TheRPGSite

I used a term I like (as far as I know I coined it myself, but I'm sure it's been used before by others that I'm unaware of. Sun...New.. Etc.) in another thread.

Bloody Stupid Johnson asked some questions and I felt it was far enough afield from the original thread to make a new one.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;642342Its not exactly something I'd thought about in those terms but I wonder what other examples are out there (of systems that fail this) and how they fail?

BTW: this seems relevant so bringing up for discussion...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?226856-Simulationists-Black-Boxes-and-4e (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?226856-Simulationists-Black-Boxes-and-4e)

If I'm understanding correctly the 'black box approach' described here as a feature of 4E D&D design is more or less the opposite to simulation of process, used largely for simplicity. Or gameability as with D&D hit points - though perhaps it could still be said to be a simplicity issue since a more complex system could give similar results with largely fixed hit points, i.e. where combat skill adds to damage only against weaker opponents.

No, not really a good match but they are closely related. Let me try to explain the differences (although I do like the Black box vs. process-response for what it is). I'll make the attempt in two parts.


First- Black Box vs. Simulation of Outcome
For example Warrior B fights Warrior A is perhaps one of the most basic inputs in RPG. They are equal in ability so we flip a coin to determine who wins (that's the black box) and a winner is determined.

That whole process is Simulation of Outcome, while Black Box is the method used in the middle. The Black Box is a simplification, one so great that the entire process-response (using the link's definition) is completely invisible to us and is an example of extreme Abstraction.

It is not however a failure of Simulation of Process. Why? Because the process is hidden in the Black Box and we don't even know what it is :)

All we can do is judge how valid the Outcome was given the input(s). That's very important and worth doing of course.


Process-Response vs. Simulation of Process

Process Response is cause and effect. In D&D we can map each step of combat resolution, flow charting it out in detail. The result is a proper Process-Response when applied only to itself. What it's not is a model of actual combat. Armor doesnt' really make one harder to hit, a person's body is not abalative, damage that isn't damage in the real world isn't damage. And so on.

Thus it's a failure of Simulation of Process, as is any game mechanic that says X causes Y when in fact it's causing something else completely.

Basically the way to look at this is to imagine that you know nothing of the reality of what's being simulated for a moment, and then look at the game system breaking it down to Process Response and the key features thereof. Than compare that result to reality. Is the system at any point basically lying about how something happened? It can leave stuff out, it can simplify and still meet a Simualtion of Process standard- but it can't lie and do so.

BTW, A system can succeed at Simulation of Outcome, and fail at Simulation of Process.


Clearer?

Very few people will ever completely agree on Simulation of Process.

It's nifty that you found a value on how you determine whether a game meets your criteria, but that is all it ever will be, your system.

OK this is more complicated than I'd thought :) Excellent.

I get the distinction I think - that in the black box you can't see any of the steps, whereas in the failed simulation of process the steps themselves are wrong.

I can see possible similarities in that for say D&D there are assumed to be abstractions that are a bit like how the 'box' is an abstraction but that cover only some of the steps, rather than all of them. (the problem with the D&D approach being that the abstractions sometimes hold to a point - assuming that a skilled character gets a cut on the arm rather than being run through - and sometimes don't i.e. when they try to get that healed) ?

The 'black box' has its own problems of course - in the coin-flip deathmatch we don't know how long the fight takes, there's no chance of a draw, and we can't determine if weapons are broken or the victor has any damage. But yes I can see that they're different things now...

Quote from: Sommerjon;642365Very few people will ever completely agree on Simulation of Process.

Why wouldn't they agree?

Quote from: Sommerjon;642365It's nifty that you found a value on how you determine whether a game meets your criteria, but that is all it ever will be, your system.

I don't believe this is subjective at all.  My terminology for the distinction is Representational Mechanics vs. Non-Representational Mechanics.  This is distinct from the issue of disassociated mechanics (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

The combat mechanics in D&D simulate specific elements of combat using non-representational mechanics.  That is, the mechanics take certain inputs (combatant skill level, armor, weapon, etc.) and produce an final outcome that simulates the effect those inputs have on who wins or loses but does so in a way that doesn't reflect or represent how those inputs really influence the outcome.  So long as you have two combatants slugging it out in a fairly straightforward way, the ultimate outcomes will be what you might expect (the more experienced combatant will win more often) but their non-representational nature creates collateral problems outside of that specific situation, when the interaction between the inputs and intermediate mechanics leave the narrow range of where they work and even within that range, the terminology is muddled and confuses people because they don't represent what's happening in the game (e.g., "hits" and "hit points" that don't represent actual physical damage, "damage" rolls that don't represent actual physical damage, "healing" spells that don't actually heal physical damage, etc.).  

This is why hit points and AC have been the most complained about elements of D&D since the very beginning and why most other game systems not deliberately aping D&D (i.e., trying to simulate D&D rather than reality) handle damage and armor differently.  I understand the apologies and excuses that people make for them but the abstraction is a mess that perpetually creates all sorts of problems for anyone trying to use them outside of the box, which happens even using them for the normal type of situation they were designed to be used in.

Examples of the problems caused by the non-representational nature of HP and AC in D&D abound.  For example, how does one factor armor into the damage a person takes from falling into a pit full of spikes and why do they have more defense against those spikes (in the form of a higher number of hit points), since AC is used to determine an all-or-nothing damage roll in combat and the increased hit points are supposed to represent combat experience to avoid being hit?  D&D 3.5 has three different AC numbers -- regular AC, flat-footed AC, and touch AC to split out the protective vs. dodging elements of AC in cases where they wouldn't logically apply.  Why does an experienced fighter with more HP require more more healing to heal damage that isn't physical damage and represents a smaller loss, as a percentage of his HP, than a low level companion?  

The excuses for what HP and AC "simulate" just doesn't hold up outside of who people whacking each other with weapons in an abstract battle space until one falls down.

If D&D had mechanics that simulated process, AC would be Defense and *that* would increase as characters increased in level (Character Classes are the third big mechanical problem that draws a lot of complaints in D&D, but it's a different problem not necessarily related to Simulation of Process), making them harder to hit.  Armor would subtract from damage, as it does in just about every other game that's not drying to ape D&D.  Hit Points would be a fixed number influenced by the characters physique.  The odds related to hitting and doing damage would, of course, also have to be changed from the D&D default but that's the general gist of how to Simulate the Process of the sort of combat found in D&D.  

Why would someone want to do that?  Because then those elements work even when removed from the narrow realm of combat because they work the way they really work.  Armor can subtract from the damage inflicted by falling into a pit of spikes the same way it defends against a sword blow.  Since experience characters have about the same number of hit points as a novice, healing any actual damage they take will be about the same.  Touching someone in combat will be determined by their Defense and their defense can be reduced predictably if the character is surprised or even unconscious, leaving armor to provide passive defense, if necessary.

Seriously, none of that is subjective and none of it should be controversial, and attempts to justify those quirks as any sort of simulation ring about as true as a Trekkie trying to rationalize away inconsistencies in Star Trek's canon that are clearly the side-effect of bad writing, not some intentional feature of the setting.

Yes, you can argue that those problems are worth it because it allows for faster combat than a simulation of process.  While I'm skeptical of that excuse, all that's really saying is that people think the trade-off is worth it, not that the problems don't exist.  And, yes, you can patch your way around those problems with things like 3 different AC numbers, saving throws, special instant kill rules, etc., but that just makes things more complicated.

Why does any of this matter?  Because rules that don't simulate process break when used outside of the narrow context they were designed to do and the effort required to fudge and patch around that problem is greater than simply designing more robust and representative rules in the first place.  It's neither robust nor efficient and judging by the nearly perpetual complaints about HP and AC that have followed D&D, it's also not a whole lot of fun for a lot of people.

As food for thought, I'll leave this point with the article Keeping It Simple: Efficiency in Game Design (http://cheapass.com/node/66) by James Ernest of Cheapass Games, which I think illustrates the problem really well.

And that, I think, ultimately leads us back to Brian's problem which is that since the early days of the hobby, it seems that very few game designers are actually designing robust rules that actually work as intended without serious fudging and patching.  I saw this on the old Fudge mailing list, where people would complain about things like the death spiral caused by the default damage rules (that apply negative modifiers for wounded characters) yet never thought to drop them or modify them (my solution -- apply them only after a significant break in combat, which can even be justified as simulation).

In the other thread, people asked Brian about whether his solution involved putting the PCs up against weaker foes.  Any game that applies the same rules to PC and NPC and treats them the same must do so unless the goal of the game is to avoid combat or tolerate a lot of PC deaths, and even D&D has long assumed that most of the opponents that the PCs fight will be roughly 25% as powerful as the PC.  Video games do the same thing.  Simple odds make it clear that if the PCs are pitted against enemies that are exactly as powerful and competent as they are, then the PCs should be losing about 50% of their battles, yet I don't think anyone runs their games that way in practice.  So one of two things happens.  Either the PCs get mostly pitted against weaker enemies (with the occasionally large climactic battle against an enemy roughly as powerful as the PCs -- a "boss" in video game terminology), the PCs get to play by different rules than the NPCs (which may be as simple as a script immunity point mechanic), or the GM does a lot of fudging to support the delusion that the PCs are fighting battles they have a 50% chance of losing but they don't actually lose 50% of the time.

The alternative of representational mechanics that simulate process works.  Make it very hard for mooks to hit experienced heroes.  Hero does it.  Brian's game (I have a copy and have read or skimmed much of it -- I think it's well written and has very thorough design notes) does it.  I'm sure other games do it.  I've even done it with Fudge.  

My group ran a D&D-like fantasy game using Fudge without escalating hit points and it worked just fine as expected.  It worked (with minimal fuding and almost no use of fudge points) because it produced the sort of results tat we expected and wanted.  The simultaneous combat system we were using and the way rolls and roll comparisons work meant that a character even one level better than another had a significantly better chance of winning and several levels made it very unlikely that the lower-leveled character would do any damage.  

To make this work, you need a bell curve, multiple rolls, or a percentile system that can handle 1% or even sub-1% odds such that the odds of a mook taking down an experience PC are vey low.  That means that, no, it doesn't work that well if you are rolling a d20 and a 5% chance is the smallest percentage you can get above 0%.  This was why Lee Valentine referred to d20 rolls and the d20 system as having "whimsy" (Lee, like Brian, actually worked through the odds with the goal of producing plausible results) and this was the sort of thing that fed tons of material to the old Murphy's Rules comic in The Space Gamer.

Reality, and any system that seeks to produce realistic results (even with fantastic elements) needs to be able to produce very low or very high odds.  Consider that landing a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier may be the most difficult landing any pilot will ever need to master, yet the US Navy does not lose 5% of the fighters each time they attempt a carrier landing and loses well below 1%.  Brain surgeons don't lose 5% of their patients unless they are suffering from trauma that makes their survival suspect in the first place.  Trained Trapeze artists don't fail 5% of their acrobatics.  And so on.  

I know this runs counter to conventional wisdom on role-playing message boards that making rules that are almost certain to succeed or fail is a waste of time, but I don't think that's true.  Most of the drama in real life happens in those narrow odds ranges, be it the high school basketball player who wins the game by wildly hurling the ball down the court and into the basket or professional race car driver that gets into an accident and wrecks his car.  Removing that from role-playing games and replacing it with whimsy produces a whimsy result, where players react to inevitable failures or random successes that they can neither plan for nor control.  Add on top of that GMs who require lots of rolls without understanding the impact they'll have on the results and you wind up with games carried along more by GM fiat than having the rules work as desired.

And I think one of the reasons why people react so badly to Brian's admittedly strict set of criteria for a good system is that people are so used to bad systems, they find it difficult to imagine being able to follow the rules and be happy with the results.  The problem is not that Brian's ideals are utterly unachievable but that people are so used to playing crappy and mathematically unsound systems that they believe fudging results and making excuses for the rules is necessary, when it really isn't if more people would simply determine the results they want their system to produce and they design the system to produce those results.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;642378I get the distinction I think - that in the black box you can't see any of the steps, whereas in the failed simulation of process the steps themselves are wrong.

Unless the mechanics and relationship between the inputs is truly opaque to the players and GM, and I'm skeptical of that being the case for any tabletop RPG (but possible for computer games).  In order to process the various inputs that go into a result through the mechanics, the player or GM is going to have to be exposed to the mechanics used to convert those inputs into a result.  I can't imagine resolving combat without knowing how weapon choice, armor, skill level, and so on mathematically influenced the result, and that will either be a representative simulation of process, or it won't.

The only possible way it can work without a computer is illustrated by the coin toss example, which is to eliminate the inputs entirely so that they play no role in the result (which is what some very rules-light games do) or by bypassing mechanics entirely in favor of subjective judgment by the players.

More generally, could a "black box" be a computer program which does all the calculations?

Good to see you about, Mr Morrow.

On the black boxes: I'm not quite sure that a black box would have to ignore inputs, strictly. In the coin-toss example there's a 50/50 fail rate, but its there as an extreme example...if we did add adjustments...say making it a d20 roll and adding +2 for Warrior A having a +2 sword...wouldn't that still be a black box? We still don't have any details of what's going on specifically in the combat then, but have adjusted the inputs and then the odds.

I may be mistaken, but if that's the case then almost any simple roll in an RPG such as a skill check could be viewed as a black box, which could be replaced with something more complex; e.g. forging a sword is just a Craft (Weaponsmithing) roll, but you could replace it with a detailed process where you roll for available iron quality, check to see how long you pumped the bellows, make a Strength check to hammer the steel, then a d% roll to see if the blade breaks in quenching (or something like that anyway, I'm not a weaponsmith).

On simulation of process: thanks, the cheapass game link is good. Efficiency or elegance is something I think rules should strive for, your post above and that give a good description of how good process design aids with that.

Quote from: John Morrow;642385I can't imagine resolving combat without knowing how weapon choice, armor, skill level, and so on mathematically influenced the result, and that will either be a representative simulation of process, or it won't.

Thanks for stopping by John, and great post. I couple of nits...

The example above has a common expression in RPGs- the dice pool and relate mechanics. Imagine that a single dice pool roll is used to determine final outcome.

The inputs are whatever caused the test and the number of dice to be used (and their sources), the block box is both the undiscovered math as well was the simulated process (and the details of the process) the method has concealed, and the output is the result.

Why did I say "undiscovered math'? Yes it is *possible* to determine the effect of the inputs using math, but it's often beyond the ability of the common player and takes enough effort that even those rather good at math don't take the effort. The final result from the common player point of view is more dice equal better but nothing else.

But really what I was using the term Black Box for wasn't the game mechanic itselt, but the process of what it was representing. The very abstraction used is intended to conceal that.

...oh the other nit.

I still think Age of Heroes is poorly written. I had reason to review section 12.2 today and it is twisted in knots, had to rewrite a whole page worth to make it more understandable.

Quote from: John Morrow;642384Why wouldn't they agree?



<...snip...>

 The problem is not that Brian's ideals are utterly unachievable but that people are so used to playing crappy and mathematically unsound systems that they believe fudging results and making excuses for the rules is necessary, when it really isn't if more people would simply determine the results they want their system to produce and they design the system to produce those results.

Makes absolute sense to me.
My heartbreaker has defense that increases with level and AC that absorbs damage.
It does have HP as an ablative scrapes and bruises mechanic but they increase 1 HP per level (for a warrior less for everyone else) and there is an underlying wound mechanic.

I play I have found a couple of issues. Where I found the warriors defense got very good very fast but the cost is reduced armour and less HP so ...

In any case I also agree with the skill issue. A skill of a certain level can routinely complete tasks of that level of difficulty, its only when you apply pressure that failures on routine tasks start to occur.
I think I highlighted once how the skill of tennis players is very close but the number 1 seed will beat the number 20 seed 9 times out of 10 (or more). So the best sort of skill check woudl be one where the static score was much larger than the random score. So tennis skill was rated 1-100 and when you had a match you take your skill and add 1d10 to get your performance. So top seed at 99 skill versus excellent tennis player at 94 skill will beat him 85% of the time. where as most skill systems make the skill 50% of the result (typicall skill 1-10 + 1d10 for example)

I'm curious - would you classify D&D style turn based initiative (where each PC gets to take an action in order) to be a Simulation of Process failure in combat, given the way it produces "I attack you and then you attack me" actions? I ask just because its an approach I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with, but all the games I've played in recent years have used the thing. My main annoyance with it is the fact that it creates a system where each combat round is not six seconds long (or whatever) as advertised, but is in fact six times the number of combatants long.

I actually think the old AD&D 2e system of "declare actions and then act in speed order" was far superior, really.

While musing on this thread earlier today as I was walking the dog I made reasonable progress on a hack of Savage Worlds to use simultaneous melee combat, but I suspect in the end it would break too many of the Edges to be a viable option.

Quote from: Grymbok;642650I'm curious - would you classify D&D style turn based initiative (where each PC gets to take an action in order) to be a Simulation of Process failure in combat, given the way it produces "I attack you and then you attack me" actions?

Excellent question, and not a easy one.

A related one is a character's location on the map and their facing.

Both are without a doubt simplifications and abstractions, a snap shot representing a moment somewhere in the turn's time scale where that reality exists, but we don't know which exact moment it was.

This is true even of a simultaneous turn sequence btw for it ignores (at least to some degree) the ability of someone to react to committed actions of others while in mid-action themselves.

But is it a failure in Simulation of Process?

I'd say no, for cause and effect remain intact, only the order of  events is brought into question. Phrased in a different way, the events of the process remain consistent, but their place in the round's time scale has been concealed by the abstraction.

This is complex to wrap one's head around.

Time for an example:

In Age of Heroes and its turn sequence we know that Character A gets to attack first, and if he fails character B gets to attack next. Let's say A misses, and B takes off A's head in reply.

The cause and effect is clear, for *some* reason A failed and for *some* reason B killed him.

The abstraction of the dice prevent us from knowing the actual causes for the reasons above. The abstraction of the turn sequence prevents us from knowing the actual order.

So it's very possible that in truth, B went first and killed A before he even got his swing going. Or maybe A did swing and miss, and while recoving from the swing B then killed him. Maybe A dropped his weapon, bent over and lost his head to B. We flatly don't know.

And not knowing, we can't tell if the system lied. Thus we can't know if it failed Simulation of Process, hence we assume it did not.


Now can I defend that viewpoint?

I honestly don't know. I think it's possible to make the case that due to limits of scale and complexity that all systems are failures with respect to Simulation of Process. That the only difference is if the failures come in small slices (like the turn sequence) or large ones (like the entire combat).

So you've made me ponder this more.

Quote from: Grymbok;642650I'm curious - would you classify D&D style turn based initiative...

Alright, I've ponder this some more.

And I'm going with my second option. It's not enough to be unable to prove that the system lied, it's enough to know that it may well have. Thus I'd have to label that style of initiative as a failure of Simulation of Process.

Quote from: gleichman;642680Alright, I've ponder this some more.

And I'm going with my second option. It's not enough to be unable to prove that the system lied, it's enough to know that it may well have. Thus I'd have to label that style of initiative as a failure of Simulation of Process.

I am liking this thread.

You mention position in relation to time having a similar "snapshot" nature to the turns in a given round. Would you say there are (either necessary or common) failures of process simulation in turn-based representations of maneuvers on a map?

Example: There's a system without AoOs, ZoCs, or similar. Person A moves past person B. They begin and end their movement out of melee range, but A passes through an area B could hit. However, B can't hit A on his turn, because A is now out of range.

Or, more simply, it may be weird to operate on the assumption that a person faces the same direction for x seconds in combat.

I may have phrased my question badly or misunderstood your intent, so feel free to ask or correct before addressing the question.

Quote from: beejazz;642687You mention position in relation to time having a similar "snapshot" nature to the turns in a given round. Would you say there are (either necessary or common) failures of process simulation in turn-based representations of maneuvers on a map?

It's sort at the same level as the turn sequence problem. The mechanics if taken completely at their word say you've locked your facing in one direction when that isn't really the truth.

This is something of a white lie, a simplification that by itself doesn't cause much if any harm to the total Simulation of Process. The lack of harm is why I overlooked it until pointed in its direction by Grymbok.

Quote from: beejazz;642687Example: There's a system without AoOs, ZoCs, or similar.

This on the other hand causes greater harm, the reason for such mechanics is to deal with the weakness of the original Map and Turn Sequence Abstractions. If they're removed and not replaced what was a small harm becomes a major one.

Stated an another way, the Turn Sequence and Map may place things out sequence or direction- but the lack of AoOs and ZoC removes events along with their causes and effects (and still places things out of sequence and direction).


I think the minor breaks with Simulation of Process are almost unavoidable on the table top.

As I understand it: Initiative systems vary between very exact, blow by blow, modelling and being more abstract, with the combat really being a number of blows, and the 'initiative roll' then being a roll for a possible important blow, rather than for one sword swing (theoretically, the D&D approach).
So...I had trouble following the example for awhile since I had never literally considered 'turn order' to be an abstraction, exactly, so much as its a 'simulated'  moment in time, preceded and followed by a sea of unsimulated time.
Stuff like free attacks for moving through zones of control, or attacks each segment during surprise, would also be moments of simulated time (when another opportunity definitely arises).

That idea does break down a bit when you consider movement of course - stuff like 3E D&D wizards 5' stepping back away from a guy hacking at them, giving them time to cast a spell before he's legally allowed to move next segment.

Quote from: Grymbok;642650I actually think the old AD&D 2e system of "declare actions and then act in speed order" was far superior, really.

The 'declare actions first' part of it is fine. 2E initiative has some inconsistencies in that the round is theoretically a minute long, but with speed factor of weapons slowing an attack to much later in the round - which would be much more consistent with a round representing a single blow.

Quote from: gleichman;642665In Age of Heroes and its turn sequence we know that Character A gets to attack first, and if he fails character B gets to attack next. Let's say A misses, and B takes off A's head in reply.

The cause and effect is clear, for *some* reason A failed and for *some* reason B killed him.

The abstraction of the dice prevent us from knowing the actual causes for the reasons above. The abstraction of the turn sequence prevents us from knowing the actual order.

So it's very possible that in truth, B went first and killed A before he even got his swing going. Or maybe A did swing and miss, and while recovering from the swing B then killed him. Maybe A dropped his weapon, bent over and lost his head to B. We flatly don't know.

One thing that puzzles me - how is the first option (B going first and killing A before he got his swing going) a plausible explanation - wouldn't that be modelled by A winning initiative and hitting, a different set of rolls?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;642734One thing that puzzles me - how is the first option (B going first and killing A before he got his swing going) a plausible explanation - wouldn't that be modelled by A winning initiative and hitting, a different set of rolls?

Age of Heroes (like say HERO System) doesn't roll for initiative, but instead goes in a order fixed by an Initiative Stat (which rarely changes in the middle of combat).

It also uses 6 second turns, and thus 'one blow' represents the best effort in those 6 seconds.

A small time scale may or may not improve things. Typically what goes wrong is too much happens with small scales (sub-one second) and anything say 1 second or longer typically allows more than one thing to happen. Thus the turn sequence (and movement/placement on the map) is always abstracted on the PnP tabletop and only ever completely correct in a computer game (if then, in truth there's abstraction even there).

Quote from: gleichman;642724It's sort at the same level as the turn sequence problem. The mechanics if taken completely at their word say you've locked your facing in one direction when that isn't really the truth.

This is something of a white lie, a simplification that by itself doesn't cause much if any harm to the total Simulation of Process. The lack of harm is why I overlooked it until pointed in its direction by Grymbok.




This on the other hand causes greater harm, the reason for such mechanics is to deal with the weakness of the original Map and Turn Sequence Abstractions. If they're removed and not replaced what was a small harm becomes a major one.

Stated an another way, the Turn Sequence and Map may place things out sequence or direction- but the lack of AoOs and ZoC removes events along with their causes and effects (and still places things out of sequence and direction).


I think the minor breaks with Simulation of Process are almost unavoidable on the table top.

I agree that no AoO option can be problematic. it is a real issue for me in Savage Worlds where all activities occur in initiaitive order. So a character can run straight past another and not be targetted.
I instigated a phased movement option for when this occurs, effectively implementing a tick system for movement that starts at the initiaitive of the fastest character. Its slower for sure but as it only happens in tense combats when people are running about the slowness adds a certain tension and bullet-time kind of aspect which off-sets the additional time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;642742I agree that no AoO option can be problematic. it is a real issue for me in Savage Worlds where all activities occur in initiaitive order. So a character can run straight past another and not be targetted.
I instigated a phased movement option for when this occurs, effectively implementing a tick system for movement that starts at the initiaitive of the fastest character. Its slower for sure but as it only happens in tense combats when people are running about the slowness adds a certain tension and bullet-time kind of aspect which off-sets the additional time.

I'm torn on AoOs. As Brian said they're probably a necessary patch for any system using the "my turn, your turn" approach to character actions, but I've always found they turn combat in to trench warfare, where no-one ever wants to disengage from melee once they've entered it. Although to be honest, I'm getting that with my players again lately in Savage Worlds just with the attack-on-disengage in that system.

Quote from: Grymbok;642805I'm torn on AoOs. As Brian said they're probably a necessary patch for any system using the "my turn, your turn" approach to character actions, but I've always found they turn combat in to trench warfare, where no-one ever wants to disengage from melee once they've entered it.

I don't see what that's case as AoO and melee disengagement are typically two different things or at least IMO should be. Is there a specific game you're talking about?

Quote from: gleichman;642830I don't see what that's case as AoO and melee disengagement are typically two different things or at least IMO should be. Is there a specific game you're talking about?

Doesn't D&D 3e/d20 use AoOs for disengagement? It's been a while, I could be misremembering the rules there.

EDIT: Anyway, aside from disengagement I've found in the past that d20 AoOs (and the ridiculous iterative attack rules in that system) do seem to steer players down the path of planting their feet in the mud and only moving if they have to.

Quote from: Grymbok;642833Doesn't D&D 3e/d20 use AoOs for disengagement? It's been a while, I could be misremembering the rules there.

Haven't played D&D 3.x in forever, and don't want to dig out my mothballed books. But I'm sure someone can answer.

Also maybe am I behind the times, but I don't recall many games having AoO and ZoC rules. Age of Heroes and D&D 3.x (maybe 4.x?) are the only ones that come immediately to mind.

I checked the online SRD, and yes, you get an AoO if you move out of melee unless you do it in one of the approved ways that means you don't.

I have no idea how common they are - certainly d20 is the only game I've played which I recall featuring them.

Quote from: Grymbok;642833EDIT: Anyway, aside from disengagement I've found in the past that d20 AoOs (and the ridiculous iterative attack rules in that system) do seem to steer players down the path of planting their feet in the mud and only moving if they have to.

Pre-3rd edition so did the HP system of D&D. There is little to be gained by moving once you've engaged a target (unless there is something more high value elsewhere, in which case you should have already engaged it) once you've engaged something. Do a bit of damage and moving on to do a bit of damage on something else isn't wise, focused attack is better.

Oddly enough, it's the lack of ZoC and AoO that allows such focus to be easy achieved.

Quote from: Grymbok;642837I checked the online SRD, and yes, you get an AoO if you move out of melee unless you do it in one of the approved ways that means you don't.

Many games make retreating from melee a special type of action even if they don't have ZoC and AoO.

Quote from: gleichman;642838Pre-3rd edition so did the HP system of D&D. There is little to be gained by moving once you've engaged a target (unless there is something more high value elsewhere, in which case you should have already engaged it) once you've engaged something. Do a bit of damage and moving on to do a bit of damage on something else isn't wise, focused attack is better.

Oddly enough, it's the lack of ZoC and AoO that allows such focus to be easy achieved.

Where I'm coming from is that my experience of 3e D&D is that combat turned in to a bunch of people stood still and just going for "I hit it with my sword" every turn until someone died. My memories of playing other RPGs when I was younger (I took a gaming break from 2003-2008, and only played 3e after it really) is that combats tended to be more free flowing than that.

This may just be a rose-coloured glasses issue, or it may be something about the group I'm playing with now, who knows. I'm just starting to wonder if it's the rule systems we've been using lately which are pushing this more static approach.

My main concern is that what seems to happen is the players "dig in" for melee combat in this way, and then if their Plan A doesn't seem to be working, they worry that attack-on-disengage means that no Plan B is possible.

But now I'm drifting out of discussion of "Simulation of Process" and in to "Grymbok needs a new RPG system" :)

You can disengage from combat without provoking AoO in 3.x so long as you actually declare that you are doing so.  It's a full-round action, so you can't do anything else in the round that you are withdrawing, and you also can't freely run in and out of multiple threatened areas without provoking in that round.  If you can't remove yourself from combat without passing through multiple threatened areas you'll still provoke attacks, but that is the advantage your enemy gets for having you surrounded and cornered in the first place.

You can also usually move 1 square/5ft without provoking, so combat in 3.x usually involves a lot of shuffling around.  You can't take 5ft steps if you are in difficult terrain or any situation that doubles movement costs, and there are Feats available that allow someone to still get AoO on you even if you only take 5ft steps, although those aren't very common for monsters.

I don't really like movement heavy combat in a melee heavy game.  All of the compulsory movement in 4e was one of the dealbreakers for me.  I don't like having to constantly shuffle a bunch of miniatures around all the time.  The Stand and Slug It Out mode of combat in 3.x is only a problem because for the most part this is only a player restriction.  The multiple attacks or singular powerful attacks monsters possess usually aren't Full Attack Actions like Iterative Attacks are, so they are actually more mobile than players (and can sometimes be played in a way to work to deny players with iterative attacks from getting them.) At higher levels suffering AoOs from several opponents is a better option than suffering multiple Full Attacks, so you'll almost never get full attacks against a smart monster.  In the end it makes for a system where a halfling armed with a short sword is the one looking to stand toe to toe against a giant that is cagey and wants to dance around to avoid blows.  If it weren't for this disconnect it wouldn't be a problem.

Running around in a fight more emulates the style of gunplay in movies than it does swordplay in any fiction.  In 3.x you can still back up a staircase while being pressed by another combatant, or circle each other with 5ft steps.

QuoteThis may just be a rose-coloured glasses issue, or it may be something about the group I'm playing with now, who knows.

I think it's both.  My experience of pre-2e is limited, but even in pre-C&T 2e it was pretty much a stand and deliver kind of game (there was not much incentive for tactical movement, so it just wasted time).  There is no reason not to take those 5ft steps in 3.x however, so they should be happening all the time.  

Maybe your group in particular just doesn't care about flanking, or your DM doesn't try to have monsters avoid being flanked or avoiding iterative attacks, which I've seen at tables, but it really seems to be a matter of the players and DM just wanting to get through a combat so resolving it with a slugfest instead of the monsters actually trying to kill the players and the players being forced to respond.  My melee players are always shifting unless they've got an enemy flanked and I fail to shift him out of that situation (which I do for things like zombies et cetera that wouldn't care or know about being flanked anyway versus orcs and stuff that actually knows how to fight).

Some older versions of D&D had a 'free attack' on an opponent who withdrew from combat. 2E AD&D for instance gave the free attack unless the character withdrew at 1/3 speed - as a type of movement this isn't called out as an action and (IIRC) the withdraw could be performed after an attack, though the enemy could likely follow easily unless someone else blocked their path. There probably isn't a literal Zone of Control in 2E since, as I read the rules anyway, it seems someone can move past a guy with a sword unless they're already fighting him.
In other systems, HarnMaster gives free attacks on targets moving past much like 3E, and I think so did The Fantasy Trip (I'm looking at a retroclone of it rather than the real thing, which actually calls it a Zone of Control). In other weirder variations, the old Warhammer Quest game made characters roll to disengage from an enemy successfully. JAGS doesn't do it based off hexes, but has a fairly complex interrupt system where an active defender can start any action with a shorter action time in response to another action (strike someone charging at you or standing up, for example, since Strike is Medium and charging or standing up are Long actions).

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;642856Running around in a fight more emulates the style of gunplay in movies than it does swordplay in any fiction.

Unless it's Jedi, in which case you cover a lot of ground in your boss fight, up and down mountains and across cities- to be undone by a six inch high ground advantage at the end...

Also (no one will get this reference) Claymore when leaping from roof to roof top in the middle of a sword fight is fair game.

Or a Cav charge sweeping through your foes.

I could go on.

But actually I sort of agree with you, except when I don't :) A game should IMO have tactical conditions that result in both possible styles.

Quote from: gleichman;642665In Age of Heroes and its turn sequence we know that Character A gets to attack first, and if he fails character B gets to attack next. Let's say A misses, and B takes off A's head in reply.

The cause and effect is clear, for *some* reason A failed and for *some* reason B killed him.

The abstraction of the dice prevent us from knowing the actual causes for the reasons above. The abstraction of the turn sequence prevents us from knowing the actual order.

So it's very possible that in truth, B went first and killed A before he even got his swing going. Or maybe A did swing and miss, and while recoving from the swing B then killed him. Maybe A dropped his weapon, bent over and lost his head to B. We flatly don't know.

And not knowing, we can't tell if the system lied. Thus we can't know if it failed Simulation of Process, hence we assume it did not.

First, if Simulation of Process is perfect, then there would be no input needed from players. However I find these abstractions, when small and defined enough, are immediately and subconsciously filled in by players, and that to me is a fundamental part of what an RPG is played for.

Second, this is basically the uncertainty principle in macro scale. No matter how good your Simulation of Process, there will be unsupportable assumptions necessary. Take mathematics. It happens to work because it's based on a good set of unprovable Axoms. What is the Simulation of Process in 2+2=4?

Third, a Simulation of Process is nothing more than a series of Simulated Outcomes, because such simulations must be done in discreet steps in an rpg much like they are on a computer. And though one day we may be able to directly compute over continuous values, we're not there yet.

Quote from: gleichman;642665I think it's possible to make the case that due to limits of scale and complexity that all systems are failures with respect to Simulation of Process. That the only difference is if the failures come in small slices (like the turn sequence) or large ones (like the entire combat).

Yep. Pretty much.

I mean, doesn't EVERY game which uses dice fail as a Simulation of Process?

Quote from: gleichman;642680It's not enough to be unable to prove that the system lied, it's enough to know that it may well have. Thus I'd have to label that style of initiative as a failure of Simulation of Process.

Sounds about how mathematicians and system testers would approach things, so I'm down with it.

Quote from: John Morrow;642384The excuses for what HP and AC "simulate" just doesn't hold up outside of who people whacking each other with weapons in an abstract battle space until one falls down.

So, something designed to be used as a wood chisel doesn't make a very good toaster oven. This is to you a dismaying revelation?

As I wrote elsewhere, the fundamental problem is that people come at D&D (and other early RPGs) with a board-game mentality, which is not how they were designed.

I dig Squad Leader (which, parenthetically, has simulation issues as well) and Star Fleet Battles, as well as Auction Pinochle among other games.

That's a whole different breed of critter, and vive la difference! Part of the appeal that RPGs (and the miniatures hobby from which they emerged) hold for me is that they're not just more of the same.

The Chainmail-derived combat system gets combat done expeditiously, which is what it's for.

It was not intended to do other jobs, and if you don't like even how it does its intended job, you are as free to change it as to change every other thing offered in those little brown booklets. They're suggestions, not freaking Federal laws!

In fact, if you are unwilling to do your own thing, that's about as close as you can get to actually "playing the game wrong."

Quote from: Phillip;643723In fact, if you are unwilling to do your own thing, that's about as close as you can get to actually "playing the game wrong."

It's odd don't you think to say such a thing to a person who has indeed done his own thing- and managed not just to role-play while doing it, but enhance it.

The stance John and I both take is that a reasonably good simulation of process enhances role-playing by making it natural. People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643031I mean, doesn't EVERY game which uses dice fail as a Simulation of Process?

"War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events."
Carl von Clausewitz

Quote from: gleichman;643725The stance John and I both take is that a reasonably good simulation of process enhances role-playing by making it natural. People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

Forced?!

What a load of crap!

"While roleplaying" is not the same as "while rigidly adhering to a formal system!"

Old-style FRPers are not forced to do that, and you assuredly won't be the one to change that.

Quote from: Phillip;643731"While roleplaying" is not the same as "while rigidly adhering to a formal system!"

Sure it is, I do both. It isn't even hard.

Quote from: Phillip;643731and you assuredly won't be the one to change that.

I could change everything for them, but they won't listen :)

Quote from: gleichman;643732Sure it is, I do both. It isn't even hard.

You do 'both' because they're not identical!

What's really funny here is the hustle and bustle to "simulate the process" by vigorously ignoring the process in order to devote minute attention to abstractions!

Quote from: Phillip;643736You do 'both' because they're not identical!

The goal is identical in both cases, to represent the reality of a character within a fictional setting.  It is this that defines what you're doing, not the means.

To think otherwise is self-defeating, pitting yourself against half of what makes an RPG.

Quote from: Phillip;643738What's really funny here is the hustle and bustle to "simulate the process" by vigorously ignoring the process in order to devote minute attention to abstractions!

The point of argument is not whether abstractions need to take liberty with the full details present in the actual process but how the abstraction works and whether the relationship between the inputs and intermediate steps relates to their relationship in the real world or does not.  

At a very high level, hit points in D&D abstract what you would expect in combat.  More experienced or more powerful fighters tend to defeat less experienced or less powerful fighters.  On that level it does work as an abstraction.

The problem is that the relationship between the inputs and the intermediate steps do not match the actual process, so if the players or GM need to apply those mechanics outside of combat (e.g., the effects of armor and HP when falling into a pit of spikes, which is something D&D should be able to handle), try to consider other concerns during combat (e.g., the effect of plate armor on a magic user's ability to simply touch a target), try to relate what's happening during combat to typical genre narratives (e.g., how well the whittling down HP to kill on a final blow mechanics relates to what one sees in fantasy fiction and movies), or try to carry out a one-blow kill using the rules (rather than GM fiat) where such a kill makes logical sense (e.g., single-shot assassinations by a trained marksman).

You can argue that the players and GM can do a better job than the rules of simulating and considering the actual process, if you want, but the better the rules do at capturing the process and working as expected, the less need there will be for the GM to ignore the rules and substitute common sense.

Quote from: gleichman;643725People are willing to actually play the game while role-playing instead of avoiding or overriding the system as so many D&D apologists are forced to do.

I think thats an argument based on "reading D&D" not "playing it". In play, there's really not that sort of problem, and I don't think the most successful long-running system of all time really needs "apologists"., I think you're just interpreting it that way when people are simply trying to explain concepts to you. For a new player learning the system in play, its never been an issue.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849In play, there's really not that sort of problem,

Really?  Then I suppose I'm imaging the game I played in when I was in college where a player's 6th level fighter wound up sucking up most of the lower-level cleric's healing spells because he had vastly more XP than the other characters, who were 3rd and 4th level?  I suppose I was imagining the confusion over how armor works when falling into a pit of sharpened spikes?  I suppose I'm imagining the frustration of it being all-but-impossible to even consider any plan that relies on surprise because it's almost impossible to kill anyone in one shot or blow (quite common in the genre source material) before they can call out an alarm?  Of course I'm also probably also imaging that almost all of the D&D I played back then was also house ruled and had plenty of GM fudging, too.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849and I don't think the most successful long-running system of all time really needs "apologists".

If it's perfect as is, it doesn't need new editions either, right?  I guess I'm imagining seeing players complaining about Hit Points, AC, and character classes since the early days of the hobby, too, since clearly none of them understood or played the game, right?

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849I think you're just interpreting it that way when people are simply trying to explain concepts to you.

Part of the problem is that the explanations are rationalizations that come off as not unlike listening to a Trekkie explain why the transporter worked under different rules in two different episodes using an in-setting justification when the real reason is simply that the two episodes were written by two authors and their stories required different limitations or capabilities for the transporter.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643849For a new player learning the system in play, its never been an issue.

There are plenty of reasons why new players would not notice or complain about the quirks of D&D when they first play, but such experiences are hardly universal.  One important thing to bear in mind is that there are plenty of people who play D&D once, say, "That was stupid and I didn't like it," and never play again.  If you haven't noticed, we are a niche hobby that's not exactly embraced by the majority of humans out there.  If everyone who had bought Basic D&D at Toys 'R' Us become players, we'd be awash in D&D players.  So basically what you are saying is that it's never been an issue if you exclude everyone who has issues with it.

Quote from: John Morrow;643855Really?  Then I suppose I'm imaging the game I played in when I was in college where a player's 6th level fighter wound up sucking up most of the lower-level cleric's healing spells because he had vastly more XP than the other characters, who were 3rd and 4th level? I suppose I was imagining the confusion over how armor works when falling into a pit of sharpened spikes?  I suppose I'm imagining the frustration of it being all-but-impossible to even consider any plan that relies on surprise because it's almost impossible to kill anyone in one shot or blow (quite common in the genre source material) before they can call out an alarm?  Of course I'm also probably also imaging that almost all of the D&D I played back then was also house ruled and had plenty of GM fudging, too.

I would say that all of those issues you describe began and ended with your DM, especially as you were aware he was "fudging" and "houseruling". I think there's also a viable distinction to be made between your average player and people who eventually get into game design or are going to engage in conversations about rpgs on forums.

QuoteIf it's perfect as is, it doesn't need new editions either, right?  I guess I'm imagining seeing players complaining about Hit Points, AC, and character classes since the early days of the hobby, too, since clearly none of them understood or played the game, right?

Yes and no. Or No and yes. Something like that. Did D&D need a new edition? Of course not, no more than Monopoly "needs" a new edition. New editions don't have to be about changing the rules system completely, as is the modern trend. New editions that clean up rules presentation, offer better production values, etc. however, are all viable reasons for having a new edition that don't make the previous game system extant.

QuotePart of the problem is that the explanations are rationalizations that come off as not unlike listening to a Trekkie explain why the transporter worked under different rules in two different episodes using an in-setting justification when the real reason is simply that the two episodes were written by two authors and their stories required different limitations or capabilities for the transporter.

Any explanation fo anything can be viewed as a rationalization in that light though. In fact, every RPG game system ever is pretty much composed of "rationalizations". Simulation = rationalization, in that any attempt to represent physical activities or otherwise via die mechanics are rationalizations., if one views them in those terms. OTOH, the way you're using it I think is to imply that people who like certain mechanics are "making excuses" for liking them, which is not the case.  A mechanic is only worth as much as how a person choses to look at it.

QuoteSo basically what you are saying is that it's never been an issue if you exclude everyone who has issues with it.

I think there are enough RPG options besides D&D to cater to a person's tastes that you cant place the weight on D&D's shoulders to support what every player could possibly want.

Considering how much more stuff has been published since 1977 (when it already seemed quite a lot of choice to me), maybe D&D can come as close to satisfying every gamer as any RPG at this time can.

The thing is not having the board-game mindset of D&D as Edition X (or Supplement Z) from TSR or Hasbro or Joe Cloner.

Quote from: Phillip;643726"War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events."
Carl von Clausewitz

I was going by gleichman's definition, but you bring up a good point: Is the 'Fog of War' also Simulation of Process? Because it specifically obscures and may be potentially 'lying' about the actual process behind it.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643915I was going by gleichman's definition, but you bring up a good point: Is the 'Fog of War' also Simulation of Process? Because it specifically obscures and may be potentially 'lying' about the actual process behind it.

Fog of War references a different issue the Simulation of Process.

A sniper knows the process for hitting his target, what he may not know is that his target moved to a different part of the front yesterday because he wanted to see his mistress.

Quote from: gleichman;643950Fog of War references a different issue the Simulation of Process.

A sniper knows the process for hitting his target, what he may not know is that his target moved to a different part of the front yesterday because he wanted to see his mistress.

And the dice decide that? Cause that's what the original comment is in reference to.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;644647And the dice decide that? Cause that's what the original comment is in reference to.

It can, but that's not my perference in game design.

My taste is for the game system to determine the former (i.e. means by which the bullet is placed on target), and for other layers of the game to determine Fog of War (it might help to read Layers of Design on my blog link below).



About the dice, since you called those out directly I may as well mention how I view them as well because they're a bit different while being closely related related.

The role of the dice is to account for everything that isn't explicitly modeled mechanically.

Taking the sniper shot for example, the mechanics may explictly list many of the factors including range, quality of weapon, user skill, difficulty of target, cover, etc. Being a game it will do so to some degree of abstraction. Some factors may not be covered at all. The dice fill in the gap and account for those things not explictly modeled- and for the abstraction within the model.

The combination of explict mechanics + dice determines the entirely of in-game reality.

Quote from: gleichman;644661The combination of explict mechanics + dice determines the entirely of in-game reality.

Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645144Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

No, and for a simple reason. As they reveal nothing of the process- they can't lie about it.

They can be a failure of Simulation of Outcome.

Amusing.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;645144Yes, but do you agree that dice are a failure of Simulation of Process? They're a black box which accounts for everything which either isn't, or can't, be accounted for, which means the process cannot be proven to be 'truthful'.

This seems like nitpicking to me. If the aim is to produce a system that models reality as well as possible without conflicting with other design goals, and you have a system that accounts in detail for all these major factors he is listing, but you let the dice account for the unknowable or unmodeled variables, to me that seems to align  well with gleichman's description of process simulation. Certainly much better than any alternatives I can think of. I would file this under close enough. the criticism here doesnt seem a good enough reason for him to abandon the idea entirely.

If a skilled person fires a gun at a target one thousand times int he same exact conditions there will be differences in where he strikes. some might hit exactly where he wants, others may not quite be where he was aiming for and so on. I dont think it is entirely clear where the inconsistency comes from and how to model it (it would be everything from slight changes in mood, to changes in the body, less heightened focus, random thoughts, etc). Leaving that to the dice makes complete sense and does a fairly solid job modeling the action if the system around it is well thought out.

As I understand it a single dice roll could be failed simulation of process, but it isn't necessarily; its just a black box.
I've tried thinking about what rolls *are* most likely to fail simulation of process. So far, most likely circumstances where a roll could fail it would be if:

*bonuses/penalties to the roll aren't in line with the expected result. (D&D armour).

*if a roll can be skipped under some circumstances, so that modifiers to the roll aren't accounted for in outcomes in other circumstances (armour vs. pits of spikes).

*a roll could itself be a breakdown in the process since it can represent a random factor which doesn't exist. For instance, World of Darkness "soak" rolls use a Stamina roll to represent how tough characters are, but the random factor is unclear. (In general Soak is just an abstraction where a minor injury isn't being tracked on a tough dude, but a character can also fail their roll, e.g.  Arnie will inexplicably be treated as Rick Moranis for the purpose of this attack,  separate to whether the damage roll itself was good or bad).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645390*bonuses/penalties to the roll aren't in line with the expected result. (D&D armour).

*if a roll can be skipped under some circumstances, so that modifiers to the roll aren't accounted for in outcomes in other circumstances (armour vs. pits of spikes).

I wouldn't blame the dice here, but rather the inputs to the dice. You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645390*a roll could itself be a breakdown in the process since it can represent a random factor which doesn't exist. For instance, World of Darkness "soak" rolls use a Stamina roll to represent how tough characters are, but the random factor is unclear. (In general Soak is just an abstraction where a minor injury isn't being tracked on a tough dude, but a character can also fail their roll, e.g.  Arnie will inexplicably be treated as Rick Moranis for the purpose of this attack,  separate to whether the damage roll itself was good or bad).

I'm not a fan of the soak roll (mechanically I think armor or an armor like resistance should handle things well enough), and not familar enough with WoD to say why it's there...

Looking at it from a distance, it appears to represent a paranormal ability to ignore damage. You're right that the reason does seem unclear, it would seem you could always absorb damage- why is it random?

Quote from: gleichman;645393I wouldn't blame the dice here, but rather the inputs to the dice. You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Yup.

QuoteI'm not a fan of the soak roll (mechanically I think armor or an armor like resistance should handle things well enough), and not familar enough with WoD to say why it's there...

Looking at it from a distance, it appears to represent a paranormal ability to ignore damage. You're right that the reason does seem unclear, it would seem you could always absorb damage- why is it random?

original World of Darkness (i.e. Vampire: the Masquerade) combat process looks like this, IIRC:

-roll initiative (dice pool equals Wits + Alertness).
-roll to hit i.e. for an unarmed attack something like [Strength+Brawl], or for a weapon [Dex+Melee], d10 dice pool.
-target can elect to dodge, rolling [Dex+Dodge skill]
-roll damage. This depends on weapon, for something like a fist its [Str] while for a weapon its [Str+x bonus dice e.g. Str+2 for a sword]. Extra successes to hit (more than 1 by default, or over the defender's Dodge successes) convert to bonus damage dice and are rolled.
-target rolls soak; their Stamina is the dice pool. Armour can also add here, and is rolled also. Certain powers (Fortitude) can add automatic soak successes; some form of damage ('Aggravated damage', such as fire against vampires or silver against werewolves) don't get the base Stamina soak, although armour works; mortals don't get the Stamina roll any sort of 'lethal' damage, such as from swords.
-Each Soak success reduces damage by 1. Final damage is applied to move the character down the wound track at 1 step per success, with every character having the same wound track (Bruised, Hurt, Injured, Wounded, Mauled, Crippled, Incapacited, Dead; most rolls suffer a -1 at Hurt/Injured, -2 at Wounded/Mauled, or -5 at Crippled). Some monsters may have different wound tracks [e.g. more wound levels], and PCs with the Huge merit (7' tall/300 lbs) gain an extra 'Bruised' health level.

Anyway, I was mostly complaining about the Stamina roll not representing anything in particular. As far as it being supernatural, only supernatural creatures such as vampires get their Stamina dice against 'lethal' damage such as swords, though mortals get soak rolls vs. bashing damage like being punched; I guess I did forget about that aspect when complaining (its Vampire Arnie vs. Vampire Rick Moranis, then).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645407Anyway, I was mostly complaining about the Stamina roll not representing anything in particular.

It looks like what they were looking for was a wider range of damage than you'd get with a single damage roll and then just subtracting a fixed armor (+Stamina) value.

I can't say that I like the concept (especially adding Stamina in there) and I think their are better options. You can see mine when the book arrives (assuming you don't hurl it into the flames after cracking it open).

Quote from: gleichman;645434It looks like what they were looking for was a wider range of damage than you'd get with a single damage roll and then just subtracting a fixed armor (+Stamina) value.

My theory is that the dice roll are used there because counting the successes is an easy way to get say 40% of the stat or so - their scale is quite granular, but having stamina subtract directly would be too much, particularly given that Strength is being rolled (hence scaled down). So its a roll as a shortcut instead of having to do math, but where there's no real variable being represented.

Might be process complications elsewhere with poisons and the like (i.e. if 0 damage can still represent a slight nick, its unclear whether a successful damage roll would be needed to get injected poison in, I guess. Been a long time since I've played it, and never that much, so not sure exactly how that would work).

QuoteI can't say that I like the concept (especially adding Stamina in there) and I think their are better options. You can see mine when the book arrives (assuming you don't hurl it into the flames after cracking it open).

haha we shall see...the only book ever in any real danger of that over here was the 4th Ed. D&D PHB, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645439Might be process complications elsewhere with poisons and the like (i.e. if 0 damage can still represent a slight nick, its unclear whether a successful damage roll would be needed to get injected poison in, I guess. Been a long time since I've played it, and never that much, so not sure exactly how that would work).

One would need to know the details. For humans it's basically variable armor and PD (in HERO terms) and while the concept is odd I'd don't know if it's wrong as much as it's a waste to make another roll unless you gain something from it. What you gain here isn't clear.

I'd rather use that roll for active defense myself as that represents a visible event in the battle...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;645439haha we shall see...the only book ever in any real danger of that over here was the 4th Ed. D&D PHB, though.

Bars can always be lowered :)

I think I got it now.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;645317This seems like nitpicking to me.

Of course I'm nitpicking. It's A Gleichman thread.

Quote from: gleichman;642665But is it a failure in Simulation of Process?

I'd say no, for cause and effect remain intact, only the order of  events is brought into question.

OK, but do dice ever conceal this order?

Quote from: gleichman;642665The abstraction of the dice prevent us from knowing the actual causes for the reasons above. The abstraction of the turn sequence prevents us from knowing the actual order.

So no, only the causes, NOT the sequence.

But what if the cause is dependent on the sequence? How meaningfully can the two concepts be separated? What about systems which treat the skill result as initiative?

Quote from: gleichman;642665And not knowing, we can't tell if the system lied. Thus we can't know if it failed Simulation of Process

+

Quote from: gleichman;642680It's not enough to be unable to prove that the system lied, it's enough to know that it may well have.

And with that I think I'm up to speed.

Quote from: gleichman;645393You roll 'To Hit' but the inputs have nothing to do with hitting (D&D AC) for example.

Well, no. In D&D, AC represents a character's ability to avoid getting hit. this includes both armour deflecting blows, last minute reactions and twists and turns of the body, as well as parries and blocks. Its an abstraction, but a pretty clear one that may as well have been called "defense".

So in D&d an attack ('to-hit') is modified by the opponent's ability to defend themselves (AC). This is why armour isnt the only thing that contributes to AC.

Well, basically D&D is a variation on Chainmail.

In the ancestor, figures are simply dead or alive. Even in the case of fantastic figures still vulnerable to normal troops, it's a matter of scoring so many hits in a single turn (not cumulatively over two or more turns).

(IIRC, there are some special cases in which the text could be read as introducing cumulative hits, but is ambiguous.)

In D&D, each "man-life" was translated into a dice of points, allowing finer resolution and more scope for a cumulative tally. (This ignored the actual ratio that made a Hero worth 40 men in Chainmail, or 80 with larger scales of model.)

This was to some degree suited to representing other hazards of dungeon exploration besides combat.

The original ACs were quite literally eight classes of armor panoply. Even though (in D&D, but not in Chainmail) the hit chances thereby derived followed a simple progression, other modifiers were explicitly to the dice roll rather than to AC.

Note that in the original D&D set, as in Chainmail, the frequency of a hit -- which was basically a kill -- was usually the sole reflection of offensive capabilities. Except for a select few monsters, there was no variation in damage dice by weaponry.

Hit Dice alone more generally subsumed various factors. What a fighting-man type character got for a high Strength score was not a damage bonus, but rather an experience-point bonus.

EDIT to add: All this was notably revised with D&D Supplement I (Greyhawk).