PDA

View Full Version : Who Cares About Mechanics Anyways?



Oracle_Hunter
2013-10-14, 06:02 PM
I've recently noticed a phenomenon within the RPG community that, honestly, I should have picked up on a long time ago.

Players don't care about mechanics

I saw this first with "one system" folks who, for whatever reason, were introduced to RPGs with one system and love it regardless of its failings. Later, I could see similar behavior with folks who have played a bunch of different systems but have a special place in their heart for some ancient game or another. When I quizzed these Players about why they liked their particular game they all cited some GM who ran the game a particular way (often dispensing with or outright rewriting the system) and that when shown the actual rules of the game simply dismissed them as "not the way I play." Oddly, this didn't shake their love of "the system" -- it was more about the GM than the game itself.
Needless to say, this worried me. As a Game Designer (see my sig!) I had hoped to capitalize on my talent at designing systems to help me break into the market. If Players don't actually care about the mechanics of the system they're playing, then my advantage is nullified: if your customers love Rum & Cokes you don't hire the World's Best Bartender; you hire the one with other qualities that the customers care about in a "bartender."

After puzzling this for a bit, I think I have a good model for what Players want in a system: The Tripod of RPGs
(1) Mechanics -- the rules of the game
(2) Fluff -- the world/story tied to the game
(3) Reputation -- how much people care about the Brand/Designer

The three legs are equally important in the success of a RPG and can be used to "steady" the other legs that are lacking. For example, a game that has a great Reputation and Fluff but is a bit messy on Mechanics can still succeed because GMs and Players will put a metaphorical cinder block under the short leg.

So, is this true? Or does one of these three legs dominate? Can you make a game set in a fantastic setting with a deep reputation (say, Star Wars) where the Mechanics are no more than "roll a bunch of dice with pictures on them to give the GM parameters on what happens" and have it be a huge success? Or can a game make it on Reputation alone?

Hiro Protagonest
2013-10-14, 06:34 PM
If fluff (or sometimes reputation, but that's invariably tied into people wanting to play in the world of the brand, or in the case of D&D, because it's the only brand they've heard of) is the dominant leg, people will be drawn in by that.

If mechanics dominate, then the only people who play it are those who really want good mechanics. It's a niche within a niche.

Balancing fluff and mechanics probably works. Of course, the more popularity the brand has, the better.

I will never play a game of 3.5 again... unless it's run by Callos or some other reputable worldbuilder GM. I like 4e because the mechanics are simple by comparison and I love the fluff (also because I'm going to paraphrase TB: "Do one thing really well, don't try a bunch of things in one game" (unless you're experienced in at least one of the game types)). Exalted is great, even with its terrible mechanics (until last year, the game could be broken by simply stacking attack Charms to the point where the only defense is a perfect defense Charm). There's a reason I've never seen a FUDGE game pop up on these boards.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-14, 06:39 PM
One thing I can say is that mechanics-wise I look for a system that is both simple and flexible while having enough focus on details to allow the creation of interesting gear and characters not only in fluff but also in terms of how they work.

I don't particularly care about a system that does one thing really well but overlooks everything else, just like I don't care about a system that in order to be "universal" either goes in too much or too little rule details.
I also don't like systems that only work for one particular setting. Mostly because I've noticed that only a handful of players are willing to learn a system from scratch in order to play a campaign.

This is one of the reasons I don't really like D&D or Pathfinder, by the way, they have an incredibly narrow focus that doesn't think for one moment that you might NOT run a campagin where everyone ends up being a god among men by level 6, or that you might want to go low-magic or in a slighty more advanced setting, while at the same time not bothering to warn about any of this, instead presenting itself like "classic fantasy", which it really isn't when you look at the real classics of the genre.
And because most people experience roleplaying games through D&D for the first time they end up thinking that all tabletop rpgs need to be the same. I'm currently trying to start a campaign in an early 1900 setting on another system and I've been asked where is the wizard class. :smallsigh:

An exemple of what I would call a good system is the one used by the Warhammer 40k tabletop rpgs. It's able to represent vastly different power levels and campaing styles while being pretty straightfoward in the rules.
If you had the patience of coming up with different classes you could use it for virtually any kind of setting.

But I guess I'm not answering your question properly.
Basically I think that Reputation is the primary factor, if everyone plays rpg X then everyone will be more inclined towards rpgs that are in the same style or setting.

Mechanics are obviously important, but with most gaming groups I've encountered the only thing that seems to matter is "how simple are they?". As a GM I take the approach I mentioned above, where I like to find a fairly universal sysyem (by design or by accident) and roll with it for the rest of that gaming group's life span.

Fluff I think it's the main selling point. The first thing people are going to be attracted to when they hear about an rpg is what it allows them to play as, which is directly tied to the fluff. If I hear about a system that allows me to play a fantasy hero I'll just pass unless there is some major twist that is immediatly apparent, a gimmick if you will. I won't even bother to check the system if what it promises is basically the same thing that D&D has been offering for decades, doesn't matter how well it does its job.

navar100
2013-10-14, 06:51 PM
The DM and players provide the fluff that's needed. The mechanics is the engine to make the game run. If no one cared about mechanics we wouldn't be having edition wars nor even just different games in the market. Game mechanics is very important.

JusticeZero
2013-10-14, 06:58 PM
Players don't care. GMs do. The rules shape what the story will look like while supporting them. As a GM, there is nothing I hate more than getting a new system and finding out that it prides itself on being "generic" and doesn't have weapons, defined skills, costs, enemies, etc defined. I don't care about your clever engine. I can run a good game with nothing, on the fly. But if there is no coherent frame of character construction and advancement, it is going to become painfully difficult to adjudicate things. I end up saying things like "uhm.. All weapons do 1d6? Wait, you are a multi billionaire and a wizard who is a master martial artist? How do I deal with you and the housewife in the same party? You want a what??? How am I doing experience? Uhhhhh.."

RochtheCrusher
2013-10-14, 07:01 PM
I think that a very important piece of this is to have "fluffy mechanics..." by which I mean that your mechanics have to make sense intuitively as well as from a balance standpoint.

For example, take the stats for kids in Monsters and Other Childish Things. Instead of having a speed score, or a strength score, the kid has "Feet" and "Hands". Instead of normal skills, their skills are called "Shop Class" and "PE".

I have yet to explain to anyone that, to run away, you use your "Feet + PE" to determine how well, without seeing their faces light up in childish glee. And I've explained it several times.

Therefore, I think it's important to have a story reason for your mechanics... it keeps players from arguing them away and it keeps DMs from getting rid of them.

Personally, I have three systems that I run, those being D&D 4E, Monsters and Other Childish Things, and Dread. I want very different things from each of those... My 4E characters are powerful (within limits), my Monsters characters are childlike and have loving monsters who are powerful (without many limits), and my Dread characters are all going to die if they are not very, very careful.

Any mechanic which keeps me from doing those things in those games is going out the window. (Encumbrance? Tracking the archer's ammunition? Three seperate types of ritual components? Please. I'm not running a game on accounting.)

Clearly, I am willing to give games a shot if they are not well established... but equally clearly, I chose 4E because it WAS established and easy to pitch to people... I didn't check to see if Pathfinder or something more obscure would be better, I just picked the one people had heard of which would let me tell my stories.

Monsters and Other Childish Things I picked, almost entirely, for its flavor. With Dread, it was the mechanic more than anything that appealed (both the Tower and the Questionaire), but I love them because they place an emphasis on character rather than numbers.

Offer me a way to tell stories that I can't tell in D&D, and I'll be interested... but if you're trying for a D&D clone with "better" mechanics, well... you're gonna have to work pretty hard against their reputation.

Saph
2013-10-14, 07:03 PM
After puzzling this for a bit, I think I have a good model for what Players want in a system: The Tripod of RPGs

(1) Mechanics -- the rules of the game
(2) Fluff -- the world/story tied to the game
(3) Reputation -- how much people care about the Brand/Designer

I think that's fairly accurate, but it misses the most important element.

Generally speaking, the most important part of a RPG is what Ryan Dancey & co dubbed the "network externality". What this means is that for most gamers, the true value of a gaming product isn't the book (or box, or whatever), but the network of social connections that allow them to play the game. (The full article is here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column), for those interested.) This is why D&D/Pathfinder has been the top dog for so long.

But yes, you're basically right that good mechanics aren't all that important. There's a vocal element among the fanbase that loudly champions mechanics, but they're a minority (and given that they all have different opinions on which mechanics are the best, they mostly cancel each other out in practice.)

Kane0
2013-10-14, 07:04 PM
I... agree with you, actually.

In order to be popular, you need to be known. There are plenty of systems better mechanically and arguably fluff-wise than D&D but since it has the most recognition amongst RP games it gets to stand out.

But thats only getting players. Keeping them needs solid fluff and crunch, something else D&D does solidly. It might not be the best ruleset but there are 5 (or more, depending on how you look at it) to choose form now, so there ought to be something that will appeal to you.

Just look at 4e. Mechanically speaking its well made, especially by D&D standards. But its publicity doesnt catch the greater audience that 3rd ed and its cousins enjoy, and its fluff is controversial amongst the D&D fans too. Its a good system, but more people play the 3rd ed variants because of its greater fluff and reputation, despite its mechanical flaws.

I suppose that's why D&D next is such a risk for many. It needs to be able to knock both 3rd and 4th editions off their perches in order to be successful.

Personally the game i'm enjoying most right now is an odd mix of 3rd and 4th editions run by a very good DM and supplemented by my and my father's fluff knowledge. Our group really benefits from the variety while also keeping it as simple as we can. It's very fun.

Oracle_Hunter
2013-10-14, 07:07 PM
The DM and players provide the fluff that's needed. The mechanics is the engine to make the game run. If no one cared about mechanics we wouldn't be having edition wars nor even just different games in the market. Game mechanics is very important.
But that's just the thing: I don't think most "edition warriors" actually care about the mechanics of the games.

As a seasoned Warrior myself, I've found that most arguments -- on both sides -- reference mechanics but don't really engage with them. That is to say, people will say "I don't like mechanic X because of Y" but if you point out that Y doesn't actually apply their response is "well, I still don't like X." Heck, most of my friends are moving onto 5e even though they're unimpressed with the mechanics; it's the "new thing" so they're going to adopt it. In the parlance, I'd say they're Reputation Driven.

EDIT:

I think that's fairly accurate, but it misses the most important element.

Generally speaking, the most important part of a RPG is what Ryan Dancey & co dubbed the "network externality". What this means is that for most gamers, the true value of a gaming product isn't the book (or box, or whatever), but the network of social connections that allow them to play the game. (The full article is here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column), for those interested.) This is why D&D/Pathfinder has been the top dog for so long.
But that provokes the chicken & egg problem: if Network Effects dominate RPGs then there would never be a new RPG on the market as it always has the smallest Network. Obviously that isn't the case because there are new RPGs and, well, the biggest RPGs out there today were once the smallest.

In my analysis I fold Network Effect under Reputation: it's not just whether there are a lot of people playing the game, but whether Players think a lot of people are/will be playing the game. When Fantasy Flight produced the new Star Wars RPG it had a Network Effect of 0 (nobody had played the game) but if you asked a random RPG Player before the release they'd say "of course folks are going to play a Star Wars RPG. And it's made by Fantasy Flight -- they make Dark Heresy!"

kyoryu
2013-10-14, 07:29 PM
Very few people care about mechanics.

What they care about is the experience that those mechanics provide. Very few people care about D&D 3.x style multiclassing, in and of itself. What they care about is the flexibility it gives them, or the charop it lets them do, or the charop it makes them deal with.

Kaun
2013-10-14, 07:35 PM
IMnsHo - GM's will buy more books then players. GM's do often care about the mechanics because more then not they are the ones who have to learn/understand/teach these mechanics to other people.

Mechanics aren't the only key sell point of a game but i, as a GM, have bought a fair few game books purely based on the mechanics within said book that i had seen discussed on various forums (some examples would be the burning wheel and Dungeon world.)

Some players will buy systems that interest them but more then not it seems to be based on the setting and fluff rather then the mechanics.

Players do "care" about the mechanics but not in the same way GM's do. Players seem to care about how many options the rules provide for their characters. How easy the basic and regularly used parts of the rules are to understand. And what particular interesting knacks and quirks the rules give you to play with by default. But these are often secondary to their interest in the fluff side of the game.

So sell your mechanics to the guys running the game and make your fluff something that will grab both players and GM's interest. While i have no actual statistical evidence to back this up i would say that; Making a game that GM's want to run will net you more interest in your game in the long run, because an enthusiastic GM will make for a better game. This intern will give players a bigger interest in the game, making them more likely to buy a copy of the rules themselves.

kyoryu
2013-10-14, 07:40 PM
More generally, I think that the question that people really ask is "am I getting the things out of an RPG that I want to get out of RPGs?"

Network effect is *huge* on this, as one of the common needs is "I want to actually be able to play the game".

Some people do have strong needs regarding specific mechanics - but for most, I think that the mechanics are secondary to the needs that they help fulfill. So, from a design perspective, I think that focusing on mechanics-as-mechanics is generally a negative - but focusing on what types of player needs you plan on fulfilling, and choosing mechanics that support that, is hugely important.

Lanaya
2013-10-14, 07:43 PM
I find what really matters is a good GM. The system itself is just a tool that a good GM can use to craft a good game, regardless of how that system works, and a bad GM will make an unenjoyable experience no matter how well designed the system is.

Mordar
2013-10-14, 08:00 PM
I believe players do care about mechanics.

In a strange coincidence (given the stereotypical dynamic between respective fanbases), they care about mechanics and their implementation exactly as fans of sports care about rules and their implementation. If they stick out too much or are too egregiously enforced, they are a problem. If they don't, they provide a potentially unrealized, but present, value.

Just because we might not cognitively or overtly recognize the value of the mechanics that doesn't mean they aren't valued. We *know* we care about the mechanics if they ruin the experience for us...but we might not recognize their value when they pave the way/allow for a wonderful experience.

To try another stretch-comparison...most people don't much value the pantothentic acid in their food, but if they don't have it in the proper amount, they aren't playing RPGs *OR* watching sports. Same thing applies here - just because they don't recognize that they should care doesn't mean they don't value the vitamin...or the mechanics.

Basically, if the mechanics get in the way, they are a problem. That doesn't mean there can't be a lot of rules, numbers or tables...just that they must work smoothly, not call attention to their own frailties, and not blow the whistle against our team too often.

Reputation and aesthetics (fluff) may help a new production model out of the gate, and it might even sell well for a year, but if there are serious problems in the mechanics people will stop buying. Consider the Porsche 996, the Mitsubishi Eclipse and the PT Cruiser. Okay, maybe not the last one, but I hate it, so I put it there anyway. I guess the point here is that you've might be able to run fast with just two legs, but you need all three to be in the race long enough to finish? :smallwink:

tl;dr: Keep mechanics functioning but generally out of sight - without good ones, reputation and fluff won't matter for long.

- M

1337 b4k4
2013-10-14, 08:51 PM
Players (generally) only care about mechanics in as much as they get out of the way and let the players get on with playing. Remember that the mechanics are there to serve the game not the other way around. Yes, there are some players that really care about the percentages, but as has been pointed out, this is a niche within an already niche hobby. The concern for mechanics, I would also suggest, is a biased bell curve along the age timeline rapidly increasing from about age 5 with the peak of the curve somewhere around high school age and then slowly tapering back down. The younger players don't care because they have an inherent trust in the adults helping them to keep the game fair and fun. As they get older and the adults take a back seat and gaming is more among peers, the rules and mechanics become more important and necessary to keep to game fair and fun while acting as a leash on the less mature players. As they move into adulthood, players get more likely to become pickier about their companions and more trusting of each other and the rules again become less important.

This isn't to say that balance and mechanics are not important. But the developer must remember that most of the players aren't developers. They aren't going to be impressed with super balanced math or a mechanic that perfectly models how much damage a falling person takes from any height down to the inch. What they will be impressed with is a system that they can pick up quickly and which grows with their mastery of the system without demanding that mastery any faster than they're comfortable with and which answers or at least guides to an answer anything they want to accomplish within your system.

It's not easy and obviously, many of those goals can be inherently contradictory. As my boss is quite fond of saying, "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it"

Acatalepsy
2013-10-14, 09:16 PM
I find what really matters is a good GM. The system itself is just a tool that a good GM can use to craft a good game, regardless of how that system works, and a bad GM will make an unenjoyable experience no matter how well designed the system is.

That's nice and all, but how many 'good' GMs go around using terrible tools? This suggests that perhaps the designer can't just throw a system at players and GMs and tell them to figure it out?

And really good systems, of course, help new or awkward GMs avoid mistakes and get to the part that's fun, or and provide incentives and structure baked into the system that leads the natural tendencies of both players and GMs to end up having fun.

Scow2
2013-10-14, 09:42 PM
That's nice and all, but how many 'good' GMs go around using terrible tools? Given how popular Pathfinder is, quite a lot.:smalltongue:

... I was going to say something actually productive, but I think there's a point in that rather-insincere statement anyway. A great mechanic can sell a game system if it's effective enough, and inseperable from the system.

valadil
2013-10-14, 10:02 PM
I'm on the side of players caring about mechanics. Haven't you met power gamers? Some of them only show up for the mechanics.

What about those gamers who play both sides of the field, sometimes GMing, sometimes playing? As far as I can tell there are a lot of us out there and these arguments don't seem to take this group into account.

Acatalepsy
2013-10-14, 10:16 PM
... I was going to say something actually productive, but I think there's a point in that rather-insincere statement anyway. A great mechanic can sell a game system if it's effective enough, and inseperable from the system.

Well, I'd point out that Pathfinder/3.5 works because there's tons of content, and that content itself is a feature of the system (albeit one that's hard to replicate; to my knowledge only GURPS matches 3.5 in terms of sheer scope of the systems and mechanics it offers). GMs and players like being able to quickly and easily pull in maps, creatures, tables, character options and more.

tasw
2013-10-14, 10:29 PM
I dont care about mechanics much anymore as a GM or a player. I've discovered 3 or 4 different systems that do different things I want a game to do pretty well. At this point a game system would have to have truly, mind bogglingly stellar mechanics to get me to fork out money for the mechanics alone.

I just dont feel like spending time learning a new rules system at this point well enough to be able to teach it to new players.

Add in the networking effect (why would I buy a game no one wants to play?) and its just not happening. I've been down this road too many times and most of the systems are still sitting on my shelf gathering dust.

I will however buy a book if it looks like its got interesting fluff, usually setting information, because thats something I can always incorporate into other games without too much effort either in whole or piecemeal and I enjoy reading good fluff anyway.

So for people like me at least its definitely fluff and reputation that sells books.

Psyren
2013-10-14, 10:31 PM
I'm currently trying to start a campaign in an early 1900 setting on another system and I've been asked where is the wizard class. :smallsigh:

What do you expect? For many, roleplaying is a power/escapist fantasy. I play a puny muggle every day of my life, I'm not about to roll dice to do it too.

Acatalepsy
2013-10-14, 10:39 PM
What do you expect? For many, roleplaying is a power/escapist fantasy. I play a puny muggle every day of my life, I'm not about to roll dice to do it too.

I'm not a machine-gun toting cyborg every day of my life either, but somehow this fails to convince GMs looking for level 3 iron age warriors to let me have a railgun for an arm.

Psyren
2013-10-14, 10:41 PM
A level 3 wizard doesn't have a railgun for an arm either - but they can also do something beyond throwing their calculator at the charging bugbear and wetting themselves.

Acatalepsy
2013-10-14, 10:47 PM
A level 3 wizard doesn't have a railgun for an arm either - but they can also do something beyond throwing their calculator at the charging bugbear and wetting themselves.

So? You're probably not a gutsy ex-Pinkerton with a hand always on a revolver, either. If gangsters burst through your door with guns, you're more likely to do the wetting yourself thing than the calmly putting away your cigar and telling them that they shoulda knocked thing.

It's more than somewhat ridiculous to claim that the only role worth playing is one that grants you literally supernatural power regardless of how appropriate it is for the setting.

EDIT: You're also not a plate-armored badass with a Glaive who can stare down said charging bugbear and slay them in single combat.

Psyren
2013-10-14, 11:00 PM
It's more than somewhat ridiculous to claim that the only role worth playing is one that grants you literally supernatural power regardless of how appropriate it is for the setting.

Where did I ever say that? :smallconfused:

I was simply pointing out that the guy who asked where the Wizard was, probably wanted to play something along those lines. The DM is free to roll his eyes or whatever but that's not exactly going to solve the problem.

NichG
2013-10-14, 11:10 PM
I think its an oversimplification to say 'players don't care about mechanics'. Instead I would say 'players don't necessarily care about a given mechanic'.

Generally something that goes wrong will be far more noticeable than something that works as intended. You won't get any cheers for things that don't screw up, but things that screw up will get a big response. Then it comes down to luck:

- If they have a good GM, the GM fixes your mistakes and the players still have a good time despite your system being buggy (see older editions of D&D)

- If they have a bad GM, they have a bad experience. They may blame the GM (phew) or the system (oops).

The other side of the coin is that certain mechanics, good or bad, are 'inspiring'. Think of anything that makes a player go 'I want to play that'. It might suck in practice (because its brokenly good or unbalanced or just weird) but the fact that reading it in the book made them want to build a character is a strong point in making the transition between 'yeah okay that system could be neat' and 'we're playing this tonight'.

So where does that leave you as a designer? It doesn't mean you should just throw any old mechanics in and rely on the GM to make them good. Instead, you should aim to work with two classes of mechanics:

Class 1: Mechanics that help the GM be a good GM. This is basically, make it so its easy for the GM to know what to ask for, how to run, etc. Also, make things so the GM won't 'want to' say no to their players because the rules have things that are too exploitable to make the game stable.

Class 2: Mechanics that make the players go 'wow, I can do that?!'. Stuff that is evocative, that lets players interact with the game in ways they may never have done with other RPGs (narrative control, for example)

I think thats the way to make mechanics work for you and make your system more attractive.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-10-14, 11:24 PM
One missing element to Oracle's observation is, I think, nostalgia. I'm guessing all of us had one experience that made us fall in love with the hobby-- our dad and his old AD&D books, the dog-eared Player's Handbook you found in a garage sale, whatever. That first good game becomes embedded in our minds as the reference point against which all other RPG experiences are evaluated.

But to answer the question asked... I think most players would say that the system isn't that important, as long as it's easy to learn. But I think that if you pressed them, they'd also agree that mechanics do have an impact. I will never play a 2e Exalted game again because I had a bad experience playing a sorcerer, regardless of how much I enjoyed the fluff. On the other hand, you have stuff like Magic of Incarnum-- I got the pdf from a friend, cracked it open, and immediately wanted to play 3.5 again, because the mechanics just looked so cool.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-10-14, 11:29 PM
I'm currently trying to start a campaign in an early 1900 setting on another system and I've been asked where is the wizard class. :smallsigh:


I'm not a machine-gun toting cyborg every day of my life either, but somehow this fails to convince GMs looking for level 3 iron age warriors to let me have a railgun for an arm.

...Now I have an urge to play the six-hundred dollar man. Congratulations.

Weiser_Cain
2013-10-15, 12:26 AM
I have a piece of paper in front of me at all times where I'll jot down 3.5 character class combos as they come to me.

Sometimes the concept comes to me first and sometimes it's the classes.

I care about mechanics.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-15, 04:03 AM
What do you expect? For many, roleplaying is a power/escapist fantasy. I play a puny muggle every day of my life, I'm not about to roll dice to do it too.

I'm sorry but I don't think that playing a fantasy hero is the only thing that is different enough from real life to function as escapism. You don't even know the setting and what else can be played in it, so in this case so you are just making assumptions and being aggressive about it.
The point I was making was that after explaining the setting, the system and so on someone still couldn't wrap his head around the idea that there are other kinds of roleplaying games aside from D&D.

Earthwalker
2013-10-15, 05:12 AM
Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.

Lorsa
2013-10-15, 05:23 AM
Everyone cares about mechanics. Especially bad mechanics. Unfortunately, it isn't always evident before you play a game if the mechanics are bad or not. That's why some games with seemingly awesome fluff and great artwork and whatnot can get away with people buying it before they realize that it's really not very playable.

Good mechanics won't sell you the game initially, because people won't know, but it will sell you more books down the line. It's also a great tool to build your brand.

I actually think mechanics is the single most important part of any roleplaying game. It's much easier to make up fluff yourself than it is to create good mechanics.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-15, 05:25 AM
Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.

The point is that people like you are niche market and a game designer can't possibly hope to achieve success by catering mainly to your demographic.

Earthwalker
2013-10-15, 05:48 AM
The point is that people like you are niche market and a game designer can't possibly hope to achieve success by catering mainly to your demographic.

I would think what you say is true (not that I want it to be, surly everyone in life should be concerned with keeping me happy :smallsmile:)

People may not buy games based solely on mechanics but I would say good mechanics help drive sales and poor mechanics lose sales. So it still worth the game designers time and effort to make sure the mechaics do thier job.

Black Jester
2013-10-15, 07:09 AM
As a general statement, I think it is a faulty assumption to think that players don't care about mechanics. As far as I know, it is actually much more common for most people to care abut some rule elements and are mostly neutral about others. This often is a result of particular interests - if I only ever play completely mundane warriors, I will probably don't care as much about magic, for instance - but usually it is more about personal preferences, expectations and standards.

Only very casual players (or however you want to call the caterpillar state of roleplayers) don't care about rules - as soon as you become a more experienced, you will develop expectations and preferences. For me a player who I don't know who obviously don't care about mechanics (or at least claim to do so) is someone who either has only very little experience or little interest in roleplaying games. Not carring about an essential part of the medium is not a good sign when it comes to the question if the player in question will care enough for the game in general to be a worthwhile member of my group. Generally speaking ; think someone who has almost completely opposite preferences to mine but can make a passionate and reasonable argument for it, is a vastly preferable member of a group than someone indifferent could ever be.

Expectations are often coined by the games have played before and how these have shaped their personal concept of how a roleplaying game should play like and will at least note any deviation from this particular image. Sometimes, this is positive, sometimes it is not, and very often you just accept that different systems use their corresponding rules to represent or depict for the same event or action and that these are all valid within context. Sometimes these collide with personal preferences and style; if you want your games be solely about escapist high adventure, you don't need realistic rules for injuries; if you want to play a more serious and more substantial game, a more abstract health system is actively detrimental to the game.

DigoDragon
2013-10-15, 07:17 AM
My players care a little about mechanics, since they keep our cars running. Haha, but no, seriously-- some mechanics are important to them. Usually its the ones specific to their character concepts. Like if someone wants a pirate that swings from ropes, they'll want to know what kind of skills work well with it, what kind of rolls they need to weild X weapon or defend from Y attack, how to stop an opponent who's swinging from a rope as well, etc. Basic little nuances like that is what they get into so that they can do more than just "I swing from the rope".

I'm generally a laid-back kind of GM so I keep the mechanics real simple for that sort of thing. But overall, my players do care a little about the mechanics because they like their PC concepts to be more than just the fluff.

Kurald Galain
2013-10-15, 08:32 AM
But yes, you're basically right that good mechanics aren't all that important. There's a vocal element among the fanbase that loudly champions mechanics, but they're a minority (and given that they all have different opinions on which mechanics are the best, they mostly cancel each other out in practice.)

Players do care about mechanics, but they care about the feeling of mechanics rather than the math. For example: when attacking with two weapons, players expect to make two attack rolls. On the other hand, most players certainly do not care about balance the way certain forum users (or WOTC design teams) do. Game balance doesn't sell RPG systems.

A more subtle example is that players don't like it when the game is slow. Although most players will be unable to pinpoint why exactly the game is slow, it is generally noticeable that inconsistent mechanics cause slowdown (e.g. a game that makes you roll on 1d6 for certain skills, and 1d10 for others). It is also generally noticeable that most players are much faster at addition than at subtraction (e.g. 2E's infamous reverse-THAC0 mechanic). Players care about speed, and mechanics influence speed.

But this is also where brand name comes into play. For any system, almost every player would be able to point at some mechanic and say "that's stupid". The difference is that if the game is famous, the DM will simply play without that particular mechanic (e.g. 3E's healing-by-drowning may be technically RAW, but absolutely nobody plays that way). Whereas if the game is not famous, players will conclude that the game is stupid because it has a stupid mechanic, and play something else. The bottom line is that famous games have more leeway in including "stupid" mechanics.

Saph
2013-10-15, 08:41 AM
A more subtle example is that players don't like it when the game is slow. Although most players will be unable to pinpoint why exactly the game is slow, it is generally noticeable that inconsistent mechanics cause slowdown (e.g. a game that makes you roll on 1d6 for certain skills, and 1d10 for others). It is also generally noticeable that most players are much faster at addition than at subtraction (e.g. 2E's infamous reverse-THAC0 mechanic). Players care about speed, and mechanics influence speed.

It's a good point. From what I've seen, slowdown causes vastly more frustration among groups than a mechanic that doesn't give the result they want.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-15, 09:06 AM
Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.
You're certainly not; fluff is a secondary consideration for me, because anyone can make up fluff.

I also have the funny feeling that Cubicle 7 and Pelgrane Press would not be as successful as they are if "gamers who think that mechanics matter" was a niche market.

Amphetryon
2013-10-15, 10:07 AM
I also have the funny feeling that Cubicle 7 and Pelgrane Press would not be as successful as they are if "gamers who think that mechanics matter" was a niche market.

As a longtime gamer of several systems who doesn't know off-hand what "Cubicle 7" or "Pelgrane Press" are, or what game(s) they produce, I'm not sure the point you're making is, in fact, the point you're intending.

Kurald Galain
2013-10-15, 10:14 AM
I also have the funny feeling that Cubicle 7 and Pelgrane Press would not be as successful as they are if "gamers who think that mechanics matter" was a niche market.

Having never heard of either of these nor of any of the games they make, and seeing no indication that either of these companies is "successful", this suggests to me that they are, in fact, a niche market.

Black Jester
2013-10-15, 10:22 AM
A more subtle example is that players don't like it when the game is slow. Although most players will be unable to pinpoint why exactly the game is slow, it is generally noticeable that inconsistent mechanics cause slowdown (e.g. a game that makes you roll on 1d6 for certain skills, and 1d10 for others). It is also generally noticeable that most players are much faster at addition than at subtraction (e.g. 2E's infamous reverse-THAC0 mechanic). Players care about speed, and mechanics influence speed.

I have never witnessed this particular concern, and if anything, slowed down play is almost always the result of unfamiliarity with the game system and how it works.
The argument I have seen countless time though, was "this is stupid", i.e. this is not how this should work (most common version: this is not how it works in real life, this is unrealistic). And it is basically the same thing over and over: the rules fail to satisfy the player's expectations. Any decent game mechanics follow a more or less consistent inner logic and


fluff is a secondary consideration for me, because anyone can make up fluff.

Maybe, but consistent, good fluff is considerably rarer to find than decent rules. While everybody can write fluff, good fluff is a rare and precious occurrence. I personally find rules far more transmutable and bendable than the events and actions they represent; after all, the rules aren't the important part; they are only a vehicle to express the relevant part, namely the actual events in the game and if the rules fail to do so, they are not fulfilling their purpose.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-15, 10:33 AM
Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.

I do this too. (Admittedly as a budget gamer with 4 money-drinking hobbies I mostly look at free ones or buy them on sale as PDFs) This basically lead to me making up my own system with the cool mechanics from a ton of them.

Mechanics define how a GMs world works, I need to be able to explain how any NPC (even things the characters will probably never get explanations for, like gods and ghosts) does what they do. It needs to be internally logically consistent for me. If anyone can say: "How did X historical figure get so much power? And why didn't someone use X spell/mechanic to stop him?" And I don't have an answer, even if it's an answer I won't tell them because they have no way to know, then I see that as a flaw to be fixed. If the world doesn't make sense (in its own crazy, magic-wielding way) I just feel really uncomfortable running it.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-15, 11:25 AM
As a longtime gamer of several systems who doesn't know off-hand what "Cubicle 7" or "Pelgrane Press" are, or what game(s) they produce, I'm not sure the point you're making is, in fact, the point you're intending.


Having never heard of either of these nor of any of the games they make, and seeing no indication that either of these companies is "successful", this suggests to me that they are, in fact, a niche market.

Alternately, you're not acquainted with the overall RPG market.

Cubicle 7 wasn't hard to find (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22214.html). Never mind the buzz about the Doctor Who RPG.

I might be biased in my view of other presses, like Pelgrane, ever since I started looking past the WotC bloc. So I may have mentally overstated their presence. (Though I'm still startled that GUMSHOE doesn't ring any bells. I could understand 13th Age not being a recognized name because it just came out. Still, though.) Looking over those same "Top 5 RPGs by quarter", it's interesting to see that Iron Kingdoms, ever since switching off of the d20 system, is still consistently (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26215.html) a top seller (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25377.html).

All the same, it's interesting to note that a significant number of other companies, with their own distinct games, exist in the space beyond--and they're not all that niche. More and more gamers are recognizing that yes, mechanics matter, because they shape the action and experience of the game. Games are getting better-written and more tightly written as the awareness rises. It's not a niche thing. It never has been.

(I mean, it's not as though you'd consider the extreme popularity of Trivial Pursuit or Candyland as evidence that boardgamers don't care about mechanics.)

1337 b4k4
2013-10-15, 11:54 AM
Alternately, you're not acquainted with the overall RPG market.

...

More and more gamers are recognizing that yes, mechanics matter, because they shape the action and experience of the game. Games are getting better-written and more tightly written as the awareness rises. It's not a niche thing. It never has been.

So as you yourself say, a subset of a subset of society are increasing their awareness to the point where the names of the publishers that serve that subset of a subset are beginning to come to the forefront of the niche industry that they're in. That would by definition make mechanics focused players (and publishers) a niche market.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-10-15, 11:55 AM
I'm sorry but I don't think that playing a fantasy hero is the only thing that is different enough from real life to function as escapism. You don't even know the setting and what else can be played in it, so in this case so you are just making assumptions and being aggressive about it.
The point I was making was that after explaining the setting, the system and so on someone still couldn't wrap his head around the idea that there are other kinds of roleplaying games aside from D&D.

Yeah if he had asked "is there any way for me to play a wizard?", that alone would've been way different.

Flickerdart
2013-10-15, 11:58 AM
Players not caring about mechanics is absolutely nothing new. In all systems, users don't actually care about the way they interface with it. What users care about is accomplishing their goals. The hallmark of a good system is supporting user goals seamlessly. This is a slightly different issue in TRPGs because the user has the ultimate say about mechanics, and can say "no, this is bad, we are changing it." In a good system, it will not occur to the user to do this because it supports these goals so well. It's not easy, by any means, to design a system that works this way, which is exactly why you need to be a really good designer to do it successfully.

Game design has a lot to learn from the other design disciplines out there, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of exchange between it and them.

NichG
2013-10-15, 12:10 PM
There's definitely a difference between mechanics that are 'tightly written' or 'theoretically clever' and mechanics that are actually going to be noticeable to the player.

I do a lot of extensive homebrew - I'm currently running a from-the-ground-up new system and we've had two sessions. When I designed the system, I was coming from the fact that my group likes ridiculous power scaling over the course of the campaign (start getting a 20 in checks and end up with 200's). I wanted to make a system where the math held up well across that range.

What we noticed in play wasn't that the variance was always a fixed proportion of the mean result, but that someone who had a 15 in a skill to start was much better than someone who had a 14 due to the quantization involved in making the variance always a fixed fraction of the mean. Why did people notice that? Because someone brought in a character with a 15, rolled a 12 and then a 7 on an exploding d12, and nearly killed another PC when they were intending to fire a warning shot at them. So people noticed 'I'm having trouble hitting a DC 15 check, he's getting a 40'. The rule had a flaw, and thats what they noticed about it, not the subtle academic considerations underlying it.

On the other side of it, I've had people say 'there's just too many skills I want!'. If I were to guess why that is, its because each skill has a set of specific mechanical 'powers' it grants at different levels. So if you have 20 in Psychology you can create psychoses in NPCs, and if you have 20 in Seduction you can (specifically) make a roll to find out what someone most wants, and if you have 20 in Trickery you can plant objects on people and so on. Its those 'powers', and the advantages/flaws (which are all designed to be transformative to play - e.g. 'you cannot use this resource or be harmed by attacks that use it', 'no matter what you say, people cannot take it as hostility', etc), that the players really noticed when they read the system.

So I guess what I'm saying is, don't mistake 'solid mechanics' for 'mechanics that will be noticeable'. It may be better to have crazy mechanics that fall apart but make people excited or get people thinking than really solid mechanics that end up being kind of boring in their uniformity.

Jerthanis
2013-10-15, 01:13 PM
I think the mistake Oracle makes here is actually that there are actually very few objective criteria to distinguish "Good" from "Bad" mechanics. For a large part, RPGs are more like language families than like machines which deliver exacting outputs based on their design and mechanics. The first RPG you learn to play and how you play it will inform a lot of your future experiences with RPGs in much the same way your first language will help you define your essential patterns of how you think about definitions and concepts. To say a specific game listed as someone's favorite because they learned it first, or because of a specific game or GM that ran that game in a certain way is not, in fact, a bad way of thinking about one's favorite RPG.

For instance, my first ever RPG was WEG's Star Wars d6, and I still consider it the best Star Wars RPG I've played (Including d20 Star Wars, d20 Revised, Saga edition, but not yet including FFG's Star Wars games), and there are non-arbitrary reasons it remains my favorite. For one thing, it models specifics of blow-by-blow drama, Jedi powers start exceptionally weak to the point of non-functionality and grow to great power relatively quickly, and also that I once played a specific game in that system that I really really enjoyed that truly wouldn't have been the same in a different system. I still wouldn't call these reasons a justification for these mechanics being good as an objective quality. Essentially, my "Native Language" for RPGs is WEG Star Wars d6.

However, Oracle shouldn't despair that having sharply designed mechanics has no impact on one's favorite RPGs. While indeed you can never teach someone a new Native Language, the languages we learn can and do influence how we think about concepts, and the values we have, and in that way, the goals and methods of a new RPG system do have impact on even jaded RPG players. And for those few who might happen to be taught RPGs for the first time on your system, you might find become your language's first native speakers.

Flickerdart
2013-10-15, 02:46 PM
I think the mistake Oracle makes here is actually that there are actually very few objective criteria to distinguish "Good" from "Bad" mechanics.
It's not so much that Good and Bad are hard to distinguish, but more like that they don't exist. Instead, it's more like Good Enough and Not Good Enough - as long as you're on the right side of that threshold it doesn't matter all that much how good the mechanic is.

kyoryu
2013-10-15, 04:28 PM
I think the mistake Oracle makes here is actually that there are actually very few objective criteria to distinguish "Good" from "Bad" mechanics.

Good mechanics - have the overall effect on gameplay that they aim to achieve.
Bad mechanics - do not have the overall effect on gameplay that they aim to achieve.

The discussion whether mechanics are "good" or not often conflates the effectiveness of the mechanic at achieving a particular effect on gameplay with the argument over what the gameplay should be like - which is entirely a matter of personal taste.

Telok
2013-10-15, 04:37 PM
I once played a game where one character had the power to turn into normal, average, animals and another was a typical armor clad dwarf. It quickly became evident that turning into an animal didn't actually do anything because everything that you could do was based on your attributes as a character. In fact it turned out that the armored dwarf was better at jumping than a kangaroo, better at climbing than a monkey, and better at swimming than a otter simply because he was 25% higher on the dice. Seriously, a dwarf in plate armor with an axe and sword in his hands swam faster than an otter 75% of the time just because he was 25% stronger.

Mechanics matter when someone is explaining them (D&D 3.5 grapple rules, D&D 4e stealth rules, SR3/4/5 matrix rules, etc.) or when they get in the way of smooth game play. Stopping in the middle of action to figure out how something is supposed to work or discovering that something just isn't believable even by the in-game logic/rationale is a negative. Stopping the action to add extra dice or bonuses because a corner case came up in the middle of rolling or to give an unready third person an action in the middle of your action are bad too.

Mechanics can be fast, smooth, and easy to remember. That's good.
Mechanics can be slow, lurching, and require constant rulebook consultation. That's bad.

Amphetryon
2013-10-15, 06:57 PM
Alternately, you're not acquainted with the overall RPG market.

Cubicle 7 wasn't hard to find (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/22214.html). Never mind the buzz about the Doctor Who RPG.

I might be biased in my view of other presses, like Pelgrane, ever since I started looking past the WotC bloc. So I may have mentally overstated their presence. (Though I'm still startled that GUMSHOE doesn't ring any bells. I could understand 13th Age not being a recognized name because it just came out. Still, though.) Looking over those same "Top 5 RPGs by quarter", it's interesting to see that Iron Kingdoms, ever since switching off of the d20 system, is still consistently (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/26215.html) a top seller (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25377.html).

All the same, it's interesting to note that a significant number of other companies, with their own distinct games, exist in the space beyond--and they're not all that niche. More and more gamers are recognizing that yes, mechanics matter, because they shape the action and experience of the game. Games are getting better-written and more tightly written as the awareness rises. It's not a niche thing. It never has been.

(I mean, it's not as though you'd consider the extreme popularity of Trivial Pursuit or Candyland as evidence that boardgamers don't care about mechanics.)
If a specific subset of the tabletop RPG market doesn't meet your definition of "niche market," then I'm not sure our definitions are close enough to communicate effectively.

NichG
2013-10-15, 08:25 PM
Good mechanics - have the overall effect on gameplay that they aim to achieve.
Bad mechanics - do not have the overall effect on gameplay that they aim to achieve.

The discussion whether mechanics are "good" or not often conflates the effectiveness of the mechanic at achieving a particular effect on gameplay with the argument over what the gameplay should be like - which is entirely a matter of personal taste.

The thing is, for a game designer, 'good' in this sense isn't sufficient. That matter of personal taste is actually what they really have to target, because they basically need to make something that either a narrow set of people will really like more than whatever they have now, or something that a broad set of people will generally like more than whatever they have now.

So separating out 'does it do what is intended' from 'what is intended' is actually not so beneficial here. One could make a game with 'perfect' mechanics in the sense that they all do exactly what is intended, but if the intended thing is not fun or evocative or interesting in a way that makes people want to play it, the quality of the mechanics is not just perceptually irrelevant to the players, its just plain irrelevant.

Flickerdart
2013-10-15, 09:04 PM
The entire board games market in the US is only $808 million (2009 figures, can't find newer). By comparison, the worth of the video game market (still fairly niche as far as markets go) is $65 billion. The movie Avengers made $623 billion by itself. The entire market of "games" is horribly niche, and a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of that is about as insignificant as a flea on the backside of the Sun.


The thing is, for a game designer, 'good' in this sense isn't sufficient. That matter of personal taste is actually what they really have to target, because they basically need to make something that either a narrow set of people will really like more than whatever they have now, or something that a broad set of people will generally like more than whatever they have now.

You'd be surprised how little personal taste figures into reception of a well-designed product for 99% of people. We tend to lose perspective of this sometimes, but the expert user segment - the people who go on forums and rave about the tiniest things wrong with their beloved brand - are a tiny minority of all users. Such experts said the iPod would fail. Never design to please the experts.



So separating out 'does it do what is intended' from 'what is intended' is actually not so beneficial here. One could make a game with 'perfect' mechanics in the sense that they all do exactly what is intended, but if the intended thing is not fun or evocative or interesting in a way that makes people want to play it, the quality of the mechanics is not just perceptually irrelevant to the players, its just plain irrelevant.
This is right on the money, though. One must align the goals of the system with the goals of the user - either address or create a need - or you can't engage them.

NichG
2013-10-15, 09:12 PM
You'd be surprised how little personal taste figures into reception of a well-designed product for 99% of people. We tend to lose perspective of this sometimes, but the expert user segment - the people who go on forums and rave about the tiniest things wrong with their beloved brand - are a tiny minority of all users. Such experts said the iPod would fail. Never design to please the experts.


I think I communicated this poorly. I not talking about expert taste here. I'm talking about the personal tastes of the target players. If you as a designer make something that is expertly crafted but poorly aimed at who you're trying to please, it won't work well.

kyoryu
2013-10-15, 09:53 PM
The thing is, for a game designer, 'good' in this sense isn't sufficient. That matter of personal taste is actually what they really have to target

Absolutely.

But "which tastes should I target" is an infinitely more useful question to answer than "are these mechanics good", and is the real question to begin with.

It also separates the experience you want to deliver (what tastes you want to target) from the mechanics that will deliver them, and provides a useful way of judging the mechanics as you implement them.

Flickerdart
2013-10-15, 10:33 PM
I think I communicated this poorly. I not talking about expert taste here. I'm talking about the personal tastes of the target players. If you as a designer make something that is expertly crafted but poorly aimed at who you're trying to please, it won't work well.
Ah, I see. I'm not sure that taste and goals can be conflated here, but it's more of a semantic issue than anything.

Deffers
2013-10-16, 12:14 AM
My players care a little about mechanics, since they keep our cars running. Haha, but no, seriously-- some mechanics are important to them. Usually its the ones specific to their character concepts. Like if someone wants a pirate that swings from ropes, they'll want to know what kind of skills work well with it, what kind of rolls they need to weild X weapon or defend from Y attack, how to stop an opponent who's swinging from a rope as well, etc. Basic little nuances like that is what they get into so that they can do more than just "I swing from the rope".

Yeah, this. I like mechanics for builds. I like making a build, even if it's not optimized, having that sort of build, and games without many mechanics don't lend themselves well to that. I like loadout choices that matter, and stats that affect your playstyle. And then using creativity to extend those abilities.

EDIT: I like a roleplaying game where mechanics help reinforce what my role is, and help me extend beyond that just a little bit.

I think that's my main complaint with what I've seen of FATE Core. It just... it just doesn't have that kind of meat to it, from what I've seen! My tiefling assassin using flasks of oil to throw at enemies doesn't seem that creative when he just calls on an aspect of being inventive or something. Sure, it's a great system for cooperative storytelling and the rules lend themselves to that, but it's not a system where getting really creative with the mechanics will be as memorable, at least in my opinion.

erikun
2013-10-16, 12:55 AM
What group of people are you targetting the RPG towards? Because different types of people, with different backgrounds and different familiarity with RPGs, are going to want different things from a system. A player new to RPGs, playing in a new group, is likely not to care much about guidelines for handling groups of NPCs as much as an experienced DM looking for a system that handles combat better.

Also, I think that isolating things as "the Mechanics" and "the Fluff" is perhaps a bit of a limitation to this approach. There will always be mechanics that concern a person and fluff (man, do I hate that work) that concerns a player when picking up a RPG, and there will always be mechanics/fluff that a person won't care about. In a RPG about dungeon crawling with a band of heroes, most people are likely to put low priorities on rules for proper economic resourse distribution based. :smalltongue:


Note: these are all my assumptions. I have not interviewed people to determine what they actually prefer.

For people new to RPGs, I think the biggest point for them will be what you call Brand Reputation. Someone who likes anime will want to play the Anime RPG. Someone who likes Batman will want to play the Batman RPG. They won't want to play the Generic Universal Roleplaying Game, in part because they aren't familiar with it, and in part because they won't be sure if it can play Batman or if it is limited to generic universes. They like Batman, they'd want to give roleplaying a shot, and so they'd rather roleplay as Batman. If there is no Batman RPG, they may be fine with a "gothic vigilante detective superhero noir" RPG instead, because that is specifically similar to what they want in Batman.

For new players, they probably want a simple way to make decisions in their new system. This generally means classes, or some other clear way to assemble a character. They'd want good descriptions of the difference between options and what they can do ("fluff") and a method to piece those together without being overwhelmed with option or hidden costs (clean mechanics). They probably aren't too concerned with the actual game mechanics, beyond that they are clearly set out and that the results tend to be what they'd expect to happen: They are willing to deal with complex systems, as long as they aren't too unwieldy and as long as they don't produce too bizarre of outcomes.

For new GMs, I think the biggest concern is to provide a clear layout of the setting and of the adventures that can be had in it. This would preferably be something like an example adventure and good guidelines for constructing your own - I remember back when I started AD&D2e/Vampire: the Masquerade, and was frustrated because I had little idea what a proper adventure was supposed to include or entail. They'd probably want guidelines for setting up appropriate encounters for their group as well. Much like new players, new GMs are likely to put up with complex or awkward mechanics as long as they aren't too bad - they aren't familiar with any better or worse systems, so as long as it functions without too much confusion they are likely to accept it.


For people coming from different RPG systems, I think the biggest bias to overcome is the "Why isn't it my system?" bias. They are likely looking for a system that does what their system does, but far better. They also likely underestimate the amount of time it took them to become familiar with their own system, and so will unfairly judge the new system. "This is too complex!" a D&D3e player might complain, not realizing that the 30 minutes they took to read through a new RPG has no way of comparing to the 10 years they gradually spent building up knowledge of their system.

As such, I think that a new system for these people needs to be engaging. It needs to be well-written and able to keep their interest as they read through it. Mechanics and examples need to be clear, comprehensive, and easy to grasp quickly. There also needs to be something unique to the setting, unique to the mechanics, or both to attract their attention. I'm not talking about "Dwarves who are really earth spirits that can fly through trees" unique either. I'm talking about something like Shadows of Esteren, providing some strong writing and immersion to their setting, or something like Burning Wheel of Fate, with mechanics designed to motivate roleplay in the unique qualities of a character.

For experienced players - and this is just a guess - I think the biggest concern is what Saph mentioned, the networking effect. Unless they're just idly curious, a RPG player wants to play a game with others. Unless they're planning to take the reigns themselves, they want a game that other people are playing, or are likely to be playing. As such, the Reputation of the Brand/Designer is a big concern, as Star Wars or Evil Hat Productions (Fate Core) are much more likely to attract a larger group with their games than an unknown publisher with their own new IP. Also, experienced players are likely looking at the options they have available; if they're stuck playing just the fighter, thief, and wizard, they aren't as likely to be interested as if they have dozens of different options available (mechanical, although possibly "fluff" instead).

For experienced GMs, the one big thing I'm looking for is how well I can explain the system to players and get them started. This is one big reason I'm a fan of HeroQuest 2nd edition. Character creation is "write a 100 word paragraph about the important points of your character" and character generation is drawn from that. The only mechanics the players need to know is "roll d20, compare to stat number". That's it, and that means that I could easily start up a game with a group of players who are not familiar with the system, or any system, with little fuss. STaRS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281582), on this forum, is another system with similar goals and positive points. Other big concerns are how easily I can assemble an encounter/campaign, how easily I can determine challenges and general strength compared to the party, how interesting and workable the setting is, and yes, even the networking effect. Sad as it is to say, regardless of how much I like a system, I still can't run Vampire or Fate Core or HeroQuest when my group insists on D&D or something similar.


Aside: One other thing I note is that people care about the mechanics as much as the mechanics give them something to work with. Players of D&D3e care a lot about mechanics because mechanics give them a lot of tools to build their characters. WoD players tend to care less about mechanics, as beyond character creation in the core books, the mechanics don't factor much for the players; they are more for Storytellers or a few abilities. GMs care a lot about mechanics when they help them assemble encounters and create opponents, and care less when the mechanics are just a set of numbers to make opposed rolls.


Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.
I did this a little bit. I quickly found out that most game rules suck. I still do in the interest of finding something interesting, but the motivation has been scaled way back because I don't want to be dropping $60 for a book that is basically a colored-up D&D system.

veti
2013-10-16, 10:09 PM
Am I the only person here that buys roleplaying books just to read the rules and the system.

I mean checking out the fluff is part of it but the main part is reading the rules.

I do have systems I have never played but bought to read the rules. I am not saying everyone is doing this but if I am, surly others are, others that care about the rules.

I did a fair bit of that in the early 80s. There are also a few systems that I bought sourcebooks and scenarios for, but could never find the core rulebooks. Ah, those pre-internet days...

My perception is that the "big" systems (most notably, D&D) basically stole the best bits of many other systems, and incorporated them into its later editions. Which may or may not have contributed to the extinction of (some of) said systems.

Which suggests that "inventing a good game mechanic" may be cool, may give you a sense of achievement, may even win you a following - but it's not enough to keep your system going, because there's no realistic way to prevent others from copying it.

Rakaydos
2013-10-16, 10:12 PM
Which suggests that "inventing a good game mechanic" may be cool, may give you a sense of achievement, may even win you a following - but it's not enough to keep your system going, because there's no realistic way to prevent others from copying it.

Somehow I dont see the Threat/Advanage mechanics of Edge of Empire being converted to D20, however awesome they are in EoE.

(I've got some houserules to steal the idea for some Cardinal system games, but they're pretty niche themselves)

Psyren
2013-10-17, 01:09 AM
Yeah, this. I like mechanics for builds. I like making a build, even if it's not optimized, having that sort of build, and games without many mechanics don't lend themselves well to that. I like loadout choices that matter, and stats that affect your playstyle. And then using creativity to extend those abilities.

EDIT: I like a roleplaying game where mechanics help reinforce what my role is, and help me extend beyond that just a little bit.

This - I spend way more time in RPGs building and planning characters than actually playing the game. I'll read a bit of crunch - like the Alchemist's Mutagen, or a Ninja's Smoke Bomb, or an Heavens Oracle's Awesome Display - and immediately my mind will start coming up with concepts to go with it.

I buy books mostly for the art, and because there's something authoritative about pulling out an official book at the table.

Tehnar
2013-10-17, 04:02 AM
I think mechanics alone are not enough to sell a TTRPG. They support it, but are not enough by themselves to sell a game. While bad mechanics might annoy some people but generally don't impact the popularity of the system too much for the players.

The bigger issue is GM's. While they will try games based on fluff, mostly they will come back to games due to solid, or good enough mechanics. Let me give some examples:

1) Dark Heresy: a game with fairly bad mechanics, but very strong fluff. The fluff alone is mostly enough to carry the game, but players / GM will sometimes get frustrated by the mechanics.

2) DnD of all kinds. While there is not much explicit fluff, there is a lot of implicit generic fantasy thing going on that most people relate to. The mechanics are for the most part good enough, and combat is a very interesting minigame

3) Legend of the five rings: while sporting both solid mechanics and solid fluff, it is not as popular as not many people are interested in playing a samurai political game. I personally think the game is very good, but its niche.

CombatOwl
2013-10-17, 05:44 AM
I've recently noticed a phenomenon within the RPG community that, honestly, I should have picked up on a long time ago.

Players don't care about mechanics

More correctly, some players do care about mechanics--but most don't. For an example of this, consider the popularity of Savage Worlds. The system is nothing to write home about, but the settings that use is are a blast (and way more original than what had been coming out for years beforehand).


I saw this first with "one system" folks who, for whatever reason, were introduced to RPGs with one system and love it regardless of its failings. Later, I could see similar behavior with folks who have played a bunch of different systems but have a special place in their heart for some ancient game or another. When I quizzed these Players about why they liked their particular game they all cited some GM who ran the game a particular way (often dispensing with or outright rewriting the system) and that when shown the actual rules of the game simply dismissed them as "not the way I play." Oddly, this didn't shake their love of "the system" -- it was more about the GM than the game itself.

That's just nostalgia. People can gloss over the failings of the things they love--memory has a way of fading with time. I know a lot of people who are stuck with old editions and old systems from the 90s, despite being statistically problematic or having expansive and bizarre rules with no apparent reason (I'm looking at you, Rifts). Not much is going to shake them from it, in my experience. Not even new editions that hearken back to the old ones.


Needless to say, this worried me. As a Game Designer (see my sig!) I had hoped to capitalize on my talent at designing systems to help me break into the market.

No. Honestly, I don't see any room for a new system in today's market. But there are a lot of systems light on settings and concrete materials for GMs to use. I'll use myself as an example here. I don't have any more room for new systems. My group is already at their system limit--they don't want to learn anything more. What I actually want are interesting settings and adventures for systems I already know.

People are willing to overlook all kinds of statistical oddities and problematic rules in games as long as they've already learned how to exploit them. They'll do that only if there's an interesting setting that draws their attention long enough to learn.


If Players don't actually care about the mechanics of the system they're playing, then my advantage is nullified: if your customers love Rum & Cokes you don't hire the World's Best Bartender; you hire the one with other qualities that the customers care about in a "bartender."

Yup. Forget systems, hardly anyone really cares. Build products on story and setting... and making life easier for busy GMs.


After puzzling this for a bit, I think I have a good model for what Players want in a system: The Tripod of RPGs
(1) Mechanics -- the rules of the game
(2) Fluff -- the world/story tied to the game
(3) Reputation -- how much people care about the Brand/Designer

In order of priority;

1) "Fluff"--the world and what they're doing.
...
5) Mechanics--how they go do the things they want to do.
...
9) Reputation--the past exploits of the people who designed it.

These days reputation probably isn't as critical as it used to be. Social media has made it both much easier and much harder to break into this industry. It's really mostly just about the buzz you can generate for a game, and setting reasonable, modest targets for sales. I'm not sure this really qualifies as an "industry" anymore, more like a (potentially) mildly profitable hobby.


The three legs are equally important in the success of a RPG and can be used to "steady" the other legs that are lacking. For example, a game that has a great Reputation and Fluff but is a bit messy on Mechanics can still succeed because GMs and Players will put a metaphorical cinder block under the short leg.

Uhh, I've seen people put those same cinder blocks under it if they just have good fluff. It's really more about the fluff than about the mechanics, and definitely more than it is about the reputation. For an example of that, consider Palladium Games, a long-time industry cockroach that somehow refuses to die despite selling a set of games with awful mechanics and a reputation for not only screwing their freelancers but also extensive (and repeated) delays on essential products, and amazingly bad editing. It persists because people like the fluff. Not because Palladium Games has some amazing reputation (to be honest, I think more people wonder how they survive as a company than consider them a great company), or because their system is some great codex of mechanical perfection.


So, is this true? Or does one of these three legs dominate?

Fluff, fluff, fluff.


Can you make a game set in a fantastic setting with a deep reputation (say, Star Wars) where the Mechanics are no more than "roll a bunch of dice with pictures on them to give the GM parameters on what happens" and have it be a huge success?

Apparently. FFG has a habit of turning anything they do into profit, through some means or another. Though TBH edge of the empire is kind of fun. It's a refreshing change from most other game systems (other than warhammer fantasy, obviously).


Or can a game make it on Reputation alone?

No.

tasw
2013-10-17, 10:29 PM
I think mechanics alone are not enough to sell a TTRPG. They support it, but are not enough by themselves to sell a game. While bad mechanics might annoy some people but generally don't impact the popularity of the system too much for the players.

The bigger issue is GM's. While they will try games based on fluff, mostly they will come back to games due to solid, or good enough mechanics. Let me give some examples:

1) Dark Heresy: a game with fairly bad mechanics, but very strong fluff. The fluff alone is mostly enough to carry the game, but players / GM will sometimes get frustrated by the mechanics.

2) DnD of all kinds. While there is not much explicit fluff, there is a lot of implicit generic fantasy thing going on that most people relate to. The mechanics are for the most part good enough, and combat is a very interesting minigame

3) Legend of the five rings: while sporting both solid mechanics and solid fluff, it is not as popular as not many people are interested in playing a samurai political game. I personally think the game is very good, but its niche.

I think DH's mechanics are awesome. Fast flowing, intuitive in use and easy to learn.