payn
Glory to Marik
Greetings,
Been kicking some things in my noodle for a bit here. The balance discussions has me thinking about play styles and interests. I noticed a few stark differences in some player motivations and expectation of play. I've been playing TTRPGs for a few decades now and noticed at least two differing motivational concepts in my gaming experiences. Let me note here that I am not making the case that these motivational subjects are opposed, or that can only exist singularly, many players such as myself are appealed by both concepts. Though, I know a few gamers who really operate largely under the assumption of one or the other. I am curious if other folks have noticed the same, and if they themselves have opinions on their own preferences?
The first, is the system master. Its no secret that 3E D&D was designed to offer unparalleled character customization, but the mechanics rewarded and punished choices with efficiency in game play as a result. Now, I know thats hotly debated on how intentional it is or not, im not looking to debate that specifically, but examine what it offers to players who favor it. Other examples in system mastery gaming include; collectible card games, video games (particularly MMOs), and wargames. The system master is drawn in by the complexities and the puzzle of building the right character, deck, force that can trump the game itself, fairly or not, based on the ruleset. Some system masters move from game to game trying to discover that master stroke before moving on to a new challenge. Others, like the challenge of shifting rulesets under updates, patches, and edition changes. They are in it for the long haul and pride themselves on being a true system master.
The second gaming motivation is the fair match play enthusiast. This is the player that likes a rules driven match that is balanced between opposing forces. Winning is all fair and good, but the fair match provides the basis of an enjoyable game experience. Mastering strategies within the equal bounds, creates a desireable experience. Examples includes classics such as chess, athletic sports, and Euro-board games. There is an emphasis on limiting asymetrical aspects of the game when possible to ensure fairness. The fair play enthusiast looks for a rules set that allows for predictable paramters, but with enough allowance for variance to keep each match interesting itself.
I've notice this for some time now, but recently some experiences have shown me just how stark the differences in expectations can be. I've been building a local Battletech scene here in the twin cities. If you are not familiar, it is a wargame with several decades of rules to its name. Each era, or period within the setting, brings in new technology and possible force units. It's modular in nature, even if its not exactly clear about that fact in the rule books. One player, I'll call him Sandy, is a deep system mastery driven player. He is a walking encyclopedia of rules mechanics blended with narrative flavor. He prides him self on latest, most compelx, force building in BT. Many folks are not up to that level of play, so we often limit the complexity era as a means to deliver a more fair match based on player experience. The tighter we grip on the reigns, the less interested Sandy becomes. Eventually, certain game days and formats are just out right passed on becasue he cant deploy the system mastery tacctics he enjoys. To be fair to Sandy, when his trump cards fail or are coutnered, he takes it in stride and goes back to the drawing board. Some folks are not as mature about the process.
Now relating it back to TTRPGs, you can usually tell a person's primary interest based on their attention to rules as written (RAW) vs rules as intended (RAI). A good example is the weapon lance in 3E/PF1. The rule book notes a lance is a two handed weapon, unless the character is on a mount. A reasonable interpretation is that the off hand is steering the horse. However, a strict RAW reading indicates its possible to dual wield lances while mounted. A fair match player is going to look at the intention and realize the benefit here is an undue advantage and shouldnt be leveraged. A deeply invested system master might stick to that favorable intrepretation at least until they have a clarification from an authoritative source, errata, etc..
I think the balance bewteen the two conepts is an itneresting one. I think the nuance of system mastery is appealing. It can give a game longer legs at the table than an otherwise simpler offering. Although, in an RPG is it ever really a fair match? The PCs are expected to win most, if not all, of the encoutners. A GM can, at any time, make rocks fall and the characters die. So, the expectation of a fair match is largely illusuary or at best horseshoes and hand gernades. However, is playing with a trump card all that interesting in the long haul? These are questions that designers and players have been grappling with for quite some time.
TL: DR Folks are drawn into RPGs by system mastery and/or the concept of a fair match. Some lean heavily on one or the other. How about you?
Been kicking some things in my noodle for a bit here. The balance discussions has me thinking about play styles and interests. I noticed a few stark differences in some player motivations and expectation of play. I've been playing TTRPGs for a few decades now and noticed at least two differing motivational concepts in my gaming experiences. Let me note here that I am not making the case that these motivational subjects are opposed, or that can only exist singularly, many players such as myself are appealed by both concepts. Though, I know a few gamers who really operate largely under the assumption of one or the other. I am curious if other folks have noticed the same, and if they themselves have opinions on their own preferences?
The first, is the system master. Its no secret that 3E D&D was designed to offer unparalleled character customization, but the mechanics rewarded and punished choices with efficiency in game play as a result. Now, I know thats hotly debated on how intentional it is or not, im not looking to debate that specifically, but examine what it offers to players who favor it. Other examples in system mastery gaming include; collectible card games, video games (particularly MMOs), and wargames. The system master is drawn in by the complexities and the puzzle of building the right character, deck, force that can trump the game itself, fairly or not, based on the ruleset. Some system masters move from game to game trying to discover that master stroke before moving on to a new challenge. Others, like the challenge of shifting rulesets under updates, patches, and edition changes. They are in it for the long haul and pride themselves on being a true system master.
The second gaming motivation is the fair match play enthusiast. This is the player that likes a rules driven match that is balanced between opposing forces. Winning is all fair and good, but the fair match provides the basis of an enjoyable game experience. Mastering strategies within the equal bounds, creates a desireable experience. Examples includes classics such as chess, athletic sports, and Euro-board games. There is an emphasis on limiting asymetrical aspects of the game when possible to ensure fairness. The fair play enthusiast looks for a rules set that allows for predictable paramters, but with enough allowance for variance to keep each match interesting itself.
I've notice this for some time now, but recently some experiences have shown me just how stark the differences in expectations can be. I've been building a local Battletech scene here in the twin cities. If you are not familiar, it is a wargame with several decades of rules to its name. Each era, or period within the setting, brings in new technology and possible force units. It's modular in nature, even if its not exactly clear about that fact in the rule books. One player, I'll call him Sandy, is a deep system mastery driven player. He is a walking encyclopedia of rules mechanics blended with narrative flavor. He prides him self on latest, most compelx, force building in BT. Many folks are not up to that level of play, so we often limit the complexity era as a means to deliver a more fair match based on player experience. The tighter we grip on the reigns, the less interested Sandy becomes. Eventually, certain game days and formats are just out right passed on becasue he cant deploy the system mastery tacctics he enjoys. To be fair to Sandy, when his trump cards fail or are coutnered, he takes it in stride and goes back to the drawing board. Some folks are not as mature about the process.
Now relating it back to TTRPGs, you can usually tell a person's primary interest based on their attention to rules as written (RAW) vs rules as intended (RAI). A good example is the weapon lance in 3E/PF1. The rule book notes a lance is a two handed weapon, unless the character is on a mount. A reasonable interpretation is that the off hand is steering the horse. However, a strict RAW reading indicates its possible to dual wield lances while mounted. A fair match player is going to look at the intention and realize the benefit here is an undue advantage and shouldnt be leveraged. A deeply invested system master might stick to that favorable intrepretation at least until they have a clarification from an authoritative source, errata, etc..
I think the balance bewteen the two conepts is an itneresting one. I think the nuance of system mastery is appealing. It can give a game longer legs at the table than an otherwise simpler offering. Although, in an RPG is it ever really a fair match? The PCs are expected to win most, if not all, of the encoutners. A GM can, at any time, make rocks fall and the characters die. So, the expectation of a fair match is largely illusuary or at best horseshoes and hand gernades. However, is playing with a trump card all that interesting in the long haul? These are questions that designers and players have been grappling with for quite some time.
TL: DR Folks are drawn into RPGs by system mastery and/or the concept of a fair match. Some lean heavily on one or the other. How about you?
