First of all, why does everyone feel like they have to name their game mechanic system? Why pick a die and develop a system around it, rather than construct a world and explain how that world works? People like simplification, and I'm all for it, but at some point the oversimplification makes a game feel cheap, generic, and boring. On the other hand, games shouldn't have a variety of mechanics just to have variety. In game design, the rules must reflect the world, genre, tone, and relative level of realism the game is aiming for.
What's worse is that every game mechanic comes out to be the same thing. Roll a die, add up all the pluses, and see what arbitrary difficulty rank number was surpassed. Another choice is to roll a LOT of dice and either add those up or count successes. On the other hand, games that rely on rolling UNDER a set number feel awful limiting in how far a character can advance. Not only that, but there is a psychological aversion some of us feel towards seeing numbers go down when we're getting better (never mind we're getting closer to being #1).
The basic problem is that people think of mechanics as only a randomization for statistical variants. When was the last time someone asked, 'Okay, how does my world WORK?' I want to explore fundamental questions that other games take for granted. If attributes and skills don't function the same way, then why do we (or, rather, many games) have a single mechanic to work for both of them? Why is combat resolved the same way as fixing a car? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though there are some fundamental differences between rebuilding an engine block and piercing someone with a sword. And I don't know how many games I've seen fall apart because they try to handle firearms in the same way they handle melee combat. Even these things, which are both combat related, work in totally different ways. I shouldn't have to go into why magic should be handled differently than animal training. If your game involves taming and training forces of nature to do your will, and you see animal training parallels, then use the same system you use for animal training...
The game I'm working on will have a few different systems in place in order to reflect different aspects of the game world. First, though, I have to decide what is important to that world. What are player characters trying to accomplish, and what assets would be the most beneficial in the pursuit of that goal?
Related sites:
RPG Mechanics: Universal Versus Varied
Single Mechanic Conflict Resolution
The Stupidity of Universal Mechanics
Posts
Hey, came across your site while looking for a player for a campaign I'm about to start up. I found this post interesting as I in the past have had some of the same opinions. It wasn't until my second campaign as a player under the World of Darkness Storyteller system that my opinion of rule sets in gaming really changed. Especially after the release of D&D 3.5.
ReplyDeleteThe more exhaustive the rules, the more clear cut and concise the game is. I have a feat that allows me to hit two targets, so I hit two targets. I have a spell that shoots a fire ball, so I shoot a fire ball, etc...
In the Storyteller (now Story Telling) system, there are exceptionally few of these rules. Infact, there is only 1 skill for "melee". Weather you are swinging a chair leg or a rapier, it's the same dice. It seems totally illogical at first, as though a min/maxer would just abuse the heck out of the system. But what it allows players to do, especially after they get over the lack of lock ins, is to be truely creative with their abilities.
For instance, in my upcoming campaign, we took the base ST rule set, and appended magic on to it with a few minor alterations so that the game will fit a mideval high fantasy setting. But the realm of magic in the system consists of three stats (power/finesse/resistance) and 1 "magic" skill.
It doesn't matter if you are summoning a ball of fire, freezing a cup of water, or making a roasted turkey do the jig. It's all the same roll. But it demands the player play his or her character. Sure, they could do anything, but what would their character do? how would their character use the power? No predefined answers, just come up with your own idea, descibe it, make it part of the story, and roll the dice.
Anyway, if you haven't had a chance to play a rules-lite game, I'd highly recommend giving such a system a try. And if you're in the Evansville area, I might know of a campaign with an opening ;)
-Rick
The White Wolf system is actually based on the same line of thinking that the D20 rules are based on. Instead of writing rules about how the world works, the rules are written around what the game designers want the players to be able to do. In D20, the idea is to give players a huge list of possibilities, and in WW the idea is to let the players dictate their own possibilities. There is nothing wrong with either of those methods, because they both focus on the importance of the players - everything is a challenge for them to overcome. But here's some food for thought: How do we describe a world that exists independently of the characters in it? How do we make a rules set that objectively defines boundaries of a world, rather than sets them subjectively in relation to the characters in a story?
ReplyDelete