realism vs. absurdism
Lauri Gardner
Greets (again)
I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your oppinion on a
games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
What is the balance should it be so that the players think the world is
realistic or that the GM? Or should it be soemething in-between (most of
adventures have fallen apart when I have a 10 000 pages of material that
has to be read for that right flavour, or for how floorplans have to be
made)?
As an example that comes to mind is the documentary on landmines. This was
shown at a firstaid meeting and was not something pretty (incidentaly it
is obligaotry viewing for medic in Finland, not many survive through the
whole documentary). The kind that gives you nightmares.
Another that comes to mind is with damage, through first aid I know what
kinds of reactions and situations may arrise with wounded people. Most of
the kind of things that without knowledge you would be at a loss, and
would probably end up killing him.
I could give several example involving equipment, weight, internal logic
of the game world history, weapon designs and internal workings...but I
won't.
--
Lauri Gardner
drh...@utmem1.utmem.edu
Lauri Gardner <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> Greets (again)
> I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your oppinion on a
> games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
> should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
> What is the balance should it be so that the players think the world is
> realistic or that the GM? Or should it be soemething in-between (most of
> adventures have fallen apart when I have a 10 000 pages of material that
> has to be read for that right flavour, or for how floorplans have to be
> made)?
>
<landmine example snipped>
> --
> Lauri Gardner
Oddly enough, I've been thinking about similar matters myself recently.
The way I posed the question to myself was, "What is it about roleplaying
games that we enjoy?"
The problem is, the answer to that question depends on each person. Let's
use 'realism' as an example. I think we all need a certain base level of
realism in a game system... there's an understanding that if you fire a
gun or swing a sword at someone, you stand a reasonable chance of hitting
them, if you get run over by a car or a dragon, you'll get hurt, etc.
However, the extent to which reality is modeled in a game can vary a lot.
For example, Rolemaster has extremely detailed rules concerning %effort
expended on each action you take in a 10-second combat round, the precise
amount of damage inflicted by a sword swing, including the number of
tendons severed, and so on. On the other hand, Marvel SAGA defines one
'exchange' as being as much time as takes place in a typical panel or so
of comic book art, anywhere from just a few seconds to nearly a minute,
and damage is reflected by removing cards from your hand.
The solution, I think, is to use the specific genre being recreated as a
guide to the base level of realism, and fine-tune those assumptions by
holding a discussion between the GM and the players. For example, RPG's
have defined an extreme level of gritty lethality in their own right...
there is very little fiction where important characters (The PC's) have as
good a chance of dying uselessly as they do during a low-level dungeon
crawl in AD&D. On the other hand, if you are depicting an action movie or
a kung-fu flick, the emphasis should be on speed of play, and the
characters should be able to absorb stunning amounts of damage without the
'realistic' concomitant side effects of unconsciousness, bleeding to
death, or being immobilized by pain and shock.
You also mention floorplans, which indicates to me that you may be
concerned about the inherent logic and consistency of the setting. I'll
give you two examples of what I think you're aiming at, drawn from my
impressive catalog of bad roleplaying experiences.
1. Recently, I had the opportunity to playtest someone's homebrew game
system, basically a mish-mash of AD&D and GURPS. The final battle of the
adventure took place in a house in the middle of a swamp. The house was
on stilts, over a pond containing an extremely hungry giant fish. There
was one ladder in the front leading up to the only door. The house had no
windows.
We proceeded to climb the ladder and enter the first room. This room
was filled with zombies. After disposing of the the zombies, we
approached the only door leading out of this room, which led into a narrow
hallway. It turned out the hallway floor was fake, and open putting his
weight on it, the point-man nearly fell into the pond with the hungry
fish... the floor did fall into the pond. We eventually got the door at
the far end of the hall open, and commenced leaping across one by one,
only to be minced by an intangible necromancer and an invulnerable death
knight.
Anyway, here are the logical errors of the house: The necromancer in
question was using trained giant bats to steal babies. Where was the bat
entrance? Did they, perhaps, use the front door? Inside, the house was
apparently a linear succession of rooms and halls... it would have to been
incredibly long and narrow, and yet this fact was not described to us when
we were circling around the house prior to entering it. If the front
hallway floor was designed to fall out into the pond, how on earth would
anybody ever be able to use the front (and only) door? Especially
considering that there was apparently no way of recovering the floor once
it had fallen into the pond, nor any way of replacing it once it had
fallen. Basically, this final encounter setting suffered from poor
thinking. It was designed as an unrealistic death-trap, rather than a
place where an evil necromancer might really be sacrificing babies to his
dark gods.
2. Some years ago, playing a superhero game, we had an adventure
involving the heroes being arrested by the government and taken by plane
to LA, where we would be tried before a McCarthy-esque board of inquiry
probing vigilante activities. Of course, for the purposes of the
adventure, the government automatically knew our real identities and
places of residence (don'tcha just hate it when that happens...). The
plane was forced down over the desert, and landed at a small
out-of-the-way airport in the middle of nowhere. Besides a landing strip,
the airport featured only a control tower and a fuel tank.
There were no nearby towns, no roads, and no vehicles. In spite of
this fact, there neither restrooms nor sleeping quarters in the control
tower. Nor was there any stored food or water available. For that
matter, there wasn't even a power source for the tower radio. Basically,
there was no actual thought paid to what would have been available at any
kind of a real airport, even a small, out-of-the-way type place, and no
in-game reason for the existence of a fake airport. The GM simply hadn't
thought things through, and instead of correcting his errors, took
pleasure in taunting the players with these inadequecies. The point was
that he was trying to steer us into doing something phenomenally stupid
given the circumstances (trekking blindly into the desert), yet which
would further the poorly-conceived plot he had in mind.
These are examples of unrealistic circumstances resulting from artificial
constraints imposed upon the game by a GM who was either lazy or
incompetent. Now, I understand the need to push players along a certain
route in order to get to the 'fun' parts of the adventure, but there are
more elegant ways of handling it than this.
Frank J. Perricone
<lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
> should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
Yes.
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Prism: http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn/Prism/
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
Robin
drh...@utmem1.utmem.edu wrote:
<snip>
> The problem is, the answer to that question depends on each person.
Let's
> use 'realism' as an example. I think we all need a certain base level
of
> realism in a game system... there's an understanding that if you fire
a
> gun or swing a sword at someone, you stand a reasonable chance of
hitting
> them, if you get run over by a car or a dragon, you'll get hurt, etc.
> However, the extent to which reality is modeled in a game can vary a
lot.
> For example, Rolemaster has extremely detailed rules concerning %
effort
> expended on each action you take in a 10-second combat round, the
precise
> amount of damage inflicted by a sword swing, including the number of
> tendons severed, and so on. On the other hand, Marvel SAGA defines one
> 'exchange' as being as much time as takes place in a typical panel or
so
> of comic book art, anywhere from just a few seconds to nearly a
minute,
> and damage is reflected by removing cards from your hand.
After what must have been half a million discussions on realism there
is one thing I have learned: realism is nigh impossible to define. It
always depends on what level of reality you want to reflect. Rules
systems which leave no combat situation without modifier are realistic
in so far as they may be able to replicate a combat as it could have
been. Yet for me (rules-light gamer that I am) such rules sytems feel
as if they play me instead of giving me the tool to play with; this is
unrealistic to me. The descriptive approach to combat I prefer is
realistic in so far as it allows for any maneuver whatsoever, not only
those listed in some table or other; but it sacrifices gritty
repeatable modifiers for being stuck in mud. This may be unrealistic to
others.
So, in any game reality is what you can get away with. The rules system
should be able to simulate those areas of realism which the group as a
whole feels comfortable with.
The examples you give are not rules-based; I would subsume that
as 'continuity' or 'logic'. This is another level of realism entirely,
but here again reality is what you can get away with. There was a time
back in my early gaming days when I wouldn't have had second thoughts
about that necromancer's lair. Today a game can be soured (and often
is) when I just think that the GM might not have given detailed thought
to any certain event. For instance, when the guards appear so quickly
after the alarm was sounded, they must have been practically in the
next room all the time - can I deduce from that fact that someone has
betrayed us and they were waiting for us, or has the GM just slipped?
This is one of the reasons why I prefer being the GM.
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robin
Lauri Gardner <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
>
> Greets (again)
> I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your oppinion on a
> should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
I think that it's ok to have everything there is in real life in RPGs
as well. But I don't think that most of it needs to be put into rules.
If you know that a gun has heavy recoil, have a player who fires it
roll for strength to see if there are consequences, and if the player
fails, describe any recoil effect that comes to mind. Why should there
be a rule which gives one special effect every time it comes to bear?
Take for instance the Rolemaster tables: there are lots of critical
hits with descriptions, and they are all fine and well as long as they
are not repeated too often - but if they are you end up with veteran
players all missing their left ear and having a big scar on their right
cheek (not actual crits from the tables, but you get my drift). So you
begin interpreting the table results to get more realism - so why have
the results in the first place?
> What is the balance should it be so that the players think the world
is
> realistic or that the GM? Or should it be soemething in-between (most
of
> adventures have fallen apart when I have a 10 000 pages of material
that
> has to be read for that right flavour, or for how floorplans have to
be
> made)?
I prepare a lot when I GM, and 95% of that does not filter through to
my players. For my Mesopotamian campaign currently under way I have
compiled lots of data, bought heaps of books and plundered dozens of
websites, but the flavour comes from my descriptions in-game only - my
players were not required to know much about hte setting as I gave them
a short introduction (two pages in writing) and then filled in blanks
and warned them whenever I felt that what they had their characters do
was out-of-character for the time.
I don't care for floor plans at all, though sometimes I wish I did.
Combat situations play out in my head, and I try to describe them to my
players, but there is no guarantee everyone gets it the same (there is
more of a guarantee for the opposite). But in the end RPGs are
narration, and there is still poetic license (my opinion, I know that
there are different opinions jsut as valid).
Then there is the reality you don't even know. For instance, a Werewolf
campaign of mine is set in Finland. I don't know an awful lot about
that country, so you would probably laugh yourself silly when I
describe, for instance, Helsinki or the landscape or the Finnish-
sounding names I use... but the level of realism is just enough to make
it believable to my players none of whom is Finnish.
I am German myself, and whenever I see the representation of Germany
and especially the German language in an American RPG I can just shake
my head. Whereever there are two or three German words combined there
is a grammatical error among them. That is probably enough realism for
Americans (or any other non-Germans), but I have to edit that of
course, or my players would be quite puzzled.
Robin
Lauri Gardner
> >
>
> <landmine example snipped>
>
> > --
> > Lauri Gardner
>
>
> Oddly enough, I've been thinking about similar matters myself recently.
> The way I posed the question to myself was, "What is it about roleplaying
> games that we enjoy?"
Escapism. The fact that you don't need to go back to your cubicle of a
room to your normal role, but rather you can be Harald the horrible viking
from up north whose main past times are slaughtering orks, wenching, and
consuming vast amounts of alcohol, while signing old
manowar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H norse songs at a steady 100 db. volume.
Not to try to figure out how to wheedle your professor that yes your
thirty page essay on the Vulcanism of the outer planets is already sent,
how to scrape enough study weeks that your student grant doesn't go under,
and how to stop your roommate from hosting another weekend party, while on
monday you have a test. All while with the realisation that your job
opprtunity is about about the same, as the chance of discovering a new
planet.
Hmm...Maybe I should start
This is what was planned for my next adventure (been on ice for several
months) I had to read a 10 000 page manifest on the creation of cold
fusion power plant, I had to then figure out on how to draw that power
plants floor plans, all levels, where would charges be put to destroy key
systems, what type of internal security it would have. The type of
weaponry that the security forces would have, what is the operational
doctrine of a joint venture military operation involving a dozen six to
twelve man teams. I had to then go out and find satellite pictures of
Kourou, and power plants in construction. I had to the go on and study the
weather patterns and build up a possible six day possible weather pattern
and tide pattern for the area. I had to go on and make a study of the
areas man power strength, what types of equipment would the third party be
able to smuggle in. One player asked for a political control of the area,
how the locals like the occupuying former US soldier 'bots, etc, etc.
I've also made adventure at the drop of the hat.
The questions goes where is the line? When is it alright that it is okay
to stretch believability, and when it shouldn't, assuming that it is a
realistic, modern day campaign (paranoia is its own chapter).
>
> These are examples of unrealistic circumstances resulting from artificial
> constraints imposed upon the game by a GM who was either lazy or
> incompetent. Now, I understand the need to push players along a certain
> route in order to get to the 'fun' parts of the adventure, but there are
> more elegant ways of handling it than this.
>
I've found that forcing players to do things is like pulling mules, the
more you pull or push the mule, more the mule digs in.
The problem I have is that the groups I play in the majority are over
twenty male players who have gone through the armed service, so they have
fired with an assault rifle, used infantry support weapons and have lots
of practical experience in that area. Also most of them are militant in
some way, one who regularly goes down to the shooting range, two gun
nuts, one who has helped write the Red Army handbook (at least wrote the
N. Korea TO&E back in '96), who all enjoy going into weapons and
tactics on a minute level (For instance I can tell the real reason why
AA MG are still in use, and what does a Lada look like when it is shot
up by one). I could go on...Now how on earth do I make a realistic
campaign to this bunch?!!
--
Lauri Gardner
Who is probably just suffering from post winter depression.
Michael T. Richter
news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0003161...@paju.oulu.fi...
> I've found that forcing players to do things is like pulling mules, the
> more you pull or push the mule, more the mule digs in.
It's more like herding cats in my experience. If you push a player in a
given direction, you can be certain that this direction is the only one the
player will not go in.
Michael T. Richter
news:8aq6np$6fu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I am German myself, and whenever I see the representation of Germany
> and especially the German language in an American RPG I can just shake
> my head. Whereever there are two or three German words combined there
> is a grammatical error among them. That is probably enough realism for
> Americans (or any other non-Germans), but I have to edit that of
> course, or my players would be quite puzzled.
My favorite in this regard was from 2300AD. In one supplement there was a
lot of German (the section involved detailing a Bavarian colony). When I
read that "Sumpfdotterblumen" meant "daughter of the swamp flower", I nearly
died of laughter.
Lauri Gardner
> It's more like herding cats in my experience. If you push a player in
> a given direction, you can be certain that this direction is the only
> one the player will not go in.
That is what makes GM'ing so interesting, you never know which direction
they will go :)
--
Lauri Gardner
Robin
I get the creeps every time I see that illustration in the Werewolf
supplement 'Book of Caerns' in which a (dead?) man with a coke can in
his mouth is lying in front of a sign saying 'Keine Abfallung' (for
speakers of English: imagine 'no rubbishing' in place of 'no litter').
Mr. M.J. Lush
Lauri Gardner <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
I don't think you can ever run a 'realistic' RPG the levels of
detail required are just too great, for instance the floor
plans for your power station would probably be laughed at by a
(impolite) structural engineer. I don't think your looking for
realism your looking for plausibility. You don't really need to
go into the detail your players will never appreciate.
I'll critique your power plant from my GMing viewpoint.
(I'm not trashing the idea of going into this much detail
its great fun.... but just to give an idea where I would draw the
line).
>This is what was planned for my next adventure (been on ice for several
>months) I had to read a 10 000 page manifest on the creation of cold
>fusion power plant,
Why bother? A cold fusion plant would probably be little
different to a normal powerplant all you really need to do is remove
the coal boiler and put in something with lots of chrome and big power
cables. The rest of the plant will convert the fusion heat into
steam and use it to run turbines.
> I had to then figure out on how to draw that power
>plants floor plans, all levels,
Very very good! gives players a feel for the layout and tactical
options makes the place real (but only if they can mull over the maps
themselfs If they never see the maps its quite easy to wing it
by describing lots of walk ways and passages players soon get lost!)
> where would charges be put to destroy key
>systems,
Not esp important.... players could make this choice during
the planning stages then you (as GM) make a secret demolitions roll to
see if the player choice was the 'right one' (modifying the roll
for the reasoning behind the choice) if the roll was badly fubbed the
choice was the wrong one and result in unexpected consequences...
(even if the location was right they may have used too much/little
explosives)
> what type of internal security it would have. The type of
>weaponry that the security forces would have,
Good Good!
> what is the operational
>doctrine of a joint venture military operation involving a dozen six to
>twelve man teams.
Are the players ever going to _see_ the operational doctrine?
ie steal the hand book or whatever? If not then all you really need
is a bit of convincing running round the local goons to do when the lead
starts to fly...
> I had to then go out and find satellite pictures of
>Kourou, and power plants in construction.
This is a very good idea (did you draw the floor plans before
or after getting the pictures do they match could you have made you
job much easier by traceing off the ground plan from Kourou and
saying its a cold fusion plant...)
> I had to the go on and study the
>weather patterns and build up a possible six day possible weather pattern
>and tide pattern for the area.
Why? the weather could be easily done by tossing a coin,
heads = Bad weather, tails = good weather then modify for the time of year
the long range forecast = 6 coin tosses + roll d6 on a 1-4 the prediction
is accurate, 5 more or less accurate, 6 wrong... if you want a realistic
long range forecast just take notes of the Long range forecast on TV for a
few weeks and dust them off as needed. As for the tide just come up with
a numbers between 1 and 12 and say thats when the high tides are at Xam and
X (+/-1d20 minutes)pm. If a player starts taking observations of the
moon and sun to show that your tide predictions are wrong have him taken out
and shot (it will be for their own good!!!)
If you must have 'realistic' tides take a look at
<http://www.tidesonline.com/> it dosn't matter if the predictions are for
the wrong year or even the wrong hemisphere the players have no way of
checking up on it!
If your players want to make use of the local tides and currents
you don't have to have them all planned out just use the 'demolitions'
approach get the PC with navigation training to suggest how the tides would
flow then make a navigation roll to see if they were right.
> I had to go on and make a study of the
>areas man power strength,
Perhaps useful although the PC's will probably never meet them
so just an idea of population density could suffice
> what types of equipment would the third party be
>able to smuggle in.
Borderline, more useful would be a general idea of how good the local
police, customs etc are then allow the players to determine what they
could smuggle and bribe their way in (it would also give a bit of political
background)
> One player asked for a political control of the area,
>how the locals like the occupuying former US soldier 'bots, etc, etc.
This sort of thing can be normally be made up on the spot
(unless theres a political subplot lurking around somewhere).
>I've also made adventure at the drop of the hat.
>
>The questions goes where is the line? When is it alright that it is okay
>to stretch believability, and when it shouldn't, assuming that it is a
>realistic, modern day campaign (paranoia is its own chapter).
<snip>
>The problem I have is that the groups I play in the majority are over
>twenty male players who have gone through the armed service, so they have
>fired with an assault rifle, used infantry support weapons and have lots
>of practical experience in that area.
<snip>
> I could go on...Now how on earth do I make a realistic
>campaign to this bunch?!!
Well you could use my heartfelt sympathy.... you could consider
trying to make the game near future or even SF ie make the game world
just that bit more unfamiliar so all the guns etc are ones the players
have never seen and thus can't complain if the don't work like the
one 'I was only using yesterday'. Another approach may be to introduce
tech that makes the 'standard tactics' obsolete and force the players
into coming up with their own tactics moving the game just that one
step from reality may give you a little more room to manouever....
--
Michael Ban DHMO Now!! <http://www.dhmo.org/>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Bryan J. Maloney
Lauri Gardner <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> Greets (again)
> I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your oppinion on a
> games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
> should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
MU!
MU!
MU!
Grasshopper, should water be liquid or should it be ice?
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Bryan J. Maloney
Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> "Lauri Gardner" <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0003161...@paju.oulu.fi...
> > I've found that forcing players to do things is like pulling mules, the
> > more you pull or push the mule, more the mule digs in.
>
> It's more like herding cats in my experience. If you push a player in a
> given direction, you can be certain that this direction is the only one the
> player will not go in.
Herding cats is easy--I've done it.
Herding ducks, now THAT is a challenge.
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing Lauri Gardner
<lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> to write:
> I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your oppinion on a
>games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
>should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
Depends on the style that floats your boat, and the conventions
of the genre.
I'm normally part of the "model reality until it squeaks" school,
but I love Champions, and will happily lift aircraft carriers
over head, even though the ship would break in two, and my
character would be driven into the ground.
Your commentary about the land mine video is actually addressing
another point: lethality and the consequences of violence. If
most DnD players were actually confronted with the consequences
of the a typical battle, they'd be losing lunches for weeks. But
in that genre, mass slaughter is not only acceptable, but
expected.
So once again it becomes a question of what do you, and your
fellow players want to do? High fantasy shouldn't be bogged down
by have wounds becoming infected, and the Knight being hit by
dysentery just before fighting the dragon. On the other hand, a
hard-boiled cyberpunk game should be more gritty and realistic,
with player-characters gritting through he pain as bullets
shatter their ribs.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"We are GURPS. You will be assimilated. We will add
your distinctive setting and background to our own. |
Resistance is futile."
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing "Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com>
to write:
>It's more like herding cats in my experience. If you push a player in a
>given direction, you can be certain that this direction is the only one the
>player will not go in.
First Law of GMing: Any scenario has five potential solutions:
The four you pan for and the one the players come up with.
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> to
write:
>I get the creeps every time I see that illustration in the Werewolf
>supplement 'Book of Caerns' in which a (dead?) man with a coke can in
>his mouth is lying in front of a sign saying 'Keine Abfallung' (for
>speakers of English: imagine 'no rubbishing' in place of 'no litter').
RPGs aren't the only ones guilty of that, and I've seen many
ridiculous translations into English as well.
Michael T. Richter
news:38e22e66...@news.mindspring.com...
>>I get the creeps every time I see that illustration in the Werewolf
>>supplement 'Book of Caerns' in which a (dead?) man with a coke can in
>>his mouth is lying in front of a sign saying 'Keine Abfallung' (for
>>speakers of English: imagine 'no rubbishing' in place of 'no litter').
> RPGs aren't the only ones guilty of that, and I've seen many
> ridiculous translations into English as well.
On the whole, however, Europeans are much more likely to get English right
than English speakers are to get foreign languages right. In Germany, for
example, the Gymnasium graduates probably know English better than an
average North American high school graduate. They'll mispronounce words
like crazy, naturally, and they won't know common idioms, but for that
they'll have a far better grasp of spelling and grammar....
(Yes, I'm still ashamed after the Lahr Senior School Grade 11 exchange day
with a local Gymnasium about 15 years ago. 100% of the Gymnasium students
knew English and about 33% knew French, both to conversational level. The
Canadian class had about 5% who knew German and only about 25% who knew
French to the same level. The Gymnasium students also had a better grasp of
Canadian history and current events than we did. We, in turn, had two
people who knew anything meaningful about German history and none who knew
anything meaningful about German current events. We got so badly outclassed
that, for the first time in my life, I felt ashamed of my nation.)
RedD...@aol.com
Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>...
> After what must have been half a million discussions on realism there
> is one thing I have learned: realism is nigh impossible to define. It
True but, sometimes a lack of reality can be a real barrier to the
suspension of disbelief. Last night in rolemaster I decided to
gallop my horse after a friend who was out of control. Then I
realized that I was leaving behind a companion who was being
attacked by a large bird. My character had a 44 ride skill and
a 32 mounted combat skill. I fail my ride roll to stop the horse
and break it's leg. How likely is that? It's not like my character
was unfamiliar with horses. This falls under the heading of an
action which anyone with "familiarity" with a horse could probably
have accomplished safely, but in some game rules, it's impossible,
or at least unlikely. I feel like I'm in an episode of the keystone
cops sometimes. Do I need a skill role to put my boots on?
Bryan J. Maloney
<m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> anything meaningful about German current events. We got so badly outclassed
> that, for the first time in my life, I felt ashamed of my nation.)
At least you can take comfort from the fact that you're still our junior
partner!
Frank J. Perricone
<lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> > It's more like herding cats in my experience. If you push a player in
> > a given direction, you can be certain that this direction is the only
> > one the player will not go in.
>
> That is what makes GM'ing so interesting, you never know which direction
> they will go :)
Sometimes you do. I have one player that universally finds something to be
difficult about in any adventure, so I put a token one into every adventure
that she can get worked up about, which later on turns out to have not
mattered and be harmless. She still gets into fights with the other
players (or her character with their characters) which slows things down,
but at least the story isn't affected so much now that I always toss her
something to chew on.
Larry Blankenship
much time does the GM have and how demanding are the players? I don't
really have time to do all the research other folks seem to, so I tend to
play fast and loose with the facts and try to make sure that I don't make
any really bad logical boners. I also try to plan out any building type
adventures in advance to avoid problems with missing exits, bad
architecture, and so on. Working full time and having other interests does
not give me as much time to plan adventures as I would like, so I end up
having to make the most of the time I have. Going into nitpicky detail,
doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
Granted, I am of the rules light school, in that I think introducing too
much detail in the name of "realism" tends to just bog down play and make
things drag out. I don't want to spend 2 and a half hours on one fight
because it takes 10 minutes to resolve each round of combat (one of the
reasons I don't play GURPS). I want fast and simple action and combat
resolution so I can get back to the interesting part. D&D was good at this,
until they started adding in bonuses and other things that really just
complicated the whole process of finding out who won the fight. I liked
RuneQuest and am now playing Fudge for the reason that they have very quick
action resolutions that don't require a lot of table look up to find out a)
what the required roll is or b) what adjustments apply.
Larry
SD Anderson
> I was thinkignn about this for a while but what is your
> oppinion on a games realism? Should things be realistic (say
> absurd.
Well the realistic person would point out that there is only
one p in opinion while the absurdist would spell it OH Pen Yun.
;)
Robin
RedD...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <8aq5np$60a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >...
there
> > is one thing I have learned: realism is nigh impossible to define.
It
>
> True but, sometimes a lack of reality can be a real barrier to the
> suspension of disbelief. Last night in rolemaster I decided to
> gallop my horse after a friend who was out of control. Then I
> realized that I was leaving behind a companion who was being
> attacked by a large bird. My character had a 44 ride skill and
> a 32 mounted combat skill. I fail my ride roll to stop the horse
> and break it's leg. How likely is that? It's not like my character
> was unfamiliar with horses. This falls under the heading of an
> action which anyone with "familiarity" with a horse could probably
> have accomplished safely, but in some game rules, it's impossible,
> or at least unlikely. I feel like I'm in an episode of the keystone
> cops sometimes. Do I need a skill role to put my boots on?
>
This is a perfect example for a silly rule (under the circumstances).
The good side of it is that it draws attention to a possible problem
which you should take into account for achieving realism -namely that
you cannot stop a horse the way you can stop running-; the bad side is
that utilizing it under any circumstances makes the rule more important
than the character (and his values). As GM I always decide to roll only
if success shouldn't be obvious. With a higher skill value you do not
only have a better chance for rolling a success but you also stop
rolling for trivial maneuvers relative to your skill. This is another
example for being played by the rules instead of playing by the rules.
Robin
Robin
> news:38e22e66...@news.mindspring.com...
> >>I get the creeps every time I see that illustration in the Werewolf
> >>supplement 'Book of Caerns' in which a (dead?) man with a coke can
in
> >>his mouth is lying in front of a sign saying 'Keine Abfallung' (for
> >>speakers of English: imagine 'no rubbishing' in place of 'no
litter').
>
> > RPGs aren't the only ones guilty of that, and I've seen many
> > ridiculous translations into English as well.
>
> On the whole, however, Europeans are much more likely to get English
right
> than English speakers are to get foreign languages right. In Germany,
for
> example, the Gymnasium graduates probably know English better than an
> average North American high school graduate. They'll mispronounce
words
> like crazy, naturally, and they won't know common idioms, but for that
> they'll have a far better grasp of spelling and grammar....
>
To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much credit
to German speakers of English. Most of us can't speak it at
conversational level - and I am studying English, so you should think I
meet a lot who do. You'd be surprised what kind of student actually
studies English nowadays...
Furthermore there's really not that much grammar in English (by
comparison)... If you grow up as a native speaker of English I can
imagine you are duly surprised when you encounter almost any other
language. Considering that there are only 1500 years of separate
development from common roots between German and English the difference
is astonishing. Historically speaking, when the Anglosaxons met the
Danes in England they found they had a lot of vocabulary in common but
very different grammar, so they just chucked most of the grammar.
Thus endeth the lesson... :-)
Michael T. Richter
> To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much
> credit to German speakers of English.
That wasn't the case in 1982, let me tell you. (You snipped my experience
with a local Gymnasium in Lahr.)
Kodeci
RedD...@aol.com wrote:
> Last night in rolemaster I decided to
> gallop my horse after a friend who was out of control. Then I
> realized that I was leaving behind a companion who was being
> attacked by a large bird. My character had a 44 ride skill and
> a 32 mounted combat skill. I fail my ride roll to stop the horse
> and break it's leg. How likely is that? It's not like my character
> was unfamiliar with horses. This falls under the heading of an
> action which anyone with "familiarity" with a horse could probably
> have accomplished safely, but in some game rules, it's impossible,
> or at least unlikely. I feel like I'm in an episode of the keystone
Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say
"believability") in Rolemaster.
One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up
sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that
I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and
had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty.
The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did.
What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100!
Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I
strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big
compared to the constant part (say the skill).
A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference,
everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on
attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0).
However, the roll is 1d100, routinely giving more than 50 points
difference between two consecutive rolls. Also, one out of ten times, a
reroll result gives the incredible difference of 55 to 145 points (from
the average result of 50)!
Because of those two problems (as I see them), I'm not able to play
Rolemaster :-(
Kodeci
Kodeci
Lauri Gardner <lgar...@mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> The problem I have is that the groups I play in the majority are over
> twenty male players who have gone through the armed service, so they
have
> fired with an assault rifle, used infantry support weapons and have
lots
> of practical experience in that area. Also most of them are militant
in
> some way, one who regularly goes down to the shooting range, two gun
> nuts, one who has helped write the Red Army handbook (at least wrote
the
> N. Korea TO&E back in '96), who all enjoy going into weapons and
> tactics on a minute level (For instance I can tell the real reason why
> AA MG are still in use, and what does a Lada look like when it is shot
> up by one). I could go on...Now how on earth do I make a realistic
> campaign to this bunch?!!
If someone is better than you at something, you can't teach him. The
same for your players, you can't create rules that will fit them.
However, several solutions could help you out:
Make *your players* create the system themselves (or at least so for
the part they know really well, which is what you're having a
"believability" (or "reality") problem). If possible, have them make it
collectively, all of them. If not, as many as possible should get
involved, and especially the ones that complain the most.
They have the expertise, you don't. They do the job, it seems right.
You could assist them if they never designed a system though, but keep
them in charge. If a computer program is needed, your group might care
for investing time and money in it, to fit your needs.
If they were in charge of the system and they did it, they won't
complain as much when it is believable enough. It easier to accuse
someone else's rules. Also, when they have a complain, they just have to
fix the system after the game, it's not your problem ... :-)
I suspect players tend to complain more when they know better than the
Referee ... even sometimes to the point where they make wrong claims,
just because it fits their character instantaneous needs :-) If they are
in charge, they will complain less, if they know they will later have to
change the rules to fit to their complain.
Also, change the rules (as someone else proposed). Give them weapons
they never used, say you play in an alternate-reality Earth, where the
rules are all the same *except for the weapon rules*! Or play in a
medieval setting, in a future one, or whatever, as long as their
experience in that setting is not enough to make believable systems hard
to design.
Also, avoid the problematic situation. Even on mother Earth, a group of
adventurers that cannot gain access to sophisticated weapons (say you
play in Europe for example) will be played by your players without
believability problems.
As a conclusion, if your players want to play in *that* Earth, with
characters that have use the equipment *they* used, with a *fully
believable* system made *without their moving a finger* ... it's their
problem!
Their hopes for their characters look very much alike themselves, isn't
it? They might try something else than a role playing game ... Maybe
using computers, but I would think there are some games out there that
deal with all details of technical one-on-one fighting. They might have
no need for the role part, no need for many stuff that can be found in a
typical RPG .. Why bother to carry all these cumbersome feature of RPGs,
while in reality looking for something else?
Kodeci
Disclaimer: I hope I offensed noone. That wasn't my intention. All games
are equally "valuable" for me. It's just that not all games need the
same precision for the same rules, and a group should have for each
subsystem the precision they need and no more.
Larris Magpie
> I was thinking about this for a while but what is your opinion on a
>games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or
>should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd.
This remains a matter of taste. I tend to like faster flowing stuff better,
but appreciate Rolemaster-influenced systems for simulation purposes.
But in the end, accurate simulation of real life is not much fun IMO. Fun is
what I play games for. When the most "realistic" computer game AIs to date
(Looking Glass Studios' Thief and System Shock 2) were accused of not being
realistic _enough_ (much craves more), the designers explained that too much
realism would deprive the game of its playability. I subscribe to that view
as well. Stylized, abstract (absurd if you will) systems fit the purposes of
controlled randomizing. My control, that is.
I come up with the detail of what happens to my players' characters when
they have determined success or miss, and if they in turn are worth their
salt, they do not need to depend on the system to imagine exactly what
happens. A simple, generic fumble roll might mean a weapon has simply
jammed, that its barrel has melted, that it's firing uncontrollably, or that
the shooter lost concentration for a split second and forgot to keep the
kickback in check, resulting in a nice string of holes through the ceiling.
No special table needed - in my games it's made up on the spur of the
moment.
>What is the balance should it be so that the players think the world is
>realistic or that the GM?
Believability has IMO very little to do with realism in the systems, or our
kind of logic at all. It is all about suspension of disbelief. A good GM
will make her players think they're _in_ Toon Town while playing Toon.
Accurate simulation will never be accomplished around a gaming table anyway,
so there's little point in attempting, still IMO.
>Or should it be soemething in-between (most of
>adventures have fallen apart when I have a 10 000 pages of material that
>has to be read for that right flavour, or for how floorplans have to be
>made)?
Agreed.
>As an example that comes to mind is the documentary on landmines. This was
>shown at a firstaid meeting and was not something pretty (incidentaly it
>is obligaotry viewing for medic in Finland, not many survive through the
>whole documentary). The kind that gives you nightmares.
I see.
Heroic kinds of games would need these less than low-fantasy campaigns, for
instance. For purposes of this discussion, most cyberpunk games would fit
into the latter category, and as such it would probably be fair game for
whatever nastiness you can throw in.
>Another that comes to mind is with damage, through first aid I know what
>kinds of reactions and situations may arrise with wounded people. Most of
>the kind of things that without knowledge you would be at a loss, and
>would probably end up killing him.
That depends on the system and feel you want to run your adventures in. I
understand you run cyberpunk flavored games, correct? In that case I'd
probably recommend implementing more realistic damage to reflect the
grittiness of it all. "He could enter any quadruple-encrypted database
before breakfast, but he did not know how to perform a heart massage when
she needed one. The rest of his life he pondered this again and again, what
could have been if he had chosen different priorities."
>I could give several example involving equipment, weight, internal logic
>of the game world history,
This last point is the only thing I'd try to maintain consistently, and if
that's not possible then try to smokescreen it as well as I can. Like I
said, it's all about suspension of disbelief.
>weapon designs and internal workings...but I won't.
Okay. :)
--
Larris "If darkness is merely the absence of light,
Like evil, they say, is the absence of love;
Why is it, then, that the gloom of the night
Feels more tangible and opaque than rays from above?"
Robin
Brett Evill <b.e...@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Robin wrote:
> >
> > To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much
credit
> > conversational level - and I am studying English, so you should
think I
> > meet a lot who do. You'd be surprised what kind of student actually
> > studies English nowadays...
>
> perhaps they ought: a German friend of mine who fled the country in
1939
> (and thus spent the War in an Australian concentration camp instead
of a
> German one) tells me that Germans nowadays speak very bad German:
overly
> abstract and with too many passive constructions. To him, all modern
> German sounds like Hitler making a speech.
Not so in my experience. I should know, I'm a German, living in
Germany...
But the quality of spoken and written language is declining, or should
I say: changing. But I don't see any development towards the abstract
or the passive. Quite on the contrary: I don't remember when I
encountered the last passive construction...
> > Furthermore there's really not that much grammar in English (by
> > comparison)... If you grow up as a native speaker of English I can
> > imagine you are duly surprised when you encounter almost any other
> > language.
>
> We have syntax instead of grammar, and a lot of English speaker refer
to
> 'grammar' when in fact they are talking about syntax.
Ok, so the syntax of English is a lot easier than that of other
languages I know, including German.
> > Considering that there are only 1500 years of separate development
> > from common roots between German and English the difference
> > is astonishing. Historically speaking, when the Anglosaxons met the
> > Danes in England they found they had a lot of vocabulary in common
but
> > very different grammar, so they just chucked most of the grammar.
>
> I am a little surprised at that. I had heard that Old English (c.
> AD500-c. AD1100) had a proper grammar with inflection and declension
> according to case, mood, and gender.
It wasn't a day-to-day decision, rather a development. Add to that the
Norman/French influence and with time you get a relatively syntax-free
and vocabulary-heavy language: English.
> > Thus endeth the lesson... :-)
>
> Just so. "Here endeth the lesson".
>
> Regards,
>
> Brett Evill
>
Best,
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Graham Wills
> Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say
> "believability") in Rolemaster.
>
> One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up
> sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that
> I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and
> had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty.
I think that estimatign difficulties is the single hardest job a GM
has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system,
though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end,
it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM
doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while
whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds).
> The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did.
> What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100!
> Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I
> strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big
> compared to the constant part (say the skill).
*Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend
to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider
casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that
incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important
than skill.
> A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference,
> everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on
> attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0).
In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a
stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component;
training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has
spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30.
A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If
you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure
of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65.
The difference between a *highly trained* person and an untrained person
will probably be around 100-150. The maximum 30 points different in
innate talent is nowhere near as important as training.
> However, the roll is 1d100, routinely giving more than 50 points
> difference between two consecutive rolls. Also, one out of ten times, a
> reroll result gives the incredible difference of 55 to 145 points (from
> the average result of 50)!
For normal, average skilled people:
SKILL EFFECT: about 40-50
RANDOM EFFECT: about 50
TALENT EFFECT: about 10-15
For trained, talented people:
SKILL EFFECT: about 70-90
RANDOM EFFECT: about 50
TALENT EFFECT: about 15-25
For both of these, you will open-end one in ten times
which will either add or subtract about 50 randomness.
> Because of those two problems (as I see them), I'm not able to play
> Rolemaster :-(
The second I can see. If you like unrealistically predictable games,
then RM is not for you. For GM assigned difficulties, all games
have the same problem (or they don't assign difficulties at all
which, frankly, rates them a zero on the realism side).
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Tim Kutz
Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:38D2694D...@research.bell-labs.com...
> Kodeci wrote:
>
> > Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say
> > "believability") in Rolemaster.
> >
> > One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up
> > sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that
> > I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and
> > had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty.
>
> I think that estimatign difficulties is the single hardest job a GM
> has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system,
> though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end,
> it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM
> doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while
> whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds).
Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that the best route is to
tell the players at the outset of the game what you as GM consider to be:
Hobbyist level
Professional level
Master level
for skills. It also helps if you define these. For example, I define
"professional level" as being the required skill for someone who has a
career using that skill on a daily basis *as a core requirement of their
job*. So, a smith with his own smithy would have professional level in
smithing. An Armorer (who works with both metal and leather, and may not do
all of the metal smithing himself) might not have professional level in
blacksmithing, but would in armor-crafting. I also normally give players an
idea of what typical penalties and bonuses would be for some common generic
modifiers, such as:
Inadequate/Improvised tools
Impeded Senses (darkness, deafness, etc)
Added/Reduced time spent
and so forth. By specifying such things up front, the players can build a
character that performs in the ranges they expect them to. The person who
wants to play the veteran combat pilot knows that, to have the skills that
fit his background, he'll need that pilot skill to be at, say (Professional
level + Impeded Senses penalty), for example (piloting at night as well as a
commercial pilot does in the day..) And, at the same time, it give me some
guidelines to stay consistent. This type of exchange doesn't happen to me:
"Well, you're performing a medical operation without the right medical
tools, so that's -10, and it's dark, so another -15." "But he just picked
the lock in a pitch black hallway using a hatpin with no penalty!"
"Ooops."
Tim Kutz
t...@environs.com
Brett Evill
>
> To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much credit
> to German speakers of English. Most of us can't speak it at
> conversational level - and I am studying English, so you should think I
> meet a lot who do. You'd be surprised what kind of student actually
> studies English nowadays...
My experience is that German who speak English speak it very well. But
perhaps they ought: a German friend of mine who fled the country in 1939
(and thus spent the War in an Australian concentration camp instead of a
German one) tells me that Germans nowadays speak very bad German: overly
abstract and with too many passive constructions. To him, all modern
German sounds like Hitler making a speech.
> Furthermore there's really not that much grammar in English (by
> comparison)... If you grow up as a native speaker of English I can
> imagine you are duly surprised when you encounter almost any other
> language.
We have syntax instead of grammar, and a lot of English speaker refer to
'grammar' when in fact they are talking about syntax.
> Considering that there are only 1500 years of separate development
> from common roots between German and English the difference
> is astonishing. Historically speaking, when the Anglosaxons met the
> Danes in England they found they had a lot of vocabulary in common but
> very different grammar, so they just chucked most of the grammar.
I am a little surprised at that. I had heard that Old English (c.
AD500-c. AD1100) had a proper grammar with inflection and declension
according to case, mood, and gender.
> Thus endeth the lesson... :-)
Robin
Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> Kodeci wrote:
>
> > The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you
did.
> > What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100!
> > Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd.
I
> > strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big
> > compared to the constant part (say the skill).
>
> *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend
> to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider
> casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that
> incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important
> than skill.
I don't think so. 'Luck' in any situation, be that combat or anything
else, doesn't have anything to do with your skill or your performance,
so it should not enter the skill roll as a factor. I am a professional
computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on
Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area.
Luck in combat is something along the lines of avoiding stray arrows,
backstabbing etc. This has nothing to do with your combat skill. Also,
whether a bowstring breaks or not has nothing to do with your skill and
everything with the quality of the bow. So luck usually doesn't enter
into the equation at all, as long as pure skill is concerned.
Robin
"Tim Kutz" <t...@environs.com> wrote:
> Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that the best route is
to
> tell the players at the outset of the game what you as GM consider to
be:
>
> Hobbyist level
> Professional level
> Master level
>
> for skills. It also helps if you define these. For example, I define
> "professional level" as being the required skill for someone who has a
> career using that skill on a daily basis *as a core requirement of
their
> job*.
I agree - my homebrew for example defines each skill by linking it to a
trait ranging from 1-20 (usually around 10). The player then chooses a
level of proficiency between 0 ("No, never heard of it") to 5 ("That's
my job"). The trait value then is multiplied with that level to get a
skill value in the percentile range. That way every character gets all
the skills he or she should have at a level that is realistic, provided
the player chooses sensible factors.
Kodeci
> has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system,
> though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end,
> it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM
> doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while
> whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds).
Well, for Rolemaster, I didn't see tons of specific examples, but I
didn't buy the whole set of books .... What I saw was general
indications, such as Easy, Absurd and such ... And those were clearly
shifted, as a common professional would have a very low chance of
performing normally. At least, Rolemaster didn't tell what is the common
professionnal level (as explained by a poster in this thread).
Also, I don't think it's irrespective of the system. In my opinion, a
system (except lite-systems) with values should explain what those
values are worth.
For example, a system with a driving skill without a list of common
driving difficulties is incomplete as far as I am concerned. In a
finished system, each skill (or ability) should have a list of common
difficulties and modifiers.
> > I strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to
big
> > compared to the constant part (say the skill).
>
> *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend
> to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider
> casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that
> incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important
> than skill.
Combat is much broader than a skill use, it is a game situation. Take a
non-stressful skill, such as snooker. Do you really think that the
random component is bigger than the skill? Compared to randomness, how
much is the disadvantage for guy1 that never tried, and guy2 that have
done it one hour per week for 10 weeks? I feel guy2 has more than a 30%
advantage over guy1 ...
> > A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference,
> > everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on
> > attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0).
>
> In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a
> stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component;
> training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has
> spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30.
Are you kidding? A week or so!!! If you could earn one "dot" in a week
or so in Rolemaster, nobody would pay for background skills ...
Characters would just spend their points on high skills, and spend 2
years non adventuring to have "a week or so" of training in a hundred
skills !!!
> A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If
> you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure
> of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65.
I don't know where you get those numbers from ... What don't we talk
about characters with regular (50 = +0) attributes?
A guy that spent "a week or so" on riding has a +5 bonus.
His brother that is professionnal (but 1st level, no attribute
adjustment difference) can have a +10 bonus (two dots) for levels, and a
few for training time ... Well, it all depends on how many are allowed
in your game, but:
- if you give them easily, the riding bonus will still have trouble
reaching +45, which is only a +40 difference. However, this policy has
nothing to do with regular Rolemaster rules, as learning by doing is
severely limited. (I agree with you that some rules would be needed).
- under the strictest rules (little learning by training), the guy might
have two dots, so a total bonus of +20 ... Only +15% difference ....
> If you like unrealistically predictable games,
> then RM is not for you.
The *unrealistically* is ...
Kodeci
Kodeci
"Tim Kutz" <t...@environs.com> wrote:
> Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that the best route is
to
> tell the players at the outset of the game what you as GM consider to
be:
difficulties.>
My approach would be different, as I would like the system (excluding
lite-systems) to specify most of those points.
When giving a range of values a skill can have, the system should do its
best to state:
- how they can be acquired (training? heroism? gift?)
- what difficulties they allow, with various probabilities (routinely,
challenging, unable to try)
When giving a skill (or ability), the system should give, with a level
of detail appropriate to the usefulness of the skill, a set of actions
with their base difficulty.
- Example actions could cover a wide range, from the easiest to the
darest. Also, if the skill allows for several different uses
(using-repairing-estimating), no use should be left without a single
difficulty.
- The difficulty list can get hidden, but players should know at least
the difficulty of actions the character have tried (even if not
in-game).
l_si...@my-deja.com
Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I don't think so. 'Luck' in any situation, be that combat or anything
> else, doesn't have anything to do with your skill or your performance,
> so it should not enter the skill roll as a factor. I am a professional
> computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder
on
> Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area.
> Luck in combat is something along the lines of avoiding stray arrows,
> backstabbing etc. This has nothing to do with your combat skill. Also,
> whether a bowstring breaks or not has nothing to do with your skill
and
> everything with the quality of the bow. So luck usually doesn't enter
> into the equation at all, as long as pure skill is concerned.
>
I think there's a problem with definitions here. Most systems provide
mechanics that recognise four factors that affect task resolution -
talent, skill, environment and 'luck'; with the luck component handled
by a randomiser of some kind (we'll leave diceless games out of this).
Now the luck element certainly covers aspects of happenstance and 'there
but for the grace of God' moments, however for the most part I view it
as a grab-bag category of miscellaneous micro-factors that in actuality
should be assigned to talent, skill or environment but which, for
narrative convenience we boil down to a roll of a die (or draw from a
deck or whatever).
To say that luck has little or nothing to with contests of skill is
generally true, but this does not invalidate the presence of a
random element in task resolution IMO. The trick is to come up with a
task resolution mechanic which balances the various underlying elements
in a satisfying and easy to use fashion.
Luke
Robin
While what you say is all well and true I don't think that the die-
rolling luck (or 'meta-luck' of the player involved) is what was meant
originally; the original post was referring to the PC's luck as in: the
bad fighters die quickly because of their lack of skill, the better
ones often because of their lack of luck.
A good system IMO should take out the 'meta-luck' factor at least
gradually. In my system, we use percentile skills and rolls. A roll up
to the skill value is a success, up to twice the skill value is a
partial success (if such is possible) and more than that is failure.
That means that with a skill value of 50% failure is no longer
possible, as you cannot roll values higher than 100 (except with
modifications), at least if a partial success is feasible. That way,
meta-luck still influences the quality of the performance but it does
no longer have the power to force the PC to fail.
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Graham Wills
> > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend
> > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider
> > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that
> > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important
> > than skill.
>
> else, doesn't have anything to do with your skill or your performance,
> so it should not enter the skill roll as a factor.
Luck has nothing to do with skill: OK, I'll buy that
Luck has nothing to do with your performance: Nope. Absolutely nots
> I am a professional
> computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on
> Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area.
Really? My wife is also a graphics designer, and I am also a computer
guy, and yet I occasionally make blunders with tools I am *really
skilled*
at, for example, trashing the wrong file, typing 'rm */*.java' instead
of 'rm */*.class' or whatever.
You've never had a hard dish crash? Lost a file? Had problems with a
computer at just the wrong time?
In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client specifically wants
some elements your familiar with? If you can re-use or adapt other work?
If your library of images has *exactly* what you're looking for?
> Luck in combat is something along the lines of avoiding stray arrows,
> backstabbing etc. This has nothing to do with your combat skill. Also,
> whether a bowstring breaks or not has nothing to do with your skill and
> everything with the quality of the bow. So luck usually doesn't enter
> into the equation at all, as long as pure skill is concerned.
Yes, but the roll is not a pure skill roll. It specifically incorporates
luck as well. If you read my sentence I am arguing that the luck
component
is often as large as the skill component. I am not arguing that luck
is a part of skill. It is part of the SKILL RESOLUTION ROLL.
Robin
Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> Robin wrote:
> > I am a professional
> > computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a
blunder on
> > Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area.
>
> Really? My wife is also a graphics designer, and I am also a computer
> guy, and yet I occasionally make blunders with tools I am *really
> skilled*
> at, for example, trashing the wrong file, typing 'rm */*.java' instead
> of 'rm */*.class' or whatever.
>
> You've never had a hard dish crash? Lost a file? Had problems with a
> computer at just the wrong time?
Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my
skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I work
then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which
failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the descriptions
of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' results
in your colleague switching off the power"?
> In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client specifically
wants
> some elements your familiar with? If you can re-use or adapt other
work?
> If your library of images has *exactly* what you're looking for?
Yes, but it's not part of my skill roll. I understand your argument -
developed in the next paragraph- but I think in-game luck doesn't
belong in the skill roll - YMMV. I prefer my system to make the luck
part of die rolling smaller with advancing skill levels. When my system
yields failures they are always dailures of competence, not of bad
luck. If I need luck as a device in-game, I let my players perform some
sort of specific luck roll. Or, if the event in question would mess up
the story too much, I might just decide on a lucky day.
> Yes, but the roll is not a pure skill roll. It specifically
incorporates
> luck as well. If you read my sentence I am arguing that the luck
> component
> is often as large as the skill component. I am not arguing that luck
> is a part of skill. It is part of the SKILL RESOLUTION ROLL.
Robin
Graham Wills
> Well, for Rolemaster, I didn't see tons of specific examples, but I
> didn't buy the whole set of books .... What I saw was general
> indications, such as Easy, Absurd and such.
The RMSS standard rulebook has one page for each of a large set of
common skills, detailing likely penalties and outlining what levels
of success translate to.
... And those were clearly
> shifted, as a common professional would have a very low chance of
> performing normally. At least, Rolemaster didn't tell what is the common
> professionnal level (as explained by a poster in this thread).
A professional with average skill of, say 50 (including his stat
and professional bonuses), working with good equipment (+10) on
a routine task (+50) will have a total bonus of 110 and will
have to roll below 25 to botch the job. That requires him to
roll -85 or so, which is about a one in 200 chance. There's a
95% chance he'll produce a flawless peice of work and about
a 5% chance he'll rpoduce soemthing not up to his usual standard.
That seems fine to me.
> > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend
> > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider
> > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that
> > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important
> > than skill.
>
> Combat is much broader than a skill use, it is a game situation. Take a
> non-stressful skill, such as snooker. Do you really think that the
> random component is bigger than the skill?
Absolutely. Among professional players a single game is more determined
by luck than by skill. That's why they play lots of games to even out
the luck. If that wasn't the case, they'd only need to play two or
three.
> Compared to randomness, how
> much is the disadvantage for guy1 that never tried, and guy2 that have
> done it one hour per week for 10 weeks? I feel guy2 has more than a 30%
> advantage over guy1 ...
An interesting question. I'm not sure what the result would be.
> > In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a
> > stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component;
> > training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has
> > spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30.
>
> Are you kidding? A week or so!!! If you could earn one "dot" in a week
> or so in Rolemaster, nobody would pay for background skills ...
> Characters would just spend their points on high skills, and spend 2
> years non adventuring to have "a week or so" of training in a hundred
> skills !!!
I assume you mean 'points on high stats'? I did some calculations a
while ago and a really intense starting RMSS chaarcter can start out
with
half a hundred skills at level 1, so the rules already support what I
say.
Getting above level 1 is much harder, of course, and most players won't
want a character who has skills of of 15 in a large range of things.
But, if
you want to do that in my camapign, go ahead. Just don't try anything
which isn't at least 'easy'.
> > A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If
> > you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure
> > of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65.
>
> I don't know where you get those numbers from ... What don't we talk
> about characters with regular (50 = +0) attributes?
Because professionals typically have a goiod stat in their profession.
Look at published modules, your own playes, whatever.
> A guy that spent "a week or so" on riding has a +5 bonus.
> His brother that is professionnal (but 1st level, no attribute
> adjustment difference)
A professional rider that is no more dexterous and has no more special
ability with horses than the average person? Why did he become a rider?
Look at any published modules and tell me the average 'professional
rider'
gets no stat bonus. I don't buy it. I'm giving him *at least* +5
> can have a +10 bonus (two dots) for levels, and a
> few for training time ... Well, it all depends on how many are allowed
> in your game, but:
Assuming he takes the *standard* package, +10
Also In RMSS you get your professional bonus at the beginning in one
lump,
so he'll have another +20 from that for a total of +45.
> - if you give them easily, the riding bonus will still have trouble
> reaching +45, which is only a +40 difference.
I come up with the same number, but just by applying the rules in the
simple default case of building a professional rider. If I wanted a
highly focused one, I'd design him with a higher stat bonus (+15) and
a background option such as affinity to horses (+10) and use a
background options for skill purchase (+10) for a +75 highly focused
starting character.
Anyway, If you want to compare a professional who's player has made no
effort to make him good at his profession with a guy who has had a
small amount of training, then sure, there'll only be a round a 40
difference, somewhat lower than the average distance between the
luck component of the dice roll differences.
I'm not sure what that proves though. A first level professional
is nowhere close to what RM modules and stats give as the average
professional. Levels 3-7 are for regular folks. Anything below
that is just starting their real life.
Michael T. Richter
>> In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client
>> specifically wants some elements your familiar with? If you
>> can re-use or adapt other work? If your library of images
>> has *exactly* what you're looking for?
> Yes, but it's not part of my skill roll. I understand your
> argument - developed in the next paragraph- but I think in-
> game luck doesn't belong in the skill roll - YMMV.
While in general I agree with you, let me put on my Hat of Infernal Advocacy
for a moment and explain to you why we're both wrong. :-)
I'm an experienced software developer. I have a large bag of tools at my
disposal to help me complete my tasks. I have an even larger bag, however,
of techiques and tricks at my disposal. Many of these are specifically
oriented toward reducing the negative effects of bad luck. ("Check code
into my private branch daily--or more often" is one such trick which
ameliorates bad luck.)
For a simple example that a non-developer can understand, consider the
traditional Five Daily Crashes that Windows 95 gave you (which was an
improvement over the Five Crashes Per Hour that Windows 3.1 gave you *AND*
over the Two Dozen Daily Crashes that Windows 98 supplies). A novice who
only knows a little bit about using computers (can boot it up and launch
Microsoft Word) is going to get badly burned by this Windows 95 phenomenon
when it occurs. Someone who has worked under Windows 95 for a while knows
that "frequent saving saves the day". Yes the computer will crash just as
often and as randomly for this power user as it will for the newbie.
Indeed, since being a power user often means stretching the limits of the
platform, the power user may perversely cause MORE crashes than the newbie.
Because the power user has internalized the "save now, save often" meme,
however, the power user is less likely to suffer a fundamentally
problematical setback--a fumble--than is the newbie.
So in this case we can see that increased skill decreases not the chance
that a catastrophic failure happens, but rather that the catastrophic
failure will be as much of a problem.
I suspect that it is this facet of catastrophe which game designers are
trying to emulate (albeit very probably not consciously). Like you, I'd
mostly prefer that the system distinguish between the catastrophe happening
and the user recovering from it, but this is, ultimately, a matter of taste,
not of realism. In any game you're going to find abstraction over details
and the differences are a matter of designer tastes.
Thomas Bagwell
> I am a professional
> computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on
> Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area.
I like the CORPS approach, which states that you will automatically succeed
in tasks with a difficulty equal to or less than your skill. So, if you
have a skill of 7 with Photoshop, you will automatically succeed at any task
with a difficulty of 7 or less. Now, if you are attempting tasks with a
higher difficulty than your skill, you have a chance of failing at it. You
can succeed at higher difficulty tasks by working slower, working with good
equipment, etc. These reduce the difficulty of the task.
Tom B.
prei...@my-deja.com
> Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say
> "believability") in Rolemaster.
Most likely a better term, for any game, or even "acceptability".
> The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did.
> What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100!
> Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I
> strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big
> compared to the constant part (say the skill).
FWIW, I found using 2d50 helped a lot - you get more average results,
far fewer exceptional results, and still a pretty decent spread.
(2d100)/2 is easy and close enough.
> One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up
> sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that
> I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and
> had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty.
Odd - one would think the GM would use a combination of the rules'
suggestions and common sense to assign difficulties. As a rule of
thumb, one might say "how much of a chance would a skilled person (skill
50) have of success?" 95% is +35 (for a target of 100), 80% is ~+20,
50% is +0, 20% is ~-20, and so on (for 2d50).
> A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference,
Any nonlinear system will have the utility of 30 points of difference
increase towards either extreme. In the one I suggest above, the
difference will at least triple the chance of success (needing a 35 vs.
needing a 65) and will generally allow a good chance of success where
there was little before (10-% to 50+%) or allow very likely success
where there was a significant chance of failure before (70-% vs. 98+%).
Of course, whether this fixes things sufficiently (or is even
preferable) is a YMMV thing.
-P
Graham Wills
> FWIW, I found using 2d50 helped a lot - you get more average results,
> far fewer exceptional results, and still a pretty decent spread.
> (2d100)/2 is easy and close enough.
Note that for Rolemaster, it is linear over 90% of the dice rolling
range, but the result is indexed into a non-linear table. The idea
being that it is easier to understand the effect of modifiers to
a linear roll, but that linear results are unrealistic.
So if you are making the above suggetsion to RM, you are taking
away the roll's linearity (as you point out by stating that in such
a system a +30 bonus's utility is more highly correlated with skill).
I would suggest a better plan would be to modify the already non-
linear success tables.
Of course this advice comes from a Gm whose rule is that if it's
unlikely to affect the main action, NPCs *always* roll 50 :)
Justin Bacon
>Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my
>skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I work
>then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which
>failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the descriptions
>of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' results
>in your colleague switching off the power"?
No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the project your
colleague accidentally switches off the power."
That's why you have dice rolls, after all -- to simulate the multitude of
random things that happen in real life, but which no sane GM could keep track
of within a game. What else are *randomizers* for if not *randomization*,
Robin?
Similarly, a bad roll during a sword fight might get: "As you swing your sword
your foot slips in the mud..." or "As you swing your sword the other guy trips
over his own feet and, through pure luck, slips under your blade..."
It depends on the roll in question, judged through the mechanic, the skills,
and the situation.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
>So in this case we can see that increased skill decreases not the chance
>that a catastrophic failure happens, but rather that the catastrophic
>failure will be as much of a problem.
To spruce this up with some examples:
An experienced skill user may still fail with (frex) a roll of 16 -- but their
margin of failure will be smaller than a less experienced skill user. In other
words, their greater skill has reduced the severity of failure.
In other cases the more experienced skill user will succeed with (frex) a roll
of 14 where (frex) a less experienced skill user would fail. In other words,
the greater experience has allowed the skill user to circumvent the problem
entirely.
The one thing I'd like to see more of, though, are "automatic successes" -- a
la CORPS.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Robin
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> Robin wrote:
> >Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my
> >skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I
work
> >then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which
> >failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the
descriptions
> >of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop'
results
> >in your colleague switching off the power"?
>
> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the
project your
> colleague accidentally switches off the power."
Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be
concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I
see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of
filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague
switch off the power.
> That's why you have dice rolls, after all -- to simulate the
multitude of
> random things that happen in real life, but which no sane GM could
keep track
> of within a game. What else are *randomizers* for if not
*randomization*,
> Robin?
I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality
which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a
state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures -
your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail
(based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If
outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill
rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he
switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls.
> Similarly, a bad roll during a sword fight might get: "As you swing
your sword
> your foot slips in the mud..."
-which is ok, as it is part of your skill to keep your balance-
>or "As you swing your sword the other guy trips
> over his own feet and, through pure luck, slips under your blade..."
-this I would do only if both sides fail their roll, a situation that
calls for comic relief-
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
l_si...@my-deja.com
Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be
> concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I
>
> I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality
> which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a
> state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures -
> your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail
> (based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If
> outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill
> rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he
> switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls.
>
of these outside influences and then account for them in my description
of the outcome.
Personally I think that your way loads too much onto the GM and runs the
risk of losing 'shit happens' results. My way runs the risk of removing
the possibility of players making a difference through their in game
account, although generally I give skill bonuses for detailed player
descriptions (if they seem sensible that is) to try and get around that.
Corps was mentioned upthread and is a good implementation of a mechanic
that supports both of our approaches quite well.
Luke
Robin
l_si...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Personally I think that your way loads too much onto the GM and runs
the
> risk of losing 'shit happens' results. My way runs the risk of
removing
> the possibility of players making a difference through their in game
> account, although generally I give skill bonuses for detailed player
> descriptions (if they seem sensible that is) to try and get around
that.
Correctly observed - I put main focus on the GM and on narrative
interpretation of skill rolls. It is indeed possible that 'shit
happens' results as you call them fall by the wayside, but I see them
as an unwanted bit of realism mostly - they tend to get in the way of
drama IMO.
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Doctor TOC
>
> Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be
> concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I
> filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague
> switch off the power.
>
>
> I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality
> which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a
> state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures -
> your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail
> (based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If
> outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill
> rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he
> switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls.
Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates
between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external influences.
Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed
or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly,
modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that
circumstance. In this way it's possible for the character to perform the
task perfectly, but have success snatched from him by fate (the boat
rocks, the gun jams, the idiot colleague turns the power off) or indeed
to have fate help him to greater success (the boat rocks and your
opponent stumbles further onto your blade). The skill roll itself is
rarely (if ever) modified, only the "degree of success" roll. Is that
more to your taste?
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" - Wu Name: Jive Talkin' Choirboy
ICQ # 4814586
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/
Robin
other...@erols.com wrote:
> Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates
> between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external
influences.
> Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed
> or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly,
> modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that
> circumstance. In this way it's possible for the character to perform
the
> task perfectly, but have success snatched from him by fate (the boat
> rocks, the gun jams, the idiot colleague turns the power off) or
indeed
> to have fate help him to greater success (the boat rocks and your
> opponent stumbles further onto your blade). The skill roll itself is
> rarely (if ever) modified, only the "degree of success" roll. Is that
> more to your taste?
If the degree roll is not linked in any way to the skill, yes. I trust
that the chance for failing though you did succeed due to outside
influences is rather small (and vice versa as well). Though for me
that's one roll too many; I am more interested in a quick resolution
based on the skill roll exclusively and I am more than willing to
sacrifice a bit of realism. After all, if the skill of a PC ensures a
success at the climax of a game I wouldn't want to have a mechanic like
that ruin the day, realistic though it may be.
Steve M
> seen many
> ridiculous translations into English as well.
> --
I'm with you there, just look at your VCR's manual next
time. (Unless you're currently taking medication of course)
SM
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Steve M
> Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that
> the best route is to
> tell the players at the outset of the game what you as
> GM consider to be:
> Professional level
> Master level
Perhaps more importantly: How much detail do you want to go
into in specific areas of the game?
In some games, you want the scientific side to be "fudged"
so you can get on with the action.
Eg. Does it matter how the Cold Fusion plant works, if
it's destined to get destroyed in a few hours by a couple
of well placed shape charges?
OTOH: If the campaign is about a race to get Cold Fusion
going, or find the details on that "secret chip", the
players will want to know why his molecular phycicist is
having trouble making headway with the plans. Meanwhile,
Joe the Merc. is protecting him by blasting some baddy to
kingdom come with a couple of quick shots from his "Heavy
Pistol"
It might be of interest to readers of this thread to have a
look at a related discussion at the gurps discussion
group. The thread's called "Skill Hierarchy (over/under
definition). :-)
Steve M
<robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8bq1kg$g2a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> l_si...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Correctly observed - I put main focus on the GM and on
> narrative
> interpretation of skill rolls. It is indeed possible
> that 'shit
> happens' results as you call them fall by the wayside,
> but I see them
> as an unwanted bit of realism mostly - they tend to
> get in the way of
> drama IMO.
I would disagree, and agree as well:-) On a number of
occasions I have seen characters totally fudge things up
that they should have, by the law of averages, succeeded in
doing. Now, I could have ignored the results (and at times
I have, in support of what you've said) but sometimes the
anomaly results in something so unexpected, that it creates
its own plot device. It can be great fun watching things
change in front of you, esp. when you've been playing "god"
for a while. I think a small chance of tripping on your
shoe laces can be good for everyone (remember, that's
happened in Olympic running events)
SM
l_si...@my-deja.com
other...@erols.com wrote:
> Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates
> between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external
influences.
> Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed
> or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly,
> modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that
> circumstance.
This is similar to the C&S3 resolution mechanic. Roll 3d10, two are used
as a percentile and compared to the prefigured success/failure chance on
the character sheet (based on level of skill, traits etc), the third
gives you your 'degree of success/failure'.
I can't really say more than that (I've only skimmed the rules), but the
'degree' roll seems to reflect situational effects. In combat for
instance weapons have different 'critical ranges', so you can have
something hard to use (low chance of success) but devastatingly
effective (large critical range). I don't recall if there's a way for
the mechanic to reflect reduced 'bad stuff' with high skill or not
however.
Luke
Robin
I had the impression that Dr. TOC's mechanic could make a success a
failure due to outside circumstances, while the C&S mechanic as you
describe it seems to provide a degree of success only; it doesn't
change a success to a failure.
I use the following system: a skill roll is a percentile (possibly
modified). If I need a better quality resolution than success/partial
success/failure I use the difference between skill value and skill
roll: a roll of 30 with a skill value of 50 would yield a quality of
20, while a skill of 40 would yield a quality 10 and a skill of 25 a
quality of -5. That way, all qualities can be compared and even added
to each other, and higher skill values make better success qualities
possible, while lowering failure qualities.
Robin
--
GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources
http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html
robin_...@my-deja.com
Justin Bacon
>results
>> >in your colleague switching off the power"?
>>
>> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the
>project your
>> colleague accidentally switches off the power."
>
No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the power.
> I still believe that a skill roll should be
>concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I
>see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of
>filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague
>switch off the power.
Then why roll the dice? If you take all random chance out of consideration,
then there's no reason you should be using a randomizer.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Robin
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> >'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop'
> >results
> >> >in your colleague switching off the power"?
> >>
> >> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the
> >project your
> >> colleague accidentally switches off the power."
> >
> >Isn't that the same thing?
>
> No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the
power.
Still my skill roll shouldn't have anything to do with my colleague
switching off the power. If it did, then at higher skill values the
probability of my colleague switching off the power decreases, which is
a silly notion.
> > I still believe that a skill roll should be
> >concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I
> >see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of
> >filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague
> >switch off the power.
>
> Then why roll the dice? If you take all random chance out of
consideration,
> then there's no reason you should be using a randomizer.
As written elsewhere on this thread, I use the dice as quantifiers of
success. 'Using Photoshop' I can achieve convincing results or not; if
I'm not trained beyond a certain level I can even fail to produce any
useful result. But while power failures or other outside influences may
impede (or help) your work, they are not an inherent function of your
skill. Therefore, if they enter the equation they do so in another
place, not the skill roll.
simonh...@my-deja.com
Robin <robin_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <20000329234034...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
> tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> > >'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop'
> > >results
> > >> >in your colleague switching off the power"?
> > >>
> > >> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the
> > >project your
> > >> colleague accidentally switches off the power."
> > >
> > >Isn't that the same thing?
> >
> > No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the
> power.
>
> Still my skill roll shouldn't have anything to do with my colleague
> switching off the power. If it did, then at higher skill values the
> probability of my colleague switching off the power decreases, which
is
> a silly notion.
I can see the sense in both sides of the argument here.
There is a chance that you will fail in a skill attempt due to external
factors beyond your controll, but there are a number of ways these
external influences can be accounted for.
One way to acount for them might be to assume that they are already
factored into the skill roll - part of the random roll of the dice.
If you're an experienced and alert person used to operating in
that environment, you might notice that a power plug or cable is
loose or in a place where it's easily knocked. You skill at using
publishing equipment might mean you remember to secure the
environment oyu're working in and reduce the chance of accidents.
Another method is to introduce external factors explicitly as a
penalty on your skill roll. e.g. You get a -10% penalty because people
are goofing around in the office and messign with the equipment.
If you fail by 10% or less then something they did messed up your
work.
Generaly I think I prefer to assume that if a character failed a
skill roll then they made a mistake, but occasionaly I rule that a
skill failiure was due to environmental factors. I'm more likely to
do this in the case of fumbles made by highly skilled characters.
Simon Hibbs