Everyone on the internet's wrong sometimes. Despite the example of a prominent American politician, refusing ever to admit it doesn't make you look any smarter.
Everyone on the internet's wrong sometimes. Despite the example of a prominent American politician, refusing ever to admit it doesn't make you look any smarter.
I've changed my opinion a number of times on these forums even. Most recently I've come to the conclusion that telling people to take public transportation when available is impractical for most people most of the time. So I no longer propose that as a lifestyle change you can make to 'save the planet'. EVs are rapidly solving that issue anyway.
230 posts in and we finally have your thesis statement!
I started the thread with this and mention it often. This is not a new statement.
Quote:
So it sounds like you are looking to try to find players who approach the game in the manner that I bolded in your quote above.
Yes and no. I'm trying to establish a clearer set of playstyle terms.
Right now, people tend to talk about style like it is a single scale from combat-oriented to intrigue-oriented, a scale that is nearly useless in it's insufficiency. Playstyle is so much more complicated than can be reduced to a single dimensional spectrum.
Quote:
That describes every player that I've ever played with in my 40 years in this hobby.
Actually, it doesn't. I've spent decades playing this game, and while many, if not most, players like to describe themselves as playing this way, very few actually play this way.
I suspect it is because people confuse form and function (as described earlier). They talk about a table by calling it a table, but they still act like it is a low wall.
Some players do play the way I described and prefer it, but only when rules are light or more often non-existant, and once rules come out, then they stop playing this way and shift to video game style, as though they must play video game whenever rules apply. I even know some who actually say that they are uncomfortable even trying to play with rules in any way other than video game style, as in the very concept is uncomfortable to them.
I suspect that rules play a similar role as authority does in the milgram experiments (don't look it up unless you are prepared to face uncomfortable truths about humanity. Even scientists had a knee-jerk response and a need to prove it wrong when it first came out. After several generations, still proven true though.)
Quote:
I suppose that I can imagine that there are some players out there that might approach TTRPGs like a video game in the manner you describe, but I have never once encountered any. It's a guesstimate, but I've probably played north of 4,000 individual TTRPG sessions in my life thus far.
I find that very unlikely, though your belief seems par for the course.
Quote:
Either you have a much smaller and/or skewed sample size, or we're drawing from vastly different pools of players.
I might normally consider this as us roaming different circles, except that most players that treat the game this way don't see themselves as playing this way. I know they are playing this way only by watching their actual play, the way they talk about their choices, etc.
The only other explanation is that those players are complete and utter idiots in the bottom 10% of people, but that seems unlikely given how well they produce strategies and builds within the bounds of the rules.
Quote:
I have encountered players who constantly scan their character sheet looking for abilities that apply to the situation at hand, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Actually, this is a sign of what I'm talking about, though inconclusive on it's own. Them scanning the sheet implies they are looking for a mechanical tool to solve the problem, rather than solving it narratively which would require them to inquire about the environment and taking actions that require the gm to make choices about how to handle something.
Another sign is actually demonstrated by that mike guy you linked to before. He drew a comparison to other games, which he mentions how you can fail to find the important clues. This false idea comes from how he thinks about the rules. In a GM'd game, the GM's job is to set things up to keep things moving forward unless you get a tpk. A GM running the game properly will always just give you any clues you actually need, though you might need to work to get the clue or suffer consequences for failing a check, or even the players know the clue is there and they just need to go get it. Mass Effect did this well with introducing Tali by telling the player, for free, that Tali had the "clue" and then the player just needed to go get her. A GM asking for rolls when failure halts the adventure, and then letting failure halt the adventure is just outright doing it wrong.
The problem is not that the rules say you must roll a check to find the clue (because they don't), but rather that because there are rules for making checks to find things, the gm hides things behind the check that they shouldn't, all because "that is how the rules say you find things."
2:
Quote:
This is why game or game system is irrelevant. Always. People can play rock, paper, scissors and one of the 2 players might just randomly invent a karate chop move that beats anything. They're still playing the same game, only someone did something new and the other person has a decision whether to go along with it or reject it.
Actually, there are two things, 1, you are missing the point about the difference between RPGs and all other games. A game like rock/paper/scissors has predefined rules, and if is expected that a player will compete with other players to reach a specific end point in their own favor with the expectation of using only the defined rules and otherwise normal behaviour. An RPG however, does not expect players to be limited to the defined rules, instead you are supposed to be limited by the narrative milieu, a thing far more vague and complicated than a set of game rules could ever hope to be, but the important aspect here is that in rock/paper/scissors or chess or other games, you are winning by using the rules. In an RPG, there is no winning and you are not using the rules to achieve a certain game state, instead, the rules are meant to communicate. And 2, in rock/paper/scissors the expectation of winning only by using the predefined explicit rules means that changing the rules in the middle of the game feels like cheating because it breaks the implied social contract of using only predefined rules. However, d20 is different in two ways, firstly, the above social contract is not supposed tk apply to the rules in the books, but rather to the narrative milieu, breaking the rules of the in-world universe would be cheating, not the rulebook rules, and second, the rulebook rules are not about defining what you are allowed to do, but is about communicating and applying random chance that acvounts for narrative milieu that is normally too complicated to have completely predefined rules. Hence a GM that is arbiter of the narrative milieu and thus arbiter of how best to represent that milieu with the rules.
Quote:
sometimes, I set a scene for my players in PF 1e, they assume DCs, then I change them after the fact with Circumstance bonuses or penalties.
Two things here, expectations and reasonability.
A large part of gaming is expectations. When players have differing expectations, it can be a problem no matter what the game is, even calvinball. This is one aspect in which RPGs are actually at a disadvantage. In normal games, expectations are centered on a set of predefined explicit rules defining everything you can do, so disputes are usually pretty easy to clear up with a glance at the rules. RPGs are different because the narrative milieu is a major aspect, and some players fail to realize that rules are not supposed to taken the same way as other games, and some players feel cheated when denied what should clearly be allowed according to narrative milieu, and then the heavy reliance on GM arbitration of such things, means that expectations can easily be wildly different among players and the only easy resolution is the GM arbitration which is going to change from GM to GM. Let me make this clear, there is no possible solution to this with removing the one thing that TTRPGs do different than any normal game and even CRPGs.
Second, reasonability. If the book suggests a DC, then the GM changes it wildly but gives a reason for that change, then it is fine. If the GM just arbitrarily chooses DC, then it feels like the DC has no connection to the world at all. Now, in a storytelling game like PBtA, that works because there is no expectation of the check having any meaning, it is purely a metagame mechanic. But in d20, player expectations matter, if they expect the DC to not have any connection to the world then they aren't bothered, and maybe not even notice, when the DC fails to fit the milieu or even when the GM fails to be consistant, which means they may develop expectations, built on experience, different from those players who really work at having consistant DCs that fit the milieu, which results in disputes and incompatibility at the table.
Quote:
500 people could run a game of D&D 5e and have 500 different games.
Yes, this is true, and is exactly why I want a more developed way of discussing how we like to play.
If a friend invites you to a horror film, you get rightly angry whdn it turns out to be a romcom, because our common definitions of horror and romcom, while still a little vague are defjned well enough to be very clearly different with very different expectations.
We should have the same thing in discussing RPGs games, and very spdcifically distinct from system. You can run survival, horror, or comedy using d20, even when playing very strictly within the rules. Other aspects, such as what I try to describe, can be equally divergent in results. Playing strictly by rules for some systems will be very limiting in the genre of game, if not style (such as PBtA variants), while other systems will give more flexibility and some games might not matter what system is used.
Certainly, no system of labels could ever be perfect and people who think they are one thing but are actually another will also be a problem, but having a much better system of labels can still help a great deal in finding like-minded players more easily and with fewer failed games.
Quote:
Yeah, it's almost like that player needed to PLAY a little bit to really confirm this game wasn't for them...
Yep, yet reducing how many times this has to happen before finding a good group would be a good thing.
3:
Quote:
There's no advantage in considering the mechanics when deciding actions.
Which I've come close to with rules light games, but rarely with seriously crunchy games. You always need to check that the rules implementation matches your intuitive expectation - as we discussed with various examples earlier. Often it doesn't.
The biggest problem with d20 is how terribly it was written. It did a poor job of organization and description, and a worse job of describing how it is intended to be played made worse by how difficult to define certain aspects are.
I find, that no matter what style you go for, intuitive expectations differ among players for the real world and differ even more when it comes to the rules. This difference of expdctations is a major problem that well written rules can mitigate, though unlikely to eliminate.
This is the entire reason why Alexandrian wrote the Calibrating Expectations article, to help resolve how badly people's expectations mismatched the actual rules.
Quote:
People have EVERY right to criticize the composer.
I meant a legitimate critique of what the composer does right or wrong. If someone does not listen to a song played they way the composer intended, then that person can not know what the music the composer was writing would actually sound like, and therefore any critique is nothing more than mudslinging and persecution.
After all, do you think your government should vote on a tax bill without reading it? Is it right that it should be voted into law based entirely on the name?
Things can be judged in legitimate or illegitimate ways. Being a game or piece of art does not change that fact.
Quote:
So my point in saying you have to play with them was just that. You can talk with folks, interview them, get on the same page with them and they can be the exact thinkers you're looking for on paper. In practice, they may not meet your standards.
I don't deny this, but this is not an excuse to reject any form of communication to reduce how often this happens, especially with the internet where it is easier to encounter massive numbers of strangers who can just drop and move on. Making it easier to market a game to players of the desired style means that it can take fewer failed games to find players you really like to play with.
It does not eliminate the need to play with others, but that is no excuse to just say "screw it" and go just blindly try games, playing lottery with whether theh will be what you want.
4:
Quote:
Could it be that you're just looking for folks that think like you, who in turn, because of that way of thinking, are interested in gaming with you to deliver the play experience you want in a system you hold up as a creation that promotes that way of thinking, your way of thinking, as good, all the while delivering adulation and commercial success to you both for your creation and also for your ability to run games using your way of thinking?
Nope. My thinking differently, and really, I've always said I like multiple ways of playing, has simply revealed to me differences that people fail to notice within themselves, and fail to be acknowledged by the community, and thus people are being limited in scope because they fail to understand what else is possible. I want to make it easier to discuss and describe, because that alone is going to open people's minds, particularly new players, to a broader spectrum of play, which in turn will drive creators and GMs to explore things that currently will never be explored due to failure to realize the potential.
Think of it like, imagine a world where computers were never ever used for anything other than solving math problems, no digital images, no smartphones, no videogames, no internet. To me, that is where the RPG industry is headed, three rather small sections of what all RPGs really have to offer. The only problem is, the limits are based on people's expectations rather than written rules, and therefore I can't simply write a book and have it understood as being outside the scope of what is currently done.
There's no advantage in considering the mechanics when deciding actions.
Which I've come close to with rules light games, but rarely with seriously crunchy games. You always need to check that the rules implementation matches your intuitive expectation - as we discussed with various examples earlier. Often it doesn't.
The biggest problem with d20 is how terribly it was written. It did a poor job of organization and description, and a worse job of describing how it is intended to be played made worse by how difficult to define certain aspects are.
I find, that no matter what style you go for, intuitive expectations differ among players for the real world and differ even more when it comes to the rules. This difference of expdctations is a major problem that well written rules can mitigate, though unlikely to eliminate.
This is the entire reason why Alexandrian wrote the Calibrating Expectations article, to help resolve how badly people's expectations mismatched the actual rules.
The biggest problem with "d20" in this context is that there is no "d20" game. You can't play "d20", you can play a d20 based game. We've already gone through a lot of the ways in which the 3.x/PF break peoples expectation and you've dismissed the examples as not really part of core d20. Mostly combat stuff: abstractions in order to make things playable, where you really need to use the mechanics of the abstraction to make the system work.
This isn't a matter of "calibrating expectations" or anything like that. It's a matter of the rules not allowing what anyone would reasonably expect, if they weren't thinking in game mechanics terms.
Now, you seem to want to pull out a few aspects of d20 that you think do work for your approach - mostly the skill system, if I understand you correctly - and then build the entire rest of a system in that vein. I think that's doomed to failure. I think those work mostly because the d20 skill system is pretty broad and generic (almost rules light) and attempting to make an intuitive crunchy combat and build system will founder in similar ways that PF & 3.x do.
230 posts in and we finally have your thesis statement!
I started the thread with this and mention it often. This is not a new statement.
Haladir wrote:
So it sounds like you are looking to try to find players who approach the game in the manner that I bolded in your quote above.
Yes and no. I'm trying to establish a clearer set of playstyle terms.
IC, I am legitimately trying to understand what you're trying to get at, and I still don't get it.
Every time I think that I understand what you're trying to get at and re-state your position in my own words to seek clarity, you tell me that I'm wrong.
This might indicate that you are not doing a very good job of stating what you're trying to do here in a manner that people who aren't you can understand.
Oh, but on this point...
IC wrote:
A GM asking for rolls when failure halts the adventure, and then letting failure halt the adventure is just outright doing it wrong.
...we are in complete agreement.
There are entire game systems (e.g. GUMSHOE) written around this very premise.
A fundamental problem with many traditional RPGs is that this advice is nowhere to be found in the GM section of the rulebook.
There are also countless published adventures that encourage the "wrong" way to play. (i.e. hiding fundamental clues behind rolls.)
IC wrote:
Think of it like, imagine a world where computers were never ever used for anything other than solving math problems, no digital images, no smartphones, no videogames, no internet. To me, that is where the RPG industry is headed, three rather small sections of what all RPGs really have to offer. The only problem is, the limits are based on people's expectations rather than written rules, and therefore I can't simply write a book and have it understood as being outside the scope of what is currently done.
Wow. If that's your observation of the TTRPG indstry, we clearly hang out in very different RPG circles.
Where I'm standing, the sky's the limit. The cross-pollination of ideas from very different styles of play and avenues of game design is simply staggering. We're in a true golden age of RPG design right now.
I'm with Hala here; I don't get what you're talking about Inerasante C. I've tried reading and re-reading every permutation of the mission statement and just like H-bomb, every time I think I've got the handle of it I'm not quite right.
Also, buried in the middle of all of this is a sentiment you've suggested a couple different ways now:
Interesting Character wrote:
My thinking differently, and really, I've always said I like multiple ways of playing, has simply revealed to me differences that people fail to notice within themselves, and fail to be acknowledged by the community, and thus people are being limited in scope because they fail to understand what else is possible. I want to make it easier to discuss and describe, because that alone is going to open people's minds, particularly new players, to a broader spectrum of play, which in turn will drive creators and GMs to explore things that currently will never be explored due to failure to realize the potential.
You are saying, have continued to say, that you understand differences others fail to notice themselves. In other words, you see something that no one else does. You then go on to suggest that you are trying to reveal these differences in an easily digestible way to your audience to get them to "open their minds."
So, to summarize further, you want to explain something to all other gamers that no one but you recognizes, in order to make them expand their understanding of something they didn't even acknowledge as a thing before you showed it to them.
So far several of us have tried and failed to understand the challenges only you understand. We have taken your words, consumed them, and tried to rephrase them in a way that could be more easily communicated, every time being told that we are wrong in our understanding. So, even the folks that are ACTIVELY trying to interpret the thing you say no one else understands are failing to understand.
And you feel confident you want to continue from this point?
I'm not making fun here, I'm honestly asking IC - is this a goal worth pursuing? We don't get what only you understand. We're actively disagreeing with some of the offshoot points; the gaming community to the rest of us seems VERY diverse, people's method or system of play varies from person to person, and you've even acknowledged that because people don't communicate the same and understand certain nuances, sometimes they advertise themselves as playing one way and play completely differently when they hit the table.
It just feels like, over and over again, you're right and the rest of us are wrong. You know things we can't seem to grasp. You have an understanding of gamers and games that other people themselves don't see in themselves.
This might be due to some different, elevated, or enlightened way of thinking you have IC, or it might be you seeing things that aren't really a thing. I mean, if no one else seems to notice the differences you do or understand them correctly... and I mean, NO ONE so far after 272 attempts... is it us?
You yourself keep adding analogies or metaphors to try to illustrate things. You suggest for example that you see the gaming industry going the way of only using computers to solve math problems.
What? Have you even SEEN the gaming industry lately? They're more than just D&D 5e and PF 2e right now. There are hundreds of permutations, all spinning off the same central premise of bringing players together to play something collaboratively, as opposed to the standard gaming experience from board, console card and other games where you have a winner and one or more losers.
That does NOT seem as oblique as the analogy you conjured. But again... NO ONE seems to see it your way IC. Nobody understands your premise correctly, no one sees the differences and nuances you do, no one shares your vision of the gaming industry and its future... heck, we don't even seem to land on the same issues with the D20 system.
Interesting Character, mebbe you can gives an example of how you, as a GM/DM, would adjudicate things D20-wise if your players want to "prop" that table up; I'm guessing they'd only do so if they mainly wanted to protect themselves from a ranged attack in a tavern?
Honestly, I think we need to end this conversation here.
From my perspective, I don't think that IC is ever going to be able to shake the rest of us hard enough to see what he's talking about.
I'm guessing what's happening here is one of the following possibilities:
1) IC has such a high and enlightened understanding of TTRPG theory and practice that they're operating at a completely different dimension that nobody else can even conceptualize. (By analogy: IC is a sphere and the rest of the community is Flatland.)
2) IC is attempting to define and/or prove a fundamental axiom of a particular TTRPG play-style that one must simply accept to play the game, while also arguing against different axioms that lead to different play experiences. (An analogy would be attempting to prove the Parallel Postulate in classical geometry, while simultaneously dismissing non-Euclidian geometry as 'not geometry'.)
3) IC has become rapt by a concept that doesn't really exist, but is just plausible enough to fixate upon. (Analogy: Attempting to build a perpetual motion machine.)
4) IC has become completely fixated on a tiny sliver of a concept that's essentially unique to their own experience. ("Have you ever really looked at your hand??")
Regardless of which possibility IC may be operating under, I think that continuing this topic will be an exercise in futility.
I'd say 2 is the closest but not quite right as I'm not arguing against the validity of other axioms but rather trying to point out certain axioms that are accepted so deeply that most don't even realize them, so it's more like I'm trying to discuss hyperbolical and spherical space to those only familiar with Euclidean space.
(Interesting note: I've actually developed my own parrallel postulate which then leads to defining spherical, flat, and hyperbolical space.)
For example, you say the sky is the limit right now, but consider film, if you are limited to black and white live action with no computer special effects, you can still claim "the sky's the limit" for what you can do and yet there is still the limitations I mentioned and breaking them opens up whole new avenues to explore. Likewise, popular gaming has plenty of potential but is still following certain defining rules that, like parallelism, need not be followed. Exploring hyperbolic/spherical space gives possibilities that are unquestionably different from Euclidean space yet does not diminish the vast scope of possibility in Euclidean space.
I'd say that most people are so familiar with "Euclidean space" that trying to describe "spherical space" without a clear way to communicate the difference makes it sound nonsensical, after all, tell someone that a straight line will eventually come back to where you started will sound ridiculous to someone unfamiliar with non-euclidean space, just like how my poor explanations sound ridiculous.
Quote:
So, to summarize further, you want to explain something to all other gamers that no one but you recognizes, in order to make them expand their understanding of something they didn't even acknowledge as a thing before you showed it to them.
So far several of us have tried and failed to understand the challenges only you understand.
Yes, though I wouldn't say "no one" else understands, as I have moderate success when teaching new players, especially younger ones with little or no video game experience.
Thus I don't think it is an issue of intelligence or anything, but rather, I think it some sort of fundamental structure people absorb subconsciously (similar to culture or language) and thus never actually think about when learning it and thus as it gets more ingrained it becomes harder to change. It also seems to interact with people's view on rule following behavior.
Quote:
There are hundreds of permutations, all spinning off the same central premise of bringing players together to play something collaboratively,
You say that like it is somehow a single simple concept, but that central premise is so very complex. That said, that is not the central premise that is distinct from other games. Boardgames can be collaborative as well. What makes ttrpgs different is the central focus on a narrative as the basis of play instead of mastering and using a set of rules to achieve a particular game state. All other games use rules as a set of limitations and explicit abilities that be used, and thus it is those limits amd abilities that make them interesting and distinct. Take away the rules from an rpg and you still have the core essence of the rpg, and the core essence remains as something you can continue to hold as the central premise of the game even when have rules.
This is why you get rules light games, because they recognize that something else is the focus other than utilizing and manipulating rules.
The problem is the belief that you can't do that with complex and deep rules systems (likely made worse by beliefs about what "should" be in the game).
To compare to another issue about 3.x in particular, the general community has this idea that encounters should all be balanced approximately the same difficulty for the player's level, which is entirely wrong according to the 3.x dm guide, which says there should be a wide spread of difficulty by at least 5 levels above and below with most encounters being below lvl and 5% (boss encounters) of encounters being +5 lvls over party. I'm not sure why the general community considers this wrong when it is explicitly how the game was designed, but they do. Most modules follow community expectations in this regard as the early modules that went by the book were criticized for it. But do you see how community expectations can differ wildly from the design expectations? The collective subconscious has strange notions and going against that is often not accepted, especially when trying to make profits.
Quote:
But again... NO ONE seems to see it your way IC.
Is it bad that this reminds me of Einstein having trouble getting people to understand the nuance of relativity when he first presented it?
Quote:
Interesting Character, mebbe you can gives an example of how you, as a GM/DM, would adjudicate things D20-wise if your players want to "prop" that table up
I could, but that's missing the point. How often do players in a crunchy game even try? The method of thinking that prevents the idea from forming when utilizing crunchy rules. That is the point.
But again... NO ONE seems to see it your way IC.
Is it bad that this reminds me of Einstein having trouble getting people to understand the nuance of relativity when he first presented it?
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan.
Sometimes people don't appreciate the brilliance of your idea because it truly is beyond them. Far more often though, you're not Einstein and the problem is with you.
Quote:
Interesting Character, mebbe you can gives an example of how you, as a GM/DM, would adjudicate things D20-wise if your players want to "prop" that table up
I could, but that's missing the point. How often do players in a crunchy game even try? The method of thinking that prevents the idea from forming when utilizing crunchy rules. That is the point.
But doesn't that sort of contradict? The point of a crunchy system is to handle such mechanics. If you want players to just try stuff without mechanical support and you're just going to adjudicate the results as a GM, that's how rules-light systems work all the time. Why is it such a problem that crunchy systems don't lead people to ignore the crunch and just go with rules-light GM adjudication?
And as a sort of side note: Mostly I wouldn't bother with flipping the table in most circumstances in PF/3.x because I know what it would give me - cover (or partial cover depending on what I'm doing). This can be situationally useful, but 3.x is a game where offense is rewarded more than defense and it's very common that the action used to flip the table would be better used attacking. Especially if the GM rules that flipping the table is a standard and not a move action.
That said, that is not the central premise that is distinct from other games. Boardgames can be collaborative as well. What makes ttrpgs different is the central focus on a narrative as the basis of play instead of mastering and using a set of rules to achieve a particular game state. All other games use rules as a set of limitations and explicit abilities that be used, and thus it is those limits amd abilities that make them interesting and distinct. Take away the rules from an rpg and you still have the core essence of the rpg, and the core essence remains as something you can continue to hold as the central premise of the game even when have rules.
(emphasis mine)
Okay, now there's a premise with meat that we can actually discuss.
First, while I think you may be in the right ballpark, I don't buy your premise that TTRPG fundamentally focus on "narrative as the basis of play instead of... using rules to achieve a particular game state."
I think we can agree on the centrality of narrative as a key component of TTRPGs. Please bear in mind that centrality of narrative is not exclusive to TTRPGs, but it is a key component.
What distinguishes a TTRPG from other forms of narrative games are the formal rules. A well-designed TTRPG incorporates its rules into the narrative structure of the game in some manner. Basically: The rules set parameters over the narrative and bend the narrative into particular directions. Some TTRPGs use tight rulesets that are built around very specific narrative frames; others are much wider in scope. Both approaches have strengths and limitations, but in general, the rules of the game enforce and encourage the sorts of stories that the game is designed around. For example, there is no combat system present in Monsterhearts 2, because the game is not about fisticuffs. Likewise, there are no mechanics that represent the feelings player characters have about each other in Pathfinder RPG because the game is not about the web of emotional connections within a group of friends/frenemies.
The rules of a TTRPG do push play toward a desired end-state. And that's by design. Those desired end-states are a big part of what distinguishes one TTRPG from another.
In Pathfinder, the desired end-state is to learn about the world, stay alive, increase personal power and wealth, and defeat one's enemies. In Ten Candles the desired end-state is to hold off the encroaching inevitable darkness for as long as possible before finally succumbing to it...and to make the end hurt. In Girl Underground, the desired end-state is for the Girl to learn lessons about herself from the fantastical world and to return to the real world stronger and wiser.
When you play a TTRPG, you are choosing to constrain the story you want to tell collectively by agreeing to work within and abide by a common set of rules. The rules are creative constraints: They set to limit what the story is going to be about while providing guidance for what is and is not allowed narratively, and how to make those narrative choices. Because you are working within a set of rules, playing the game in the manner for which it was designed requires that players have those rules in mind to guide their approach.
But, ultimately, the point of a TTRPG is to get together with friends and to have fun telling stories together. I can't think of an essay that underlines this better than Luka Rejec's blog post called Roleplaytime.
Do you know game theory? There are two types of games, finite and infinite games. Finite games are games where the goal is to achieve the most favorable game state when the game ends, which of course means the intent is for the game to end. An infinite game however, has the goal to keep the game going without being removed from the game. Consider for a moment how that difference might impact strategy and one's approach to playing.
Second,
Quote:
But, ultimately, the point of a TTRPG is to get together with friends and to have fun telling stories together.
This is not an inherent goal of the game. It is one of many possible motivations to play, but is not the ultimate goal.
Compare with music. You might get together with friends to play music in your garage, or have everyone sing along during a party or go to karaoke, but you also have professional musicians who play on stage for the money, fame, and glory. You also have folks like myself who go to a concert, by themselves, simply to enjoy the music. Music is not inherently about being with friends, but you might "be with friends" by playing music.
The same applies to games, especially ttrpgs.
ttrpgs have a greater scope than any other games for artistic creativity. In the obvious way of course, the scope of what stories can be told, what characters can be created, etc, but also the greatest scope in how to give the audience an experience, how to make them feel emotion (the single most important thing in any artform is evoking emotion).
Playing with friends is likely the most common reason to play, and certainly is a worthy reason, but is not inherent to the game.
Quote:
you are choosing to constrain the story you want to tell collectively by agreeing to work within and abide by a common set of rules.
This is one style of play, but not the only option. This also fits storytelling style more than roleplaying style.
Quote:
n Pathfinder, the desired end-state is to learn about the world, stay alive, increase personal power and wealth, and defeat one's enemies.
These are not end-states. These are also mere motivations, and not all of them will apply to all game styles.
Quote:
I think we can agree on the centrality of narrative as a key component of TTRPGs. Please bear in mind that centrality of narrative is not exclusive to TTRPGs, but it is a key component.
Our usage of narrative is out of sync here. You are thinking in a more classical storytelling definition of narrative, while I'm meaning more the milieu, the "virtual" world the characters are in without any reference to plot or story structures.
I also was not clear enough, that ttrpgs have the option of being played like other games, but also have the option of being played in a completely different way, and in that completely different way, milieu is the foundational basis for play, not rules, as in decision-making comes from the milieu "physics," not the rulebook ability list.
Quote:
What distinguishes a TTRPG from other forms of narrative games are the formal rules.
This is false. You can use the rules like this, but you do not need to. Your inability to accept that is the key blockage preventing you from understanding what I'm trying to communicate. The unique thing about ttrpgs is the very fact that this premise can be false.
Quote:
The rules set parameters over the narrative and bend the narrative into particular directions. ... in general, the rules of the game enforce and encourage the sorts of stories that the game is designed around.
This being a premise of your playstyle is why you like PBtA so much. This premise is false for the style of play I enjoy most, in fact, this premise is built on a false assumption when it comes to my favored style of play. This premise assumes a goal is to create/follow a narrative (in the storywriting sense of the word), which is not always applicable.
Quote:
Pathfinder RPG because the game is not about the [put noun of choice here]
This is also a major false premise. Did you never think that maybe the rules are not about anything? That maybe the rules are like a painter's brushes, a toolset to paint a picture, whatever picture it may be?Last time I checked, paint brushes might do certain things and be best at certain kinds of brush strokes, but never dictate the subject matter of the painting.
Yes, I know game theory (as in the field of mathematics and logic). I hadn't realized you were speaking in game theory terms earlier... and I see no indication that you thought you were either. You have yet again moved the goalposts by retroactively invoking definitions from a different area of discourse in an attempt to discredit my earlier statements. That's juvenile and pedantic.
I have to say, IC, that I'm getting the impression that you truly and honestly think that you're the smartest person in the room here.
From my perspective, you're acting like a high school student who'd scored a "5" on the AP Physics test, and is now trying to convince a tenured physics professor that they're doing physics wrong.
Your above rebuttals to my earlier statements all fly in the face of established RPG (and non-RPG) game design theory and practice. You pretty much just told us that you are the one who does not understand game design.
I have concluded that you have nothing of use or interest to say on this topic, and I am exiting this discussion for real.
I was not referencing game theory retroactively (If I was, I would have stated it as a correction). It was a new note trying to add a consideration to the discussion, because you were talking about things like a finite game.
Quote:
Your above rebuttals to my earlier statements all fly in the face of established RPG (and non-RPG) game design theory and practice.
Yea, exactly. The common practice is only one way that things can go, but not the only way things can go. Of particular note is how you apply both rpg and non-rpg together as though the same rules apply to both, but that's not necessarily true, which is exactly what I've meant every single time I've said that ttrpgs are capable of something other games are not capable of, and they have this unusual capability because established game design doesn't necessarily apply because established game design runs on certain assumptions that do not apply to ttrpgs.
As for intelligence, I am way into the top 1%. I try not to talk down or anything, but yea, I smashed records on the IQ test by a factor of 3. You can't unknow that once you know that. So I try not sound superior, but I do indeed know that in some ways I am smarter than everyone here. Intelligence does not equal knowledge, but still, I understand things on a whole different level, which is a major part of the communication gap.
I was not referencing game theory retroactively (If I was, I would have stated it as a correction). It was a new note trying to add a consideration to the discussion, because you were talking about things like a finite game.
Quote:
Your above rebuttals to my earlier statements all fly in the face of established RPG (and non-RPG) game design theory and practice.
Yea, exactly. The common practice is only one way that things can go, but not the only way things can go. Of particular note is how you apply both rpg and non-rpg together as though the same rules apply to both, but that's not necessarily true, which is exactly what I've meant every single time I've said that ttrpgs are capable of something other games are not capable of, and they have this unusual capability because established game design doesn't necessarily apply because established game design runs on certain assumptions that do not apply to ttrpgs.
As for intelligence, I am way into the top 1%. I try not to talk down or anything, but yea, I smashed records on the IQ test by a factor of 3. You can't unknow that once you know that. So I try not sound superior, but I do indeed know that in some ways I am smarter than everyone here. Intelligence does not equal knowledge, but still, I understand things on a whole different level, which is a major part of the communication gap.
There's a reason D&D and PF have Wisdom and Charisma along side Intelligence and here we have an unintentionally brilliant exposition for that.
"So I try not sound superior, but I do indeed know that in some ways I am smarter than everyone here. Intelligence does not equal knowledge, but still, I understand things on a whole different level, which is a major part of the communication gap."
I have had the luck to grow up in an area that is surrounded by IBM centers and various other R&D type operations. I often interacted with inventors, researchers, and various mathematicians, physicists, etc. While they were all brilliant in their respective fields, they also had a tendency to come to conclusions and decisions that were objectively 'not smart'. For the most part, they seemed to do this at a rate equal to most people on other fields, although occasionally, the most brilliant people exhibited broad mental blind spots.
You're clearly a brilliant guy Interesting Character, however, that doesn't mean that you are smarter than anyone else here. You are no doubt smarter in some ways, but others are smarter in other ways. No one is on a different level then anyone else. We all have different ways we are smart and dumb.
As for the original subject of this thread:
I surprising number of years ago, I started writing a guide about optimizing the pathfinder 1st edition rules for the fun of the group. I never really finished it, but you might find some aspects relevant. Just click on my name to see my profile.
Interesting Character, mebbe you can gives an example of how you, as a GM/DM, would adjudicate things D20-wise if your players want to "prop" that table up
I could, but that's missing the point. How often do players in a crunchy game even try? The method of thinking that prevents the idea from forming when utilizing crunchy rules. That is the point.
But doesn't that sort of contradict? The point of a crunchy system is to handle such mechanics. If you want players to just try stuff without mechanical support and you're just going to adjudicate the results as a GM, that's how rules-light systems work all the time. Why is it such a problem that crunchy systems don't lead people to ignore the crunch and just go with rules-light GM adjudication?
And as a sort of side note: Mostly I wouldn't bother with flipping the table in most circumstances in PF/3.x because I know what it would give me - cover (or partial cover depending on what I'm doing). This can be situationally useful, but 3.x is a game where offense is rewarded more than defense and it's very common that the action used to flip the table would be better used attacking. Especially if the GM rules that flipping the table is a standard and not a move action.
IMHO, while thejeff gave a much better gaming sales pitch there, I can only wish ye well in finding those right players (and DMs/GMs too) for your gamestyle preferences, Interesting Character. To paraphrase/horribly-misquote that recorded Marlon Brando voiceover in Superman Returns, "They can be some good roleplayers... they only need someone to light their way..."
captain yesterday wrote:
Interesting Character wrote:
Well, I am better with horses than humans, but not that much better. :)
A horse is NOT a stable.
A stable genius would know that. :-)
Um, probably not a good idea to uplift them Horses just so that people could play rpgs with 'em- 'cause that's how you end up with Houyhnhnms. ;)
Popping back into this thread for something that might be of interest...
A friend of mine who's an RPG game designer and theorist mentioned that he'd been interviewed by a William J. White, PhD, professor of Communications at Penn State. White is an academic with a focus on games, game culture, and game development theory. Dr. White wrote a new book about The Forge, an online forum that discussed indie RPGs for about 10 years in the early 21st Century. The Forge was an extremely fertile ground for new games, game design, and game philosophy, and the work done there underlies nearly all of the contemporary design in indie RPG spaces.
The Forge ultimately outlived its usefulness and shut down in 2012. Indie RPG development collaboration moved to various spaces on the Net, including Google Hangouts, private Discord servers, other Internet forums, and Twitter. But the history of The Forge and the collaborative design work done in that space is fascinating.
It's an academic textbook (and priced accordingly), but I can give you a coupon code that will allow you to purchase the electronic version for $12 (US). DM me and I'll send you the code.
Ha, I don't even get three meals a day right now, I can't afford $12. Wish I could though, I read tons of that stuff. Even downloaded several threads from rpol before the design section got deleted.
That said, I think a major problem if not the major problem is people applying game design principles. Granted, RPGs can go that direction to some excellent effect, but they don't need to. The alternative is to realize that it is a performance on behalf of the GM and the mechanics simply need to handle the dice and act as shorthand to minimize the word count needed to explain the details required for informed decision making that would also detract from the immersion if explained. That requires a very different design philosophy.
And my last post doesn't seem to be here.
@ captain yesterday
Everyone who deals with horses knows that jobs involving horses are named stable, such as a "stableboy" for one who cares for horses. Except for "horsemaster" that's just an odd one.
Or are you really hard up for getting your gaming fix?
:D
Ha! I've run eight RPG sessions this month alone. (Three as "Keeper", two as "Master of Ceremonies (MC)", two as "Game Master (GM)", and one as the facilitator of a GM-less RPG.)
I spend WAY more time on Discord, Slack, Twitter, and the Gauntlet Forums than I do here. On all those other sites, you direct message ("DM") each other.
This board is the only one I'm on that uses the "private message" term.
And I don't really play much D&D anymore, and haven't been a Dungeon Master in many years.
Although I was the Dino Master (DM) last month when I ran a one-shot of Escape From Dino Island. Now that is one fascinating game: The rules have a secret sauce that isn't quite obvious on first read that makes this game really shine. Highly recommended.
That said, I think a major problem if not the major problem is people applying game design principles. Granted, RPGs can go that direction to some excellent effect, but they don't need to. The alternative is to realize that it is a performance on behalf of the GM and the mechanics simply need to handle the dice and act as shorthand to minimize the word count needed to explain the details required for informed decision making that would also detract from the immersion if explained. That requires a very different design philosophy.
Sorry to hear about your financial troubles. I've struggled with money in the past, and it's not easy.
Role-playing games are games. Games have rules. What makes a game is that the players voluntarily choose to abide by a set of rules that don't normally apply to real life. This is what makes a game distinct from other forms of entertainment. Having rules is true of all games in general, whether it's football, backgammon, Simon says, auto racing, Settlers of Catan, Candy Crush, or Call of Cthulhu.
Focusing back on role-playing games: There is intentionality behind the game rules; they aren't just "mechanics." The designer is saying something with the rules themselves; this is the subtext of a given RPG. For example, the presence or absence of a combat system says something about the RPG itself.
From my perspective, you are the one with a limited view of what constitutes an RPG. Just from your statement above, you're assuming that an RPG needs to have a GM, uses dice, and that the players require "immersion".
None of those assumptions are true. I have played many RPGs that break all three of those assumptions. (e.g. Dream Askew, Lovecraftesque, For The Queen, Fall of Magic, The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Wretched and Alone, A Thousand and One Nights, I could go on.)
But of course, you're going to assert that none of those are "real" role-playing games, because by your definition, an RPG requires a GM, dice, and player immersion. And that is why I think you're the one with a limited view.
From one side, with your dismissal of the importance of an RPG's ruleset, you appear to be asserting the "system doesn't matter" argument that blows up RPG Twitter every few months.
Yet from the other side, you make rigid assertions about the importance of an RPG ruleset that simulates reality. (e.g. your earlier wall of text about the Jump skill in d20/OGL games.)
So, which is it? Does system matter, or doesn't it?
Oh, and I also take issue with your assertion that the GM's role is as a "performance."
While the GM as performer is true in streamed "actual play" shows such as Critical Role, that's due to the performative nature of streamed games. CR and its ilk are much more akin to an improv comedy routine, where the whole point is to entertain a non-participatory audience rather than to play the game itself.
In an actual game, the GM is there to play as well. They aren't "performing", they are playing. It's not the same role as the players running the PCs, but it's still play. And if the GM is finding that running the game feels like work or that it isn't fun, then they need to step away and do something else for a while.
I just came across a blog from an OSR designer who succinctly described three different RPG play-styles: Story-games, traditional/crunchy RPGs, and OSR games:
In his essay, he succinctly describes the pleasure gained from these three styles of play, using the examples of three games I happen to know pretty well: the dark horror story-game Trophy Dark, the trad/crunchy game Pathfinder and OSR games such as Swords & Wizardry.
Ben Laurance, in "Pleasures of the OSR" wrote:
For our first example, take the game Trophy Dark by Jesse Ross, a game that bills itself as a "collaborative storytelling game of psychological horror"... In Trophy Dark, the players play doomed treasure hunters who penetrate an ancient forest of horrors in search of treasure. The ethos of the game is that the players are supposed to "play to lose". That is, it is a foregone conclusion that their characters are doomed, and the fun comes in seeing how they meet their memorable end by collaboratively crafting a story within a set genre of psychological horror. This is very challenging to do for all the reasons that collaboratively storytelling is hard. You have to be creative on your feet; you need to be able to stick with the vibe of psychological horror; you need to be "yes and"; you need to surprise other people by introducing bleak and chilling elements into the fiction; and so on. Those are all big challenges that it is satisfying to overcome in play.
For our second example, take a game that is heavy on rules-mastery, character building, and tactical combat. Say, Pathfinder, or 3.5 D&D played in a way suggested by fat rulebooks swollen with feats, skills, and class powers. Here part of the challenge involves mastering the rules to build a character that will be able to do cool and effective things in combat. One is encouraged to pore over the books and design the character's path from the beginning of the game. In combat, one is supposed to look at the battle mat and use ones feats and class powers to maximum advantage to overcome interestingly varied enemies in shifting tactical environments. Again, this is all very challenging to do, and fun to succeed at. But notice that the challenges to be overcome are completely different than the challenges that Trophy Dark throws up for its players.
In retro-gaming play, the challenges to be overcome are different still. Retro-gaming play-style does not involve collaborative storytelling because it does not involve aiming to construct a narrative with pleasing properties. So the challenge is not the one that the players of Trophy Dark tackle. Furthermore, retro-games are usually rules-lite. An illuminating retro-gaming mantra is "the answer you are looking for is not to be found on your character sheet". What this means is that the challenges in question are not challenges of rules mastery that involve careful selection and the use of elaborate powers. There are no complex character builds. "Min-maxing" is not generally possible... [T]he challenges that [OSR] players overcome are often ones the players pose for themselves and so want to overcome purely for fictional reasons (i.e. "revenge", "help the slave revolt", "unravel the mystery", etc.)... The other big objective success condition is survival. You succeed if you live to play another session. You fail if your character dies. This is one reason why retro-games tend to have a "no homework" principle, and why they encourage you jump in with a PC who is more or less a blank slate whom you will flesh out through play...
There are many reasons dice are rolled at the table, but there is a certain flavor to dice rolling in retro-gaming. The flavor is that of a skilled gambler who knows the odds and chooses to make certain gambles, some low stakes and some high. There is a drama of the clatter of the dice (real or virtual), and the baiting [sic] of breath. This is part of the reason that almost all mechanics, reactions rolls aside, in retro-games are binary: either success or failure. The games are not, in the main, driven forward by partial successes with complications. They are rather dotted with well picked opportunities to make a wager that will either succeed or fail. Calculate the odds and take your gamble. When you don't want to gamble, try to avoid rolling dice. Play often (usually) moves forward without the need for rolls.
I think he paints an incomplete picture of story-gaming, but his points are valid. I think he's pretty much dead-on with where the pleasure comes from in crunchy RPGs like Pathfinder, and he gets right to the heart of what makes OSR play so challenging and rewarding.
It's pretty clear that IC is after a Frankenstein's monster of those examples of RPG Play Styles.
Perhaps or perhaps he doesn't know #### ### ######## he's talking about.
Question for @Haladir:
How does the three styles of RPG rules mesh with the five (or eight or ...twenty five - pick your list, I'm not beholden to a particular number) types of players?
Haladir, I think there is one main sticking point, other than some semantic terminology issues. Namely, your assertion that something like d20 must fit your idea of a game. I've never denied that your way of playing is a valid one, and in fact, you have lots of points described better about your way of playing, but the whole issue is that you don't have to treat it like a game.
Quote:
Role-playing games are games. Games have rules. What makes a game is that the players voluntarily choose to abide by a set of rules that don't normally apply to real life.
This might fit boardgame style or computer game style, but not every interaction between people needs to follow this idea.
Quote:
From one side, with your dismissal of the importance of an RPG's ruleset, you appear to be asserting the "system doesn't matter" argument that blows up RPG Twitter every few months.
Yet from the other side, you make rigid assertions about the importance of an RPG ruleset that simulates reality. (e.g. your earlier wall of text about the Jump skill in d20/OGL games.)
So, which is it? Does system matter, or doesn't it?
Wrong question, or rather your question is based on incorrect assumptions.
Instead, you need to be asking "do these rules do what I need them to do?"
So, for my style of play, any rule that does what I need it to do will work, but it doesn't matter which rule I use as long as it achieves my goal, because the rule is just a tool, a means to an end.
I might use rules as a tool but that doesn't mean I require them, but if I do use them, then they need to achieve the result I require from them, and that is where the simulationist aspect comes in, because non-simulationist rules do not achieve the goal I have for using the rules in the first place.
So while I don't need rules, if I use them, I am using them for a reason and if they don't serve that reason then they are worthless.
So they matter and yet don't matter, because I don't need rules but any rules in place better do their job.
---triple play styles
Ok, so you can accept his three ways of play that have different needs from the mechanics, but you can't accept my statement that different styles exist because one such style looks like another but plays very differently?
There are more than just those three.
My style is very similar to OSR, and this,
Quote:
Retro-gaming play-style does not involve collaborative storytelling because it does not involve aiming to construct a narrative with pleasing properties.
applies to my style as well in regards to the players, but not the GM.
My style is very much centered on the idea of this being a "choose your own adventure" story, where the players are there to experience what it is like to be their characters in some fictional world. The GM is there to craft the experience and world for the players to immerse themselves in.
You mentioned how the rules say something about the game, here, the rules are used to say something about the world.
So why use rules? Once again,
-To aid in maintaining consistency You can reference the rules to make sure similar situations get similar results even if you don't specifically remember what you did last time
-To aid in communication of the world, the situation, the events, and most importantly the choices So a strength score communicates how strong a character is, a DC can communicate how difficult a task is, a check result can communicate how well a character performed, average characters having 3d6 for stats communicates what is normal for average characters, etc
-To add tension and risk by adding uncertainty of success to choices.
-To mitigate the feeling of arbitrariness or bias that can easily lead to negative experiences all around by taking the resolution of uncertain choices away from a person and putting in a neutral entity, usually dice.
-To have a selected arbiter to resolve disputes and select a single correct canon for a world milieu.
So, do any of those require things being treated as a game? Nope, but they'll still look like a game.
This is why crunchy simulationist rules are desirable if rules are used at all and yet the rules are not actually required.
We can have the experience of a storyteller crafting an experience for the "players" without rules, but the rules can do the above, and what rules do the above? Well, simulationist rules are a natural fit for communication about the world and character capabilities, and using numbers and dice are great for tension and risk without being totally arbitrary yet without being biased towards the GM's girlfriend (or more accurately easier to avoid such bias and spot the truth when accusations come about).
In this style, a GM is required because that is what the players are there for, the experience the GM provides.
---Terminology
RPG is such a broad term now that whole classifications of games get labeled as RPGs that should not be labeled identically but because those styles were inspired by RPGs they kept the name.
This is a bit like how calculators could be called computers but it would be misleading. Thus we now have multiple terms for different kinds of things that compute. Calculators, PCs, mainframes, servers, supercomputers, cellphones, smartphones, etc. They all basically fall under the concept of a computer, but they are so different that we label them as different categories.
RPGs are the reverse, they are equally diverse, but yet society labels them all the same. They should have different terms just like a smartphone and calculator should not both be called computers in normal speech, but society doesn't work like that.
You're describing an RPG play-style ("Choose your own adventure") and the preferred structure of the sort of game you like to run ("simulationist"). You then describe how your simulationist d20-ish rules are there to enforce and encourage that play-style.
In other words, you have intentionality behind your preferred ruleset that generates a particular style of play.
It sounds like you're not particularly choosy about the nitty-gritty of the specific mechanics in play, as long as everyone is using them the same way, they generate consistent success/failure curves that are proportional to the relative difficulty of a task mitigated by the PC's skill, and that the players have a good sense of how hard it will be to succeed. You don't have rules about when players can take narrative control because your game is not about collaborative storytelling.
Ergo, your preferred RPG rules (or rules framework) enforce the style and conventions of the game you want to run.
Didn't realize I had gotten a response. Life has been crazy recently.
You are mostly correct, but that was never the point in the first place.
There is a lot of looking at d20 and thinking that d20 is and must be X, but my point is that leaving the mechanics the same d20 could be X, Y, or Z, depending on the perspective of the players, and also that X is the general and popular way to play d20 but that I want to bring awareness to Y as an equally valid way of playing that is completely different yet still worthwhile.
I think a possible description of the element of difference would be "players using different logics." For example, if you watch the youtube video about videogames for non-gamers, the guy mentions how his wife would try things based on real world logic that gamers would intuitively know can't be done due to their experience (such as trying to climb what would be climbable if it were real, trying to jump through a window, or trying to destroy an objective with an explosive barrel instead of expecting a button prompt), and thus gamers look at the game they play with a gamer's logic while a non-gamer looks at the game with a real world logic. Likewise, in playing RPGs, it is more and more common for players to get "locked" into viewing the rpg with a certain "it's a game" based logic and thus find it hard to understand how to play or even understand different logics.
This also recently reminded me of some research on thinking and skill. I was introduced to the research by an article description using chess as an example, which was then mirrored by Brandon Sanderson's lectures on writing. The concept is as people get experience in playing chess, they "chunk" their knowledge into larger pieces, for example, they might learn a particular arrangement and later may think of using the same arrangement but swapping out a bishop for queen. Brandon mentioned it as playing Magic The Gathering, in which as a player masters the basics, the more they can focus on strategizing at a higher big picture lvl.
I suspect the same occurs with players, as they play a certain style, they learn the basics of that style so well that they no longer really think about it and they strategize at a higher level according to the fundemental rules they no longer think about. Which might be way I have some success in teaching new players, because I'm explicitly introducing them to different paradigms from the beginning, they learn the basics of multiple paradigms before they have the chance to master them to the point of no longer thinking about them.
As an aside, any rules setup works as long as the setup performs a certain set of functions while lacking a certain set of limitations. I'd hardly call that "being enforced" by the rules. A hammer doesn't build a house, nor limit the possible structure of the house, it just makes it easier to the put the parts together. Further, since the major difference is not the mechanics themselves, but logic with which you apply those mechanics to play, I'd say the style and conventions of the game are enforced by the logic the player is thinking with rather than the mechanics, and the less the logic and mechanics interfere with each other, the smoother things go and the more enjoyable things can be, but when the logic and the mechanics conflict, or rather when the mechanics are enforced in a way that conflicts, you get trouble.
Just like your example of trying to grab a guy from behind cover to use him as a hostage. You had certain expectations based on the logic you tried to apply, but the gm enforced the rules in a way that conflicted with your logic. It wasn't the rules themselves, but the way they were enforced and applied, as evidenced by my reply on how I would have applied the mechanics differently.
