Roleplaying Discussion

[Yana]

fundamentally I think sci fi combat RPs are also much tougher to handle properly? I personally always found it ridiculous that sci fi fights wouldn't end with everyone dying after the first salvo.Then once we introduce shields and mandatory melee, we might as well just call it science fantasy, because technobabble is the exact same as magic.

That's hard sci-fi thinking, which I'd argue is much less accessible to most roleplayers than space opera. The way I want to look at it is that most any genre of fiction begins with presuppositions that enable the story, e.g. the existence of magic in a fantasy world. Any good fantasy story has to provide some level of logic/theory to explain magic because it's always a critical narrative feature that fundamentally alters the physical system, history, warfare, culture and science of the setting. When this isn't done the story can collapse in the eyes of the reader, because as a reader we're looking into what's essentially an attempt to simulate an entire world and we tend to intuitively ask if in thousands of years of history, even one person made some kind of revelation, discovery, method or invention that we could easily imagine existing based on what we know and yet could've changed the course of the story irrevocably. It's a "why didn't they take the giant eagles to Mordor" kind of question, except with no guarantee of an answer because the writer didn't establish a good basis from which to make assumptions.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

By the way, the real answer to that question? The Eye of Sauron would've spotted the One Ring in flight before it came anywhere close to the Black Gate, which is stacked with thousands of archers that would've swiss cheesed them in two seconds flat. That's why.

Thing is, while we might ponder and explain the mechanics and science of magic in any given setting, its existence is still assumed and accepted both by the reader and by characters in the story. Of course any fantasy story is also bound to touch on the "why", such as it being an inheritance from a god/gods, and I could, say, ask from where said gods came and what made them as they are stated to be, but I'd accept that magic does in fact exist.

It's here I think Clarke's third law does come into play re: sci-fi and (for example) the existence of faster-than-light travel as a presupposition that enables the rest of the setting to exist. I might not understand how the technology works (and this may remain entirely unexplained throughout the story, e.g. Star Wars and hyperdrives) but if it's a good story what I will understand are its fundamental capabilities and limitations and how that shapes the course of the story. The entire narrative is more believable in this way because I know the author didn't just pull a deus ex machina with some previously unknowable knowledge to resolve a situation. Basically, the reader just needs to be confident enough in the explanation you have given that whatever happens as a result of the thing's existence will make sense. Apply this to laser guns, magic, whatever.

It's questions like the ones you have that influence me as a writer and trouble me when I try to develop sci-fi, specifically because I'm also the kind of person to stress the logic of a setting. We as readers tend to assume that a sci-fi world will ultimately just be a massive multiplication of our current technological progress where things like guns and nuclear bombs already exist and if no modern infantryman runs into a battlefield swinging a broadsword, why would a future sci-fi soldier? It's here that soft sci-fi and space opera diverge from hard sci-fi: the former likely made entirely different assumptions about what technology emerged and how it changed the setting. In doing this the author can justify fantastic and "unrealistic" methods of fighting and warfare. For instance maybe some kind of shields exist that protect against gunfire but not melee strikes, or maybe the focus of the story are space monsters immune to conventional small arms or maybe humanity has evolved psychic powers which are the foundation of most warfare.

If that sounds like what you'd call science fantasy, it probably is. My ultimate point here is that sci-fi roleplays can make these kinds of presuppositions with culture and technology that fundamentally alter the setting to answer why something is so or is not so and by doing thus can adopt elements of fantasy logic.

And of course at the end of the day there's always the fact that roleplays are inherently collaborative and it isn't directly an author-reader relationship. The thread Dax is referencing was campy anime-esque sci-fi action and the GM offered precisely none of the explanation I'm getting preachy about, but what it did have was a lot of blank space for me to insert my speculation, interpretation and reasoning where it didn't contradict the fundamentals that had been provided or what the others had written.

So to make an extremely long ramble short: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm tentatively back. Hi.

[Mark3000]

In true, I just used Sci-fi as a descriptor because modern or fantasy didn't fit. This was a situation where I came up with the mechanics and game before I came up with the story. Soft sci-fi or Science fantasy is probably more fitting since I got the idea from those really bad harem anime that revolve around mecha suits (Stuff like Infinite Stratos, Hundred, .... Mahou Gakuen HxH). I realized I had a real affinity for that mecha musume style design but hated each and everyone of these shows' story. So I thought I would make my own. But yea I think I'm going to work out the back ground a little more

[pornomancer]

I think we generally like using sci-fi settings because we as players or GMs have an affinity for a particular universe, and want to RP a game that works in the lore of that setting we like. Its also easier for us to shortcut the mental picture of whats going on thanks to the shared knowledge of what each creature looks like.

My worry is that I've seen alot of RPs, especially sci fi ones, on here kind of fall off after a short while because the mechanics don't work within the setting, or the fundamental lore starts to get in the way of sexytimes. Then GMs and players are forced to use the same mechanics to keep driving the stories forward (mainly corruption or demonic influence, all of which are 'evil' traits)

The sole exception to this has been the XCOM Horny Valkyries series, which is going fantastically strong despite everything and is a fantastic exception. I would argue though that the unfleshed nature of XCOM lore allows for a significant amount of player interpretation, which lets us put in our own interpretations on the plot skeletons provided. And even that has alot of players pretty much 'surrendering to lust' which really is just corruption.

Is there a better way we can do this for a scifi setting? Fantasy is more forgiving, but scifi is..... problematic?

[Yana]

The only benchmark we have for science fiction is our current understanding of science and speculative developments in technology. On the other hand, all fantasy is measured against the template established by Tolkien's legacy and since Tolkien's worlds were derived from popular elements of human mythology, art and history, they're easy for anyone to intuit.

What's more critical, though, is that generic fantasy templates always centre on just one or two basic but powerful concepts (gods and magic). This is the most elegant way for any writer preclude a lot of complexity while remaining interesting and self-consistent. If sci-fi roleplays have a problem it's that they don't do this. Powerful technology makes science fiction worlds extremely mutable, far more so than fantasy epics. If you remember what I was saying about presuppositions that enable a story, this is what I mean: even a single landmark science fiction tech (artificial intelligence, FTL travel, nanotechnology, etc.) drastically changes a setting and a lot of GMs can hodge-podge them together thoughtlessly, not understanding how they would interlock to create a radically different society.

It's why I'm not surprised something like XCOM works. The closer you keep your story to Earth, the narrower the lens and therefore less complexity. XCOM is essentially just about aliens and "Jetsetting black ops soldiers fighting aliens" is already a malleable basis for a roleplay. Now in an alien invasion story, my focus as a writer would be explaining why aliens would invade Earth to begin with and if they did why a civilisation that had the power to find Earth, reach it and attack it wouldn't have long since developed the military power to subjugate the vastly technologically inferior humans with basically a snap of their fingers. If this can be solved it'll fly, but the more presuppositions you introduce on top of this the more legwork you have to put in and inevitably the more contrivances you'll have to make as you work various points to their logical ends. The latter is why I'm okay with writers falling back on their intuition to explain things.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

How an intergalactic society would measure time and date is an example I like. Timekeeping is critical to even the most primitive civilisation but most roleplayers aren't going to want to re-learn how to track the time just to understand what's going on, hence I'd try to route around this unless I had a really effective answer.

Long story short, I'd propose narrowing the lens. Have two or three presuppositions (technology, extraterrestrials, etc.) be the basis of a setting and limit the rest such that they couldn't overwhelm that focus. Me personally, I intend to dispense with aliens and focus entirely on humanity in any sci-fi setting I create.

[Reaver]

Its a matter of complexity not genre. They are settings with technology and magic being interchangeable along with races and aliens, currency, realms of exploration and etc.
Anyways you seem like someone that has a grasp on rp complexities. Any plans for making an rp anytime soon? I could use an rp, fantasy or sci-fi with some good mechanics behind it.

[AnIntimateSecret]

'lo everyone

New member (but somewhat longer lurker) here. I actually stumbled on LoK while trying to find out more about Humbird0's games, especially his 'Babysitter's Club 2' game. I'd love to recreate or expand or generally play about with his setting and satisfy my craving for more through RP... so I thought I'd see what sort of interest there was and what other ideas people might throw out at the thought.

Obviously it would be more about lighthearted interactions and heavy-on-the-E RP than a more 'traditional' combat etc RP, although I'm sure I could wangle some sort of conflict system into it with relative ease.

So, yeah... lemme know if anyone's inspired by the thought and I'll look at making a proper OOC discussion thread.

[Mark3000]

My worry is that I've seen alot of RPs, especially sci fi ones, on here kind of fall off after a short while because the mechanics don't work within the setting, or the fundamental lore starts to get in the way of sexytimes. Then GMs and players are forced to use the same mechanics to keep driving the stories forward (mainly corruption or demonic influence, all of which are 'evil' traits)

That's something I've been struggling with. My last RP Series was focused on Corruption and Demonic Influence and it worked out pretty well. But with this new one I don't know whether or not I want the story to be lewd or not. I could possibly work it into the story but I don't want it to feel forced.

[MelissaB]

The problem with a lot of the rps is they are either so complex the GMs get burnt out or so simple that any tricky action breaks the whole thing down. Mechanics to geta basic story rolling are simple. ability to hit, dodge/avoid damage and hp. It's when you want to include flavor with mechanics that get troublesome. Take D&D the single most complex system of mechanics... and even it can break. it has rolls and stuff to cover literally anything within it's world and you'll still find that one situation where it doesn't apply and you're screwed because you either had to wing it and remember what you did when it next happens or create a whole new mechanic which never truly meshes with the original stuff.

Regarding lore... lore is easy but often overlooked in key areas, people give basic lores around a setting and that's fine, however sooner or later you're going to need to fill in the gaps you didn't bother to fill, or you implied something and that was not observed. meaning the rp feels sometimes hollow, like it's missing something and it can lead to a lot of mix ups. but regarding fantasy the thing I see the most is the difference between fantasy good and evil and our real world good and thing is to us they are concepts to the world of fantasy they are often facts, hard facts that can't be denied. the idea of gods and our fake god(had to) is one is an idea the other is fact. to know obsolutely without a shadow of a doubt that a god has an impact on your world is something we jsut don't even fathon, I've seen GMs as well as players mess this up, going back to D&D to kill a child of a monster race even if it's a defenseless baby is good.... gods said so can't be argued with. to kill a monster race trying to be good and change his nature... good not up for debate. is in our world but not in that make believe one.

That's my two cents on fantasy and sci fi rps from mechanics and lore wise.

[Yana]

D20 isn't the most complex system of mechanics. It's just one of the less effective for guiding roleplays with long, detailed posts that mean scenes tend to move forward in large jumps rather than being played action by action or line by line. The thing about D20 is that it was intended to govern wargame-style fight scenes, not guide character development, as D&D (and tabletop roleplaying in general) is the progeny of tabletop wargaming. There's been a rush of newer systems this century with a focus on rewarding character growth, but eventually you have to decide if your roleplay is a tabletop RPG being run through a forum or more of a collaborative novel. The latter is what I lean toward and so I tend to run freeform, but nearly all roleplays on some sites (like this one) are half in the water in that respect.

I feel that a lot of more thorough roleplayers will "stack" multiple actions in their posts to keep things moving along or because they don't want to devote an entire post to a single attempted strike on what's potentially a nameless goon, and that's fair. I stick to freeform run on an honour system to accommodate this. If I provide any mechanics they're usually superficial statistics to aid spatial reasoning because hard, quantified methods of progression (money, levels, stats, etc.) usually aren't helpful to my ends.

I'm not strictly against mechanics, though (forum roleplaying's heritage and overlap with tabletop roleplaying is inescapable). Absolving the outcome of a scene to dice has me narrowing my eyes from time to time but again, whether mechanics work properly seems to primarily be a matter of pacing. If scenes are compressed into shorter intervals (thus giving a scene more focus but less scope, and more resembling a tabletop game) it's all good.

I don't have any developed thread concepts right now. I'm waiting for something that interests me to come along.

[XanderFrost]

That discussion though...

[daxtinator396]

I am glad I started this -u-

[MelissaB]

I tend to agree that making an entire post to one action which can be summed in in a phrase or sentence to be both taxing and difficult to do time and time again. What mechanics also do though it remove bias. I mean we all want that level 20 paladin to succumb to that succubus' charms but sometimes thanks to mechanics it just doesn't happen and that's it's purpose I suppose to gouge effectiveness of a character's ability to accomplish certain tasks. So i'd argue you'd need mechanics to be fair. if you're doing it randomly to see who wins anyway or testing the quality of their post verses another you're still going to be bias about it, no one is 100% objective what so ever. well maybe a computer but even then it'd weigh towards the one that best matched it's programming as the "right" answer.

for instance. warrior verse sorcerer. warrior's post "Attempts to shrug off opponent's blows and pound him into consciousness with repeated punches." Sorcerer's post. "using speed and agility the sorcerer tries to deflect and parry with his forearms, reaching out to counter jab the aggressor, leading with quick lefts and follow up with rights to hook around and delivery and stunning blow to his jaw." the second post is by far more detailed and thus better... however in reality... first wins every time. mechanics stop the bias because everyone can be knocked out, at no point have i called the warrior a 6 foot tall muscle bound freak or the sorcerer a 5 foot something skinnny weakling. so even then even their level is not mentioned.

So i'd say mechanics are a must for anything with conflict. and conflict always makes things fun. otherwise it's far too wishy washy.

[Reaver]

I would probably disagree since I've seen some freeform rps handle conflict and pvp far better than ones with mechanics. It kinda comes back to complexity and I usually find mechanics to be lacking especially in pvp when it's two players' creativity against each other. The mechanics always either end up stifling it, or not having an answer. In the first situation, the conflict becomes almost predictable because its almost all based on numbers with the actual actions affecting the outcome the least. In the latter someone does something that either breaks the system or goes through a loophole. In those cases the GM is visibly forced to rule on the action, destroying any illusion of unbias. I personally prefer mechanics to be limited to weapon, armor and skill management and then have things decided by whoever has the situational advantage and the rock to someone's scissors. So taking Mel's example, if the sorcerer engages the warrior in CQC, unless the sorcerer knows advanced fighting moves and can take advantage of the warrior's movements to deliver pressure point attacks, that sorcerer going to get crushed. Why? Because the warrior holds the advantage up close from training and role in combat. Just like how the sorcerer might have a better chance of winning if he actually used magic and from a range. The warrior will either have to tank the hits while closing the distance or dodge them, which might or might not work depending on the type of armor used.

[MelissaB]

and at which put does armor not mean mechanics. heavy light and etc. as for situational reasons to having an advantage such as stealth, shadows and such... there are modifiers that take those into account. if you ignore them and go rock beats scissors... that depends on the type of rock and what metal the scissors are out of doesn't it? diamond edged scissors made of tungsten are gonna beat a piece of crumbly rock no? why does the warrior hold the advantage that's being bias without information, you assume the sorcerer doesn't know unarmed combat and the warrior does... both can take the feat and both are fully able to have high strength we just don't give sorcs high strength because balance wise it makes their spells crap.


Additional edit:

Now you are right freeform can handle it because there's nothing saying someone can't do this or do that or fighting the 10 foot ogre as you 4 foot halfling is going to go poorly beyond common sense. however freeform demands both players aren't in the least bit selfish about their characters. if there's nothing saying you failed but a gm's opinion you can argue it... opinions are open for debate. someone telling you your abilities and stats weren't good enough to make the action thanks to mechanics can't be argued with... after all you made the character with those skills or lack there of where as in freeform you can argue, no if it happened like this. the halfling could very easily use his speed to get around the ogre's swings to stab him in the leg and slowly bring him down like wolves on a bear. wearing him down... that's is very debateable... however if i roll a dice to see if you manage it and you fail... can't be argued with.

[Yana]

Eventually what it comes down to is that roleplaying is a collaborative activity and participants are interdependent on each other to get the most out of the thread. You will ultimately just have to trust that players will accept failure or defeat when it seems fitting and won't powerplay, godmod or otherwise exploit the system. I'm not worried about "bias" since pure objectivity is impossible and unnecessary, and the GM always has the responsibility to arbitrate. Scuffles over whether a character can/should be able to do X will always happen but I've found that when I have strong writers who are good at concretely establishing their character's limitations when they need to, lack of hard mechanics is never an obstacle to making the best possible story.

I doubt I made this clear (and that's my fault) but when I say "hard mechanics" I mean "dice rolls". I think your point is that dice rolls nullify the need for nitpicky arbitration about whether something would've probably happened one way or another (e.g. "My character's been studying the sword for 20 years, that attack would've hit", "But the sun was in his eyes and his arm was injured!", etc.) because things like stats and modifiers provide a decent judgment of a character's capabilities ahead of time, and I'd agree in some cases, but I think it's the pre-established structure, not the dice roll, that's more useful to my ends.

In other words, what I think I want to do is employ "soft mechanics", i.e. statistics and other quantities not used in dice rolls but as a rubric to predefine a character's relative power or limitation. I'm fairly used to this, and it provides more guidance to freeform without being restrictive.

A good example is a trilogy I finished off earlier this spring: The PCs were mostly individuals with psychokinetic powers, and in the setting, such individuals were categorised into Tiers based on their strength, from Tier D to Tier C, etc. all the way to Tier XS, indicating demigod-level power. If you played one, you picked your Tier (with some limitations) or had it assigned later for drama purposes. I liked this because it was an accurate although not entirely unambiguous picture of a character's power, and while a Tier A would almost always crush a Tier D in a straight-up fight no matter what, Tiers didn't entirely indicate skill or experience (just natural power) and so it was totally possible for a lower tier to defeat a higher tier through deviousness or skill, and this did in fact happen between PCs twice, and against NPCs even more. Nor did two individuals being in the same tier mean they were equal. (Mind you, not all of them had combat powers.)

I also like what's being used in the thread "Ichigoiche" where like a swordsmanship skill of 6 indicates you're a master and 1 means you'd just hurt yourself. Very straightforward. Another idea I've considered for a thread is having players distribute 100 or so "points" to "traits" of various cost, with higher costs meaning the trait was more powerful but also forcing you to have less traits overall.

Long story short, I'm all about providing maximum freedom, but again, it comes down to trust. I try to surround myself with strong roleplayers who can act out battles without much need for arbitration. And ofc there's a few other tricks I have used/want to use to ensure battles against NPCs go well.

[pornomancer]

Glad to see this discussion has progressed this far. The problem of mechanics vs freeform is the most crippling aspect of an RP, and I think thats the one that brings both players out of the game if either is applied too rigidly. Too mechanics focused and a character playing properly but still succumbing to lust out of nowhere makes sense, too freeform and a character is arbitrarily powerful with no consequences. Theres nothing to prevent a GM from gaming the dice just for his own twisted amusement, but a GM just fucking around with players is going to find his campaign losing steam really fast.

For me, the big reason why RPs make sense is precisely because they're collaborative. Its easy to just burn yourself out if you write something on your own, god knows that I've abandoned maybe 90% of my written projects because I'm only accountable to myself, and I didn't actually care that much. Its another when someone else is actually invested in it and is effectively a co-creator. That impels an RP to move forward continually, but only so long as both, or all parties are invested. Though it probably helps a bit if both players are flexible enough to accept changes to the mechanics on the fly.

It is generating this mutual investment that is really important, and internal consistency is what keeps rats happy in a maze, even if the maze sucks - literally, I've worked in labs before. hence why I think mechanics are really important. A really good writer or sets of writers can keep things going in that loose and easygoing fashion, like the XCOM RPs, even if players find the actions and consequences bullshit. But a framework of mechanics MUST be in play, otherwise its kids in the playground going

Yana
(e.g. "My character's been studying the sword for 20 years, that attack would've hit", "But the sun was in his eyes and his arm was injured!", etc.)

[Yana]

Absolutely. But if a GM senselessly fucking with her or his players, the problem is the GM, not the mechanics or whether it's freeform or not. Even the most inelastic system of mechanics isn't safe from dice fudging, unbalanced encounters or interpreting rolls to an outcome that doesn't make sense. Freeform is only as good as its weakest participant, and that includes the GM. But like I said, I'd include "soft" structure just so everyone's on the same page and has a sense of relativity.

Also, on the subject of powerplaying: I've actually always let players have very powerful PCs as long as they ask first. The way I've come to look about character power over the years is that it's not power per se that's a problem for me, it's when the character cancels out the other PCs and doesn't permit them to do anything. The best roleplayers I've written with were great at handling characters who were terrifyingly powerful, but that's also because we understood that while a character can be OP, every PC should be filling their own role/s, skills and subplots which can't be overshadowed. In that way, everyone has agency, purpose and importance in spite of relative power.

But me, I'm all for letting PCs do mostly what they want as long as they're aware they're not invincible and are willing to deal with my consequences. As the GM, I'm the strongest check on an OP character, because my power is infinite. Besides, I'm of the belief that all PCs should be special snowflakes, because PCs by definition are unique. If they weren't, they wouldn't be PCs. Call me crazy, but it's always worked for me because like I said, the thread's as strong as its weakest participant.

What I don't permit are Mary Sues. There's a difference between that and being marginally OP that very few people seem to grasp.

[pornomancer]

But Mary Sues are hilarious! They're so goddamn easy to smack around. A slightly demented GM can easily turn a Mary Sue into what looks like a mentally challenged idiot running through the world, deluded and oblivious to the crumbling reality of everyone despising them and their abilities making no sense. Even munchkins can be dealt with, provided the game mechanics don't allow for brutally overpowered buff cycles (skyrims enchantments of fortify alchemy and potions of fortify enchanging spring to mind)

[Yana]

Oh, yes. But I'd rather spend my finite time and energy on good roleplayers instead of sandbagging my own thread just to troll someone I shouldn't have let in to begin with.

I'm not sure how mechanics would stop any GM from dealing with min-maxers. The GM has an absolute veto on anything, regardless of what the mechanics say; rules lawyers will get cracked over the head if the GM isn't a pushover. Mercifully I haven't dealt with such people in a long time.

[Phoenixcz]

Long delay between posts in PbP game leads to situations when you want to resolve the situation in one check, because there are often multiple people waiting for the result, and if you can only post once a week (or even slower) for any possible reason, they'll lose interest. And you can't really speed it up that much, because you'll be punishing people for having a life outside the game taking their time and preventing them from posting on a forum often and in predictable fashion.

But having the battles or anything resolved in one roll naturally leads to limiting the possible results to yes/no, instead of more gradual progress of multiple rolls. In D&D, you rarely defeat an enemy with one blow, more likely, you'll trade blows, cast spells and look for an tactical advantage for multiple rounds, leading to more interesting situations...but while that takes only a few minutes (or hours, depending on number and abilites of players, complexity of scenario and edition) at tabletop or over voice chat, it could be months in PbP game...all for few seconds or minutes of in-game action.

And if you DO decide to have the result dependant on one roll, players may feel a loss of control over the situation... they may describe complex actions, then one roll and it's all finished, with GM narrating the likely also complex battle without giving players the option to react to partial events happening in the combat. Also, results of dice rolls average out over time, but with fewer rolls, the character is either too (un)successful if his bonuses/penalties to roll are too high, or the results are too swingy without the chance to make simpler actions in consequence and reacting to their results.

I'm sure there ARE systems that solve this problem well, but I'm not familiar with any, all the systems I've played (various editions of D&D including Pathfinder, Shadowrun, Exalted (and by using the similar mechanics, most White Wolf games), Dark Heresy) use multiple dice rolls per situations. Really, for the best gameplay, you'll want simpler actions and reactions posted more often, but that's not really possible for PbP games.