Did you mean Adventure Game?

[Tanarii]

How so? Honestly the best outcome here is we get a few terms that people can use to describe their preferences, we can help a few conversations about systems people like and move on. That doesn't strike me as a mistake. Unless you are referring to something particular in the angry articles. I haven't read those yet but I will make an effort to later.

The specific post you made that I was replying to seemed like you were complaining that people were focusing on the wrong thing from your OP, as opposed to your actual question. I meant it was totally unsurprising they were focusing on your definitions instead of the question. That's what we tend to do around here. Quibble over definitions of Roleplaying etc.

I think the angry articles might be up your alley. He's talking about how narrative devices work in RPGs, as opposed to a person writing a book. Not my cup of tea at all, largely because I'm very attached to my preconceptions (and bias) that story means ... well, writing a story. Not playing a game that results in experiences, both in-universe and for the players, or a shared fantasy world. But (clearly) not everyone feels the same way about it as I do, and his articles on the subject generally seem like a good stab at explaining how to make solid adventures or campaigns or whatever based on underlying narrative structures. For those that want such things.

[Cluedrew]

I think the distinction is really between pre-conceived stories (which is where the narrative tools/conventions/etc as well as the push-back come in) and retrospective stories. My "playing for surprise" category focuses on the second and dislikes the first (as a DM).

So people where assuming I was talking about pre-conceived stories? I guess that makes sense, I'm not. I blame adventure modules for making pre-plotted campaigns the default in this regard.

I was going to say something else about dynamic collaborative storytelling but I think I am going to have to think on that one some more.

I wonder why ''roll playing'' is consider an insult? Because Role Playing is the ''right'' way to play the game?

I don't know actually, I just know some people use it dismissively. Often in a way that does not quite align with its more well define meaning, hence why the usage wore away the term a bit. You would have to ask the people who use it dismissively as to why they are using it an insult and they might not be able to answer.

As for the degrees system, that might help. I was personally thinking of a graph idea, which I can't actually draw here but I think I would be very towards story focus and a little bit towards player. Sort of a ratio idea.

The specific post you made that I was replying to seemed like you were complaining that people were focusing on the wrong thing from your OP, as opposed to your actual question.

To be fair I was, but then I took a step back and thought about it. The result of that thinking is what created this thread. And if it comes up again I can go back and say "I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I don't think that applies to me because...".

[PhoenixPhyre]

So people where assuming I was talking about pre-conceived stories? I guess that makes sense, I'm not. I blame adventure modules for making pre-plotted campaigns the default in this regard.

It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

[Nifft]

It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

"The DM wouldn't let me murder his precious bartender, or all of the wait-staff, or the mayor, or the single mother who begged us to help find her kid. F'n rail-road storyteller with no respect for letting players do what we want!"

It's a problem which occurs when a DM uses a few video game tropes (e.g. having quest-givers at all), but doesn't want to run a single-player sociopathy simulator.

[Darth Ultron]

It's a common conflation (especially for those who don't like "stories"), the idea that "story" implies "pre-set" or "pre-written". Sad but true.

You see it all the time on the boards. As soon as someone mentions the words story or plot, people immediately jump to ''pre done railroad''. The common wacky idea is every blink of a character must alter reality...and to have something like ''the royal jewels are kept in the royal vault " is railroading.

[Quertus]

A 5th level D&D party is walking through the woods. Suddenly, they encounter a T-Rex crashing through the trees!

You win initiative. What do you do?

Do you attempt to

• hit it with your sword (or axe, mace, etc)?
• throw yourself into the creatures mouth, to attack more tender regions?
• attack the creature's teeth (or hold an action to parry, or otherwise attempt to negate its attacks)?
• move into flanking position?
• fill it full of arrows?
• hit it with poisoned arrows?
• shoot it in the eyes (or otherwise attempt to blind the creature)?
• grapple the beast?
• trip the monster?
• run away?
• run away, dropping caltrops/oil/marbles?
• trip someone else, then run away?
• volunteer to hold the TPK off for a few rounds while the party runs away?
• shout orders to the party?
• begin singing?
• hurl fresh meat to distract the creature?
• befriend the creature?
• climb a tree?
• hide?
• drop an illusion that you are a pile of poo?
• attempt to disbelieve?
• scour the area for hidden foes?
• fireball the area (or otherwise deal AoE damage)?
• fireball the area (or otherwise attempt to set the woods ablaze)?
• dispel the area / target?
• cast buff spells on yourself?
• cast buff spells on your team mates?
• cast direct damage at the T-Rex?
• cast BFC to slow the creature down?
• cast Glitterdust (or just use a bag of flour) to flush out hidden foes?
• summon creatures?
• order your undead minions to "deal with it"?
• cast... ?
• pray?

So, what's my point in all this? Hmmm... I suppose my point is that, having seen or read about at least every one of these responses, well, even in what is ostensibly a war-game scenario, I expect mechanical build to matter somewhat, but I expect player skills will still be king.

I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema... And whether any such game would be something I'd enjoy. Because I strongly suspect that any scenario that didn't feature strong player involvement / empowerment in making decisions that affect the course of the game - anything that isn't an "adventure game" - is not something that I'd enjoy.

Which, well it sounds odd for the, um, paragon/archetypal roleplayer / historic war gamer to make such a claim if you're dividing the game into a 4-way matrix...

[Pelle]

I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema...

It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...

[Tanarii]

It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...

Making Decisions are the important thing. Thats both what and why.

[Quertus]

It ain't what you do, it's the why that you do it...

I'm not sure what you mean. The closest thing in my experience is when I've tried to run high-level D&D vs low-level challenges / scenarios, where the questions aren't "can you succeed" and "how", but "who are you" and "what do you want". I hear tell that people have made it work in Exalted, but my attempts have always fallen flat.

So, what do you envision such a game looking like?

Making Decisions are the important thing. Thats both what and why.

... Role-playing?

[Darth Ultron]

in what is ostensibly a war-game scenario, I expect mechanical build to matter somewhat, but I expect player skills will still be king.

It is a limited example.

You could say it is ''player skills'' that are king....but what skills.

The Mechanics Game(aka Roll Playing/Wargaming)-The only skills that matter are game rules knowledge and mastery.

Event: Foe 12 (aka T-rex to everyone else), and Foe 12 has the exact stats of <looks up in rules> or rolls for the DM to tell the information. The important bits are low AC, lots of hit points, it's an animal with low intelligence and will save.

Character two(the druid) will be most effective vs Foe 12. Invisibility to animals will effect it 100% and Dominate Animal is even better as with it's low will save, the group will likely get a new pet. Or Hold Animal.

A melee fight is to be avoided...while super easy to hit, it will take several round to mow down it's hit points.

Character three(bard) might be able to fascinate it for a couple rounds as a distraction.

Any arcane spellcaters could use only spells to stop the creature that do no damage. Touch of Idiocy is a perfect spell, as only 2 points of intelligence and Foe 12 will be unconscious. Otherwise a spell that is mind effecting vs animals is best or a physical one that effects movement. Avoid necromancy attack and spells that need a fort save.

So this will be a boring and bland rules encounter.

Adventure Game The skills that matter here are the players real life skills. Like what might they do if this ''really'' was to happen in the ''real'' world, with no rules. Things like:

"Everyone scatter and move away to flank it from the sides. Tank Character, you are up..keep it focused on you. " The characters spread out and attack from a circle.

"Everyone hide"

"Ok, lets lead the beast back to the north where that ravine is and trick it into charging and falling to it's doom!"

Or the best:

"Everyone rush forward and CLIMB onto the monster...it can't get to us then!"

I suppose I'm curious just what kind of game wouldn't be considered an adventure game under this schema... And whether any such game would be something I'd enjoy. Because I strongly suspect that any scenario that didn't feature strong player involvement / empowerment in making decisions that affect the course of the game - anything that isn't an "adventure game" - is not something that I'd enjoy.

Well, would you enjoy the mechanics game?

DM:Surprise T-Rex
Player 3: My druid character Bob casts Hold Animal, DC is 18.
DM:The T-rex is held
Players: we kill it

[Millstone85]

I think it breaks down like this:

		Setting
	Fiction	Characters
		Storyline
TRPG
		Deck Building
	Game	Strategy Board
		Dice

[Cluedrew]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I think Pelle & Tanarii were talking about it is why you make the decision being the important bit, not the choice you are presented with or (in some respects) the actual choice you make. At least in terms of this examination. Did you make a choice because it uses your character's abilities, because it fits their personality, it has the best chances for success or because you thought the result would be interesting? Just to pick one an example reason from each section.

To Millstone85: Maybe but I don't understand what you are saying, could I get more detail.

[Tanarii]

... Role-playing?

Yes, that's what I said.

[Pelle]

I think Pelle & Tanarii were talking about it is why you make the decision being the important bit, not the choice you are presented with or (in some respects) the actual choice you make. At least in terms of this examination. Did you make a choice because it uses your character's abilities, because it fits their personality, it has the best chances for success or because you thought the result would be interesting? Just to pick one an example reason from each section.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The character may do the exact same action, but it's why the player made that decision (mechanically tactical, fictionally tactical, characterization of the character, interesting story) that categorize it as wargaming, adventuregaming, roleplaying, storygaming etc.

Maybe I misunderstood what Quertus meant, but it seemed like a good opportunity to quote Sy Oliver...

[Quertus]

Yeah, that's what I meant. The character may do the exact same action, but it's why the player made that decision (mechanically tactical, fictionally tactical, characterization of the character, interesting story) that categorize it as wargaming, adventuregaming, roleplaying, storygaming etc.

Maybe I misunderstood what Quertus meant, but it seemed like a good opportunity to quote Sy Oliver...

Ah, there we go. Got it! For now - darn senility.

So... Um... Applying it to this thread... Where is the distinction made? Purely in how any given player approaches the scenario? Or is there anything more to it?

Are certain scenario inherently better for certain types of engagement - or, perhaps more importantly, are there pitfalls where one could design seemingly perfectly cromulent scenarios that actually leave some of your players out in the cold?

Event: Foe 12 (aka T-rex to everyone else), and Foe 12 has the exact stats of <looks up in rules> or rolls for the DM to tell the information. The important bits are low AC, lots of hit points, it's an animal with low intelligence and will save.

In a perfect world, the mechanics would match the fiction. No one should be shocked & surprised by somethings stats, IMO.

Adventure Game The skills that matter here are the players real life skills. Like what might they do if this ''really'' was to happen in the ''real'' world, with no rules. Things like:

I'm surprised that you missed the Jurassic Park reference of "nobody move".

Or the best:

"Everyone rush forward and CLIMB onto the monster...it can't get to us then!"

That is awesome to imagine!

Character two(the druid) will be most effective vs Foe 12. Invisibility to animals will effect it 100% and Dominate Animal is even better as with it's low will save, the group will likely get a new pet. Or Hold Animal.

Well, would you enjoy the mechanics game?

DM:Surprise T-Rex
Player 3: My druid character Bob casts Hold Animal, DC is 18.
DM:The T-rex is held
Players: we kill it

You know, I picked level 5 vs T-Rex in part because I figured SoD wouldn't really be an option. Silly me!

And, thanks to Pelle, I can fairly safely answer that, if that's all that the mechanics were involved, yes, I could enjoy the role-playing and player skills that led up to those mechanics, but, as I've said before (in this thread? Not sure...) I don't find the mechanics of RPG combat particularly engaging compared to war game combat.

[Pelle]

So... Um... Applying it to this thread... Where is the distinction made? Purely in how any given player approaches the scenario? Or is there anything more to it?

Are certain scenario inherently better for certain types of engagement - or, perhaps more importantly, are there pitfalls where one could design seemingly perfectly cromulent scenarios that actually leave some of your players out in the cold?

Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.

I feel roleplaying/storygaming is going on in parallell to this.

[Quertus]

Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

I suppose that's why some GMs and players throw such a fit when a character actually has and uses some applicable ability (like Speak with Dead). To them, the character is supposed to just be a mask for the player, not some independent entity with its own personality and capabilities. On a scale of 1-5, these adventure game purists value Adventure Game 5, Story 3, Role-playing -1, War Game -5.

Ok, these words seem to hold value.

Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game. there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.

I feel roleplaying/storygaming is going on in parallell to this.

Not to putt too fine a point on it, but the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game? I'm still getting confused on this...). War Game is interacting with the mechanics (optimally or not); role-playing is interacting with the personality of the fictional character (optimally or not). So, when you make a roll to search the desk, instead of playing 20 questions with the GM, or manually saying that you disassemble the desk down to every nut and bolt, that's the difference between playing a mystery as a war game vs an adventure game.

I think.

[Darth Ultron]

In a perfect world, the mechanics would match the fiction. No one should be shocked & surprised by somethings stats, IMO.

Ah, but it is an imperfect world....and worse, imperfect games.

I'm surprised that you missed the Jurassic Park reference of "nobody move".

Yea, I avoided it like ''oh, we need some more teeth!"

That is awesome to imagine!

It's the sort of thing that happens in my games all the time, and I encourage it.

Years ago, back during the great 3X days, I got a d20 book called Dragons. And it had a nice page or so of ''new uses for the climb skill'' and one was Climbing on a Bigger Foe. I'm a big fan of action adventure movement and also colossal foes...so I've put the rules to use to this day. And, a lot of players love the rules to...they jump, climb, tumble, grapple, attack, dodge and more quite often on larger foes.

You know, I picked level 5 vs T-Rex in part because I figured SoD wouldn't really be an option. Silly me!

I was attempting to show Mechanical roll playing: the type favored by many players. They are just using 'character 1' to kill 'foe 12' all by rules and numbers.

Well, for myself I think I like what is described here as "adventure gaming". I also have players in my group that specifically like solving mysteries, which I think falls into the same category. So I personally like to design situations where the players are challenged and have to do creative problem solving to figure out the mystery etc. Not rolling Int to deduce a clue or Cha to convince the King, but rather letting the players figure out themselves what the reason is or come up with a convincing argument. As long as there is a game within the fiction where the choices the players make matters, I am happy to not having to invoke the mechanics. Like in navigating a political landscape, or planning a raid. Saying "our characters are more experienced than us, tell us what we should do" never feels satisfying to me.

Over several posts and threads about playing D&D has come the split between modern and classic styles of Role Playing Gamers.

The modern way, starting in about 2000, is all about detailed novel settings, detailed novel characters and detailed novel like game play. The characters have lots of history and personality that is then puts in the campaign. And the campaign has lots of history and personality that gets woven into the characters.

Like most modern fiction, everything has a ''need'' or a ''connection'' or a ''tie'' or something to everything else that makes sense. And is used to drive the game forward.

A classic and straight forward example is that each character had their family killed by the same bad guy...and now all the characters band together for revenge. The idea is to give the characters ''something'', some reason for doing anything other then Kill Loot Repeat. Assuming a player role plays their character...when they find Lord Evil that killed their family..they will charge off after them.

A lot of games, and very often D&D, can get bogged down with the players not really wanting to ''do'' anything or the players only really wanting to take actions out of greed. The novel stuff is intended to stop that.

The more classic game is the players get together and simply do whatever is in front of them: they want to have fun playing the game, but don't want to nitpick what they do.

This leads to the classic Adventure game: a group of characters that are going on an adventure for fun. Often they have little history, like ''grew up on a farm, and now they are here'', but can have full personalities. The characters, and players, don't need the huge push to go on an adventure: they just do.

Not sure if I understand correctly the terms here, but to me wargaming sounds more like what is the best action based on the rules, and more of a simulation of what the characters are capable of. So if a wargamer is playing Sherlock Holmes, the DM should tell the player who the killer is to make him happy? As for combat, there should be a game there, not just applying the best mechanics without making any difficult decisions.

The Mechanic side(''wargaming") are playing the roll playing game of all rolls and rules. The whole ''game'' to them is just that. They talk about rules, optimzation, rules, builds, rules, and more rules.

They are on the side of ''DM my character rolled a 17 on the intelligence check, so my character though of a clever idea....so DM, tell me what clever idea my character though of." And rolling past social encounters, puzzles and everything else.

It's fine way to play the game, even more so for short pick up games and causal games, but it does not appeal to everyone.

[Mordaedil]

I was attempting to show Mechanical roll playing: the type favored by many players. They are just using 'character 1' to kill 'foe 12' all by rules and numbers.

Normally I'd respond to this with "nobody plays like that", but a friend recently made me listen to a podcast of some people playing D&D and it was just this with jokes between rolling the dice and it was the most dry, awkward way I've seen anyone play D&D and I worry you might be right in how it is how many people do play D&D now.

[Pelle]

I suppose that's why some GMs and players throw such a fit when a character actually has and uses some applicable ability (like Speak with Dead).

Personally I don't mind Speak with Dead etc, unless the game is actually about deducing the answer from the clues. When a player likes solving mysteries, it is not having solved the mystery that is imortant, it is actively solving it that the player likes. If someone then uses Speak with Dead to directly get the killer, that ruins the fun for the player who likes solving mysteries. If finding the killer is a small step on the way to a larger goal it's usually not a problem, however.

It's like when the group wants to play a game where exploration and travel is the challenge, and someone brings a wizard with Teleport (win-button). That invalidates the game the group wanted to play. See powergaming, actually winning the game isn't important, but trying to win is because it is the process of overcoming challenges that is fun.

To them, the character is supposed to just be a mask for the player, not some independent entity with its own personality and capabilities. On a scale of 1-5, these adventure game purists value Adventure Game 5, Story 3, Role-playing -1, War Game -5.

For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time. And if it comes in conflict, say when playing a brave reckless paladin who wants to fight when it is tactically optimal to flee, you can choose what you value most. Being true to the character and staying is fine, and if he flees instead; hey, that's character growth! The paladin is not really brave and reckless anymore.

When you are roleplaying and adventure gaming you are trying to get into the mindset of the character and make decisions in 1st person based on the characteristics of the character. Method acting? I have more problems seeing how wargaming is linked to roleplaying. Considering the character as an independent entity sounds very unpersonal and further from roleplaying. With a more 3rd person approach of determining what this character would do, it feels more like simulating the actions of a playing piece to me.

Not to putt too fine a point on it, but the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game? I'm still getting confused on this...).

Yeah, I was doubtful when I wrote it and thought it might fit Adventure game as well. See, when I was younger I played a little tabletop miniature (war?)games. I played those as a board game, where the players were trying to win the battles. As I might understand it now, true wargamers play these types of games purely for simulation? So are they only cooperative and not competetive, then? Still, I see players playing against each other, needing refs etc. If it was purely simulation you could just as well do it solitaire instead.

War Game is interacting with the mechanics (optimally or not); role-playing is interacting with the personality of the fictional character (optimally or not). So, when you make a roll to search the desk, instead of playing 20 questions with the GM, or manually saying that you disassemble the desk down to every nut and bolt, that's the difference between playing a mystery as a war game vs an adventure game.

I think.

Yeah, maybe that's a good description of the difference. So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended? For my own sake I like that player expertise trumps character expertise. If the character is looking to get into an appartment and wants to look for a key, the player saying "I look under the rug" should get a low Search DC (automatic success) if the key is there. If the player feels the character wouldn't do that (roleplaying), he can just choose to not look there. IMO, rolling dice should be when the outcome of an action is uncertain. If the players a specific enough to remove uncertainty, not rolling is fine. Whether they want to be very specific or not is up to them, and they also have the responsibility to characterize their character.

[Quertus]

For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time.

There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.

Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.

The problem is the players. Sometimes, the efficient course of action isn't as much fun for them. Well, and of course the problem is also the GM - sometimes, the efficient course of action ruins their story.

And so people expect characters to hold the idiot ball, or act out of character, to try to maintain a particular challenge, or to force a particular story.

Personally, I find that role-playing quite often interferes with what others expect from the story, the war game, and the adventure game. Of course, I usually blame other's unrealistic expectations, but that's my bias.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.

Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.

And that's a place we strongly disagree (especially the underlined part). Real people (which should inform our decisions about real characters) are anything but efficiency maximizers. People are only rational in the aggregate (and not even then except to a poor approximation). People I know often do what I consider wildly inefficient things in wildly inefficient ways even knowing "better." Part of it is a values mismatch--they value looking cool or adrenaline, or leisure or whatever more than I do.

I see students who minimize current effort (but as a result spend more effort for the same outcome, thus a reduction in efficiency). I know students who work really hard, but do so in a horribly inefficient way (memorizing specific examples when that's not what's being tested, for example). I know people who aren't motivated by objective outcomes (grades, scores, etc) at all.

If you can't recognize that not everyone is you and that people have different thought processes, then role-playing is going to be frustrating and limited.

[Quertus]

And that's a place we strongly disagree (especially the underlined part). Real people (which should inform our decisions about real characters) are anything but efficiency maximizers. People are only rational in the aggregate (and not even then except to a poor approximation). People I know often do what I consider wildly inefficient things in wildly inefficient ways even knowing "better." Part of it is a values mismatch--they value looking cool or adrenaline, or leisure or whatever more than I do.

I see students who minimize current effort (but as a result spend more effort for the same outcome, thus a reduction in efficiency). I know students who work really hard, but do so in a horribly inefficient way (memorizing specific examples when that's not what's being tested, for example). I know people who aren't motivated by objective outcomes (grades, scores, etc) at all.

If you can't recognize that not everyone is you and that people have different thought processes, then role-playing is going to be frustrating and limited.

I never said that they were good at it - I was replying to what their goals are. Different statements, those.

Now, yes, different people value different things differently - but, whatever they value, they want to optimize, do they not?

So, if you expect a character to be invested in solving a murder mystery (which, do you expect them to be invested in that, if you present it? I'm not clear on that point), then do you not agree that the character will attempt to resolve the issue as efficiently as their personality, knowledge, and capabilities allow?

EDIT: And, regarding the underlined part, do you really feel that some characters should get incensed that another character tries to do something effectively? Do you really get mad at your mechanic when they use their knowledge to diagnose the problems with your car, and only fix what needs fixing? Or would you rather take your car to someone who does not show such disgusting power-gaming, and who just randomly replaces parts of your car with random things lying around until it happens to work?

So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended?

War Gaming is interacting with the mechanics - very much roll-playing. Like a war game. Or Monopoly. Or chess.

So that makes wargaming essentially 'roll-playing' then, no insult intended? For my own sake I like that player expertise trumps character expertise. If the character is looking to get into an appartment and wants to look for a key, the player saying "I look under the rug" should get a low Search DC (automatic success) if the key is there. If the player feels the character wouldn't do that (roleplaying), he can just choose to not look there. IMO, rolling dice should be when the outcome of an action is uncertain. If the players a specific enough to remove uncertainty, not rolling is fine. Whether they want to be very specific or not is up to them, and they also have the responsibility to characterize their character.

So, IMO...

When Story and Roleplaying conflict ("yes, paladin, go assassinate the lawful king who hasn't done anything wrong"), the Story is wrong.

When Story and Mechanics (War-Gaming) conflict ("the story requires the vampire to dominate the mindless golems, and the permanently protected paladins"), the Story is wrong.

But when it comes to War-Gaming vs Adventure Gaming - to 'roll-playing' vs player skills - I don't really care. I just want everyone to be on the same page, and not have players complain that someone is "cheating" by having their character disassemble the desk to search it, or have someone complain that someone is "roll-playing" by having their character roll the search skill. Both are fine, both have their place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I never said that they were good at it - I was replying to what their goals are. Different statements, those.

Now, yes, different people value different things differently - but, whatever they value, they want to optimize, do they not?

So, if you expect a character to be invested in solving a murder mystery (which, do you expect them to be invested in that, if you present it? I'm not clear on that point), then do you not agree that the character will attempt to resolve the issue as efficiently as their personality, knowledge, and capabilities allow?

EDIT: And, regarding the underlined part, do you really feel that some characters should get incensed that another character tries to do something effectively? Do you really get mad at your mechanic when they use their knowledge to diagnose the problems with your car, and only fix what needs fixing? Or would you rather take your car to someone who does not show such disgusting power-gaming, and who just randomly replaces parts of your car with random things lying around until it happens to work?

It's not about goals. Optimization is a choice. And very few real people actually do it. Is posting here the most effective thing you can do with your time? If not, then you're not optimizing. Fundamentally, people are irrational. They don't think in terms of efficiency and optimization.

And yes, even a mechanic doesn't think that way. He's juggling a whole set of problems, many of which are conflicting. He's not a detached optimizer with perfect knowledge (as a character builder is), he's got a host of desires, values, goals, plans, distractions, etc. If you play your characters as perfect optimizers (or even as primarily optimizers), you're not playing real people. You're playing, at best, a caricature.

[Quertus]

It's not about goals.

The part I was replying to was very specifically about goals:

For me, most of the time, the goals of the character and the player overlaps. So when trying actively deduce the answer to the mystery based on the clues, it is indistinguishable if it is the character or the player doing it. So adventure gaming doesn't interfere with roleplaying most of the time.

So, um, yeah, we were talking about goals here.

Optimization is a choice. And very few real people actually do it. Is posting here the most effective thing you can do with your time? If not, then you're not optimizing. Fundamentally, people are irrational. They don't think in terms of efficiency and optimization.

So... I'm of the opinion that, in the long game, the net value of every single possible human action is exactly zero. Eventually, the world will end, heat death of the universe, whatever, and it will all ultimately be meaningless. So, um, yes, technically, posting here is tied for the most effective thing I could be doing.

But, again, it's a matter of goals. Goals are very much what we are discussing here. One of my goals is to get people on the same page on this issue. This particular post is the best I can do with my personality, writing skill / what my player rolled for my "create post" skill / whatever. I mean, I wouldn't intentionally post something that I expected to be less effective at my intended goal, no would I? Um... would you? If not, then you're just as much "power gaming" as everyone else.

If I'm wrong, however, and most everyone else intentionally makes less effective posts / posts that are less effective at their intended goals than they could... then the world is a much more baffling place than I imagine, and I'll need to investigate further.

So, which is it? Do you make posts that are as effective as you can, because you, like everyone else, "power games", or do you intentionally make suboptimal posts?

And yes, even a mechanic doesn't think that way. He's juggling a whole set of problems, many of which are conflicting. He's not a detached optimizer with perfect knowledge (as a character builder is), he's got a host of desires, values, goals, plans, distractions, etc. If you play your characters as perfect optimizers (or even as primarily optimizers), you're not playing real people. You're playing, at best, a caricature.

So, the discussion was about the goals of the player vs the goals of the character. This is a different conversation.

When I debug code, you're right, I'm not working with perfect knowledge. Being me, I attempt to gain as close to perfect knowledge as possible. I create test cases, place an elephant in Cairo, etc, etc. Historically, most other programmers I've worked with have been quite baffled by the level of analysis I put into such tasks. Which is why I am, quite frankly, better at it than most people I've met. And don't even get me started on the lack of relevant cognitive skills in the majority of the non-programming populous.

Your character should have the goal to be a perfect optimizer - otherwise, you're playing a caricature, at best. But the difference between their skills & perception of the universe and God's is how they become a character.

[Pelle]

There's a lot of stuff I really want to respond to there, but let me start here.

Please do.

Usually, the goal of my character is to deal with the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible - to "power game". Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to get a better score, make more money, say the right thing, whatever IRL? So, for a murder mystery? My character would be all about Speak with Dead, because it solves the problem efficiently. And pretty much every character out there should feel the same way.

No problem. If a character has Speak with Dead, I expect them to use it. I just mean Speak with Dead can be a bad ability to have existing in a game about murder mysteries. Just like the Loot Dungeon skill (roll once to successfully raid a dungeon, kill the monsters living there, and loot all the treasure) would be bad in a game about looting dungeons. It's the player who chooses to play a character who have the Speak with Dead ability, however.

I think this points to a problem with many rpg rules in general. Players take abilites for their characters that make them better at what the players like doing in game. But if the abilities they gain are too good, there is no challenge anymore (unless the difficulty is artificially increased). So if a player picks Ranger as class because he likes the challenge of exploration and foraging, those parts of the game easily becomes inconsequential and therefore handwaved. Thus the player see less time of the game spent on it, contrary to his intention.

The problem is the players. Sometimes, the efficient course of action isn't as much fun for them. Well, and of course the problem is also the GM - sometimes, the efficient course of action ruins their story.

And so people expect characters to hold the idiot ball, or act out of character, to try to maintain a particular challenge, or to force a particular story.

Personally, I find that role-playing quite often interferes with what others expect from the story, the war game, and the adventure game. Of course, I usually blame other's unrealistic expectations, but that's my bias.

This can happen. I think it's more often due to players not understanding what they want themselves, or thinking mostly about themselves and not paying enough attention to what the others in the group like.

[Pelle]

War Gaming is interacting with the mechanics - very much roll-playing. Like a war game. Or Monopoly. Or chess.

But in Monopoly or Chess you are trying to win using the mechanics, not playing for the simulation of a market economy or a battle. "the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game?"

In war gaming you are interacting with the mechanics for the sake of simulation. Or?

[Quertus]

No problem. If a character has Speak with Dead, I expect them to use it. I just mean Speak with Dead can be a bad ability to have existing in a game about murder mysteries. Just like the Loot Dungeon skill (roll once to successfully raid a dungeon, kill the monsters living there, and loot all the treasure) would be bad in a game about looting dungeons. It's the player who chooses to play a character who have the Speak with Dead ability, however.

So, there's apparently a thread about this, that I'll probably insert my greatly divergent opinion into at some point, so, unless it becomes particularly relevant to this thread, I'll not duplicate such effort here.

However, I should point out that the player may not have chosen Speak with Dead - they may have merely chosen Cleric (or Dread Necromancer? Not familiar with whether they get that particular spell), and gotten the spell automatically as part of the package, even though they enjoy the idea of solving mysteries with Player Skills.

Or, maybe they don't enjoy using player skills (or don't have good ones), but do still love mysteries, and would love to War Game rolling lots of Search Checks and making lots of Sense Motive rolls. But, growing up on Father Dowling (sp?) mysteries, they took "Cleric", and accidentally killed their fun.

I think this points to a problem with many rpg rules in general. Players take abilites for their characters that make them better at what the players like doing in game. But if the abilities they gain are too good, there is no challenge anymore (unless the difficulty is artificially increased). So if a player picks Ranger as class because he likes the challenge of exploration and foraging, those parts of the game easily becomes inconsequential and therefore handwaved. Thus the player see less time of the game spent on it, contrary to his intention.

Hmmm... When Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is so good at knowing/analyzing things, it removes that minigame, and Quertus feels awesome. When Quertus doesn't know about something, he has developed a huge suite of abilities to analyze it, gets to play the "Quertus learns stuff" minigame, and feels awesome for being so well prepared.

When Armus has to figure something out... honestly, he usually tries to find some way to avoid that minigame. But he gets to feel awesome for creatively acting in ignorance.

When Raymond has to learn something... he just eats the mind of someone who knows that thing. He 100% power games this particular minigame, so that we can get on to the "good stuff".

Yeah, I'm struggling to find a character who cares about something, who does not, in the course of play, improve their ability to handle such things, thereby usually limiting the amount of time that the player spends on the minigame. However, they will generally choose to play that particular minigame.

As I kinda say below, if, as a player, you are interested in CaS-style challenges for particular minigames, it sounds like something that needs to be engineered OOC. Which kinda makes sense - things for the player need to be handled OOC.

This can happen. I think it's more often due to players not understanding what they want themselves, or thinking mostly about themselves and not paying enough attention to what the others in the group like.

There is that. But, again, what should Father Dowling do when his player realizes that his wise character would have to hold quite the idiot ball not to use Speak with Dead?

Personally - and this is my bias - I think that the problem is in anyone having any expectation at all. The game should simply be, what will these characters with these personalities and capabilities do in this situation, with no expectation of a murder mystery with a particular feel. Unless everyone works together to engineer "a murder mystery with this particular feel" ahead of time. Because holding expectations that don't hold true to personalities/Roleplaying, or mechanics/War Gaming is just asking for problems / hurt feelings / etc.

[Quertus]

But in Monopoly or Chess you are trying to win using the mechanics, not playing for the simulation of a market economy or a battle. "the act of evaluating and choosing the optimal anything is pure player skills (which puts it in the realm of adventure game?"

In war gaming you are interacting with the mechanics for the sake of simulation. Or?

I think you've lost me here.

My best guess is, you're equating "War Gaming" / mechanics / roll-playing with "Simuationism"?

While I certainly prefer RPG mechanics that map well to the fiction, the degree to which the mechanics map to the fiction is completely independent from the decision to engage the mechanics ("roll search") or use player skills ("I disassemble the desk").

So, am I even close to what you were talking about, or have I missed entirely?

[Pelle]

When Story and Roleplaying conflict ("yes, paladin, go assassinate the lawful king who hasn't done anything wrong"), the Story is wrong.

I think thats misrepresenting what story means. I think a more relevant example would be:
Should this character assassinate the lawful king because that's according to his ideals, or should this character have experienced character growth and change his ideals because not assassinating would make for a more interesting emergent story?
Choosing to value story here wouldn't be more wrong per se, and can still be considered roleplaying because the actions are still what the character would do. The conditions for what the character would do is affected by what the player thinks is interesting storywise, however.