| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in another thread, but it is a topic that comes up often. I have yet to find a really good way to describe this but this is my latest attempt.
You say we different opinions on the game, but the truth is, we aren't talking about the same game. The fact that both of us are using the same rule set doesn't change the fact that we are playing two vastly diffeent and unrelated games.This is what I've been saying. If you understand that, then continuing this conversation would be pointless.
This is not my point, this is merely something that is required to be understood in order to understand my point.
Since it has been established that we can play vastly different games with the same rules, so how is that possible? Perspective.
Perspective
A change in perspective can literally change how useful and sensible a mechanic is, even if the mechanic does not change at all.
For example, in a thread about dice mechanics, one person suggested a mechanic of rolling under attribute but over difficulty. Many responded saying that the mechanic didn't make sense and was confusing and overly complicated. Then the poster elaborated saying that it was a blackjack mechanic where the higher the better as long as you don't go over. Suddenly the mechanic was well received and said to be sensible and clear by many of those who at first had derided it as confusing.
Thus, how you see and understand a mechanic literally affects it's usefulness, how much it makes sense, and how well it works for what you want.
Therefore, understanding more perspectives on a mechanic makes that mechanic more useful.
So if a mechanic is designed for game A, but you want to use it for game B, then understanding the perspective of playing game A is important on using those rules for any game really, but especially if you want to use the rules for a game other than the originally intended game.
Balance
How can a game be balanced? Well balance comes from a set of options nominally of equal value.
However, equal value can only be judged from a single perspective. Changing perspective changes the value of an option.
For example, I've used Silent Image to simulate a fire, thus all the enemies coming to the PCs were all taken by surprise and in individual penny packets, and they were all unprepared for combating enemies.
Does that sound like a first level spell ability, to seriously debuff an entire group of enemies?
The problem with trying to balance RPGs, is a matter of perspective. In order for all options to be rendered of equal value, you have to eliminate any unexpected possibilities, to eliminate alternate perspectives. You need to make all options closed ended.
A problem with that is Creativity. For example, a measure of creativity is to find out how many uses one can figure out for a newspaper in 60 seconds. One child we heard about in psych class gave over 50 uses for newspaper, none of which were to read it. I don't know many that could give 50 uses for newspaper given an hour much less a minute.
How can you balance something where one person sees 3 uses for a single mechanic and the other person sees a dozen, or even just 5? The answer is to remove extraneous uses for a mechanic. That means allowing only explicitly allowed options. That means you have to exclude plenty of plausible options. It also limits the ways creativity can express itself (doesn't eliminate creativity only certain methods of expressing it).
This removes any association of the mechanics. To quote The Alexandrian about a One-Handed catch ability usable once a day,
To take our One-Handed Catch ability, for example, we could easily say: The player activates his gravitic force gloves (which have a limited number of charges per day) to pull the ball to his hand. Or he shouts a prayer to the God of Football who’s willing to help him a limited number of times per day. Or he activates one of the arcane tattoos he had a voodoo doctor inscribe on his palms.These all sound pretty awesome, but each of them carries unique consequences. If it’s gravitic force gloves, can they be stolen or the gravitic field canceled? Can he shout a prayer to the God of Football if someone drops a silence spell on him? If he’s using an arcane tattoo, does that mean that the opposing team’s linebacker can use a dispel magic spell to disrupt the catch?
(This is getting to be a weird football game.)
Whatever explanation you come up with will have a meaningful impact on how the ability is used in the game.
So an associated mechanic has to account for fluff. Fluff is inescapable.
A dissociated mechanic is bad because it basically says you can't do something that would otherwise makes sense to be possible, such as being allowed to making only a single one-handed catch per football game.
If I have made an entirely nonmagical character because I didn't want to play a mage, what the rules allow me to do to interact with the world are "fight things" and "roll skill checks." The other guy, who wanted to play a mage, can do both of those things while also walking through walls, disappearing, and flying. He's going to be able to explore places my character can never go on his own power and discover things that will never, ever enter my character's sphere of influence.
First, read above, then consider that DnD was built on a system that wasn't made for roleplaying at all, and also built for meeting vastly different goals, including being merely a toolbox for every gm to adapt and tweak to their own campaign*. And considering the events of the first dungeon ever played, I think I can safely say that this,
pointless experience for everyone involved that left all the characters eaten by wolves because they did not succeed at anything at any point in their journey
is entirely false. To recap, only one player made it out alive.
* The books for d20 are constantly encouraging, and giving advice for,changing everything.
Take a look at the Darksun setting. Lots of great story reasons to be a mere mundane fighter, despite having less power than a spellcaster.
As a toolkit, I agree that a magical fighter class should exist for settings where magic is easy to get into. In fact I think it to be quite stupid to claim that a mundane fighter could ever be as good as one who casts spells, and while I might not allow pure fighters in such a magical game, I'd still leave those mundane fighters in the book just for gms like me, or at least those running Darksun and similar settings.
Four people sitting down to play a game together as equals only for the game world to decide one of them is the main character and everyone else is a sidekick because "life isn't fair."
Um, toolbox. The entire core books (at least the original dnd that pathfinder is based off of anyway) practically screams for the gm to adjust the rules to better suit the campaign. Thus, if the campaign is supposed to have four people be actual equals in power yet with only one caster, then obviously the gm needs to adjust things to the campaign.
And I don't see that as bad, because frankly, using a set of rules adapted specifically for a particular group and particular campaign will always be better than a set of rules developed for entire audiences of players, given an identical gm.
If you want a game where stats, classes, CR, individual player abilities, and the like are all irrelevant, I have to ask, have you heard of freeform? Because then you CAN just chuck all that stuff in a bin and focus 100% on the story. The way you describe the game as you'd like it to be played, I really think you'd be having a much better time if you just put away the dice entirely. They're just getting in the way at that point.
On the contrary, I find a simulationist set of rules good for a lot of things aside from balance and gameplay. First of all, numbers as descriptions. Everyone probably has a different idea of what "above average strength" means, but if there is a detailed method for describing strength everyone can reference, then it helps everyone communicate and sync expectations. The same can apply to dice results if you stop looking at them as success vs failure. Rolling 30 to 40 in dnd is basically a masterwork result that means only the very best (compared to real world humans, though obviously not compared to demi-gods) could achieve such a result.
Additionally, dice add tension, but they only really work when they account for the capability of the character taking an action and the difficulty of the action. Results are desirable to make sense and have some amount of consistency (which is why I prefer bell curve rolls).
These are just major points, but they can not be achieved in freeform.
Further, you think that only the story matters to me, but that is false. What matters to me, is details. Being told I'm not allowed to do something because of arbitrary limits, that should be allowed within the setting milieu breaks the game for me. A drama vs details issue. For details oriented folks, the rules lay a great foundation, if they support the setting milieu rather than game balance.
Yes, Savage Worlds, Marvel, Kobalds Ate My Baby, Palladium, Pokemon Tabletop Unlimited, Fallout: Equestria (playing in one right now [a d100 game for the uninitiated], read a bit of the other), and a couple larps.
I've played a session of Rifts.
I have played the Computer Dragon Age, which is supposedly very close to the tt version.
I have also read some rulebooks for Gurps, a superhero system similar to palladium (i forget the name), BESM, Fiasco (I think, the rulebook example session I read doesn't sound anything like what others say Fiasco is like for some reason), Numenera, a very good gm supplement for rolemaster, Vampire: The Masquerade (a long time ago), and whatever I can find really.
I also spend loads of time analyzing systems, games as well as other things such as computer programs, mechanical devices, social systems, languages, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it would help to mention that I'm mildly autistic, that means my social ability is subpar, but my logic ability is very high. Translated to game terms, that is dumping charisma to boost intellect.
Turns out it doesn't work out so well in the real world. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A relevant quote from The Alexandrian,
...roleplaying games are ultimately defined by mechanics which are associated with the game world.
Let me break that down: Roleplaying games are self-evidently about playing a role. Playing a role is making choices as if you were the character. Therefore, in order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren’t associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren’t about roleplaying and it’s not a roleplaying game.
How can you make choices as if you are the character if you always look at your choices in terms of being a game instead of looking at your choices in terms of being there in the fantasy milieu?
What I'm talking about doesn't really depend on mechanics. Certainly mechanics can make things easier or more difficult.
But, given that game A and game B can both be played with the same rules, but they both can be played with any rules. Game A players will play game A regardless of system, and likewise, game B players will play game B regardless of system.
Do you make decisions by going "I want to do this, how can I represent that mechanically?" or do you go "These are my mechanical options, which is best?" Do you see the difference?
Another thing, if my character is expecting a fight but hoping to avoid one, she is ready to defend herself, but how can that be reprrsented mechanically, especially if a fight breaks out? Should a character that expects a fight get the same start-of-fight penalties as a character who was not expecting the fight?
Or how about my cleric facing a lich, when she decided to put all of herself into a burst of raw positive energy, recklessly and without regard to surviving the attempt? Is that something a game player would consider? Obviously the rules designers didn't consider it.
Of course, there are not rules for jumping on a grenade to save one's companions either, yet it obviously works in the real world, so why should the rules deny such a thing?
Some players would claim that such actions have no place in a game about seeking victory, glory, and loot. They might even be right, but not every game I play is about victory, glory, and loot.
|
That's an answer based on semantics. Some people don't care if "roleplaying game" means some exact definition of "roleplaying". Some people will decide "roleplaying" means something different from the definition given by The Alexandrian. Some people will decide the "game" part of "roleplaying game" is the more important part of the name.
Yeah one thing I find interesting is CRPGs. You ask a forum group if they consider a CRPG an "RPG" and you will get both yes and no answers. For some folks if you don't get to choose from a diverse set of mechanics, it is not an RPG. For other folks, as long as you get to make character choices even without any mechanics, you are still playing an RPG.
Im trying to tread water with this discussion, but im not sure exactly what we are trying to argue. /shrug
TL;DR??
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Selectively cherry-picking quotes from a blog doesn't exactly make a compelling argument. It should also be noted that the blogger quoted (The Alexandian) as often gives advice about how to make the crunchy mechanical parts you so despise work better, or explains why the existing ones already work, if one actually follows them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but feel like the article's argument stems mostly from a lack of understanding of how game design and power balance works.
If I understand correctly, the article says the game is impossible to balance due to the game having abilities whose power cannot be measured numerically? That's actually not true. Game design has a term for this called "incomparables," which is commonly used for several genres of games such as MOBAs. Options will not perfectly be balanced against one another, which is why games have a "power curve" with an upper bound and lower bound. This is something not mentioned or considered at all in the article.
|
Balance
How can a game be balanced? Well balance comes from a set of options nominally of equal value.
However, equal value can only be judged from a single perspective. Changing perspective changes the value of an option.
Does it? I think this is a modern phenomenon at best, and in many ways is one of the bad things that has taken hold of RPGs. In old school games, there was a high degree of balance in different options NOT being of "nominally of equal value". In 2nd Ed, a 1st Level Wizard/Magic-User was hot garbage. All the way until around 5th-7thish level. In comparison a Fighter or Thief was still pretty much in their prime. Balance came in how they all sort of played out over the course of the game, not in some sense of at every single point in time, option A was balanced against options B, C, F, XX, ZZZ, and onwards. I mean this literally. Up until around 3rd Ed, many, many people would refuse to play a Magic-User unless the game started out at 3rd level or higher, because the class was that weak and limited. High Int didn't give you any extra spells per day, nor any extra Skill Points. Your d4 Hit Dice was rolled, which means you could literally be a 4th level character with 4 HP, that died when they got to 0 HP, not -10. And yet, people still did play the Magic-User class, because once they did finally start coming online, they became the strongest class, the class with the most options in the game. Where at the start of the game they took forever to level up, around midpoint they started getting levels handed to them like free candy. (Every class had different XP requirements to level up).
Again, balance was over the course of the game, not at every single point throughout.
In my favorite system/setting/game of all time, Vampire the Masquerade, there are, right there in the core book, a Clan (think similar to classes) called the Nosferatu as a playable option, right there besides the Toreador, Ventrue, and Tremere. Each Clan has a unique Weakness that afflicts all members of that Clan, and tends to make a given Clan good at certain things and causes a stereotype for that Clan.
In this case, Nosferatu's Clan Weakness is that they are outright hideous. They start out with an Appearance rating (one of the nine stats of the game) of zero, and it can never be raised. The Ventrue can only drink one sort of blood, which can be as vague or as specific as you want, (anything between "female" to "females born in 1765 in England to a Protestant family that has some Middle Eastern heritage").
The Toreador on the other hand might, maybe one day be mesmerized by something they see as not pretty, but beautiful beyond compare. That's pretty much it. If they view something "they" find beautiful, they risk being mesmerized by it and can not look away.
There is really no concept of "balance" in that set up. And to make thing worse, the Nosferatu do NOT get any special powers that compensate. In fact, they overall, (subjectively) get some of the overall worst power sets in the game.
And yet, people still (both picked and pick) Nosferatu characters, because they can be fun and offer a different perspective. They still have plenty of things they can bring to the game and a party. They still have amazing ways to shine in the proverbial spotlight that in game they would avoid at all costs because their unlife depends on it.
For example, I've used Silent Image to simulate a fire, thus all the enemies coming to the PCs were all taken by surprise and in individual penny packets, and they were all unprepared for combating enemies.
Does that sound like a first level spell ability, to seriously debuff an entire group of enemies?
The problem with trying to balance RPGs, is a matter of perspective. In order for all options to be rendered of equal value, you have to eliminate any unexpected possibilities, to eliminate alternate perspectives. You need to make all options closed ended.
Um,. . . no you don't. Why would you need to make all options closed-ended? What does that even mean?
As for Silent Image, . . . that sounds like a pretty standard, not particularly ingenious or outside the scope of the spell as written application of the spell. You create an illusion. The rules already cover the possibility of offering a bonus or penalty based on circumstances and believability, and it sounds like the NPCs pretty much acted accordingly and didn't metagame.
A problem with that is Creativity. For example, a measure of creativity is to find out how many uses one can figure out for a newspaper in 60 seconds. One child we heard about in psych class gave over 50 uses for newspaper, none of which were to read it. I don't know many that could give 50 uses for newspaper given an hour much less a minute.
Creativity is the easiest thing in the world when it comes to gaming. Granted, it can be a big obstacle to overcome as a first step for new gamers, but once people sort of understand that playing a table top style RPG doesn't have the same hard coded limits as a Choose your Own Adventure, novel, TV show, or video game, and a very basic understanding of how the system actually works, this goes from a difficult concept that people are afraid off or uncertain about just how much they can do to second nature and on the level of going without saying.
1.) a fly swatter
2.) padding
3.) bedding
4.) paper mache <spelling>
4.) a large paper weight
5.) a blanket
6.) a window blinds
7.) a dog toy/stick
8.) a tube
9.) a prop
10.) a distraction/pretending to be reading something
That took approx. 30 seconds, or however long it takes to type out that many things one after another. Sure, it's not 50, but just about everything up there could be used for multiple things within that same example, so for instance "blanket" could mean;
a.) something you use to cover up and keep warm
b.) something you use to cover up and hide
c.) something you use to cover up and block the rain
d.) something you use just to have on hand and psychologically make you feel better or keep your hands busy.
In the end, not trying to make you feel bad, say your wrong, your opinion is bad, or pick on you in any way, but, similar to what happened in that other thread, (and PS, thank you for moving this to another area), I think you will find that most people simply disagree with you. It is not because they don't understand your perspective, or ultimately fail to see where you are coming from or what you mean. It's mainly because they simply do not agree with your stance.
For me, fluff/flavor/background story/"creativity"/etc. . . are all extremely easy. We don't need a system or a game in order to "play" an interactive story time session.
That is not why I go for RPGs, but IS why I tend to avoid "light" or "lite" systems like the plague.
For me, flavor/fluff/creativity is challenged, and thus fun only when it can be backed up with mechanics. I'm not interested in settings or "systems" when we are instructed to use something like Point Buy or have a limited amount of options to build or use for character creation and/or advancement, but, ultimately how well I, not my character, how well I BS, suck up to the DM's personal preferences or describe how my 3/18 Str Wizard can lift a truck over their head, just because it sounds cool and I'm poetic.
I think the closest thing to what I believe you are suggesting that I do, at least partially agree upon is the notion of not allowing poor rolls to bring a game to an end. Even that, though, I'm skeptical, because all that approach really does is showcase how NOT creative a given DM is, but also tell the players that they really don't have to worry overly much about how well they roll, which ultimately means they really don't have to worry much about how they build their character, because those things really don't matter. It solves one small problem by creating many more. Again, in my opinion.
We saw, and still see this mentality in PFS, where authors to scenarios wanted to make sure that characters that didn't have any social skills at all could participate in "social" adventures. And they succeeded. Your 7 Cha barbarian that can barely speak can in fact absolutely rock those socials scenarios. BUT, it also meant that all those characters that actually devoted towards building "face" characters, put ranks into Social based skills, bothered to put points into Wis and Cha so that they could be good at this sort of thing, where basically left out in the cold when anyone could do their thing pretty easily.
That's terrible DMing and story design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too enjoy playing within the constraints of a game I agreed to play
Vampire is kind of a poor comparison.
Balance matters more when mechanical challenges are the mainstay of the system. So d+d derivatives, Palladium systems.
It matters somewhat less in games with somewhat fleshed out mechanical systems, but for whom storytelling and roleplaying are expected to fill more significant gaps. White wolf games tend to fall in here, as well as somewhat more obscure rpgs like L5R
Eventually you get to mostly pure storytelling systems where characters regularly explode the concept of balance and the GM is in near complete control, your Amber diceless systems. The concept of balance in that game in particular is a joke, when a minor ability (sorcery) is basically limited by "cant win when pitted against one of the major 4 abilities but otherwise can do basically anything you decide".
Given the tools available to GMS in pathfinder, the primary issue of balance isn't so much pc vs npc, but power balance within the current party. When one PC is vastly outperforming other PCs it can inhibit the fun of the rest of the table. The act of providing difficult challenges for PCs really only becomes complex when that in party balance is out of whack. Certain spells and classes exacerbate that situation.
As an example, I love the investigator, love it love it love that class so very much. He's hardly a peak performance guy, using a bow, and being primarily int focused he hands out infusions to the party, spot heals with gloves of the poisoner, and utterly trivializes skill challenges. DC's that he has a chance to fail, most of the party has no chance of success at. Thats kind of a balance issue, one that can make things unfun for the rest of the party. Why should anyone else do the talking when the 8 cha investigator still has a +23 +2d8 keep the highest on all his social rolls and most knowledge rolls?
That's an answer based on semantics. Some people don't care if "roleplaying game" means some exact definition of "roleplaying". Some people will decide "roleplaying" means something different from the definition given by The Alexandrian. Some people will decide the "game" part of "roleplaying game" is the more important part of the name.
Honestly, what people consider to be a rpg is beside the point. (personally, I think having more and better defined terms for the vast array of games nominally referred to as "rpgs" would aid in discussing them, but whatever)
The point is his description of a type of game.
Making choices if you were a character is vastly different from making choices on behalf of a game piece called a character, or making choices first then telling a story to explain those choices, or making choices based on what you think will make for a better story.
To make a choice from the point of view of the character, you see the world milieu as the character would see it, then make decisions based on that, then your chosen action gets translated into a dice roll, the results of which should make sense within the world milieu.
For this style of play, the system should fade into the background, even as it gets used, much like how the english language is used for a conversation but the language itself goes unnoticed. No one is analyzing the linguistics of what words are being said, instead everyone is focused on the topic that the language has allowed them to discuss. The language is being used constantly, yet goes unnoticed. (well, non-native speakers are likely far more aware of the language than native speakers, but my point still holds)
... It should also be noted that the blogger quoted (The Alexandian) as often gives advice about how to make the crunchy mechanical parts you so despise work better, or explains why the existing ones already work, if one actually follows them.
How exactly does this contradict anything I've said?
Mechanics can be used in multiple ways, but likely works better for some of those ways than for others.
I've never strayed from this.
In fact, it is worth noting that the author is much better at communication than I am, yet he also has had concepts that took a long time for him to be able to discuss and describe well.
DM Beckett
# So players choose options that are clearly not mechanically best. Sounds like they are not playing a game for the sake of playing the mechanics, and that sounds a bit like what I've been saying.
They clearly find value in something other than the mechanics, and since that value is not in the mechanics, then that value can be found in any system. However, a system can be better or worse at supporting gameplay focused on that value.
As for Silent Image, . . . that sounds like a pretty standard, not particularly ingenious or outside the scope of the spell as written application of the spell. You create an illusion. The rules already cover the possibility of offering a bonus or penalty based on circumstances and believability, and it sounds like the NPCs pretty much acted accordingly and didn't metagame.
And yet, I've never seen any player do anything of the sort. I've seen players cause a distraction or hide, and never anything else. I also rarely see this spell chosen at all.
Yet, I've used this power to gain concealment, to intimidate, to isolate (particularly effective on undead), to communicate (like a big sign, or in one case, made a "rough sketch" of a dress my character wanted to have made), etc.
Silent Image is a vital staple in my spell selection.
But also consider what you just said about my example. It fits the spell. Yet, how could you do all that with only mechanics? The fluff is not only essential to the usefulness of the spell, but also, the fluff allows a simplification of the mechanics as you can just describe what constitutes an illusion and let that be the end of it, but for balance you can't rely on the implications based on fluff, as in terms of world milieu, the potential of illusions is almost limitless.
To use a simplified example, group Ada players see illusions as useful for a distraction or to hide, while group Eck players see illusions as useful for concealment (nog just for hiding but also to deny direct targeting by the enemy during a battle), isolation of enemies, communication, intimidation, herding enemies in particular directions, feinting, boosting targets for the enemy to fire at, training aids, interface for complex magical devices, magical display of information such as a map, etc.
When trying to balance the mechanics for illusions, what group Ada comes up with is far weaker in mechanical terms than what group Eck does.
In fact, you can see evidence in the core rules where thinfs were "patched" because someone found a way to make a spell or mechanic far more powerful through the fluff of what the mechanic was representing.
Take prestidigitation for example. The description includes mechanical limits that are contradictory to the fluff, and doesn't even bother to try to explain how that contradiction should be handled.
It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters.
Why not? Flavor a chunk of powder to be really spicy hot and throw the powder in the face of a spellcaster. Definitive effect on concentration, fluff-wise, but while it makes sense in the milieu of the world, this action is denied, not because of anything about the world milieu but because it makes the spell too powerful mechanically.
Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components.
Items made with the spell are fragile. So what? How does that prevent me from using such things offensively, or as a tool? Sometimes you want fragile, such as a glass flask, or shrapnel. Even tools are sometimes useful when fragile, especially in halting or altering operations if something wrong happens, like fuses. While a fragile tool might make a bad hammer, a scalpel is fine if used properly, or a pair of tweezers or a specially shaped stick for manipulating really small items.
Yet we can't make an object, not because of shape or material, but because of the purpose to which the item is to be used.
What about flint, magnesium, or chemically reactive materials? Their allowability is vague, but I could certainly go MacGyver with this spell alone, especially in pathfinder with unlimited zero level spell use.
Notice how the limitations seem tacked on. Most likely because they were tacked on when a player got creative and used a spell far beyond what the designers expected was possible. So why correct it?
Creativity
I find that there are two types of new players. Those who have played a crpg before, and those who have not.
Those who have played will certainly treat a ttrpg the same way as a crpg. They look at stats and mechanics and think of the fluff as simply pretty window dressing for the game of tactical rules manipulation and chance.
The other new players who are unfamiliar with crpgs actually have more creative freedom and ability than 90% of even long time players I meet. Dealing with these new players are the easiest folks to introduce to rp. I don't even show them the mechanics at first, (and this is where I find a system breaking or not,) I have them describe what they are doing, then I run that through the system. A good system will give me sensible results with minimal work on my no matter what they chose, and their choice will never be a mechanic because I haven't shown them mechanics yet.
This is actually the best way I've found to teach roleplaying, the activity (as opposed to roleplaying, the system).
If you can't imagine how rp can find use for crunchy mechanics if the players don't need to see the mechanics to play, then you don't see the point I'm trying to make.
Balance matters more when mechanical challenges are the mainstay of the system. So d+d derivatives, Palladium systems.
It matters somewhat less in games with somewhat fleshed out mechanical systems, but for whom storytelling and roleplaying are expected to fill more significant gaps. White wolf games tend to fall in here, as well as somewhat more obscure rpgs like L5R
Eventually you get to mostly pure storytelling systems where characters regularly explode the concept of balance and the GM is in near complete control, your Amber diceless systems. The concept of balance in that game in particular is a joke, when a minor ability (sorcery) is basically limited by "cant win when pitted against one of the major 4 abilities but otherwise can do basically anything you decide".
Why are you associating these traits of play with systems?
Now those wanting to play a balanced game against mechanical challenges will likely have a very hard time in some game systems, but the reverse is not true. The other end of the spectrum, where play is not against mechanical challenges, can still be played in heavier systems like dnd and palladium, and still have a use for the mechanics.
Balance matters more when mechanical challenges are the mainstay of the system. So d+d derivatives, Palladium systems.
It matters somewhat less in games with somewhat fleshed out mechanical systems, but for whom storytelling and roleplaying are expected to fill more significant gaps. White wolf games tend to fall in here, as well as somewhat more obscure rpgs like L5R
Eventually you get to mostly pure storytelling systems where characters regularly explode the concept of balance and the GM is in near complete control, your Amber diceless systems. The concept of balance in that game in particular is a joke, when a minor ability (sorcery) is basically limited by "cant win when pitted against one of the major 4 abilities but otherwise can do basically anything you decide".
Why are you associating these traits of play with systems?
Now those wanting to play a balanced game against mechanical challenges will likely have a very hard time in some game systems, but the reverse is not true. The other end of the spectrum, where play is not against mechanical challenges, can still be played in heavier systems like dnd and palladium, and still have a use for the mechanics.
Because in any game at any table a gm can ignore rulesets for the game and minimize or maximize what they want, rendering forum based discussion on issues of balance basically useless without treating the core rules being in use as the default assumption.
Palladium has a million and half skills to handle everything and a number of their games where your character can explode and die from full health and armor by getting caught on the edges of what is a moderately challenging attack vs other PCs. I've witnessed that happen in both Rifts and Heroes unlimited.
I've witnessed similar events in Whitewolf on more than one occasion. Exalted and Vampire being the two most egregious offenders there.
You can minimize the combat effect, but as I pointed out, its relatively easy in many of these systems to make a number of characters who can trivialize skill and social challenges to the point that a challenge for them is unreachable for people who invest in those character skills.
At the end of the day, those systems are designed to have those traits of play. You can minimize those traits and maximize others but after a certain point (that people will argue over where it sits endlessly) its a different game.
Aye, but if a game is designed according to one perspective/playstyle, but gets used in a vastly different way, then the points where things break down will be different and often with very different results.
For example, in dnd 4e, players who play it as a tactics game with story as mere window dressing, things break when power gamers find mechanics combos that are overpowered for their level range. But players more invested in character and The Alexandrian's idea of roleplaying, instead find the system breaking down when marks start getting used, or when minions enter the field, or encounter powers that can get used only once even if their source of power is still sufficient to use other encounter powers.
See the difference? One type of player finds the system breaking down in one way but less easily, while the other type of player finds the system breaking down in a different way and more easily.
What the system does has nothing to do with what you want from the system.
Part of the irritation here is when two very different desires can be best met by very similar, or even the same, systems. Then you get problems of confusion when players of opposite ends of the spectrum only worry about system, and ignore, or oversimplify, playstyle in recruiting.
There is also the case of how and when the mechanics are used.
For example, if I want to play a noble, I find the bard class best represents noble training, especially by using Perform (Oratory). It isn't perfect, but it does represent well a highly educated character with training in a variety of pursuits especially in martial and magical techniques.
I figured this out not by looking at classes and seeing where the fluff takes me, but by immersing myself in the milieu, figuring out what to do without regard to system, then finding the best way to twist the system into representing what I want.
RPGs also have unique checks and balances built into their structure that work to maintain balance unlike a board game or computer game.
- There is a DM who is technically not a player but part of whose role is to monitor and ensure players are having fun.
- There is the social contract between players that says 'this is a voluntary game that I can't play by myself, so I need to ensure other players also have fun"
- There are errata and FAQs clarifying or amending exiting rules
- This is the release of new materials which can fill gaps in balance.
- Events and organized play like PFS have organizers and officers who can moderate and arbitrate in some case removing options all together.
These methods all run alongside the rules just as the organs of state run alongside legislation.
Is it fair to sum up your argument as follows?
Some players want an RPG without any limits imposed by the ruleset. Balance requires those limits. Therefore, balance is incompatible with what those players want out of an RPG.
Yes, but what you want to achieve is affected far more than the actual mechanics themselves. People who want A from the game vs those who want B. Generally, something positive that is done for A will be negative for B.
Recognizing whether you are A or B (or C, D, E, etc), and recognition by the designers and support folks etc, means being better able to support A or B, being able to identify to potential players what you are supporting, and several other benefits to the group as a whole.
If I know to expect B, then I can design my character and put myself in the right mindset for it. If the group doesn't understand the distinctions, then each player is basically going their own, witg varying amounts and satisfaction, and in some cases it leads into uncomfortable situations in which players leave (or get kicked out), or worse, just breaks up the whole group.
Further, if the writers of modules know this distinction, and can communicate it effectively to player who understand, then modules can be better written with less self-contradictory issues like Blood Under Absalom for example.
Being able to say "I'm looking for group into Z!" and have everyone, or even just most players understand it, means you might actually find such a group.
Better than that, in simply recognizing the distinction and allowing yourself to think from the various perspectives means you can explore various playstyles and perhaps find new ways to enjoy the game.
It isn't like you have to like only one way of playing.
I like the squad based minitures tactics way of playing, it isn't my favorite way to play but I do like it, though I prefer doing it without people pretending they are playing a different way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what's your argument again? You did not really make your point clear in your original post.
|
|
DM Beckett
# So players choose options that are clearly not mechanically best. Sounds like they are not playing a game for the sake of playing the mechanics, and that sounds a bit like what I've been saying.They clearly find value in something other than the mechanics, and since that value is not in the mechanics, then that value can be found in any system. However, a system can be better or worse at supporting gameplay focused on that value.
What I was trying to say was that games do not have to be "balanced", or even "balanced" in the same sense one my consider the standard and still work, and be fun.
VtM is a "Story-Telling" Game, but that does not mean it is a lite system, that rules don't matter, or that it is mainly a game that expects the group to RP through things. In fact it's rather the opposite, that branches out into a lot more Social Rules than most games do, and has a very detailed and complex system overall. It's intent is more about experiencing consequences and morality.
Even from a purely mechanic point of view, picking the Nosferatu while it is pretty clearly a suboptimal option, can be fun, has some perks, and when the things that they are good at do come up, they can really, really rock those encounters.
Furthermore it is not really, as a system, balanced around concepts like a CR mechanic. Like older games and edition, the expectation is that sometimes the group will encounter things far outside of their ability to handle, and running for your life is totally a valid option.
And yet, I've never seen any player do anything of the sort. I've seen players cause a distraction or hide, and never anything else. I also rarely see this spell chosen at all.
Yet, I've used this power to gain concealment, to intimidate, to isolate (particularly effective on undead), to communicate (like a big sign, or in one case, made a "rough sketch" of a dress my character wanted to have made), etc.
Silent Image is a vital staple in my spell selection.
But also consider what you just said about my example. It fits the spell. Yet, how could you do all that with only mechanics? The fluff is not only essential to the usefulness of the spell, but also, the fluff allows a simplification of the mechanics as you can just describe what constitutes an illusion and let that be the end of it, but for balance you can't rely on the implications based on fluff, as in terms of world milieu, the potential of illusions is almost limitless.
I really can't argue as to what you have experienced with different spells or abilities. I've seen things like this fairly often, and I would say that yes, the rules do pretty well cover this, although in the case of Illusions, some of those rules are spread out, hard find, and not terribly clear.
One of the easier and better recent memories I have is an Illusionist, with the party having successfully snuck up on a group of enemies, alerts the group that they are casting an Illusionary Wall, (granting the party either outright immunity to it (knowing it's an Illusion) or a +4 on their saves). A few of the ranged characters then "hid behind the wall" and because they could see right through it, just pelted the enemy with ranged attacks from safety. Is it possible that a mage can create a wall via magic? Absolutely, so I'd rule that's a fairly believable Illusion. No enemy gets a Save to disbelieve until they actually move up and interact with that illusionary wall, such as bashing through it. So, until they do so, to them it's a very real wall. It's not going to stop their arrows, because it doesn't actually exist, but to their minds, it is something they have to either go around or bust through before they can get to the party.
Now, I do somewhat agree with you in some ways. I do think there is a level of creativity that was expected and encouraged in older games and editions that has largely gone away with the d20 system, and some of the basic assumptions of modern gaming. It used to be that most traps where something that any character could spot, possibly disarm, and/or avoid by using their head.
Find that patch of ground in a cave suspicious. Do I have water in my waterskin? DM says yes. Hm, I want to slowly pour it out around that patch. If it pools up, I'm pretty sure we are safe, but if it doesn't, that probably means it's flowing somewhere, and there is probably a hole or pit there. Modern games usually don't really allow for this, per se, because we have classes like the Rogue who actually has a Class Feature that specifically allows them to do this, (although the specific of how it is accomplished is vague).
Another example is, as a quick and easy way to check to angle of the ground. Pull out a bag of marbles, empty them on the ground, and see if they roll in a certain direction. Unsure if there might be a secret or illusionary wall in this room, blow a few bubbles or toss some sand in the air to test for hidden drafts.
Think there might be an invisible lurker in the area, <and this one actually is in the rules now>, toss a bag of flour on the floor and either look for foot prints or see if the flour sticks to anything you can't otherwise see.
Or, if circumstances allow, what about casting Detect Magic and looking around for odd auras. Takes a little time and means that that invisible enemy needs to sort of sit still for a few rounds while inside of your cone, but it might work. <This one also is actually I the rules of the game, as well.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, I've never seen any player do anything of the sort.
Yeah, I've never been to China. And yet, I don't deny it exists. In fact, I know a lot of people who HAVE seen it, even if I haven't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, something positive that is done for A will be negative for B.
Contrariwise, in 35 years of gaming, across 8 states and a dozen systems and I don't know how many groups, I've generally found the exact opposite to be true. But by all means, assume that your personal experience is some kind of transcendent universal truth that the rest of us are simply too dim too apprehend.
What I was trying to say was that games do not have to be "balanced", or even "balanced" in the same sense one my consider the standard and still work, and be fun.
...
Like older games and edition, the expectation is that sometimes the group will encounter things far outside of their ability to handle, and running for your life is totally a valid option.
Exactly, but it isn't just that fun can exist without balance, but also that for some styles of play, balance actively works against the fun and also, the closer mechanics are tied to the world milieu (fluff) the more balance depends on the players rather than the RAW.
I would say that yes, the rules do pretty well cover this,
Which is my point. In a crpg, the illusions do only what is programed into them, only the consequences the designer thought of and explicitly included are possible. That means that if the designers didn't consider the idea of using illusions for the show material in an adult bar, then no player expects that to be possible. It is like a game of chess, each move has a very explicit and limited range of consequences.
But a ttrpg does not suffer such limits. If the designers considered the consequences of only 10 uses for a single spell, but then players come up with completely different uses for that spell, then it doesn't matter how much they stay within RAW, they will still get a different range of consequences that were never considered by the designers, and that means the spell will not have the same level of power as was believed when it was designed.
And while that is just the difference between what the designers considered and what the players considered, the same holds true between players.
To use a chess metaphor, if one player uses pawn only to move forward, while another player realizes that the pawn can also attack diagonally. the second player will find pawns to be more powerful simply because they see a way of using them that the other player didn't see.
Now in chess, all the possible uses are explicitly written, and any use not in the rules is forbidden. This means the mechanics are closed-ended in a way, like a closed-ended question (I.E. Do you move one space forward, or stay still?").
In an rpg, the rules are open-ended (I.E. "What do you do?") because they can't be closed-ended and also be tied to the fluff.
Once you say why a limit or an option exists, in terms of the fluff, you are inherently bringing in an immeasurably vast set of consequences that can't be reasonably quantified within the rules. Perspective and understanding become the primary limit of a player's power. The player with a greater perspective has more uses for, and more ways to use, every mechanic, which means they greater tactical and strategic flexibility which translates into more power. (That is why information is considered power in the real world, why countries have literally denied education to their populace and designed education systems to make the people ignorant, because understanding and perspective are the limits of the real world. It is also why evil people always have the advantage over good people, because evil people are willing to use tactics and strategies that good people are not, thus evil people have more options available for handling an opponent than a good person ever could)
Trying to impose balance requires detaching mechanics from the fluff, which means that the rules will then deny options that the fluff says should be available. This is required for balance so that all possible uses for a mechanic can be defined and limited to keep that mechanic's power where the designer wants it to be.
None of your various examples or assertions are necessarily mutually exclusive with the concept of decent balance though.
Might depend on your definition of balance, but I have yet to see any definition of mechanical balance that didn't require the designers to know and think of every single use a player can consider allowed.
My use of illusion in the example earlier was within the rules, so consider just how that could have been achieved mechanically without the fluff. A first level spell with a debuff for all opponents in an encounter, a buff for allies, and a control effect allowing the allies to handle the opposing force piecemeal. No other first level spell has that written in it's description, and I'm quite certain that Silent Image doesn't have that written in either. It worked only because of the fluff, the story, the stuff beyond the mechanics.
To design a set of mechanics to be balanced, you have to know and understand all possible uses for a mechanic and all consequences there-of and that knowledge and understanding has to match up with the player's knowledge and understanding as well.
In a chess-like game, the limits are so tight that it is easy to do this, to know and understand all possibilities and effects and explicitly write them down for the players, and so balance can be achieved.
But you can't do that with an rpg and actually have the rules mean anything in the fictional world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your crpg vs creativity claim is false.
I'm constantly developing new uses for old systems, new systems to use, new ways to use skills, new ways to use spells, new magic items, new races, new ideas for stories, new ideas for characters, ways that mechanics can be used to represent concepts, and more, all creative activities in the realm of gaming. Where did I get my start? Ultima Quest of the Avatar, Final Fantasy, and other NES era rpgs.
Now, it could be that I'm the mystical exception. It could be, but I doubt it. I think it's important to realise that your personal experiences are only that, one person's experiences.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snipNone of your various examples or assertions are necessarily mutually exclusive with the concept of decent balance though.
They are not intended to. I was simply saying that there is not a one true way. When I say "games" here, I'm specifically talking about table top RPGs. Games are almost universally designed with a "Golden Rule" or "Rule Zero" concept, and those that don't call it out have an understanding that goes without saying that the rules do not cover every single possibility.
Exactly, but it isn't just that fun can exist without balance, but also that for some styles of play, balance actively works against the fun and also, the closer mechanics are tied to the world milieu (fluff) the more balance depends on the players rather than the RAW.
Sure, fun can exist without balance, or perceptions of balance. And yes, some people will be hindered by rules and concepts of fair play, utilizing the rules in their creativity or RP. In the worst cases, (those folks on the extreme end of the spectrum for this) are basically not having fun because they don't simply get to win because they have that invisible floating PC marker above their head.
But the issue I think you are having is that there are just as many people that fall on the other side of that spectrum, who have fun building, RPing, being creative, etc. . . within the guidelines of the rules, and also understand how being more freeform and liberal with the rules can very easily open doors that can ruin the game.
Again, I don't think anyone really misunderstands what you mean or where you are coming from. We just disagree with your point of view that one style of play is "best", or even better for everyone.
Which is my point. In a crpg, the illusions do only what is programed into them, only the consequences the designer thought of and explicitly included are possible. That means that if the designers didn't consider the idea of using illusions for the show material in an adult bar, then no player expects that to be possible.
RPGs are not CRPGs, and considering how popular that CRPGs are, I doubt you can really argue that CRPGs are not fun. Obviously, again goes without saying, that because the DM is not a person, there will not be a great deal of thinking outside the box involved.
Likewise comparing it to chess, while I understand your analogy, is ultimately comparing it to something that has minimal commonality. Chess is a wargame where two players play competitively, without (normally) any sort of arbitrator, and there are really only three possible outcomes.
However, many people specifically play chess because it has such well defined and specific rules.
Ultimately, all I'm saying is that just because one style of play is more enjoyable to you, doesn't mean it is for others. If your group favors that style, though, by all means go for it. If some of the other players don't, though, they are not wrong, and it would be best to play a style more towards the middle of the spectrum.
Your crpg vs creativity claim is false.
I'm constantly developing new uses for old systems, new systems to use, new ways to use skills, new ways to use spells, new magic items, new races, new ideas for stories, new ideas for characters, ways that mechanics can be used to represent concepts, and more, all creative activities in the realm of gaming. Where did I get my start? Ultima Quest of the Avatar, Final Fantasy, and other NES era rpgs.
Now, it could be that I'm the mystical exception. It could be, but I doubt it. I think it's important to realise that your personal experiences are only that, one person's experiences.
You misunderstand.
I'm not saying creativity is impossible, on;y that the "direction" of creativity is limited.
In chess, a pawn can move forward, or attack diagonally forward. Period. The end. There is nothing else the pawn can do. Creativity in using the pawn is limited to the strategy of choosing when and whether to attack or move.
But in a ttrpg, you have the chance of noticing that there are 8 spaces around the pawn, and that since a pawn is [insert fluff, i.e. a person], then it only makes sense (according to the world milieu) that the pawn can move and attack in any direction, even if the designers had not realized that fact themselves. Thus, creativity is not just in the strategy of using the pawn, but also in realizing other things that the pawn can do that others may not have thought of.
Crpgs are like chess, because regardless of what makes sense within the world milieu, you are still limited to what you can do. No amount of chatting at your computer will allow you to use silent image to display a fire if the devs didn't include that model in the spell, despite the fact that it would make sense to be able to do that according to the fluff.
A GM has the authority to ignore/modify/create the rules. We can all think of ways this can bad, but a good GM can do so to make the game/story/player enjoyment better. Some groups do this and its just a normal part fo the game, while others really try to stick to the rules as written (plus the varying degrees in the middle). If you want changes made to the way your group plays the game, I suggest talking about this with your group and making it happen. Previous editions of the game were more like what you are describing (if I understand you correctly), but the game has changed due in part (in my opinion) to organized play and the internet. But that doesn't matter. You and your group can play the game in the way that makes you happy, or you can find a game system that accommodates you.
DM Beckett
What I've seen of most players is that they do one of three things, A) they focus on the mechanics and play it as a minitures tactics game with story cutscenes inserted, and thus use a variety of crunchier systems including simulationist ones, B) they drop the focus on mechanics, but also drop the mechanical support going for rules light, freeform, or at least abstracted systems, or C) they claim to mix mechanics focus and narrative, but really they play the mechanics, they just spend more time describing things despite still making purely mechanical choices.
It is rare to find someone who can use a crunchier simulationist system without treating it like a crpg at best.
As I pointed out before, it isn't they can't be creative, it is in what ways they show creativity.
Also, I'm not claiming any particular way is best, but there are no good ways to distinguish between styles. The most common is "combat vs intrigue" which is so inadequate that it is unhelpful in the slightest.
If most players think that the middle ground consists solely of making mechanics based decisions and adding descriptions on top, how is one supposed to declare themselves as using a crunchy system without making mechanics based decisions and actually be understood?
Worse still is that plenty of people claim to understand, yet after my initial group, I've only ever met 3 people that actually displayed an understanding of the difference regardless of their claims.
So, out of the dozens claiming to understand, only three actually do it, so forgive me if I've grown relunctant to assume someone someone understands just because they say so.
That, there were those three, so obviously, there are others who do understand out there.
But then the question comes back of communicating with others about the expectations of playstyle. Phrases like Role-playing game have become so broad as to be nearly useless, doesn't even mean it's literal meaning anymore, and no words/phrases have become common for discussing smaller categories of games much less distinguishing narrative focused vs character focused vs mechanics focused vs "wow-factor" focused, or any other useful terms for coordinating and communicating about such details.
A GM has the authority to ignore/modify/create the rules. We can all think of ways this can bad, but a good GM can do so to make the game/story/player enjoyment better. Some groups do this and its just a normal part fo the game, while others really try to stick to the rules as written (plus the varying degrees in the middle). If you want changes made to the way your group plays the game, I suggest talking about this with your group and making it happen. Previous editions of the game were more like what you are describing (if I understand you correctly), but the game has changed due in part (in my opinion) to organized play and the internet. But that doesn't matter. You and your group can play the game in the way that makes you happy, or you can find a game system that accommodates you.
I have no group, and I can't find anyone that plays how I want to play, and there is no good way to advertise how I want to play, even ignoring my social ineptitude.
Keep on trying. Many of us have struggled with finding a group that is a good fit. If you can find one other person that you enjoy gaming with, you can build from that. In my experience, playing with a group of friends is more important then the gaming system used or how you choose to enforce the rules.
As came up elsewhere, I've a way to respond to that.
There are two sources of enjoyment when gaming.
One source is the friends. The enjoyment of hanging out with others, but frankly, this enjoyment can be achieved playing poker as well.
The other source, is the gaming experience. The enjoyment derived from playing the game itself.
In a casual enviroment, the former takes precedent, sometimes to the point of hindering the latter. This can be fine, but sometimes it can be a bother, just like how you can enjoy having a movie night at home with family but it will never be the same as going to the big screen theater.
Sometimes, one just wants to go to the theater and enjoying movie night at home doesn't change that desire.
Me, I've been to the theater, and I desire to return, but yet few understand the difference between the theater experience I desire and movie night experience even disregarding the social interactions.
Now with the movie example, I can describe how the theater is technologically more capable, a sound-proofed room with big hd screen and amazing sound system. But when it comes to rpgs, trying to define what that "theater" experience is and how it differs from that casual and common experience is difficult, and half the time, metaphorically speaking, people tell me the sound system is the same, that there is no difference. Sometimes I think it is because they never experienced the "theater" level of gaming experience and thus do not understand the potential that is there. And some likely don't care.
There is also "How to use a rule."
For example, telling players exactly what kind of trap was found and giving a DC for disable device without having players interact at all with the trap is using the rules in a particular way.
Creativity is also something that can be used in particular ways. For example, some like to take a number of legos and see what they can make, while others might go for clay.
Perspective on what the rules actually are and what purpose they serve is a major factor.
The difference in play between seeing the rules as the game itself vs seeing the rules as mere supporting tools for the game but not as part of the game itself, is a difference as vast as night and day, yet is subtle to the point of invisibility to those who haven't experienced both sides, much in the same way that skill in sport combat (like boxing, wrestling, mma, and bar-fighting) is vastly different from skill in killing, yet spectators would not recognize the difference by simply watching the fighters.
I think part of the issue is that people tend to think that rules equal the game. For something like chess, that would be true. Chess is defined by it's rules. But this is not true of RPGs. In RPGs, the rules are secondary, they are support. Therefore, there can be many varieties of the game using the same rules.
But if there are many varieties using the same rules, then distinguishing games by the rules is not useful. So then, how do we distinguish between different games that use the same rules?
I would say the rules are how you define the game. When people play the same rule-system, but use it to play a different style of game, if you made a transcript of the session and analyzed their interactions with the rules, you'd find that those interactions are different.
Technically, the rules didn't change between these two groups, because the text in the book did not change. But the rules did change, because the humans involved in the game were different.
In your quest for defining games, it isn't that defining game systems by their rules is the problem, it's that people don't define their method of applying rules.
There's an indie game system I really love. When I'm introducing people to it, I don't just tell people how the game-rules play, I tell people how I play. It's a game about killing gods, the represents the real struggle not as one of face-punching (though that happens a lot), but as one that pits survival (power) versus free will. How much of your free will are you willing to give up to acquire power in order to survive?
There's two broad categories the game can be played in: heavy metal (like the music, or the movie), or shoe-gaze emo. I tell players that I lean strongly towards heavy metal, with a few short moments of shoe-gaze emo. Players know when they sit down that it's going to be a rocking good time with over the top action, thunder and lightning, though I'll add a few moments of navel gazing with self-pity.
Game systems should still be largely defined by their mechanics, because mechanics are like tools. Carpenter's tools can certainly be used to help fix a car, but it's going to take more work and some creativity to make it work; it's certainly more effort. On the flip side, if you know you'd rather build a shed instead of fix a car, the carpenter's tools are the best choice, and you should grab them instead of the auto-mechanic's tool kit if you want an easier time of it.
In summation, groups should identify why they're using a particular system and what the end goal is going to be. It's okay if there's a certain amount of conflict between those two, but making those identifications will probably improve their game.
...
Specifically, you state that computer RPGs can only be played in the intended fashion.
...
I was referring to the fact that an ability might be fluffed as an illusion, but programmed where you target an enemy and that enemy gets "distracted." Thus you can't use illusion to do any of hundreds of other possibilities implied by the fluff but not supported by the program, such as using an illusion to hide a door, or convince the guard to unlock your cell, or entertain the children.
In a computer game, the fluff of an ability has very little to do with what that ability is capable of. That statement is not true at the table. At the table, mechanics are not what can be done (as that is determined by the fluff as interpreted by the players), instead mechanics are just how it can be done.
A computer is incapable of treating mechanics like at the table.
And all that stuff about glitches is beyond what people generally think of in terms of how crpgs are played. They are corner cases and irrelevant. Besides, glitches are explicitly programmed in, unintentionally perhaps, but they are not from the computer having it's own opinions.
As for being able to include one's own programming, all that is, is the player becoming the developer and they suffer the same limitations as any others devs.
Primarily, a computer has no concept of fluff, and is incapable inferring what should be possible based on that fluff, not to mention the inability to understand sufficient commumication for the player to even try discussing it. If a player wants to do something, they must be a dev or explain their desire to a dev, then have the program altered.
No need for that with a gm. With a gm you state what you want to do, and the gm tells you how to do it.
@ Purple
Mostly you said what I've been saying.
I'd like to note that there are two ways to define boundaries,
-declaring what is possible to the exclusion of all else, or
-defining what is impossible to the inclusion of all else.
Board games, card games, and computer games are only capable of the former, rpgs are capable of using the latter.
Additionally, with rpgs, not all boundaries are clearly predefined. Often vague boundaries are included, such as allowing "what makes sense," which changes depending on perspective, knowledge, and presentation. This is not possible for games without a referee.
"What makes sense" is a boundary though. You're right in that games without a live referee can't include that, but it's still a constraint and boundary. It's true that it changes, but you see the same thing in sports with referees. The rule is defined, but it can drift slightly based on the referee.
Referencing the pawn example from chess, the rules tell you what you can do with the piece. The effect of what happens is not defined though. How that pawn movement impacts the rest of the game is not part of the rules.
Casting Silent Image is part of the rules. But just like the impact of moving a pawn is not defined, neither are the effects of Silent Image on the outcome of the story. Not every pawn movement is instrumental to the outcome of the game, just like not every casting of Silent Image changes the outcome of the story.
Board games can create stories as well. Some are told within the game, like a player in a game of Risk deciding that defeating a certain opponent is more important than obtaining victory for themselves. Or they can create stories outside of the game. These can happen because of the rules, or in spite of them.
I thoroughly dislike playing Arkham Horror, but I have a story I enjoy from one session. I had a low Sanity character who had a magic sword. I could kill monsters, but I would always go insane. When you go insane, you go to the asylum, skip a turn and then are released. Once released you get back half of your items, rounded up. I only had the one item, the magic sword. I really enjoyed the story in my head of the psychiatrist releasing me from the hospital and handing back the sword, only to readmit me a few days later and repeat the process. Nothing in the rules directly created that story, merely my interpretation of events.
You're right that things can change when you add a human to the process, but adding that human is part of the rules.
You are missing a couple points though.
A, there are different kinds of rules that serve different purposes. For example, speed limits exist for safety. They have a purpose and when they get in the way of that purpose, they are ignored, such as when driving an injured person to a hospital.
The same applies to games. Different rules exist for different purposes.
In a game like chess, all the possible consequences of any potential move is explicitly defined.
To use an example in simple math, it is like saying you can only select whole numbers that are even. In this way, even though not all even whole numbers are listed, there is still an absolutely clear definition of possibilities. You can be absolutely certain that any consequence of moving a pawn will metaphorically be an even whole number.
So, what purpose do the rules serve in chess? They explicitly define what is possible so that both players have Perfect Knowledge of the possible game states.
RPGs are different. The rules do not define what is possible, instead they
1 define how to add uncertainty,
2 provide a baseline for communicating about the game world
3 provide reference so results make sense without the players/gm needing to do research on all manner of subjects
4 allow players to describe an action, process it and get sensible results that don't detract from the versmilitude
When a gm treats a trap as a thing with a dc to get past with flavor of the week, they are treating the rules as though their purpose is to dictate what can happen. Same is true of a player who regardless of flavor, treats it as a generic trap with the only actions available to be trigger the trap or succeed on anti-trap skill check.
This is treating the trap mechanics as the game, because story is being relagated to the role of merely explaining away the mechanical choices.
The alternative is to reverse things. Instead of forming story to fit mechanics, you form mechanics to fit the story. Hence the gm and mechanics designed to be altered as required.
Instead if "trap [stat block with DC]," you get "your characters sees/hears/feels/finds a trap door/tripwire/pressure plate/holes in the wall/a deadfall/etc."
Thinking in terms of mechanics means your creativity is limited to being a vine, and must grow on the trellis of rules. Thinking in terms of what a character perceives and can do means creativity can grow like a tree, standing on it's own without a trellis getting in the way.
Thinking in terms of mechanics limits you to taking actions like a board game.
You know why I like Tucker's Kobalds? It isn't just because it playing the bad guys like intelligent beings, but rather it is because the traps are not simply mechanical things with window dressing where play goes something like, "Another trap." in an exasperated tone, followed by, "Disable device. Again."
So this,
Board games can create stories as well.
is not the same thing at all. Stories from board games is playing mechanics and then making up a story to explain the results. This is what Gygax called "playing the rules... missing the spirit of the game."
A lot of people play this way, because it is the familiar way to play a game, but this way is not the intent of DnD (until 4e anyway).
So about chainmail coming from wargaming again.....
Chainmail wasn't an rpg, it was just fantasy wargaming. The experience of roleplay as played by Gygax, Arneson, et al, was not dependant on the rules used, and having none available, they adapted what they were familiar with, in that case, chainmail.