Game Mecahnics Versus Role Playing Focus

[JoeGKushner]

I know that you can have a very rich and detailed rules setting without it effecting the role playing aspects.

Lately however, as I'm playing and running, I rarely hear players talk about the character as a character but rather a collection of abilities. I'm hoping that as I use NPCs and unique locations and historical bits that the players playstyle will mesh better with what I enjoy about the game as opposed to the players just being a collection of powers. And the reason I hope that is because at the end of the day, if the GM wants to kill the characters, regardless of what abilities they have, how uber they are made, he'll kill them. The GM is always the last authority. Now I know that's not fair, etc... and certainly not my own plan. I'd try to find another group with a better mesh to my playstyle

. I just don't get the appeal of all the planning and working and min-maxing without the character to back it up.

For example, I'm getting ready to run 4e in the Forgotten Realms (old school, not the 4e version) and one guy could not make a character because the options he wanted to have weren't in the Player's Handbook. As I'm still getting used to the 4e system, I told everyone, stick with the Player's Handbook for now and latter on if the group continues for a few months, we'll kick it up to some of the other optional material.

"I want to make this cleric, but without this feat from Forgotten Realms Player's Handbook,... I want to make this Paladin, but without this piece of specialized equipment from Adventurer's Vault .... I want to make this fighter, but without the dailies from Martial Power...."

Shocked man. Truly shocked. I was just thinking to myself... "nah, don't think about where you come from, any background, what you want the character to be... etc... "

Might be my age or something there. I didnt' say anything as I want to see how it actually plays as opposed to how it talks out. Some of the best role playing elements come out in play and dont' need background options. Hell, I like it when role playing elements come out in play. I just couldn't fathom all discussion being on the game mechanics.These mechanical concerns may be just that, game mechanic concerns.

As I noted at front, game mechanic roles are not equal to role playing in that you can have both. This guy may turn out to be the best role player at the table with a vivid background and unique quirks that make his character stand out far more than his build.

I'm starting to think the benefit of old school and rules light was that the lack of billions of bits for your characters was that you had to focus a little on what they could do to stand out from each out that wasn't mechanical.

 

[Nightson]

The way I see it, mechanical options are a set number of choices, some of which a player will enjoy some of which they will not. Roleplaying options is a very, very, very large set of choices of which there are any number a player might enjoy.

If you build from flavor to mechanics, then you might have a character who sounded cool and you enjoy being but who makes combat a drag for you.

Whereas if you build from mechanics to flavor, you have a character you enjoy fighting with and chances are pretty darn good you'll have a charcater you enjoy roleplaying with.


At least that's what some of my players tell me, I'm an unashamed flavor to mechanics kind of character builder.

 

[Jack7]

This might be odd for me to say but I agree that mechanical design elements and role play elements are not diametrically opposed concerns. IN THEORY.

But when you have design paradigms that specifically focus on powers and other concrete mechanical elements of play to the exclusion of role play elements in, of all things, a role play game, then you have a machine without a soul.

And personally I think that a lot of more recent game versions have done this to the detriment of the game itself.

In role play games, of all types of games, there is a built in implication of the Ghost in the Machine. Two of them in actuality, the Player first and foremost, and the Character secondly as a focal point and extension of the player. (Without the player there is no character and yet many modern games approach the idea of the character as if it is "a thing in isolation" with a life of it's own if only you can give it enough power or goodies. It is like creating an imaginary Frankenstein's monster, shoot it with enough of the proper elements of power and it will spring to life as something alive, vital and interesting in its own right. To which I say, "right, and you can animate corpses with enough electricity can't ya. Happens every day doesn't it?") The truth is the character is not what the book creates, or the class, or even the game itself, in the end it is what the player creates. That is the Character is the Persona of the Player, and the player is not a Machine, and not a Mechanical construct (or RPGs would be computer games without a programmer, and not human games with Character), but rather a Man (or Woman, or Child, as the case may be). Because RPGs are human games there can be no machine without the Ghost. And to ignore the ghost is to create only a shadowed simulacrum of a machine, not a living and interesting approximation of a real person.

Now I think the answer to the problem is a simple one.

Concentrate mechanical abilities not just on what the Character can do but on what the Player can do, and concentrate mechanical focus not merely on capabilities, but on diversified human interests. (Because after all although you might be playing an Elf, who in my opinion should not be constructed as just another human with pointed ears, there is also a built in assumption that enough lies in common between the Human and the Elf that a human might want to "play an Elf. A human would find little in common with a toadstool to desire to play a toadstool, but he can associate with human traits within the Elf. Or he wouldn't play one.)

Now "playing an Elf" should be far more than a +2 bonus to shooting with a bow, better hearing, and having infravision. (All of those things might be germane in game terms, but they don't describe the Elf, merely describe some of the things the Elf can do that are different from humans.) But being racially good with the bow and being able to see heat signatures does not define the Elf anymore than black hair and blue eyes describes a man. It only defines capabilities.

So a game, especially a role playing game, should allow for ineffable elements which are at least equal in value to the mechanical elements. And ineffable elements, just like real ineffable elements in people are often defined less by what they are exactly than what they are not entirely. Meaning the ineffable elements of gaming are less about rules, and more about human nature, including things like the human mind, the soul, and the Player, and not just the Character. The character is of course important, as a vehicle for player action, but if you reduce the character to a mere machine and set of mechanical capabilities then that character becomes far less a living thing of wide and varied interests and far more a program of very limited function.

In short modern games need a Soul once again. They've explored pretty much the limits of the body, or "corpus," ad nauseum, but have long neglected the soul of the player, as well as the soul of the charter in a pursuit of raw power which neglects far more subtle, and yet far more fascinating motives and abilities of mind, soul, and spirit.

Now all of that being said I think the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction in a corrective move. I see intense interest in what I would call the Soul of Gaming and away from the mechanics of gaming. It is slow and it is just beginning, but I see signs of it in many ways. (In some ways I would even say 4E illustrates the beginnings of this movement, at least as far as D&D is concerned. In some ways 4E is far too cluttered and complicated and power absorbed, but in other ways it is more flexible and fluid, and even, more human in many respects. When I look at the Player's Handbook I see a plethora of mechanics and mechanistic contracts. But when I read the DMG I see the return of the soul in the background.)

But in my opinion the mechanics of gaming are the methods of gaming, not the intention or purpose of gaming. And I think that for a long time there was a sort of assumed and unconscious view permeating much of RPG design that confused method with meaning.

The simple fact that so many now seem interested in exploring other aspects of gaming, and that conversations like this one occur often (as least among what might be called a core RPG audience) is proof to me that the moon is waxing again and that the tide has turned.

And about time if you ask me.

 

[xechnao]

There is a review at rpg.net of a game named Barbarians of Lemuria. Some highlights of the review:

"Character Generation: One of BoL's high points is the fast and simple character generation, which creates highly competent heroes on the fly.
Players distribute 4 points between the 4 main attributes (Strength, Agility, Mind and Appeal), with +0 representing the human average; no starting attribute may be set higher than +3, though. Another 4 points are then distributed between the combat abilities (Brawl, Melee, Ranged and Defence). After that, you select 4 careers from the list provided in the book. Careers are used as skill packages; a hero with the mercenary career can do all the things expected from a mercenary. The list covers the classics (barbarian, thief, mercenary), as well as some more exotic picks (like farmer, sorcerer or torturer). After picking your careers, you distribute another 4 points among them, just like before.
Having finished that, you select your place of origin and grab one of the traits (advantages, basically) associated with it.
You may select more than one, but then you'll have to pick a flaw (disadvantage) as well, or start with less hero points. Some careers (alchemists and sorcerers) require you to take flaws, too.
Finally, we calculate our hitpoints (10 plus your strength rating), our arcane might (in case we're sorcerers), grab a weapon or two and some armour, and then we're off. The whole process rarely takes longer than 15 minutes; in fact, the hardest part for me was coming up with a suitably heroic name."


....


"There is no equipment list in BoL, where such illustrious things like “Clothing, poor” or “Bread, moldy” are to be found. Your hero is assumed to either possess all the things he requires for his adventures, or is able to get hold of them in short order, one way or another. A roll on a suitable career or the expenditure of a hero point will usually suffice to get what you want.
There is a rather generic table of weapons and armour, since those need values to function properly. As a rule of fist, a normal weapon will do 1D6 of damage (plus your strenght rating), with two-handed weapons adding another 2 points to that."








So, is this what you seek?

 

[ExploderWizard]

In short modern games need a Soul once again. They've explored pretty much the limits of the body, or "corpus," ad nauseum, but have long neglected the soul of the player, as well as the soul of the charter in a pursuit of raw power which neglects far more subtle, and yet far more fascinating motives and abilities of mind, soul, and spirit.

Now all of that ebbing said I think the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction in a corrective move. I see intense interest in what I would call the Soul of Gaming and away from the mechanics of gaming. It is slow and it is just beginning, but I see signs of it in many ways. (In some ways I would even say 4E illustrates the beginnings of this movement, at least as far as D&D is concerned. In some ways 4E is far too cluttered and complicated and power absorbed, but in other ways it is more flexible and fluid, and even, more human in many respects. When I look at the Player's Handbook I see a plethora of mechanics and mechanistic contracts. But when I read the DMG I see the return of the soul in the background.)

But in my opinion the mechanics of gaming are the methods of gaming, not the intention or purpose of gaming. And I think that for a long time there was a sort of assumed and unconscious view permeating much of RPG design that confused method with meaning.

The simple fact that so many now seem interested in exploring other aspects of gaming, and that conversations like this one occur often (as least among what might be called a core RPG audience) is proof to me that the moon is waxing again and that the tide has turned.

And about time if you ask me.

First of all, that was a nice detailed post. The soul of the game has always been in the hands of the participants. Modern games appear to be constructed to permit a wider range of mechanical options but the defining elements of the actual character were never in a D&D rulebook.

When two players of Original or Basic D&D decide to play fighters, the only differences between the characters (aside from ability score variables) must come from the player. The player defines the unique elements of the character during play. The two characters might have identical mechanical abilities but challenges can be overcome by these two mechanically similar characters very differently. Why is that? Its because the challenges are for the player to overcome, and not based exclusively on the abilities of the character.

Modern games provide loads of options for mechanical differences between characters. Characters can be mechanically different as well as personally different. More importantly, the challenges to be overcome in the adventure are constructed to make use of these mechanical options, such as feats, skills, and powers. The end result of these differences in play comes down to the manner in which the player approaches a challenge.
Instead of a solution dreamed up by the player, the player has a menu of problem solving option chosen for the character to select from.

This is why so many "character concepts" are based specifically around certain mechanical options in the modern game. A player can certainly still develop traits and habits for modern edition characters but this is second to mechanical considerations which affect the success of the character during an adventure. Its true that in old school games you didn't have to give your character a personality or even a name to start playing but when action started happening a lot more of what the character was all about came from the player rather than pre-selected options on the character sheet.

In the end, it still really all comes from the player. The modern style of play simply allows the player to contribute less to the overall effectiveness of the character once the options have been selected.

While I think that the 4E DMG has some good advice for new DMs on how to handle things at the table it goes too far in defining what elements in a game are fun. What is fun and should be played out vs what to gloss over and skip is something I feel the individual DMs and players should decide. Rules and guidelines in a core product shouldn't be so heavy handed in influencing this decision.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So, is this what you seek?

Hell no.

I like 4e. I loved 3e.

I'm just worried that the whole of the character is what the character can do as opposed to who the character is.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I see the "mechanics / roleplaying" issue this way:

If the concept has a part that should (by concept) be able to meaningfully effect the game world then it is important that options be open in the game to allow it that effect.

Let's use a slightly weird but illustrative example:
The character concept calls for having hair that is always perfect and can come to life to pick up things. "Always perfect hair" doesn't affect the game world in any meaningful way, so there does not need to exist an option to ensure that it has an effect. The prehensile hair, however, might have a meaningful impact, such as untying the ropes binding my wrists or slipping an important document off a table behind me while my hands are in plain view. So in that case there needs to be some assurance somewhere that is impact will be allowed.

In modern games that assurance is generally in the form of some mechanical option, maybe in this case the "extra prehensile limb" feat. Perhaps when players focus a whole lot on the mechanics of their characters they feel they don't have this assurance in any other way, the assurance that part of their concept that would have a mechanical impact will be allowed to have that impact.

 

[Toben the Many]

The way I see it, mechanical options are a set number of choices, some of which a player will enjoy some of which they will not. Roleplaying options is a very, very, very large set of choices of which there are any number a player might enjoy.

If you build from flavor to mechanics, then you might have a character who sounded cool and you enjoy being but who makes combat a drag for you.

Whereas if you build from mechanics to flavor, you have a character you enjoy fighting with and chances are pretty darn good you'll have a charcater you enjoy roleplaying with.

Wow. Excellent post and very succinct.

All also add this - when going over stuff with my GM, I'll often go over all of the game mechanic stuff first and foremost. Because when it comes to my character - his background, concept, and personality - well, I figure I can do all that on my own.

Plus, as stated above, you can easily ruin your enjoyment of combat in the game if you poorly optimize. And for our games, combat is about 50% of our fun. The other 50%? The roleplaying? I got that. There's very little chance I will screw that up. And even if I do somehow screw it up (by making a character persona which clashes with the party, for example) then I can easily change it. You can't really go back and change your stats or feats.

Finally, once I can get my head clear about the hard stuff (mechanics), often it clears my head and then I can focus on my character's background and motives.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

There's never been any kind of direct relationship between mechanics and roleplaying. There's noting in either to hinder the other. (Well, sometimes mechanics can get in the way of roleplaying a bit, but that's not a terribly common issue and tends to be easily circumvented.)

The difference is in what you expect in terms of roleplaying.

The way I see it, roleplaying and mechanics are the two major areas in which RPGs are an appealing hobby to most gamers. How much you want either is completely independent of the other; you can be 85% interested in roleplaying and 60% interested in mechanics. They aren't a dichotomy.

However, the players always control the amount of roleplaying they're doing, but the system determines the amount of mechanics they're using.

We can then divide players into three categories. Those with a high interest in RP and a low interest in mechanics, those with a high interest in mechanics and a low interest in RP, and those with a high interest in both. (If they have a low interest in both, they probably aren't a gamer.)

People with a heavy interest in mechanics will migrate to mechanics-heavy systems like Dungeons and Dragons, regardless of how much they want to roleplay. They can bring their own RP to the table.

This is what is happening here. Somebody who likes both mechanics and roleplaying can't understand why the people who are playing for the mechanics don't have an interest in writing a character background or whatever. Is the mechanics the whole of the character? Yes, it is. For them.

What's wrong with that?

If they're playing the game in a way that they're having fun, they're doing it right, and they are unimpeachable. Their absence of interest in character development shouldn't impact your ability to RP, and if it does, then you're simply a mismatched group.

 

[Roman]

For me game mechanics and role playing go together. When I decide on how my character is to be, I like it when the rules support and reflect my decisions (of course, there needs to be a maximum limit on power) - if I want to play a character who is a great swimmer, but a mediocre swimmer, I want it to be reflected mechanically and not just in roleplaying.

Hmm, I am not sure where that places me in this debate. I guess I just had the urge to express myself on this matter.