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

[Lanefan]

Yeah, see, I don't personally consider "Spectacular because it randomly happens 1 time in 500." to be useful game design. The probability that said thing will happen at a really interesting moment in the game is not even 1 in 500, it is probably more like 1 in 1 million. Even if the odds are much better than that, its not really all that special when it is just luck of the dice. I want to DO something that is spectacular, not just witness it randomly happening. I'd much rather go with a design like 4e (or 5e for that matter) where if you want spectacular, you plan it out, work on it, set it up, and make it happen.

For me, if it's that planned out it becomes far less spectacular and far more a quasi-foregone conclusion. Fun to pull off, sure, but also much less exciting.

The spectacular comes when you're down to your last hit point and pull off that 1-in-200* critical hit that takes down the far-superior foe one segment before you'd have almost certainly met your end. (I've DMed this very situation, by the way, and it was truly awesome!)

The spectacular comes when you're fleeing a terrifying foe and have one chance of escape, that being to leap (against considerable odds) across a wide gap to a suspended cage above a large pit and hope the pursuer fails the same leap and falls. (I've DMed this one too, also awesome; though safely getting him back from the cage to solid ground later proved to be a challenge )

* - odds approximate, but 1/d20 followed by 1/d10 is, I think, 1 in 200.

Meh, well, I mean, if we're talking about tables to randomly generate stuff, that comes with its own different set of considerations. I don't have a big objection to a huge list of obscure possibilities. I'm of the opinion that most of the effort is wasted with resolvers of that type, but whatever. I'd note that nobody, not even Gygax, really used random treasure tables except as a kind of fill-in. You got Razor by actually going through the dungeon and finding it, there wasn't anything random about it. I expect the 'big name' magic items like high end staves, rods, holy swords, stuff like that were not generally earned by lucky dice rolls.

I use random magic item tables All. The. Time. as that's how I determine what's for sale in any given place at any given time the PCs happen to visit there and ask.

Excel (and a friend with good Excel-fu) for the win, baby!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think its even virtuous in a game sort of fashion, as it leads to degenerate processes.

I think there are reasons you would do it. One of the functions of a GM in that kind of game would be to squelch problems of that sort. It also assumes reasonably virtuous play. I'm thinking of a game, for example, that would let you model trying to climb Mt Everest for the first time. Make it very realistic! It should be workable and the challenges will be relevant and contextual simply by virtue of the narrow scope and subject matter. Obviously if you want to study the psychological factors in the team and how they might lead to disaster, then maybe THAT is a bit different game of course, but "can we get to the top by solving various logistical and climbing problems?" seems like a viable RPG. Its actually fairly close to the original model in D&D dungeon crawls. I'd note that the AH Survival game is of this nature, and it was how you were intended to play out overland expeditions in OD&D. It actually makes sense, it is just a detailed set of realistic rules for that environment (though you would add monsters to the mix of course).

 

[pemerton]

That's something of a change, given that I'm fairly sure you're the person who first introduced me to the term.

I'd doubt that.

EDIT: I did a search. I used "agency" in this post from 2018: What is *worldbuilding* for?

I seem to have been picking up on @AbdulAlhazred use of the term in the same thread.

I did another search. You were engaging in debates about "agency" back in 2014: D&D 5E - Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

 

[Garthanos]

Including my son... there is a problem with the question though and that includes how much and what exactly counts as a success and can you have lesser successes that build up. Beating my old score in many games is a success for instance.

Lesser successes building up ->Say my goal is killing the monster if it takes 6 attacks without any intermediate success ie ->miss miss miss miss miss kill... that would rarely fulfill the 2 out of 3 aint bad. But if 2 out of 3 attacks provide success feedback, such as depleting hit points and knocking the enemy around or other noticeable effects then it doesn't matter if it takes even 6 attacks to kill. *assuming those lesser wins are sufficiently felt as wins.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think there are reasons you would do it. One of the functions of a GM in that kind of game would be to squelch problems of that sort. It also assumes reasonably virtuous play. I'm thinking of a game, for example, that would let you model trying to climb Mt Everest for the first time. Make it very realistic! It should be workable and the challenges will be relevant and contextual simply by virtue of the narrow scope and subject matter. Obviously if you want to study the psychological factors in the team and how they might lead to disaster, then maybe THAT is a bit different game of course, but "can we get to the top by solving various logistical and climbing problems?" seems like a viable RPG. Its actually fairly close to the original model in D&D dungeon crawls. I'd note that the AH Survival game is of this nature, and it was how you were intended to play out overland expeditions in OD&D. It actually makes sense, it is just a detailed set of realistic rules for that environment (though you would add monsters to the mix of course).

I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.

 

[loverdrive]

And then there are people who play Souls games.

Failure is almost meaningless in Souls games, though.

I see "YOU DIED" screen in Dark Souls much more often then I reload my save in Silent Hill 2, but the former is like "oh, okay, I'll try something different then" and the latter makes me want to punch a hole through my screen.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd doubt that.

EDIT: I did a search. I used "agency" in this post from 2018: What is worldbuilding for?

I seem to have been picking up on @AbdulAlhazred use of the term in the same thread.

I did another search. You were engaging in debates about "agency" back in 2014: D&D 5E - Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

I'm thinking it was more like 2010 or so, but not a biggie either way.

 

[Aldarc]

Failure is almost meaningless in Souls games, though.

I see "YOU DIED" screen in Dark Souls much more often then I reload my save in Silent Hill 2, but the former is like "oh, okay, I'll try something different then" and the latter makes me want to punch a hole through my screen.

Though not a Souls game, I love how Hades makes failure an integral part of the gameplay, including the narrative. It makes dying and failing kind of fun.

 

[Garthanos]

I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.

Yes I call it lacking nuance...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes I call it lacking nuance...

Same. Like I said, I can see why they want to discourage hunting for every bonus imaginable, but there's better ways to do that.