Accepting poor game systems

[gleichman]

The recent threads speaking to failure after failure with D&D left me
somewhat confused. It became clear that one was dealing with a system
that was basically broken in relation to the needs of the user- the
answer seems simple. Get a different game.

Then I come across this article in MMORPGs-
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070326/sorens_01.shtml

There's lots in it that I don't agree with (or think unpractical with
today's tech). But I found something that I did agree with, and which
harkened back to the D&D threads here.

The core concept of the article is that primary reason people play
MMORPGs is the desire for a persistent existence for a character. That
is- a character that changes and grows during play. And one that the
player can return to at the point of last play.

From there it goes on to say that this desire is so strong, that it

overrides the fact that objectively the game play sucks by nearly any
measure one cares to use.

Sounded familar to me.

MMORPGs of course have a major advantage over PnP games in that the
mechanics are hidden (often on purpose) from the player. This makes it
easier to ignore the systems failings.

But I think in large measure the same mindset applies: One is so
interested in a persistent existence that rule problems are completely
ignored by the common gamer. They either accept the poor elements of
the mechanics, or just don't use them. It seems to me that they often
make that decision (accept or discard) at an unconscious level.

Towards that end, heavy examination of the mechanics is counter-
productive to fun play. In MMORPGs, one often sees that the most
unhappy players are those who best understand the system. And from the
PoV I'm expressing here, that makes perfect sense.

If true, this concept points to one of two possible solutions to
troublesome game systems:

1. Find the perfect game for one's needs.

or

2. Shutup and roll the dice. You're thinking about it too much.


I'm a fan of option #1, but it's appears to me that most people are
firmly in the second camp.

[Brandon Blackmoor]

Post by gleichman
If true, this concept points to one of two possible solutions to
1. Find the perfect game for one's needs.
or
2. Shutup and roll the dice. You're thinking about it too much.
I'm a fan of option #1, but it's appears to me that most people are
firmly in the second camp.

I think you may be on to something. However, it's worth pointing out two
things:

1) There is no perfect system. What the human mind wants and what
reality is capable of providing will never match.

2) Even if there were such a thing as the perfect system for *one*
person, no two people, however similar in taste they might be, will ever
both be satisfied by the same definition of perfection.

The universe is imperfect. Gaming is a compromise. Set your priorities,
find the best fit you can for the group with whom you choose to play
(or, alternately, find the best group you can for your tastes), then
roll the dice and play the game.

People who consistently obsess over a system's inadequacies are, indeed,
thinking about it too much, to the detriment of not only their own
enjoyment, but the enjoyment of everyone else at the table. As role-play
gaming is first and foremost (and there is no argument on this point --
people who disagree are simply wrong) a social activity, disrupting the
game is one of the few cases where one can definitely say that the
disruptive person is playing the game incorrectly.

[gleichman]

Post by Brandon Blackmoor
I think you may be on to something. However, it's worth pointing out two
1) There is no perfect system. What the human mind wants and what
reality is capable of providing will never match.
2) Even if there were such a thing as the perfect system for *one*
person, no two people, however similar in taste they might be, will ever
both be satisfied by the same definition of perfection.

This reply immediately brought to mind an old joke (which, as an
engineer I'm fond of) that you've likely seen:

___
A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer were each given the
following problem to solve.

A school dance floor included a straight line down the middle dividing
the floor in two equal halves. Boys were lined up against one wall and
girls against the opposite wall, each facing the centre line. They
were instructed to advance in stages towards the centre line every ten
seconds, where the distance from the person to the centre line at each
stage is equal to one-half the distance at the past stage.

i.e.: If the starting distance from the wall to centre line was D, the
progressive series of distances at t = 0, 10 seconds, 20 seconds...10n
seconds to the centre line is (D, D/2, D/4, D/8, .....D/2n)

The question is, when will they meet at the middle?

The mathematician said that they would never meet.

The physicist said they would meet when time equals infinity.

The engineer said that in one minute they would be close enough for
all practical purposes.
___



Looking back at our problem of either 1) find the perfect system or 2)
shut up and roll dice, it would seem clear that any on-going rpg
campaign would break down as follows:

Mathematician: option #2 is the only valid outcome. Accept it and go.

Physicist: given infinite time and work option #1 is can be successful
completed.

Engineer: we can get close enough to option #1 to make option #2 far
more acceptable.

[s***@sonic.net]

Post by gleichman
1. Find the perfect game for one's needs.
or
2. Shutup and roll the dice. You're thinking about it too much.

Set your priorities, find the best fit you can for the group with
whom you choose to play (or, alternately, find the best group you
can for your tastes), then roll the dice and play the game.

Yah, pretty much. I was about to say approximately the same thing;
I opted to quote, instead. </AOL-ME-TOO>

For my own example -- medieval-esque fantasy (i.e. squarely where most
D&D sits) is one of my favorite genre's. But I really dislike many of
D&D's features (classes/levels, HP, Vancian magic, Divine-vs-Arcane, &c).

So, I play "Ars Magica" for my medieval-esque fantasy. No, it's not a
"perfect" game - but it's much, MUCH better (by my standards), and so I
shutup and roll in ArM.

[gleichman]

Post by s***@sonic.net
So, I play "Ars Magica" for my medieval-esque fantasy. No, it's not a
"perfect" game - but it's much, MUCH better (by my standards), and so I
shutup and roll in ArM.

It's a very obvious concept, learn what design features you don't like
and find the system that has the fewest of those features (or the less
impact from them). Remove any remaining seriously negative elements
either mechanically or by non-use.

And then play the game and stop overthinking it.

Too often I think we create our own problems to the point where some
never have a successful campaign because something somewhere goes
wrong. If we lived our lives that way, we'd all slit our wrists.

[s***@sonic.net]

Post by gleichman
It's a very obvious concept, learn what design features you don't like
and find the system that has the fewest of those features

And/or features you *DO* like, and systems that have the MOST of those...

The continuum of presence-of-good-things vs. absense-of-bad-things is one
that everyone has to pick their own "acceptable zone(s)". For example, I
*love* the cards/chips mechanics of Deadlands; I *hate* the mechanical
oddities and counter-intuitive/counter-intentional results some of them
have. For *that* game, I love the evocative systems more than I hate the
bad results, and so I play Deadlands with relish.

Post by gleichman
Too often I think we create our own problems to the point where some
never have a successful campaign because something somewhere goes
wrong. If we lived our lives that way, we'd all slit our wrists.

Or sit around whining about how the world is unfair/unreasonable/etc...
come to think of it, I *do* know people who live their lives that way...

[Simon Smith]

Post by s***@sonic.net

Post by gleichman
Too often I think we create our own problems to the point where some
never have a successful campaign because something somewhere goes
wrong. If we lived our lives that way, we'd all slit our wrists.

Or sit around whining about how the world is unfair/unreasonable/etc...
come to think of it, I *do* know people who live their lives that way...

I believe Dorothy Parker had some choice words on the various ways of ending
it all.

[gleichman]

Post by s***@sonic.net
The continuum of presence-of-good-things vs. absense-of-bad-things is one
that everyone has to pick their own "acceptable zone(s)". For example, I
*love* the cards/chips mechanics of Deadlands; I *hate* the mechanical
oddities and counter-intuitive/counter-intentional results some of them
have. For *that* game, I love the evocative systems more than I hate the
bad results, and so I play Deadlands with relish.

I had the same reaction to some extent, my solution was to make minor
mechanical changes to lessen the problems.

In the end however, bad mechanics won over favor with respect to the
Huckers. I had to drop the poker hands in their sub-system. People have fun
with the campaign, but it is certainly considered the least of the
setting/rules we play in.

[psychohist]

Brian Gleichman posts, in part:

But I think in large measure the same mindset applies:
One is so interested in a persistent existence that
rule problems are completely ignored by the common
gamer. They either accept the poor elements of the
mechanics, or just don't use them. It seems to me
that they often make that decision (accept or discard)
at an unconscious level.

I agree that's true. I think there's more to it than that, though:
people are interested in developing their own characters, but most do
not want to spend a lot of time developing the game setting for
others' characters.

As a result, players may end up having to choose between various
sources of prewritten content. That content is generally tied to
particular rules sets, so players don't really have the freedom to
choose between different rules sets.

From a practical standpoint, I think that players that just want to

play, and don't have a lot of time and interest to invest into
developing their own rules and scenarios, may not really have many
choices.

Warren J. Dew

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by psychohist
As a result, players may end up having to choose between various
sources of prewritten content. That content is generally tied to
particular rules sets, so players don't really have the freedom to
choose between different rules sets.

We have experimented with translating modules into other systems,
including homebrews. Jon has had some success with it: he ran a
very nice _Masks of Nyarlathotep_ in Feng Shui.

It doesn't work for me as I'm not as flexible or as good with
mechanics: I don't find coming up with plots and situations to
be the hard part of scenario design, and I find doing a good
cross-system translation as hard as doing things from
scratch. Because each system is quite different in its "sweet
spots" a too-literal translation may well be inappropriately
powerful or weak in the new system.

Feng Shui is one of the easiest systems to translate into,
because if you are very careful with the AV value the other
numbers, unless extreme, are unlikely to be badly unbalancing. So
you know what you have to watch out for. However, our stock of
modules suitable to be translated into Feng Shui ran out long
ago. D&D modules, past very low level, do not translate well into
anything except other D&D-like systems. The world assumptions are
just too idiosyncratic.

At the point where our lives are now, running from D&D modules means
getting to play 1-2 times a week; running fully homebuilt stuff would
mean getting to play maybe 1-2 times a month. I find gaming
a welcome distraction when under heavy work stress, as I am now, and
I'd rather play weekly and struggle with the system.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Irina Rempt]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
D&D modules, past very low level, do not translate well into
anything except other D&D-like systems. The world assumptions are
just too idiosyncratic.

A group I was in fifteen years ago played Al-Qadim, first in its native
AD&D, then in our homebrew, and we got so frustrated with the conversion
problems that we gave up and made new homebrew characters instead in a
world (that someone already had) with a similar feel.

But I do miss Roushan, half djinni (I persuaded the GM to treat her
technically as a half-elf) fighter/cleric, who used to cast "Silence 15'
radius" so her twin sister could steal from people we didn't like's
houses.

Irina

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
As a result, players may end up having to choose between various
sources of prewritten content. That content is generally tied to
particular rules sets, so players don't really have the freedom to
choose between different rules sets.

No doubt true to some extent. This is something that I often overlook
because both adventure creation and translation to different systems is
basically effortless for me.



However with rare exception, most game systems these days don't present much
in the way of setting by means of adventures. D&D is perhaps an exception (I
don't even look at their product line), but games lines like HERO or
Shadowrun or Salvage World Deadlands are effectively rules with general
world background- and that's all. Useless for running individual adventures.



Further I'd argue that by natur, anyone who insists on running only
pre-canned adventures is bringing their problems onto themselves in direct
proportion to how believable they wish their world to be, how customizable
their character system is, and how complex their combat system is.