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.

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?

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

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

Osmo wrote:
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.
...

Osmo wrote:
Could you tell us what you have named those attributes you mentioned?

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

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 wrote:
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.

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

baragh wrote:
...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?

baragh wrote:
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.

baragh wrote:
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'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.

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

ChrisLane wrote:
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.

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.

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

Vulpinoid wrote:
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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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. :)

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.