On completely artificial restrictions

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the best supporting evidence for your argument is probably 4E's combat, but even that only worked because Page 42 let you work around completely artificial restrictions at times. It feels more like what you're arguing for is an elaborate boardgame like Gloomhaven rather than an RPG, which necessarily is going to have times when the fiction means that the rules must give way.

Don't agree, 4e combat system is very flexible and mostly works great. It's the structure which enables the 'crazy stuff' in a principled way, AND provides the hooks into character stuff (IE keywords, sources).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think, speaking as someone who has a heavy narrative focus, I am somewhat uncomfortable with entirely arbitrary restrictions which don't jibe with things that make story sense. I feel like the heart of RPG play is an intersection between narrative and game. I love pure games too, but I think it's a bit different experience.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Alternative title: "Well, it makes sense" makes no sense

This is a continuation of my musings on "disconnected mechanics" in another thread, but you don't have to dig that stuff up. Maybe I'm talking about completely obvious things, but the last few months I feel like my whole paradigm is cracking and I'm seeing everything about the hobby in a new light.

So.

By "artificial restrictions" I mean rules that make no sense from the "in-fiction" point of view. E.g.: you can only move on a square grid and can't move diagonally; you can hold either a flashlight or a gun; etc. Well, what I'm gonna talk about applies to allowances (permissions?) that make no sense as well (like being able to carry a whole arsenal... somewhere and pull out any weapon in a split second), but restrictions are easier to reason about. I'm an Easterner, we don't do all this "freedom" stuff here.

Capital G gamers often frown upon being forbidden from doing things a real person in the game world would be able to do, and doubly so in TTRPGs. Long story short: it's a damn mistake. If this restriction was there for a design reason (and, most of the time, it was), when removed, things get worse. I have heavy doubts that ID software couldn't ducktape a flashlight to guns in DooM 3, and when they finally did, well... The original version of DooM 3 is a much better game than BFG edition, precisely because it forces you to constantly choose between being able to see and being able to shoot. The lack of total, unrestricted freedom isn't a result of technological limitation. Games are defined by the rules, and all the cool, fun gameplay happens in the negative space between restrictions.

I think there's a lot of value to be derived from embracing the gaminess of games, especially in TTRPGs. I've had much, much more fun with 5E combat when I've ran a bunch of silly experiments with restricting movement and actions, that I've ever had with it on the either side of the screen -- and that enjoyment translated into other aspects of the process (like, y'know, characters, story, all that) that weren't even in the focus.

Experiment #1: characters (both PCs and NPCs) can only move like a queen in chess. Ranged attacks, similarly, can only be made if the target is on the same line horizontally, vertically or diagonally. The only way to move in a more complex way is to move then dash in other direction.

It made positioning much more important, allowing some massivebrain plays that would be completely pointless if every character could equally threaten a whole radius around them, thus making even simple combat encounters that would otherwise boil down to "I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD" more engaging.

Experiment #2: there's a deck of cards, each representing a possible action in the base game (attack, dash, cast a spell, drink potion, etc.). When the initiative is rolled, everyone draws 3, and refills to 3 at the start of each their turn. At the end of the turn any number of cards can be discarded. When the deck is exhausted, the discard pile is reshuffled. If you play a card, you make an action written on it, otherwise you can only make a single attack (regardless of multiattack stuff) or dodge.

It was less cool than #1, but maybe that was because the cards themselves kinda sucked. It still added another layer of mindgames to the process, where everyone is mentally keeping track of opponent's cards.

Both resulted in more engaging combat with surprises (that weren't completely random) and some friendly trash-talking, which resulted in players taking more risks and being generally more excited, and that excitement spilled over to non-combat breather scenes. Cool plays and stupid blunders added to characterization of the, well, characters, and made at least me care about them a tad more.

So... Next time you decide to make a ruling because the existing rules make no sense, try to think about it from a more detached perspective.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

 

[John Dallman]

By "artificial restrictions" I mean rules that make no sense from the "in-fiction" point of view. E.g.: you can only move on a square grid and can't move diagonally; you can hold either a flashlight or a gun; etc.

I'm going to disagree on a rules-purpose level here. To me, the rules of a TTRPG are abstractions of an underlying "game reality" that is at least as complicated as the real world, often more so if there is magic or ultra-tech involved. I cannot model the game reality accurately in all respects, but I'm willing to do some work to keep the abstraction from being visible to the characters.

So movement by squares with no diagonals, for example, has no place with me. If that means I can't run D&D 5e because players object to my "not using the rules," I'll accept that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

These are some very cool ideas! Clearly more about game as such than verisimilitude,

 

[pemerton]

@loverdrive

Your "queen move" example reminded me a bit of some aspect of 4e D&D combat - for instance, a character can move and can act, but (unless some special ability applies) has to do one then the other, unlike 5e. In a sense this is less "realistic" (if one ignores the fact that it's all happening in metronome time and so already divorced from reality) but it does impose a type of discipline and create a rules-space for reasoning about solutions involving position.

Obviously there's an resemblance - in sufficiently abstract terms - between your "card draw" example and 4e encounter powers, but the pooling aspect is interesting. I never played them, but did the late-90s SAGA games do something similar with cards drawn from a deck in place of dice rolls?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I never played them, but did the late-90s SAGA games do something similar with cards drawn from a deck in place of dice rolls?

Kind of. You had a hand, so you had choice of what card to play but - and I forget how the rules actually worked - you didn't have a great card for a certain situation - or perhaps not any at all that let you do what you want. I think maybe cards were draw as a randomizer in some situations, but I don't think that was the default.

 

[GMMichael]

I think there's a lot of value to be derived from embracing the gaminess of games, especially in TTRPGs. I've had much, much more fun with 5E combat when I've ran a bunch of silly experiments with restricting movement and actions, that I've ever had with it on the either side of the screen --

I really think this phenomenon is due to 5e being the combat system, not embracing the gaminess of games. That's not to say that embracing gaminess has no value - it works wonders for Dungeon World, for example.

So... Next time you decide to make a ruling because the existing rules make no sense, try to think about it from a more detached perspective.

+1 for using a different perspective. I'm with @John Dallman however - I wouldn't get much enjoyment from applying chess movement rules over my TRPG (unless it's D&D 5e). People LOVE minigames though; if the game I'm playing uses a boring minigame and I can use a more fun minigame instead, why not? My preference is to use rules that contribute to immersion when playing RPGs, so if the rules give me no cause to say "well, that makes no sense," then I'm happy.

 

[loverdrive]

I really think this phenomenon is due to 5e being the combat system, not embracing the gaminess of games.

Regardless of my very low opinion on 5e, it still is a roleplaying game and...

My preference is to use rules that contribute to immersion when playing RPGs, so if the rules give me no cause to say "well, that makes no sense," then I'm happy.

I cannot model the game reality accurately in all respects, but I'm willing to do some work to keep the abstraction from being visible to the characters.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with entirely arbitrary restrictions which don't jibe with things that make story sense

...the way I see it, combat in 5e (or any other game with a dedicated combat sub-system) is just an extended resolution mechanic. "Disarming a trap is resolved by rolling dice" isn't any less detached from what actually happens in the gameworld than "a violent confrontation is resolved by a game of chess".

I don't like term "immersion" in general, mostly because I profoundly don't understand it. When someone describes what immersion is, I always have to wonder: "isn't this just... enjoying the game?".

Seeing your mate wearing his anime T-shirt instead of the Dark Lord of Dark Darkness, I think, does more to break the illusion that you are "there" than any mechanic possibly could, so there's must be something else. I think immersion is a state, where you are invested in the game and the characters, where you really enjoy yourself. If that enjoyment is low, then yeah, anything can break it. If it's high...

To use a videogame example: JRPGs normally don't even try to pretend that two parties actually stand around, not moving, and swing their swords at the air in front of them, somehow dealing damage to the enemies. Yet it doesn't stop people from being immersed in Final Fantasy.

And the opposite is true too: it becomes easier to care about the characters and the game world, become immersed in it, if the gameplay is fun and you get to the next beat of the "story stuff" with excitement, not mumbling "FINALLY! It's over!" under your breath.

So.

The way I see it, mechanics should be engaging and convey the "vibe" more than they convey what the characters actually see. My latest game, Swashbuckling!, uses witty insults to resolve situations. The character in the game world doesn't actually shake her fist at the sky, telling the fate itself that it fights like a dairy farmer, the same way a rogue doesn't actually pull out dice to see whether she could pick a lock or not.

 

[GMMichael]

...the way I see it, combat in 5e (or any other game with a dedicated combat sub-system) is just an extended resolution mechanic. "Disarming a trap is resolved by rolling dice" isn't any less detached from what actually happens in the gameworld than "a violent confrontation is resolved by a game of chess".

What immerses someone in the fantasy of the game is probably going to vary by the person. One thing that works for me is spending less time worrying about rules when I'm in mortal combat, so, lighter games versus heavier.

I don't like term "immersion" in general, mostly because I profoundly don't understand it. When someone describes what immersion is, I always have to wonder: "isn't this just... enjoying the game?".

Enjoying the game and feeling like you're there are two different things. If I say, "I slowly draw my sword, because I don't think those approaching guards will turn away and miss me," then the GM says, "a twinge of pain shoots up your sword arm, reminding you of your elbow injury," I might not enjoy that helpful little reminder, but I'll feel more present in the fiction.

The way I see it, mechanics should be engaging and convey the "vibe" more than they convey what the characters actually see. My latest game, Swashbuckling!, uses witty insults to resolve situations. The character in the game world doesn't actually shake her fist at the sky, telling the fate itself that it fights like a dairy farmer, the same way a rogue doesn't actually pull out dice to see whether she could pick a lock or not.

Rules should convey the vibe at every practical opportunity. Rolling dice doesn't convey the actual excitement of a scene (unless that scene is gambling), but it does convey uncertainty, and it can be quickly resolved so that players can get back to their imaginations. Witty insults might do the same thing. I think some completely artificial restrictions might add to the Fun of a game but be at odds with immersion. The good ones, I suppose, add to both.