Looking for Advanced Role-Playing Content

[Simon T. Vesper]

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.

Ovinomancer, I think you're confusing the terminology. I understand that you disagree with the definition as offered, but you haven't put forth your own.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're attaching an emotional value to the word.

I'm not in this to discuss whether we should be advancing our games, I'm looking for examples of designers who have advanced their games. To that end, and to help our audience understand my intent, I've provided an example. If it helps, we can shift away from encounter tables and discuss other means of advancing the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.



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."



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.

No, it was more work, and your welcome to that. But, at the table, the mechanic is still ther same.

Does your result offer significant improvement in play than a less well researched encounter table? How?

 

[Celebrim]

The purpose of an encounter table is to inject a bit of randomness into the game.

No, it isn't. Randomness isn't an aesthetic of play. Randomness can be a tool you use to uphold a desired aesthetic of play - in particular because the world seems to be random and people are very bad at creating the illusion of randomness without resorting to a random number generator - but the real purpose of an encounter table isn't in and of itself to be random. Randomness is just one tool to an end. You could do just as well with an encounter queue that wasn't random at all, but would be perceived as random by the players if it was long enough and varied enough.

It applies the principle of the dice as sovereign to make a decision about the world-setting.

No, it doesn't. And it doesn't precisely because of your next sentence:

How the table is structured, what options it offers, when the GM rolls on it ~ these are subject to change.

The dice aren't sovereign if the game is rigged.

As for your bears and wolves, it's not much of an encounter table if it only generates encounters with things that saw you coming or wanted to meet up with you. That's not what makes something an encounter either. The real definition of encounter is something memorable that the players will willingly interact with in some way because in some sense it is fun. They may be forced into the encounter like "The T-Rex wants to eat us!", or it could be that the encounter is accidental but still offers gameplay: "You see a cart drawn by two wolves. Six heavily armed, cloaked and cowled goblins are riding on it, and there are goblins on wolves serving as outriders. They seem just as surprised to see you as you are to see them. They eye you warily, but so far have made no threatening moves."

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.

I'm not convinced of that. You might have learned a bunch, and it's worthwhile learning about real world biomes and spreadsheets as things in and of themselves, but none of that necessarily makes you a more skillful GM and arms you with greater knowledge of how to run a game.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

No, it was more work, and your welcome to that.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here...

But, at the table, the mechanic is still ther same.

Does your result offer significant improvement in play than a less well researched encounter table? How?

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to test it. As stated. Thank you for keeping up with the conversation...

But to the point, the intent behind the project was to generate information that I could use to make a decision concerning encounters within the region.

I envision a document that takes a few inputs, like regional population density or the type of terrain, and produces a list of results. This would represent the creatures, animals, monsters, etc. within a given region. Knowing what the PCs are doing in that region, I would have all the details I need to make a decision concerning encounters.

In other words, I'm looking to remove my biased, limited judgment from the process.

(And this doesn't account for tie-ins with other rules systems, like offering additional benefits and information to druids/rangers because of their wilderness knowledge and survival skills.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

There are going to be limits to the accuracy of any model which is less complicated than the underlying reality which is being modeled. Just about any sort of probability can be broken down to a percentile value, if you can just figure out reasonable methods of determining those values.

I'm not confident in the ability of any human to generate statistical models with greater precision than one-percent. There are limits to the available data, and to how well that data can be extrapolated into game mechanics.

 

[jasper]

Ok SImon T. I don't see your point or his but I did read
http://tao-dndwiki.blogspot.ca/2018/04/dragon.html
1. Who said all dragons are covered in spikes. I have played since 1980. In art and drawings, Dragons went from fat snakes with wings and 4 claws to oh my gawd it has so many spikes he could aerate Kansas if just rolled over four times.
2. Ok big fat hairy return of the claw/claw/wing buffet/wing buffet/ tail attack. The only semi new thing I read was if the breath weapon was x squares big, it did not have to conform to normal cone etc but also long the number of squares were used the dragon could sign his name with his breath weapon.
3. Oh gawd not science and magic again with a dragon weighting x tons.
4. Back to 1E Item saving throw table
5. Initiate Spell casting aka cast at will. Saw and did this back at 1E.
6. Fly speed has been change looks like 75 feet a round.
7. All dragons speak common, no color coded dragons. Saw and did this back at 1E.
It looks like he has read some Pre100 Dragon Mags and updated them for his system or 5E.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Randomness isn't an aesthetic of play.

Randomness is integral to the game because it takes the decision-making out of the GM's hands. When the GM rolls the dice, she must honor the result. If she doesn't, the players have every right to revolt and leave the game.

Or is this thread going to devolve into a debate about whether "fudging" is cheating? Because if it is, I'm calling it right here. I don't you and I are going to see eye-to-eye on any topic unless we share certain core assumptions.

I'm not convinced of that. You might have learned a bunch, and it's worthwhile learning about real world biomes and spreadsheets as things in and of themselves, but none of that necessarily makes you a more skillful GM and arms you with greater knowledge of how to run a game.

Celebrim, you're going the same direction Ovinomancer went: you're trying to adopt a different definition. I don't disagree that a GM should seek to become more skilled at running her game, but that's a subset of the total possibilities when we're discussing "advanced" RPGs. Just as my example with encounter tables is a subset, and one that doesn't necessarily overlap with your focus on being "a more skillful GM."

Again, the encounter tables are meant as an example of how the game might be advanced. Clearly, I did not achieve my objective, but that failure doesn't invalidate the attempt.

Should we move on to other examples? It seems that we're struggling to make sense of this one...

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

There are going to be limits to the accuracy of any model which is less complicated than the underlying reality which is being modeled. Just about any sort of probability can be broken down to a percentile value, if you can just figure out reasonable methods of determining those values.

I'm not confident in the ability of any human to generate statistical models with greater precision than one-percent. There are limits to the available data, and to how well that data can be extrapolated into game mechanics.

Agreed. It becomes a balancing act between obtaining the most accurate dataset and processes, and obtaining results that are applicable to a game. Very challenging, to be sure, but I find it's worth the effort.

 

[Celebrim]

In other words, I'm looking to remove my biased, limited judgment from the process.

But you can't. Further, trying to do so isn't a very advanced goal. It's a red herring an inexperience GM will attempt when they start to fetishize realism as a solution to the problems that they are having at the table. I mean, seriously, this conversation is like being stuck in the late 80's. By the early to mid 90's people had actually done the things you and the blogger have intended to do and found them wanting.

Look, I love encounter tables and I use them a lot - but not in the way you are necessarily thinking. What you want to pack into an encounter table isn't population density or any crap like that, but fun. You want it to help you generate the fun. Brainstorming the encounter table is as important as having one, because the brainstorming itself stimulates the imagination and helps you bring the fun.

I mean, this is a huge complex topic, but I'll try to give some examples. In a recent campaign I had an encounter table that potentially generated hundreds of different encounters. However, just as in the experiment where you flip 100 coins and you get runs of 5 in a row, if you use the encounter table long enough you'll get spans of reoccurring encounters. At some point as the GM you have to overrule your dice for the good of the game even if the encounter table is not per se wrong, because randomness alone isn't always bringing the fun. If for example the dice generate an encounter with a band of juju zombie warriors for the 4th time in the last 5 days, you'll probably be as a GM running out of ways to make that reoccurring encounter novel. More importantly, you will have by the third time the zombies encountered already reinforced the point, "There are a bunch of zombies around here." So a good GM will put their thumb on the dice and generate something else, precisely because you judgment may be biased and limited, but in this case it is better than the judgment of a dumb piece of plastic.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Ok SImon T. I don't see your point or his but I did read
http://tao-dndwiki.blogspot.ca/2018/04/dragon.html

I didn't bring up dragons. Celebrim was the one who linked it, presumably as an example of how Alexis' work is no more advanced than his own. Fortunately, neither represents the concept we're discussing.