tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Oct 15, 2014 12:11:05 GMT -8
During the podcast I asked this question in response to the letter about whether GM enjoyment comes from players enjoyment: Now, like twitter, a G+ question is limited by # of characters and such, and the way stork answered (which summarized: was about how mechanics takes him out of RP and therefore not enjoyable) wasn't really the point I was trying to make, esp in conjunction with the topic at hand. Are there mechanics which help the GM enjoy the game through players' enjoyment? I ask because sometimes players don't like the adversarial qualities of some games, where the GM is managing the enemies and therefore actively "killing" or "hurting" the players. In a games with Apocalypse World Engine (like Dungeon World) the players roll dice whenever something needs to be adjudicated (a "move") and that informs the GM and direction of story, however the GM never rolls dice. In that sense any damage being done to the players is, in a sense, their own fault. They failed the roll, not that the GM succeeded in his/her roll. Now, all games can be abused, and DW is no different. But, and here's what I meant to ask... do things like dice rolling (or other mechanics) take some of these adversarial qualities out of the game, and enforce a more enjoyable environment?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Oct 18, 2014 13:50:55 GMT -8
I think that mechanics take the player out of the fiction any time they intrude on the player's though process. As such the mechanics of any game can intrude if they require the player to think about them.
D&D and Pathfinder are no more or less intrusive with mechanics than any other game system but I hear from a lot of players that the mechanics from those systems are "easier" but they aren't. However, I do think that they tend to be more automatic for most of us when we've done them for a long time. In essence when you can autopilot a mechanical component of the game it doesn't intrude on your though process and thus feels less "gamey".
JiB
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Oct 19, 2014 3:30:53 GMT -8
I feel like you're ignoring the number of intrusions jazzisblues. It's not a rare thing for a single round of D&D combat to have far more intrusions than a whole game session of Dungeon World. In addition, the fact that games like Dungeon World mostly ask for one roll at a time and then move on while games like D&D are asking for a lot of them at the same time surely matters in the sense that a prolonged period of intrusions have to be worse than a short one. That said the discussion seems a bit absurd to me. A game has to have mechanics, so the questions shouldn't really be how many of them there are, but how well they allow you to stay in or close to the fiction. I'll cite Dogs in the Vineyard (what else ) where conflict mechanics absolutely require roleplaying and roleplaying leads naturally into conflict mechanics, so that the amount of rolls is not that far away from D&D. The thing is DitV conflicts feels completely natural anyway, because of the way they are linked to roleplaying, whereas D&D combat is always going to be artificial, no matter how well you know the rules. Proof? All the recurring "how do we keep roleplaying in combat" discussions. That question just doesn't come up for certain games. And to return to the op, I feel like any mechanic that fosters a collaborative, creative athmosphere at the table is a good thing. I like DW a lot for how it goes about that.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 19, 2014 4:43:46 GMT -8
Uh oh. Is this turning into a trad vs. hippie debate? Is it too early to go grab some skewers and marshmallows?
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Oct 19, 2014 8:22:24 GMT -8
Well I think from the look of D&D 5e its pretty evident who won. And by that I mean the Lord High Demon of Darkness himself...COMPROMISE.
My beloved D&D got all covered in dirty hippy love.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Oct 19, 2014 12:53:23 GMT -8
Uh oh. Is this turning into a trad vs. hippie debate? Is it too early to go grab some skewers and marshmallows? I think so. As D&D5 and other games are starting to blur the line by taking in these new design ideas phrasing the debate that way is probably not going to be very helpful in the future. It's not necessarily helpful now, unless we tie the discussion to concrete examples or specific (editions of) games.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Oct 20, 2014 8:04:37 GMT -8
I think any time you turn to mechanics you risk being taken out of the fiction, and I don't think it matters whose mechanics they are. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Most players I've played with have no difficulty getting back to their characters once the mechanics have faded away.
The only time I've heard a complaint from players about the intrusion of mechanics is when combat takes too long, and that's the case with most games with a wargaming background, like DnD.
In any other circumstance, I think it's the fault of the GM and players if they let the game get bogged down in the minutia of mechanics.
This is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of picking and choosing which rules I'll use when running a game. I get criticized for it a lot (specifically when it comes to social mechanics), but I hate it when the role-playing is indicating that things are going a certain way, yet a dice roll dictates that things must go another, even if that is contrary to every aspect of the fiction being created.
Regarding the adversarial nature of the GM/Player relationship, taking the dice out of the GM's hand might help with that, I suppose. But if there really is that feeling of strong adversity, there are probably other problems besides the game system.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Oct 20, 2014 8:58:50 GMT -8
Yeah if the players don't trust the GM enough to run a game that won't be about proving her/his "phenomenal cosmic power!" then that game will have a very hard time straying out of an adversarial tone. I haven't had a knock down, game wrecking, rules argument during a session in twenty years. But, I also have had far fewer player character deaths where the majority of "are you sure that's how that rule works?!" arguments occurred. Games like D&D especially at higher levels provide such an "oh shit we might die" buffer of hit points that my players have gotten very good at withdrawing from shitty situations. But honestly if we don't as GMs challenge our players with tense, dramatic, risky, character threatening situations isn't that game a tad bit boring ?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Oct 20, 2014 17:28:00 GMT -8
I think there's two questions here tomes. 1) Are there mechanics which help the GM enjoy the game through players' enjoyment? Not that I can think of. Different players enjoy the game for different reasons. (There's your obvious nugget of wisdom.) Some players enjoy being awesome because of game mechanics, but I don't think there are any games that have mechanics specifically designed to increase player enjoyment and, as a result, increase GM enjoyment. I don't even know what that mechanic would look like. (But now I am very curious.) 2) Do things like dice rolling (or other mechanics) take some of these adversarial qualities out of the game, and enforce a more enjoyable environment?Again this is going to be a wishy-washy answer. It depends on the players. Some players enjoy GM adversity, and so taking that out of a game would lower their enjoyment. Other players don't like the idea of their character failing, and so "player facing rolls" (like in Apocalypse World games) will also decrease their enjoyment. But for certain types of players, I could see how making the GM less adversarial (by not having them roll dice) would increase some player's enjoyment of a game.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Oct 20, 2014 18:10:20 GMT -8
A game has to have mechanics, so the questions shouldn't really be how many of them there are, but how well they allow you to stay in or close to the fiction. I'll cite Dogs in the Vineyard (what else ) where conflict mechanics absolutely require roleplaying and roleplaying leads naturally into conflict mechanics, so that the amount of rolls is not that far away from D&D. The thing is DitV conflicts feels completely natural anyway, because of the way they are linked to roleplaying, whereas D&D combat is always going to be artificial, no matter how well you know the rules. Actually, in my limited experience with DitV, rolling dice during a roleplaying scene felt extremely UN-natural to me.* It interrupted the flow of conversation between the characters to have to think about what we were doing in terms of the game mechanics; plus, the time needed to choose, roll, and interpret the dice slowed things down. I submit that it feels completely natural to you because you're so used to the system that the rules just "melt away" when you're at the table...which is exactly what happens with any system that the players all know well. *Note: This should not in any way be construed as a slam at Dogs in the Vineyard, which is an excellent game. I just don't think it's any more excellent in that particular way than other games.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Oct 22, 2014 11:58:23 GMT -8
My personal experience (thus far) is that any additional enjoyment derived from the players in a system that instructs the GM not to roll dice is not directly due to that fact. For example, I ran Numenera for one of my groups, a system that doesn't have the GM roll, and they were kind of lukewarm on it. They didn't hate the system, but the after game discussion was rather tepid, and it didn't appear to incite excitement in them (speaking specifically about the system, not the setting).
I'm now running Monsterhearts for them, and they're having a blast. There has been discussion about how easy it would be to modify the system for other settings, tweaks to moves, playset generation, etc. I don't think that their enthusiasm has anything to do with the fact that I'm not rolling dice, but I'm not exactly sure what. Maybe I'll ask them after our next game what it is they like about PbtA over the Cypher system.
That being said, we haven't had a combat session in Monsterhearts, so maybe that's where the adversarial nature described above really comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by yojimbohawkins on Oct 22, 2014 12:35:59 GMT -8
The game that really brought this home to me was FFG's Edge of the Empire.
I appreciate that these questions really depend on the players at your table. In my experience, if the GM is having a good time, that usually comes through into the game, engendering a good atmosphere at the table, which in turn encourages the players to get into it as well. If you're not into the game, that will be pretty self-evident, player or GM alike. I honestly don't think that's down to mechanics in any system.
A small caveat to that is my experience with the aforementioned Edge of the Empire. Yes, it's a Star Wars RPG (although to me it has a very Traveller-esque feel to it as well), and I know some people dislike playing in such a well-known setting. It is well worth a look, however, for the narrative dice pool mechanics. The system draws me in as GM, and has done for my players as well. The game is set up to be very easy for everyone around the table to pick up quickly, and in the games I've run, every time someone picks up the dice, everyone else pays attention, both in and out of combat. Interpreting the results of a skill check are a lot of fun, as the players get to decide what the results of Advantages and Triumphs are, which really focuses them on the task at hand. Of course, the GM gets to decide what the results of Threats and Despairs, which is also a focus of attention, sometimes more so! The cheers when a Triumph is rolled (or conversely the groans when a Despair turns up!) are highly satisfying to me as a GM. It shows the players are invested in the game, which is hopefully the aim. Plus, little or no Force monkeys!
Now, that's not to say that the mechanics supplant RP, if that's what you or your players want. Far from it. However, they can inform it in interesting ways, if that's the way your players want to go.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Oct 22, 2014 13:33:28 GMT -8
... every time someone picks up the dice, everyone else pays attention, both in and out of combat. Interpreting the results of a skill check are a lot of fun, as the players get to decide what the results of Advantages and Triumphs are, which really focuses them on the task at hand. Of course, the GM gets to decide what the results of Threats and Despairs, which is also a focus of attention, sometimes more so! The cheers when a Triumph is rolled (or conversely the groans when a Despair turns up!) are highly satisfying to me as a GM. It shows the players are invested in the game, which is hopefully the aim. Intriguing! I have to say, reading this echoes my sentiments with Dungeon World dice rolling in the games we've played. Someone picks up the dice, everyone eyes are there. Something bad is rolled - everyone will talk about how that's 1 more XP (the positive) - and then brace themselves for the bad. Cause the bad doesn't have to be to the guy who rolled shitty... it's usually just bad in general for the party. ("you hit the goblin, but his cries call his big ogre friend", "the slime is a lot more slimey than you thought, and although you desperately try to keep your grasp on your sword...") As much as I've heard the dice rolling vs RP argument, and I'm with you there in many scenes, and I've heard the whole "it depends" arguments (on GM, on party, on mood, etc.) I really feel like finding the right set of mechanics can really help with game + player + GM cohesion / enjoyment. And of course which set are "right", well that'll depend on those other variables (game + player + GM).
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Oct 22, 2014 13:38:53 GMT -8
I don't think that their enthusiasm has anything to do with the fact that I'm not rolling dice, ... Which is fair... and of course other things will be big in determining enjoyment (setting, for example, all things being equal in this case), but equally big might be other mechanics. I don't just mean that the GM not rolling dice, but also how that is interpreted... e.g. if I ran D&D 4E, even if I let the players roll the dice for the opponents, the mechanics are otherwise so different from Dungeon World that I don't think that alone is a big difference. The mechanics themselves may - other than who rolls the dice - be quite different and help determine the overall feel ( moves, simplified class "skill" lists, etc in the case of DW)
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Oct 22, 2014 21:10:30 GMT -8
I sense a disturbance. I thought it might have been laid to rest once and for all but...I think IT has begun to stir in its slumber. It would explain my nightmares. That horse which is not dead but can eternal lie... and with strange aeons even the death of the **CENSORED** debate may die. Prepare for san loss. I think we all agree with yojimbohawkins. Step 1: Have a cool group of people for a gaming group. Step 2: Play the system that everyone enjoys the most. As I dig into getting my GUMSHOE game ready for Jackercon V: "Apostles of Mercy: War of the Worlds II" and cannot help marvel again and again at the genius of one Mr. Robin D. Laws. What dice do you need for gumshoe ? A SINGLE d6. Is there a possibility that for the first half of the adventure you may never have to need concern yourself with missing or failing a roll ? Yes! What does this do for a game ? It allows the players to assume the roles of utter, pompous BAD ASSES who can do everything. But, eventually they will be challenged...OH YES! they will meet their "Martian Moriarty" and it will get ugly. In Space No One Can Hear You...Be Utterly Flummoxed. (This has been a double margarita waiting for my Chicago bound flight post)
|
|