[RPG Theory] When Games Get in the Way

[stevekenson]

There’s a certain ongoing tension in game design between what can be called “crunchy” (detailed and often complex) and “freeform” (simple and often vague) rules systems.

Interestingly, although some gamers say they want something simple and freeform, when it comes right down to it, they look for the certainty and reassurance of a system of clearly laid-out and detailed rules. The oft-asked question is, “How do you handle this situation in game-terms?”

Now, one of the good things about RPGs, in my opinion, is the unexpected. Things turn up in games you didn’t see coming and the GM and players need to adapt. It’s those twists and turns, the thinking and creating on your feet, that make RPGs fun to me, and differentiate them from pre-programmed computer games where your options are (necessarily) limited. Anything could happen in a tabletop RPG, assuming the Gamemaster and players let it.

Funny thing is, sometimes games get in their own way in that regard. When an unexpected situation arises, it sometimes paralyzes game-play for various reasons, most of which boil down to a tendency to over-analyze. Either an impromptu game-design discussion breaks out about how to extend the existing game rules to cover the situation or else an extended search through the existing rule book(s) for the rules that do cover the situation begins (sometimes ending with “wow, that rule is dumb”). Note that I’m not saying these are bad things or making a judgement; if you happen to enjoy impromptu game-design discussions, then it’s still fun, I’m just talking in terms of the flow of the game.

It’s especially interesting when you’re dealing with totally common-sense situations, where the solution in narrative terms is blindingly obvious, but because there isn’t a game system for it, a clear and defined ruling, things bog down. The desire to have or make a rule for that situation, and other situations as they arise, seems to contribute to the progressive accretion of rules to a system. Do you eventually reach a point where a game system can’t get out of its own way? Perhaps. I suspect it depends on whether or not you prefer to focus on the “game” aspect, wherein stories arise as a byproduct of describing what happened in the game in terms of a narrative, or the “story” aspect, in which some things happen “outside” of the rules system, but that doesn’t matter so long as it helps the narrative to flow.

Comments

[whisper-jeff.livejournal.com]

There are many reasons why I'm happy to have moved on from the RPG industry (I miss the people, but I don't miss the "business") and the contradictions perpetrated by gamers on a near constant basis is certainly high on that list. They ask for one thing but really want another. They ask for another thing but really want both, when both is not possible.

I certainly was not the first to say this, but I agree with it whole-heartedly: the worst thing about games are the gamers.

[xomec.livejournal.com]

Well, I did say "some" gamers say they want simple and freeform and then founder when they get it. I think many gamers do know what they want, and are fine when they get it. For me the issue is more about the inherent tension between complexity and playability (and the related tension between simplicity and ongoing publication and "support") than it is about gamers' conflicting wants. You can't please everybody, as they say.

[whisper-jeff.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. It's just your comments struck that cord with me that reminded me of how often people (not just gamers) ask for one thing but often want another (or both). The simplicity/detail issue is a strong example of it and one that certainly made things annoying, on more than one occasion.

[xomec.livejournal.com]

No argument there, my friend.

[hackard.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the online flak Sean and David took over GURPS 4/e. Lots of people said they wanted to see it and then bitched when it was released because "you didn't do exactly what I wanted you to do." And then there were the people who were perfectly happy to change their complaints from "GURPS 3/e is too messy and spread-out and you have to buy dozens of books" to "there wasn't any need for a new edition."

There were even people, swear to ghod, who said it was too soon. Apparently 16 years between editions isn't enough.

[wudawasa.livejournal.com]

IMO simple-vs-detailed is a fairly meaningless way of describing RPGs. Nobody wants either extreme, and I think for most of us it's more complex than a linear progression of detail. Some people enjoy very detailed combat but most of my players don't give a crap, they just want to kill the orc and move on. On the other hand, because of who we are away from the gaming table, they enjoy a detailed magic system.

>>Now, one of the good things about RPGs, in my opinion, is the unexpected<<

Absolutely. I can't imagine running a game if it weren't for the unexpected factor. That's what makes it fun for me.

>>When an unexpected situation arises, it sometimes paralyzes game-play for various reasons<<

That used to happen to me a LOT at one time, but over the years I've come to perceive RPGs as being a little like rituals in that the most important thing is to keep the flow going. I think a good DM should just refuse to let the game get bogged down. If we come to a situation like this I make an arbitrary one time ruling. The players all know that "game reality" may function differently in the future after we have time to pull out the rulebooks and reach a consensus...but right then is not the time. If the judgment is truly borderline I tend to rule in the player's favor.

>>The desire to have or make a rule for that situation, and other situations as they arise, seems to contribute to the progressive accretion of rules to a system<<

I think that's what happened to D&D in the early years. We never played either of the AD&D versions. We looked at them, but it was obvious that a lot of rules had been tacked on awkwardly. For us it was entirely too complicated, without adequate reward for the extra detail. I managed to run a campaign for 16 years using the original, classic D&D rules and pretty much winging it whenever a "situation" arose (which happened at almost every game, lol). The so-called Third Edition (which of course is actually the Fourth Edition) has a lot of complexity, but it's very smooth and integrated and the additional detail contributes to the enjoyment of the game.

I also think this has become an albatross for GURPS. There were changes in GURPS4ed that I liked (especially the change in hp/ST/HT/fat) but I would never recommend the game to novices now. The current version devotes more pages to Advantages/Disadvantages than the 3rd edition devoted to it's entire Yrth fantasy game setting. And much of it is just silly.

[xomec.livejournal.com]

It's a fair point that a single simple/complex axis doesn't fully describe most RPGs. Most have simple and complex aspects to them.

I do think it's interesting that the current edition of D&D strikes you as "smooth and integrated" but the current edition of GURPS seems overly complex, proof that one person's beautifully integrated system is another's patched-together nightmare of complexity.

[wudawasa.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify: When I say "smooth and integrated" I mean in comparison to the AD&D games. I still think d20 tends to be more complicated than it needs to be.

[nvdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

Nicely put.

Oh, and yes, I'm very late to the party on this I'm sure, but that "play" icon becomes another item on a very long list of Cool Things SK Had Done That I'm Jealous Over.