Rethinking Simulationist character creation

[Mike Holmes]

Is "mode-proofing" a coherent game necessary? I'm not sure either way, because Ron seems to imply in the Sim. essay that it is probably a good thing to avoid "Gamism creep." But, on the other hand is "fixing" Gamist concerns in a game intended to be coherent Simulationism rather like putting one's finger in the dyke? Can you ever satisfy Gamist concerns that the game is "broken?"

I'll have to reread that, because I thought that Ron was saying that preventing creep was something that games did, but was detrimental to their design.

I'm with your later comments. Design a game that promotes a mode of play, not one that prevents the others. Because prevention is just not effective, and, if the game successfully promotes a certain mode then there's nothing to prevent anyhow. For those players who play the game against mode, despite the attempt by the system to promote something, these players are playing the wrong game. The idea that you can make a Sim game accessible to Gamist players is simply not part of the design goal.

OTOH, if a mechanic, or certain parts of the system do promote Gamism then you'd better be sure that the system is a coherent hybrid.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

I'll have to reread that, because I thought that Ron was saying that preventing creep was something that games did, but was detrimental to their design.

I'm with your later comments. Design a game that promotes a mode of play, not one that prevents the others. Because prevention is just not effective, and, if the game successfully promotes a certain mode then there's nothing to prevent anyhow. For those players who play the game against mode, despite the attempt by the system to promote something, these players are playing the wrong game. The idea that you can make a Sim game accessible to Gamist players is simply not part of the design goal.

OTOH, if a mechanic, or certain parts of the system do promote Gamism then you'd better be sure that the system is a coherent hybrid.

Mike

Aggh! Well, I've probably misrepresented him, then. Sorry, Ron! At least my heart's in the right place ... maybe even my head. Yeah, I'm with you Mike. You've said it better and more directly than I have, as usual.

[Andrew Martin]

...the game is "broken" from a Gamist standpoint, and therefore I should attempt, presumably, to fix the some of those issues.

But, isn't doing that going to break the game more so by actually making it incoherent?

At the moment, Avatar-13 rewards gamist players. I'd suggest removing the Gamist rewards from your Simulationist game. Wouldn't that make the design better and more coherent? :) This can easily be done by snipping the link between attributes and skills; refactoring attribute names so that they better reflect important attributes that people have in your setting; let players have a default 1D6 roll when no attribute or skill applies, and regarding attributes and skills as extra dice on top of the default 1D6 roll.

What games are successful, in your estimation, of allowing "munchkins and powergamers make decisions with the same effect as a role player would?" (This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'd be curious to hear!)

My games. :) All I did was try out games with munchkins, power gamers, and roleplayers, see what they did, and write rules to compensate.

[Andrew Martin]

Is "mode-proofing" a coherent game necessary? I'm not sure either way, because Ron seems to imply in the Sim. essay that it is probably a good thing to avoid "Gamism creep."

In a coherent game for either simulation or narrativism, I think that there would be very little to break by a gamist player. That's because there would be no reward to do so in the game system.

The rewards that are in the game system operate to "attract" players to play in the desired mode. So a narrative game rewards players for making their character's lives more interesting, and punishes players for making their character's live more boring.

I'm not sure what "Simulation" RPG should reward, except that it shouldn't reward Gamist play! :)

But, on the other hand is "fixing" Gamist concerns in a game intended to be coherent Simulationism rather like putting one's finger in the dyke? Can you ever satisfy Gamist concerns that the game is "broken?"

Remember one key context here -- you proceded to explain how you'd choose this and that superior combat advantage. BUT, this thread itself is a means to question whether you'd be allowed to do so in some new, re-thought character creation system.

A character generation system like the ones discussed still lead to gamist play. The gamist player sees that certain values in the game are better than others (combat better, Attribute + Skill, and so on), then traces a route "backwards" through the character generation process to the start, then progresses "forwards" through the character generation process, so generating the desired powerful character, with out regard to the "character concepts" the game text describes, but doesn't enforce through the rules.

So then my question is, can't a Gamist "break" most games? Godlike, for example, has the Hyper Sniper, a deadly dude indeed. But one of Ron's criticisms of Godlike is that its system, or key parts of the system, seems to be a stop-gap to address concerns like this, rather than a good, solid reason for its own sake (Exploring setting and situation, for example).

Many conventional (non-indie) games are relatively easy to break by a gamist player, and those players that aren't gamist but want a powerful character (to better reflect a desired character). Adding more rules and more options and more details doesn't stop this process; it just delays it. The easiest way to stop this process right from the start, is to design the game system so that gamist play isn't rewarded and instead reward the desired mode of play.

This usually means stop using systems that are virtually identical to conventional RPGs! Instead use systems that work better. :) And to do that, one has to decide from the start: is the RPG a Game, a Story, or a Simulation? Then build the system to reward that style of play and don't reward other styles of play.

I hope that helps!

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, I'm not following you on this one. On the one hand, you're saying that coherent Sim. and Nar. games wouldn't be broken by a Gamist because there's nothing to break. However, on the other hand(?) you're saying that in most any character creation (or at least those discussed so far) a gamist would just reverse-engineer a combat monger.

Now, it's not clear to anyone, or at least me, whether completed versions of those character creation processes we've discussed are Sim. and/or coherent. And further, I think you're probably right that Avatar-13 thus far over-emphasizes combat (I'm not convinced it rewards it as yet, because we've not discussed reward mechanics in the game).

So, are you saying that 1) until the combat is diminished to the level of any other skill / action an 2) until the game does not reward such combative elements that Gamists will break the thing? Can you suggest a character creation system that does not encourage the Gamist to engineer a combat platform?

One thing I'm still not satisfied about is whether such a Gamist-approach critique is the right way to proceed. Take Pendragon or Godlike, which this discussion (and others) at least seems to indicate are coherent Simulationist games. Can a gamist break these games? Does he do so especially because the presumption from square one is that combat is the key focus of the game? Or are the just plain ol' "broken" when the gamist gets ahold of them, regardless of his assumptions?

Does this further mean that combat cannot be the emphasis of a coherent Sim. game because it will be "abused" by Gamist players? Clearly, Godlike emphasizes combat. Is it broken, from the Gamist perspective?

Finally, can you specify how and why Avatar-13, as presented in its depressing-for-me rough form, rewards combat? I want specifics man! For example, what is the stat + skill thing broken, and how is your suggestion of the base 1d6 a fix for that problem? How else does the game reward the gamist over the simulationist? How can it reward at all with no explicit metagame mechanics to weigh rewards and choices of players?

Oh, and by the way -- what is your game you alluded to?

[ThreeGee]

Hey Matt,

It's all about protagonization, baby! If a game is about combat on a mechanical level, then I want my character to be good at combat, so that when my initiative comes around, at least I can do something.

The same is true for talky games like Vampire, which reward good social rolls rather than good combat rolls. When the dice fall, the best character concept in the world will not help. It is all about pure, raw numbers on a page.

In my not-very humble opinion, I feel every game should acknowledge all three modes, while overtly supporting one (or maybe two). Every game has sim, game, and narrative elements, and those elements must be dealt with in an even-handed manner. However, the mechanics will determine which of the three come out on top when the game is running with full momentum.

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Um, this has been a pretty theory-heavy thread from the beginning. I'm thinkin' that when someone wants to discuss some aspect of it that is wholly about "how Sim rewards do Gamist stuff" or similar weirdness at the more abstract level, then they really need to consider taking it to Theory in its own thread. Matt's been good on keeping it more about his game in development, but you guys need to help him do that.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Martin]

Ok, I'm not following you on this one. On the one hand, you're saying that coherent Sim. and Nar. games wouldn't be broken by a Gamist because there's nothing to break. However, on the other hand(?) you're saying that in most any character creation (or at least those discussed so far) a gamist would just reverse-engineer a combat monger.

Yes, for both sentences. :) The reason why the gamist would reverse-engineer the character creation is because there is incentive and reward to do so in the rules of Avatar-13, which are: attribute + skill, combat better than interaction, cyberware for attributes that boosts skills, and so on.

So, are you saying that 1) until the combat is diminished to the level of any other skill / action and 2) until the game does not reward such combative elements that Gamists will break the thing?

That's right. :)

Can you suggest a character creation system that does not encourage the Gamist to engineer a combat platform?

Step number zero is to remove the rewards for gamist play. This removes the incentive for players to "reverse engineer" the character creation system. Once this is in place, one can work on character generation mechanics.

One thing I'm still not satisfied about is whether such a Gamist-approach critique is the right way to proceed.
...
How else does the game reward the gamist over the simulationist? How can it reward at all with no explicit metagame mechanics to weigh rewards and choices of players?

OK, let's get a whole bunch of new players, people who've never roleplayed before but are friends, and play Avatar-13. We go through the character generation process (let's assume that it's perfect!), and end up with a bunch of different characters, all with different levels of attribute, skill, attribute cyberware and skill cyberware. Now as we play the the game system, players notice that in general having a high attribute level and a zero skill level is more beneficial than having a low attribute level and high skill level. That's because attributes apply to more skill areas than do skills, and can be used in place of the skills (attribute + skill link). Those players with characters having high skill levels and low related attributes are deprotagonised; their players feel let down when their character doesn't behave as their player expected. Players also notice that cyberware that improves attributes also effectively improves skills (attribute + skill link), this again deprotagonises players with characters that have high skills and cyberware that improve skills.

There will be complaints from players, "Hey! How come my highly skilled mechanic with neural fault recognition skillware rolls LESS dice than your guy with a high coordination, reflex boosters and 1 skill when we're trying to fix this car's engine?" These unhappy players now realise that high attributes and attribute improving cyberware are better than high skills or skill improving cyberware. They will have the incentive to go through the character generation process in an attempt to manipulate it to get a character that better reflects their simulation of a highly skilled mechanic with appropriate cyberware being better than a fast, well coordinated guy who knows very little about car repair.

The GM also has the choice when faced with these players that are now behaving in a Gamist manner; either "drift" the game system to better reward simulation, "yeah, Mechanics skill can't be used unskilled. Uhm, no more than your level of skill for attributes and attribute boosters." and similar "patch" rules, or throw out the new Gamist players, "sorry, you guys can't play anymore, we don't want munchkins!" This latter social pressure causes disfunctional player behaviour, because the players want to be with their friends and companions, "No, we don't follow the written rules of Avatar-13, but we do play it..." :-/ This then leads to ignoring and discarding the rules, because the munchkins only "abuse" them, and the remaining players try to find a "transparent" system that better reflects immersion, being in character and not following numbers-based rule systems.

Does this further mean that combat cannot be the emphasis of a coherent Sim. game because it will be "abused" by Gamist players?

I think that combat can be the emphasis of a Simulation game. One has to make sure that the game's simulation of combat matches the intended simulation. So if big guns or swords are overall better in the setting, one's rules should reflect that. If a mixture of weapons are better in the setting, then again the rules should reflect that. This might require more detailed design effort.

Clearly, Godlike emphasizes combat. Is it broken, from the Gamist perspective?

From reports on RPG.net (I haven't played it), I'm fairly sure that Godlike is broken for combat. There is simplistic strategies for combat and character power, that aren't realistic, don't simulate the intended setting of WW2 + low level super-powers, and lead to unbelievable situations occuring.

Finally, can you specify how and why Avatar-13, as presented in its depressing-for-me rough form, rewards combat? I want specifics man! For example, what is the stat + skill thing broken, and how is your suggestion of the base 1d6 a fix for that problem?

By removing the stat + skill link and putting in the base 1D6, the players will now roll 1 + skill + skill-ware D6 for a skill related task, and 1 + stat + stat-ware D6 for a stat related task. If a character has no skill but the player thinks that character has a chance based on attributes or background skills to succeed in a task, the player can roll the base 1D6 to attempt to succeed.

For example, my character's contact accidently locks himself out of his house (the wind blew it shut) after denying my character's request for assistance. So I (as my character) offer to open the door to get him out of his problem in return for his assistance in my problem. The contact agree. My character sheet doesn't mention picking locks, lockpicking, or any other skill. So I suggest to the GM that I take my plastic ID card, work it into the gap between door and frame while working the door, so lifting the latch mechanism with the card and allowing the door to open. I roll the base D6, get over the difficulty number and open the door.

Oh, and by the way -- what is your game you alluded to?

That would be my S combat system for Fudge. Gamist, Simulationist and Narrativist players can all use it. When the Gamist min-maxes it, they behave the same way as a heroic narrativist roleplayer (the intended style of play).

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, now this post is much more useful. However, I still am unclear on a few things.

First, you said:

Step number zero is to remove the rewards for gamist play. This removes the incentive for players to "reverse engineer" the character creation system. Once this is in place, one can work on character generation mechanics.

But what are the combat rewards in the text as presented thus far. I have an idea of what you might be talking about, but still certainly not a good one. Also, how can this be assessed in the absence of the metagame mechanics? Your long example was good (it helped me better understand your posistion on the stat + skill conundrum), but did not address this question of metagame in particular.

But, to "rebut" your example, I want to make a few observations.

Now as we play the the game system, players notice that in general having a high attribute level and a zero skill level is more beneficial than having a low attribute level and high skill level.

What does more beneficial mean? Simply that your character is more effective (or not) than another character? Why would a simulationist see this as a problem? This is, again, apparently the Gamism assumption that better is, well, better. Could it not also be the case that these unknown players prefer Simulationism? Could they not also have more fun knowing their characters are aptly described by the mechanics, though perhaps not supermen?

I think the automatic answer is "deprotagonization." I'm still chewing on that one. Is it deprotagonization or is it that the players think it's "unfair," even though the game is aptly suited toward its simulationist goals? Is there a difference?

Also, my more significant concern:

By removing the stat + skill link and putting in the base 1D6, the players will now roll 1 + skill + skill-ware D6 for a skill related task, and 1 + stat + stat-ware D6 for a stat related task. If a character has no skill but the player thinks that character has a chance based on attributes or background skills to succeed in a task, the player can roll the base 1D6 to attempt to succeed.

What is the difference between a "skill related task" and a "stat related task"? How do the GM and players know when to apply which? And isn't separating a character's innate ability from his learned ability a stinker for many simulationist players? That is, if I can either roll my Influence + Augmentations OR roll my Negotiate + Augmentations to bribe the cops, why do I have to choose (or maybe I can't, and it's always a skill roll)? Why can't my natural charm compliment the fast-talking, misdirection rhetoric techniques I learned from Back Alley Joe? Or my superb hand-eye coordination compliment my firearms training? Or my astounding I.Q. assist my programing language skills? Etc.

Isn't this gripe precisely the same in relative value that your Mechanic player posed? In other words, is this a fix at all, or rather adherence to one person's preferences over the other? It appears to me that this an issue of a Gamist's preferences over a Simulationist's in Simulationist game. And therefore, I'm inclined to agree with what the Sim. guy wants, rather than let the Gamist dictate how it should be.

I think that combat can be the emphasis of a Simulation game. One has to make sure that the game's simulation of combat matches the intended simulation. So if big guns or swords are overall better in the setting, one's rules should reflect that. If a mixture of weapons are better in the setting, then again the rules should reflect that. This might require more detailed design effort.

What does that mean in practical application (keeping in mind a simulationist game, like Avatar-13 is meant to be, warts and all)? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Further, why is there any concern at all over what weapons are "better?" I don't see how that applies, and it again seems to be a Gamist concern, actually. Or, do you mean that big swords as a concern should be more effective for "realism's" sake?

Avatar-13 is an early attempt at simulating action and combat as scene in flicks like the Matrix -- I'm looking to simulate acrobatic firefights, high action and kung-fu / gun-fu stuff in a cyber-setting. Now, it's obvious I've got lots to do to get this game to that point. But I don't see how it matters that the "right mixture of weapons" means anything in that regard. A gun is a gun is a gun, to horribly misquote Gertrude Stein. So, what do you mean here?

By removing the stat + skill link and putting in the base 1D6, the players will now roll 1 + skill + skill-ware D6 for a skill related task, and 1 + stat + stat-ware D6 for a stat related task. If a character has no skill but the player thinks that character has a chance based on attributes or background skills to succeed in a task, the player can roll the base 1D6 to attempt to succeed.

In the rules as written, this is a non-solution. The highest possible result is a 6, which amounts to "driving at night" in difficulty -- hardly picking a lock on a secure door. The average roll is equivalent to, basically, tying ones shoes, um, in the rain or something. I'm being facetious, but simply plopping down a default d6 for "anyone" is nearly meaningless. It would only be relevant in easy or routine situations. So, that means to do this default task, I've got to dismantle the target numbers as presented for this to mean anything. Not sure I'm prepared to do that.

Mike Holmes would then suggest a simpler fix, and that is to make all rolls opposed. I think he's right, and I'm very likely headed in that direction. In that case, this default 1d6 idea might be appropriate.

So, just to reiterate what I've said above. Are you saying that the combat reward in the game as presented is almost exclusively the result of the stat + skill mechanic? If not, what specifically are the combat rewards in the text. I'm still not getting it. Is it that the text expounds on trauma and shock (rather than, say, embarassment or detection for social or stealth concerns, respectively). Is it something else? What?

Can you point to specific rules and or entries for me and say, "This is gamist rewards because it does Y and Z?" I think you attempted to explain this by analyzing on the stat + skill issue, but I'm not certain. Further, I can't yet see how this is innately gamist, rather than a critique of a fair Simulationist rule (or even "just" a rule) from a Gamist viewpoint.

[Andrew Martin]

What does more beneficial mean?

Let's consider two characters. Alice has the attribute Coordination 1 and the skill Mechanics 4 (the maximum); Alice's player rolls 5 D6 for a mechanics task like repairing a car. Bob has Coordination 5, and Mechanics 1; Bob's player rolls 6 D6 for a mechanics task like repairing a car. Therefore according to the game system, Bob is the better mechanic. Bob does well in the car repair business, because he hires acrobats from the circus, runners and field athletes from high school and sets them to work repairing cars (his player has read the rules). To get the workers better at repairing cars, Bob has the acrobats practice dodging thrown knives, and the runners run laps and all of them do dance to improve their coordination. He also gets them all reflex booster cyberware from the local cyberdoc. All of these workers with their high coordination and attribute improving cyberware are far better (in the game system) than a newcomer with average attributes and no skills that wants to be a mechanic.

Isn't this situation absurd and contrary to the simulation of the setting?

But what are the combat rewards in the text as presented thus far?

I haven't bothered with that because I had the impression that you were going to change the combat system? :-\ Basically, combat kills opponents and defeats them conclusively. Other skills don't defeat opponent. Therefore combat "Stuff" is more valuable to have as it allows the character to be more effective in play.

Also, how can this be assessed in the absence of the metagame mechanics?

It's possible that your metagame mechanics might change the effect of the game rules. I don't see how though. Any way, the rules themselves are a reward system; they filter and channel play in a preferred direction, when players obey the rules exclusively, without considering the accompanying flavour text.

What is the difference between a "skill related task" and a "stat related task"? How do the GM and players know when to apply which? And isn't separating a character's innate ability from his learned ability a stinker for many simulationist players?

From my own experience in learning skills, my listening to teachers who teach skills (I work at a high school), and reading of books that teach skills; attributes or stats aren't important to learning and using a skill. Lack of a attribute can be a hindrance, for example, not being fit or flexible while riding a horse is bad; and like having uncorrected poor eyesight is a hindrance to reading, writing, art and craft. Consider the June, 2002, Scientific American article about Savant Syndrome. People with Savant Syndrome are definitely less intelligent, less coordinated and definitely disabled, yet have skills like art that equal or surpass highly skilled artists. There's examples in the article, which show this.

As to how to separate them out, that's a job for the designer (You)to do. I've got one solution in my S combat system, which I've based loosely on the RuneQuest attribute system, which I think efficiently separates attributes from skills.

That is, if I can either roll my Influence + Augmentations OR roll my Negotiate + Augmentations to bribe the cops, why do I have to choose (or maybe I can't, and it's always a skill roll)? Why can't my natural charm compliment the fast-talking, misdirection rhetoric techniques I learned from Back Alley Joe? Or my superb hand-eye coordination compliment my firearms training? Or my astounding I.Q. assist my programing language skills? Etc.

The problem here is that the attribute names are mimicking the effects of skills. I'd suggest that Influence which is an attribute in the Avatar-13, is actually a skill. I'd suggest that Appearance is an attribute that could easily replace Influence.

As for the gun skill, many good gunslingers have said or written that it's not the fast gun slinger that wins a gun duel, it's the one who's most accurate. That seems to me to indicate that Speed is an attribute, and Gun Skill is a skill. Speed determines who shoots first, and Skill determines who hits and so wins the gun duel.

For the IQ, I don't think that IQ helps with programming, just based on my own experience with having a high IQ and being a pretty good with programming. Being good with programming means being able to listen to people (and machines) effectively. Much like being a good mechanic -- I've also been a telephone exchange mechanician or technician.

Isn't this gripe precisely the same in relative value that your Mechanic player posed? In other words, is this a fix at all, or rather adherence to one person's preferences over the other? It appears to me that this an issue of a Gamist's preferences over a Simulationist's in Simulationist game. And therefore, I'm inclined to agree with what the Sim. guy wants, rather than let the Gamist dictate how it should be.

Then one needs to eliminate the gamist rewards in the system. :) And so stop rewarding players that choose a gamist way of playing the game system.

Further, why is there any concern at all over what weapons are "better?" I don't see how that applies, and it again seems to be a Gamist concern, actually. Or, do you mean that big swords as a concern should be more effective for "realism's" sake?

OK, if the game rules states that Lesso Gun does 1 damage and Mucho Gun does 1000 damage, why would a player choose to take Lesso Gun? Let's get a bunch of simulationist players, and their characters have the choice of taking either. Those characters that take Mucho Gun are more effective in combat. Let's have a few rounds of combat. Obviously those characters that fight with Mucho Guns are much more likely to still be alive after the combat than those characters that fight with Lesso Guns. Now those Simulationist players whose characters are dead will be unhappy, because they have to make new characters. Will these Simulationist players make the same mistake of choosing a less effective gun again? Can you see now that having an effectiveness value for the two types of guns is rewarding Gamist decisions of the players? Players that choose the lesser damage, Lesso Gun are penalised for doing so.

Avatar-13 is an early attempt at simulating action and combat as scene in flicks like the Matrix -- I'm looking to simulate acrobatic firefights, high action and kung-fu / gun-fu stuff in a cyber-setting. Now, it's obvious I've got lots to do to get this game to that point. But I don't see how it matters that the "right mixture of weapons" means anything in that regard. A gun is a gun is a gun, to horribly misquote Gertrude Stein. So, what do you mean here?

If gun damage values aren't important, don't assign damage values to guns in the game system.

(1D6 base roll)

In the rules as written, this is a non-solution. The highest possible result is a 6, which amounts to "driving at night" in difficulty -- hardly picking a lock on a secure door. The average roll is equivalent to, basically, tying ones shoes, um, in the rain or something. I'm being facetious, but simply plopping down a default d6 for "anyone" is nearly meaningless. It would only be relevant in easy or routine situations. So, that means to do this default task, I've got to dismantle the target numbers as presented for this to mean anything. Not sure I'm prepared to do that.

Mike Holmes would then suggest a simpler fix, and that is to make all rolls opposed. I think he's right, and I'm very likely headed in that direction. In that case, this default 1d6 idea might be appropriate.

I'd agree with Mike. It's the simple and better option. The example I gave was also based on my own experience with a friend's house, whose door slammed shut in the wind. In that situation, I didn't have a plastic card, I made one out of a plastic bottle and knife. It took me about one minute to open the door from seeing the door slam thru getting a empty plastic bottle, cutting and trimming the "card" to shape and then "wiggling" the door open with the aid of the plastic.

I haven't got time to critic the combat system in detail; there's roleplaying on now and I'm off to be player. :) Perhaps in a day or two?

[M. J. Young]

I was still reading this thread around four this morning, and decided I really had to give up and get to bed; but I left the window open and came back to it this afternoon, and finished reading what was on screen (the last page). I wanted to comment, but 1) I thought there were probably a lot more comments made since I opened the window; 2) I thought that if I reloaded the page, it was going to record me as back again and mess up the threads since last visit stuff; and 3) there was other stuff I had to do today. So I shut it down and promised to come back to say what I wanted to say.

But it seems I was mistaken; there are no other posts.

Andrew makes the case against Attribute+Skill resolution, and it's a familiar case; but I think it's too narrowly drawn to be decisive.

First, the core of the case is that if your chance of success gives equal weight to your attribute level and your skill level, you don't need any skills at all, because attributes are going to dominate the game. This assumes a number of things; the first is that attributes and skills have the same cost.

That's important. If by spending 5 points I can get a skill that gives me a 50% chance of doing this, or for those same five points get an attribute that gives me a 50% chance of doing this and a bunch of other things, it's a no-brainer. Buy the attribute. But if the attribute is going to cost me 10 points for the same value, then it's only worth it if I want two of those skills--very likely, but not always so. At 15 points, I'd need to want three skills for it balance, and so on. Depending on the nature of the game, probably if there's a five-to-one ratio on point expenditures, there's going to be an incentive to buy skills instead of attributes: you can get one or two skills up a lot higher than you could get the attribute.

This is more significant if the character creation system is integrated with the character development system, that is, if you're going to gather points during play that are spent on the same items in the same proportions. Now there is also the sense of immediacy involved. Let us suppose that there are seven skills I would like to improve by 10%, all of them somewhat urgently, and it will cost me one point for each, or seven for all. Let us also suppose that they are founded on the same attribute, so that for five points I can raise them all that 10% by raising the attribute instead. It would seem in the overall picture that I want to collect five points and raise the attribute; but in the course of play, if it's going to take a long time to raise those five points, it may be a better deal for me to raise the skills one at a time. Even though it will take more points to increase them all, I'll get the benefit of increasing some of them considerably sooner.

It has been observed that you could reduce the advantage of high attributes by requiring a skill to perform the task at all; in this case, it is suggested that first level skills with high attributes will always outperform higher level skills with lower attributes in overall character effectiveness, because the attribute will make more skills better. This overlooks a mechanic that has been present in skill-based games since at least Star Frontiers: the idea that not only the skill but the skill level impacts what a character is able to do with it. For the Star Frontiers example, a level 1 tech can drive a car, but he can't drive a truck until level 2, and he's got to be level 4 to fly a jet copter, and so on. Thus your high attribute level one tech might be a better driver on the ground, but he can't do a thing in the air.

Beyond that, there's a presumption that the only thing involved in a skill check is chance of success. This is patently false. If other aspects are tied to skill level, the attribute advantage minimizes. In Multiverser, several of these are incorporated. A higher skill provides an effectiveness multiplier in many skills (such as increased levels of damage in combat skills) which a high attribute does not. A higher skill increases speed or repeat time of a skill, which a higher attribute does not. A higher skill makes a better quality of performance possible (such as the creation of a quality weapon instead of an ordinary one) that is not available for a higher attribute. There are many aspects of skill performance that can be tied to the skill ability. The attribute in an attribute+skill system will still make your chance of success the same, but it won't make the two characters equal in the game. The analysis is too simplistic; it has not been thought out in sufficient detail for examination of a simulationist or even a complex gamist system.

--M. J. Young

[btrc]

I'm jumping on the tail of a fairly dense thread, but if I read everything thus far correctly, let me point out one of my efforts that might have some merit re this topic.

In Hollyworld, resolution is a simple stat+skill that is rolled against. But for terms of character generation and style of play, the stat the skill is added to can vary based on the situation, and will vary about evenly between two different stats over the course of an adventure. And since the stats involved are inverses of each other (the sum of the two is a constant), a player *cannot* be a combat god all the time. If they are excellent in stat#1+skill, they are poor in stat#2+skill. They can still have a high skill, but the stat is the most important part of the equation.

The same applies to the non-combat skills.

It makes reverse-engineering almost impossible. The stat-switching really only works because of the nature of the game background, but the idea of a game mechanic that averages out abilities over time will let players be combat gods in some fights, but be forced to rely on creativity and other players for support in other fights. Ditto for non-combat tasks.

And when players realize that they cannot effectively min-max the system, they get more into the play and less into the stat-mongering.

Greg Porter
BTRC games

[Mike Holmes]

Good points Greg. I covered all this in my Standard Rant #4. That thread didn't go real long, but there's hopefully some interesting stuff there.

That said, there are some erroneous assumptions being flung around here. First is the assumption that there will be a point based system, or one that will allow a player to select specific levels of traits and skills. There are simple ways around this. Take random attributes, for instance. Another idea is to just have two separate pools of points from which to buy skills and stats.

Now I wouldn't advocate these methods neceessarily, but one can see how the problem instantly vanishes with either solution. A more reasonable solution whould be exactly the one that's being bandied about, which is to have some sort of lifepath concept. Basically, the character is generated in a simulationist method, so the result is a non-min/maxed character.

Same goes for guns. Why buy the teeny-weenie gun? Because your character is a gansta, and that's what they carry. Or whatever. Andrew is correct that without context the only choice is to take the best thing. But if I procide context suddenly the Gamists and Simultionists spearate from each other. The Gamist ignores the context and still buys the most effective weapon. The Simulationist looks at the context and buys the weapon that makes the most sense.

This is, in fact, the most clear example and accessible example of the difference that I've found.

So, again, if you are designing for Sim play, you needent make all options exactly the same in effectiveness, you simply have to make effectivness subordinate to the elements that are to be explored.

Mike

[Mortaneus]

A few observations:

Another system similar to Fading Suns is Blue Planet.  It places little emphasis on balance among the characters, rather focusing on accurately portraying the capabilities of the character based upon their life-experiences in the various stages of their background (youth, adolescence, education, profession).  It is not random, but rather chosen based on planned life-path and player desire, and each choice is well integrated into the setting.

Avatar13:
Banking your Wager as fortunes could encourage gamist players to attempt a multitude of simple tasks, make huge wagers, and bank them when they succeed.

On an assist, since a player does not roll their action dice anyway, what purpose does it serve to limit them to keeping one action die?

I like the 'narrate a detail' aspect of wagers.  It has the potential (with a good group, mind you) to really draw out some spectacular actions.

The wagering system seems to possess a quirk shared by L5R and 7th Sea, in that aiming for a greater success increases your chance of outright failure.  I've had players protest this mechanic many times when I ran 7th Sea.  It seemed to run counter-intuitive to them.  Additionally, they weren't willing to attempt more dramatic actions because it increased their overall chance of failure. It places a barrier between their desire to show off, and to succeed, altering the dynamic of play.

One trick that might help emphasize 'high-flying' action is to not base the damage from an attack on the equipment used, but rather on the skill of the wielder.  Let equipment counter equipment, and nothing more.  Perhaps equipment based defenses (armor and such) directly reduce the damage taken, but better weaponry is capable of ignoring some/all of the armor's absorbtion ability, leaving the damage-dealing capability of an attack to the skill of the attacker.  In a high-tech setting this makes sense, for technological weaponry is likely to be nasty enough that even the smallest weapons are capable of an instant kill.

I note that you have the defender roll first in a contested situation.  This defines the psychological dynamic of the contest in an interesting way.  When the agressor rolls first, and the defender is aware of the roll's result, for the defender it falls to a 'I hope I make it' mindset, increasing tension.  Having the defender roll first places the onus of success on the aggressor, leading to 'oh, well, I missed'.

At any rate, I'm very impressed by what you've done with Avatar13, and would be quite interested in seeing the finished work.


Gamism vs. Simulationism:

When modifying/creating a system to de-emphasize gamist tendencies, you must be careful in adjusting the degree to which you tailor it.  ANY possible system can be approached from a gamist perspective.  Even cops-and-robbers has this problem, with people who refuse to admit someone 'got them'.

And for a system where combat is a real possibility, as Avatar13 seems to be, for there to be NO emotional onus to 'win' in a fight (that is, not die or get stomped) requires a certain psychological distance between the player and the character, which makes acting 'in-character' quite difficult, thus causing problems in the simulationist model.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, rather then attempting to discourage the gamist mindset, it is better to tailor the system in such a way that a gamist mindset is encouraged to mimic a simulationist play-style.