First of all, the concept isn't really abstract at all. You just have it wrong.

Second, riddles, parables, and koans are used by teachers to students. You are no teacher, and we are not your students. You have no call trying to teach us lessons about gaming, particularly ones you yourself have not mastered. I'd wager more Dumpshockers are experienced gamers than you're giving them credit for.

Wow, we found someone with an ego bigger than mine!

I get the distinct impression he's That Guy. The one that haunts Living campaign LARPs whose character is a wizard or some sort of mystical/intellectual sort. He's gone so deep into the character, for whatever reason or desire/need, that he's convinced that use of aloof mannerisms are substance rather than appearance. Convinced he really is some mystically wise person rather than just someone that once scored in the [lower?] "Genius" range in a Reader's Digest MENSA quiz and that goes around dishing out Dr. Phil catch phrases dressed up in the grammar structure of cheesy lines from a wushu movie.

I'm more of a lurker then a poster, but still I must admit some stun along with you!!.



But perhaps a bit harsh. Everyday if you learn something you were a student, everyday if you teach something you were a teacher. Anywhere that information was exchanged is an oppotunity for learning, and world that isn't so is tragic beyond compare. His choice of statement was perhaps pretentious, but to disregard it on your logic alone I disagree with.

Just to hopefully spark this is a direction which interested me. What techniques do people use for the sandbox method? Simulating a living world is lot of work. What have people done for this?

Don't disregard his statements because he's pretentious, disregard them because he's wrong. The concept is actually very simple: "This is a game, and we are here to have fun." All his stuff about following the rules/disregarding the dice just means everything can be forgiven if the players have fun. (And don't forget, the GM is a player, too.)

I was actually referring to your statement about being a teacher and students, not his statements about shadowrun. I was in fact saying his choice of koan was pretentious, and perhaps unsubtle, not his statement about shadowrun.

This topic obviously galvanizes a lot of people (as expected) from those who believe in collaborative story telling (Pendaric) and lessening the dice importance to simulationists such as the obviously escaped AI toturi (please take that as a compliment, I am truly amazed at the self-discipline that would be involved at your table).

I must admit to liking story as per my previous post in this thread. But if you have failed to set up your "nemesis" with adequate protections and start making up things out of nowhere to protect them then you break immersion. If I (as a GM) start overly bending the "laws" of the world then the story falls through, it has become a novel, a play, not a game. It is precisely this why I tend to choose the ultimate antagonists as a faceless group, manipulators not movers. Perhaps it is wimping out a little, a betrayal hurts so much more when you know the face of the one that got you, but I always felt that faceless, powerful strangers was a part of the whole shadowrun culture.

Back to the sandbox thing...

Wow. You're one deluded motherfucker.

In Pendaric's defense he's not the first to have these crazy thoughts. Although the way he lays them out it becomes clear just how crazy they are.



See, that's what he's got wrong. You might say he believes in it but I suggest what he really 'believes' in is his own superior ability to [re]tell a story for others to listen to. Only, judging from his posts, I'd guess calling it garden variety fanwank, of low quality even for fanwank, would be charitable. Instead, for collaborative fanwank ...



Ok, first step is cutting down on the scope to something more manageable, something that can be truly collaborative because it's done as a group. What is important in the world? What is at the center of the world? For purposes of an RPG the individual(s), the PC(s). Further the PCs don't actually exist. They really don't, they are entirely mental constructs of the players and only hold their meaning as such. So now we've got a much more manageable scope, the player's view of the world. What they don't see, taste, hear, or otherwise experience can remain an unknown. Even when something comes into play it can be fuzzy to start with, the details unknown to the players are unknown.

Note: Generally when you see 'players' in this post include the GM in that set. Because they play the game as well, albeit usually with a somewhat different role.

This is a little like the quantum physics concept that something is in several states until you measure it, in doing so affixing a state. The act of measuring actually sets the state. The starting point for this world is a very fuzzy overview and very detailed characters. This can include one or a few very detailed NPCs whose story is intertwined with the PCs (key allies and nemesis, potentially both in the same character).

Next step, resolving those unknowns. So the players start running with the characters and off they go. One of the players (not necessarily the GM, she's the fail-safe though) initiates conflict. Now we've identified an unknown (an unknown that we know, as it were ). At the start of the campaign this is mostly what you'd call tone and the mere existence of a few key things that are central to what the world conflict are. Note that even those things, the PCs, NPCs, and world tone are all developed collaboratively at the table. So starting from the known information of the characters and whatever info about the rest of the world that is already known the players establish a new fact about the world.

To this end we apply some flexible measuring tools. We bring out the dice only when there is disagreement between the players about what happens next or some particular detail of the world, and we only apply that roll to the part that is disagreed upon (for example the players all agree that Jimbo The Human Fly will successfully climb up the outside of the building, what is disagreed upon is whether or not there is a complication such as him dropping and losing use of critical tools in the process). Not necessarily disagreement between PCs ... because remember, they don't exist, right? So now you've got the simulation that the players all believe in. Because they are doing the simulation, it is their collective judgement that is resolving (discovering if you will) details. When there is disagreement between the players they agree upon odds and the dice sort it out.

EDIT: The result. EDIT2: Hrmm, I'm having a hard time getting it to go down to post #9, you'll have to scroll manually.

One important thing about the above, the GM doesn't worry about "story" directly. They concentrate on challenging with conflicts. The players should keep those PCs in motion, striving for things. The GM's job is to challenge the PC's striving, and if the PCs slow down then initiate some other type of conflict (EDIT: eg kill their dog/parents/wife/kids). The story then flows naturally from the resolution of the conflict.

Because that's what story is.

hmm well some mothers have a reason to be proud. Now I have the time to spend on this, lets begin.
I am a mature roleplayer, like many of you. So by extention I am a mature person and try to act accordingly. Though I'd love to have ego bigger than Cain, sadly this is not the case my house just has not got the room.

I knew the abuse would flow. But thats OK. I understand. I have stood where you are standing. I am adult and apparently dumpshock has a lot of them around. I would like to see them once in while mind.

So lets me give some adult context to post that kicked this off.

As a twenty five something year old, could you explain to a 10 year old so that they could understand the world with your insight, clarity and maturity that you have gained through your greater years?
Could you trasmit verbally, how your view the world, after your perceptions were changed when you held your new born child in your arms and knew that you were responsible for this new life you help to create?

You could give an explaination. The ten year old could study it till they could quote verbatum. But they would not truely understand.

Now the example is exaggerated. But it outlines the difference between being told something and understanding something.

A koan is a tool, a stepping stone for someone to reach an epiphiny, so they understand an abstract.

It the best tool I have got. Because if I just tell you the answer some of you will be able to quote with out the understanding. And thats not helping, it the opporsite because you stop look for the understanding.

I not trying to be a teacher. I am not a man claiming cosmic secrets that make me better than you. I am man trying to share something I learned that made me enjoy my hobby a bit more with the rest of the community.

I am a realist. This is an open mike format. Some of you already know. Some know but dont know they know, and realising they have been doing this along is of worth in its self.
Some dont know. Some dont want to know. And would rather act like a tit on a public internet forum than have thing even remotely challenges them. (Cheap shot, but I found it funny)

If no one riskes something of themselves because of the fear of critisim. How are we going to share our insight? How is this community going to pass on the experences to one another.

I knew the price. Hell in the second post in this thread said as much. I pay it willingly.

Because if I help one person. Just one. Get something they had not considered and so have a interesting time. It worth trying.

Roleplay is one of the few hobbies complex enough to grow and change as you mature and change.

And if this forum is not about helping others, sharing what you have learned and learning from others in turn. Then it should be.

I couldn't get further than those two sentences without bursting out laughing so hard that I've come to the conclusion I'm truly wasting my time trying to read your posts. *flush*

your loss

No, it really isn't his loss. All you're doing is rambling on about how wise you are, martyring yourself upon the altar of Dumpshock's immaturity, and breaking out the "if I can save just one life" nonsense to make it clear you're dying for all our sins. You're not making sense, and you're being melodramatic about it. Stop one or both, please, and take a second to genuinely reply to some of the criticisms (like that initial attempt of mine with the "you can't do both things at once" statement) being leveled at you.

Don't just whine about how you're trying to teach us, answer a question or two, buddy. We can get angst anywhere. We can only get an explanation of what you're trying (and failing) to say from you. Cut the fortune cookie nonsense, and straight-up answer.

How do you let the dice fall where they may and ignore dice rolls at the same time? How do you make sure the story goes where you want it to go and genuinely let players shape it at the same time? You continue to list things you do that are mutually exclusive, and then rather than address it when people call you on it, you pull out this "You just have to meditate on it, man" nonsense.

Man oooohhh man these are the type of discusions that cause walk outs during game play. Everyone has there own style of play and as long as everybody has a good time and is free to develop there characters and style of play without having to much just given to them or being spoon fed by other pc's or gm's we can all have fun. This post has got way to may people carrying crosses though. Great now I've gone and done it. LOL

Well it IS easter this week. Kind of has the timing going for it....

So would you or would you not fudge card draw outcomes in a game of "War of the Roses"?

Dude, once again, you are not a teacher, and we are not your students. Comparing most of Dumpshock to a ten year old isn;t going to help your case, either.

Fact is, you are neither older, more mature, wiser, smarter, or a better GM than many of us here. If you were half as smart as you claim, you would have realized that your "paradox" is actually a very simple concept that can be explained in one sentence, as I demonstrated earlier. So, you can drop the pretentiousness, and actually debate the issue: you've demonstrated how smart you are, and aren't. You have nothing to prove, so may as well debate the topic.

Boy has this topic been hijacked, tortured and left for dead...

For my two cents... I have to say that Story is not the here and now, it is the past, it is a result of the cooperative elements of both plot, form and random elements (read dice)... I like "Story" over "Dice", but it is really hard to have one without the other in a cooperative RPG... To each his own on the style and substance of the Story/Mechanics balance... I have played both ends, and tend to prefer the Cooperative Element of telling a story, rather than the totalitarian rolling of the Dice for Every little Thing...

Your Mileage May Vary

My group is very much a role-play group especially when it comes to social encounters. A good example of this is when one of us decided to litterally walk up to the place where the target was and pretend to be a door-to-door salesman, but he did it in such an unexpected way that he actually managed to get in the door. His characters social skills were limited, but he got away with it. That was until he actually met to the owner of the property (which was the target) and told him he was selling air conditioning units! At which point, he was shown politely to the door. Mission was accomplished, we knew he was in and after he left, a few minutes of revised planning and we stormed the place and kidnapped him.

Now, if our social adept had done the exact same thing, and said he our GM would have allowed him to actually make a sale and spend some decent amount of time in the property and got a better idea of what we would encounter within (get a better idea of how many guards and so on).

It must be noted that no rolls were made here, and they rarely are. Our GM takes into account which social skills we have and whether you have things like Taylored pheromones or Kinsetics and plays the outcome relevant to those skills. Sometimes roles ARE made, but this is only when we as players can't think off the top of our heads how to get past a social situation which suprises us (but might not suprise our characters).


As mentioned in many of these posts here, I totally agree it is completely down to a matter of taste, and to a certain degree the system, of which my Love and Bias towards shadowrun counts it as the best.

Getting the balance right is never easy, but once you have it, it can make all the difference to the game.

Another thing also that comes from our experience with Exalted (my second favourite RP system) is that in fact our GM is not a GM, he is a Storyteller. That to me explains it all. We play our role within a story that he sets the background to. The world does not revolve around us. Events will happen whether we figure them out or not. If we don't get the clues or follow up cerain leads, we will miss things which will no doubt make it harder for us. But that is part of the fun of it. Though I mentioned the GM as a storyteller, its not really a story he is telling, its a setting in which the players create their own story (Something Rasumichin brought up earlier).

Frequently a mechanic our storyteller uses is if we are in an area or situation that could turn bad for any reason, he will ask us to call a number on a certain amount of d6, If this number turns up, we know something unfortunate is about to happen. I personally choose a number that is more likely to turn up for the fun of it. For example, if he says 2d6, ill say 7 Its an interesting way of doing things that may work well for some groups better than others. Alternatively though, that this random number sometimes means something GOOD happens instead of bad (and the storyteller doesn't tell us when we call the number, so its another reason why I'd say 7).

If you as a storyteller don't do this, think about giving it a try

Oh it's a taste thing, certainly. The above, as described, I find very boring. It lacks a sense of danger. No tension, no scrambling and fighting for your life verbally in a clear and measurable way. I've come to really enjoy danger, up to lethal danger, in social interactions. Throughtout the history of RPGs it has been found, with a high correlation, that dying by fiat (even living by fiat) ultimately feels lame but that dying in a hard fought battle (and even better surviving ) is a thrill, albeit a bitter-sweet one when your character does die.

What I'd rather see, what I strive for, is that the player knows going in that if her character is exposed there is a very real risk of being summarily tossed in a bag, hauled out the back of the building, and given a quick interrogation on the way to a swimming lesson in Puget Sound. When they walk up "yada, yada, yada" they get in the door. Because the real action is inside (and the player is told the real action is inside). Then the dice hit the table, sharpened words are brought to the mix, verbal parry and thrust, and the player is battling for the character's life. What happens? *shrug* Nobody knows. The outcome will more often than not be something that wasn't expected by anyone going in.

And though I like the roleplaying aspect described by Mystweaver... The above quote is exactly what the dice are for... to add tension and drama to an otherwise (possibly) boring situation...

You are quite right, the situation I mentioned is a occurance that does not happen that frequently. For me to say that we never roll dice in social situations would not be true. It is just in our specific case of taste in how we play, we only roll if we are as players making a right botch up of coming up with a good idea to get something out of a social situation (whether it be money, interrogation, information or just to bluff someone into beliving they are to they "claim" to be).

If as above something convincing is portrayed, then the GM will as mentioned take into account what social skills we have and play them into how well he thinks whatever character he is playing is convinced by the player.

Of course, when it comes to combat, guns blazing and swords swinging, dice have to be used along with the rules which we are relatively strict on keeping to.

That is fundamentally different from what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about:

If the dice aren't coming out at least a few times a session somebody isn't doing their job. The players aren't pushing hard enough and engaging, and/or the GM isn't making things challenging enough, creating tough enough obstacles. It's the exact same for combat. If everyone at the table is agreeing most of the time that "that plan can't fail, how you describe defeating the opponents is so superb, this combat isn't worth pulling out the dice for" then someone, somewhere isn't doing their job.

You are wasting chances at tension, to showcase character abilities, to spin the plot in interesting new directions. I understand that Shadowrun's single roll resolution isn't the greatest at spinning out new directions but it has a very extensive set of social (and other) Skills, as well as lots of related 'ware and equipment. If you are looking for a campaign mix of 50% social, 50% combat (that's a simplistic breakdown for Shadowrun of course given decking, vehicles, etc.) and the dice usage isn't similar then something is seriously amiss.

EDIT: Clarified a few things.

Wait, what? You're saying that, without dice, it's impossible to create tension or challenge?

I most certainly did not say that. I'll repeat:



It is a matter of degrees and regularity. The force you can bring, from both sides (player to player, player(s) to GM), the resulting tension created, and how that tension is focused and drawn out is routinely to greater effect. That is what [these mechanics] are there for.

EDIT: If you aren't using it you are passing by an opportunity....really what would you say about sessions that had a fair about of combat but hardly ever used the combat mechanics for combat? What would you expect that to be like?

The two quotes (seemingly) have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Actually, I'd call "well, I only rolled 1 hit on 18 dice, so I die" death by fiat, personally. However, you pretty much directly stated:



Now, yes, you're saying that dice belong in both combat and social encounters ... but you're still saying that dice belong in both because they create tension and challenge, and strongly implying that you can't create tension and challenge without them.

Then I suggest you don't understand what a 'fiat' is. Although single roll mechanisms are somewhat problematic, perhaps that is what you are getting at? EDIT: AKA the issue with "Save VS Death".



Why did you not include "It is a matter of degrees and regularity..." in the portion that you quoted? Read it as a whole, please. It should help clear up your misunderstanding.

Because "It's a matter of degrees" isn't supported at all by your statement, and the "... and regularity" part was already addressed in my comments?



I understand quite well what a fiat is. Having your character die solely by the outcome of a dice roll (especially one that went unexpectedly well or poorly) is an example of an impersonal fiat. The dice are, after all, an authority by the game rules -- what the dice say happen, happens, unless the ultimate authority (the GM) intervenes. The outcome of the dice is their "decree". A fiat is a decree from an authority.

What can I say? You are simply failing at comprehension, reading in an absolute that just isn't there.

Die rolls add the element of randomness, and therefore increase risk. Regardless of whether you only have 1 die or 30 for a given test there's some chance that you'll fail (and conversely, some chance you'll succeed). Having higher skills, attributes, and modifiers might improve your chances of success, but nothing is ever guaranteed. This uncertainty seems to me like a good thing to me.

And because it's based on a purely random roll, it eliminates (or at least reduces) the perception of bias. If I was in a no-dice, narrative campaign and my GM said "I know you're one of the best marksman in the world, but this time fate's against you and you missed the guy from point-blank range" I'd be pissed at the GM. It would seem arbitrary and like railroading to me. If on the other hand I somehow manage to roll a critical glitch on my 25 die agility+firearms+whatever test, then I'll accept my lumps. And the knowledge that I have a chance of legitimately failing even though I throw an ungodly number of dice keeps me interested.

Not really, no.



I added that EDIT part because I figured you might be confused by that. I don't think using Save VS Death is a good idea (certainly not without a severely limiting it's use). But that is a separate issue.



Um, no. Because the dice don't think, they didn't make the decision to be rolled to start with nor did they assign meaning to themselves. To label 'fiat' what you claim [EDIT:is] fiat is to make the definition so broad that it becomes nigh useless. Now Shadowrun isn't particularly clear about this, although 4th edition is more so than prior editions.

Also I think it would help if you go back and read this to better understand where I'm coming from.

Let's approach this from the opposite direction, then.

You state that one should strive to use dice equally as frequently in combat and in social situations (whether that frequency is 100% of the time or 0% of the time or anything in between). I have absolutely no problem at all with that stance. It seems pretty reasonable, to me, although it's not something I would ever even try to enforce as a GM -- but that's a different discussion.

My contention is with the way you backed up your statement. You made the following absolute statement (absolute statement emphasis mine):



That states, up front and in clear language, that without dice being rolled, someone is "doing things wrong". You then cite as a specific example that the GM isn't making the game challenging.

You then further back up that statement in the next paragraph with:



Again, this supports and follows from your statement "If the dice aren't coming out, somebody isn't doing their job". The two statements, taken together, appear to promote the view that the dice create tension, etc, and without the dice you cannot create tension (because if you could have the tension without the dice, your whole point is, well, kinda irrelevant).




Now, that said, I'm pretty sure I understand what you actually MEAN. I just don't think you're making nearly the right arguments to support your case. Quite the opposite, actually. What (I believe) you're getting at and what you're saying are two different animals.

If you took that alone, pulled it out of the context of my further clarification down further, sure. But the fact that you are pulling it out of context is the underlying cause of your misunderstanding. Further context that is being lost are the Mystweaver descriptions, which that was a response to. But you don't even need the later. Again, read it as the whole.

The last quote you gave doesn't have any absolute nature to itself at all. You are reading it in. :/


Then you have me here, right now, clarifying it for you. Several times. Come on, you don't think I know what I intended to convey?

Of course you do. The problem comes with actually conveying what you intended to convey.

Note, to be fair, I did actually misunderstand you the first time I read the post I originally responded to. I really did think your stance was what I questioned. I see now that it isn't -- but I maintain that my original reading of your post was a valid reading of it, and that even with a very generous amount of latitude given to it, it really doesn't support your actual stance very well at all.

The parts you pulled out have some inherent ambiguities, so could be taken more than one way. ((EDIT: Especially if you strip out the assumptions based on context with Mystweaver's post.)) Which is exactly why I further qualified my statements in that post with the sentence you kept ignoring when reading the other parts. Really, this misunderstanding should have died at "I most certainly did not say that.". <end of sidetrack>

This I can agree with, at least

BTW, thanks for not turning this into a flamefest. Many others would have. It's refreshing to have a civilized disagreement on the internet from time to time.

No problems and likewise.

Jerk! <j/k>

Hillarious. LMAO almost forgot that was this weekend!

OK why am I carring a cross. Simple. Some of you are cocks. At least on this forum. While not as bad as the old days there is still a legacy, a tradition of abuse with an attendant' you dont like it leave.

You disagree with what I have written. OK. But you have not just disagreed but derided my belief/experence and openly insulted me over it.

Yes I invited it. In five years I have had one such incident but I have seen plenty. Unfortunately am also the type of guy knowing that attack is coming and is beyond being stopped, to thumb my nose at the bastards on the why in.

Some of you are literaly just choosing to read what you want to read. Cain and Dwight talking to you here. An example is just an example, you have authority issues. And if you're not willing to actually read another person's answer you're not even trying to understand their point of view.

Critas, am sorry I have wound you up to point of swearing, your normally level headed and I respect this. If you want I will PM an explaintion to you.

As I said, I choose the tool that in my experence worked best. This is in part because I have studied martial arts and eastern philosphy for over fifteen years. I am also sick of people that do not understand but talk the talk, regurgitated from people that do understand.

In general Dumpshock has a terrible reputation because of this behaviour. Every person I have met that has heard of dumpshock in, Christ, 11 years. Treats it with the same distain as they reserve for gential warts because they have seen this type of attack. I am not even going tell you what my frenship group call it.

Am fustrated that a vocal minority keep fucking up an otherwise decent area, if you think am playing the matry it because I knew I was going to get this kind of reaction. Can you honestly read through this and say hand on heart, that there was a open, mature, balanced response?

And I apologise, am tired of biting my tongue and walking away, while someone is being an offensive wanker on these boards.

I read it as saying that the dice add a certain randomness to the tension and drama, something that can't be planned for because it IS random... That is the reason dice are used... to bring some randomness to the table.

Very well said... I wish my comment was as clear as this is... If there is no randomness in the action, tehn you might as well be writing a novel, as all outcomes are then no longer random.

Ah, the "woe is me" card. I've read your answer. It's not just that you're being pretentious about it, it's that you're wrong.


Hahahaha! I call Bullshido on that one! You're doing a good job of talking the talk, but not backing it up.


I can honestly say that there was a response equally as mature and balanced as the remark that spawned it.

This topic too has been hijacked and tortured to death... Please keep in mind that not everyone likes to play their games the same way... hopefully we can continue to have open discussion without all of the vitroil that has been flowing as of late...

Ahhh, What do I know anyway?

I still say that you need both (Roleplaying and Dice) to create a story, that is both fun and full of tension, and allows for randomness to occur without the predictability of a novel...

Because lets face it, if you really wanted that predictability (Diceless, or minimal dice rolling), you should really be writing a book, rather than trying to provide a collaborative environemnt that the player can interact with and, ultimately, influence by his actions... If you remove random chance, where is the fun?

It's still collaborative story telling: it's as if you were writing a book with other authors, each of them writing the actions of one character... It's a bit different from writing the book on your own.

Collaborative can be done to an extent without dice or with nearly no dice, but the principle is still the same. There are game systems that are built around that. Nobilis and Amber are two diceless systems that come to mind as attempts. Polaris is one that I've played that only periodically uses dice, and it's very collaborative. Although I think it's telling with it that the harder the players push against each other the more often you'll end up at it's single die roll tie-breaker resolution.

However there are specific things that the mechanics/processes of these games do to make the human input more useful as a randomizer, to equalize the input from all players. Random is another way of saying "unknown", if you can get the decision making out of individual people into the group rather than just into dice that works to the same way. To an extreme with Polaris since there isn't a single GM there. People take turns in the various roles in the system. It falls into a grey area between GMless and troupe play.

The idea of the GM/ST/DM being the final adjudicator and leaning heavily on that in play (whether the rules tell you to or not), especially for directing of a predetermined plot and much work being done prior in a decidedly non-collaborative way, as Pendaric describes, is antithetic to collaboration.

I always saw this as the polite, mild place. Bullshido.net is the other place I spend lots of time posting and by comparison that is much ruder, profane, and more full of personal attacks, etc. Frankly, though, it's also a lot of fun once you stop staking your ego on what people say on the internet and just decide to participate in the discussion/argument without personal pretense and not have to worry about wording everything with a light step.