The Difficulty in RPGs thread

[Username17]

deanrule, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. This is the core principle on which rolling dice exists. You roll dice and obey the rules because the alternative is anarchy. It's five year old children yelling at each other that it "Is not!" or possibly "Is so!". That's all there is. There is no slope. It is a precipice, and one step away from "follow the fucking agreed upon rules" is "have a potentially endless argument about every single event in the entire fucking story that doesn't meet immediate consensus".

This isn't hyperbole. This isn't exaggeration for comedic effect. This is what anarchy gets us. It's a real game, and it is called "Cops and Robbers". And we don't play that fucking game, because the action resolution system is stubborn people yelling at each other. And if you ever offer people the choice to use that action resolution system instead of a quick and fair one, there is a chance - however small - that they will take it. And that would be a catastrophe. That would be table paralysis, hurt feelings, gridlock, and ultimately an end to the game.

When people say that we should respect peoples' wishes to trump the rules with stubborn argument whenever they find that the rules and the dice have given them an output they don't like, I can only say: No. That is not a thing we should respect.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Fuchs: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer should definitely qualify as both cooperative, and a game. In it, you can get a TPK and be disappointed. However, getting TPKs on the harder difficulties does in fact make victory that much sweeter when you get better at the game. Therefore, I would strongly disagree with your assertion that "The best game is one where you have fun all the time, not some times."

...Unless you'd say that I enjoy losing in ME3? Hmm, maybe I do. That's only partially an attribute of the game though; would you be in favor of changing the player's opinions sometimes instead?

Computer games would be best if the difficulty were such that I don't ever have a TPK/wipe/reload, yet am challenged all the time and get better at it. I can't do that in computer games, but in a P&P game it's doable.

[Fuchs]

When people say that we should respect peoples' wishes to trump the rules with stubborn argument whenever they find that the rules and the dice have given them an output they don't like, I can only say: No. That is not a thing we should respect.

-Username17

On the contrary. If the rules make the game unfun, then they should be changed. Only stupid idiots obey rules they can change. Rules are not set in stone.

I even heard there were those people who disliked some D&D rules so much they rewrote almost the whole game and called it "Tome". I even heard it's a real game. Should we disrespect them for not obeying the rules?

[...You Lost Me]

On the contrary. If the rules make the game unfun, then they should be changed. Only stupid idiots obey rules they can change. Rules are not set in stone.

I even heard there were those people who disliked some D&D rules so much they rewrote almost the whole game and called it "Tome". I even heard it's a real game. Should we disrespect them for not obeying the rules?

You must care very little about the content of this argument to make such an obviously broken point as this.

[Wrathzog]

Fuchs, you're missing the Time Element of the problem. Making a bunch of houserules prior to a game and then sticking with those houserules is fine. We're cool with that.

Changing a bunch of rules DURING the game is the problem. That's what people are trying to avoid because it Does set a dangerous precedent.

-e-

Computer games would be best if the difficulty were such that I don't ever have a TPK/wipe/reload, yet am challenged all the time and get better at it. I can't do that in computer games, but in a P&P game it's doable.

Actually, this is completely doable in video games. Most Developers don't bother, but it's definitely doable. God Hand, the only example I can think of off the top of my head, has variable difficulty that goes up and down based on a number of things (combos, damage taken, etc).
Combine something like that with Variable "lose" state scenarios and we'd be set.

[Foxwarrior]

There are all sorts of ways to design or modify a computer game so that it doesn't have any TPKs, wipes, or reloads, yes. Personally, I feel that a "that didn't work, try again with a different tactic" message can be much more engrossing than "that didn't work, let's skip over it and get back to a challenge you know how to beat," which is what a computer game without reloads usually ends up doing.

Of course, that really has very little to do with death in TTRPGs; unless you play for the Char Op, in which case death should be frequent so you can measure characters in terms of Encounters Beaten Before Dying.

[zugschef]

reloading is part of a game. so you can totally use it to try again and undo your last failure. however, it is a mechanic which totally sucks at the gaming table (at least in 99% of the cases).

[hyzmarca]

You can build auto-resurrections, save points, and time loops into the game just so long as you don't make things completely consequence free.

For example, you could give your vikings the innate ability to automatically time travel to 21st Century California if their HP is ever reduced to 0 or less, with any wounds healed. This would, of course, mean that they loose the fight, as they'd have to find a way to return to 11th century Norway, but the game doesn't end and the PCs don't die.

[Lago PARANOIA]

"Death needs to exist because if it didn't no one would agree to fail a Decipher Script roll again".

I'm not particularly attached to the idea of perma-death being a real possibility in any game -- that includes D&D. I prefer for RNG-induced perma-death to have at least a remote chance of possibility, but it's nowhere near a deal decider for me. It ranks in concern for me between 'does D&D have good vehicle rules' and 'what is the balance of the default pantheon'.

The principle I hold dear however is that if a group agrees to possible negative consequences that overrides one or more players' wishes (and in a game like default D&D, a possible negative consequence is perma-death) then that negative consequence must be followed through when the moment of truth comes. Doing otherwise opens the door for other game-stopping filibusters and kills the tension of the game.

And I have absolutely no tolerance when people try to negotiate rules changes for plausible -- if not obvious -- consequences. I have ran D&D games in which death was turned off because I suggested it or players asked me to. Those people I don't mind. But I have played a lot of D&D MU*s and few things piss me off more than someone stomping their feet in a plot with perma-death turned on (non-game staff can't turn it on, but staff-run plots give higher rewards and allow more changes to the setting) and whining to the DM or other players that they really don't want to die and could you pretty-please not make the death canon?

[Chamomile]

So Frank's doing that thing again where he comes out with some insane hyperbole and then explicitly says it's not hyperbole. Which, I dunno about the rest of you, but that just highlights the hyperbolic nature to me. It's really, really easy to identify different situations and say that in one case it is okay to patch rules retroactively because you do not like the results, and in another it is not. For example, here's the standards I use in the game I am actually running:

1) If a rule is immediately nonsense to an immersion-breaking level or immediately game-breaking, like infinite wish loops or the like, then as GM I reserve the right to change those rules immediately and retroactively, even mid-session.

2) If a rule is less than optimal and someone can immediately think of a better solution, then the new rule will go into effect immediately and retroactively with a unanimous vote from everyone playing.

Pre-established house rules are otherwise the default, and of course the RAW are the default if there are no house rules. Now, obviously it is possible to concoct a situation wherein the GM and/or players are too immature to make this system work, but considering that the game I am actually playing with a population pulled from 4chan is capable of the maturity necessary to play these rules without descending into endless rules arguments or cops and robbers, I am not convinced that total anarchy must necessarily be the result of ever changing any rule because you are unsatisfied with the result.

[Stubbazubba]

deanrule, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. This is the core principle on which rolling dice exists. You roll dice and obey the rules because the alternative is anarchy. It's five year old children yelling at each other that it "Is not!" or possibly "Is so!". That's all there is. There is no slope. It is a precipice, and one step away from "follow the fucking agreed upon rules" is "have a potentially endless argument about every single event in the entire fucking story that doesn't meet immediate consensus".

This isn't hyperbole. This isn't exaggeration for comedic effect. This is what anarchy gets us. It's a real game, and it is called "Cops and Robbers". And we don't play that fucking game, because the action resolution system is stubborn people yelling at each other. And if you ever offer people the choice to use that action resolution system instead of a quick and fair one, there is a chance - however small - that they will take it. And that would be a catastrophe. That would be table paralysis, hurt feelings, gridlock, and ultimately an end to the game.

When people say that we should respect peoples' wishes to trump the rules with stubborn argument whenever they find that the rules and the dice have given them an output they don't like, I can only say: No. That is not a thing we should respect.

-Username17

? How is this not hyperbole? Your argument is "Because there is a slight chance that someone will argue every ruling if we allow someone to do it once, therefore all rulings will digress into stubborn 5-year-old arguing back and forth, ergo we can't allow the first instance ever, in any case." Did you notice that you go from "every instance has a chance to" to "every instance will," because I did. That there is the slippery slope.

Now yes, given a near infinite number of tables to observe, there statistically must be at least one where this is the case, but in the real world, there simply are not that many tables. And if you screen the groups you play in with any effort, you can most likely keep these instances to legitimate instances. That seems like a far better answer than setting everything in stone, tying it around your group's collective neck, and throwing them into the sea.

In fact, the absolutism of Lago's position seems like it should be a response to a particularly unruly group that has serious issues with the idea of a cooperative storytelling game in the first place, as opposed to the default approach to playing the game. Just because the worst-case scenario exists is no reason to hamstring the normal operation of the game to avert it.

But you (and Lago) are conflating two issues here; following the dice and following the rules' interpretation of them. This is likely intentional as it makes a nice strawman if you can equate changing the consequence of failure to ignoring the resolution mechanic altogether. But those are, in fact, two separate issues. I agree that yes, if a reasonable and fair die roll says you fail, you should fail. But that is not the same thing as saying that the game rules' interpretation of that failure is always appropriate.

The resolution mechanic is, at least in D&D, binary; it determines success or failure. What happens in each of those categories is a separate issue from determining how you get to each one. Ergo, just because you disagree on the exact interpretation of failure in a given case, or the way in which the rules proscribe those interpretations generally, does not mean that every resolution (or even any resolution) devolves into "I shot you!" "No you didn't!" What it means is that we know whether or not you were shot, just not what you can do next.

[Username17]

? How is this not hyperbole?

Because Fuchs and PL and company are literally advocating rule by temper tantrum. There is basically no amount of making fun of that which I could do that would actually make it hyperbolic.

If you agree to a fair and random resolution, and then withdraw your agreement after an available result has been generated, that is a temper tantrum. It is not a reasonable or respectable position. And it is not a slippery fucking slope fallacy to call it a temper tantrum, because it's a fucking temper tantrum.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, you're missing the Time Element of the problem. Making a bunch of houserules prior to a game and then sticking with those houserules is fine. We're cool with that.

Changing a bunch of rules DURING the game is the problem. That's what people are trying to avoid because it Does set a dangerous precedent.

And I disagree with that. If more people played long campaigns, such as myself, games which go on for years - my current D&D one started before 3.0 came out, and we adapated it to 3.0 - then they'd see that it's very easy to change rules during a game without the world ending.

Apart from hardcore control freaks who just cannot allow changes, no one is hurt by changing rules ones you notice they hurt the game. We did it, we do it, in every game. Because we look forward, because we care about making sure the next session will not be riddled with the same problem we just encountered. And because we will not let a bad rule we can easily fix ruin a campaign for us.

[Fuchs]

? How is this not hyperbole?

Because Fuchs and PL and company are literally advocating rule by temper tantrum. There is basically no amount of making fun of that which I could do that would actually make it hyperbolic.

If you agree to a fair and random resolution, and then withdraw your agreement after an available result has been generated, that is a temper tantrum. It is not a reasonable or respectable position. And it is not a slippery fucking slope fallacy to call it a temper tantrum, because it's a fucking temper tantrum.

-Username17

You're really out of it. You have no idea how those things happen. People agree to play a game. In the middle of it they realize there's a rule that's hurting the game. No one thought about that case before, no one said "yes, this will happen, and I am fine with it". People suddenly discover shitty rules, and then decide to change them. That's a reasonable Position.

People suddenly discovering shitty rules that ruin the game for them, and then sticking to them - that's irrational.

Yes, in an ideal world people would remove all those rules beforehand, and replace them. But that's not how it works. You discover them in game.

Any agreement about rules and rulings can be renegotiated. Even Frank and co. admit that you can change rules before the next game. So it all boils down to some people being so narrowminded or paranoid about temper tantrums (which means they might be playing with assholes, not mature people) that they only allow rules changes between games, not in the middle of a campaign while others don't feel that they need to be so limited.

[Kaelik]

some people being so narrowminded or paranoid about temper tantrums (which means they might be playing with assholes, not mature people)

This is stupid, and you are stupid for saying it.

1) Criticizing people for not having a good gaming group is fucking stupid, and you need to grow up, you immature dickbag. Clearly your gaming group is playing with at least one immature asshole, you, because only an immature asshole would insult other people for not being able to find relatively rare cohesive groups of perfect human beings. If you want to insult Frank for being immature, do that, but it makes no sense to insult him for not being able to gather a collection of "mature" people who want to play D&D in the Czech Republic.

2) You are completely wrong about people. Frank specifically defined what constitutes a temper tantrum in this case, which is arguing that they rules agreed to prior should not be followed when they reach a result you don't want. You specifically advocate for groups to do exactly that along with your other arguments for why renegotiation is fine.

You cannot on the one hand say, "Frank is a loser for playing games with people who demand their characters not die when they agreed to die. And therefore we should not take into account those people when talking about how to run a game." and "I personally think that if a character dies under rules that were agreed to prior, they should be able to argue that they should not die."

Because you are exactly the fucking person you are claiming we should be ignoring the existence of and that Frank is a loser for playing with.

[infected slut princess]

You should only overrule the results of the dice if there is a rules error involved, and that error permanently fucks up a character. Otherwise, if you are going to reject the dice just because bad stuff happens, why bother rolling dice.

And bringing the discussion around full circle, regardless of how one feels about PCs facing the ultimate end and "losing" the game because they got a bunch of bad rolls... one must agree that this discussion reveals the importance of being able to measure DIFFICULTY.

If you are rolling dice, you really should accept the results. And if you are going to accept the results, you want the DM to be able to set of reasonable challenges for your adventures so that the grim laws of probability will not ensure your untimely death.

If difficulty is purely a matter of the DM's whim, then indeed you must rely on rules of temper tantrums and arbitrary judgment calls. And that sounds fucking terrible.

[Username17]

You should only overrule the results of the dice if there is a rules error involved, and that error permanently fucks up a character. Otherwise, if you are going to reject the dice just because bad stuff happens, why bother rolling dice.

I wouldn't necessarily even restrict it to an error that permanently fucks up a character. Any time there's an actual error, it's permissible to fix it. And sometimes the error only becomes apparent after the dice are rolled and the talleys are taken and the result is reported... and it's something that was supposed to be impossible.

I don't mind people junking the rules when they try to stake a vampire and discover that the combination of the superficially reasonable Vampiric DR and the superficially reasonable Undead Crit Immunity render sleeping Vampires completely immune to wooden stakes. That's a simple and classic Paradox - a set of superficially reasonable premises which lead through apparently sound reasoning to an unacceptable conclusion. Obviously something has got to give at that point (and accepting the unacceptable conclusion is merely one method of three to address that issue).

And bringing the discussion around full circle, regardless of how one feels about PCs facing the ultimate end and "losing" the game because they got a bunch of bad rolls... one must agree that this discussion reveals the importance of being able to measure DIFFICULTY.

Yes. This is very importantly true.

If you are rolling dice, you really should accept the results. And if you are going to accept the results, you want the DM to be able to set of reasonable challenges for your adventures so that the grim laws of probability will not ensure your untimely death.

If difficulty is purely a matter of the DM's whim, then indeed you must rely on rules of temper tantrums and arbitrary judgment calls. And that sounds fucking terrible.

+1.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

some people being so narrowminded or paranoid about temper tantrums (which means they might be playing with assholes, not mature people)

This is stupid, and you are stupid for saying it.

1) Criticizing people for not having a good gaming group is fucking stupid, and you need to grow up, you immature dickbag. Clearly your gaming group is playing with at least one immature asshole, you, because only an immature asshole would insult other people for not being able to find relatively rare cohesive groups of perfect human beings. If you want to insult Frank for being immature, do that, but it makes no sense to insult him for not being able to gather a collection of "mature" people who want to play D&D in the Czech Republic.

2) You are completely wrong about people. Frank specifically defined what constitutes a temper tantrum in this case, which is arguing that they rules agreed to prior should not be followed when they reach a result you don't want. You specifically advocate for groups to do exactly that along with your other arguments for why renegotiation is fine.

I am saying Frank is a loser for playing with people who apparently cannot discuss rules changes like mature people. I am saying Frank is an idiot for thinking people agree to each and every rule beforehand and therefore should be bound to them. That's not how it works. And I am saying Frank is an idiot for thinking everyone is throwing temper tantrums when changing rules. And I am saying Frank is an idiot for thinking that you can change rules between games, but between sessions.

[Stubbazubba]

Because Fuchs and PL and company are literally advocating rule by temper tantrum.

This is only true inasmuch as its true of the US legal system, as well. Bringing up objections to what has hitherto been the "agreed to" default is not immature, and only ultra right-wing types would characterize it as throwing a temper tantrum.

If you agree to a fair and random resolution,

And in the real world, that's a big if. But moreover, clearly you don't think of the resolution in question as fair, do you?

and then withdraw your agreement after an available result has been generated,

When's the last time you went through and vetted every single available result before agreeing to a game? Most players aren't even aware of what's possible in a game, even something as familiar as D&D. This is completely and utterly inapplicable at a real world table.

But more to the point, not all contracts are even enforceable. There's a whole list of exceptions where even if someone signed a contract agreeing to something, and when the moment of truth comes and they don't do it, they're actually under no obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract. Now that's not most of the time, but it does happen frequently enough. And that's in the real world where livelihoods are on the line. This is an informal social activity for the purpose of entertainment, and it should be permissive when it comes to these issues.

[PhoneLobster]

This is completely and utterly inapplicable at a real world table.

No problem then. Frank and Lago don't talk about real world tables they talk about... well... who the fuck knows? But it isn't real world tables.

Practicality and basic courtesy would suggest you DON'T actually go round screaming with your fingers in your ears telling players "NO! Fuck YOU for daring to be annoyed at your PC death to an Orc Crit, NO COMPROMISE NO RESORT NO RESURRECTION I DECIDED YOU SIGNED UP FOR THIS!"

And to have the sheer gall to do that and then declare that anyone who's approach is to actually ask the players and to, come such an event DARE to say "Are you sure? No regrets?", to call THAT a "rule by temper tantrum".

Well... it's pretty typical for them. When they want to argue something utterly unreasonable. They just do that and accuse everyone else of being assholes for disagreeing.

[ishy]

That isn't the case at all phonelobster.
The thing is, people want different things from their games. And if you sign up for a certain game you don't want to shift mid-game to something else.

Say you play an RPG you don't want people to change it mid-game to an RTS or something because they don't like the RPG rules.

Fuchs for example wants a game where players can't get any negative results.
I prefer games which do have a possiblity to get a negative results. And I don't appreciate it if you tried to change that in the middle of the game.

To grab an example I've played a lot of D2. Yet I only played in hardcore mode, because I found softcore to be boring. I know people who are the exact opposite and would never play hardcore, because they didn't want to risk their characters (I even believe softcore was more popular).
If you ask a hardcore player if they want to keep their character after they had died, they would quite often say yes. Yet that would ruin the whole experience, and when you are forced to make a new character, you'd make a new hardcore character again.

[Username17]

Fuchs for example wants a game where players can't get any negative results.

Fuchs is way farther out into crazy town than just that. Compare and contrast to his position on how every player should get all the gear they want exactly when they want it all the time and go on all the adventures they want at exactly the point they want to. Fuchs' position is literally that every player should get 100% of what they want, 100% of the time, at the very moment they realize (or momentarily believe) that it is what they want. It's comical, and he shouldn't be taken seriously.

First of all, giving everyone 100% of what they want 100% of the time is a classic example of something that isn't possible. Especially in a group, because people have incompatible goals. But even for each individual, because people individually have incompatible goals.

It's not just the problem where four people can't share even two pizzas and get all the toppings exactly the way they want them - although that's certainly a fundamental problem with Fuchs' position. It's the other thing where people have goals that conflict. The most important and obvious one for this discussion is that people do in fact want their characters to be in real danger even though they would also prefer it if their characters survived.

Obviously, if you guaranty that characters are not going to die, you can't also fulfill peoples' genuine desire to have their character be in real danger of death. So Fuchs' basic claim that people should, or even can get 100% of what they want 100% of the time is a priori false.

Onto his more fundamental point that the people you are playing with are "dicks" if they won't make every effort to give you 100% of what you want (or I suppose, as close to 100% of what you want as it is possible to get, as we have already noted that giving anyone an actual totality of what they want is literally impossible), that's still horse shit. Now we're at the pizza problem, which is that you have two fucking pizzas, and one guy is a vegetarian and your two meat lovers are divided as to whether pepperoni is best meat or worst meat, and then it doesn't even fucking matter what the fourth guy wants or doesn't want on his pizza because there's already no way to satisfy the first three requests with two pizzas. This is why we have compromises.

And one of the important forms that compromises form when discussing RPGs is rolling some fucking dice. And renegotiating the compromise after some people have already made concessions to it is very likely to piss people off.

While Fuchs keeps ranting about a utopian ideal of keeping everyone happy all the time, I can't help thinking that what he's really advocating is a constant barrage of selfish temper tantrums where he gets everything he wants all the time, and everyone who won't compromise away everything they want so he can get everything he wants, and then renegotiate and compromise away even more because he decided that he wants even more are dicks that he "won't play with". Which is to say that he will protest and filibuster the game until he gets everything he wants and the fact that other people are having to give up more of what they want is a non-consideration (at least until they start filibustering the game right back). Seriously, Fuchs' world sounds like a nightmare of playing with petulant children.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

But more to the point, not all contracts are even enforceable. There's a whole list of exceptions where even if someone signed a contract agreeing to something, and when the moment of truth comes and they don't do it, they're actually under no obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract. Now that's not most of the time, but it does happen frequently enough. And that's in the real world where livelihoods are on the line. This is an informal social activity for the purpose of entertainment, and it should be permissive when it comes to these issues.

Okay, but what does that have to do with things like perma-death?

It's not an unenforceable contract. It's not a superficially viable but broken in actual use. And it's not a non-obvious emergent property.

In the case of permadeath, you are playing a game which involves a ridiculous amount of violence both initiated by you and thrown at you. The game strongly reinforces at every level that what you're doing is deadly and there's nothing in the game to imply that deaths that are causally viable can be waived.

We're not staking vampires or putting monkeys in barrels. We're talking about something from both a literary and game mechanics perspective is both obvious and plausible. Which is: people die when they're killed. You can't use the whole 'this isn't what I intended/agreed on!' excuse unless you're dumber than a sack full of hammers carved out of bricks.

[hogarth]

While Fuchs keeps ranting about a utopian ideal of keeping everyone happy all the time, I can't help thinking that what he's really advocating is a constant barrage of selfish temper tantrums where he gets everything he wants all the time, and everyone who won't compromise away everything they want so he can get everything he wants, and then renegotiate and compromise away even more because he decided that he wants even more are dicks that he "won't play with".

What Fuchs wants is what he currently has: a consistent group that he's been playing with for 10-20 years so that any people who have conflicting ideas about how to play have been winnowed out a long time ago. That's why his suggestions aren't very useful to people who are still in the winnowing stage.

[RadiantPhoenix]

This is completely and utterly inapplicable at a real world table.

No problem then. Frank and Lago don't talk about real world tables they talk about... well... who the fuck knows? But it isn't real world tables.

Practicality and basic courtesy would suggest you DON'T actually go round screaming with your fingers in your ears telling players "NO! Fuck YOU for daring to be annoyed at your PC death to an Orc Crit, NO COMPROMISE NO RESORT NO RESURRECTION I DECIDED YOU SIGNED UP FOR THIS!"

WTF?

Lago's the only one of the two who seems to be seriously arguing even for limitations on resurrection for PCs beyond, "it takes some time, and the villains get to do stuff".