Quantitative Vs. Qualitative Descriptions

The push toward more realism in roleplaying is generally a good thing, I feel, but sometimes, in my honest opinion, it can go too far or be misguided in its attempts. One such area is the call for removing numbers from the game or game system and adopting a 'more natural' qualitative description, as often is found in diceless games or more 'free form' roleplaying games.

For example, a system that states a character is an 'excellent' driver is often thought to be better roleplaying or more 'in character' than one that states this PC's skill at driving is 85%, or 17 out of 20. Whereas it is true that in real life we are more apt to use such vague qualitative descriptions like 'excellent' - as well as not having access to easy numerical measurements, anyway - it is not true this qualitative description is always better.

In truth, once we pass 5 categories or so (for example: very poor, poor, fair, good, or very good), such designations begin to lose their meaning, particularly for those outside the discipline in question. Furthermore, these classifications are highly subjective. Locally, a character may be 'very good,' perhaps even the best. Nationally, the same character could be poor or even worse, very poor.

So what should we do? Do we accept our PCs when they tell another character, "I'm 40% with my bow."? Ewwwww. Do we mindlessly pursue endless questions when they say "I'm pretty good with my bow."? "Oh yeah, well, what does 'pretty good' mean to you?" Etc. Ewwwww. Do we have our game spiral down into the quagmire of endless contests between our characters every time someone decides they want or need to know who is better? Let's hope not. We should have better things to do with our limited game session time.

Problems with Adjectives

The first drawback of using a handful of qualitative descriptive adjectives instead of numbers is that we are limited to just that, a handful, perhaps 5 or so, before it becomes hard to manage. Many game systems would prefer more classifications than 5 to 10, and many may call for making some distinction between two characters in the same broad class of 'good,' or whatever. Who is really better if they are both 'good'?

The second drawback is the subjective nature of these descriptions. Good? Compared to what? Your dog? Your mom? The local master? Who or what are you comparing yourself to?

The third drawback is such descriptions vary from language to language, place to place, discipline to discipline, time to time, and especially and person to person. Numbers are more universally understood. Once we know the scale, we can judge for ourselves what the numbers mean. A movie that earns 3 stars may seem good, but is this 3 out of 4, 3 out of 5, 3 out of 10, or what? 3 out of 4 is pretty good, but 3 out of 10, not so much. So yes, one does have to know the scale or range and the sense of which end is better, but aside from that, numbers are more easily understood or translated.

"How would you rate me on a scale of 1 to 10?"

"Oh, definitely a 10."

"Gee, thanks."

"Oh! Better make than a 1."

LOL;-)

Finally, such descriptions are not realistically or universally applied the same way in various disciplines. Some are linear while some are exponential or in other ways nonlinear, for example. It can get quite tricky.

A game system may adopt, for example, 10 classes of skill levels (each one 10% in size over the entire scale), and name them. Here is one such arbitrary list of adjectives:

Clueless, (01% to 10%)
Horrible, (11% to 20%)
Rotten, (21% to 30%)
Poor, (31% to 40%)
Fair, (41% to 50%)
Decent, (51% to 60%)
Good, (61% to 70%)
Great, (71% to 80%)
Excellent, (81% to 90%)
Masterful, (91% to 100%)

But this might imply, erroneously, that 10% of all people fall into each class. It may be the case the distribution is more like a bell curve. For example, rating another person's looks on a scale of 1 to 10. Are we to believe there are as many 10's as there are 5's? No, of course not. So it may have to be explained how the population fits on such a list. It may further have to be explained how a 1% difference in the master's range represents considerably more skill than a difference of 1% in the decent range. But I digress.

Furthermore, by applying this list of 10 adjectives to each discipline, the game forces another unrealistic characteristic onto the game world.

Usually each discipline will have evolved its own titles for various skill levels. In truth, one's character might have to learn 10 or more such descriptions for each separate discipline to be more realistic. A universally accepted list of 10 such descriptions that applies equally well to each discipline is pretty unlikely. Thus, a fighter may boast of being a 'champion' swordsman, while a chef may claim he is a 'master' cook, or a marksman might claim 'expert' rifleman, and a gambler might be an 'ace' card sharp. They could all mean the same 85% skill level in their respective skills. Expecting each discipline to accept the designation 'excellent' is just as unrealistic as expecting them to know they are at 85% in their respective skills. Furthermore, what might be taken as excellent in one area might have a different meaning in another discipline. An excellent fisherman and an excellent navigator may be two entirely different skill levels.

Broad classifications also leave little room for judging improvement, or may take a long time to improve from one class to the next. Such large quantum leaps might make your character's development seem arrested for many sessions. Smaller gradations allow one to see steady improvement and help fend off the illusion of getting nowhere. Also, the broader the classification, the harder it is to judge who is better if two or more characters are in the same classification. This isn't always important to know, but sometimes it is.

Remember always, there is a huge difference between what we know as players and what our characters know. Players know a lot of things their characters never will. Most people easily grasp this notion as they know, for example, how to drive a car or flip on a light switch, but understand their character (in a medieval fantasy setting for example) wouldn't even know what a car or a light switch is, let alone know how to drive a car or turn on a light. But many fail to appreciate as well the fact their characters know many things they don't know, like how to actually pick a lock, repair armor, make a feint with a rapier, cast a spell, navigate a starship, etc. So never forget many things our characters know they learn by living their lives 24/7, something we cannot hope to do for them.

Our characters have their own lives and live them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (different time systems notwithstanding). As players, we tend to share only the smallest portion of their lives (hopefully the more exciting parts). This does not mean the PCs do not practice for hours, work hard, tear their hair out trying to learn a difficult subject, or have normal problems (stomach aches, headaches, bad breath, diarrhea, constipation, menstrual cramps, etc.) We just don't usually roleplay such things. Similarly, we probably don't roleplay every aspect of how our characters judge themselves and each other and make comparisons to one another. A few hours in camp of a couple characters tossing daggers into a tree while waiting for the cook to make the meal, for example, could be roleplayed, but endlessly doing this gets old pretty fast. So we naturally assume our PCs get to know one another after a time. Not to the degree of players reading each other's character sheets and secrets, but in those skills they commonly practice and use in each other's sight.

If they eat your cooking everyday, they can assess your skill level in cooking, within reason. If they see you shoot your bow a few times, they'll get a good idea of how well you can shoot, particularly if they see you use it in combat when the pressure is on, your target is moving, and the enemy is shooting back at you.

Does this mean we can see our traveling companion is at 85% with his bow? No. But we can fairly guess within 10% to 20% or so. Does this mean we know that we, ourselves, are at 85% with our bow? Again, no, but we can fairly guess within 5% to 10% or so. We usually have a better guess at our own skill level than we do at guessing another's.

So how do they convey this information to each other on the IC (In Character) level? Do you have your PC say "I'm about 40% with my bow."? Not likely. But here, there is a distinction between not using numbers on the IC level and not having numbers in the game at all. Players should use numbers, but characters probably shouldn't (at least as much).

Realistically, the character will likely say something like 'good' or 'excellent' or use a title of mastery well known within a particular discipline. For example, rather than say they are 6th level fighters, they may claim to have achieved the rank of Myrmidon. Another fighter may easily understand this reference. A rogue may not, though he could, it just depends on his experience. Also, the rogue wouldn't say "I'm a 6th level thief," but might claim to have earned the title of 'Filcher' in the brotherhood. It's all pretty subjective. It may change from guild to guild, city to city, race to race (almost certainly would change too, if the native language changed). So elves would probably have different Elven titles for warriors than humans would, for example.

Expecting the player to know all this is beyond the pale, even if your character probably does know most of it, at least within his or her own discipline. Thus, even using 10 universal adjectives is pretty unrealistic when you think about it. Therefore, one has little choice but to assume our characters are saying something other than what the players are saying in actual fact.

Yet your GM may wish you to learn this detail and use it while roleplaying in his world, but this isn't necessary in general. Unless he insists, I wouldn't do it. It probably should be assumed your character uses such titles or descriptions when the player says something like '6th level' in the same way it is assumed they know how to pick a lock by making a roll rather than having to describe to the GM exactly how the lock is built and how he or she intends to make its tumblers fall into place. Specialized knowledge your character has is not required of you to play your character. So, too, it shouldn't be required for you learn umpteen titles for dozens of disciplines or skills, though if you do, particularly for your PC's own areas of expertise, it may add color to your roleplaying (and that's a good thing).

Lots of assumptions like this are made without question, so what are a few more? Though it is unlikely our characters are speaking English (or whatever your native tongue is), we are not required to learn the native language of our character in order to play our PCs. And though they aren't speaking English (probably), there's a good chance our poetry, songs, rhymes, and the like that we do write for the game (and happen to rhyme well in English) wouldn't rhyme at all if they were translated into Common (or the local language for that world or area). But this is not a huge problem. Nor should using some numbers, now and again, be that large a problem in our game. We just have to take it for granted what we say as players is a rough translation of what our characters are really saying. Furthermore, lots of this information is being passed around OOC, above board, across the game table, between GM and players or between players, and isn't really meant to depict an actual exchange between characters.

How much of this goes on depends on the game. As a general rule, if there is a decent way to roleplay something and convey information, it should be done to enhance the roleplaying environment of the game, but if there isn't a good way to do this, the occasional lapse of using game numbers isn't exactly the end of the world.

Now, it is true we wish to avoid using too much 'game-speak.' Game-speak is a term for using game numbers or game terminology on the IC level. It often seems too detailed - which is the true problem since our PCs almost certainly don't know their own numbers with such precision, let alone the numbers of other characters - but aside from this problem, it also doesn't feel right for many. Thus, if one wished to curtail this feeling, they could adopt such a list of subjective adjectives and have their players learn 10 or so and use them while roleplaying. It would still be understood their characters are actually saying something else, but this might mitigate the unnatural feeling. So while the player may say 'Master' swordsman, your character may really be saying something like "I'm a 'Lord,'" Meanwhile, the game number may be on your character sheet as 93% with long sword. Each is different in the way it sounds - yet they represent the same thing.

Use of such a list of adjectives might also keep other players and PCs in the dark as to approximately where they should be. For example, if I look at my character sheet and see my PC is 43% with his bow, I can have him 'say' he is 'A Fair Shot.' Exactly where in the 41% to 50% range, he (the PC) can't say, and the player should NOT let another player know (aside from the GM who knows all). Another character, also a fair shot, might wish to test this new man in a contest, but as I said, these endless contests often get old as far as roleplaying it is concerned. The GM may simply say, "After you two have a long contest (long to cut down on luck) such and such is better," though he probably wouldn't say what the actual numbers were or by how much one character won over the other. After learning more about bows, you may test each other again and establish a sort of ongoing rivalry, but that's another matter. I just wouldn't recommend telling each other your PC's numbers or bother rolling dice in a long contest (this would just needlessly consume a great deal of game time, and you should have better things to do with your limited time). If it is just one shot or one roll, then sure, go ahead. Otherwise, more roleplaying and less roll-paying is recommended.

Also, I wouldn't give clear-cut ranges either. So if you were 43%, I sure wouldn't say I'm between 33% and 53% (since we can guess within 10%). By within 10%, I mean you can roughly guess which 10% class they may be in after you get to know them and see them practice their skill (also, this assumes they aren't trying to conceal how good they are, for they could certainly do this is they had a reason for it, by shooting badly, or whatever. Pool hustling comes to mind).

As you can guess, however, the GM and the players need to convey accurate information rather quickly, and no better way to do this has been found other than the liberal use of numbers.

Thus, in the final analysis, numbers are good and should be used in the game system by the players and the GM, though we would prefer, for roleplaying reasons, not to use too much game-speak on the IC level, and certainly should be warned our characters do not have such accurate measurements, and the PCs shouldn't be played as if they do. This is certainly true of numbers, but may also be true of other vague terms (like alignments, for example, as your PC may not know his alignment anymore than you know, for certain, what yours is).

"I'll make the jump since I'm at 62% with my jump roll and you are only at 60%," for example, should never be allowed. This is too fine a distinction to make on the IC level, and your PC's actions should be based on what they know. The GM will tell you how fine a distinction your characters can make, but seeing things finer than 5% increments is not recommended, and more than 20% also seems too harsh, in my opinion. Thus, if you know each other and have had time to see each other jumping about, a master jumper may know he is better than an excellent jumper is and could make such a decision on the IC level. If they don't know each other or are too close in skill to one another, then such fine distinctions cannot be made.

Finally, other game numbers are notoriously used as game-speak on the IC level where they shouldn't be used. How many hit points you have left, how badly wounded you are, how good this +3 sword is, its damage range vs. large creatures compared to small or medium creatures, etc. are often used to make decisions on the IC level. They shouldn't be used and abused in this manner.

What is the chance god will answer this prayer? How much better can I leap without my armor? Lots of things like that are asked when they shouldn't be asked at all (or at least, the GM shouldn't answer them). Our characters will have a vague idea of many of these numbers, but try to keep in mind they do not actually have exact numbers. The GM should not disclose exact numbers beforehand. Players should guess, like their characters, that they could jump further without their armor, for example. How much further cannot be known until they try. The proof is in the pudding. Common sense should prevail.

As a general rule, unfamiliar characters or items should not have their numbers disclosed at all. After a time, you may get a feeling for them or it. After a long time, the GM may finally tell you some numbers. The only exceptions might be like when the GM would rather you make calculations with various modifiers, so he might tell you how good that sword really is, for example, but even then your PC wouldn't know this for a while (identification notwithstanding), and you shouldn't have your PC act like they do. It was only revealed as a game nicety; it should not to be taken as character knowledge. So if the GM told you it was a +2 long sword for ease of play, this wouldn't mean your PC shouldn't have it identified later (if this is a common practice for unknown magic items) since he 'knows' what it is now. He doesn't.

Therefore, though I do recommend not using numbers too freely on the IC level, I would NOT favor totally losing them from the game system (as some new game systems now advocate). Unless ALL players are excellent roleplayers and share in identical beliefs of what is and is not reasonable, the numbers will help set badly needed parameters and thus help us avoid problems and conflicts. We often need our numbers to play together nicely. Well, 3 times out of 4, anyway ;-)