Ygg mechanics

[Le Joueur]

That sounded waayy to harsh.  That was not my intent.

Pale Fire said he wanted to create a game that "captures the essence of Fantasy."  I would dearly love to see such an animal (especially one that put a little background and detail into it), so much so that I am getting a little too impassioned about having to muck through a bare-knuckles combat system.

I just don't see how any 'old-school' combat system could 'capture the essence of Fantasy.'  I want to see more of the latter and less of the former.  (Unless you believe that combat is "the essense of Fantasy," which I don't, more needs to be shown of the remainder.)

I guess I've been waiting so long for such an thing that I'm snarling at the bait.  Sorry.

Fang Langford

[Nathan]

This is the last time I am posting on this thread.

I think PaleFire is in la la land or is trying to bait flame wars by posting absolutely nothing over and over again. I am probably wrong, and that is okay, but I keep clicking on this thread hoping to see Palefire answer someone's questions. Instead, he posts more conflicting goals and wordy trash that doesn't mean anything.

I think I've lost my patience. :)

Palefire, I suggest you really pay attention to what everyone is saying on this thread, and if you must, ask someone to explain further. You may not understand the points we are making, but close to everything you have posted is contradictory or just plain silly.

Thanks,
Nathan

[Christoffer Lernö]

Oh, what you want is completely possible, but only if you ditch the GNS terminology.

Ooops! I promise I won't use it again! :)

Since battle is important in my game, let's take a combat situation. Seamlessly transitioning between soliloquy and game theory stance would let the GM declare things [like] "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes" and then go on saying "roll for shooting the next one" without feeling the results will be different.

Yep, that's entirely possible (just not relevant to Gamism and Narrativism).  In my opinion though, the most vital part of such a game system would be the 'seamless transition' rules.  What you are proposing smacks of inconsistent gaming if handled badly, and all 'unwritten rules' are guaranteed to be so handled.

Later you write:

The whole point with Scattershot is to create a game based on Transition between as different styles as Gamism and Narrativism.  One thing that has hit home again and again is that this can't be done with a combat mechanic.  What you really need to focus on if you're going to have "seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance" is how, when, and why they people playing the game make that transition.  If you don't make this the most explicit part of your game, "whenever" it happens I can guarantee you somebody is going to have "a hard time" in a really big way.  

Ok, so I'm looking for a seamless transition between sololiquy and game theory. I prefer playing most with sololiquy but some parts I feel should have a solid mechanics backing. (Or in other words, I prefer free-form, but I want to be able to shift over to dice based resultion for certain situations)

Now I've seen this done (recap:ing some stuff from the lost mail here) very well. Enough for me to not stop and think about what mode we were playing in (sololiquy or game theory).

I'll now attempt to make a short analysis on why it worked and why it sometimes doesn't no matter how talented the GM.

The best example was several campaigns I played in Palladium's Robotech setting. Now Palladium is obviously not the greatest RPG that was ever created, but somehow if facilitated that kind of transition in a way other games (I can think of Shadowrun and Earthdawn GMed by the same GM) failed to do.

Say what you will about Palladium's system, but at least it is very easy to tweak. In addition, small tweaks affect very little of the game balance because each mechanic was so isolated from the the others that adding or removing one made very little effect on the game as a whole.

For the case of combat (prominent feature of the game), the game mechanic produced reliable, fairly reasonable results. Because of that, the GM could sololiquy on results fairly easily.

On the other hand, if we look at Shadowrun (again combat), there was quite a shock when the GM declared "oh, no need to roll, you're so good, you shoot him in the head and he dies" because if you actually use the Shadowrun system it's pretty unlikely that something like that happens. If you're lucky, then yes, but if you're unlucky you won't hit no matter what. And in general you tend to injure rather than kill. While this seems to have been an effect they designed into the game (making stuff less deadly) to prevent fluke deaths of players, it's not really reasonable which makes the sololiquy very different from the game theory mode.

Unfortunately for Shadowrun, this weakness extends beyond combat and is a symptom of the whole skill resolution system (which is neat in theory, but in practice it has some very real problems)

In addition, tweaking shadowrun rules are not straightforward. The tight integration in the system (and dice rules for pretty much everything) lets a small tweak potentially affect the whole of the game system, and in extension the feel of the whole setting.

I didn't really try to make that into an anti-SR rant. I merely wanted to point out what makes life difficult for consistent results over the sololiquy-game theory divide.

I'm getting all theoretical here I know.

The big challenge for the sololiquy-game theory transition lies in the "game-winning" focus points of the game. For example, if your adventure can be considered a success if you survive in the wilderness well enough, then the game-winning focus point is surviving in the wildernss. If defeating opponents in combat means success, then a focus point is on combat loosely speaking. RPGs can have one or more focus points or lack them entirely. Focus points can also be other things critical to the characters as long as rule emphasis is put on these things.

For the purpose of the discussion, let's only consider the ones with focus points.

Examples:

* Shadowrun's focus points could be consider to be: combat, hacking, magic use in various forms.
* Robotech's is mainly combat.
* Call of Cthulhu would be the sanity rules (in my opinion)
* AD&D: combat (I consider magic to be part of AD&D's combat)

and so on.

These focus points are the important points of the game system and where the system interacts most strongly with the setting. If you alter the rules of these pieces, the setting will be affected.

Outside of these focus points, the game can easily be run in sololiquy mode without any problems. In old D&D, sololiquy mode had to cover most skill resolutions as there were no rules for those actions.

With the focus point defined, let me sum up my observations:

a) Transitions are facilitated by a system which allows for easy tweaks by the GM to cover new situations.

b) In general, the focus points are where the transition usually occurs, so this is where attention should be directed.

c) Transitions are helped by making narrated events and mechancis generated events (sololiquy and game theory) agree roughly (especially at the focus points).

d) This rough agreement is helped by making game theory results fairly predictable.

e) Both predictability and quality of tweaks and on-the-fly-rules are greatly enhanced by core mechanic clarity. Clever rules are usually NOT good. They need to be simplistic and very clear about what they do.

f) It is not necessary to develop a radically new game framework to produce the smooth transition. It is even possible to get it with bad mechanics as long as the points above are well adhered to.


So, that said, I do think combat is a focus point in my game. It's certainly about overcoming enemies through the use of force. It's also gonna be about overcoming enemies through cunning, but that's for later.

Now in the case of the combat system I have tried to get as close to the goal as possible in facilitating the transitions. Actually I've seen the original system work very well so any problems is probably due to my meddling rather than any weakness of the basic "D12 against static defense" system.

Basically I believe it is possible to create a very simplistic system and still adhere to the goal of making this transition smooth and the combat system is my fumbling attempt to do so.

Because I've seen it done well in a combat intensive setting (although interestingly enough, because combat was so easy to work with, you never felt that you were playing a game where combat was the important thing) I'm totally conviced it works.

My attempt might not be anywhere close it's goal yet, but it's where I'm heading.

With me so far?

[Andrew Martin]

Chalk Outlines: http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/chalk.html

Pale Fire wrote:
> Keeping in mind I won't alter the basic combat mechanism (roll D12 against static target number) and hence need to keep the same type of stats.

Your basic combat mechanic of D12 vs Target Number won't give you the goals you seek, which I believe are:

...would let the GM declare things "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes" and then go on saying "roll for shooting the next one" without feeling the results will be different.

That's because of the simple fact that D12 vs TN allows significant chance of complete failure for the player and PC, which makes it impossible for the GM to say: "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes", and have the player do exactly the same thing by rolling.

To achieve no difference between the GM saying, "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes", then the player saying "I shoot the next guard right between the eyes" and rolling, there must be no difference. This means that the player must have 100% success chance. There is no other alternative. No ifs. No buts. One can't use your D12 system to do this. One can't use a ordinary RPG system to do this. It's because of this simple requirement of the player having 100% success, when they roll dice.

My Swift rules, which requires the use of Fait Accompli and Concessions, gives players the power to have 100% success for their characters if they choose. This gives the players the assurance that a player rolling for events are the same as GM narrated events.

I apologise, if I seem harsh or abrupt in any way.

[Le Joueur]

To achieve no difference between the GM saying, "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes", then the player saying "I shoot the next guard right between the eyes" and rolling, there must be no difference. This means that the player must have 100% success chance. There is no other alternative. No ifs. No buts. One can't use your D12 system to do this. One can't use a ordinary RPG system to do this. It's because of this simple requirement of the player having 100% success, when they roll dice.

I'm not sure it 'rings true' if a sniper lines up one shot, taking his time, to drill one in between the eyes and then moving quickly to the next before an alarm can be raised.

What I have been describing previously is that in Scattershot, the first requires no roll because of the preparation time, but the second should be chancy, shouldn't it?

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Since battle is important in my game, let's take a combat situation. Seamlessly transitioning between soliloquy and game theory stance would let the GM declare things [like] "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes" and then go on saying "roll for shooting the next one" without feeling the results will be different.

Yep, that's entirely possible.  In my opinion though, the most vital part of such a game system would be the 'seamless transition' rules.  What you are proposing smacks of inconsistent gaming if handled badly, and all 'unwritten rules' are guaranteed to be so handled.

Later you write:

The whole point with Scattershot is to create a game based on Transition between as different styles as Gamism and Narrativism.  One thing that has hit home again and again is that this can't be done with a combat mechanic.  What you really need to focus on if you're going to have "seamless transition[...]" is how, when, and why they people playing the game make that transition.  If you don't make this the most explicit part of your game, "whenever" it happens I can guarantee you somebody is going to have "a hard time" in a really big way.  

Ok, so I'm looking for a seamless transition between soliloquy and game theory. I prefer playing most with soliloquy but some parts I feel should have a solid mechanics backing. (Or in other words, I prefer free-form, but I want to be able to shift over to dice based resolution for certain situations)

Now I've seen this done (recapping some stuff from the lost mail here) very well. Enough for me to not stop and think about what mode we were playing in (soliloquy or game theory).

I'm convinced this happens when the practice of role-playing gaming has been internalized by the players.  Players reach a point of sophistication where everyone present expects, is sensitive to, and participates in 'seamless transition.'

In my experiences with playtest groups, convention gaming, and playing with strangers, I have to say, outside of a familiar group the absence of this sophistication and the internalization of these unwritten rules turns into a minefield of problems.  The most jarring of which occur when one or more participant haven't made the same 'seamless transition.'

This is why I went out of my way to write this unwritten rule.  You seem exceptionally sensitive to the need for it, yet you keep missing this opportunity.  Do you think it needs not be written?

For the case of combat (prominent feature of [Robotech]), the game mechanic produced reliable, fairly reasonable results. Because of that, the GM could soliloquy on results fairly easily.

Actually, my read on the situation is that because the combat is fairly abstract and relatively simple, when playing in a similar fashion the 'seamless transition' is very easily internalized.

However...

I do not think this is an explicit effect of construction of the rules.  I have to say I am convinced it is a happy side effect.

I can't say for sure, but your work so far reads as though you believe the unwritten rules for 'seamless transition' are implicit and all a rules set needs to do is not interfere.  Writing a game that 'just happens' to facilitate 'seamless transition' as a side effect when that appears to be your primary goal will prove an elusive 'holy grail.'

Let me take a moment and dispel an implied dichotomy.  You seem to be working in a world where only two conditions exist; either you have rules that allow 'seamless transition' or rules that cause 'jarring transition.'  What you seem to be missing is that in all the cases you have listed there are no rules for any kind of 'transition.'  There is a whole unclaimed field beyond the two poles of this implied dichotomy; why not have rules to make 'seamless transition' explicit?

Once 'in the light of day,' you can work to make these rules more easily internalized (invisible to play as the end result).  By making them explicit however, you completely eliminate those 'jarring transitions,' by giving the people playing a 'language' to express what they're doing when it isn't going very 'seamlessly.'  Furthermore, with explicit 'seamless transition' rules as a part of your overall design, you can easily see what needs to be a part of both soliloquy rules and game theory rules to support it.  Leaving it implicit means you always have to guess whether the 'transition' will be 'seamless' or not with people who you've never met.

In addition, tweaking Shadowrun rules are not straightforward. The tight integration in the system (and dice rules for pretty much everything) lets a small tweak potentially affect the whole of the game system, and in extension the feel of the whole setting.

I didn't really try to make that into an anti-SR rant. I merely wanted to point out what makes life difficult for consistent results over the soliloquy-game theory divide.

As I discussed above, by making 'seamless transition' rules explicit, you could actually make a game that requires no 'tweaking.'  Ease of use is always a good selling point.  And needing to tweak is not as easy as not needing to.

Having a tight, integrated game is, in my opinion, a great way to make a game that is more likely to get internalized.  While games that 'take tweaking well' (being somewhat 'open-source' compatible - FUDGE made this a design strength), they also wind up being 'high maintenance' in the end (or so I have seen).  Having a 'tightly integrated' system that uses explicit 'seamless transition' rules seems like the best of both worlds.  The more easily internalized a game system is, the more 'seamless' the 'transitions' would become.

Honestly, if that is one of the most important things to you, I can't think of a better way to approach getting it.  No matter how much you tweak your combat system (or make it 'tweakable'), you're still only guessing whether it will make 'seamless transition' possible or even likely.

The big challenge for the soliloquy-game theory transition lies in the "game-winning" focus points of the game. For example, if your adventure can be considered a success if you survive in the wilderness well enough, then the game-winning focus point is surviving in the wilderness. If defeating opponents in combat means success, then a focus point is on combat loosely speaking. RPGs can have one or more focus points or lack them entirely. Focus points can also be other things critical to the characters as long as rule emphasis is put on these things.

This bolsters the argument for making 'seamless transition' rules.  If only some of the players make the transition to "game-winning" mode (especially when none of them are the gamemaster), problems are the only result.

Frankly, being in "game-winning" mode and having things proceed in soliloquy is always a disappointment.  This is why Scattershot is so clear about when you are or are not in Mechanical play.  Outside of Mechanical play, being in "game-winning" mode is problematic and leads to conflict.  Knowing that you're not in Mechanical play both helps one not try to be "game-winning" and it makes turning play to Mechanical (using 'play control techniques¹') so that you can go for "game-winning" mode, a valid and explicit possibility.

Outside of these focus points, the game can easily be run in soliloquy mode without any problems.

With the focus point defined, let me sum up my observations:[list=a][*]Transitions are facilitated by a system which allows for easy tweaks by the GM to cover new situations.
[*]In general, the focus points are where the transition usually occurs, so this is where attention should be directed.
[*]Transitions are helped by making narrated events and mechanics generated events (soliloquy and game theory) agree roughly (especially at the focus points).
[*]This rough agreement is helped by making game theory results fairly predictable.
[*]Both predictability and quality of tweaks and on-the-fly-rules are greatly enhanced by core mechanic clarity. Clever rules are usually NOT good. They need to be simplistic and very clear about what they do.
[*]It is not necessary to develop a radically new game framework to produce the smooth transition. It is even possible to get it with bad mechanics as long as the points above are well adhered to.[/list:o]Now in the case of the combat system I have tried to get as close to the goal as possible in facilitating the transitions.

Basically, I believe it is possible to create a very simplistic system and still adhere to the goal of making this transition smooth and the combat system is my fumbling attempt to do so.

I'm totally convinced it works.

So am I.  In Scattershot's design, we realized that "focus points" require the most impartial play (to support the sense of 'fairness').  'Jarring transition' most often happens when play shifts into a "focus point" and not everyone is on the 'same page.'  Where I disagree with your approach is how you seem intent on keeping 'seamless transition' as an unwritten rule.

It's true that 'seamless transition' is more likely to occur when there is rough agreement between soliloquy presentation and game theory interpretation are close, but that can be maximized by simply explicit units of interaction (like DC Heroes APs of everything).  No matter how "predictable" the game theory results, the "agreement" will always remain rough.  And 'seamless transition' will still remain mostly a product of luck.

If you want true predictability, you're going to have to give up on allowing or expecting tweaks and on-the-fly-rules, because they can do nothing but create uncertainty.  "Core mechanic clarity" is a laudable goal, but I've said it again and again, that will do nothing to guarantee any improvement in 'seamless transition.'  Only explicit 'seamless transition' rules can do that.  (You'll have to tell me how tweaks and on-the-fly-rules aren't meant to be "clever.")  Better yet if they're predictable and clear, so much so that once internalized, players will go 'why did you bother to write them down?' (truly the best compliment).

And I'm not talking about developing radical new frameworks, I'm taking about taking an unwritten rule and writing it down!  Nothing should be simpler.  (Although it will be viewed initially as a radical new perspective, but such quickly becomes commonplace.)

And I highly agree with you, "it is possible to create a very simplistic system and still adhere to the goal of making this transition smooth...."  What I am saying is that this will happen consciously, on purpose, and predictably, only by creating simplistic 'seamless transition' rules.

Why not give it a try?

Fang Langford

¹ As of yet, I am having trouble putting all of Scattershot's techniques into clear prose yet, so I can't demonstrate this one.

[Andrew Martin]

Fang Langford wrote:
> What I have been describing previously is that in Scattershot, the first requires no roll because of the preparation time, but the second should be chancy, shouldn't it?

Both results happen easily in my Swift rules. And players take to it like ducks to water.
Here's how:
PC skills and attributes are expressed in dice types. Basic competence is D2. Skills and Attributes are expressed on this scale: D2, D3, D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, D100 (we've got a D100 die in our group). The system for a player rolling a skill/attribute check is roll the die corresponding to their skill/attribute. If the die rolls higher than one, then the character has succeeded.

Otherwise (die = 1), the character has to make 1D4 complications or concessions in order to succeed. These concessions are in the nature of minor things going wrong for the character. For the sniper's player who rolls a 1, then 3 on the D4 concessions die, the player might state: "I hit the next guard right between the eyes, but he makes a noise as he falls, and there's two patrols near my position that saw my muzzle flash." Basically, what ever fits the situation and definitely makes life more interesting for the character.

The player could equally well choose instead to fail, "I decide not to fire at the moment, as the next guard was alarmed by the first guard's death, moved out of my line of fire, and is starting to make a call on his radio."

Alternatively, the player could spend a Fait Accompli (like a hero point or plot point in other games), and not need to roll skill dice, or, if the player did roll, turn the roll of 1 into a succeess.

To get more Fait Accompli, the player chooses to have their character fail automatically, due to a 'vantage (short for Advantage or Disadvantage), instead of rolling dice. For example, the sniper's player could say, "I fire and miss the guard due to my character falling into a minor epileptic fit, and the guard raises the alarm." and so the player gains a Fait Accompli.

There's more details on my site in the Swift section.

[Christoffer Lernö]

What I gotta ask is, so you have this game that lets people seamlessly shift from telling the game to rolling for it, how does this 'get them to' those inspiring fantasy novel cover situations.

In the case of combat:

I'm hoping that if you can use both ways equally well, they can compliment each other to allow for better description as well as more interesting actions from the players.

On way to get it is to go totally free-form. You can run a really epic scene that way, but it's difficult to run an entire campaign.

Pure rolling has a tendecy to be:

"I swing"
"You miss"
"He swings"
"Oh he hits you in the leg you get 10 points of damage. Next round roll for initiative"
"5"
"You start"
"I attack"
"You hit, roll for damage"
...and so on...

Free form, on the other hand has the difficulty of maintaing consistency. Also there is a temptation to do "cool inspiring scenes" every time and eventually the it just gets too overblown.

Together they could compliment each other nicely.

The same holds but on a lesser degree for other things I think.

It's like this:
Stated Goal: make a game that fulfills those inspiring cover-shots that all those other games fail to provide.

Demonstration: detailed combat system.

Response: how does what is demonstrated fulfill the goal?

Answer: the combat system allows seamless transition between soliloquy and game theory play.

Question: how does that answer the response?

Hmm... it's frustrating for me too. It's like we're all talking about completely different things sometimes. It's definately not intentional.

As for the above I hope I've answered that. Seamless transition between types of play will provide the synergy to create good combat scenes. Good combat scenes is then they look cool in special cases when exceptional things happen, and otherwise they can be dealt with fairly rapidly providing little more than color to the story. Mechanics prevents things from being over the top all of the time, soliloquy makes it possible to look cool when it should. Either on it's own doesn't work.

Of course, this is only about the combat system. The same should be applied in some way to all focus points. For magic I'm mechanizing the basic system, but retaining very flexible expressions of the spells which are to be played out as a soliloguy (jeez that word is annoying to spell ;) ). (Oops, that statement wasn't very clear)

Note: As for making the posting of the game system in the first place, I thought I explained my reasons (or maybe that was part of the reply that got lost). Anyway, I didn't intend it as anything other than a reply to the accusation that I hadn't anything written down whatsoever. That doesn't mean this discussion is useless though. I think it has gotten to the heart of the matter.

(Now if they had said: "you haven't gotten the concept clear enough, think more about that" they would have been right, but making sweeping statements like "I don't believe you've written anything, you just trying to make fools out of us" (ok maybe not so frank but almost) I felt... disappointed, sad, annoyed and angry at the same time)

I've read a lot of fantasy (especially the stuff that came before Tolkien, even though many regard some of that as mythology), even when there is combat, it is never focused on with such detail. It's more of an afterthought or a qualifier, certainly not "the essence of Fantasy."

True. There is room for a more fairy tale kind of fantasy where the main characters do not possess anything but strong inner qualities to overcome their difficulties. This is a very interesting genre which I'd love to have someone look into more thoroughly (I saw there was some discussion on the Forge on a game of that theme but more geared towards the archetypal stuff?)

I indend to have a fair deal of conflict in my game. It will be more Conan than Narnia in terms of conflict if you know what I mean (to take some well known pre AD&D stories)

There's more than a few steps between on one hand fairy tales and on the other side AD&D. So I think there is plenty of room to find something in between those extremes. I guess many comic books offer the approximate balance I'm after if that is any help.

However, because I'm not gonna provide either side exclusively, it seems inevitable that games could degenerate to either side (AD&D far more likely than fairy tales though  

If you still believe my focus is off, let me know.

Seems good, but that's how BRP is supposed to work too, isn't it? Of course GMs abuse this by letting players roll when they want them to fail for no other reason than it is convenient. Do I need to mention that destroys the feeling of having a reasonable world?

If I'm not mistaken, that's how every game is supposed to work. How many of them actually come out and explain it?

Actually quite a lot of them that I know of. Not that I never saw that knowledge making any difference though. GMs happily abuse it anyway.

I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents exactly the same occurring in your rules. In fact, I see much worse on the horizon.

Two things to prevent it:
1. GM rolls for difficulty first and states it. If the GM tries to insist that the difficulty climbing that ladder borders to near impossibility, players a) probably won't let their character climb it and thus eliminating the impression that the players failed because there characters were clumpsy and not because the task was difficult. b) will not want explanations on why the ladder is so difficult to climb, forcing the GM to come up with an explanation and thus reinforcing the feeling that the world is a reasonable one, rather than one where practically no action can be counted on to work.

2. The player roll lets the player depend, but not be sure of success. Thus replicating approximately (or that's my intent anyway) the narrative process so going from one to the other should be easy.

I'm not saying it's enough, but isn't it a start?

Complex!?! I want to walk down the street, "Roll the 3 dice." I open a door, "Roll the 3 dice." I talk to a shopkeeper, "Roll the 3 dice." I buy some bread, "Roll the 3 dice." See what I mean; you have no suggestion of when dice should or should not be rolled.

Ok, ok fair enough  :)
This was supposed be a mechanism to induce some detail into an action if desired. If it doesn't matter if the painting is ok, good or great, don't roll. But if you (player) really wants to know or it's important for the plot (you're gonna give it to the king or something) then roll.

Sorry, that was so obvious to me that I didn't mention it. (<- a very common reason for misunderstandings in a great many discussions)

Unless you are extremely sensitive to whether play is in a Gamist mode or a Narrativist mode and give a rule that decides based on that when dice are applicable. Just saying "whenever..." can only fall flat on its face at that crossroad.

Yes that would be interesting to follow up on in some manner.

You obviously understand that "Gamist will have a hard time handling this type of more Narrativist style." Surely you realize then that putting in mechanics to satisfy Narrativists will give a Gamist "a hard time." I hope the reverse is obvious too. So why do you keep harping on wanting "the possibility for a seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance?" Somebody is going to get "a hard time" whenever you transition, aren't they?

Only if one notices the transition. And the whole idea is to make it invisible (or at least make it possible for it to be) to the players. I have trouble only when I notice the shift. As long as everyone can think they're playing the kind of game they want, noone is gonna argue. Or?

Sorry for the rather abrubt stop here but I am starving to death here. I have to pick up the rest of the discussion at some other time.

[contracycle]

In the spirit of constructive criticism, I would say that at the moment, I see these mechanics working against your goals.  If I understand your concept of transition correctly, that is.

I think you want to be able to slip from mechanical determination of outcome to verbal description of outcome smoothly and quickly.  For this purpose, I like large-grained Karma systems; they have strong mechanical inputs to decision making, but being chunky cover a multitude of sins and give you a lot of room to interpolate.  

I think your design at the moment is trying to accomodate all the possibilities which become details in dramatic events.  This IMO is doomed becuase million to one odds do NOT come up nine times out of ten in RPG's - few RPG's would permit the arrow to hit Smaugs missing scale, for example.  In attempting to accomodate all possibilities, you make these outlandish events as implausible in game mechanical terms as they are RW probability terms - and in fact this is a feature rather than a bug of such small grained Fortune systems.

Thus I suggest your design as it stands is opposed to your goals.  I would recommend making a comparison with Conspiracy X, which has a large-grained part karma part fortune mechanic, and L5R for the use of mixed grain sizes in the elemental rings and attribute values, combined with a fortune mechanic.

[Le Joueur]

Pale Fire,

I'm a little confused, so I'm gonna assume that the starvation is the reason you responded to the same post of mine twice, unless you didn't scroll down to the second page of posts.

I am still very interested in your opinion on the option of make explicit 'seamless transition' rules.  I think they would highly enhance the experience you are trying to provide.

I'll be waiting.

Fang Langford

[Christoffer Lernö]

Now I've seen this done (recapping some stuff from the lost mail here) very well. Enough for me to not stop and think about what mode we were playing in (soliloquy or game theory).

I'm convinced this happens when the practice of role-playing gaming has been internalized by the players.  Players reach a point of sophistication where everyone present expects, is sensitive to, and participates in 'seamless transition.'

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that once enough experience has been accumulated, players will have internalized the rules and that in turn leads to 'seamless transition'?

This is why I went out of my way to write this unwritten rule.  You seem exceptionally sensitive to the need for it, yet you keep missing this opportunity.  Do you think it needs not be written?

It does feel a little... weird, but it seems that you are right. I can't really figure out were to start though.

Furthermore, with explicit 'seamless transition' rules as a part of your overall design, you can easily see what needs to be a part of both soliloquy rules and game theory rules to support it.  Leaving it implicit means you always have to guess whether the 'transition' will be 'seamless' or not with people who you've never met.

That sounds good. What I'm afraid of, is that something like that implies a very abstract system. Or at least a system with a lot of mechanics not directly related to actual in game events, but kind of a sub system to facilitate a certain type of play.

For example, in Swift there is an introduction of several radically new concepts introduced to facilitate it's particular brand of gaming. Although it seems neat and probably works nicely in a group with the patience to try it out. Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems is very likely to initially be put off by the abstractions.

And here I'm a little retro. In a way I really really appreciate many of the really old RPGs because of their very well defined and clear systems. Even though they had multitudes of flaws the mechanics were clear and not abstract.

Although there is benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

In addition, tweaking Shadowrun rules are not straightforward. The tight integration in the system (and dice rules for pretty much everything) lets a small tweak potentially affect the whole of the game system, and in extension the feel of the whole setting.

I didn't really try to make that into an anti-SR rant. I merely wanted to point out what makes life difficult for consistent results over the soliloquy-game theory divide.

As I discussed above, by making 'seamless transition' rules explicit, you could actually make a game that requires no 'tweaking.'  Ease of use is always a good selling point.  And needing to tweak is not as easy as not needing to.

Having a tight, integrated game is, in my opinion, a great way to make a game that is more likely to get internalized.  While games that 'take tweaking well' (being somewhat 'open-source' compatible - FUDGE made this a design strength), they also wind up being 'high maintenance' in the end (or so I have seen).  Having a 'tightly integrated' system that uses explicit 'seamless transition' rules seems like the best of both worlds.  The more easily internalized a game system is, the more 'seamless' the 'transitions' would become.

I don't know if I can say that the tightly integrated SR rules made them easy to internalize. If SR had had a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations, it wouldn't have been a problem. But SR is rule-patch after rule-patch.

With SR, you get the feeling that they first came up with the "success" mechanic and thought "hey what a great idea, let's use it for the whole system".

Problem is that the system has 3 parameters: number of dice, target number, number of successes.

Most systems use two parameters: skill rating, necessary success.

Because of the three parameter system, a change in either produced non-obvious results in the other.

For example, if you wanted to shoot someone with a gun on a far range, would that mean you needed more successes or would the target number be higher?

The decision is not clear, so SR is chock-full of rules which are basically deciding if you use one method or the other in that particular situation.

SR tweaking is hard because aside from deciding necessary success and target number, you also need to decide which one to prioritize in the particular situation. And furthermore the chances of succeeding with a high number of dice vs few dice works quite differently depending on the priority. So the system is far from trivial.

Learning the rules is extremely difficult because there are no general theme, only a mechanic which you have to use again and again. The integration I'm talking about means that your successes in one test might affect successes in another, so altering one part might very significantly change results in many others.

In general I actually feel that tight integration is a dangerous thing because it almost certainly guarantees a lot of sacrifices have been made to maintain that integration.

I feel that very clear and simple rules, joined together losely by "common sense decisions" by the GM is the way to go.

I D&D (not AD&D) and BRP both represent that type of system (loosely integrated one).

Frankly, being in "game-winning" mode and having things proceed in soliloquy is always a disappointment.

That's very true.

'Jarring transition' most often happens when play shifts into a "focus point" and not everyone is on the 'same page.'  Where I disagree with your approach is how you seem intent on keeping 'seamless transition' as an unwritten rule.

There's also the problem of when the GM tries to bridge holes in the game mechanic during a game theory scene using soliloquy. In some games, it is easier because such things (what I call on the fly tweaks) aren't likely to yield "fair game" breaking stuff.

In other games it's more problematic.

Here's a Rolemaster example:

GM: "The Cyclops peers into the cave where you are hiding"

Player: "I charge forward with my spear trying to pierce his eye"

GM thinking: "Err, how the heck do I come up with RM rules for hitting specific targets before my players lose patience?"


The problem here is that it starts in soliloquy mode with GM decribing what's happening. The player acts reasonably with a good idea, but because the RM game mechanic is not adaptive, the GM needs to think out his/her own rules on the fly.

Now this is a big difficulty because hitting the cyclops would yield an enormous advantage. Because RM is "conflict XP"-based there's a strong "fair game" conflict here. If the GM allows the hit easily, then the players unfairly is undeservedly handled the win. On the other hand if the player is forced to roll a normal contest, the GM is making unreasonable concessions for game theory. Either way it's a loss.

Because I've been exposed to a fair deal of those problems, I'm anxious to alleviate those problems at least.

Anyway, I'll try to think about it some more.

I don't remember if all of my opportunity attack rules made it into the rule overview in this thread. In any case, I made up rules to allow for single shots ("I try to knee him in the groin") based on the core combat mechanic and stuff like that to exactly bridge problems like the above which I had encountered. It's impossibe (and I don't think it's desirable either) to make rules for all of the different situations, but my plan was to deal with the big ones in a fairly "rule-simplistic" manner, so that bridging the gap between player actions and actions covered within the mechanics is easy.

(Easy tweaking boils down to 2 things I think: 1. The basic mechanic can be used for a lot of different situation by simply changing a modifier and 2. The modifiers and such should be rather rough, so that estimates should be easy to make. (Making modifiers on the fly for 1D6 is easy, but for 1D100 it's very very hard... "should the shield have a +37 or +38 modifier you think?"))

Ok, not much new stuff in this reply, but to sum it up:

1. Yes. Explicit rules are desirable, but only if they can be made very concrete and not to rely on a seperate mechanism which has no real life basis.

2. I don't really know how to go about it.

3. I'll do some more thinking ;)

[Christoffer Lernö]

I think you want to be able to slip from mechanical determination of outcome to verbal description of outcome smoothly and quickly.  For this purpose, I like large-grained Karma systems; they have strong mechanical inputs to decision making, but being chunky cover a multitude of sins and give you a lot of room to interpolate.

The important thing is that they can be played in a gamist way too, especially that they are "fair" within the confines of combat.

You mention Conspiracy X and L5R. It would be interesting to read a little on their solution. If maybe you could provide me some links or something that would be nice.

I think your design at the moment is trying to accomodate all the possibilities which become details in dramatic events.

If we're talking about the combat system then: yes, in a way it is. But not really in the attempt to be complete. Some of the stuff in the combat will have to go. I'm trying to get an overview of what needs to be covered. After that, the next step is to eliminate redundant rules and simplify. Once that is completed, what remains should be a core set of combat rules which can be interpolated into describing all of the situations I originally made seperate rules for. Ideally there should be a list of examples like: If the character tries to grab, use the basic mecanic and interpret it this way, if the character wants to do xxxx, use the basic mechanc and interpret it that way.

This IMO is doomed becuase million to one odds do NOT come up nine times out of ten in RPG's - few RPG's would permit the arrow to hit Smaugs missing scale, for example.

A bad example since you could actually do that in my system (I didn't write down the damage rules yet, did I?) but I see your point.

[Andrew Martin]

> For example, in Swift there is an introduction of several radically new concepts introduced to facilitate it's particular brand of gaming. Although it seems neat and probably works nicely in a group with the patience to try it out. Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems is very likely to initially be put off by the abstractions.

We've been trying it out on new gamers and blind novice gamers. They seem to like it and understand Swift very easily, as they're back again next week. Also Swift works well with munchkin players as well.

> Although there is benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

Only if they're written badly or are designed in opposition to people's natural way of thinking and acting. See Tao Te Ching for more on this last principle.

[Andrew Martin]

I feel that very clear and simple rules, joined together losely by "common sense decisions" by the GM is the way to go.

I agree with this statement, and I'm writing/desiging a system to do just this. It's called Accord, and will be available soon. It's based on my Zero System.

[contracycle]

You mention Conspiracy X and L5R. It would be interesting to read a little on their solution. If maybe you could provide me some links or something that would be nice.

Short version of the salient points of each:

Con-X works from points of ability (1-5) directly compared with difficulty (similar range).  If you are a certain amount (2 IIRC) above the difficulty, you automatically succedd.  1 point above, roll <= 7 on 2d6 for success.  Equal, roll <=4 for success.  Hence, lots of decisions will be made automatically.  Rolling is cut down, but you have good systematic reasons for your decisions.

L5R has abilities (strength, perception, etc) as subsets of elemental rings (fiore water) which have a value = lowest value component attribute.  Thus, anything too ambioguous to be resolved directly against an ability can be resolved against the broad elemental ring.

Pleas enote all of this is from memoty so the actual details might be different - but it illustrates the strategy these systems adopted.