Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[pemerton]

This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.

There's the further thing, as I mentioned upthread, that the boundary between combat and social/emotional is pretty porous.

There's low-hanging stuff here like morale rules. (Classic Traveller had PC-affecting morale rules back in 1977!)

But there's more than that too. Does a player get a bonus to their combat dice if their PC is defending someone to whom they're devoted? D&D answers no (with a few exceptions in the original MM, like dragons getting bonuses when defending their children). But many RPGs answer yes, or at least permit that as an answer.

A potentially more distasteful example, but one that surely comes up from time to time, is how well a PC resists interrogation. Even in AD&D I could imagine calling for a save vs Death Magic. The idea that every PC is as resilient as the best-trained commando, if that's how the player wants to play them, seems to me a departure from verisimilitude.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, I'm of the same mind. Two players at a table talking bears almost no resemblance to a Dwarf Ranger bargaining with a Green Dragon for the life of his friend. It is just not equivalent at all. I can tell you FOR SURE it is not equivalent to bargaining with a guy who is holding a gun!

But if you feel that, then what's the point of the game? If you believe that it is impossible to immerse into situations unlike your normal real life experience, then what are we even doing? What it the purpose of the game if not that?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think the number is 99 percent. But whatever it is, I think it is bad GMing to stop at "this is one of the guards" (especially if the players are interrogating that aspect of the scenario). I always stop, take a moment and right down some concrete things so I have something to work with when the players try something. And if the players start probing further, you need to come up with traits and motives if you don't have them. That doesn't mean they all have to have obvious ways of being bribed or deceived, but there should be some details there.

And again, no one is talking about what the NPC would "realistically do" this keeps getting brought up but everyone who is engaging in this type of play has said realism isn't the goal. When I've explained the goal it is more about the fun of playing out situations with characters who have motivations and goals and aren't just 'one of the guards'. This isn't about simulating realistic social interactions. It is about what aspect of play we find enjoyable.

So it isn't about realism. But it is about "I know the guard needs gold to pay off his debts to Fan Batu", and then I can assess whether the players offering him gold would be enough to sway him (or if they have a plan involving gold to distract him if that would work). Its about engaging the RP, puzzle solving and character driven side of play. It isn't about running war-games of prison break scenarios to find out what would realistically happen.




I used the example of the players bypassing a whole campaign to kill a big bad in my own experience to make the point that his isn't how I would do it. And I would further say, I don't think prioritizing prep that way is beneficial (I take a pretty minimal approach to prep once i have a campaign set up for this reason). But yes, if the GM is allowing metaconcerns like whether the players will bypass parts of the adventure prep as a way of judging how the NPC reacts, then that is an issue. I've learned to not care about whether they bypass things or not. And it helps with a lot with having sessions I find enjoyable as a GM.

Yeah, I think we're not exactly very far off in our thinking. I agree, its not about considering what is ACTUALLY realistic, just what could be sustained by some appeal to logic and not entirely strain people's sense of verisimilitude. Since the mid 90's I've basically just not done prep myself beyond a very basic "here's a list of statblocks I'll print out because they are very likely to come in handy tonight" kind of thing. Generally in 4e play I'd prep a few possible fights, maybe kind of sketch out for myself what a location or two that is plausibly going to come up in play looks like, but mostly that just made it easier at the table, not because I was like "I really want THIS to happen!" Although I admit to definitely 'doing up' some big 'boss battle' type stuff now and then. Usually though that was because the players had pretty much told me "we're doing X and want to accomplish Y" and then I had a week off to really give it the deluxe treatment.

But in terms of these kinds of 'what is the guard like?' types of things, FOR ME at least, its always an open question really. I don't have something predefined. Maybe I have the underboss and a couple key henchmen of an established 'front' described in a little detail, but not mooks. Which means, in my style of play/prep, it is best to dice for all this kind of stuff, like "OK, does the hulky fighter distract the woman guarding the door?" Maybe! Lets dice for it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a couple of things you have to keep in mind.

1. The fact that most combat sports are not extremely realistic matters; among other things, they usually try to minimize some of the factors that dice represent because, honestly, they can easily get you hurt. SCA is a little better than some because they'll do actual outdoors fighting in the like, but how often did you fight somewhere where there was a lot of low hanging branches? Muddy patches? Loose gravel? I'm betting even in the Wars there was some avoidance of bad footing and similar things, and in regular indoor bouts. Same with trying to avoid issues with weapons and armor. Most of the time people in real combats have a lot more trouble avoiding these sorts of things, but when they show up is, if not literally random, is well below the level that is going to be managed manually by a GM (if, even, they should). A lot of that significant but low level clutter is handled by dice rolls.

Yes, it is a valid point. I think if we're battling amidst the trees in the dark, then its possible anything could happen, etc.

2. Being random doesn't mean some differences in capability can't pile up. One of the issues with big linear die roll systems like D20 and D100 resolutions is that they overemphasize the randomness. You have to have really massive differences in capability before its always obvious how much those differences actually matter can come in. This was very obvious to me early on being both a RuneQuest and Hero System convert early; while I loved both games, RQ's percentage system meant you could sometimes end up with a lot of, well, crap rolls that made the gap between you and less skillful opponents seem less than it was. It didn't mean you still didn't win a lot of fights, but it overemphasized the outliers. On the other hand in Hero, if you had one guy with an 8 CV and one guy with a 3, the chances the latter guy would ever even get a hit in before he went down was--pretty slim. That's because the 3D6 resolution could push the probabilities to where the chances of failure were pretty minuscule. That wasn't what you expected most fights to be, but it could occur, and you'd still have room for outliers but have them be genuinely outliers. Some die pool systems can produce a similar result. Even in more modest differences, the probabilities can be more more slanted because they aren't going to produce a linear set of steps (you could get that result with a percentile system by messing with tables, but tables are usually a bad word in the hobby, so...)

Eh, my feeling on that is you can create lopsided outcomes as virtually guaranteed results with any style of mechanics. I mean, lets think about AD&D. What is the chance that a level 1 fighter would beat a level 4 fighter? Its VERY unlikely! It might happen 10% of the time, at most, probably even less given expected loot and equipment differences and whatnot. AT BEST if you stripped both of them down to AC10 the lower level guy would have maybe, what, 1 chance in 4, if that? he'd definitely have to hit at least twice and do good damage without getting hit back. I mean, sure, you CAN have bad luck, but you should have been in our TB2 game last week. I must have rolled 8 or 10 checks that night, most with 5 or more dice, and I think THE BEST I managed was to get an average roll once, all the rest were quite poor! I don't really get the feeling the dice are any less swingy in that game than in D&D. Now, dice pools COULD be a lot less swingy, if they are implemented in very specific ways (IE always working on sums of dice for instance). Still, overall there's a pretty solid sweet spot for how much luck dice need to inject that modern RPG designers are all pretty well aware of. Few games designed in the last 10-15 years miss that window.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But if you feel that, then what's the point of the game? If you believe that it is impossible to immerse into situations unlike your normal real life experience, then what are we even doing? What it the purpose of the game if not that?

That's where we differ. I am clearly getting a bit different thing from it than you are. I mean, watching a movie is not like BEING THERE, right. You CAN still identify with the character. I can't actually get THAT close to what it would be like to be there, but I can still appreciate the situation for what it is, and 'play the part'. So, FOR ME, its fine if there's some randomizers in there, maybe some mechanics that operate to resolve what my PC does (IE like the Traveller morale rules @pemerton mentioned). And like he or someone mentioned, there are DEFINITELY times when you don't consciously have any control over yourself.

Like a time sticks in my mind: I was walking with my girlfriend out around where I lived at night. We must have taken a bit of a wrong turn and all of a sudden this loud sharp hissing sound started up, coming from several directions! I must have run 50 yards before I even knew my feet were moving! Talk about a morale check! I mean, I'm not a particularly nervous type that way, but man I was just spooked, and so was my girlfriend. It was just a bunch of sprinklers, we wandered onto a golf course by accident and they just happened to start up. Surely that kind of thing seems like a cool possible outcome in a game, but I'd never have thought of it myself. I'd never have believed it would happen except I experienced it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's where we differ. I am clearly getting a bit different thing from it than you are. I mean, watching a movie is not like BEING THERE, right. You CAN still identify with the character. I can't actually get THAT close to what it would be like to be there, but I can still appreciate the situation for what it is, and 'play the part'.

Right. But to me what is unique to RPGs is the being there part. So that's why I see it as fundamental.

So, FOR ME, its fine if there's some randomizers in there, maybe some mechanics that operate to resolve what my PC does (IE like the Traveller morale rules @pemerton mentioned). And like he or someone mentioned, there are DEFINITELY times when you don't consciously have any control over yourself.

Like a time sticks in my mind: I was walking with my girlfriend out around where I lived at night. We must have taken a bit of a wrong turn and all of a sudden this loud sharp hissing sound started up, coming from several directions! I must have run 50 yards before I even knew my feet were moving! Talk about a morale check! I mean, I'm not a particularly nervous type that way, but man I was just spooked, and so was my girlfriend. It was just a bunch of sprinklers, we wandered onto a golf course by accident and they just happened to start up. Surely that kind of thing seems like a cool possible outcome in a game, but I'd never have thought of it myself. I'd never have believed it would happen except I experienced it.

Sure, such things can happen. And perhaps sparing use of such effects in a game might be perfectly fine. Though the rules telling you "your character is very afraid" still doesn't give you that experience of being afraid. It would be far more powerful if you were so immersed in the character, and the GM would describe the situation so well, that you would be genuinely afraid. Granted, that is hard, but that's what I would aim for.

 

[pemerton]

It would be far more powerful if you were so immersed in the character, and the GM would describe the situation so well, that you would be genuinely afraid. Granted, that is hard, but that's what I would aim for.

Upthread you were asking what morals, emotions etc had to do with simulationism; and why "high concept simulation" is characterised as a type of simulationism. Well, in this post you've answered your own questions!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Upthread you were asking what morals, emotions etc had to do with simulationism; and why "high concept simulation" is characterised as a type of simulationism. Well, in this post you've answered your own questions!

Did I? How? Also, I don't remember asking about emotions, it was just about morals. (But it has been a long thread, so who knows? )

So earlier you described dictating morals being a feature of simulationsm. I assume you now mean this applies to emotions too.

So does this mean then, that you practice simulationism as you embrace mechanics that can dictate characters' emotions, and I don't, as I favour just describing the situation but leaving the ultimate interpretation to the player?

 

[pemerton]

I think in combat, because its the 'action' part of the game, we want the excitement of a system, especially one with dice rolls. I have no problem admitting for me, when it comes to feats of daring and combat in RPGs, the excitement for me is in the roll of the die and I am particularly drawn to games where the stakes of death are higher.

I GM much more often than I play.

But the last two times I've played, the moments where I've held my breath as dice are rolled have been social, not combat. (In my Burning Wheel play I think there might be one combat every two or three sessions.) I (as my PC) tried to persuade my brother to throw off the yoke of his "master" (an as-yet unidentified NPC) and join me in restoring our family to its rightful place and status; I rolled the Command dice; and failed. My brother turned his face away, and rode off in his cart to complete the errand his master had sent him on.

For me, resolving that as a puzzle (eg what leverage can I use to turn my brother from loyalty to the master back to loyalty to family) would have been an uninspiring experience. Trying to persuade him, and then seeing the dice land as they did, was more like a slap in the face. It stung: just like in a real world interaction that goes badly, there was the sense of what might have been, but wasn't to be.

Sometimes I choose to be angry. But very often, I become angry or I become sad with no control over that.

This is the flipside of the slap in the face: in a different session playing a different character, I went to do a cruel and ruthless thing - murdering an innkeeper for his cashbox - and my friend who was GMing the scene at that moment called for a Steel check. I failed, and so hesitated. The hesitation allowed another character to act, and the innkeeper's life was saved.

In both cases, the "script" being established in part by the dice didn't make it harder for me to inhabit my character. It helped me understand what my character was doing and feeling.

I also genuinely cannot fathom how it is not obvious that talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting

But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't.

Talking where I get to choose at every moment how I respond, and when I know that the person I'm talking to gets to choose how they respond, doesn't feel much like the sort of talking that for me is more characteristic of RPGing - that is, talking where the stakes and emotional investment are very high.

You literally resolved how the knights would behave regarding the lady via a fellowship roll.

Consider two RPGs in which magic-use is possible: classic D&D where the player has to choose a small loadout of spells, from a not-quite-as-small list; and Doctor Strange as statted in Marvel Heroic RP, where just about any magical effect you can think of is permissible as an action declaration. Would we say that, in the D&D case, there is no need for the player?

Or consider D&D combat, which is resolved via dice-rolling: would we say that the player may as well not show up, because it's just dice and charts that are telling us how the combat plays out?

In the Prince Valiant game, two PCs are wooing the same lady. Various actions are played out; each becomes aware that the other is a rival. They go to the tavern to discuss the situation man-to-man, over some ales. The discussion occurs, and each has stated their case and explained why Violette would be better off with him and why the other ought to stand aside; and neither budges. The question, then, is is that it? Is a player's decision that their character won't yield to another determinative? Or is it a statement of stakes, to then be resolved.

We resolved it, via opposed Fellowship checks (which, as it happened, produced a tie - so the rivalry continued). How you would infer from that that the player may as well not be there is a mystery to me. Apart from anything else, who do you think is setting the stakes?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is the flipside of the slap in the face: in a different session playing a different character, I went to do a cruel and ruthless thing - murdering an innkeeper for his cashbox - and my friend who was GMing the scene at that moment called for a Steel check. I failed, and so hesitated. The hesitation allowed another character to act, and the innkeeper's life was saved.

In both cases, the "script" being established in part by the dice didn't make it harder for me to inhabit my character. It helped me understand what my character was doing and feeling.

Why don't the GM describe the pitiable and terrified look of the innkeeper, why don't you know how your character would react to that?

Talking where I get to choose at every moment how I respond, and when I know that the person I'm talking to gets to choose how they respond, doesn't feel much like the sort of talking that for me is more characteristic of RPGing - that is, talking where the stakes and emotional investment are very high.

You immerse in the situation, you emotionally invest to it, then it will feel more like a real high stakes situation!

In the Prince Valiant game, two PCs are wooing the same lady. Various actions are played out; each becomes aware that the other is a rival. They go to the tavern to discuss the situation man-to-man, over some ales. The discussion occurs, and each has stated their case and explained why Violette would be better off with him and why the other ought to stand aside; and neither budges. The question, then, is is that it? Is a player's decision that their character won't yield to another determinative?

In my book, if they so feel, then yes, yes it is.

Or is it a statement of stakes, to then be resolved.

We resolved it, via opposed Fellowship checks (which, as it happened, produced a tie - so the rivalry continued). How you would infer from that that the player may as well not be there is a mystery to me. Apart from anything else, who do you think is setting the stakes?

The player outsourced their decision to the dice. Sure, in practice they of course don't do this for every decision they have to make, but if they did, they wouldn't need to be there. (Though I find it hilarious that the dice too refused to settle the matter.)

How was it first determined that the characters were interested in this lady in the first place? Was that due the dice too? If not, why not?