Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8992602" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I am still having trouble conceptualizing your analogy. If you know that your sword does D8 damage but you have no idea how much damage you have to do to win, isn't the game (in this case) about inflicting as much damage as possible while surviving long enough to win? For me, not knowing the optimal solution to the problem is fun. Otherwise, it's just math - why even run the encounter?You write that "a good RPG has a resolution mechanic for everything." The problem I see here is that having a resolution mechanic for everything is only possible if the resolution mechanic is so general that everything essentially becomes interpretive.So let's take Dread, which I love. There is one resolution mechanic: either you can pull a Jenga block, or you can't. The game definitely has a resolution mechanic for everything. But what does that mechanic mean, and how should it be applied? Does successfully pulling the block mean that you defeated this enemy, or just that you staved off death a bit longer? Does it mean that you made it to the top of the cliff, or that you made it halfway; pull again? Everything basically comes down to DM fiat, decided in the moment: "okay, you want to climb to safety? Let's say...pull one block to make it to the ledge halfway up, but if you want to keep going you will have to pull again, and that tower is getting pretty wobbly..."This broad resolution mechanic covers every situation and makes for great story-based TTRPG. But what it lacks is crunchy problem solving. D&D arguably has a resolution mechanic for every situation ("Make a skill check...") but these are often vague and potentially unsatisfying, depending on how good the DM and/or players are in the moment (Matt Mercer can make high entertainment out of a skill check; I usually cannot). However, D&D does offer much more specific rules for other situations, combat in particular, and this allows players to do a lot of crunchy problem solving. They don't just have a d8 sword, they have various other skills, abilities, spells, and so on that they can apply to an unexpected situation to solve their problem. This is similar to your second Traveller example.Are Traveller or D&D badly designed because their play space is so vast that they can't have a detailed resolution mechanic for every situation? Or is it good design in the sense that it offers "crunchy gaminess" in some situations while defaulting to whatever the DM can come up with in others, and assumes that human intelligence and imagination is likely to come up with something better than the rules can cover, thus preserving that vast play space?Where this thread started was an exploration of, essentially, whether D&D design relies too heavily on the referee rather than making better use of the other brains at the table. We are now wandering towards a discussion of the degree of rule crunch that is compatible with good RPG design, though these are related issues. I disagree with the notion that there is an optimal solution; this is going to come down to subjective taste and experience.Subjectively, I am more and more keen on playing a style of RPG that allows for maximum player agency to the degree that they desire it. As a natural DM, I pretty much always have story ideas percolating and am more than willing to assert narrative control. Too willing, perhaps.Edit: a lot of you guys know more than me, so if I misinterpret or misrepresent you, it is unintentional and please correct me. I have lots of ideas, but I am nowhere near the expert that, say [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] is. I tend to be a broad but somewhat shallow thinker.</blockquote>

Verification