rpg

3601 readers

2 users here now

This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs

Rules (wip):

Do not distribute pirate content
Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
Do not advertise for livestreams
Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
No Zak S content.
Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

You Don't Need a Game System Before You Play (www.prismaticwasteland.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, no you don't get it.

arguing with people, or playing a game I don't like

...yeah so if you're the kind of player who argues and fights at the table. Maybe stick to structured games with clearly defined rules.

People will propose bad rules, and we either argue or I suck it up

Again, people do this when 'friends' want to just play a goofy made up game over some carbs

Let's use D&D for a game of political intrigue!

Again....this isn't your scenario. I don't know what to tell you. You're conflating taking game systems and adding other mechanics to it and just goofing around and making it up as you go.

It's okay to say "I need a game with explicit structure and rules". That's fine too, but maybe don't argue with your players though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

…yeah so if you’re the kind of player who argues and fights at the table. Maybe stick to structured games with clearly defined rules.

You ignored the "or play a game I don't like" part. That is what this process is extremely likely to create. Go look at the blog post again. Go look at those rules.

Furthermore, the process described in the blog post is

When a rule is needed, everyone at the table quickly discusses what the gameplay should feel like and what rule(s) would support that. If a majority of players agree on the rule (voting is necessary only if there is dissent)

Arguing is built right into the process! Someone proposes a rule, and you talk about it. And you know what I don't want to do? Discuss the merits of rules mid-session. Especially large systems like "how does magic work?" or "can you change someone's mind?". That sounds awful. It's one thing to do a quick "Do you think Alex can climb a ladder with this 'Broken Arm' consequence?" discussion in Fate. It's a whole other thing to invent aspects whole cloth, and then try to integrate them with whatever else people came up with this week.

Or, if I pass on discussing why (for example) dropping your sword on a low roll is going to have weird effects, then I end up playing a game with rules I don't like. Why would I want that? What don't you get about this? Do I need to make you a flow chart?

System doesnt know how to handle something
|
|-- Propose a new rule
    |- is the rule good?  --> yes --> oh that is surprising. carry on
         | no
         |
      discuss  <-- the void of wasted time
         |
         | - were they convinced? --> yes --> go back to 'propose a new rule'
                      |
                      |-- no --> keep discussing? -- yes --> well this sucks
                                             |-- no --> give up --------^

Ironically, the game I mentioned as an example of what I do like (Fate) is very light weight. But not so light weight that it doesn't exist, and I have to deal with Brian trying to introduce hit locations mid session, again.

You seem to be imagining this like perfectly spherical frictionless group of players that are all super chill, on the same page about everything, and happy to just do whatever. I'm imagining what has been more typical in my experience, which is not that.

Again…this isn’t your scenario. I don’t know what to tell you. You’re conflating taking game systems and adding other mechanics to it and just goofing around and making it up as you go.

The blog post is about building a game system! Look at all the weird rules they made up! This whole blog post is about taking game systems (ie: rules people know from other games) and smushing them together! Anyone doing this process is going to start with some baseline system(s) in their head. Even if it's just "let's rock paper scissors for it" or "flip a coin". It is in fact taking game game systems and adding other mechanics to it.

They certainly had fun, but as I said that sounds like my personal hell.

It’s okay to say “I need a game with explicit structure and rules”. That’s fine too, but maybe don’t argue with your players though.

Arguing is built into the process described into the blog post. Unless you're splitting hairs and saying "argue" isn't the same as "discuss".