... In an rpg context, audience/artist is similar interaction is between the players and GM... and from industry level all the way to the individual tables it is just as rampant an issue in this medium as well...
but back to what I was saying,,,
I agree System Matters and so does Setting... they matter to each other, and they must be in balanced cooperation, as combined they are the vista of the window, and the yard outside the door... and the GM is the winds that give that visual place lifes.
They cared, and that makes it easier to reciprocate caring about their work... and their own character... eh ... if the artist cares it shows, if the artist doesn't care it shows... and it matters.
I might enjoy Firefly's fiction immensely and be disappointed in Lexx's science frequently... but I would rather watch the one that was made for me... and not in spite of me, just to throw it at my face... ya'know.
@thespiritcoyote To clarify, I don't think Joss was being dismissive and I don't really recall the entirety of that quote either. I think he was being tongue-in-cheek to say that he didn't write Firefly stories around some form of invented logic that he forced himself to adhere to. Rather, he wrote the stories and trusted that the viewer would assume the necessary mechanisms to satisfy their suspension of disbelief.
In other words, I think his approach was a case of "reverse-engineering"...
...which is essentially the same as doing it the other way around except that you write the story first and then shape the behavioral model to fit rather than invent the behavioral model first and try to pinch and stretch the story to fit that logic.
Hyperspace travel in the Star Wars movies (especially obnoxiously-treated in the prequels) is pretty "wobbly" and not a particularly good model for use in the role playing game. The speed at which it is implied ships can travel in the films...
...gets pretty obscene from a "world-view" perspective but that's because it is another case of "poetic license". Travel takes only as long as is needed to transition the story from one scene to the next. Just look at how quickly it's implied that the Falcon travels from Tatooine to Alderaan. Exact timing is unclear due to the scene transitions but Han's dialogue at the opening of the "training" scene implies that he has only just confirmed their successful escape from the Star Destroyers...
...Then, by the end of the 3 or 4-minute scene, Han says, "Looks like we're coming up on Alderaan". Consulting the developed support materials for the setting and considering Luke's "planet that it's farthest from" and Tarkin's "too remote" comments, being able to cross half a galaxy in minutes creates some interesting problems. Not so concerned about the "science" but about the implications to the "world-view".
It's possible (even likely) that Luke and Tarkin where being somewhat poetic...
...in their choice of language, just as Piett was likely exaggerating when he suggested the Falcon could be "on the other side of the galaxy by now". The point remains that travel in the films is ultimately subject to the whims of writer over any consistent behavioral model.
From a fan point of view, it's fun and useful to see and apply behavioral models, especially when supported by the creators, as you say. That says that the creators care, even if they don't always follow their own rules.
@Webhead123 ...BUT... just because it offends me both as an artist and an audience, doesn't mean I do not understand the other aspects involved in the artistic process... just that I do not appreciate promotion of such divisiveness in any form... I feel it bloats the artist ego unjustly, diminishes the value of audience feedback, and generally cripples the medium (whatever type) over all...
@Webhead123 ...coupled to the tendency of Hollywood's 'social irresponsibilities' for audiences in general, where a common belief is held that the industry is only responsible for providing reduced standards for higher profits, that are then to be pumped into a propagandizing machine to 'inform the public' how to appreciate such trivial entertainment and diminish any 'assault on their rights of corporate interests' from those who 'are never satisfied' and therefor 'irrelevant as an audience' ..,
@Webhead123 was not inteding to bring specific people into my stated 'passionate despisement' of remarks such as these... that [imho] stem from the attititudes and sentiments of 'elitist artsy shmucks' that claim they know better of the art than a particular audience of genre-fans... and audiences that do not conform to what such an 'awesome artist' says is proper, are somehow 'flawed' in the eyes of such elitist jerks...
At least Lucas, Straczynski, Rodenberry, and Wright & Glassner have taken time to set-up dialog and explain themselfves, shown how they also make sacrifices of logic and desires of acuracey against their own wishes, all to satisfy artistic and financial obligations to the story...
and make off-screen canon logical for the inquiring fan that wants to know.
Even the Dr, Who creators who said similar "because we can" statements, still gave the fans that asked more than absent dismissals.
I feel it is paramount to saying "I have your invested money and time, and no you can't get any of it back... g'day sir, I am busy enjoying your investments in my trash, and I have no more time for you."
It is not that I dislike "soft" or prefer "hard" I just find it difficult not to be insulted when the creator of the work, who invited me to be hooked on this journey becomes ambivalent -or- more so... outright dismissive of the details that a fan has found interesting... mine or someone else's doesn't matter, I still find it an affront if someone else's question that I have no stake in knowing is dismissed in such a way.
and ar Joss Whedon comment Robert A. Heinlein rolled over in his grave... Issac Y. Asimov died of laughter... and Arthur C. Clarke just gave up on a slow boat to Sri Lanka... XD
I hate remarks like that with a passion, and loose considerable respect for people who rely on such dismissiveness toward fan interest in their work... but I still frequently enjoy those works for what they are worth.
System also matters to setting - not just player choices and expectations.
To use the stormtrooper example for setting the question becomes "are stormtroopers supposed to be bad-asses or goons?" from the setting-logic world-view.
This is most readily seen when there is significant amounts non-gamed fiction upon which the game is supposed to be an exemplary approximation - but can (and does) also come to be a meaningful query if the setting has only codices of encyclopedic coverage.
@thespiritcoyote But then, sk two different people about what Stormtroopers are supposed to represent, for example, and you will probably get two different answers. One (such as myself) might argue that in the setting-logic, Stormtroopers represent well-trained, professional soldiers slightly above and beyond standard "grunts" (they are basically the "marines" of the Empire) but some people simply point and the movies and say, "Look at them! They're pathetic!" That's "movie" vs. "setting" logic.
@Webhead123 understood that there might be some room for opinion bias - in this case I was placing reference (intended firmly - but missed explicitly) on the entirety (of novels, movies, etc). that encompasses the body statically stated by the creators as "canon definition' ... again one can further argue for added obscurity that the implicit intention is purely entertainment-fiat and thus meaningless - but to me that does not imply any "logic-consistent world-view" but only "poetic license".
@thespiritcoyote so I will grant amendments that "System matters to Setting" IF setting maters to the observer - for reasons stated in my rationale...
but IS irrelevant if the option is held that setting-logic is not favored at all as an aspect of genre-setting -
however - even if pure genre-license is the priority of ones goal - then these generic genre becomes its own setting and has inherently implied a logic-consistent world-view.
@thespiritcoyote this is only an inclusion to your own statements that system impacts expectations - and another place in which it matters - not placed in opposition to your stance that setting matters to character, as it supports that view by associations of necessity, through character involvments with the setting implied to be in place.
in shorter phrase - it is an alternative approach in support of the same logical conclusions you have provided.
@thespiritcoyote Thanks for the further details! I didn't think your suggestion was in opposition to what I was offering but I will admit that I wasn't entirely clear about the direction you were headed until now.
@thespiritcoyote Exactly right. To further the Stormtrooper example, they aren't made to look "pathetic" in the films as a way to suggest that they are inept within the "world-view" (just look how quickly and utterly they decimated the Rebel forces aboard Leia's ship) but because the writer is exercising his "poetic license" to keep the heroes alive. Big distinction.
@Webhead123 a distinction that even Lucas has gone on record as stating as being part of a distinction between the entertaining "movie reenactment" of a "real universe" conceptualization... indeed... Lucus is also credited as saying the same about Stormtroopers, as well as many other aspects of the SWU that give "false impressions" in the film.due to his own need to rely on poetic licence over realistic portrayal... his call to make and he struggled with the 'art over science' often.
@thespiritcoyote Very true. Honestly, what I admire about the "soft sci-fi" approach of Star Wars over, say, "hard sci-fi" is because it places the importance of the "story" ahead of the importance of the "science". How can star ships travel at faster-than-light speeds? That's not as important as making sure that the characters can get where they need to go for good story-telling. How is a lightsaber physically possible? I dunno. They're built by monks with psychic powers. Why does it matter?...
...That's not to say that I don't enjoy "hard sci-fi" for its own appeal or even that it's not occasionally fun to imagine the warping of scientific principles that it would take to explain Star Wars. Just that Star Wars is not trying to be "hard sci-fi" and so I set my suspension of disbelief accordingly.
Immersion come to people in different ways... studies have shown that people can be placed into sensory dominant categories and that their 'imaginations' reflect that dominate sense focus... some people are visual, some tactile, some audile, some olfactory, some palatal... noone covers a dominate focus to all the senses all the time though some may balance out two or three to some degree.... it's like handiness, even ambidextrous people have a dominate hand.
I mentioned this on Tetsubo's video but I think BRP, Call of Cthulhu, and White Wolf games are good when it comes to this topic, because characters slowly improve after every session. With BRP games it is the check marks and with White Wolf it is XP every session that can be spent right then and there to improve things.
@Samwise7RPG Yes, I'm mostly fond of the way those games handle advancement. I have minor quibbles here or there but at the core of them is the "growth by increments" concept which is something I personally enjoy.
I was shocked how quick the levels came in 3.0, it was such a change. I think more of a change than that is way too much. The idea of earning things should be applied to rpgs. Problem with those that don't want to wait is the same problem as in real life, you end up not caring about what you've acquired and you don't respect it.The big problem with a playing philosophy based on too quick is they are just looking for level & forget that's not the real character progression, the pc hasn't changed
@woodwwad Totally agree. Much to the chagrin of some of my players, I'm a big fan of very slow, gradual progression in RPGs. Honestly, that's part of the reason I prefer "incremental" advancement, because you don't hit a moment where all-of-a-sudden *bam!* you're character gets better at stuff. In incremental systems, your character changes gradually and in response to the events as they happen in-game.
Just my preference and nothing wrong with disagreeing but that's how I see the (RPG) world
Well the elder scrolls video game actually has something that could convert well to tabletop games. Each skill gains experience as you use it and level up according too the experience said skill needs.
@GiantKukri Absolutely. My first Elder Scrolls game was Oblivion and I noticed the "skill-up" system right away. Basically a more complex, computer-driven version of the Call of Cthulhu mechanic. The more you use a skill, the better that skill gets.
I would avoid introducing the complexity of individual experience pools for every skill in a table-top RPG. That could get convoluted very quickly. But either a "check" system like CoC, or an "experience bank" system like SWD6 would work smoothly.
I don't particularly favor "incremental progression" because I don't like the bookkeeping involved. I'd rather write down a number and move on, doing all the bookkeeping in chunks rather than continually. I'm going to sound like a douchebag now, but watching the numbers get bigger isn't the reason I play RPGs. The growth within the story is enough for me, I could seriously play (frex M&M2E) without any character progression mechanic whatsoever.
@azirk83 OTOH, when on the Heroic Journey, I like to see difference when I level, which is harder with incremental progression. It feels better to me to go Farm Boy -> Rebel Pilot -> Jedi Padawan -> Jedi Knight. Incrementally, it'd be really hard to tell when the Farm Boy is really coming into his Rebel Pilot phase, etc.
@azirk83 In the "incremental" games that I play, the bookkeeping is typically much quicker and simpler than hitting the "level-up" phase of, say, later editions of D&D.
I also don't play RPGs for the numbers. Frex, I'm a gamer who can totally get behind the design of SotC or Wushu, in which characters are not intended to progress statistically at all. Characters in those RPGs might *change* over the course of the campaign but they don't *advance* in a numbers sense. Both games I like...
...But stats don't just communicate mathematics. They communicate expectations, relativistic value and even character behavior and personality (or, at least, IMHO they *should* be used to do so).
Incremental advancement systems make me believe that my character is more real. It makes me feel that they are constantly learning and growing as a result of the things they experience.
In contrast to the "Farm Boy->Rebel Pilot" analogy, (I feel) there shouldn't be such a clear-cut distinction...
...It feels better to me to think that Luke was just a Farm Boy who had great skill at flying and was in the right place at the right time when the Rebellion needed him. Likewise, he doesn't become a Jedi apprentice by meeting some sort of prerequisite for obtaining a "Force-User" class. He becomes an apprentice when somebody teaches him to use the Force.
It's just preference, sure, but I always feel like my character is more "natural" if they grow bit by bit rather than by leaps and bounds.
...Again, it's not about watching numbers grow (I can't stress this enough). It's about feeling the satisfaction that events of the game have direct and logical influences upon my character. It's about that moment when you think to yourself, "Wow! My character just survived that crazy chase on the speeder bikes and next time, maybe he won't be quite so bad at it! That makes sense!" When its not about obtaining a new "level" or another "class" but about experiences impacting you in a direct way.
@Webhead123 This is another thing I have to ask: How come everybody thinks you have a better chance of getting better at something from succeeding at it? I find success is completely antithetical to getting better at anything. In trying to operate above your capability, you FAIL a lot. Once you succeed people seem to think it's part of the journey rather than the achievement. I take umbrage with this sort of thing because I spent a lot of time learning to play pool.
@azirk83 Apologies if I sounded like I was implying success=advancement. That's the one bit of contention that I have with the CoC progression rules as written. Taking SWD6 as a base example, the RAW doesn't say that you may increase skills when you *succeed* at them, it says that you may increase skills when you *use* them...win, lose or draw. Failure has a lot to teach us. Easy success...not so much but even success, if in the face of a challenge or unfamiliar scenario, can result in learning.
@Webhead123 I don't play Pendragon. I don't want character stats to effect the roleplay stuff, which sadly has an "I'll know it when I see it" definition. I don't even care about background stats beyond how it will effect the PC's capabilities.
I think this because otherwise I feel there's too much looking at the character sheet and hoping it'll do the roleplay work for you. FREX: Got a dead brother? Talk about him! Don't expect the charsheet to do him justice or bring him in to the game.
@azirk83 And I know that's one of our differences. In my usage of heavy-handed examples for the ease of illustration, I hope I don't come across as an extremist. Do I need to express my dead brother on my character sheet? Hell no! But my character's "stats" are to some degree telling me who the character is. A character with a high strength is strong for a reason. That reason might be because he works out, he has a physically demanding job or comes from good genes but it says *something*...
...I've never played Pendragon either. I've just always instinctively assessed that stats are a window through which I can understand how my character is what he/she is, how he/she views themselves and what he/she can expect from interacting with the game world. As you say, it's perhaps not a mentality that can be explained to someone else. It has to be experienced. I simply work from my experience.
@Webhead123 One of the reasons I drop Alignment is because it's a statistic designed to hinder a player rather than a tool to support his decisions. You see a window, I see bars. I want a sheet to tell me what he can do and I'll supply the what he will do, what he has done, and why he will and has done it. I view a charsheet as a means of interfacing with the world, anything beyond that is for the Player. We've been over this in the past, I understand your position but I won't take it.
@azirk83 I can respect that. No hard feelings. I'm in agreement on Alignment. I see it as artificial and intrusive rather than useful. And I agree the character sheet (at least, directly) represents what the character *can* do, athough (indirectly) a person's decisions are often influenced by their experience and confidence in their own abilities and it simply feels wrong for me to dismiss that logic.
I suppose the difference is that I also view the character sheet as an interfacing tool...
...but also a tool for understanding what the interface "means". If the player doesn't understand the context of the interface, they can't understand how the character functions within the game and thus can't translate that understanding into proper decision-making (aka role-playing). Role playing isn't about "making funny voices", it's about "making character/circumstance-appropriate decisions".
It's a topic I intend to explore more in depth in a video and it somewhat related to Chris'...
...topic about how a game system is important in the way it communicates "goals" to the player.
I guess that brings up the good point about "are you looking *at* the window or are you looking *through* the window?" which is a fair topic.
I enjoy the discussion. I don't have to agree with a point of view to respect it and I consider any conversation worthwhile if I've learned something from it or if it causes me to look deeper into my own experience.
@Webhead123 My problem with your last set of quotes there. The rules will never help you make character/circumstance appropriate decisions in any *meaningful* way beyond abilities (if they do, give me an example). I use the Player for that stuff (and I think everybody does). The GM doesn't have rules for doing the exact same thing on the opposite side of the screen for the entire rest of the world, I seriously doubt players need such a thing. You look through the window, I go outside.
@azirk83 What do you mean when you say "beyond abilities"? I want to make sure that any response I give is appropriate, so I need to make sure I understand what your demonstrating.
...Except that, in an RPG, one can't "go outside" as it were, as it's all in the collective mind. To use more metaphor (because its fun), playing an RPG might be like painting. If the imagination is the brush with which to apply the paint, the game system is the color palate and the character sheet is the canvas...
...Apologies..."the game system/setting/tone/theme is the color palate". The game system/etc. says, "here's materials that you have to work with". With your imagination you can turn those raw materials into whatever form suits your mood, though on at least some level, you have to make due with the colors in front of you (mixing them if you like). Then, once you have satisfied your creativity, you look upon the finished work and it is art. Your creation and a window into your mind's eye (your...
...feelings and expectations about the game and its workings/goals/purpose).
I'm not saying that a sheet (or even a character) need be "art" by literal description but your character is the product of your collected efforts and your *sheet* is the record through which others (including yourself) look upon your work and understand the ideas it conveys.
Getting away from metaphor, the sheet is a review of your character's function (which contrasts with the view of "art" as "form", I know)...
@Webhead123 Initially, perhaps incorrectly, I thought you were saying the sheet is a window for how you view the gameworld. I don't use the window, I go outside. my "window" is the Player. Viewing the gameworld without the fetters of a game system. The system can be useful for managing expectation of ability, but I expect the driving done by the player. The sheet will not bring anything without the player, and the player doesn't need the sheet to bring what they want.
@azirk83 Excellent comment! I think we've finally hit solid ground on this thing! All the metaphor has probably confused more than clarified and I think the confusion is lifting.
I think I initially used the "window into the game-world" metaphor and while I do see some minor potential value in that phrase, I don't think it sent the right message.
You're correct. The sheet, by itself, does nothing. The sheet is not the character and the character doesn't function without the player. One...
...can view the game-world without input from the game-system. However, in my experience, doing so can (and does) often lead to the surfacing of improper expectations and poorly-informed decision-making.
The game-system's primary function is, as you say, setting expectations of character function: what your character can reasonably be expected to accomplish and how your character compares relative to the challenges of the game-world. It is up to the player to ultimately make decisions but...
...proper decision-making (because RPGs are still at least part "game") needs to come from understanding of not only the game-world as an independant entity but also of what the game-system is telling the player to expect.
Ex: You are playing a newly-created "warrior" character and the GM describes a group of 6 goblins ahead of you. The scenario is totally independant of "system". Now, say the system used was D&D4E. A "warrior" character in that game would probably (rightly) assess that 6...
...goblins would not present too much of a threat to be overly concerned about and the player knows this as well (because the game-system sets the expectation that goblins are *mostly* trivial enemies, easily defeated by PC heroes). The player, with knowledge of his character's abilities and understanding of the expectations of the game-system, might be so bold as to charge into combat and even stands a decent chance of emerging victorious (perhaps even unscathed).
...the player is playing it out in WFRP2E. Same "character", same "opponents" but the game-system has entirely different expectations to convey to the player (and through him, the character). A first-career "warrior" (not nearly as relatively-capable as his counterpart in D&D4E) would (rightly) assess that charging into a band of 6 goblins would probably be suicidal, again because the PC himself is much less capable, goblins are much more threatening and the combat mechanics themselves are...
...more unforgiving than in the prior system. The player needs to know this in order to both a) make proper decisions from a "game" stand point but (IMO) more importantly, to b) make proper "role playing decisions" about how the *character* would react based upon the knowledge of his or her relative *place* in the hierarchy of the game-world.
I have experience with this subject because I've played the same game-world (Star Wars) through many different systems and made note of how the...
...game system impacts expectations, how characters are built, how they interact with challenges and even with the relative difficulty of challenges themselves. Stormtroopers might be push-overs in one system and total bad-asses in another. If players try to apply decision-making without the input of the expectations of the system, they may find themselves at a loss when what they percieved as a negligible threat proves daunting.
That's the heart of what I mean when I say "system matters".
@Webhead123 I'm sorry Jordan, but what you suggest is trading one advancement mechanic for many advancement mechanics. "More" generally equals "more"...
What I'm saying is I've played CoC for example and found myself futzing with the character sheet too much for my enjoyment.
Also sorta bad call on using SotC and Wushu for talks here, as those games don't even have stats that codify varying power scales, merely scales of how much an ability will affect the narrative (like Smallville, really).
@azirk83 And I wouldn't be so silly as to attempt to refute your experience. I obviously wasn't there and I am not you and therefore don't have the benefit of your perspective to judge from.
On SotC and Wushu, my intent wasn't a comparison on how stats in those RPGs represent PCs. Rather, it was an example of why the numbers and their progression isn't self-fulfilling for me. It was just an attempt to say that I am totally happy playing RPGs without traditional "advancement" rules...
...On the complexity of advancement mechanics, I'll draw a comparison of SWD6 to, say, D&D3.X (because I know them well and because of the drastic differences between them).
There are several separate and distinct things, governed by different rules that happen when you "advance" in D&D3.X:
1) Select a Class to acquire a new level in.
2) Roll for Hit Points based on acquired Class-level, modified by Con
3) Record any increase to Base Attack Bonus based on acquired Class-level
...So, even though, ostensibly, it seems that you only have one simple task for advancing a D&D3.X character (i.e. "leveling-up"), that task involves 10 independant steps.
When you acquire "Character Points" (Exp) at the end of an adventure in SWD6, you *may* spend them using the same mechanic as follows:
1) Skill was used: cost=current skill level
2) Skill wasn't used: as above plus required training days=cost
3) Skill Specialization: as 1 or 2 above but cost=half
4) Advanced Skill: as 2 above but cost=double and training time=weeks not days
5) Attribute: as 2 above but cost x 10, training time as 4
That's it. You have [X] Character Points and may spend them or save them as desired. In all cases, you spend points based upon the current trait level, modified as above. If you don't have a teacher or some kind of learning material or program, all training time is doubled.
I'm not calling one game "better", I'm just showing the difference in symmetry.
...So, even though SWD6 has 5 different cost calculations depending on how you spend (Exp), the advancement really only uses 2 "mechanics": 1) Exp Cost and 2) Training Time.
D&D3.X is using 7 different mechanics in the process of a level-up: Hit Points, BAB, Saving Throws, Class Abilities, Skill Points, Feats and Ability Score Points.
This contrast with video games is crucial, since they're fundamentally different experiences. Video games are faster but they can't account for everything players do. While I do enjoy games with good rule sets, what pen and paper RPGs do well is adapt to human ingenuity. Adding context and layers to combat differentiates it from a video game situation, which may just be there to provide the player with challenge and resources. Some players may need to learn patience, too...
Immediacy is there for sure in RPGs but not in the same way as in videogames because of the different pacing. Like I played vampire on skype a week ago and our characters were in a caravan and we could hear a gargoyle tare apart our human guards. At that time we (the players) were pissing our selves and we could not come up with what to do. We were just like "oh shit, shit, SHIIT!!" and that created great immediacy. When I GM I tend to use music too to enhance the feeling:
@boltorange Thank you. I've got more to say on these concepts but didn't want to derail the vid as it was already long enough. I intend to revisit certain RPGs with a more focused eye on how different progression systems communicate character growth. You can read in my comments to Aaron above but I just prefer it when I feel like my character grows directly from experiences rather than when they grow in an "overall" sense. Skills improve when you use them. If you don't use a skill, it stagnates.
...I don't like "retroactive assumption" that is sometimes (admittedly, absurdly) applied to advancing characters. When a character improves or gains new traits which are not related to any of their historical activities and the defense is: "It's retroactively assumed that my character *was* training those things, even though it was never previously established."
Yeah, it's a stupid excuse but how else do you explain a Monk who gains "Slowfall" even if they've never had a fall in their life?
@Webhead123 I've often thought about what an incremental system would lo0ok like in 3.5 but maybe I've been too influenced by videogames like games like Elder Scrolls because I'be also been deterred like Aaron by the potential paperwork. It's cool to hear how the professionals have found elegant solutions.
@boltorange Yes, trying to track individual "skill experience" for each skill would be a nightmare. I don't recommend something that complex. But CoC's system or a general "experience bank" system like World of Darkness or Star Wars D6 uses is a very simple and workable example.
I too prefer the "incremental" progression (which I call the "organic" progression) compared to the "linear" progression of D&D. Specifically because it does allow the feeling of immediacy.
Also having a Star Wars D6 background, I think this is what shaped my opinion. I prefer the "exp is currency" approach where you save up your points and buy what you want, when you want.
Savage Worlds and Warhammer 3rd split the difference interestingly. It's a combo of organic and linear which works too.
... In an rpg context, audience/artist is similar interaction is between the players and GM... and from industry level all the way to the individual tables it is just as rampant an issue in this medium as well...
but back to what I was saying,,,
I agree System Matters and so does Setting... they matter to each other, and they must be in balanced cooperation, as combined they are the vista of the window, and the yard outside the door... and the GM is the winds that give that visual place lifes.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
They cared, and that makes it easier to reciprocate caring about their work... and their own character... eh ... if the artist cares it shows, if the artist doesn't care it shows... and it matters.
I might enjoy Firefly's fiction immensely and be disappointed in Lexx's science frequently... but I would rather watch the one that was made for me... and not in spite of me, just to throw it at my face... ya'know.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote To clarify, I don't think Joss was being dismissive and I don't really recall the entirety of that quote either. I think he was being tongue-in-cheek to say that he didn't write Firefly stories around some form of invented logic that he forced himself to adhere to. Rather, he wrote the stories and trusted that the viewer would assume the necessary mechanisms to satisfy their suspension of disbelief.
In other words, I think his approach was a case of "reverse-engineering"...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...which is essentially the same as doing it the other way around except that you write the story first and then shape the behavioral model to fit rather than invent the behavioral model first and try to pinch and stretch the story to fit that logic.
Hyperspace travel in the Star Wars movies (especially obnoxiously-treated in the prequels) is pretty "wobbly" and not a particularly good model for use in the role playing game. The speed at which it is implied ships can travel in the films...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...gets pretty obscene from a "world-view" perspective but that's because it is another case of "poetic license". Travel takes only as long as is needed to transition the story from one scene to the next. Just look at how quickly it's implied that the Falcon travels from Tatooine to Alderaan. Exact timing is unclear due to the scene transitions but Han's dialogue at the opening of the "training" scene implies that he has only just confirmed their successful escape from the Star Destroyers...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...Then, by the end of the 3 or 4-minute scene, Han says, "Looks like we're coming up on Alderaan". Consulting the developed support materials for the setting and considering Luke's "planet that it's farthest from" and Tarkin's "too remote" comments, being able to cross half a galaxy in minutes creates some interesting problems. Not so concerned about the "science" but about the implications to the "world-view".
It's possible (even likely) that Luke and Tarkin where being somewhat poetic...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...in their choice of language, just as Piett was likely exaggerating when he suggested the Falcon could be "on the other side of the galaxy by now". The point remains that travel in the films is ultimately subject to the whims of writer over any consistent behavioral model.
From a fan point of view, it's fun and useful to see and apply behavioral models, especially when supported by the creators, as you say. That says that the creators care, even if they don't always follow their own rules.
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 ...BUT... just because it offends me both as an artist and an audience, doesn't mean I do not understand the other aspects involved in the artistic process... just that I do not appreciate promotion of such divisiveness in any form... I feel it bloats the artist ego unjustly, diminishes the value of audience feedback, and generally cripples the medium (whatever type) over all...
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@Webhead123 ...coupled to the tendency of Hollywood's 'social irresponsibilities' for audiences in general, where a common belief is held that the industry is only responsible for providing reduced standards for higher profits, that are then to be pumped into a propagandizing machine to 'inform the public' how to appreciate such trivial entertainment and diminish any 'assault on their rights of corporate interests' from those who 'are never satisfied' and therefor 'irrelevant as an audience' ..,
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@Webhead123 was not inteding to bring specific people into my stated 'passionate despisement' of remarks such as these... that [imho] stem from the attititudes and sentiments of 'elitist artsy shmucks' that claim they know better of the art than a particular audience of genre-fans... and audiences that do not conform to what such an 'awesome artist' says is proper, are somehow 'flawed' in the eyes of such elitist jerks...
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
At least Lucas, Straczynski, Rodenberry, and Wright & Glassner have taken time to set-up dialog and explain themselfves, shown how they also make sacrifices of logic and desires of acuracey against their own wishes, all to satisfy artistic and financial obligations to the story...
and make off-screen canon logical for the inquiring fan that wants to know.
Even the Dr, Who creators who said similar "because we can" statements, still gave the fans that asked more than absent dismissals.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
I feel it is paramount to saying "I have your invested money and time, and no you can't get any of it back... g'day sir, I am busy enjoying your investments in my trash, and I have no more time for you."
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
It is not that I dislike "soft" or prefer "hard" I just find it difficult not to be insulted when the creator of the work, who invited me to be hooked on this journey becomes ambivalent -or- more so... outright dismissive of the details that a fan has found interesting... mine or someone else's doesn't matter, I still find it an affront if someone else's question that I have no stake in knowing is dismissed in such a way.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
and ar Joss Whedon comment Robert A. Heinlein rolled over in his grave... Issac Y. Asimov died of laughter... and Arthur C. Clarke just gave up on a slow boat to Sri Lanka... XD
I hate remarks like that with a passion, and loose considerable respect for people who rely on such dismissiveness toward fan interest in their work... but I still frequently enjoy those works for what they are worth.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
System also matters to setting - not just player choices and expectations.
To use the stormtrooper example for setting the question becomes "are stormtroopers supposed to be bad-asses or goons?" from the setting-logic world-view.
This is most readily seen when there is significant amounts non-gamed fiction upon which the game is supposed to be an exemplary approximation - but can (and does) also come to be a meaningful query if the setting has only codices of encyclopedic coverage.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote But then, sk two different people about what Stormtroopers are supposed to represent, for example, and you will probably get two different answers. One (such as myself) might argue that in the setting-logic, Stormtroopers represent well-trained, professional soldiers slightly above and beyond standard "grunts" (they are basically the "marines" of the Empire) but some people simply point and the movies and say, "Look at them! They're pathetic!" That's "movie" vs. "setting" logic.
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 understood that there might be some room for opinion bias - in this case I was placing reference (intended firmly - but missed explicitly) on the entirety (of novels, movies, etc). that encompasses the body statically stated by the creators as "canon definition' ... again one can further argue for added obscurity that the implicit intention is purely entertainment-fiat and thus meaningless - but to me that does not imply any "logic-consistent world-view" but only "poetic license".
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote so I will grant amendments that "System matters to Setting" IF setting maters to the observer - for reasons stated in my rationale...
but IS irrelevant if the option is held that setting-logic is not favored at all as an aspect of genre-setting -
however - even if pure genre-license is the priority of ones goal - then these generic genre becomes its own setting and has inherently implied a logic-consistent world-view.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote this is only an inclusion to your own statements that system impacts expectations - and another place in which it matters - not placed in opposition to your stance that setting matters to character, as it supports that view by associations of necessity, through character involvments with the setting implied to be in place.
in shorter phrase - it is an alternative approach in support of the same logical conclusions you have provided.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote Thanks for the further details! I didn't think your suggestion was in opposition to what I was offering but I will admit that I wasn't entirely clear about the direction you were headed until now.
Webhead123 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote Exactly right. To further the Stormtrooper example, they aren't made to look "pathetic" in the films as a way to suggest that they are inept within the "world-view" (just look how quickly and utterly they decimated the Rebel forces aboard Leia's ship) but because the writer is exercising his "poetic license" to keep the heroes alive. Big distinction.
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 a distinction that even Lucas has gone on record as stating as being part of a distinction between the entertaining "movie reenactment" of a "real universe" conceptualization... indeed... Lucus is also credited as saying the same about Stormtroopers, as well as many other aspects of the SWU that give "false impressions" in the film.due to his own need to rely on poetic licence over realistic portrayal... his call to make and he struggled with the 'art over science' often.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote Very true. Honestly, what I admire about the "soft sci-fi" approach of Star Wars over, say, "hard sci-fi" is because it places the importance of the "story" ahead of the importance of the "science". How can star ships travel at faster-than-light speeds? That's not as important as making sure that the characters can get where they need to go for good story-telling. How is a lightsaber physically possible? I dunno. They're built by monks with psychic powers. Why does it matter?...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...That's not to say that I don't enjoy "hard sci-fi" for its own appeal or even that it's not occasionally fun to imagine the warping of scientific principles that it would take to explain Star Wars. Just that Star Wars is not trying to be "hard sci-fi" and so I set my suspension of disbelief accordingly.
Webhead123 2 months ago
...As I recall, when Joss Whedon was asked at what speeds the ship Serenity moved through space in Firefly, his comment was: "the speed of *plot*".
Webhead123 2 months ago
Immersion come to people in different ways... studies have shown that people can be placed into sensory dominant categories and that their 'imaginations' reflect that dominate sense focus... some people are visual, some tactile, some audile, some olfactory, some palatal... noone covers a dominate focus to all the senses all the time though some may balance out two or three to some degree.... it's like handiness, even ambidextrous people have a dominate hand.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote don't know if that has anything to do with anything here... but it seemed relevant when I first had the thought...
good video 98% agreement (with 1% margin for misunderstanding - and the 00% critical fail accounted for).
organically developed incremental progressiveness... is that what the hip kids are calling it now? XD
yes, defiantly a preference of mine also.
The abstractification of any simulated hallucination can arbitrarily be discounted for maximum immersionability.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote I don't know if it's the technically appropriate term but it works just fine for my purposes!
Webhead123 2 months ago
I mentioned this on Tetsubo's video but I think BRP, Call of Cthulhu, and White Wolf games are good when it comes to this topic, because characters slowly improve after every session. With BRP games it is the check marks and with White Wolf it is XP every session that can be spent right then and there to improve things.
Samwise7RPG 3 months ago
@Samwise7RPG Yes, I'm mostly fond of the way those games handle advancement. I have minor quibbles here or there but at the core of them is the "growth by increments" concept which is something I personally enjoy.
Webhead123 3 months ago
I was shocked how quick the levels came in 3.0, it was such a change. I think more of a change than that is way too much. The idea of earning things should be applied to rpgs. Problem with those that don't want to wait is the same problem as in real life, you end up not caring about what you've acquired and you don't respect it.The big problem with a playing philosophy based on too quick is they are just looking for level & forget that's not the real character progression, the pc hasn't changed
woodwwad 3 months ago
@woodwwad Totally agree. Much to the chagrin of some of my players, I'm a big fan of very slow, gradual progression in RPGs. Honestly, that's part of the reason I prefer "incremental" advancement, because you don't hit a moment where all-of-a-sudden *bam!* you're character gets better at stuff. In incremental systems, your character changes gradually and in response to the events as they happen in-game.
Just my preference and nothing wrong with disagreeing but that's how I see the (RPG) world
Webhead123 3 months ago
Nice video, good points, all this discussion in the video and in the comments have got me thinking more on this than ever.
felipe1gojira 3 months ago
Well the elder scrolls video game actually has something that could convert well to tabletop games. Each skill gains experience as you use it and level up according too the experience said skill needs.
GiantKukri 3 months ago
@GiantKukri Absolutely. My first Elder Scrolls game was Oblivion and I noticed the "skill-up" system right away. Basically a more complex, computer-driven version of the Call of Cthulhu mechanic. The more you use a skill, the better that skill gets.
I would avoid introducing the complexity of individual experience pools for every skill in a table-top RPG. That could get convoluted very quickly. But either a "check" system like CoC, or an "experience bank" system like SWD6 would work smoothly.
Webhead123 3 months ago
I would like some advice on being a GM? I just started a campaign of Dark Heresy and would like some pointers
GamersReviewer 3 months ago
I'm going to sound really silly.
I don't particularly favor "incremental progression" because I don't like the bookkeeping involved. I'd rather write down a number and move on, doing all the bookkeeping in chunks rather than continually. I'm going to sound like a douchebag now, but watching the numbers get bigger isn't the reason I play RPGs. The growth within the story is enough for me, I could seriously play (frex M&M2E) without any character progression mechanic whatsoever.
azirk83 3 months ago
@azirk83 OTOH, when on the Heroic Journey, I like to see difference when I level, which is harder with incremental progression. It feels better to me to go Farm Boy -> Rebel Pilot -> Jedi Padawan -> Jedi Knight. Incrementally, it'd be really hard to tell when the Farm Boy is really coming into his Rebel Pilot phase, etc.
azirk83 3 months ago
@azirk83 In the "incremental" games that I play, the bookkeeping is typically much quicker and simpler than hitting the "level-up" phase of, say, later editions of D&D.
I also don't play RPGs for the numbers. Frex, I'm a gamer who can totally get behind the design of SotC or Wushu, in which characters are not intended to progress statistically at all. Characters in those RPGs might *change* over the course of the campaign but they don't *advance* in a numbers sense. Both games I like...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...But stats don't just communicate mathematics. They communicate expectations, relativistic value and even character behavior and personality (or, at least, IMHO they *should* be used to do so).
Incremental advancement systems make me believe that my character is more real. It makes me feel that they are constantly learning and growing as a result of the things they experience.
In contrast to the "Farm Boy->Rebel Pilot" analogy, (I feel) there shouldn't be such a clear-cut distinction...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...It feels better to me to think that Luke was just a Farm Boy who had great skill at flying and was in the right place at the right time when the Rebellion needed him. Likewise, he doesn't become a Jedi apprentice by meeting some sort of prerequisite for obtaining a "Force-User" class. He becomes an apprentice when somebody teaches him to use the Force.
It's just preference, sure, but I always feel like my character is more "natural" if they grow bit by bit rather than by leaps and bounds.
Webhead123 3 months ago
...Again, it's not about watching numbers grow (I can't stress this enough). It's about feeling the satisfaction that events of the game have direct and logical influences upon my character. It's about that moment when you think to yourself, "Wow! My character just survived that crazy chase on the speeder bikes and next time, maybe he won't be quite so bad at it! That makes sense!" When its not about obtaining a new "level" or another "class" but about experiences impacting you in a direct way.
Webhead123 3 months ago
@Webhead123 This is another thing I have to ask: How come everybody thinks you have a better chance of getting better at something from succeeding at it? I find success is completely antithetical to getting better at anything. In trying to operate above your capability, you FAIL a lot. Once you succeed people seem to think it's part of the journey rather than the achievement. I take umbrage with this sort of thing because I spent a lot of time learning to play pool.
azirk83 3 months ago
@azirk83 Apologies if I sounded like I was implying success=advancement. That's the one bit of contention that I have with the CoC progression rules as written. Taking SWD6 as a base example, the RAW doesn't say that you may increase skills when you *succeed* at them, it says that you may increase skills when you *use* them...win, lose or draw. Failure has a lot to teach us. Easy success...not so much but even success, if in the face of a challenge or unfamiliar scenario, can result in learning.
Webhead123 3 months ago
@Webhead123 I don't play Pendragon. I don't want character stats to effect the roleplay stuff, which sadly has an "I'll know it when I see it" definition. I don't even care about background stats beyond how it will effect the PC's capabilities.
I think this because otherwise I feel there's too much looking at the character sheet and hoping it'll do the roleplay work for you. FREX: Got a dead brother? Talk about him! Don't expect the charsheet to do him justice or bring him in to the game.
azirk83 3 months ago
@azirk83 And I know that's one of our differences. In my usage of heavy-handed examples for the ease of illustration, I hope I don't come across as an extremist. Do I need to express my dead brother on my character sheet? Hell no! But my character's "stats" are to some degree telling me who the character is. A character with a high strength is strong for a reason. That reason might be because he works out, he has a physically demanding job or comes from good genes but it says *something*...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...I've never played Pendragon either. I've just always instinctively assessed that stats are a window through which I can understand how my character is what he/she is, how he/she views themselves and what he/she can expect from interacting with the game world. As you say, it's perhaps not a mentality that can be explained to someone else. It has to be experienced. I simply work from my experience.
Webhead123 3 months ago
@Webhead123 One of the reasons I drop Alignment is because it's a statistic designed to hinder a player rather than a tool to support his decisions. You see a window, I see bars. I want a sheet to tell me what he can do and I'll supply the what he will do, what he has done, and why he will and has done it. I view a charsheet as a means of interfacing with the world, anything beyond that is for the Player. We've been over this in the past, I understand your position but I won't take it.
azirk83 2 months ago
@azirk83 I can respect that. No hard feelings. I'm in agreement on Alignment. I see it as artificial and intrusive rather than useful. And I agree the character sheet (at least, directly) represents what the character *can* do, athough (indirectly) a person's decisions are often influenced by their experience and confidence in their own abilities and it simply feels wrong for me to dismiss that logic.
I suppose the difference is that I also view the character sheet as an interfacing tool...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...but also a tool for understanding what the interface "means". If the player doesn't understand the context of the interface, they can't understand how the character functions within the game and thus can't translate that understanding into proper decision-making (aka role-playing). Role playing isn't about "making funny voices", it's about "making character/circumstance-appropriate decisions".
It's a topic I intend to explore more in depth in a video and it somewhat related to Chris'...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...topic about how a game system is important in the way it communicates "goals" to the player.
I guess that brings up the good point about "are you looking *at* the window or are you looking *through* the window?" which is a fair topic.
I enjoy the discussion. I don't have to agree with a point of view to respect it and I consider any conversation worthwhile if I've learned something from it or if it causes me to look deeper into my own experience.
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 My problem with your last set of quotes there. The rules will never help you make character/circumstance appropriate decisions in any *meaningful* way beyond abilities (if they do, give me an example). I use the Player for that stuff (and I think everybody does). The GM doesn't have rules for doing the exact same thing on the opposite side of the screen for the entire rest of the world, I seriously doubt players need such a thing. You look through the window, I go outside.
azirk83 2 months ago
@azirk83 What do you mean when you say "beyond abilities"? I want to make sure that any response I give is appropriate, so I need to make sure I understand what your demonstrating.
...Except that, in an RPG, one can't "go outside" as it were, as it's all in the collective mind. To use more metaphor (because its fun), playing an RPG might be like painting. If the imagination is the brush with which to apply the paint, the game system is the color palate and the character sheet is the canvas...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...Apologies..."the game system/setting/tone/theme is the color palate". The game system/etc. says, "here's materials that you have to work with". With your imagination you can turn those raw materials into whatever form suits your mood, though on at least some level, you have to make due with the colors in front of you (mixing them if you like). Then, once you have satisfied your creativity, you look upon the finished work and it is art. Your creation and a window into your mind's eye (your...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...feelings and expectations about the game and its workings/goals/purpose).
I'm not saying that a sheet (or even a character) need be "art" by literal description but your character is the product of your collected efforts and your *sheet* is the record through which others (including yourself) look upon your work and understand the ideas it conveys.
Getting away from metaphor, the sheet is a review of your character's function (which contrasts with the view of "art" as "form", I know)...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...Okay, all that metaphor was exhausting (and probably too extraneous for its own good). No more poetics from me! I'm done!
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 Initially, perhaps incorrectly, I thought you were saying the sheet is a window for how you view the gameworld. I don't use the window, I go outside. my "window" is the Player. Viewing the gameworld without the fetters of a game system. The system can be useful for managing expectation of ability, but I expect the driving done by the player. The sheet will not bring anything without the player, and the player doesn't need the sheet to bring what they want.
azirk83 2 months ago
@azirk83 Excellent comment! I think we've finally hit solid ground on this thing! All the metaphor has probably confused more than clarified and I think the confusion is lifting.
I think I initially used the "window into the game-world" metaphor and while I do see some minor potential value in that phrase, I don't think it sent the right message.
You're correct. The sheet, by itself, does nothing. The sheet is not the character and the character doesn't function without the player. One...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...can view the game-world without input from the game-system. However, in my experience, doing so can (and does) often lead to the surfacing of improper expectations and poorly-informed decision-making.
The game-system's primary function is, as you say, setting expectations of character function: what your character can reasonably be expected to accomplish and how your character compares relative to the challenges of the game-world. It is up to the player to ultimately make decisions but...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...proper decision-making (because RPGs are still at least part "game") needs to come from understanding of not only the game-world as an independant entity but also of what the game-system is telling the player to expect.
Ex: You are playing a newly-created "warrior" character and the GM describes a group of 6 goblins ahead of you. The scenario is totally independant of "system". Now, say the system used was D&D4E. A "warrior" character in that game would probably (rightly) assess that 6...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...goblins would not present too much of a threat to be overly concerned about and the player knows this as well (because the game-system sets the expectation that goblins are *mostly* trivial enemies, easily defeated by PC heroes). The player, with knowledge of his character's abilities and understanding of the expectations of the game-system, might be so bold as to charge into combat and even stands a decent chance of emerging victorious (perhaps even unscathed).
Same scenario but now...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...the player is playing it out in WFRP2E. Same "character", same "opponents" but the game-system has entirely different expectations to convey to the player (and through him, the character). A first-career "warrior" (not nearly as relatively-capable as his counterpart in D&D4E) would (rightly) assess that charging into a band of 6 goblins would probably be suicidal, again because the PC himself is much less capable, goblins are much more threatening and the combat mechanics themselves are...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...more unforgiving than in the prior system. The player needs to know this in order to both a) make proper decisions from a "game" stand point but (IMO) more importantly, to b) make proper "role playing decisions" about how the *character* would react based upon the knowledge of his or her relative *place* in the hierarchy of the game-world.
I have experience with this subject because I've played the same game-world (Star Wars) through many different systems and made note of how the...
Webhead123 2 months ago
...game system impacts expectations, how characters are built, how they interact with challenges and even with the relative difficulty of challenges themselves. Stormtroopers might be push-overs in one system and total bad-asses in another. If players try to apply decision-making without the input of the expectations of the system, they may find themselves at a loss when what they percieved as a negligible threat proves daunting.
That's the heart of what I mean when I say "system matters".
Webhead123 2 months ago
@Webhead123 I'm sorry Jordan, but what you suggest is trading one advancement mechanic for many advancement mechanics. "More" generally equals "more"...
What I'm saying is I've played CoC for example and found myself futzing with the character sheet too much for my enjoyment.
Also sorta bad call on using SotC and Wushu for talks here, as those games don't even have stats that codify varying power scales, merely scales of how much an ability will affect the narrative (like Smallville, really).
azirk83 3 months ago
@azirk83 And I wouldn't be so silly as to attempt to refute your experience. I obviously wasn't there and I am not you and therefore don't have the benefit of your perspective to judge from.
On SotC and Wushu, my intent wasn't a comparison on how stats in those RPGs represent PCs. Rather, it was an example of why the numbers and their progression isn't self-fulfilling for me. It was just an attempt to say that I am totally happy playing RPGs without traditional "advancement" rules...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...On the complexity of advancement mechanics, I'll draw a comparison of SWD6 to, say, D&D3.X (because I know them well and because of the drastic differences between them).
There are several separate and distinct things, governed by different rules that happen when you "advance" in D&D3.X:
1) Select a Class to acquire a new level in.
2) Roll for Hit Points based on acquired Class-level, modified by Con
3) Record any increase to Base Attack Bonus based on acquired Class-level
cont...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...4) Record any increase to Saving Throws based on acquired Class-level
5) Record any class abilities acquired at the appropriate level for the Class acquired.
6) Record any new Class Skills
7) Record Skill Points based on acquired Class-level, modified by Int
8) Spend Skill Points based on acquired Class' Class/Cross-class Skill list
9) Acquire any Feats based on current Class or Character Level
10) Acquire any bonus Ability Score Points based on current Character Level
cont...
Webhead123 3 months ago
...So, even though, ostensibly, it seems that you only have one simple task for advancing a D&D3.X character (i.e. "leveling-up"), that task involves 10 independant steps.
When you acquire "Character Points" (Exp) at the end of an adventure in SWD6, you *may* spend them using the same mechanic as follows:
1) Skill was used: cost=current skill level
2) Skill wasn't used: as above plus required training days=cost
3) Skill Specialization: as 1 or 2 above but cost=half
cont...
Webhead123 3 months ago
4) Advanced Skill: as 2 above but cost=double and training time=weeks not days
5) Attribute: as 2 above but cost x 10, training time as 4
That's it. You have [X] Character Points and may spend them or save them as desired. In all cases, you spend points based upon the current trait level, modified as above. If you don't have a teacher or some kind of learning material or program, all training time is doubled.
I'm not calling one game "better", I'm just showing the difference in symmetry.
Webhead123 3 months ago
...So, even though SWD6 has 5 different cost calculations depending on how you spend (Exp), the advancement really only uses 2 "mechanics": 1) Exp Cost and 2) Training Time.
D&D3.X is using 7 different mechanics in the process of a level-up: Hit Points, BAB, Saving Throws, Class Abilities, Skill Points, Feats and Ability Score Points.
Webhead123 3 months ago
@Webhead123 I wasn't intending to imply you play for the nums, hence my "I'm going to sound like a douche" sentiment.
azirk83 2 months ago
@azirk83 Not at all! I have enjoyed the interaction.
Webhead123 2 months ago
This contrast with video games is crucial, since they're fundamentally different experiences. Video games are faster but they can't account for everything players do. While I do enjoy games with good rule sets, what pen and paper RPGs do well is adapt to human ingenuity. Adding context and layers to combat differentiates it from a video game situation, which may just be there to provide the player with challenge and resources. Some players may need to learn patience, too...
nutherefurlong 3 months ago
Immediacy is there for sure in RPGs but not in the same way as in videogames because of the different pacing. Like I played vampire on skype a week ago and our characters were in a caravan and we could hear a gargoyle tare apart our human guards. At that time we (the players) were pissing our selves and we could not come up with what to do. We were just like "oh shit, shit, SHIIT!!" and that created great immediacy. When I GM I tend to use music too to enhance the feeling:
watch?v=6lgh-04PWJw
hammeredshitsteak 3 months ago
Ha! I agree my PS3 never catches a buzz at the table game night and suddenly can't divide two numbers. organic systems would handle this better.
blackbarnz 3 months ago
Wonderful vid -- you've really sold me on having more PC control over when and what can be leveled.
boltorange 3 months ago
@boltorange Thank you. I've got more to say on these concepts but didn't want to derail the vid as it was already long enough. I intend to revisit certain RPGs with a more focused eye on how different progression systems communicate character growth. You can read in my comments to Aaron above but I just prefer it when I feel like my character grows directly from experiences rather than when they grow in an "overall" sense. Skills improve when you use them. If you don't use a skill, it stagnates.
Webhead123 3 months ago
...I don't like "retroactive assumption" that is sometimes (admittedly, absurdly) applied to advancing characters. When a character improves or gains new traits which are not related to any of their historical activities and the defense is: "It's retroactively assumed that my character *was* training those things, even though it was never previously established."
Yeah, it's a stupid excuse but how else do you explain a Monk who gains "Slowfall" even if they've never had a fall in their life?
Webhead123 3 months ago
@Webhead123 I've often thought about what an incremental system would lo0ok like in 3.5 but maybe I've been too influenced by videogames like games like Elder Scrolls because I'be also been deterred like Aaron by the potential paperwork. It's cool to hear how the professionals have found elegant solutions.
boltorange 3 months ago
@boltorange Yes, trying to track individual "skill experience" for each skill would be a nightmare. I don't recommend something that complex. But CoC's system or a general "experience bank" system like World of Darkness or Star Wars D6 uses is a very simple and workable example.
Webhead123 3 months ago
I too prefer the "incremental" progression (which I call the "organic" progression) compared to the "linear" progression of D&D. Specifically because it does allow the feeling of immediacy.
Also having a Star Wars D6 background, I think this is what shaped my opinion. I prefer the "exp is currency" approach where you save up your points and buy what you want, when you want.
Savage Worlds and Warhammer 3rd split the difference interestingly. It's a combo of organic and linear which works too.
Onionkid99 3 months ago