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

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

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

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

-Jeff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey,

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

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

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

Blake

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

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

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

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

Chris

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

I want add a few more items: I'll try to use some quotes as a springboard:

With that in mind I try to design simpler in terms of math and everything else.

Hence I prefer systems with fewer mathematical steps and references so that I can see a character as someone "strong" rather than someone with STR 18/57, etc.

The key issue is search time + handling time. That's it.

Jeff, I think that you're caricaturing Forge discussions. No argument like "too much math" would be acceptable here - that's an unsupported value judgment.

That way equating improvised moves to a certain game effect to a certain difficulty (does it need a +3 or a +6 or a +9) becomes a simple excersize that doesn't require tables or alot of math.

H'm!

Interesting case all around, Jeff. Since I agree with you 100% about math being a language, I think your points deserve serious consideration.

The topic is related, I think, to the concurrent thread and the concept that all role-playing is related to narration, eventually - the statement of what happens. "System," in my definition, is whatever routines or negotiations are employed to get to that narration-point.

OK, so in that case, we look at all the different ways to get there, and we find long ones and short ones. Note that I consider most Drama-based systems long ones, because often they require intensive verbal negotiation (Amber is an excellent example, as its Karma system is heavily modified by Drama).

This is an important point - I am not claiming that "math is automatically shorter than words." I am suggesting that the translation from math-to-English is going to be a time-usage step, one of many possible time-usage steps across the whole range of resolution systems, math-heavy or not math-heavy.

Therefore, maybe my search/handling times point can be re-stated differently, as an argument in favor of elegance - whatever steps are employed in the resolution, they should be (a) focused relative to the goals of play, and (b) non-redundant and non-contradictory. This should be the case whether math is employed or not.

Hence Amber is flawed, in my experience of play, by non-elegant non-mathematical rules for using Drama to modify the Karma resolution system. Similarly, Champions is similarly flawed by non-elegant mathematical rules for using skill levels to modify the Fortune resolution system.

I offer Sorcerer and Hero Wars as more elegant mathematical systems - there's nothing "oh just make it up" or "rules light" about either of them - as well as Otherkind, The Dying Earth, and Paladin as more elegant low-to-no-math systems.

Best,
Ron

I have to agree with Ron, here. It's a matter of elegance. The problem is the sort of shorthand people get into. When they say "this system has too much math" they really mean "it's mathematical systems are too awkward".

This can be true of non-mathematical systems, too. Especially when all they're doing is trying, and failing, to hide the math. FUDGE comes to mind.

Now, the problems mentioned so far may be conflated with, and influenced by, being bad at math. Myself, I grasp abstract math easily but tend to screw up basic addition, subtraction, and multiplication. This means that a mathematical system needs to be extra-elegant to catch my attention as "cool".

Also, frankly, you'll dealing with a stigma here that exists outside of RPGs. How often to you hear the term "number cruncher" used positively rather than negatively, especially when referring to a person? Tackle the dislike of math in our society and you'll see less of it in gaming.

I think there's a much simpler explanation for this situation. Time one spends doing math is time one spends *not* doing other things. It's that simple. If you enjoy doing math - especially if one of your gaming goals is to construct a statistical model of some reality or other - then, woohoo, math is great!

My personal philosophy, though, is the less math the better. In school I enjoyed math for math's sake. But my goals when gaming don't have much to do with statisticaly modeling anything. I have specific purposes in mind for the system, and if the system has a greater number of (or more complex) mathematical operations than I think is called for to get the job done, then that system has Too Much Math. Prime example: SORD. I read SORD a couple of times. I thought "For a game with a name like System of Role Development, what is the point of all this?!"

I think the goals of gamers you see on RPG.net are someplace in between these extremes. They desire a certain amount of statistical faithfullness, but they don't want the statistics to become the *focus* of the game. It occurs to me that such games (like SORD) could be games designed to facilitate Exploration of System.

Jeff,

Ron passed it by, but one glitch I see in your WH/Amber example is that you are talking about time, not handling time. If the Warhammer example takes 10 seconds, the Amber example takes 2 - to "figure out" what's going to happen. The WH player (and/or GM) could take the same paragraph of description to narrate what 8 points means that the Amber player takes to describe his victory. Handling time (as I understand it) refers to how long it takes to know the outcome, not how long it takes it describe it.

That said, I'm in favor of de-stigmatizing math. The system I'm currently designing has some pretty basic math involved in tracking progress towards and away from a goal during play, but I anticipate some people will be turned off by a notion like "You need 20 points to acheive your goal. You get 10 on this roll - narrate 10 points worth of progress towards your goal." I'm attempting to mitigate this by using tokens (poker chips) so those that don't like the math have something concrete to work with. But the fact that I'm thinking this way reinforces (I think) that there's *some* basic truth to your notion.

Gordon

Elegance.

Math is an abstraction; words are an abstraction; tables are an abstraction. It's all about, what's the right kind of abstraction?

Elegance is bottomless (that is, deeper than it's possible to analyze rationally) but some aspects of it are straightforward.

Some things are just math-y. Of course you'd use a math-based abstraction to decide whether your spaceship can intercept the enemy spaceship. It sounds like a math problem right from the start. If you were really there, your ship's computer or your brainy science officer would be apprising you of the situation by doing math.

Some things aren't. Doing calculations to decide the odds for whether your hired assistants remain loyal is just an inelegant abstraction. Especially if the math comes after a bunch of judgment calls -- "Let's see, the table says -15% if they've been under unusually stressful conditions, does this apply currently?" -- that apply to the situation better than the math does. Drama resolution makes more sense here, because it amounts to using negotiating with a person (e.g. the GM) as an abstraction for negotiating with a character.

One thrown die can be a better representation of one blow in combat than three thrown dice added up (and it's not because of the adding). A roll of a pool of dice better represents a flurry of exchanges in a combat than a single die roll with the same probability distribution. For a pursuit, the same pool can work better thrown one at a time even if that has no direct effect on the result. Dice of different shapes can be more or less appropriate even if the probabilities work out the same. A pile of poker chips can mean things that a number cannot. And vice versa.

There's a whole side of simulation that's all about symbolism, that has nothing to do with realism or verisimilitude, efficiency or simplicity, important as those things are.

In my first LARP, hand to hand fighting was a Karma mechanism. Everybody had a numerical fighting strength. Higher number wins. It was a test, a comparison; there are people you're better than, and people better than you. But gunfire was different. You shot someone by sticking a red adhesive dot on the person, at the spot you wanted to hit them. It meant guns had zero range and never missed. Not very realistic. But a very successful mechanism. Shooting someone was a fast, simple, brutal act. Players who got shot would have the same blank look of shock as characters getting shot in movies. (Don't know if that's realistic, never seen people getting shot in real life, but it sure was cinematic.) Elegant, if I do say so myself.

Movement is mathy. Time is mathy. Cost, when the transaction is voluntary, is mathy. Brute force is mathy. Risk is mathy, which is why there are "calculated" risks even when nobody is doing the calculations. Mathematical abstractions fit right in with these.

Emotions aren't mathy. Perception isn't mathy. Problem-solving isn't mathy, even if it's solving math problems. Language isn't mathy. Negotiation isn't mathy. Pain isn't mathy. Look for other abstractions for these.

- Walt

I'm not sure I'll be able to say this any better than anyone else here, but I'm going to give it a try..

Most of the time, roleplaying games are about getting somewhere in the story, getting into character, or telling a good story. These are all verbal-based things. Which would lead me to say that roleplaying is a very VERBALLY-based hobby. We want to use the language that we are most familiar with (for most of us here on the Forge, I assume that this is english, whether the British variety, or the American) because it works best for telling a story.

The numbers act as a sort of delimiter on what we can do with our creativity, for the most part. They act as the physics of the world that we are playing in. For that purpose, I think numbers and math are good... but for any purpose beyond that, I think they get in the way of the point.

In Mage Blade, most actions require 1, maybe two rolls. To determine the effects of that roll, you must first add two numbers, add or subtract any applicable modifiers, then compare the dieroll to the resulting number to determine success or failure and extent of success or failure. I, personally, consider this to be a very simplistic system. For combat, there'll be a little more to be done, but you get the point, I'm sure.

On the other hand, item creation might fall into "too complicated" or "too much math". Item creation requires not 1 roll like described above, but 4-5 rolls, all like the above, plus keeping track of the sum of the results, and possible rerolls if the result on a particular roll wasn't satisfactory to the player. The final number is used to determine the quality of the item created, at which point, various bonuses or penalties are applied to the item. Complicated? Perhaps, but every player I've shown this to so far has really liked it, and when compared to what texts I can find on, say, blacksmithy/swordsmithy, it seems to make a lot of sense.

I suppose even some amount of your play goals (ala GNS) can factor, in some amount, into whether math = good or math = bad to your particular group. Honestly, though, I'm not going to try to explore this, because I'll probably get it wrong.. What I will say is that I like using certain amounts of math because it simulates physics in a consistent (even if not 100% realistic) manner, and consistency is, I feel, important to a game system.

Jeff,

I feel constrained to point out that I never said "no math," but that I prefer to conceive of a character with words rather than numbers. I do not make any facetious argument that words convey more precise quantitative information than numbers, or that numbers should not be used. Numbers are fine, numbers are good, but I prefer to give them a lower profile where possible. I point to FUDGE and Castle Falkenstein as examples. By no means number-free or perfect systems, these do attempt to describe characters in primarily non-mathematical ways. Further, as a GM, I don't need a boatload of granularity to make my games fly. Everway works just fine for me with a diceless system and a simple scale for its numbers.

All that said, in general, yeah, a "Strong" Dragon works the same as a "STR 22 Dragon" for my purposes. I'm a writer; I don't need to break things out in numeric terms to the Nth degree, nor do I particularly enjoy doing so. Some people do enjoy this level of detail, and boo-yah to them, I say. To each his own. Yay team.

It's a matter of taste. Some people prefer seventeen steps to calculate an outcome, God knows why. I prefer one step, not because I dislike number crunching in and of itself, but because I'd rather get on with what to me is the meat of the game: the narrative (used in a non-GNS sense here). I don't play for the purpose of playing with numbers, and I have been in games where repetitive calculations, though not difficult, become damn tedious, turning the game into the roleplaying equivalent of balancing my checking account.

Consequently, when I look at a system, I look at how many steps I'll have to take, how much intermediary calculation is required, and whether the coolness factor of those additional steps and calculations add enough appeal to overcome my desire to roll and get on with it. With few exceptions (Tribe 8 comes to mind, perhaps The Riddle of Steel), I'd almost always go with more streamlined systems. Ah, Jesus, the heresy...! It burns... It burns...!

OK, so other folks may feel they need lots of granular steps, random hit locations, weapon damage reckoned to the second decimal point, including the quantified impact of windage, buck fever, and other mathematical contortionism to feel they've reached an sufficiently detailed and thus "genuine" outcome. In my opinion, some of these people use labyrinthine quantification as a substitute for imagination, but that's just my take on it.

[/mini rant] You can resume normal programming now.

Best,

Blake

Ron passed it by, but one glitch I see in your WH/Amber example is that you are talking about time, not handling time. If the Warhammer example takes 10 seconds, the Amber example takes 2 - to "figure out" what's going to happen. The WH player (and/or GM) could take the same paragraph of description to narrate what 8 points means that the Amber player takes to describe his victory. Handling time (as I understand it) refers to how long it takes to know the outcome, not how long it takes it describe it.

Jaif wrote: Seriously, the Amber combat section is pretty nothing but a primer on how to adequately describe combat.

All that said, in general, yeah, a "Strong" Dragon works the same as a "STR 22 Dragon" for my purposes.

Depends on circumstances. As long as we're looking at a hypothetical word-based game, with a hypothetical conflict between a Strong Dragon and a Strong Giant, I'd probably look at other descriptors with an eye toward their enhancing one another. If the Dragon's size is Massive, that quality could well augment Strong to provide the advantage. If I'm not as worried about size, other possible augmenters could be Talons, Armor, or even Draconic Cunning. The Giant would have her own modifiers, like Big Club, Huge Gut, and the like.

There are other ways to apply some kind of variance, such as specialties within a quality that provides augmentation. Could even have qualities an opponent (assuming Dragon and Giant are played by separate individuals) could activate as hindrances, e.g., Weak Spot in Scaly Armor, Poor Eyesight, and the like. Tactics, injury, or external factors could equally well augment or hinder.

If I were the GM bringing the two characters into conflict, I could also simply use Drama to resolve things.

Does that answer your question, Evan?

Best,

Blake

Mike Holmes wrote:

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

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

Jaif wrote:

With that in mind I try to design simpler in terms of math and everything else.

I dispute this; "everything else", specifically. Ok, I don't really know you from Adam, so for all I know you do simplify *everything*. However, RPGs typically are heavy on the Verbal, light on the Math. Game designers do not write down to their audience nearly as much as they dumb down the math. If you pulled all the RPGs off the shelf of your local store, you would see (thumb to the wind) that most are written to the high school/college level, while the math is at worst to the middle school level (simple algebra), and mostly elementary school arithmetic.

Ok, a few items.

1) Let's assume that everthing written is crystal clear. It's dumb, but I'm really just saying that clarity and difficulty can be two seperate things.

2) An english sentance can be difficult, say by virture of using less-common words. However, if you understand the words, the sentance is clear.

3) A math equation can be difficult, say by virture of using harder-to-perform calculations (eg, logarithm). However, it's still clear if you understand the calculations used.

4) Game designers will often seek to simplify the math. It's pretty much a theme.

5) Game designers will generally not seek to simplify the language.

I'll say this in an entirely different way: game designers have little sympathy for people who lack the verbal skills to follow their work. They have great sympathy for those who lack the math.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: I'll say this in an entirely different way: game designers have little sympathy for people who lack the verbal skills to follow their work. They have great sympathy for those who lack the math.

Hi Jeff,

That's a very interesting comment. As a general proposition, I submit most people who suffer from a lack of verbal skills such that it interferes with their ability to read, say, a Palladium rulebook, also suffer from a lack of mathematical skills. Of course, there are people whose brains are more wired for math, people who are innately more inclined or more interested in math, and people who didn't fall prey to innumeracy or poor experiences with math education.

As it happens, I agree with your proposition that math is a form of language, so for me, the manipulations are fairly similar, except that as a practical matter, people get a lot more regular practice with their verbal skills as an unavoidable part of everyday life. Every day, people speak, listen, and read. Not so with math beyond the basic arithmatic level. The American public, at least, does exhibit general innumeracy problems, in my opinion, and perhaps RP books do cater to this in some wise. But as far as say, logarithmic calculations in gameplay, c'mon: are you saying people should pull out calcuators to determine the outcome of Fortune mechanics? That seems excessive and unwieldy to me.

As far as the dumbing down of language, to what level of simplicity do you suggest simplifying text content? Granting that some RP writing is atrocious and/or overblown, what do you prescribe? Paring down to a series of cut-and-dried simple sentences? Recipe style instructions? No four-syllable words? Nothing past a fifth-grade reading level? Should books like Nobilis and Dying Earth be criticized for overwriting?

Not seeking confrontation here, sir, just clarification.

Best,

Blake

Blake Hutchins wrote: As far as the dumbing down of language, to what level of simplicity do you suggest simplifying text content? Granting that some RP writing is atrocious and/or overblown, what do you prescribe? Paring down to a series of cut-and-dried simple sentences? Recipe style instructions? No four-syllable words? Nothing past a fifth-grade reading level? Should books like Nobilis and Dying Earth be criticized for overwriting?

There are several issues here.
1) I think Search & Handling is different from math, players can speed up search and handeling, by say having their rolls ready. A system can help here by making it possible for things to be done in parallel. Delta V would probably be the ultimate example of a system with low search and handling times, but high math.

Also, there are some things to consider.
Any step that a player can do without consulting anything else is much faster than any step that requires outside help.
E.g. Earthdawn can be speeded up ALOT by writing what dice you use next to every step. While Rolemaster charts are still slow. (Because you have to role then search the chart. It's inherently serial, unless you memorize the chart)
There is also math vs visual tasts. For some people addin a die+modifiers is faster than rolling a buch of dice vs a fixed target and counting successes. (The first task is math, the second is visual). Stun damage in Hero is an example of the worst of both worlds(add a bunch of visual stuff).


2)I think this also ties into modes of resolution. What mode you prefer varies from person to person, but IMHO it's hard to have Fortune and low math. Mainly because without math you end up with a very limited range of results and it degenrates toward karma resolution. (I say degenerates because the system changes from what was intended to something else, not because karma is worse)
Say the system is 'roll a D6+modifiers'. Any modifier changes this probability quite a lot, a +2 to one side is devastating. Resolution is mostly based on who has the most modifiers. Example:Reach in Shadowrun 2nd edition melee combat. (it's atually worse than my example)

Math allows you to have a range of results much larger than verbal. This feels more realistic because reality is a continuous range of results. Imagine being in a world with only 3 colors, or imagine I could put my cup 'here' or there, but not somewhere in between. That would feel pretty weird. Haveing everyone be 'strong' 'average' or 'weak' feels the same way. You could probably add more modifiers, but it still feels weird and quickly be comes cumbersome. ('I'm ultra stong' ,'I'm wicked mega strong', which of us is better?) I know for me my mind accepts the descreteness more for math. Also it's easier to add forture with math. (I roll a die and add my 'ultra mega strong' ?) Forture hides the fact that there is small range of possiblities.

xiombarg wrote:

Jaif wrote:
Not that I wouldn't be amused to see someone try to do a "all math, no words" RPG...

This I believe is called a 'wargame' :). The Karma based version would be a card game. :) Since RPGs are basicly considered to have come out of wargamming, some effort was spent to get away from the all math roots. This might explain any verbal emphasis, so yeah, verbal activity is what distinguishes RPGs from wargames.

Apologies for the long post, only get one per day. :D

Hello,

"Reality" in RPG's is subjective. You're really talking about the degree of granularity in verisimilitude. It's not, in my opinion, the actual reality being recreated, but the illusion of such for those who want that level of system-embedded detail. Many games, for example, do not codify hit locations in combat, but surely where one is injured plays a major role in determining outcome. Most groups either ignore location entirely.

Anyway, I have a sense this is drifting a bit from Jaif's original topic. I'll try to drag it back by saying that Tribe 8's Silhouette system runs pretty quickly for what I'd call a not-math light game. The core math is simple addition and multiplication, and the system encourages a one-roll-determines-result kind of resolution, which means handling time is fast. Read the dice results, multiply by X, and narrate. OTOH, Traveller 2300, the mechanics of which I'm a bit muddy on these days, incorporated decimal components in die rolls, which I recall did slow things down a bit.

Best,

Blake

Concering gaming & verbal skills:

1) I'll grant that verbal skills have more coverage in most RPG sessions. However, I strongly doubt people have played games without using math. Note that math can be divided into arithmetic, geometry, and analysis (algebra, calculus, etc). Actions such as counting, comparisons, set logic, spatial descriptions, and so on all fall under the language of "math". Yes "ten", "square", and "more" are all english words, but they represent math concepts, so when the 10 guards are in the square room and there are more of them than there are of you, that's pretty much a mathematical description, not an english one.

2) Math is neither more expressive nor less expressive than english. Just different and better at certain things than others.

3) There's an attitude here that says "it's what sells". Fine, I respect that: capitalism is good. But consider: in the past, newspapers were written to a higher standard, and it was a common idea to read a paper not just to learn the news but to increase your verbal skills (e.g. vocabulary). Nowadays, though, newspapers are written to roughly a 9th grade level (last report I heard), and frankly to my eyes are often childish. Is that the path for games as well? Give in to the dumbing down of people to make a buck?

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: 1) I'll grant that verbal skills have more coverage in most RPG sessions. However, I strongly doubt people have played games without using math. Note that math can be divided into arithmetic, geometry, and analysis (algebra, calculus, etc). Actions such as counting, comparisons, set logic, spatial descriptions, and so on all fall under the language of "math". Yes "ten", "square", and "more" are all english words, but they represent math concepts, so when the 10 guards are in the square room and there are more of them than there are of you, that's pretty much a mathematical description, not an english one.

3) There's an attitude here that says "it's what sells". Fine, I respect that: capitalism is good. But consider: in the past, newspapers were written to a higher standard, and it was a common idea to read a paper not just to learn the news but to increase your verbal skills (e.g. vocabulary). Nowadays, though, newspapers are written to roughly a 9th grade level (last report I heard), and frankly to my eyes are often childish. Is that the path for games as well? Give in to the dumbing down of people to make a buck?

damion wrote: ...IMHO it's hard to have Fortune and low math. Mainly because without math you end up with a very limited range of results and it degenrates toward karma resolution. (I say degenerates because the system changes from what was intended to something else, not because karma is worse)

Andrew Martin wrote:

damion wrote: ...IMHO it's hard to have Fortune and low math. Mainly because without math you end up with a very limited range of results and it degenrates toward karma resolution. (I say degenerates because the system changes from what was intended to something else, not because karma is worse)

On the contrary, it's easily possible to have low math, Fortune, a infinite range of results and a infinite range of descriptor levels. It's my Ratio system and uses a simple D10 roll, that only requires one addition on only some rolls (or a subtraction if you find that easier).

xiombarg wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote:

damion wrote: ...IMHO it's hard to have Fortune and low math. Mainly because without math you end up with a very limited range of results and it degenrates toward karma resolution. (I say degenerates because the system changes from what was intended to something else, not because karma is worse)

On the contrary, it's easily possible to have low math, Fortune, a infinite range of results and a infinite range of descriptor levels. It's my Ratio system and uses a simple D10 roll, that only requires one addition on only some rolls (or a subtraction if you find that easier).

So, you going to post a link, or just stand there and look superior? :)