Must you have Mechanics?

[jedipotter]

As a player, must you have mechanics to make a character? Must you have that plus or that special ability?

For example. I started off a game in the Pearl Islands(off Chult in the FR). Everyone was making characters close to each other so they could start knowing each other. I never said anything like ''for your whole character's lives, you will never go more then a mile from the Pearl Islands''. Yet, a couple of players made sea based/swashbuckling characters. But a couple hours into the game, the plot moved into Chult, a jungle. The players of sea type characters were not happy and said so.

And this turned into a disscusion about mechanics. The players were saying they ''must'' have mechancis to have fun or ''play their character concept'' or whatever. I'm Old School, I think a player should just make a character and have fun. And I don't think you ''need'' mechancis to have fun. You can be a pirate without a ''+2 to slight of hand when on a ship'', for example.

So what does everyone else say, must you have mechanics?

[Aegis013]

It's somewhat difficult to tell what you're asking. It is possible to play a game without mechanics, but that's typically called freeform roleplay. D&D of any edition has mechanics built in as rules. If you're going to ignore them as the DM the players should get to know what all is going to happen there before the game.

If you mean the players weren't pleased that they were supposed to go into a jungle. They could've just not gone into the jungle, right?

If you mean the players weren't pleased because they had bonuses from being on boats/water and didn't want to lose them from going into the jungle, they could still just not go into the jungle, right?

[Tim Proctor]

As a player, must you have mechanics to make a character? Must you have that plus or that special ability?

For example. I started off a game in the Pearl Islands(off Chult in the FR). Everyone was making characters close to each other so they could start knowing each other. I never said anything like ''for your whole character's lives, you will never go more then a mile from the Pearl Islands''. Yet, a couple of players made sea based/swashbuckling characters. But a couple hours into the game, the plot moved into Chult, a jungle. The players of sea type characters were not happy and said so.

And this turned into a disscusion about mechanics. The players were saying they ''must'' have mechancis to have fun or ''play their character concept'' or whatever. I'm Old School, I think a player should just make a character and have fun. And I don't think you ''need'' mechancis to have fun. You can be a pirate without a ''+2 to slight of hand when on a ship'', for example.

So what does everyone else say, must you have mechanics?

That is what retraining is for, I'd tell them to read PHBII.

I think the mechanics are there to reinforce the character concept. I think that if they are a sailor and want a high-seas adventure they wouldn't be going to the jungle. If you're a Advertising Executive you don't apply for Chemist jobs, you stay with what you're good at. Maybe you railroaded them a bit hard, maybe not, obviously I'm not there to judge. However, I would say that if I'm a Pirate I would be hard pressed to end up in the jungle like a conquistador. It doesn't sound like it fits the character concept.

[Psyren]

Part of your job as the DM is to make sure the players are aware, in a broad sense, of the impact some of their character choices will have. If the players choose to be sailors and the campaign isn't going to be nautical, warn them so they can change things around if they want. Or they may decide to go with it anyway just to add flavor to their characters. In that case, I might even work something in where they could use those skills anyway - like a cave in Chult that leads to an underground sea with a derelict ship, and they need their nautical skills to traverse the water while under attack.

[Slipperychicken]

Your problem isn't with whether your players "need mechanics" or not; it seems to have come from expectation issues; you told them they'd play a game in a specific environment type (archipelago), so they made characters suitable for that environment (with their swashbuckling/sailing bonuses and all)... But then in the first session, you moved them into an entirely different setting than they expected, rendering their characters unsuitable for play there.

It would be like if you said "Okay guys, we're going to do a light-hearted hack-and-slash dungeon crawl campaign", but then narrated them into a nonviolent political intrigue. You set expectations, and broke them. I know I'd be pretty peeved if the DM rendered my character ineffective by changing the setting.

EDIT: A good fix would have been to, before character creation, tell them something like "Although the campaign will begin on the Pearl Islands, it will move around to different areas, so make sure your characters can function in a variety of environments".

[Diarmuid]

One thing I've noticed with the way some people build characters is that every facet of their character has to be represented somehow by mrchanics.

Just because your parents were murdeted by orcs doesn't mean you need "favored event: Orc" to represent your hatred of orcs.

A few well placed skill points, IMHO, can easily represent many background traits.

I get making a character that can REALLY shine in certain indtances, but if you're completely useless when you can't bring your "tricks" to bear is a limitation you've built into your character and you can either accept and embrace that or complain.

The DM is responsible for building an interesting world/game and assuming they will always do so on a way that's most beneficial for you is short-sighted IMHO.

[Squirrel_Dude]

One thing I've noticed with the way some people build characters is that every facet of their character has to be represented somehow by mrchanics.

Just because your parents were murdeted by orcs doesn't mean you need "favored event: Orc" to represent your hatred of orcs.

A few well placed skill points, IMHO, can easily represent many background traits.I'll mostly agree with this. I would say that characters are stronger the more tightly their story and mechanics are woven together. Players (DMs included) should just remember that even if there there is a feat called "Pirate skills" it doesn't mean that taking said feat will make you a better pirate character.

But yes, the problem here doesn't seem to be that your players don't have mechanics, but that they built their characters with the wrong expectations. I wouldn't necessarily tell players what their facing...

E.G. "Hey, Ranger, it will be a forest, underground, and hills setting with lots of goblinoids, dragons, humanoids and undead"

... but I don't have a problem giving the players some information about the setting or that some abilities will be helpful, if that information would be common knowledge...

E.G. "Reminder, Ranger, Katapesh is mostly desert, with a pretty large gnoll population"

... I find the game much more enjoyable when players are given opportunities to use their powers in combats, especially when they need to use those powers to scrape by the skin of their teeth.

[rexreg]

I am playing a PF Ranger in a campaign. We started @ 2nd level. My Ranger (competent w/ Wilderness stuff & all that) has a cool backstory.

Our first several sessions were in a New World-setting, had religio/political intrigue, & was city-based. I coped. I even got lucky die rolls & made 3 untrained Bluff checks. Great - this gives me something to remember the character by.

Our DM allows multi-classing only if you role-play into the new class. My Ranger, feeling lost, latched onto a Scholar/Cleric so he could a) have a knowledge source, b) have a contact in the church, & c) ease my spiritual woes (the Ranger is incredibly superstitious & sees demons everywhere).

My Ranger & the Cleric/Scholar ended up becoming friends of sorts & I was allowed to take a level of Scholar...which allowed me ranks in Bluff, among other things. I have since taken another level of Ranger, but am planning on taking more Scholar levels.

I now have a character w/ a cool in-game backstory & his original background is still intact. I love playing him, even though he is sometimes out of his element...that is part of what makes role-playing enjoyable.

[jedipotter]

EDIT: A good fix would have been to, before character creation, tell them something like "Although the campaign will begin on the Pearl Islands, it will move around to different areas, so make sure your characters can function in a variety of environments".

I guess? Though it is a bit like saying ''D&D is a combat game so make sure your character has weapons and spells so they can fight''.

I see the problem as more the 'Middle Earth' or even 'Video Gamers': they expected the world to be like a mile square.


One thing I've noticed with the way some people build characters is that every facet of their character has to be represented somehow by mrchanics.

Just because your parents were murdeted by orcs doesn't mean you need "favored event: Orc" to represent your hatred of orcs.

I'll agree with this. After all one player did this. The ranger's parents were killed by shaugain and he had favored ememy shaugain.

[Psyren]

I guess? Though it is a bit like saying ''D&D is a combat game so make sure your character has weapons and spells so they can fight''.

I see the problem as more the 'Middle Earth' or even 'Video Gamers': they expected the world to be like a mile square.

Did you give them reason to believe they would need sailing skills? If so, then the ball is indeed in your court to fulfill that expectation. If not and that was just something they came up with on their own, then you don't have any obligation to make it useful in the game - though in the interest of fun you can still make it relevant occasionally. The example I proposed is one way.



I'll agree with this. After all one player did this. The ranger's parents were killed by shaugain and he had favored ememy shaugain.

Is there a problem with that? He had to pick something. It would be pretty weird for his family to be murdered by sahuagin and then he picks FE: Drow.

[Tim Proctor]

How much of this issue would be an issue where the DM made the campaign without foreknowledge of the characters, and how much is the players making characters without foreknowledge of the campaign?

I mean, I go through and 'yes, but' the PCs in order to add hooks into the campaign setting, as well as give them some broad strokes to paint a cohesive picture with the setting.

I would suggest to any DM/GM to give broad instructions on character creation like 'they need to be on island X, and need to have a good reason to want to leave'. Then when a player comes and says I want to play a ranger whose parents were killed by Orcs and I want to slay all of the Orcs, I respond with 'Yes, but he is also turned pirate and is famed from sitting in the crows nest with his bow as the spottsman and during raids sniping the enemy officers, recently he killed a very wealthy admiral and the authorities are after the ship. The captain and most of the crew were caught and executed (you're next if you don't escape the island)'.

This gives the player a good guide for the amount of mechanics he needs to play the game. He could know favored enemy Orcs (as he wanted) and also profession (privateer), etc. etc.

I think this whole issue is due to poor communication.

[Fax Celestis]

I see the problem as more the 'Middle Earth' or even 'Video Gamers': they expected the world to be like a mile square.

:smallconfused:

Because neither Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit went anywhere really all that important.

[Tyndmyr]

As a player, must you have mechanics to make a character? Must you have that plus or that special ability?

For example. I started off a game in the Pearl Islands(off Chult in the FR). Everyone was making characters close to each other so they could start knowing each other. I never said anything like ''for your whole character's lives, you will never go more then a mile from the Pearl Islands''. Yet, a couple of players made sea based/swashbuckling characters. But a couple hours into the game, the plot moved into Chult, a jungle. The players of sea type characters were not happy and said so.

And this turned into a disscusion about mechanics. The players were saying they ''must'' have mechancis to have fun or ''play their character concept'' or whatever. I'm Old School, I think a player should just make a character and have fun. And I don't think you ''need'' mechancis to have fun. You can be a pirate without a ''+2 to slight of hand when on a ship'', for example.

So what does everyone else say, must you have mechanics?


God yes. I've played forum games where no mechanics exist, and they become protracted, poorly written tales of how each player thinks their char is the awesomest.

Yes, in theory, an excellent story can be written with no rules of any kind...but we call those people writers, and it usually takes them a great deal of work to produce such a story that others will enjoy, and successful efforts with several authors are rare, even without the addition of the impromptu format.

In actual practice, you need mechanics, and they should be selected to support the kind of game you wish to play.

[NichG]

There's two issues here. One is mechanics, the other is about investment in the game.

Mechanics:

Some players get inspired by mechanics, other players get inspired by character archetypes, others get inspired by story or setting. Its good to at least try to meet those various needs if you want happy players who come up with interesting things. Whether or not characterization alone is enough to inspire you, it doesn't necessarily help the guy who can't figure out what he wants to play without some concrete mechanical inspiration.

That said, no, you don't need mechanics in principle, but you do need players who are on board with that for it to work. If you have a group of players who like mechanics, it won't work.

Investment in the game and expectations:

This is the real problem. Its not just that you gave the idea 'this is an island game', its that the players communicated certain things that they thought were cool ('My character has a problem with sahuagin!') but they were basically ignored because of a pre-existing plan to move the game to Chult. Essentially you've communicated to that player 'what you think is cool doesn't matter', so they feel like their decisions don't matter.

This is where adapting the storyline to the characters, giving the right information off the bat, etc come in. If the game is going to be about adventuring through the jungles, you don't have to 'spoil' that but you can hint at the scope of the game. If someone makes a sailor with anti-sahuagin tendencies, you can make sahuagin into a secondary recurring menace, etc.

[Morgarion]

I guess I'm old school, too. The OP's situation is a perfect example of the problems that come with mechanicalizing elements of the game that don't need to be, or even that should not be. It isn't the players' faults that Wizards or Paizo or whoever came up with feats and classes that are specifically only useful in more restricted situations. The players, however, chose to represent certain elements of their characters with these mechanics.

I don't think that a pirate class that only functions onboard a ship or a ranger variant specifically dedicated to tracking things through the desert or any of these specialized backstory/fluff mechanics are helpful or even necessary. They are plentiful, though, but they're shortcuts. You have to remember that if you take the shortcut, you're going to miss out on a lot of other stuff. I'd rather build an awesome pirate out of a straight bard (or bard/duelist?) or a barbarian or something. It's more work, but I think it's worth it.

EDIT: Furthermore, shouldn't the ranger's favored enemy have been Monstrous Humanoid, which would be much more widely applicable anyways?

[jedipotter]

This is the real problem. Its not just that you gave the idea 'this is an island game', its that the players communicated certain things that they thought were cool ('My character has a problem with sahuagin!') but they were basically ignored because of a pre-existing plan to move the game to Chult. Essentially you've communicated to that player 'what you think is cool doesn't matter', so they feel like their decisions don't matter.


I guess I could have said something like ''this game takes place on an Earth sized planet, not a little 'Middle Earth' backyard setting. Everything in the game will not take place in the same square mile".

[Psyren]

I guess I could have said something like ''this game takes place on an Earth sized planet, not a little 'Middle Earth' backyard setting. Everything in the game will not take place in the same square mile".

Um, Middle Earth had snowy mountain peaks, deep forests, vast open plains, blighted wastelands, dank caves, one extensive underground labyrinth, two major elven settlements and sprawling cities. I'm really not sure where these misconceptions are coming from.

[ryu]

Um, Middle Earth had snowy mountain peaks, deep forests, vast open plains, blighted wastelands, dank caves, one extensive underground labyrinth, two major elven settlements and sprawling cities. I'm really not sure where these misconceptions are coming from.

Plus read the books. So much more traveling in so much more detail than anyone ever needed to have described to them. So much so that I now find explanations of forests taking over thirty seconds mildly annoying on instinct.

[LordChaos13]

As a player, must you have mechanics to make a character? Must you have that plus or that special ability?

For example. I started off a game in the Pearl Islands(off Chult in the FR). Everyone was making characters close to each other so they could start knowing each other. I never said anything like ''for your whole character's lives, you will never go more then a mile from the Pearl Islands''. Yet, a couple of players made sea based/swashbuckling characters. But a couple hours into the game, the plot moved into Chult, a jungle. The players of sea type characters were not happy and said so.

And this turned into a disscusion about mechanics. The players were saying they ''must'' have mechancis to have fun or ''play their character concept'' or whatever. I'm Old School, I think a player should just make a character and have fun. And I don't think you ''need'' mechancis to have fun. You can be a pirate without a ''+2 to slight of hand when on a ship'', for example.

So what does everyone else say, must you have mechanics?

I'm confused. You are making two different points here:
1) Do characters in a rule-heavy game need mechanics describing their abilities
2) Here is an anecdote where I may or may not have misled my players into believing a jungle romp was a 7 seas seafarer tale


I believe that Crunch and Fluff should Coincide a lot. While _2 to Sleight of Hand on a ship isn't necessary it IS flavorful.
If I want to make the best sharpshooter in the west I better have a decent shot of hitting things
A pirate should have combat skills, should have abilities that LET HIM BE A PIRATE. If his backstory involves him weilding a rapier to defeat a horde of guards trying to arrest him, for Pelor's sake give him Rapier proficiency!
Sure things can get too minute, but things can be too vague as well. If someone has been single-mindedly researching ways to murder and maim fishfolk they better either have a great combat bonus or a fishfolk-only bonus to hit/damage, not be a smooth diplomancer


As for the anecdote: Without further details I have to say you screwed up. While it is true they shouldn't expect to remain entirely in the one place you specified it is ALSO true they shouldn't expect to leave as well.
I've been in campaigns that never left the town, others that crossed continents and biomes. Both needed to be communicated.
Seafaring is a LOT different thematically to jungle-exploring and need different kinds of character concepts

[jedipotter]

Um, Middle Earth had snowy mountain peaks, deep forests, vast open plains, blighted wastelands, dank caves, one extensive underground labyrinth, two major elven settlements and sprawling cities. I'm really not sure where these misconceptions are coming from.

Ok, i'm not trying to bash LotR or anything. But it is a very small setting. And it is made that way to make it a fictional story. You can only have your bad guy ''take over all the lands'' if your lands are square mile. When you tell a story of fiction, the easy way is to keep things small. After all if LotR had like 62 major elven settlememts or even like two major dwarf ones, the books would have been like a billion pages each.

[LordChaos13]

You do realize Middle-Earth is about the size of EUROPE right?

The Elves in decline after countless have returned to their homeland still number 60,000+
Multiple human kingdoms
Immense armies needed to conquer said kingdoms

It isnt a mile square

[ryu]

Ok, i'm not trying to bash LotR or anything. But it is a very small setting. And it is made that way to make it a fictional story. You can only have your bad guy ''take over all the lands'' if your lands are square mile. When you tell a story of fiction, the easy way is to keep things small. After all if LotR had like 62 major elven settlememts or even like two major dwarf ones, the books would have been like a billion pages each.

The books DID have a major dwarven settlement. It was the abandoned mines of Moria where the Balor was found. It also showed off the main home of the elves and several human settlements across the landscape. This is to say nothing of the forests, deserts, caves, and mountains that were individually described in excruciating detail. To even come close to describing something like that as taking place in the same square mile leads me question your sense of scope.

[Coidzor]

If you can manage to play a free form RPG with people in person, more power to you. But you won't be playing a d20 game. You can still use the aesthetic and tropes and themes and other trappings of D&D, but... without any mechanics at all? You're not really playing D&D anymore.

So, no, you don't have to have mechanics to have fun roleplaying with your friends, people do it all the time here on the boards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=32), but you do have to have them to play D&D. :smallconfused:

[2xMachina]

Hmm, there were quite a number of dwarf settlement, though they are far NE of the LoTR plot.

The lonely mountain basically reestablishes as a dwarven kingdom after hobbit, and there were a couple of dwarf kingdoms mentioned in the hobbit.

Elves had 2 at least, maybe 1 more in the western harbor.

Humans were practically everywhere. 1 kingdom (kinda collapsed) in the north (rangers), 2 good ones in the south, 1 (or more bad ones) south of Mordor. There's the human settlement near Lonely Mountain.

[Keneth]

I don't need mechanics for any part of a role playing game. At the core, all you need in a role playing game is actual role play, and everything else is just bonus. That said, I like mechanics. The more complex the mechanics, the more certainty there is in everything you do, and I like knowing just how well I can do something (like sail a ship and buckle swashes). Of course this doesn't translate well in a game where each mechanical choice comes at the expense of a different aspect of your character. If a player wants to put a couple of ranks into Profession (sailor) or Craft (basketweaving) to reflect the fluff of their character, I'd much rather just give them bonus skill points for that and avoid dirty looks later when they're crossing the desert.

[Epsilon Rose]

For my modern spy campaign, I told my players:


You will have two characters. Build one to be a military type able to hold his own in a fight. Build the other to hold his own in an "intrigue/espionage" situation. For each mission, you will choose (or be assigned) one of your characters to play. Your first mission will begin on a boat, but expect the action to move to the South American mainland quickly.

Essentially, your players need to know where they start, and have a reasonable idea of where the campaign is going to go.

That actually sounds like a lot of fun.

[Tyndmyr]

Ok, i'm not trying to bash LotR or anything. But it is a very small setting. And it is made that way to make it a fictional story. You can only have your bad guy ''take over all the lands'' if your lands are square mile. When you tell a story of fiction, the easy way is to keep things small. After all if LotR had like 62 major elven settlememts or even like two major dwarf ones, the books would have been like a billion pages each.

Sorry, LotR is not a small setting. I don't particularly even like the setting, but it is pretty large. Scads of societies, histories and language. Tons of distance and travel. Scale, it has.

Also, yeah, there were dwarven kingdoms and major elven settlements and what not. See also, the Hobbit. And, if you have lots of patience, the Silmarillion. LotR sometimes brushes lightly over some of these things, but still, there's no way it's a small setting when so much of the books is dedicated to travel.


I'm confused. You are making two different points here:
1) Do characters in a rule-heavy game need mechanics describing their abilities
2) Here is an anecdote where I may or may not have misled my players into believing a jungle romp was a 7 seas seafarer tale

Also, this. The latter issue is pretty distinct from the first. Ya'll don't seem to be on the same page expectation-wise. This is a problem regardless of mechanics.

[Coidzor]

Communication is the foundation upon which the game is built. Or something suitably pithy along those lines.

[NichG]

I guess I could have said something like ''this game takes place on an Earth sized planet, not a little 'Middle Earth' backyard setting. Everything in the game will not take place in the same square mile".

No, thats kind of being insulting to your players to phrase it that way. Its presuming their biases and mocking them.

What you could have said was 'this is a campaign that is about extensive travel to different locations, we're just starting here in these islands'. Or even something as straight-forward as 'don't think too hard about the starting place, we won't be there long'.

[Epsilon Rose]

Out of curiosity, did they have a choice about going to the jungle? Could they have gone sailing instead?