Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

[Umbran]

Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules enabled play, or rules discouraged play.

In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?

The answer to the question "Does it lead to better play or stultify play?" is, of course, the ambiguous, "Yes."

Heck, the push-pull of rules and systematizing play is as old as Gygax and Arneson.

What we forget is that... different people work differently.

Some poets are their most creative when working in free verse. Others when working in sonnets. Some are best unrestrained, others best with a framework.

 

[prabe]

Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules enabled play, or rules discouraged play.

In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?

Heck, the push-pull of rules and systematizing play is as old as Gygax and Arneson.

I have not studied TRPGs or the history thereof in enough detail to be sure I remember seeing this discussion going back that far, but I am pretty sure that I've seen more modern echoes of it. I like to think that I'm reasonably intelligent, and that I've thought about TRPGs in ways that go beyond "what am I going to run this Saturday?" but I have to admit there are times when the discussion seems to be happening on a different (more theoretical) level than I'm used to thinking about.

As @Umbran says above, the answer to this push-pull (and I suspect to most similar questions) is ambiguous. People have tastes and preferences, and some things might work more intuitively for more people, but that seems to be about as far as can be said with certainty.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

... but I have to admit there are times when the discussion seems to be happening on a different (more theoretical) level than I'm used to thinking about.

It is often happening on so theoretical a level as to be difficult to link it back to actual practice. :/

As @Umbran says above, the answer to this push-pull (and I suspect to most similar questions) is ambiguous. People have tastes and preferences, and some things might work more intuitively for more people, but that seems to be about as far as can be said with certainty.

It isn't necessarily even around what works more intuitively. It is often about how the brain generates ideas and chooses concepts, or how one can suffer from option paralysis.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, a game like Torchbearer is amazingly designed...utterly brilliant.

But there is no way a game like Torchbearer could ever, ever, ever hope to supplant a "GM decides" game like 5e D&D because its too "refined" (and I don't mean that in a snobby way...I mean that in a "one man's trash is another man's treasure" sort of way), focused, niche, and just requires far too much from all table participants (and a healthy dose of players want a much more passive experience).

But...if someone (like the OP) is looking for a pretty specific experience, I'm going to talk about games and techniques (and not "GM decides") that may provide that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

Sorry! I was thinking about, inter alia, the introduction of the thief class. Whenever rules are introduced to a part of any RPG that were not previously there, people complain that it prevents them from doing what they did before.

No worries. I appreciate that people have studied (or remember) the history. While I played a fair amount of 1E, I wasn't paying any attention to what was going on outside the game/s I was playing in. I only really started paying attention about the time of 3E, and I only started thinking about the design of TRPGs in the past decade and change (when, oddly, I was kinda burnt-out on TRPGs in general, except as a social thing with friends). I've been playing and running 5E for just coming up on 2 years, now, and while I love the system (because it mostly works the way I expect it to) I know enough about people and design to know it's not going to be right for everyone.

There is a fine line between the use of jargon as a shortcut to concepts, and the use of jargon to obfuscate and intimidate.

Agreed, though I'm new enough here that I'm not willing to ascribe motives to the people using jargon so intensely.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It might be fairer to say that a game's mechanics tell us what the writer/s thought the player/s would need rules for.

I get the distinction your making, but I don't know if it's meaningful enough to matter. I mean, the things you need rules for are largely the things that must come up in play, right? Sure, some things that lack rules may come up, but I don't know if this is a case of such things not needing rules so much as being less of a focal point for the game. More that they weren't expected to come up often enough to devote more rules to them.

The minimal social mechanics that did exist in early D&D were still tied to combat and delving.....morale, henchmen, followers, etc. In a pinch, if Robillard needed to impress some NPC, perhaps a Charisma check of some sort could be made. Each edition has had varying degrees of guidance of this kind in the books. But they usually take the form of suggestions, where as the more focal areas read as more codified.

Interestingly, one of the oldest debates in RPGs (since it arose out of D&D) was the debate over whether rules enabled play, or rules discouraged play.

In other words, did additional rules in an area lead to better play by delineation, or did it cause players to be forced to work within the rules and thereby stultify creative play?

I think this likely speaks more about the quality of the rules and how they fit the gameplay more than merely their presence. Yes, certain rules can be an obstacle for any number of reasons. But is it a rule that's the problem, or is it that rule?

My group tends to view Encumbrance this way....that it's too fiddly and annoying, and doesn't add to the enjoyment of play, and so we hand wave it. It slows the actual game down and does it for a result that doesn't feel all that meaningful.

Same group of players find the Gear/Load system in Blades in the Dark to be easy to implement, and enjoyable in play. It leads to potentially meaningful choices that they need to consider, but doesn't come with the annoying bookkeeping. In that sense, it enables play.

That's just a simple comparison and anecdotal as all hell, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[prabe]

I get the distinction your making, but I don't know if it's meaningful enough to matter. I mean, the things you need rules for are largely the things that must come up in play, right? Sure, some things that lack rules may come up, but I don't know if this is a case of such things not needing rules so much as being less of a focal point for the game. More that they weren't expected to come up often enough to devote more rules to them.

There's no doubt a lot of that, but it could also be an expectation on the part of the writer/s that, say, interacting with NPCs would be a matter of playing out the interactions, rather than rolling dice (or using any other mechanic).

I'm not really arguing hard, here, just saying that "you need rules for this" isn't necessarily the same as "the heart of the game" (which may not be your exact words). Obviously it's a reasonable presumption that if the PCs are expected to behave in a certain way, there will be mechanics for that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*