Are mechanics really important to good roleplaying experience?

[genshou]

Most people create stories based on the mechanic, but some choose a mechanic based on the stories they want to tell: e.g. if you want a setting where a powerful warrior fights dozens of foes at once, you are better off using D&D than GURPS fantasy.

Well said! My ideas for my games determine the rules, not the other way around. This is especially true of Pledge of Tyranny.

 

[Ranger REG]

Then why ever pay for an RPG when there is no difference between that and something you can do on your own for free?

Because I need the rules like I need a hammer. They're tools, not some sacred burning bush you shoud kowtow and yield to. Tools accepted by both players and GMs when we need to resolve a random event within a story.

 

[Ranger REG]

'Interactive story' isn't even my definition of a good time in an rpg.

And yes, I think systems make a big difference.

So, what does a GM do, write the story adventure along the way? Then there should be no problem since there is no need to find time for preparation.

Of course, that also means Paizo are wasting their time making adventures for Dungeon magazine.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I see mechanics as the vehicle that drives the storytelling and different mechanics support different types of stories.

Likewise. Hence, my perpetual obsession with house rules and general tinkering, no matter the system I'm using (but particularly with d20).


However, if people don't want to use mechanics to support/enhance their roleplaying experiences, I don't see anything wrong with that either. In fact, I've been conscripted into that type of thing before, and it really wasn't all that bad. Not my usual cup o' tea, to be sure, but "inna final analysis" - why not?

 

[Sundragon2012]

I look at it this way.

Good mechanics are important, VERY important. The better the system, the less it interferes with good storytelling. Clunky mechanics keep drawing you out of the immersive interactive storytelling experience. In other words, they break the mood.

In other words, the more transparent the system to the story and its characters, the better. The ideal game system should be like a lens that allows the players to focus on the story being told.

...My ideas for my games determine the rules, not the other way around...

I agree largely with these quotes and others like them expressed here.

The transparency of the system is important because it keeps you in the story as a player and allows me as a DM to tell a story without the system getting in the way. For example, the laws of physics (quantum or newtonian) are real mechanics for our world. However, we don't need to think about them to live our lives unless the type of work we do is rooted in dealing with these laws. We know the rules and will not step off a 100ft tall ravine because we know that the laws of physics dictates that we will either die or be very seriously injured. A game's mechanics along with the individual mechanics of a given setting determine what can and cannot be done in a given system.

To a lesser degree, a game system is like our laws of physics for the system in question. For example, there are no fireball tossing wizards in Vampire the Masquerade...in fact it isn't that those who use magic in that world are weaker than standard D&D wizards, its that the nature of the reality presented by the system is different. Its the mechanics of the system that determine realities like this. Having a D&D type wizard would screw that kind of game up so the mechanics prevent it in order to foster a certain kind of role-playing experience.

However, having said that, no gamemaster should be a slave mechanics that prevent him from telling a good story or crafting a good setting. All good settings tweak the mechanics of D&D to a lesser or greater degree because it is necessary to be able to capture the atmosphere of the setting in question.The Vancian magic system is fine for Greyhawk for example but many folks would prefer a point based system of magic. The mechanics of these two options dramatically alters the nature of mages in the game.

The mechanics are a tool set and sometimes you need a phillips screwdriver instead of a flathead. They are both screwdrivers but as in D&D not all tools are appropriate to all jobs. A good DM and good players can make so so mechanics work for a great game. My best campaign ever was in 2e D&D for example. A crappy DM and players can screw up the best mechanics making them irrevent.



Chris

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because I need the rules like I need a hammer. They're tools, not some sacred burning bush you shoud kowtow and yield to. Tools accepted by both players and GMs when we need to resolve a random event within a story.

I think you are misinterprieting what people are saying here.

This isn't about following or breaking or bending or anything concering RAW vs common sense.

This is, is it important to have rules in the first place? Your statement seems (to me) that you are actually agreeing with BryonD more than disagreeing here, in that you think rules are an important tool for a game. An "interactive story" doesn't require rules. You can pass a story around a campfire and have an interactive story. But, for a lot of people, you can't play a game without rules.

 

[genshou]

If I want to role-play, I'll LARP or get into Theatre. If I want to play a game, I'll play RISK. D&D and other systems that use dice fall somewhere in the middle, which is a good place to be. I've played freeform, but there are never those moments where you watch the magic crystal that carries your fate (your d20) roll across the table and come up as a... 3

What dice systems can do that narrative/free-form cannot is create the element of the unexpected. And that's why Mike and I even use rules at all. Pledge of Tyranny could just as easily have been a co-authored FR novel if we'd wanted.

 

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

I can see that the benefits of having mechanics are usually worth the trouble. So what do you think about very rules-lite systems, like the one in my first post?

 

[The Shaman]

Mechanics are vital in that they establish what a setting is like, and how the inhabitants fit into the setting. This is true whether the setting is explicit, or implicit. That is, whether the setting is detailed and presented as such to the participants, or implied in the structure and functioning of the rules. Without mechanics, without a system a game has no form, provides no guide as to expectations regarding what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable in the context of the game. And with no guide as to how characters are expected to behave players are lost and find it hard to give direction to their character's lives.

It's not just a matter of our needing rules, we live by a set of implied rules we follow. Even when we think we are acting purely at whim. At the core we live by instincts we were born with that govern our behavior around others, even when we are certain we are acting of our own free will. This is even more true of our entertainments, where instinct can conflict with what our culture teaches.

Without mechanics the player has no reliable way to learn how he, as his PC, is expected to behave in the setting. To learn what is allowed and what is expected of him. Mechanics establish what is and is not possible, what is and is not allowed. Without mechanics a game becomes naught more than chaos, and chaos taken to its ultimate expression is nothing more than a dull, featureless waste.

:\

Uh, no.

Mechanics exist to resolve the element of chance. That's all.

Some mechanics use a higher degree of abstraction than others, or leave more to interpretation by the referee. There's no inherent loss of detail or increase in randomness that comes with a simplified system. It does place more responsibility on the GM to be consistent, as this helps the players make informed choices - the idea that this can only be achieved with exhaustive mechanics is a myth, however.

I ran one of two fighters in a 1e game many years ago - while both fighters were very similar in terms of basic mechanics (same level, same hit dice, same strength, same attack and damage bonuses), they were as different as night-and-day because that's how we roleplayed them. We didn't need detailed mechanics to differentiate between my pit fighter and his knight - the differences were obvious to anyone who played with or observed our group in action. Unless someone looked at the attack tables, they'd really never know we were playing such mechanically similar characters.

 

[Wraith Form]

Because I need the rules like I need a hammer. They're tools, not some sacred burning bush you shoud kowtow and yield to. Tools accepted by both players and GMs when we need to resolve a random event within a story.

Ex-ACT-ly. Or, to put it another way, Word, homey.