Topic: Game focus: characters or world simulation?

[Arioch]

I quote here what I've said in another topic (rolemaster issues), as imho it's better to discuss separately what I think is one of the greatest problems of RM:

Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)

Imho this is the only real problem in you list, the others are just very minor issues, mostly personal preferences that aren't really related to problems in the game structure.
You don't like those things, but even changing them you'll add nothing or very little to the game, because you'll leave some gaps in the "internal logic" of the system unchanged.

Why I said that "crits are too random" is the only real issue in you list? Because IMHO it underlines one of the "internal logic" problems I mentioned above. RM gives you a very detailed character creation, you can basically make any character you want and you'll know everything about him/her. This would suggest that PCs are really important in the game (not inside the game world, but wihtin the scope of the game), but then RM doesn't give you any mean to build stories around the characters you created or to bring into play the bits of your character that you would like to explore/expand.
Quite the contrary, it makes characters almost irrelevant to the game flow, granting them of the same attention that it gives to every NPCs in the game world. Yes, Fate Points are a sort of patch to fix a part of this problem (preventing PCs to be killed randomly), but they still fail to solve it completely, as we still lack a way to make characters important. Note that by important I don't mean powerful, I mean important for the story, what lack are ways to make the game focus on characters' motivations, beliefs, fears...
So: do we want RM to focus on characters, maintaining and maybe developing further its character creation system, or do we want it to focus on lethal combat and real-life simulation? I think we cannot have both.

So, what do you think? 

[GrumpyOldFart]

In order to survive in the marketplace against video game "RPGs" etc, I think classical RPGs ultimately have no choice but to concentrate on the roleplaying, character and story creation aspects of the game. To be fair, I'm biased, I'd like to see them do that anyway.
But consider: An RPG on a PS3 or 360 or whatever, has all of the game mechanics so far in the background that they vanish completely. It's an unavoidable function of the fact that they are, at heart, simple computers. Traditional RPGs can't compete with that, nor will they ever, it's designed in to the differences between the two forms of gaming. For that reason, you always need to make the mechanics and math as simple and unobtrusive as you can.
Sensory and emotional engagement/immersion is where the two forms actually compete. I have my own opinions about that, but I'll save them for another time.
Traditional RPGs have their own space where video RPGs, MMOs etc. not only don't compete but cannot by their very nature, just as video games have an unerasable edge in making the math invisible. That's in being able to tailor the game (even on the fly) to suit the peculiarities of a particular group of players/GM/*that* night combination. Innovation to suit a particular set of circumstances, among them a particular GM's evil sense of humor.
We won't get invisible math til RL cyberware becomes common among gamers. They won't get innovation from pre-packaged games until we get true Artificial Intelligence, rather than Artificial Stupidity as we have now. Don't get me wrong, we've come a LONG way in my lifetime to get to Artificial Stupidity. Nonetheless, that's what computer "logic" is.
Given that, yeah I think concentrating on character creation and story creation is good, quite aside from it being in line with my personal preferences. The math and the mechanics need to be as simple and elegant as possible, other wise they're an irritant.

However

All that said, I think it's neither desirable nor necessary to give up realism. Note that I said "realism" rather than "realistic simulation". The point is not to accurately model RL, that would be too complex and not any fun most of the time. Any system with rules concerning food and drink and no rules concerning going to the privy is obviously not accurately modeling RL, but none of us mind.
"Realism" is another thing entirely, and has to do with scenarios being perceived as 3 dimensional, as having "depth", as being internally logical. The only thing that makes "playing a role" viable as a form of entertainment is having the game reward innovation, wit and creativity rather than other, more traditional attributes. And the player cannot hope to make his character believable if the game system doesn't give the GM the tools to make his setting and circumstances believable, and create believable interactions between them.
So.... "realistic"? Not necessary really, in and of itself. But it's a prime component of "believable" which IS necessary. More necessary in a fantasy than it is in RL modeling, in fact. And I think the lethality is part of that. Someone once told me, "RPGs are games played with fake blood and real fear." If the emotional involvement isn't real, playing it makes no more sense than going to a movie that left you yawning the last time you saw it.

[pastaav]

I doubt there is really a conflict between characters and world simulation. There are quite many Forge-people that argue contrary and claim that all mainstream RPGs is flawed since they don't focus on some single gaming aspect. I don't really care about their opinion, what the say don't match what I experience so I see little point with trying to adjust RM to what they propose. The problem for RM has always been the presentation and not the actual rules or the style of gaming that the rules allow.

[Arioch]

@ GrumpyOldFart: imho tabletop RPG industry cannot compete in any way with videogames industry, so I'd leave comparations between the two aside, at least for the moment.

"Realism" is another thing entirely, and has to do with scenarios being perceived as 3 dimensional, as having "depth", as being internally logical. The only thing that makes "playing a role" viable as a form of entertainment is having the game reward innovation, wit and creativity rather than other, more traditional attributes.

I agree, and in fact I spoke of RL simulation rather than "realism". However I think that a RPG system should do more than just reward creativity: it should encourage it with his own mechanics.

Someone once told me, "RPGs are games played with fake blood and real fear." If the emotional involvement isn't real, playing it makes no more sense than going to a movie that left you yawning the last time you saw it.

I couldn't agree more! And that's why I think that we should find better ways to emotionally involve players in the game, to make really important what they want to be important!
I've nothing against the lethality of combat... as long as it enhances the emotional involvment of the players! But... what if a PC dies in what his player thinks is a meaningless fight? Isn't that going to kill his involvment in the game?

I doubt there is really a conflict between characters and world simulation. There are quite many Forge-people that argue contrary and claim that all mainstream RPGs is flawed since they don't focus on some single gaming aspect.

People at the Forge are a bit extreme in their view imho, but they're not totally wrong: there is indeed a conflict between characters and world simulation, and the spread of rules (both house rules and official rules), like Fate Points, or of the pratice to cheat and fudge rolls by the GM to limit RM's deadliness is a clear evidence of that.

[RandalThor]

I agree with pastaav about the packaging of RM and would love to see it get better. But that is secondary to the question posed on this thread.

Character or World Simulation - I definitely don't like - and don't think they have to be counterpoints - the "or" there. The way I see it, to get a character centered game, you have two choices: First, the GM does all this work on the rules to make them less deadly and he cheats anyway, as we all know the dice will fail much of the time (nature of the beast). Second is to put some of the fate into the hands of the players with things like fate points. I guess there is a third where you sort of (or completely) combine the two methods.

But, I guess all of this is dependant upon if the game has a campaign in which these characters are critically important. If so, then you better do something or else the rules will destroy your nice story - and right quick too. If not, then it doesn't matter, does it? If anybody can go on the presented adventures, then it doesn't matter if the PCs die, they aren't really important anyway. (Power up the clone factory 'cause we gonna go through lots'o'dem!!)

Personally, I like the first style of campaign so I prefer to make my games more survivable without being too unrealistic (or, I should say, lacking too much "realism" - which I definitely prefer).

PS: Rewarding something is encouraging it. Give a dog a treat.........

[thrud]

A lenient GM will definately make a difference in the survival rate. If done right you'll never ever notice the GM beeing nice, you'll be busy almost dying or getting crippled. 

Imho it's vital to keep the focus on the pc's. If you never get to develop your character it doesn't matter how pretty the world is. Luckily for us the relationship with character development and world development are symbiotic. You start out with creating a living breathing person with a history and character, then you make him/hercome alive in a rich environment full of challenges.

I'm not really sure that I understand the question? My experience is that RM does give you more than pretty much any other RPG out there? Sure we could use a "GM Law" and a "Player Law" which could make it even better but RM is far from lacking. If you think my answer is fuzzy or confusing, please refrase the question since I most likely missed the point?

[giulio.trimarco]

Lethal combat, realism and roleplay aren't exclusive.

I'm one of the people that love RPG that treat PC and NPC the some.
The RM random problem, imho, is a mechanic problem, ins't tied to how RM treat PC. In fact character creation can have same defects, but imho is well balanced and gives the right feel of heroes.

I hate games, like the D&D latest edition, in witch we have the PC are on level 10000, from beginning, and the rest of the world is on level 1, even with different rules etc.

Story realism, mortality and realistic mechanics can cohexists in RPG and produce a very interesting mix. Another thing is mechanics that dispose of PC in random, incoherent way.

To me RPG that implement only one of the ingredients are simply... lacking something.

[Arioch]

Warning:it's a bit long 

I'm not really sure that I understand the question? My experience is that RM does give you more than pretty much any other RPG out there? Sure we could use a "GM Law" and a "Player Law" which could make it even better but RM is far from lacking. If you think my answer is fuzzy or confusing, please refrase the question since I most likely missed the point?

Yes, I think that it's better for me to reformulate what I said to make it a bit clearer:

What I'm trying to say here is that I think that RM rules system has a flaw in its internal logic: it's basically trying to do two things, each of them being the opposite of the other.
It tries to simulate a fantasy world, to be a set of "physical" rules of that world, to which all characters must obey at the same manner. A world where what the characters (and, more importantly, their players) want doesn't mean anything, as they're just like all others inhabitants of the world.
And, at the same time it tries to have you use your characters to tell a story where they are the protagonists, the most important people in the world (again, by important I don't mean powerful! You can be a simple farmer doing ordinary things all day, but if you're the protagonist of a story, you're the most important person in it!).
In other words, RM tries to be both a sort of "google earth", which let you see all the world at the same time and gives you the same amount of detail for everything (yes, you can zoom on something with google earth, but that's just an example...) and a detailed biography on your characters' lives. 

I've got nothing against both of things, but I think they're mutually exclusive. And this sort of "schizophrenia" IMHO is the cause of a lot of problems that we often complain about or try to find a solution to here on the boards.
I'm talking of problems like:
- skill bloat: I realized that the number of skills is a false problem. The real problem is not the number of skills, but their importance (I can hear you say:"well yes, we already knew that!" but let me finish  ).
If you're trying to simulate a world then it's quite logical to have an almost infinite number of skills and it's also logical that some skills will be less useful than others.
OTOH if you want to make your characters the protagonists the system should make sure that all of your character skills are equally important. If you spend ranks in cooking it's probably because it's an aspect of your character that you think is important and you'd like to explore. So the rules should give you a way to do that, to make stories about your character cooking. 
- randomness of criticals: again, if you're trying to simulate a world, then critical randomness isn't a real problem, the problem is that you spend 30+ minutes making a sheet for your character, which maybe will die after 5 minutes of play...
If instead you're trying to make your character the protagonist of a story... well, then such randomness is a problem! I'm not saying that your character shouldn't die at all, but just that he shouldn't die doing things that you think are meaningless (like, you know, fighting that kobold just before the Big Bad Boss  ).
 
So, I'm NOT saying "hey guys, let's scrap realism and make all PCs invincible heroes above all others characters in the world!".
I'm saying: "let's find a way to be sure that RM does what we want it to do!".

[giulio.trimarco]

Arioch,

I think I've understood what you mean, but I think you are a bit off road.

A good RPG system is a system (not world) that allow GM and players to play in different ways.
PC are the protagonists of the story the they tell with the GM. Their actions, failures and successes tell HOW they are and HOW BIG they are.

Mortality, mechanics and other factor are peculiarities on the style of play.
An heroes isn't an heros because elude the force of gravity, or because kills 100 orcs.

An heroes is an heros becouse in the story he does things that NO ONE of the other NPC will dare to try.

If the story is about fireworker saving babies, ok. An hero is a fireworker that will climb in a burning building near collapese, with all other fireworkers and baystender frezzed in apprehension.
If the story is about killing dragons, you PC will be an hero killing 10 dragons, while the local militia will kill only one... 

The system, it's mechanics must be "open-ended". Do you need cooking? Ok, the GM (and creative player) will found an use in it.
Do you need rappeling, the some as above.

Now RM is a good system, does many thing right, many so and so and some wrong (IMHO).
You must select from the market the system that most fit you, and adjust it to your needs.

The random crits that kill an PC is a "bug" for me, but this doesn't mean a system that contradict itself.

I play an highly realistic, highly mortal game system. My heroes have repulsed an attack by 7 barbarians, killing 2 and routing other 5, while local militia screams in terror.
Any of the PC reported wounds (that aren't said to heal), but nonentheless their heroes.

[pastaav]

The RM random problem, imho, is a mechanic problem, ins't tied to how RM treat PC.

How is it a mechanic problem? You seem to talk a lot about really heroic action...but how are you to be a hero if you can't kill the big bad?

I have spent lots of games with heroes fighting very superior enemies and the fact that noobs can kill a superior enemy is what makes such heroics possible.

A change of RM so that A,B and C criticals can't kill would fit very well with D&D players-are-heroes-that butchers-armies but would not IMHO fit a game that promote real heroic deeds.

Story realism, mortality and realistic mechanics can cohexists in RPG and produce a very interesting mix. Another thing is mechanics that dispose of PC in random, incoherent way.

What is random about getting killed by a A critical? The character suffer the critical exactly because the situation is too dangerous and the character did not parry enough to compensate.

It is given that players who don't get the point with parries might find the critical randomness troublesome but their real problem IMHO is that they are using a strategy that best can be described as playing Russian roulette.

[Arioch]

A good RPG system is a system (not world) that allow GM and players to play in different ways.
PC are the protagonists of the story the they tell with the GM. Their actions, failures and successes tell HOW they are and HOW BIG they are.

Mortality, mechanics and other factor are peculiarities on the style of play.
An heroes isn't an heros because elude the force of gravity, or because kills 100 orcs.

From this part I understand that probably I haven't explained very well what I wanted to say:

I agree with you. I don't want the PCs to be super-heroes. I want them to do normal things, to die if they act foolishly in a fight, etc.
But, at the same time, I want them to be the protagonists of the story I'm creating using RM. I want their action to be important.
Not important for the world in which we're playing in, important for us, for the players.
And I think that the system should support us in accomplishing this goal.

[giulio.trimarco]

Pastaav,

it seems to me that you missed the point here.


Arioch,
RM has some issues, as already exaplained, but the one you pose in this thread isn't.
In my replay (above) I wasn't speaking about "power level" but to how your PC can be an hero.

If, in your game, cooking isn't important, don't use it.
The campaign, naturally, will focus on some aspect of the life of an hero, be it a warrior, a fireworkers or a chef.
Naturally some skills will overly useful, useful or totally unuseful.
This is normal.

[Arioch]

RM has some issues, as already exaplained, but the one you pose in this thread isn't.
In my replay (above) I wasn't speaking about "power level" but to how your PC can be an hero.

If, in your game, cooking isn't important, don't use it.

It's not that easy, I think. 

So, and what is cooking is important for me, for my character concept? Should i just buy ranks in it and hope that someday the GM will find a way to make me use it?
Wouldn't be much cooler if the system itself provided a way to make sure that this part of my character concept will come out when I play?

[giulio.trimarco]

I'm a GM from 17 years now.
I've used different games and different styles.

A good GM will be pay attention to every PC, how a player will develop and introduce in the "game" (not system), situation in witch differnt skills are useful.

One thing that RM do right is the skill development/profession mindset. Free, open and fun.

You could have a book that details how to make potions with the cook skill. How to make armors with the weaponcraft skills, etc.
But if your GM will create only dungeon adventures... it's pointless.

Skills must be developed by the players, but a GM must push in that direction. When I play with new players, that know only the D&D play style, I will roll with them.
Combat focused PC. Kill, smash, maim.

Ok. Right.

The first time that a PC catch a cold (and no one has the physician skill), that's interesting.
Tracking, to find food.
A sword that will damaged in the middle of a fight... and in the dungeon no one has a skill of "repair" one.
The first time that donning a complete plate armor day and night will give fatige to a PC... and thay can't dodge.
When serching for an  healing herbs is necessary, since wounds aren't said to be healing by itslef (1PF a day...  ).

The GM must push players to create all round PC and the stories MUST make use of the skills.
If you like to be a chef, you GM should gives you opportunities to make fold, friends or whatever through his art...

I'm not very well at english, so it's my fault if I'm not so clear.

[Arioch]

A good GM will be pay attention to every PC, how a player will develop and introduce in the "game" (not system), situation in witch differnt skills are useful.

See what's my point?
Why should be the GM charged with this responsability? It didn't worked very well untill now, as there are a lot of people that complain that there are too many skills, that some are useless or that their characters die in meaningless fights...
Plus, how can the help you making the character you want to play? By reading in your mind? 
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tease you, is just a little provocation).
And, finally:

I'm a GM from 17 years now.

Yes, so you've 17 years of experience... what about someone who has just started to play?

[giulio.trimarco]

Yes, so you've 17 years of experience... what about someone who has just started to play?

I will replay to the rest when I've a bit more time. For this sentence:

TRY everithing! And post on a forum (thank Internet) to get advices.

The best game system, with the worst GM is the WORST GAME SYSTEM!!!
And another thing: have you asked to the other players why cooking is useless? Have they clear what they could do with that skill? They use a little fantasy and creativity?

More later,  time short 

[thrud]

What I'm trying to say here is that I think that RM rules system has a flaw in its internal logic: it's basically trying to do two things, each of them being the opposite of the other.
It tries to simulate a fantasy world, to be a set of "physical" rules of that world, to which all characters must obey at the same manner. A world where what the characters (and, more importantly, their players) want doesn't mean anything, as they're just like all others inhabitants of the world.
And, at the same time it tries to have you use your characters to tell a story where they are the protagonists, the most important people in the world (again, by important I don't mean powerful! You can be a simple farmer doing ordinary things all day, but if you're the protagonist of a story, you're the most important person in it!).

OK, I think I follow now.
Heroic stories like the ones we read in books are not very realistic but they are great fun to read.
Rolemaster as compared to other games is one of the most realistic rules set there is.
How do you play out something unrealistic like those heroic stories in a realistic rules set?
There really is only one answer to that one. You cheat like crazy.  
Really, it's your job as a GM to provide the magic for the players. You provide the story in which they are the main characters. You provide the tools and the obstacles but it's up to them to solve it. A level 1 farmer is not very likely to be the hero saving the princess from the dragon and you as a GM are smart enough to realise this. Thus you let the farmer go on some other adventure where he can begin his journey towards becoming the great dragon slayer. 10 levels later he can take a crack at saving the princess...

If you want the characters to survive you adjust the dangers. Maybe you fudge a die roll every now and then? Perhaps a budding hero dies but he can be resurrected? The important thing is for the party is to feel they are in danger. If you tell them that they are going to survive the next 10 levels and need not worry, well then you're a tool and I can't really help you there. Maybe they are not all crucial to the story and maybe one or more need to be sacrificed at some point? Maybe they are stuid and f** up? Stupidity should be punished...

What's my point?
What you're describing isn't really a problem with the game mechanics. It's a GM problem that you need to figure out on your own.

Ugh, two more answers... I'll have to adress that later.

[Mungo]

Hi,

I love the randomness of the criticals. Because dying in combat is rather random AND it makes the PCs think twice before rushing into battle (in my group we always rush into it at the end, but at least we did discuss it every time beforehand ).

So the mechanic we use in order to avoid meaningless death are fate points. Characters get 1/level, so they are a rare ressource and not spent lightly, but they allow in our group any roll to be rerolled.

So to the randomness is not a bug but a feature. And as there are ways to prevent meaningless death -> please don't change it.

BR Juergen

[giulio.trimarco]

Hi,

I think Arioch doesn't refer only to combat.

(click to show/hide)

RM isn't realistic (at least not in the strict sense). Dying from a single blow doen't make RM realistic.

As already explained an A critical is a light wound (hits are only a light punch), that should not be mortal.
Otherwise why whe have B,C,D,E?

But this is another issue. With a specific thread

In addition cheating isn't a viable option for using with expert player. The feeling of accomplishment, when you know that your GM is cheating isn't there. Moreover the player will develop a sense of "inability" to gouge situations, since the GM use his discretion in the various situations.
The system is a contract between the players and the GM. A single, common base, on witch the story is told.

See what's my point?
Why should be the GM charged with this responsability? It didn't worked very well untill now, as there are a lot of people that complain that there are too many skills, that some are useless or that their characters die in meaningless fights...
Plus, how can the help you making the character you want to play? By reading in your mind?  Grin
(Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tease you, is just a little provocation).

The GM must charge this responsability, otherwise is little more than an encounter generator.
Since many starting (and not) GM are mediocre, at best, it's a group work to shift from a shallow gameplay style to a more deep, satysfing style.

In my rulesystem there is a skill: weatherlore.
The rules say: The ability to asses the weather condition in the next 4 hours.

Stop. No more details.
Well all my PC (4) have weatherlore well developed. Why? Because if they are under the rain, with cold climate, they will catch a cold. And gain some penalties, until healed. And I added, with incremental penalties, the possibility to check weather for the next 36 hours.
This is a GM input, not "by the book" rule.

The system can give some advice, suggestion, but the work of fantasy is by player and GM.

[dreameling]

I do not see character and world simulation, or narrativism and simulationism, as opposed either. If anything, the latter can provide an excellent context for the former. Granted, RM is a simulationist system where a lot - if not most - of the narrativism or outright dramatic heroism is up to the GM and the players, but I don't see this is as a problem or as an indication that the system is somehow inherently schizophrenic. RM provides you with the ground rules, and then you take it from there. You play RM the way that serves the kind of game you want to play the best.

Moreover, even though in RM the rules apply equally to all, this does not mean that all are equal. You can create characters who are way above average. Random criticals can still kill, but if, for example, your DB is phenomenal thanks to superior stats and skills and whatnot, it's less likely that this happens. My RMSS L19 warrior monk has an unmodified DB of 166, MA OB of 198, and a base initiative of 17. He's pretty special in a fight.

And even random criticals need not be random: The GM can and should cheat, if necessary, as people have already pointed out. Personally, I'm happy with the illusion of unforgiving randomness (provided it's not too obvious an illusion). If my GM chooses to downgrade a deadly critical with me none the wiser, more power to that beautiful, beautiful man.

Now, if you absolutely do not want to cheat, if you think that the need to cheat is symptomatic of a flaw in the system, then extend or change the rules. RM is a wonderful system in that it's very easy to create house rules for it without breaking things too much.