gorillastraylight

[gorillastraylight]

Yeah, it’s a bit strange that ICON carries that idea over a bit from Lancer and even makes the divide starker. In Lancer, there’s at least a diegetic reason as to why combat is so utterly different from the rest of the game: you’re either in a giant robot, or you aren’t. Additionally, your pilot can take damage in or out of combat similar to 4e (though it’s going to be fairly rare for the pilot to take damage in mech combat, usually that means you’re just dead). In ICON, you’re still the same guy in or out of a fight, but for some reason those are totally different modes.

There is an unfortunate tendency to think of RPGs as basically having "the rules stuff" and "the narrative content" and never the two shall meet, and while this is something that is easy to just blame D&D 5e on (like, more so than any of its predecessors, D&D 5e very much is a combat system plus a universal resolution engine that provides the DM with very little guidance beyond "ask for a check and make something up.") it's absolutely not exclusive to D&D 5e.

This is another unfortunate outgrowth of the fluff/crunch, roleplaying/rollplaying, fiction/mechanics dichotomies that people keep pushing and unfortunately people who don't examine the biases built into this rhetoric end up producing extremely unopinionated game design. If you've internalized the idea that RPGs can be divided into the rules stuff (which usually means procedural combat scenes) and then the actual narrative stuff (which people always falsely assume to mean "single roll resolution acting as an improv prompt") and end up taking that into their own designs. Well, there's a reason why so many Baby's First "Narrative" RPGs just end up being essentially like "what if you built an entire game system out of asking for ability checks and then doing improv based on the results of those checks." Basically replicating D&D 5e's exact non-combat structure but because the game doesn't have an actual combat engine it's actually "story-focused" now. But without any actual structure built under those mechanics it'll still be the GM who has to hold the thing together, and arguably their job is now harder because they don't even have a combat engine to fall back on.

[gorillastraylight]

There are, in fact, strange things done in the midnight sun

The White Vault…The Terror…The Pale Beyond…why am I Big into doomed polar expedition media lately. Anyone else up feeling the sirens call of the arctic

[gorillastraylight]

This movie is an insane weapon to pull out in Cine2nerdle. Neither the layman nor the frequenter of film Reddit have seen it, but absolutely fucking everyone’s in it

If this shit happened to me as a teen I wouldn't give a fuck what anyone thought. Nobody would be able to fuck with me

[gorillastraylight]

I love Blades in the Dark. I like how its dice pool works. I do not love having to rationalize “complications” from player die rolls constantly - like it’s not a huge deal, but all the little expenditures add up and get exhausting. I *want* complications to be interesting and change the situation, not just be a point or two of stress - but after two hours in a session, that’s what’s gonna start happening. Just like, a page or two of tables to offload a little of the work might have been nice

If we're being 100% honest with ourselves as game designers, we've gotta admit that this notion that "story focus" means making the GM do all the work is not a bugbear that's unique to the Dungeons & Dragons fandom. Think of how many self-identified "story focused" indie RPGs you've bumped into that have a great deal to say leading up to the point of rolling the dice, but once the dice have actually been rolled and the time has come to interpret what those results actually mean, those same rules that were so keen on procedural rigour just moments ago simply shrug and go "I dunno, have the GM make something up?"

[gorillastraylight]

[gorillastraylight]

[gorillastraylight]

They say that between gunshot and throne-room floor, Cameron saw everything that was to come- and his final breath left as a scream of terror.

Song for Three Soldiers, by Stephen Vincent Benet.

[gorillastraylight]

not to be a killjoy but it's still crazy to me that it's considered mean to be like "maybe you should read / play / watch the source material before creating fanworks and diving into the fandom" bc every time i see somebody going "i havent played disco elysium or know anything about it tbh but uwu here's harry and kim kissing" idk maybe you should engage with it. maybe you should play the anti-capitalist surrealist game where you investigate the murder of a mercenary who led the gang rape of a foreign girl and process that for a bit? and then you can do cutesy mlm or whatever idc. but like at the absolute bare minimum you should understand what the source material involves otherwise we get the phenomenon of people joining a dragon age server and wanting content warnings for like, mage racism. like it's fine to ship and transform the genre into whatever but if you arent comfortable with discussions of the actual source content itself then maybe the fandom isnt for you and a different one is. peace and love.

[gorillastraylight]

Why talking about RPGs (and other things) can suck

Over on Bluesky, there was some conversation about one of the long-running cyclical conversation that happens in RPG spaces. This time, it was about the category of statement that goes something like “I hacked D&D to run Cyberpunk 2077, just as god intended” to quote the original poster. To put it another way, it’s about this idea that design doesn’t really matter.

In the case of when this is used to defend specific games like D&D 5e, this is just fandom. People want to like what they like and will say anything. It’s best not to take it too seriously. But beyond that, I think there’s a specific structural reason that this conversation keeps happening.

Let’s talk about the two ways that people judge something. The first is by outcome (or effect or output) and the second is by input (time, effort, ingredients, values).

Have you ever gone “this is really tasty”? That’s outcome. It’s good because the effect was pleasurable.

Have you ever gone “someone put a lot of thought or skill into this”? That’s input. It’s good because of craft and care.

You’re probably doing both a lot in your life. Everyone uses both methods probably every day.

“But isn’t it more rational to judge everything by outcome?”, you might be thinking. It’s an interesting thought. In science and policy, measuring outcomes is essential to ensure you’re not just making stuff up. But in many situations you can’t measure outcome in any real way. Like for example, art. (There’s lots of other examples including almost everything you do because “it’s the right thing to do”. But getting into this is literally a philosophy class so we must hurry along.)

Coming back to RPGs, the truth is that you can have a great experience roleplaying with good design, bad design, no design, whatever. At the same time, the craft and values going into a design are also a real thing that can be observed and discussed.

People talking about the former (outcomes, experience, their fun) and people talking about the latter (inputs, design, values) are going to talk in circles if they don’t acknowledge the difference in approach. This conversation will never resolve because it’s not about the same thing.

When I talk about games in terms of outcomes, I’m really talking about myself. I had fun. I laughed. I grew closer to my friends. Those are real things — important things. When I talk about the games in terms of inputs, I’m talking about rules, setting, illustrations, etc. Those are also real things — but obviously different things.

Saying “this game is good because I had fun” and saying “this game is good because it is designed well” feels like they’re doing the same thing because of the way language works. But go deeper and they’re simply not.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not some impassable bridge. These two starting points can be connected. Two people can begin at different places and still have a conversation… if they’re willing to talk about interaction, i.e., the space between inputs and outputs and what happens there.

But here’s the things: talking about interaction is annoying and hard. Very often, whether you’re talking about inputs or outputs, it’s easier to just ignore it. When we’re talking about design, it’s easy to say that, oh, this rule does this or this adventure does that. But for who? In whose hands? What inputs do they need to bring that isn’t in the text? A can-do attitude? How common is that input really?

When we talk about outcomes, it’s the same thing but in reverse. Oh, you had fun? Amazing. How did you get there? What led to the fun? Was it the text? Was it something outside the text? What percentage would you allocate to both categories?

Stop booing me! I’m just asking questions! I’m normal! I’M NORMAL.

[gorillastraylight]

it is continually inspiring to me that there is a nearly middle aged man who writes for a sports website who posts like us, truly the posters spirit can be found anywhere

[gorillastraylight]

Regarding your post(s) about investigation checks and the like, there's something that's bothering me, and it bothered me for a while. Not in regard to investigation, but charisma (and similar checks, diplomacy, negotiation, persuasion, whatever the game calls it).

In a TTRPG with skills, those skills are an abstraction meant to simulate a characters actual capabilities. If I want to make a character who can effortlessly jump from rooftop to rooftop, I'll give them high Athletics, Agility, Endurance, whatever. Maybe some feats, abilities, perks, advantages etc that pertain to jumping. Now, if I want my character to jump from rooftop to rooftop, I just roll the dice, and the skills, attributes, perks etc will make sure I have a high likelihood of success. I don't need to prove to the GM or the group that I myself could make that jump.

But now let's talk about Charisma checks. I've often heard stories of groups who say they don't make those checks, they just let the player make the argument, and if the GM is convinced, they "pass." But like... that means the character will always be as persuasive as the player. If the player isn't good at formulating an argument, the character won't be, either. Same with perception, investigation, etc. Sometimes, players just aren't good at picking up on hints and clues and/or they're not good at drawing conclusions from the clues they have. So that means that they can't play as a character who is?

Don't get me wrong, I get your point, I just find this is an issue worth thinking about. Why are things like athleticism, stealth, and combat prowess, or even things like lockpicking, hacking, or repairing stuff okay to abstract away as dice rolls, but deduction, perception, and maybe also persuasion and rhetoric aren't? Or, maybe the better, more constructive question: How would you propose handling a player playing a character whose skills exceed the player's?

I also think it's an issue worth thinking about, but I think "thinking about it" also has to involve asking the questions "why is this a problem?" and "is this ACTUALLY a problem?"

Like this discussion comes with the prepackaged assumption that allowing you to play a character whose abilities exceed yours as a player is both a) a universally desirable thing, and b) something that must be treated as a game design priority. And, with that assumption, it's logical to conclude that a TTRPG has an *obligation* to allow you to play a character whose abilities are not limited by yours as a player in any way, and not allowing you to do so constitutes a failure on the game's part.

But let's question that assumption a little bit. Because, the way I see it "allowing you to play a character who is good at X even if that's something that you, personally, are not good at" is not an inherently desirable design goal. It's a value-neutral feature, and it becomes a good or bad design goal to pursue depending on what X is and whether abstracting X so that the player doesn't have to engage with it benefits or detracts from the desired gameplay experience.

Let's for example, imagine a TTRPG with wargame elements, where, among other things to do, there are situations where your character can assume command of an army to engage in large-scale battles. It's pretty clear that, in such a game, you simply can't play as a character who is a better tactician than you, the player, are. If I'm not a good tactician, I don't get to play a character who's supposed to be the most brilliant tactician in all the land. That's simply not a character concept I get to play unless I am also skilled at tactical decision-making.

Is that inherently a problem to be solved? If we got rid of tactical decision-making as an activity that the players have to engage in, and instead gave the characters a "Tactics" skill and we used a Tactics skill check to determine whether they win or lose a battle, that would certainly allow a player who's bad at tactics the freedom to play a character who's the best tactician ever. But would this be an objectively good change? I'd say no, because it would skip past the entire point of the wargame elements, which is engaging as a player with the process of tactical decision-making, and that's not something that I'd consider worth sacrificing in pursuit of allowing the player to play a character whose skills exceed theirs in this particular aspect.

To name a more concrete example that someone else mentioned in the notes of that post: Mothership has no equivalent of a stealth skill, despite being a game where a lot of your playtime is spent hiding from some flavor of Scary Space Monster, because if the game abstracted stealth that way the resolution to any situation where you're trying to hide from a Scary Space Monster would be saying "I roll stealth" and hoping you roll high enough. Without a stealth skill, you're forced to participate in the narrative conversation of paying attention to the GM's description of the environment, ask clarifying questions if needed, and describe how you try to hide in the space presented to you.

This, once again, presents a situation where your character's skills are limited by your own. It's pretty clear that your character can only be as good at hiding as you are at thinking of places to hide and describing how they hide in them, and that if the game took the "i roll stealth" approach instead, it would solve the "problem" of your character's skills being limited by your own in this particular way. But is solving this "problem" worth sacrificing the tension that the game seeks to create by deliberately refusing to abstract stealth in this way?

So yeah... I think lacking skill checks for stuff such as perception or investigation makes a dungeon-crawling game better because it forces the players to narratively engage with the environment as a real place when they're looking for something, and it's also true that the lack of such mechanics kinda does mean that a player who just isn't good at picking up hints and clues from environmental details simply doesn't get to play a character who is supposed to be good at picking up hints and clues from environmental details. But I think that ensuring a player's ability to play such a character regardless of their real-life skill level is not a design goal that a game has any inherent obligation to pursue, especially not at the cost of skipping over the actions that, to me, are the meat and potatoes of a dungeon crawl.

My answer to "why is it okay to abstract certain skills as dice rolls and not others" is that games are allowed to make decisions about which actions they want to skip over with a dice roll and which actions they want the players to have to exercise direct narrative control and mastery of, and sometimes that's gonna interfere with their freedom to play a character whose skills exceed theirs, and that's okay because sometimes other game design goals are going to have priority over the goal of ensuring the character's skills aren't limited by the player's real-life skills in any conceivable way.

[gorillastraylight]

"The GM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules and can modify rules at will to suit their table" is a useful principle to have in mind and apply to your table on a personal basis, but it getting informally codified by the D&D community as the maxim of "Rule 0" has been a complete disaster for anyone who wants to publicly engage with tabletop rpgs on a game design level. No other single concept has been as destructive as it to the very existence of tabletop game design discussion.

[gorillastraylight]

Primaries, Secondaries, Structure, and 4e DnD

Talking about Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons is challenging at times because I feel like I’m always coming at things from a preemptive crouch. My first draft of this started out describing a problem that people criticized, but realistically speaking, that was 10 years ago and it doesn’t really matter what people think about it now, especially because fundamentally it isn’t an incorrect thing to have noticed.

What I’m going to talk about here is structural form and it’s a thing that 4e has throughout. Honestly, you could make a reasonable model of the development of Dungeons & Dragons throughou

One of the areas where I would say that fourth edition really excels as a tabletop RPG is that its structure is rock solid. It’s not a game with tons of tables in it because most things that needed tables were instead handled by formulas and sometimes those formulas were very simple. This does make it sort of the anti-Rolemaster where, broadly speaking, you are managing a very small amount of information and the game doesn’t do a lot to generate things for you. This structure does mean that there are reliable ways that players can approach information with expectations and assumptions about how the game does work.

To be clear, I like this. It is not necessarily the best way for any game to be, but 4e is an enormous game that relies on its system being modular, familiar, and exclusionary. You know how the game works in a set of fundamental structures, and then you work out from that centre of generalities to your specifics. You don’t need to know how Barbarians work if you’re not playing one, but the fact that Barbarians work like how Wardens work like how Fighters work means that when you do pick up any of the Barbarian pieces, they are pretty familiar. This approach is a form of structuralism, and it’s really useful for making a big complicated thing handleable. Rather than having four or five versions of the same thing (like Spellcasting in 3rd edition), you can have a uniform structure that everyone recognises.

One example of a structural design in 4E is the way the game handles Primary and Secondary Stat needs for each class.

Real quick for anyone not familiar, in most of 4E’s class design, characters were making attack rolls against defenses. There weren’t any saving throws against magical spells being flung around, and for the most part enemies didn’t have a lot of opportunities to avoid things beyond specialized layered defenses like ending stuns or dazes early. You had your Armour Class, your Fortitude Defense, your Reflex Defense, and your Will Defense. This design puts agency on the actor rather than defense posture on the target, and since players are the ones enacting the things the players want, that means the die rolls that matter are the ones they make.

Now, you may not like this, especially if you like fudging die rolls like some kind of a coward I guess, but the point is for now, the fundamental structure of classes in 4E was you were powers were making attack rolls against defenses. Because of that, everyone needed to be good at making attack rolls. This was a break from third edition where it was pretty much expected that attack rolls were only for a very small set of things that were considered attacks (and which were, largely, not very good). If you were a wizard, you could build the whole character as if you never had to make an attack roll. You could, there were spells that did it, but you didn’t have to. There was no inherent assumption wizards would be good at attacking. You would be very likely expecting to meet characters that didn’t have a good attack roll.

A complaint about this design is that because everyone is making attacks, characters all feel the same. This is a reasonable complaint that if you ignore all the things that aren’t making attacks, everyone is only ever making attacks. It is true that this made 4E a game where everyone wanted to be good at connecting and therefore, everyone wanted stats that made you best at hitting. That meant that Wizards all wanted Intelligence, the stat that made you better at hitting with Wizard powers, and Fighters and Barbarians all wanted a good Strength stat because that’s how Fighters and Barbarians hit things more often.

This was, again, a complaint: The system made it so that wizards wanted high Intelligence, and Fighters and Barbarians wanted high Strength. It’s true that if you don’t like this result that this is a reasonable criticism, that this is a thing the game encourages. It’s not a criticism I much care about, mind you.

“Doesn’t this mean every member of a class will have similar stats, and naturally gravitate towards the same best powers?” you might wonder, and no! No, they solved this problem through Secondary stats. Powers came in two flavours; one, powers that only cared about your primary stat, and they were usually pretty decent, solid 8/10 kind of things. But then there were powers that could have some benefit based on your other choices, like a Pact or a Boon or a Style, and those things looked at a stat of yours that was very deliberately not the stat used to make the attack roll. These were commonly referred to as your ‘rider’ abilities, and therefore, that stat effect was the rider on the main ability.

For example, Dishearten was an attack that used Intelligence to hit, dealt damage based on Intelligence, but the penalty it could impose on an enemy’s to-hit was based on your Charisma. To that end, if you did want this power, you might want a good Charisma as well, or, if you already wanted a character with a high Charisma, you might pick this kind of power to reward that build.

There’s another structure that lives parallel here. It’s not as common, but it’s still there; there were some classes that had one secondary stat for their powers, but had two different primary stats for their powers. That meant that the class might approach hitting with stats like Wisdom or Strength, but the followup to that hitting was always going to be (for example) Charisma. This meant that there was a common thread across all members of that class, but it was never their best thing; all Clerics had some people skills, but they might be a holy smiting, mace-swinging Cleric who had people skills, or a laser beam blasting Cleric who had people skills.

4E clerics were so cool.

The other classes that did this in the Player’s Handbook were the Warlock (Charisma and Constitution) and the Paladin (Charisma and Strength). The Warlock was a bit of an orphan child at the best of times, but the Paladin was so well serviced and ate so well that it wound up with multiple fully-fledged ‘standard package’ builds you could pursue with plenty of feat support under the names of Straladin (Strength Paladin), Chaladin (Charisma Paladin) or Baladin (Balanced Paladin). The Ranger also had the opportunity to be a Strength-based or Dexterity-based attacker, though the powers were mostly all the same powers, with ‘Strength or Dexterity vs AC’ kind of attack rolls.

Sometimes for some classes that weren’t super well developed, this meant that you effectively had one primary stat and two secondary stats. There aren’t any I can find that only have one secondary stat, even the most malnourished classes I found like the Vampire have two, and some classes like the Fighter and the Warden seem to have almost every possible stat supported as a secondary stat. Your best stat was probably going to be the one that you used to hit with and your second best stat was going to be the one that gave you secondary effects you liked, which meant that most of the characters in a particular form would have similar stats and probably express a similar-ish character. If you were a wizard who liked moving things around, you probably were very intelligent and pretty wise because those were the two stats you wanted the most.

Now this does create variety within a class, but you can probably just complain it kicks the can down the road. After all, if you’re playing a Bard, are you the Charisma-Intelligence Bard, the Charisma-Wisdom Bard, or the best Bard? It’s still narrowing options.

Thing is, to me, complaining about this seems dumb when I point out the Fighter. Because everyone seems to think it’s okay that all fighters are strong and hit things hard, because that’s what being a Fighter is. Suddenly that is okay when we’re talking about limiting the options of the poor Fighter, who had people back in 4e complaining their builds were too good, too interesting, and they did too much cool stuff, when the players would much rather than two combat options, have one.

Oh and fourh the May be with you or whatever.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[gorillastraylight]

IT’S MERLIN MONDAY BABY!

[gorillastraylight]

this has been in my head all week

[gorillastraylight]

TTRPG recs

[gorillastraylight]

This is so fucked up