I think we did a decent job of offering an overview of
unusual mechanics in this episode. We could easily drill down further in
another one- trying to figure out the rationale behind such systems: what do
they bring to the table? How does a mechanic actually enhance the game
experience? Do mechanics matter? I’ve heard arguments on both sides of that
question. Some believe that mechanics don’t matter- that the group and
gamemaster shape the experience much more significantly than the rules. They
suggest the rules contribution to play is negligible. On the other hand, there
the opposite approach which suggests that some games simply don’t work with
some genres or game forms. In this reading the game rules shape and drive how
the play’s experienced. In have to suspect that designers of rules heavy games
have to tend towards this position. Otherwise why create elaborate systems?
ANALYSIS PARALYSIS
My position- and that I suspect of most gamers- is that the
rules can get in the way and make some parts of the experience easier or more
difficult. There are various dimensions to that, but it can be hard to measure
or track. Different GMs and groups handle a set of rules quite different (to
some people’s chagrin). Our version of GURPS and Rolemaster was miles away from how it was actually written. I can
only assume that holds true with other groups. It’s worth considering what we
can measure and consider. For example, I think we might be able to track and
measure resolution complexity, by considering steps and time involved with any
resolution on the micro-scale (X makes an attack on Y) and macro-scale (span of
a combat). Complexity does not necessarily increase resolution time or vice
versa. For example, I can imagine a rules light system which requires a great
deal of narration or requires many successful hits to take down any opponent.
Or an elaborate and detailed procedure which boils down to one roll to figure
out who actually wins a fight.
- Player Options: The number of choices a player has, how clearly those are available to the player, and the ease of calculating the relative value of those options. Includes player options of control after seeing the randomizer results (as in FATE).
- Calculations: Dice reading, working out modifiers, measuring distances, reading dice, figuring out target numbers, etc.
- Narratives: The player’s description of the action. If this has an impact on the result, this will likely take longer.
- Table Conditions: How much conditions or states of opponents or the battlefield have a direct impact on the results. Tends to me more so in the case in tactical or miniatures-based games.
- Number of Steps to Resolve Action: Number of processes and decisions (by a player or randomizer) which must be taken to arrive at a final result.
- Book Keeping: Number of resources which must be tracked on the player and GM’s side of things. Beyond damage, includes resources spent to carry out any action (chi, willpower, drama points, etc.)
- Turn Structure: Does the turn operate by a simple initiative count down or are there other factors involved. How many actions does a player get? Is there an Action Point system? Do players have to declare actions or intent at the top of the round?
- Damage Absorption: More a higher-scale consideration, how many hits on average with the players current power level does it take to win over an standard opponent? Are there other dimensions to the damage?
So, for example, let me consider that in relation to several
superhero games, which often have a combat emphasis. At base, for example,
Champions actually has a pretty simple set of resolutions. Players choose an
attack, often a power. In some cases like HTH, they may pick a maneuver which
has additional complications. But generally, it is pretty easy to make a choice
about action and figure out one’s Offensive Combat Value. Target range can have
an impact, and they may be able to respond, but in most attacks that won’t be
an issue. The player rolls an attack against the target’s Defensive Combat
Value, DCV. If they hit, they roll damage, and the target figures out exactly
how much they take by subtracting any defenses. So why does Champions take so
long to resolve, even in the hands of veteran players? Book-keeping impacts
this a little- with different possible conditions, two types of primary damage
(Body and Stun), and spending Endurance for powers. Having several kinds of
damage (entangles, standard, drains, etc.) means more choices. The turn
structure- with split phases allowing more attacks for faster characters- can also
drag this out. Characters have more options for recovery. But the major
culprit, I’d argue is that it just takes a while to take someone out. You have
to make contact with a target first, and even then, rarely can you one-shot a
bad-guy, IMHO.
On the other hand, Mutants & Masterminds has a great
deal of detail, but the combats generally go faster. The turn structure’s more
straight-forward- with a simple initiative countdown and all having the same
number of actions. There’s detail- like Champions most of that lies in the
character generation calculations. It has complexity in the conditions which
can be applied to targets, but like Champions, there’s really only one damage
step. Bookkeeping is reduced, but the big difference lies in how hard hard it is
to damage and or disable a target. M&M’s just faster and has fewer
incremental recovery options. The most recent (and defunct) Marvel RPG would be
as fast, but it has a couple of speed bumps. Character “powers” are arbitrary
and asymmetrical. On basic character they’re fairly simple, but some of the
more advanced ones have conditional activations, requirements, and
consequences. Players have to learn their characters well. More significantly,
each turn when players take their actions they have to build their pool of
dice- drawing from several abilities and narrating how that works. Despite that
it remains extremely quick.
It’s an interesting way of breaking down what’s going on in
the mechanics- primarily for assessing speed and pacing. I’ve often fretted
about a game’s mechanics moving too slowly for my liking. But I need to think
about how that fits in the bigger context. For example, when I played Marvel,
the dice-pool building felt like a clunky step. But it is a key character play
moment, and is really the only crunchy bit going on there. The rest of it moves
so fast that slow down doesn’t draw play out too much. I think this approach
could be useful in figuring out where the speed bumps. The next step is to
assess what those rules add to the game and the strategic experience. For
example, we stripped away considering many of the modifiers in GURPS combat
when we played. It made it faster and clearer to the players. The cost was a
certain degree of realism- and throwing balance off for some things, like
certain weapons. But generally it didn’t undercut the players’ purchases. Some
set of complexity are features, for example phases Champions. The system’s
built around that and removing or tweaking negates a good deal of the systems
logic. This kind of reading might also be useful for figuring out if these new and novel mechanics help or hinder play.
FINAL THOUGHTS
My favorite line from the episode is Brian’s: “I just don’t
want to play Spider-Man being late to school…” As GMs and game retoolers we can
think about how the mechanics make games and play more interesting. Can we use
them to make less interesting aspects more engaging. ST Wild on Roleplaying
recently directed me to the Extra Credits video series. They had an episode
talking about Combining Genres. They made an interesting point about the game
Puzzle Quest. That video game takes one of the more repetitive elements of
JRPGs, combats, and figured out how to make them engaging in a different way.
Instead of making them real-time or action-oriented, they make those fights
into a puzzle. Each fight has a satisfying challenge to it which backs up the
rest of the game. I’m wondering if we can do that at the tabletop?
If you like RPG Gaming podcasts, I hope you'll check it out.
We take a focused approach- tackling a single topic each episode. You can
subscribe to the show on iTunes or follow the podcast's page at
www.playontarget.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment