Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[The Shadow]

I'm not entirely sure the difference between a task resolution and conflict resolution actually exist, to be honest: it's just a matter of scope.

The word 'just' is doing a lot of work in that sentence. And the difference seems pretty clear to me, anyway.

1. There's a player who controls a single character, and at any moment they can declare that their character does something ("I hit him with my sword!", "I kiss her!", "I flap my arms like a bird and fly!")
2. There's a GM who resolves each of these actions as follows: every third action succeeds and the character ends up in a better position, all others create more problems than they solve.

Yes, literally anything you can think of, regardless of how reasonable, awesome or silly it is, has the exact same chance of success at a given moment.

Okay, first a quibble: In the system you describe, actions don't have the same chance of success. Every third action has 100% chance, others have a 0% chance.

Also, I gotta say, I would find that system extremely unsatisfying. People would be gaming it left and right, coming up with factitious actions to fail, so that they could succeed in the stuff they considered important. In fact, I'm not sure just what playstyle would enjoy that system, except apparently yours?

Yes, your character being, say, good at fighting and bad at math doesn't influence whether they'll succeed or fail at all.

Yes, nothing is stopping your character from solving a mathematical equation of the Universe, ascending to the godhood and reshaping reality to their liking.

But if you have created a character who is good at fighting and bad at math, why would you do that instead of expressing a character you have created by acting consistently with the character concept?

Okay, I see what you're saying. But people who are bad at fighting sometimes have to fight regardless - and there's drama in that, surely. I guess what they should do is narrate at best middling successes with their fighting?

It's definitely putting a lot of onus on the player here - not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Lanefan]

In other words, it's a patch on another bad design decision, or a number of them. Why should playing a demi-human be mechanically superior in the first place? Or if it should, why disincentivize it at levels that many campaigns didn't reach?

I can testify that it didn't do a very good job as a disincentive, because my experience was that nobody ever played a human unless it was a class requirement. If you wanted a human-ish character, you played a half-elf.

Interesting. Over the long term, the most commonly-played species in our games has always been Human even though demi-human level limits were slowly relaxed over time and then eventually dropped. (exception: some species still simply cannot be some classes - no Dwarven arcanists here, thanks!).

We did scale back some of the mechanical advantages of demi-humans (particularly Elves), though, so maybe that helped?

 

[The Shadow]

Indeed, and nor should it. IMO adventurers should reflect the broad demographic; with their extraordinariness coming from the fact they're willing and able to undertake the extremely high risk task of adventuring in order to get on that juicy level-advancement fast track.

Even from an ultra-"realistic" perspective, I don't see how this is true. Surely it takes either a certain distinct personality type, or else an unusual degree of desperation, to undertake such a high-risk task?

I mean, do you expect that mercenaries in the real world, in the time before firearms let's say, represented the average in physical ability among the population? Because I find the proposition very doubtful.

But this is getting sufficiently off-topic that it should probably go in another thread. The only reason I brought up level limits was to illustrate a point about "realism".

 

[Lanefan]

Even from an ultra-"realistic" perspective, I don't see how this is true. Surely it takes either a certain distinct personality type, or else an unusual degree of desperation, to undertake such a high-risk task?

I mean, do you expect that mercenaries in the real world, in the time before firearms let's say, represented the average in physical ability among the population? Because I find the proposition very doubtful.

No; and that's where the idea of minimum stat requirements for classes comes in real handy: those who don't have what it takes have been winnowed out before ever reaching 1st level. So yes, the average strength among mercenaries is going to be higher than the average strength of the population because the weaker ones simply didn't make it through (the equivalent of) basic training.

BUT: if you look at the average strength of Human characters of all classes combined, ideally it shouldn't be too far from the average strength of the Human population as a whole.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, but I will go ahead and raise one of my usual objections to "realism."

I tend to find that there are those who appeal to "realism" who have widely divergent understandings of what makes something "realistic" when it comes to simulating anything with the rules or game processes.

So part of my contention lies with that selectivity process, which comes across as trying to turn a subjective perspective of realism into a sort of objective truth about what is "realistic." This is even excluding the introduction of things like "magic," "cosmologies," or the "supernatural" into the equation that should render the application of our understanding of realistic physics null and void.

This is absolutely an issue; its part of the reason I find a lot of rules-light and "rulings, not rules" approaches problematic too, because different people's idea of what's "reasonable" in a given situation can be very diverse. And as I've mentioned before, there are some strong tendencies to see certain things as "realistic" that really, well, aren't (I've noted that a lot of "fealistic" games actually make combat more deadly than it actually seems to be in reality. I write that off to combination of confusing gritty fiction with reality, and also an overreaction to games that don't suit someone because of their very softvall approach to damage, at least short-term.

So that subjective selectivity when applying "realism" sometimes feels more like post hoc justifications of personal biases than anything else. Why is realism important for game elements A, B, and C but not these other game elements X, Y, and X that should and probably would have large ramifications on A, B, and C?

Well, while that could be true, I think its more likely the the case that they've just decided they need to stop somewhere. Whether the place the stop is where it should be can't help but be in the eye of the beholder.

Moreover, more problematically, I find that sometimes appeals to "realism" often entail a desire to sneak in unsavory things under the banner of "greater realism" (e.g., sexism, racism, etc.). The obvious example here being F.A.T.A.L., which branded itself as the most realistic game.

This undoubtedly reflects my own biases, but I will admit that as a result of my time in this hobby, appeals to "greater realism" often shoot up a bunch of red flags for me because of things like this. I am aware that there are people who want more "greater realism" who don't share such unfortunate prejudices; however, I find that "realism" is often where I find that the subjective prejudices of the designer/GM often intrude in the game space in unpleasant ways.

Well, especially when talking about making a setting socially realistic, people's biases about what that means are inevitably going to color what they do. But I do think there's an argument that can be made that social realism actually has a stronger impact on people's ability to engage with a game situation than any physical realism is, and sometimes I think people are overly blase about that. That said, as you say, what people consider to be social realism is often, well, suspect.

Edit: This is one reason why I think that I would personally favor a move away from an appeal to "realism" as a term to something else that is a little more cognitive or self-aware of its fictive or subjective nature: e.g., imaginary naturalism.

Its why people sometimes to use verisimilitude as a substitute.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In other words, it's a patch on another bad design decision, or a number of them. Why should playing a demi-human be mechanically superior in the first place? Or if it should, why disincentivize it at levels that many campaigns didn't reach?

One might think that D&D's early, particularly ad-hoc design wasn't that good or something.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see, thank you for the clarification.

I think the word 'model' is getting us back into the weeds of whether one is really trying to "simulate" something or not. My take has been that isn't really the case, that nobody is really trying to simulate the world - but that many people do want to feel that has been done. They want enough of a feel of reality that they can surrender themselves to it, immerse themselves in it.

While they wouldn't have probably agreed with the first half of your statement, its to be noted that most of the early RGFA simulationists were also immersives.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And, given I'm a weather geek in real life, of course it's going to be as realistic as I can get it!

This is an issue with a lot of trad and neotrad designs; you'll sometimes see things that have much more attention paid to them than things that seem to a general view, equally important (or maybe moreso), and if you look into it, it often turns out that the author is knowledgeable in the area and just can't tolerate a level of abstraction he could elsewhere.

 

[The Shadow]

This is an issue with a lot of trad and neotrad designs; you'll sometimes see things that have much more attention paid to them than things that seem to a general view, equally important (or maybe moreso), and if you look into it, it often turns out that the author is knowledgeable in the area and just can't tolerate a level of abstraction he could elsewhere.

Oh good heavens yes! I have a degree in physics, and SF games can be hard for me. I want the orbital mechanics to be right! (Or, even more so, the stellar systems to be realistic - even though our understanding of planetary systems is in constant flux!)

That said, I think Diaspora brilliantly captures the feel of rightness in this kind of thing without actually providing it. It's a great example of what I've been saying, giving the feel of "simulation" without any actual numbers.

Likewise, the Fate supplement Tachyon Squadron has an amazing system for playing out a starfighter dogfight that captures much of what's interesting about such things without being hugely crunchy.

 

[The Shadow]

BUT: if you look at the average strength of Human characters of all classes combined, ideally it shouldn't be too far from the average strength of the Human population as a whole.

I don't see even the slightest reason to think this is true. Surely it's of value even for the wizard in the back to have a certain degree of physical fitness. I would hope he's decent at running away, anyway. But again, for another thread.

EDIT: I just had a flashback to Zombieland. Cardio! "The fatties were the first to go."