How important is player knowledge of game mechanics?

[DraQ]

Enabling multitude of varied builds, yes.

A fair share of action games has several characters to pick from.

Do those character enforce completely different gameplay strategies on their players?

Those stats are not stats in RPG sense, as they are invariant and you have no influence over them that would allow you to create a character at the beginning of the game.

A fair share of "RPGs" - you know, those very intuitive ones - do not have any kind of character creation in the beginning of the game.

Ok, scratch the "at the beginning of the game" part.

Also, what about the difference between character driven gameplay of an RPG and twitch driven gameplay of a common FPS?

Character driven gameplay exists when there is a ruleset to explore instead of "intuitive gameplay".

Are you really dumb enough to claim, with a straight face, that no ruleset exists if you can't directly observe it, or are you just a good actor?

Way to dodge a question, but tell me - what are your characters to you and what interest do you have in RPGs?

Characters are instruments to explore the gameworld and overcome its challenges with, which is the interest I have in RPGs. They are a set of tools to toy with. Does it answer your question?

But what are you toying with using these tools?

Is freeing the mechanics from the constraints of human readability good enough? Computer can crunch a lot more numbers in a millisecond than a bunch of nerds with dice could during the entire session - it would be good if some of these numbers had some substance rather than simply being used to calculate awesum! nextgen! bloom.

Substance that is not readable for humans. All the non-human players are gonna have a ball.

It is readable for humans - in form of a more accurate simulation. Because accurate simulation allows events to be more different from one another, therefore being more memorable and overall more fun, because more accurate simulation allows the game to behave in a more flexible and interactive manner, which is extremely valuable once you realize that there is no human brain on the other side (GM) you could let evaluate your plan, finally, because simulation is what computers do well, and creativity is what they don't do well, so it's only logical to take the capacity of the medium into account when you create content for it - straight adaptations of books into movies often fail for good reasons - a novel is vastly different medium from a film. Why should PnP RPGs and cRPGs be an exception from this rule?

Why the fuck are people on the Codex so thick lately? I feel as if I was on the modern day TESF, trying to debate wave, after wave of hopeless morons.

Fuck this shit.

 

[Thrasher]

You fail to understand that many people want to play games with clear rules, not crappy obscure simulations.

 

[DraQ]

You fail to understand that many people want to play games, not simulations.

So why do they say "haalp, thur iz no roflset becuz i cnat se it i want my rulset plz halp?" instead of saying that they are almost pure gamist and simply enjoy having a system lied out before them to rape?

It might befuddle me (slightly, as I too can derive much joy from playing, for example, Wizardry 8), as when it comes to abstraction, games that don't try to pretend they are about bearded, axe-totting dwarves in chainmails and wizards with itchy arcane gesture fingers in robes running around, killing things and grabbing their stuff are better, but leaves me with no response, but "ok".

Why do they invent hundreds of moronic and entirely fictional reasons for abstract RPGs being better than simulationist ones, then defend them with ferocity matched only by the inanity of their statements?

P.S. If you want to fight those evil exploitative nerds, no method will do better than making the game less gamist and less prone to minmaxing. If there is such thing as optimal build, people will seek it. If the differences between the raw performance of the builds are small and pale in the face of the fact that there is a lot of interesting content and no character will be able to see all of it (due to C&C and stat-checks), powergaming becomes less of an issue. If the game throws enough different situations at player that the entire spectrum of the builds will be conductive to the gameplay, rather than only those that have all their points put in the key areas and have neglected the other stats, minmaxing becomes non-issue.

 

[zenbitz]

You fail to understand that many people want to play games with clear rules, not crappy obscure simulations.

"many" people listen to brittany spears, watch reality TV, and play games and other stuff I don't like.

So what? I was asking specifically what rpgcodex people like.

 

[zenbitz]

P.S. If you want to fight those evil exploitative nerds, no method will do better than making the game less gamist and less prone to minmaxing. If there is such thing as optimal build, people will seek it. If the differences between the raw performance of the builds are small and pale in the face of the fact that there is a lot of interesting content and no character will be able to see all of it (due to C&C and stat-checks), powergaming becomes less of an issue. If the game throws enough different situations at player that the entire spectrum of the builds will be conductive to the gameplay, rather than only those that have all their points put in the key areas and have neglected the other stats, minmaxing becomes non-issue.

Hmmm...

So, if you expose the rules people who like to mix/max can min/max. If you don't expose the rules, people will still min/max because some nerd spends the time to do it (although in some non-commerical game, I doubt you will get the critical mass for this)

I guess the question is transformed to: It's there any reason OTHER THAN MIN/MAXING the people like exposed rules?

"Not that there's anything wrong with that"

 

[crufty]

Bar graphs as a means of showing damage are a good way to show how strong weapons are without introducing complication.

Armor, its nice to know relative differences. ac +/- 4 or whatever.

It's nice to know about how heavy stuff is.

Other then that, I don't think combat rolls really add that much to gameplay. I think doing some kind of saving throw roll is a nice touch, because it lets you know your pc's skills are being used.

 

[DraQ]

Bar graphs as a means of showing damage are a good way to show how strong weapons are without introducing complication.

Armor, its nice to know relative differences. ac +/- 4 or whatever.

It's nice to know about how heavy stuff is.

Other then that, I don't think combat rolls really add that much to gameplay. I think doing some kind of saving throw roll is a nice touch, because it lets you know your pc's skills are being used.

I'd go even further, replacing all but the most crucial information that simply has to be accessed quickly (or repeatedly) with descriptions and audiovisual cues making sense in the context they would be used (as in non-arbitrary).

My ideal RPG would relay the information the character has, all the information the character has and only the information the character has to the player. The character would simply serve as filter for both in- and outgoing information. Ideally, even the information depending on the intellectual state of the character would be filtered, but since I doubt mindfucking the player to this degree would be possible in most circumstances, something similar to fallout dumb dialogue, plus variable descriptions (and rendering flags) would be the closest realistic approximation.

 

[mondblut]

Do those character enforce completely different gameplay strategies on their players?

Absolutely, why else they would have different characters in the first place? If anything, it's "intuitive" "RPGs" who tend by the midgame to have uniform characters able to do anything, no matter chosen class, race etc. When a non-RPG bothers to offer more than one character to play, you can be pretty sure each plays quite differently.

Are you really dumb enough to claim, with a straight face, that no ruleset exists if you can't directly observe it, or are you just a good actor?

Are you really dumb enough to fail to realize a ruleset which can't be observed is no more relevant for an RPG player than the formulas for collision detection? When both are being computed behind the screen and you can't tell which is which?

But what are you toying with using these tools?

...to explore the gameworld and overcome its challenges

 

[Unradscorpion]

I don't like this thread, the scalie is bitching too passionately and people are responding to his posts too much.

 

[oldschool]

It's not important at all if you're just making interactive fiction.

A game, however, should require in-depth knowledge of the rules and mechanics to be played well.

Seriously. I've played a lot of games in my time, from team sports to board games to video games, and only in the mushy brains of LARPers is it a bad thing to play a game with skill and (apparently) even with knowldege of the rules.

How can you play a game if you don't know the rules? And how is "this armor is thicker than that armor" an improvement over "this armor is X thicker than that armor"?

 

[RK47]

Yep. I kinda feel annoyed that I've gained summon spells in Drakensang but I'm not able to discern what can each creature does as well as their individual stats. Considering that I cannot possibly max out all summoning spell proficiency, and only able to summon one at a time, I really want to know their exact attributes and abilities before making my decision, instead of maxing out one creature only to be disappointed and reload from an earlier save.

 

[The_scorpion]

i guess this topic holds enough room for a lot of different opinions.

Personally, i think there are several distinctions to be made:

1. How much of the game mechanics does the player need to figure/ know in order to make meaningful choices without ending up grinding/ powergaming/ min-maxing only.
2. How much of that information is conveyed in what way.

Especially the latter i stray off from most people's opinion because i think for certain type of information it is enough that the player can figure it while playing the game, rather than knowing everything beforehand including all numbers and formulas.
I personally derive a lot of fun in game to find out things while playing, rather than have everything told by stats or flashy bars outside of the game, e.g through a manual. However, the more crucial stuff should be reasonably clear, or at least hinted at in a way.
I can however see that especially people with a strong boardgame background might see that very differently.

 

[spectre]

Yep. I kinda feel annoyed that I've gained summon spells in Drakensang but I'm not able to discern what can each creature does as well as their individual stats. Considering that I cannot possibly max out all summoning spell proficiency, and only able to summon one at a time, I really want to know their exact attributes and abilities before making my decision, instead of maxing out one creature only to be disappointed and reload from an earlier save.

This is important. I remember "wasting" several characters in arcanum, because I didn't know exactly what a spell or tech did.

I am of the opinion that there should be different "layers" of feedback a game provides as to its inner workings. If all the stats come flooding the screen, it causes information overload, so detailed formulas should be hidden under (i) icons, or [details] buttons.
General descriptions should be available as tooltips, and this information should allow one to play the game successfully if one does not want to look at abbeviations and formulas (y'know because of immershun and stuffs).

 

[DraQ]

Do those character enforce completely different gameplay strategies on their players?

Absolutely, why else they would have different characters in the first place?

Because "if you can't chose race and sex it's not an RPG :TNO:"?
For the same reason many FPS games have multiple skins and player models available to player, I presume.

If anything, it's "intuitive" "RPGs" who tend by the midgame to have uniform characters able to do anything, no matter chosen class, race etc.

That's problem with the implementation, rather than premise.

Are you really dumb enough to claim, with a straight face, that no ruleset exists if you can't directly observe it, or are you just a good actor?

Are you really dumb enough to fail to realize a ruleset which can't be observed is no more relevant for an RPG player than the formulas for collision detection? When both are being computed behind the screen and you can't tell which is which?

Collision detection can be evaluated indirectly, through observing it's effects on gameplay. I don't need to see the code to conclude that physics in, for example, oblibian was broken beyond repair.

Similarly I can assess the mechanics of an RPG indirectly, by seeing what results does it produce. Are they suggestive? Are skills meaningful? Do they 'feel right'?

And why shouldn't collision detection make part of the mechanics anyway? Would a system where player calls the shots, character performs designated action according to it's skills and the result is checked against physical engine any worse than the game where the results depend on rolling a pair of (virtual) die?

I don't like this thread

GTFO then.

<s>the scalie is bitching too passionately and people are responding to his posts too much.</s>
15 years old

It's not important at all if you're just making interactive fiction.

A game, however, should require in-depth knowledge of the rules and mechanics to be played well.

Life sucks then.

But seriously, why would you possess any knowledge your character doesn't? Isn't that the essence of metagaming, which spoils all the fun?

What can be conveyed through audio-visual channel, should. Other information (and there is plenty of it), like smell, taste, in-character knowledge should be provided as descriptions depending on character's knowledge and stats. Numerical statistics don't yield well to this kind of gradual approach - you either know them or don't.

Seriously. I've played a lot of games in my time, from team sports to board games to video games, and only in the mushy brains of LARPers is it a bad thing to play a game with skill and (apparently) even with knowldege of the rules.

Nowhere have I said anything bad about games requiring skill. Mind you, basic arithmetic relying on predigested information isn't really much of a skill. What's left is tactics, creativity and similar 'skills' - they can be used regardless of exact knowledge of the rules, character level knowledge and familiarity with the setting should suffice.

How can you play a game if you don't know the rules?

In the exact same way I can live life without knowing them.

 

[zenbitz]

This is important. I remember "wasting" several characters in arcanum, because I didn't know exactly what a spell or tech did.

I don't think this is a totally fair criticism. I have wasted many characters in many games because I have had incomplete information of the game world. Why is mechanics so different?

Believe me - I _deeply_ understand "gamist" philosophy - except in the case where there is no competition or metric. If you were playing an RPG "competition" - like a speed run - where the goal was to finish it as fast as possible, or with the fewest number of bullets, I can why this is important. And who am I to tell anyone they are "playing the (solitare) game wrong".

this armor is thicker than that armor" an improvement over "this armor is X thicker than that armor"?

Well it's not. In fact, in some tank game you might want to get deeply involved in the armor thickness in mm on front/side/back/top/bottom and level of sloping of the glacis plate and yadda yadda.

But that's NOT a mechanic, it's a description. Even this is a description: This Armor blocks 10% damage from crushing attacks, 70% damage from slashing attacks, and 20% damage from impaling attacks, no effect on magical attacks* That's not a tool tip - that's a whole inspection window (Fallout did this for armor and weapons).

There is a difference between displaying item "stats" (like character stats) and unveiling the whole mechanical system. For example - if I tell the player: High Agility increases Weapon skills - do I have to give the formula or table? What if it varies by skill?

* bonus intuition question: What type of armor do you think I am describing

 

[RK47]

i like the idea of CTRL Left Click on World of Warcraft as well to try on gears to see how it looks and how would your stat change. That is quite a good way to make decisions when I wanted to upgrade my gear. I really missed that sort of item linking.

Drakensang had the right idea for equipped gear and store gear comparison by right clicking, but the interface needs improving. The font is too big, I hate scrolling down to see how it compares. Why don't you just put them side by side? It's ok if it takes up half my screen in doing so, since I'm not really doing anything else aside from browsing items when shopping anyway.

 

[oldschool]

It's not important at all if you're just making interactive fiction.

A game, however, should require in-depth knowledge of the rules and mechanics to be played well.

Life sucks then.

Do what now? What the heck does life have to do with it?

But seriously, why would you possess any knowledge your character doesn't? Isn't that the essence of metagaming, which spoils all the fun?

My character isn't playing the game. I am. The character is just an element of the game. When I play chess, I don't pretend I'm a little pawn, completely unaware that the queen can smack my ass if I get in her way.

Seriously. I've played a lot of games in my time, from team sports to board games to video games, and only in the mushy brains of LARPers is it a bad thing to play a game with skill and (apparently) even with knowldege of the rules.

Nowhere have I said anything bad about games requiring skill. Mind you, basic arithmetic relying on predigested information isn't really much of a skill. What's left is tactics, creativity and similar 'skills' - they can be used regardless of exact knowledge of the rules, character level knowledge and familiarity with the setting should suffice.

Well, most games that have been around for eons use basic arithmetic relying on predigested information and they require a lot of skill to play well, so...

How can you play a game if you don't know the rules?

In the exact same way I can live life without knowing them.

Again with game=life? Seriously, what are you smoking? Whatever it is, pass the bong, please.

Also... life doesn't have rules? Please.

 

[oldschool]

this armor is thicker than that armor" an improvement over "this armor is X thicker than that armor"?

Well it's not. In fact, in some tank game you might want to get deeply involved in the armor thickness in mm on front/side/back/top/bottom and level of sloping of the glacis plate and yadda yadda.

But that's NOT a mechanic, it's a description. Even this is a description: This Armor blocks 10% damage from crushing attacks, 70% damage from slashing attacks, and 20% damage from impaling attacks, no effect on magical attacks* That's not a tool tip - that's a whole inspection window (Fallout did this for armor and weapons).

There is a difference between displaying item "stats" (like character stats) and unveiling the whole mechanical system. For example - if I tell the player: High Agility increases Weapon skills - do I have to give the formula or table? What if it varies by skill?

Yes. I want to know all the mechanics. I'm usually part of the crew harassing developers to disclose such. In MTW, I wanted to know exactly how command stars effect that generals unit. Not just the vague "it makes them more effective." we started out with. And so on. I want to know the mechanics. All of them.

My question for you is: What is the purpose of obscuring the mechanics? How does that improve gameplay? To steer the player towards interactive fiction? Virtual reality? What is the justification for it?

* bonus intuition question: What type of armor do you think I am describing

Heh. Tell me the system and the AC rating (or equivalent), and I'll get back to you.

 

[Serus]

It's not important at all if you're just making interactive fiction.

A game, however, should require in-depth knowledge of the rules and mechanics to be played well.

Life sucks then.

Do what now? What the heck does life have to do with it?

But seriously, why would you possess any knowledge your character doesn't? Isn't that the essence of metagaming, which spoils all the fun?

My character isn't playing the game. I am. The character is just an element of the game. When I play chess, I don't pretend I'm a little pawn, completely unaware that the queen can smack my ass if I get in her way.

Seriously. I've played a lot of games in my time, from team sports to board games to video games, and only in the mushy brains of LARPers is it a bad thing to play a game with skill and (apparently) even with knowldege of the rules.

Nowhere have I said anything bad about games requiring skill. Mind you, basic arithmetic relying on predigested information isn't really much of a skill. What's left is tactics, creativity and similar 'skills' - they can be used regardless of exact knowledge of the rules, character level knowledge and familiarity with the setting should suffice.

Well, most games that have been around for eons use basic arithmetic relying on predigested information and they require a lot of skill to play well, so...

How can you play a game if you don't know the rules?

In the exact same way I can live life without knowing them.

Again with game=life? Seriously, what are you smoking? Whatever it is, pass the bong, please.

Also... life doesn't have rules? Please.

1. Chess is a VERY highly abstracted kind of game, not directly comparable with CRPGs.
2. I think he is trying to tell that life doesn't have transparent rules or exact numbers. When you talk to someone in real life you can't see that his attidtude towards you changed from +72 to +49 after you said something. You can see that this person is a little upset at best... and roleplaying games tries to simulate real life to some point. Or at least DraQ would like that in crpgs. Other more abstract games (like chess) are not simulating ANYTHING, rules are everything.

 

[zenbitz]

What is the purpose of obscuring the mechanics?

Well for one, if I don't (obscure them) it makes the manual longer. Similarly, there is some non-zero development cost with formating the details and displaying them in a cogent manner.

I guess at this point I would consider "open mechanics" to be a feature, but not a necessary one. I might have been thinking of spoiling munchkin fun, but that seems kinda petty in retrospect. Especially since I am leaning towards arbitrarily complex mechanics for some situations.

Well, it will be open source anyway - so you can just RTFC.

As an analgous example - should the player be able to customize his PCs appearance? "Dress-up Doll style".

 

[Thrasher]

I think he is trying to tell that life doesn't have transparent rules or exact numbers. When you talk to someone in real life you can't see that his attidtude towards you changed from +72 to +49 after you said something. You can see that this person is a little upset at best... and roleplaying games tries to simulate real life to some point. Or at least DraQ would like that in crpgs. Other more abstract games (like chess) are not simulating ANYTHING, rules are everything.

The point is whether it is better game if the simulation and immershun is better or if gameplay based on well understood rules is better. I vote for well understood rules.

One can roleplay just as well with either.

 

[DraQ]

Or at least DraQ would like that in crpgs.

Seems like a reasonable thing to expect from games that are very clearly simulating some kind of reality.

Other more abstract games (like chess) are not simulating ANYTHING, rules are everything.

Precisely. Not to mention the elegance of Chess (or even better - Go) when compared with an RPG from abstract game point of view - when viewed as such any RPG is a horrible, bloated, pointless shit.
That's because RPGs are not abstract games - they are simulation games relying on abstraction for reasons that are mostly historical - RPGs are about dwarves in chainmail, and about cyber-augmented dudes meandering between clutches of soulless, monolithic corporations of dystopian future, and about fugly-as-sin Nosferatu skulking around the World of Darkness.
The rules are there only to tell you what happens, that's why they are so bloated and fugly - they don't exist on their own, but are an attempt to describe some reality. But, to serve this purpose, the rules do not need to be explicit, they just need to be. If obscuring the rules will let them model that fictional reality better, let them be obscured. If it also helps player get in character - all the better - RPGs are also all about mood.
Chess or Go would make horrible RPGs for the same reasons they make great abstract games.

 

[Wyrmlord]

The rules are there only to tell you what happens, that's why they are so bloated and fugly - they don't exist on their own, but are an attempt to describe some reality.

The rules are also there because they are fun to work with. It is a game after all, and the G is still the most important letter in RPG.

Not to mention the elegance of Chess (or even better - Go) when compared with an RPG from abstract game point of view - when viewed as such any RPG is a horrible, bloated, pointless shit.

Nah, RPGs do have rulesets that have the same kind of elegance - in that the good ones are simple enough to learn, but involve unlimited ways of mastering them.

I mean, the combat in Betrayal At Krondor - with a grid based area, two types of attacks, three people you control, and order based on speed - has a simple set up, but is something that provides scope for so many strategies and so many outcomes. Just like chess.

As a regular chess player, I can say that a good turn-based combat system in a computer game is still more fun than chess when it is done right.

 

[DraQ]

The rules are there only to tell you what happens, that's why they are so bloated and fugly - they don't exist on their own, but are an attempt to describe some reality.

The rules are also there because they are fun to work with. It is a game after all, and the G is still the most important letter in RPG.

I'd go with conductive for fun, or at least unobstructive, rather than fun themselves.

Not to mention the elegance of Chess (or even better - Go) when compared with an RPG from abstract game point of view - when viewed as such any RPG is a horrible, bloated, pointless shit.

Nah, RPGs do have rulesets that have the same kind of elegance - in that the good ones are simple enough to learn, but involve unlimited ways of mastering them.

I mean, the combat in Betrayal At Krondor - with a grid based area, two types of attacks, three people you control, and order based on speed - has a simple set up, but is something that provides scope for so many strategies and so many outcomes. Just like chess.

As a regular chess player, I can say that a good turn-based combat system in a computer game is still more fun than chess when it is done right.

But you're still comparing apples with oranges - knight in an RPG is a guy in shiny armour, carrying a sword and bound by certain notions of chivalry and honour, knight in chess is a figure that moves three fields in any direction, then one sideways, is unaffected by obstructions and is called "knight".

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Hell, I can't keep just lurking here anymore...

I think I see the point of hidden game mechanics. First there were PnP RPGs, which needed some rules to simulate reality to some extent. The game itself isn't about the rules, the numbers, the dice. Rules stand for some natural and social laws, the dice stand for some random, or better, non-player controlled influence. Sure, a puzzle can be solved by the player himself, but simulating a sword attack angainst an orc, that would be harder. That's wy the rules were made.

Some players use the rules as the tool so that the game world could work. But some revel in the rules, in raising their stats, having higher rolls... And our axe wielding warrior changes into 150 HP, AC 14, Attack roll 21 etc. Great, isn't it?

But let's continue our little story. Some time later, CRPGs were born. They either used PnP rules or came with their own. By the time, rules were taken as a core part of roleplaying. The meaning of RPG basically changed into "a game with statistics you can increase". Hell, by that formula you can call a racing game with car tuning a RPG! All right, I'm taking it to the extreme, but the principle is there.

What I mean is that some necessary stuff became essential for the whole genre, while in the case of CRPGs any transparent rules are cartainly NOT necessary, the player doesn't need them to play the game, only the computer does.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy many games in a munchkin way - calculating the best builds, finding the best possible gear. But the best moments in a RPG for me are those when I throw that shit away and get carried away by whatever happens >in the game<, not in the game mechanics. "To hell with a possible skill boost, I won't let that treacherous snake live!" Stuff like that, you know...

Also I have DMed many sessions in various rulesets and settings, and the best experience often came from playing without any rules. Atmosphere, immersion, and no burden of calculations. Ocassional dice roll (with roughly estimated difficulty) was all we needed. Of course, this requires that everyone is concerned about the game quality, not their own power. Even if you play a greedy bastard in this way, you need some discipline or else everyone is doomed from the start. It doesn't always work, it has its difficulties, but it proves that RPG doesn't need rules if the player wants to PLAY not to WIN whatever the cost would be.

I'm not trying to say that rules in RPG are necessary evil, just that the abbreviation shouldn't mean "RULE PLAYING GAME". After all, the RPG Codex should all be about the "role" thing.