Systems: Fun or means to an end?

[Talakeal]

I was just struck with a revelation; I don't enjoy combat in RPGs, I enjoy the IDEA of combat in RPGs.

The primary purpose of an RPG, in my mind, become someone else, and see a fantastic world through new eyes. The rules are merely conflict resolution systems, to resolve how the story goes when the outcome is contested or in doubt.

At some point, someone decided that these sub systems where what made the game a game, and in RPGs these sub systems have been slowly taking over more and more of the book.

Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?

[Grinner]

I've thought about this myself.

First, you've got to define what a game is. To me, the simplest components of a game are a beginning, an end, and a series of obstacles in between.

Then, you've got to realize that everyone has their reasons for doing something. Some play RPGs for the adventure aspect. Others play just for the idea of having and gaining power in a reality separate from our own, without the responsibility and moral ambiguity associated with power. Some play just for kicks (Arguably, this is the only reason for playing).

As a large number of video games demonstrate, many people don't mind playing a system rather than a story, but in the end, it's all about what you want.

[Ranos]

It's the other way around. Conflict resolution systems came first, then at some point someone decided it'd be a good idea to add story.

As for your question, it mostly depends on system. If you're in more for the Role Playing and less for the Game, there are systems for you that gloss over conflict resolution.

[Talakeal]

It's the other way around. Conflict resolution systems came first, then at some point someone decided it'd be a good idea to add story.

Well, I am talking from my perspective. I understand RPGs grew out of war games in the 70s, but since I started playing in the late 80s RPGs have gotten more and more rules heavy / combat heavy every edition.

If you're in more for the Role Playing and less for the Game, there are systems for you that gloss over conflict resolution.

I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.

[Ranos]

I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.

From my limited experience, games like Houses of the Blooded, Don't Rest your Head, or Kingdom of Nothing all reduce physical conflict to either a few rolls or a single roll. This has the side effect of making you want to avoid physical conflict at all costs.

Then there are games like Nobilis and Amber diceless where you don't even roll a single die to adjudicate the conflict, but I've never tried those.

[Grinner]

I have yet to find one.

The closest I have ever seen in WoD, which is good, but the mechanics that do exist are so unbalanced and incomplete that they don't work as combat resolution without huge doses of DM fiat.

There's the problem. You seem to want a rules-heavy system to determine exactly what a character can do, but you don't want it to override the storyline.

However, by using a rules-heavy system, you are implicitly placing emphasis on the rules themselves. As the focus of the game is now the rules, the players will begin playing the system and not the story.

[prufock]

Providing a system to resolve conflicts are all the rules really do. The rest is generally just fluff. If you aren't interested in conflict resolution, why don't you just forget "system" altogether and play a free-form storytelling game? This allows for the "role-playing" part, but not so much the "game" part.

[Randomatic]

I disagree that the primary focus of the game should be the story, and that the mechanics interfere with the story. I tend to find that the story of a game can't be told until the end, and that it can't be written before the conflicts have been resolved. You don't know the story of a gaming session until you're packing up your dice when it's all over.

I also find that the game rules primary purpose is to resolve the conflict between the desires of the various players. You and I might have very very different things that we want to get out of the game. By agreeing on which set of rules, we can then develop a common ground, and hopefully both have fun with the game.

[Crow]

I disagree that the primary focus of the game should be the story, and that the mechanics interfere with the story. I tend to find that the story of a game can't be told until the end, and that it can't be written before the conflicts have been resolved. You don't know the story of a gaming session until you're packing up your dice when it's all over.

I also find that the game rules primary purpose is to resolve the conflict between the desires of the various players. You and I might have very very different things that we want to get out of the game. By agreeing on which set of rules, we can then develop a common ground, and hopefully both have fun with the game.

I think what you have hit on is the difference between the Old-School, dice fall as they may, you make a character who wants something then go out and get it, style of gaming; and the newer-school, we're telling a cooperative story, style of gaming.

[Totally Guy]

I think what you have hit on is the difference between the Old-School, dice fall as they may, you make a character who wants something then go out and get it, style of gaming; and the newer-school, we're telling a cooperative story, style of gaming.

I think Randomatic has the right idea.

My preference is to allow the co-operative story to emerge by using game mechanics and player priorities. I don't think they need to be exclusive.

[Crow]

I think Randomatic has the right idea.

My preference is to allow the co-operative story to emerge by using game mechanics and player priorities. I don't think they need to be exclusive.

I totally agree. I don't look at the story as something independent of everything else. But rather the final outcome, whatever it may be.

[Tengu_temp]

I'm a story-first type of guy, but a good mechanical system always helps. Adding mechanics to the conflict helps you get the feel that you earned your victories instead of just being given them. Good is the keyword here - bad systems just make the game feel like an unfun drudge.

[Totally Guy]

Adding mechanics to the conflict helps you get the feel that you earned your victories instead of just being given them.

Losing should be fun too. Some of my favourite sessions I've played were those in which I lost everything with just the right amount of irony.

[Shadowknight12]

I play games mostly to create things. Characters, usually, but also worlds. However, I care equally about mechanics and story when it comes to creation, then get disappointed when it comes to actual play. Somehow, the act of playing is never as fun as all the fun I have when creating a character. I love making choices and seeing the results, and character creation is an endless stream of that. Actual play? Not so much.

[moritheil]

I was just struck with a revelation; I don't enjoy combat in RPGs, I enjoy the IDEA of combat in RPGs.

The primary purpose of an RPG, in my mind, become someone else, and see a fantastic world through new eyes. The rules are merely conflict resolution systems, to resolve how the story goes when the outcome is contested or in doubt.

At some point, someone decided that these sub systems where what made the game a game, and in RPGs these sub systems have been slowly taking over more and more of the book.

Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?

As I've said in two or three other threads that you've posted recently, I think that to some people the min/maxing and number manipulation IS the game. The roleplay is fluff. And to some other people, the roleplay is the game, and combat merely provides details to explain and new situations to roleplay through. And so on and so forth.

Asking if it's "a good thing" in general presupposes the existence of a universal "good" way to game, which I must express skepticism of.

[Talakeal]

I think some of you are misunderstanding me.

It isn't that the rules are too heavy, too time consuming, or that they make the story unpredictable. The unpredictability is a vital part of the story for me and the randomness adds to it.

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.

Take for example a 4E fighter or a 3.5 ToB character. Combat is a lot more interesting and "fun" than it is for a first or second ed fighter who simply states "I attack" and then rolls dice.

*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

[Shadowknight12]

I think some of you are misunderstanding me.

It isn't that the rules are too heavy, too time consuming, or that they make the story unpredictable. The unpredictability is a vital part of the story for me and the randomness adds to it.

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.

Take for example a 4E fighter or a 3.5 ToB character. Combat is a lot more interesting and "fun" than it is for a first or second ed fighter who simply states "I attack" and then rolls dice.

*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

Well, roleplaying games are products to be consumed. They need to offer something people are willing to pay for. Creating fine-tuned rules that can be used in a story is precisely the sort of thing people would be willing to pay for, given that not all of us are game designers with access to plenty of playtesters.

Add the economic crisis we've been having for a couple of years now and you'll see that products need to cut corners when it comes to superfluous things and ensure sales. What better ways to ensure sales than cramming books full of tasty rules and minigames?

[moritheil]

*: White Wolf has a lot of mechanics which don't resolve anything. For example, one of the werewolf gifts is called wither. The text simply states that one of the target's limbs becomes withered and useless. That is all. No rules on what constitutes a limb, what role is required on the werewolf's part, what range the power has, if LoS is needed, duration on the power, what the penalties for a withered limb are, if the opponent gets any sort of roll to resist, etc.
Such a mechanic, if looked at with D&D style RAW is god permissive optimization the werewolf could just sit in his living room and will the head of every opponent in the world to fall of.

That's more than a bit misleading, as in WW, the STs have way more control over what happens to your character and are allowed to throw you into all sorts of blatantly unfair situations. The concept of "encounter level" is not formally a part of the rules, and so a ST is perfectly within his or her rights to tell the werewolf that right as he gets down to withering all his enemies, some elder vampire sorcerer completes an obscure ritual that causes him to burst into flame.

Hell, in Mage, IIRC, a ST can flat out say "Yeah, that dice roll just now didn't really happen." The ST doesn't really have to obey this long and formulaic code of rights and expectations that DnD 3.x gives its players - the existence of which is necessary for the abuse you speak of.

[Talakeal]

That's more than a bit misleading, as in WW, the STs have way more control over what happens to your character and are allowed to throw you into all sorts of blatantly unfair situations. The concept of "encounter level" is not formally a part of the rules, and so a ST is perfectly within his or her rights to tell the werewolf that right as he gets down to withering all his enemies, some elder vampire sorcerer completes an obscure ritual that causes him to burst into flame.

Hell, in Mage, IIRC, a ST can flat out say "Yeah, that dice roll just now didn't really happen." The ST doesn't really have to obey this long and formulaic code of rights and expectations that DnD 3.x gives its players - the existence of which is necessary for the abuse you speak of.

Yes, I am aware it is up to the storyteller, that's exactly my point. You don't have concrete rules, and so everything is going to be storyteller fiat (which slows down the game) or arguments (which slow it down even more).

Also, I don't think that Mage has a rule that says the storyteller can veto the dice rolls, at least not directly or in the core book. I know Mage does NOT have a "rule zero" which gives the Storyteller the authority to rewrite the rules, it instead has the "golden rule" which allows the players to change rules as a group.

[erikun]

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game.

What do you think of systems like HeroQuest or Gurps, where everything is resolved (including combat) in the same manner?

And as for your topic question, I'm not sure that it's happening to all RPGs, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Shadowrun has a lot of different systems and mechanics, but those are intended for the different feel to each system. Casting a spell is different than hacking into a computer. For the most part, one character is only going to "play" one system at a time, meaning you don't jump into various "mini-games" throughout gameplay.


Also, perhaps I'm confused about your example. You mention a D&D4 Fighter, but that same character would use the same mechanics in combat that they would with other obstacles. Is your thoughts about how "gamey" combat can become, or how combat feels like one game and, say, character politics would feel like another?

[Talakeal]

What do you think of systems like HeroQuest or Gurps, where everything is resolved (including combat) in the same manner?

And as for your topic question, I'm not sure that it's happening to all RPGs, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Shadowrun has a lot of different systems and mechanics, but those are intended for the different feel to each system. Casting a spell is different than hacking into a computer. For the most part, one character is only going to "play" one system at a time, meaning you don't jump into various "mini-games" throughout gameplay.


Also, perhaps I'm confused about your example. You mention a D&D4 Fighter, but that same character would use the same mechanics in combat that they would with other obstacles. Is your thoughts about how "gamey" combat can become, or how combat feels like one game and, say, character politics would feel like another?

Good point about Shadow Run. They have done a lot of effort to remove sub games after fifteen years of literally having to split into two games every time someone went online. So I guess it isn't every game.

My point about ToB and 4th ed fighters was that they have been increasing the amount of options and complexity of combat, trying to make combat itself into a fun game in and of itself. Back in 2E you just looked at your stats and then rolled dice until one man was dead (an exaggeration I know), while now there is all sorts of maneuvering and powers and decisions and what not trying to make the actual mechanics of combat fun and exciting rather than a means to an end.

[valadil]

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

I'm going to take the capitalistic approach.

Having fun with a system that treats rules as a tool to tell a story requires a certain amount of creativity. If the biggest conflict I can find in a system is that THAC0 is unintuitive, then the source of conflict has to come from elsewhere, namely GM and players.

But, if the system has enough mini-games and subsystems that I can find conflict with those, manipulating the systems becomes entertaining in its own right. Building a 3.5 character that stands up to an unrestricted wizard is a conflict on its own and requires no input from the GM or players.

So back to capitalism. I'm of the opinion that there are significantly more players out there who can have fun tinkering with the system than players who can build and create engaging conflicts. Game publishers are swayed by sales and there are more buyers for crunchy, gamey systems, so that's what's being produced.

[prufock]

I have to be honest, your clarification didn't clarify anything for me. I don't understand your point about "mini-games" at all. Maybe if you gave some examples of what you mean.

The systems I am familiar with are D&D 3.5 (and other editions to a lesser extent), Mutants and Masterminds (all 3 editions), Paranoia! (XP mostly), d6 Ghostbusters, and a bit of Vampire: the Masquerade.

In all of these systems, the conflict resolution is essentially the same. Roll dice, add modifiers if appropriate, compare against DC. Success or failure is based on the dice roll. Generally this is binary, but there are some cases of "degrees" of success.

[TheOOB]

If you can get ahold of a copy, everyone here should read Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering(it's hard to find, but it's a very good read). It spends a fair amount of time talking about different types of players, and how to select a good game system for your group.

For maximum enjoyment, I think it is absolutely critical you use the proper game system for the type of campaign you want to run. Each game system has different strengths and weaknesses, and encourages a different style of play. D&D, for example, reguardless of edition, shows it's wargaming roots strongly. It has very deep mechanics, and is very combat focused. Story is important, but ultimately the abilities the players have and the dice are a huge part in determining what happens.

Paranoia, on the otherhand, is an extremely random system, where character skill is very irrelevant, the fact that a even a skilled character could kill themselves with an attack is a very important part of the game.

(n)WoD on the other hand is fairly mechanics light, and encourages more roleplay and story, with rolls only really being needed when there is a contest of some kind. The combat system is designed to be quick and dirty(person with stronger abilities usually just wins) so you can go back to vampire politics.

I guess the takeaway is that if you are not having fun with the system, you may be using the wrong system. I personally like systems that allow me to have special abilities that allow me to alter combat and gameplay situations, and I dislike systems that and too mechanics light.(I also roleplay third person, and focus more on character actions than dialog, which annoys many a player and GM). Always be willing to try new systems. There is a world beyond D&D, White Wolf, and Shadowrun.

[Knaight]

I was musing about how instead of support systems for the main game, fulfilling the vital role of random chance and conflict resolution to the story*, most newer games treat each mechanical sub system as a mini-game which was supposed to be fun and rewarding in and of itself.

I'm not sure I buy this. If you look at a handful of big games, there is some degree of codification and specificity, but even looking at that there are big holes. White Wolf's subsystems aren't seeming more like mini-games than they used to, GURPS has been a very specific, subsytem heavy game from the outset (though that has always been optional), and that really only leaves D&D out of the big three. It moved towards being a combat system, yes, but the d20 games that came out of it run the gamut from means to an end (e.g. Mutants and Masterminds) to mini game heavy (e.g. Spycraft).

Then there are indie games, which is where I think this all falls down. Burning Wheel engages in heavy use of subsystems, as does Fate 3. Almost everything else doesn't. Dread and Fiasco, for instance, are incredibly direct, minimalist games that push a story along and do little else. They're a support system for a story, and absolutely nothing else.

[TheOOB]

To be fair, D&D has always been combat heavy. The majority of the game mechanics have always been focused on combat(with a secondary emphasis on dungeon crawling), and your attributes and class primarily serve to inform how you fight.

The idea of handling certain events in the game as "mini-games" is interesting to say the least. It's all about what your system is trying to do. If you create a mini-game for something, you are saying it's very important to your game. You want people to spend time in that system, and you want people to make meaningful decisions when that situation arrives(beyond just their character build going into the situation).

For example, D&D has a fairly deep tactile grid based combat. Combat is the meat of D&D, well over half the book is devoted to in in some fashion. There are movement rules, multiple types of actions, attacks of opportunities, flanking, status effects, and literally hundreds of abilities to alter combat. A combat encounter is supposed to be the centerpiece of a session, and it's supposed to be a game in it's own right.

nWoD on the other hand, handles combat much more simply. It's little more than "Roll your dice, they take that much damage". Typically, the stronger character wins, and you move on. Sure there are abilities that affect combat, but the majority just affect how many dice are rolled. Combat isn't a game in nWoD, it's something that happens occasionally, and WW wants you to get right back to the story(it's no coincidence that almost everything in nWoD is handled the same way, the system sees mechanics as a necessary evil more than anything else).

Which is right is up to you.

[Kalirren]

Systems...

I played freeform first, so whenever I think about playing an RPG, I never think about "playing a system." But freeform doesn't handle most things -well-. It is simply a guaranteed default option. No system covers everything, and in those instances when the game pushes the boundaries of the system (and they always do,) the game falls into freeform gear and trundles on.

Freeform gets clunky. Especially as you get beyond the individual group and into the massively-multiplayer realm where you have characters running around a shared world under multiple moderators, freeform just can't cut it. At the very least, even if different moderators can't come to agreement about what acceptable levels of risk versus reward are, they can at least come to agreement on a set of parameters that describe the capabilities of characters with respect to the challenges they face. And that, already, is system. System is a language that emerges to fill the need for reasonably bounded, if not entirely uniform expectations. It codifies the expectations that players and moderators can have of themselves and of each other. That is system's function. If you are arguing about system, you need to change the system. System should never be canon.

Utlimately the best systems are the ones that are so smooth that you don't notice them. This is more a property of how any game/system is run, rather than the specific computations themselves. Systems that would be entirely horrible for use over table top can suddenly make a lot of sense to use if everyone at the table has computer aid. They enable you to tell the story you want, in sufficient and meaningful detail for your group's satisfaction, while maximizing the utility of session time (or in the case of PbP, posting energy.) They inspire you to add the details that make characters and circumstance compelling in the time you have, and skip over the stuff that your group just isn't interested in.

[Slipperychicken]

It depends on what's fun. Fun is the only real end here. If you're only in the game for combat, then use a system that handles combat in a way that works for you. If you just want to chat all day and get combat over and done with, use a system that does that.


Personally, conflict-resolution and problem-solving are what got me into dnd, really. What I mean by that is using my imagination and wits to overcome obstacles presented in-game, whether those are social or mechanical (by mechanical, I mean puzzles and/or killing stuff). Roleplaying is nice, but if I just wanted to chat all day and avoid combat, I would go outside and develop real relationships in meatspace (where one avoids combat as a rule), rather than pretending to be some wizard talking down a crazed alchemist, or pretending to schmooze with a vampire king, or whatever.

[Raum]

Is this a good thing? Should conflict resolution be a mini-game in itself? Or does trying to make each mini game full and fun destroy its original purpose, to resolve conflict so you can get back to the story?

If I'm going to spend a couple hundred hours of my recreational time using a system over the course of a year, it had better be fun in and of itself.

Seriously. I can use any system or even no system to play a role. So I'll use the systems I find something to enjoy in - not always the same thing, but something fun.

I have yet to find one.

Have you tried Wushu? What about Over the Edge? FATE?

What I am saying is that each system of rules serves as a "mini-game" rather than a support system for the main game. It's like in first person shooter or survival horror games when the action stops so you can solve one of those annoying puzzle locks that is totally divorced from the rest of the game.

Not all games follow that model (if I've understood what you're describing correctly). Don't think any of the three mentioned above do and even some more traditional games such as Savage Worlds avoid becoming time consuming adjuncts to the narrative.

There are a lot of games out there and the gaming styles they support span the spectrum.

[UserClone]

I'm gonna say play Dungeon World or Mouse Guard, or any of another bajillion other games out there wherein the mechanics and the story not only are in the same room, but are actually speaking to one another, nay, INFORMING each other.