I think that Ron Edwards is right when he says that system matters, but I think he overstates his case. The impact of system on game-play really depends on the level to which game play is reflective of system. And I actually think system/rules is only one mediating factor in the social construction of the game as activity. The game, the social dynamics of the group, the pre-existing expectations the players bring to the game, and the ways that players and GM play out their roles, for instance, all have an influence. Each session of a game exists in a social and historical context defined by all members of a group, and each member has an individual experience even as the group has a collective experience.
So in short, system matters, but so do a lot of other things.
I have been thinking about this a lot as we play 4e in my friend's campaign. I'm having a good time, and while I am enjoying playing with the rules, I imagine I would have the same kind of fun playing just about anything, seeing how to play with the rules of the system while engaging in some interesting role-play moments. However, the structure of the sessions is clearly being influenced by the rule system. First, it clearly does a lot to structure the kinds of characters at the table. The kinds of character's at my friend's table aren't the kinds I would expect to see if the same players were in an Athanor game. Second, it structures the kinds of things that happen in combat. But interestingly to me, it structures the pace and the structure of the game.
To be honest, my issue with 4e isn't unique to 4e. It's a lot like what I experienced with 3.x, Hero System, and GURPS, for instance. But what is striking me about 4e here is a separation of tactical and roleplaying. There is a tactical portion of the session, where we do battle and run the game strategically to overcome foes, and there is a roleplay session where we attend to the plot. It doesn't come in a particular order, but the split is palpable.
Now, I don't necessarily think this is a problem. I have happily played Hero System this way for years, and did so with increasing unhappiness with 3.x, but as I have gotten older, the systems tweaking and tactical play elements of RPGs are less and less attractive. This is part of the reason I declined playing in a friend's playtest of Pathfinder, and part of the reason I am interested in games like Swords and Wizardry (and have raided Tunnels and Trolls for some of my ideas, too.)
Frankly, part of the hobby has always craved some sort of complexity as part of the development of the game system. The added mechanics of games ranging from AD&D to Runequest to Chivalry and Sorcery, Aftermath,, Morrow Project, Rolemaster, and a whole slew of even more complex games has been driven by a desire by some players to have more rules covering more situations with more possible results. I tend to think of it as a sort of game mechanics porn that some people are just compelled to experiment with.
But to me, that stuff is less and less exciting. The last time I had a great time GMing a game was when I was running Feng Shui, when I felt happy throwing out world canon and with playing fast and loose with the rules. That carefree attitude toward Official Setting and The Rules is the hallmark of games I like to run.
So I need to keep thinking about where I can avoid having set rules in Athanor, and leave more room for making stuff up. This is why I'm pleased that my rules document is 8 digest pages, and that the rest fits into a short stack of very thin booklets. I want to keep it that way.
Heh. Great minds think alike, I've heard it said. My homebrew rules document is eight pages too. I suspect this is more than coincidence. I believe the core RPG mechanics are semi-universal. Your comment about elaborate mechanics as a sort of addictive gamer porn is pretty accurate in my experience. Although porn, to me, implies some form of exploitation. Perhaps the writers and artists? Certainly players are addicted to it. And game mechanics aren't limited to the tabletop. The stuff pervades console and computer games. A whole generation has grown up thinking that mechanics are role playing, which is a little sad.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree mostly with anarkeith's comments, and follow up.
ReplyDeleteSystem does matter, in that good systems - or rather, systems appropriate to your genre and style, make your job easier by facilitating the sort of gameplay you want, while bad systems, or rather, systems inappropriate to your genre and style, make your job harder by inhibiting the sort of gameplay you want.
For example, if you're looking for combat gameplay that rewards a character for thinking tactically and using the environment, taking called shots, being sneaky, etc., you're not going to want a system that just hands you a list of "powers" and ignores tactical considerations in lieu of just kicking off "Berzerker Charge" for the third time in a row. In other words, if you're foregoing what your character would naturally do because there's a mechanical advantage to doing something else that's out of character, eventually players are going to tire of trying to "do the right thing" and just go with the numbers.
I have no real beef with 4E, but it's a shame that it seems like (and I could be wrong) a player's tactical acumen has been replaced by a "point and click" system of special abilities, and if you don't want to use them, you're seriously inhibiting yourself mechanically.
Umm, Badelaire, I'm not sure you're playing the same 4e that I am (it sounds like you're not playing at at all). Once players understand the flexibility of the combat system, and with a DM who builds environmental elements into combat, 4e is more tactical and rewards "out of the box" thinking more than most RPG's that I've played. And I've played a lot.
ReplyDeleteThat being said - that needs to be the sort of thing that you are into. I would tend to agree with doug that system matters, but not as much as most people think.
The difference between having rules and making stuff up is very slight. Its whether your have rules lawyers or ruling lawyers.
ReplyDeleteNothing in a game stops you from making up rules rather than looking them up, the only issue happens when someone knows the rules and someone else doesn't. If you make up rules that doesn't change, it just leads to a discussion of if that ruling coincides with previous rulings.
Its common-law vs napoleonic code-law. Both English and French legals systems have lawyers.
I personally like to have many rules, with the golden rule that a rule only counts if at least one affected party can remember it (and thus based their course of action upon it)
http://zzarchov.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-fundemental-rule-important-to-all.html
Thats just my view though, having rules is a great boon for inspiration and immersion, just remember they only suggestions not straight-jackets, and ruling arguments are even less fun than rules arguments.
Badelaire,
ReplyDeleteI think your characterization of 4e is not what I experience. In fact, tactics are pretty fundamentally coded into the way the math is balanced, so that the tacticle use of abilities and powers, positioning, and harmonizing your character's bonuses to their attacks is central. This is part of why I often feel a huge shift in table play in the game.
Zzarchov, I hear what you're saying. But as I have aged, I find that when I run, I actually just don't care about the rules as much, and find them a distraction. But I think that's not some universal truth. Rules interact with the gameplay in ways that different types and amounts of rules mean different things to different people. Thus, system matters, but the real difference at the table is the big gestalt and things like group dynamics and the way that people at the table look at rules and resolution of conflicts matter just as much.
I have had a lot of fun with immersion into rules, but not so much now. Partly, I think, because a lot of other things vie for my mental attention, and I want to focus on other things during my table and prep time so I can focus on other games, hobbies, studies, and relationships with my mental time-- not because fewer rules is some Universal Good.
Wickedmurph: You're lucky then, because my experience with 4E is exactly what Badelaire describes. It seems most people would rather play their powers than do something that might make more sense for the character, because the power is easy to use and has a known result. And frankly, the DM table for determinining damage for non-power combat actions in the DMG *does* penalize the player. The powers are always the better choice for doing harm to an enemy because the table scales damage to your character level no matter what you do...
ReplyDeleteFor example, let's say you are causing a rock avalanche on some monster's head because it is too tough and you want it dead (assuming you'd even run into something "too tough", since monsters are also scaled to the party, as a general rule). So, two examples, same size avalanche, same monster, but the person triggering it is a different level in each. What happens? The lower level guy's avalanche does less damage than the higher level guy. Does that make any sense? Not in the game world, only from a "game balance" standpoint. The game penalizes the lower level guy because of his level, even though he had a good idea that if we thought about it, should have clobbered the monster easily.
A good DM could overcome this, but it would mean ignoring the rules (or guidelines if you prefer) from the book. That means the design of the rules has nothing to do with the game being good, or the tactics being sound. It's all the DM and player interaction, just like it always used to be (and imo, ought to be.)
I don't hate 4E, we play it every week. But yes, it suffers from some problems, and the "Tactics" of battle are not the same as the tactics employed in older editions. The player skill you develop in 4E is out of character tactics (playing the rules), not something that makes sense within the game world (playing the character).
PS: Doug... you pay attention to this last paragraph, too. ;)
Hey, anonymous, that's my comment about 4e!
ReplyDeleteBut that's not quite the same as the button-mashing of a video game. It's more a matter of excess definition creating a sense of limited choice. Which is a big issue for me.