Hi all,

I was having a PM conversation with Mike Holmes and it prompted me to check where I am relative to everyone else on the perceptions of certain mechanics and their requirements, which are asked for below.

I'm interested in the difference between two types of rule, which are just easier to give examples of, rather than ineptly describe.

The first is something like "to climb the wall you need to roll, add your Y(determined by system) and get over X(determined by user/GM)"
The other is "when it's inappropriate for a hero to fail a roll he shouldn't be forced to make it" (Note: The latter is from hero quest, described that way by Mike Holmes. It isn't supposed to be system specific, I just wanted to declare the source.)

My first question is asking for general perceptions of just how much each of the above examples outsources to the user, asking them to use certain rules of their own to respond in turn (written or unwritten).

The second; What does everyone think/feel about outsourcing/asking the user to fill in a blank in the system?

The third; do you think such outsourced work is managed by the users at a rule/system like level, even when its unwritten or even unspoken between them?

Note: Sometimes on the Internet when someone asks questions about a particular subject it's because they're thinking 'OMG, this is so bad'. This isn't one :) so replies don't have to counter such an attitude.

Thanks for your time. :)

Hello Noon -

This is a very interesting question, and it's actually quite central to RPG design (so central, hard to believe it hasn't been discussed before; it probably has, and I missed it.) My belief is that outsourcing is functionally inevitable at some level, but at a broader level, deciding what sorts of things are to be outsourced is just about the most important design decision you can make, and has more effect on the feel of a game than any other design component.

For instance, for the first couple of decades of RPG design, scene framing was 'outsourced' in essentially 100% of game designs. A lot of the newer indie-inspired games have aggressive scene framing rules, which drastically changes feel of the game. Other rules one never thinks about are always outsourced, by tradition. For instance, most books never say who it is that rolls the dice; this may seem unimportant, since they're random, but rolling dice produces a 'feel' of empowerment.

In short; there are too many decisions to make to effectively address all of them in a rules set. Which ones you decide to address, and which ones you outsource, is neither merely a matter of completeness, nor a trivial decision.

- James

Thanks for the excellent reply, James!

That was a good wrap up of important points! And your suggestion that outsourcing is functionally inevitable, resounds with me. Merely for discussions sake I'd like to add that games like chess or monopoly don't outsource at all, while perhaps all (one can never be sure) traditional pen and paper RPG's do outsource to verying degrees. It could almost be used to help define what a traditional P&P RPG is.

Another angle is, the more you outsource, the more the RPG is just a reflection of the end user group. So the more you outsource (turn the dial up), the more its a cous cous RPG, a reflection of the end users and their own qualities. This might be a unfair example, but awhile ago someone on RPG.net was saying how well the hackmaster honour rules work, and how they improve the game. I couldn't quite get the point across to him that, although there are lots of bonuses and penalties, the task of determining what is honour or whatever is outsourced to him. So what was a stand out feature for him was really nothing in substance, the actual substance came from himself.

I'm also really interested in how people think outsourcing is handled by end users. Some people will assert what is 'fair', for example, is pretty easy to determine. Thus outsourcing to the users to determine what is fair is no big deal to do. In other words they design on the premise certain values are easy to concisely evaluate, so outsourcing them is just fine. I have to wonder if this is responsible.

On a side note, I tried to do a search for topics on this but the best word I could think of was outsourcing and there was nothing relevant.

James is correct; you have to rely on the judgment of someone at the table for a great deal of game play, so you might as well make that clear up front in your rules.

We did in Multiverser.

I probably wrote two pages on surprise situations, yet in the end what they amounted to was, Characters cannot be surprised if they are obviously expecting something like this to happen at this moment, and the rest was merely intended to help determine what kinds of things demonstrate that. Obviously, if you're staring at someone who is wearing a gun and they gradually draw it out, aim it at you, and shoot, you are unlikely to be "surprised" in the sense that you can't react; if they have the ability to do that faster than you can see it happen, then you might be surprised. If you're watching someone walk toward you across a plain, you're not going to be surprised by their arrival. These are common sense: when do you roll to see when someone is surprised? When they might be. How do you know whether they might be? Use your head; they might be if they didn't expect this to happen.

The game has a lot of advice about when to roll skill checks--don't do it if it's routine; don't do it if it's well within the character's ordinary ability; don't do it if it's practice. In essence, the answer is, roll a skill check if the skill check matters, and not otherwise.

Multiverser makes everything you could imagine doing a skill. Can you sit up? There's a skill for that--but you don't roll it unless there's a reason to think you can't do it here, like the gravity is strong or fluctuating, or you've been drugged or injured, or there's someone sitting on top of you. Can you walk? There's a skill for that, but again, there have to be circumstances that make a roll necessary before you do it.

And because those "circumstances" that might matter are two vast in variety to list or describe, it is up to the referee to decide when the circumstances demand a roll.

We make no bones about relying on the wisdom and experience of our referees; we say it more than once in the book. You can't run an RPG without it.

Interestingly, I read something somewhere just recently about the problems of moral issues being addressed when preteens are running games for preteens and none of them have any life context for providing realistic results of choices. I'd never thought of that, because I was a married twenty-something before I ever heard the words "role playing game". I think, though, that that might have some value here, in that you probably can't design a game that doesn't assume the players, or at least the referee, has some core notion of what life is like on which to base his decisions.

--M. J. Young

But is that a suggestion that; it's a given that you have to do this outsourcing, it doesn't need to be thought about further because there is a reason its needed? And that reason relies on the idea there are so many opportunities for dice rolling that it overwhelms us and we have to outsource in fluctuating amounts, to the GM?

I mean, that sort of thing can be addressed. I'd insert a complicated example here, but that would drift things.

I also have to declare a dislike for assertions like 'Well, were handing it over to the GM but it's so clear what matters, that its just like our rules are referring to rules in another book'. I'm not against the hand over, it's the suggestion that, once the GM reads the guidelines he would act like any other GM who read them. And even here, I'm not against individual tastes in groups. What I'm against is how misleading the implications of something like 'its clear what matters and what doesn't' as if that will mean the system isn't handing over the reigns.

I don't think it's deliberate on anyone's part to mislead (as I believe is happening). I think it's more of a tradition, like the inclusion of large combat systems are a tradition. But the clear implication is that 'Look, what is X and what isn't X is so clear there is no hand over of here. With Y amount of guidelines, the GM will simply give the same result that you could have gotten out of a bunch of rules, but a bunch so big it's not practical to print.'

But the thing is, X isn't clear, ever. Not with guidelines. Never (Okay, arguable point (Ironically, IMO), but for the rest of this post hypothetically say it's true). When we turn to Bob, who has read all the guidelines and has 20 years of RPG experience, to ask what X is, we are asking Bob what X is, not the system. 'Asking' can be declaring an action that then needs to be evaluated by Bob to see if it matters enough for a roll, or not.

Now I'll just mute my point here by taking it from a binary scale to a dial system. I'll say that the more you outsource, the more your asking Bob something, not the system something. The broader the implications of X, the more your turning up that dial.

And what is wrong with asking Bob something? Nothing, no problems there at all.

The problem is, if I'm asking Bob/the more I'm asking Bob, why am I bothering with this system at all? And if I'm referring to the 'book of Bob' more than I'm referring to the RPG in front of me, WHY is that RPG A: Undermining it's original purchase, with this type of design (designs with the dial turned up high)? B: Asserting that X is so clear that referring to Bob to determine X isn't undermining its relevance?

Is it trying to convince me? Is it to tilt me over into a state of illusion, in case I was unsure if this was the case and a few assertions would help me make my mind up for me?

After all, I could be wrong in the evaluation that Bob determining X, Y and Z (all, for examples sake, have large implications in the system) means I'm dealing with Bob and not the system.

Then again, it could be differing opinions on what elements have large implications in the system. For example, Bob might determine when a +1/-1 modifier is applied to a roll, here and there. The implications of this aren't zero, yet nor is it really high. Something else might be rated by one person as having as much system implication as that, while another might think it has quite a lot of implication within the system.

However, I get the feeling that design tradition in RPG's says: If you put in a bunch of guidelines, it reduces the effect of out sourcing decisions on X to Bob, keeping the system relevant (ie, it was worth buying and learning the system, rather than just sitting down with Bob and free forming).

IMO, it's not good enough.

Of course, there are all sorts of things that have to be managed, like whether you have to make a skill roll to walk down the street. However, the traditional default of leaving that decision up to the GM is rather unsatisfactory, in my opinion (in terms of learning time and money). Particularly if you begin to scrutinise 'all these things have to be managed' itself.

This got too long. Long is bad on Internet forums, if your not going with the current.

The short form of it is: Be careful of how much you outsource, as guidelines are no protection against that out sourcing causing your creation become text, rule and dice heavy free form.

Noon,

Two issues here; decisions about what to outsource, and whether or not you're upfront about the decisions you've made (which seems to be the topic you're attempting to address.)

As to this second issue, I think that, especially in simulationist systems, it has been held as an ideal that -nothing- should be outsourced. The game's rules should be the equivalent of natural law; they work on their own, with no interpretation required. Trying to meet the ideal, however, has been the RPG designer's philosopher's stone. By this, I mean something that consumes an inordinate amount of time and energy, and is inherently impossible.

Interestingly, a lot of the new games handle the outsourcing problem by making up explicit rules for -who- gets to make the decision. Universalis is pretty much nothing -but- outsourcing, with complex rules for who gets to decide what, when. Others have die rolls that determine the outcome of broad situations, and all the details get backfilled, with the narration provided by a person specified by game mechanic.

I suppose I'm really more interested in the first issue; decisions about what to outsource. And what is it that we're outsourcing routinely that we haven't even thought of. Unfortunately, I can't right at the moment think of anything clever to say about it ...

- James

This is a very interesting thread for me, because the phrasing of the initial topic is almost completely reversed from they way I'd have phrased it (if I'd thought to use the outsourcing analogy).

See, I see the primary responsibility of the game to lie with the players and would think of using the rules as "outsourceing".

A company has some task they want to accomplish
A gaming group has some roleplaying they want to accomplish

A company may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves
A gaming group may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves

A company searches and evaluates several different vendors until they find and hire one that meets their needs.
A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.


So from my perspective, every time you stop game play to look something up...THAT'S the moment where outsourcing occurs. When the gamers at the table go outside the game group to get the result they want.

Noon wrote: The short form of it is: Be careful of how much you outsource, as guidelines are no protection against that out sourcing causing your creation become text, rule and dice heavy free form.

james_west wrote: Noon,

Two issues here; decisions about what to outsource, and whether or not you're upfront about the decisions you've made (which seems to be the topic you're attempting to address.)

As to this second issue, I think that, especially in simulationist systems, it has been held as an ideal that -nothing- should be outsourced. The game's rules should be the equivalent of natural law; they work on their own, with no interpretation required. Trying to meet the ideal, however, has been the RPG designer's philosopher's stone. By this, I mean something that consumes an inordinate amount of time and energy, and is inherently impossible.

Interestingly, a lot of the new games handle the outsourcing problem by making up explicit rules for -who- gets to make the decision. Universalis is pretty much nothing -but- outsourcing, with complex rules for who gets to decide what, when. Others have die rolls that determine the outcome of broad situations, and all the details get backfilled, with the narration provided by a person specified by game mechanic.

I suppose I'm really more interested in the first issue; decisions about what to outsource. And what is it that we're outsourcing routinely that we haven't even thought of. Unfortunately, I can't right at the moment think of anything clever to say about it ...

- James

Valamir wrote: This is a very interesting thread for me, because the phrasing of the initial topic is almost completely reversed from they way I'd have phrased it (if I'd thought to use the outsourcing analogy).

See, I see the primary responsibility of the game to lie with the players and would think of using the rules as "outsourceing".

A company has some task they want to accomplish
A gaming group has some roleplaying they want to accomplish

A company may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves
A gaming group may not have the time or inclination or ability to do it themselves

A company searches and evaluates several different vendors until they find and hire one that meets their needs.
A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.


So from my perspective, every time you stop game play to look something up...THAT'S the moment where outsourcing occurs. When the gamers at the table go outside the game group to get the result they want.

I see your point. Actually, I think we're saying very similiar things.

I think the problem you're identifying from a game claiming its in charge and then in reality punting back to the players is a direct result of game designers not writing the game from the perspective I identified.

In other words instead of trying to grab all of the authority, then realizing that no set of rules could possibly cover everything and throwing it back to the players, a better way of writing the rules (IMO) would be to assume that the players are in charge and will call on the rules as needed (i.e. outsource to the rules)

I would stress at this point, however, that I'm distinctly not talking about "transparency" or "rules that stay out of the way" or any of that sort of thing. So, not a situation where players play for as long as they can without rolling and then "resorting" to the rules only when the must.

For instance the rules for My Life with Master are front and center. There is no possible way to concieve of those rules as being "invisible" they are very visible and very much at the forefront of every scene. In that sense its a "rules heavy" game (a term that frequently gets used when the party really means "rules frequent" game).

However, the rules are very much written from the perspective of the human beings playing the game being in charge, and the rules are very clearly in the service of those players.

Hmmm....I'm not sure if I'm actually being clear or murky here...did that make any sense?

Mike Holmes: I am not surprised you agree. I could see I was working from some of the same principles as you, but I just seemed to keep pressing you 'system doesn't matter' button, without really meaning to.

I will say that with the outsource dial down low, both point one and two are correct and healthy, barring any sociopath GM. And with the dial up high, in point one the system will be overwhelmed and in point two Bobs agenda will be so strong at best he'll be a benevolent dictator.

But given that you mention your working on reducing outsourcing dramatically, I'd say this is not news to you at all. :)

Great points all!

I would put forth that the appropriate amount of "outsourcing" varies by system--and that the variance often corresponds to the degree to which metarules are implemented in the system.

This is particularly true of systems that are very balance oriented. When something is outsourced to me while running, say, 7th Sea, I often feel left out to dry--no cohesive metarules. In the same situation in, say, the Hero System, I have enough metarules to go on.

The above applies to outsourced handling of stated actions. What this thread seems to be mostly focused on is a trickier matter: outsourcing of judgement calls. I don't know if any amount of rule coverage can really help a GM determine when it is appropriate to call for a roll, rather than just roleplay a scene. At best, a system can mitigate the consequences.

Valamir wrote: I see your point. Actually, I think we're saying very similiar things.

I think the problem you're identifying from a game claiming its in charge and then in reality punting back to the players is a direct result of game designers not writing the game from the perspective I identified.

In other words instead of trying to grab all of the authority, then realizing that no set of rules could possibly cover everything and throwing it back to the players, a better way of writing the rules (IMO) would be to assume that the players are in charge and will call on the rules as needed (i.e. outsource to the rules)
*snip*

coxcomb wrote: This is particularly true of systems that are very balance oriented. When something is outsourced to me while running, say, 7th Sea, I often feel left out to dry--no cohesive metarules. In the same situation in, say, the Hero System, I have enough metarules to go on.

The above applies to outsourced handling of stated actions. What this thread seems to be mostly focused on is a trickier matter: outsourcing of judgement calls. I don't know if any amount of rule coverage can really help a GM determine when it is appropriate to call for a roll, rather than just roleplay a scene. At best, a system can mitigate the consequences.

Noon wrote: Now I'll just mute my point here by taking it from a binary scale to a dial system. I'll say that the more you outsource, the more your asking Bob something, not the system something. The broader the implications of X, the more your turning up that dial.

And what is wrong with asking Bob something? Nothing, no problems there at all.

The problem is, if I'm asking Bob/the more I'm asking Bob, why am I bothering with this system at all? And if I'm referring to the 'book of Bob' more than I'm referring to the RPG in front of me, WHY is that RPG A: Undermining it's original purchase, with this type of design (designs with the dial turned up high)? B: Asserting that X is so clear that referring to Bob to determine X isn't undermining its relevance?

What MJ said.

Why is it that only you and I buy into the whole Authority/Credibility split?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: What MJ said.

Why is it that only you and I buy into the whole Authority/Credibility split?

Mike

A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.

Note: I'm going to use the term back source here, to describe when rules out source back to the gaming group that out sourced to them to begin with (And thus the rules aren't adding anything themselves, the group is).

This is the problem to address: The more that rules back source, the more pointless it was to add them to begin with. Eventually it simply becomes inefficient free form.

Credibility does not address this when the back sourcing dial is turned right up. At low dial levels (perhaps where the GM simply decides small bonuses and penalties, for example), this works out. Because Bobs control over it is limited, there is very little 'Okay, so he gets to decide what happens, why do I use these rules, why don't I just free form with him?'. It's there, but clearly were working from something like 10% of the book of Bob and 90% from the book of rules.

You can even turn the dial up a bit and it's all right. Up a little more and it'll still appeal certain tastes. But IMO that dial has a geometric progression for each notch you turn it up. Eventually your free forming, but rolling little dice around and doing math rather than just asking Bob whether your succeed in your task or not. When the dial is down low, your doing the same thing, rolling little dice around and doing math, but the little dice and math answer your question. It's the big difference between free form and system use.

Extreme use of something is typically a bad idea. Advocating that eventually someone with enough credibility will make it work is the same. It's like a doctor prescribing a placebo to a patient. The credibility of the doctor makes the patient feel better when he takes the placebo. Granted, credibility is damn useful. But it's a con job. Unless the idea in RPG design is that we create placebo RPG's, that isn't the way to go.

If this doesn't click with anyone, consider this brief question: It is possible to develop rules which are virtual dead weight in play, and just give the impression that your using a system instead of free forming?

If you wanted to deliberately and perversely design this, how would you do it? Say it's free forming and Bob is in charge.

Well, the way I'd design these 'rules' is to give Bob so much influence over them/their math that he can control the results easily. Back sourcing him for big judgement calls and for resource creation is the best bet.

Really, that's the question. If you wanted to make a game which pretends to have a system but is really just free form GM'ed by Bob, how would you design these rules?

And then the question is, how close is this in design to quite a few current RPG systems, or ones in development?

As for not being able to escape Bob, and that only he can provide answers because only humans can speak into imaginary spaces and not the creations of humans…well, your going to have to explain that too me, references in two sentences didn't get it across.

Emily Care wrote: *snip edit to make my reply a bit smaller*
So Noon, the answer of why not use the "Book of Bob" lies in Ralph's alternate use of the term "outsourcing":

A gaming group searches and evaluates several different games until they find and buy one that meet their needs.

Gaming folks can do whatever they want, when it comes down to it. You're the role-player, you're the boss, make it up! It's all outsourcing, with input and suggestions from the system. So why don't we always just wing it? Because a good system gives good input.

Yrs,
Emily Care

I think that happens ALL the time Noon. I think you'd find few who who'd disagree with you. It speaks directly to the heart of System Matters.

There are alot of people who think that Nobilis and Amber are exactly the sort of games you describe. They backsource to the GM so much in requireing the GM to interpret through Drama with some Karmic guideance that many groups are essentially just freeforming anyway.

But that doesn't invalidate (or even disagree with) the posts about credibility.

Even if a rule says exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen, it still doesn't happen until a human being says it happened. A judge may rely on a written law to make his ruling. But the law didn't make the ruling. The judge did. And an awful lot of interpretation goes into those rulings.

I have no problem with it then. There is no problem with (to use your analogy) the judge making his own judgement based on the law rather than just giving the direct result of the law. In a game group that would then fall back to social contract (I think) to deal with, or some other management level.

The problem is with are laws/rules which the judge can so control their inputs, that he can control the output easily.

If it were a math equation like 2+2, he wouldn't have to scratch his chin and say 'Well, it was a four but I'll say it was a five'. All he has to do is make it 2+3, when he has control over the variables involved.

What the hell was the point of doing that math, when he could just save time and pluck a result number out of nowhere?

The worst thing is that he can say 'Ah, and the result is 5 and I'm not going to change it one bit! This system works great! Were playing completely by the rules!'. Yes, playing by completely useless rules, if the idea of rules is to draw you away from free form gaming.

I think there is no problem with the GM calling a four a five or whatever number. The system provided him a result, and that helped him make his choice. Thus the system helped, it wasn't a waste of time.

But as you turn the back-sourcing dial up, the more control he gets over the whole equation. Why have the equation at all, it's a bloody awful waste of time.

Like Ralph said, you're preaching to the choir here. Take this message to the freeformers, and try to convince them, however. Let me know how that goes. :-)

Mike

*satisfied grunt* Cool, and now on track too. :)

Although I wouldn't go and tell off the freeformers...not the true ones, the ones who don't pretend to use rules. Their cool in doing their own thing honestly and openly. It's the ones who use rules who's inputs are totally at their whim, that need pruning. I'd compare it to 'my guy' syndrome, if I understand the term correctly, except when it's the GM it's 'the world says this happens', to justify anything inside or outside the social contract that happens. But when they totally control the rule, they are in control, and they are just hiding behind some crappy rules. Okay, probably preaching to the choir again, but this might spark some nugget of knowledge from someone on the specifics of this.

Also, can I ask about credibility briefly. I'm assuming credibility is mentioned in the way that if someone was playing a fighting fantasy book by themselves, they apply credibility for themself (A GM can apply it, but people can do it for themselves as well, of course) rather than laughing at the book and throwing it over their shoulder. Obviously credibility is important, but what can be done/controlled about it to make it worth mentioning? I'm can't think of anything right now, myself.

Finally, I'd like to approach something which was brought up earlier in the thread and may not be preaching to the choir. Specifically it's about 'when it matters to roll'. I have to say, that if your working with an equation like X+Y, these individual values are important, but what is more important is whether you use the equation or don't. Having control over each number is less important than having control over the use of the equation to begin with.

The problem that seems to occur over and over is missdirection/noise. It's often seen that if there is a wall in the way (in game), you'll have to do a climb check. Ie, the game world determined that you needed to do a climb check. At the time it matters because theirs something on the other side you want.

But, who determined the game world to begin with? The GM. It seems to be a traditional simulationist assertion that climbing a wall must mean a climb check or jumping a chasm must mean a jump check (or the very close 'it has to happen then, if it matters to the session). This wall or chasm is just noise though. It's your GM asking for a climb or jump check, because he determined the world that 'triggered' it.

With this noise in between the GM and those trying to game, all sorts of problems are imminent. Eg, GM's who put their players through boring dice chores because they think the world demands it. Players who argue realism on and on because they don't know the true source to communicate with (and if they did, often they still can't because the GM doesn't know it through all the noise either). Plus many, many more disfunctions. Because the pitch of the book was 'This happens when the game world determines it', rather than 'Your GM will ask for this when it seems like the group determined idea of fun'.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think you'll find most of us are members of that choir too.

I hope the quoting done here isn't too 'spikey'. Apologies to MJ Young for over quoting him. It's just to be sure where this choir is, exactly.

This is M J Young on the first page of this thread:
And because those "circumstances" that might matter are two vast in variety to list or describe, it is up to the referee to decide when the circumstances demand a roll.

That quote and the rest of the post it came from reads like it's refering to circumstances of the game world (ie, the one the GM defines).

There were several posters supporting a latter post M J Young wrote. That post I'd guess continues from the same principle of the previous one. This principle (about game world circumstance) doesn't mesh with my last point, so I'm curious. Where are we on this?

I don't mind being quoted, Callan; it lets me know that what I've posted mattered.

I am a bit embarrassed that you managed to quote a piece of text with such a blatant typo in it, but that's my fault.

Ah, yes, the referee provides the circumstances, and that creates the situations in which the mechanics are necessary, really it all comes back to the referee deciding that you need to do this here, doesn't it?

That depends.

I've got maybe a score or so of old modules for a few games--mostly incarnations of D&D, but also Star Frontiers and Gamma World that I'm sure of. Most of these lay out the available routes and the incorporated obstacles, along with some of the alternatives. If someone is playing from one of these, then there's a sense in which it is the module that dictates the circumstances, and the referee only steps in to adjudicate how the players may attempt to overcome them.

In the 80's I, like most of those I have encountered, designed "dungeons" and other adventure settings in much the same fashion as those modules. We put together the paths, obstacles, and rewards, often in complete ignorance of who would be playing in those settings. So yes, we decided, we created those circumstances--but we did it in a completely impartial fashion, trying to design something that would have a level of challenge and interest that typical players would enjoy.

In Multiverser, a lot of worlds are created and/or detailed on the fly. The game actually provides a mechanic to assist with this. For example, one of my players, working with a group of rebels trying to undermine a ruthless dictatorship, went with them to attack a caravan. The world in which these things are happening is too big to be fully detailed or described; I can't have the contingent guarding every caravan along with its route and schedule written down in advance. Rather, when he was approaching, I rolled a general effects roll. This tells me whether things are going to favor or oppose the player character, and to what degree. Now I've got verbal descriptors such as worse than anticipated, bad enough, generally favorable, or best hopes, and I can thumbnail those into circumstances. Yes, I'm in control of what the circumstances are; but the game has told me how these are going to play out. Bad enough in this case meant that the attackers were going to need good rolls at the very beginning of their combat in order to keep things from getting out of hand, because if the watch alerted the rest of the guard they would be badly outnumbered and overmatched, and would have to find another way to handle the situation.

Your concern seems to be that on a moment-by-moment basis the referee gets to decide what to throw at the players. I've played in games like that. That's strongly illusionist; the players feel like they're in control because they choose what their characters do, but actually the referee is running the show to achieve his objectives. Illusionist games can be tremendously exhilarating--until you see the man behind the curtain, and realize that that feeling that you came this close to death and somehow pulled it off was nothing more than someone manipulating the situation. I've seen orcs die when I had taken enough damage, overwhelming enemies retreat when I had spent my trump card. I've been there. It's only fun when you don't know what's happening, generally, and a lot of people in that game left when they realized it. (The rest shifted to a dysfunctional participationist mode, in which their characters did blatantly insane things attempting to derail the referee's intent, just to see how far they could push the envelope without it collapsing.)

If the referee is making it up as he goes along, you must either trust the referee or provide structure within which he is allowed to work. Multiverser's general effects rolls are such a structure. Some games give the referee point limits on what he can spend, or require him to balance the challenge numerically against some rating derived from the player characters.

Even with such structures, you still have to trust the referee. The question is whether the guidance you're going to give him is something like:

Add up the total levels of the characters in the player character party. Routine encounters should have a challenge rating of 1/5 this number, significant encounters should be at 1/3, and the ultimate encounter should be at 2/3 this value.

It is the referee's job to tailor the situations such that everyone has fun, by ensuring that the encounters are challenging but not impossible.

Ah, now you've covered interesting ground, you've not quite covered what I ment. :) It's not the making it up/illusionism that I'm trying to get at here. Instead it's about making it up then passing it off with 'the world made me do it', citing the results of rules to prove that the world did indeed make the GM do that. The same rules he has absolute/high control over their input values.

It's basically about passing the buck, passing responsiblity off to rules, like a 'my guy' player passes off his social responsiblity as a player, citing that he was roleplaying.

The basic principle is: If you have absolute/high control over the rules inputs, the result is a product of you, not the system.

I'm not sure how much GM accountability is important to everyone. I mean accountability in terms of living up to social contract and creative agenda (I think those are the right terms to use here) that has been agreed to.

It's clear that you can only be held accountable for what you take responsibility for.

Now, suppose that even unwittingly, you assume the circumstances of the game world determine rule use. You have just shrugged of responsiblity to the 'game world' with this perception. Most likely the system your playing in re-inforces this, saying: it is up to the referee to decide when the circumstances demand a roll.

However, the vast majority of rules are designed in a way that they are completely under the control of the GM, in terms of the result they produce (because he controls the inputs).

So, you have a system guideline and GM that shift responsiblity off the GM, yet a system design that deffinately makes it his responsiblity. Accountability is screwed. We've all heard stories about endless arguements on realism or rules lawyering. When a game system gives one message that 'do a roll when game world circumstances say so' and yet the rule design says 'The GM has massive control over the input of most rules and decides when to roll', that's the opposite message.

I hope I'm clear and not rambling. I'd add more right now, but it would be at risk of perhaps just confusing things more.

I don't know, Callan.

Callan a.k.a. Noon wrote: Instead it's about making it up then passing it off with 'the world made me do it', citing the results of rules to prove that the world did indeed make the GM do that. The same rules he has absolute/high control over their input values.

Hi again,

Nice example, it was fun to read. :)

Now, that examples underlying issues depend on how you handle accountability. There are two methods, the one I talked about and a second.

1. The GM descides if game world circumstances ask for a roll.

2. It is agreed within the game group that the GM should try to reflect, in his freeform and in group granted ability to ask freely for dice rolls, the game worlds circumstances (it's understood too that his influence over those circumstances is vast, so he could end up just reflecting what he wants. But the descision to trust has been made).

Now, I think your example is somewhat like the latter method (perhaps arguable, but close IMO), which isn't quite what I'm talking about. It is an example of lessened accountability just like I was talking about. But it has been agreed to. Accountability is good, but the game group has decided to choose this. All is well, although the GM has to be self disciplined when he has no boundaries.

Now, the BS thing about the first method is that it requires the same thing as the second to work without disfunction, without actually having the balls to say what it requires. It tries to suggest that really the rules are in charge, when really most rule designs backsource so hard it hurts.

This particular point doesn't just underline that social contract is a good thing. It's about changing the attitude most RPG's are written in...that recuring over and over, designers presumably don't recognise just how much their rules back source, and go on to recurringly suggest in their book the rules are in charge and the GM's just puttying in small gaps. I'd get into saying things about pride and ignorance, if it weren't so ranty. But perhaps for either of those reasons, they (a bunch, not all designers) aren't designing so the rules do carry more responsiblity, nor are they being honest in stipulating the GM trust requirements needed.

Still, this requires the belief that the GM has vast influence over the most rules (because of their design). I'll just quote you briefly:

That's how the game goes, sometimes; to pretend it doesn't is unfair, even to the player.

Sometimes it is the game that does it. It's not always the referee and it's not always the player. That's why we have the games--to take the decisions out of the hands of those involved, to create the unexpected, provide outcomes that make the game work without placing blame on the participants.

Anyway, back to continuing the topic.

Note: After Vallamirs post, instead of saying 'rules that outsource to their user' I now prefer to use the term 'back source' as in 'rules that back source to the user that out sourced to them to begin with'. Annoying, but healthy for it.

Okay, I think backsourcing is going to be part of most RPG designs. But as I said earlier in the thread, the more it happens, the more your just freeforming (ie, the results of the system aren't helping (because they are just a reflection of the GM's desires)). So some steps for management are:

* Terminology in your RPG texts: Ensure that responsiblity for making rule calls is textually centered on the GM. Ensure that it is understood that game world situations don't make descisions on when rules are employed, the GM does. Refer on to advice on social contract/gentlemens agreement, so as to arrange a situation where it actually is more like the game world situation makes rule use descisions (through a consitant GM, for example).

* Apply guidelines on the inputs to rules. Also recognise that guidelines aren't a wall that stops something, but more like mud to wade through. Make the guidelines in a way that makes it easier to tie them to a social contracts accountability system. This makes the mud much harder to wade through.

* Where possible, mechanically limit what can be inputed into a rule by GM whim. Keep in mind as a designer, this limits just how flexible and encoupasing the system is. Decide on the genre/setting/whatever focus and try to keep the flexibility there and elsewhere place mechanical limmits. Recognise you'll have to make a descision on what your system is designed to explore and answer, rather than coddle a wishy washy desire for a system that 'can do everything'. Recognise that you already accept abstraction has to be in your system...accept focus too.

Am I beating a dead horse? Or not inspiring any ideas? Or covering what is considered a non issue?

Noon wrote: Am I beating a dead horse? Or not inspiring any ideas? Or covering what is considered a non issue?

Thanks for the pointer, John! :)

That being said, I have zero experience with OtE or HQ. I'm going to have to make up some examples...but help me out, if I'm being to fuzzy, tell me and I'll try to get something from some books (Rifts, blue planet, Riddle of steel, D&D, HOL, some more...I've got a few, but not a lot either).

Okay, I'll tackle traits in terms of those that are like personality traits (ones listed in imaginary system books rather than user defined, to keep it simple).

Now, say there are two systems. How they handle the trait 'cowerdice' is listed below.

System 1. Cowerdice means that in certain conditions (determined by the GM), the character suffers -2 to his rolls.

System 2: Cowardice means that on all will saves verses effects that are fear based (which is detailed in each effects description), they suffer -2 to save. Such effects come from monsters or terrain designs.


Now, system 1 back sources a hell of a lot. It doesn't help you at all to determine when to apply the penalty. It can provide a bunch of guidelines, but in the end, who's doing the work on this, you or the system? The only work the system has done for you is say cowardice gives a -2 penalty. Applying it over and over correctly is up to you. You source out to it, it tells you -2 and then the rest is back up to you.

This is ideal if want all the responsiblity to be on you...but if you do, why are you outsourcing to rules in the first place? (On a side note, if its just for ideas, have you told your players this...or are you BS that your using a system?)

In system 2, determination of when cowardice applies is tied in with other elements of the rules. Its triggered by them quite clearly, thus the outsourcing was worth it as some responsiblity (for session quality) is placed into the hands of the rules.


I hope that provokes some further discussion. :)

Gah, apparently not. John or anyone, another pointer as to where I should go on this...nothing has really been discussed so far. Somewhat defined, but not discussed.

Is three pages too long? Should I start a new post with the basics clearly outlined, to give direction a longer thread might not have?

Noon wrote: Is three pages too long? Should I start a new post with the basics clearly outlined, to give direction a longer thread might not have?

That's cool then. I thought Ron might think I was hogging the board if I did so. I'll type something up when I'm off line and can do it at my leasure, then post it latter.