TheRPGSite

I've seen some people make fun of rules-sets for having drowning and falling rules.

Maybe this is all coming from the same folks who aren't sure games need rules for combat, but I had the distinct impression that people who were generally okay combat rules thought drowning and falling rules were extraneous.

I can see how the players might not choose to use those rules in extreme cases (very long falls, or spending a *long* time underwater) -- if it's obvious that someone's dead, why roll all the dice? But so many drowning and falling scenarios aren't black and white... doesn't it make sense to rule on them?

And in cases where the general physics of the world (e.g. Champions) are somewhat... at odds with regular physics, isn't it preferable for the game system to provide guidance?

For the record, I also think games should provide rules for

• Encumbrance, carrying capacity and how much your character can pick up (dead lift, maybe). not just for hauling gold out of the dungeon. In most military games where re-supply is an issue, what to carry isn't just a detail -- it can be a tactical decision and even a statement


• Fire. Because in the games I play things and people get set on fire. I consider a game system without rules for burning things incomplete.


• Car crashes, collisions in general, and damage from dropping moderately heavy things on people: My games are full of these things. A speeding 18-wheeler loaded with inflammable liquid is *probably* an excellent weapon against a medium-sized Cuthuloid... but before I threw it in gear, I'd want to know for sure. I can think of at least 2 cases where office workers pushed a photocopier into an elevator shaft that a monster was climbing up... as a GM, I just wouldn't be sure how to rule that without guidance.


• Endurance. Your character probably *can't* run all day. But if you've really got to get to Sparta, the rules should help decide if you're going to go down in legend as a hero, or as a slacker.
  

A few notes:

• The rules provided should match reasonable expectations for the genre and as such don't need to be invoked unless it's an important situation. I wouldn't expect characters to pay much attention to encumbrance unless they were trying to carry a load that seemed excessive in a situation where success or failure mattered.
• The common thread is that in all of these cases I want the rules to give me a set of guidelines for ruling on unusual events that may be critically important in the game (live-or-die situation for the PC's).
• By expressing this stuff in game terms, I expect the character's nature to make a difference: a heroic character should be able to stay down longer, run further, and burn less brightly than a more average schmo.

Again, just to be clear: I don't refer to those rules in most cases. When someone gets a 16 ton weight dropped on them I know what happens. But if someone gets hit by a brick from a second story window, that's a call I want the game to help with.

Enough about me, though. How about you?

Cheers,
-E.

QFT -E.

It's better to have rules that you might never need, but have them there when you need them, than to have some extremely vague system that really just a setting with bandaids holding it together.

People have fallen from airplane at great heights and landed without a scratch. Others have 'drown' only to be revived over an hour later, from frigid water.

When it comes down to a PC or NPC that the PCs care about, living or dying, clear, set rules prevent much tactical hair splitting and crying.


Anyone who doesn't want 'a lot of rules' in their games can go play TWERPS.:p

Principally I have no problem with any of the rules mentioned. It depends entirely on the RPG in question.

Here's a game that foregrounds them more than any other does, though one suspects not in the ordinary way--

http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/index.php?game=drowning_and_falling

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPrincipally I have no problem with any of the rules mentioned. It depends entirely on the RPG in question.

Here's a game that foregrounds them more than any other does, though one suspects not in the ordinary way--

http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/index.php?game=drowning_and_falling

Can you give me an example of a game where you'd have a problem with them? I can't think of an RPG genre where characters might not drown or fall.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.How about you?

I want rules to do two important things for me.  (1) I want them to tell me how to resolve things that I might not know how to resolve or have to spend time thinking about how to resolve and (2) I want them to provide a common "physics" for the game world accessible to both players and GM at any time and upon which both can agree on at the start of the game.  As such, I think games should have both drowning and falling rules.

Well, you can drown or fall or be overencumbered etc. in any game, but games like Everway or the games the blakkster plays don't have a rules subsystem for that. In some games such rules would feel overdetailed. In other games for a PC to drown or fall to death accidentally--would be plain inappropriate.

By "accidentally" I mean breaking one's neck falling from the horse while briefly relaxing from 'venturing out on a fox hunt, as opposed to falling to one's death later that week while fighting the balrog on a crumbling bridge across the Chasm of Nothing.

So, it's a matter of degree--degree of desired sim detail, which varies from game to game. It's not an issue I'm really invested in, btw.

Quote from: -E.Can you give me an example of a game where you'd have a problem with them? I can't think of an RPG genre where characters might not drown or fall.

Cheers,
-E.

Toon. Well, you can drown and fall, but it doesn't kill you. It keeps you from speaking for 5 mins. (IIRC)

As my old sig at rpg.net used to say "Wushu is not an rpg because it lacks falling rules."

;)

-E. speaks with a sort of clear-headed logic and rationality that all should bow to.

What the fuck is he doing posting here? :D

Strangely, though I helped prompt this thread, I don't really think that rules for drowning & falling are essential for what I think of as a roleplaying game. For example in a game about palace or family intrigue (something like Dallas, I suppose), I could accept a great deal of abstraction when it came to physical conflict and mishap, while social and economic elements would be covered in great detail. The key would be the interpetability of the abstraction in how scenes are framed and resolved. E.g. if a character plotted to assassinate an opponent, I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time on description that wasn't well-connected to the representational mechanics available--such as connections to the underworld, say--and I'd strongly limit the use of mechanics such as purely thematic traits or narration-trading, essentially isolating them as "capstone mechanics" on top of the representational resolution system. If the game didn't have rules for toppling a bookcase on someone, throwing them off a cliff, or pushing them off a boat, then I'd be profoundly disinterested in narrating anything but the most general details of the dastardly deed, in order to justify rolling the dice.

For me, it's really the narration trading and use of thematic traits ("was beaten by my father +3") that take a game out of roleplaying and into storytelling. About the latter, I don't have anything against it in principle (e.g. Polaris strikes me as pretty neat), only the commentary that suggests what I think of as roleplaying is defective and needs to be fixed by foregrounding elements which, for me, harm the essential experience.

I think that if a game doesn't have rules for converting real-world tensile strength to breakability percentages for inanimate objects, as well as providing tensile strengths (and melting points, etc.) for any imaginary substances (like mithril or adamantine or trilithium crystals) that occur in the settting, it's not a role-playing game.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell, you can drown or fall or be overencumbered etc. in any game, but games like Everway or the games the blakkster plays don't have a rules subsystem for that. In some games such rules would feel overdetailed.

I think I should have added that, in addition to modeling physics of the game world, I want the rules at the appropriate degree of abstraction for the game.

In D&D, that means rating falling damage in hitpoints and probably calling for some kind of savings throw.

At a higher level of abstraction, we have RISUS. RISUS does not have a rules subsystem for drowning and falling, but it does provide

• A difficulty scale for varying levels of physical feats and a mechanic for resolving them
• A principle (described in the super-human lift section) that gives a non-linear difficulty rating for physical phenomena
• Guidance on applying those rules (relatively, in this case) to gaming situations

I think this is *minimal* -- and it's not clear how to apply it directly to lots of game situations (being on fire), but it's better than nothing. I think high-abstraction games should shoot for at least a RISUS-style framework and set of principles and guidelines for handling physical phenomena.

I'll also note that for a game that tries to give almost no direct physical-world guidance (even to the point of explicitly saying it doesn't give a distance or time scale) RISUS did "break down" and provide a scale for lift.

Why? Well there's no way to be sure but I bet I know the answer:

Players cared how much their character could lift. They cared enough that rules appeared.

I'll get back to this.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIn other games for a PC to drown or fall to death accidentally--would be plain inappropriate.

By "accidentally" I mean breaking one's neck falling from the horse while briefly relaxing from 'venturing out on a fox hunt, as opposed to falling to one's death later that week while fighting the balrog on a crumbling bridge across the Chasm of Nothing.

Completely agree. In fact, no kidding. In a game of "Heroic anything" modeling falling to the point where a character might die from an accidental fall would be a severe breach of genre and wouldn't be welcome.

Same goes for Toon (to Nazgul's point). I can't remember if Toon has rules for falling or not--but given how often cartoon characters fall off cliffs, I'd be... disappointed if it doesn't. And *of course* falling in toon shouldn't kill you!

Basic Principles:

• The physical world rules should match the game's intended level of abstraction
• The physical world rules should support the game's genre, especially with regard to lethality or the lack thereof

Let's get back to RISUS now -- possibly the most successful high-abstraction game I'm aware of... and it has a scale for physical lift

Quote from: Elliot WilenStrangely, though I helped prompt this thread, I don't really think that rules for drowning & falling are essential for what I think of as a roleplaying game. For example in a game about palace or family intrigue (something like Dallas, I suppose), I could accept a great deal of abstraction when it came to physical conflict and mishap, while social and economic elements would be covered in great detail.

In a game like Dallas fighting, drowning and falling might never come up. Covering them in any level of detail would likely be a waste of resources (paper) that could be better used to advance the main themes of the game (intrigue, family and corporate politics, etc.)

But when fighting, drowning, or falling *did* come up, I bet the players (GM-inclusive) would care about the outcome.

Maybe a lot -- losing a political challenge doesn't kill your character (usually). A bullet to the brain does.

Even in games that are supposedly about political intrigue, violence or the threat of violence exists.

Games that don't cover these situations have, in my opinion, a serious weakness.

That's why I think doing Dallas (or any genre) with a dedicated system is a mistake: I think all games should be done with generalist systems, and Dallas should be a source book. You might never need to break out the BRP core rules for falling damage in a typical Dallas game, but if you did -- meaning that  the people playing cared enough to want a framework for resolution --they'd be there.

This is what I think happens with most high-abstraction or rules-light games: they start off with very few rules; a perfect abstract resolution mechanic, usually.

In their pristine state they're simple but unsatisfying. As people actually play them, rules accumulate and you get a table of rules for super lift on page 6 of RISUS (Credit to Lizard on RPG.net for stating this principle years ago).

If I were designing a game, I'd acknowledge that and provide those rules in a coherent framework up front.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe key would be the interpetability of the abstraction in how scenes are framed and resolved. E.g. if a character plotted to assassinate an opponent, I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time on description that wasn't well-connected to the representational mechanics available--such as connections to the underworld, say--and I'd strongly limit the use of mechanics such as purely thematic traits or narration-trading, essentially isolating them as "capstone mechanics" on top of the representational resolution system. If the game didn't have rules for toppling a bookcase on someone, throwing them off a cliff, or pushing them off a boat, then I'd be profoundly disinterested in narrating anything but the most general details of the dastardly deed, in order to justify rolling the dice.

Understood (I think), but as above -- if my character came up with a brilliant plot to kill someone in a way that I thought really stacked the odds in my favor and the GM ignored the advantage I expected my character to have because the rules didn't provide a framework for representing it, I'd be wondering why we weren't playing GURPS.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor me, it's really the narration trading and use of thematic traits ("was beaten by my father +3") that take a game out of roleplaying and into storytelling. About the latter, I don't have anything against it in principle (e.g. Polaris strikes me as pretty neat), only the commentary that suggests what I think of as roleplaying is defective and needs to be fixed by foregrounding elements which, for me, harm the essential experience.

I haven't read Polaris. It doesn't strike me as something I'd be interested in playing.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CalithenaI think that if a game doesn't have rules for converting real-world tensile strength to breakability percentages for inanimate objects, as well as providing tensile strengths (and melting points, etc.) for any imaginary substances (like mithril or adamantine or trilithium crystals) that occur in the settting, it's not a role-playing game.

Excellent point -- I should have added "rules for breaking things" to what I expect from a game and a "framework" for converting from real-world values to game values.

Absent those, I'd say a given game is still an RPG... just not a very complete one (and if it's not totally dedicated to operating at a really high level of abstraction, maybe not a very good one).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: John MorrowI want rules to do two important things for me.  (1) I want them to tell me how to resolve things that I might not know how to resolve or have to spend time thinking about how to resolve and (2) I want them to provide a common "physics" for the game world accessible to both players and GM at any time and upon which both can agree on at the start of the game.  As such, I think games should have both drowning and falling rules.

I think this one of (and maybe the most important of the) the underlying core principles for all RPG physical world rules. Absolutely agree.

Cheers,
-E.

This is fantastic, -E.  It doesn't, if you read the enhanced principles about abstraction and such, offend the sensibilities of different "styles" of gaming.

However, my guess is you're going to have to pry the lack-of-physical-world-modeling of more abstract games out of their cold dead hands. Why?

Because in some circles, there is a vested interest in the idea that number-of-words = importance-of-rules.  So if a game designer spends four pages on modeling the physical world, it has four pages worth of importance. Now, you and I might assert that the real "importance" is not in the number of words/pages, but in the level of abstraction and likelihood of deployment.  

But that approach might be too...nuanced...for rational discussion about RPGs.

And, lest we forget, Dallas had violence in it too. Quite a bit if I recall correctly. People getting in fist fights, getting shot, etc.

Quote from: -E.I can see how the players might not choose to use those rules in extreme cases (very long falls, or spending a *long* time underwater) -- if it's obvious that someone's dead, why roll all the dice? But so many drowning and falling scenarios aren't black and white... doesn't it make sense to rule on them?

Very long falls, while usually fatal, are not always. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050311.html) It depends on how "hollywood" or over-the-top or whatever you want to call it you want your game to be. If you are OK with the PCs being in the middle of special events you'd actually represent such things with highly heightened odds from boring ol' Real Life™.

Any, to the original question, if falling or being in water (or some other aphixiation sitution) is anywhere remotely possible and relavent to the game I don't see what the problem is?  I actually hadn't even noticed before the jeering you mention. Perhaps that represents good choices on my part of what threads to read? ;)

Quote from: James J SkachThis is fantastic, -E.  It doesn't, if you read the enhanced principles about abstraction and such, offend the sensibilities of different "styles" of gaming.

Thanks!  Agreed -- the principles,if they're good ones, should be sound across a wide spectrum of preferences and priorities.

Quote from: James J SkachHowever, my guess is you're going to have to pry the lack-of-physical-world-modeling of more abstract games out of their cold dead hands. Why?.

Because in some circles, there is a vested interest in the idea that number-of-words = importance-of-rules.  So if a game designer spends four pages on modeling the physical world, it has four pages worth of importance. Now, you and I might assert that the real "importance" is not in the number of words/pages, but in the level of abstraction and likelihood of deployment.  

But that approach might be too...nuanced...for rational discussion about RPGs.

The idea that a metric as crude as page-count could be used that way astonishes me.

It's either a profound misunderstanding of how people use gaming systems or an agenda (I think the latter is more likely). Maybe people who "roleplay" are an evolutionary-step above the cretins who merely "rollplay" and need crude tools like combat systems in their games.

Either way, I agree: not much hope for rational discussion.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd, lest we forget, Dallas had violence in it too. Quite a bit if I recall correctly. People getting in fist fights, getting shot, etc.

Hell yeah. Violence -- or thread of violence -- is prevalent across many genres. Even/especially intrigue and plotting stories. I've seen people complain that PC's in Call of Cuthulhu resort to violence (cinematic or otherwise) in ways that are contrary to the theme/tone of the story.

When you actually *read* the source material, you see a very PC-like move: they run over Cuthulhu with a ship. Sounds like your average bunch of PC's to me.

Again: A Dallas game probably wouldn't *focus* on violence. Spending 1/3rd of the page count for a dedicate system on combat might well be a mistake -- but I think the solution is to use a generalist rules-set that has sufficient combat rules and spend most of the Dallas source-book material on Dallas-related game advice and setting.

Needless to say, I think the GURPS approach is nearly perfect in this regard.

Quote from: blakkieVery long falls, while usually fatal, are not always. It depends on how "hollywood" or over-the-top or whatever you want to call it you want your game to be. If you are OK with the PCs being in the middle of special events you'd actually represent such things with highly heightened odds from boring ol' Real Life™.

Any, to the original question, if falling or being in water (or some other aphixiation sitution) is anywhere remotely possible and relavent to the game I don't see what the problem is? I actually hadn't even noticed before the jeering you mention. Perhaps that represents good choices on my part of what threads to read?

New principle: the rules should cover surviving a huge fall by aiming for a skylight!:eek:

In a heroic game of any kind, I guess I'd want the rules to provide some chance of survival. In a low abstraction game, I'd want the rules to differentiate outcome (i.e. damage) based on what you hit when you land, and then be able to make an adequate ruling when a PC hits several things on the way down to slow his fall.

My basic premise: combat, falling and asphyxiation (along with several other basic events) are "anywhere remotely possible and relevant" to virtually *all* games -- even Dallas, DiTV, and Call of Cthulhu, and therefore should represented in the system.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CalithenaI think that if a game doesn't have rules for converting real-world tensile strength to breakability percentages for inanimate objects, as well as providing tensile strengths (and melting points, etc.) for any imaginary substances (like mithril or adamantine or trilithium crystals) that occur in the settting, it's not a role-playing game.

Hmmmm...

What about the game linked in your sig, then?

I was being facetious, Pierce. I'm kind of amazed that -E agreed with me: I was presenting it as a reductio ad absurdum of the position that you need this kind of stuff in any absolute sense. My favorite satire of this kind is an eighth level spell for freezing water in the Hackmaster Spellslinger's guide, which gives you a spell output in terms of the megajoules (or whatever) you can suck out of water and a formula for how much energy it takes to cool water, etc. that involves multiplying by Avogadro's number and some other stuff.

(I can see the guy reading this spell and thinking "fireball should be defined this way! an output of plasma! what's the melting point of human flesh, and given that an average human has 3 hit points, how do you...", though. Some people just like to do this sort of thing.)

In some games a certain amount of conversion from reality to fiction is helpful, I guess. Although, usually it's bad conversion, like MSPE's (a great game IMO btw) rule for converting muzzle velocity to firearm damage, which is oversimplifying to put things mildly. It's very rare that these guidelines improve on the DM imagining something and making up a number in relation to other numbers that are defined in the rules. (In other words, I'm suggesting that in RPG adjudication, casuistry works better than principle in most cases.)

I agree with -E that a lot of players want to know e.g. exactly how many pounds they can carry or lift, etc. My response is basically to stay vague until they realize I'm not going to answer, because I prefer things that way.  My general preference tends to be for the players never to think about the 'game' part of the RPG at all at the table. I take a dim view of mechanics slowing down play, and of using mechanics to make an end run around the players' and GM's personal assessments of the shared imaginative reality of the game. This makes me an even worse Forgie than traditional gamer, perhaps, but that's cool.

Ok, firstly disliking falling and drowning rules has nothing to do with being into story games or anything like that, as best I can tell I'm the only person here who dislikes them and I mostly play BRP based games.

For me it's simple, in actual play these things do arise, but not so often that I remember the rules for them off by heart.  In actual play, stopping the action to look up a drowning or falling rule damages pacing and flow, which I view as critical to a fun session.  Therefore, in practice I make a ruling and we roll the dice and move on.

They add no value to my games, they take up space in the book, are often quite lengthy to implement, and are dull.  I never use them, therefore because I feel that ideally the world should cater to my idiosyncracies I'd like to see them left out of all future games.

Quote from: CalithenaI was being facetious, Pierce. I'm kind of amazed that -E agreed with me: I was presenting it as a reductio ad absurdum of the position that you need this kind of stuff in any absolute sense. My favorite satire of this kind is an eighth level spell for freezing water in the Hackmaster Spellslinger's guide, which gives you a spell output in terms of the megajoules (or whatever) you can suck out of water and a formula for how much energy it takes to cool water, etc. that involves multiplying by Avogadro's number and some other stuff.

(I can see the guy reading this spell and thinking "fireball should be defined this way! an output of plasma! what's the melting point of human flesh, and given that an average human has 3 hit points, how do you...", though. Some people just like to do this sort of thing.)

In some games a certain amount of conversion from reality to fiction is helpful, I guess. Although, usually it's bad conversion, like MSPE's (a great game IMO btw) rule for converting muzzle velocity to firearm damage, which is oversimplifying to put things mildly. It's very rare that these guidelines improve on the DM imagining something and making up a number in relation to other numbers that are defined in the rules. (In other words, I'm suggesting that in RPG adjudication, casuistry works better than principle in most cases.)

I agree with -E that a lot of players want to know e.g. exactly how many pounds they can carry or lift, etc. My response is basically to stay vague until they realize I'm not going to answer, because I prefer things that way.  My general preference tends to be for the players never to think about the 'game' part of the RPG at all at the table. I take a dim view of mechanics slowing down play, and of using mechanics to make an end run around the players' and GM's personal assessments of the shared imaginative reality of the game. This makes me an even worse Forgie than traditional gamer, perhaps, but that's cool.

This is sort of what I was saying, but better expressed.  I stand with, or in case of attacks slightly behind, Calithena.

Quote from: CalithenaI agree with -E that a lot of players want to know e.g. exactly how many pounds they can carry or lift, etc. My response is basically to stay vague until they realize I'm not going to answer, because I prefer things that way.

Hmm... so... you advocate passive resistance to frustrate player desires?

In pursuit of your own preferences.

I... well, there's no bad-wrong-fun, I guess -- and I'm sure your players love you... but that's not a style I'd go for.

In my experience, players want to know how much they can lift and carry because it matters to the *story* -- because it makes the the difference between life and death, sometimes.

And they want to convert from real-world values to game values because their characters are expressed in game values, but they're thinking and imagining in real-world values.

My guess would be that my players are a lot like yours -- and when they're trying to do those conversions, it's because that would make the game more fun for them.

Now, I'll admit that not all games are very good at this: you've already stated that you're unimpressed with most of the conversions you've seen.

I'm with you: I think I've already called out the principles that the conversions should approximate the genre (which could be "real life") and should operate at the appropriate level of abstraction (so no Avagadro's Number in anything less abstract than Hackmaster)

But overall, I'd suggest that if someone in your game is trying to figure something out, you express your preference against that rather than passively frustrating them.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: I think adjudication is probably a necessary component of almost any game-system-to-real-life conversion. But a well-formed game will give you enough guidelines to be able make a call that's consistent with the genre and rules.

Having a table of difficulty ratings that correspond to real-world situations (like D20 does) for instance, is a great structure to work with. Having a list of weapons that covers a wide span certainly helps figure out where an unlisted weapon would fall.

Additional Principle:
* The rules should provide a variety of example conversions from game-system to reality across a broad spectrum situations to facilitate adjudication.

Quote from: -E.In my experience, players want to know how much they can lift and carry because it matters to the *story* -- because it makes the the difference between life and death, sometimes.

I think that there are other reasons related to this essay (http://members.aol.com/erolb1/exactdist.html) by Erol K. Bayburt on giving players exact measurements during play.  I particularly agree with his fourth point.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that there are other reasons related to this essay (http://members.aol.com/erolb1/exactdist.html) by Erol K. Bayburt on giving players exact measurements during play.  I particularly agree with his fourth point.

Awesome. Damn good link.

Cheers,
-E.

I didn't take on board the being vague bit, that doesn't work for me, I would simply say that I didn't really want to calculate that stuff as I found it boring.  If the player was cool with that, great, if they still wanted it I would calculate it as compromise is IMO at the heart of great gaming.

But I wouldn't be vague to deter them, I find the most effective way to deter people is to be honest, and if they are cool with your dislike of whatever is at issue you're golden.  If they're not, at least you know that now and can address it.

As for me, to my horror I realize that when it comes to RPGs I'm a very tolerant pinko liberal whose only hard-and-fast rule is that a game should be played as, uh, nature intended. (The games I dislike were obviously not designed by nature, hence shouldn't be played.)

So, if I'm playing T2K I wouldn't mind knowing my guy's encumbrance, the recoil of his G-3, its range and jamming percentage, and the number of feet/sec he will sink as he stupidly hangs on to it while drowning.

In Everway, not so much.

Quote from: BalbinusI didn't take on board the being vague bit, that doesn't work for me, I would simply say that I didn't really want to calculate that stuff as I found it boring.  If the player was cool with that, great, if they still wanted it I would calculate it as compromise is IMO at the heart of great gaming.

But I wouldn't be vague to deter them, I find the most effective way to deter people is to be honest, and if they are cool with your dislike of whatever is at issue you're golden.  If they're not, at least you know that now and can address it.

That seems a lot more reasonable (I guess I assumed you weren't in-agreement with the passive-aggressive bit).

I don't spend a lot of time in games doing math -- but when it matters, it matters, and I want / expect the game to support me.

I don't think that's asking too much: most traditional games give me exactly what I'm looking for in this regard -- but for some reason, some folks think it's inappropriate for certain games or genres.

I've never understood that.

Am I correct in remembering that you like BRP? Does BRP have drowning and falling rules? I've played CoC using the BRP system but I can't remember.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Am I correct in remembering that you like BRP? Does BRP have drowning and falling rules? I've played CoC using the BRP system but I can't remember.

Cheers,
-E.

I am indeed a BRP-head, it's my go-to system.

It does indeed have rules for falling and drowning, also for burning I think.

I tend not to use them.

That said, and I may start a new thread on this, few things are writ in stone, if a player wanted me to use those rules I would.  Compromise is at the heart of great gaming.

You know, -E, for a guy who gets on Forge defenders for being goalpost movers, you sure are a ratfuck of an interlocutor.

Actually, my games are pretty much non-stop psychological abuse of my players from beginning to end. I'm, you know, a huge fucking asshole, who never communicates directly about anything and makes people guess my desires. I'm really glad you told me about it though because now I can change my behavior.

That essay Morrow posted is interesting. I generally do give pretty precise numbers when they're called for. What I don't like is the thing where you know you can carry exactly 180 pounds worth of equipment, or know that you can lift exactly 1000 pounds, whatever. What I don't like about this isn't the exact values so much as the on/off switch nature of the thing - if the situation isn't critical I'd rather just cut you some slack, and if it is critical I'd rather you roll, because I tend to find that increases enjoyment (at least, adrenaline through uncertainty). So I prefer mechanics where maybe say weights are benchmarked to target numbers and your attributes/skills give you a bonus to hit those. (I also prefer systematic constraints on target numbers...3e and C&C are both out of control in this regard IMO.)

However, I don't mind if the probability curves are not very grainy, and you're dealing with 'heavy', 'super-heavy', and 'impossible to lift' type objects rather than 200, 500, 1000 lb or whatever. So in that sense vagueness works out OK for me because I find it pretty easy to map from the imaginative stuff onto a die roll. (Gronan's pushing something over onto a monster: if it's a man-sized statue he needs an x, but if it's a 50 foot tall statue he needs a y, type of thing.)

Anyway, different preferences for different people here.

Quote from: CalithenaYou know, -E, for a guy who gets on Forge defenders for being goalpost movers, you sure are a ratfuck of an interlocutor.

Actually, my games are pretty much non-stop psychological abuse of my players from beginning to end. I'm, you know, a huge fucking asshole, who never communicates directly about anything and makes people guess my desires. I'm really glad you told me about it though because now I can change my behavior.

That essay Morrow posted is interesting. I generally do give pretty precise numbers when they're called for. What I don't like is the thing where you know you can carry exactly 180 pounds worth of equipment, or know that you can lift exactly 1000 pounds, whatever. What I don't like about this isn't the exact values so much as the on/off switch nature of the thing - if the situation isn't critical I'd rather just cut you some slack, and if it is critical I'd rather you roll, because I tend to find that increases enjoyment (at least, adrenaline through uncertainty). So I prefer mechanics where maybe say weights are benchmarked to target numbers and your attributes/skills give you a bonus to hit those. (I also prefer systematic constraints on target numbers...3e and C&C are both out of control in this regard IMO.)

However, I don't mind if the probability curves are not very grainy, and you're dealing with 'heavy', 'super-heavy', and 'impossible to lift' type objects rather than 200, 500, 1000 lb or whatever. So in that sense vagueness works out OK for me because I find it pretty easy to map from the imaginative stuff onto a die roll. (Gronan's pushing something over onto a monster: if it's a man-sized statue he needs an x, but if it's a 50 foot tall statue he needs a y, type of thing.)

Anyway, different preferences for different people here.

Yeah, and I think (by the way) that your position here is completely reasonable. I'd prefer roll mechanics to exact values -- IMO, that matches both genre conventions and "real life."

I also think your set of abstraction levels probably represents a "best practice" for game designers with the exception that I'd prefer to see some guidance for mapping to real values.

Btw: your point about character characteristics (e.g. stats) modifying physical interactions is something I've been meaning to work into this -- I think that's probably another core principle:

* Physical interaction systems should incorporate character attributes as key parameters

But c'mon, man -- that's not what you said in the post I got on you for.

And I'll note that whatever formulation you were reducing to the absurd in your first post in this thread isn't -- at all -- what I said or believe.

I don't think you're an asshole; I don't believe your games are wall-to-wall abuse. I don't think the passage I quoted and interpreted reflects the way you run games.

I also appreciate your contribution to the thread -- even your amusing misrepresentation of my position.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for me, to my horror I realize that when it comes to RPGs I'm a very tolerant pinko liberal whose only hard-and-fast rule is that a game should be played as, uh, nature intended. (The games I dislike were obviously not designed by nature, hence shouldn't be played.)

So, if I'm playing T2K I wouldn't mind knowing my guy's encumbrance, the recoil of his G-3, its range and jamming percentage, and the number of feet/sec he will sink as he stupidly hangs on to it while drowning.

In Everway, not so much.

Even playing T2K, I doubt I'd need all that detail most of the time (but I agree that having it sets the tone for game.

Speak to me of Everway, however: I'm not familiar with it; what little I know suggests it's a very non-standard game, especially in terms of mechanical resolution.

Question 1: Does Everway have any drowning or falling rules? (based on what I know of it, I'd guess "no")

Question 2: If there was a drowning or falling situation where the outcome was important to the game and a near-thing, how would Everway handle it (as I understand it, there are 3 resolution options)?

Cheers,
-E.

Sorry, -E, I was on a tear. I had some further choice abuse for my follow-up, but I'll have to put it on tap for the next flamefest.

Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya....

My point: (perhaps has already been made)

Not all games need rules for modeling the consequences of physical danger.

Many roleplaying games lack physical danger entirely, or lack the consequences, or deal with it another way. Like in Everway- you can have high fantasy and all that that entails, but such things are dealt with using an method.

And thats fine.

What isn't fine is the idea that doing it the traditional way which involves characters reacting to danger through the use of their statistics, skills or abilities (perhaps they have to swim to avoid drowning, or maybe they get a saving throw, or a reflex check to avoid falling, or to avoid death by falling) is "socially destructive".

"Socially Destructive" is a direct quote from the forge. There's a whole library of moronic quotes that the chin waggers agree to over there, but this one was a big one.

Quote from: CalithenaSorry, -E, I was on a tear. I had some further choice abuse for my follow-up, but I'll have to put it on tap for the next flamefest.

Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya....

No harm, no foul.

Quote from:  Abyssal MawMy point: (perhaps has already been made)
Not all games need rules for modeling the consequences of physical danger.
Many roleplaying games lack physical danger entirely, or lack the consequences, or deal with it another way.
And thats fine.
What isn't fine is the idea that doing it the traditional way is "socially destructive".

Agreed -- no one's jumped up and said drowning and falling rules are socially destructive *here* (the search function in other places seems to be down, so I'm not sure if folks have said it elsewhere).

But, since I'm not familiar with Everway, I'm not really clear on what the workable alternative to the traditional method is.

At a minimum, I think a resolution system should (caveat: at desired abstraction level)

• Account for the level of difficulty of the task
• Account for the level of ability of the attempter
• Specify a chance success or failure based on 1 & 2
• Align that chance with genre expectations / real-life
• Provide a resolution mechanism to determine if the character succeeded or failed

Does Everway not do some or all of these?  Does it do it in a way that's satisfying?

I think Risus meets these standards because of its ultra-high abstraction level... it relies almost completely on the GM to align the chance of success -- which I see as a weakness, but within the spirit of the game.

Maybe Everway's such a different animal all of the criteria above and the assumptions they're based on are out the window.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: some fucking cultistProceduralist
The rules explicitly organize the interactions of the people, with little reference to the fictional stuff. Examples: Primetime Adventures, Universalis, The Nighttime Animals Save the World.

Technical Simulationist
The rules work on the pretense that they directly represent the fictional stuff. They leave organization of the players' interaction strictly unspoken. (Of course they do organize interaction, but indirectly and often without consideration. I consider this pretense socially destructive.) Examples: GURPS, Vampire: the Masquerade, Ars Magica.

Effectivist
The rules refer extensively to the fictional stuff but don't pretend to represent it directly. They organize the players' interactions explicitly, but based on the fictional stuff. Examples: Dogs in the Vineyard, Over the Edge, The Mountain Witch. "

Notice the 'correct' RPGs and how they differ from the 'incorrect' ones.

Quote from: -E.No harm, no foul.



Agreed -- no one's jumped up and said drowning and falling rules are socially destructive *here* (the search function in other places seems to be down, so I'm not sure if folks have said it elsewhere).

But, since I'm not familiar with Everway, I'm not really clear on what the workable alternative to the traditional method is.

At a minimum, I think a resolution system should (caveat: at desired abstraction level)

• Account for the level of difficulty of the task
• Account for the level of ability of the attempter
• Specify a chance success or failure based on 1 & 2
• Align that chance with genre expectations / real-life
• Provide a resolution mechanism to determine if the character succeeded or failed

Does Everway not do some or all of these?  Does it do it in a way that's satisfying?

The assumptions of Everway start to get weird at the third point. And then 4th and 5th don't actually apply. The outcome would be handled in what I would call a "negotiated resolution" between GM and players.

My other point I want to make has a bit to do with irony.

If you have rules for such things, you don't have to suddenly focus on them, counter to the prevailing idea that if you have such rules, thats what your game "must therefore" be about. In fact it's the opposite. And the evidence is the most popular game in the world:

No, not D&D.

... I'm actually talking about World of Warcraft.

Ok, World of Warcraft has rules for environmental dangers, including drowning, falling, climbing, getting burned by lava, and all of that. The reason why, is obvious. By having that set up as a constant, they don't have to focus on it. If you try and swim across the ocean, there's no GM that has to suddenly appear and make a bunch of ad hoc decision about whether or not it can be done. There's no complaints from players who think they 'should' be able to swim across the ocean, or stay underwater long enough to mine for 10 loads of ore or whatever. No GM appears. You just accept the idea that "when my character goes underwater, I have until the little blue bar runs out. Then my character start to drown. "

But let's say the character wants to stay underwater anyway?

World of Warcraft just gives him choices: You can get a spell or item that increases the time you are able to spend underwater. You can be the undead race which can stay underwater a long time. You can increase your stats and use that.  

Is World of Warcraft then accurately described as a game about being underwater?

Quote from: Abyssal MawNotice the 'correct' RPGs and how they differ from the 'incorrect' ones.

Gee, do they make up asinine jargon for everything?

Proceduralist And what game doesn't follow some procedure? You know, roll these dice based off of x and y add/compare/target number,ect and get your result. Hell, even diceless games have some sort of procedure....

Technical Simulationist Your simulating something, but only technically? With him talking about it being done without consideration and this pretense [is] socially destructive, perhaps he just needed something better than Tough Shit.

Effectivist Yes, because the word 'effective' isn't being used with bias here, oh no. No sir. Move along. Nothing to see......

He sure likes the words explicitly and organize. I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean. :p

Out of all the RPGs on my shelves, Praedor has probably the crunchiest rules for falling and "other perils" (drowning, starvation, burns...), but then again that does fit in with the rather grim and lethal setting of the game. You get to make one Jump check, with the difficulty determined by whether you leap deliberately (2d6), fall accidentally (3d6) or are thrown off (4d6): success not only reduces the damage roll by one die for each five points below the skill rating, but it also allows you to decide which hit location takes the brunt of the blow as you hit the ground. The basic damage is rolled with 1d6 plus another d6 for every two meters of the fall, and all the dice explode. To put that in perspective, an average character has 40 HP and would be killed instantly by, say, a 12-point hit to the head.

Now compare that with Nobilis, in which it's safe to simply assume that when a character falls from a plane, a common mortal would in all likelihood die instantly, an uncommon mortal might be saved by "a tangle in the skein of Fate" but still suffer severe injuries, and a Noble could quite possibly walk away unscathed from the crash site. Basically, if the impact is enough to kill an ordinary human being, it will cause an undefended and unresisting Noble a Deadly Wound unless she has remembered to perform the proper Rites. The various defensive powers modify that result, as usual.

So yes, the appropriate details and grit and crunch very much depend on the game in question.

Quote from: Abyssal MawNotice the 'correct' RPGs and how they differ from the 'incorrect' ones.

That's hilarious -- thanks! Can you post a link?

Man those gamers! Without explicit rules to organize their social interaction, they just can't get it together, can they? Buncha morons... Good thing we have games that recognize that and provide that framework or it'd just be one dysfunctional event after another...

Cheers,
-E.

http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=36

I've been playing RPGs for about 17 years and I reckon the times I've required rules for urinating on demand exceed the times I've required rules for falling, drowning and fire... combined!

So I kinda find it funny when people try and tell me an RPG isn't "complete" if it doesn't have particular rules.  Really?  Complete for whose game?  Yours, or mine?

Quote from: BalbinusOk, firstly disliking falling and drowning rules has nothing to do with being into story games or anything like that, as best I can tell I'm the only person here who dislikes them and I mostly play BRP based games.

For me it's simple, in actual play these things do arise, but not so often that I remember the rules for them off by heart.  In actual play, stopping the action to look up a drowning or falling rule damages pacing and flow, which I view as critical to a fun session.  Therefore, in practice I make a ruling and we roll the dice and move on.

They add no value to my games, they take up space in the book, are often quite lengthy to implement, and are dull.  I never use them, therefore because I feel that ideally the world should cater to my idiosyncracies I'd like to see them left out of all future games.

I am behind this description 100%.

Basically I don't give a crap about any rules that aren't going to be consistently and regularly applied over the normal course of play.

If it isn't, then it's not worth my time to have to look the damn thing up, and I'm more likely to just make something up on the spot based on whatever makes sense in my head, just so I don't have to spend 20 minutes digging through a rulebook.  

I want a concise basic structure that underlines the game so that when these sorts of situations do come up, I can decide a sensible way of resolving them, because the underlying framework supports being bent to just about any direction.

The example given of World of Warcraft is a load of fucking bollocks.  A computer RPG has the advantage of being, well, on a goddamn computer.  Meaning that it can calculate the most superfluous and complex of calculations on the fly without slowing gameplay down.

Take those same calculations that WoW uses for falling or swimming or drowning or swimming and drowning in lava or whatever the fuck, and apply them to a tabletop gaming session and you'll have a bloody mess of Alternate Realities type proportions.

I'm curious about these game sessions where you needed rules for urinating on demand. I've never needed that in a game session. Can we have a description of these sessions?

I believe there was a game session when a player wanted his character to take a giant steaming dump in a rival's helm, but I decided no dice roll was needed for that - you want to do it, you can do it, it's not that important.

Falling rules I've used a few times, PCs tend to fight and climb in high places, so it happens. Drowning? Not so much. As a player, I've had my characters be like me and stay on God's own good green earth, and as a GM... well, drowning is just a fucking lame way for PCs to go, so I wouldn't inflict it on them.

Rules for fire we needed a few times because PCs like setting fire to things, especially enemies.

On the whole I'm comfortable just making up the rules for it on the spot, the only reason you need written rules rather than GM rulings is for consistency, and while the situations do come up, they're not more than once or twice in a campaign. By the time they come up again I've a new game group, so if my ruling is inconsistent with the previous one nobody knows :p

GrimGent,

What's Praedor like?  I've never seen a copy and it always sounded quite cool.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkComplete for whose game?  Yours, or mine?

That would be mine, since this thread is about my opinion and preferences. I got no problem with other perspectives or approaches. I don't so much understand them, though:

Your PC's don't play with fire nearly as much as mine do, apparently.

Out of curiosity: If someone did try to light an enemy or a crime scene on fire in your game, what would you do?

Off the top of my head, I can think of several possible reactions, but from what I'm getting, most of the folks who dislike / don't need formal rules of any kind for this sort of thing would make a ruling on the fly -- effectively creating  a rule to cover the specific situation.

Is that what you'd do?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: J ArcaneI

The example given of World of Warcraft is a load of fucking bollocks.  A computer RPG has the advantage of being, well, on a goddamn computer.  Meaning that it can calculate the most superfluous and complex of calculations on the fly without slowing gameplay down.

Take those same calculations that WoW uses for falling or swimming or drowning or swimming and drowning in lava or whatever the fuck, and apply them to a tabletop gaming session and you'll have a bloody mess of Alternate Realities type proportions.

Not true at all. The rules for falling in the example is "your character takes damage from falling beyond a certain distance. "

There's nothing that superfluous or complex about it. Depending on the game, it can be interpreted it in different ways. I'll use the example of 7th Sea:

In 7th Sea, you can fall just about any distance, as long as there's something to fall into, like a bale of hay or "the ocean". That's there for genre expectations.

Is 7th Sea therefore a game about falling?

In any case, nobody is making the claim that games "need" these rules. So if that's your point of contribution, I can only tell you probably picked the wrong message thread.

Quote from: J ArcaneBasically I don't give a crap about any rules that aren't going to be consistently and regularly applied over the normal course of play.

If it isn't, then it's not worth my time to have to look the damn thing up, and I'm more likely to just make something up on the spot based on whatever makes sense in my head, just so I don't have to spend 20 minutes digging through a rulebook.  

I want a concise basic structure that underlines the game so that when these sorts of situations do come up, I can decide a sensible way of resolving them, because the underlying framework supports being bent to just about any direction.

A point of agreement and one of disagreement:

1) I think the "basic structure" / "framework" is key since no game is going to include rules for everything. Ideally, for me, the framework should support mapping from real-world values to game terms and specific rule-sets for things like drowning and falling should illuminate, illustrate, and clarify the framework.

If a game doesn't have such a framework I'd consider that a weakness--if it does and, additionally, provides drowning and falling rules that are consistent with that framework, I'd consider that an example of a well-made game.

2) I *disagree* with your priority on time & speed of play here.

Not that I disagree those things are important in general, but for me, when we're gaming out really important (e.g. life-or-death) situations speed of play becomes distinctly secondary to other priorities, including

• Fairness to the character -- meaning that the players all agree that the rules are correctly defined and reflect the necessary considerations
• Common understanding -- meaning that all the players understand the ruling being proposed and understand that ruling
• Fidelity to genre -- meaning that everyone feels that the rules under consideration accurately reflect the tone and type of game we're going for

If I'm about to call for a roll to survive a diving crisis, I'd want to meet the criteria above before I worried about taking too much time.

For me, in my games, that usually means having an out-of-game discussion (usually a very quick one) about what kind of ruling I'd make and why I'd make that.

For my group character stats, feats, and skills are important to the players, so any ruling I'd make would (usually) need to consider those (a character with Swimming Skill and a high CON and a background of boating or diving, would have advantages staying underwater over a character with none of those things).

All of this (for me) requires time:

Time to communicate and discuss, time to negotiate (if appropriate) and re-consider, etc.

We wouldn't do that if the situation was less important, but if / when it *is* important, that's how I typically run things...

In those situations, having a *good* set of rules that helps give everyone a common starting point and common-ground is very much appreciated... even if it does mean taking some time to look them up.

One Final Point:

For me, in my games, YMMV (all caveats apply), we use a kind of "precedent" system. If I rule, in one encounter, that fire is an extremely lethal and effective weapon then the players expect it to behave that way in all reasonably similar situations.

I find that when I make up rules on the fly, I tend not to always think carefully about how a ruling might affect things in the future unless I'm careful and take some time.

Having a game that *appropriately* reflects things like fire, falling, etc. helps save me from making a ruling that will need to be undone ("Guys... let's revisit  the whole flask-of-oil-is-better-than-a-bastard-sword thing...") later.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusGrimGent,

What's Praedor like?  I've never seen a copy and it always sounded quite cool.

Eh, that isn't surprising: for all that Praedor is the most popular Finnish RPG to date, there's no English translation nor any plans for publishing one. (Well... although admittedly I've toyed with the notion of putting together an unofficial little demo.)

It's a gritty sword-and-sorcery game based on the comics by Petri Hiltunen, and influenced most notably by Robert E. Howard, Roadside Picnic by Arcady and Boris Strugatsky, and Spaghetti Westerns. The PCs are the titular praedors, professional adventurers and dungeon crawlers who make a living by looting ancient ruins; and you earn that title by venturing into the devastated and demon-infested city of Borvaria which surrounds the known world on all sides and stretches beyond the horizon (forever, some say). That, you see, is all which remains of what was once the greatest civilization in the history of this world and perhaps all others. At the height of its power, the arcane science and magic commanded by the immortal citizens of Borvaria could plunder infinite parallel realities, plucking alternatives to the natural laws at will, along with toys and slaves and whatever they could ever wish for. For a time, they were gods. And then, in a single night, all that came to an end when the weakened structure of existence itself could no longer sustain these wounds between the worlds, and all the countless universes touched by the city began collapsing together uncontrollably. Now, thousands of years later, Borvaria still stands, still merged with the beasts and landscapes of a thousand hells. In the midst of it lies Jaconia, a perfectly circular region of habitable land, protected from the chaos beyond by the wards set in place by the sorcerors who foretold the fall of the city. There, humanity still lives, and from there, a few adventurous souls venture outside in search of lost treasures and knowledge.

The system is based on an additive d6 pool: if the total sum rolled is equal to or less than the relevant skill rating, you succeed, and each set of five points below the rating grants you another "level" of success which often have further beneficial effects. Adjusting difficulty is a simple matter of increasing or reducing the number of the dice (three, most commonly), and you'll obviously want to keep your pool as small as possible since that improves your chances. Roll all ones, and you automatically succeed at the highest possible level, 3, regardless of the actual target number. Roll two sixes, and you automatically fail. Roll three sixes, and you automatically botch.

Also, as I said, combat's pretty darn lethal, and that's not helped by the fact that many of the usual opportunities for healing found in other fantasy RPGs simply aren't available. Even alchemical potions are highly expensive and take time to work, so you can't just quaff one of them in the middle of a battle for some instant HPs (or "Blood", as it's called in the game). Magic could restore a warrior's strength in a heartbeat, of course, but the PCs won't be seeing much of that: it's strictly for sorcerors, and sorcerors are strictly NPCs. You could receive a mystical item of some sort as a payment from one of them, or stumble across just about anything in the ruins beyond, but such devices are never without drawbacks of their own. Common people are only allowed to study and practice the science of alchemy which mortal slaves learned from their masters during the reign of the Wizard Kings, but its products cannot really bend the laws of nature without a sorcerous catalyst called capra that isn't exactly easy to come by...

Even through magic, there are no true resurrections, ever. In fact, no one knows what happens to folks after they die, although various cults and religions naturally have their own ideas about that. Priests and monks in Jaconia cannot be any more certain about the reality of their faith than, say, any Catholic priest in our world: no god bestows special powers on them in return for their convictions. Rumoured "miracles" are almost certainly the result of trickery, alchemy, or demonic influence...

"Demon" is the common name for all extradimensional beings from the void between the worlds. Many of these were forced to serve as slaves during the glory days of Borvaria, and they still carry a grudge about that; some of them were worshipped, back then, and they haven't forgotten that, either. Still, the vast majority of them are mindless beasts, although there does exist a conspiracy of sorcerors, the Curarim, who have allied themselves with the more intelligent variety and deliberately attempt to merge with them in an effort to become living gods...

The apocalyptic merging which ruined Borvaria produced (and still produces) any number of "nameless creatures", unfortunate combinations of lifeforms from several realities. Each of them is uniquely deformed, and no two of them are alike in appearance or abilities. Most of them are in hideous and constant pain, which can only be eased by devouring flesh from this world, or by the proximity of objects from their native universe. And when you remember that the way of life in the ancient civilization was based on such items, and that nameless creatures can sense them from a distance, you might want to consider twice before hanging on to every little trinket you find in the city...

So there are demons and nameless creatures and abominations created through sorcery, but no non-human cultures of any kind, no elves, no orcs. Technically, sorcerors might count as something other than human: heirs to the power of Borvaria, they are immortal and aloof demigods who consider themselves far above the common rabble. The Wizard Kings of old are dead and the sorcerors no longer rule the mortal masses, but not all of them are content with this state of affairs. It wouldn't take much to spark another civil war that might even bring down the wards which keep the end at bay...

Praedors wander in the middle of all this. Folk heroes to some and dangerous trespassers to others, they may be escaped slaves or exiled nobles, mercenaries or alchemists or courtiers, men or women: a praedor can usually be trusted to judge another by his own merits rather than the values of the surrounding society. Most of all, they have proven themselves to be survivors who can walk into the Kingdom of Death and back again, and it's a rare Jaconian who doesn't treat them with at least a grudging respect because of that. Besides, they are very, very good at what they do, more so than any ordinary thief or sellsword, and you never know when you might find yourself in need of their services...

It's the kind of a game that takes all the cliches of the genre and then either runs cheerfully with them ("A wizard did it!") or inverts them in amusing ways ("So... we live in the wilderness and go adventuring in the city?"), while remaining accessible to complete newbies. Nifty, that.

(But even the revised edition doesn't have an index. That's unforgivable.)

Quote from: Abyssal Mawhttp://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=36

Wow, there's some incredibly stupid shit going on in that conversation. It's like a train wreck made out of words.

I personally think a lot of these bad ideas gain traction in the 'theorization culture' because it steadfastly refuses to accept dissidence, and the benefit of playing along is that you will be granted the privelege of tapping into a promotion network for whatever thing (game?) you are trying to peddle.

So it's really just a case of the most manipulative sociopaths rising to the top, making pronoucements about what is or isn't "socially destructive" or "healthy play" or whatever else. Then the remaining community members can choose to either sign on and chin-wag along, or leave the fold and strike off on their own.

QuoteFairness to the character -- meaning that the players all agree that the rules are correctly defined and reflect the necessary considerations

You know, I've been in some really fucked up groups in my time, and nowhere in my gaming history has "fairness" ever been some massive problem of such proportions as it gets presented as in online debates about gaming.  

So you'll forgive my apathy perhaps, because I don't think it's all that much of a damn problem.

QuoteCommon understanding -- meaning that all the players understand the ruling being proposed and understand that ruling

So you're suggesting I shouldn't make on-the-fly rulings because my players might be too stupid to understand them?

QuoteFidelity to genre -- meaning that everyone feels that the rules under consideration accurately reflect the tone and type of game we're going for

I sincerely am unfamiliar with any games in which the covering of such subjects as falling damage is integral to the emulation of it.  

I can think of a genre or two that would be better served by simpler games with little need for a focus on silly special rules that come up maybe half a dozen times over the course of a player's entire gaming career.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm curious about these game sessions where you needed rules for urinating on demand. I've never needed that in a game session. Can we have a description of these sessions?

It's happened a few times, mostly a variation on one of...

1. The characters come across a religious site or the lair of the bad guy or whatever and wish to desecrate it by taking a leak.  

2. After defeating a serious bad guy, players take their frustrations and anger out by pissing on the body.

3. The characters believe (rightly or wrongly) that urine could be used for treating an injury (like a sting or something like that).

Both scenarios tended to mostly happen playing D&D as kids.  And realistically, only a handful of times over a 17 year period.  But still definitely more frequently than I've seen a character drown in a game (which I don't think I've ever seen).  And probably more frequently than I've needed rules for catching fire which I can recall happening only a handful of times.

I'm strongly tempted to put falling/drowning/firey deaths down to simple yes/no equations. In fact, that's almost always how I would run it.

Character in heavy armor falls into the ocean: Does someone try to save him? Yes: He lives after suitable dice rolls and possibly low level injuries due to sucking seawater.  No? He drowns. No rolls, he sinks like a stone.

Falling: Is the fall high enough to be 'garaunteed lethal' given the premises of the setting? Yes? he dies barring intervention, particularly if being stupid lead to said fall.  Not quite? He lives after suitably hard dice rolls and much injury. No? he lives, move on.

Fire: people are HARD to set on fire. Seriously, the bums in the back yard almost always live unless I tie them down first.  Sometimes that isn't enough as the rope will burn through before they've really gotten to burning.  If someone does something 'execution style' involving fire, you die. Painfully. Otherwise, it's a damaging attack using flame, no more, no less. I don't need special rules for 18 types of fire.  Put someone in a burning building and start applying smoke damage, round by round.

Yeah, it's idiot simple and can be a bit cruel, but given that it's fiated, you don't get players thinking their character can take a shortcut down to the ground by leaping out of a jetplane without a parachute, simply because they have enough hit points, so it hasn't really come up very often.


Then again, I'm the fucking poster child for ignoring the RAW and playing it by ear.  I'm constantly amazed by the rules that the players will apply to themselves without my asking them too.... :what:

Quote from: J ArcaneYou know, I've been in some really fucked up groups in my time, and nowhere in my gaming history has "fairness" ever been some massive problem of such proportions as it gets presented as in online debates about gaming.  

So you'll forgive my apathy perhaps, because I don't think it's all that much of a damn problem.

Hmm.. okay -- why all the swearing? Is that for some kind of rhetorical effect or are you finding something offensive?

Fairness, for me, is largely an internal issue rather than one that has anything to do with a group dynamic.

I see GMing as, in large part, a refereeing roll where I'm acting with a commitment to be fair and impartial.

Not everyone sees it that way.
Not everyone who does would consider themselves "committed" to doing the job fairly.

I'm not sure why it would be a "massive problem" (did I say it was somewhere?), but if you're apathetic about that aspect of the role, that's certainly up to you.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo you're suggesting I shouldn't make on-the-fly rulings because my players might be too stupid to understand them?

No--that wasn't what I meant.

In most cases, where no one in the room is an expert on what's going on, none of us will be working with a common set of assumptions about how something should turn out.

Since the GM is, in essence, guessing at a ruling, there's no way for the other players to know what he's thinking -- unless he tells them. Or they're psychic.

Or there's a rule that they can reference.

Since I was, evidently, offensively unclear, let me suggest an example that's come up a few times for me:

Characters burn a crime scene to destroy evidence of their heroic, but extra-legal battle against cosmic evil: the question is, "Does the fire destroy the scene before the Fire Department arrives to put it out?"

Odds are no one at the table knows what the fire-department response times are for the area they're in. And odds are no one knows how fast fire spreads or what affect an accelerant would have, or how much "evidence" would be consumed.

And no game I know of has rules for even some of this -- so there need to be some GM judgment calls.

Now, let me add one more element: the *characters* are experienced investigators. They probably *do* have experience with crime-scene destruction, arson, forensics, etc.

As a GM, I would want to discuss my ruling *before* the characters lit the fire.

Here's why: The PC's would, likely, know what the odds of success were, and would balance that before they took action. They might also *modify* their actions (spraying the scene with gasoline, for instance) if my initial assessment was too unlikely to succeed.

So I'd discuss this with them.

Not because they're stupid.

Because they're not psychic.

Make sense?

Quote from: J ArcaneI sincerely am unfamiliar with any games in which the covering of such subjects as falling damage is integral to the emulation of it.  

I can think of a genre or two that would be better served by simpler games with little need for a focus on silly special rules that come up maybe half a dozen times over the course of a player's entire gaming career.

... okay.

I'm kinda surprised -- let's look at falling.

Action heros fall from heights all the time and either get lucky, or hit things on the way down to break their fall and take less damage / keep going.

Maybe you aren't familiar with action movies: Let me recommend Casino Royale (The recent remake) -- lots of jumping and controlled falling takes place in the opening sequence.

A grittier, more realistic genre would probably have those falls and the characters attempting them take more damage.

More likely: characters wouldn't even *try* to jump from high places in a game where the odds of survival were low. They'd surrender or give up or whatever.

Action hero's also drown and resist drowning -- often by having to fight while someone's holding their head under water (or holding someone's head under, conversely).

Whether this is a good tactic or a stupid waste of time depends on how your game models it -- but it happens in the genre quite a bit (Recently, Sin City comes to mind with both forced drownings and an escape under water by Marv, who clearly could hold his breath longer that I'd expect someone in a realistic drama to).

Drowning's a pretty scary way to go, and also shows up in horror quite a bit where it's far more lethal, even if it's not quick.

I can name a few scary movies where folks have asphyxiated... but if you're not familiar with either horror or action-adventure and the conventions of the genre, what genres are you familiar with?

I bet we can find some appropriate source material that addresses these kinds of rules.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Hmm.. okay -- why all the swearing? Is that for some kind of rhetorical effect or are you finding something offensive?

I like swearin'.  Sometimes it helps to get the point across.

QuoteI'm not sure why it would be a "massive problem" (did I say it was somewhere?), but if you're apathetic about that aspect of the role, that's certainly up to you.

A lot of people seem to consider it some great problem, since they like to go on about it at great length.

Life isn't fair.  Games aren't always fair.  You do the best you can, and it's always a consideration, but it's not some grand issue that really merits much discussion in my experience.  

QuoteNo--that wasn't what I meant.

In most cases, where no one in the room is an expert on what's going on, none of us will be working with a common set of assumptions about how something should turn out.

Since the GM is, in essence, guessing at a ruling, there's no way for the other players to know what he's thinking -- unless he tells them. Or they're psychic.

So, umm, you tell them?  I'm not aware of any rule present in any game that says the GM has to be some kind of mysterious black box that spits out only short answers to questions.  There's nothing stopping you from explaining your reasoning.

QuoteOr there's a rule that they can reference.

And again we're back to having to dig for that one page in the book where it's discussed, and gameplay gets slowed down.  Because I don't find that players are any more likely to remember these sorts of special rules than the GM, barring the occasional rules lawyer.  


To the latter examples regarding falling, I'd point you to Spike's post above, as a great way of resolving matters, and one which realyl requires no formal rules for.

I would actually suggest that you James Bond example is perfect for what I was talking about.  Complex special rules for falling damage are incompatible with a genre and style of play high on action and short on thought.

Leaping out the hotel window becomes a lot less fun process when it requires digging through a rulebook, height calculations, die rolls, the works, everytime someone gets a bit cavalier.  

THAT more than uncertainty, will inhibit player action.  Players do all kinds of crazy crap, if they think it'll be fun.  

If it's instead an excercise in bad trigonometry, it ain't gonna appeal.

Quote from: SpikeI'm strongly tempted to put falling/drowning/firey deaths down to simple yes/no equations. In fact, that's almost always how I would run it.

Character in heavy armor falls into the ocean: Does someone try to save him? Yes: He lives after suitable dice rolls and possibly low level injuries due to sucking seawater.  No? He drowns. No rolls, he sinks like a stone.

Falling: Is the fall high enough to be 'garaunteed lethal' given the premises of the setting? Yes? he dies barring intervention, particularly if being stupid lead to said fall.  Not quite? He lives after suitably hard dice rolls and much injury. No? he lives, move on.

Fire: people are HARD to set on fire. Seriously, the bums in the back yard almost always live unless I tie them down first.  Sometimes that isn't enough as the rope will burn through before they've really gotten to burning.  If someone does something 'execution style' involving fire, you die. Painfully. Otherwise, it's a damaging attack using flame, no more, no less. I don't need special rules for 18 types of fire.  Put someone in a burning building and start applying smoke damage, round by round.

Yeah, it's idiot simple and can be a bit cruel, but given that it's fiated, you don't get players thinking their character can take a shortcut down to the ground by leaping out of a jetplane without a parachute, simply because they have enough hit points, so it hasn't really come up very often.


Then again, I'm the fucking poster child for ignoring the RAW and playing it by ear.  I'm constantly amazed by the rules that the players will apply to themselves without my asking them too.... :what:

I see danger as a chance for players to rise to a challenge. There's an AP report I did over here early on where the players were fighting a tentacled horror on the dock where their own boat was. The heavily armored character was forced to choose between dropping into the water, or trying to break past an area that would have surely ended in a tentacle strike that would have laid him out.

He dropped into the water. He effectively gambled against the rules by having his charcter hold his breath until he could maneuver out of the situation. And he did just that. Scrambling up the slippery underwater ditch he fell into and back out onto the shore.

In the game this week, the characters entered a sort of "bottled city" adventure. Only (surprise!) as they warped in (by stepping through the gateway portal), they entered the demi-plane from 800' feet altitude and "fell". This is a probably unsurvivable 20d6 fall in the terms of the rules of the game we were playing. Did I just houserule them as dead? No. But it was important to know how much damage they were facing.

AGAIN, the players countered by using their wits and tactics and activating defenses. One character immediately activated a ring of feather falling. His rate of descent slowed to 60' per round. Another one used his levitation power in the 1st of his 2 rounds of freefall. The other character fumbled through his gear for a potion of flying during the 2 rounds of free-fall.

(and then I had the Nightwing attack them in mid-air.. which turned into a pretty cool aerial battle)

At DDXP, the module 'Trouble with Pirates' begins when your assembled D&D special forces strike team air-drops in invisibly (via feather fall) onto an enemy ship, infiltrates it, and places a magical bomb that disables the air elemental powering it so that another ship can catch up with it. It's an awesome "mission impossible" type deal.

The environment itself can be an opportunity for interesting conflicts. This is especially true if the game is actually about danger (or adventure?) rather than stuff like "tackling social issues" or whatnot. So is everyone clear on that part? This is not about how games "need" such things as rules for dealing with environmental dangers. I can completely recognize that not all games "need" rules for such things. Indeed, if your game is about guys who solve parlor mysteries--or young doctors in love.. or whatever else--  then these kinds rules may not be that important.

But to me they serve a use, and the environment itself can be a pretty cool adversary.

The difference here, AM, is that I don't stick my players into 800' drops without some plan for them to survive it already in mind.  I'm perfectly content with making stuff up on the fly. Player in armor falls into reasonably shallow water fighting a tentacle monster?

Not going to fiat his death, no. Might give him 'damage a round' from the problems with holding his breath while fighting, and given the abstract HP of D&D feel perfectly justified in doing so.


Like I said, dying due to enviornment, like anything else, should be the end result of player actions, and if it's really 'unsurvivable' then putting an extra layer of rules in there only slows things down.    If it's not unsurvivable, then fancy rules can bog stuff down.  I abstract, I cheat.  I make shit up as a go and only tell the players a little bit.


Here's an example: Say you have the bad guys give the hero some cement shoes and toss him off a pier. Perfect example, text book even, of a time for 'Drowning rules'... right?  I mean, you need to know if the hero can save himself before he dies, right?

Wrong.  First of all, you as the GM put the player into that situation, you chose to put him into the water. Now, you decide if you need him dead or not, if that serves the purpose of tossing him in the water.  Chances are, he can't really rescue himself, and if he can it's more due to canny planning than simply struggling, same with armor and swimming btw. If the player has a canny plan, let him do it. Make a few 'fortitude checks' to ratchet up the tension a bit, maybe apply some damage or fatigue, but let him do his 'cunning plan' and feel all clever and heroic.

If he's got nothing now you can either let him die, or save him. Rules don't help here, they outright hinder.  Maybe the secret merprincess rescues him, maybe he wakes up feeling half dead on the beach with no explanation, maybe he wakes up feeling half dead in the bed of some NPC who you've been itching to get the PC's to talk to.  You don't need rules, you need to keep the game running and maybe save the character along the way.   Let the player wonder what happened. The last thing you want to hear is 'according to page 273, there is no way I could have been rescued after I passed out.' and yes, I've known players who would be that asinine to apply a rule against themselves just to prove their mastery of the rules was superior.  


My point is this: My role at the table as a GM is to give the PC's things to work with/against.  Swatting down annoying characters is easy. Doing stuff to the PC's is easy. I'm the GM, I've got Orbital Elephant Weapons if I need 'em.   I don't need rules to kill a player who jumps off a cliff, I don't need rules that make it hard to save a character who flubs a 'reflex save' while fighting on top of a cliff.   I'm not going to object to having rules I can use as resources, but I'm not going to cry so much if I can't tell just how much damage a player takes from sticking a fork in a lightsocket.  And I've seen those rules.

Quote from: SpikeWrong.  First of all, you as the GM put the player into that situation, you chose to put him into the water. Now, you decide if you need him dead or not, if that serves the purpose of tossing him in the water.  Chances are, he can't really rescue himself, and if he can it's more due to canny planning than simply struggling, same with armor and swimming btw. If the player has a canny plan, let him do it. Make a few 'fortitude checks' to ratchet up the tension a bit, maybe apply some damage or fatigue, but let him do his 'cunning plan' and feel all clever and heroic..

I think we're totally on the same page.

Cement shoes is a classic example of the kind of dangers that make interesting challenges. I'm trying to think what would happen if I did it to the guys in my campaign. The psion would just metamorph out, or disintegrate the block, as would the arcane trickster. The goblin cleric has a variety of spells (like 'free action') that would probably allow him to squirm out. The ranger, I have no idea.. but he does have access to a few things to help him. He has the ability to call animals and cast a few spells.

These characters are like Batman- the danger is there to provide a challenge. But it's up to the players to counter-act the situation with their abilities. Batman would just go into his utility belt and get out the rebreather mask, and the laser-torch or whatever.

But the rules part- is still there, because maybe thats used as a time and limitation thing. If Batman 'forgets" to check his utility belt, he'd die. if Batman didn't get his rebreather mask on, (or drops it), he has to hold his breath to saw his way out before he blacks out and drowns. So you still need to know 'how many rounds can that guy stay underwater...'

The same thing with the falling damage. I gave them an arbitrary altitude of 800 feet, knowing that they'd think of a way out in the 2 rounds of freefall they'd have. The price of not thinking something out was 20d6 damage.

I never had to roll the damage, because the consequence was clear -- "we have to think of something now, this round, or .. we die".

What's all this about not killing PCs? Sounds like someone needs to play a few sessions of Paranoia. You'll see just how fun character death can be! :)


Seriously though, I can understand not wanting to see 'heroic' characters dying of something as stupid as slipping on a banana peel and falling off a cliff. Or tripping and falling into a kidde pool and drowning.

But let's remember, heroic people have died due to similarly stupid things. General George Patton survived all through WWII fighting, only to die in a freaking car accident.

Yea, yea, you don't want that in your game. I know. But I do know that I get bored when I play with a GM that won't kill a character. It makes me want to say "Hey, if we're not going to die from this, can we just skip it?"(I'm talking about a should be lethal situation, so don't try to be dense)

If you want to use a heroic stance for that, say you can hold your breath for 20mins per con/health/stamina point, fall 1000' and only have a few bruises or maybe a twisted ankle..... Well that's fine. Do that. But I personally prefer to punish the lack of foresight that gets them into these situations in the first place.

Now most rules I've seen are rather simple for drowning or falling. 1d6 per 10', max 20d6 (terminal velocity) Drowing,(been awhile since I used this, I think it goes) hold breath for 1/2 con in rounds, damage per round there after till death. Not all that complex, not all that hard to remember.

But if I had to make 3-4 rolls, per round/action, then cross reference some chart, check character ability's, then apply damage..... Well, I think I'd drop the rules too.

Naz, you misunderstand: Killing the players is still on the table, only I'd prefer I (the GM) be the one in control over when and how that happens, not the book.  

Maw: Yeah, I figured we would be on the same page.  We just come at it from different sides I think.

Spike, you kill the players? I thought my old crew was hardcore for leaving pentagrams and goat entrails outside their windows and chanting in black robes...oops...blew my cover. Never mind.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo, umm, you tell them?  I'm not aware of any rule present in any game that says the GM has to be some kind of mysterious black box that spits out only short answers to questions.  There's nothing stopping you from explaining your reasoning.

A capital idea! One I dedicated most of my last post to, in fact. In fact, let me say, "Fucking-a."

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd again we're back to having to dig for that one page in the book where it's discussed, and gameplay gets slowed down.  Because I don't find that players are any more likely to remember these sorts of special rules than the GM, barring the occasional rules lawyer.  


To the latter examples regarding falling, I'd point you to Spike's post above, as a great way of resolving matters, and one which realyl requires no formal rules for.

I would actually suggest that you James Bond example is perfect for what I was talking about.  Complex special rules for falling damage are incompatible with a genre and style of play high on action and short on thought.

Leaping out the hotel window becomes a lot less fun process when it requires digging through a rulebook, height calculations, die rolls, the works, everytime someone gets a bit cavalier.  

THAT more than uncertainty, will inhibit player action.  Players do all kinds of crazy crap, if they think it'll be fun.  

If it's instead an excercise in bad trigonometry, it ain't gonna appeal.

... not sure where you're getting the idea that falling rules would need to be complex.

I'd want rules appropriate for the genre -- so for a fast-moving action/adventure game, I'd want rules that

1) Gave a falling hero/important villain a good chance of living, even of not being wounded
2) Resolved that quickly with a minimum of fuss (and considerably less realism)

Doesn't sound like a disconnect there -- why does everyone assume that falling rules would need to be a physics textbook problem? That's an assumption I don't think is warranted given the (overtly) abstract nature of virtually all RPGs... but it's an assumption that pops up over and over again.

Since you're making it, maybe you can explain?

I, on the other hand, don't like Spikes's idea about cheating and "only telling the players a little bit."

That's not the first time I've seen that kind of PoV in this thread -- is one of the objection to rules for things like drowning and falling that they make-specific something that most GM's would rather rule based on discretion?

For less-important situations, making a quick ruling is fine, but for something that might kill a PC, I'd like to be as explicit and concrete as possible.

Even if that means taking a bit more time.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Out of curiosity: If someone did try to light an enemy or a crime scene on fire in your game, what would you do?

It would really depend on the circumstances.

Mostly, I'd make a judgement call based on the means for creating a fire and the flamability of what is being lit.  Rubbing two sticks together to start a campfire?  You'll probably need to make a Survival role or something similar.  Trying to dispose of a dead body by dousing it with petrol and using a lighter?  Well, I'd judge that to be an automatic action.

The thing is, there are so many variations, so many possibilities for using fire that I can't imagine how any rule system can adequately cover them all without becoming ridiculously detailed.

So why have incomplete rules on fire?  Why not just have no rules on fire at all?  It serves the same purpose.

QuoteOff the top of my head, I can think of several possible reactions, but from what I'm getting, most of the folks who dislike / don't need formal rules of any kind for this sort of thing would make a ruling on the fly -- effectively creating  a rule to cover the specific situation.

Is that what you'd do?

Pretty much.  Out of interest, what game systems do you play?

Quote from: SpikeI'm strongly tempted to put falling/drowning/firey deaths down to simple yes/no equations. In fact, that's almost always how I would run it.

Yeah, it's idiot simple and can be a bit cruel, but given that it's fiated, you don't get players thinking their character can take a shortcut down to the ground by leaping out of a jetplane without a parachute, simply because they have enough hit points, so it hasn't really come up very often.


Then again, I'm the fucking poster child for ignoring the RAW and playing it by ear.  I'm constantly amazed by the rules that the players will apply to themselves without my asking them too.... :what:

For non-life/death situations, I don't think a quick rule-it-and-move-on approach is bad.

Also: for situations where the outcome is obvious there's no reason to roll anything or consult the rules... (I think I said that above, but repeating it here, just to be clear)

But in my experience, non-obvious situations come up quite a bit (e.g. falls that might or might not be very damaging) and even more likely: PC's will attempt something based on their understanding of the possible worst-case scenario...

In my games, it's not uncommon for a PC to wonder, "I'd like to try to swing across the room -- what are my odds of pulling that off? And if I fall, how badly will I get hurt?"

If I tried to make a spot ruling with very little consideration, I don't think I'd be very consistent (something that's important in my group) and I doubt I'd end up saving much time overall -- the ensuing discussion would probably take longer than looking up a rule.

But it does look like I have a significantly higher tolerance for knowing / using the rules than most of the folks here. I'll let you in on my secret weapon: I have players who have virtually memorized the rules books and are able to accurately provide the rules on-demand.

If care about playing by the rules-as-written at all (and I know you said you don't really -- but if that ever changes), I highly recommend you get some players like that ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIt would really depend on the circumstances.

Mostly, I'd make a judgement call based on the means for creating a fire and the flamability of what is being lit.  Rubbing two sticks together to start a campfire?  You'll probably need to make a Survival role or something similar.  Trying to dispose of a dead body by dousing it with petrol and using a lighter?  Well, I'd judge that to be an automatic action.

The thing is, there are so many variations, so many possibilities for using fire that I can't imagine how any rule system can adequately cover them all without becoming ridiculously detailed.

So why have incomplete rules on fire?  Why not just have no rules on fire at all?  It serves the same purpose.

Pretty much.  Out of interest, what game systems do you play?

1) Completely agree that no set of rules will be even close to comprehensive. What I want is a framework and a lot reference points.

Since, in my group, most complex / really important rules calls that are outside of hard-and-fast rules (E.g. many of them) are discussions (rather than simple GM-fiat-and-move-on) having the game provide a common ground is very helpful.

• I'd like a fire system to cover odds of setting things on fire (so a concrete bunker is, ahem, much harder to burn than, say, a log cabin)
• I'd like a fire system to cover the damage fire does, both to living things and to inanimate objects, and some rules to determine if a fire 'goes out' or not
• I'd like a fire system to cover the way fire spreads (in general), using the rules for setting things on fire.
• For things like the dangers of smoke inhalation, I... well, I'd just use the drowning rules ;)

That's asking a lot: I wouldn't be terribly unhappy with rules a lot more basic than that...

2) I play D20 (Modern and some other variants), D&D 3.5, GURPS. I ran a good deal of M&M and a little Exalted last year (about one or two sessions). I haven't played Hero in ages, but it more-or-less informs my opinion of what a well-designed game should be (not that it's perfect -- far from it -- but in terms of what it covered and how it approached gaming, I think it was and remains brilliant)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CalithenaSpike, you kill the players? I thought my old crew was hardcore for leaving pentagrams and goat entrails outside their windows and chanting in black robes...oops...blew my cover. Never mind.

Hey, how do you think I afford the post game BBQ? :p

E: Regards to cheating. It's shorthand, really.  I play without a GM's screen, my dice rolls are open, my notes entirely in my head, so my players are under no illusions that I have some arcane secret method I use to run the game.

If you are inclined to pull out the Jargon, you could say that our social contract is reasonably clear cut and easy to grasp. I run the game, they run their characters.  I roll my dice, they roll their dice and I interpret the results.  

It's only cheating as far as the rules in the book are concerned, cause I'd rather have the play moving forward then get bogged down trying to figure out if a burning arrowhead canonically does more damage than a simple broadhead, or what have you.  Thus they trust me not to kill them arbitrarily, and when they do die, at the end of the day they realize it was some foolish thing they did that got them killed, not the cold inflexible application of rules.

And yes, if I have a player who has memorized the rules and wants to play by the book, I have no problem tapping that knowledge when it affects their character.  On the other hand, my expirence with 'rules lawyers' is that often their knowledge of the game can be as flawed as my own, when you actually look things up.

Then again, if you check my AP thread here, you'll see that my players seem more interested in trying to cut notches in bedposts than acts of derring do...:confused:

Quote from: -E.But in my experience, non-obvious situations come up quite a bit (e.g. falls that might or might not be very damaging) and even more likely: PC's will attempt something based on their understanding of the possible worst-case scenario...

As a player, I can appreciate it being important to have a common frame of reference with the GM.  This either comes from explicit rules as written, or by open discussion with the GM.  Here's what I mean...

My character starts climbing a rope up the side of a mountain when he fails his climbing check and falls.

Scenario One - The GM consults the rule book and tells me I'll take 3d6 damage (or whatever), based on the height I've fallen from.

Scenario Two - The GM makes a judgement call (either because the rules to support this scenario, or because no-one can be bothered to check them) and tells me I'll take 3d6 damage.

In Scenario Two, I have to take it on good faith that the GM has made a reasonable judgement.  And if 3d6 is enough to kill my character, could well be pissed off.  But in Scenario One, the GM can point to the rules as a fallback - I knew the risks of climbing because they were clearly articulated in the rules..  I have no recourse to complain.

When I GM, I try to be explicit up front over judgement calls I make.  So in Scenario Two, I would tell the players up front that a fall could do as much as 3d6 damage.  Yes, I've made things up... but the end result is the same.  They then have as much information available to them to make a decision as if the rules had been explicity written for that scenario.  

What about consistency?  I rarely find it to be a problem, except with difficult or argumentative players.  So someone falls while climbing the side of a ridge and I decide they take 3d6 damage.  Several hours later, another character falls from the same height as the party traverses the ridge only this time I deem the damage to be 4d6.  Maybe this area is particularly rocky, with sharp, jutting edges.  Or maybe it's just that little bit higher.  Again, as long as I'm up front with the players it isn't usually a problem - "Hey guys, as you move along the edge of the ridge, you notice it's actually getting higher.  And there are some nasty looking rocks below.  Are you sure you want to continue this way? A failed climbing check will be really nasty."

QuoteIn my games, it's not uncommon for a PC to wonder, "I'd like to try to swing across the room -- what are my odds of pulling that off? And if I fall, how badly will I get hurt?"

If I tried to make a spot ruling with very little consideration, I don't think I'd be very consistent (something that's important in my group) and I doubt I'd end up saving much time overall -- the ensuing discussion would probably take longer than looking up a rule.

No offence to either you or your players - but this reminds me of the way I used to play in high school.  Or at least, the way my group used to play in high school.  I recall some absolute ding dong arguments about how hard it would be to complete certain tasks.  I remember a player arguing for almost an hour over the difficulty of traversing a greased pole.  He even went home to get a tub of butter so he could try it out.

I'd like to think I've matured since then.  And (hopefully) so have the people I play with.  

Quote2) I play D20 (Modern and some other variants), D&D 3.5, GURPS. I ran a good deal of M&M and a little Exalted last year (about one or two sessions). I haven't played Hero in ages, but it more-or-less informs my opinion of what a well-designed game should be (not that it's perfect -- far from it -- but in terms of what it covered and how it approached gaming, I think it was and remains brilliant)

I figured I'd see GURPS and Hero in your list.

About the "burn the evidence" scenario, if there was any doubt I'd be tempted to get sort of Forge-y and treat it as a contest between the PC's expertise and that of the police, with modifiers for the amount of evidence, its combustibility, and the availability of accelerants--instead of working on an intermediate step of calculating the precise damange.

Aside from that, -E, I do think you're onto something interesting with your earlier comment about games picking up specific rules when the rules as written offer only vague treatment (or none at all) for activities that the group does a lot of. But I've had several hacks at expressing my thesis, only to give up without posting. I'll have another go later.

My issue with such rules is what I call the Dropped Lantern Table Syndrome. That was a little table back in RuneQuest, getting you to roll the dice to see what happened to the lantern after you dropped it, presumably to draw your sword to fight some monster in the dark.

Who the fuck ever used the Dropped Lantern Table? It's a detail no-one ever uses.

And if there's a Dropped Lantern Table, and drowning and setting-things-on-fire rules, then you also should - just to give equal detail for something just as likely to happen - have rules for lack of sleep, different fatigue levels dependent on temperature and clothing, adjusted by quality of diet, and of course distance covered during overland hiking, and perhaps some chances of pregnancy, too?

I don't mind these rules - but they never get used. I remember a while back I asked on the SJGames forums, who uses reaction rolls? Suposedly when your character meets someone for the first time, the GM does a reaction roll to see how inclined to co-operate with you they are. If your character is ugly or charismatic or whatever, that's supposed to adjust the roll. So I asked, does anyone use these reaction rolls? And the answer was: "Nope." So players are paying for Dis/Advantages which grant RR bonuses - and they're never used. They're paying or gaining xp for nothing.

Looking around, it doesn't seem anyone is using the GURPS 4e rules for lack of sleep, fatigue due to high temperature, and so on.

Why have rules no-one uses?

It reminds me of the intro to an edition of Harnmaster, where they said that it seemed like a lot of attributes for a character, but they guaranteed that each one would be used at least once in the campaign. Once in the campaign? Fuck that. I don't need rules for things that happen once in a campaign, I need rules for things that happen each session, or every few sessions. The once-a-campaign stuff, I can wing that, I'm not stupid.

Rules no-one uses are just wasted pages. There could be more interesting stuff there - say, examples of task difficulties for each skill - or maybe they could do a pocket edition of the game. No, not GURPS (or whatever) Lite, but GURPS Actually Used.

Fuckin' Dropped Lantern Table!

This sort of stuff, when you look at the individual rules, you go, yep, that's fine, that makes sense. But when you look at them as a whole... there's a lot that could be cut away without really affecting most game sessions.

Ah, but there you're getting to the point I am struggling to put into words.

That dropped lantern table was undoubtedly produced because at some point, dropped lanterns became really important in the way the designers played the game. Maybe once, maybe several times, maybe every session, who knows? But by showing how the group dealt with that, the table suggests an important element of RPG design & play--at least what was big in the era of RQ II/III. Namely: if an event or attempt was worth much effort describing, it was worth representing mechanically. None of this "fortune at the middle" stuff where you make a generic roll and then indulge in story-time descriptions to explain how it came out that way; nor the approach (carried to the extreme in Wushu) where your description matters, but only trivially, in that any old thing will do as long as you say enough of it. No: announcing the action & rolling the dice is the action (in a sense), and either hard & fast rules or an external intellect (in the form of the GM) would ensure that whatever you described your character doing would be considered fairly, in resolving the outcome.

Quote from: SpikeE: Regards to cheating. It's shorthand, really.  I play without a GM's screen, my dice rolls are open, my notes entirely in my head, so my players are under no illusions that I have some arcane secret method I use to run the game.  

It's only cheating as far as the rules in the book are concerned...

And yes, if I have a player who has memorized the rules and wants to play by the book, I have no problem tapping that knowledge when it affects their character.  On the other hand, my expirence with 'rules lawyers' is that often their knowledge of the game can be as flawed as my own, when you actually look things up.

Then again, if you check my AP thread here, you'll see that my players seem more interested in trying to cut notches in bedposts than acts of derring do...:confused:

Gotcha. I wouldn't call that "cheating" -- clearly what you're doing is above-board and works for your players.

The un-clarity wouldn't work for me; since we're all playing in a world that doesn't really exist I find that clarity about how things work, what I'm thinking, etc. helps everyone get into the game more.

And (in case it isn't clear)

• I appreciate and prioritize speed-of-play over just about everything else
• Except...
• Life-or-death situations, where I prefer to slow things down and double check that everyone's on the same page in terms of risk and potential outcomes
• And...
• Issues of consistency or fidelity, where I'm setting a precedent and want to think things through more completely

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuckin' Dropped Lantern Table!

Brilliant!

01-30 lamp goes out completely
31-70 lamp burns on, unbroken; roll for beam direction if dropped.
71-85 lamp breaks and spreads all over the floor, leaving a very slick surface.
86-00 lamp breaks and spreads burning oil over floor; treat flames as a small fire (see below)

Where the fuck are the rules for beam direction?!? And 'if dropped'?!? THIS IS THE DROPPED LANTERN TABLE MOFO!

Another favourite from the same page of RQ2:

A candle is a stick of wax with a wick that burns.

No fucking shit! And if dropped, it goes out when the referee rolls 06-00 on D100. Woohoo!

LOL! Even better: Torches are sticks which burn on the end. They go out less rarely when dropped though: 96-00.

And yes, rules for drowning and falling are on the same page too.

- Q

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs a player, I can appreciate it being important to have a common frame of reference with the GM.  This either comes from explicit rules as written, or by open discussion with the GM.

In Scenario Two, I have to take it on good faith that the GM has made a reasonable judgement.  And if 3d6 is enough to kill my character, could well be pissed off.  But in Scenario One, the GM can point to the rules as a fallback - I knew the risks of climbing because they were clearly articulated in the rules..  I have no recourse to complain.

When I GM, I try to be explicit up front over judgement calls I make.  

What about consistency?  I rarely find it to be a problem, except with difficult or argumentative players.  

I do the same up-front thing -- exactly: "If you fall from here, you'll probably take 'X' damage."

I also try to explain the ruling (quickly; for the purpose of giving everyone insight into what I was thinking moreso than to justify my position), and I find it's hard to make a coherent explanation that doesn't involve both game-terms (dice of damage) and real-life terms (distance of the fall, what's at the bottom, etc.)

This is because if there *is* any further discussion (usually there isn't, sometimes there is), it helps for people to know what I was thinking.

Which brings me to your next point...

Quote from: Tyberious FunkNo offence to either you or your players - but this reminds me of the way I used to play in high school.  Or at least, the way my group used to play in high school.  I recall some absolute ding dong arguments about how hard it would be to complete certain tasks.  I remember a player arguing for almost an hour over the difficulty of traversing a greased pole.  He even went home to get a tub of butter so he could try it out.

I'd like to think I've matured since then.  And (hopefully) so have the people I play with.  

I think the maturity shows in the reasons for having the conversation and the tone of it, as well as how everyone presents and adjusts their positions.

Here's my thinking (illustrating my description of my point above)

• We've all sat down to play "let's pretend" but with dice
• Not only are we pretending in a fantasy world, but often the action involves things that we have no direct experience on (killing things with swords, for example)
• The only way to negotiate (in the 'navigate') this is to communicate
• Hence talking about how easy or hard something is doesn't strike me as fundamentally less mature than RPG-ing in general

That's not to say that this kind of conversation necessarily goes well -- my experiences in high school parallel yours -- but today the conversations are fast, focused and productive. They help everyone get on the same sheet of music and move on.

Fundamentally, My Assertion: Discussing how hard it is to drive a starship through a star is fundamentally no more or less mature than pretending you're an elf. In both cases maturity shows up in *how* and *why* you're doing the thing.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI figured I'd see GURPS and Hero in your list.

I've often wondered how I come off on-line. Apparently I present an image that's not only elite, and sublimely brilliant, but also incredibly good-looking...

Or maybe you had different stereotypes about GURPS and Hero players? ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzLooking around, it doesn't seem anyone is using the GURPS 4e rules for lack of sleep, fatigue due to high temperature, and so on.

Why have rules no-one uses?

* Stands up *

"I'm -E. and I use drowning, falling, and sometimes even fatigue rules."

My experience with this is different -- but since it's been a few pages let me repeat: I don't use the rules you listed (fatigue, etc.) under normal circumstances -- but I do use them when they become important.

I fondly remember using the GURPS lack-of-sleep rules in a game a few years ago where a player was playing a high-school student who stayed up several nights in a row to study (making up for time spent adventuring).

The effect was amusing and the rules helped frame the situation and underscore the dual nature of the PC's life (high-school student by day, inter-dimensional investigator by night... except when mid-terms are coming) in a way that just saying, "You're tired." wouldn't have.

It also -- by mechanically defining the trade-offs -- expressed in game terms, the kinds of trade-offs that anyone who has to balance sleeping v. other priorities made.

I don't think it's fair to assume no one uses those (which you did) or that only an immature min-maxing grognard would ever care about a game representation of that sort of thing (which you have *not* done, but which someone might)

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't need rules for things that happen once in a campaign, I need rules for things that happen each session, or every few sessions. The once-a-campaign stuff, I can wing that, I'm not stupid.

For me, when something's important and risky (i.e. could go either way), I want to express it in game terms and roll dice.

I think that's universal here.

But it sounds to me like you're thinking the only reason to want a rules framework to make those decisions would be if someone's stupid.

I think you're missing the value of a common framework in communication and discussion (or maybe you don't value discussion; it might not go so well with your viking hat ;) )

If we're going to have a (quick, mature, even entertaining) discussion about a ruling, I find that it helps to have a rules framework that helps convert from real-life to the game.

Absent that, there's very little way to talk about the ruling beyond saying, "I assert you take 3d6. Because the rocks are... sharp."

I appreciate games that provide that framework.

Quote from: JimBobOzRules no-one uses are just wasted pages. There could be more interesting stuff there - say, examples of task difficulties for each skill - or maybe they could do a pocket edition of the game. No, not GURPS (or whatever) Lite, but GURPS Actually Used.

Fuckin' Dropped Lantern Table!

This sort of stuff, when you look at the individual rules, you go, yep, that's fine, that makes sense. But when you look at them as a whole... there's a lot that could be cut away without really affecting most game sessions.

I'm going to stop short of defending the Dropped Lantern Table -- and I agree that in games with a dedicated rules-set, the damage done by putting in less-used rules is higher (thus the tragedy of adequate combat rules in a Dallas game), but I think in the digital age it's very possible to keep reference material on-line or in supplemental sheets that don't push out other rules.

Mutants & Masterminds published (at one point) a chart of environmental hazards (defining, for example, how much damage being hit by lightning did in game terms).

It wasn't in the main rule book, but was something I found extremely valuable.

If someone wanted to put a Dropped Lantern Table on line, where it wouldn't take any pages I'm paying for, but would be there if I ever needed it, I wouldn't complain too much.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Quire31-70 lamp burns on, unbroken; roll for beam direction if dropped.

The lack of beam direction rules is disturbing... I guess you could roll a D-12 (1-8 representing cardinal directions, while 9-10 are "beam points down" and 11-12 are "beam points up") but that's not the kind of rule I'd want to make up on the fly...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I don't think it's fair to assume no one uses those (which you did) or that only an immature min-maxing grognard would ever care about a game representation of that sort of thing (which you have *not* done, but which someone might)

Bah, it's not immature. Or rather, a Dropped Lantern Table is no more immature than pretending to be an elven princess.

It's just stupid and pointless because people basically never use them. Sure, someone or other will use them at some point, but hell - people have played Fatal, so there you go.

For my part, those GURPS going-without-sleep rules, I'd be thrilled to play a survival game where those all came into play. One of my most enjoyable sessions ever was when we played out the recruit course scenario in Infinite Worlds, a team of recruits dropped out in the ice, had to make their way a couple of hundred kilometres home. I enjoyed it because getting everyone through in one piece taxed my imagination, and my personal and character knowledge of these things to the limit.

The GM didn't use those rules because like most GURPS GMs, he didn't know them all. But I'd have loved it if he did.

So me - I'd be delighted to play with all those rules kickin' in. But you know, most gamers would hate it. If they had to follow all the rules of GURPS or similar systems, they'd hate them. It'd get tedious for them. I happen to like gritty and detailed stuff. But few others do.

The number of times they'll actually use those rules is just so small that they can be easily handwaved by the GM at the time. The rules should cover things that are likely to come up in almost every session - not the once-a-campaign stuff, or the too-much-work-to-bother-with stuff. Pagecount's precious, every page of stuff no-one uses is one less page of stuff people will use.

Most gamers are not interested in actually using rules about this stuff. If you don't believe me, start a poll. Just remember to add "actually using" - gamers love to talk about all sorts of rules, what they use in play is something different.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe number of times they'll actually use those rules is just so small that they can be easily handwaved by the GM at the time. The rules should cover things that are likely to come up in almost every session - not the once-a-campaign stuff, or the too-much-work-to-bother-with stuff. Pagecount's precious, every page of stuff no-one uses is one less page of stuff people will use.

Most gamers are not interested in actually using rules about this stuff. If you don't believe me, start a poll. Just remember to add "actually using" - gamers love to talk about all sorts of rules, what they use in play is something different.

JimBob sometimes has wisdom, this is one of those times.

Quote from: BalbinusJimBob sometimes has wisdom, this is one of those times.

"sometimes"?!
"one"?!

Mind your words, sir, or I shall be forced to demand satisfaction!

'Twill be banjos at twenty paces! I begin:


If -E. can say that it's not a complete roleplaying game without rules for setting falling men on fire moments before they plunge into the water to drown, why then I say that any game without rules for duelling banjos is not a real roleplaying game.

Rules specifically for duelling banjos. Not even the Redneck roleplaying game (http://home.comcast.net/~n3vxy/rednecks.pdf) has got those! A glaring omission.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf -E. can say that it's not a complete roleplaying game without rules for setting falling men on fire moments before they plunge into the water to drown, why then I say that any game without rules for duelling banjos is not a real roleplaying game.

Let me be completely clear: It's not a real RPG unless there's a beam direction table.

-E.

i thought y'all were talking about this game (http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/index.php?game=drowning_and_falling) the whole time...

QuoteThat dropped lantern table was undoubtedly produced because at some point, dropped lanterns became really important in the way the designers played the game.

more like because in those days, charts and tables detailing every last bit of possible minutia were considered really important...

now we know better.

Well, in a way we are.

Thats one of the guys who was so heavily invested in sneering at us primitives for having such things in our games. This also goes back to the "thematic"  and "adventure" divide. It's meant to be a parody of a "fantasy heartbreaker", tee hee.

oh well hell, let's just make a game called I Got A Demon Inside that has like 2 charts...how strong your demon is, and how long it takes for the thing to kill you.  VOILA, i'm an rpg genius!

Quote from: kregmosieri thought y'all were talking about this game (http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/index.php?game=drowning_and_falling) the whole time...



more like because in those days, charts and tables detailing every last bit of possible minutia were considered really important...

now we know better.

I'm not sure if you're joking here.

First, I don't have my copies of RQ in front of me but I gather this is from RQ2. 1978. This wasn't a ridiculously detailed game by any means.

Second, as I wrote above, the table is very likely an artifact of actual play.

What you & Jimbob and even -E are not seeing is that, on an important level, the table isn't a prescriptive rule, but an example of a general principle used at the table, fossilized in amber as it were. Namely: when something's important and you don't know the answer, make up a table (on paper or in your head) and roll some dice.

In In Harm's Way: Aces in Spades I have rules for aeroplanes catching fire. I also have rules for things which come up once a year, like generating an aerodrome. Does that make me Neanderthal Designer of the Month? Do I get a prize? :D

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure if you're joking here.

Well, i mean with such a serious topic at hand...  :rolleyes:

Not real clear on what you assume i'm disputing...ok, it's not a rule, it's a principle?

Dunno who you were talking to Jimbob, but when I played GURPS reaction rolls and advantages/disadvantages that affected them came up.  

Now, as written you should probably roll universally for every NPC that the players meet. I don't have my 3e book handy (or my 4e book for that matter) to check the exact wording. Yeah, I wouldn't bother with that interpretation either.

On the other hand, if a character is attempting to influence people all those abilities and such come into play every single time they apply. No waste of points at all.

Quote from: kregmosierWell, i mean with such a serious topic at hand...  :rolleyes:

Not real clear on what you assume i'm disputing...ok, it's not a rule, it's a principle?

At the risk of giving Jimbob a conniption, I going to give some credit to Chris Lehrich, particularly a comment he made in this entry (http://chrislehrich.livejournal.com/19319.html) of his livejournal. He's talking about how the development of early RP games is usually analyzed, versus how he thinks it really happened.

QuoteThe usual emphasis, from Gygax and later commentators, is on the rules: were they good, were they coherent (in a broad sense), how were they refined, did they simulate well, and so on. I think this is a misreading, albeit a predictable one: the tendency (evidenced by everyone from Gygax et al. to Ron Edwards and the Forge design crew) is to think that system, in a mechanical sense, comes first -- logically, if not chronologically.

[...]

I think this is all ass-backwards. My sense is that you have to take seriously the notion of system arising from game-world. I think that there is nothing new about this process: it is the standard, rather slow, rather indirect method by which myth and ritual arise in traditional cultures. And Levi-Strauss has very famously analogized this process to bricolage.

Calm down, JB. When Chris uses the "b"-word, just read "ad-hoc tinkering" and you're close enough.

The idea here is that early games, at least, arose from rule sets that did one or two things (combat & magic) reasonably well at a fair level of detail, but that "everything else" was allowed by virtue of the openness of the system and the use of a GM. The rules weren't prescriptive, they were demonstrative--certainly at this early stage, there was no pretense of having a rule for every situation. But the rules were an expression of a culture which approached "playing pretend" from the perspective of using rules to simulate dynamics. Ergo, they were extensible in an ad-hoc fashion.

Designers did look at this, saw it led to a mess, difficult to communicate, and tried to work up rules for everything. GURPS is one of the biggest examples. I don't think they succeeded, though: people still have to come up with spot rules and modifications. It's just that (at least with GURPS 3e) they thought they had to digest a huge number of rules before they could start play.

I have a visual metaphor here, which is that traditional RPG rules are like a flat piece of unhemmed cloth. To do things outside the boundaries of the area the cloth can cover, you have to weave more threads onto it. If you like you can start with a larger cloth, but it's still unfinished at the edges, and it may be unwieldy to handle as well as difficult to pick a part to focus on initially. By contrast, the newer games, particularly the Forgie ones, are more like spheres. Unified mechanics and meta-rules for narration-trading mean that everything is covered by the rules, by definition. What's lost, though, is the ability to create your own world and deform it into a shape & focus that's a product of your group's play, by a process of ad-hoc modification.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm not sure if you're joking here.

First, I don't have my copies of RQ in front of me but I gather this is from RQ2. 1978. This wasn't a ridiculously detailed game by any means.

Second, as I wrote above, the table is very likely an artifact of actual play.

What you & Jimbob and even -E are not seeing is that, on an important level, the table isn't a prescriptive rule, but an example of a general principle used at the table, fossilized in amber as it were. Namely: when something's important and you don't know the answer, make up a table (on paper or in your head) and roll some dice.

I agree with the principle and with your assumption.

Further, I think there's probably some good reasons that they wrote their table down -- possibly because they valued consistency or because getting the rule so that it felt right took some work and they wanted to record that.

I'm not a big fan of using hard-copy space for this sort of thing, but I think the principle (make a ruling) is dead-on and I think the value to the game system of recording it for re-use is more valuable than some of the folks here give it credit for.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: flyingmiceIn In Harm's Way: Aces in Spades I have rules for aeroplanes catching fire. I also have rules for things which come up once a year, like generating an aerodrome. Does that make me Neanderthal Designer of the Month? Do I get a prize? :D

-clash

The Caveman awards? For the best traditional indie game? Heh. It should come with a little statue.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoThe Caveman awards? For the best traditional indie game? Heh. It should come with a little statue.

-Marco

"Trad Roleplaying Design. So easy, a caveman could do it!"

Maybe we could get Geico to sponsor it! They sponsor everything else!

I think the award should be a rock... :D

-clash

Added: We should do it! I'll put up IHW:Aces in Spades against JAGS Revised! I know how to lose gracefully! :D

Quote from: Elliot WilenDesigners did look at this, saw it led to a mess, difficult to communicate, and tried to work up rules for everything. GURPS is one of the biggest examples. I don't think they succeeded, though: people still have to come up with spot rules and modifications. It's just that (at least with GURPS 3e) they thought they had to digest a huge number of rules before they could start play.

And here, we disagree -- GURPS is a *success* -- one of damn few in the world of games.

That's because GURPS gets the philosophy right: the art in RPG's takes place at the table. Closed spheres, however elegant, are more limited pallets for the people who (in the end) matter: the players.

GURPS is one of the clearest expressions of this principle and it's relative success in the market-place without either a massive popular footprint (D&D) or a setting / vibe that really clicked (Vampire) is, I think, vindication of the value of it's design. D20 is another.

And here's the thing: If I *want* to play bad ass mormons who go around judging your fun, or dark-and-deadly sorcerers who wonder, "what would *I* do for power," GURPS works just fine -- it fulfills it's promise spectacularly and demonstrates value of system divorced and indepenent of setting (although with intersections to provide setting-specific mechanics).

My prediction: In 100 years, no one will even think of making a game without drowning or falling rules, and wonder why it was ever in question.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor my part, those GURPS going-without-sleep rules, I'd be thrilled to play a survival game where those all came into play. One of my most enjoyable sessions ever was when we played out the recruit course scenario in Infinite Worlds, a team of recruits dropped out in the ice, had to make their way a couple of hundred kilometres home. I enjoyed it because getting everyone through in one piece taxed my imagination, and my personal and character knowledge of these things to the limit.

The GM didn't use those rules because like most GURPS GMs, he didn't know them all. But I'd have loved it if he did.

So me - I'd be delighted to play with all those rules kickin' in. But you know, most gamers would hate it.

This, right here, is all the vindication I think those rules would ever need -- if you'd have loved it, you could have asked the GM to use them.

They're not that complicated; they're not that much overhead...

And I suspect that if you like something others do too -- in this thread already, two of your assumptions of what rules "never get used" have been wrong. Maybe you're wrong about this as well?

I think those rules *do* get used. I think gamers *do* love them. I think the idea that they're in the rules books because designers who haven't given design any thought put them in because they were some other game is simply wrong.

But I can tell you this: if you're arguing against those rules from a standpoint of being someone who would love it if they're in the game, then I'm more convinced than ever that these rules have value and deserve a place in the taxonomy.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.And here, we disagree -- GURPS is a *success* -- one of damn few in the world of games.

No, what I meant, primarily, is that for all its effort, GURPS didn't succeed in having a rule for everything. E.g., unless I'm mistaken, it lacks a dropped lantern table. But that's okay: it's an impossible spec anyway, and GURPS is still a descriptive, extensible system--if a player "does something" in the game that isn't covered by the rules as written, you can either make up a new rule or let the GM make a final ruling that respects the unique qualities of the situation.

Secondarily, though, I think that GURPS has a drag on its appeal (at least GURPS 3e did) because its diffuseness doesn't provide a core story for people to latch onto and just play. In other words I'd compare it to the large, unwieldy cloth.

I do think that D&D owes a lot of its success to the fact that it provides a solid core story, but doesn't (at least pre-3e) proscribe other applications and extensions to the game. By contrast, the typical Forge game also has a core story but it doesn't really offer a way of extending it--most of the time, if you wander off the reservation, you can describe all sorts of details but they have no significant effect, in game system terms.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo, what I meant, primarily, is that for all its effort, GURPS didn't succeed in having a rule for everything. E.g., unless I'm mistaken, it lacks a dropped lantern table. But that's okay: it's an impossible spec anyway, and GURPS is still a descriptive, extensible system--if a player "does something" in the game that isn't covered by the rules as written, you can either make up a new rule or let the GM make a final ruling that respects the unique qualities of the situation.

Secondarily, though, I think that GURPS has a drag on its appeal (at least GURPS 3e did) because its diffuseness doesn't provide a core story for people to latch onto and just play. In other words I'd compare it to the large, unwieldy cloth.

I do think that D&D owes a lot of its success to the fact that it provides a solid core story, but doesn't (at least pre-3e) proscribe other applications and extensions to the game. By contrast, the typical Forge game also has a core story but it doesn't really offer a way of extending it--most of the time, if you wander off the reservation, you can describe all sorts of details but they have no significant effect, in game system terms.

Okay, I follow -- right; no rule for everything... but I don't think that was ever actually a goal of the GURPS authors (I can see how you'd reasonably infer something like that, but I don't think it's part of the "GURPS Spec" -- even in the abstract)

This probably comes as no surprise but for me the open nature of the system is a huge bonus.

My games almost never take place in the same tone or genre -- even my D&D games move fluidly between adventure, horror, comedy, intrigue, etc. They do now and they did in AD&D (which is why I've always been amazed that some people think the system only does dungeon crawls).

I guess "unwieldy" is in the eye of the beholder (as if I needed any more evidence that milages do, indeed, varry)

Cheers,
-E.

-E:

I just want clarification on something. I don't have a horse in the 'universal resolution system' approach vs. 'table for everything' approach. But I am curious as to whether the former also counts as providing 'drowning and falling' rules in your view. If a game system can handle translation of imaginary content into its resolution mechanics in the general case, is that good enough, or do you actually literally want separate rules for every possible situation? (Or some approximation thereto?)

Because I think if so a lot of the argument here evaporates. I mean, if 'providing drowning and falling rules' amounts to 'providing guidelines for use of a universal resolution mechanic,' than even mildly house-ruled versions of things like Fudge and the Window are going to count by your criteria. (As, I'd add, would Sorcerer, and some other games written by authors affiliated with the Forge.)

I suppose in that case you're still ruling out some things as unsatisfactory designs, like Wushu or My Life with Master. Personally, I think that this is about as nutty a criterion for game design as could be imagined, but I'd like to at least understand what you're saying here.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about mechanics dictating who wins arguments or emotional reactions where PCs and NPCs are equally subject to those mechanics?

I actually do hate GURPS, but not for any highblown design reason: I hate it for not being an improved version of The Fantasy Trip, which was my favorite RPG at the time GURPS 1e came out. I've never gotten over the letdown. (The only comparable letdown in my whole gaming history was the suck-ass Temple of Elemental Evil...all those years waiting after Hommlet for that?)

Quote from: Calithena-E:

I just want clarification on something. I don't have a horse in the 'universal resolution system' approach vs. 'table for everything' approach. But I am curious as to whether the former also counts as providing 'drowning and falling' rules in your view. If a game system can handle translation of imaginary content into its resolution mechanics in the general case, is that good enough, or do you actually literally want separate rules for every possible situation? (Or some approximation thereto?)

It's not a binary thing: most systems give some approximation of what I want (Even Sorcerer!).

What I want are guidelines for converting from key real-world values into game mechanics in a way that

• Matches the abstraction level of the system (so for RISUS, I expect virtually nothing. For D&D, I'd expect a lot more specificity)
• Matches the genre expectations (so for an action / adventure game, holding your breath for several minutes should be reasonable game. For high-level, high-fantasy? You should be able to fight underwater for days, c.f. Grendel)

I personally prefer less-abstract systems like D20 and GURPS -- but if the Window met the above criteria, I wouldn't complain.

Unfortunately...

Quote from: CalithenaBecause I think if so a lot of the argument here evaporates. I mean, if 'providing drowning and falling rules' amounts to 'providing guidelines for use of a universal resolution mechanic,' than even mildly house-ruled versions of things like Fudge and the Window are going to count by your criteria. (As, I'd add, would Sorcerer, and some other games written by authors affiliated with the Forge.)

An given instantiation of Fudge could certainly meet my criteria. I actually like Fudge, and some instantiations do provide reasonable guidelines for this sort of thing.

The Window, however, does not -- in fact, it explicitly states that there are no tables or guidelines for setting TN's -- it's all up to the storyteller's discretion based on what he thinks would be best for the story.

I'm not, as you might expect, impressed.

It's not that I don't dig GDS-Dramatist: it's that I think that for a game that's that explicitly GDS-Dramatist, the Window is a poor design.

BTW: I'm not saying the Window isn't an RPG, and I'm not under the illusion that my opinion of the Window (negative) or Fudge (positive) is anything but an expression of my own personal preferences and my experience of what works for me.

I also think System Doesn't Matter very much, and I would probably have a blast playing the Window on a limited basis, so my harsh assessment of the system doesn't mean I hate it or anything.

Quote from: CalithenaI suppose in that case you're still ruling out some things as unsatisfactory designs, like Wushu or My Life with Master. Personally, I think that this is about as nutty a criterion for game design as could be imagined, but I'd like to at least understand what you're saying here.

Not that familiar with either of those. I think MLwM is so narrow in scope (based on what I know of it) that it might work very well for what it does, but I doubt I'd use it as a go-to game (not that I think it's meant to play that role).

All I know about Wushu is that there's this guy on RPG.net who thinks the world of it. Based on nothing but skimming his posts, it doesn't look like something I'd like to play.

Quote from: CalithenaOut of curiosity, what do you think about mechanics dictating who wins arguments or emotional reactions where PCs and NPCs are equally subject to those mechanics?

I tend not to like those kinds of mechanics; they're tolerable in limited circumstances: specifically a PC playing someone who's much more persuasive, charismatic, charming, etc. than he is.

I only like for those rules to apply to NPC's -- and then not to really important ones.

This applies to wacky indie stuff and more traditional mechanics like Champions presence attacks and the Taunt skill in M&M / D20.

I can see the arguments for things like social combat and the like my preference is *strongly* against them.

If the PC's involved wanted to play in a game governed by those rules I'd be willing to play that way but almost no one who I know is interested.

Quote from: CalithenaI actually do hate GURPS, but not for any highblown design reason: I hate it for not being an improved version of The Fantasy Trip, which was my favorite RPG at the time GURPS 1e came out. I've never gotten over the letdown. (The only comparable letdown in my whole gaming history was the suck-ass Temple of Elemental Evil...all those years waiting after Hommlet for that?)

Brother! I feel your pain. I forgave GURPS once the Vehicle rules came out ;)

But damn you're right about Temple.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SpikeDunno who you were talking to Jimbob, but when I played GURPS reaction rolls and advantages/disadvantages that affected them came up.  

I was talking to people in the GURPS subforum at SJGames forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=5113). Most reported that they sometimes used them, but never RAW. One guy for example said that if someone had a positive RR modifier due to their Advantages, he gave an automatic positive reaction from NPCs, and with negative, negative (so Attractive [4] is as useful as Charisma 4 [20] - hey, that's fair!) Others gave bonuses due to roleplaying, or only sometimes rolled, etc. Others gave negative reaction rolls for things which aren't listed in the book - like, if you've a Bad Temper, after a while in a place you get a negative reaction from people.

In other words, the GMs used their common sense, rather than the rules-as-written.

Quote from: SpikeNow, as written you should probably roll universally for every NPC that the players meet. I don't have my 3e book handy (or my 4e book for that matter) to check the exact wording. Yeah, I wouldn't bother with that interpretation either.

In other words, you don't use them all the time, either.

So you're arguing for the usefulness of a rule which you don't always use. "We have to have this rule! So I can use it... if I feel like it." How's that different from, "we don't need this rule, if I need one, I can make it up." Neither gives consistency, which is after all the purpose of rules. Certainly the rule in the first case can act as a suggestion or guideline for the GM - base from which to handwave things - but then why have a rule? Have a list of suggestions, instead. Gives you more ideas in the same number of words.

Quote from: -E.This, right here, is all the vindication I think those rules would ever need -- if you'd have loved it, you could have asked the GM to use them.

No, because he didn't know those rules, and wouldn't take the time to study them. So to use them, he'd have to have been looking them up during play. That would've slowed things down. And while I as a player like gritty detailed stuff, I like more a game session in which something actually happens. If I have to choose between gritty detail and a fast pace, I'll choose the fast pace. So I can only exercise my love of gritty detail as a player if I've a GM who has the same feeling; which is just another example of how some sorts of play you can only get with people who like the same sorts of play. But I had to compromise, choosing between pace and detail.

Quote from: -E.But I can tell you this: if you're arguing against those rules from a standpoint of being someone who would love it if they're in the game, then I'm more convinced than ever that these rules have value and deserve a place in the taxonomy.

No. I don't confuse "what I like" with "what every game in the world should have." I realise that my tastes are not universal. I am heterosexual, but I would argue against any rule saying that people can't get it on with those of the same sex. "What JimBobOz wants" should not be imposed on the whole world. So for example while GMing GURPS, I didn't use all the "loss of fatigue from lack of sleep" rules and similar, simply because my players would be bored by it. The first rule in any game - roleplaying or otherwise - is, "don't be boring."

Game rules and settings aren't there to deal with what I want; they're there to help people play the sorts of games they want to. We can judge what people want from what they actually do, and what they actually do shows that people don't want a Dropped Lantern Table level of rules. Geeks on rpg forums will argue in favour of such things, but during play people will rarely or never use them.

I'm writing up an eating table. Like, when you eat, you roll to see if the fork reaches your mouth OR stabs you in the eye.

Ok, seriously, we get that the dropped lantern table is an exaggeration. But damage from falling beyond a certain distance... or rules that say how long your character can survive underwater make sense to me.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo you're arguing for the usefulness of a rule which you don't always use. "We have to have this rule! So I can use it... if I feel like it." How's that different from, "we don't need this rule, if I need one, I can make it up." Neither gives consistency, which is after all the purpose of rules. Certainly the rule in the first case can act as a suggestion or guideline for the GM - base from which to handwave things - but then why have a rule? Have a list of suggestions, instead. Gives you more ideas in the same number of words.

I'd always use the rule if it was in an important situation -- the consistency occurs at a level detail in play.

For instance, I assume you don't use second-by-second movement to have your character walk down the street... but in a combat situation, you would (yeah?)

Because position matters.

Same principle here.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, because he didn't know those rules, and wouldn't take the time to study them. So to use them, he'd have to have been looking them up during play. That would've slowed things down. And while I as a player like gritty detailed stuff, I like more a game session in which something actually happens. If I have to choose between gritty detail and a fast pace, I'll choose the fast pace. So I can only exercise my love of gritty detail as a player if I've a GM who has the same feeling; which is just another example of how some sorts of play you can only get with people who like the same sorts of play. But I had to compromise, choosing between pace and detail.
 

Maybe that would have happened. Maybe he'd have read them and "digested them" and used the intuitively for the remainder of the game (was it only one session? less than a session?)

If the against-the-elements situation ran over several sessions, I think it's entirely likely that he could have read the rules and used them efficiently during the course of the game (caveat: I don't know him or his style. I'm basing that assumption on my own experience with rule-learning GMs, including myself).

And bear in mind we're not talking about a player who "had a mild preference for using some structured rules" here -- we're talking about someone (you) who would have loved it.

As a GM, if I had a player who'd love it if I used the lantern table, I'd break it out. Why not? Once we're all familiar with the rules in play, I suspect rolling on the table won't slow things down that much when a lantern falls or someone spends 6 hours in the freezing cold.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo. I don't confuse "what I like" with "what every game in the world should have." I realise that my tastes are not universal. I am heterosexual, but I would argue against any rule saying that people can't get it on with those of the same sex. "What JimBobOz wants" should not be imposed on the whole world. So for example while GMing GURPS, I didn't use all the "loss of fatigue from lack of sleep" rules and similar, simply because my players would be bored by it. The first rule in any game - roleplaying or otherwise - is, "don't be boring."

I agree with "don't be boring" -- which is why I think you're looking at this wrong.

Neither you nor I really know what most gamers want, certainly not at this granular a level of detail. I don't think polls on RPG boards (even SJG's) really give an accurate view.

Given a lack of statistical evidence, we don't have much to go on except our own preferences and observations about what sells (and even looking at that requires levels of assumptions that are clearly controversial. I think using popularity as a proxy for meets-gamers-needs is reasonable, and the best we can do, but I'm not going to make that case here)

So, we're all feeling our way through this great, dark, informationless metaphoric cavern...

But until someone drops a lantern and it points us to gamer-clarity, we have one -- maybe two -- points of reference.

The first is our own desires. In the absence of real data, I think it's reasonable to say, "A game should have what -E. wants in it." After all, I'm primarily using this to find games for me to play, yeah?

So it's a functional criteria for judging games.

The second point of data is looking at popularity from a different perspective -- we don't know if elemental exposure rules make a game popular or not (or even if they get used by most folks playing the game), but we know that some folks like them and that they're not deal breakers (e.g. they clearly don't kill the popularity of the games they're in).

If there's something you like and it's well-represented in popular games, why not take a stand and say, "Games should have this!"

It's not like you're passing a law or anything, yeah?

Quote from: JimBobOzGame rules and settings aren't there to deal with what I want; they're there to help people play the sorts of games they want to. We can judge what people want from what they actually do, and what they actually do shows that people don't want a Dropped Lantern Table level of rules. Geeks on rpg forums will argue in favour of such things, but during play people will rarely or never use them.

Again, I think you're basing your assumptions about what people actually do on sources that aren't comprehensive.

I use the reaction tables in GURPS as well -- particularly if a PC spends points in those areas and expects to get positive (or negative) reactions from NPC's (I typically roll on-request rather than automatically, and even though I might roll for important NPC's, I wouldn't use the result as anything other than a general guideline).

I... I probably *wouldn't* use the Lantern table... but I'll note that it got into the rules before there were Geeks on rpg forums to sing it's praises (if it's 1st ed RQ, which would be 80's, yeah?)

So *someone* was using it... maybe it's by EVERYONE who's *not* on an RPG board... Maybe RPG boards are full of the weird fringe who eschew the lantern table because they're too arty... who knows?

But if you otherwise respect the game, I think it's a disservice to assume that the people who thought it warranted a few lines were idiots.

Cheers,
-E.

Bollocks! Don't give me that "but we don't have rigorous statistics" bullshit. "Without rigorous statistical data, for all we know most gamers love GNS!"

Don't ask us to swallow such absurdities. It's quite plain that most people don't use all these detailed rules. If they did, then your thread would have dropped off the front page by now. If what you're saying is controversial and leads to this kind of discussion, it's because people disagree with you. Indeed, the very motivation of the thread was bitching about people mocking drowning and falling and setting things on fire rules.

I've gamed with over 500 people since I started in 1983. DAMN RIGHT I can talk about what most gamers like.

And I already told you my GURPS GM was unwilling to study the rules sufficiently to use all of them - he just wanted to judge those situations, not follow RAW. So, we do know what would have happened. The game was slow enough with him looking up the rules he did want to use! When he was playing with the group, everyone except him wanted to change from GURPS because he kept insisting on looking up the rules, and giving them pointers, "well if you do this then you can do a step," etc. If we'd used fatigue rules for lack of sleep and the like, his rules-lookups would have slowed down the game so much we'd have warped space-time and ended up playing backwards in time, and could have released GURPS 4e in 1970 before Gygax printed D&D.

Fucking statistics! Fuck those. Have you been taking rhetorical lessons from the Forgers?
"I think X."
"What? How can you say that? When did anyone say X?"
"Well, here's a link where they did."
"I don't think they mean what you say they mean."
"Here's another link where they said that, but more clearly."
"Well that's just one guy. Not everyone thinks X."
"Here's another fourteen links where fourteen other people said X."
"Well that's not a representative sample."
"How could we get a representative sample?"
"People are too spread out and hard to question. It's not possible."
"So you're saying that we can't discuss it without statistics, but it's not possible to get statistics... so in fact we can never discuss it?"
"No, no. I simply mean that my unfounded speculation is better than your unfounded speculation. No, wait, I mean... er..."

Bollocks to that. That sort of rhetoric does not belong here! :forge:

Quote from: JimBobOzBollocks! Don't give me that "but we don't have rigorous statistics" bullshit. "Without rigorous statistical data, for all we know most gamers love GNS!"

Don't ask us to swallow such absurdities. It's quite plain that most people don't use all these detailed rules. If they did, then your thread would have dropped off the front page by now. If what you're saying is controversial and leads to this kind of discussion, it's because people disagree with you. Indeed, the very motivation of the thread was bitching about people mocking drowning and falling and setting things on fire rules.

I've gamed with over 500 people since I started in 1983. DAMN RIGHT I can talk about what most gamers like.

And I already told you my GURPS GM was unwilling to study the rules sufficiently to use all of them - he just wanted to judge those situations, not follow RAW. So, we do know what would have happened. The game was slow enough with him looking up the rules he did want to use! When he was playing with the group, everyone except him wanted to change from GURPS because he kept insisting on looking up the rules, and giving them pointers, "well if you do this then you can do a step," etc. If we'd used fatigue rules for lack of sleep and the like, his rules-lookups would have slowed down the game so much we'd have warped space-time and ended up playing backwards in time, and could have released GURPS 4e in 1970 before Gygax printed D&D.

Fucking statistics! Fuck those. Have you been taking rhetorical lessons from the Forgers?
"I think X."
"What? How can you say that? When did anyone say X?"
"Well, here's a link where they did."
"I don't think they mean what you say they mean."
"Here's another link where they said that, but more clearly."
"Well that's just one guy. Not everyone thinks X."
"Here's another fourteen links where fourteen other people said X."
"Well that's not a representative sample."
"How could we get a representative sample?"
"People are too spread out and hard to question. It's not possible."
"So you're saying that we can't discuss it without statistics, but it's not possible to get statistics... so in fact we can never discuss it?"
"No, no. I simply mean that my unfounded speculation is better than your unfounded speculation. No, wait, I mean... er..."

Bollocks to that. That sort of rhetoric does not belong here! :forge:

Heh.

Alright; If I were taking rhetoric lessons from the Forge I'd have closed this thread a long time ago (specifically right after someone disagreed with me).

Let's say our view of what most gamers like differs slightly -- I don't accept that noise on an Internet thread represents a widespread controversy, but I don't think it matters:

I agree that virtually no one plays the rules-as-written, and I'm not arguing that they do (or even that they should).

In my experience people pick and choose the rules they need and that's perfectly functional.

And I'd like to point out that the focus of this thread is on personal preferences (mine, yours, everyone else's); the principles I'm laying out are personal ones -- they're my thoughts about best-practices in game design and they're considerations I'd use when choosing a game.

But asking what the majority of gamers wants is relevant: if the kinds of rules I'm talking about only appeal to a bizarre niche population, then game designers would be well-advised to ignore me and either create games without those rules or even to create games that *mock* games including those rules (where's that Go Back To The Forge thingy?)

So let's see if we can find a reasonable common assumption:

I don't think anyone's claiming to know for sure exactly what percentage of gamers would use (occasionally) and appreciate having those kinds of rules for their game system.

I assume you don't think it's 0% (based on this thread, since I've told you I use them and as a GURPS/Hero player, I trust you'll use the stereotype that we're all scrupulously honest).

I know it's not 100% (you're coming through loud and clear, guys).

What would you put a reasonable percentage at? 10%? 20%?

At a guess, I would say that 60% - 80% would, at some point prefer rules in that space (e.g. environmental hazards) to a GM ruling.

Maybe only 10% - 20% would care enough see if a candidate game had a section for them (in other words, distinctly seek them out as part of a selection criteria).

One thing I've seen here is that GM's seem to prefer to wing it (based on at least 2 respondents) while players, maybe, have a slight preference for rules.

So the answers might vary by type of player.

I suspect something under 10% would consider it a serious flaw if a game didn't have those -- raise that to 50% if the game gives no framework for making environmental-hazard calls (in other words, I'm claiming about half the gamers out there wouldn't tolerate the Window's explicitly no-guidance approach).

Maybe something under 5% (1%) would be die-hard fanatics, using those rules at every opportunity and applying all the RAW?

Just a guess.

I would put myself in the 20% or so that checks a game to see if it covers the environment -- not so much because my games are full of falling and drowning but because looking at those rules often tells me a whole lot about how well the game is written (and, despite this thread, the absence of those rules wouldn't be a deal breaker. At this point I'd be astonished if d4-d4 had drowning and falling rules, but rest assured: I wouldn't drop it just because it didn't).

I'm definitely in the "likes to have those rules sometimes" -- the number I'm putting at 60%+

And I'm in the 50%, "Avoids games like the Window."

So -- you know what gamers need. How're my numbers?

Cheers,
-E.

Jimmy: Just because I don't roll for the 80 freaking people the PC's pass on the road doesn't mean I'm not using the rule, or that somehow the player is getting robbed of his advantages.   I'll leave that level of implementation to our computer overlords when that time comes.

No. I use the rules when it matters, when the PC actually attempts to USE it, when they talk to someone.  Why? Because I'm not a computer, I can't roll a million times a second to see how many people in time's square think PC #3 looks like a Goober, and how many want to fuck his brains out... and then remember the results of all those rolls.... for each player.

Quote from: SpikeI'm not a computer, I can't roll a million times a second to see how many people in time's square think PC #3 looks like a Goober, and how many want to fuck his brains out... and then remember the results of all those rolls.... for each player.

If you only spent as much time rolling the dice as you spent spanking your own arse, this wouldn't even be a problem.  :haw:

I guess I'm still pretty confused.

Claim 1: If a game doesn't have explicit dedicated subtables for drowning and falling, that's a flaw in the game.

You don't seem to hold this.

Claim 2: If a game doesn't have procedures for converting (arbitrary?) real-world values into game-mechanical ones, that's a flaw in the game.

You do seem to hold this. (With the Window, I've never really played that thing, I was just imagining a case where a GM made up some tables correlating die size to falling distance or whatever.)

The reason I asked about social mechanics is because I was wondering which real-world values were important. A really attractive woman or anyone with a lot of money can get me to do things I regret, against my better judgment, for instance. If I were playing myself in a game I would not do those things because my fantasy would be that I have more integrity than I actually do (probably, nobody bothers to try to tempt me because I don't have anything other people want), and I would bitterly resent a GM who made me roll to do that. But realistically lots of people betray themselves for love or money against their inner values every day.

If you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Following this up with the widespread prejudice against social mechanics, I'd say the reason this is important is because for a lot of people in traditional play, the game is about being your character, and if you make rules for how you can be your character (as opposed to how you interact with stuff) you're inserting a wedge into one of the most basic and interesting features of play. (That being, character immersion.)

So you can choose to not simulate something because it's really important. You can also choose to not simulate something because it's not very important. (Old D&D often did it anyway, of course.) Acne occurrence subtable? Bowel movement occurrence table? Hassle depositing paycheck table? Fill gas tank check? (The last might be important in a game about racing I guess.)

Given that, I guess I don't see the big deal if games like Wushu or My Life with Master decide that the interaction between characters and their physical environment isn't important enough to what's going on in the game to warrant any special die roll procedures or subtables. I don't see why this makes them inferior games. Ditto a game like Dogs in the Vineyard where climbing up a cliff or falling off it only matters if you're chasing someone up it or getting thrown off it by someone (i.e. where the cliff is a prop in the conflict with another human being). I don't see why this ought to be regarded as a flaw.

Quote from: CalithenaI guess I'm still pretty confused.

Claim 1: If a game doesn't have explicit dedicated subtables for drowning and falling, that's a flaw in the game.

You don't seem to hold this.

Well, right -- I'm pretty sure (tell me where I'm wrong) that I never said anything about sub-tables... I did say that I wanted rules at the right abstraction level for the game: so for a game like RISUS, I wouldn't require tables of any kind (there's pretty much 2 tables in the game. One is super hero lift).

For the record:

• I'm not asking for trigonometry problem-complexity in all games
• I'm not demanding that all rules be used wherever they might be appropriate

Maybe someone else is saying that, but as far as I can tell, no one's saying it here. And certainly, it's not me.

Just trying to be clear...

Quote from: CalithenaClaim 2: If a game doesn't have procedures for converting (arbitrary?) real-world values into game-mechanical ones, that's a flaw in the game.

You do seem to hold this. (With the Window, I've never really played that thing, I was just imagining a case where a GM made up some tables correlating die size to falling distance or whatever.)

That you're correct about -- that is my opinion.

And if the Window had a table like that I'd consider it a better game for it.

Quote from: CalithenaThe reason I asked about social mechanics is because I was wondering which real-world values were important. A really attractive woman or anyone with a lot of money can get me to do things I regret, against my better judgment, for instance. If I were playing myself in a game I would not do those things because my fantasy would be that I have more integrity than I actually do (probably, nobody bothers to try to tempt me because I don't have anything other people want), and I would bitterly resent a GM who made me roll to do that. But realistically lots of people betray themselves for love or money against their inner values every day.

GURPS and Hero both support this (with disadvantages, primarily).

I don't particularly like those rules -- but since they're optional (as in, a player can opt out of taking them) I'm okay with the game philosophy behind them.

I'm guessing that when you're min-maxing your latest GURPS characters (I kid! I kid!) you wouldn't voluntarily invoke game mechanics that would invite your GM to roll to make behave that way?

Me either.

By the way: I *would* appreciate real-world values for things like persuasiveness and beauty. If a game has Attractiveness (GURPS) or Comeliness (Hero), I'd like to know what score correlates to News Anchor / Movie Star / Super Model...

The *principle* is that games should provide a framework and examples to help me (and the players) to understand game-to-real-world mappings.

That's very different from asking the game to simulate any specific interaction, yeah?

Quote from: CalithenaIf you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Following this up with the widespread prejudice against social mechanics, I'd say the reason this is important is because for a lot of people in traditional play, the game is about being your character, and if you make rules for how you can be your character (as opposed to how you interact with stuff) you're inserting a wedge into one of the most basic and interesting features of play. (That being, character immersion.)

I think, as a general principle, there should be rules for important -- even most-important -- things in the game. Combat -- life and death -- is very important in a lot of games and should have rule support.

There are game areas that rules should stay away from, and I think social interaction is one of them -- but that's not because of relative importance.

The concern about "simulating everything until there's no roleplaying left" strikes me as a non-issue -- even in theory.

Quote from: CalithenaSo you can choose to not simulate something because it's really important. You can also choose to not simulate something because it's not very important. (Old D&D often did it anyway, of course.) Acne occurrence subtable? Bowel movement occurrence table? Hassle depositing paycheck table? Fill gas tank check? (The last might be important in a game about racing I guess.)

Given that, I guess I don't see the big deal if games like Wushu or My Life with Master decide that the interaction between characters and their physical environment isn't important enough to what's going on in the game to warrant any special die roll procedures or subtables. I don't see why this makes them inferior games. Ditto a game like Dogs in the Vineyard where climbing up a cliff or falling off it only matters if you're chasing someone up it or getting thrown off it by someone (i.e. where the cliff is a prop in the conflict with another human being). I don't see why this ought to be regarded as a flaw.

Asking for drowning and falling rules isn't about a desire to simulate things.

It's certainly *not* about a desire to simulate everything.

It's also not a desire to have a comprehensive set of rules that covers every situation including falling lanterns.

Games that only care about conflict with other characters and don't provide rules for the environmental are, IMO, missing something important.

I'd consider them incomplete; I think games based on the principle you described above (no-rules-for-the-most-important-things) are philosophically flawed.

For games that do provide rules for the environment but don't provide any guidance for mapping from the real world to game terms (e.g. The Window) are flawed as well; they're missing a piece I think is important and valuable.

BTW: Games that do provide these things -- even the games I really like -- have flaws; virtually all games have flaws. I'm not saying those games suck (even DiTV, which I have little interest in).

That help?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: CalithenaIf you want to simulate all the way down there's no role-playing left. Vincent Baker has articulated this concept in terms of a 'fruitful void' and thinks that you shouldn't make rules for the most important thing in a game. This is why there are no rules for passing judgment in dogs in the vineyard.

Then why the heck was blakkie going ballistic the other day on this very issue? This is the very same thing I said... :O

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen why the heck was blakkie going ballistic the other day on this very issue? This is the very same thing I said... :O

-clash

I was taken aback by that too, isn't that exactly what those of us saying you can't judge what a game's about by what it has rules for have been saying for years?

-E, I guess I get where you're coming from now, but I'm still unconvinced, and likely to stay that way. Still I do appreciate the time you put into clarifying your position.

QuoteThere are game areas that rules should stay away from, and I think social interaction is one of them -- but that's not because of relative importance.

I would be very surprised if you could articulate these areas in terms of something that was not important to people playing the game.

Quoteisn't that exactly what those of us saying you can't judge what a game's about by what it has rules for have been saying for years?

Yes. (Although, it connects up with some interesting things differently than I had heard prior to my encounters with the Big Model.)

For the love of Sanity, move this to frickin' THEORY!!!

Quote from: Calithena-E, I guess I get where you're coming from now, but I'm still unconvinced, and likely to stay that way. Still I do appreciate the time you put into clarifying your position.

Thanks. This has been a useful thread for me also, in terms of clarifying my own position and seeing other people's.

Quote from: CalithenaI would be very surprised if you could articulate these areas in terms of something that was not important to people playing the game.

I would, of course, articulate them in terms of things that are important.

But what I understood Baker's theory to be is that there's a spectrum of importance from not-important to most-important and that each game element where there might possibly be rules would fall somewhere on that spectrum...

And that the game element at the most-important end of the spectrum should have no rules associated with it.

Is that correct? If that's not what he said, then I don't understand.

If my understanding is correct then:

1) I don't think the importance of game elements is fixed at game-design time. I think it's set during play, and varies, possibly radically during the game.

I think theory's misunderstanding of this (and therefore, the misunderstanding of the role of the designer) is one of the fundamental problems with theory.

2) While there might be cases where the element at the most-important end of the spectrum would be something for which there should be no rules, I don't think that would always be the case. It might not even be the case most of the time.

Of course, for each instance of the spectrum and the distribution of elements along it, the exact position of the element and the "should there be rules for this" question would be based on player (GM-inclusive) priorities.

Cheers,
-E.