QuoteNot exactly. RPGs always have core gameplay loops and quite often core feedback loops, and I wouldn't say they have a minor influence on the game, at all. What is true is that the GM and players are not limited to them. They are free to deviate from these core components as much as they wish, and to some extent, deviation is a good thing because it contrasts the mainstay of the game. But most games lose personality the more you deviate, so it's in everyone's interest to keep deviations out of the core loop under control.

So what is core gameplay loop for Vampire? Because after reading some of it - Cain only knows what it is. Aside of need of feeding - which is more complication and not really focus of presented world, I do not see one in design.

QuoteThe whole system thing and focus on theory and mechanics can occasionally be useful and has some commonalities with TTRPG's, but video game theory crafting just isn't that relevant for TTRPG's. TTRPG's are much more about the GM, the Players, stories, social interactions and roleplaying events than anything to do with "Theory Crafting" or philosophical debate and argument structure.

And all those elements with be analysed by philosopher and culture scientists. And that's good.
Frankly is way easier to discuss RPG with those weirdos theories, than with utterly subjective personal table dynamics.

Quote from: Wrarh of GodSo what is core gameplay loop for Vampire? Because after reading some of it - Cain only knows what it is.

I think this is one point where the Forge crowd was spot on. Vampire is superb in aesthetics and mood... but it's all over the place in actual play.

Quote from: Wrath of God on June 18, 2023, 07:38:17 PM

QuoteNot exactly. RPGs always have core gameplay loops and quite often core feedback loops, and I wouldn't say they have a minor influence on the game, at all. What is true is that the GM and players are not limited to them. They are free to deviate from these core components as much as they wish, and to some extent, deviation is a good thing because it contrasts the mainstay of the game. But most games lose personality the more you deviate, so it's in everyone's interest to keep deviations out of the core loop under control.

So what is core gameplay loop for Vampire? Because after reading some of it - Cain only knows what it is. Aside of need of feeding - which is more complication and not really focus of presented world, I do not see one in design.

Quote from: Itachi on June 18, 2023, 09:48:19 PM
I think this is one point where the Forge crowd was spot on. Vampire is superb in aesthetics and mood... but it's all over the place in actual play.

I view VtM as Call of C'thulu done with Vampires and Blood and the player's conscience rather than Elder Gods and incomprehensible ideas and a permanent loss of sanity. Does this make the core gameplay loop more apparent?

VtM's Hunger dice or Blood Pool mechanics (depending on the edition) are feedback loops where certain rolls trigger you to lose control of your character, so the core gameplay loop of VtM is a constant renegotiation of self, with you randomly losing control of your character and attempting to regain control afterwards. As this progresses and happens more, the game naturally haggles your esteem for your own player character away until you view them as a monster.

I can see why this would throw you for a loop, though, because this gameplay loop is basically internal to the PC, and obscured by a ton of worldbuilding and extraneous mechanics and a generally loose approach to gameplay. It's a classic Curveball Code, where meaning is hidden behind a lot of red herrings. It is intentionally designed to be difficult to parse the gameplay loop out.


EDIT: OK, so "always having" a gameplay loop is probably a bit strong; many games assume the GM and players will write in their own gameplay loop, which creates a gray area where there is a gameplay loop, but it isn't in the book and it isn't shared between groups. Gameplay loops are key to how games produce game and genre feel, so if you play without one at all you probably won't enjoy the game too much. /EDIT

Quote

QuoteThe whole system thing and focus on theory and mechanics can occasionally be useful and has some commonalities with TTRPG's, but video game theory crafting just isn't that relevant for TTRPG's. TTRPG's are much more about the GM, the Players, stories, social interactions and roleplaying events than anything to do with "Theory Crafting" or philosophical debate and argument structure.

And all those elements with be analysed by philosopher and culture scientists. And that's good.
Frankly is way easier to discuss RPG with those weirdos theories, than with utterly subjective personal table dynamics.

I can't tell if this is being sarcastic or not.

I think "theory" is a really bad word what's going on and it's one of the legacies of the Forge I wish we could outgrow. "Paradigm" is a better word for two reasons; first, it's more accurate to the process because a paradigm is just a pattern people have noticed. Second (and more importantly) the goal of a theory is to remain proven, but the goal of a paradigm is to trigger Paradigm Shift by finding something outside of the pattern. The entire purpose of making these bloody things is so we can poke holes in them.

Regardless, I think theorycrafting is a good practice in RPGs, but not because of discussion. It's because it's much easier to teach game design and quest design if you start with a little abstract theory. The abstraction of the theory gives you a way to understand how and why you should implement exceptions.

Fheredin, 

About Vampire, it seems more a case of you finding/interpreting a play loop in the game's text than something intended (and clearly communicated) by the authors. EDIT: I actually agree the new 5th edition makes this core loop more clear. My criticism is on the old editions.

Well, we'll probably wind up talking past each other, then; I have very little familiarity with the old versions of the game. And if anything, that kinda reinforces my point because it shows a trend of a game with almost no visible gameplay loop being iterated into one, so improving the game required adding a gameplay loop.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2023, 01:47:57 PM
Well, we'll probably wind up talking past each other, then; I have very little familiarity with the old versions of the game. And if anything, that kinda reinforces my point because it shows a trend of a game with almost no visible gameplay loop being iterated into one, so improving the game required adding a gameplay loop.

The funny thing though is that Vampire 5e split the fanbase as badly as 4E did to D&D. The primary complaint is that the introduced "game play loop" for 5e was just one of many ways it was played ("Vampions" being one of the most notable alternatives) and V5 basically made all those other styles utterly untenable (while crapping on the previously established lore). It's altered mechanics also made it virtually impossible to function in mortal society like some sort vampiric mastermind... consigning players to essentially the hunted outcast school of play.

As such a large portion of V5's fanbase is just like D&D 5e's base... players who've never played the prior editions to have any experience with them.

I, for one, have zero interest in V5, particularly not until they actually add rules for Dhampirs. They were the only part of VtM I was ever all that interested in... in large part because in exchange for losing most of their vampiric oomph (excepting their capacity to take a supernatural beating like few things short of methuselahs*) was also losing the degeneration loop... such as it was... and instead having either the "surviving as the hunted" or the "maintain your cover lest you become hunted" gameplay loops.

*which can become even more exceptional with a couple of merits available to living beings... spark of life, fist of god and toxic blood made for an excellent vampire hunter.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 05, 2023, 11:15:33 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 04, 2023, 09:26:38 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 03, 2023, 11:33:54 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 03, 2023, 09:46:27 PM
This combination leads me to my opinion that if you want to learn to make a good roleplaying game, you at least need to know about video game design and interpolate towards the tabletop game.

And your opinion is incorrect (which is what everyone here is trying to tell you).  There's a difference between the specifics of TTRPGs compared to video games (starting with the capabilities of the referee compared to the limitations of programming, and extending to the role of the players' imaginations in each).  Cats and cows are both mammals, but studying a cow's digestive system isn't going to make you competent to treat a cat.  TTRPGs and video games are both games, but the specific context, interface, and goals of each create different requirements in each medium.  Not totally divorced, but very different in some aspects.

The fact that EVERYONE else here sees this and you don't is NOT a sign of your superior "discernment."  As the old saying goes: When one person treats you like an asshole, he is probably the asshole.  When EVERYONE treats you like an asshole... you're the asshole.

Oh, look, another bandwagon fallacy. Why am I not surprised.

I find this forum's infatuation with the bandwagon fallacy to be absolutely bizarre. The exact same argument you are making right now could be applied to RPG Pundit's own work; why would I play Lion and Dragon when 5E is far more popular and that clearly makes it better, right? And why would I watch RPG Pundit's videos when Critical Role is far more popular, and clearly that makes it better, right? You want me to be concerned about "being an asshole?" Pundit's catch-line is literally, "the final boss in internet shitlords." Practically everything about this community falls apart if you appeal to the bandwagon.

Now, clearly you're going to come up with other explanations about why I should play a less popular OSR game compared to D&D. My point is not that those reasons do not exist. Quite the contrary: because those reasons exist, the bandwagon is--and always was--irrelevant.

Bandwagon fallacy?  Because I point out that everyone else disagrees with you (so you might want to figure out why)?  That's not what that means.  You are clearly are using terms that you don't fully understand.  Apparently you've decided to educate everyone here on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, too, with yourself as the example...

I've got to second you on this.


The nature of a logical fallacy is that the underlying argument is invalid (which is technical term, not a claim that anyone's point of view is invalid), and it typically involves irrelevant information.

The bandwagon fallacy involves introducing popularity as an irrelevant piece of information to conclude something that has no connection to popularity.

However, it is important to note, if people go out and buy a product, the act of that purchase is, what we sometimes call in economics, "demonstrated preference." That is, it's an observable empirical fact that implies something about value preference at the point of exchange. If a lot of people do that, then it speaks to value preference on a larger scale.

To the uninitiated, it may seem like this is raising an appeal to popularity. But if it is specifically being raised to conclude something about rank-ordering demonstrated value preference or a group, then "popularity" is not irrelevant information, and it is not an invalid argument. It's not a bandwagon fallacy. It's not any kind of fallacy. it's spot on relevant.


Another mis-attributed fallacy I often see (not here necessarily but in general) is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem doesn't mean personal attack. As a logical fallacy, again, it deals with injecting irrelevant information in presenting invalid arguments. If what we're talking about is good RPG design, accusing an adversary in debate of being a wife beater is an ad hominem. But questioning their honesty or integrity, or even just their qualifications, while that may be considered a personal attack on their character, is actually germane to an argument if that person is presenting facts without citations.

And it's worth pointing out, since this HAS come up, that facts WITH citations does not mean an appeal to authority is taking place. It just means the honesty or integrity or qualifications of the person providing citations is no longer germane with regards to the content of those citations (although a pattern of providing false or misleading citations is still fair game for calling out). It doesn't expose the citer to committing a new fallacy. It guards them from certain types of counterargument.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 19, 2023, 02:17:09 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2023, 01:47:57 PM
Well, we'll probably wind up talking past each other, then; I have very little familiarity with the old versions of the game. And if anything, that kinda reinforces my point because it shows a trend of a game with almost no visible gameplay loop being iterated into one, so improving the game required adding a gameplay loop.

The funny thing though is that Vampire 5e split the fanbase as badly as 4E did to D&D. The primary complaint is that the introduced "game play loop" for 5e was just one of many ways it was played ("Vampions" being one of the most notable alternatives) and V5 basically made all those other styles utterly untenable (while crapping on the previously established lore). It's altered mechanics also made it virtually impossible to function in mortal society like some sort vampiric mastermind... consigning players to essentially the hunted outcast school of play.

As such a large portion of V5's fanbase is just like D&D 5e's base... players who've never played the prior editions to have any experience with them.

I, for one, have zero interest in V5, particularly not until they actually add rules for Dhampirs. They were the only part of VtM I was ever all that interested in... in large part because in exchange for losing most of their vampiric oomph (excepting their capacity to take a supernatural beating like few things short of methuselahs*) was also losing the degeneration loop... such as it was... and instead having either the "surviving as the hunted" or the "maintain your cover lest you become hunted" gameplay loops.

*which can become even more exceptional with a couple of merits available to living beings... spark of life, fist of god and toxic blood made for an excellent vampire hunter.

Some are worse than others, but it's rare that a new edition doesn't trigger some kind of an edition-war. Again, it's largely because publishers push new editions for business reasons more often than they actually improve the game.

I can kinda understand the rationale behind some of the funny design choices. The designer wanted a narrative-first play, but provided a ton of crunchy rules, which you could say causes ludonarrative dissonance, but I think it's more accurate to say it gives the game a Jekyll and Hyde duality, which kinda fits the setting. I seriously doubt that was intended; if that duality is a good thing, it's the product of luck.

Quote from: Lunamancer on June 19, 2023, 03:56:10 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 05, 2023, 11:15:33 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 04, 2023, 09:26:38 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 03, 2023, 11:33:54 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 03, 2023, 09:46:27 PM
This combination leads me to my opinion that if you want to learn to make a good roleplaying game, you at least need to know about video game design and interpolate towards the tabletop game.

And your opinion is incorrect (which is what everyone here is trying to tell you).  There's a difference between the specifics of TTRPGs compared to video games (starting with the capabilities of the referee compared to the limitations of programming, and extending to the role of the players' imaginations in each).  Cats and cows are both mammals, but studying a cow's digestive system isn't going to make you competent to treat a cat.  TTRPGs and video games are both games, but the specific context, interface, and goals of each create different requirements in each medium.  Not totally divorced, but very different in some aspects.

The fact that EVERYONE else here sees this and you don't is NOT a sign of your superior "discernment."  As the old saying goes: When one person treats you like an asshole, he is probably the asshole.  When EVERYONE treats you like an asshole... you're the asshole.

Oh, look, another bandwagon fallacy. Why am I not surprised.

I find this forum's infatuation with the bandwagon fallacy to be absolutely bizarre. The exact same argument you are making right now could be applied to RPG Pundit's own work; why would I play Lion and Dragon when 5E is far more popular and that clearly makes it better, right? And why would I watch RPG Pundit's videos when Critical Role is far more popular, and clearly that makes it better, right? You want me to be concerned about "being an asshole?" Pundit's catch-line is literally, "the final boss in internet shitlords." Practically everything about this community falls apart if you appeal to the bandwagon.

Now, clearly you're going to come up with other explanations about why I should play a less popular OSR game compared to D&D. My point is not that those reasons do not exist. Quite the contrary: because those reasons exist, the bandwagon is--and always was--irrelevant.

Bandwagon fallacy?  Because I point out that everyone else disagrees with you (so you might want to figure out why)?  That's not what that means.  You are clearly are using terms that you don't fully understand.  Apparently you've decided to educate everyone here on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, too, with yourself as the example...

I've got to second you on this.


The nature of a logical fallacy is that the underlying argument is invalid (which is technical term, not a claim that anyone's point of view is invalid), and it typically involves irrelevant information.

The bandwagon fallacy involves introducing popularity as an irrelevant piece of information to conclude something that has no connection to popularity.

However, it is important to note, if people go out and buy a product, the act of that purchase is, what we sometimes call in economics, "demonstrated preference." That is, it's an observable empirical fact that implies something about value preference at the point of exchange. If a lot of people do that, then it speaks to value preference on a larger scale.

To the uninitiated, it may seem like this is raising an appeal to popularity. But if it is specifically being raised to conclude something about rank-ordering demonstrated value preference or a group, then "popularity" is not irrelevant information, and it is not an invalid argument. It's not a bandwagon fallacy. It's not any kind of fallacy. it's spot on relevant.


Another mis-attributed fallacy I often see (not here necessarily but in general) is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem doesn't mean personal attack. As a logical fallacy, again, it deals with injecting irrelevant information in presenting invalid arguments. If what we're talking about is good RPG design, accusing an adversary in debate of being a wife beater is an ad hominem. But questioning their honesty or integrity, or even just their qualifications, while that may be considered a personal attack on their character, is actually germane to an argument if that person is presenting facts without citations.

And it's worth pointing out, since this HAS come up, that facts WITH citations does not mean an appeal to authority is taking place. It just means the honesty or integrity or qualifications of the person providing citations is no longer germane with regards to the content of those citations (although a pattern of providing false or misleading citations is still fair game for calling out). It doesn't expose the citer to committing a new fallacy. It guards them from certain types of counterargument.

Seconding who for what? That I was mis-applying the fallacies?

About the appeal to authority; estar made an exemplary claim to experience (a variation of authority)...and then proceeded to follow that up with an opinion which made some strange logical gaffes for someone with that background and did not constructively utilize that experience at all. An appeal to authority can strengthen a positive case which already stands on other evidence, but it does not support a negative case well because negative cases are very hard to make.

As to bandwagoning: Good. But surely the popularity is not itself the important part; now you need to go one step further and explain why something is more popular. Before you do that the bandwagon is irrelevant. In fact, after you do that, the bandwagon again becomes irrelevant. So, minus the observation of preference--which is a path to explaining something deeper--the bandwagon is just plain irrelevant.

I would argue that preference differences are attributable to WotC spending seven figures annually on marketing and most other TTRPG studios maybe spend a hundredth of that. So take differences in popularity with a grain of salt.

And for ad hominems...if Pundit wants to do something he can, but I view them as inconsequential and immaterial.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 23, 2023, 06:33:54 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on May 23, 2023, 07:59:09 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 23, 2023, 07:54:53 AM
The ones who like marble fudge, obviously.

Then why are you always complaining about the people at Nu-WotC? They love fudge.

I complain because WotC has lost the ability to mix it with the vanilla.

If wotc tried to breathe oxygen I am sure they'd figure out some way to fail that too.

Quote from: Itachi on June 18, 2023, 09:48:19 PM
I think this is one point where the Forge crowd was spot on. Vampire is superb in aesthetics and mood... but it's all over the place in actual play.

I don't see what so confused about it. It describes a world where vampire (and other monsters) are real and has a culture of their own. If it is interesting to a group, then they can make vampires and roleplay accordingly.  Like any group of sentient beings, there are lot of things that could be happening.

The two most popular things to focus on in my experience are the group trying to advance themselves through the vampiric social hierarchy or playing kewl monsters with superheroes kicking the shit out of things.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2023, 06:05:11 PM
About the appeal to authority; estar made an exemplary claim to experience (a variation of authority)...and then proceeded to follow that up with an opinion which made some strange logical gaffes for someone with that background and did not constructively utilize that experience at all.

Because you have failed to understand my approach to RPGS despite my attempts to explain it in different way.

In a nutshell, my group and I don't play a game, we participate in a roleplaying campaign. The focus of which is pretending to be characters within a setting that I create like the Majestic Wilderlands. I use a game like D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, etc. as an aide to make running the campaign easier. Having a system helps for the reason I outlined earlier in this thread.

There is no core gameplay loop in my campaigns, instead I describe a setting. The players describe their characters using that information. I then describe the initial circumstances in which they find themselves. Throughout the campaign, we loop through the players describing or roleplaying what they do as their characters and myself describing the circumstances they keep finding themselves in or roleplaying the NPCs they interact with.

My focus is on presenting a world alive enough that the players feel like their characters are living their lives and having interesting adventures. I have developed techniques over the years that allow me to handle anything that their character could do within the setting.

If they decide at the last minute to jump their starship to Efate instead of Regina, journey to Rhosgobel instead of Laketown, or decide to stop at the Naughty Nannies in City-State instead of proceeding to the Seahawk Tavern, I have them covered. Or the one time in one of my MW campaigns, the entire session was focused on the party helping a drunk peasant and his family that resulted from a random encounter I rolled for one player while he was in the village to buy supplies.

A group could focus on using D&D, VtM, GURPS, etc as a game and focus one whatever core gameplay loops they have in the mechanics, like dungeon exploration, for D&D. In my opinion, they would be missing the point and benefit of running an RPG campaign. However there are a lot of factors that go into how a group does things and if they find doing that fun, then more power to them.

You from your numerous posts so far clearly want the system mechanics to spell out the choices you have while roleplaying a character. You would have trouble in my campaign because when I use a system, I ignore what I consider bullshit about gameplay loops. When I make my own system like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, focus on describing how the different elements fit within a setting that the reader could create. The mechanics I use are the ones that focus on answering the question "When a character does X, what could happen?"

In my campaign, you will have to what you know of the setting I described, and your character's description background, to describe what it is you will be doing, and what NPCs (or PCs) to interact with. You will know how strong your character is, how smart they are, and what skills and abilities they have. What you do with that will be entirely up to you while playing in my campaign.

The only metagame consideration is that we will be playing as part of a group of other players. As a result, I only can pay so much attention to a single player during a session.

Until you get the above, you will continue to fail to understand what I am talking about. Including the comment I just made about the point of VtM 1e is to roleplay vampires who live within the WoD setting.

Quote from: estar on June 20, 2023, 10:41:45 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2023, 06:05:11 PM
About the appeal to authority; estar made an exemplary claim to experience (a variation of authority)...and then proceeded to follow that up with an opinion which made some strange logical gaffes for someone with that background and did not constructively utilize that experience at all.

Because you have failed to understand my approach to RPGS despite my attempts to explain it in different way.

In a nutshell, my group and I don't play a game, we participate in a roleplaying campaign. The focus of which is pretending to be characters within a setting that I create like the Majestic Wilderlands. I use a game like D&D, GURPS, Harnmaster, etc. as an aide to make running the campaign easier. Having a system helps for the reason I outlined earlier in this thread.

There is no core gameplay loop in my campaigns, instead I describe a setting. The players describe their characters using that information. I then describe the initial circumstances in which they find themselves. Throughout the campaign, we loop through the players describing or roleplaying what they do as their characters and myself describing the circumstances they keep finding themselves in or roleplaying the NPCs they interact with.

My focus is on presenting a world alive enough that the players feel like their characters are living their lives and having interesting adventures. I have developed techniques over the years that allow me to handle anything that their character could do within the setting.

If they decide at the last minute to jump their starship to Efate instead of Regina, journey to Rhosgobel instead of Laketown, or decide to stop at the Naughty Nannies in City-State instead of proceeding to the Seahawk Tavern, I have them covered. Or the one time in one of my MW campaigns, the entire session was focused on the party helping a drunk peasant and his family that resulted from a random encounter I rolled for one player while he was in the village to buy supplies.

A group could focus on using D&D, VtM, GURPS, etc as a game and focus one whatever core gameplay loops they have in the mechanics, like dungeon exploration, for D&D. In my opinion, they would be missing the point and benefit of running an RPG campaign. However there are a lot of factors that go into how a group does things and if they find doing that fun, then more power to them.

You from your numerous posts so far clearly want the system mechanics to spell out the choices you have while roleplaying a character. You would have trouble in my campaign because when I use a system, I ignore what I consider bullshit about gameplay loops. When I make my own system like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, focus on describing how the different elements fit within a setting that the reader could create. The mechanics I use are the ones that focus on answering the question "When a character does X, what could happen?"

In my campaign, you will have to what you know of the setting I described, and your character's description background, to describe what it is you will be doing, and what NPCs (or PCs) to interact with. You will know how strong your character is, how smart they are, and what skills and abilities they have. What you do with that will be entirely up to you while playing in my campaign.

The only metagame consideration is that we will be playing as part of a group of other players. As a result, I only can pay so much attention to a single player during a session.

Until you get the above, you will continue to fail to understand what I am talking about. Including the comment I just made about the point of VtM 1e is to roleplay vampires who live within the WoD setting.

No, I understand your perspective perfectly clearly; I just think that your approach is a "your table and tables like it" thing, and you are probably phrasing it more strongly than necessary. It's not wrong, but it also isn't a universal good. Also, I kinda doubt your games have no gameplay loops in them; with any significant amount of gaming experience, you probably unconsciously copy gameplay loops, even if you don't stick to one particular loop long enough that it becomes obvious. Gameplay loops might not be absolutely universal, but they are a common and potentially subtle enough structure that a complete absence would probably feel off to most players. However, I can't prove that statement without access to something like campaign notes. And even then I doubt you'd agree with my assessment. I get a strong implication that you want your games to not have gameplay loops. I guess because you're afraid that if you see them in your game, they are static entities will compel you to do something you might feel doesn't feel organic to the campaign.

I view gameplay loops as integral to creating game and genre feel. If you know about them, you can make intelligent decisions about deviating from them or altering them to change the genre feel of the campaign as it progresses. You say you don't have gameplay loops; what I hear is that you rely on your GMing experience to tell you what to do next, and you are confusing things like having multiple gameplay loops, hot-swapping them, or modifying a gameplay loop as the players play through one with not having them at all.

All those are really cool advanced GMing tricks, by the way. And the reason I think people should discuss gameplay loops isn't that you can't learn these tricks through experience alone, but that the best way for an experienced GM to teach them to a beginner is to start with a dash of general principles and abstract theory.

Of course, feedback loops are are a different matter. Feedback loops are by definition taking one game subsystem's output and using as an input for another. I can see you unconsciously sneaking a gameplay loop into your game for a session or two, but interlinking subsystems isn't the kind of thing you do accidentally.

QuoteYou from your numerous posts so far clearly want the system mechanics to spell out the choices you have while roleplaying a character. You would have trouble in my campaign because when I use a system, I ignore what I consider bullshit about gameplay loops. When I make my own system like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, focus on describing how the different elements fit within a setting that the reader could create. The mechanics I use are the ones that focus on answering the question "When a character does X, what could happen?"

I find this a very weird, caricature-based criticism. About a year ago I posted a prototype core mechanic here which can cook an egg a dozen different ways. (https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/custom-core-mechanic-feedback/)

Game rules are like a skeleton. Sure, when you want to eat meat, you probably are going to cut it off the bone (or gnaw it off...don't judge me) but good luck walking without a pelvis.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
No, I understand your perspective perfectly clearly; I just think that your approach is a "your table and tables like it" thing, and you are probably phrasing it more strongly than necessary. It's not wrong, but it also isn't a universal good.

There is no such thing as a universal good when it comes to RPG campaigns. Campaigns that focus on playing individual characters have adventures. People who think like you do are mistaken. The reality about what is focused on. If you want the campaign to be about collaborating on creating a narrative then there are some techniques that will help and other that are irrelevant. The same if you want the campaign to be a deep exploration of character development. Or a campaign that is more a beer and pretzel lark centered around dungeon exploration or tramp merchants getting into trouble along the star lanes.

My focus happens to be on players making their way as their characters and trashing my setting.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
Also, I kinda doubt your games have no gameplay loops in them; with any significant amount of gaming experience, you probably unconsciously copy gameplay loops, even if you don't stick to one particular loop long enough that it becomes obvious. 

So I am brain damaged to the point where I can't reflect on my campaigns and give an accurate account of what happened and why? Nice of you to warn me. Also hint, you should do a search on this forum of my posts, the blogs, and the youtube videos I participated in.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PMGameplay loops might not be absolutely universal, but they are a common and potentially subtle enough structure that a complete absence would probably feel off to most players.

Hasn't been my experience for four decades.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
However, I can't prove that statement without access to something like campaign notes.

Oh like these notes
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/

Or these
https://gamingballistic.com/category/actual-play/majestic-wilderlands/

Or how about these videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4rj5YsBqc8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyGnlKadO4&t=2s

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
And even then I doubt you'd agree with my assessment. I get a strong implication that you want your games to not have gameplay loops. I guess because you're afraid that if you see them in your game, they are static entities will compel you to do something you might feel doesn't feel organic to the campaign.

So this is an expert opinion then?

As for what I do, my technique is straightforward, I imagine the circumstances as if I wasn't standing there witnessing what just happen. Think of the possibilities and make a judgment call as to how to describe what happens next. Sometime I will just the result of a procedure or dice roll to help me in this.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
I view gameplay loops as integral to creating game and genre feel. If you know about them, you can make intelligent decisions about deviating from them or altering them to change the genre feel of the campaign as it progresses. You say you don't have gameplay loops; what I hear is that you rely on your GMing experience to tell you what to do next, and you are confusing things like having multiple gameplay loops, hot-swapping them, or modifying a gameplay loop as the players play through one with not having them at all.

I seem to be able to muddle through just quite fine when it comes to a setting with a specific feel like Middle Earth.
https://bedrockgames.podbean.com/e/rpg-lab-adventures-in-middle-earth/

One thing about my techniques is that you have to know how characters act in a given setting or genre. None of the details matter unless it impacts how a character is roleplayed. Part of what allows me to run certain settings and certain genres well is understanding how characters inhabiting that setting behave under various circumstances. When player interacts with those characters it feel authentic to how Middle Earth works. How life was lived in medieval times if I am running Ars Magica or Harn. How things work in the world of superheroes or life in the far future as imagined in the golden age of science fiction.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
All those are really cool advanced GMing tricks, by the way. And the reason I think people should discuss gameplay loops isn't that you can't learn these tricks through experience alone, but that the best way for an experienced GM to teach them to a beginner is to start with a dash of general principles and abstract theory.

While mechanics can serve as a shorthand for how a setting works. I have found the best way to get novices up to speed referees is too start them off with a constrained setting like a village, a small wilderness, and dungeon. A starship shuttling cargo around a small cluster of worlds. Constrained so that the choices are not overwhelming and the situation for the players is straightforward to deal with. Then branch out from there.

From the get-go, like with my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I would encourage them to think of the possibilities. Consider how NPCs would go about their lives as the player's adventure. Stress that while a game is being used to help run the campaign, it is not point of playing a RPG campaign. Rather the point is to focus on the characters living their lives within the setting while having adventures. That you don't have to deal with every detail to make this happen in an interesting and fun way. Within the time one has for a hobby.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM
Of course, feedback loops are are a different matter. Feedback loops are by definition taking one game subsystem's output and using as an input for another. I can see you unconsciously sneaking a gameplay loop into your game for a session or two, but interlinking subsystems isn't the kind of thing you do accidentally.

Mechanics in my campaign are there to do one of two things. To describe an element of my setting tersely like a spell or a monster or an object. Second to determine the consequences of what happens when a character does something like strike an opponent with a sword. Craft an item, or fast talk a guard out of an arrest.

And I already linked to this which goes into detail on how I do this specifically when it comes to classic D&D.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf

Quote from: Fheredin on June 20, 2023, 07:26:37 PM

QuoteYou from your numerous posts so far clearly want the system mechanics to spell out the choices you have while roleplaying a character. You would have trouble in my campaign because when I use a system, I ignore what I consider bullshit about gameplay loops. When I make my own system like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, focus on describing how the different elements fit within a setting that the reader could create. The mechanics I use are the ones that focus on answering the question "When a character does X, what could happen?"

I find this a very weird, caricature-based criticism. About a year ago I posted a prototype core mechanic here which can cook an egg a dozen different ways. (https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/custom-core-mechanic-feedback/)

Game rules are like a skeleton. Sure, when you want to eat meat, you probably are going to cut it off the bone (or gnaw it off...don't judge me) but good luck walking without a pelvis.

A character say they want to cook an egg. If they have a cooking skill/talent/ability even at beginner level then if they have the time, the resources like a cooking fire, utensils, and eggs then they cook the egg. It is only when resources are limited, there is a consequence to failure, or time is limited that things become uncertain, thus a roll is needed.

When the odds are uncertain then a probability of success needs to be determined.

Your core mechanic does nothing to help this process. It is just a particular way of rating relevant abilities and skills and assigning particular odds. At the end of it all is a determination that when success is uncertain, the character has X% of succeeding and that certain abilities may boost this chance of success.

Sorry to deflate your work but this is the wrong kind of thing that RPG authors focus on all the damn time. When it came to the Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG, I outlined common situations that have come up in my campaign. Explained when the odds are uncertain. Then explained how to determine the odds for each situation.

And throughout I paint the picture of the context of why these situations occur and why. Mostly by infusing my rulebook with a sense of a specific time and place.  Along with explaining how to adapt this to other campaigns using a different fantasy setting.

The above posts only prove my point about distinct gaming cultures within the hobby.

And the reason why any "universal" principles and practices are prone to fail.