Playing in the Blank Spaces of the System

[Celebrim]

Mechanics provide for a sense of fairness, for lack of a better term. They take the decision out of the GM's hands to some degree or another.

This is the same thing as control, at least as a possibility. Whether they have narrator power is a separate issue, and whether they have or want the decision-making capability to exercise the potential control the mechanics give them is also a separate issue. As for that matter what areas the game system gives them control in - 4e for example does give players a large amount of control in combat.

As it relates to the subject of the thread, removing mechanics and relying on GM fiat for things that are supposed to be "the focus" makes sense assuming everyone trusts the GM in that regard. I think that's why it makes sense for Brennan but not necessarily as a general thing, at least from my perspective.

I don't watch Brennan (though my daughter is a big fan of his games) so I can't comment on his DMing style, but I have watched Mercer at work and Matt's style is essentially the same as mine (or what mine would be if all my players were professional thespians). He lets conversations and social interactions play out to create story and fictional positioning, and then usually gives a late social check to determine what the outcome of that play is based on his understanding of the fictional positioning and whether anything is at stake. Brennan could do something very similar, and it wouldn't detract from his point.

And again, for my purpose the issue is that the best way to generate concrete fictional positioning and realized dialogue and narration and to give the players the most chance to participate is essentially just improvisational theater. That's the least abstract game you can play. This is a very different situation than needing to play out a combat between a 40 foot long dragon and four heroes with magical ability. There the least abstract version of that I can probably do involves a battlemap and some sort of combat rules - hopefully rules that provide for tactics and motion and concrete choices by the players.

One thing I disagree with regarding the maker of the video commenting on Brennan's comment is that I don't think 1e AD&D combat was nearly as abstract in practice as he thinks it is, as the 3e D&D rules are just a cleaned-up version of 1e AD&D and if anything were often more abstract especially when it came to things like weapon differentiation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, of course. I like being surprised, too. The other part of the equation is the fiction. The fiction generally makes it obvious how things should go. So most of the time you don't have to decide and you don't have to fall back on mechanics. But, importantly, the mechanics you fall back on don't need to be complex. They can be astoundingly simple.

Sure! I’m not saying that game mechanics need to be complex.

Why not? The player could simply declare they were hiding and based on the fiction you could simply declare they were successful. People run games like this all the time.

Because of the fiction. There was a creature that was actively trying to find him, and knew he was in the general area.

Why? There's almost zero need for mechanics. If you want them, sure. Knock yourself out. But calling it a need is wrong. The fiction can decide the vast majority of situations without mechanics. You as the referee can decide the vast majority of situations not obvious from the fiction. It's only when you want to be surprised by the outcome or when you don't know what the outcome should be that you need some way to decide. And that can be anything, really. Checking a game mechanic is one option among many. You could poll the players, draw a playing card or a tarot card, pull up a random wiki page, pick from a chart or table, roll some dice...legit anything. You could also, I suppose, default to checking the massive tome of overly complicated rules for some mechanic.

At some point, without rules, I don’t know if we’re still playing a game.

Those are still target numbers and in almost all cases I can think of the referee has the ability to apply modifiers. The PbtA success ladder is still target numbers. BitD uses number of successes. If you have a specific game in mind that drastically limits the referee's ability to effect the outcomes of rolls, I'm all ears.

My point about GMs being limited was more about how few games allow all of those things. As for PbtA and FitD and similar games, those are predetermined. They’re static targets, determined by the rules rather than the GM.

Other games… Mothership among them… a static skill rank is what applies. Yes, the GM can say that Advantage or Disadvantage applies, but that’s really it.

Sure, why not? John Harper made a game called 50/50 all about fictional positioning where a coin flip was the only resolution mechanic. Works a treat.

My point was that combat can be decided simply. There’s nothing that says more mechanics must be needed for combat.

 

[Celebrim]

I mean, you could flip a coin.

I mean I'm glad that Celebrim's World's Simplest RPG is getting more admirers, but while you can flip a coin to determine the outcome of combat you cannot flip a coin to create the narrative of a combat. Those complex combat mechanics are ultimately in my opinion there to create story, and the less abstract they are the more they assist in creating story. Highly detailed combat mechanics would leave a transcript of play involving lunges, parries, dodges, charges and retreats, hails of missile fire, taunts and evasion and any number of other things. Even D&D level combat, abstract as it is, still creates a narrative transcript of play in the way "flip a coin" just doesn't.

And that is I think Brennan's point. If your goal is to create a narrative transcript that can be experienced as a story, well you need a combat system of some sort for that (Granted, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a tactical one. We could image a nar combat system.). Whereas if your goal is to create a narrative transcript of a social encounter that can be experienced as story, the less you have "I roll against savoire faire to trick the guard." and the more you have actual dialogue, the more the transcript you are creating is like a traditional story and experienced as one.

 

[overgeeked]

Because of the fiction. There was a creature that was actively trying to find him, and knew he was in the general area.

The fiction indicated the situation has conflict. The fiction doesn't indicate there needs to be mechanics used to determine the outcome. You can do that without resorting to mechanics. And again, the various other ways to determine outcomes that aren't game mechanics.

At some point, without rules, I don’t know if we’re still playing a game.

“A time-waster becomes a game when you add rules and an objective.” —Scott Rogers

Don't mistake rules for mechanics. They're not the same thing. A rule is follow the social contract. A mechanic is roll 2d6 and compare to this chart. You can have all kinds of rules without any mechanics and still be playing a game.

My point about GMs being limited was more about how few games allow all of those things. As for PbtA and FitD and similar games, those are predetermined. They’re static targets, determined by the rules rather than the GM.

Yes...but the referee can still apply modifiers in PbtA and determine how many successes are necessary in FitD.

Other games… Mothership among them… a static skill rank is what applies. Yes, the GM can say that Advantage or Disadvantage applies, but that’s really it.

Whether the person rolls at all, how many times they have to roll to accomplish something, modifiers, dis/advantage, etc.

My point was that combat can be decided simply. There’s nothing that says more mechanics must be needed for combat.

I agree completely. A single roll or a group roll is more than enough. You don't need 5E levels of complication.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The fiction indicated the situation has conflict. The fiction doesn't indicate there needs to be mechanics used to determine the outcome. You can do that without resorting to mechanics. And again, the various other ways to determine outcomes that aren't game mechanics.

But why would I when I’m playing a game that resolves all kinds of similar things in a given way?

Don't mistake rules for mechanics. They're not the same thing. A rule is follow the social contract. A mechanic is roll 2d6 and compare to this chart. You can have all kinds of rules without any mechanics and still be playing a game.

I’m not sure what examples you’d have in mind that would work in as satisfying a way and still remain simple in application.

Yes...but the referee can still apply modifiers in PbtA and determine how many successes are necessary in FitD.

Maybe to the first, depending on the version, though it’s often sited as something to not do. Most games that include +1 or -1 to rolls do so as the result of a prior roll.

On the second, regarding FitD, no version that I’m aware of works this way.

Whether the person rolls at all, how many times they have to roll to accomplish something, modifiers, dis/advantage, etc.

As I said, bot all of these will be available to a GM in all games. Some games don’t have anything like advantage. Some games specifically state that one roll resolves a situation and to never have someone roll twice for the same thing.