I'm still rather happy with the original article I reposted yesterday after 6 years. Not much to change or alter there.
One of its outstanding questions is what other possible Rationales are there? At the time I wrote it, I assumed that there would be others but I never had anyone put a suggestion fourth and I haven't came up with any either.
The classic reasons of 'realism' or 'simulation' are covered under V. Illusion.
About the only thing I can think of is a grab bag grouping of 'fun', covering such things as "I like to roll a bunch of dice...". That seems rather silly to someone (like say me) who designs for more defined goals, but I know designers and players who think in that exact way.
My reaction to it is that it's not a Rationale as such, but instead a preference. Something without a goal other than being, while the Rationales are ends toward which mechanics are a means.
So what do people think? Did I miss something important?
Posts
Razor Coast
22 hours ago
6 comments:
I think you bring up an excellent point when it comes to the physical mechanism of the mechanic and how much pleasure it brings. A couple examples come to mind:
1) A "reveal" mechanic, like say poker or magic the gathering or munchkins. There is something pleasurable about having a secret in your hand and suddenly revealing it (and simultaneously revealing your own awesomeness). For others at the table, there is the feeling of anticipation and curiosity/fear.
2) Getting really high (or low) rolls generates a lot of fun; consider the number of stories/jokes/whatever surrounding a natural 20 (or a natural 1).
3) You mentioned the pleasure of rolling a lot of dice at once. I think some games (like Yahtzee) derive almost all their pleasure from this mechanic. Other games (like wargames), amassing a huge pool of dice to roll is a sign of power and control. There is something about throwing down 30 dice all at once and seeing the look on your opponent's face...
Those are a couple examples of physical mechanisms adding to the fun of the game (the ones I could think of off the top of my head anyway). I think its a valid consideration when designing a game.
@Roeguard: You make a good case with wonderful examples there.
To those I'd like to add the classic Deadlands mechanics. They were a train wreck from a design PoV- at least for the type of games I like to run.
But there were so much FUN. I was able to play them for a year or so before the game failed under their weight. But it was a fun year...
Some to consider. I may end up revising my article.
Yeah, my players really dug the poker chips and poker hands and funky dice of Deadlands, even though trying to guesstimate the probabilities drove me batty.
There are just certain mechanical events like rolling all sixes or zeroes that players get excited about... I eventually learned to go with that, instead of thwarting their expectations to stay true to some trivial property of the distribution that I was pleased with.
I think the ultimate rationale which may or may not have been touched on is that mechanics provide an impartial arbitrator of conflict. Without them it becomes about someone's opinion over whether or not a given action should succeed or not.
@jamused: Yep, that works for that game. What finally did it in was Hucksters of all things. There wasn't a good way to make them anything but extremely random other than doing away with the cards and that defeated the whole point.
Ended up converting the campaign to HERO System. Lost the favor of the mechanics, but the result was if anything more genre. So we called it a win.
@Helmsman: You're correct at a very core level. I took it as something of a given for my article. I suppose it come have been made more explicit...
I think that beyond an impartial arbiter of conflict, the rules can more broadly provide a common physics that they players can count on when they speculate about the potential outcomes of character actions. Players can independently perform "What if...?" speculations without having to query the other players for their opinions. Given that one of the bottlenecks that slow down role-playing games is the need for players to wait for other players to communicate information before they can do anything, the ability to independently think about the situation without having to query or wait for others is a big plus.
One other purpose for rules is as a teaching tool. Players can learn things from well crafted and "realistic" rules about real world situations. This is one of the primary uses for simulations on the real world, to show people how things work or don't work. For example, a set of rules that rewards certain things in combat (e.g., having the high ground, the value of cover, the benefits of suppressing fire, etc.) can teach players about the real world benefits of those tactics.
Post a Comment