loverdrive
Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
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.
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.
Last edited:
