RPG systems are a journey, not the destination.

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

somehow the multi actions for breaking off a table leg and using it as a weapon is too restrictive in the way it is applied - but you claim you prefer simulationist rules where it would be even harder to do than in the game examples provided.

This makes zero sense.

Why would you need multiple actions for this? There is nothing about d20 that even implies that this should be multiple actions. Yet you want to say d20-like systems would be more complicated?

[World's most interesting Pan]

Soooooo... Let's talk chargen. One of the things I love about 3E/PF1 is the robust chargen options. No two characters of the same class are identical (well they dont need to be). You can be strong or agile or intelligent or wise. It's fun to find a winning combo (albeit lousy to find a losing one). I like that multi-classing and archetypes take it even further. There are just so many fun mechanical ways to build characters. Its a mini game itself! I know that system mastery sits poorly with a lot of folks. What do you think?

Traveller has a career system that is random and can be hard to grok at first. Though, its a lot of fun seeing a character's life flash before your eyes as they come into existence. It's also great to have a session zero way of linking the PCs together. The down side of course is its time consuming, not easy to do solo, works against some folks preconceived notions of how to build a character. Anybody tried this out?

What are you favorite chargen systems?

[dirtypool]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What are you favorite chargen systems?

I’m a big fan of the PF2 Character Generation.

[World's most interesting Pan]

dirtypool wrote:

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What are you favorite chargen systems?

I’m a big fan of the PF2 Character Generation.

I was too, at first but there are a few things that make it not for me. The ability score gen system is a really convoluted way to deal out whats basically a stat array. I loathe the hybrid multi-classing system, thats my biggest rub. I get what they were trying to "fix" but it didnt work for me. Im sticking with Pathfinder Classic for now.

I certainly wouldn't mind hearing more about what you like about PF2 chargen tho!

[dirtypool]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

I certainly wouldn't mind hearing more about what you like about PF2 chargen tho!

I like the holistic way that the boost assignment links in with ancestry, background, and class so that you’re building a character from birth to play rather than simply assigning stats.

[Haladir]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

What are you favorite chargen systems?

These days, I'm all for simplicity: Give me a chargen system that provides you with an interesting character in 10 minutes or less.

I particularly like a chargen system that gives you an evocative detail that's open to interpretation on which you can hang some backstory.

I think my favorite one at the moment is Trophy Gold. In TG, your character is paper-thin mechanically: You have an Occupation - What you do now (this grants 3 skills), a Background - What you did before you became an adventurer (this grants 1 more skill), a Drive (why you're in the adventuring business), and your equipment. You can also choose to know up to three Rituals (spells). That's it. There's even a random Trophy Gold character generator that can use.

I no longer like to write long backstories for my characters before I start playing them. I want a few details I can noodle over and learn the character's story through play.

[World's most interesting Pan]

Haladir wrote:

I no longer like to write long backstories for my characters before I start playing them. I want a few details I can noodle over and learn the character's story through play.

Thats been my train of thought on backstory for years.

[thejeff]

World's most interesting Pan wrote:

Haladir wrote:

I no longer like to write long backstories for my characters before I start playing them. I want a few details I can noodle over and learn the character's story through play.

Thats been my train of thought on backstory for years.

Agreed. Sort of.

I've generally got a rough idea and don't really expect much more backstory to come out during play. The game is the interesting part of the character's life. That's why we're playing it. I've seen some PCs where the elaborate backstory seems to hold more interest for the player than what's going in the game itself.

There are exceptions, depending on the game and the genre. Superheroes usually have an origin, for example.

[TriOmegaZero]

It’s good to have ideas of where the character comes from and what they are like, but pinning them down should come during play. You discover a lot more organic character details that way rather than have a rote list.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

Why would you need multiple actions for this? There is nothing about d20 that even implies that this should be multiple actions.

There is plenty indication that it would take multiple actions to 1. pick up a table, 2. break the leg off of the table and 3. use the broken table leg for an attack.

“Interesting Character” wrote:

Yet you want to say d20-like systems would be more complicated?

That is definitely a misreading of what I said. I said that simulationist rules would make it harder to perform the table as club action than D&D currently does. Truly simulationist rules strive for realism more than mere verisimilitude, and thus would make it more in line with how an improvised weapon like a table leg would work in real life.

[Haladir]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

It’s good to have ideas of where the character comes from and what they are like, but pinning them down should come during play. You discover a lot more organic character details that way rather than have a rote list.

Totally agree!

I've seen character backstories for a 1st-level D&D-family character where such a story would indicate they should already be at least 8th or 9th level.

One real-life example from an old Pathfinder campaign: The character was a competetive track-and-field athlete who, on a sea voyage to an international competetion, was captured by pirates and sold into slavery, where his owners trained him as a gladiator, who did so well in the arena that he was able to buy his own freedom, then joined a band of privateers to hunt down pirate slavery rings, until he became shipwrecked and was befriended by sea elves, who brought him to the coastal town where the adventure began.

Dude: That's a pitch for a movie script, not the backstory of a first-level fighter!

[World's most interesting Pan]

One thing I have been thinking about is generic systems compared to those with strong setting influence on chargen. For example, Pathfinder is tied closely to Golarion. The system is basic enough it could be used in any type of setting. Though, there are elements that strongly suggest Golarion's influence. Some other systems are built entirely around a setting such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Dragon Age, etc. Then you have generic systems with zero setting influence like Savage Worlds, BRP, GURPS, etc. The setting is added afterwards in these systems.

What is your preference? A strong setting presence that gives you the exact idea of the game experience you are looking for? Or a generic system that resolves conflict at an acceptable rate and then is flavored in any way the gamers choose? Or something in between with a system that is fairly agnostic but has a well published and fleshed out setting to fall back on?

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Why would you need multiple actions for this? There is nothing about d20 that even implies that this should be multiple actions.

There is plenty indication that it would take multiple actions to 1. pick up a table, 2. break the leg off of the table and 3. use the broken table leg for an attack.

I'm curious what you are taking as indications of this as I just don't see it.

Quote:

“Interesting Character” wrote:

Yet you want to say d20-like systems would be more complicated?

That is definitely a misreading of what I said. I said that simulationist rules would make it harder to perform the table as club action than D&D currently does. Truly simulationist rules strive for realism more than mere verisimilitude, and thus would make it more in line with how an improvised weapon like a table leg would work in real life.

Seems there is some misunderstanding here.

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

I'm curious what you are taking as indications of this as I just don't see it.

The descriptions in the Players Handbook (2, 3.X, 4 and 5) and the Core Rulebook (PF1 and 2) of the different types of actions, what they entail and how the action economies of each of those games function.

The other posters gave a fair descriptions of the actions it would take depending on edition - across all of the editions I mentioned it appears to be a minimum of 2 - one being a manipulate or interact action to break the leg and the other the strike itself. But perhaps more.

What, in the rules, indicates to you that it would not take multiple actions?

“Interesting Character” wrote:

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

Then you are once again using an established term as a personal preference to define something else as you did with “storytelling” because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

[Interesting Character]

I'm going to respond in reverse order, as I think it will make more sense that way.

Quote:

because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

There is a difference between a game's design and how the game is played.

First, d20 (which is only 3ed edition of dnd and it's system's derivitives, not everything that uses a d20 die. 2e, 4e, 5e, and pf2 are not in any way part of the d20 system and are not derivatives of the system, even if they are derivatives of the brand and/or setting/lore materials.

Second, d20 is simulationist because the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world, such as measuring a character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure, and the DCs having a basis in what happens in the game world. (the alexandrian article describes this best with how rules the rules model the world: https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)

A counter example is PBtA, where the dice are not about what happens directly, but instead are about narrative control and vague abstractions.

Further, the mechanics are associated (to understand what I mean by this, read alexandrian article on dissociated mechanics: https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html), which means that the decisions the player makes, and the information they use to make them, are directly correlated with decisions made by the character and information known to the character (even if the form of the info is different. A wiard might not know about d6s worth of dmg in a fireball, but they do know that a more powerful casting of fireball will do more dmg)

Third, whether d20 by design is simulationist, is a different issue from how it is most commonly played, which in this case is in a gamist fashion.

Gamism is heavily about system mastery, mechanical balance, etc. Many, if not most, players of dnd have this as the core of their gameplay.

However, the design intent is clearly not about this, as can be seen in the rulebooks and all the places where the GM is told and encouraged to bend and break the rules in favor of story, narrative, and character concepts, and even gives examples on doing that. (page 175 of my copy of the 3.5 DMG, the sidebar "behind the curtain: Why mess with classes?" specifically addresses making reasonable accommodations for character concepts as a desirable thing.)

It is interesting to note that nearly all GMs I've had (the first three that introduced me to dnd, plus two others, are the only exceptions) have refused to do anything of the sort, even refusing to go with the examples themselves straight out of the book. This is their right as runners of the game, but also clearly against the game's intent.

Another example is how the core books detail spreading out encounter difficulties, yet the early modules that followed this paradigm as laid out in the book were met with public backlash for being "poorly balanced" so naturally, wotc published what the community was happy with despite going against their own rules to do so. An example of this is discussed in the alexandrian article here,
https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html

To quote alexandrian quoting the book (cause c&p is easier than retyping my hardcover, yes I checked my hardcover, this is on page 49 in my copy)

Quote:

the PCs should be facing a wide variety of ELs, the very next page had a chart on it that said 30% of the encounters in an adventure should have an EL lower than the PCs' level; 50% should have an EL equal to the PCs' level; 15% should have an EL 1 to 4 higher than the PCs' level; and 5% should have an EL 5+ higher than the PCs' level.

[Note: I don't generally ascribe to GNS. It seems far too simplistic. But since you seem to like it, I used it as reference here]

Quote:

What, in the rules, indicates to you that it would not take multiple actions?

Now, to clarify, I would have the attack be a separate check, but several of the previous examples had breaking the leg off the table as multiple actions, and that is the multiple actions I find odd.

Now 4e is a very heavy "mmo on paper" type design, and so being more rigid there makes sense.

The other systems you mentioned are not so rigid in design. Though, I'll admit I didn't do 2e very long and haven't touched it since shortly after 3e came out, so I might be off a bit in regards to that one.

Still, the mere existence of rule 0 is an indication that system mastery and being rigid with the rules is contrary to intent. Therefore, we really don't need to think all that hard and deeply about handling something so minor as breaking a table leg.

Also, breaking a table leg is not that hard nor time consuming, depending on the construction of the table. Put pressure on the leg end and the table itself, and pop, you've got a table leg. So comparing to real world action doesn't seem to require significant time investment. (yes, personal experience referenced)

Additionally, even in d20/3.x, playability and fun have a place which is considered in the design. This can be seen in how the simulation is there, and foundational, but simplified for ease of play, such as not distinguishing between the lesser/greater encumbrance that comes from how weight is being carried, rather it assumes weight is carried in the most efficient fashion (not to mention the not-so-simulationist details put in place for spotlight balance protection, such as only rogues being able to handle masterwork traps).

Therefore, a good way to handle breaking a leg is as a single action, it fits realworld experience, and is better for the fun and gameplay, and simulationism applies here more in what kind of check is made rather than how many actions it should take.

I'd also like to point out, that in my initial point on this, I said my personal fashion of handling it would be to make the check result influence how long it takes to get the leg off of the table, which adds risk and uncertainty to the choice of doing so.

As for the folks talking about efficiency, there are two problems with their argument, first, if grabbing a table leg is being considered, it is because the PC is weaponless and not very good at going hand-to-hand, so obviously the choice is a situational one. Second, well, she says it best,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIp_p0z4J14.

It's a game, I choose to use rules for a reason, and which rules serve that reason best depends on my reason for using the rules, and my reason for using dnd has nothing to do with gamism.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

There is a difference between a game's design and how the game is played.

...

Second, d20 is simulationist because the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world, such as measuring a character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure, and the DCs having a basis in what happens in the game world.

How in the game world does a character measure their strength? By their raw total or by their modifier?

While pondering that, by all means describe for me what part of real life is simulated by hit points, saves, the standard Dungeons and Dragons ability scores and modifiers, feats, and BAB.

Interesting Character wrote:

Further, the mechanics are associated (to understand what I mean by this, read alexandrian article on dissociated mechanics: https://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html), which means that the decisions the player makes, and the information they use to make them, are directly correlated with decisions made by the character and information known to the character (even if the form of the info is different.

Do you use any sources OTHER than Alexandrian?

Interesting Character wrote:

A wiard might not know about d6s worth of dmg in a fireball, but they do know that a more powerful casting of fireball will do more dmg)

A Simulationist system wouldn't include a fireball, because there is neither realism nor verisimilitude in a fireball.

Interesting Character wrote:

Third, whether d20 by design is simulationist, is a different issue from how it is most commonly played, which in this case is in a gamist fashion.

It was designed FOR Dungeons and Dragons, the licensing it out for other uses came after.

Interesting Character wrote:

Also, breaking a table leg is not that hard nor time consuming, depending on the construction of the table. Put pressure on the leg end and the table itself, and pop, you've got a table leg. So comparing to real world action doesn't seem to require significant time investment. (yes, personal experience referenced)

Personal experience. You broke a table leg and took it from standing table to weapon in LESS THAN SIX SECONDS? I demand proof of that.

[Haladir]

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

Then you are once again using an established term as a personal preference to define something else as you did with “storytelling” because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

I also don't think IC is using the term "spotlight balance" correctly either.

Spotlight balance is a subjective GM table management practice for trying to make sure that players have more-or-less the same amount of time at the table where their character is the focus of the story or action. As a table management practice, I don't see how game mechanics would really enter the equation.

The term has been in use in that sense since at least the mid-aughts. I first encountered it on the now-defunct website "story-games.net", and it seemed to be an understood term at the time.

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Also, breaking a table leg is not that hard nor time consuming, depending on the construction of the table. Put pressure on the leg end and the table itself, and pop, you've got a table leg. So comparing to real world action doesn't seem to require significant time investment. (yes, personal experience referenced)

Personal experience. You broke a table leg and took it from standing table to weapon in LESS THAN SIX SECONDS? I demand proof of that.

In all fairness, I think that depends on the table...

[dirtypool]

Haladir wrote:

In all fairness, I think that depends on the table...

I guess, but is a table leg that breaks in a second or two really that useful as a weapon?

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

How in the game world does a character measure their strength? By their raw total or by their modifier?

You are mistaking the representation with the thing being measured.

Go to any gym and you can measure how strong you are compared to others in any number of ways. Thus, your strength is something you can measure.

How strength is measured as a mechanic is different from the fact that strength can be measured.

Quote:

While pondering that, by all means describe for me what part of real life is simulated by hit points, saves, the standard Dungeons and Dragons ability scores and modifiers, feats, and BAB.

BAB is easy, it is just a general ability and familiarity with fighting. Someone experienced at swordplay can translate some of that experience to any fight, such as being used to the speed of attacks, recognizing weakpoints, etc. These aspects are what is represented by BAB, and this is a measurable thing.

IQ is the most reliable measurement a psychologist can make.

Wisdom is recognized as someone who easily recognizes patterns in life, such as "karma." That thing people are referencing when the "world proves you wrong" is the sort of pattern that wisdom can easily see.

Reflex save, a good example of this was when I had rebar flying at my windshield going 70 mph down the freeway and I dodged it, that was a reflex save. A poor reflex save is the guy who hit my first car that in his own words said "I saw you and froze. I couldn't do anything, not even think, I just watched it happen."

Hit points are the most abstracted, but as I said before, it is still a game and therefore isn't going to be 100% totally perfectly a simulation. It is a simplified simulation.

Quote:

Do you use any sources OTHER than Alexandrian?

I haven't seen anyone else do as good a job describing these factors even remotely as well as alexandrian.

Other sources are still pretty good, such as the angry gm and those articles haladir posted a while back about PBtA.

But the other good sources I find, are almost never touching this topic. They are about storytelling, narration, or wargaming.

Heck, you want some good sources for storytelling, try the Brandon Sanderson lectures.

For the type of simulationism that works well for gaming, I simply haven't found one as good as alexandrian, so why would would use someone else who isn't as good?

Quote:

A Simulationist system wouldn't include a fireball, because there is neither realism nor verisimilitude in a fireball.

Don't be stupid. I'm being serious here, it is only polite to return the favor.

On the off-chance you really don't understand. There is a different between realism and simulationism. Being fictional does not make something not a simulation.

Take video games, they are in essence simulations of non-real physics. You don't see them locking up computers because the physics and worlds they simulate are fake.

Heck, even just in the real world with actually simulations, engineers run fictional simulations of things to test designs before actually building them, to try and spot problems before actually building them.

Additionally, there is a goal of "feeling" real in stories both passive and interactive (including roleplaying and even storytelling games) which isn't about whether something works according to the real world's physics, but rather about giving the illusion that the fictional world is real.

Quote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Third, whether d20 by design is simulationist, is a different issue from how it is most commonly played, which in this case is in a gamist fashion.

It was designed FOR Dungeons and Dragons, the licensing it out for other uses came after.

You misunderstand. The game of dnd 3e was designed to be played one way, but most players use it in a different way. A bit like using chess pieces to play checkers. The chess pieces were designed for chess, even if the players are using them to play checkers instead.

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

Haladir wrote:

In all fairness, I think that depends on the table...

I guess, but is a table leg that breaks in a second or two really that useful as a weapon?

Of course, especially when it the nails coming loose rather than the wood breaking. Still, even a broken piece of wood can be used. Heck, try pool cues, they break even easier than most table legs, and they still get used in fights.

[Interesting Character]

Haladir wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

Then you are once again using an established term as a personal preference to define something else as you did with “storytelling” because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

I also don't think IC is using the term "spotlight balance" correctly either.

Spotlight balance is a subjective GM table management practice for trying to make sure that players have more-or-less the same amount of time at the table where their character is the focus of the story or action. As a table management practice, I don't see how game mechanics would really enter the equation.

The term has been in use in that sense since at least the mid-aughts. I first encountered it on the now-defunct website "story-games.net", and it seemed to be an understood term at the time.

This is exactly the meaning I am referencing.

I don't think the rules should be trying to handle this, but they do.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

You are mistaking the representation with the thing being measured.

Go to any gym and you can measure how strong you are compared to others in any number of ways. Thus, your strength is something you can measure.

How strength is measured as a mechanic is different from the fact that strength can be measured.

That is not, however, what you said earlier. You said: "the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world, such as measuring a character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure"

If the character measures their strength differently than I do - then your earlier statement is incorrect. Which one do you actually intend to reflect your views?

Interesting Character wrote:

BAB is easy, it is just a general ability and familiarity with fighting.

And everyone in the entire world has a general ability and familiarity with fighting?

Interesting Character wrote:

d20 is simulationist because the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world

Interesting Character wrote:

Hit points are the most abstracted, but as I said before, it is still a game

If the rules are centered on concrete things, why is one of the CENTRAL rules one that is so patently abstracted?

Interesting Character wrote:

Don't be stupid. I'm being serious here, it is only polite to return the favor.

Don't be condescending. I'm allowing you to voice your opinions despite the fact that the general consensus says exactly the opposite of what you would like to say. The least you could do is be willing to consider other perspectives without being a jerk. Everyone else has already written you off.

Interesting Character wrote:

You misunderstand. The game of dnd 3e was designed to be played one way

Yes it was designed to be played the way that is described in the PHB. Please provide some form of evidence to justify your claim that most players play it differently.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

Haladir wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

Then you are once again using an established term as a personal preference to define something else as you did with “storytelling” because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

I also don't think IC is using the term "spotlight balance" correctly either.

Spotlight balance is a subjective GM table management practice for trying to make sure that players have more-or-less the same amount of time at the table where their character is the focus of the story or action. As a table management practice, I don't see how game mechanics would really enter the equation.

The term has been in use in that sense since at least the mid-aughts. I first encountered it on the now-defunct website "story-games.net", and it seemed to be an understood term at the time.

This is exactly the meaning I am referencing.

I don't think the rules should be trying to handle this, but they do.

The rules don't try to handle this, that is why it is described as a table management practice and not a rule.

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

You are mistaking the representation with the thing being measured.

Go to any gym and you can measure how strong you are compared to others in any number of ways. Thus, your strength is something you can measure.

How strength is measured as a mechanic is different from the fact that strength can be measured.

That is not, however, what you said earlier. You said: "the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world, such as measuring a character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure"

If the character measures their strength differently than I do - then your earlier statement is incorrect. Which one do you actually intend to reflect your views?

You misunderstood. A character can measure the protection of a suit of armor. A character cannot measure things like "plot armor." This is what I meant by "character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure.

Quote:

Interesting Character wrote:

BAB is easy, it is just a general ability and familiarity with fighting.

And everyone in the entire world has a general ability and familiarity with fighting?

Nope. If you look at the rules, you'll notice that most people in the world are level 1 in an npc class with a bab of 0. Thus, most people do not have familiarity with fighting.

Generally speaking, if a character has become a higher level, they almost certainly have enough initiative and general capacity to react better than the common person that has a 0 bab, even if it isn't exactly as good as a combat trained person. To be fair, this is an imperfection, but doesn't generally come into play, so it's insignificant enough that it can be left for the GM to account for it if it somehow actually mattered in the game.

Quote:

Interesting Character wrote:

d20 is simulationist because the rules are centered on the concrete stuff of the game world

Interesting Character wrote:

Hit points are the most abstracted, but as I said before, it is still a game

If the rules are centered on concrete things, why is one of the CENTRAL rules one that is so patently abstracted?

Because it is a game, and this is one of the most important points for making things fun, and also one of the most difficult to simulate in a way that could actually be played. (though I'd like to think that my attempt is workable and fun)

Quote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Don't be stupid. I'm being serious here, it is only polite to return the favor.

Don't be condescending. I'm allowing you to voice your opinions despite the fact that the general consensus says exactly the opposite of what you would like to say. The least you could do is be willing to consider other perspectives without being a jerk. Everyone else has already written you off.

And yet, you asked a question that is very difficult to believe was legitimate. I answered it just in case anyway.

Quote:

Interesting Character wrote:

You misunderstand. The game of dnd 3e was designed to be played one way

Yes it was designed to be played the way that is described in the PHB. Please provide some form of evidence to justify your claim that most players play it differently.

You presume that your reading of the book imparted upon you the exact same understanding that the authors intended. The authors weren't the best writers, and no human language is anywhere near perfect enough for a reader to 100% understand the exact intent of a writer even if the writer is an amazing writer.

Additionally, most people do not read rulebooks from cover to cover to gain a full understanding of the rules, and that applies to all games, not just rpgs. Most people learn a game through play without reading the rules, so generally only a few fully read the rules, and from there you get a distorted understanding of the rules, much like how in the game of telephone, the message gets ever more distorted.

Both of these effects mean that it is a terrible idea to believe that most players have a great understanding of the rules as written.

Further, I already provided evidence when I made the claim. If you'd like to dispute that evidence, please tell me what's wrong with it.

[Interesting Character]

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

Haladir wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

3.x is the kind of simulationist system I was referencing. It's foundation is simulationist, tempered by playability. It also encodes a bit of spotlight balance, which I don't care about. However, it is still a simulationist system and highly associated.

Then you are once again using an established term as a personal preference to define something else as you did with “storytelling” because in GNS theory 3.X is a predominantly Gamist system with additional Simulationist elements.

I also don't think IC is using the term "spotlight balance" correctly either.

Spotlight balance is a subjective GM table management practice for trying to make sure that players have more-or-less the same amount of time at the table where their character is the focus of the story or action. As a table management practice, I don't see how game mechanics would really enter the equation.

The term has been in use in that sense since at least the mid-aughts. I first encountered it on the now-defunct website "story-games.net", and it seemed to be an understood term at the time.

This is exactly the meaning I am referencing.

I don't think the rules should be trying to handle this, but they do.

The rules don't try to handle this, that is why it is described as a table management practice and not a rule.

On the contrary, most systems don't handle it, but dnd does, as do most mmos. It is the primary purpose behind most class based mechanics. The whole point of a class is to carve out a niche activity for a character to excel at while having weaknesses covered by other classes. This very basic structure is by default a spotlight protection tool. All a gm has to do is make sure that each type of activity has even screen tiem and the class structure does the rest. Got a rogue? Setup a trap, and the rogue has something to do that no one else can. Got a fighter, setup a bunch of weak enemies. Got a wizard? Have dynamic and varied encounters of mixed tactics. Got a healer? Have extended encounters to wear the health down of the party.

Classes prevent all players being awesome at everything. Players having clear roles to fill makes it much much easier to prevent a single player from hogging all the attention.

Thus, yes, dnd does have mechanics for spotlight protection, but even so, it still requires a gm to manage it at the table. The mechanics just make it easier for the gm to do so.

That said, most rpgs and storygames have a need for spotlight protection and thus there is general advice, and general advice will naturally focus on the table management which is arguably the key part and applies to any system.

[TriOmegaZero]

Class based mechanics don't ensure equal spotlight between players. If the GM doesn't include traps, the rogue does not get to fill their trapfinding role. If the GM doesn't include political negotiations, the cleric/sorcerer doesn't get to fulfill their role as a face. The rules do not enforce time-sharing between them.

[dirtypool]

Interesting Character wrote:

You misunderstood. A character can measure the protection of a suit of armor. A character cannot measure things like "plot armor." This is what I meant by "character's abilities in ways that even the characters could measure.

Neither armor nor plot armor answer my question. You claimed that PC's could measure their strength via the simulationist system. I asked if they measured using the raw score or the modifier. You must have misunderstood.

Interesting Character wrote:

Nope. If you look at the rules, you'll notice that most people in the world are level 1 in an npc class with a bab of 0. Thus, most people do not have familiarity with fighting.

Clearly you misunderstood, because I didn't ask you what BAB was IN WORLD, I asked you to define what aspect of the real world it accurately simulates.

Interesting Character wrote:

Generally speaking, if a character has become a higher level

Another great point... the Simulationist D20 system is simulating what aspect of the real world by using a level based system?

Interesting Character wrote:

Because it is a game, and this is one of the most important points for making things fun, and also one of the most difficult to simulate in a way that could actually be played. (though I'd like to think that my attempt is workable and fun).

Right, which is why GNS theory defines D&D 3.X as primarily GAMIST and not simulationist. Clearly you're misunderstanding the source material of GNS theory.

Interesting Character wrote:

And yet, you asked a question that is very difficult to believe was legitimate. I answered it just in case anyway.

Actually, as you can read below - the name calling in question came after you brought up the fireball spell into the muddy waters of simulationism and gamism that you're not quite navigating very well:

dirtypool wrote:

Interesting Character wrote:

A wiard might not know about d6s worth of dmg in a fireball, but they do know that a more powerful casting of fireball will do more dmg)

A Simulationist system wouldn't include a fireball, because there is neither realism nor verisimilitude in a fireball.

Interesting Character wrote:

You presume that your reading of the book imparted upon you the exact same understanding that the authors intended. The authors weren't the best writers, and no human language is anywhere near perfect enough for a reader to 100% understand the exact intent of a writer even if the writer is an amazing writer.

Additionally, most people do not read rulebooks from cover to cover to gain a full understanding of the rules, and that applies to all games, not just rpgs. Most people learn a game through play without reading the rules, so generally only a few fully read the rules, and from there you get a distorted understanding of the rules, much like how in the game of telephone, the message gets ever more distorted.

Both of these effects mean that it is a terrible idea to believe that most players have a great understanding of the rules as written.

And yet YOU have it figured out. You alone are smart enough to understand a book targeted for people age 14+. You who has been bloviating on the topic of system ideology for SIX MONTHS without being able to express your point in a way that anyone on this forum can agree with. You who call into question the quality of the designers and writers of these games while failing time and again yourself to write out your own views. You who argued with James Jacob about what he intended with the book that he wrote about the game that he designed. You are the arbiter of all things game and rest of us are wrong...

We know all of this because of the way that WOTC is notorious for telling people that they play the game wrong. In the way that the live streams they champion and use to promote those products are brought to heel when they get it wrong by playing the game the way the rest of us do.

Interesting Character wrote:

Of course, especially when it the nails coming loose rather than the wood breaking.

That shows a lack of understanding of how tables are typically constructed - I thought you claimed to have experience breaking legs off of tables to use as weapons. You think if you had you'd at least know how that table was built.

Interesting Character wrote:

Still, even a broken piece of wood can be used.

How many tries do you think it takes to turn a six inch spun leg into a "broken piece of wood" you can use as a weapon?

Interesting Character wrote:

Heck, try pool cues, they break even easier than most table legs, and they still get used in fights.

They get used in fights in movies, in bars when someone tries to snap a pool cue across his leg to use as a weapon they often get punched in the face before being able to complete their attempt. At best they miscalculate the amount of force needed and simply fail to break it, at worst they come face to face with a very real world concept known as the "solid core" and end up with slightly less leg bone than they started with.

Interesting Character wrote:

On the contrary, most systems don't handle it, but dnd does, as do most mmos. It is the primary purpose behind most class based mechanics. The whole point of a class is to carve out a niche activity for a character to excel at while having weaknesses covered by other classes. This very basic structure is by default a spotlight protection tool. All a gm has to do is make sure that each type of activity has even screen tiem and the class structure does the rest. Got a rogue? Setup a trap, and the rogue has something to do that no one else can. Got a fighter, setup a bunch of weak enemies. Got a wizard? Have dynamic and varied encounters of mixed tactics. Got a healer? Have extended encounters to wear the health down of the party.

Classes prevent all players being awesome at everything. Players having clear roles to fill makes it much much easier to prevent a single player from hogging all the attention.

Thus, yes, dnd does have mechanics for spotlight protection, but even so, it still requires a gm to manage it at the table. The mechanics just make it easier for the gm to do so.

That said, most rpgs and storygames have a need for spotlight protection and thus there is general advice, and general advice will naturally focus on the table management which is arguably the key part and applies to any system.

Okay, so two posts ago when you told Haladir you did know what "Spotlight Balance" meant and that you were referring to the exact same term he referenced - you were what? Misunderstanding yet again, because here you are saying it's the opposite of what Haladir said when before you were saying it was what Haladir said.

Take the trolling somewhere else, I've finally had my fill.

[Interesting Character]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Class based mechanics don't ensure equal spotlight between players. If the GM doesn't include traps, the rogue does not get to fill their trapfinding role. If the GM doesn't include political negotiations, the cleric/sorcerer doesn't get to fulfill their role as a face. The rules do not enforce time-sharing between them.

I never said the rules ensure anything. I just got done saying they provide a tool that makes it easier for the gm to do it.

[TriOmegaZero]

No, D&D does not provide a tool in the rules. Plenty of people have provided advice, but the rules do not.