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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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


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.

Yeah, TB2 has conditions like 'Angry' and 'Afraid', and TBH they are just mechanics. I don't even see where they ESPECIALLY relate very well to the fiction. That is, they COULD, the GM certainly can dish them out only in a way that matches the fiction, and @Manbearcat does in our game to a degree, but 'Afraid' for instance is a fairly light condition and so it comes up pretty often. Most of the time I think it is kind of loosely tied to fiction, at most. Especially since being angry seems a bit transitory, but given how the mechanics work in TB2 it will usually persist until you camp, at the very least. I kind of take the names with a grain of salt. IMHO this is always a likely outcome with condition mechanics in games, whether mental or physical, they end up kind of just standing in for "whatever might plausibly create a mechanical effect similar to what you're experiencing." 4e tended to use them that way too, but it was also careful to give them pretty generic names, like 'dazed', and then limit them to a specific short timeframe too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

No, if I knew how my character would react to any given situation, why play it? I literally want to Play to Find Out! My character is like an uncharted country. Honestly this is a bit like how I conceive exploring my own character and mind in the real world!

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

But see, FOR ME, that is the point of saying at various points that sitting at a table acting is not much like actually being in high stakes situations. It doesn't feel like one, not at all. I draw this conclusion from the (admittedly few) actual high stakes situations I've found myself in. I agree, if my goal was to actually feel very much like I was dealing with a life-and-death social situation, then RPGs don't really do that for me. They can give a taste, and allow a lot of fun imagining, but I don't think we (at least I) get too close to the genuine feelings. I mean, maybe I'm a cold bastard, or maybe I have a poor appreciation of my own feelings. Its hard to say!

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


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?

I'd turn it back the other way and consider combat. Who decides, and how, that combat is going to be initiated? Obviously it isn't NECESSARILY constrained to the same sort of process as its resolution. It could be a simple decision of some of the players or GM, or a result of a toss of the dice, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, TB2 has conditions like 'Angry' and 'Afraid', and TBH they are just mechanics. I don't even see where they ESPECIALLY relate very well to the fiction. That is, they COULD, the GM certainly can dish them out only in a way that matches the fiction, and @Manbearcat does in our game to a degree, but 'Afraid' for instance is a fairly light condition and so it comes up pretty often. Most of the time I think it is kind of loosely tied to fiction, at most. Especially since being angry seems a bit transitory, but given how the mechanics work in TB2 it will usually persist until you camp, at the very least. I kind of take the names with a grain of salt. IMHO this is always a likely outcome with condition mechanics in games, whether mental or physical, they end up kind of just standing in for "whatever might plausibly create a mechanical effect similar to what you're experiencing." 4e tended to use them that way too, but it was also careful to give them pretty generic names, like 'dazed', and then limit them to a specific short timeframe too.

I think the Torchbearer model is best internalized with the following orientation:

"When am I not Angry, Afraid, and Exhausted?"

Effectively, you're perpetually all of those emotions/dispositions. The question becomes "when does it stick/when does the anger, fear, exhaustion really get to me? (the game's answer to that is when you have the Condition)"

And I think I may disagree a little bit that the conditions don't map to the fiction.

When you're angry, you aren't thinking clearly (your ability to be your best self and recall your wisdom is impacted).

When you're afraid, the risk assessment profile of your decisions and actions changes as you're less apt to put yourself out there and assume liability and press against the unknown.

When you're exhausted, your vitality is sapped in all things you do and the things that are customarily second nature to you cease to be so.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm including the meta-conversation as a game mechanic. When the referee describes the situation to the players, when the players ask clarifying questions, when the players declare their intentions and actions, and when the referee describes the outcome of those actions...that's all engaging the game's mechanics. It's just not the mechanics on a character sheet nor are dice always involved.

I disagree about dice, character sheets, and mechanics being involved with in-character social interaction. RPing it all was fun up to a point...though after the first hour or so it lost its luster. I can do without the hammy accents and having long and involved conversations with random NPCs. I'd rather skip ahead to the important conversations. The pointless little conversations are like all the pointless filler fights in most dungeons. Fewer, more important, meaningful, and impactful conversations/fights please.

My bar for "impactful" is somewhat lower than yours, I suspect.

Sure, I don't often want to play through haggling with shopkeepers; but the initial conversation where you get to know some of the local gate guards is worth playing out as it sets references for later play: the gate guards know the PCs and the PCs (and the players) get a chance to know what makes these guards tick as a group and as individuals.

And playing out seemingly innocuous conversations sometimes has the potential to unearth info that otherwise wouldn't come to light. An example of that came up in the session I just finished running - during an evening the PCs were swapping war stories with some soldiers; and the potential was there to dig out some interesting-to-other-people info about the Legions had the right questions been asked and-or had the conversation drifted the right way, but that didn't happen and so, info not gained.

And ANY conversation between PCs is worth playing out if the players so desire.

Maybe for you. For me the fewer players "pulling a voice" the better.

There's times in the past I've been tempted to insist players use different voices for their characters, to get around and forestall "my character didn't say that" arguments.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game.

Well, ideally the meat-sack is fair; or at least ascribes to be.

And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.

Not sure I agree here. A single roll - or, more often, a single action or short series of actions - can often bypass lots of prep. That doesn't mean the wrong stuff was prepped, it just means that the players (often by sheer luck) found a way of not engaging with a large chunk of it. The trick is not to marry your prep and to be ready to let large swathes of it go at a moment's notice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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!)

I like morale and reaction adjustment rules in D&D. To me those aren't particularly intrusive into the sorts of things I am talking about. Morale I think is good because GMs often forget in the heat of combat whether a creature or enemy would flee, surrender, etc. These days I don't use moral, I go more by my sense of what the NPC or monster would do (and I operate with the assumption that most people want to survive). But I think moral works perfectly fine in place of this. Redaction adjustment I particularly like as a social mechanic because it doesn't interfere with what is being said or done, it sets the stage for how people react and what their initial disposition towards players is

I agree the boundary between combat and social stuff is sometimes porous, but I also think there is a distinct difference between saying hello and slapping someone in the face. Those two things feel very different to us, and I think that difference in feel is why some people are more comfortable with rules for combat but fine with no rules for social interaction. And again, if people like social mechanics there is nothing wrong with that, social mechanics have gotten more and more popular as the decades have gone by (to the point that I even include them in my own game, even though my personal ideal in play is no social mechanics at all).

 

[overgeeked]

My bar for "impactful" is somewhat lower than yours, I suspect.

A fair assessment.

Sure, I don't often want to play through haggling with shopkeepers; but the initial conversation where you get to know some of the local gate guards is worth playing out as it sets references for later play: the gate guards know the PCs and the PCs (and the players) get a chance to know what makes these guards tick as a group and as individuals.

And playing out seemingly innocuous conversations sometimes has the potential to unearth info that otherwise wouldn't come to light. An example of that came up in the session I just finished running - during an evening the PCs were swapping war stories with some soldiers; and the potential was there to dig out some interesting-to-other-people info about the Legions had the right questions been asked and-or had the conversation drifted the right way, but that didn't happen and so, info not gained.

And ANY conversation between PCs is worth playing out if the players so desire.

I’ve found it to be a great delaying tactic for timid players. Their characters generally aren’t at risk in town (I run West Marches), so wasting entire sessions in town talking is a treat way to avoid any risks.

There's times in the past I've been tempted to insist players use different voices for their characters, to get around and forestall "my character didn't say that" arguments.

Fair point. That’s why I have everything said at the table that’s not mechanics or direct questions from the player to the referee is something the characters actually say to each other.

If the players are planning, so are their characters. They generally don’t have a telepathic link that allows them to have instant unobservable conversation. Player 1 says they want to kill someone to Player 2…that’s Character 1 saying it to Character 2 in game. Same applies to combat. Battle planning during the battle is characters shouting their plans across the battlefield.

Well, ideally the meat-sack is fair; or at least ascribes to be.

Ideally.

Not sure I agree here. A single roll - or, more often, a single action or short series of actions - can often bypass lots of prep. That doesn't mean the wrong stuff was prepped, it just means that the players (often by sheer luck) found a way of not engaging with a large chunk of it. The trick is not to marry your prep and to be ready to let large swathes of it go at a moment's notice.

Absolutely fair.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Even something as simple as fighting on gravel can change the certainty of a process non-trivially. Or the fact someone slept badly the night before. Naturally when the issue is clear-cut enough this will be moved up a step and function as modifiers, but the GM is unlikely to micromanage things enough to represent the sleep example, or more limited versions of the gravel example (where there's loose patch on the mountain trail but the whole trail isn't loose). That's the sort of below-the-radar thing a lot of randomness represents.

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

That's usually more about the secondary mechanic of hit point elevation, though. Hit point elevation isn't a model used much outside of D&D. Set those two fighters at the same hit points (which, after all, could happen if the 4th level fighter just rolled consistently crappy as he levelled) and the differences are much less significant. The 4th level fighter just isn't that much better that it can't get drowned out in the D20 swing. The only reason he can be expected to do so reliably in the normal case is that the D&D hit point model actually emphasizes defense much more strongly than offense in progression (back in the day at least), so the 4th level fighter can take four hits to the first level's one.

I didn't use RQ as an example by coincidence; you don't have a secondary process to hide behind in the system, and the range of capability is relatively compressed. A fighting type with his relevant skills at 75% and his opponent at 50% (a fairly significant difference by the standards of the system) have about a 37.5% and a 12.5% chance of landing a successful attack respectively (because of the interactive nature of attack and defense). In other respects they aren't likely to be radically different; the 75% fighter might have a couple more points of armor, but that isn't even a given.

This isn't radically different from the model a number of games use, except that often there defense value is a flat one rather than a roll. So my point that there's still a big difference between a linear die and a multiple die approach still applies.

[Sometimes there's a different sort of secondary mechanism in the form of some kind of metacurrency, but how that's implemented varies so much that its difficult to say whether it makes the gap between skill levels more pronounced or less).

 

[Garthanos]

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.

This brought to mind Mythras where such a devotion or allegiance is treated like a skill itself and where one might use Bard/Warlord style inspiration skills to get it to apply to more situations than it was normally. (It feels like a rule in process of being developed)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the Torchbearer model is best internalized with the following orientation:

"When am I not Angry, Afraid, and Exhausted?"

Effectively, you're perpetually all of those emotions/dispositions. The question becomes "when does it stick/when does the anger, fear, exhaustion really get to me? (the game's answer to that is when you have the Condition)"

And I think I may disagree a little bit that the conditions don't map to the fiction.

When you're angry, you aren't thinking clearly (your ability to be your best self and recall your wisdom is impacted).

When you're afraid, the risk assessment profile of your decisions and actions changes as you're less apt to put yourself out there and assume liability and press against the unknown.

When you're exhausted, your vitality is sapped in all things you do and the things that are customarily second nature to you cease to be so.

Right, I'm not saying the conditions are completely divorced from the fiction, but the coupling is fairly loose. I think the point is probably more to RP and leverage them to describe what happens vs thinking of it as "I was doing X and I got angry and it failed" or something like that.