Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Bedrockgames]

I GM much more often than I play.

But the last two times I've played, the moments where I've held my breath as dice are rolled have been social, not combat. (In my Burning Wheel play I think there might be one combat every two or three sessions.) I (as my PC) tried to persuade my brother to throw off the yoke of his "master" (an as-yet unidentified NPC) and join me in restoring our family to its rightful place and status; I rolled the Command dice; and failed. My brother turned his face away, and rode off in his cart to complete the errand his master had sent him on.

For me, resolving that as a puzzle (eg what leverage can I use to turn my brother from loyalty to the master back to loyalty to family) would have been an uninspiring experience. Trying to persuade him, and then seeing the dice land as they did, was more like a slap in the face. It stung: just like in a real world interaction that goes badly, there was the sense of what might have been, but wasn't to be.

Sure, I can see how you can build suspense and tension with dice in a social interaction. What I am saying is just a guess as to why there is a sense among some people that they are fine with combat needing mechanics but may not feel social interactions need mechanics. I think there is probably a lot of stuff that goes into the reasons. The expectation that combat have a kind of gambling excitement to me, struck me as a possibility. But that isn't to say others aren't going to want the same from social mechanics.

Thinking about this a little deeper I think where I come from with it, is combat is something I would rather not have mechanics for at all if there were a method that could capture the same organic free flowing approach to social interaction that would resonate with me in combat. Fundamentally the state of play you have in free form social interaction is my preferred state in an RPG overall (with moments of randomness of course to heighten the excitement and unpredictability. I use initiative for example. even though I can't stand its impact on the flow of things. It immediately changes the feel of play and creates a sense that we are in another game space for me. But I use it because when I have tried to do freeform, no initiative combat, when it works its great, but it only seemed to work for a small number of players (if I had a table of players who all got how to interject their actions without an initiative order, and we all gelled, it was brilliant, but 70 percent of the time that wasn't the case, and you'd usually have at least 1-2 players getting seriously tripped up by the lack of initiative order). Whereas I find I don't run into as many problems on the social interaction end of keeping things freeform and organic. And that is just initiative. And I find things are much more contested for me in combat. If someone says they stab my character with a knife, my mind isn't really sure if they would hit me or not. I feel I do need that random element (even if it were just something as gimmicky as the player needing to land a nerf ball in a nerf hoop at the table). Whereas in a social interaction I feel a lot more confident about how another character's words are going to land with my character.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Those dramatic places are indeed the point. In PbtA and similar games (I think Hillfolk applies here, I'm only familiar with it because you've mentioned it and I looked into it a bit!) everything is meant to be in service to those dramatic points. I'm playing Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) and my character has Harmony as his instinct. His sense of Harmony is constantly being challenged or brought up during play. Can he find a harmonious solution? Is there something for which he'd set Harmony aside? That's what play is about.

Hillfolk is great. Like I said it does have a kind of metacurrency that applies to shifting the balance in some social situations, but I find the way it works is largely in the background and non-obtrusive (and when it does intrude, the trade off is worth it in my opinion). One reason I love HIllfolk, is I think Laws is a very good writer and wonderful at explaining concepts that could be difficult to convey in an RPG. Hillfolk, to me, felt like being immersed in one of those classic miniseries we used to get in the 70s and 80s (I, Claudius, Shogun, Jesus of Nazareth, Roots, etc). It would work great for more modern shows too like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.

So I have a question and it is sincere.... do you think this is because most players are perfectly fine to just kind of play along to the GM's story?

I don't mean that as an insult. I played that way for many years and loved quite a bit of it. I still play that way at times. Just not all the time. It's a perfectly fun way to play.

Sorry I missed this question before.

This isn't how I would see it in the games I run. I'm not a fan of playing along with the GMs story on either side of the screen. I don' think it is generally the case either (because combat outcomes could also be part of a story the GM has in mind). Also in a lot of the groups I have played in where the style was "figure out what the GM has planned for the story", those groups also seemed to have less trouble than I did with social mechanics. I think some people are just more trusting of people 'reporting' their reaction to dialogue than we are to them determining whether a bullet hits its target. I think part of that is if I have an interaction with an NPC and PC, if there is any question on the players part about why the NPC reacted the way he or she did, it is pretty easy for me to explain why and for the players to see the logic or lack of logic behind it. Where's with a bullet, I don't think that is as intuitive and it is also usually am much more contested thing to boot. I can give reasons, but people have a sense that there is an X factor when you bring physics into it I think (not that there aren't x factors in in social interactions, but they feel more easy to hand wave than for combat to me). Another reason may also be that in the case of the bullet I am not just deciding of NPCs, I am deciding for them too. So me saying the bullet hits you will naturally lead to 'but I am taking cover'. Personally as a GM, that is something I feel like I need to roll for. In dialogue sequences players are in full control of their characters minds and words, and I am in full control of the NPCs mind and words. I don't feel the need to roll for that, and that interaction is a fun part of the game for me. If we reverse those things, I am suddenly having less fun and struggling to make sense of combat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Even something as simple as fighting on gravel can change the certainty of a process non-trivially. Or the fact someone slept badly the night before. Naturally when the issue is clear-cut enough this will be moved up a step and function as modifiers, but the GM is unlikely to micromanage things enough to represent the sleep example, or more limited versions of the gravel example (where there's loose patch on the mountain trail but the whole trail isn't loose). That's the sort of below-the-radar thing a lot of randomness represents.

Sure, I think its fair to say that forgone conclusions are not the sort of thing that we want to come up in play anyway!

That's usually more about the secondary mechanic of hit point elevation, though. Hit point elevation isn't a model used much outside of D&D. Set those two fighters at the same hit points (which, after all, could happen if the 4th level fighter just rolled consistently crappy as he levelled) and the differences are much less significant. The 4th level fighter just isn't that much better that it can't get drowned out in the D20 swing. The only reason he can be expected to do so reliably in the normal case is that the D&D hit point model actually emphasizes defense much more strongly than offense in progression (back in the day at least), so the 4th level fighter can take four hits to the first level's one.

Sure, but so what? I mean, just looking at a d20, you have a possibility of 20:1 against you and 1:20 for you. If one single toss of the dice decides everything, that's still 94% defeat, 5% victory, and 1% ties (roughly). That seems FAIRLY lop-sided. I mean, a requirement to toss 3 dice and get 3 sixes would mean you would win 1 in 216 times, less than with the d20, but still in terms of what games care about both are "you won't do this often." So, I agree in principle that a plain old d20 can't produce very low success probability outcomes on its own. I'm just not sure it matters, and I'd generally think you want more chances than one anyway.

So, yes, D&D models things with 2 numbers, but it still gets to the same point. Beyond that, offense generally DOES grow for fighters, though usually in a more step-wise fashion (IE you get a magic item that adds a big increment of damage bonus at some point). Obviously D&D fighters are a bit of a bodge too, they really don't have a very good incremental damage increase mechanism that is built in (there are bonus attacks, but they too are very big discrete steps at only a few levels).

I didn't use RQ as an example by coincidence; you don't have a secondary process to hide behind in the system, and the range of capability is relatively compressed. A fighting type with his relevant skills at 75% and his opponent at 50% (a fairly significant difference by the standards of the system) have about a 37.5% and a 12.5% chance of landing a successful attack respectively (because of the interactive nature of attack and defense). In other respects they aren't likely to be radically different; the 75% fighter might have a couple more points of armor, but that isn't even a given.

This isn't radically different from the model a number of games use, except that often there defense value is a flat one rather than a roll. So my point that there's still a big difference between a linear die and a multiple die approach still applies.

[Sometimes there's a different sort of secondary mechanism in the form of some kind of metacurrency, but how that's implemented varies so much that its difficult to say whether it makes the gap between skill levels more pronounced or less).

I'm not sure what it is in your RQ example that wouldn't be very similar in many D&D fights. I mean, I will agree with you that some systems model things such that modest changes in a skill (or something similar) will produce non-linearly better odds of success. This should be pretty easy to achieve in a d20 or similar system, you simply need to apply it through some sort of mechanics (IE a non-linear skill bonus or something like that).

 

[Campbell]

So obviously the language we use to describe a particular phenomenon or experience is important. A big issue in our discussions is universalizing both experiences and preferences.

When people say things like the point of roleplaying games is to feel like you are there in the moment and you do not understand what people value about roleplaying games that's universalizing preferences.

When people say things like social mechanics are not needed or detract from the experience of feeling like you are there in the moment you are universalizing your experiences, often without acknowledging the full breadth of how different social mechanics work. A lot of the language used seems to be shaming people who find value in these things to help them feel like their character in the moment. Of course no one needs anything. We can all roleplay with no rules whatsoever. However there is no shame in using whatever tools you have available that help you get to where you need to be. This is hard stuff, no matter how you do it. We'll probably all fall short, but there is a lot of value in grasping regardless of how we go about it.

Some of this probably comes down to different standards, different sorts of social interactions and how integral social stuff is to the play experience. In both more traditional games and Story Now fare the vast majority of my play experience involves what 5e would call the social pillar. Like 90%+. It also focuses on relationships and deeply personal stuff more often than not. In roughly 6 months of weekly Deadlands play we have not gone on one traditional adventure. We have had maybe 6 violent altercations and used the full combat system 3-4 times. Tons of tense social scenes though.

For my needs I don't just need social scenes to work well when we're all fresh, engaged and on our A games. I need this stuff to still work when we are on the tailwind of a 4-5 hour session where we have been doing social scenes like for 3+ hours. Every session.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So obviously the language we use to describe a particular phenomenon or experience is important. A big issue in our discussions is universalizing both experiences and preferences.

When people say things like the point of roleplaying games is to feel like you are there in the moment and you do not understand what people value about roleplaying games that's universalizing preferences.

When people say things like social mechanics are not needed or detract from the experience of feeling like you are there in the moment you are universalizing your experiences, often without acknowledging the full breadth of how different social mechanics work. A lot of the language used seems to be shaming people who find value in these things to help them feel like their character in the moment. Of course no one needs anything. We can all roleplay with no rules whatsoever. However there is no shame in using whatever tools you have available that help you get to where you need to be. This is hard stuff, no matter how you do it. We'll probably all fall short, but there is a lot of value in grasping regardless of how we go about it.

I think good faith and follow up questions can go a long way here. There are people who will universalize these things, and there are people who conflate their preferences with how things ought to be. Throughout this thread I've tried to make clear that I am talking about what takes me out of the moment personally, versus what I think are reasons some people might prefer mechanics for combat but no mechanics for social interaction. In some cases though you sleep into casual language.

In terms of the whole 'point of roleplaying'. I don't think that is ever very fruitful in topics. Its why I don't like proscriptive definitions in these discussions either. Im happy to say why I game, but I think when we start setting up what the point of gaming is or what the meaning of the three letters in RPG amount to, it gets very prescriptive and is usually just used to hold up this style or that style of play. It is a broad medium that gets used in lots of different ways.

When it comes to shaming a style of play, I tend to look at what someone's intentions seem to be. We generally are going to paint our style in positive language and styles we don't get or dislike in more neutral potentially negative language. I try not to, but even when I was bringing up the Sherlock Holmes example it occurred to me I was describing my preferred style as "Being Sherlock Holmes" (still I find that a useful way to describe the distinction I've noticed in preference). I don't think you are ever going to see a universal lexicon around play style, adventure structure, because things have all sprouted from numerous different pots.

 

[loverdrive]

I mean, it's obvious, the point of roleplaying is to take hot skinny goth guys home after the session.

They keep getting older, tho...

 

[Manbearcat]

I find the starting point of these conversations extremely difficult.

1) I run games. I want them to be games. I want the game aspect to be front-and-center. I want the gamestate to be moved by players playing and interacting with me, with each other, and with system. I want success/failure/the shared fiction to rise and fall on the intersection of this stuff which is very "game primacy" lets say.

2) I'm also a person in meat-space. Despite how confident and assertive I might play at being (or actually be...who knows), I realize that I am not remotely sovereign in any social situation that counts. I'm bound by several external and internal inputs (from endocrine system to unconscious processing to past trauma and rote behavior regime born of it) and there is nothing I can do about it (if I'm even aware of it). My perceived autonomy doesn't remotely match up to my very finite actual autonomy. An NPC or a PC that acts entirely outside of the scope of this very limited sovereignty/autonomy is not remotely compelling to me nor is it relatable. Social environments/conflicts where you're in total control and get to decide outcomes and modulate stakes at your discretion couldn't be less interesting to me.

---

So how do I engage on these subjects when folks' approaches to 1 and/or 2 differs from mine so deeply.

I really have no idea.

But I do know that (1) and (2) are foundational to the divide on social mechanics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2) I'm also a person in meat-space. Despite how confident and assertive I might play at being (or actually be...who knows), I realize that I am not remotely sovereign in any social situation that counts. I'm bound by several external and internal inputs (from endocrine system to unconscious processing to past trauma and rote behavior regime born of it) and there is nothing I can do about it (if I'm even aware of it). My perceived autonomy doesn't remotely match up to my very finite actual autonomy. An NPC or a PC that acts entirely outside of the scope of this very limited sovereignty/autonomy is not remotely compelling to me nor is it relatable. Social environments/conflicts where you're in total control and get to decide outcomes and modulate stakes at your discretion couldn't be less interesting to me.

It is a whole other topic but I think humans can both have things like hormones, past experience, etc that impact their impulses and thoughts, and still have a will and an ability to choose what they do with those impulses. Again, deep topic, but I don't know that we should sacrifice the idea of free will in a game discussion so freely Probably a topic for another thread though lol

That said, I don't think the is a point that can be readily dismissed. People do have impulses, some people have issues controlling those impulses, people do have mental scars, and physical conditions that impact their mind. You either hand wave that or fold it all in somehow. I think giving NPCs flaws that help drive their decisions is something entirely appropriate when you are making NPCs (and something that ought to be factored into their decision making). Appropriate for PCs too. When people interact they usually aren't logic machines, how tired they are, how hungry, how much pain they are in, what their natural impulses are, etc those are all going to factor in. This is one of the reasons lots of games have character flaws (and usually mechanics to see those flaws are something the character can hold in check). Flaws and things like horror or fear checks, those obviously get different reactions from some people (a lot of gamers who share my sensibilities express a dislike of losing control of their character through these things). But even though I value social interaction and am not big on social mechanics, I view these mechanics as fair and highly plausible.

Some people simply don't want to deal with all that though, so they are content to just eyeball how much that stuff is weighing on a PC or NPC when the character makes a choice (for example if I know my NPC is stressed because his organization is losing a conflict with another, I'm probably going to play him a little differently: even if there isn't any deep mechanical tissue to that aspect of play).

 

[Bedrockgames]

1) I run games. I want them to be games. I want the game aspect to be front-and-center. I want the gamestate to be moved by players playing and interacting with me, with each other, and with system. I want success/failure/the shared fiction to rise and fall on the intersection of this stuff which is very "game primacy" lets say.

I like some elements of this. I wouldn't say it is front and center but one of the reasons I hated linear, CR driven adventures in the d20 era was they were so predictable and so much of the system seemed built around reducing the unexpected surprise that comes with it being a game (there were less 'things can turn on a dime' in the rolls it felt to me). So there are definitely areas of the game where I want this: having the possibility of a character unexpectedly falling to his death crossing a bridge at the start of an adventure is something that I kind of enjoy because it raises the stakes of the whole experience. It is also why I enjoy things like encounter tables and other random elements in play.

 

[pemerton]

Why don't the GM describe the pitiable and terrified look of the innkeeper, why don't you know how your character would react to that?

The innkeeper was unconscious at the time. I did decide how my PC would act - I decided to murder him. But then I found that I hesitated. In the fiction, the hesitation wasn't voluntary - it reflected that my character isn't as cold and ruthless as he thought he was. At the table, the hesitation wasn't voluntary either - it resulted from the failed Steel check.

How was it first determined that the characters were interested in this lady in the first place? Was that due the dice too? If not, why not?

I can't recall the details but I don't think dice were involved. As best I recall, she didn't seek to woo them. When NPCs have sought to woo or seduce a PC, then dice have been used. (Hence one of the PCs in this episode married - he couldn't say no to the lady in question, nor to her father - and later on became infatuated with someone else.)

Dice are a technique of resolution.