Impact of mechanics on roleplay

[jdrakeh]

How important are the mechanics of the game to your roleplay?

It depends on the game, really. If I buy a game that the author says is specifically about societial washouts being offered a chance at salvation in return for hunting demons, I expect something other than a completely generic task resolution mechanic. I expect a mechanic that supports the specifically promised premise.

I don't care how great a game concept is if the system that it ships with is so generic that I could ultimately achieve the exact same results with Risus, GURPS, HERO, and other already available generic systems. Such a game shouldn't be committed to paper, IMO. That is, while the concept of the game may be great, if the system produces the same results as dozens of other systems already out there, those pages are wasted.

Games like D&D are usually safe from this sort of criticism (from me) because they don't specifically promise antyhing — they stick to vague terms like "fantasy", "heroism" and "adventure" (i.e., terms that can be defined in hundreds of different ways, all of them correct). I think that all editions of D&D meet at least some commonly accepted definitions of those terms, mechanically speaking.

 

[Diamondeye]

My (very) general feeling is that I want the mechanics of a system to support as wide a variety of character concepts as possible, with sufficient granularity that two characters with generally the same concept can also differ in meaningful ways. In other words, the "what" of the mechanical aspects of their concept are the same, but the "how" differ in a meaningful way.

In terms of how they support roleplaying, much of a character's personality doesn't need mechanical support. Most social challenges that do either involve convincing someone of something they wouldn't believe, or to do something they wouldn't do.

Most of the rest of the mechanics should involve physical challenges, combat or otherwise. I want to be able to select a mechanic to resolve most physical challenges without having to stretch the intuitive definition of any too far, and without having to rely excessivley on ability scores (raw talent, as opposed to skill)

I also do not want to have to do a ton of reflavoring of existing abilities to support a concept. I much prefer to tinker with existing products than come up with my own from scratch, and totally reflavoring something to fit a new concept is too close to the latter for my taste. That's also why I prefer published campaign worlds; I dislike coming up with my own.

 

[Lizard]

Just because you are the author (or in a rpg, a co-author) it doesn't mean that the best thing for the story is for your character to do everything right, with no justification. Quite the contrary.

However, with no costing mechanism, you basically end up with your character's abilities being limited to what you, the player, can talk the DM into letting you get away with.

It is one thing to say that you can weave tapestries or repair mundane armor in your spare time and quite another to claim masterpiece-level-status in all trades and secret knowledge of each and every plane of existence.

In short, "If I don't think it will ever actually matter, do what you want; if it might matter, we need rules."

Or, in other words:
"Background doesn't matter; make some up."

I knew I would have....issues...with 4e when the initial press conference on in, back at GenCon '07, had one of the developers (forget which one, sorry) saying, "If you want to know how to sew, just write it on your character sheet. It's not relevant to the game."

In short, in my games, you are allowed to shape your character in any way or form that fits the overall story. And by "overall story" I mean the consensus created between everybody at the table.

Within very broad limits, such as "We're running a swashbuckling campaign set in a high fantasy version of 16th century France, make appropriate characters", I agree. I might even go so far as to say "So far, the group is really missing a healer type...does anyone want to change their concept to fit that?" But I find the idea of "collective" character creation to be....communistic. I also have issues with "consensus storytelling" -- some of the best moments in RPGs come when two characters have wildly conflicting goals or the same goals and wildly different approaches to achieving them.

I see nothing in the 4E rules that prevents a character from being a smooth-talking rake, more at home in the political arena of a prince's court than in a grimy dungeon:

Then you need to look at the rules again; it is virtually impossible NOT to be at home in a grimy dungeon, and, for that matter, not to be at home in the political arena. +1/2 level to all skills and relatively low DCs (as per the errata) means that while Thrug The Barbarian^h^h^h Ranger With Pretensions might not be AS GOOD as Sneaky McLiesalot in social situations, odds are, he'll succeed pretty regularly -- a lot more than he would in 3x, at any rate. And even someone who pours every option they have into social skills will still only lose a hair of combat effectiveness, overall. This is by design: Everyone should be able to participate in everything, and character individuation be damned.

If you want, you can also reflavor some (or all) of your attacks to fit your concept.

And this is sort of the real key. The answer to so many complaints about 4e seems to come down to:"Change the fluff text." I don't find "reskinning" to be a satisfying answer to missing or incomplete mechanics, sorry. (If the 4e books used the same typeface and page count as the 3e books did, it would be an almost immeasurably better game, but that's a rant for another thread.)

The disconnect between the hyped "Skill Challenge" system and the rest of the mechanics is painful; it looks stapled on. At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers do not integrate well with a highly abstract system where a single roll might represent a second, a minute, an hour, or a day -- even within a single challenge, each "round" could be a highly variable amount of time. Where are the spells/prayers/exploits/feats which tie into SCs directly?

Again, no need to argue with the DM.

Anything that represents a conflict (be it a crossbow shot or a seduction attempt), must be backed by rules, even if in most cases its only something whipped out of the page 42 table.

Anything that's just flavor doesn't need backing at all.

Bingo. The assumption you (and the 4e rules) makes is "Anything which doesn't directly relate to orcs slain per hour is just flavor." The reality of gaming, though, is that you NEVER KNOW what will and will not become relevant in play. The idea that encounters have a fixed purpose and a fixed resolution mechanism for that purpose seems to be one of the developer's key pillars of 4e design, but in Actual Play TM, it's not like that. A recent Dragon article had a fairly cool idea about bugbear mafioso (in our current game, the mafia is run by the ogre mages, so there you go.) Anyway, a particular character, an ancient matron, was given nothing but three skill values, on the grounds that "the players won't be fighting her". Well, goodie. So she has one hit point and dies instantly in combat. Fine. Does that mean she needs no stats? What if someone uses a mind affecting spell on her? Or wants to sneak up on her -- does she spot him? Now, 4e DOES allow almost any check to be easily calculated if you know two things -- raw attribute and level -- but the article didn't see fit to provide even six stats and a level number for her. Why? Because the designers had decided she could not be interacted with except in a set, narrow, way -- and if the players crawled out of the box, the DM was expected to shove them right back in. (And if your answer is "Well, make up some numbers that seem right!", then, one could just as easily have written the article in five words:"Bugbear gangsters. Pretty cool, huh?")[1]

4e, the game system, doesn't force this. It DOES provide the tools you need to do what you have to do, even if the tools are much simpler than those 3e provided. However, there is a strong attitude, implicit and explicit, on the part of the current development team that anything not directly related to hitting things with sticks is secondary, both in terms of mechanical support and in terms of how much table time should be dedicated to it, and even though I am definitely coming to appreciate some of 4e's mechanical features, I find that attitude, which sprawls through the rules like some sort of...sprawly thing...to be very off-putting.

I am constantly surprised by how my players react to the situations I put in front of them. I have tried saving time by only statting out what I think I will "need" for a given encounter/scenario. I have found, though, that players will fight with the people you think they'll talk to and talk to the people you think they'll fight with -- not to mention avoiding huge swathes of plot altogether. I never know what an NPC will be called on to do, so the idea of deciding a "role" for an NPC and having all of their stats based around that role is, to me, risky.

Getting back to the main topic, though -- the same applies to PCs. I never know what background is "Flavor text" and what is going to matter for the plot. I also enjoy mechanics as an end in themselves. Even something as simple as "Here's a list of common trades and professions, with their most common associated attribute. Pick two. You get +2 in checks relating to each of them to reflect your pre-adventuring experience. Alternatively, you may add +2 to a single skill if that better models your childhood and adolescence." would do a lot to send the message that "Background matters."

[1]Also, we have a kobold with precognition. Cool! Except...there's not one word in the article about exactly what his powers are, their limits, anything beyond the note that he has such abilities. Great. So does he get a vague hint about the future every now and then, or does he greet attackers with "Hmmm, you're 2.5 seconds early. I'm slipping."?

 

[RFisher]

Groups can role-play in spite of mechanics. Groups can role-play because of mechanics. Mechanics can encourage or discourage role-playing, but they can’t prevent or ensure it.

If something is an important aspect of my character, I want it to have mechanical support.

This whole post very well describes how I felt during much of the 1990s.

Of course, you have to draw the line somewhere. You can’t have infinitely detailed rules for an infinite number of character variables. Drawing a straight line, however, I found impossible. Balancing everything can be quite difficult. (What’s the exchange rate between bluff skill and shield skill? What’s the exchange rate between shield skill and magic ability? What’s the exchange rate between magic ability and bluff skill? Oops, now bluff → shield → magic → bluff isn’t zero sum.) And it all can be very GM/group independent. (“Remember, Bob’s GMing, so no point in investing in bluff and if you take the ‘enemy’ disadvatage he’ll never remember to make your enemy show up.”)

If that made any sense at all.

Plus, I set my course in more minimalistic mechanical directions to engage the less mechanically inclined players more.

At the moment, I envision my ideal game as having minimal mechanics. (Or maybe even none.) The mechanics (similar the 4e spirit of adding half-level to everything) tend to be more saying “yes” than saying “no”. You define your character more by what you choose to do and not do than through mechanics.

A perhaps simplistic example: Robin is known as a great archer because—while achieving what he has achieved—he tended to prefer his bow to other weapons/tools whenever possible. He is known as a master of disguise because—given all the other options he could have choosen to attempt to reach his goals—he often choose disguise and impersonation.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I start with a character concept and then try to represent that concept as closely as possible within the mechanics of the game. Sometimes the mechanics don't quite allow me to represent the character as I had conceived it, but that can be interesting if you go with it and see where it takes the original concept. The mechanics sometimes act as a force of emergent character concepts and role play.

Some of the most memorable characters I've seen in games have been those who had a goal or a dream and despite striving for it just didn't have it in them to achieve it. It's not unlike the hopes and disappointments that we deal with in our own lives and I think that's what makes those characters ones that I can identify with and remember.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

For me the mechanics help frame a character concept I have in mind, and sometimes the reverse happens as well, I might have a broad concept I wish to roleplay that I find mechanics to bring to life. I like having a relationship between the two where one helps the other.

For example, I might start with a strange idea (an obesely fat bully of a tiefling) that I then look to bring to life within the boundaries of the game being played (intelligent, warlord, tactical). I'll then go back and forth between the concept and the mechanics until I get a character that is different, playable and able to be tolerated by the rest of the players. Then I develop the mannerisms and attitudes, imagining how the guy will act/react to the other characters and some generic situations. The character then lives in my head for a while before being finally unleashed upon the group.

As such, I always end up with a character who's bound by the mechanics that helped create him, but not in a way that makes me feel like it's impinging upon how I roleplay him. I try not to have too solid-a-concept at the start of the creation process otherwise I'm just going to keep butting into walls presented by either the system or upon occasion the DM. If things are kept malleable, then you have more of an open mind to change things in ways you might otherwise have closed down - thus ending up with a thematically strong character.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[I'm A Banana]

The best RP mechanics reward in-character behavior.

A good example of this, IMO, is the 4e Paladin. All 4e Paladins are encouraged to be brave melee machines, courageously confronting the powerful enemy and taking the lead for their team. This happens because of mechanics: the Challenge mandates that the paladin get in there and mix it up with an enemy, and encourages that enemy to be the biggest damage-dealer around (because the Paladin can take it a bit better than most other classes while preventing it from going to other characters).

This is the ideal of flavor-entwined-mechanics.

A lousy example of this, IMO, is the 4e rogue. All 4e rogues are encouraged to be leaping, bounding ninjae of sneaky doom. This happens because of mechanics: the rogue gets the highest benefit from a Dex, Str, and Cha-based build. Unfortunately, this means that one of D&D's (and general fantasy's) most time-honored archetypes, the "Clever Thief," is entirely neglected. There is no incentive to build a rogue with a high Int as a primary or secondary motive, and making off with gold and goods takes a tremendous back seat to jumping around and stabbing things.

This is where mechanics actively gets in the way of the kind of flavor that a player is likely to want.

Sure, I can play a "brave knight" without the Paladin feature, but the Paladin feature actively encourages it. Sure, I can play a "Clever Thief" without any abilities related to it, but the lack of support actively discourages it.

As a potential fix for the latter's problem, an ability set that rewarded Int as a secondary score instead of Str, and rewarded it with abilities that revolve around taking things that belong to others (disarming, Warlord-style tactical abilities, gaining bonuses related to items, treasure, and the like) would be a pretty keen addition.

 

[Fenes]

I agree with Lizard almost fully. "Just add it to the background" is not enough for a game that is more than killing stuff and taking their things. "Don't mary sue" is also not enough of a guide line. And the "It doesn't matter anyway" means "don't play like that".

Where is the line between a fleshed background, and a mary sue? If Bob takes 1 "background skill", and Chris takes 2, is Chris doing a mary sue? Can Bob be twice as good as his background skill, like smithing, if Chris is a singer and a cook?

Cna you improve on your background skill? What about learning new background skills? At which point can the talented student surpass the master? Can all party members become proficient with acrobatics and dance to mask as travelling entertainer troupe to infiltrate a keep? If so, can they just write that down, or need they to level up first?

That's why there's a need for more detailed mechanics once your game involves more than killing stuff.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The best RP mechanics reward in-character behavior.

A good example of this, IMO, is the 4e Paladin. All 4e Paladins are encouraged to be brave melee machines, courageously confronting the powerful enemy and taking the lead for their team. This happens because of mechanics: the Challenge mandates that the paladin get in there and mix it up with an enemy, and encourages that enemy to be the biggest damage-dealer around (because the Paladin can take it a bit better than most other classes while preventing it from going to other characters).

This is the ideal of flavor-entwined-mechanics.

A lousy example of this, IMO, is the 4e rogue. All 4e rogues are encouraged to be leaping, bounding ninjae of sneaky doom. This happens because of mechanics: the rogue gets the highest benefit from a Dex, Str, and Cha-based build. Unfortunately, this means that one of D&D's (and general fantasy's) most time-honored archetypes, the "Clever Thief," is entirely neglected. There is no incentive to build a rogue with a high Int as a primary or secondary motive, and making off with gold and goods takes a tremendous back seat to jumping around and stabbing things.

This is where mechanics actively gets in the way of the kind of flavor that a player is likely to want.

Sure, I can play a "brave knight" without the Paladin feature, but the Paladin feature actively encourages it. Sure, I can play a "Clever Thief" without any abilities related to it, but the lack of support actively discourages it.

As a potential fix for the latter's problem, an ability set that rewarded Int as a secondary score instead of Str, and rewarded it with abilities that revolve around taking things that belong to others (disarming, Warlord-style tactical abilities, gaining bonuses related to items, treasure, and the like) would be a pretty keen addition.

Good examples. And I would favor a INT supporting Rogue build, too. I think it might not set up this way because they wanted to avoid classes relying on a secondary ability that affects the same defense as the primary statistics. But I might be wrong, and they just didn't want a third possible statistics.

---

There are many concerns when designing an RPG. You want to cover all the reasonable aspects of the game world (at least as it relates to the PC). You want a "balanced" game so that no player will feel useless.... And so on.

I like the idea of "siloing" various abilities. So you have a silo for stuff like weapon skills, one for social skills, one for technical skills, and so on. That no longer forces you to choose between Craft (Basket Weaving) and Disable Device. Of course, if the point of your character was to be all Basket Weaving, no Weapon Skills, a system like this will make this difficult.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I agree with Lizard almost fully. "Just add it to the background" is not enough for a game that is more than killing stuff and taking their things. "Don't mary sue" is also not enough of a guide line. And the "It doesn't matter anyway" means "don't play like that".

Where is the line between a fleshed background, and a mary sue? If Bob takes 1 "background skill", and Chris takes 2, is Chris doing a mary sue? Can Bob be twice as good as his background skill, like smithing, if Chris is a singer and a cook?

Cna you improve on your background skill? What about learning new background skills? At which point can the talented student surpass the master? Can all party members become proficient with acrobatics and dance to mask as travelling entertainer troupe to infiltrate a keep? If so, can they just write that down, or need they to level up first?

That's why there's a need for more detailed mechanics once your game involves more than killing stuff.

The problem I have with this discussion is the fact that there are 2 definitions of background skill for me - the skill you took when designing your background and the skill that happens in the background of the game.

As such I'm going to use the phrase Scenery skill to describe one that happens in the background of the game and leave background skill to mean one defined during character generation only.

I feel every character should be able to define whatever Scenery skills they wish during character generation. If you want to be a great cook who makes nice meals even at a campfire then feel free. If you want to be a great cook who makes food parcels as presents to butter up NPCs then it's a foreground (not scenery) skill and thus needs mechanics (or at least works better with mechanics).

In summation if you intend to make a skill check at least once every 2 or 3 sessions to give yourself a mechanical bonus in game then it's a foreground skill and you need to pay for it. Otherwise it's a scenery skill and can be defined as the player wishes.