1) Any mechanic introduced in the name of Realism is actually an unconscious attempt by the designer to deal with unspoken needs, desires, anxieties or tensions probably having nothing to do with the game.
Example: I've made several attempts to fiddle with the weapon reach rules of both D&D and Encounter Critical which probably stem from anxiety over the size of my weiner. Too much information, I know, but it's the thought that led to this post.
2) Any mechanic that brings a game more in line with the source material is an attempt by the designer to replace the actual with the ideal, an attempt to attain utopia/nirvana via fascistic superego dominance. If RPGs are escapism, then "emulation" and/or "versimiltude" is a form of escapism from the realities of RPGs.
Example: Every licensed RPG that makes you learn a new way to roll dice.
3) Neither point 1 or 2 should be construed as an attack upon realistic or emulative mechanics. I'm trying to analyze here, not judge.
"Ark Against Time" Submitted for DunDraCon #48
-
[image: A colorful thing seems to be made of several elongated pods]
(Ark of Time)
*GM: Matt MorrisonType: RPGSystem: D&D/Arduin GrimoireEdition: 5...
.jpg)
%202.png)
.JPG)
.png)
.gif)
Posts
I concur on Nr. 2. For Nr. 1, I am not convinced. For weapon sizes and damage values there might be something going on. For gearheadedness in general, it is not so easy.
ReplyDeleteIt is where I draw the line between good and bad, so this was to be expected.
Modelling is lighting a candle or constructing a bonfire in the cold of the unknown. Whereas "emulation" is painting a rotund picture to set up so that you can't see the darkness anymore.
No neutral analysis uses "fascistic" as a descriptor.
ReplyDeleteI think Jeff was being a little bit facetious there. He could have said "Hegelian-compleatist", I guess.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I personally do think there's serious overlap, but thats possibly my problem.
I tend to house-rule very quickly when things get complicated or the moment I have to start flipping pages to find the original rules. And, in life, I tend to shut down and/or hide in the face of complication and difficulty.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah. Point taken.
This is one of your best posts in a long time. Great! We just had a discussion in a big German forum about that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteSo, my point exactly!
Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteLike an awful lot of gamers, I have at least a few traits often associated with the autistic spectrum, such as an inordinate affection for categorization and classification, probably stemming from my inability, as a child, to understand human behavior on an intuitive level. One of the biggest challenges I have designing for D&D 4e is not exploding the lists of conditions, weapon properties, creature subtypes, etc -- keeping things simple and abstract is hard. So, yeah, you may be on to something. (One of the things that made me fall in love with AD&D 1e as soon as I saw the books was how everything was nicely classified and specified. An elf could be any of the following classes and could achieve thus-and-such a level in them, etc.)
"Sometimes a weapon reach rule is just a weapon reach rule."
ReplyDeleteSigmund Freud
You just made me spray coffee out my nose. For future reference: no reading Rients in the morning.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to consider point #1 in light of FATAL's existence...
ReplyDeleteWait, so you are saying that adding harsh critical hit tables to my game is trying to compensate for the fact that my life lacks eminent danger and excitement?
ReplyDeleteNo, wait, that's not right. I'm not sure I enjoy danger.
Maybe I feel too mortal, and this is my way of attempting to understand my mortality?
I'm not sure concussions from maces and amputations from swords really emulates the condition of the modern mortal state.
Maybe it is a form of social deviance, because I take joy in the shock it causes players who are too used to their characters being untouchable in other games.
A big stick is a big stick and if someone has a bugger stick then you they might get fu...oh heh heh.
ReplyDelete"Honey, I'd feel better if, from now on, you referred to it as the Great Blutarch."
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't like Vancian memorization, and at the same time rote memorization doesn't do shit for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm a psychologist and I prescribe you a complete 30 day hiatus from reading RPG forum sites.
ReplyDeleteRemember, a Freudian slip is when you say one thing, but you mean your mother.
ReplyDeleteThat's actually really brilliant, especially point one.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I dislike Vancian magic in my gaming, and I always try and replace it with something more freeform. In life, I extremely dislike memorizing long lists of anything, and try and invent a spur-of-the-moment solution instead of trying to apply a mountain of trivia.
Just to name one example, of course.
Jeff, a wise wizard once said, "It's not the size of the wand, it's the wonder within".
ReplyDeleteI'm still saving my pennies for Raggi, Rients, and Smith's Rods, Staves, and Wands.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as you say "theory of game design" it has become too complicated.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, so, I must be so comfortable with DM fiat then because I have plenty of weapon reach.
ReplyDelete