From a GM & Player to Game Designer

[TildenThorne]

Game Designers,

As both GM and player, I find a certain thread common in games not developed through crowd sourcing and even those that have been. You will often encounter a game element that was possibly intended to be "fluff", that is to say "of no statistical use" but the wording of the said bit of "fluff" clearly implies an advantage.

Example: If a portion of character creation granted a character the ability to always know which direction is north and how far they have traveled relative to their last position, that player would naturally assume his character would be better at navigation.

The above assumption would be commonly made by players and if no benefit was intended, those players who figured one is deserved would feel slighted. This is ESPECIALLY true when bringing new players to the game, who often feel that tabletop RPG rules are a bit "wishy-washy". Many newer systems have gone to great lengths to become more "transparent" in their language, and I praise them deeply, many others not only choose not to, but can get indignant at the assumption that something may not be "right" with their work. In most cases, a single additional line to an offending rule or bit of fluff is all that would be needed to fix the situation...

Example: From above "The character knows which direction is north and how far they have travelled from their previous position. Characters skilled in navigation are taught this as part of the skill and no further benefit is gained."

Problem no longer exists. Nobody will become confused... And my night running the game... Just got a whole lot easier. So game designers... Please keep this right in the front of your brain when doing what you do. Sometimes, I think this little facet can get overlooked a bit much. I consider it the estranged step child of the "We never considered that combo" game design issue.

Sincerely,
A vet GM and Player

 

[Herobizkit]

I'm curious as to your main point, TildenThorne. A person who knows true North would be 'better' at Navigation than someone who doesn't know true North and an arguably 'better' navigator than someone who needs to use tools to find the same...

But ultimately, unless you (as DM) plan a lot of overworld travel for the player to actually USE that information, it's not handy at all...

so I guess I don't see the issue?

 

[TildenThorne]

You actually seem to understand my point rather well, maybe the description of my solution messed things up. My solution for adding a line to an offending bit of text is a "quick" solution for a problem that exists, it would be better had the situation never existed (i.e. as in the offending bit of fluff was never penned).

A real life example from a current game is this (maybe it will help): In a certain game system, animism is one of the main magic systems offered. The animism system centers around two skills: 1) The first skill exists to help you see, communicate and interact with the spirit world, 2) The second actually allows you to make spirits do your bidding. In these rules, skill #1 (the perception based one) takes time: between 1 hour and 1 action (depending on organization level) to see spirits and 1 hour and 1 round to converse with them. This is all fine! Great in fact as it keeps animism feeling like... Well, animism. The problem begins here. The designers of the game put out a supplement (as game designers do), this supplement had a character background option which allows one who has it... The ability to see AND speak with spirits AT-WILL. Which really creates some questions with the skill process I outlined above... Like... It circumvents a vast majority of one of the skills use! When I approached the developer, they told me this was not intended to be used as such and that there was no problem. I found this answer a bit odd considering my entire game group saw the same issue without coaching (thus they found it on their own). In the above mentioned supplement, the training of the characters as an animist, initially brings those times to 1 round to observe and 1 minute to speak... Which is far slower the instantly and whenever you wish.

In the above example, a bit of fluff offered what truly seems as a benefit... As part of a sub-system which can (though not always) provide a statistical benefit. My players (myself included) found the wording to be "clearly" misleading when compared to the expressed opinion by the designers. Now, the above example is but a recent find in a long history of these issues, so please do not just focus on the example offered. I have been purposefully obscure about system names and exact wordings because I am after no ones ire here.

I hope this may have helped... If not ask more questions and I will use my own limited skills to try and explain myself better

 

[Random Axe]

TildenThorne, it also seems to me, that you are seeing conflict or confusion where you don't really need to. From what you describe above, I don't interpret "AT WILL" to mean "INSTANTLY". The time involved to see spirits or converse with them in this supplemental rule doesn't seem to be necessarily negated by this new background. It would still take time to trance out and peer into the spirit world, or call on the spirits once detected, and wait for them to respond... perhaps this special background bypasses the need to build up that particular "skill level" (I don't know what game system you are referencing, so I don't know what two rulesets seem in conflict to you) or develop that particular talent tree, but then that would be the benefit of building your character with that special background.

Similarly, in the original example about always knowing the direction of north and always knowing distance traveled, well, just as you pointed out, YES any player SHOULD expect that ability to have a recognizable effect on game play. As a GM it is YOUR responsibility, assuming you agree with the player, to assign a game-mechanic-specific bonus to those kinds of skill uses. I don't see the problem with that. As a GM you have to interpret the rules in front of you, this seems just a part of that.

 

[TildenThorne]

The full text "The spirits have favoured you - even if you are Christian and do not believe in them. You can see them and they can see you. You cannot command them, but you can communicate with them. Whether they lie or not depends on whether you make a successful Superstition roll... is this power something you should keep secret or share?"

My problem is not the intent of the rule, nor how it may be viewed from different points of view. It stems from a clarity of language so as avoid understandable confusion. This is actually not a problem isolated to me... It gave rise to the acronyms of RAW and RAI. I am simply asking game designers to be simple and clear in their language. Again, do not simply focus on the particular example... You will miss the point. Focus on the issue I described as it relates to said issue.

The above example from the unnamed game could be easily fixed with a line similar to what I wrote in my OP... "This ability is largely absorbed into the training of a druid or laece and the player is free to re-roll if they are playing such a character."

Again, any potential confusion is eliminated in a single line. A huge amount of 5e even seemed to focus on clean, clear language that leaves little room for interpretation. When a rule was found to cause confusion, they seemed to move quickly to publicly fix the confusion... Eventually even (often) making changes in new hard copies.

I am not making an issue of any particular rule here... That is something that always is forgotten once an example is offered. I am speaking of HOW one words a bit of fluff of rules... It is important, especially to beginning gamers. When rules seem misleading, they get bothered. 10 gamers play in my group... almost evenly split between VERY casual and VERY hardcore. 4 hardcore players asked me about this option and 3 casual ones did (they are a sharp bunch... many of who wanted to be animists).

Has that made my request anymore clear?

P.S. Even in your response you attached "Trance" (which is a skill in the game) when no reference is offered to the skill in the language I posted. You can have the background event without the skill and nothing in the event says it takes any time... In fact THAT is exactly were the language gets REALLY murky... But keep in mind... I am only talking about the "language" of any given rule... Not the validity NOR intent of ANY particular rule.

 

[TildenThorne]

To offer another example many may remember... 5e had an issue a lot like this with the "Polearm Master" feat and people making whole builds around aspects of the rule never intended to be there.

 

[GMMichael]

TT: thanks for a post written to the underappreciated, fifth-wheel of ENworld users! Your cry has been heard. I'd like to add that those designers not putting forth the effort to check for these types of rules owe us lots of playtesting, which should also help hammer out the kinks. Personally, I do this on a weekly basis.

I don't interpret "AT WILL" to mean "INSTANTLY"... As a GM it is YOUR responsibility, assuming you agree with the player, to assign a game-mechanic-specific bonus to those kinds of skill uses. I don't see the problem with that. As a GM you have to interpret the rules in front of you, this seems just a part of that.

Let's observe that a very common use of the term, "FIRE AT WILL," includes "instantly" along with "when a shot is available."

Ultimately, the rules wrangling is up to the GM. That does not stop players, though, from recognizing that they are at the mercy of the GM unless they can utilize the black-and-white rules to their fullest advantage. So rules still need to be written in the manner that Tilden requests: to keep players from feeling slighted.

 

[TildenThorne]

^ All I was saying... Thank you sir! Just one of those little things that helps game night go nice and smooth

 

[1of3]

Game Designers,


Example: From above "The character knows which direction is north and how far they have travelled from their previous position. Characters skilled in navigation are taught this as part of the skill and no further benefit is gained."

Problem no longer exists. Nobody will become confused... And my night running the game... Just got a whole lot easier. So game designers...

But then, why write it down in the first place?

 

[TildenThorne]

^ I went over that as well in my responses... In reference to the offending rule that started the thread, I also added the bit "The player is free to re-roll if playing such a character."... I believe that should address your concern