[RPG Theory] Quantified Traits in RPG Play

[stevekenson]

A great many RPGs define character traits in a fair amount of detail. Just by looking at the character sheet (or with the game stats and a little work), you can determine a character’s capabilities: how much weight can he lift, how fast can he run, how far (and accurately) he can throw, perhaps even other things like IQ, various levels of knowledge, and so forth.

The question is: how much of this raw data provided by character design is actually needed in game play? That is, when do you need to know exactly how far a character can jump? The obvious rejoiner is, “Well, when the character needs to jump over or across something!” But does that challenge require you to know the character’s exact jumping distance, or just how relatively difficult the jump should be? Likewise, is it really a matter of knowing if a superhuman can lift 23 tons versus 26 tons or just knowing she can lift “a bus” but not, say, “a jumbo jet” (at least, not at all easily in the second case)?

After all, the vast majority of challenges in RPG play fall in the relative narrow spectrum beyond the character’s “routine” capabilities (things not even worth making into challenges) but not beyond the character’s “impossible” capabilities. So much so that the capabilities themselves are almost window dressing. Yes, a game system can tell you, for example, that a character can fly at exactly 1,200 MPH, but beyond the fact that the character flies faster than the speed of sound, does it matter much?

It often seems to me like quantified details in an RPG context often just bog things down in needless detail when all you really need to know is a simple plot-point, such as “the character can fly” or “the heroes have access to a jump-capable ship.” The process of defining all that detail is often a kind of game experience unto itself. I recall the lovingly-detailed Champions and GURPS NPCs with full character sheets—Knowledge Skills, Hobby Skills, Quirks, and all—where the vast majority of their game traits never came into play (well, the Quirks, sometimes).

At what point do detailed traits become a detriment to RPG play? Or do they ever?

Comments

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

At what point do detailed traits become a detriment to RPG play?

I don't think they do, necessarily. Even traits that come up rarely if ever in play can lend a well-roundedness to the mental picture of a character that looser systems lack.

The detriment to my mind is not during play, it's before play, in the time required to produce the character in the first place. Well written character software (such as Hero Designer) makes this a much easier task than in the days when all the labour was done with pencil and paper and rulebook page-flipping.

[wyldelf.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure the problem is they become an active detriment, but they become an unnecessary distraction. Take HERO or GURPS for example. You may not ever have the detail become a detriment, and if you're an adept at the system, you'll be able to set aside the details to cut to the important things when they aren't. However, it does call into question the hours of time that goes into making a character (at least, typically without a program to help out with point totals) when a majority of the work goes to detailing things that are ultimately unimportant.

It also serves as a smoke and mirrors. So many gamers are focused on telling good stories, with character arcs, or epic struggles, or personal conflict, or emotional and moral quandaries, and many other things unrelated to how fast you can move in 6 seconds time. And yet we settle for rules that focus on telling us how fast we can move in 6 seconds, how much we can lift (and for how long), and how much damage we can take, and claim we need those rules in order to provide a realistic picture of a character, then improvise our characters' emotions, morality, arcs, and story conflicts (or all too often, engage when we want and ignore when it comes down to "winning" the core conflict of the scenario established by the GM).

I've found it much more rewarding to have games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Spirit of the Century that have me build my character thinking about other things (or at least in non-concrete terms). When I come to the table, I know my character so much better. It doesn't take me hours, or perhaps sessions, to get a feel for my character. I know what my character will do, how they might react, and what sort of emotional landscape they have because I had space to put it down on my character sheet. I've also got the flexibility to change it as play progresses.

That said, sometimes it is a hell of a lot of fun to see your character throw a grenade 4 miles, or out run a bullet, or pick up an oil tanker. As sold as I am on getting away from pointless details, in games, with Supers, it's still very much a part of it. The choice seems to come down to detailing powers and capabilities or ad-libbing all of it. But the scope is so great, it's not always as fun to ad-lib your hulked out character picking up an aircraft carrier as having worked the rules (or even make the proper die roll) in order to actually be able to lift an aircraft carrier.

I'm still figuring it out myself. But for the most part, the details are a detriment and distraction. But there is a place for them in the proper game. And they aren't without their fun an advantages.

[blktalon.livejournal.com]

I think it more a matter of the game and the player in the game. Does the type the of game and player like to actually try to display those traits and hobbies during the game. Is it the the type of game that will allow the go through he marketplace and hunt down a pair of turtleshell braces only to have it lead to den of thieves who were hired to steal the same thing the player is after.

At the present the game I'm in, I actually try to play some of those qualities out. It make the game more interesting to me.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

When I'm preparing a campaign or a scenario, I do full character sheets for the recurrent NPCs and for the major adversaries and guest stars for each session. I find that this is a huge help to my imagination. When I'm watching the PCs interact with the NPCs, often the way the interaction plays out will turn on some nuance of character that I never imagined would be important. If I've written out the character sheet, there I have a page of nuances just waiting to jump out at me. And so I have the pleasure of surprising myself.

The physical capabilities aren't really all that time consuming; figuring them out is just arithmetic, and I do arithmetic for relaxation. What takes the time is picking out just the right options to define a character. And virtually all the games I run have mechanics to represent that: GURPS, Big Eyes Small Mouth, FUDGE, Buffy the Vampire Slayer . . . character-defining things are part of the process.

Note, too, that if I want a game where quantitative scale is important, I'll pick GURPS. If I want one where visual imagery is more important, I'll pick BESM. I used BESM, not GURPS, for my Middle-Earth campaign, because Tolkien thought overwhelmingly in pictorial images. On the other hand, there are genres where I want to run the numbers and see what drops out. For example, I spent two pages of GURPS Supers analyzing the different ways Stalina, a Russian heroine of the 1940s, could attack a German Panzer, and how much damage and what sort would result from each, from bending the main gun into a loop to body slamming the main compartment.

Alternate Titles? Also, commentary. *grins*

[stiobhanrune.livejournal.com]

Reading this, I totally laughed- I was just dealing with this last night!

Suggestions for alternate titles for this post: Bigger than a Breadbox, Horseshoes and Handgrenades- the RPG, or Close: the Eyeballing.

Seriously, I think that in most cases, the stats and minor details are only there to allow people to argue. Since I don't let people argue in my games, not about minutia anyway, the point is moot.

I tend to think of every core book as a text which teaches a sort of language- images, ideas, and so on. With the core book, you learn the basic metaphors and methods of using the system and communicating your idea. Supplemental books further extrapolate such ideas, and allow people to inspire themselves towards new usages of the language.

However, what you do with such a system is based on the art of your own character, your own spirit. Sometimes, that requires deep attention to detail. Sometimes it only needs a general gist.

How deeply In Character you are in a game will determine how much the player needs to know technical info- if they're mostly OOC, then they'll probably be more interested in mechanics. That's part of the enjoyment for them.

But if they're really IC, then the character will determine that. Are they playing a scientist or a monk? Some sort of scholar who analyzes the "way things work?" Or are they Joe Baseball-Bat, who stakes vampires at night and works at a video store during the day?

In other words, how architectural is the mind of the character? I think one of the most awful things I've ever said to a player, after he laid down a ton of rules to me about exactly how certain stats stacked together and made him "teh awesomez," was a simple "Yes, but your character has the IQ of a ladybug, and the wisdom and insight of a fart in the wind. Unless someone teaches that to you, you can't use it."

Pissed him off. But it set a good precedent- if mechanics is your character's bag, don't give him an Int of 6.

Can you tell that I'm biased towards high-roleplay and minimal Out of Character games? *snickers*

Ok, I'll go away now.

OH! And I really need to talk to you about something to do with M&M! I have actually creative players now- they made me think! I'll send you an email and ask you a bunch of questions, if you don't mind too much. *hugs*

Quality vs Quantity, and Decision-Making

[77im.livejournal.com]

I always find qualitative distinctions between characters more interesting than quantitative ones, because they lead to more interesting decisions. But a quantitative trait can actually become qualitative at certain points when the quantity is so great that it makes a clear difference. The examples in the post (flying slowly vs. supersonic flying vs. flying IN SPACE!) highlight this effect: when the quantities are different enough, they sort of behave, in play, like qualitative traits. So, to answer Steve's final question, I would say, that when quantities X and X+1 are so similar that the difference in quantity does not lead to any difference in your decision-making, then the system is too granular for my taste.

-- 77IM

[emessar.livejournal.com]

The importance of quantification really depends on the campaign you're running, the GM, and the players. If the campaign is mostly socio-political, it doesn't really matter that much if you can lift a tank. Lifting a tank isn't that relevant to the campaign.

I think that quantitative versus qualitative abilities really comes down to the range of the relevant abilities in the campaign. The broader the range, the more helpful quantification is. For example, in a superhero campaign, because of the large range that an ability can have, there are more challenges that will simply fit into a range where the outcome is certain as opposed to something that will be less certain. Also those set points are more dependent on the character than any hard campaign limit.

On the other hand, if you are playing in a campaign of espionage with no super human abilities (other than how good they look in a tuxedo), then qualitative abilities can work nicely because everyone is at about the same level. No one throws a tank in a James Bond movie.

In terms of quantitative granularity, I prefer a system that uses a roughly logarithmic progression where one level is somewhere around 1.5 to 2.5 times the previous level depending on how broad the range of abilities, not unlike what you find in the original DC Heroes RPG or M&M. I think it's the most efficient use of granularity over a range.

Point of Detriment

[protonboy.livejournal.com]

They are as important as the system makes them. When traits make one turn of combat last so long that the group forgets what happened by the time its the next persons turn - then its a problem.

When the gaming systems were first being developed and created (going from mass groups of army troupes to each player controls one character) there was a burst of detail. Things were only possible if they were printed or your group agreed on additional details or clarifications. When feed back reached the developers, the next incarnation had more details, that broadened missing gaps that were overlooked in the original.

It looks like GURPS and the other non-D&D games that came out around 1'st ed D&D through 2nd ed D&D over compensated by including lots of details to encompass the broad genre's of Supers and beyond.

I think with combination of the impact of the internet, the kids playing these games growing up (as well as writing the new versions), and the RPG industry as a whole growing up as well - we are seeing a trend in the evolution in what an RPG system acts like.

D&D (and some others) are going from each trait having its own entry (jumping, climbing, tumbling) to intuitive category's that encompass those specific functions and similar ones that might crop up (aka athletics/acrobatics).

I think these recent trends to a more broad approach vrs having to have each individual trait itemized, is to address that whats on the character sheet is relevant but not cumbersome. Traits are suppose to represent different role's abilities and how they function in game mechanics.

The difference between each players characters should be distinct enough to make each of them feel and/or be needed without one character being able to solo the entire game. Most players don't want to have a character creation system or combat system that is so detailed it takes too long to resolve actions.

How meaningful are stats? 4.x appears to be trying to enhance the meaning of stats by having so many stat requirements of feats. After calculating what your modifiers are, how often do you look at your stats?

-C
Sacramento, CA