Topic: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Started by: Andrew Morris
Started on: 3/31/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 3/31/2004 at 7:25pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hey, everyone. I'm still new to the Forge, so if this post is on the wrong forum, I apologize.
What I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.
Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?
For example, Player A and Player B are fighting. They both use whatever randomizing system is in place and Player A beats Player B's score. The GM asks Player A what result he wanted, and he says he wants to kill Player B. Player B is now dead. It's fast and simple, so it doesn't slow things down, but your character can die just as quickly.
On 3/31/2004 at 8:14pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Put that bluntly, yes, I'd have a problem with it. But my reasons have nothing to do with speed: it's a question of who gets control of what characters.
Suppose, in the same situation, you slightly changed the post-roll structure.
First, I think A should be describing what he wants to happen on the cause side of events, i.e. "I hack his neck good and hard with this sharp axe" or whatever, as opposed to describing what actually happens to B.
Second, I think that B might be given the opportunity to describe the effect. Death might be an appropriate option, but there might be others.
If you boil down all combat to a single die-roll, you have to have more narration elsewhere, it seems to me. So if I'm player B, and the only say I get over what happens to my character is how I roll the dice, that sucks. I feel like I'm being punished for bad luck. But if I get to say what happens to me, however horrible it may be, then I can be creative and involved.
On 3/31/2004 at 8:25pm, Sean wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
With respect to your general question about one-roll resolution:
I have no problem with it, but that's just me. I believe that this is one of those questions that can sometimes be used to diagnose GNS preferences - the more Sim you are, in general, the less likely you are to be satisfied with one-roll abstractions for deciding important in-game realities.
The bits on conflict scale in Trollbabe and FATE are very useful for thinking both about this issue in general and about just how relative to individual preference this issue really is.
With respect to the more specific question about PC death being based on such a resolution:
This seems a little more rotten, especially if you didn't go into that situation with a clear understanding of the stakes. But still, it depends on how often such conflicts come up, and on the nature of player/character identifications in that game. In a traditional RPG, with combats essentially forced on players at regular intervals, I imagine this would suck eggs. But that doesn't mean it would be bad in all implementations.
The saving throw was introduced into D&D because Dave Arneson's players kept complaining about him rolling a die and saying 'you're dead.' So people protested about this kind of mechanic back in '72 already. But that was assuming a kind of adventuring and a kind of player/PC relationship that doesn't at all have to be a universal norm.
On 3/31/2004 at 8:35pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
I think the *option* of settling a conflict with a single roll is a good thing, as is the option of settling it with more granularity.
I also think that the players should get some say in which option is used and when.
I agree with Sean that Trollbabe is a must-read when thinking about this. It comes as close to "right" from my perspective as any game I know of.
On 3/31/2004 at 8:39pm, ethan_greer wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Doesn't Tunnels & Trolls combat work that way?
regarding your example, I think the biggest issue you'll get into with the scenario you describe is player empowerment. If player B is deprotagonized, player B's enjoyment will be less than if he has stock in the outcome.
On 3/31/2004 at 8:49pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hero Quest works this way, potentially. That is, you can do a "to the death" contest as a simple contest if you want to (or you can use the extended contest rules).
The thing about HQ is that complete defeat doesn't neccessarily mean death. It means that the character is dying, but that he may be saved by any contrivance that the GM decides on. So you don't have the worry that your charater will die undramatically. He'll only die when it's appropriate for that to happen. Whether with one roll or a hundred.
Further, I don't think that this is unrealistic or "non-sim" at all. It's not detailed, but the results of this sort of resolution are often more realistic than more detailed systems. I had a player in my game comment a couple of sessions back someting like, "You know, I've had characters stab others in games before, but this time I felt like I was stabbing a real person." One of the biggest compliments I've ever heard paid to a system.
Mike
On 3/31/2004 at 9:04pm, b_bankhead wrote:
Who needs to die?
You know I have come to view the concept of character death with a more jaundiced eye, since coming to the Forge. When In my long rpg career has character death EVER been fun? Is character death really necessary? The pulp action literature that most rpgs are based on go to extraordinary lengths to save the skin (or at least some of the skin) of main characters.
The game Trollbabe explicitly states your character cant be killed without permission, I think that game benefits from that rule in so many ways.
In point of fact plenty of traditional rpgs benefit from tacit rules that delimit character death. In many games (D&D in particular) the actual probability of character death goes down exponentially as you go up the experience ladder (and once the 'party' cleric in a D&D game gets Resurrection, FORGET IT!). Indeed in many highly mature rpg campaigns keeping characters alive can become a matter of social survival for a GM!
I increasingly think the concept of character death as the result of a simple random systemic operation is one of those artifacts that rpgs have inherited from the wargame and one I think they could do without....
On 3/31/2004 at 9:20pm, b_bankhead wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Sean wrote: .
The saving throw was introduced into D&D because Dave Arneson's players kept complaining about him rolling a die and saying 'you're dead.' So people protested about this kind of mechanic back in '72 already. But that was assuming a kind of adventuring and a kind of player/PC relationship that doesn't at all have to be a universal norm.
Indeed, they didnt like GMs rolling a dice and saying 'you're dead' so they roll ANOTHER dice and say 'you're dead', oh well it's kept the rpg world happy for 30 years......
On 3/31/2004 at 9:23pm, Sean wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
(erased)
On 3/31/2004 at 10:05pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Okay, lots of good points here. I was really just trying to get a measure of people's gut reactions to the idea, but since most of you are determined to actually give well-thought-out answers, I'll add some detail. :-)
In this theoretical example, characters would have a skill level to which the die roll would be added. This skill level, plus situational modifiers, would be potentially much larger than the possible die outcomes, making skill more important than luck, but still adding in a randomizing element. For example, skill level could range from 1-12, plus situational modifiers of anywhere from -4 to +4, and the die roll would be 2d4.
Also, the stated result doesn't have to be death, but it could be. Player A might be trying to kill Player B, but Player B might in turn wish to knock Player A unconscious for later questioning. Whichever one wins the contest achieves their chosen result.
The narration of the scence would of course be much more detailed, but that would be up to the GM and/or players to work out.
On 3/31/2004 at 10:34pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Andrew Morris wrote:Hero Quest, again. You roll a d20, but things are rated from 0 to up to as much as 80 or 100 for really exceptional humans. More complicated than that, but you get the idea.
In this theoretical example, characters would have a skill level to which the die roll would be added. This skill level, plus situational modifiers, would be potentially much larger than the possible die outcomes, making skill more important than luck, but still adding in a randomizing element.
So not only possible, but functional as well if done right.
Also, the stated result doesn't have to be death, but it could be. Player A might be trying to kill Player B, but Player B might in turn wish to knock Player A unconscious for later questioning. Whichever one wins the contest achieves their chosen result.This is HQ again in essence, it just makes complete success rather rare. Normally if you try to attack somebody to kill them, it's unlikely that you'll succeed - often you'll just wound them or something.
As you say, though...
The narration of the scence would of course be much more detailed, but that would be up to the GM and/or players to work out.Since it is up to these people to work out, you can always make this seem sensible. Why didn't you get to finish me off? Because the cops broke us up. Or I fled before you were finished with me. Etc.
This might not be what you're looking for, but realize that it eliminates the problem that you note above. And once you've played this way for a while you might find it pretty comfortable.
In any case, make sure that who narrates what, and what their limits are, is well established.
Check out the basic HQ rules here: http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf
Mike
On 4/2/2004 at 1:35pm, Noon wrote:
Re: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Andrew Morris wrote: *snip*
Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?
*snip*
No, not really.
From what you describe, it sounds like there isn't any limmit on the stakes. Which means its a railroad. I'm completely at the mercy of whatever the other guy decides to ramp up the challenge to.
In a round by round combat, we can all be using lethal force, but the dude on the other side doesn't get to just say 'TO THE DEATH' and it is so. Sorry dude, its round by round and I can try to escape, try to knock you out, try and draw the fight closer to friends. If things are going well, kewl, I'll take on 'to the death', no worries. I can try to do these things or even change my mind half way.
Basically I can sound out the situation and change my mind if I want. The motivations of the NPC I'm fighting don't dominate my choices during combat.
When its just one roll, it causes a bottle neck effect. I just can not get any further until I've survived the exact motivation the NPC declares. The bottle neck means I can't go around, duck under, hide and wait for it to go by, whatever. I have to go through one narrow gap of the NPC's choosing, no other choice.
I mean, sure, I fight to the death with my PC dozens of times in a row. But that's because its something I can and do choose to do (rather than any other option). When the NPC declares the stakes and there is only one roll, despite what I may otherwise want to do I have to knock him out or kill him. As soon as he declares it to the death (or to try and knock me out), those are my only options (are they much different, either?). The prospect of actually dieing directly from a railroad is not thrilling.
On 4/2/2004 at 2:08pm, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hi Andrew,
It seems to me you are asking two different things here:
What I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.
Absolutely, my last two systems work this way.
Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?
For example, Player A and Player B are fighting. They both use whatever randomizing system is in place and Player A beats Player B's score. The GM asks Player A what result he wanted, and he says he wants to kill Player B. Player B is now dead. It's fast and simple, so it doesn't slow things down, but your character can die just as quickly.
No. This is too limiting on the options.
Here's what I'd do:
Combat only takes one roll. That roll determines the success of the combat then the winner gets to declare what the want to do (kill, pin, whatever). The loser can choose to either accept the action on try and take a different action to make it happen differently - so they could surrender, try to run away, anything but fight; the combat has already been decided.
This way you have both slick resolution, and the ability to take different options into account.
On 4/2/2004 at 3:41pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hey Noon,
I'd like to thank you and the others who's given me some food for thought. I'm not saying I think one way is better than the other, I just proposed the idea to see how people feel about it, and all the varied answers have helped me.
As to your specific concerns, though, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is the only reason you wouldn't like such a system the fact that you couldn't change your mind partway through a combat? I can understand that perspective.
But as to there not being any limit on the stakes, I don't see how that's different from most other combat systems. In most combat systems, like you said, if someone is trying to kill you, you can attempt to escape or knock him out. But you could do that in the theoretical system I proposed as well. If your opponent's stated action is to kill you, but your's is to knock him unconscious, the only difference is that it's decided on one roll instead of many.
When its just one roll, it causes a bottle neck effect. I just can not get any further until I've survived the exact motivation the NPC declares. The bottle neck means I can't go around, duck under, hide and wait for it to go by, whatever. I have to go through one narrow gap of the NPC's choosing, no other choice.
How do you figure that? If you're in combat, either in the one-roll system or a more traditional system, you can't suddenly decide to hide. In either system, you'd have to do that before the battle began. Just because the system would be one roll doesn't mean that NPCs decide what the stakes of all conflicts are (at least not any more than usual).
Maybe I've explained this idea poorly, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps an example could clear it up:
Player A is trying to get past NPC B, who is guarding the entrance to a fortress. Player A could walk right up to NPC B, in which case NPC B is likely to attack him, creating the situation I mentioned earlier. But Player A could also try to use some skill, say Stealth, to get by. In this case, NPC B might never have the chance to attack Player A.
Am I making sense here? I don't want to dump a long and highly detailed message on everyone, but let me know if this is not clear.
Jack,
I really like the idea about either accepting the combat result or attempting a non-combat response. Would you impose a limit on the number of times this could happen? For example, you could try one non-combat method of getting out of it, but if you fail, the original result of the combat takes place. This solution seems to address Noon's concerns, as well.
On 4/3/2004 at 5:12am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Andrew Morris wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is the only reason you wouldn't like such a system the fact that you couldn't change your mind partway through a combat? I can understand that perspective.
But as to there not being any limit on the stakes, I don't see how that's different from most other combat systems. In most combat systems, like you said, if someone is trying to kill you, you can attempt to escape or knock him out. But you could do that in the theoretical system I proposed as well. If your opponent's stated action is to kill you, but your's is to knock him unconscious, the only difference is that it's decided on one roll instead of many.
Forgive me if I misrepresent you, Callan; I feel like I understand what you're saying.
In the round-by-round play of D&D or Multiverser, you step up to the challenge, and usually you don't know how powerful the opponent is likely to be but you can probably survive the first round in any event. It doesn't always work that way, but it's typical.
I'll mention a game situation in which we were going round by round against some space pirates, and we were winning. The leader turned to escape, and one of our NPCs pursued him. Suddenly the leader drew a sonic disruptor and fired, killing our previously uninjured NPC with a single shot and escaping. Now, had we any inkling that this guy could kill one of us with a single shot, we'd not have let a single character pursue him--we'd have made sure there would be someone at hand who could administer first aid and keep him alive. At the same time, the recognition that the pirates might have such weapons was a very serious change in our perception of the situation.
In one-on-one combat, if the guy delivers a very serious blow to you within the first couple of rounds and you don't seem to have impacted him to any significant degree, you can decide that this was a bad idea and either surrender or flee, in most cases, getting away with your life. In party combat, if one of your people is killed abruptly, you suddenly realize that the enemy may be more than you can take, and again you have the option of escaping. However, in a single roll situation, you don't have that assessment period--you can't try a couple rounds and then decide this was a mistake. Once you've decided to engage in combat, you're committed, and you suffer the consequences.
Of course, if the consequences are weakened such that it's not going to be life or death on the roll of a single die, that makes it easier.
Another thing that would make it easier would be if the stats of the enemy are in plain view. That is, if I know that the guard on the door is a mook who probably can't kill me and will go down on my first successful attack, that puts me in a very different position than if I know that the guard on the door is one of the elite crack troops around here who has faced entire squadrons of trained fighters and lived to tell the tale--but if I know he might be either of those or anything in between, I have no basis on which to decide whether to engage or avoid. I'm running scared of everything, because I don't know what it is.
D&D could have created one humanoid monster with stats ranging from kobold to hill giant, and had them all look the same. It would have had a very dampening effect on play--you'd see ten humanoids in the room, and not know whether this was a cakewalk or a deathtrap. Instead, the created a variety of different creatures of varying strengths who could be identified with reasonable accuracy on sight. That meant that when you saw them, you knew what you were up against and could make a reasonable estimation of what it would take to defeat them. Now, if you can incorporate that into your game, you would give the players some basis to decide whether to fight, and mitigate the hazards of the single roll combat. It's not as good as letting them test themselves and then retreat, but it's a lot better than "There's a monster standing by the door which might be anything from a pixie to a tarrasque, do you want to live or die based on whether you guessed right?"
--M. J. Young
On 4/3/2004 at 7:31am, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Re: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Andrew Morris wrote: What I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.It depends. Most roleplaying games are focussed on physical conflicts, and gamesmiths take great pains in making mechanics for these conflicts. Most of the games hinges on elaborate ways of resolving conflicts, and most of them aiming for an ideal of shifting luck in combat.
Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?
What more; most games are geared towards keeping player characters alive. Much care is normally invested in the PC, through elaborate creation and dramatic focus, so players must be expected to look disfavorably upon games which kills them wantonly.
Held against these very strong tendencies, you can not expect much enthusiasm for your description.
However; whether it will be acceptable in your game, depends on what focus the game has, how the PCs in general are treated, and what new and interesting tools you use, to make your game a good one.
I can not perceive how your game is meant to be played, or what focus it has, from your description. If it's a traditional roleplaying game though, with the traditional focus on combat as "the crux of excitement", I doubt it will be any good.
On 4/3/2004 at 10:15pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Good points, all. Let me just make it clear, though, that I'm not proposing a system that I'm using for a came I've created...I'm just now thinking about doing so.
M. J. Young,
"There's a monster standing by the door which might be anything from a pixie to a tarrasque, do you want to live or die based on whether you guessed right?"
Heh.
In general, I don't like games where combat is a major component. I'd prefer scheming, investigating, and political maneuvering. But all these comments have shown me what I was trying to find out -- people really wouldn't want their character's life on the line if it came down to a single roll.
On 4/4/2004 at 8:40am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hi Andrew,
Think of it this way. Imagine your PC is facing a cliff face in front of him. He decides that instead of climbing it, he'll go around it. The GM then tells him that if he fails his going around it roll, he'll die from falling.
Looking past the absurdity, notice that what the GM decided made whatever the player decided, moot. Even if they don't want to fall to their death and decide on a plan that should/could mean they don't fall to their death, the GM then can decide that they then indeed do. We'll step away from the cliff example cause its a bit absurd, and on to a PC vs NPC dude.
Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides. There's no way of getting around this guy without facing lethal force. What if you don't want to face that? What if you would rather not face whatever intent he has toward you? Multi round systems give you more of a chance at side stepping his intent (even the 'square off and hack' D&D system has solid rules for hiding during combat...even for sniping).
Also, M.J Youngs 'no chance at guessing' angle applies strongly as well.
What might be interesting is back and forth intent declaration. It would basically be a narration of what you intend to do like 'The NPC acts as if he'll fight to the death' 'I'm going to try and wound him then intimidate him' 'Well he doesn't want to be wounded and that's against the law, so he's instead going to try and place his sword at your neck and make you surrender...then beat you a bit, probably' 'Well in that case when I've got a sword to my throat, I'll kick him in the nuts, steal his keys and run'
So on and so on, until someone takes a stance and does not change what they do.
On 4/4/2004 at 3:36pm, CPXB wrote:
Re: Who needs to die?
b_bankhead wrote: You know I have come to view the concept of character death with a more jaundiced eye, since coming to the Forge. When In my long rpg career has character death EVER been fun? Is character death really necessary? The pulp action literature that most rpgs are based on go to extraordinary lengths to save the skin (or at least some of the skin) of main characters.
I can't say when in your RPG career whether death has been fun, by from my POV, I like the possibility of death to be there. Part of the reason I game is to take a well developed character I like and gamble that character on the dice. Many of my most intense moments in gaming have been when the fate of my character hinged on one die roll, particularly after a long struggle.
IMO, character death (or at least the real possibility of character death) adds a great deal to games.
On 4/5/2004 at 1:23am, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Noon,
Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.
This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.
On 4/5/2004 at 2:49am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
I think this thread is winding down, but there were a few things I noted that were worth mentioning.
First, Tomas wrote: If it's a traditional roleplaying game though, with the traditional focus on combat as "the crux of excitement", I doubt it will be any good.This is certainly a key point. If you've got deathless combat and it's not terribly important in general--if, for example, losing usually means either you have to go to the hospital or you've been captured by the enemy, and you might have one such contest every couple of sessions--then settling it with a single roll could be perfectly legitimate. If contests of this sort are life-and-death or otherwise critical, a single roll is going to be rather disinteresting in most cases.
Then Chris wrote: IMO, character death (or at least the real possibility of character death) adds a great deal to games.Absolutely, and for the reasons stated: because there is something at risk. This was one of the design goals of Multiverser--how to preserve the risk inherent in character death without the loss inherent in character death. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but by having death sever the character from the present world and start him in another one, a great deal of that was accomplished.
Finally, quoting Callan, Andrew wrote:Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.
This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.
Ah, but the part you haven't suggested is still informative. Callan says he wants to wound the guy and intimidate him, while the NPC says he wants to kill Callan. If Callan wins the contest, the opponent is wounded and intimidated, because Callan's victory in essence defines the stakes; but if Callan loses, he's dead, because the NPC's victory defines the stakes.
It would be different if perhaps the loser defines the stakes, or if the "lower" stakes would apply regardless of who won (although you'd need defined stakes and a heirarchy for this)--if we both said to the death, then it isn't over until one dies, but if one says to the death and the other says be intimidating so he backs off, whichever one wins was intimidating and the loser backed off.
Does that fit your idea at all?
--M. J. Young
On 4/5/2004 at 4:58am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Andrew Morris wrote: Noon,
Okay, the PC faces an NPC. It looks like a fight, so the player says he wants to wound the guy a bit, then intimidate him so with his wounds he'll back down. Then the PC will get out of there. The NPC says he'll fight to the death. So much for getting around the problem any other way. Certainly what the PC describes is interesting, but it didn't really matter what he said. If the other guy calls 'to the death', his stake is far worse and dominates whatever the player decides.
This wasn't what I was suggesting. In this example, if the PC were successful, his result would take precedence, and the NPC would be wounded and intimidated, after which the PC would be free to leave unhindered.
Remember back to the cliff example, where the player wanted to go around the cliff instead of climb it. He's choosing a non lethal option (which might instead involve how long he can walk for rather than climb and survive falls). If the cliff can still say 'well, if you pass then you treck around, if I pass you fall to your death'. That isn't right. If the player chooses this legit non lethal method, the cliff shouldn't be able to trump him by then deciding it will be lethal.
Likewise, if the player is facing a guard NPC and wants to do a legit non lethal tactic so no one dies, his 'treck around' or whatever technique is nixed should he fail. Just like the cliff example, that's pretty illegitimate. And although the GM can make a better intent call (in the cliff example it could have been something more appropriate), that seems to be the GM having to think 'Okay, this is a simple mechanic, but basically doesn't give anything much more than what I put into it. So the onus is on me to deliver a proper input so there is a proper output. What is this machanic adding to the game?'
Personally I see a lot of GM's relishing the idea 'Oh, you want to sneak around hey? That's not what I want and since the NPC's reaction is in my control and hey, a violent attack even sounds okay motive wise, I can call this scene my way pretty well.'.
When both sides have to take it one step at a time, no one can really say what the outcome is. From this ambiguity, more choice is to be had. Though the idea could be tempered with what I or Mr Young said, or something else. But right now, the GM and the player have one half control each. The problem is, what one side does with their control can diminish the control of the other.
On 4/5/2004 at 6:01pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Noon,
I think I understand your comments better now. Taken to the extreme (the cliff example), it does seem pretty ridiculous. Again, since I haven't created a game yet or used this idea, remember it's all theoretical, but in that example, I would think that a failed "circumvent the cliff" roll would mean that the character couldn't find a way around the cliff. He's still free to try another method, or tackle the cliff directly.
But I see your concern with the guard example, since the guard is an "active obstacle" rather than the cliff, which is a "passive obstacle." Of course, if the player were more creative, he could state that he was trying to find an air duct to sneak in, thus avoiding the guard entirely.
Personally I see a lot of GM's relishing the idea 'Oh, you want to sneak around hey? That's not what I want and since the NPC's reaction is in my control and hey, a violent attack even sounds okay motive wise, I can call this scene my way pretty well.'.
Well, as unpleasant as these theoretical GMs sound, this can also be viewed as a good thing, it just depends on the GM. For example, a GM might be faced with a character who is determined to ignore all warning signs and do something completely stupid and most likely fatal. Since it's up to the GM, he can have the NPC capture the PC instead of kill him. Thus, the player can still have his character do what he wants, and the GM can use this as an option to move the story along.
When both sides have to take it one step at a time, no one can really say what the outcome is.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement. Yes, for characters that are pretty close in ability, I agree. However, having several rounds to try (and fail) to get away from the super-uber-crack elite guard doesn't really matter if you're that outclassed. If you do something that initiates a combat, either way the character is dead, whether in one roll or twenty. This is taking it almost to the extreme of the cliff example, but I believe it conveys the point.
Mr. Young,
If Callan wins the contest, the opponent is wounded and intimidated, because Callan's victory in essence defines the stakes; but if Callan loses, he's dead, because the NPC's victory defines the stakes.
I think I see what you mean by this. The NPC is only risking a wounding, while Callan is risking his life. I see how that's unbalanced. Let me know if I misunderstood.
It would be different if perhaps the loser defines the stakes, or if the "lower" stakes would apply regardless of who won
Doesn't the reverse apply if you go by the "lower" stakes? For example, a PC wants to kill an NPC. The NPC could keep saying that the combat would result only in "intimidation." This might be less problematical if there were some rules about what the stakes could be in the first place, or if there were a decreasing ability to call the stakes based on previous losses. Is that what you meant by a hierachy of stakes?
On 4/6/2004 at 5:35am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Yes, you've got the problem. The winner defines the stakes, so the player has no control over what he stands to lose, only what he stands to win. In such a situation, it generally pays to go for the highest win, because the other guy is probably also going for the highest win, and that means the greatest loss for you.
It strikes me that you might resolve this by using the aforementioned hierarchy as a modification system--that it's easier to intimidate, a bit harder to wound and drive off, harder yet to capture, harder to incapacitate, and hardest of all to kill. Thus the side that says his objective is to kill has a much lower chance of winning over the side that merely wants to intimidate. There's still a lot of risk in the roll, but you've reduced the incentive always to go for the kill.
I'm wondering whether you could turn it on its head--let each side determine its own loss conditions. If I say intimidation, I mean that if the other side wins I'm intimidated and driven off; if I say death, I mean that the other side has to kill me to win. If this was tied to the hierarchy modifiers, my incentive would be that the more I risk the less likely the other side is to defeat me.
I'm getting a bit scattered here; bear with me.
If the PC wants to kill a character and the character wants to keep the stakes at intimidation, then I suppose you have to consider whether that's really important in your game. If I'm trying to get past the guard, and I say I'll try to kill him, and he says he'll try to intimidate me, and I win but am limited to intimidating him because that was the low bid, then how significant is this in play? He's going to stand aside and let me pass, because he's afraid of me; I'm going to tell him that if he sounds the alarm I'll be back to kill him. The characters don't know that they can't be killed, so the threat is real to the character, and included in the intimidation success. Why do I necessarily want him dead?
You might also consider, if you've got the hierarchy, a sort of averaging of bid system. If both sides say to the death, it's to the death; but if one side says to the death and the other side says intimidation, we wind up somewhere in the middle, maybe capture.
By a hierarchy I mean that you'd have to have specifically defined "win/loss" results which would be selected--players couldn't be inventive, such as, "If I win, he falls from the steps into the vat and gets stuck", except it could be used as a narrative explanation for some defined outcome (such as captured or incapacitated). The possible outcomes would then be ranked so you would know that kill is above incapacitate, and incapacitate above capture, or whatever sequence you choose. That's the only way any system works if it relies on greater and lesser statements, because otherwise you wind up trying to work out in play which is the greater.
--M. J. Young
On 4/6/2004 at 8:31am, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
M. J. Young wrote: ... it's easier to intimidate, a bit harder to wound and drive off, harder yet to capture, harder to incapacitate, and hardest of all to kill. Thus the side that says his objective is to kill has a much lower chance of winning over the side that merely wants to intimidate. There's still a lot of risk in the roll, but you've reduced the incentive always to go for the kill.Only problem with this, is that it don't ring true. If it's easier to capture or incapacitate, I'll go for one of those goals, and when I've won the contest, I'll chop their heads off anyway. Who's to stop me?
Your hierarchy is one of gravity, not of challenge. It is as hard, or harder, to capture your opponent, as it is to kill him. Some opponents will be far easier to kill, than to intimidate.
I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.
On 4/6/2004 at 11:20am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Morris wrote: I really like the idea about either accepting the combat result or attempting a non-combat response. Would you impose a limit on the number of times this could happen? For example, you could try one non-combat method of getting out of it, but if you fail, the original result of the combat takes place.
Well, it's not that the results of failing the combat don't take place; it's just that you react differently to them - you've lost the combat but that doesn't mean you die. When you try and run away but fail you're now in a worse situation - you've lost the fight, and then you've tried to run away and been caught.
I don't think there needs to be a limit, your options will rapidly diminish with each failure. The key is that the failure still happens - if you try and run, you've tried to run and failed - if you try and surrender and fail, you've offered your surrender and they've refused it.
On 4/6/2004 at 12:37pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
I raly don't think this issue has anything much to do with either probability or game mechanics. What worries me more about one-roll combat, at least for combats that are significant dramatic events in a game, is that it can lead to weak drama.
If my character is facing a routine mook, I've got no problem with one-roll combat. Dramaticaly the conflict is just a punctuation mark in the flow of the game/story. Even if I suffer some measure of defeat, it's the sort of setback that in a comic book would probably merit just a single frame, maybe two, and then we can get on with the drama of the unexpected consequences. However if my opponent is a major villan or 'named character', then I'd expect a sereis of exchanges, either combatic or verbal, or whatever. I'd want the conflict to give me information about the relative abilities and motivations of the characters, I'd like the opportunity to see how these personalities might respond to setbacks even if they ultimately win. A single roll doesn't offer the opportunities for drama that I'd like from a significant conflict of this kind.
Simon Hibbs
On 4/6/2004 at 2:28pm, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Tomas HVM wrote: Only problem with this, is that it don't ring true. If it's easier to capture or incapacitate, I'll go for one of those goals, and when I've won the contest, I'll chop their heads off anyway. Who's to stop me?
Your hierarchy is one of gravity, not of challenge. It is as hard, or harder, to capture your opponent, as it is to kill him. Some opponents will be far easier to kill, than to intimidate.
I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.
I think MJ is also encoding in this idea that once you choose an easier option, you cannot go back and do something tougher.
Personally, I think this would be a great mechanic for a game that does have ethics encoded in it.
Edit: In other words, it is just as difficult to subdue someone and cut his head off later as it is to push him off a cliff, causing him to die, as it is to shoot him in the back of the head.
On 4/6/2004 at 3:52pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Tomas HVM wrote: I think you should make the player choose his own etichs, and make it show in what outcome he choose for his fights. The outcome though, should be as easy or challenging to achieve regardless of what he choose. This way players may be spared the temptation of tactical advantages, and perhance able to focus more on dramatic flavour.
I think you're missing the point. Often in a combat you will get an opportunity to disable, disarm or otherwise incapacitate a victim without necesserily having to kiill them. Instant death is not even the most likely occurence in modern combat using firearms, let alone in ancient-world combat. Most defeated foes will be very badly injured to the point of incapacuty, or actualy unconcious. They may be dying, but saveable with some medical effort. Only a proportion of victims will be killed before any other option is available to the victor, and I'd guess it's a fairly small proportion.
Sure if you wangt to administer the coup-de-grace that's fine and up to you, but in many cases it's a choice you'll have to make and you can't necesserily always expect the game system to conveniently hide it from you.
Simon Hibbs
On 4/6/2004 at 4:08pm, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Shreyas Sampat wrote: I think MJ is also encoding in this idea that once you choose an easier option, you cannot go back and do something tougher.Yes, I understood as much, and that is an argument against this idea. In a game where players are free to make new decisions (more or less) the whole time, there is no stopping them to take advantage of such a system. A rule to this end ("no going back on former decisions") is not a great solution.
Simon Hibbs wrote: Often in a combat you will get an opportunity to disable, disarm or otherwise incapacitate a victim without necesserily having to kiill them.Yes. The point is; you may as well experience that the kill is easier than to render a man unconscious, or to capture him. There is no fixed scale of difficulty pertaining to this. The variables are too many. How do you emulate the man holding back his most crippling blows, and the disadvantage this gives him, if your aim is to do this within the combat resolution system of a roleplaying game?
I'm no fan of building realism by mathematical combat resolution. It will not do. However; I'm very much dedicated to making games which are believable, and this is not. It will seriously reduce the validity of the game engine, to the point where players will start to ignore it. No rule will mend that fact.
To make the game focus more on aftermath of combat, though, is one way of making one-die-throw function well. The player may state the combat goal of his character before the fight, but it is not necessary to state the NPC motivations beforehand. They may as well try to capture or incapacitate the PC, as to kill it. This leaves the GM to decide HOW the character lost (if they did), taking the NPC into consideration, the stage of the drama, and other various factors. Death is not the only outcome, and far from the most interesting.
In my view you may very well make a game heavy with combat, and still focus most of it on the aftermath of the fight. The aftermath is the part of it where prisoners or incapacitated loosers may challenge the victor to fight another day. In the aftermath the victor may gloat over his weak opponents, offering them a quick death if they do not remove themselves from his lands. The aftermath may become an interrogation of the victims, or torture, and all kinds of other verbal/mental duels. Teh aftermath of combat may also include the prize, a princess or a treasure, the horse of the looser, or his sword. The aftermath is were the present conflict reach it's conclusion, and at the same time it may be the start of a new struggle. As the looser is humiliated and driven away, he may be planning how to return and fight another day, to win back the coveted prize, and his dignity.
So, to use one single die for the combat, may be coupled with a focus on the continuing drama, and as such it may very well be an effective way of dealing with the physical conflicts of the game. Such an approach may facilitate the use of the combat-outcome as merely a premise for the interaction in a following scene, not the finale in itself. The interaction of the following scene may be powered by other means; domination, submission, prizes, revenge, information, escape, etc.
This may prove to make gameplay as great as any combat focused game engine you may conceive. The math may be simple in such a system, but the drama may be many times as challenging and fun to play.
On 4/6/2004 at 5:33pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Tomas HVM wrote: Yes. The point is; you may as well experience that the kill is easier than to render a man unconscious, or to capture him. There is no fixed scale of difficulty pertaining to this. The variables are too many. How do you emulate the man holding back his most crippling blows, and the disadvantage this gives him, if your aim is to do this within the combat resolution system of a roleplaying game?
I'm no fan of building realism by mathematical combat resolution. It will not do. However; I'm very much dedicated to making games which are believable, and this is not. It will seriously reduce the validity of the game engine, to the point where players will start to ignore it. No rule will mend that fact.
I think we have a missunderstanding here. I very much agree with your following comments about the aftermath of the conflict. To me the contest is over when one side is unable to resist the other. There are a number of possible situations:
1. I state I want to defeat my opponent, and don't care whether I kill or incapacitate him.
2. I state I want to kill my opponent, even if the opponent is incapacitated.
3. I state I want to incapacitate my opponent, and don't want to kill him.
I think we fully agree that option 1 and option 2 aren't significantly harder or easier than each other, but that option 3 is the hardest to achieve. There's no disagreement there. The confusion seems to be because you are treating options 1 and 2 as being identical because their difficulty is the same.
I agree the difficulty is the same but, to me, what hapens in the aftermath of the conflict may include a coup-de-grace, but the coup-de-grace is not part of the conflict itself. Even if my aim is to kill my opponent, it may turn out that I knock him unconcious with one of my blows. If that happens, what I do next isn't resolved by a roll of the dice, or whatever resolution mechanic you use, it's something that the player chooses to impose after the conflict is won.
It's my contention that in most situations, a 'disable' result of some kind is very likely, even in combats where there is no intention to take prisoners. Historicaly this apears to be the case in ancient world combat, and even in the modern day.
Simon Hibbs
On 4/6/2004 at 7:24pm, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
simon_hibbs wrote: I think we have a missunderstanding here. ...No sir, I do not treat these as being identical. I merely state that a set scale of difficulty, pertaining to what goal you state in a combat, will be unrealistic. In my view such an approach leaves much to wish, in regard to both dramatic possibilities and "realism".
1. I state I want to defeat my opponent, and don't care whether I kill or incapacitate him.
2. I state I want to kill my opponent, even if the opponent is incapacitated.
... The confusion seems to be because you are treating options 1 and 2 as being identical because their difficulty is the same.
I do agree with the principle behind this idea; to diversify the results of combat in roleplaying games. But I do not believe that a list of general combat-goals, with prearranged modifications, will be a positive part of any solution to this challenge.
I think it has to be given a more simple solution, with greater dynamics, based on player inventiveness and initiative (that is: give them methodic tools of a different kind than the combat resolution by dice only).
On 4/6/2004 at 8:02pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Tomas HVM wrote:Shreyas Sampat wrote: I think MJ is also encoding in this idea that once you choose an easier option, you cannot go back and do something tougher.Yes, I understood as much, and that is an argument against this idea. In a game where players are free to make new decisions (more or less) the whole time, there is no stopping them to take advantage of such a system. A rule to this end ("no going back on former decisions") is not a great solution.
First, let's recognize that any combat system is an abstraction. A combat system that resolves the outcome based on a single roll of the die is a major abstraction--realism is going to be sacrificed somewhere to do this. And let me say that I've placed the relative difficulties rather haphazardly--I did not pour over which would be tougher, or have more serious consequences, and the order I suggested is not written in stone.
I think the solution to this coup de grace problem is rather simple.
If you have stated that you will fight until you've captured me, that most likely means that you expect me to surrender. I surrender in the full expectation that you will not kill me once you have taken me prisoner. Maybe that's not a good decision on my part--maybe you really do kill your prisoners. However, if you stated you would fight to the capture, and you have captured me, and then you try to kill me, you have to roll again--that's a new combat. At this point, I'm going to choose "escape" against your "kill", and the odds are now very much that you will lose your prisoner.
I don't think this system solves everything; but I don't think it's as problematic as Tomas suggests.
--M. J. Young
On 4/6/2004 at 10:03pm, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
M. J. Young wrote: First, let's recognize that any combat system is an abstraction. A combat system that resolves the outcome based on a single roll of the die is a major abstraction--realism is going to be sacrificed somewhere to do this.It is hard to work out the right mix of ingredients like abstraction and "realism" in a game. Most game designers struggle with this, as much as they struggle with their own ignorance on the conflicts they try to simulate in their games.
A combat system that resolves the outcome based on a single roll of the die, is a major abstraction, yes, but so is a combat system with two or more die rolls. There is not much difference in abstraction between such sytems. To argue that one is better suited to reflect realism than the other, is besides the mark. The use of die to simulate uncertainties of outcome, is but one of the tools necessary to simulate a conflict in a realistic or dramatic way.
In respect to how the players will interact with and experience the scenario, one game will stand out against other games, not by the number or type of dice used, but mainly by the handling of the result given by the system, in terms of:
- description
- opportunities for interaction
- dramatic impact
- dynamic qualities
Each and every of these points are in fact developed and used by game masters around the world. They has been in use for as long as roleplaying games has been around. Still; game designers have not been very affirmative in their writings on them. In design of, and theory on, roleplaying games, these methods hardly exist. We may do much better, and we must, if we are to develop this form further!
As it is, most game masters are left to develop their own methods of handling, as part of their style of leadership, and many of them are left with badly conceived methods. As a consequence they play substandard games, far below the potential of the true abilities possessed by them, and their players. The gamesmith is responsible for activating these abilities. He must get the players to understand the scope of the game, their own part in it, and how to release the combined potential of game and player. More often than not, the gamesmith is too feeble to cope with the challenge, or he too is ignorant of it.
The handling of combat systems and their game-product, has been sadly neglected. By developing a method that not only rest upon the combat resolution, but also on effective tools for handling the results produced by it, a game designer may create a framework for conflicts in his game, that transports his players to places unknown. That is: real drama, engagement beyond the toss of the die, interaction with meaning and morality, and as a consequence; a high degree of realism.
It's all there, to be organized and used by clever gamesmiths, to the elevation of their games and players :)
On 4/6/2004 at 10:21pm, Domhnall wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
I only use a simple one-roll decision in particular cases. Usually, when one faction is fighting another in mass combat who are comparable in skill, I can decide a one-roll solution. I would never use this for PCs or even special NPCs.
On 4/6/2004 at 10:29pm, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Speed vs. Realism ... where do you draw the line?
Oh!