Vko6)Ygbyp8͚dE(a0(U~a%%ٲiG0){x2!%>K&#: )H)4CiI̒yB%꛹Ҋ$(23;}HHnQ|`ITg /$\P0ngԱ:sde>?DA?/ꋳxy[,f#/Y7A#4rRчǦX,j< j/̅ ݗOgj ȿ,<24 "jD+g] HŖG\@vC }D{fiۮFײ0TQBnmpPbitҬԓ$1-kh,1]k$\mkٶ4OcD"` 3 BnQhgt9KlaIuO̗aeR>h&RiEPݲ~M9D]x4DF<뺥0xŸv۶{=ѝ>tGB4Huǀ} 8N'qY1QbPaFg7dDQ-`H.G D1n[ġܠoyP8i_]'Ab֞AK;4@uB Xeբ慾My QN)e"< "|tcџ\WvMcoS+@4 yD4̕„#U.k]sJ>aR`.""+5t }m8g"%KF7=9<Ȗ'y{V,U}"A|Ëf7^XV+.ܶZNguبL]{sX.KtQ~ Z6?;y]2e20U2zw@PȍB*F:^.7]WT%oc> {v %G{(I%~'mOdݖ+[l!fFݏ@4&M\|\a?++7!sOOӚх0,wП spM jFB0]V)Dxf'aNR>>:R/~ƩxOJV.ؔ 0gm|WiX7U, fϜv+SNw:Rwo缌isew,(nMۛ[UTaՊc=hp$*7bE'j4grgTwی%q.

Soapbox: About the Industry


by Sandy Antunes
Sep 05,2003



by Sandy Antunes

I've never rolled to succeed at anything in my life. If I know what I'm doing, I usually succeed. It's just a question of how long it takes.

Okay, there have been situations where I've failed. And there have been a few accidents. But I haven't had that sense of 'dice rolling in the background' that seems to be the hallmark of a good game. It has, instead, had an 'organic' feel to things, with little panic and hindsight generally matching expectations.

Here are some real life challenges that didn't always go the way I want:

  • Finishing work by a deadline
  • Getting a speeding ticket
  • Crashing a car
  • Hitting a baseball
  • Walking on ice
  • Convincing security to let me in
  • Winning a fencing match

Let's look at these in gaming terms. Is it possible to reduce the role of chance in games, while maintaining a degree of plausibility in terms of Success and Fate? Right now, RPGs tend to be either:

  1. Random: You roll often for completing things
  2. Dramatic: GM fiat or player wishes determine the results.
  3. Predetermined: The player knows whether their character will succeed or not.
  4. Fated: The player succeeds due to external reasons they are not aware of.

1) Finishing work by a deadline. This is a long-term task. During the course of doing the work, it eventually becomes clear to me that I may not finish it in time. However, if I had a GM or Player, they would have had an unbiased view and known beforehand whether I would have succeed. So this is a Predetermined action.

2) Getting a speeding ticket. Clearly Predetermined: if a cop is in location A and I speed by at speed Y, I'll get the ticket. It only appears random to me. There's little skill or checking involved, and all the forces involved are mapped out clearly.

3) Crashing a car. While this seems random, it is usually a Fated action; situations beyond which I am aware lead to the crash, partially due to my own actions but also due to other factors. (It could be argued this is instead a Predetermined result, but that would require the GM to have exceptional knowledge of their world at the minute level.)

4) Hitting a baseball. At last, a bonafide Random act. Given my level of skill versus the skill of the pitcher, and the usual randomness inherent in most acts requiring physical coordination plus concentration, we can see this dice-rolling in the real world.

5) Walking on ice. Most of the time, walking on ice is no problem for me, as long as I pay attention. If I am inattentive, any slipping is probably a Predetermined act (in retrospect, the reason why I fell is obvious.) However, once or twice I have been caught by a bonafide Random act of falling, where conditions conspired to result in an unexpected tumble.

This is the sort of thing hardest to model in a game-- rolling each time is fairly annoying, yet there should always be a slight chance of accident.

6) Convincing security to let me in. This is clearly a Fated system; there's a pretty straightforward 'social engineering' method to gaining access to places. Whether it works is due to factors that the engineer isn't necessarily aware of, but that are quite real and have a tangible effect. Even after the resolution, the engineer is unlikely to understand fully why the attempt did or did not work (thus it isn't quite Predetermined.)

7) Winning a fencing match. Very tricky, this. It's largely Predetermined (in that the higher skilled person will almost always win), but there is also a Fated aspect (whether one person got enough sleep, whether one's approach happens to play into the other's weakness), and there is some degree of Randomness, particularly if our skill levels are matched.

In games, this is usually handled with a Random method that factors in all the elements that go towards Predeterminism and Fate.

This last bit, being combat, is often the main focus of most RPGs. Resolutions can include:

  1. Bimodal: All acts are quickly resolved as success or failure, with no middle ground.
  2. Graduated Success: Success or Failure can range from "succeeds perfectly" through marginal success or barely failing, to "total botch"
  3. Cumulative: Successes and Failures result from a series of checks or such, with a cumulative effect being produced in the end.

Most combat is often done at an atomic level as a single exchange, or short series of exchanges, leading to a Bimodal result (hit or not), with damage assessment adding a Graduated effect. The total sum of the atomic 'rounds' ultimately yields a Cumulative result.

It should not be surprising that Combat, so often the focus of RPGs, thus combines 3 different types of probability with 3 different methods of resolution. It also explains why combat is such a tedious, god-awful mess.

However, simplifying Combat to include just one probability and just one resolution, e.g. Amber, where combat can usually be seen as Predetermined, with a fairly Bimodal decision handed down by the GM-as-Judge. Many find this dissatisfying because something that has deep consequences for their character is handled quickly, with little recourse to alternatives.

I think there is a need for a balance between the desire for control over destiny and Cumulative results, with speed and reduction of multiple atomic resolutions. But I'm going to save Combat-specific discussions for later, and look instead at all the other interactions possible in games.

I feel that RPGs rely too much on chance, on Random methods. I think most RPGs go too 'atomic' in tasks, i.e.

You _must_ pick the lock for this chest to get inside. Failure=never opens.

A more organic solution is:

There is a locked chest. It has good stuff inside.

Here is where players can then apply what their characters are good at. Picking locks, demolitions, carpentry, brute force, removing hinges, etc.

In the children-as-PCs "Priceless" (run as tabletop and LARP, available from Rogue Publishing), skills are given as: "Good at", "Kinda can", and "Can't do". If you're Good at something, you don't need to roll. If you Can't do it, well, you have to come up with another way. If you're Kinda, it's up to the GM to decide (often with a die roll).

Having such 'absolute scale with a middle ground' really helps distinguish when the characters are acting competently and when they are knowingly going out on a limb. It makes the games tend towards the Predestined school of thought, but the middle ground adds some Randomness.

The GM (as in any game) can then apply Fated situations simply by fiat. Fiat is, I'd wager, about the only way Fated can be done in any system-- that is when you have to trust that the GM knows more about the world than anyone else.

In practice, with "Priceless", in over 20 runs the 'fear of failure' was minimized yet the players clearly felt challenged by situations. I think "problem solving" dominated over rules and stat-checking. Thus it focuses on role-play. Which in turn meant power-gamers were able to get their 'fix' by acquiring resources or through weasel-game playing (i.e. working contrary to other players for personal benefit), rather than via mechanics abuse.

Mind you, that was with pre-gens. For a character creation system that works similarly, well, email me if you want to publish it.

My friend Larry Hols, on his game design email list, suggests that all games have this "middle ground" between absolute success and failure, but that how well-defined and how broad the "middle ground" is crucially defines the game.

Often rules discussion come down to issues of "Simplicity" or "Realism" or "Granularity". I think a better way to look at rules is in how Organic they are; how much results flow naturally. A good result in an RPG should be Organic in that it is:

  • Resolved quickly, using elements internal to the game;
  • In retrospect, believable to the player;
  • Satisfying and self-complete.

    The use of elements internal to the game generally involves how seamless the underlying mechanics are, without raising issues of their complexity. Retrospective believability confirms the fact that the results are not felt to be unexplainable, even if the explanation isn't immediately forthcoming (and one could argue fulfills the 'dramatic' or storytelling aspect of the game). And being satisfying is the 'game' aspect: games should be satisfying or they aren't worth doing. Self-completeness ties up the set, for neatness' sake.

    And in retrospect, I've raised a lot of issues here that go beyond one column. I look forward to seeing people's comments, and hope to discuss the concept of Organic in future works (either here or in paid material).

    Until next month,


    TQo0~^DҒt< ek&Ǿ$\۵ZFȃuwݝIŃU QYir2HR2.u3MFoعq]4#A`pP5(b& )b)ⰾp7(i<[-2gL#5[f g?*rVGf8*)s'+20ϟ̑F}KB<7wSL\gbvm9WiRބYŜvd y0'p2I_Fc2>#o A )VL[Qk?3`)<У[(*W.JH ?tXCt谙 X:@ \0w ~LqĤE-rFkYœj4q 5AQ6[AxG [>w|?( fХθY䝛$c=_qNĦoǸ>O_|&/_Mi7"宥CЧk0dӷLh;TmuCGU-!Ul{ h<\bQX.~"O2*yPcz!ŠGg

    What do you think?

    Go to forum!\n"; $file = "http://www.rpg.net/$subdir/list2.php?f=$num"; if (readfile($file) == 0) { echo "(0 messages so far)
    "; } ?>

    All Soapboxes

  • See What Sticks by Sandy Antunes, 06jan06
  • Simple Gifts for Pre-Gamers by Sandy Antunes, 09dec05
  • Col vs Blog by Sandy Antunes, 04nov05
  • Running a First RPG for Kids by Sandy Antunes, 07oct05
  • Making It Pay by Sandy Antunes, 02sep05
  • The Hazards of Non-Combat Gaming by Sandy Antunes, 05aug05
  • Just-in-Time Pre-order Hell by Sandy Antunes, 01jul05
  • Cassandra's Industry Report by Sandy Antunes, 03jun05
  • Fiction or Non-Fiction by Sandy Antunes, 05may05
  • I am not a Storyteller by Sandy Antunes, 08apr05
  • A Better Job by Sandy Antunes, 01apr05
  • Advice For Working Writers by Sandy Antunes, 04mar05
  • Startup Fever by Sandy Antunes, 04feb05
  • Why Blogging is Lame by Sandy Antunes, 07jan05
  • Being a Pro Writer by Sandy Antunes, 10dec04
  • Viral Marketing Invitational by Sandy Antunes, 05nov04
  • The 24 Hour RPG Challenge by Sandy Antunes, 08oct04
  • A Decade of Distilled Advice by Sandy Antunes, 03sep04
  • Go Ahead, Hit Me! by Sandy Antunes, 06aug04
  • Promoting Yourself by Sandy Antunes, 09jul04
  • 10 Hurdles to Selling Your Game by Sandy Antunes, 11jun04
  • Let's Team Up! by Sandy Antunes, 07may04
  • Beyond Role and Pla(t)y(pus) by Sandy Antunes, 08apr04
  • Slow Improv and the Post-Kilgallon by Sandy Antunes, 05mar04
  • Paradox Redux by Sandy Antunes, 06feb04
  • Mad Scientists and the Kilgallon Paradox by Sandy Antunes, 09jan04
  • It's Not Your World, It's Mine by Sandy Antunes, 05dec03
  • Murphy's Law for Adventure Writers by Sandy Antunes, 07nov03
  • Eigentesting by Sandy Antunes, 09oct03
  • Atomic by Sandy Antunes, 05sep03
  • Is Writing a Commodity? by Sandy Antunes, 06aug03
  • Designing Amidst the Tides of Gaming History by Sandy Antunes, 08jul03
  • Buy This Book by Sandy Antunes, 05jun03
  • Hobbies by Sandy Antunes, 08may03
  • The Websites That Wouldn't Die by Sandy Antunes, 10apr03
  • The Path to Atrocities by Sandy Antunes, 06mar03
  • Cattle Mutilation: The Game Design by Sandy Antunes, 06feb03
  • Gaming With Children by Sandy Antunes, 09jan03
  • How To Be An Industry Poser, Part 1 by Sandy Antunes, 05dec02
  • all i game with, i learned from kids books by Sandy Antunes, 19nov02
  • TCG: The Total Cost of Gaming by Sandy Antunes, 10oct02
  • Game Publishing & The Law by Sandy Antunes, 06sep02
  • Standing on the Shoulders of Giants by Sandy Antunes, 01aug02
  • Buying Time by Sandy Antunes, 04jul02
  • April 10, 2002 13 New FAQs
  • March 1, 2002 Give Me A Closet
  • January 2, 2002 Let's Go Shopping?!?
  • December 13, 2001 Conflict, Ethics, Winning, and Money
  • November 13, 2001 Secret RPGnet Operations Document Leaked!
  • October 16, 2001 Leadership and D&D
  • September 4, 2001 Leading Industry Site Reports Secret: Sex Sells!
  • August 7, 2001 Any, Anyone Can Be an Internet Success-- Why Aren't You?
  • July 3, 2001 Fine Print, Part U
  • June 5, 2001 Fine Print, Part I
  • May 8, 2001 Pushing Limits
  • May 4, 2001 RPGnet State of the Union special feature
  • April 6, 2001 The Other Magic: Niche Hobbies and Other Markets
  • May 9, 2000 Running a Business as an Old Style D&D Party
  • April 14, 2000 First to Market
  • March 20, 2000 Labor Pains
  • February 15, 2000 One Trick Pony
  • January 6, 2000 Creativity is Bad, Hard to Sell, and Great for Business
  • December 14, 1999 Oranges versus Bananas: Entertainment Costs
  • November 2, 1999 Why Editors Lie
  • October 5, 1999 How to publish a quality game, accept criticism gracefully, and lead a happy life: Pick Any Two
  • September 7, 1999 It Takes a Village (to publish an RPG)
  • August 3, 1999 All Gamer Money Isn't Equal
  • July 6, 1999 Tides of Cash Flow
  • June 1, 1999 Ad-itudes
  • May 4, 1999 Who, What, Give me a Guiness
  • April 6, 1999 The GAMA Trade Show '99
  • March 2, 1999 Roleplaying would have saved Millions
  • February 2, 1999 Games That Won't Suck
  • January 5, 1999 Dangerous Games
  • December 1, 1998 Making Gamers the Old Fashioned Way
  • November 3, 1998 The $1K Company
  • October 1, 1998 So You Want to Start Your Own Company...
  • September 1, 1998 Holy Grails and Marching Morons
  • August 4, 1998 Gamers Must Die!
  • July 7, 1998 Profit versus Prophet
  • June 2, 1998 Acquire! Acquire!
  • May 5, 1998 Power
  • April 21, 1998 The GAMA Trade Show Report, Part 2 (eventually)
  • April 7, 1998 Schroedinger Games, or, the GAMA Report
  • March 3, 1998 Culling the Herd
  • February 3, 1998 Horatio Hornblower's RPG Company
  • January 6, 1998 Double Feature (Us and Them/A Clash of Images)
  • December 2, 1997 "How to Scam Games for Free"
  • November 4, 1997 "Women in Gaming?"
  • October 2, 1997 "Fear of a Gaming Planet" (Welcome to the RPG ghetto?)
  • September 2, 1997 "Rush" (fame and adoration in lieu of pay)
  • August 2, 1997 "For the Money" (convention mating rituals)
  • July 2, 1997 "Good Deeds" (the dearth of evil game companies)
  • June 2, 1997 "Dirty Laundry" (copyright and slander on the net)
  • May 2, 1997 "Communications Breakdown" (company and player schisms)
  • April 2, 1997 "The Quick and the Dead" (dying companies versus new ideas)
  • March 2, 1997 "It's All in the Timing" (on hype and late deliveries, and on genres)
  • February 2, 1997 "Insiders and Outsiders" (who's who and who uses the web)
  • January 2, 1997 "Fits and Starts" (web presences, print runs, live roleplaying)
  • December 2, 1996 "Procastination Season is Over" (delays and new products)
  • November 1, 1996 "Best of Times, Worst of Times" (on rumors, survival, and larps)
  • October 1, 1996 "Post-Con fallout and not that many new games"
  • September 1, 1996 "Our launch, news from GenCon, demos, new LARPS"
  • Our reason for existence

    Other columns at RPGnet

    TQo0~^DҒt< ek&Ǿ$\۵ZFȃuwݝIŃU QYir2HR2.u3MFoعq]4#A`pP5(b& )b)ⰾp7(i<[-2gL#5[f g?*rVGf8*)s'+20ϟ̑F}KB<7wSL\gbvm9WiRބYŜvd y0'p2I_Fc2>#o A )VL[Qk?3`)<У[(*W.JH ?tXCt谙 X:@ \0w ~LqĤE-rFkYœj4q 5AQ6[AxG [>w|?( fХθY䝛$c=_qNĦoǸ>O_|&/_Mi7"宥CЧk0dӷLh;TmuCGU-!Ul{ h<\bQX.~"O2*yPcz!ŠGg