My system currently has quite a few factors to be considered during the play of combat. Most of it also requires quite a bit of record keeping. While I haven't playtested it yet, I know that it's going to be fairly slow, if only because my system has more detail than the Phoenix Command combat system for ranged weapons, and more detail than Riddle of Steel for melee combat...both of which are on the upper level of complexity for combat resolution times.
Now, Riddle of Steel manages to keep the players interest because of all the tactical decision making. In other words the breadth of choice while prolonging resolution time is also what makes the system more interesting (for those that like such detail). But all the tactical choices have bearing on the imagined scene and highlights the visceral imagery of the story. If the extra time only involves looking up data charts (like Phoenix Command required) then I think it might detract from the "fun factor" of the combat resolution.
I realize this is a somewhat subjective question because some people like quick and dirty combat resolution that sacrifices realism for quickness or drama. I'm gearing this combat resolution system to be very simulationist, so I'm including quite a bit of detail for two purposes. The primary purpose is to extract the most relevant elements of combat which A) provide interesting tactical decisions and B) have important effects on the success or failure of the task. The second purpose is to create enough tactical choice that the imagery of what's actually going on is not so broad or generic as to lose flavor, but not so overwhelming as to try to account for every single possible variation on a manuever. With this goal in mind, when does combat become too slow even when trying to stress the detail required by a more simulationist approach?
Do you want to approach tactical decisions over time? i.e. spend resources now and you won't have them to spend later, and similar questions? Or are all the tactical decisions meant to be isolated to their current moment?
I'm not sure when its too much, but I can suggest a gauging method.
Look at the factors involved here:
Looking up and resolving rules results
Supplying rich and evocative descriptions of results
(I wont go into tactical option factors just yet)
Basically rate the two from one to ten, ten highest. Rate them at any point during rules resolution, in terms of how much each is happening.
'Supplying rich and evocative descriptions of results' MUST beat 'Looking up and resolving rules results'. It simply must have a higher rating.
I suspect that with a sim appreciating crowd, you could take thirty minutes to establish where a single bullet went, and they would be thrilled all the way. BUT you need to keep that 'Supplying rich and evocative descriptions of results' above the other factor, all the way through.
The thing is, how much can you get out of a bullets flight (or even a burst of bullets)? I think a fair bit, but you'll run dry fairly soon. So your going to have to face the fact that when the rating for 'Supplying rich and evocative descriptions of results', the 'Looking up and resolving rules results' must be at a lower number to that, so as to let the other factor win. How big and contact needy your rules can get will not be based on realism, but on 'Supplying rich and evocative descriptions of results'. I suspect this may be shock when your goal might have been the faithful rendition of reality. But much like a tree falling in a forrest that nobody hears, no matter how faithful that rendition is, if your group doesn't get to experience it, it didn't happen and doesn't matter.
Quote from: DauntlessWith this goal in mind, when does combat become too slow even when trying to stress the detail required by a more simulationist approach?
I've written up a fast, "realistic" combat system, that has firearm weapon damage based on figures from BTRC's "Guns, Guns, Guns!", achieves realistic results in very low times (times in actual play were under a minute to resolve a shot, IIRC, and combat encounters were from ten to a hundred times as fast as AD&D combat), and intentionally limited PC and player information to further speed play and produce realistic behaviour in players.
So it's possible to be very fast and be very "realistic" at the same time. Unfortunately, there comes a point where the system became so complex that I couldn't write down the latest version of the system, as I couldn't explain it well enough for myself, let alone teach it to players. Have a look at my post here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=133914#133914 where I explain more.
TonyLB-
That's a good question. I think I've built the system to favor allocating your resources early to avoid them later, but it's possible to do them as you go along.
The way I've structured the flow of combat, everything is chained together in a very consistent and logical way. I use an open-ended continuous Action Phase system in which all actions have a Phase cost associated with it (one of the time eaters since players are going to want to calculate how long an action takes before they committ to it). You start on the phase dicated by your Reflexes and keep adding on the Action costs ad infinitum. There's also rules for hesitation, confusion, wounds, hastiness and other modifers that either affect the phase cost of an action, or which create "pauses" in the flow of your action. Perhaps more importantly, your actions must be written down after your previous action is declared. When the previous action's phase comes up and is completed, you must reveal what you wrote down as the next action (and then write down what your next action will be...etc etc.). You can switch to a different action, say for example to dodge an unexpected attack, but this will take a penalty.
By chaining together the actions and requiring the player to do a little forethought by writing out his next action, it provides for a certain continuity of action.
There are certain pools of resources that you have. Exertion, Focus, and Discpline are the most important. You allocate these to your actions to affect the odds. But once expended you have to wait until they get refreshed, which takes a variable amount of time (and the amount it gets refreshed is also variable). Hence, you have to do some quick judging to figure out when and where to allocate your tactical resources to its best advantage. However, this decision making is one of those things thats going to increase the time to resolve combat. Not only do you have these tactical resources, but you have to figure out certain States the character is in (Damage, Fatigue, Emotional and Mental Stability...ie. morale and awareness).
In some regards I'm not too worried about the time it takes. After a month of playing Phoenix Command I got to the point where I could resolve a firefight with 5 players pretty quickly. Ditto for the Hero system which is one of the more crunchy systems out there. But I'm sure people will look at all the rules and go, "Oh my God, he's got to be kidding. This is a pen and paper RPG, not a computer game!" and not even bother to give it a chance thinking it will be too unwieldy. Then again, what should I care.....I'll be giving away the core rules for free :) I'll only be charging for the background material.
Andrew-
Quote...and intentionally limited PC and player information to further speed play and produce realistic behaviour in players.
Now this is interesting. I have a few ideas in mind for this as well, but I haven't quite figured out exactly how to implement. But I think information hiding is the key to solving the majority of min-maxers, munchkins and rules-lawyers. I hadn't really thought of it though as a means to expedite the resolution process. I'll look at my mechanics and see if there's a way to do this as well.
I'll take a gander at your ideas tomorrow....2am is too late for my brain to digest much anymore :)
Okay, what I'm seeing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have scads and scads of resources over time, starting with Action Phases and adding in Exertion, Focus, Discipline, Damage, Fatigue, Emotional Stability and Mental Stability.
I don't know Phoenix Command, but compare (for instance) against first edition Hero, which had only Stun, Endurance and occasionally Body. Even in 1e Hero there was very little incentive to save Endurance, because it was extremely rare for a fight to last long enough for that decision to reap any benefit... I played for more than a decade, and I literally never saw a villain be outlasted by a more conservative hero.
Now the reason for that (as I'm sure Champions players will leap to tell me) is that nobody actually tracked Endurance. Which is, in fact, my point. Players will, consciously or unconsciously, throw away pieces of your system until it runs quickly enough for them.
I think that if you want to track this many variables over time, and you want the players interested in them, your system will have to be very, very fast indeed. Much faster than Hero or D&D. Otherwise people are going to start ignoring things (starting, I'd guess, with Fatigue and Emotional/Mental Stability) because the game doesn't reinforce those elements being important within a single session of the game.
Anyway, there's my two cents.
Quote from: DauntlessI realize this is a somewhat subjective question because some people like quick and dirty combat resolution that sacrifices realism for quickness or drama.
I think this is an utterly false dicotomy. There is no relation between speed of resolution and realism of results - if anything; the more detailed your combat system the less likely it is to be realistic.
QuoteI'm gearing this combat resolution system to be very simulationist, so I'm including quite a bit of detail for two purposes.
It seems to me what you're describing here is
not simulationist, but heavily gamist - it concentrates on player skill rather than character skill. Which is not, of course, a bad thing - but I think you should be clear about what your goals are and what you are suggesting will achieve.
It terms of designing a tactical combat system, I encourage you to tend towards visual representations. For example, D&D combat is pretty tedious until you bring out the minatures when it all of a sudden becomes a whole load more interesting
and easier to track. By using visual tracking methods you will a) make it more interesting to play and b) make it easier and less tedious to track the details. On the otherhand I find that visual systems reduce immersion.
Jack Aidley-
Quoteif anything; the more detailed your combat system the less likely it is to be realistic.
And I believe this to be a false dichotomy. People tend to get the notion in their head that once a system becomes more detailed, the more rigid and hence less flexible it becomes. By this logic, no game rule can account for every possible contingency and possibility and therefore the more detailed it becomes the less able it is to cope with the unexpected.
Hogwash.
When you have a game which is less detailed and more abstract or generic you simply use whatever basic action the game system provides, and you fill in the details with your imagination. And yet for some reason, because these rules are "lite", no one thinks twice that you are stretching the conventions of the rules to account for the flexibility. The same goes for a detailed rules system. If you encounter situations that don't quite fit the bill, then you let your imagination fill in the gap. Detailed rules systems are not meant to smother imagination, rather they are there to provide more concrete descriptions of what normally goes on. The advantage to this is that there is less ambiguity to the majority of cases.
Here's an example, let's say that your basic game system only has a basic punch and a kick. Fair enough. Now let's say mine has a hook, jab, uppercut, side kick, flying kick, snap kick and rotating kick (BTW, my system doesn't do this at all, in fact, it's incredibly freeform and describes melee combat by its implementation and purpose...there are no fixed techniques in my game). Now, let's say that a player has the brilliant idea of wanting to do a flying spin kick to his opponent. Well, in the basic game, all you've got is a kick...no big deal. It's a kick. You can fudge a little and give it more damage but a harder to hit modifier. But now you think...aha!! See, the detailed game was trying to be clever and account for all these possibilities but it didn't include this one!! For some reason, people are indifferent to fudging things for rules-lite, but feel that a detailed system is a failure if it didn't cover what they wanted to do. Instead, just fill in the blanks like you would with a basic system. The difference between the two approahces is that there will be less occasions where you will have to fudge things to account for the unexpected, and you will have more examples to have as guidelines to decide on how to fill in those blanks.
As for whether my system seems more gamist or simulationist, I have to admit to a profound ignorance of the precise meanings of the terms. From what I am able to understand, it seemed to me that Gamism focuses on the playability aspect with an eye towards the goal of play balance in order to set up "victory conditions" (how the victory conditions are achieved are dependant on the system and setting). Simulationism to me seemed to be about....well, simulating things, irregardless of play balance or victory conditions. It's job was more to allow for creating "what if" scenarios that were consistent and tried to answer the question, "if you were in my shoes...".
That's why I'm trying to model elements based on how things operate....how the cause and effect relationships are tied together. I'm really not too worried about play balance and victory conditions. For example, in my game, you can play a Combat Android which are pretty nasty all the way around. Extremely intelligent, stronger than the strongest augmented humans, and capable of learning new skills in a heartbeat. While they have a few disadvantages, it doesn't compensate for all their advantages. If that's what you want to play because you are intrigued by wondering what it would be like to play a combat android, then that's what you should be able to play without having to dumb it down through play-balance so that it's on even footing with a bioroid. My focus has always been on, "If I have these capabilities, and I do this...what kind of results can I achieve?".
TonyLB-
Yeah you got it right. There's several different pools of resources that you allocate at any phase during the game. The only limit is how much of your resources you have left...but as long as you have them, you can use them whenever you want.
I know what you mean about the END problem in the Hero system. If players and the GM want to skip some information to make the game speed along, more power to them. So even though my game may have a lot of things to keep track of and consider, the players can deal with what they like. Hopefully once I get everything nailed down, I can playtest it to see how it really works.
I guess that's what I like about detailed rules systems. It's far easier to ignore and throw out what you find non-useful than it is to try to have to make something up on the spot without any guidance. My philosophy has always been that the rules are not set in stone, and that the gamers should have the freedom to pick and chose what they want. More detail to me means greater freedom of choice...not less freedom as many of the rule-lite crowd seem to think.
To me, handling time in excess of fifteen seconds for one combat action is too much. I like the way 3.0/3.5 DnD handles it, where you can pretty much throw your to-hit die and your damage dice together, and you only really raise the handling time if you get a critical. That puts the handling time, most of the time, around ten seconds. A big melee with dozens of combatants at a time takes about a half hour to resolve FTF, about an hour over IRC.
Another thing to consider in handling time is the "whose turn is it?" effect. If you know (either all the time, or in one combat) who comes before you, things move faster; if you don't (such as if you're rolling for initiative every round) it slows things down a lot.
Dauntless, I think that you're attacking something Jack never said, and I don't think, interpreted in the manner that your response implies, Jack's post makes any sense.
However, if you look at a detailed system as an accumulation of rules that attempt to describe conditions, and assume that the game designer has some finite, imperfect ability to describe these conditions, you will see that each rule/detail makes the game as a whole more likely to describe unrealistic conditions, because it adds to the probability that some rule is just wrong, or some application of a rule fails, or some interaction produces undesired results. This is the reason all those "Murphy's Rules" threads on rpgnet and the like are filled with oddities from Hero, various versions of D&D, and other historically crunchy games. More crunch means more places for your rules to go wrong.
Quote from: Shreyas SampatEach rule/detail makes the game as a whole more likely to describe unrealistic conditions, because it adds to the probability that some rule is just wrong, or some application of a rule fails, or some interaction produces undesired results. This is the reason all those "Murphy's Rules" threads on rpgnet and the like are filled with oddities from Hero, various versions of D&D, and other historically crunchy games. More crunch means more places for your rules to go wrong.
Well, this can be more simply put -- more rules means more places for your rules to be wrong. This is absolutely true, but it is also an empty argument in my opinion. Actually, I consider it to be a rules-lite fallacy -- that doing nothing is better than having mistakes. The faulty logic puts more burden of responsibility on the players/GM, then when things go wrong it's their fault rather than the designer's.
I feel that a game is just as responsible for things it doesn't provide as for things it does provide. Rules-lite games can still be good, but they aren't good simply by virtue of being rules-lite.
Well, the number of interactions *between* rules goes up exponentially as the number of rules increases, but that doesn't really say whether the game is good or bad.
My question is this: given that additional complexity usually means more time spent resolving combat, what good stuff does this system provide to make that time well spent? Let me add that "realism" is such a poorly defined word that it's better avoided in these discussions, IMO.
Quote from: John KimWell, this can be more simply put -- more rules means more places for your rules to be wrong. This is absolutely true, but it is also an empty argument in my opinion. Actually, I consider it to be a rules-lite fallacy -- that doing nothing is better than having mistakes. The faulty logic puts more burden of responsibility on the players/GM, then when things go wrong it's their fault rather than the designer's.
Oh, sure. I wasn't argiung for diet game design by any means, I was simply explicating what I percieved to be Jack's point, which I don't believe that Dauntless answered in his post about omitted options.
(Notwithstanding my belief that added rules have a strong tendency to be fatty, unnecessary rules, and it takes very exacting design to be sure when a rule is fat and when it isn't.)
The answer to the question "How long is too long for combat resolution?" Would be T where T > 0.
You shouldn't be content if your combat resolution drops below a certain point. If it's fun, and making it faster would make it less fun, keep it as long as it is. Otherwise, faster resolution is better, so strive for it.
Dauntless,
Quote from: DauntlessAnd I believe this to be a false dichotomy. People tend to get the notion in their head that once a system becomes more detailed, the more rigid and hence less flexible it becomes.
That wasn't what I meant at all, Shreyas's description is much closer to my thoughts on the matter. It isn't a matter of fudging or not. Fact is, any roleplaying game that sets out to be realistic will always fall short of it's target because that would require nothing short of a full physical simulation - a proposition that is clearly absurd.
Every rule, therefore, is an abstraction and the more rules you have the more abstractions you have. The more abstractions you have the more likely it is that one or more of them will produce a situation that hits the 'not realistic' button with one or more of your players.
Seems to me, realism is a myth anyone - what we're really talking about verisimilitude, or the
appearance of realism. In a fast resolution combat system there are fewer points where that appearance needs to be maintained, and thus, again, less chance of hitting one or more players 'not realistic' button. Ultimately however, once ones realises that it's actually the appearance of realism that you're going for one must also realise that this is always going to be a subjective opinion and, thus, a matter of taste rather fact.
And so, ultimately, we're back to my first statement "There is no relation between speed of resolution and realism of results". Which I should, perhaps, have left at that.
Quote from: John Kim
Well, this can be more simply put -- more rules means more places for your rules to be wrong. This is absolutely true, but it is also an empty argument in my opinion. Actually, I consider it to be a rules-lite fallacy -- that doing nothing is better than having mistakes. The faulty logic puts more burden of responsibility on the players/GM, then when things go wrong it's their fault rather than the designer's.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. Any given rule might be wrong, but the more rules you have the more likely it is that an unexpected combination of rules will be badly wrong. This is how many of the Murphy's instances arise, they are applications of obscure rules to unusual circumstances.
Jack-
A model is by its very definition an abstraction of a system in order to make it easier for us to understand or implement. When as a designer or scientist you say that you are going to model something realistically, you are not trying to make it exactly follow physical reality. Instead, you take the most essential and crucial qualities of what you are trying to solve and create a model out of this, not to get exact numbers, but to help our understanding or to get decent approximations. No simulation will ever be completely realistic.
However, as the quantity of factors of we consider for the model increases, and as we get a better understanding of how those factors interrelate to one another, the closer our model's predicted value approaches the theoretical (or observed) value we get in reality. This is what we mean by a "realistic" approach to a game system. It's values tend to more closely approach values that you would get in real life.
As a debate to your argument, I correlated the notion that speed is tied with two factors: quantity of operands (the data the resolution process must work with) and calculation time. The operands are the factors that are somehow involved in the computing of a resolution. At this point, some may be thinking that I am thinking on a purely mathematical and formal viewpoint. However, the operands that I am thinking of are important no matter what heuristic we are using...whether it be the rigid and precise algorithm of a flowchart where you have to look up all the factors in a table, or whether we're simply having to think about the variables in our head that influence what the "difficulty number" of a task is. Now, the actual heuristic we use is important in the calculation time. Calculation time is based on what methodology you use once you've determined all the operands (all the factors that contribute to deciding the probability of an outcome). This is where traditionally, the "realistic" games lag considerably behind more generic and abstract systems because the heuristics they use are much more mathematical or require mroe "hoops" to jump through. It is in the methodology we use that the most time can be saved. But the number of operands is a constant.
So I've answered both the functional definitions of speed and realism. Speed of resolution of a task is not much different than calculating the speed of a mathematical or programming algorithm. Again, algorithm connotes a purely mathematical or computer definition, but in truth the definition of an algorithm is simply this: a series of steps taken to provide a solution. Each of those steps requires inputs of data and/or a calculation/decision to be made. My argument was that speed and realism are intertwined because in order to get results which are clsoer to real(observed) or theoretical values, we must include more operands (data inputs). Furthermore, whether you use the "fudge" heuristic or the rigorous and precise method of going through all the formulae and die mechanics, the number of choices (operands) is still a prerequisite to more closely approximate reality. In other words, your calculation methodology may change, but if you limit choice, then you limit precision. It's like saying that you can get just an accurate a measurement of a quarter if you only have a ruler marked in feet as if you had a ruler also marked with inches.
Ergo, the greater number of options, inputs or operands we have, the better our approximation will be. Concurrently, the greater the number of inputs, operands and options we have, the greater time our calculations will take no matter what heuristic we use to solve the problem. Hence, speed and realism are inseperable.
Where I'm concerned about speed issues is in drawing a fine line between playability versus lots of tactical detail. As I tried to point out earlier, there is a correlation between lots of choices and speed of resolution.
I like the idea of having lots of choices as inputs, but this greatly increases not just decision making time, but also causes an increase in calculation time because of the interdepencies of these inputs. For example, choosing to exert myself to increase damage may have consequences if I'm injured or are already fatigued. First comes the time in deciding whether I want to exert, and secondly comes the calcuation cost of figuring out the interdependencies of this with other variables.
But I really think I have a higher priority on the greater number of inputs and choices. The reason is that I want the players to understand that these choices are relevant and have an impact on the outcome's probability. Sometimes, players aren't even aware oc the choices available, or how those variables can influence the outcome.
The obvious question may be to ask "when does a resolution system becomes unplayable due to time factors?". Perhaps the question should be asked, "even if the resolution takes a long time, if the resolution process itself is interesting, should it matter?".
Dauntless,
Yes, the whole speed vs. realism has been rather a sidetrack. Sorry about that.
One thing I tried in one of my many homebrewed systems was having 'action cards' for combat. Since each card had it's own rules the process time wasn't too high since you neither had to remember or look up anything. While the cards also allowed inexperienced players a clear list of what their characters could do.
Would it be possible for you to adopt a similar system?
QuoteThe obvious question may be to ask "when does a resolution system becomes unplayable due to time factors?". Perhaps the question should be asked, "even if the resolution takes a long time, if the resolution process itself is interesting, should it matter?".
That very much depends on what you want out of the game, doesn't it? If you want to spend your time in the sessions dealing with combats then, no, it doesn't matter. If you want to concentrate on other parts of the game then it is a problem.
I think that part of the problem is, once again, that term "realism." We've had several threads going over this, and there are at least three commonly used meanings for the term. I'll break down the two being used here:
1. Input Realism - where the model is more "accurate" because it considers more factors. That is, it's giving a more fecund representation of reality because it's considering more of the input that would exist.
2. Output Realism - where the model is more accurate because the output is more faithful to what really happens.
These correspond to the two basic forms of simulation (which I get from Ralph Mazza). Obviously, Dauntless is talking about the first type, while others are talking about the second. As long as we don't realize this difference, we'll keep talking past each other.
Because for certain players, more mechanical input detail is, in fact, important to play. This is hard for those who like less input detail, because they note that it actually decreases the output realism on occassion (not always), and they don't understand the fun that's gained from that sort of detail. This is a very simple mode question when looked at on that level.
So Dauntless's question is valid, if an ancient one. It's the "realism v. playability" debate yet again. To which the only valid reply that I've ever heard has already been given. Basically, it's not trading these off that's in question - that is, there's no horizon at which too much realism leads to unplayability. It's a question of producing as much realism while not making the game a chore. This is not the same thing. The first assumes that there's a line along which you travel, and at some point along it you pass into the unplayable territory. Think instead of it as a two dimensional space with each of these being an axis. What you're trying to get to is the "Completly Realistic/No Difficulty to Play" corner of the space. Any tradeoffs that do exist move things back along the axis not chosen, but often the solution is to find another method that does not require a tradeoff -or at least a lesser one.
Yes, this is hard to do, but how good a game is in this context depends completely on how well you push for that corner. Not how close you get to the unplayable line. I can give examples of this, if people like...
As mentioned before in the thread, it's about producing an output that reflects the input in the most interesting way possible, and doing so regularly. What I've termed on occasion, Fecundity of Critical Feedback. To a large extent, the benefit of any system can be gagued by how well the output is recieved, and how well it spurs further play. Basically, how good a feedback loop is created.
Now, how to do this? Again, that's like asking what makes something taste good, or what makes one painter better than another. If we knew, we'd be doing it in spades. That is, this is precisely the skill, as Shreyas notes, that all designers need to develop.
Is there a way to enumerate this skill? Well, that's hard to say. Sure you can do Human Factors analysis on the algorithms, and determine the effort required. That's pretty easy to analyze. But the problem is that the quality of the output is so subjective. One player might like to see factor X looked at, another factor Y. In fact, this is what makes complex designs problematic (as Shreyas, again, notes), you don't really know what people want to look at in terms of these details.
Further, there are an infinite number of factors that one could look at with any interaction. For guns, for example, does your system include any analysis for the angle of incidence of the entry? Or is that abstracted into the "to hit" roll? Because it's absolutely pertinent to the discussion of armor penetration - you see it all the time in WWII simulations in discussing sloped armor on tanks. Turns out that it's rather important to the functioning of body armor, too, depending on what it's made of. Does the system include factoring for the psychological factor of wounding expectation? That is, do people fall down when shot because they think that's what they should do (given that it's the only reason that people who are shot fall over for, short of the very rare instant kill)?
Do you model the effects of hypertension on bloodloss? That is, do you consider how much salt someone had to eat before being cut open?
When it all comes down to it, what we really want isn't so much a simulation of everything that can happen in terms of inputs, that's impossible, but just what's interesting to model overall. And, again, what that might be can vary tremendously.
That doesn't make it impossible to make a fun game of this ilk, but it does make it, to a large extent, an act of intuition to determine what's going to be fun. Meaning that asking about what makes sense here is going to get you the output expectations of the players in question. Hence why those who focus on Output Realism give the answers they do here - no amount of quality of input in terms of detail will improve output for them, in fact it sometimes detracts. The only thing that will satisfy them in terms of input is to have control over the important parts of the character's destiny to make the output fun.
For other people, they're going to answer that bullet calibre is most important. For others, the question is what choices do I make for the character in terms of combat maneuvers to forming winning strategies.
The best advice I have (and I ain't saying it's too helpful), is to find that output that you personally find most fascinating, find ways of producing it well, and then work on the elegance of the game, making it easier and easier to get the desired outcome. There's no garuntee that other players will find interesting the same things that you do, but that's the problem faced by all designers at the most basic level. Going with what you like, however, means that there's a chance that somebody else will like it, too. If you change what the game looks at to satisfy some theoretical audience expectation that you don't have, you very much risk losing everybody.
Mike
Mike-
You hit the nail on the head.
If you measure realism by the output, you have two things to consider; its accuracy and its precision. Accuracy is how close the measured or derived value is from the true value. Precision is consistency in your measurements or derivations. For example, if you step on a scale 3 times in 10 minutes and it gives you scores of 160, 150, 170, then the average is 160. If 160 truly is your weight, then the scale is accurate. However, it's not exactly precise. An accurate and precise scale might give you scores of 160.5, 160, 159.5 which also average out to 160 but the values are more consistent. In other words, given the same set of inputs (in this scenario, your true body weight, and time) and same initial conditions, the expected value should be the same (over a large sample).
Generally, both accuracy and precision are required for positive feedback to verify the "validity" of the rules. However, sometimes it is possible for a resolution system to be inaccurate but precise, which misleads people into thinking the results are accurate because of the consistency. It is also possible for a system to be accurate as an average, but have poor precision. Systems like these have very large standard deviations, but the median result happens to coincide with the average. These games may feel realistic, because on average, you get the true expected outcome. However, these games are also (in)famous for the whiff factor or its opposite (that I call the hooaah factor). Some people like for the game to have the potential for catastrophic failures or triumphs over impossible odds no matter how realistic they may be. So again, you have to make a design decision whether that's what you'd like or not.
As you mentioned with the graph example, with playability as one axis, and realism as the other....ideally we'd like to create a game which has our game at the corner which has high playability and high realism. I personally think that they are inverse relationships (to a greater or lesser degree). Hence, you sacrifice some playability to make things more realistic, or some realism to make it more playable. Notice that I said realism...but you can substitute accuracy or precision and retain the same meaning. However, it's not a perfect inverse relationship, and I think there is a point where if I sacrifice 5points of realism, I might gain 6 or 7 woth of playability (and vice versa). Finding this tradeoff, and determining where on the curve you want to be are of the utmost importance to a game designer.
Shades of "Absence of Malice" there, Dauntless (see the last line of the movie, amongst other things).
I'm a fan of the distinction you're making (I'm a statistician after all), but this is ancillary to the point I was making. If it was paraphrasing me, then I haven't communicated well. If it was just additional info, I agree in general.
Just remember that what's precise on the input end depends on what you're trying to get on the output end. That is, there's no input that's a priori more important to have than another. The only question is which brings out the sought for output format.
IOW, work backwards from what you seek always, not from input forward. I think that's a common error.
Mike
Quote from: DauntlessI like the idea of having lots of choices as inputs, but this greatly increases not just decision making time, but also causes an increase in calculation time because of the interdepencies of these inputs.
In Multiverser, there may be infinite choices as inputs; anything the player can think for the character to attempt to do to improve his tactical position can be factored in.
Most players don't do too many things. Why not?
For one thing, there is a sense that the default roll covers ordinary chance of success; to do better than that, you have to do something special. There is generally a cost to doing something special. If you aim carefully, you risk being shot before you shoot, for example. There is also a cost in terms of flow of play--if everything you do will mean it will take a little longer to resolve the situation, you'll select those things which benefit you commensurate with their cost in time.
Thus you might consider following that model, providing the opportunity for the players to choose whatever tactically beneficial options they wish, while covering all others as the default choices in the default rolls.
--M. J. Young
Mike Holmes-
Actually, all the stuff after the first line was additional commentary by me, and didn't mean to refer back to your post :)
Matter of fact, I was thinking of starting another post about this subject matter...how we can talk about the differences between what exactly modeling realism is from a simulationist (and I don't mean this necessarily in the GNS definition of the word) standpoint, and between the tradeoffs we make for playability. The point I tried to make about accuracy and precision dealt with one of the ways we determine how close we are to the actual results, and your topic about dealing with looking at inputs to a function vs. the output (the probability) is yet another factor.
M.J.-
On further reflection, I think I should have worded my question something like this: "When does the tradeoff between accurate simulation and playability sacrifice too much to be considered accurate, but too little to be considered playable?"
For example, let's say I come up with a system that allows you to be within +/- 15% of theoretical or observed world values that takes 30 seconds to resolve. Now let's say that I've come up with a different solution that takes 2 minutes to resolve the issue with a +/-5% deviation from the real. Which is "better" given that the aim of my game is to create a world that seems very plausible and real...to make the playes think, "this could really happen to me"?
One might think the above question is ancillary to this one...."does it matter what the real world values are if it seems real enough" (if the credibility of the results is 90% of the time granted by the players). However, I think such a question should be asked in my game design only for those things that we really have no "Real" world basis to go on. For example, magic use, psionics or other things better left to the imagination. Other cases this question might be valid are in highly chaotic, unpredictable or fuzzy systems (persuasion rolls, getting hit by a piece of shrapnel, the weather in Florida...). In these situations, because we have no benchmarks to guide our accuracy, we have to rely on what "feels" right. Nothing wrong with that in my book, though it seems to be a source of dispute for people who try to disparage complex rules systems in favor of lite rules systems on the basis of this argument (that not everything can be statistically verified and hence no mechanic can absolutely be verified as being accurate).
Getting to your point, when we abstract many choices into one large choice then we lose some amount of detail and control over the inputs. Abstracting the choices does however make things much quicker because we now have less detail to worry about. So the question becomes, how often are the inputs which have been abstracted out influence the outcome to a significant degree? If the things we have abstracted out are sometimes very important, then our results get skewed out of reality. But if this happens extremely infrequently, then the savings we get in time might be worth it. So choosing inputs that abstract the aspects of a system that a) have little impact on accuracy and b) have aspects that rarely greatly affect probabilities is a good way to reduce time calculation.
For example, one of the questions I asked early on in my system was how to resolve the issue of what Strength really was. Most systems lump many qualities of strength together...how much you can carry, how much you can lift, how fast you can move, and how much damage you do. But if you really observe the human body, there are several variables that make up what we consider "strength" as a whole. I divided strength into two categories, Power and Force. Power is essentially the maximal amount of Force you can generate divided by time. It is in essence neuro-muscular speed. Gymnasts and martial artists must have high values here. Force however is how much work we can do in an indeterminate amount of time (generally limited by our endurance). Bodybuilders and powerlifters have high scores here. But note that a gymnast or martial artists might be able to do more damage with a punch or kick than a bodybuilder that weighs almost twice as much.
Because I reasoned that needing to know the difference between these values would be very common, I decided that it was worth the extra level of detail and time required to split strength into these values. There may be cases however where the differences between the different aspects of a skill, trait, or resolution are so minute that it rarely matters and it is safe to abstract them out. I think finding these are a hallmark of good design.
Mike Holmes-
I do disagree on the comment that you should always work from the results backwards...and not the input forwards.
When you work from the output backwards, you are doing descriptive design. You take the final state (the output) and try to find the essential input values that will work towards producing the output you want. Working forwards from the input values and the initial conditions (the intial state), you are doing procedural design. You create an algorithm and simply run the inputs through the algorithm (which is really just a type of function that maps given inputs and states into an output state). Admittedly, it is much much more difficult to work this way because you're not looking for a desired outcome from a given set of inputs. You just simply create an algorithm which matches the model you've created of your system, and see what happens with the given inputs.
For the majority of cases it is desirable to do descriptive design because it is more intuitive and easier to balance. However, when we have a well known problem with the majority of the inputs known, then we can work in a procedural manner.
I'm also not sure all inputs are equally important a priori. In fact, one of the reasons I want to have a lot of tactical choice is because I think players don't realize through logic and insight how important certain choices are. Now if you meant that to mean that we can only determine their importance to the resolution process by mental faculty (a priori) and not necessarily through empirical observation...then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
EDIT-
I thought I'd give an example of a descriptive solution vs. a procedural solution. The Hero system uses a descriptive solution in order to create anything in the game. From characters, to vehicles to guns, it asks the player to think about what the object does, then you have inputs which you tie together to create the desired object (the final state). In Greg Porter's Guns! Guns! Guns! supplement that creates guns, it uses a procedural system wherein you engineer element by element the constituent parts of a weapon system and create the final object. For example, you start by designing the bullet (it's caliber, l:w ratio, density) and then how much charge it carries. From there you determine that from the given charge, the receiver has to be such and such a mass for the given action type, and to be able to withstand the sublimation of the charge. It's a much much more detailed system that is also much more integrated. Now, procedural systems don't disallow the end-user to think; "hmmm, I want my gun to do this much damage and be accurate at long ranges". You still have a desired output for the end user. The difference lies in how the algorithm to transform the inputs to the outputs was achieved (and the algorithm implementation can often be encapsulated in such a way as to make it hidden from the end-user).
Quote from: Dauntless"does it matter what the real world values are if it seems real enough"
This, to me, is the critical question. "Realism" is impossible. Not only is it impossible to achieve, it's impossible to
experience. What you experience is
versimilitude and if you have that, you have everything.
Hey Dauntless,
You claim to be ignorant of the whole gamist/narrativist/simulationist debate, so I'll suggest taking a look at "Simulationism: the Right to Dream" at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
I get the feeling that you're aiming at (jargon alert) a very high points of contact simulationist design that may well be "purist for system." In that case, you can actually spend as much time as you want on combat resolution (or any other kind of resolution) because in fact part of the point of play is to input these steps.
This second bit is somewhat off topic, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone either, so here goes:
One danger in producing a highly detailed combat resolution system is that the players will analyze that system, determine the optimal action for any given moment, and stick to that action over and over and over again. F'r example: if firing maximum setting pulsed phaser bursts yields the best combination of damage, speed and accuracy then players will use only maximum setting pulsed phaser bursts. There is some danger that you will build a system that is capable of emulating a staggeringly wide array of techniques, maneuvers and actions but that 90% of it will not be used because the players have found the *best* techniques. Anyway, sorry for going off topic . . . :)
Zero abstraction is reality.
You can't do zero abstraction.
Some things will be abstracted more than others.
What should be abstracted more and what should be abstracted less?
These discussions always go wobbly when people turn to reality for the answers of what to abstract in reality, when really they are turning to their own personal preferences. Yes, that's what you'd be doing. Because there's nothing else you can turn to except personal preference.
"I want to make a realistic system"
"By who's opinion?"
"Not by any particular persons opinion, I just want it to be realistic!"
"How about your own opinion?"
"No, my opinion is only that realism is good and that's what it's going to be based on!"
Problematic.
I'd like to make an unprofound comment. Even if your design matches handling time to aesthetic, to be played, it must be internalized. So is d20 faster than the Hero system? Yes. Unless it's that guy named Ed I met at the meetup last month, running Hero. (He's like, a 20 year vet.)
Dauntless:
I think what you're after (and what Mike broached) is elegance. (I enjoyed that quadrant analogy, BTW.) Since I've been reading Burning Wheel (http://burningwheel.org/) lately, I'll use that for examples.
- To contrast with D&D, instead of rolling d8+2 (or what have you) to determine damage for a sword, you consult its Power (e.g. 8) and roll a d6 as the Die of Fate; ostensibly, to fine grade location a la TROS. Then, (no, we're not done yet,) for 1-2, you reduce Power by half, and for 5-6, you increase Power by half; for 3-4, use base Power. (e.g. 4, 8, 12.)
So you can scale with a d6 regardless of the base. But you have to employ division and rounding. Do the input requirements justify the output? It's a stretch, IMO.
- Another example is armor failure. Anytime you roll one or more results of one with your protection dice pool, remove a die to reflect weapon damage, causing your armor to lose function. When I read this, I thought, Gak! More overhead . . . so I can lose function! But when you playtest it, it's just thrilling (to me). I don't know why.
[/list:u]
I'm sure you've processed the "design for the play you want" comments. I think it's at least as valuable to qualify the cost/pay trade-off as not being a play barrier.
** ** **
Hey, I just had the thought: maybe you should ask for examples from designers of their lightbulb moments in moving closer to the low cost/high pay corner.
Precious Villain:
I disagree in one respect; consider the attraction of the sub-optimal character. Back your way, some: if you're shooting for a Gam thing, and you want a kit, some rock-paper-scissors balancing may be required.
Even so, wraiths in Starcraft: Broodwar will always suck:)
[Edited: fixed poster names and tail end of my comment to Dauntless.]
Quote from: bcook1971Hey, I just had the thought: maybe you should ask for examples from designers of their lightbulb moments in moving closer to the low cost/high pay corner.
May I offer my own "lightbulb moment" as a designer-in-training?
Detail in combat is normally there for two reasons:
(1) To provide an engaging tactical system.
(2) To mediate the description of what actually happens.
For example, critical hit rules; under (1) these provide an extra element of risk to the proceedings, and usually give the lesser combatant an additional chance to prevail through a lucky strike. Under (2) these may also provide a list of charts which describe where the critical blow landed.
My theory is that (1) gives much more value than (2). Wherever possible, combat mechanics should be geared towards generating
mechanical effects, and the descriptive elements should be left to the GM and/or players.
Back to the previous example; critical hits that generate a penalty to future actions, or additional damage dice add something to the mechanics. A critical hit location table which lists different locations and their effects also adds something to the mechanics, but delivers less 'bang for buck' in that it adds handling time and limits the creativity of the participants in describing their own effects.
My subsequent -2 to actions could be because I tweaked a hamstring, or because I am scared by the prowess of my opponents, or because I just tripped over a duck - does it matter?
Of course, this is a personal revelation, and it may be that for most people this is either trivial, or not what you want. But it was a big deal to me, and it's cured me of my previous hangup about combat mechanics, which was that they should deliver 'realism' on a plate, unmediated by any conscious thought by myself or by my gaming group.
I think this takes me back to addressing the original question: combat resolution becomes too slow when players are relying on the combat mechanics to do the thinking for them, instead of thinking about how to best use those mechanics. And
that is my personal "lightbulb moment."
Let me broach the subject of realism from another viewpoint to try to help explain why I think it's a good idea to model things based off reality.
As I explained early on, the job of a game is to model a system. Models by their very nature are not perfect and can not capture in totality everything about that system (only reality can prefectly describe reality). Some have posited that realism, and hence accuracy is not what we're truly after but rather verisimiltude....the appearance of reality. I couldn't agree more. Doing a good model design is doing precisely that. However, there is a subtle difference between what we the players experience as reality through our own subjective filters, and how the real world really works. As Mark Twain said, "the truth is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine". The disparity between accuracy of reality and the versimilitude of reality comes from our learned and created misperceptions. For example, I remember talking to someone who grew up on a diet of cheesy 80's shows who thought that the explosions in Saving Private Ryan were stupid because they weren't fiery explosions.
I want my game to have the appearance of truth as dicated by how closely I can get my system to approximate the truth. Sometimes however, there's simply no way to model what happens in real life with any consistency or accuracy. We have no choice but to abstract things and hope that the results turn out to feel right for the situation. For some strange reason though, many people who are against having detailed rules are against this notion. In their minds, if you're going to base your rules calculations as much as you can by reality constraints, then everything should be. Look at it this way, humans got along fine without science for untold generations. Science is still far from perfect, but by following what they have revealed about how things work, look at all the innovations (and nightmares) that have come from it? The same can be applied to game design. Following reality in a scientific approach to help develop the game rules can reveal not just what outcomes are achieved, but how and why they are achieved (and hence, you start to realize the interdependencies of things). The what of things is trivial, you don't need realistic rules for that. But discovering how and why things are the way they are much more vital and if you want consistency, then looking at reality, and designing things logically are crucial.
Here though we run into the problem as Noon pointed out...."My expectations (perceptions) for reality are different than yours, so achieving realism is impossible". Ultimately, all human beings are subjective creatures and therefore reality is subjective. In effect, one can't even prove that reality is objective because hard as you try, everything we know about reality is nothing more than a mental state. For that matter, one can not disprove the argument that my mind is the only mind inexistence (solipsism) nore conversely prove that other minds exist. However, we assume that there is an objective reality and that there are seperate minds because these imagined mental objects seem to repeat behavior and share behavior similar to our own. It is this repetition of observable effects from a given cause that we create this concept called reality (and I'm talking "real" reality here...not just game reality).
I'm not afraid to let my game system produce results which go against player expectation or view of reality. As was explained to me by M.J Young about credibility and authority, the players may not be totally convinced by the outputs my game delivers, however, I would appeal to the authority of statistics of similar results that the results are fairly accurate.
Perhaps more to the point, the realism isn't there to say, "see, I have the most realistic game system on earth...now bow down to my simulationist design...". Reality as I mentioned earlier is subjective though it seems to follow a pattern of predictability. From this predictability we are better able to make choices about what to do and more importantly what to expect. And that's exactly what a game system reality should do. It should provide an underlying mechanism of "reality" (how things happen in the shared imagined space) that helps players make choices and calculate what to expect.
Now as others have mentioned, often, games which are too tactical provide too much knowledge and predictability for the players. This has two drawbacks. The first is that it eats up time (my primary concern). The second is that it grants too much knowledge about one's odds. To answer the second problem, even if the inputs are well known and their effects on probability are well known, there are two easy methods to solve the "odds calculation problem". Firstly, players often have no control over some of the inputs. Secondly, it's very simple to create hidden or obfuscated variables. Hidden variables are inputs or initial conditions the player is unaware of, obfuscated variables are variables the player is aware of, but not the precise quantity/quality. For example, in my system, the injury of a player is always obfuscated. Only the GM knows the exact level of damage a player has (it's life threatening seerity, the minuses to proficiency, etc.). The GM can give word descriptions that will give the player an idea...but the actual number is hidden.
As a matter of fact, it is precisely the hidden and obfuscated nature of input variables that makes modeling an algorithm difficult. Because the designer himself isn't sure exactly how a certain task works, this same uncertainty can be applied to the players.
Lastly, verisimilitude is the key as noted before. All games try to create effects which fit a certain perceived outcome. This is why some games are described as gritty, dramatic, light hearted, etc. It's not just setting which creates this tone, but how the game mechanics support the outcomes of events. Realism as the word is usually used denotes that the outcome in the game will try[/] to match the outcome as happens in the real world given the same inputs. Realism can also imply how the game mechanics themselves were designed. Descriptive design is generally speaking not a realistic way to design things as compared to procedural design. As an example, most modern systems that allow you to build a character with a point system and choose skills however you like (a descriptive design approach) is not very realistic. In this sense, class systems and random rolls to build things like attributes are in fact more realistic because they mirror more closely how reality works. Descriptive design allows one to create the desired object as long as you "pay the points for it". Procedural design can get you close to your desired output as long as A) you have the right inputs, b) you are lucky enough or C) can afford the design requirements/prerequisites (mass, cost, social class, minimum trait score, etc).
So in the end, "reality" is nothing more than a design goal that allows the game to have a certain feel and flavor. Furthermore, nothing can be 100% accurate and hence realistic. This is not a realistic game's goal (to be 100% accurate). A realistic game's goal is instead to give an idea of the expected outcomes and hence, to let the players know, "this is the game's definition of perceived reality....if yours matches, then the game will be credible".
Okay, I think I understand your point of view.
But you don't seem to have any more questions. You've stated your personal answers on the questions that have been raised. And now you're working hard to make sure that people don't misunderstand you.
Does that mean that, if I do understand you, there is nothing more for me to contribute? I feel like we've learned a lot more about your approach than you've learned about any of the alternatives that might benefit you, but maybe you're just a naturally selfless and outgoing person and don't mind that.
TonyLB-
Not at all. I'm trying to figure out a good balance in my tradeoffs between playability and accuracy.
As I gave in an example earlier, what seems a better tradeoff:
1) A resolution system that takes 30 seconds and is within 15% of the true score 90% of the time.
2) A resolution system that takes 2 minutes, and is within 5% of the true score 95% of the time.
It's these sort of considerations that I'm not really sure about how to go forward. Is option #1 close enough to reality and with a good amount of playability? Or because #2 is close to the real expected value even though it takes longer (because it has more tactical choices) a better approach? It may seem like #1 is superior because it's pretty close to the real value, and it's relatively quick. But just because #2 is longer doesn't necessarily mean its less fun. Maybe having more tactical choices as inputs is fun in and of itself (for some people). These are the questions that I haven't determined how to resolve.
I haven't included stuff like deviation from the mean or other statistical analysis for the moment (mostly because I'm better at stochastic analysis than I am at statistical analysis). But they are nonetheless factors to consider. As an example, 10% of the time in option 1, the error is more than 15%....but how much more than 15%?
As has been mentioned i believe that this is entirely a case of audience. Who plays your game? If the players are hard-core tactical thinkers then your second option is probably the way to go, especially if the system is interesting in and of itself to resolve. If your players are not really interested in those tactical options then your first option is the way to go, or possibly an even simpler option.
I guess what i am saying is that there is no right answer. You tell me who your audience is, and then perhaps i will be able to tell you how much is "too much".
Thomas
My intended audience will be players who are interested in having lots of tactical options and other crunchy tidbits. Players who like wargame/roleplaying games like Heavy Gear or Battletech would probably be who I'm aiming for. Players that like the Riddle of Steel or the Hero system would be another example. Wargamers who are interested in doing roleplaying are another potential category (though I'm talking more about historical wargamers as opposed to fantasy/sci-fi wargamers, the former being more concerned with accuracy, the latter being more concerned with play balance).
However, I'm also going to try to get rid of the min-max, power munchkin and rules lawyers by introducing the hidden/obfuscation system. The rules lawyers can never exactly calculate whether their attempt is successful or not with a given die roll because they will never know the exact value of every input that goes into the calculation (only the GM will know). Min-maxers will be minimized because probability outcomes are always contextually bound. What may work really well within one set of circumstances will be useless in another. Power munchkins will not have fun with my system because even though my system isn't really a point-cost based system, it's not really a random class based system either. It is possible to play extremely unbalanced characters however....for example, you can play combat androids which all around are better than most other types of characters, but do have a few significant flaws (other than Quandroids, quantum androids, they are not truly free-willed and sapient...though they are sentient, hence they must obey certain directives and orders utterly).
Quote from: DauntlessHowever, I'm also going to try to get rid of the min-max, power munchkin and rules lawyers by introducing the hidden/obfuscation system. The rules lawyers can never exactly calculate whether their attempt is successful or not with a given die roll because they will never know the exact value of every input that goes into the calculation (only the GM will know).
A word of warning, take it as you will: Any system in which the GM has exclusive knowledge regarding some aspect of the mechanics gives rise to some serious potential conflict. How do the players know that the GM is not just changing the values behind the scenes to screw them? Maybe the GM is simply making the obfuscation "what i rolled +1" so that i can never succeed, or at least never succeed with out the GM's explicit approval. Additionally, without knowing your plans in detail, obfuscation rarely has a significant impact on the "rules-lawyers" (who is generally Calvinballing (http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html)) because they can simply argue that, whatever the GM's obfuscation choices were, that they were wrong since statistically "i should be able to do this".
I do not know that the above is really helpful, but i just wanted to draw attention to the dangers of GM determined obfuscation in a game geared toward players who want to "win".
Thomas
Quote from: DauntlessHowever, I'm also going to try to get rid of the min-max, power munchkin and rules lawyers by introducing the hidden/obfuscation system.
BL> This is impossible.
A sophisticated tactical game requires sophisticated players and consistent rules. Do we agree on this?
What are mini maxers other than players making sophisticated strategic choices? (And "power munchkins," as far as I can tell, is just a slur for minimaxers.)
What are rules lawyers other than those that demand consistent rules?
You should stop trying to solve a dysfunctional social contract by giving the GM total authority. It doesn't work for a tactical game. Never has. Never will.
Instead, thing about how you can maximize meaningful tactical and strategic decisions at every point in play. Further, figure out how you can make those decision points move quickly.
yrs--
--Ben
Well, for a game which is strictly limited, constrained or defined by rules, it will always be in danger of abuse by rules lawyers. If the GM has the ability to override the rules, the consistency and possibly the accuracy of the system comes into question. This is in direct contrast to what the system is trying to achieve.
But I tend to look at rules the way judges look at precedents. The rules are there to help him in his arbitration, but do not automatically confer what happens in the imagined space. I believe this is what seperates wargames from roleplaying games. If rules are the final arbiter, then you have a wargame. Referees in wargames exist solely to judge on ambiguous issues, such as whether a target is in line of sight for example. Once in a blue moon, a referee may decide on the outcome of an issue not explained in the rules. But wargames generally only allow actions which are clearly spelled out in the game rules itself, so this problem crops up infrequently.
RPG's on the other hand are not wholly constrained and allow for open-endedness. This open-ended aspect is what requires the GM to arbitrate certain things because the issues may not be covered in the rules, or the cases may be ambiguous.
I would rather the game allow for potential abuse of the GM in manipulating events than allowing the rules-lawyers to always calculate to the nth place what his odds are for doing something. Players should have a good idea, but they should not be privy to information they as characters would not be privy to.
Powermaxers are more easily countered by making sure that there is a logical chain of events that creates the character, as well as ensuring a broad variety of situations that encourage a level of non-speciality. Powermaxers almost always tend to be one-dimensional...throwing them into another dimension makes them ineffective, and will (hopefully) teach the player not to design characters like that in the future.
Besides, who really wants to play with those kinds of folks in the first place? Hopefully the social contract will weed them out in the beginning.
Quote from: DauntlessPowermaxers are more easily countered by making sure that there is a logical chain of events that creates the character, as well as ensuring a broad variety of situations that encourage a level of non-speciality. Powermaxers almost always tend to be one-dimensional...throwing them into another dimension makes them ineffective, and will (hopefully) teach the player not to design characters like that in the future.
Besides, who really wants to play with those kinds of folks in the first place? Hopefully the social contract will weed them out in the beginning.
This statement is a horribly, horribly narrow minded one. In answer to your question: I like to play games with min-maxing and powergaming. Not exclusively mind you, and not all that often, but every once in a while i get an urge to generate a horribly broken character and play a couple of sessions with other horribly broken characters and do all we can to illustrate just how broken we are. It is important to note that nothing is wrong with this inherently. This is a valid form of role playing.
It seems to me that you might be developing a system that caters to your interests while trying to invalidate all other role playing interests. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it can make your game more coherent and playable. That said, i highly recomend that instead of trying to eliminate one type of play through your rules that you try to encourage the type of play you do want. Do not design the rules so that "such-and-such" will not happen, but instead design the rules so this "other such-and-such" will happen.
I know that Ron addresses the very issue that you seem to be aiming at in either GNS and other matters of role playing theory (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/) or in Simulationism: the right to dream (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/). So i highly recommend that you spend a couple of hours reviewing those two essays.
Thomas
Quote from: Dauntless
RPG's on the other hand are not wholly constrained and allow for open-endedness. This open-ended aspect is what requires the GM to arbitrate certain things because the issues may not be covered in the rules, or the cases may be ambiguous.
BL> I figure we disagree at a rather fundamental level here. By your definition, most of the RPGs I play would be wargames. Even the non-tactical ones. If following the rules means a wargame -- well, hand me some minis and call me a wargamer.
Quote
I would rather the game allow for potential abuse of the GM in manipulating events than allowing the rules-lawyers to always calculate to the nth place what his odds are for doing something. Players should have a good idea, but they should not be privy to information they as characters would not be privy to.
Is there any reason not to just hand over all the arbitrative power to the GM, then? I'm thinking here about something like
Free Kriegspiel I'm actually involved in one of these right now. It's a lot of fun and a great game.
But I wouldn't say it has much in the way of tactical depth. We'll see, as the game progresses.
I'll say it again: strategic and tactical depth requires consistent rules. If you dismiss any player who wants consistent rules as a rules lawyer -- well, that's fine, but you won't be designing anything with strategic or tactical depth.
Quote
Besides, who really wants to play with those kinds of folks in the first place? Hopefully the social contract will weed them out in the beginning.
Why have you designed a game to counter people that you won't be playing with anyway?
yrs--
--Ben
Unfortunately in the wargaming world, there are quite a few min-maxers and rules-lawyers. Many wargames aren't so much about recreating what-if situations as about calculating every little advantage to win. Historical wargames tend to be better about this as a) the gamers are usually interested in recreating authentic real world battles which were often lopsidedly unfair and b) the rules they use often try to account for the human side of things (command and control, morale and unit integrity for example). In the strategy game I am also developing, I'm also doing things to weed out this behavior as well. In fact, in the over-arching storyline, the only way to win....is to lose. This is anathema to most rules-lawyers and min-maxers, whose main motto is to have power to achieve victory. So for once, you'll see a proponent of wargames who discourages the victory balance gospel that pervades wargame design.
If your social contract has many rules-lawyers and power maxers, then more power to you. What's important is that everyone is on the same page in the same book. I personally don't want that, and I want to create rules which diminish the possibility of such behavior. The essence of what I want to create is being able to put yourself into another's shoes and find out what the possibilities are given the world setting and character abilities. Power for power's sake (min-maxers) is not welcome, nor are rules-lawyers who try to use artificially gained (OOC) knowledge to enhance their abilities in the game. A character will not know his exact chances to do something but unfortunately any player who wishes to be OOC can easily deduce the odds of something or argue a point to increase his chances (or influence what action to take).
As for realistic rules requiring consistency, this consistency is based upon the judgment of the GM. By adhering absolutely to the rules, you run into several problems. Firstly, no rules system can account for every possibility, hence there will always be a certain amount of fudging. Secondly, the rules are consistent....the GM is merely hiding the variables from the players so that they are unable to calculate their precise odds. Just because there is information which is unavailable to the players doesn't mean that the GM has necessarily broken all the rules. That possibility should always exist for the GM, but it's there only when necessary. Now you might say that because either the information is totally hidden (the player doesn't even know it's a variable to be counted) or obfuscated (the player knows it's a factor, but he doesn't know the exact value of the variable) then in effect, the credibility of the system is broken because what the player perceives as his chances, and what the actual results are differ.
But I posit that that is what makes the world interesting. If the world followed our predictions all the time, it'd be pretty boring. The player must then learn to associate indirectly why his predictions were wrong. Perhaps his wound was greater than he thought. Maybe the character was more affected by fear than he thought. And perhaps, just perhaps....the character isn't as skilled as he thought he was (I'm playing with the idea of having non-numerically quantified attributes). Afterall, how would you really roleplay someone who was overconfident? You could of course just act it out. But wouldn't it be far more interesting if you the player saw the values of your skills and abilities as greater than they actually were? Eventually, you might piece 2 and 2 together and realize that your abilities were not as great as you thought....exactly like you would in real life. Afterall, do you know exactly how good your skills and attributes are?
This uncertainty factor is very important to me. The underlying system however is quite consistent in its own internalized logic. Absence of knowledge does not mean absence of consistency.
QuoteIt seems to me that you might be developing a system that caters to your interests while trying to invalidate all other role playing interests.
I'm not so much trying to invalidate other approaches as validate why I'm designing my game the way I am. If anything, I've noticed that if you use the word realism, it seems you'll get a number of people trying to dissuade you that such a thing is either possible or desirable. I agree on the possible part, I disagree on the desirable part. I didn't mean to come across that my way of doing things is the only to do things. I'm simply explaining that I'm creating the rules the way I am for the reasons I have given.
Actually, I think it's a very good idea for designers to state the reasons why they designed the game they did because it helps the players understand the games possible strengths and weaknesses, while also helping the player decide if he wants to buy into the system (although my rules are actually going to be free...so I could care less about that).
I'm picking on this point because I think it betrays something deeper.
Quote from: DauntlessAs an example, most modern systems that allow you to build a character with a point system and choose skills however you like (a descriptive design approach) is not very realistic. In this sense, class systems and random rolls to build things like attributes are in fact more realistic because they mirror more closely how reality works. Descriptive design allows one to create the desired object as long as you "pay the points for it". Procedural design can get you close to your desired output as long as A) you have the right inputs, b) you are lucky enough or C) can afford the design requirements/prerequisites (mass, cost, social class, minimum trait score, etc).
There is a part of me that agrees with you wholeheartedly. If you want to create people who are representative of the probable distribution of the world population, then you need to use a system that creates statistically average characters.
But no one plays the ordinary character. (Not no one, but in the main that's not seen in the hobby.) We play the extraordinary characters, the heroes, superheroes, protagonists, great movers and shakers, even the gods.
What a system of randomized rolls does is produce characters whose variation from the statistical norm is predictable. It prevents you from having a party of all, say, fighters with 18(00) strengths (to use a D&D example), or having every character in the party display maximum values in the scores that matter to that class and minimum values in those which do not.
A well-designed point-based system, on the other hand, is designed to let the player build a character he wants to play, who is within the range of what the game allows. It is admitted that somewhere out there there is a fighter with an 18(00) strength. There are probably quite a few of them, since the odds of rolling that are one in twenty-one thousand six hundred (if I'm doing my spot math correctly), and most worlds have a lot more than that many people in them. If you want to play that one guy, the point based system lets you create him, instead of rolling again and again and again and destroying a lot of good characters who aren't what you wanted to play.
There is an inherent assumption in the randomized method that if it weren't randomized certain types of heroes would be underrepresented.
Don't misunderstand. There are some great strengths to systems that include randomizers. I gave some serious thought to various character generation models in my
Game Ideas Un
limited: CharGen and
Game Ideas Un
limited: Negative Points (these are currently for Gaming Outpost subscribers only, but the GO management is planning to eliminate the subscription system, refund money to people who paid for future subscriptions, and make everything available free, probably fairly soon). There's a lot to be said for randomization. However, I've known players who spent hours and hours rolling random characters and discarding them, in the effort to get the one they wanted. How random is that, really? On the other hand, is the alternative to force the player to play a character he really doesn't like at all?
Also, this struck me:
Quote from: Later heAs I gave in an example earlier, what seems a better tradeoff:
1) A resolution system that takes 30 seconds and is within 15% of the true score 90% of the time.
2) A resolution system that takes 2 minutes, and is within 5% of the true score 95% of the time.
It's these sort of considerations that I'm not really sure about how to go forward.
The first thing that struck me is that for the system to be seriously off five percent of the time is outrageous. A system that produces an accurate result at least ninety-nine out of one hundred rolls is the minimum tolerance, I would think.
And then I wondered, within 5% of what? There is an underlying assumption here that someone knows what "really would happen", and is designing a system to emulate
that. However, I don't think we know what really would happen in most situations.
When he was in high school, my brother could do a standing broad jump of nine feet six inches, provided he could see just where he had to hit to do that. If he attempted to go an inch farther, he would probably fall backwards and lose distance. He could make that jump reliably enough that his coach told him to get the judges to show him where nine six was before he jumped, and aim for that. Now, what are the odds that he could make nine seven? No one knows. He could make it, sometimes. What are the odds that he would fail attempting to jump eight feet? Pretty slim, I'd guess--but it could happen, if he lost his concentration or slipped or something. All we can say is that if he knew where nine six was and he tried to hit that spot, he would succeed reliably. I never knew him to fail.
Before Columbia, what were the odds that a U.S. manned spaceship mission would result in a fatality? It had never happened. We'd lost astronauts on the ground, but never in space--not even on the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission where so much went wrong. Yet it did happen with Columbia, just as we were getting accustomed to the idea that it couldn't happen.
There's an article in one issue of The Way, the Truth, and the Dice entitled Hitting Them Where It Hurts, which reviews military statistics on injuries and fatalities in combat over the past century or so, and attempts to devise a realistic damage system from them--admirably so, and worth reviewing. Yet ultimately this sort of realism leads us in directions that are so different from our expectations that it doesn't really support play all that well. How do you know what would "really happen"? On most of the things that matter, you don't and you can't. On those trivial details where you can come up with an approximation, attempting to be accurate to the approximation is still an approximation.
Yes, you can have better and worse approximations.
You put a lot of effort into arguing for an approach that builds the results from the inputs. I understand that; to a degree, that was a strong influence in Multiverser--we want this to count, and this, and this, and this, and this, in whether the attacker hits the defender. In the end, though, the test of it all was when the ordinary person attacks the ordinary person, does his chance of injuring him match what we expect? You can talk all you want about how your system builds the chance of success from realistic variables, but in the end if you have absurd results--an ordinary person has no chance of injuring another ordinary person if he swings a pipe wrench at him, or a skilled marksman with a scoped rifle can kill a pigeon from thirty miles away on a lucky roll--all that talk of realism flies out the window. All evaluation of realism must be based on the output, not the inputs, no matter how important the inputs are, and if the output isn't any good, you've got to go back and change the inputs until it is good.
I feel like I'm wandering, so I'll stop here and hope that this helps.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: DauntlessActually, I think it's a very good idea for designers to state the reasons why they designed the game they did because it helps the players understand the games possible strengths and weaknesses, while also helping the player decide if he wants to buy into the system (although my rules are actually going to be free...so I could care less about that).
I just wanted to say that i totally understand where you are coming from with this and to a great degree i agree with you.
Quote from: DauntlessAs for realistic rules requiring consistency, this consistency is based upon the judgment of the GM. ...[snip]...
This sentence really seems to highlight what you are working toward here. This implies to me that the GM has final authority over what does and does not happen. As in "Well, it just is not possible for you to hit a pigeon at 30 miles, sorry it doesn't happen." So two questions arise:
1. Why have a system at all since the GM can just decide what happens? Is it there as a set of guidelines so that the GM has a little less work? (Note: that is a perfectly valid reason for a system. If that is what you are doing it is not a problem.)
2. What do the players and player characters
do? Is this pure Simulationism? Do the players exist simply to expore the world and their characters?
I am especially curious regarding these two issues because from what i have been reading it sounds like you are setting yourself up for some serious Illusionism. (Note: Illusionism is not necessarily bad, remember that Participationism is a functional form of Illusionism play.)
I eagerly await your reply.
Thomas
MJ actually hit a lot of what I would have said. But I do have another angle.
You are not trying to create reality, we all agree on that, but some feeling that the results are accurate. As MJ said, if the system, despite looking at important inputs gives back bad data, you have to go back and consider the inputs. IOW, you're really starting with the desired output, and working back to the inputs anyhow.
But moreso than this, in a RPG, since we're not creating reality, we can decide what it is that we want to create. Sure it can mirror reality somehow if that's what you want, but what parts of reality it mirrors will depend greatly on what you want to display as the output. See, when modeling true reality, say for the purposes of an economic model, it's important that the output match reality in some useful way. In an RPG, you're creating fiction, and so you only have to match some form of fiction. Which can be anything.
Note that I think the games out there that are said to be most "realistic" are actually quite fictional in many ways. To a large extent this is because you are forced to limit the inputs to a set that produces output that says something about the inputs. For example, if we make calibre important in gunfire calculations, this means that the output says something about calibre.
But what most games notably lack is some way to describe the mental attitude of a person in a combat situation. That is, it's assumed that for some reason, the player gets to decide a combat participant's mental state to a large part. Basically, you are allowed to attack whenever you feel like it, or take aim, or do any such thing. Now, some few games do have "morale" rules, that attempt to cover these things. But that's just another angle, and one that's actually fallacious as it comes at the problem from a "management" perspective. That is, "poor morale" is a descriptive, not a proceedural way of describing any fighting unit, including the individual soldier, who won't perform. It doesn't say anything about why the soldier won't perform. Is he scared to be hurt? Scared to hurt others? Scared to leave his family without a father? Is this based on moral convictions, or is it because the person is immorally not with the goal of the mission?
Now, I'm not saying that ignoring all of this stuff is bad, it's just a choice. Recently, in the games I've played, these sorts of things have seemed to me to be really important considerations. So, to me when I play now, any system that just allows attacks without consideration of the character's mental make up at the time of the attack is critical? Not just because I find this stuff dramatic, either, it turns out that if you read the reports that MJ is talking about, or the works done post-conflict in any war this century, you find out that this mental state stuff is 90% of the effectiveness equation in combat. All the aiming, weapon accuracy, all of those inputs mean crap if the soldier refuses to fire his weapon as it's designed to be fired. Which is what happens 90% of the time.
Now, again, that doesn't mean that I don't find the sort of combat system that you're looking at invalid; what I find it to be is a choice of fictions. The fiction that I produce says that most of those factors of aiming and such are randomized, and come under the effect of the die roll. Your fiction says that the characters are mentally affected whatever way your system says they're affected, narrowing the scope of the output to a certain band. My output says something about the realities of individual mental make up, while yours says something about something else.
Both are "realistic." Even from a procedural POV. They just focus on different things, and, since they can't deal with everything, they are fictions in terms of what they aren't willing to address.
Which is fine, nobody is going to die because our model does not start with reality, but with a subset of the output that we're interested in seeing. Because, on top of all of this small talk about whether or not it's "realistic" to model combat my way or your way, is the thought that in fact, there's no real reason to give combat any more "realism" than any other area. This is my standard combat rant again, yes (you have read it, no?). One of the possible fictitous outputs that we can have doesn't give any more detail to combat than to anything else. Let's say that the game's basic resolution system is to flip a coin, and on heads, the character wins. In a combat situation, this is perfectly viable, and realistic. Because sometimes one wins in combat, and sometimes one looses. The system models this fact well.
If your game is about being a chef in nineteenth century France, then, in fact, there should be no "combat system" at all, and instead there should be an intensely complicated "Cooking system" that deals with the ins and outs of the subject matter.
Now, I'm presuming that you've decided that your game is about combat (if it's not, then we really have problems). And, again, I'm assuming that you've made the educated decision to do this "realistic" modeling. But that all must then mean that you've decided that "realistic combat" is the output that you're looking for.
Now, you can decieve yourself that you're working from the inputs. And, again, you can create a tailored output from the inputs, given that you're saying something about the inputs you choose. But if you actually choose the inputs based on some idea that "X input is neccessary, because it's crucial to the actual effect in real life," then you're doing yourself a disservice. Because any input can be ignored, and the result still remain "realistic." It's just a different realism. There is nothing that says that one input is better than another a priori for a RPG. Because the result has to real world implications. In the end, the result is to produce a fiction in the minds of the players. Yes, a potentially realistic one, but a fiction nonetheless.
So, given that the output doesn't "need" to be any particular thing, given that it's not a model that's going to be used to save lives in the real world, or put men on the moon, given that you can't be "accurate" for all the reasons that MJ states, given that all that's sought is a "realistic fiction," ...
Start with the output you want to see. That doesn't mean that you have to describe it descriptively, you can describe it as procedurally as you like. But even in the procedural method, you have to select which inputs make for the output desired, what the output talks about. And abstract the rest, as you must.
Second point, people don't know what reality is really like. They think, for example, that guns knock people down. I remember, for example, someone saying how they felt that the movie Shane was a breakthrough in that there's this special effect that they use when Jack Palance is hit by Shane's shot in the saloon, and he flies back into the other room like he was hit by a Mack truck. The person's comment was something to the effect that a Colt peacemaker was a powerful weapon. Which it was, actually (and highly innaccurate, too). Just that it couldn't possibly knock anyone over. Even if the collision were completely elastic (meaning that the bullet didn't penetrate, but instead just pushed him back), the force of a bullet is equal to the kick of the weapon. Newton says so. Which, if it doesn't knock over the firer isn't very well likely to knock over the target of a highly inelastic collision.
I remember later seeing the director had said that the reason he'd done the effect like they had was to reinforce the emotional impact of the bad guy getting shot.
So, I'm not sure how many people want "realistic" realism. I think they want that verisimilitude mentioned above more often, when they care about realism at all. Now, you may be writing to an audience which wants real realism, and that's fine. Just be aware of the difference. I think that that crowd is pretty small, actually.
Further, given that our understanding of the realities in question is limited, the best you can hope to do is to achieve some realism that relates to our current understanding of things (I think MJ might have said this). That is, who knows, maybe what I've read from the FBI about stopping power being a myth is incorrect, and they just haven't analyzed it enough yet. The point being that we're often better off abstracting details like this, given our lack of understanding overall.
The point here being that 50% accuracy is "good enough" because people won't know the difference. That is, if you make them go through more hoops to get a supposedly higher accuracy, they'll not see the point, because they'll neither be able to confirm or deny whether or not the output is actually accurate. In fact, as long as it's internally consistent, they'll assume that the rules accurately portray the game world in question. And as long as this doesn't produce any glaring errors, you're fine. So it's often best to aim for generally realistic. Which again means more abstraction.
Mike
MJ Young-
You're right in that sometimes you don't know the expected theoretical value. In fact, it's very rare to know the expected theoretical value. Sometimes it's even hard to come up with an observed or measured value. Since you're a statistician (I think....am I confusing you with someone else??), you're probably familiar with stochastic analysis and determining how we calculate probability itself. Sometimes, trying to figure out an algorithm is impossible or too difficult to be useful. So sometimes we just observe the events n-times, with n being a usefully large sample and see if a trend emerges (if the lim as n-> infinity converges to some limit).
If it does, then we can use this as a baseline....but unfortunately, it still doesn't help us with creating a function or algorithm to let us come up with this number. But at least we now have a baseline number to examine.
If our observed results don't seem to converge to a certain number with our given dependent variables (our inputs), then we seem to be stuck up a creek without a paddle. It's in these cases that we resort to verisimiltude. Or rather, I should say we create an appearance of reality that suits the intended atmosphere of the game system. If you're trying to crate a grim and gritty game system, then you should have results which reflect that (i.e., grandstanding and trying to look good will get your ass shot off). If you're trying to create a swashbuckling system, then leaping onto a chandelier to land on a foe should have a reasonable chance of success given the character abilities.
As for your point about playing characters which are larger than life. I agree. Games are (in some ways unfortunately) an escapist pleasure. We want to be better than what we are. So I've devised a "grading on the curve" scheme to character design, that will attempt to satisfy most players needs for some kind of balance or desire to have a character that fits their vision. The more points you've spent to create or guide the character along on his path, the more "Karma" you've accumulated.
It becomes in essence a gauge for the GM to decide on whether or not experience should be awarded. As the old adage goes; "For those whom much has been given, much is expected" applies here. If you're powerful, then you have to stick your neck out more often and tackle harder problems to advance. So it may turn out that someone who started with less karma may eventually surpass a more powerful character who wasn't challenging himself...not just against physical foes, but also in introspection.
Lordsmerf-
Quote1. Why have a system at all since the GM can just decide what happens? Is it there as a set of guidelines so that the GM has a little less work? (Note: that is a perfectly valid reason for a system. If that is what you are doing it is not a problem.)
The system is there as a guideline for the GM. The GM should have the right to break the rules, but doing so consistently will break the faith (as displayed by their credibility of the results) of the players. In other words, it'a "good faith" system. So yes you're right...the rules are there so the GM can let the rules do the work. If he doesn't agree with the rules, then he can veto them so to speak. Sometimes this is necessary because a game system can never be perfect, and the results you get out of the rules may not be very credible, or because the result leads to a direction that is undesirable (perhaps an incredibly lucky punch kills a character).
Why bother having rules if the GM has this power other than as guidelines? Think of it this way. The rules gives you a 2nd version of what happens under a given event. The rules in effect says, "This is mostlikely would happen given these sets of conditions". Then you compare this to the GM version...if he has one. Two heads are always better than one...
Quote2. What do the players and player characters do? Is this pure Simulationism? Do the players exist simply to expore the world and their characters?
That's my primary idea. But one of the reasons I'm aiming for a high degree of versimilitude is because I want the players to be able to relate to the characters, and internalize (to introspect on) some portion of what they explore. IOW, it's a simulation where the exploration is not just of the game world, but also of the self. This will hopefully be achieved by the more realistic rules granting a sense of plausibility and hence immersion, while also having a setting that allows the player to easily transfer the metaphor of the game world to not just the character experience, but his own. That's why my game setting (to coincide with the grittiness of the rules), is based on an extrapolation of human society and culture about 100 years into the future. It's a mix of military science fiction, transhumanism, and post-apocalypse settings....with a hidden but very deep reservoir of transcendental thought, like buddhism ,taoism, hinduism, esoteric Christianity (gnosticism) Judaism (Kabbalah and Islam (Sufism) that will be revealed in an overarching storyline.
A second game background also deals with a pan-asiatic pseudo-historical setting which has some of the same themes, but is set in alternate earth of approximately the 1880's time frame.
Mike H-
I agree with you entirely. When we decide on the output of a system, we inherently give credence to whatever the inputs are that decide the outcome. Because reality is complex, we can't hope to account for every little variable. So instead, we have to pick and choose which ones to account for. By doing this, we emphasize the importance of those inputs.
Even in procedural design, you have a forward thought that says, "I want my final object to be something like this". You plug in the inputs, and hopefully get close to what you were hoping for. Sometimes even coming up with the algorithm in a procedural design has to be forward looking...or we have to make an assumption about a certain result. Procedural design is also very hard to do simply because of the other point you mentioned....we sometimes have no real value upon to which to work. Having no expected value means we can't build a function with the inputs we think are important. So quite often, we must work in a descriptive manner.
So a large part of the art of design is picking the inputs that will "flavor" your game system. The science of game design deals more with figuring out how those inputs affect one another under given conditions to produce a result.
It's funny you mention the aspect of morale on combat. I hadn't thought of it before as a descriptive solution to a problem, but you're right in that it is. In my game, I have Psyche Traits, which are analagous to the Passions in Riddle of Steel, or the chivalric codes in Pendragon, or if you've looked at Politically Incorrect Game's Active Exploits (which is freely available and highly recommended btw) their convictions and beliefs. It's an attempt to justify a rather nebulous concept that I've called Emotional Stability. Stability can take a +/- value with 0 being calm. The psyche traits tell you how your stability became unbalanced, but the Emotional Stability track itself determines the affects. In effect, my Emotional Stability is just another word for morale.
I guess my view of realistic game systems tries to match reality where it can, but I'm quite content with plugging in and filling the gaps with the "fictional" reality where required. Another nice aspect of realistic design is that when you do have a theoretical or expected value you can use, then you don't have to worry about play balance too much. If your game system mechanics come very close to the expected value very often, then you shouldn't need to worry about play balancing (unless the other parts of your system that may relate to it are really out of whack). My fictional reality simply tries to make sure that the denial of plausibility never or rarely happens.
Quote from: DauntlessThe rules in effect says, "This is mostlikely would happen given these sets of conditions". Then you compare this to the GM version...if he has one. Two heads are always better than one...
I disagree with this in the strongest terms. Two voices are
not clearer and less confusing than one.
In my experience, combat is one of the worst possible places for GM fiat to surface: it always seems like you're either trying to hose or to protect the character in question.
TonyLB-
I didn't say they were clearer, just better :)
Take a look at democracy. Having all these voices and differing perspectives is bewildering. But at least a democracy allows for the expression of a different viewpoint to be taken into account.
That's what a system like this does. It gives you one other output on which to reflect on. Most of the time, the GM isn't even going to question the rules, and he'll go along with them. There will be cases however in which going strictly by the rules either doesn't make sense (because no set of rules are perfect), or because something extremely lopsided happens due to pure chance.
If we only ever have one voice to listen to, then there are no needs for rules, or there are no needs for GM's (both viable approaches to roleplaying btw).
This isn't about a "perfect" rule system. If your rule system is giving outputs that don't make sense for your goals then your rule system is broken.
You will seldom see a more lopsided case of bad dice-luck than this actual play post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12886). If we had been playing the way you intend to, the GM would promptly have overridden the dice to rescue us. What a pointless waste that would have been.
You might take a look at this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12944), which discusses more generally how fortune and rules as a whole have a role that should be respected.
Tony, I think that the question of GM fiat is an interesting one, but perhaps something for a different thread. That is, the subject deserves to be discussed on it's own, without it interfering with, or being interfered with by, the other material in this post.
Dauntless, I'm the statistician/programmer/analyst (MJ is the Lawyer/Theologian).
We seem to agree: combat (or any other part of the game) becomes "too slow" when it produces output that doesn't match the goal. More precisely, when the output makes statements about the inputs, as we agree they must, and this output doesn't match the input, then the effort of putting in the inputs is not worthwhile. Pretty simple principle, when you get down to it.
Now, what you're saying is that you're goal is to be merely plausible. But I put it to you that it must be more than that. Because if it were to merely be plausible, again, you could just flip a coin to determine the winner (given two humans with everything else abstracted out, this is accurate). Your goal has to be that you want to make some statements about things like Psyche, weapon contribution to damage, character skill, whatever things you're worried about in terms of whether or not they'll make the resolution take too long.
Basically, your overall question can only mean one or both of two things:
1. You're worried about the elegance of your system. Does it provide the sought for feedback in such a way as the efforts involved do not outweigh the value of the output?
2. Are the things that you're using as inputs that are creating more work worth considering in terms of the output that's created?
The answer to the first is that only critical thought and playtest analysis can tell you if the system is elegant enough. It assumes that you are comfortable with the output, and only seek really to reduce the time needed to do the input.
The answer to the second is that you really have to consider whether or not a particular input is important or not. Because if your goal is "only plausibility" then that means that every possible input has the same quality for you. The Coriolis effect of the earth spinning is as potentially important as anything else. Yes, it's statistically unimportant to the outcome, but shouldn't it be in there as a -0 just to show that it's being taken into account?
Rather, what I'm saying is that you are already picking and choosing what's important at a level that's beyond "just plausibility." So discover what that goal is that you're trying to achieve, and drive for that. Because until you do, the problem is that a player playing will not see what the system is driving to provide, and so can't get "into" it. The product will seem random.
Further, this is the micro view of what's going on. It seems to me that you're saying that combat (perhaps all resolution, I don't know), isn't linked to the overall output of the game. That is, I'm guessing that your game isn't merely about "realistic combat." Or is it? What's the game in question? Who are the characters, and what do they do?
For example, if the game is about the Vietnam experience, then perhaps it's reasonable to want a realistic combat system. But the system should at that point have the overall goal of portraying the realities of Vietnam. Which is a different subset than the realities of WWII. Or any other conflict.
If the game is generic, then we have that as an entirely separate issue.
But you can't say that it's OK for any part of the game to simply be plausible, and support the overall output that the game is designed to produce. This would be trying to confirm the statement that System Doesn't Matter, that as long as the part in question is plausible that it'll fit in with whatever other thing is going on. Which is not to say that this is a broken design method. Simply that directed design of these elements is superior.
Discuss the relevant parts of reality to the output, not just the most statistically pertinent in terms of real world outcome.
Mike
Hi again.
Okay, now I'm a little more clear on your goals.
Have you ever heard of
Engle Matrix Games? I'd be interested in your opinion. They use dice to indicate "deviancy from the expected result" and can take a (theoretically) infinite number of inputs. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, at least, on the topic.
yrs--
--Ben
TonyLB-
You can constrain your output results so that you have a limit or range of values that can be produced. In effect, this will prevent any oddball results you might get. However, such constraints are often artificial or they exist only because you can not account for every input variable that would go into the system.
I agree that 99% of the time, good design will prevent paradoxes or blatantly statistically deviant results. But often being able to exclude these "bugs" in your design is done at the expense of factoring out or generalizing some of your inputs or the algorithm itself, thereby losing some detail. So it's a balancing factor for the game designer, and sometimes it just doesn't quite fit right.
Mike-
Quote
2. Are the things that you're using as inputs that are creating more work worth considering in terms of the output that's created?
I think this is the issue that I'm most concerned with. I'd like to have the detail and tactical choice, and I'd like it to have an actual impact on the results. But I'm wondering when and if it becomes too time intensive to be worth it. As long as the playes have fun going over the crunchiness and also realizing that their tactical input has a decided effect on their chances of success, then I'm willing to sacrifice more of the playability factor.
The realism/accuracy is still important of course. But it's an auxilliary goal to immersing the players in the world that I've created. The plausibility is there not for its own sake, but to increase the visceral influence it will have on the imagination (and here, I sharply disagree with those who feel abstracted generalized systems allow for more vivid imagery in the imagined space).
Sounds like we're talking diminishing returns here. That is, if we're not concerned with elegance per se, but with the number of inputs (or relative work to include them) versus the improvement they represent to the quality of the output, then it can only be a question of diminishing returns.
Because given that any particular input can be interesting in theory, if they're all delivering a constant amount of benefit to the output, then you could add as many as you like, and the game would have the same work:beneficial output ratio. But I'd agree that eventually there's a curve here. I think that at some point what really makes an input have less of a return is if it's "more of same."
For a stilted example, if you have one roll to determine whether or not a character's agility allows them to dodge an attack, and another to see if their reaction time saves them from being hit, and another to see if their intuition saves them, any of these alone are theoretically interesting. Having to do each of them would diminish each, however. Meaning that you'd have a lower effort:output ratio.
Yes, at some point, this becomes unplayable. The thing is that this seems to be input driven design to me again. Looking at the output, we wonder if each of these might be interesting as part of the output, and we decide to find a simple method that includes them all. Most systems will take the three stats in question and amalgamate them into some "defensive value" or something. This doesn't provide as much detail as the original system, but it provides enough to get a feel that the stats in question are being incorporated.
This is a key part of output driven design, and a subtle point that I'm making. It's not a question of elegance here - I could decide that the latter method is equivalent of the first, and make a change here based on the fact that it's more elegant. But let's assume for a second that the first method is seen to be more "accurate" from a procedural POV. In that case, from an input POV (which I argue is incorrect), you'd include the harder method. From an output POV, you note that the details are getting lost in the use of the system, and see that using the simpler system, though less proceedurally accurate, provides the more appropriate outcome. That is, despite the input method being in some way "innaccurate" to the real world, it's accurate to the output that's sought.
Again, it's choosing where to make your abstractions and fictions.
And, again, the system "takes too long" precisely when the added inputs are no longer adding proportionally to the output. Where they're getting lost in the jumble. Where the complexity is such that one can no longer weigh at all the impact of the individual elements.
Yes, this is damn realistic - in real life we have to play everything by ear. But these are RPGs, and not understanding what's happening, means that the system is returning feedback that's not satisfying in any way. We have to be able to process the feedback in order to be able to happily want to loop back to the system.
This is why people say that games like Go are great designs. Simple to learn, impossible to master. Because the feedback is simple and digestible. That doesn't make it any less intense in terms of strategy, or complexity of situation. It just mean that there are only a few well chosen inputs considered.
Again, when precisely you've put in too many inputs is a matter for playtesting and such - I don't think that it's possible to give a formulaic answer given that we can't know how interested people will be in the output value of any particular included input. But I will say this. Once you've gotten a largish set of inputs decided upon, I think that it's definitely a good idea to go through them and find ones to eliminate that serve essentially redundant purposes. And, yet again, what's redundant for one will not be for another, so you'll have to decide on your own.
On the subject of "genralized abstracted systems" first I think we're talking preferences here, so there's not much to say. But the support that a particular set of rules gives to "vivid imagery" depends very much on what it is that people are interested in imagining. If what they're interested in are the feelings of the people involved in combat, then what they need are complex rules that deal with that, and any details that speak to the physics involved will just get in the way. Because they're not looking for the system to make any statement there. But, generally, yes, systems can provide more or less support to any part of the imagination. I don't think that anyone here is for a lack of support. I think that they're for focusing support where it's desired.
Meaning that if you're focusing detail on physics that you're supporting visualizaton of things like bullets flying around, and swords clashing, in very precise ways. More precise than any other medium would care to offer, interestingly. That is, the "generalization" or "abstraction" of combat in some systems provides precisely the same sort of support for visualizing action that, say, action films do. Which is fun for some.
Mike