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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9214213" data-attributes="member: 70468">Including the rules as a player seems like a stretch. I am having trouble with it because common definitions of game definite it as an activity where players act in accordance to rules. The issue with calling rules a player in that game is they do not operate in accordance to themselves because there’s nothing binding them to do so. The players can agree to bind themselves, but rules are not capable of that (being an idea rather than a person).What you’ve identified seems to be what Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design by Adams and Dormans refers to as social interaction mechanics. While I know you’re familiar with that work, allow me to explain for others: these are mechanics that govern how players interact with each other. Adams gives examples such as gift-giving mechanics in a video game that allow players to reward each other and also mentions board games, which I would take to mean things like how bids are handled in a game with auctions (etc).Adams suggests “play acting” for tabletop RPGs as their social interaction mechanics, but I don’t think that’s sufficient. The book’s understanding of tabletop RPGs overall has some blind spots. This is a conversation we’ve had before, so I’m not going to rehash it here. However, just like continuous mechanics tend to be something that only video games can do, I’d argue that the various formulations of social interaction mechanics in tabletop RPGs occupy a similar space in game design (though obviously not strictly limited to them).You’ve identified a few key things here.The first is that there are different social interaction mechanics. It’s not stated explicitly, but it is an implication of the problem you identified. In that situation, players are expecting one set of social interaction mechanics (what you would call “improv play”) but are getting a different set (what I would call “PbtA” for lack of a better name). I would also identify “Kriegspiel/Braunstein” (as inspired Arneson to do his Blackmoor campaign) as another one, but I would not limit the scope of social interaction mechanics to just those three.I’m more of a splitter than a lumper, so while they may viewed as instances of a general improvisational pattern (including but distinct from “improv play”, which would be an instance of the pattern), I find more value in treating them as separate in general. I think that helps avoid implications of legitimacy while allowing for a potentially larger field of mechanics to be considered and compared. That’s particularly important in RPG discourse where particular patterns or style play are treated as normative and others as deviant (or illegitimate).The other issue you identify correctly is how common it is for games to rely on oral traditions and in-group onboarding to promulgate their social interaction mechanics. You mention “improv play”, but that is but one possible set of social interaction mechanics. While it’s obviously problematic for learning a game if your only resource is the game’s text, I think a bigger issue is it serves as a natural limiter on what social interaction mechanics games can have. People will do what they know, and if the are only taught one set (such as “improv play”), that’s all they’ll do or expect to do, resulting in friction when trying games with different mechanics.What I’m trying to set up here is looking at differences in social interaction mechanics as similar to differences between other kinds of mechanics. The friction people experience trying different games comes from an expectation that parts of the game they play are taught, and having learned those parts already, dissonance follows when a new game doesn’t work like they expect. It would be like being taught that every takes turns after rolling initiative once at the start of combat, and then having trouble when a game doesn’t use initiative or handles it differently (e.g., side-based initiative, making certain decisions at the start of the round, etc).⁂As an aside, I encountered a situation with initiative in my homebrew system. Combat starts with an equip phase where you declare which items are equiped in your hands (or that you have “equipped” certain abilities such as spellcasting). During the round, you can’t change the item you have equipped short of dropping it. If you want to swap to a new item, you have to wait for the next equip phase. If you want to get something out of your pack, you equip your pack, then you use your action to swap items between it and your inventory grid, making them available in the next equip phase. I do this for a few reasons.It forces a specific cadence in combat. If you don’t pick the right thing or anticipate correctly, it makes you naturally off guard. You don’t have the tools you need, and the best you can do is retreat or reposition. It also provides a natural trigger for combat. If someone draws a weapon, they are instigating an equip phase, so then they roll initiative (along with any other PCs who performed an equip phase, which the referee should prompt to see if who is joining the battle). It also allows me to do monster telegraphs. The PCs in my game once fought a gibbering mouther. All it took was saying, “the monster equips gibbering,” to instill fear in my players.Anyway, one of my players has been confused by how this works. He made a mistake and wanted to change his equipment during a round, which you can’t do. That’s not how things work. He’s not wrong or bad for making a mistake and being confused, but it’s also not bad that my homebrew system is different. His issue came from seeing the game as a D&D-like, which is fair, but also expecting initiative to be handled in a traditional way (though as noted <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/your-harebrained-ideas.701337/post-9212567" target="_blank">here</a>, having to commit to certain actions at the start of the round is not unprecedented in D&D).</blockquote>

Verification