Quote from: MelanThe only ones who didn't get it were some game theorists, who believed more in their imaginary constructs than the reality of gaming. They first discarded much of gaming-in-practice as irrelevant, and then tried to analyse games through methods that didn't take RPGs' basic features into account. And afterwards, they wrote off most of gaming as "dysfunctional", because it didn't conform to their theories. And they called this "research"! If I were doing this kind of "research" - rejecting reality in favour of an aesthetically attractive theory - I would be fired from my freaking job!

Argue this with those "some game theorists" not me. I never asserted that any game was dysfunctional.

Quote from: MelanIf you argue from the standpoint that only the formal rules matter,

If you take a second look at the MDA paper you will see that Mechanics is greater than the formal rules.

Quote from: MDA PaperMechanics describes the particular components of the
game, at the level of data representation and algorithms
...
Mechanics
Mechanics are the various actions, behaviors and control
mechanisms afforded to the player within a game context.
Together with the game’s content (levels, assets and so on)
the mechanics support overall gameplay dynamics.

With this understanding of mechanics in an RPG, setting is mechanics, Social Contract contains mechanics. They are just as much mechanics as the "formal rules" and the house rules.

Quote from: MelanYour conclusions are irrelevant and erroneous, and will continue to be as long as you wilfully or accidentally disregard matter-of-fact features almost all popular roleplaying games possess. Mechanics are emphatically  not wholly responsible for how the game is actually played at the table. That's a fact, Ace, and there is no way around it.

Quote from: David RI rewarded roleplaying & "silent kills" .

How did you reward roleplaying? Did you award XP? what metric did you use to determine what counted?

how was a silent kill different than a regularly kill? how did you reward it more?

Those changes are house rules, they are additional mechanics. You are no longer playing DnD as written but rather a rules variant.

Quote from: David RHouseruling = incoherency.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

I said House ruling changes mechanics. Houseruling creates a rules variant. And at a point, so many changes can be made that you no longer can say your playing DnD as written.

Quote from: NarmicalI'm saying that traditionally RPGs are designed for the kind of play you desiccated.

des·ic·cat·ed
Pronunciation[des-i-key-tid]
–adjective
dehydrated or powdered: desiccated coconut.

Quote from: NarmicalNot use a game with an intended dynamic of what you desiccate to do something completely different.

des·ic·cate      Pronunciation[des-i-keyt]
–verb (used with object)
1.   to dry thoroughly; dry up.
2.   to preserve (food) by removing moisture; dehydrate.


Unless this is the "Beef Jerky Theory of Gaming", I guess an education at Northwestern isn't what it used to be.  

Quote from: NarmicalHow did you reward roleplaying? Did you award XP? what metric did you use to determine what counted?

The "reward" in an RPG is often not related to anything the GM can give the players directly.  If a player thinks the goal of the game is supremacy in tactical combat, then "winning" in battles is the reward.  If they think the game is about character acting, then their reward is giving a "great" performance (their impression of winning or losing here could be based on what the other players and GM think of their performance -- but some players may not be able to pick up on subtle social cues letting them know when their performance is meeting with approval or not).  For other players, the reward could be a sense of satisfaction in solving the puzzles and mysteries found in a dungeon.

RPG texts that say "There's no winning and losing!" are incorrect.  Rather most RPGs could say "There are many ways to win and lose".

Oh for pity's sake!!

I make typos, but geez Narmical some of yours just get in the way of whatever point you are trying to make. (Notice that you are  or "you're" NOT "Your")


- Ed

Quote from: NarmicalDon't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Let's test this. Do you consider D&D incoherent? If so, why?

(What difference will my answers make ?)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923Cleric's Bluff skill check vs the succubus Sense Motive skill check to fool her into getting close enough. An oppossed grapple check with a +4 bonus for the cleric since the move was unexpected and he had beaten her Sense Motive with his Bluff. Reduced the base damage of the holy water from 2d4 to 1d4 because the cleric couldn't hold that much in his mouth, but made the result double damage since it would be internal. And I gave the cleric and party a surprise round afterwards against the succubus since it was a genius move by the player.

JAWSOME.

Quote from: NarmicalIts not simply a choice at that point. If you get a group of DnD players together to play a gave where they "wanted good roleplay and dialog". An agreement to be in the game is an agreement to play in that manner. This agreement then becomes a mechanic of the game.

I just don't see this as a mechanic.  Mechanics mean consistent rules, based on an a priori mechanic (like 3d6 and roll under) that you apply consistently to a situation or based on empirical information (like tables) that you reference.

The above agreement is a question of style, emphasis, communication so that the GM knows where the game is going to go.  But the interactions will be determined by the dynamic relationship between the GM and the players.  There are no rules there, no mechanics.

Quote from: StuartI mentioned this in another thread.  You don't need ANY system to roleplay.  A GM and some players can roleplay anything they can imagine with no system at all.  In that respect, System doesn't matter.

However, a game system can either get in the way of that roleplay or do things to encourage it.  

If a single round of combat requires dozens of math calculations, buckets full of dice, and about an hour of real time -- players might think twice before getting into combat compared to a system where combats are resolved in a matter of minutes.  Similarly if the system mechanically encourages or discourages certain player choices -- that will affect how they end up roleplaying in the game.

A system can also enhance the roleplaying by adding randomness and unpredictability, as well as providing a structure for players to make choices about risk and reward for their characters.  Players with characters in a highly lethal combat game will roleplay differently than those in a game where there is little risk to their characters, or more emphasis on other areas.  Roleplaying situations based on actual risk / reward in the game can be more interesting and exciting.

System doesn't matter.  System does matter.  

Exactly. This is the truth and anyone arguing vehemently for one side at the exclusion of the other is just excluding the middle.

Quote from: NarmicalThose changes are house rules, they are additional mechanics. You are no longer playing DnD as written but rather a rules variant.

Out of curiosity, if I make up a magic item (which I am allowed to do under the rules framework)  that does not express its power as a stock-effect, are we no-longer playing D&D?

If this is the case then it seems that under your interpretation of MDA, running anything but the adventure in the back of the book (with pre-gen characters) is no-longer playing D&D--but rather a house-ruled variant.

This perspective doesn't seem especially useful to me in the context of an RPG.

-Marco

It's a spectrum.

Add a house-rule to any game, and you're probably still playing something people will identify as the original game.  Add a substantial amount of house-rules and/or remove a substantial amount of original rules, and you very well could be playing something people will not identify as the original game.

Marco's point, I think, is that the definition of "house-rule" is so restrictive as to be, essentially, meaningless.

Besides - Narm's question of David about reward mechanics, specifically in the case of D&D3e, is off base. You can reward all kinds of things - says so right in the books.  We've had this discussion before.

And to link that to Marco's point - calling the adjustment of a reward mechanic to fit the group's desire a house-rule of X that makes it no longer playing X seems extreme.

In "theory," no two tables are playing the same game of D&D. Sheesh - perhaps this should go in the "Not D&D" thread....

Quote from: StuartIt's a spectrum.

Add a house-rule to any game, and you're probably still playing something people will identify as the original game.  Add a substantial amount of house-rules and/or remove a substantial amount of original rules, and you very well could be playing something people will not identify as the original game.

That's a reasonable answer. Different people will draw the line at different places which is okay--but it puts the lie to the MDA overly-prescriptive answer which holds (in this thread) that if the PCs in a D&D game decide to play court intrigue they are no longer playing D&D.

-Marco
Edited to add: Yes, James is correct--I think a "reasonable man" standard is, well, reasonable--but I'm not sure that, for example, a magical creature (the ponies) would completely change the game from that standard by its lonesome (I can imagine a unicorn hunt where capturing the unicorn brings everyone happiness as a Wish-spell).

Another reason GNS is fucked is the redefinition of ordinary words until they lose their meanings.

For example, in almost all conversations about roleplaying mechanics means the rules.  Pretty much everyone knows this.

Here, mechanics gets redefined as a term, and clarity goes out the window.

I'm surprised people are bothering to respond to such a tired retread of arguments that went out of circulation literally years ago.

Marco, good to see you back, I was wondering the other day what you were up to.

Quote from: BalbinusHere, mechanics gets redefined as a term, and clarity goes out the window.

I was just going to post about this.

Narmical, you're defining "mechanics" and house-ruling so broadly that the terms are useless for discussion.  If "mechanics" includes the game setting, the act of people sitting around the table and playing the game, etc., then I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.  That things happening around the table and who shows up, etc. affect how we play?  That's kind of obvious, isn't it?  I'm missing the insight here.

And the house-ruling argument is sort of ridiculous.  To take one of your examples, the additional reward mechanisms for role-playing etc. have long been a part of the game (in guideline form, at the very least).  Even the 1e DMG gave characters a discount for training costs if they played well (within alignment, contributed to session, etc.).  How is that a house rule?

And, like others have already said, RPGs are inherently open in ways that video games or board games are not.  Players are allowed to try just about anything in-game (within limits of logic/taste/what have you).  Because of this, most folks understand that you have to be able to spot-rule situations and think on your feet to accomodate weird circumstances.  The holy water in the mouth scenario is one particularly awesome example of this.

More to the point, Narmical, what games do you enjoy playing regularly?  How often do you play them?  I'm not trying to be dickish with these questions (hell, I go many months between campaigns due to scheduling issues, and while I own many games, I tend to stick with a handful in practice); I'm sincerely interested.  It might help me understand where you're coming from a bit better.