[RPG Theory] Hobbies Within Games

[stevekenson]

Seems to me there are two primary appeals to hyper-detailed character design systems, wherein lots and lots of traits are spelled out with as many options as possible:

First, they appeal to the “hobbyist” character designer, that is, they make character “modeling” or design as much a hobby activity as building other sorts of models (model trains, ships in bottles, etc.) and sharing them with fellow hobbyists. Character design itself becomes a kind of stand-alone or sub-hobby. Note, I think this is different from set-ups where character design is treated as a sub-game, such as Evil Hat’s Spirit of the Century wherein creating characters can be a fun shared social experience.

Second, they provide a kind of almost “vicarious” game play: reading in detail about what a cool trait can do is almost as good as seeing it in action. Multiply that by lots and lots of cool traits, many more than you’d ever see in action in a typical RPG session or even campaign, and you’ve got a fun experience unto itself, just imagining all that cool stuff in play. This can help to spark the imagination, leading readers to figure out what they really want to see in play, and feeding back into the modeling aspects of character design (”That sounds really cool, I wonder how it works? I’ll have to design a character with that and try it out.”)

The interesting thing about these aspects is they also make the system appealing as a purely intellectual exercise. That is, you don’t even have to play the game to enjoy it! For some a significant portion of the fun may be in the “gearhead” aspects of design, creation, and study of all the various aspects of those sub-systems. This may support the continuation of hobbyist communities for certain games even when active game-play seems relatively limited.

Comments

[gamescribe.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing about these aspects is they also make the system appealing as a purely intellectual exercise. That is, you don’t even have to play the game to enjoy it! For some a significant portion of the fun may be in the “gearhead” aspects of design, creation, and study of all the various aspects of those sub-systems. This may support the continuation of hobbyist communities for certain games even when active game-play seems relatively limited.

I think that's absolutely true. Now, as much of a "how does it work at the table" pragmatist as I have become, I'll admit that I've got books for gaming systems I'll never use or need precisely because I enjoy the intellectual exercise of analyzing how it might hypothetically work. I thought we'd created a pretty straightforward and easy to grok character generation system for Saga Edition, but every day Andrew Finch comes by my desk with his latest 20th-level build to talk about the nuts and bolts of how it works.

I'm a big fan of abstraction (at least to the point where you can see the correlation between mechanics and result) but I think you can also go too far away from the detailed character generation system. If a game fails to provide enough interesting options for character creation, it can lead to some gamers having a very "fuzzy" idea of what makes their character unique. I know it's "storytelling heresy" to suggest that the mechanics are an integral part of what makes your character your character, but mechanically interesting characters can hold a player's attention at times when maybe the story does not. For example, just because my human paladin in Chris Perkins' game isn't ever the focus of the ongoing plot, I have fun because at least a few times per session I'm getting to do something interesting.

I think the happy middle ground is the sweet spot. A robust character generation system that is also easy to grasp? Sign me up!

[michael-b-lee.livejournal.com]

I have a couple of guys in my gaming group like that (heck, I'm one myself, to a lesser degree). You see the same sort of interest in games like Warhammer 40K or Warmachine, which is all about analyzing the armies and creating the best force based on the tools at hand.

Interestingly, it appears that the most recent codex releases by GW appears to be making a conscious effort to simplify army design. It may make the game more accessible to their target market of 8-15 year-olds, but at what cost in the long-term?

The question, of course, is how large a segment of the gamer populace are "gearheads"? I suspect the number used to be quite large, proportionally, but has shrunk steadily over the years.

[xomec.livejournal.com]

I wonder about that, because it seems like the number of gamers who actively and regularly play has shrunk, and therefore the overall percentage of—let's call them "theoretical gamers," folks who buy and read the games but don't actively play them—has grown.

Thus in the aging tabletop gamer population you've got the "player" types, who bemoan the lack of free time and want simpler, less prep-time pickup games they can play when they've got a free evening, and the "gearhead" types, who sometimes wistfully wish they had a group to play their favorite game, but are otherwise content tinkering away on the characters, settings, or other stuff they've been working on for ages.

Of course, I don't have any solid research to back any of this up, so I might just be talking out my ass...

[xomec.livejournal.com]

"...mechanically interesting characters can hold a player's attention at times when maybe the story does not."

Not only that, but mechanically pre-defined traits provide "cues" for when that character should take action and become interesting.

For example, if the "stunts" (feats, whatever) of the system are amorphous and left for the players to define on-the-fly, there may be opportunities missed, simply because you didn't think of it at the time or because other players are more quick-witted or forceful personalities who jumped at the opportunity first before you thought of it.

On the other hand, if one of your character's pre-defined things is "I can rebuke undead" then, by golly, when undead show up you're going to be looking to do that. Moreover, the other characters are not going to be trying to rebuke the undead, because that's your thing. So there's some niche protection and encouragement for less dynamic players to take a hand in things.

Again, the happy medium is probably some middle-ground between pre-defined and dynamic, so players have pretty solid idea what their characters can and should be doing most of the time, but with room for innovation and wacky stunts occasionally, rather than discouraging creativity and cleverness in favor of "I do that thing I always do."

[coyote6.livejournal.com]

Again, the happy medium is probably some middle-ground between pre-defined and dynamic, so players have pretty solid idea what their characters can and should be doing most of the time, but with room for innovation and wacky stunts occasionally,

This is why M&M's power stunts are so cool, Steve.