Many RPGs work in a somewhat confused way- they have a small set of core mechanical rules that are applied generally, and then a whole bunch of exceptions to those rules.This is a long standing tradition in RPGs dating back to original D&D and before that to wargames where you had the basic mechanics of the game and then 'Chrome' rules added on top for flavor.
In the days of wargames, designers were careful to keep the amount of Chrome limited. Chrome was to be little highlights to make the core more interesting, i.e. basically the same purpose chrome on a car design served (and hence the name). It wasn't suppose to be key to the game,as the game was to fun and involving itself. The law was simple: Thou shall not use Chrome to support function.
RPGs changed this, basically making Chrome the game itself. Some of this is unavoidable, if you're to have a extensive list of spells for example (as opposed to a spell design system) you end up with more pages describing that 'Chrome' than you do core mechanics. Besides, the very birth of D&D was in Chrome added to the end of a wargame (Chainmail by many accounts).
D&D however took things much farther, with individual rules for individual classes. And then things got worse with various skill or weapon packages that modified things even further. And then on to Feats. As of today, the list of exceptions far outweigh both in number and importance any core values such as stats or basic resolution mechanics.
The reason for this is rather simple, the basic game is... boring. Always has been. So lacking any real interest in themselves, the rules needed Chrome to inspire at all. And over time, it just plied higher and deeper. It becomes increasing difficult to know how any combination of Chrome will react to another combination. Both the GM and Players ability to judge and thus control results are degraded.
Attempts to avoid this include the OSR method of burying one's head in the sand, i.e. go back to an old edition (with less Chrome) and spend as little time as possible in combat because it's now boring. I suppose a victory dance of some type helps one deal with this self-defeating option.
Another example of this type of design can be found in the 40K RPG products like Only War and Dark Heresey. Limited to a closed ended d100 system, things are only vaguely interesting when effective chances for success hover around the middle of the random number span- say 30-70 percent chances.
This results in a game that represents the mighty genetically enhanced superhuman Space Marines with stats only 10 points higher than normal men... so maybe a base 58% to hit instead of 48%. The mind is underwhelmed by such power. Instead it's 'Talents" (i.e. special abilities, i.e. Chrome) that's suppose to make up the difference. There are more Talents in the game than all the core rules (stats and skills) combined. And once again, the core rules are by themselves, rather boring to play.
I believe that Design by Exception is by its nature poor design. Instead the core mechanics themselves should scale from the lowest creature to the mightiest. Chrome should be just that, little things that makes those core mechanics pop just a bit more, not be something that buries them.
To pull this off those core mechanics need to be interesting of and by themselves. A fact that is basically impossible individually, but quite obtainable in combination. Consider the individual chess pieces, by themselves their movement rules are simple and boring, but in combination against the board the result is vastly more engaging.
I don't see any modern designer attempting such outcomes. Raised on endless D&D editions, they are only recycling failed concepts while wondering why their market is shrinking. They have only themselves to blame.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Can't say I disagree -- I think you nailed the point that the core mechanics for most every table-top wargame/rpg are boooooring to play, even if they are elegant as statistical probability curve applications.
The thought that comes to mind then is how do you know if you've created a fun core mechanic? If you strip away all the chrome, and remove the enjoyment that comes from simply playing alongside other people...?
Should the core rules of the game then be designed around some sort of solitaire mechanic?
I don't think you'd get much from a solitaire mechanic as such, RPGs are a group activity and one should take advantage of that.
What I do is just play out some game events (combat, skill conflict, etc.) using the core rules including map and terrain (if the rules have those features) but leaving out all the Chrome (i.e. special abilities and the like).
In the old days of wargames, this would have been the introductory rule sections (they tended to be organized in sections of increasing difficulty and simulation back in the day).
So, no personality. No adventure. No PCs as such, just a sample battle with average stat characters going at it.
If the result is fun in itself, you have a winner that can be built upon.
I'm not sure you can disassociate a core mechanic from core activities in-game. If the core activities of an RPG are exploration, combat, and interaction, then is there a core mechanic that satisfactorily addresses all three?
If the core of an RPG is, "tell GM what you intend and GM responds with resolution mechanic", then what is the mechanic, and how does the GM decide when to resort to it?
Creating new paradigms for RPGs is a worthy idea, but a significant challenge.
It's rather easy to split combat from an RPG and treat it as a boardgame and judged on their own merit. If such a split can't be managed, I'd have to say that it fails as a game mechanic out of the gate.
Exploration and especially interaction are areas where mechanics typically don't work well or completely, and here I would agree they can't be split apart. Thus I would argue, not much effort or time need be spent on designing mechanics for these areas.
What do you consider to be the core mechanic though? Is it the attack, movement and defense in combat? Or is it the rule that all other features use, like in D20 where all game outcomes are ultimately decided by the roll of the d20?
It depends upon the game, but in general I would consider 'core mechanics' to be those rules shared by all the characters.
Combat however is for me the most important of these as it's the subject that best lends itself to simulation in a game.
Hmmm, interesting thought. I looked at some RPG books in a new light last night, for which I thank you.
I have, however, failed to suppress my contrarian urge. I can think of two game systems that don't seem to me to have an exception based design, both of which I enjoy:
- Dogs in the Vineyard;
- Mouseguard
Now, Mouseguard is a Burning Wheel variant. I believe Burning Wheel has some exception based design, but Mouseguard strips it all out uses what's left to create an entertaining system.
If you're so inclined you might want to look at either of those systems to see what designers are doing in this space.
I know of Dogs in the Vineyard, but haven't seen Mouseguard.
Dogs in the Vineyard and others of that type certainly aren't Design by Exception. But I wouldn't call the mechanics fun or engaging either as that isn't their point. However I should note that I'm not the type of person that would be drawn to that style of game, so it's basically lost on me.
Post a Comment