Game "Balance" - the missing assumptions of social-dynamics

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
And how do you represent that when the Fighter, Noelopan, is being played by 19yr old Buford T Johnson? You know who has no training, planning, experience or observations, all three of those are absent from his repertoire. What then?
You know, that's an interesting question that you raise.
Why do people accept having to learn books with made-up stats/tons of input controls, but are resistant to learning about real world topics that might actually be useful outside of a game, too?
Folklore isn't mythology
So you are admitting it is System Mastery. Once Buford memorizes the Monster Manual he will be fine.
Why do you assume that I'd be using Monster Manual stats for my monsters?
There's no substitute for observation and reckoning.
robertsconley said:
[...]everything I talked only gives Boog a chance of winning. That is more than the 10% that everybody seems to think it is. I have lost and lost often.
And that's a problem in my book. The Wizard gets to use his abilities in multiple ways out of combat, has whole areas of knowledge you can't access and you need the tactics you developed to have a fighting chance (which, by my estimates, is around 35%).
I maintain that in a properly designed system all the other character classes should need tactics in order to have a fighting chance against a Fighter. D&D3.5 utterly fails that test.

Yup. :smile:

For my part, I lay out the world as if existed and what the PC encounter is what they encounter.
In general high HD, high point, high level, etc NPC/Creatures are either living at the apex of the local ecology or a result of a years of experience. Which means they are not common, and there is a lot "noise" associated with their existence. I.e. there is an impact on their immediate environment.
FWIW that's the method I use as well.
 
Okay going back to

I personally define agency by three criteria:
1. The player has control over their own character's decisions.
2. Those decisions have consequences within the game world.
3. The player has enough information to anticipate what those consequences might be before making them.

Why is it okay to not give players enough information?
How much information is enough information? People seem to disagree on how much is enough. So, Sommerjon, how much information is enough for you? (Please provide examples and show all your work. :grin:)

Also, must all decisions players make require them to have "enough" information before they make a decision? Certainly in the real world we all make decisions every day without perfect information and fairly often we must make decisions with insufficient information. Is it ever acceptable for players to have to make a decision in an RPG without enough information?
 
You know, that's an interesting question that you raise.
Why do people accept having to learn books with made-up stats/tons of input controls, but are resistant to learning about real world topics that might actually be useful outside of a game, too?
Duh! Because those people like learning about stats and input controls and don't like learning about real world topics. You might as well ask why some people like tutti-fruitti ice cream. I certainly don't know the answer to that. I mean why does anyone like tutti-fruitti ice cream?
 
For my part, I lay out the world as if existed and what the PC encounter is what they encounter.
In general high HD, high point, high level, etc NPC/Creatures are either living at the apex of the local ecology or a result of a years of experience. Which means they are not common, and there is a lot "noise" associated with their existence. I.e. there is an impact on their immediate environment.

This. Dragons don't just pop in on low-level parties like the Spanish Inquisition. At the very least the pines start roaring on the height.
 
For my part, I lay out the world as if existed and what the PC encounter is what they encounter.
In general high HD, high point, high level, etc NPC/Creatures are either living at the apex of the local ecology or a result of a years of experience. Which means they are not common, and there is a lot "noise" associated with their existence. I.e. there is an impact on their immediate environment.

As a consequence in my campaign, the most common form of imbalance in the later stage of the campaign is the PCs overmatching what they met in term of combat prowess.
I like the way you put that.

That said, there are a lot of mid-high level predators in D&D that can effortlessly hide from or blend in with humanity none the wiser.
 
Duh! Because those people like learning about stats and input controls and don't like learning about real world topics. You might as well ask why some people like tutti-fruitti ice cream. I certainly don't know the answer to that. I mean why does anyone like tutti-fruitti ice cream?
Tutti-frutti ice cream?
Beats me.
 
You know, that's an interesting question that you raise.
Why do people accept having to learn books with made-up stats/tons of input controls, but are resistant to learning about real world topics that might actually be useful outside of a game, too?

In my case it's mostly just that information in game books is (theoretically) arranged for ease of use in portraying a setting to the players, while research into real world topics requires skimming a lot of text that I don't care about, with no guarantee that a given book or article will contain anything I can actually use.
 
In my case it's mostly just that information in game books is (theoretically) arranged for ease of use in portraying a setting to the players, while research into real world topics requires skimming a lot of text that I don't care about, with no guarantee that a given book or article will contain anything I can actually use.
How about game books about real-world topics? Do you own any of those, like the Kobold's Guide to Tactics:smile:?
 
How about game books about real-world topics? Do you own any of those, like the Kobold's Guide to Tactics:smile:?

Not that one in particular, but sure. I've used GURPS books to find out some general information for games I've run in other systems, for instance.
 
Not that one in particular, but sure. I've used GURPS books to find out some general information for games I've run in other systems, for instance.
Well, then great:smile:!

I'm still wondering why do people find it so onerous to learn a bit about strategy and tactics, though. I mean, S Sommerjon 's post* seems to imply that it's bad to rely on the players having any idea about tactics and strategy, because a 19-years old wouldn't** know any of this stuff. Instead, as I can surmise from his post, the system, GM and adventure should guarantee that the PCs would be useful...not planning, foresight, tactics and the like.
Which I find...intellectually understandable, but boring as hell and defeating the point of . I prefer to just having the players learn about this sort of things. And unlike mechanics or controls, they only need to learn it once:wink:!
I mean...yeah, you can have a system where all options would be about as useful as each other. I appreciate those myself. But then you get to the "social mechanics blunder".
Meaning, when you introduce social mechanics, unless you make them actively counterintuitive (at least for some people), the more socially aware players are going to dominate the social encounters with less investment of charbuild resources. In the end, you've just created another newbie trap.
Now extrapolate that to combat. The tactically/strategically better players can dominate, or at least come even, with less resources. In the end, the other players still need to learn strategy...and then the mechanics you put in to ensure precise balance have likely been made superfluous.

*Apology if I'm misrepresenting your point, but that seems firmly a possible conclusion of what you wrote, man.
**Maybe the 19-years olds that he knows. The one that I grew up with had a rather decent idea of that...as evidenced by our first session ever. Myself? I read Sun Tzu's treaty when I was maybe 13, and have been revisiting it ever since. (I actually try to limit that kind of stuff if I think it doesn't fit the PC's background).
***Assuming the system maps well to real-world tactics.
 
Well, then great:smile:!

I'm still wondering why do people find it so onerous to learn a bit about strategy and tactics, though. I mean, S Sommerjon 's post* seems to imply that it's bad to rely on the players having any idea about tactics and strategy, because a 19-years old wouldn't** know any of this stuff. Instead, as I can surmise from his post, the system, GM and adventure should guarantee that the PCs would be useful...not planning, foresight, tactics and the like.
Which I find...intellectually understandable, but boring as hell and defeating the point of . I prefer to just having the players learn about this sort of things. And unlike mechanics or controls, they only need to learn it once:wink:!
I mean...yeah, you can have a system where all options would be about as useful as each other. I appreciate those myself. But then you get to the "social mechanics blunder".
Meaning, when you introduce social mechanics, unless you make them actively counterintuitive (at least for some people), the more socially aware players are going to dominate the social encounters with less investment of charbuild resources. In the end, you've just created another newbie trap.
Now extrapolate that to combat. The tactically/strategically better players can dominate, or at least come even, with less resources. In the end, the other players still need to learn strategy...and then the mechanics you put in to ensure precise balance have likely been made superfluous.

*Apology if I'm misrepresenting your point, but that seems firmly a possible conclusion of what you wrote, man.
**Maybe the 19-years olds that he knows. The one that I grew up with had a rather decent idea of that...as evidenced by our first session ever. Myself? I read Sun Tzu's treaty when I was maybe 13, and have been revisiting it ever since. (I actually try to limit that kind of stuff if I think it doesn't fit the PC's background).
***Assuming the system maps well to real-world tactics.

I am personally very hesitant to turn roleplaying into a competition over who has read the most books, especially since it also depends on whether the GM has read the same books. Though it's true that I also don't normally play the sort of games that lend themselves easily to intricate tactical maneuverings.

I would also state my admittedly unresearched opinion that most 19-year-olds have not in fact read Sun Tzu. :tongue:
 
I would also state my admittedly unresearched opinion that most 19-year-olds have not in fact read Sun Tzu. :tongue:

I would guess the % of 19 year olds who have read Sun Tzu AND also wind up playing RPG's is much higher than the average population of 19 year olds, many of whom don't read anything.
 
The problem is if the player doesn't know anything about the topic their character is specialised in - then they'll struggle to make it fun for anyone.

This doesn't matter if that area of specialty is entirely abstracted. If all computer hacking is handled by a single roll, and hacking isn't really what the game is about, but it's just a means to an end that isn't dwelled on, then it isn't such an issue if the player has no understanding of computers.

Likewise, if in the game being played, the fact that the Napoleonic character is a genius general is incidental to the game (Perhaps the game is all about interactions in Paris Salons or something), then ignorance is fine.

But the more you want to zoom in on something, the harder it's going to be if the player doesn't know anything. It's, in effect, similar to the difference between showing and telling in other media.

The nerd with no social graces is going to hard time selling his character as Don Juan no matter how many points he puts into the seduction skill.

Conversely, if the 19 year playing Napoleon goes and reads Sun Tzu, not only will he play his character more convincingly but he'll also have a lot more fun. (Because saying "I come up with a brilliant plan - I rolled a 19 - I succeed" is not actually where the fun is).

This is one reason why wilderness travel can be such an issue. Most gamers just don't know enough about survival skills to play it out without falling back on just rolling the skill.
 
Last edited:
I am personally very hesitant to turn roleplaying into a competition over who has read the most books, especially since it also depends on whether the GM has read the same books.
Admittedly true, but I'm not talking about quoting the sources. If you merely state "I'm retreating in order to see whether his army is going to become less disciplined as they advance without an enemy", most GMs should understand the idea.

Though it's true that I also don't normally play the sort of games that lend themselves easily to intricate tactical maneuverings.
Nobody said "intricate".
I can do the above retreat, and if it doesn't work, keep retreating while sending spies of death to kill the non-commissioned officers that actually keep good discipline, burn their supplies...while also leaving desolation in my wake to elongate their supply lines and prevent them from obtaining food.
N ow, adjudicating that might require more understanding than the average GM has.
(Me? I'd simply give a morale check. Success, and they actually get a morale boost for next time due to wanting to avenge their deads and hoping to feast on your food. Fail, and they lose discipline. Then a surprise attack might scatter a much bigger army, resulting in a rout).

I would also state my admittedly unresearched opinion that most 19-year-olds have not in fact read Sun Tzu. :tongue:
What saskganesh saskganesh said.
"I would guess the % of 19 year olds who have read Sun Tzu AND also wind up playing RPG's is much higher than the average population of 19 year olds, many of whom don't read anything."

Also, if they haven't read Sun Tzu by 19yo...it's about time that they do:devil:!

The problem is if the player doesn't know anything about the topic their character is specialised in - then they'll struggle to make it fun for anyone.

This doesn't matter if that area of specialty is entirely abstracted. If all computer hacking is handled by a single roll, and hacking isn't really what the game is about, but it's just a means to an end that isn't dwelled on, then it isn't such an issue if the player has no understanding of computers.

Likewise, if in the game being played, the fact that the Napoleonic character is a genius general is incidental to the game (Perhaps the game is all about interactions in Paris Salons or something), than ignorance is fine.

But the more you want to zoom in on something, the harder it's going to be if the player doesn't know anything. It's, in effect, similar to the difference between showing and telling in other media.

The nerd with no social graces is going to hard time selling his character as Don Juan no matter how many points he puts into the seduction skill.

Conversely, if the 19 year playing Napoleon goes and reads Sun Tzu, not only will he play his character more convincingly but he'll also have a lot more fun. (Because saying "I come up with a brilliant plan - I rolled a 19 - I succeed" is not actually where the fun is).

This is one reason why wilderness travel can be such an issue. Most gamers just don't know enough about survival skills to play it out without falling back on just rolling the skill.
1) I'd say that being lauded as a brilliant general in Napoleon-era France and knowing nothing about strategy is actually good roleplaying:tongue:.
2) Napoleon wasn't into the kind of strategies Sun Tzu advocates.
3) I have gone on and made research about survival skills for games (fire, shelter, water, food - in that order...right:tongue:?) Other people can do likewise.
 
1) I'd say that being lauded as a brilliant general in Napoleon-era France and knowing nothing about strategy is actually good roleplaying:tongue:.
2) Napoleon wasn't into the kind of strategies Sun Tzu advocates.
Well, I know that, but I wasn't the one who brought up Sun Tzu and it's not really important. Historically accurate or not, it provides ideas, which is the main thing. I was assuming we were talking about a "Napoleon like figure and not literally 'Napoleon'.

3) I have gone on and made research about survival skills for games (fire, shelter, water, food - in that order...right:tongue:?) Other people can do likewise.
Of course they can. I'm not saying expert knowledge is necessary - just that a bit of knowledge can provide ideas.

If the GM says, "The desert is getting very cold as night sets in", it's a lot more fun to say "I gather up a lot of rocks that have been in the sun all day absorbing heat and make a kind of cairn to sleep in", then "I make a survival roll to try and find a way to keep warm."

Which you can get from cheesy reality tv. About 36 mins in.
 
If the GM says, "The desert is getting very cold as night sets in", it's a lot more fun to say "I gather up a lot of rocks that have been in the sun all day absorbing heat and make a kind of cairn to sleep in", then "I make a survival roll to try and find a way to keep warm."
That straddles the line, for me, between player and character knowledge. If the PC knows desert survival, great. If they don’t then I would cry foul. Adding your own colour is brilliant, but the skills and abilities of the character should drive the results IMO.

So, if you pass the survival roll then describing your own success is cool. Have the skill but fail the roll, no rocks to be had. No skill, pass the roll you spot the rocks are still warm and intuit how that can help. No skill, fail the roll then why would your character think of gathering rocks?

My approach is:
  1. Player says what their character is attempting to achieve
  2. GM defines the skill roll required
  3. Player rolls
  4. Player or GM describes how they failed / succeeded as the muse takes them
This assumes your game-of-choice has skill resolution of some kind, of course.
 
Well, I know that, but I wasn't the one who brought up Sun Tzu and it's not really important.
I was referring to the players knowing the value of reckon, and ways to obtain info from the local, and what kinds of info would be most relevant, though:smile:.

Historically accurate or not, it provides ideas, which is the main thing.
Exactly.

I was assuming we were talking about a "Napoleon like figure and not literally 'Napoleon'.
And I was assuming we're talking about a French general from that time:wink:.

Of course they can. I'm not saying expert knowledge is necessary - just that a bit of knowledge can provide ideas.

If the GM says, "The desert is getting very cold as night sets in", it's a lot more fun to say "I gather up a lot of rocks that have been in the sun all day absorbing heat and make a kind of cairn to sleep in", then "I make a survival roll to try and find a way to keep warm."
Exactly. I was going to suggest finding a rocky place and setting your sleeping bags between big stones, instead...preferably darker ones. I'm not sure whether (partially) burying your sleeping bags in sand is a good idea, though - my knowledge about desert survival is merely academical.
Now, as dbm dbm says, I might not do that...if the PC was from a snowy tundra. But a local guide should be able to show such tricks.
Which you can get from cheesy reality tv. About 36 mins in.
Well, exactly - it doesn't even take much effort, these days:grin:!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
That straddles the line, for me, between player and character knowledge. If the PC knows desert survival, great. If they don’t then I would cry foul. Adding your own colour is brilliant, but the skills and abilities of the character should drive the results IMO.

So, if you pass the survival roll then describing your own success is cool. Have the skill but fail the roll, no rocks to be had. No skill, pass the roll you spot the rocks are still warm and intuit how that can help. No skill, fail the roll then why would your character think of gathering rocks?

My approach is:
  1. Player says what their character is attempting to achieve
  2. GM defines the skill roll required
  3. Player rolls
  4. Player or GM describes how they failed / succeeded as the muse takes them
This assumes your game-of-choice has skill resolution of some kind, of course.

Well presumably you're actually playing a character who would know the relevant information. I'm not talking about player knowledge instead of character knowledge; I'm talking about player knowledge supporting character knowledge.

But If you don't know what you can do then you can't say what you're doing. (Except in the most general of terms)

If the GM says the "desert is getting cold and there's nothing to make a fire with what do you do?", then the player may just be stumped. Ultimately if the player has no knowledge then they're looking at the character sheet trying to find an excuse to make a roll. This falls under the case when the Player has a good idea that their character would know what to do - but they may have no idea as a player.

The less you know as a player, the more general you have to be about what you're trying to achieve. As I said earlier this comes down to focus. "I try to hack into their security system to get the floorplans" may be fine if it's not an area of focus. But if it is for some reason, and the GM wants to know how they're going about their hacking before they make the roll, then if the player doesn't know anything about hacking they're stuck.

And this is assuming you're responding to a specific situation. Your ability to be creative with your character abilities - to see how they can be applied in an open situation in which there isn't a single relevant skill to be called on - is even more influenced by having some kind of knowledge to draw on.
 
Last edited:
If you don't know what you can do then you can't say what you're doing. (Except in the most general of terms)

If the GM says the "desert is getting cold and there's nothing to make a fire with what do you do?", then the player may just be stumped. Ultimately if the player has no knowledge then they're looking at the character sheet trying to find an excuse to make a roll. This falls under the case when the Player has a good idea that their character would know what to do - but they may have no idea as a player.
That’s cool, and I think we are coming at this from similar positions.

I think there are general cases, as you have already broadly described. If the game has detailed mechanism for handling what the character is attempting then that is the guide. If the game mechanism don’t offer any help then you are down to descriptive colour, and that can be provided by the GM if the player is stumped.

Interestingly, I find some players almost incapable of providing their own colour. Often this coincides with a person having no experience of GMing, since improvising descriptions is a core GM skill and so most developed in that role.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
Admittedly true, but I'm not talking about quoting the sources. If you merely state "I'm retreating in order to see whether his army is going to become less disciplined as they advance without an enemy", most GMs should understand the idea.

I wouldn't. It makes no sense. Why would discipline suffer from not facing hardship? I'm sure I'm wrong and that that would totally happen, but I haven't read the right books to tell me that that would happen.

Nobody said "intricate".
I can do the above retreat, and if it doesn't work, keep retreating while sending spies of death to kill the non-commissioned officers that actually keep good discipline, burn their supplies...while also leaving desolation in my wake to elongate their supply lines and prevent them from obtaining food.
N ow, adjudicating that might require more understanding than the average GM has.
(Me? I'd simply give a morale check. Success, and they actually get a morale boost for next time due to wanting to avenge their deads and hoping to feast on your food. Fail, and they lose discipline. Then a surprise attack might scatter a much bigger army, resulting in a rout).

Anything beyond "I'll run over and hit them with my sword / give them a good talking to" count as intricate in my book. And certainly the books of most players I've ever had. :tongue:

Now, again, I understand that many games, like D&D, have an implicit assumption, or at least tradition, of being fundamentally creative problem-solving exercises. Those are just not the games I much care for. I like games that lets me take a break from my daily life - harsh reminders that I am not very smart and don't know anything about anything are exactly the sort of thing I'd prefer to avoid. :tongue:

What saskganesh saskganesh said.
"I would guess the % of 19 year olds who have read Sun Tzu AND also wind up playing RPG's is much higher than the average population of 19 year olds, many of whom don't read anything."

Also, if they haven't read Sun Tzu by 19yo...it's about time that they do:devil:!

You are entitled to your opinion concerning the state of education in the youth today, but I don't feel like assigning homework is much fun. And honestly, it's hard enough to get players to remember the names of my NPCs...
 
Sigh. Feigned retreat is one of the oldest tactics in the book. Pursuing troops often get over eager.

See also "refusing the center."
 
I was 16 the first time I played CHAINMAIL. I understood almost nothing, so the next week I went to the public library and looked for books on medieval warfare.

Even in the 5000 person goat's anus that was 1971 Lake Geneva, WI, I found more than one.

If I can bestir my lazy ass, anybody can.
 
I was 16 the first time I played CHAINMAIL. I understood almost nothing, so the next week I went to the public library and looked for books on medieval warfare.

Even in the 5000 person goat's anus that was 1971 Lake Geneva, WI, I found more than one.

If I can bestir my lazy ass, anybody can.
You're making some broad assumptions. You're bound to be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
Conversely, if the 19 year playing Napoleon goes and reads Sun Tzu, not only will he play his character more convincingly but he'll also have a lot more fun. (Because saying "I come up with a brilliant plan - I rolled a 19 - I succeed" is not actually where the fun is).

In terms of playing Napoleon wouldn’t Clausewitz’s On War be more on point?

Haven’t got around to Sun Tzu although I may have a copy around somewhere as I tend to pick up any Japanese or Chinese classics I come across used.

Out of interest because of this tangent I Googled actual military strategy syllabuses, the US Naval Academy starts with Clausewitz, Tzu and Mao’s On Guerrilla Warfare then moves on to Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. Here is a suggested reading list for classic strategy studies.

How much any of this relevant to the small unit and fairly abstract combat in D&D though seems another matter. I’m sure it helps but I’m not convinced D&D’s abstract system is the best system to play them out.

In general I would guess that counterinsurgency strategies would be of more interest and relevance but those are often predicated on working with a sympathetic population, something pretty unlikely for most Murderhobos.
 
Last edited:
In original D&D where the way to keep orcs off your magic user was to actually make and hold a line, the same tactics used in CHAINMAIL worked just fine.

As far as Sun Tzu, I particularly recommend the translation by retired USMC General Samuel Griffith.

 
In terms of playing Napoleon wouldn’t Clausewitz’s On War be more on point?.
Many things would be more on point.

I didn't bring up Sun Tzu. A good biography of Napoleon would probably be best.

But that's not the point. If starting from a position of ignorance Sun Tzu would help. (Many, many things would)
 
Last edited:
Really all games rely on player knowledge of some kind. It's just that we take a lot of that knowledge for granted a lot of the time.

How would you play out a modern day police procedural game if you had players who had (for some reason) never watched one on TV?
Think of how much genre knowledge is required to play that out.

Edit: I think it's ultimately hard to avoid the conclusion that if player knowledge doesn't matter - then player decisions also don't matter.
 
Last edited:
Where's Greek fire when you need it?

17458262_1727932500853207_2938795890080312410_n.jpg
 
Really all games rely on player knowledge of some kind. It's just that we take a lot of that knowledge for granted a lot of the time.

How would you play out a modern day police procedural game if you had players who had (for some reason) never watched one on TV?
Think of how much genre knowledge is required to play that out.

Edit: I think it's ultimately hard to avoid the conclusion that if player knowledge doesn't matter - then player decisions also don't matter.

I would consider it the role of the GM to inform the players of what their reasonable options are, in the same way that it's the role of the GM to make sure the players understand the system at least well enough to create the sort of characters they want.

Again, unless the particular game is all about showing how clever you are. Then that kind of handholding is certainly counterproductive. But I get tired of constantly being told that that's what every game should be like.
 
I would consider it the role of the GM to inform the players of what their reasonable options are, in the same way that it's the role of the GM to make sure the players understand the system at least well enough to create the sort of characters they want.

Isn't this basically a Choose your Own Adventure book?

Isn't the whole point of a role-playing game to have open-ended options?

Do you really think that's a particular effective way of teaching people about how the police procedural works? (Because basically that's what you'd be doing in this situation - teaching - I struggle to see how it could be framed in any other way). Wouldn't it better to have a movie night, or lend out some DVDs or something so everyone can get up to speed with the genre?
 
Last edited:
Isn't this basically a Choose your Own Adventure book?

No. Because you're not going to be hand holding the entire time. It's like learning to ride a bicycle. At some point the training wheels will come off, the hand holding you steady will let go and you'll be able to go on it alone.

Isn't the whole point of a role-playing game to have open-ended options?
Yes, but it's not an either/or situation either. People learn at different rates.

Do you really think that's a particular effective way of teaching people about how the police procedural works? (Because basically that's what you'd be doing in this situation - teaching - I struggle to see how it could be framed in any other way). Wouldn't it better to have a movie night, or lend out some DVDs or something so everyone can get up to speed with the genre?
That's called 'Prep', and yes, we all do it.
 
No. Because you're not going to be hand holding the entire time. It's like learning to ride a bicycle. At some point the training wheels will come off, the hand holding you steady will let go and you'll be able to go on it alone.


Yes, but it's not an either/or situation either. People learn at different rates.


That's called 'Prep', and yes, we all do it.
Ok so it's not like a 'Choose your own adventure book' because at some point you get beyond that point. In other words players acquire knowledge which means they have more fun. (Although acquiring knowledge is also a way of having fun).

WTF do you think you are disagreeing with here?

Although I do think there's been very little effort to actually engage with the example given - ie. How hard it would be to actually play in a police procedural game with no knowledge of police procedurals (and presumably no actual knowledge of law enforcement - although a group which consisted of people with knowledge of one and not the other and vice versa would certainly be interesting.) - Just step back for a minute and try to imagine knowing nothing of how procedurals usually play out - I chose that genre for a reason - I suspect that unlike other genres - it would actually be very difficult for a GM to teach the tropes to a whole group of players. (If one player didn't know anything they'd pick it up - but a whole group?) And this is a genre which brings with it certain conventions about how to act pro-actively - which would make if very difficult to do with no knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this basically a Choose your Own Adventure book?

With some added flexibility, but basically, yes. And the problem with that would be...?

Isn't the whole point of a role-playing game to have open-ended options?

No, it is not.

Mostly because there is no such thing as a "whole point of roleplaying." It's different things to different people.

Do you really think that's a particular effective way of teaching people about how the police procedural works? (Because basically that's what you'd be doing in this situation - teaching - I struggle to see how it could be framed in any other way). Wouldn't it better to have a movie night, or lend out some DVDs or something so everyone can get up to speed with the genre?

They're not learning how the genre works. They're learning how this particular game works. They may even be learning how this particular situation works.
 
With some added flexibility, but basically, yes. And the problem with that would be...?
That it would be boring! That's it's not taking advantage of the possibilities that the medium offers.

Yes I was assuming you'd agree that a game that runs like a Choose Your Own Adventure Book is undesirable. I guess you don't.

Shrug.

Perhaps we value different things*.

Obviously I'm objectively right however and you should be burnt at the stake.

*(Although I'm not convinced you've engaged enough with what I actually said to determine for sure if that's really true - I suspect you've read my last few posts with preconceptions of some kind that I don't share.)
 
Last edited:
TJS TJS To your specific question on police procedurals, I guess the next question is: how realistic do you want it to be?

If you want to keep closer to ‘mundane’ reality then there are probably books on the topic for major police jurisdictions. If you are aiming for something more cinematic then having a ‘recommended viewing’ list is probably worthwhile.

In terms of game-able information then there is a GURPS for that (naturally...). Mysteries is more about detective stories but also touches on police procedurals. Cops is largely focussed on police games, including procedurals, and is very mechanics-light so probably broadly applicable. Both are available in PDF.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top