|
Post by calithena on May 17, 2008 9:40:12 GMT -6
like the SIEGE engine. Like most skill systems become in the end. Like a lot 'o them fancy indie-type games have. Like, for that matter, saving throws in T&T. You get various tasks or conflicts, defined in various ways, and then you resolve uncertainty with one or more charts, matrices, whatever.
They always seem so tempting, when you're desiging a game. But I almost want to say that including something like this takes you out of the realm of what I always liked about the older games.
The alternative, cobbled together ad hoc rulings combined with various charts that seemed cool at the time coming in and out of the game, seems 'obviously' worse to most of us at some point in our gaming career.
I want to say it's not so obvious. The advantage of that second approach is that you can treat each situation in terms of what you're imagining first. Sure, maybe eventually you roll, and maybe you don't, and maybe it's not always 'fair'. There's a tremendous need here for a good GM and for groups that are willing to talk things out and listen to each other in weird situations. This breaks down sometimes, which is one thing that makes people want the safety net of a universal resolution system.
But on the other hand if a stuck door might be automatic with STR 14+, or might require a d6 or d100 roll under some number with bonuses for attribute scores, or might require a crowbar regardless of strength, or might require some digging, or might....then the texture of the imagined reality stays in imagination. Which is kind of where I want it, in the end.
For the way I like to play, players deserve a roll when their character, or even something important about their character, like mind control or a crippling disfigurement, is on the line. This is why you need some sort of combat rules and saving throw system. That's my safety net: they deserve at least one chance to use their intelligence to overcome the odds and at least one roll to survive anyway if they screw it up. But beyond that, I think I'm really happier with freeform. There are costs, but I think in general internet discussions of the topic exaggerate the costs and greatly underestimate the benefits. And part of the problem is that the benefits require a good DM and a group with some trust, which are hard to quantify, but on the other hand why would you want to play in other sorts of situations?
There are answers, like for example if you're in a competitive situation at a gaming convention. But for regular play with a group? Not so sure it's nearly as important as people think.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 17, 2008 11:45:03 GMT -6
*Exalt*
Excellent post. That's one of the best explanations of this concept that I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by hackman on May 17, 2008 14:33:59 GMT -6
Your above explanation is one of the things that I like so much about OD&D, just work it out somehow regardless. I like to experiment around with various systems, but have found over the years that the on the fly approach per say is the most fun for me. It's one of the reasons I've come to dislike thieves even, the more it needs to be described and resolved via description and some discussion the better in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on May 17, 2008 15:29:07 GMT -6
I think the key distinction is the degree to which the game's "social contract" depends on using "pre-packaged" probabilities.
In other words, it's not whether one uses (e.g.) d% roll-under for almost everything or a set of variously constructed matrices (perhaps rolling d20 on one, 2d6 on another).
To the degree the Judge is commonly establishing probabilities "on the fly" (+10% for this, -20% for that), the way they're expressed does not matter much. You've got what Gary meant when he called D&D a "non-game" (or a certain AD&Der in reference to the way one group played Champions).
The more set rules pin down the resolution, the more an RPG becomes a "game" in that sense.
There are probably differences among us as to where the "happiest medium" lies.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on May 17, 2008 17:16:53 GMT -6
Nice post Calithena. You're right they seem so tempting, because when house ruling OD&D, I often feel like "OK, I need a table for this situation, or this situation..." almost as though I feel obligated to provide some consistency for my players.
Then I normally ignore them or just play on the fly anyway. If the game pace and the fun factor is going well, it's often better to not stop to check a table or wrack your brain trying to remember how you did it in the past. Just do what feels right.
I think you hit the nail on the head though, with this bit:
"That's my safety net: they deserve at least one chance to use their intelligence to overcome the odds and at least one roll to survive anyway if they screw it up."
I'll try to remember that mantra myself in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 18, 2008 6:17:27 GMT -6
I often feel like "OK, I need a table for this situation, or this situation..." almost as though I feel obligated to provide some consistency for my players. Then I normally ignore them or just play on the fly anyway. I'm a big fan of the "just grab some dice and roll" philosophy. Often I have two or three outcomes in mind and I have my players pick up something to roll, then tell me the number. Rather than a complex "target number" system, I'm looking for high-low or high-middle-low or something else less than scientific. 1. I hate looking anything up during the game. 2. This method keeps things moving and fast-paced. 3. It allows me to account for critical success or failure and otherwise I assume that most people can do most things pretty well anyway. For example, the number of times I've walked down a set of stairs without falling is significant, so why roll for a walk down the stairs. However, a character running from a Troll (and taking on those same stairs) might mess up, so a quick "roll something" tells me if anything interesting might happen or if we keep going. Works for me, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lordtwang on May 19, 2008 6:51:27 GMT -6
I'm wrapping up a several years long Classic D&D campaign in which I stopped using universal systems for the first time in about six years. I'm ready to go back. I'm too busy to worry about making different rolls and different times, and I'm not the kind of person who can stay consistent with using the same technique each time.
After a well-earned D&D break, I think I'll play OD&D but with a universal roll system. It suits me better.
I can't disagree with your point though. If it works for you, it works. Certainly I prefer adhoc rulings as opposed to looking things up and having detailed rules. I just like having universal roll system. Although, some game designs try way too hard to fit everything to their universal roll. Usually by having too many over-complicated systems.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 19, 2008 7:14:21 GMT -6
And I'm not opposed to a universal roll system, if it's well done. I've always thought it was funny to open doors on a d6, fight with a d20, thieves pick pockets on d100, and so on.
I'd be interested to see what you come up with. :-)
|
|
mythmere
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 293
|
Post by mythmere on May 21, 2008 8:32:36 GMT -6
The problem with universal systems is twofold. First, and probably less important, they reduce the unique feeling of each character class. Using wonky resolution systems is part of the "distinction" of one class from another. That's a comment from AD&D - I haven't played OD&D in a very, very long time.
The second reason, far more important, is that universal systems create player "rights" in the eyes of the players. If the DM considers a situation to be unique in difficulty (eg, the huge stone block can't be avoided except in one specific way that has nothing to do with a "jump out of the way" roll), then the players will complain. This is less true in a system like C&C where these rolls aren't picked as part of a character's tailoring, more true in a system like 3e where skills are carefully chosen by the players and then "ignored" by the DM in these situations. This is my general criticism of a skill system, and applies to a lesser degree to universal "checks."
However, I tend to use ability checks a LOT in AD&D, for exactly the reasons often stated in defense of a universal system. I think basing a system on basic ability scores rather than level is "better" for reasons that would be irrelevant in this thread, and only apply to S&S gaming anyway. The real difference between my ability checks and a universal system is that ability checks aren't perceived as a player "right," but as one of the tools in the DM's toolkit. That's largely subjective to the gaming group, but it's reinforced because an "ability check" system isn't written into any of the other game rules having to do with class abilities (again, I'm making the comparison to C&C, 3e, and to late-2e). A 2e "dragonslayer" sort of has the right to use certain skill checks, or at least, the player who picked that kit is likely to think so. After all, it's why he chose the kit.
So, those are my thoughts on universal resolution systems. It's one thing to have a system you use a lot, as a crutch. That's helpful - crutches are good when you have to think fast. It's another thing to have the system hard-wired into the rules. And it's a third thing, worst of all, when the players make character-generation decisions based on choices designed around using the universal resolution system.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 21, 2008 8:56:06 GMT -6
A most outstanding first post! Welcome to the boards!
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 21, 2008 9:05:18 GMT -6
I really don't have much to add to this outstanding succesion of posts.
All I got to say, is a conclusion I have derived from experience while playing OD&D:
Players base their desicions on their imagination because they don't know how the hell you are going to resolve the situation. They ask for more description. The try to get a mental image of what is happening. The dialogue with the DM is more "despriptive" and less about rules. ("This walls looks hard to climb, right?" vs. "So this would be like -5 penalty to my check, right?").
You must try to be consistant with your ruling. Not consistant with the method (you can use d20 now, d6 next, d100 later, etc.), but consistant with your method of evaluation (high dex is valuable for equilibrium challanges, high strenght to break stuff, etc.).
No universal system puts the game where it should be IMHO... imagination. At least on the side of the players. Rules are a worry of the referee.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on May 21, 2008 9:23:54 GMT -6
In D&D, I've tended to use "n chances in 6" quite often, using the examples in the rules as analogies.
I also use hit and save rolls, and 2d6 on the reaction table, in a similarly "extrapolated" way. If one is using 2d6 for hits and saves, then it's closer to a "universal system" -- pretty much like Traveller. If one likes to modify the usual d6 rolls a lot, then one might convert those to 2d6 as well.
Using ability scores directly (e.g., with 3d6 or d20) tends to go further in the direction of preset probabilities. That may be just what one wants sometimes: a pretty reliable indication to the player of his chances. It also makes the difference between one ability score and another more significant.
There's a natural tendency to settle on standards for some things in the course of play. In many cases, I've found that the standard (e.g., penalty to hit an invisible character) matches one published in another edition of the game. Verbal tradition informs a text, which in turn informs verbal tradition ...
For some folks, it would be needlessly "contrarian" not to use such established factors most of the time. Spending time and energy making up a new rule may not be worth the payoff in fun.
My own view is that rules innovations become really important when they reflect players' innovation in dealing with a situation.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 21, 2008 9:40:46 GMT -6
Using ability scores directly (e.g., with 3d6 or d20) tends to go further in the direction of preset probabilities. That may be just what one wants sometimes: a pretty reliable indication to the player of his chances. I've used 3d6 vs Ability Score. For difficult challenges, I've also used 3d6 vs. Half of Ability Score. Seemed to work out okay.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on May 21, 2008 10:58:19 GMT -6
It's funny, thinking about this post, it's a lot in the mentality. Having a default system for the GM to go to when nothing else suggests itself is great, and a lot of 'universal systems' work nicely when cast in this role. Here's one I'm working with:
Noncombat Task Resolution - Roll 1d6, Success on 1-2
Modifiers
- Class, Race, or Background positively relevant +1 (maybe +2 for thieves)/negatively relevant -1
- Attribute score relevant & high/relatively high score possessed +1 or +2; low/relatively low score -1 or -2
- Level/HD relevant and actor is higher (much)/lower (much) than acted upon: +1 (+2)/-1 (-2)
- Difficulty Assessment: Easy +2, Routine +1, Hard 0, Extremely Hard -1, Impossible -2
When I don't have any ideas using something like that to set probabilities can be a useful trick.
But you do have to be very careful. If you have, say, a skill system that plays into that (or any) general resolution method, or class abilities, etc., then players have a right to expect them to work that way. You can tell them there will be exceptions, and that helps, but I think keeping things as light as possible makes these easier to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Aug 31, 2008 13:46:24 GMT -6
I love T&T SR's but even T&T "SWAG'ed" things until someone realized that SR's could apply to other attributes besides LUCK (if you look carefully at the early T&T dungeons, you'll realize the only SR's were made on luck and whenever some other attribute was more logical, they improvised something else).
Anyway, the beauty of a rules light approach is that you CAN swag. I agree with Ken St. Andre's (T&T's designer) that the Thief class is superfluous. Isn't every character wandering around in a dungeon a "thief". And the % based skill system basically started a precedent that got the ball rolling which turned the game into a bigger and bigger mess.
Just SWAG things. Trust the DM to use common-sense and reason to come up with a % chance of success at something. You can even attempt to rationalize something to gain a bit of advantage but at the end of the day, the DM's word is final.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 15, 2008 13:47:33 GMT -6
I prefer a well designed subsystem that dovetails with the main rules of the RPG and don't really like attempts at universal resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 15, 2008 13:52:14 GMT -6
I prefer a well designed subsystem that dovetails with the main rules of the RPG So do I. The closest thing to universal we use is the "percentile" mechanic. Having subsystems instead of a "universal" system allows for ease of plugging and plucking different rules and tables from various sources.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 15, 2008 14:04:12 GMT -6
I use the original universal system, myself:
1. The DM decides what the probability is.
2. The DM rolls whatever die/dice he/she feels is needful in this situation.
3. The DM describes the result to the players.
4. The players jolly well deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Sept 15, 2008 14:52:44 GMT -6
Neat thread. I discovering (from what you all are teaching me) that I like a little bit of roll-playing (a universal attribute mechanic, for example) with my role-playing.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Sept 15, 2008 16:40:33 GMT -6
Neat thread. I discovering (from what you all are teaching me) that I like a little bit of roll-playing (a universal attribute mechanic, for example) with my role-playing. Nothing wrong with that if it's used sparingly and not as a crutch for either the referee or players to avoid thinking creatively. My only worry about universal resolution mechanics -- well, aside from the fact that they're an alien importation into D&D's mechanical structure -- is that, if allowed to do so, they quickly become a substitute for cleverness and imagination. That's why I prefer that such systems be strictly limited in their application and not allowed to run roughshod over the referee's sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Sept 15, 2008 17:51:32 GMT -6
I understand what you mean. Creativity and imagination are key to real role playing. But I think my first DM was a sadist or something: there were times - a precious few times - when the rules saved us from him.
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Sept 17, 2008 2:40:49 GMT -6
i really have been leaning more torwards a system for task resoultion alone based upon the charisma chart..
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Sept 17, 2008 8:39:16 GMT -6
That sounds very interesting, Codeman. Post a new thread on it when you're ready...
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 17, 2008 20:56:02 GMT -6
I'm gonna guess that "SR" is Saving Roll, but what, please, does "SWAG" stand for?
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 18, 2008 9:12:27 GMT -6
I'm gonna guess that "SR" is Saving Roll, but what, please, does "SWAG" stand for? Generally, it stands for "Scientific Wild-Ass Guess."
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 18, 2008 12:08:09 GMT -6
That is excellent. That's kinda how I live my life...
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 18, 2008 15:22:05 GMT -6
My only worry about universal resolution mechanics ...<snip>... is that, if allowed to do so, they quickly become a substitute for cleverness and imagination. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your thought here, and if so it's not on purpose, but I've found that universal systems can be just the opposite of limiting. For example, with Castles & Crusades they have the universal "Siege Mechanic" whereby the one basic rule is applied to almost every situation (die roll plus a few modifiers to beat a target number; the TN is based on your stat being "prime" or not and the character level may or may not be applied as one of the modifiers based on the type of action and the situation). I've also used "stat check" rolls, which are similar but not as formally worked out into an official rule. To me, both of these systems have the potential to encourage creativity because you don't have to look around for a rule in a rulebook but instead have a universal guideline on how to "wing it." Climbing a rope? Hmmm. Make a Dex check. Pretty simple and universal, without crunching my creativity. Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment, in which case never mind.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Sept 18, 2008 18:06:41 GMT -6
To me, both of these systems have the potential to encourage creativity because you don't have to look around for a rule in a rulebook but instead have a universal guideline on how to "wing it." My point was that, when there's a universal way of resolving actions, whether it be some kind of attribute check or another mechanic, it becomes very easy for players to simply forgo creativity by asking, when faced with a problem, "Can't I just make a Strength check?" And if all tasks in the game are, ultimately, resolved by recourse to an attribute check without exception, for example, even if the referee makes the player work for that check by describing just what his character is doing to "earn" the check, the regularity of the end result will eventually wear referee and player down to the point where the description will become more and more pro forma and you get what amounts to a skill system by another name.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Sept 18, 2008 18:13:40 GMT -6
To me, both of these systems have the potential to encourage creativity because you don't have to look around for a rule in a rulebook but instead have a universal guideline on how to "wing it." My point was that, when there's a universal way of resolving actions, whether it be some kind of attribute check or another mechanic, it becomes very easy for players to simply forgo creativity by asking, when faced with a problem, "Can't I just make a Strength check?" And if all tasks in the game are, ultimately, resolved by recourse to an attribute check without exception, for example, even if the referee makes the player work for that check by describing just what his character is doing to "earn" the check, the regularity of the end result will eventually wear referee and player down to the point where the description will become more and more pro forma and you get what amounts to a skill system by another name. Very well put. I think a lot of people miss that, or don't understand why it can be bad. It does create a sort of laziness or at least sets up a dull routine feel. I've noticed that quite often, but most people just think it's part of the game and it doesn't bother them. It all boils down to a preference for rulings over rules, I suppose.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Sept 18, 2008 18:15:53 GMT -6
My recent thinking is that it's good to have a universal resolution mechanic, but it's not good to use it often. Think of it as the 'Court of Last Resort' of the game. No player should want to use it, because they know their PC's life could be on the line if they botch the roll. If they can come up with some plan or action that will prevent the DM from going for the dice, that's always a better option.
In other words, I kinda feel like D&D has always had a universal resolution mechanic. It's called the Saving Throw.
|
|