Who Cares About Mechanics Anyways?

[Oracle_Hunter]

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

Spoiler: Say More

Show

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: Final analogy - Car

Show

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?

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

- M

[1337 b4k4]

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]

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]

That's nice and all, but how many 'good' GMs go around using terrible tools?

Given how popular Pathfinder is, quite a lot.

... 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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.