I am unfortunately having trouble finding the original quote that inspired this line of thought. It might have been Hussar in one of the "Sandbox" threads, but it went something like this: If a player has to spend character creation/development resources on an ability, that ability should be able to be used.
What this got me thinking of was the difference between play options (things the player/character can do or attempt during actual play) based on the character (and the creation/development choices made by the player) and those based on the system (game rules available to everyone). More, it got me to thinking how these two extremes affect "fun" and where along the continuum between them the "most fun" might be had.
As this is a D&D forum, and I am a D&D player/DM, I am most interested in discussing this in relationship to D&D (and its offshoots and cousins).
CONTENT WARNING: The following paragraph compares and contrasts different editions of the D&D game for illustrative purposes. Those with heart conditions, individuals suffering from sensitive bowels, and pregnant women should not read.
Taking a look at combat options through various editions of the game may serve to better illustrate what I am talking about. In 3E, "system options" included maneuvers such as trip, disarm and bull rush that anyone could attempt, and at the same time "character options" that made these particular maneuvers more efficient for a character that spends resources (feats) on them (the various Improved feats). Moving back and edition, 2E (prior to some splats and the Players Options books) relied primarily on "system options", and relatively rules light ones at that: declare an effect (disarm), take a -4 penalty, and roll. Forward and edition to 4E and the pendulum swings in favor of "character options", where individual powers are more likely to provide the player with his or her play options in combat.
(Interestingly, throughout all editions of D&D, magic has been nearly exclusively based on "character options" (wizards/magic users can cast spells; fighters can't) and non-combat mundane actions have been based on "system options" (haggling, rulership) when covered at all.)
Even with the apparent "balance" between "system options" and "character options" in 3.x, the "character options" often won out because the penalties of the "system options" was too great: -4 to hit AND an AoO? (Side note: I usually house rule that the AoO only occurs if the character misses, but keep the -4 penalty. This entices players to try when circumstances are either dire or favorable, but maintains the fighting classes being the "best" at improvising on the battlefield.) If the system penalizes the "untrained" character too much, it becomes a "character option" system by default. The reverse is also true: if the untrained character is only marginally less able than the trained one, expending resources on character options becomes inefficient and the play options become "system options" by default.
What's the point? Why discuss this issue? Simply put, I think the game is most fun for all involved when the players have many options available to them that are soundly supported by the mechanics of the game. Those mechanics provide the foundation for meaningful choices -- both in play and during character creation and development -- and meaningful choices are the fundamental to meaningful play.
What this got me thinking of was the difference between play options (things the player/character can do or attempt during actual play) based on the character (and the creation/development choices made by the player) and those based on the system (game rules available to everyone). More, it got me to thinking how these two extremes affect "fun" and where along the continuum between them the "most fun" might be had.
As this is a D&D forum, and I am a D&D player/DM, I am most interested in discussing this in relationship to D&D (and its offshoots and cousins).
CONTENT WARNING: The following paragraph compares and contrasts different editions of the D&D game for illustrative purposes. Those with heart conditions, individuals suffering from sensitive bowels, and pregnant women should not read.
Taking a look at combat options through various editions of the game may serve to better illustrate what I am talking about. In 3E, "system options" included maneuvers such as trip, disarm and bull rush that anyone could attempt, and at the same time "character options" that made these particular maneuvers more efficient for a character that spends resources (feats) on them (the various Improved feats). Moving back and edition, 2E (prior to some splats and the Players Options books) relied primarily on "system options", and relatively rules light ones at that: declare an effect (disarm), take a -4 penalty, and roll. Forward and edition to 4E and the pendulum swings in favor of "character options", where individual powers are more likely to provide the player with his or her play options in combat.
(Interestingly, throughout all editions of D&D, magic has been nearly exclusively based on "character options" (wizards/magic users can cast spells; fighters can't) and non-combat mundane actions have been based on "system options" (haggling, rulership) when covered at all.)
Even with the apparent "balance" between "system options" and "character options" in 3.x, the "character options" often won out because the penalties of the "system options" was too great: -4 to hit AND an AoO? (Side note: I usually house rule that the AoO only occurs if the character misses, but keep the -4 penalty. This entices players to try when circumstances are either dire or favorable, but maintains the fighting classes being the "best" at improvising on the battlefield.) If the system penalizes the "untrained" character too much, it becomes a "character option" system by default. The reverse is also true: if the untrained character is only marginally less able than the trained one, expending resources on character options becomes inefficient and the play options become "system options" by default.
What's the point? Why discuss this issue? Simply put, I think the game is most fun for all involved when the players have many options available to them that are soundly supported by the mechanics of the game. Those mechanics provide the foundation for meaningful choices -- both in play and during character creation and development -- and meaningful choices are the fundamental to meaningful play.