Well, I’ve read through the Simulationism essay with much interest. If my history of reading and re-reading the GNS essay, I’m bound to misunderstand whole reams of stuff, but I’d like to take a stab at some specific questions regarding Sim. game design.

Specifically, character generation. The essay says:

Character generation
Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed internal-cause to "justify" the character. <Snip>

Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former, it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward, and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the hobby.

Ron, do you think you can expound on this issue some? I’m not getting it (and it’s me being dense, not your writing, I think). For example, how is the process of creating backstory not about setting up rewards in a Simulationist approach? I don’t think, actually, you’re suggesting that it’s not, it’s just that you’ve not said so either way. Is creating backstory in a simulationist game just color and hooks? Can you define hook? Is a hook a bang? Is a bang a Narrative-only event? Even if that’s so, isn’t a hook a chassis for conflict, and one that leads to reward in Sim. games? Obviously, I’ve got myself all muddled up on this one. Looking for some help, thanks!

The reason I ask for help is that I think you’re absolutely right that the confounding of the purposes of backstory is a high-risk issue for gaming groups. In fact, I think this is one issue that’s troubled groups I’ve participated in. Hence my interest in figuring out more of what the heck you mean here. I ask not only for that personal interest, but also for ways of addressing it in my game designs (the system I’ve presented above included).

Matt Snyder wrote: Ok, so then if I further understand Ron’s point, it’s that “buying” these various characteristics with points can be problematic, especially if there are ratios. For example, 1 point of an attribute might be 6 “character points,” but 1 level of a skill might be only “3.” This is problematic, I think, because it invites -- what was the term? -- Gamism creep? Basically, such a process invites players to make the most effective characters possible, disregarding the simulation of the game (character background for color, for example). This is a Bad Thing. Is it Bad enough to go some other route? What’s a designer to do?

Here’s how I see in in my totally un-illumined, uninspired mind: If I say players get XX points to build their characters, shouldn’t attributes be worth more than skills? After all, they’re used far more often than any given skill. Attributes figure into all roles, skills not necessarily. Is this too much emphasis on character effectiveness, which may be irrelevant in this particular Sim. game? Is the solution something else entirely? What? Is it better to allot XX points for attributes, YY points for skills, and ZZ points for other stuff? How about a completely different approach? Take the prioritization charts familiar to Shadowrun players or The Riddle of Steel players (Yay tRoS!) -- is that approach more or less problematic?

I think that whatever my solution, my group will make characters and have fun. It’s not the end of the world, and they’d likely find a “character point” system entirely familiar and comfortable. On to the game!

However, I’ve noticed a few posts in recent weeks regarding character creation, how it can be dull, how it’s problematic, how can one re-think it. So, I guess I’m asking these questions to do just that -- is there a new way to approach character creation, particularly for Simulationist games?

Andrew Martin wrote:
I've recently been working on alternatives to "points" for character generation. One good solution is based on Ron's Troll Babe and Pendragon personality descriptors. Key character descriptor values are based on opposed pairs. For example, in Pendragon: Modesty opposed by Pride; or in Troll Babe, Combat opposed by Magic. If one needs more descriptor values, use multiple opposed descriptor pairs.

Andrew Martin wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled how in a simulationist game, Attribute + Skill is seen as the best simulation? :-/ In my experience, this is simplistic. I'd completely separate attributes and skills and definitely not combine them, then the problem of combining them never comes up in game design or in game play. Attributes have their own area of influence. Skills have their own area of influence.

Andrew, you're coming from the same point that once made me rail against the use of the word simulation. As Ron take pains to point out in the latest essay, the use of the word is not the same as "to simulate" something.

So basically whether attribute+skill is or isn't a good simulation of "how things work" has nothing whatsoever to do with its presence in a "Simulationist" game.

Which brings me to another point. I adore 7th Sea, and it's a big influence for me. I believe it uses 100 points to construct characters with layered, ratioed points. This is the approach we're discussing here -- has anyone any comments about that game in particular regarding character creation?

I've been thinking about this some more overnight, plus I got some helpful insight from discussions going on in GNS Model Discussion -- namely Simulationism vs. Narrativism: Concrete Example, "Likely" Characters (Sim essay), and Sim-Morality (essay thread, long).

Anyway, here's what I've been tinkering with ...

I got to thinking about how to "Color in" some character creation, and do so in a nicely Sim. way. In one sense, I liked the notion of paths that help you build the character -- thigns like career steps and such that define your skills. But, I thought those are somehow too rigid, or at least too, I dunno, boring. Nevermind the infamous old Traveller creation thing that actually can kill your character before you begin actual play. Good grief!

Anyway, I got to thinking that it'd be really cool to proceed with a kind of (God help me) "Choose your own adventure" format in which you select decisions about your character and how he became who he is today. These are just "Career 1" and so on. That might be part of it, but so would family, the way you solve problems, etc.

The system I have in mind would build up your character based on the path you choose, adding 1 Body point here, any Craft skill there, etc. You'd also be instructed to color a bit of your character based on your decision. So, when you choose "I didn't go to school; I lived on the streets" when asked about your character's education, you'd be told to explain why that happened in your character background. Then, you just keep compounding these until the path says "You're done!"

The end result would be a colorful background and a completed character. In one sense, it's hand-holding for background (and may be too limited, I dunno), but on the other it "clouds" the creation of your character's mathematics so that you build a character that's interesting and plausible, rather than one who shoots SMGs superbly. Sure, it could be abused, but it might work well in starting "play before the actual play."

Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

Matt Snyder wrote: Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

xiombarg wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

I'd enjoy it. What you're talking about is something like an expanded version of Cyberpunk's "Lifepath" system, also seen in Mekton Zeta. Most people remember those as being random, but they didn't have to be -- you were allowed to pick paths if you wanted to. I LOVED those systems. If you get a chance, check out the version of the system in Mekton Zeta -- it produces excellent Anime backgrounds in the "angst-filled Gundam pilot" vein. Lots of Color, while remaining kinda generic.

xiombarg wrote:
What you're talking about is something like an expanded version of Cyberpunk's "Lifepath" system, also seen in Mekton Zeta. Most people remember those as being random, but they didn't have to be -- you were allowed to pick paths if you wanted to.

szilard wrote:
Also worth looking at for this method is Fading Suns - where the path is most explicitly not random, but chosen. IIRC, you choose your general character type (what guild or noble house you're in or in or whatever) and then get to choose how you spent early stages of your life. Within each you get some constrained choices to make. Each stage also has a point-value, so if you need to deviate a bit due to a unique background, you can. Not a bad method at all.

Stuart

Also see "Run Out the Guns". Takes Rolemaster chargen, which normally can take hours (or days for the math and computer challenged), and makes it a five minute process (other than the physical recording). For real.

Basically, you choose a basic template for the character. Then you choose two additional backgrounds that represent stuff the character has done previously, or learned along the way, etc. Then just add them all together on one sheet.

This is really not too far from the class/race thing, or any other of the splat systems where you just choose a cross of a few selections. Chineese Menu selection Mearls called it.

As long as you have enough basic options the combinations multiply quickly. D&D has about 50 viable combinations just looking at class/race alone (and that's just using the standard stuff).

Just combine something like this with a lifepath sort of thingie, and I think you're off and running.

Mike

Matt Snyder wrote: One thing I'd really like to do is create an online character generator using a Flash application than helps you construc the concept as you go along, then output somethign you could save or print out. Just dreaming ...

Matt Snyder wrote:
Now, whether it would actually work I have no idea. I'll tinker some. One thing I'd really like to do is create an online character generator using a Flash application than helps you construc the concept as you go along, then output somethign you could save or print out. Just dreaming ...

Matt Snyder wrote:
Yes, this one I'm definitely familiar with. I love Fading Suns ... well, the setting anyway! I have no beef with this part of the 2nd ed. rules. They actually work pretty well, as I see it. However, i'm looking for something more personalized for each character. If I remember rightly, in FS, you select a couple phases of your path, and each phase is really rather like a template of skills you receive. Is that memory correct?

More importantly, does the Fading Suns system create "fair" characters that have the same "point" value going in (but maybe not same effectiveness coming out)? The concept I'm toying wouldn't really try to hard at "equalizing" characters.

Also, the "choose your own adventure" idea I have is much more atomic and specific about helping you craft aspects of your character's personal history.

Matt Snyder wrote: Interesting. I'm only vaguely familiar with those (and I knew my idea wasn't exactly new). Couple questions about that:

First, how specific were the choices/rolls? Was it things like: Attended Military Academy: Tactics +20, Firearms +10 (or whatever)? Or, was it more open-ended? How much so?

Also, how many steps/stages were there, and/or were these compartmentalized for different aspects of the character -- Like a "skills" path and a "attributes" path?

szilard wrote:

Also, the "choose your own adventure" idea I have is much more atomic and specific about helping you craft aspects of your character's personal history.

How so? I think I'm not entirely clear on what you're proposing.

Stuart

Man, somehow while composing I missed Mike & Gareth's posts. Anyway, thanks for the prodding on that front, guys. I've been using Flash aps a lot at work, and though this would be a bit of a "step-up" from my proficiency, it'd be a great learning tool with an awesome result. I'll give it some serious thought. I'm going to start writing some notes/flowcharts on how this path thingy would work, then perhaps set on getting it "encoded."

So, while it sounds neat-as-can-be, I'm concerned that it's just too granular, and therefore limiting. If I try to define even just whether your character went to school, am I ignoring possibilities like: None of the above--I was born, raised and educated by wolves? Or something like that.

szilard wrote:
...or went back to school later in life, or whatever. Remember that if you are going linearly, temporal order of stages might become an issue.

I see where you're going. It is certainly an interesting twist.

I'm inclined to think, though, that it might just be a somewhat-less-granular version of what FS does. Is it still to granular/limiting? I think that depends upon the setting and the realm of possible character choices for the game...

Stuart

Matt

Hey, thought I would mention one of the most detailed of these types of systems I have seen. That is the character creation system for Aria.

Aria was all about detailed character creation derived from the setting, which in this case was a medieval period deal. Anyway, you developed your character year by year I think it was, typing from memory here. Based on your character's status within the society, you had options for various skills you could learn that cost so many Design Points.

Along the way you character could get special event based development points that allowed to get skills from different social status/cultural heritages, along with a defining bit of character history. So you developed character year by year determining skills, advantages, etc year by year for the character as I recall. It was interesting because it allowed for special opportunities, and was initimately tied into the characters cultural/racial heritage as developed from the game world.

Anyway, if you are interested I can drag the book out and provide some more concrete info on how it was constructed.

HTH

Just another entry in the bibliography really. Twilight 2000 and Dark conspiracy boh use a set of careers option to character generation. It's based of the Traveller system.

It bears examining for a few reasons. Firstly, it's totaly deterministic. Secondly, it's not total. That is, there are elements of chargen outside of the lifepath. I've got the book in front of me, so a description is in order:

The first step was to determine the characters attributes: strength etc. Notable inclusion of Education and Empathy (generic mystical catch all). Skills are cheaper to buy up to the level of the stat, and more expensive once over the stat level.

Next a set of 4 skills were pick, and start at level 2. We are now on the path proper. Each 'career' represented a 4 year chunk of the characters life. Options have various pre-requisites, such as education 5+ for university, or two terms spent at grad school for professor. Each career gave a number of skil points. Typicaly it was fixed list the first time it was taken, and then x points to split between limited list of skills for the subsequent terms in that career. Notably, each career also allowed one (in general) point to be allocated to a large (but not complete) list of skills, representing a secondary activity.

After taking several terms, ageing caused the player to check for stat loss, in the physical stats.

Had it's flaws, but seemed to work. The main flaw was that a small number of careers gave acess to all of the 'important' skills - in other words, Currency issues (in this case character age) tended to steer character to certain careers. A larger number of smaller careers would have resolved this, or a smaller number of carrers. Note that the latter is the route that DnD3 took.

Good notes in general, Stuart. Note that Traveller: the New Era used the same system as Dark Conspiracy (which as you note was derived itsef from earlier Travller editions), which was considered GDW's "house system" at the time. Had no name, interestingly.

I'm a little baffled by the deterministic comment, however. Stats were random, and the player picked each career move (except in the funny case of the "criminal" selection which could result in a subseqent "Prisoner" term).

Stuart DJ Purdie wrote: Had it's flaws, but seemed to work. The main flaw was that a small number of careers gave acess to all of the 'important' skills - in other words, Currency issues (in this case character age) tended to steer character to certain careers. A larger number of smaller careers would have resolved this, or a smaller number of carrers. Note that the latter is the route that DnD3 took.

Hi Matt,

I'm not sure what to say except to point you toward both early Traveller, the first edition of Cyberpunk, and most especially, the under-rated game Mutant Chronicles. The latter especially builds nearly all of the character's capabilities via a mostly-randomized series of sequential events in his or her life to date prior to play.

Otherwise, I hope you can see that most of the questions in this thread are hugely general or demanding in their current phrasing. I'd do a lot, lot better (especially for this forum) if they were specified to a particular game with text-so-far that I can see.

One comment I have about almost all the posts on the thread is that they demonstrate rampant within-mode Synecdoche: "Sim has to have both attributes and skills? But why?" I didn't say that. I'm talking about many historical examples and why that structure has been robust for so many years.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm a little baffled by the deterministic comment, however. Stats were random, and the player picked each career move (except in the funny case of the "criminal" selection which could result in a subseqent "Prisoner" term).

Mike Holmes wrote: If combat skills were not so emphasized, then players could have felt more at ease selecting the professions that instead were more interesting to them. Or were you referring to some other skills?

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Matt,


Otherwise, I hope you can see that most of the questions in this thread are hugely general or demanding in their current phrasing. I'd do a lot, lot better (especially for this forum) if they were specified to a particular game with text-so-far that I can see.

Best,
Ron

Matt Snyder wrote: While I agree that a game can certainly work under this means as you've described, I'm similarly puzzled why the entrenched stat + skill paradigm is so often challenged. Now, I've had this discussion before with Ron and Mike Holmes, and have some notion of why they have objections to it (some of them purely mathematical!). While I acknowledge potential problems, I also find it something that 1) players recognize and therefore can easily "grok" play and 2) something that does make some sense. It's not the only way characters "make sense," but it is one way, I argue.

Curiouser and curiouser. The Star Wars angle I had not at all considered. The mechanics ARE rather like Jared Sorensen’s Ars Mechanica, but I only found that out (from Jared!) after I had proposed the thing to him indirectly.

Anyway, by munchkin, I presume you must mean Gamist player (someone who makes generally Gamist decisions), especially since it appears to me that all your “munchkin” techniques were aimed at 1) presuming combat is the end-all, be-all of “what you do” in this game and 2) you’ve taken the best, safest routes to combat victory.

So, what lead to this decision? Purely devil’s advocate? Because I think that type of player would be sorely dysfunctional in this game. It is, in fact, not especially geared toward combat, any more so than it is, say investigation or infiltration.

I think there are two problems from my end. One is that I’ve got a few misleading or poorly written areas that need to better guide folks in another diretion upon reading the system. The other is that much is missing here, not least of all metagame mechanics which might help improve some things you observed.

Couple specifics: You cannot take a Trait more than once. So, no you can’t take Deadeye for everything. HOWEVER, I think the effect is the same, because Deadeye applies to nearly everything that shoots or is thrown. Same difference.

There is no differentiation between Small Arms and “Long Rifle.” Small arms covers all firearms, except for big, huge machine guns you can’t carry.

On Wagers (important stuff!):

Should players always know what the target is? I have assumed yes, but it’s interesting that you were planning on hedging bets if not. I’ll consider that issue, but I think it likely that they should be open and transparent to all. You will know your target, and therefore what kind of risk you’re taking. Other thoughts on this issue, anyone?

Too many hit points?!? I figured there were far too few. Average folks will have 5-6, I think. Perhaps a bit more. That’s pretty easily one or two shots from a gun to put you down.

Consider it like this: A decent “Combat” character should have about 7-8 (4 attribute, 3 skill, maybe a trait) in his action pool when shooting, if not more. Even against a slightly above average character who is passively defending, his target might be 16. With 4 dice, he can pretty reasonably hit that, allotting 3 or 4 to extra damage. For a weapon that does even just 1 or 2 Trauma + effectiveness, that’s 4-6 Trauma. Six trauma should ruin most character’s days.

In addition, there will be mook rules, such that dispatching goons will be easier than dispatching a “real” character. Hence, action galore. Those security goons Neo and Trinity blast to pieces in firearm choreography? Yeah, they’re toast here too.

Further, I think the Fortune mechanics are crucial, because the way I’m thinking they’ll work right now is that you’ll get to add Fortune as “Free Wagers,” meaning you get to increase your Wager by spending Fortune, but not affect your Aciton Pool. Crank up the damage, the targets, you name it! Of course, that’s pretty much absent from the playtest PDF so far!

Finally - - your observations DO help! I don’t mean to sound like I’m getting all defensive. Far from it -- you’ve got some great points, and I’m doing my best to keep up with “patches.”

Matt Snyder wrote: Anyway, by munchkin, I presume you must mean Gamist player (someone who makes generally Gamist decisions), especially since it appears to me that all your “munchkin” techniques were aimed at 1) presuming combat is the end-all, be-all of “what you do” in this game and 2) you’ve taken the best, safest routes to combat victory.

So, what lead to this decision? Purely devil’s advocate? Because I think that type of player would be sorely dysfunctional in this game. It is, in fact, not especially geared toward combat, any more so than it is, say investigation or infiltration.

Matt Snyder wrote: Should players always know what the target is?

I've been mulling this latest response over, and it's struck me why I can't sufficiently answer some of your points ...

You've said you chose to "roleplay" a Gamist critic (for the fine reason that your particular groups includes such players). However, my reply was that this would be dysfunctional. I realized how to better explain why that's troubling to me.

What your role as Gamist critic laments is that the game as presented is NOT incoherent. (or possibly abashed?). That is, the game is "broken" from a Gamist standpoint, and therefore I should attempt, presumably, to fix the some of those issues.

But, isn't doing that going to break the game more so by actually making it incoherent? What games are successful, in your estimation, of allowing "munchkins and powergamers make decisions with the same effect as a role player would?" (This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'd be curious to hear!)

Is "mode-proofing" a coherent game necessary? I'm not sure either way, because Ron seems to imply in the Sim. essay that it is probably a good thing to avoid "Gamism creep." But, on the other hand is "fixing" Gamist concerns in a game intended to be coherent Simulationism rather like putting one's finger in the dyke? Can you ever satisfy Gamist concerns that the game is "broken?"

Remember one key context here -- you proceded to explain how you'd choose this and that superior combat advantage. BUT, this thread itself is a means to question whether you'd be allowed to do so in some new, re-thought character creation system.

So then my question is, can't a Gamist "break" most games? Godlike, for example, has the Hyper Sniper, a deadly dude indeed. But one of Ron's criticisms of Godlike is that its system, or key parts of the system, seems to be a stop-gap to address concerns like this, rather than a good, solid reason for its own sake (Exploring setting and situation, for example).

This is not to say your criticisms here aren't valuable. They are -- for example, whether and how to rewrite the thing to de-emphasize combat. That is one area I'll be looking at in particular, and thanks for putting the critical eye there. And your gamist approach in general I view as a helpful Devil's Advocate position.

Matt Snyder wrote: Is "mode-proofing" a coherent game necessary? I'm not sure either way, because Ron seems to imply in the Sim. essay that it is probably a good thing to avoid "Gamism creep." But, on the other hand is "fixing" Gamist concerns in a game intended to be coherent Simulationism rather like putting one's finger in the dyke? Can you ever satisfy Gamist concerns that the game is "broken?"

Mike Holmes wrote:

I'll have to reread that, because I thought that Ron was saying that preventing creep was something that games did, but was detrimental to their design.

I'm with your later comments. Design a game that promotes a mode of play, not one that prevents the others. Because prevention is just not effective, and, if the game successfully promotes a certain mode then there's nothing to prevent anyhow. For those players who play the game against mode, despite the attempt by the system to promote something, these players are playing the wrong game. The idea that you can make a Sim game accessible to Gamist players is simply not part of the design goal.

OTOH, if a mechanic, or certain parts of the system do promote Gamism then you'd better be sure that the system is a coherent hybrid.

Mike

Matt Snyder wrote: ...the game is "broken" from a Gamist standpoint, and therefore I should attempt, presumably, to fix the some of those issues.

But, isn't doing that going to break the game more so by actually making it incoherent?

Matt Snyder wrote: What games are successful, in your estimation, of allowing "munchkins and powergamers make decisions with the same effect as a role player would?" (This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'd be curious to hear!)

Matt Snyder wrote: Is "mode-proofing" a coherent game necessary? I'm not sure either way, because Ron seems to imply in the Sim. essay that it is probably a good thing to avoid "Gamism creep."

Matt Snyder wrote: But, on the other hand is "fixing" Gamist concerns in a game intended to be coherent Simulationism rather like putting one's finger in the dyke? Can you ever satisfy Gamist concerns that the game is "broken?"

Remember one key context here -- you proceded to explain how you'd choose this and that superior combat advantage. BUT, this thread itself is a means to question whether you'd be allowed to do so in some new, re-thought character creation system.

Matt Snyder wrote: So then my question is, can't a Gamist "break" most games? Godlike, for example, has the Hyper Sniper, a deadly dude indeed. But one of Ron's criticisms of Godlike is that its system, or key parts of the system, seems to be a stop-gap to address concerns like this, rather than a good, solid reason for its own sake (Exploring setting and situation, for example).

Ok, I'm not following you on this one. On the one hand, you're saying that coherent Sim. and Nar. games wouldn't be broken by a Gamist because there's nothing to break. However, on the other hand(?) you're saying that in most any character creation (or at least those discussed so far) a gamist would just reverse-engineer a combat monger.

Now, it's not clear to anyone, or at least me, whether completed versions of those character creation processes we've discussed are Sim. and/or coherent. And further, I think you're probably right that Avatar-13 thus far over-emphasizes combat (I'm not convinced it rewards it as yet, because we've not discussed reward mechanics in the game).

So, are you saying that 1) until the combat is diminished to the level of any other skill / action an 2) until the game does not reward such combative elements that Gamists will break the thing? Can you suggest a character creation system that does not encourage the Gamist to engineer a combat platform?

One thing I'm still not satisfied about is whether such a Gamist-approach critique is the right way to proceed. Take Pendragon or Godlike, which this discussion (and others) at least seems to indicate are coherent Simulationist games. Can a gamist break these games? Does he do so especially because the presumption from square one is that combat is the key focus of the game? Or are the just plain ol' "broken" when the gamist gets ahold of them, regardless of his assumptions?

Does this further mean that combat cannot be the emphasis of a coherent Sim. game because it will be "abused" by Gamist players? Clearly, Godlike emphasizes combat. Is it broken, from the Gamist perspective?

Finally, can you specify how and why Avatar-13, as presented in its depressing-for-me rough form, rewards combat? I want specifics man! For example, what is the stat + skill thing broken, and how is your suggestion of the base 1d6 a fix for that problem? How else does the game reward the gamist over the simulationist? How can it reward at all with no explicit metagame mechanics to weigh rewards and choices of players?

Oh, and by the way -- what is your game you alluded to?

Hey Matt,

It's all about protagonization, baby! If a game is about combat on a mechanical level, then I want my character to be good at combat, so that when my initiative comes around, at least I can do something.

The same is true for talky games like Vampire, which reward good social rolls rather than good combat rolls. When the dice fall, the best character concept in the world will not help. It is all about pure, raw numbers on a page.

In my not-very humble opinion, I feel every game should acknowledge all three modes, while overtly supporting one (or maybe two). Every game has sim, game, and narrative elements, and those elements must be dealt with in an even-handed manner. However, the mechanics will determine which of the three come out on top when the game is running with full momentum.

Later,
Grant

Hello,

Um, this has been a pretty theory-heavy thread from the beginning. I'm thinkin' that when someone wants to discuss some aspect of it that is wholly about "how Sim rewards do Gamist stuff" or similar weirdness at the more abstract level, then they really need to consider taking it to Theory in its own thread. Matt's been good on keeping it more about his game in development, but you guys need to help him do that.

Best,
Ron

Matt Snyder wrote: Ok, I'm not following you on this one. On the one hand, you're saying that coherent Sim. and Nar. games wouldn't be broken by a Gamist because there's nothing to break. However, on the other hand(?) you're saying that in most any character creation (or at least those discussed so far) a gamist would just reverse-engineer a combat monger.

Matt Snyder wrote: So, are you saying that 1) until the combat is diminished to the level of any other skill / action and 2) until the game does not reward such combative elements that Gamists will break the thing?

Matt Snyder wrote: Can you suggest a character creation system that does not encourage the Gamist to engineer a combat platform?

Matt Snyder wrote: One thing I'm still not satisfied about is whether such a Gamist-approach critique is the right way to proceed.
...
How else does the game reward the gamist over the simulationist? How can it reward at all with no explicit metagame mechanics to weigh rewards and choices of players?

Matt Snyder wrote: Does this further mean that combat cannot be the emphasis of a coherent Sim. game because it will be "abused" by Gamist players?

Matt Snyder wrote: Clearly, Godlike emphasizes combat. Is it broken, from the Gamist perspective?

Matt Snyder wrote: Finally, can you specify how and why Avatar-13, as presented in its depressing-for-me rough form, rewards combat? I want specifics man! For example, what is the stat + skill thing broken, and how is your suggestion of the base 1d6 a fix for that problem?

Matt Snyder wrote: Oh, and by the way -- what is your game you alluded to?

Ok, now this post is much more useful. However, I still am unclear on a few things.

First, you said:

Step number zero is to remove the rewards for gamist play. This removes the incentive for players to "reverse engineer" the character creation system. Once this is in place, one can work on character generation mechanics.

Now as we play the the game system, players notice that in general having a high attribute level and a zero skill level is more beneficial than having a low attribute level and high skill level.

Andrew Martin wrote:
By removing the stat + skill link and putting in the base 1D6, the players will now roll 1 + skill + skill-ware D6 for a skill related task, and 1 + stat + stat-ware D6 for a stat related task. If a character has no skill but the player thinks that character has a chance based on attributes or background skills to succeed in a task, the player can roll the base 1D6 to attempt to succeed.

Andrew Martin wrote:
I think that combat can be the emphasis of a Simulation game. One has to make sure that the game's simulation of combat matches the intended simulation. So if big guns or swords are overall better in the setting, one's rules should reflect that. If a mixture of weapons are better in the setting, then again the rules should reflect that. This might require more detailed design effort.

Andrew Martin wrote:
By removing the stat + skill link and putting in the base 1D6, the players will now roll 1 + skill + skill-ware D6 for a skill related task, and 1 + stat + stat-ware D6 for a stat related task. If a character has no skill but the player thinks that character has a chance based on attributes or background skills to succeed in a task, the player can roll the base 1D6 to attempt to succeed.

Matt Snyder wrote: What does more beneficial mean?

Matt Snyder wrote: But what are the combat rewards in the text as presented thus far?

Matt Snyder wrote: Also, how can this be assessed in the absence of the metagame mechanics?

Matt Snyder wrote: What is the difference between a "skill related task" and a "stat related task"? How do the GM and players know when to apply which? And isn't separating a character's innate ability from his learned ability a stinker for many simulationist players?

Matt Snyder wrote: That is, if I can either roll my Influence + Augmentations OR roll my Negotiate + Augmentations to bribe the cops, why do I have to choose (or maybe I can't, and it's always a skill roll)? Why can't my natural charm compliment the fast-talking, misdirection rhetoric techniques I learned from Back Alley Joe? Or my superb hand-eye coordination compliment my firearms training? Or my astounding I.Q. assist my programing language skills? Etc.

Matt Snyder wrote: Isn't this gripe precisely the same in relative value that your Mechanic player posed? In other words, is this a fix at all, or rather adherence to one person's preferences over the other? It appears to me that this an issue of a Gamist's preferences over a Simulationist's in Simulationist game. And therefore, I'm inclined to agree with what the Sim. guy wants, rather than let the Gamist dictate how it should be.

Matt Snyder wrote: Further, why is there any concern at all over what weapons are "better?" I don't see how that applies, and it again seems to be a Gamist concern, actually. Or, do you mean that big swords as a concern should be more effective for "realism's" sake?

Matt Snyder wrote: Avatar-13 is an early attempt at simulating action and combat as scene in flicks like the Matrix -- I'm looking to simulate acrobatic firefights, high action and kung-fu / gun-fu stuff in a cyber-setting. Now, it's obvious I've got lots to do to get this game to that point. But I don't see how it matters that the "right mixture of weapons" means anything in that regard. A gun is a gun is a gun, to horribly misquote Gertrude Stein. So, what do you mean here?

Matt Snyder wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: (1D6 base roll)

In the rules as written, this is a non-solution. The highest possible result is a 6, which amounts to "driving at night" in difficulty -- hardly picking a lock on a secure door. The average roll is equivalent to, basically, tying ones shoes, um, in the rain or something. I'm being facetious, but simply plopping down a default d6 for "anyone" is nearly meaningless. It would only be relevant in easy or routine situations. So, that means to do this default task, I've got to dismantle the target numbers as presented for this to mean anything. Not sure I'm prepared to do that.

Mike Holmes would then suggest a simpler fix, and that is to make all rolls opposed. I think he's right, and I'm very likely headed in that direction. In that case, this default 1d6 idea might be appropriate.

I was still reading this thread around four this morning, and decided I really had to give up and get to bed; but I left the window open and came back to it this afternoon, and finished reading what was on screen (the last page). I wanted to comment, but 1) I thought there were probably a lot more comments made since I opened the window; 2) I thought that if I reloaded the page, it was going to record me as back again and mess up the threads since last visit stuff; and 3) there was other stuff I had to do today. So I shut it down and promised to come back to say what I wanted to say.

But it seems I was mistaken; there are no other posts.

Andrew makes the case against Attribute+Skill resolution, and it's a familiar case; but I think it's too narrowly drawn to be decisive.

First, the core of the case is that if your chance of success gives equal weight to your attribute level and your skill level, you don't need any skills at all, because attributes are going to dominate the game. This assumes a number of things; the first is that attributes and skills have the same cost.

That's important. If by spending 5 points I can get a skill that gives me a 50% chance of doing this, or for those same five points get an attribute that gives me a 50% chance of doing this and a bunch of other things, it's a no-brainer. Buy the attribute. But if the attribute is going to cost me 10 points for the same value, then it's only worth it if I want two of those skills--very likely, but not always so. At 15 points, I'd need to want three skills for it balance, and so on. Depending on the nature of the game, probably if there's a five-to-one ratio on point expenditures, there's going to be an incentive to buy skills instead of attributes: you can get one or two skills up a lot higher than you could get the attribute.

This is more significant if the character creation system is integrated with the character development system, that is, if you're going to gather points during play that are spent on the same items in the same proportions. Now there is also the sense of immediacy involved. Let us suppose that there are seven skills I would like to improve by 10%, all of them somewhat urgently, and it will cost me one point for each, or seven for all. Let us also suppose that they are founded on the same attribute, so that for five points I can raise them all that 10% by raising the attribute instead. It would seem in the overall picture that I want to collect five points and raise the attribute; but in the course of play, if it's going to take a long time to raise those five points, it may be a better deal for me to raise the skills one at a time. Even though it will take more points to increase them all, I'll get the benefit of increasing some of them considerably sooner.

It has been observed that you could reduce the advantage of high attributes by requiring a skill to perform the task at all; in this case, it is suggested that first level skills with high attributes will always outperform higher level skills with lower attributes in overall character effectiveness, because the attribute will make more skills better. This overlooks a mechanic that has been present in skill-based games since at least Star Frontiers: the idea that not only the skill but the skill level impacts what a character is able to do with it. For the Star Frontiers example, a level 1 tech can drive a car, but he can't drive a truck until level 2, and he's got to be level 4 to fly a jet copter, and so on. Thus your high attribute level one tech might be a better driver on the ground, but he can't do a thing in the air.

Beyond that, there's a presumption that the only thing involved in a skill check is chance of success. This is patently false. If other aspects are tied to skill level, the attribute advantage minimizes. In Multiverser, several of these are incorporated. A higher skill provides an effectiveness multiplier in many skills (such as increased levels of damage in combat skills) which a high attribute does not. A higher skill increases speed or repeat time of a skill, which a higher attribute does not. A higher skill makes a better quality of performance possible (such as the creation of a quality weapon instead of an ordinary one) that is not available for a higher attribute. There are many aspects of skill performance that can be tied to the skill ability. The attribute in an attribute+skill system will still make your chance of success the same, but it won't make the two characters equal in the game. The analysis is too simplistic; it has not been thought out in sufficient detail for examination of a simulationist or even a complex gamist system.

--M. J. Young

I'm jumping on the tail of a fairly dense thread, but if I read everything thus far correctly, let me point out one of my efforts that might have some merit re this topic.

In Hollyworld, resolution is a simple stat+skill that is rolled against. But for terms of character generation and style of play, the stat the skill is added to can vary based on the situation, and will vary about evenly between two different stats over the course of an adventure. And since the stats involved are inverses of each other (the sum of the two is a constant), a player *cannot* be a combat god all the time. If they are excellent in stat#1+skill, they are poor in stat#2+skill. They can still have a high skill, but the stat is the most important part of the equation.

The same applies to the non-combat skills.

It makes reverse-engineering almost impossible. The stat-switching really only works because of the nature of the game background, but the idea of a game mechanic that averages out abilities over time will let players be combat gods in some fights, but be forced to rely on creativity and other players for support in other fights. Ditto for non-combat tasks.

And when players realize that they cannot effectively min-max the system, they get more into the play and less into the stat-mongering.

Greg Porter
BTRC games

Good points Greg. I covered all this in my Standard Rant #4. That thread didn't go real long, but there's hopefully some interesting stuff there.

That said, there are some erroneous assumptions being flung around here. First is the assumption that there will be a point based system, or one that will allow a player to select specific levels of traits and skills. There are simple ways around this. Take random attributes, for instance. Another idea is to just have two separate pools of points from which to buy skills and stats.

Now I wouldn't advocate these methods neceessarily, but one can see how the problem instantly vanishes with either solution. A more reasonable solution whould be exactly the one that's being bandied about, which is to have some sort of lifepath concept. Basically, the character is generated in a simulationist method, so the result is a non-min/maxed character.

Same goes for guns. Why buy the teeny-weenie gun? Because your character is a gansta, and that's what they carry. Or whatever. Andrew is correct that without context the only choice is to take the best thing. But if I procide context suddenly the Gamists and Simultionists spearate from each other. The Gamist ignores the context and still buys the most effective weapon. The Simulationist looks at the context and buys the weapon that makes the most sense.

This is, in fact, the most clear example and accessible example of the difference that I've found.

So, again, if you are designing for Sim play, you needent make all options exactly the same in effectiveness, you simply have to make effectivness subordinate to the elements that are to be explored.

Mike

A few observations:

Another system similar to Fading Suns is Blue Planet. It places little emphasis on balance among the characters, rather focusing on accurately portraying the capabilities of the character based upon their life-experiences in the various stages of their background (youth, adolescence, education, profession). It is not random, but rather chosen based on planned life-path and player desire, and each choice is well integrated into the setting.

Avatar13:
Banking your Wager as fortunes could encourage gamist players to attempt a multitude of simple tasks, make huge wagers, and bank them when they succeed.

On an assist, since a player does not roll their action dice anyway, what purpose does it serve to limit them to keeping one action die?

I like the 'narrate a detail' aspect of wagers. It has the potential (with a good group, mind you) to really draw out some spectacular actions.

The wagering system seems to possess a quirk shared by L5R and 7th Sea, in that aiming for a greater success increases your chance of outright failure. I've had players protest this mechanic many times when I ran 7th Sea. It seemed to run counter-intuitive to them. Additionally, they weren't willing to attempt more dramatic actions because it increased their overall chance of failure. It places a barrier between their desire to show off, and to succeed, altering the dynamic of play.

One trick that might help emphasize 'high-flying' action is to not base the damage from an attack on the equipment used, but rather on the skill of the wielder. Let equipment counter equipment, and nothing more. Perhaps equipment based defenses (armor and such) directly reduce the damage taken, but better weaponry is capable of ignoring some/all of the armor's absorbtion ability, leaving the damage-dealing capability of an attack to the skill of the attacker. In a high-tech setting this makes sense, for technological weaponry is likely to be nasty enough that even the smallest weapons are capable of an instant kill.

I note that you have the defender roll first in a contested situation. This defines the psychological dynamic of the contest in an interesting way. When the agressor rolls first, and the defender is aware of the roll's result, for the defender it falls to a 'I hope I make it' mindset, increasing tension. Having the defender roll first places the onus of success on the aggressor, leading to 'oh, well, I missed'.

At any rate, I'm very impressed by what you've done with Avatar13, and would be quite interested in seeing the finished work.


Gamism vs. Simulationism:

When modifying/creating a system to de-emphasize gamist tendencies, you must be careful in adjusting the degree to which you tailor it. ANY possible system can be approached from a gamist perspective. Even cops-and-robbers has this problem, with people who refuse to admit someone 'got them'.

And for a system where combat is a real possibility, as Avatar13 seems to be, for there to be NO emotional onus to 'win' in a fight (that is, not die or get stomped) requires a certain psychological distance between the player and the character, which makes acting 'in-character' quite difficult, thus causing problems in the simulationist model.

I think what I'm trying to say is that, rather then attempting to discourage the gamist mindset, it is better to tailor the system in such a way that a gamist mindset is encouraged to mimic a simulationist play-style.