Game Mechanics & Lore

[Scott Christian]

Seeing quite a few posts about artwork matching mood and tone, game mechanics matching mood and tone, and even verbiage matching mood and tone - it got me thinking. I know it's an age-old debate. It is basically the equivalent of do lyrics matter in a song. But I am curious to see what everyone on here thinks: Do the mechanics of a game need to support the lore? Lore, of course, being the primary driver of mood and tone.

I think of D&D, and how they often try to let it fit into the narrative of whatever is popular in the cultural zeitgeist. Incorporating things like Rick and Morty, Acquisitions Inc, Strixhaven, etc. all leave a mark on mood and tone. Yet, despite always fitting into the culture, the game mechanics haven't changed a whole bunch for decades. They seem to have found a sweet spot. So, when you look at D&D, it seems to not really matter.

Then I think of a game like The One Ring or Vampire the Masquerade, and my thoughts shift. These games definitely seem to create mood and tone through game mechanics. Even older games like MERP and Earthdawn seemed to steer in that direction.

So, I guess I am a fence rider on this one. I am interested in where others stand.

 

[payn]

It depends on what the system is trying to do?

D&D doesn't feel connected becasue its purpose is to be a generic fantasy builder. You might use one of the many settings, or you might make your own. The designers and writers dont tie mechanics to setting and/or genre too closely so that D&D can be a swiss army RPG system. A tool for many jobs, but not all. Folks that like this enjoy the fact it is easy to make D&D theirs. Folks who dont like it feel the system fails via jack of all trades master of none feeling.

I tend to prefer mechanics tied to the setting/genre closely myself. I believe it aids everyone at the table and takes some off the GM's plate. Also, its more satisfying when the mechanics lend themselves to the setting/genre as a motivator for the game. Though, im also the type that prefers long campaigns with metagoals and tends to stray away from generic open world sandboxes. However, I do really enjoy an occasional old school skill play romp (usually a one shot only) and in those cases the setting mechanics matching isnt too important.

So, while I have a preference, I think there is a time and place for both at my table.

 

[bloodtide]

It is a big question.

A lot of games have a very narrow very set vision: this game is X and nothing else. The idea is if you want X, play X game. You want Y, look for a Y game. And this is great for that one thing.

Game like D&D are generic. The game has only a few over arcing views and leaves most everything up to the gamers. 5E is made to be quick, easy and simple: and it is. Modern D&D: superhero/world of warcaft and classic D&D hero/LofR.

You can do a lot with mood and tone with just role play. You can make the players feel scared, confused, angry or any other emotion and this will effect the game. Though it works out nice to have mechanic to back things up....this is what mechanics are for in gme play.

 

[John Dallman]

Do the mechanics of a game need to support the lore? Lore, of course, being the primary driver of mood and tone.

They need to not clash with the lore. For example, using a game system with inappropriate levels of mechanical detail (too much or too little) for the setting, mood and tone will just annoy people. Many other things can be mismatched, but fortunately, designers and GMs don't seem to get this wrong terribly often.

 

[Theory of Games]

Do the mechanics of a game need to support the lore?

Always.

Otherwise you end up in a situation where you're playing a D&D Barbarian and thinking Conan the Barbarian, but the gameplay feels more like Order of the Stick If I'm aiming for 'Sword & Sorcery', I'd use The Riddle of Steel or GURPS Conan in order to have a lethal game system that matches the deadliness of the Hyborian Age. If sudden decapitations during swordfights is a thing in the setting, the system has to be able to produce that in play (usu. with Hit Locations + Damage modifiers).

It's one of the (many) reasons I walked away from D&D. I like the Rules Cyclopedia and Pathfinder (1e) because they embody exactly what D&D is, but I also realized it can't do most Fantasy sub-genres as well as other systems.

Same with Star Wars: WEGS D6, Edge of Empire and most of the systems attempting to emulate the movie series fall short IMO, especially with how combat works. In the films, most people don't survive direct hits from blasters or lightsabers, but most of the SW rpgs are much more forgiving - a bug IMO.

As an aside; when we look at the fiction that inspires the rpgs we play, we find the book/film's physical violence is much more deadly than in the games, which is why I think combat is such a bugaboo in this hobby. It's not that ttrpg combat isn't "realistic", but rather, it poorly emulates the representative fiction. There's a reason the protagonists in many fictional stories often run away from danger: because their foes can kill them with one attack. I'd argue that the deadlier the combat system, the greater the chance the players will choose a non-combat solution to conflicts and only fight when they absolutely have to.

On social interaction: IMO most ttrpgs handle persuasion, intimidation and deception as required to emulate the fiction/setting. IME many players don't use social interaction because they don't understand how it can often be more effective than physical combat. If I wanted taut social intrigue akin to Game of Thrones or Sin City, again, most ttrpgs can handle it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They need to not clash with the lore. For example, using a game system with inappropriate levels of mechanical detail (too much or too little) for the setting, mood and tone will just annoy people. Many other things can be mismatched, but fortunately, designers and GMs don't seem to get this wrong terribly often.

Though sometimes its really striking when they do.

Bob Charrette and Paul Hume wrote a couple of RPG systems in the 80's called Aftermath! and Daredevils. The system was relatively complex and detailed (though people sometimes overstate how much of a problem this was in play; most of it was pretty intuitive after a little experience and some of the more complex elements only came up intermittantly).

Aftermath! was a generally usable post-apocalypse game, with some focus on actual rebuilding of things and supporting things like repair and building, and leaned a little into the gritty. The system served a lot of the kind of experience pretty well there, and was doing desirable work for that purpose.

Daredevils was a pulp adventure game, theoretically for the typical fast-adventure Indiana Jones thing you saw in the cinematic expressions. The system could not have been more poorly suited for that other than its ability to do characters with a variety of orientations and foci.


This is a perfect example of when if you're going to do a generic system, or reuse it for multiple games you have to apply some tools to customize the system for the purpose.

 

[GMMichael]

I think of D&D, and how they often try to let it fit into the narrative of whatever is popular in the cultural zeitgeist. . . They seem to have found a sweet spot. So, when you look at D&D, it seems to not really matter.

Matter of opinion, I guess. D&D has a decent amount of lore that ties to some mechanisms. High character level is a powerful entity. Spellcasting ties pretty well to the fictional wizards (and was even named after some). But for all the flashy, high-fantasy action that the lore implies, the combat rules still feel like a slow game of chess to me.

They need to not clash with the lore. For example, using a game system with inappropriate levels of mechanical detail (too much or too little) for the setting, mood and tone will just annoy people. Many other things can be mismatched, but fortunately, designers and GMs don't seem to get this wrong terribly often.

I'll buy that for a dollar. Rules can funnel a player's ideas into what the game is supposed to be, but it's not necessary. A PC-vampire can get weak or feral when she hasn't fed recently, whether or not there's a rule that makes you compare in-game hours to your Blood Points. But if the Blood Points rule is based on Hit Points, which are in turn ambiguous on whether or not physical contact is actually required, the rules can get in the way.

This is a perfect example of when if you're going to do a generic system, or reuse it for multiple games you have to apply some tools to customize the system for the purpose.

More like, you can apply some tools. It depends on how generic that system is. If the base system incorporates hit location rules, it's pointing at one type of game and away from another.

I'd like to know how well Dungeon Fantasy turns GURPS into a fantasy-lore-friendly game, and if anyone thought GURPS does fantasy better than Dungeon Fantasy does.

 

[Thomas Shey]

More like, you can apply some tools. It depends on how generic that system is. If the base system incorporates hit location rules, it's pointing at one type of game and away from another.

I meant "have" as in "if you want it to really fit the genre you're trying for."

 

[MGibster]

But I am curious to see what everyone on here thinks: Do the mechanics of a game need to support the lore? Lore, of course, being the primary driver of mood and tone.

I don't know about the lore, but I do think the mechanics of a game need to support the tone and genre the game is going for. If I'm running a swashbuckling Three Musketeers style campaign and the rules make it extremely difficult to swing from a chandelier, jump off your speeding horse onto the horses carrying a runaway wagon, or other such daring feats then that's a failure on the part of game designers so far as I'm concerned. If I'm playing a game where intrigue and interactions between players and NPCs are critically important, we better have some decent rules for social interactions or its failure in game design.

I think of D&D, and how they often try to let it fit into the narrative of whatever is popular in the cultural zeitgeist. Incorporating things like Rick and Morty, Acquisitions Inc, Strixhaven, etc. all leave a mark on mood and tone. Yet, despite always fitting into the culture, the game mechanics haven't changed a whole bunch for decades. They seem to have found a sweet spot. So, when you look at D&D, it seems to not really matter.

At its core, D&D is about kicking down doors, killing the bad guy, and taking their stuff. You can incorporate Rick & Morty, Acquisitions, Inc., and a myriad of other stuff without really affecting the core game play of D&D.

D&D doesn't feel connected becasue its purpose is to be a generic fantasy builder. You might use one of the many settings, or you might make your own.

I really don't feel as though D&D is a generic fantasy game which I discovered this circa 1990-1991 when I tried to adapt Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series into a D&D campaign. Just trying to fit the Howard's Conan the Barbarian into the D&D mold doesn't work very well as he's not really a straight up Barbarian according to the 1st edition class description. A game of Legend of the Five Rings run in the original Roll/Keep system is going to be very, very different from a campaign run using the d20 version of the game. You can certainly do a lot of different things with D&D, but unless you radically alter the rules, the magic is going to work the way it works no matter the setting. There's going to be a clear divide between divine and arcane magic that doesn't exist in every other setting.

Keep in mind I don't say this as a dig against D&D. Unless you're GURPS, I don't expect any game to be universal. D&D still continues to provide me a great set of rules for what I've come to expect from the D&D experience.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I very seldom have used a setting with the system intended for it. It always sems to me that if the setting is great, they skimp on the system. (looking at you in particular, L5R).

I would much rather settings be system-agnostic, and systems be setting-agnostic, and GMs just mix and match. But life is not fair.