Comments on: Abstract Resources in RPGs, part I

By: Tommi

Tommi — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:36:31 +0000

GGC: I am very serious. Wushu has two primary rules-bits: First, everyone can narrate and veto. Second is a pcing mechanism. The rules don’t address the content of the narration at all. So, given a group of people who actually enjoy realism and want to play a realistic game, they can do so with Wushu and actually be supported: If someone says something unrealistic, they can veto it. And the rules, as long as the pacing is understood by everyone, will never give an unrealistic result.

Personally, I usually prefer combats to be very deadly. That way, entering one is always risking the character’s life and players will be hesitant of doing so; when they do, it tells a lot about what is at stake.

By: Genius Game Creator

Genius Game Creator — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:11:11 +0000

Re Tommi: Wushu realistic? You must be joking? Just to make sure readers of this article are not confused by your comments, let’s first state that Wushu is by far NOT a realistic RPG. In fact, Daniel Bayn, the creator of Wushu created the game for its anti-realistic, silly kung fu movie based cinematics. Daniel Bayn didn’t create anything new. Narrative, cinematic-based RPGs have been around since the mid 90’s. I don’t think the comments in reference to this article are about trying to create a totally realistic RPG, they are about just tweaking the mechanics with a little more sense, or at the very least providing a better explanation of a specific abstraction and creating consistent mechanics in the game at hand.

In summary, the author of any RPG must decide for him or herself to what degree that abstraction will enter into the game. Making an RPG realistic is just, well, unrealistic as characters will simply die too quickly. The key to creating a great combat-included RPG is explaining the abstractions so that they make sense. They rules should be acceptable by the players and also include a balanced rule set so that characters don’t enter Round 1 of Combat 1 and unheroically die from a small dagger to the stomach.

By: Tommi

Tommi — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:04:44 +0000

GGC; The speed at which player characters die in combat is only relevant if combat is a common occurence in the game. Games with little to no combat work just fine.

Also, realism does not imply a horde of detailed rules. Freeform and Wushu are among the most realistic games I have discovered.

By: Genius Game Creator

Genius Game Creator — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:21:31 +0000

Hit points? Armor Class? Self Healing? Abstractions? Of course, but the problem is that you cannot create a realistic role playing system, or else most all of your PCs would be “realistically” dead from sword and dagger wounds in the first round. For example, a broken forearm created from a sword wound could realistically take 2-3+ months to fully heal before the arm was usable again. Abstraction is without a doubt necessary for the creation of any RPG system. Don’t think so? Create a realistic RPG, test it, and see how fast, deadly, and “un-fun” it really is. The failure of D&D is the lack of explanation in abstraction. If you use abstraction you must explain it, or market it. If it represents some sort of buffer or holds multiple concepts, then what makes up that buffer or those concepts? If you give me a good definition of what the abstraction really means in game terms, then I may believe it and never question it again.

My fear for D&D 4th, is that there have been so many abstractions to patch the failings of an aging rule system, that some new players and most veteran players won’t be able to accept the hacked-to-death rule system anymore.

By: Garrowolf

Garrowolf — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:26:02 +0000

Well I think that saying something is an abstration isn’t very useful. We know that it is an abstraction.
The question in my mind, when it comes to game mechanics, is what kind of behavior am I modeling, what kind of behavior does it encourage in the players, and how elegant is the solution.
I have problems with AC and hit points for all of these reasons. The problem is that you have two systems doing the same thing and neither of them well. They are both supposed to reflect if you got hit or not and the both do so badly. You end up having to make all sorts of exceptions for things and they dont model reality AT ALL. That is not just an abstraction, that is a failure in the system to do what it is supposed to.
What is worse is that there are several systems that model this better out there, specifically Defense based systems and armor as damage resistance. This means that you have the question of if you hit based on one thing – Defense. And you have damage effects reduced by armor but at a finite level.
Saying it is an abstration is no excuse for a bad system.