From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:30:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 51 Message-ID: <8asqfe$3d5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq6np$6fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1Q4A4.5141$X4.204901@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <8aqscr$l3u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38e22e66.9690417@news.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.135 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 17 08:30:38 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.135 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:161 In article , "Michael T. Richter" wrote: > Doug Berry wrote in message > news:38e22e66.9690417@news.mindspring.com... > >>I get the creeps every time I see that illustration in the Werewolf > >>supplement 'Book of Caerns' in which a (dead?) man with a coke can in > >>his mouth is lying in front of a sign saying 'Keine Abfallung' (for > >>speakers of English: imagine 'no rubbishing' in place of 'no litter'). > > > RPGs aren't the only ones guilty of that, and I've seen many > > ridiculous translations into English as well. > > On the whole, however, Europeans are much more likely to get English right > than English speakers are to get foreign languages right. In Germany, for > example, the Gymnasium graduates probably know English better than an > average North American high school graduate. They'll mispronounce words > like crazy, naturally, and they won't know common idioms, but for that > they'll have a far better grasp of spelling and grammar.... > To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much credit to German speakers of English. Most of us can't speak it at conversational level - and I am studying English, so you should think I meet a lot who do. You'd be surprised what kind of student actually studies English nowadays... Furthermore there's really not that much grammar in English (by comparison)... If you grow up as a native speaker of English I can imagine you are duly surprised when you encounter almost any other language. Considering that there are only 1500 years of separate development from common roots between German and English the difference is astonishing. Historically speaking, when the Anglosaxons met the Danes in England they found they had a lot of vocabulary in common but very different grammar, so they just chucked most of the grammar. Thus endeth the lesson... :-) Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: "Michael T. Richter" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8aq6np$6fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1Q4A4.5141$X4.204901@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <8aqscr$l3u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38e22e66.9690417@news.mindspring.com> <8asqfe$3d5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 10 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:55:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.132.246 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com 953297751 24.112.132.246 (Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:55:51 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 04:55:51 PST Organization: @Home Network Canada Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!feeder.via.net!24.0.94.134.MISMATCH!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:897 "Robin" wrote in message news:8asqfe$3d5$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much > credit to German speakers of English. That wasn't the case in 1982, let me tell you. (You snipped my experience with a local Gymnasium in Lahr.) ###### Message-ID: <38D23828.27CA@nospam.tyndale.apana.org.au> From: Brett Evill X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism References: <8aq6np$6fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1Q4A4.5141$X4.204901@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <8aqscr$l3u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38e22e66.9690417@news.mindspring.com> <8asqfe$3d5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:50:34 +1100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.12.90.167 X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 953301145 202.12.90.167 (Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:52:25 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:52:25 EST Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:800 Robin wrote: > > To take a bit of steam out of that: you're giving a bit too much credit > to German speakers of English. Most of us can't speak it at > conversational level - and I am studying English, so you should think I > meet a lot who do. You'd be surprised what kind of student actually > studies English nowadays... My experience is that German who speak English speak it very well. But perhaps they ought: a German friend of mine who fled the country in 1939 (and thus spent the War in an Australian concentration camp instead of a German one) tells me that Germans nowadays speak very bad German: overly abstract and with too many passive constructions. To him, all modern German sounds like Hitler making a speech. > Furthermore there's really not that much grammar in English (by > comparison)... If you grow up as a native speaker of English I can > imagine you are duly surprised when you encounter almost any other > language. We have syntax instead of grammar, and a lot of English speaker refer to 'grammar' when in fact they are talking about syntax. > Considering that there are only 1500 years of separate development > from common roots between German and English the difference > is astonishing. Historically speaking, when the Anglosaxons met the > Danes in England they found they had a lot of vocabulary in common but > very different grammar, so they just chucked most of the grammar. I am a little surprised at that. I had heard that Old English (c. AD500-c. AD1100) had a proper grammar with inflection and declension according to case, mood, and gender. > Thus endeth the lesson... :-) Just so. "Here endeth the lesson". Regards, Brett Evill ###### From: larris@usa.net (Larris Magpie) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Organization: None. I work alone. Reply-To: larris@usa.net Message-ID: <38d92fa9.61508231@90.0.0.1> References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 88 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:25:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.142.20 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@online.no X-Trace: news1.online.no 953303510 130.67.142.20 (Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:31:50 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:31:50 MET Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!news1.online.no!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:831 Lauri Gardner wrote: > I was thinking about this for a while but what is your opinion on a >games realism? Should things be realistic (say weapon reactions), or >should this be on the slightly flavoured absurd. This remains a matter of taste. I tend to like faster flowing stuff better, but appreciate Rolemaster-influenced systems for simulation purposes. But in the end, accurate simulation of real life is not much fun IMO. Fun is what I play games for. When the most "realistic" computer game AIs to date (Looking Glass Studios' Thief and System Shock 2) were accused of not being realistic _enough_ (much craves more), the designers explained that too much realism would deprive the game of its playability. I subscribe to that view as well. Stylized, abstract (absurd if you will) systems fit the purposes of controlled randomizing. My control, that is. I come up with the detail of what happens to my players' characters when they have determined success or miss, and if they in turn are worth their salt, they do not need to depend on the system to imagine exactly what happens. A simple, generic fumble roll might mean a weapon has simply jammed, that its barrel has melted, that it's firing uncontrollably, or that the shooter lost concentration for a split second and forgot to keep the kickback in check, resulting in a nice string of holes through the ceiling. No special table needed - in my games it's made up on the spur of the moment. >What is the balance should it be so that the players think the world is >realistic or that the GM? Believability has IMO very little to do with realism in the systems, or our kind of logic at all. It is all about suspension of disbelief. A good GM will make her players think they're _in_ Toon Town while playing Toon. Accurate simulation will never be accomplished around a gaming table anyway, so there's little point in attempting, still IMO. >Or should it be soemething in-between (most of >adventures have fallen apart when I have a 10 000 pages of material that >has to be read for that right flavour, or for how floorplans have to be >made)? Agreed. >As an example that comes to mind is the documentary on landmines. This was >shown at a firstaid meeting and was not something pretty (incidentaly it >is obligaotry viewing for medic in Finland, not many survive through the >whole documentary). The kind that gives you nightmares. I see. Heroic kinds of games would need these less than low-fantasy campaigns, for instance. For purposes of this discussion, most cyberpunk games would fit into the latter category, and as such it would probably be fair game for whatever nastiness you can throw in. >Another that comes to mind is with damage, through first aid I know what >kinds of reactions and situations may arrise with wounded people. Most of >the kind of things that without knowledge you would be at a loss, and >would probably end up killing him. That depends on the system and feel you want to run your adventures in. I understand you run cyberpunk flavored games, correct? In that case I'd probably recommend implementing more realistic damage to reflect the grittiness of it all. "He could enter any quadruple-encrypted database before breakfast, but he did not know how to perform a heart massage when she needed one. The rest of his life he pondered this again and again, what could have been if he had chosen different priorities." >I could give several example involving equipment, weight, internal logic >of the game world history, This last point is the only thing I'd try to maintain consistently, and if that's not possible then try to smokescreen it as well as I can. Like I said, it's all about suspension of disbelief. >weapon designs and internal workings...but I won't. Okay. :) -- Larris "If darkness is merely the absence of light, Like evil, they say, is the absence of love; Why is it, then, that the gloom of the night Feels more tangible and opaque than rays from above?" ###### From: Kodeci Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:02:46 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 43 Message-ID: <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.254.60.134 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 17 14:02:46 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-22 i686) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 www-cache.irisa.fr:3128 (Squid/2.2.STABLE3), 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 131.254.61.53, 131.254.60.134 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDkodeci Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:214 In article <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, RedDrake@aol.com wrote: > Last night in rolemaster I decided to > gallop my horse after a friend who was out of control. Then I > realized that I was leaving behind a companion who was being > attacked by a large bird. My character had a 44 ride skill and > a 32 mounted combat skill. I fail my ride roll to stop the horse > and break it's leg. How likely is that? It's not like my character > was unfamiliar with horses. This falls under the heading of an > action which anyone with "familiarity" with a horse could probably > have accomplished safely, but in some game rules, it's impossible, > or at least unlikely. I feel like I'm in an episode of the keystone > cops sometimes. Do I need a skill roll to put my boots on? Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say "believability") in Rolemaster. One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty. The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did. What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100! Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big compared to the constant part (say the skill). A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference, everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0). However, the roll is 1d100, routinely giving more than 50 points difference between two consecutive rolls. Also, one out of ten times, a reroll result gives the incredible difference of 55 to 145 points (from the average result of 50)! Because of those two problems (as I see them), I'm not able to play Rolemaster :-( Kodeci Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Graham Wills Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:20:13 -0600 Organization: Bell Laboratories Lines: 79 Message-ID: <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: twitch.research.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP30) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:690 Kodeci wrote: > Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say > "believability") in Rolemaster. > > One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up > sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that > I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and > had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty. I think that estimatign difficulties is the single hardest job a GM has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system, though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end, it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds). > The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did. > What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100! > Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I > strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big > compared to the constant part (say the skill). *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important than skill. > A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference, > everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on > attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0). In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component; training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30. A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65. The difference between a *highly trained* person and an untrained person will probably be around 100-150. The maximum 30 points different in innate talent is nowhere near as important as training. > However, the roll is 1d100, routinely giving more than 50 points > difference between two consecutive rolls. Also, one out of ten times, a > reroll result gives the incredible difference of 55 to 145 points (from > the average result of 50)! For normal, average skilled people: SKILL EFFECT: about 40-50 RANDOM EFFECT: about 50 TALENT EFFECT: about 10-15 For trained, talented people: SKILL EFFECT: about 70-90 RANDOM EFFECT: about 50 TALENT EFFECT: about 15-25 For both of these, you will open-end one in ten times which will either add or subtract about 50 randomness. > Because of those two problems (as I see them), I'm not able to play > Rolemaster :-( The second I can see. If you like unrealistically predictable games, then RM is not for you. For GM assigned difficulties, all games have the same problem (or they don't assign difficulties at all which, frankly, rates them a zero on the realism side). -Graham -- Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs gwills@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338 http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde! ###### From: "Tim Kutz" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:55:45 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <38d28d83$0$19210@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.255.198.219 X-Trace: reader2.news.uu.net 953322883 19210 204.255.198.219 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader2.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:590 Graham Wills wrote in message news:38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com... > Kodeci wrote: > > > Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say > > "believability") in Rolemaster. > > > > One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up > > sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that > > I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and > > had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty. > > I think that estimatign difficulties is the single hardest job a GM > has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system, > though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end, > it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM > doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while > whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds). Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that the best route is to tell the players at the outset of the game what you as GM consider to be: Hobbyist level Professional level Master level for skills. It also helps if you define these. For example, I define "professional level" as being the required skill for someone who has a career using that skill on a daily basis *as a core requirement of their job*. So, a smith with his own smithy would have professional level in smithing. An Armorer (who works with both metal and leather, and may not do all of the metal smithing himself) might not have professional level in blacksmithing, but would in armor-crafting. I also normally give players an idea of what typical penalties and bonuses would be for some common generic modifiers, such as: Inadequate/Improvised tools Impeded Senses (darkness, deafness, etc) Added/Reduced time spent and so forth. By specifying such things up front, the players can build a character that performs in the ranges they expect them to. The person who wants to play the veteran combat pilot knows that, to have the skills that fit his background, he'll need that pilot skill to be at, say (Professional level + Impeded Senses penalty), for example (piloting at night as well as a commercial pilot does in the day..) And, at the same time, it give me some guidelines to stay consistent. This type of exchange doesn't happen to me: "Well, you're performing a medical operation without the right medical tools, so that's -10, and it's dark, so another -15." "But he just picked the lock in a pitch black hallway using a hatpin with no penalty!" "Ooops." Tim Kutz tim@environs.com ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:22:23 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <8b22nn$5ka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.132 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 19 08:22:23 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.132 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:112 In article <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com>, Graham Wills wrote: > Kodeci wrote: > > > The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did. > > What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100! > > Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I > > strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big > > compared to the constant part (say the skill). > > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important > than skill. I don't think so. 'Luck' in any situation, be that combat or anything else, doesn't have anything to do with your skill or your performance, so it should not enter the skill roll as a factor. I am a professional computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area. Luck in combat is something along the lines of avoiding stray arrows, backstabbing etc. This has nothing to do with your combat skill. Also, whether a bowstring breaks or not has nothing to do with your skill and everything with the quality of the bow. So luck usually doesn't enter into the equation at all, as long as pure skill is concerned. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Graham Wills Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:32:54 -0600 Organization: Bell Laboratories Lines: 49 Message-ID: <38DBD0F6.2D0FD300@research.bell-labs.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <8b22nn$5ka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: twitch.research.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP30) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!den-news-01.qwest.net!qwest!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1209 Robin wrote: > > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend > > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider > > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that > > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important > > than skill. > > I don't think so. 'Luck' in any situation, be that combat or anything > else, doesn't have anything to do with your skill or your performance, > so it should not enter the skill roll as a factor. Luck has nothing to do with skill: OK, I'll buy that Luck has nothing to do with your performance: Nope. Absolutely nots > I am a professional > computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on > Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area. Really? My wife is also a graphics designer, and I am also a computer guy, and yet I occasionally make blunders with tools I am *really skilled* at, for example, trashing the wrong file, typing 'rm */*.java' instead of 'rm */*.class' or whatever. You've never had a hard dish crash? Lost a file? Had problems with a computer at just the wrong time? In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client specifically wants some elements your familiar with? If you can re-use or adapt other work? If your library of images has *exactly* what you're looking for? > Luck in combat is something along the lines of avoiding stray arrows, > backstabbing etc. This has nothing to do with your combat skill. Also, > whether a bowstring breaks or not has nothing to do with your skill and > everything with the quality of the bow. So luck usually doesn't enter > into the equation at all, as long as pure skill is concerned. Yes, but the roll is not a pure skill roll. It specifically incorporates luck as well. If you read my sentence I am arguing that the luck component is often as large as the skill component. I am not arguing that luck is a part of skill. It is part of the SKILL RESOLUTION ROLL. -Graham -- Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs gwills@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338 http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde! ###### From: Kodeci Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:21:16 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 88 Message-ID: <8b4u2k$2il$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.254.60.134 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 20 10:21:16 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-22 i686) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 www-cache.irisa.fr:3128 (Squid/2.2.STABLE3), 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 131.254.61.53, 131.254.60.134 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDkodeci Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:116 In article <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com>, Graham Wills wrote: > I think that estimatign difficulties is the single hardest job a GM > has in runnign a consistent world. It's irrespective of the system, > though. Rolemaster helps by giving a ton of examples, but in the end, > it's often up to the GM to judge the unusual circumstances (even RM > doesn't have a standard penalty for being pecked by a large bird while > whirling a horse from full gallop to dead stop in 10 seconds). Well, for Rolemaster, I didn't see tons of specific examples, but I didn't buy the whole set of books .... What I saw was general indications, such as Easy, Absurd and such ... And those were clearly shifted, as a common professional would have a very low chance of performing normally. At least, Rolemaster didn't tell what is the common professionnal level (as explained by a poster in this thread). Also, I don't think it's irrespective of the system. In my opinion, a system (except lite-systems) with values should explain what those values are worth. For example, a system with a driving skill without a list of common driving difficulties is incomplete as far as I am concerned. In a finished system, each skill (or ability) should have a list of common difficulties and modifiers. > > I strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big > > compared to the constant part (say the skill). > > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important > than skill. Combat is much broader than a skill use, it is a game situation. Take a non-stressful skill, such as snooker. Do you really think that the random component is bigger than the skill? Compared to randomness, how much is the disadvantage for guy1 that never tried, and guy2 that have done it one hour per week for 10 weeks? I feel guy2 has more than a 30% advantage over guy1 ... > > A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference, > > everything else constant, between the most talented (human limit on > > attribute is +30) and a regular person (attribute +0). > > In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a > stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component; > training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has > spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30. Are you kidding? A week or so!!! If you could earn one "dot" in a week or so in Rolemaster, nobody would pay for background skills ... Characters would just spend their points on high skills, and spend 2 years non adventuring to have "a week or so" of training in a hundred skills !!! > A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If > you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure > of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65. I don't know where you get those numbers from ... What don't we talk about characters with regular (50 = +0) attributes? A guy that spent "a week or so" on riding has a +5 bonus. His brother that is professionnal (but 1st level, no attribute adjustment difference) can have a +10 bonus (two dots) for levels, and a few for training time ... Well, it all depends on how many are allowed in your game, but: - if you give them easily, the riding bonus will still have trouble reaching +45, which is only a +40 difference. However, this policy has nothing to do with regular Rolemaster rules, as learning by doing is severely limited. (I agree with you that some rules would be needed). - under the strictest rules (little learning by training), the guy might have two dots, so a total bonus of +20 ... Only +15% difference .... > If you like unrealistically predictable games, > then RM is not for you. The *unrealistically* is ... Kodeci Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Graham Wills Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:14:17 -0600 Organization: Bell Laboratories Lines: 129 Message-ID: <38DBDAA9.B0D8906A@research.bell-labs.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <8b4u2k$2il$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: twitch.research.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP30) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!iol.ie!newsfeed.esat.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1211 Kodeci wrote: > Well, for Rolemaster, I didn't see tons of specific examples, but I > didn't buy the whole set of books .... What I saw was general > indications, such as Easy, Absurd and such. The RMSS standard rulebook has one page for each of a large set of common skills, detailing likely penalties and outlining what levels of success translate to. ... And those were clearly > shifted, as a common professional would have a very low chance of > performing normally. At least, Rolemaster didn't tell what is the common > professionnal level (as explained by a poster in this thread). A professional with average skill of, say 50 (including his stat and professional bonuses), working with good equipment (+10) on a routine task (+50) will have a total bonus of 110 and will have to roll below 25 to botch the job. That requires him to roll -85 or so, which is about a one in 200 chance. There's a 95% chance he'll produce a flawless peice of work and about a 5% chance he'll rpoduce soemthing not up to his usual standard. That seems fine to me. > > *Shrug* Looking at the real world, the random component *does* tend > > to be bigger than the skill. RM models that quite well. Consider > > casualties in combat. Any accounts I have read indicate that > > incompetents die quickly, but after that, luck is more important > > than skill. > > Combat is much broader than a skill use, it is a game situation. Take a > non-stressful skill, such as snooker. Do you really think that the > random component is bigger than the skill? Absolutely. Among professional players a single game is more determined by luck than by skill. That's why they play lots of games to even out the luck. If that wasn't the case, they'd only need to play two or three. > Compared to randomness, how > much is the disadvantage for guy1 that never tried, and guy2 that have > done it one hour per week for 10 weeks? I feel guy2 has more than a 30% > advantage over guy1 ... An interesting question. I'm not sure what the result would be. > > In the absence of skill, that is true. But that's just the effect of a > > stat on the skill - it doesn't measure the most important component; > > training. The difference between a complete novice and one who has > > spent even a week or so learning basic skills is also 30. > > Are you kidding? A week or so!!! If you could earn one "dot" in a week > or so in Rolemaster, nobody would pay for background skills ... > Characters would just spend their points on high skills, and spend 2 > years non adventuring to have "a week or so" of training in a hundred > skills !!! I assume you mean 'points on high stats'? I did some calculations a while ago and a really intense starting RMSS chaarcter can start out with half a hundred skills at level 1, so the rules already support what I say. Getting above level 1 is much harder, of course, and most players won't want a character who has skills of of 15 in a large range of things. But, if you want to do that in my camapign, go ahead. Just don't try anything which isn't at least 'easy'. > > A typical average professional has a skill in RM of about 50. If > > you are untrained, you'll probably be around -15, so a better measure > > of the difference between unskilled and skilled is around 65. > > I don't know where you get those numbers from ... What don't we talk > about characters with regular (50 = +0) attributes? Because professionals typically have a goiod stat in their profession. Look at published modules, your own playes, whatever. > A guy that spent "a week or so" on riding has a +5 bonus. > His brother that is professionnal (but 1st level, no attribute > adjustment difference) A professional rider that is no more dexterous and has no more special ability with horses than the average person? Why did he become a rider? Look at any published modules and tell me the average 'professional rider' gets no stat bonus. I don't buy it. I'm giving him *at least* +5 > can have a +10 bonus (two dots) for levels, and a > few for training time ... Well, it all depends on how many are allowed > in your game, but: Assuming he takes the *standard* package, +10 Also In RMSS you get your professional bonus at the beginning in one lump, so he'll have another +20 from that for a total of +45. > - if you give them easily, the riding bonus will still have trouble > reaching +45, which is only a +40 difference. I come up with the same number, but just by applying the rules in the simple default case of building a professional rider. If I wanted a highly focused one, I'd design him with a higher stat bonus (+15) and a background option such as affinity to horses (+10) and use a background options for skill purchase (+10) for a +75 highly focused starting character. Anyway, If you want to compare a professional who's player has made no effort to make him good at his profession with a guy who has had a small amount of training, then sure, there'll only be a round a 40 difference, somewhat lower than the average distance between the luck component of the dice roll differences. I'm not sure what that proves though. A first level professional is nowhere close to what RM modules and stats give as the average professional. Levels 3-7 are for regular folks. Anything below that is just starting their real life. -Graham -- Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs gwills@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338 http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde! ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:24:14 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 57 Message-ID: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <8b22nn$5ka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38DBD0F6.2D0FD300@research.bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 24 21:24:14 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.130 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1170 In article <38DBD0F6.2D0FD300@research.bell-labs.com>, Graham Wills wrote: > Robin wrote: > > I am a professional > > computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on > > Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area. > > Really? My wife is also a graphics designer, and I am also a computer > guy, and yet I occasionally make blunders with tools I am *really > skilled* > at, for example, trashing the wrong file, typing 'rm */*.java' instead > of 'rm */*.class' or whatever. > > You've never had a hard dish crash? Lost a file? Had problems with a > computer at just the wrong time? Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I work then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the descriptions of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' results in your colleague switching off the power"? > In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client specifically wants > some elements your familiar with? If you can re-use or adapt other work? > If your library of images has *exactly* what you're looking for? Yes, but it's not part of my skill roll. I understand your argument - developed in the next paragraph- but I think in-game luck doesn't belong in the skill roll - YMMV. I prefer my system to make the luck part of die rolling smaller with advancing skill levels. When my system yields failures they are always dailures of competence, not of bad luck. If I need luck as a device in-game, I let my players perform some sort of specific luck roll. Or, if the event in question would mess up the story too much, I might just decide on a lucky day. > Yes, but the roll is not a pure skill roll. It specifically incorporates > luck as well. If you read my sentence I am arguing that the luck > component > is often as large as the skill component. I am not arguing that luck > is a part of skill. It is part of the SKILL RESOLUTION ROLL. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### Reply-To: "Michael T. Richter" From: "Michael T. Richter" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <8b22nn$5ka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38DBD0F6.2D0FD300@research.bell-labs.com> <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:49:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.101.128.170 X-Trace: 198.235.216.4 953934556 204.101.128.170 (Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:49:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:49:16 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news1.bellglobal.com!198.235.216.4.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1237 Robin wrote in message news:8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com... >> In your design work, isn't it luck if the next client >> specifically wants some elements your familiar with? If you >> can re-use or adapt other work? If your library of images >> has *exactly* what you're looking for? > Yes, but it's not part of my skill roll. I understand your > argument - developed in the next paragraph- but I think in- > game luck doesn't belong in the skill roll - YMMV. While in general I agree with you, let me put on my Hat of Infernal Advocacy for a moment and explain to you why we're both wrong. :-) I'm an experienced software developer. I have a large bag of tools at my disposal to help me complete my tasks. I have an even larger bag, however, of techiques and tricks at my disposal. Many of these are specifically oriented toward reducing the negative effects of bad luck. ("Check code into my private branch daily--or more often" is one such trick which ameliorates bad luck.) For a simple example that a non-developer can understand, consider the traditional Five Daily Crashes that Windows 95 gave you (which was an improvement over the Five Crashes Per Hour that Windows 3.1 gave you *AND* over the Two Dozen Daily Crashes that Windows 98 supplies). A novice who only knows a little bit about using computers (can boot it up and launch Microsoft Word) is going to get badly burned by this Windows 95 phenomenon when it occurs. Someone who has worked under Windows 95 for a while knows that "frequent saving saves the day". Yes the computer will crash just as often and as randomly for this power user as it will for the newbie. Indeed, since being a power user often means stretching the limits of the platform, the power user may perversely cause MORE crashes than the newbie. Because the power user has internalized the "save now, save often" meme, however, the power user is less likely to suffer a fundamentally problematical setback--a fumble--than is the newbie. So in this case we can see that increased skill decreases not the chance that a catastrophic failure happens, but rather that the catastrophic failure will be as much of a problem. I suspect that it is this facet of catastrophe which game designers are trying to emulate (albeit very probably not consciously). Like you, I'd mostly prefer that the system distinguish between the catastrophe happening and the user recovering from it, but this is, ultimately, a matter of taste, not of realism. In any game you're going to find abstraction over details and the differences are a matter of designer tastes. ###### From: "Thomas Bagwell" Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <8b22nn$5ka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38DBD0F6.2D0FD300@research.bell-labs.com> <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:01:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.191.184.86 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 954014507 168.191.184.86 (Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:01:47 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:01:47 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsxfer.interpacket.net!news.interpacket.net!cyclone-west.rr.com!news.rr.com|news-west.rr.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1257 Robin wrote: > I am a professional > computer graphics designer, so I shouldn't be able to roll a blunder on > Using Photoshop, and I sure don't need any luck in that area. I like the CORPS approach, which states that you will automatically succeed in tasks with a difficulty equal to or less than your skill. So, if you have a skill of 7 with Photoshop, you will automatically succeed at any task with a difficulty of 7 or less. Now, if you are attempting tasks with a higher difficulty than your skill, you have a chance of failing at it. You can succeed at higher difficulty tasks by working slower, working with good equipment, etc. These reduce the difficulty of the task. Tom B. ###### From: preitsma@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:21:02 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Learn what you know; share what you don't. Lines: 48 Message-ID: <8bjs65$t3g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.148.33.124 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 26 02:21:02 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.07 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 128.148.33.124 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDpreitsma Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1249 > Two things easily come into the way of "realism" (I prefer to say > "believability") in Rolemaster. Most likely a better term, for any game, or even "acceptability". > The second is the random part. You didn't tell what die roll you did. > What if you rolled a 05 or less on d100, then subtracting d100! > Regularly, players do such a roll and the result is usually absurd. I > strongly believe that, in Rolemaster, the random part is way to big > compared to the constant part (say the skill). FWIW, I found using 2d50 helped a lot - you get more average results, far fewer exceptional results, and still a pretty decent spread. (2d100)/2 is easy and close enough. > One is the estimation of difficulties. The Referee has to make it up > sometimes, or get it by the rules. And I would agree with that in that > I've seen many times that difficulties were highly overevaluated, and > had nothing to do with the "believable" difficulty. Odd - one would think the GM would use a combination of the rules' suggestions and common sense to assign difficulties. As a rule of thumb, one might say "how much of a chance would a skilled person (skill 50) have of success?" 95% is +35 (for a target of 100), 80% is ~+20, 50% is +0, 20% is ~-20, and so on (for 2d50). > A skill difference of 30 is serious, as it is the difference, Any nonlinear system will have the utility of 30 points of difference increase towards either extreme. In the one I suggest above, the difference will at least triple the chance of success (needing a 35 vs. needing a 65) and will generally allow a good chance of success where there was little before (10-% to 50+%) or allow very likely success where there was a significant chance of failure before (70-% vs. 98+%). Of course, whether this fixes things sufficiently (or is even preferable) is a YMMV thing. -P Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Graham Wills Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:10:26 -0600 Organization: Bell Laboratories Lines: 27 Message-ID: <38DF87F2.B0F7717D@research.bell-labs.com> References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8bjs65$t3g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: twitch.research.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-SGI [en] (X11; U; IRIX64 6.5 IP30) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!207.24.196.41!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1338 preitsma@my-deja.com wrote: > FWIW, I found using 2d50 helped a lot - you get more average results, > far fewer exceptional results, and still a pretty decent spread. > (2d100)/2 is easy and close enough. Note that for Rolemaster, it is linear over 90% of the dice rolling range, but the result is indexed into a non-linear table. The idea being that it is easier to understand the effect of modifiers to a linear roll, but that linear results are unrealistic. So if you are making the above suggetsion to RM, you are taking away the roll's linearity (as you point out by stating that in such a system a +30 bonus's utility is more highly correlated with skill). I would suggest a better plan would be to modify the already non- linear success tables. Of course this advice comes from a Gm whose rule is that if it's unlikely to affect the main action, NPCs *always* roll 50 :) -Graham -- Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs gwills@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338 http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde! ###### From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 27 Mar 2000 18:05:03 GMT References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1323 Robin wrote: >Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my >skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I work >then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which >failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the descriptions >of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' results >in your colleague switching off the power"? No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the project your colleague accidentally switches off the power." That's why you have dice rolls, after all -- to simulate the multitude of random things that happen in real life, but which no sane GM could keep track of within a game. What else are *randomizers* for if not *randomization*, Robin? Similarly, a bad roll during a sword fight might get: "As you swing your sword your foot slips in the mud..." or "As you swing your sword the other guy trips over his own feet and, through pure luck, slips under your blade..." It depends on the roll in question, judged through the mechanic, the skills, and the situation. Justin Bacon triad@prairie.lakes.com ###### From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder05.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 27 Mar 2000 18:10:01 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000327131001.13659.00002044@ng-cp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1322 Michael T. Richter wrote: >So in this case we can see that increased skill decreases not the chance >that a catastrophic failure happens, but rather that the catastrophic >failure will be as much of a problem. To spruce this up with some examples: An experienced skill user may still fail with (frex) a roll of 16 -- but their margin of failure will be smaller than a less experienced skill user. In other words, their greater skill has reduced the severity of failure. In other cases the more experienced skill user will succeed with (frex) a roll of 14 where (frex) a less experienced skill user would fail. In other words, the greater experience has allowed the skill user to circumvent the problem entirely. The one thing I'd like to see more of, though, are "automatic successes" -- a la CORPS. Justin Bacon triad@prairie.lakes.com ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:29:37 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 61 Message-ID: <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.132 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 28 07:29:37 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.132 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed.esat.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.idt.net!feeder.qis.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1380 In article <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com>, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: > Robin wrote: > >Almost none. But if that happens it is not in any way connected to my > >skill. If my colleague switches off the main power supply while I work > >then it's his blunder and my bad luck. But it was his roll which > >failed, not mine. Would you actually integrate luck in the descriptions > >of skill roll results? Like: 'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' results > >in your colleague switching off the power"? > > No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the project your > colleague accidentally switches off the power." Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague switch off the power. > That's why you have dice rolls, after all -- to simulate the multitude of > random things that happen in real life, but which no sane GM could keep track > of within a game. What else are *randomizers* for if not *randomization*, > Robin? I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures - your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail (based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls. > Similarly, a bad roll during a sword fight might get: "As you swing your sword > your foot slips in the mud..." -which is ok, as it is part of your skill to keep your balance- >or "As you swing your sword the other guy trips > over his own feet and, through pure luck, slips under your blade..." -this I would do only if both sides fail their roll, a situation that calls for comic relief- Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: l_silburn@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:30:40 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8bq1kg$g2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.172.206.50 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 28 10:30:40 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 ANI_SHEN_PRX1 (10.2.140.241 - eScrUpstream ), 1.0 ANIX_SHEN_CUS1, 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 62.172.206.50 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDl_silburn Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newshub.bart.net!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1385 In article <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robin wrote: > > Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be > concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I [snip] > > I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality > which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a > state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures - > your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail > (based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If > outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill > rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he > switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls. > OK. I see where you're coming from. Generally I let the roll cover some of these outside influences and then account for them in my description of the outcome. Personally I think that your way loads too much onto the GM and runs the risk of losing 'shit happens' results. My way runs the risk of removing the possibility of players making a difference through their in game account, although generally I give skill bonuses for detailed player descriptions (if they seem sensible that is) to try and get around that. Corps was mentioned upthread and is a good implementation of a mechanic that supports both of our approaches quite well. Luke Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:15:23 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <8bqi9t$26a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8bq1kg$g2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.131 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 28 15:15:23 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.131 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1381 In article <8bq1kg$g2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, l_silburn@my-deja.com wrote: > Personally I think that your way loads too much onto the GM and runs the > risk of losing 'shit happens' results. My way runs the risk of removing > the possibility of players making a difference through their in game > account, although generally I give skill bonuses for detailed player > descriptions (if they seem sensible that is) to try and get around that. Correctly observed - I put main focus on the GM and on narrative interpretation of skill rolls. It is indeed possible that 'shit happens' results as you call them fall by the wayside, but I see them as an unwanted bit of realism mostly - they tend to get in the way of drama IMO. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Doctor TOC Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:36:42 -0500 Organization: The Skeleton Crew Lines: 38 Message-ID: <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Reply-To: otherchris@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: HEwdbkNJk7xS40eZZFbZRP6r/EouOiBG6uHDZZUGIbM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2000 16:37:53 GMT X-Accept-Language: en X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1361 Robin wrote: > > Isn't that the same thing? I still believe that a skill roll should be > concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I > see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of > filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague > switch off the power. > > > I see the die rolls more as quantifiers and determiners of quality > which are more objective than I am as GM. It is possible to reach a > state in my games when die rolls can no longer result in failures - > your skill is well-advanced enough to make it impossible to fail > (based, again, on skill execution only, not outside influences). If > outside influences matter they do so because of GM discretion, skill > rolls of NPCs or other PCs (like the colleague failing to notice he > switches off your power, too) or -rarely- luck rolls. Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external influences. Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly, modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that circumstance. In this way it's possible for the character to perform the task perfectly, but have success snatched from him by fate (the boat rocks, the gun jams, the idiot colleague turns the power off) or indeed to have fate help him to greater success (the boat rocks and your opponent stumbles further onto your blade). The skill roll itself is rarely (if ever) modified, only the "degree of success" roll. Is that more to your taste? Doctor TOC -- The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" - Wu Name: Jive Talkin' Choirboy ICQ # 4814586 Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar The TOC Files - http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/wilhelm/148/ ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:22:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 37 Message-ID: <8bsb07$2an$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.134 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 29 07:22:58 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.134 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!bignews.mediaways.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1517 In article <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com>, otherchris@erols.com wrote: > Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates > between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external influences. > Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed > or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly, > modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that > circumstance. In this way it's possible for the character to perform the > task perfectly, but have success snatched from him by fate (the boat > rocks, the gun jams, the idiot colleague turns the power off) or indeed > to have fate help him to greater success (the boat rocks and your > opponent stumbles further onto your blade). The skill roll itself is > rarely (if ever) modified, only the "degree of success" roll. Is that > more to your taste? If the degree roll is not linked in any way to the skill, yes. I trust that the chance for failing though you did succeed due to outside influences is rather small (and vice versa as well). Though for me that's one roll too many; I am more interested in a quick resolution based on the skill roll exclusively and I am more than willing to sacrifice a bit of realism. After all, if the skill of a PC ensures a success at the climax of a game I wouldn't want to have a mechanic like that ruin the day, realistic though it may be. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Steve M Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Message-ID: <00fa3dc4.670537b3@usw-ex0109-066.remarq.com> Lines: 11 Bytes: 402 X-Originating-Host: 139.130.215.201 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here References: <8aq6np$6fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <1Q4A4.5141$X4.204901@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com> <8aqscr$l3u$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38e22e66.9690417@news.mindspring.com> X-Wren-Trace: ePfS+vvipe+kpPf64r/z8OjE7//g9qTu5+n78e2t7bj1v7bjueaxoLWnoKK35bW1uKmrqQ== Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:38:52 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.66 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon4 954316229 10.0.2.66 (Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:50:29 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:50:29 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!logbridge.uoregon.edu!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon4.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1605 > RPGs aren't the only ones guilty of that, and I've > seen many > ridiculous translations into English as well. > -- I'm with you there, just look at your VCR's manual next time. (Unless you're currently taking medication of course) SM * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful ###### From: Steve M Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Message-ID: <039aee1e.6d078247@usw-ex0109-066.remarq.com> Lines: 31 Bytes: 1268 X-Originating-Host: 139.130.215.201 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here References: <8aq5np$60a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8aripo$6pi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8atdu4$fvf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38D2694D.D4F06B1F@research.bell-labs.com> <38d28d83$0$19210@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net> X-Wren-Trace: eGNGbm92MXswMGNuditnZHxQe2t0YjB6c31vZXk5eSxhKyJ3LXIlNCEzNDYjcSEhLD0/PQ== Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:01:54 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.66 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon4 954317611 10.0.2.66 (Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:13:31 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:13:31 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.cmc.net!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon4.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1607 > Ayup. I often find (regardless of the system) that > the best route is to > tell the players at the outset of the game what you as > GM consider to be: > Hobbyist level > Professional level > Master level Perhaps more importantly: How much detail do you want to go into in specific areas of the game? In some games, you want the scientific side to be "fudged" so you can get on with the action. Eg. Does it matter how the Cold Fusion plant works, if it's destined to get destroyed in a few hours by a couple of well placed shape charges? OTOH: If the campaign is about a race to get Cold Fusion going, or find the details on that "secret chip", the players will want to know why his molecular phycicist is having trouble making headway with the plans. Meanwhile, Joe the Merc. is protecting him by blasting some baddy to kingdom come with a couple of quick shots from his "Heavy Pistol" It might be of interest to readers of this thread to have a look at a related discussion at the gurps discussion group. The thread's called "Skill Hierarchy (over/under definition). :-) * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful ###### From: Steve M Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Message-ID: <00a8f654.7170f167@usw-ex0109-066.remarq.com> Lines: 29 Bytes: 1255 X-Originating-Host: 139.130.215.201 Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8bq1kg$g2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8bqi9t$26a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Wren-Trace: eF57U1JLDEYNDV5TSxZaWUFtRlZJXw1HTkBSWEQERBFcFh9KEE8YCRwOCQseTBwcEQACAA== Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:18:49 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.66 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon2 954318336 10.0.2.66 (Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:25:36 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:25:36 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon2.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1597 In article <8bqi9t$26a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robin wrote: > In article <8bq1kg$g2a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > l_silburn@my-deja.com wrote: > Correctly observed - I put main focus on the GM and on > narrative > interpretation of skill rolls. It is indeed possible > that 'shit > happens' results as you call them fall by the wayside, > but I see them > as an unwanted bit of realism mostly - they tend to > get in the way of > drama IMO. I would disagree, and agree as well:-) On a number of occasions I have seen characters totally fudge things up that they should have, by the law of averages, succeeded in doing. Now, I could have ignored the results (and at times I have, in support of what you've said) but sometimes the anomaly results in something so unexpected, that it creates its own plot device. It can be great fun watching things change in front of you, esp. when you've been playing "god" for a while. I think a small chance of tripping on your shoe laces can be good for everyone (remember, that's happened in Olympic running events) SM * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful ###### From: l_silburn@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:24:25 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <8bt05r$p1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.172.206.50 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 29 13:24:25 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 ANI_SHEN_PRX1 (10.2.140.241 - eScrUpstream ), 1.0 ANIX_SHEN_CUS1, 1.0 x24.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 62.172.206.50 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDl_silburn Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-feed.fnsi.net!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1522 In article <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com>, otherchris@erols.com wrote: > Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates > between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external influences. > Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed > or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly, > modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that > circumstance. This is similar to the C&S3 resolution mechanic. Roll 3d10, two are used as a percentile and compared to the prefigured success/failure chance on the character sheet (based on level of skill, traits etc), the third gives you your 'degree of success/failure'. I can't really say more than that (I've only skimmed the rules), but the 'degree' roll seems to reflect situational effects. In combat for instance weapons have different 'critical ranges', so you can have something hard to use (low chance of success) but devastatingly effective (large critical range). I don't recall if there's a way for the mechanic to reflect reduced 'bad stuff' with high skill or not however. Luke Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:11:03 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 54 Message-ID: <8bt6dp$8j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bgmda$kaf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000327130503.13659.00002043@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com> <8bt05r$p1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 29 15:11:03 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.130 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newshub.bart.net!skynet.be!triton.skycache.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1511 In article <8bt05r$p1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, l_silburn@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <38E0DF9A.74443BEC@erols.com>, > otherchris@erols.com wrote: > > Interesting. I'm currently working on a mechanic that differentiates > > between failure due to mistakes and failure due to external > influences. > > Bascially the idea is that the skill is rolled, giving a flat "succeed > > or fail" result. Then the degree of success is rolled seperatly, > > modified by circumstance and the character's ability to adapt to that > > circumstance. > > This is similar to the C&S3 resolution mechanic. Roll 3d10, two are used > as a percentile and compared to the prefigured success/failure chance on > the character sheet (based on level of skill, traits etc), the third > gives you your 'degree of success/failure'. > > I can't really say more than that (I've only skimmed the rules), but the > 'degree' roll seems to reflect situational effects. In combat for > instance weapons have different 'critical ranges', so you can have > something hard to use (low chance of success) but devastatingly > effective (large critical range). I don't recall if there's a way for > the mechanic to reflect reduced 'bad stuff' with high skill or not > however. > I had the impression that Dr. TOC's mechanic could make a success a failure due to outside circumstances, while the C&S mechanic as you describe it seems to provide a degree of success only; it doesn't change a success to a failure. I use the following system: a skill roll is a percentile (possibly modified). If I need a better quality resolution than success/partial success/failure I use the difference between skill value and skill roll: a roll of 30 with a skill value of 50 would yield a quality of 20, while a skill of 40 would yield a quality 10 and a skill of 25 a quality of -5. That way, all qualities can be compared and even added to each other, and higher skill values make better success qualities possible, while lowering failure qualities. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 30 Mar 2000 04:40:34 GMT References: <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000329234034.13628.00002286@ng-cp1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!triton.skycache.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1757 >'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' >results >> >in your colleague switching off the power"? >> >> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the >project your >> colleague accidentally switches off the power." > >Isn't that the same thing? No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the power. > I still believe that a skill roll should be >concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I >see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of >filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague >switch off the power. Then why roll the dice? If you take all random chance out of consideration, then there's no reason you should be using a randomizer. Justin Bacon triad@prairie.lakes.com ###### From: Robin Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:16:48 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 48 Message-ID: <8buv0l$ts$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000329234034.13628.00002286@ng-cp1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.4.27.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 30 07:16:48 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; GO Network v1) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.4.27.130 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobin_pfeifer Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!nyc-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!easynet-tele!easynet.net!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1682 In article <20000329234034.13628.00002286@ng-cp1.aol.com>, triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: > >'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' > >results > >> >in your colleague switching off the power"? > >> > >> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the > >project your > >> colleague accidentally switches off the power." > > > >Isn't that the same thing? > > No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the power. Still my skill roll shouldn't have anything to do with my colleague switching off the power. If it did, then at higher skill values the probability of my colleague switching off the power decreases, which is a silly notion. > > I still believe that a skill roll should be > >concerned with the skill only - not with outside influences. So as I > >see it it would be ok to say 'You do not find the correct sequence of > >filters to achieve the desired effect', but not to have the colleague > >switch off the power. > > Then why roll the dice? If you take all random chance out of consideration, > then there's no reason you should be using a randomizer. As written elsewhere on this thread, I use the dice as quantifiers of success. 'Using Photoshop' I can achieve convincing results or not; if I'm not trained beyond a certain level I can even fail to produce any useful result. But while power failures or other outside influences may impede (or help) your work, they are not an inherent function of your skill. Therefore, if they enter the equation they do so in another place, not the skill roll. Robin -- GeneSys general roleplaying rules system & RPG resources http://homestead.deja.com/user.robin_pfeifer/home.html robin_pfeifer@my-deja.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: simonh_hibbs@my-deja.com Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc Subject: Re: realism vs. absurdism Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:03:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 56 Message-ID: <8bvts9$2nf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8bpn0m$48b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <20000329234034.13628.00002286@ng-cp1.aol.com> <8buv0l$ts$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.153.200.66 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 30 16:03:34 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x21.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.153.200.66 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsimonh_hibbs Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.games.frp.misc:1688 In article <8buv0l$ts$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robin wrote: > In article <20000329234034.13628.00002286@ng-cp1.aol.com>, > triad3204@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote: > > >'Your blunder at 'Uisng Photoshop' > > >results > > >> >in your colleague switching off the power"? > > >> > > >> No, but if a bad roll came up I might say: "Midway through the > > >project your > > >> colleague accidentally switches off the power." > > > > > >Isn't that the same thing? > > > > No. "Your blunder" is not the cause of your friend switching off the > power. > > Still my skill roll shouldn't have anything to do with my colleague > switching off the power. If it did, then at higher skill values the > probability of my colleague switching off the power decreases, which is > a silly notion. I can see the sense in both sides of the argument here. There is a chance that you will fail in a skill attempt due to external factors beyond your controll, but there are a number of ways these external influences can be accounted for. One way to acount for them might be to assume that they are already factored into the skill roll - part of the random roll of the dice. If you're an experienced and alert person used to operating in that environment, you might notice that a power plug or cable is loose or in a place where it's easily knocked. You skill at using publishing equipment might mean you remember to secure the environment oyu're working in and reduce the chance of accidents. Another method is to introduce external factors explicitly as a penalty on your skill roll. e.g. You get a -10% penalty because people are goofing around in the office and messign with the equipment. If you fail by 10% or less then something they did messed up your work. Generaly I think I prefer to assume that if a character failed a skill roll then they made a mistake, but occasionaly I rule that a skill failiure was due to environmental factors. I'm more likely to do this in the case of fumbles made by highly skilled characters. Simon Hibbs Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.