This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay  (Read 15351 times)

Rhedyn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1101
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2020, 12:47:50 PM »
Well said. While I don't disagree, there are certainly more tactical combat systems found in games like RuneQuest/Mythras/Aquelarre/BRP. Multiple actions per round, hit locations, armor at different locations as well as durability, codified maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, etc., so much more than the abstract roll vs AC to hit. Yes, these systems are not as popular as D&D but they are certainly played and I for one find them highly engaging and enjoyable. D&D centrism is bad for the hobby as a whole.
RPGs have a special problem. If a "combat round" take 30 minutes, it immediately jumps to 45 minutes as everyone zones out before their turn and has to zone back in. So even in medium games like D&D 5e or Savage Worlds, a serious combat will end up with hour long rounds if the GM isn't careful and doesn't pace well.
When I was running Maze-Rats and has some small slug-like creature craw up the PCs weapons, it really highlighted how the simple to-hit/damage-to-hp dynamic added risk, tension, and uncertainty without actually limiting how much could go on in a fight. So while it's nice to have hit-locations, wounds, DR, etc. It's not needed and if your RPG group passes the critical time threshold of 30-minutes for intense mechanics like the combat round, the RPG is useless.
It was also really satisfying when I ran Maze Rats again and kept interrupting one player's Switch time because he was so use to having 30 minutes or more in-between actions in combat. If you play a slow system too long, it just becomes the habit that some people immediately zone out as soon as combat starts.

Though I have a bone to pick with players that both zone-out and complain when they "don't have a lot of options" in combat. Pick one to care about.

I find players zone out in simple systems (that are often billed as fast) because there's not much to think about when it's not your turn. You just wait for everyone else to roll d20 against the nearest foe. The well-designed more complex systems are more engaging, at least to the people I game with. There are held actions to think about when to use, as well as defensive actions that can be held or used to interrupt an attack. 30-45 minute rounds? Where does this come from? We recently had a 4v5 combat in Aquelarre that took 4 rounds for a total of 1 hour that flew by and people were engaged the whole time. Time is not the issue; it's whether or not the players have anything interesting to think about and whether or not the system allows and encourages them to cook up a plan and try to carry it out. If the combat is engaging, nobody cares how long it takes.

Hit locations, wounds, and armor durability add about 2 minutes to the typical round. The gain of being able to cripple a foe or purposely destroy his shield or disarm him is well worth the marginal extra time.
Oh sure, but it actually has to be quick which is something to design around.

Try that same combat out in The Dark Eye, GURPS with all the rules, D&D 3.5, The Burning Wheel Fight!, etc.

I can have pretty good results in Savage Worlds when its 7v14, but 7v7 wild cards, or 7v21 or 7v42 start to take some time. I once did a 14v128 combat and that took the whole session.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2020, 02:18:15 PM »
Resource management is one area that computer games do better.

This so much. Tracking your resources in a survival horror game can be riveting and terrifying, whether that's Silent Hill, Resident Evil, The Void, Darkwood, or even Subnautica.

In a tabletop game where you're sitting around a table with your friends, or video chatting or whatever, then this can easily become tedious and annoying.

Using examples of drama like "do you use these arrows to fight some monsters now or for the main villain later" feel cherrypicked imo. How often would that come up, and would it be as emotional as it would be in a survival horror game?

I don't know the answers.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2020, 02:25:12 PM »
Quote from: Eirikrautha
The more logistics you involve, the more your choices matter.

Non sequitur. Choices matter when the players are invested and can grasp the consequences. Anything beyond that is subjective.
The inability to understand and grasp the consequences of actions, followed by the later connection of those actions to their consequences has a name... it's called "learning."  And, at least until middle and high school beats it out of them, most people like to learn.  It's one of the foundations of gaming.  A game that is completely random or involves no real possibility of learning becomes stale very quickly (do you still play tick-tack-toe regularly?).  So I disagree strongly that player investment and knowledge of consequences are necessary initially.  They will become invested when the consequences get in their way.  You have the cart before the horse.
You're missing my point, which is: The only requirement for choices having meaning in a RPG is player investment (which usually means this choice needs to be informed). Beyond that its purely subjective - this includes system granularity (your logistics), which some players will like while others won't.

If your statement was true ("the more logistics the more choices matter"), only complex games would be successful or popular, which is not the case, as there are successful games all over the spectrum of complexity.
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted.  It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices.  What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio.  But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."

Nothing you have said invalidates the whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences.  The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences).  Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy.  But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use.  Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2020, 03:08:35 PM »
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted.  It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices.  What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio.  But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."

Nothing you have said invalidates the whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences.  The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences).  Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy.  But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use.  Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.

The logic here is flawed, because taking away *specific* details and choices doesn't mean that there are less choices and consequences overall. The choices taken away can be replaced by higher-level choices.

Even in some super-detailed wargames like Squad Leader, you don't necessarily track how many bullets each individual soldier has.

Furthermore, detailed item tracking *in no way* indicates that a game is more about consequences. The game of Go, for example, has extremely simple rules - just placing black and white stones on a grid. It's vastly less complicated than something like Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles, which have hundreds of pages of rules and complicated forms to fill out every turn.

But that doesn't mean that playing Go is just like watching a movie, and that your choices have less consequences than in Squad Leader. If anything, it's the opposite. The streamlined rules mean that there is *more* focus on choices and consequences in Go. It is an incredibly intricate game in play.


Within RPGs, I would contrast, say, playing Rolemaster in full gory detail with playing Amber Diceless. Rolemaster has hundreds of pages of rules and dozens of charts to follow. You can track every arrow. Amber Diceless has no dice-rolling, no charts, and the rules are condense. I've never seen an Amber game where players were keeping track of how many arrows they have, for example. But Amber can still have plenty of focus on choice and consequence.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2020, 03:44:49 PM »
There are no "high level" choices available to a more abstract game that are not available to a more detailed logistical game.  You may spend more time on one or the other, high or low, depending on your preference, but that is preference.  But, objectively, there are fewer choices available (high vs high+low).  To take Go as an example, there are, in fact, a limited number of board-states in Go (but more than chess, which is why we have computers that can beat chess grandmasters but not Go champions).  But Star Fleet Battles has a near infinite number of "board-states".  So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go.  Do you find one more enjoyable than the other?  Personal taste.  But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.

No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games.  But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level."  Not everyone enjoys that equally.  There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice.  You might not.  But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.

Slambo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 411
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #80 on: December 04, 2020, 03:59:50 PM »
We actually do have a.i. that can beat go masters now as an aside. Its fairly recent though and its not absolutely dominant.

Itachi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • I
  • Posts: 1299
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2020, 04:33:33 PM »
Eirikautha, a more reasonable way to frame your argument would be "heavy logistics matter for those who value it, but gaming trends these days are away from that", which I would agree with.

There's a tendency to make RPGs more accessible and quicker to prep and play these days, which I find great myself as I don't have the time anymore to invest in it as I did when I was 15, and I got videogames now that give more of the tactical richness that I used to look for in the hobby. But I can see the issues this ensues for those who prefer more complex forms of play.

TJS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 796
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2020, 04:39:01 PM »
You are ignoring the context of what you quoted.  It is followed by the statement: "But it also means the more time and effort you have to spend on your choices.  What any individual calls "fun" is going to be based on a different value of this work-to-consequence ratio.  But there is a very real difference in the number of choices you are making (and the control you have over your character and the consequences) when you abstract or ignore certain types of logistics in your game."

Nothing you have said invalidates the whole quote, which is simply saying that the more you elide choices, the less control you have over consequences.  The more details you include, the more important choices you have (because all of those choices could potentially have consequences).  Everyone is going to have a different level of elision they enjoy.  But that doesn't change the fact that you are giving up some control for ease of use.  Where you plant that flag is personal, but it is not true that you have the same level of choice at every interpretation of the rules.

The logic here is flawed, because taking away *specific* details and choices doesn't mean that there are less choices and consequences overall. The choices taken away can be replaced by higher-level choices.

Even in some super-detailed wargames like Squad Leader, you don't necessarily track how many bullets each individual soldier has.

Furthermore, detailed item tracking *in no way* indicates that a game is more about consequences. The game of Go, for example, has extremely simple rules - just placing black and white stones on a grid. It's vastly less complicated than something like Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles, which have hundreds of pages of rules and complicated forms to fill out every turn.

But that doesn't mean that playing Go is just like watching a movie, and that your choices have less consequences than in Squad Leader. If anything, it's the opposite. The streamlined rules mean that there is *more* focus on choices and consequences in Go. It is an incredibly intricate game in play.


Within RPGs, I would contrast, say, playing Rolemaster in full gory detail with playing Amber Diceless. Rolemaster has hundreds of pages of rules and dozens of charts to follow. You can track every arrow. Amber Diceless has no dice-rolling, no charts, and the rules are condense. I've never seen an Amber game where players were keeping track of how many arrows they have, for example. But Amber can still have plenty of focus on choice and consequence.
Go has a lot of emergent complexity though.  As does Chess.  That's really the holy grail of rpg combat design.

If someone could create a good system that rewards mastery and allows for emergent complexity, then it would put other combat systems in the shade.
(Of course this does mean that the player with more skill would be more effective then those with less, - and people would whine and whine - but achieving mastery is one of the big things that motivates people, so it's really a benefit - and at least this way mastery would come from playing the game and not through pouring through endless books and SRD for ways to make the killer build)

Rhedyn
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1101
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2020, 04:45:51 PM »
There are no "high level" choices available to a more abstract game that are not available to a more detailed logistical game.  You may spend more time on one or the other, high or low, depending on your preference, but that is preference.  But, objectively, there are fewer choices available (high vs high+low).  To take Go as an example, there are, in fact, a limited number of board-states in Go (but more than chess, which is why we have computers that can beat chess grandmasters but not Go champions).  But Star Fleet Battles has a near infinite number of "board-states".  So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go.  Do you find one more enjoyable than the other?  Personal taste.  But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.

No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games.  But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level."  Not everyone enjoys that equally.  There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice.  You might not.  But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.
Not all "board-states" matter.

I could set a rule that you select your characters RGB shade every round. Mathmatically, I've added X16581375*#PCs "board-states" to the game.

If I'm playing D&D 5e and carry 100 arrows ready-to-go, keeping track of them is as useless as selecting his RGB shade. If the arrows never drop to zero between re-fills, then tracking them did nothing. I do track them btw, the only way I can stomach D&D 5e is if I pretend it's an OSR game where things like that matter. They don't in 5e, but I keep track of them anyways for shits and giggles.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2020, 05:17:30 PM »
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.

The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.

The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2020, 05:42:24 PM »
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.

The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.
And yet that was 5e’s path to success and dominance. Its not entirely accurate, but there is some truth to the description of 5e as “everyone’s second favorite edition of D&D.”

It IS some people’s genuinely favorite edition, but after the edition wars 5e c. 2015 was bland and inoffensive enough with enough common D&D-isms that those who weren’t Edition diehards could at least put up with it and that’s how it basically crippled Pathfinder and basically reasserted itself as the dominant RPG.

So don’t completely discount the idea of a “compromise edition” being an automatic failure. That said, very few RPGs have the audience, lifespan and degree of changes between editions so as to NEED a compromise edition.

The RPG side of Battletech is the only other one I can think of and few people were ever playing the system for anything other than the big stompy robots so the personal RPG level mechanics were pretty peripheral and so could be changed without rocking the boat while the core Mech vs. Mech rules have been unchanged from the beginning and the only real debate is which Era (and therefore specialized equipment) is best to play.

Itachi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • I
  • Posts: 1299
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2020, 06:05:18 PM »
RPGs already accommodate both styles, so I don't see what the problem is? There are different games for all tastes, from OSR to story-focused and everything between.

The problem is a game that tries to be everything to everyone often fails at being one thing for one type of player.
That's not my point, which actually is: the hobby already has games to all styles. Even if new trends favor simplicity or abstractness, there's pdf copies of old games available, and remakes of old ones being released left and right. See the OSR movement or the BRP renaissance that produced Mythras, Runequest Glorantha and a ton of similar games, in recent years.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2020, 06:21:53 PM by Itachi »

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2020, 06:18:21 PM »
No one here is arguing (at least I'm not) that you must track arrows.  I am arguing that choosing not to include arrows does reduce the number of choices that players have to make.  If your fun comes from making fewer choices than are necessary in my campaign, then more power to you.  But the players are making fewer choices, and there are fewer consequences thereby.  No matter how much money you have, there's a limit to the number of arrows you can carry into a dungeon (and supply trains create their own choices), and this limit causes choices. It's why magic classes have gotten even more powerful with at-will cantrips.  They now can just blast away with no consequences...

The problem is those choices don't matter imo. Maybe at low levels and in resource poor campaign worlds. Otherwise past a certain point unless their are major restrictions most players should not be worried about resupplying. Level is not just about more hit points in bonuses it's also about the ability of acquiring more resources. Unless the characters are in siege or out in the middle of nowhere with no weapons. Arrows and food imo should not really be that hard to come by. Honestly what you thinl old warriors talk about aroundin the fire in fantasy campaign worlds. "Remember that time we almost all died fighting that dragon" or " remember that exciting that we wasted or lives counting arrows or keep track of how many quarts of water remained in our water skins"

I get your point yet I feel that your also deliberately ignoring or downplaying just how much access to resources character have at high levels. You make it sound level 1 Fighter and level 15 fighter should both be tracking ammo.

A few times I had to crack down on players carrying too much. The worst I can remember is the player carrying two heavy suits of armor and wearing one. While carrying six weapons and wanted to try and ignore the encumbrance rules. I am pretty lenient yet that was too much for me and he had to let some of the weight go and had to start tracking encumbrance.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2020, 06:22:04 PM by sureshot »

TJS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 796
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2020, 06:35:40 PM »
Yeah encumbrance is another one that requires certain circumstances to be in play to really be worth tracking.

Hauling loot out of the dungeon? - Yeah that's worth tracking because you're on foot and it might necessitate a second trip.

Travelling overland?  If we start adding up numbers the players might realise they need some mules or packhorses or something along those lines.  Often it's easier to just cut to the chase and suggest they consider that or I will start tracking encumbrance.

Which is often how I use it.  I tend to let it slide, but with the proviso that I will enforce it if I feel the players are being unreasonable or if circumstances arise when it becomes important.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2020, 06:43:06 PM by TJS »

Mishihari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • M
  • Posts: 989
Re: How Real RPG Play is Better Than Storyplay
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2020, 06:51:36 PM »
A few times I had to crack down on players carrying too much. The worst I can remember is the player carrying two heavy suits of armor and wearing one. While carrying six weapons and wanted to try and ignore the encumbrance rules. I am pretty lenient yet that was too much for me and he had to let some of the weight go and had to start tracking encumbrance.

I remember making pipe cleaner figures to use as miniatures when I was a kid.  My friend decided to make all of his barbarian's weapons and place them on the figure to show where they were in the game.  There were a lot.  When he couldn't find places to put them all, and there was no way to keep the figure standing up, we decided that maybe he had too many.