Impact of mechanics on roleplay

[buzz]

FWIW, I really like Halivar's example from the SF game. He's making the best of a less-than-ideal situation, and fun play results. That said...

What do you think? How important are the mechanics of the game to your roleplay?

If the mechanics of a game are doing nothing to support the play that's happening at the table, then I generally don't want to play that game.

That said, I definitely keep in mind what kind of game I am playing when I am making a PC. E.g., if I'm playing D&D, I'm going to create an adventurer with solid justification for being so. If I'm playing a team-oriented supers game, I'm going to create a PC who can work with a team and who, you know, wears spandex while they fight crime. I'm not going to build a concept at odds with the focus of the game.

I guess this means that mechanics are very important to me. And, really, that's how I think it should be.

 

[jgbrowning]

What do you think? How important are the mechanics of the game to your roleplay?

Very. The mechanics display the intrinsic shared assumptions around which role-play occurs, IMO.

joe b.

 

[Grimstaff]

A lot really.

Firstly, I find that "high mechanics" systems harm roleplaying. That's why games like "over the edge" or "toon" exist. You can do more with a lighter system. I know people who can do good roleplaying in mechanics-heavy systems. But I'm not one. Swapping between right/left brain kills me.

Secondly, there are character ideas that can be _so_ non optimal that you can't play them in a game. I'm going to be playing in a house-rules over-the-edge-like game soon. But being an archer is _so_ penalized, I just don't see how I can make it work. And riding a non-standard mount is also nearly impossible. So my wolf riding archer halfling is pretty much doomed.

To be fair, this is mechanics affecting your character concept.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Finally, the system impacts what the character can do and that impacts the roleplaying. I've often played pacifists in RPGs. 2e, 3e, and Shandowrun. But 4e makes this _really_ hard. The siloing of powers means that I _will_ have these powers I'll never ever use. In other games I could swap them out for "utilities" if you will. But not in 4e.

Well, if your DM is willing, those powers don't need to be unusable - they can be reflavoured.

Not every instance of "His hit points decrease" needs to be flavoured as "He is wounded".

LostSoul uses an example where an Intimidate check might deal 1d6+Cha damage (using p42, not powers). Does this mean the intimidator glares, and the target starts bleeding? No - the hit point damage in this case represents a lessening of his will to fight, or of his resolve, or whatever.

So let's say you have a warlock character, and you reflavour all his powers as a sapping of courage, or an awakening of fears, or of the voice of reason that tells an opponent he'd be better off running. If one of your 'attacks' knocks an opponent below zero, he curls up on the floor and weeps, or he runs away, or he surrenders.

Of course, if you will-drain him down to 3 hit points and then the fighter clocks him with a bastard sword, he may die... but at least your pacifist wasn't the one who killed him. You got to use all your powers, but you never actually inflicted a wound.

-Hyp.

 

[brunswick]

Thats very good advice. I played in a D&D game a few years ago and I asked the DM if he could describe my Summon Monster spells in a different manner and substitute "demonic-type" monsters instead of standard monsters from the MM. The DM did a brilliant job and he described my elven summoner opening a gate to a nether-world, calling in a demonic "thing" (an orc, per stats). The other players (even the experienced ones) were saying "What was that you just cast??"

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think that one of the great things that 4th edition has done is to keep the the combat elements of each class balanced against the combat elements of other classes. This in turn should have one clear result. It will allow someone to create a gambling womanizer of any class since the non combat skills of each class are largely independent of the combat elements.

If you want to have a Gambling Womanizer, in most editions of D&D, you go for a Rogue. In 4th, you can do so much easier, though it may cost some feats to make a skill trainable.

Getting more directly on topic here, the rules can have some very direct effects on game play. If the rules are absent for something, it falls to DM Fiat, and if the DM decides a given action should not succeed for reasons of plot convenience, than the player has no recourse. This means that a player may end up trying something exactly once, and if the DM makes it clear he does not like the implications, he will not be able to try it again.

If the rules do have rules for handling a given action, it greatly increases the chances that the players will take actions of plot significance which may not be predictable. Its easier to create someone who intends to be the worlds greatest swordsmen if there are feats and powers that build on that concept. It is easier to create a cat burglar who can sneak into any building and pick any lock if there are rules for lock picking and climbing.

Gamers tend to build their characters primarily around what they are able to do. That informs every other aspect of the character.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[brehobit]

Well, if your DM is willing, those powers don't need to be unusable - they can be reflavoured.

<clip>

Of course, if you will-drain him down to 3 hit points and then the fighter clocks him with a bastard sword, he may die... but at least your pacifist wasn't the one who killed him. You got to use all your powers, but you never actually inflicted a wound.

-Hyp.

Yeah,
I guess I'm too much of a simulationist for that. My main pacifist D&D character, back in 2e, "held" someone (hold person) and the dwarf fighter killed em. My character took that very very seriously. Same in Shadowrun. If someone were to shoot dead the guy my PC tasered, he'd be pissed.

Reasonable idea though, and I've thought of it.

 

[brehobit]

To be fair, this is mechanics affecting your character concept.

True enough. The first part wasn't, but that's a really good point.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yeah,
I guess I'm too much of a simulationist for that. My main pacifist D&D character, back in 2e, "held" someone (hold person) and the dwarf fighter killed em. My character took that very very seriously.

What was your pacifist's motivation for undertaking an occupation that revolves around killing people and taking their stuff, out of curiosity?

-Hyp.

 

[Kzach]

I've never understood why people have to delineate between the two or be limited by either. To me, either stance is... odd.

Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom play such a small role in a character's overall personality that I don't see why anyone would make them dictate the character's actions.

And on the flip-side, they're there, they're a part of the system, I don't see why one has to ignore them to feel as if they're 'real' roleplayers.

I'm a big fan of holism. Everything is connected and nothing comes down to just one element. A system is greater than the sum of its parts. Roleplaying is more than just what the stats are on a page, but it's also not the be all and end all of gaming. Why can't everything just meld into one holistic solution?

Peace, love and mungbeans, man.