This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: smiorgan;630197A SWAT team of 3 enter a warehouse where twenty people have been bound to immovable objects.

This is established by what the characters see, so unless the characters are worried about illusions, no assumptions need to be made.

Quote from: smiorgan;630197There is a bomb in the middle of the room, fixed to an immovable object.

It looks like a bomb, and the object may be immovable, but none of this will be known for certain until the characters interact with it.

Quote from: smiorgan;630197The bomb is counting down from 5 minutes.

Self evident, again because it is directly observable by the characters.

Quote from: smiorgan;630197It takes 30 seconds to cut the bonds of each person.

How do the characters know this without trying?

Quote from: smiorgan;630197It takes 20 seconds to get to a safe distance.

How do the characters know this without investigating the bomb or having it go off?

Quote from: smiorgan;630197It takes 20 accumulated successes (say we're playing a Storyteller game) on a bomb disposal roll.

Who decided it was 20 rolls? How do the players know this?

Quote from: smiorgan;630197One of the hostages knows a secret code that will save the lives of a thousand people. All of the hostages can see the clock counting down. When the PCs start asking questions, all twenty hostages start talking.

How will the players know the right question to ask?



My point here is there are a lot of assumptions which have to be made in  order to approach this challenge, and none of them are based in any objective reality. So you either have to play with a group which shares many of the same assumptions, or have a set of rules everyone agrees with, in order to have a meaningful challenge in an rpg.

Also keep in mind that the game changes depending on the nature of those shared assumptions too. For example, you'll get an entirely different game playing this scenario with theater majors than you will with enlisted marines, as while they may share assumptions as a group, those assumptions will be radically different.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;630629This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Afraid I haven't been concentrating too hard. I saw you were hung up on the difference between challenge and choice--as if all choices are easy to make, and therefore not a challenge. I don't agree.

You then asked a bunch of questions which I won't go into but I assume your point is until players observe by empirical testing, they have no way of knowing the parameters of the challenge. That's obvious, and it doesn't negate consensus reality, unless two people observe the same thing and get different results.

QuoteMy point here is there are a lot of assumptions which have to be made in  order to approach this challenge, and none of them are based in any objective reality.

Yes there is an "objective reality", insofar as the players can at any time check their assumptions are correct with me, the GM. That not only reinforces consensus reality with them but with the rest of the group too. And if I lie to one I'll lie to all of them.

Your argument holds if
- players don't talk with one another to gain consensus between them and the GM
- the puzzle starts with no lead-in events that charge the situation with previous knowledge

For a theoretical hostage situation--say a spherical warehouse travelling in a vacuum at t=0--your argument holds. It breaks down as soon as you apply external factors, which there are many (it's a social game).

QuoteSo you either have to play with a group which shares many of the same assumptions, or have a set of rules everyone agrees with, in order to have a meaningful challenge in an rpg.

The group should share the same assumptions for the reasons given above. If they're not, I wonder why they're playing together.

In the broadest sense of "rules" as in a framework, the assumptions and the framework are one and the same.

So I more or less agree on your last point, but I find it kind of obvious. That's how most people play, I would have thought.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;630629My point here is there are a lot of assumptions which have to be made in  order to approach this challenge, and none of them are based in any objective reality.

Actually you're just nitpicking and wasting smiorgan's time.

But you did almost stumble on a really interesting conversation about in-game reality, out of game reality and the translation between them. Sadly, there's no one here to have that conversation with.

So, just count as agreeing with smiorgan's reply and carry on.

Quote from: gleichman;630710Actually you're just nitpicking and wasting smiorgan's time.

But you did almost stumble on a really interesting conversation about in-game reality, out of game reality and the translation between them. Sadly, there's no one here to have that conversation with.

So, just count as agreeing with smiorgan's reply and carry on.

Now in game reality and out of game reality and how the GM relates the two is a really interesting topic.

As I noted I beleive in game reality ought to be fitered through PC perceptions which is why stuff like PC quizes, and Q&A sessions between the GM and the players are useful to see how the PC perceives the world and acts.

Quote from: gleichman;630710But you did almost stumble on a really interesting conversation about in-game reality, out of game reality and the translation between them. Sadly, there's no one here to have that conversation with.

Just ask a specific question and we'll see what happens.

Quote from: beejazz;630763Just ask a specific question and we'll see what happens.

My interest is on the mechanical side of things, and how one can in effect swap a intellectual/mechanical process in as a 'like' replacement for instinct/muscle memory/training. Sort of the heart of 'skilled play' in rpg mechanics.

This site as whole denies that it's possible or could ever be desired and considers anyone who does as subhuman. Not the place for the conversation.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;630629My point here is there are a lot of assumptions which have to be made in  order to approach this challenge, and none of them are based in any objective reality. So you either have to play with a group which shares many of the same assumptions, or have a set of rules everyone agrees with, in order to have a meaningful challenge in an rpg.

There's your problem - you're looking for objective reality in a game format which is pretty much a loosely regulated conversation. I can see how that would drive you bat-shit crazy.

Without shared assumptions, you can't have a roleplaying game. RPGs are fundamentally different from most other games in this respect.

Quote from: gleichman;630778My interest is on the mechanical side of things, and how one can in effect swap a intellectual/mechanical process in as a 'like' replacement for instinct/muscle memory/training. Sort of the heart of 'skilled play' in rpg mechanics.

This site as whole denies that it's possible or could ever be desired and considers anyone who does as subhuman. Not the place for the conversation.

You're trying to do something virtually no other RPGers care to even think about.  It's like someone playing tennis as an exercise in theoretical physics, and breaking the game down into trajectory formulas. Sure, if someone is obsessive enough they can do it. But don't get pissy when everyone else just want to play.

Quote from: Haffrung;630823You're trying to do something virtually no other RPGers care to even think about.  It's like someone playing tennis as an exercise in theoretical physics, and breaking the game down into trajectory formulas. Sure, if someone is obsessive enough they can do it. But don't get pissy when everyone else just want to play.

I support this, although I sympathise with Gleichman's POV. I went through a phase of trying really hard to model melee combat, including mental processes and tactical decisions of risk/reward. I came to the conclusion that it could be done but the appeal would be limited; furthermore the end product didn't fit with the way I liked to run games. Lots of my friends like to construct games this way and have a great time.

Quote from: gleichman;630778My interest is on the mechanical side of things, and how one can in effect swap a intellectual/mechanical process in as a 'like' replacement for instinct/muscle memory/training. Sort of the heart of 'skilled play' in rpg mechanics.

I'd like to ask you an honest question, so I'm sure of your preferences:



The above diagram represents the problem of 2 on 1 fighting. It's an issue of judgement and distance, when to step and appreciating the risk of committing your foot to distance. It's something we train in our students, and yet handled very badly in RPGs and generally not understood too well by most people. The same goes for other martial fallacies like 2-weapon use, etc.

It comes under the instinct/muscle memory/training realm. My questions to you are:
1. Is it desirable for you to be able to tactically map this process, so that players can make these incremental tactical decisions?
2. Assuming it is, do you want to enable players to make decisions based on:
- distance
- timing
- number of steps taken
- stride, weapon reach and other matters of physical size
- ability to cut and parry with the weapon (traditional weapon skill)
- other?
(tick all that apply!)

Is this a fair assessment of your preferences, or am I way off the mark?

If the answer is yes, you're basically substituting the player Judgement for the martial quality of Judgement, a learned skill. I see nothing wrong with this, though it's much more convenient for a lot of us to abstract to a PC skill. My number one issue with creating such a game is it's both easy to get the model wrong and for most players simply to not understand what I mean by Judgement. Though that doesn't change the value of the game as a game, I suppose.

Quote from: Haffrung;630821Without shared assumptions, you can't have a roleplaying game.

Where are those shared assumptions coming from?

Quote from: jibbajibba;630724Now in game reality and out of game reality and how the GM relates the two is a really interesting topic.

I agree--this is an interesting area of GM skill. I think it's even useful to add more conceptual levels, e.g. adding two more levels to get...

1. Out-of-game reality (a battle axe cannot chop through the centre of a steel breasplate).

2. Player perceptions of out-of-game reality (do most of my players know that about a battle axe? Or would it seem more realistic to them if a battle axe, swung hard, did hack through thick plate armour?)

3. In-game reality (fire giants transmit magical heat to their weapons, making them hot enough to sear through steel).

4. Player perceptions of in-game reality (do my players know that about fire giants? Or should I narrate the fire giant's blow in such a way as to make it clear to them that something magical is going on, allowing the axe  to slice through the steel breastplate?)

Of course, you're never goint to be able to balance all of these levels perfectly as a GM, but I think it's worth thinking about the different levels from time to time and asking yourself how well you're managing each of them for your players.

Quote from: gleichman;630778My interest is on the mechanical side of things, and how one can in effect swap a intellectual/mechanical process in as a 'like' replacement for instinct/muscle memory/training. Sort of the heart of 'skilled play' in rpg mechanics.

This site as whole denies that it's possible or could ever be desired and considers anyone who does as subhuman. Not the place for the conversation.

Actually, your first paragraph resembles something I said in passing upthread while clarifying my thoughts on what challenge in an RPG is or should be (in order to talk about whether skill selection weighing odds qualified as a challenge.) Bolding for emphasis.

Quote from: beejazz;629914A couple of common thoughts in this thread as to what constitutes challenge in an RPG:

1) There ought to be a chance of win/loss.
2) There ought to be a chance to make a decision.
3) There should be some planning/reading involved in decision making (not just guessing).
4) The decision should have an impact on (at least) the odds of winning/losing.

2) and 3) are sort of RPG specific. In general challenge should require skill to overcome, but very few RPGs incorporate non-decision-based skill (such as physical skill).

3) is there because really, rock/paper/scissors or guessing which of a number of possibilities is true occupies a role more like a random number generator. Most responses in this thread don't count rolling as a challenge until decisions can at least weigh odds.

I may be misreading your intent, as I didn't get much of this out of the post you were responding to earlier. So it's possible you're also talking about something else.

But if you're going to treat an RPG as a game of skill, you're going to treat it as a game of decision-making skill. Outside LARP it's not a physical skill, and even if many on this board would characterize the skill as "creative" they'd still focus on "creative decisions" as opposed to "creative delivery" (the thing often rewarded by RP bonus xp).

Quote from: Haffrung;630823You're trying to do something virtually no other RPGers care to even think about.  It's like someone playing tennis as an exercise in theoretical physics, and breaking the game down into trajectory formulas. Sure, if someone is obsessive enough they can do it. But don't get pissy when everyone else just want to play.

It's no where near that bad, and for over decade it was the default in RPG design. It still sees it's expression in GURPS or HERO although the latter is on life support and the former had some critical faults.

So people used to deal it just fine, and some still do today. Just not here where it's a major insult to the OSR guys.

Quote from: smiorgan;6308461. Is it desirable for you to be able to tactically map this process, so that players can make these incremental tactical decisions?

It's not necessary that it maps completely and accurately as doing so may product non-genre results (my games target 'heroic combat'), but enough should be mapped to force the player to make a tactical decision with risk/rewards at least related to something in reality.

Also the mapping need not be pure, i.e. I don't have problems using with specific time increments even when the real life person is unaware of them consciously. I haven't found a way to map real 'muscle memory', but mapping time slices and letting the player use them is a nice fill in.

Quote from: smiorgan;630846X - distance
X - timing
X - number of steps taken
X- stride, weapon reach and other matters of physical size
X - ability to cut and parry with the weapon (traditional weapon skill)
X- other?
(tick all that apply!)

Ticks listed but I should note that the scale isn't very small (it's 5 or 6 feet per hex) and we'd not talking individual steps or even swings.

Quote from: smiorgan;630846Is this a fair a assessment of your preferences, or am I way off the mark?

It's a fair assessment althoug I worry that my answers may seem more extreme than they are. There's a number of methods that could be used for each 'tick' and I don't always use the most detailed or complex.

Quote from: smiorgan;630846I see nothing wrong with this, though it's much more convenient for a lot of us to abstract to a PC skill.

A great deal is still abstracted to the PC skill rankings, basically how *well* he undertakes the player's selected action.

Quote from: smiorgan;630846My number one issue with creating such a game is it's both easy to get the model wrong and for most players simply to not understand what I mean by Judgement.

Getting the model wrong isn't really a concern for me as I'm only using reality for a starting point. Once created it becomes a genre style and defines in-game reality. So there can be no error (by that definition).