The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've broken this off from Xeviat's D&D Stat Generation Methods thread because we've gone completely off topic.

Quote from: LordVreegI used to have groups come to me with their issues, and the real issue was the GM allowed some unbalanced aspects and di not know how to balance the game internally, and random stat generation can be part of this.  It takes a good GM to create satisfaction for a player who is playing a mediocre fighter in a group while there is a Paladin created the same time with an 18 ST and a 17 CON.

And it takes a better GM to realize that you're better off just not creating this situation in the first place.

By "create satisfaction," I assume you're trying to assert that it takes a good GM to find things for the less capable party member to do so as not to be totally outshone by the party member of greater capability. I do not agree. It is absolutely trivial to do this, and anyone who has ever read a Justice League comic book knows how: Batman fights the Batman-level threat, while Superman handles the Superman-level threat. The thing is, though, it's completely obvious what's going on. You could argue that it takes a certain amount of GM skill to hide these sorts of stealth manipulations, and I might agree with you there, but you'll never hide it from some players, and they're the ones most likely to be insulted and/or dissatisfied by it. It seems like a whole lot of GM effort in applying spot-fixes and stealth buffs/nerfs that could be avoided-- and instead expended on creating a more dynamic, fun, interesting, immersive game world-- if the GM would just have an actual balanced party. Then the GM could make up a challenging encounter, at about the skill level of the party, where everyone gets to contribute.

Most RPG systems have enough trouble balancing characters that are ostensibly at the same level of capability. D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) and the disparity between the capabilities of Fighters and Wizards is a perfect example. In skill-based systems, there are always going to be some skills that end up being more useful than others, so characters built on the less useful skills may not always be as capable. Keeping all this in mind, it's difficult enough to balance an encounter already. Throwing more monkey wrenches into it in the form of widely disparate capabilities of party members is just asking for trouble.

And why? To nostalgically stick to some stat generation scheme used in the old days? The thing is, as you probably know, OD&D gave like a +1 to hit for having a strength of 18. The stat barely mattered as long as you managed to be over 10. So it didn't really matter that they were randomly rolled because they barely did anything. That's not in the case in most modern RPGs. Randomly generating anything when there's no reason to is just messing up game balance for no gain, except maybe more headaches.

In Steerpike's CE game my character was always several levels lower than TMG's. It never sucked. Just saying.

I'm about to leave for Maine, and will be offlijne for a while.

But few of us who design games have not taken the time to think good and hard as to why we design each and every piece of every game.
Yes, Randomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

It is not the people who design and use these systems are morons who are dumb enough to mess up game balance for no gain.  There are trade-offs.  You might not see them, but many of us do.  It is not merely nostalgia.

BAck later. 

Vreeg, I am going to pick on you a little bit, partially because I know you can handle it, and partially because you've hit one of my pet peeves.

Quote from: LordVreegYes, Randomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

Two things:

1.) How, exactly, does this chargen mechanic "create deeper immersion on many levels"? It certainly takes away player choice, but is that the same thing? (Alternately: aren't there other ways to increase immersion that still allow players to take more ownership over the characters they want to play?)

2.) Why is "creating deeper immersion" the goal? Are there other goals that are equally valuable or perhaps even more valuable? (Maybe "creating an experience that is fun" goes on the list, or even "making a framework that allows players to tell an engaging story," if I may be so bold as to use the S-word.) If we acknowledge multiple goals, what systems best help us work towards all of our objectives?

Balance is a weird thing. You really need to decide what you're balancing for. Do you want everyone to be equally able to contribute, everyone to contribute a unique thing in a unique way, everyone to contribute to the same arena, or do you want PvP equality? The first is vague, the second is easier to balance (it doesn't matter that the cleric is two levels lower if he's the only healer), the third is potentially problematic (RPGs utilize multiple sub-games, and not all of them interest all players), and the last is understandable only if NPCs and PCs are built on the same model or PvP is expected as a normal occurrence in the game.

Player choice has similar problems because the framework of what you can choose vs what you can't is part of what makes these games fun. Finite resources is what makes resource management work well. Randomly rolled damage and the uncertainty of combat is what allows combat to be somewhat tense. Not knowing what is on the other side of the door, but weighing the odds based on experience and evidence... it's fun. And so on. The limitations are fundamental for a lot of people to the enjoyment of the game. If the players had the option of stocking the dungeon with easy enemies, even having the option to stock the same dungeon with harder enemies wouldn't appeal to the desire for uncertainty and all the rest of what goes with it. For some people, character creation is something a little like that. You could end up with a brute wizard and get this unique gameplay challenge you wouldn't end up with (or wouldn't be as happy with) if you were given a choice.

Quote from: LordVreegBut few of us who design games have not taken the time to think good and hard as to why we design each and every piece of every game.

If everyone is thinking good and hard (including me!) then I've accomplished my goal. I may be blunt, but I'm also constructive.

Quote from: LordVreegRandomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

I second LC. How do they do this, exactly? How is one assured of deeper immersion simply because everyone rolled their stats randomly rather than using point-buy, arrays, or, hey, writing down arbitrary values?

Quote from: LordVreegThere are trade-offs.  You might not see them, but many of us do.

Well, what are they, then?

Quote from: beejazzYou really need to decide what you're balancing for.

Good point. I think in this context I was using "balanced" in the sense that everyone was able to do their schtick to help to prevail in the encounter (whether that's a combat, a test of skills, or whatever) with nobody being in the position to completely monopolize the encounter but everyone able to contribute. Sort of the goal (not the actual outcome, but the goal) of a 4e skill challenge, I guess.

Again, on the iPad up in Maine...so not at my most fluid.

Immersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.  This also happens in chargen I believe.  Too much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion.  Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

Now, going to the second and very pertinent question...first of all, tautologist, your goals are not mutually exclusive.  For many people, a more immersed experience is a more fun one, or a better way to create a story.so if you want to come up with other priorities, maybe we should look at design goals that are less intertwined.  
But if you are asking/stating who much does immersion define an RPG or the fun in it, I agree it does not.  It is an ingredient but not THE ingredient.

And I agree with Beejazz' points, and enlarge them.  Uncertainty is part of immersion but also part of the fun....

I think the need for game balance is a myth.
Well, somewhat, anyway.
Game balance is ostensibly the idea of making characters equal on some specific scale, but this requires that the game has some structural element where all characters are expected to participate. Take D&D, the perennial example, where we have the idea of the "encounter". Firstly, this posits that all characters take part in combat. Secondly, it assumes all games contain encounters (i.e. combat) - if not, balance (the D&D version) becomes meaningless.
I think we should acknowledge that characters are in fact often fundamentally different. Their "power" simply can't be directly compared because they operate on different scales. The Batman/Superman example doesn't really help here, but take e.g. a heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight, but where everything would fall to pieces if any two characters were forced to switch places and roles. You can't say one character is superior to the other, but in a fight you know who will win between the getaway driver and the enforcer. Their power resides in specialization. A social character has as much value as a martial one, albeit in different situations.

Further, the artificial need for game balance is exacerbated by the the rather steep challenge difficulty curve in traditional games like D20. If you don't go out of your way to keep your character balanced (or even optimized, depending on the party) you will fall behind the curve and will either become a liability to your party or simply be incapable of facing the supposedly level-appropriate encounters.

As to the discussion about random stat generation, I can see the arguments both for and against. It's mostly a question of control, really. There are several merits to playing pre-generated or organically (read: randomly) generated characters, where the player doesn't always have the final say over the nature of his character.
I believe immersion will increase since the player has to adopt to his character's personality, instead of the character's personality adopting to the player's.
The latter is naturally a more fluid situation, with the player more likely to change personality and behaviour on the fly as he develops the character through play rather than at character generation. On the other hand, with random stats you can't always create the character you hoped. There is a lot of difference between characters with mostly average scores and one with some high and some low - one could be a jack-of-all-trades mercenary and the other a sickly genius wizard, but the other way around is not immediately possible.
So ultimately, as pointed out before, it is a question of the game you want to play. Are you making a story for the players' roles or are they playing roles for your story?
     

Quote from: LordVreegImmersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.

While you're correct that immersion is created by many things, I think it's fair to say that the most important factor for immersion when it comes to games (including RPGs) is the ability to hold the interest of the players. If the players are bored or frustrated, no amount of verisimilitude or appearance of a natural world or whatever other window dressing you want to throw around will do any good at all. Therefore, it seems like keeping the players engaged in the game must be the primary priority of the group, and, specifically, the GM, even when it runs contrary to other "immersive" ideas.

I understand what you're saying about a natural world not being level appropriate and balanced, but it's still a role playing game, and that makes it fundamentally different than a "world simulation." I like the idea of a world that feels vibrant and alive, too, and I don't want a world where nothing happens unless the players had something to do with it. However, unlike a world that "just is," the world of an RPG still fundamentally revolves around the player characters, because it's their game, after all. As such, the GM has to ensure that some meaningful part of the world the players can interact with is in fact level appropriate and balanced. I'm not a big fan of modern D&D's rigid system of CR, ECL, and so on, but I still feel a degree of game balance and designing around the capabilities of the player characters is essential. After all, a player whose character can't succeed at the challenges the game lays out will not be engaged in the game, nor will a player with a character that automatically succeeds without any effort at all. (If the party has widely disparate capabilities, it's harder to avoid at least one of these situations coming up, which is why I complain about doing that so much)

Quote from: LordVreegThis also happens in chargen I believe.

Players stuck playing characters they don't want to play will not be engaged in the game. Removing player choice from character generation makes this possibility more likely. So, saying that randomly rolled stats themselves inherently lead to deeper immersion is false. Now, that's not to say they can't, and if the player wants a random character, great, go for it-- but that's still the choice to do it randomly, which is very different. The choice to not have a choice, as it were. On the other hand, some other players may feel far more immersed if they can craft a character that they truly want, who is connected to the world and has a backstory that ties her into the setting.

Quote from: LordVreegToo much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion. Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

To expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people. Real people have their sensory input, a lifetime of skills, experiences and memories, and so on. On the other hand, in an RPG, we have far more limited information and many abstractions, incomplete and often startlingly different in their interpretation from player to player. Real reality is consistent, whereas a game's reality is dependent on the GM. So, giving players a bit more narrative control over the world beyond what a real person would realistically be able to control is often a good (if, admittedly, somewhat dissociated) way to simulate that. That little detail that your sharp-eyed character would definitely have noticed, but the GM didn't think to include? Let the player fill it in! Things like that.

As far as immersion is concerned, for everyone at the table except the GM (who isn't "immersed" in the usual sense anyway) and the one player who is currently exerting narrative control, nothing has changed. It's still something handed to them, described by someone else, that they have to respond to. Events are just as out of Player B's direct control whether they're described by the GM or by Player A. So it's really not as big of a deal as it seems.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowGame balance is ostensibly the idea of making characters equal on some specific scale, but this requires that the game has some structural element where all characters are expected to participate.

You're correct, but I think the assumption that all characters are expected to participate is a fairly good one to hold on to. It's sort of like splitting the party. If characters can't participate in a scene, then their players can't participate, and that means that they're likely to get bored. On the other hand, having everyone be able to participate keeps everyone engaged in the game, which is a good thing!

Quote from: Superfluous Crowa heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight

Specialization can lead to encounters where one player gets to win it alone while everyone else sits around uselessly. Unless, of course, the encounter is constructed so that each of the specialists has their task in it and each gets a time to shine. Everyone contributes, but nobody can win it alone.
In other words, it's a well-designed, well-balanced encounter. :grin:

Sparkle, still in Maine...but you are making me think that we should do your experiment...because there is more than one perspective that is somehow not getting transmitted.  One major point is that most games I play are built for long campaigns, and that is a very different game and balance situation..
I'll be home Friday night.  Love you guys.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegImmersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.

While you're correct that immersion is created by many things, I think it's fair to say that the most important factor for immersion when it comes to games (including RPGs) is the ability to hold the interest of the players. If the players are bored or frustrated, no amount of verisimilitude or appearance of a natural world or whatever other window dressing you want to throw around will do any good at all. Therefore, it seems like keeping the players engaged in the game must be the primary priority of the group, and, specifically, the GM, even when it runs contrary to other "immersive" ideas.

When Vreeg refers to immersion here, I think he's referring to something to something more specific, in a manner similar to how it gets discussed on a few other forums. Generally it means that the decisions and information available to the player should be the same as the decisions and information available to the character. It's why in most traditional RPGs there's a taboo on metagaming.

Engagement is a separate, less specific issue. It depends more highly on player preference. Recent games and game theories are interested in persistent engagement (avoiding things like time-consuming hacking minigames), which is a laudable goal that can sometimes be taken to unnecessary extremes. I'm of the opinion that sometimes players are specifically not interested in certain aspects of the game. Forcing constant involvement can lead to some amount of fatigue really.

QuoteI understand what you're saying about a natural world not being level appropriate and balanced, but it's still a role playing game, and that makes it fundamentally different than a "world simulation." I like the idea of a world that feels vibrant and alive, too, and I don't want a world where nothing happens unless the players had something to do with it. However, unlike a world that "just is," the world of an RPG still fundamentally revolves around the player characters, because it's their game, after all. As such, the GM has to ensure that some meaningful part of the world the players can interact with is in fact level appropriate and balanced. I'm not a big fan of modern D&D's rigid system of CR, ECL, and so on, but I still feel a degree of game balance and designing around the capabilities of the player characters is essential. After all, a player whose character can't succeed at the challenges the game lays out will not be engaged in the game, nor will a player with a character that automatically succeeds without any effort at all. (If the party has widely disparate capabilities, it's harder to avoid at least one of these situations coming up, which is why I complain about doing that so much)

This is why the world should have mixed level opponents, and methods of finding out who/what is where in advance. As a rule, if there is more to do than the players can do, they can proactively sort out for themselves what to engage with.

Parity is a separate issue, with a few individual sub-issues that can get dealt with in different ways.

Quote

Quote from: LordVreegThis also happens in chargen I believe.

Players stuck playing characters they don't want to play will not be engaged in the game. Removing player choice from character generation makes this possibility more likely. So, saying that randomly rolled stats themselves inherently lead to deeper immersion is false. Now, that's not to say they can't, and if the player wants a random character, great, go for it-- but that's still the choice to do it randomly, which is very different. The choice to not have a choice, as it were. On the other hand, some other players may feel far more immersed if they can craft a character that they truly want, who is connected to the world and has a backstory that ties her into the setting.

This is another place where you have to measure engagement vs interest. There is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy. Anyway, I know buying stats is hardly as compicated as GURPS, but for some people *being* a particular character isn't as important as making decisions for whatever character they get.

As for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either. I'm not nearly that hardcore mind you. Just laying out what some might think with that.

Quote

Quote from: LordVreegToo much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion. Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

To expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people. Real people have their sensory input, a lifetime of skills, experiences and memories, and so on. On the other hand, in an RPG, we have far more limited information and many abstractions, incomplete and often startlingly different in their interpretation from player to player. Real reality is consistent, whereas a game's reality is dependent on the GM. So, giving players a bit more narrative control over the world beyond what a real person would realistically be able to control is often a good (if, admittedly, somewhat dissociated) way to simulate that. That little detail that your sharp-eyed character would definitely have noticed, but the GM didn't think to include? Let the player fill it in! Things like that.

Realism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion. There's a difference between abstraction and non-representational mechanics, and the necessity of arbitration (and where you draw the line between too much, enough, and not enough) is yet another issue.

QuoteAs far as immersion is concerned, for everyone at the table except the GM (who isn't "immersed" in the usual sense anyway) and the one player who is currently exerting narrative control, nothing has changed. It's still something handed to them, described by someone else, that they have to respond to. Events are just as out of Player B's direct control whether they're described by the GM or by Player A. So it's really not as big of a deal as it seems.

Representation and immersion are some of the unique things RPGs have going for them. And the surprise of something hidden from the start is different from a surprise retconned in. But I think one of the bigger issues is maintaining challenge in a coop RPG.

Quote

Quote from: Superfluous Crowa heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight

Specialization can lead to encounters where one player gets to win it alone while everyone else sits around uselessly. Unless, of course, the encounter is constructed so that each of the specialists has their task in it and each gets a time to shine. Everyone contributes, but nobody can win it alone.
In other words, it's a well-designed, well-balanced encounter. :grin:

[/quote]
I tend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

I like rolling because it is faster and less meta-gamey than point buy. I hate rolling because it often leads to character imbalance.

In my experience rolling leads to faster immersion while point buy leads to superior characters.

I was probably not as precise with terminology as I should have been. It's difficult because some of these terms are themselves the subject of lengthy debates-- honestly, I'd really rather this not devolve into a debate about semantics, unless something is really unclear. I usually would define "immersion" (and I have seen others define this way as well) in a more active and general sense, like "thinking about things in terms of what the character would do or think." I think my point still stands, though, because this isn't something a bored player is likely to be doing.

Quote from: beejazzThis is why the world should have mixed level opponents, and methods of finding out who/what is where in advance. As a rule, if there is more to do than the players can do, they can proactively sort out for themselves what to engage with.

Yes, I agree. As long as challenges appropriate to the characters' level exist and can be discerned using techniques available to the characters (and aren't blocked in by things they simply cannot handle) this is a good solution.

Quote from: beejazzThere is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy.

Yes, and that's why I mentioned "the choice to not have a choice." Randomization can be an option. I just don't think it's a good idea for it to be the only option.

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

Quote from: beejazzRealism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion.

It is a different issue, but not completely. On the topic of immersion, if you say, essentially, that "information available to the player should be the same as information available to the character," I'll point out that there will always be vastly less information available to the player simply because the full spectrum of five (or however many) senses and the thought processes created by lifetime of experience actually living in that world simply cannot be condensed in any reasonable way.

Beejazz' post is greatly appreciated and there is a lot of good ground covered there.  I am coming home tonight and actually tried to post earlier and lost it due to connectiviy issues.

And I think, based on SParkles earlier comments, she gets the concept of Immersion just fine, and it IS actually, from many perspectives, an ingredient in many games to enhance engagement.  
So I agree it is one of many ingredients a game designer could use to create engagement.  One of the more important ones in a role playing game, however.  As Beejazz remarks on, Immersion is considered by most designers as the opposite of Metagaming.  And this is important, because from this standpoint, a player is who is playing from an immersed position is considered such if they are playing more within their role, and considered Metagaming if they are using information and conjecturing from outside their role.  From this particular and not complete position, the more immersed a player is, the more that are playng the role....or Roleplaying.
SO while this is not the same as player engagement, and there are other tools that can be used to maintain interest and connection and enjoyment..Immersion ranks pretty highly the more the game is based on playing a role.

Similarly, the idea of 'Setting-reactive' versus 'Game-Proactive', in terms of the players behavior, is mirrored by earlier work in roleplaying in the psychological field.  IN Roleplay therapy, you partially judge the value and success of the subject's roleplay by whether they are reacting to the situation versus proactively trying to work from the outside in. Your engagement vs immersion comments are important in chargen.  So really, a player really can't feel more immersed by taking a more proactive vs reactive chargen position.  The real choice is where along the continuum you want to place the immersion and the player engagement to try to get a maximum of both, because the goal seems to be to get as much of possible of both.  A player who decides many of their details may fee more connected or more satidfied with that character; i don't think they will feel more immersed...but if they like the character and concept more, they may find later, in-game immersion easier.  So really, this balance is very make-or-break for a game.

Quote from: SParkleTo expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people.

Umm actually, the amount a player is bound to an adherence to what the character could 'really' do is a pretty decent shorthand definition for Immersion.  Bravo.  The statement above, however, when seen from this perspective seems to sum up your real point.  Cuttting through all the crap about player choice and rolling dice and randomization and saying what can or cannot be true, The above quote says, as I read it, that Immersion is of dubious value to you. and the rest of the para, about giving more narrative control despite the dissociated mechanic, ices it.  Which is fine, if true.  If I am wrong and this boiling down of your position is incorrect or incomplete, I'll be back on later.     If This comes across as in any way less than kindly and constructively meant, I humbly apologize; your intellect and ability are not in question as they are superlative, as is most of our assembled company.  I am writing on the fly.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I was probably not as precise with terminology as I should have been. It's difficult because some of these terms are themselves the subject of lengthy debates-- honestly, I'd really rather this not devolve into a debate about semantics, unless something is really unclear. I usually would define "immersion" (and I have seen others define this way as well) in a more active and general sense, like "thinking about things in terms of what the character would do or think." I think my point still stands, though, because this isn't something a bored player is likely to be doing.

I'm not a stickler about objective definitions or jargon, as long as terms are clear for the purpose of discussion. It's more important to me that the concepts behind the terms don't get muddied.

By saying that engagement and immersion are different, I am by no means saying that they don't feed on each other, or that only one is necessary, or that they are oil and water or anything like that. An engaged player is necessary for immersion on some level, while an immersion isn't entirely necessary for the sake of engagement. Roleplaying games have many aspects, and playing a role isn't the be all end all.

Quote

Quote from: beejazzThere is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy.

Yes, and that's why I mentioned "the choice to not have a choice." Randomization can be an option. I just don't think it's a good idea for it to be the only option.

Doing both in this fashion kind of still incentivizes point buy if point buy characters tend to be better (and they will).

Quote

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Quote

Quote from: beejazzRealism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion.

It is a different issue, but not completely. On the topic of immersion, if you say, essentially, that "information available to the player should be the same as information available to the character," I'll point out that there will always be vastly less information available to the player simply because the full spectrum of five (or however many) senses and the thought processes created by lifetime of experience actually living in that world simply cannot be condensed in any reasonable way.

That's just narrative efficiency given the limitations of the medium. Personally, I'd rather neither hear the chirp of every bird nor decide myself what the plot-relevant details are (say, deciding there's a rabbit to hunt instead of looking for one). It's a non-issue that doesn't need solving, so there are no worthwhile trade offs one could make to solve it.

Quote from: Beejazztend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

Yeah, I think this is true.  And also an interesting point, in terms of immersion.

Whatever the hell I'm doing (and we can delve into it if conversational flow dictates), you are correct.  My games, even when I plan for shorter term or even when I should be constrained by real-life issues, turn out generally to go on and on and on.  

And this does have a side-bonus. The longer one thinks in character with a certain persona, the easier it becomes and the richer the character.  If we could get Limetom to comment, I think he'd say that that Moss, his IRC character, is starting to develop something of a 'mind of his own'.  and I have seen variations with this dozens and dozens of times.  

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Beejazztend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

Yeah, I think this is true.  And also an interesting point, in terms of immersion.

Whatever the hell I'm doing (and we can delve into it if conversational flow dictates), you are correct.  My games, even when I plan for shorter term or even when I should be constrained by real-life issues, turn out generally to go on and on and on. 

And this does have a side-bonus. The longer one thinks in character with a certain persona, the easier it becomes and the richer the character.  If we could get Limetom to comment, I think he'd say that that Moss, his IRC character, is starting to develop something of a 'mind of his own'.  and I have seen variations with this dozens and dozens of times. 

This is drifting off topic a bit, but this is one of the things I like about TV shows with long continuity. You can watch the actors grow into their role.

My main reason for preferring the adventure scale vs the campaign scale is because I tend to be called on to GM, and my schedule tends to not allow for multi-year campaigns (something I've always wanted to try).

I prefer adventure to encounter-based engagement partly because I have a history of running large groups (which makes involving everyone all the time difficult and time consuming) and having some players who show every week but are more along for the ride (some people plain don't want to be dragged into the spotlight). It is much easier to involve everyone in an adventure than in an encounter, and much easier to let the conversation flow naturally at that scale as well.

I think our preferences are shaped by our circumstances more than we tend to want to recognize, so the notion that there's any "right" way to do things strikes me as wrongheaded. Different games are different tools for different jobs.

Correct, we are drifting.
And no right way or wrong way on this, but interesting to see where the different foci are grown from. I do larger groups as well, and I agree that can be more challenging.

Although, to bring the tangent back to the topic:

Scale matters to balance. A consequence that sets in during later sessions or levels isn't a consequence in a one-shot. And in a campaign that last years, temporary setbacks matter much less than they do for said one-shot.

The actual value of some rules entities depends entirely on the duration of the game. 3.5's toughness (+3hp) is a good, specific, example here. Balanced* for short term play, but becomes useless at high levels. Vs Improved Toughness (+1/level, IIRC), which doesn't give that big boost in the short term, but quickly outstrips the usefulness of vanilla toughness. Which feat belongs in a rule set very much depends on what the rule set is for, scale-wise.

*Arguably balanced, anyway. It's a bigger deal for wizards and elves even for a low-level one shot.

Quote from: LordVreegUmm actually, the amount a player is bound to an adherence to what the character could 'really' do is a pretty decent shorthand definition for Immersion.  Bravo.  The statement above, however, when seen from this perspective seems to sum up your real point.  Cuttting through all the crap about player choice and rolling dice and randomization and saying what can or cannot be true, The above quote says, as I read it, that Immersion is of dubious value to you. and the rest of the para, about giving more narrative control despite the dissociated mechanic, ices it.  Which is fine, if true.  If I am wrong and this boiling down of your position is incorrect or incomplete, I'll be back on later.

Hmm. I do feel like some sort of immersion is important and valuable to me, but it may not be the same sort of immersion that you're talking about. Let me try to explain.

I like acting in character: speaking, responding, bantering, throwing in little actions and details, and such things. I like thinking through things in terms of what my character's feelings and motivations would be, and reacting to situations from that perspective. Maybe this is more method acting than what you would call immersion, but I feel "immersed" in the game when I do it this way. I don't like breaking out of this mindset-- I don't like spending a lot of time on "gamey" tasks such as rolling dice or messing with numbers and stats, and I am typically not all that fond of mechanics where outcomes are essentially negotiated (like in Apocalypse World where the GM gives the player a list of some things that could happen and the player gets to pick) rather than roleplayed out.

However, I do acknowledge that there is no strong wall for me between "things internal to my character" and "things external to my character" as long as they still fall into "things relevant to my character." For example, it doesn't bother me, when speaking in-character, to sometimes declare what she sees in addition to how she reacts to what she sees, or mix a bit of the results of her action into the description of the action itself. This is exerting a degree of narrative control that can break some definitions of immersion, but it does not to me, because everything is still being focused through the lens of what the character perceives. I'm simply generating some of the content myself.

I should go into a little more detail about being bound by an adherence to what a character could "really" do. I am against binding players too much by "things the player knows that the character wouldn't" without considering "things the character knows that the player doesn't." When playing an RPG, the amount of information that players receive about the setting and situation (from their character sheets, the game's rules, and the GM) is much less than what characters would receive through their experiences and senses. Yes, some of this is simply compressing things for efficiency, but it's a very lossy compression. I feel like information, details, and options that would be very relevant to the character can and often will be left out due to factors related to the player or the game. While the GM will certainly try to filter out and inform the player what's relevant, players are also relying on the GM's definition of "relevant," and the GM might make a mistake, too. Too much specific information spoon-fed this way also feels like a railroad. However, if the GM is less specific, characters who would be normally expected to solve a problem in a certain way might not be directed to do so by their players because the player or the GM left something out or there was some other sort of mistake or misunderstanding. Large amounts of abstraction are one way out, but I don't like that. It can be taken to absurdity-- why not just roll your "Dungeoneering" skill any time you're roaming around a dungeon not in combat, and completely skip all the exploration? Well, that's no fun. On the other hand, demanding player knowledge of various obscure in-setting things is no fun either.

So, the way I personally solve the dilemma is to let players fill in some of the foggy details themselves. It feels more like "being your character" when you are able to state some fact your character knows, rather than the GM just telling you and you regurgitating it later-- that "fact" is probably something that you just made up right now, but that normally doesn't bother me too much. It's certainly not the only way to do it, but it's the way that works best for me.

Quote from: beejazzDoing both in this fashion kind of still incentivizes point buy if point buy characters tend to be better (and they will).

Well, they'll more min-maxed, certainly. Rolling randomly can often lead to characters that are "worth" more than the campaign would've allotted for point-buy, but are usually far less optimized, of course, because they have a few moderately high stats rather than one very high one.

Quote from: beejazzBut the line falls in different places for different people and different games.

I agree, but this is basically what I was saying-- that the game's mechanics and the rules chosen by the group should dictate what the player does and doesn't get to decide. If an argument is going to be made from the perspective of immersion, the person making the argument either has to stipulate that eventually there is some arbitrary demarcation on "immersion" made by the game's mechanics (thus acknowledging my point) or be prepared to defend the proposition for some truly ridiculous values of "things the player gets to decide."

Quote from: beejazzThat's just narrative efficiency given the limitations of the medium. Personally, I'd rather neither hear the chirp of every bird nor decide myself what the plot-relevant details are (say, deciding there's a rabbit to hunt instead of looking for one). It's a non-issue that doesn't need solving, so there are no worthwhile trade offs one could make to solve it.

It's your opinion that it's a non-issue that doesn't need solving. Personally, I think there is an issue here. I tried to explain the basic idea in my comments above to Vreeg.

On letting players narrate bits and pieces, there's a fuzzy line as usual. It varies player by player. Given the wildlife example, though, I could say that a character deciding whether to hunt or not determines whether the rabbit is relevant or not (and by extension whether it gets mentioned by the GM or not). These sorts of player questions -> GM answers scenarios can be seen as a kind of "narrative control." In an analogy with film, they aren't so much designing the sets as they are pointing the camera in this scenario. Works well enough for me, and most of my players.

This isn't always the most efficient way of doing things, but when players get to dictate environmental factors with game significance (whether they get to eat tonight in this example), it can hit a snag for some people. I think people's boundaries are usually a bit broader on aspects of the game they would describe as "flavor" or "set dressing." For example, if crits kill, few would have a problem with letting the player narrate the killshot so long as the effect was roughly the same.

Sparkle,
That was really useful and informative.  You explained very clearly your though process and playstyle in a way that helped me understand where your head was at.  And it also showed me where we agree and disagree and where the rather large grey area is where we sort of agree. 

I think one way I have always viewed the GM's job vs the players position is to be the background information in their story, as well as to provide any and all the information the players require to stay immersed.  and as I mentioned earlier, staying in the 'Setting-Reactive' mindeset is something I consider imprtant for staying immersed in the role of the character.  I can say with surety that there has never been a GS game since I have had the wiki that has not required me to update said wiki with information about the world I provided to the players in game that was actually not written anywhere or known yet.

This is from the GS wiki...
Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design

The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  The ability to keep the information flow even and consistent to the players, and to keep the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible is a critical GM ability.

(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).

So you can see that the information flow to players and how it keeps them in a 'Setting -Reactive' mindset (as opposed to a 'Game-Proactive') mindeset during the game is something I have spent some time really sorting out, at least how it works for me and those I work with.  Again, it does not make it correct for everyone, and I am interested to see how this 'outside-in' immersion that seems to help you stay in character works as we progress down this long-term discussion.

Since we're quoting stuff that we wrote, I'll quote this from an old post I wrote before.

Quote from: Giving more narrative control to playersOne challenge with giving players more narrative control is ensuring the setting nonetheless remains consistent. Admittedly, it does create a certain Schrödingeresque dynamic when things that are unknown and unseen are essentially amorphous, waiting to be defined by a declaration, but I think that no setting is ever as detailed as inquisitive players want, and the GM has to make up this kind of stuff on the fly anyway. Why not let players join in the process? Personally, I think it actually adds to immersion, because it gives the player a sense of ownership in the setting and the game-- and that's a good thing.

Perhaps I'm misreading you (and correct me if I am) but I get this feeling that you think the GM should be the absolute owner of the game and setting and the players are more like guests in the GM's world. I don't like this approach at all. The game belongs to everyone. I don't see any need to differentiate a "shared narrative" from anything else because that feels like what an RPG should always be-- someone who doesn't want to share the narrative can go write a book.

So, I'm actually against the "Illusion of Preparedness." While I definitely think that the GM should provide a coherent setting and should give the players needed information in order to be able to act and think in character, and of course making it up as you go along is a valuable skill as a GM, I also think the GM shouldn't be the only one ready, willing, and able to wing it. I think these little empty spaces are potential opportunities, not flaws. By pretending that everything is set in stone, it deprives the players of a lot of chances to feel a sense of ownership and belonging in the setting.

I think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

To me, keeping the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible has nothing to do with immersion, because a player who is even thinking in those terms is already thinking in terms of the metagame rather than how the information would actually be perceived by the character. To the character, as long as it's presented right, it's all just "stuff that happens." That's also why it doesn't really matter whether Player B or the GM gives a detail that is out of Player A's control. It only affects Player A's immersion if Player A is already starting to lose immersion by considering why the information was introduced and where it came from.

Just wanted to pop in real quick and say that while I've only been following this thing loosely I have found the discussion quite fascinating. I am part of what you'd call the collaborative storytelling camp. I personally feel that a campaign is the collective creation of the DM and the Players. Sometimes it is good to let the players have some narrative control, sometimes it's good to let the DM have some player control. Ultimately you are not your character and the DM is not the ultimate god within the setting. You are people outside this world, playing in it for the purpose of having fun and socializing while telling a story. You will never have total immersion (not until we get some better virtual reality at least) and to pursue immersion at the expense of game enjoyment and storytelling is IMHO counter to the idea of the roleplay game.

Quote from: sparkletwist
Since we're quoting stuff that we wrote, I'll quote this from an old post I wrote before.

Quote from: Giving more narrative control to playersOne challenge with giving players more narrative control is ensuring the setting nonetheless remains consistent. Admittedly, it does create a certain Schrödingeresque dynamic when things that are unknown and unseen are essentially amorphous, waiting to be defined by a declaration, but I think that no setting is ever as detailed as inquisitive players want, and the GM has to make up this kind of stuff on the fly anyway. Why not let players join in the process? Personally, I think it actually adds to immersion, because it gives the player a sense of ownership in the setting and the game-- and that's a good thing.

Perhaps I'm misreading you (and correct me if I am) but I get this feeling that you think the GM should be the absolute owner of the game and setting and the players are more like guests in the GM's world. I don't like this approach at all. The game belongs to everyone. I don't see any need to differentiate a "shared narrative" from anything else because that feels like what an RPG should always be-- someone who doesn't want to share the narrative can go write a book.

So, I'm actually against the "Illusion of Preparedness." While I definitely think that the GM should provide a coherent setting and should give the players needed information in order to be able to act and think in character, and of course making it up as you go along is a valuable skill as a GM, I also think the GM shouldn't be the only one ready, willing, and able to wing it. I think these little empty spaces are potential opportunities, not flaws. By pretending that everything is set in stone, it deprives the players of a lot of chances to feel a sense of ownership and belonging in the setting.

I think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

To me, keeping the divide between prepared information and newly created information invisible has nothing to do with immersion, because a player who is even thinking in those terms is already thinking in terms of the metagame rather than how the information would actually be perceived by the character. To the character, as long as it's presented right, it's all just "stuff that happens." That's also why it doesn't really matter whether Player B or the GM gives a detail that is out of Player A's control. It only affects Player A's immersion if Player A is already starting to lose immersion by considering why the information was introduced and where it came from.

First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn.  

And , stripping away semantics as I did to you recently, I am only being fair to say by some perspectives, yes, the GM, or referee or Judge as he has been called variously could be seen as the owner of the game with the players being guests.  I have allowed a lot more player-direction in the last 7-8 years than ever before, and I agree more than ever that it  can help.
and while maybe Celtricia is an extreme example, but I think your version of a sense of ownership deprives the player of a level of immersion.  

Quote from: SparkleI think every group does this to some extent. I mean, whatever system or rules you're using, if the characters are in a bar, and someone describes picking up a tankard of ale that the GM didn't specifically mention as being there, is anyone going to really care? No, the GM has just accepted a small and incidental degree of player control over the narrative-- that there is indeed a tankard of ale there.

Hey..players in SIG, how many types of ale are their in Steel Isle?  I can tell you, and what the % of any ale being in a particular bar.  And what do you normally order or what Does Eddon or Heemious order?  In my opinion, in a roleplaying game, the player will ask if there is a tankard of ale that they did not order there to swig, the question will come up whose ale is it.  If the player did order it, then  there is no reason to ask.  trust me, we have these bar scenes very regularly, and sometimes they take up a lot of time...because we roleplay a lot of them.
Why do I do this?  Because I am trying to keep the same setting-reactive viewpoint.  If the players did not arrange for the tankard of ale and the GMN did not describe a reason that it was there, then the player is moving out of character saying it is there.

I am not saying you are wrong and that player ownership is not important...but I will tell you many Players come to Celtricia due to the level of completeness.  ANd many with deep dissatisfaction with shared narrativist games.  As written By a player who joined a few years back...(Sirrah Grobach's, to those who keep track)...
" I blamed my recent unsatisfaction in adult gaming on my growing older, until coming to the Igbar campaign.  I had been playing with more and more modern elements, and been told they were better for combined storytelling, until I played Guildschool and I found that the cost of narrative control was the feeling of really playing the character within the world."
When a player can see the invisble hand of the GM, when there is a noticable break...whether it is a player trying to play the system vs the setting, or a GM noticably making stuff up as they go along, the players note it and respond differently, and in my eyes, this is the same as when the players try to see behind the curtain and change their presptective is the end of playing from the perspective of the character.  It is still, at least in every experience I have had or had experienced to me by people who seem to grasp gaming mechanics, the difference between 'setting-reactive and immersed' and 'game-proactive and outside-in'.

You may not like the "illusion of Preparedness", but the term came up in a far reaching conversation about whether any mainly 'created on the fly' camapign could be really relevant, since it is somewhat common knowledge, or common consensus might be a less contentious term, that PCs who see things being created on the fly are always less immersed due to the lack of credibility of the GM.

I mean, heck, Sparkle, when Nomadic wanted to do some stuff with Kellik, and make stuff happen to his character, I arranged out of game for that to happen since we'd worked out outside of game, since that is where that belongs, so as not to upset immersion in game.  And that is how I do it...though I may be missing something, though, or maybe even missing a different source of fun, which is still the main rule.

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

The internet robs me of intent
That was really meant from a pro-sparkle, "hey, when you and I both talk about things as opinions, I am really happy to keep the conversation going."  And then I basically said to be fair, by some perspectives, Sparkle is right and my view could be seen as the exact way she described it.

Very interesting discussions; I pluralize it since it has went in a few different directions. I'm thinking that I very much want to play in a player driven game at least once, since I find my own feelings towards gaming to be closer to Vreeg's. I'm used to the DM being the giver of all information, and not used to players having much control other than the DM saying yes frequently to "Is there an X" type questions.

Mainly just announcing that I'm lurking and don't really have much to add at this point.

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: LordVreeg
First off, let me say that terms like, "To me..." and, " I think" make this a much better and approachable post, one that is much more challenging.   Again, Bravo.  Who says people don't improve and learn. 

Ok just gonna say that this is over the line. Discussion is all well and good but I'm not going to tolerate condescending or passive aggressive comments. Let's keep this civil please. ;)

The internet robs me of intent
That was really meant from a pro-sparkle, "hey, when you and I both talk about things as opinions, I am really happy to keep the conversation going."  And then I basically said to be fair, by some perspectives, Sparkle is right and my view could be seen as the exact way she described it.

Perhaps but it came across as patronizing, I would very much like if people would avoid that kind of tone in a respectable debate thread like this one.

Yeah.  I apologize for writing it in a tone that could be misconstrued.  As said, the intention was not there; and it is hard to avoid what you are not actively attempting to do.   :?:
I'll try to avoid the compliments, since they are just causing confusion, twice now on this site in 2 days.

Quote from: XeviatVery interesting discussions; I pluralize it since it has went in a few different directions. I'm thinking that I very much want to play in a player driven game at least once, since I find my own feelings towards gaming to be closer to Vreeg's. I'm used to the DM being the giver of all information, and not used to players having much control other than the DM saying yes frequently to "Is there an X" type questions.

Mainly just announcing that I'm lurking and don't really have much to add at this point.

Well, the thread IS interesting.  A lot of it is defining what is meant when people use a word, and a few times it has literally been the definition of a word that has been the culprit.  As Beejazz obliquely inferred, we spend time on other sites talking about a thing, so we sort of assume that everyone has a pretty similar idea and has gone through the same process, and that is simply not true.  

I also get the feeling that there is a ratio of player enjoyment that comes from Buy-in that some players and GMs feel is enhanced when the narrative control is shared.  And that this enhancement is worth some loss of 'traditional Immersion' because of the buy-in benefits gained on the other side, and might even create a more 'story driven immersion'.
The 'Tankard of Ale' test (as it might become called) was actually a wonderfully simple test, since I believe Sparkle wrote it with ideal that it was 'small and incidenta'l, but it is actualy a fantastic GM litmus test, becasue for some GMs, it is not small and might not go unnoticed.

Threads like this are what make the CBG great, just as much as the awesome settings themselves. I feel like there are very few places on the internet where a discussion could have gone on this long between people who disagree about something without someone getting overly defensive and then the general civility level dropping.

Aside from my somewhat flippant comment near the beginning of the thread, my opinion, such as it is, on the balance or imbalance of randomly-generated stats is.... I'm kind of cool with it. I've done point-buy a few times too, and that totally works, but I think the main reason I don't have a problem with rolling up characters is that the kinds of games where you roll for stats are generally class-and-level games (at least the ones I've played) and seeing as I always play with pretty small parties, it doesn't seem to me that the Fighter not having 18 STR is game-breaking, because he's still THE Fighter. Even without "peak human ability" level strength, he's still gonna have more BAB and/or HP and/or whatever else than the Wizard, and so be more use in a sword fight. In more of a skill-based game, point-buy obviously makes a hell of a lot more sense, but for class-and-level I don't see a huge advantage to either - I'd just go with whatever the players feel is gonna be more fun.

Quote from: Kindling
Threads like this are what make the CBG great, just as much as the awesome settings themselves. I feel like there are very few places on the internet where a discussion could have gone on this long between people who disagree about something without someone getting overly defensive and then the general civility level dropping.

Aside from my somewhat flippant comment near the beginning of the thread, my opinion, such as it is, on the balance or imbalance of randomly-generated stats is.... I'm kind of cool with it. I've done point-buy a few times too, and that totally works, but I think the main reason I don't have a problem with rolling up characters is that the kinds of games where you roll for stats are generally class-and-level games (at least the ones I've played) and seeing as I always play with pretty small parties, it doesn't seem to me that the Fighter not having 18 STR is game-breaking, because he's still THE Fighter. Even without "peak human ability" level strength, he's still gonna have more BAB and/or HP and/or whatever else than the Wizard, and so be more use in a sword fight. In more of a skill-based game, point-buy obviously makes a hell of a lot more sense, but for class-and-level I don't see a huge advantage to either - I'd just go with whatever the players feel is gonna be more fun.

It's also intersting when the PCs roll up a fighter with a 15 strength, or a mage with a high charisma, or something.  Because it seems to matter more about the whole bell curve and the population when it realy is ununsual to have a 17 or 18 strength.

And Kindling, GuildSchool is all skill based (as were many other skill based RPGs, Like runequest, etc) thaty used totally random stat generation.  So I am going to have to roll that one around in my head.  Not saying you are wrong, maybe to a point, but I need to work that around my head.

Well, I guess maybe not at "obviously" as I said, then. It's just in the kinds of skill-based games I'm familiar with they tend to use point-buy as a base, and that makes sense. In a class-and-level game, as I said, you're playing a Fighter so you're gonna be better at fighting than anyone who isn't a Fighter. In a skill-based game, if you randomly determine your stats, you could end up making a Fighter-type character who specialises in fighting and not a lot else, and someone else who rolled better might make a character who's just as good at fighting as yours, but also has loads of skills in other areas.

Now as I said, this only goes for the games I'm familiar with, and I'm not at all familiar with GS so I'm not saying this goes for your game at all, necessarily, it just seems to be a trend I've noticed.

I don't think the "general bell curve of the population" even matters much when making player characters. Player characters are, by definition, exceptional. That doesn't mean they have to be good at everything, of course, but the very idea of being a player character means that you're going to go on an adventure and do something other than be a peasant. You, by definition, already stand out. If the problems that adventurers faced were the sort of thing that any average person could deal with, then any average person probably would deal with them, and there wouldn't be much of an adventure there. They need you, because you are exceptional, and to be exceptional-- well, then, you should actually be exceptional. I agree that it's unusual to have 18 strength in the population at large, but the population of player characters is a very restricted subset of the population at large, and the same rules do not apply.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I don't think the "general bell curve of the population" even matters much when making player characters. Player characters are, by definition, exceptional. That doesn't mean they have to be good at everything, of course, but the very idea of being a player character means that you're going to go on an adventure and do something other than be a peasant. You, by definition, already stand out. If the problems that adventurers faced were the sort of thing that any average person could deal with, then any average person probably would deal with them, and there wouldn't be much of an adventure there. They need you, because you are exceptional, and to be exceptional-- well, then, you should actually be exceptional. I agree that it's unusual to have 18 strength in the population at large, but the population of player characters is a very restricted subset of the population at large, and the same rules do not apply.

Agree and disagree.
For example, I state in the GS rulebook that the general population attribute average is 12, though the math works out to an average of 14 for the PCs.  So I agree that in most RPGs, though not all, the PCs are seen to be in some way exceptional specimens.
But just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

I've played both ways.  I've watched players literally light up on a decent roll...I've never watched a player get excited about choosing to have a high attribute.  Now, as we said, there is alos the chance of the player rolling a good enough character to play with, but one they are totally uninspired to play. So to have the plus, one accepts the minus, and if the GM would rather not, that is just as valid.  Now, I may be missing something, so I am going with ears wide open on this.

Quote from: LordVreegSo I agree that in most RPGs, though not all, the PCs are seen to be in some way exceptional specimens.

True. I should clarify that I'm talking about the usual category of "fantastic adventure" RPG.

Quote from: LordVreegBut just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on. A lot of decisions are going to be made by the group beforehand that the characters would've had no choice in, too. So, it's ultimately the game's mechanics that dictate what a player gets and doesn't get to decide, and I think that's the best way to think about it.

Quote from: LordVreegI've watched players literally light up on a decent roll...I've never watched a player get excited about choosing to have a high attribute.

I've watched players be disappointed by a bad roll... I've never watched a player disappointed in choosing to lower an attribute in point-buy. On other hand, I've definitely seen players get excited when they're able to make the choices that allow the system's mechanics to reflect a character concept that they've been wanting to play.

Quote from: LordVreegSo to have the plus, one accepts the minus, and if the GM would rather not, that is just as valid.

Sure. I just happen to think the minus is a lot larger than the plus.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
But just stating it in the rules is one level of abstraction greater (and as I posited earlier, less immersive) than if the player does have to deal with the world of probablity..if those rules DO apply...than it matters more to the Player and is more immersive.

It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on. A lot of decisions are going to be made by the group beforehand that the characters would've had no choice in, too. So, it's ultimately the game's mechanics that dictate what a player gets and doesn't get to decide, and I think that's the best way to think about it.

Immersion and the level of immersion is not a nominal scale/absolute value ingredient in a game, it is part of a continuum, with metagaming at the other end.  So just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.
And if the rules can reduce the level of abstraction to be able to not just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT, then the game is less abstracted.
I agree that in chargen, more than any other part of the game, metagame thinking is more important.  But the continuum still exists, and the decision still has to be made how much the inclusion of the immersion will cost, and if it is worth it.   

Quote from: LordVreegSo just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions." What I'm saying is that the game's mechanics and/or the desires of the group should dictate what decisions are available to players, rather than what is "more immersive." I'm not talking about metagaming in making decisions in the game, I'm talking about making decisions about the game, which is always going to be "meta." If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly. However, not being mindful of the game's mechanics, you might end up with an unplayable mess, and an unplayable mess is never immersive-- because nobody's playing it.

Quote from: LordVreegnot just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT

I don't see how this leads to anything but a greater chance of players being stuck with characters they don't want to play. In the broad genre of "fantastic adventure" RPGs that we're talking about, PCs are not part of the population at large when it comes to probability. They go on grand adventures, while muggles farm turnips. Basically, players have already said (and are being allowed to say, by sitting down to play an RPG) "I am going to be one of the exceptional ones." You have already, by definition, thrown out the bell curve for the normal population, because they are no longer part of the normal population. They part of the much smaller population of "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sparkle

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Interesting topic. While I agree with some of your comments beejazz, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I think it's basically a classic slippery slope. (I see no meaningful difference between telling players they cannot choose their stats because their character didn't get to choose his stats and telling the player they cannot choose their gender because their character didn't choose that either.)

Rolling for stats may simulate reality (debatable). But it doesn't matter to me. I don't play RPGs to simulate real life. I have real life for that. I play games (RPGs included) for fun. Part of fun is immersion. The argument about increasing immersion may hold sway. The argument about turning the game into a life simulator doesn't, at least not for me.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegSo just because there is always rules that try to represent the reality of the setting, and that there will always be some level of metagame abstraction in any part of the game, does not mean you throw out the immersive part of the equation.  So I think it is a mistake to think that the potential and amount of immersion gets tossed out whenever there is some needed metagaming.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions." What I'm saying is that the game's mechanics and/or the desires of the group should dictate what decisions are available to players, rather than what is "more immersive." I'm not talking about metagaming in making decisions in the game, I'm talking about making decisions about the game, which is always going to be "meta." If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly. However, not being mindful of the game's mechanics, you might end up with an unplayable mess, and an unplayable mess is never immersive-- because nobody's playing it.

Well, you did not say,"I'm not saying "toss out immersion just because there are going to be rules and abstractions", you said, "It's not really of any benefit at all to consider these kinds of things in terms of immersion. A player showing up to play an RPG is already going to have made all sorts of non-immersive, "metagamey" decisions simply by selecting a certain genre and ruleset, and so on."  
So maybe,'Throw immersion out out' is not the same as saying that that is has zero benefit in that context, but it does seem unclear as to the difference.  I understand we are talking about rules, which is meta, but one of the possible goals in the choice of rules IS the amount of Immersion.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegnot just have the rules state that few inhabitants of the setting have a certain attribute but that the PCs ACTUALLY HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF HAVING IT

I don't see how this leads to anything but a greater chance of players being stuck with characters they don't want to play. In the broad genre of "fantastic adventure" RPGs that we're talking about, PCs are not part of the population at large when it comes to probability. They go on grand adventures, while muggles farm turnips. Basically, players have already said (and are being allowed to say, by sitting down to play an RPG) "I am going to be one of the exceptional ones." You have already, by definition, thrown out the bell curve for the normal population, because they are no longer part of the normal population. They part of the much smaller population of "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

I really don't know how I can say this differently, and maybe I should leave sleeping dragons be.  But this is a good discussion between not just how we do things, but why.

There are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing.  Because rolling dice to model probability is more interesting and actually models the real effects of statistical reality better (since the dice have no memory and you may get lucky and hit trhre times in a rown, or get unlucky a few times in a row)
And even though our PC fighter is exceptional, we still model his chance to hit on a probablity curve with other beings he contests with.

PCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."  

just as we used dice to model the chance of success in striking a creature, so are we using dice to mdel the frequency distribution of attributes in the adventuring population subset.  As I mentioned before. the average attribute in the celtrician population is 12, but the average PC attibute is 14, and this is mirrored by the choice of dice we use to roll up attributes.

That was my point when I said, agree and disagree.  You can assume the adventuring populatin has a different frquency distribution of attributes, and most games do, but there is a still a frequency distribution within the subset, and the dice are used to model that.  

Quote from: LordVreegI understand we are talking about rules, which is meta, but one of the possible goals in the choice of rules IS the amount of Immersion.

Yes, that's my point.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly.

Rules are meta. They should be decided in a "meta" fashion, even if the goal is immersion. Trying to "immersively" decide the rules (e.g., saying things like "X is essentially randomly determined in your life so X should be randomly determined in game") just leads nowhere productive. You either eventually make a purely game-rules-related (as opposed to immersion-related) distinction for X-- thus doing it the way I suggested, in the end-- or accept all values for which X is true, leading to some very stupid rules. If the group feels that a certain mechanic is more immersive, then they should decide to use that mechanic based on its merit as a game mechanic.

Quote from: LordVreegThere are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing.

There is a very big difference. Missing and hitting in combat is something that doesn't affect you for very long. If you miss, the battle goes on, and you try again with the same odds next time. Sometimes the roll may set you back, like if a monster hits you, but there is usually a way to recover, and your own choices determine how that might happen. Anyway, on the other hand, if you roll badly at character generation, you are stuck with it. If you roll badly on one swing, that was a bad swing. If you roll badly when generating your "odds of hitting" bonus or whatever the system uses, every swing will be bad.

This is a big difference, and at the core of why I'm against just having everyone roll up their stats.

Quote from: LordVreegPCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

There's nothing inherently saying there has to be. If the game's rule is that "All player characters have a stat of 16 in everything," then there will be no variety and no curve. In other words, the probability distribution is for player characters is whatever the player character creation algorithm spits out. No more and no less. You can choose that player characters will follow a bell curve, but that's what it is-- a game mechanics choice.

Here's my own example from my own work: in the setting for Asura, something like 1% of the population is an Asura. However, in the game of Asura, player characters are expected to be Asuras. They do not follow the bell curve for the population; they follow the rules of the game. Trying to make them correspond to the actual population would be pointless and unplayable.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Vreeg
If the goal is more immersion, then, great, the group should decide what that means to them and structure their choices of mechanics accordingly.

Rules are meta. They should be decided in a "meta" fashion, even if the goal is immersion. Trying to "immersively" decide the rules (e.g., saying things like "X is essentially randomly determined in your life so X should be randomly determined in game") just leads nowhere productive. You either eventually make a purely game-rules-related (as opposed to immersion-related) distinction for X-- thus doing it the way I suggested, in the end-- or accept all values for which X is true, leading to some very stupid rules. If the group feels that a certain mechanic is more immersive, then they should decide to use that mechanic based on its merit as a game mechanic.

Well, I agree that rules must be discussed from the outside in, meta perspective, that was never in doubt or posited.  But I disagree that modeling some rules after the actual experience in game or in reality always leads nowhere productive.  Since the 2 are obviously not mutually exclusive, a designer or group can opt to have a rule that they like because it models the actual experience as well as it's merits as a mechanic.
It's not that it has to be done that way, or that these decisions are not made along a continuum of how well they model the actual in game situation.

To use an example, in GS, we don't just roll stats, we roll race and social level and background items .  And I don't think these random rolls perfectly model the in game experience, since I allow a re roll on race in case the player gets something that just does not fit, based on what we both agree is the unfun outrcome of getting a character you just do not want to play.  
But very specifically,m the race mechanic was decided on by myself and a few other early designers specifically because it went along with the idea of random stat generation; that this is something that was out of the PCs control
Does not make it bad or good, or a judgement on any other system. But specifically what you said leads nowhere productive seems to have been doing a pretty good job for over 25 years for me and mine.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
There are number of things in an FRP that most games use dice to model the probability of.  And there are reasons why we still have players rolling dice to hit a creature when they have a 10- in- 20 chance of hittting, rather than stop rolling dice and just letting the player hit the monster every other swing

.There is a very big difference. Missing and hitting in combat is something that doesn't affect you for very long. If you miss, the battle goes on, and you try again with the same odds next time. Sometimes the roll may set you back, like if a monster hits you, but there is usually a way to recover, and your own choices determine how that might happen. Anyway, on the other hand, if you roll badly at character generation, you are stuck with it. If you roll badly on one swing, that was a bad swing. If you roll badly when generating your "odds of hitting" bonus or whatever the system uses, every swing will be bad.

This is a big difference, and at the core of why I'm against just having everyone roll up their stats

Really? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.  Or missing a save, or many other important rolls in game where dice are used to model the probability.
 
This is one I stand by.  We use dice in games to model probability of some events, some of which are minor or major, in game or in chargen.  The level of risk that is fun for the players needs to be set ahaed of time; but that is true in chargen or in gameplay.  For some people, it is not fun to have a chance of losing their character, and risk is not a lot of fun.  And for some people, it is not fun to have a sub-optimal character or the potential of same.  Some players are drawn to high risk and the possible satisfaction of 'playing at a tougher level/hardcore mode', for others that is not fun.
You say this is a core reason you are against it; but this is a core reason that many people use it.  May not work for you, and everyone's games and players are different.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg
PCs are a subset of the population, and even most games with dice rolling assume they are in some level of a small, superior subset of the population; but with some variety in that subset.  There is still variety and a probability curve in, "player characters in a fantastic adventure RPG."

just as we used dice to model the chance of success in striking a creature, so are we using dice to mdel the frequency distribution of attributes in the adventuring population subset.  As I mentioned before. the average attribute in the celtrician population is 12, but the average PC attibute is 14, and this is mirrored by the choice of dice we use to roll up attributes.

That was my point when I said, agree and disagree.  You can assume the adventuring population has a different frequency distribution of attributes, and most games do, but there is a still a frequency distribution within the subset, and the dice are used to model that.

There's nothing inherently saying there has to be. If the game's rule is that "All player characters have a stat of 16 in everything," then there will be no variety and no curve. In other words, the probability distribution is for player characters is whatever the player character creation algorithm spits out. No more and no less. You can choose that player characters will follow a bell curve, but that's what it is-- a game mechanics choice.

Here's my own example from my own work: in the setting for Asura, something like 1% of the population is an Asura. However, in the game of Asura, player characters are expected to be Asuras. They do not follow the bell curve for the population; they follow the rules of the game. Trying to make them correspond to the actual population would be pointless and unplayable.

We both state that the modeling of the PCs is not based normally on the general population.

But yes, the choice to use dice to model a population frequency ditribution is of course just that, a choice.  There are other mechanical methods available, but the point from the early nesting of quotes was that the other choices may make more sense for other reasons; but dice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

I think there's been a miscommunication, because you're saying you disagree and then stating pretty much the exact same point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

Saying "We like rule X and we have decided to use it. We like it because it feels more like real life," is fine and good and can add to immersion for some people. This is what I think we're both advocating. On the other hand, saying "In real life, X happens. So, in our game, X should happen too," ends up with a lot of stupid rules, and was what I was arguing against.

It may seem like a pedantic distinction, but it is important. The first one is based on a conscious choice and still governed by game mechanics, whereas the second one is trying to be blindly "immersive" (or "simulationist," or whatever other word you want to throw around) without thinking about how it affects the game mechanics at all-- and doing that leads nowhere productive.

Quote from: LordVreegReally? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.

I was talking about individual rolls. Unless it's some kind of crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure or something, any individual roll in itself isn't going to kill you-- the roll that killed you is probably at the end of a run of bad luck and more than a few conscious decisions, too. On the other hand, at character generation, one individual roll can affect your entire campaign life. All I was trying to assert was that this distinction exists, so it should be considered. I understand and agree that different people may come to different opinions as a result of that consideration.

Quote from: LordVreegdice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

There is no "actual probability curve" for the group called "player characters" because it's entirely a construct of the rules. Nobody in the setting has any concept of a "player character." The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

If by the "actual probability curve" you mean that of the general population, you're not doing that, either. If the population's average is a bell curve centered around 12, and your character generation algorithm is a bell curve centered around 14, your rolling procedure is not modeling the probability curve of the general population. It's modeling a different curve that you designed expressly for the population of "player characters." You might like that it's random and a bell curve and that makes it feel more like the general population, but it's still just a game mechanics choice and it's still rooted in game mechanics just like any other possible choice.

Quote from: Phoenix

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sparkle

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Interesting topic. While I agree with some of your comments beejazz, I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I think it's basically a classic slippery slope. (I see no meaningful difference between telling players they cannot choose their stats because their character didn't get to choose his stats and telling the player they cannot choose their gender because their character didn't choose that either.)

Rolling for stats may simulate reality (debatable). But it doesn't matter to me. I don't play RPGs to simulate real life. I have real life for that. I play games (RPGs included) for fun. Part of fun is immersion. The argument about increasing immersion may hold sway. The argument about turning the game into a life simulator doesn't, at least not for me.

Well, assuming the example I was responding to, choosing the game, the setting, etc. is by definition meta-game because it's taking place outside the game.

As for gender, some games may determine it randomly. As I may or may not have said, immersion only matters to me where it affects gameplay (in the mechanical sense). If a player wants to sip a previously unmentioned beer it doesn't matter much to me. Conversely if the player wants to survive by hunting a previously unmentioned deer, that's a bigger deal. Gender doesn't have any special stat mods in any game I would play, so letting the players decide does no harm at all. It's similar to coming up with backstory.

I'm simply going after the definition of immersion vs metagaming, but where people value one or the other remains an arbitrary line. No real slippery slope there.

Lastly, people keep talking about random stat rolling in D&D, which is pretty minor. Would you consider Traveller to still be traveller without the  lifepath chargen? It's part of the fundamental core of the appeal of the system. Brings people into a state of thinking "in-game" before the game even starts, and people tend to like that.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I think there's been a miscommunication, because you're saying you disagree and then stating pretty much the exact same point I was trying to make. Let me try again.

Saying "We like rule X and we have decided to use it. We like it because it feels more like real life," is fine and good and can add to immersion for some people. This is what I think we're both advocating. On the other hand, saying "In real life, X happens. So, in our game, X should happen too," ends up with a lot of stupid rules, and was what I was arguing against.

It may seem like a pedantic distinction, but it is important. The first one is based on a conscious choice and still governed by game mechanics, whereas the second one is trying to be blindly "immersive" (or "simulationist," or whatever other word you want to throw around) without thinking about how it affects the game mechanics at all-- and doing that leads nowhere productive.

I get what you are saying.  I agree with all the terminology above, but the decision to be immersive or simulationist can be made with the eyes wide open, and for almost every designer out there, I am sure it is.  I look at your two example sentences above, and the only real differentiator is the word, 'Should' above, which I highlighted, and I really don't think any designer ever is or ever has been that blind.  If you change that word from 'should' to 'can' you probably have a more real-life example. Everyone I have ended up discussing the choice with fits into your first example[note=word order]  I think most designers do it in the reverse order, however, with the designers likeing the modeling of real life or within setting, and deciding they like the rule because of that.[/note], with whatever level of random chance being a little closer to real-life without causing too much player dissapointment.    

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegReally? Missing and hitting in combat doesn't affect you long? I doubt many things affect a player character longer than getting hit and dying and losing the character.

I was talking about individual rolls. Unless it's some kind of crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure or something, any individual roll in itself isn't going to kill you-- the roll that killed you is probably at the end of a run of bad luck and more than a few conscious decisions, too. On the other hand, at character generation, one individual roll can affect your entire campaign life. All I was trying to assert was that this distinction exists, so it should be considered. I understand and agree that different people may come to different opinions as a result of that consideration.

'Save or Die' is a Meme in the RPG world for a reason.  It's not just a way-out there possibility.  Sometimes it is at the end of a run of bad luck; but there are a lot of permanent effects from one roll in RPGs, and sometimes from maybe one decision and one bad roll (Deck of Many Things, anyone?).  There have been critical hit systems for decades that increase the lethality of sincle rolls, and there are critical effects charts that involve scarring, maiming and other effects modeled after similation of combat (rolemaster is a good example).  Saving vs paralysis and petrification is another fun one....
I am saying this because while I agree that there is *some* distinction, but based on your comments about swinging to hit not being equivalent and the above one about the 'crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure' and 'any indivdual roll itself isn't going to kill you', the distinction of importance and permanence between single 'in game' and rolling in chargen is not as extreme as you believe.  I also believe that there is a corrolation between players who like high risk/high reward gamestyles and players who like to roll up characters.

Quote from: SParkle

Quote from: LordVreegdice are used to remove a level of extremely common abstraction, by modeling the actual probability curve of a population of the % of an action happening.

There is no "actual probability curve" for the group called "player characters" because it's entirely a construct of the rules. Nobody in the setting has any concept of a "player character." The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

If by the "actual probability curve" you mean that of the general population, you're not doing that, either. If the population's average is a bell curve centered around 12, and your character generation algorithm is a bell curve centered around 14, your rolling procedure is not modeling the probability curve of the general population. It's modeling a different curve that you designed expressly for the population of "player characters." You might like that it's random and a bell curve and that makes it feel more like the general population, but it's still just a game mechanics choice and it's still rooted in game mechanics just like any other possible choice.

No and no, in my opinion and experience.
1) "The probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out."  This is not true, Because it can go the other direction.  And this is a very real, critical distinction.   In reality or in setting, I can decide or discover the actual probability curve OF THE GROUP IN QUESTION, and then model the dice used in the probability curve to model it.  The character generation can be entirely determined by the probabilites of the group in question.

I often call the rules a 'physics engine', built to model the reaction of the world to the players action.  And I often talk about the need to match the system to the setting, because this is the order I believe it needs to happen in.  The game mechanic choice should be made based on what it is modeling, it rarely should have primacy.  The frequency distribution of a population within a setting is not a construct of the rules, it is a construct of the setting, and the rules should be designed afterwards.  Fluff and crunch are not the same.  I said this when I first came on board, I've said it for decades before...crunch models fluff.  
The Game mechanics choice is if you want to bother modeling the PCs on the information created for the setting, or not.  Or, to paraphrase Vreeg's First Rule, make sure the system matches the setting, or the game will eventually match the system...which is said this ways because it is a warning.

2) We both made it entirely clear that the PCs/adventurers were a subset of the general population, and sometimes the frequency distribution of an attribute is from the general populaiton, but normally not.  

Quote from: LordVreegI think most designers do it in the reverse order, however, with the designers likeing the modeling of real life or within setting, and deciding they like the rule because of that.

Sure, but doing that without carefully considering how the rule affects the game is exactly the thing that I an cautioning against in my second example. It's not enough to just "like the modeling of real life," because that can lead to blindness. Someone has to actually write this rule and make sure that it's good and doesn't break the game, and decide just how far to take the desire for verisimilitude.

Quote from: LordVreeg'Save or Die' is a Meme in the RPG world for a reason.

Yes, it's a meme associated with the same "crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure" style of play that I specifically discounted from my example. That was my point. With the number of times dice are rolled in a RPG session, most of these rolls have to be "safe" (i.e., a 0% chance of something utterly catastrophic, no matter what boon or setback the roll may impose) or the multiplication rule would lead to an absurdly deadly game even if the "chance of catastrophe" is a very low non-zero number. Or, at least, the number of times most groups I have played with roll dice. I do see how if you roll dice less often it would lead to each roll having a greater significance.

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: sparkletwistThe probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

This is not true, Because it can go the other direction.  And this is a very real, critical distinction.   In reality or in setting, I can decide or discover the actual probability curve OF THE GROUP IN QUESTION, and then model the dice used in the probability curve to model it.

No. It can't. "Player characters" is a group that has absolutely no in-setting relevance. There are no in-setting criteria that you can use to decide or determine the demographics of its group because it doesn't exist as a concept within the setting at all. When you are deciding the probability curve of the group, you are simply deciding the probabilities for player characters-- i.e., you are developing a player character creation algorithm, or, at least, the mathematical basis for one. Therefore, the demographics of the group will be exactly what your algorithm spits out.

Quote from: LordVreegI said this when I first came on board, I've said it for decades before...crunch models fluff.

Or the fluff reflects the results that the crunch generates. Neither approach is inherently correct.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegI think most designers do it in the reverse order, however, with the designers likeing the modeling of real life or within setting, and deciding they like the rule because of that.

Sure, but doing that without carefully considering how the rule affects the game is exactly the thing that I an cautioning against in my second example. It's not enough to just "like the modeling of real life," because that can lead to blindness. Someone has to actually write this rule and make sure that it's good and doesn't break the game, and decide just how far to take the desire for verisimilitude.

yes and as was said, you are cautioning agasint something no game designer would ever do, a null set.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg'Save or Die' is a Meme in the RPG world for a reason.

Yes, it's a meme associated with the same "crazy Tomb of Horrors adventure" style of play that I specifically discounted from my example. That was my point. With the number of times dice are rolled in a RPG session, most of these rolls have to be "safe" (i.e., a 0% chance of something utterly catastrophic, no matter what boon or setback the roll may impose) or the multiplication rule would lead to an absurdly deadly game even if the "chance of catastrophe" is a very low non-zero number. Or, at least, the number of times most groups I have played with roll dice. I do see how if you roll dice less often it would lead to each roll having a greater significance.

Your point in contention was that I mentioned that we use dice to model in game things for a reason, including swinging to hit, and you said there was a big difference between rolls in game, like to hit rolls, and the permanence of the rolls at chargen.  And I have brought up many rolls in game that do have permanent or game changing effects.  And the Meme in question is actually such becuse it is present in many games.  Such as all OSR retroclones. It is Not uncommon in all games, though newer styles of games don't seem to understand what was tgrying to be accomplished by it.
You are not wrong that every roll in chargen is important and game changing, and nowhere near as many rolls in game are as important; but in many games, there can be a number of save or catastrophe rolls.  AS I said, i think the distinction is much less than you believe.
And every single roll to hit in most games with a critical hit systems have a chance of killing a PC.  Every. Single. Roll.  And while you may believe that leads to an absurdly deadly game, but other people seem to play them and stick with them.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: sparkletwistThe probabilities of that group are entirely determined by whatever your character generation algorithm spits out.

This is not true, Because it can go the other direction.  And this is a very real, critical distinction.   In reality or in setting, I can decide or discover the actual probability curve OF THE GROUP IN QUESTION, and then model the dice used in the probability curve to model it.

No. It can't. "Player characters" is a group that has absolutely no in-setting relevance. There are no in-setting criteria that you can use to decide or determine the demographics of its group because it doesn't exist as a concept within the setting at all. When you are deciding the probability curve of the group, you are simply deciding the probabilities for player characters-- i.e., you are developing a player character creation algorithm, or, at least, the mathematical basis for one. Therefore, the demographics of the group will be exactly what your algorithm spits out.

Not everyone plays superheroic games or games where the PCs are a completely different subset from every other in-game population.
For example, in the Collegium Arcana game, I am modeling the frequency distribution for the members of the undergraduate class of the Collegium Arcana of 898RON in Stenron.  The PCs are all going to be members of that class, and are not going to be special or superior or different from that curve.  It's a diffferent curve from the general population, but the PC subset exists within this class of the CA set and uses the same frequency distribution.
So, yes it can, or so it seems to me.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegI said this when I first came on board, I've said it for decades before...crunch models fluff.

Or the fluff reflects the results that the crunch generates. Neither approach is inherently correct.

It is not impossible for one to create a ruleset first, with a complete blank mind, with no concept or idea of what kind of game and fluff you want and then, after one finds a bunch of rules they like and that will play the way they want to, try to see what it spits out.  
But I cite Vreeg's first rule for a reason.  Most of the time, designers decide they are doing an 'Amber ' game, or a 'supers' game, and get a general idea of what the genre and setting, then start working with rulesets.   But if I am wrong about this, since I have not asked a ton of designers how they do stuff, I'd love to learn differently.
Honestly, Vreeg's First rule is more about the issue that is near and dear to you; making sure the ramifications of the ruleset are understood.

Quote from: LordVreegyes and as was said, you are cautioning agasint something no game designer would ever do, a null set.

Well, no good game designer, sure, but that's completely different. My cautionary statement was more thinking about the ones that weren't so good.

I almost hate to even mention it, but... let's talk about FATAL. It is a terrible game. It was, however, designed by a game designer. It has a system, rules, and a skill for urination. Real people urinate, and its presence in a game is more "realistic." It is also a terrible game mechanic on multiple levels (aside from being nothing most people want to talk about, the system is completely broken) and its presence does absolutely nothing to enhance the game. However, it was put in there for the sake of "realism," and was put in by a game designer, thus providing a counterexample to your assertion.

Quote from: LordVreegIt is Not uncommon in all games, though newer styles of games don't seem to understand what was tgrying to be accomplished by it.

It's also possible they do understand, and just don't like the result.

Quote from: LordVreegi think the distinction is much less than you believe.

And I think the distinction is much more than you believe.  :grin:
For example...

Quote from: LordVreegAnd every single roll to hit in most games with a critical hit systems have a chance of killing a PC.  Every. Single. Roll.

This is incorrect.

Let's talk about Pathfinder. Pathfinder is so popular and ubiquitous that no claim can be made about "most games" that is quite provably false for Pathfinder. So, let's look at its numbers.

At level 1, a decent fighter will probably have a +3 con bonus and around 14 hp. If a goblin, skeleton, or other level 1 mook doing a d6 of damage (which is about right for level 1) attacks that fighter and scores a critical hit, that's 2d6. The most 2d6 will ever roll is 12. So, if that fighter goes into combat with full HP, there is no way that roll will ever kill that fighter. It'll set him back, and make him damn careful, and probably necessitate a change in tactics, but it is mathematically impossible for a 12 hp hit to take out a 14 hp character. At higher level, let's say level 8, that fighter (assuming he rolls average hit dice, and puts half of his favored class bonuses into HP) will have 77 hp or so. So let's fight him against some "level appropriate" CR 8 monsters. A stone giant does 2d8+12. A crit is 4d8+24, or, maxed out, 56. Again, a big setback, but mathematically impossible to kill him. An Efreeti is swinging a 2d6+9 falchion, inflicting 42 damage on a crit with full damage, again, a large setback, but not lethal. A dimensional shambler gets two attacks of 2d6+5, so assuming both crit and are maxed out, that's 68 damage; also less than 77. Of course, by picking different monsters and varying the numbers, it's possible to end up with things more or less lethal, but this is more than enough to counter the assertion that every single roll has a chance of killing a PC, as there are plenty of rolls where things can go 100% the monster's way (critical hit, maximum damage) and the PC is still standing no matter what, and the majority of rolls are not going to be nearly this one-sided against the PC.

Quote from: LordVreegFor example, in the Collegium Arcana game, I am modeling the frequency distribution for the members of the undergraduate class of the Collegium Arcana of 898RON in Stenron.  The PCs are all going to be members of that class, and are not going to be special or superior or different from that curve.  It's a diffferent curve from the general population, but the PC subset exists within this class of the CA set and uses the same frequency distribution.
So, yes it can, or so it seems to me.

The "undergraduate class of CA" is a demographic that exists within the setting, but "player character" is not. There is currently a 100% correspondence between these two groups, but there is nothing requiring it. If, at some point, you decide to allow a player character that is not a member of the undergraduate class of the Collegium Arcana, the demographics and probability distribution of "player characters" will have changed even though absolutely nothing about the in-setting demographics has changed. In other words, as I've been saying, the probability distribution of this group is solely determined by the output of your player character creation rules.

Quote from: LordVreegIt is not impossible for one to create a ruleset first, with a complete blank mind, with no concept or idea of what kind of game and fluff you want and then, after one finds a bunch of rules they like and that will play the way they want to, try to see what it spits out. 
But I cite Vreeg's first rule for a reason.  Most of the time, designers decide they are doing an 'Amber ' game, or a 'supers' game, and get a general idea of what the genre and setting, then start working with rulesets.

It's probably a mutual, reciprocal thing. Good ideas lead to mechanics, game mechanics that are fun necessitate changes in the setting, newly discovered fun things in the setting need to be modeled by mechanics, and so on. I think it often goes both ways and it's not possible to make a blanket statement of "fluff inspires crunch" or "crunch inspires fluff." I know that I personally have been inspired in both directions!

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegyes and as was said, you are cautioning agasint something no game designer would ever do, a null set.

Well, no good game designer, sure, but that's completely different. My cautionary statement was more thinking about the ones that weren't so good.

I almost hate to even mention it, but... let's talk about FATAL. It is a terrible game. It was, however, designed by a game designer. It has a system, rules, and a skill for urination. Real people urinate, and its presence in a game is more "realistic." It is also a terrible game mechanic on multiple levels (aside from being nothing most people want to talk about, the system is completely broken) and its presence does absolutely nothing to enhance the game. However, it was put in there for the sake of "realism," and was put in by a game designer, thus providing a counterexample to your assertion.

No, it would be an effective counter example if you could prove that the designer did not, "carefully consider how the rule affects the game", not whether they succeeded or not.  You stated that , " Sure, but doing that without carefully considering how the rule affects the game is exactly the thing that I an cautioning against in my second example.",
And my point is exactly that every want-to-be game deisgner THINKs they do this and tries to forsee the outcomes of their rules.  No one puts out a ruleset without this attempt, which is why I said you were cautioning aginst somehting no one would ever do.  Their success at said attempt is a completely different matter, but since it is impossible to say that every designer must succesfully test their rules vs ever conceivable situation, the best one could say was that they must look at the rules this way.
Even the designer of FATAL probably thought he got it right. no one puts out a ruleset without the attempt, which is why you were cautioning against a nullset.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegIt is Not uncommon in all games, though newer styles of games don't seem to understand what was trying to be accomplished by it.

It's also possible they do understand, and just don't like the result.

Well, I've read a lot about this theory and how it started and what was done with it through the earlier games, but I certainly have to say that my opinion that a lot of game designers have little understanding of this is exactly that, an opinion.  Not statistically or empirically provable.

Quote from: sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegi think the distinction is much less than you believe.

And I think the distinction is much more than you believe.  :grin:
For example...

Quote from: LordVreegAnd every single roll to hit in most games with a critical hit systems have a chance of killing a PC.  Every. Single. Roll.

This is incorrect.

Let's talk about Pathfinder. Pathfinder is so popular and ubiquitous that no claim can be made about "most games" that is quite provably false for Pathfinder. So, let's look at its numbers.

I said most games.  As in, the amount of games.  Pathfinder is one game.  it's pervasiveness and popularity are commendable and encouraging to me, always, but irrelevant in proving my comment right or wrong.  So it could be one of a hundred games and despite it's popularity it would still constitute 1%.  It would be like saying in 1985 that since D&D used Vancian casting, and D&D was the most popular ruelset of that time, most systems therefor used Vancian casting.  That would have also been incorrect.

So that example does not make it incorrect.  But on the otherhand, If I am going to say Most games with critical hit systems have a chance of killing a character with one shot (however remote), I am also speaking in terms of older knowledge, so if I am taking you to task for the statistical fallacy included in your statement above; I can hardly sit here without being correct myself.

I can say many systems, my own included, have critical hit systems where one roll can kill any pc.  But I cannot say Most systems without more research.  Let me amend my statement to that.  
(and this grouping of statements was based on the idea that no amount/some amount/a large amount of rolls in game were heavily game affecting as chargen always is, just to ground it.  How many sessions do you think have at least one event where one roll can be as permanent as chargen rolls, i.e.m SAve or Die, critical damage or maiming, or other long-term affect?)

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegFor example, in the Collegium Arcana game, I am modeling the frequency distribution for the members of the undergraduate class of the Collegium Arcana of 898RON in Stenron.  The PCs are all going to be members of that class, and are not going to be special or superior or different from that curve.  It's a diffferent curve from the general population, but the PC subset exists within this class of the CA set and uses the same frequency distribution.
So, yes it can, or so it seems to me.

The "undergraduate class of CA" is a demographic that exists within the setting, but "player character" is not. There is currently a 100% correspondence between these two groups, but there is nothing requiring it. If, at some point, you decide to allow a player character that is not a member of the undergraduate class of the Collegium Arcana, the demographics and probability distribution of "player characters" will have changed even though absolutely nothing about the in-setting demographics has changed. In other words, as I've been saying, the probability distribution of this group is solely determined by the output of your player character creation rules.

Your point is one of primacy; and I have never saId it cannot be done the way you suggest.  
But your contention that GMs never do or cannot do what I contend is interesting.  In your example above; The CA subset does have different character creation rules, modified from what we normally use ( a more generalized subset of the population).  And if I was to add in a new player from a different subset without switching to a different chargen, you'd be right.  But since that is not the way I would do it (I would use the more generalized Chargen for people who are in the 30 odd schools in Stenron, probably), then all the characters are still being built along the frequency distributions attributed to the in-setting group.

This particular conversation has borne some intersting intellectual fruit, making more more aware of how i do things and where I have changed to from where I started.  It is probably going to make more even more individualistic in the social aquisition charts.

Quote from: Sparkle

Quote from: LordVreegIt is not impossible for one to create a ruleset first, with a complete blank mind, with no concept or idea of what kind of game and fluff you want and then, after one finds a bunch of rules they like and that will play the way they want to, try to see what it spits out.  
But I cite Vreeg's first rule for a reason.  Most of the time, designers decide they are doing an 'Amber ' game, or a 'supers' game, and get a general idea of what the genre and setting, then start working with rulesets.

It's probably a mutual, reciprocal thing. Good ideas lead to mechanics, game mechanics that are fun necessitate changes in the setting, newly discovered fun things in the setting need to be modeled by mechanics, and so on. I think it often goes both ways and it's not possible to make a blanket statement of "fluff inspires crunch" or "crunch inspires fluff." I know that I personally have been inspired in both directions!

BAsed on the fact that I am still changing mechanics, there is something here.   There is a need to continually change and model.  Sometimes it is just more fun.  
However, I rarely see myself, or anyone, changing the set up of the setting based on a mechanic; almost always the opposite.  I have been part of hundereds of discussions where mechanics are discraded or modified based on their ability to model the game setting; I am honestly wracking my brain and memory for even one time that I was part of a GM changing their setting to better match up with a rulechange.  
I suppose I have seen anumber of GMs using canned rules being told or discoving that the fluff that they wrote did not match up to the rules as written; but it has always been my contention that in this case, this is the reason we homebrew rules and create houserules, specifically because the crunch is there to be the physics engine of the world, to model the setting.    I might need to keep working this more.  Maybe Xeviat's mindset is alien enough to help me out here.

I feel like we've somewhat degenerated into a few nitpicky, intractable, pedantic disagreements and lost the main points we were even trying to discuss-- an all-too-common result of internet debates, I think. Let me try to get back to the points I was originally trying to make, instead.

On the topic of careful consideration and a null set: I really don't think you can be said to "carefully consider" a game mechanic while totally ignoring the preferences of most of your target audience, completely failing to produce workable math, and writing the actual description of the mechanic incoherently and badly. It just doesn't seem to be a particularly reasonable definition of "careful consideration," to me. Sure, sitting around and thinking for a few minutes about something and thinking "yeah this is good" and scribbling the first thing that comes to mind down is easy and every game designer can do it, but that's not what I meant at all; careful consideration means a certain amount of work and effort that not every game designer puts forth, unfortunately. I wish more would!

On the topic of Pathfinder being one game: Well, yes. But, without weighing the game systems for ubiquity and popularity, at least to some degree, the analysis becomes meaningless because every single game system gets one "vote" even if it's totally obscure, utterly broken, and even its own designer hates it. I thought the point was to talk about what's really out there and what one roll means in actual play to people who are actually playing. I guess this is extra-pedantic since you amended your statement... so anyway, with the popularity of D&D 3e, D&D 4e, and Pathfinder-- all of which use roughly similar math-- in mind, I stand by my opinion that in the typical game experience of today (by proportion of actual sessions played, at least) that any one single isolated die roll has far greater permanent consequences at character generation than in play.

On the topic of character generation: I've rethought and broadened my view on this, somewhat. It's occurred to me that the situation I've been seeing for player characters is true for any individual character in a setting. In real life, demographics are made up of individuals, but in a game setting, demographics are essentially constructs, and individuals are usually created after, as members of those demographics, and can be assigned traits according to their demographic. Characters also all belong to a certain dissociated category without in-setting meaning or relevance: "player character", "big bad evil guy", "random henchman", and so on, but this is separate and distinct from any in-setting demographic they may belong to, and retains its distinctiveness even if there is a 100% correspondence between a dissociated group and an in-setting demographic. What this means is that while you may decide on the general trends of an in-setting demographic, whatever method you choose for character generation of members of that demographic is a game mechanics choice and nothing but. The average trends of members of any dissociated category (as opposed to in-setting demographic) are simply the results of whatever character generation system you use, because some sort of character generation algorithm is the only way anyone ever exists in the setting anyway. If you want correspondence with some in-setting demographic, as long as your method results in blips that fit (within whatever your decided margin of error is) along the curve of whatever in-setting graph you've decided to use-- whether you got those blips through rolling, a point buy, giving everyone arbitrary numbers you decide, or whatever-- it is valid and no more "immersive" than any other method, because we're talking about procedures associated with completely dissociated categories anyway.

On the topic of fluff before crunch or crunch before fluff: I do think, in some ways, it really is an issue of "alien mindsets." As to your question, I can tell you that a little while ago a game group on IRC essentially used the following logic: "We want to play nWoD (new world of darkness) --> nWoD's mechanics really are only good for low-powered survival horror games --> ok, so a zombie apocalypse it is." Speaking of nWoD, I'd also put forth the idea that we have to consider a third category. Rather than simply "fluff productively influencing crunch" or "crunch productively influencing fluff," there is a third and most unfortunate state: cognitive dissonance where crunch and fluff that are entirely unsupportive of one another both just exist. (nWoD made me think of this because Vampire: the Requiem has this problem severely) In these cases, it's likely that in actual play the GM tweaks the nonfunctional crunch on the fly to match what the group expects from the fluff-- but, really, this means there really isn't any crunch, because the GM is just making it all up on the fly anyway. Fluff exists on its own without anything to model it, because the crunch that is supposed to isn't doing its job. I think this situation is more common than a lot of designers like to admit, which is why I am somewhat crunch-focused in my own designs-- to ensure that the fluff is well-supported.

Dude, before I bother to replay in full, since I am at work, please look at you third category and cognitive dissonance and read Vreegs First rule again...

Your "first rule," if I understand it correctly, is basically asserting that your crunch should accurately model your fluff or eventually your fluff will be twisted into whatever situation the output of your crunch reflects. This is reasonable and has merit, and I partially agree with it-- but I don't think it's quite a rule. It's likely to hold more true for "simulationist" gaming styles with a reliance on their "physics engine." On the other hand, a more "narrativist" GM in the cognitive dissonance situation would probably throw the crunch out the window (which I guess sort of makes it work in a half-assed way because now there is no crunch) and do what the fluff suggests, preferring to maintain the integrity of the narrative than worry about what the numbers say. World of Darkness games, both old and new, had a tendency to end up this way.