Fog of War

[dreamborn]

To all,

This topic is about the Fog of War and realism in RPGs.  I am an advocate for realism and the Fog of War as long game play is enhanced.  I feel strongly about these concepts and they have directly influenced my game design.  I welcome a heated debate and hope everyone will participate with the understanding that I expect participants to present their arguments of debate passionately but with out rancor.

About seventeen (17) years ago I performed an experiment with AD&D 2nd edition that was a smashing sucess with 8 players as well as myself.  The experiment was introducing the concept of Fog of War to the maximal extent I could in a custom AD&D adventure.  The adventure was in a realm that the characters had never experienced before.  Six of the players were regulars, and two of the players were playing with our group for the first time, and I was the GM.

When everyone arrived I asked each to generate 50 d20, d6, and 3d6 die rolls and record them on a sheet of paper.  My normal players had a look a confusion but were game, everyone complied.  Next I did the introduction to the game, complete with foreshadowing.  The players who had characters then wrote down what spells they had memorized.

At this point I informed them that I was introducing the Fog of War into the adventure.  The die rolls they had written down were for saving throws, detecting secret doors, etc.  Their rolls would start at a random location within their list.  I also explained that they would not know the result of their saves, and their hitpoints, etc, except in how they could sense their environment with their 6 senses (hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste, and magic).  They were welcome to ask clarifying questions, but I explained that in depth examinations might take most of their round.  Furthermore I told them that talking during the game would be considered by default 'in-game'.

For visuals I had all the dungeon in 25 millimeter scale, on a room by room basis.  (They had experienced this before and liked it).  In addition, I had default clear template for Fireballs, wall spells, etc.  Since they were not mapping they only got to see what was in the radius of the continual light coins, and parts of the dungeon they exited where removed as they moved into new areas.  So they all had a mental map only.  This presented a humorous aside when the mage fled down a dead end and got trapped.

With that said we played the game.  The interactions were some of the best we ever had, in fact we played Friday from 7:00pm to about 3:00am, no one wanted to leave.  In fact even after they completed the adventure 4 of the six stayed for an extra hour just to talk about it.

Everyone including myself concluded that they wanted this method to be the default.

If people want I can give additional details about the adventure.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[TonyLB]

Sounds like an excellent game!

I'd like to hear more about what people said during that hour they talked after the game.  War stories are always so illuminating.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I have a concern about the thread topic. Why a debate? Why be an advocate? These are rhetorical questions. What I'm saying is, your post reads to me as if you're inviting refutation and attack, whereas you'll find, as illustrated by Tony's post, that the goals of discussion at the Forge are communication and understanding. That may include some difficult questions, or perspectives different from yours, but it has nothing to do with a verbal dogfight in which only one person is left standing.

I suggest following Tony's lead. He wants to know exactly where you're coming from in terms of enjoyment, play techniques, and systems employed. So does everyone else. If you illustrate that, and if it's compared and discussed relative to others' interests, then they get what they want and you get what you want, which is to give respect to a form of play you like.

Best, Ron

[Valamir]

I offer the following 3 observations:


1) Fog of War type methods of play typically carry with them the implicit assumption that play is going to be ongoing indefinitely (i.e. the every other week for years campaign).  This is because Fog of War by design means lots of time spent by players on non effective courses of action.  Whether this is bumbling around in a dungeon because you mucked up the map, or blundering around a mystery searching for the clue you missed, alot of time is spent on activities that don't move the story / plot / adventure forward.

Now, I fully accept that for some this bumbling and blundering is part of the fun of play (although I'll also note that I think there are many for whom its not a real preference, but just a habit based on long indoctrination of how things are "supposed to be").  But regardless of how fun it is, it uses up time.  If you're going to be playing the game every week for months or years on end, you have plenty of time --  "Well, that was entertaining, but we didn't get any closer to confronting the Duke about his evil plans...no matter, we'll get to it next week or the week after".  But if your playing time is limited...say "We're playing game X for 3 four hour sessions and then we're moving on to something else", you don't have the time to spend wandering around aimlessly in a fog of war.  Its just not a play style that fits the need of getting to the point in a limited time frame.  It requires a much more liesurely attitude towards what the "point" even is.


2) There are certain things that Table Top RPGs do, will do, and for the forseeable future will continue to do better than computer based RPGs and that's provide immediate and intuitively understood feedback.  We've spent alot of time discussing these "tells" here on the Forge.  You just don't get them on-line.  In person you can push into more controversal terrain, because the feedback and response loop is immediate and you can draw the lines and veils much quicker in response to a transgression.  In person you can delve into the collective imagination and collaborative creativity of the group far far quicker and easier than you can in a chat room or mmorpg format.  I could go on, but the point is there are certain things that in person table top roleplaying games are just hands down superior at and it only makes sense to me that if you're going to play an in person table top RPG you're going to want to take advantage of the main thing that TTRPGs do well...and that is share ideas freely with the other human beings sitting around the table with you.

In our work-late, modern-electronic-age getting face-to-face time with other human beings can be something of a luxury.  Why then when you have the opportunity to spend valuable FTF time with people would you want to do so in such a way as to minimize communication between those people?  I spend most of my day at the computer where my ability to communicate with others is limited by the medium.  When I get time to play a game FTF I want maximum communication, maximum sharing, maximum taking advantage of their creative input to enhance my enjoyment.  If I'm playing an RPG I want to experience really cool imagined events.  I don't particularly care whether the really cool imagined event came from another player or a GM.  Why would I want to limit myself that way?  FTF play is extraordinarily good at promoting communication and information sharing and rather bad and tedious at stifling communication and hiding information.

Computers, on the other hand, are fantastic at hiding information and limiting communication.  Any wargamer knows that a computer wargame has vastly superior fog of war capabilities to any paper hex and cardboard counter game.  In the spirit of using the right tool for the job then, why would I want to shoe horn Fog of War into face to face play where its extraordinarly difficult and tedious to do well, when instead if I'm looking for a Fog of War experience I'll just play a computer game.  Even if there is a way to automate with computer support and make the process less difficult and tedious, why would I want to squander the opportunity for maximum communication and information sharing made possible by being face to face.  I might as well just stay home and play on-line altogether.

See to me there's no inherent superiority of one over the other...just better tools for the job.  If I'm looking for Fog of War I'm not going to waste my time trying to get it using a tool that's down right lousy for it.  Instead when I'm looking for Fog of War I'll use the tool thats good at it.  When I do get face to face time, I'm not going to waste it hiding stuff...I want maximum sharing, because otherwise...what's the point of even being in the same room.


3) Fog of War in a Role Playing game makes one core assumption that is very important to understand.  Kent this might be particularly important for you in terms of understanding the responses that are less than an enthusiastic embracing of your game design.  The core assumption of Fog of War rules in a Role Playing game (or more broadly, limiting player information to character knowledge) is this:

It assumes that players don't, can't, and won't care about the game as deeply as the GM does.

That assumption is not only demonstratably false, but down right insulting to those of us who do, can, and will.

I'll explain further.  I'm capable as a player of making decisions that will enhance the level of fun for my fellow players (no, of course I'm not perfect at it...but see above for why ftf feedback and response is so great).  If there is information that I know as a player that my character wouldn't know, I'm perfectly capable of integrating that information into my character's actions in a productive fashion...and that goes well beyond simply pretending not to know it.  Veterans of the Forge will recognize long discussions of Author stance embedded in the above.  If the GM believes that I'm capable of this, then there is no reason* for the GM to hide the information from me.  If the GM decides he must hide the information from me then by default the GM is assuming that if I know it I'll spoil the game.  That's not only not true of most regular posters here, but its rather insulting as well.  I can do as good a job incorporating that information into the game as the GM can...and any other player I play with I trust to do as good a job as me.  Ergo...nothing is lost by sharing.  Oh sure its fun sometimes to not know everything and experience a zinger now and again, but one doesn't need total information seperation to pull those twists and turns off.


* there is actually another reason to hide the information...to level the playing field and make sure that when tactical decisions are being made they're being made in a manner plausible with the situation being portrayed.  This is important for wargames, but totally irrelevant for many RPGs.

There are two reasons why fog of war is used in a war game environment.  1) so that the decisions being made by the players are consistant with the decisions that would be made by the imaginary generals based on information those generals would plausibly have, and 2) because players are playing against each other to win and are thus motivated to use any knowledge they have (even if its not plausible) to achieve victory.  In other words, because of #2 they cannot be trusted to do #1 voluntarily.

This second is the key, because I would argue (having witnessed it on more than one occassion) that 2 players collaborating on a war game with 100% knowledge of everything...including the other player's plans and thoughts are MORE capabile of making consistant decisions when both are concerned only with the quality of the simulation and not about "winning".  Its only when the idea of someone winning is thrown into the mix that leveling the playing field through information restriction becomes necessary.

Since the goal of an RPG is to tell a compelling, moving, and entertaining story (just like the goal of a wargame is to be an effective simulation); and since there is no aspect of a player winning or losing in an RPG (characters might win or lose, players do neither)**, then its clear that having 100% information about everything including the other players plans in no way degrades the ability to create a compelling, moving, story.


** Veteran readers of the Forge should already be thinking "but what about the Gamist Creative Agenda".  Which is exactly where this whole long post has been leading.  If you have unlimited play sessions and a Gamist Creative Agenda (where through Step-on-up, players DO have a sense of winning or losing), you can use Fog of War type techniques to enhance the tactical decision making and competitive nature of the Gamist CA.

I would still argue that computers do this far better and this is why there are more people playing MMORPGS, NWN, or (in times past) Diable than TTRPGs, and that TTRPGs, having already ceded that capability to CRPGs, are better served focusing on the elements that make TTRPGs superior to CRPGs namely to include free and instantaneous information sharing.

[johnzo]

Hi Kent--

This sounds very interesting.  One thing I wonder about, though -- for me, simply rolling the dice is one of the joys of D&D, especially when you get that sweet natural 20.  Did any of your players resist losing that bit of fun?

As the DM, were you ever tempted to look ahead at future die rolls and mess with the game play to bring about a desired result?  Like, say you could see a combination of rolls coming up that would lead to a guaranteed but inconvenient character death, or the death of an NPC.  Would you intervene?  Did your players ever wonder if you were doing this?  Did you tell the players what "roll" they used for any particular action?

Your kind of play sounds like it puts a lot of extra load on the DM, since they have to take care to make the physical props of the game exactly match the fog of war, and also maintain eight separate die-roll lists in addition to all their other notes. Did you as the DM have more fun with this extra control?  Was the extra work ever disagreeable?

Your post implies this was a one-night experiment.  Did you carry on with this style of play?  I ask this because I'm finding that with traditional GM-driven RPGs, the more I have to talk during a session, the quicker I burn out on the game.  This fog of war approach sounds extremely GM-centric and would be difficult for me to maintain for more than a session or two.

[after reading Valamir's very interesting comments, which were crossposted with mine...]

This experiment took place 17 years ago.  In 1990, if memory serves, the best you could do for a fog-of-warish online game was something primitive like Empire.  So I bet this tabletop game was very interesting back then, and not computerizable at all.  Kent, is a fog-of-war game as appealing now, in the era of World of Warcraft and Diablo and etc?  If so, why?

zo.

[Callan S.]

As said, fog of war makes war hard!!! What may seem like work - describing the five senses, can actually be throwing down a gauntlet with every single description "You see X - what do you do with that? What can you manage, aye?". To just suggest computer games do it better is like saying an artist should stop playing at concerts cause hey, CD's play it much more easily. No, the artist loves to play (otherwise there would be no CD's/no computer games) and many people love to throw down gauntlets.

That said, I have no idea if what I've said applies.


Hi Kent,

I see a bit of resistance above and I urge you to think more about what useful things you might learn or some sort of profit here, rather than engaging other posters who are perhaps a little too passionate.

I've started some threads myself, had people say "Why would you EVER do that" in so many words, and...yeah it got less about the thread getting to some sort of profit and more me explaining myself, as if I had to. You don't have to explain yourself here. Just aim at the techniques you want to improve and if someone doesn't even get the root of why you'd do those techniques, feh, say thanks and...continue with what posts do seem to help you.

In some other forums, yeah, I've seen some posters almost try to apply a christian guilt about why you might use various techniques and that's horrible to just let stand. Here, why you'd use a technique is respected - even while people might suggest the technique could be more efficient, or encompass new developments.

REALLY looking forward to those game interactions you talked about - the set up was great, you can't leave us hanging, k!

[dreamborn]

Ron writes...

I have a concern about the thread topic. Why a debate? Why be an advocate? These are rhetorical questions. What I'm saying is, your post reads to me as if you're inviting refutation and attack, whereas you'll find, as illustrated by Tony's post, that the goals of discussion at the Forge are communication and understanding. That may include some difficult questions, or perspectives different from yours, but it has nothing to do with a verbal dogfight in which only one person is left standing.

I just wanted to make my position clear so there would be no misunderstanding.  Debate is not necessary attack, remember I said without rancor.  Ron, nowhere did I indicate that I wanted a verbal dogfight.  Read it again!  A heated debate IS communication with the goal of understanding, where people passionately present their case (i.e., difficult questions or perspective different from mine).  Ron in other words I proposed to do exactly what you said.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[dreamborn]

valamir writes:

Fog of War type methods of play typically carry with them the implicit assumption that play is going to be ongoing indefinitely (i.e. the every other week for years campaign).  This is because Fog of War by design means lots of time spent by players on non effective courses of action.  Whether this is bumbling around in a dungeon because you mucked up the map, or blundering around a mystery searching for the clue you missed, alot of time is spent on activities that don't move the story / plot / adventure forward.

I totally disagree that Fog of War implies that players spend lots of time on noneffective courses of action.  I can see that this could occur but the GM can easily circumvent those issues.  If you disagree please present a clear example where the GM still using the Fog of War couldn't have streamlined play.  I personally have not found this to be the case.

I could go on, but the point is there are certain things that in person table top roleplaying games are just hands down superior at and it only makes sense to me that if you're going to play an in person table top RPG you're going to want to take advantage of the main thing that TTRPGs do well...and that is share ideas freely with the other human beings sitting around the table with you.

In our work-late, modern-electronic-age getting face-to-face time with other human beings can be something of a luxury.  Why then when you have the opportunity to spend valuable FTF time with people would you want to do so in such a way as to minimize communication between those people? ...
[\quote]

I agree that FTF games offer things that online games do not.  The Fog of war does not limit communication between GM and players, or player to player.  In fact it increases it.  Is rolling dice, an consulting tables the communication you are wanting?  Personally, having the players explain to me how their characters plan to search a room, and the maximum time they are willing to devote to this task, IS the communication I want.  This process involves description and interaction.  Rolling a d6 to find a secret door, rolling a 6 and knowing that you didn't find it removes the mystery.  Where if the GM rolls the dice and says, "After performing a Grade B Movie Search, you find nothing unusual."  It conveys the information they need and have, but in the back of their mind they realize there might still be a secret door.  NOTE:  It should not possible for them to search multiple times for the same secret door, that is abusing the rules (UNLESS) events have occured that change their environment.  Again if you feel I am missing your point please present an example.  By the way a Standard Grade B movie search is a inside joke from my campaign, it describe a specific method of searching, based of many, many bad movies....  "Put the candle back."

Fog of War in a Role Playing game makes one core assumption that is very important to understand.  Kent this might be particularly important for you in terms of understanding the responses that are less than an enthusiastic embracing of your game design.  The core assumption of Fog of War rules in a Role Playing game (or more broadly, limiting player information to character knowledge) is this:

It assumes that players don't, can't, and won't care about the game as deeply as the GM does.....  There are two reasons why fog of war is used in a war game environment.  1) so that the decisions being made by the players are consistant with the decisions that would be made by the imaginary generals based on information those generals would plausibly have, and 2) because players are playing against each other to win and are thus motivated to use any knowledge they have (even if its not plausible) to achieve victory.  In other words, because of #2 they cannot be trusted to do #1 voluntarily

In what way does Fog of War do that???  If you are a good player then demonstrate that in a game.  Fog of War doesn't prevent that.  Why is it insulting for the player to have characters that only know what their abilities and skills say they know?  Valamir can't you contribute as a player when provided with all the information you character does know?  Of course you can.  In regards to your 2 points.  #1 you can't argue that being consistant in any game is a bad idea can you?  #2 In a PRG the players are not playing against each other, and they are not playing against the GM (at least in most cases).  Why does Fog of War eliminate trust, it encourages trust, just like in real life.  You must trust someone based upon your judgement and experiences.  Fog of War encourages just that with the characters.  It doesn't' eliminate it.

Since the goal of an RPG is to tell a compelling, moving, and entertaining story (just like the goal of a wargame is to be an effective simulation); and since there is no aspect of a player winning or losing in an RPG (characters might win or lose, players do neither)**, then its clear that having 100% information about everything including the other players plans in no way degrades the ability to create a compelling, moving, story.

I don't disagree, with the above.  BUT I also state that the Fog of War will meet those objectives as well.  In fact I think it is clear, from my experience, that Fog of War actually increases the ability to create a compelling, moving, story.

The KEY is to have a method of implementing the Fog of War that does not slow the game down or reduce the communication, or the ability to create a compelling, moving story.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[dreamborn]

johnzo wrote:

This sounds very interesting.  One thing I wonder about, though -- for me, simply rolling the dice is one of the joys of D&D, especially when you get that sweet natural 20.  Did any of your players resist losing that bit of fun?

As the DM, were you ever tempted to look ahead at future die rolls and mess with the game play to bring about a desired result?  Like, say you could see a combination of rolls coming up that would lead to a guaranteed but inconvenient character death, or the death of an NPC.  Would you intervene?  Did your players ever wonder if you were doing this?  Did you tell the players what "roll" they used for any particular action?

Your kind of play sounds like it puts a lot of extra load on the DM, since they have to take care to make the physical props of the game exactly match the fog of war, and also maintain eight separate die-roll lists in addition to all their other notes. Did you as the DM have more fun with this extra control?  Was the extra work ever disagreeable?

Your post implies this was a one-night experiment.  Did you carry on with this style of play?  I ask this because I'm finding that with traditional GM-driven RPGs, the more I have to talk during a session, the quicker I burn out on the game.  This fog of war approach sounds extremely GM-centric and would be difficult for me to maintain for more than a session or two.

[after reading Valamir's very interesting comments, which were crossposted with mine...]

This experiment took place 17 years ago.  In 1990, if memory serves, the best you could do for a fog-of-warish online game was something primitive like Empire.  So I bet this tabletop game was very interesting back then, and not computerizable at all.  Kent, is a fog-of-war game as appealing now, in the era of World of Warcraft and Diablo and etc?  If so, why?

Oh the players still rolled their to hit rolls.  But I didn't tell them THACO, so I maintained the Fog of War.  Furthermore the damage was rolled by me so their characters only got to see results.  Color101.  You thrust connects but he just seemed to get madder.

No I didn't look ahead.  The story just naturally evolved.  As a GM I have found that I can never predict what my players will do with 100% certainty.  So I have learned to allow the story to evolve as we play.  I never try to shoe horn the adventure in some preconceived way.  Furthermore, I never create a No-win situation, I always figure out ahead of time one or more solution sets.  Frequently I find my players figure out another way, which is just a good.

After that one night 17 years ago we continued using the Fog of War concept when ever possible.  By this was how much time I had for show prep.  The amount of my pre-game increased but the amount of during game work remained about the same.  It was still alot of work.  That is why I am doing my own game design.  I want to keep the fog of war, but I want to reduce the effort required to carry it out.

Yes I think the Fog of War is very applicable to today's FTF RPGs.  With a properly designed system, it can increase realism and enhance game play.  It won't replace the GM, or his role, it doesn't replace players, or the feel of a FTF role playing game.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[dreamborn]

TonyLB wrote:

Sounds like an excellent game!

I'd like to hear more about what people said during that hour they talked after the game.  War stories are always so illuminating.

Yes it was fun, we continued to use many of the concepts in future adventures.  Most of the people who stayed late had questions on what exactly a particular monster was or what the spell was.  It was comforting to know as a GM that they figured out things correctly most of the time.  But I managed to surprise a few, they even jumped into the rulebooks to see if I actually did it right.  Quite a few 'I didn't know that and Cool' responses were aired.  They all said they had to work harder as players to complete the adventure successfully.  They also commented that one of the players, (historically quiet) really was drawn into the game.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[dreamborn]

Callan S. wrote

As said, fog of war makes war hard!!! What may seem like work - describing the five senses, can actually be throwing down a gauntlet with every single description "You see X - what do you do with that? What can you manage, aye?"....
...
REALLY looking forward to those game interactions you talked about - the set up was great, you can't leave us hanging, k!

Yes fog of war requires that the GM and players interact more.  I describe something to them and they tended to echo me back for clarification, which I tried to provide.

Sorry about not talking about the game interactions more.  This week at work is very busy as I have many reports to write for the DoD.  I will mention a classic here and more later as time allows.

One of the early encounters they had was with a humanoid type creature in a cavern.  The characters were sneaking in a dungeon with no light source of their own.  The lighting conditions were bad, a few lard lamps, and the unexplored cavern did not provide any references to judge the height of the creature.  The creature was dressed in what appeared to be studded leather armor, and a metal cap helmet.  It was armed with some sort of sword or club.  It was walking back and forth across the cavern floor occasionally kicking what appeared to be a stone slightly smaller than its foot.  The creature would occasionally pause and be occluded for a few minutes near an hourglass shaped column.  This was all illustrated by showing the placement of the lard lamps and the column and generally indicating the path the creature was taking. 

The characters approached with caution.  The thief took point.  Infravision revealed the creature was warm blooded.  (I treat infravision like thermal imaging).  They fired some arrows and lobbed a fireball, right as the creature crossed the column.  They then proceeded to charge the creature, killing it rather quickly.  The arrows and fireball did nothing as the creature was walking behind the column.  Due to the poor light the party's depth perception was off, and infravision wasn't used long enough to resolve the issue.  The hourglass column was actually a stalactite and stalagmite which had grown together.  The stone was actually a partially decomposed human skull.  The creature was a male orc.  After this massive overkill, one player exclaimed, "It was only a god-dammed ORC!"  Which got the rest of the group laughing.

The laughing quickly stopped as I informed them they could hear the sound of many feet approaching from 3 different directions.  We then set up the 25mm cavern floor, and then populated the room with miniatures up to the extent they could see.

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com

[Callan S.]

Thanks for the actual play account man!

One of the early encounters they had was with a humanoid type creature in a cavern.  The characters were sneaking in a dungeon with no light source of their own.  The lighting conditions were bad, a few lard lamps, and the unexplored cavern did not provide any references to judge the height of the creature.  The creature was dressed in what appeared to be studded leather armor, and a metal cap helmet.  It was armed with some sort of sword or club.  It was walking back and forth across the cavern floor occasionally kicking what appeared to be a stone slightly smaller than its foot.  The creature would occasionally pause and be occluded for a few minutes near an hourglass shaped column.  This was all illustrated by showing the placement of the lard lamps and the column and generally indicating the path the creature was taking.

Oooooh, that's a toughie! I like that!

Just on a side point, I don't see much description of superfluous stuff - like a bit of cobweb in the corner or the rocks nearby being a particular shade of brown. The description centers around the issue of contention - this creature thing! I'm not noting this for any reason except to help us both establish the techniques that were being used. Sound right yet? Would you say that perhaps you focused slightly on the big potential danger - might have been slightly, then the players would have taken over with questions about that same danger?

The characters approached with caution.  The thief took point.  Infravision revealed the creature was warm blooded.  (I treat infravision like thermal imaging).  They fired some arrows and lobbed a fireball, right as the creature crossed the column.  They then proceeded to charge the creature, killing it rather quickly.  The arrows and fireball did nothing as the creature was walking behind the column.  Due to the poor light the party's depth perception was off, and infravision wasn't used long enough to resolve the issue.

How did you resolve the issue of whether it was behind the column? If it was walking and the party didn't state its time of attack, it might have occured when the creature was exposed.

Gah, I sound like I might be suggesting something negative. What I mean is, if the party had said 'We co-ordinate it so we attack when he's clear' would they have won the issue of whether he was behind the pillar? Rather than getting a clear shot by pure chance, if the players had shown a bit more skill in terms of planning the attack, they would have earned a clear shot? That would sound like a great way to do it, I'd dig playing that - am I way off?

The hourglass column was actually a stalactite and stalagmite which had grown together.  The stone was actually a partially decomposed human skull.  The creature was a male orc.  After this massive overkill, one player exclaimed, "It was only a god-dammed ORC!"  Which got the rest of the group laughing.

So they recognised that they could have done better - improved their attack so it wasn't a wasteful overkill? Was there any sense of an enthusiasm to improve on how they had done? I'm guessing there is, but you were there.

The laughing quickly stopped as I informed them they could hear the sound of many feet approaching from 3 different directions.  We then set up the 25mm cavern floor, and then populated the room with miniatures up to the extent they could see.

Heh, it's not about sitting around and just mulling on stuff that happened for half an hour - bang, next big issue! And three different directions, ouch!

Don't rush yourself on the next account, this has been a good start off (nice and concise too).

I just wanted to make my position clear so there would be no misunderstanding.  Debate is not necessary attack, remember I said without rancor.  Ron, nowhere did I indicate that I wanted a verbal dogfight.  Read it again!  A heated debate IS communication with the goal of understanding

Just on this though - I think we both agree that 'passionate' is not a requirement for understanding to happen? You can skip the passion and understanding can still happen? We'd both agree on that?

[Ron Edwards]

Kent,

Well, your post was unacceptable. At the Forge, everyone participates under the rule of law. Just as with a cop, your assessment of your post is irrelevant. You take the ticket. If you back-talk the cop, bad things happen that have nothing to do with the justice or injustice of the ticket. That's what happening here.

The "bad thing" has nothing to do with what happens on other websites. No banning, for instance, and no deleting of posts. It means your posts start going into the Inactive File, and if anyone says, "what about what Kent says," the answer is, "it's where it belongs, with all the links to photographs of Britney's labia." If someone's interested in what you say, they can look for you there.

Your recourse, when you think the cop has been careless, is to appeal to the judge, which is me by private message. If the judge says "hey, the cop was out of line, or careless," then I get back into the thread and say so, undoing the moderation. I have done this in the past; it's not an empty promise.

But you, as an individual, have no sole authority over judging your posts here. Their content and how that content is conducted is subject to my judgment, in those two layers, with that single appeals process.

The discussion about the Fog of War is doing very well, and I'm happy to see it. If you can conduct it under that rule of law, then good - which also includes respecting it.

Back-talk me again and your posts join Britney. It's absolutely no skin off mine.

Best, Ron

edited to clarify the appeals process

[Valamir]

Ahem.

Ok, after reading several of your responses Kent, I realize that this thread isn't really about "Fog of War and realism in RPGs".  Its really about using hidden dice rolls and health status information to cause decision making in a tactical gamist exercise to be less deterministic.

In other words "Fog of War" is being used in a very narrow sense, and "RPGs" is being used equally narrowly...to refer to a very limited slice of what Role Playing Games are like...one far closer to the hobby's wargame origins than most current Forge designs are.

Given that -- yes your comments on the advantages of Fog of War are spot on...for that very specific slice of play style (although I would still suggest that designing a pure computer game playable online with a small group of your friends would accomplish your goals even better than grafting computer support onto FTF play).

I had written up a rather lengthy post in response to your response to my first post but it was targeted at elaborating on my 3 points with regards to GM controlling access to information in general as applied to a wider range of play styles...mostly stuff regulars on the Forge have read 100 times, and you'll see if you poke around into old threads.  If you're interested in seeing it I'll PM it to you.

Ralph

[dreamborn]

Hi Callan

Just on a side point, I don't see much description of superfluous stuff - like a bit of cobweb in the corner or the rocks nearby being a particular shade of brown. The description centers around the issue of contention - this creature thing! I'm not noting this for any reason except to help us both establish the techniques that were being used. Sound right yet? Would you say that perhaps you focused slightly on the big potential danger - might have been slightly, then the players would have taken over with questions about that same danger?

The supercilious stuff was covered in earlier caverns and hallways earlier in the adventure.  I attempt to describe general stuff once in the beginning and mention delta's (changes) later on.  For example entering the system of caverns I described the general condition of the limestone rock, it is basically a natural cavern with obvious signs of intelligent modification, e.g., leveling of the ground.  The air is moist and an occasional random drip is heard.  Cobwebs were not a general condition of the network, so would only be mentioned as a change.  Describing general (static) things in this way once at the beginning helps minimize repetition later on.  I don't mind repeting myself but only if the players ask.

How did you resolve the issue of whether it was behind the column? If it was walking and the party didn't state its time of attack, it might have occurred when the creature was exposed.

Gah, I sound like I might be suggesting something negative. What I mean is, if the party had said 'We co-ordinate it so we attack when he's clear' would they have won the issue of whether he was behind the pillar? Rather than getting a clear shot by pure chance, if the players had shown a bit more skill in terms of planning the attack, they would have earned a clear shot? That would sound like a great way to do it, I'd dig playing that - am I way off?

The ORC was behind the column at the start.  I got that idea from an old F. Fingers comic.  The description was dynamic as I described in the previous post, I was slowly moving my finger in the Field of View (FOV) which included column and lard lamps.  The players chose the timing, not sure there reasons I never asked.  But in answer to your question yes, if they timed it on either end they would have had a clear shot.

So they recognised that they could have done better - improved their attack so it wasn't a wasteful overkill? Was there any sense of an enthusiasm to improve on how they had done? I'm guessing there is, but you were there.

Yes they realized they overdid.  From comments like killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer I would say yes, they realized.  They (at least 6 of were always rising to a new challenge, the 2 new comers I can only guess.

Heh, it's not about sitting around and just mulling on stuff that happened for half an hour - bang, next big issue! And three different directions, ouch!

Don't rush yourself on the next account, this has been a good start off (nice and concise too).

The ORC was a guard.  The explosion of the fireball and the noise of the charge alerted the ORCs to the fact they had been attacked.  Actually around 5 minutes elapsed (within the game play) from the guards death to the counter attack.  This time was only about 1 minute of play time but it was spent in initial searching, and examining the body and situation, and posting party guards.

I regret to inform you that I won't be able to answer any more questions.  This will be my last post on the Forge.  I seem to have a personality conflict with Ron Edwards (a.k.a, cop with an attitude) who is never wrong.

In the immortal words of Bilbo Baggins, "...this is the END.  I am going.  I am leaving NOW, GOOD-BYE!"

Kent Krumvieda
www.dreamborn.com