What makes a good System?
Josh Kablack
Okay I'm curious,
What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
systems?
Is anything the players (&GM) can get excited about a good system? Is
realism/genre simulation important? Does accessability to the neo-gamer
matter?
-josh
Brett Evill
In article <3432E1...@unix1.ccac.edu>, Josh Kablack
<jn...@unix1.ccac.edu> wrote:
>Okay I'm curious,
>
> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
>systems?
One shouldn't have to refer to the rulebooks during play.
--
Brett Evill
To reply, replace 'nospam' with 'b.evill' in the
email address <nos...@tyndale.apana.org.au>.
Bruce Sheffer
Brett Evill wrote:
>
> One shouldn't have to refer to the rulebooks during play.
>
against tables or are you saying that they should be printed on the
character sheet or are you making a distinction between required player
or gm lookups?
scott....@3do.com
>Okay I'm curious,
>
> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
>systems?
A sytem with a simple basic mechanic, possessing flexibility and
extensibility, and a capability to model some real world events. The
basic task resolution should be simple, direct, fast, and unbiassed, with
the option of adding modifiers to suit, in an easy and logivalmanner.
Qualitative results such as craft tasks,and damage,should be resolved
on a bell curve, and Quantitative results and "yes/no" results shouldbe
on a percentile basis. The system should not impede or deterr roleplay,
but also should not leave those incapable of it, unsupported and without
options (Roleplayed, versus Diced social skills).Currently there is no
such system. I prefer old Hero though, because i know it. FUZION is far
too cinematic and genre heavyfor my tastes, and it fails the "Unified
Theory" test.
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brett Evill
In article <61079j$ha7$1...@client2.news.psi.net>, Bruce Sheffer <"Bsheffer
"@ aol.com> wrote:
The games I prefer have no such tables: ForeSight, James Bond 007, GURPS,
Hero System... Each of these games has a single resolution system defined
by a rule rather than a table. There are stats for characters, vehicles,
weapons, armour, and so forth, but they go neatly on the character sheet,
and plug in to the resolution system in a systematice way. I understand
that even AD&D has gone over to this arrangement in 2nd edition, replacing
the 'To Hit Table' of yore.
IMHO table lookups are distracting and time-consuming, as are all rules
references. An RPG should ideally be playable with just the rules you can
remember.
Brett Evill
In article <6106s6$19ea$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>, BillS...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>A good system is one that a good GM uses. The effects of a good GM
>account for at least 75% of the success of a campaign. The rules
>don't matter all that much.
If the system requires to be overruled, modified, or ignored then it is
not a good system.
A good GM can do without a system altogether. To qualify as 'good' a
system has to add something which GMing alone cannot do, at least without
great effort.
Brett Evill
>In article <3432E1...@unix1.ccac.edu>, Josh Kablack
><jn...@unix1.ccac.edu> wrote:
>
>>Okay I'm curious,
>>
>> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
>>systems?
>
>A sytem with a simple basic mechanic, possessing flexibility and
>extensibility, and a capability to model some real world events. The
>basic task resolution should be simple, direct, fast, and unbiassed, with
>the option of adding modifiers to suit, in an easy and logivalmanner.
>Qualitative results such as craft tasks,and damage,should be resolved
>on a bell curve, and Quantitative results and "yes/no" results shouldbe
>on a percentile basis. The system should not impede or deterr roleplay,
>but also should not leave those incapable of it, unsupported and without
>options (Roleplayed, versus Diced social skills).Currently there is no
>such system. I prefer old Hero though, because i know it. FUZION is far
>too cinematic and genre heavyfor my tastes, and it fails the "Unified
>Theory" test.
James Bond 007 and ForeSight meet your criteria. The resolution system
skews rather than shifts the bell curve for qualitative results, but you
didn't ask for a symmetrical bell curve anyway.
Brett Evill
In article <610qsr$1ejk$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>, BillS...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>In article <nospam-0310...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>,
nos...@tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) writes:
>|> In article <6106s6$19ea$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>,
BillS...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>|>
>|> >A good system is one that a good GM uses. The effects of a good GM
>|> >account for at least 75% of the success of a campaign. The rules
>|> >don't matter all that much.
>|>
>|> If the system requires to be overruled, modified, or ignored then it is
>|> not a good system.
>|>
>|> A good GM can do without a system altogether. To qualify as 'good' a
>|> system has to add something which GMing alone cannot do, at least without
>|> great effort.
>
>But then the system that the GM is using is "overruled, modified, and
>ignored X" and not "X" itself and my statement is still valid. If you
>have a not-so-good GM then the game is going to be not-so-good whether
>he uses Spawn of Fashun, GURPS, AD&D, or Fairy: the Cobbling. The game
>system is like the icing on the cake to toss in the requisite analogy.
Then you agree that some game systems are bad. You just think that a good
GM doesn't use them.
Mark Grundy
Josh wrote:
| What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
|systems?
| Is anything the players (&GM) can get excited about a good system? Is
|realism/genre simulation important? Does accessability to the neo-gamer
|matter?
Do you have an opinion yourself, Josh? What interests you about
this issue?
For me, a good system is one that frees me from thinking about stuff
I don't want to think about, while supporting the stuff I do want to
think about, and helping me communicate those things to the rest of the
group, without asking us to do more than we want to at the time.
What systems work best for a game depends on what I want to do, and
who the group is. Most of the games I do are designed by theme and
genre, and my personal preference is for systems that will support that.
Because I like to focus a lot on dialogue and narrative in play, I like
systems that don't take a lot of time to use or interpret, and that
simplify or abstract stuff we don't care about. In consequence, the
systems I use are often `unrealistic' or `incomplete' in some areas
where the story doesn't focus.
Group comfort and familiarity are important too. If you present
your story ideas through mechanics that players aready know, you get
better communication. When I'm introducing a new system to players, I
often include a low-stress scene whose main purpose is to exercise the
mechanics. This helps so players know what to do in more critical
scenes later on.
---
Dr Mark Grundy, Dept. Comp. Science, Ph: +61-2-6249 3785
Researcher, Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-2-6249 0010
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy
ANU 0200 Australia Email: Mark....@anu.edu.au
ErolB1
Brett Evill wrote:
>In article <3432E1...@unix1.ccac.edu>, Josh Kablack
><jn...@unix1.ccac.edu> wrote:
>
>>Okay I'm curious,
>>
>> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
>>systems?
>
>One shouldn't have to refer to the rulebooks during play.
Two people could agree with this statement and still have disagreements over
what it means.
For example, I'm a player in a fairly new Champions campaign. In the past
couple of sessions, play slowed down because I had to look stuff up in the
rulebook.
Is this a weakness of the Champions rule set? Or is it a weakness of myself as
a player, that I haven't memorized the rules? The esthetic of our gaming group
is that Champions is only a *moderately* complex system, and that it is not
unreasonable for players to memorize it
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow.
Dave Nalle
> Brett Evill wrote:
> >
> > One shouldn't have to refer to the rulebooks during play.
> >
> Since most games have some kinds of tables for resolution are you
> against tables or are you saying that they should be printed on the
> character sheet or are you making a distinction between required player
> or gm lookups?
I can't speak for any other games, but the only table used in Ysgarth during
play is so simple that players have it memorized by the end of their first
session. I think that might be the kind of thing Brett was talking about.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Scriptorium Fonts & Graphic Arts:http://ragnarokpress.com/scriptorium
Ysgarth RPG Site: http://www.ragnarokpress.com/ragnarok/ysgarth
Dave Nalle
In article <nospam-0310...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>,
nos...@tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> >But then the system that the GM is using is "overruled, modified, and
> >ignored X" and not "X" itself and my statement is still valid. If you
> >have a not-so-good GM then the game is going to be not-so-good whether
> >he uses Spawn of Fashun, GURPS, AD&D, or Fairy: the Cobbling. The game
> >system is like the icing on the cake to toss in the requisite analogy.
>
> Then you agree that some game systems are bad. You just think that a good
> GM doesn't use them.
To which I have to add that the fact that a good GM may not use the rule
system doesn't excuse the system from being bad. The game system is there
for the players as well, and it is also there for the GM to fall back on
when he needs to. If what the players are using for reference or the GM
is using to fall back on or save time, doesn't match what he's doing
himself or just doesn't work, then there's a real problem.
ErolB1
Josh Kablack wrote:
> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
>systems?
My $0.02: A "good system" is one that fits the GM's (and players') style and
the type of campaign being run with a minimum of modification. GM's and
players may prefer to run "tight to the mechanics" or "loose to the
mechanics", they may be Gamists, Dramatists, or Simulationists, they may want
a gritty "realistic" setting or an un-gritty "cinematic" setting, they may
want a high-powered setting or a low-powered one, they may want to include or
exclude various sorts of "brain candy": Magic, psionics, superhuman powers,
nifty gadgets, superhuman combat ability, etc.
A good game system is one that's "the right tool for the job."
Dave Nalle
> Okay I'm curious,
>
> What characteristics of a role-playing game make for better or worse
> systems?
Allowing players to create and play interesting characters in a
stimulating setting without unnecessary intrusion of mechanics into the
process of play.
It's a lot easier to define what screws up a system if you want specifics.
Dave Nalle
> A good system is one that a good GM uses. The effects of a good GM
> account for at least 75% of the success of a campaign. The rules
> don't matter all that much.
I'd argue that once rules reach a certain level of playability this is true,
but poor rules can undo a lot of the work of any but the best GMs when in
the hands of abusive or simply inexperienced players.
Mary K. Kuhner
I'm mainly a simulationist with some leanings in the other directions,
and run mainly lengthy but not at all Extended campaigns, so watch out
for bias here....
In article <87610158...@pasteur.dialix.com.au> brad...@pasteur.dialix.com (Daniel Bradshaw) writes:
>What aspects of a system would Simulationints enjoy?
No flabby bits, such as "Why can't a mage learn to use a sword? Well,
um, large amounts of metal interfere with magic" unless that rule is
going to be implemented throughout the setting (i.e. you can stop a
mage from using magic by loading him up with a sword's worth of metal).
In general, careful attention to internal consistency.
Careful match of system to setting depicted, so that no part of the
system clashes or has to be worked around: for example, if combat in
the setting is lethal, the combat system shoud be lethal, and conversely
if it isn't.
Some attention to making the system produce "realistic" results, though
how important this is really depends on the simulationist.
>What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
Plenty of opportunity for flair: the system should encourage the
interesting, not the routine. Feng Shui's stunt rules are a good
example.
Streamlined mechanics to speed play. (People from all corners often
want this, but I think it is particularly essential for a dramatist.)
For some dramatists, at least, plenty of room for interpretation
rather than a hard-and-fast rule: a fumble table which says
"embarrassing disaster" rather than one that says "Drop weapon; spend
next two rounds recovering it; -2 to AV" or some such.
For some dramatists, mechanics which encourage player participation in
story authorship, such as plot points or shared world responsibility.
>What aspects of a system would Gamists enjoy?
Good game balance, so that you can design and play characters with
confidence that you aren't breaking anything, and can even test the
limits fairly safely.
Scope for tactical decision-making: variety of options both in
character generation and in play.
Elegant-feeling mechanics: smart use of dice, sound statistical
properties, etc. (I learned a lot of Hero system mechanics because
it's so nicely designed, even though I have never played it and
probably never will.)
Diversity in opponents and challenges possible.
>What types of systems are good for extended-generational campaigns?
As Brian has been saying, you need an experience system that won't
fight back, and that allows for characters of differing power level
to work together without the system getting in the way.
Really solid rules for study and training, and probably also for
magical research.
Good setting material capable of surviving extended scrutiny.
>What types of systems are good for campaign play?
Room for characters to change and grow without breaking the system.
Advancement needs to be possible for a long campaign, but not so
fast that characters become overpowered, and it needs not to cause
characters to homogenize.
Scope for a wide variety of different kinds of characters.
No flabby bits in the rules or setting; again, long campaigns focus
too much attention on these things.
>What types of systems are good for one-off adventures?
Fast character generation that produces the character the player
wants *now*, not an undifferentiated character who'd need advancement to
really shine.
Simple mechanics, especially if the group changes system often.
Easy to grasp archetypes or templates for people who need help coming up
with a character quickly.
If the game is a one-shot because of time constraints (i.e. a convention
game) mechanics which resolve fast enough that the game can actually
be finished in the available time.
Just some ideas--I'm sure there are others.
I had an interesting experience with Feng Shui. For what it's designed
for--fairly dramatist action-adventure--it works really well. I was
therefore willing to consider running a more standard campaign (my
usual weak-simulation style) using those mechanics. Didn't work.
The main, though not only, problem was that if I'm designing an NPC
in a simulationist game, I will think what his stats should be, then
what his skill bonus should be, and from that determine his AV (the
sum which is actually used in combat). The problem is that
this produces widely varying results, and it's very easy to wipe out
the PCs because you happened to think that someone was, say, rather
more agile than his fellows, and gave him a couple extra points of
Reflex and the same skill bonus. A couple of points' difference in AV
makes a *huge* difference in combat capability. One ought, instead,
to pick the AV desired for an NPC and then hack his stats and/or skills
to fit; but this offended my simulationist esthetics. I've given up
on the system for this kind of game, though I still run and enjoy it for
dramatist ones.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Dave Nalle
In article <87610158...@pasteur.dialix.com.au>,
brad...@pasteur.dialix.com (Daniel Bradshaw) wrote:
> What aspects of a system would Simulationints enjoy?
> What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
> What aspects of a system would Gamists enjoy?
Excuse me for my ignoranc, but I've been off the group for a while...
Are these three classifications now being used as the ultimate standard
for defining styles of roleplaying, or are there more?
Because from what I understand of the definition of these three terms,
NONE of them comes even close to defining the style of roleplaying I
prefer.
Or maybe I just don't understand the classifications. Where do you fit if
you believe that the definition and development character is the most
important part of roleplaying, followed by the interaction between the
characters and between the characters and the world, not in a dramatic
fashion, but in more of a group storytelling-style?
Hope I described that adequately. To my mind it has some small elements
of Simulationist, nothing of Gamist and virtually nothing of Dramatist,
which suggests that something is missing from that set of classifications.
Mark Grundy
brad...@pasteur.dialix.com (Daniel Bradshaw) writes:
| How about some aspects of these different styles which makes a
| particular system of the same style better than another. For
| instance:
| What aspects of a system would Simulationints enjoy?
| What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
| What aspects of a system would Gamists enjoy?
I felt that these questions could be fraught with peril, since
people with similar styles can have wildly different opinions on the
right game system. So I'd like to rephrase these questions a bit before
offering some ideas. Here are my rephrases.
* How do game mechanics help simulation?
* How can game mechanics contribute to strong drama?
* How can a system help the group maintain and monitor play balance, and
appropriate challenge levels?
And a couple of extra questions: when do these features clash or
fail and why? And what can be done to prevent it?
For the purpose of this article, I'd like to describe game mechanics
in this way:
Mechanics are any system or method that helps describe or determine
the events and objects in a play world symbolically, rather than
depictively.
So, this definition includes things like dice, cards, stats,
formulae, hex sheets, counters and their usual rules for use. It
doesn't include verbal character descriptions, narrative, character
drawings, or dialogue in their usual uses.
How you use something in the game will determine if it's a mechanic
or not according to this definition. If you use a lead figure to depict
a character's apearance, then the figure isn't being used as a mechanic.
But if you use the same lead figure on a tactical map, then it has
symbolic as well as depictive meaning, and its symbolic meaning is what
makes it part of a mechanic.
Basic Uses of Mechanics
From this definition, the basic use of game mechanics is to strip
unwanted detail -- that is what symbols do. By eliminating depiction,
and sticking with just symbols, we can take a complex event that might
take hours to describe depictively, and simplify it to just those bits
that communicate the essential ideas that relate to significant
outcomes.
Consider a barroom brawl. Depictively, every pot, every pan, every
knothole in the wood panelling, every stick of furniture, every item of
clothing on every person in the fight; every smell, every sound, every
facial expression is important. But in deciding significant outcomes,
you really just care about who'll be doing what, how well they'll be
doing it, and what they'll be doing it with. So our mechanics can help
us simplify the scene by classifying it: fighters, bystanders, terrain,
weapons, and the combat characteristics of each. We don't worry about
the pots and pans unless they'll be used as a weapon. We don't
represent facial details or clothes in the mechanics unless they'll
somehow affect the outcome of the fight. By turning a depiction into a
piece of machinery, we simplify and abstract to the point where we can:
* separate the significant detail from the insignificant detail
* classify the significant detail into simpler, more managable chunks
* devise plausible outcomes based on the detail we've identified
In a nutshell, these are the main uses of game mechanics. Whatever
else mechanics may do, if they don't help you identify and summarise
significant detail, and if they don't lead you to invent plausible
outcomes reliably, then they won't be working for you *as mechanics*.
Mechanics and Simulation
In choosing the right mechanics from a simulation point of view, you
first have to decide for yourself what the significant detail really is,
and what outcomes you want mechanics to decide. This depends on the
game, and how you want to play it. For example, character strength is a
common mechanical abstraction in roleplaying -- it's a summary of the
whole of the character's physiology and metabolism as it applies to
moving mass around. But in a game where lifting and hitting things
isn't seen as important, a strength stat isn't a useful mechanic. So
the right choice of mechanic depends on the right choice of significant
detail for the game. This ties back to the game concept, and the play
contract itself. Whatever is in the mechanics implicitly defines part
of the play contract, and help communicate to the group what is
important in the game.
When you don't need game mechanics
If you already have a process to separate the significant detail
from the insignificant detail in the depiction, and if the group already
knows how to decide which outcomes are reasonable, and if there's a
decision process that lets you determine which of the reasonable
outcomes to choose, then you don't need mechanics. Or put more
cautiously: you don't need any *more* mechanics than whatever you may be
using. Many groups who run `diceless' or `systemless' games have well
established procedures for identifying significant detail, deciding
whether outcomes are reasonable, and choosing those outcomes in a way
that's acceptable to the group. It's academic whether such procedures
are or aren't `game mechanics' in the sense described above. Some
people like to argue one way; some like to argue the other.
How much detail don't you need?
A good starting point is to assume that the mechanics only need as
much detail as will distinguish different significant outcomes. If you
use more detail than this, then it pays to ask yourself: why? Why have
one hundred different possible outcomes when six might do? Why roll
twelve dice when two or three might do? Do you need so many hit
locations? So many hit points? Can you find ways to add less numbers
together, turn less pages in the rule book, spend less time processing
the mechanics, and more time on the story? Sometimes there are good
reasons for retaining detail (eg, see my comments on `drama' below).
But often, you can profitably do with basic mechanics what good editors
do with writing -- slash, simplify and summarise.
When a flaw isn't a flaw
Arguments about what mechanics simulate stuff best are probably the
silliest arguments in roleplaying. Like sports or political arguments,
everyone has a favourite view, but what is seldom admitted is that
mechanics are personal tools for specific jobs, not universal solutions
to every problem. The tool has to fit the hand that wields it, and has
to suit the purpose of the wielder. For any mechanic, you can find a
need it fulfills, and a need that it doesn't. Rather than worshipping
hammers and decrying screwdrivers, it makes sense to respect a hammer
for its ability to drive nails, and a screwdriver for its ability to
drive screws, and let your hand become familiar with each, and use
whatever tool suits your purpose at the time.
Mechanics and Drama
Historically, there's often been tension between mechanics and drama
in roleplay. This section tries to put a finger on why this tension has
occurred, and what we can do about it.
Here are four basic ways that mechanics can undercut the drama of a
game:
* They don't summarise effectively. (Eg, too many stats, rolls etc..
too much detail in the outcome. The role of mechanics is to
*simplify* depiction; not to make it more complicated.)
* They're used to summarise things that would better have been depicted.
(Eg, the group already *knows* the right outcome, but rolls the dice
anyway).
* They give rise to outcomes that are implausible, or hard to depict.
(Eg: critical failures at the wrong times, outcomes that don't capture
anyone's imagination)
* The players don't understand the mechanics, or how they relate to the
depiction. (Eg: too much jargon in play)
Crucial to getting the mechanics to *help* the drama, not hinder it,
is to make the mechanics work properly as mechanics in the first place
-- bad simulation makes for bad drama. Unfortunately, good simulation
alone doesn't make for *good* drama. To get the drama from the
mechanics, the mechanics must fit into the group's purpose -- as a
means, not an end. More than that, every outcome determined by the
mechanics must be depictable and *relevant* to play in the mind of the
GM, and also in the mind of every player.
Benefits
Once you've dealt with the dramatic risks of game mechanics, you can
think about the dramatic benefits -- and potentially, there are many.
Game mechanics can lead you to creative leaps you wouldn't have
considered otherwise. They can add to tension and suspense in the game.
They help the players all focus on the same thing, and establish a
common, concise language for communication. They help set a pacing and
a flavour for the game. They help players remember what's *important*
about their characters, and play to it consistently.
There's a creative side to mechanics, as well as an analytic side,
and this is where group preference and `look and feel' become important.
As mentioned earlier, the _sine qua non_ of mechanics is its symbolism
and determination of consequences. But there's also a depictive and
aesthetic side to mechanics that makes all the difference to play
enjoyment. The shape of dice, images on cards, the shape and layout of
a character sheet, the painting on figures, the colours on a map; the
way that people play with these things and relate to them as they play,
all help create the flavour of the game, and help add to the mystique
and drama of roleplaying. Here's an example:
My group are now all used to drawing tarot at times in the game when
they want a wild, random, creative input into the story. They do it to
help them decide character responses; they urge me to do it to generate
NPCs at times, or prophecies or NPC responses; it's fun. Drawing tarot
has a certain ritual to it -- the shuffling of the deck, the quiet and
seriousness of the group as they watch; the thinking and discussion that
occurs afterwards. Somehow, it all adds to the drama. We use different
decks, depending on what game we're playing -- each deck has different
images, that often depict elements of our game. Each deck has exactly
the same number of cards in, with nearly identical symbolic meanings, so
by rights we could as easily roll dice and just look the result up in a
book. In practice though, we like the drama of doing it by cards.
Depiction is important.
Game Mechanics and Game Balance
If you begin with the idea that mechanics summarise ideas important
to outcomes in the game, then it's clear that they can be a valuable
tool in helping to measure who's contributing to which game outcomes.
It was mentioned earlier that the mechanics are part of the play
contract. Part of a successful play contract is to state clearly what
will be important in the game -- ie, what kinds of outcomes and
opportunities the game will support. Since mechanics represent some of
these important things, it makes sense for players and GMs alike to use
mechanics to help assess play contributions, challenges and game
balance. Here are some basic techniques:
* Map out the significant skills and abilities of each character, and
make sure that they're relevant to the plot, don't overlap each other
too much, and don't leave any unfilled holes. Also, that every major
strength or ability can actually be *used* in a significant way in the
game.
* Map out the significant weaknesses and vulnerabilities of each
character and ensure that they're not an impediment to the purposes of
play, or that they don't conflict with other characters. Also, to
ensure that interesting weaknesses can be supported by the game.
* Compare the strengths and weaknesses of Game Master characters and
game situations with the strengths and weaknesses of player
characters, to ensure that players really *can* get the outcomes and
opportunities that were agreed in the play contract.
* Reflect character development and growth to help document player
progress toward particular play goals.
Risks
The risk of relying too heavily on game mechanics to ensure game
balance is the same risk we face in relying on laws to always deliver
justice. The mechanics are not a complete description of the game.
They're just a summary of those important game elements that you've
chosen to summarise. There may be elements for which there are *no*
mechanics, and these may be equally important in the equity, opportunity
and balance of the game. For example, all characters may have
comparable stats and get equal experience points, treasure and items in
play, but one player may be hogging the limelight. This may be
inequitable even if the mechanics don't reflect it.
When players have more faith in the mechanics than the play contract
as a tool for game control, then there's also the risk of cheating. If
the play purpose is clear, if what it takes to gain certain outcomes is
well understood, then cheating at mechanics isn't a problem. But if
mechanics dominate over good sense; if rules are more important than the
people and their play contributions, then mechanics cheating becomes a
risk. If you *do* get mechanics cheating in your group, I'd like to
suggest that the best way to approach it is not by enshrining the
mechanics as sacrosanct and undefileable, but to rely *less* on
mechanics, and think more about your play contract, and what keeps the
players playing the game.
Conclusion
This article has provided a basic functional definition of a game
mechanic, and related the definition to the aspects in each of the three
categories. It's a broad-brush perspective, and hopefully readers may
find gaps to fill in, or questions to prompt further development. There
are also bits that could be extended if there is interest. For
instance: anecdotes on how to tell when the game system isn't working;
ways to use different kinds of probability distributions effectively;
practical examples on how to configure a commercial game system to your
group's purpose; how to simplify a complicated game system; ideas about
when to apply mechanics and when not; strategies for dealing with
cheats; how to use multilevel mechanics for different game purposes (eg
compressed time mechanics, extended time mechanics); care and feeding of
your play contract -- what things should you encapsulate in mechanics;
what things should you leave to plot and play agreement?
--
Mark Grundy
In followup to Daniel Bradshaw's questions, I wrote:
| * How do game mechanics help simulation?
| * How can game mechanics contribute to strong drama?
| * How can a system help the group maintain and monitor play balance, and
| appropriate challenge levels?
I've since reposted this article under the subject `Mechanics and
Threefold Considerations' -- please post any followups there.
---
Brett Evill
In article <61blkd$a...@alcor.anu.edu.au>, ma...@cs.anu.edu.au (Mark
Grundy) wrote:
> Mechanics are any system or method that helps describe or determine
> the events and objects in a play world symbolically, rather than
> depictively.
>
> So, this definition includes things like dice, cards, stats,
> formulae, hex sheets, counters and their usual rules for use. It
> doesn't include verbal character descriptions, narrative, character
> drawings, or dialogue in their usual uses.
>
> How you use something in the game will determine if it's a mechanic
> or not according to this definition. If you use a lead figure to depict
> a character's apearance, then the figure isn't being used as a mechanic.
> But if you use the same lead figure on a tactical map, then it has
> symbolic as well as depictive meaning, and its symbolic meaning is what
> makes it part of a mechanic.
<snip>
> If you begin with the idea that mechanics summarise ideas important
> to outcomes in the game, then it's clear that they can be a valuable
> tool in helping to measure who's contributing to which game outcomes.
> It was mentioned earlier that the mechanics are part of the play
> contract. Part of a successful play contract is to state clearly what
> will be important in the game -- ie, what kinds of outcomes and
> opportunities the game will support. Since mechanics represent some of
> these important things, it makes sense for players and GMs alike to use
> mechanics to help assess play contributions, challenges and game
> balance.
A friend of mine named Sean Case once said "RPG rules contain three
things: representation systems, resolution systems, and vague waffle about
role-playing". I think he would add now "and, all too often, background
material".
Under Mark's definition the resolution systems are almost always
mechanics, and the background material and vague waffle are almost always
not mechanics. The representation systems, on the other had, are a kind of
assembly language between depictive and symbolic representational
description. They are prone to be used both in abstraction and depiction.
The effect can sometimes be seen in the slang of role-playing groups: One
gang with who I often play are in the habit of describing the characters
and actions of movies in the terms of the 'Hero System' character
representation system. Another group uses the syntax of the ForeSight
equipment representation system to describe meals, people, nationalities,
etc. Eg: one might call cranberry juice 'tart, flat, red Coke', or coffee
'hot, flat, dry Coke with cream and two sugars'.
More importantly, representation systems are used in game and metagame
activities to communicate parts of the group contract, and to describe
characters: not just their capabilities (except in very austere games
designs), but also something of their nature. This is the reason that I
often refer to a game's character representation system as a 'character
description language'.
Anyway. The character representation system of an RPG is necessarily both
depictive and abstracting. It is used both for communication among the
players and for communication between the players and the resolution
system.
There is also an important sense in which the resolutions systems of a
game are descriptive tools. When a GM offers a ForeSight game, for
instance, he or she is telling the players a great deal about the game
world, the nature of causality, and the types of outcomes the characters
will face. Game system has important effects on tone and mood, and thus
partially defines genre. It also contrains character concept, more or
less.
If a player were to generate a character on the basis that the Hero System
rules were to be used, and then found that the GM was making realistic
adjudications instead of using the Champions resolution procedures, that
player might well be justified in feeling that he or she had been gravely
misled. Not because he or she had cynically exploited a loophole in Hero
System, but because he or she had conceived of a character having features
implied by the resolution system, and the GM had changed the universe
without telling.
--
Brett Evill
To reply, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Brian Gleichman
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote in article
<619u70$a01$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <87610158...@pasteur.dialix.com.au>
brad...@pasteur.dialix.com (Daniel Bradshaw) writes:
> >What types of systems are good for extended-generational campaigns?
As the self proclaimed local expert (for the short term in any event) on
Extended-Generational campaigns, I just had to say something.
But Mary beat me to most of it.
I just have a few things to say.
Mary's comments on campaign play would also apply in spades to
Extended-Generational ones as well.
The following is a result of my own experience:
I think Mary's comments on Simulationist and Gamist also apply.
Avoiding clashes between system and world, and being consistent are very
important to long term SOD. The system should limit these as much as
possible.
The Gamist values keep things in check and interesting in the long haul.
Lots of options here keep away the 'been there, done that' problem. And few
things are worse than trying to repair a campaign tossed out of balance
(people lose interest is things go badly out of balance).
And of course, the whole concept of play the interesting stuff and compress
the dull- is a Story one. But I don't see much of the rest of Mary's
statement on drama applying.
It would be interesting if anyone could maintain an extended generational
campaign without being closer to the middle of the Threefold than any of
the corners.
Theoretically, it should be possible. For me, the conflicting requirements
pushed me right into the center of the Threefold.
Brett Evill
>In followup to Daniel Bradshaw's questions, I wrote:
>
>| * How do game mechanics help simulation?
>| * How can game mechanics contribute to strong drama?
>| * How can a system help the group maintain and monitor play balance, and
>| appropriate challenge levels?
>
> I've since reposted this article under the subject `Mechanics and
> Threefold Considerations' -- please post any followups there.
Okay.
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 6 Oct 1997 05:50:24 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>>What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
>
>Plenty of opportunity for flair: the system should encourage the
>interesting, not the routine. Feng Shui's stunt rules are a good
>example.
>
>Streamlined mechanics to speed play. (People from all corners often
>want this, but I think it is particularly essential for a dramatist.)
>
>For some dramatists, at least, plenty of room for interpretation
>rather than a hard-and-fast rule: a fumble table which says
>"embarrassing disaster" rather than one that says "Drop weapon; spend
>next two rounds recovering it; -2 to AV" or some such.
>
>For some dramatists, mechanics which encourage player participation in
>story authorship, such as plot points or shared world responsibility.
I guess I'm OK with understanding Drama this way. But the kind of
concerns which you describe above strike me as orthagonal to another
kind of dramatic game.
I would say that this other style of dramatic wants the following
things:
A setting and rules system which permit strong and deep
characterization--that is because the "drama" will come from some sort
of conflict between the characer/protagonist and an antagonist--and
for that conflict to be meaningful and interesting, on the whole, you
need to have a robust character.
I guess it seems to me that everything else will be secondary to this.
A dramatic game (by this one definition) is one in which a story
results from some conflict between the stuff that matters to the
character and some opposing force in the setting (or even in the
character). A *good* dramatic game will be one in which this conflict
is interesting or deep or compelling in some fashion. The story may
emerge from this conflict organically, or it may be carefully
orchestrated by the GM. I prefer in my dramatic games that it emerge
organically from the choices of the players and the logic of the
setting, but no one says you *have* to proceed that way . . .
Depending on the story, you may or may not want a powerfully detailed,
simulatuionist setting. I don't see any necessary contradiction
between a simulationist game, in which the stuff happening in the
setting proceeds from the internal logic of the setting, on the whole,
and dramatic games. However, not all dramatic games will be
simulationist--it takes some work to set up a dramatic game in a
simulationist setting, since the drama has to be frontloaded, so to
speak, in much the same fashion that a LARP is written.
I think it often helps a dramatic game to have flexible rules which
leave a wide latitude to GM and player interpretation. But this is
not required, it seems to me. For some styles of dramatic game this
may even be a liability.
In the way of thinking about drama I outline above, I don't think
"flair" is especially relevant.
What *does* matter is that the game permit scope to define and express
character, since the story emerges from the conflict, and the conflict
only has the potential to be dramatic in an RPG to the extent that it
matters to the character.
I hope it is clear that all of my references to drama above refer to
this one particular way of thinking about drama--there are, as John
Kim has pointed out, numerous ways to think about this, and to use the
word. (This last is a comment for Brian Gleichman especially, who
seems to need help in reading.)
My best,
Kevin
kos
Mark Grundy wrote:
> | What aspects of a system would Simulationints enjoy?
> | What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
> | What aspects of a system would Gamists enjoy?
>
> I felt that these questions could be fraught with peril, since
> people with similar styles can have wildly different opinions on the
> right game system. So I'd like to rephrase these questions a bit before
> offering some ideas. Here are my rephrases.
>
> * How do game mechanics help simulation?
> * How can game mechanics contribute to strong drama?
> * How can a system help the group maintain and monitor play balance, and
> appropriate challenge levels?
Well, my original questions were fraught with peril, as you say. Hopefully
this would encourage people to share their opinions for the benefit of all. I
suppose that your questions are more presice, however.
> Here are four basic ways that mechanics can undercut the drama of a
> game:
>
> * They don't summarise effectively. (Eg, too many stats, rolls etc..
> too much detail in the outcome. The role of mechanics is to
> *simplify* depiction; not to make it more complicated.)
>
> * They're used to summarise things that would better have been depicted.
> (Eg, the group already *knows* the right outcome, but rolls the dice
> anyway).
>
> * They give rise to outcomes that are implausible, or hard to depict.
> (Eg: critical failures at the wrong times, outcomes that don't capture
> anyone's imagination)
>
> * The players don't understand the mechanics, or how they relate to the
> depiction. (Eg: too much jargon in play)
I would include:
* They can take too long to use/calculate, and thus break the flow of play.
>Risks
>
> When players have more faith in the mechanics than the play contract
> as a tool for game control, then there's also the risk of cheating. If
> the play purpose is clear, if what it takes to gain certain outcomes is
> well understood, then cheating at mechanics isn't a problem. But if
> mechanics dominate over good sense; if rules are more important than the
> people and their play contributions, then mechanics cheating becomes a
> risk. If you *do* get mechanics cheating in your group, I'd like to
> suggest that the best way to approach it is not by enshrining the
> mechanics as sacrosanct and undefileable, but to rely *less* on
> mechanics, and think more about your play contract, and what keeps the
> players playing the game.
A problem that comes up for me is when the rules define a particular mechanic
for resolving an action, and then the GM disregards it and decides
arbitrarily. An example is when the rules say that a character should make a
perception check to see if he is surprised by an ambush attack, but the GM
just says that the characters are automatically surprised (or not surprised,
as the case may be). The problem is not in the decision, since if there were
no mechanics described in the rules, then it would be left to the GM to
decide.
I suppose the question is: Is it acceptable for the GM to ignore rules which
are described in the rules set which has been agreed upon to use?
A lot of the time, situations arise like this where the GM would automatically
give the characters a positive result to fit the storyline. An example would
be if the characters should make a test to spot an important clue, but the GM
just tells them outright that they spotted it.
Do other people consider this a good GMing technique (to keep the storyline
going) or poor GMing technique (because the story can't handle an alternate
possibility)?
>Conclusion
I'd be interested in what you have to say about the following:
> anecdotes on how to tell when the game system isn't working;
> ideas about when to apply mechanics and when not to
kos
---
Mark Grundy
brad...@pasteur.dialix.com (Daniel Bradshaw) wrote:
| * What aspects of a system would Simulationints enjoy?
| * What aspects of a system would Dramatists enjoy?
| * What aspects of a system would Gamists enjoy?
gra...@ccsi.com (Dave Nalle) wrote:
: Are these three classifications now being used as the ultimate
: standard for defining styles of roleplaying, or are there more?
: Because from what I understand of the definition of these three terms,
: NONE of them comes even close to defining the style of roleplaying I
: prefer.
Some posters (I've been one of them) have argued that it makes more
sense to classify game elements than people. I don't have a single
style preference; different kinds of games need playing in different
ways, and the threefold model for me is just a model of the key game
issues we need to think about in any game as we work out how to play it.
Even players with strong game preferences will generally negotiate over
the play contract, so stereotyping people into categories seems a
pointless venture to me.
I spent some time ranting about this in other threads, but I don't
think it convinced anyone who wasn't already agreeing. :) So now, when
I see a posting like Daniel's, I don't complain -- I just convert it
into an equivalent but less divisive form:
* How does a system affect good simulation?
* How does a system affect strong drama?
* How does a system make a difference to fairness and game balance?
Once you strip the stereotyping, you get some good, meaty questions,
and I'm sure it was these sorts of issues that motivated Daniel to post
in the first place, so no harm done.
--
scott....@3do.com
In article <343b1752...@news.washingtonian.infi.net>,
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 1997 05:50:24 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
> (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
> >
> >Plenty of opportunity for flair: the system should encourage the
> >interesting, not the routine. Feng Shui's stunt rules are a good
> >example.
> >
> >Streamlined mechanics to speed play. (People from all corners often
> >want this, but I think it is particularly essential for a dramatist.)
> >
> >For some dramatists, at least, plenty of room for interpretation
> >rather than a hard-and-fast rule: a fumble table which says
> >"embarrassing disaster" rather than one that says "Drop weapon; spend
> >next two rounds recovering it; -2 to AV" or some such.
> >
> >For some dramatists, mechanics which encourage player participation in
> >story authorship, such as plot points or shared world responsibility.
>
It does, as you say, happen in simulationist games when youtake the time
to front load the campaign with conflicting elements. to me is is better
if the 'drama' and the character conflict grow organically from the
setting. Many GM's prefer to orchestrate this, butto me that has always
felt artificial, and 2 dimensional, or some way illogical. LARP set up
is a good analogy of it, and as a simulationist, this is how i try to
make the game 'not dull'. but after the set up, the player's are 70% or
moreof the motivasting energy.
> I think it often helps a dramatic game to have flexible rules which
> leave a wide latitude to GM and player interpretation. But this is
> not required, it seems to me. For some styles of dramatic game this
> may even be a liability.
>
> In the way of thinking about drama I outline above, I don't think
> "flair" is especially relevant.
Well the classification of 'Dramatist" here usually encompasses a style
with a resemblance to popular entertainments regardless of the effect on
world consistency, or setting depth.
>
> What *does* matter is that the game permit scope to define and express
> character, since the story emerges from the conflict, and the conflict
> only has the potential to be dramatic in an RPG to the extent that it
> matters to the character.
>
> I hope it is clear that all of my references to drama above refer to
> this one particular way of thinking about drama--there are, as John
> Kim has pointed out, numerous ways to think about this, and to use the
> word. (This last is a comment for Brian Gleichman especially, who
> seems to need help in reading.)
>
I do not think 'drama' and simulationism are incompatible, but
'Dramatist' as much of the list is coming to consensus on, is a style
more akin to 'Storytelling' than 'Wargaming' and tends to favor light
rules, and is tollerant of GM intrusion intoresults.
Mike Harvey
Brett Evill wrote:
>
> In article <6106s6$19ea$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>,
> BillS...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >A good system is one that a good GM uses. The effects of a good GM
> >account for at least 75% of the success of a campaign. The rules
> >don't matter all that much.
>
> is
> not a good system.
By this definition there are NO good systems, because every system fails
at some point and must be ignored or overruled. Even the laws of
physics must be overruled in a fantasy game which uses magic, so
real-world science is not a good system for some genres. The only good
system by this definition is "no system."
> A good GM can do without a system altogether. To qualify as 'good' a
> system has to add something which GMing alone cannot do, at least
> without
> great effort.
I can think of three things that a system can provide, which a GM cannot
provide:
(1) Impartiality. Nobody is truly impartial, and therefore all GM
decisions are influenced by their own likes, values, and beleifs. This
is not a bad thing, but sometimes impartiality is desirable, and for
that a system is indispensable. However, to be useful as an impartial
arbiter, a system must be consistent and believable, and also suited to
the genre and style of the game.
(2) Breadth. No one person (ie GM) is an expert on everything. One is
good with science, another with people, yet another with philosophy.
Those who appear to be broadly competent are generally just good at
faking it. A good system can provide support in areas where the GM's
knowledge is shallow and therefore underqualified to judge. There are
still two ways a GM can avoid needing a system to fill in the gaps:
first, he could concentrate on one particular aspect and simply ignore
or gloss over the rest; or, he can fake it with words and action (kind
of like a magician distracting the eye while performing some sleight of
hand). However, avoiding or hiding the holes does not mean they do not
exist.
(3) Mechanics. Some people just like to roll the dice... :-) It is
true that a systemless GM could have players roll dice anyway and
interpret them arbitrarily, but it does not feel the same when you know
the dice don't mean anything.
That said, I would submit that ANYONE can do without a system. It is
variously called storytelling or make-believe, and every child is an
expert at it. Some GMs are brilliant with diceless play, but get
hopelessly bogged down with rules. Others are brilliant with very
complex systems like AD&D or Rolemaster, but uncomfortable without any
structure. So I disagree with general statements like "a good GM can do
without a system".
Mike
Mary K. Kuhner
>In the way of thinking about drama I outline above, I don't think
>"flair" is especially relevant.
It may have been a bad choice of words: what I meant was "the system
shouldn't constrain the characters from doing the kinds of things they
ought to do, to meet the game's dramatic goals." A system in which
there is only one viable way to conduct a sword-fight, for example,
does not leave much scope for the character's personality to be
expressed in his fighting.
>What *does* matter is that the game permit scope to define and express
>character, since the story emerges from the conflict, and the conflict
>only has the potential to be dramatic in an RPG to the extent that it
>matters to the character.
Other than not unnecessarily constraining character actions, what can a
system actually do to help this?
I know a lot of people go in for character-definition mechanics, but in
my experience those are more useful in a gamist context than in a
dramatist one: they tend to codify and fix character too much for my
tastes in a dramatist game. (There will be exceptions, of course.)
Our games tend to be very heavily character driven, but I've
found system almost completely irrelevant to this. I play
much the same in AD&D, Storyteller, Shadowrun or our homebrew,
ignoring both the "help" Storyteller is supposed to be giving my
characterizations and the "hindrance" AD&D is commonly thought to give.
The key character in _Paradisio_, with 1/3 of the game taking place
almost entirely inside her head, was taken directly from a stock
Shadowrun archetype with one tag line and the personality of a cardboard
figure. (I have the cardboard figure right here to prove it.)
What kinds of rules or mechanics are you envisioning in aiding this kind
of drama?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Brett Evill
>I do not think 'drama' and simulationism are incompatible
On the contrary, good sim is *required* for SoD, an essential of good drama.
Brett Evill
In article <343BCCEC...@ccm.jf.intel.com>,
Michael...@ccm.jf.intel.com wrote:
No systems are impartial. The reflect the designers likes, values, and beliefs.
>(2) Breadth. No one person (ie GM) is an expert on everything. One is
>good with science, another with people, yet another with philosophy.
>Those who appear to be broadly competent are generally just good at
>faking it. A good system can provide support in areas where the GM's
>knowledge is shallow and therefore underqualified to judge. There are
>still two ways a GM can avoid needing a system to fill in the gaps:
>first, he could concentrate on one particular aspect and simply ignore
>or gloss over the rest; or, he can fake it with words and action (kind
>of like a magician distracting the eye while performing some sleight of
>hand). However, avoiding or hiding the holes does not mean they do not
>exist.
No system can be an expert on everything, and I have yet to encounter one
that has even the breadth I have.
>(3) Mechanics. Some people just like to roll the dice... :-) It is
>true that a systemless GM could have players roll dice anyway and
>interpret them arbitrarily, but it does not feel the same when you know
>the dice don't mean anything.
You don't need a system to play 'roll high is good'.
Dave Nalle
> Brett Evill wrote:
> >
> > In article <6106s6$19ea$1...@news.rchland.ibm.com>,
> > BillS...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > >A good system is one that a good GM uses. The effects of a good GM
> > >account for at least 75% of the success of a campaign. The rules
> > >don't matter all that much.
> >
> > If the system requires to be overruled, modified, or ignored then it
> > is
> > not a good system.
>
> By this definition there are NO good systems, because every system fails
> at some point and must be ignored or overruled. Even the laws of
> physics must be overruled in a fantasy game which uses magic, so
> real-world science is not a good system for some genres. The only good
> system by this definition is "no system."
I agree that his definition should be moderated. I think that it is a good
general idea, though. The question is how far you can go with the system
before it has to be overriden, and how accomodating the system is to GM
adjustment and modification. A very open system will need to be overriden
less often, and will be more compatible with GM modification. A very
restrictive system will need to be overriden sooner and will requiire more
and more modification once the GM gets started.
> > A good GM can do without a system altogether. To qualify as 'good' a
> > system has to add something which GMing alone cannot do, at least
> > without
> > great effort.
>
> I can think of three things that a system can provide, which a GM cannot
> provide:
>
> (1) Impartiality. Nobody is truly impartial, and therefore all GM
> decisions are influenced by their own likes, values, and beleifs. This
> is not a bad thing, but sometimes impartiality is desirable, and for
> that a system is indispensable. However, to be useful as an impartial
> arbiter, a system must be consistent and believable, and also suited to
> the genre and style of the game.
If this is a concern in your campaign no game system is going to fix it.
woodelf
In article <61h57b$h2t$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> Our games tend to be very heavily character driven, but I've
> found system almost completely irrelevant to this. I play
> much the same in AD&D, Storyteller, Shadowrun or our homebrew,
> ignoring both the "help" Storyteller is supposed to be giving my
> characterizations and the "hindrance" AD&D is commonly thought to give.
hmmm...i assume the "hindrances" of AD&D would be the alignment system.
what "help" is ST supposed to lend? the nature/demeanor/archetype/etc.
stuff? gnosis/rage/willpower (or pick your game of choice, of course)?
or something else that i'm completely missing? it seems to me that ST at
best gets out of the way when it comes to characterization, and at worst
cripples it with heavy-handed group stereotypes and unnecessarily
archetypal personality descriptors.
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
woo...@cs.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
Wouldn't it be awful if life *were* fair, and we really deserved all the
terrible things that happened to us? --Marcus Cole
woodelf
> Those who appear to be broadly competent are generally just good at
> faking it. A good system can provide support in areas where the GM's
hey! i resemble that remark! of course, in my case, it's merely a
resemblance, as i really *do* know everything. ;-)
Green must fight Purple. Purple must fight Green. Is only way.
--Green Drazi
Just my luck, I get stuck with a race that only speaks in macros.
--Ivanova
kos
Mark Grundy wrote:
> I spent some time ranting about this in other threads, but I don't
> think it convinced anyone who wasn't already agreeing. :) So now, when
> I see a posting like Daniel's, I don't complain -- I just convert it
> into an equivalent but less divisive form:
>
> * How does a system affect good simulation?
> * How does a system affect strong drama?
> * How does a system make a difference to fairness and game balance?
>
> Once you strip the stereotyping, you get some good, meaty questions,
> and I'm sure it was these sorts of issues that motivated Daniel to post
> in the first place, so no harm done.
Point taken about the stereotyping. But yes, you did get to the sort of issue
that motivated me to post in the first place. Now, I'll offer some of my
comments on the issue.
---
* How does a system affect good simulation?
Technically, I suppose, you could have a perfectly good simulation without any
sort of system at all. What I really mean is that you can do it without any
random factor (read: dice). In the real world (which presumably you are
trying to simulate) there is very little randomness. A sufficiently detailed
model would not need any random factors at all.
However, such a model would be implausible due to it's complexity. Nobody is
going to try to model the effects of wind on the flight of a bullet, let alone
modelling the wind currents to determine whether or not there is a strong gust
of wind that would affect the bullet. However, there is no randomness in
whether or not the bullet hits the target, given all the conditions.
Randomness in the mechanics can be used to simulate all the myriad of factors
which are not taken into account. The question then is how many factors need
to taken into account, and how should they be determined. This basically
depends on the type of game that the players want. Personally, I think that a
good system can resolve almost all evens with a maximum of two rolls, or three
for complex events.
The other solution to resolving all these myriad of factors is leave both the
dice and the factors alone, leaving it up to the GM's decision, that is,
diceless. This does not really fit into the discussion of system/mechanics
though, so I will not go into it further. Besides, having little experience
in diceless playing, I wouldn't have much to say. :)
Getting back to the question, I feel that the system has a very large effect
on the simulation. Basically, the system defines that is being simulated.
The system defines how the various things being simulated interact with each
other. The system is also generally used to translate ideas into numerical
values that the players can understand and compare. I still have not decided
myself whether it is better to attempt to model everything as much as possible
(while trying to stay simple enough to use) or to abstract it.
An example is the 'straw the broke the camel's back' effect. If the game
system defines how much weight that a character can carry, then you have a
problem when the character approaches that limit. "Do you mean that if I eat
one of the apples, I'll be able to carry the rest, otherwise I can't?"
However, if a value is not defined by the system, then it is left up to GM
decision just how much weight a person with a 'good' strength can lift.
The system also defines what is possible in the world, and thus what the world
is like. If the world does not match the system, then it can break SOD.
An example from Earthdawn: There are rules for making magical items, and the
sourcebooks give the approximate numbers of magicians who can make them, and
the numbers of magical items in circulation. However, using the rules given,
it would be almost impossible for the magicains to create that number of
items which they have supposedly made. This problem shows the discrepency
between the system and the world being simulated, which requires either the
system or the world to be modified so that they are in agreement. A good
system should not have discrepencies like this (or should have already found
them and made the necessary adjustment).
* How does a system affect strong drama?
If the system is restrictive, it can have a detrimental effect on drama. If a
player wants his character to do something which sounds logical, but the
system forbids it, it can cause a break in the play that spoils the moment.
Also, one thing that can fragment play and break immersion is excessive dice
rolling (or card drawing, or whatever).
A system can often come at odds with a stongly plot driven game. For example,
one of the main characters gets by a lucky shot, and according to the game
mechanics she should die. Then the GM is forced to make a decision to abide
by the result given by the system, or to change the result to fit the
storyline better. This is not to say that a system is incompatible with the
story, but the GM is often forced to decide between them if unwelcome results
are generated by the system/mechanics.
So a system which is fast and easy, and not restrictive on the character's
actions can enhance the drama of the game, and vice versa. Of course, I have
only mentioned some aspects of drama, and do not intend to be all inclusive.
* How does a system make a difference to fairness and game balance?
The system is an important tool in determining fairness. The rules defined by
the system are assumed to be fair, because they are applied equaly to anyone
who uses those rules. There can be problems where the players do not consider
the rules to be fair, but that is a different issue.
I think that game balance is best left up to the GM, rather than the system.
The game is already balanced (presumably) because the same rules apply to
everyone. The upset balance generally occurs because one character's actions
take advantage of a particular rule that the others cannot use (or do not want
to use). Some systems try to include rules to cover every situation, and
include numerous rules allowing or disallowing certain things to try to
maintain game balance. However, I think that if the players actually want to
play the game to have fun rather than as an exercise in munchkinism, then any
imbalances can be easily resolved by player/GM interaction rather than relying
on reams of rules. If the player's idea of having fun is to distort the
system to unbalance it in his favour as much as possible, then no amount of
rules will solve the problem.
I don't claim to be an expert on any of the above, so it should be taken as
only my opinion. And even then, my opinions are still being changed. I would
be interested to read what other people have to offer on the subject.
kos
---
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <nbarmore-101...@purple.cs.wisc.edu> nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) writes:
>mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>> Our games tend to be very heavily character driven, but I've
>> found system almost completely irrelevant to this. I play
>> much the same in AD&D, Storyteller, Shadowrun or our homebrew,
>> ignoring both the "help" Storyteller is supposed to be giving my
>> characterizations and the "hindrance" AD&D is commonly thought to give.
>hmmm...i assume the "hindrances" of AD&D would be the alignment system.
It's commonly said that both the alignments and the strict class system
are "barriers to characterization" but I haven't been bothered; it is
easy enough to drop alignments (one changes "detect evil" to "detect
cult enemy") and there are plenty of characters available within the
class system.
The only time I've had a big problem is when I had a character who
decided mid-game that she was pursuing the wrong profession; the class-
change rules didn't work well for us at all. But that was just one
character out of a great many.
>what "help" is ST supposed to lend? the nature/demeanor/archetype/etc.
>stuff? gnosis/rage/willpower (or pick your game of choice, of course)?
>or something else that i'm completely missing?
I was thinking mainly about nature/demeanor, which are presumably there
to "facilitate roleplaying." I didn't find them particularly helpful
either. I'm a strongly develop-in-play player, and I find the need to
determine my character's underlying personality archetype at the start
of the game exasperating, not informative.
I've come to the conclusion over the years that all I want from a system
in this regard is for it to get out of my way, and possibly to provide
some idea-source material. So when we play GURPS, for example, we don't
use the psych lim rules, but I do flip through them once in a while
looking for something that catches my fancy. I would never fill out the
Amber DRPG questionnaire for a new character, but I do look at it to see
if anything leaps to mind. And so forth.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
Brett Evill <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>Scott Ruggels <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
>> I do not think 'drama' and simulationism are incompatible
>
>On the contrary, good sim is *required* for SoD, an essential of
>good drama.
Hrrm. I would tend to disagree with this -- in that I don't
think that good simulation is neccessary for Suspension-of-Disbelief
(SoD). As a parallel, an author can write a story where the hero
makes a lucky shot without going through twenty stories where the
hero misses and is killed.
It is harder for a GM to exercise author-like control, because
he isn't in control of the heart of the story (i.e. the protagonists).
Thus, the players can sometimes tell when he is making things up as
he goes along. However, a skilled GM can pull it off and make it
seem effortless.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
However, I would tend to say that good drama often requires
breaking simulation. As an example: the GM sets up a mystery
based around an assassin. Unexpectedly the PC's leave the city
to chase a "lead" which the GM hadn't expected -- he hadn't even
intended it as a red herring! In retrospect he sees that the
chase makes sense -- he just hadn't seen it. As he had set up
the expected timetable, the PC's would now miss the assassination
and the assassin would escape.
Good simulation suggests that the PC's miss the assassination
and because of the one slip their investigation goes to naught.
However, a good dramatic GM will make the false "lead" into
something which they can follow up on -- possibly something
which leads them back to the assassin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Brett Evill
In article <61m41n$a8h$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <nbarmore-101...@purple.cs.wisc.edu>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) writes:
>>what "help" is ST supposed to lend? the nature/demeanor/archetype/etc.
>>stuff? gnosis/rage/willpower (or pick your game of choice, of course)?
>>or something else that i'm completely missing?
>
>I was thinking mainly about nature/demeanor, which are presumably there
>to "facilitate roleplaying." I didn't find them particularly helpful
>either. I'm a strongly develop-in-play player, and I find the need to
>determine my character's underlying personality archetype at the start
>of the game exasperating, not informative.
I'm mostly develop at start (there: I've given it away), and I didn't find
them very helpful either. Most of my character concepts are rather more
subtle than those archetypes. I found many of the archetypes poorly
defined. And a great many important ones are missing from the list.
On the other hand, I thought the virtues, willpower, rage, humanity etc. a
very interesting attempt to put strengths of character on a similar basis
to strengths of body and mind, in a context where they were at least as
valuable.
A lot of people seem to have lost the plot, though, including all to many
of White Wolf's writers.
Dave Nalle
In article <nbarmore-101...@purple.cs.wisc.edu>,
nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) wrote:
> In article <61h57b$h2t$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
> > Our games tend to be very heavily character driven, but I've
> > found system almost completely irrelevant to this. I play
> > much the same in AD&D, Storyteller, Shadowrun or our homebrew,
> > ignoring both the "help" Storyteller is supposed to be giving my
> > characterizations and the "hindrance" AD&D is commonly thought to give.
>
> hmmm...i assume the "hindrances" of AD&D would be the alignment system.
> what "help" is ST supposed to lend? the nature/demeanor/archetype/etc.
> stuff? gnosis/rage/willpower (or pick your game of choice, of course)?
> or something else that i'm completely missing? it seems to me that ST at
> best gets out of the way when it comes to characterization, and at worst
> cripples it with heavy-handed group stereotypes and unnecessarily
> archetypal personality descriptors.
ST only gets out of the way if you ignore large portions of character
generation. Your second description of it seems to be the more common
way that it's played, because most players don't have the will or the
experience to ignore the rules as written.
Mark Grundy
Brett Evill said:
| On the contrary, good sim is *required* for SoD, an essential of good
| drama.
John Kim replied:
: Hrrm. I would tend to disagree with this -- in that I don't think
: that good simulation is neccessary for Suspension-of-Disbelief (SoD).
[Various examples of the improbable being used to create drama, and
suggestions that the probable and likely can undercut it.]
I love this forum.
The above is one of those casual exchanges that occasionally leads
to an important realisation. Here it is:
There are different kinds of sim goals for different kinds of
stories. Consider the following alternatives:
* If something happens in my story, there'll always be a good reason.
* Nothing will happen in my story unless the audience could have
predicted it.
The first approach aims to preserve suspension of disbelief through
sufficient justification, but doesn't necessarily worry about
probability or predictability. It gives the author scope to ladle in
extra premises to support the play, and if the audience fails to believe
the premises, it will be from their quantity, rather than the quality of
individual connections. This kind of story has appeal for an audience
who's more interested in images, character and drama, and who doesn't
want to be overly disctracted by thoughts about world and plot. You can
often see it used in well crafted fantasy and romance stories, for
example, and a lot of epic literature.
The second approach aims at making the plot feel like it's a natural
extension of a predictable world. If there are surprises for the
audience, it's because the author has been thinking harder than the
audience, and has searched assiduously for consequences that the
audience hasn't stumbled on yet. This aim means that the author has to
keep the audience sufficiently informed of the premises ahead of time,
but keep moving fast enough that there are still plenty of Ah-ha!
surprises for the audience as they go. It appeals to an audience who
likes nutting out ideas and consequences, and thinking about the world
outside the storyline. You can often see it used in well-written hard
core science fiction, historical, spy and crime stories for example.
Simulation and logical checking have some use in creating story
cohesion for each kind of story, but it's a different kind of checking
in each case. The checking used in one kind of story can undercut the
drama used in the other kind by being too lax in one case, and too
stringent in the other. Weird, huh? Depending on what genre of game
you're thinking of, it's a wonderful cocktail for misunderstandings. :)
John Morrow
scott....@3do.com writes:
>In article <343b1752...@news.washingtonian.infi.net>,
> krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>> I guess it seems to me that everything else will be secondary to this.
>> A dramatic game (by this one definition) is one in which a story
>> results from some conflict between the stuff that matters to the
>> character and some opposing force in the setting (or even in the
>> character). A *good* dramatic game will be one in which this conflict
>> is interesting or deep or compelling in some fashion. The story may
>> emerge from this conflict organically, or it may be carefully
>> orchestrated by the GM. I prefer in my dramatic games that it emerge
>> organically from the choices of the players and the logic of the
>> setting, but no one says you *have* to proceed that way . . .
A point that often gets lost in the Three or Fourfold model is that
all games may "incidentally" adopt the look and feel of other types of
games. Just because a game incidentally adheres to the sensibilites
of another style doesn't mean it is that style. The measure of a
style is what happens when sensibilties conflict.
If the nature of the setting and situation suggests that things will
be boring for a while yet the GM spices up the situation simply to be
more engaging to the PCs, then the GM has sacrificed simulation for
drama (or perhaps game). If the GM adjusts an enounter to make sure
the guards just happen to match the PCs in power, then the GM has
sacrificed simulation (and perhaps drama) for game. If the GM lets
all the PCs die senselessly because either it makes sense in the
situation or because the players played a situation poorly, then the
GM has sacrificed drama for either simulation (makes sense) or game
(played poorly). In short, the lines are defined where there is a
clear conflict between the styles and there *are* places where there
is conflict.
If the GM is actively encouraging engagement of the character and
setting in the sort of conflict you (Kevin) mention above, then the GM
is encouraging Drama because there are times where such encouragement
is in direct conflict with either simulationist or game sensibilities.
Similarly, if the GM actively encourages another style, drama can
suffer.
Many of the GM biases discussed a while back by John Kim, Mary, Bruce
Baugh, Sarah, and others are the direct result of letting a particular
sensibility change the way the game is run away from simulation.
"Fair Play", "No Free Lunch", and "Speed is Life" are largely based on
the gamists sensibilities. "Creativity Rewards", "Interesting Times",
and "Cruel to be Kind" are based on dramatist sensibilities. "Script
Immunity" may be granted for game or drama reasons but cannot be
defended on simulationist grounds. A clear lack of script immunity,
unbalanced encounters, and an unfocussed game generally result from
simulationist sensibilties. And these are generally in conflict with
the other sensiblities. It is no mistake that many of the bias
complaints came from GMs with at least one foot in the simulationist
camp. Basically drama biases what the GM does in a distinctly
non-simulationist way. And it is no mistake that non-simulationist
GMs complain about systems and inevitable outcomes spoiling games.
>I do not think 'drama' and simulationism are incompatible, but
>'Dramatist' as much of the list is coming to consensus on, is a style
>more akin to 'Storytelling' than 'Wargaming' and tends to favor light
>rules, and is tollerant of GM intrusion intoresults.
I disagree about the incompatability. The problem lies with where
they conflict and, when you are encouraging one or the other, they
will.
If Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Leibowitz beam down. Who isn't
coming back?
It's an old joke but the Ensign will die because that makes the best
story. The fact that it is a silly predictable cliche makes it bad
simulation. The fact that the 3 PCs will generally succeed no matter
what makes it a bad game. But it makes for acceptable stories that
alot of people have enjoyed. And also some comedy. Sure, many
dramatist techniques aren't as blunt but the conflict with simulation
and game is as real and noticable by those who care. Some decisions,
somewhere, will require one to win at the expense of the other. And
purposely seeking one or the other only makes that line more sharp.
As for light rules and GM intrustion, totally random game systems
don't have dramatic sensibilities and I'm not sure they can. GM
intrustion is the more important element and it is needed more to
prevent undesirable outcomes than to actually "railroad" the game.
The dice (cards, whatever) will invariably produce a result that makes
for a less than optimal story ("I'm sorry, Luke, but you missed your
'Catch Antenna' roll and you fall from Bespin to your death..."). To
preserve good drama, the GM needs to step in. Simulationists and
gamists don't need that. This is why dramatist GMs have complained
about dice producing the "wrong" results. Simulationist instead
complain that the "system" produces bad results because the system
allows for unrealistic results. And if gamists complain, it is
generally also a system-based complaint such as it not playing well
or not providing interesting choices.
Yes, I'm sure that simulationists want good stories and fair
challenges to also be part of their games. I'm sure dramatists want
believable settings and fair challenges to also be part of their
games. And I'm sure that gamists want believable settings and good
stories to be part of their games. And I'm sure all want to be fun
socially. But there are times when you can't have it all or when
elevating the importance of one hurts the others. At that point,
which sensibility wins out will say quite a bit about the look and
feel of the game and will allow it to be placed somewhere within the
triangle or tetrahedron of styles.
John Morrow
A Lapalme
(scott....@3do.com) writes:
>
>Kevin said:
>> I think it often helps a dramatic game to have flexible rules which
>> leave a wide latitude to GM and player interpretation. But this is
>> not required, it seems to me. For some styles of dramatic game this
>> may even be a liability.
>>
>
> I do not think 'drama' and simulationism are incompatible, but
> 'Dramatist' as much of the list is coming to consensus on, is a style
> more akin to 'Storytelling' than 'Wargaming' and tends to favor light
> rules, and is tollerant of GM intrusion intoresults.
>
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems to me that all styles, sim, drama
and gamist must be tolerant of GM intrusion. Drama, I don't think I need
ot explain; same for gamist. But, even for sim games, I don't see how one
can avoid GM intrusion.
Couple of assumptions: the simulation is supported by a set of mechanics
and the mechanics do NOT perfectly simulate the world. This means that
there will be cases where the mechanics dictate a result which doesn't
make sense from a sim POV.
Now, if one assumes the mechanics are a perfect sim of the world, then,
yes I will agree that a sim game is not tolerant of GM intrusion into
results. However, sim games do not require that the mechanics be a
perfect sim of the world or even require that game mechanics be used to
run them.
Alain
A Lapalme
Mike Harvey (Michael...@ccm.jf.intel.com) writes:
> (1) Impartiality. Nobody is truly impartial, and therefore all GM
> decisions are influenced by their own likes, values, and beleifs. This
> is not a bad thing, but sometimes impartiality is desirable, and for
> that a system is indispensable. However, to be useful as an impartial
> arbiter, a system must be consistent and believable, and also suited to
> the genre and style of the game.
>
> (2) Breadth. No one person (ie GM) is an expert on everything. One is
> good with science, another with people, yet another with philosophy.
> Those who appear to be broadly competent are generally just good at
> faking it. A good system can provide support in areas where the GM's
> knowledge is shallow and therefore underqualified to judge. There are
> still two ways a GM can avoid needing a system to fill in the gaps:
> first, he could concentrate on one particular aspect and simply ignore
> or gloss over the rest; or, he can fake it with words and action (kind
> of like a magician distracting the eye while performing some sleight of
> hand). However, avoiding or hiding the holes does not mean they do not
> exist.
>
> (3) Mechanics. Some people just like to roll the dice... :-) It is
> true that a systemless GM could have players roll dice anyway and
> interpret them arbitrarily, but it does not feel the same when you know
> the dice don't mean anything.
nit picking:
dice <> mechanics. Theatrix has mechanics but not dice. Diceless Fudge
has mechanics (not much but still has some) and no dice.
>
> That said, I would submit that ANYONE can do without a system. It is
> variously called storytelling or make-believe, and every child is an
> expert at it. Some GMs are brilliant with diceless play, but get
> hopelessly bogged down with rules. Others are brilliant with very
> complex systems like AD&D or Rolemaster, but uncomfortable without any
> structure. So I disagree with general statements like "a good GM can do
> without a system".
>
Actually, even though I avoid systems like the plague, I will agree with
Mike's last sentence. I would say, instead: "Good GM are those who have
realized what they need to run a good game, be it dice, mechanics,
published systems, published scenarios, all of the above, some of the
above or none of above".
Alain
Psychohist
Mark Grundy posts, in part:
an important realisation....
There are different kinds of sim goals for
different kinds of stories. Consider the
following alternatives:
* If something happens in my story, there'll
always be a good reason.
* Nothing will happen in my story unless
the audience could have predicted it.
The first approach aims to preserve suspension of
disbelief through sufficient justification, but
doesn't necessarily worry about
probability or predictability.
I have a problem with singling out probability theory as the one branch of
mathematics that doesn't need to be satisfied for a good simulation. For
people with an intuitive feel for probabilities, stringing together ten
independent coincidences each with 1% probability is no better than having 2 +
2 equal 22. Neither one is really susceptible to 'sufficient justification' -
unless we're talking about the gamesmaster backpedaling enough that the
'justification' is tantamount to a retcon.
This kind of story has appeal for an audience
who's more interested in images, character and
drama, and who doesn't want to be overly
disctracted by thoughts about world and plot.
You can often see it used in well crafted
fantasy and romance stories, for example,
and a lot of epic literature.
And many of these stories ignore geometry or even arithmetic as well. They may
still be good stories, but that doesn't make them realistic.
Warren Dew
scott....@3do.com
In article <61mdc0$18e$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
>
>
> Brett Evill <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >Scott Ruggels <scott....@3do.com> wrote:
> >
> >good drama.
>
> think that good simulation is neccessary for Suspension-of-Disbelief
> makes a lucky shot without going through twenty stories where the
> hero misses and is killed.
>
> It is harder for a GM to exercise author-like control, because
> he isn't in control of the heart of the story (i.e. the protagonists).
> Thus, the players can sometimes tell when he is making things up as
> he goes along. However, a skilled GM can pull it off and make it
> seem effortless.
>
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> However, I would tend to say that good drama often requires
> breaking simulation. As an example: the GM sets up a mystery
> based around an assassin. Unexpectedly the PC's leave the city
> to chase a "lead" which the GM hadn't expected -- he hadn't even
> intended it as a red herring! In retrospect he sees that the
> chase makes sense -- he just hadn't seen it. As he had set up
> the expected timetable, the PC's would now miss the assassination
> and the assassin would escape.
>
> Good simulation suggests that the PC's miss the assassination
> and because of the one slip their investigation goes to naught.
> However, a good dramatic GM will make the false "lead" into
> something which they can follow up on -- possibly something
> which leads them back to the assassin.
>
And that's where the split occurs. i would have them miss the assasin if
they botched it, and the assasin claims another victim. It needles the
players. keeps them moving and thinkingto have a less than forgiving
background. but then the campaigns i run rarely have 'story arc, but have
lots of otherthings going on, so that one is never sure of what is
imprtant or what is not.