Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6402137" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The issue, though, is the measure of "effectiveness".</p><p></p><p>It's not rational to choose options that are less effective for getting what you want out of the game. But, depending on the game and what you want out of it, that doesn't mean that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of success in action resolution, nor that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of earning additional PC build resources.</p><p></p><p>For instance, by choosing to play a character who has strong wants, and by roleplaying my character as acting on those wants, I don't necessarily maximise my chances of success in action resolution. But if the GM is adjudicating failure in a "fail forward" fashion, then I might get more of what I want out of the game - namely, dramatically engaging play - than if I played a character who was more cautious, took fewer risks, and hence was less likely to fail attempted actions.</p><p></p><p>Christopher Kubasik discusses this in <a href="http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit3.html" target="_blank">essays</a> I linked to upthread:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The narrative of most roleplaying games is tactical simulation fiction. This style of story revolves around weapons and split second decisions made during combat. Such stories discourage flamboyant behavior though flamboyant behavior is often a vital part of the fiction that the games try to model - because better combat modifiers are gained with conservative tactics. Characters in these simulation stories are clever, resilient and skilled. They're ready for combat and often not much else. Their goals usually boil down to the acquisition of power of one kind or another. Indeed, their goals, desires and even identities seldom have much to do with the story struggling to be told. Typically, characters of modern roleplaying stories are indifferent mercenaries hired in a bar or heroes who run to the rescue only after a threat arises. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The rules and wargaming baggage of most roleplaying games lead to a certain kind of story: stories filled with ambitionless mercenaries who wait around in bars for employment; heroes who have no reason to get out of bed in the morning but for the vile plans of a someone they've never met; and stories that stop in mid-narrative for lengthy, tactical tactical-laden fights. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[M]any people mistake <em>character </em>for <em>characterization</em>. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">But a person thus described is not a character. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Character is action. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Goals are an integral part of the character; <em>they define who the character is</em>. Without a goal a character has no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Or, should he stumble out of bed in order to get to his job at the toy factory, he still is not worth following. He is not a character. He is living out his life as person, but not the driving force of a story. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Because this Goal is so vital your character can indulge in all sorts of ridiculous, extraordinary, and even dangerous behavior in pursuit of this goal. We're not looking for the characters who want what is safe and steady, who can rationalize their Goals out of existence because it might mean trouble. We want characters who throw themselves with wild abandon into their desires, dreams and passions! </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Be surprising! Let your character's passions and Goals drive him to actions that calmer men would not commit. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Look for problems! . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Why should problems built into a character be balanced against a proportional advantage? The implication is that you only take bad stuff to be more powerful. . . . [Y]ou build problems into your character's background and decisions because they're entertaining.</p><p></p><p>If the GM is going to have NPCs or the other forces of the campaign world destroy your character for pursuing his/her goal, then that is a reason to focus only on characters optimised for mechanical effectiveness. But if the GM adjudicates in a way that accommodates your play of your PC in pursuit of his/her goal, other options open up.</p><p></p><p>I think one of the earliest examples of this, although not always recognised as such, was the all-thief campaign in AD&D. The AD&D thief is not really mechanically optimal from any point of view, but in the classic all-thief campaign this doesn't matter, because the GM frames challenges and adjudicates resolution in a way that fits with the idea of the campaign and keeps things moving along. It's quite feasible to generalise this approach beyond the all-thief campaign.</p><p></p><p>None of the above is an argument <em>against</em> balance of mechanical effectiveness. It's an argument that its absence doesn't have to lead to cookie-cutter characters, provided that the appropriate techniques are adopted by the GM in framing and adjudicating action resolution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6402137, member: 42582"] The issue, though, is the measure of "effectiveness". It's not rational to choose options that are less effective for getting what you want out of the game. But, depending on the game and what you want out of it, that doesn't mean that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of success in action resolution, nor that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of earning additional PC build resources. For instance, by choosing to play a character who has strong wants, and by roleplaying my character as acting on those wants, I don't necessarily maximise my chances of success in action resolution. But if the GM is adjudicating failure in a "fail forward" fashion, then I might get more of what I want out of the game - namely, dramatically engaging play - than if I played a character who was more cautious, took fewer risks, and hence was less likely to fail attempted actions. Christopher Kubasik discusses this in [url=http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html]the[/url] [url=http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit3.html]essays[/url] I linked to upthread: [indent]The narrative of most roleplaying games is tactical simulation fiction. This style of story revolves around weapons and split second decisions made during combat. Such stories discourage flamboyant behavior though flamboyant behavior is often a vital part of the fiction that the games try to model - because better combat modifiers are gained with conservative tactics. Characters in these simulation stories are clever, resilient and skilled. They're ready for combat and often not much else. Their goals usually boil down to the acquisition of power of one kind or another. Indeed, their goals, desires and even identities seldom have much to do with the story struggling to be told. Typically, characters of modern roleplaying stories are indifferent mercenaries hired in a bar or heroes who run to the rescue only after a threat arises. . . . The rules and wargaming baggage of most roleplaying games lead to a certain kind of story: stories filled with ambitionless mercenaries who wait around in bars for employment; heroes who have no reason to get out of bed in the morning but for the vile plans of a someone they've never met; and stories that stop in mid-narrative for lengthy, tactical tactical-laden fights. . . . [M]any people mistake [I]character [/I]for [I]characterization[/I]. Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. . . . But a person thus described is not a character. . . . Character is action. . . . Goals are an integral part of the character; [I]they define who the character is[/I]. Without a goal a character has no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Or, should he stumble out of bed in order to get to his job at the toy factory, he still is not worth following. He is not a character. He is living out his life as person, but not the driving force of a story. . . . Because this Goal is so vital your character can indulge in all sorts of ridiculous, extraordinary, and even dangerous behavior in pursuit of this goal. We're not looking for the characters who want what is safe and steady, who can rationalize their Goals out of existence because it might mean trouble. We want characters who throw themselves with wild abandon into their desires, dreams and passions! Be surprising! Let your character's passions and Goals drive him to actions that calmer men would not commit. . . . Look for problems! . . . Why should problems built into a character be balanced against a proportional advantage? The implication is that you only take bad stuff to be more powerful. . . . [Y]ou build problems into your character's background and decisions because they're entertaining.[/indent] If the GM is going to have NPCs or the other forces of the campaign world destroy your character for pursuing his/her goal, then that is a reason to focus only on characters optimised for mechanical effectiveness. But if the GM adjudicates in a way that accommodates your play of your PC in pursuit of his/her goal, other options open up. I think one of the earliest examples of this, although not always recognised as such, was the all-thief campaign in AD&D. The AD&D thief is not really mechanically optimal from any point of view, but in the classic all-thief campaign this doesn't matter, because the GM frames challenges and adjudicates resolution in a way that fits with the idea of the campaign and keeps things moving along. It's quite feasible to generalise this approach beyond the all-thief campaign. None of the above is an argument [I]against[/I] balance of mechanical effectiveness. It's an argument that its absence doesn't have to lead to cookie-cutter characters, provided that the appropriate techniques are adopted by the GM in framing and adjudicating action resolution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance
Top