PDA

View Full Version : Systems: Fun or means to an end?



Talakeal
2012-05-06, 04:09 PM
I was just struck with a revelation; I don't enjoy combat in RPGs, I enjoy the IDEA of combat in RPGs.

The primary purpose of an RPG, in my mind, become someone else, and see a fantastic world through new eyes. The rules are merely conflict resolution systems, to resolve how the story goes when the outcome is contested or in doubt.

At some point, someone decided that these sub systems where what made the game a game, and in RPGs these sub systems have been slowly taking over more and more of the book.

Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?

Grinner
2012-05-06, 04:18 PM
I've thought about this myself.

First, you've got to define what a game is. To me, the simplest components of a game are a beginning, an end, and a series of obstacles in between.

Then, you've got to realize that everyone has their reasons for doing something. Some play RPGs for the adventure aspect. Others play just for the idea of having and gaining power in a reality separate from our own, without the responsibility and moral ambiguity associated with power. Some play just for kicks (Arguably, this is the only reason for playing).

As a large number of video games demonstrate, many people don't mind playing a system rather than a story, but in the end, it's all about what you want.

Ranos
2012-05-06, 04:25 PM
It's the other way around. Conflict resolution systems came first, then at some point someone decided it'd be a good idea to add story.

As for your question, it mostly depends on system. If you're in more for the Role Playing and less for the Game, there are systems for you that gloss over conflict resolution.

Talakeal
2012-05-06, 04:30 PM
It's the other way around. Conflict resolution systems came first, then at some point someone decided it'd be a good idea to add story.


Well, I am talking from my perspective. I understand RPGs grew out of war games in the 70s, but since I started playing in the late 80s RPGs have gotten more and more rules heavy / combat heavy every edition.


If you're in more for the Role Playing and less for the Game, there are systems for you that gloss over conflict resolution.

I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.

Ranos
2012-05-06, 04:40 PM
I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.
From my limited experience, games like Houses of the Blooded, Don't Rest your Head, or Kingdom of Nothing all reduce physical conflict to either a few rolls or a single roll. This has the side effect of making you want to avoid physical conflict at all costs.

Then there are games like Nobilis and Amber diceless where you don't even roll a single die to adjudicate the conflict, but I've never tried those.

Grinner
2012-05-06, 04:40 PM
I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.

There's the problem. You seem to want a rules-heavy system to determine exactly what a character can do, but you don't want it to override the storyline.

However, by using a rules-heavy system, you are implicitly placing emphasis on the rules themselves. As the focus of the game is now the rules, the players will begin playing the system and not the story.

prufock
2012-05-06, 05:13 PM
Providing a system to resolve conflicts are all the rules really do. The rest is generally just fluff. If you aren't interested in conflict resolution, why don't you just forget "system" altogether and play a free-form storytelling game? This allows for the "role-playing" part, but not so much the "game" part.

Randomatic
2012-05-06, 05:34 PM
I disagree that the primary focus of the game should be the story, and that the mechanics interfere with the story. I tend to find that the story of a game can't be told until the end, and that it can't be written before the conflicts have been resolved. You don't know the story of a gaming session until you're packing up your dice when it's all over.

I also find that the game rules primary purpose is to resolve the conflict between the desires of the various players. You and I might have very very different things that we want to get out of the game. By agreeing on which set of rules, we can then develop a common ground, and hopefully both have fun with the game.

Crow
2012-05-06, 05:43 PM
I disagree that the primary focus of the game should be the story, and that the mechanics interfere with the story. I tend to find that the story of a game can't be told until the end, and that it can't be written before the conflicts have been resolved. You don't know the story of a gaming session until you're packing up your dice when it's all over.

I also find that the game rules primary purpose is to resolve the conflict between the desires of the various players. You and I might have very very different things that we want to get out of the game. By agreeing on which set of rules, we can then develop a common ground, and hopefully both have fun with the game.

I think what you have hit on is the difference between the Old-School, dice fall as they may, you make a character who wants something then go out and get it, style of gaming; and the newer-school, we're telling a cooperative story, style of gaming.

Totally Guy
2012-05-06, 05:51 PM
I think what you have hit on is the difference between the Old-School, dice fall as they may, you make a character who wants something then go out and get it, style of gaming; and the newer-school, we're telling a cooperative story, style of gaming.

I think Randomatic has the right idea.

My preference is to allow the co-operative story to emerge by using game mechanics and player priorities. I don't think they need to be exclusive.

Crow
2012-05-06, 05:57 PM
I think Randomatic has the right idea.

My preference is to allow the co-operative story to emerge by using game mechanics and player priorities. I don't think they need to be exclusive.

I totally agree. I don't look at the story as something independent of everything else. But rather the final outcome, whatever it may be.

Tengu_temp
2012-05-06, 06:30 PM
I'm a story-first type of guy, but a good mechanical system always helps. Adding mechanics to the conflict helps you get the feel that you earned your victories instead of just being given them. Good is the keyword here - bad systems just make the game feel like an unfun drudge.

Totally Guy
2012-05-06, 06:49 PM
Adding mechanics to the conflict helps you get the feel that you earned your victories instead of just being given them.

Losing should be fun too. Some of my favourite sessions I've played were those in which I lost everything with just the right amount of irony.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-06, 07:59 PM
I play games mostly to create things. Characters, usually, but also worlds. However, I care equally about mechanics and story when it comes to creation, then get disappointed when it comes to actual play. Somehow, the act of playing is never as fun as all the fun I have when creating a character. I love making choices and seeing the results, and character creation is an endless stream of that. Actual play? Not so much.

moritheil
2012-05-06, 08:17 PM
I was just struck with a revelation; I don't enjoy combat in RPGs, I enjoy the IDEA of combat in RPGs.

The primary purpose of an RPG, in my mind, become someone else, and see a fantastic world through new eyes. The rules are merely conflict resolution systems, to resolve how the story goes when the outcome is contested or in doubt.

At some point, someone decided that these sub systems where what made the game a game, and in RPGs these sub systems have been slowly taking over more and more of the book.

Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?

As I've said in two or three other threads that you've posted recently, I think that to some people the min/maxing and number manipulation IS the game. The roleplay is fluff. And to some other people, the roleplay is the game, and combat merely provides details to explain and new situations to roleplay through. And so on and so forth.

Asking if it's "a good thing" in general presupposes the existence of a universal "good" way to game, which I must express skepticism of.

Talakeal
2012-05-06, 08:19 PM
I think some of you are misunderstanding me.

It isn't that the rules are too heavy, too time consuming, or that they make the story unpredictable. The unpredictability is a vital part of the story for me and the randomness adds to it.

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.

Take for example a 4E fighter or a 3.5 ToB character. Combat is a lot more interesting and "fun" than it is for a first or second ed fighter who simply states "I attack" and then rolls dice.

*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-06, 08:31 PM
I think some of you are misunderstanding me.

It isn't that the rules are too heavy, too time consuming, or that they make the story unpredictable. The unpredictability is a vital part of the story for me and the randomness adds to it.

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.

Take for example a 4E fighter or a 3.5 ToB character. Combat is a lot more interesting and "fun" than it is for a first or second ed fighter who simply states "I attack" and then rolls dice.

*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

Well, roleplaying games are products to be consumed. They need to offer something people are willing to pay for. Creating fine-tuned rules that can be used in a story is precisely the sort of thing people would be willing to pay for, given that not all of us are game designers with access to plenty of playtesters.

Add the economic crisis we've been having for a couple of years now and you'll see that products need to cut corners when it comes to superfluous things and ensure sales. What better ways to ensure sales than cramming books full of tasty rules and minigames?

moritheil
2012-05-06, 09:13 PM
*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

That's more than a bit misleading, as in WW, the STs have way more control over what happens to your character and are allowed to throw you into all sorts of blatantly unfair situations. The concept of "encounter level" is not formally a part of the rules, and so a ST is perfectly within his or her rights to tell the werewolf that right as he gets down to withering all his enemies, some elder vampire sorcerer completes an obscure ritual that causes him to burst into flame.

Hell, in Mage, IIRC, a ST can flat out say "Yeah, that dice roll just now didn't really happen." The ST doesn't really have to obey this long and formulaic code of rights and expectations that DnD 3.x gives its players - the existence of which is necessary for the abuse you speak of.

Talakeal
2012-05-06, 10:30 PM
That's more than a bit misleading, as in WW, the STs have way more control over what happens to your character and are allowed to throw you into all sorts of blatantly unfair situations. The concept of "encounter level" is not formally a part of the rules, and so a ST is perfectly within his or her rights to tell the werewolf that right as he gets down to withering all his enemies, some elder vampire sorcerer completes an obscure ritual that causes him to burst into flame.

Hell, in Mage, IIRC, a ST can flat out say "Yeah, that dice roll just now didn't really happen." The ST doesn't really have to obey this long and formulaic code of rights and expectations that DnD 3.x gives its players - the existence of which is necessary for the abuse you speak of.

Yes, I am aware it is up to the storyteller, that's exactly my point. You don't have concrete rules, and so everything is going to be storyteller fiat (which slows down the game) or arguments (which slow it down even more).

Also, I don't think that Mage has a rule that says the storyteller can veto the dice rolls, at least not directly or in the core book. I know Mage does NOT have a "rule zero" which gives the Storyteller the authority to rewrite the rules, it instead has the "golden rule" which allows the players to change rules as a group.

erikun
2012-05-06, 11:47 PM
I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game.
What do you think of systems like HeroQuest or Gurps, where everything is resolved (including combat) in the same manner?

And as for your topic question, I'm not sure that it's happening to all RPGs, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Shadowrun has a lot of different systems and mechanics, but those are intended for the different feel to each system. Casting a spell is different than hacking into a computer. For the most part, one character is only going to "play" one system at a time, meaning you don't jump into various "mini-games" throughout gameplay.


Also, perhaps I'm confused about your example. You mention a D&D4 Fighter, but that same character would use the same mechanics in combat that they would with other obstacles. Is your thoughts about how "gamey" combat can become, or how combat feels like one game and, say, character politics would feel like another?

Talakeal
2012-05-07, 12:24 AM
What do you think of systems like HeroQuest or Gurps, where everything is resolved (including combat) in the same manner?

And as for your topic question, I'm not sure that it's happening to all RPGs, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Shadowrun has a lot of different systems and mechanics, but those are intended for the different feel to each system. Casting a spell is different than hacking into a computer. For the most part, one character is only going to "play" one system at a time, meaning you don't jump into various "mini-games" throughout gameplay.


Also, perhaps I'm confused about your example. You mention a D&D4 Fighter, but that same character would use the same mechanics in combat that they would with other obstacles. Is your thoughts about how "gamey" combat can become, or how combat feels like one game and, say, character politics would feel like another?

Good point about Shadow Run. They have done a lot of effort to remove sub games after fifteen years of literally having to split into two games every time someone went online. So I guess it isn't every game.

My point about ToB and 4th ed fighters was that they have been increasing the amount of options and complexity of combat, trying to make combat itself into a fun game in and of itself. Back in 2E you just looked at your stats and then rolled dice until one man was dead (an exaggeration I know), while now there is all sorts of maneuvering and powers and decisions and what not trying to make the actual mechanics of combat fun and exciting rather than a means to an end.

valadil
2012-05-07, 08:41 AM
I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.


I'm going to take the capitalistic approach.

Having fun with a system that treats rules as a tool to tell a story requires a certain amount of creativity. If the biggest conflict I can find in a system is that THAC0 is unintuitive, then the source of conflict has to come from elsewhere, namely GM and players.

But, if the system has enough mini-games and subsystems that I can find conflict with those, manipulating the systems becomes entertaining in its own right. Building a 3.5 character that stands up to an unrestricted wizard is a conflict on its own and requires no input from the GM or players.

So back to capitalism. I'm of the opinion that there are significantly more players out there who can have fun tinkering with the system than players who can build and create engaging conflicts. Game publishers are swayed by sales and there are more buyers for crunchy, gamey systems, so that's what's being produced.

prufock
2012-05-07, 09:01 AM
I have to be honest, your clarification didn't clarify anything for me. I don't understand your point about "mini-games" at all. Maybe if you gave some examples of what you mean.

The systems I am familiar with are D&D 3.5 (and other editions to a lesser extent), Mutants and Masterminds (all 3 editions), Paranoia! (XP mostly), d6 Ghostbusters, and a bit of Vampire: the Masquerade.

In all of these systems, the conflict resolution is essentially the same. Roll dice, add modifiers if appropriate, compare against DC. Success or failure is based on the dice roll. Generally this is binary, but there are some cases of "degrees" of success.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 02:08 AM
If you can get ahold of a copy, everyone here should read Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering(it's hard to find, but it's a very good read). It spends a fair amount of time talking about different types of players, and how to select a good game system for your group.

For maximum enjoyment, I think it is absolutely critical you use the proper game system for the type of campaign you want to run. Each game system has different strengths and weaknesses, and encourages a different style of play. D&D, for example, reguardless of edition, shows it's wargaming roots strongly. It has very deep mechanics, and is very combat focused. Story is important, but ultimately the abilities the players have and the dice are a huge part in determining what happens.

Paranoia, on the otherhand, is an extremely random system, where character skill is very irrelevant, the fact that a even a skilled character could kill themselves with an attack is a very important part of the game.

(n)WoD on the other hand is fairly mechanics light, and encourages more roleplay and story, with rolls only really being needed when there is a contest of some kind. The combat system is designed to be quick and dirty(person with stronger abilities usually just wins) so you can go back to vampire politics.

I guess the takeaway is that if you are not having fun with the system, you may be using the wrong system. I personally like systems that allow me to have special abilities that allow me to alter combat and gameplay situations, and I dislike systems that and too mechanics light.(I also roleplay third person, and focus more on character actions than dialog, which annoys many a player and GM). Always be willing to try new systems. There is a world beyond D&D, White Wolf, and Shadowrun.

Knaight
2012-05-08, 03:32 AM
I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

I'm not sure I buy this. If you look at a handful of big games, there is some degree of codification and specificity, but even looking at that there are big holes. White Wolf's subsystems aren't seeming more like mini-games than they used to, GURPS has been a very specific, subsytem heavy game from the outset (though that has always been optional), and that really only leaves D&D out of the big three. It moved towards being a combat system, yes, but the d20 games that came out of it run the gamut from means to an end (e.g. Mutants and Masterminds) to mini game heavy (e.g. Spycraft).

Then there are indie games, which is where I think this all falls down. Burning Wheel engages in heavy use of subsystems, as does Fate 3. Almost everything else doesn't. Dread and Fiasco, for instance, are incredibly direct, minimalist games that push a story along and do little else. They're a support system for a story, and absolutely nothing else.

TheOOB
2012-05-08, 04:02 AM
To be fair, D&D has always been combat heavy. The majority of the game mechanics have always been focused on combat(with a secondary emphasis on dungeon crawling), and your attributes and class primarily serve to inform how you fight.

The idea of handling certain events in the game as "mini-games" is interesting to say the least. It's all about what your system is trying to do. If you create a mini-game for something, you are saying it's very important to your game. You want people to spend time in that system, and you want people to make meaningful decisions when that situation arrives(beyond just their character build going into the situation).

For example, D&D has a fairly deep tactile grid based combat. Combat is the meat of D&D, well over half the book is devoted to in in some fashion. There are movement rules, multiple types of actions, attacks of opportunities, flanking, status effects, and literally hundreds of abilities to alter combat. A combat encounter is supposed to be the centerpiece of a session, and it's supposed to be a game in it's own right.

nWoD on the other hand, handles combat much more simply. It's little more than "Roll your dice, they take that much damage". Typically, the stronger character wins, and you move on. Sure there are abilities that affect combat, but the majority just affect how many dice are rolled. Combat isn't a game in nWoD, it's something that happens occasionally, and WW wants you to get right back to the story(it's no coincidence that almost everything in nWoD is handled the same way, the system sees mechanics as a necessary evil more than anything else).

Which is right is up to you.

Kalirren
2012-05-09, 11:16 PM
Systems...

I played freeform first, so whenever I think about playing an RPG, I never think about "playing a system." But freeform doesn't handle most things -well-. It is simply a guaranteed default option. No system covers everything, and in those instances when the game pushes the boundaries of the system (and they always do,) the game falls into freeform gear and trundles on.

Freeform gets clunky. Especially as you get beyond the individual group and into the massively-multiplayer realm where you have characters running around a shared world under multiple moderators, freeform just can't cut it. At the very least, even if different moderators can't come to agreement about what acceptable levels of risk versus reward are, they can at least come to agreement on a set of parameters that describe the capabilities of characters with respect to the challenges they face. And that, already, is system. System is a language that emerges to fill the need for reasonably bounded, if not entirely uniform expectations. It codifies the expectations that players and moderators can have of themselves and of each other. That is system's function. If you are arguing about system, you need to change the system. System should never be canon.

Utlimately the best systems are the ones that are so smooth that you don't notice them. This is more a property of how any game/system is run, rather than the specific computations themselves. Systems that would be entirely horrible for use over table top can suddenly make a lot of sense to use if everyone at the table has computer aid. They enable you to tell the story you want, in sufficient and meaningful detail for your group's satisfaction, while maximizing the utility of session time (or in the case of PbP, posting energy.) They inspire you to add the details that make characters and circumstance compelling in the time you have, and skip over the stuff that your group just isn't interested in.

Slipperychicken
2012-05-10, 10:05 AM
It depends on what's fun. Fun is the only real end here. If you're only in the game for combat, then use a system that handles combat in a way that works for you. If you just want to chat all day and get combat over and done with, use a system that does that.


Personally, conflict-resolution and problem-solving are what got me into dnd, really. What I mean by that is using my imagination and wits to overcome obstacles presented in-game, whether those are social or mechanical (by mechanical, I mean puzzles and/or killing stuff). Roleplaying is nice, but if I just wanted to chat all day and avoid combat, I would go outside and develop real relationships in meatspace (where one avoids combat as a rule), rather than pretending to be some wizard talking down a crazed alchemist, or pretending to schmooze with a vampire king, or whatever.

Raum
2012-05-10, 07:54 PM
Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?If I'm going to spend a couple hundred hours of my recreational time using a system over the course of a year, it had better be fun in and of itself.

Seriously. I can use any system or even no system to play a role. So I'll use the systems I find something to enjoy in - not always the same thing, but something fun.


I have yet to find one. Have you tried Wushu? What about Over the Edge? FATE?


What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.Not all games follow that model (if I've understood what you're describing correctly). Don't think any of the three mentioned above do and even some more traditional games such as Savage Worlds avoid becoming time consuming adjuncts to the narrative.

There are a lot of games out there and the gaming styles they support span the spectrum.

UserClone
2012-05-11, 08:18 PM
I'm gonna say play Dungeon World or Mouse Guard, or any of another bajillion other games out there wherein the mechanics and the story not only are in the same room, but are actually speaking to one another, nay, INFORMING each other.

Talakeal
2012-05-16, 05:12 PM
Sorry I haven't responded to this thread in a while, been travelling.

I like games that are RP heavy and where the mini-games and gimmicks don't get in the way of RP. A lot of the indy games people are suggesting are very mini-game and gimmick heavy, to the point where it is virtually impossible to role-play or get into character, and can only be used tell a very specific story.

Gimmicky narrative control mechanics are, in my opinion, even more distracting from the RP than gimmicky combat mechanics.

Also, for an example of this phenomenon, look at video game RPGs like Elder Scrolls or Fallout. In the old days skill checks where simply RNG on the part of their computer, while in the more recent entries in the series the player actually perform a little mini game every time they pick a lock or perform a similar task.


I disagree that the primary focus of the game should be the story, and that the mechanics interfere with the story. I tend to find that the story of a game can't be told until the end, and that it can't be written before the conflicts have been resolved. You don't know the story of a gaming session until you're packing up your dice when it's all over.

I also find that the game rules primary purpose is to resolve the conflict between the desires of the various players. You and I might have very very different things that we want to get out of the game. By agreeing on which set of rules, we can then develop a common ground, and hopefully both have fun with the game.

I agree with you 100%. This is my main beef with a lot of the newer "narrativist" games. For me the story should be an emergent property which grows out of the interactions between the world and the characters as well as the mechanics of the system rather than a deliberate creation of the players.

What I mean by "story" is exploring the world, playing my character, and watching the story grow, not actively forcing the narrative in a given direction.


I'm not sure I buy this. If you look at a handful of big games, there is some degree of codification and specificity, but even looking at that there are big holes. White Wolf's subsystems aren't seeming more like mini-games than they used to, GURPS has been a very specific, subsystem heavy game from the outset (though that has always been optional), and that really only leaves D&D out of the big three. It moved towards being a combat system, yes, but the d20 games that came out of it run the gamut from means to an end (e.g. Mutants and Masterminds) to mini game heavy (e.g. Spycraft).

Then there are indie games, which is where I think this all falls down. Burning Wheel engages in heavy use of subsystems, as does Fate 3. Almost everything else doesn't. Dread and Fiasco, for instance, are incredibly direct, minimalist games that push a story along and do little else. They're a support system for a story, and absolutely nothing else.

Usually I play homebrew games, but D&D or White Wolf are the go to games for long term published campaigns. Surely you can see how the "combat" systems in D&D get more and more complex each edition, playing more like a tactical war game (ironic given the game’s history). Also, compare Exalted to the earlier WoD games. In Exalted they have lots of detailed sub systems for specific scenarios, a thing like Social Combat would have been all but unheard of 20 years ago.

As for indy games, I have yet to find one that isn't either so rules light it is basically free form or so gimmick heavy that it was bogged down by mini games worse than D&D. I haven't played much, but I remember hating Spirit of the Century because you couldn't do ANYTHING, even make a character, without following a whole bunch of draconic rules involving passing around the narrative and balancing it out.

Knaight
2012-05-16, 06:30 PM
Usually I play homebrew games, but D&D or White Wolf are the go to games for long term published campaigns. Surely you can see how the "combat" systems in D&D get more and more complex each edition, playing more like a tactical war game (ironic given the game’s history). Also, compare Exalted to the earlier WoD games. In Exalted they have lots of detailed sub systems for specific scenarios, a thing like Social Combat would have been all but unheard of 20 years ago.
D&D and White Wolf's games have been growing, yes. GURPS really hasn't though, and it is the other one of the big three. Shadowrun has actually been shrinking some.


As for indy games, I have yet to find one that isn't either so rules light it is basically free form or so gimmick heavy that it was bogged down by mini games worse than D&D. I haven't played much, but I remember hating Spirit of the Century because you couldn't do ANYTHING, even make a character, without following a whole bunch of draconic rules involving passing around the narrative and balancing it out.
SotC is a Fate adaptation, that was specifically listed as an exception (Fate 3 is needlessly crunchy, Fate 2 still uses Aspects but it doesn't overuse them). Take a look at Fudge, or Savage Worlds, or Capes, or any of the other lighter games that aren't Wushu/Risus light, and you'll see that rulings are common and heavy codification uncommon. WR&M is probably the best example of this, largely due to being short and free, and thus being easy to take a quick look at.

UserClone
2012-05-16, 07:43 PM
If you've ever actually sat down and played either Mouse Guard or Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, please feel free to comment on those. Or you could just ignore them as more of "those indie games."

In the case of the former, there are unified mechanics for every type of conflict (...a minigame, if you like?), and the game requires you to decide what your beliefs are and to actively engage them via both the mechanics and the fiction at the same time.

In the latter, the game uses a single dice mechanic for all rolls, meeting certain thresholds provides different results. Within those mechanics, your results are bell-curved with middling results at the top of the curve, except in your very best stat's rolls. The cool part is that middling results are mitigated successes. That is to say you succeed, but it is gonna hurt, which provides more complication and propels the story forwards. I can't recommend Dungeon World enough, honestly. It's incredibly flexible and oodles of fun. There is nothing gimmicky or minigame about it, other than the assumptions you bring to it.

Kaervaslol
2012-05-16, 07:53 PM
From my experience the group and the mood make the game, not the system. The system is there to create a commong ground in which one can bullfeces its way through adventures.

UserClone
2012-05-16, 08:12 PM
From my experience (and this isn't meant as snark in any fashion, it genuinely has been my experience), the type of people that say that haven't encountered a system that actually helps generate and reinforce story.

SowZ
2012-05-16, 08:37 PM
Rules can help with the roleplaying, to me, since I want things to make sense. It doesn't make sense that I am just as accurate with a pistol as a shotgun. It doesn't make sense that a master swordsman is just as likely to be stabbed by a dagger as a random shmuck. Rules that try and simulate reality don't take me out of the game world. Further, options in character building help me get more in character. If there are only five skills that cover general things it is harder to get in character during creation. So I am good at driving a car but there is no way to get better at helicopters, specifically, so I am always equally good with jet planes and motorcycles? Hmmmm

Shadowknight12
2012-05-16, 08:44 PM
Isn't rolling a dice and adding/substracting numbers and then correlating that result with diverse effects a form of (logical-mathematical) minigame?

UserClone
2012-05-16, 09:01 PM
I'm pretty sure that the "minigame" analogy was meant to reference the presence of special subsystems to deal with different types of conflicts and/or tasks. So in that context, I would say no to your question.

Talakeal
2012-05-16, 10:19 PM
If you've ever actually sat down and played either Mouse Guard or Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, please feel free to comment on those. Or you could just ignore them as more of "those indie games."

That statement is being a little confrontational and condescending, don't you think?

No, I have not ever played either of those games in question. No I am not going to dismiss them because of it.

If I have the opportunity to play either of those games I will do so, I have never said no to any RPG or made up my mind before trying it. Hell, I would even give FATAL or RaHoWa a chance if I could find someone running it.

That said I have not played a lot of indie games, but I have played a few, and I have never played an indie game that didn't end up as a miserable experience for everyone involved, and 90% of the talk I hear about them on the internet does nothing to make me want to play them more.

I haven't looked into Mousegauard because I want to play people, not animals. I have heard good things about it, and I would give the game a try, but what you say about it makes reminds me of Riddle of Steels virtue system, something which sounds good on paper but is horrible in actual play, although if they "did it right" I would love to hear how the pulled it off, any info?

As for dungeon world, I have actually never heard of it before, but what you say about it sounds good.


Isn't rolling a dice and adding/substracting numbers and then correlating that result with diverse effects a form of (logical-mathematical) minigame?

Not really, no. Rolling dice is a resolution mechanic, a means rather than an end, and a unified mechanic. Also, there are no decisions to be made, a vital component of any game. I don't think anyone in the world ever found rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice fun (cats on youtube excepted), rather it is the anticipation of the outcome and what it represents.

UserClone
2012-05-16, 10:33 PM
A lot of the indy games people are suggesting are very mini-game and gimmick heavy, to the point where it is virtually impossible to role-play or get into character, and can only be used tell a very specific story.

Sorry if I sounded condescending, but so did this to me. How can you know if indie games are gimmicky or mini-game laden when you haven't played them? I mean, you seem to have dipped your toes in a bit, but seriously. Play some Lady Blackbird, Danger Patrol, and Geiger Counter, and then form an opinion. You know?

EDIT: It takes minimal effort to make Mouse Guard not involve mice. Look up "Realm Guard" for the LotR hack. In any case, Mouse Guard characters, I've found, are often far more human than D&D characters who actually are humans, if you follow me.

And yeah, definitely look into Dungeon World. Freakin' Sweet. My group includes 1st-4th edition D&D fans, and we all had a blast together with DW.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-16, 10:44 PM
Not really, no. Rolling dice is a resolution mechanic, a means rather than an end, and a unified mechanic. Also, there are no decisions to be made, a vital component of any game. I don't think anyone in the world ever found rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice fun (cats on youtube excepted), rather it is the anticipation of the outcome and what it represents.

Ahahaha. Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Please, forgive my use of the word, and don't take this the wrong way, I really don't mean anything by it, but it just strikes me as rather naïve. Have you ever seen an arena game? Or hack-and-slash games with no roleplaying? Trust me, they might not be a majority, but there are plenty of gamers who play just for the dice-rolling.

Now granted, the act of rolling the dice isn't the actual minigame, as I described more than that in my post (as you seem to have misunderstood, given your cat comment). My description of the minigame also involves the addition and subtraction of values and, most importantly, the correlation of the result with effects. A lot of people don't care about the roleplaying or the story, they want to play the game, and that game is about rolling Hide versus someone else's Spot, or Bluff versus Sense Motive, or tripping, or full-attacking or anything of the sort, and then seeing if the decisions you've made before the dice roll and the effects that take place are in line with your goals. That is very much not within the reach of what an ordinary cat can do.

It's also why I can't really understand what you mean by this topic, because every game has minigames: smaller, discrete subsystems that can be abstracted from the rest of the game as a whole. The only difference that I can read from what you're saying is purely subjective: you are used to some minigames and find them unobtrusive (like character creation and dice rolling, or spellcasting and psionics), while you feel other minigames demand too much of your attention and get too much in your way.

Also, another minigame in and of itself is character creation, it's a lot like playing dress up: you choose individual parts to apply to your character and then see how the coherent whole looks. You look for synergy between mechanics like another person would look for a black leather vest to match with black leather boots. I know for a fact that some people like character creation more than actually playing the game: I'm one of them. To me, the minigame of customising my character and picking and choosing mechanics is far more entertaining than actually playing that character.

Another minigame is spellcasting. A fighter (or rogue) doesn't have to deal with that, so it's very much a subsystem within the system. Take the wizard: they must prepare their spells every morning, making all sorts of decisions regarding which spells to prepare and how many of each, then they have to choose which spell to cast in an encounter from their allotment, and then they have to make more choices depending on each individual spell and how they interact with the environment, targets or other magical effects. Psionics works much the same way, too, as is the initiator system from ToB.

Talakeal
2012-05-16, 11:23 PM
Stuff.

Ok, I thought you were asking if a resolution mechanic was not a minigame and responding accordingly.

A resolution mechanic is just an impartial random number generator, and it shouldn't really be "fun", it shouldn't matter if you are picking a number from a hat, spinning a wheel of fortune, rolling dice, drawing cards, flipping a coin, playing rock-paper-scissors, a computer's RNG function, etc. are all resolution mechanics, and in general the only "fun" from them is the anticipation of what they represent.

Take poker, unless you are playing a draw variant the players have no control what so ever over the cards they draw, the cards are merely a mechanic to determine who wins. Betting, on the other hand, is a fully fleshed out system involving complexity, decision, and player interaction.

Poker players are, I imagine, like arena players in D&D. They aren't getting excited about the dice rolls for the sake of dice rolls, but rather the anticipation of the result, and the knowledge that their tactical decisions which led to the modifiers pay off.

What I am asking is whether or not people think it is ideal for each aspect of the game to have a full fleshed out system behind it rather than a simple resolution mechanic.

Also, I am not drawing a subjective line because it is "what I am used to", I am fully aware that a mage has, since first edition, had numerous decisions to make in casting a spell, while a rogue simply has to roll a percentile die and hope for success to use their skills.

You do, however, make a good point about character creation; it does include a lot of mini games which I had not thought about as such. I do prefer character creation to be about vision rather than randomness or subtlety. For example, I prefer White Wolfs system to D&Ds, but I still detest how white wolf has at least three different “currencies” for purchasing character abilities, and depending on how you spend them you can characters with the exact same abilities for drastically different costs.


Sorry if I sounded condescending, but so did this to me. How can you know if indie games are gimmicky or mini-game laden when you haven't played them?

Ok, no hard feelings then. I don't mean to say that ALL indy games are gimmicky, I am sure that is not the case. However, everyone I have personally played, which admittedly is fewer than I would like, has been detrimentally gimmicky.

Further, when people talk about games online they all seem play up the gimmick factor of games, and try and make it stand out as "different" from old schools games. As far as I can tell the people on the forge use the derogatory terms simulationist or incoherent for games that aren't based around a gimmick.

I am sure that isn't the whole scope of the genre, but from where I sit people try very hard to make it look that way.

Talakeal
2012-05-16, 11:29 PM
Sorry if I sounded condescending, but so did this to me. How can you know if indie games are gimmicky or mini-game laden when you haven't played them?

Ok, no hard feelings then. I don't mean to say that ALL indy games are gimmicky, I am sure that is not the case. However, everyone I have personally played, which admittedly is fewer than I would like, has been detrimentally gimmicky.

Further, when people talk about games online they all seem play up the gimmick factor of games, and try and make it stand out as "different" from old schools games. As far as I can tell the people on the forge use the derogatory terms simulationist or incoherent for games that aren't based around a gimmick.

I am sure that isn't the whole scope of the genre, but from where I sit people try very hard to make it look that way.

Rorrik
2012-05-16, 11:57 PM
For me, the idea conflict resolution systems are mostly in the background, leaving you to fight like your character would fight and have a cursory awareness of what it means by the book. This can be really hard to achieve and tends to distract from the character in most systems. I've seen some where the combat is simple enough you don't feel the weight of the mechanics, but they don't seem well suited to those who want only combat.

Long story short, it's hard to find a balance with my group. We could go all combat, and some would be happy, or we could go for the rules light combat, and please others. Still looking for the way to have well developed combat that doesn't get in the way.

UserClone
2012-05-17, 04:48 AM
@Talakeal:

"Simulationist," while already slightly archaic as a Forge term, was never meant to be derogatory. Its goal is to describe the apparent goal of the game as being an attempt to simulate what would happen if X, as effectively as possible. This is opposed to Narrativist, which would have been more like "doesn't try to simulate something, so much as it tries to tell an interesting story." That's all.

"Incoherent" design, on the other kind, basically gets used as a derogatory term. That just means a design which works counter to its apparent goal(s) within that GNS framework.

(For completeness's sake, "Gamist" goals mean that it is more important that the thing be fun as a game, i.e. competition, keeping score, etc than either of the other two goals.)

Shadowknight12
2012-05-17, 04:41 PM
Ok, I thought you were asking if a resolution mechanic was not a minigame and responding accordingly.

A resolution mechanic is just an impartial random number generator, and it shouldn't really be "fun", it shouldn't matter if you are picking a number from a hat, spinning a wheel of fortune, rolling dice, drawing cards, flipping a coin, playing rock-paper-scissors, a computer's RNG function, etc. are all resolution mechanics, and in general the only "fun" from them is the anticipation of what they represent.

There are plenty of things to do in a casino that boil down to random chance, though, with no decision on behalf of the gambler. Slot machines, for example. You just pull a lever. At least with roulette, you get to pick a number or colour. People do find entertainment in mere randomness, even when there isn't money involved.


Take poker, unless you are playing a draw variant the players have no control what so ever over the cards they draw, the cards are merely a mechanic to determine who wins. Betting, on the other hand, is a fully fleshed out system involving complexity, decision, and player interaction.

Poker players are, I imagine, like arena players in D&D. They aren't getting excited about the dice rolls for the sake of dice rolls, but rather the anticipation of the result, and the knowledge that their tactical decisions which led to the modifiers pay off.

True, but see above. Look at the other things that can take place within a casino. Slot machines, craps, roulette, etc. There are various degrees of tactical elements and decision making in them, yes, but there are some of them where it's all about random chance.

People are strange. They will make a minigame out of literally anything.


What I am asking is whether or not people think it is ideal for each aspect of the game to have a full fleshed out system behind it rather than a simple resolution mechanic.

I think ideal game design is about non-compulsory options. I think more options are always better, and I would encourage games that gave simplified options for conflict resolution while maintaining optional complexity (the fully fleshed out systems you refer) for those who so desire. That seems like the best solution.


Also, I am not drawing a subjective line because it is "what I am used to", I am fully aware that a mage has, since first edition, had numerous decisions to make in casting a spell, while a rogue simply has to roll a percentile die and hope for success to use their skills.

That doesn't really counter my argument. If you are okay with that, it stands to reason that you are used to it, and if you recognise that they are minigames in and of themselves, then it really does support my theory that it's a subjective problem.


You do, however, make a good point about character creation; it does include a lot of mini games which I had not thought about as such. I do prefer character creation to be about vision rather than randomness or subtlety. For example, I prefer White Wolfs system to D&Ds, but I still detest how white wolf has at least three different “currencies” for purchasing character abilities, and depending on how you spend them you can characters with the exact same abilities for drastically different costs.

I... really don't get what you're saying, sorry. I mean, I do understand the specific points you're making, I just fail to see how they integrate into a coherent whole. You do recognise that character creation is a minigame (or several), so... it keeps supporting my theory that this division you're making between the things you're used to and the things that bug you about other games are largely subjective and arbitrary. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that to devalue your objections, I think they're perfectly valid, I just have a really hard time following your line of thought and I want to make sense of it. I think starting by defining and classifying what your opinions are and where they come from is a good step in dissecting the problem.

UserClone
2012-05-17, 06:01 PM
Having been a roulette dealer, I can safely tell you there isn't anything there to game. It's random. And no matter which bet you place, you will be paid at slightly less than the odds of hitting that bet. So, frex, if you bet a single number (straight up) the payout is 35-1. But wait, you say, the numbers only go up to 36. So isn't that even money? Well, that's what 0 and 00 are for. To make it so that the house wins, on average. So when you bet on red and get paid 1-1, it isn't a fair bet because the odds are that you will miss, because black+0/00>red (18>16), so on average you will lose. Every payout is calculated to do this, across the board. Even if you hedge your bets, and split the 0 and 00, the payout is 17-1 if it hits, but again, there are 36 numbers you aren't betting on and two that you are. So it's really 18-1 odds. And believe me, the speed and direction of the wheel spinning and the ball spinning is calculated to make accurately predicting where that bitch will fall not possible.

EDIT: I only mention this because the above poster seemed to think that there was some sort of strategy possible. The only possible strategy is "be lucky and leave early."

Tyrrell
2012-05-17, 07:25 PM
I think that one thing that is missing in this discussion is that systems can be descriptive. They make the story more clear, more meaningful.

In the same way that reflecting on the forces acting on a bird in flight (gravity, wind, air resistance), and the interplay of conservation of energy (gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, increase in the entropy of the air), makes the observation of a flying bird more meaningful and more beautiful in ways that mere poetry and prose don't, so too can the magic mechanics in Ars Magica describe the casting of a spell in a way that mere words, unaided by numbers, can't replicate.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-17, 07:54 PM
Having been a roulette dealer, I can safely tell you there isn't anything there to game. It's random. And no matter which bet you place, you will be paid at slightly less than the odds of hitting that bet. So, frex, if you bet a single number (straight up) the payout is 35-1. But wait, you say, the numbers only go up to 36. So isn't that even money? Well, that's what 0 and 00 are for. To make it so that the house wins, on average. So when you bet on red and get paid 1-1, it isn't a fair bet because the odds are that you will miss, because black+0/00>red (18>16), so on average you will lose. Every payout is calculated to do this, across the board. Even if you hedge your bets, and split the 0 and 00, the payout is 17-1 if it hits, but again, there are 36 numbers you aren't betting on and two that you are. So it's really 18-1 odds. And believe me, the speed and direction of the wheel spinning and the ball spinning is calculated to make accurately predicting where that bitch will fall not possible.

EDIT: I only mention this because the above poster seemed to think that there was some sort of strategy possible. The only possible strategy is "be lucky and leave early."

I never mentioned strategy, I mentioned choice, decision. Where you place your bet is a decision you're making, so that puts roulette a step above slot machines in the gambling continuum.

UserClone
2012-05-17, 09:34 PM
But the point of that post is that it's only the illusion of decision. It is, for all intents and purposes, a meaningless decision, on average.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-17, 09:53 PM
But the point of that post is that it's only the illusion of decision. It is, for all intents and purposes, a meaningless decision, on average.

Yes, and? Lotteries and gambling are built on the illusion of choice and the (vain) hope that it's possible to become rich by investing a handful of dollars. That doesn't stop people from pouring all their money into it, as I'm sure you know from experience. People find entertainment in minigames, and will turn all sorts of things into minigames, even things you ordinarily call "conflict resolution mechanics."

Knaight
2012-05-17, 10:19 PM
But the point of that post is that it's only the illusion of decision. It is, for all intents and purposes, a meaningless decision, on average.

Technically speaking you can choose how much worse than even you go with the odds.

UserClone
2012-05-18, 04:54 AM
Technically speaking you can choose how much worse than even you go with the odds.

True, but again, the differences between odds and payouts are only marginally different between different bets, but good call though.

Talakeal
2012-05-18, 04:50 PM
I... really don't get what you're saying, sorry. I mean, I do understand the specific points you're making, I just fail to see how they integrate into a coherent whole. You do recognise that character creation is a minigame (or several), so... it keeps supporting my theory that this division you're making between the things you're used to and the things that bug you about other games are largely subjective and arbitrary. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that to devalue your objections, I think they're perfectly valid, I just have a really hard time following your line of thought and I want to make sense of it. I think starting by defining and classifying what your opinions are and where they come from is a good step in dissecting the problem.

I was making a concession, I was agreeing with you. Surprising given that this was the internet I know...
I was saying that character creation is a mini-game and I had never thought about it before because I was so used to it.
Then I went on to say that I had been at least subconsciously aware of it, because I prefer character creation systems which are straightforward choices rather than gamey systems with dice rolls, strategy, trap choices, etc.


My main point with this thread is not to make an argument, or say that some systems are better than others, or that mini games are bad or anything of that sort. It was just an observation and I wanted to see other peoples opinions on it, not make an argument or to convince anyone of anything.
I have noticed a general trend in RPGs to have more detailed sub systems for every situation, to make all character archetypes equally complex, to give every character something to do in any situation, to add "interesting" feats and abilities to every character class / skill / archetype etc. And, mostly, to put tactics and player rather than character choices at the heart of every resolution mechanic.
I was just wondering if this was a necessary thing, or even a good thing?

If you still don’t get what I am trying to say I am sorry, I am not trying to be obtuse, feel free to ask me any specific questions you like so I can help clarify it further.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-18, 06:54 PM
I was making a concession, I was agreeing with you. Surprising given that this was the internet I know...

That surprised me, yeah. People don't usually agree with me. :smalltongue:


I was saying that character creation is a mini-game and I had never thought about it before because I was so used to it.
Then I went on to say that I had been at least subconsciously aware of it, because I prefer character creation systems which are straightforward choices rather than gamey systems with dice rolls, strategy, trap choices, etc.

Ahhhh, I see what you mean now. So you tend to prefer character creation systems that are as uncomplicated and (and as un-minigame-y) as possible? That does make sense given what you've been saying thus far.


My main point with this thread is not to make an argument, or say that some systems are better than others, or that mini games are bad or anything of that sort. It was just an observation and I wanted to see other peoples opinions on it, not make an argument or to convince anyone of anything.
I have noticed a general trend in RPGs to have more detailed sub systems for every situation, to make all character archetypes equally complex, to give every character something to do in any situation, to add "interesting" feats and abilities to every character class / skill / archetype etc. And, mostly, to put tactics and player rather than character choices at the heart of every resolution mechanic.
I was just wondering if this was a necessary thing, or even a good thing?

I think it's only a good thing if there is choice. Choices mean that you don't have to be forced down one path, so I support minigames only when there's a choice to skip them without getting too hosed up in the long term. I don't think there's something inherently wrong with them, though. A lot of people like minigames, and while I agree that they shouldn't be forced on those who dislike them, I don't think they're inherently a bad thing.


If you still don’t get what I am trying to say I am sorry, I am not trying to be obtuse, feel free to ask me any specific questions you like so I can help clarify it further.

Well, what I get thus far is that you don't like too much complexity when it comes to a game, you prefer unobtrusive conflict resolution dynamics and you prefer something that's easy to use and doesn't get in the way of the story/fun. Is that correct?

Totally Guy
2012-05-19, 02:56 AM
And, mostly, to put tactics and player rather than character choices at the heart of every resolution mechanic.

I believe that the player has to make choices on behalf of the character.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion of what skills the player should be demonstrating, and being tested on, in the kind of gaming you like.

Talakeal
2012-05-19, 10:06 PM
I believe that the player has to make choices on behalf of the character.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion of what skills the player should be demonstrating, and being tested on, in the kind of gaming you like.


I don't really know. Something with rules that are clear and concise and not overly gimmicky or gamey.

AD&D was close, it just had too much wonky math, nonsensical restrictions, and lacked a unified mechanic.

Something where you could put as little or as much description into a scene as you were comfortable with, so a member of the debate team or improv group could act out face to face interactions, while a virgin basement dweller could just say "I tell the NPC what I want and what I have to offer and roll diplomacy". No player is going to be an expert in the same fields as their character after all.

Basically, I find myself writing systems that are a tabletop war game with an RP engine tacked on, because the audience, or at least the vocal internet majority, seems to demand a fully balanced system where everyone has something flashy and fun to do at all times and equal options. None of this adds much to, what I feel, is the core of the RPG and I am just wondering how necessary it is.

UserClone
2012-05-19, 10:36 PM
*shrugs* play Wushu?

Knaight
2012-05-19, 10:47 PM
I don't really know. Something with rules that are clear and concise and not overly gimmicky or gamey.

AD&D was close, it just had too much wonky math, nonsensical restrictions, and lacked a unified mechanic.

Something where you could put as little or as much description into a scene as you were comfortable with, so a member of the debate team or improv group could act out face to face interactions, while a virgin basement dweller could just say "I tell the NPC what I want and what I have to offer and roll diplomacy". No player is going to be an expert in the same fields as their character after all.

Basically, I find myself writing systems that are a tabletop war game with an RP engine tacked on, because the audience, or at least the vocal internet majority, seems to demand a fully balanced system where everyone has something flashy and fun to do at all times and equal options. None of this adds much to, what I feel, is the core of the RPG and I am just wondering how necessary it is.
Try (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) some (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/) of (http://www.peginc.com/shop/test-drive-savage-worlds-the-wild-hunt/) these (www.discreteinfinity.com/files/RPGs/ORE/NEMESIS/nemesisCspdf.pdf). I'd also link Chronica Feudalis, but it isn't free, even if it is absolutely perfect for you needs. As is, those four vary highly. Also the third includes a lot of superfluous stuff on top of the rules.

Totally Guy
2012-05-20, 02:00 AM
I think you are missing something from my question. Something fundamental to game design.

In your games of AD&D what skills of the player were being tested?

Common sense? Puzzle solving? Making difficult in-character choices? Giving convincing arguments? Creative combat description? The ability to build a character? Discovering where the story was? Making good story happen?

Even if it was a little of everything try and list out the qualities a good player would exhibit and could be tested on. AD&D was widely played and I can't assume completely why it was so good for you without this kind of information.

All you really said to me just then was about how one player could be tested on one thing and another player could be tested on something different.

Don't design for the internet majority. Do it for yourself.

Talakeal
2012-05-20, 03:59 PM
I think you are missing something from my question. Something fundamental to game design.

In your games of AD&D what skills of the player were being tested?

Common sense? Puzzle solving? Making difficult in-character choices? Giving convincing arguments? Creative combat description? The ability to build a character? Discovering where the story was? Making good story happen?

Even if it was a little of everything try and list out the qualities a good player would exhibit and could be tested on. AD&D was widely played and I can't assume completely why it was so good for you without this kind of information.

All you really said to me just then was about how one player could be tested on one thing and another player could be tested on something different.

Don't design for the internet majority. Do it for yourself.

I wasn't saying two players are tested on different things, I was saying a characterter could put in as much or as little detail as they felt comfortable with and not be punished by the system for it not being the right amount.

But as I said I am not sure exactly why I liked AD&D so much, that would take some serious soul searching. And I fully admit a lot of AD&D is just plain dumb, racial class restrictions, class proficiency restrictions, roll high for attack vs. low for skills, etc.

Also, it is good advice to design for myself not that majority, that is what I have been trying to do. But its hard, for every person like yourself who supports me on that, there are 20 who tell me I am an idiot who will never sell a single copy unless I try and pander to my audience.

Also, are you one of the Burning Wheel players? If so I have a question. Is it true that in that game no character detail matters unless you purchased it as an advantage? So if I go to the store to buy rope I can't tie someone up with it unless I purchased "Has Rope" as an advantage, or I can't crash on my parents couch if stranded in my hometown during a storm unless I bought "Generous Parents"? Because that is what I am told, and that gimmicky negation of basic RP is what has kept me from ordering the game (there aren't any copies for sale in my town) but I am not sure if that is actually part of the game or just internet exaggeration.

oxybe
2012-05-20, 05:26 PM
i would say it's more like you don't really gain much of a benefit without it. if you don't have the "skilled with rope" you can still tie up a guy, but if he's got a trait that could allow him to escape, he probably will.

i don't know much about rope myself, but i could tie someone up if needed. it'll be roughshod, but they'll be tied up. i'm sure if they're used to escaping my rather novice attempts wouldn't be any challenge for them.

as for the couch, they could give you a place to crash for the night but i wouldn't expect a royal treatment. a peanut butter sandwich and a spare blanket for your stay on the futon, but if it's more then "hey mom, i'm in town for a weekend for work, can i stay over for a night?" you're effectively mooching off of someone's good will while doing midnight raids on their fridge; at some point they'll snap unless they're feeling generous and they'll probably be adversarial in future meetings.

Devils_Advocate
2012-05-21, 09:48 AM
Totally Guy, you seem to assume that a roleplaying game is necessarily approached and appreciated as a type of challenge. To be blunt: Is it your theory that a group story-building activity is fun because of the ways in which it can go poorly for a player due to the player's lack of skill?

Some might contend that such things can only serve to prevent a roleplaying game from being fun. I remember reading an online discussion in which someone professed to be sick of needing to be "good" at playing Dungeons & Dragons.

One may value an RPG based on how easily it can be used to tell an entertaining story, in which case the focus is on lack of challenge, in a sense.

Now, challenging players certain ways may help them to create an entertaining story! But there's a difference between focusing on such challenges and focusing on the story. In the first case, the challenges themselves are regarded as fun, whereas in the second case they're seen more as means to an end. :smallwink:


Separately from the issue of challenge, (mini)games may be liked or disliked for their level of detail. There, I think that modeling a swordsman's every movement better suits the sort of player who wants to imagine actually being him; it's more "immersive", I think might be the term for it. Whereas a player more concerned with the broader details of her character's life might prefer to skip over such details; to partition her character's "lower-level" knowledge, perceptions, and so on off from her own; to interact with the story at a higher level of abstraction.

Totally Guy
2012-05-21, 11:31 AM
Do you belive that the player using the immersion you describe is itself a skill? I do. I believe it is the most desirable skill for the player to use in the right kind of game. I'm certain there are games that support that kind of play.

BW BS:
If your character wants to buy rope they can go into a store and buy some. The GM would then decide whether there is conflict to this or not. Is the game enhanced by the struggle to afford rope or is it not interesting? Would this scene hit on any of the beliefs or instincts? If the player had a belief about their poverty or an instinct to steal things then we’d definitely have conflict about it! Otherwise the rules support roleplaying out the scene without any dice rolls.

If it was a conflict the player should say how they plan on getting the rope. If they want to buy it the GM can interpret the task (buying) and the intent (getting rope) as a resources test. If the player passes the test using their resources attribute and any cash dice then they get rope without complication.

In D&D your ability to purchase rope is your money, and this is written on the character sheet. So it’s not an unusual situation.



If the player wants to visit their parents and they have parents listed on their character sheet the player can visit their parents when the situation is appropriate. If the sheet does not have a relationship then there is an attribute called Circles that can help. The player describes who they know and why they need them (and where from their pre-game life they know that person). The GM can then set a difficulty based on the description and if the player’s circles test meets it then the player gets what they were after. If the player fails the GM introduces a complication or a reason the person is not so friendly after all…

One time we had a city on fire and the wizard said he would contact his old master, from when he was an apprentice, who would make it rain torrents. He failed the roll and his old mentor showed up asking for a macguffin that had been destroyed many sessions prior and spent the rest of the campaign as the main antagonist!



The way you play your character has a bearing on how your character develops. After a story arc the other players suggest new potential traits for your character based on how you played them. This can highlight some aspect that came out at the table and not necessarily from the character sheet.