My point was that Brendan threw out a list topics he considered so trivial that no one would ever want or need rules for them. I picked one (baking because I had just watched GBBO) and countered that, actually, this was a complex activity with many possible failure points and outcomes. And some people might want to make it the focus of a encounter or challenge. Having rule which are flexible to support that is a good idea in my opinion.

Quote from: dbm;853519My point was that Brendan threw out a list topics he considered so trivial that no one would ever want or need rules for them. I picked one (baking because I had just watched GBBO) and countered that, actually, this was a complex activity with many possible failure points and outcomes. And some people might want to make it the focus of a encounter or challenge. Having rule which are flexible to support that is a good idea in my opinion.

Better to have a generic rule that can be used to cover different things. Baking is a kind of Craft, so a generic Craft rule that can be used for baking, armouring, weaponsmithing and candlemaking than a specific rule for baking.

Quote from: soltakss;853523Better to have a generic rule that can be used to cover different things. Baking is a kind of Craft, so a generic Craft rule that can be used for baking, armouring, weaponsmithing and candlemaking than a specific rule for baking.

Quite possibly. I've started a new thread on this topic as I think it's something not many games address well.

To the OP: yes, that's been my experience. If in-character interaction gets to the point where it seems like sex would be the next logical step, fade to black. But with violence, fade to black/skipping is extremely rare.

Of course, I find nothing weird with this, and actually find it odd that some people do. As far as I can tell, the two types of actions are different on a number of levels, including the fundamental, so it seems weird to me that anyone should expect both to be treated the same.

Quote from: dbm;853290It is a pretty strong truism that players will do what ever the game gives them lots of rules for, and since most games have the most rules for combat that gets a lot of game time at most tables. Conversely, few games have rules for romantic encounters.

I think it's more that players will do whatever the game gives them the most reward for; that doesn't have to be correlated with having a lot of rules. Throw in a one line rule in any edition of D&D that seducing an NPC gives the PC several random magic items and five times the XP of killing them and the players would be hitting on a disturbing range of monsters.

Quote from: rawma;853809I think it's more that players will do whatever the game gives them the most reward for; that doesn't have to be correlated with having a lot of rules. Throw in a one line rule in any edition of D&D that seducing an NPC gives the PC several random magic items and five times the XP of killing them and the players would be hitting on a disturbing range of monsters.

That is a good point. It's interesting that games like Call of Cthulhu avoid that problem. They are strongly about solving the mystery / defeating the menace/ getting out alive and not really about increasing your character's skills at all. There is a very weak link between mechanics and reward but players tend to stay on task in my experience.

Quote from: dbm;853830That is a good point. It's interesting that games like Call of Cthulhu avoid that problem. They are strongly about solving the mystery / defeating the menace/ getting out alive and not really about increasing your character's skills at all. There is a very weak link between mechanics and reward but players tend to stay on task in my experience.

Mostly that is not because of the rules (they are essentially the same as the rules in Runequest, Stormbringer, and BRP), but because most people who play CoC don't play for the power-ups. And that can and does occur because most gamers are not Pavlovian conditioned XP clickers without the will or desire to do something in the game other than chase power-ups.

Quote from: rawma;853809I think it's more that players will do whatever the game gives them the most reward for; that doesn't have to be correlated with having a lot of rules. Throw in a one line rule in any edition of D&D that seducing an NPC gives the PC several random magic items and five times the XP of killing them and the players would be hitting on a disturbing range of monsters.

That's a very reasonable point.

When violence is a central subject -- as it is in most rpgs, as in their genre fiction inspirations -- it is naturally often on stage. However, there's a spectrum from the very abstract treatment in old D&D, to Gangbusters (detailed combat movement, but non-detailed results of combat, crashes or brutal 'persuasion') -- to RuneQuest, RoleMaster, TriTac, etc.

In En Garde, duels are treated in some detail as to choice of fencing moves, but military campaigns come down to choice of bravery / doing your duty / poltroonery.

Call of Cthulhu is somewhere between D&D and Gangbusters for combat, but since it's a horror-themed game, other gruesomeness may get more attention. (Lovecraft's more cerebral existensial-crisis style may work for fewer people than nigh a century ago).

In a game based on spicy bodice-rippers or Danielle Steele sagas, I expect there might be both less blood and less prudery regarding the boudoir and getting into it.

Quote from: Bren;853407Or maybe they need to get players who are more interested in engaging in a LARP than in sitting by themselves in a tent?

Rules don't and can't fix players.

Exactly.  What the organizers of that LARP -- and many tabletop gamers, as to that -- obviously didn't understand was that the number of players who act out of selfish self-interest outnumber the "good of the game" players several times to one.

Just like the I-have-to-be-wearing-my-armor-24-7 brigade featuring in the current armor thread, I bet the motivation of those players was that they didn't want to risk getting hacked without working armor, even if the organizers would much rather have a nice frothy public environment with lots of players.

(Having been in several combat boffer LARPs over the course of a few decades, the only way I can imagine players being that gunshy is two-fold: that it was a trigger-happy environment where PCs got hacked at the drop of a coif, and that it was a real pain in the ass to get raised.)

Personally I look on it as the courtship is more interesting than the sex; "is the goal achieved."

Similarly, in combat, is my goal achieved?  In the first case my objective is to play "Mister Winky Visits Happyland;" in the second place my objective is "make sure that guy doesn't kill me."  In both cases, once my objective is achieved the scene is over as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853976Personally I look on it as the courtship is more interesting than the sex; "is the goal achieved."

Similarly, in combat, is my goal achieved?  In the first case my objective is to play "Mister Winky Visits Happyland;" in the second place my objective is "make sure that guy doesn't kill me."  In both cases, once my objective is achieved the scene is over as far as I'm concerned.

Except that one ends with a half-orc...
And the other ends with half an orc...
:cool:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853326Which astounds a lot of wargamers, especially DIPLOMACY players.  The "diplomacy" part of the game is 90% of the game play, but only takes up something like 173 words.

"The diplomacy phase is at the beginning of each turn and lasts 10 minutes.  Players can say anything they want to each other, and do not have to keep promises."  That's the gist of the rules, but that comprises most of the game.

The rules are available online, go give 'em a read.

For that matter, there are NO rules for bluffing in Poker, but it's a major part of the strategy of the game.

What you cite is a truism, I grant you, but it's fallacious.

Yep.

For all the rules devoted to sieges and land and naval battles in D&D, those tend to be a much smaller portion of the activity in most campaigns. Mining? Diseases? Lots of the Gygaxian DMG didn't find proportionate use.

As in Diplomacy, no rules for talking, and conversation has generally played a big part in the game in my experience.

It was for that reason of lack of demand -- not a "supply side" vice versa -- that subjects got cut from 2nd ed. C&S. Incidentally, one of those was Alignment, but I wouldn't say it downplayed roleplaying (just the opposite).

Quote from: omega;853979except that one ends with a half-orc...
And the other ends with half an orc...
:cool:

yeeeeeeeeeah!

Quote from: dbm;853830That is a good point. It's interesting that games like Call of Cthulhu avoid that problem. They are strongly about solving the mystery / defeating the menace/ getting out alive and not really about increasing your character's skills at all. There is a very weak link between mechanics and reward but players tend to stay on task in my experience.

Well, some players will act counter to what the reward scheme supports, because they're trying to match the expectations of the game's genre in spite of the rules or motivated by a different objective than leveling up; if you made a rule in D&D that characters get nearly as much experience staying home safe as going into a dungeon, some would still go to the dungeon, and a few more would eventually go there, because the reward is having an adventure and not the XP. (Did the LARP players sitting in tents "repairing" their armor come out and do something when the hour was up?)

So some of the reward is the player doing something cool whatever the outcome for the character; in particular the reward for playing Lovecraftian horror is more for the player than the character, who has for whatever reason made a very bad career choice.