Out with the old (Game design traditions we should let go)

[niklinna]

TORG is an amazing game, and yet...it's stupid hard to get people to play it. I mean, there's a CYBERPAPACY! It's fun just saying the word!

I'm playing Torg Eternity right now. We're fighting sharks and frogmen in some underwater ruins in the Nile Empire. Good times.

 

[Gradine]

 

[billd91]

I'm sure that holds true for a lot of older games.

Not just games. Look at how well New Coke went over with people who identified with the Coca Cola brand. It’s part of the point of having a distinct identity.
Screw with it too much and you’re screwing with your success.

 

[Hex08]

Just because something appeals to a number of people does nothing to establish its value. Justin Bieber is a good example.

It may not establish any value to you, but value is relative. Justin Beiber (or the Kardashians) has value to his legions of fans and those in his orbit who profit from his music regardless of your opinion of his music or him as a person. I can't stand Justin Beiber as a musician or a person, but he obviously has value to a great many people regardless of my opinion.

There is a whole, wide world out there with many views other than your personal opinions. Diminishing the value that others place on something based on your personal opinion is a bit narrow minded.

 

[James Gasik]

I think MDC is a fantastic idea. I don't believe the impelmentation in RIFTs was great, but it makes a lot of sense. A .45 caliber pistol isn't going to be able to penetrate the armor on a Sherman tank. MDC, if implemented properly, would avoid number creep.

The issue was, at least for me, some characters are MDC rated by default, and some are not. So if an Amazon can do MDC damage with a punch, anything that lacks MDC is just turned into fine red mist. At least with other games that have a "superior" damage type, like Vampire's aggravated damage, it's bad, but you might survive an attack, and depending on the source, you could acquire armor that can defend against it (like against claws or fangs).

 

[Aldarc]

It’s weird, but I completely agree. System does absolutely matter. But, to me, that’s the problem. System shapes and focuses and limits the imagination.

IME, the imgination blossoms and shines when it works under limits and focus rather than when it runs unbridled. The focus of those limitations can lead us to greener, more fruitful pastures that we wouldn't normally reach on our own. The reality of unbridled imagination is that it very often leads people back to their oft-trampled mental comfort zones that require little effort, conflict, or challenge to traverse. Limitless imagination is overrated.

I’ll quote Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws from Over the Edge.

“And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening. Complex mechanics, in their effort to tell you what you can do, generally do a fair job of implying what you cannot do.”

Those are nice words from Tweet, but keep in mind that this is the same Jonathan Tweet who also helped lead design Ars Magica, 3e D&D, and 13th Age. His words here say one thing but the body of his works say another.

I’d rather a simple, light system that does most things well where the referee can making rulings when they need to rather than a tome That Must Be Obeyed.

Thankfully there is a tremendous wealth of gaming preferences beyond these two positions.

Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?

Because some people prefer that it is handled mechanically, and they find that a given mechanical method enhances rather than detracts from their gaming experiences. Moreover, those preferences are valid.

 

[MGibster]

The issue was, at least for me, some characters are MDC rated by default, and some are not. So if an Amazon can do MDC damage with a punch, anything that lacks MDC is just turned into fine red mist.

Oh, yeah. That was the big problem with RIFTS which translated into Savage Rifts as well. When pretty much everything does MDC, what's the point of SDC at all?

 

[Umbran]

Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?

So, it does not seem like they said they couldn't give out rewards that way. So, this seems to me to be a poorly formed question.

But, the answer lies in the fact that we are not engaged in free role-playing. If we were, you'd be right, as the only rewards available would be diegetic ones. But, we are engaged in a role playing game. A properly designed game should reward the player for engaging in activity aligned with the game's design goals, and not reward behavior contrary to those goals. A poorly designed game will still reward some behaviors over others, but will do so rather arbitrarily, instead of along some intent.

Rules, being non-sentient, cannot connect with story. That makes purely diegetic rewards into GM-whim awards. At which point we can validly ask why you are using rules at all, and are not instead engaging in free role-play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, it does not seem like they said they couldn't give out rewards that way. So, this seems to me to be a poorly formed question.

But, the answer lies in the fact that we are not engaged in free role-playing. If we were, you'd be right, as the only rewards available would be diegetic ones. But, we are engaged in a role playing game. A properly designed game should reward the player for engaging in activity aligned with the game's design goals, and not reward behavior contrary to those goals. A poorly designed game will still reward some behaviors over others, but will do so rather arbitrarily, instead of along some intent.

Rules, being non-sentient, cannot connect with story. That makes purely diegetic rewards into GM-whim awards. At which point we can validly ask why you are using rules at all, and are not instead engaging in free role-play.

To be fair, @overgeeked champions GM-led free role play with, at the most. coin toss tie breaker mechanics.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It may not establish any value to you, but value is relative. Justin Beiber (or the Kardashians) has value to his legions of fans and those in his orbit who profit from his music regardless of your opinion of his music or him as a person. I can't stand Justin Beiber as a musician or a person, but he obviously has value to a great many people regardless of my opinion.

There is a whole, wide world out there with many views other than your personal opinions. Diminishing the value that others place on something based on your personal opinion is a bit narrow minded.

History shows that sort of passive acceptance has been of great aid to many negative movements. There is, as you have noted, an entire world out there.

But we have wandered very far from the point of the thread.