Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Joshua A.C. Newman, September 19, 2005, 12:22:38 PM
Quote from: talysman on October 06, 2005, 02:39:54 PMin a lot of older games, yes.<skip>oldschool RPGs didn't have a clear procedure of play. mostly, they just had a clear procedure for combat. the closest they come to a procedure for play in general is in dungeon-crawl-style; the dungeon is basically a flow chart that links together combat and problem-solving scenarios. play is driven by movement from room to room.<I know very little about GURPS, so skip>..choose-your-own-adventure, which of course lead mainly to Illusionist play or outright railroading.
Quote from: glyphmonkey on October 06, 2005, 02:47:51 PMWelcome to the Forge, jmac! Do you have a real name we can call you by?
QuoteWell, lots of games don't have a GM, often distributing the responsibilites of a GM across other players.
QuoteIn all these games, the rules are never arbitrated by the GM.
QuoteFor instance, in Dogs in the Vineyard, anyone can call for a conflict to get something they want: the GM is without recourse if the players want to throw down on something. The rules literally say, in the GMing section, "say yes or roll dice". That is, either everyone shares the vision of what's happening, so it happens; or players disagree about what should happen next; or, in most cases, the dice wound the characters, pour salt in them, and they come out changed in ways you wouldn't have expected. That's why Vincent says they drive escalation.
QuoteYou'll note, though, there's no facility for saying "We're not gonna roll dice about this." If the GM doesn't want something to happen, she's got nothing to do but throw some NPCs in there to fight with the characters over something - and truthfully, in Dogs, that usually doesn't kill the Dogs, so they get stronger from it, in the unlikely event that the Dogs don't win the conflict.
QuoteHow you use those dice ? what they do ? is built into the system, just like your relationships with the othere players is, just like the rule on page 17 about underwater combat is, just like everyone's agreement that they can't meet Abraham Lincoln in this story because it will invalidate the last story.
QuoteWhat specifically it is that dice do in a given game, that has to be consistent and it has to confirm what's supposed to happen in that specific game. The only reason the GM shouldn't want to roll the dice over something is if either a) the rules don't call for a roll there or b) the rules are broken.
Quote from: jmac on October 07, 2005, 02:02:00 AMQuote from: talysman on October 06, 2005, 02:39:54 PMin a lot of older games, yes.<skip>oldschool RPGs didn't have a clear procedure of play. mostly, they just had a clear procedure for combat. the closest they come to a procedure for play in general is in dungeon-crawl-style; the dungeon is basically a flow chart that links together combat and problem-solving scenarios. play is driven by movement from room to room.<I know very little about GURPS, so skip>..choose-your-own-adventure, which of course lead mainly to Illusionist play or outright railroading.would someone please give me some links to definition if "Illusionist" is also a kind of term? %)I'm not sure, that a clear procedure or strict rules and following them is what we need.
Quote from: talysman on October 07, 2005, 02:52:04 AMyou might also want to read the article called "System Does Matter" that is also in the articles section of The Forge, because System Matters is a very popular fundamental belief here, but it looks like you don't agree with it. this is just an aside.
Quotenow, as for the point about clear procedures and strict rules: strict rules is not necessarily what we need, unless the game design calls for it, but we always need clear procedures. if there isn't one in the rules as written, the gaming group will either agree on a clear procedure or flounder helplessly (and not have fun.)
Quotewhich is why we're discussing the roles dice mechanics or other randomness play procedurally. we're interested in how dice are used in specific games, and which games use randomness to drive the general procedure of play.
Quote from: Valamir on October 07, 2005, 01:37:54 AMWhile I'm certain that "how the player felt about being in control of the action" was a design goal of yours for JAGS I'm not sure I buy the "far more concerned with" part. I can see how moving from a wide dispursion die roll to a tight dispursion die roll is a nod in that direction...but if you were really "far more concerned" with players perceptions of controling the action there are many many other non GURPS-esque mechanics that accomplish that goal far better. Clearly the monte carlo simulation aspect of that style of rules was important enough to you to make you not want to move away from it entirely.I mean otherwise...using a design structure whose best feature is being a simplified-for pen-and-paper monte carlo simulator for you game would have been a really poor design choice, and I definitely don't buy that for a second.
Quote from: glyphmonkey on October 07, 2005, 12:00:13 PM• D20 (Does anyone here play this system?)
Quote from: jmac on October 07, 2005, 04:08:25 AMI totally agree - system matters. It's not much a question for me if randomness factor should be used at all - it definitely should. So system is to "control" this randomness by setting procedures of dice rolling etc - thus adjusting interactions with environment etc to support genre and mood, for example.