Minimalist Game Mechanics

[baragh]

Either way it only takes a single person, GM or player to make a bad gaming experience. Stressing out over this concept won't get you anywhere.

I think this reflects my sentiment of the bottom line on this subject so far. I also appreciate the debate on GM-player dynamic thus far, as it is probably the biggest concern with keeping the rules brief that I can think of.

As my game focuses on story and quest solving with some story-related violence, a gaming mechanic is neccessary but it needs to be concise. Getting wrapped up in charts and modifiers for a simple little tussle between a few characters just doesn't seem to fit in with the pace of this game. And that is the bottom line, as Callan points out, whatever suits the game best is the winner.

And as Vulpinoid points out, if the GM isn't good at working with this dynamic or the players are somehow screwing it up otherwise, it's not the game for that particular group arrangement. No game will work for everyone.

I think that sums up the findings here so far, no?

[Osmo Rantala]

I think that sums up the findings here so far, no?

Pretty much, yes.

[Callan S.]

I disagree, as it's shrugging off further thought after bringing up a red herring. I haven't mentioned fending off evil ninja GM's or jerkass players.

The issue is, a GM deciding the DC is incredibly predictable - either he rigs the DC's as part of astute system use, or he'll get called a jerk unless just the right DC's are used, which results in just as predictable results. It's not worth the effort of rolling dice, for how unsurprising it is. That issue hasn't been addressed - it's just been missheard into 'bad GM's do bad things' and since that's unsolveable, the issue is apparently resolved.

as Callan points out, whatever suits the game best is the winner.

This is missquoting me. I've said "if the rules meet your goal for the game". Whatever suits the game? Think about that for a second - it's trying to find what suits an inanimate object.

Putting an inanimate object ahead of your own human goals? As if that's a promise that'd be kept to. It reminds me of the Ouija-board analogy in the narrativism essay

How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own power.

All the players come for 'whatever rules suit the game'? Nah, someone will be moving it/doing what suits them - or it sits stock still and is as boring as heck.

[Vulpinoid]

Callan,

If you're going to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and dismiss anyone else observations as red herrings, please be more specific in your point.

Don't just regurgitate the same old diatribe.

"Hey look the problem is that way?"
Antagonist quickly runs the other way.

It seems that everyone else is happy with the way the discussion is unfolding and it seems to have even resolved the initial thoughts of the threads author (who will be noted as Baragh, and not Callan).

I can plays devil's advocate and stomp my foot as well as anyone else, but this is exactly the kind of railroading that I was referring to which will prevent other participants from gaining enjoyment from a situation.

V

[baragh]

I did start to respond to Callan's last post to try and disect some of the points out of it, but realized we were arguing over abstract concepts and symantics in at least this last case. Having nothing much of real value to add, I trash-canned my reply. Since I'm posting now, I will apologize to anyone whom I paraphrased incorrectly. By mentioning "the game" in that last context, I meant to incorporate the whole game experienced by player interaction; but I can see how that may have been miscommunicated from vaguery.

By my last post I did intend to try and summarize what's been found so far and leave it open for anyone to add their thoughts on the subject if need be.

What this discussion has determined for me (again, so far, if anyone has something else to add) is:

• Using minimalist mechanics with a GM does suit the game I'm designing
• Worrying that a GM or player might unbalance the game isn't really a system issue, it's more player group related
• Minimalist mechanics might work for some player groups and not others, just like any game system
• Setting probably doesn't have much to do with minimalist mechanics, either - especially since specific modifiers can always be patched into a particular campaign setting

[Callan S.]

Hi Baragh,

I was thinking you were calling for a summing up posts as the ending of the thread - is it legitimate for someone to end on a disagreement? I don't expect the thread to continue because I disagree - you've got the answers you seek and if I understand right you politely let me have a final wrap up post (thank you ). Just writing this to double check.

[baragh]

Callan,

Just to clarify, no offense was taken, no toes stepped on. Yeah, I did mean to leave the subject open for debate if anyone thought there was more to debate - but I have to admit I wasn't sure what there was to debate anymore after the last couple of posts, including your wrap up.