Those old enough to have played text adventures remember the pleasant frustration (?) of trying to figure out just the right wording for a command to try to figure your way through a game. This kind of fighting with the interface became part of playing text adventures, or interactive fiction as they are called now. I have noticed a form of fighting with the interface in RPGs.

One of the players in my friend's group, the GM relates this story about this fellow's first RPG experience:

"He was asleep on the bed in his room when some bad guys burst in with guns. He says 'OK, I jump out of bed, hit both guys and knock them down and go running down the hallway.' I then say 'OK, you're sitting up on the bed.'"

This story was related to me 5-6 years ago, possibly more. So the above is a paraphase to the best of my recollection of a second-hand story. The point is, besides the GM forcing a "right way" in terms of how much you can do in a turn to play on this fellow, is that this player to this day is hitting his head on the interface. This is why he's the problem players because he refuses to do the "right" thing like stay with the party or check for traps. (nearly died last time)

I posted this in Theory because I'm interested in a more general discussion about the interface in RPGs than addressing this particular problem for this player & GM.

This is something that our design team has been dealing with recently. An analysis of the problem resulted in an overhaul of our combat system. It was sparked by a four part essay series by Christopher Kubasik which can be found here. Anyway, the conclusions that i've drawn (which may not be entirely accurate) are that this is a problem that can only be solved when the all the participants are agreed upon the focus of the game. If i'm interested in the social aspects of a game, then i may be willing to toss out the incredibly detailed initiative based combat system. However, if everyone else wants the detailed combat, then i'm probably not enjoying myself at the First and Second levels very much since i'm having to spend hours in a 10 minute combat session while my three hour social manipulation is reduced to one roll. Of course i may continue playing because i feel that the Third Level benefits are worth the frustration, but then again i may not.

So essentially, this problem is not unique, but i don't see a simple solution. The problem arises from one of two things: 1) You can be slavishly devoted to the system as written. This results in using the intricate combat system even if no one really wants to deal with it. 2) The majority of the group is playing for a focus on one thing (the most common being combat) while you would rather focus on some other aspect of the game. That's my experience and thoughts on the subject, but i feel that they are pretty accurate.

Thomas

Heh, just as a point of history, Thomas, this whole website might not exist if it weren't for those four essays (The Interactive Toolkit). IIRC, it was those that spurred Ron to publish the System Matters essay, essentially, upon which most of the theory here rests.

You'll find that System Matters and the theory that descends from it all pretty much exists to address just the problem that you're describing.

Very specifically the problems that Jack is talking about are related to what we call IIEE, which has to do with how actions are declared, and subsequently resolved. It's a truism that a well defined and accessible IIEE is a great boon to a game. But as Jack points out, there may be players that don't get even well defined ones. Which I'm not sure how one would fix.

Mike

Interesting, those were some good essays too...

Anyway, i think it's not a case of incorrectly defined IIEE, it's more a case of incorrectly diagnosed play style. Think of it this way. The game is a perfectly designed cancer drug, it will cure any type of cancer of any patient who uses it. However, i have HIV but not cancer, this drug does absolutely nothing for me. If i go to a cancer treatment center and am give this perfect cancer cure then i am not getting the treatment i need. It's not a case of the cancer drug not doing its job, it's instead a case of me not needing the cure for cancer.

Thomas

That's absolutely another possibility.

One common solution nowadays is what's called Conflict resolution. That is, the amount of "stuff" that's resolved in an action isn't related to tasks being performed, but to the outcome of whole Conflicts. This is expandable to cover more ground or less. And, done right, it seems to satisfy a wide range of players (though far from all).

Mike

I'm familiar with the principle, just not by that name. However, while it is better than rigid action determinism, it still can't solve this problem. In D&D3e you want action resolution in combat, but Conflict resolution in social events. If you are interested in combat then you want to work with things at the action level for combat, but you don't want to be bothered with the rest. The problem is that not everyone wants to focus on the same things. If i really want an involved set of tactical combat, but you could care less then you feel like i'm just wasting everyone's time with my two hours of combat... I don't know if there even is a solution that works here.

Thomas

There is no solution that will serve everyone, no. But what I was describing is using Conflict resolution for everything. And then tailoring the size of the Conflict to whatever you want it to be.

For example, one player doesn't like Combat. So he decides that the Conflict for him is, "Do I live or die?" and determines all that in one roll. Then the next player, who wants more detailed resolution in terms of rolls says, "I try to outmaneuver the first guard in an attempt to get to a better position." And then several other small Conflicts in a row.

By allowing Conflicts to be as large or small as they player defines them, each player can be better satisfied with the level of detail that the system produces.

Mike

This is something that Trollbabe does with its adjustable Pacing for Conflicts...ranging from Action by Action pace on to Entire Conflict Pacing. Very nice, and I like that both sides get input into the Pace too.

What if you have some sort of opposed conflict in which two players are going up against each other? How do you decide the focus distance of the conflict then? I'm just kind of curious.

Thomas

In Trollbabe the player that annouces the conflict would set the Pace... the other Player would set the Action type (Fighting, Magic, Social) and would also have the chance to alter the Pacing one step.

When its a player vs player Conflict the GM always narrates.

Hi there,

In Trollbabe, the rules for setting Pace are very strict. One person sets it, and the other gets to adjust that setting slightly.

Best,
Ron

In Trollbabe the player that annouces the conflict would set the Pace... the other Player would set the Action type (Fighting, Magic, Social) and would alos have the chance to alter the Pacing one step.

When its a player vs player Conflict the GM always narrates.

Where can i get Trollbabe? It sounds pretty interesting in terms of balancing Pacing...

Thomas

Trollbabe is available through Adept Press
http://www.adept-press.com/
price- $10 for PDF

I'm starting a new game of Trollbabe Tuesday night, if you would like to lurk.

Its Trollbabe as a system, with the Trollbabes filed off...set in an ancient semi-greek setting with the characters as Demigods.

TB-Demigods starts Tuesday at 8 CDT on Magicstar IRC in rooms #bobsgame_nar and #bobsgame_ooc.

Enjoy!

I appreciate the invitation, and under normal circumstances i would probably be there. However, you managed to plan your session right in the middle of weekly Trivia Night. Team Castro has been a major player in the local Trivia scene for five or six years now... I'll be checking out Trollbabe when i get a chance, and if you end up doing more sessions that you don't mind me observing let me know. Thanks.

Thomas

no problem... I also post logs of my sessions on indie-netgaming group.
It should be a long running game, so feel free to stop in later.