>From: Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_...>
>Almost every player will have better number and arithmetic skills than
>almost every character. IMO if narrators want to stop players doing
>calculations that would interfere with the story, they're always entitled
>to.
I'm sorta resisting getting back into this discussion (this part is starting to drift pretty far from the rules at this point, for one).
But, generally, I think denying the players numeric information based on the fact that their characters might not have it, isn't neccessarily the cure. While I agree that the characters are from a pre-mathematical society (usually, not sure about all of them), that doesn't mean that the players can't use numbers as their understanding of the situation. Indeed they may have to do so, given that they don't have the coping skills that their characters otherwise do have in these situations.
That is, sheep are organized in some manner, likely, and we probably don't know what that is. Even if it's just estimation of numbers or something, that's not something that the player can rely on as well as the character. As such, a translation to numbers isn't out of the question in terms of giving the player an idea of things that, in effect, matches the characters.
Heortlings probably don't speak English, but when I play, they sure seem to. This is because the players don't have the same skill with speaking Heortling that their characters do. Generally, you always have to make conversions this way in RPGs between character knowledge and player knowledge. As such, if a player needs to make a decision based off of a quantity, then I think translating to the player's ability isn't neccessarily a bad thing, even if the player's ability is slightly better.
In any case, you can always be imprecise, though still accurate. Saying "About 50" is accurate, if there are 47 sheep. It's just imprecise. So in cases where Heortling herding methods might not be precise, you can be too. But they probably do have a way to be precise when they need to be. For example, in exchange.
This all said, I think another principle applies. Which is that, unless the precise number actually affects the story, I think that abstractions are just fine. This is what I was saying before with distances. Most times a relative distance in terms of time does just fine for players to plan. Are they trying to increase their herd size in some trade? Well, they can shoot for "several" sheep, and hope to get, "more than you hoped for." The actual figure is irellevant - what matters is how well the character did in the transaction, and whether or not it affects any stats (can I now cement a +3 to my "Large Herd of Sheep" ability?).
BTW, this all relates very strongly to the "Restaurant Improbablility Numbers" concept from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Even if one provided a number, the actual numbers are always something other than themselves. Which is my way of saying that imprecision generally gives a more accurate portrayal of these effects than precision. Take it from a professional statistician - the one thing that I think is most unrealistic in game design is how players have far too perfect a knowledge of situations. In real life, estimation is a vastly important skill, and most decisions are made with only partial knowledge.
Mike
Powered by hypermail