When the system gets in the way

[buzz]

Then there is another point I woul like to address. Some people claim that min-maxing is human nature. It might be in game land, but in real life it is anything but.

I think you're confusing "striving for perfection" with min-maxing. People will generally take what they think is the better deal (whether it really is or not). At least, that's the Game Theory concept (and I mean in the math, "A Beautiful Mind" sense, not RPG theory).

 

[cthulhu_duck]

I think it's complex.

I personally feel that system does not necessarily dictate style of play.

It's like genetics - certain genes may make it more likely that you'll develop diabetes, a heart condition, etc - but it's not guaranteed (and not being a genetics expert, I may have that wrong).

Likewise, some game systems may be more likely to lead towards certain styles of play in particular groups or with particular players. But for some players and some groups, what the system is largely doesn't matter. Their style of play tends to be largely system neutral and you see the same playing style(s) and results of play irrespective of system.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Why is it so hard to accept that it's always the system and the group?

If the same players play differently with a different system, obviously system matters.

The system's properties are unchanging. It's the players whose responses vary; since Group A can roleplay satisfactorily with Game Y, and Group B cannot but find Game Z to their tastes where Group A hates it, I would argue that it's clearly the people and their tastes which make the difference.

In other words, the game only gets in the way if you're the kind of player who's bothered by its kind of features.

 

[Barak]

The system's properties are unchanging. It's the players whose responses vary; since Group A can roleplay satisfactorily with Game Y, and Group B cannot but find Game Z to their tastes where Group A hates it, I would argue that it's clearly the people and their tastes which make the difference.

In other words, the game only gets in the way if you're the kind of player who's bothered by its kind of features.

That's an excellent point. Actually, I posit that rules-light systems would suffer even more from min-maxers. Luckily, min-maxers tend not to like rules light systems, since their fun comes from making great (as in powerful) characters. Let me explain.

The lighter the rules, the more obvious are the "best" options for a min-maxer. Less rules=less decisions in character building (from a combat point of view, anyway). Take two great powergamers in D&D, and ask them for the "best" character they can build of a given level. I can guarantee you they will be totally different (yet both disgusingly powerful). The simpler the system, the closest said characters will be, mechanically.

The reason rules-light systems work well for roleplaying, IMHO, is that they come packaged with a different socail contract. The very way the game is presented implies that people should attempt to create a certain type of characters. Rules-heavy system, by their very nature, allow people to min-max more -because- it's possible to do so while having very different characters, therefore characters that are still going to be interesting to play.

 

[The Shaman]

The reason rules-light systems work well for roleplaying, IMHO, is that they come packaged with a different social contract.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[big dummy]

Like the thread, not surprisignly and I agree with the OP.

I think the social contract idea is a good point. But I have another.

I don't think it's jut the level of complexity which defines the game. Again, the social contract which is impliedin the flavor of the rules playes a role, but so do the specific rules. The Riddle of Steel for example has an extremely realistic combat system and is a fairly complex game in terms of rules, probably almost as complex as 3E (epecially if you use all the options from all the expansions) yet due to the nature of those rules it heavily emphasizes role playing. In fact, due to the key "Spiritual Attribute" mechanic, the best way to min-max your character in play IS to role play and think of ways of tying your characters motivations into the plot of the game.

Conversely, I've played some older rules-lite games which seemed to encourage all the min maxing and more mechanical modes of play. Same for video games and some MMORPGs of course.

Bottom line though, I think with 3E both the social contract (as interpreted by the fan base on the web especially) and the rules mechanics themselves (certain ones in particular) contribute to the problems outlined by the OP and other posters. I've seen the same thing many times.

BD

 

[buzz]

The reason rules-light systems work well for roleplaying, IMHO, is that they come packaged with a different socail contract.

If we're again using "roleplaying" to mean "immersion", I'm not sure that I buy the first part of this statement, as I have not seen it true, across the board, in my play experience. That is, I haven't seen "lite" be especially better or worse in this regard.

As for the second part, I can't think of many games I've read, lite or no, that address social contract directly at all (which is part of the problem with many RPGs). Ergo, I'm not sure what social contract is being "packaged" with them. Of the two I've read that do address contract fairly specifically—Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard—the former is quite crunchy and the latter pretty simple.

I've also seen both heavy and "lite" systems that do the bait-and-switch tactic of presenting the GM and players with mutually incomapitble guidance, which I would consider an impediment to "roleplaying" (both "immersion"-wise and in general).

I think it comes down to what mhacdebhandia was getting at, i.e., whether your goals are compatible with what's facilitated by the system. If the system gives absolutely no incentive to play a one-legged wizard with an Int of 8, then I can't blame any player for not wanitng to play one, and I'm not going to call them a "minmaxer" when they choose a more effective PC.

If I was really after making that dull, one-legged wizard an interesting RP'ing experience, I'd look for a system that rewarded those choices. E.g., one with an ads/disads system that gave me extra points for being one-legged and not-so-smart, or one that allowed interesting things to happen whenever those complications arose in play.

So, in that sense, system certainly can get in the way, but not so much (IMO) w/r/t complexity, but in whether it facilitates the kind of play you're after. I.e., "System Does Matter".

 

[Raven Crowking]

If we're again using "roleplaying" to mean "immersion"

I believe that we are using "roleplaying" to mean "playing a role", i.e., a role within the game world which is informed by, but distinct from, metagaming concerns.

"As for the second part, I can't think of many games I've read, lite or no, that address social contract directly at all (which is part of the problem with many RPGs)."

Although the words "Social Contract" are not used, the 1st Edition books address it fairly rigorously IMHO. At one point (pre-crash) I quoted several paragraphs from the 1st Ed PHB that specifically addressed this sort of thing.....what one might think of as meta-metagame issues.

The closest that 3.0 came to a social contract is the inclusion of Rule 0, and that was pushed farther into the background with 3.5 (I believe you once challenged me to find Rule 0 in 3.5), making this edition the most challenged in that aspect. As a result, I'm not surprised that you are not sure what social contract is being "packaged" with the current ruleset.

If the system gives absolutely no incentive to play a one-legged wizard with an Int of 8, then I can't blame any player for not wanitng to play one, and I'm not going to call them a "minmaxer" when they choose a more effective PC.

Now, this I agree with. Every rpg (and every GM, and every campaign), knowingly or unknowingly, rewards certain types of behaviour. If you are playing checkers, you can hardly fault someone for taking your men and getting a king. If you are playing Monopoly, you can hardly fault someone for collecting rent on Boardwalk. The same applies equally to D&D. The rules set the conditions by which victory is met, and hence how the game is played. If you only give XP for opponents slain, be certain that there will be few (if any) prisoners taken!

As I said earlier, dealing with metagame issues does not preclude roleplaying in any sense, but mistaking metagame issues for in-character issues might well inhibit roleplaying.

 

[BryonD]

The reason rules-light systems work well for roleplaying, IMHO, is that they come packaged with a different socail contract.

hmmm.

I think I disagree.
If your statement were correct, then that would imply that people who prefer rules robust systems are better role-players.

I certainly don't find that players who like robust system have any trouble role-player under that "social contract". And yet a rules light system also does not inhibit role-playing for these same people. Thus, if rules light gamers need the rules light "social contract", while robust rules gamers do not, this would be a limitation in rules light players.

I do not believe this actually exists. Thus, I disagree.

 

[buzz]

Thus, if rules light gamers need the rules light "social contract", while robust rules gamers do not, this would be a limitation in rules light players.

IMO, traditional "rules-lite" games require a pretty high level of group trust, as fiat is generally a big part of the resolution process. Depending on the group this can be really good or disastrously bad.

Not that complex games are inherently more immune, mind you. The real issue isn't so much "heavy"/"lite" as it is "good"/"bad". E.g., both GURPS and HERO (I think we can agree these count as "heavy") allow, RAW, a good degree of fiat on the part of the GM. If the group isn't on the same page in this regard, catastrophe can ensue.

(I freakin' love HERO, but this is an admitted peeve of mine with the system.)

OTOH, the dense-as-heck Spycraft 2.0 is actually very explicit about the role of the GM and the players. The whole fudging process is systematized in the Action Dice and Dramatic Scene mechanics, among others.