Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4678809" data-attributes="member: 54707">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.</blockquote>

Verification