Practical Ways to Modify the Modern RPG

[Josh_Kablack]

Seeing where this thread is, I don't feel bad about nitpicking a tangential point with images:

You lost more thoroughly than anyone has ever lost anything.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Seeing where this thread is, I don't feel bad about nitpicking a tangential point with images:

You lost more thoroughly than anyone has ever lost anything.

Well, honestly, I'm pretty sure that Frank's statement, taken literally, is a contradiction even if the person in question has lost more thoroughly than anyone else, because they still haven't lost more thoroughly than they just lost.

[Cyberzombie]

Cyberzombie: your examples are bullshit. 2nd edition AD&D is fast because you don't have any choices to make, not because simultaneous declarations doesn't slow the game down. Computer games are sped up by simultaneous declarations because networked computers are capable of "listening" to multiple people simultaneously, allowing moves to be literally interpreted simultaneously. Citing either of these things as evidence that simultaneous declaration doesn't slow down a tabletop RPG is somewhere between "confused" and "dishonest." I know it can be hard to admit you're wrong when you've been called on your bullshit by PhoneLobster because he argues like a crazy person - but you are wrong.

Wow you don't listen at all, do you?

Simultaneous declarations are flat out faster in concept, that's why computers use them. Whether you're using sequential or simultaneous declaration, it's necessary to take the same time to listen to each person. The thing simultaneous does is let everyone think and decide at the same time.

And yes, there's overhead to do simultaneous declaration, but sometimes that overhead takes less time than the amount of time your PC takes to think. Just because your group happened to decide faster than the overhead time doesn't mean that's true of every group. I realize you think the world begins and ends with your gaming group, but it doesn't. There are gaming groups out there with different think times.

If your simultaneous declaration overhead time takes 2 minutes, and you have two PCs in your group who average 3 minutes of think time when their actions come up, then simultaneous declaration will take 5 minutes and sequential will take you 6 minutes. That's simple arithmetic and it shows that simultaneous will be faster in cases where you have multiple PCs with large think times. Which is what I've been saying all along.

[Zak S]

Zak S: Holy balls. Are you still at this? You fucking lost. You lost more thoroughly than anyone has ever lost anything. You claimed that you were able to make rulings consistently better than rules in less time than it takes to look something up in a book with a decent index or a searchable pdf. Then you issued a challenge to yourself to prove that you were capable of doing that. Then you fucking failed to deliver.

Actually: I delivered. Completely. The objections easily addressed boiled down to "WELL…………that only produces the game…..you want to play…and all your players want to play…so….piss off."

In short: that your definition of a "good ruling" had been reduced to "a ruling you personally think is acceptable" which is fucking circular and you still didn't even meet the time constraints you jackass.

Incorrect: the whole fucking point of a ruling is it's local (not to me, to the game. I have to run it to test it, it has to make the whole group happy. And it works so far. Very well. Despite not meeting the reams of hidden requirements that you guys pulled out of your asses after you realized moving the goalposts was the only way to win.). Asking me to make someone who I wouldn't have at my table happy with it is missing the point. (And the time constraint is a lie, because the guy asked for a whole fucking subsystem rather than a ruling, which I kindly and generously obliged even though it was totally outside what I asked to do.)

Now: you can go back and read the thread if you forgot and while you do that, stop derailing with lying about me and let everyone go back to whatever this thread is supposed to be about.

[TiaC]

So when he said "What about a social currency system? Oh, and no apple stacking." and you replied with one that totally used apple stacking, that was in fact what he asked for? I call bullshit.

[Zak S]

1. Where are you on whether anyone here is lying or deceived as to their own group's reaction to the rules they've got? If you think they are: where is your evidence?

It's not that those people are lying, but the Dunning-Kruger effect is a real thing and people are really bad at assessing how good they are at things.

That isn't evidence that that happened, it's a description of a mechanism by which it could. Do you know what evidence means?

2. On the issue of the utility of designing for an observed group and then tossing it out in case someone else wants it vs. assessing a broad middle and designing for them?

3. If you would design for the presumed broad middle, is the motive only economic? Why bother then considering there isn't much money to be made anyway?

While an RPG made for a wide audience may or may not be successful, I don't see it doing better than one developed just for your gaming group.

Who cares? That's irrelevant. If money is the goal: stop talking about designing tabletop RPGs altogether.

4. Given the clear and cited refutation of everything lobster just said, how is it that you stand behind it? Why not simply go "Lobster, you're nuts, stop typing things like that, it slows the process of anyone learning anything down enormously."

One again PL is a dick but you haven't refuted any of his arguments, like at all.

He misquoted me and claimed my group didn't exist. I linked to the explanation of his misquote and pointed to the enormous amount of evidence that it did. Done. Sorted.

5. And, re: the minor side issue of my own games and their alleged irrelevance or special teaparty status here: Cite evidence or stop making claims.

When you resolve outcomes by fiat that's what we in the Den call Magic Tea Party or MTP for short.

…and I've explained before (conveniently, in the aforelinked thread) all the way that my game is totally fucking relevant to game design (whatever you want to call it in your infinite circlejerkery) because people who run a game like that also like to have a ruleset for many reasons (which I've explained and you're ignoring because I guess you figure you're not smart enough to be able to address them so are pretending they don't exist) and that designing a ruleset for a person like me doesn't make the rule worse any more than left-handed scissors are worse.

Often, for many GMs and tables, you want all the spells and class details but in many other parts of the rules an absent rule is the best graphic and information design choice: as both a tool of convenience and learning. Not all (see: left-handed scissors) but enough. Address that if you want to drag all this bullshit you chose to bring up in the conversation. Or just say "Wait, I'm wrong and derailing the thread, sorry. I shouldn't have brought this bullshit up. I am stupid beyond measure. I will retire from public RPG commentary until such time as I learn to separate fact from fiction and rationally address arguments put to me."

[Zak S]

So when he said "What about a social currency system? Oh, and no apple stacking." and you replied with one that totally used apple stacking, that was in fact what he asked for? I call bullshit.

Then my interpretation of what the phrase "apple-stacking" in his hastily-typed request was, in good faith, different than yours. I interpreted it as meaning you couldn't get bonuses just by giving lots of apples with no other relevant factors. Which the system I made addressed because apples are frequently cancelled by other factors in the system. HOWEVER: if someone ships you thousands of apples (not unlike many real-life trade agreements), that could count in their favor in my system. If you call that "apple stacking" then I made a mistake in interpreting the request.

So: there you go.

[Dean]

You couldn't get bonuses just by giving lots of apples... HOWEVER: if someone ships you thousands of apples that could count

Someone make Zak S and Shadzar start arguing.

[Username17]

Simultaneous declarations are flat out faster in concept, that's why computers use them.

No you stupid fuck. simultaneous declarations is slower. Computers use them because they can more than make up for that by giving each player their own MC and die rolling and attention. Table top games cannot normally do that because they lack a separate telepathic MC for each player.

Consider a game like Master of Orion 2 or Dominions 4. They work very well as a simultaneous declaration game. But they only work well when each person has their own fucking computer. If everyone has to share the same computer, it's slow as shit because it ends up being very much like a hotseat game anyway. Each player has to wait their turn to submit their moves or see the results of their moves because there's only one fucking computer. The time savings doesn't come from the fact that every player inputs their moves before the turn runs, the time savings comes from the fact that there is a separate entity capable of receiving the moves from each player. Remove the network and it's slower than Heroes of Might and Magic (a sequential hotseat game by default).

Because D&D only has one DM, it will always be slowed down by moving to simultaneous declarations. Because the simultaneous declarations still have to be unpacked as a sequential series of declarations and resolutions regardless.

-Username17

[Mistborn]

Wait, I'm wrong and derailing the thread, sorry. I shouldn't have brought this bullshit up. I am stupid beyond measure. I will retire from public RPG commentary until such time as I learn to separate fact from fiction and rationally address arguments put to me.

If only, but you're not going to stop digging are you?

Well I'm not going to follow along with your latest gish gallop, you've already failed to back up your claims months ago. You claimed that you could replace huge swaths of existing rules with ruling and this would be faster and easier. To prove your point you claimed that you could quickly give an acceptable ruling for any random thing to PL, and you fucking failed to do that. Your ruling wasn't considered acceptable to PL, it wasn't considered acceptable by anyone in the Den save yourself. Your system was laughable (and your description of it contained literal apple-stacking).

[OgreBattle]

Sometimes I wonder what it'd be like to take all of the text from a TGD argument, and then use it to replace the dialog of a hentai manga.

A direct transposition would probably flow horribly.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'll take that as a cue to throw in my contribution: (DMFs)
Mod Edit: Image NSFW

EDIT: added an indication of what it's about outside the spoiler

[Cyberzombie]

No you stupid fuck.

Whenever you lead off with insults I can tell you're going to say something dumb and uninformed.

Consider a game like Master of Orion 2 or Dominions 4. They work very well as a simultaneous declaration game. But they only work well when each person has their own fucking computer.

All the computer does is allow you to observe the game and choose what you want to do. If everyone can look at the same battlemap and has a copy of the PHB to reference spells and their character sheets, everyone effectively has their own computer as far as a tabletop RPG is concerned.

If everyone has to share the same computer, it's slow as shit because it ends up being very much like a hotseat game anyway.

Actually that is a hotseat game.

Because D&D only has one DM, it will always be slowed down by moving to simultaneous declarations. Because the simultaneous declarations still have to be unpacked as a sequential series of declarations and resolutions regardless.

You obviously have no idea how computers actually work. Every computer has to process the actions of every player, otherwise everyone wouldn't be looking at the same map. The advantage of multiple computers is that everyone gets to consult the map simultaneously and prepare a move list.

Given that D&D actions are much simpler than turn-based computer games, it's pretty easy to write down your action or even just remember it (assuming the DM/PC doesn't cheat). So everyone consults the map and maybe the rulebooks, thinks at once, writes down their action on an index card and when everyone is done, you start the round. There may be some instances where a PC must ask the DM a question, but it will still end up being faster than sequential because there is less dead time where the DM is doing nothing but waiting. And all the thinking time that doesn't involve the DM, like studying the map, reading character sheets, and looking up what the mechanics for Bull rush are, can all be done simultaneously by all players.

The main drawback of course is the overhead time, if you're going AD&D style, everyone has to roll initiative for the round and now the DM processes what happens during the round one action at a time. None of the actual processing changes the time required since your attack roll just comes at a different point, but an attack roll is still an attack roll. Computers have to do this too through network communications. One computer tells the other what each player has decided to do, and now all the computers process the events, to stay synchronized on the same game. Obviously the overhead time is longer for a human being to execute than it is for a computer, but it's still just some amount of time, and if that amount happens to be less than the amount of time you would have spent waiting for people to announce their action under sequential declaration, then you have saved time. Depending on the speed of your group, that number may or may not be lower.

Example time: If player A takes 4 minutes to come up with an action, player B takes 3 minutes, player C takes 1 minute and it takes 2 minutes to reroll the initiative list and prepare it each round then the numbers look like this:

Sequential Declaration: Player A (4 min) + Player B (3 min) + Player C (1 min) = 8 minutes.

Simultaneous Declaration: The slowest of the PCs (4 minute) + simultaneous overhead time (2 min) = 6 minutes.

There's your math there, plain and simple. It's very possible if you've got a slow group that your numbers for simultaneous declaration are going to be better. In the case of computers, simultaneous is always better because the overhead cost is near zero. Data transmission rates are incredibly fast as are the computer's ability to process information. In tabletop it won't always be the case, but it's far from impossible. You really can't imagine a set of numbers where simultaneous declaration might be faster? Your brain is utterly unable to comprehend a single scenario?

But oh, right... you're Frank Trollman, the dude who refuses to ever admit he's wrong. Ever.

Honestly dude, if you're even half as smart and perfect as you seem to think you are, then why the hell are you wasting your time on this forum and not making billions in the stock market or doing something else where your infallible genius could make you a big name in the world? Why hasn't your font of perfect ideas made you the next Mark Zuckerberg? Why isn't there a Frank Trollman stadium somewhere? I figure that some dude who is never wrong about anything should have done something noteworthy by now. So where's the private jet and the solid gold toilet? At the very least, you should have blown D&D out of the water and published the ultimate One True Way RPG that you seem utterly convinced you can write. For someone who claims to have all the correct answers and loves to call other people stupid, you haven't done a hell of a lot besides play internet tough guy, criticize every professional or amateur game designer you can and try to convince us that every little thing you say is 100% correct.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You obviously have no idea how computers actually work. Every computer has to process the actions of every player, otherwise everyone wouldn't be looking at the same map. The advantage of multiple computers is that everyone gets to consult the map simultaneously and prepare a move list.

Given that D&D actions are much simpler than turn-based computer games, it's pretty easy to write down your action or even just remember it (assuming the DM/PC doesn't cheat).

I think you underestimate exactly how much faster computers are compared to humans.

Nowadays, any half-decent computer can do BILLIONS of floating-point operations EVERY SECOND. You would be amazingly hard-pressed to manage ONE in a second. (quick, what's 123.456*123.456?)

EDIT: If your sense of scale is bad, think of it this way: in one second, my computer can perform more such calculations than any human being who ever lived could possibly do in their lifetime.

My computer is also faster at such things than every human being on Earth combined.

[ishy]

You obviously have no idea how computers actually work. Every computer has to process the actions of every player, otherwise everyone wouldn't be looking at the same map.

This is just comedy gold. Thanks for the laugh.

[Username17]

I love how every time Cyberzombie goes off the deep end into one of his absolutely insane analogies, he makes sure to tell everyone that FrankTrollman is the person who will never admit that he's wrong. Because projection.

But sure, go ahead and tell us some more about how computers can't listen to two instructions at literally the same time because there's a picosecond division in there somewhere, and this is exactly the same as how a flesh and blood MC has to listen to a player's complete sentence before another player can say anything that has a hope of being understood. I'm sure it will be very convincing. Or at least fucking hilarious.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

Computers actually do have the ability to process multiple commands simultaneously. One discussion I came across mentioned a CPU with a 128-bit register calculating on 32-bit floats, 4 at a time. There are also computers with multiple CPU cores.

Also, another TGDMB-to-hentai shoop: (Spoilered because "... You Lost Me" asked)

[rampaging-poet]

Example time: If player A takes 4 minutes to come up with an action, player B takes 3 minutes, player C takes 1 minute and it takes 2 minutes to reroll the initiative list and prepare it each round then the numbers look like this:

Sequential Declaration: Player A (4 min) + Player B (3 min) + Player C (1 min) = 8 minutes.

Simultaneous Declaration: The slowest of the PCs (4 minute) + simultaneous overhead time (2 min) = 6 minutes.

Your algorithm for sequential declaration only works if nobody does any thinking when it isn't their turn. Now, failing to think on other people's turns might be part of the reason people who are slow to take their turns are slow, but if players are thinking about their next action before it's actually their turn the thinking time will be close to simultaneous anyway. Sequential declaration also has the additional benefit of reducing the number of hypothetical situations a given player has to consider as their turn approaches.

Suppose each action is resolved instantly (the absolute worst case for sequential thinking). If players think about what to do when it isn't their turn, the same thinking times in the same order produces the following results: Player 4 (4 minutes), Player B already decided what to do during Player 4's turns, Player C already decided what to do during Player A's turn, total time 4 minutes. If actions are resolved slower, then Player A can start to get ahead while the turns of players B and C are resolved, so subsequent turns would be even faster.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

Okay you've brought up Space Alert more than once and I have to stop here.

Space Alert is a *terrible* example of how "simultaneous declaration" works because the entire point of Space Alert is that simultaneous declaration is a terribly difficult system, and making it real time is an even worse system.

Space Alert ends more often than not with everyone dying.

You know where that would work? Paranoia. Where you expect your character to die a terrible and amusing death due to miscommunication.

You know where it wouldn't work? Any game where I'd have any meaningful time invested in my character.

And removing the time constraint from Space Alert and just having "simultaneous declaration" *with* discussion means basically you're doing AD&D's old "Declare your action then roll for initiative". That's why we had weapon and casting speed and all that funky shit. And that was terrible and one of the most frequently houseruled rules.

I could *deal* with "declare and roll for init" more than I could where everyone declared in a vacuum. I probably would get sick of it and houserule it, but it might actually like last 1-2 sessions before I flipped the table over in frustration.

In regards to the space alert matter, I'm trying to avoid that by reducing the granularity of a turn. Space Alert and Paranoia become comic operas of failure because each turn represents a small amount of time and a very specific action. So an action has to be declared at nearly the exact same time for it to work. I am, however, upping the time of a turn to 10-12 seconds, meaning that its less important that any one thing happens at the exact same time. Plus, players have a longer time to make a decision, probably in the 5 minute range. As mentioned above, 12 seconds is enough time to roughly run a 100 meter dash, reload comfortably and resume firing, try a few times to hit a specific target, ect. The equivalent to Space Alert would be that the laser blast does indeed go off because thanks to abstracted communicators, the firer knows to wait an additional two seconds for the generator to come online. The GM at times can choose to ramp up the tension and increase granularity, reduce decision making time, or that abstracted player communication (for car chases and the like) but normal combat should occur with a good deal of lee way given to both the NPC and PC teams regarding timing. The other advantage of a longer "fiction time" turn is that it makes prepared actions less boring. An action that would take a minute, and thus 10-12 turns in most normal systems (the industry norm seems to be 5-6 seconds), would now take 5 turns, so it gets a bit less repetitive for the player doing the action.

And yes, I've played paranoia using simultaneous declaration (also using the write on index card system) and with laptops around hooked up to skype chat to make placing points of interference or support on people more anonymous. It's probably the most fun way to play the game. I've also done it in more serious games of Paranoia and it can really bring out the tragicomedy of the setting.

And once again, DECLARATION IS THROUGH WRITING ON AN INDEX CARD, NOT SHOUTING IT AT THE DM! Just want to make this clear, since there is still a melee over whether or not a dm can handle being yelled at by 8 people.

The turn itself would go S-E-M-A, in the order of what can interfere with what. Whoever is supporting says their action first. Support here means suppression fire or the like in a general region where the guy is going to be doing something. So you say you are supporting mark. If anyone tries to attack mark, they need to go through you first. On the other hand, if no one was trying to mess with mark then it probably is a waste. Maybe an awareness test allows you to redirect, but that's getting into technicalities before the basics are laid down. Support can interfere with enemy support and it cannot be redirected, as the person is covering the area for the whole time. Engage means engage a specific person in combat. If trying to engage a person or people being supported, support can interfere. Engagement can also be redirected, as the person may be forced to engage with the person who is suppressing him. Engaging is more lethal than supporting, so in general if you actually want to kill someone engaging is what you want to do, balancing the two.

Movement can be interfered by opposing support or engagement, so it goes next. It can be redirected by all previous things, so a person who starts off sprinting for an objective can dive for cover if he comes under heavy fire. Finally, actions can be interfered by all three of the previous things. A medic can be caught in an area of suppression fire, he can be specifically targeted by a sniper trying to engage and if he was sprinting to his intended target, maybe he drops something or fumbles around.

Everyone writes an S or an E or an M or an A, and then for S and E, they write a target, for S its a friendly and for E is an enemy. M and A are deliberately left a bit more flexible as its easier to make split second choices while moving or choosing who to heal. I might add separate S into support and overwatch, but once again, technicalities.

And yes, SEMA is not the ideal acronym, but its what I've got at the moment.

[Username17]

So you're trying to adopt Robo Rally as an RPG. This is a humor game, right? Because that game only gets amusing when the cards get messed up and people start having the movement taken away while conveyor belts dump them into trash compactors.

-Username17

[TheNotoriousAMP]

So you're trying to adopt Robo Rally as an RPG. This is a humor game, right? Because that game only gets amusing when the cards get messed up and people start having the movement taken away while conveyor belts dump them into trash compactors.

-Username17

First and foremost, not really. Robo Rally revolved around rigidly programmed movement with little flexibility. You have to move left, then right, then straight, depending on your card. The environment then messes with you even more, so it really becomes a matter of being able to trace a specific path across the board, with hilarious bad stuff happening along the way. In short, more like what happens when you apply a short turn length to this system. So yes, technically you can emulate that style of play (like I do for Paranoia). However, when you increase the turn length, and thus the flexibility of action, the movement action can abstract the small stuff that would otherwise cripple the PC's intentions. The PC can trip and fall, but unless its disastrous, with 12 seconds he can probably recover and get along his merry way. Someone trying to engage him could get a bonus, but that's about it. Plus, unlike robo rally, the PC can still react during movement, so its not like he has to go through with a programmed set of orders. If he notices the path in front of him is now lava, he should be allowed to stop/allowed to roll to stop, depending on the situation. Leeway, leeway, leeway is the name of the game normally.

The GM could decide that its a moment for short turn length, such as when two people need to turn the key at exactly the right moment while being under fire, so yeah then you can go all Robo Rally or Space Alert for tension, but those should be rare moments with storyline consequences.

As for turn intention, its actually not too different than what you are trying to do in the usual RPG. Depending on where you roll initiative wise, you are probably trying to use combat to mess with supporting actions (geek the mage/kill the medic/ect first), or to keep the enemy from doing the same thing. If you get lucky and roll high, you hit him first and hopefully stop him, if not SOL and the action goes off. Same thing really, decide what needs doing and who can interfere with what needs doing. Proceed to try and stop them from doing so. I've found most combat rounds are either focused on getting one thing done (hack the computer, banish the monster) with everyone else covering the player or are the usual kill everyone type of thing. This just builds this usual breakdown into the system itself and removes the impact of standing still and acting.

[rasmuswagner]

Cyberzombie and Zak, you each owe me 1 million braincells for having read this shit. NotoriousAMP gets a pass, he's just suffering from ignorance and toughguyism.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

NotoriousAMP gets a pass, he's just suffering from ignorance and toughguyism.

Ignorance I'll accept, but I'm really not getting people's impressions of toughguyism. I mean, its not like I'm saying "I hate little guys being strong cuz I does the MMA RAAWR", I'm just using sports as a reference point for what seems to make sense to me and what doesn't. It'd be like if a fighter pilot designed Crimson Skies, barring the usual leeway for fiction, he'd probably design it in a way that makes some sense to him. Or during a conversation with an NPC, if you insult him than probably he won't be giving you a discount. People design games with fantasy all around, but usually the core mechanics are influenced by what makes sense to them. If in reference to shit slinging and the like, I'm actually just trying to duck for cover while grabbing the useful stuff as it lands, people are intense here.

[Username17]

Have you played Robo Rally? It's the quintessential card-based declare movement rpg-themed board game. It will be significantly more difficult to explain to you why your idea is bullshit if you haven't.

In any case, this idea you have:

I am, however, upping the time of a turn to 10-12 seconds, meaning that its less important that any one thing happens at the exact same time. Plus, players have a longer time to make a decision, probably in the 5 minute range. As mentioned above, 12 seconds is enough time to roughly run a 100 meter dash, reload comfortably and resume firing, try a few times to hit a specific target, ect. The equivalent to Space Alert would be that the laser blast does indeed go off because thanks to abstracted communicators, the firer knows to wait an additional two seconds for the generator to come online.

I don't know why you think this helps. Having a longer combat round with more abstract action lets you do lots of things. It lets you have guards respond to in-battle cries for help before the combat is long over. It lets you have battles in unstable terrain or with bomb countdowns and shit and have that actually matter. But it doesn't change the fact that one turn is one turn. Having a turn get wasted is just as frustrating if the turns represent one second, one minute, or one year. The experience for the player is the same.

What does make a lost turn more frustrating is having it take longer. If you're making players toil in silence for five fucking minutes and then handing a bunch of cards to the MC to have him puzzle over them and sort them out into time strata and ultimately apply the effects one at a time, that's a pretty considerable time investment for each turn. So when one of the players has their turn negated by having their target escape or be killed before their attack resolves or whatever the fuck, their going to have just flushed a pretty significant part of their life down the drain.

When you present weird and gimmicky game mechanics, they need to have some sort of payoff. Some sort of reason to use the gimmick instead of doing something normal. The normal things are normal because they fucking work. The Robo Rally resolution system was devised for comedy. The "payoff" is that sometimes orders get mixed up and things go disastrously wrong. That's it. That's the whole reason to use it.

So if you aren't making a low comedy game about the hilarity of accidentally calling an air strike on your own medical transport, why the fuckity fuck are you even considering this line of inquiry?

-Username17

[...You Lost Me]

For the love of god Radiant, put your comics in spoilers.