Philosophical Musings: A Forum Game

[JustKneller]

Now you tell me that's not good game design. Planescape: Torment is consistently ranked #1 cRPG all across the board.

Unpopular opinion and hot take to follow. PS:T is a rubbish game. It's an amazing total experience and top notch IF, but the game of it isn't great. Mechanically, it's the only D&D game I've played that's worse than BG.

I mean, PS:T easily makes my list of top 10 crpgs. This is largely due to the world they set it, the story they wrote, and the method they gave you to navigate that story. But I didn't play it for the game of it.

Out of all the IE games, I play IWD for the game, and have replayed it more than all the other games combined. However, PS:T has been one of the best total experiences. I've never replayed it once I finished it, as it's a totally different experience once you know the mystery. I'm not mad about this, though. It was thoroughly satisfying.

Again, I'll side with PS:T here. You progress by making the story progress. Again, tell me that's not a good roleplaying product line.

It may be good role-playing, but it's not necessarily a game.

However, you will have to explain to me how that could be the case, when you have perfect systems, such as first-order logic, in which contradictions are false by definition. In other words, Legal pragmatism, however it may be defined, will never have minimal contradictions when compared to a perfect system (i.e., first-order logic).

I have think you'll have to ELI5 this one for me a little. I'm a tad weak in philosophy.

Yeah they tried that with Planescape, and with Spelljammer before that, and with Dark Sun, and with everything else that made the TSR era so awesome and so nostalgic for people like you and me.

And that's one of WotC's fatal flaws. They try to be the everything game by having every race/class/cliche under the sun. You don't need to be coherent if you have all the flash.

Well, to misquote Tolkien: "Who hates escapists the most? Jailers". That's why D&D and other escapist literature is so popular in prisons, military barracks, universities, and even laboratories.

Granted. I'm not slighting escapist gamers. But that orientation undermines the value of game design. You don't need a strong game in an escapist game, you kinda just need an immersive environment.

Hmmm... well you know you'll have to credit me, right?

Lol...I'll be sure to get you on the special thanks page of this game I'll probably never publish. Full disclosure, what I'm working on is my own twist on the OSR retroclone (in a Planescape-Neverwhere-inspired setting), but doing a couple things significantly differently (partly because I'm trying to optimize for PbP). At this stage, I'm probably going diceless. I'm also turning combat encounters into "single-round" events. However, simplifying the equation is only half the battle. I'm still working on a way to give players meaningful game choices in this context.

Sociology is one area in which I'm severely lacking. I just freestyle it in the sociology department. Luckily I don't do sociology, my interests are in ontology, epistemology, and ethics.

Sociology is kind of in my wheelhouse. It's been a long time, and I'm quite rusty, but I actually used to teach it. My background is more in statistics, theory creation, methodology, research design, with a hint of ontology and heuristics.

 

[m7600]

Unpopular opinion and hot take to follow. PS:T is a rubbish game. It's an amazing total experience and top notch IF, but the game of it isn't great. Mechanically, it's the only D&D game I've played that's worse than BG.

100%. No argument there, Hotshot.

It may be good role-playing, but it's not necessarily a game.

At the end of the day, it's a good product. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Is it Shakespeare? Not at all. But it's still the best video game ever made. Notice that I didn't say that it's the best RPG video game ever made. I said, plainly, that it's the best video game ever made, tout court.

I have think you'll have to ELI5 this one for me a little. I'm a tad weak in philosophy.

Too bad. Roll 1d20 for Philosophy check. Or just say whatever you fancy. I'm not on the job right now, so I can be intellectually reckless in my leisure time. I've earned that luxury.

And that's one of WotC's fatal flaws. They try to be the everything game by having every race/class/cliche under the sun. You don't need to be coherent if you have all the flash.

How I miss the Good Old TSR Days. The grass wasn't greener, but the pastures were better. Or some bullshit like that.

Granted. I'm not slighting escapist gamers. But that orientation undermines the value of game design.

And vaping undermines the value of filling your lungs with cancerous smoke. Deal with it. (Too rough? My bad. DMs can make mistakes just as much as the players can).

I'm still working on a way to give players meaningful game choices in this context.

Good luck, and I say that with all honesty. Sounds like you're fighting an uphill battle.

Sociology is kind of in my wheelhouse. It's been a long time, and I'm quite rusty, but I actually used to teach it. My background is more in statistics, theory creation, methodology, research design, with a hint of ontology and heuristics.

Glad to hear that you didn't drown in the deep waters of epistemological relativism.

 

[JustKneller]

At the end of the day, it's a good product. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Is it Shakespeare? Not at all. But it's still the best video game ever made. Notice that I didn't say that it's the best RPG video game ever made. I said, plainly, that it's the best video game ever made, tout court.

I'm not sure I would give PS:T the #1 game of all time slot, but I also don't think I could rate something so specifically. My x/5 rating system is about as objective as I can get about these things, but I would definitely give it a 5/5.

However, from a design perspective (specifically as it pertains to what I work on), I tend to focus more of the game mechanics of things. Like, if RPGs were a car, the engine is only a part of it (an essential part of it, of course), but I'm really focused building a better one and less focused on the interior design, electronics, and trim. The rest of it matters, for sure, but it's not entirely germane to my current task.

Too bad. Roll 1d20 for Philosophy check. Or just say whatever you fancy. I'm not on the job right now, so I can be intellectually reckless in my leisure time. I've earned that luxury.

Fair enough. I'll just talk out of my ass here, then. I google first order logic and pretty much just got a headache. However, it's the weekend and I've only had one cup of coffee so far. I need to explain how what could be the case?

And vaping undermines the value of filling your lungs with cancerous smoke. Deal with it.

I think I am dealing with it by basically ignoring it. The escapist orientation is not my orientation so it minimally, if at all, impacts me.

Good luck, and I say that with all honesty. Sounds like you're fighting an uphill battle.

That's the rabbit hole here. It went from, "How can I make choices in D&D more meaningful" to "Are any choices in RPGs objectively meaningful"? What does meaning even mean in the context of the game of a roleplaying game? Am I solo-playing a Planescape-eque RPG just in the process of designing this thing and so there is no really no game to create and the process of trying to design it is the game? I feel like the choices you make when character building for a game like D&D 5e are the only real choices to make from the game front. How do you move that process to the actual play of the game? And is that even meaningful? If character optimization is the goal, then the only real players are those that figure out the optimized build and all the people that follow who google "OP build for D&D 5e" aren't even really engaged in the process.

And so on...

deep shallow waters of epistemological relativism.

Pretty much why I quit and went into another field.

 

[m7600]

I'm not sure I would give PS:T the #1 game of all time slot

Yeah well, you're talking to the equivalent of a PS:T crackhead. Of course it's not the #1 game of all time, objectively speaking. That honorable place is reserved for Pac-Man, Pong, Super Mario Bros, or some bullshit like that.

I need to explain how what could be the case?

Doesn't matter, the GM gives you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

I think I am dealing with it by basically ignoring it. The escapist orientation is not my orientation so it minimally, if at all, impacts me.

Sounds healthy to me. You're good to go, trooper.

That's the rabbit hole here. It went from, "How can I make choices in D&D more meaningful" to "Are any choices in RPGs objectively meaningful"? What does meaning even mean in the context of the game of a roleplaying game? Am I solo-playing a Planescape-eque RPG just in the process of designing this thing and so there is no really no game to create and the process of trying to design it is the game? I feel like the choices you make when character building for a game like D&D 5e are the only real choices to make from the game front. How do you move that process to the actual play of the game? And is that even meaningful? If character optimization is the goal, then the only real players are those that figure out the optimized build and all the people that follow who google "OP build for D&D 5e" aren't even really engaged in the process.

And so on...

Welcome to the world of Planescape, cutter. Seems like you've been rattling your bone-box a bit much these days. Just relax. Not too much, though. At least not in the Hive. That place is full of low-lives. A clueless Prime like you might fit better in the Clerk's Ward.

Pretty much why I quit and went into another field.

And now you're in Sigil. Lucky you.

 

[JustKneller]

A clueless Prime like you might fit better in the Clerk's Ward.

You're probably not far off. I think diceless single choice encounters might work best through skill bureaucratic manipulation. However, I don't know if the traditional model of D&D combat is compatible with this notion. That is D&D combat, with all it's fiddly bits, is really just based around the objective of "kill the enemy and don't die in the process" and the only method to fulfill this objective is to dish out damage and take as little in return in the process.

 

[m7600]

the only method to fulfill this objective is to dish out damage and take as little in return in the process.

Then just talk to them. Or avoid combat altogether. It's a mistake to glorify combat. Combat is the last resort. If you can negotiate, then negotiate.

 

[JustKneller]

Then just talk to them. Or avoid combat altogether. It's a mistake to glorify combat. Combat is the last resort. If you can negotiate, then negotiate.

It's funny you should mention that. One model I'm considering basically uses a tri-stat OSR system like Mausritter. You could approach an encounter by fighting (Strength), avoiding/sneaking around (Dexterity), or negotiation (Will). Encounters are statblocked by the difficulty and consequences of each choice. However, this has a couple problems.

1a) The players know the consequences of each choice and there's no hidden information. Players can make an educated choice based on apparent maximal gain and minimal loss. However, this means there is no choice as the optimal path is obvious.
1b) The players don't know the consequences and have to choose their approach. However, there's no strategy here since you're likely to hedge your bets and pick your best stat/approach.
2) Player A the fighter has high strength and wants to fight. Player B is the high dex rogue that wants to stealth. Player C is the wise wizard and wants to negotiate. How does one resolve this?

 

[m7600]

or negotiation (Will)

Negotiation is based on Charisma, not Will. At least that's how I see it.

1a) The players know the consequences of each choice and there's no hidden information.

Then hide some information from them. Come on, deputy. This isn't rocket science.

1b) The players don't know the consequences and have to choose their approach.

Well, look at the bright side: at least they have the capacity to choose. They're not mindless amoebae merely reacting to external stimuli though trial and error.

2) Player A the fighter has high strength and wants to fight. Player B is the high dex rogue that wants to stealth. Player C is the wise wizard and wants to negotiate. How does one resolve this?

You roll 1d3 with modifiers to see who's right. Or play a mini-game of rock-paper-scissors. Or you make a drinking contest. Or you agree to non-lethal combat. A sparring session, if you will. No one has to die. As a GM, I would ask why is there a fighter picking a fight with a rogue, and why is there a wizard trying to negotiate. It doesn't look like a very efficient adventuring group if they spend time and energy fighting amongst themselves.

 

[JustKneller]

Negotiation is based on Charisma, not Will. At least that's how I see it.

Now we're getting into semantics. Would it be better if the stats were Brawny Stuff, Graceful Stuff, and Brainy Personality Stuff?

Then hide some information from them. Come on, deputy. This isn't rocket science.

It's not rocket science, but it's definitely science. Game Theory to be precise.

You roll 1d3 with modifiers to see who's right. Or play a mini-game of rock-paper-scissors. Or you make a drinking contest. Or you agree to non-lethal combat. A sparring session, if you will. No one has to die. As a GM, I would ask why is there a fighter picking a fight with a rogue, and why is there a wizard trying to negotiate. It doesn't look like a very efficient adventuring group if they spend time and energy fighting amongst themselves.

It all sounds good in theory, but there needs to be a practical solution where everyone gets to make their choice (especially since they only get one choice in the encounter), but it can be realistically resolved.

It's not much different than a group of people playing chess with a number of players per side. One person on a team wants to do the Queen's Gambit, another teammate wants to do the Trompowski Attack. Then again, is that even my problem? Maybe it's just my responsibility to provide the game, and the players' responsibility to find a way to work together.

 

[m7600]

Now we're getting into semantics. Would it be better if the stats were Brawny Stuff, Graceful Stuff, and Brainy Personality Stuff?

To misquote a friend of mine, who happens to be Iowa's Greatest Living Philosopher (I gave him that title myself) "The use and partial meaning of a term should be grounded in the tradition of its historical use. Otherwise, you're being uncooperative." Something like that.

It's not rocket science, but it's definitely science. Game Theory to be precise.

Sorry, I don't believe in made up nonsense. This is just a game, remember? : )

It all sounds good in theory, but there needs to be a practical solution where everyone gets to make their choice

Pragmatism has its limits. So does Initiative. So does Nature. Or are you going to stand there and tell me that Nature is boundless?

It's not much different than a group of people playing chess with a number of players per side.

But RPGs are rigged chess. That's the comparison that I would make.

Maybe it's just my responsibility to provide the game, and the players' responsibility to find a way to work together.

Responsibility and duty go hand in hand. And the capacity to make choices is what makes them possible. Good thing you're not an amoeba, right?

 

[JustKneller]

To misquote a friend of mine, who happens to be Iowa's Greatest Living Philosopher (I gave him that title myself) "The use and partial meaning of a term should be grounded in the tradition of its historical use. Otherwise, you're being uncooperative." Something like that.

If there's one thing this hobby has taught me it's that someone can find a reason to disagree with the definition of anything. Eventually, one reaches a point where one can only say, "this goes here because I'm the designer and I said so."

Sorry, I don't believe in made up nonsense. This is just a game, remember?

It would be easier if I didn't believe in game theory. Then, I could just write some evocative setting text, slam in a gimmicky system, and call it a day.

Pragmatism has its limits. So does Initiative. So does Nature. Or are you going to stand there and tell me that Nature is boundless?

You know, I'm feeling lucky so yeah, nature is boundless. I'm just shooting from the hip on this one, though.

But RPGs are rigged chess. That's the comparison that I would make.

That is a very good point. But, if that's the case, what is the objective end game? What does taking the king mean in RPGs? Or, let's be more specific, what would taking the king mean in a place like Sigil?

Good thing you're not an amoeba, right?

I dunno. Wouldn't life just be so much simpler as one?

 

[m7600]

You know what? At this point in the game, I'll just quote Jefferson at you, @JustKneller:

"Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

Now explain that to me as if you were Walt Whitman. If you succeed, you win the game. If not... Well, at least you'll have your Game Theory:

GM says to you as a player: Dude you're really hogging the spotlight here. Have you considered that other people might want to join in? @O_Bruce might want to give his opinion? He's the Rules Lawyer 'round these parts!

 

[m7600]

Or, let's be more specific, what would taking the king mean in a place like Sigil?

GM says to you as a player: Dude, shut up. The Lady of Pain should never be challenged here. You do that all you want back in the Prime Material Plane, or Realm space, or Grey space, or Dark Sun, or wherever the fuck you're from. If you want do to that here, be my guest. But don't say that I didn't warn ya.

 

[JustKneller]

Now explain that to me as if you were Walt Whitman. If you succeed, you win the game. If not... Well, at least you'll have your Game Theory:

Here you go. Though, to be honest, I just googled "best character build to fight Thomas Jefferson".

GM says to you as a player: Dude you're really hogging the spotlight here. Have you considered that other people might want to join in? @O_Bruce might want to give his opinion?

See, that's the big problem with PbP...player attrition. It may be just us playing here.

GM says to you as a player: Dude, shut up. The Lady of Pain should never be challenged here.

See, I wouldn't call any agenda against the Lady of Pain to be taking the king in this game. Even a berk knows better than that. That's why I picked Sigil specifically as an example. You see, it's an easy question in a place like Faerun. Be the big ass-kicking hero, slay gods, amass wealth and power and have a massive estate. But, Sigil is not such a simple place. You said that RPGs are a rigged game of chess, but even if the game is rigged, it's all about trying to take the king. What does that mean in Sigil? Now, you're on the spot.

 

[m7600]

You said that RPGs are a rigged game of chess, but even if the game is rigged, it's all about trying to take the king. What does that mean in Sigil? Now, you're on the spot.

Here's the thing. It's funny, actually. I explicitly said that this game, Philosophical Musings, is not a roleplaying game. It's not an RPG. It's a philosophy game (and, as the GM, by definition, I can define it as such).

"Taking the king in Sigil." What do you mean by that? Do you mean Sigil's political ruler? Who cares? That's a hot seat, and it changes all the time. Makes no difference to ordinary berks like you and me. And the Lady doesn't care about that anyways.

Speaking of which. If by "Taking the king in Sigil" you mean to take the city itself from The Lady, then you're in for a world of Pain. What? Too corny for you? You didn't even explain Jefferson's quote, you just linked to Whitman. You were supposed to explain it. I made that clear as a GM. Technically, you could have won the game. But you're a Slickshot. You like style, and flair. That's why you've been hogging the spotlight thought the game. You might as well do Philosophy of Art instead of Game Theory. It's all nonsense anyway. Unless...

... You can explain, in your own words, what Jefferson said in the aforementioned quote. And do it poetically. If you do that, you win Philosophical Musings: A Forum Game. If you rebel against this request, then you can keep playing. There's no way to lose this game, by the way. And I eat attrition for breakfast, Slick.

*Cue in a desert scene with some tumbleweeds rolling in the wind.*

 

[m7600]

Where are my manners? Other people reading this might have a difficult time actually visualizing what we're talking about. Fear not, dear friends, for this is what the character played by my foe looks like right now:

 

[JustKneller]

Here's the thing. It's funny, actually. I explicitly said that this game, Philosophical Musings, is not a roleplaying game. It's not an RPG. It's a philosophy game (and, as the GM, by definition, I can define it as such).

I suppose that depends. If we're both in the first person from our own perspective, then that makes us both the other's GM. At least, that's my philosophy.

"Taking the king in Sigil." What do you mean by that? Do you mean Sigil's political ruler? Who cares? That's a hot seat, and it changes all the time. Makes no difference to ordinary berks like you and me. And the Lady doesn't care about that anyways.

C'mon, m7600, if that's even you're real name. You're smarter than this. You're being too boots to the ground on this. Forget the character, think about the player. If you're a player of RPGs and you find yourself playing in Sigil, as opposed to a popular power fantasy playground like Greyhawk/Faerun/Eberon or whatever-the-fuck 5e is calling it these days, what is your game? If this is rigged chess, how do you take the king?

You didn't even explain Jefferson's quote, you just linked to Whitman. You were supposed to explain it. I made that clear as a GM.

Actually, and the rules lawyers can back me up on this, you asked me to explain it like Walt Whitman, and what is more on point than the words of Walt Whitman himself. Before I have another bash at it, I have to wonder. Do I want to win Philosophical Musings? What do I win? How have you defined winning?

Fear not, dear friends, for this is what the character played by my foe looks like right now

You're losing your way a little, but I'll point you in the right direction. I've never even played a red deck. I was always more black and white, with a smattering of green to keep things organic.

 

[m7600]

If we're both in the first person from our own perspective, then that makes us both the other's GM.

The antecedent is true ("we're both in the first person from our perspective"), but the consequent is false ("we are both the other's GM"). This being so, your conditional statement is false.

At least, that's my philosophy.

You seem to be under the impression that Chaotic Neutral is a respectable philosophy to begin with. It isn't.

C'mon, m7600, if that's even you're real name.

Of course it is. It's a pseudo-acronym. I just made that term up. By that I mean that it's the first letter of my real name, and the zip code of the city I was born in. How is that not my real name, if I have just defined it as a pseudo-acronym of my real name?

what is your game? If this is rigged chess, how do you take the king?

This is a philosophy game, not an RPG. So, this game isn't like rigged chess. Didn't you say that you're the other GM here, since that's your philosophy? How can it be rigged if you're one of the GMs?

you asked me to explain it like Walt Whitman, and what is more on point than the words of Walt Whitman himself.

You really don't like poetry, don't you? You don't even want to give it a chance as a legitimate intellectual profession. You don't respect it. All that fuss about not really getting it is just you being morally lazy.

You're losing your way a little, but I'll point you in the right direction. I've never even played a red deck.

Neither have I, and it takes one to know one. In other words, I was being ironic. I was teasing you. You'd "get this", or "stuff" like this (your terminology) if you respected the craft a bit more
.

I was always more black and white, with a smattering of green to keep things organic.

I'm a White/Blue Tribal myself, I play a Soldier deck on Standard. Tried Alchemy a bit but it's just craziness all over the place. So, Arena only. Tabletop MtG is dead to me, and has been for a long time.

 

[m7600]

Well, enough with the antagonistic GMing. Back to collaborative storytelling mode.

You want to know how to take the King in Sigil. But that doesn't make sense to me. I don't even know what you mean by that. It's an ambiguous expression. You're asking me what it means, and I'm literally telling you that it depends on what you're referring to. Hence, here's your list of options:

Option 1) Take Sigil's political power. But that's trivial, the people that run Sigil are getting toppled and replaced all the time! It's inconsequential to people like you and me. I mean, we all know that there's about a dozen political factions in Sigil: The Dustmen, The Sensates, The Mercykillers, plus the independents. Some day of the week, month, year, whatever, one of them rules, and then it's someone else's turn. If that's what you want to learn how to do, well... you're kinda late to the game, dude.

Option 2) Take the Lady of Pain's power. This is where I'm throwing in a spooky vibe. You can't take the Lady's power. Not you, anyways. And certainly not me. Whoever tries that, dies. Like, you're fucked up beyond your capacity to even comprehend it. Even The Nameless One, who can't die, can actually die by the Lady's hand. And here's the spooky part: no GM can change the Lady's characteristics. She's not under your control. No one controls her. Gods? She swats them, like gnats. "Well, but the devs can change her", you might say.

What devs? The company that owns Planescape? WotC? If that's what you believe, then were are they, here in this thread? I don't see them. I just see you, me, and few other folk, stud. So, for all intents and purposes, neither you nor I as GMs can change what the Lady is. We can, however, theorize about her, that is, we can speculate. Here's my theory, I've already said this: she's the Overgod of the city of Sigil. There's no other way to explain it. She's on the same footing as Lord Ao, and a few others. There's a few Overgods in the official Lore of the game, or at least that can be identified as such. I've heard that Greyhawk as a plane, and Greyspace as a cystal sphere, are ruled by someone called "The Highlord", and it was implied that he was like Lord Ao and the Lady of Pain. Another possible candidate for Overgod status is what the Mindflayers call "Thoon". Thoon is the Overgod of the Far Realms. The dragon at the edge of the map, far beyond the horizon of Sky and Sea, where it says: "Here be monsters, here be Dragons."

Take your pick, Slick.

 

[m7600]

@Black Elk , care to throw in some of your wisdom here? You'd be doing me a real favor.