I have been thinking a little.

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

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

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

Any other examples?

Opinions?

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

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

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

What games are you thinking about?

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

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

Elegance is important.

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

Chris Engle

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

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

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

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

- Anders

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

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

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

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

But, Avante.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, plausibility.  A worthy goal.  Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callan wrote:
Here's mine! ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of those threads where a few of the underlying ideas must be agreed upon. I've had real life discussions about if things are real or real AND about what is actually reality. It seems to go back to my first sentence in that reality must be agreed upon. Also, it seems that the thread is looking at combat rules and damage. That subject always hits the hardest because it determines if the character lives or dies most of the time.

With that in mind, it would be easy to look at statistics of injuries and fatalities in today's world and throughout history. You could limit the scope to only combat: the experiences in training for combat, the combat situations and recovery (if still alive). I knew a brilliant student who was active in ROTC and researched that data. His conclusions were very sobering. If you are in combat and never get hit by enemy fire or detonate a mine, you will survive to fight another day. If you do get injured: 30% instant death, 20% death during recovery (within days), 30% recovery with major disability (loss of limb), 10% recovery with minor disability, 10% recovery with obvious scars. I don't know the validity of those statistics and I'm sure the Army, Police and other military type organizations have that information. Its weird how life automatically makes things real. We don't have to roll dice or determine what happens.

I found in combat oriented RPGs is to find that happy medium of taking risks and surviving. I've had characters that died in the first combat round and a few who always survived. The games that were more realistic (rather oxymoronic) had high death rates and disabling injuries. Dying in an RPG doesn't necessarily take away the fun. The realism can actually be very dramatic and puts things in perspective: fighting fearlessly to the death is stupid.

Plausibility is still based on the agreement of the gamers and gives license to bend reality into any shape. A dragon breathes fire on a group of adventurers. The knight is wearing full plate, the rogue is in full leather, the monk has a heavy cotton robe and the mage is clad in a +5 bikini (it happens). Who will survive? Game wise, all of them can due to the rules concerning armor, dexterity and magic. Plausibly, the thief and monk do because of their naturally protective gear. Realistically, they all die from 3rd degree burns to their bodies. So, plausibility must still have its roots in agreement; otherwise, its arbitrary nature will make a lot of gamers very angry.

Its the GMs responsibility to use the rules to determine reality OR dictate reality based on his or her perceptions OR allow the gamers input on what is real. Regardless of the method, the players must know ahead of time what normal life will bring them and give them an idea of their chances in various situations.

For a game steeped in reality, the participants first agree on the reality of the situation, the causes and consequences. Bring into factors of prior health, skill and just plain luck. Determine the percentages and then come up with a quick resolution system. At that point you can know what abilities, skills, etc. are important in the whole combat experience.

I have found that percentages are the absolute best way of keeping a clear picture on reality. Even if the percentages are off a bit, at least the players know what their chances are. Three areas of reality in combat that I think are important include exposure to combat, hitting the target, injury and recovery. It would be easy to multiply the four numbers together to get a good estimate of how easy it is to stun, wound or kill an opponent. That system could be used in mass combat with lots of troops, or even to quickly run through some combat scenes when roleplaying is more important (in RPGs?).

Aftermath is a game I played many years ago and I remember it offered great attention to detail. Combat was slow and if it wasn't for the rich setting the GM created (thanks Bill) I would have been bored out of my mind.

Hmm. Questions: how important are realism and fantasy in the game you're playing? How willing are you to suspend your disbelief about what is happening? Will you embrace realism to have a speedy system? Will you sacrifice drama and fun to have a quick, realistic system? Where am I and why do my fingers hurt?

In RPGs, I prefer that my reality checks are NSF because reality really does bite.

Troy

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
Hmm. Questions: how important are realism and fantasy in the game you're playing? How willing are you to suspend your disbelief about what is happening? Will you embrace realism to have a speedy system? Will you sacrifice drama and fun to have a quick, realistic system? Where am I and why do my fingers hurt?

Troy

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

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

CaptainImpressive wrote:
My favored solution for realism vs. simplicity is conflict resolution. Instead of trying to make the rules simulate the minutiae any given reality, a system can be made less complex by determining the outcome of a situation according to situational specifics and/or randomizes and narrating the details according to logic and what is interesting but ultimately leading toward the dictated result. This way improbable results can be directly controlled, though this may eliminate certain unexpected outcomes depending on the referee or what have you. I dunno this is more my style and i don't expect anyone to be into it.

Callan wrote:
With the second line I mean that it may not be the rules, but that the player gets no input into the process. Doing sums for half an hour is boring. Doing sums for half an hour where you get to manipulate some of the numbers through discussions with the GM, can be quite allot of fun.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
This is one of those threads where a few of the underlying ideas must be agreed upon. I've had real life discussions about if things are real or real AND about what is actually reality. It seems to go back to my first sentence in that reality must be agreed upon. Also, it seems that the thread is looking at combat rules and damage. That subject always hits the hardest because it determines if the character lives or dies most of the time.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
Hmm. Questions: how important are realism and fantasy in the game you're playing? How willing are you to suspend your disbelief about what is happening? Will you embrace realism to have a speedy system? Will you sacrifice drama and fun to have a quick, realistic system?

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
Where am I and why do my fingers hurt?

Tony,

Great response!

On one hand I wish you luck in creating the rules set to accomplish what you want. On the other hand, I believe that the gaming companies have done an excellent job in providing rules that simulate reality in many ways.

Remember, that these RPGs are an attempt to take away the reality of the gamer's life and replace it with his or her fantastic desires to be someone else. I think many gamers want realism because their creative spark is very dim. Creativity, in my opinion, doesn't include clever ways to roll dice and move numbers around. With the advent of computer games that can simulate physics, sounds and gushing blood I wonder if true RPGs are on the decline in favor of supplements with a lot of statistics and "drop in" items.

Maybe the group of gamers with whom I participated were in a small percentile. I really never liked D&D that much, but the group I liked played that game--with passion. They were the most creative, fantasy driven, experienced roleplayers I've ever encountered. Realism was pushed to the side and it was very, very rare for someone to point out that some part of the game was unreal. The fantasy was the new reality. I had a great time and miss them.

That brings up other questions: who is your target audience? How will your rules enhance their roleplaying experience? What satisfaction will they gain when plausibility is defined? Will reality based on the real world be attractive?

I haven't thought about this stuff in years. Thank the threads!

Troy

Tony,
Don't know if this helps you any, but one of the things I did in a damage vs. armor system was to rate both types of protection in "dice", but you only ever rolled the difference between them. So, if a 3d6+1 bullet hit a 2d6 armor, you would roll 1d6+1 for the damage dealt, rather than rolling 3d6+1 and subtracting 2d6, or rolling 3d6+1 and subtracting some fixed armor value.

The net result is that armors which reliably stop bullets do so (like 2d+1 bullet vs. 2d+1 armor), but bullets which penetrate armor have a random variance that lets you reflect more or less vital hits. Plus, you end up rolling less dice. So, you get a plausible result and less dice rolling.

Hope this is of some use to you.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy