[Rules] Automatication

[Madkitten]

I have been thinking a little.

Now, for me, the most important thing about rules (as both a GM and a Player) is that they are fast, in the mood of the game and at least semi-realistic.
So, I where looking at some of the rules for a couple of games, and noticed how unrealistic they are. Take for example Vampire (a favourite for me when it comes to rules, they are easy), now that game have a soak value if I shoot at someone and they are wearing armor, that reduces some of the damage.
In reality, the bullet would either pass straight through the vest (or whatever) or it would stop. Now this made me think a bit more. How many more rules could be safely pushed aside, or automated as I prefer to call it.

In the above example, it would be simple to give the vest a simple value, the bullet a penetration value, check these against each other when the guy wearing the armor gets hit and voila, (To be totally honest, the armor value thing where stolen from another game). While this might seem clunky, its a whole of a lot faster than say roll for soak and so on...

Poison could be dealt in the same way, as it is usually only a matter of dossage to get the correct effect.

Any other examples?

Opinions?

[WiredNavi]

It's certainly possible to simply do a direct comparison of effect vs. defense rather than rolling, but I wouldn't say it's a lot faster.  You're exchanging the time it takes to determine die pool modifiers, roll the dice, and compare results with the time it takes to look up the ratings for whatever effect and defense are being used, determine effect modifiers, and compare the results.  My experience is that rolling and comparing dice doesn't take very long unless you're using a very complicated die mechanism, even compared to direct comparison, because what takes forever is the looking up of relevant values and modifiers, which would apply equally to either kind of mechanic.  If you want to get rid of the modifiers, sure, but you could do that with a die pool system or a direct-comparison one.

On the other hand, you could easily extend that same direct comparison mechanic way past gunshots vs. armor and poisons - in fact, a lot of games do.  It isn't that odd to say that so-and-so is rated X at bald-faced lying and that someone else is rated Y at reading people, or that one character is rated X at oratory but convincing a crowd of something is Y hard, and then comparing them.

[Madkitten]

Actualy, it decressed the time rolling dice with 10% (i clocked it between two sessions). Anyway, the main point is not that is should be faster, but automatic and realistic...

What games are you thinking about?

[MatrixGamer]

Simplification can be done but if it is not done elegantly it can lead to an unsatifying play experience. For example, I once played in an 1890's British Colonial wargame (machineguns versus spears). The system used a bunch of modifiers. It was very cumbersome. I noticed that it always produced a number between one and six. I thought "That would be a good WWI game - just roll a six sided die to see how many casualties there are." Simple ans quick.

I used the d6 system in a convention game and it worked well. They took 30% casualties and moved the front forward a mile (a realistic outcome in 1918.) I think it worked though because I used a funky terrain board technique. When they left the trench the figures did not move, instead terrain moved past them. This way they did not know where they really were on the board. When they saw other people they were represented by black painted figures out in the distance. Rolling a d6 and seeing the figures drop was fun (and misleading - because I never put out all the figures - so people dropping sometimes meant they went to earth into firing positions!) If I used the rule in a WWII game (say D-Day) it might be totally unsatisfying. In a Lord of the Rings battle it might be even less satisfactory.

Elegance is important.

Rolling dice from a dice pool to see who controls the narration is elegant. Having players make arguments for what they want to have happen next is elegant but neither works well in all situations.

Chris Engle

[Anders Larsen]

Making a system simple can be a good thing, but I am always concerned when people are talking about making a system more realistic.

Take your example with a bulletproof vest. Some vests that can stop a bullet, can not protect against a knife stab. Do you then make a special rule for knifes? Or what about a blow for a club?

You see, the argument of reality will most likely make the system more complex, or it risk making the system unbalanced. A rule like soak is a nice way to incorporate all cases into one idea. It may be possible to make it simpler in some cases, but then it will be more complex, or problematic, in other.

But I wonder, what is your motivation for making changes like this? How do you think this will enhance the roleplaying experience?

- Anders

[Josh Roby]

Also important is which reality you're trying to model.

Bullets do a lot of damage even with bulletproof vests -- the vest doesn't just absorb all of that kinetic energy and then, I dunno, radiate it into subspace or something.  The primary function (as I understand it) is to spread the kinetic energy out over a broader area, to the point where it's not fatal -- it might still be lethal (broken ribs are common) or merely painful (giant welts and bruises are, too).

But to take it a step further, Tony, why do you want the rules to be realistic?  It's not rhetorical.  Your answer will inform which realism you'll want to model -- the gritty realism of worst-case scenario "what really would happen" or the realism of detail-mongering mastery of material or the realism of simple newtonian mechanics that do their thing and then get the hell out of the way.

[Madkitten]

First, let me just say that I'm honestly impressed. On many forums I would have gotten very many nonconstructive reply's.

But, Avante.

Making a system simple can be a good thing, but I am always concerned when people are talking about making a system more realistic.

Realistic might not have been the best word to use. let me rephrase myself to making the system sufficiently realistic. My argument for this is that if you play with rules, then if something is totally out the window (DnD's hit points are a good example of this) then that will take away from the playing experience and put a focus on the rules (and its exploits in my experience).

Take your example with a bulletproof vest. Some vests that can stop a bullet, can not protect against a knife stab. Do you then make a special rule for knifes? Or what about a blow for a club?

You see, the argument of reality will most likely make the system more complex, or it risk making the system unbalanced. A rule like soak is a nice way to incorporate all cases into one idea. It may be possible to make it simpler in some cases, but then it will be more complex, or problematic, in other.

Of course, there is a natural limit to how far such a system can be stretched, and what is realistic, again bringing in my unfortunate useage of the word. Sorry for that.

But I wonder, what is your motivation for making changes like this? How do you think this will enhance the roleplaying experience?

Simple. If one decides to use rules, then everything that streamlines them will give more time for the roleplaying experience. I personally consider realism to be somewhat important, in the premise of the story of course. What is realistic in a fantasy setting seldom has anything to do with what is realistic in real life.

Also important is which reality you're trying to model.

Bullets do a lot of damage even with bulletproof vests -- the vest doesn't just absorb all of that kinetic energy and then, I dunno, radiate it into subspace or something.  The primary function (as I understand it) is to spread the kinetic energy out over a broader area, to the point where it's not fatal -- it might still be lethal (broken ribs are common) or merely painful (giant welts and bruises are, too).

But to take it a step further, Tony, why do you want the rules to be realistic?  It's not rhetorical.  Your answer will inform which realism you'll want to model -- the gritty realism of worst-case scenario "what really would happen" or the realism of detail-mongering mastery of material or the realism of simple newtonian mechanics that do their thing and then get the hell out of the way.

The thing I'm aiming for is a quick and dirty method for resolving common occurrences in my games. The realistic bit come, as stated before, in that I don't wish these rules to reflect an unbelievable world. It is a little like watching television, as long as the heroine is using something to break her fall its OK that its too high to survive, but take away the conveniently placed pool and a lot of people would start to scratch there heads. I hope that this answer's your question.

Again, thank you all (especially Chris, his comment about elegance where very hitting IMHO) for the good feedback.

[Josh Roby]

Ah, plausibility.  A worthy goal.  Good luck!

[WiredNavi]

Which games?  Well, at the very basic end you've got Amber, which is generally a strict stat vs. stat comparison with arbitrary modifiers based on what the GM thinks about what you're doing.  If we're swordfighting, and my Warfare is 10 and yours is 25, you're gonna beat me every time unless what I'm doing is sufficiently clever to make up for that difference.

Hmm.  A quick and dirty method is good.  The best advice I've got is for you to figure out what you think the plausible range of results is is for most situations, and what the chance of each result is.  From there you can work out a distribution curve, and from there you can get a dice mechanic which is plausible and requires a small amount of work..  It doesn't matter what the situation is, just that the chance of a given result for it is plausible.  So you say...

1/2 Normal Result:  10%
Normal Result:  40%
1.5x Normal Result: 20%
Twice Normal Result:  15%
Three Times Normal Result: 10%
Five Times Normal Result:  5%

Going right from there, you make up some arbitrary, comparitive stats, and roll on a chart to see how well the attacker multiplies his stat versus whatever the defender is doing.  If you get a really good success, like if you get multiples of the defender's rating,  you get a bigger effect.

Say, I've got a gun with a rating of 6, and my target's got an armor rating of 8.  I roll a d20:

On a 1-2, I get 1/2 my gun's rating: 3, which is no good against an 8.
On a 3-10 I get it's rating of 6:  Still no good.
On a 11-14 I get 1.5x my gun rating: 9, which is more than his armor so the shot gets through, but I haven't doubled my opponent's score so it does normal damage.
On a 15-17 I get 2x my gun's rating: 12, which still gets through normally but isn't enough to double that 8.
On an 18-19 I get 3x my gun's rating: 18, which doubles that 8 and has double normal effect.
On a 20, I get 5x my gun's rating: 30, which tripples that 8 and has triple normal effect.

The point is, you can adjust the range of multipliers and the chance for each one depending on what 'plausible' means to you.  In fact, you could adjust it depending on what kind of setting you're in, so you could have one range with lots of extremes for 'Action Movie' and another, much less broad range for 'Gritty Detective Story'.  If you want it to be even quicker, don't roll unless the attacker wants to - just let them have whatever 'Normal' is unless they feel they need that extra oomph.

[Anders Larsen]

Realistic might not have been the best word to use. let me rephrase myself to making the system sufficiently realistic.

Ah, I see. I have just heard this "but it is not realistic" argument too much, so I am a little defencive on that point. I guess what you mean, is that you want an realistic effect of an action, and want that in a simple way.

The thing I'm aiming for is a quick and dirty method for resolving common occurrences in my games.

What is the common occurrences in your game, and have you thought about how you want to resolve them? If you give us some information we might be able to help.

- Anders

[Callan S.]

First, let me just say that I'm honestly impressed. On many forums I would have gotten very many nonconstructive reply's.

Here's mine! ;)

Does mechanical use matter if the situation in question is really interesting to the player? Like if their really interested in how a bullet hits body armour and is ablated (or not).

Could, perhaps, the rules become more interesting if players can add their own thoughts on exactly whats going on - instead of just a dice roll, there are dice that are added or subtracted depending on the discussion that's had about the bullet hit.

It's just a theory, but perhaps it's not so much a matter of automating what's boring - but what's automated is boring (for some players). That when the dice get to do all the talking and the player gets no input, they might get bored with those rules. Automation isn't your answer, player input is.

Though, if as designer your not interested in sessions thats all talk about kevlar, you could just skip armour rules entirely and focus on what you do want session talk to be about. Just some ideas! :)

[Madkitten]

Hmm.  A quick and dirty method is good.  The best advice I've got is for you to figure out what you think the plausible range of results is is for most situations, and what the chance of each result is.  From there you can work out a distribution curve, and from there you can get a dice mechanic which is plausible and requires a small amount of work..  It doesn't matter what the situation is, just that the chance of a given result for it is plausible.  So you say...

1/2 Normal Result:  10%
Normal Result:  40%
1.5x Normal Result: 20%
Twice Normal Result:  15%
Three Times Normal Result: 10%
Five Times Normal Result:  5%

I still want dice for some stuff, like combat (then the players cannot bitch so much when they do something stupid and die :-P ). What I'm looking for is a speeded system, not a linear one. Its an interesting idea though for some things, like research (if the fact is out there in the library, then you are going to find it given enough time, getting the matterial though might be a bit trickier).

Ah, I see. I have just heard this "but it is not realistic" argument too much, so I am a little defencive on that point. I guess what you mean, is that you want an realistic effect of an action, and want that in a simple way.

I hear you there brother.

What is the common occurrences in your game, and have you thought about how you want to resolve them? If you give us some information we might be able to help.

I where just thinking about general things, as for when I myself create systems.

Here's mine! ;)

Orrible Orrible little man :-P

Does mechanical use matter if the situation in question is really interesting to the player? Like if their really interested in how a bullet hits body armour and is ablated (or not).

Could, perhaps, the rules become more interesting if players can add their own thoughts on exactly whats going on - instead of just a dice roll, there are dice that are added or subtracted depending on the discussion that's had about the bullet hit.

hmmm, I'm not really sure I get you here, could you pleas expand on this a little?

It's just a theory, but perhaps it's not so much a matter of automating what's boring - but what's automated is boring (for some players). That when the dice get to do all the talking and the player gets no input, they might get bored with those rules. Automation isn't your answer, player input is.

Though, if as designer your not interested in sessions that's all talk about kevlar, you could just skip armour rules entirely and focus on what you do want session talk to be about. Just some ideas! :)

I see where you are going with this, and its not where I wish to go to be honest. I'm trying to figure out what kind of rules that can be "boiled" away, to make a quicker overall system, while retaining plausibility.
I hope I didn't offend.

[Harrower]

I'm trying to figure out what kind of rules that can be "boiled" away, to make a quicker overall system, while retaining plausibility.

...and the lurker posts.  Woo?

In the context of gunfighting in the old White Wolf systems, a gaming group I played with once assigned static numbers to the damage rating of every weapon, and a static amount of soak to every piece of armor.  "Accuracy Successes" (those in excess of the target threshold) counted as an automatic one-step increase in damage.  In this way the damage and soak rolls were completely eliminated from the system, and the combats still went pretty much as expected.  Any roll that seems to slow-down the pace of the game to the detriment of the atmosphere or the fun of the players can be eliminated in such a way - though every roll removed also removes room for (un)lucky extremes.  I believe the Exalted system also did something similar to this, to a lesser degree.

Are you just looking for, maybe, examples of games that favor simplicity of intricate mechanics from which to draw inspiration?  Or just examples of how games that you already like can be simplified without too much damage to their believeability?

[WiredNavi]

I see where you are going with this, and its not where I wish to go to be honest. I'm trying to figure out what kind of rules that can be "boiled" away, to make a quicker overall system, while retaining plausibility.

Ok, I was clearly aiming at the wrong target then.  So you're asking what kinds of rules are unnecessary, instead of how to make a quicker system from scratch or alter an existing set of rules to make it faster.  I'm not sure how much help I'm going to be, then, but good luck.

[Jason Scanlon]

My favored solution for realism vs. simplicity is conflict resolution. Instead of trying to make the rules simulate the minutiae any given reality, a system can be made less complex by determining the outcome of a situation according to situational specifics and/or randomizers and narrating the details according to logic and what is interesting but ultimately leading toward the dictated result. This way improbable results can be directly controlled, though this may eliminate certain unexpected outcomes depending on the referee or what have you. I dunno this is more my style and i dont expect anyone to be into it.