When it comes to genre, I think that is a case of the players and GM all kind of buying into the premise together. I'm not going to tell my players they can't leave the mafia to start an accounting business if we are playing a mafia campaign, but chances are they are at the table because they want to be mobsters, so issues like that don't really crop up that much in my experience (and that might be a bad example, because an accounting business could probably figure into a mafia campaign pretty easily).

Quote from: AsenRG;877862What if someone habitually gets lucky (and keeps doing that after exchanging dice with you)?
What if someone just manages to always get tactical advantage?

If it is by accepted and not rigged stochastic means, i.e. not loaded dice, marked cards, etc., then it is what it is.

I have seen ridiculous levels of lucky dice rolling. I have myself ridiculous levels of unlucky dice rolling. But I accept those results because it is the agreed upon method of resolution, and we make a good faith effort that our means are not rigged for fairness of play.

That is not the same as routinely getting an unanticipated — and incongruous — advantage due to poor system construction.

This was apparent from the example given in the beginning. And yet you are still dancing around stretching the analogies in an effort to find a slippery slope. So again, what exactly are you trying to say?

Quote from: Skarg;878193As for the idea of limiting what PCs can accomplish, my suspects include:

* Thinking in terms of story patterns, film plot patterns, etc.
* Thinking of games as stories.
* Evaluating play quality by how "dramatic" it is, or how well it meets "genre expectations". (e.g. wanting it to be impossible for a main character to be embarrassed or killed by an unnamed character, or an unexpected result - no chance arrows through the eye - only GM-planned ones at key intentional moments, etc)
* Predicting what will happen and only one or few possible chains of events.
* Styles of published modules which predict only a few possible chains of events, and so force action down those paths. "When the players get to this bridge, there will be a troll who will tell them that X just happened."
* GMs preparing material with one plot thread in mind. So, if the PCs do something that bypasses or changes what they planned, the GM may think they will "lose" all that work, etc
* GMs who are only comfortable when they've planned, prepared, and predicted what will happen.
* GMs who only think about the linear path of the PCs.
* GMs who don't think about their worlds as a dynamic system that reacts to circumstances in many places at once.

Yeah, those look likely. I'm really not out to judge that, though. I was simply interested in a "head count" among the denizens of theRPGsite:).

Quote from: Skarg;878195Yeah, which is one of the reasons I hang out here. I was driven to find such a place after trying reading some other sites where people don't like it to be pointed out that it's not much of a "game" if everyone advances at the same rate, never dies, is meaningfully wounded, loses equipment or EXP (or gets more EXP than another PC) or is replaced on death by a twin, and the players will eventually complete the intended story and become demigods and save the universe even if they're idiots, just by showing up, not hurting anyone's feelings, etc.

I was driven to find such a place when I found myself disagreeing with the policy enforcement on another site, where I currently have much more posts. But I remember people there didn't appreciate my point that "if you do those things (i.e. that you listed), this doesn't simulate neither real life, nor any genre worth reading".

QuoteYa, nope. TFT is like GURPS in that goblin scum #13 might possibly kill unwounded Lancelot in one shot if he gets really really lucky, etc.

Well, never played it, but I like such games.

QuoteYep that's more or less what the ITL guideline you mentioned is about. It is a smart and realistic idea to buy practice equipment like that, but the result would be practice hours in lockpicking and experience with one tough lock, not speedy infinite no-risk character advancement. But it also pointed right at a weak point in TFT, which wouldn't be covered till GURPS, which is some way to represent realistically the effect of practicing a skill in spare time.

Yeah, I'm one of those that love that in GURPS, you have 1pt being 200 hours of practice.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;878196I don't really place a limit here (though there might be limits imposed by the setting and system---which is how I answered the poll). To me this just makes running a game easier. If the players want to try to do something amazing and they succeed, that just brings the campaign into an exciting and unexpected direction. If they fail, the consequences could be fun (or in the worst case scenario of a TPK very memorable).

Yes, indeed - I actually wrote an article on that account, just so I could link people to it when the argument "what are you going to do if so and so happens" is ever mentioned...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;878197When it comes to genre, I think that is a case of the players and GM all kind of buying into the premise together. I'm not going to tell my players they can't leave the mafia to start an accounting business if we are playing a mafia campaign, but chances are they are at the table because they want to be mobsters, so issues like that don't really crop up that much in my experience (and that might be a bad example, because an accounting business could probably figure into a mafia campaign pretty easily).

Well, I think it's a combination of players buy-in, and the system allowing the genre's exploits. Mind, allowing them is enough, it's not always necessary to make them optimal.
I mean, Flashing Blades and Honor+Intrigue are both swaschbuckling games. In H+I, you get points for being flashy, which make it easier to win at the end.
In Flashing Blades, you waste a move, but gain the admiration of other people that saw it, and maybe make the enemy nervous, Referee's call.
Flashing Blades definitely requires more buy-in to the genre. But it's arguably better for an Alatriste campaign, where the characters are being, well, swaschbucklers despite the world not helping.
OTOH, Pendragon is a game where strong passions help you defeat an enemy, and it's perfect for genre emulation.
So it's a mixed bag, really, with no one-size-fits-all solution;).

Quote from: Skarg;878193As for the idea of limiting what PCs can accomplish, my suspects include:

* Thinking in terms of story patterns, film plot patterns, etc.
* Thinking of games as stories.
* Evaluating play quality by how "dramatic" it is, or how well it meets "genre expectations". (e.g. wanting it to be impossible for a main character to be embarrassed or killed by an unnamed character, or an unexpected result - no chance arrows through the eye - only GM-planned ones at key intentional moments, etc)
* Predicting what will happen and only one or few possible chains of events.
* Styles of published modules which predict only a few possible chains of events, and so force action down those paths. "When the players get to this bridge, there will be a troll who will tell them that X just happened."
* GMs preparing material with one plot thread in mind. So, if the PCs do something that bypasses or changes what they planned, the GM may think they will "lose" all that work, etc
* GMs who are only comfortable when they've planned, prepared, and predicted what will happen.
* GMs who only think about the linear path of the PCs.
* GMs who don't think about their worlds as a dynamic system that reacts to circumstances in many places at once.

In other words, a shitty GM.

Quote from: AsenRG;877409In the Godbound thread, this came up. So I decided to make it a thread and a poll.

QuoteI think the genre is intrinsically a robust one. When you're playing a classic 1st level dirt farmer, a high degree of competence just doesn't fit that style of game. If that dirt farmer uses some combination of abilities and game mechanics to start regularly offing a half-dozen thugs without taking a scratch, the group is going to get irritated, because that's not the experience they signed on for.

My reply to this.
Interesting. I've never, ever bothered with guaranteeing that people can't do something.

I mean, to me it's a problem-solving exercise, much like life. You have these abilities, both covered and not covered by the system. You have goals. You have current situation, including rules from the rulebook and the setting book.
How do you use what you have to get as close as possible to what you want?
In my book, a former dirt farmer that learned to use a sword proficiently and has killed people, is a veteran. OD&D seems to agree with me.
A veteran slaying dirt farmers happens all the time. I mean, look at medieval armies against most peasant uprisings. Look at what bandits, former soldiers, did in history, and still do to people in the Third World - both in countries with lots of firearms, and countries without those.
Actually, screw that. I know civilians who have bested multiple opponents. That's not part of the "narrative" for games like Call of Chthulhu...but it very well might happen.

Yeah, right, PCs are different. Even Unknown Armies would tell you this - normal people scatter when someone shoots at them, or even pulls a knife. PCs, as a general rule, have enough hardened Violence notches to decide whether to leg it, or to try and kill you before you can use that weapon.

And, you know, this approach has never failed me when Refereeing. Do you feel you need to constrain the PCs?

And if yes, why?


Sine Nomine's comment was, I want to emphasize that, just the thing that prompted me to think about that particulat matter. It's my question, and I'm asking about your personal opinion and Refereeing habits.
I'm not in discussion with Kevin Crawford on that point, especially since I kinda agree -  many GMs seem to be doing that. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing to do, even if I'm not doing it.
Of course, I wouldn't be asking the forum to mediate in this discussion even if there was one. But I just want to repeat that there isn't a discussion. I asked about Godbound, Mr. Crawford replied, and I even liked his answer - in a "I know what you mean (but it sounds weird to me)" way.
The only reason I've quoted it is because it did prompt me to think about that. And I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Expectations are bullshit.

If a dirt farmer comes up with a way to kill mooks without taking damage, and does so within the rules, good for the dirt farmer. It really rubs me the wrong way when someone assumes that because their precious character or monster is just so much better than their opposition then the opposition shouldn't be allowed to win -even if the dice and the rules and actual play say they did in fact win.

This goes hand in hand with a true sandbox. If you decide to place monsters and NPCs according to what makes sense from a world building standpoint, rather than based on the hit dice of the creatures, then there could very well be instances where 1st-level PCs have a run-in with a vampire or a hill giant or a dragon. This is not a bad thing!

And if, through some combination of guile and luck they should kill the giant/dragon/vampire then they deserve praise, not an asshole GM telling them they can't even try.

Quote from: Elfdart;878295... there could very well be instances where 1st-level PCs have a run-in with a vampire or a hill giant or a dragon. This is not a bad thing!

Its not bad for the setting. It may be very bad for the [strike]tasty little blood-bags[/strike] 1st level PCs.

I kind of like the concept of a Fisher King coupled with a massive screening process to constantly rotate into place the person whose demeanor best fits the kingdom's current challeng, whatever that may be at any given time.

Quote from: AsenRG;878183See, now I'm interested to hear the tale of that session. I knew something fun would come out of this thread, after all:D!

It wasn't even just one session. The DM tried to adapt and make the battles challenging by upping the difficulty each time, and each time we rose to the occasion.

And it wasn't even really all that unusual, which goes to show just how foolish a concept "balancing encounters" actually is. One of them, the party split up, so it was just me and the other thief in the party, sneaking around, we encountered about 20 orcs. The other thief, the player knew the rules, knew we could get our sneak attack bonus with our bows if we got within 30 feet or whatever. We'd be toast after that. But it was in a courtyard with a frozen over fountain in the middle.

I figured we'd easily be able to get to the center where there were shrubs to hide behind. We could fire our arrows at the orcs from there. If they didn't come charging in, we'd pick them off one by one. And if they did come charging in, they'd slip on the ice.

It progressed from there. Took out a large party of ogres, orcs, and gnolls with a single grease spell because they were charging at us down a corridor, a spike pit trap at our back. It was just a matter of side-stepping them. That's when we got our XP cut. Again, it's not that far out a situation. By the time we reached 5th level, the GM was sending Rocs (plural) at us.

QuoteWell, RPGs are played for different reasons. Some people want to explore what they would do in a situation that's action-movie like, assuming reality worked a certain way. Others want to recreate the exploits of action movie stars, and reality makes sense if it allows that.

Which action movies, though? The ones that are really well done are not exactly abandoning the rules of reality. They provide enough details that they make sense. You can have both. You have to know how.

That's another thing you'll notice about every other type of game in the universe. It does not set the rules to accommodate the goals. They set the rules in opposition to the goals. The whole challenge of the game is getting good at playing so you can get what you want. Only in RPGs do some people theorize that the rules should support the goals.

Quote from: Bren;878299Its not bad for the setting. It may be very bad for the [strike]tasty little blood-bags[/strike] 1st level PCs.

Or it could be great. I had a bunch of 1st level rookies take down a hill giant, and another party of low-level PCs (2nd-3rd level) destroy a vampire plus his minions. I though both were TPKs in the making, but both groups were clever and resourceful.

Want to level up quickly? Knock off a higher class of monster. Of course your chances to die trying are much higher...

Quote from: Elfdart;878680Or it could be great.

I could be great in the same sense that skydiving with no parachute can work out.

If as a GM I am responsible for enforcing genre and rules, then I guess? I would also limit a player who's using a character in an antisocial manner, and I've regretted every time I haven't.

But really, this is all about shared expectations again.

Quote from: Opaopajr;877721It explicitly talks about repetition to the point of expectation, and that new reality breaking previous expectation integral to suspension of belief.

Suspension of disbelief.

Honestly, I never would have said a thing if we weren't living in a world where literal literally means figurative.

Quote from: AsenRG;877862What if someone habitually gets lucky (and keeps doing that after exchanging dice with you)?

Just by calling them lucky you've explicitly acknowledged they're breaking your expectations in a way that fits your expectations.

Quote from: Elfdart;878295Expectations are bullshit.

Expectations are guidelines on what to expect, not determinants on that to restrict.

Quote from: Elfdart;878295If a dirt farmer comes up with a way to kill mooks without taking damage, and does so within the rules, good for the dirt farmer.

But if he does this consistently, he's no longer (just) a dirt farmer, because expectations have changed, even if the reality hasn't.

Or maybe he was just lucky.

Quote from: Lunamancer;878317And it wasn't even really all that unusual, which goes to show just how foolish a concept "balancing encounters" actually is.

Balance is bullshit.

You can only balance a game based on one conceptual axis (which is for most RPGs is squad level combat) which then becomes what the game is about. And it eliminates XP as a meaningful currency, because every challenge will be scaled up accordingly. So everyone will be just as powerful as before because they're facing equally powerful opposition.

Except that player forced to start at 1st level in such a group, because fuck that guy.

Quote from: Lunamancer;878317The whole challenge of the game is getting good at playing so you can get what you want. Only in RPGs do some people theorize that the rules should support the goals.

But what specifically are these goals you speak of? Improvement of skill? A shot of adrenaline? The respect of your peers? The last slice of pizza?

Quote from: Elfdart;878680Or it could be great. I had a bunch of 1st level rookies take down a hill giant, and another party of low-level PCs (2nd-3rd level) destroy a vampire plus his minions. I though both were TPKs in the making, but both groups were clever and resourceful.

Exactly how much of this depends on clever vs lucky though?

Quote from: yosemitemike;878685I could be great in the same sense that skydiving with no parachute can work out.

It's a completely valid playstyle, and only a problem when there's insufficient feedback to asses how dangerous something actually is before taking action.

Hence why Paranoia has clones, or even exists in the first place.

Quote from: Elfdart;878288In other words, a shitty GM.

One might say that. But then one might be tempted to go on and say the suggested playstyle of many RPGs, and the style of much TV and movies and pulp fiction is shitty... which might be off-topic.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;878740... (edited out various good points)
Balance is bullshit.

You can only balance a game based on one conceptual axis (which is for most RPGs is squad level combat) which then becomes what the game is about. And it eliminates XP as a meaningful currency, because every challenge will be scaled up accordingly. So everyone will be just as powerful as before because they're facing equally powerful opposition.

Except that player forced to start at 1st level in such a group, because fuck that guy.

Not always. It seems to me your comments apply perfectly to games/GMs who automatically ramp difficulty to match the player level. That does penalize progress automatically, which is a lazy balance tactic that undermines the game world's consistency. It tends to get used as a way to try to keep games interesting despite a severe power curve. The severe power curve is something I think is an even worse problem, but unfortunately it's a common design flaw, especially in computer RPGs, where it's become entrenched for many, though I'd say they get it from copying D&D. If the game lets players level up and become super-powerful compared to many opponents, then the game is broken, and the band-aid applied is to throw more powerful monsters, or even to level up all the NPCs that the PCs meet, which yes, is a huge continuity and balance snafu.

But it doesn't have to be that way. It helps a lot if the game system doesn't have such a steep power progression curve. If even a hero needs to at least pay attention and use some tactics when dealing with a few brigands or guards, then ramping up the universe can be unnecessary. Then the balance can be more about logical cause and effect, where the more skilled characters may just be able to get into more difficult situations, but not have the world level up with them.

Quote...
re: novices defeating a giant
Exactly how much of this depends on clever vs lucky though?

That too can depend on the game, and is one of the main reasons why I am mainly interested in detailed tactical combat systems rather than abstract mapless ones. (Because there's much more room for cleverness to make a difference.)

Quote from: Elfdart;878680Or it could be great. I had a bunch of 1st level rookies take down a hill giant, and another party of low-level PCs (2nd-3rd level) destroy a vampire plus his minions. I though both were TPKs in the making, but both groups were clever and resourceful.

Want to level up quickly? Knock off a higher class of monster. Of course your chances to die trying are much higher...

Absolutely agree!  I am reminded of a time a party of 1st level PCs decided to take on a 200 member orc tribe all gathered up in a group.  A risky plan, creative item use, and very good rolls ended in the orc tribe's route with the orc leaders oozing brains.  We all had a blast and the high fives were many.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;878740It's a completely valid playstyle, and only a problem when there's insufficient feedback to asses how dangerous something actually is before taking action.

Hence why Paranoia has clones, or even exists in the first place.

I suppose just about anything can be called a valid playstyle.  Paranoia has a very atypical setup and playstyle though.