More rules = more roleplay! (or 'Perception overload')

[simon_hibbs]

I can't imagine anyone who repeditively makes the same character and uses the same options will have his habits changed by use of a rules light system and rich setting. It would certainly frustrate his attempts to do so, but that eliminates the symptom, not the problem. And the problem is with the player.

I don't think so, if the game makes it objectively advantageous to select certain options (dual wield for Rangers; When multiclassing as a thief always take the level of Thief first; Always give your GURPS combat character Combat reflexes, etc, etc), players fell forced into taking those options and either feel cheated by the syustem if they don't do that, or arm-twisted if they do.

I disagree with you that it's the player's fault - it's the game system designer's responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. Yet complex systems seem to always end up with these optimal sets of choices. Simple systems aren't immune form this, but it's much easier to avoid such problems.

The other way is that it is something the GM shares with the players through narration, but most interaction with objects is done by interacting with the GM directly, a GM-centric method.

Basically, the fewer rules there are, the more this method works on faith. The players either have faith in that the GM runs all interactions through some sort of rules set in his head, or they don't have faith and see it as a 'please the GM to do anything' method.

That analysis completely ignores richness of setting as a source of 'rules'. I've never yet seen a Stra Trek game with rules for the effects of Tribbles on Klingons (they may exist, but I haven't come across them), yet the fact that they do is part of the setting. it's mentioned in the LUG game, but no rules are provided. Using transporters to tacticaly deploy people or material is hardly a rules issue, but the fact that transporters exist and work as they do is a 'rule' of the Star Trek universe. Game settings can offer resources and options that characters can use to resolve conflicts indently of the game system.

Ok, using the transporters might require a 'Transporter Use Roll', but for most characters that should be trivial. Characters in the game should fail at such things about as often as characters in the TV series do - i.e. practialy never.

The issue of faith is an oft-disputed one. Without faith in the GM, roleplaying games are doomed to imminent failiure. The idea that the game system offers protection from the ravages of an un-trustworthy GM is a particularly ephemeral fig leaf. Maybe the combat system gives you a fair chance to defeat an orc that the GM might otherwise deny you, but what's to stop the GM throwing two orcs at you, or ten? Game ballance is ever in the GMs hands whatever game system you use.

There's an old argument that all roleplaying games are largely diceless. If you actualy look at what characters do in a typical game session, they do huge numbers of things that could resonably be determined using dice, yet are fudged by the GM and players for convenience. It's merely a matter of taste and convention that certain activities are routinely resolved using mechanics and others aren't. For example D&D has only the most rudimentary rules for interpersonal interactions (relationships, passions, persuasion, social taboos), and even so many D&D groups ignore what rules there are and run most interpersonal interractions entirely dicelessly.

Classic D&D and AD&D had almost no rules for this, and so all such situations were excercises in diceless gaming, relying entirely on trust and using techniques advocated in games such as Amber without any concious awareness of that fact. I've seen it done in even the most traditional old-style games from Traveller (negotiations with patrons, trade deals, blackmail, etc) to Rolemaster (pleading for the life of a coptive due for execution). Those situations were determined 'Amber style'. Some modern games such as HeroQuest provides lightweight rules for resolving any conflict, including ones of this sort, so at least they're consistent.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Simon's point is pretty much what I was saying earlier, and the point about what makes Attack Vector work. It's not so much that there are many, many different rules. It's that you use them a lot. Hence why D&D isn't as good as HQ in this regard. With D&D, each rule has to be learned separately. That means that the Search and Handling time for their use is higher. Meaning that your Fun-per-unit-time is reduced.

The solution is to have an easy to use system, and to have it be complex in it's application. Hence why Chess and Go are good games this way. A starting chess board has only 18 starting moves (many of which are crap). It's a simple game in that way to learn. What's complex about chess is that the overall strategy is hard to discern. Go even moreso - simpler yet harder to master.

So in terms of use, the simpler game is better on the -per-unit-time end of the fraction. All you have to do is to ensure that the Fun part is just as good, and you have the superior game. Fortunately the situation of the narration provides the color that makes chess a more interesting game than go to some.

Now, that said, lots of rules can be fun too if they're really done well. But the more rules, the harder it is to make them work together to stay at the high level of output. So it's the harder spec. But not impossible.

Given a particular design, however, I think that the fastest way to greater reliability in fun production is to simply make the use of system more prevalent. As Noon says, Continents instead of islands. Or something like that.

There is a threat of overload in terms of feedback as well, however. At some point it all blurs and you don't get anything from it. I'd posit that the optimum point stops a bit short of doing nothing but using mechanics. There has to be some cool interspersal of narration in there at a rate that keeps that interesting.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I don't think so, if the game makes it objectively advantageous to select certain options (dual wield for Rangers; When multiclassing as a thief always take the level of Thief first; Always give your GURPS combat character Combat reflexes, etc, etc), players fell forced into taking those options and either feel cheated by the syustem if they don't do that, or arm-twisted if they do.

I disagree with you that it's the player's fault - it's the game system designer's responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. Yet complex systems seem to always end up with these optimal sets of choices. Simple systems aren't immune form this, but it's much easier to avoid such problems.

I was trying to avoid the word 'fault' in terms of their activity. Artistic differences seems a better one.

Now, lets look at what advantageous is. It's presuming a certain goal is highly preferential, for example being a wicked ass fighter. Since this goal is always preferential, then the same options to reach it are always preferential to be taken. It's a fixation on the same goal that sets this up. It occurs to me using a rich setting and use of a simple system just means this fixation is frustrated. Unless it somehow changes the players PC design goals...and why couldn't he change that in D&D in the first place (and I don't believe a systems ruleset brainwashes a certain goal into place...though RPG sub culture might do, of course. But that's not a systems fault, just its reputation)?

BTW, what do you mean by simple rules? In my original post I already talk about rules that are so well designed they by themselves can do the work of dozens of other rules (by implications). Since I already reference that this is even better than dozens of less well designed rules, I've assumed you mean something quite simple and with little implications as well. In other words, a simple probability map rather than a simple system that by its good design, delivers a complex probability map.

The other way is that it is something the GM shares with the players through narration, but most interaction with objects is done by interacting with the GM directly, a GM-centric method.

Basically, the fewer rules there are, the more this method works on faith. The players either have faith in that the GM runs all interactions through some sort of rules set in his head, or they don't have faith and see it as a 'please the GM to do anything' method.

That analysis completely ignores richness of setting as a source of 'rules'. I've never yet seen a Stra Trek game with rules for the effects of Tribbles on Klingons (they may exist, but I haven't come across them), yet the fact that they do is part of the setting. it's mentioned in the LUG game, but no rules are provided. Using transporters to tacticaly deploy people or material is hardly a rules issue, but the fact that transporters exist and work as they do is a 'rule' of the Star Trek universe. Game settings can offer resources and options that characters can use to resolve conflicts indently of the game system.

Correct, the analysis does definately say settings aren't a source of rules. That's because it does say setting is a source of GM generated rules. Some players may think rules and GM generated rules are the same, but that's sleight (sp?) of hand at its best (and I mean in a positive way).

Ok, using the transporters might require a 'Transporter Use Roll', but for most characters that should be trivial. Characters in the game should fail at such things about as often as characters in the TV series do - i.e. practialy never.

The issue of faith is an oft-disputed one. Without faith in the GM, roleplaying games are doomed to imminent failiure. *snip*

Careful, your talking about faith in the GM like its a binary status, it's there or it's not, and that's just too simplified for discussion purposes, IMO. I'd prefer to reference a sliding scale, with perhaps the ultimate expression of faith being in a group that uses no purchased system, no purchased setting, no character sheets, no dice. Just GM and players at an empty table, with the GM handling absolutely all interaction.

Going down the sliding scale we get 'islands' of rules regulated action amidst seas of narration. The players have faith in their GM, but he is only human and the rules provide some qualities a human can't, consistantly (the GM recoginises this as well, so its all consenting).

However, the more you source setting for GM generated rules, the higher the faith slider must be able to go. Tribbles aren't printed rules, they are GM generated ones. The more of these you use, the closer your faith slider needs to be to the former example.

Really, I don't think the system author can help with group faith all that much. Particularly in the former example, he can't even sell them a book, dammit! :) He can help with probability maps and quality rule design to generate them, though.