Quote from: BedrockBrendan;534120I don't doubt this. Your experience is your own.

I don't doubt the current state of D&D has a big influence on how many new gamers enter the hobby and stay involved. But as for it having a positive or chilling effect on people currently playing White Wolf, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu...I just don't see it.

QuoteThough i am sure a lot of people who started with 3E still embraced a lot of the classic assumptions tha edition carried with it, and 4E was too far in the direction of board games for their tastes.

I don't get this. I've never met anyone who played 3e without a gridmap. I'm not saying they don't exist.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534125I don't get this. I've never met anyone who played 3e without a gridmap. I'm not saying they don't exist.

I haven't met you, but I am a person who played 3e without a gridmap.

Quote from: John Morrow;533984What does it mean to "simulate" Sherlock Holmes like that and what, exactly, are you emulating?  To simulate the experience of being Sherlock Holmes, you'd need to let the player actually solve the mystery using their knowledge and intelligence.  To simulate the experience of reading a Sherlock Holmes story, you'd need to surprise the players with an unexpected solution at the end.  Neither of those fit what you are describing.  So are you trying to simulate the experience of writing a Sherlock Holmes story?  If so, how is that role-playing or simulating the genre?

With respect to "To simulate the experience":


Simulation in gaming is basically about three elements.

1. Simulation of decisions
If one is roll-playing a commando, a game can offer him many of the same decisions that a commando would make- should he take cover, should he do a snap shot or fully aimed fire, what approach to the target is best, etc.


2. Simulation of Process
Does the method of resolution match the method being simulated (D&D fails big time on this point). Grids and mins are big influences at this level and the next.


3. Simulation of outcome
These are the results of his decisions. The system's outcomes can be compared to what's being modeled for faithfulness. It may be reality, or a genre (action movie, noir, etc.).


Game Design can handle combat at all three levels of simulation in a good system.

But it really can only handle Sherlock Holmes in the outcome level. You can't model his actual decisions made during deduction (except as you note- by make the player actually deduce things like Holmes does) or its process, only the result (i.e. did he make his skill roll?). This is rather weak sauce all things considered, as only a third the question is answered.

Thus people keep searching for better 'skill' systems, and they fail.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;534125I don't doubt the current state of D&D has a big influence on how many new gamers enter the hobby and stay involved. But as for it having a positive or chilling effect on people currently playing White Wolf, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu...I just don't see it.

I wasn't suggesting anything about other rpgs

QuoteI don't get this. I've never met anyone who played 3e without a gridmap. I'm not saying they don't exist.

Didn't mention the grid map but the grid map isn't the only assumption 4e changes. The change has more to do with how 4E uses the gridmap than the grid map itself (and the fact that the game was designed entirely around it). Personally know tons of people who played 3E with no grid map or used the grid map irregularly.

A GM needs to have some mapping/positioning tool.  That can range from an exact map behind their screen to remembering the positions of all combatants in their head.  As the arbiter, they have to maintain something.

My issue has always been, do the players deserve an accurate map?  It depends what kind of game you want to play.

If you're interested in more of a tactical wargame model, then yes, giving access to an overhead view with accurate positioning is fine.

But, if you're interested in something that gives each combatant a fog of war/chaotic battlefield experience, then giving the entire group the overhead layout doesn't make sense (unless they have reason to achieve that, like someone perched at elevation communicating position or appropriate magic).

I much prefer the latter, but I haven't (YET!) found a way to easily represent that experience to each player, so that each understands their viewpoint of a battle, but all players' views added up may still leave blind spots.  Since that has been traditionally very hard to manage (maintain a separate map for each player - yikes!), it leads to having no player map, although they're free to draw for themselves what they think is happening, of course.  I'm hoping that smartphones and tablets may provide a way to model this style of play, or there may be an app that does that already that I just haven't found.

Quote from: TheHistorian;534170But, if you're interested in something that gives each combatant a fog of war/chaotic battlefield experience, then giving the entire group the overhead layout doesn't make sense (unless they have reason to achieve that, like someone perched at elevation communicating position or appropriate magic).

Hidden movement can be a blast in an RPG, and is quite possible. But that's not 'Hidden Map' which is what you seem to be wanting.

To be honest, the overhead may not be worth it. The Player response would be quick and effective- the map wouldn't be hidden long. And the process for revealing it would quickly become second nature and rather boring- especially in modern/future settings or magical ones.

Quote from: TheHistorian;534170But, if you're interested in something that gives each combatant a fog of war/chaotic battlefield experience, then giving the entire group the overhead layout doesn't make sense (unless they have reason to achieve that, like someone perched at elevation communicating position or appropriate magic).

To this point, I have more faith in the players converting the scene on a map board into what their characters are seeing and reacting to than the GM providing such information verbally from each character's perspective.  And even if the GM were to emulate the fog of war by verbally giving each player a subjective description of the scene from their own character's perspective, the very fact that each player gets to hear what the GM says to every other player and hear the system-related table talk that will let them know, for example, how wounded the other PCs are, means that the players are going to know more than their characters do.  In my experience, players who are interested in viewing and reacting to their situation as their character would do what they can to firewall the information that they wouldn't know from their character's decisions, and I see little difference in ignoring the things my character can't see on the map board and ignoring what I hear other players saying and what I know about the condition of their characters.  And in practice, I think a picture (i.e., the map board) is worth more than a thousand words to each player, with that information conveyed to each player more quickly and simultaneously than a GM could ever convey it verbally.

Quote from: gleichman;534177Hidden movement can be a blast in an RPG, and is quite possible. But that's not 'Hidden Map' which is what you seem to be wanting.

This is becoming possible with electronic role-playing aids like MapTool, which can handle things like line of sight and, if each player is using their own laptop, gives each player a subjective view.

Quote from: John Morrow;534312This is becoming possible with electronic role-playing aids like MapTool, which can handle things like line of sight and, if each player is using their own laptop, gives each player a subjective view.

Yes, but I think in the end it would be effectively a waste of time and money in many cases. Modern/fantasy characters will just buy equipment to extend their 'sight', while fantasy ones will use magic.

The setting would have to actually forbid such things, and makes it a very narrow range. It would still include a lot, CoC in the 20s come to mind.

But aside for all that, I have a even greater concern- that it would result in what is for the typical rpg genre poor play. Characters are supposed to be in general heroic, restricting that type of information will turn players into over cautious fools who can't achieve even the most basic goals.

It also destorys one of the good benefits of a God's Eye view, with is to make up for the fact that players are trained soldiers, accomplished adventures, and great heroes. They need the extra information to make it seem as if they are.

Outside of FPS games, I don't see this sort of play catching on.

By the late '90s, the continued popularity of GURPS rested almost entirely on its massive library of supplemental material. When they upgraded to 4th Edition, they rendered that library of supplemental material obsolete while simultaneously making their core rules substantially more expensive.

Hero's claim to fame was its robust, effects-based character creation system. But other games have come in, stolen its stuff, and (arguably) done it better. Meanwhile, Hero has completely fractured its player base (and customer loyalty) by churning through multiple editions.

Basically, both games ultimately suffer from something which becomes more apparent with every passing year: No reboot edition of an RPG has ever succeeded unless there is clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base.

This will probably remain true as long as the TTRPG consumer base remains predominantly stagnant.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;534382By the late '90s, the continued popularity of GURPS rested almost entirely on its massive library of supplemental material. When they upgraded to 4th Edition, they rendered that library of supplemental material obsolete while simultaneously making their core rules substantially more expensive.

While the core rules did get more expensive, not a whole lot of the supplemental material was obsolete. Crunch books such as Fantasy Folk, and High Tech became outdated but the historical books are still very useful, even for running games that don't use GURPS.

I think the idea of focused books with just the rules needed for the particular genre plus some solid module support would make GURPS more attractive.

Having to pick through supers/space/modern stuff when building a character is a real drag and overwhelming for new players.

Quote from: gleichman;534335Yes, but I think in the end it would be effectively a waste of time and money in many cases. Modern/fantasy characters will just buy equipment to extend their 'sight', while fantasy ones will use magic.

My experience using Fog of War on Virtual Tabletops is that it works quite well and works as expected. The players view narrow down to their immediate surrounding.

Intuitive Fog of War is one of the few advantages that virtual tabletops has over regular tabletop.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;534382By the late '90s, the continued popularity of GURPS rested almost entirely on its massive library of supplemental material. When they upgraded to 4th Edition, they rendered that library of supplemental material obsolete while simultaneously making their core rules substantially more expensive.

Hero's claim to fame was its robust, effects-based character creation system. But other games have come in, stolen its stuff, and (arguably) done it better. Meanwhile, Hero has completely fractured its player base (and customer loyalty) by churning through multiple editions.

Basically, both games ultimately suffer from something which becomes more apparent with every passing year: No reboot edition of an RPG has ever succeeded unless there is clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base.

This will probably remain true as long as the TTRPG consumer base remains predominantly stagnant.

Again, the problem with HERO 6 (And arguably GURPS 4th) is that for it to be a business success it had to both appeal to new players and to people who still had their last edition and liked it just fine.

JG

Quote from: The Butcher;533063

Hahah, I thought Gleichman had died. I remember his posts from back in the day on rec.frp. I still even have notes on a few of them. G-man is very in touch with his brand of bad wrong fun. (I even read his game back in the day).

However, at least he isn't a filthy 4venger. zomg!~

QuoteAgain, the problem with HERO 6 (And arguably GURPS 4th) is that for it to be a business success it had to both appeal to new players and to people who still had their last edition and liked it just fine.

Hey, this sounds familiar to some game I heard has a new edition coming out, except they have 2-1/2 old edition players to please.

I prefer to play with miniatures and a grid, even if the "miniatures" are tokens and the "grid" is a bare tabletop and we're using tape measurement.  (It's the way I played BattleTech back in the 1990s when I played on Saturdays at Phoenix Games in Minneapolis, so it's way doable on the cheap.)  I agree with Gleichman as to the reason for doing so--clear picture of the action, easy to resolve Line Of Sight questions, etc.--and I find his attitude towards rules to be understandable, and not unreasonable.  It is my experience that players would rather honestly fail than succeed only because the GM made it so, for whatever reason, hence why I play the game even when I run it, if you follow me.