The hidden math of rpg rules

[Totktospit]

I believe, it was already discussed previously in some aspects, but still opinions of codex citizens on hidden math in rpg are very interesting to me.

Earliest RPGs based on tabletop games had pretty straightforward math, but still core rules were published in manuals. Today it is pretty common that RPGs describe characters through some numbers, without description of core resolution rules.

The motivation for hidden math is often the desire to hide "uninteristing" details of mechanics implementation and to not encourage munchkin behavior instead of "true" roleplaying. But in such case is not it better to completely replace numeric description with adjectives. For example instead of "5 level melee skill" game can use "average melee skill".

Other common argument for hiding math is the joy of figuring out the system. IMHO, such argument doesn't hold water in most cases except of rogue-likes. It is more similar to bad choose-your-adventure-books. Since the player has no information to make not random choice and he also has to repeat everything from the start in case of failure.

The most aggravating part from my point of view ith that benefits from stat increasing are often quite unlinear, with mechanical changes only at deliberate thresholds and with diminishing returns after some value.

What is your opinion on hidden math in RPGs?

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

I don't know. Is the math in potatoes?

 

[Robotigan]

Since the player has no information to make not random choice and he also has to repeat everything from the start in case of failure.

Just because you're not exposing the guts of the engine doesn't mean you have to send the player flying blind into punishing encounters. The whole concept of a difficulty curve is so the player has time to figure shit out before you hit them with OHKO attacks with super precise parry timings.

 

[Skdursh]

Computer are literally made of math, retard. Calling something "average melee skill" means absolutely fucking nothing to the computer. Even if you did want to go ahead and make the most low IQ game of all time where everything can be settled by n00b < average < master, the computer would still need math to produce the end result.

 

[Lt Broccoli]

There is no better feeling than to work out the mechanics of a game. Even better if you can simulate and validate what you see on screen. But if a game has virtually no numeric feedback/stats screens nor a manual on the basic mechanics than you can just enjoy the game without trying to work out the numbers behind it. Many real-time games often fall in this latter category, whereas with turn-based games it is often about the stats.

 

[Harthwain]

I am OK with hidden math in RPGs as long as it does not break the decision making aspect of the game.

For example:

- You know blunt weapons are better than melee weapons against skeletons. You just do not know the details behind it.

- You get the general idea of how damaged the enemy is (either visually or from a description), but without being told explicitly how many hitpoints he has, so you can't exactly calculate how many more attacks/turns you need to kill him.

However, if you ARE making tactics game with RPG elements, then I'd argue for complete transparence.

 

[Totktospit]

Since the player has no information to make not random choice and he also has to repeat everything from the start in case of failure.

Just because you're not exposing the guts of the engine doesn't mean you have to send the player flying blind into punishing encounters. The whole concept of a difficulty curve is so the player has time to figure shit out before you hit them with OHKO attacks with super precise parry timings.

That can make things even worse. Easy obstacles don't give necessary feed back. Player makes bad decisions but can't see that, since all start location goblins are pretty dead. The wrong build/itemesation suddenly become apparent at some encounter in the middle of the game. That can look like sudden difficulty spike.
I think it is ok for rogue likes, since player doesn't have to skip the same dialogues and fight the same monsters again and again in case of failure.

 

[Totktospit]

Computer are literally made of math, retard. Calling something "average melee skill" means absolutely fucking nothing to the computer. Even if you did want to go ahead and make the most low IQ game of all time where everything can be settled by n00b < average < master, the computer would still need math to produce the end result.

Interesting point If you want to make RPG for computers. Unfortunately last time I checked silicone dummies not interested in games at all.
Could you explain why "n00b < average < master" so much worse than "0 < 1 < 3"? Do you think that we have too little adjectives in the language to describe the degree of the skill? You can check dictionaries to see that it is not the case. Also numbers are better than adjectives to do math, but the whole point is that designers hide core formulas from the player. Probably your deep friendship with computers allow you to read binaries directly so you can't understand issues of mere mortals.

 

[Totktospit]

I am OK with hidden math in RPGs as long as it does not break the decision making aspect of the game.

For example:

- You know blunt weapons are better than melee weapons against skeletons. You just do not know the details behind it.

- You get the general idea of how damaged the enemy is (either visually or from a description), but without being told explicitly how many hitpoints he has, so you can't exactly calculate how many more attacks/turns you need to kill him.

However, if you ARE making tactics game with RPG elements, then I'd argue for complete transparence.

IMHO, it is hard to provide precise boundary between RPGs and TGs with RPG elements. But my main dissatisfaction from hidden rules comes from the feeling that developers treat players like autistic retards who will be glad that the number go high! Most characteristics are not even descripyive from roleplaying perspective. Let's take for example D&D characteristics and mechanics. If I would try to make competent fighter without knowing D&D rules, I would choose dexterity as they main state. But fighters chances to hit and damage in melee depend on strength! Probably I get, what was Gaga thinking about, but he was wrong. Nobody tried to break the armor in the medieval combat. And then my fighter with 10 strength is mechanically equal to 11 strength fighter. This can't be described by "strength is good for hitting things more often and more hard".

 

[Harthwain]

But my main dissatisfaction from hidden rules comes from the feeling that developers treat players like autistic retards who will be glad that the number go high!

I'd say it prevents mini-maxing. It does not prevent people from pumping chosen stats as much as possible (unless there are severe diminishing returns), but if you go all-in into something, then you will miss out on other stuff, which is something any good system can tap into to encourage players to diversify their points allocation.

Most characteristics are not even descripyive from roleplaying perspective. Let's take for example D&D characteristics and mechanics. If I would try to make competent fighter without knowing D&D rules, I would choose dexterity as they main state. But fighters chances to hit and damage in melee depend on strength! Probably I get, what was Gaga thinking about, but he was wrong. Nobody tried to break the armor in the medieval combat. And then my fighter with 10 strength is mechanically equal to 11 strength fighter. This can't be described by "strength is good for hitting things more often and more hard".

This comes down to what system you're using. The most sensible system has separate stats for perception (accuracy/hit-to-chance), strength (how much you hit for) and dexterity (how many times you can attack within a given time period). Side note - all of these stats can also have usage outside of combat.

 

[Totktospit]

There is no better feeling than to work out the mechanics of a game. Even better if you can simulate and validate what you see on screen. But if a game has virtually no numeric feedback/stats screens nor a manual on the basic mechanics than you can just enjoy the game without trying to work out the numbers behind it. Many real-time games often fall in this latter category, whereas with turn-based games it is often about the stats.

Actually I'm not arguing against behind the screen calculations completely. Probably I make opening pst not precise enough.
My point is that if charctets\items\monsters are presented in the game as numeric stat blocks, then player should have access to the formulas dealing with these stats. Otherwise what is all this bullshit about? I can provide you with some random numbers right now, why should you be interested? From my perspective the only reasons these stat blocks remain in the games are uneducated traditionalism and the bone of "growth" to the player.
It can be absolutely different in rogue-likes, because in this subgenre figuring things out are more fun. Characters grow and die faster and set of encounters not the same for each run. So here we can treat stats blocks as part of the puzzle for player to solve.

 

[Ismaul]

What is your opinion on hidden math in RPGs?

As long as no one's hiding grammar in grenades, we're good. Grammar grenades are the worst.

 

[Totktospit]

But my main dissatisfaction from hidden rules comes from the feeling that developers treat players like autistic retards who will be glad that the number go high!

I'd say it prevents mini-maxing. It does not prevent people from pumping chosen stats as much as possible (unless there are severe diminishing returns), but if you go all-in into something, then you will miss out on other stuff, which is something any good system can tap into to encourage players to diversify their points allocation.

Most characteristics are not even descripyive from roleplaying perspective. Let's take for example D&D characteristics and mechanics. If I would try to make competent fighter without knowing D&D rules, I would choose dexterity as they main state. But fighters chances to hit and damage in melee depend on strength! Probably I get, what was Gaga thinking about, but he was wrong. Nobody tried to break the armor in the medieval combat. And then my fighter with 10 strength is mechanically equal to 11 strength fighter. This can't be described by "strength is good for hitting things more often and more hard".

This comes down to what system you're using. The most sensible system has separate stats for perception (accuracy/hit-to-chance), strength (how much you hit for) and dexterity (how many times you can attack within a given time period). Side note - all of these stats can also have usage outside of combat.

Your quote on min-maxing is quite interesting. Personally I'm not into hyper-specialized characters and somewhat disappointed when games insist on such builds. It imits each play through "Oh, now I will hit things. Next time it will be stealth".
Speaking about the systems, I have bad attitude towards most systems trying to simulate combat. From my limited HEMA experience all "simulationist" combat systems are unnecessary complicated and completely unrealistic at the same time. I don't expect realism from good combat system, it just has to be fun and chalenging.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

If the math is hidden there is less probability that the player will notice when the game brokes the rules in scripted interactions or "story" reasons.

 

[Not.AI]

If the math is hidden there is less probability that the player will notice when the game brokes the rules in scripted interactions or "story" reasons.

In the famous words of Lenin: "This!"

Spoiler

Muh Scripted Drama! Lvl 220 Super Awesome Hero goes down after being slapped by a SMOL tree branch and awakens in a New Area!

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Just give me all the rules. It's a game, I want to know the rules to know how to play it. Especially if the game expects me to build a character before I even set foot in the game world.

 

[Faarbaute]

Almost always when the rules and mechanics are covered up it's because they suck, are meaningless, have no depth or offer no real choice.

I don't want a stage magician working me over, leading me around by the nose, where everything is obfuscated in an attempt to get me to buy into an illusion.

"Wow! You're a big boy now! You just became STRONGER!!" nevermind that under the hood, you just gained some insignificant token increase and the actual fighting prowess of your character is determined completely by level scaling.

Just let me in on the rules, so I can play the fucking game. They don't even have to make sense, just give me the ability to figure things out and I'll take it from there.

 

[Totktospit]

Almost always when the rules and mechanics are covered up it's because they suck, are meaningless, have no depth or offer no real choice.

I don't want a stage magician working me over, leading me around by the nose, where everything is obfuscated in an attempt to get me to buy into an illusion.

"Wow! You're a big boy now! You just become STRONGER!!" nevermind that under the hood, you just gained some insignificant token increase and the actual fighting prowess of your character is determined completely by level scaling.

Just let me in on the rules, so I can play the fucking game. They don't even have to make sense, just give me the ability to figure things out and I'll take it from there.

The other side of this coin is that obfuscation leads to meaningless choices. The thought process as it seems from developers interviews is approximately following: we shouldn't scare player with complicated stuff, so we don't show them much - oh no, they keep creating inferior builds! why I wonder? we should make all decisions "balanced". Well but that makes all such decisions cosmetic at best, which in turn makes leveling less exciting, because whatever, I can distribute all improvements in any way.

 

[TedNugent]

A few reasons this idea is horseshit.

First, the primary one. Bugs. Bugs exist. Somebody fat fingered or typo'd something. For every savvy player who knows not to use X skill because it's broken, there is 100 who do not. The reason is usually shitty, poorly explained tooltips and combat logs. The clearer these tooltips and logs are, the easier it is to compare the intended outcome to the results.

Which goes into my second angle. Bad tooltips and combat logs usually do more to obscure what is happening than to explain it. How much damage is the fireball doing? Lots. Is there a hidden AoE cap? Who knows. Is this malus affecting my player character? Maybe. Does it go away on rest? Dunno. How does using this expensive ruby to modify my armor compared to using this expensive emerald? Question marks.

Hence, people will be reduced to trying to reverse engineer opaque bullshit to try to understand code that was completely transparent to the engineers on the backend just to answer simple, fundamental questions about skills, gear, and modifiers.

 

[Jaedar]

If I could trust the average developer, I wouldn't mind things like "slight increase".

But in practice it is not uncommon that there are options that are completely useless (0.1% damage increase is slight) or bugged, or where the interactions are incomprehensible due to vagueness.

So just give me the math. You can hide it behind an alt click or something if you want, but give it to me.

 

[Totktospit]

If I could trust the average developer, I wouldn't mind things like "slight increase".

But in practice it is not uncommon that there are options that are completely useless (0.1% damage increase is slight) or bugged, or where the interactions are incomprehensible due to vagueness.

So just give me the math. You can hide it behind an alt click or something if you want, but give it to me.

0.1% increases are less than cosmetics. It is borderline fraud. It means, that designer doesn't want to deal with various players decisions and their effect on holy grail of balance, so designer makes effects of such decisions negligible. You don't even get new pretty animation.
And I believe that approach with completely predetermined growth on level up is completely valid, if it is honest about itself.

 

[Totktospit]

A few reasons this idea is horseshit.

First, the primary one. Bugs. Bugs exist. Somebody fat fingered or typo'd something. For every savvy player who knows not to use X skill because it's broken, there is 100 who do not. The reason is usually shitty, poorly explained tooltips and combat logs. The clearer these tooltips and logs are, the easier it is to compare the intended outcome to the results.

Which goes into my second angle. Bad tooltips and combat logs usually do more to obscure what is happening than to explain it. How much damage is the fireball doing? Lots. Is there a hidden AoE cap? Who knows. Is this malus affecting my player character? Maybe. Does it go away on rest? Dunno. How does using this expensive ruby to modify my armor compared to using this expensive emerald? Question marks.

Hence, people will be reduced to trying to reverse engineer opaque bullshit to try to understand code that was completely transparent to the engineers on the backend just to answer simple, fundamental questions about skills, gear, and modifiers.

You can also add the existence of build-traps, such as improvements sounding cool but in practice completely useless, and some tiny-winy pretty obscure improvements which in practice are the best of the best (often associated with abusing of actions-economy)

 

[PorkaMorka]

What's the best example of a challenging turn based tactics computer game with hidden math?

Maybe JA2, but fans eventually felt the need to not only expose the aiming formulas, but completely redo them to produce better results, IIRC original aiming system favored a few specific kinds of weapons too much?

Generally speaking, playing a turn based tactics computer game is something very closely related to math. If your formulas can't hold up to scrutiny, there is a good chance the game won't hold up to scrutiny either.

I prefer simple and understandable formulas, which the player can see and think about on his own, as opposed to poorly understood, ultra complex formulas that have to be found by diving in the code and may have hidden consequences that even the developer didn't fully understand.

 

[Totktospit]

What's the best example of a challenging turn based tactics computer game with hidden math?

Maybe JA2, but fans eventually felt the need to not only expose the aiming formulas, but completely redo them to produce better results, IIRC original aiming system favored a few specific kinds of weapons too much?

Generally speaking, playing a turn based tactics computer game is something very closely related to math. If your formulas can't hold up to scrutiny, there is a good chance the game won't hold up to scrutiny either.

I prefer simple and understandable formulas, which the player can see and think about on his own, as opposed to poorly understood, ultra complex formulas that have to be found by diving in the code and may have hidden consequences that even the developer didn't fully understand.

The best example of simple understandable rules and deep gameplay is chess, IMHO. Chess is good example because it shows why some limit on rules complexity is necessary, without such limit player can't think about several turns in advance, which is the requirement for tactical depth.
On the other side chess is pure abstract game, but RPGs also have simulationist aspect in their rules. But more complex doesn't mean more accurate. Complexity can have detrimental effects on accuracy of simulation aspects actually, since it can let some unpredictable highly unrealistic interactions between mechanics.
Tldr: more understandble core mechanics are more desirable and depth comes more from interaction of several mechanics, rather from each one separately

 

[J1M]

If the math is hidden there is less probability that the player will notice when the game brokes the rules in scripted interactions or "story" reasons.

This is what game developers actually believe.