Topic: Value of Quantification
Started by: Paganini
Started on: 5/7/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 5/7/2002 at 5:53pm, Paganini wrote:
Value of Quantification
In the thread about RPG Conventions I haven't noticed anyone mention this one:
"Characters are defined by lists of quantified abilities."
(Maybe someone did mention it and I just missed it.)
So many times I've seen email exchanges on the design lists running along these lines:
"Okay, I want to design my own RPG... what do I do?"
"Well, the first thing you need to do is decide what attributes your game has, and what numerical scale they're rated on."
Aagh. Even many of the progressive Forge-ite games seem to be based on the assumption that, if it's an RPG, it must have quantified abilities. (The most recent, notable exception would be Shadows, a game that I'm very drawn to. :)
I know there are folks who have successfuly challenged this preconception with systems like Epiphany (using the presence or absense rather than numerical value of character traits to define characters).
Then there are games like FUDGE and The Window that *claim* to challenge the preconception, by describing characters in plain language, but actually fall short because they don't remove quantification, they only obscure it.
My challenge is this: Is there ever a situation in which quantification of abilities is actually *demanded?* To put it another way, what, exactly, does the quantification of abilities - in any form - bring to a game? Is it neccessary for exploring Premise (Narrativism)? To me, it doesn't appear so. Is it required to challenge the players of the game (Gamism)? To me, it doesn't appear so. In fact, it seems obvious to me that neither of them require any sort of quantification at all. The angle that seems less obvious is Simulationism. IME most people assume that a simulationist game will have numbers. "A game can't be realistic without numbers! A game can't simulate without numbers! How can you achieve consistant, believable causality without numbers?" they ask (although usually with less articulation).
I don't know how, but I bet you can - and I bet it's not just "GM Fiat."
On 5/7/2002 at 7:37pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstraced
Then evil has been implied.
Numbers are an abstraction and RPG quantification separates the strong from the weak, the fast from the slow, the smart from the stupid. WHen abstracting, you define one but you also at the same time define the opposite. This is the problem I personally have with the thing.
The reason why RPG cling to this is because numbers are objective. The idea of subjective rules doesn't sit well with most mostly because then there's no way to keep certain people from cheating. That's as may be, but the presence of numbers doesn't seem to discourage this sort of person anyway. In fact, I would suggest that taking them out of the equaton would discourage cheaters far more since cheating in such a system would be too easy. There's no challenge in it.
The use of numbers is a hold over and expation of an RPG's wargaming roots. Originally, RPG had no numbers save for things like to-hit number, hit points, movement rates etc. Original D&D had stats (STrength, Intelligence, etc) but no rules for their use! or none that I can find in the original box set. Naturally, uses were devised for these numbers and this concept was built on and perfected. But it's use, and the purpose thereof is pretty much combat in the wargamey sense of it.
There are probably exceptions to this I'm just not thinking of, but this is my take on it.
On 5/7/2002 at 8:14pm, J B Bell wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Y'know, I'm willing to take that RPGs have quantifications in them thanks to wargaming roots, but I take exception to calling it a "holdover". Many very bleeding-edge RPGs use straight-up numbers and achieve marvellous results with them beyond simply "good vs. bad", "succeed vs. fail," etc. InSpectres is a good case in point, as from the player's perspective there are just different ways of advancing the story and almost nothing in the way of losing (except for blowing your whole franchise, but there's ways around even that). It's an old design element, but its mere presence doesn't indicate that the RPG it's in is some kind of shambling dinosaur.
OK, I perhaps overstate my case. I don't believe you meant to imply some insult against all uses of numbers in RPGs. But speaking as a GM, they're handy, and I like them just fine straight up, without FUDGE-style labels (and I do agree with the criticism that this tends to just obscure the numbers, but it does provide a perfectly decent shortcut to get from a plain-English description to the numbers you want). And my players have never minded them either. I'm interested in stuff like The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and novel progression mechanics such as Tarot decks, etc. (I use "progression mechanic" here following Mike Holmes' critique of the very notion of a "resolution mechanic" as being a necessary game design tool. I mean it to describe a mechanic that tells the players "what happens next" as opposed to the more specific "did that work out the way some party or another wanted it to" question usually implied by "resolution.")
So, my point . . . yes, well, there are exceptions. By all means let's look at non-numeric systems, systems that provide qualities rather than quantities as their outputs, but I see no reason to abandon numbers as a rather useful thing, especially because, damnit, I like bouncing dice.
--JB
On 5/7/2002 at 8:16pm, J B Bell wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Y'know, I'm willing to take that RPGs have quantifications in them thanks to wargaming roots, but I take exception to calling it a "holdover". Many very bleeding-edge RPGs use straight-up numbers and achieve marvellous results with them beyond simply "good vs. bad", "succeed vs. fail," etc. InSpectres is a good case in point, as from the player's perspective there are just different ways of advancing the story and almost nothing in the way of losing (except for blowing your whole franchise, but there's ways around even that). It's an old design element, but its mere presence doesn't indicate that the RPG it's in is some kind of shambling dinosaur.
OK, I perhaps overstate my case. I don't believe you meant to imply some insult against all uses of numbers in RPGs. But speaking as a GM, they're handy, and I like them just fine straight up, without FUDGE-style labels (and I do agree with the criticism that this tends to just obscure the numbers, but it does provide a perfectly decent shortcut to get from a plain-English description to the numbers you want). And my players have never minded them either. I'm interested in stuff like The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and novel progression mechanics such as Tarot decks, etc. (I use "progression mechanic" here following Mike Holmes' critique of the very notion of a "resolution mechanic" as being a necessary game design tool. I mean it to describe a mechanic that tells the players "what happens next" as opposed to the more specific "did that work out the way some party or another wanted it to" question usually implied by "resolution.")
So, my point . . . yes, well, there are exceptions. By all means let's look at non-numeric systems, systems that provide qualities rather than quantities as their outputs, but I see no reason to abandon numbers as a rather useful thing, especially because, damnit, I like bouncing dice.
--JB
On 5/7/2002 at 8:20pm, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
I think the Forge has had a go at the "numbers" thing before, including one fairly recently (note that, as Ron often points out, "we've been here before" does NOT mean "don't bother with this subject" - hopefully, it means we can bypass some not-terribly-productive preamble and get on to the "meat" of a discussion). As I recall, the question "why numbers?" (as opposed, say, to "comparing/evaluating" the symbology of a Tarot card) has several answers, from the historical wargame angle to the practical, some-folks-tend-to-think-in-numbers. Whether comparing non-numerical things is functionally-equivalent to comparing numbers is to some degree a matter of opinion. So . . . numbers (certainly in the strictest sense, though debatably in a more general sense) are not required. They may or may not be a good tool, depending on situation and taste. And that's my answer to the "what do they bring" question - they are a tool used to build "the system" by which your RPG functions. They provide a structure. There are other ways.
I'm actually more interested in "why a list of abilities", rather than the "why quantify" part, but if you want to discuss quantification specifically . . . in what detail? I could read your post as asking about non-quantified Sim, specifically, at which point I guess the question "what is your Sim about?" (what's your Sim-Premise) becomes core to the quantify or not issue. I'm not sure *I* see much to say in general here - it becomes a question of specifics. Why avoid quantification? What are trying to accomplish?
Anyway, there's some thoughts . . . .
Gordon
On 5/7/2002 at 9:07pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Gordon C. Landis wrote:
I'm actually more interested in "why a list of abilities", rather than the "why quantify" part, but if you want to discuss quantification specifically . . . in what detail? I could read your post as asking about non-quantified Sim, specifically, at which point I guess the question "what is your Sim about?" (what's your Sim-Premise) becomes core to the quantify or not issue. I'm not sure *I* see much to say in general here - it becomes a question of specifics. Why avoid quantification? What are trying to accomplish?
There is that, too. In my mind it was highly related to the question I posed while I was composing the post. Why do we define characters according to what they can *do* rather than according to who they *are?* IME, quantification and ability lists tend to go together. This trend has been broken, to my knowledge, by Ephiphany. I'm sure there are other games that have done so that I've not seen.
I was tangentially asking about non-quantified Sim though, so yes, you did read the post the way I meant it. :)
Note that I don't think quantification of characters is neccesary in order to preserve fortune. I can envision a fairly simple mechanic where players roll for the right to narrate results, trading / bidding dice to do so. Frex, if the character wins the roll, he gets to narrate a number of facts equal to the number of dice he risked, but loses those dice. Lost dice go to the center of the table, where there's some mechanic for recirculating them. None of this has to depend on character ability... it could be set for each player equally, depending on how much pizza he bought, or whatever. :)
On 5/7/2002 at 10:07pm, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Paganini wrote: Why do we define characters according to what they can *do* rather than according to who they *are?* IME, quantification and ability lists tend to go together.
Well, IMO what a character does and what he is are both of intrest - as is what the PLAYER can do, in the context of the game. I'm working on a system to incorporate my own take on all of this . . . but even in, say, Sorcerer, "Humanity" (while it is given a numerical rating) is mostly about who a character is, rather than what he does.
Paganini wrote: Note that I don't think quantification of characters is neccesary in order to preserve fortune. I can envision a fairly simple mechanic where players roll for the right to narrate results . . .
See The Pool, Donjon, InSpectres . . . any number games discussed over in Actual Play or the specific forums (Random Order for The Pool, Memento Mori for InSpectres). I'm thinking of this in terms of "forget about the charcters' abilities, talk about the PLAYER'S ability to impact a scene." Then we can ask - *how* can he impact the scene (based on attributes of the character, certainly, but perhaps in other ways too)? To what *degree* can he impact the scene?
So . . . I think plenty o' people are exploring the path you describe. I find it a pretty interesting place myself.
Nothing about non-numeric/quantified Sim is leaping into my brain . . . so I guess that's it from me at the moment.
Gordon
On 5/8/2002 at 3:28am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Specifically on the value of quantifications.. I do believe they have value. However, I can also agree that they are not necessary for a functional and enjoyable RPG. It is indeed one of the incorrect assumptions many approach game design with.
The value of quantification is most evident in Simulationist games, I believe. Anything which attempts to simulate some aspect of reality, (usually via physics, though some games are radically different) can benefit from quantification. Reality is basically quantifiable, though agreeing to the means of measurement isn't necessarily easy. But consider how much of Real Life we have either quantified, or attempted to. Distance, height, weight, speed.. IQ as a measure of intelligence, how much you can lift, how many reps you can do, how quickly you can cover a given distance.. I can give you my last two record PT test scores, and it will give you a pretty good idea of how physically fit I was at the time of the tests.
As for non-quantified Simulationism.. I honestly cannot think of a way to do this, except via free-forming it. Even then there are abstract quantifications (such as the aforementioned IQ and ability to lift) which are implied by our perceptions of our characters. "Adrien is pretty smart, but no genius. He is a really good swordsman, but not a master" Such things as that.
::shrugs:: I think you bring up an interesting point.. Is it possible to totally get away from quantification in simulationist games? The default answer is yes, because in theory, anything is possible. Still.. can anyone cite any solid examples of Simulationist games which have no quantification?
On 5/8/2002 at 3:28am, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Specifically on the value of quantifications.. I do believe they have value. However, I can also agree that they are not necessary for a functional and enjoyable RPG. It is indeed one of the incorrect assumptions many approach game design with.
The value of quantification is most evident in Simulationist games, I believe. Anything which attempts to simulate some aspect of reality, (usually via physics, though some games are radically different) can benefit from quantification. Reality is basically quantifiable, though agreeing to the means of measurement isn't necessarily easy. But consider how much of Real Life we have either quantified, or attempted to. Distance, height, weight, speed.. IQ as a measure of intelligence, how much you can lift, how many reps you can do, how quickly you can cover a given distance.. I can give you my last two record PT test scores, and it will give you a pretty good idea of how physically fit I was at the time of the tests.
As for non-quantified Simulationism.. I honestly cannot think of a way to do this, except via free-forming it. Even then there are abstract quantifications (such as the aforementioned IQ and ability to lift) which are implied by our perceptions of our characters. "Adrien is pretty smart, but no genius. He is a really good swordsman, but not a master" Such things as that.
::shrugs:: I think you bring up an interesting point.. Is it possible to totally get away from quantification in simulationist games? The default answer is yes, because in theory, anything is possible. Still.. can anyone cite any solid examples of Simulationist games which have no quantification?
On 5/8/2002 at 9:08pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Value of Quantification
Wolfen wrote: Is it possible to totally get away from quantification in simulationist games? The default answer is yes, because in theory, anything is possible. Still.. can anyone cite any solid examples of Simulationist games which have no quantification?
Simulationism no more requires quatification than any other sort of game. Totally independent variables. As you point out, Lance, many Free-Form games probably fall into this category. And LARP play is mostly Gamist with the remainder being Sim (and extremely litttle to no narrativism). This is all strong evidence that similar RPGs exist and are being played. I would speculate that some of Andrew Martin's games which have no quatitative nature would fall into this category. The cerainly do not have Narrative Premises.
The question is in such a game are the players making decisions based on in-game causality, or on "tactics" or on addressing a Premise. And many focus on in-game causality. "I do x becsuse my character would do x" as a primary decision making device is Simulationist play.
As for published purely tabletop RPG systems? Well, cite me a published Narrativist or Gamist system that uses no quantification. I think the idea is just a bit new and radical, and that we may in the end see all three.
One could even have non-quantified mechanics in a Sim game. For example, a descriptor based game where characters are affected in cerain ways when their descriptors are matched or opposed by something that they encounter. No math, though there may be some boolean logic. As Ron would say, Everway is "abashedly narrativist" which means that it's not too far from being Sim. It's certainly easy to drift to Sim in Everyway.
Just because Sim games have tended to use numbers in the past does not mean that they must. Just as we wondered if there were any Sim games going that were Sim but produced a lot of Author stance play. And then recently we found one in Vincent's game (Though there was some argument about the exact nature of the game; at the very least we can now imagine one more clearly).
A better speculation might be that the sort of players who tend to like Sim games also like quantification, though in the absence of a game as an example to compare, that could only be a guess.
Mike
On 5/12/2002 at 4:49am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: Value of Quantification
Paganini wrote: My challenge is this: Is there ever a situation in which quantification of abilities is actually *demanded?*
As soon as one describes a character, tool, setting or so on, one can assign a number to the features, as in absence of a feature is equivalent to zero, while presence of a feature is equivalent to one. For example, I've got a head, so that I'm automatically successful "1" in being able to wear a hat! :) If I didn't have a head, I'd be unable to wear a hat, or automatic failure "0".
As soon as that feature has a context or surrounding, one can assign a fraction to that feature. Is my head bigger or smaller than average? If my head is bigger than your head, then the set of hats that can be placed on my head are smaller than the set of hats which can be placed on your head. So now it's possible to assign a ratio or fraction to head size based on the number of hats which fit on the heads of you or me.
The same principle above also applies to emotions, attributes, skills, resistances and so on.
It's also possible to count the number of skills, tools, buildings, vehicles one has, then use measurement tools to describe the weight, area, length, power, performance, speed and so on.
So all these things have real world or game setting specific numbers attached to them. I'd think that avoiding real world or game setting specific numbers is virtually unavoidable. But this doesn't mean that game system numbers are also unavoidable. I think that it's possible to directly use real world numbers and ratios as game system values. So it's entirely possible to remove all game system quantification from a RPG.
Shorthand ways to describe a character, tool, vehicle, location, building that avoid using game system specific numbers would include: using natural language, real world values and statistical performance. For example, a heroic warrior could be described as having the strength of ten men, while a car could travel at 90mph, and a sentient machine could have Detect Sniper: 99.993%.
Then the challenge becomes one of using real world or game world values to determine game system effects. Some are fairly easy, using a exploding D10 to determine statistical skill performance, or roll percentile dice, for a quick check. Use Karmic (?term) resolution to see which car goes faster, the one travelling 90mph or the one travelling 60mph; or if the heroic warrior with the strength of ten men can lift one hurt companion to safety. And the biggest challenge comes from using natural language and using character description directly as game system values.
On 5/13/2002 at 4:02pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Re: Value of Quantification
Andrew Martin wrote: As soon as one describes a character, tool, setting or so on, one can assign a number to the features, as in absence of a feature is equivalent to zero, while presence of a feature is equivalent to one. For example, I've got a head, so that I'm automatically successful "1" in being able to wear a hat! :) If I didn't have a head, I'd be unable to wear a hat, or automatic failure "0".Yes, there's that Boolean logic I mentioned. Computers use 1 for true, and 0 for false.
But the question is not "Is a system of numbers unavoidably neccessary in a game." to which the answer must be Yes, but rather "Is a system of numbers that is superimposed upon the game reality for purposes of simplifying that reality thus making it easier to handle, neccessary." to which the answer is no. One can obviously do as Andrew suggests and just use real world numbers when numbers are neccessary.
The real question should be, however, "Can a system of numbers that is superimposed upon the game reality for purposes of simplifying that reality actually make that reality easier to handle in actual play? And are the limitations of such simulation acceptable?"
For me, I think that the limitations of simulative enumeration systems are outweighed by the advantages that they provide. In the end, we can never really get away from them, as in essence all things and events are described in generalized terms. One describes oneself carrying a bowl of water. One does not usually then try to describe the exact nature of the bio-mechanics required to pick up the bowl (other than to maybe look somehow at how strong or co-ordinated the character is). One certainly does not go so far as to describe the brownian motion of the water in the bowl, and how that provides a chance for spillage all in and of itself.
So, the real real question is, "At what point do I start making my simulative assumptions?"
To which I would answer that there are a whole range of usable options. I espouse a fairly wide range of simulative techniques that usually include numerical enumeration of things in a rather non-real life way. Andrew seems to espouse describing such things in terms that resemble more how we describe things in every day terms. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Mike