Minimalist Game Mechanics

[baragh]

Hey everyone,

I'd be surprised if this hasn't been discussed in some form before, but I haven't seen a whole lot regarding simpler game mechanics. That probably makes sense since this forum is the result of hundreds of indy designers getting together to make new and different games.

I've gotten hit by the RPG design bug lately after a few years away from the pen & paper RPG environment. I remember my gaming group sometimes being frustrated by all the rules and silly things to look up such as in an AD&D game. We usually just played with simpler patch rules or new rules altogether.

So I've been browsing the forum for the past few days as a new member and haven't seen a lot of commentary on minimalism in game mechanics. (I'll concede that maybe I haven't looked hard enough.) It seems to me that a ton of statistics on your character sheet and a too-complicated method for resolving events or conflicts just gets in the way of the flow of the story - which to me is the fun part. I guess I'm a bit of a Simulationist on top of being a Narrativist, so I like Gamist mechanics to make our "adult make-believe" games a little more than just make-believe story telling sessions, hence minimalism comes somewhere inbetween, I guess. I have noted the "Novel RPG" thread elsewhere and found that idea to be the far extreme of minimalism to the point it's not gamist enough for me.

So far I've come up with a system that only uses four character attributes. For task resolution, the relevant attribute is added to the character's relevant skill if he has any points in it, then checked against dice. For conflict, the greater difference between the two characters' rolls against their skill check is the success.

And that's it! From what I can think of, pretty much everything could be played to mechanical satisfaction with just that simple basis. In general it's up to the GM or adventure designer to figure out how difficult something is to be rolled for, and I think this pretty much applies even in more extensive game systems except there's all these crazy extensions and patches to complicate things.

What do you all think? I haven't had the opportunity to playtest this theory much yet but it seems to me it would make for faster play, rather than spending too much time looking up charts and tables and doing formulas to get the exact physics of the circumstance right. Is that desirable? Or perhaps misunderstood? Is complicated, lengthy skill resolution enjoyable to others?

As a side note, I am a newbie to the site, and I want to thank you all for making this place exist, because it rules. No need to be gentle in replying to my posts.

[Callan S.]

Hi Baragh, welcome to the forge!

In terms of 'gamist' play (tactically astute system use might be a better name), GM's often realise they can win the story line they want by setting the skill DC to a high DC if they don't want something, low DC if they do want it. And if the roll does pass, they can let it the results kind of fizzle out, or nullify them with further rolls until eventually the player fails.

Calling a GM a jerk for doing this often does stop it, but it also stops whatever tactically astute play that was going on. Meaning having even the four attributes is just slowing down the game for no actual benefit.

It's often seen that the GM rigging skill DC's is wrong, it might be more illuminating to see it as being too easy to do, rather than wrong. What if it's okay for the GM to want to rig a skill check DC, BUT it's harder for him to do? Maybe he has limited points to do it with? Maybe he has to win some chess like game against players before he can rig it? As a quick example, the roleplay game Capes has players attempting to 'rig' conflicts in their favour - but it's pretty damn hard to do.

Do you have anything you want help with, about the design?

[baragh]

Do you have anything you want help with, about the design?

Hey Callan,

Thanks for the thoughts/reply. Basically I was just throwing the idea out there to see what kind of problems it might encounter that I hadn't thought of. The concern of the GM being too liberal with DC modifiers does seem like a legitimate one, although I'm not from the school that the GM is playing against the players. Are there really a lot of bad GMs out there who need rules to keep from ruining their players' fun?

What you point out about difficulty modifiers suiting a player agenda does remind me of arguments about realism, however.. I guess that's where all the tables and charts come in to keep players from arguing with eachother about what's in scale with the system. Hmm. I guess the line is drawn somewhere different for every player group. But whatever happened to the flexible GM? Maybe a GM school can be inserted into the brief game mechanics.

The only time I can remember not wanting the players to do something as a GM was when I was too inexperienced to realize I could make my planned adventure a little more flexible and fit it in with what would seem to be incompatible player actions. Maybe I'm getting into theory-talk that has already been debated to death on this forum, but what I'm trying to get at are the barebones of a traditional GM-player adventure kind of RPG. Most odd statistics that seem like too much in a thick player manual seem like things that could be specified from adventure to adventure, campaign to campaign, based on relevance.

[Osmo Rantala]

...Are there really a lot of bad GMs out there who need rules to keep from ruining their players' fun?

This might be a bit unrelevant, but I would say that on of the big problems with the traditional GM model is, that it is seen as the GM's job to provide the fun, instead of the actual game or through consensus by the whole group on what they want from the game. As such, answers to such questions as "what provides the fun in this game?" or "how do we ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves?" lie solely in the GM's opinion. The players and GM can discuss it all until their mouths drop off, but, in the end, it is all up to the GM.

Setting rules that also the GM has to abide and obey makes the GM one of the players, instead of the "king" in the game. Better yet, having no GM ensures that player consensus provides the answer to the afore-mentioned questions, which makes it more likely that everyone is actualy gaining something from the game they have all set to play.

Now, Price to pay, the game I designed just a while ago, has a sort of a GM, the moderator, but who has greatly stripped down authority over the game, and is actually not so different by role, when compared with the rest of the players. (Shoot me, I'm advertising my own game).

Could you tell us what you have named those attributes you mentioned?

[baragh]

This might be a bit unrelevant, but I would say that on of the big problems with the traditional GM model is, that it is seen as the GM's job to provide the fun, instead of the actual game or through consensus by the whole group on what they want from the game. As such, answers to such questions as "what provides the fun in this game?" or "how do we ensure that everyone is enjoying themselves?" lie solely in the GM's opinion. The players and GM can discuss it all until their mouths drop off, but, in the end, it is all up to the GM.
...

Those are some interesting, and relevant, points to consider. The side-topic about GM power was prompted by my request for examining the purposes of a more intricate system that goes beyond what I described as a pretty basic task/conflict resolution mechanic. I guess I've always taken for granted what "good GMing" is. And I've been in games where bad GMing practices were taking place, including in some of my own more amateur GMing experiences. So are what you guys saying is that, without the proper structure, bad GMing and player arguments are likely to take place, or are simply a risk of taking place with the wrong combination of players?

Could you tell us what you have named those attributes you mentioned?

Now, I'll admit I was being kind of dorky by being as vague about describing my system as possible, for fear that someone might "steal" my idea. But I see now I was just being dorky.

The setting for my game is a consistent fantasy world that can be played in different time periods with vastly different technology and changes in culture dynamics due to natural historical evolution. There are your cheesy fantasy races and some other ones that are playable, too, including goblins, orcs, and hobgoblins. Magic exists but is limited to being induced using kind of a drug trance through a specific set of berries and their juices.

So, bearing the setting in mind, I chose Strength, Agility, Intelligence, and Spirit as the four attributes - having fairly obvious applications in game. I decided for conflict resolution, instead of recording separate hit points, there could be a temporary reduction to Strength until it's so low the character can't carry themself anymore. Spirit is the fundamental attribute for magic applications. Agility for the ability to dodge or move quickly, or use their hands precisely. I'm still kind of playing with numbers but I think I'll have these range from 1 to 10 in player characters and have task resolution played by 3d6 or 1d20. Easy tasks anyone non-proficient could do would have a maximum +5 modifier to the skill, and player characters would distribute limited growth points into different specific skills to act as bonuses to those four basic attributes when called for.

As a mechanics discussion, I designed the system to be a playable as possible - for new gamers, for old gamers fed up with sometimes arbitrary system rules. With specific stuff being made available to the players using the adventure design notes or indeed just the GM's beforehand innovation. I would hope a GM wouldn't be cheesy and make things significantly harder or easier on the fly just because he wants to direct the action. But you see, I'm a rules minimalist. I don't like living under nanny-states. I guess I just give players/GMs the benefit of the doubt when it comes to maturity in conflict resolution. I see that some people don't believe in that benefit of the doubt for the GM, probably due to bad past experiences.

Getting back to the core question of the thread, is being as minimalist as described above indeed counter productive to playability or does it help things move along as intended?

[Callan S.]

Are there really a lot of bad GMs out there who need rules to keep from ruining their players' fun?

I didn't bring up anything about bad GMs. I've actually asked you to think of it as being normal GM'ing, not bad GM'ing. Normal, tatically astute GM'ing.

Just consider it that way for a moment or two and compare it with chess - if you played against a chess master in chess and lost, that isn't unfair or wrong. The chess master is not a bad player for winning over you. But when the GM is given tools that give him a huge advantage just like a chess master has over you, we call it bad GM'ing to use it?

Anyway, the thing to consider is you say you want a gamist element ("so I like Gamist mechanics to make our "adult make-believe" games a little more than just make-believe story telling sessions"), but then your telling the GM he's bad for being gamist/tactically astute in his system use.

Unless you just want an apparent gamist style threat, but really there's no threat at all since the GM knows he'll be called a bad GM if he applies that threat. I was thinking about mechanics like that the other day. Kind of like a rollercoaster - scares the crap out of you but really your perfectly safe. That's a valid design direction - rollercoasters have more than proven themselves as an entertainment medium. A roleplay game could go the same way and be just as valid.

Anyway, that's all a bit of a footnote, since you didn't ask any questions about the gamist element you talk about, but you did describe it as if it's important to you. I bring it up cause it's like I know you like your coffee and I fear your cup is about to fall off the table - so I interupt what your trying to talk about to say 'Watch out!'

Getting back to the core question of the thread, is being as minimalist as described above indeed counter productive to playability or does it help things move along as intended?

I think if the rules meet your goal for the game, whether there's fifty pages of them or something scribbled on the back of a napkin, size doesn't matter - it's neither counter productive or helpful.

[baragh]

I think if the rules meet your goal for the game, whether there's fifty pages of them or something scribbled on the back of a napkin, size doesn't matter - it's neither counter productive or helpful.

I think that pretty much answers my question. Unless anyone else has anything to add? My main concern was there might be something obvious I was overlooking as to why there's evolved such a big rules culture in some veins of gaming. But, basically, as Callan points out, it all depends on the game you're playing and who's playing it. Thanks.

[Vulpinoid]

Given the nature of the thread title..."Minimalist Game Mechanics", I think the comparison between napkin back rules and fifty page rules isn't really justified. (Sure you could claim that D&D has thousands of pages of rules scattered throughout it's rulebooks and sourcebooks, but given that this is an independant gaming forum, I don't think that comparison is necessary either).

The idea of GM fiat has been skirted around in this thread, and any of us who've been roleplaying for a while have encountered good GMs and bad GMs.

I've seen good GMs running really good games on-the-fly with a half page of rules, and minimalist characters. I've seen them do the same with incredibly complex systems and using elaborately laid out scenarios that cover twenty odd pages in themselves (though this seems to be a lot rarer).

Bad GMs seem to get more extreme. With minimalist rules I've played some absolutely shocking games (I've twice walked out on bad GMs during conventions where I've paid good money for my gaming pleasure). With complex and detailed games it can get just as bad; I once GM'd a game written by a designer who'd included variables, contingency plans and the detailed stats of 100 individual NPC goblins (the scenario was meant to be a three hour convention game, but covered almost 300 pages). I sat through the GMs final playtest before the convention, and honestly he wasn't very good and the added complexity of his own scenario made the experience seem like torture.

I tend to agree with Callan's notions that different groups focus on different styles of play, and different styles of play lend themselves to different game mechanics.

If you're after some interesting "minimalist concepts" have a look at the endeavor forum. Notably the System on a Character Sheet [soacs] and System in a Can [sic] threads. I'm not only saying this because I've put some entries in there, but also because there is some really interesting stuff happening with quite a few of the concepts presented.

V

[Osmo Rantala]

...So are what you guys saying is that, without the proper structure, bad GMing and player arguments are likely to take place, or are simply a risk of taking place with the wrong combination of players?

I think that holds true for most of the time
.
Now, I'm not quite sure of what I am trying to say myself, but bear with me:

Without limits to an invidual's power, there are limitless ways of exploiting that power.

Most games put no limits, whatsoever, to GM authority, which, quite naturally, leads to exploitation of that power. Now, we can all argue endllessly about what actually is exploitation of GM authority, but I would say that one manifestation of that exploitation is using that power to force a certain kind of story into a game, without consensus on all the players, including the GM, part on what they actually want of the game. Even if there has been a lot of discussion among the group on what kind of game they want, the GM is not her fellow players and so can't know what they actually are looking for, which is a problem, since most games with aa GM lay the GM with the responsibility of providing the fun in the game, which, in turn, is a hard task without knowing what your players consider fun.

Putting aside the fact that a lot of players and GM's are having a whole lot of fun despite what I have so thoroughly described and announced as a problem, I do not think this is a very rare scenario. Do you disagree?

Now, I'll admit I was being kind of dorky by being as vague about describing my system as possible, for fear that someone might "steal" my idea.

I may be naive, but I don't think there are people out here, in Forge, willing to steal their fellow players game idea.

Getting back to the core question of the thread, is being as minimalist as described above indeed counter productive to playability or does it help things move along as intended?

Sorry for taking your thread so much out of context, I'll answer your actual question now:

"As intended" depends wholly on the game. One game might be all about complex rules and tables and paragraphs and all that kind of stuff, taking hours to get through even one fight, for example, but if that is what is intended, then it is in no way counter productive to have those rules, quite the contrary, it would acyalluy be counter productive to have minimalist game rule. If, on the other hand, the game is meant to be played through in a couple of hours or so, but still cover a lot of ground, minimalist rules would be the way to go, with all those charts and paragraphs and bulky math just getting in the way, big time.

What I just said is, actually, just re-saying what Callan S. already said, but with more words. That is, I completely and utterly agree with what Callan S. said.

[ChrisLane]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think complete GM fiat is necessarily a bad thing in a 'gamist' game.  The tightrope act that a gamist GM does balances between overpowering the PCs, and losing any credible threat of loss from his encounters.  If the system limits the GM, that becomes a science.  With full GM control, it's an art.

If your goal is minimalist mechanics, a major benefit you're providing is easy learning curve.  In my opinion, GM fiat fits with that, as it is the easiest distribution of power / credibility / narritive control to communicate / understand.

Probably not a popular opinion, and I'm not looking to pick any fights, but I throw it out there and hope it helps.

[Osmo Rantala]

Probably not a popular opinion, and I'm not looking to pick any fights, but I throw it out there and hope it helps.

Well, all opinions are welcome, I think, popular or not.

[Vulpinoid]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think complete GM fiat is necessarily a bad thing in a 'gamist' game....etc.

I've got to agree with you on this one Chris, up to a point.

You'll notice a lot of threads on this forum with comments like "You should do like in Universalis..." or "GM'less games are great because...". That's probably because this is an indy forum and people are desperately seeking the "next big thing".

The honest truth with most groups I've encountered is that the majority of players want to be entertained for an evening. They want one person to provide that entertainment and in a roleplaying paradigm, thats usually the GM. People like to have someone to blame when they aren't enjoying themselves, and [insert sarcasm here] by some mysterious coincidence it also tends to be the GM [/end sarcasm].

A good GM can have an elaborate story to entertain their players, or they can have an "on-the-fly" method. If a group of gamers doesn't like the GM style, they'll either find a new GM, they'll bitch and whine about it until someone else steps up to the plate, or they'll simply stop playing. There is a small group of gamers who might try new ideas like GM-less games, but the groups I've tried to share this concept with have just led to conversations like this...

"What, you mean I've gotta give some input? What if John wrecks the storyline I'm trying to create?" 

"Welcome to my world. That's what happens every time I try to run a game. I spend an hour or so preparing stuff for the campaign and end up running the night on the fly because you guys seem to be having more enjoyment heading in a completely different direction."

"But you're the GM, that's what GM's do."

"And you wonder why I get sick of you guys and want to play rather than GM once in a while...sheesh!!"

If we were to throw in a system that hamstrings the GM even further, would anyone want to do the job?

We'd lose some of the bad GMs who couldn't handle the cocept, but certain strains of inexperienced but potentially good GMs would also be turned off the concept. We'd lose some potentially great storytellers.

Another reason I don't like the concept of hamstringing the GM is my experience with global storylines in a certain international live-roleplaying club. In that setting, the local GMs are expected to bring in storylines from around the world but also provide an entertaining story for local players who might want to do something else. Local players might not want anything to do with the story, but in order to remain a part of continuity with the rest of the world, this story element has to come into play. GM creativity is stifled between trying to please the club as well as the local players. Players become frustrated because they are trying to squeeze their own stories and goals into the mix between the local GM and the international plots. And conversely, international plots rarely make the impact they should because the local GMs and players spend half their time actively resisting them.

I've never seen a game run by committee that has resulted in an enjoyable experience for the majority of participants. Everyone seems to pick fault at something about the game, and most people feel they didn't get the input they deserved.

Conversely, if we were playing a miniatures game. The rules are plain and in the book, there is no need to worry about certain situations that don't come up in the rules, because the game usually doesn't go beyond the bounds of the die rolling and figure moving. If a game does require something that irregular, most such games allow the players to agree on an ad hoc ruling, and most even state that if an agreement can't be made, roll a die to determine which player's ruling on the situation is used in this particular battle (then seriously discuss the events after the battle and make a judgment for future games after the "heat of the moment").

So basically, I'm backing up what Chris has written with a bit of first hand experience and evidence for good measure.

V   

[Callan S.]

Hi Chris,

The tightrope act that a gamist GM does balances between overpowering the PCs, and losing any credible threat of loss from his encounters.

What your describing is not overpowering the PC's, while making it appear they can be overpowered (how else does someone lose but by finally being overpowered?). The art in that is the art of illusionism.


Hi Vulpinoid,

Your examples, as you describe them yourself, are about story writing by committee. There's nothing in the idea of a written down system that requires it to involve a committee.

Also I've never seen any groups where someone invites everyone else to come over and he'll tell them a story. It's always involved dice or people playing a PC or something like that. I think that if these people just want to be entertained, the dice and playing of PC's indicates they are in conflict with their desire - these dice and such are the tools of making something, not just passively being entertained.

And frankly I think we could do with ditching some great solo story tellers. If they can tell a story all by themselves, they don't need a group (they need an audience. They should have the guts to go orate it in a hall or something). Personally I think that if this great storyteller offers dice and PC's and other story crafting tools, but really its about him putting together an audience for himself, it's quite offensive.

[ChrisLane]

What your describing is not overpowering the PC's, while making it appear they can be overpowered (how else does someone lose but by finally being overpowered?). The art in that is the art of illusionism.

Whether the GM is limited or not, their loss comes from some combination of their decisions, GM decisions, and fortune based resolution.  Assuming the same decisions from the players, the same decisions from the GM, and the same dice rolls (or cards, or whatever else) leading to the same outcome....  does it matter whether the GM's range of available choices were limited by the game itself?

[Vulpinoid]

I'll give you that Callan.

The idea of roleplaying is to produce a collaborative effort at entertainment.

But one of the concepts I'm trying to get across here is that I've seen such efforts railroaded by players in much the same way that people are commenting here about GMs. This occurs whether the group is involved in a minimalist game or a complex and crunchy game.

Sorry this rambles a bit, but hopefully it gets to my point in the end...

I guess I'm trying to say that if your striving for a well written minimalist game that allows for a more collaborative style of play, rather than a purely GM oriented game, then it might help to incorporate some kind of direction into the system. If players and GM both have a framework to work within, they'll both know what to expect from the outcome of the game. A simple example might be to introduce a three act structure in which all the challenges are relatively easy in act 1 (with a difficulty range varying according to the potential level of reward), then slightly harder in act 2, and harder still in the final act.

If the figures are there in black and white on the pages, then players will know what to expect from their successes and failures. They won't necessarily gain hints to the storyline and the atmospherics of the scenario still resides in the hands of the GM, but they'll have an idea of how well their characters should be progressing. In this type of setting, the GM still gets to decide the types of challenges being encountered, but the comparative difficulties and rewards are defined.

Traditional Gamer's Anecdote:

I guess this notion goes back to an organised ongoing game I played at a gaming store, I only showed up for one event and never went back. D&D, as per the store campiagn rules new players started at level 3, all games were in groups of 5. We had three friends, so two others joined our team. Another newbie, and a level 10 veteran. Because the majority of players were level 3, an easy module was chosen from the store collection. The newbies did the fighting, got into the thick of the action and solved the curse. The level 10 character spent most of the time fishing on a jetty because he thought the challenge of the quest was beneath him. He occasionally wandered up and dealt a blow in combat when he thought he wasn't at too much risk. Yet because he was so much higher level than us (with so many more magic artifacts), he did more comparitive hit point damage. XP was calculated at the end of game and the level 10 guy earned just over three times the XP that the rest of us did because a flat experience rate was just multiplied by level to get the reward value. It wasn't a bad module, but after risking everything for our characters and getting that slap in the face, is it any wonder we didn't bother going back.

Some might say that this tale simply shows how a bad GM can ignore certain parts of the rules to favour his friends in a game, others might use this tale to say that this is a blatant reason why GMs need to be curtailed in their powers.

This is just one example, and I'm sure there are hundreds of others out there.

I guess I'm just saying that no matter what system you write, there will be players and GMs who exploit it. You can frantically try to cover every contingency with a 300+ page tome of gaming wisdom, or you can write a one page minimalist concept.

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.

V