Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2415252" data-attributes="member: 32164">You know, it's funny. This touches on the old "roleplaying" vs. "roll-playing" discussion. You're essentially saying that these games still have player choice, but as you describe it, those choices are predominantly roleplaying ones with story, rather than mechanical, impact. If I choose to talk rather than fight, my choice has no mechanical effect, unless there are complicated social rules, but I detest "social interaction rolls" (except for their value in helping a less charismatic player play a charismatic character, if he wants to do so).My side of this debate is arguing that if you cut down on the mechanics to deal with situations that ought to be dealt with mechanically, there are fewer player choices. That's true. You have just as much "roleplaying" freedom with more mechanics as you do with less. The mechanics don't prevent the story side of the game from happening. In fact, they don't touch it at all, they just add on to it. As an aside, I'll add that I am sympathetic to GMs with limited prep time who find that coming up with mechanics takes away from their ability to develop the story side of the game. But to me, that means that the game needs more aids for GM prep, not fewer rules.If I'm GMing, I can describe a detailed combat with story elements that mechanically is nothing more than "swing-miss-swing-hit-swing-hit-swing-miss." I can also describe a detailed combat with story elements that derive from the mechanical ones. Personally, I prefer deriving the story from mechanical elements when the mechanics come first rather than making up the story elements, with little mechanical guidance. But I freely concede that's not everyone's preferred way of gaming. I'll describe my preferred style of play: Story first, followed by mechanics when the story comes first (as it does, or should, in world-building and character creation). When I make a character, I work from a character concept towards mechanics, not the other way around. However, if I come up with the concept, and there's no way to represent it mechanically, I get frustrated.However, it's mechanics first, followed by story when the mechanics impact the story (conflict and challenge resolution). If my choices have no mechanical impact, they're not choices that are relevant to the conflict resolution. I also like variety, where the choices I make give me a different toolkit to play with. It keeps the game interesting and is something that I like in addition to the roleplaying elements of a character. That's how I like to game.If there is no rules-impact, why have the distinction between characters at all? Their differences are entirely in your imagination. I just don't get it. And you're probably right, as you describe it, I doubt I'd like HeroQuest.My rules-lighter experiences include the various flavors of D&D pre-3e and a game my friend made up that had a simple and straight-forward resolution system akin to the kind people are describing. My friend was a good designer and storyteller and his game often relied on common sense to handle conflict resolution.I'll also add that I'm an amateur improv actor at the Ren Faire, so I don't get my roleplaying "fix" entirely from RPGs. Ergo, I separate and draw a distinction between "roleplaying" and "roleplay-gaming." The former is what I do at the Faire, the latter is what I want to do on a weekday evening.And I still maintain that the only thing a game can supply that truly aid roleplaying are guidelines for getting into character, not actual rules. Obviously, for those players for whom rules are a hindrance to their creativity, they're not getting much from rules. But game companies selling flavor text with simple rules are really selling flavor text, not rules.Make sense?</blockquote>

Verification