Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On Behavioral Realism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7954203" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I think that there is a huge hole in this thesis and it has to do with the difference between modelling the physical skills of a player character versus modeling the mental skills of a player character.</p><p></p><p>If you have a physical skill like "jump" or "run", then a the players physical skill is completely unrelated to that. No matter what the physical capabilities are of a player, in a table top RPG they don't extend into the imagined universe (they could if we were running a combat LARP of some sort). The players ability to run can't influence how the character runs, jumps, or swings a sword.</p><p></p><p>The same is not true of mental abilities, including social abilities. No matter what the mental capabilities are of the player character, the player's mental abilities always extend into the game universe. A player that lacks good judgment will have a very hard time playing a character that has good judgment. A player that isn't a humerus wit, will have a very hard time playing a character that is one. A player with poor memory and reasoning skills will have a very hard time playing a character with great intelligence. We can sort of help the character along, but it is absolutely important to realize that not only can we not fully bridge this gap through some sort of simulation of mental and social abilities, but we would not want to. If in fact we could fully simulate the mental abilities of the player character, then the game would cease to be a game and become a simulation. The player character would make it's own choices based on dice rolls, and the player would cease to be a player and become an observer of the character only.</p><p></p><p>So it is absolutely important to understand that there is a difference between the goals we have for the game with respect to physical abilities of the character and mental abilities of the character. For example, for the game Pendragon there is no 'Intelligence' score for a a character at all. It should not be inferred from this that problem solving or making intelligent choices is deprecated as core goal of game play.</p><p></p><p>Combat abilities and athletic abilities are not easy to model in an imagined game world, but they are easier and less information dense than mental abilities and social abilities. Most RPG systems have some degree of what I call 'cinematic experience' as a core goal of game play. By that I mean that they want the experience of play to tend to produce a transcript in the player's mind which resembles a movie. That is to say, when the players have a fight with a monster, they want the player to imagine the sequence of exciting events that transpired as the players fought the monster. When trying to achieve a cinematic experience in combat, it aids the imagination of the players if various concrete events happen during the fight - someone throws a spear, someone is bitten, somone is hurled to the ground, a healer heals someone, a caster hurls some magic, or whatever. Different systems go into different levels of granularity to help achieve this concretely imaginable result that is the exciting transcript of combat. The idea is to as closely as possible realize the imagined fight without going into so much bookkeeping it distracts from the excitement of the event by becoming the most salient play activity. </p><p></p><p>What about social abilities? What thing can we do at the table that most resembles social interaction and is most cinematic in the same way combat rules achieve cinematic results? The answer turns out to be social interaction. The thing that is most like a scene in a movie where characters talk, for whatever reason that they talk, is simply acting out the scene by talking. It turns out that quite the opposite of what happens with combat, the more rules simulation that you add to a social conflict, the less it actually produces a transcript of dialogue and the less it resembles the thing you are trying to simulate. Social interaction is in fact the most cinematic way to simulate social interaction.</p><p></p><p>So what this means is that there turns out to be almost no direct relationship between how many rules you have for adjudicating social interaction and how much the game intends for social RP to be a central pillar of play. And in fact, in my experience the game designers that have gone all in with the intention of making social interaction the central pillar of play by sort of intuitively taking the sort of rules we have for combat systems and creating social combat systems complete with maneuvers, reputation points, and simulated social combat actually end up creating an incoherent system where social interaction is minimized in importance. After all, if social interaction is simulated as combat, then the transcript of play resembles combat by other means and not actual role play. All that is really need for a game that involves a lot of social interaction is thinking about the game being about social interaction and making that rewarding. As far as rules go, I've never seen anything actually be more effective than just a simple test to see if a proposition challenging an NPC's beliefs (or sometimes a PC's beliefs) worked and maybe to what degree. Anything more than that actually detracts from social focused play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7954203, member: 4937"] I think that there is a huge hole in this thesis and it has to do with the difference between modelling the physical skills of a player character versus modeling the mental skills of a player character. If you have a physical skill like "jump" or "run", then a the players physical skill is completely unrelated to that. No matter what the physical capabilities are of a player, in a table top RPG they don't extend into the imagined universe (they could if we were running a combat LARP of some sort). The players ability to run can't influence how the character runs, jumps, or swings a sword. The same is not true of mental abilities, including social abilities. No matter what the mental capabilities are of the player character, the player's mental abilities always extend into the game universe. A player that lacks good judgment will have a very hard time playing a character that has good judgment. A player that isn't a humerus wit, will have a very hard time playing a character that is one. A player with poor memory and reasoning skills will have a very hard time playing a character with great intelligence. We can sort of help the character along, but it is absolutely important to realize that not only can we not fully bridge this gap through some sort of simulation of mental and social abilities, but we would not want to. If in fact we could fully simulate the mental abilities of the player character, then the game would cease to be a game and become a simulation. The player character would make it's own choices based on dice rolls, and the player would cease to be a player and become an observer of the character only. So it is absolutely important to understand that there is a difference between the goals we have for the game with respect to physical abilities of the character and mental abilities of the character. For example, for the game Pendragon there is no 'Intelligence' score for a a character at all. It should not be inferred from this that problem solving or making intelligent choices is deprecated as core goal of game play. Combat abilities and athletic abilities are not easy to model in an imagined game world, but they are easier and less information dense than mental abilities and social abilities. Most RPG systems have some degree of what I call 'cinematic experience' as a core goal of game play. By that I mean that they want the experience of play to tend to produce a transcript in the player's mind which resembles a movie. That is to say, when the players have a fight with a monster, they want the player to imagine the sequence of exciting events that transpired as the players fought the monster. When trying to achieve a cinematic experience in combat, it aids the imagination of the players if various concrete events happen during the fight - someone throws a spear, someone is bitten, somone is hurled to the ground, a healer heals someone, a caster hurls some magic, or whatever. Different systems go into different levels of granularity to help achieve this concretely imaginable result that is the exciting transcript of combat. The idea is to as closely as possible realize the imagined fight without going into so much bookkeeping it distracts from the excitement of the event by becoming the most salient play activity. What about social abilities? What thing can we do at the table that most resembles social interaction and is most cinematic in the same way combat rules achieve cinematic results? The answer turns out to be social interaction. The thing that is most like a scene in a movie where characters talk, for whatever reason that they talk, is simply acting out the scene by talking. It turns out that quite the opposite of what happens with combat, the more rules simulation that you add to a social conflict, the less it actually produces a transcript of dialogue and the less it resembles the thing you are trying to simulate. Social interaction is in fact the most cinematic way to simulate social interaction. So what this means is that there turns out to be almost no direct relationship between how many rules you have for adjudicating social interaction and how much the game intends for social RP to be a central pillar of play. And in fact, in my experience the game designers that have gone all in with the intention of making social interaction the central pillar of play by sort of intuitively taking the sort of rules we have for combat systems and creating social combat systems complete with maneuvers, reputation points, and simulated social combat actually end up creating an incoherent system where social interaction is minimized in importance. After all, if social interaction is simulated as combat, then the transcript of play resembles combat by other means and not actual role play. All that is really need for a game that involves a lot of social interaction is thinking about the game being about social interaction and making that rewarding. As far as rules go, I've never seen anything actually be more effective than just a simple test to see if a proposition challenging an NPC's beliefs (or sometimes a PC's beliefs) worked and maybe to what degree. Anything more than that actually detracts from social focused play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On Behavioral Realism
Top