TheRPGSite

This is a spin-off from the "the youth has gone soft" thread.
All you story-connosseurs:

Explain to me:

What good does it do to your game, when you favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character?


I´m tring to understand your way of playing.

You're talking about mainstream games, right?

Basically, yes.

But AFAIK even most thematic games have rather harsh and dire consequences based on die rolls, don´t they?

A point for not rising to the bait.

Yes, you could say that. There's an ethos around the Forge that the chips fall where they may. On the other hand, there's been a lot of thought about how to make the game fun for players even while hosing the characters.

As to your original question: it depends on several factors. Are you playing for the challenge? Or are you playing because you want to explore the world and see the growth of the characters?

I was stuck in this trap myself some years ago. We had characters in RQ that had been around for almost twenty years. Seeing them die would have been like seeing the death of Conan – almost unthinkable. It would have finished a game that had been part of our lives since we were 18. But it felt pointless to me to be fudging, and it made the players boringly careful.

My solution was to convert the game to a system which didn't allow for random death, and where failure didn't necessarily mean the destruction of fun (HQ). There was nowhere to go any more in the old system, where the stakes were life or death.

So tell us about HQ. It´s  sort of the Immortals set to RQ, isn´t it?

Quote from: SettembriniSo tell us about HQ. It´s  sort of the Immortals set to RQ, isn´t it?

What is the Immortals?

HQ as it stands is just a very flexible chargen/resolution system attached to Glorantha. You can play it low- or high-power. But actual death-of-character always requires an active decision.

Ok, I´ll bite:

What is so great about that?

It makes them less paranoid and more willing to take risks.  Those are the up-shots for me.

If there are still consequences, but those consequences don't involve the players losing investment in the game or sitting on their hands while others play, then I find everyone has a more enjoyable time.

There are other methods than taking death off the table, of course...  such as that "adventuring company" idea on the other thread.  But this solution's working well enough for me.

Quote from: SettembriniOk, I´ll bite:

What is so great about that?

It depends on what you want from that particular game. Let me note here that when I ran Pendragon, it was a game where a character death or more a session was not unusual. That was why I developed special techniques for handling it.

PD is a game about the larger context of Arthurian Britain – it's not the individual chr that counts, it's the flow of the game as history. Which includes "Remember how Sir Aeddan got squished by that giant?" At least, that's the way I ran it for about five years.

When you use a game like HQ, what you're looking for is the story of an individual chr. Random death (and note that doesn't mean no death) has been removed from the equation. What the game concentrates on is consequences, and the consequences of losing a debate can be as severe as losing a fight (in purely mechanical terms).

Quite recently I ran a game of HQ in which I was surprised to find that nobody used violence as a solution once. It wasn't my doing – I simply presented situations with open-ended resolution. The players chose to tackle problems in ways other than fighting.

That, in my opinion, is a function of HQ's highly flexible contest system, in which any ability may be used as long as it can be justified. It certainly wasn't because the chrs could die in combat.

So I think it's a very complex question. Removing random death is only one part of the puzzle.

Cheeky fellow, having a title like this.

Quote from: SettembriniExplain to me:
What good does it do to your game, when you favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character?
I´m tring to understand your way of playing.

Sorry don't have a detailed answer except, for me it's all about player investment in the campaign and their characters. I'll use different systems for different campaigns depending on the kind of tone/atmosphere/genre etc I want. It doesn't mean (using different systems) I'm going easy on the characters - which is what the title implied (and thankfully you posted an actual question) - but that I'm hoping for a specific type of play experience.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniWhat good does it do to your game, when you favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character?

I´m tring to understand your way of playing.

Uh, that's pretty much what standard D&D 3.5 does.  First, the CRs are balanced so that an encounter where the CR is equal to the party's level (with 4 characters) will deplete 25% of the party's resources.  Thus the standard encounter greatly tilts the odds in the favor of the PCs.  Second, hit points increase as the players invest time in their characters and level.  This makes it harder to kill their characters in one shot the longer they are played.  Third, once the characters reach a certain level (i.e., after a sufficient amount of time has been invested in them), the characters often gain access to spells that let them reverse character death with with increasing flexibility and decreasing penalties.  

So if you want to understand a game that favors the players according to the time they've invested in the game and character, just take a look at D&D 3.5 because that's exactly what it does.

Quote from: SettembriniSo tell us about HQ. It´s  sort of the Immortals set to RQ, isn´t it?

Just to clear up a point of confusion, at one time the RQ community believed that a game called Heroquest would be produced which was aimed at allowing highly experienced characters to engage in epic spiritual quests or something. (A "heroquest" in Gloranthan terms is if, I'm not mistaken, a way that a hero could reenact the events of some myth, and then acquire powers related to the quest.) The game never materialized although I think you can find on the net at least one attempt to extrapolate what it might have looked like, as an expansion to RQ.

Heroquest as it actually turned out is a revision of Hero Wars, but HW was so named basically because "Heroquest" was the trademarked name of a boardgame at the time, and I'm sure it would have been called HQ from the start otherwise. The game is essentially Greg Stafford's attempt (with Robin Laws) to capture the feel of Glorantha as he envisioned it in his writings and the board games White Bear and Red Moon/Dragonpass, and Nomad Gods. In short he wanted something that had a much more sweeping, epic feel, as opposed to the gritty feel of RQ.

Basically, HQ is Clash of the Titans to RQ's Troy (if you ignore the qualitative difference between the two films, that is).

Quote from: SettembriniWhat good does it do to your game, when you favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character?

Well, for me, I'm a big fan of epic adventure in the vein of real world mythology -- and we all know that Perseus, Heracles, Odysseus, Beowulf, Sigfried, and the like didn't get shuffled off the mortal coil with great frequency (in fact, repeatedly cheating death is a large part of what makes such figures legendary).

Now, that said, Heroes of legend did suffer numerous, crippling, setbacks (from the deaths of loved ones to having their kingdoms usurped) -- but they weren't marked for death until their desitiny had been fulfilled. The key is that such setbacks provide motivation for action, where death stops the action cold (because the protagonist is dead, duh).  

From a literary standpoint, random death is a blunt instrument that serves, not to raise up charcters to hero status, but to ensure that they remain nameless bodies in some forgotten grave. Social stigma, financial ruin, a broken heart, paranoid delusions, or the like all provide an opportunity to overcome adversity. Death, by comparsion, only provides the opportunity to create a new character.

If classic literature and folklore read like most people play RPGs, we wouldn't have sagas and novels, as heroes would never live long enough to accomplish anything of note. This is why accomplished authors save protagonist death for the endgame or, at the very least, dramatically appropriate moments -- because most people don't find heroes who are every bit as frail and susceptible to death as common peasants to be very heroic.

So, to answer your question, heroic adventure in the vein of folklore and classic literature benefits immeasurably by taking death off the table (at least until it is dramatically appropriate).

I've never played a game without some kind of challenge.

Even Katamari Damacy (that game where you roll up stuff into a giant ball for the PS2) is a challenge at times.


I think games that are originally extremely difficult are no fun. There has to be a learning curve. But at the same time, if you've been playing the same game for over a year, you really do need some way to have a tactical and strategic challenge.

It's one reason why I really hate World of Warcraft, for example. World of Warcraft has no increased challenge. Your characters have the same hardships at level infinity that they had at level 1.

In the same vein, this is why D&D is such a great game. There are so many different ways to make battles harder for characters -- and there are a glut of ways that characters can prepare for those battles, especially at higher levels. Hell, you could scry on each person in the enemy's army if you really wanted to, but at the same time, your enemies could do the same thing back to you.

So you want to emulate heroic myths?

What is the enjoyment you get out of that?
You dwell in a fantasy world without achievement, total escapism?

You don´t want to be bothered with a close scrutiny of your performance?

Is it that?

Quote from: SettembriniSo you want to emulate heroic myths?

Yes.

QuoteWhat is the enjoyment you get out of that?

There's quite a lot of enjoyment to be had in reclaiming kingdoms, journeying to the far corners of the globe, discovering lost places, magical races, and vast treasures.

QuoteYou dwell in a fantasy world without achievement. . .

Well, I wouldn't say that heroes of myth never achieved anything. Quite the opposite. Are you seriously asserting that something only qualifies as an achievement if threat of death looms over the would-be achiever at all times? Man. . . I'd hate to live your life.

QuoteYou don´t want to be bothered with a close scrutiny of your performance?

Where you get this, I have no idea. I neither said or inferred such a thing. You really seem to be stuck on "Death is the only consequence" mode to the point that you're pretending all of the other possible consequences of failure that people are mentioning either don't exist or aren't consequences.

Judging by that selective ignorance, your threads aren't going anywhere as you don't really want people to explain anything, you just want a chance to vent some of your vitriol toward people who don't do things your way.

No, you didn´t see the question marks.
I´m still not getting it, so I poke you with my Hot Needle of Inquiry until I understand it.

QuoteThere's quite a lot of enjoyment to be had in reclaiming kingdoms, journeying to the far corners of the globe, discovering lost places, magical races, and vast treasures.

For me, tio enjoy stuff like that, I need to have earned it. If the only effort I made was sitting several years at a table and being on time, then it would be dull.

This is the exact point I don´t get:

How can script immunity not turn into wankery?

Quote from: SettembriniSo you want to emulate heroic myths?

What is the enjoyment you get out of that?
You dwell in a fantasy world without achievement, total escapism?

You don´t want to be bothered with a close scrutiny of your performance?

Is it that?

It's really quite funny how you repeat some of the worst excesses of the Forge over the years, Set. Right here you're repeating in all essentials Ron and Clinton's thesis from several years ago that sim play is for cowards – those who can handle neither the challenge of gamism nor the drama of narrativism.

Just admit you're a young punk who doesn't understand points of view that are not your own. It's okay – as Somerset Maugham once put it, odious young men are quite likeable in their own way.

QuoteJust admit you're a young punk who doesn't understand points of view that are not your own.

Of course I am a young punk. I do understand other´s people points. But not everytime. That´s why I keep asking.

I´m not saying your gaming is wrong.

I´m saying: The way I understand it, it´s morally corrupt. I see only risk-less, effort less wish fulfillment.

But that can´t be all, can it?

So tell me more about it.

Quote from: SettembriniOf course I am a young punk. I do understand other´s people points. But not everytime. That´s why I keep asking.

I´m not saying your gaming is wrong.

I´m saying: The way I understand it, it´s morally corrupt. I see only risk-less, effort less wish fulfillment.

But that can´t be all, can it?

So tell me more about it.

Morally corrupt?

effortless?

that can't be all?

Cheeky, very cheeky.

Regards,
David R

Well, you've already had several answers:

1. Your interest may not be in facing challenges but in exploration of character or setting, or in the production of theme.

2. You may have characters that nobody wishes to see die.

3. You may wish to emulate literature in which the characters do not suffer random death, but die at appropriate times.

4. You may dislike having players sit around with nothing to do because their character has died.

5. You may wish to encourage gonzo, over-the-top action.

6. You may wish to emphasise consequences other than death.

7. You may wish for escapism, pure and simple.


Now, can you understand any of those? If you can't, fair enough. But they're all easy enough to understand with a little bit of sympathy.

I'm not keen on gamism in roleplaying, myself. I'm a sim/narr guy. I'd rather get my gamist action from chess or a computer game. I used to dismiss such roleplaying as 'hack-and-slash'. So I see where you're at.

One thread isn't going to do this for you. You are going to need to stretch your imagination a bit.

QuoteNow, can you understand any of those? If you can't, fair enough. But they're all easy enough to understand with a little bit of sympathy.

I think I just understand to well. I am not saying:

"That style of gaming isn´t fun, it doesn´t work."

Rather, I fear it does indeed work all to good.

But please tell me:

Sitting around with your buddies and granting all those experiences. It creates a comfortable cuddly zone, where everyone can have his dream fulfilled without doing something for it.

Isn´t that like drinking booze? I drink booze once in a while too, but I don´t think that´s actually an achievement.

What is the underlying moral value that you are transporting with such a setup?

I refer you to Tolkien:

QuoteI have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which "Escape" is now so often used: a tone for which the uses of the word outside literary criticism give no warrant at all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic. In real life it is difficult to blame it, unless it fails; in criticism it would seem to be the worse the better it succeeds. Evidently we are faced by a misuse of words, and also by a confusion of thought. Why should a man be scorned, if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? The world outside has not become less real because the prisoner cannot see it. In using Escape in this way the critics have chosen the wrong word, and, what is more, they are confusing, not always by sincere error, the Escape of the Prisoner with the Flight of the Deserter. Just so a Party-spokesman might have labelled departure from the misery of the Führer's or any other Reich and even criticism of it as treachery. In the same way these critics, to make confusion worse, and so to bring into contempt their opponents, stick their label of scorn not only on to Desertion, but on to real Escape, and what are often its companions, Disgust, Anger, Condemnation, and Revolt. Not only do they confound the escape of the prisoner with the flight of the deserter; but they would seem to prefer the acquiescence of the 'quisling' to the resistance of the patriot. To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it.

JRR Tolkien On Fairy Stories

Sett, what is it you achieve in your games?

Regards,
David R

See, now we are talking.

Escapism, what a wide field for discussion!

Romanticism vs. Enlightment!

EDIT: What do I achieve? Depends on the game. Of course a game is never more than a game. I can win/reach my self set goals through my skill. Like I can in Hockey, or what have you. So speaking of moral values, a game is never more than a game.

droog is on it.

So you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?

Quote from: SettembriniSo you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?

Sett you are operating under a false set of assumptions. Escapism includes challenges, just sometimes not the kind (challenges) you obviously like. Now, replace the Kool Aid with vodka and get with the programme.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniSo you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?

It's a game, man.  I'll take either or, and sometimes both.  To varying degrees.  Sometimes depending entirely upon mood and whim!

I already said:

Escapism is a wide, wide field. Of course all RPGing is Escapism, as even reading the newspaper is escapism. But tell me more about the challenges in your games, that I don´t know of.

Challenges other than the probability of death, right?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniSo you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?

In many cases, people do.  Let me ask you this.  Can you enjoy spending 2 hours watching a movie even though you have no control over the story and there is now challenge to you in watching it?  If so, then what is the point of watching a movie to you?

As I said: All values we´re talking about here are to be understood in a gaming context.
Movies have nothing to do with games.

Quote from: SettembriniAs I said: All values we´re talking about here are to be understood in a gaming context.
Movies have nothing to do with games.

Wrong.  You asked, "So you also value escapism more than facing a challenge?"  You seem to find it hard to believe that people might be gaming just for escapism.  Plenty of people do, including plenty of casual gamers who want the GM to hand them everything on a silver platter in the dining car that's traveling down a railroaded adventure.  Why would anyone want to play a game like that?  For the same reason people enjoy watching movies or reading books, as opposed to the reason why they play chess or poker.  It's pure escapism.  And before you ask, "Then why not watch a movie or read a book?" that's the same as asking a person looking at the game as a challenge, "Then why not just play chess or Advanced Squad Leader?"  Clearly, there is some aspect of the form of the role-playing game that appeals to people, just as some people prefer books to movies or vice versa.  An you are ultimately going to get no deeper understanding how someone's preferences on that sort of matter differ from your own than you'll get trying to understand why someone else enjoys eating a food that you hate.  It's an aesthetic taste issue at that point.

QuoteClearly, there is some aspect of the form of the role-playing game that appeals to people, just as some people prefer books to movies or vice versa.

I´m not saying heavy escapist gaming isn´t fun.

And right, that sort of "gaming" is way more like watching a movie.

It has even some very good things a movie doesn´t have:

Ritualized reception of the source material with strong emotional investment. It´s a feel good circle of people close to each other. EDIT: And needs effort from everyone. It´s a whole craft unto itself.

But:

It´s pointless to discuss RPGs without making that clear. If I´m complaining about the loss of strategy and the prevalence of reactive tactics nowadays, it´s of no use whatsoever if someone from the "collective reception and creation of genre-text and emotion-traders" comes along.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s pointless to discuss RPGs without making that clear. If I´m complaining about the loss of strategy and the prevalence of reactive tactics nowadays, it´s of no use whatsoever if someone from the "collective reception and creation of genre-text and emotion-traders" comes along.

Correct.  But your problem is not their problem and by stating it as a problem in the hobby rather than a personal problem that you are having, you are inviting them to tell you, "That's not a problem."  So try describing it as a problem that you are having and something that you don't like instead of suggesting that it's a problem in a more objective sense and something everyone should be worried about.

QuoteBut your problem is not their problem and by stating it as a problem in the hobby rather than a personal problem that you are having, you are inviting them to tell you, "That's not a problem." So try describing it as a problem that you are having and something that you don't like instead of suggesting that it's a problem in a more objective sense and something everyone should be worried about.

Actually, that´s the insight I had.
You are right.
But inquire yourself: Isn´t it happening all the time? Isn´t that the major fuck up of internet discourse?

BTW, if I´m talking to or assuming people having the same morale values, it´s useful communication.

Quote from: SettembriniBut inquire yourself: Isn´t it happening all the time? Isn´t that the major fuck up of internet discourse?

Absolutely.  But that doesn't mean that you need to contribute to it.

Quote from: SettembriniBTW, if I´m talking to or assuming people having the same morale values, it´s useful communication.

No, because unless you understand and acknowledge the different assumptions involved, all you get is people shouting past each other which is, in my opinion, pretty useless and makes both parties look pretty bad.

What you need to remember is that the audience for a debate in a public forum isn't simply the person you are arguing with.  There are often lots of lurkers who never get involved.  They are the people who consider both sides fairly and the people who can have their minds changed.  If you sound like an unreasonable jerk, they'll treat your arguments accordingly.  When you are in an argument with someone else, imagine yourself standing in front of a crowd of strangers watching your opponent and you and consider how you look to them, not just your opponent.

Quote from: SettembriniI´m still not getting it, so I poke you with my Hot Needle of Inquiry until I understand it.

'Cause poking with hot needles is so conducive to fostering understanding in discourse.:rolleyes:

i'm going to leave aside the Escapism issue, because I think it's crowding out the earlier point: that roleplaying without unintentional death on the table is not the same as roleplaying without challenge.

It's pretty damn hard to have this conversation though. When every response is greeted with something like this:

Quote from: SettembriniSo you want to emulate heroic myths?

What is the enjoyment you get out of that?
You dwell in a fantasy world without achievement, total escapism?

You don´t want to be bothered with a close scrutiny of your performance?

Is it that?

. . .it's damn near impossible to have sustained dialogue. Every post is greeted with an excluded-middle, straw-man, parody of the point, or just plain assumes a point that's not there, such as "Emulate heroic myths=dwell in a fantasy world without achievment, total escapism."

But I'm going to give it a shot: When death isn't at stake (except when you want it to be at stake), then about anything else can be. You can make a character as miserable as fucking Job, kill his family, turn his wife against him, give him pustulant boils, and have his friends come by to bitch him out. You can make the fucker wish he was dead. But unless the player decrees it, no death. I played a brief HQ game on IRC in which Mike Holmes, als o a player, failed nearly every roll. What we enjoyed was the agonizing over the poor soul's setbacks, anticipating his eventual triumph.

To be sure, this isn't "challenge" as a strategic element in the games you like to play, but speaking of negative consequences for the characters in the fiction, it's there. The good it does, when I "favor the players according to the time they invested in the game and the character" is that allows consequences without sacrificing the character itself, often consequences that would rarely happen if death was on the table. In that HQ game, my character got smashed around by a huge golem while covering everyone else's escape. I awoke alone in a magical prison. If we'd been plaing a more mainstream system, I'd probably just be dead, perhaps with a colorful Rolemaster critical as my epitath.;) HQ allowed me to keep on playing the character, to strive to see his goals come to fruition, to play through real setbacks to those goals, without throwing away all the hard work and emotional investment for some dumb golem.

I hope that clarifies what people get out of this kind of play, and how it's far from "making it easy for the characters."

Peace,
-Joel

I started this, so I´ll be around to honour your contributions, in spite  of my new resolution.

Well, in your example, there still is no player skill involved. Only an emotional back and forth. Totally different, ain´t it?

You say yourself:

QuoteTo be sure, this isn't "challenge" as a strategic element in the games you like to play, but speaking of negative consequences for the characters in the fiction, it's there.

True enough; as you noted, I acknowledged as much.

That is, there's no player tactical skill involved in playing this way. There's still all manner of player choice, and skill at making the choices that will take the story in the direction you'd like is important. That's why a description like "world without achievement, total escapism" is so unsatisfying. There's a snide pedantic sense in which it's true, but a deeper sense in which it's not.

Your thread title promises to treat on games that make it easy for the characters. I and others have been trying to demonstrate that this is a false characterization. A game like HQ does not make it "easy for the characters," and at least some players are able to fully invest in the PCs and feel the pressure of risk and danger with death off the table. The other players and I didn't think, "hey, let's make trouble at the Magic University, who cares if there's golem guards, tralalalala!" The process went more like, "Oh no, here's a situation we can't ignore, we've got to do something, even though we'll be in deep trouble with the wizards and stuck inside their university (plus not get what we came there to achieve)," followed closely by "Oh shit! A golem guard! Run for your lives!!!"

So if we're going to discuss that, fine. If we're going to constantly shift the ground of discussion, then for all I care you can go back to your strategic withdrawel from Threads about Games you Don't Like, and pretend it's the Big, Bad Language Barrier.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowYou seem to find it hard to believe that people might be gaming just for escapism.  Plenty of people do, including plenty of casual gamers who want the GM to hand them everything on a silver platter in the dining car that's traveling down a railroaded adventure.  Why would anyone want to play a game like that?  For the same reason people enjoy watching movies or reading books, as opposed to the reason why they play chess or poker.  It's pure escapism.

I think the problem occurs when people at the table understand the activity differently:  RPG as passive escapism, like a book -vs- RPG as active gaming, like chess.  If everyone understands what's going on and is happy with it, then there's no problem.   When people don't all agree on the nature of the activity you have individuals unhappy with being railroaded, illusionism and dice fudging, or on the other side being unhappy with character death, power gamers, and so on.

Almost like people had different...agendas....

QuoteThere's still all manner of player choice, and skill at making the choices that will take the story in the direction you'd like is important. That's why a description like "world without achievement, total escapism" is so unsatisfying. There's a snide pedantic sense in which it's true, but a deeper sense in which it's not.

- Any RPG needs some skills to be succesful
- Those skills differ widely
- The "snide pedantic" was deliberate to rouse a staunch defense and explanation of the values/merits/process of collective production of text.

QuoteThe other players and I didn't think, "hey, let's make trouble at the Magic University, who cares if there's golem guards, tralalalala!" The process went more like, "Oh no, here's a situation we can't ignore, we've got to do something, even though we'll be in deep trouble with the wizards and stuck inside their university (plus not get what we came there to achieve)," followed closely by "Oh shit! A golem guard! Run for your lives!!!"

That sounds to me like you have a problem that has to be solved by the players at the table. That´s a challenge [in the way of intellectual problem solving], isn´t it?
Now, I´m pretty sure without consequences for not solving the problem, it becomes meaningless (if the players can see through this).

So, I´d say, it´s not important [at this stage] what your resolution system is. To me it sounds like  you use in-game plausability to judge success.

For this you still need a well defined problem, and ressources. And the solution will rather not be neccessarily dramatic.

Problem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.
If story development prevails, the meaning of the problem solving is diminished, no?

I cannot see those two go together well, unless you have sub-systems and "open-ended" situations that are framed by particapatory "cut-scenes".

Dungeon Magazine Adventure Paths work like that. Much railroading between fights and riddles. You have to "unlock" the next story part with skill. Works really well, and is actually very popular amalgam of several otherwise conflicting needs (part of Exalted´s success?). Now, if you also want the combats & riddles & problems to be stylish & dramatically structured, it turns into, well a one sided affair of dubious taste.
This amalgam also is very dependent on the DM to incorporate the changes brought about by "open-ended" situations into the story part. Thusly, most strategic level challenges are next to impossible to model.

A loss for me, but not many seem to like strategic challenges. but the tactics are still there, as they seem to be in your example.

Quote from: SettembriniProblem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.

Why not?

You seem to assume that the battlefield must be something distinct and independent of the drama:  the drama is about personality elements, but the tactics must be enacted on a battleground of bushes, elevations and lines of sight.

If, by contrast, you enact the tactics on a battleground that is made of hopes and fears and consequences, then the strategies that take advantage of the battlefield and the rules of the game may well always be the same as the good story-telling.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, one of the major strategic questions is "Do I escalate this conflict to a level of greater violence, both giving myself more resources and putting other people (and, indirectly, myself) at greater risk?"  It's a choice I've seen people mull on numerous occasions:  "Is this conflict important enough to take that step?  If I make this step, can I win the battle before the consequences bite me too hard, or does the opponent have enough emotional resources to keep fighting me?"  They make decisions on that which are strategic and thematic at the same time.  The strategic decision and the thematic decision are the same decision.  Same-same.

So, if that's the way game-play is proceeding, your dichotomy of "Story-telling must kill the tactics, and tactics must kill the story-telling" really doesn't exist.  See?

I see "tactics", but not problem solving in DitV.
That is, the same "tactics" you have in Polaris: Do I intervene or not? Am I gouing for a small or a big change?

That´s decision making. Okay. But not problem solving, in the way I meant it.

But if you want to fish for story-friends to get them over to your thematic games, go ahead. I won´t argue.

Quote from: SettembriniI see "tactics", but not problem solving in DitV.

Okay, that's interesting.

So I think this is how it's playing out:  I know what kind of gaming challenges a lot of these games provide, but I don't know exactly what kind of challenge you're looking for.  You know exactly what kind of challenge you're looking for, but don't know what kind of gaming challenges these games provide.  One of us should do some more explaining, and see if there's any common element that bridges the gap.

I think it'd be easier (and possibly less controversial) for you to elaborate on what kind of challenge you're looking for than for me to elaborate on what kind of challenges the games provide, but maybe that's just laziness on my part :D

Quote from: droogAlmost like people had different...agendas....

Correct.  But not all agendas are...creative...

Quote from: TonyLBIn Dogs in the Vineyard, one of the major strategic questions is "Do I escalate this conflict to a level of greater violence, both giving myself more resources and putting other people (and, indirectly, myself) at greater risk?"  It's a choice I've seen people mull on numerous occasions:  "Is this conflict important enough to take that step?  If I make this step, can I win the battle before the consequences bite me too hard, or does the opponent have enough emotional resources to keep fighting me?"  They make decisions on that which are strategic and thematic at the same time.  The strategic decision and the thematic decision are the same decision.  Same-same.

And that's what I think baffles me the most about how people talk about DitV and why I've never seen the magic people want me to see in the Actual Play threads I've been referred to.  Do you really need a system to structure that kind of choice for you?  I mean, seriously, my characters make choices that are, thematically and tactically or strategically, just like that all the time in games I play in, yet people make it sound like they've never seen a character mull over a choice like that before.  Is that sort of thing really so rare in the games other people play?

ADDED:  Actually, I think I may understand what's going on.  The mechanics of DitV frame conflicts in a way that parallels the way a player might think about the contest while thinking in character, except the player doesn't have to be thinking in character to do it.  So maybe it's a tool to help people focus their decisions along certain lines.  And that would make some sense given how Vincent has said he role-plays.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really need a system to structure that kind of choice for you?

I've never quite understood why people ask this particular question.  It seems custom made to be unanswerable.  It's like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Seriously ... what kind of response would you like to see from me here?  Is it just a rhetorical question, meant to score points, or ... what?

Quote from: TonyLBI've never quite understood why people ask this particular question.  It seems custom made to be unanswerable.  It's like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

No.  I think the question is more akin to asking a person who wears glasses if they really need those things to see and the answer can simply be "Yes".

ADDED:  That may sound like a ridiculous question but it's not really if the person asking it has never met a person before who couldn't see perfectly without glasses.  In all seriousness, it seems like people are gushing over things that I've never seen a game not have.

QuoteIn all seriousness, it seems like people are gushing over things that I've never seen a game not have.

Give in to your anger and complete your jorney the Pundit-side of "the talk".

Quote from: John MorrowNo.  I think the question is more akin to asking a person who wears glasses if they really need those things to see and the answer can simply be "Yes".

ADDED:  That may sound like a ridiculous question but it's not really if the person asking it has never met a person before who couldn't see perfectly without glasses.  In all seriousness, it seems like people are gushing over things that I've never seen a game not have.

>sigh<

Okay, fine.  I'll go through this again.  But I'm tellin' you, if it ends up just like the last hundred times I've fielded this question then I'm going to be very disappointed. :D

No, I do not need a system that directly supports addressing emotional questions in order to achieve emotionally rich stories.

Do you have a follow-up question?

Quote from: TonyLBNo, I do not need a system that directly supports addressing emotional questions in order to achieve emotionally rich stories.

Do you have a follow-up question?

Why did you specifically pick Dogs in the Vineyard for your example when the sort of thematic challenge that you mentioned could be described free of the context of any system?  Is it because it specifically frames the elements of the decision with the rules?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy did you specifically pick Dogs in the Vineyard for your example when the sort of thematic challenge that you mentioned could be described free of the context of any system?  Is it because it specifically frames the elements of the decision with the rules?

Because the system helps me do a better job, easier, than I would without the system.

Quote from: TonyLBBecause the system helps me do a better job, easier, than I would without the system.

OK.  Fair enough.  Just making sure I understand where you are coming from.

Okay, so I've got a question back.

I accept that you can do these things without a system.  Why does that make you less interested in looking at a system that might help?

Quote from: TonyLBI accept that you can do these things without a system.  Why does that make you less interested in looking at a system that might help?

This is part of a broader theory that I have that where the players and GM know what should happen in the game, the rules will do one of two things.  Either the rules will confirm what the players and GM already know should happen next (at which point, using the rules doesn't provide any benefit over what they already had without them) or the rules will give an answer they don't want, the wrong answer, and then the rules are making the game worse for them.  So the best case scenario is that the rules are simply telling everyone what they already know and the worst case is that they are making the game worse.

The other (imperfect) example I'll offer is training wheels.  If you don't know how to ride a bicycle, training wheels can help keep you from falling over.  If you already know how to ride a bicycle, they get in the way because they make it difficult to lean the bicycle into turns, stick out where they can hit things, etc.  That's why nobody that learns how to ride a bicycle leaves them on the bicycle.  Yes, I know this is imperfect analogy because it implies a training tool, but focus on the "helpful if you can't do it without them" but "get in the way if you already know what you are doing" aspect only.  The point I'm trying to make is that things that help people who need help can get in the way of people who don't need help, whether it's training wheels, a GUI wizard, pop-up hints, a formalized process, etc.

Not only don't I seem to need the help (I get scenes every bit as dramatic as what I've seen in DitV actual play threads in the games that I play in).  The sort of help DitV offers gets in the way of how I get that already (which also provides other benefits to my enjoyment).  At best all DitV will do is give me an aspect of play I already have and at worst, it will fight what I really want to do in the game (which is play in character).  So what's the point?

What I'm trying to understand is what the point is to people who think DitV's dramatic conflicts are so great.  Is it that they've never had play that intense before?  And the reason why I sound like an idiot asking a person who wears glasses if they really need them to see is that the vast majority of players I've met don't seem to have any problem getting that sort of intensity in their games.  And this, of course, is yet another reason why I'm skeptical that anyone's anecdotal experiences are characteristic of the entire hobby.

Quote from: John MorrowThis is part of a broader theory that I have that where the players and GM know what should happen in the game, the rules will do one of two things.  Either the rules will confirm what the players and GM already know should happen next (at which point, using the rules doesn't provide any benefit over what they already had without them) or the rules will give an answer they don't want, the wrong answer, and then the rules are making the game worse for them.  So the best case scenario is that the rules are simply telling everyone what they already know and the worst case is that they are making the game worse.

Is this a theory only for you, or a theory for all people?  It really (and I mean intensely) doesn't match up with my personal experience.

Quote from: TonyLBIs this a theory only for you, or a theory for all people?  It really (and I mean intensely) doesn't match up with my personal experience.

That experience seems to lie at the heart of a great deal of hostility toward dice and rules.

Can you explain how it doesn't match with your personal experience?

Quote from: John MorrowThis is part of a broader theory that I have that where the players and GM know what should happen in the game, the rules will do one of two things.  Either the rules will confirm what the players and GM already know should happen next (at which point, using the rules doesn't provide any benefit over what they already had without them) or the rules will give an answer they don't want, the wrong answer, and then the rules are making the game worse for them.  So the best case scenario is that the rules are simply telling everyone what they already know and the worst case is that they are making the game worse.

From my experience the group goes to the rules/dice when they don't know what should happen in the game.  It's part of the fun -- not knowing what will happen, and then problem solving with the results.

Quote from: StuartFrom my experience the group goes to the rules/dice when they don't know what should happen in the game.  It's part of the fun -- not knowing what will happen, and then problem solving with the results.

Correct, but there are almost always places in a game where the people involved do "know what should happen", for some people more often than others.  When I GM, I probably go to the dice more than most GMs because I don't know what should happen.  I roll dice to help me figure that out.  But when I'm playing my character, I think in character and I do know how they should react to an NPC having a heated argument with them.  And since I know what my character is thinking, at best any diced mechanic that tells me how my character will react will match how I know my character should react or the diced mechanic will give me a different result that doesn't match what the character is thinking.

ADDED: Asking me to consider rules and dice to make decisions about what my characters do seems almost as strange to me as asking me to add rules and dice to my real life to help me decide what decisions to make in the real world.  Why would I want to do that?

I'm not talking about using the dice and rules to decide if a bullet hits the target when my character fires a gun (though there are some people who want to decide that, too).  I'm talking about using dice and rules to help determine whether whether my character draws his gun on an NPC and escalates the conflict between them.  If I don't know what my character will do, that could be a big help.  If I already know, then I don't need that help.  What I'm trying to find out is if there is some sort of middle-ground here, where a person can figure out what their character would do but prefer to be helped by dice and rules and, if so, what the dice and rules add to the experience for that person.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm talking about using dice and rules to help determine whether whether my character draws his gun on an NPC and escalates the conflict between them.  If I don't know what my character will do, that could be a big help.  If I already know, then I don't need that help.  What I'm trying to find out is if there is some sort of middle-ground here, where a person can figure out what their character would do but prefer to be helped by dice and rules and, if so, what the dice and rules add to the experience for that person.

If the character had some sort of Rage disadvantage, then dice could determine if they draw their gun or not.  Even if you don't want them to flip out -- maybe they will, and you have to deal with the aftermath of that.  Maybe the player gets some benefit for the risk/gamble of rolling the Rage dice, like hero points or XP.  If you know you don't want to draw your gun (or if you do) you don't have to roll the dice -- you can control your character as you like.

I don't know about DitV or the other Forge games in much detail -- so I don't know if this is similar to anything in those games...

Quote from: StuartIf the character had some sort of Rage disadvantage, then dice could determine if they draw their gun or not.  Even if you don't want them to flip out -- maybe they will, and you have to deal with the aftermath of that.

To be honest, I have a character with the Enraged disadvantage in the Champions game I'm playing in an I really don't need to roll the dice to decide when the character is enraged.  It's usually pretty obvious.

Quote from: StuartMaybe the player gets some benefit for the risk/gamble of rolling the Rage dice, like hero points or XP.  If you know you don't want to draw your gun (or if you do) you don't have to roll the dice -- you can control your character as you like.

Well, what you need to remember is that when I'm thinking in character, I'm not controlling the character that way.  My character do all sorts of things that I know are bad for them, like the character who died from his addiction and the character who pursued a relationship that was doomed to fail but couldn't see it.  I don't need dice or rules to make me do that sort of stuff.  Really.  If I can feel the rage or addiction in character, a die roll that tells me, "You're enraged!" isn't really adding to the experience for me.  If anything, rolling the dice, interpreting them, and trying to incorporate that into what the character thinks and feels detracts from that in character experience.  I'm not suggesting that it's not useful for other people.  Of course it is.  And DitV must be doing something right because of the way people gush about it.  I'm explaining my own preferences here.

That's not saying that I have no use for things like willpower rolls and such from time to time, but those are fairly specific cases where I do find that sort of mechanic useful.  But I have a pretty good grasp of when things like willpower rolls are useful for me and it follows the pattern I described.  The dice and rules are useful for me when I don't already know what the character would do because immersion, or at least the way it works for me, has blind spots and fuzzy spots and I'm fine with dice and rules filling in there.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you explain how it doesn't match with your personal experience?

I routinely use rules that track the outcomes of actions in ways that influence the future, and help to maintain causality and consequence.  I routinely use rules that help players to communicate exactly what their actions mean, emotionally, and those flags help everyone to work together more productively.  I routinely use rules that highlight specific choices by combining those two elements (emotional clarity and explicit consequences).

My experience is that all those things (and others) help me to have better game sessions, even when I know at each stage what will be happening next.  They help me orient myself in the world and in my playing group.

Quote from: TonyLBMy experience is that all those things (and others) help me to have better game sessions, even when I know at each stage what will be happening next.  They help me orient myself in the world and in my playing group.

So in those cases, you are not using the rules to resolve the situation or to tell you what happens next but to frame what's happening to provide clarity and consistency.  Is that correct?

That's pretty much what character sheets and post-game conversations do for me, so I can understand how that might be useful.

Do the rules that you use to improve your games come at a cost?  Do they ever fight what you want to do or does the overhead of using those rules ever create an unwanted distraction?  What I'm looking for here is whether it's all positive or whether you are making trade-offs.

Quote from: John MorrowSo in those cases, you are not using the rules to resolve the situation or to tell you what happens next but to frame what's happening to provide clarity and consistency.  Is that correct?

In those cases, yes.  I tried to limit my responses to the things that I use rules for which don't actually impact the resolution of the situation, or the framing of the next scene.  Not that I don't use rules for some of that stuff too, but it didn't sound like those were the parts you were interested in.

Quote from: John MorrowDo the rules that you use to improve your games come at a cost?  Do they ever fight what you want to do or does the overhead of using those rules ever create an unwanted distraction?  What I'm looking for here is whether it's all positive or whether you are making trade-offs.

Well, you know from past discussion that I don't regard out-of-game information in the same way that you do.  I like more information, whatever the source.  As long as it can be formed into a consistent picture (which, with a good ruleset, is pretty much always) more info doesn't distract me it helps me to relax and enjoy the game.

I suppose there would, theoretically, be a point at which more and more information, even if useful in itself, would hit a point of overloading my ability to parse it.  But I don't recall any examples of that actually happening to me.

Quote from: TonyLBIn those cases, yes.  I tried to limit my responses to the things that I use rules for which don't actually impact the resolution of the situation, or the framing of the next scene.  Not that I don't use rules for some of that stuff too, but it didn't sound like those were the parts you were interested in.

That's fine. When you do use rules for resolution, do you ever not like the results?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, you know from past discussion that I don't regard out-of-game information in the same way that you do.  I like more information, whatever the source.  As long as it can be formed into a consistent picture (which, with a good ruleset, is pretty much always) more info doesn't distract me it helps me to relax and enjoy the game.

OK.  That's interesting.  

I also meant the overhead of using the mechanics.  For example, using the DitV mechanics requires the rolling of dice and selecting dice to use.  Do think like die rolling, picking dice, describing things in gamespeak, etc. ever reach a point where it's annoying?  For me, for example, there is a point in Champions where keeping track of Body AND Stun AND Endurance and so on feels a bit heavy and annoying.  So I'm not talking about the mechanics producing too much of a good thing so much as the act of using the mechanics being annoying.

Quote from: Settembrini- Any RPG needs some skills to be succesful
- Those skills differ widely
- The "snide pedantic" was deliberate to rouse a staunch defense and explanation of the values/merits/process of collective production of text.

Yeah, I've figured out by now that it's deliberate. What I'm trying to tell you is that this posting tactic is unproductive. it doesn't kill discussion, not always--I'm still here, after all--but it does lessen effective communication. That is, even when we are communicating, which isn't always, it's a sort of 2 steps forward, 1 step back kind of affair. You're creating friction to understanding.

Quote from: SettembriniThat sounds to me like you have a problem that has to be solved by the players at the table. That´s a challenge [in the way of intellectual problem solving], isn´t it?
Now, I´m pretty sure without consequences for not solving the problem, it becomes meaningless (if the players can see through this).

So, I´d say, it´s not important [at this stage] what your resolution system is. To me it sounds like  you use in-game plausability to judge success.

For this you still need a well defined problem, and ressources. And the solution will rather not be neccessarily dramatic.

Problem solving and ressource management can take many guises, but they are most likely not dramatic or a good read, unless you fudge and nudge.
If story development prevails, the meaning of the problem solving is diminished, no?

To begin with, I'm with Tony in asking why the solution to a problem is at odds with the dramatic. There're plenty of examples in fiction of characters solving problems and sacrificing not a whit of drama. If your gaming follows the example of those stories--adventure stories, mind you--then drama and splutions to problems should line up pretty often. Now, if your problem is a physical one--say the problem is "Survive the dungeon's hazards and escape with the treasure"--and the game you're playing models a way of solving it that's undramatic--say, by flooding the dungeon and strolling in afterward to grab the goodies--then if the players take that solution, sure, it's undramatic. Which is precisely why people that want solutions to problems to be dramatic have veered toward game design that doesn't model problem solving in ways that kill drama.

Furthermore, if the problems you're presenting are more emotional and personal in nature--a problem of relationships or personal ambition, rather than of combat or puzzles--the solution almost can't help but be dramatic. Not that the questionof physical or mental achievement for the character doesn't enter into it, of course it does. But it's not the emphasis. The "problem' for Luke in Empire isn't "Defeat Darth Vader in a Fight"--he's clearly not going to win. The problem is "Oh shit, he's my father? Is that even true?! Do I join him or accept certain death? Or maybe there's a third choice?"

Before you start protesting, "But that's movies! It doesn't apply to gaming!" let me explain that I'm bringing it up to emphasize that this is thie kind of thing--moments just like that Star Wars scene--are what many of us aim for in our gaming. So if you're honestly trying to understand, look to things like that. If you don't like Star Wars, look to stories you do like. This shit is everywhere, from Diehard to Lord of the Rings to Watchmen. Some people accept that their gaming will not produce results like these stories. Some don't even want it. Some want it but only as a byproduct or secondary goal. But some want to put it right up there front-and-center.

And some even get it. The HQ game I was in had its faults, but it pretty regularly produced situations where the "problems" we were "solving" were keyed to thematic issues, and the success or failure at solving those problems were plenty dramatic.

You seem to be making some wierd assumptions about the game session I described. It's partly my fault for not addressing anything mechanical, leaving you to speculate in a vacuum./ I apologoze; let me briefly break down what's going on behind the curtain here:

HQ gives you a wholl mess o' traits, grouped a skills, personality and relationships, all with a numeric rating and having equal mechanical weight. When you enter a conflict, you declare the central trait being used, then add in augments, whatever traits apply to the situation. This is completely subjective, governed only by GM incredulity: "No, basket-eaving won't help you in this kniofe-fight." Your final score for the conflict is the central trait's rating plus 10% of all the augments' ratings. Then you roll. It's an opposed check with degrees of success/failure, and the difference in success results between the opponents determines the victory, from Marginal to Complete. (In martial combat, a "Complete" result would be "Dying" but not dead, unless the player wishes.)

Actually, soemthing Eric posted in the other thread got me thinking about this one:

Quote from: Erik BoielleActually, an important point is that if you can't get past the mooks you may not be able to get at the big bad. Assuming a similar sort of 'no repeat attempts' rule as one gets for lockpicking, this may mean trying another approach.

This is a significant element of Heroquest: the "no repeat attempts" rule. If you fail at something, that's it. You've failed, it's decided. To accomplish that same goal you've at the very least got to regroup or find another approach. This makes the consequences of failure very real; you may not be dead but you've exhausted a significant avenue to accomplishing your goal, and the appoach you try next may well be harder or less beneficial.

The problem I was trying to solve at the outset of that HQ scene was to find a cure for a magical plague that had inflicted, among others, my character's beloved. He and his companion were at the Wizards' University to seek aid in researching the plague. When we found the wizard whose help we needed and found him magically torturing/experimenting on a captured ogre-man (another PC), we had to weigh whether to keep quiet and accept his help or take action. We chose action! The problem then became how to get out of the place with its crazy magic defenses and golem guards. The solution ended up being the classic "I'll hold them off, you all go!" Sure, if my char had died at that point it would have been plentydramatic, but his story wasn't done yet. So fortunately, there was the option of failure without death.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there's little actual tactics involved in the combat itself. There's only so much maximization you can get out of Augments, without jsut being a wanker and running downyour whole list. Once I ponied up my "Spear fighting" augmented by "Protective fighter," "Prove my worth," and what have you, I was at the mercy of the dice. Though, no more so than a fighter making his to-hit roll. All his tactics and strategy have been in positioning himself to make that blow count; thereafter he relies on fate. My success (at achieving goals) was reliant on positioning within the story--going to the right places, asking the right questions, forging the right relationships, etc.--and thereafter, on the whims of fate.

And even after somehow escaping captivity, the overall problem (the plague) would be far from solved, in fact had even suffered a vast setback. True, it's unlikely the GM would let us go on and never discover the cure, but  as a result of our failures the cure could very well come too late to save my lady love. . .

That's the kind of gaming world some of us live in. Some folks (witness John Morrow's comments) get it without any special systemic support. Others, like me and Tony at least prefer to have system that will do more than just step out of the way, will in fact work with you in creating even better dramatic moments and thematic storytelling than you would have otherwise.

Does that help you understand at all?

Quote from: SettembriniI see "tactics", but not problem solving in DitV.

[SNIP]

That´s decision making. Okay. But not problem solving, in the way I meant it.

I'm actually quite curious about this. Why isn't it "problem solving"? In what way do you mean the term?

A Dogs town is quite explicitly a problem to solve--the result if no-one intervenes being that the town starves, people murder each other, the fabric of society unravels, or what have you. The Dogs are there explicitly to solve it.

So what gives?



Heym, John, I've got just one thing tochip in on you and Tony's discussion; I hope it helps clarify something. if not, my apologies and carry on with Tony, he's doing quite well.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd since I know what my character is thinking, at best any diced mechanic that tells me how my character will react will match how I know my character should react or the diced mechanic will give me a different result that doesn't match what the character is thinking.

This seems to be a misconception that's cropping up a lot in some threads lately, regarding how Dogs works. I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb eyeglasses question, but do you understand when and how and why you roll dice in Dogs, and what you do with them once they're rolled? 'Cause the dice never tell you how your character should react--you decide that yourself. The dice tell you how much oomph you've got behind your actions. How much force your argument has, or how decisive your gunplay is, or whatever. What I like about it is that it's a much better measuring stick (or looks like it, I better confess that I haven't played it yet) for how well you're doing in a conflict than most mainstream systems. For instance, in D&D you've got your main fight resource, HP, and you can just keep going till it's gone. Meantime you've got a bunch of random rolls that tell you how you're doing blow-for-blow. In Dogs you roll all those dice up front, so you know what you've got to work with and you can allocate and strategize. And if you're desperate for an edge you try a new tactic for more dice. Also, for social convflict, well, "just play out how your character responds" is usually unsatisfying for me. The Dogs dice would seem to provide a more fair yardstick for how persuasive or whatever yourcharacter is, without which you often (in my experience) get simple cases of "My character's too stubborn to back down!" "Well, MY character's too stubborn to back down!" for about 45 minutes.:ACF114F:

I can see why given your play preferences you don't find it appealing, but there's how it works and why it appeals to me, at any rate. I don't know if it sheds any light on the issue underway with Tony, but hopefully it helps on some level.

Peace,
-Joel

I appreciate your long and detailed answer. We are definitely at the point, where a definition of "problem solving" would be in order.

When I have more time, I´ll come back to that more thoroughly.

But for starters:
To me, the town is a situation, not a problem. And a pretty loosely defined one. Yes there are decisions and repercussions. But no application of smarts and cunning needed.
There is no riddle, no problem. Just moral dillemmata. It´s an exercise/exploration of "what would you do, if...?".

The thing I would call "thematic".

More on "valid" problems later.

I'd say there's plenty of smarts and cunning needed to solve moral dilemmas like "If we don't put a stop to her rebellious ways and make her marry the Steward's son, the whole town will be torn apart by anarchy, but if we do that, we're forcing her to marry a callous lout she doesn't love!"

I mean, sure, maybe you just shrug and make her marry the boy. Or maybe you let her marryher lover and stick a gun in the Steward's son's face when he objects. But maybe, just maybe, you try to find a solution where she doesn't suffer and the rest of the town doesn't either. Smarts and cunning definitely help there.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowThat's fine. When you do use rules for resolution, do you ever not like the results?

John, do you see how I could think this is turning into a fishing expedition?  

I will freely admit that I'm biased from having seen many, many similar discussions with other people inevitably turn into point-by-point interrogations with the "questioner" grilling me relentlessly for the proof they know must exist that rules are actually more trouble than they're worth, deep down where I don't even know it myself.  It's frustrating.  I cannot conclusively disprove such a theory, I can only offer my positive experiences of how I observe game rules helping my game.  If the person I'm talking with (in this case, you) chooses to discount that as unimportant then there's really not much I can do to actually communicate what I know and feel.  Given my bias, is there any reassurance that you can offer me that we're not going down that road?

As to your question:  When I use rules for resolution I sometimes don't like the results in the same way that I don't like failing my saving throw and getting cooked by a dragon, or rolling badly and landing on Park Place with all the hotels.

   For instance, in DitV, I might really, really wish that I could convince young Ephraim to turn from his prideful ways without smacking him soundly across the face.  I might well wish that my Dog weren't faced with that choice, because it's not a pleasant one.
By contrast, in games like DitV and Capes and Polaris I never have an aesthetic quarrel with the outcome of the rules.  I don't have situations where I say "That doesn't make sense" or "That's not what would happen" or "That's not very satisfying" or the like.

   I may not want to be forced to choose between letting Ephraim continue his minor sins or smacking him one, but when it happens (especially when it happens as the clear and explicit consequence of who both characters are (as represented by their traits) and how they've been interacting with each other) I agree that it's a natural and dramatic way for the story to go.  I am satisfied.
As for the separate issue of mechanics just adding too much overhead to the act of playing the game, I was trained on Champions back in the day so every game these days seems ludicrously rules-light by comparison.  I could run the mechanics in my sleep.  But that's me.

Quote from: MelinglorThis seems to be a misconception that's cropping up a lot in some threads lately, regarding how Dogs works. I hope this doesn't sound like a dumb eyeglasses question, but do you understand when and how and why you roll dice in Dogs, and what you do with them once they're rolled? 'Cause the dice never tell you how your character should react--you decide that yourself. The dice tell you how much oomph you've got behind your actions. How much force your argument has, or how decisive your gunplay is, or whatever. What I like about it is that it's a much better measuring stick (or looks like it, I better confess that I haven't played it yet) for how well you're doing in a conflict than most mainstream systems.

Using this example of play (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml), and perhaps it's a poor example, it looks like the the dice are influencing how the character reacts.  I'm not really sure how rules and dice are supposed to resolve a social contest if they aren't determining something about how the character behaves, reacts, and when they yield.  If someone has a better example that better illustrates the interaction of the player with the dice and rules (e.g., how the player picks which dice to use) and how that influences the role-playing surrounding it, I'd like to see it.  Bear in mind that part of my perception comes from how Vincent Baker described using the dice to influence his in character play, though perhaps I was reading too much into it.

Please note that I am not trying to call DitV a bad game.  I own a copy (which I sadly can't find) and think it was well worth the money I paid for it.  I'm also certain that there it's doing something very cool for many of the people who gush over how great it is, and that's what I'm trying to understand.  

Quote from: MelinglorFor instance, in D&D you've got your main fight resource, HP, and you can just keep going till it's gone. Meantime you've got a bunch of random rolls that tell you how you're doing blow-for-blow. In Dogs you roll all those dice up front, so you know what you've got to work with and you can allocate and strategize.

But how to you relate that allocation to the role-playing?  How does strategizing how to use the dice relate to the what the character is thinking or doing?  

In D&D, the "to hit" rolls, "damage rolls", and "hit points" are all representative of something in the game world (if imperfectly).  In fact, one of the perpetual debates of old AD&D was the common perception that each "to hit" roll represented a swing of a weapon and each damage roll the damage from a single blow, while the official interpretation was that the "to hit" roll and damage roll were abstractions of what could be a whole series of attacks.  In other words, many players naturally relate die roles and rules to things happening in the game setting.

What do the dice in Dogs in the Vineyard represent?

Quote from: MelinglorAnd if you're desperate for an edge you try a new tactic for more dice.

And what if my character isn't finished with the old tactic?  I'm not done arguing yet.  But the dice tell me I am, when I run out of them, and that I have to move on to something else, right?

Quote from: MelinglorAlso, for social convflict, well, "just play out how your character responds" is usually unsatisfying for me. The Dogs dice would seem to provide a more fair yardstick for how persuasive or whatever yourcharacter is, without which you often (in my experience) get simple cases of "My character's too stubborn to back down!" "Well, MY character's too stubborn to back down!" for about 45 minutes.:ACF114F:

Not a problem I normally have.  What do you think causes that problem when you've experienced it?

Quote from: MelinglorI can see why given your play preferences you don't find it appealing, but there's how it works and why it appeals to me, at any rate. I don't know if it sheds any light on the issue underway with Tony, but hopefully it helps on some level.

If it works for you, by all means use it.  I know DitV is making plenty of people happy, and so are other Forge games.  

As I've said, I've had people tell me to read actual play threads to help me understand what's so great about Dogs in the Vineyard.  And, as I've said, I see descriptions of situations that seem pretty typical for the role-playing games I play.  So what I'm wondering is if (A) I'm missing the magic and there is something special there that I'm not seeing or (B) that a lot of people just never had experiences like that before DitV.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, do you see how I could think this is turning into a fishing expedition?

Yes, I do.  And I almost put a disclaimer on that question because of it.  But if your answer is that you are never unhappy with the results, that explains that you don't have a problem that other people have.  That's interesting.

I'm not looking for proof that the rules are more trouble than they are worth.  I'm really trying to understand why they are useful for you.  Please bear in mind that I've been on the other side of this table, having to explain to people who prefer freeform Fudge, for example, why I prefer to use more objective rules and fixed lists in Fudge.  Why people use the rules they use is important and if you want to grill me in return, I can actually do a pretty good job (I think) of explaining why I use the level and type of rules that I use and how I use them (e.g., see the discussion where JimBobOz assumed that a major combat would consume most of a session and I pointed out that for my group, even using rules like d20 or Hero, we can get in several combats a session [plus lots of interpersonal role-playing]).  

I believe you when you say that these rules help you just like I believe the people who say that DitV gave them better experiences than they've ever had before.  But telling me that it improves your game doesn't tell me how it improves your game.  Maybe that's not easy to explain.  Maybe it's too subjective and aesthetic to really explain.  Maybe my whole line of questions is a fool's errand.  I don't know until I ask.

When I asked you if you ever get results that you don't like, what I expected you to do is give the questions a serious consideration.  For me, sometimes having to think about a question like that makes me see things that I didn't see before.  Maybe for you, you already know the answer.  Either way, answering the question when asked plainly like that gives me some assurance that you are giving me your final well-considered answer.

Quote from: TonyLBAs to your question:  When I use rules for resolution I sometimes don't like the results in the same way that I don't like failing my saving throw and getting cooked by a dragon, or rolling badly and landing on Park Place with all the hotels.

OK.  That's not quite what I'm talking about.  That gets into that whole debate of how people can have fun by not liking what's happening to their character.

Quote from: TonyLBBy contrast, in games like DitV and Capes and Polaris I never have an aesthetic quarrel with the outcome of the rules.  I don't have situations where I say "That doesn't make sense" or "That's not what would happen" or "That's not very satisfying" or the like.

That's what I was asking about.  With respect to what I said earlier about knowing how things should turn out, dice, and rules, there are people who think certain results that don't make sense or aren't satisfying.  And this might go back to our disconnect over the idea that there is one right thing that the character would do vs. seeing a bunch of possible things that a character could do.  For some people (including myself, when it comes to in character thought and behavior derived from thinking in character and setting physics), there can be a strong sense that there is one right way that things should go.  As a result, other outcomes feel as "wrong" as throwing a stone and having it fall up.  And those wrong results are not satisfying because of it.

Quote from: TonyLBAs for the separate issue of mechanics just adding too much overhead to the act of playing the game, I was trained on Champions back in the day so every game these days seems ludicrously rules-light by comparison.  I could run the mechanics in my sleep.  But that's me.

My group uses the Hero system (we're doing a Champions game now, in fact) and we tend to strip down a lot of the details and keep things simple. But even then, very heavy systems like Hero do get in the way of role-playing for me and, in practice, I treat Hero System combats as tactical wargame exercises with, at best, intermittent in character thinking.  That's one of the reasons why I min-max characters in Hero and d20, so I can enjoy the game aspect of combat played to win.  My preference is closer to objective Fudge with some extra rules bolted on, while rules like Risus or OTE are too light for me.

That's what fascinates me about how people select rules.  I feel like Goldilocks sometimes, and find myself wondering why I think Hero and d20 are too heavy, Risus and OTE are too light, but done a certain way, Fudge is just right.  Another element of making rules work optimally for people is understanding how heavy or light they should be.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, what you need to remember is that when I'm thinking in character, I'm not controlling the character that way.  My character do all sorts of things that I know are bad for them, like the character who died from his addiction and the character who pursued a relationship that was doomed to fail but couldn't see it.  I don't need dice or rules to make me do that sort of stuff.  Really.  If I can feel the rage or addiction in character, a die roll that tells me, "You're enraged!" isn't really adding to the experience for me.  If anything, rolling the dice, interpreting them, and trying to incorporate that into what the character thinks and feels detracts from that in character experience.  I'm not suggesting that it's not useful for other people.  Of course it is.  And DitV must be doing something right because of the way people gush about it.  I'm explaining my own preferences here.

There are a lot of different types of games.  It makes sense to think about things in a certain way for some, and a different way for others.  The way you move your Knight in Chess is different from how you move him in Warhammer.  

In some roleplaying games, it makes sense to get really into your character and then act / narrate what they do, and avoid unnecessary things like dice for social mechanics (etc).  In other roleplaying games that won't work for you, because part of the game is roleplaying in a reactive way to the randomness of the dice/rules.

I think what bogs down a lot of discussion about RPG design / theory is that there's really a lot of variety to RPGs, but most people hear RPG and think about a specific game (possibly with nominally different setting and dice mechanics).

Quote from: StuartI think what bogs down a lot of discussion about RPG design / theory is that there's really a lot of variety to RPGs, but most people hear RPG and think about a specific game (possibly with nominally different setting and dice mechanics).

I don't really agree.  Much of the theory conversation on rec.games.frp.advocacy was a contrast between Theatrix and more traditional games and why each did or didn't work for people.  The same with dice and diceless, social mechanics, and so on.  I think that most people seriously discussing RPG design/theory understand that there is a variety out there, though I think they (I'm including myself here) don't always understand all the ways in which players approach and use those rules.

After my reply to Tony, I think there is a strong expectations element at work here and thus having and setting expectations can be very important.  If I expect a game to let me do something, don't expect to have to do something, or expect things to turn out a certain way, I'm going to be disappointed if it doesn't meet my expectations.  The fewer expectations that a person brings to the table, the less likely they are to run into a situation where the game doesn't meet their expectations.

I've been using this principle for movies for a while now.  I've stopped letting myself get too psyched about movies and since I've been watching movies with low expectations, I find I enjoy them more.  If they exceed my expectations, that's great, but it's also a lot easier for a movie to meet them, which is what I often need to enjoy the movie.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't really agree.  Much of the theory conversation on rec.games.frp.advocacy was a contrast between Theatrix and more traditional games and why each did or didn't work for people.

We play both kinds of music - country and western. ;)

I think "doesn't work" is an important phrase here. (I'm not specifically picking on you for using it, I've seen it used lots of times before) The only reason a game "doesn't work" for someone is they have a specific type of game they want to be playing, and are disappointed the game they sit down to play isn't it.  This is different from saying you "didn't like" a particular game.

For example, I might say I "didn't like" playing Candy Land last night, but it would be strange for me to say it "doesn't work" for me.  As in "it doesn't work for me because there are no rules for setting stakes".  That would be weird. :)

I don't think that roleplaying is something people do in a single way.  You roleplay in all sorts of games, and in varying amounts.  If you make a "woof woof" noise with the doggie in Monopoly, that's roleplaying.  If you draw a card that tells you to act out a scene where you're late for a meeting, that's also roleplaying.  If you're a Mormon cowboy, or a Dwarven Dungeoncrawler, those are both roleplaying as well.

I think people can like a wide variety of games, and roleplay in them differently -- because they're different games.

Quote from: John MorrowFor some people (including myself, when it comes to in character thought and behavior derived from thinking in character and setting physics), there can be a strong sense that there is one right way that things should go.  As a result, other outcomes feel as "wrong" as throwing a stone and having it fall up.  And those wrong results are not satisfying because of it.

But at the same time, there are other results (such as, for instance, the emotional responses of NPCs) which have emotional weight, but for which you can accept many different outcomes, right?

I have this sense that you look at DitV and assume that its conflict rules would say (for instance) "You want to win a conflict, and therefore you must shoot this innocent person in the face."  And, since you want the right to say "I don't shoot him in the face," that strikes you as troublesome.

What the system actually says (IME) is subtly but importantly different:  the system says (in the instances we're talking about) "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."

I'm accustomed to dealing with different people's take on what the consequences of my actions should be ... I mean, the GM traditionally fills this role and I don't have any trouble when the GM says "No, man, those tactics aren't going to win that conflict."  It's not harder for me to accept the judgment of the game rules (which I can see working in a transparent fashion) than it is for me to accept the judgment of the GM.

Now, mind you, I personally do also enjoy rules that tell me what my character can and cannot choose to do ... but that's not really what I'm talking about here.  I pretty well see how that would cause you immediate problems.  I think that rules that explictly lay out the consequences of your choices ... that's something that looks (to my eyes) much more usable with your style of play.  How does it sound to you?

Quote from: StuartI think "doesn't work" is an important phrase here. (I'm not specifically picking on you for using it, I've seen it used lots of times before) The only reason a game "doesn't work" for someone is they have a specific type of game they want to be playing, and are disappointed the game they sit down to play isn't it.  This is different from saying you "didn't like" a particular game.

While I think that's often true, I don't think it's always true.  In the case of diceless role-playing, for example, the required skill seems to be something that I have a great deal of trouble doing -- "Just decide what happens next."  I have a horrible time picking among the possibilities, to the point where I often just roll dice as a GM to sort out which decision I pick.  Thus diceless role-playing really "doesn't work" for me in a very literal sense, if I'm the one making the decisions.  And I can have a similar problem with things like "Tell me how your character fails to climb the wall."  Yeah, I can sort of fumble my way through it, like I could probably fumble my way through playing a song on a piano, but it ain't going to be music.

Quote from: StuartFor example, I might say I "didn't like" playing Candy Land last night, but it would be strange for me to say it "doesn't work" for me.  As in "it doesn't work for me because there are no rules for setting stakes".  That would be weird. :)

You are looking at the wrong end of the gaming spectrum for the analogy that illustrates the point.  When I was working in Japan, one of my co-workers was a Go enthusiast who helped run a club to try to get younger people (though adults) to learn how to play Go.  I understand the idea and the rules, but he eventually gave up because I just don't "get it" well enough to play well.  As he put it, when I asked him to assess the quality of my play, I played about as well as his 5 year-old child (he was a rare Japanese person who could be both sarcastic and blunt).  So I would say that "Go" doesn't work for me.  I can actually play a decent game of Shogi or Xiang-Qi, but I just couldn't think the way I needed to in order to play a decent game of Go, even though I've tried.

ADDED: I'm a very visual person.  In high school, I had the top (scaled) grades in physics across 3 classes and I rarely studied.  In fact, I often made up the equations because I could visualize the curves and figure out the math to produce the curve.  When I got to college, I encountered physics that I could no longer visualize the same way (e.g., electronics) that required mathematics that I hadn't gotten to in high school (I had taken calculus but not matrix algebra).  Thus I had the capacity to intuitively do one sort of physics but literally lacked the capacity (both concept and knowledge) to do another sort of physics.  So, yeah, it's all physics.  But it doesn't follow that just because I could do one type better than anyone else in my high school that I could do other kinds just as well -- or at all.

Quote from: StuartI don't think that roleplaying is something people do in a single way.  You roleplay in all sorts of games, and in varying amounts.  If you make a "woof woof" noise with the doggie in Monopoly, that's roleplaying.  If you draw a card that tells you to act out a scene where you're late for a meeting, that's also roleplaying.  If you're a Mormon cowboy, or a Dwarven Dungeoncrawler, those are both roleplaying as well.

Correct.  But that does not mean that all people can adopt all levels along that continuum with equal ease or at all.  A person who might be fine going "woof woof" in Monopoly might not ever get past describing what "my character" does.  I can think in character but have a much more difficult time deciding what my character would do (it goes back to that problem of being overwhelmed with possibilities and having no preference between them).  It's probably related to the fact that despite having a BA in English with a creative writing concentration and having written literally dozens of books on writing fiction, I can tell you why a story does or doesn't work but have an incredibly difficult time putting a story together myself.

Quote from: StuartI think people can like a wide variety of games, and roleplay in them differently -- because they're different games.

I think some people can.  I don't think that all people can.  I don't think that everyone can role-play the way I do (thinking in character).  I don't think you should expect that I can necessarily do what other people do (e.g., Tony's holistic decision process).  I think your assumption that every person has the capacity to assume any and all possible approaches toward a game is wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBBut at the same time, there are other results (such as, for instance, the emotional responses of NPCs) which have emotional weight, but for which you can accept many different outcomes, right?

Most of the time, yes.  But sometimes, what seems right to the GM might seem wrong to me and that can cause problems.  In the broadest sense, it's a suspension of disbelief issue and let me see if I can explain how it works and why it breaks.

When I think in character, my character builds up a sense of the world and characters around them much like a real person does, or at least I do -- this might be one of those ways in which my characters are bound to think the way I do because they share the same brain.  I have a mental model of my friends and other people I know that allows me to consider how they might react to hypothetical situations and consider what they might be thinking.  When a person I know does something that seems to violate that model, it feels "out of character" for them.  It triggers a sort of, "Something's wrong!  Pay attention!  Figure out what's going on!" response.  In real life, that might involve engaging the friend in conversation or talking to other friends.  In some cases, they are acting funny and something is wrong.  In other cases, my model is imperfect and needs to be adjusted.  But either way, it's something that makes me pay attention.

When that happens when I'm immersing in character, the shock can break immersion.  The "Something's wrong!" exception gets trapped at the player level, not the character level, and suspension of disbelief collapses.  No, that's not a good thing.  And the same thing can happen when other setting details just seem wrong.  Essentially, when something violates my world view in real life, I have no choice but to confront and resolve it (or ignore it).  When my character faces the same sort of crisis, the problem can get kicked up a level to the player and immersion breaks.  That's something I've been working on handling better.

Quote from: TonyLBI have this sense that you look at DitV and assume that its conflict rules would say (for instance) "You want to win a conflict, and therefore you must shoot this innocent person in the face."  And, since you want the right to say "I don't shoot him in the face," that strikes you as troublesome.

It's not an issue of wanting the right to say, "I don't shoot him in the face."  It's an issue of there being a right choice and all other choices being wrong.  In other words, "I don't shoot him in the face" is the right answer and all other choices are wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat the system actually says (IME) is subtly but importantly different:  the system says (in the instances we're talking about) "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."

But I already know that and it's been factored in to my choice.  If the dice don't influence or determine that choice, then what purpose do they serve?

Quote from: TonyLBI'm accustomed to dealing with different people's take on what the consequences of my actions should be ... I mean, the GM traditionally fills this role and I don't have any trouble when the GM says "No, man, those tactics aren't going to win that conflict."  It's not harder for me to accept the judgment of the game rules (which I can see working in a transparent fashion) than it is for me to accept the judgment of the GM.

It's not a matter of being told what happens outside of the character's control that's the problem.  If I use a certain set of tactics to win a context in real life, I don't have total control over whether they work or not.  The question is whether the rules tell me how my character reacts to or responds to the conflict at various stages.

For example, if I make an argument to you about some aspect of gaming theory, I have no control over whether you'll find my argument persuasive or not, so that's suitable for either GM fiat or dice and rules (so long as the result is plausible).  But when you respond to my argument, I do have control over how I react to your response.  If, for example, upon hearing your argument, I think, "Tony's just not getting what I'm saying so I need to restate my point," it would be strange to have a little voice in my head saying, "No, you don't do that.  Tony is making a really good point.  You are doubting your position and feel cornered."  I know what I'm thinking and how I want to respond.  If something outside tells me something else, it's wrong.

Quote from: TonyLBNow, mind you, I personally do also enjoy rules that tell me what my character can and cannot choose to do ... but that's not really what I'm talking about here.  I pretty well see how that would cause you immediate problems.  I think that rules that explictly lay out the consequences of your choices ... that's something that looks (to my eyes) much more usable with your style of play.  How does it sound to you?

Well, aren't the consequences a part of the shared imaginary space and already readily apparent to the character and being factored in to the character's choices?  Is explicitly laying out the consequences intended to reflect the character's understanding of the conflict and the stakes or are they designed to illustrate those elements to the player so they can consider them while making choices?  Or is something else going on?

Quote from: John Morrow(B) that a lot of people just never had experiences like that before DitV.

I think this is the answer. Maybe what DiTV has done for some, is to open up a whole new way of playing, which they didn't get from other games not because of the games themselves but by the limited way in which they played those games. (Yeah I realize clunky phrasing...)

Regards,
David R

QuoteMaybe what DiTV has done for some, is to open up a whole new way of playing, which they didn't get from other games not because of the games themselves but by the limited way in which they played those games.

Even though I like this idea, and suspect it myself, how come?
What have they been doing before?

Quote from: SettembriniEven though I like this idea, and suspect it myself, how come?

What have they been doing before?

Well, yeah, that's where that line of thinking goes, which is why I don't want to just assume it's the case.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat have they been doing before?

To me the answer is fairly obvious and not really that controversial. Whatever they have been doing and for whatever reasons they were doing it, they remained ignorant and or oblivious to the kinds of play that most games are capable of producing.

By playing DiTV (for example) they open themselves up to a whole different kind of play experience. Which is why I'm so fond of trying out new stuff. Take my group for instance.When I first started gaming with them, I ran more or less the same kind of games(systems) they used to play with their old GM. But some how my games were different. Maybe it has something to do with what I'm interested in or maybe my enthusiasm for certain themes infectious...whatever it was, it was a "new" kind of roleplaying game to them.

We started to play many other kinds of games - besides just TSR and d20 games - and because of their newly discovered playstyle, they just took these indie games as any other RPGs with some cool rules that concentrated on certain aspects of gaming (much like any other mainstream games) rather than "those" games which could give you cooties or something.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RTo me the answer is fairly obvious and not really that controversial. Whatever they have been doing and for whatever reasons they were doing it, they remained ignorant and or oblivious to the kinds of play that most games are capable of producing.

Hang on a minute. The thing is that we don't really have any way of judging objectively what 'that kind of play' is. I know for a fact that I've run and played in games that put moral dilemmas in front of people. I think they weren't bad either, if I do say so myself.

I have done a lot of acting, both amateur and professional. If called upon to act my way through a situation, I can do it. I've also known a great many people in my time, from all parts of the social spectrum. I do pretty well in any social situation I find myself in. Every roleplaying group I've ever been in has ended up finding me a valuable and entertaining member. I think I know a bit about how to play an RPG.

Up until a few years ago, I used 'traditional' games exclusively, because that was what I knew. So how about leaving out this idea that everybody who likes DitV, or whatever game comes under the microscope, is discovering a wonderful new world they never knew before? Considering that we have an archetypal Forge-basher on this forum who thinks it's a great game, how about taking people's word for it that it is, in fact, a great game (even if not for you), and that people who like it are not 'ignorant' or 'oblivious' to the potential of other games. That line of enquiry is a dead end.

Now, nobody reading this can tell if I'm telling the truth about my experiences or not. You have to take it on faith. But that's exactly the same for someone who says "Oh, I do just what DitV does and twice on Sundays, without any rules or anything." Completely unverifiable. Also subjective – maybe if I sat in on one of these games I'd see it as boring and ridiculous (it wouldn't be the first time).

It comes down to personal preference, as I've said before. If you want to figure out what DitV actually does, you need to take a very different tack and go through the mechanics with a fine-toothed comb, analysing some actual play. Good luck – it's about as tricky as explaining why Seven Samurai is a great film.

And before you ask: no, David, I'm not offended or pissed off at you; I'm just springboarding off your post. I know what I like, I'm secure in my tastes, and I don't need validation. But this sort of thing is intellectually exasperating.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile I think that's often true, I don't think it's always true.  In the case of diceless role-playing, for example, the required skill seems to be something that I have a great deal of trouble doing -- "Just decide what happens next."  I have a horrible time picking among the possibilities, to the point where I often just roll dice as a GM to sort out which decision I pick.  Thus diceless role-playing really "doesn't work" for me in a very literal sense, if I'm the one making the decisions.  And I can have a similar problem with things like "Tell me how your character fails to climb the wall."  Yeah, I can sort of fumble my way through it, like I could probably fumble my way through playing a song on a piano, but it ain't going to be music.

It only "doesn't work for you" if you have a type of game / gameplay in mind, and this isn't it.  If you just try the game on it's own merits, you may find that your simply not very good at it. :)  Or you just don't like it.  Or maybe you're just not good at GMing that particular game.

Quote from: John MorrowAs he put it, when I asked him to assess the quality of my play, I played about as well as his 5 year-old child (he was a rare Japanese person who could be both sarcastic and blunt).  So I would say that "Go" doesn't work for me.  I can actually play a decent game of Shogi or Xiang-Qi, but I just couldn't think the way I needed to in order to play a decent game of Go, even though I've tried.

Again, it's not that Go doesn't work for you -- you just aren't very good at it.  That's ok, nobody can be good at ALL games. :D

Quote from: John MorrowI think some people can.  I don't think that all people can.  I don't think that everyone can role-play the way I do (thinking in character).  I don't think you should expect that I can necessarily do what other people do (e.g., Tony's holistic decision process).  I think your assumption that every person has the capacity to assume any and all possible approaches toward a game is wrong.

What I'm suggesting is that not all games are about roleplaying in the same way.  So you may like some more than others, or be better at some more than others.  Saying it doesn't work for you suggests you have something in mind already.  If I want to play a wargame, then Basketball "doesn't work for me".  If I don't approach the game wanting to play something else, then it's different.  I might like it, I might not.  If I'm not very good at it "I don't work for IT". ;)

I´m with droog, and Morrow: It´s difficult to discuss that way. But it always comes to this point.

And honestly, there is stuff that many people think is fun, that I think is, well bad on several levels. Not to say that DitV matches this category.

But that people are having fun doing stuff is no proof of anything else than their tastes.
That´s why it´s so hard to discuss, and why I made my personal resolution.

If you find a way around that, I´m ready to learn.

If there is no further question at me, I´m out of this one, and will restrict my participation in threads like these to lurking.

Quote from: droogHang on a minute. The thing is that we don't really have any way of judging objectively what 'that kind of play' is. I know for a fact that I've run and played in games that put moral dilemmas in front of people. I think they weren't bad either, if I do say so myself.

Yeah, I get where you are going with this. I guess when folks talk about different games/systems I assume they mean that they get different things out of the system. "The kind of play" is not the same for all games. There is a difference, well at least to me. Perhaps I should not have generalized.

QuoteUp until a few years ago, I used 'traditional' games exclusively, because that was what I knew. So how about leaving out this idea that everybody who likes DitV, or whatever game comes under the microscope, is discovering a wonderful new world they never knew before? Considering that we have an archetypal Forge-basher on this forum who thinks it's a great game, how about taking people's word for it that it is, in fact, a great game (even if not for you), and that people who like it are not 'ignorant' or 'oblivious' to the potential of other games. That line of enquiry is a dead end.

It is a great game, doing what it does very well. What's wrong with saying that folks who have been playing in a specific way (maybe I'm wrong to assume this, but I've met many folks who discovered this game, and realized that something was lacking in the way they played. DiTV made such an impression that it inspired their more trad/mainstream games -nothin' to do with the system more with the players or how they played) discovering DiTV realizing that this is a new experience.

I never said that folks who like it are ignoarant or oblivous to the potential of other games. I said, that some folks (like my crew) were ignorant or oblvious to the potential of the games they played and maybe this applied to some other people.

QuoteIt comes down to personal preference, as I've said before. If you want to figure out what DitV actually does, you need to take a very different tack and go through the mechanics with a fine-toothed comb, analysing some actual play. Good luck – it's about as tricky as explaining why Seven Samurai is a great film.

This is very true, and my reply was to a specific question. Off course, it boils down to preference, but I also don't think that my line of inquiry is offensive.

QuoteAnd before you ask: no, David, I'm not offended or pissed off at you; I'm just springboarding off your post. I know what I like, I'm secure in my tastes, and I don't need validation. But this sort of thing is intellectually exasperating.

Hey man, when you call me cunt, I'll know that you like me.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowBut I already know that and it's been factored in to my choice.

You already know, without being told, when an argument isn't going to work?  How?

Quote from: John MorrowIf, for example, upon hearing your argument, I think, "Tony's just not getting what I'm saying so I need to restate my point," it would be strange to have a little voice in my head saying, "No, you don't do that.  Tony is making a really good point.  You are doubting your position and feel cornered."  I know what I'm thinking and how I want to respond.  If something outside tells me something else, it's wrong.

But that's actually not what I'm talking about :D   What if you had a little voice in your head saying "Restating the argument isn't going to work.  I can do it, but Tony's heard and absorbed that argument, and it hasn't convinced him, so if I want to convince him I'll need something else or something more"?  Would that flash of perception and insight into the outside world be a more acceptable "intrusion"?

Quote from: TonyLBYou already know, without being told, when an argument isn't going to work?  How?

Your statement was, "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."  What I'm trying to say that that the consequences are already a part of what's going on in the character's head and the choice is a matter of the character making a choice.  

To understand what I'm getting at, it might help to stop thinking of the player and character separately or as something that the player is controlling.  Picture yourself standing there with a gun, having an argument with someone, understanding (from your perspective) what the consequences are of shooting the other person or backing down.  Do you need any help from dice or rules to decide what you are going to do next?  And if you do, how would that work?  And I'm not even sure you need to be thinking in character to just know what the character would do.

Quote from: TonyLBBut that's actually not what I'm talking about :D   What if you had a little voice in your head saying "Restating the argument isn't going to work.  I can do it, but Tony's heard and absorbed that argument, and it hasn't convinced him, so if I want to convince him I'll need something else or something more"?  Would that flash of perception and insight into the outside world be a more acceptable "intrusion"?

In some cases, I can do that.  That's what I mean by "nudging" the character in a certain direction.  But the character has their own voice of intuition (effectively independent of mine -- it sees things that I don't and vice versa, even if it's all just an illusion).  So to answer your question, it depends on how much that insight clashes with what's already in the character's mind.  In some cases, if it fits in with the character's mental state, it seems like a flash of insight.  In other's, it creates a "Where did that come from?" moment if it conflicts with what's there too strongly.  Bear in mind that when I'm in a situation like that with a character, there is an intuitive and emotional context that goes along with it.  So whatever I inject into that process needs to fit or it (A) gets rejected or (B) crashes the immersion.

The secondary problem is that using such mechanics often require meta-game considerations.  If I need to think and make judgments about things that aren't in the game world or relevant to my character, it draws mental power away from immersion and, at a certain level, that can cause the immersion to crash, too.  The things that I do watch out for to try to avoid (the game destroying stuff) I don't so much think about during a session but before and after, and during the game I simply watch out for a few patterns of thinking and behavior that seem to lead to bad places and then stop the immersion on purpose to fix the problem.  As an occasional tool, it's fine.  As a regular process carried out multiple times during a conflict, I'd have a lot of trouble with it.

Please note that I've had a discussion with Vincent Baker about immersion and DitV and it sounds like he has a much easier time doing that sort of thing than I do.  Not sure if we're doing something a little different or he just find certain things easier to juggle in his brain than I do.  In any event, milage does vary on this even, even among people who immerse in character.

So the answer is that I can do what you are talking about to some limited degree.  But that still leaves me with they "Why would I want to?" question.

Why would the external results suggested by the dice be any better, more interesting, or more intense than the decision that I'm already making in character?   A key goal is to not determine who it turns out up front or push the story toward a particular outcome, right?  

In the cases where I do nudge my character in a certain direction, it's usually to avoid game-destroying decisions or lines of thinking (a consideration of the enjoyment of everyone at the table and the limitations of the role-playing medium  -- e.g. it's easier to run a game if the characters stick together to some degree).

What I'm trying to understand is the benefit, on that level -- contrasted with what people would do normally with traditional RPG rules, that makes things better for the people who think it's a big improvement.  What do people get out of it that they don't get with other techniques?  I do something like ths (with some difficulty and reluctance) to avoid wrecking games.  What are other people getting out of it?  And the reason I'm asking is that I'm trying not to just make assumptions since I don't personally understand it (though I have some guesses that I'll toss out in case they help).

Is it that the rules and dice produce more interesting character decisions and conflict resolution for people than what they get deciding what their character would do normally?  Do the rules and dice help people frame the process of making decisions for their characters that adds more depth to it?  Were they not getting deep and rich role-playing situations before systems like this?  

In some ways, it's like I'm walking up the stairs to get to the top and a person comes along and offers to help me climb the stairs.  I'm doing fine and I'm getting there so I don't need their help.  It doesn't seem like their help is going to get me to the top and faster or better and the help that they are offering will normally just slow me down.  Is there more to the help than simply getting to the top of the stairs (since I can already do that just fine) that I might be able to get some value out of?  If so, there might be some value in accepting the help.  If not, then I just don't need it.

It's not a problem if DitV doesn't offer me anything that I need (I know life is not just all about me ;) ).  That doesn't make it a bad game.  Clearly, lots of people enjoy it and I enjoyed the parts that deal with creating an adventure and setting up conflicts.  But not only would it help confirm why it doesn't seem all that interesting to me, it might help advocates understand why DitV and other "indie" games don't appeal to everyone.  And it also would help explain to me why many "indie" designers take ideas that could help improve games for people who like traditional systems (e.g., the advice in DitV for making an intense and interesting conflict all but inevitable in the situation set-up) but go several steps further, creating a sort of "all or nothing" completely different package that changes everything.

Quote from: StuartAgain, it's not that Go doesn't work for you -- you just aren't very good at it.  That's ok, nobody can be good at ALL games. :D

It means that as an enjoyable activity, rather than a frustrating experience, Go does not work for me.  I assume that the reason why people play games is to have fun.  If they are not having fun, then the game is not doing what it's supposed to be doing.  I think that's a fairly legitimate and (nearly) universal expectation to have for a game.

If you want to frame that as an expectation problem, you can, but where does that observation get us?  OK.  So my problem is that I expected to have fun and I didn't.  Now what?  Should I adjust my expectations and stop expecting to have fun?

Quote from: StuartWhat I'm suggesting is that not all games are about roleplaying in the same way.  So you may like some more than others, or be better at some more than others.

Of course.

Quote from: StuartSaying it doesn't work for you suggests you have something in mind already.  If I want to play a wargame, then Basketball "doesn't work for me".  If I don't approach the game wanting to play something else, then it's different.  I might like it, I might not.  If I'm not very good at it "I don't work for IT". ;)

If I buy a can-opener and it doesn't open cans, then it "doesn't work".  If I buy a can-opener and it doesn't open cans for me (maybe I'm not strong enough or my hands are too big to hold part of it or whatever), then it "doesn't work" for me.  Now, you can claim that my problem is that I expect it to open cans and there is really nothing wrong with a can-opener not opening cans.  But the fact is that it fails to do the thing that people primarily use it for.  To me, that's failing to work.

Now, if you give me a can-opener and tell me it's the best can-opener that you've ever used, and I find that I can't use it to perform its intended function, then asking you why you think it's so great just might tell me that either (A) I'm using the can-opener wrong, (B) maybe there is a trick that could let me use it differently than you do but still use it to open cans, or (C) maybe I just can't use it to open cans.  In the case of (C), then I think it's fair to say that "it doesn't work for me".

If you still want to argue that it's an expectation problem, then please give me an example of something that "doesn't work" that isn't an expectation problem.

Quote from: droogConsidering that we have an archetypal Forge-basher on this forum who thinks it's a great game, how about taking people's word for it that it is, in fact, a great game (even if not for you), and that people who like it are not 'ignorant' or 'oblivious' to the potential of other games. That line of enquiry is a dead end.

I'm asking for answers because I don't want to assume they are "ignorant" or "oblivious".  That's the easy thing to assume.  What I'm trying to understand is that if that's not the case, then what is the appeal?

As for being an "archetypal Forge-basher", what exactly are the characteristics of one?

Quote from: droogNow, nobody reading this can tell if I'm telling the truth about my experiences or not. You have to take it on faith. But that's exactly the same for someone who says "Oh, I do just what DitV does and twice on Sundays, without any rules or anything." Completely unverifiable. Also subjective – maybe if I sat in on one of these games I'd see it as boring and ridiculous (it wouldn't be the first time).

It comes down to personal preference, as I've said before. If you want to figure out what DitV actually does, you need to take a very different tack and go through the mechanics with a fine-toothed comb, analysing some actual play. Good luck – it's about as tricky as explaining why Seven Samurai is a great film.

There are no shortage of people who want to know why Seven Samurai is a great film and no shortage of people who try to explain it.  If such questions and lines of inquiry don't interest you, then you are going to find discussions like this useless.  Why not apply the same principle to the enjoyment people get out of discussing things like this that you apply to people enjoying role-playing games and just accept that some people enjoy it and you don't?

Quote from: droogI know what I like, I'm secure in my tastes, and I don't need validation. But this sort of thing is intellectually exasperating.

I can tell from the way you have to tell us that you are secure in your tastes, have to tell us that you don't need validation, get exasperated by discussions like this, and feel a need to get involved, anyway, that you are secure in your tastes.  Really.

Quote from: John MorrowI can tell from the way you have to tell us that you are secure in your tastes, have to tell us that you don't need validation, get exasperated by discussions like this, and feel a need to get involved, anyway, that you are secure in your tastes.  Really.

Believe what you like, dude. Just don't write me ten pages about it.

But moving along, I thought I'd put this question to one group of roleplayers I know. A bit of vox populi for you:

QuoteI simply like the way it creates an esclation of tension in a similar way as to what you get in a poker game.

QuoteThe rules let you put into play how much you care...

"I'm prepared to make you mad to get you to put out that cigar"
"I'm prepared to beat you up to get you to put out that cigar"
"I'm prepared to kill you to get that cigar put out"

It supports that sort of moral positioning in a way that other games don't. At each escalation point you get to decide - do I care enough to get violent or to kill? That sort of moral switchpoint doesn't exist in most games.

Quote

QuoteIs it simply that it takes it out of the subjective realm and puts it on the table in the form of dice?

I think that is a big part of it. I also like how it forces the players to explore conflicts in more detail (btw I'm mostly talking about non combat conflicts here).

I felt a similar thing the first time I experienced extended conflicts in HeroQuest. The mechanics of the game forced us to go through the conflict in a lot more detail. Of course we could have role played it to that level of detail, but we wouldn't have. And it wouldn't have had the dramatics that dice can add.

But I reckon DitV is even better than HQ for conflicts as it also captures that pokeresque 'I raise you one' feel which I think is a bit edgier than HQ's 'I slowly wear you down' feel. I can't really define that aspect of it tho...

QuoteI think the difference is that you can infer that ethical question, but Dogs puts it in your face - it directly asks you 'Do you want to punch this guy now?'. It's like D&D and social rules - you can fudge it, but the rules don't really support it. Dogs rules really support that sort of ethical questions - it puts it right in your face.

Quote from: John MorrowYour statement was, "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."  What I'm trying to say that that the consequences are already a part of what's going on in the character's head and the choice is a matter of the character making a choice.

Well ... now I'm confused.  Doesn't the GM (and the other players) have some say in what kind of outcomes your actions will have?

It seems to me that what you're saying is "My character has his own intuition of whether his actions will be successful or not, and if the GM's judgment doesn't match that intuition then that breaks my immersion, and I'm unable to play as I normally do."  Is that what you're saying?

Quote from: droogBelieve what you like, dude. Just don't write me ten pages about it.

I've largely been trying to avoid commenting on your posts because I figured we'd both be happier that way.

Quote from: droogBut moving along, I thought I'd put this question to one group of roleplayers I know. A bit of vox populi for you:

Interesting comments.  Thanks.  This statement:

"Of course we could have role played it to that level of detail, but we wouldn't have. And it wouldn't have had the dramatics that dice can add."

...suggests that playing out dramatic and detailed non-combat conflicts is not something the person normally expects to have happen in a conventional role-playing game.  Is that also rare in your experience?  Are DitV and similar games making these players approach non-combat conflicts in a way very different from what they'd normally do?

I'm asking because I want to make sure I'm not reading something in to the statement that isn't there.

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... now I'm confused.  Doesn't the GM (and the other players) have some say in what kind of outcomes your actions will have?

Of course, as do the rules, depending on what the action is.

Quote from: TonyLBIt seems to me that what you're saying is "My character has his own intuition of whether his actions will be successful or not, and if the GM's judgment doesn't match that intuition then that breaks my immersion, and I'm unable to play as I normally do."  Is that what you're saying?

Maybe I'm just not reading your statement correctly.  Again, you said, "The choice you face here is whether or not to shoot this innocent person in the face ... if you're not willing to do that, that's cool, but you know and your character knows that the consequence of not shooting him will be that you don't win the conflict."

I have been interpreting that as a choice between whether to fire the gun at the other person's face or not fire the gun and forego the objective my character was trying to achieve in the conflict.  What I am talking about is that decision, which occurs inside of the character's head, and not the outcome of that decision.  Whether or not the gun hits the other character in the face if my character decides to fire the gun is something that other conventional systems already deal with pretty well.

What I'm trying to say that that the consequences are already a part of what's going on in the character's head and the choice is a matter of the character making a choice.  It has nothing to do with the outcomes of those choices, which are generally outside of the character's control.

Yes, my character has intuition about various things but normally they consist of a range of possible reasonable outcomes, so as long as the results feel plausible for the setting and situation, everything is fine.  Sometimes the character will have a range of possible reasonable outcomes that is smaller than the actual set of possible reasonable outcomes for the setting.  Normally, the GM and rules have plenty of room to work in but there can be cases where the GM or rules make a call that are outside of the bounds of the character's expectations of what's possible.  

In those cases, the problem is that my character doesn't react the way a real person would (which is to deal with it) and instead it gets kicked up to the player level where the player wonders if the GM is making a mistake.  Sometimes they are.  Sometimes they aren't.  When it catches a GM mistake, it can be a good thing because it let's me point out a problem to the GM before it gets built on.  When it identifies a mistake that's not a mistake, it can be disruptive.  

Perhaps this is one of those places where more clearly defining the conflict, the stakes, and the parameters could be helpful, though I'd have to figure out how to do it in a way that doesn't disrupt the immersive in character play.  Something I need to consider.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat I'm trying to say that that the consequences are already a part of what's going on in the character's head and the choice is a matter of the character making a choice.  It has nothing to do with the outcomes of those choices, which are generally outside of the character's control.

You're talking about the consequences, but it has nothing to do with the outcome?  Dude.  I am having the worst time parsing you.  I worry that you've begun arguing against something that you're hearing in your head, which is completely unrelated to what I'm writing.

Let's say that you go in not knowing whether you can (for instance) save this town from damnation.  Those are the stakes.  At the beginning of the conflict it is completely up in the air, right?

When you arrive at a later point, where you already know that you cannot save the town from damnation unless you shoot this kid in the face ... well then, making the decision there is about things you already know.  I grant you that.

But somewhere in the middle there is the moment in which you discover that you're not going to be able to save the town without shooting the kid.  It seems to me that you could either:

• (a) Figure it out yourself
• (b) Be informed by the GM because he's decided (without rules support)
• (c) Get into a rules situation where you don't have enough dice to win the conflict, and the only way to get more dice is to escalate to gun-play

Are some of those ways of discovering that fact about the situation problematic for you?

Almost there... :)

Quote from: John MorrowIf I buy a can-opener and it doesn't open cans, then it "doesn't work".  If I buy a can-opener and it doesn't open cans for me (maybe I'm not strong enough or my hands are too big to hold part of it or whatever), then it "doesn't work" for me.  Now, you can claim that my problem is that I expect it to open cans and there is really nothing wrong with a can-opener not opening cans.  But the fact is that it fails to do the thing that people primarily use it for.  To me, that's failing to work.

Right.  I'm suggesting that not all RPGs are for "opening cans".  If you pick up a random kitchen aid, some are for can opening while others are for storing the contents of cans.  If you were looking for the can opener, you won't like the tuperware.  If you weren't looking for the can opener, and just wanted to find something useful in the kitchen... that's different.

Dropping the metaphor...If you go looking for a deep immersion RPG, you won't like the one that has dice mechanics for social interactions. It won't "work for you".  But if you didn't approach the game with something else in mind (deep immersion) you might be able to enjoy the game for what it is.  Or not.  But you won't complain that it doesn't work for you -- just that you don't like it.

Saying a game "doesn't work for you" suggests theres only one type of roleplaying that you enjoy.  I think you can enjoy lots of types.

Hopefully that makes sense for you. :)

Quote from: John Morrow...suggests that playing out dramatic and detailed non-combat conflicts is not something the person normally expects to have happen in a conventional role-playing game.  Is that also rare in your experience?

Nope.

But I don't think you're taking the quote as a whole. Note:

Quote from: Player Xthe dramatics that dice can add

He's saying that having the dice in the conflict adds something for him. He's the same guy that says:

Quote from: Player XI simply like the way it creates an esclation of tension in a similar way as to what you get in a poker game.

Which seems pretty straightforward.

QuoteAre DitV and similar games making these players approach non-combat conflicts in a way very different from what they'd normally do?

I'll ask them for you.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're talking about the consequences, but it has nothing to do with the outcome?  Dude.  I am having the worst time parsing you.  I worry that you've begun arguing against something that you're hearing in your head, which is completely unrelated to what I'm writing.

The way that I'm using it is that the "consequences" are the range of hypothetical things that could happen as a result of the character's action, hence the plural.  The "outcome" is the single thing that does happen.  And, yes, I know it's perfectly reasonable to consider them to be synonyms for each other, which is what it sounds like you are doing.

Quote from: TonyLBLet's say that you go in not knowing whether you can (for instance) save this town from damnation.  Those are the stakes.  At the beginning of the conflict it is completely up in the air, right?

If I understand the question correctly, OK.

Quote from: TonyLBWhen you arrive at a later point, where you already know that you cannot save the town from damnation unless you shoot this kid in the face ... well then, making the decision there is about things you already know.  I grant you that.

Yes.  The capacity to answer that question exists within the character.

Quote from: TonyLBBut somewhere in the middle there is the moment in which you discover that you're not going to be able to save the town without shooting the kid.  It seems to me that you could either:

• (a) Figure it out yourself
• (b) Be informed by the GM because he's decided (without rules support)
• (c) Get into a rules situation where you don't have enough dice to win the conflict, and the only way to get more dice is to escalate to gun-play

OK.

Quote from: TonyLBAre some of those ways of discovering that fact about the situation problematic for you?

Well, if I'm thinking in character, (a) is the one that makes the most sense and fits most naturally.  Are (b) and (c) problematic, then?  Usually, yes.  And there two aspects to the problem.

The first aspect is that to add any such epiphany to my character's thinking, it has to make sense in character for the character to think those thoughts.  If it doesn't makes sense for the character to have that realization in character, I can't force it and maintain immersion.  In practice, this problem can be overcome if handled properly, so it's the lesser of the two aspects, I think.

The second aspect is that for me, a large part of the fun of role-playing is watching how my character interprets the game and responds to it.  So both (b) and (c) rob me of the experience of figuring out the mystery in character if they replace (a).  I enjoy experiencing that moment of discovery in character and replacing it with a GM or some dice and rules telling me that I've reached that moment robs that moment of discovery from me.  In other words, I enjoy the process of thinking things out and experiencing things in character.  I don't want to be not doing that.  And this is where I think a big part of the "Why would you want to do things that way?" gut-level incredulousness comes from.

There are, however, some exceptions.  There are situations where the realities of what I'm doing prevent the internal character model from doing something that it should be able to do.  A huge example is telling if an NPC is lying or not.  When a GM portrays an NPC, they are acting so when I get an intuitive sense, in character, that an NPC is lying, it's very difficult for me to tell if the NPC is lying or if the GM's portrayal is just off.  So I'll often ask for something like a "Sense Motive" roll to tell me what my character is feeling.  There are several other cases like that, some more common than others.  But I'm using those rolls (or the GM telling me something that my character would know) not because I prefer them but because they are necessary.  Where I don't have to roll, I don't want to roll.  In other words, when you talk to me about (a), (b), and (c) being choices, I wonder why I wouldn't just want to pick (a) and use it all of the time if it works, and only use (b) or (c) as a fallback, which is what I do.

So the answer here is that I can do (b) or (c) if I have to because, while it's a bit problematic, I can often overcome the problem depending on how it's presented.  But the bigger problem is that I want to be doing (a) so that (b) and (c) become problematic because they are "not (a)".  It replaces (a), which is something I want, with something that I'm indifferent to at best.

Please bear in mind that even if we come to the conclusion that it just won't work well with what I want to be doing (we may be approaching that conclusion), part of what I want to understand what other people do get out of it (What's the fun of using the mechanics?) even though that may be very difficult to explain (and my differ from person to person).  Why?  Because I think why people enjoy certain things is an interesting question, even if I don't enjoy the same thing.

Quote from: droogNope.

But I don't think you're taking the quote as a whole.

I didn't know the quote was a whole.  They were offered as unlabeled and separate quotes.

Quote from: droogHe's saying that having the dice in the conflict adds something for him.

No, I got that.  That's why I left it in the quote. He's saying that it "adds dramatics".  Adding suggests that it gives him more dramatics than he was getting before.  Is that correct?

But what did he mean by, "Of course we could have role played it to that level of detail, but we wouldn't have."  Why wouldn't he (and the group) have role-played it to that level of detail?  If they could, why wouldn't they?    I'm not trying to be judgmental.  I'm just a little puzzled by the path not taken.

Quote from: droogHe's the same guy that says:

QuoteI simply like the way it creates an esclation of tension in a similar way as to what you get in a poker game.

Which seems pretty straightforward.

Yes, it is.  And that suggests that he's experiencing the tension as a player making choices about the dice and so forth, correct?

Quote from: droogI'll ask them for you.

Thanks.

Certain kinds of game mechanics encourage certain types of play. Nothing determines play except the players and GM, the people. People determine play style, but setting and system encourage play style.

I believe I know the people droog's quoting from, and in discussing with them, they asked me what I'd seen different in playing the same setting (Tiwesdaeg, dark ages saxon low fantasy) with three different systems. I replied as below, and it may be relevant in showing how the system can influence play, encouraging certain playstyles. In brief, if it's on the character sheet players tend to focus on it; if it's not, they tend not to.
   
Note: sorry for the long post, but when you ask me about this stuff, well this is stuff I think about quite a bit ;)

Other systems? Well, if you mean other versions of RQ I don't know, as far as I remember I've only tried third ed out of all of them. If you mean other games entirely, then yes, it does give a different feel.

First Tiwesdaeg was GURPS 4e, Second Tiwesdaeg was Fate, now this third one is RQ III.

GURPS
GURPS I found somewhat hindered the style of play I and most of the players enjoyed. That style was focusing on character personality and relationships, rather than on tactics, etc.

Fussing about looking up rules for an extra +1 or -2 to some skill check, I couldn't be bothered with it, I figured the range of randomness of dice (3d6) was larger than the range of randomness of GM handwaving decision (about -2 to +2). Also, the players tended to come up with unusual solutions, like when they wanted to spread a rumour that some particular guy was the father of a child... "um... Propaganda skill."
"Strangely, dear GM, I did not think to take Propaganda skill for my fisherman."
"Nor I for my healer."
"Nor the huntsmaster's apprentice."
"Especially not the warrior."
If you didn't have the exact skill, you had very little chance of doing it successfully. Obviously this was ridiculous - anyone should be able to spread a rumour in a small town! Time for more handwaving.

One player just wanted to have a character who was tough and could fight with two broadswords, so he loved GURPS ;) I did think that spending half the earned x on something that he only got to use (the double-attack) in two sessions out of fourteen  seemed like a waste, but he was happy, and if the players are happy I won't argue with them!

So in conclusion, most of us were able to have the sort of game we wanted despite, not because of, the GURPS rules. Its strengths - fiddly detail about your character, and tactical play - were things most of us weren't interested in.


Fate
Fate we found more to our taste. Though only one of the four players from the previous campaign was still with us, the group still had more or less the same tastes in play, except for Emil who didn't care as long as there was something to laugh at in the session, and he got a bit of stuff to think about.

Fate's Aspect system is one where Advantages, Disadvantages, Attributes etc are all rolled into "Aspects"; you have Skills as well. You might have a guy who's Strong As An Ox, or another guy who's a Mummy's Boy. Aspects are invoked by the player with skill checks, to get a reroll. "So I failed on my "get up from being knocked down by a woman's slap" roll. Hmmm, but surely since I'm Strong As An Ox, that shouldn't happen?" The player knocks off a box of it and rerolls; the box regenerates at the end of the game session.

The GM can invoke Aspects, too. So for example, the player says, "I slap that girl back! Not hard or anything, though." The GM offers an xp and says, "ah, but since your are Strong As An Ox, perhaps you don't know your own strength and do actually hurt her." At this point the player either matches with an xp of their own, saying, "er, no, I don't do that," or says, "okay," takes the xp and the poor woman gets a nasty whack.

The xp they call "fate points", and they basically as "hero points" or "drama dice", giving bonuses to rolls, letting Aspects and Skills improve, etc. You could acquire new Aspects in play, and alter one to another. So for example Unknown Enemy could become Rival to Egric once you knew who your enemy was, and if you killed him, the Rival to Egric could become Guilty About Killing or Glorious Victor, etc. Change, rather than improvement in characters. A bit more like real people...

In this way, traits can sometimes hurt characters, and sometimes help them, but the player always has a choice about it. The GM shapes, but does not determine the flow of play. And there's no fussing about with a few points here and there.

The granularity, though (basically only seven levels of ability), for some players led to a feeling of blandness in it; though my feeling was that this was more to do with the roleplaying of people than with the system itself.

My GMing style was to make every PC and NPC, as much as I could, a real person - unfortunately that meant the PCs hesitated to just lop off the heads of NPCs when they could; and the combat rules I wrote made it easy to fall down, but hard to die, so killing was usually an actual decision made, rather than just accidentally happening in the heat of battle.

Overall, I found Fate most to my personal taste. As player or GM, it encouraged thinking of characters as literary characters, and the thing as a whole as a "story". On the other hand it was pretty terrible if you wanted to kill things and take their stuff :D However, that's more a product of my GMing style, and the combat rules I wrote for Fate, rather than Fate itself.


RuneQuest III
We've only had one session, so it's hard to judge, really. The immediate feel is Old School. Random character generation makes the players begin as not very invested in their characters. They'll have to play with them for a few sessions before they give a shit about them.

Also, that it's random means that in contrast to point-buy systems, the players don't have to ask many questions about the game world, so they don't think of ways to tie their characters to it. That's why we see in the first session the PCs leaving the province to seek adventure - whereas the last two groups found adventure at home, and rarely left it. I tried to bring up NPCs and the history of the place, but they weren't interested - rolling up their characters and getting equipment had put them in the "adventure!" mindset, so off they went.

I think my approach with RQ will be different to the other games. In Fate (Tiwesdaeg 2), the PCs had asked if Barrenkeep had any lost loot to find, I just handwaved it away, because that wasn't what the campaign was about, and whenever I'd given the PCs combats they shied away from making them lethal or finishing them - so if I'd given them a dungeon crawl they'd have run away from it anyway, why waste a session finding that out? But this time, again I'm letting the players decide what the campaign will be about, I don't have any preconceived ideas or plots, and they've decided to wander off and loot... so this time there will be some kind of dungeon there.

That's about the best I can make things out. The campaigns have had players in common (N. for Tiwesdaegs 1 & 2, A. for the end of Tiwesdaeg 2 and the start of this 3rd one), and my style is to respond to what the players do and seem to want (while adding in what I like, too!) rather than have a pre-written module or whatever. So it's quite hard to separate the different styles of player-groups from the different styles of the game systems themselves. If I'd played all three with the same group...
 

Quote from: JimBobOzI believe I know the people droog's quoting from, and in discussing with them, they asked me what I'd seen different in playing the same setting (Tiwesdaeg, dark ages saxon low fantasy) with three different systems. I replied as below, and it may be relevant in showing how the system can influence play, encouraging certain playstyles. In brief, if it's on the character sheet players tend to focus on it; if it's not, they tend not to.

That may very well be true for the players you've played with but it's really not true for the main group I play with, nor for the D&D group I've recently been playing with.  The players role-play to great detail and make dramatic decisions regardless of how much non-combat detail is on their character sheet and the role-playing (non-combat) experience is pretty similar whether we were playing hight rolls are good (about the only rule) or a heavy system like Hero or d20.  

In the D&D game I've been playing, the characters got about 6 levels in 25 sessions or so, with fairly generous experience awards for finding things out and solving mysteries rather than combat.  Combat was pretty rare and when it did happen, it was more of a punctuation mark or disruptive incident than the point of the game and the game was more soap opera than action movie.  It was more about romances and interpersonal relationships and dark happenings around town than toe-to-toe battles with the bad guys.  All the players spoke using in character accents, there were lots of intense in character debates, and so on.  None of this was because of the rules or what was on the character sheets, but because the players just wanted to do it.

And that's what I find so mysterious about some of these claims.  If players could just role-playing through situations in detail, what's keeping them from doing it?  Do they need rules that reward them for doing it?  Rules that make them do it?  Rules that show them how to do it?  Something I'm not thinking of?

Quote from: John MorrowThat may very well be true for the players you've played with but it's really not true for the main group I play with, nor for the D&D group I've recently been playing with.

Yes, we've got that by now. But I wasn't saying my experience was universal, I was just sharing my experience, and noting that different games often encourage different kinds of play. I don't claim my experience is universal, but I think it's certainly quite common.

Quote from: John MorrowIf players could just role-playing through situations in detail, what's keeping them from doing it?  Do they need rules that reward them for doing it?  Rules that make them do it?  Rules that show them how to do it?  Something I'm not thinking of?

What I've found is basically that if it's written on their character sheet, then it comes up in play; if not, it doesn't. This isn't an exclusive rule; for example, one player in the Fate of Tiwesdaeg campaign played his character as avoiding violence, or lethal violence, and a bit cowardly; none of the character's Aspects had anything like that, that's just how the player imagined the character. Likewise in RuneQuest, players are giving their characters personality traits, virtues and flaws, where there's nothing at all about personality written on their character sheet. Another player in Fate was a big fan of GURPS, and just plain didn't get the idea of giving your character "negative" Aspects, or even Aspects which gave some personality to the character, and the character had Strong, Agile, Warrior, etc; the player power-gamed the system.

So the game system doesn't imprison anyone in that style of play. But it certainly influences them, quite often.

I think that you can talk about two types of roleplayers - those who develop their character before play, and those who develop it during play. Those who have a strong character concept before picking up their dice, I think they're likely to play a certain way regardless of the system (like the GURPS person playing Fate). Those who develop their character mostly in play, they're more likely to be influenced by what's on their character sheet, they're sitting there thinking, "what now?" and for inspiration look down at the sheet - so what they see there will come forth, what they don't see usually won't pop into their minds.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities, and these things are not absolutes. But I think it's fair to say they're general trends - that what's on the character sheets will come up in play, and what's not, won't, that systems encourage play styles, but don't determine them.

I posite this thoery: If a RPG has no in-game challenge to the characters then the challenge isn't in play, then the players new challenge becomes the entertainment.

Exalted works well under this model. If you play a game of Exalted where the characters can not be stopped, then the fun comes not in what they do but how they do it. If they cannot lose, then the strategy and fun comes from figuring out and imagining ways to kick ass even more.

So again, making it easy for the characters is part of what makes Exalted such a fun game.

I think 3/5 roleplayers roleplay for the escapist nature of the games (ie as at least one of the reasons they roleplay). So this would probaby bring them great enjoyment to know they will not be punished in game for roleplaying out their escapist fantasies to any degree they wish. Any game involving those players would probably be funner for them if they met nothing but easy challenges.

It's like the people who put in the cheat codes when the play a videogame for the first time. They don't want the challenge, they want the experience. The job of GM is to make their experience a positive one.

Quote from: JimBobOz

Quote from: JimBobOzOf course I'm speaking in generalities, and these things are not absolutes. But I think it's fair to say they're general trends - that what's on the character sheets will come up in play, and what's not, won't, that systems encourage play styles, but don't determine them.

To be honest, most of the stuff you claimed in that thread don't match my anecdotal experience (e.g., I'm a Develop In Play character, as are others I know and have read about online) so I don't know if it's fair to call them general trends.  Your examples also look to me like a group of players who want to role-play a certain way despite the rules, not because of them.  You might be right and you might not be.  That's why I'd rather stick to specific anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence than claim it as evidence of trends and norms.  I'm curious what particular people get out of these things.  I'm not sure trying to shift things to a "most gamers" discussion is going to be helpful.

Well, John, my friends are a little puzzled by your questions. Player X wants to know what systems you have played, and whether DitV is one of them.

Quote from: John MorrowThe second aspect is that for me, a large part of the fun of role-playing is watching how my character interprets the game and responds to it.  So both (b) and (c) rob me of the experience of figuring out the mystery in character if they replace (a).  I enjoy experiencing that moment of discovery in character and replacing it with a GM or some dice and rules telling me that I've reached that moment robs that moment of discovery from me.  In other words, I enjoy the process of thinking things out and experiencing things in character.  I don't want to be not doing that.  And this is where I think a big part of the "Why would you want to do things that way?" gut-level incredulousness comes from.

John.

>Deep breath<

This has gone exactly the way I asked you to reassure me that it wouldnt go.  I am very frustrated, and disappointed in you.

You are looking for excuses to continue believing that the rules can't help anybody.

These excuses are becoming more and more extreme the more I examine them.  At this point you are saying that you often cannot accept the GM giving you input on the possible outcomes of the game ... that, in short, you cannot accept the GM doing one of the main jobs of being a GM.  We're really only an unpleasantly argumentative hop-skip-and-a-jump here from you claiming that you can't handle it if the GM tells you that your character's sword does not hit the goblin ("But my character totally believed that it would hit the goblin!  I need more roleplaying before I can accept the possibility of a miss.  This breaks my immersion!")

I am willing (with great difficulty) to spot you the notion that you play this way, but that puts you in a radical minority.  You have got to know that many, many people do not have the problems that you are describing.

Are we having the discussion where you sincerely ask what other people get from a system, and apply yourself to understanding the answers?  Or are we having the discussion where you ask the question only to shoot down the answers, because you want to prove your theory that there cannot be any benefit to such a system?

Quote from: TonyLB>Deep breath<

This has gone exactly the way I asked you to reassure me that it wouldnt go.  I am very frustrated, and disappointed in you.

You are looking for excuses to continue believing that the rules can't help anybody.

Tony, you asked me about >me<.  I answered for >me<.  If you don't want my opinion, then don't try to redirect the conversation back toward what I think.  Did you even read the last paragraph of my response?

Quote from: TonyLBThese excuses are becoming more and more extreme the more I examine them.  At this point you are saying that you often cannot accept the GM giving you input on the possible outcomes of the game ... that, in short, you cannot accept the GM doing one of the main jobs of being a GM.

No.  I am telling that I sometimes, not often, cannot accept the GM giving me input on the possible outcomes of the game and I acknowledge that it can be a problem.  I was going to include a bit about that (when it's good and when it's bad) in two replies and pulled it out, rather than going off on yet another tangent.  If you want to know what doesn't always work well for my group, I can discuss that, too.

Quote from: TonyLBWe're really only an unpleasantly argumentative hop-skip-and-a-jump here from you claiming that you can't handle it if the GM tells you that your character's sword does not hit the goblin ("But my character totally believed that it would hit the goblin!  I need more roleplaying before I can accept the possibility of a miss.  This breaks my immersion!")

Yes, Tony, there are situations where my character attempts to do something and the GM describes and outcome that doesn't seem plausible.  If you've never had a suspension of disbelief problem where the GM tells you something that doesn't seem to make sense, then I'd consider that an unusual experience.  First, I'm not claiming that this is a good thing when it happens.  It's not.  That's why I try to understand other styles because sometimes I can learn something from them (and sometimes I can't).  Second, sometimes it uncovers a real mistake that the GM has made, so sometimes (not always), it's a good thing.  Third (I was going to explain this in an earlier reply but didn't want to create another tangent), that's exactly why my group needs rules of a certain level that act as a proxy for the physics of the setting because despite playing together for over two decades in some cases, we still have assumption clash problems.  That's the area where we need rules to do something that other groups have no problem with.

Quote from: TonyLBI am willing (with great difficulty) to spot you the notion that you play this way, but that puts you in a radical minority.  You have got to know that many, many people do not have the problems that you are describing.

Well, I think how many people do or don't have that problem (or some variation of that problem) that depends on how you scope the problem.  Variations of the same theme are what cause people to have problems with, say, railroading and GMs who make silly judgments.  It also lies at the heart of rule-lawyering, some power gaming, and lots of arguing with the GM over what happens.  So the basic problem, disagreement with the GM over what happens, isn't all that uncommon in my experience or we wouldn't see so many threads in online discussions about it, nor would so many groups need the heavy rules that they use.  

Yes, I acknowledge that many people don't have that problem, but I'm not sure it's constructive to worry about whether it's common or uncommon because, from what I've seen in online discussions, anecdotal evidence is nearly useless as an objective assessment and nobody trusts the only marketing data we do have from WotC because the numbers of "too neat" and produce skepticism.

Quote from: TonyLBAre we having the discussion where you sincerely ask what other people get from a system, and apply yourself to understanding the answers?  Or are we having the discussion where you ask the question only to shoot down the answers, because you want to prove your theory that there cannot be any benefit to such a system?

I am asking a question about what other people get from a system and I'm evaluating whether it's something I can use or something I can adapt to what I do.  I also simply want to have a better understand of what other people do and why, rather than simply making assumptions about it which might be wrong.

I think the mistake you are making is that because I explain why these things won't work for me, that I'm "shooting down" what you are saying.  Not at all.  I'm explaining why it doesn't work for me to help you understand why.  And I'm asking why these things work for you and others so I can understand why, even if it doesn't help me, personally.  Is the idea of curiosity without an agenda really that alien to you?  If you really aren't curious about what I do, then maybe you should stop asking me questions about what I do.

ADDED:  At the core, me explaining why DitV doesn't work for me is really no different than Ron or RPGPundit or anyone else explaining why some other game system doesn't work for them, unless you are making the assumption that all systems, or maybe just Forge games like DitV should just automatically work for everyone.  And just as it's useful to understand why traditional games don't work well for the people creating different styles of games, maybe it might be useful to understand why those different styles of games also don't work for various people.  So I'm not really understanding what the problem is here, other than maybe you guys have been beaten up so often by anti-Forge fanatics that you see a hammer waiting to fall in every discussion.

Quote from: droogWell, John, my friends are a little puzzled by your questions. Player X wants to know what systems you have played, and whether DitV is one of them.

See the thread on systems that people have played.  I've also played a lot of homebrews and experimental games that aren't on that list, including games with no rules and dice, games where "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" was pretty much the only rule, structured live-action experiments, and so on.  

I have not played DitV but own it (though I can't currently find it).  I raised the subject of trying it with some people in my group and they weren't interested.  That's not surprising because it's difficult to make a sales pitch when one doesn't understand the benefits of the product.  That's yet another part of why I'm trying to understand the benefits of DitV.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you really aren't curious about what I do, then maybe you should stop asking me questions about what I do.

Okay, I'll stop doing that then.  I think that the focus on why you don't think the techniques would work for you is blocking any meaningful discussion of why they work for other people.  So I'll talk about how they work for me.

I can easily accept either the GM or the rules telling me "Hey, if you don't shoot this kid in the face then you won't win this conflict."  I expect to get such input.  In fact, I welcome that, because I think that such stark choices are cool.

I think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about.  If the rules have made it clear that I have to either shoot this kid or give up the conflict then giving up is a choice that everyone can see as powerful.  It's an affirmation of the importance of life.

If, by contrast, I've come to that conclusion in my own mind then everybody else just knows that I gave up.  Maybe it was because I respect and value life.  Maybe it was because I was no longer interested in winning the conflict at all.  Maybe it was because I'm yellow, and scared of getting into a gunfight.  Who knows?  Who cares?

I like having people on the same page.  It makes me feel more strongly that people are recognizing and validating the things I consider important about my own play, and vice-versa it helps me to recognize and validate the things other people consider important about their own play.  That makes it a more enjoyable and intense social experience for me.

Make sense?

Quote from: John MorrowSee the thread on systems that people have played.

Yes, I found it and C&Ped it for them. No response on that as yet.

Quote from: John MorrowI have not played DitV but own it (though I can't currently find it).  I raised the subject of trying it with some people in my group and they weren't interested.  That's not surprising because it's difficult to make a sales pitch when one doesn't understand the benefits of the product.  That's yet another part of why I'm trying to understand the benefits of DitV.

So you are trying to understand – at great length – why people enjoy a game you haven't even played. Pardon me while I snicker.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, I'll stop doing that then.  I think that the focus on why you don't think the techniques would work for you is blocking any meaningful discussion of why they work for other people.  So I'll talk about how they work for me.

Thank you.  I'll try to answer whatever questions you want to ask me about my style, but like you said, I don't think that was helping this particular discussion.

Quote from: TonyLBMake sense?

I think it helps and mostly makes sense to me.

Quote from: TonyLBI can easily accept either the GM or the rules telling me "Hey, if you don't shoot this kid in the face then you won't win this conflict."  I expect to get such input.  In fact, I welcome that, because I think that such stark choices are cool.

Can you imagine having some other way to win the conflict in mind at the time?  If so, would you welcome the GM's assessment even though it excludes what you had in mind or would you welcome the GM framing the choice in that way?  If not, that's fine.

Quote from: TonyLBI think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about.  If the rules have made it clear that I have to either shoot this kid or give up the conflict then giving up is a choice that everyone can see as powerful.  It's an affirmation of the importance of life.

OK.  So part of the benefit is that it helps put a spotlight on the choice that everyone at the table can see, rather than letting that choice be framed and decided in a player's head where nobody might be notice it.  Is that correct?  

Quote from: TonyLBIf, by contrast, I've come to that conclusion in my own mind then everybody else just knows that I gave up.  Maybe it was because I respect and value life.  Maybe it was because I was no longer interested in winning the conflict at all.  Maybe it was because I'm yellow, and scared of getting into a gunfight.  Who knows?  Who cares?

Well, just because people don't know doesn't mean that they don't or won't care.

In his Allowing the "linchpin" to die. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70172&postcount=40) thread, David R. talks about a session of his game where two players went off in the kitchen to play a very powerful scene and even the GM didn't know everything they discussed.  In my experience, it's not uncommon for players to actually enjoy that sort of mystery and encourage it.

I highlight this point not to shoot you down but because I think it might point to one of those more fundamental style differences in people.  Two other examples are that while I was playing in Japan, I accidentally insulted a GM because I walked away from the table during a scene where my character wasn't involved while doing that is typical and expected in other groups that I've played with.  I also had an extensive style discussion with Bill Stoddard on the Pyramid boards where I explained that the central activity of role-playing for me is what goes on in my character's head while the central activity for Bill is something like watching the game happen.

So I wonder if wanting to understand what's going on with the other characters vs. wanting what's going on with the other characters to remain a mystery that may or may not come out in play, is one of those fundamental incompatible differences in preferences that can make a system or style of play good for one person and not so good for another.

So am I correct in saying that part of what you enjoy about of the game is watching the whole thing unfold from an omniscient Audience stance as a spectator?

Quote from: TonyLBI like having people on the same page.  It makes me feel more strongly that people are recognizing and validating the things I consider important about my own play, and vice-versa it helps me to recognize and validate the things other people consider important about their own play.  That makes it a more enjoyable and intense social experience for me.

OK.  Cool.  Yes, that helps to know that.  

So maybe part of what I'm missing in those DitV actual play threads is the enjoyment the participants are getting from putting all of that stuff out in the open.  That's not something I normally worry so maybe I just dismissed it, even though that might have been a very important part of what made the game good to the person writing the actual play account.  Yeah, I think that explanation helped me understand at least part of what I'm missing.

Quote from: droogSo you are trying to understand – at great length – why people enjoy a game you haven't even played. Pardon me while I snicker.

So you are telling me that you usually play games blind, knowing nothing about them except what the back blurb says, and find reviews where the author explains what they liked or didn't like about the game useless in helping you decide whether you'd like a game or not before playing it?

Quote from: John MorrowSo you are telling me that you usually play games blind, knowing nothing about them except what the back blurb says, and find reviews where the author explains what they liked or didn't like about the game useless in helping you decide whether you'd like a game or not before playing it?

You're making me laugh again.

Quote from: droogYou're making me laugh again.

Whatever.

Quote from: John MorrowCan you imagine having some other way to win the conflict in mind at the time?

In the Dogs case?  Nah.  If there were another way to win the conflict that made any sense to me then there'd be dice for it ... which would mean that I would not yet be at the point where I had to make a choice between shooting him in the face and giving up.

Say I'm playing and I think "But I grew up the son of a travelling preacher ... surely I can pull out the Book of Life and sway these people with a quick sermon, and still win this conflict!"  Well that's fine.  I roll "Possession:  Large, High Quality Book of Life: 2d8" and "I learned sermon's on my pappy's knee:  2d10" and by God, if 2d10+2d8 isn't enough to sway the conflict then either I rolled lousy (which changes what I think is possible, as it so often does) or there's some really, really serious opposition on the far side.

Now if I thought all that stuff, and my character doesn't have a big Book of Life, or a trait about growing up the son of a travelling preacher ... well then, I've just done a crap job at character creation, right?  I'd be to blame in the same way that I would if I thought "My character can just ripple his monstrous thews and slices this creature in half!" but I was playing a strength 8 magic-user.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So part of the benefit is that it helps put a spotlight on the choice that everyone at the table can see, rather than letting that choice be framed and decided in a player's head where nobody might be notice it.  Is that correct?

Not quite.  It can be framed and decided in a player's head too.  It just doesn't stay isolated there.  The rules provide an additional, very explicit, channel of communication between the players at the table, which helps everyone to express themselves more clearly.  For the New Yorkers in the crowd:  it's like speaking passionately and gesturing with your hands.  One thread of communication, but broadcast across two distinct channels.

Quote from: John MorrowIn his Allowing the "linchpin" to die. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70172&postcount=40) thread, David R. talks about a session of his game where two players went off in the kitchen to play a very powerful scene and even the GM didn't know everything they discussed.  In my experience, it's not uncommon for players to actually enjoy that sort of mystery and encourage it.

Yes, that's also a valid tool.  But the fact that ambiguity is a valid tool doesn't mean that clarity isnt', right?

Quote from: John MorrowSo am I correct in saying that part of what you enjoy about of the game is watching the whole thing unfold from an omniscient Audience stance as a spectator?

Not even vaguely!  You're pulling in dichotomies again that just don't make any sense with my style of play.  I'm not keeping the knowledge I gain through the communication of the rules cordoned off in my head in some sort of "spectator area."  I am using it to play the game.

I like dialogue too ... but that doesn't mean that part of my enjoyment of the game can be typified as being a passive observer watching a play unfold.  I'm in that thing up to my elbows, and that makes a difference.

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, I think that explanation helped me understand at least part of what I'm missing.

Oh good.

Quote from: TonyLBIn the Dogs case?  Nah.  If there were another way to win the conflict that made any sense to me then there'd be dice for it ... which would mean that I would not yet be at the point where I had to make a choice between shooting him in the face and giving up.

OK.  So understanding and translating the character's thinking and approach into a roll of the dice is important.  Is it possible to roll the dice in a way that there could be more than one outcome?  

For example, if the failings of character is causing bad things to happen in the community, I might want my character to try to convince them to repent or convince them to leave town (because I think that will help, too) or shoot them in the face.  Now, I can see how it could be played serially like that.  But is there any way to, for example, say, "I start trying to play on his guilt for what he's doing to others in town and probe to see if can get him to repent or leave"?  Would getting an answer to whether either of those is possible and, if so, which one be the way to frame that conflict, followed by the actual attempt to get him to repent or leave?

Quote from: TonyLBSay I'm playing and I think "But I grew up the son of a travelling preacher ... surely I can pull out the Book of Life and sway these people with a quick sermon, and still win this conflict!"  Well that's fine.  I roll "Possession:  Large, High Quality Book of Life: 2d8" and "I learned sermon's on my pappy's knee:  2d10" and by God, if 2d10+2d8 isn't enough to sway the conflict then either I rolled lousy (which changes what I think is possible, as it so often does) or there's some really, really serious opposition on the far side.

OK.  Is there any way to get a "deferred" result rather than a win or loss out of a conflict?  (I really need to find my copy of the rules so I can answer questions like this myself.)

Quote from: TonyLBNow if I thought all that stuff, and my character doesn't have a big Book of Life, or a trait about growing up the son of a travelling preacher ... well then, I've just done a crap job at character creation, right?  I'd be to blame in the same way that I would if I thought "My character can just ripple his monstrous thews and slices this creature in half!" but I was playing a strength 8 magic-user.

So it's very important to create a character that matches how you intend to play them.  I presume that makes this a very Develop At Start oriented game?

This is important to me and goes back to JimBobOz's comments about what's on the character sheet mattering and my experience that it doesn't matter so much.  

Quote from: TonyLBNot quite.  It can be framed and decided in a player's head too.  It just doesn't stay isolated there.  The rules provide an additional, very explicit, channel of communication between the players at the table, which helps everyone to express themselves more clearly.  For the New Yorkers in the crowd:  it's like speaking passionately and gesturing with your hands.  One thread of communication, but broadcast across two distinct channels.

Well, that's what I meant.  It can't stay hidden in the player's head.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, that's also a valid tool.  But the fact that ambiguity is a valid tool doesn't mean that clarity isnt', right?

Of course.  But you said, "Who knows? Who cares?"  I was simply trying to explain that one can not know and still care.  And just because both are valid tools doesn't mean that everyone will find them both desirable in many cases.

Quote from: TonyLBNot even vaguely!  You're pulling in dichotomies again that just don't make any sense with my style of play.  I'm not keeping the knowledge I gain through the communication of the rules cordoned off in my head in some sort of "spectator area."  I am using it to play the game.

I think you are reading dichotomies that aren't intended.  I'm also not talking about how you play the game but where you get your enjoyment out of it (which could also include the act of actually playing the game, I suppose).  Which part of "part of what you enjoy about of the game" wasn't clear?  

Quote from: TonyLBI like dialogue too ... but that doesn't mean that part of my enjoyment of the game can be typified as being a passive observer watching a play unfold.  I'm in that thing up to my elbows, and that makes a difference.

That means that another part of what you enjoy about the  game is dialogue and yet another part is the feeling of being in the thing up to your elbows.  But when your character isn't in the spotlight, it sounds like you enjoy watching what the other players and their characters are up to and want to know what's going on with them.  While that may seem obvious, it's not a universal focus of enjoyment for a lot of people (or in some cases, it's something they'd enjoy but forego because it's detrimental to other things they enjoy).  

Quote from: TonyLBOh good.

Yeah.  As I suspected, it's not simply the cheap and easy answer.  There may quite a bit more to it than I suspected.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example, if the failings of character is causing bad things to happen in the community, I might want my character to try to convince them to repent or convince them to leave town (because I think that will help, too) or shoot them in the face.  Now, I can see how it could be played serially like that.  But is there any way to, for example, say, "I start trying to play on his guilt for what he's doing to others in town and probe to see if can get him to repent or leave"?  Would getting an answer to whether either of those is possible and, if so, which one be the way to frame that conflict, followed by the actual attempt to get him to repent or leave?

You're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Well ... that seems an awful strange remove to operate at.  I'd just set the stakes as "If I win then this sonuvabitch repents his sinnin' ways and becomes a God-fearin' member of this congregation."  Then I find out whether it's possible by tryin' to do it.

I'm honestly not sure how you would interpret the results of the stakes, as you're proposing them.  If you lose, does that mean that you know that nothing, ever, could possibly sway this man?  Because ... y'know ... that's just not true.  Even if you've lost those stakes, I (your fellow Dog) can stroll in, say "My stakes are he repents," beat the snot out of the guy, shoot him in the kidney, and take his death-bed repentance.  Ain't difficult, if I'm willin' to take it that far.

Contrariwise, if you win, does that mean that you're guaranteed a victory?  Or have you just learned that it's possible ... which you knew to begin with?

I know I said I was going to stop asking questions about how you play, but here I'm genuinely not understanding the question you're asking well enough to answer it.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  Is there any way to get a "deferred" result rather than a win or loss out of a conflict?

Nope!

Quote from: John MorrowSo it's very important to create a character that matches how you intend to play them.  I presume that makes this a very Develop At Start oriented game?

Not a term I'm familiar with, and from my plain-english reading, not a term that seems very useful for ... uh ... any game in which the character is assumed to be changeable through the course of play.  But maybe if you clarify what you're asking I can give you a better answer.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich part of "part of what you enjoy about of the game" wasn't clear?

The part where you chopping my style of play up into individual, unconnected pieces makes things any more clear than my description of the style as a whole.

There are elements of what you're describing in the way I play the game, but they're inextricably connected to other elements, in ways I've already described.  If you ignore those connections then you are moving further from understanding, not closer to it.

John,

I wanted to chime in about issue of the "playing privately in my own head" vs. "being on the same page with the group." I can seriously empathize with Tony's description of the first type of play. Sure, as you say, the players might care, might even "get" me wrt the choice I was making and why. But two points: One, what good does it do us (I mean, our shared, group enjoyment, and for what it's worth my personal enjoyment falls rather flat without group affirmation), if it all stays inside our heads and we sit there in mutual but silent appreciation? Now, our affirmation doesn't have to be verbal and explicit, just cries of "Dude!" or that look, or whatever, is cool. But something.

Second, it's haphazard. I mean, whether you're even on the same page, silently or no, is kind of a crapshoot. I've got plenty of experiences where I'm looking at the situation going, "cool! This whole thing is just pregnant with significant choices for my character! Oh, here comes another player, jumping in! Great, now the choices for our characters will mesh in exciting, possibly conflict-ridden ways!" only to have the other player betray a completely different focus for the scene, not just different in terms of "You're exploring those themes, but I'm exploring these themes," but more like (frex) "You're exploring those themes, but I'm winning the fight."

I remember a fellow player once was confronted in a D&D game with a magical wish, and everyone was thinking he should use it to bring someone back to life, since he had this whole tragic deal with a dead family and fiance. He pondered, then wished for some magic item or something instead. Everyone was kind of, "oh, whatever" and moved on. The player said "no, see, he figures, since he can only wish one person back, since he can't save all of them, he won't save any of them." Nobody paid him much mind. He turned to me and whispered, "Do you think it was a good choice?" And Ireplied, "Dude, I think that was awesome!" My point being that the guy seemed tobe starving for some group-affirmation feedback about what choices are about, while stuck in a mode of play that was more like, "OK, sure, you're character's got backstory, but let's move to the next room of the dungeon."

When I play in games where everyone is keeping things secret (either actively or in that "who cares?" mode I just described), it often feels like those players are playing a private game between just them and the GM, and I can't stand it. It's not just feeling left out,either; I don't like it even when I'm the GM in question. I don't mind so much if it's setup for some supercool move/event/revelation in the near future, but if it goes on indefinitely it just starts to feel like, "why are we even all bothering to do this in the same room on the same night?"



Also, to everyone, on this topic:

Quote from: TonyLBYou're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a matter of "say yes or roll the dice"? "probe to see if can get him to repent or leave" sounds a lot like the stage of asking around to get a feel for things, at which point the GM is instructed to lay bare the town's guts and let the NPCs spill whatever they feel/know about things. You're explicitly not supposed to call for a conflict over that. Which, if I read you, John, should be nonproblematic and match right up with your playstyle. You just talk through things, in character, until you get to a conflict point like "Repent or leave." If you want "play on his guilt and probe to see" to be part of the conflict, though, great, go for it, and as Tony says just go for the conflict and the guilting and probing will be raises in the contest.

Hope that all helps. Maybe between Tony's description of what works for him and my description of what doesn't work for me (that is, real shit that has screwed up for me what are similar goals to Tony's), you can get an idea of what this thing is that you're wrestling with.

Peace,
-Joel

PS: Droog, DUDE. What is up with that shit? I don't know why you find John's endeavor so goddamned funny, but I personally have started threads on both Heroquest and TSoY to figure out what it is in them that works for people that I wasn't getting. Both have been a success. I'm certainly glad nobody came snickering at me into those threads.

Quote from: MelinglorPS: Droog, DUDE. What is up with that shit? I don't know why you find John's endeavor so goddamned funny, but I personally have started threads on both Heroquest and TSoY to figure out what it is in them that works for people that I wasn't getting. Both have been a success. I'm certainly glad nobody came snickering at me into those threads.

Shemp, if I've got to explain it to you, it ain't funny. But point me to your threads and I'll compare.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Not exactly.  If I understand the terms correctly, I'm talking about stakes to find out how best to escalate to achieve my objectives.  It's not to find out whether the stakes are winnable but figuring out the best way to win the stakes before putting the plan into motion.  

Not every fight starts with a swing.  Some start with two opponents sizing each other up.  I'm asking how that might be done.  

The stakes might be me figuring out where is weaknesses are and if I lose, maybe he'll have my number and be more effective at fighting me off.  Does that help?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... that seems an awful strange remove to operate at.  I'd just set the stakes as "If I win then this sonuvabitch repents his sinnin' ways and becomes a God-fearin' member of this congregation."  Then I find out whether it's possible by tryin' to do it.

Well, yes, but how are you going to try to get him to repent?  Do you only look at what you are best with to pick your strategy (where you think you'll get the most dice) or can you also figure out your opponents weak spots?  Or is that captured somewhere in the normal process?

Quote from: TonyLBI'm honestly not sure how you would interpret the results of the stakes, as you're proposing them.  If you lose, does that mean that you know that nothing, ever, could possibly sway this man?  Because ... y'know ... that's just not true.  Even if you've lost those stakes, I (your fellow Dog) can stroll in, say "My stakes are he repents," beat the snot out of the guy, shoot him in the kidney, and take his death-bed repentance.  Ain't difficult, if I'm willin' to take it that far.

Contrariwise, if you win, does that mean that you're guaranteed a victory?  Or have you just learned that it's possible ... which you knew to begin with?

No.  Maybe think about it like this.  I want to find out where he's most vulnerable to an attempt to get him to repent so I engage him in conversation to probe what's going on in his head (pick appropriate dice).

If I win, I get to know where he'll get the fewest dice to defend against my attempt to get him to repent.  If I lose, maybe he'll figure out what I'm doing and I'll get an answer that's actually where he'll get a lot of dice to defend against my attempt to get him to repent.  Does that make any sense?

Actually, I think thinking through explaining this is helping me "get it" a bit better.  

Quote from: TonyLBNope! [concerning whether there can be deferred results]

Do you consider that a feature, bug, or a little bit of both?

Quote from: TonyLBNot a term I'm familiar with, and from my plain-english reading, not a term that seems very useful for ... uh ... any game in which the character is assumed to be changeable through the course of play.  But maybe if you clarify what you're asking I can give you a better answer.

No, it has to do with how players build their character models.  It was a pretty important concept on rec.games.frp.advocacy but has also been discussed in plenty of other forums, blogs, and so on.  I thought it was a pretty common term.

From John Kim's r.g.f.a FAQ:

• DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
• DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character background/personality by the time the campaign begins

You can do Google and Google Groups search on DAS and DIP and the phrases and find a lot of conversations about the topic.  Some systems are friendlier to one approach than the other.  Systems that require you to define a lot about your character's personality and how they'll do things in the game often favor DAS.

Quote from: TonyLBThe part where you chopping my style of play up into individual, unconnected pieces makes things any more clear than my description of the style as a whole.

To me, it makes it more clear because it tells me where your style hooks into the different elements of the game.  While talking about the parts may not always do the holistic whole justice, they are a lot easier to understand than a holistic whole.  And in that particular case, you were talking about a part of how the game is fun for you and I was asking about that part.  You said, "I think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about."  That suggests to me that you can identify that as a distinct element of what you enjoy, even if it's not all you enjoy.

Quote from: TonyLBThere are elements of what you're describing in the way I play the game, but they're inextricably connected to other elements, in ways I've already described.  If you ignore those connections then you are moving further from understanding, not closer to it.

While I think the linkage is important in understanding exactly what you do, I can't imagine what you are doing without looking at the parts.  It's like trying to bake a cookie without knowing the ingredients, even though the ingredients aren't a cookie.  If you can describe the holistic whole as one giant piece in a way that makes sense to me without discussing the elements, please give it a try.  To me, that seems like trying to describe an elephant without talking about trunks, ears, tusks, and so on or telling me how to bake a cookie without discussing ingredients.

Contrary to what you are saying, I think this has been very useful for my understanding, not only about why people like it but also how to use it.

Hmm, maybe if I've got time do dig them up. Meantime, I'd say the chief difference was that I did indeed go "aha!" in the case of both those games, and see how they could produce the kind of play i would enjoy. (Haven't gotten to playTSoY yet though. . .)

Anyway, maybe you can clear at least this up:

Are you laughing at the Sisyphusian effort of the thing, as in "That poor bastard?"

Or are you laughing at the nerve of the guy, thinking that he could understand the game without actual play?

I'd say there's a subtle but important difference between the two.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: Damn spacebar.

I'll PM you about it.

Quote from: John MorrowThe stakes might be me figuring out where is weaknesses are and if I lose, maybe he'll have my number and be more effective at fighting me off.  Does that help?

So you want to know what kind of man he is?  Sure.  That's fine stakes.  Ask him.  Heck, ask his neighbors.  Mostly, people aren't even going to contest you on it.  They'll tell you straight up that (for instance) he's an arrogant SOB, but good in a crisis, and that the town couldn't get along without his skills as a blacksmith (and he'll never let 'em forget it!)  Why would they hesitate to gossip about their neighbors?

I'm vaguely interested in where you were going with this, as it seems (to me) awfully tangential to the things I was highlighting about what I liked in the game.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you consider that a feature, bug, or a little bit of both?

For this game?  Feature.  This is not a game about beating around the bush.  It's a game about beating down doors.

Quote from: John Morrow

• DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
• DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character background/personality by the time the campaign begins

Yeah.  Like I said ... not a very clear dichotomy in a game where you expect characters to change and evolve as a result of the events of the game:  usually I come in with a detailed character background, and then proceed to fill out the character into an even more robust form by having him react to events and change as a person.

Quote from: MelinglorI wanted to chime in about issue of the "playing privately in my own head" vs. "being on the same page with the group." I can seriously empathize with Tony's description of the first type of play.

Rather than type a lengthy reply (which I started to), I'll simply summarize by saying that a lot of the things you say you want, my group gets through either (A) in character role-playing (e.g., one character asking another why they wished for a sword and didn't bring someone back to life) and (B) post-game discussions.  The players don't sit there silently.  They talk to each other, and NPCs, in character and a lot of what you are looking to discover comes out by playing in character, and it can do so in a slowly revealed why or through an epiphany rather than just being told what's going on.

Quote from: MelinglorCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a matter of "say yes or roll the dice"? "probe to see if can get him to repent or leave" sounds a lot like the stage of asking around to get a feel for things, at which point the GM is instructed to lay bare the town's guts and let the NPCs spill whatever they feel/know about things.

Note really.  I'm talking about probing the person themselves.  A little Columbo treatment.  A sort of dry run with reduced stakes before actually laying it all on the table and going for the real objective.

Quote from: MelinglorIf you want "play on his guilt and probe to see" to be part of the conflict, though, great, go for it, and as Tony says just go for the conflict and the guilting and probing will be raises in the contest.

But what that doesn't allow is a chance to step away, go off to the side, and discuss the situation.  For example, my character might be the "face" character with the best social skills.  We identify the mark so my character goes and chats him up so we can decide which Dog has the best chance of making a change and how.  So it involves probing, regrouping, and then going for the big stakes.  Another example might be doing a "Good Cop/Bad Cop", with one Dog calling for repentance and the other Dog saying, "Hold me back cause I just wanna shoot him!"  How might that work?  (If this is explained in the rulebook, that's a valid answer -- like I said, I have a copy but I need to find it.)

Quote from: MelinglorHope that all helps. Maybe between Tony's description of what works for him and my description of what doesn't work for me (that is, real shit that has screwed up for me what are similar goals to Tony's), you can get an idea of what this thing is that you're wrestling with.

I think I understand what you are saying but there are other ways to get the sort of things you seem to be looking for, in my experience.  Maybe they wouldn't work as well as the DitV approach does for you but my group gets a lot of what you seem to be missing via in character dialog and action and some of it via post-game discussions.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm vaguely interested in where you were going with this, as it seems (to me) awfully tangential to the things I was highlighting about what I liked in the game.

I'm trying to understand how I might be able to convert my way of thinking about the game into the way the system works and it's actually been pretty helpful.  It's sort of like asking how to build a power in the Hero System.

Quote from: TonyLBFor this game?  Feature.  This is not a game about beating around the bush.  It's a game about beating down doors.

Fair enough.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah.  Like I said ... not a very clear dichotomy in a game where you expect characters to change and evolve as a result of the events of the game:  usually I come in with a detailed character background, and then proceed to fill out the character into an even more robust form by having him react to events and change as a person.

Well, that's not exactly the sort of "change and evolve" that's involved in Develop-In-Play.  It's more like letting concrete set or furnishing a home.  You've got the basics but a lot of the details aren't there.  It's not about the changes in the character or evolution but about defining who the character is in the first place.  So maybe when I start out, In know my character is a police officer who is a "good cop" and hates the mob, but I might not figure out how he manages to be a good cop or how his hatred for the mob manifests itself until I play a scene where those things are brought into play, and maybe I'll even find out that he's not such a good cop after all or maybe he hates a particular mobster but not the entire mob.  

It's very possible that the DitV are "coarse" enough (defined in sweeping terms) that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quote from: John MorrowI think I understand what you are saying but there are other ways to get the sort of things you seem to be looking for, in my experience.

No doubt.  But you're trying to find out what people like in this system, right?

Quote from: John MorrowI'm trying to understand how I might be able to convert my way of thinking about the game into the way the system works and it's actually been pretty helpful.  It's sort of like asking how to build a power in the Hero System.

So ... you've figured out everything that was confusing you about what people see in the system?  That was quick.

Quote from: TonyLBNo doubt.  But you're trying to find out what people like in this system, right?

Correct.  But I'm addressing the more general idea that if the players aren't talking about certain things on a player-to-player level, that they aren't interacting.  I'm good with the idea that games like DitV can foster player-to-player communication and make a better game for people.  I'm not good with the idea that if there isn't that sort of explicit player-to-player communication, the players don't do much talking or interacting.  Your point is why I opted not to do a more detailed and lengthy reply on that issue.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... you've figured out everything that was confusing you about what people see in the system?  That was quick.

For the most part.  It helps when people actually answer questions in a way that gets to the point.  (I'm not claiming that you haven't in the past, just that I haven't gotten as useful answers from other people in the past.)

ADDED:  It's not like this is the first style discussion I've been in.  I have a pretty good idea at this point what I need to ask.

I get that there are other ways besides DitV to get that kind of "cards on the table" approach. I'll also be the first to agree that my particular game group needs a lot more constructive communication. We're getting there slowly.

What I like about games like DitV (which, admittedly, I haven't yet had a chance to play yet) and Capes (which I have played) is that they get "what's this all about?" right out there in the open. Even if a playing group has absolutely robust and healthy interpersonal communication, I see value in that. It's less trial-and-error, less prone to nobody's-fault simple misunderstandings and disconnects. When the basic thing is out there in flashing neon lights then all the nuance of individual actions within it, or of little things surrounding it, are so much easier to navgate.

"In-character dialogue and post-game discussions" are certainly one way to handle it. In my experience the former leads to endless runaround conversations that make the Council of Elrond look like a text message (this gets at one reason I like Dogs' use of dice to handle social conflict, btw). And the latter is fine in the long term but obvously doesn't solve the problem of a disconnect here, now. At most it just fixes it for the next time.

Of course your mileage may vary and all that. But those are the reasons that approach, by itself, anyway, doesn't work for me. In fact it's kinda funny, your proposed solution is pretty much how these things have been handled historically, to mydissatisfaction, so in my case it's the problem. ;)

Quote from: John MorrowBut what that doesn't allow is a chance to step away, go off to the side, and discuss the situation.

Actually, for the record, it does. I don't have my copy of Dogs handy either, but Vincent even has a little section where he talks about "time tricks" you can pull in the context of a conflict--there's no reason the conflict has to take place moment-by-moment in "real time." You can rewind and fast-forward, whatever you want. "I go off and confer with the dogs" could be the invocing to your relationship with one or more dogs (and rolling those dice), or it could represent a new person joining the conflict and adding his dice. There's a lot of flexibility.

Anyway, that's all I got for ya right now.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I like about games like DitV (which, admittedly, I haven't yet had a chance to play yet) and Capes (which I have played) is that they get "what's this all about?" right out there in the open. Even if a playing group has absolutely robust and healthy interpersonal communication, I see value in that. It's less trial-and-error, less prone to nobody's-fault simple misunderstandings and disconnects. When the basic thing is out there in flashing neon lights then all the nuance of individual actions within it, or of little things surrounding it, are so much easier to navgate.

I can see the value in it.  I just probably don't value it as highly as you do (and others do).  

Quote from: Melinglor"In-character dialogue and post-game discussions" are certainly one way to handle it. In my experience the former leads to endless runaround conversations that make the Council of Elrond look like a text message (this gets at one reason I like Dogs' use of dice to handle social conflict, btw). And the latter is fine in the long term but obvously doesn't solve the problem of a disconnect here, now. At most it just fixes it for the next time.

I kinda like the long conversations and such, so I consider that a plus.  I'm not upset if a whole session is talking.  While the disconnect issue can be a problem, that's where a properly tuned system (one that produces the results that the players are expecting) comes in.  In the few cases where we've had game damaging misunderstandings of a situation, our normal solution is a replay of the scene with the misunderstanding corrected.

Quote from: MelinglorOf course your mileage may vary and all that. But those are the reasons that approach, by itself, anyway, doesn't work for me. In fact it's kinda funny, your proposed solution is pretty much how these things have been handled historically, to mydissatisfaction, so in my case it's the problem. ;)

That's fine.  One person's solution is often another person's problem and vice versa.  But sometimes it helps to understand why your problem is someone else's solution.

Quote from: MelinglorActually, for the record, it does. I don't have my copy of Dogs handy either, but Vincent even has a little section where he talks about "time tricks" you can pull in the context of a conflict--there's no reason the conflict has to take place moment-by-moment in "real time." You can rewind and fast-forward, whatever you want. "I go off and confer with the dogs" could be the invocing to your relationship with one or more dogs (and rolling those dice), or it could represent a new person joining the conflict and adding his dice. There's a lot of flexibility.

Makes a lot of sense.  Thanks.