Quote from: Mishihari on June 17, 2023, 10:12:35 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 07:51:53 AM
You know what's funny? When people are talking about elves and magic and dragons and somebody says, "But that's not the way it works in the real world." 

I really, really disagree with this common sentiment.  Always have.  The closer a roleplaying game is to real life, except for elements specifically designed to be different as part of the premise of the game, the better it works for quite a few reasons.

But the reality is the settings we play D&D & other rpgs in are completely different than reality. It's nonsense like "Oh, I prefer a game that has more realism during combat. I want it to feel REAL!" But, your character has Hit Points which have nothing to do with reality and if your PC gets killed the party can just have them magically revived. There is NO REALISM in rpgs, outside of (sometimes) how the environment works.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 17, 2023, 10:57:36 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 17, 2023, 10:12:35 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 07:51:53 AM
You know what's funny? When people are talking about elves and magic and dragons and somebody says, "But that's not the way it works in the real world." 

I really, really disagree with this common sentiment.  Always have.  The closer a roleplaying game is to real life, except for elements specifically designed to be different as part of the premise of the game, the better it works for quite a few reasons.

It's also wrongheaded in multiple ways. Because not only does it ignore that verisimilitude is a thing, which is one of those pitfalls in discussions of RPGs or fiction that won't die. But it even ignores whatever we're actually discussing at any given moment in lieu of making pontifications that don't contribute anything.

We're not even discussing fact vs. fiction, but rather what works/makes sense or doesn't work/make sense in game mechanics. But we can't point out that something doesn't really work a certain way in reality when someone else implies that it does without someone else stepping in and pointing out: "What are you guys talking about? This is elf gaems. LULZ!"

Well I guess that we have to keep the crap game mechanics (assuming that I'm correct in my prior post) and not discuss ways to improve them because "elf gaems".

Exactly: it IS elves and magic and dragons and superheroes and psionics and extraterrestrials and laser-guns and everything else that isn't REAL. And no matter how hard you try, you can't call a "fantasy game" a "reality game" because you know that's craziness. Fantasy games can never accurately simulate reality. Ever.

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 03:27:17 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 17, 2023, 10:12:35 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 07:51:53 AM
You know what's funny? When people are talking about elves and magic and dragons and somebody says, "But that's not the way it works in the real world." 

I really, really disagree with this common sentiment.  Always have.  The closer a roleplaying game is to real life, except for elements specifically designed to be different as part of the premise of the game, the better it works for quite a few reasons.

But the reality is the settings we play D&D & other rpgs in are completely different than reality. It's nonsense like "Oh, I prefer a game that has more realism during combat. I want it to feel REAL!" But, your character has Hit Points which have nothing to do with reality and if your PC gets killed the party can just have them magically revived. There is NO REALISM in rpgs, outside of (sometimes) how the environment works.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 17, 2023, 10:57:36 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 17, 2023, 10:12:35 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 07:51:53 AM
You know what's funny? When people are talking about elves and magic and dragons and somebody says, "But that's not the way it works in the real world." 

I really, really disagree with this common sentiment.  Always have.  The closer a roleplaying game is to real life, except for elements specifically designed to be different as part of the premise of the game, the better it works for quite a few reasons.

It's also wrongheaded in multiple ways. Because not only does it ignore that verisimilitude is a thing, which is one of those pitfalls in discussions of RPGs or fiction that won't die. But it even ignores whatever we're actually discussing at any given moment in lieu of making pontifications that don't contribute anything.

We're not even discussing fact vs. fiction, but rather what works/makes sense or doesn't work/make sense in game mechanics. But we can't point out that something doesn't really work a certain way in reality when someone else implies that it does without someone else stepping in and pointing out: "What are you guys talking about? This is elf gaems. LULZ!"

Well I guess that we have to keep the crap game mechanics (assuming that I'm correct in my prior post) and not discuss ways to improve them because "elf gaems".

Exactly: it IS elves and magic and dragons and superheroes and psionics and extraterrestrials and laser-guns and everything else that isn't REAL. And no matter how hard you try, you can't call a "fantasy game" a "reality game" because you know that's craziness. Fantasy games can never accurately simulate reality. Ever.

Whatever dude. You're not even reading what's being said but firing off based on a SINGLE word that was used in passing and is completely besides the point of what's actually being discussed. And are doubling down when you're completely wrong about what the word "reality" means.

You can absolutely talk about "reality" in the context of fictional universes (which again, IT'S NOT EVEN WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING specifically in this instance) because those worlds are still hypothetical "realities" that can still be discussed in terms of verisimilitude or speculation about what those worlds might be like if they actually existed. Not that I expect you to even read this, but I'm just putting this out there for the sake of my own sanity and anyone else who might be interested in discussing what's actually being said, rather than clinging to a single irrelevant word and your own narrow interpretation of what it even means.

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 03:27:17 PM
Exactly: it IS elves and magic and dragons and superheroes and psionics and extraterrestrials and laser-guns and everything else that isn't REAL. And no matter how hard you try, you can't call a "fantasy game" a "reality game" because you know that's craziness. Fantasy games can never accurately simulate reality. Ever.

That's just nonsense, I can prove it with a simple example:  Can you imagine a fox?  Can you imagine a talking creature?  Can you imagine a talking fox?  In order for it to work, we might have to think about it a bit, because as soon as we say "talking fox" some people will imagine a standard fox that looks and acts exactly like a fox otherwise, while others will imagine an upright, humanoid fox with hands and opposable thumbs wearing a hat.  And either of those are fine, and quite a few things between them, too.  Depending on the setting.

What is not OK is imagining an upright cow-like creature with purple stripes that is giant size and happens to talk, and then calling that a "talking fox". Because unlike Humpty Dumpty, words mean things, and to be a talking fox, it's got to be in the vicinity of a real fox in at least some ways.

Which is, by the way, highly analogous to the issue of how and when and whether skill tests are good options in combat, because there needs to be some relation between what the skill does and the effect it produces that makes sense.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 17, 2023, 12:20:16 PM
I think most of that argument isn't based on reason, though, but power plays.  It goes like this, with the instigator trying to avoid the conclusion:

Instigator:  I want to play a hobbit that uses a magical great sword with a blade thicker than my wrist and wider than my head, and jump around like a rabbit on crack cocaine in fights.
GM:  Doesn't fit my world.
Instigator:  You've got dragons that violate the laws of physics, this is no different.

I think it helps to use real examples rather than hypothetical ones. In this case, the argument started over D&D XP-for-gold compared to XP-for-activity. Wisithir argued that XP-for-gold was more realistic.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 17, 2023, 07:41:54 AM

Quote from: Wisithir on June 16, 2023, 10:43:51 PM
Treasure funds a downtime lifestyle that is conducive to training. There is only so much to be learned while roughing it on campaign and in seconds of vicious combat. Because combat entails risk to life and limb its already, it is the worst way to overcome an obstacle as a one sided slaughter would be the preferable form of applied violence. While it could be the only way to hone some combat skill, the situations in which such would be possible are rather specific.

That's more of an ad hoc justification for getting XP for gold than the way things really work in reality. Actual on the ground experience is a much more effective way to hone skills and overall competence than living a pampered lifestyle (what people actually do when they have loads of money) or doing theoretical work. The only exception being if you're completely ignorant and are learning an entirely new thing outside your realm of experience. In which case you might need some schooling.

In the bigger picture, I think neither of these D&D XP models are anywhere close to realistic development of skills.

If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM
If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

None of you have ever played AD&D, have you?  Training was necessary to gain levels, costing downtime and money.  Heck, as the editions progressed, things like druids and monks required you to not only find a particularly high level member of your own class to train, sometimes you had to supplant or even defeat them.  The whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from video games.  Older editions of D&D weren't like that at all.

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 17, 2023, 12:20:16 PM
I think most of that argument isn't based on reason, though, but power plays.  It goes like this, with the instigator trying to avoid the conclusion:

Instigator:  I want to play a hobbit that uses a magical great sword with a blade thicker than my wrist and wider than my head, and jump around like a rabbit on crack cocaine in fights.
GM:  Doesn't fit my world.
Instigator:  You've got dragons that violate the laws of physics, this is no different.

I think it helps to use real examples rather than hypothetical ones. In this case, the argument started over D&D XP-for-gold compared to XP-for-activity. Wisithir argued that XP-for-gold was more realistic.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 17, 2023, 07:41:54 AM

Quote from: Wisithir on June 16, 2023, 10:43:51 PM
Treasure funds a downtime lifestyle that is conducive to training. There is only so much to be learned while roughing it on campaign and in seconds of vicious combat. Because combat entails risk to life and limb its already, it is the worst way to overcome an obstacle as a one sided slaughter would be the preferable form of applied violence. While it could be the only way to hone some combat skill, the situations in which such would be possible are rather specific.

That's more of an ad hoc justification for getting XP for gold than the way things really work in reality. Actual on the ground experience is a much more effective way to hone skills and overall competence than living a pampered lifestyle (what people actually do when they have loads of money) or doing theoretical work. The only exception being if you're completely ignorant and are learning an entirely new thing outside your realm of experience. In which case you might need some schooling.

In the bigger picture, I think neither of these D&D XP models are anywhere close to realistic development of skills.

If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

In my experience a great deal of the skills I've learned that I actually used were learned mostly from actual on the ground experience. And even in the cases I had some training leading up to them, the actual "proficient" level of competency didn't kick in till I had actual on the ground experience. Every network admin and programmer I've worked with that went to college has mentioned that all the real work skills that they had were learned on the job and that all that they learned from school was theoretical BS that was often outdated and had no real world application. My experiences with web and graphic design have been similar.

Granted, I tend to rely a lot on free information found on the internet to learn a lot of things, particularly stuff related to using software applications, web design, etc. and even martial arts and a bunch of other stuff. Which wouldn't exist in a pseudo Medieval world. But there are many ways to learn things that don't involve paying huge sums on the order of magnitude of an adventuring party's treasure haul. Lots of people learn through apprenticeships, which is the opposite of paying for training. A character in a pseudo Medieval world could take an apprenticeship under a smith, for example, if they want to learn smith work.

Institutionalized training is overrated, and IMO, deeply questionable on its effectiveness, outside few very technical or academic areas of knowledge. And even then, you could probably learn a lot of that on your own through books, and many people have throughout history.

That being said "realistic" skill development is not necessarily the goal, at least for me, but more like a benchmark. And I don't think that could be effectively modeled in an RPG anyway. But I also don't think unrealistic methods of advancement, such as treating training as the be all end of of progression, should be enforced. Training in game should be more like a supplemental thing, or a way to gate very specialized areas of knowledge not available to everyone in the game world.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 17, 2023, 11:14:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM
If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

None of you have ever played AD&D, have you?  Training was necessary to gain levels, costing downtime and money.  Heck, as the editions progressed, things like druids and monks required you to not only find a particularly high level member of your own class to train, sometimes you had to supplant or even defeat them.  The whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from video games.  Older editions of D&D weren't like that at all.

I just skimmed through a copy of Basic and Rules Encyclopedia and saw no mention of training being a requirement for advancement. If anything the phrasing implied that character simply are whatever level matches their XP total (i.e. it's automatic). And the only restriction mentioned was that characters could only earn enough XP to gain a single level at a time. So it looks like the whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from OG D&D.

Also, IIRC training requirements for advancement in AD&D were optional. Though, I never played 1e so I'm not sure.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 17, 2023, 11:14:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM
If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

None of you have ever played AD&D, have you?  Training was necessary to gain levels, costing downtime and money.  Heck, as the editions progressed, things like druids and monks required you to not only find a particularly high level member of your own class to train, sometimes you had to supplant or even defeat them.  The whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from video games.  Older editions of D&D weren't like that at all.

You say "oozed" as if computer games and roleplaying games using each others best ideas (when compatible) was some sort of corruption instead of tabletop designers deciding that video game leveling was just a better system for play.

And that's if they even got the idea from crps and not the myriad other ttrpgs like Palladium that did away with training costs to level up. Given that many of these games date back to the early days of gaming and had already abandoned D&D "must spend gold on training to level up" I actually find the idea that this change came from video games to be a bit specious.

Regardless, the fact that it was widely adopted with only a tiny minority bitching about gold/training to level going the way of the dodo outside of some of the OSR adherents tells me that not all things old are automatically best.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 18, 2023, 01:11:29 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 17, 2023, 11:14:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM
If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

None of you have ever played AD&D, have you?  Training was necessary to gain levels, costing downtime and money.  Heck, as the editions progressed, things like druids and monks required you to not only find a particularly high level member of your own class to train, sometimes you had to supplant or even defeat them.  The whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from video games.  Older editions of D&D weren't like that at all.

I just skimmed through a copy of Basic and Rules Encyclopedia and saw no mention of training being a requirement for advancement. If anything the phrasing implied that character simply are whatever level matches their XP total (i.e. it's automatic). And the only restriction mentioned was that characters could only earn enough XP to gain a single level at a time. So it looks like the whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from OG D&D.

Also, IIRC training requirements for advancement in AD&D were optional. Though, I never played 1e so I'm not sure.

Nope, it was not optional. AD&D 1e level advancement required:
1. Defeat monster & bad guys
2. Collect treasure
3. Get training from a mentor/more-experienced character of the same class

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 18, 2023, 01:22:38 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 17, 2023, 11:14:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 17, 2023, 09:16:43 PM
If practice and training is the desired realism, then I'd think one would want an advancement system like classic Traveller - where one pays for such.

None of you have ever played AD&D, have you?  Training was necessary to gain levels, costing downtime and money.  Heck, as the editions progressed, things like druids and monks required you to not only find a particularly high level member of your own class to train, sometimes you had to supplant or even defeat them.  The whole "xp crosses the magic number and suddenly you're up!" oozed over from video games.  Older editions of D&D weren't like that at all.

You say "oozed" as if computer games and roleplaying games using each others best ideas (when compatible) was some sort of corruption instead of tabletop designers deciding that video game leveling was just a better system for play.

And that's if they even got the idea from crps and not the myriad other ttrpgs like Palladium that did away with training costs to level up. Given that many of these games date back to the early days of gaming and had already abandoned D&D "must spend gold on training to level up" I actually find the idea that this change came from video games to be a bit specious.

Regardless, the fact that it was widely adopted with only a tiny minority bitching about gold/training to level going the way of the dodo outside of some of the OSR adherents tells me that not all things old are automatically best.

Like I mentioned in my own reply, there was no mention of it Basic D&D, so it's just another case of OSR revisionism. Requiring payed training to advance is also inconvenient micromanagement that has no solid basis on reality, and is mostly just a game convention used as a money sink to reduce the ridiculous sums of money D&D characters get from a treasure haul. It was probably not used in the vast majority of other games and abandoned in every edition of D&D other than AD&D 1e (which apparently did require it according to Theory of Games) because people have better things to do with their lives than micromanaging excessive training beyond what people even need in real life for fictional characters in GAME that's supposed to be about fun and escaping the tedium of their lives, not add to it.

I can see training requirements work in some instances depending on the campaign, particularly to gate stuff like magic, or to allow characters to learn new skills well beyond anything in their background. But generally it's just an inconvenience that's not what normal people sign up for when they get into RPGs.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 18, 2023, 08:55:25 AM
Like I mentioned in my own reply, there was no mention of it Basic D&D, so it's just another case of OSR revisionism.

Both Holmes Basic and AD&D were published in 77, with "Basic" being exactly that (a simplified edition only going up to 3rd level).  The DMG had training rules in 79.  Moldvay Basic was published in 81 with Expert soon after.  The Cyclopedia isn't until 91.  So, at worst, training rules were in the complete game contemporaneous with Basic.  Though, in reality, since Holmes Basic is just an intro module for AD&D (and was marketed as such by TSR... characters above 3rd were expected to switch to the AD&D rules) , training was there from before complete Basic or the Cyclopedia (which wasn't published until after 2nd Edition... which does include training rules, though as options).

So you keep using "revisionism" for stuff that happened before what you are citing.  Leading me to believe you don't know what that word means...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 18, 2023, 11:26:04 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 18, 2023, 08:55:25 AM
Like I mentioned in my own reply, there was no mention of it Basic D&D, so it's just another case of OSR revisionism.

Both Holmes Basic and AD&D were published in 77, with "Basic" being exactly that (a simplified edition only going up to 3rd level).  The DMG had training rules in 79.  Moldvay Basic was published in 81 with Expert soon after.  The Cyclopedia isn't until 91.  So, at worst, training rules were in the complete game contemporaneous with Basic.  Though, in reality, since Holmes Basic is just an intro module for AD&D (and was marketed as such by TSR... characters above 3rd were expected to switch to the AD&D rules) , training was there from before complete Basic or the Cyclopedia (which wasn't published until after 2nd Edition... which does include training rules, though as options).

So you keep using "revisionism" for stuff that happened before what you are citing.  Leading me to believe you don't know what that word means...

Except that "Basic" vs "Advanced" were just marketing terms, and "Basic" D&D and related books were just a continuation of OG D&D, which apparently didn't have training rules, just like the vast majority of other old school RPGs other than AD&D (and maybe Traveler from what I've heard). And even AD&D didn't have training rules till the DMG came out years after the PHB, which makes me question how prevalently those rules were used in actual play, given that people had to wait for the DMG to come out to tell them it was a requirement. All of which means that advancement without training didn't originate from video games, making claims that it did actual historical revisionism.

But the fact that you still insist that it isn't, even after you tacitly admit that Basic had no training rules in your own posts makes me think that you're being intellectually dishonest and arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than because I'm wrong and you're right on this or any other issue you nitpick from me.