Why do we play these games?

[atpollard]

That seems especially sensible with inexperienced or fairly passive players. Do you often have very proactive players coming to the game with an agenda of their own?

Imho, even an experienced player with a strong idea of what he wants his Character to accomplish as a goal, appreciates starting out in a BAR [the classic beginning] with FOUR different choices about how they can begin to achieve that goal

Absolutely. Starting a new character, particularly if the player is new to the campaign or the campaign itself is new, it's almost necessary to have a couple or handful of options laid out clearly. After that initial feet-wetting, though, do you have players who typically take things in a direction that was wholly unexpected, or do they tend to continue to sort of "order off the menu?"

I like SWINGY dice and I like things that are not quite what they at first appear. So EVENTS are as likely to cause players to change course as anything that I planned.

Here is an example from the BACKWATER game. The group was having a hard time just picking ONE of the paths, any path. After a week "sitting in the bar" [real time] just pondering paths, I shoved them out the door each on a different MINOR PATH. Just a ONE ON ONE adventure to get each character DOING SOMETHING that should take less than 4 hours IN GAME time. As they met people and gained rumors and earned money doing things, the returned GUNG-HO to choose the "MILLION CREDIT JOB". So they researched the dangerous animals and acquired special arctic transportation and stopped off to get guns to kill Dinosaurs (just in case) because THAT is what they were expecting. When they arrived, they found evidence of an attack of a pack of "wolves" and the real problem was an explosion in one of two Power Generators that blew out most of the power lines. So the TASK went from the COMMUNICATIONS expert repairing the COMM system, to the ENGINEER and MECHANICAL physically rewiring the power system. I used random rolls to determine the status of each component and used the results (what was broken) to generate the story of what actually happened to take out the COMMUNICATIONS RELAY TOWER. Even I did not know when it was just a possible MILLION CREDIT JOB. Then came the plot twist for them. Withouyt power, they had no way to test the other systems. So restoring power allowed them to discover that something else was broken. Another "random roll" generated a "THREE ROOM DUNGEON" as an adventure to do the repair. It wasn't a literal dungeon, but the steps needed for the repair.
That led the Group to discover ...
1. They needed a critical part
2. The critical part was missing from the storeroom
3. one of the original repair crew was dragged off by wolves, one died in the power plant and one fled into the snow on foot.
The Group chose to split up and follow BOTH of the original repair crew to search for the part. They located the part in the cave of a giant Bear/Lion Scavenger ... with cubs. It was up to them how to deal with it. They had the firepower to kill it. They chose to lure it with food and knock it out with Tranq Gas.

As you can see, the original PLAN was to repair a COMM, kill BIG BAD THINGS that attack, and collect the money. What actually happened was what they chose, what dice decided, and what I created from both ... but not what was planned. So what comes next? Whatever THEY decide and the Random Events determine.

[Leitz]

I typically like to have 3 to 5 - “threads” is the term that I use for them - available for the group to choose from.

That seems especially sensible with inexperienced or fairly passive players. Do you often have very proactive players coming to the game with an agenda of their own?

I find a mix (within a game and from game to game).
I have adopted a "passive-aggressive" position ... I create a world that interests ME and throw open an invitation to WHOMEVER wants to play ... then I play with whoever shows up when they show up.

If you don't mind another perspective on this, I can share.

My character's stats were 78A885. His 8 Int came from a +2 on the Mustering Out Benefits. He had Blade-1, Brawling-1, Laser weapons-2, and Vacc Suit-1. For those who don't know Traveller, he started sub par in intellect, was on the line between lower class and street trash, and his skills were in wearing armor and killing people. He had enough endurance to do that longer than most people.

On the other hand, the rest of the party included a Medic-3 doctor who was also a ship engineer, a Pilot with an implant device that let him swap skills with a chip set, and a psionic powerhouse. Seriously, my guy was a Red Shirt for the command staff.

SterlingBlake, you asked about proactive players with their own agendas. I'm happy to join an existing group that has a direction I can support, and I'm also happy to head off in a direction if no one else is. Due to player turnover, my character was the last PC really heading in the direction of the solution. The doc was trying to save the pilot, and the psion had business interests that he was also working.

That's the meta-game explanation, but it doesn't really cover the reality. My character was a vibrant young man often sent to planets with equally vibrant, young, and beautiful members of an attractive gender. I wanted to break a trope, so he had a girlfriend back home that he was loyal to. That came into play a lot during the game, and in the stories. My character was taken out of a low class children's home and adopted into a loving family. When he came to the planet where children were starving and people were dying, he saw the future he would have had without a loving father to rescue him. So he started rescuing people. Sometimes he rescued them from starvation or prison. Other times he rescued them from their own acceptance of the status quo; one black market business lady became "Madame President" and a gruff old woodsman became "Supreme Commander, Birach Military Forces".

My character spent a good bit of time putting other people into high ranking positions. He led from the front when he was the best choice, and he stepped aside when someone else was an even better choice. The limited skills he began with helped me channel him into what he could do, and having highly placed friends is always nice.

He also dealt with hundreds of named NPCs, thousands of other people from more than half a dozen cultures, and quested over a large portion of the planet. When atpollard says he's a "world builder", feel free to believe it.

[SterlingBlake]

There are FOUR things going on in the background that the PLAYERS can encounter, or not [DM Information].

• A new criminal syndicate has moved into this part of town and a war is brewing between the old local Thieves Guild and the new and more violent "Syndicate" - which includes assassins.
• This kingdom and the neighboring kingdom are engaged in a secret war. It has not yet come to open battle, and both KINGS are actively pressing to avoid that, but a quit game of brinksmanship is going on in the background. Adventurers, men at arms, and even petty nobles are engaging in "commerce raiding" along the borders and into "enemy territory", often leaving signs that it was the work of humanoids. Lords along trade routs have started to patrol the trade routes to protect their economies.
• About 200 years ago, the Town was once a great City that was sacked and burned in a war between two Noble families. The new Town was rebuilt about 10 miles from the old City because of the dark magic used in the final battle. The ruins of the old city still exist and are known to be occupied by undead. On "All Saint's Day", there is a tradition for young men to travel to the ruins, touch the statue in the center of the Old City, and return. It is a footrace to prove bravery with any young man that completes the race entitled to a kiss by a young maiden. It is, as you can imagine, a very popular event among the young.
• Agatha moved into an abandoned house and farm outside the Town wall. She brews Alcoholic beverages to sell at the weekly market. If you ask around (among the poor) Agatha also brews Herbal Poultices and Elixirs to cure infections and diseases. The reality is that Agatha is a retired adventurer, a high level druid and a skilled Alchemist ... she has no desire to be noticed, but can produce a wide variety of potions.

Now to our GROUP ... a classic FIGHTER, CLERIC, THIEF and MAGE meet in a local bar ...

• The FIGHTER learns from one of the City Guards as he entered Town that the Local Lord (of this Border Town) is hiring men to patrol the roads looking for trouble and paying a bounty on every Goblin or Brigand that they kill.
• The CLERIC heals a man with a gash on his arm who tells him that this used to be a good neighborhood, but now it isn't safe to walk the streets after dark. They were just kids, but one of them had a knife and cut him just because he was walking on their side of the street without permission. Now he had to shut down his wheelwright shop until his arm heals, so neither he nor his apprentice are earning any money to support their families.
• The THIEF was making some progress flirting with the Barmaid [2d6:2-5=he goes home and takes a cold shower; 6-9= he gets some cuddle time; 10+=she keeps his feet warm] and learned that business was down at the Tavern. Someone was attempting to drive away customers and threatening the owner if he didn't pay them. She advised caution if he walked the streets at night ... perhaps he could walk her home after her shift?
• The MAGE needs to locate some unusual spell components. None of the local shops had the Dried Plants that he needed. A widow with two children that he stopped to give a few spare coppers to, thanked him and told him that she overheard him speaking with the merchant ... old Agatha, outside the City Gate ... the House with the green door and lots of flowers ... might have what he needs. She has lots of dried herbs for infusing her spirits ... and other things.

Here's what I'm wondering, it's the start of the first session and you have no prior indication from your players what kind of game they're going to pursue. Beyond the bullet points above, how much do you already know about:

• the Thieves Guild and the Syndicate's membership, territories, past interactions, and upcoming plans
• the nature of the brewing war, who the kings, who are the lords along the trade routes, what's the basis of the economies they're trying to protect, what do the various commerce raiding parties consist of, and so on
• the contents of the Old City and the nature of the dark magic which ultimately ruined it
• Agatha's abilities, personality, and history

How much do you know before you start compared with what you discover randomly or otherwise during play? Are there some things you figure out in advance regardless, maybe some details about the cold war for example, that could have implications overlapping with the characters' activities even if they don't go out looking for supposed brigands?

[SterlingBlake]

My character's stats were 78A885. His 8 Int came from a +2 on the Mustering Out Benefits. He had Blade-1, Brawling-1, Laser weapons-2, and Vacc Suit-1.

I think that this says a great deal about your playing style. With those skills, the character must have come from either the Navy or Merchants, but those are both bad tactical choices for a character with low INT and SOC. Unless his EDU didn't get to 8 until he mustered out, you chose not to roll on the advanced education table, too. My read is (and I think you've said as much previously, but this just reinforces it) that you're demonstrating that you are more interested in creating a story than playing a game. What I mean by that is that you are less concerned with the mechanical aspects of game success than the narrative outcome.

...my character was the last PC really heading in the direction of the solution. The doc was trying to save the pilot, and the psion had business interests that he was also working.

The solution of repairing the comms tower? Why were the others no longer interested? It seemed unattainable, or the reward had dwindled because of the time that had passed? Why were you still interested?

That's the meta-game explanation, but it doesn't really cover the reality. My character was a vibrant young man often sent to planets with equally vibrant, young, and beautiful members of an attractive gender. I wanted to break a trope, so he had a girlfriend back home that he was loyal to. That came into play a lot during the game, and in the stories. My character was taken out of a low class children's home and adopted into a loving family. When he came to the planet where children were starving and people were dying, he saw the future he would have had without a loving father to rescue him. So he started rescuing people. Sometimes he rescued them from starvation or prison. Other times he rescued them from their own acceptance of the status quo; one black market business lady became "Madame President" and a gruff old woodsman became "Supreme Commander, Birach Military Forces".

My character spent a good bit of time putting other people into high ranking positions. He led from the front when he was the best choice, and he stepped aside when someone else was an even better choice. The limited skills he began with helped me channel him into what he could do, and having highly placed friends is always nice.

Maybe you already answered part of my question. Are you saying that your character pursued repairing the comms tower because children were starving and people were as a result of it being disabled?

He also dealt with hundreds of named NPCs, thousands of other people from more than half a dozen cultures, and quested over a large portion of the planet. When atpollard says he's a "world builder", feel free to believe it.

I have no doubts about that!

[Leitz]

My character's stats were 78A885. His 8 Int came from a +2 on the Mustering Out Benefits. He had Blade-1, Brawling-1, Laser weapons-2, and Vacc Suit-1.

I think that this says a great deal about your playing style. With those skills, the character must have come from either the Navy or Merchants, but those are both bad tactical choices for a character with low INT and SOC. Unless his EDU didn't get to 8 until he mustered out, you chose not to roll on the advanced education table, too. My read is (and I think you've said as much previously, but this just reinforces it) that you're demonstrating that you are more interested in creating a story than playing a game. What I mean by that is that you are less concerned with the mechanical aspects of game success than the narrative outcome.

Ah, I wasn't clear on that. This was the Marine character in the "Guns of Navarone" game years ago. And despite my genuine praise of atpollard, initially I fussed and whined about the character. Probably a lot, IIRC. You are graciously assuming a lot more maturity than I had at the time. Still, atpollard made the game great and I'm really happy how it turned out.

[atpollard]

Here's what I'm wondering, it's the start of the first session and you have no prior indication from your players what kind of game they're going to pursue. Beyond the bullet points above, how much do you already know about:

• the Thieves Guild and the Syndicate's membership, territories, past interactions, and upcoming plans
• the nature of the brewing war, who the kings, who are the lords along the trade routes, what's the basis of the economies they're trying to protect, what do the various commerce raiding parties consist of, and so on
• the contents of the Old City and the nature of the dark magic which ultimately ruined it
• Agatha's abilities, personality, and history

How much do you know before you start compared with what you discover randomly or otherwise during play? Are there some things you figure out in advance regardless, maybe some details about the cold war for example, that could have implications overlapping with the characters' activities even if they don't go out looking for supposed brigands?

You read it ... I am ready to start. All I need is to rip a map from somewhere so I have a town and recruit some players to start rolling up characters. Typically, I would save the "what they know" generation until after I have players so I can tie it to their class and backstory better ... but the What the DM knows is the prep. Until they want to visit Agatha, what more do I [DM] need?

One thing that helps is a tendency to build concepts on real world examples. When Leitz (Marco) was saving "Barach", the overall scenario was modeled on North Korea at a specific point when they were facing a drought crisis and loss of Communist economic support as the US and USSR were gearing up for a showdown over the Berlin Wall. So I had historic models to base general decisions on. I would probably tag each of the events in the starting points we just created with a historic or literary reference to use as a quick reference on the fly.

[SterlingBlake]

I play (PC) and referee (GM) for very different reasons and with VERY different goals.

Thanks very much for all your thoughtful, detailed responses about refereeing! Let's come back to here. What are your reasons for playing and your goals as a player rather than a referee?

[atpollard]

I play (PC) and referee (GM) for very different reasons and with VERY different goals.

Thanks very much for all your thoughtful, detailed responses about refereeing! Let's come back to here. What are your reasons for playing and your goals as a player rather than a referee?

Sure ...

Let's talk about neurology for a second. I love rules and problem solving. I am innately wired to be the ultimate min-maxer. Like EVERYONE that has played D&D for any length of time, I learned that ELF + BOW + DEX = lots of dead monsters with minimum risk. When BASIC gave way to ADVANCED, you add RANGER and SPECIALIZATION and BOWS BUILT TO STRENGTH ... on and on the process went. By the time 2ED rolled around, I had played enough UBER (Mary-Sue) CHARACTERS that I came to realize that it just wasn't fun. I was a hamster on a wheel gaining better magic so I could kill Grendel's mother just to do it all over again ... without purpose or end.

So I just quit playing and started world building as a DM. Then I quit D&D and started playing Traveller. I learned two things about ME.

1. I really like simple rules that don't get in the way of Role-playing and FUN (who gives a fart if you have "swimming skill" so you can cross the river ... dammit this is a game and that is the RPG equivalent of 'guess my word' from early computer games.)
2. INTERESTING Characters are more fun than POWERFUL characters.

Give me a character that has both HIGH and LOW scores over a character that has all "ABOVE AVERAGE" scores. Give me something to build a personality from. I also don't really care what they are. I have played almost every class and more than a few races [being DM sort of forces that on you], so I have no favorite. Mages are cool. Fighters are cool, Priests are cool. Thieves are cool. Starship Engineers are cool. The Purser is cool. A Ship's Gunner (who barely earns enough to survive) is cool to play.

What is more fun, is playing someone that is just an ordinary (or unusual) person that is on an adventure for personal reasons that are radically different from the normal and gets to interact with TYPICAL adventurers.

Here is someone that I liked. A Traveller Noble with that received monthly stipends from a Trust Fund. He was, first and foremost, an artist who created weapons that were made from unusual materials and carved works of art. They were often archaic weapons (like a six shot revolver) and he would produce one every few months that sold for thousands of Credits as a collectible artwork. "Fred" traveled from world to world seeking 'adventure' ... anything interesting to inspire his next work of art. Fred was also a patron of radical politics and the "down and out". That created issues with his political family who preferred that Fred be far away from home and the local press. Fred had some interpersonal skills that were useful to a group in many circumstances and his status opened doors that most lower class "starship crews" could not enter. Yet his wealth was not that extensive because it was doled out in monthly payments, like a salary, and he had as many limitations as benefits. Fred was interesting.

So my GOAL as a player is to first create a unique character, then to explore both who they are and how they interact with the world and other characters, then to see what events unfold and how we deal with them. I view a character a "success" if people remember them and the "world" is better after they interact with it. I don't need "name level" or a kingdom.

[atpollard]

I play (PC) and referee (GM) for very different reasons and with VERY different goals.

Thanks very much for all your thoughtful, detailed responses about refereeing! Let's come back to here. What are your reasons for playing and your goals as a player rather than a referee?

Let me tell you about Vinnie ("Don" Vincienzo). Traveller CHARGEN has a sweet spot. Too few terms and you have fewer skills. Too many terms and you start to loose ability scores with age. In addition, Traveller skills fall into three distinct GROUPS (Weapon/Combat; Starship/Technology; Interpersonal), and EVERYBODY loads up on the first two groups so they can crew a starship or shoot things up in a gunfight. Nobody wants to be the guy that is good at entertaining passengers or doing the paperwork at the Starport front desk. So I decided to turn the TROPES on their head. I wanted to play a 70 year old retired Mob Boss with all the INTERPERSONAL skills that nobody ever specialized in. What I had not realized was that when you are that old, your skill levels break the 2D6 curve on the dice. Try rolling 8+ on 2d6+6 ... see what I mean? Any way, Vinnie could gamble and win your shirt off your back, or humble any bureaucrat or LEO, or negotiate a half price purchase or double price sale effortlessly. What I remember best was the bar room brawl where Vinnie attempted to lift a chair to hit someone, failed his pathetic strength check, and needed to rest from the atempt. He spent the brawl hiding under a table with the waitresses. The goal was to create the character that NOBODY ever was ... and I did.

I retired him after only a short play because of the imbalance of the high skills. Learned a lesson about "breaking the 2D6 curve". That lesson helped me reject most of the newer incarnations of Traveller and D&D which are DESIGNED to create characters that break the curves. Never fail is actually not fun after the first few times. It is a short-lived novelty.

[SterlingBlake]

I'm probably going to sound antagonistic now, but I mean this as a friendly discussion. Maybe a debate.

I play (PC) and referee (GM) for very different reasons and with VERY different goals.

Thanks very much for all your thoughtful, detailed responses about refereeing! Let's come back to here. What are your reasons for playing and your goals as a player rather than a referee?

Let's talk about neurology for a second. I love rules and problem solving. I am innately wired to be the ultimate min-maxer. Like EVERYONE that has played D&D for any length of time, I learned that ELF + BOW + DEX = lots of dead monsters with minimum risk. When BASIC gave way to ADVANCED, you add RANGER and SPECIALIZATION and BOWS BUILT TO STRENGTH ... on and on the process went. By the time 2ED rolled around, I had played enough UBER (Mary-Sue) CHARACTERS that I came to realize that it just wasn't fun. I was a hamster on a wheel gaining better magic so I could kill Grendel's mother just to do it all over again ... without purpose or end.

So I just quit playing and started world building as a DM. Then I quit D&D and started playing Traveller. I learned two things about ME.

Let's stop here for a minute. You found that the object of the game, game-mechanically speaking, was to make a character as powerful as possible. That this could be accomplished easily enough, and without any real "victory condition" to be met bringing the game to a conclusion, that it became boring. I'm just going to put a pin there for now.

1. I really like simple rules that don't get in the way of Role-playing and FUN (who gives a fart if you have "swimming skill" so you can cross the river ... dammit this is a game and that is the RPG equivalent of 'guess my word' from early computer games.)

Interestingly to me, because it is so radically different from my own thinking, I think you're saying rules interfere with playing the game. Too many rules, or too detailed rules, are a problem that reduce the fun of a game. The fun part of the game is where we talk about make-believe stuff, not where we try to use skill or calculation to overcome the mechanical constraints imposed by the rules.

Right here I think we're getting to one of the central discussions I was hoping to when I started this topic. What is a game? My favorite compact definition for a game comes from the philosopher Bernard Suits:

“To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity.”

The game you described quitting lacked "a specific state of affairs" to achieve. Of course you quit. That's the only way to stop playing since there's no winning or losing. I don't think you're playing a game now either. By dropping, ignoring, or otherwise excluding rules that prohibit more efficient means (just let characters cross rivers without following any swimming rules that make that difficult or impossible), you're moving away from actually playing a game. At least by this definition.

So my GOAL as a player is to first create a unique character, then to explore both who they are and how they interact with the world and other characters, then to see what events unfold and how we deal with them. I view a character a "success" if people remember them and the "world" is better after they interact with it. I don't need "name level" or a kingdom.

It's an activity, and you're clearly having fun doing it and I'm confident that your players are too, but I wouldn't call this a game in a strict sense of the word.

[SterlingBlake]

I play (PC) and referee (GM) for very different reasons and with VERY different goals.

Thanks very much for all your thoughtful, detailed responses about refereeing! Let's come back to here. What are your reasons for playing and your goals as a player rather than a referee?

Let me tell you about Vinnie ("Don" Vincienzo). Traveller CHARGEN has a sweet spot. Too few terms and you have fewer skills. Too many terms and you start to loose ability scores with age. In addition, Traveller skills fall into three distinct GROUPS (Weapon/Combat; Starship/Technology; Interpersonal), and EVERYBODY loads up on the first two groups so they can crew a starship or shoot things up in a gunfight. Nobody wants to be the guy that is good at entertaining passengers or doing the paperwork at the Starport front desk. So I decided to turn the TROPES on their head. I wanted to play a 70 year old retired Mob Boss with all the INTERPERSONAL skills that nobody ever specialized in. What I had not realized was that when you are that old, your skill levels break the 2D6 curve on the dice. Try rolling 8+ on 2d6+6 ... see what I mean? Any way, Vinnie could gamble and win your shirt off your back, or humble any bureaucrat or LEO, or negotiate a half price purchase or double price sale effortlessly. What I remember best was the bar room brawl where Vinnie attempted to lift a chair to hit someone, failed his pathetic strength check, and needed to rest from the atempt. He spent the brawl hiding under a table with the waitresses. The goal was to create the character that NOBODY ever was ... and I did.

I retired him after only a short play because of the imbalance of the high skills. Learned a lesson about "breaking the 2D6 curve". That lesson helped me reject most of the newer incarnations of Traveller and D&D which are DESIGNED to create characters that break the curves. Never fail is actually not fun after the first few times. It is a short-lived novelty.

From the looks of it, Vinnie being 70 years old and managing to hit the same skill 6 times, spent 13 terms in chargen. According to the rules, 7 terms is the maximum number of terms a character may serve voluntary, after which he would need to roll boxcars to be allowed (and required) to serve another term. Ignoring the added survival checks and aging crisis rolls, the odds of serving another 6 terms after those first 7 are less than 1 in 2 billion. It might be your chargen house rules that broke the 2D6 curve here.

[atpollard]

The game you described quitting lacked "a specific state of affairs" to achieve. Of course you quit. That's the only way to stop playing since there's no winning or losing. I don't think you're playing a game now either. By dropping, ignoring, or otherwise excluding rules that prohibit more efficient means (just let characters cross rivers without following any swimming rules that make that difficult or impossible), you're moving away from actually playing a game. At least by this definition.

Can you whistle?
How do you KNOW you can whistle?

How do you know your Halfling Bard can whistle?
Is it critically important to ROLEPLAYING in a fantasy setting to have "The Complete Book of Whistling" with 50 pages of detailed rules on Whistling?
Should each character have a "whistling" attribute added to the 453 generated and calculated attributes that we have added to the character sheet to cover [singing, riding a bike, jogging, skipping, standing on one foot, skipping stones across a lake, doing a handstand, etc.]

What if ... [call me a madman] ... we just use RULE 68A?
Can the character swim across the river [or any one of the 453 other trivial actions]?
Roll 2D6.
on 2-5, fail = he cannot swim.
on 6-7, minimal success = he can swim a little (doggie paddle).
on 8-9, average success = he is an average swimmer.
on 10+, high success = he is an great swimmer.

Now let's apply it to the party that wants to cross the River.
Those characters that are GREAT SWIMMERS, haul the extra STUFF.
Those characters that are average swimmers swim across.
Those characters that are poor swimmers grab something that floats and swim across.
Those characters that cannot swim hold onto something as they are pulled across by rope.

Look at that ... I didn't actually NEED a specific skill or a set of rules on skill slots for swimming.
Now watch me show my COMPLETE LUNATIC SIDE!

The group is on the trail of the Goblins and come to a river they need to cross.
PLAYERS: Can we swim?
DM: Sure, why not? You are adventurers and swimming is a pretty basic task. The party crosses the river.

Same end results without needing to consult the Book Of Useless Skills and rolling which characters lacked which useless skills that their PLAYERS probably have (making the Knight inferior to his C.P.A. player at crossing a river).

[I hope you took the hyperbole in good humor]

[atpollard]

It's an activity, and you're clearly having fun doing it and I'm confident that your players are too, but I wouldn't call this a game in a strict sense of the word.

I play Monopoly with my wife and daughter.
I am not sure that ROLE PLAYING as a genre meets your artificial definition of "game".

Role Playing is as much a "social contract" among the participants. That aspect sets RPGs apart from Monopoly and checkers and Chess. Yes, all have both rules and a social contract aspect, but in Monopoly the RULES take dominance and in RPGs the social contract takes dominance. That is why RPG with people is NOTHING like a single person Computer Game. D&D is not Diablo and the difference is not "the Rules".

[GreyWolfVT]

Thanks for joining in, GreyWolfVT!

Let me pick at one thing you said:

I do enjoy testing my skills as a DM and player.

Would mind you elaborating on the skills test aspect as a player? What skills are being tested and how?

Depending on the DM/GM and game puzzle solving, thinking outside of the box, trying to solve riddles, or other strange situations.

[atpollard]

From the looks of it, Vinnie being 70 years old and managing to hit the same skill 6 times, spent 13 terms in chargen. According to the rules, 7 terms is the maximum number of terms a character may serve voluntary, after which he would need to roll boxcars to be allowed (and required) to serve another term. Ignoring the added survival checks and aging crisis rolls, the odds of serving another 6 terms after those first 7 are less than 1 in 2 billion. It might be your chargen house rules that broke the 2D6 curve here.

Yes, as stated, Vinnie was an attempt to deliberately create an old criminal, so a thumb was placed on the scale with the blessings of the REF. It was also decided to deliberately reroll any results for WEAPONS skills to exclude Vinnie becoming a sharpshooter (contrary to the concept). I may have exaggerated the 70 years old. That was the goal, but I think it turned out to be too many skills and was cut back in Chargen when they started to go above skill-6. I do remember focusing on gaining ATTRIBUTES to offset the aging and increase INT+EDU to allow more skills to be learned. It may have been Megatraveller Character rather than Classic (Vinnie was a long time ago and I was not the GM ... so his house, his rules).

To your point about skill-6, it is sadly easy to obtain in the advanced Chargen that came to dominate after the original 3 books. Between "schools" and "Promotions" and "Muster" benefits I have legitimately rolled Rifle-6 in only 3 terms (creating a sniper that virtually cannot miss).

[SterlingBlake]

The group is on the trail of the Goblins and come to a river they need to cross.
PLAYERS: Can we swim?
DM: Sure, why not? You are adventurers and swimming is a pretty basic task. The party crosses the river.

Same end results without needing to consult the Book Of Useless Skills and rolling which characters lacked which useless skills that their PLAYERS probably have (making the Knight inferior to his C.P.A. player at crossing a river).

[I hope you took the hyperbole in good humor]

Yes, point taken (with humor), we don't need rules for everything before we start playing. Everything we have a rule for doesn't necessarily mean a roll for success or failure. I'm not hung up on swimming across rivers in particular either. I am keen on players knowing what they can and cannot do and having there be things that they cannot do. If all the characters can swim across the river, great, they've got an easy solution. But if half of them can't, we have a more interesting situation. A problem without an obvious solution.

In your example you've made a rule: all PCs can swim. It's still a rule that as a player I expect to be forever true now. If we can't swim across the next river, or my next character can't swim, I want to know why. Maybe swimming isn't part of dwarf culture, so the party of humans and elves had no problem, but now that I'm playing a dwarf, its a problem. That's fine too, but it's a rule.

As a player, I want to know the rules in advance as much as possible, not just when the referee tells me, so I can make better decisions for my character. And here is where we're back to a difference. I'm trying to win. Because I'm thinking about the game mechanics and achieving a specific state of affairs that the rules constrain my ability to achieve.

I suppose after grilling you guys so much I ought to talk about where I'm coming from on game design soon.

[atpollard]

Yes, point taken (with humor), we don't need rules for everything before we start playing. Everything we have a rule for doesn't necessarily mean a roll for success or failure. I'm not hung up on swimming across rivers in particular either. I am keen on players knowing what they can and cannot do and having there be things that they cannot do. If all the characters can swim across the river, great, they've got an easy solution. But if half of them can't, we have a more interesting situation. A problem without an obvious solution.

In your example you've made a rule: all PCs can swim. It's still a rule that as a player I expect to be forever true now. If we can't swim across the next river, or my next character can't swim, I want to know why. Maybe swimming isn't part of dwarf culture, so the party of humans and elves had no problem, but now that I'm playing a dwarf, its a problem. That's fine too, but it's a rule.

As a player, I want to know the rules in advance as much as possible, not just when the referee tells me, so I can make better decisions for my character. And here is where we're back to a difference. I'm trying to win. Because I'm thinking about the game mechanics and achieving a specific state of affairs that the rules constrain my ability to achieve.

I suppose after grilling you guys so much I ought to talk about where I'm coming from on game design soon.

I can agree with much of that. I just picked on SWIMMING because in the original D&D I think the solution (a whole new category of secondary skills and a system for gaining them) was worse than the problem that it fixed since it IMPLIES that any skill you don't have (like swimming) is a task that you cannot even attempt. Personally, I like to view things as "so common that everyone can do it" and just say so (nobody starves because they cannot boil water); "questionable so link it to an ability score" (you swim as well as your dexterity); or "hard, there should probably be a skill for that" (nobody is a natural born Gemcutter). Most people can agree on which tasks fall into which groups ...
wading through waist deep water,
swimming across a calm river,
we are going to raft down the whitewater rapids on a log!

[Inferno]

Hey,
Fascinating and thoughtful discussion. Sorry I'm coming in late.

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

...Stories. Challenges. Achievements.

This philosophy is curious to me. I assume you play in games with an element of adventure. Adventure implies physical risk or danger... often combat. If combat brings no risk of death (i.e. a die roll killing your character) do you experience challenges and a sense of achievement in combat?

If you want storytelling without risk or dice, have you ever tried something like a clockwork story? Creativity, storytelling, a social component, a shared world, without dice or the random element they provide.

Thanks!

[Leitz]

Hey,
Fascinating and thoughtful discussion. Sorry I'm coming in late.

I spend too much time building a character for a single dice roll to destroy hours of work.

...Stories. Challenges. Achievements.

This philosophy is curious to me. I assume you play in games with an element of adventure. Adventure implies physical risk or danger... often combat. If combat brings no risk of death (i.e. a die roll killing your character) do you experience challenges and a sense of achievement in combat?

If you want storytelling without risk or dice, have you ever tried something like a clockwork story? Creativity, storytelling, a social component, a shared world, without dice or the random element they provide.

Consider the standard dungeon crawl; adventurers go in to gain treasure. Usually there are monsters, traps, and other nasty bits, but sometimes the adventurers come back loaded with coin and fame. At its core, those games are about risk and reward, fine story fodder!

But then what? Do the adventurers marry their childhood sweethearts, buy a farm, and actually live a life? Most games, as rredmond's .sig says, fall under:
This is a game about killing things and taking their stuff so you can become more powerful in order to kill bigger things and take even better stuff. If the game is just about randomly rolled characters going through random encounters and collecting random amounts of treasure then why should we not use the DMG's random dungeon tables, roll up a random party, and game alone? Doesn't that get boring after a bit?

The absence of randomly rolled PC death does not eliminate risk or adventure. In a story based game the player can spend a decent amount of time building back-story and connections without the fear that one lousy roll wastes all that effort. Quite the contrary, a story with challenges and setbacks can deepen the adventure as the player explores the character even more to find ways to overcome the latest challenge. Just because the PC isn't likely to randomly die doesn't mean the loss of freedom, status, treasure, friends, or family can't happen. Quite the opposite; often a PC will greater odds to protect someone they care about. It is times like these where the PC is quit of being a randomly rolled set of stats and actually becomes a character.

If we wanted random events and people without motivation, real life covers it. No real need to game at all. As humans, though, we crave stories. Stories about people (in a very loose definition) who face challenges and setbacks. We hope they succeed, but the path is difficult and fraught with danger. In a story centric game the DM sets the world and the tone, the players bring their character concepts, and together everyone weaves a fantastic tapestry that can be hung up on the (internet) wall and admired for years to come.

[Inferno]

Hi. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

If the game is just about randomly rolled characters going through random encounters and collecting random amounts of treasure then why should we not use the DMG's random dungeon tables, roll up a random party, and game alone? Doesn't that get boring after a bit?

So, this is a strawman argument honestly. I didn't say everything at all times should be randomly determined.

Stories about people (in a very loose definition) who face challenges and setbacks. We hope they succeed, but the path is difficult and fraught with danger.

Except they can never die unexpectedly. In your stories, the stakes are never life and death. So they are fraught with danger that is not particularly dangerous.

And no less a storyteller than Cormac McCarthy said, “If it doesn't concern life and death, it's not interesting."

Likewise, Robert E. Howard: "Only the promise of death makes life worth living."

I'm inclined to agree. I mean, I have plenty of boring, low stakes "danger" in real life. Marrying my sweetheart. Buying a house. Living a life. So I don't need lots of low-stakes stuff in my fantasies or fantasy games.

In a story centric game the DM sets the world and the tone, the players bring their character concepts, and together everyone weaves a fantastic tapestry that can be hung up on the (internet) wall and admired for years to come.

But that can also be done in games that have actual danger.

Without life-and-death stakes, or any random story elements, the above sounds like a clockwork story. Again, have you ever tried that?

Thanks again!