Triad - Just another RPG...

[joe_llama]

Mike,

First of all, thank you for your honest opinion, it is much appreciated. I consider any feedback to be useful, but I am especially fond of the aggressive ones. It gives me the feeling the person is replying with absolute honesty. He gives direct answers and avoids social traps on the way - he is taking a stand.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Um, sure, but then two would be better, no? Or, rather, what makes three the magic number? Perhaps you're missing one, and just don't realize it. Or one is superfluous. Maybe the game should be Diad.

I kinda got that idea from the title, but it never occurred to me as I read through it. Might help some, but I think that forcing symetry for symetry's sake can be dangerous.

Triad has a certain grace being this way. It's easy to use and easy to remember. Are these worthy goals? I would have to say yes. Search and handling times are two of my biggest turnoffs when it comes to gaming. As for being dangerous, I made sure that none of the vital points I wanted to deliver were hurt by the structure. It was not an easy job, but eventually I found ways of implementing points in ways that included both content and structure.  

How do the simple mechanics provide what complex mechanics cannot?

They provide a certain freedom which I believe is essential to creative gaming. Someone mentioned in another thread (forgive me for not remembering who and where) that when a player sees that his ability ranges from 1 to 18, he immediately thinks of how to obtain the best possible score, even if he doesn't say it out loud. It is our basic nature to act this way and the best we can do is hide it, but we can never get rid of it. By putting 'price tags' on everything, we risk direct AND subtle 'munchkinism', which would eventually lead to a player's dissatisfaction with the game.

No one can resist the temptation - I have placed many players, rookies and veterans, with this dilemma and all seemed to give in to it at some point. Was it a completely objective and impartial research? Not really. But it was good enough to show a tendency to 'upgrade' numbers. These incidents (among others) were the reason I was trying to keep Triad as low on numbers as possible.  
       

Again, the system allows the players to do almost anything, but not quite. They cannot mess with a result. Why not allow the players to decide success and failure as well, then? It seems to me that the minimalist argument logically concludes that systems do a bad job of creating events. If this is so, why have any system at all? If you have "good players", won't they be able to decide when to have success and failure as well? If not, how does leaving it to a random roll help?

Part of the idea behind playing a Sim is the knowledge that as a player you have intentionally less control over the story. The rest of the control goes to the GM. The GM now controls a large percentage of the game, which means it also requires of him to take into consideration many variables and situations, figuring out a path to contine the game through. This can be a) exhausting, b)takes a lot of time to figure (even without numbers) and c) somewhat deterministic for the game and unsurprising for the GM.

By allocating some control to random elements, the GM is free from choosing eventualities - the choice is given to him by God, the universe, whatever you believe. He has more time for shaping the story to look good and sometimes he can even find himself surprised by the results. In return for the control he had given up, the GM receives more space which he can share with his players. If used, this space can serve as neutral ground where players stand as equal to the GM - this is called Karma in Triad.

There is nothing to say except that this is what a Sim is about. You can take away Karma and even randomality, however common they may be. But the moment you give players more control, it ceases to be a Sim. It would turn into a Nar or semi-Nar game.            

Same problem. Why not just not mention it at all? Then you'll never have any problems. More extensive systems are meant to give Sim players the feeling of Immersion, or exploration. If you feel that your players want that, then that's an argument for more system. If they don't want a system for Immersion, then why have a Simulationist system at all?

Can't Immersion be done without a system? When you read a book and become immersed in it, do you need a system to connect you with the story? Immersion is the quality of Sim, not mechanics. Mechanics serve as communication protocol between multiple participants. If you have intelligent participants, you need less mechanics, but you will always need some kind of protocol to commuincate within a game.

You keep mentioning players being confused by numbers. Is this very specific to your group?

One thing I do not accept is insults thrown at my group. The current four members (five including me) are gifted students half way to a  doctoral thesis in the fields of Computer Science, Physics and Biology. They are more likely to be exhausted by numbers than confused by them. I couldn't think of a finer group of people to have as players in my games - I'm truly blessed. They like reading stories and playing games, but would prefer doing it with the least amount of math as possible for obvious reasons.      

But I don't have a math aversion (in fact I like math a lot). Your examples always seem so funny to me. I can understand a Rolemaster amount of math being distracting, but subtracting three? Or even fractions?

I like math, too. In fact, I study for a BA in Mathematics - you must really love math to stride up this path. Somehow, math and RPG's mix badly when it comes to being me. After getting some pretty deep burns from playing Rolemaster, I guess light systems seem like the only cure for me.    

Way more than half the text. But these are, at best, social contract agreements. They are not mechanics. Which means that they are totally up to interperetation by the players. Which further means that they are just good suggestions on play which make sense in most any game. They are not system. I would import that stuff readily to many games I played, as I said, I like it a lot. But it's not system.

Triad wouldn't function at all if you took out these agreements. While not being 'mechanical' they are vital to its existence and therefore IMO are considered mechanics.

The point? System Does Matter. You can admonish players to play a certain way repeatedly, but the system will either work to produce the results you want, or it will not. Your system does nothing to promote the style of play that your notes suggest, with the possible exception of staying out of the way. And that argument leads us again to the conclusion that no system would be the best way to go.

That is exactly what I was thinking when I read through the whole thread again. I realize now that none of the nine advantages I mentioned ealier was what the system is really all about.

Triad is about staying out of the way. It was designed specifically to do just that. I wanted a system that would let me convert an idea directly into a game, without any interference on the way. I wanted a system that would tell a story AND allow 'Immersion' at the same time.

Why have any mechanics, then? Why not just Collaboratively Storytell?

Because it's still about playing a game. There should be some framework to restrict the game in a way. The game is like a pressure cooker: If you don't have the cooker, you cannot cook. If you seal the cooker too much, it will eventually explode. But if you provide just enough venting, then you get a whole new style of food. One of my players called this condition - 'Creativity Combustion Chamber'.
         
Do I think Triad is the 'perfect cooker'? Hardly. But so far it has cooked the best meals of my life :)  

I've just decided to take out my frustrations with light systems on you today. Sorry, you were just at the right place at the right time with the right target.

Well, if it made you feel better, then I guess Triad was put to good use anyway :)

Your reply is direct and to the point - that's about the best thing that happened to me today. I had my good share of deceptions and misdirections in the last few days and it made me feel this world is more annoying than I ever believed so far. You sure have made a difference.

Many thanks, Mike.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Logan]

OK.

[Garbanzo]

M. _llama:

We all remember the crazy charts in the ol' DMG - this is what happens if you're wearing armor when you change to your were-form, illumination radius for a bullseye lantern, etc etc.
All this combersome Gygaxitude was (I charitably think) a way to model for the user the decisions the designers would've made on the fly.
We all recognize now that if a rule isn't intuitive, it's probably easier to fake it and keep going.

But for my money, there has to be something.  I'm a big fan of Rules Lite - I have room in my head for about 4 things at once.  But I do like those 4 things to be ingenious.  And there's the rub.

My ideal is for a few simple pieces that have really varied and interesting interactions.  
(Like the ideal job that everyone in the country wants - challenging, fun, just a little stress, yada yada.)  

In making approximations, though, different people have different preferences.  Some folks like stats and points and modifiers (cf RoleMaster, GURPS).  Some folks like almost nothing at all (FUDGE, The Window).  After giving a quick read to Triad, it feels to me like the latter.  To me (and, I'm guessing, to Mike) minimalist sim systems axiomatically end up being very similar.  The merest sketch of some numbers to allow GM and Player elaboration.


I'd say (and you may well feel precisely the opposite) Triad needs a few more rules.  Something to make it distinct, something to differentiate it from the next mimimalist system.

Obviously, you are going to play whatever you feel like.  But I think any system can be strengthened by looking at it from an external POV - what can turn it into a rules set that somebody might stumble across and get really intrigued by.

-Matt
(due to post his own scratchy system any decade now...)[/b]

[Mike Holmes]

Joe (is that your real name, BTW?), I like your pressure cooker analogy. The cooker is the system, and what you throw in represents the player creativity. Where we disagree is that apparently you want a very simple cooker, and I want one with lots of gizmos. You see the gizmos as distracting from the "real cooking", what is being added to the pot, while I see the gizmos as potentially useful. And, after all, it only takes a modicum of self-control to ignore the gizmos and keep your eye on the content. You seem to think that its actually impossible to ignore them. Well, even if they are, I think that fiddling with the gizmos is fun all by itself.

That last is the same with the math. I really don't understand your friends and math, I wasn't trying to be insulting (it was you who brought up the tiny subtraction problems). If they find math to be too much of a "job" then they're going into the wrong fields, IMO. I program tools for statistical analysis all day long, and when I get home, I can't wait to try and employ these same skills in RPGs. My friends and I actually liked the math of RM. Probably why we still play occasionally; in fact they force me somtimes. I have things I don't like about RM, but math is not one (nor the complexity as a whole). Heh, my wife is getting her BA in math. Maybe I'm just math mad. :-)  But even if you don't like a ton of math in your game, eliminating it as a whole on principle seems extreme to me.

If you really have a strong aversion to any math in games, might I propose that you might be over-reacting at this point? I know that RM produces extreme reactions in many players; I hope it didn't spoil you on math unnecessarily. OTOH, maybe I'm just crazy. That's always a possibility that I have to accept. :-)

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Joe and Mike, please lay off this stuff about who likes math and who doesn't. It's irrelevant and people are turning on their math-geekier-than-thou sirens. I don't care who started it or who's said what or whatever you were about to post about it. Please stop.

Back to the substantive issues, here's my call, Joe. You see numbers and ranges and so forth as, well, meat for Gamists. A Drama-based, more free-form design appeals to you, as a means of encouraging a more Narrativist approach (far as I can tell). Correct me if this impression is incorrect.

I suggest checking out Amber and The Window as the main vanguards of this design, as well as Theatrix, perhaps the pinnacle to date.

All of these games illustrate some pitfalls in the outlook I've described. First, the strongly-Gamist role-player is most cunning. Power-plays may be wholly social, with no numbers used, and victory-loss conditions among the role-players may be inserted into, and come to define, purely scenario-outcome terms. Amber lends itself to this most thoroughly.

[Please note that none of this is derogatory toward the Gamist mode of play; in fact, now that I grasp it better, I am awed at its memetic power.]

Second, you might be interested in my posts in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774">this thread, in which I describe why free-form systems are actually prone to, rather than immune from, much tacit control-problems in terms of what's happening in-game. My experiences with The Window and some recent, much-discussed play of Theatrix by others lead me to think that both games become the GM's chew-toy in play despite their much-trumpeted "creative power to all" accompanying text.

None of this post is directed toward Triad in any way, but rather to some of the more fundamental, principle-based issues that have cropped up in the discussion.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

My bad. Remember, Ron, it's the nature of the geek to revel in his geekery. I'll try to be more restratined in the future.

Mike

[joe_llama]

Hi everyone,

First, I'd like to apologize for all the mess I caused.

I had no intention to ram you, Mike, and I hope that my reply sounded more like a debate than a battle cry. I'm always over-protective when it comes to my group, so I guess I got carried away.

Ron, I take all the blame for the math talk - it has no room on this forum. As of now, no more math discussions.

As for Triad: Well, I'm happy with it, there's no doubt about that. All the feedback I got was actually very useful - it helped me define better where I stand and what will be the fate of Triad. It helped me better understand why did I make certain design choices in the first place. It also helped me visualize new horizons which I haven't discussed at all. You see, feedback is always useful, no matter what's your position on a subject.

Triad lives on. It will remain the same (give and take a few minor changes). It was born a minimalist system and it will stay that way as long as I support it. There are many minimalists out there, but Triad works best for me. There is nothing wrong with other systems - they probably were also designed for personal use in the first place.

Right now I'm working on additional material to support Triad, but I'll discuss it in another thread.

To Mike:

Joe (is that your real name, BTW?)

My real name is Nadav Gordon, but Joe Llama is my nickname since 1989.

As for the cooker analogy, I plan to use it again in an upcoming thread. I refuse to do it alone - you must join me :)

To Ron:

You see numbers and ranges and so forth as, well, meat for Gamists. A Drama-based, more free-form design appeals to you, as a means of encouraging a more Narrativist approach (far as I can tell). Correct me if this impression is incorrect.

It is correct. I see no reason to correct you :)

I suggest checking out Amber and The Window as the main vanguards of this design, as well as Theatrix, perhaps the pinnacle to date.

They were a major guiding force in the design process, especially The Window.

you might be interested in my posts in this thread, in which I describe why free-form systems are actually prone to, rather than immune from, much tacit control-problems in terms of what's happening in-game.

Thanks for the link. The stuff you wrote there was very inspiring. I have taken note of it.

As for the risks of using a minimalist system - I learned about them when I started playtesting Triad on other groups. My conclusions were somewhat different, but I will make no issue of it (for now). Part of these conclusions appear in earlier posts on this thread.  

Again, I'm sorry about the mess. I meant (and still mean) no harm.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Le Joueur]

Again, the system allows the players to do almost anything, but not quite. They cannot mess with a result. Why not allow the players to decide success and failure as well, then? It seems to me that the minimalist argument logically concludes that systems do a bad job of creating events. If this is so, why have any system at all? If you have "good players", won't they be able to decide when to have success and failure as well? If not, how does leaving it to a random roll help?

Part of the idea behind playing a Sim is the knowledge that as a player you have intentionally less control over the story. The rest of the control goes to the GM. The GM now controls a large percentage of the game, which means it also requires of him to take into consideration many variables and situations, figuring out a path to contine the game through. This can be a) exhausting, b)takes a lot of time to figure (even without numbers) and c) somewhat deterministic for the game and unsurprising for the GM.

But I always saw that as an argument for more system.  In my experience a 'lite system' means that the gamemaster has to do more of the "exhausting" work figuring out how to handle all the situations that could be potentially "deterministic" (I usually talk about the need to appear impartial and not subjective).

I also find that most of the time when there are no "numbers" to describe things, it actually takes longer to describe them.  I tend to call this the 'communal language effect' more mechanics has.  Game system inspired jargon, done right, cuts down on the number of requests for clarification in many situations.  (I do recognize that not enough game designers have even considered this point and so their games wind up requiring more dialogue rather than less, but I do not see this as inherent in whether a system is 'light' or not.)

Likewise, they way you paint it, it sounds like the gamemaster is largely responsible for 'keeping it on track.'  (Being unable to avoid using another plug...) In Scattershot (<-- that's actually five links), we chose to put the mechanics 'above' everyone and give the responsibility for the maintenance of that part of the game to everyone.  I don't know this for sure, but you write like you are coming from the 'gamemaster as referee' school where only the gamemaster is and has to enforce the 'rules.'  And yes, that does get tedious on top of maintaining the focus of the scenario.

It's just that reducing the rules to lighten the gamemaster's workload isn't the only solution.  (I think it in fact complicates everyone's play, reducing the commonality that your group does not seem at all naturally lacking in.  I wish I had players as 'on the same page' as yours sound.)  In Scattershot, we shift the responsibility for enforcing the mechanics away from the gamemaster instead of shrinking them, it has the same effect on gamemaster workload.  (And the players still have "less control" because they are still subject to the mechanics, even though they 'self-police.')

By allocating some control to random elements, the GM is free from choosing eventualities [Snip.] In return for the control he had given up, the GM receives more space which he can share with his players. If used, this space can serve as neutral ground where players stand as equal to the GM

Again, this is still an argument to me to put the mechanics in the hands of the players, not to take them out completely.

There is nothing to say except that this is what a Sim is about. You can take away Karma and even randomality, however common they may be. But the moment you give players more control, it ceases to be a Sim.

I just don't see that.  Just because the players take part in enforcing the laws of physics (id est continuity), it makes the game surreal?  This so strongly implies that players don't automatically play 'by the rules' naturally.  In 'playing by the rules' do they lose their immersion (what you seem to imply "Sim" is for)?  If they weren't subject to rules, wouldn't being affected by them destroy to continuity of the "Sim" anyway?

This "control" you speak of sounds like the ability to 'ignore the rules' when they see fit.  I think one of the primary points of Ron's System Matters essay was that a game is poorly designed if, at any point, rules had to be ignored.  It seems, by your implied logic, that since the players can't be trusted to subscribe to a "Sim" and inforce the rules upon themselves without losing the "Sim," and that its too much work for the gamemaster to enforce the rules for the "Sim," that taking the rules away (your solution) would also have to destroy the integrity of the "Sim" because fewer rules must mean more player control.

I mean, the players are already subscribing to the boundaries of the "Sim" (which is usually the rules, but now you expect it to be something as easily contested as the specific interpretations of meta-physics), why would they have a problem enforcing a set of concise rules upon each other, freeing up the gamemaster for all the "control over the story."  That would mean better "story" from a gamemaster who isn't expected to do all the refereeing, and more continuity of "Sim" for those elements that do not have real world (or at least real experience) analogues.

Same problem. Why not just not mention it at all? Then you'll never have any problems. More extensive systems are meant to give Sim players the feeling of Immersion, or exploration. If you feel that your players want that, then that's an argument for more system. If they don't want a system for Immersion, then why have a Simulationist system at all?

Can't Immersion be done without a system? When you read a book and become immersed in it, do you need a system to connect you with the story?

Books have the advantage of narrative inertia, you don't have time to question the naturality of what is occuring.  The ongoing narrative keeps up the 'feel' of continuity.  Role-playing games are completely different in that respect.  The instant a distraction occurs, inertia is lost.  A game system affords the 'feeling' of consistency, like having gravity work the same every time (this is especially true for things that don't occur in the real world or that are outside personal experience).

Besides, the kinds of systems Mike and I are talking about don't connect the players to the "story" (wouldn't that be Narrativism?), they provide the bedrock upon which the "story" is built.  A 'light' system requires more commonality amongst the participants, because it doesn't provide it.  If you have that in your group, I think that's just great (and I am envious), but this doesn't make preaching about the barest of 'light' systems any more valid.  It especially galls that you imply that no matter what the genre, any set of players will have a total commonality of experience and expectation (because without that, it will be much more "exhaustive work" than having a clear, and much 'heavier,' system)

Immersion is the quality of Sim, not mechanics. Mechanics serve as communication protocol between multiple participants. If you have intelligent participants, you need less mechanics, but you will always need some kind of protocol to commuincate within a game.

If that's what mechanics are for (and this has always been my opinion), then by cutting back on them, aren't you saying that you want effective communication reduced as well?

And I only sort of agree with this first sentence.  I think 'Immersion is the quality of the consistency of the "Sim," which is reinforced by the mechanics.'

Way more than half the text. But these are, at best, social contract agreements. They are not mechanics. Which means that they are totally up to interperetation by the players. Which further means that they are just good suggestions on play which make sense in most any game. They are not system. I would import that stuff readily to many games I played, as I said, I like it a lot. But it's not system.

Triad wouldn't function at all if you took out these agreements. While not being 'mechanical' they are vital to its existence and therefore IMO are considered mechanics.

I thought what Mike was saying was that you make them only as suggestions.  If they are so important, shouldn't you formalize them; make them into directions, thereby making them more binding as 'system' and not as casual as 'agreements.'

Triad is about staying out of the way. It was designed specifically to do just that. I wanted a system that would let me convert an idea directly into a game, without any interference on the way. I wanted a system that would tell a story AND allow 'Immersion' at the same time.

Have you had a chance to read the part in my [Scattershot:] posts (links above) where I discuss the difference between General, Specific, and Mechanical play?  In the technique descriptions I am writing right now, Scattershot talks a lot about staying in General play as much as possible, and only shifting to Specific play largely for how the system can 'generate information' ("How long did that hunting trip take?") and only using Mechanical play when impartiality is paramount ("Hey!  The gamemaster just killed off my character even though I had the advantage!")  Yes this means that Scattershot has lots of mechanics that aren't readily put to use.  (That's also why the mechanics are divided up into Basic, Intermediate [Tournament], and Advanced, so the consumer can 'season to taste.'  Even the Basic mechanics have much more than you purport to be ideal.)

Why have any mechanics, then? Why not just Collaboratively Storytell?

Because it's still about playing a game. There should be some framework to restrict the game in a way.

But hasn't your whole argument been to do away with such restrictions?  Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.

The game is like a pressure cooker: If you don't have the cooker, you cannot cook. If you seal the cooker too much, it will eventually explode. But if you provide just enough venting, then you get a whole new style of food.

But your "cooker" puts no pressure on at all (though it sounds like your groups communal world does that intuitively, that's still no reason to blame, and therefore remove, rules).

If 'open pot' cooking is "Collaboratively Storytelling" and 'heavy' systems are going to "seal the cooker too much," what makes you proselytize 'just putting a lid on it?'  (Your ideal sounds like it couldn't go much 'lighter' of system.)  To me it sounds like you are suffering from a degree of 'referee burnout' and are tossing the mechanics that you feel caused it; this does not make this 'light' of system as much of an ideal as you say it is.  I would still lean towards a few more than three rules for a "Sim," to actually put a little 'pressure' on the game.  (For a "Nar" it might be different, but I think "Sims" need solid, consistent foundations.)

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

Fang, I'm not going to respond to everything in your post (whew! It's huge) but I do want to address the point of accuracy vs. detail in simulationist games. There was a big discussion about this over at RPG Create last week.

My point was that accuracy is a requirement of simulationism. I said that, since precision (detail) in a system gives you more information, such a game would neccesarily be more accurate.

The response was, "No, that's not true, because you can have inaccurate information encoded in an accurate game."

Well, duh, I said, but assuming that the information encoded is good, then a precise game must be more accurate. Obviously people can use bad information, but that sort of mistake is a feature of the design process, not definitive of precise games.

Sure, they said, but do you know how hard it is to make a very precise game really accurate? So they gave me some examples about how even computers don't hae enough processing power to handle things like combat with both detail and accuracy.

Then they went on to point out that the kind of rounding errors that you get to the information encoded in the game can make a detailed game with much information inaccurate. The anaolgy used was chain measuring. If you lay a foot ruler on the floor and try to measure your house by flipping it end over end, no matter how careful you are there's going to be some error, maybe only an inch or to, but still some error. If you use a single tape measure to do the job in one sweep, the margin of error is much much less.  This problem grows greatly when you apply it to larger things. If you measure your house with a foot-long ruler, you may only be a few inches off. If you try to measure something a mile long, you'll be feet off. The errors add up exponetially.

An RPG analogy for this is combat... it's not (currently) computationaly possible, even for a computer, to make a combat system that can handle both small combats (duels, parties) and mass combat with the same degree of accuracy. If you apply, say, a rolemaster combat chart system to a thousand man battle, you get some really wierd results. :)

The point is that great detail may be accurate for one scale of existance, but if you try to apply it to something at a much larger scale you'll get the same sort of errors in the measuring example above. The more you try to inflate it, the more serious the errors are.

All this detail is a lot of work for the GM too. It's often easier, as well as more accurate, to have a single, not so precise, method that gives accurate results.

In Cornerstone, I don't have very much detail at all, by default. (Of course, the GM can add detail if he feels like it.) But it's still fairly accurate, because it has broad mechanics that give believable results. It doesn't take every factor in to account when reaching the results, nor does it make every factor in the event visible. It's not precise, but it can be accurate.

[Logan]

..

[Le Joueur]

This is a really nice response, except it seems to suffer from too much dualism.  Allow me to illustrate.

but I do want to address the point of accuracy vs. detail in simulationist games.

My point was that accuracy is a requirement of simulationism. I said that, since precision (detail) in a system gives you more information, such a game would neccesarily be more accurate.

There is a big difference between precision and detail and that difference is measured in accuracy.  Detail can be anything from something as simple as 'a man in a coat' all the way up to 'a 36 year-old man, in a brand-new leather jacket and jeans, who has long, brown hair.'  Precision is about having more accurate detail.  But just because precision is detail, does not make just any detail into precision.

The response was, "No, that's not true, because you can have inaccurate information encoded in an accurate game."

Assuming that the information encoded is good, then a precise game must be more accurate. Obviously people can use bad information, but that sort of mistake is a feature of the design process, not definitive of precise games.

Certainly, but I was not talking about taking a game necessarily all the way to "precise."  Your discussion is rapidly progressing towards a dualism where either a game in highly precise or it is 'light.'  This is both divisive and conflating my article with suggesting that such precision is either necessary, possible, or desirable.  That was not my point.

I wasn't advocating highly precise games, merely that the opposite extreme has significant problems and that the ideal espoused seemed a might reactionary as opposed to well-reasoned.  (I argue for a balance between the severe lack of mechanics and incredible levels of detail, for somewhere in the middle in fact.)

"Sure," they said, "but do you know how hard it is to make a very precise game really accurate?" So they gave me some examples about how even computers don't have enough processing power to handle things like combat with both detail and accuracy.

Then they went on to point out that the kind of rounding errors that you get to the information encoded in the game can make a detailed game with much information inaccurate.[Snip.]

An RPG analogy for this is combat... it's not (currently) computationaly possible, even for a computer, to make a combat system that can handle both small combats (duels, parties) and mass combat with the same degree of accuracy. [Or for that matter, just a long battle, it has to do with compounding small errors.]

The point is that great detail may be accurate for one scale of existance, but if you try to apply it to something at a much larger scale you'll get the same sort of errors in the measuring example above. The more you try to inflate it, the more serious the errors are.

All this detail is a lot of work for the GM too. It's often easier, as well as more accurate, to have a single, not so precise, method that gives accurate results.

Um...point of order.  You have not established the responsibility of the gamemaster to generate, control, or even supply detail.  As I tried to point out with Scattershot, in some games, anyone can create detail using mechanics, not just the gamemaster.

In Cornerstone, I don't have very much detail at all, by default. (Of course, the GM can add detail if he feels like it.) But it's still fairly accurate, because it has broad mechanics that give believable results. It doesn't take every factor in to account when reaching the results, nor does it make every factor in the event visible. It's not precise, but it can be accurate.

To extend your accuracy argument, measuring your house with your car's odometer is also prone to inaccuracy, worse yet if you try to use it to measure your shoe size.  Using a "broad" scale to measure things much smaller than it is just as faulty as using a small scale to measure a large subject.

But I figure you don't mean "broad" scale, you mean something like a 'general' mechanic.  I can't fathom how letting "the GM can add detail if he feels like it" won't be much more precise than skipping having a system for detail altogether.  (I guess I don't see how a "broad" or 'general' system will be more likely to create any more accurate a game without additional work on whoever's part.)

I also don't understand how you can start off conflating detail with precision implying that they are not related to accuracy, and then suggest that precision has nothing to do with accuracy.  Even the dictionary uses the word 'accuracy' all over the definition of precision (and you make it sound as if precision is the same as detail), so I cannot see how you can have something that is accurate without being detailed according to your own words.

It also seems like you are confusing verisimilitude (your word was believability, but I think that term may be a little too inflamatory) with accuracy when talking about Cornerstone.  For sticklers, it is true that verisimilitude does not occur without accurate detail, but I am highly dubious that accuracy is at all necessary for the suspension of disbelief that exists supported by verisimilitude.  (For example, a player whose favorite realm is their character's emotions will not need an accurate scenario to have verisimilar emotional states.)

And somehow throughout you give this vague implication that either a game is either precise or it is 'light,' that there are no 'light,' precise games and no 'heavy,' undetailed games.  Then you suggest that your game makes up for that by being accurate without being detailed (as if 'light' games were inherently poor because of they lack of detail, or that they need to be justified).

I have seen precise, 'light' games, and the opposite is possible (though I know not if it is desireable - except if it's for the sake of color), meaning I cannot see how this implied dualism is even based on contrary factors.

Or you are using the term 'accuracy' in a fashion I am not recognizing...

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

There is a big difference between precision and detail and that difference is measured in accuracy.  Detail can be anything from something as simple as 'a man in a coat' all the way up to 'a 36 year-old man, in a brand-new leather jacket and jeans, who has long, brown hair.'  Precision is about having more accurate detail.  But just because precision is detail, does not make just any detail into precision.

Interesting point, Fang. In the discussion, we were taking "detail" and "precision" to be equivalent. More below...

I wasn't advocating highly precise games, merely that the opposite extreme has significant problems and that the ideal espoused seemed a might reactionary as opposed to well-reasoned.  (I argue for a balance between the severe lack of mechanics and incredible levels of detail, for somewhere in the middle in fact.)

I agree that balance is need. The balance point will neccesarily be different from person to person, though.

Um...point of order.  You have not established the responsibility of the gamemaster to generate, control, or even supply detail.  As I tried to point out with Scattershot, in some games, anyone can create detail using mechanics, not just the gamemaster.

That's not quite what I meant. A game that has many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM... not because he's responsible for injecting detail into the game, but for remembering and applying many mechanics. Cornerstone just has one mechanic, and is therefore easier for the GM to remember and apply. Cornerstone may still require a lot of GM work to play, but the work won't be involved with the system, it'll be involved in other factors.

But I figure you don't mean "broad" scale, you mean something like a 'general' mechanic.  I can't fathom how letting "the GM can add detail if he feels like it" won't be much more precise than skipping having a system for detail altogether.  (I guess I don't see how a "broad" or 'general' system will be more likely to create any more accurate a game without additional work on whoever's part.)

I was speaking of abstraction... by "broad" I meant much abstraction in the mechanics. In contrast, "narrow" is less abstraction, and many details.

It also seems like you are confusing verisimilitude (your word was believability, but I think that term may be a little too inflamatory) with accuracy when talking about Cornerstone.  For sticklers, it is true that verisimilitude does not occur without accurate detail, but I am highly dubious that accuracy is at all necessary for the suspension of disbelief that exists supported by verisimilitude.  

Accuracy is required, but don't confuse accuracy with realism. Theatrix as a genre simulation is accurate (or so I've been told ;). A narrative game that's heavy on character exploration is accurate if the characters behave believably, no matter how the setting and other game elements are constructed. The focus of the game determines the *sort* of accuracy that's required for verisimilitude (I don't like typing that word! I prefer realism! We all know what we mean anyway... :), but accuracy is required for whatever facet you're focusing on.

And somehow throughout you give this vague implication that either a game is either precise or it is 'light,' that there are no 'light,' precise games and no 'heavy,' undetailed games.  Then you suggest that your game makes up for that by being accurate without being detailed (as if 'light' games were inherently poor because of they lack of detail, or that they need to be justified).

That was the terminology used in this discussion. Precise, by definition, meant mechanics heavy, as a precise system is one that is detailed. Keep in mind that we're talking about a detailed *system,* not just a detailed game. Cornerstone can be used to run a detailed game, if the GM so chooses, but it is not a detailed system. Cornerstone can still give accurate results, even though the mechanical pathway it uses to arrive at the results is not precise.

[Le Joueur]

I understand now, that it was just a terminology misunderstanding.  I have no disagreement with your point then, and I only wanted to clarify what I meant.

On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

A game that has many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM... not because he's responsible for injecting detail into the game, but for remembering and applying many mechanics. Cornerstone just has one mechanic, and is therefore easier for the GM to remember and apply. Cornerstone may still require a lot of GM work to play, but the work won't be involved with the system, it'll be involved in other factors.

Usually this probably is the case.  But we are discussing gaming in general, that includes new and unusual games as well (like a game with only three rules)  As I said, in games like Scattershot, detailed mechanics are not necessarily anything that the gamemaster even has to 'remember and apply,' if so desired, this could be left completely in the hands of the players.  I do not see how you justify this responsibility for the gamemaster.  Can you explain this?

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

On the other hand there is on thing I think you are still missing about what I wrote.

A game that has many detailed mechanics is usually more work for the GM... not because he's responsible for injecting detail into the game, but for remembering and applying many mechanics. Cornerstone just has one mechanic, and is therefore easier for the GM to remember and apply. Cornerstone may still require a lot of GM work to play, but the work won't be involved with the system, it'll be involved in other factors.

Usually this probably is the case.  But we are discussing gaming in general, that includes new and unusual games as well (like a game with only three rules)  As I said, in games like Scattershot, detailed mechanics are not necessarily anything that the gamemaster even has to 'remember and apply,' if so desired, this could be left completely in the hands of the players.  I do not see how you justify this responsibility for the gamemaster.  Can you explain this?

It could just be experiential difference between you and I. I have difficulty imagining a game with many detailed rules that are still applied during the game, without the GM being responsible for remembering and applying them. The only way it would work, as far as I can tell, is if the rules are beneficial to the players, and can be applied independantly without the GM's input. Even so I forsee situations like:

Player: "My character can do ABC because of minutia rule XYZ!"
GM: "What? No way!"
Player: "See, right here, on page DEF!"

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Quick clarifications ...

Nadav, please fill your posts with as much math as you'd like. I, and many others here, absolutely love math and probability and statistics as applied to RPG system design.

What I objected to concerned only the escalating references to who liked or was more comfortable with math, as an item of personally-directed contention between you and Mike. With that eliminated, the actual discussion of the math itself (including its utility during role-playing) is peachy-keen by me.

Fang, your post of "12 Jan 2002 03:30" is a beauty. I loved everything in it.

Best,
Ron