Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

[The Shadow]

This treads dangerous close to illusionism again. You're just dancing around "those people want to be lied to" again, and that's where it usually turns insulting. There has got to be some way to make whatever this point is without suggesting that it's flawed.

Not in the least! It's not like "suspension of disbelief" is an oddity or anything, or that writers of fiction don't work at fostering it! I'm not even trying to identify flaws, I'm trying to describe.

I mean, if you want to insist that "fiction is lying", you'd be in company with Plato, certainly, but I daresay he wouldn't approve of RPGs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 real advantage of demi-humans, and really specifically elves and half-elves, is simply multi-classing. AD&D MCing is so huge, unless you just have really crap ability scores, its ALWAYS advantageous to be 2 classes. It takes about 2x the XP to advance, but that just puts you one level behind, and in return you get to CAST SPELLS IN ARMOR!!!!! I mean, I can be a wizard that can also melee, what could be better? The various 'elf bonuses' are just icing on the cake. I mean, honestly, its just basically "I can be a fighter/magic-user". Fighter/Thief might be OK too, but its not really 'wow better'.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a conclusion, not a premise.

I didn't say it was a First Principal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or if you know (or at least think you know) how to somewhat-seamlessly merge the fantastic into the realistic. This has always been my goal in theory, though I've never got closer than a rather long way from it in practice.

Did I not say someone would bring up "magical elf-game" in an attempt to discredit a simulationist point of view?

 

[The Shadow]

The real advantage of demi-humans, and really specifically elves and half-elves, is simply multi-classing.

Got it in one! The multiclass advantage is simply overwhelming. It's kind of surprising to me that I don't recall hearing of anyone just saying, "Heck, let's let humans multiclass too!"

I mean, honestly, its just basically "I can be a fighter/magic-user". Fighter/Thief might be OK too, but its not really 'wow better'.

Don't forget my single favorite combination, the gnomish thief-illusionist! Good grief, I had so much fun with that!

 

[loverdrive]

What I wonder about is if your apparent separating out of the 'rules part' and the 'fiction part' is really the best approach.

Oh, certainly it isn't the best approach. It's just one I'm most enamored with.

I'm a radical at heart, and I prefer jumping all the way in and then backing up (down? I'm not sure how this verb is constructed) a few steps rather than incrementally move forward.

This is basically how D&D combat generally works in most games, people invoke character abilities, make attacks, etc. and do all the 'dice stuff' AND THEN retroactively introduce some fiction, which is sadly elided in probably a majority of cases

Yeah, pretty much, but D&D combat is both boring and slow, which makes it way too cumbersome as an outcome generation mechanism, and invidiual blow-to-blow resolution gives binary outcomes with set in stone results.

The benefits of going all the way are twofold, as I see it:

First, it allows for creating designs that would be impossible or cumbersome from fiction. Translation to fiction, though, must be as straightforward as possible (so, if D&D combat had an "outcome table", where depending on, say, times a PC got knocked into 0 HP, the rough outline of an outcome is provided).

As an example, let's imagine a Wild West game derived from mine LOVECRAFT IS DEAD:

1. There are two players, each representing a certain aspect of a single Gunslinger character. Let's say, Justice and Vengeance.
2. They alternate in establishing a fictional situation, informed by a prompt (e.g.: Betrayal, Corruption) given by the system.
3. After the situation is established, they play a mini-game where they have to press a button the moment the bell rings for a high noon (representing two halves of the Gunslinger having a metaphorical wild west duel inside her head)
4. Whoever wins, narrates how the Gunslinger acts, driven by the player's aspect and what outcome it leads to.
5. Repeat from step 1, building upon previous scenes.

Here, nothing gets translated from fiction into the mechanics, and there's no viable way to make such translation anyway, but the system still acts as an oracle and feeds into the collaborative storytelling process.

Second, it allows for more free expression, as I talked about before: when everything has an equal chance of success, you might as well do something cool, something that you wouldn't do if there was a mechanically better option.

Maybe it might involve some 'ability scores' that measure your most core strengths and weaknesses, and some sort of statements about your motives, personality, and areas of expertise! The GM can now use that to decide which actions get the 1-in-3 success treatment, and which don't, and what sort of consequences might be appropriate given the character's nature.

Maybe. I view "20 Strength" and "Strong as a mountain" as practically interchangeable when it comes to conveying meaning.

But, using this "character sheet" to change how things are resolved kinda defeats the purpose: you'll still end up with plenty of situations where doing something tried and true will be more effective than doing something cool. The point is to give control to the player, so they can use their judgement of what will work and what won't.

At that point you might as well go for a more robust system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, certainly it isn't the best approach. It's just one I'm most enamored with.

I'm a radical at heart, and I prefer jumping all the way in and then backing up (down? I'm not sure how this verb is constructed) a few steps rather than incrementally move forward.

Ah, yes, sometimes I forget English is not your first language

Yeah, pretty much, but D&D combat is both boring and slow, which makes it way too cumbersome as an outcome generation mechanism, and invidiual blow-to-blow resolution gives binary outcomes with set in stone results.

The benefits of going all the way are twofold, as I see it:

First, it allows for creating designs that would be impossible or cumbersome from fiction. Translation to fiction, though, must be as straightforward as possible (so, if D&D combat had an "outcome table", where depending on, say, times a PC got knocked into 0 HP, the rough outline of an outcome is provided).

As an example, let's imagine a Wild West game derived from mine LOVECRAFT IS DEAD:

1. There are two players, each representing a certain aspect of a single Gunslinger character. Let's say, Justice and Vengeance.
2. They alternate in establishing a fictional situation, informed by a prompt (e.g.: Betrayal, Corruption) given by the system.
3. After the situation is established, they play a mini-game where they have to press a button the moment the bell rings for a high noon (representing two halves of the Gunslinger having a metaphorical wild west duel inside her head)
4. Whoever wins, narrates how the Gunslinger acts, driven by the player's aspect and what outcome it leads to.
5. Repeat from step 1, building upon previous scenes.

Here, nothing gets translated from fiction into the mechanics, and there's no viable way to make such translation anyway, but the system still acts as an oracle and feeds into the collaborative storytelling process.

Second, it allows for more free expression, as I talked about before: when everything has an equal chance of success, you might as well do something cool, something that you wouldn't do if there was a mechanically better option.



Maybe. I view "20 Strength" and "Strong as a mountain" as practically interchangeable when it comes to conveying meaning.

But, using this "character sheet" to change how things are resolved kinda defeats the purpose: you'll still end up with plenty of situations where doing something tried and true will be more effective than doing something cool. The point is to give control to the player, so they can use their judgement of what will work and what won't.

At that point you might as well go for a more robust system.

I do understand what you are getting at. I'm not sure how I feel about it exactly. I want somewhat consistent depiction though. So what I might be proposing in this context would be a system where you HAVE descriptors, but you simply use them as RP prompts, or fiction prompts. In other words I'm strong, so I am going to describe a lot of uses of strength to get out of situations. MECHANICALLY that could be meaningless, yes. Now we really on sheer principles of play to produce an understandable character. It is certainly an RP technique. I'm not sure how much it is a game, though obviously mechanics of some simple sort can definitely exist...

 

[loverdrive]

I'm not sure how much it is a game, though obviously mechanics of some simple sort can definitely exist...

The G part of RPG can be packaged into the resolution mechanic, creating a strong whole, while separately both are weak.

And even if it's not really a game, I don't see a problem with that. I, personally, adore Blades in the Dark, but I'm not entirely sure how much of a game it is: after all, I've been playing it for a couple of years now, and I can't exactly say I've got "better", "more skillful" at it.

 

[The Shadow]

And even if it's not really a game, I don't see a problem with that. I, personally, adore Blades in the Dark, but I'm not entirely sure how much of a game it is: after all, I've been playing it for a couple of years now, and I can't exactly say I've got "better", "more skillful" at it.

Is it of the essence of a game that one gets better at it?

I looked up a dictionary definition just now, the one Google gave me was:

a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.

'A form of play...', check.

'...especially a competitive one...', no check, but the definition does acknowledge that it isn't a requirement.

'according to rules,' check.

'...and decided by skill, strength, or luck.' RPGs are usually decided by some combination of skill and luck, the exact ratio depending on the game. (At least, I haven't heard of one decided by strength!)

Granted that skill is involved in play, must play develop skill? I can think of games, generally those involving hand-eye coordination, at which I have remained singularly inept despite some degree of effort. (I'm blind in one eye and have terrible vision in the other.) They are still games despite that.

 

[Pedantic]

Granted that skill is involved in play, must play develop skill? I can think of games, generally those involving hand-eye coordination, at which I have remained singularly inept despite some degree of effort. (I'm blind in one eye and have terrible vision in the other.) They are still games despite that.

There is pretty muted debate in hobby board gaming about "what is a game?" these days, because everyone realized it was largely a waste of time when we could be determining what kind of games we actually liked and playing them. Pure luck is pretty generally frowned on, as is anything that doesn't take player decisions into account when producing different outcomes, but that's about all anyone is willing to call "not a game" when pressed.

However, once you add a qualifier, like "hobbiest game," "euro game," "strategy game," or even the vague "gamer's game" you'll get a very different set of criteria. Randomness is still divisive, but on aggregate players will expect to get better with repeated plays and will expect more than one strategy to offer a route to victory. Press a little harder, and victory will probably give way to "producing interesting board states" and something about allowing ludic expression through player decision making.

Basically, everyone concedes there is no generally accepted absolute definition of "a game", but there is a significant utility in suggesting some games are gamier than others. Tic-Tac-Toe qualifies for most any basic definition of game, but played "well" is a scripted set of call and responses that does not allow for player agency or expression.

This gets muddled in TTRPGs, because players have narrative agency (and character expression), in addition to the ludic agency/expression board games offer, and there's a tendency to conflate the two, something that should very much be avoided. There is, meaningfully, more game in a round of Catan than Tic-Tac-Toe, and (for most definitions) even more game in a round of Hansa Teutonica than Catan. A roleplaying game that is resolved entirely by flipping coins is less of a game than one that offers a wide range of player actions with different chances of success.