On DnD and the two sides of escapism:

The article

"Of particular note is the average time a person dedicates to their favorite activity being approximately between 8 to 10 hours a week. Each activity has "affordances" like socialization, competition, intellectual stimulation, etc. "

Stenseng divides the enjoyment of these affordances into a Two-Dimensional Model of Escapism, which identifies nine factors that can affect an individual positively or negatively: 

1) clear goals2) concentrating and focusing3) loss of the feeling of self-consciousness4) distorted sense of time5) direct and immediate feedback6) balance between ability level and challenges7) a sense of control8) intrinsically rewarding9) general immersion in the activity

 So, I would put the postulate that these nine factors do a pretty good job in defining if you have a good roleplaying session or not. While #1 can be argued (some people just like Mayhem) it is always more satisfying if that mayhem takes place in a narrative arc. #2 requires a lack of distraction--no one is vanishing into their phones, or lost in books looking up rules. #3 requires a willingness to get into character, and get ridiculous. (This may be what divides table-top from 95% of MMORPG). #4...who hasn't lost hours? #5: Roleplay is beautiful in this regard; narrative makes it possible compress the time between consequence and effect. #6: Much effort is not by accident expended on matching player ability and monstor difficulty; #7 No game is fun when the DM takes over your character, or when a player takes an action that is out of character (for meta-game reasons). #8) It's a game, and so the play of it has to be intrinsically rewarding. The most successful games are going to be those which are rewarding to the largest number of people...because then people who respond to a larger variety of motivations will play your game, together. #9) ...is for spouses and girlfriends, who come and don't play, or who come and chat, and disrupt. They want to hang out, but that ruins the immersive experience of play.

Failures of D20

Matt Miller 

Part of what makes the D20 work is the variable DC. Yet, the use of DC increments on 5 (such as for the falling tables) suggests that d20 is excessively granular.

Rob Hicks 

The d20 system, as I saw it, was a way of doing a percentile in 5% increments. It makes it easy from a game design perspective to understand how much of a bonus you are giving across the board.

 Matt Miller 

That is one of the great virtues of d20: A +1 is a +1. But a +1 just isn't a big enough deal. Our minds can't grasp changes in probability that smaller (Our minds max out at about a 10:1 ratio). So get an effect we can intuit as significant, DnD requires math; it requires 'picking up the pennies' of +1 bonuses to get a significant effect. +1 on a d10 works, +1 on a d12 might also.

Rob Hicks

[D20] has too much variance. You need two to four categories of variance. Either "success vs failure," or "success vs failure with critical success and critical failure". The d20 added too much variation on that, which led to a system that was more crunch than flavor.

Matt Miller

You can lower the variance on a d20 by using multiple dice. DnD originally used 2d6, some games use 3d6, FATE uses 4dF. All generate bell-curves that make the outliers possible but uncommon. (As 7 is the most common in Settlers). But for counted variance, the range matters. 2d6 provides 2-12, 3d6 3-18, Fate -4 to +4.  

Matt Miller

Using -4 to +4 provides a range of 9, and that may simply be enough. OD&D abbreviated into -1,0,+1, and 3e made it into -5 to +5. But there is a difference between possible outcomes from the dice, and possible outcomes for attributes. For the former, so large a range may not be necessary. But for the latter, a larger range is required...

What makes a good RPG?

Tiffany Gray

September 14, 2015

What makes a good RPG?

Tommy Brownell 

Fun.I know that sounds like a flippant answer, but it's not. The tagline for my blog is "The Proof is in the Fun". I can point out things I SEVERELY dislike about my two favorite RPGs (Marvel SAGA and Savage Worlds), but I have more fun with them than any other games I've ever played or ran.That said, a certain amount of clarity in the writing and professionalism in the editing goes a very long way. Discussing things like Rules Lite vs Rules Heavy is a fool's game, because of varying preferences and tastes.

Tiffany Gray 

I am looking for something more complex too Tommy. The rules argument is pardon the pun played out.

Stephanie McAlea 

The setting. A good rpg is all about the fluff. You can swap out the rules but keep the setting but do it the other way around its just hollow text in my view.

Tiffany Gray 

Is that true? There are lovers of Savage Worlds and even some people like GURPS smile emoticon

Stephanie McAlea 

But without a setting attached, what are they?

Tommy Brownell 

Toolkits. For all the folks that devour every new Deadlands release, you have another guy that just wants the rulebook and companions so they can kitbash something together.

Derek Stoelting 

Inspiration. What does the product do to inspire me to buy and play the game? Amazing art? Wicked words on the page? Awesome layout that makes not awesome art or writing better? I want to feel alive and energized and I don't think there's a single answer to your question. =]

John Griffiths

RPGs with no setting are sandbox/toolkits. Very useful IMO.

Tiffany Gray 

oh btw I do agree setting matters in my book. I would not have SW for example if they hadn't done Lankmare or Traveller 5 if the Imperium wasnt around. Settings and modules etc are were the money is at. Splatbooks are good but D1-3 was the best ever introduction to Drow elves. HotOE and other large campaign settings made COC.

Owen Wylde 

Rule sets: Clarity of the writing, consistency of the rules, no recursion or logical loops (not loopholes), simple enough that a non gamer can get the general idea of how things go, yet with enough detail to allow GM and players to do what they expect in a setting. Playing: Everyone at the table has fun and is/was satisfied with how things go/went.

Matt Miller 

It's a balance between the RPG you want to play, and an RPG other people are willing to play. A good base mechanic is pretty critical. There are a million D20 games out there for a reason--the SRD makes it easy to make a game. I recall being unimpressed with both Deadlands and 7th sea in that regard--the abilities and skills were a little unbalanced.

Checks, bonuses and probabilities

Keith J Davies 

FWIW, in Echelon attacks are contested rolls as well. Same number of successes = both hit (and both take damage). Otherwise, if I have more successes than you then I hurt you (and hurt you _more_; each success after a tie adds more damage), and vice-versa. 

But there are also complications. If you roll 3 successes and 1 complication, and I roll 3 successes and 0 complications, you get to pick: tie (and both cause damage) and suffer a complication, or pay off the complication and take more damage (because I rolled more successes now than you did). 

The active character does get to decide if there will be an exchange of attacks. If you attack me, it's on. As the target I could choose to ignore this (passive defense only), but that seems like an uncommon case so I largely ignore it. If I'm better at fighting than you are, or luckier, it might be that you end up getting hurt too (or even instead!).
Most games, you attack me and I have no recourse or decision at all. You decided to attack, I decide to... nothing. I get hurt or not entirely at the whim of you and the dice gods. 

The mutual attack thing has some rather interesting characteristics. I ran models that suggest that it does a lot to balance out the action economy. Being outnumbered is still bad, but it's a much more even fight than in most games. In fact, I appear to have hit a sweet spot in the design. Even with four levels difference (i.e. exactly one tier higher), beng outnumbered is bad. The higher-level fighter has better rolls and slightly more hit points, but the sheer number of attacks makes things more even. The more skilled fighter is likely to get more successful (tied or better) attacks than any one of the lesser fighters, but they get spread among all the lesser fighters, while the lesser fighters' attacks are concentrated on one. 

I forget if the approximate balance point is 2:1 or 4:1 (I think it was 2-3:1, to be honest). I know that 8:1 is very very bad, don't let that happen.

Matt Miller 

I also like the d20 'explode' rule, where 20 hits and 1 misses, better; there is always a chance of success or failure, regardless of other conditions. Opposed rolls (d20 vs. d20 or 3d6 vs. 3d6) are analogous to 2d6, where the resulting roll is very much a bell curve. 3d6 vs. 3d6 creates a very strong, very regular bell curve, where the difference in medians is decisive a very large 

Dan Felder Skill checks are one of those things that I feel like were reasonably solved a while ago. While it may be possible to improve them, I feel like the effort it takes compared to the tiny amount of improvement it provides is not worth it. Unless you are altering your skill check system thematically for a specific game design goal of course, but even then it seems iffy.

Rob Hicks Summary: die mechanisms that favor median rolls, (2d6, etc,) don't do well if you are using opposed checks combined with bonuses, because it so heavily favors the higher bonus. Underdogs will almost always lose, even with only a slight numeric disadvantage.

Keith J Davies unless, of course, that's the behavior you want. I can easily imagine a tiered system[1] where you have a 'tier bonus' that shifts your entire roll, simply because higher-tier _is better_.

[1] level 1-4 = tier 1, level 5-8 = tier 2, etc.

In a D&D-esque system you might then have "rolls are 3d6. You get +1 per tier, and your 'class skill' (fighter is combat, wizard is casting, rogue is skill) gets +1 more" [no, I wouldn't use these numbers, but they're good for discussion]

Fighter _always_ has an advantage over everyone else at the same tier in combat, and can fight evenly with a non-fighter above his tier... which means a non-fighter above his tier is no worse than he is. The higher-tier fighter will still have advantage over him. This might be exactly how you want the system to behave. I wouldn't say these systems "don't do well", I might say "have characteristics that must be understood".

Rob Hicks Dan Felder Still worth looking at this stuff, because tinkering is fun. Also, the d20 system isn't "solved" by any stretch. It still has some serious drawbacks that aren't answered by other prominent systems.

Like · Reply · October 1, 2015 at 9:39am

Dan Felder Tinkering is always fun. But note "reasonably solved". As in we know the benefits of various skill check systems and have solid enough options, to the point that putting in added effort has a significant opportunity cost compared to working on other aspects of design. smile emoticon

Like · Reply · October 1, 2015 at 9:41am

Matt Miller "d20 is too random"...which could reasonably be solved by moving to a d12 or d10, and simply adjusting numbers. ...but that would actually make it more random, as the high and low automatic hit or miss would be much more common.

Rob Hicks 
Which is not a bad thing. I like d12s. It occurs to me, that you could get interesting results from a d12 if you did 1's as an automatic miss, 10's as automatic hits, 11's as a crit, and 12's as a double-crit. Make the rest of the game built around 1-10 as standard results. "Turning the speakers up to 11," as a parallel. It would make hits more common, and crits much more common than a d20 system, but that is more interesting, isn't it?

Dan Felder 
Seems like it'd just make things more complex. If you want variety in your system, something akin to FFG's Narrative Dice system in their star wars RPG is a good place to start.

Matt Miller 
No good. Makes 10-11-12 into hits, so you automatically hit 25% of the time, even against impossible enemies. Higher hit rates need balanced with either lower damage or higher HP. To be sufficiently variable to be interesting, damage can only go so low (1d4?), and lower HP makes for easier mental math.

Paul Goldstone 
I think players like Bonuses - so the greater the deviance - the more bonuses you can give. It's been shown several times a +1 on 2d6 is worth more than in D20, when you look at +2 through to +5 the difference is startling.Many games reward players with bonus gear in some tangible form, from the classic magic sword to the self aiming blaster. When looking at the system some thought should be given to what rewards the game will give especially deep into a campaign as well as end game one-shot adventures with powerful pre-gens.  If the roll effectively becomes a given, and therefore trivial at the top power end, then player/gm enjoyment will suffer. Furthermore is disparate parties where either due to power level, stats, gear if one player is tougher than the other players game balance can be skewed significantly which could lead to power creep, as the encounters have to become much harder to compensate for the tougher/luckier players. Thematically you could look at players choosing what they roll, ie, d20 or 3d6 in a game, maybe based on skills, talents etc.  The choice means against a particular tough opponent, highly dramatic situations the players could choose the d20 - needing the higher numbers. In non dramatic situations, they could choose the 3d6 looking for more likely success.

Matt Miller

When we made Mayhem, one the design principles was directly opposed to providing more bonuses.I think there are 13 different compatible bonuses to hit in DnD 3.5 We called it the "Christmas Tree" effect, with character liberally strung with magical ornaments. Rob Hicks DM'd a long DnD 3.5 campaign where the characters managed to acquire...every single bonus possible.

But what happens is that you cease having a 'character', and start having a 'toon'. You no longer have an avatar of yourself, but rather a 'vehicle' whose stats you have optimized. Letting players choose 3d6 or d20 seems like an interesting mechanic, but I don't think it actually adds much. The more mathematically talented would quickly know which represented the better alternative...ie, anytime your target number is over 10, roll the d20.