Why is math so underrated?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9745
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Guts wrote:Educating an arrogant person who thinks his opinions and tastes are the absolute truth, by using actual data? Yeah, I can't slap slow enough too.
Listen, I get that you impressed yourself by making a formal fallacy. That's why I'm mocking you. You don't have to tell me twice how proud you are of your poops.

The data you presented was irrelevant to the discussion. That's why it's a bandwagon argument and not a sound argument. The number of people who hold a belief has no relation to the validity of the belief. They can all be fools together.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

violence in the media wrote: The whole system would be immeasurably improved just by the letting the player decide what "success" and "success at a cost" were going to be before the roll. If we're playing a cooperative storytelling game, why are we leaving all the storytelling arbitration up to one person?
This is a recurrent instruction in all games that uses the concept: try, as much as possible, to establish what's at stake before the roll. It's even an explicit move in Apocalypse World: "Tell them the possible consequences, and ask". It's on page 92 of Apocalypse World second edition.
Last edited by Guts on Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

shinimasu wrote:Not weighing in on the debate proper but I'm a little confused. The first and so far only game using this system that I've played did outline specific things the player picked from on a 'partial success' roll. Like "On ten you do this thing. On 9-7 you do this thing, but pick an additional thing that happens from the list below."

Or is this referring to the 'hard move' system where the GM picks from a list of much vaguer 'bad things' that can happen when you outright fail a roll?

Or is this just a case of all the games are kind of different from each other and some are much worse than others in this department.
The last one on your list is the most accurate. Many versions of Bear World function on a model where the DM doesn't even have a vague list of what the 'bad things' are, just the advice that they should choose something contextually appropriate. I've heard of a version sorta in reverse, where the DM has a more explicit list of options for bad things to happen, and successful roll lets the PC choose which of the options *won't* happen (the more successful, the more vetos you get); and the most well known list is Carousing, which has "sold into slavery" as one of the bad things.

But that all boils down to the Crit Fumble chart in practice, which has been around for longer than I've been alive. Now, rather than the designers putting in actual effort to make them, they spend twenty pages encouraging the DM to make it up on the spot.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

shinimasu wrote:Not weighing in on the debate proper but I'm a little confused. The first and so far only game using this system that I've played did outline specific things the player picked from on a 'partial success' roll. Like "On ten you do this thing. On 9-7 you do this thing, but pick an additional thing that happens from the list below."

Or is this referring to the 'hard move' system where the GM picks from a list of much vaguer 'bad things' that can happen when you outright fail a roll?

Or is this just a case of all the games are kind of different from each other and some are much worse than others in this department.
Shinimasu, your first case (list of explicit options for players to choose) is the most common type of move in PbtA games. The example I usd though, uses the more open move "Acting under Pressure", which all games use for solving situations outside of the other moves. It's like this:

Acting under Pressure: when you try to do something under pressure, roll [apropriate Stat]:
- On 10+ you do it.
- On 7-9, you do it but at a cost, complication or hard choice offered by the GM.
- On 6- you fail and the GM does a hard move.

The complaining of FrankTrollman, is that the complications generated by the 7-9 range is automatically a problem that makes the game a kind of "railroad" and makes the it "not a game at all". Or something like that.
Last edited by Guts on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
shinimasu
Master
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:04 am

Post by shinimasu »

Appreciate the clarification. That sounds so bizarre though. I was perfectly happy to be allowed to choose what my own consequences were from a neat little list of options. I can only imagine being infuriated if it were A) out of my control and B) not even defined by the rules.
shinimasu
Master
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:04 am

Post by shinimasu »

Guts wrote: Shinimasu, your first case (list of explicit options for players to choose) is the most common type of move in PbtA games. The example I usd though, uses the more open move "Acting under Pressure", which all games use for solving situations outside of the other moves. It's like this:

Acting under Pressure: when you try to do something under pressure, roll [apropriate Stat]:
- On 10+ you do it.
- On 7-9, you do it but at a cost, complication or hard choice offered by the GM.
- On 6- you fail and the GM does a hard move.

The complaining of FrankTrollman, is that the complications generated by the 7-9 range is automatically a problem that makes the game a kind of "railroad" and makes the it "not a game at all". Or something like that.
Ok but to be fair though that's still just kind of a sloppy way of doing it. I am firmly of the opinion that the game I played only went as well as it did because there were actual rules about what a GM could do to you depending on what Specific action you'd just failed. And only on an actual failure, before that point you were still steering the ship even on a conditional success.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

I would feel the same if that was the case.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

You don't cotton to that reading comprehension, do you Guts? There have been multiple, detailed examples of the rules (and system advice) making "at a cost" be anything at all. There's at least one example of a 10+ on a freakin' Spot check being "your mission fails and you need to run for you life," which was explicitly not something that was supposed to be planned for ahead of time.
Last edited by virgil on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Often, I've seen Role-Playing Games described as 'like Cowboys and Indians, but with rules to decide if you hit or whether you're dead'. In that context, the rules of the game exist to determine the reality of the game when there is a disagreement about what that reality is.

A game like D&D does this by establishing the odds of a character hitting (what you need to roll on a d20) and how much damage you do when you hit. The GM can bring ogres instead of orcs so the specific numbers may vary, but whatever they are, when they're introduced to the game state they have an objective reality.

Apocalypse World abandons any attempt at determining what the reality should be by putting it in the hands of the GM. The game relies on the social contract for the GM to do a competent job. Nothing in the game itself promotes or ensures that is the case.

Any game is fun with a competent GM. In that case, the die rolls are effectively meaningless (giving the illusion that the players are contributing) since the GM can justify any consequence regardless of the roll - it's simple misdirection designed to make the game feel more participatory. In the case that the GM is not competent, the game is a disaster.

It's good that you're having fun. If you want to discuss the merits of the game it's important that you are willing to analyze whether it is from the rules you have been provided or something your group is bringing to those rules.
-This space intentionally left blank
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

violence in the media wrote:The whole system would be immeasurably improved just by the letting the player decide what "success" and "success at a cost" were going to be before the roll. If we're playing a cooperative storytelling game, why are we leaving all the storytelling arbitration up to one person? Like, why isn't this stupid fucking game just played round-robin, where each player acts as the opposition for the player on their left? Bearworld is supposedly all about making shit up on the spot with no pre-planning or pre-conceptions; you don't need a designated MC for that.[/b]
That's actually really fucking smart. :shocked:

You could, if you were so inclined, add to that concept that if someone else at the table says your proposed "success at a cost" is going too easy on yourself, you must immediately spend a fate token or allow your antagonist-on-the-left to define the cost instead.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

virgil wrote:You don't cotton to that reading comprehension, do you Guts? There have been multiple, detailed examples of the rules (and system advice) making "at a cost" be anything at all. There's at least one example of a 10+ being a your mission fails and you need to run for you life.
Quote or bust. I've played:

- Apocalypse World 2nd edition
- Monsterhearts,
- Sagas of the Icelanders
- Blades in the Dark
- The Sprawl

If you cite the pages where a 10+ actually result in a failure, I will concede the point and agree with you.
Last edited by Guts on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

That's actually really fucking smart. :shocked:
And it's already in the rules. Page 92, Apoc World 2nd edition. MC Move: "Tell them the possible consequenes and ask".
You could, if you were so inclined, add to that concept that if someone else at the table says your proposed "success at a cost" is going too easy on yourself, you must immediately spend a fate token or allow your antagonist-on-the-left to define the cost instead.
Interesting idea. :thumb:
Last edited by Guts on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
saithorthepyro
Master
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:39 pm

Post by saithorthepyro »

@Zingata: I don't know if you got that Math is the most important things in an RPG from my OP, but if so, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that the underlying math and the system is a very important part of the game that seems to not have as much attention paid to it as other parts of the game, and would like to see actual functioning math and logic used in a system.

@Guts: On the entire Apocalypse/Bear/Whatever world topic, I've tried it. You need a good GM to run it effectively, and even then the game can be prone to disagreements, and the simplicity of it all can be too annoying in I feel like there's no depth to the system. Anyway, a little too MTP for my tastes, but if it's your kind of game keep on playing.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

virgil wrote:Know what frustrates me? The cultural assumption that rules and roleplaying are dichotomous. It gives arrogant *-World heels a real edge in debates.
Interesting reasoning. Could you elaborate, Virgil? From my part I don't think they're dichotomous, but then I may be misunderstanding your point.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

saithorthepyro wrote: @Guts: On the entire Apocalypse/Bear/Whatever world topic, I've tried it. You need a good GM to run it effectively, and even then the game can be prone to disagreements, and the simplicity of it all can be too annoying in I feel like there's no depth to the system. Anyway, a little too MTP for my tastes, but if it's your kind of game keep on playing.
Fair points. I also think PbtA needs more agreement between participants to work, which may be a problem in some circles. And yes, it's not on the deep side of characters customization/progression, so if you value that it can feel lacking.
zugschef
Knight-Baron
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:53 pm

Post by zugschef »

Bear World is not a game. It's really that simple.

And you having fun pretending to play a game has nothing to do with the fact that you totally can get fucked by quantum bears if you 10-succeed on your perception roll.
Last edited by zugschef on Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

violence in the media wrote:The whole system would be immeasurably improved just by the letting the player decide what "success" and "success at a cost" were going to be before the roll. If we're playing a cooperative storytelling game, why are we leaving all the storytelling arbitration up to one person? Like, why isn't this stupid fucking game just played round-robin, where each player acts as the opposition for the player on their left? Bearworld is supposedly all about making shit up on the spot with no pre-planning or pre-conceptions; you don't need a designated MC for that.[/b]
Mord wrote:That's actually really fucking smart. :shocked:
Guts wrote:And it's already in the rules. Page 92, Apoc World 2nd edition. MC Move: "Tell them the possible consequenes and ask".
I quoted VITM saying that the player should define the stakes, not the MC. :confused:
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

Mord, you're right I misread it. My apologies.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Guts wrote:
violence in the media wrote: The whole system would be immeasurably improved just by the letting the player decide what "success" and "success at a cost" were going to be before the roll. If we're playing a cooperative storytelling game, why are we leaving all the storytelling arbitration up to one person?
This is a recurrent instruction in all games that uses the concept: try, as much as possible, to establish what's at stake before the roll. It's even an explicit move in Apocalypse World: "Tell them the possible consequences, and ask". It's on page 92 of Apocalypse World second edition.
For reference, my suggestion was that the player making the move and rolling the dice is the one that determines the stakes of that particular roll. At no point do they ask the GM for permission or input for anything. However, I will assume everything you have said here is true. Why is it solely Mister Cavern's job to determine what the possible consequences of any action are? Why am I supposed to accept any unreasonable bullshit that Mister Cavern proposes or back down from the action? (Alternate solution: get up and leave.) Where was this communication of possible consequences between the player and MC in that example with Tum Tum and his magical bodyguards?

I will say this positive thing about Apocalypse World (and it's various rules-lite brethren): it is a much faster way to learn which people you game with that you don't actually want running games, or to game with in general. That shit can take months in something like D&D.
Guts
Master
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:10 pm

Post by Guts »

Violance, I misread your post. Apologies. Your overall reasoning is sound and your previous idea of using tokens to moderate it is neat. I would play in that game.

Just notice though, that most moves in PbtA games already have distinct choices for the player to pick, like Shinimazu point to. I would even go as far and say that some hacks are better than Apocalpse World precisely because of this.
Last edited by Guts on Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
saithorthepyro
Master
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:39 pm

Post by saithorthepyro »

If that is the case, than those hacks are definitely better. Providing good examples that are either pro-player balanced with pro-GM or just neutral is the best, because it doesn't show favoritism and can mitigate player-Gm argument over what happens. Even in good groups argument over exactly what happens can and will prop up just because everyone will disagree on how it works somehow.

It's part of my issue with rules-lite/semi-freeform games is that while they say they are faster to learn and run (which they are) they also allow more opportunities for player-GM argument versus more crunchy games where you can just say "X does Y, end of discussion". If the group wants to modify this, fine, but there's no argument over what the result of your action should be.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

saithorthepyro wrote:@Zingata: I don't know if you got that Math is the most important things in an RPG from my OP, but if so, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that the underlying math and the system is a very important part of the game that seems to not have as much attention paid to it as other parts of the game, and would like to see actual functioning math and logic used in a system.
I didn't get that off your OP. That was other people's tangents :).

My main response to your OP was rather simpler - Math doesn't sell, it's ideas and themes that do. That's why RPG designers focus on putting a cool Dragon on the cover or having a cool theme. The people who buy RPGs are attracted to the ideas and themes; that the math works is an implicit expectation that the DM is very likely to jury-rig into his own system anyway.

Now, one can be very cynical and declare that this is RPG designers being bad at their jobs or whatnot (some are). But the reality of all design is that it takes time, and real-life designers have bills to pay and deadlines to meet. They can't spend forever making everything perfect, so much of the effort is instead spent on the stuff that actually sells the books.

Finally, I would also note that it's a major fallacy to believe that mathematically sound systems can be created out of whole cloth without testing. Most games are only able to detect the absurdity in their math systems after extensive testing. Most RPGs again simply don't have the time (or the money) to do that. That's why other types of games have huge testing teams or highly value the feedback of their testers. RPGs are still largely stuck with the idea that an open beta test is mostly a hype exercise.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Zinegata wrote:Math doesn't sell, it's ideas and themes that do.
The problem with this claim is that 4e D&D had the highest number of pre-orders of any D&D book. Some of that is doubtless just the change in internet culture and the way people buy things between 2000 and 2008. But a significant factor has to be that when WotC told people that they were releasing a new edition of D&D with better underlying math, that is a thing that people wanted.

And then the reality of 4e was that Skill Challenges were a mathematical fail parade and once that became clear to people the sales of the edition sank like a stone. Meaning that bad math killed the edition just as the promise of good math led to strong pre-orders of the same edition.

-Username17
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

There was also that ridiculous SKR piece about the bean counters demanding more crunch because apparently it sells better than fluff. Obviously you need to inspire enough interest to get people playing the game at all in the first place, but once people are on the hook I'd expect them to buy more crunch than fluff afterwards on the simple grounds that new crunch often addresses perceived problems whereas new fluff may be intended for different settings entirely or require ugly retcons to make any sense--lots of D&D players thought Dark Sun looked pretty cool but stuck with their current campaigns while many Shadowrun players were actively annoyed by Ghostwalker stomping all over Denver. By comparison selling people new official spells is a pretty safe play.
bears fall, everyone dies
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

[quote="FrankTrollman]
The problem with this claim is that 4e D&D had the highest number of pre-orders of any D&D book. Some of that is doubtless just the change in internet culture and the way people buy things between 2000 and 2008. But a significant factor has to be that when WotC told people that they were releasing a new edition of D&D with better underlying math, that is a thing that people wanted.

And then the reality of 4e was that Skill Challenges were a mathematical fail parade and once that became clear to people the sales of the edition sank like a stone. Meaning that bad math killed the edition just as the promise of good math led to strong pre-orders of the same edition.

-Username17[/quote]

Frank, no one isn’t saying the 4E doesnt suck math-wise. Past is past.

The issue is when people start thinking you can sell an RPG based purely or primarily on math. Because seriously 40% of Americans even say outright that they hate math:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/de ... americans/

The first thing a customer sees when they enter a store is the covers. Do you want to turn half of them off by making the cover scream MATH instead of DRAGON?

The first thing a customer asks when talking about a game is generally “is its fun” (aside from “how much?”). Do you really think telling them it has good math answers the question instead of a sincere “Yes I played it before its fun!”

Math is an implicit expectation. It is not ad copy and it does not sell. Themes and art is what moves books.

Now, its true that crunch can affect game experience and that can affect review scores and word of mouth sales. But crunch is only part of the experience. Few people bought The Lord of the Ring boardgame because it looked boring and only had cardboard cards. When Shadows of Camelot came out however people played it because it had plastic catapults and knights.

Bling in fact matters even during play.

Finally, and I think probably most shockingly to Denners, is the reality that most RPG books that are bought are never actually used. The reason why so many books “get away” with bad rules is because the people who buy them rarely end up using them. Most hobby games - boardgames, minis, and RPGs - are often only played once before being forgotten for next month’s new toy.

It is fine from a design perspective to want good math. But from a business perspective using math as an ad copy is marketing suicide, pushing math as a talking point to customers interested in gameplay is obnoxious, and it is a complete denial of the nature of the business to presume that even “crunch” is the most important thing to selling a game. When its played a game is a combined experience, not a math problem. And when it isnt - which is extremely often - its a showpiece. At worst, such a “Math Works” attitude turns into a designer ego problem where they attempt to control and dictate the customers and in the process turn them off your product entirely.
Post Reply