Of course, unless the mechanics actually enforce it, you can usually spend that XP to buy more attack skill instead, which doesn't seem as immersive or interwined.
I don't know about that. In games with dedicated combat stats that you can raise with individualized XP, it makes just as much sense that the more your character fights the better they get at fighting.
Absolutely, but meant with your example - spent weeks spying on the motorcycle gang, but wanted to up a combat stat rather than Stealth with the XP from that time.Of course, unless the mechanics actually enforce it, you can usually spend that XP to buy more attack skill instead, which doesn't seem as immersive or interwined.I don't know about that. In games with dedicated combat stats that you can raise with individualized XP, it makes just as much sense that the more your character fights the better they get at fighting.
Of course.
My example was more meant to illustrate how if you desire narrative engagement you can do so with targeted XP spending. Leveling up almost always gives you access to new abilities and skills that come out of nowhere. You just have them now and it is rarely something that relates to what you have been doing to this point
I've recently added a homerule to my Traveller campaign. Based on milestone rewarding. I let my players up a skill point of their choice (a couple restrictions) but it needs to be something they used since the last milestone. I scrapped the rulebook system where you spend so many hours reading books and then get a bump. It just feels better this way. I also dont like player bookeeping so i've been cutting that out of my RPGs.
I haven't played Traveller in nearly 30 years! I did just buy the entire GDW classic Traveller collection on PDF from Bundle of Holding back in December.
I've been thinking about running a campaign using some classic Traveller modules set in the Spinward Marches, but instead using the bare-bones PbtA scifi game ROVERS. ROVERS is intended to provide a Traveller-like experience but using a narrative-focused ruleset.
I haven't played Traveller in nearly 30 years! I did just buy the entire GDW classic Traveller collection on PDF from Bundle of Holding back in December.
I've been thinking about running a campaign using some classic Traveller modules set in the Spinward Marches, but instead using the bare-bones PbtA scifi game ROVERS. ROVERS is intended to provide a Traveller-like experience but using a narrative-focused ruleset.
Yeap, spent many an adventure in the Spinward Marches. Right now we are focused on the Trojan Reach. Trying to keep the Aslan from invading and the Imperials from sending warships to stop it.
Yeap, spent many an adventure in the Spinward Marches. Right now we are focused on the Trojan Reach. Trying to keep the Aslan from invading and the Imperials from sending warships to stop it.I haven't played Traveller in nearly 30 years! I did just buy the entire GDW classic Traveller collection on PDF from Bundle of Holding back in December.
I've been thinking about running a campaign using some classic Traveller modules set in the Spinward Marches, but instead using the bare-bones PbtA scifi game ROVERS. ROVERS is intended to provide a Traveller-like experience but using a narrative-focused ruleset.
If you're a Traveller fan, I would encourage you to take a look at the neo-OSR scifi/horror RPG Mothership. The rules remind me very strongly of Traveller.
The game itself is pretty darned good, but where it really shines are with the modules. I highly recommend any and all of Dead Planet, A Pound of Flesh or the scifi/horror megadungeon Gradient Descent.
The one thing really on my radar right now are the hacking rules in the new Terminator RPG. I dont particularly care about that franchise but i've heard good things about the hacking mini game it has.
I've never looked at the Terminator RPG. Their page says it uses the "S5S" system, which I've never heard of.
I'd be interested in learning more about its subsystem for computer hacking. Thus far, I've not really encountered a good one in a TTRPG.
I've never looked at the Terminator RPG. Their page says it uses the "S5S" system, which I've never heard of.
I'd be interested in learning more about its subsystem for computer hacking. Thus far, I've not really encountered a good one in a TTRPG.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "Does System Matter" debate is raging on TTRPG Twitter again.
OSR designer Emmy Allen (author of The Stygian Library) gave a very succinct explanation of aligning the game mechanics of a TTRPG and expectations of what the game is supposed to be about.
Her argument is: "An RPG is about what is gives mechanical attention to."
The mechanics presented reward the player for engaging with them, and thus shape how the game is played: What the mechanics care about will be what the players care about. Where the mechanics and the advertised fiction are aligned to reinforce each other, the game gives the experience that's intended by the designer... and when they aren't, the game will really be about something else.
D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) is an RPG that's fundamentally about fighting monsters and taking their stuff: The vast majority of the mechanical attention of the game rules is on fighting and on treasure... and the rules about treasure mostly give mechanical attention to how the treasure improves your fighting. But that's not a big mismatch, as that's mostly what D&D advertises on the box.
An example of a mismatch is Vampire: the Masquerade (prior to v5). The fiction advertised is that it's a game about the struggles of existing as a vampire: balancing the need to feed/kill, the trade-offs of corruption and power, and how to hang on to shreds of humanity. But the rules are all about getting and using super-powers... so in-play, most VtM games end up becoming power-fantasies instead of the advertised morality plays.
An example of really good alignment is Thirsty Sword Lesbians. This is a game advertised as queer stories where emotions are revealed through high-stakes action... and the mechanics completely back up that premise. There's even a mechanic to kiss and relieve the emotional tension. It's a near-perfect match of rules and premise.
The counter-argument is that you can always ignore rules or otherwise hack the game to make it do what you want. But then, you're not playing the game as designed, and there's probably a different game out there that will give the experience you want!
An example of a mismatch is Vampire: the Masquerade (prior to v5). The fiction advertised is that it's a game about the struggles of existing as a vampire: balancing the need to feed/kill, the trade-offs of corruption and power, and how to hang on to shreds of humanity. But the rules are all about getting and using super-powers... so in-play, most VtM games end up becoming power-fantasies instead of the advertised morality plays.
I don’t actually feel there was a misalignment with Masquerade. The fiction of Masquerade always advertised it as being a game about young Vampires in a desperate power struggle with elder vampires during what is believed to be the days before the apocalypse when the eldest Vampires will return and the world will collapse. It was built around the central conceit of acquiring power so that you could last as long as possible against the forces stacking up against you.
The struggles of existing and hanging on to the shreds of humanity were part of neonate play as you begin the game - but that shifts as you gain in power and your characters priorities shift. That was always included in the core books meta plot and descriptive text, just as there were always different alternatives to the humanity system to illustrate that remaining human was not the only end goal.
Vampire: The Requiem advertised the kind of game you describe and delivers on it pretty cleanly as well.
The whole "Does System Matter" debate is raging on TTRPG Twitter again.
OSR designer Emmy Allen (author of The Stygian Library) gave a very succinct explanation of aligning the game mechanics of a TTRPG and expectations of what the game is supposed to be about.
Her argument is: "An RPG is about what is gives mechanical attention to."
The mechanics presented reward the player for engaging with them, and thus shape how the game is played: What the mechanics care about will be what the players care about. Where the mechanics and the advertised fiction are aligned to reinforce each other, the game gives the experience that's intended by the designer... and when they aren't, the game will really be about something else.
D&D (and by extension Pathfinder) is an RPG that's fundamentally about fighting monsters and taking their stuff: The vast majority of the mechanical attention of the game rules is on fighting and on treasure... and the rules about treasure mostly give mechanical attention to how the treasure improves your fighting. But that's not a big mismatch, as that's mostly what D&D advertises on the box.
An example of a mismatch is Vampire: the Masquerade (prior to v5). The fiction advertised is that it's a game about the struggles of existing as a vampire: balancing the need to feed/kill, the trade-offs of corruption and power, and how to hang on to shreds of humanity. But the rules are all about getting and using super-powers... so in-play, most VtM games end up becoming power-fantasies instead of the advertised morality plays.
An example of really good alignment is Thirsty Sword Lesbians. This is a game advertised as queer stories where emotions are revealed through high-stakes action... and the mechanics completely back up that premise. There's even a mechanic to kiss and relieve the emotional tension. It's...
If you recall in my OP, I mentioned the Blacow Model. There is a grid in the model that has Pure Fantasy (abstraction) on one end of the realism axis, and Simulation (wargaming) on the other end. The opposite goals axis has campaign goals (story telling) and personal goals (power gaming).
Next the author examines games and places them on the graph. You get ratings like D&D being in the fantasy and story telling quadrant, where Chivalry and Sorcery is the opposite in a simulation and power gaming quadrant.
Its not fool proof, but I think it demonstrates how mechanics of a system will influence the style of play. That influence doesnt make it the only way to play the game, but I think the more you want to play against the mechanics, the more difficulty you will have in getting a group consensus. You arrive at some odds like the Vampire the Mascarade example.
An example of a mismatch is Vampire: the Masquerade (prior to v5). The fiction advertised is that it's a game about the struggles of existing as a vampire: balancing the need to feed/kill, the trade-offs of corruption and power, and how to hang on to shreds of humanity. But the rules are all about getting and using super-powers... so in-play, most VtM games end up becoming power-fantasies instead of the advertised morality plays.I don’t actually feel there was a misalignment with Masquerade. The fiction of Masquerade always advertised it as being a game about young Vampires in a desperate power struggle with elder vampires during what is believed to be the days before the apocalypse when the eldest Vampires will return and the world will collapse. It was built around the central conceit of acquiring power so that you could last as long as possible against the forces stacking up against you.
Interesting. Ms. Allen's description matches my personal experience with VtM pretty much exactly. I played a little VtM in the '90s, but it just didn't resonate with me. The game was pitched to me by the GM and other players as "Interview With the Vampire the RPG", and the struggles of being a vampire/hanging onto humanity was the main point of the book, and what I was interested in exploring in the game. Also, the Fox TV series Kindred: The Embraced was a vampire soap opera that was directly based on VtM, and those themes were what that show was about. After 5 or 6 sessions the game turned to power-fantasies and I just didn't enjoy playing a godlike murderer who treated people like cattle.
All my vampire experiences were ruined by egotripping power gamers who said they quit D&D because it was for ego tripping power gamers. That and all they tried to do was screw each others characters over.
Interesting. Ms. Allen's description matches my personal experience with VtM pretty much exactly. I played a little VtM in the '90s, but it just didn't resonate with me. The game was pitched to me by the GM and other players as "Interview With the Vampire the RPG"
You specifically spoke of the way the game billed itself. Ms. Allen's description matching your personal experience - and the way the game was pitched to you are second hand descriptions of the game. Neither includes White Wolf's depiction of the game.
Many of the differences between our world and the World of Darkness stem from these vampires. Ancient and inscrutable, the Kindred toy with humanity as a cat does with a trapped mouse. The immortal Kindred manipulate society to stave off the ennui and malaise that threaten them nightly, or to guard against the machinations of centuries-old rivals. Immortality is a curse to vampires, for they are locked in stagnant existences and dead bodies.
"Gothic-Punk" is perhaps the best way to describe the physical nature of the World of Darkness. The environment is a clashing mixture of styles and influences, and the tension caused by the juxtaposition of ethnicities, social classes and subcultures makes the world a vibrant, albeit dangerous, place.
...
The Punk aspect is the lifestyle that many denizens of the World of Darkness have adopted. In order to give their lives meaning, they rebel, crashing themselves against the crags of power. Gangs prowl the streets and organized crime breeds in the underworld, reactions to the pointlessness of living "by the book." Music is louder, faster, more violent or hypnotically monotonous, and supported by masses who find salvation in its escape. Speech is coarser, fashion is bolder, art is more shocking, and technology brings it all to everyone at the click of a button. The world is more corrupt, the people are spiritually bankrupt and escapism often replaces hope.
...
Some Kindred believe that a Reckoning is at hand, that the powers of Heaven are preparing at last to judge the vampires and what they have made of the world. Others speak of the Winnowing, or Gehenna, the night when the most ancient vampires will rise to consume their progeny, taking their lessers' cursed blood to sate their own hunger. Few admit to such superstitions, but most feel a palpable tension in these nights. Elder vampires play their hands in one fell swoop, negating centuries-long schemes in a single mad flurry of action. The war packs of the dread Sabbat hurl themselves at the fortresses of their enemies, for they fear they might not get another opportunity. Cells of Assamite cannibals, formerly held in check by a great curse, hunt other vampires and ravenously drink their blood. Vampires of uncertain lineage are hunted down and destroyed by paranoid elders who fear them as harbingers of Gehenna. Though patience is a special virtue among the immortals it is practiced less and less, and the whole Kindred world teeters on the verge of a great collective frenzy.
These quotes are pulled from the first two pages of the first full chapter of the Masquerade core book. Excluded are two Metaplot narratives told by two different characters (and different from edition to edition) and the Introduction. This is the meat and potatoes chapter of the book where you learn the setting of the world you're playing in.
Hardly described is the version of the game that is like Interview with a Vampire - or the version where you gird yourself against a slow decent away from your humanity.
Kindred: The Embraced[/i] was a vampire soap opera that was directly based on VtM, and those themes were what that show was about.
It was also a show with a 1992 Fox budget - so it focused on simplified themes. So much so that it was required to change its name to Kindred: The Embraced.
After 5 or 6 sessions the game turned to power-fantasies and I just didn't enjoy playing a godlike murderer who treated people like cattle.
The game certainly isn't for everyone. I'm not a huge fan of Masquerade myself, I much prefer Requiem which is built around the central themes you describe and has mechanics that structurally support them.
V5 was built to introduce a version of Masquerade that advances the timeline ever so slightly (and might or might not actually be taking place after the Vampire apocalypse known as Gehenna) many of the elements that are incorporated in that game that give the feeling you described were grafted onto the new edition from Vampire: The Requiem (some from Requiem 2e) It's sort of a blending of the two. Stronger mechanics of one, the tone and setting of the other.
[Emmy Allen's] argument is: "An RPG is about what is gives mechanical attention to."
The mechanics presented reward the player for engaging with them, and thus shape how the game is played: What the mechanics care about will be what the players care about. Where the mechanics and the advertised fiction are aligned to reinforce each other, the game gives the experience that's intended by the designer... and when they aren't, the game will really be about something else.
If you recall in my OP, I mentioned the Blacow Model. There is a grid in the model that has Pure Fantasy (abstraction) on one end of the realism axis, and Simulation (wargaming) on the other end. The opposite goals axis has campaign goals (story telling) and personal goals (power gaming)...
Its not fool proof, but I think it demonstrates how mechanics of a system will influence the style of play. That influence doesnt make it the only way to play the game, but I think the more you want to play against the mechanics, the more difficulty you will have in getting a group consensus. You arrive at some odds like the Vampire the Mascarade example.
You see mismatches when you try to take a system designed for one type of story and try to force it to tell a different sort of story.
Another example of a mismatch in core mechanics vs. scenario design goals is, in my opinion, the Pathfinder Adventure Path "War for the Crown".
The Pathfinder RPG (both editions) is a game that's fundamentally about fighting monsters and taking their stuff. Fighting is what the vast majority of the rules and character options detail. (Sure, there are some mechanics for things that aren't fighting, but they aren't what the game gives the most mechanical attention to.) And on the "stuff" side of the premise, the vast majority of the mechanics for equipment and magic items are about how they improve your ability to fight.
But the premise of "War For the Crown" is about politics: The king is dead, there are a bunch of different people claiming to be the legitimate heir (who all have varying motives), and the PCs are supporting one claimant's right to the throne. The blurb on the back of of Crownfall (#1 of 6) reads in part:
Everyone loves a party! As Taldor's entire capital city gathers to celebrate, few realize that conspiracy and royal rivalries are about to shake the Empire to its core! ...can anyone prevent a civil war that will tear one of the Inner Sea's oldest nations apart at its rotting seams?
But when you read the actual adventure... there's a ballroom scene that uses a new "Social Round" mechanic for gathering information and gaining allies that was invented for this AP and grafted in... and then it's fight after fight after fight.
The subsequent adventures follow the same pattern: There are some social scenes that use new mechanics grafted onto to the core rules, and then it's Friday night at the fights again.
Why have so many contrived fights in a campaign that's ostensibly about politics, gaining allies, and influencing people of power? Because Pathfinder is at its core a game about fighting, and the rules just don't provide enough robust mechanics to really support a game that's ultimately about political intrigue and building political alliances.
Even Crystal Frasier, the developer of this AP, said so on her Patreon. [Note: the article is behind a paywall]
I’m not shy about admitting that I think that the six-part adventure path series, War for the Crown, is one of my proudest professional achievements. I took a corner of the Pathfinder campaign setting that had mostly been relegated to jokes and built and extensive history and political landscape for it, then with the help of some of the most talented adventure writers in the industry we brought it to life. Players get to navigate noble conspiracies, secret societies, galas, and castles to help save what they love about their home nation as it threatens to topple into fascism.
I wasn’t subtle with the allegory, either.
While it’s far from a perfect story, I still think it’s a fun one, full of interesting characters, unexpected twists, and bizarre esoterica twisted to fun plotlines. But three years later I still have one major complaint: I don’t think the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game was the best fit for the campaign. So I’m going to tinker with converting the campaign to one of my personal favorite systems: Blue Rose, 2nd Edition .
Blue Rose is a much better match to the themes and action of a political intrigue game, especially if you want to emphasize romantic drama and themes of righteous rule vs. personal power.
Alternatively, if you want to play a game of fantasy politics that's grittier and more about assassinations and double-crosses like in Game of Thrones, another option would be to run "War For the Crown" using the RPG The Sword, The Crown, and the Unspeakable Power ("SCUP").
Either of these games provide robust mechanics for alliances, power plays, political influence, and throwing your lot with a faction. You'd be able to cut out at least three-quarters of the generic fights-for-the-sake-of-fighting encounters and focus on what the campaign is ostensibly about.
Interesting. Ms. Allen's description matches my personal experience with VtM pretty much exactly. I played a little VtM in the '90s, but it just didn't resonate with me. The game was pitched to me by the GM and other players as "Interview With the Vampire the RPG"You specifically spoke of the way the game billed itself. Ms. Allen's description matching your personal experience - and the way the game was pitched to you are second hand descriptions of the game. Neither includes White Wolf's depiction of the game.
Fair enough.
I'll admit that I never owned a copy of the book and probably never read those passages myself.
30 years ago, I was mostly interested via the "vampire as tragic/romantic hero" theme that was part of the zeitgeist. (I also seem to recall that's how White Wolf was marketing VtM.)
Of course, back then, the only WoD game I played and actually liked was Mage: The Ascension. I bought that book, and I found that the rules and premise matched very well!
I can't speak to 1e's marketing specifically, but once the hardback 2nd edition core was released a year later the marketing focused on the factionalism of the game. Promoting punk rock pastiche's clashing with suited yuppie types and grungy bikers for control over the pieces on the chess board that was the city.
The clash between Cam, Anarch, and Sabbat was almost always the crux of the marketing.
[Emmy Allen's] argument is: "An RPG is about what is gives mechanical attention to."
The mechanics presented reward the player for engaging with them, and thus shape how the game is played: What the mechanics care about will be what the players care about. Where the mechanics and the advertised fiction are aligned to reinforce each other, the game gives the experience that's intended by the designer... and when they aren't, the game will really be about something else.
If you recall in my OP, I mentioned the Blacow Model. There is a grid in the model that has Pure Fantasy (abstraction) on one end of the realism axis, and Simulation (wargaming) on the other end. The opposite goals axis has campaign goals (story telling) and personal goals (power gaming)...
Its not fool proof, but I think it demonstrates how mechanics of a system will influence the style of play. That influence doesnt make it the only way to play the game, but I think the more you want to play against the mechanics, the more difficulty you will have in getting a group consensus. You arrive at some odds like the Vampire the Mascarade example.
You see mismatches when you try to take a system designed for one type of story and try to force it to tell a different sort of story.
Another example of a mismatch in core mechanics vs. scenario design goals is, in my opinion, the Pathfinder Adventure Path "War for the Crown".
The Pathfinder RPG (both editions) is a game that's fundamentally about fighting monsters and taking their stuff. Fighting is what the vast majority of the rules and character options detail. (Sure, there are some mechanics for things that aren't fighting, but they aren't what the game gives the most mechanical attention to.) And on the "stuff" side of the premise, the vast majority of the mechanics for equipment and magic items are about how they improve your ability to fight.
But the premise of "War For the...
The thing I love about most of the adventure paths is that they try and expand the PF system beyond fighting. I think for the most part, they are successful in the earliest parts of the APs. This tends to fall by the wayside as the complex combat system requires more and more page count to produce content for the campaign.
Another downside is that often these new mechanical systems model the stuff most gamers dislike. Tracking ammunition and rations and other resources like a mini game. I think it works best when the GM keeps the numbers under the hood, but it can still be a lot of work for the GM and players to enjoy. Sometimes the experience never materializes, and sometimes the players just want combat.
Despite all that working against the system, I still think its a worthy endeavor because it expands not only the system, but gamers concept of what an RPG can be. Anecdotal time, but I know a handful of gamers who got interested in trying new games from the APs. The attempt to push PF beyond combat sim, got them interested in what an RPG can be. They might have been more than content to just combat game for the rest of their days otherwise. So there is a benefit to APs like War for the Crown even if PF isnt the best system for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When MtG hit the market, I took one look at it and said, "Oh, my God. This game hits every one of my compulsions. It will extract every last minute from my life and every last dollar from my wallet."
And I ran away screaming.
I have never once played MtG because I KNOW I will like too much for my own good!
(I had to learn the hard way about myself in this respect regarding AAA video games... )
I collected sports cards as a kid, and got a little into Star Wars and X-men collectable cards too. Though, I fell out of it around the time Magic, Pokemon, and Yu-Gi-Oh came out. Seems I was just a little too young to get sucked into that trap.
But for the "mechanics are mere tools for something beyond the mechanics themselves" perspective I think the above quote is then very wrong would lead designers down the wrong path, and the resulting game would encourage the wrong perspective (as in "not the designer's intent" type of wrong).
I've seen you speak rather nebulously about this idea that mechanics are tools for something beyond themselves - what exactly is this concept beyond the rules of the game that the mechanics are meant to express?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is I think where your argument gets lost in all of these threads. You presented the concept of roleplaying as we all tend to define it and then at the end presented that there are two sides - each with more or less the same basic premise.
But in your earlier post you defined them as diametrically opposed concepts with differing design philosophies.
The confusion comes in the fact that your definition of this more free "rules as tools" approach is seemingly the way most people play already.
I find that how people describe their play does not match how they actually play. A well known bias in psychology.
If multiple players of a game in the world describe that their application of rules depends on the situation - so much so that there is a “rule” in all games to justify a DM/GM/ST’s ability to do so (both rule 0 and the “rule of cool”) wouldn’t Occam’s Razor suggest that your personal experience has not brought you into contact with these players rather than some sort of cognitive bias is in play and the players who claim to play that way are wrong about their own games?
Generally speaking, storytelling games are "rules are how to play" type games, but they don't always seem like it at first because they lack the focus on system mastery but they still use mechanics to dictate the structure of play
We need a common frame of reference here, because when you say “storytelling games” I think it White Wolf which uses the “Storytelling” system. Your broad description above does not describe the games in that product line at all.
Oh, I was rereading and I think tjis quote is pertinent,
... I want the players interacting with the game world, not the abstraction.Emphasis mine.
Though not the entirety. especially in storytelling games, a large part of the difference is whether players are using the mechanics to talk about how they are interacting with the game world, or if they are interacting with the mechanics and dressing it up with the flavor of the game world.
For example, when I say I have a character and they ask first what my class and maybe race is, snd then think that being a bard meand I'm some sort of travelling artisan when in actuality she is a noble and uses perform oratory rather than music, having used the bard class because it by far works as the best representation of a classic noble, being well educated in many topics, taught how to fight and lead, and naturally would be taught magic if it was at all teachable.
Thus, finding the best mechanics to represent the concept of a well educated noble leads me to the bard class.
However, for many, that is backwards, they would choose the class first and then dress it up.
Does the order really matter? I dont think it does, however, I get what you are trying to say, but this isnt a good example.
Let me try. I was in a Kingmaker AP once and there was a sub-system for building villages, towns, capitals, etc. Adding buildings and other structures could improve the security, economy, spirituality, etc of any given community. This was represented as numbers added to particular scores of any of these areas.
Now, if players know the impact as a number, they start building structures to improve areas of need, instead of building structures that appear to be desired for the characters and fit narrative needs.
In this example, players may be using the numbers to meta game the system to get the desired outcome (the abstraction) instead of organically designing a community (the game world).
Does that seem to work?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually try to get my players to read Calibrating Your Expectations by Alexandrian.
Boy, do I hate that article. I think it's bad advice.
For one, it's hyper-specific to D&D 3.5 with little-to-no application outside of that specific ruleset. Two, I don't buy Alexander's basic premise, which means the rest of the argument is, to my eyes, moot.
An RPG is about what it gives mechanical attention to.This seems about right for the "mechanics define the game" perspective, and if designing a game to be used in that way, and think you can't easily go wrong with this idea.
But for the "mechanics are mere tools for something beyond the mechanics themselves" perspective I think the above quote is then very wrong would lead designers down the wrong path, and the resulting game would encourage the wrong perspective (as in "not the designer's intent" type of wrong).
In at least four different threads, you've made this assertion, but then have been unable to explain what you mean by that in a manner that anyone other than you understands.
I have no doubt that you see some kind of universal RPG truth here, but I've come to the conclusion that whatever you're getting at is a distinction without a difference.
I think it's disingenuous to assume that a player is going to make in-character decisions without any mind to the rules of the RPG in question. If you ignore the rules of a game, you're not playing that game.
Yes, in most modern play-styles, a separation between player knowledge and character knowledge is assumed. You sorcerer in Golarion isn't going to know anything about plate tectonics or how to find petroleum deposits just because you, the player, happens to be a professional geologist. So having them spout in-character knowledge about such matters is inappropriate.
But in order to engage with the game as designed and as written, the player needs to make decisions that align with the rules of the game. And those rules determine what the game is about.
For example, in OGL/3.x: Your character concept is a fighter with a polearm. You build the character to take feats that optimize using a reach weapon. Your regular fighting tactics include always taking a 5-foot step backwards to force the opponent to leave a threatened square to attack you, which gives you an extra attack of opportunity. These choices are made by the player to take better advantage of the rules of the game. That's not out-of-character knowledge coming out through the actions of the character: It's player knowledge of the rules coming through in how the player is interacting with the game. In other words, that's system mastery.
At any RPG's heart is a constant interplay between what's happening within the game-world (i.e. the Fiction of what's happening with characters) and the game mechanics (i.e. the real-world game that's being played by the people around the table.) Some RPGs put a distinct delineation between those sides, while others blur the distinction, and still others more-or-less remove the divide by expecting the players to think both in-character and out-of-character simultaneously.
A game I play pretty extensively is the OSR/story-game hybrid RPG Trophy Gold. Like OGL games, Trophy has robust dice mechanics that require the players to know how they work and what they mean. Unlike OGL, Trophy's dice mechanics are unconcerned with simulating what's going on: They're more of an oracle that guides the narrative and determines whether the player or the GM has narrative control over aspects of the current scene. There's an interplay with what's happening in the game-world and how the dice mechanics are being used by the real-world players. The player is constantly balancing the in-game choices of their character with the out-of-game experience of engaging with the rules to see how the game plays out.
I'm not saying you can't force a given RPG to play out stories or situations it wasn't designed to do. You can always modify rules, ignore rules, or make up new rules. If you want to use a rulset that's designed to simulate the explosive emotional melodrama of a telenovela to run a dungeon crawl, you can. Likewise, you could use a game that's designed to be about fighting monsters and taking their stuff to run a game about fomenting nonviolent revolution in an oppressive society and pulling the downtrodden out of poverty, but the rules as written won't support those actions: You'll need to fill in the gaps with new rules or just let the GM fill those gaps with narrative fiat. But you'd be better served by playing a game designed to tell the sort of story you want to explore.
I have always stated that I suck as describing things.
On this point we are in agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking a leg off a table and using it as a club sounds pretty thematic to D&D. However, in 3E/PF thats an action eating, round taking, improvised weapon getting method that sucks mechanically.
Thats system mastery or "rules are the game" perspective. What would the rules as tools perspective be?
Second, I say players describe describe their own style incorrectly because I've seen it personally many times. I've watched people play and they'll play differently than how they described. another poster actually gave a great example of this earlier, though I don't remember if it was this thread or the thread this one came from.
I’ve personally seen players accurately describe their play style many times. Does my experience negate yours, or does it just prove that we’re both using anecdotal information to back up our opinions?
Generally speaking, storytelling games are...”
Maybe you should use a different term for your generalization of gameplay styles than one that has been in use by a particular brand for 30 years. It is the name of their system after all.
Have you ever considered that you have one perspective and therefore only see the things from that one perspective?
Have you considered that this singular perspective coloring your perception of the broader topic might also be affecting yourself.
There's a pretty cool article on Dicebreaker about indie RPGs and the different sort of play experience such games offer, as compared to the 500-pound gorilla in the room (D&D).
Indie RPGs show roleplaying can - and should - be far more than Dungeons & Dragons
As an aside, I've played 7 of the 10 indie RPGs mentioned in the article, and GMed 4. (Not yet tried out Spire, Jiangshi, or Dialect.) I do have a copy of Spire, but haven't yet brought it to the table.