giving the party a leg up in social interactions), the information gatherer (who specializes in learning about npcs, specifically their social traits), and the favor enhancer (someone who can take favors being owed, and use them to gain large benefits). That said, while my social system has teeth, I intentionally kept it more loose than combat. I wanted all characters to be able to interact with characters socially, so the honest baseline of 'talking with them' is actually the most used, and most important part of the social system.

Outside of social and combat... I wouldn't even try to come up with roles. It just falls into the boiling pot of problem solving. From reversing time, to having functionally infinite money, to (last session), an epic level character picking up an entire town to move it out of the way of a battle with a massive serpent. I've been working with a database to keep track of all the abilities I've written for balancing purposes, and an entire tag is just called 'weird utility' because each does something so different that it only exists for that one ability.

[LIST] [*] “martial/mage divide” - sounds limiting compared to just “characters”

You know, when I'm on this forum for too long browsing, this language just slips in to how I talk. At the end of the day, I'm not sure the divide exists as clearly in my system as in dnd.

• “while an Assassin can make it so failed actions never happened” - sounds like a cool ability. Not seeing how it’s logically related to being an Assassin. I can see that Power being handy for an Assassin, but I don’t see it as related to being an Assassin.
• “or even make perfect plans that literally can not fail (at a high cost).” - unless it’s “I kill the target by blowing up the planet”… no, even then, this didn’t sound like an intrinsic part of being an assassin, but of a “5d Wizard Chess” chessmaster. Also, sounds like it’d remove game play, rather than adding to it.

That last ability is about the only thing I’ve heard that I’m not a fan of, that I most likely wouldn’t enjoy. If you had a particularly limited and silly vision of what certain conceptual archetypes mean, and limit your players to those visions rather than a more open system where players build their own “firefighter” power set, then I could see me not having fun. But so long as it’s coherent, even if it’s campy or “only works for exactly one setting”? That’s fine.

One one hand, you're right that they aren't core to playing an assassin, but they are often part of the fantasy of playing an assassin. Pulling off the perfect assassination, never being seen, and all that jazz. Probably their most assassiny ability is that they can study a target over downtime (giving the GM a heads up before the next adventure), and have a high chance to one shot kill that target if they manage to get a surprise round against them. This can allow them to defeat foes that are well above the parties capability to defeat, at a fairly high cost.

The super plan ability is certainly an outlier. And while it sounds awesome, it's really closer to setting a savepoint. You start a plan, then play the game normally, and as long as combat is avoided, you can freely take back any actions that didn't involve a failed roll. Once you fail a roll, or enter combat, you must either commit to the current situation, or jump back to when you started planning, discarding the plan. certainly it's 5d wizards chess, but I don't think it slows down the game significantly.

Hmmm… you never said “roleplaying game”, just “game”. If this is for a multi-prong war game (like 4e, but with more support for social powers)? You’re right, I wouldn’t enjoy it if I was expecting an RPG. But viewed through the lens of a war game, I can see definite potential. In that context, my concerns about how being an Assassin helps you gain Fate-manipulation powers (Euthanatos, perhaps?), or “friendship is magical… because it can kill you, and your little dog, too” don’t matter. If I don’t have to roleplay the playing piece, if I don’t have to get inside their head and make the reality make sense to me, if it’s just a Gamist game, then… wow. The only Gamist game of such complexity I’ve played is Magic, and this sounds like it has the potential to be cooler than that (dependent upon implementation, of course).

As far as “trap options” go… there’s a difference between a single small “whoops” in a complex game, and the Determinator attitude that 80-90% of the 3e base classes are trap options.

That seems fair.

Thank you for taking the time to respond! I'll try to invite you to the next playtest, and we'll see if you have time.

[Cluedrew]

For the game I'm working on it. It's harder than it looks though.

Oh yeah, that lesson comes in real quick. But I wish you the best of luck.

Any decision that doesn’t respond to different strategic inputs with different outputs isn’t a decision that I find worthwhile. [...] Any clearer?

What do you mean by "strategic"? Because you seem to be using it to mean anything that goes between scenes which is - if nothing else - much broader than how I use the word.

Extremely vague statement to follow an example which presumably should have had some specific cases explored, but regardless, I'm either completely misunderstanding you, or I completely disagree (and I'm honestly not sure which).

One of my favorite stories is the one time we (the forum community) spend six pages arguing, and then figuring out what everyone meant by "tier 1". After we got that done everyone started agreeing with each other.

[olskool]

I noticed that there is a strong desire on this board to create "systems" to handle all aspects of the game. So, if you want to do social skills; we need a system in order to solve who gets their way. If you are going into the woods, you need a system in order to determine how long you can survive. If you are going to intimidate somehow, you need a wide variety of choices and rolls. I understand the appeal as no matter what happens, you know what to do, and remove grey area.

Every TTRPG should have a focus or "intended state of play" in which the rules maybe more developed or focused on. For example, D&D likes to focus a lot on "tactical combat" so has a lot of rules for how to kill stuff. Those Dark Places is an industrial, sci-fi space horror game, so it has more detail mechanics on panic states. Call of Cthulthu is more of an investigation and sanity losing focus, so mechanics focus on
those game play methods. Other games have other focuses.

Mini-games and such have their place in helping create the games focus. They are also great in board games, video games, wargames, etc. However, the only way a TTRPG with a GM can cover the vast swathe of game styles, scenarios, resolutions, etc. is by letting the GM adjudicate for areas that are outside of the core "intended state of play" that make up any session. It is one of the few things that make TTRPGs unique as a game experience. Should designers lean into this advantage, or are a variety of strategic mini-games the preferred state of play?

I look forward to the discussion and solid, well thought out refutations of my poorly worded thoughts.

I would say 5e has the beginning of a "universal mechanic" which can be used for anything. WOTC just hasn't fully developed it yet. The PROFICIENCY SYSTEM is a very good start to a universal mechanic. You can use it by first defining the DIFFICULTY LEVEL of a given challenge. I like to use the following DCs to determine the DIFFICULTY of any given task. Please note, that the task is the task in my world and this Difficulty doesn't adjust simply because the PCs become more skilled.

Easy Task = 5 DC or a 75% chance of success with no modifiers
Average Task = 10 DC or a 50% chance of success with no modifiers
Difficult Task = 15 DC or a 25% chance of success with no modifiers
Formidable Task = 20 DC or a 5% chance of success with no modifiers
Impossible Task = 25 DC or NO CHANCE of success unless modifiers are present.

75% of all tasks we do from day to day will be Easy tasks. 20% of the tasks we do will be Average tasks. Less than 5% of tasks will be harder.

Now, all we need to do to avoid "mini-games" is give a listing of typical DC levels (Easy, Average, etc...) for everything from Climbing to Hiding to Perception. You then will use this one mechanic for everything.

It should be noted that early D&D had "mini-games for everything" because it evolved from a first-generation tabletop WARGAME. In the early days of gaming, Wargames had countless rules added to a base game, and each one was "optimized" for the certain situation which prompted its creation.

[gbaji]

One of my favorite stories is the one time we (the forum community) spend six pages arguing, and then figuring out what everyone meant by "tier 1". After we got that done everyone started agreeing with each other.

I'm by no means always as quick to detect this as I should be (I think everyone suffers from this). But when I run into a situation where someone is saying something and I'm like "huh?", I try to take the time to ask "OK. What do you mean by X, or Y? Step me through what you're trying to say". I've found that a lot of times, disagreements often boil down to people actually using the same word(s) to mean completely different things.

Also (and I'm absolutely as guilty of this as anyone else), there's usually a tendency to want to get your point across and it's so clear in your own head, that you may not realize that an outside observer isn't going through the same mental process you are, and isn't seeing the same thing you are, and therefore doesn't get what you are actually trying to say. It can be difficult to actually slow down, pause your argument, and clearly explain not just the point you are making, but each supporting assumption, term, definition, etc. It's tedious, but sometimes necessary.

[Quertus]

What do you mean by "strategic"? Because you seem to be using it to mean anything that goes between scenes which is - if nothing else - much broader than how I use the word.

I’m too senile to remember if I should attribute my memories of this feeling to you, or even exclusively to you.

What do I mean by “strategic”? Well, um… it’s… Ah… huh.

Ok, it’s part of a hierarchy, like TCP/IP. It lives between “goal” and “tactics”. It might, at times, be a synonym for “approach”. While Goal is what you intend to accomplish with a plan, Strategy is the how.

So, for example, when presented with a thread of conversation, I might select…

Goal: move this conversation forward in a productive direction, end the conversation, <insert social goals here, like “flirt with cute Pokémon daycare receptionist” or whatever>, <insert “do something magical”, in color, here>, give the post visual clarity, and make things visually interesting

Strategy: Attack the character of anyone who disagrees with me, provide additional details to explain my previous posts, ask clarifying questions, make things so political that the thread gets locked, read back in the thread to see what we’re talking about, pretend like I remember what we’re talking about, remind everyone of my senility, remind myself of my senility, cast “Wall of Text”, answer direct questions

Tactics: scream “you’re an idiot!”, compare anyone who would hold a particular view to masochistic Rick and Mortar fans (no offense to either, I just took the last media and last thing that sounded like it was being used as an insult I heard… and didn’t know enough about either to successfully spell either one… so it’s functionally random words), … blah blah blah … (attempt to) give a simple, direct answer to the question directly, answer the question with a question, explain with examples, <insert something here>, reference old conversations to make it seem like I still remember things, <insert something here>, interspace “selected” options with “unselected” options, spend time polishing the post, leave it with a “work in progress” feel, like I accidentally hit the “submit” button

Note how not all strategies are equally compatible with all goals, and, in fact, some are actively detrimental to some goals. Round by round tactics - actual actions - live in a similar optimal / suboptimal / detrimental spectrum for goals and approaches.

Note also that the layers are a bit fuzzy… is “humor” a goal, a strategy, or a tactic? Arguably, it could be any of the above.

So… a “strategy” is not limited to just “anything that goes between scenes” (although, at this point, saying I have no idea where you got that idea carries approximately zero weight).

Now, it might not be relevant, but CaW is all about delaying a scene, to plan and to utilize strategies that wouldn’t be available to a “beer and pretzels” CaS “kick in the door” Leroy Jenkins party. So I guess I can see how you might take something I’ve said, and equate “strategy” with “between scenes”, given that I’ve said CaW “utilizes the strategic layer”.

However, this runs into two problems.

The first… actually, they both boil down to the fact that I’m terrible at communication, and “setting things up so as to change or remove the difficulty of the encounter” arguably is more “planning” and “preparation” than “strategy”.

So now you can see the goals, strategies, and tactics I’ve utilized in this post (sort of - we can pretend, right?), and that helps you understand what I mean by the word “strategy”, which has almost no similarity to the phrase “strategic layer” I (probably foolishly) use when discussing CaS vs CaW. Right? Maybe? Clear as mud?

[gbaji]

Ok. Having read more of what you posted, and then re-reading this:

Here’s mine (maybe?): if those decisions don’t involve a strategic layer, if those decisions cannot be made by employing one or more of multiple strategies, and in so doing, both the choice of strategy and the implementation thereof don’t affect the story, then they’re not worth my time to think about, and aren’t meaningful.

I think I get what you're saying. Is it basically that if the detail about exactly how someone does something doesn't matter (much), then there's not a lot of value in putting detail into the game mechanics involving that action? That, I completely agree with.

If no one actually cares about the precise steps involved in making a 5 star meal to impress the local mafia boss and get on his good side, we don't need a mini-game involving 18 different skills that might be required for an executive chef to pull of such a thing, nor do we need a blow by blow account of each course, what you're doing to make it "special", researching his favorite foods/spices, what ingredients you are using, etc. Just roll a "cooking" skill and move on (or just roleplay hiring a top chef to do the work, while you stand around and take credit for making it all happen or something). Say what you are doing, role a die or something, then move on to the parts we actually care about.

Got it. Agree 100%. I think what threw people (and me) off, was using the phrase "strategic layer". To me, that means anytime we put forth a plan to do something, the layer that planning is occurring at is the "strategic layer" of the game (as opposed to "tactical layer" which is where we detail out the nuts and bolts of our actions). Clearly, the "plan" is to get on the mafia boss' good side by making him a 5 star meal. The strategic layer exists whether we choose to detail out the specific actions involved or not (which is what a min-game is about). It's really whether the details matter that much to us, or just the outcome. in this case, we only care about the outcome, so minimize the details and die rolling and move on.

[animorte]

I would say 5e has the beginning of a "universal mechanic" which can be used for anything. WOTC just hasn't fully developed it yet. The PROFICIENCY SYSTEM is a very good start to a universal mechanic.

Yea, this specific statement right here. I feel very strongly yes to this. It still requires adjustments and consistency with everything around it, but yes. Absolutely, 100%.

What do I mean by “strategic”? Well, um… it’s… Ah… huh.

This… this entire thing was a very entertaining and enlightening display of self-awareness. You made my entire week. Thanks for sharing.

[Quertus]

This… this entire thing was a very entertaining and enlightening display of self-awareness. You made my entire week. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks. I do try, even though I’ve (rightly) gotten in trouble when I forgot to consider what my joke looked like if you didn’t realize that it was supposed to be a joke.

Ok. Having read more of what you posted, and then re-reading this:



I think I get what you're saying. Is it basically that if the detail about exactly how someone does something doesn't matter (much), then there's not a lot of value in putting detail into the game mechanics involving that action? That, I completely agree with.

If no one actually cares about the precise steps involved in making a 5 star meal to impress the local mafia boss and get on his good side, we don't need a mini-game involving 18 different skills that might be required for an executive chef to pull of such a thing, nor do we need a blow by blow account of each course, what you're doing to make it "special", researching his favorite foods/spices, what ingredients you are using, etc. Just roll a "cooking" skill and move on

That’s part of it, yeah. At a higher level, do we even care how someone is trying to “get on his good side”? Do we care that it’s cooking? If that doesn’t matter, don’t bother explaining that that’s your strategy for the goal “get on his good side”.

The flip side is, I want things where the strategic layer matters, where the difference between “cook him a meal”, “get him a gift”, “clone his dead dog”, “tell him about his wife’s infidelity” actually matters to the story.

But if the most impact they have is which skill you roll when trying to get on his good side, they aren’t what I consider important or meaningful.

[Quertus]

“Any sufficiently advanced fiat is indistinguishable from rules. Any sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from fiat.”

I don't think those go both ways. Sufficiently advanced rules are entirely distinguishable from fiat. Pretty much axiomatic actually. Well, unless your rule is "what I say goes" (fiat). I'm not sure anyone would define those as "sufficiently advanced rules" though.

Now, I know I say some crazy stuff sometimes, but I decided I wanted to address this, to show that there is an underlying method to my madness.

When you’re a young babe, suckling at your mother’s teet, there are a few rules which make sense: when you cry your hungry cry, the soft, warm source of milk arrives; when you cry your angry cry, you get put in the Dark Place, where spiders vie for room on your face. Everything else in the world - including things like “the persistence of objects” - is sufficiently advanced that, to you, it may as well be fiat.

So any rules that exist beyond the scope of comprehensible complexity or whatever (like, how does Burger King pricing work, or why is the Necron deck the most expensive one?) are indistinguishable to the viewer from fiat.

That’s what I mean when I say that any sufficiently advanced rule is indistinguishable from fiat: that, if the player isn’t reading the rules (and maybe even if they are), the rules are too complex to be distinguishable from fiat, too complex for the viewer to comprehend the underlying consistency given the expected amount of data / expected number of interactions with the rule.

Obviously, if the rule writer and the viewer have similar ideas about how the universe works, that viewer will have an advantage when attempting to discern the underlying rules created by that writer. I’ve met a few people whose… stats, experiences, and world view, I suppose?… were similar enough to my own that their underlying mechanics were close enough to transparent and reasonable to my eyes. Everyone else, it’s gibberish nonsense. Like that string of guys who keep disappearing behind hands, only for another one to magically appear to the magic words “peekaboo!”. I’ve gotta learn that spell.

[Cluedrew]

What do I mean by "strategic"? Well, um... it's... Ah... huh. [...] Clear as mud?

That is a fairly reasonable general definition, you know the first one on the list. Unfortunately I'm not using the general definition, I'm using what I thought was the standard gaming definition.*

The quickest way I have to describe this, that should still work, is "strategic" also means "of or reminiscent of strategy games". Which does pull in the general definition of strategy, as that genre tends bring in those choices.

But it also brings in some other things which, although not always bad, are certainly always good. The big one is a focus on testing a player's skill. Now, how good a player at the game is always going to be a factor, but I for one don't think that it should be a design goal that character ability should be tied to player ability.

Hopefully, that should give everyone an idea of what I mean by strategic.

* And if you think I should of seen that coming, wait until I get to the story I was shocked to discover someone was using the word martial to mean "of war".

[kyoryu]

The big one is a focus on testing a player's skill. Now, how good a player at the game is always going to be a factor, but I for one don't think that it should be a design goal that character ability should be tied to player ability.

All games test skill, to some extent. The only real question is which skills you're looking to test.

[gbaji]

Now, I know I say some crazy stuff sometimes, but I decided I wanted to address this, to show that there is an underlying method to my madness.

When you’re a young babe, suckling at your mother’s teet, there are a few rules which make sense: when you cry your hungry cry, the soft, warm source of milk arrives; when you cry your angry cry, you get put in the Dark Place, where spiders vie for room on your face. Everything else in the world - including things like “the persistence of objects” - is sufficiently advanced that, to you, it may as well be fiat.

So any rules that exist beyond the scope of comprehensible complexity or whatever (like, how does Burger King pricing work, or why is the Necron deck the most expensive one?) are indistinguishable to the viewer from fiat.

That’s what I mean when I say that any sufficiently advanced rule is indistinguishable from fiat: that, if the player isn’t reading the rules (and maybe even if they are), the rules are too complex to be distinguishable from fiat, too complex for the viewer to comprehend the underlying consistency given the expected amount of data / expected number of interactions with the rule.

You keep using the word "fiat". I do not think it means what you think.

Hint: "Fiat" means to declare something to be <whatever> by sheer authority (eg: "The rule is what I say it is because I say it is"). When you say a sufficiently advanced rule is indistinguishable from fiat, you are literally saying that sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from "because I say so". Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what "sufficiently advanced rules" are supposed to do (avoid determinations by fiat). Rules give us the means to determine what to do when there's a conflict in a game: I think my character hit, you think he missed. Either we just decide one of us is right (that's "fiat"), or we come up with rules to determine this objectively (like calculating odds and rolling dice).

The more advanced the ruleset the farther away we get from any one person just "deciding" what the outcome is. And thus farther way from ruling by fiat.

[Quertus]

That is a fairly reasonable general definition, you know the first one on the list. Unfortunately I'm not using the general definition, I'm using what I thought was the standard gaming definition.*

The quickest way I have to describe this, that should still work, is "strategic" also means "of or reminiscent of strategy games". Which does pull in the general definition of strategy, as that genre tends bring in those choices.

But it also brings in some other things which, although not always bad, are certainly always good. The big one is a focus on testing a player's skill. Now, how good a player at the game is always going to be a factor, but I for one don't think that it should be a design goal that character ability should be tied to player ability.

Hopefully, that should give everyone an idea of what I mean by strategic.

* And if you think I should of seen that coming, wait until I get to the story I was shocked to discover someone was using the word martial to mean "of war".

The best thing about my definition is, it was made by me. But the second best thing is, it matches yours. No, seriously. In other threads, we’ve got people decrying how forcing “strategy” is unfair, because it tests player skill. I’m… honestly not sure how you could possibly miss the concept that, if the strategy you choose matters, then the existence of the strategic layer is inherently a test of player skill. Maybe you’re used to RPGs where you roll the appropriate skill to determine your strategy? Where your roll tells you that the best way to get the king on your side is to impregnate his daughter? If so, then, yeah, I guess I could see the confusion. (Note to self: steal this idea for response to “it’s unfair” comment).

I’ll say it again (Although maybe for the first time in this thread): Strategy & player skill determine what direction you’re headed; tactics and character ability determine how far you go in that direction.

In any game where the player has agency to make meaningful decisions, it had better not just be a “design goal” but an absolute requirement where falling the test is a sign of utter failure to produce anything even remotely acceptable, that character impact on the narrative should be tied to player choices, and, thus, to player skills.

You keep using the word "fiat". I do not think it means what you think.

Hint: "Fiat" means to declare something to be <whatever> by sheer authority (eg: "The rule is what I say it is because I say it is"). When you say a sufficiently advanced rule is indistinguishable from fiat, you are literally saying that sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from "because I say so". Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what "sufficiently advanced rules" are supposed to do (avoid determinations by fiat). Rules give us the means to determine what to do when there's a conflict in a game: I think my character hit, you think he missed. Either we just decide one of us is right (that's "fiat"), or we come up with rules to determine this objectively (like calculating odds and rolling dice).

The more advanced the ruleset the farther away we get from any one person just "deciding" what the outcome is. And thus farther way from ruling by fiat.

You keep using the word “magic”. I do not think it means what you think it means. Technology is inherently built upon known scientific principles; the more advanced the technology, the further away we get from “magic”.

Thank you for demonstrating that I said exactly what I meant to say.

If I happen to have memorized 5,000 pages of rules on ship combat (that you’ve never read or even heard of) could you really tell the difference between me following those rules and fiat? Over time, you might notice some patterns… but are those a sign that my fiat has internal consistency, or that I’m following some actual rules?

“Indistinguishable” is not a question of *is*, it’s a question of perception.

(Note: you’d probably amazed at the results of some of the tests I’ve run, at how long it takes players who’ve never heard of the concept and haven’t been told what system we’re playing in (let alone allowed to read the rules) to understand that things like “encumbrance” or “fatigue” impact their abilities.)

[gbaji]

Just for clarity, and to show the context of your original statement:

Any decision that doesn’t respond to different strategic inputs with different outputs isn’t a decision that I find worthwhile. Anything that responds to various diverse strategic inputs with corresponding different logical outputs is a strategic minigame, regardless of whether it’s white box or black box, regardless of whether it’s laborious legalese or educated fiat.

“Any sufficiently advanced fiat is indistinguishable from rules. Any sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from fiat.”

But anything worth doing in a game is worth having the depth and level of detail that the strategic layer matters.

Actually writing down the rules of the strategic minigame, and/or having them be derivable from other established facts (Salt is Ytherg‘s bane, cultists of Ytherg undergo torturous physical training, “he ate my egg, I’m glad he’s dead”) is an important tool for consistency, fairness, and actually thinking through whether your material and game actually possess strategic depth.

You keep using the word “magic”. I do not think it means what you think it means. Technology is inherently built upon known scientific principles; the more advanced the technology, the further away we get from “magic”.

Thank you for demonstrating that I said exactly what I meant to say.

If I happen to have memorized 5,000 pages of rules on ship combat (that you’ve never read or even heard of) could you really tell the difference between me following those rules and fiat? Over time, you might notice some patterns… but are those a sign that my fiat has internal consistency, or that I’m following some actual rules?

“Indistinguishable” is not a question of *is*, it’s a question of perception.

Yes. Very clever wordplay. Um... Also incredibly non-useful in a conversation about strategic mini games. You specifically contrasted "fiat" and "laborious legalese" in your preceding statement. Perhaps try to not step on your argument with clever wordplay?

And yes, I get the difference between perception and reality, and if we were having a conversation about how to get unknowing players to play games the way we want, or follow the rules we're setting down, it would be a wonderful point. But the assumption here is that we're all discussing the nuts and bolt of game rules and when to be more or less detailed and specific with those rules. The audience here is *not* the people who are going to just say "someone told me the rules say X, so they must be right". Ok. Some might, but anyone earnestly engaged in the very thread we are in presumably is *not*.


I also still think you are using fiat incorrectly anyway. Fiat isn't "I know the rules and I'm telling you they are X". Fiat is literally "the rules are whatever I say they are". Not "appear to be to you because you don't know any better", but you are literally just making them up. There is no 5000 page rulebook. Just you making stuff up as you go along. Now, yes you could lie and claim there's a 5000 page rulebook you are quoting form, and perhaps some wont realize the difference. But, to follow the analogy all the way, in this case you actually *are* using magic, and when someone say's "it's magic!" you're telling them, "no, it's actually technology". Er... No. It's magic. You're not following rules here.

[Stonehead]

You keep using the word "fiat". I do not think it means what you think.

Hint: "Fiat" means to declare something to be <whatever> by sheer authority (eg: "The rule is what I say it is because I say it is"). When you say a sufficiently advanced rule is indistinguishable from fiat, you are literally saying that sufficiently advanced rules are indistinguishable from "because I say so". Which is pretty much the exact opposite of what "sufficiently advanced rules" are supposed to do (avoid determinations by fiat). Rules give us the means to determine what to do when there's a conflict in a game: I think my character hit, you think he missed. Either we just decide one of us is right (that's "fiat"), or we come up with rules to determine this objectively (like calculating odds and rolling dice).

The more advanced the ruleset the farther away we get from any one person just "deciding" what the outcome is. And thus farther way from ruling by fiat.

It's a fair comparison if the players can't see the system.

You throw a fireball, roll damage, and it deals that much damage, you get the system. It doesn't feel like fiat. Occasionally you run into demons who have resistance to fire damage. At first it's strange, but before long you figure out that some creatures just take a flat amount less damage from fire, and you understand the system again. It doesn't feel like DM fiat.

Now imagine some hypothetical system where tensile strength, flame resistance, combustibility, melting point, and humidity are all used to determine the amount of damage a fireball deals. There are so many independent variables that it'd be almost impossible for the players to figure out how advanced the system is. There would be no way of telling if there was a lot of math going in to a consistent system for how much damage is dealt, or if the DM is just making it all up on the spot.

At least, that's my attempt at summarizing someone else's point.

IMO it only really applies to DM-side systems that the players can't see. If I were designing a game I probably wouldn't design a minigame, especially not a strategic one, whose mechanics were hidden from the players but I'm not a pro game designer.

[Quertus]

It's a fair comparison if the players can't see the system.

You throw a fireball, roll damage, and it deals that much damage, you get the system. It doesn't feel like fiat. Occasionally you run into demons who have resistance to fire damage. At first it's strange, but before long you figure out that some creatures just take a flat amount less damage from fire, and you understand the system again. It doesn't feel like DM fiat.

Now imagine some hypothetical system where tensile strength, flame resistance, combustibility, melting point, and humidity are all used to determine the amount of damage a fireball deals. There are so many independent variables that it'd be almost impossible for the players to figure out how advanced the system is. There would be no way of telling if there was a lot of math going in to a consistent system for how much damage is dealt, or if the DM is just making it all up on the spot.

At least, that's my attempt at summarizing someone else's point.

IMO it only really applies to DM-side systems that the players can't see. If I were designing a game I probably wouldn't design a minigame, especially not a strategic one, whose mechanics were hidden from the players but I'm not a pro game designer.

Well put. Kudos!

Only thing I can add to your excellent explanation is the concept of players who enjoy the game, but have 0 cares to give wrt the underlying mechanics. All that “humidity and tensile strength” (or even the “d6 per caster level”) might technically be visible to the players on paper, but this class of players just isn’t interested in opening that black box to understand what’s under the hood. “Huh. This time, Fireball dealt 27 damage.” or “Huh. This time, the Fireball didn’t kill the Treefolk.” is the extent of their interaction with the underlying system.

[Thrudd]

"rules so complex they are incomprehensible" are not really a problem in just about any TTRPG. Rules so complex that a reasonable and attentive player can't predict how the variables will likely impact the outcome would be too unwieldy for a pen and paper game. I feel like this scenario can be ruled out as something people need to be worried about - overly complicated rules with too many steps will make the game unplayable long before they are so complex that it will resemble fiat.

Both "The GM keeps all rules hidden from the players" and "Some players are oblivious/disinterested in rules to the extent that they aren't aware of even the most basic mechanics" suggest that only with great effort or in fringe cases will rules appear equivalent to fiat.

So I'd say that, for the purposes of a discussion about actual, extant TTRPGs played by average people, mechanics are never going to be indistinguishable from fiat. Also, even in the most complicated calculations, there are usually a few major variables that will allow the outcome to be generally predictable. Players who are aware of even very complicated rules with lots of variables will still likely be able to correctly predict how their input will affect the outcome to some degree. A player would need to be trying really hard to be oblivious to make the game seem like a black box.

[gbaji]

At least, that's my attempt at summarizing someone else's point.

And it's a fair point. One can certainly argue that as the rules for any given system become overly complex, the tendency to handwave the outcomes (GM fiat) instead of actually following the rules will increase. Doubly so if the bulk of the players are not going to have access to or time to absorb the full rules.

But the rules themselves never become indistinguishable from fiat. The "rulings" may, but not the actual rules. One has to assume that the intent of writing increasingly more detailed rules is specifically to avoid fiat rulings by the GM. This is, as I said, axiomatic. In the absence of a rule to handle something, the GM just decides what happens (that's fiat). Once you add a rule to handle that situation, fiat gives way to "following the rule". Cases where the GM chooses to use fiat anyway and is counting on the players not knowing that a rule exists to handle the situation doesn't mean that the rules are indistinguishable from fiat, but that fiat is being used instead of the rules.

But yeah. I can imagine a situation where the players may not know and therefore not be able to tell the difference. Seems like a pretty narrow case to make a such a broad proclamation though. If the statement was "hidden rules are indistinguishable from fiat", I'd be in complete agreement (Paranoia anyone?).

IMO it only really applies to DM-side systems that the players can't see. If I were designing a game I probably wouldn't design a minigame, especially not a strategic one, whose mechanics were hidden from the players but I'm not a pro game designer.

That was more or less my follow up reasoning. We're in a conversation about when to use/create a minigame to handle specific situations within a game. The assumed case is "we don't have any rules for this", which means that the GM has to rule by fiat (even if just by deciding which skill applies when there isn't one that is obvious), and we are discussing creating or adding new rules to handle those situations so that it is *not* fiat rule. So yeah, the assumption is that a need for more detailed rules exists, and we're asking when that may be and what to do about it. We can certainly speculate cases where the opposite is the case (too many too detailed rules), of course.

And yeah, there's certainly some validity to state the need for caution by creating overly complex rules. But I don't know if I'd have stated it that way. You'll reach the point of "takes too much time to use" long before you reach "GM will just ignore it, and rule how he wants, and the players wont be able to tell the difference". I suppose you'll go back to semi-fiat rulings in both cases, but again, no one is being fooled into thinking the rules are the same as fiat. They're just choosing not to follow the rules.

And as a long time Star Rules Battle player, I know all about folks trying to pretend the rules say what they want rather than what is written. But then, in that game, everyone would call you out on that if you tried it. The "fun" with that game was that as they added more rules to handle more situations, the sheer number of books you had to flip through increased, and what rules you were playing with literally changed based on what rulebook sets were present at the game session (Do we have the rules for sideslips here? How about Romulan space mines? Proximity fuses? Ubitron interface modules? Is the ISC in this game? NCLs? Drone variants?).

[Quertus]

So, what I’m hearing is, y’all agree that this sub-discussion is pointless, which was my point?