Quote from: flyingmiceSince all skill work exactly the same in my system, you can do this by just changing the default assumption. That's a group level issue, not a design level issue.

See, now that's the Heretical Crazy Talk™ I'm speaking of.

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so?

I've found that the people that do have a problem with that kind of thing I can generally quite happily game without. Buh-bye to "My character is more stubborn and pigheaded than yours is, and I'm going to show it by being more stubborn and pig-headed than you."

Quote from: DwightI've found that the people that do have a problem with that kind find I can generally quite happily be without when I game. Buh-bye to "My character is more stubborn and pigheaded than yours is, and I'm going to show it by being more stubborn and pig-headed than you."

Ha! Good way to handle it!

But basically, this involves a group level buy-in.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen we do agree. I also think the "system matters" mantra is usually read as "system is the only thing that matters," and that is wrong. It's an important element, but not the only, or even most important.

I've talked to people who are seen as saying this at some length.  So I'm going to open that box up just a little further.

A lot of the time, what comes across is "To you, designer, system matters most - the procedures, rules, techniques of play.  Because it's all you've got to work with when designing."

Before you finish reacting to that, even rephrased, another odd shot.  

In theory, the bits of game advice in Amber, which describe techniques that aren't hard and fast rules?  Those are also part of the overall idea of  system that the designer should be concentrating on.

As I see it, redefining system as "the whole body of stuff the group does" has an upside - it's more holistic.  The downside is that because it's a redefinition, the brain sometime slips a gear, and you get the designer who believes that, but actually goes sideways on those examples and techniques, instead just playing clever games with numbers.

...When the word "system" is in there, it's a problem endemic to "indiehood".  Take the word out, and you've seen the same problem everywhere...

...How many game design discussions start with "Check out my GM advice on combat encounters!  Isn't it wicked inspiring?".


EDIT: Shit, I'm threadjacking.  Uh...   If this is an interesting topic to anyone, we can has new thread?

Quote from: flyingmiceBut basically, this involves a group level buy-in.

As do any rules. It is just not as expected by people that have played games where it is not the case, which is a lot of games. Or maybe it's just a lot of people because so many play D&D?  Further it cuts a little closer to the player's control of the character, so it needs a little more delicate technique. IMO not just buy-in when they start playing but buy-in on specific situations to help mitigate the "my character is out of my control" feeling it can give.

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so?

-clash

Yes, the players did. It went great. Essentially, the system was such that it made sense on both sides. I like egalitarian systems so no mook rules for me.

Bill

Quote from: DwightAs do any rules. It is just not as expected by people that have played games where it is not the case, which is a lot of games. Or maybe it's just a lot of people because so many play D&D?  Further it cuts a little closer to the player's control of the character, so it needs a little more delicate technique. IMO not just buy-in when they start playing but buy-in on specific situations to help mitigate the "my character is out of my control" feeling it can give.

Yep! That's something players are justifiably squeamish about. It requires trust.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltYes, the players did. It went great. Essentially, the system was such that it made sense on both sides. I like egalitarian systems so no mook rules for me.

Bill

Very cool! It sounds like fun!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceVery cool! It sounds like fun!

-clash

Posted it in a different thread if you want look it over. It's only two pages.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Since this thread is apparently filled with heretics, I'm going to be the heretic and disagree with some of your points.

You say that "Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken."  The problem that taking hits is not necessarily the only way that a character can take damage so while in combat they can be the same statistically, once a character falls into a pit with metal spikes on the bottom or has to run through a fire, you either wind up ignoring the armor or introducing a to-hit roll so that some damage can be statistically reduced.

Basically, if armor prevents/reduces damage, one can pick a representational way of modeling that by having armor, well, reduce damage (because that's what it does) or pick a non-representational way of modeling the reduced damage that relies on some other element such as reduced chances to hit.  While the later might save some time, it's far less flexible because it ties the implementation to things that the real thing aren't tied to.  In the case of armor reducing the chance to hit, it ties armor to combat and being hit, which makes situations where the character isn't being hit harder or less intuitive to implement.

But the bottom line is that I think that given a choice, a game designer should work with representational models over non-representation models unless there is a significant reason to prefer the latter, and I think it's no mistake that the biggest points of complaint about D&D -- armor class, hit points, and levels -- are the areas where the abstraction is least representational.

Next, you tackle initiative and compare short combat rounds with lots of misses to longer combat with fewer misses, both of which average out to a certain number of hits that balance out over time.  Assuming that misses are built into initiative creates a problem because it assumes that when a character misses, they won't chance their course of action.  For me, initiative and combat rounds are also about coordinating and sequencing actions across many characters.  In those cases, a character may change their mind and do something different without actually having done something that matters, such as coming to the aid of a companion in trouble.  There is also an issue of how far a person can move in a given period of time.  D&D lets a character moving 30 feet in a 6 second combat round.  If we extrapolated that to a 30 second round, that would be 150 feet per found.  Again, it's no surprise that games with long combat rounds with artificially slow movement rates generated a lot of Murphy's Rules because they want to keep characters from flying off the map in a single round.

As for random damage, I would tend to agree that damage can be pretty random but I think it's really a combination of random and deliberate elements and how much of a role each one plays will depend on the situation.  The sniper taking out a target will do very deliberate damage based on how well they do while a person getting shot in a chaotic firefight may suffer very random damage.  Not sure if that's worth modeling, though.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the bottom line is that I think that given a choice, a game designer should work with representational models over non-representation models unless there is a significant reason to prefer the latter, and I think it's no mistake that the biggest points of complaint about D&D -- armor class, hit points, and levels -- are the areas where the abstraction is least representational.

Agreed John. IMO Mechanics ideally should reflect the illusion you wish to create for your players. This of course is impossible to reach, however the abandonment of it completely shouldn't be a upfront goal.

And there wasn't anything Heretical in the orginial post. It could have been a original D&D apologist rant.

Quote from: gleichmanAgreed John. IMO Mechanics ideally should reflect the illusion you wish to create for your players. This of course is impossible to reach, however the abandonment of it completely shouldn't be a upfront goal.

And there wasn't anything Heretical in the orginial post. It could have been a original D&D apologist rant.

Good! The Orthodoxy has arrived!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGood! The Orthodoxy has arrived!

-clash

I don't think John or I represent any sort of Orthodoxy in rpgs. If anything we're the Heretics here. The idea that rpgs should be representative instead of abstracted has always been a minority opinion.

More so online, but even in the Market Place where D&D has always defined Orthodoxy.

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

When I saw "heretical thoughts on combat", I was expecting someone to say that Armor is supposed to avoid damage, not reduce it.


Oh, wait, Clash did say that was cool too! hehe

Another area where abstracted mechanics seem to cause problems are in the wildly popular idea of generic "conflict" resolution mechanics that treat a shouting match as being the same as a deadly duel.  The problem that I've seen in reviews of several "hippy games" is that while their mechanics work fairly well for one-on-one battles, they don't work so well when you have several different character and opponents all acting at the same time.  In some ways, they look like stage plays where each actor takes their time to say their line and then the next actor goes and so on.  That's because they were designed with discreet one-on-one challenges in mind and because they are not representational, don't necessarily scale well to large multiple actor conflicts or deal with simultaneous actions very well.