Discussion: Are there aspects of RPGs that are unnecessary holdovers from the hobby’s roots in wargaming? Which mechanical tropes, if any, are downright vestigial in the year 2013? On the flipside, if it hadn’t been for wargaming, would we even have RPGs? Could we have gotten to a game like, say, Fiasco, without starting at Chainmail?
I have some opinions, but in the interest of open discussion, I will refrain from offering them.
I’ll start with something that is probably a minority opinion and nominate strict rules for character death.
For games with a lot of tactical combat, I get it, but for games that are supposed to emphasize narrative, why is this still a thing? Even Dungeon World, which does away with a lot of rules that are seemingly grandfathered into most RPGs, has this. If the goal is to tell a good story, why let one of the most crucial aspects of it be determined by whether you happen to roll 7+ or not?
I’m a big fan of systems that trust players with the choice of when their characters die, e.g. Monsterhearts, Hot War, etc.
I’ll start with something that is probably a minority opinion and nominate strict rules for character death.
For games with a lot of tactical combat, I get it, but for games that are supposed to emphasize narrative, why is this still a thing? Even Dungeon World, which does away with a lot of rules that are seemingly grandfathered into most RPGs, has this. If the goal is to tell a good story, why let one of the most crucial aspects of it be determined by whether you happen to roll 7+ or not?
I’m a big fan of systems that trust players with the choice of when their characters die, e.g. Monsterhearts, Hot War, etc.
It’s hard to argue against striking down hard death rules. My only worry is that by allowing the player/group to decide a death, you end up cheapening it. D
eath is a sudden business most times, and influences most of our actions in real life, so why wouldn’t it do so in the game, especially when it can come with the same randomness of a die roll?
No one likes losing a character to a meaningless death, that I understand. I did like the idea I heard Thursday night of a “death” being maybe not now, but soon it would come for you, and DE having an option to make a deal with the reaper as well, but I also like those not being a thing you can just choose, but rather as a way to deal with a bad situation.
It’s hard to argue against striking down hard death rules. My only worry is that by allowing the player/group to decide a death, you end up cheapening it. D
eath is a sudden business most times, and influences most of our actions in real life, so why wouldn’t it do so in the game, especially when it can come with the same randomness of a die roll?
No one likes losing a character to a meaningless death, that I understand. I did like the idea I heard Thursday night of a “death” being maybe not now, but soon it would come for you, and DE having an option to make a deal with the reaper as well, but I also like those not being a thing you can just choose, but rather as a way to deal with a bad situation.
Ferrell Riley and Daniel Lewis As far as hard rules for death goes, I think it depends a great deal on the genre of the game being played. It’s worth pointing out that, in Apoc World hacks (including Dungeon World), you don’t necessarily die immediately. Your character will die if the condition is met, but the player does get to narrate how and when that will occur.
Ferrell Riley and Daniel Lewis As far as hard rules for death goes, I think it depends a great deal on the genre of the game being played. It’s worth pointing out that, in Apoc World hacks (including Dungeon World), you don’t necessarily die immediately. Your character will die if the condition is met, but the player does get to narrate how and when that will occur.
I will go ahead and offer-up some thoughts on my original set of questions…
I do think it was necessary to start at wargaming in order to get where we are now. Wargaming provided a framework for ‘pretending to be other people in a space governed by rules.’ And rules are important because they help manage expectations and lead to more consistent, satisfying outcomes. Over time, of course, the framework provided by wargaming has been developed and re-shaped to better serve our needs.
And yet there are mechanical tropes that persist which should be discarded right away.
Let’s slaughter a holy cow: initiative is the most obnoxious concept in roleplaying games – a relic from our wargaming past. Even in games that are heavy on combat, you can ditch initiative entirely and won’t even notice it’s gone. Try it. The next time you’re playing a game with initiative (or some other method of determining turn order) just ignore that rule. Go around the table, ask everyone what they are doing, and then resolve those actions in the order that makes sense. If players have a good idea about what to do in the middle of the action, let them go ahead and do it if it fits the fiction. If you’re playing a game that isn’t entirely player-facing, have the enemies make attacks when the players flub a roll, or when they rush into a battle with little forethought (or just when it makes sense for the enemies to attack). I promise you it will work and that you will have more fun with your game because everyone will feel more involved at all times (as opposed to checking out for 10 or 15 minutes because they know their turn isn’t coming up for awhile).
I will go ahead and offer-up some thoughts on my original set of questions…
I do think it was necessary to start at wargaming in order to get where we are now. Wargaming provided a framework for ‘pretending to be other people in a space governed by rules.’ And rules are important because they help manage expectations and lead to more consistent, satisfying outcomes. Over time, of course, the framework provided by wargaming has been developed and re-shaped to better serve our needs.
And yet there are mechanical tropes that persist which should be discarded right away.
Let’s slaughter a holy cow: initiative is the most obnoxious concept in roleplaying games – a relic from our wargaming past. Even in games that are heavy on combat, you can ditch initiative entirely and won’t even notice it’s gone. Try it. The next time you’re playing a game with initiative (or some other method of determining turn order) just ignore that rule. Go around the table, ask everyone what they are doing, and then resolve those actions in the order that makes sense. If players have a good idea about what to do in the middle of the action, let them go ahead and do it if it fits the fiction. If you’re playing a game that isn’t entirely player-facing, have the enemies make attacks when the players flub a roll, or when they rush into a battle with little forethought (or just when it makes sense for the enemies to attack). I promise you it will work and that you will have more fun with your game because everyone will feel more involved at all times (as opposed to checking out for 10 or 15 minutes because they know their turn isn’t coming up for awhile).
Thread Necromancy, go!
Something Ive come to loath is combat crunch. Combat should feel like what the situation calls for. Resolving a situation should be about 2-3 rolls maybe, unless its a battle between units on a warfield. This may stem from my enjoyment of playing grappler/hand to hand fighters.
A good example that’s recent is Mouseguard, where while I loved the card idea, it seemed it could of been resolved a lot faster than it flowed on the table. Some of it was unfamiliarity, but I felt like it should of been “add X to your successes” or somesuch
Thread Necromancy, go!
Something Ive come to loath is combat crunch. Combat should feel like what the situation calls for. Resolving a situation should be about 2-3 rolls maybe, unless its a battle between units on a warfield. This may stem from my enjoyment of playing grappler/hand to hand fighters.
A good example that’s recent is Mouseguard, where while I loved the card idea, it seemed it could of been resolved a lot faster than it flowed on the table. Some of it was unfamiliarity, but I felt like it should of been “add X to your successes” or somesuch