Well for the world generally grade inflation is a constant battle but it depends what system you use. In the UK the old exam system used a percentage grade methodology. So the top 10% got an "A" and so on, no matter how many good papers there were each year only 10% got an "A". Then they switched to a certain mark needed for a grade system, so say a mark of 91 was needed for an "A", everyone who got a 91 got an "A". This has led to a huge amount of grade inflation, The Times has estimated that every student in a UK university will get a first class degree by 2030. It is beyond ridiculous and threatens our reputation as a world class centre of education.
But once the system changed the cat was let out of the bag, they are going to have a real problem sorting this out now. So a good system, implemented properly will hold grade inflation in check.
As to the D&D example who want to play Mr. Average? That's the problem you have there. I think also players like to think they are above average, so if they are playing someone with less Wisdom than "themselves" they are inclined to play it as being less intelligent.
If you won't give a game above 9/10 or below 4/10, then you're rating games on a scale of 4-9. That seems kind of dumb. If you're going to put numerical scores on games, then the extremal ratings should be realistically possible to get.
When a rating is going to be mixed into an average, giving it an extremal score such as 10/10 or 0/10 is the way to maximize your ability to move the average in the direction you want. That's why in some contexts, you'll see a lot of 10/10 ratings. It's also why sites like Steam don't average scores, but only thumbs up or down.
Well think of it this way.
you have 1 - 10.
10 being "The Ideal Perfect Game" 1 Being "The Ideal Perfect Train Wreck"
Ideally, you really don't have anything that is a 1 or a 10, as they are purely ideals, existing more as a aspect of what could be Perfect.
Often anything below a 5 has become vaporware for being such a Trainwreck. Now some could argue that there are a few Crowed Funded Games in production right now that are getting close to becoming a 1.
But that is not here no there.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
As to the D&D example who want to play Mr. Average? That's the problem you have there.
Any good roleplayer knows, playing Mr. Average is way more fun and challenging than playing Mr. Uber-elite 18/00 Maximillian (to the friends just Max) Stats
(unless you play Hero system/Champions where everyone's a superhero... but even they have flaws, not to mention -as the Pythons skit presented well- when everyone's super, it turns into the average. And then Bicycle Repair Man will be the real hero)
The other one is a good point as well, just far deeper and could deserve an own thread... the issue with the top 10% approach is the measure over a longer timeframe and the comparison of each year (year X's top ten might be weaker actually, than the "B"s of year Y).
The direct grading could be better, if it's being revisited and adjusted over the time, and this is where politics, competition (both between states as well education systems), etc. steps in...
As to the D&D example who want to play Mr. Average? That's the problem you have there.
Any good roleplayer knows, playing Mr. Average is way more fun and challenging than playing Mr. Uber-elite 18/00 Maximillian (to the friends just Max) Stats
(unless you play Hero system/Champions where everyone's a superhero... but even they have flaws, not to mention -as the Pythons skit presented well- when everyone's super, it turns into the average. And then Bicycle Repair Man will be the real hero)
The other one is a good point as well, just far deeper and could deserve an own thread... the issue with the top 10% approach is the measure over a longer timeframe and the comparison of each year (year X's top ten might be weaker actually, than the "B"s of year Y).
The direct grading could be better, if it's being revisited and adjusted over the time, and this is where politics, competition (both between states as well education systems), etc. steps in...
A difficult topic indeed.
I liked the way in Feng Shui where all the characters are hero's a Sorcerer is as good as a Scrappy Kid.
When I said players don't like playing Mr Average I was not saying you have to be Mr Uber stats, if players think they are above average that is really all they want. Good luck with convincing roleplayers that being average is fun, you get many types in a group you have to cater to them all.
I had a group where one player loved powers and being more than human, another did not like powers and wanted to be as human as possible. So I came up with lines like, "The good news is there are powers, terrific powers...(looking at Mr Human) but you don't need to have powers." Which is true for a game using FATE, it lets powers run with normal quite well.
Some systems like Numenara seem almost designed for problematic groups. That game has a section where you pick from a pool like "Controls Magnetism" or "Explores the Dark Places". So if you want powers, you pick a power, if not you can be perfectly normal and pick a bunch of skills.
Good luck with convincing roleplayers that being average is fun, you get many types in a group you have to cater to them all.
I never said convince them, just that good roleplayers know that... so if you're the GM, you will know right from the bat what to expect when a "rollplayer" joins the group, and as you said too, you might need some adjustments with your approach to "cater" those players too.
Had once a wannabe paladin, missed the target numbers at the character creation rolls so he was just a regular fighter, but roleplayed paladin so well the groupmembers thought he really is one. He even could talk himself out of the backlash of a failed Turn
Good luck with convincing roleplayers that being average is fun, you get many types in a group you have to cater to them all.
I never said convince them, just that good roleplayers know that... so if you're the GM, you will know right from the bat what to expect when a "rollplayer" joins the group, and as you said too, you might need some adjustments with your approach to "cater" those players too.
Had once a wannabe paladin, missed the target numbers at the character creation rolls so he was just a regular fighter, but roleplayed paladin so well the groupmembers thought he really is one. He even could talk himself out of the backlash of a failed Turn
My point about D&D was not about being average, but rather taking an average score and roleplaying a sub-par score. An average intelligence speaking in a "dumb" manner, or an average wisdom roleplaying dumb decisions. It was about the "lessening" of the average score to a sub-par score, like game ratings
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
As to the D&D example who want to play Mr. Average? That's the problem you have there.
Any good roleplayer knows, playing Mr. Average is way more fun and challenging than playing Mr. Uber-elite 18/00 Maximillian (to the friends just Max) Stats
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Players, and the roleplayers, there's a distinction. Also, alignment is (or used to be) serious business, so it more sounds like a GM-side issue... maybe I'm lacking in imagination but can't see how could that happen.
Unless it's a master assassin school disguised as an orphanage, but even in that case the Lawful Stupid Good act wouldn't be burning it down.
Chaotic good, maybe, but then the paladin doesn't fit.
Nah, don't mind me, I never was a particularly good GM... During my sessions not one Hayden "I was the Chosen One and all I've got this lousy t-shirt" went on kid massacre rampages due mommy issues
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Players, and the roleplayers, there's a distinction. Also, alignment is (or used to be) serious business, so it more sounds like a GM-side issue... maybe I'm lacking in imagination but can't see how could that happen.
Unless it's a master assassin school disguised as an orphanage, but even in that case the Lawful Stupid Good act wouldn't be burning it down.
Chaotic good, maybe, but then the paladin doesn't fit.
Nah, don't mind me, I never was a particularly good GM... During my sessions not one Hayden "I was the Chosen One and all I've got this lousy t-shirt" went on kid massacre rampages due mommy issues
Alignment is the worst thing DnD handed down to roleplaying, but designers quickly caught on to this and outside of games that use the DnD system you won't find it. You could say something like "Natures" in White Wolf games comes from alignment, but these are quite nuanced like "Survivor", or other RPG's like Pendragon where player had traits like "Temperance".
Although such Natures and Traits can cause issues, that is not saying much because there is nothing in a RPG system that cannot cause issues. Where as alignment puts players in a box that they must follow or they are breaking "the roleplaying rules". Most DM's only give a nod to alignment these days, keeping it for nostalgia and tucking it away so that it does not interfere with roleplaying.
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Players, and the roleplayers, there's a distinction. Also, alignment is (or used to be) serious business, so it more sounds like a GM-side issue... maybe I'm lacking in imagination but can't see how could that happen.
Unless it's a master assassin school disguised as an orphanage, but even in that case the Lawful Stupid Good act wouldn't be burning it down.
Chaotic good, maybe, but then the paladin doesn't fit.
Nah, don't mind me, I never was a particularly good GM... During my sessions not one Hayden "I was the Chosen One and all I've got this lousy t-shirt" went on kid massacre rampages due mommy issues
All it takes for a lawful character to do it is have his boss tell him to do it. Bloody hall monitors all of them.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Alignment is the worst thing DnD handed down to roleplaying, but designers quickly caught on to this and outside of games that use the DnD system you won't find it.
[...]
Most DM's only give a nod to alignment these days, keeping it for nostalgia and tucking it away so that it does not interfere with roleplaying.
That's why I added the "used to be" part, but since Ungood cited a Lawful Good acting against it but keeping it still, I assumed it's in the good old AD&D times.
I somewhat agree, but not entirely (certainly not the worst thing, for example).
Alignment was a decent tool, helped with providing general guidelines, etc.
The issue with it was two-fold, on the GM-side the too strict application ("you CAN'T do this/that, it's against your alignment, you can try but the consequences will be severe") and on the other end it left almost no room for different shades on the spectrum, neither "spikes" (even the most harmless Michael Douglas can fall down if the circumstances enforce his outbreak), and those moments, especially the outcomes and how to operate afterwards, could be great roleplay opportunities.
(btw. we used them only as loose guidelines even in the AD&D era)
All it takes for a lawful character to do it is have his boss tell him to do it. Bloody hall monitors all of them.
Lawful doesn't mean a mindless puppet on a string (except the lawful stupid ), a lawful good would question shady orders which cause contradiction between the two, lawful and good in this case.
There's a town guard in Tortage AoC who sends you on a quest to shake down beggars who missed to pay her vice (since, surprise, they're beggars with no money), just for her amusement.
Unfortunately there's no difference on how you handle it, at that time players hated choices and different outcomes (the few Funcom did put in they had to remove due to the angry feedbacks). Missed opportunity, I say...
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Players, and the roleplayers, there's a distinction. Also, alignment is (or used to be) serious business, so it more sounds like a GM-side issue... maybe I'm lacking in imagination but can't see how could that happen.
Oh make no mistake, it's not easy, in fact, it's very hard, that is what makes it an objective of good roleplayers, and the more restrictive the GM the greater the challenge, the more fun it becomes, to be able to pull off the same level of devil-may-care psycho with my Lawful Good paladin, that all the average players need to roll out chaotic neutral thieves to pull off.
The real game when it comes to roleplay.. truly transcend the numbers.
It also tends to piss the GM off... but.. hey.. Part of the game.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Players, and the roleplayers, there's a distinction. Also, alignment is (or used to be) serious business, so it more sounds like a GM-side issue... maybe I'm lacking in imagination but can't see how could that happen.
Oh make no mistake, it's not easy, in fact, it's very hard, that is what makes it an objective of good roleplayers, and the more restrictive the GM the greater the challenge, the more fun it becomes, to be able to pull off the same level of devil-may-care psycho with my Lawful Good paladin, that all the average players need to roll out chaotic neutral thieves to pull off.
The real game when it comes to roleplay.. truly transcend the numbers.
It also tends to piss the GM off... but.. hey.. Part of the game.
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I would question whether 10/10 really means "perfect". That's not how I've understood it all these years. For me, 10/10 means "the best" whilst 0/10 means "the worst".
Why?
Ratings are not given based on an objective, testable set of criteria. You cannot look at a game, analyse it's component parts, compare it to a list and then award it marks (well, i mean you could, but nobody does). Instead, when you rate a game, you're giving a it a score based on the current competition.
Further to that, are you familiar with "normal distribution"? (the bell curve).
I assume (but don't know for a fact) that the quality of games is normally distrubted. Thus, the majority of games would score a 4, 5 or 6 as that is an average score. This is also how I feel when I play most games: they're pretty average. If a game scored a 10/10, I would expect it to be the best (or at least in the top few percent) game of that genre ever. But I wouldn't expect it to be perfect, partly because games are software and perfect software does not exist, but also because my imagination and desires seem to far outstrip the budget/capability of devs.
So, with that in mind, I have indeed played quite a few games that I would give a 10/10, because at the time of their release (or when i played them), they were indeed the best games of that genre ever with a significant improvement over the competition.
Some examples - Final Fantasy VII, Shogun: Total War, GTA5, Cities: Skylines, Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
Each of these games (as I remember it) took great steps forwards within their respective genres and were also quite highly polished on release. In other words, they were demonstrably the "best" games at release time. Of course, time moves on, new releases raise the bar, add new features that become "must haves" etc, so if you ranked these games now, they wouldn't still be 10/10.
Why have numbers become meaningless with the critics themselves?
As I understand, this is a result of corporate bullying. In order to be relevent, journalists need early access to games and access to devs for interviews and stuff. This means they rely on the good will of the studios, and the studios (sometimes) abuse it. If you don't give their games good reviews, they cut you off and your readership goes elsewhere to find their news.
As an example: a guy I used to work with ran a playstation blog reviewing PS games. He'd been running it for years, built up a decent audience and regularly got sent free games in advance for him to review. He'd been reviewing the Lego games for years, giving them mostly positive reviews and building up a good relationship with the studio, allowing him to get exclusives. However, one game was pretty poor and so he gave it a 4/10. Within a few hours of posting the review, he had the studio on the phone. They told him to either immediately change his rating to a 7, or he'd be completely cut off. He stood his ground and got cut off, no more free games, no more advance copies, no more invites to events. Not just for the lego games, but everything from the wider studio and publisher family.
If you search around, you can find plenty of examples of the same thing happening, not just to small blogs but to serious organisations. Journalists in other fields have the same problem, here in the UK the BBC has run into this sort of problem many times (e.g. polititians refusing to be interviewed unless certain topics are not discussed).
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I would question whether 10/10 really means "perfect".
Not always, but many times the 2 go together: "A Perfect 10." I've taken that as a "perfect" whatever: game; gymnastics score; movie rating. It could mean that the score is "perfect", but I never took it that way.
I have been educated, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all. https://mobdro.bio/https://luckypatcher.tips/ I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that "10" means a perfect game and then also say no such game is perfect (which is true.)
Because then why include it? Why then include a unit of measure that doesn't exist? In which case just say 9/9. but then people would say "9 means perfect but why give a game a 9 since perfect doesn't exist?"
The better way to think of it is to acknowledge every game's (or any thing for that matter) imperfections as a given and just look at how well a game comes to achieving what it is meant to achieve, how enjoyable is it, how much does it makes you want to go back, to talk about it, to discover its depths.
Because a game that makes you want to linger and ponder and continually play would be a 10/10.
Has anyone here played a perfect game? That's what 10/10 means, right?
What do numbers mean when so abused by rating systems? In system from 1 to 10, 4, 5, and 6 are average, yet a game with this rating is seen to fail. I see many 10/10 scores and I wonder if those players actually thought that game was perfect, ie: No flaws at all.
I watch some players play D&D on Twitch and they seem to think that a "10" ability score makes them inept. Sure, 10 gets no bonuses, but so what? 10 in a 3 to 18 system is average. That is what Joe/Joan Normal have for stats. Yet I see characters with a 10 Intelligence "act dumb", or a 10 Wisdom "act stupid."
When did numbers lose their meaning, or get so inflated?
I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that "10" means a perfect game and then also say no such game is perfect (which is true.)
Because then why include it? Why then include a unit of measure that doesn't exist? In which case just say 9/9. but then people would say "9 means perfect but why give a game a 9 since perfect doesn't exist?"
The better way to think of it is to acknowledge every game's (or any thing for that matter) imperfections as a given and just look at how well a game comes to achieving what it is meant to achieve, how enjoyable is it, how much does it makes you want to go back, to talk about it, to discover its depths.
Because a game that makes you want to linger and ponder and continually play would be a 10/10.
I see 10 as a "goal." It is what is shot for. If a game hits all the right buttons for a player, has zero bugs, and they find themselves never thinking, "This (or that) could've been better." , then give that game a 10.
I see "perfection" as a journey instead of a destination. It's like learning, to me, in that one never stops learning: one never stops perfecting
But since everyone has their own idea of perfection, 10 is just as malleable
Also, sometimes imperfections make a game better.
The real loss is "average." In a 1-10 rating scale 5 (or 4 through 6) is average. If a game gets a 5 these days, it is considered a failure, not average.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
For me, a 10 (or 100) is obtainable by those "masterpiece" works. While no game is perfect, some are close enough to merit a "perfect" rating. For me games like Mass Effect, KOTOR, Uncharted, Halo, and Horizon: Zero Dawn all have such high quality art, graphics, sound, design, gameplay, and story to be considered masterpieces to me. Yes, they all have things that I would have preferred done differently, but honestly, unless I design and build my own game, there will never be a game done exactly the way I want it done.
Then all the "really great" or "excellent" games get 8 (or 80), or 9 (or 90) ratings. These are the games that were a ton of fun but had more than some minor problems and normally just didn't have the budget of the 10s (or 100s).
Comments
But once the system changed the cat was let out of the bag, they are going to have a real problem sorting this out now. So a good system, implemented properly will hold grade inflation in check.
As to the D&D example who want to play Mr. Average? That's the problem you have there. I think also players like to think they are above average, so if they are playing someone with less Wisdom than "themselves" they are inclined to play it as being less intelligent.
you have 1 - 10.
10 being "The Ideal Perfect Game"
1 Being "The Ideal Perfect Train Wreck"
Ideally, you really don't have anything that is a 1 or a 10, as they are purely ideals, existing more as a aspect of what could be Perfect.
Often anything below a 5 has become vaporware for being such a Trainwreck. Now some could argue that there are a few Crowed Funded Games in production right now that are getting close to becoming a 1.
But that is not here no there.
When I said players don't like playing Mr Average I was not saying you have to be Mr Uber stats, if players think they are above average that is really all they want. Good luck with convincing roleplayers that being average is fun, you get many types in a group you have to cater to them all.
I had a group where one player loved powers and being more than human, another did not like powers and wanted to be as human as possible. So I came up with lines like, "The good news is there are powers, terrific powers...(looking at Mr Human) but you don't need to have powers." Which is true for a game using FATE, it lets powers run with normal quite well.
Some systems like Numenara seem almost designed for problematic groups. That game has a section where you pick from a pool like "Controls Magnetism" or "Explores the Dark Places". So if you want powers, you pick a power, if not you can be perfectly normal and pick a bunch of skills.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Every GOOD DnD players knows that playing a min-maxed stat character with deranged personality traits that let them burn down orphanages while still being able to maintain being a Lawful Good Paladin, is what the game is really all about.
Although such Natures and Traits can cause issues, that is not saying much because there is nothing in a RPG system that cannot cause issues. Where as alignment puts players in a box that they must follow or they are breaking "the roleplaying rules". Most DM's only give a nod to alignment these days, keeping it for nostalgia and tucking it away so that it does not interfere with roleplaying.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"These go to 11."
- This is Spinal Tap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The real game when it comes to roleplay.. truly transcend the numbers.
It also tends to piss the GM off... but.. hey.. Part of the game.
The only game that I could see as a 10/10 is maybe Limbo. I think for what that game set out to do it was perfect in that sense.
Edit: ; nah its a 9
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I have been educated, though
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I see "perfection" as a journey instead of a destination. It's like learning, to me, in that one never stops learning: one never stops perfecting
But since everyone has their own idea of perfection, 10 is just as malleable
Also, sometimes imperfections make a game better.
The real loss is "average." In a 1-10 rating scale 5 (or 4 through 6) is average. If a game gets a 5 these days, it is considered a failure, not average.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR