Looking for Advanced Role-Playing Content

[Simon T. Vesper]

Hi, Tao.

Okay.

Apparently, this is necessary.

You can find my blog here. I've done a few podcasts about D&D, here, here and here. If I have to say anything more to demonstrate who I am...

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I've known for some time that people online can be... after all, I was young myself once. I'd rather hoped that times had changed and I would be able to find a better quality of person.

Seems I was wrong.

(And yes, I know you don't care. I know you'll either ignore this response or you'll come back with something else as insightful as before. Respectfully, I'm asking that you don't. If you have something to contribute to the conversation, please do so. If your intent is to slander and defame, please just let it go.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

The issue I have with RM (and similar games) is the overreliance on a single mechanic to address every possible situation. It's the same issue 3rd Edition has, as well as just about every other RPG out there: pick your dice pool (1d20, many d6, d100), set a target value, add your bonuses and roll. Useful in the sense that it's easier for players to remember, but doesn't deliver because you can't reliably represent every (or even most) situation with the same mechanic.

AD&D 1e's use of different dice seems largely arbitrary to me. For example, why are the detection of secret doors and opening doors determined with a d6, while listening at doors and bend bars/lift gates are determined with percentile dice?

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

AD&D 1e's use of different dice seems largely arbitrary to me. For example, why are the detection of secret doors and opening doors determined with a d6, while listening at doors and bend bars/lift gates are determined with percentile dice?

Completely agree. Not about those specific rules ~ I haven't looked into those yet ~ but generally, I feel it's the DM's job (for the most part) to figure out which rules make sense and to introduce fixes for those that don't.

 

[Jhaelen]

Per the definition, however, an advanced encounter table could be one that took into consideration such factors as time of day, the surrounding landscape, the presence of civilization (and the complexity of that civilization), the season or weather, and so on; the final product wouldn't have to be complex, but the thought process that went into it, would be.

If that's a representative example of what you consider 'advanced', then I'm probably not the target audience. I think the whole concept of encounter tables is a relic from a bygone era of game design.

My games have advanced far beyond the need for this kind of thing

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

If that's a representative example of what you consider 'advanced', then I'm probably not the target audience. I think the whole concept of encounter tables is a relic from a bygone era of game design.

My games have advanced far beyond the need for this kind of thing

I suspect you're confusing advanced game design with a difference in gaming paradigms.

One paradigm holds that the GM's world is massive and filled with randomness. Encounter tables represent this by introducing something to the adventure in a (relatively) unpredictable manner.

The other paradigm holds that encounter tables get in the way of the adventure. They bog the action down with disconnected, meaningless distractions.

Which core belief do you subscribe to? (Mind you, I might be totally misreading your comment, so please correct me if I'm off base here.)

Or, to put it another way: if you game has advanced beyond the need for encounter tables, what does that look like? How do you go about determining what encounters should occur, and where or when?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I suspect you're confusing advanced game design with a difference in gaming paradigms.

One paradigm holds that the GM's world is massive and filled with randomness. Encounter tables represent this by introducing something to the adventure in a (relatively) unpredictable manner.

The other paradigm holds that encounter tables get in the way of the adventure. They bog the action down with disconnected, meaningless distractions.

Which core belief do you subscribe to? (Mind you, I might be totally misreading your comment, so please correct me if I'm off base here.)

Or, to put it another way: if you game has advanced beyond the need for encounter tables, what does that look like? How do you go about determining what encounters should occur, and where or when?

Sorry, but advanced game design means using encounter tables and/or extensive worldbuilding? Is that what you're looking for -- more random generators and more worldbuilding details?

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Sorry, but advanced game design means using encounter tables and/or extensive worldbuilding? Is that what you're looking for -- more random generators and more worldbuilding details?

Advanced: further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc.

More of something does not make it advanced.

Following up with encounter tables, as the example, I wrote about my struggle with creating tables that make sense. In short, I tried to model a biome based on real-world numbers in order to account for all possible options within a region. Unfortunately, I got results that didn't make sense, so I either have to adjust my expectations or my process.

 

[Celebrim]

Following up with encounter tables, as the example, I wrote about my struggle with creating tables that make sense. In short, I tried to model a biome based on real-world numbers in order to account for all possible options within a region. Unfortunately, I got results that didn't make sense, so I either have to adjust my expectations or my process.

That's not advanced. You have a very primitive goal when what you are trying to do is make an encounter table based on a realistic biome.

The reason for that is that the real purpose of an encounter table is not to simulate a biome. If you try to do that, and you actually put your results into play, what you'll discover is that your encounter table is actually a non-encounter table, and that it won't take you very much wilderness exploration to realize that encounters with parrots or forest rats or low HD monkeys are generally non-encounters.

Seriously, so much of this looks like the sort of primitive crap that I was doing back in the 1990's and that I discarded as immature ideas. If your definition of advanced is 'further along in understanding and skill', this stuff is nearly 30 years out of date.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Advanced: further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc.

More of something does not make it advanced.

Following up with encounter tables, as the example, I wrote about my struggle with creating tables that make sense. In short, I tried to model a biome based on real-world numbers in order to account for all possible options within a region. Unfortunately, I got results that didn't make sense, so I either have to adjust my expectations or my process.

So, then, for you advanced does mean using encounter tables, you're just qualifying that these encounter tables are more detailed and/or complex?

As noted, I wouldn't call that advanced. More detailed, maybe, but you're still using an encounter table (no advance) and play at the table looks the same (DM rolled, encounter ensued).

Mostly, it seems you're looking for more detailed worldbuilding and making sure your mechanics reflect the worldbuilding. I, again, don't think that's "advanced" it's just your preference.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

The reason for that is that the real purpose of an encounter table is not to simulate a biome.

The purpose of an encounter table is to inject a bit of randomness into the game. It applies the principle of the dice as sovereign to make a decision about the world-setting. How the table is structured, what options it offers, when the GM rolls on it ~ these are subject to change.

If you try to do that, and you actually put your results into play, what you'll discover is that your encounter table is actually a non-encounter table, and that it won't take you very much wilderness exploration to realize that encounters with parrots or forest rats or low HD monkeys are generally non-encounters.

You are correct. And had you read my post, you would have learned that I was knew this when I started this project: "In other words, that bear and those wolves see you coming. If you encounter them, it’s because they wanted you to. There’s nothing random about it."

If your definition of advanced is 'further along in understanding and skill'...

It isn't.

I've provided the definition twice now. Given that my process involved doing research on real-world biomes, creating calculations to represent relationships within those biomes, populating a spreadsheet with those calculations and data points, and creating a series of tables to test results... I think it's fair to say that the endeavor met the requirements of being further along in complexity, knowledge and skill.

As for progress, I failed to achieve that ~ which I noted, both here and in my post.