Topic: Ygg mechanics
Started by: Christoffer Lernö
Started on: 4/10/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/10/2002 at 10:40am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Ygg mechanics
Ok, I'm not really sure how to do this thing. As I mentioned in some thread, my game is in Swedish so I can't really cut and paste from there. What I'm going to do is a brief review of the game, writing from memory here.
I hope noone will rant about how incomplete detail x is, because providing the game isn't what it's about. I also try to refrain from explaining why I did certain design decisions (this is a far cry from my original draft), but I guess I have to mention the AD&D reminicient classes are not a borrow from AD&D but rather an evolution from a purely skill based system (like Shadowrun). When it didn't seem to focus the intent of the game enough I changed it in several steps until it became what it is now.
I put a lot of thought into some of the names of stats and professions but they don't translate well so I've mostly gone for the simplest translation possible. That's not the way it's supposed to remain.
Also it might be worth to mention that a lot of these rules are under review. The only thing fairly well nailed down is the combat system (except for the occasional detail here and there).
So...
Character creation
1. Roll up a set of values with 1D4+3 except for hitpoints which are 1D4+1. (Incidentally stats for non heroes are rolled with 1D4+1D3 instead)
2. Place values in order as the stats appear or choose.
3. Stats are Power, Movment, Toughness, Witchpower, Soulstrength, Awareness, Intelligence, Appearance, Charm and hitpoints.
4. Select player race (elf [witchpeople], dwarf, human, troll)
5. Modifiy stats in general by no more than +2/-2. Some samples:
Elves: -1 Toughness, +1 Movement & Appearance
Dwarves: +1 Toughness & Soulstrength, -1 Movement & Charm & Appearance
6. Choose one of 7 classes: Warrior, Hunter, Trader, Mystic, Sorcerer, Talekeeper, Martial artist
7. Each of these classes represent a whole bunch of different kind of archetypes, bundled together for convenience.
8. To each class there is a set of special skill picks. Some of these have a rating from 1-6 while others are 1-3 and yet others you either have or you don't.
9. A few sample classes follows:
9.1. Talekeeper (=bard, explorer & learned man all rolled into one)
Weapon skill +1
Ranged weapons +1
Skill picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music (1-6)
Charming Presence (1-3)
Language sense
Myth Lore (1-3)
Nature Lore (1-3)
Map and World Lore (1-3)
Arts of Healing (1-3)
The Sciences (1-3)
Starting picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music
Myth Lore
The Sciences
Map and World Lore
+1 free pick
9.2. Warrior (=fighter, soldier, mercenary, barbarian whatever)
Weapon skill +3
Ranged Weapons +2
Skill picks:
Heroic leap (1)
Rushing attack (1)
Battle cry (1)
Armour movement (1-3)
Disarm (1)
Battle tackle (1)
Martial Mastery (1-3)
Berserk (1)
Quickdraw (1)
Ignore wounds (1-3)
Mighty blow (1-3)
Wrestling (1-3)
Initial picks
2 free picks
10. Calculate weapon and ranged weapon skills by applying the bonus to the starting values of the races. WS and RW usually starts with value 2 (before bonuses)
11. Jot down the number of fate points (two to start with)
12. Optional fleshing out rules here which aren't essential.
Skill resolution
1. There are no detailed skills in Ygg. Characters are in general supposed to know what the average person in the world knows. For stuff like "can my character swim" what is decided by the Player and the GM, or by the GM alone depending on style of play.
2. Task resolution works like this: First the GM (and possibly player) decides on how good the character is supposed to be at the given task:
Totally worthless 0, poor 2, average 4, above average 6, expert 8, master 10. In general characters will be considered average.
3. Stats will provide a modifier:
Skills with no or very little stat dependence: no mod
Minor stat dependence: Stat 3-4=-1 Stat 7-8=+1
Major stat dependence: Stat 4=-1, 5=0, 6=+1, 7=+2
4. The GM decides on a difficulty, either by setting one or rolling one. Either use a 1T12 or 1TN+Mod. Some ideas are:
Easy 1T4
Difficult 1T4+4
Insanely difficult 1T4+8
Easy-Difficult 1T8
Difficult-Insanely difficult 1T8+4
Totally random 1T12
5. Comparing the skill of the player (assumed skill+statmod) with the actual difficulty the GM tells the player approximately the chance of success. Something like that:
Skill of player less by 5 or more - impossible
Skill of player less by 2 - 50-50
Skill of player same as skill - no problem
6. Roll 1D4+assumed skill+statmod, if that is equal or above difficulty it is a success. (1D4+assumed skill+statmod=level of performance)
7. For performance tests (for example, how far do I jump in the long jump), skip 4. and simply roll the D4 and read off the results.
8. Skill picks work a little differently, 6 level skill picks usually work like skill packages. As an example, let us pick "Nature Lore"
Nature Lore
4. Make fire
5. Locate water; Find shelter against weather and wind
6. Identify plants; identify animals
7. Find edible plants and fruits; interpret animal sounds
8. Evaluate unknown plants; evaluate unknown animals
9. Tame wild beasts
Each of these are seperate skills contained within the skill pick. Nature lore does not only contain the skills listed above but any skill in any way related to zoology, botany and similar with both theoretical and practical skills.
The number to the left gives the difficulty for success. To test, the player rolls 1T6 and adds his rating in the skill pick. If the value is same or above the test succeeds. The skill picks will provide sample subskills as well as descriptions of what successful rolls mean.
9. 3 or 1 level skill picks usually either grants a bonus to certain tests (Mighty blow gives +1 damage for every rating, Ignore Wound lets you ignore a serious wound for every point you put into it and so on), one usually gives access to a special ability which otherwise wouldn't be accessible (the quickdraw lets you attack in the same round as the one when you draw your weapon for example)
Combat
Hand-to-hand combat:
1. Combat is run according to initiative order. Initiative is 1D6+Movement
2. Attacking in close combat is resolved by rolling 1D12
3. If roll+WS is above opponent WS+defensive bonus+6 the attack is a hit. A roll of 1 is always a miss 11+ is always a hit.
4. A roll of 12 means more than one hit is possible. Resolve the damage of the first attack then roll for the second attack.
5. A roll of 1 means a fumble is made. The opponent gets one free attack-roll.
6. Shields grant a defensive bonus of +1 for small shields and +2 for medium and large shields. Shields decrease the effective Movement stat.
7. Trying to panicing flee from combat gives the pursuer a free attack.
8. To attack an opponent holding a longer ranged weapon one is required to bridge the distance. Doing so will allow the person with a longer weapon to perform a free attack. If the free attack is yields serious damage the party trying to bridge the distance both takes full damage and still remains at the longer distance. Otherwis the range is now short and the person with the shorter weapon can attack with his/her weapon.
9. If the combat is at the wrong distance for one's weapon (usually because the opponent has bridged the distance) one can only perform improvised attacks with one's weapon (at GM's discretion). All attacks are by the person on wrong range are at -4. Defense is -2 if not attacking and -4 if trying to attack with an improvised attack.
10. If at too close distance, one might attempt to jump out to a longer range. Such a move gives the opponent with the shorter weapon a free attack. If the attack yields serious damage, the movement fails and the range remains at close distance. After jumping out a regular attack can be made.
11. Aim in hand-to-hand combat . Trying to go exclusively for certain targets gives the opponent bonus to his/her defense for the attack:
Large area (like torso) +2
Medium sized area (leg) +2
Smaller area (head/arm) +3
Very small (eye/ear) +5
12. Close hits: Aimed hit that barely hits (a 10 on 10+ or something like that)
are considered to have missed the location it aimed for and the general rules for calculating damage are used.
13. Aiming only allowed if skill is high enough: You can only successfully aim for an area if your chance of succeeding in hitting the are is 10+ or less after modification (if you usually hit an opponent on 9+ and try to go for the eye, then that would be 11+, but since that's too low chance, you can't really aim for it)
Ranged combat:
1. Roll 1T12+RW higher or equal to difficulty
Close = 12
Short = 13
Medium = 14
Far = 15
Extreme = 16
2. A roll of 1-2 always misses.
3. For a roll of 12, count the target's Toughness as half when rolling damage.
4. A roll of 1 is a fumble and hits a friendly target within the approximate target zone.
(moving on a little quicker now since I've already spent 2 hours typing this, I'm just gonna wrap up the combat rules and leave the magic system for some other time)
Damage
1. For close combat weapons, all possess a damage rating. The damage rating is modified up or down depending on Power (1-2=-2 3-4=-1 and +1 for every step above 5)
2. Ranged weapons have a fixed rating in general
3. The minimum damage rating is 1.
4. There are strength requirements for weapons.
5. Roll as many D12 as damage rating. Every roll which is higher than target Toughness+armour bonus yields 1 point of damage.
6. Armor bonus is +1 for leather, +2 chain, +3 plate and so on.
7. Rolling a 12 gives an extra damage die to roll
8. Check for damage effects, for example in the case of a 4 Hitpoint adventurer:
5+ damage = instant death
4 damage = mortally wounded (will die from these wounds eventually)
2-3 damage = seriously wounded (gives modifiers)
1 damage = flesh wound
9. K.O.: For every blunt impact damage, roll 1D4 and multiply by the damage given. If the result is more or equal to hitpoints before hit, roll a K.O. test
10. If down to 0 HP or less, roll for K.O. in the beginning of every round.
11. K.O. test
Ok, that's it for now.
Can you please stop saying I don't have any material now?
On 4/10/2002 at 10:44am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
And before you stop wondering, yes there is actually reasons why you would aim for certain parts of the body and you can do it with ranged weapons too. It's just that I'm to tired to write everything down and I don't have anything to neatly copy & paste from.
If you're interested in some particulars, let me know and I'll elaborate.
On 4/10/2002 at 1:49pm, Nathan wrote:
I'm A Punk
You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on -- everything you just shared. What is cool is that D20 is released in OPEN SOURCE, which means game designers can use the rules to build their own games and sell them (as long as you abide by the contract). Which means -- you can add in your classes and silly races right in, along with your custom spells, and walah -- you have a game that millions of gamers ALREADY know how to play.
You might look into it -- because what you just shared has absolutely NOTHING interesting in it. You just shared the D20 system with D4s and a couple of extra dice.
And why the heck do you roll stats with D4+3 and hitpoints with D4+1? Why? Why not just roll stats with D12+7 and hitpoints with D30-15? Or you could roll stats with D4+6, drop the lowest and highest, take the middle, multiply it by 4 and divide by 3 -- rounding up?
So my tone is testy and maybe rude. Please do not take this personally -- but really, a nice number of folks here on the Forge appreciate you chilling here, posting here, and sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately though, this has turned into a nightmarish exercise in homebrew. You said you wanted a system built to FIT THE GAME WORLD, but all you gave us was D&D with the serial number filed off.
Do you understand?
--nathan
On 4/10/2002 at 2:20pm, Eugene Zee wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Pale Fire,
While I don't share Nathan's zeal I would definitely say that your game has much in common with D&D. If that is how you want it that's fine but you run the risk of people thinking it is just another run of the mill fantasy game. A brief suggestion, if I may, insert a broad concept that is totally different into your world or system and expand it to touch every part of your game. Its not easy but it will help if you focus on an aspect that is dramatically new and different.
On 4/10/2002 at 3:40pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Ygg Mechanics Questions (About Purposes)
I have a few specific questions and one real biggie. I'll pose the big one first so you can think about it while we parse out the little ones, then I'll elaborate. (Note; this is not done as criticism of the over-all intention of creating this system, but more piddly little details of its application. This is all the small stuff.)
Okay, the big question, Why? (No, I'm not going to leave it like that; that'd be answered 'why not?') I am actually really intrigued by the idea of a system that does 'standard fantasy' one better, one that provokes and delivers on those epic 'cover image' situations; I really like that idea. I do. But what seems to be happening is not so much that it belabors 'standard fantasy' settings, but that it belabors 'standard fantasy' games.
If you want a system to arbitrate those 'cover image' situations with wonderment and, well, fantasy, why are you laying out such a nuts and bolts combat system? Is the game about combat? Or is it about fantasy? Why not do something that matches the creative spark and create a fantasy system? And now back to the piddly questions....
Pale Fire wrote: Character creation
3. Stats are Power, Movement, Toughness, Witchpower, Soulstrength, Awareness, Intelligence, Appearance, Charm and hitpoints.
Okay, let's talk system. I can see frequent applications for Movement, Toughness, Awareness, and Hitpoints, all very traditional, familiar, and what not. The question with these is, do you want a game where tactical details hog 40% of the stats? No matter how much Color or flavor or whatever you want to call the neat bits, 40% tactical stats will drown this out shouting "It's really a game about tactics!"
Can you go into to detail about what makes Power, Witchpower, and Soulstrength different from each other? Better yet, can you explain (I'm making a big assumption here) why witchpeople, for whom Witchpower is likely important, need a stat like Power at all? Would it be possible to collapse these into one stat, like Power, and say that the different practitioners have specific interpretations of each (thus a character who's using a Power (Soulstrength) effect on a witchperson who uses their Power (Witchpower) to respond or defend)?
In the world of hardly-used-stats-that-we-included-because-we-didn't-want-to-forget-anything, can you explain what use is made of Intelligence, Appearance, and Charm? Frankly, there are more 'tactical stats' than these, and that says to me these won't really get used. (I mean, exactly what do you use an Intelligence stat for during play? If it is only a matter of how many skills or how quickly skills are acquired or the same for 'magic,' what good does it do dragging it around during play? "I know, I'll Intelligence the monster.")
Worse, stats like Intelligence and Charm are well known for their tendency to short circuit playing your character. Why role-play out a situation when you can just resolve it with an Intelligence roll (or diplomacy or carousing or streetwise or et cetera). This harkens back to the more subtle version of tactical play outside of combat. This means that, in essence, more than half of the stats you have relate to tactical efficiency (providing that Power, Witchpower, and Soulstrength aren't just 'oomph' to a zap); I gotta ask is that a good description of your game? Is it about tactical resolution of situations?
Pale Fire wrote: 9. A few sample classes follows:
9.1. Talekeeper (=bard, explorer & learned man all rolled into one)
Weapon skill +1
Ranged weapons +1
Skill picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music (1-6)
Charming Presence (1-3)
Language sense
Myth Lore (1-3)
Nature Lore (1-3)
Map and World Lore (1-3)
Arts of Healing (1-3)
The Sciences (1-3)
Starting picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music
Myth Lore
The Sciences
Map and World Lore
+1 free pick
9.2. Warrior (=fighter, soldier, mercenary, barbarian whatever)
Weapon skill +3
Ranged Weapons +2
Skill picks:
Heroic leap (1)
Rushing attack (1)
Battle cry (1)
Armour movement (1-3)
Disarm (1)
Battle tackle (1)
Martial Mastery (1-3)
Berserk (1)
Quickdraw (1)
Ignore wounds (1-3)
Mighty blow (1-3)
Wrestling (1-3)
Initial picks
2 free picks
Skill resolution
1. There are no detailed skills in Ygg.
Whoa! Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Your list of Enchanting Poetry and Music, Charming Presence, Myth Lore, Nature Lore, Map and World Lore, Arts of Healing, Heroic leap, Rushing attack, Battle cry, Armour movement, Disarm, Battle tackle, Berserk, Quickdraw, Ignore wounds, and Mighty blow, sound pretty detailed to me. Do you mean something different when you say detailed? (Heaven forbid, I can't imagine a more detailed skill than 'Heroic Leap,' except something like 'Heroic Leap Over a 10' Chasm When Chased by Slavering Hordes of Humanoid Monsters.')
You seem to be more onto something with the more vague skills like Language sense, The Sciences, Martial Mastery, and Wrestling. These are nice and broad open to a lot of interpretation-on-the-fly.
Again, this focuses precisely on tactical situations and combat. (Before you go in claiming Myth Lore, Nature Lore, Map and World Lore, Language sense, and The Sciences aren't tactical, remember, gathering intelligence is one of the most crucial components of good strategy.) The character creation system you propose seems 100% geared towards measuring a character's efficacy. That is not bad or good unless it contradicts with what you want. Do you want a game where the players sally forth and do battle with the forces of darkness without any time for wonderment? Is it all about having the right kit of abilities in your party?
Pale Fire wrote: is decided by the Player and the GM, or by the GM alone depending on style of play.
This has to be the number one, sit up and take notice, line out of all your mechanics. This is what I want to hear more about! What are the mechanics for things being decided by the player and the gamemaster? (Heck, dump all the efficacy junk; just give me this stuff.) These will be crucial towards having the game do what you say you want it to.
Pale Fire wrote: 3. Stats will provide a modifier:
Skills with no or very little stat dependence: no mod
Minor stat dependence: Stat 3-4=-1 Stat 7-8=+1
Major stat dependence: Stat 4=-1, 5=0, 6=+1, 7=+2
You know, you could toss the lists of stats and skills entirely and have the player simply make up their own by depending on this little mechanic here. Powerful stuff! Link it with the 'how players and gamemasters decide things together' mechanic and you'd have all the game you need.
Pale Fire wrote: Nature Lore
4. Make fire
5. Locate water; Find shelter against weather and wind
6. Identify plants; identify animals
7. Find edible plants and fruits; interpret animal sounds
8. Evaluate unknown plants; evaluate unknown animals
9. Tame wild beasts
I think you need to revisit what you mean by "There are no detailed skills in Ygg." This sounds pretty darn detailed.
Pale Fire wrote: Combat
Hand-to-hand combat:
1. Combat is...
2. Attacking...
3. If roll+WS is...
4. A roll of 12 means...
5. A roll of 1 means...
6. Shields grant...
7. Trying to panicking...
8. To attack...
9. If the combat is...
10. If at too close distance...
11. Aim in hand-to-hand combat...
12. Close hits...
13. Aiming is...
Ranged combat:
1. Roll 1T12+RW higher...
2. A roll of 1-2...
3. For a roll of 12...
4. A roll of 1 is...
Damage
1. For close combat weapons...
2. Ranged weapons...
3. The minimum damage...
4. There are strength requirements...
5. Roll as many D12 as...
6. Armor bonus is...
7. Rolling a 12...
8. Check for damage...
9. K.O....
10. If down to 0 HP...
11. K.O. test...
Do you recognize what having more combat rules than anything else says about what you want people to do with your game? Unless you wish to have it play out mostly like a tactical wargame, you're going to need to strip out all this combat detail and replace it with something else. I really don't have a good handle on what your intention is with this game.
Pale Fire wrote: Can you please stop saying I don't have any material now?
But is this the material that tells what you want the game to be about? That's the big question. If you want a game about playing out the situations implied by the covers of all those fantasy novels and games, combat rules say almost nothing about it. Those pictures are meant to be the defining moment of the climax. A game emulating them should be more about the buildup and presentation of climax, not the second-to-second action happening in the lowliest of battles.
One of the most overlooked or misunderstood rules in the earliest of Dungeons & Dragons was the rule that allowed fighters to literally wade through hordes of lower level minions; it really was the first 'mook rule.' Battles with the army of kobolds (so kill me, I'm fairly German) means almost nothing compared to the final confrontation; this rule was supposed to 'get you there,' to 'cut to the chase' as it were.
And now, back to our 'big question....'
Pale Fire wrote: I hope no one will rant about how incomplete detail x is, because providing the game isn't what it's about.
If that's true then this whole 'mechanics' posting is a waste of time. Leave it out. Write us mechanics for dealing with "what it's about." Skip the tired abstracted-by-separate-action combat system. Give us fantasy game mechanics, not 'medieval combat' mechanics. You wonder why people keep saying that you don't "have any material," it's because this has nothing to do with 'standard fantasy,' it's all about medieval tactics and warfare (with magic).
Pale Fire wrote: I also try to refrain from explaining why I did certain design decisions (this is a far cry from my original draft), but I guess I have to mention the AD&D reminiscent classes are not borrowed from AD&D but rather an evolution from a purely skill-based system (like Shadowrun). When it didn't seem to focus the intent of the game enough I changed it in several steps until it became what it is now.
It isn't the reminiscent material that's really causing the problem here. It's the lack of material that brings home your stated goals. And I hate to point this out but saying that your game isn't evolved from Dungeons & Dragons because it evolved from Shadowrun, means nothing. It still fails to do what you said because it is derivative, regardless the source. Unless derived from something that captures any genre the way you want to capture yours, the process of derivation is doomed.
Pale Fire wrote: Also it might be worth to mention that a lot of these rules are under review. The only thing fairly well nailed down is the combat system (except for the occasional detail here and there).
That's exactly why people say you have no material. 'Standard fantasy' is not about combat, 'standard fantasy' games have been (it wasn't necessary, but you can't change history).
Elsewhere you have stated:
Pale Fire wrote: the reason I'm providing so much description is because my experience is that few players really take the time to customize their spells even if they are allowed to within the game system.
Don't you realize that the descriptions, as you give them, are exactly what inhibits the players from taking the time to customize their spells?
Look at the example:
Pale Fire wrote: Death lanterns are actually made out of these ghostly looking fire demons that circle around the mage. If they happen to touch anything they immediately disappear in a burst of light. However, they will usually not move anything on their own. If someone would run through the circle towards the mage, there be a real burst of fire, but not enough to burn the person unless they are naked humans. When one of these fire demons is destroyed (they actually die) they don't make more of a burn than say a cigarette would. Creative players might be able to figure out that you can actually use this spell to light candles and the like, or if you spray someone with oil and have them run though that circle it's gonna be pretty messy...
Already you're presupposing the detail necessary from a tactical standpoint. It starts off with good colorful 'standard fantasy' detail and then wanders into nit-picky tactical particulars. You imply you want player to "really take the time to customize their spells?" Force it! Give blunt descriptions: Level 1 light, 2 fire, 3 burning touch, 4 jet of fire, 5 fireball. Then require that any player making a character with one of these 'spell cores' must create a detailed customization or they can't use it. (Have detailed examples, as examples, to lead the way; don't take them by the hand, players won't go.) Let the gamemaster sort out the nit-picky details of the application only when someone tries to get clever with them. It's the attention to the nit-picky detail that destroys the 'fantasy' element of Dungeons & Dragons spells. 'Standard Fantasy' isn't about nit-picky details; it's about broad brushstrokes, passionate colors, and, well, fantasy.
Heck, you could even require that in order to use a spell, a player must present a detailed description of how it comes off or it fizzles. (Gamemaster: "What do you do?" Player: "I cast a light spell." Gamemaster: "This application doesn't capture the moment, it fails." versus Gamemaster: "What do you do?" Player: "I summon up the last of my spiritual energy and surround myself with tiny luminescent fire-ghosts as a death lantern, each cackling with their newly broadened freedom." Gamemaster: "Will they burn anything they touch?" Player: "Fear not friends, these fiery sprites will do you little harm." Gamemaster: "Good show, bonus time.")
You seem totally paranoid over abusive players. Then make a game system that'll scare them off. In my experience a player will abuse a system because 1) they don't want to do the 'work' needed to customize all the details themselves and 2) the nit-picky details make all the loopholes they need. Make a system that has no loopholes because it doesn't get nit-picky. Make a system where flexibility allows abusive players to 'get what they want' (I have yet to hear how they continue to abuse under this circumstance and still remain people you can stand to live with in the real world) and makes them work for it. Make the game subscribe to 'getting to those cover shots' so much that the flexibility keeps the abusive players from short-circuiting the climax.
Basically, either make a game with a wealth of concise detailed tactical rules that cannot be abused or make one that is broad and epic, so flexible that the whole point is to abuse it. You can't have it both ways. Just pick one. I for one, want to see what you create; you on the 'jazz,' man.
Fang Langford
p. s. I know I'm using the word tactical vaguely, but focus on the point not the wording.
On 4/11/2002 at 2:55am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Re: I'm A Punk
Nathan wrote: You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on
Yes, but it doesn't share my design goals. Now what I've written is in much need of correction because admittedly some stuff (in particular the skill system) doesn't work the way it's supposed to yet.
One of my big beef with pretty much any game out there is that you can't really rely on skills if you have to roll for them. As long as you don't have to make a test you're usually just as competent as anyone else. The GM is using his/her good judgement on what's possible and what's not.
Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.
All this annoys the shit out of me because it clashes with what I see as reasonable results, meaning results which you could as easily narrate as roll for. The die roll (esp for skills) tend to be that breaking point where you notice if the GM is using a narrative style or a gamist style. I really really hate that. And the D20 as far as I know have that just as much as most games out there.
I admittedly haven't had more than a quick look at AD&D 3rd ed. It seems like a vast improvment, but unless they have stopped using AC and stuff I'm still gonna think their combat system sucks. I've already mentioned I think the magic system is constraining. So aside from the skill system, combat system and magic system what is there left for me to use? Not much. 3D6 maybe, but I don't need that. I seem to be using a similar method of character improvment, but I don't know for sure as I haven't really checked out 3rd ed.
And why the heck do you roll stats with D4+3 and hitpoints with D4+1? Why? Why not just roll stats with D12+7 and hitpoints with D30-15?
Because I roll x dice for damage. If I would have allowed for more hit points the number of damage dice would need to be scaled up. I don't know about you, but I feel that rolling in average 5 D12 is better than having to roll 10. And besides there's the differences in probability to take into account.
The stats go in the D4+3 range because they are plugged straight into the system as target numbers for the D12 rolls.
Of course I could have used ANY kind of rolls to get the stats, but then I'd have to have a conversion table. This way the conversion table isn't really needed.
On 4/11/2002 at 3:05am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Eugene Zee wrote: A brief suggestion, if I may, insert a broad concept that is totally different into your world or system and expand it to touch every part of your game. Its not easy but it will help if you focus on an aspect that is dramatically new and different.
You're probably right but I frankly don't know what that would be. All my rules are basically tweaks on existing systems. Except for that I'm letting a lot of things be up to the GM to decide I'm not really doing anything different (a little better hopefully, but not anything new).
I guess I'm a little reluctant to add something too radical too. I'm worried I'll get so caught up in that "cool thing" that actual playability goes out the window. Whatever I put in should be something which can work for both newbie and experienced players. I've seen many a cool mechanic, but unless you've used to handling game mechanics you won't appreciate it, even though it is "simpler" or more clever.
Maybe I should pick up on the idea to grant more of an Author stance. But I still want the game very concrete (I looked at the review of the Pool and it seemed a little to abstract for newbies) in terms of rules.
On 4/11/2002 at 3:15am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
PF,
I'm reluctant at this point to say anything. You've got a game here that I believe works only insofar as it is of interest to you, and maybe some of your friends. Yet you persistently talk about it as though you actually intend on publishing it in some form. Maybe you will - the internet makes that easy.
Please, read Fang's post carefully. It says a lot. And don't dismiss Nathan's points.
And do look into Author Stance and Fortune in the Middle. There are threads aplenty around this place dealing with those topics, and why they can help achieve certain goals in game play (and design). Your mechanics don't have to be as abstract as The Pool, but maybe something like Sorcerer would be more enlightening.
- Scott
On 4/11/2002 at 4:19am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: I'm A Punk
Pale Fire wrote:Nathan wrote:
You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on
Yes, but it doesn't share my design goals. Now what I've written is in much need of correction because admittedly some stuff (in particular the skill system) doesn't work the way it's supposed to yet.
Why not try D20 modern with High level characters?
Why not try Fuzion?
Why not try Fudge?
Pale Fire, basically, any pre-existing simulationist RPG rule set is going to give you what you've written here. I think you've wasted a lot of effort. I'm sorry.
On 4/11/2002 at 5:06am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Re: Ygg Mechanics Questions (About Purposes)
Le Joueur wrote: I have a few specific questions and one real biggie.
Oh god oh god oh god.
I just spent 2+ hours reply to this mail. I previewed it, had to log in again. Was gonna go back and send it again, stopped the reload too soon and voila. All my text gone. I'm gonna go and die now.
Essence was:
yeah, I agree with you.
I need to make a game which works for narrative and gamists.
I know it can be done.
Of course there was 2 1/2 hour more of discussion and detail. But I just lost that. When I finally managed to make sensible text people wouldn't hate me for.
Oh god oh god oh god.
On 4/11/2002 at 5:11am, Le Joueur wrote:
You're a Punk (a Cretunulous Shunk?)
Pale Fire wrote: One of my big beef with pretty much any game out there is that you can't really rely on skills if you have to roll for them. As long as you don't have to make a test you're usually just as competent as anyone else. The GM is using his/her good judgement on what's possible and what's not.
Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.
All this annoys the shit out of me because it clashes with what I see as reasonable results, meaning results which you could as easily narrate as roll for.
We noticed that too. In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment." In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes. Under proper technique, any participant (not just the gamemaster) can 'call foul' on an over-play; the game turns to Specific play where the narrative is informed by die rolls versus adjusted ratings. Nothing special about that. Until...
"Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly." This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results." Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints. Surgery? No problem, we'll take our time and get it right. In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed). A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.' Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.
Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependance on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly." So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this. If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?
Fang Langford
p. s. If I seem overly critical, it's because your proposal does nothing to deliver those fantasy cover situations which are the primary attraction I have for your game. I really have only the best intention for your game. I want to see you focus on what you say is the most important thing in your game. If you now declare it is combat, then all this work is worthwhile. If not, wouldn't it be better to chuck most of this combat engine and create mechanics that focus on story, climax, and fantastic situations.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
On 4/11/2002 at 6:39am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote: Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.
We noticed that too. In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment." In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.
To recap some stuff from my lost mail.
Let's assum the GM can either be in a narrative stance or a gamist stance (differs a little from GNS model, but I didn't really find what I looked for in the article straight away. Anyway in the former the GM narrates what's happening and the second he uses the rules (and the dice) to figure it out).
Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between narrative and gamist stance for the GM.
Since battle is important in my game, let's take a combat situation. Seamlessly transitioning between narrative and gamist stance 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.
In some games this is possible, in others they are. In the lost mail I speculated how this seems to relate to how close the narrativist and gamist results are in the gamist focus points of the game.
A game of outdoor survival needs the mechanics for resolving survival skills to give reasonable (that is, easily converted to narrative) results.
In a game where combat is important, it is important that results from narrative can be cast into the gamist stance and vice-versa.
IF you want to make a game which is enjoyable for a bunch of gamer's that are a mixed gamist/narrativist crowd.
And now I completely forgot what to reply to that.
"Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly." This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results." Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints. Surgery? No problem, we'll take our time and get it right. In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed). A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.' Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.
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?
Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependance on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly." So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this. If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?
No, the stuff I presented in my text doesn't make a difference. I was gonna have less important rolls (from a gamist point of view) be dealt my using the stats and basic chances. I had everything about this written down (now I get reminded again). Including whys and wherefores of the skills looking like they did (and god knows it needs an explanation). But
I'm not up to writing everything down again I hope you understand why.
Since the unimportant skills (non gamist) was to be narrated more or less, the rest was tightly regulated gamist stuff not intended to be considered conventional skills anyway (so general rules wouldn't apply).
The roll for the GM is to make up difficulties on the fly to avoid the players from feeling their characters sucked "because they rolled so low". The approach is more "GM rolls for difficulty", oh no my character doesn't make it because he isn't good enough to deal with such a difficult situation (that the GM rolled up).
Maybe I can (for no special reason whatsoever) chuck in a piece of mechanics here (yeah, this reply is totally disorganized, blame it on my feeling of despair)
The procedure goes as follows:
1. Grab three D6.
2. Roll 'em
3. Count the 1's and 6's
4. More 1's than 6's? Roll as many more D6 as you have more 1's than 6's.
5. More 6's than 1's? As above but change the place of 1 and 6.
6. 6's and 1's equal? Then stop here.
7. Rolling bonus dice? If you're rolling because you had 1's, then every die that is showing a 1 gives an extra roll (ignore the 6's during the bonus rolls). If you're rolling because of the 6's, the same but for the 6's instead of the 1's
8. Count the 1's you got (or 6's)
More 1's: Every die with a 1 is one piece of bad luck. 1 is a little unlucky, 2 is really unlucky, 3 is bad news and let's not talk about 4.
More 6's: Every die with a 6 is one piece of good luck. 1 is a little lucky and so on.
Neither 1's or 6's: pretty much average situation.
Usage:
Whenever you want to do something: climb a tree, listen for ninjas sneaking up the town walls or whatever. Roll the 3 dice. GM mediates what's happening depending on your stats and general skill.
The dice rolling seems a little complex but it's actually much simpler than it seems (more complex rolling would be easier to explain!)
It's a rough guide, but if the skills are not the focus of the game, why need more?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
On 4/11/2002 at 8:32am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote:
Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.
We noticed that too. In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment." In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.
Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between narrative and gamist stance for the GM.
PF, have you check out Vincent's Chalk Outlines, and my Swift rules which are based on it?
For Swift, there's no difference between narrating actions and rolling actions, provided one takes one's time with the action, as the dice roll result is the same as narrating. For fast actions in stressful situations, like combat, the player know exactly what chances they have, and has the option of succeed with concessions or failing, if the dice roll indicates not successful. Effectively, the character always has 100% chance of success, provided the player decides to take the appropriate concessions.
It's been very effective in play test, though detailed combat rules need to be added to satisfy my munchkin players. Basically the dice system gives no rude surprises, either good or bad, unless the player wants these kind of results (by taking them as concessions).
It also possible to model extremes of probability, for example, if there's a 0.3% probabilty of illness or the probability of one's shoelaces becoming untied during the day -- used as an example by a friend of mine! :).
Based on the goals you wrote in another thread:
Pale Fire wrote:
System
* Fast, non-obstructive combat system with reasonable results.
* Task resolution should let the players rely on the character's abilities to be consistent.
Swift would seem like a reasonable solution to your goals.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
On 4/11/2002 at 9:27am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Re: I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
Andrew Martin wrote:
PF, have you check out Vincent's Chalk Outlines, and my Swift rules which are based on it?
I haven't seen Chalk, but I did check out Swift once (but only to look at the combat system, which didn't work for me because of the requirement that the combat should be Gamist).
Now, in principle I like your idea, but I don't know if I can use it. Since swift is based on several basic principles, like those of concession, fait accompli and so on it, I have to either add them to my system (extremely unpractical) or graft only a lite version of Swift into my system if I wanted to use them.
I can't really see how to do it though. My "3 D6 of luck" approach is a little similar with a need by the GM (and possibly the player) to determine the exact effects of good or bad luck.
I also have to take into account that the gamists will have a hard time handling this type of more narrative style, so it has to be light on Author stance and not insisting on one specific stance to be used (as Swift does).
The whole difficulty (as I think I stated before) is to make it playable for both G och N. I work on the combat system to keep G and N fairly compatible. The rest isn't so important and will be kept mostly N style, but it has to be possible for the Gs to ignore that. Forcing author stance would probably not work because not all Gs can actually handle that style.
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. Can you see any way of incorporating the Swift ideas into especially skill resolution with these restrictions?
On 4/11/2002 at 2:57pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Honestly, You Really Can't Have it Both Ways.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote: Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.
We noticed that too. In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment." In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.
Let's assume the GM can be either in a Narrativist stance or a Gamist stance (differs a little from GNS model, but I didn't really find what I looked for in the article straight away. Anyway in the former the GM narrates what's happening and the second he uses the rules (and the dice) to figure it out). Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance for the GM.
Oh, what you want is completely possible, but only if you ditch the GNS terminology. I won't be the last to tell you that Gamism has nothing to do with "[the GM using] the rules (and the dice) to figure [out what's happening]." A lot of Narrativist games use dice and rules, heck The Pool is a totally Narrativist game based on 'Pools' of dice. Likewise, Narrativism does not equate with "the GM [narrating] what's happening." Short of the few times one uses dice, in any game it's all narration. (Don't worry, the GNS terminology is that confusing.)
So before you draw a huge flamefest (well as inflammable as it might get at the Forge, please drop the 'Narrativist/Gamist' terminology; trust me, you're not using them right. Just come up with your own. For the sake of argument, let me replace them with 'soliloquy' and 'game theory' hereafter.
Pale Fire wrote: 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.
By the by, why is combat so important in your game?
Pale Fire wrote: A game of outdoor survival needs the mechanics for resolving survival skills to give reasonable (that is, easily converted to soliloquy) results.
In a game where combat is important, it is important that results from soliloquy can be cast into the game theory stance and vice-versa.
If you want to make a game that is enjoyable for a bunch of gamers that are a mixed soliloquy/game theory crowd...
Regardless of what you first thought when you read Ron's essay, what you are talking about is a card-carrying member of the Gamist mode. Your misunderstanding stems from the misapprehension that Gamists don't enjoy soliloquy and are concerned only with the game theory aspects of play. This isn't true. Neither is it true that any kind of soliloquy is only the realm of the Narrativist. Soliloquy exists in all gaming regardless of mode (I'd avoid use of the word 'stance' around here too, because of its specialized meaning on the Forge).
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 my opinion, that's where you ran into trouble earlier. You talked about a game with those situations, but all your game theory applications have absolutely nothing to do with that.
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?
I mean you have time and again said things like:
Pale Fire wrote: I want to go after what captures the essence of Fantasy.
And exactly how does your combat system 'capture the essence of fantasy?' 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." I will have to go on record as stating that the more you zero in on combat and the various game theory aspects of it, the farther you will get from "the essence of Fantasy."
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: "Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly." This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results." Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints. Surgery? No problem, we'll take our time and get it right. In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed). A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.' Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.
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? The lack of explanation leads to the naïve applications of the rules that give that feeling of 'unreasonable results' you complain of. I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents exactly the same occurring in your rules. In fact, I see much worse on the horizon.
For example:
Pale Fire wrote: Whenever you want to do something: climb a tree, listen for ninjas sneaking up the town walls or whatever. Roll the 3 dice. GM mediates what's happening depending on your stats and general skill.
The dice rolling seems a little complex but it's actually much simpler than it seems (more complex rolling would be easier to explain!)
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. To the contrary, you state "Whenever...." That reads as all the time!
If you want people to roll dice 'only when it matters' you're going to have to spell out when that is. There is absolutely nothing wrong or right with you dice mechanic, or a hundred others you might consider, except there is no information about when it applies.
That particular decision is at the heart of why a game cannot seamlessly shift back and forth between Gamism and Narrativism. Choices of when to invoke dice are critical in both, and extremely cross purposes. As far as has been explained previously, a Gamist is ripe for a challenge, for them dice are an impartial judge of whether they succeed or not (some Gamists carefully weight the modifiers in their favor, but still depend on the impartiality of dice over gamemaster fiat). Broadly, Narrativist use die rolls to stimulate their narratives, not to test failure or success (yes they have failure created by dice in their narratives, but it calls for complication, not loss). You can't write one mechanic to satisfy both of these, unless....
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.
From another posting, let me extract something you seem to already know:
Pale Fire wrote: I also have to take into account that the Gamists will have a hard time handling this type of more Narrativist style, so it has to be light on Author stance and not insisting on one specific stance to be used.
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?
Okay, I'm being a bit unfair here. 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. It won't matter how well you combat appeals to the Gamists, or your Color appeals to the Narrativists (which by the way is bad mischaracterization), when the 'switch' comes, if someone isn't 'on board' for it, it'll ruin their game.
Ultimately, what I am saying is you're spending waaayy too much time dwelling on the 'Gamist detail' (another mischaracterization) at the expense of both Narrativism and Transition. Unless you 'get them all on your plate' and soon, this will simply lead to a 'bad game.'
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependence on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly." So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this. If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?
I was gonna have less important rolls (from a game theory point of view) be dealt my using the stats and basic chances.
Yes, but what are the rules that determine when that is the case? Those are the ones crucial to your 'seamless transitions' not all of these relatively familiar combat mechanics.
Pale Fire wrote: I'm not up to writing everything down again I hope you understand why.
No, I don’t. If it was worth saying the first time, wait until the pain wears off and write it again. The idea (which has not been communicated¹) remains the same, all that was lost is one execution.
Pale Fire wrote: It's a rough guide, but if the skills are not the focus of the game, why need more?
Oh, I don't know, maybe to capture the essence of Fantasy!!!
Fang Langford
¹ I asked you to pick whether you would satisfy detailed combat junkies or epic cover illustration junkies and you say 'I agree.' You response talks about seamlessly switching between the two. That is not agreement.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
Topic 11888
On 4/11/2002 at 3:16pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Hold on Thar!
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
On 4/11/2002 at 3:36pm, Nathan wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
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
On 4/12/2002 at 3:43am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Transitions in combat and other situations
Le Joueur wrote:
Oh, what you want is completely possible, but only if you ditch the GNS terminology.
Ooops! I promise I won't use it again! :)
Pale Fire wrote: 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?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
Topic 11888
On 4/12/2002 at 5:14am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
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.
On 4/12/2002 at 3:01pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Re: I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
Andrew Martin wrote: 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
On 4/12/2002 at 3:24pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote: 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:Le Joueur wrote: 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?
Pale Fire wrote: 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.
Pale Fire wrote: 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.
Pale Fire wrote: 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.
Pale Fire wrote: 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:
• 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.
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.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
Topic 11888
On 4/12/2002 at 10:08pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: I'm a tomato two bananas short of a fruit salad
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.
On 4/13/2002 at 12:03pm, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
Re: Honestly, You Really Can't Have it Both Ways.
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.
On 4/13/2002 at 12:27pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
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.
On 4/13/2002 at 5:26pm, Le Joueur wrote:
It Must Be the Starvation
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
On 4/15/2002 at 3:36am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote:
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.
Pale Fire wrote: 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 ;)
On 4/15/2002 at 3:47am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
contracycle wrote: 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.
On 4/15/2002 at 4:24am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
> 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.
On 4/15/2002 at 4:30am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Pale Fire wrote:
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.
On 4/15/2002 at 8:14am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Pale Fire wrote:
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.
On 4/16/2002 at 4:31am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Conspiracy-X sounds very like the type of skill resolution I played around with. Although it's more consistent than mine.
(Mine was a 5-6 steps of skill with a roll modifying the actual level of perfomance up and down. Although chances rolling more than two levels up and down were small, they existed nonetheless which made for a gap between soliloquy and game theory mode)
L5R does seem a little abstract pretty closely tied to the world in a way which seems to make it a little difficult to transplant into other systems. Or am I reading it wrong here?
On 4/16/2002 at 4:38am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Andrew Martin wrote:
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.
Reading through the Swift rules I still remain unconvinced that they would for a good basis for my system. It still seems to rely a little too much on meta-gaming principles. That is only my opinion though.
And as I have stated before, I don't put this as a general principle but rather as one specific for the (sub-)genre.
I'd like to think that you could eventually take my game and use the rules to make a boardgame out of them, or on the other side of the spectrum use the same to play a game where conflict is non-existent. And neither would be bad.
I don't quite see a boardgame like Advanced Heroquest based on the Swift rules. But maybe I'm wrong?
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.
Oh, gee we could really take this off topic by arguing Dao De Jing :) But I'll resist the temptation for now. :)
On 4/16/2002 at 4:52am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Pale Fire wrote:
I don't quite see a boardgame like Advanced Heroquest based on the Swift rules. But maybe I'm wrong?
Actually, my S RPG combat system rules were developed from a skirmish table top battle rule set, plus input from several friends. That's because we though that table top boardgames from Games Workshop, weren't interesting enough. I'll be taking the principles of detailed combat in S and putting them into Accord, which is itself a developement of Zero System. Both will be a tabletop wargame and a boardgame set of rules for purely combat, and for roleplaying as well, as well as GM-less roleplaying, design in play mechanics and so on.
Not boasting, just stating facts.
On 4/16/2002 at 9:55am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Heres another cool example of how Con-X works - combat manouvers accumulate difficulty. You could have a block-punch-kick manouver with an accumulated difficulty of 1+1+2=4, which may even be an automatic success if you are highly skilled. Or, double tap with a pistol at short range, diff 2+2=4, which again could even be automatic.
Yes, L5R's mechanics are embedded in the specific world but this is a Good Thing. The world determines a lot of your verbal description content - being able to call upon the world for resolution has its uses. I think a primary failing in many sim games is making mechanics divorced from the world - which makes the game more Physics-like and undercuts the immersion.
On 4/16/2002 at 1:09pm, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Sounds like a fun combat system (Con-X's that is), but not entirely appropriate for my game.
As soon as you actually start counting maneuvres and stuff you're making it harder for complete newbies to learn. Not that it can't be great, but it requires some thinking and some idea of "how you want to attack" to utilize fully.
For my game, I'm actually thinking that you could pick it up and play it the way you could do with ol' D&D and similar old generation games. I remember D&D basic set had "10 years and up" printed on it.
I feel that few games today could print the same thing on their boxes. I'm not saying that more advanced games are a bad thing, I'm just pointing out they require a whole lot more from the players than the older rpgs usually did.
So aside from the magic and making cool scenes and seamless transitions, I want it simple enough to be played by kids who're trying out their first game.
Ideally I'd have rules looking something like this from the player's point of view:
"Roll 5+ on a D6 to jump small cliffs. 3+ to build a fire. 6+ to identify monsters"
I'm thinking about the simple and clear cut rolls here. Simple and no need to learn anything about it.
Swift has some admittedly some of this but I feel the rules are a little too advanced for the game I have in mind.
It would be neat to have some kind of mechanism for the GM so he/she could put in the stat in some kind of table and be able to crank out 1D6 chances for the players to succeed. I'm not quite sure it's gonna be flexible enough though.
Finally, about L5R's tight rule integration, I agree it's not a BAD THING (tm) to do so, in fact it's desirable. Incidentally, even if the system IS divorced from the world like you put it, that has fundamental effects on the game anyway.
I think in general people often fail to understand how fundamentally game mechanics can affect the game world. Just look at the AD&D and BRP magic systems. Memorization and such explanations aside, they are still fundamentally different in feel.
Anyway, just for the record I do am designing my system with my world in mind.
On 4/16/2002 at 3:47pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote: 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'?
Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit. In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets. That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.
I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that metagame rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized. I find that exactly the opposite of what happens. Provided that such metagame rules are 'smooth' enough that their use isn't a constant distraction (and since you favor simple, fluid systems, that shouldn't be a problem), that they don't 'get in the way' of play, they will quickly become internalized. (The main reason for making them explicit is that everyone 'has a bad day' once in awhile and can then fall back on the explicit use instead of the usual 'casual' or internalized usage.)
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: 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.
That's easy enough. Think about how you do it now. What is your 'best practices' for 'seamless transition' when it works? Using what works, the 'unwritten rule,' is always a grand starting point.
I think another problem you might not realize you're having is that no matter how 'game theory' your combat gets, it still functions to some degree in soliloquy mode. (In order to be totally 'game theory,' it'd have to be something like, "Roll your glort!" "I got a five, move your fniggle down two. Now I gizorgenplatz.") I have never seen a combat system that wasn't in some way meant as an emulation of something that happens in soliloquy mode, usually dripping with soliloquy terminology. (One of the few exceptions is Hit Points, a truly abstract idea.)
When we conceived of the transition between General play and Specific play in Scattershot, we realized a need to address those times when something that was happening in 'pure soliloquy play' needed die resolution. We differentiated between those two because sometimes dice just need to 'stick their head in and say hi.' Another thing we realized was that this was not always a result of combat. Lockpicking is a classic example; in most circumstances, you aren't worrying about whose turn is next after the lock is picked, play immediately goes back to 'pure soliloquy' or General play. (We suggest keeping it in Specific play out of deference to the likelihood that dicing will occur again soon.)
Scattershot also differentiates between Specific play and Mechanical play because of a sensitivity to the need for impartiality, not just for the sake of the 'unwritten rules' we're discussing here. The most notable thing about the timing of this transition is how it doesn't match the halcyon 'roll for initiative' that heralded this transition 'in the old days.' As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'
In Scattershot, largely for the reasons you site with the 'knee to the groin' example, we decided to not forgo all the 'juicy role-playing' that could precede actually coming to blows. Those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover,' these are all collapsed by the 'initiative roll.' We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat. One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage. At first this seemed kinda weird, but when we looked at it we realized that this is much like how it happens in the real world. When the desperado first steps into the saloon is when he initiates Mechanical play, not when guns are drawn. This is because whoever is playing the desperado will be 'on guard' twitching an 'itchy trigger finger' with a 'quickdraw' waiting for the first person who steps outta line. (Clearly Mechanical play, if not 'come to blows' combat, to us.)
The player could call Mechanical play intentionally and then announce the 'knee to the groin,' resolving that action just the same as Specific play, except now in the terms of Mechanical play and turn-sequencing. Except for the 'click' of the switch, the transition is quite 'seamless.'
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: 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.
Now you're really having terminology problems here. What is combat (game theory play), but abstracted soliloquy play? Sure having a metagame rule that makes explicit the transition is abstract, but so is combat. Honestly, for as complicated as General play, Specific play, and Mechanical play sound, the terminology almost never comes up in play. (Well, the 'groin-kicker' would probably hold up a finger to get everyone's attention and say, "Combat:..." Since play would probably already be in Specific play, there isn't that awkward 'where is everyone' phase as combat 'settles in.')
Pale Fire wrote: 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 are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.
Whoa! This is really all over the map in terms of terminology. Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract. I mean one minute turns? 'To hit' rolls? Hit points? What could be more abstract? Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it." In fact, this is what lead us to create the 'take your chances' versus 'take your time' mechanics in Scattershot. If you have the time, you don't even consider your chances, you always succeed.
Frankly, if your 'learners' are going to take to the combat system, what we use in Scattershot for 'seamless transition' is an almost invisible stretch. Most of the time (with 'old style gamers') we get a lot of "I never thought of it that way," and "I guess that would be Solo play." When they hear about how to handle initiative 'desperado style,' we tend to get an "Oh cool!" I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: 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.
[Snip "anti-SR rant."]
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.
You're making the mistake where I say, "a tightly integrated game is a great way to make something easily internalized" and you think I'm saying, "all tightly integrated games are easily internalize;" anything can be done badly. Besides, my definition of a 'tightly integrated game' is "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations." That's what Scattershot's MIB system is explicitly.
Worse, you seem to be 'shooting yourself in the foot' when you say, "a lot of sacrifices have been made" is a "dangerous thing." This practically shouts that any abstraction, especially as you describe for your combat rules, is bad.
Pale Fire wrote: I feel that very clear and simple rules, joined together loosely by 'common sense decisions' by the GM is the way to go.
In D&D (not AD&D) and BRP both represent that type of system (loosely integrated one).
If "common sense decisions" were that intuitive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's the 'looseness' of the gamemaster's "common sense decisions" that flies in the face of a player who is in "game-winning mode." Again, that's why I'm suggesting explicit 'seamless transition' rules. Then there's no 'looseness' when everyone is in "game-winning mode."
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: '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.
Another reason for rules that 'keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter.' An integrated combat mechanic ("a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations") will work better if players in "game-winning mode" know that the gamemaster won't be 'bridging holes' because the explicit 'seamless transition' rules require that he does not during combat.
Pale Fire wrote: 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 handed 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.
But all this is, is an example of how Rolemaster isn't "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kinds of situations," not a failure of 'seamless transition.'
Pale Fire wrote: Anyway, I'll try to think about it some more.
I can't think of better advice. Really, I'm not trying to be as harsh as I'm sounding. Herein I am trying to help you separate your thinking about explicit 'seamless transition' rules and how they work with, but are apart from, "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kinds of situations." I really want you to do all the thinking yourself.
Pale Fire wrote:
• Yes. Explicit rules are desirable, but only if they can be made very concrete and not to rely on a separate mechanism which has no real life basis.
• I don't really know how to go about it.
• I'll do some more thinking ;)
• How about this for a real world basis: that instant when you 'give in' to the fight-or-flight response and commit to action equals your 'seamless transition' point.
• If it's an unwritten rule, I think you do know, you just never noticed.
• Excellent; couldn't ask for more!
Elsewhere Pale Fire wrote: I'd like to think that you could eventually take my game and use the rules to make a boardgame out of them, or on the other side of the spectrum use the same to play a game where conflict is non-existent. And neither would be bad.
The funny thing is, Scattershot's Mechanical play material never really came together until I began writing it as a collectible card game! (We still intend on vending such as a modular replacement for using Scattershot in melee combat situations.)
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
On 4/17/2002 at 3:19am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Ygg mechanics
Pale Fire wrote:
So aside from the magic and making cool scenes and seamless transitions, I want it simple enough to be played by kids who're trying out their first game.
Then you really should check out Zac's
Shadows - Harlekin-Maus April Game
on these very forums. Works for kids for their first game. And I feel that it's sophisticated enough for adults to play as well.
On 4/17/2002 at 6:41am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote:
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'?
Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit. In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets. That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.
I have never experienced seamless transition in some games no matter how much I played them whereas in others it worked immediately, so I can't really agree with what you're saying. In general, it's more likely to happen once people have more experience, but I find that the particular game system weighs in much heavier.
I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that metagame rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized.
Let's make it clear what we mean by meta-game rules here. I'm think about rules in general which does not relate to an immediate in-game effect, but only affects situations only indirectly, and it's direct effect on any given situation cannot be satisfactorily determined from in-game results.
But maybe I'm simply biased against them by habit.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: 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.
That's easy enough. Think about how you do it now. What is your 'best practices' for 'seamless transition' when it works? Using what works, the 'unwritten rule,' is always a grand starting point.
I took this part over to the thread on Ygg combat mechanics.
You give some detail on how Shattershot handles it and it looks good. Let's use Shattershot's names and descriptions of game modes, because they ought to coincide with mine.
As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'
I have to mention that I don't view the initiative in Ygg as collapsing "those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover'". Instead it is determining who will have the first chance to determine who is the first to have the chance to determine if they had an opening and used it to successfully hit.
It's a little different. It doesn't mean one person was first, it mean you test if one person had a chance to hit before you test for the secnond person.
Just for the record.
We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat. One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage.
Yes this is quite realistic, and I think I mention I want this effect in the other thread as well? I'm thinking of it as a "lead in" to combat. My first idea was to consider the first attack (the first punch landed or whatever) as a prelude to the general combat which followed.
After the prelude, people enter general combat which is more abstract. Anyway, you should be able to seize the advantage in a similar way.
Pale Fire wrote: 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 are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.
Whoa! This is really all over the map in terms of terminology. Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract. I mean one minute turns? 'To hit' rolls? Hit points? What could be more abstract? Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it."
What I mean with the mechanics being clear is that the ACTUAL dice rolled and how modifiers were added were quite straightforward. Compare to SR where difficulty numbers and successes come together in a very difficult-to-evaluate way.
So although they sucked in many ways, their mechanic was fairly simple and straightforward. And then I mean what die you rolled and how you decided how much damage you dealt.
Of course they were filled with abstract constructs, but I'm talking about the game mechanic in itself.
Worse, you seem to be 'shooting yourself in the foot' when you say, "a lot of sacrifices have been made" is a "dangerous thing." This practically shouts that any abstraction, especially as you describe for your combat rules, is bad.
I'm thinking of sacrificing playability and reasonable results to keep a "clever mechanic" (which then actually really isn't all that clever)
As for the rest, I think I already dealt with much of it in the other thread. If I haven't then don't be shy to tell me so :)
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339
On 4/18/2002 at 3:03pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Re: Transitions in combat and other situations
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote:
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'?
Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit. In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets. That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.
I have never experienced seamless transition in some games no matter how much I played them whereas in others it worked immediately, so I can't really agree with what you're saying. In general, it's more likely to happen once people have more experience, but I find that the particular game system weighs in much heavier.
You know, this attitude you have of lumping all bad examples in with good ones is purely argumentative. Drop it. It was clear the point I was making was that 'old fashioned' systems have no 'seamless transition' rules, and yet, (in some) it happens. (It doesn't matter whether it happens in every possible example, all that matters is that you have experienced it.) The point I was emphasizing was that without explicit transition rules, this happens only by accident, not by design.
You have got to address whether you consider the implicit 'seamless transition' rules in those 'old fashioned' systems (where it did work) was a function of their design concretely or if it simply grew out of how you played. My argument is founded on the idea that you cannot guarantee 'seamless transition' without words to back it up.
You seem very interested in making it happen, but consistently avoid and refuse to discuss how. Honestly? If you can't bring yourself to discuss 'seamless transition' directly and whether or not rules can do it or could be created for it and instead resort to these 'not in every game' responses, I'm going to have to drop this discussion. Right now, it isn't going anywhere.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that meta-game rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized.
Let's make it clear what we mean by meta-game rules here. I'm think about rules in general which does not relate to an immediate in-game effect, but only affects situations only indirectly, and it's direct effect on any given situation cannot be satisfactorily determined from in-game results.
But maybe I'm simply biased against them by habit.
No, you just need to have the scales removed from your eyes. You are so comfortable with some instances of meta-game rules that, internalized, they are invisible to you; take for example character generation!
Your tired example of putting '70% into offense, and 30% into defense' is so totally meta-game, I can't see how you can have any consistent bias about meta-game rules as a generalization. You want to talk about meta-game mechanical bias? Tell me what in Scattershot's differentiation between General, Specific, and Mechanical play is so counter-intuitive that it's 'indirect affect on play' is so distracting as to be antithetical (or at least compared to the '70%/30%' thing, a meta-game application which I find distracting).
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'
I have to mention that I don't view the initiative in Ygg as collapsing "those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover'". Instead it is determining who will have the first chance to determine who is the first to have the chance to determine if they had an opening and used it to successfully hit.
It's a little different. It doesn't mean one person was first, it mean you test if one person had a chance to hit before you test for the second person.
Just for the record.
Just for the record; 1) that is erasing all the little soliloquy details that make combat more than a mechanical exercise (id est; collapsing these details into a die roll instead of letting the players create them) and 2) it doesn't get any more meta-game than that!
Abstracting the whole "who will have the first chance" into a single initiative die roll is exactly the same as 'collapsing all the initial build up.' The whole thing about "determining if they had an opening" is precisely the soliloquy you're utterly annihilating with an initiative die roll.
Worse, 'testing if one person had a chance to hit' is not a rule involving 'direct actions,' it's as meta-game as they get. To create a non-meta-game rule here, have the player perform an action, like 'circle left and feint' and roll to see if their opponent goes for it. That's not an initiative roll, that's a skill roll. (If successful, the character can roll for an actual strike, possibly with a bonus for how much their opponent 'went for it.')
This is what I mean, have actions like guard, fend, and feint; they're not actual hits but they give combat that 'soliloquy feeling' and they don't use anything as meta-game as initiative rolls. In Scattershot (I really need to put up an example of combat), using these kinds of actions one could gain the advantage by forcing their opponent to retreat into a corner, up the stairs, or any such; there are simply no initiative rolls.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote: We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat. One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage.
Yes, this is quite realistic, and I think I mention I want this effect in the other thread as well? I'm thinking of it as a 'lead in' to combat. My first idea was to consider the first attack (the first punch landed or whatever) as a prelude to the general combat which followed. After the prelude, people enter general combat which is more abstract. Anyway, you should be able to seize the advantage in a similar way.
Then why even bother with something as villainously meta-game as initiative rolls? Find a way to abstract your 'lead in' rules and use that in place of the tired hack of initiative rolls. Truly, I see initiative rolls used in more bad 'old fashioned' games than good, regardless how good and 'old fashioned' they be in your experience.
Besides, what about all the stuff that leads up to "the first punch landed?" Where does that soliloquy go? In most games, you say, "I wanna punch dat guy," and the gamemaster says, "roll for initiative." This is how an older system 'skips' all the detail (and soliloquy) between when that burning desire to plant a facer on "dat guy" settles in and when the blow actually lands (because he might see it coming, you might telegraph your punch, et cetera, et cetera, all in one roll). If that's what your initiative rolls are it doesn't get any more meta-game than that.
Pale Fire wrote:Le Joueur wrote:Pale Fire wrote: Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems, are 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 are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.
Whoa! This is really all over the map in terms of terminology. Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract. I mean one minute turns? 'To hit' rolls? Hit points? What could be more abstract? Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it."
What I mean with the mechanics being clear is that the ACTUAL dice rolled and how modifiers were added were quite straightforward. Compare to SR where difficulty numbers and successes come together in a very difficult-to-evaluate way.
So although they sucked in many ways, their mechanic was fairly simple and straightforward. And then I mean what die you rolled and how you decided how much damage you dealt.
Of course they were filled with abstract constructs, but I'm talking about the game mechanic in itself.
Why do you keep bringing up Shadowrun? If you don’t like it, it should be the last thing you want influencing your design, good or bad. Bury it, let it rest in peace; make your own game in the total absence of its design. (Even bad games have good ideas hidden in them, if you categorically denounce an entire game, you never know if there was baby in with that dirty bathwater.)
Now let me take a deep breath; what the heck does this have to do with abstraction! Those "straightforward" "dice rolled and...modifiers" systems are extremely abstract, for no other reason than how "straightforward" they were. Fewer dice, fewer modifiers, simpler rules equals abstraction! ('Cause it certainly don't equal improved modeling of all the tiny details that make up reality!)
Okay.
That's over.
What I see looking back over this thread (other than difficulty addressing your goals directly) is a problem with two terms. The first is meta-game; the second is abstraction.
Let's get on the same page here. How about for meta-game, we call any rule that does not represent direct resolution of an action attempted by a character, a meta-game rule? Character creation? Meta-game. Initiative? Meta-game. Wound effects? Meta-game. Okay?
I realize I am asking you to create rules that are the demon meta-game when I suggest that you 'out' the 'seamless transition' process that you are so clearly bent on. Heck in Scattershot we have a meta-game mechanic that has, on every single occasion (with experienced gamers), caused a 'that won’t work' reaction. What is it? 'Mechanical play proceeds around the table counterclockwise, no exceptions.' No reordering based on character speed, no initiative bonuses; even the Flash (tm DC Comics) can be caught as flat-footed as the slowest of characters. And you know what? Not more than three turns into it and every complaint has evaporated. In fact, once it gets going, most players don't even remember it. Not at all like meta-game rules like 'go in the sequence of character speed plus modifiers,' which always results in 'whose turn is it?' sooner or later.
Now, about abstraction, I'm not at all sure what your problem is. All rules regarding combat are mere abstractions on the real act. To understand abstraction perhaps I can use an old saying; 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Words are abstractions of what we want to communicate. A picture contains tons more detail than only a few words can describe. (It should be obvious that 'pictures don't do you justice,' meaning even pictures abstract reality.)
Now you see soliloquy as 'more detailed,' right? Yet soliloquy is not as detailed as pictures (which aren't as detailed as reality). Now you want 'seamless transition' to combat rules, which are clearly less detailed than soliloquy. The problem you seem to be having with the 'seamless transition' is the loss of detail at the instant of transition. This is all because combat rules are even more abstract than soliloquy (which is more abstract than pictures, et cetera; you get the idea).
All you've posted about your mechanics focuses on how these abstractions interact with each other. That is inherently a meta-game concern (how rules interact with other rules has nothing to do with resolving 'real' actions). You are extremely sensitive to the transition point between soliloquy and combat, yet all your work focuses on a realm you repeatedly say is your anathema, meta-game. No matter how much you tweak, change, or redesign your combat, it is still an abstraction over soliloquy.
If you want to 'fix' the problem with how to 'seamlessly transition' from soliloquy to combat, you must focus your attention on the 'event horizon' between the two. Once you figure out how to pull enough of the relevant detail through this 'event horizon,' I can assure you that the details of the combat system will practically write themselves. (I know this is a bit of a broad over generalization because you will want to keep in mind the general function of the abstraction which is combat when choosing what detail should 'come through,' but really, in a 'seamless transition' discussion, isn't the 'transition' all that matters?)
Please don't patronize me by pulling my post apart and finding individual counter-examples that, by being exceptions, if anything, prove my point. Just answer one simple question (and quote no other part):
Why can't you write rules that translate the detail of soliloquy into the abstraction of combat?
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1339