thread: 2011-05-18 : Ben Lehman: Rules and their Functions
On 2011-05-25, Josh W wrote:
David, I think it's a bit of a wave/particle duality thing, do all rules for a game fit into the domain of trigger/action? Maybe, but you might not see your own behaviour in those terms when using them.
So these two categories could refer to the way that people approach the rules, and the ammeanability for the rules to be approached that way. But I'll get back to that.
Looking at things in terms of triggers, consequences, frequency of application and other stuff could be one way, one that applies very nicely to events like skill checks or random encounter tables.
The thing is that some people like to approach their games differently, internalise them rather than refer to the books or sheets or tables. And internalised rules can blur into seeming like no rules at all, just a way of being.
And there are certain ways of veiwing a game from that perspective, like "When your in there playing, does it feel natural? Forced?" "What are the constraints on creativity and the new avenues openned up?"
I think the reason that designers couldn't address the concerns that 4e D&D felt "boardgamey" was because they put a lot of attention into how those rules felt as immediate rules (handelling time, clarity when disputed, seperate spheres of application, consistency) and less how they felt when internalised. (Collapsing mechanics into character decision making, variety of pacing in encounters, diversity of strategic objectives within a party, minimum energy and concentration levels required)
Ok, I think it was considered, but there doesn't seem to be the vocabulary to express the difference between the continuous feel it has, vs the feel a lot of people were able to get with earlier games.
To my mind that's one of the things that's useful about this kind of characterisation, for some functions of game rules, certain features predominate. Some bits of how they work really matter. And you can probably set up two different criteria for judging mechanics that apply to some mechanics more than others:
Like I still can't picture how you'd apply handeling time to D&D alignment, except when you start having an argument about whether some character is following their alignment. That's when it appears as an object, as a rule, rather than acting more like an extension of your general playing of your character, and you probably go rummaging in a book to prove your point.
Frequency of mechanic application does match up to something I think is quite important when looking at the game from a continuous perspective, the rhythm and energy levels of the game, the amount that you need to keep an eye on stuff, and the dominance of various different types of interaction/headspaces within the game.
I'm filling out stuff massively here obviously, but I think it's better to think of them as overlapping approaches to a mechanic that it should be able to fulfill. I can pack a load of stuff into both characterisations, but coming off the back of reading vincent's threads about free play, I'm personally more interested in exploring the continuous side of things at the mo.
On determinism, I have something: You know I was saying about my mum and dad's driving? About blurring through decision points or discrete moments? Well in strategy games, after you've played them a bit, you can start doing that even through there are random elements. You go, "right this will happen, and I'll keep about 50% of my units and I'll maybe have enough forces to take there". You make a sort of stretchy present tense, opperating over a larger time scale.
Now those dice aren't deterministic to anyone; they do their thing and no-one in the game knows what that will be. But mechanics like chess are at least deterministic to someone; you are able to do what you want on your turn. But the other player is still blurring through the decision points caused by your possible behaviours, with the expected future getting more multi-state (there's a great word for that I've forgotten). If they're thinking ahead and don't know you very well, you might as well be a dice!
Emily, does jeep style roleplaying usually involve a bit of churn in groups? Ie a few mutual strangers in each group? Because that would probably be one of the ways to help that feeling of possibility, without any random elements.
