Sacred cows II (split)

[Precious Villain]

Mr. Analytical, the problem with saying "it's so they don't have to relearn the system" is that the statement isn't true.  Feats, prestige classes and basic classes are part of the system.  Feats are all just little rules, and there sure heck doesn't seem a lot of thought that goes into them.  Classes and prestige classes are rules, too, and again a lot get tossed in there.  Why?  Every d20 book puts in these little rules and you have to track them somehow.  It's not as bad as Shadowrun or Rolemaster, where rules you need to play the game are scattered across half a dozen books, but this stuff does burden players at character creation and at least every couple of levels.

Death from a thousand cuts?  Straw that broke the camel's back?  Not sure which one is right, here :)

I can't believe that every d20 book needs a handful of prestige classes to communicate its theme.  The only possible reason they're there is that designers think "This is kinda cool" and throw it in.  That's great as far as it goes, but this stuff can go too far (open up some "Rifts" books if you don't believe me).  Heck, a lot of the new feats and classes kind of suck if you ask me.

[MR. Analytical]

Mr. Analytical, the problem with saying "it's so they don't have to relearn the system" is that the statement isn't true.  Feats, prestige classes and basic classes are part of the system.

Precious,

I think you're creditting me with a stronger claim than the one I've actually made.  For the record, I completely agree with you that the D20 argument as it's normally put forward by D20 fans doesn't work because A) people had to learn D20 initially anyway, B) the system expands as the crunch expands (your point) and C) once you get down to it, familiarity with D&D won't allow you to slide straight into an M&M game.

My claim though is a weaker one.  Namely that ease of uptake is an issue and that some concepts (sacred cows) are familiar and therefore ease the uptake for new gamers.  Everyone understands 2 variable character typing (race, class or  culture, social class or Aspect, job before exaltation.  If you're a seasoned gamer you'll fly through this stuff... pausing only to notice interesting tweaks here and there.   To me, this ease of uptake can be a good thing.  Annecdotally, a friend of mine recently baught the french game Retrofutur... well I say recently... he bought it about 2 years ago and we still haven't played it because he can't understand the skill system.

Surely you won't reproach me saying that shifting from Vampire to Adventure! is easier and less traumatising than shifting from D&D to Nobilis?  It's an extreme set of cases but I think there's grounds for a point :-)


I believe that system matters but it's a more complex claim than meets the eye.  It's normally taken to mean that system sculpts experience ergo it can't be ignored if you're serious about creating a certain gaming experience.  I think this is true but I think that "experience" here is taken far too narrowly.  Ease of uptake, familiarity, and intuitiveness are also important and good things even in cases where the system completely fails to feed into the RPG experience (as narrowly conceived).

Consider, for example, Unisystem's success.  It's easy, it's intuitive, you read it once and you understand it.  It's a great system and as far as my group are concerned it's had a positive impact upon our gaming experience.


So my point, originally, was that sacred cows can be nice to have around.  Even for experienced gamers.  Killing the cows in order to get new cows is just as silly as keeping them around and refusing to contemplate getting new ones.

[madelf]

Mr. Analytical, the problem with saying "it's so they don't have to relearn the system" is that the statement isn't true.  Feats, prestige classes and basic classes are part of the system.  Feats are all just little rules, and there sure heck doesn't seem a lot of thought that goes into them.  Classes and prestige classes are rules, too, and again a lot get tossed in there.  Why?  Every d20 book puts in these little rules and you have to track them somehow.  It's not as bad as Shadowrun or Rolemaster, where rules you need to play the game are scattered across half a dozen books, but this stuff does burden players at character creation and at least every couple of levels.

Death from a thousand cuts?  Straw that broke the camel's back?  Not sure which one is right, here :)

I can't believe that every d20 book needs a handful of prestige classes to communicate its theme.  The only possible reason they're there is that designers think "This is kinda cool" and throw it in.  That's great as far as it goes, but this stuff can go too far (open up some "Rifts" books if you don't believe me).  Heck, a lot of the new feats and classes kind of suck if you ask me.

You seem to be confusing optional and supplemental rule add-ons with the base mechanic. Of course there are too many classes and prestige classes for d20. I'm sure that's a big reason why the new "Buy the Numbers" classless system for D20 is selling so well. But even with all of those prestige classes, or no classes at all, it's still D20 and the basic system is still familiar to those who already know D&D. They know what a prestige class, or feat, is and can immediately implement it in their game. It's just an expansion of the known mechanic

Non D&D D20 products are a fantastic example of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." People have used the D20 system to make games in a myriad of genres and now people familiar with D20 can play all of those games without learning an entirely new system for each one (just the few tweaks used to conform to the genre style) That's going to appeal to a whole lot of people. Not all of them certainly, even without classes or levels not everyone is going to love D20, but it's still a number of people too large to be just dismissed.

I don't know if the same logic works as well for non-D20 mechanics, given that no other game in history has been as popular, but I suspect it does.

If I say "My game uses dice pools," then immediately people understand what I'm talking about and know whether it's something they might be interested in. If they hate dice pools, they won't want my game. But if they like them then they already have a head start on learning my system and might be more likely to take a closer look.

The benefit to me is that I can break most of my game mechanic down into  known terminology, which people will quickly grasp. The quicker they can grasp it, the sooner they'll know if it interests them or not.  "Wound levels? I hate wound levels. I'm not playing this." ...or...  "Wound levels? Cool! None of that fight at full strength till zero hit points and drop crap. This is my style of game."  So the more likely they'll keep looking, and hopefully buy it

Now if I've got some bizarre, cutting edge, innovative mechanic that takes me a page and a half just to explain the basic concept, then I'm going to have a tough time selling it to the average gamer. They'll have lost interest long before they realize just how amazing and cool my game mechanic really is.

[Precious Villain]

Mr. Analytical,

I believe I see your point now.  The drawback of having rules that don't quite fit is worth it if those rules have some other virtue.  On balance, d20 is superior in a lot of respects.  However, very few of the "spinoff" games use d20 straight from the box.  They've all got little tweaks and changes.

Now that doesn't invalidate your basic point!  It's still easier to learn a new d20 game by just looking at a handful of differences.  But it also supports my point: you've got to look at all the elements of d20 and decide which of them really fit YOUR game and which are there because they've always been there.  I feel that the balance tends to fall on the side of inertia/tradition/whatever.  However, you are right that it's not going to hurt these games much.  

MadElf,

My point was that it's there because everyone else puts it there.  It can be optional and still fit that description.

[M. J. Young]

Mr. Analytical's point (by the way, what's your name?) is significant; and I think that it goes deeper than it appears.

If you tell me that you're using dice pools, all I really know is that I have to roll a handful of dice to find out what happens. I've played with dice pools, and I don't find them objectionable in play; but I think they're a designer's nightmare. You've got multiple variables--how many dice, how many sides, what target number, and how many successes are the obvious ones, but there are others such as whether there are botches. Beyond that, you can have opposed and unopposed pools, and the opposed pools can be handled several different ways (high wins after ties are eliminated, each pair represents win/loss/tie, ties go to defender, et cetera). Thus if I play your dice pool game, I have to learn how it is that you use the dice pool.

There's another step to it, though. If I play your game, when I come back next week or next month or next year to play again, I'm going to have to remember the nuances of how you did it. I don't always remember some of the nuances of games I played regularly for years. The more different you make your game, the more difficult it's going to be for me to remember, and the greater the bar against repeat play.

That's an argument for using things already familiar to your players, and varying them in very limited and rather obvious ways.

I'm not disagreeing with the execution of cows (although our Hindu friends might prefer we find a different metaphor); but Analytical is right to recognize that familiarity can be an important feature in a game design.

--M. J. Young

[madelf]

My point was that it's there because everyone else puts it there. It can be optional and still fit that description.

But I don't agree that they are there because everyone else puts it there. In actual fact, not everyone puts it there.

I also think those elements are often there because those elements are popular with the people playing and (more importantly) buying D20 products. I think generally speaking the publishers put them there because they think it will help their product sell (and the figures seem to back that up), they're not simply doing it because they think they're supposed to.

This seems like a really good example of what I was talking about with the danger of assuming assumptions. You seem to be making unfounded assumptions about what people's "assumptions" are, without really knowing if they have a well thought out reason for what they are doing or not.

I apologize in advance if I'm misinterpreting your statements.

[madelf]

If you tell me that you're using dice pools, all I really know is that I have to roll a handful of dice to find out what happens. I've played with dice pools, and I don't find them objectionable in play; but I think they're a designer's nightmare. You've got multiple variables--how many dice, how many sides, what target number, and how many successes are the obvious ones, but there are others such as whether there are botches. Beyond that, you can have opposed and unopposed pools, and the opposed pools can be handled several different ways (high wins after ties are eliminated, each pair represents win/loss/tie, ties go to defender, et cetera). Thus if I play your dice pool game, I have to learn how it is that you use the dice pool.

Why would they be a designer's nightmare?
Most of the issues you bring up are things that would have to be addressed in any other types of mechanics as well.
Number of dice, how many sides, what target number, botches or not, opposed & unopposed roles... are all issues to address, regardless of the dice system. Really a dice pool system can be fairly simple.

But as to what it says about a game, all dice pools (at least that I've run into) have that same feel of a fistful of dice, and the better you get at things the more dice you get to roll. It's like a tangible reward for getting tougher. And in a single die game, you can't experience that sinking feeling you get when the GM pulls out a double handful of dice when you run into the big bad. It doesn't have that means of being able to "size up" your opponent by the number of dice he's rolling. The GM can tell you how tough this Ogre NPC is, but when you see him rolling 8d6 for a strength roll and you've only got four on your best day, you can feel it in a way that a single die and a stat on paper will never let you do. You can see the physical evidence of his awe-inspiring might rolling and bouncing across the table in front of you when he rips that tree out of the ground to swat you with.

So when I see that a game uses dice pools, that actually tells me quite a bit about the feel of the game. (But I might just be weird too)

[MR. Analytical]

Mr. Analytical's point (by the way, what's your name?) is significant; and I think that it goes deeper than it appears.

[SNIP]

I'm not disagreeing with the execution of cows (although our Hindu friends might prefer we find a different metaphor); but Analytical is right to recognize that familiarity can be an important feature in a game design.

It's Jonathan :-)

Somebody else in this thread said it best when they said that there's more to how system matters than premise and playing style.  Those are important dimensions but they're not the only ones that affect an RPG experience.

Familiarity is one of those dimensions.



Calvin - I don't think there's any issue here among the later posters.  My point was that familiarity can be a positive thing in an RPG experience.  D20 is a good example of a system that essentially markets itself with familiarity being one of it's selling points (less so nowadays though admittedly).   Another reason for keeping sacred cows around is that people LIKE sacred cows.  People REALLY like levels and loads of combat crunch... the ODD movement is basically a response to D&D moving away from its roots with ADD2.  

As far as I'm concerned you're totally right and it's another reason for not killing sacred cows.  Darren MacLennan on RPGnet posited a commercial law that said that basically economically you've got to have a damn good reason for not going with D20.  While that's a commercial point rather than an artistic one I think some analogue still stands here.  Cool new rules aren't necessarily a positive thing... there are reasons why some of these cows are sacred.