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

[Thomas Shey]

As a game designer, my feeling is that if I'm giving you one chance in 216 of success, its almost like a fraud, because people are optimistic and they will expect that they will pay off on that sometimes, but they won't, not in any reasonable finite amount of playing. So no, I don't even want those to exist, and I ESPECIALLY don't want them to be non-obvious (and believe me, dice pool odds are mostly very obscure to people!).

But this is acting like only the extremes are relevant. As an example, if you have two Hero characters who have the same CV, they're hitting vaguely around 50% of the time. But add 3 to either CV, and that drops to 25%/75%. Add one more and it goes to 90%/10%. I think that very much does serve a purpose, and is not beyond people's comprehension.

(Your point about how obscure full dice pools can get is valid, but it still tends to be incremental without being trivial).

I mean, I'm a math guy and I am not going to tell you off the top of my head what the odds are of winning an opposed check in TB2 where I have 8 dice and the other guy has 12 dice (all 4-6 contribute one success to each side). Is it one chance in 3? I bet, without resorting to some online dice odds calculator, that nobody has that answer on a first reading (sure, we can all probably figure it out if we really want to, but at the table?). OTOH everyone knows the odds yielded by a d20, and at least 5% chance of success, while not great, WILL come up now and then.

The question is, do you want it to come up that often? Given the number of rolls made in combat in particular?

For all these reasons I stuck to a d20 based design for my own game. I'm not pooping on dice pools or anything, I just think their virtues are overrated. PbtA's 2d6 always rolled straight up by the player is not bad either. I think people are pretty likely to understand that a 7 is 6 times more likely than a 12, for example.

Meh, again, 95% of the time you want odds in the 25-75% range anyway. Now and then you want something as low as 5% perhaps. I don't really see the growth curve of D&D and such as a bad thing, personally.

Then we just disagree. I don't see too much point any more in having advancement that's mostly illusory unless its gone on a long time. I'd rather have it a bit less frequent but noticable.

I don't know about that. I mean, TSR's FASRIP basically did EXACTLY that (admittedly its a d100 system, but in a practical sense it is the same issues). People love that thing, it works great, they still play it and hack on it, and its been out of print for 30 years! I mean, sure, it isn't a super common technique (though other games certainly have used it) but my point was just that it is very doable, you don't need dice pools. They are OK, but the math is kind of a PITA, actually.

Notice that FASERIP is table-driven; and the table does a bunch of other things at once. Care to point at a modern game that isn't a retroclone of that that goes that route? The current version of RM, maybe? The hobby has stopped being a fan of table-driven resolution a long time ago.

 

[Lanefan]

Agency is one of those words we use that actually means different things to different people :

1. It could mean your ability to decide what your characters aims are.
2. It could mean the autonomy to go wherever and do whatever. To decide what your character thinks, does, says and feels if not always their aims.
3. It could mean your ability to make decisions that decidedly impact the shared fiction / game state / game world.

For me it's the sum of 1 and 2 above, with at most a bit of 3.

For that reason it's not a word I normally use.

That's something of a change, given that I'm fairly sure you're the person who first introduced me to the term.

 

[Lanefan]

As a game designer, my feeling is that if I'm giving you one chance in 216 of success, its almost like a fraud, because people are optimistic and they will expect that they will pay off on that sometimes, but they won't, not in any reasonable finite amount of playing. So no, I don't even want those to exist,

I do.

Sure it's not going to pay off very often but what that means is that it'll likely be a spectacular and memorable moment when it does.

Then again, I tend to prefer more than some that luck be a somewhat significant part of the game.

Meh, again, 95% of the time you want odds in the 25-75% range anyway. Now and then you want something as low as 5% perhaps. I don't really see the growth curve of D&D and such as a bad thing, personally.

Where IMO there's many a time when even 1% isn't granular enough for what I want, but getting anything finer-tuned is a headache and so I usually stick with d% for granularity.

That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG). With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.

 

[overgeeked]

That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG). With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.

It’s a great way to generate tables though. Break it out into smaller chunks, easier steps to complete. Ten magic bags is easier to do than 1000 magic items.

 

[Campbell]

When it comes to dice pools, I think the dice we roll are about more than odds. There are some fun tactile elements to some forms of dice pools. Especially the push your luck elements in something like 2d20, Classic Deadlands and Blades in the Dark. The choose which dice to keep elements in something like Legends of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, Edge of the Empire or Cortex Plus can also feel really fun and enable some gameplay decisions. Plus rolling more dice to represent power just like feels powerful. Adding 2 dice to a dice pool is just fun for me than adding +3 to a d20 roll.

There is a lot of power in ritual and dice pools really build on ritual to help capture the feel of the game. Like handing over a d6 when you're helping in Burning Wheel feels like helping.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But this is acting like only the extremes are relevant. As an example, if you have two Hero characters who have the same CV, they're hitting vaguely around 50% of the time. But add 3 to either CV, and that drops to 25%/75%. Add one more and it goes to 90%/10%. I think that very much does serve a purpose, and is not beyond people's comprehension.

Yeah, I just don't see why that should be the case. I mean, if we want one guy to win 75% of the time, give him a +5! I don't think that non-linear systems are bad or wrong, I just don't see the advantage of the added complexity. And then its harder to have a big degree of advancement because the pools get large after a while, etc. I'll play anything, I just find systems that use fixed size dice easier and quicker. Have you ever played/read Strike! Its a beautiful game, works great, uses a single d6 for resolution, has no problems.

The question is, do you want it to come up that often? Given the number of rolls made in combat in particular?

Sure, I can work with that. If you really want some kind of 'crit system' or something, then consult some more dice when it comes up. I mean, 4e for example just maxes out damage on a 20. That is a highly workable system, it gives you a high end spectacular result now and then, but it isn't crazy enough that it has to be 1 in 1000 level kind of odds. Stuff that unlikely just won't come up anyway, realistically. Beyond that, its perfectly possible in 4e to gate more spectacular effects behind item attributes, powers, etc. It actually has a rich set of mechanics for "wow that was awesome!" Low probability gating awesome/terrible stuff is, TBH, not a model that I think leads to good games anyway.

Then we just disagree. I don't see too much point any more in having advancement that's mostly illusory unless its gone on a long time. I'd rather have it a bit less frequent but noticable.

I don't know what you mean by 'illusory'. Here's the thing about level-based advancement, D&D style, and modern games. Level advancement is an awesome mechanic, and I still vehemently insist it is the central element of D&D's enduring success as a product. However, in classic D&D it was combined with troupe play, and highly level-themed content in a game that has very clear-cut concrete reward systems. Playing D&D at "The Bunker" back in the early days, with 100's of other players in a club, that stuff WORKED. I mean, I cannot even tell you how super well it works! I'm a level 4 cleric, baby I kick ass! Your level 1 fighter, he better kiss my toes and keep the orcs off, 'cause I'm the boss man on this here expedition. Every time the wandering monster table tosses some undead at us, they going up in flames! Plus you're going to get healed, a lot!

Notice that FASERIP is table-driven; and the table does a bunch of other things at once. Care to point at a modern game that isn't a retroclone of that that goes that route? The current version of RM, maybe? The hobby has stopped being a fan of table-driven resolution a long time ago.

Yes, it runs off a very simple single table. That was really a stroke of genius in game design BTW. Folding everything into that table is really elegant. While it may be true that such tables are not currently in style, there are actually equivalents that are VERY commonly used. Dramasystem for example, which is pretty popular and used for quite a few indie games, uses a card-based system, which is just a table by another name. It isn't the only current era system to do that either. I mean, cards are nice in that they are very easily edited tables, but they really are still tables.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I do.

Sure it's not going to pay off very often but what that means is that it'll likely be a spectacular and memorable moment when it does.

Then again, I tend to prefer more than some that luck be a somewhat significant part of the game.

Where IMO there's many a time when even 1% isn't granular enough for what I want, but getting anything finer-tuned is a headache and so I usually stick with d% for granularity.

Yeah, see, I don't personally consider "Spectacular because it randomly happens 1 time in 500." to be useful game design. The probability that said thing will happen at a really interesting moment in the game is not even 1 in 500, it is probably more like 1 in 1 million. Even if the odds are much better than that, its not really all that special when it is just luck of the dice. I want to DO something that is spectacular, not just witness it randomly happening. I'd much rather go with a design like 4e (or 5e for that matter) where if you want spectacular, you plan it out, work on it, set it up, and make it happen. At that point, I don't want ANY dice involved in that sort of play. The worst thing game mechanics can do is poop on someone's big spectacular well-earned thing!

That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG). With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.

Meh, well, I mean, if we're talking about tables to randomly generate stuff, that comes with its own different set of considerations. I don't have a big objection to a huge list of obscure possibilities. I'm of the opinion that most of the effort is wasted with resolvers of that type, but whatever. I'd note that nobody, not even Gygax, really used random treasure tables except as a kind of fill-in. You got Razor by actually going through the dungeon and finding it, there wasn't anything random about it. I expect the 'big name' magic items like high end staves, rods, holy swords, stuff like that were not generally earned by lucky dice rolls.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When it comes to dice pools, I think the dice we roll are about more than odds. There are some fun tactile elements to some forms of dice pools. Especially the push your luck elements in something like 2d20, Classic Deadlands and Blades in the Dark. The choose which dice to keep elements in something like Legends of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, Edge of the Empire or Cortex Plus can also feel really fun and enable some gameplay decisions. Plus rolling more dice to represent power just like feels powerful. Adding 2 dice to a dice pool is just fun for me than adding +3 to a d20 roll.

There is a lot of power in ritual and dice pools really build on ritual to help capture the feel of the game. Like handing over a d6 when you're helping in Burning Wheel feels like helping.

For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances). People will vary on this of course (we have had plenty of discussions on dice and probabilities here before), but I find dice pools, if they are done well and aren't too wonky (which admittedly some can become), are closer to my feeling of what it is like to attempt something in life.

They do have downsides. All approaches have a downside. One is scaling. There are ways around it. Some more and some less elegant. But at the same time one of the reasons why I like dice pools is you avoid some of the crazier scaling you used to see in the d20 era (I loved 3E but some of those DCs got a little ridiculous for my taste). With a dice pool, obviously depending on how it is done, there is usually always at least a chance of success (and dice pools tend to lean on things succeeding in general if they aren't too wonky). And there are people for whom, wonky dice pools are enjoyable too (I don't like dice pools that get too fiddly, but I have seen a number of players who clearly enjoy when dice pools almost become a game unto themselves).

Admittedly I am biased. I use dice pools in my own systems. But I chose dice pools because I like how they feel (and for me the fondest is purely about the mechanic because I actually like very few games that use dice pools: I always enjoyed the dice pool aspects of those games, but I was often not a fan of the settings they were attached to).

All that said, I do get that dice pools are a tough sell (I've been selling dice pool games for over ten years and so I know it is just a fact: if you make a game with dice pools, there is a percentage of players for whom that will be a non-starter). So it is one of those things where, if you are designing a game, you have to ask yourself if the enjoyment that the feel of dice pools brings to you is worth that (because you won't get the same resistance to something like a die+bonus, or a percentile system). For me, it is important that the games I am making are games I want to play and enjoy (I like d20 for example but I would have been miserable if I were making d20 games for the past 13 years).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances). People will vary on this of course (we have had plenty of discussions on dice and probabilities here before), but I find dice pools, if they are done well and aren't too wonky (which admittedly some can become), are closer to my feeling of what it is like to attempt something in life.

They do have downsides. All approaches have a downside. One is scaling. There are ways around it. Some more and some less elegant. But at the same time one of the reasons why I like dice pools is you avoid some of the crazier scaling you used to see in the d20 era (I loved 3E but some of those DCs got a little ridiculous for my taste). With a dice pool, obviously depending on how it is done, there is usually always at least a chance of success (and dice pools tend to lean on things succeeding in general if they aren't too wonky). And there are people for whom, wonky dice pools are enjoyable too (I don't like dice pools that get too fiddly, but I have seen a number of players who clearly enjoy when dice pools almost become a game unto themselves).

Admittedly I am biased. I use dice pools in my own systems. But I chose dice pools because I like how they feel (and for me the fondest is purely about the mechanic because I actually like very few games that use dice pools: I always enjoyed the dice pool aspects of those games, but I was often not a fan of the settings they were attached to).

All that said, I do get that dice pools are a tough sell (I've been selling dice pool games for over ten years and so I know it is just a fact: if you make a game with dice pools, there is a percentage of players for whom that will be a non-starter). So it is one of those things where, if you are designing a game, you have to ask yourself if the enjoyment that the feel of dice pools brings to you is worth that (because you won't get the same resistance to something like a die+bonus, or a percentile system). For me, it is important that the games I am making are games I want to play and enjoy (I like d20 for example but I would have been miserable if I were making d20 games for the past 13 years).

Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I just don't see why that should be the case. I mean, if we want one guy to win 75% of the time, give him a +5!

Because it sets up the advancement so it runs into diminishing returns, and doesn't require you to use a die range and then ignore most of it?

I don't think that non-linear systems are bad or wrong, I just don't see the advantage of the added complexity. And then its harder to have a big degree of advancement because the pools get large after a while, etc. I'll play anything, I just find systems that use fixed size dice easier and quicker. Have you ever played/read Strike! Its a beautiful game, works great, uses a single d6 for resolution, has no problems.

From my POV a game system using a die that small intrinsically has problems, because I don't think things should be compressed that much. And of course you can have a big degree of advancement, you just don't do it all with to-hit. What you also probably don't do is have advancement do a bunch of things at once. None of those are flaws from where I sit.

I don't think this conversation is useful to continue. We value too different a set of things in a game here for this conversation to do anything but show that.