D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Balesir]

I understand. Fluff is such a crap word. Its why throughout my posts I try to insert narrative, concept, ideas, etc. "Fluff" in my descriptions is simply non-mechanics...the other stuff.

Oh, OK. Yes, if you define "fluff" as "everything except mechanics" then it is, of course, true that this is "fluff". Lumping Social Contract, player expectations and so on together with world colour and genre expectations seems a bit odd, to me, but I'll take it for what it is.

Just for reference, when I say "fluff" I'll normally mean what, on The Forge, was called "color" (sic). In other words, the overlaid imagined "substance" that makes up the game world outside of the actual processes and procedures we are using IRL to resolve the intentions that we impart to our fictional alter egos. "The way we all picture the game world events", if you like - especially particularly neat, cool and/or evocative stuff added to that verbally that really captures the imaginations of all present (and, thus, gets incorporated into their separate mental pictures of the game events).

I think that, despite what you say above, there are many mechanisms that can very usefully be employed for a variety of very different in-game events/situations. The 4e disease track, for example, can easily be used (with suitable effects added) for curses. An example of the recursion, perhaps, between "fluff" and "crunch" (we have nothing for curses (F)...this looks close to ideal (C)...curses have these effects (F)...so we modify the rule like so (C)...)

The mechanisms are almost like a toolbox. For the job of designing a game you have to (1) decide what the game is supposed to do, in general terms, (2) decide on how the game is going to look/be designed (in both a fluff and a crunch sense) and then (3) select the mechanisms that you are going to use for each element you need in the game. From that perspective, I think fluff and crunch (and player agenda, level of granularity, tone and so on) are all mixed together through much of the design process.

 

[Balesir]

Your both looking at it the wrong way.

All the boys but my Johnny are marching out of step, huh?

The chances of beating that locks roll are entirely irrelevant to its existence or the complication of the game itself.

On the contrary - the chances of beating that lock define what it really is and does in the game world. Whatever codswallop the descriptive text says, that probability dictates how that lock (when did it become a lock, BTW?) will work in the game world. I'll explain further with this very example, below.

I ran NWoD games for 3 years never once attempting to figure something like that out.

All that tells me is that you want the game to "talk a good talk" but don't really care when it comes to actually delivering any goods.

It takes 2 successes because theres a lock on that door thats middling, off the shelf at home depot quality.

Let's break that down. A pool of seven might typically come from an attribute of 3 and a skill of 4, or from an attribute of 4 and a skill of 3. So, this is either an individual of above average talent (Att.3) and very high level of skill (skill 4 - almost human maximum), or an individual of very pronounced talent (Att.4) and professional/competent level of skill (skill 3). And they could defeat an "off the shelf at home depot quality" lock 75% of the time. Really??

This illustrates the problem; you don't seem to have a clear idea of what that "2 successes to defeat" lock actually means in the game world - and I very much doubt the players do, either. So, for all the information you've got, the GM might as well say "you're facing a wubblifuss with two bratzgurgle flustertins - what are you going to do?"

 

[jrowland]

The mechanisms are almost like a toolbox. For the job of designing a game you have to (1) decide what the game is supposed to do, in general terms, (2) decide on how the game is going to look/be designed (in both a fluff and a crunch sense) and then (3) select the mechanisms that you are going to use for each element you need in the game. From that perspective, I think fluff and crunch (and player agenda, level of granularity, tone and so on) are all mixed together through much of the design process.

Exactly. Of course they get mixed. But you have to start with something. Fluff-first. You may scoff at things besides "color" being lumped into fluff, but behind evocative fantasy "color" fluff like a waterfall falling up is the other stuff. The concept of something against expectations, against real world physics.

I don't limit fluff, e.g., to the italicized text on a 4E power card. To me, while it is fluff, it often seems (on 4E power cards) as an afterthought to explain the mechanics. It wasn't the mission statement of the power that led to mechanics...as I am arguing all mechanics should have: ie fluff-first.

If it helps, call it Concept-first, then mechanics-fluff second.

 

[Aenghus]

I think the issue being danced around here is the extreme positions of "flavour/colour text trumps everything" and "RAW mechanics trump everything". Anyone who argues for "flavour text first" can be seen as advocating the former, anyone who argues for mechanics to be prioritised can be seen as advocating the former.

See, flavour, colour, descriptions don't need to involve any balance at all, and just moving straight from concept to mechanics to realise that concept can easily lead to broken or badly written mechanics and issues such as LFQW and magic trumping everything just because. Descriptions can include logic chains and inferences that are difficult to implement mechanically without unintended consequences, and easy to get wrong so the resulting mechanics actually describe something very different than what was actually intended. "Style over substance" is one version of this approach.

Whereas mechanics first can result in absent or ill-fitting flavour text, making it difficult to be evocative in describing what happens in the game. I have less of a problem with this personally so am finding it difficult to come up with examples, but obviously a number of people have objections in this area.

Different players will have different priorities on the issue above.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your both looking at it the wrong way. The chances of beating that locks roll are entirely irrelevant to its existence or the complication of the game itself. I ran NWoD games for 3 years never once attempting to figure something like that out.

It takes 2 successes because theres a lock on that door thats middling, off the shelf at home depot quality.

How likely the characters are to succeed it picking it is up to them as characters to deal with, not up to the storyteller to worry himself about.

Here's how I see it. Players know there are lots of locked doors in the world and sooner or later they will want to get past those locks. They can bash some doors down, pick some locks, go by some locks, and maybe even magic some locks or blow them up.

All of which are perfectly viable options in different situations. Its up to the Players to deal with.

Besides, you also dont need to guess it because the game lets you take multiple rolls on most skills like that. So if they dont get it the first round of picking, keep on picking. You can try until you succeed in most cases.

As long as you dont actively try to overcomplicate it it remains quite simple.

LOL a lot like 3e actually.

By "actively try to overcomplicate it" you mean "think about it at all"?

Because "Average Difficulty" (i.e. 2 successes needing 8s to succeed) actually means something like "a 50% chance for a talented expert to be able to do first try". Average has no other meaning than a probability - and these probabilities

And "average difficulty" = "soemthing a talented expert can do only half the time" means either that average is wrong, or that calling it average difficulty is an almost pure ass-pull by the writers of a game who didn't have the necessary professionalism or attention to detail to do the maths. It's why I detest WoD (and especially nWoD) - and also the Serentity RPG although I like some of the other Cortex games.

 

[timASW]

All the boys but my Johnny are marching out of step, huh?"

That would assume everyone thinks theres a problem with the systems mechanics. 2 decades or so of successful sales disprove that theory though.

On the contrary - the chances of beating that lock define what it really is and does in the game world. Whatever codswallop the descriptive text says, that probability dictates how that lock (when did it become a lock, BTW?) will work in the game world. I'll explain further with this very example, below.

No, thats not really true at all.

Take the real world for an example. There are different ways to define a lock.

A. A device when that when attached to a door and engaged prevents the handle from turning without a key.

B. A device when that when attached to a door prevents it from opening to unauthorized entrants.

Now every single cheap bathroom door in America has a "lock" or near enough as not to matter.

Do they qualify as locks under A? Absolutely, they are locks.

Do they qualify as locks under B? Nope. An athritic 80 year could kick the average bathroom door in without trying hard. They are absolutely NOT locks.

So which is it? Locks or not locks? And where do you see their actual likelyhood of succeeding at their function appear in the definitions?

Of course they locks. Whether they work or not does not matter. A lock is a lock is a lock.

Let's break that down. A pool of seven might typically come from an attribute of 3 and a skill of 4, or from an attribute of 4 and a skill of 3. So, this is either an individual of above average talent (Att.3) and very high level of skill (skill 4 - almost human maximum), or an individual of very pronounced talent (Att.4) and professional/competent level of skill (skill 3). And they could defeat an "off the shelf at home depot quality" lock 75% of the time. Really??

You forgot that individual also has the right TOOLS. Otherwise he would have a penalty. So do i think an above average individual (2 is an average score) with a advanced training (4 dots, 2 dots is average trained professional in a skill) and the proper tools for the job (in this case a locksmiths kit) can open that door 75% of the time? Absolutely. If anything his chance is too low.

Compared to an average person with no tools. 2 dots in ability, no training, so -2 for physical skill untrained and an additional unnecessary penalty for no tools. That character gets one dice, only succeeds on a 10 and any 1's cancel out a success and risk critical failure. His odds compared to a trained and equipped professional are so low as to be negligible.

I find that quite intuitive and realistic, as well as simple to remember and adjudicate in play.

This illustrates the problem; you don't seem to have a clear idea of what that "2 successes to defeat" lock actually means in the game world - and I very much doubt the players do, either. So, for all the information you've got, the GM might as well say "you're facing a wubblifuss with two bratzgurgle flustertins - what are you going to do?"

On the contrary, i know exactly what it means and why. And so does anyone with more then a passing familiarity with the system. Including all the people who play it.

 

[timASW]

By "actively try to overcomplicate it" you mean "think about it at all"?

Because "Average Difficulty" (i.e. 2 successes needing 8s to succeed) actually means something like "a 50% chance for a talented expert to be able to do first try". Average has no other meaning than a probability - and these probabilities

And "average difficulty" = "soemthing a talented expert can do only half the time" means either that average is wrong, or that calling it average difficulty is an almost pure ass-pull by the writers of a game who didn't have the necessary professionalism or attention to detail to do the maths. It's why I detest WoD (and especially nWoD) - and also the Serentity RPG although I like some of the other Cortex games.

Your misunderstanding the skill system in NWoD. Its not like D&D where you roll once and succeed or fail. Many skills, lock picking among them are extended rolls. Meaning you can keep rolling under normal circumstances until you achieve the required number of successes. If you get 1 success on the first roll you roll again and add those rolls to it. So maybe your locksmith gets it in 2 rolls, maybe he's having an off day and it takes him 3.

So its not a 50% chance for a pro to succeed at that lock, its a 50% chance of picking that lock in under a 3 seconds. A round is 3 seconds in NWoD.

Extended skills like that are really a matter of how long will it take that professional to pick the lock. Because unless he's interrupted sooner or later he WILL get through it.

Oh and, your average professional with the right tools would have a 4 dice pool. With roughly one success per roll with that pool your looking at 6 seconds to pick the the average lock for a pro with the right tools. that seems entirely appropriate. More complicated locks will take longer.

Take the tools away and his dice pool is 2. Roughly doubling the time required. Which seems fair to me. Unless of course the ST rules the lock too hard to attempt without tools. But that would be rare for a 2 success lock.

So not to sound like a jerk but your dislike of the system seems to be based on not understanding how it actually works. At least where skill use is concerned.

 

[Balesir]

Exactly. Of course they get mixed. But you have to start with something. Fluff-first. You may scoff at things besides "color" being lumped into fluff, but behind evocative fantasy "color" fluff like a waterfall falling up is the other stuff. The concept of something against expectations, against real world physics.

I didn't mean to "scoff" at anything; colour is an important element in the game, and in 4e it certainly isn't limited to the italicised bits in the power descriptions. Even the colour surrounding the powers themselves is not limited to that.

I just find "color" more useful as a term because it's more precise - it carries a specific meaning rather than something as broad and ill-defined as "whatever isn't mechanics". This definition is, in itself, problematic at some points. Take the social contract, for example - is that mechanics, or "fluff"? I would argue it's a lot closer to "mechanics" (since it comprises "rules"), but I can certainly see the point of someone who balks at calling it part of the mechanics.

The weight of your argument, given this definition, seems to be that "designers need to think about some other stuff before deciding on the mechanics". Well, sure - that seems like a no-brainer. An interesting question, though, is 'what exactly do they need to decide before selecting mechanics?' If we are going to consider that at all, we need more precise terminology than "mechanics" and "not mechanics".

No, thats not really true at all.

Take the real world for an example. There are different ways to define a lock.

A. A device when that when attached to a door and engaged prevents the handle from turning without a key.

B. A device when that when attached to a door prevents it from opening to unauthorized entrants.

That's what a lock is in the real world. In the game it's an obstacle that needs a specific roll to bypass so as to move on to whatever tasks are possible having bypassed it.

In the players' minds eyes, it may well be a finely polished construction of Myrrish steel, crafted to hold fast this sturdy, iron-bound wooden door that blocks the portal to the Archon's study... but in the mechanics it's an obstacle that requires 2 successes to overcome.

If you insist on seeing game mechanics as some sort of purple prose, rather than a resolution process that (hopefully) produces results that do not compromise the imagined fiction being explored, you will, as far as I'm concerned, never achieve a system that I think of as adequate for a good roleplaying experience.

You forgot that individual also has the right TOOLS. Otherwise he would have a penalty. So do i think an above average individual (2 is an average score) with a advanced training (4 dots, 2 dots is average trained professional in a skill) and the proper tools for the job (in this case a locksmiths kit) can open that door 75% of the time? Absolutely. If anything his chance is too low.

Well, I certainly didn't mean that the chance of success was too high!! Call out a professional locksmith sometime. An average professional, with tools and with no outstanding talent, can defeat an average, hardware store lock near 100% of the time, in my experience. And that's legally, without damaging the lock.

Better locks get harder, obviously - but then we're stretching the "off the shelf" description.

Compared to an average person with no tools. 2 dots in ability, no training, so -2 for physical skill untrained and an additional unnecessary penalty for no tools. That character gets one dice, only succeeds on a 10 and any 1's cancel out a success and risk critical failure. His odds compared to a trained and equipped professional are so low as to be negligible.

Yeah - that was another thing. With a penalty, such that only 10's succeed, the professional actually has a higher chance of a critical failure than the klutz with no training. What's up with that?

And a professional with no tools has nearly no chance? Even with a 1 success lock? Rubbish. The only 'tool' you need for the really bad locks is a credit card.

I find that quite intuitive and realistic, as well as simple to remember and adjudicate in play.

I think it's easy to adjudicate because you really have no clear idea what effects your adjudications are having. On the upside, if an "adjudication" shifts the chance of success from one mystery number to another mystery number, who can say it's wrong, I suppose?

On the contrary, i know exactly what it means and why. And so does anyone with more then a passing familiarity with the system. Including all the people who play it.

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me. I spent several months running the system and all I learned was that it's obscurantic and convoluted if you want to actually understand what it really is doing. And you don't seem to understand the system, either, judging by your responses above.

Oh, and the reason WoD sold so well? It was a great world background. Mage, especially - it literally blew me away. The concepts and game-world structures were a marvel to behold, really. It's such a tragedy that the system sucked rocks the size of Svalbard.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd say that "concept first" is often a good way to approach RPG development--provided that you have a sufficiently rigorous and narrow view of what encompasses "concept". The more lazy and broad you get with "concept," the less that will work.

Really, once you've got a good concept nailed down, then you can do fluff first, mechanics first, do them in tandem, alternate, or any number of combinations and mixes. Then on the next concept, you can go do it some other way. The problem is that most people write RPG concepts like middle managers write "vision statements".

For example, "Illusionist" is not a good concept--even with the implied baggage/assumptions from prior versions that the word may invoke. "Illusionist" would be one good key word in any number of single-sentence concepts. Think about those prior version assumptions, and you can probably come up with such a good sentence.

 

[braro]

So, this is a bit of a thread shift, but another thread made me think of it.

4e is cried as being the "Rules" over "Story" edition by some people.

It is also cried as being "Narrativist" vs. "Simulationist."

How does that parse? It is a narrative game that ignores story?

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking, but I do wonder how that works out, and this thread seems to be the place.