Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Fenes]

Also remember that not everyone plays the "Dungeon Way". In my campaign, the party is regularily split three-ways, for long times. (Currently one PC is off infiltrating the palace, another is working with rebels trying to topple the tyrant, and the third is dealing with a fiend trying to kidnap an NPC under the party's protection, and those are just the main plots).
In such a game, where the DM is used to split screen time regularily, being "dead" (or unconscious) and waiting to revive is not taking a time out, it can be filled with "dream episodes" or visions, conversations with ancestor spirits, messengers from god, whatever suits the character and campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is not possible for the average human to give realistic weight to any probability outside of the realm of about one in 8. Maybe you could get down to one in 16, one in 32, with a lifetime of training.

And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Weird.

When somebody is making a choice with unpredictable consequences they will not be able to accurately account for a probability this low. Putting multiple decision points that result in an overall probable outcome of 800,000 is different from a single decision point with this same outcome because at some point in the multiple decision chain someone can actually give the probability a realistic weight, at the point before it becomes inevitable.

Again, so?

Unless the scenario you are describing is the Kobayashi Maru (sp?), then the scenario has (1) multiple decision points, and (2) in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow. If you choose to play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so. I, for one, do not play with people who whine about the consequences of their actions within a game.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Weird.



Again, so?

Unless the scenario you are describing is the Kobayashi Maru (sp?), then the scenario has (1) multiple decision points, and (2) in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow. If you choose to play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so. I, for one, do not play with people who whine about the consequences of their actions within a game.


RC

Here's a terrible example: Imagine how your world is impacted if, say your uncle died in a sudden car accident, or if your uncle died after a year of chemo therapies from his cancer. Both are situations nobody would want to be in, and I wouldn't want you to decide which you "prefer" more. But do you see the difference? In the first scenario, the "decisions" that lead to it might be that your uncle decided to drive a car. In the second, decisions were made regarding what doctors to consult, which therapy to choose, when to visit your uncle, how to support him, and, overall, you had some time to consider the fact that in fact, your uncle might die.

To get back to less terrible examples:
The point is that the mental decision tree of many players "resets" when you enter combat. You made countless of decisions that got you into that combat, but for now, you're mindset is "Now I am in combat. I am no longer in my exploration mindset." And just the moment you have switched your mindset, your character is gone. Maybe not every players mind works this way

And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Weird.

Being able to logically comprehend the numbers, write them down is not the same as instinctually getting the difference between having to roll a 15 or a 16. And I think that's what GlaziusF is talking about. I can describe "infinity" in many words, but do I "get" it, can I really envision it, or instinctually get what something infinite would be?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Folkways, by William Graham Sumner, 1906, p. 20:

There was an element in the most elementary experience which was irrational and defied all expedient methods. One might use the best known means with the greatest care, yet fail of the result. On the other hand, one might get a great result with no effort at all. One might also incur a calamity without any fault of his own. This was the aleatory element in life, the element of risk and loss, good or bad fortune. This element is never absent from the affairs of men.​

I not only expect this aleatory element in a fantasy rpg, I have no interest in a fantasy rpg that fails to evoke it. IMHO, fantasy (novels, films, short stories, or games) is interesting specifically because it can evoke the more primitive, fundamental aspects of our minds....what lies below rationality....and then give it meaning within a framework that our rational minds can comprehend.

I expect a fantasy game to allow me to step outside modern modes of thinking, at least to some degree, and gain a wider appreciation not only of the rational process that created the game, but of the "mythic universe" as well. Likewise, I don't want a game that treats magic like technology; I want a game that treats magic like an extension of a universe that is rife with consciousness and will.

Anything less seems sterile to me.

(And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here. I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games. But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is always among my list of criteria.)


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

(And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here. I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games. But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is always among my list of criteria.)
RC

What? No whining? We always have at least one playing the role of the dedicated whiner! (Unfortunately, the two players best at it are no longer in the area and thus can't play with us too often. I am trying the best to compensate...). The Whiner ("Damn! Again, 5 rounds in a row with no roll above 5!") and the Vulture ("Ah, dead body, I want the sword!") are two important non-combat roles in our games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What? No whining? We always have at least one playing the role of the dedicated whiner! (Unfortunately, the two players best at it are no longer in the area and thus can't play with us too often. I am trying the best to compensate...). The Whiner ("Damn! Again, 5 rounds in a row with no roll above 5!") and the Vulture ("Ah, dead body, I want the sword!") are two important non-combat roles in our games.

I should say, no actual whining. Whining for entertainment value is another thing entirely. (Rather like not playing with people who threaten other people at the table; it's a rule about actual threats, not fun-n-games.)


RC

 

[Scribble]

What if my goal is to play the game rather than win it? In a D+D sense, that means my goal is to see the campaign through...see how the story comes out in the end...in full knowledge and acceptance of the fact (and it is a fact, believe me) that the characters I start out with will not be the characters I finish with.

In other words, my goal is not necessarily to take a character from 1 - X* but to see the party go from 1 - X...if my characters happen to do well in the process, that's a bonus.
* - side note: I find this an amusing way of putting it since in our house system notation 'X' means 'dead'.

Lanefan

There aren't any loosers as long as we're having fun eh?

The game is setup in a way that promotes and rewards you for continuing to keep your character alive by defeating obstacles and challanges. It's setup in a way that promotes the idea that part of the fun is trying to get your character up to the end of the camapign.

If this isn't your goal, that's cool. I'm not in any place to tell someone how to enjoy the game. But the game itself is setup to promote trying to get a character up to the top level.

What's really the point I'm trying to make is that death is not equivalent to going to jail in monopoly. Death in D&D has a much higher consequence to the game and more importantly to the player then going to jail does in monopoly.

I'll admit, a "you loose" card was probably too drastic on my part. I'm thinking it would be more equivalent to having to pay ALL of your money to the banker, or forces you to give up all properties.

I agree death is part of the game, and I won't argue it shouldn't be. Inability to die would be silly. What I AM saying is that the things that cause death shouldn't be taken as lightly as a random chance.

If I'm considering entering a combat situation, there are things that I rely on to determine if it's a good idea or not. How many HP do I have left? How many cure potions do I have? Does this thing look like it can take a lot of hurtin, or dish it out, etc... If these things look to be good enough that if I start having a run of bad luck I'll still be able to pull myself out of the situation, then it's go time. If not, rethink time. If I misjudge my abilities, or make a poor choice, I will probably die.

With a random die roll I can't prepaire. The only way to counter it is not to play. And as Johnathan said... Strange game.

 

[GlaziusF]

And, yet, I have literally known hundreds of people who fully comprehend the odds of rolling a 20 on 1d20. Weird.

So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for?

I'm betting no.

It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot practically understand probabilities that low.

in some systems at least, the possibility (low though it may be) of a monster killing you in one blow. If you choose to play in such a system, then you choose to accept the consequences of doing so.

You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800000 shot. You cannot practically accept a 1-in-800 shot. You _can_ practically accept, serially, five consecutive 1-in-10 shots and then a 1-in-8 shot, because all those odds are at least at or near the effective threshhold. You can, in fact, take actions between the various random events which could take them into account, as you could not do with two consecutive 1-in-100 shots and then a 1-in-80 shot.

I not only expect this aleatory element in a fantasy rpg, I have no interest in a fantasy rpg that fails to evoke it. IMHO, fantasy (novels, films, short stories, or games) is interesting specifically because it can evoke the more primitive, fundamental aspects of our minds....what lies below rationality....and then give it meaning within a framework that our rational minds can comprehend.

I expect a fantasy game to allow me to step outside modern modes of thinking, at least to some degree, and gain a wider appreciation not only of the rational process that created the game, but of the "mythic universe" as well.

I have probably been incautious with my words, using "rationally" when what I really meant was "realistically" or "practically". The brain is no different from what it was 1000 years ago. What's changed is the culture, and the process of acculturation; the knowledge we have and its relationship to other things we know. We do not think differently, but we do think about different things. "Rational thought" is just a coat of paint slapped on top of various peculiars of set theory.

Likewise, I don't want a game that treats magic like technology; I want a game that treats magic like an extension of a universe that is rife with consciousness and will.

Anything less seems sterile to me.

(And note, that I am talking about fantasy rpgs here. I have different criteria for science fiction and superhero games. But, whatever the game, "Don't whine at the table" is always among my list of criteria.)

Well, there's your problem. You can't have rules for magic and not treat it like technology, because that's what technology _is_ - rules. Reliable transformations of one thing into another. 55 miles is one hour by car, that's technology. The majestic Danube River is 900 megawatts of hydroelectric power, that's technology. A human being's effort for one hour is 55 T-shirts but with this gizmo we can get it up to 70 - that, too, is technology. Rules that introduce a random element just turn magic into unreliable technology.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Do you know what occurs when there's a one in a million chance of something happening?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, none of these people were ever surprised when they rolled a 20, or dismayed when they rolled a 1 (or the opposition rolled a 20), because in both cases it was something they'd planned for?

I'm betting no.

You do know that, even if you understand that there is a 5% chance of rolling a 20, and a 5% chance of rolling a 1, that doesn't mean that you don't respond to that event when it happens? You also understand that, even with a 50% chance, you can be happy you got heads in any given case?

It's one thing to understand the math, and another to actually use it. Absent external aids or extensive training you cannot practically understand probabilities that low.

I question the conclusions of the study you cited.


RC