The Forge Archives

As I've been looking through online posts at RPG.net and, more recently, the forge, I've noticed what I call a stigma (pick your word) against math in many postings.  "Too much math" or "Gets in the way" are typical comments.

From my perspective, the math usually asked for consists of trivial arithmetic problems. For example, rolemaster is often considered math intensive, yet the most you do is add and subtract 2 digit numbers, leading to 3 digit numbers at the margins. This is elementary school math in America (and I'll bet it's the same for most individuals viewing this message).

If I were to apply the same logic to the use of language, I would probably be limiting people to very simple sentance structures.  "You speak hard.  Make easy. Me not understand."

Seriously, people seem to use college-level prose in their games, but shy away from elementary school math.  Why is that?

-Jeff

P.S. In case it matters, the cleanest definition of Math that I've read had it broken into three areas: arithmetic, geometry, and analysis (algebra, calculus, etc...)

Well, if your primary interest is in some kind of collaborative storytelling thang, you'll use words...not numbers.

And I don't think "we" have a problem with math -- it's just that a LOT of RPG systems out there are really, really poorly constructed (wicked long handling times, too many variables to juggle without any need to do so, etc.).

Well I have my own theory about this.  I imagine its something of a left brain right brain kind of thing.

In my experience Role players and especially LARPists tend to be much more verbal in orientation while wargamers tend to be much more math in orientation.

My theory (which I don't know how it could be studied) is that Wargamer on average score noticeably higher on the Math portion of the SAT exam while RPGers on average score noticeably higher on the Verbal portion.

[SAT: standardised aptitude test, that are widely used in the U.S. as College entrance exams.  Divided into a Math half and a Verbal half.

So I suspect that players who come into RPGs from a wargamer background tend to bring their comfort level with math with them and enjoy that aspect of the game.  Other players find even that level of math to be "heavy".

Just a theory, but its held true for my own anecdotal evidences.

Personally speaking, it's because I suck at arithmetic. Seriously, I can grasp abstract mathematical concepts okay, but ask me to add & subtract numbers & I make really obvious & simple mistakes all over the place. I triple-check my bank book constantly, because I tend to make really small but damaging mistakes.

So for me, the less math I have to do while playing, the better.

Edited in after reading Valamir's post: On the SAT & the GRE, my verbal & analytical scores are quite high (upper 90 percentile in verbal, usually 80 percentile in analytical), but my math scores are always really low, like 40-50 percentile.

Hey,

Jeff, I think that you're caricaturing Forge discussions. No argument like "too much math" would be acceptable here - that's an unsupported value judgment. It's like saying, "Not enough rules," or "D10's suck," which are empty, foolish comments.

The key issue is search time + handling time. That's it. My essay is explicit that game design should recognize the issue and discover for that game what these "times" should be like, and why. It has nothing to do with "reducing the math" per se.

Another issue is layering, also discussed in my essay, and my suggestion that layering lends itself to broken Currency. Again, it's not a math issue at all - it's an exchange issue.

Please, everyone, do not get into a big "comfort zone with math" discussion. Egos cannot fail to get riled and defensive when that comes up. I anticipate that Mike H is typing a diatribe about this simultaneously with my post, so even if it begins, knock it off.

Best,
Ron

I'd say that handling time rather than mathematical ability is the key to people's discontent. With Rolemaster, it's not so much that you have to add, it's that adding takes time. Even if it's a few seconds to add up a few two-digit numbers. Especially in your head, because you're probably going to announce the result to see if everyone agrees.

System helps set the pace of play. If a sword-swing means some additon and subtraction, a die roll, comparison and a chart look-up, your pace will be pretty slow. If that's what you want in a game (say it emphasizes careful and slow decisions, like a hard science space game), go for it.

There's an old thread on mechanics and handling time, let's see if I can dig it up:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=214

QuoteThe key issue is search time + handling time. That's it. My essay is explicit that game design should recognize the issue and discover for that game what these "times" should be like, and why. It has nothing to do with "reducing the math" per se.

Respectfully, I have to disagree in part.  I think the key issue is descriptive power versus time.  Math can aid be a powerful aid in description.

-Jeff

I've had the exact same response a couple of times lately, Jeff. I've seen people criticise even simpler math than RM, and it makes me wonder, too. FWIW, what you've described in RM is just what's done in play, there is a lot more complex math in CharGen and levelling procedures. So criticisms there are possibly more valid. But in general, yes, there seems to be a bias amongst some even against all but the most simple of math.

Jared does have a point. The question of broken mehanics is a separate one, and a more likely condition the more math you have. Perhaps some people are responding to an intuitive notion that math heavy games are more likely to be broken in some way even if only minor.

But I think that it must boil down to something like what Ralph is getting at. For some people it does represent more effort and potential handling time. People don't like to do things that they're not good at, very simply. So from that POV, a designer has to look at these folks as a potential  market segment. OTOH, it might be small enough to ignore for many design purposes.

I think that the general principle of elegance in design holds, however. If you can make it simpler without losing anything in the process, that's an advantage. With that in mind I try to design simpler in terms of math and everything else. But I'm not willing to sacrifice anything for simplicity. If there is a benefit to having some math in the system that can't be kept if the math is removed, I'll keep the math and hope that people can see the benefit of it.

Mike

Right, Mike. Since I suck at arithmetic, any handling time that involves lots of math becomes serious handling time & bogs play down. Now, if it's quick addition or subtraction, like adding the dice totals in 7th Sea or subtracting damage penalties in Sorcerer, I can do it fairly quickly (especially if I have a Player who is better at math than I am assisting) & move on. But much more than that & play slows down, I get frustrated, & things began to deteriorate. Which is why I don't like involving lots of modifiers & such to dice rolls.

I think Ralph (Valamir), while not particularly accurate in his "left brain/right brain" assertion, is on the trail of something important. Narrating the action in an RPG requires everyone (GM and players) to be operating in a particular cognitive mode. Doing mental arithmetic--even adding up a few single-digit numbers--requires a shift to a different cognitive mode. Switching modes constantly can be jarring for some people.

Case in point: I have no trouble doing long division of six-digit numbers in my head, I used to read algebraic topology textbooks for fun, and I hate math-heavy systems.

As a player, game math, by its nature, requires me to be in a state of non-Immersion.  My priority during my "favorite" (ie what I enjoy most) roleplaying is to achieve as much emotional/awareness Immersion into the game world and my character's "head" as possible.  

As a GM, I'm busy trying to orchestrate an Interactive story in my head and remember a lot of elements of narration (names, descriptions, locations, kickers) that easily become fragmented or lost when I have to switch gears and start adding and subtracting modifiers or searching charts.  

In both cases, math isn't bad, or even hard, but it interferes with the rest of my agenda.  If I had a bigger brain, better memory skills, I'm sure I could multi-task it all no problem and I think some people multi task it just fine and have different priorities than my own.

[Edit- Seth was writing his post above as I was writing mine.  His statement about "cognitive modes" is exactly what I mean.]

Just to add to Laurel's comment, a minor issue for me arises when the numbers come in thickly enough to obscure the color and immersive qualities of the game.  Hence I prefer systems with fewer mathematical steps and references so that I can see a character as someone "strong" rather than someone with STR 18/57, etc.

Otherwise, ditto Ron.  Search and handling time are the bugaboos for me.

Best,

Blake

Quote from: Blake HutchinsJust to add to Laurel's comment, a minor issue for me arises when the numbers come in thickly enough to obscure the color and immersive qualities of the game.

And to add to Laurel and Blake's comments, I think part of this problem is that most games simply say 'this is how you resolve everything' and expect the group to know when to invoke the rules and when to 'skip the mechanics.'  I know this is often 'left up to individual style,' but somehow I think that it causes more problems than it 'broadens the audience.'

Fang Langford

I'm pretty quick with the math, but I generally dislike trying to put my mind on the math more than quick action.  Although I can certainly relate to folks dealing with the math challenged, as I had one player who could not understand the basic resolution system for Feng Shui(Roll a d6, roll and another and subtract it from the first, now add that to your skill)...

I think moreso than simply math, people are inclined towards certain types of resolution(by nature, by experience, who knows?).  But some folks simply cannot understand basic math, some just can't get conflict resolution, some don't get metagame mechanics...  I think it's more based on the type of person you are and how your brain works.

On a small note though, I think the US educational system has also played a part in destroying people's math ability.  I used to be able to do long division and multiplication in my head, but the teachers failed me if I didn't write out each problem(despite it being a test with them right there watching me....), now I no longer can do it in my head.  How much worse for folks who are forced to do this with double digit addition/subtraction?

Chris

Quote from: Le JoueurAnd to add to Laurel and Blake's comments, I think part of this problem is that most games simply say 'this is how you resolve everything' and expect the group to know when to invoke the rules and when to 'skip the mechanics.'  I know this is often 'left up to individual style,' but somehow I think that it causes more problems than it 'broadens the audience.'

By this you mean to say that people roll too much? Because it's not well specified in many games? And that makes the math more tedious? Am I following you?

Mike