I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.

Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.

Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.

Quote from: Altheus on December 09, 2020, 09:18:24 AM
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.

Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.

Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.

In an old Earthdawn campaign, I had spent months setting up a Big Bad. Like Darth Vader style, where an NPC was abducted by a Horror and turned into a villian, and in the final showdown, one of the PCs rolled a critical hit and knocked him on his ass.

I rolled with it. A traditional story can have a meticulously crafted climax payoff for a plot setup, but in an RPG, we trade that for the freedom for character actions to have meaningful impact on the world and their part of it. I'll take an anticlimax in exchange for that freedom every time.

Quote from: Altheus on December 09, 2020, 09:18:24 AM
I've had an interesting counter-example on this subject. Whille playing call of Cthullhu we encountered a strange creature that was attacking people in a library, due to an amazing series of two brilliant initiative rolls, 2 impaling attack rolls and 2 sets of max damage the monster went down in the first round of combat.

Had the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.

Definitely an example of how story can be better than game.

I think you have that reversed...that is a perfect example of the game (random dice) creating a much cooler story than would otherwise have happened....even if it does mean you wasted some time prepping as the DM

Isn't that the whole point of rpgs with dice...the randomness 'creates' a unique story.

Quote from: Itachi on December 08, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Watch out though. If that cosmopolitan world where tieflings and dragonborn meet at bars is the city of Sigil from planescape, chances are they follow some of the setting's factions, meaning they adhere to codes of conduct and must uphold those personal values, which may result in an interesting game of conflicting philosophies and agenda, not unlike a Vampire the masquerade urban sandbox, only with factions clashing instead of clans.

Of course, you may not appreciate that either, but it's a valid mode of play that a lot of players find fun to engage.

I think games with strange settings and an abundance of non humans like planescape or dark sun can be fun. Playing a crippled character can be fun too. What I'm being critical of is moreso about the default d&d setting and how they all look like this now:


https://ibb.co/jLFwXSG
https://ibb.co/wckX5kZ
https://ibb.co/KmdsKkh

Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 11, 2020, 01:51:41 AM

Quote from: Itachi on December 08, 2020, 12:20:01 PM
Watch out though. If that cosmopolitan world where tieflings and dragonborn meet at bars is the city of Sigil from planescape, chances are they follow some of the setting's factions, meaning they adhere to codes of conduct and must uphold those personal values, which may result in an interesting game of conflicting philosophies and agenda, not unlike a Vampire the masquerade urban sandbox, only with factions clashing instead of clans.

Of course, you may not appreciate that either, but it's a valid mode of play that a lot of players find fun to engage.

I think games with strange settings and an abundance of non humans like planescape or dark sun can be fun. Playing a crippled character can be fun too. What I'm being critical of is moreso about the default d&d setting and how they all look like this now:


https://ibb.co/jLFwXSG
https://ibb.co/wckX5kZ
https://ibb.co/KmdsKkh

God, I think the intention behind the "Combat Wheelchair"(tm) is good, but I've got this image in my head of an orc pushing one of those things over and laughing at the occupant.

QuoteNot tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.

As a 33 y.o. player and GM I am lazy indeed. If I want to play resource management game I'm gonna play Dwarf Fortress, not game about epic wuxia like fights with demons in Underdark

QuoteOn a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.

Simply speaking, Armchair, we have one hobby that exists in a large spectrum and several points are closer to games outside of hobby rather than other RPGs around. Which makes things more confusing I can agree. Some equivalents of political compass would be neat.

QuoteI can see where that distinction can feel like it gets fuzzy, but the distinction is real. Characters in novels are focused on themselves, as they are the prime protagonist and lens from which everything in the novel revolves around. Characters in an emulative game world are much more than that, as they are emulating a person in a dynamic world.

Yes. But also putting spotlight on your players, and making them important for changing status quo is 101 advice given to DM's even in a game where counting arrows matters. So there's that.
Just a character in immersive world can end very easily with Elminster disease.

QuoteWhat many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs).

Now of course WOD crowd have a tendency to make theatre out of WOD RPGs, but ultimately Vampire, Werewolf and so on - were Games.
You had rolls resolving conflicts, conflicts has stakes, mechanics decided outcomes - that's GAME.

QuoteI suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs.

Primo, with more story driven game you still do not have to railroad players, nor go win/lose-it-all. You can certainly go into win/lose it all option during OSR dungeon crawl, that depends what stakes of specific crawl are.
Second, I'd argue that new wave do win/loss conditions better with rules like Roll only when it really matters and with methods of rolling that allows for wider spectrum of results.
I'm myself is experimenting with 5d20 own mechanics to get large swath of possible results.

QuoteToo many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.

That's applying really low intentions to people. Most people want to play stories - because all popculture is story driven for once, and stories are just overall more interesting than random strings of events without anything interconnecting them really. And RPG came from popculture.
Let's also remember we live in times of massive popularity of non RP - board games of various kinds, and of figure wargames. Simply in a long run full blown competition and full blown storytelling shall defeat half-assed crossbreeds of two in many cases (Not to say there's no place for it.)

QuoteIMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage.

And that's what cause for D&D style RPG to evolve into fantasy wuxia superheroes rather than OSR - you have abstract fight, you have abstract hitpoints, wounds does not matter on your effectiveness in combat, and even in older D&D there is still a lot of power-creep and high-level heroes are quite super-heroic in many regards. But then you have many RPGs designed more for story-driven aspect - even Warhammer who always in published scenario had this aspect of quasi-occult investigation/exploration - who do damage better, and it hurts more.

QuoteHad the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.

And it's good. Even better if characters will treat such beings as not that dangerous and get a bitter revelation later they were just very lucky one time.

Quote from: Krugus on December 08, 2020, 08:18:36 PM
I guess the ones that freaked out over tracking of arrows they shouldn't freak out if I don't keep track of the gold I spend or the spells I cast or the potions I drink right? Sweet!

We also dont freak out about hit points either so you know what to do.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 11, 2020, 06:22:12 AM

QuoteNot tracking this stuff is a sign that the game world is too rich with resources or the players are just lazy.

As a 33 y.o. player and GM I am lazy indeed. If I want to play resource management game I'm gonna play Dwarf Fortress, not game about epic wuxia like fights with demons in Underdark

QuoteOn a less self-pitying note, I think Pundit, Jeffro Johnson, et al. are right in one thing--we've got several different hobbies going on here, all trying to use the same tools and claim the same brand identity.

Simply speaking, Armchair, we have one hobby that exists in a large spectrum and several points are closer to games outside of hobby rather than other RPGs around. Which makes things more confusing I can agree. Some equivalents of political compass would be neat.

QuoteI can see where that distinction can feel like it gets fuzzy, but the distinction is real. Characters in novels are focused on themselves, as they are the prime protagonist and lens from which everything in the novel revolves around. Characters in an emulative game world are much more than that, as they are emulating a person in a dynamic world.

Yes. But also putting spotlight on your players, and making them important for changing status quo is 101 advice given to DM's even in a game where counting arrows matters. So there's that.
Just a character in immersive world can end very easily with Elminster disease.

QuoteWhat many were doing was not playing a 'game', but were instead PLAY ACTING. Understandably, whenever I pointed this out, I was told to shut up. Now that the quote-unquote "STORYGAME" genre has come about, I can safely and undoubtedly claim these are NOT GAMES, but ACTIVITIES, and I call them Roleplaying Activities (RPAs).

Now of course WOD crowd have a tendency to make theatre out of WOD RPGs, but ultimately Vampire, Werewolf and so on - were Games.
You had rolls resolving conflicts, conflicts has stakes, mechanics decided outcomes - that's GAME.

QuoteI suppose I'll never understand the railroading mentality NOR the win/lose-it-all campaign style (a campaign world is NOT just a foozle hunt - losing the campaign does not equate to losing the campaign world, but that's an argument I refuse to get into at the moment!). Understanding that a GAME is not a STORY nor a PUZZLE, but is a strategic and tactical challenge with a goal, having randomized elements to provide challenges unplanned for, and to create scenarios with win/loss conditions other than just "TPK = Game Over" is essential for both players and GMs.

Primo, with more story driven game you still do not have to railroad players, nor go win/lose-it-all. You can certainly go into win/lose it all option during OSR dungeon crawl, that depends what stakes of specific crawl are.
Second, I'd argue that new wave do win/loss conditions better with rules like Roll only when it really matters and with methods of rolling that allows for wider spectrum of results.
I'm myself is experimenting with 5d20 own mechanics to get large swath of possible results.

QuoteToo many people WANT to play a story, not a game, because of both the fear of LOSING (Risk-Aversion) and an aversion to COMPETITION (player v. GM / player v. player), both of which having been taught to children by two decades of 'PROGRESSIVE' schooling.

That's applying really low intentions to people. Most people want to play stories - because all popculture is story driven for once, and stories are just overall more interesting than random strings of events without anything interconnecting them really. And RPG came from popculture.
Let's also remember we live in times of massive popularity of non RP - board games of various kinds, and of figure wargames. Simply in a long run full blown competition and full blown storytelling shall defeat half-assed crossbreeds of two in many cases (Not to say there's no place for it.)

QuoteIMHO, it is the abstraction-strategy used in OD&D B/X 1E and so on which is causing RPGs to falter on long-term interest, namely what causes a hit, what the quality of that hit is, the damage the hit can cause, and the effects of that damage.

And that's what cause for D&D style RPG to evolve into fantasy wuxia superheroes rather than OSR - you have abstract fight, you have abstract hitpoints, wounds does not matter on your effectiveness in combat, and even in older D&D there is still a lot of power-creep and high-level heroes are quite super-heroic in many regards. But then you have many RPGs designed more for story-driven aspect - even Warhammer who always in published scenario had this aspect of quasi-occult investigation/exploration - who do damage better, and it hurts more.

QuoteHad the GM fudged the monster so that shots did minimum damage the monster would have been a viable threat for the whole session of frantically trying to keep it at bay while those pcs good at research found and cast the banishing spell instead it was very anticlimactic.

And it's good. Even better if characters will treat such beings as not that dangerous and get a bitter revelation later they were just very lucky one time.

You're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME. As well as being confused on basic game design principles.
Don't take my word on it, though:

QuoteYou're actually conflating SYSTEM as GAME.

Care to elaborate?

QuoteDon't take my word on it, though:

I generally agree with this gentleman in terms of definitions.
But I think that a) cRPGs are basically always stories, maybe branching stories, but nature of C in cRPG generally forces you to some amount of choices - not infinite possibilities.So the difference between free narrative and story is getting more murkier. b) this is centred on video game design and numbers of choices it's giving to players - but it's quite a different thing in narrative RPG.
Because narrative-based RPG does not have to use well any railroading really. Now of course comparing it to Mercer Effect we have this drive for subtle railroad in community, I agree it's problematic - but also you have lot of new games that give mechanic solutions to make narrative more story-like while also strongly - more strongly than old school - enforcing player choices in shaping such narrative. And as I said this is gonna be naturally getting more and more popular - because same ROLE-PLAYING aspect is the thing that differs RPGs from other games, so games promoting most RP and elements supporting it shall dominate (or D&D which pretends to be everything for everyone) because if you want strong gamism effect you play game without all this uncessary RP element.

If people nowadays were afraid of competition - traditional board games would not be as popular as they are. Video games, multiplayers would not be growing and growing each year.
The reason why people turn for RPG to impose story-creation elements is because only RPG can do it - while you can just wander through dungeons in some board game, card game or video game. The difference of RPG is bringing characters some artificial persona to live. And that's why this aspect dominates more and more strongly - everything else is somewhere else.

Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?

I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.

And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 12, 2020, 11:24:09 PM
Where does resource counting 'end'? Every arrow? Every bowstring? Every use of the bow before it needs maintenance? Every type of arrow? Every type of bowstring? Every microgram of food compared to output to measure cramps relative to muscle mass and height and dietary requirements?

I could imagine that in an Archery enthusiasts game, tracking all bow related stuff is great fun. But not everybody. And even the people that insult others for not tracking ammo have a limit where they just finally handwave SOMETHING.

And if they don't, then present them to the physics convention for discovering how to perfectly simulate universes without mega-scale computers.

Also do you track the weather to see how this affects bowstrings and assume the players have unstrung their bows and put the strings somewhere safe if it is raining?

If they are using mongol style lacquered composite bows are you rolling to see if the glue holding the bow together is damaged in wet climates?

We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.

Quote from: TJS on December 13, 2020, 02:16:22 AM
We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.

In a sense, the execution, the level, and the type of abstraction a game has determine the gameplay style and everything else. A game is all about what and how you abstract.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2020, 04:00:40 AM

Quote from: TJS on December 13, 2020, 02:16:22 AM
We're just talking about different levels of abstraction. Not fundamentally different styles of play.

In a sense, the execution, the level, and the type of abstraction a game has determine the gameplay style and everything else. A game is all about what and how you abstract.

Yes.  Which is why in some games I'm not tracking ammo at all while in others we track such things and I am enforcing that characters can't walk around with bows strung all the time (and weapons in hand, for that matter).  Admittedly, both extremes are rare, but I've done both with reasons. 

Another way to say what both of you are saying is that in a given game session, there is a limit to how much detail the group can manage.  So pick your details carefully to be useful for that group playing that game.

Accordingly, you can play a game where you need to track things like arrows more easily when the game system isn't already having you track a bunch of other things by default.  Which is why an old-school D&D game or something similar is going to make that easier than other games.

"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on December 13, 2020, 11:34:34 AM
"Forbidden Lands" have interesting quite abstract way to count food, water, arrows and torches.
Each time you use one - you rolled a dice written in your card (max d12).
If you rolled 1-2, you were changing dice to lower 12->10->8->6->4.
Roll 1-2 on d4, you're out of stuff.

The main issue with that approach is that it makes the PCs look incompetent; that they just guess how much food or ammunition they're carrying.

My feeling is generally that you either need to track it (because its important enough to) or don't track it at all (because its a trivial thing the PCs are presumably competent enough with to ensure they have enough to never run out outside of extreme circumstances).

Cutsie dice mechanisms that turn your arrow supply into Schrodinger's Quiver just really throw immersion out the window; particularly when edge cases of probability come up (ex. the DM and four other players watched me roll a Str 17, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 17 on straight 3d6 in order... roll up enough characters and someone somewherewill legitimately get a character with straight 18s at some point).

Because your hero is a cautious sort who stocks up a LOT of arrows (enough for that d12), but on his first shot rolls a 1, then a 2 on his second (d10), a 1 (d8), 2 (d6) and a final 2 (d4). So our extremely prepared archer only brought FIVE arrows with him into a dungeon because random dice said so.

Sorry, that's a stupid mechanic for anything that can be quantified (though for something like spellcasting it might make a fine limiter if you wanted it to be unreliable).