I was recently playing some D&D 3.5 with my 5 yo son (I'm looking to write an actual play at some point).

The way it was, I'd started to give up on showmanship. He doesn't like taking damage (for fair reasons) for example, but I'd tried to talk it up (you can take it, your fighters tough!). And other things, like killing dire rats I'd described in some exciting detail. But I was carrying this imagination thing by myself for most of the time (since he's just a small boy and isn't about to throw his weight around, imagination wise (at least, not all the time)).

So I said to myself, screw it. System should matter, so I'll just let the rolls happen...you hit, you roll damage and if the number is high enough the dire rat figure is removed from the board (and other such straight transactions). No nifty descriptions from me...lets see what the system provides by itself without me adding color.

And I hit a perceptual shift.

It's hard to describe (forgive me if this is another vague post), but what I had been doing was imagining a 'living' fantasy world. By living I mean I can effect it (in a way), unlike Tolkien fantasy for example (which is fixed).

Okay, when I just let the system do its results...it started describing a fantasy world to me. At first they are just dice rolls and such, but freeform association begins to piece them together. It was causing me to form a fantasy world in my mind.

This was the exact reverse of how I'd been playing before, because I'd been working from a fantasy world I had vaguely in my mind already. The important bit: I had been using the rules to support change in that world when it suited my vision of that world. I don't mean I tossed out rules here there and everywhere. But when it came to the rules, I consulted the fantasy world in my head first to see if the rule should be used. I didn't just consult the book and follow the instructions.

But now I was following the instructions, and it was invoking (by freeform association and my active imagination) a fantasy world.

This is interesting at a few levels, to me. For one thing, it felt somewhat like when I started roleplay years ago. That feeling of fantasic discovery. But somewhere along the line in my RP career I've switched over to the idea that I know the world and I choose the rules that fit it (initially I think to get around bad design). But then I'm looking to the rules to tell me something interesting, but if I'm only looking to forfil my vision of the fantasy world and editing out the certain rules to achieve that, that system isn't going to tell me anything new...it's just going to tell me exactly what I already know (because I'm editing it to that).

It's also interesting because I'm so used to dodging badly designed rules and as GM appologising to players (usually by my expression) when some of these bad rules were applied to them, that just playing a game and seeing what happened was liberating and hey, things didn't crash and burn! Nor had I stepped in and made myself responsible for the quality of the rules interacting with players. Something perhaps I've been volunteering for without even realising it for a long time (because I thought 'that's how you play').

I'd like to write more, but I'll pause incase anyone else see's something here.

To make this example closer to home, this applies to almost everyone I know and I expect a great deal of gamers.

Ie, have you ever fudged away a critical against a PC?

Why was that? Was it because it didn't fit the genre...heroes don't go down like that? Or even that it just wouldn't be fun?

Then your first consulting your idea of what the game world/these games are like, and using that to determine what rules get used.

The other way around is where you simply apply the critical and simply think "Okay, lets see what happens next in this game". And if your imagination starts to render a world from this stuff, you perhaps start to think "So this is a world where heroes can suddenly fall!".

The former has considerable implications for 'system does matter'. Yes or no? (The latter is very much in line with system does matter, IMO)

I was working on a way to wrap a society around the amazingly significant effects of a DnD-style magic system, and people came up with a lot of good grist. The thread is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1905&highlight=

World Tree also has an interesting take on the DnD-style hit point system with it's on/off lifebar approach. The aesthetic is that your HP is how attached your soul is to your body, and through various efforts you can train it to be more forgiving of injuries. It also specifically states that it is not uncommon to see a trained warrior in battle, bristling with arrows, possibly some through the head. Which is a fine setting adaptation to a fundamentally unrealistic mechanic.

Things like this do suggest a highly deviant setting, and I'd love to hear what you come up with...

Re: pincushioned warriors

I recently read a book about the Third Crusade, called The Warriors of God. The author found accounts from the Arab side talking about how amazed Saladin's troops were to see the way the Franj could keep fighting even when basically filled with arrows. Admittedly, this has a lot to do with armor thickness, but still...

Hey Callan,

I hope this doesn’t conflict with your intent, so if it does let me know.

Your “discovery” actually lines up very closely with some thoughts I’ve been having about the role of mechanics in Sim.

To me, the role of mechanics is to establish the norms of the fantasy space – IOW determine the likely consequences to actions. Do this long enough and the “world” will begin to function on its own. Because in Sim we, the players, are subject to its “decisions” (as apposed to the role of mechanics in Gam and Nar which I believe are to set up reward systems/empower the players to seek them and empower players directly respectively) the game experience of “the world” starts picking up an air of autonomy. There “really” is something out there that is functioning “outside of me!” Kinda stirs the imagination a bit, doesn’t it?

The real bitch of it all is designing a “consequence” system that truly models the type of world that you would like to be in. What would it be like to try and live and accomplish human tasks in such a world?

Noon wrote: The other way around is where you simply apply the critical and simply think "Okay, lets see what happens next in this game". And if your imagination starts to render a world from this stuff, you perhaps start to think "So this is a world where heroes can suddenly fall!".

Your experience of "letting the dice speak" is not peripheral to the experinece of play. The only problem I see is that the dice do not have long term or medium term goals and that the long-term dependence on them will --- in all likelyhood -- be unsatisfying

You were interacting with the dice as if they were a partner in play/
-- the "as if" interaction with the inanimate world is a cornerstone of the Game theory of Huizinga and Caillois
-- game theorists regularly treat the interaction between agents and the environment as a case of a player (nature) using a random strategy against another player (the agent) who employs a mixed strategy in order to achieve some end

Do you think that your child will find lasting pleasure in playing with one member of your play group (the dice) who does not possess any long term aims unlike you two living, thinking members of the playgroup?

Well, if the players' long term goal is "seeing how things turn out when we just follow the dice" then I think this type of play can be totally satisfying.

I agree that it would be problematic if there are conflicting goals and/or misunderstandings as to the reasons the group is playing. But then, that sort of thing is going to create problems no matter what.

In the type of play we're talking about, you're not really treating the dice as a participant. Rather, you're using the dice as the sole arbiter in terms of aportioning credibility to the participants. Lumpley Principle, anyone?

I just thought I'd add that this kind of thing is precisely why I dislike universal or generic game systems. When you play like this (which is how I prefer to play), a game like GURPS feel like GURPS whether it's space, Conan, supers or modern. All the supplements can do is dress GURPS up in different colors. But it's still GURPS, which is why I'm positive the d20 version of Conan would feel very different from the old GURPS version. It's not one setting with two different rules systems, it's two different settings trying to emulate some third ideal.

I've generally been of the opinion that system is a subset of setting, not some larger or independent entity of its own. And I think this assertion holds up even when you consider social contract as part of system - we've all seen cases where two different groups could play the same game in two totally different, yet correct, ways.

Also,I find it interesting that this post comes up at the same time as the literature/RPGs debate over in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13520. In essence, the reason I enjoy playing as Callan describes is because the dice ENSURE that the game doesn't fit a literary or artistic model. You can't carefully craft a theme and force it to happen, and you can't even pretend to create something that deserves to be called a story in the literary sense. I've often said that if I wanted to write a novel, I'd write a novel, but I play RPGs because I want an entirely different experience. With literary and artistic concerns out of the way, you're free to experience ("dream") and enjoy yourself.

So .. when a GM blinks on a Persuasion roll, what's going on there? I guess I'm vectoring into GNS, but I'm just wondering, what's more Sim: dice speak or serving a cafeteria meal?

Hi Jay,

No, you pretty much scored a bulls eye! Thank god, I've been writing too many posts lately that don't get anywhere because I'm too vague! Thank you! :)

Now I'll quote you for context:

To me, the role of mechanics is to establish the norms of the fantasy space – IOW determine the likely consequences to actions. Do this long enough and the “world” will begin to function on its own. Because in Sim we, the players, are subject to its “decisions” (as apposed to the role of mechanics in Gam and Nar which I believe are to set up reward systems/empower the players to seek them and empower players directly respectively) the game experience of “the world” starts picking up an air of autonomy. There “really” is something out there that is functioning “outside of me!” Kinda stirs the imagination a bit, doesn’t it?

Again the difficult part is making sure one is OK with the consequence system as is. It is extremely important that system outcomes don’t conflict with Social Contract clauses, especially unspoken ones like – “Hero’s, especially mine, can’t/shouldn’t die.” However, if the social contract explicitly states that everyone is subject to all system outcomes, including death, then OK, when such events do come up, by all means let it rip!

Actually I think that is a huge failing in many Sim games – the disparity between Social Contract clauses and game design.

Noon wrote: I'm note sure this is a social contract issue, though its closely related. It's more like say, sitting down to a brand new RPG with the preconception that 'heroes don't just die casually' or such. This is game world vision the person has built up, perhaps even from playing another RPG and being inspired by its rules and/or the GMs use(or lack there of) of them.

This can become part of the social contract. But lets just imagine that coincidentally the group all think this. So the GM starts fudging away to facilitate this. This group haven't honestly tried your rules and from them imagined the game world you the designer wanted to present. They have their game world in their mind and they are canabalising your system to fit that.

I think I'm trying to define a difference between a group who have agreed SC wise to never have heroes die (and recognise they are altering the game) and those who are working from how they think the game world should be have, and deciding on rules use from there. And importantly, they think this is how you play RPGs. Ie, it isn't a choice (that you can cement in a SC), its what you always do. From recognising my own behaviour in doing this, I'm estimating a large demographic of gamers do the same thing. This means they are making system pretty much not matter, even before the product reaches their hands. Where does this leave designers!?