Playing in the Blank Spaces of the System

[Reynard]

This is a really thought provoking video by Question Beast:


I had not really considered before how the empty spaces in the system might enhance play for that thing that is "missing." it is an intriguing thought, and if I consider my own play experiences, it feels like it might be broadly true. Not universally, though. there are some areas where a lack of system makes that part of play harder --domain management or war, say -- but I do think the idea of not having a stealth system or a persuasion system puts a different kind of focus on those aspects of play.

I should hunt down the original interview.

What do you think about this?

 

[thefutilist]

It’s bad theory and I think there needs to be a name for it, the functional fallacy or something like that. There’s an osr blog post, and it’s a brilliant post, just utterly wrong, it’s called something like ’rules elide’, that has a similar take. Or the old one, ‘I use rules that get out of the way.’

So to my way of thinking, you’re resolving ‘something’ and you’re approaching the thing that needs to be resolved in a certain way. I mean the first and most obvious thing is that you’re including the thing in the game at all. Then the second is, that whatever mechanic you use is going to have ‘some’ impact.

D&D combat takes time, Brennan isn’t using a universal resolution mechanic combat to solve it in a roll or two. Why is that? Why focus on the very granular stuff D&D does, in the way that D&D does?

So anyway it’s a fallacy if we turn it on it’s head. I don’t use the social mechanics from say Monsterhearts, because I need to figure out how to do social stuff, I.E make it functional. I use them because it offers a specific play experience. Which is true for all mechanics, it’s just people no longer see it because they’ve become so used to their way of doing things they’ve developed a parochial view. Or put another way, how D&D does things is considered the standard.

And I’m not knocking doing what Brennan is doing. If you need to use some rules for combat or whatever then fine, it’s just at one point the specifics of those rules were a choice and there are many other ways of doing the thing you need doing.

 

[Reynard]

It’s bad theory and I think there needs to be a name for it, the functional fallacy or something like that. There’s an osr blog post, and it’s a brilliant post, just utterly wrong, it’s called something like ’rules elide’, that has a similar take. Or the old one, ‘I use rules that get out of the way.’

So to my way of thinking, you’re resolving ‘something’ and you’re approaching the thing that needs to be resolved in a certain way. I mean the first and most obvious thing is that you’re including the thing in the game at all. Then the second is, that whatever mechanic you use is going to have ‘some’ impact.

D&D combat takes time, Brennan isn’t using a universal resolution mechanic combat to solve it in a roll or two. Why is that? Why focus on the very granular stuff D&D does, in the way that D&D does?

So anyway it’s a fallacy if we turn it on it’s head. I don’t use the social mechanics from say Monsterhearts, because I need to figure out how to do social stuff, I.E make it functional. I use them because it offers a specific play experience. Which is true for all mechanics, it’s just people no longer see it because they’ve become so used to their way of doing things they’ve developed a parochial view. Or put another way, how D&D does things is considered the standard.

And I’m not knocking doing what Brennan is doing. If you need to use some rules for combat or whatever then fine, it’s just at one point the specifics of those rules were a choice and there are many other ways of doing the thing you need doing.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. The video isn't about why he uses 5E combatvrules, it's about why he uses games (like 5e) that don't support an important aspect of play with mechanics. The point is that not having rules for a thing means they engage it more deeply, because it has to be more of a conversation than if there are rules for it.

We've seem this before,pretty much any time we talk about the pros and cons of social mechanics on these boards.

I am not totally sold,of course. But I do think it is intriguing and worth talking about.

 

[Aldarc]

I think that if you are interested in the negative space of a game and are only loosely interested having some modeling for the combat aspects of a game, then 5e D&D still feels like an odd choice of games.

 

[Reynard]

I think that if you are interested in the negative space of a game and are only loosely interested having some modeling for the combat aspects of a game, then 5e D&D still feels like an odd choice of games.

Why? 5E doesn't have any narrative mechanics and that's what he is aiming for.

 

[soviet]

Why? 5E doesn't have any narrative mechanics and that's what he is aiming for.

Backgrounds!

 

[Aldarc]

Why? 5E doesn't have any narrative mechanics and that's what he is aiming for.

Maybe you are not following what I'm saying. I am saying that there are many other games that don't have narrative mechanics either that are also not as combat crunchy as 5e D&D is.

 

[overgeeked]

Like most things, it depends on the people involved. What Ben is saying makes sense, to a point. If there are no rules for something then the onus is on the referee to handle it. Which can be great or terrible depending on the referee.

What playing in the gaps allows is for the referee, and by extension the table, to customize their experience. Both in what is and is not relevant to their games but also in what ways things are handled during play. Whether mechanically with a roll or descriptively with back-and-forth conversation between the referee and players.

But, because the referee is on the hook to cover those gaps, they will be more or less willing to deal with things depending on how well they think they can handle them. If you happen to be a professional improviser, like Brennan, then great...you can easily handle all the social interactions seamlessly. But if you're not a professional improviser? You might want at least some advice or guidance on how to handle those things. Maybe even have some simple rules to use (cough Reaction rolls & tables cough).

This is also why I prefer rules light or ultra-light games and FKR. Playing a custom experience is fun. Playing in the gaps is fun. Only having to deal with simple rules that can cover lots of things is easier than detailed systems with rules for everything. And players who gravitate to those games also have a similar mindset.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Like most things, it depends on the people involved. What Ben is saying makes sense, to a point. If there are no rules for something then the onus is on the referee to handle it. Which can be great or terrible depending on the referee.

Came here to say this.

I really like Brennan as a gamemaster and as a general deep thinker about RPGs (seriously, his Adventuring Academy videos are great and well worth watching), but most people cannot improvise as well as Brennan and the rest of the professional impov folks he plays with on camera. So what works for him may well not work for everyone.

Although I am definitely not a professional improv guy, I am still extremely comfortable winging stuff on the fly, including social stuff. And, like Brennan says, what I need rules (and written down data in general) for is the stuff I don't know, including how combat works or what goes where on a sailing ship or what kind of crops would be grown in a traditional D&D setting. Me winging that stuff would quickly turn into nonsense. But for the stuff I'm comfortable with, I prefer to have little or no rules, and will toss stuff overboard if I find it to be an issue.

But again, not every DM or every group will be comfortable with this. YMMV. There is no one-size-fits-all answer for how rules-based an RPG should be, just what is a good fit for each group of people.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe you are not following what I'm saying. I am saying that there are many other games that don't have narrative mechanics either that are also not as combat crunchy as 5e D&D is.

I thought he said he wanted crunchy combat rules. But I haven't tracked down the actual interview yet so I could be wrong.