Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Herremann the Wise]

The metric of success of a game (of D&D, anyway) is how well it helps you evoke the flavor of a good fantasy story.

Completely and utterly disagree. The measure of the success of a game is how much people at the table enjoy it. No other metric is more important than that. I don't care how well it evokes a fantasy story, if the game is not enjoyed by everyone at the table, it is a failure.

While I think KM has narrowed things down a step too far, I don't think you are giving enough credence to his point separating D&D from other games. The enjoyment of a D&D game I think should be different than in a game of Puerto Rico [the game that is most probably going to be voted the best board game by board game enthusiasts] for example. While there is a basic element of role play in Puerto Rico, it is the elegant mechanics behind the game that provides such an incredibly wide sand box of possibilities. For D&D, I think the game has evolved beyond its war-gaming roots into a rich experience of fantasy story for a large number of players. Whilst not all players focus on this, a large percentage do consider a D&D games success by how well it evokes a fantasy story or epic that they are a significant part of. I think for most players, they play D&D more for the flavour of the game than for the underlying mechanics.

But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept. That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.

Can you give an example or two here. I can give a couple of examples of the reverse, solid mechanics but poor flavour.

4E My character is whacked to within an inch of his life - the rest of the party thought him dead until he somehow got up after a fight. Using 4E mechanics, I'm back to full strength the next day if not a fraction earlier with no magical healing whatsoever. Great for getting me as a player back into the action without holding the rest of the party up from the adventure. A solid mechanic. In terms of flavour, absolutely, diabolically artificial.

3.x Hit points. Great mechanic at keeping the game moving. Definitely mechanic first rather than the other way around. A sacred cow that perhaps deserves to be. However, there are several anomalies that result: 15th level human fighter falls from 200 feet and survives. 1st level fighter falls from the same height is a puddle of goo. As well, a poor constitution wizard and a very healthy barbarian (both of the same level) are dropped to zero hit points. The unhealthy wizard recovers more quickly to full health than the hale barbarian. A competent cleric can heal a low level fighter back to full health without issue. If the fighter was higher level though with the same level of physical injury to be healed, it would suck up the same cleric's resources for the entire day.

I suppose I re-iterate what I said earlier. It is the sybiosis between flavour and mechanic that makes a game-feature good, not one or the other first. Mechanics first is fine for board games, but I think D&D is a different kettle of fish for the majority of players; D&D relies more so on flavour than the conventional (and albeit brilliant) boardgame.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmph, so it does. Seems a bit out of place.

Alternatively, your model of which mechanics have a place within each power source needs adjustment

-Hyp.

 

[pemerton]

Mechanics (except in puzzle games) are always intended to present a resolution mechanic abstracted from some fictional reality.

Not necessarily. They may be intended to distribute some sort of power among the players in the real world, which power is then used to specify the details of the fictional reality.

Such mechanics can be called "metagame mechanics". D&D has had them at least since the 1st ed DMG (3 examples: arranging stats for one's PC rather than just rolling in order; the explanation of hit points; the explanation of saving throws).

The lengthy thread about whether fighter exploits are magic or not offer good examples of how 4e breaks down in terms of "in world" logic.

<snip>

I think it is safe to say that, when the most common response to "What is this meant to represent?" is "Don't think about it that hard", that the game fails to have a strong "in world" logic.

What does a saving throw represent in 1st ed AD&D? The answer given in the 1st ed DMG is, in effect, "don't think about it that hard" - or, more precisely, treat the saving throw as fortune in the middle, which is to say, depending on the nature of the threat, the class of the PC, and the success or failure of the save, narrate what happened as seems to make sense in the gameworld ("the fighter toughed it out", "the magic-user's attempt to subtley manipulate the magic failed", etc).

I don't think it remotely follows from this aspect of the 1st ed saving throw rules that the game had no in-world logic. It's just that that logic is supplied not by the mechanics, but by the narration the players engage in to explain the results delivered by the mechanics.

(The fact that, in this respect, 1st ed AD&D saving throws were very different from those in 3E, which are more-or-less fortune at the end simulationist mechanics, seems to be forgotten by many people who criticise 4e.)

Every game requires some idea of "this is what we want the game to do", and one's enjoyment of a game is based on (1) whether or not you want a game that does that thing, and (2) how well it does that thing. It is when one examines question (1) that it is clear that 4e was meant to model mechanics; if it was meant to simulate anything other than mechanics, it is a truly dismal failure on (2).

Many of the contentious 4e mechanics - healing surges, daily and encounter powers, etc - are obviously not meant to simulate anything at all. It doesn't follow that, in playing the game, a rich fantasy world is not created, explored and (if you like) simulated. It's just that this is done more by the players (exercising the power allocated to them by the mechanics), and less by the mechanics, than is the case in a game like Rolemaster.

This is actually a DM/Player communication problem, not a problem of design, because the problem doesn't lie within the rules of the Paladin class, but rather in the fact that the DM can revoke the players' power if the DM thinks the player isn't "playing it right" (even if the player does).

This raises a question - what counts as game design? I am inclining more and more to the view that thinking of the design of the game as including only the character build, action resolution and reward mechanics is to think too narrowly.

Both 3E and 4e clearly treat encounter design as an integral aspect of the game - while in the strict sense a precursor to play rather than the play itself, it nevertheless needs to be strongly supported if the play of the game is not to suffer. To compare with some other RPGs: both RM and HARP suffer (IMO) from offering no support at all for encounter design, thus requiring the GM to wing it.

In a party-based game like D&D, party composition is also crucial to the playability of the game. The 4e rulebooks (both PHB and DMG) expressly tackle this issue to a degree that far surpasses any earlier edition of the game. That is an improvement in game design. I'm not sure it is best classified as mechanics first or flavour first, but if I had to put it in one or the other of those baskets, I'd put it in mechanics first (the goal is playability, and the flavour of the party of PCs can be build around that).

 

[Delta]

3.x Hit points. Great mechanic at keeping the game moving. Definitely mechanic first rather than the other way around. A sacred cow that perhaps deserves to be. However, there are several anomalies that result: 15th level human fighter falls from 200 feet and survives. 1st level fighter falls from the same height is a puddle of goo. As well, a poor constitution wizard and a very healthy barbarian (both of the same level) are dropped to zero hit points. The unhealthy wizard recovers more quickly to full health than the hale barbarian. A competent cleric can heal a low level fighter back to full health without issue. If the fighter was higher level though with the same level of physical injury to be healed, it would suck up the same cleric's resources for the entire day.

I agree with the healing criticism. However, I think the falling criticism is not really about character hit points -- it's about assessment of falling damage, and that's where a fix should be applied. (Like geometric falling damage as seen in 1E UA, which is what I do.) Trying to fix the falling issue in the hit points is what gave us the "massive damage" abomination.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But, if you look at the mechanics that DO cause malfunctions at the table, I think you will find that they are primarily driven from a flavour first concept. That the creators of the mechanics are trying to bring out some bit of flavour into the game without stopping and considering how that will actually function at the table.

I think it's not flavour first that's the problem, it's more "quick, find some mechanic that represents the flavor, and go on to the next topic". In other words, not thinking through all the implications of the mechanics.
What might also be important - not considering the gameplay effect relevant enough. So a mix of "laziness", negligence, and plainly different priorities can lead to such mechanics.
I think that might be what you want to say anyway, but I think "game first" or "flavour first" are not the correct descriptions of the design.

Of course the designers always think about what flavor they want to achieve. And some stop the moment they have found some mechanic that can give the flavor. And some look further to see how it affects the gameplay and consider the alternatives that lead to the best gameplay effect. It is either a matter of priorities or a matter of "thinking it through".

 

[pemerton]

Of course the designers always think about what flavor they want to achieve. And some stop the moment they have found some mechanic that can give the flavor. And some look further to see how it affects the gameplay and consider the alternatives that lead to the best gameplay effect. It is either a matter of priorities or a matter of "thinking it through".

I don't disagree, but "best gameplay effect" and "some mechanic that can give the flavour" aren't necessarily independent considerations, give that (for some players) the mechanical method whereby the gameplay effect is achieved may be an important characteristic of the gameplay effect. For example, a player with highly simulationist/immersive priorities may find that a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic has a bad effect on her/his play experience, no matter how flavoursome and conducive to smooth gameplay it is (some of the martial exploits in 4e appear to fit this description, leading some players to prefer the manifestly more clunky 3E mechanics for combat manoeuvres).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't disagree, but "best gameplay effect" and "some mechanic that can give the flavour" aren't necessarily independent considerations, give that (for some players) the mechanical method whereby the gameplay effect is achieved may be an important characteristic of the gameplay effect. For example, a player with highly simulationist/immersive priorities may find that a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic has a bad effect on her/his play experience, no matter how flavoursome and conducive to smooth gameplay it is (some of the martial exploits in 4e appear to fit this description, leading some players to prefer the manifestly more clunky 3E mechanics for combat manoeuvres).

At some point, a compromise must be achieved, yes. Sometimes fluff and crunch get in the way of each other.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is Blade Runner an action film? A sci-fi film? Film Noir? Does the fact that you can make an argument for each category mean that our own in world logic is destroyed?

The real issue in my opinion here isn't that it's breaking any "in world logic" but instead that it can't be easily categorized into a particular knowledge chunk, and this annoys some people.

The first paragraph doesn't relate to my point, so I can see that I am not communicating it effectively. "In world" logic doesn't mandate that a work be of a particular genre. Cross-genre work also can -- and should -- have "in world" logic.

"In world" logic means that there is an underlying set of assumptions about why the world works as it does, and that specific cases are then extrapolated from those underlying assumptions.

This is, in reality, often a messy process. For example, within the Star Wars universe, there was an underlying assumption that there was a mysterious Force that allowed those who learned its ways to do things that would seem either "psychic" or "magical" (depending upon your outlook). Much of what happens in the classic trilogy is founded upon this bit of "in world" logic.

However, the classic trilogy was dismissed by some as "fantasy" or "not real science fiction" as a result, so in Episode 1, Lucas introduced the midichlorians. These don't violate the "in world" logic of the classic trilogy, but they certainly shift it. For example, we learn in Star Wars that the Force gives you power over weak minds. The presence/absence of midichlorians begs the question, though: Are weak minds weak because they lack a high midichlorian count? IOW, is weak-mindedness something that can be detected through technology in the Star Wars universe?

Similarly, Blade Runner (either the novel or the film) has a set (different for each) of "in world" assumptions that the work hangs on. In both cases, the "in world" assumptions disallow, say, Godzilla showing up just because it would be neat, or Deckard being able to perform supernatural combat stunts that don't happen to be supernatural.

A good hint that something fails on the "in world" logic front is that, when you begin to ask what something is supposed to represent, you are repeatedly told to just not think about it.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with that, but I don't think that makes 4E unplayable as you seem to.

I don't think it makes 4e unplayable. I think it makes 4e unsuitable for what I want from an rpg. I am well aware that my tastes are not universal.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

What does a saving throw represent in 1st ed AD&D? The answer given in the 1st ed DMG is, in effect, "don't think about it that hard" - or, more precisely, treat the saving throw as fortune in the middle, which is to say, depending on the nature of the threat, the class of the PC, and the success or failure of the save, narrate what happened as seems to make sense in the gameworld ("the fighter toughed it out", "the magic-user's attempt to subtley manipulate the magic failed", etc).

I don't think it remotely follows from this aspect of the 1st ed saving throw rules that the game had no in-world logic. It's just that that logic is supplied not by the mechanics, but by the narration the players engage in to explain the results delivered by the mechanics.

That's true; there are several places in 1e (as in all "e"s) where, explicitly, mechanical implementation is given precedence over simulation. It isn't that you can't describe it at the table; it is simply that (at some point) simulation breaks down in terms of what is mechanically desireable/possible. Likewise, one doesn't want a Craft skill for basketweaving that forces you to simulate each step of the process.

However, there is (IMHO) a big difference between abstracting hit points (because wound location/severity simulation runs into a lot of difficulties in actual practice) and saying fighter powers are not magical, but sure as heck seem supernatural, because they are not magical in the traditional way.....just don't think about it.

There is a difference between abstracting subsystems, and major abstraction of what the characters themselves represent.


RC