D&D calls them "Abilities", GURPS, RuneQuest and the White Wolf System calls them "Attributes", whilst Rolemaster and the Hero System calls them "Characteristics".
Roll 3d6 six times and allocate in order; Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Wisdom, Constitution and Charisma....
We know what they are in game terms. We know that the provide a foundation of what a character can do.
But what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?
What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).
What's their relationship between stats and skills? In RQ a character with a Dex of 30 gains +20% to their attack rolls. Using a similar scale, a GURPS character would effectively gain a bonus of more than 100%. Why is there such variation between two systems both which claimed to be realistic?
Random (the genetic or social "die" is cast!) or allocated (e.g., point-based)? Second-generation players ("you have your mother's eyes and your father's strength")?
How would players react to the idea of randomly rolling their sexual orientation (could be educational for some....)? What about randomly determined alignment?
Well from my perspective (and most of the folks who hang out here) the "Right" answer is the one that best matches the game's mechanics with the intended purpose of play...regardless of what that means or its relationship to any philosophical musings on "reality".
The "Wrong" answer is any system (no matter how well in works) that was designed that way "just because" with no real thought as to promoting the game's play goals.
Aside from that you're really left with nothing more than personal preference. So to keep this thread from becoming a general "tell me what you think" opinion poll (which is a no-no at the Forge), do you have some specific questions or areas that you want to zero the discussion in on?
BTW: Indie-Design is only to be used for actual games being actually designed for actual publication (i.e. release to the public). General questions like this belong in RPG Theory. I'm sure one of the moderators will be around to move it presently.
Hello,
You won't be surprised to discover that we've discussed this issue pretty heavily at the Forge too, and we're not alone. This isn't meant to shut down the current conversation, but maybe we'll all do better to review some of the ground that's been covered.
Choosing and defining the stats (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9850) (this one has important internal links, including one to an essay by John Kim)
Traits and skills threads please (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12179) (this one has pretty much all the links to earlier discussions)
Best,
Ron
Quote from: ValamirThe "Wrong" answer is any system (no matter how well in works) that was designed that way "just because" with no real thought as to promoting the game's play goals.
I get the feeling a reflexive design practice is actually to go into freeform sim exploration, imagining the world or the specific game world and what would exist there and write down what you find in such an exploration.
So the blunt suggestion that they should determine these stats in relation to the games real life goals (something at a very metagame level), is incredibly jarring. Which leaves game design stagnating.
On the flip side, it'd be interesting to play an RPG where your characters stats were described as X, Y and Z, or such like, with no color at all...and yet it still worked.
Hiya,
Callan and Ralph are speaking wisdom. Callan, as a support point, the single value used in Trollbabe for each character is merely called her "Number" and the only mechanic that modifies it is called the "Modifier." Re-rolling it is called the "Re-roll." I purposely left all Color off the numerical features of the game.
Lev, you might not be familiar with Trollbabe. The game offers an extreme example of the idea that the numbers associated with a role-playing character themselves mean nothing in the game-world - until they're utilized in a scene, in which case what they mean is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The game which inspired me most about this were Dust Devils and Hero Wars (now called HeroQuest), but Trollbabe takes it a step farther by collapsing all values into one number. Primetime Adventures then steps even farther from Trollbabe, putting the character's one number (Screen Presence) firmly into the player-level of understanding and usage, and it cannot be mistaken for anything to do with the character's abilities at all.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Noon
I get the feeling a reflexive design practice is actually to go into freeform sim exploration, imagining the world or the specific game world and what would exist there and write down what you find in such an exploration.
So the blunt suggestion that they should determine these stats in relation to the games real life goals (something at a very metagame level), is incredibly jarring. Which leaves game design stagnating.
On the flip side, it'd be interesting to play an RPG where your characters stats were described as X, Y and Z, or such like, with no color at all...and yet it still worked.
Good points, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Clearly some mechanics can be very successfully designed strictly at the meta level. TrollBabe's Number or My Life With Master. The mechanics in those games are 100% strictly driven towards producing a certain type of play experience and any in-game justification is primarily color. In MLwM for instance the difference between Self Loathing and Weariness is strictly in terms of how they modify certain rolls. Little to no effort is made to define Weariness as a particular state of being and then make sure there are rules that cover all possible incarnations of that state of being (i.e. "wouldn't a Weary character have a disadvantage to do X").
I consider this approach to be akin to Euro style board games. Designers like Reiner Knizia create a specific play experience with mechanics and then the "theme" is largely just painted on. This means that games like Wallenstein are tons of fun to play and mechanically brilliant even though the mechanics have little relation to the reality of the 30 Years War.
This is contrasted with an American style design exemplified by the old Avalon Hill or SPI where where mechanics were created primarily to model a certain "Sim Experience" and only secondarily to promote a specific game play.
However, I think the true pinnacle of RPG design (as well as some newer board game designs like Struggle of Empires) is one that successfully blends the two approaches.
There's nothing wrong with starting from a free form Sim experience to figure out what sorts of things you find there. I love games like Pendragon precisely because of how effectively they do this. The next step, however, (which too often is missing) is to be selective about choosing what things of all of those that you
might find there you actually want to feature in the game. Just because it
could be in the "sim experience" space, doesn't mean it
should be in the game.
Selectively culling those aspects you want to feature and then designing the game to drive play towards those aspects is a largly meta approach to design. But I think its possible to have the best of both worlds.
Hmmm... Interesting.
From the outset I must point out being a stubborn simulationist means the "determine according to flavour the game" doesn't quite cut it with me. OTOH, I love games which provide flavour from the stats (e.g., Call of Cthulu's SAN). Likewise, whilst I think a dramatic attribute like Primetime Adventure's is a good idea, I find the idea of this representing the character's abilities, rather than an abstraction of the player's influence in the plot, to be a little ahh, strange. I should also say I have no truck with the argument that "universal" systems are doomed to failure axiomatically.
The essay on nature and nurture, whilst incredibly short, does provide something of a foundation. To my addled brain, there should be a clear distinction in a game system between the two. Sure, physical strength has a great deal to do with nurture as well. Being the third bastard child of a peasant usually meant that no matter what your gene's said your strength could have been you would turn out to be a runt.
So what about the profound influence of the "social die", when compared to the "genetic die"? This one is a little trickier because it seems there are few derived statistics. So designers tend to use skill abstractions rather than derivations from a memetic trait. I'm still pondering on CHA in particular here. To what extent is Charisma learned versus innate? I know that the pentecostal religious tradition (for example) considers it innate ("the gift..."), which is probably related to "voice" or the in the Irish tradition ("... of the gab"). GURPS (Basic, 3rd, p19) considers it innate but didn't have an attribute for it! Why, for the sweet love of design, I do not know..
Another matter which I think "solves" the GURPS problem as Mike's Standard Rant #4 described it (and yes, it is a huge problem) is the lack of distinction between stat and skill. I don't care how skilled one is, even if they've spent six years doing nothing else except studdying that one skill (boring, eh?). You simply cannot jump ten meters with a DEX/AGI of 8 on a 3-18 human scale.
Ralph,
I fully agree. I just think most new gamers (and many old gamers) don't intuitively reach for that blend.
The freeform sim exploration, then coming back and looking amongst what was explored for material that might be useful as game structure, is the technique I use myself.
lev_lafayette,
Does this help at all? In providing a different means of answering what stats you should have or what is the right number of stats? Edit: I cross posted with you. I'll read your post now.
QuoteYou simply cannot jump ten meters with a DEX/AGI of 8 on a 3-18 human scale.
And that's the point where I ask (in all seriousness)...so what?
Under what set of game play goals does it matter whether or not the stat / skill combination will accurately determine the precise distance a human can jump? In other words...why is that important?
Is jumping distances some key factor in the nature of the game...a Mario Brothers type world where jumping around from place to place is essential to your character's survival and because its such a central feature its important to focus on it in the rules?
The typical response is something along the lines of "Well, no its not a central feature, but somewhere along the line a character might be confronted with an obstacle that needs to be crossed by jumping and the rules should handle it."
To which I say "Yes, the rules should handle it...but why is it necessary that they handle it by accurately calculating the precise distance a human with a given stat can jump? Why isn't it it sufficient to say 'this is a challenging jump' and set the difficulty at whatever point would be considered challenging for the game system? Or 'this is nearly impossible' and set the difficulty to a nearly impossible level".
See, that totally allows for the occassion when jumping a certain distance is a key obstacle for a character to over come and it doesn't in the least bit require caring about whether the 8 Dex character could jump 10 feet or only 6.5.
That brings us back to the question. Under what set of game play goals is that sort of precision important?
I'm not saying its NEVER important. I'm not saying there is no occassion where worrying about that isn't the right way to design.
What I AM saying quite emphatically is that the huge mistake game designers have made for decades is to just ASSUME that it is important and that a game isn't complete without elaborate rules for calculating jumping distances (or running speeds, or lifting capacity, or any of the other things that occupy tons of space in rule books).
If one can answer the question as to why that rule is essential for THIS particular game for THIS particular reason...then by all means include it.
But if the best answer one can come up with is "that's the way its done", or "Its realistic", or "someone may need to know that some day"...then that's just plumb bad design.
I feel comfortable calling it "bad design" without hesitation.
The cornerstone principal of good design is that form follows function. If you don't have a need for the function...than including the form "just because" is bad design. The form of the rules should accomplish no more and no less than what the function of the game is. If you don't have a well designed function...or you're including a bunch of stuff totally tangental to that function...that's just bad design...by definition.
So to summarize. Definitely write rules like that if you have a clear and compelling reason to need those rules. Definitely don't care about it if you don't have a clear and compelling reason to. Not having those rules in a game that doesn't need them is a good thing. Just as having those rules in game that does need them is a good thing.
The essential element of design that tends to get skipped is the part of the process where the designer makes hard decisions about what the game needs and what it doesn't. Assuming the game needs everything is just lazy design. Some games (like Multiverser) have a good reason for needing a wide range of things. Some games (like Trollbabe) don't.
Knowing the whys and the wherefors of a proposed game design is the very very first thing the designer should do...LONG LONG LONG before worrying about the relationship between skills and attributes.
Edited for rampant typos.
Quote from: lev_lafayetteThe essay on nature and nurture, whilst incredibly short, does provide something of a foundation. To my addled brain, there should be a clear distinction in a game system between the two. Sure, physical strength has a great deal to do with nurture as well. Being the third bastard child of a peasant usually meant that no matter what your gene's said your strength could have been you would turn out to be a runt.
So what about the profound influence of the "social die", when compared to the "genetic die"? This one is a little trickier because it seems there are few derived statistics. So designers tend to use skill abstractions rather than derivations from a memetic trait. I'm still pondering on CHA in particular here. To what extent is Charisma learned versus innate? I know that the pentecostal religious tradition (for example) considers it innate ("the gift..."), which is probably related to "voice" or the in the Irish tradition ("... of the gab"). GURPS (Basic, 3rd, p19) considers it innate but didn't have an attribute for it! Why, for the sweet love of design, I do not know..
Dude, your going on a freeform simulationist journey right there. And your generating material from the first issue(s) you come across...enough to be the focus of a game. That's the problem if you don't collect from the exploration then cull off the bits that don't matter to your real life goal, you'll end up making a game about the first thing you end up exploring, rather than what you want to make a game about.
I mean, nature and nurture...it is interesting. Do you want your game to be about that? If it wasn't really what you wanted, then don't let the first thing you come across decide your books contents. If you think it wont determine that, either your wrong, or your already doing some culling of game world stuff and only using other what remains because it's important to your game design goal (this is the technique Ralph mentioned).
If you haven't really decided what you want your book to be about and just want to explore the game world till you find that out, your going to end up just writing a diary of your sim journey, complete with arithmatic.
I'm kinda sick today, so I might be more blunt than needed.
Ralph,
Ummm, I think it's okay to have the jump distances for sim purposes, as I imagine lev would have. Learning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.
lev_lafayette: The thing is...jumping distance is not that interesting (relative to many other things). Don't end up taking up book space on something when it's not that interesting and you only added it because it came up, rather than you making a concious descision on adding it in.
Note: If your making a RPG that's like the comp game pitfall, then jump distance will be pretty damn interesting. Just noting this so as to show how the goal of the book indicates what deserves focus and what doesn't.
Quote from: NoonRalph,
Ummm, I think it's okay to have the jump distances for sim purposes, as I imagine lev would have. Learning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.Quote
I agree, as I noted, that it absolutely CAN be alright to include rules for jumping distances. But I don't think "Its for Sim purposes" is an adequate reason. That makes it way too easy to include everything and the kitchen sink "for sim purposes". Its important for the designer to think about it harder than that.
Sim does not equate to crunchy rules that model reality. i.e. Having crunchy rules that model reality does not automatically facilitate Sim and the desire to play Sim does not automatically require crunchy rules that model reality.
If one is going to include crunchy rules that model reality (and I feel like Seinfeld here repeating "not that theres anything wrong with that") I think you need a much more compelling reason than "its for Sim purposes".
Sim design also doesn't need to have huge amounts of subsystems and charts, either.
Bit of a tangent:
Chris Engle's The Matrix Game (which may or may not be a roleplaying game), is an exceedingly gamist design. However, to achieve that gamist goal, its core mechanic relies upon a (supremely) simulationist technique.
You won't find any large amounts of charts in Matrix ( really, only one core chart), and arguably it is a very generalist design that can be used for a variety of settings ( the sort of venacular usage of "universal" system). I highly recommend taking a peek at The Matrix Game as an example of a sim mechanic that utilizes an almost unlimited amount of "crunch" but almost no charts ( all of the crunch comes from the players' ability to form convincing arguments based on their own knowledge and the situation presented by the scenario played).
Robert
Hoy, :)
Quote from: NoonLearning that because you have X in trait Y gives you X jumping distance, grants a pleasurable sim buzz.
I would like to point out that it also facilitates Gamist play if you have a rope, since then, you can judge the width of the aforementioned chasm versus the length of the rope, and Step On Up to decide whether you'd rather jump or use the rope, somehow.
If the jump is just "challenging", where would that leave us with regard to the 15-meter rope in our backpacks? ;)
But that's neither here nor there. Fundamentally, I agree with Ralph. Things should have a reason for being there, other than, "it's for Sim purposes".
Cheers,
J.
As I was reading Ralph's excellent discussion of jumping distances, I was considering whether to throw Multiverser into the mix on that; then he very kindly brought the game into view, so I decided that indeed it might help.
One of the "tricks" Multiverser uses is to let the referee decide which of several approaches to resolving a matter he want to use.
Let's suppose we've got that jump situation. The player's character paper might have a specific statement on it as to how far he can jump normally (a skill definition) and how good he is at that (a skill ability level). We can roll the dice and determine whether he is "successful".
But what do we really need to know?
If the jump is because he's participating in some sort of athletic competition, we need to know how far he jumped, and that quite precisely. In that case, knowing whether or not he successfully jumped his 9'4" good standing broad jump is really of relatively minor interest to us. What we really want to know is did he do better than that, worse than that, by how much, or did he choke and fall? Multiverser provides a means of determining exactly how far the character jumped based on the roll, if that's what you want to know.
On the other hand, if he comes to a chasm in a cave complex, what are the odds it's going to be exactly 9'4" across? What if it's described as 7' across, with a landing area about three feet wide on the other side? Frankly, if he jumps 9'4" he's going to crash into that opposite wall and fall into the chasm. What we want to know is not whether he can jump 9'4", but whether he can correctly gauge and execute a jump onto that landing on the other side. That should be relatively easy for someone who can jump 9'4", but it's not automatic. So we give the guy a hefty bonus on his chance of success, and we roll the dice. If it succeeds, he made the jump; if it fails, he misjudged it, or slipped, or otherwise didn't make it. We've still got relative success and relative failure built in, so we can tell how bad it is if he missed (did he trip on take-off and is plunging down the middle, or did he slip on landing and is hanging on to the edge trying to scramble up?). In that situation, knowing exactly how far someone did jump is a lot less interesting than knowing whether they made the jump or not; and knowing how far they can jump doesn't help as much as it might appear at first glance.
What complicates this is the nature of setting design. After all, why is that chasm 7' across? Why isn't it 10', or 4'? The answer, ultimately, is that I thought 7' was a good challenge for the character. I don't as much care that it's 7' as that it is an obstacle likely to create a specific degree of tension or challenge within the play of the game. Given that, why should I even have to decide exactly how wide it is? I need only convey to the player how difficult it would be for his character to make this as a jump and what other options he might have. I can say, "It's not that wide, but it is wider than you are tall; I'd give you +20 on your jumping skill if you want to try to jump it." Neither of us ever have to know the width of that chasm, as long as we agree that it would be this difficult to jump it and certain other options are excluded.
Does that help?
--M. J. Young
Ralph, I think you've missed the point. The matter I referred to was the lack of differentiation between stats and skills (the former being effect, the latter being ability to reach that effect). OK, so it's a sim argument and if you don't like Sim-based justifications, then there's no debate...
That said, there are a few things about a sim reason which I think you may have misrepresented a little...
It is not necessary to know exactly what centimeter a character can or cannot jump. But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation.
See the problem is, using D&D for the example, a DEX 8 character can make a 10 meter jump, without much difficulty or inhuman skill level. Now I don't think that's on. The defining and limiting characteristic on how far one can jump is not skill, it's their stat (or as I prefer to call them, trait). Now how well they jump is a different matter...
Nor does it mean that this has to be particularly complex or "crunchy" as the vernacular seems to be here. Simulation, to me, demands abstraction in the first instance, so compelling reasons for particular rules to me is a self-evident truism. Not everything is detailed "for Sim purposes". But dammit, if a rule is just nonsense - or a principle (such as effects being determined by skills rather than stats) - then it should be ditched.
None of this of course, is meant to impede on narrative or gamist approaches. Sim doesn't mean make it impossible to play. One can have good simulation and speedy resolution - and that is a design feature
Lev,
What about long jumpers? Or high jumpers? Even if you think that
this is about "traits" it's pretty clear that you actually have two
different traits at work in these two different activities. And
they'll be different from sprinting, and different from distance
running, and whatever.
So, how do you resolve this? 1) You either lose the granular
difference between the two and roll all of these "effects" into a
single trait that covers them, or 2) You have a large number of "core"
traits to cover the range of differences, or 3) You compromise by
having a small number of core traits and supplementing them with
something else, possibly "skills".
Quote<snip> But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation. <snip>
This is an incredibly problematic statement. What exactly are you trying to simulate? If you are trying to simulate a world in which jumping distance
is a skill (a la
The Matrix), then I'm not seeing a problem.
Thomas
Quote from: lev_lafayetteRalph, I think you've missed the point. The matter I referred to was the lack of differentiation between stats and skills (the former being effect, the latter being ability to reach that effect). OK, so it's a sim argument and if you don't like Sim-based justifications, then there's no debate...
Actually Lev, I don't believe I've missed the point at all. I'll try to avoid repeating myself, so please refer to my earlier comments as well as those below.
I have no dislike for Sim justifications. A few years ago, I would have (and did) make the exact same arguements you are.
I have since come to realize that those arguements...alone and by themselves...are inadequate to justify spending any time at all worrying about things like differentiation between stats and skills (and what effect that might have on things like jumping distance). Note: I specifically used the word "Inadequate", not "Irrelevant".
see...all of this...
Quote
But it is sloppy and unrealistic design when a skill rating defies principles of abstract simulation.
See the problem is, using D&D for the example, a DEX 8 character can make a 10 meter jump, without much difficulty or inhuman skill level. Now I don't think that's on. The defining and limiting characteristic on how far one can jump is not skill, it's their stat (or as I prefer to call them, trait). Now how well they jump is a different matter...
...is
insufficient. You are not articulating a foundational design principle here. At best you are articulating a personal preference - which may actually BE a true preference, or may simply be an artifact of what you're already familiar with and thus most comfortable with. In other words, right now you're just assuming that these things are a design feature.
I'm saying they're not. EVEN for a SIM game these are NOT design features...YET
They CANNOT be design features until you first define what the overall purpose of your game is, what your game play goals are, and what specific elements of game play you want the rules to support...and most importantly...why. Again, you can't start working on a form for your game until you first define its function. Until you've defined a function...NO FORM can be considered a feature.
"because it makes for a good Simulation" is not an adequate definition of the game's function. First you have to tackle what it is about your game that you think is best handled by rules that are an accurate simulation. What are those rules to be used FOR that would make such a simulative approach the ideal.
There is an erroneous assumption that has been made by game designers for years...and you're making it now. That simply because you CAN make rules that are an accurate simulation* you SHOULD. The error goes on to assume that once you have your rules set that provides a nice accurate simulation you can then go ahead and use it for whatever game you need to because if the rules accurately model physics they'll work well for anything.
That's simply not true. Even for sim design. In fact, I'd say that not only is it not true all of the time, that its rarely ever true. Rules that provide an accurate simulation of physics (and when you're talking jumping 10 meters or not...you're talking physics) are ONLY ideal for that small subset of games where the most significant action players will be having their characters do is interacting with the physical world in a realistic way. For any other purpose such rules range from unnecessary at best to down right obstructive. Again this is not a Sim vs. Nar vs. Gamist consideration. This is understanding what you are trying to simulate and why...BEFORE you set about writing rules.
For example, if your game is to simulate the struggle of the social underclasses to find a voice against an oppressive government in a world where no one can be certain who they can trust and everything they hold dear can be yanked away tomorrow...an accurate simulation of physics is almost assuredly irrelevant. An accurate simulation of individual and crowd psychology would be far more useful. How your neighbor might respond to fear, intimidation and social pressure is far more useful to define mechancally than how far they can jump.
So, to summarize:
Step 1) Define what your game is about. What characters are supposed to be doing during play, and what play experience players are supposed to have while they play.
Step 2) Determine what elements of game play require mechanical support. Constantly refer back to step 1 and avoid writing rules about stuff that isn't part of Step 1. Decide how those elements should be portrayed using rules in order to deliver the desired play experience.
Step 3) NOW start to design the actual mechanics refering back constantly to step 1 and 2. IF and ONLY IF step 1 and 2 included strong justification for rules that provide an accurate simulation as part of the necessary design aesthetic should you be worried about such things as the relationship of Skill to Stat. If there is such a reason, great. If not, don't waste your time on trivium.
* of course "accurate simulation" is itself a misnomer given that few people can even agree on which elements can be simulated and which need to be abstracted let alone how accurate is accurate enough (accurate enough for you is bound to be nonsense for someone else).
Quote from: Valamir
...is insufficient. You are not articulating a foundational design principle here. At best you are articulating a personal preference - which may actually BE a true preference, or may simply be an artifact of what you're already familiar with and thus most comfortable with. In other words, right now you're just assuming that these things are a design feature.
Well I'll respectfully disagree. I think they
are a design feature. Because I believe that a game system must be a simulation (game narrative is a different matter).
Quote
They CANNOT be design features until you first define what the overall purpose of your game is, what your game play goals are, and what specific elements of game play you want the rules to support...and most importantly...why.
OK, the purpose is to accurately simulate historical fantasy from the perspective of individual participations. There. Done. Now can we go on to sim-design?
Quote"because it makes for a good Simulation" is not an adequate definition of the game's function.
In your opinion. In my opinion, good simulation is adequte justification. There are already sufficient imaginative setting out there.
Assume, if only for the purposes of debate, that the games purpose has already been determined.
QuoteThat simply because you CAN make rules that are an accurate simulation* you SHOULD.
Which, if it doesn't distract from play, actually supports play. The inverse of the argument (that because we can make realistic and playable rules we shouldn't) is nonsense.
QuoteThe error goes on to assume that once you have your rules set that provides a nice accurate simulation you can then go ahead and use it for whatever game you need to because if the rules accurately model physics they'll work well for anything.
Physics, and history, and sociology and anthropology etc. So why not?
Quote
Step 3) NOW start to design the actual mechanics refering back constantly to step 1 and 2. IF and ONLY IF step 1 and 2 included strong justification for rules that provide an accurate simulation as part of the necessary design aesthetic should you be worried about such things as the relationship of Skill to Stat. If there is such a reason, great. If not, don't waste your time on trivium.
Why don't just assume that the discussion is already at step three, rather than engage in an off-topic tangent?
Quote from: LordSmerf
What about long jumpers? Or high jumpers? Even if you think that
this is about "traits" it's pretty clear that you actually have two
different traits at work in these two different activities. And
they'll be different from sprinting, and different from distance
running, and whatever.
Excellent questions.
Here's an idea. Yes, you do have to compromise to an extent. I wouldn't want one trait per DNA sequence. Say you're using AGI to represent maximun potential application of leg strength. You could still have separate
skills for long and high jump, but the
effect would be determined by the AGI. This is
significantly different from having the skill determine the effect as is the case in some or having the skill determined by the trait.
It scales reasonably well too; you could have a rat with a jumping skill of 100%, but an AGI of 0.1 - a brilliant jumper, but still not one which makes huge distances.
QuoteThis is an incredibly problematic statement. What exactly are you trying to simulate? If you are trying to simulate a world in which jumping distance is a skill (a la The Matrix), then I'm not seeing a problem.
Good point. But even in
The Matrix it was only a skill for those people who had hacked the code, who had seen through the reality. For everyone else it was still a trait. Imagine a character having a meta-skill if you like - the ability to
determine their traits. "I want to have DEX 30", said Kenau... and the next line was "Whoa!"..
QuoteWhy don't just assume that the discussion is already at step three, rather than engage in an off-topic tangent?
Because that assumption is what has led us to 2 decades of for-shit game design. Because there are already about a zillion games which do "accurate simulation" already and the game world needs another one like it needs a hole in the head.
The fact that you want to bypass all of the really important fundamental design questions in order to skip to the trivium...because its the trivium that's captured your interest at this point in time...is just a repetition of the same flawed game design method.
You keep putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that I'm saying "sim design is bad" so that you can come back with nothing more substantial than "sim design is good". When in reality, alls I'm saying is that you are putting the cart way before the horse. Its akin to building a ship and debating whether it should have 2 masts or 3 before you even decide what you're building the ship for. Either answer could be right, but jumping the gun to talk about it is a waste of time. There is no possible right answer without first knowing what the ship is to be used for.
But I've said all I can say on that matter. Since apparently you aren't interested in discussing the fundamental logic behind your question, I'll bow out of the thread.
Edited to add:
I did think of one other angle I thought I thow out there to illustrate my point.
Lets say that you wind up having an extended dialog about this issue and a bunch of folks like Thomas jump in and offer their ideas. Lets say at the end of it all you have 3 different mechanical approaches that all tackle the desire for accurate simulation somewhat differently (or 30, or 300).
How do you decide which is the best one? What standard do you you use to judge whether idea #1 is better than idea #3? How do you know that any of the ideas actually fulfill the goal? THAT's why I've stressed starting from the idea of knowing what your game is about before you start to get into the details. Because without knowing that, you have no yard stick to measure the appropriateness of the solutions you come up with.
Quote from: lev_lafayetteQuote from: ValamirThat simply because you CAN make rules that are an accurate simulation* you SHOULD.
Which, if it doesn't distract from play, actually supports play. The inverse of the argument (that because we can make realistic and playable rules we shouldn't) is nonsense.
This is a major breakdown in the understanding of the way roleplaying games work on your part. The statement itself is true, but the problem is: every point of contact (i.e. every time you access a rule) you are required to spend some amount of time. The more complex the rule, the longer the time it takes. This means that any rule that does not contribute directly to attaining the goal of the game (whatever it may be) necessarily is a distraction from the point of play.
QuoteHere's an idea. Yes, you do have to compromise to an extent. I wouldn't want one trait per DNA sequence. Say you're using AGI to represent maximun potential application of leg strength. You could still have separate skills for long and high jump, but the effect would be determined by the AGI. This is significantly different from having the skill determine the effect as is the case in some or having the skill determined by the trait.
This is also problematic. You know that you're going to have to compromise, but there's not a good way to know how much is too much. The reason is
it is different for different people. Not everyone has the same tolerance for this compromise thing, it's a pretty big deal. You're basically saying "My way is the right way, because it is." You're not really saying why your way is right, and I don't know that there's any way that you can...
Thomas
Quote from: ValamirBecause there are already about a zillion games which do "accurate simulation" already and the game world needs another one like it needs a hole in the head.
That's quite an assumption on your part. I would have thought that my original post made it quite clear that certainly is
not the case.
QuoteThe fact that you want to bypass all of the really important fundamental design questions in order to skip to the trivium.
Your "really important fundamental design questions". It may be a view shared by others, but it is
not a universal concern - and I may add, nor I am I suggesting that
my concerns are universal. I am simply raising them for those who may be interested.
Sorry for not joining your party.
Quote
Its akin to building a ship and debating whether it should have 2 masts or 3 before you even decide what you're building the ship for.
I know what a roleplaying game is for, and I know what particular roleplaying games are for. In this case the analogy is more of a question of "will this design float?"
Quote
But I've said all I can say on that matter. Since apparently you aren't interested in discussing the fundamental logic behind your question, I'll bow out of the thread.
Thank you. When I raise a what a game is for, or more to the point, how to modify a sim according to a narrative structure, please feel free to provide your wisdom.
Quote from: LordSmerfThis means that any rule that does not contribute directly to attaining the goal of the game (whatever it may be) necessarily is a distraction from the point of play.
That's true enough and you'll find no dispute from me on that level. Nevertheless, assuming that a rule
does contribute to play (which to me is a
trivial assumption), can we state that an accurate rule is better than an inaccurate one, assuming playability is the same? That a rule which does not require
additional suspension of disbelief (such as our ten meter leaping old man with a limp) than what already exists?
QuoteThis is also problematic. You know that you're going to have to compromise, but there's not a good way to know how much is too much. The reason is it is different for different people.
No argument from me again. Of course, the degree of complexity is going to vary from gaming group to gaming group. That's what house rules are for. However the principle is a
clear distinction between traits (potential effect) and skills (application of trait for a specific action) is one which I think is important and, dare I suggest, somewhat novel.
Hi lev,
Let me make sure I'm understanding you:
Baseline assumptions for discussion:
1) We're talking about games that rate, measure and model abilities of the characters- not things like "dramatic influence", "player plot points" etc. as the focus of resolution
2) That these abilities are also being rated by innate ability & trained ability seperately
3) That all the above also is something that promotes the goals of this particular game design.
The miscommunication that is happening between you and Ralph is that these baseline assumptions were not stated at the onset. There are many game designs that benefit by the above axioms, and there are many more which
do not, simply because they were adopted without consideration for the actual design goals of the game. An example of a functional game that completely lacks any of the above would be Nighttime Animals Save the World. All Ralph is saying is that not all games require, or benefit by those assumptions.
So, assuming we are going with the above assumptions, your questions were rather hitting quite a few different topics:
QuoteBut what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?
What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).
What's their relationship between stats and skills? In RQ a character with a Dex of 30 gains +20% to their attack rolls. Using a similar scale, a GURPS character would effectively gain a bonus of more than 100%. Why is there such variation between two systems both which claimed to be realistic?
What role should ratings, stats, traits, attributes or whatever we're going to call them hold?
They should rate whatever is relevant and useful for the game design. If it is functionally important to measure how big a character's feet are for the purposes of play- then that should be included. If it's not important, then it shouldn't be included. That simple. That also answers how wide of a distribution you will need.
Should these things represent innate ability, learning, drive, whatever? Depends on what you feel is plausible for the setting and if that explaination is even necessary. Few games take the time to really explain all the hoo-hah of attributes- they usually just sum it up to being "ratings, now, to be used in play" without all the navel gazing of whether it was a genetic thing, or a matter of lifestyle, fate, destiny, magic, etc.
There is no "universal answer" for what is best for game design. Each game will be unique according to its design goals. The reason RQ and GURPS are different despite both attempting to model realism is:
1) they have very different resolution systems
2) the designers had different research material and beliefs of what "realistic" is
3) the designers took very different approaches towards solving the balance between modeling physics and playability
No one can give you meaningful answers to your questions because the questions need more qualification. If you went to the drug store and asked what kind of medicine you needed- they would need to know what illness or condition you are suffering from- it would be impossible to answer your question without further information.
Likewise- here we have a lot of questions without the necessary
design goals. There is no way I can tell you how well a vehicle travels if I don't know if its supposed to go on land, sea or in air.
You might want to consider refocusing your question a bit better and everyone will be able to help you more.
Chris
Quote from: LevQuote from: RalphIts akin to building a ship and debating whether it should have 2 masts or 3 before you even decide what you're building the ship for.
I know what a roleplaying game is for, and I know what particular roleplaying games are for. In this case the analogy is more of a question of "will this design float?"
Well, what is a roleplaying game for (in your opinion)? Yours in particular?
Then ask yourself, does that answer some questions about what traits/skills you should have?
I think that's all Ralph is saying. And if this doesn't help answer these questions very well, perhaps you could better define what the game will be for, until it does help. Further defining your game may help answer these questions.
Quote from: Bankuei
Baseline assumptions for discussion:
1) We're talking about games that rate, measure and model abilities of the characters- not things like "dramatic influence", "player plot points" etc. as the focus of resolution
2) That these abilities are also being rated by innate ability & trained ability seperately
3) That all the above also is something that promotes the goals of this particular game design.
Damn that's a good summary.
Quote
There is no "universal answer" for what is best for game design. Each game will be unique according to its design goals. The reason RQ and GURPS are different despite both attempting to model realism is:
1) they have very different resolution systems
2) the designers had different research material and beliefs of what "realistic" is
3) the designers took very different approaches towards solving the balance between modeling physics and playability
This is where I must express disagreement. Both use roughly the same scale and resolution method. Both claimed to realistic by "real world" standards. Both have the
same approach and balance in modelling physics and playability.
The question is
why? Which one is "more true"?
Hi lev,
A normal car, a baby carriage, and a mars explorerer robot all have 4 wheels- why do they all work differently?
A similar scale doesn't mean much. The resolution is VERY different, just from % rolls vs. 3D6 under a shifting number. We're talking the difference between a linear probability and a bell curve.
"Realism" as anyone, anywhere understands it is based on what materials they're looking at and consider more credible + their own life experiences. Check out all the debates over how ballistics work and you have a perfect example of real people, who fire a lot of guns, who research into actual physics- and still come up with different answers. Even experiments are often biased and under different conditions- despite the ideal of the repeatable experiment.
Which one is more true? Well, I suppose you could go research into general physics, grab tons of data and match it average results given by any system. You'll have to check the data and figure out what to keep, what not to keep, which are likely biased("Car accident info from a public study funded by General Motors... hmm...").
In the end, you'll have to do the work of a real researcher. No one is a master of all fields of physics and human interactions- and no one can give 100% accurate info on everything- AND compare it to the odds that show up in a game system. The sheer logistical impossibility of being able to test and verify everything means "reality" has limited applications in terms of game design.
Again- even if our goal is realism, we have to ask, "How much time/effort towards resolution will hit a playable balance between realism and play?" "What aspects of play are most important to fit what evidence to create 'realistic'?"
Or- for a perfect example- consider ranged combat in GURPS. It's harder to hit a target moving lateral(or, presumably vertical as well) to you than one standing still, or moving in a straight line towards or away from you. This makes perfect sense. But the modifiers and the odds given to you- do you think the folks at SJ games set up experiments over 100's to 1000's of subjects to discover how much the % to hit goes down based on a target's movement? And did they average the degree of angle at which a target would be moving to the shooter? And did they map that accordingly to the bell curve distribution in GURPS? The idea makes sense, but the numbers were pulled out of thin air. Even the US military doesn't know the exact % by which lateral movement reduces accuracy. It's too complex and too minute of detail to bother researching- instead it just makes more sense to consider the general causes and look into minimizing it's effects in real life.
Reality may exist for all of us, but you can see as soon as we're talking about modeling it with the human brain(and not, say, a bank of Cray supercomputers), that we have to set aside reality as it is, and look at what it means to us. We have to look at what our game design goals are, what gives the "feeling" of realism and then start talking about how the resolution mechanics interface with it.
Chris
I agree with Chris. And Ralph, for that matter.
Also, reality has data available. In the game, you make up most of the data anyway. What's the wind speed? Are you going to simulate a whole continent full of weather, or determine what it is at that point in time anyway? Does the character have something in his eye when he's about to shoot? Is he getting a cramp from running while he's preparing to fire? Is he actually breathing right? Has he learned that before and does he remember to apply it? What did he have for breakfast, and is his stomach upset? Is his mind still distracted from breaking up with his girl friend earlier that day? All those things matter for a single fired shot. How many are you going to simulate, and how many are you determining?
Let me suggest something: What really matters when we're simulating situations in a game is not so much how many factors and real-life physics we include, but that the outcome seems plausible. When I fire a gun at someone's chest from point blank, I expect some serious injury. But back in the days of playing Mechwarrior, my players would have shootouts at 10 feet with fully automatic weapons and shotguns. I fire, you fire, we subtract saome HP and continue. That is frustrating.
So, when I run a game, I don't care so much whether I've simulated all of the factors. I care that the outcomes seem plausible and that character behavior is influenced by the possibility of these outcomes.
As a side note, most modern scientists will tell you that "truth" can only be defined in a pragmatic way (a la William James) nowadays. Gone are the days when we thought that truth was a direct representation of reality. All of our scientific theories are only "true" insofar as they are useful for our interaction with reality through the prediction of future events within the interpretation of the theoretic framework itself.
So--this leads back to what has been said. The system is more "true" that has more cash-value (in James' terms), i.e. is more useful. What's more useful? Whatever satisfies the purpose of the game.
Quote from: lev_lafayetteQuote from: LordSmerfThis means that any rule that does not contribute directly to attaining the goal of the game (whatever it may be) necessarily is a distraction from the point of play.
That's true enough and you'll find no dispute from me on that level. Nevertheless, assuming that a rule does contribute to play (which to me is a trivial assumption), can we state that an accurate rule is better than an inaccurate one, assuming playability is the same? That a rule which does not require additional suspension of disbelief (such as our ten meter leaping old man with a limp) than what already exists?
Okay, let's assume that a rule does contribute (note, you say "to play" which is wrong, all rules can be said to "contribute" to play in the sense that they have an effect on the game and the SIS. What is important here is that they contribute to whatever the goal of the game is, we'll just assume that for your game "realism" is the hightest goal) to the game's goal. Universally, no we can't say that "accuracy" is better than "inaccuracy". See xenopulse's post, "accuracy" just means that an outcome you expected has occurred. You're not actually modelling reality, you're modelling reality
as you see it.
If I wanted a game that was totally surreal then it turns out that "inaccuracy" probably meets my goals more than "accuracy". Now, we'll move on from that because I think you understand that point, and that you're specifically talking about your theoretical game where "realism" is the goal. Just remember that "realism" isn't something that you can say is really an objective thing...
QuoteQuoteThis is also problematic. You know that you're going to have to compromise, but there's not a good way to know how much is too much. The reason is it is different for different people.
No argument from me again. Of course, the degree of complexity is going to vary from gaming group to gaming group. That's what house rules are for. However the principle is a clear distinction between traits (potential effect) and skills (application of trait for a specific action) is one which I think is important and, dare I suggest, somewhat novel.
Novel, yes definitely. I don't think I've seen a game that models this. Important? I don't know, I guess it depends on your design goals. Let's go ahead and assume that for your specific take on "realism" this is a very important consideration.
I don't think that I'd enjoy this game. Why? Because I like to play melee combat specialists, but I like to play combat specialists who are physically small. It's some crazy aesthetic preference, it's just what I do. You're saying that if my tiny character comes up against someone with equal training then my character will lose.
Now, that's fine, and going by xenopulse's definition of "realism" (it conforms with what I expect to happen) then it even seems "realistic". But I don't want realism here, in fact this is a case where choosing realism hurts the game for me because to play my preferred aesthetic I have to take a character who is sub-optimal mechanically. You are penalizing my desire to play what I want to play.
So, once again, let's try to define the goals of
your specific game. "Realism" is a huge goal, one that's so broad it's probably unattainable. What, specifically do you want to seem "realistic"? Psychology? Physical actions? Combat? You could probably say "everything" and even design a game to handle that, but no one would play it because you need a computer to accurately model real-world physics, and I'm not willing to dedicate my play time to discover the precise striking force and armor penetration for a weapon.
Thomas
To condense my understanding of the thread thus far...
We ask "What is the goal of your game?". You answer "Realism".
This is like saying "What do you want to study in college?" and you answer "Liberal Arts."
Well, ok. Fair enough. But if I happen to be a historian, I don't have any reason to help you out even if you happen to want to study history.
You need to narrow it down for us some more to get some valuable input. That is, (setting aside the question of what a realistic model even means), what is it, in the theoretical game that you're talking about, that you want to model realistically?
Quote from: xenopulseLet me suggest something: What really matters when we're simulating situations in a game is not so much how many factors and real-life physics we include, but that the outcome seems plausible. When I fire a gun at someone's chest from point blank, I expect some serious injury. But back in the days of playing Mechwarrior, my players would have shootouts at 10 feet with fully automatic weapons and shotguns. I fire, you fire, we subtract saome HP and continue. That is frustrating.
So, when I run a game, I don't care so much whether I've simulated all of the factors. I care that the outcomes seem plausible and that character behavior is influenced by the possibility of these outcomes.
Well, that tells me what you're looking for in a game. But that's not the only possible goal. In particular, most people's idea of plausibility for guns comes from action movies, which are different from reality. From what I've read about statistics in police shootouts, most shots are going to miss or graze, even at pointblank range. Now, since you're only concerned about plausibility, it's fine to expect pointblank shots to hit and do serious injury. You find that plausible and it makes for a fun game.
On the other hand, other people find it interesting to learn from their games. i.e. Rather than simply matching their preconceptions, the game can push players to question these and go beyond them. Now, I don't particularly recall Mechwarrior. It's been a long time since I've dealt with guns in a campaign, but when I did I used Friday Night Firefight, which worked fairly well for these purposes. More recently, I used a variant of RuneQuest for my Vinland game, which I thought also worked well. It helped resist our instincts to recreate action movies, and instead gave a grittier and less glamorized feel for the violence.
To get back to the topic -- Lev, you asked about attributes.
Quote from: lev_lafayetteBut what are they supposed to represent? Genetic traits? Learned traits? Should this represenation be consistent? If not, why not?
What is the "right number" and distribution of such "stats"? GURPS has four; Rolemaster has ten - why such variation? Most games don't differentiate between manual dexterity and bodily agility (and thus end up with cheetahs who can pick pockets and mend watches?).
What's their relationship between stats and skills?
I've got an essay on my
System Design page entitled "Nature vs Nurture in RPGs" which tackles the issue. I'm mildly opposed to attributes in this sense (i.e. Dexterity, Agility, etc.), because I don't think this topic is particularly fruitful -- i.e. there is nothing to be learned. I would suggest discarding abstract categories (i.e. "Dexterity"), and replacing them with functional abilities (i.e. "Covert Skills").
Quote from: John Kim
I've got an essay on my System Design page entitled "Nature vs Nurture in RPGs" which tackles the issue. I'm mildly opposed to attributes in this sense (i.e. Dexterity, Agility, etc.), because I don't think this topic is particularly fruitful -- i.e. there is nothing to be learned. I would suggest discarding abstract categories (i.e. "Dexterity"), and replacing them with functional abilities (i.e. "Covert Skills").
Can I just say I
really like your comments on that page (short as it is), however I do think the conclusion is problematic, as it doesn't dispense with the problem that a well-trained individual can do things which are simply beyond human capacity. Of course, a way around that is to have species/age specific limits, but you know what players are like about limits...
Another issue I can arising is the scaling and differentiation between ability and effect. I gave a somewhat tongue-in-cheek example of a rat with a jumping skill of 100% (brilliant!) but an AGI of less than 1. Said rat would do really well at the act of jumping but wouldn't be amazing in terms of distance. How would a skill group resolve that issue?
John,
Interesting points. Let me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible. If you learn from the game, that means you figure out why the result is plausible. But there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off. There might be freak accidents--but the mechanics make it a rule, not an incredibly unlikely event, that this happens. Therefore, the rules create implausible expectations, i.e., the expectation that I don't have to fear for my life and limbs when someone with a shotgun aims it at me from 5 feet away.
And you might be right, it could be a personal preference. But for me, it then matters little whether the actual shooting and injury is determined by calculating wind factors, organ damage, and all kinds of other stuff, or is much more abstract but still provides a plausible result (strong possibility of serious injury or death). The result can still be plausible even if the method is not highly detailed.
And my idea of "plausible" is somewhat malleable, of course, depending on whether the game is expressly cinematic or more "realistic" (have to be careful with this word now :). I have my own ideas on gun plausibility mostly from having been a marksman for many years, but that doesn't tell me much about actual combat. Except for the experience of one of my neighbors being shot on the street and me watching him bleed out.
Anyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.
Quote from: LordSmerfI don't think that I'd enjoy this game. Why? Because I like to play melee combat specialists, but I like to play combat specialists who are physically small. It's some crazy aesthetic preference, it's just what I do. You're saying that if my tiny character comes up against someone with equal training then my character will lose.
Not
entirely so... A GM can always fudge results on the basis of good roleplaying. That, in a nutshell, is my way of using narrative to influence sim. Good actors just seem to be lucky. Bad actors face the full effects of reality. Can be a bit Hollywood, but hey, we like our screen heroes to do well, don't we?
In other words, for the purposes of sim, yes the rules reflect realism (I'm not even going to enter the debate vis-a-vis there being an objective reality or not). Yes, for the purposes of nar, the outcomes reflect drama.
But this is getting way OT from the initial propositions. What is the sim basis for attributes? What is their sim effects on outcomes? They're really the two questions I'm posing.
So, once again, let's try to define the goals of
your specific game. "Realism" is a huge goal, one that's so broad it's probably unattainable. What, specifically do you want to seem "realistic"? Psychology? Physical actions? Combat? You could probably say "everything" and even design a game to handle that, but no one would play it because you need a computer to accurately model real-world physics, and I'm not willing to dedicate my play time to discover the precise striking force and armor penetration for a weapon.
Thomas[/quote]
Quote from: xenopulseLet me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible.
Well, they can, but there's a phrase for that. It's "munchkin gaming", right? I mean a system which effectively has a skill-based (i.e., you learn over time, and rather rapidly compared to your base) hit points does lead to results where...
QuoteBut there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off.
Exactly. You are completely correct. Sure, I don't mind a bit of Hackmaster every so often. Heck, such games are such bad sim that you may as well make them good gam or nar.
But ultimately it is preferable to have good resolution methods for all three, and I think it's nonsense, as is occassionally implied that an improvement is S must mean a decrease in N or G.
[quoteThe result can still be plausible even if the method is not highly detailed.[/quote]
More words of wisdom.
QuoteAnyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.
This is not a bad thing however. It's how design evolves. People have a model, they test the model, they find the model is lacking in some aspect.
Hopefully, rather than giving up the process, they attempt to improve the model - and that's all I'm trying to do. I share your sentiments entirely - what's available out there just ain't good enough anymore.
Onwards!
Quote from: xenopulseInteresting points. Let me reverse my argument: I don't think anyone enjoys the game if the result of an action is completely implausible. If you learn from the game, that means you figure out why the result is plausible. But there's just nothing plausible about someone standing right in front of you, hitting you (as neither of you are moving) directly with a shotgun or a burst from a fully automatic weapon, and you mostly shrugging it off.
Sure. I agree that there are results which are both implausible and unrealistic -- and indeed many games produce such results. I could quibble a little about realism, but I basically agree. My issue with what you said earlier was that you removed realism from the picture, and substituted only plausibility.
Most traditional as well as most narration-based mechanics would be
plausible but not realistic. There is no particular effort at simulation. The game designer/GM/player may make up modifiers and results, but they are based on feeling rather than real-world knowledge. So, for example, you can just tell the players to make up something that fits and it is fairly easy to be plausible.
Realism is distinct in that it requires research. i.e. Mechanics with are both
plausible and realistic go beyond common sense and preconceptions. For example, games like FVLMINATA or Sengoku incorporate historical research into character generation. Games like Traveller have science in their starship and star system mechanics. Games like Millenium's End have research in their gun damage. These are uncommon but not non-existant.
Quote from: xenopulseAnd you might be right, it could be a personal preference. But for me, it then matters little whether the actual shooting and injury is determined by calculating wind factors, organ damage, and all kinds of other stuff, or is much more abstract but still provides a plausible result (strong possibility of serious injury or death). The result can still be plausible even if the method is not highly detailed.
And my idea of "plausible" is somewhat malleable, of course, depending on whether the game is expressly cinematic or more "realistic" (have to be careful with this word now :).
I agree that both realism and plausibility are generally
easier with less detail. The less that you specify about a situation, the less chance that an imposed result will contradict what is there. i.e. The less you say, the less chance you'll be wrong. And I'd basically agree that "plausible" may be relative to expectations. i.e. Results which are plausible in Toon may not be plausible in Dog in the Vineyard.
Quote from: xenopulseAnyway. Maybe it all just shows that I'm slowly realizing that task resolution ain't doing it for me anymore, because the modeling of outcomes is either too time consuming or not plausible enough.
Well, to quibble a bit, something can be task resolution without having any modeling of process or outcomes. For example, take Theatrix or Paranoia XP or Over the Edge or Sorcerer. But anyhow, sure, that's fine as a preference. But if you're simply not interested in that side of things, please don't hijack lev's thread to expound your own preferences.
Quote from: lev_lafayetteCan I just say I really like your comments on that page (short as it is), however I do think the conclusion is problematic, as it doesn't dispense with the problem that a well-trained individual can do things which are simply beyond human capacity. Of course, a way around that is to have species/age specific limits, but you know what players are like about limits...
Another issue I can arising is the scaling and differentiation between ability and effect. I gave a somewhat tongue-in-cheek example of a rat with a jumping skill of 100% (brilliant!) but an AGI of less than 1. Said rat would do really well at the act of jumping but wouldn't be amazing in terms of distance. How would a skill group resolve that issue?
Well, actually I wouldn't entirely. I'm fine for using stats for directly measurable things like height, weight, and perhaps bench press force. These sidestep the abstract nature-vs-nurture problem of abstract stats like "Dexterity" and "Intelligence". You seem to want two different stats: one for jumping distance, and one for jumping accuracy. You suggest that jumping distance should be based purely on attribute (implied inborn or genetic), while accuracy is purely skill (implied trained). I don't agree with the latter. Both distance and accuracy improve with training.
In realistic terms, jumping distance is based on leg strength, leg length, flexibility/skill, and weight. Leg strength determines force applied. Leg length and flexibility/skill determine the distance the force is applied over (and how effectively). Weight determines how far you can go.
Personally, I would have "attributes" only for measurable things like Height, Weight, and Strength. I would tend to have only one jumping skill which provides a modifier for both distance and determines accuracy.
Quote from: John KimI'm fine for using stats for directly measurable things like height, weight, and perhaps bench press force. These sidestep the abstract nature-vs-nurture problem of abstract stats like "Dexterity" and "Intelligence".
Well, I agree with you there in most cases. Most RPGs tend to potray DEX as an attribute when what they mean is hand-eye coordination (largely learned), ditto INT. I mean there are attributes (mostly inborn) for DEX (manual dexterity) and INT (abstract reasoning), but that's not what RPGs potray. More their fault really.
QuoteYou seem to want two different stats: one for jumping distance, and one for jumping accuracy. You suggest that jumping distance should be based purely on attribute (implied inborn or genetic), while accuracy is purely skill (implied trained). I don't agree with the latter. Both distance and accuracy improve with training.
Accuracy and distance can improve with training, but the former much more so than the latter. Indeed, I would say the former is pretty damn close to perfectable, whereas the latter hits some very obvious limits no matter how much a person (or a rat) trains.
QuoteI would tend to have only one jumping skill which provides a modifier for both distance and determines accuracy.
Sorry, but in a word; yuk! It allows for all the problems I've suggested in this thread. In a nutshell, that characters can "train" themselves to the point of implausibility. Again, I refer to our hypothetical rat... What does your single skill translate to in a real world example.
In the simulation system I have suggested which differentiates between effect and ability, the rat could jump less than 1m, but with exceptional accuracy. How would you simulate that wiith a single skill that determines both accuracy and distance?
Quote from: lev_lafayetteQuote from: John KimI would tend to have only one jumping skill which provides a modifier for both distance and determines accuracy.
Sorry, but in a word; yuk! It allows for all the problems I've suggested in this thread. In a nutshell, that characters can "train" themselves to the point of implausibility. Again, I refer to our hypothetical rat... What does your single skill translate to in a real world example.
In the simulation system I have suggested which differentiates between effect and ability, the rat could jump less than 1m, but with exceptional accuracy. How would you simulate that wiith a single skill that determines both accuracy and distance?
Ah, a bit of miscommunication. I said that the single skill would be a
modifier to distance. i.e. There would be a base distance based on stats (at least height and weight), then a modifier for skill applied. Obviously, it should be scaled such that maximum realistic skill results in maximum realistic human distance and accuracy. You claim that maximum skills are unenforceable, but I think that obviously if you allow skills to go up infinitely then you are going to have unrealistic affects. Accuracy can be just as unrealistic as distance (i.e. millimeter accuracy from a 8.5 meter long jump).
Your solution means that training has
zero affect on jumping distance, which I don't think is realistic. It is not terrible, though, and if I was modifying a traditional attribute system I might go with it. My typical nit is that systems tend to base on Strength attribute (i.e. HERO, GURPS, D20), which makes weightlifters the best jumpers.
Quote from: John KimBut anyhow, sure, that's fine as a preference. But if you're simply not interested in that side of things, please don't hijack lev's thread to expound your own preferences.
If I didn't say anything thread-relevant, why did you respond to so many of my points? You're mistaking the end result of my ponderings (which were an aside) for not contributing to the discussion. You may need to work on your reductionism. And your tone.
Ralph started a new thread on plausibility and realism, so I'll make my points there instead of hijacking this thread further.
Oh chill out, everybody. Chilly formal asshole-ness is still asshole-ness. The Cop has shown up; behave, you know how.
For this thread to continue, the goal is to help Lev achieve his goals with the topic. If you don't think they're achievable, shuddup and find some other thread; that case has been made and it's up to him to process it, not up to you to repeat it.
Constructive interaction. Do it.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: lev_lafayetteBut this is getting way OT from the initial propositions. What is the sim basis for attributes? What is their sim effects on outcomes? They're really the two questions I'm posing.
Let's try this one more time. There is no right answer as far as I can see. Simulationist play does not mean play that simulates reality (as we know it). Instead Simulationist play is play that tries to simulate (or perhaps emulate) some specific thing. If I want to simulate a game in which the characters are all cartoons a la Looney Toons, then it's perfectly logical to have skills be the only determiner of jumping distance. Ditto if I want to simulate
The Matrix, or Jedi who can use the Force to jump farther.
Now, let's just assume that the specific thing you want to simulate is reality (which I believe you've said). What about this...
Attribute are the maximum attainable result, you never ever use them directly. Then you have skills for how well you can utilize your attributes. So you have (say) a long jump skill which can never be higher than whatever attribute determines jumping distance. So the skill can continue to rise right up to the point where it matches the attribute, but you just can't get any better than that. Would that do what you're talking about?
Thomas
Quote from: John Kim
Ah, a bit of miscommunication. I said that the single skill would be a modifier to distance. i.e. There would be a base distance based on stats (at least height and weight), then a modifier for skill applied. Obviously, it should be scaled such that maximum realistic skill results in maximum realistic human distance and accuracy. You claim that maximum skills are unenforceable, but I think that obviously if you allow skills to go up infinitely then you are going to have unrealistic affects.
Ahh, double miscommunication (and my fault for not elaborating!). I would
also use the skill as a modifer, but not as a determinant of distance. Distance would be
limited by stat.
"You've trained as well as you possibly can - but your body just can't do it".
Quote
It is not terrible, though, and if I was modifying a traditional attribute system I might go with it. My typical nit is that systems tend to base on Strength attribute (i.e. HERO, GURPS, D20), which makes weightlifters the best jumpers.
Well it varies a lot in all those systems. In D20 for example, the attribute and skill have equal value.. So a semi-skilled individual can overcome a serious attribute problem - and without no real limit either (i.e., a +10 skill jumping advantage is the equivalent of DEX 20!).
What you've really identified here (and I agree entirely with you) is a lack of differentiation between STR (upper body, arms), AGI (lower body, legs) and general coordination (a learnable
skill which is invariably wrongly attributed as DEX- that's use of one's hands!).
Quote from: LordSmerfAttribute are the maximum attainable result, you never ever use them directly. Then you have skills for how well you can utilize your attributes. So you have (say) a long jump skill which can never be higher than whatever attribute determines jumping distance. So the skill can continue to rise right up to the point where it matches the attribute, but you just can't get any better than that. Would that do what you're talking about?
I love it when people get it right! ;-)
That's
exactly what I have in mind. By the same token, I would like to see variation (random dice-rolls!) in the application of a skill. For example, a character with say a jump of 35% (pretty poor) and an AGI of 15, suddenly makes an amazing leap (i.e., rolls a critical success).
"That's my girl!", says her aging mentor, "I knew
you had it in you".
Now, having (more or less) nailed down the
principles for the differentiation between stats and skills... Onward! - To defining the stats themselves!
Quote from: lev_lafayetteNow, having (more or less) nailed down the principles for the differentiation between stats and skills... Onward! - To defining the stats themselves!
Again, what's the game about? Do you want to differentiate between mathematical aptitude, artistic aptitude, linguistic aptitude, etc.? Or do you just want to roll them all into "Intelligence"? Now, you seem to be focused on physical things, so let's leave the mental/spiritual stuff aside and do body work.
Do you want to differentiate between:
Weight lifter and Long jumper (upper body/lower body)
Sprinter and Distance runner (fast twitch/endurance)
Beefy bruiser and Numble dodger (strength/nimbleness)
Sprinter and Long jumper (running fast/jumping far)
Push up master and Pull up master (triceps/biceps)
Ballet dancer and Wood carver (gross muscle control/fine muscle control)
Some others?
The point here is that there are limitless differentiations that can be made physically. What your game is about determines which ones you want to make. From your earlier posts you seem to indicate a desire to handle
at least Upper/lower strength, Gross/fine muscle control, Strength/nimbleness. Now you can roll Nimbleness into Gross muscle control so you have:
Upper body strength
Lower body strength
Gross muscle control (possibly with an upper/lower split)
Fine muscle control (also with a possible upper/lower split)
Then maybe toss in a catch-all endurance/fortitude of some sort...
Anyway, the answer to "What stats should I use" is just as dependent upon what the game is about as anything else...
Thomas
Quote from: LordSmerf
Again, what's the game about? Do you want to differentiate between mathematical aptitude, artistic aptitude, linguistic aptitude, etc.? Or do you just want to roll them all into "Intelligence"? Now, you seem to be focused on physical things, so let's leave the mental/spiritual stuff aside and do body work.
Well, assuming that I've put traits (i.e, more or less genetically determined) in one basket we have an advantage looking for correlations. Wikipedia is my friend;
"Contrary to the claim that IQ is a social construct, cognitive ability is heritable. Adoption studies show that, by adolescence, adopted siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies also support a partly genetic basis for IQ: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.75), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adopted siblings (~0.0). According to some studies the heritability of IQ increases with age, such that differences in family advantage are lost by adolescence."
So in this case, in terms of abstract reasoning alone (whether mathematical, linguistic or artistic) well call that INT. It doesn't give you any skills by itself (unlike GURPS where IQ represents "general knowledge" as well as innate reasoning ability.
Quote
Weight lifter and Long jumper (upper body/lower body)
Sprinter and Distance runner (fast twitch/endurance)
Beefy bruiser and Numble dodger (strength/nimbleness)
Sprinter and Long jumper (running fast/jumping far)
Push up master and Pull up master (triceps/biceps)
Ballet dancer and Wood carver (gross muscle control/fine muscle control)
You know, I quite like the very practicallly-minded and low-circulation beer-n-pretzels game, AARG!, which stopped mucking around and described things as they were:
Brain, Muscle, Heart, Soul, Legs, Hands, Senses, and Mouth.
It isn't too hard to convert these into the more familiar terms: Intelligence, Strength, Constitution, Spirit, Agility, Dexterity, Perception and Charisma, although there is possibly some dispute how much Spirit and Charisma are "innate" rather than "learned". It's probably the latter two that I'm still pondering about.
A couple of things...
The reason I asked about an "Intellegence" stat is that there are clearly different aptitudes when it comes to thinking, and there's good evidence that they are genetic. Some people have a gift for languages, some people have a sort of intuitive understanding of mathematics, etc. You can roll all of these into a single catch-all stat, but you're making things less "realistic", which is totally fine. If it's not important to your game to differentiate, then do not differentiate. To do so would be a detriment to your game.
So, you have four physical stats, which is cool. The Burning Wheel has roughly analagous stats: Power (Strength), Forte (Constitution), Speed (Agility), Agility (Dexterity). I think it's a very nice split myself.
However, from reading your earlier stuff I thought you were dissatisfied with this kind of a split because it doesn't allow for the difference between (say) upper body strength and lower body strength, which are limited genetically and don't maintain the same proportion for everyone (i.e. having a maximum potential bench press of 100kg may or may not give you a maximum leg press of 200kg, it varies).
Based on your last post I've reinterpreted your position as follows: "I don't like games that use an uncapped, learned ability to determine physical limits (jumping distance, maximum weight lifted, etc.), and I don't like games that combine gross muscle control (your Agility) and fine muscle control (your Dexterity) into a single stat." Is that basically what you've been saying?
Thomas
Quote from: LordSmerf
The reason I asked about an "Intellegence" stat is that there are clearly different aptitudes when it comes to thinking, and there's good evidence that they are genetic.
Some people have a gift for languages, some people have a sort of intuitive understanding of mathematics, etc.
Not according to the wikipedia article, which I have a degree of trust for.
I have also, I may add, read pretty thoroughly the APA's "Knowns and Unknowns of Intelligence". I
am very found Vygotsky's proximal intelligence, but more prepared to consider that part of CHA (i.e., the ability to establish a network of friends who know the answer).
Quote
So, you have four physical stats, which is cool. The Burning Wheel has roughly analagous stats: Power (Strength), Forte (Constitution), Speed (Agility), Agility (Dexterity). I think it's a very nice split myself.
*nods* It seems OK. It allows for sufficient differentiation without getting overly complex. Using those rather cute descriptives from AARG! one can intuitively place what one is trying to use each stat for.
Quote
However, from reading your earlier stuff I thought you were dissatisfied with this kind of a split because it doesn't allow for the difference between (say) upper body strength and lower body strength, which are limited genetically and don't maintain the same proportion for everyone (i.e. having a maximum potential bench press of 100kg may or may not give you a maximum leg press of 200kg, it varies).
I would put AGI (legs) in lower body strength and STR (muscle) in upper.
Quote
Based on your last post I've reinterpreted your position as follows: "I don't like games that use an uncapped, learned ability to determine physical limits (jumping distance, maximum weight lifted, etc.), and I don't like games that combine gross muscle control (your Agility) and fine muscle control (your Dexterity) into a single stat." Is that basically what you've been saying?
Sounds right to me.