Should mechanics in games ever take you out of the fiction and make you think about the mechanics? Thoughts?
Should mechanics in games ever take you out of the fiction and make you think about the mechanics? Thoughts?
Should mechanics in games ever take you out of the fiction and make you think about the mechanics? Thoughts?
“Should” is a difficult concept in any artistic field. As soon as you say “should,” some damn artist with different ideas comes along and proves you wrong.
“Should” is a difficult concept in any artistic field. As soon as you say “should,” some damn artist with different ideas comes along and proves you wrong.
People who game with me know I’m not normally a fan of when games do that. But sometimes I feel conflicted about it. Dogs in the Vineyard is an example of a game I enjoy for many different reasons (amazing character creation, terrific setting, inspired GM prep) but the core mechanic has a tendency to yank you out of the fiction. I often want to put DitV on our calendar, because I think our players should experience it, but I always talk myself out of it because of my hang-ups with the mechanics (this is even moreso the case because the game demands to be played for at least four or five sessions).
Paul Czege I agree. But the “shoulds” of the world help create a critical framework to understand things, and a lot of great art comes out of defying that framework. I’m sure someone back in the 90’s said “A game should never tell the same story twice” but then someone made a crazy game about mad scientists and their abused underlings which was lauded for defying that conventional thinking.
People who game with me know I’m not normally a fan of when games do that. But sometimes I feel conflicted about it. Dogs in the Vineyard is an example of a game I enjoy for many different reasons (amazing character creation, terrific setting, inspired GM prep) but the core mechanic has a tendency to yank you out of the fiction. I often want to put DitV on our calendar, because I think our players should experience it, but I always talk myself out of it because of my hang-ups with the mechanics (this is even moreso the case because the game demands to be played for at least four or five sessions).
Paul Czege I agree. But the “shoulds” of the world help create a critical framework to understand things, and a lot of great art comes out of defying that framework. I’m sure someone back in the 90’s said “A game should never tell the same story twice” but then someone made a crazy game about mad scientists and their abused underlings which was lauded for defying that conventional thinking.
I think it depends on what you mean by “out of the fiction”, really! If your idea of “in the fiction” means being immersed as the character, then that’s different from if your idea of “in the fiction” means making decisions for the character as though you were telling their story, aware of other things going on.
For some people, mechanics that immerse you in the character’s viewpoint can take you out of the fiction, because to those people being “in the fiction” means being aware of a character’s place in a story.
My own idea of being “in the fiction” includes a lot of meta-awareness, so there’s not a lot of mechanics that take me out of the fiction. I also give games with a hefty learning curve some amount of leeway, because I know that some games need to be learned and mastered to be better-enjoyed. (This applies to non-RPG gaming, too! I wouldn’t show up to a game of Tichu and expect it to be brain-burningly brilliant without some amount of system mastery.)
I think it depends on what you mean by “out of the fiction”, really! If your idea of “in the fiction” means being immersed as the character, then that’s different from if your idea of “in the fiction” means making decisions for the character as though you were telling their story, aware of other things going on.
For some people, mechanics that immerse you in the character’s viewpoint can take you out of the fiction, because to those people being “in the fiction” means being aware of a character’s place in a story.
My own idea of being “in the fiction” includes a lot of meta-awareness, so there’s not a lot of mechanics that take me out of the fiction. I also give games with a hefty learning curve some amount of leeway, because I know that some games need to be learned and mastered to be better-enjoyed. (This applies to non-RPG gaming, too! I wouldn’t show up to a game of Tichu and expect it to be brain-burningly brilliant without some amount of system mastery.)
Andy Hauge I can’t speak for David, but when I say ‘yanks you out of the fiction, ‘ what I mean is that you have to spend a lot of time addressing the nuts and bolts of the mechanics, and said mechanics aren’t doing much to advance the story. So, sticking with my DitV example, our table always has a good conversation going around, we’re speaking in character, using lots of imagery, and so forth. But as soon as we go to the dice in DitV, there is a hard stop to all of that. You have to spend 5-10 minutes (or more) engaging with this somewhat complex conflict resolution system. Granted, it’s a fun exercise in and of itself, but it really slows down the story.
Andy Hauge I can’t speak for David, but when I say ‘yanks you out of the fiction, ‘ what I mean is that you have to spend a lot of time addressing the nuts and bolts of the mechanics, and said mechanics aren’t doing much to advance the story. So, sticking with my DitV example, our table always has a good conversation going around, we’re speaking in character, using lots of imagery, and so forth. But as soon as we go to the dice in DitV, there is a hard stop to all of that. You have to spend 5-10 minutes (or more) engaging with this somewhat complex conflict resolution system. Granted, it’s a fun exercise in and of itself, but it really slows down the story.
I just put this up as a neutral question to see what people thought about it. My opinion is that games that I critically find “good” typically do a good job of not yanking out of the fiction. Even if the mechanics ask you to do meta things, they can still be about the fiction. A good example of what I am talking about is In a Wicked Age, where conflict resolution is a meta decision but not yanking you away from the fixtion
I just put this up as a neutral question to see what people thought about it. My opinion is that games that I critically find “good” typically do a good job of not yanking out of the fiction. Even if the mechanics ask you to do meta things, they can still be about the fiction. A good example of what I am talking about is In a Wicked Age, where conflict resolution is a meta decision but not yanking you away from the fixtion
I’m usually fine with this sort of thing so long as it’s a speed bump in the fiction instead of a roadblock–and especially if it’s a speed bump, and then suddenly awesome things are happening.
I’m usually fine with this sort of thing so long as it’s a speed bump in the fiction instead of a roadblock–and especially if it’s a speed bump, and then suddenly awesome things are happening.
This is also partly a matter of how often a GM wants to apply the mechanics during the game. Game play doesn’t always have to rely on the mechanics.
This is also partly a matter of how often a GM wants to apply the mechanics during the game. Game play doesn’t always have to rely on the mechanics.