[tangent on the Art vs Tech discussion] Examples of technological advancement?

[TJS]

The problem with THAC0 vs AC debate is it's it's really a superficial change. Both do exactly the same thing after all. It's not like ascending AC actually opens up a whole new wealth of possibilities (or if it does there's not been a lot of effort to take advantage of them - it would be generally easier to include degrees of success with ascending AC - but I'm not aware of any efforts to do that).

I think whoever mentioned it's about User Interface is basically right. The two things just aren't different enough. If there's a change in tech it would be in an underlying unified mechanic.

 

[EmperorNorton]

You are arguing apples and oranges. The bloated high numbers of 3.x are an issue. Hell I don't even like 3.x, even with THAC0 2e is my second favorite version of D&D, but if I was to play it again, I would house rule the math for BAB and Ascending AC, which can be straight imported into AD&D without changing any of the probabilities in the game.

Also, I haven't played or read BASH so I can't say, it heavily depends on if there was an easier and mathematically equivalent method to do what they were doing that could be done with a simpler equation. And if what I think it did was worth the extra complication.

The thing with THAC0 is that there is no reason for it to exist. BAB/Ascending AC is mathematically simpler and mathematically identical in result.

Explaining that THAC0 - (Roll + Bonus) = AC hit is harder than explaining Roll + Bonus = AC Hit.

Whether the first is easy is immaterial, because the second is still EVEN EASIER. I mean, I could also say that you figure it out using:

THAC0 - ((2(Roll + Bonus))/2) = AC hit, but no one would use that because its just extra steps that don't do anything.

Also, just as an aside, the thing about manual vs automatic transmissions with gas mileage is true with older cars, but newer automatics actually generally tend to be more fuel efficient than manuals.

 

[robertsconley]

Ok, so you are going to argue that the popularity of 4e and 5e are what made them the right or wrong designs,

And you left out the part where I said "It right or wrong in terms of keeping the RPG side of Wizards a viable business. "

but you are saying that BAB was not necessarily the better design because some people prefer THAC0, even though the majority much preferred BAB.

Yes that what I said. What do you have trouble understanding

Also, Even among people in the OSR who are just rebuilding old school versions of D&D, BAB and Ascending AC is wildly popular. I'd imagine if you poll every person who plays any version of D&D, BAB/Ascending AC (or some variant of that, like 5e's Proficiency/Ascending AC) would be the preferred method of the majority, and not by a small margin.

I use BAB and Ascending AC as well in my own works. My experience is that BAB/Ascending AC is a very popular approach, but given the diversity of OSR rulesets out there I doubt it is majority within the OSR.

This argument that the right design has to do with popularity,

That not what I said

while saying that THAC0 isn't a worse design despite it not being very popular at all, is mindboggling.

Yes THACO isn't a worst design, but also THACO isn't a better design. It just a design among others. When it comes the individual hobbyist all three have their fans. However if it were to go a convention and pick out a random hobbyist even if it just OSR fans, then BAB/Ascending AC will likely be the choice in encountered the most.

So if your goal is to sell or share as many copies of a work with your audience, then that fact means you should work in BAB/Ascending AC. But if your goal is to cater to a specific segment, then THACO, or charts may be the better choice.

Furthermore all three have pros and cons due to their respective designs. I did not include any discussion of specific pros and cons because the discussion hasn't move to the point to where we are discussing why a hobbyist might like charts or why they like THACO, or why they like BAB/Ascending AC.

 

[EmperorNorton]

So again, your opinion is that no UI is better than any other UI. Even if the new UI is more intuitive and is easier for new users to comprehend, and the majority of old users prefer it?

That there is no such thing as an improved user interface. That all interfaces are equal, because someone, somewhere, might prefer the more counterintuitive one.

Man there are a lot of people who do a hell of a lot of study into human psychology and user friendliness that are wasting their time in life.

 

[Voros]

One defintion of elegance in design I found: a simple solution to a complex problem.

 

[AsenRG]

So basically, you insist on splitting hairs and say everything I said because of that is false. Cool you actively ignored my point because I was incorrect in an example... yawn, NEXT!

Its not that thAC0 is too hard... it is that it is redundant and pointless when there is something better that requires less effort to achieve the same result. If you like thAC0, fine, but you don't need to try and say everyone who doesn't is somehow less than a first grader. Seriously, what the hell is the point of that other than to be condescending?

First: actually, you were correct at the example. I clearly said so.
It's just that the example doesn't point at what you want it to.

Second: it's funny how you accuse me of not reading your post/dismissing it over technicalities*, and then in the next paragraph prove that you haven't read my post that you quoted, or you're dismissing it outright, without so much as stating a reason.

To wit, you just wrote:
"Its not that thAC0 is too hard... it is that it is redundant and pointless when there is something better that requires less effort to achieve the same result. "
...that's in response to a post you're quoting.
And said post states it clearly that 1) there's no appreciable difference in the effort (addition and substraction just shouldn't have any appreciable difference of effort, and for most people I know they don't) and 2) demonstrates how the results are Not The Same.
So what is it? Did you not read it, or did you just decide to ignore it?

*See the first point: I'm not using it to dismiss your post. I'm telling you that your post actually supports my position.
And I'm explaining how and why: lesser spread of possible results, for example, vs ease of use (for people that need to revisit basic arithmetic). You haven't refuted that, just ignored it.
The irony, it's striking.

Also, I'm noting that you didn't tell me what you think of BASH's use of multiplication!

Edited to add: OK, EmperorNorton could you find a review of BASH at least, of not a quickstart? I'm not going to hold any opinion against you, but I'm curious whether you'd declare it too hard.

One defintion of elegance in design I found: a simple solution to a complex problem.

One caveat of simple solutions to complex problems that I've found long ago: they're almost always misleading.

The problem with THAC0 vs AC debate is it's it's really a superficial change. Both do exactly the same thing after all. It's not like ascending AC actually opens up a whole new wealth of possibilities (or if it does there's not been a lot of effort to take advantage of them - it would be generally easier to include degrees of success with ascending AC - but I'm not aware of any efforts to do that).

I think whoever mentioned it's about User Interface is basically right. The two things just aren't different enough. If there's a change in tech it would be in an underlying unified mechanic.

Yup...agreeing with all of this. Just wanted to say it explicitly.

 

[raniE]

Ding Ding Ding! We Have a winner!

Identical quality of choices with less mechanical execution is objectively better technology. Anyone who wants to argue against that isn't actually interested in discussing game design.

As long as nothing else is lost, sure. Take for instance the blackjack rules mentioned earlier in the thread where you want to roll as high as possible without going over. I personally think this is great, I like not having to do the extra step of calculating how much lower than the target number your roll was. But if we add this to something like a standard BRP game, there are issues. Since those games have critical and special successes calculated as a fraction of your skill value, either you have to recalculate those to occur at the high end of the skill value, which I would find more cumbersome, or you have to break with the simplicity of “low rolls are always better when rolling to succeed”, which can be a problem with teaching the game as it becomes less intuitive.

 

[AsenRG]

As long as nothing else is lost, sure. Take for instance the blackjack rules mentioned earlier in the thread where you want to roll as high as possible without going over. I personally think this is great, I like not having to do the extra step of calculating how much lower than the target number your roll was. But if we add this to something like a standard BRP game, there are issues. Since those games have critical and special successes calculated as a fraction of your skill value, either you have to recalculate those to occur at the high end of the skill value, which I would find more cumbersome, or you have to break with the simplicity of “low rolls are always better when rolling to succeed”, which can be a problem with teaching the game as it becomes less intuitive.

That's actually a rather good example of ease of use vs intuitiveness, IMO!

 

[TristramEvans]

Ding Ding Ding! We Have a winner!

Identical quality of choices with less mechanical execution is objectively better technology. Anyone who wants to argue against that isn't actually interested in discussing game design.

Soooo....Risus is the pinnacle of RPG Design?

 

[Stevethulhu]

The secret problem with BAB.

 

[Voros]

Soooo....Risus is the pinnacle of RPG Design?

 

[Lessa]

These answers encasulates both sides in the more elegant ( ) way IMO:

In RPG there's advancement only in regard to diversity

Identical quality of choices with less mechanical execution is objectively better technology

Just saying.

P.S: though we could also throw those two in...

Spoiler

...the winner is favored by the gods, thus the right one on the matter. We could settle it in Fortnight or Minecraft. My son could build an awesome Thunderdome in Minecraft, he is pretty good at it.

 

[cody]

Soooo....Risus is the pinnacle of RPG Design?

Does Risus have identical quality of choices?

Better question, why are mods on a forum putting words in people's mouths? Is your goal to be right, or to promote healthy discussion?

Take for instance the blackjack rules mentioned earlier in the thread

Which is why blackjack d100 is frequently combined with doubles for crits. This combination is a straight up technological improvement over recalculating critical chances based on some fraction of your skill as it increases or decreases.

 

[Endless Flight]

Better question, why are mods on a forum putting words in people's mouths? Is your goal to be right, or to promote healthy discussion?

I would hope you don’t think that because he’s a moderator, he’s not allowed an opinion or to challenge an opinion? We promote free speech here so I’m not sure why it matters that he’s a moderator. He’s not going to punish you for saying whatever it is that you want to say.

 

[Lessa]

Tristram was just joking. Chill out cody.

Though I find reasonable to think Risus is among the best designs out there. It doesn't cover a lot of grounds, but what it does, it does elegantly.

By the way, what came first, Risus or Over the Edge? They're so similar that I bet one copied the other.

 

[Gabriel]

By the way, what came first, Risus or Over the Edge? They're so similar that I bet one copied the other.

Well, if Wikipedia is to be believed, Over the Edge is one year older, from 1992, while Risus is from 1993.

I had no idea Risus was that old. I would have pegged it at 2001 or so.

 

[raniE]

Does Risus have identical quality of choices?

Better question, why are mods on a forum putting words in people's mouths? Is your goal to be right, or to promote healthy discussion?



Which is why blackjack d100 is frequently combined with doubles for crits. This combination is a straight up technological improvement over recalculating critical chances based on some fraction of your skill as it increases or decreases.

Only if you want to be limited to a very specific and weird range of critical results. You have a 10% skill? No critical successes then, as no successes are possible. But 10% chance of a fumble. And BRP often has both critical successes (often at 5% of total chance) and special successes (at 20% of total chance). Going “doubles are critical” is not even close to mathematically equivalent to that. So, different, not better.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Identical quality of choices with less mechanical execution is objectively better technology. Anyone who wants to argue against that isn't actually interested in discussing game design.

But identical quality of choices only exists as a theoretical model. In practice, it's impossible to judge objectively.

It also assumes that choices are not a major part of RPGs but the only part. Where does something like simulation fit into your judgement? Or do you believe that games that aim to simulate history are objectively outdated designs?

As an aside, what definition of technology are people using? (In general, not just you.) I'm starting to suspect I'm using a very different definition than pretty much everyone else in the thread.

 

[Gabriel]

As an aside, what definition of technology are people using? (In general, not just you.) I'm starting to suspect I'm using a very different definition than pretty much everyone else in the thread.

The criteria I was using was some concept that was developed and then seemed to be adopted much more widely. It didn't have to be universal, but whatever the concept was had to be embraced broadly. I also didn't necessarily focus on specific mechanics, referencing things more in terms of families of developments.

I think social mechanics could be argued to fit under my definition. Meaningful mechanical social systems were non-existent in the 80s and 90s, pretty much only existing as a die roll and a lot of GM fiat even when there was some effort at them. To my eye, modern systems have made much further development on making social interaction another highly detailed mechanic akin to combat. And it does seem like quite a few systems I've seen in the past 10 years have done this.

Do I consider it an "Advancement?" I don't know. It certainly isn't to my taste. But I think it's definitely an idea worth examination and pursuit. At the very least it's a development to the overall tool of RPGs that some find extremely useful.

 

[CRKrueger]

The big trap Norton is falling into is that an RPG mechanic is more than just math.

BAB is mathematically simpler than THACO...and?

• If you write down what you need to hit -10 to 10, THACO is even faster.
• If you roll and the GM tells you what happens, the player doesn't calculate anything.
• Is that fraction of a second faster really helping you when you're rolling d20+23 with an AC of 35?

Just adding everything makes everything simpler, eh? Does it make it better? I don't seem to recall people talking about playing TSR D&D capped at 6th level because once you get above that, the game slows down to a crawl because the numbers keep going up and you're adding in a hundred modifiers.

THACO, when seen in the system it was in, was simple to implement and the numbers stayed easy to calculate.
BAB, when seen in the system it was in, was a minuscule increase in calculation speed, that was quickly made pointless by the ridiculous amount of modifiers ballooning the numbers.

BAB is mathematically superior. Unfortunately that fact in and of itself tells you next to nothing about whether it is a better mechanic.

The thing to remember about RPG mechanics is that speed is one of the worst metrics to consider, because there's always a tradeoff to speed.

Should we implement BAB? Well, what do we gain? What do we lose? What are the side effects? Will we need to constrain bonuses in order to prevent 3.5e madness? Will that constraint cost us detail and options?

I liked AD&D with descending AC and I liked Mongoose Conan with ascending AC. At this point, I use both systems so easily, I don't see a difference.

 

[Teyrnon]

I seem to recall in the late 90s someone on the Internet was trying to put together a catalog of generalized RPG mechanics from every available source they could find to produce a tool for future designers. My Google Foo is failing me and I can't find anything about it now. Does anyone remember this? If it does exist it seems like it'd be a good resource for trends in game design up to the late 90s.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Once again, conflating the issues 3.x has (number bloat and fiddly modifiers), with BAB/Ascending AC is entirely missing the point.

I don't even LIKE 3.x.

A proper comparison is running 2e AD&D as written, and then with THAC0 converted to BAB and AC converted to ascending.

Outside of people who learned THAC0 first and now are incapable of realizing the flaws in it, I guarantee that 99.9% of people are going to prefer the second.

 

[Lessa]

I think social mechanics could be argued to fit under my definition. Meaningful mechanical social systems were non-existent in the 80s and 90s, pretty much only existing as a die roll and a lot of GM fiat even when there was some effort at them. To my eye, modern systems have made much further development on making social interaction another highly detailed mechanic akin to combat. And it does seem like quite a few systems I've seen in the past 10 years have done this.

Do I consider it an "Advancement?" I don't know. It certainly isn't to my taste. But I think it's definitely an idea worth examination and pursuit. At the very least it's a development to the overall tool of RPGs that some find extremely useful.

Damn, yes! Finally someone heard me! In the old days social interaction was all about losing agency or pure GM fiat, but we finally got a solution that avoids those problems completely. I can't understand how people don't see it as an objective improvement. Yeah I know you don't like social mechanics, but can't you think in your fellow players? What if they like it? Isn't it an important "technology" to have for them?

Once again, conflating the issues 3.x has (number bloat and fiddly modifiers), with BAB/Ascending AC is entirely missing the point.

I don't even LIKE 3.x.

A proper comparison is running 2e AD&D as written, and then with THAC0 converted to BAB and AC converted to ascending.

Outside of people who learned THAC0 first and now are incapable of realizing the flaws in it, I guarantee that 99.9% of people are going to prefer the second.

Good point.

 

[TJS]

Damn, yes! Finally someone heard me! In the old days social interaction was all about losing agency or pure GM fiat, but we finally got a solution that avoids those problems completely. I can't understand how people don't see it as an objective improvement. Yeah I know you don't like social mechanics, but can't you think in your fellow players? What if they like it? Isn't it an important "technology" to have for them?

Social mechanics aren't a solution. They're a whole range of mooted solutions to the same problem. But the sheer range seems to indicate that no-one has conclusively come up with the needed tech to fully deal with extended social conflicts.

And it's surprising how many of them deal well with the particular kind of conflict that the author had in their head when designing them but break down the further you get from that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of social mechanics overall (as long as the'yre open enough for role-playing to actually matter!), but I think how best to do them remains a largely unsolved problem.

Edit: And I think this is the problem that a lot of design has in other elements as well, such as lot of the features in the more narrative games. The effects they're aiming at are hard to achieve and most of the time they're only partially achieving them - which means others keep looking at ways to do the same thing and again only partially achieving them.

 

[raniE]

There’s nothing wrong with having mechanics you like. I’m happy for you. I’m just disputing it is an advancement. Say you like disco music, and then grunge comes along. Is grunge a technological advancement over disco? No. Does that mean grunge was unnecessary and everyone should have just stuck with disco? Also no. Listen to the music you want, talk about good albums and bad albums, but don’t try to say “this genre is more advanced than this other one.”

 

[raniE]

That may have been a bit harshly out. So rather, I don’t think saying one genre of music is more advanced than another one is useful. They can be different, cater to different individuals and tastes, but I don’t think you can really say that one genre of music, or one way of making music, is superior to another.

 

[EmperorNorton]

See here is the thing, people want to compare it to music and movies and books etc, until you start pointing out that quality exists in those fields as well.

That isn't to say one genre is superior to another, but there are definitely better and worse musicians. Yes, there is a lot of subjective opinion involved in what music you like, but at the same time that has more to do with quality being fuzzy in a lot of art. It doesn't mean that quality doesn't exist at all.

 

[Lessa]

Social mechanics aren't a solution. They're a whole range of mooted solutions to the same problem. But the sheer range seems to indicate that no-one has conclusively come up with the needed tech to fully deal with extended social conflicts.

What? There's no "range of mooted solutions" here. The games I'm referring to all do the same & only solution which is: be coercitive instead of restrictive. I can cite a bunch from early 00's and forward that do this:

- Weapons of the Gods (2005): the player who wins a persuasion check imposes an aspect-like negative trait on the losing player, who gains a "benny" for acting in accordance to that aspect;

- Smallville (2010): players enter a bidding game, and the losing side can choose to drop out and do what the winning side wants, or push his luck and risk getting a negative condition (say Afraid d10) that gives bonuses to anyone rolling against him later;

- Fate Core (2013): more or less the same as Weapons of the Gods;

- Burning Wheel Gold (2011): both sides debate in combat-like procedure to convince the audience around (not necessarily each other);

- In a Wicked Age (200?): winning side bribes the losing with an experience point;

- Dogs in the Vineyard (2004): loser side receives poor dice as consequences (ie: Humiliated d4) that bites them in the back later;

- Apocalypse World (2010): winning player can impose a penalty to future rolls, or a bribe in the form of XP, to convince the losing side;

- Sagas of the Icelanders (2012): the winning player offends the manhood of the loser, which then takes a penalty thereafter;

- Hillfolk (2013): winning side bribes loser with drama points;

- Mutant Year Zero/Tales from the Loop/Forbidden Lands (2014-2018): the winning side must always offer a bargain in exchange, and loser must agree;
etc.

The common factor here being: the losing player is never forced to comply to the winner, he always has choices open instead. How isn't this a good solution to someone who wants to explore the social aspect of gaming as any other traditionally explored like martial conflicts or physical tasks, with the same considerations to agency, choices, nuance, etc.?

 

[TristramEvans]

Better question, why are mods on a forum putting words in people's mouths? Is your goal to be right, or to promote healthy discussion?

 

[raniE]

See here is the thing, people want to compare it to music and movies and books etc, until you start pointing out that quality exists in those fields as well.

That isn't to say one genre is superior to another, but there are definitely better and worse musicians. Yes, there is a lot of subjective opinion involved in what music you like, but at the same time that has more to do with quality being fuzzy in a lot of art. It doesn't mean that quality doesn't exist at all.

Considering I mentioned “talk about good albums and bad albums” in my post I don’t think I was unaware of this you know, or trying to hide from it.

Yes, there’s a quality difference. That is entirely different from saying technology has made music overall better now. You can compare a modern song to Bohemian Rgapsody, Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer or An der Schönen Blauen Donau. You can compare a modern novel to Dracula, Catcher in the Rhye or The Lord of the Rings. You can compare a modern game to B/X, Pendragon, Traveler. You can have meaningful discussions about these comparisons, you can talka bout which is better, you can talk about which one you prefer etc. Comparing a modern computer to a computer from the 70s though is ridiculous. The modern computer is going to be better in pretty much every way, with the possible exception of aesthetics. That is technological advancement. The same is simply not true in music, books, or games. There can be games that are good, and games that are bad, but technological advancement doesn't need to factor into it for that to be the case, and in my opinion doesn't.

 

[Lessa]

Can someone say (with a straight face) that Shadowrun is a well-designed system? Because from personal experience and internet discussions, it's a strong candidate for worst piece of rules ever. And I say that as a SR fan.

And if we can say that, doesnt' it say something about technology in the hobby, and how it's used by some games?

(and now I got this idea: are there absolutely CRAP technologies in the hobby?)

 

[TJS]

The common factor here being: the losing player is never forced to comply to the winner, instead he is just coerced and left with choices open. How isn't this a good solution to someone who wants to explore the social aspect of gaming as any other traditionally explored like martial conflicts or physical tasks, with the same considerations to agency, choice, etc.?

Because most of them aren't very concrete - offering penalties is too abstract and relies on a kludge that often take active work to associate back into action. A lot of them may not affect the game world at all - if I take a penalty to a role and succeed anyway what did you actively achieve? A lot of these systems are just providing incentive or disincentives to make it harder to break the social contract. They still rely on the social contract which is the underlying system games have used from the beginning.

When I first saw that mechanic I thought "Great, yes of course. There's the solution". But I've never found it at all satisfying in play.

Or if they are more concrete such as Burning Wheel's they're limited to very specific circumstances.

They're all okayish. They're a sort of solution but they feel jury-rigged to me.

And I'm not bothered by the idea of being coerced anyway. As I said earlier in the thread, I quite like the A Song of Ice and Fire intrigue system where if you don't choose to back out of an Intrigue and lose outright you do in effect get coerced. If we're going to do a thing then let's do the the thing - and have real stakes - therefore real tension. (But like Burning Wheel the intrigue system is not a universal social mechanic - both sides have to really want something from the other for it to work).

 

[raniE]

Can someone say (with a straight face) that Shadowrun is a well-designed system? Because from personal experience and internet discussions, it's a strong candidate for worst piece of rules ever. And I say that as a SR fan.

And if we can say that, doesnt' it say something about technology in the hobby, and how it's used by some games?

(and now I got this idea: are there absolutely CRAP technologies in the hobby?)

No, it says something about that particular game in that case. Just like the terrible film The Room is not an indictment of any of the technology used in making it, neither would Shadowrun being a bad game (I've never played, so I can't really say one way or the other if it is bad) be an indictment of any technology of game making.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Yeah I know you don't like social mechanics, but can't you think in your fellow players? What if they like it? Isn't it an important "technology" to have for them?

With the best will in the world, the only players I need to think about are those considering my games. And I'd assume at least that if they put the same emphasis on (a very specific and narrow type of) social mechanics that you do they'd find a game with them in.

It's not like they don't have a choice; at least six separate campaigns are being run each year and if anyone massively wanted to run Smallville they could do. (If anything, we're constantly short fo GMs). So no, it's not an important "technology" to them, as demonstrated by the fact they aren't actively looking for it in campaigns.

How would you recruit? "Look, these mechanics are objectively better so if you don't like them you're wrong"?

See here is the thing, people want to compare it to music and movies and books etc, until you start pointing out that quality exists in those fields as well.

That isn't to say one genre is superior to another, but there are definitely better and worse musicians. Yes, there is a lot of subjective opinion involved in what music you like, but at the same time that has more to do with quality being fuzzy in a lot of art. It doesn't mean that quality doesn't exist at all.

I wouldn't say that quality doesn't exist at all in art. But while it may theoretically be objective, judging it can only be subjective. At least unless we have a working model to judge it by.

Take music as an example (mostly because I know next to nothing about films).

What should we judge it by? Technical competence? Popularity? Awards?

All of those approaches obviously have major flaws.

That said, I'd mostly just take issue with the idea that art progresses over time in the way suggested. Even video games, which have been suggested as an exception. Unless anyone seriously wants to argue they'd rather play Fallout 76 than Fallout 1.

 

[AsenRG]

What? There's no "range of mooted solutions" here. The games I'm referring to all do the same & only solution which is: be coercitive instead of restrictive. I can cite a bunch from early 00's and forward that do this:

- Weapons of the Gods (2005): the player who wins a persuasion check imposes an aspect-like negative trait on the losing player, who gains a "benny" for acting in accordance to that aspect;

- Smallville (2010): players enter a bidding game, and the losing side can choose to drop out and do what the winning side wants, or push his luck and risk getting a negative condition (say Afraid d10) that gives bonuses to anyone rolling against him later;

- Fate Core (2013): more or less the same as Weapons of the Gods;

- Burning Wheel Gold (2011): both sides debate in combat-like procedure to convince the audience around (not necessarily each other);

- In a Wicked Age (200?): winning side bribes the losing with an experience point;

- Dogs in the Vineyard (2004): loser side receives poor dice as consequences (ie: Humiliated d4) that bites them in the back later;

- Apocalypse World (2010): winning player can impose a penalty to future rolls, or a bribe in the form of XP, to convince the losing side;

- Sagas of the Icelanders (2012): the winning player offends the manhood of the loser, which then takes a penalty thereafter;

- Hillfolk (2013): winning side bribes loser with drama points;

- Mutant Year Zero/Tales from the Loop/Forbidden Lands (2014-2018): the winning side must always offer a bargain in exchange, and loser must agree;
etc.

The common factor here being: the losing player is never forced to comply to the winner, he always has choices open instead. How isn't this a good solution to someone who wants to explore the social aspect of gaming as any other traditionally explored like martial conflicts or physical tasks, with the same considerations to agency, choices, nuance, etc.?

And how is a bribe of any kind a good way to represent blackmail?
Since you were talking about intrigue, that is going to happen, a lot.

 

[Voros]

Tristram was just joking. Chill out cody.

Though I find reasonable to think Risus is among the best designs out there. It doesn't cover a lot of grounds, but what it does, it does elegantly.

By the way, what came first, Risus or Over the Edge? They're so similar that I bet one copied the other.

Both Risus and OtE were influenced by Ghostbusters.

 

[TristramEvans]

Can someone say (with a straight face) that Shadowrun is a well-designed system? Because from personal experience and internet discussions, it's a strong candidate for worst piece of rules ever. And I say that as a SR fan.

Depends on the edition. 2nd had some quirks (I still don't know how the Matrix rules were supposed to work), but overall it's quite a good system, and very influential on a lot of games in the 90s, including White Wolf.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Depends on the edition. 2nd had some quirks (I still don't know how the Matrix rules were supposed to work), but overall it's quite a good system, and very influential on a lot of games in the 90s, including White Wolf.

Yeah, it doesn't fit my preferences these days, but Shadowrun is solid enough and does what it sets out to do - crunchy simulation.

 

[Voros]

See here is the thing, people want to compare it to music and movies and books etc, until you start pointing out that quality exists in those fields as well.

That isn't to say one genre is superior to another, but there are definitely better and worse musicians. Yes, there is a lot of subjective opinion involved in what music you like, but at the same time that has more to do with quality being fuzzy in a lot of art. It doesn't mean that quality doesn't exist at all.

For sure it’s tricky. As Run DMC would say.



To me, it seems amazing that some would put Michael Jackson ahead of Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye or Stevie Wonder. Or Beyonce ahead of Aretha Franklin. And most critical opinion and those deeply into RnB would agree with me but if you did a poll today I think the majority would think today’s pop stars are superior.

 

[Lessa]

Because most of them aren't very concrete

Well, some people like things more concrete, others who like it more abstract. Apples and oranges.

A lot of them may not affect the game world at all

But why should them affect the game world when it's a conflict between two persons? They should affect each other, not the world.

if I take a penalty to a roll and succeed anyway what did you actively achieve?

Depends on the game. If your penalty is "Afraid d10" (in Smallville) it means you're struggling against fear and every opponent will have that extra d10 to capitalize on it. Against a matched opponent that is a reasonable disadvantage. But if you take another condition like that (or have that condition increase to d12 or d20) ? Chances are you'll be miserable, unable to pull out anything.

In Masks: a New Generation each condition affects related moves. So if you're Afraid you take a severe penalty to fighting, if you're Insecure you take penalty to resist others influence, if you're Hopeless you take penalty to unleash you powers, etc. And you only recover from conditions if you take action on them (so taking foolhardy action for Insecure, hurting someone for Angry, etc).

A lot of these systems are just providing incentive or disincentives to make it harder to break the social contract. They still rely on the social contract which is the underlying system games have used from the beginning.

Yup, and that seems good to me. Too far from the social contract and would feel artificial, too close and you have pure fiat. These systems speak with the social contract while providing choices to make it fun and nuanced. Not unlike combat systems that strike a balance between realism and fun.

When I first saw that mechanic I thought "Great, yes of course. There's the solution". But I've never found it at all satisfying in play. Or if they are more concrete such as Burning Wheel's they're limited to very specific circumstances. They're all okayish. They're a sort of solution but they feel jury-rigged to me.

And that's ok. Lots of combat and skill resolution rules feel unsatisfying or jury-rigged to me too, it doesn't mean lots other people don't find them cool.

And I'm not bothered by the idea of being coerced anyway. As I said earlier in the thread, I quite like the A Song of Ice and Fire intrigue system where if you don't choose to back out of an Intrigue and lose outright you do in effect get coerced. If we're going to do a thing then let's do the the thing - and have real stakes - therefore real tension. (But like Burning Wheel the intrigue system is not a universal social mechanic - both sides have to really want something for the other for it to work).

I'll take a look at ASoIaF. I remember when it came out but never took a good look. "Social combats" are not my fave though, as they tend to be complex and feel artificial/too divorced from fiction sometimes, I prefer simpler/faster ones like in Apocalypse World that accompany the fiction closely and require just one fast roll.