Inverting roll-under percentile systems?

[GâtFromKI]

I prefer places where there is a genuine interest to be helpful and friendly towards other people, even whilst engaging an furious debate over ideas.

People in the den are helpful and friendly; they had some traumatic experiences with bad RPGs and rolled "Tourette" on the insanity chart.

[nikita]

I do not see The Gaming Den offering any useful service to anyone planning to become a game designer. Any person actually interested in such a job should read instead good books on the subject (there are plenty) and visit forums filled with skilled professionals (such as gamasutra.com and gamedev.net for starters).

[virgil]

I do not see The Gaming Den offering any useful service to anyone planning to become a game designer. Any person actually interested in such a job should read instead good books on the subject (there are plenty) and visit forums filled with skilled professionals (such as gamasutra.com and gamedev.net for starters).

Those sites are for video games, a medium which has dramatically different design goals and environments. Board game design sites are more relevant, and even then, I'd love to see objective rubrics that show a positive correlation to success in the industry as compared to here.

[deaddmwalking]

I think the Den is particularly good at determining when a game structure (lets say 'rule') rewards a type of play that was not intended by the designer.

In our head, things can seem to be reasonable and lead to the conclusion that we want - but when the Den looks at it, they see why the intended effect fails.

Here's an off-the-cuff example. Let's say I have Armor that provides DR. And let's say that it stacks with natural DR (so that horses benefit from wearing barding). And let's say I have Berserkers that are supposed to stand around naked but they get natural DR. Further, let's say that any penalties for heavy armor are based only on maximum load - strong characters are not encumbered.

All of those rules individually seem rather sensible. But you put them together and there's no reason for a strong berserker not to wear full plate and gain the benefit of both natural and armor DR.

Those kinds of things aren't always obvious (especially when design is big and covered piecemeal) and the Den is really good at figuring out what 'strategies' the rules incentivize - especially if they're not the 'intended' ones.

[Aryxbez]

I do not see The Gaming Den offering any useful service to anyone planning to become a game designer. Any person actually interested in such a job should read instead good books on the subject (there are plenty) and visit forums filled with skilled professionals (such as gamasutra.com and gamedev.net for starters).

I doubt that, we've reference videos like Extra Credits, that have had mentalities close to ours, but seems good few had already known those lessons in mind. So to a series that's wise there, and we already have that knowledge, safe to Say the Gaming Den is more than capable of offering useful service.

Though I imagine there's some truth to that sadly, sometimes it can depend on who you ask.

[Lev Lafayette]

If the DM decides what my characters story is, why do you have players?

Where does it say that? The example made it quite clear that the player was deciding their character's own motivations, however munchkin like

GM: [. . . ] But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character.

Yes, and the player argues their point, by declaring that they want to be "chaotic neutral" to establish in-character development, & etc. There is nothing wrong with this sort of character exploration and table banter.

The balance between speed and customization isn't "attribute 320 points between more than 50 skills", for any reasonable value of "balance".

Well, I honestly don't know what your problem is. Pick the ten occupation skills and put 32 points in each. What is the issue? That there's too many percentage points? That there's too many skills?

In the case of CoC, the rulebook repeats that your character will die and become insane and fail and you shouldn't care about him; that's almost the only thing I remember about it.

I don't remember those words as such, but yes death and insanity are a real risk. You're relatively normal people who have stumbled on a monstruous mind-destroying opposition. Even if your characters die or go insane they've done so with great motivation. I don't see why you shouldn't still care for them.

Therefore the character creation should be faster and have less options than D&D or Descent, or any game where you actually care about your character and expect to play him more than 1 afternoon.

Sure, character creation could be faster. But it was hyperbole to suggest it takes four hours. As for character being played in more than one afternoon, we have two characters in my current game that made it all the way through the Horror on the Orient Express campaign and now half of Masks of Nyarlathotep. Sure, one did spend part of the latter in an asylum in Romania but she got out in time for the next campaign, only twitching a little bit.

Yet in the current campaign (Masks of Nyarlathotep) I'm running all three skills have been already been used. So YMMV.

A player had to name Antares? In what circumstances ?

No, not Antares as such

Yeah, whatever.

Does the emphasis help?

Are you still arguing that rules for auto success exist?

Yes, of course. I readily accept that they are not as elaborate as they should be, but outright denial is contraindicated by the rules themselves. I find it a little weird that anyone could argue against what is written in black and white right in front of them.

[Akiosama]

Where does it say that? The example made it quite clear that the player was deciding their character's own motivations, however munchkin like

GM: [. . . ] But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character.

Yes, and the player argues their point, by declaring that they want to be "chaotic neutral" to establish in-character development, & etc. There is nothing wrong with this sort of character exploration and table banter.

I think the point is that anything where the GM just 'decides' what flies and what falls ends up in the eyes of the board as Magical Tea Party, and is the realm of weak rule writing, primarily because the player cannot, in writing, know what will succeed and what will fail ahead of time.

In other words, the goalposts are whatever the GM sets them to be, rather than being defined by the rules of the game, and on this board, that's pretty much unacceptable rules construction.

So, you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot by bringing that up as support for the system here.

My 2 yen,

Akiosama

[Lev Lafayette]

In other words, the goalposts are whatever the GM sets them to be, rather than being defined by the rules of the game, and on this board, that's pretty much unacceptable rules construction.

But it's only in the final instance. The game rules (again using RQ3 as the example) specify what are automatic and tested skills in adventuring situations, how to gain skill advancement through training, through research, and through occupations, and of course, through in-adventure experience checks. It is only the latter does GM subjectivity of what constitutes a successful skill test worthy of a test come into play.

Could they have elaborated the circumstances of what constitutes worth? Of course. That would be quite an improvement and an oversight in a rule book that's almost three hundred pages. But it's also a very far cry from earlier claims that suggested the only way to advance in skills was through learning-by-doing in actual play.

[TheFlatline]

The problem with any kind of GM fiat being the default rule is partially because it's playing GM-may-I? but also because we pay significant money for a rule set. MTP is something we kind of intuit at age 5 and isn't something that we should be dishing out significant money for.

There's nothing inherently wrong with MTP as long as we're not paying for it.

[Pixels]

Heck, I am even fine paying for it as long as the author understands that they have to sell me on something other than rules. If somebody writes a beautiful world with gorgeous illustrations and lots of interesting hooks for adventuring and archetypes for in-theme heroes, I wouldn't mind that it is rules light. If I can turn it into a bunch of fun evenings with my friends then they have created something worth buying.

But if they trumpet the rules system as the Best Rules System Ever, I would have to look at them askance. Are they liars, or just stupid? Either way it is a bit of a turn off.

[Lev Lafayette]

Heck, I am even fine paying for it as long as the author understands that they have to sell me on something other than rules. If somebody writes a beautiful world with gorgeous illustrations and lots of interesting hooks for adventuring and archetypes for in-theme heroes, I wouldn't mind that it is rules light. If I can turn it into a bunch of fun evenings with my friends then they have created something worth buying.

But if they trumpet the rules system as the Best Rules System Ever, I would have to look at them askance. Are they liars, or just stupid? Either way it is a bit of a turn off.

Well said. The RuneQuest system is pretty creaky in a lot of areas, and the edition I have been referring to is thirty years old. My personal favourite aspects of the game are probably the three schools of magic and the use of anthropological societal types and occupations. The emphasis on "this is bronze/iron age culture and people have a mythic understanding of the world" works for me. I have in the past made the claim that it could still make a pitch for "best RPG ever" (nota bene: not "best system").

As for 'Best System Ever' claims? Well, with a lot of grimace I would possibly look towards GURPS 3red edition revised probably for a starting point. And I could be very wrong about that as well; some aspects of the system annoy the daylights out of me. More often than not, however such claims are not because people are liars or stupid. It is more likely that they are simply ignorant, and haven't seen Their Favourite System (tm) exposed to a thorough criticism or they haven't seen how That Other System is more comprehensive, coherent, & etc.

[GâtFromKI]

Yet in the current campaign (Masks of Nyarlathotep) I'm running all three skills have been already been used. So YMMV.

A player had to name Antares? In what circumstances ?

No, not Antares as such

Yeah, whatever.

Does the emphasis help?

OK. So you weren't answering to my post. Whatever.

Out of curiosity, why did you quote my post if you didn't intend to answer to it?

[kzt]

Well said. The RuneQuest system is pretty creaky in a lot of areas, and the edition I have been referring to is thirty years old. My personal favourite aspects of the game are probably the three schools of magic

The total rewrite of sorcery in the errata for RQ3 was kind of special. I have entire pages covered with post-it notes of the fixes.

RQ4 was actually pretty decent, though the maneuver skill was overpowered. Not sure what the final version would have looked like as it never got finished.

[Lev Lafayette]

OK. So you weren't answering to my post. Whatever.

Out of curiosity, why did you quote my post if you didn't intend to answer to it?

I provided an answer for an example of the use of skills according to level without having to make a skill roll because it wasn't a stress test. I thought, in context, that's what you are actually after.

Asking whether or not it had actually been used in a specific campaign to locate a specific star doesn't seem to be a particularly useful question.

RQ4 was actually pretty decent, though the maneuver skill was overpowered. Not sure what the final version would have looked like as it never got finished.

Ahh, the famous Jovanovic edition! Yes, RuneQuest:Adventures in Glorantha, an unfinished edition which alas I've never played but have enjoyed reading. It had a good flavour to it. Kudos for bringing up.

[GâtFromKI]

OK. So you weren't answering to my post. Whatever.

Out of curiosity, why did you quote my post if you didn't intend to answer to it?

I provided an answer for an example of the use of skills according to level without having to make a skill roll because it wasn't a stress test. I thought, in context, that's what you are actually after.

OK, so the rule example is "with 25% astronomy, you may have auto-success when nobody cares about the result because the question shouldn't even rise in actual game". Great.

And utterly useless. That's just a filler to make the book longer.


Anyway, if the question rise in actual game, nobody will remember this is an auto-success, because the book is 200 or 300 pages long and nobody remember every single line of it. What players need are more general (and abstract) rules that apply every time you want to see if there's an auto-success, not 3 random examples that will never apply, don't match the general rule, and will be forgotten before the end of the book.

[ishy]

Where does it say that? The example made it quite clear that the player was deciding their character's own motivations, however munchkin like

GM: [. . . ] But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character.

Yes, and the player argues their point, by declaring that they want to be "chaotic neutral" to establish in-character development, & etc. There is nothing wrong with this sort of character exploration and table banter.

What? No. The player is not arguing their point. When your player says "I do random shit all the time, like attack a rubble runner for no in-story purpose, because that's my in-character motivation!", that means they've stopped believing they can influence their characters story.
You bullied your players in giving up control of their story.

[Lev Lafayette]

OK, so the rule example is "with 25% astronomy, you may have auto-success when nobody cares about the result because the question shouldn't even rise in actual game". Great.. And utterly useless. That's just a filler to make the book longer.

Except it does arise and if it doesn't your Keeper isn't playing the game or scenarios according to the spirit or letter of the rules.

Anyway, if the question rise in actual game, nobody will remember this is an auto-success, because the book is 200 or 300 pages long and nobody remember every single line of it. What players need are more general (and abstract) rules that apply every time you want to see if there's an auto-success, not 3 random examples that will never apply, don't match the general rule, and will be forgotten before the end of the book.

There are more than three examples, but in general I concur with what you've said here and have said as such previously. They could have done a lot better, and perhaps the 7th edition will show this. I certainly hope they have modifiers to skill rolls actually within the rules (even if they were in most scenarios).

What? No. The player is not arguing their point. When your player says "I do random shit all the time, like attack a rubble runner for no in-story purpose, because that's my in-character motivation!", that means they've stopped believing they can influence their characters story... .You bullied your players in giving up control of their story.

And the very next hypothetical quote from the character is them trying to find an appropriate cult that satisfies their behaviour. Sure they're being a munchkin in their quest for skill experience checks, but they're being a smart munchkin and are actually roleplaying according to the game world.

There are limits of character's control of their story. As a GM, if a player wanted a Vulcan cyborg in a Glorantha game I would probably say, with subjective fiat, "no". Likewise, the GM is explicitly empowered to reject skill checks if the skill use is not "worthy" in their considered opinion. As mentioned previously, they could have done this better by elaborating what was meant by "worthy".

[ishy]

And the very next hypothetical quote from the character is them trying to find an appropriate cult that satisfies their behaviour. Sure they're being a munchkin in their quest for skill experience checks, but they're being a smart munchkin and are actually roleplaying according to the game world.

No, that was the other player. Who was already berating player A earlier.
And calling player A out for being a munchkin for practicing sword fighting in a fight is weird in the first place.

[Username17]

And calling player A out for being a munchkin for practicing sword fighting in a fight is weird in the first place.

This is a pretty fundamental problem with Runequest. The game rewards players for narrating their characters' practice, and the fans of the game cough up feces about how players are being munchkins if they narrate their characters' practice. The result is that the people who actually play the game will hate you if you actually respond to what few rules there are as if they even exist.

Which is why back at the beginning of this digression, when Lev insisted that RuneQuest was an example of a game that standardized what you could and could not do with each amount of skill you had, I skipped the part where I said he was wrong and simply called him a liar. No RuneQuest fan could seriously believe that what you can do with the skills in that game is in any way standardized. The very idea is absurd.

-Username17

[Lev Lafayette]

No, that was the other player.

Player A is seeking a new cult which satisfies their random behaviour, which is a cute and clever cover for desire for extra skill checks.

And calling player A out for being a munchkin for practicing sword fighting in a fight is weird in the first place.

So you'd change weapons in the midst of a life-threatening fight to something that you're relatively incompetent with for the experience? That doesn't make sense do me.

This is a pretty fundamental problem with Runequest. The game rewards players for narrating their characters' practice...

"Citation needed"

The result is that the people who actually play the game will hate you if you actually respond to what few rules there are as if they even exist.

There's plenty of rules on how skill acquisition works; they have been elaborated in this thread. It doesn't make sense that you're ignoring the detailed rules for occupational experience, and the detailed rules for training and research. Instead, you are being overly attentive to one part of adventure-based stress experience checks which are actually a minority of skill-gains in the game.

Which is why back at the beginning of this digression, when Lev insisted that RuneQuest was an example of a game that standardized what you could and could not do with each amount of skill you had, I skipped the part where I said he was wrong and simply called him a liar.

How about having a look at the most recent edition (6th, 2012) of RuneQuest. Read through the section on "Automatic Successes" and "When to Roll" on page 56. Have a look at the Athletics skill description on p57-58. Read the description of Language, where is explicitly states (as I originally said) that the skill level represents "a static representation of overall fluency" (p64), which a table indicating the level of competence on p71, etc.

I provided you direct page references to the game itself that indicate autosuccess situations, and I have acknowledged that the system is incomplete in specifying ability based on many skills.

Welcome back to the thread.

[GâtFromKI]

Except it does arise and if it doesn't your Keeper isn't playing the game or scenarios according to the spirit or letter of the rules.

'K.

First you say that nobody had to name Antares in your game, now you're saying that it does arise. Are you stupid or something ? Have you some mental disease preventing you to say something that makes sense ? Was anyone, at some point of the past, able to communicate with you in a constructive way ?

[ishy]

No, that was the other player.

Player A is seeking a new cult which satisfies their random behaviour, which is a cute and clever cover for desire for extra skill checks.

Nope. You're wrong.

Player B: Is there a cult with Chaos, Disorder, and Movement runes?

And calling player A out for being a munchkin for practicing sword fighting in a fight is weird in the first place.

So you'd change weapons in the midst of a life-threatening fight to something that you're relatively incompetent with for the experience? That doesn't make sense do me.

Of course. And at the same time I'd yell something like: "You're not even worthy of my true power!"
And if I'd switch back to my other weapon: "Prepare to face my final form!" or
"I'm not left-handed!"

[Lev Lafayette]

First you say that nobody had to name Antares in your game, now you're saying that it does arise.

That's right, nobody had to name Antares. However a non-stress use of Astronomy skill does arise. It is surprising that you seem to think the two are somehow the same thing.

Are you stupid or something ? Have you some mental disease preventing you to say something that makes sense ? Was anyone, at some point of the past, able to communicate with you in a constructive way ?

Decide for yourself.
http://levlafayette.com/about

[Lev Lafayette]

No, that was the other player.

Player A is seeking a new cult which satisfies their random behaviour, which is a cute and clever cover for desire for extra skill checks.

Nope. You're wrong.

Player B: Is there a cult with Chaos, Disorder, and Movement runes?

Ahh, my apologies. I did mean to write :Player A". "Player B" is not part of that discussion at all.

And if I'd switch back to my other weapon: "Prepare to face my final form!" or
"I'm not left-handed!"

Hopefully only if you weren't left handed

[Username17]

There's plenty of rules on how skill acquisition works; they have been elaborated in this thread. It doesn't make sense that you're ignoring the detailed rules for occupational experience, and the detailed rules for training and research. Instead, you are being overly attentive to one part of adventure-based stress experience checks which are actually a minority of skill-gains in the game.

Holy shit.

Do you know what a non sequitur is? It's this thing you keep doing. It's the thing where you keep demanding that people pay attention to some thing that has no relevance at all to the discussion at hand to distract people from your own weak argument. It's a formal fallacy, and even though those normally only apply in deductive arguments (which we are not making), it's also dishonest thread shitting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It doesn't fucking matter how many ways there are to increase skill percentages or how good they are so long as they are additive with the skill increase method that is linked to the skill rolls themselves. There could be a hundred of them, they could all be ten times as good as the learning by doing, and it still wouldn't matter so long as the direct experience checks were strictly additive. Which they are.

Every time you attempt to derail the conversation into the minutiae of skill increases that aren't part of the actual skill rolls that are actually under contention, you continue to prove what a dishonest shit stain you are. Stop it.

-Username17