PDA

View Full Version : Are Mechanics Useless in Core?



Starsinger
2008-10-09, 01:00 PM
I've been hearing some very disturbing opinions in some threads lately. Now as most of your know, there are two main components in RPGs, the rules and the flavor (mechanics and story). The mechanics explain how the game works, the classes racial bonuses, the rules ect ect, while story provides details and back ground to the game itself

Now there seems to be a new train of thought among some players. That mechanics don't have a place in the core part of the game, and as delivered, the game should be only story. IE, you buy a game, and get the story and make up your own mechanics.

I find this idea disgusting. And before people start throwing claims around, no I'm not stricken by lack of creativity, yes I can come up with my own mechanics, and yes I don't need to have rules presented to me, so can we get these fallacies out of the way now.

Basically, if a game is just story and no mechanics, is that a good thing according to this line of thought, because that lets you make up your own.

Here is the thing, mechanics within a game add structure. You can make up mechanic on your own whether the book presents it or not, but if the game lacks mechanics in its default presentation, then it just lacks any structure. Home brewing mechanics is like homebrewing flavor fixes. A game without mechanics is just as inherently flawed, if not more so then a flavor less game. Without mechanics, a game is inherently shallow. The reason why the game doesn't offer anything more than some pictures and back story, is because that doesn't amount to anything. If you have a MM that only presents the monsters ecology and none of their stat blocks/content, is that good because it "encourages" the DM to make up their own? Or is it just finding an excuse for the game designers to not work? A MM without mechanics text is little more than just a series of random entries and is uninteresting. Its like those monster guides in the Harry Potter series, they just don't have anything other than flavor to offer. On the same note, a MM that only had mechanics isn't really that interesting if useful.

The thing is, mechanics and fluff are both equally important in the game as presented. Sure, anyone can add their own mechanics, and lets be honest, most people do add their own stuff. But that doesn't make the presented mechanics irrelevant, that actually has a very important basis. It adds depth. The mindflayer without mechanics is just a creepy hentai guy. The Demons and devils without mechanics are just generic uglies. Souls in game are never really explained. Mechanics makes the game playable and are just as an important part of the game as fluff. Not to say fluff isn't important, because if fluff isn't handled properly you get a badly played game that makes most of its options the only options...yeah.

My handful of electrum

from
Starsinger
~~~~~~~~~~

While this may look very familiar to another thread, that's because it is. Now I've enjoyed a game that is fluff devoid in its core book (Mutants and Masterminds) so I was wondering if the flip side could be true as well. Plus its a bit amusing what a bit of word swapping can do. This is in no way, an attempt at Reductio Ad Absurdum; Those of you who read my posts know that that's a bit too cerebral for the likes of me. :smallsmile:

Tequila Sunrise
2008-10-09, 01:04 PM
An RPG without premade mechanics is just...improv or story hour, with potential. Frankly, I wouldn't buy an RPG without rules. Unless it was a really good read, in which case it is effectively a novel.

TS

Oslecamo
2008-10-09, 01:05 PM
I think that the simple fact that it is a game demands it to have mechanics.

Telonius
2008-10-09, 01:10 PM
There's nothing wrong with a mechanics-light (or mehanics-nonexistent) game, as long as everybody's having fun.

But if you aren't using the mechanics, why are you buying the books? I might be the odd man out here, but I don't have $90 to throw around on fluff inspiration. And if I did, I'd be buying about ten novels, not three core rule-books.

Starsinger
2008-10-09, 01:12 PM
Given that it's difficult to play a mechanics free game, I'm obviously talking mechanical lite but fluff heavy.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 01:12 PM
Frankly, the mechanics are not what WotC sells: they sell the fluff, otherwise the SRD wouldn't be free.

Duke of URL
2008-10-09, 01:16 PM
Nice satire of the "fluff is useless in core?" thread.

It is satire, right?

@Fax

Frankly, the mechanics are not what WotC sells: they sell the fluff, otherwise the SRD wouldn't be free.

In 3.x it is. That's gone in 4e -- they sell both crunch and fluff now.

Starsinger
2008-10-09, 01:18 PM
Nice satire of the "fluff is useless in core?" thread.

It is satire, right?

It was this or find a way to re-write the Rape of the Lock to deal with the mechanics-fluff debate, and this was easier. But I am generally curious about people enjoying mechanics lite games.

Telonius
2008-10-09, 01:18 PM
The SRD is the teaser. How many more spells and feats and classes and prestige classes and items aren't in there? I consider most of that stuff to be more mechanical than fluff.

valadil
2008-10-09, 01:31 PM
I like story more than I like rules. But a game needs rules so that it doesn't devolve into "I hit you," "no you didn't," "yes I did," "you're stupid," "my dad can beat up your dad," etc. A rules light system appeals because it has just enough mechanics that you don't have to argue about how actions are resolved, but does so without getting in the way of story.

While I prefer lighter rules, I also wouldn't buy a book of fluff. I like making up my own fluff. I'm also more competent at creating interesting fluff than balanced rules. I'll let someone else write the rules and I'll apply them to my story.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-09, 01:36 PM
I like story more than I like rules. But a game needs rules so that it doesn't devolve into "I hit you," "no you didn't," "yes I did," "you're stupid," "my dad can beat up your dad," etc.

I gotta say, I'd pay top dollar for actual mechanics on such a system.

Bryn
2008-10-09, 01:51 PM
First up, I enjoyed the excellent little satire in the OP. Well said!

I do wonder why people believe that freeform roleplaying automatically devolves into "my dad can beat up your dad". In my experience, freeform games have worked just as well, if not better, as non-freeform games. I do a fair bit of it, mostly 40k freeform, and we have interesting roleplaying, fine settings, and indeed we have fights - mostly between PCs and NPCs.

One the other hand, I guess you could say that the freeform roleplaying that I do isn't actually freeform, because it does have rules. They are very simple things like "you describe your characters actions and not how it will affect the other people" (e.g. "Fred fires his gun at Bob" "Bob dies" as opposed to "Fred fires his gun, killing bob off"), but they're there.

I don't know if many people have heard of it, but I really like the game Risus, which is, as far as I can tell, the second most rules-light non-freeform system that I have yet seen. I've only had one game of Risus, which didn't go particularly well, but I enjoy the extremely simple mechanics and the way they let you do anything you want, with no arbitrary restrictions.

That's not to say that only rules-light or rules-free systems are good. I also like DnD, and one of my favourite systems ever is Dark Heresy - both these games are reasonably rules-heavy. Some things, like Dark Heresy's psyker mishap tables, couldn't really be done in a freeform game nearly as well, and it's definitely thrilling when such a roll comes up.

So neither is better, really. What a long-winded way to come to absolutely no conclusion at all...

Project_Mayhem
2008-10-09, 02:05 PM
I do wonder why people believe that freeform roleplaying automatically devolves into "my dad can beat up your dad".

Because my dad is quite clearly much harder than yours.

Bryn
2008-10-09, 02:08 PM
Because my dad is quite clearly much harder than yours.

Damn, it's true! :smallfrown:

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-10-09, 02:22 PM
Imagine this if you will though...

You purchase a game, get it home and open it up in preparation to play it, and you read...

"This is a fantastical story of children wandering through a land filled with geographicaly sized candy, encompasing molases swamps and candy cane forests where they attempt to beat each other to a goal accross this wonderland of confections."

and that's it, no board, no dice no game resolution mechanics, no "turns" or ideas for the taking of them or determining who goes first...

If you can't run a game of CandyLand without "some" rules then trying something more complicated is going to be pretty risky. You need some sort of idea for the mechanic to use as a frame of reference, but the story needs some mechanic in order for it to be a game, not an idea for one.

The first thing a child will ask upon being invited to play any game are the rules weither it's Simon says, or What time is it Mr. Fox. If you tried playing
either of these without rules you'd just end up with the kids running around yelling and doing whatever, you don't have a game.

So in conclusion
No rules = No game

Now weither it's better to have rules light or rules heavy games is subject to the group and individual tastes, but it's something you can argue at least.

SmartAlec
2008-10-09, 02:32 PM
Played a game for almost four years at school.

There were no rules, no dice, no books. Each player was a king of a nation on a fictional medieval continent, dreamed up by the guy who we shall for want of a better term the GM. It was entirely out of his own head. He simply presented us with situations or we'd have to face problems and we'd roleplay it out, setting the tone, governmental style and technological feel of our kingdoms (one was an imperialist monarchy, one a small but advanced democracy, one an oligarchy that held up work-ethics as the greatest virtues... etc). The GM drew maps and filled in the details of the world, and we'd sometimes draw in and adapt rules from other stuff - naval combat games for naval combat, Warhammer for armies, and use cardboard to represent everything during lunch hour. In the later years of the game, the story brought the four players together in an epic quest to defeat the false god of their world - everything was still freeform. When we got into combat, the results were determined by the simplest method the GM had to hand - coinflipping.

And it never devolved into 'my country is bigger than your country'.

Mechanics? Pshaw.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 02:34 PM
coinflipping

A mechanic.

SmartAlec
2008-10-09, 02:37 PM
A mechanic.

As there were no actual rules involved - we just tried to guess best out of three coinflips and the GM described what happened - I would hesitate to call it a 'mechanic'.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 02:39 PM
As there were no actual rules involved - we just tried to guess best out of three coinflips and the GM described what happened - I would hesitate to call it a 'mechanic'.

It's a conflict resolution mechanic. It is not a system, but it is a mechanic.

Note that I do believe RPing is quite possible sans them, I just think it's more difficult the more conflict-heavy you get, and the 'G' part is pretty fun too with a good system.

Dr Bwaa
2008-10-09, 02:43 PM
It was this or find a way to re-write the Rape of the Lock to deal with the mechanics-fluff debate, and this was easier. But I am generally curious about people enjoying mechanics lite games.

Please do this. Please, please, please do this! :smallbiggrin:

snoopy13a
2008-10-09, 02:56 PM
I used to play rules-free Live action Roleplaying back in the day. We used prop replica guns and separated players into two factions called "cops" and "robbers". Our problem was that every time a player would roleplay shooting a member of the opposing faction, they either seemed to miss the target (who was always kind enough to announce "Missed me") or the target announced that they were wearing a "bullet-proof vest". This would occur even at point-blank range. Even if the shooter announced that they were aiming for the head, the target would be fortunate enough to be wearing a "bullet-proof mask". Needless to say, no one actually was "killed" during our roleplaying sessions.

On the bright side, I think we all had Kool-Aid and snacks afterwards :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 03:13 PM
It was this or find a way to re-write the Rape of the Lock to deal with the mechanics-fluff debate, and this was easier. But I am generally curious about people enjoying mechanics lite games.

So, Mechanics-Light games tend to fall into two categories: Improv and Story based games.

IMPROV GAMES
Improv games are ones where "player skill" is much more important than "character skill" - your character's abilities are only limited by how smart/clever/imaginative you are. Your character may "know" how to do things, but mostly your actually in-game capabilities are determined by what you can convince the GM you can do. In these games, mechanics are only used when the GM doesn't think you would automatically fail or succeed. Nagora's 1e game is a classic example of this - the 1e rules were so sparse that pretty much anything from combat manuevers to negotiation relied either on the persuasiveness of the player or an arbitrary d100 roll.

Improv games are fun because they allow the players to place themselves directly in the gaming world. You might be stronger or have magic, but your ability to succeed is wholly dependent on your mental facilities.

STORY GAMES
Story games are ones where the actual "reality" of any outcome is of secondary importance to the story. The GM and the Players are working on making an interesting story, and the majority of the "action" is in dialogue and other dramas. It doesn't really matter how well you can shoot a gun, but rather why you use one in the first place. Here, mechanics are used to resolve uncertain actions, and dice rolls are often influenced by plot importance or through "fate points" that you can pick up by dramatic action or RP. Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) is an example of such a game.

Story games are fun because the rules seldom get in the way of storytelling, and making and playing interesting characters is of primary importance. Your funny and complex wandering minstrel will not be upstaged by some bundle-of-stats Batman Wizard, and neither will you have to suffer trying to "roleplay" with one.

That's how I see it anyhow. I agree that for "standard" RPGs you really need to have, if not a "realistic" rules set, at least a robust one. If the game you're playing requires extensive homeruling to be playable, then why did you shell the cash out for their books anyhow? Good fluff is at least entertaining to read, even if you change it a lot :smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 03:19 PM
Your funny and complex wandering minstrel will not be upstaged by some bundle-of-stats Batman Wizard, and neither will you have to suffer trying to "roleplay" with one.

I agree with your statements except for this one, where you seem to be falling under the (incorrect) assumption that having good stats makes one a bad roleplayer (and vice versa).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 03:24 PM
I agree with your statements except for this one, where you seem to be falling under the (incorrect) assumption that having good stats makes one a bad roleplayer (and vice versa).

I can see how you'd get that - which is why I tried to emphasize the "Batman Wizard" also was just a "bundle of stats," rather than a fellow character. I was aiming to create a combination of phrases that said "someone who doesn't care about RP" (bundle of stats) and "who will still make your character absolutely meaningless in game" (Batman Wizard).

To repeat: I do not think Optimization = Bad Roleplayer, but I know how irritating it is to have made an interesting character who is not allowed to do anything because of one super-optimized fellow player who cares not a whit for RP. If this bothers you a lot, a "Story Game" is a great way to solve both problems.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 03:26 PM
I can see how you'd get that - which is why I tried to emphasize the "Batman Wizard" also was just a "bundle of stats," rather than a fellow character. I was aiming to create a combination of phrases that said "someone who doesn't care about RP" (bundle of stats) and "who will still make your character absolutely meaningless in game" (Batman Wizard).

To repeat: I do not think Optimization = Bad Roleplayer, but I know how irritating it is to have made an interesting character who is not allowed to do anything because of one super-optimized fellow player who cares not a whit for RP. If this bothers you a lot, a "Story Game" is a great way to solve both problems.

Gotcha. It wasn't really very clear.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 03:30 PM
Gotcha. It wasn't really very clear.

Heh, I know it's a hot button 'round here, but I though

"bundle of stats Batman Wizard"

flowed better than

"some guy who doesn't care about roleplaying his character, or roleplaying with anyone else, but who is still so powerful that your character seldom gets to do anything."

But maybe it's just me :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 03:31 PM
I gotta say, I'd pay top dollar for actual mechanics on such a system.
"My dad can beat up your dad" is a special summons that brings an ally in the battlefield, but he can only attack others creatures marked as "allies", he can't directly attack the main enemy.

joela
2008-10-09, 03:34 PM
Now there seems to be a new train of thought among some players. That mechanics don't have a place in the core part of the game, and as delivered, the game should be only story. IE, you buy a game, and get the story and make up your own mechanics.


Examples, please.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 03:39 PM
"My dad can beat up your dad" is a special summons that brings an ally in the battlefield, but he can only attack others creatures marked as "allies", he can't directly attack the main enemy.

Well, since it's sometimes hard to get everyone's father in the room for every game, much less set up the Thunderdome (tm), I say you can replace lots of dice-rolling with physical contests.

Combat? STR attacks are arm-wrestling contests, DEX attacks are thumb wars, and INT/WIS attacks are rock-paper-scissors... of varying complexity (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html). CHA attacks, clearly, require a vote of the people in the room of who should win.

Blackfang108
2008-10-09, 03:41 PM
Examples, please.

if you'll read the reast of the post, you'll see that this thread began as Satire of another post.

joela
2008-10-09, 04:21 PM
if you'll read the reast of the post, you'll see that this thread began as Satire of another post.

what's sad is that it's actually a real issue among indie press.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 04:28 PM
what's sad is that it's actually a real issue among indie press.

Wait, seriously? People publish "games" that are pure fluff and say "okay, now make up the mechanics, people. Thanks for your money!"

Do they expect that crap to sell? It's called a "game" for a reason - without any rules, you just have a book; a work of fiction.

Talya
2008-10-09, 04:44 PM
Exalted is my favorite RPG book ever...and it's 400 pages, probably 300 of them are pure fluff.

DM Raven
2008-10-09, 04:52 PM
You can have games with lots of fluff and lots of game mechanics. The trick is to build your world around the game mechanics and create fluff that explains why the mechanics operate in the way they do. However, if asked if I would rather have a fluff heavy rulebook or a mechanics heavy rulebook...I would pick mechanics every time. Thats not saying I want a rulebook sans fluff, I just value playtested mechanics more than storyline. I'm pretty creative and I can tell my own stories thank you very much.

The original question, "Are Mechanics Useless in Core?" is sort of a personal one. I don't think there is a right answer...what matters most is what you and your players enjoy. If you want a game sans mechanics and you all just have fun telling stories, then you should have games like that. If you enjoy games of heavy-combat systems and strategic battles then you should run that type of game.

I personally value fluff more than mechanics in my games, but for my rulebooks I value mechanics over fluff.

(Still waiting for my Knife based wizard powers WOTC)

kjones
2008-10-09, 05:42 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if you're not rolling dice, it's horrible and unnatural.

You can pry my dice from my cold, dead hands.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 05:45 PM
You can pry my dice from my cold, dead hands.

...and then we'll roll your bones! Har har har! I'm hilarious!

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 06:31 PM
...and then we'll roll your bones! Har har har! I'm hilarious!

I don't know whether to laugh or Aid Another (Suicide).

chiasaur11
2008-10-09, 06:33 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or Aid Another (Suicide).

You could always facepalm.

I mean, it's less extreme than the other two options, and gives the slightly snooty air of superiority to bad puns the chicks dig!

DM Raven
2008-10-09, 06:40 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or Aid Another (Suicide).


Hm, I wonder how many could assist you in Aid Another (Suicide). And could you take 10 on that? I mean, technically you are trying to deal damage so wouldn't that put you in combat? Or would that be more like a second edition, "I failed a saving throw so I died" effect that could instant happen without damage?

...

What?

Vazzaroth
2008-10-09, 07:38 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if you're not rolling dice, it's horrible and unnatural.

Personally, as far as any games I ever want to play, I agree.

Anyway, it comes down the what echoes through human society since it's existence: Extremities are bad. No rules are bad. All rules is bad.

Lite rules: This takes ALOT more social skills and agreeableness and trust. Basically, if either you randomly find someone who adheres, or you play with people you know will, then your fine. However, as the children analogy points out since Children are just simplified versions of adults, all it takes is one person to effectively say NUH-UH! to ruin it. It's not that Rules-lite doesnt work, its just that, to me, it's a huge pain and the variables for whether it will be fun are great and varied.

Heavy rules: (IE: Almost all RPGs that don't call themselves *Shudders* freeform.) My preference. I will not hide that. But of course they have problems too. Case in point: I am playing a Cleric of the Raven Queen, and I wanted to cast my radiant spells as more of a Death-god fitting description (The PHB 4th ed. describes radiant as a bright holy light) of shadowy darkness or something to that effect. I decided, to make it fit into the rules, I would make a homebrew feat to make my attacks deal Necrotic or Cold damage, discussed it with my DM and GitP, the threads up somewhere, and came to the conclusion only radiant or cold damage would make sense, but neither look like what I wanted. Of course, I compromised and just said my radiant looks more like black light than sunlight, but it remains as an example of rules getting in the way of flavor.

Summary: No rules and the Novel analogy isn't far off, Too much rules and it becomes real life or a Historical Simulation and therefor less fun. A balance is needed, and that balance will vary greatly based off of person preference.

Once again, DnD's description of humans as "The most varied and adaptable of all the races" is pretty accurate. :smallamused:

Stupendous_Man
2008-10-09, 07:39 PM
The SRD is the teaser. How many more spells and feats and classes and prestige classes and items aren't in there? I consider most of that stuff to be more mechanical than fluff.

Good ones, you mean?

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 07:40 PM
4E, at least presently, is more Rules-Medium. Rules-Heavy is mostly really expanded systems (3.x at this stage of the game) with a few oddballs that are complex out the gate (HERO).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 08:27 PM
4E, at least presently, is more Rules-Medium. Rules-Heavy is mostly really expanded systems (3.x at this stage of the game) with a few oddballs that are complex out the gate (HERO).

I think it's important to draw a distinction here.

RULES LIGHT
A "Rules Light" system, IMHO, is one with a very simple system of conflict resolution. Many different actions should be governed by a small number of values on a character sheet, there are few modifiers to any given die roll, and most actions do not require a die roll.

As an example, Bliss Stage has one system to resolve all conflicts (roll X fudge dice, and assign one die to Success, Safety, and per each relationship used for that roll) and you only roll dice when you actually go out and fight. All social interactions are purely RP, even if they involve climbing, lying, or being alert. Everything else is pretty much pure fiat.

RULES HEAVY
A "Rules Heavy" system is one where many, if not most, of the actions are explicitly covered under a conflict resolution system and there are special methods for resolving different kinds of conflicts. Typically these are more "realistic" systems in that things such as combat, social interactions, falling from high places, and damaging objects are explicitly contemplated and modeled by the rules, rather than leaving it up to fiat or some general conflict resolution measure. Modifiers are rampant, and characters often have a large number of different values that go into resolving any conflict.

3e D&D is a good example of a "Rules Heavy" system, in that any given attack roll may involve modifiers for higher ground, being off balance or surprised, the method of attack, the lighting situation, magical bonuses and penalties, and even the quality of the weapons used. Meanwhile, tying a rope requires its own skill and may be modified by feats, stats, the quality of rope being used, as well as any miscellaneous modifiers the DM wants to add.

Whether a game is "rules heavy" or "rules light" is more a function of the designer's intent rather than how awkward the rules are. One can play a Rules Light system where it is very difficult to determine how one should resolve a certain conflict, or why (ex: a system that says the DM should assign a d100 value for all challenges without giving either the DM or players any guidelines as to what an appropriate value might be for differently able characters), and one can play a Rules Heavy system which has an elegant system for resolving various conflicts.

Clearly, I think 4e is a very well-designed Rules Heavy system. I object to creating a "rules medium" middle ground just because it muddles the debate. Of course, this may be an overly fussy approach to a minor issue, but that's how I roll :smallbiggrin:

RPGuru1331
2008-10-09, 08:29 PM
Wait, seriously? People publish "games" that are pure fluff and say "okay, now make up the mechanics, people. Thanks for your money!"

Do they expect that crap to sell? It's called a "game" for a reason - without any rules, you just have a book; a work of fiction.

I think you're confusing mechanics and rules. The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen has rules, but no mechanics. I don't keep up with Indy games, but I imagine the ones that are being referenced have something similar.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-09, 09:03 PM
I think you're confusing mechanics and rules. The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen has rules, but no mechanics. I don't keep up with Indy games, but I imagine the ones that are being referenced have something similar.

Woah woah woah. A "mechanic" is a rule... unless you can distinguish them somehow?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-10, 01:14 PM
Note what I said about Tekumel. None of the printed rules systems for Tekumel have been worth a tinker's cuss (with the exception of the character generation system in the Gardasiyal rules), but the sourcebooks alone are enough to let you know how the world works. As such it's quite easy to roll your own or apply modified rules from some other system to play with the background information.

That wasn't the intent with the Tekumel sourcebooks, but IMO it showed that simply presenting a setting in a detailed enough way but without any mechanics can in fact be quite worth paying for, especially for experienced players and GMs who are probably playing with a lot of houserules already in whatever game they're playing.

Well... that's the first I've heard of anyone making up their own rules to play in a setting that is just crappy rules. Normally folks pick up a similar system that works and impose the good fluff on them.

Heck, my experience with Indie games has been short books with a limited campaign setting (Mountain Witch, Bliss Stage) that have intriguing mechanics. Great for one-off games, but not the workhorse that D&D or even SR has been.

What kind of rules do people usually play Tekumel with?

Handsome Rob
2008-10-11, 09:15 AM
In this argument, I would most likely come down on the rules heavy side, having never played in a rules light system and progressing to Dungeons and Dragons through computer games such as Zelda and Morrowind.

However, I am strongly against the claim that no one would buy a book that was completely full of fluff. You know, I've read Lord of the Rings cover-to-cover and there is not a single stat block or mechanical description in there. However, I am sure that at least 90% of the people in this forum have bought a copy of this most sacred of all RPG sources.

That being said, I don't believe that any RPG system can truly divorce mechanics and fluff. Without fluff, RPGs become a whole bunch of dull and uninteresting maths. Without mechanics, you aren't playing a game.

At the end of the day, the mechanics are how play, but the fluff is why we play.

Bryn
2008-10-11, 11:19 AM
I've already posted my opinions (ie, freeform is actually pretty damn fun, thank you very much :smalltongue:) in this thread, but I have thought further on the matter. Thus, I shall don my monocle and top hat and venture forth into the debating hall once again. Not because I expect anyone esle to wear such things, but because it's awesome :smallbiggrin:

I believe that for PbP games, nothing beats freeform - for me. This is because any mechanics at all require a waiting period, whereas if players just write, the game can function much more smoothly than it otherwise would. This most especially applies to things like combat and other complicated tasks which require a lot of dice-rolls.

On the other hand, when you can roll dice and include an element of random peril, it is a lot of fun, so games with instant communication (round a tabletop, across an IM system, voice chat, etc. etc. etc.) probably work better as system-based than freeform.

This isn't to say that PbP games only ever work as freeform (the mostly DnD-centric PbP section on this site contradicts this), but I think they're better as freeform or rules-lite than they would be using a complicated system.

Vazzaroth
2008-10-11, 12:44 PM
Re: No one would buy just fluff.

Handsome Rob used LOTR as an example, but that was not intended to become a game. Sure people will buy just fluff, but I can guarantee only a very select few would buy a book that said "This is a game without rules, here's the setting". I have bought DnD books for Eberron that were close to that (5 Nations, outside of a few PrCs, is almost all Background), but only with the intent to bring it into a pre-made rules system.

And no matter what I hear, I just cannot conceive true freeform games as a game. To me, a game is when people either compete or co-operate, but both on the same set of rules. This is my main concern with 4th ed, it seems like the monsters and the PCs are on completely different rule sets, and this bugs me to no end. Freeform is that scenario to the extreme.

Long Anecdote:

Once I saw a game on these forums once that was intriguing to me. There was a player running it, and each person had a colony of creatures, very Spore-like. The DM would tell them how they did this season based on what evolution they choose after the last season. It sounded fun, but I wanted to know how to play. I scoured both the IC and OOC for a link to WTF ruleset they were using. How do the players know what options they had?! Was the DM rolling dice to figure out how many died?!? How could they tell when the DM was cheating and killing them harder than he should have?!?!!! Eventually, I came to the conclusion it was full-freeform. This kind of blew my mind, and disgusted me at the same time. These people were spending all this time trying various things just based on what they wanted to do with no restraints?! Someone could say "I grow a nuke launcher from my chest.". Sure the DM will obviously kill them or something, but that player could just ruin the game for everyone that way, after they've already gotten so invested in the game.

I can sort of understand Very Rules light system, although I don't like them, but I wil never ever understand full Freeform. I guess it just takes more trust than I'm willing to invest. (Although I'll trust Wizards of the Coast to the ends of the earth)

Also, this comes from someone who doesn't do "Casual RPGing". All RPGs I play I really get into. I've never played a Throw-away DnD game, only epic campaigns destined for 20th (30th now) level, although of course not all of them make it that far. I guess Freeform would be good if you just want a casual game...


Basically, in the end, it's the same thing whether its Rules lite or heavy: If the DM says no, then no. Sure, in Rules heavy the players can argue their case using the rules as examples (My group spent 60% of our 3.5E time doing this), but in Freeform the player can always say "Why not?!".

Ravens_cry
2008-10-11, 01:11 PM
I have played chatroom role play fairly often, and I know that diceless role play can be a lot of fun. The trouble is, god modding.
I was once 'fighting' a Sith-gone-bad as a Sith Assassin (living bone blades I could telekineticly throw, and the ability to suppress my presence in the force, to appear as a normie or as unnoticeable to Jedi, no lightsaber)
I was trying to be accurate,and taking punches when reasonable, but the other person just couldn't be hit. Basically a Mary Sue Munchkin. It was, annoying. ANd you know what? There was nothing I could do about it, but tell them, and hope they shaped up. They didn't. Other people in the chat noticed and started telling them as well. The still didn't listen. Finally they left, because their uber-leet mindrape skill was said to be god modding (it was, they claimed it had no way of dodging, a no-no in PbP). But it shows why, unless your with people you trust, or it is is a non-conflict RP, mechanics are important. The dice may be random, but the dice don't lie.

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 01:15 PM
This is driving me nuts. WHY is it 'godmodding'? It's godmode, so why does the verb form double the 'd' and drop the 'e'?! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Starsinger
2008-10-11, 01:22 PM
This is driving me nuts. WHY is it 'godmodding'? It's godmode, so why does the verb form double the 'd' and drop the 'e'?! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I'm thinking the rhyme.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-11, 01:35 PM
This is driving me nuts. WHY is it 'godmodding'? It's godmode, so why does the verb form double the 'd' and drop the 'e'?! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
Don't forget, the same people who invented the term 'godmodding' invented the term 'pwn'.
Trying to understand the rational of such minds is not a thing to be taken on lightly.

Fhaolan
2008-10-11, 02:08 PM
Just as a note, and not to really add anything useful to the conversation:

I disagree with the classification of 3.x D&D as a 'Rules Heavy' game.

If you're playing a game and don't get over an argument about the interpretation of rule 1.4.0.3.10a cross-compared to table 1.ts.100.12 in order to determine the price of a loaf of bread with respect to local economic conditions with the annual rainfall modifiers, you're not playing a Rules Heavy game. If you can actually complete one character's actions for a turn in less than an hour, it's not a Rules Heavy game.

Many full-on simulationist wargames, like Star Fleet Battles, are Rules Heavy games. For RPGs, some older defunct games like Synnabar and RoleMaster were Rules Heavy games. 3.x D&D is a lightweight comparatively.

:smallsmile:

Matthew
2008-10-11, 02:20 PM
Setting books that are intended for a particular rule set but contain no rules themselves I find attractive; Punjar: The Tarnished Jewel is an excellent example, as is the Greyhawk Gazetteer. Similarly, books that provide rules or guidelines for constructing settings I find quite useful, such as A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe. I am not really interested in books like Tome of Battle or Complete Mage, but I prefer there to be some default rules established before the game begins.

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 02:50 PM
I'm thinking the rhyme.

...What rhyme? Godmoding rhymes with... hmmm. Foreboding. Godmodding would rhyme with... plodding?


Just as a note, and not to really add anything useful to the conversation:

I disagree with the classification of 3.x D&D as a 'Rules Heavy' game.

If you're playing a game and don't get over an argument about the interpretation of rule 1.4.0.3.10a cross-compared to table 1.ts.100.12 in order to determine the price of a loaf of bread with respect to local economic conditions with the annual rainfall modifiers, you're not playing a Rules Heavy game. If you can actually complete one character's actions for a turn in less than an hour, it's not a Rules Heavy game.

Many full-on simulationist wargames, like Star Fleet Battles, are Rules Heavy games. For RPGs, some older defunct games like Synnabar and RoleMaster were Rules Heavy games. 3.x D&D is a lightweight comparatively.

:smallsmile:

I agree. 3.x can get that heavy in some really bad cases, but only if you're using way too many splatbooks simultaneously, hence my earlier comment.

Jerthanis
2008-10-11, 02:54 PM
I was under the impression Godmodding came from RP forums where Moderators took part in the RP, and thus were able to utilize Moderator powers to exert control they shouldn't have, and that their characters CERTAINLY didn't have.


Exalted is my favorite RPG book ever...and it's 400 pages, probably 300 of them are pure fluff.

Exalted also has nine step attack resolution. It's far from light on rule front.

Unless you're suggesting the fact that the designers left important Keywords off many of its charms in the Dragonblooded and Sidereal books is a good thing, since STs have to make up and change around the mechanics themselves, can I interpret your declaration of Exalted as your favorite as saying something like, "Both Mechanics and Fluff are important in a ruleset."?

AstralFire
2008-10-11, 03:02 PM
I was under the impression Godmodding came from RP forums where Moderators took part in the RP, and thus were able to utilize Moderator powers to exert control they shouldn't have, and that their characters CERTAINLY didn't have.

...Ahhhhh! Okay, now it makes more sense to me. I've been thinking of it like godmode from video gaming. Thank you.

Dogmantra
2008-10-11, 03:51 PM
You need some mechanics, and I wouldn't play any game with anything less than "Roll a number of dXs corresponding to your skill in whatever you're doing, if the roll beats a number determined by the GM, you succeed"
'Cept everything has to be balanced, so I also wouldn't play a game that said "When attempting to climb a wall, or other flat face, first determine the angle of the face, in relation to the ground, for every 2 degrees above 90, you take a -1 penalty to your checks, for every 2 degrees below 90, you gain a +1 bonus to your checks. After you have determined the gradient bonus, work out wind direction and speed, if it is opposed, you take a -(1/2 wind speed in m/s) penalty to checks. Finally, factor in the grip of your shoe, according to table 188395478 below, if you are barefoot, refer to table 188395479, to determine grip according to dirtiness of the sole, hairiness of the foot and number of verucas."


I gotta say, I'd pay top dollar for actual mechanics on such a system.
Each player rolls 1d% + the number of years until their dad reaches 65 (retirement age) each player's dad can beat up the dads of those players who rolled lower than them, if the players' dads are above 65, they must do two things:
1. Subtract the number of years that have passed since their dad reached 65
2. Wonder why the earth they're arguing over whose dad could beat up whose dad, since the chances are that they're older than 20 anyway.

Zuki
2008-10-11, 08:13 PM
This is driving me nuts. WHY is it 'godmodding'? It's godmode, so why does the verb form double the 'd' and drop the 'e'?! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Is this a neologism, separate from 'godmoding'? I'd always seen it written and pronounced thusly in my circles, in reference to the cheat codes in platformer games and such.

I have fond memories of turning on Godmode in a Commander Keen game and flying around levels for fun and exploration on my pogo stick.

mikethepoor
2008-10-12, 11:06 AM
Well, since it's sometimes hard to get everyone's father in the room for every game, much less set up the Thunderdome (tm), I say you can replace lots of dice-rolling with physical contests.

Combat? STR attacks are arm-wrestling contests, DEX attacks are thumb wars, and INT/WIS attacks are rock-paper-scissors... of varying complexity (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html). CHA attacks, clearly, require a vote of the people in the room of who should win.

What about CON? Drinking contests?

Return of Lanky
2008-10-12, 11:27 AM
What about CON? Drinking contests?

As the resident Germanic/Scottish/Irish mongrel of my gaming group, I vote YES!

Though on a serious note... I couldn't buy a game with no mechanics to back up the fluff because the mechanics, in many ways, help make the fluff what it is. I know, I know... It probably sounds weird.

The thing is, the mechanics dictate what is and is not realistic for the players to try and do. In Exalted, a PC can backflip over an enemy, sweep his feet out from under him, stab him under the neck with a dagger and then use his corpse as a club on the next foe with the dagger as a handle. Can't do that in D&D, but you're certainly a heroic enough figure to fight giants and dragons. Then there's GURPS Fantasy, where fighting is certainly a much more grim and gritty proposition.

I want mechanics with my game because they influence just how and where the game will go and what it will become.