PDA

View Full Version : A Question of Mechanics and Alternate Playstyles



Neon Knight
2008-08-21, 10:17 PM
Now, most people probably don't understand play styles different from their own entirely. To a certain extent, one can see how someone could enjoy playing in this or that manner. But there is a limit to that understanding, and certain play styles pass that limit and often leave you scratching your head, wondering why X is such a big deal to these players.

A comment in another thread has inspired such a feeling in me, and I seek further understanding. The comment comes from the 4E, Gurps Fantasy, or Cthulhu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4758805#post4758805) thread.

The relative piece in question, quoted partially:




I have no experience with Call of Cthulu, but if you're looking for something story-oriented I recommend Spirit of the Century or Nobilis. Both are genre-specific roleplaying games that focus heavily on mechanics for resolving non-combat challenges. Both games also use a system of tokens to allow players to force a specific success or failure for the sake of plot, and they encourage players and DM to work together to make a good story, as opposed to being mutual antagonists.



Why do people believe that mechanics encourage or effect story/role playing? Why do they believe that non-combat/social mechanics encourage role playing/story? In what manner do they theoretically do so?

Dr Bwaa
2008-08-21, 10:40 PM
Never having played either of those, my first guess is that what they mean is within that "ability to force specific success or failure for the sake of the plot." Meaning, that if it's absolutely crucial for something to happen for the plot to go the way they want it to go that something goes a certain way, they can make sure it does, without leaving anything up to chance like you do in D&D.

Personally I rather like having things left up to chance; it forces you to be creative and cooperate more with the other players and GM, imo, and it leads to fun and unexpected things. If I wanted total control, I'd just write a book, but I certainly believe this can be entertaining for people who are looking for this sort of more-controlled-than-dnd storytelling.

valadil
2008-08-22, 11:17 AM
Players who like mechanics will focus their gameplay on wherever the interesting mechanics lie. D&D combat is interesting so that's where those players end up. A game that has boring combat but interesting social mechanics will get players interested in the social side of the game. They may be there for mechanics instead of roleplaying, but at least they're talking to NPCs in some form or another.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-22, 11:21 AM
Typical examples of games that encourage roleplaying are Exalted, where you get bonus dice to your tasks if you describe them in a cool and innovative way, and Legend of the Five Rings, where in order to gain a higher rank (something like DND level, but also existing IC) requires you to write a letter to your Daimyo where you ask for his permission.

Shazzbaa
2008-08-22, 11:54 AM
Ah, well, let me see if I'm understanding properly... I've never played the referenced games, but regarding the idea of roleplaying being "encouraged" by mechanics...

Part of the reason I play D&D rather than free-form roleplaying is that I want some impartial numbers to determine what I do well, and what I do poorly, rather than proclaiming, "I do this, and I do it fabulously!" Under this logic, things without reliable mechanics are harder to roleplay accurately. Allow me to explain: if there were no diplomacy skill -- for example -- so that when you needed to diplomacise you just rolled a d20, then you might do well or poorly depending on random chance, no matter how you visualised your character. If I have a character that I imagine as a bad talker, I want the mechanics to reflect that... it'd be pretty crummy if all of my diplomacy rolls were good.

However, since there's a diplomacy skill, you can build that part of your character the way you imagine -- you can have a high diplomacy skill and tend to do well, or you can have a low diplomacy skill and tend to do poorly, depending on how good at it you think your character is.

Part of this discrepancy depends on the sort of group you're used to playing in. If you play in the sort of group that might have you just speak in character instead of rolling for diplomacy, and let you roleplay out your character's eloquence or horrible stutter, then all these extra mechanics for every aspect of character seem superfluous. But if you play in the sort of group where a d20 wins, no matter what character rolled it or how unlikely it is, then you want mechanics to cover every aspect of your character so that he can be built the way you imagine him, and not be randomly good or bad at something that completely breaks your character concept.

Does that make sense?