Quote from: Itachi on June 21, 2023, 12:28:36 PM
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.

I agree. I realize this will sound like an oxymoron considering your statement. But the "best practice" is to state what you are trying to accomplish in a RPG campaign, why are you are trying to do this, how did it work out, and what didn't work. Then let the reader sort out whether it is applicable to them. Acknowledge that it is something you specifically did and leave it at that.

Hardcoding one identifiable game loop (or any set of them) as a system mechanic is sort of like supergluing your underwear on in the morning before work everyday.

For running a game, loops can provide new GMs a reference or guide starting out, as long as a basic sense of a contiguous set of actions towards a plausible conclusion is maintained; at least as far as what's relevant for regular play, it's because of this basic principle (i.e. rising action to a climax) that you can identify any loops at all, which is why it's astute to understand their presence but far from genius to ensure that you never let them deviate from a predefined order of sequence. Recursion through other proscribed micro-loops doesn't detract from this issue, since they will all also be individually hardcoded. It's this celebration of "game loops as mechanic" which vindicates the understanding of an effective game system as a harmonious collection of rules and guidelines elements, and not merely by enhancing piecemeal elements of the meta-social inevitabilities of roleplay in practice and calling that a game not-system.

Hypothetically, if a system has both a dungeon crawl loop and a tavern carousing loop written into the system, how likely is it that GMs will intuit that a dungeon crawl loop can be made from the tavern carousing loop through approximation? How likely is that going to happen at the rate of RAW and RAI being balanced against the Rule of Cool as appreciated by most players, let alone the dwindling GMs? For that design philosophy, will you need a separate loop for adventures in dungeons, adventures in taverns, downtime in either, and both adventures and downtime loops for whenever the characters could be found in: ships, stations, stables, schools, active monasteries, monastery ruins, town markets, town squares, town ports, wilderness roads, wilderness lookouts, fortresses, barracks, churches, cathedrals, chapels, altars, shrines...

The internalized character loops could incorporate elements of that character's background personality, but in a manner defying the player's ability to break that loop in the interests of that character understanding an unfamiliar or exotic point of view. This could require loops for all 16 psychological personality types as they might be understood for just the human race within a specific fantastical setting, well before digging into mythological archetypes for even more macro and micro-loop combinations for these humans considered by themselves, and before every other playable race is described thereafter.

In the case of VtM you could write an honour loop for every clan by priority of interaction, like character external interactions with the clan of membership, internal interactions reflecting on the external reactions with the clan of membership, then external and internal character reactions interacting with another clan for which membership is not held, then interactions considered between your vampire, any nearby clans, clans in correspondence, and non-vampires present or absent all interacting with each other and themselves simultaneously, and this for all clans published within the core system and then all optional clans published in subsequent supplements in addition to the loops most favourable to individual character backgrounds. Don't forget the loops needed for interacting and reflecting on interactions with the domains of prominent individuals of all these factions.

Results: the need to field tons of customer service questions about clan interactivity loops compared to internal interactivity loops etc. etc. etc. in addition to questions about how bonuses stack, or don't, across multiple core magic systems, which altogether and with misc. is more work than anyone wants to do in a day. But then you could have the illusion of variety, since all this looping around means you never have to come up with a direct rationale for your character with personal creativity as a player, with a sort of "one-off loop" tailor made for the adventuring task at hand. Some people may have the self-restraint to publish only the loops that are needed for a given adventure scenario, and that's great at keeping down the third party loops bloat, providing you only ever write a handful of scenarios at once for the sake of the fabled "short-term and one-off campaigns" and ban third party adventure writing.

Quote from: estar on June 20, 2023, 09:37:48 PM

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.

So, I'm wrong, but if you rephrase what I said to be the exact same ideas, but you're the one saying them, it suddenly becomes right?

...Sure.

QuoteOh 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

Fifth edition. You're giving me grief over talking gameplay loops and you're using fifth edition--a game intentionally loaded with them--as a base?

Let me be perfectly clear; my problem is not that 5E is a bad game. I think it's overrated for it's market position and it IS a bad game to introduce new players to roleplaying games with. My problem is that criticisms like this:

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.

ring hollow when the vanilla base system of the game you are using gives players feats and spellcasters often have spellbooks in the 5-10 page range which do exactly that. Your words say that you don't like gameplay loops, to the point you have an almost irrational negative reaction to them. But your actual choice of system says this is all grandstanding and you don't particularly care. Not only does D&D specifically enumerate player options, but it has gameplay loops built in and assumes that you play through them. Whether it's tightly or loosely is the GM's interpretation.

Personally, I don't mind when games give me lists of options provided the GM and I have an understanding that I may try to provide options outside that list. The game starts with the book; it isn't the end. This is also why I don't mind gameplay loops; freedom to deviate is part of the GM's Discretion within the RPG social contract.

But at its heart, I think the problem here is that you don't appreciate game mechanics. Players and player characters are not the same, of course, but there is a connection. The player character is an extension of the player's ego into the game world, so if you pinch the player, the player character winces. There's an emotional resonance which passes through the game's fourth wall. When it's player character to player, we call the resonance roleplay. When it's player to player character, we call it game mechanics.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
ring hollow when the vanilla base system of the game you are using gives players feats and spellcasters often have spellbooks in the 5-10 page range which do exactly that.

Could you explain what feats and spells have to do with 'gameplay loops'? 

Quote from: S'mon on June 23, 2023, 01:52:51 AM
Could you explain what feats and spells have to do with 'gameplay loops'?

I'm unsure what it has to do with gameplay loops either. I think there's some disconnect here in terminology, because I don't consider 5e a game packed with loops. You could describe these as gameplay loops:

• GM presents situation -> players ask questions or declare actions -> GM answers or narrates the reaction of the world
• Go to dungeon -> delve -> grab the loot -> get back to town safely -> fritter it away -> rinse and repeat, leveling as you go
• roll initiative -> each player takes a turn in combat performing their actions -> GM ends combat
• Every 20 minutes in the dungeon, roll 1d6. On a 6, a random encounter happens. every 60 minutes, 10 minutes must be spent resting. most actions (moving, searching) require 10 minutes each.

5e only really has items 1-3, and the dungeon-delve style of #2 is fairly heavily de-emphasized at this point in favor of epic heroic quests. So that leaves loops #1 and #3, but we see these loops in nearly all RPGs (there are exceptions, of course). 5e is a game with a fairly anemic structure overall. Notably, only the combat procedure and the exploration procedure for dungeon turns provide actual firm structure to play. Everything else is very loose and subject to change on a whim.

To get on my soapbox briefly - structure and gameplay loops are good for an RPG. TSR editions of D&D had more structure around things like Exploration and that's why exploration in OSR-style games tends to be so fun in contrast to WotC editions. The dungeon turn is what makes the "strict time records" advice from Gygax make sense. The dungeon turn paired with random encounters provides time pressure, which creates resource pressure, which introduce constraints, which makes player decisions much more interesting and impactful.

You'll notice that all WotC editions have basically adopted a requirement in good adventure design that you need to introduce a time pressure on the quest itself. That's because WotC editions eliminated the dungeon turn and so time and thus resources are now fairly meaningless. Exploration has no structure other than what the GM makes up, so it feels unsatisfying. Consider the early Braunstein games with I believe Arneson and some other folks (forgot their names). The Braunstein was essentially an interesting situation mediated almost entirely by the Judge and roleplaying. The initial games quickly went off the rails and fell apart (described contemporarily by the referee as a "failure" of an experiment). The reason was because the essence of the game was roleplaying and social interactions, and there was no actual structure to how players were supposed to interact with each other or with the referee. People teleported from place to place, people overheard conversations they perhaps should not have, and they brokered deals in a way that sort of dilated time. I'm actually curious to know how the referee of the Braunstein eventually managed the chaos (or IF they even did vs. just embracing it).

Too much structure in the form of gameplay loops and mechanics and you have a board game. On the opposite extreme you still have an RPG, but it's more like a Braunstein/Free Kriegspiel thing which essentially requires a referee to make sense of anything. I'd wager, though, that the pro GMs that are accustomed to those styles of play probably have procedures and mechanisms they use to manage the chaos, even if it's just kept in their head rather than codified and written down on paper. Message passing? Passage of time? Managing the locations and travel of characters at different times in the fictional world? Those all seem like things that require some form of procedure (and makes it even clearer why/how something like 1:1 time is useful).

Full transparency: I've never played in a 1:1 time game or a Braunstein game, but I've done a fair bit of reading and listening to people who do/have played in these formats. I do play with strict time structures and formal exploration procedures and they work very very well compared to freeform GM-adjudicated exploration in my experience.

"Gaming Loops" *sigh* The core problem is when they started calling video games "RPGs".

The video game hasn't been invented that's a roleplaying game. What is "Roleplaying"? Gygax knew:

QuoteWhatever path you select for your PC to follow, you must then begin thinking like that persona. Whether the game is patterned after a real or an imaginary activity, you need to make your mind-set such that you can role-play your character realistically within the game milieu. If you are to be an interstellar explorer, don't think in terms of becoming rich through trade and commerce. Piety becomes a cleric, caution and alertness a spy or a thief. You should be bold and aggressive as a knight, while as a worker of magic, you will tend toward reclusiveness and mystery. The rules and spirit of the game tell you what you can and cannot do in general and somewhat concrete terms, but it is very much up to the individual to take on the role of the PC and play it well ... Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing. When you have a trait or a tendency your PC does not possess, do your best to keep that aspect of your personal makeup from surfacing during play

You cannot roleplay a character with video games. Thus, they are NOT RPGs. Period.

Next: this Forge trash. Ron Edwards is/was the leader of the dumpsterfire known as The Forge. He gave them their theories and Ron was a piece of shit who hated people who played D&D. How do I know this? Because dear old Ron told me how he felt about us:

Quote"The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been harmed."

Now for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage)

When people bring up The Forge or Edwards, I just hear/see "NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!"

Edwards and The Forge have done nothing to uplift the TTRPG hobby, to include the highly-praised works of Vincent and Meguey Baker. The Bakers took the mechanical containers of "Race" and "Class" from D&D, renamed them "Playbooks" and turned "What do you do next" into a codified system of "Moves". Nothing spectacular. Just D&D, rehashed, like so many OSR games. The Forge knows дерьмо about Game Theory and I can prove it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 06:05:13 AM
"Gaming Loops" *sigh* The core problem is when they started calling video games "RPGs".

The video game hasn't been invented that's a roleplaying game. What is "Roleplaying"? Gygax knew:

QuoteWhatever path you select for your PC to follow, you must then begin thinking like that persona. Whether the game is patterned after a real or an imaginary activity, you need to make your mind-set such that you can role-play your character realistically within the game milieu. If you are to be an interstellar explorer, don't think in terms of becoming rich through trade and commerce. Piety becomes a cleric, caution and alertness a spy or a thief. You should be bold and aggressive as a knight, while as a worker of magic, you will tend toward reclusiveness and mystery. The rules and spirit of the game tell you what you can and cannot do in general and somewhat concrete terms, but it is very much up to the individual to take on the role of the PC and play it well ... Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing. When you have a trait or a tendency your PC does not possess, do your best to keep that aspect of your personal makeup from surfacing during play

And here's how we know Gary did not know WTF he was talking about. Cuz as was already established in another thread, you simply cannot mention the word "realism" (or its derivatives, "real", "realistic", etc.) in the context of RPGs, cuz...

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 03:27:17 PMThere is NO REALISM in rpgs...

...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.

...No matter how hard you try you can never simulate reality in a RPG. Talking about "realism" is just crazy talk. 

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
Fifth edition. You're giving me grief over talking gameplay loops and you're using fifth edition--a game intentionally loaded with them--as a base?

You didn't bother to watch the videos or read my blog.

Quotehttps://batintheattic.blogspot.com/

Or you would realize that  I play a lot more games than 5e and that 5th edition isn't the game I used the most often. Moreso only one of the example I supplied was about D&D 5e.

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

That this was ran with my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

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

That this was run using Shadowdark

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
ring hollow when the vanilla base system of the game you are using gives players feats and spellcasters often have spellbooks in the 5-10 page range which do exactly that.

I don't use feats when I use 5e rules for my campaigns. As for the number of possible spells, I fail to see how that is relevant.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PMBut your actual choice of system says this is all grandstanding and you don't particularly care.

Not only does D&D specifically enumerate player options, but it has gameplay loops built-in and assumes that you play through them. Whether it's tightly or loosely is the GM's interpretation.

From How to Play in the 5e PHB

Quote1. The DM describes the environment
(snip)
2. The players describe what they want to do
(snip)
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
(snip)

From the 5e DMG from the Master of the Rule in the introduction.

QuoteThe rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

Any analysis of D&D 5e must take these into account. Including the fact that these two sections come first prior to any section about specific mechanics. And that both sections clearly intended to convey important concepts that are to be applied first. If they are ignored then it is on the reader, not the game authors.

Next, you should be able to supply examples of when where gameplay loops appear in Deceits of the Russet Lord, The Shadowdark adventure, or in Douglas Cole's account of his experience in my Majestic Wilderlands.

Or explain why Douglas Cole's early posts were mostly about what he calls politics in a 5e campaign.
https://gamingballistic.com/2015/02/03/majestic-wilderlands-d-first-game/

https://gamingballistic.com/2015/02/03/relationship-mapping-and-complicated/

https://gamingballistic.com/2015/02/10/majestic-wilderlands-2/

Likewise, you should be able to supply specific examples from your own experiences.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
Personally, I don't mind when games give me lists of options provided the GM and I have an understanding that I may try to provide options outside that list. The game starts with the book; it isn't the end. This is also why I don't mind gameplay loops; freedom to deviate is part of the GM's Discretion within the RPG social contract.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
But at its heart, I think the problem here is that you don't appreciate game mechanics.

Right it is not like I haven't written core rulebooks and rules supplements that were at least gold sellers on DriveThruRPG and considered for industry awards. Oh snap I think did.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
Players and player characters are not the same, of course, but there is a connection. The player character is an extension of the player's ego into the game world, so if you pinch the player, the player character winces. There's an emotional resonance that passes through the game's fourth wall. When it's player character to player, we call the resonance roleplay. When it's player to player character, we call it game mechanics.

It is simpler in my campaign, "What would you like to do as your character in the setting?"

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 23, 2023, 07:40:50 AM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 06:05:13 AM
"Gaming Loops" *sigh* The core problem is when they started calling video games "RPGs".

The video game hasn't been invented that's a roleplaying game. What is "Roleplaying"? Gygax knew:

QuoteWhatever path you select for your PC to follow, you must then begin thinking like that persona. Whether the game is patterned after a real or an imaginary activity, you need to make your mind-set such that you can role-play your character realistically within the game milieu. If you are to be an interstellar explorer, don't think in terms of becoming rich through trade and commerce. Piety becomes a cleric, caution and alertness a spy or a thief. You should be bold and aggressive as a knight, while as a worker of magic, you will tend toward reclusiveness and mystery. The rules and spirit of the game tell you what you can and cannot do in general and somewhat concrete terms, but it is very much up to the individual to take on the role of the PC and play it well ... Make sure that your actions, decisions, and behavior as a player are faithful to the role of the PC you are representing. When you have a trait or a tendency your PC does not possess, do your best to keep that aspect of your personal makeup from surfacing during play

And here's how we know Gary did not know WTF he was talking about. Cuz as was already established in another thread, you simply cannot mention the word "realism" (or its derivatives, "real", "realistic", etc.) in the context of RPGs, cuz...

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 17, 2023, 03:27:17 PMThere is NO REALISM in rpgs...

...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.

...No matter how hard you try you can never simulate reality in a RPG. Talking about "realism" is just crazy talk. 

I fixed that quote for ya making sure you noted "within the gaming milieu". That means "pretending to be a fighter in a fantasy world". Taking quotes out of context is such cornball 

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 01:37:21 PM
I fixed that quote for ya making sure you noted "within the gaming milieu". That means "pretending to be a fighter in a fantasy world". Taking quotes out of context is such cornball 

>"within the gaming milieu"

You mean like 100% everyone who ever brings up the concept of "realism" while discussing games?

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 23, 2023, 02:31:23 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 01:37:21 PM
I fixed that quote for ya making sure you noted "within the gaming milieu". That means "pretending to be a fighter in a fantasy world". Taking quotes out of context is such cornball 

>"within the gaming milieu"

You mean like 100% everyone who ever brings up the concept of "realism" while discussing games?

Just keep repeating yourself with a more and more self-satisfied tone, I'm sure that will convince the people that disagree with you, that you're very clever.

Your "lol how can a game have realism?" schtick is incredibly narrow and pedantic. Plenty of games have simulated realism, or genre realism.

Quote from: Grognard GM on June 23, 2023, 02:47:06 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 23, 2023, 02:31:23 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 01:37:21 PM
I fixed that quote for ya making sure you noted "within the gaming milieu". That means "pretending to be a fighter in a fantasy world". Taking quotes out of context is such cornball 

>"within the gaming milieu"

You mean like 100% everyone who ever brings up the concept of "realism" while discussing games?

Just keep repeating yourself with a more and more self-satisfied tone, I'm sure that will convince the people that disagree with you, that you're very clever.

Your "lol how can a game have realism?" schtick is incredibly narrow and pedantic. Plenty of games have simulated realism, or genre realism.

Yeah, pretty much all of that's what I kept trying to tell Theory of Games in that other thread where this side topic originally came up. But he kept insisting that you couldn't bring up "realism" in elfgames, yet brings up a Gygax quote mentioning it now.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 23, 2023, 03:18:44 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on June 23, 2023, 02:47:06 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 23, 2023, 02:31:23 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 01:37:21 PM
I fixed that quote for ya making sure you noted "within the gaming milieu". That means "pretending to be a fighter in a fantasy world". Taking quotes out of context is such cornball 

>"within the gaming milieu"

You mean like 100% everyone who ever brings up the concept of "realism" while discussing games?

Just keep repeating yourself with a more and more self-satisfied tone, I'm sure that will convince the people that disagree with you, that you're very clever.

Your "lol how can a game have realism?" schtick is incredibly narrow and pedantic. Plenty of games have simulated realism, or genre realism.

Yeah, pretty much all of that's what I kept trying to tell Theory of Games in that other thread where this side topic originally came up. But he kept insisting that you couldn't bring up "realism" in elfgames, yet brings up a Gygax quote mentioning it now.

I meant REALISM as in "I want a game that feels like real martial arts!" That don't exist. But, elves is real in their lil fantasy world. VisionStorm, stop being so fkn wrong all the time!

Quote from: S'mon on June 23, 2023, 01:52:51 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 22, 2023, 10:23:44 PM
ring hollow when the vanilla base system of the game you are using gives players feats and spellcasters often have spellbooks in the 5-10 page range which do exactly that.

Could you explain what feats and spells have to do with 'gameplay loops'?

Ironically, estar added one on top of what I was thinking.

D&D boils down to "kill something to get a reward." Older versions would use gold and magic items as the reward, not quite as old versions would use XP as the reward or the simple thrill of overcoming an obstacle, and the forever fallback option has always been to reward the players by advancing the story. These are variations of the same gameplay loop, and GMs will often mix up the rewards to better match the situation or vary the pacing, giving the campaign an organic feel. It's also technically optional, in that the GM doesn't always have to provide combat encounters. But the entire concept of the system is to guarantee that characters have a minimum competency for combat because the core gameplay loop of D&D involves combat.

I should add that I don't actually view this as a problem--I'm vocally critical of D&D, but this is not one of those points. Practically every game genre from video games to CCGs to board games uses some variation of the "combat: reward" gameplay loop as a meat and potatoes basic gameplay paradigm.

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 06:05:13 AM
You cannot roleplay a character with video games. Thus, they are NOT RPGs. Period.

Without addressing the rest, this point just leapt out of the page at me because it is oh so mindblowingly wrong.  There are a lot of examples but the best one I know of is After the Flash, a roblox game.  It's really just a stage for people to get on and roleplay with each other.  There's a world and props, but little in the way of game mechanics.  Everything is resolved through conversation.

If you were to assert that say, Final Fantasy, isn't an rpg I'd be in agreement.  But that doesn't mean it can't be done.