Mechanics Dogma - Requirements for a system

[Desdichado]

If it's discussion on your opening statement that you want, I'll be glad to provide. I think some of what you evidently value in a roleplaying game is important and I also value it, but I think some of it is theoretical but impractical and doesn't work well in practice.

1. Mechanics shalt not distract the players from role-playing. Not too heavy mechanics - in fact, the system should be a little boring, and classes are tabu. The mechanics are meant only to be coldly effective, built-in flavour (like the system of classes) functions against their intentions.

Mechanics that are too generic actually serve to distract players from roleplaying more than mechanics that are too proscriptive. Also, flavor, such as classes, encourage roleplaying by giving you a hook roleplay on. Typically, I don't have such a concrete idea of what my character is like at the beginning of a campaign that I can start getting into his head right away, and the class system works well as a shortcut to get me started right away. Granted, you also don't want to be slaves to the mechanics or the flavor as presented to you; I have typically played in games in which numerous liberties have been taken with the specifics of the classes in order to better represent a character concept.

2. Mechanics shalt not be tight. A system must never try to reflect reality perfectly, for then it will limit the players' imagination to the possibilities of the laws of the system, not the laws of nature.

That's fine. I don't run that way either. I like having the mechanics, and having them be specific, as they are in d20. However, I'm the last person in the world who's going to be flipping to some table or rule in the book to look up a DC, or what the absolute best skill for a certain action should be. d20 actually facilitates this, because it has an easy DC/skill check system and a fairly comprehensive list of skills. Players in my games can attempt anything they want, and I can, on the fly, say "Make a Tumble check" with a DC of 20 or whatever.

3. Mechanics shalt encourage imagination ...in the same way as books do compared to television. If a miniature dungeon board game is analagous to television, then role-playing should be analagous to books. The system should be so tranquil and holeful (...) that the players and the GM needs to add a lot. Because in this added world is where role-playing has its stage. Note point 1, the system itself should not try to present too much colour, just an ease for us in presenting such.

I don't see how having holes in your mechanics encourages imagination -- mostly it's just frustrating. This also seems to be in direct opposition to your first "rule" -- the best way to have mechanics encourage imagination is to add some flavor to the mechanics. Your method of simply poking holes in the mechanics so they don't work all the time won't work well, IMO.

4. Mechanics shalt strive for less nuance, to make it easy to make up new rules. Making up new rules, rules that are not covered by your system rulebooks, is vital for a good system. If there is not room for spontanious rules that function satisfactorily, then the mech is flawed, then it tries to be the Mirror of Nature (see 2.). Translated into practical language; the system can not have too much detail, nor too many nuances. E.g. a skill shouldnt have too many numbers between being "weak" and "superb", and HP need not more than a couple of levels, like "hurt, wounded, heavily wounded, incapacitated" or so.

Your specific examples aside, d20 actually fits this bill quite well. Because everything was designed with an eye for modularity and making everything hinge on a simple mechanic, it's almost disturbing how simple and quick and easy it is to make new rules, or borrow new rules, and slide them into the d20 framework.

5. Combat is irrelevant. There is no good enough way to combine miniature dungeon board games and role-playing (the way i want to). Both are fun, i admit, but the combo falls between two chairs. Combat should be easy and undetailed, for a large proportion of the rules i feel distract are made to make sense of combat. Which is not needed. Combat can be played the same way as any other element of a story, with as little as no rolls at all. That does not mean that this is how its played best. I would recommend reading an example of an alternative combat resolution in Children of Clay chapter 8.3 and 8.4, and the Story Element Combat suggestion of Fudge to better get my preference.

Other than the fact that I'm not necessarily fond of miniatures in RPGs (I like 'em fine in miniatures games, though) I completely disagree with this whole statement. Combat is one of the few elements of a game that absolutely has to have good mechanics for resolution, and has to have enough detail to be interesting. Again, I think d20 is a good balance -- there's almost two many options and things going on, but not quite, especially after having done it a few times to get the hang of it.

6. Not to orbit round the axis of challenge vs. ability. That games in which players, with their ability, try to beat the GMs challenges, and where the GM tries for it to be challenging, but not deadly - are poor games with my measure. This is a wrong (according to my dogma) and very boring (according to me) way of playing. It should be the same kind of cooperation between players and GM as there needs to be between a film director and its actors(&co-directors).

And I find your theory boring. While I do agree that not necessarily all challenges should be challenging but overcomeable by the PCs, it's not for the reasons you point out. Rather, I like the verisimilitude of having some encounters be relatively easy for the PCs, many encounters that are challenging for the PCs, and many that the PCs had better run away from as quickly as they can. But that's not because I want the experience to resemble a collaborative movie-making process, it's because I want the experience to resemble a living, breathing, "realistic" fantasy world.

7. All the regular stuff. If there's something that i havent covered, then my opinion is probably generic.

Hey, can't comment on that one!

 

[Dogbrain]

Clever, clever. Do you think i would have ever learned anything if i wouldnt allow myself to post as inflammable queries as this one?

Yes. And don't hide behind lies regarding your facility with English. You tripped yourself into demonstrating that you are sufficiently skilled with English to be a smartass--and that's sufficient skill to ask reasonable questions.

You go into a shoe store and complain that they have no hats.

 

[Wolv0rine]

True, but you also highlighted the part about English as a second (or more) language, but didn't highlight the fact that he did in fact agree that there's no difference between his opinion and an objective fact! He was stating that he didn't feel comfortable enough with English to explain that position, though...

Well, I was just pointing out the english part, I wasn't touching the rest. hehe

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, please, kill this thread. Id like to blanken my slate again.

Thread closed by original poster's request.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)