Continum of resolution - description to dice
Mark C. Wallace
hypothesis that all games move back and forth along a continuum from
description based to dice based. The mechanic chosen to resolve any
particular conflict/quandry depends on the preference of the group, the
nature of the conflict or quandry, the time of day, and the phase of the
moon. Who knows what other factors.
Even the most dice based advocate would not, I imagine, quickly design a
table and roll 3D6 to determine the normal distribution of rock sizes on
a dirt road. Either there is one large enough to be thrown
meaningfully, or there isn't. I suspect most folks would handle this
through description.
Even the most ardent diceless advocate might, in a situation where the
gun falls between the two combatants, flip a coin to deterime to which
combatant it falls nearer, or which direction it is pointing when it
goes off (all other things being equal). [I'm assuming that both
outcomes make for splendid stories, and the players want randomness to
have some effect at this point.]
Usually, I believe, dice based gamers rely on dice as the
preferred mechanic when questions of fairness are at stake.
Diceless/description based gamers prefer to avoid dice when they might
compromise the drama of the story, or the suspension of disbelief. I
may be wrong in this, but can we accept it for the purpose of argument?
What other criteria or principles do you use to decide when to resolve a
situation through dice, or through description?
Bryan Maloney
>What other criteria or principles do you use to decide when to resolve a
>situation through dice, or through description?
I use dice because it's less work on me as a gamemaster. I use the tool that
fits me better. Just like I prefer a straight-backed, hard chair to a padded
swiveler on casters. I use what fits. It's like flourescent vs. radioactive
methods of labeling DNA probes. Each has its advantages and disadvantages,
and each has its advocates. I use the method that fits the _gestalt_ of my
work habits.
John H Kim
a one-dimensional continuum here. This is in part because I think that
this idea is responsible for a lot of the flamefests here.
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>Based on recent arguments in this forum, I advanced (tenatively) the
>hypothesis that all games move back and forth along a continuum from
>description based to dice based.
I really don't think that this is the case - I think this is
largely a product of "Us versus Them" thinking. Those who use
diceless, description-based games imagine that there is a "Them" who
rigidly adhere to mechanics and tables on the other end of the scale.
Those who use dice imagine that there is a "Them" who are rule by GM
fiat to keep the players on the railroaded plot.
-*-*-*-*-*-
In truth, I think that there is MUCH more to the differences
than just one dimension. Action resolution can be based on a great
variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the
factors which can go into action resolution -
(1) Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most
reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation -
including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic). This is actually
the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries
to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.
(2) Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent
the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding).
Note that this does *not* have to involve dice. CORPS and _Vampire_
both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution. Spending Plot
Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.
(3) Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's
action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player
heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill
rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at
describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).
(4) Dice: Dice can be used as additional input into any number of
resolutions. Mechanics often call for die rolls, but a mechanicless
game can also use dice to represent random factors (The rule being,
say, "High good, low bad").
(5) Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given
outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is
required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the
factor most often associated with "railroading".
(6) Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama, as mediated by the GM.
For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling game may naturally
succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It has nothing to do
with the written plot, but it fits.
-*-*-*-*-*-
Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different
in method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For
example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might
describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the character
sheet and die rolls to himself.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Usually, I believe, dice based gamers rely on dice as the preferred
>mechanic when questions of fairness are at stake. Diceless/description
>based gamers prefer to avoid dice when they might compromise the drama
>of the story, or the suspension of disbelief. I may be wrong in this,
>but can we accept it for the purpose of argument?
>
>What other criteria or principles do you use to decide when to resolve a
>situation through dice, or through description?
The trouble here is that you can resolve using both dice *and*
description. You use the player's description as exactly what the
character is attempting - then you use dice for random factors like
the environment.
For example, someone playing a sniper may describe how he is
lining up for a shot. The GM may listen to his description of how he
sets up the shot, but in the end, there are random factors which he
cannot control. Thus the GM rolls dice against his estimate of the
chances based on that description.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Mark C. Wallace
understand why. His examples seem to me to support my point.
Each individual game uses a variety of different resolution techniques.
Some of these techniques are mechanics intensive, others are description
intensive. At very few times in very few games does anyone adhere to
purely one ideal or the other. Most of the time, the techniques used to
resolve conflict/actions/randomness/environmental factors/etc. are
chosen by the group, in a fairly transparent manner.
In article <3po44l$f...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
John H Kim <jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
> OK, I am trying to make a strenuous point against the idea of
>a one-dimensional continuum here. This is in part because I think that
>this idea is responsible for a lot of the flamefests here.
>
>Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>>Based on recent arguments in this forum, I advanced (tenatively) the
>>hypothesis that all games move back and forth along a continuum from
>>description based to dice based.
[Snip]
> The trouble here is that you can resolve using both dice *and*
>description. You use the player's description as exactly what the
>character is attempting - then you use dice for random factors like
>the environment.
>
--
Mark C. Wallace, Future Dead White Male
There is no Burma - only Zool
John H Kim
idea of a one-dimensional continuum between "dice-based" and "description-
based". I agree that there is a continuum of styles which groups chose
among - but it varies between many more extremes than just the two you
suggest.
To me, describing the range only in terms of two extremes covers
up the more substantial variations that exist in playing styles. (I have
some similar annoyances with lumping everyone political "Left" and
"Right").
Mark C. Wallace <m...@clark.net> wrote:
>John Kim evidently feels that my continuum is flawed, though I don't yet
>understand why. His examples seem to me to support my point.
>
>Each individual game uses a variety of different resolution techniques.
>Some of these techniques are mechanics intensive, others are description
>intensive. At very few times in very few games does anyone adhere to
>purely one ideal or the other. Most of the time, the techniques used to
>resolve conflict/actions/randomness/environmental factors/etc. are
>chosen by the group, in a fairly transparent manner.
First of all note that you have made a major shift here: from
your earlier use of "dice-based" to the above term "mechanics intensive".
Perhaps that was what you meant all along -- but to me it is an important
distinction.
-*-*-*-
As for how the dichotomy simplifies things, think of this --
_Theatrix_ has game mechanics for Plot Points, where a player spends
a Plot Point to make a Statement into game reality. Would the game
be more descriptive if this mechanic were removed (thus bringing it
closer to the anti-mechanical ideal)?
I don't think so, personally.
-*-*-*-
My point is really to urge looking more closely at styles
than just saying they are "mechanics intensive" or "description
intensive".
Mark C. Wallace
John Kim has clarified that he thinks my one dimensional continuum is
inadequate. I have to admit that like all paradigms, it is. John's
previous post attempted to identify several different
variables/styles/factors in gaming style - unfortunately, I didn't
understand his paradigm - merely that he found mine inadequate. Now
that I think I understand better, I'm willing ot open my mind and
consider his. I welcome anyone else who'd like to leap in here and
refine both our thoughts.
In my opinion, John's most perceptive insight however, is that I've been
switching between "dice based" "mechanic based" and "Description based"
without any real consistency. To be fair, Sarah Kahn also pointed this
out, but I forgot to address it.
I think description and dice are both examples of mechanics. [For
today, I'll use the words mechanic and system interchangeably - I'm not
sure that is accurate, but off the top of my head, I can't specify the
distinction.]
I think perhaps the continuum I want to describe is between formal
mechanics on one end (dice are the archetypical example), and informal
mechanics (consensus based decision making.) Theatrix attempts,
according to htis paradigm, to introduce some formalism without dice.
Is that any clearer? Right now I'm confused myself, and I may have just
proven that pigs fly.
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: For example, someone playing a sniper may describe how he is
: lining up for a shot. The GM may listen to his description of how he
: sets up the shot, but in the end, there are random factors which he
: cannot control. Thus the GM rolls dice against his estimate of the
: chances based on that description.
Good post, and I don't necessarily disagree, but then something stuck, so
I think I'll pursue it.
What are the 'random' factors in the above example, as opposed to those
of known environment and skill? What are the 'odds' of making a
reasonable shot assuming a skilled sniper, and a good rifle and scope,
and no obvious adverse effects like high winds (which could be known and
compensated for in any case). What do the dice add to such a resolution?
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: be more descriptive if this mechanic were removed (thus bringing it
: closer to the anti-mechanical ideal)?
: I don't think so, personally.
: -*-*-*-
: My point is really to urge looking more closely at styles
: than just saying they are "mechanics intensive" or "description
: intensive".
O.K. This makes sense to me, and I agree. But lets see where that leaves
us. The rules, mechanics, descriptions, etc. are all tools to create a
game which has the 'feel' that the GM and players wish. If that's what you
mean, then I agree. Rule sets are created to provide particular 'feels'
which appeal to various types of playing groups. You can see where this
leads. Why do game manufacturers produce certain types of games, what
market are those games aimed at, and what does this indicate about the
kinds of interactions which exemplify the reasons for using that system of
rules?
If diceless, or mechanicless, or simulationist, or diced, or whatever you
have, is a method to a attain a type of play and feel, what ambiance is
being created, and what does that mean for the game?
David
A Lapalme
>
> Even the most dice based advocate would not, I imagine, quickly design a
> table and roll 3D6 to determine the normal distribution of rock sizes on
> a dirt road. Either there is one large enough to be thrown
> meaningfully, or there isn't. I suspect most folks would handle this
> through description.
>
> Even the most ardent diceless advocate might, in a situation where the
> gun falls between the two combatants, flip a coin to deterime to which
> combatant it falls nearer, or which direction it is pointing when it
> goes off (all other things being equal). [I'm assuming that both
> outcomes make for splendid stories, and the players want randomness to
> have some effect at this point.]
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Sounds like blasphemy though (just kidding -
if i wnat total randomness, then the die is a good tool).
>
> Usually, I believe, dice based gamers rely on dice as the
> preferred mechanic when questions of fairness are at stake.
> Diceless/description based gamers prefer to avoid dice when they might
> compromise the drama of the story, or the suspension of disbelief. I
> may be wrong in this, but can we accept it for the purpose of argument?
>
Sorry. As I have said before, the fairness issue in the use of dice is a
red herring, a cloak of deception, etc.. My current theory on the,
sometimes, relgious fervour of some dice advocate is that dice give them
some degree of control in the game (or rather, remove some control from
the GM). No one wanst to be at the mercy of one person's whim and,
rolling a die which, while you have no control over the final result,
neither does the GM. , gives the player some recourse or some "way out".
Therefore, these people get really nervous when they are told that they
should not even have this tool to really enjoy the game. It seesm to go
against common sense.
Obviously, the diceless people don't agree with that and, because of
personal experience, I have to say I don't agree either.
As Sarah Kahn pointed out several moons ago, the diceless play reuires a
shift in thinking in tersm of how RPGs should be played (or rather can be
played). Without this paradimg shift, diceless play doesn't make any sense.
I've gotta stop. Gotta put the kids to bed.
Alain
Andrew Finch
: Simplicity and speed. If you're using a dice system with any kind of
: decent mechanics behind it, coming up with a number which _sounds_
: reasonable is not that difficult. The other thing dice add is that, if
: the GM knows nothing about rifles, sniper and the like, then a dice based
: resolution can easily solve the problem (again assuming that there's a
: decent set of mechanics behind the dice). BTW, I realize I am crossing
: the dice --> mechanics line here but I feel that the two are often
: inseperable.
: Now, this past comments might sound odd
: coming from me but, over the last few monhts, I have found that the diceless
: approach can work but is extremely demanding. In a diced system, once you
: know the mechanics, running any type resolution eventually becomes second
: nature and relatively painless (might still be boring though). In the
: diceless case, I have yet to reach this point. Every difficult resolution
: is still difficult to handle and I still, sometimes, find myself looking
: for dice.
It doesn't sound you are talking about simplicity and speed much at all,
and I would disagree that heavily diced systems are simpler or faster, but
you do make clear that diceless games can leave you feeling unsupported,
and without direction. That's true. You make all the decisions. However,
part of what you're feeling is also a lack of diceless settings, oriented
towards diceless mechanics. I would expect that a diceless game would give
me the tools to adjudicate a situation such that I can be comfortable
making those adjudications, if I'm willing to be on that hotseat, do a
little extra work, and make decisions. Those diceless settings are not yet
out, with th eexception of Amber, which I think did a fairly good job of
that. But it is just my point that diced systems handhold more, and that
has a flipside of straightjacketing resolution methodologies, and often
resolution depth.
David
A Lapalme
>
> It doesn't sound you are talking about simplicity and speed much at all,
> and I would disagree that heavily diced systems are simpler or faster,
On the surface, you are right. However, once you know that kind system,
they become much easier to use and you also get a feeling of stability and
"consistency". I'm not sayng that this is really the case, just that you
get that feeling. And, if you feel comfortable doing something, you are
bound to do it better than if you don't feel comfortable.
>but
> you do make clear that diceless games can leave you feeling unsupported,
> and without direction. That's true. You make all the decisions. However,
> part of what you're feeling is also a lack of diceless settings, oriented
> towards diceless mechanics. I would expect that a diceless game would give
> me the tools to adjudicate a situation such that I can be comfortable
> making those adjudications, if I'm willing to be on that hotseat, do a
> little extra work, and make decisions. Those diceless settings are not yet
> out, with th eexception of Amber, which I think did a fairly good job of
> that.
Unless the GM uses the setting info as a recipe book, I really don't agree.
The setting should be independent of the resolution mechanics and of the
game system. If the GM understands the setting, the dice have
no effect, at least in my experience (I've put the same setting through
about 5 systems and never found the system (diced or not) to really have
an impact on the setting).
>But it is just my point that diced systems handhold more, and that
> has a flipside of straightjacketing resolution methodologies, and often
> resolution depth.
I'll agree on the hand holding part and on the straightjacketing (the word
does have bad connetations though, _focusing_ or _directing_ might be a
better word). In terms of resolution depth, we've had this discussion
before: I don't think that dice change the gaming resolution depth; this
is more a group dependent thing.
Alain
A Lapalme
> John H Kim (jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> : sets up the shot, but in the end, there are random factors which he
> : cannot control. Thus the GM rolls dice against his estimate of the
> : chances based on that description.
>
> I think I'll pursue it.
>
> What are the 'random' factors in the above example, as opposed to those
> of known environment and skill? What are the 'odds' of making a
> reasonable shot assuming a skilled sniper, and a good rifle and scope,
> and no obvious adverse effects like high winds (which could be known and
> compensated for in any case). What do the dice add to such a resolution?
>
decent mechanics behind it, coming up with a number which _sounds_
reasonable is not that difficult. The other thing dice add is that, if
the GM knows nothing about rifles, sniper and the like, then a dice based
resolution can easily solve the problem (again assuming that there's a
decent set of mechanics behind the dice). BTW, I realize I am crossing
the dice --> mechanics line here but I feel that the two are often
inseperable.
Now, this past comments might sound odd
coming from me but, over the last few monhts, I have found that the diceless
approach can work but is extremely demanding. In a diced system, once you
know the mechanics, running any type resolution eventually becomes second
nature and relatively painless (might still be boring though). In the
diceless case, I have yet to reach this point. Every difficult resolution
is still difficult to handle and I still, sometimes, find myself looking
for dice.
Alain
A Lapalme
My first reaction was the same as John's. However, when I tried to explain
something about the diceless paradigm, I started drifting into the d-b vs
m-b area. Maybe I'm not seeing enough of the picture to really understand
but the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to like that spectrum
actually is right.
Consider that, most diceless play is low on mechanics: some have none,
some have a little, but I haven't heard of anyone syaing that their
diceless game used a large number of mechanics. Also, consider that most
d-b games have little to no dice use. If I understand Sarah's gaming
style, there is nearly no dice used in their game; Lea Crowe's game uses
more dice rolls, but not that much more. Furthermore, the d-b game use of
dice is very different from the m-b use of dice. In an m-b game, dice use
is either tied to a probability curve, a table or a formula; in a d-b
game, dice use is tied to something like: high is good, low is bad. In
the m-b game, the die roll determines the outcome, in a d-b game, the die
rolls gives a hint at the outcome, but does not determine it.
Looking at it from another angle, as a game start shifting from a dice
based game to a diceless based game, the need for mechanics is going to
decrease. This is simply because a large percentage of game mechanics are
directly tied to the dice. Remove the dice and the need for the mechanics
disappear.
I understand that one can have mechanics without dice (Theatrix is a good
example) but these mechanics have very little in common with dice
mechanics. And, in my estimation, most of what we have been talking
about are dice vs diceless and diced mechanics vs no dice mechanics.
Alain
Charles M Seaton
: In truth, I think that there is MUCH more to the differences
: than just one dimension. Action resolution can be based on a great
: variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the
: factors which can go into action resolution -
: (1) Reality/Genre
: (2) Mechanics
: (3) Description
: (4) Dice
: (5) Plot
: (6) Drama
I really like this assessment, John. I snipped your
definitions of the factors only to preserve space. I have no
quibbles with any of your definitions.
I would like to add two more, for starters.
(7) Group Consensus -- this is most often use to counteract the
problems of "description" resolution. It is a sort of
combination of Reality and Description resolution, in
which the entire group combines efforts to determine what
the "expert swordsman's" best strategy really would BE
when the player of the swordsman knows nothing of combat.
It often takes the form of "he who knows the subject best
is empowered to define the reality." I don't really know
how this method of resolution ought be described, as in
many ways it is a blend of Reality and Description.
Nonetheless, it does seem to me to be a distinct form
of resolution in its own right.
(8) Meta-game. I know, I know. Flame away. But meta-game
concerns DO get taken into consideration in every game
I have ever seen or played. They just do. Player was
just raped last week? Sexual harrassment in the game
world gets smoothed over for a while. Player is moving
away from the area shortly? Character's script immunity
goes WAY down. Player wants out of the game? In-game
reason for character to leave arises. Meta-game
considerations have their place, and they do often
affect action resolution in the game.
So there you have my contributions. A brief question -- do pacing
concerns count as Plot or Drama? Or does it depend on the specifics
of the situation? I can make a case for either classification.
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Some examples of "random" factors - i.e. factors which can not
: reasonably be known and compensated for by either the sniper (in-game)
: or the GM (meta-level):
: * Minor asymmetries and variations in the shape of the bullet, the
: weight of the bullet, the amount of propellant and the packing of
: the propellant, etc., which can result in the bullet not leaving the
: barrel of the rifle in exactly the same direction or at exactly the
: same speed every time.
On a good sniper rifle, this deviation should be so minor that it's not
accountable, really. Deflections of the bullet due to the structure of
the target are going to mean far more, but that's not a 'to hit' issue.
: e.g. a pistol, but at very long ranges it can be significant.
We're assuming a reasonable range and weather conditions.
: * A gusty wind: the strength and/or direction of the wind at other
: points along the flight path may be different from that felt by the
: sniper.
Can be. Assuming reasonable weather, this is minor, but possible.
: * Movement by the target during the flight time of the bullet - this
: can be compensated for if it is steady, but can't if it changes at
: the wrong moment. If the target is a soldier who is attempting to
: move in an erratic fashion, for instance, how do you decide whether
: he changes direction at the right time or not?
Not a 'random' factor, and we don't know what the target is doing.
: With a good rifle and scope, and a skilled sniper, the effects of all
: these are likely to be minor under normal conditions, and only show up
: in marginal conditions like extreme long range.
Agreed.
: Of course, in such
: marginal conditions, it's often better to hold fire and wait for
: another chance or another target. But there will be times when it is
: better to take a half-chance of hitting than not to get a shot in at
: all. Or the sniper may still be inexperienced and impulsive, and so
: unwilling to wait...
Sounds like most diced systems don't come very near to representing these
possibilities accurately. In fact, they aren't really 'random' at all,
but rather most are known, and some can be compensated for. Really, the
sniper takes a 'calculated risk'. That's what occurs in diceless
resolutions of these events. Under normal conditions, the sniper can be
almost assured of a hit, although possibly not a kill. Under more risky
conditions, the sniper takes a calculated shot, and if he fails, he'll
probably know why and where the risks were. Of course there can be unkown
factors in the diceless situation as well.
But the normal distribution of a random roll is really inadequate to
representing either the normal probabilities of a hit, the risk factors
involved under unusual conditions, or properly associating either success
or failure with the reasonable causes. You lose detail. I would probably
trust your judgement better than any die system I've ever seen.
: Either way, there are going to be situations where both outcomes are
: possible and which actually occurs depends on minor factors that
: no GM in their right mind would have been keeping track of - nor would
: they be able to sensibly work out the result if they had kept track of
: them!
Die rolls don't keep track of these factors either, nor are they ever
worked out. The die just decides base don some oversimplified normal
curve, right or wrong, appropriate or not. Sounds like you have a far
better grasp of the realities of the situation. You could just decide,
and you know what would have caused a miss, or what's going to contribute
to a hit, and you know which are likely, and why. Sounds better than any
die system I've ever used.
: There are plenty of ways of resolving this sort of thing other than
: die rolls, of course - e.g. you might well decide on the basis of
: which outcome was going to be better for the story. But *if* your aim
: is to produce a good simulation, a die roll will almost certainly do a
: better job than the GM can of simulating the random chances involved.
I have to disagree. Given any situation, I think you're likely to be able
to make a decision that is both more realistic and more detailed than any
combat die system I've seen.
David
Andrew Finch
: I would agree with this in theory, but really I have yet to see
: a diceless setting which gives a solid sense of support.
We're going to try for GenCon.
: I think that a mechanicless setting/system would be interesting,
: but lacking IMO satisfying examples, I would hold some reservations.
Understood. We won't give you mechanicless, that not being our style, but
it should be virtually diceless (yes, there is a die roll for a small
class of guidelines because nothing else fit as well).
David
Anthony BT Boyd
--
It strikes me that this question of Diceless Mechanics vs Dice-based
Mechanics in RPG's has more to do with the amount of faith one has in the
abilities, honesty, impartiality and intelligence of one's GM. Obviously,
if one has a "Killer GM" then having the dice in your own hand and the
GM's dice in plain view would be desireable... Also, what is th e point
of playing with a lenient GM who allows unchecked success by the Players?
One knows the outcome of the Game before even attending...
Another oddity I find here is that most Role-Players are aware of the
Caveat that one can never plan for the direction the Characters will
take... no matter what you do! A group of players is typically able to
take a game session into the wierdest places because of totally
unpredictable stimuli. So, this being the case, Why would anyone still be
constructing Linear Plots or even worse, plotting a definite ending? What
the hell is the point?! It is a given that one must plan a beginning for
an adventure or Story line. However, unless one is writing a novel, it is
the job of the Players and the Gamemaster (as the NPC personalities) to
interact their way to a conclusion to the plot... When this is the
case, there can be no rail-roading as there is no planned destination. It
may require more work but if something is worth doing...
-Anthony
Andrew Finch
: Another oddity I find here is that most Role-Players are aware of the
: Caveat that one can never plan for the direction the Characters will
: take... no matter what you do! A group of players is typically able to
: take a game session into the wierdest places because of totally
: unpredictable stimuli. So, this being the case, Why would anyone still be
: constructing Linear Plots or even worse, plotting a definite ending? What
: the hell is the point?!
Because I can, again and again, with wildly different groups of players,
and mark their progress by pre-set milestones, always know where I am,
always be able to respond to them, and come out with the planned ending
almost every time.
Why? Because people are actually fairly predictable, you just need to
have a structure capable of organizing the information in a way that you
can predict what's going to happen and why.
And no, I DO NOT RAILROAD IN ANY WAY. Players can choose any actions they
wish, and the world will react in a normal and fair manner to those
actions.
I have no need to railroad. I plan.
: It is a given that one must plan a beginning for
: an adventure or Story line. However, unless one is writing a novel, it is
: the job of the Players and the Gamemaster (as the NPC personalities) to
: interact their way to a conclusion to the plot... When this is the
: case, there can be no rail-roading as there is no planned destination. It
: may require more work but if something is worth doing...
It actually requires less work. Plotting means putting in more time
before the game. I just think it's worth doing...
David
David Seal
>John H Kim (jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: For example, someone playing a sniper may describe how he is
>: lining up for a shot. The GM may listen to his description of how he
>: sets up the shot, but in the end, there are random factors which he
>: cannot control. Thus the GM rolls dice against his estimate of the
>: chances based on that description.
>
>Good post, and I don't necessarily disagree, but then something stuck, so
>I think I'll pursue it.
>
>What are the 'random' factors in the above example, as opposed to those
>of known environment and skill? What are the 'odds' of making a
>reasonable shot assuming a skilled sniper, and a good rifle and scope,
>and no obvious adverse effects like high winds (which could be known and
>compensated for in any case). What do the dice add to such a resolution?
Some examples of "random" factors - i.e. factors which can not
reasonably be known and compensated for by either the sniper (in-game)
or the GM (meta-level):
* Minor asymmetries and variations in the shape of the bullet, the
weight of the bullet, the amount of propellant and the packing of
the propellant, etc., which can result in the bullet not leaving the
barrel of the rifle in exactly the same direction or at exactly the
same speed every time.
These factors result in the bullets from a rifle having a certain
"spread". It's certainly much less than the spread of bullets from
e.g. a pistol, but at very long ranges it can be significant.
* A gusty wind: the strength and/or direction of the wind at other
points along the flight path may be different from that felt by the
sniper.
* Movement by the target during the flight time of the bullet - this
can be compensated for if it is steady, but can't if it changes at
the wrong moment. If the target is a soldier who is attempting to
move in an erratic fashion, for instance, how do you decide whether
he changes direction at the right time or not?
With a good rifle and scope, and a skilled sniper, the effects of all
these are likely to be minor under normal conditions, and only show up
in marginal conditions like extreme long range. Of course, in such
marginal conditions, it's often better to hold fire and wait for
another chance or another target. But there will be times when it is
better to take a half-chance of hitting than not to get a shot in at
all. Or the sniper may still be inexperienced and impulsive, and so
unwilling to wait...
Either way, there are going to be situations where both outcomes are
possible and which actually occurs depends on minor factors that
no GM in their right mind would have been keeping track of - nor would
they be able to sensibly work out the result if they had kept track of
them!
There are plenty of ways of resolving this sort of thing other than
die rolls, of course - e.g. you might well decide on the basis of
which outcome was going to be better for the story. But *if* your aim
is to produce a good simulation, a die roll will almost certainly do a
better job than the GM can of simulating the random chances involved.
(Humans are remarkably bad random number generators in general.)
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
John H Kim
support in diceless systems is a lack of diceless settings.
I would agree with this in theory, but really I have yet to see
a diceless setting which gives a solid sense of support.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: In a diced system, once you know the mechanics, running any type
>: resolution eventually becomes second nature and relatively painless
>: (might still be boring though). In the diceless case, I have yet to
>: reach this point. Every difficult resolution is still difficult to
>: handle and I still, sometimes, find myself looking for dice.
>:
[...some agreement deleted...]
>
>However, part of what you're feeling is also a lack of diceless settings,
>oriented towards diceless mechanics. I would expect that a diceless game
>would give me the tools to adjudicate a situation such that I can be
>comfortable making those adjudications, if I'm willing to be on that
>hotseat, do a little extra work, and make decisions. Those diceless
>settings are not yet out, with the exception of Amber, which I think
>did a fairly good job of that.
Hmmm. Personally, I have a low opinion of the _Amber_ RPG.
IMO, it confused far more than it clarified. For example, it describes
the attributes only in terms of what the best in that attribute can
do. It descreibes that Fiona can sense minds a distance away, but that
does not tell what a basic Amber-level psyche can do.
IMO, this was very annoying - since it insisted that you rate
your abilities on a point scale, but then failed to describe what the
point levels meant: How much can I lift with a 33(Rank 3) Strength?
What can a double damage sword cut through? It gave neither mechanics
nor description for these things.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
I think that a mechanicless setting/system would be interesting,
but lacking IMO satisfying examples, I would hold some reservations.
Andrew Finch
: The favoring of any one of John's factors will weaken ALL of
: the others to some extent. An emphasis on Plot as a factor in task
: resolution will weaken both mechanics and realism, both drama and
: randomization. A de-emphasis on Plot will strengthen everything
: else.
Not necessarily. It's even more complicated than that.
David
Charles M Seaton
: John Kim has clarified that he thinks my one dimensional continuum is
: inadequate. I have to admit that like all paradigms, it is. John's
: previous post attempted to identify several different
: variables/styles/factors in gaming style - unfortunately, I didn't
: understand his paradigm - merely that he found mine inadequate. Now
: that I think I understand better, I'm willing ot open my mind and
: consider his. I welcome anyone else who'd like to leap in here and
: refine both our thoughts.
Maybe I can give it a try. What I think that John was
trying to say was that all of the factors he listed are contributors
to the action resolution within an RPG, and that focussing in on
merely two of them -- mechanics and description, or dice and
description -- creates a model of task resolution which is not only
overly simplistic, but also quite misleading.
The model you propose, as I understand it, suggests a
continuum of task resolution methodologies with description at one
end and diced mechanics at the other. This is problematic because
it establishes a paradigm in which description and diced mechanics
are perceived as the only two opposing forces involved in the
equation. But is description really the "opposite" of diced
mechanics? What about plot? Isn't plot equally "opposite" to diced
mechanics as a factor in task resolution? What about meta-game
concerns? What about drama concerns? What about randomization
*outside* the realm of quantified mechanics?
Do you begin to see the problems here? None of these
resolution concerns can really be paired up into neatly opposed
dichotomies. Rather, they all exert their own pressure on the
decision-making process, each pulling in an entirely different
direction. They aren't sets of matched dichotomies. They just
aren't that symmetrically aligned.
The favoring of any one of John's factors will weaken ALL of
the others to some extent. An emphasis on Plot as a factor in task
resolution will weaken both mechanics and realism, both drama and
randomization. A de-emphasis on Plot will strengthen everything
else.
I think that John is attempting to point out that gaming
style is defined by the precise degrees of "power" we give to all of
these factors, how these factors interrelate, which of them we
choose to allow to influence our decisions, and in what
combinations.
Thoughts?
-- Sarah
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
: Why? Because people are actually fairly predictable, you just need to
: have a structure capable of organizing the information in a way that you
: can predict what's going to happen and why.
: And no, I DO NOT RAILROAD IN ANY WAY. Players can choose any actions they
: wish, and the world will react in a normal and fair manner to those
: actions.
: I have no need to railroad. I plan.
The world will react in a normal and fair manner that still winds
up going where you intend. "If you do X, you end up here. If you
do Y, you end up here. If you do Z, you still end up here."
-Doug, reminded that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet..
John H Kim
I had given an example of resolution which was both dice-using and
descriptive: a sniper shot, where the player's description is used
by the GM to handle what the character is trying to do, and a die
roll is used for factors which are beyond the character's control.
Now, David Seal has already given a more in-depth breakdown
of what I would consider the random factors. This is a reply to
David Berkman's commentary.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>David Seal (ds...@armltd.co.uk) wrote:
>: * Minor asymmetries and variations in the shape of the bullet, the
>: weight of the bullet, the amount of propellant and the packing of
>: the propellant, etc., which can result in the bullet not leaving the
>: barrel of the rifle in exactly the same direction or at exactly the
>: same speed every time.
>
>On a good sniper rifle, this deviation should be so minor that it's not
>accountable, really. Deflections of the bullet due to the structure of
>the target are going to mean far more, but that's not a 'to hit' issue.
Perhaps we are miscommunicating here. I was picturing a long
range sniper shot - 100 yards or more, say. At short ranges, I agree it
is negligible, but at long ranges it is pretty important.
You can lock a gun into place so that it's barrel is pointing
in exactly the same direction, and the bullet marks will still show a
noticable spread on a target 10 yards away. I'm not an expert here,
but I know that the spread on a pistol is huge, and on a rifle it is
probably not going to be more than a factor of 10 better.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
[...etc...]
>: * Movement by the target during the flight time of the bullet - this
>: can be compensated for if it is steady, but can't if it changes at
>: the wrong moment. If the target is a soldier who is attempting to
>: move in an erratic fashion, for instance, how do you decide whether
>: he changes direction at the right time or not?
>
>Not a 'random' factor, and we don't know what the target is doing.
Hrrm? It is a factor which is to some degree beyond the
character's control. He can make guesses on how the target will dodge,
but since he lacks complete information, he cannot fully take this
into account.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: Of course, in such marginal conditions, it's often better to hold fire
>: and wait for another chance or another target. But there will be times
>: when it is better to take a half-chance of hitting than not to get a
>: shot in at all. Or the sniper may still be inexperienced and impulsive,
>: and so unwilling to wait...
>
>Sounds like most diced systems don't come very near to representing these
>possibilities accurately.
Perhaps, but diceless systems (the two that I know) also don't come
anywhere near to how most diced systems representing these possibilities.
Both _Amber_ and _Theatrix_ lack any sort of treatment of firearms.
Instead, they rely entirely on a knowledgable and thinking GM.
Of course, if you assume a thinking, knowledgable GM for the
diceless games -- then IMO you should assume the same for a dice-using
game.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: Either way, there are going to be situations where both outcomes are
>: possible and which actually occurs depends on minor factors that no GM
>: in their right mind would have been keeping track of - nor would they
>: be able to sensibly work out the result if they had kept track of them!
>
>Die rolls don't keep track of these factors either, nor are they ever
>worked out. The die just decides base don some oversimplified normal
>curve, right or wrong, appropriate or not. Sounds like you have a far
>better grasp of the realities of the situation.
David, you seem to be personifying dice again. (Does this reflect
some pent up aggression against dice? @-). Dice don't _decide_ anything.
The GM uses a die roll to help him make a decision between outcomes which
he has estimated, using his understanding of reality -- and possibly a set
of rules as well.
Personally, I have no idea what sort of probabilities are
realistic. For realism in games, I tend to rely on game designers who
know more about marksmanship and firearms than me (like, say, Greg
Porter, who wrote CORPS and _Guns, Guns, Guns_), in addition to my
common sense and physics knowledge.
BTW, my offer still stands about running a dice-using combat with
description.
Charles M Seaton
: Charles M Seaton (ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: : The favoring of any one of John's factors will weaken ALL of
: : the others to some extent. An emphasis on Plot as a factor in task
: : resolution will weaken both mechanics and realism, both drama and
: : randomization. A de-emphasis on Plot will strengthen everything
: : else.
: Not necessarily. It's even more complicated than that.
Yes, I agree. It is more complicated than that. Some of
John's factors do tend to form alliances -- Plot and Drama, for
example, do end up on the same "side" a good deal of the time.
Realism and Description have a cozy relationship as well.
Randomization doesn't get along very well with Drama on the whole.
And so forth.
All the same, I do think that it is advantageous to look at
these factors as independent forces, rather than matched sets of
dichotomies. There ARE situations, after all, in which Plot and
Drama become opposing forces, or in which Randomization and
Drama strike up a temporary alliance. A model which does not
recognize the independence of these factors does not seem to me to
be as versatile or as useful as one which does.
-- Sarah
Douglas L. Vandenburgh
: David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
: >David Seal (ds...@armltd.co.uk) wrote:
: >: * Minor asymmetries and variations in the shape of the bullet, the
: >: weight of the bullet, the amount of propellant and the packing of
: >: the propellant, etc., which can result in the bullet not leaving the
: >: barrel of the rifle in exactly the same direction or at exactly the
: >: same speed every time.
: >
: >On a good sniper rifle, this deviation should be so minor that it's not
: >accountable, really. Deflections of the bullet due to the structure of
: >the target are going to mean far more, but that's not a 'to hit' issue.
: Perhaps we are miscommunicating here. I was picturing a long
: range sniper shot - 100 yards or more, say. At short ranges, I agree it
: is negligible, but at long ranges it is pretty important.
: You can lock a gun into place so that it's barrel is pointing
: in exactly the same direction, and the bullet marks will still show a
: noticable spread on a target 10 yards away. I'm not an expert here,
: but I know that the spread on a pistol is huge, and on a rifle it is
: probably not going to be more than a factor of 10 better.
That depends on the rifle. The WA-2000 has a 12mm group circle
width at 100 meters. For most pistols, you would see in the 300mm
range.
My digression aside, I do have to point out that 100 meters (yards)
is *NOT* a long shot. I am no great shakes with a rifle, but I can
easily hit a mansized target at 500 meters with iron sights. If you
start talking shots that need a sniper rifle and a trained sniper,
you are talking things beyond the 500 meter line. At this point,
group circle width does become a consideration.
- Doug
Drew Gillow
>
> I think that John is attempting to point out that gaming
> style is defined by the precise degrees of "power" we give to all of
> these factors, how these factors interrelate, which of them we
> choose to allow to influence our decisions, and in what
> combinations.
>
>
I concur with John and Sarah.
Gaming style and task resolution are multidimensional. To describe
the style of a game in one dimension is like describing art on a
time scale or classifying it by school or form. It may be interesting
to know that one work of art is older than another, but does it really
tell you anything about the actual subject?
I find it slightly odd to see the d-b/"less mechanics oriented" folks
discussing the mechanics/system of classifying gaming styles. Their
response is as expected:
"Plotting a number on a continuum does not give much
meaningful data. Write a two page historical narative of
your gaming style then we can understand." 8)
Drew
Mark C. Wallace
I'm really the only person pushing this thread. That's because I can't
deal with the real world, and I'm not happy unless I can
compartmentalize everything into a little mental box. I need to find the
platonic form of gaming - to model it. OK, I'm deranged, but this is
one of my minor derangements.
In article <3q0810$3...@tin.monsanto.com>,
Drew Gillow <AVG...@CCMAIL.MONSANTO.COM> wrote:
>I find it slightly odd to see the d-b/"less mechanics oriented" folks
>discussing the mechanics/system of classifying gaming styles. Their
>response is as expected:
> "Plotting a number on a continuum does not give much
> meaningful data. Write a two page historical narative of
> your gaming style then we can understand." 8)
David W Llewellyn
>the style of a game in one dimension is like describing art on a
>time scale or classifying it by school or form. It may be interesting
>to know that one work of art is older than another, but does it really
>tell you anything about the actual subject?
>
school or form does, indeed tell you something about the actual object.
Art is not made in a vacuum. It has an historical, social,
philosophical, even theological context. To know that the ceiling of the
Sistene Chapel was a Renaissance work but that the back wall (Judgment),
done by the same artist, was made during the Mannerist period, tells
something about the work, the time, the artist's mind, etc. From the
hope and glory of the Renaissance to the bleakness of Mannerism (torture,
snakelike forms throughout, etc.) is quite a jump. The fact that other
works that were made during the same period were done in the same style
gives us an awful lot of insight into what was going on. If someone were
to describe a work as belonging to the "Op-Art" period, as opposed to the
Renaissance, I'd get a darned good idea of what to expect when I finally
saw the artwork. I wouldn't suddenly be shocked that it didn't have
certain techniques and that others were wildly obvious.
David Llewellyn
Drew Gillow
[good list of "random" variables that contribute to the sucess or
failure of a sniper. Some of these can not be compensated for:
abnormalities iin the bullet, differences in wind along the path
of the bullet, motion of the target...]
> There are plenty of ways of resolving this sort of thing other than
> die rolls, of course - e.g. you might well decide on the basis of
> which outcome was going to be better for the story. But *if* your aim
> is to produce a good simulation, a die roll will almost certainly do a
> better job than the GM can of simulating the random chances involved.
> (Humans are remarkably bad random number generators in general.)
It has also been proven that humans are in general very bad at
predicting outcomes/probabilities. Weatherpersons are considerably
better than any other profession.
Why? Because they get immediate feedback.
Doctors on the other hand are not very good at predicting the
seriousness of their patient's conditions.
And most people complain about how bad the weather predictors are...
>
> David Seal
> ds...@armltd.co.uk
Jon C. Baber
>ds...@armltd.co.uk (David Seal) wrote:
>> There are plenty of ways of resolving this sort of thing other than
>> die rolls, of course - e.g. you might well decide on the basis of
>> which outcome was going to be better for the story. But *if* your aim
>> is to produce a good simulation, a die roll will almost certainly do a
>> better job than the GM can of simulating the random chances involved.
>> (Humans are remarkably bad random number generators in general.)
>
>It has also been proven that humans are in general very bad at
>predicting outcomes/probabilities. Weatherpersons are considerably
>better than any other profession.
>
>Why? Because they get immediate feedback.
As do most GMs, it is pretty obvious when you do something that your players do
not feel fits in.
>Doctors on the other hand are not very good at predicting the
>seriousness of their patient's conditions.
>
>And most people complain about how bad the weather predictors are...
But as far as I have read few people complain about poor diceless GMs. Possibly
because i) the GMs confident enough to use diceless techniques (still vastly a
minority in this country) are generally good GMs (this is not meant to imply
that diced GMs are any worse) and ii) the style of play is very different, with
plot being more important than background consistancy.
>>
>> David Seal
>> ds...@armltd.co.uk
>
So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based) game
dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
techniques.
I can see how the opposite, running a plot based game using dice, would be
possible as even in a diced game the GM can have full control and I would think
that a good GM could hide this from the players (although all of the plot based
games I have played in (all diced) have seemed very constrained (read
Railroaded) to me).
Jon
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based) game
|> dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
|> would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
|> make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
|> techniques.
Sarah Kahn does, mostly, but she can describe her own game better than
I can.
|> I can see how the opposite, running a plot based game using dice, would be
|> possible as even in a diced game the GM can have full control and I would think
|> that a good GM could hide this from the players (although all of the plot based
|> games I have played in (all diced) have seemed very constrained (read
|> Railroaded) to me).
<The plotting wars start again...>
I think you misunderstand what David B. means when he invokes plotting.
(If I get this wrong, forgive me, David.) He means that at the end of the
game, the events form a strong plot. The GM doesn't have to know what the
plot is at the beginning of the game. He just makes sure (by continuously
modifying his plans) that there is *a* plot that the players are in.
The players are completely free to do whatever they like; it's up to
the GM to make sure that it all hangs together in a tight story.
Let's see how David B. might write a strongly plotted game.
Say a player is in a 1920's mob game, and the GM has written a
story about a gang war in 1920's New York. As the game progresses,
suppose the PC gets into big trouble by having an affair with Big
Eddie's wife, and decides to flee New York and go to Paris. Now, the
GM had not anticipated this possibility, but he still has to make
sure that the game has a strong plot. So, for the next session,
he would have scrapped the gang war plot, and written a new one
about the PC's love affair and Big Eddie's attempts to get revenge.
Now to bring this back on-topic. How does this affect the decision
whether or not to use dice? Trying to maintain a coherent plot is
going to take effort. Randomization will make this task harder, with
no corresponding benefit, because there the odds are that the
random result won't match either the player's or the GM's attempt
to create a plot.[1]
Instead, it makes moresense to give that piece of decision making
power to the players and GM.
For other styles of play, the decision, and, more importantly, the
reasons behind the decision to use dice, will be different.
[1] How about using dice on a level higher than resolving individual
actions? I know this has come up a couple of times, but never
in very great detail. I'll post more on this topic on a new thread.
Neel
Charles M Seaton
: So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based) game
: dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
: would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
: make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
: techniques.
I think that I am finally beginning to understand this
allegation. If we accept the "multiple factor theory" as a workable
model for task-resolution, then it would seem that the abandonment of
any one possible consideration in the process of RPG decision-making
is likely to result in the strengthening of one or more of the other
factors. After all, you have to decide what happens *somehow.*
Most people use a combination of a number of factors to make these
decisions. If they choose *not* to use one or a set of these
factors (Dice, Mechanics, Plot, etc.), then the others must somehow
pick up the slack.
In a game which does not use dice, other considerations,
such as Drama, Plot, Realism, Genre, and so forth, must come to the
fore. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the gamer who has
chosen to eschew dice would surely not ALSO choose to eschew Plot.
The feeling, I think, is that this would leave the diceless gamer
too few tools for a workable game.
I can see the logic behind this belief, but I really don't
think that it works that way. Extremely world-based,
realistically-inclined, die-hards, for example, often claim that
they never take Plot, or Drama, OR Meta-game concerns into
consideration. In other words, they claim to eschew *three* of the
task-resolution tools in their games, and yet still make them work.
Is this really possible? Can one really run a game based on Dice,
Mechanics, and Realism alone?
I think we would all agree that one *can* do so (although I
always suspect that there's a bit of Drama and Meta-gaming sneaking
into such games in spite of the GM's claims. But soft...).
Similarly, I see no reason why one could not eschew both Plot
and Dice, and still be able to run a game. Plot and Dice are not
the only resolution criteria out there, nor are they, IMO, in any
way the "most important" ones.
: I can see how the opposite, running a plot based game using dice, would be
: possible as even in a diced game the GM can have full control and I would
: think that a good GM could hide this from the players (although all of the
: plot based games I have played in (all diced) have seemed very constrained
: (read Railroaded) to me).
Heh. Well, that's another thread. Suffice it to say here
that I agree with you that Railroading is a Plot problem which has
nothing to do with dice or the lack thereof.
-- Sarah
Charles M Seaton
: |> So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based)
: |> game dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is
: |> claimed that it would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but
: |> I have seen nothing to make me believe that this sort of game would run
: |> as well using diceless techniques.
: Sarah Kahn does, mostly, but she can describe her own game better than
: I can.
By "mostly," I assume Neel is referring to the fact that I
do use dice, on occasion, but that I don't use them very *often.*
Or perhaps it is that I have been known to run the occasional plot
game, as a change. I'm not sure.
I don't use mechanics, but I do occasionally use dice. My
games are world-based.
Really, it is a bit odd that I seem to have become the chief
diceless advocate around here. Where in heaven's name are Reimer
and David Berkman? They are needed here.
At any rate, I feel a great sympathy with the diceless
position, chiefly because I so rarely feel the need for
randomization in my games that it doesn't seem such a great step to
me to stop using it altogether. I will probably continue to use the
occasional dice roll, but I could certainly live without it.
And, of course, there is also probably some natural sympathy
between diceless and d-b gamers as a matter of course. We both live
in that "it's not really a game" ghetto, you know...
-- Sarah
A Lapalme
>
> So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based) game
> dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
> would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
> make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
> techniques.
I sure hope that it is possible to run worldbased in a diceless way.
That's what I'm attempting right now and it seems to be working(
this portion of the campaing is only 3 sessions old so I might be
premature in my assessment). However, in the last session, I had only
prepared a very rudimentary plot, a plot I didn't expect to survive
intact. I introduced the premise via an NPC and then, that was it for my
planning. The players took a very different approach than I had
anticipated and are now on a course which is nearly 180 degrees opposite
to what I had planned. This result feels very much like the world based
diced games I used to run.
Alain
Scott Olson
> because i) the GMs confident enough to use diceless techniques (still vastly a
> minority in this country) are generally good GMs (this is not meant to imply
> that diced GMs are any worse) and ii) the style of play is very different, with
> plot being more important than background consistancy.
I disagree with ii) strenuously when I'm playing diceless. If the
world isn't consistent, the game (for me) starts to fall apart. That's
why I'm very careful to check things I say in my PBEM Amber game to make
certain I'm not contradicting previous statements. Plot DOES NOT have to
be paramount in a diceless game, though the Theatrix model does suggest
that.
> So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based) game
> dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
> would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
> make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
> techniques.
Why not? The idea in a world-based game is, as far as I'm aware,
that there's a world/universe out there for the player character to be
involved in, and lots of things will happen that aren't related to them at
all (though they may choose to involve themselves after they learn about
them). Most of the background activities in a diced game are probably
done diceless anyway, so I don't see why a world-based game couldn't be
done diceless (I sure hope it can, that's what I'm trying to do in my game
mentioned above).
> I can see how the opposite, running a plot based game using dice, would be
> possible as even in a diced game the GM can have full control and I would think
> that a good GM could hide this from the players (although all of the plot based
> games I have played in (all diced) have seemed very constrained (read
> Railroaded) to me).
Plot-based games are, by their nature, more subject to becoming
railroads. It's a factor of their design. A good GM will avoid that
trap, but not all GMs are good enough to do that. This is true for both
diceless and diced games, though I do admit that it's probably EASIER to
railroad in a diceless game (but it may also be more visible, since the GM
can't hide behind die rolls).
Scott
Scott Olson
> > dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
> > would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
> > make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
> > techniques.
>
> That's what I'm attempting right now and it seems to be working(
> this portion of the campaing is only 3 sessions old so I might be
> premature in my assessment). However, in the last session, I had only
> prepared a very rudimentary plot, a plot I didn't expect to survive
> intact. I introduced the premise via an NPC and then, that was it for my
> planning. The players took a very different approach than I had
> anticipated and are now on a course which is nearly 180 degrees opposite
> to what I had planned. This result feels very much like the world based
> diced games I used to run.
I've had a similar experience in a PBEM Amber game: a player and I,
while doing some background work on the player's character, created an NPC
and we agreed that the NPC would vanish at time X to allow for certain
other things. Easy, no problem. Well, when I wrote up the disappearance,
I did it in such a way (not yet knowing the character all that well) that
the character is now obsessed with finding out what happened to the NPC.
It wasn't expected, at all, to work out that way, but it did, so now I'm
running with it. It was supposed to be just one of those things that
happen, but the character won't let go of it, so....
Scott
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> delurking...
|> Kip Manley, borrowing ENNEAD, here...
|>
|> Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@mit.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
|> : in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
|> : is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
|>
|> : But he discovered experimentally (dare I say: in logical positivist fashion?)
|> : that only adolescents taste like chicken, but that mature gamers are much
|> : less healthy because they have eaten much more junk food, because they have come
|> : to more game sessions. Then he came to the mystic insight that there is a psychic
|> : link between unhealthy foods and pork, because of the law of contagion as
|> : formulated by Issac Newton, alchemist.
|>
|> So are you positing a hylic link between pork and mature gamers, or
|> merely a pneumatic link? Hopefully the latter, for those mature
|> gamers who wish to keep kosher.
I suspect it is a pneumatic link, but I don't think it is relevant.
Anthropophagous behavior is almost always a kosher violation. However,
for non-Jewish gamers, it probably doesn't matter all that much,
except perhaps in the sense of Talmudic Law affecting the Western
worldview. :)
Neel
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> : I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
|> : in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
|> : is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
|>
|> And isn't Reimer a jelly doughnut? That might throw the results off
|> a bit.
Really? I would have expected him to taste like a sausage, because he
is German, and because he is a mature gamer. But that's probably just
because God plays D&D, and German are a class with the limitations,
"taste like sausage, and come up with twisted philosophies whenever
they aren't trying to conquer the world."
|> : ...Then he came to the mystic insight that there is a psychic
|> : link between unhealthy foods and pork, because of the law of contagion as
|> : formulated by Issac Newton, alchemist.
|>
|> Neel, you ignorant slut. It was Isaac Newton the ASTROLOGER
|> who developed the law of contagion. Isaac Newton the alchemist is
|> the guy who wrote the Q documents, and who has often been suspected
|> of secretly authoring Shakespeare's plays, particularly the ones
|> with a high degree of foreshadowing and "feeling of randomness,"
|> like "Romeo and Juliet."
You know nothing. NOTHING! Francis _Bacon_ wrote Shakespeare's plays.
Bacon == pork. It is just the sort of pun mature gamers[1] go
for, and we all know the plays were written by mature gamers
because the plays are all plot-based diceless entertainment.
It is perfectly obvious that Issac Newton had nothing at all to
do with Shakespeare's plays. I mean, only Usenet can produce the
loons who think otherwise.
[1] Reminds me of an Amber game I heard about. One of the players
was a Lensman/child of Amber. Clarrisa Kinnison was actually Oberon's
ex-wife, and she was the reason the Kinnison Kids were so much more
impressive than their father. I laughed for *days*.
|> : (This is just a joke. My finals have just ended, and I am depressurizing
|> : my brain by wildly misinterpreting a thread. Call me John Winston. The
|> : UFOs are coming.)
|>
|>
|> Get some sleep, Mr. Winston. And congratulations on the
|> finals. I do hope that this doesn't mean that we'll be losing you
|> for the next three months or so?
Thank you. I don't know if I'll have Usenet access or not yet. I mean,
if I were an employer, Usenet is the first thing I would get rid of.
Neel
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : |> So would it be possible to run a good world based (or simulation based)
|> : |> claimed that it would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but
|> : |> I have seen nothing to make me believe that this sort of game would run
|> : |> as well using diceless techniques.
|>
|> : I can.
|>
|> By "mostly," I assume Neel is referring to the fact that I
|> do use dice, on occasion, but that I don't use them very *often.*
|> Or perhaps it is that I have been known to run the occasional plot
|> game, as a change. I'm not sure.
|>
|> I don't use mechanics, but I do occasionally use dice. My
|> games are world-based.
Yes. That's what I meant.
|> Really, it is a bit odd that I seem to have become the chief
|> diceless advocate around here. Where in heaven's name are Reimer
|> and David Berkman? They are needed here.
I found myself in the same position some weeks back. And I play GURPS!
I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
But he discovered experimentally (dare I say: in logical positivist fashion?)
that only adolescents taste like chicken, but that mature gamers are much
less healthy because they have eaten much more junk food, because they have come
to more game sessions. Then he came to the mystic insight that there is a psychic
link between unhealthy foods and pork, because of the law of contagion as
formulated by Issac Newton, alchemist.
(This is just a joke. My finals have just ended, and I am depressurizing
my brain by wildly misinterpreting a thread. Call me John Winston. The
UFOs are coming.)
Neel
Charles M Seaton
Kip Manley, borrowing ENNEAD, here...
Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@mit.edu) wrote:
: I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
: in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
: is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
: But he discovered experimentally (dare I say: in logical positivist fashion?)
: that only adolescents taste like chicken, but that mature gamers are much
: less healthy because they have eaten much more junk food, because they have come
: to more game sessions. Then he came to the mystic insight that there is a psychic
: link between unhealthy foods and pork, because of the law of contagion as
: formulated by Issac Newton, alchemist.
So are you positing a hylic link between pork and mature gamers, or
merely a pneumatic link? Hopefully the latter, for those mature
gamers who wish to keep kosher.
kip, who is also getting very tired of the philosophy and role
playing thread
Charles M Seaton
: In article <3q5erm$l...@nic.umass.edu>, ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu
(Charles M Seaton) writes:
: |> Really, it is a bit odd that I seem to have become the chief
: |> diceless advocate around here. Where in heaven's name are Reimer
: |> and David Berkman? They are needed here.
: I found myself in the same position some weeks back. And I play GURPS!
Heh. You know, some time last year I ended up as the Great
White Advocate of GURPS on this board. And I don't like mechanics!
Amazing. Simply amazing.
: I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
: in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
: is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
Rather a long trip for such an experiment, don't you think?
And isn't Reimer a jelly doughnut? That might throw the results off
a bit.
: ...Then he came to the mystic insight that there is a psychic
: link between unhealthy foods and pork, because of the law of contagion as
: formulated by Issac Newton, alchemist.
Neel, you ignorant slut. It was Isaac Newton the ASTROLOGER
who developed the law of contagion. Isaac Newton the alchemist is
the guy who wrote the Q documents, and who has often been suspected
of secretly authoring Shakespeare's plays, particularly the ones
with a high degree of foreshadowing and "feeling of randomness,"
like "Romeo and Juliet."
: (This is just a joke. My finals have just ended, and I am depressurizing
: my brain by wildly misinterpreting a thread. Call me John Winston. The
: UFOs are coming.)
Get some sleep, Mr. Winston. And congratulations on the
finals. I do hope that this doesn't mean that we'll be losing you
for the next three months or so?
-- Sarah
Reimer Behrends
: In article <3q6h06$c...@nic.umass.edu>, ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:
: |> : I think it's because David B., having eaten his god, went and ate Reimer
: |> : in order to prove that cannibalism is not a symbolic act when the larder
: |> : is empty. He also wanted to prove people taste like chicken, not pork.
: |>
: |> Rather a long trip for such an experiment, don't you think?
: |> And isn't Reimer a jelly doughnut? That might throw the results off
: |> a bit.
: Really? I would have expected him to taste like a sausage, because he
: is German, and because he is a mature gamer.
Sorry, Neel, but you missed the joke entirely. But then you (unlike
me) probably haven't been exposed to soc.culture.german with its recent
discussion on whether John F. Kennedy meant 'I am a jelly doughnut'
when he said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'.
And where did you get the idea that I am a mature gamer? What does
mature mean, anyway? Anyway, until this issue gets cleared up I demand
that you retract your allegation here and now.
: But that's probably just
: because God plays D&D, and German are a class with the limitations,
: "taste like sausage, and come up with twisted philosophies whenever
: they aren't trying to conquer the world."
<donning spiked helmet> You know, laddie, you're trespassing here. I'm
not exactly sure how you did that, but we had better put you in jail
for your own good, don't you agree? <exeunt>
<innocent smile> Germans? Tasting like sausage? Conquering the world?
Where did you get such an absurd idea?
Reimer Behrends
P.S.: Please sprinkle the above _liberally_ with smileys. ;-)
Charles M Seaton
: Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@mit.edu) wrote:
: Sorry, Neel, but you missed the joke entirely. But then you (unlike
: me) probably haven't been exposed to soc.culture.german with its recent
: discussion on whether John F. Kennedy meant 'I am a jelly doughnut'
: when he said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'.
Someone's really claiming that he *meant* to say "I am a
jelly doughnut?"
That's a bit feeble, isn't it? "Er...I MEANT to say that.
No, really, I did. It was...um...an in-joke. Yeah, that's it."
At any rate, until this whole thing is resolved, I am
imagining Reimer as a pork-flavored fruit-filled pastry. An
unappealing notion, you must admit.
: : But that's probably just
: : because God plays D&D, and German are a class with the limitations,
: : "taste like sausage, and come up with twisted philosophies whenever
: : they aren't trying to conquer the world."
Yes, but what ALIGNMENT are they?
: <donning spiked helmet> You know, laddie, you're trespassing here. I'm
: not exactly sure how you did that, but we had better put you in jail
: for your own good, don't you agree? <exeunt>
Hmmm. Sounds like Lawful Good to me.
Perhaps we ought move over to the "Evil Races" thread on
misc?
-- Sarah
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>John H Kim (jh...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
>: For example, someone playing a sniper may describe how he is
>: lining up for a shot. The GM may listen to his description of how he
>: sets up the shot, but in the end, there are random factors which he
>: cannot control. Thus the GM rolls dice against his estimate of the
>: chances based on that description.
>
>Good post, and I don't necessarily disagree, but then something stuck, so
>I think I'll pursue it.
>
>What are the 'random' factors in the above example, as opposed to those
>of known environment and skill? What are the 'odds' of making a
>reasonable shot assuming a skilled sniper, and a good rifle and scope,
>and no obvious adverse effects like high winds (which could be known and
>compensated for in any case). What do the dice add to such a resolution?
>
>David
>
David, allow me.
Well aside from quoting verbatim from the Sniper's Manual the random factors involved in hitting a target are:
1.)Wind direction and speed.
2.)Ambient temperasture (changes air density, and powder performance).
3.) Quality of weapon (barrel wear, sight alignment, barrel resonance)
4.) Quality of Ammunition (company, lot number, age, projectile shape)
5.) angle away from horizonatal (rifled is "rolled" to one side)
6.) Angle of shot (Off horzontal, the point of aim may change
significantly.
7.) Heartbeat
8.) Breathing
9.) Surface, and bracing
10.) Time focussed on target (wich peaks at about 15 seconds then
degrades slightly).
11.) movement of target
You will notice, range is NOT a random factor (for a sniper)
The pros fill out what is called a dope sheet. This is filled out whenever they take a shot on the range, and if possible on the job=
The sniper will make note of the above factors and note them down. a few snipers are handloaders and will note the performance of =
the powder, and the projectile.
They do this to develop their own table to figure out the odds of where the bullet will impact if the crosshairs were at the geometr=
ic zero of the target bull at a given range.
Most scopes, these days, have what is called, sub, minute of angle adjustment. where a "click" on the windage or elevation knobs wil=
l move the point of impact 1/4 of an inch at 100 yards. A good grouping rifle will (if he rifle is held in a vice) put all the bull=
ets into a 3/4 inch group at 200yds. Many professional rigs these days can top that. A Bar
Scott A. H. Ruggels
So the sniper has worked out to eliminate most of the random factors in
his performance, in a methodical an scientific fashion. For a Police
Sniper, the lives of innocents depend on his judgement and thoroughness.
For a Military sniper, it is the one and only shot, before he and his
spotter hightail it to friendly lines. for the assasin, it is the basis
for his reputation.
So the only random factors not within the sniper's control are:
The spread of the bullet, within that 3/4 of an inch at 200yds. (which
does expand into a cone ( a Barret Light Fifty a .50BMG caliber
"Anti-Ordinance" sniper weaopn, can hit within a 1 foot square at 1
mile, and within a 6 foot square at 2). The wind/temperature, 3). and
the Target's movement. The sniper, however would have good guesses on
how to figure out how to compensate for these variables.
So it looks like a hit by a sniper woud be nearly a foregone conclusion
at ranges out to 300 yds. Well, yes, it is, if they are professionals.
But in a game, the one thing I will allow in differentiating Player
Characters from Non Player characters is that P.C.'s can achieve first
hit kills on an NPC, but not the reverse. I will have the sniper shoot
who the character may be talking to, or destroy the can of coke he
raises to his lips, but I will not let an NPC sniper, kill a PC on the
first shot in my games.
However, one that sniper has fired, the PC had better find some cover,
because now they know the sniper is there, and should plan accordingly.
This is just the way I do things.
Scott
Scott A. H. Ruggels
horizontal axis was:
Roleplaying
^
|
|
|
|
Wargaming<--------+-------->Storytelling
|
|
|
|
V
Powergaming
I think it might be a tad obsolete these days but it was interesting to
see where people styles and preferences fit. So this one one might look
like:
Plotted
^
| (Z axis open for debate)
| /
| /
|/
Stylized<-------+-------->Realism
/|
/ |
(Z axis open for debate|
|
v
Randomized
Does this help?
Scott
P.S. my first thought on the Z axis was Adversarial/cooperative, but it
doesn't seem quite right.
Scott
David Seal
> dicelessly? In the Diceless Resolution Techniques thread it is claimed that it
> would (choice of words giving away own bias there) but I have seen nothing to
> make me believe that this sort of game would run as well using diceless
> techniques.
I don't really know about how well a world-based game can be dealt
with using diceless techniques. My point was much more limited -
namely that if accuracy of simulation is important to you, then dice
or some other randomiser are important to deal with the randomness of
real-world events.
In most cases, of course, all that matters is that the simulation
*appears* to be accurate to the players, and then a GM's simulated
randomness can easily be good enough - all he needs to do is make
certain that he does a better job of generating randomness than the
players do of detecting non-randomness. But if the players are going
to be analysing what happens rather than just going on their
impressions (as might happen e.g. in a game with a lot of puzzles in
it), it can be a good idea to use a real form of randomness.
Basically, all I'm saying is that there are environments in which
accuracy of simulation is important, rather than just its appearance.
They're not very common, and there are almost certainly lots of people
who would never go near one, but they do exist.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
Great Cthulhu
>So the only random factors not within the sniper's control are:
>The spread of the bullet, within that 3/4 of an inch at 200yds. (which
>does expand into a cone ( a Barret Light Fifty a .50BMG caliber
>"Anti-Ordinance" sniper weaopn, can hit within a 1 foot square at 1
>mile, and within a 6 foot square at 2). The wind/temperature, 3). and
>the Target's movement. The sniper, however would have good guesses on
>how to figure out how to compensate for these variables.
You left out 'mechanical failure,' most likely of the ammunition assuming the
sniper is taking excellent care of his weapon.
>So it looks like a hit by a sniper woud be nearly a foregone conclusion
>at ranges out to 300 yds. Well, yes, it is, if they are professionals.
Yup. But the kinds of PCs I deal with are essentially never that good.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"Hell has our phone number." - DEC "I'll bet it does!" - Me
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>"Scott A. H. Ruggels" <scott....@3do.com> writes:
>
>>So the only random factors not within the sniper's control are:
>>The spread of the bullet, within that 3/4 of an inch at 200yds. (which
>>does expand into a cone ( a Barret Light Fifty a .50BMG caliber
>>"Anti-Ordinance" sniper weaopn, can hit within a 1 foot square at 1
>>mile, and within a 6 foot square at 2). The wind/temperature, 3). and
>>the Target's movement. The sniper, however would have good guesses on
>>how to figure out how to compensate for these variables.
>
>You left out 'mechanical failure,' most likely of the ammunition assuming the
>sniper is taking excellent care of his weapon.
>
>>So it looks like a hit by a sniper woud be nearly a foregone conclusion
>>at ranges out to 300 yds. Well, yes, it is, if they are professionals.
>
>Yup. But the kinds of PCs I deal with are essentially never that good.
>
>--
>-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
Well, then the players are not "snipers" but poseurs. But any soldier that has qualified "marksman" can hit a man at 200yds in less =
than ideal conditions from ambush 9 times out of 10.
Scott
David W Llewellyn
Scott A. H. Ruggels <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
>
>Well, then the players are not "snipers" but poseurs. But any soldier that has qualified "marksman" can hit a man at 200yds in less =
>than ideal conditions from ambush 9 times out of 10.
>
someone's living room and eating Chinese food, he said, knowing he was
taking the statement too literally, but seeing that the distinction had
to be made. :)
David Llewellyn
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>
>You left out 'mechanical failure,' most likely of the ammunition assuming the
>sniper is taking excellent care of his weapon.
Poor ammunition is so rare as to be nearly a non-issue. Hand loaders make a
few mistakes, but weighing completed bullets after hand loading will allow
them to detect, no powder, or wrong powder amounts. Most factory ammo, and
military factory ammo is QC'd enough to remove most errors. Ammo malfunctions
become anecdotal, not statistical. ( I had 2 shotgun shells not fire, in two
years of shooting skeet, and the only ammo where I would get a lot of
hangfires was Iraqi Military surplus .303 minted in 1921, and a hangfire still
means it went off, though late.
>
>>So it looks like a hit by a sniper woud be nearly a foregone conclusion
>>at ranges out to 300 yds. Well, yes, it is, if they are professionals.
>
>Yup. But the kinds of PCs I deal with are essentially never that good.
>
>--
>-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Oops, caught me. But then again, I do have a dopesheet, and a recipe book of good handloads.
Scott