Results 181 to 210 of 477
-
2018-04-17, 11:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
I purposely chose the extremes in terms of ease/difficulty of Skill use. The difference between the games is because skill DC is DC Whatever the DM feels like, so it illustrates my point how the skills change depending on who is DM that day.
In my Paladin game Skill DCs are consistently 15 or 20. It's always 15 if the DM asks for a skill roll, 20 if it's a knowledge check about a BBEG monster. (I actually don't mind that particular DC 20.) I think once a skill DC was 10. I remember feeling surprised about the number. The game is over 2 years old. It's more fun to play than the gripes I have about it so I stay, but I learned it's not worth the effort to try something that requires a skill. The rogue uses stealth easy enough thanks to Expertise. For class-based things out of the box thinking works fine because it's all spelled out. Recently we defended a fort against trebuchet boulder attacks. The DM allowed the warlock to use his repelling eldritch blast to knock incoming boulders off course. I was happy the warlock player thought of it and thrilled the DM allowed it. The DM is allowing great weapon style to work on paladin smites. He's not dun-dun dunnn tyrannical. He follows the printed rules, but since he has to make up skill DCs by whim his style is to lean towards 15 & 20.
My hexblade DM is the opposite. Anything goes. This is the DM who had two goblins from Phandelver join our party that I've mentioned before. For our second campaign he's allowing Unearthed Arcana classes. Skill DCs are consistently low enough we have a chance to succeed. We don't always, of course, but we're encouraged to give it a try because we know we have a fair chance. Guidance spell was Most Valuable Player of the previous campaign. It's a less stressful game.
-
2018-04-17, 11:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
I don't argue the preference (as long as everyone is aware that they don't want vagueness, they want the results that vagueness can bring). I argue that 5e specifically has a terrible skill system. It tries to codify "winging it" or using a "DM gut check" with it's 6 listed difficulty DCs which in motion causes all sorts of problems or at best a DM can overcome the problems with enough meticulous management that the skill system is only a waste of time.
It's worse than not having a skill system at all. It actively trips up DMs and creates unsatisfactory play where "just winging it" would have worked better.
For players that care about complex rules, the system does nothing for them.
For players that don't care, the system is actively burdensome and gets in the way between player and DM interaction to reduce the process to the DM picking a random number with no real guidance from the system but the system tells him that he needs to pick the correct number to be a good DM.
Bah!Last edited by Rhedyn; 2018-04-17 at 12:05 PM.
-
2018-04-17, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
As I wrote before, I suppose technically yes in result but not for the reason. It's not that every tree everywhere must be DC 15. The point isn't that trees are DC 15. The point is to use climb trees DC 15 as a universal reference. If something is harder to climb than a tree then the DC is higher. How much higher? Is it as hard as a generic stone dungeon wall of universal reference 20? If yes, DC 20. If not that hard, then DC 17 perhaps. If equal to a tree, DC 15. A knotted rope is easier so DC 10.
The word I'm looking for is "benchmark". It's the game designers' job to define the benchmark of example DCs then the DM can place the DC of something for his game based on that benchmark and the player can create his character accordingly based on how well he wants to achieve that benchmark. That is what example DC tables provide in 3E/Pathfinder. That is what 5E Xanathar's Guide does for tool use. That is what 5E DMG does for Tracking, Object Hardness, and Conversation Results if you can find them.
-
2018-04-17, 12:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
We're maybe not as far apart as it seems there:
* I'm not sure we mean exactly the same thing by "tables" (I'm opposed to having to look up results on a table for lots of rolls, but I don't mind a "table format" for displaying example difficulties and/or modifiers -- I hate important numbers buried in text and/or scattered around the books).
* My point is that I want the system to work on consistent principles so that it's not necessary to look up every Skill (or whatever) a character uses every time it's used, and so that extrapolation isn't messy or contentious.
I want a system to teach the players how to fish, not spoon-feed them fish soup.
What bugs the hell out of me is when Skill A functions by X rules, and Skill B functions by Y rules, and Skill C functions by Z rules, and on and on, and nothing in the overall system interacts cleanly or intuitively, and every time a Skill is used someone needs to crack the book open, because the designers piecemealed the Skills (or whatever) in as a bunch of disparate subsystems with their own context-laden verbiages with the terminology not crossing over to other Skills (or whatever).
E: this is also one of the reasons I'm big on the system following "the fiction" -- the secondary reality serves as the ultimate fact check on what's coming out of the system.
That is one of the classic examples, and I'd rather see one or two Stealth rolls instead of once against each of the 20 guards. But to me "conflict resolution" is a gross overreaction to the "roll until you fail" problem, killing houseflies with howitzers...
...especially when it gets really strange with assertions like "your conflict isn't with the guards, it's with the lord of the keep, so roll once against the lord of the keep to see if you sneak past the guards and climb the wall and pick the lock to get into his treasure chamber".
(And yes, I've seen exactly that example used by staunch advocates of conflict resolution.)Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2018-04-17 at 12:50 PM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2018-04-17, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
"Benchmark" is a good term. I don't want a hard-coded "all trees are 15 to climb" (or however it works in the system at hand), I want a benchmark tree against which easier or harder trees can be compared and "mapped", and against which my character can be built if I want to them to be good at climbing trees.
(And yes, we know that climbing a typical tree is automatic in 5e, that's beside the point.)It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2018-04-17, 12:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Savage Worlds has a nice meaty approach up stealth (easily the most complicated skill). And since my explanation of Savage Worlds rules to tend to be longer than the actual rules themselves, just know you roll a d4-12 and a d6 for a skill and select the higher, dice can explode, and you succeed on a 4 or higher:
Stealth (Agility)
Stealth is the ability to both hide and move quietly, as well as palm objects and pick pockets. In many Savage Worlds games, knowing exactly when your hero has been spotted and when he hasn’t can be critical.
For a character to sneak up on foes and infiltrate enemy lines, start by figuring out if the “guards” the heroes are sneaking up on are “active” or “inactive.” Inactive guards aren’t paying particularly close attention to their surroundings. The group need only score a standard success on their individual
Stealth rolls to avoid being seen. Failing a Stealth roll in the presence of inactive guards makes them active. Active guards make opposed Notice rolls against the sneaking characters’ Stealth skills. Failing a roll against active guards means the character is spotted.
Apply the following modifiers to all Stealth rolls:
Stealth Modifiers
Situation Modifier
Crawling +2
Running –2
Dim light +1
Darkness +2
Pitch darkness +4
Light cover +1
Medium cover +2
Heavy cover +4
► The Last Step: Sneaking to within 6” of a foe (usually to get close enough for a melee attack) requires an opposed Stealth roll versus the target’s Notice, whether the guard is active or inactive.
► Movement Rate: Out of combat, each Stealth roll covers moving up to five times the character’s Pace. In combat, the Stealth roll covers only a single round of movement.
► Stealth for Groups: Out of combat, make only one Stealth roll for each like group of characters (see Group Rolls on page 63). Use the lowest movement rate to determine how much ground is covered. The observers also make a group roll to Notice their foes. Once a combat breaks down into rounds, Stealth and Notice rolls are made on an individual basis.Last edited by Rhedyn; 2018-04-17 at 12:44 PM.
-
2018-04-17, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
And I'm worried that there might not be consistent principles that join disparate skill uses without forcing them to fit. I'm fine with subsystems that are different, as long as they describe different things. I'm still not entirely clear what you mean by "consistent principles"--does this require an equation with relatively fixed (and limited) variables? Or can it be a more general set of guidelines?
I guess I'm not sure exactly what you mean here--I'm no good at reading telegraphic descriptions like this. Can you give a specific example of one you don't like?
Yeah, I want a more middle-ground approach. Not "Did I swing my sword with the exact right angle in that one attempt" or "roll to win the fight" but "did I meaningfully reduce my opponent's ability to continue the fight during this time-period." I'm fine with varying degrees within one system--crafting an item might be an outcome that subsumes a lot of tasks into a single roll (or just plain narrative), while tasks where the approach strongly matters should get more detailed resolutions.
That brings up one issue for me with stating defined DCs up front:
Often I need to know more about the exact approach before I can meaningfully decide how hard something is, and different approaches can change the difficulty by huge (and non-linear) amounts. That is, I need more than just "I roll Investigate" to decide what the task even is that's being resolved. It's why I'd rather the players tell me what they want to do, and then we'll decided how to resolve it. Sometimes the applicable mechanics are obvious (like hitting someone with a weapon) and we can just say "I attack with my dagger." Other times, it could take a few back and forth questions/statements from DM to player and back to decide how to handle it. I find that once that happens, the question of the DC is almost moot--it's obvious from the discussion how difficult it is, or we realize that it's not going to be reasonably possible (or the converse, that it can't reasonably fail).
It's probably just personal bias, but my knee-jerk internal reaction to people wanting codified DCs for everything is to think that they're trying to avoid actually talking about things and are trying to exploit something. The stench (even if illusory) of trying to gain mechanical advantage through exploiting rules is a major turn-off. Call it a learned aversion from growing up with a (non-RPG) rules-lawyer.
And yes, the consequences for failure/success (and partial success/failure if applicable) is an important thing to establish before the player commits to an action. I'll even do it for non-mechanical rolls--"10 or lower he runs/lets you in/attacks PC X. 11 or higher, he does Y instead."Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2018-04-17, 01:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Popping in quick to clarify I didn't mean to knock my Paladin DM game with regards to talking to the Black Dragon and Dracolich. It's Campaign Plot relevant. Our party has allied, willingly, with the Cult of the Dragon. My Paladin of Torm is ok with it. It's for a Good Cause. Torm knows I'll get dirty, but otherwise there are no Code or Faith problems. At the moment I'll potentially be leading an undead army created by the Dracolich against a city of mindflayers to recover Blue Dragon eggs. Very long story. That will be awesome if it happens.
-
2018-04-17, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
For me, that benchmark would be a waste of ink unless it was accompanied by a picture of the tree that it applies to. Without that, I would have absolutely no idea how the benchmark compares to any tree the PCs are trying to climb. In fact, even with the illustration it wouldn't really be of any use since the range of "typical" tree shapes is so enormous that the benchmark would likely never apply.
From my backyard, if I look in one direction I can see a whole forest of tall, mostly smooth conifers that often don't even branch for the first 20-30 feet. If I look in the other direction I'll see along the sides of the hills a belt of squat, heavily branching trees that rarely even get up to 30 feet high. Climbing one of the latter trees would be a trivial task, as long as you pick one large enough to hold your weight. Climbing the former would be almost impossible without special equipment. Both are typical, ordinary trees for my area.
So to me, talking about a benchmark difficulty for climbing trees is like a benchmark for the number of rooms in a building. You could perhaps use that figure to aggregate (for example, to extrapolate the number of rooms in a city) but for dealing with any specific building the range is simply too great to make any average figure useful.
-
2018-04-17, 02:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Absolutely. In most cases, common sense is a better guide of what can or can't be done than a system that is almost guaranteed to have some unexpected results at the edges.
It's an extreme example. I also don't know that I know of a really good definition of task/conflict resolution, as it seems to conflate two things:
1) detail of resolution
2) whether or not you're specifying your desired end goal or not
In other words, I've heard it used in both the sense of "I roll to see if I tackle him, rather than rolling to see the results of my charge" as well as the "I'm rolling a single task vs. a higher-level goal".
As far as the detail of resolution, if you don't care about playing through getting into the treasure chamber for some reason, and want to resolve it in a single roll, then, yeah, I'd make the roll against some kind of aggregate "castle defense" skill. I likely wouldn't do that, though. I generally prefer things be mostly played out at the "scene" level.
Again, as a Fate thing, this works fairly well, because it does two things:
1) Character abilities are strongly constrained. You get one skill at +4, and maybe some stunt support for a conditional +2. Apart from invocations (which shouldn't be factored into setting difficulties), that's it. So you always know that -2 is accomplishable by anyone outside of bad luck, +0 is easy for anyone moderately skilled and a coin toss for the untrained, +2 is going to be challenging for an untrained person but is 50/50 for a moderately skilled person, and easy for an expert. +4 is challenging for a moderately skilled person, iffy for an expert, but doable by a specialist, and then +6 is basically iffy for a specialist and between challenging and effectively impossible for everyone else.
Because slots are constrained (as described above), if you want your character to be good at climbing trees, give them a high Athletics skill, and a Stunt related to climbing trees. Boom, done.
2) Each difficulty has an adjective associated with it. "It would be a <descriptor> effort to accomplish that". Fair, mediocre, poor great, whatever.
Overall, this works."Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"
-
2018-04-17, 05:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Thanks for clarifying. I get what you mean about benchmarks. I just think using "climbing a tree" is a bad benchmark for climbing, since that should vary from impossible to automatic. For climbing, using one of these scales for benchmarking would be a lot more intuitive for me.
It sounded a bit like that you are listening for a keyword (tree, stone wall) in a description of a situation, and want a fixed DC relating to that keyword, without caring for the actual difficulty in the fiction.
I use this this approach for benchmarking/calibrating my skill tests, both in 3.5 and 5e (need to be adjusted, though same principles). For me it is much better and easier to adjudicate like this than to stop and look up lots of tables and modifiers.
-
2018-04-17, 05:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Location
- Mid-Rohan
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
To the O P I would say generally yes I do like rules that are more open to interpretation. Part of that is because I feel like very tight rules tend to be somewhat inflexible and can create some rather strange effects. I feel like it's more fun and useful to have rules that can be made to fit the situation kind of like how some wrenches allow you to tighten the wrenches grip to exactly match the nut that you need to move. Though I do also enjoy the eloquent see of a well-written rule that needs very little interpretation.
-
2018-04-21, 10:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Yes, and I've explicitly listed these. They just tend to be things that don't matter to me, hence my preferences leaning towards the open system (though a lot of that is more an aversion to disadvantages than anything else).
It is GiTP. There's a very strong bias towards the way 3e D&D does things here, and so we get this standard script for basically any aspect of design a rules light game might use, with a chance of a few other scripts on top of it.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2018-04-22, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
These questions led me down a long thought process, in which I eventually concluded that I agree with one side in one circumstance, and agree with the other side under different circumstances.
The biggest difference is what we think playing under a rules-light system is like.
The original poster made it clear that he thinks a rules-light system is inherently about arbitrary rulings and long arguments. I share his disdain for both, but I associate neither with a rules-light game.
On the most basic level, the question boils down to this: do you have more faith in the GM’s judgment or in the published rules?
And the most basic answer is this: that depends on the GM’s judgment.
My most obvious example is this. I want to know what the likely results will be when I take an action. So my preference priority is as follows:
1. I understand the consequences of my choices because those consequences make sense in the situation being simulated.
2. I understand the consequences of my choices because I know the game mechanics.
3. I don’t understand the consequences of my choices.
Situation 1 is a rules-light system with a GM with good judgment. Situation 2 is a rules-heavy system. Situation 3 is a rules-light system with a GM with poor judgment.
Many people who say they prefer a rules-light system are comparing situation 1 to situation 2. And many people who say they prefer a rules-heavy system are comparing situation 2 to situation 3.
And I agree with both sides. I prefer situation 1 to situation 2, and I prefer situation 2 to situation 3. Because I have been very lucky in my GMs, I think of a rules-light situation as situation 1.
[Side-note: Others who prefer a rules-heavy situation do so because they prefer playing the game mechanics to playing a simulation. This is a simple aesthetic preference, and I have no quarrel with such people, just as I have no quarrel with people who prefer vanilla to chocolate.]
Similarly, I share the OP’s disapproval of games interrupted by long arguments. I don’t share his belief that this is an inherent aspect of rules-light systems. A GM with good judgment doesn’t tend to have such arguments at his or her table, and deals with them swiftly and fairly when they come up. [This is also affected by the players. I dislike a game with argumentative players, regardless of the rules.] So in this area as well, when I say I prefer a rules-light system, I’m referring to a very different gaming experience than the OP was.
So I think the real situation is this. I would rank games as follows:
1. Rules-light system with GM with good judgment.
2. Rules-heavy system with GM with good judgment.
3. Rules-heavy system with GM with poor-to-average judgment.
4. Rules-light system with GM with poor-to-average judgment.
*Good judgment includes understanding the system. Good GMs for one system can be poor ones for a system they don’t understand.
Most defenses of rules-heavy system seem to be saying, truthfully, that my third choice is better than my fourth choice. I agree completely – but I won’t play in either game.
I’m comparing my top choice with my second choice, and in that range, I prefer a rules-light system. I will play either; they are both great fun.
But I agree completely that a rules-light system with an unfair or arbitrary GM is a bad experience.
-
2018-04-22, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Location
- Cydonia
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Hate it with a passion. Everybody needs to be on the same page. The DM needs to respect whatever rules are in place when the game starts. The rules themselves need to be abundantly clear; ironclad. Even 3.5 with all it's rules can be frustrating vague or confusing at times, like the rules for the hide skill. I'm the kind of person that prefers rules/mechanics for anything that might matter for a game.
-
2018-04-23, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Location
- Inner Palace, Holy Terra
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
There's a fine line.
Mechanics can't be too complicated, people avoid the sort of rules where you read 12 pages, read it again, and still have no ideal what you're supposed to do.
It's also important that results are predictable. I don't like the fact that, in 5e, if you have to roll for anything you're as likely to fail as you are to succeed, and even if you're super min-maxed for it you're still unfortunately likely to fail.
As a player, most of my understanding of what a character can do is defined by the mechanics of the system. I am easily frustrated by systems that are too free form.
At the same time, as a GM, systems must be flexible enough to account for whatever might come up. I always operate on the premise that my judgement overrides the rules. I'm going to be running Black Crusade, and I'm going to have to make some changes, because off the bat a character can have Psy Rating 9 and overchannel up to psy rating 13. They should not be halfway to Magnus the Red or a Greater Daemon of Tzeentch at character creation, or at least that's not how I envision them or my game playing out. I envision my players as playing 4 point cultists and 13 point Chaos Space Marines, not 430 point lord of war daemon primarchs or 125 point Exalted Sorcerers.Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
-
2018-04-28, 05:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- New Hampshire, USA
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
I despise vague rules with the heat of a thousand suns. I've said for years that regardless of a system's mechanics, all games have the same number of rules. Rules light systems just expect the rules to live inside the head of the GM as folklore. Complete systems put the rules on the page and everyone can reference them equally.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tetsubokanamono/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
-
2018-04-28, 03:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
OP: It's simply impossible, obviously, for a complex system to be completely clear and absolutely independent of interpretation. That, of course, doesn't mean that such an impossible state isn't desirable, and that one shouldn't go for it, and it doesn't mean that rules systems that fail to cover the basic things they should cover aren't bad systems.
Now that's not entirely fair. Some systems do, genuinely, have fewer numbers of rules, it's just generally to the system's detriment.
Take Apocalypse World and its ilk, for example. In it, there really is only one rule, which is suck up to the GM to hope they don't shaft you, because it is literally impossible to generate a meaningful result from any task resolution in the book. And, no, I'm not even talking about how the GM decides how your roll is resolved, I'm talking about how, in text examples in the book, there are explicit examples of a "success at a cost" on a hide attempt wherein the cost was "you fail to hide," and examples where a successful check simply means you fail the mission. There are no rules beyond sucking up to the GM, because any actions the players attempt to take are entirely meaningless.
On the other hand, take Munchhausen. Despite not really being a huge fan, it really is the only rules-light system I would argue is, in fact, a good game. In it, there is essentially no vagueness, and the rules can be completely explained to even a complete newbie in under five minutes, and it is both conceptually and mechanically sound.
-
2018-04-28, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
The thing is, in any fully open game, in general the situations a GM is required to arbitrate are generally the same, regardless of rules lite or rules heavy.
However in rules lite, all the guidelines that lead to resolution, as Tetsubo 57 mentioned, have to live inside the GMs head as folklore, while more complete systems obviously lighten this burden.
And while there are instances where leaving something vague is the better choice, these come few and far between.
My attempt at non-awful fumble rules
Arcane Archer minimal fix (maybe not so minimal anymore)
Reworking the Complete Adventurer Tempest PrC
Expanding the Pathfinder Called Shots system
Keyboard shortcuts for d20srd.org
Guide to Optimizing To-Hit
Obscure Psionic Power Index
🕷
-
2018-04-28, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Take Apocalypse World and its ilk, for example. In it, there really is only one rule, which is suck up to the GM to hope they don't shaft you, because it is literally impossible to generate a meaningful result from any task resolution in the book. And, no, I'm not even talking about how the GM decides how your roll is resolved, I'm talking about how, in text examples in the book, there are explicit examples of a "success at a cost" on a hide attempt wherein the cost was "you fail to hide," and examples where a successful check simply means you fail the mission. There are no rules beyond sucking up to the GM, because any actions the players attempt to take are entirely meaningless.
As the resident expert on Apocalypse World, I'm gonna need the RAW quote on that because I have the opposite quote. Namely:
"A player cannot fail at their goal on a 7-9 because a partial success is still, fundamentally, a success."
Now, this may shift somewhat depending on what the goal is. The goal may be to "get into that building undetected."
On a 7-9 the MC may ask if the player would rather successfully make it in, but be noticed, or successfully go unnoticed, but not make it in.
This is called a Devil's Bargain. You will get one of the 2 things you want (to go undetected, and to enter that building) You decide which.
If there is one goal (Don't get shot) then it also explicitly outlines what can and can't happen. Ie, if the MC inflicts full damage on a 7-9, you can let them know they're doing it wrong since you didn't fail. A 7-9 might produce a LESSER version of the desired outcome. (You are still shot, but not badly) or you avoid getting shot at the cost of something else happening. (You don't get shot, but you drop your gun)
As part of a 7-9, the MC may OFFER a choice to fail but have nothing bad happen, or you even gain a boon related to what you want. But they can always also choose to succeed at cost. That is a choice the player makes.
(You don't get into the cult meeting, but you find a key to the leader's house, for instance.)
I feel like you had AW explained to you once but never actually read it. >.>Last edited by ImNotTrevor; 2018-04-28 at 03:28 PM.
-
2018-04-28, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Hence my example of Munchhausen. It doesn't have a GM. That is a large part of why it is good and the various X-Worlds aren't. That is, the more something turns into Magical Tea Party, the less value there is in having one person with all the power and the rest without it.
No. You are wrong here.
Originally Posted by Apocalypse World, page 192
And here's a non-hiding example:
Originally Posted by Apocalypse World, page 200
This is why I said that Apocalypse World doesn't generate meaningful outputs. The example outputs in the book disagree with you.
I feel like you had AW explained to you once but never actually read it. >.>
-
2018-04-28, 05:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
- Location
- San Francisco Bay area
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
-
2018-04-28, 05:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
So, at first I thought the OP was one of my RL friends come to the forum, but now that I look closer it appears that the OP is frankensteined together from quotes of my old posts. What does it mean? And further, why is it enough to prompt seven pages of discussion?
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2018-04-28, 07:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
I have sort of held off on replying to this thread because I felt it was... unnecessarily polarized. But I will now to say: I think you got it. I would add some stuff about rules being general without being vague and so on but it mostly boils down to what you said.
To Talakeal: Well once you get down to it, the topic really comes down to what are the advantages and disadvantages of rules-light and rules-heavy systems. Respectively. I kid, I kid. As Knaight pointed out it is really the opposite around here. I would leap to defend the design decisions of Powered by the Apocalypse, but I learned all I know about it from a friend of mine who I had to check to make sure is not also ImNotTrevor, so I will let ImNotTrevor handle that. More importantly I also had a copy of my post used to create a thread... I wonder what is up with that.
-
2018-04-28, 07:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
One of those examples is one of the things I described before:
The player is given a hard choice.
The second, I can tell you stopped reading. Because he reverses the call since it would just be a failure. Instead, he remains unseen, BUT the patrol ks approaching and he will need to take further action.
And here's a non-hiding example:
So here we have a successful roll turning an encounter from winnable to unwinnable by the power of fiat. The mission transforms from taking out Tum Tum to running away from an unbeatable opponent because someone made a spot check. This is just as dumb.
The situation has become more complicated, not unwinnable. The "threat" doesn't get to make any rolls, and it depends entirely on the player how well this goes.
I'm wondering how you managed to read these examples and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head. >.>
This is why I said that Apocalypse World doesn't generate meaningful outputs. The example outputs in the book disagree with you.
Funny, given how I'm pulling multiple direct citations. But I suppose making assumptions is easier than actually verifying another argument.
So... yeah, not really an argument in favor of your position. Every outcome was fairly predictable if you understand the Moves Snowball, which is the core mechanic of the game.
Look, it's ok to dislike how the Moves Snowball works. But what you're currently doing is comparing its outputs to D&D style outputs as if the goal is the same. It's not.Last edited by ImNotTrevor; 2018-04-28 at 08:06 PM.
-
2018-04-28, 07:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
I would argue neither of these examples is failing to do what the player was trying to do. In the first example, the character is trying to enter the camp without raising the alarm. The cost of doing so is murdering an otherwise innocent sentry. It is of course the player's option to avoid paying that cost, but then yes, they don't get what they wanted. That is the essence of "success with a cost". In non *World games, I've often seen something like this play out when it's a "by the skin of your teeth" success, except the player doesn't get to choose, usually the GM just narrates that they get halfway into the camp when they cross paths with a sentry and quickly and quietly cut them down.
The second example is a little murkier and I personally would have probably chosen a different tact, but the player is still getting what they wanted. They wanted to hide from the patrol, they have done so and are hidden. They may not remain hidden for long, but for now they are. Again this is a pretty standard trope in games and fiction, where the main character has successfully hidden themselves, but luck is not on their side and the patrol stops right where they're hiding or otherwise makes them have to take additional actions. One of the more famous examples might be Obi-Wan Kenobi and shutting down the deathstar tractor beams. He's made a number of successful hide checks to get there, but at the actual controls, he got a partial success, so while he remained hidden from the patrol as they came, he then had to use the force to trick them into looking another way so that he could escape.
And here's a non-hiding example:
So here we have a successful roll turning an encounter from winnable to unwinnable by the power of fiat. The mission transforms from taking out Tum Tum to running away from an unbeatable opponent because someone made a spot check. This is just as dumb.Last edited by 1337 b4k4; 2018-04-28 at 07:58 PM.
-
2018-04-28, 08:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
On principle I don't like the look of anythig that falls between D&D 3.5 and Toon crunch wise. That said I don;t really get to play much so I can't really speak as to what works or doesn't in practice
"If you want to understand biology don't think about vibrant throbbing gels and oozes, think about information technology" -Richard Dawkins
Omegaupdate Forum
WoTC Forums Archive + Indexing Projext
PostImage, a free and sensible alternative to Photobucket
Temple+ Modding Project for Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil
Morrus' RPG Forum (EN World v2)
-
2018-04-28, 09:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
No, the player is not "given a hard choice." They successfully rolled to be undetected, and yet they were still detected. That's the bottom line. You succeed, so you fail.
The second, I can tell you stopped reading. Because he reverses the call since it would just be a failure. Instead, he remains unseen, BUT the patrol ks approaching and he will need to take further action.
Why?
The situation has become more complicated, not unwinnable. The "threat" doesn't get to make any rolls, and it depends entirely on the player how well this goes.
As a side note, the threat most certainly gets to make rolls, as they're part of the move system and the GM can make a move pretty much whenever they feel like it.
I'm wondering how you managed to read these examples and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head. >.>
If you understood what I said and how the mechanics work, you'd know that's untrue.
I'm not at my computer, hence requesting the citations. But you've not presented anything outside of what the Moves Snowball section predicts or outside of the MC section RAW.
So... yeah, not really an argument in favor of your position. Every outcome was fairly predictable if you understand the Moves Snowball, which is the core mechanic of the game.
Look, it's ok to dislike how the Moves Snowball works. But what you're currently doing is comparing its outputs to D&D style outputs as if the goal is the same. It's not.
You're seriously, here, saying that being a not-game is the intent of the game, and so its abject mechanical failure on every level shouldn't be criticized. I mean, that argument could be used to defend any other system from any attack.
No. That is a load of crap. The attempt was to get in undetected, and the attempt failed, because they were detected.
The second example is a little murkier and I personally would have probably chosen a different tact, but the player is still getting what they wanted. They wanted to hide from the patrol, they have done so and are hidden. They may not remain hidden for long, but for now they are. Again this is a pretty standard trope in games and fiction, where the main character has successfully hidden themselves, but luck is not on their side and the patrol stops right where they're hiding or otherwise makes them have to take additional actions. One of the more famous examples might be Obi-Wan Kenobi and shutting down the deathstar tractor beams. He's made a number of successful hide checks to get there, but at the actual controls, he got a partial success, so while he remained hidden from the patrol as they came, he then had to use the force to trick them into looking another way so that he could escape.
This one I don't know enough context to say what's going on, but at the moment it doesn't read like the situation has become unwinable. It doesn't even read like the situation has changed at all.
-
2018-04-29, 12:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
Go ahead and read that again. Because you apparently are struggling with it.
Firstly:
She is rolling to Act Under Fire, not to hide. Hiding isn't a move. She is in a dangerous situation. The "Fire" she is acting under is the threat of a raised alarm. The outcome is this:
Originally Posted by MC says...
"THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU'RE HERE."
Their goal of getting to Dremmer without raising the alarm has been met. The cost was murdering some teenager. Bam.
They successfully rolled to be undetected, and yet they were still detected. That's the bottom line. You succeed, so you fail.
No, the person again fails. They fail at hiding.
Originally Posted by The actual verdict, if you finish.
If I roll to hide and the output is ambush, that is not a meaningful roll, because I have both failed to hide and am now pressed into a different like of action.
Failed Moves and Partial Successes create the need for additional moves to be made. This is the core mechanic. Things get more complicated over time. This is the system working as advertised.
So yes, you're hidden. The cost is: not for long. The benefit is: you can play this on your terms.
Come on, man. This isn't even that hard to parse out.
[QUOTE)
The players were invading the cult leader's base with him as the threat. Since they succeeded on a check, there is now a new enemy that spawned from the successful roll that actively makes things worse. [/QUOTE]
Ah yes. Just like how a successful spot check spawns a goblin if you see one. Spot checks with a result other than Nothing are failures, now.
Oh wait. That's terrible logic!
And
And, again, this is PbtA game, so enemies don't actually have stats beyond fiat,
Armor does not go above 2, and if they have Armor 2 they're wearing ARMOR. Visible, noticeable metal on their bodies.
Most weapons have codified harm.
Are you 100% sure you read the book?
and the only resolution possible put forward involved taking a hostage rather than accomplishing the objective.
Originally Posted by MC actually said...
It is used in English to denote things that are possible, but not guaranteed. Most often used as a short version of "in the situation where..."
That means the character now knows that IF things go bad, Tum Tum is their ticket out.
But that hasn't happened yet. It can, but it hasn't.
You also must assume that these psychics are not already an established fact. Which is stretching beyond the scope of the example and into "I'm making up things I might think are problems, using BS extrapolation from limited data" territory.
As a side note, the threat most certainly gets to make rolls, as they're part of the move system and the GM can make a move pretty much whenever they feel like it.
-In response to failures, they can make as hard a move as they want.
-in partial successes, they may make weaker moves.
-they may make weak moves when things are going slow, to trigger the moves snowball. But if the snowball is going, play by the rules.
Seriously.
I'm wondering how you managed to read the rest of the ruleset and have the rest of the ruleset fall out of your head, personally.
All while demonstrating you didn't actually understand the examples, and don't know the rules.
I do understand the rules, and that's the problem. The rules are you roll some dice and the GM says whatever they want to happen, on which the actual die roll has no meaningful impact.
Which is fine. I can live with you not liking it.
Again, you're wrong. It's not that I dislike it, although I do, it's that it's simply bad. The "Moves Snowball" is meaningless and the entire "system" is just a bare cover over mindless GM wankery. The GM decrees how things go, and that's that, with no regard for what they players even attempt to do, much less any petty concerns like what the dice turn up as.
I honestly don't even get what you're even trying to defend here. I mean, seriously, there's not even any model for difficulty in it outside of one one-off "custom move" that the text itself is pretty dismissive of, and even then it's awful, especially with how it ties into the "move" system. So there is no difficulty difference between sneaking into a building with ninja pajamas on or sneaking in with a loud pink suit and squeaky clown shoes with spurs attached and a bell around your neck, save in what the GM fiats up in response to whatever you do, which happens either way.
Don't worry. Many people have the same difficulty.
You like when a system is more granular, and has things like sliding difficulty. Cool! I like those things, too.
I also like what Apocalypse World does, as both MC and Player.
You're seriously, here, saying that being a not-game is the intent of the game, and so its abject mechanical failure on every level shouldn't be criticized. I mean, that argument could be used to defend any other system from any attack.
Too bad nobody in the for realsies discussion is making that argument, or you'd have got 'em real good!
Look, I really don't mind that you dislike a system I enjoy. I get snarky when people try to project an opinion as objective fact, because that's annoying and also very obviously what is happening here. You're unusually histrionic about it, but eh. I've seen worse.
Again, I find myself severely doubting that you've comprehended the game. Even less that you've played it. I've played AW for about 4 years now, and my experiences have not matched your expectations at all. In fact, most people I played campaigns of AW with wanted to play it again right after, and were highly satisfied with their ability to contribute to the storyline, moreso than in games like D&D. I've never had any complaints that rolls didn't matter, both from new and veteran players of various systems.
So....
I dunno what to tell you other than that your rant fails to accurately reflect the things going on, fails to account for the actual mechanics, and fails to have much logical merit beside.
As I'll say to anyone:
AW is weird, and not for everyone. It does not hold the same assumptions as games like D&D, and the play experience it produces is not akin to what D&D does. In any way.
What it DOES DO, it does very well. Namely:
Things escalate.
Things get desperate.
By the end of the campaign, the world will probably not be better. But it will certainly not be the same.
If you dislike that, no problem. It is weird! AW is a game about building up a town/region/place and then letting loose a bunch of badasses to wreck up the place and see what kinds of cool patterns the fires make.
And it's REALLY good at that.
If that's not the thing you want? Don't play it. That's all it does.
Hence why people disliking it doesn't bother me. People misrepresenting what it does, eh. I'm here to fact check.
-
2018-04-29, 03:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Do You Enjoy Vague Rules Which Are Open To Interpretation?
That's crap and you know it. First of all, hiding, like any number of other actions, falls under the Act Under Fire. Second, you are wrong, because, while threatened, she is explicitly sneaking, and is "****ed" if she is heard. Those are her objectives. Sneaking and not being heard. She absolutely fails at the first and obviously fails at the second.
The outcome is this:
Note that last sentence.
"THEY HAVE NO IDEA YOU'RE HERE."
Their goal of getting to Dremmer without raising the alarm has been met. The cost was murdering some teenager. Bam.
She rolled to avoid anyone raising the alarm. Killing the one guy who happened to see you before they can raise the alarm isn't failing to hide. It's succeeding at hiding... except for that one hiccup. Which was dealt with. Nobody knows you're there, now that Slim over there is dead. Overall, the sneak was successful.
I see you again didn't finish.
So you're still hidden. Note that IF. If you do something right away, you'll have the drop on them. That, to me, doesn't limit the action to an ambush. If the player wants, they might be able to create a distraction that the guards will be especially vulnerable to.
Also, it's telling that the first part of that, the first thought of the author, was to go to an explicit, unconditional "you fail" on a success until it was obvious the player wasn't buying it.
So on this:
Read the Moves Snowball section.
Failed Moves and Partial Successes create the need for additional moves to be made. This is the core mechanic. Things get more complicated over time. This is the system working as advertised.
So yes, you're hidden. The cost is: not for long. The benefit is: you can play this on your terms.
Come on, man. This isn't even that hard to parse out.
Ah yes. Just like how a successful spot check spawns a goblin if you see one. Spot checks with a result other than Nothing are failures, now.
Oh wait. That's terrible logic!
Virtually every NPC dies at 3 or more harm, absolutely all of them die at 4 or more, and at 5 they're chunky salsa. This is in the Harm rules.
Armor does not go above 2, and if they have Armor 2 they're wearing ARMOR. Visible, noticeable metal on their bodies.
Most weapons have codified harm.
Are you 100% sure you read the book?
Incorrect. Please read more carefully. Quoting again:
There's a conjunction in there. Notice it? The word is "if."
It is used in English to denote things that are possible, but not guaranteed. Most often used as a short version of "in the situation where..."
That means the character now knows that IF things go bad, Tum Tum is their ticket out.
But that hasn't happened yet. It can, but it hasn't.
You also must assume that these psychics are not already an established fact. Which is stretching beyond the scope of the example and into "I'm making up things I might think are problems, using BS extrapolation from limited data" territory.
The MC has specific times when they can make moves. Namely:
-In response to failures, they can make as hard a move as they want.
-in partial successes, they may make weaker moves.
-they may make weak moves when things are going slow, to trigger the moves snowball. But if the snowball is going, play by the rules.
Originally Posted by Apocalypse World, page 117
Fascinating. You went with "No you!"
All while demonstrating you didn't actually understand the examples, and don't know the rules.
That would be scathing if I weren't 100% certain you've not understood and just dislike it.
Which is fine. I can live with you not liking it.
Ah. You really don't understand how it works. Or you kiiiinda do, but just don't like it and can't separate "i dislike this style" from "this is objectively bad."
Don't worry. Many people have the same difficulty.
Funny thing is I can say the opposite with greater accuracy, which is you don't really understand how the book is written, but you simply liked the games you've played without going by the rules, and you can't separate those two points. Which is fine, that happens most people who've played White Wolf games, so you're hardly alone.
You like when a system is more granular, and has things like sliding difficulty. Cool! I like those things, too.
I also like what Apocalypse World does, as both MC and Player.
That's a super neato strawman. Way to get him.
Too bad nobody in the for realsies discussion is making that argument, or you'd have got 'em real good!
Look, I really don't mind that you dislike a system I enjoy. I get snarky when people try to project an opinion as objective fact, because that's annoying and also very obviously what is happening here. You're unusually histrionic about it, but eh. I've seen worse.
Again, I find myself severely doubting that you've comprehended the game. Even less that you've played it. I've played AW for about 4 years now, and my experiences have not matched your expectations at all. In fact, most people I played campaigns of AW with wanted to play it again right after, and were highly satisfied with their ability to contribute to the storyline, moreso than in games like D&D. I've never had any complaints that rolls didn't matter, both from new and veteran players of various systems.
I dunno what to tell you other than that your rant fails to accurately reflect the things going on, fails to account for the actual mechanics, and fails to have much logical merit beside.
I'm here to fact check.
As a side note, in your "defense" of the system, one thing I can't help but notice you neglected to mention is that the party engaging in constant orgies is the only logical result of the mechanics, and is objectively superior to not doing so.