benlehman | (no subject)

This is an RPG design post. It isn't a Forge post simply because it isn't focused enough to be. You have been warned.

As Vincent points out, we have the whole form of conflict resolution and resolution mechanics in general pretty much down. This is a monumental amount of work over a monumental amount of time, originating in the murky depths of the 80s and carrying through until the present day games of Dogs, HeroQuest, and Primetime Adventures. There is still a lot of work to be done, of course, but now we can classify it and really make it work.

But that doesn't mean that RPG design is done, or that it is all about refining conflict resolution mechanisms.

I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about non-conflict, non-task mechanism.

It is a sign of how hideously underdeveloped these mechanics and the theory surrounding them is that I cannot think of anything to say about these sorts of mechanics. RPG theorists (and here I am using a broad category) have, for a very long time, reducing RPG systems into their resolution systems (whether conflict or task resolution isn't really important to this point) and dismissed other aspects of RPG system as unnecessary cruft, or simply didn't recognize their existence entirely.

And I think it is time that we start to analyze them.

Here are some examples:
The chart in Polaris, and it's predecessor diagram in Sorcerer.
The Random Dungeon generation tables of AD&D1
The direct "use this game for this" instructions
Town generation in D&D3, and its predecessors in Spelljammer system generation charts and Thief's Handbook guild and city generation rules
Oriental Adventures (1st) random events charts
non-combat movement and maneuvering rules, including travel but also swimmingly, climbing and flight.

How can we categorize these things? How can we study them? How can we make them more graceful? How can we make them more fun?

Right now we are groping in the dark. We have no idea what these things mean. We throw them together, and see if they stick. Sometimes they are awesome, sometimes they aren't, but there is no understanding, yet. We are monkeys with typewriters.

Anyone want to start?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A large chunk of that is world-building, setting-building, or situation building in some manner. Uhm... have you ever read Sorcerer? The relationship map, the kickers, and the funky little character sheet diagram are all this sort of system.

In Amber, the character quiz is exactly this sort of mechanic.

When I talk about the movement abilities, well...

The ability to fly has a certain value in terms of conflicts (combat or otherwise). But it also has a basic non-combat value. If you can fly, you can do things which you couldn't otherwise, no contest (conflict resolution rules are not invoked). In a point based system, it should be worth more points because of this.

There are other abilities like this. Not just movement. The same way that being blind is a worse flaw than how much it penalizes your resolution effectiveness, because it takes away basic functionality.

So really what it is is the addition and removal of "basic" functions. Whatever they may be.

yrs--
--Ben

Pardon me, I haven't been keeping up with the Forge lately, so maybe this is a rehash:

What perhaps we should focus on is that system is holistic even if we don't intend for it to be. The presented system of resolution mechanics (of all sorts) interacts with the game world, and more importantly the unfolding of events in the SIS, at every level. There are certain assumptions which are made but rarely announced about how that will be taken into account. For instance, if you play an orc in a traditional D&D setting, your character will generally suffer some social stigma. It is generally assumed that the player who makes the choice to play such a character A: knows what they're getting into and B: wants it that way. As such, there is a perception that it's not worth points because it's strictly a 'roleplaying restriction' and otherwise. This may be a reaction to things like the absurd characters one sometimes ends up with in GURPS, who have too many social restrictions to shake a stick at but get enormous amounts of points for them.

The problem is that often those assumptions are different on different peoples' parts - what may seem like a painful restriction to one person may be an actual boon to another's experience. 7th Sea did a pretty good job of working around that. They explicitly stated that the game was supposed to be about heroic characters and thus, if you wanted a flaw, you could take them but you would only get a benefit from taking a flaw which was in theme (many of which were laid out in the book).

One of the things I like best about HeroQuest is that it takes this into account somewhat - the basic assumption is that if you care about a particular aspect of your character, or their interaction with the world, you'll put it on your character sheet. The corrolary is that the GM is responsible for putting _everything_ that will potentially affect your character specifically into the system somewhere, either on your character sheet or the sheets of the entities you're interacting with. Everything becomes integrated into the system.

In terms of character traits, Dogs has this sewn up pretty good. If you want to play an Orc (or a Mountain Person, more coloquially), you take Complicated History as your basis and probably have things like 'I'm a damned halfbreed - 2d4' on your sheet.

It's so much better than the GURPS system (which I loved for so long, and still love provisionally) at creating characters with built-in hooks that I've bailed on GURPS completely.