What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?
I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.
For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.
Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.
Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).
And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.
So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?
depends on its iteration at the table...
People
Setting
System
(Snacks in there somewhere)
an un-skilled/fractualized group will ruin any system/setting.
as we are dealing with opinions here...there are no boring systems/settings just boring people...IMO!
:)
Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?
First thing coming to mind: bland and generic to me are not the same thing.
A game system can involve tons of options, promote some specific game play, and be generic. GURPS comes to mind, for instance.
A game can be non-generic, and kinda be bland, however. The recent thread about Dragon Age made me think of that.
I guess 'bland' in this case means that it's a game that lacks personality or features that make you think of it on its own terms, as a game that is worthwhile to play on its own merits. Something that makes you say "ok, this game is definitely not like that game."
In that case, to me, a bland game is minimum "meh," which means I'm unlikely to play it instead of some other game. In that regard, this means the game's design fails, since the point of game, I'd think, would be for it to be played and enjoyed on its own terms, right? So yeah, bland is generally a bad thing, from that POV.
Depends, really some systems I like to fade into the background, to me that's not the same as uninteresting (bland) it just means that play is fast, and doesn't draw too much attention away from the characters and what they do.
I'm interested in what the characters do first, not what the players do.
Bland, for me, are usually games that heap on loads of detailed mechanisms to simulate 'reality' (usually someone's opinions on various models of firearms)... Maybe there's fun in there but I can't stay awake long enough to find it.
Games that try really hard to be 'interesting' and 'flavorful' can be just as annoying...
If it's annoying than by definition its not bland.
Supplimentary question: does your assement or feelings towards a bland system change dependding on which side of the GM screen you are seated?
Quote from: Soylent Green;431658Supplimentary question: does your assement or feelings towards a bland system change dependding on which side of the GM screen you are seated?
Not really, no.
I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often. I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system. The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS. That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.
Quote from: Soylent Green;431635And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.
That pretty much my opinion. Rules and mechanics should be functional but not the focus of play. I just I'd say bland systems can be good.
Something which elicits a "been there done that" and/or "here we go again" type of meh response.
Quote from: Esgaldil;431661I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often. I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system. The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS. That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.
There's only so many permutations of system mechanics using a set of polyhedral dice, until it starts repeating itself ad infinitum.
Quote from: Esgaldil;431661I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often. I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system. The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS. That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.
? didn't Shadowrun 1e start the whole 'die pool' craze of the 90s - before White Wolf ? I'd class it as as quite the opposite, a revolutionary system - even if some of the implementation perhaps doesn't look so great in hindsight.
Johnson - Mea culpa - I apologize to the makers of Shadowrun. I'm pretty sure I picked up Vampire: the Masquerade before I saw Shadowrun, but looking up the publication dates I see that Shadowrun was indeed two years earlier, and if they were innovators at the time, they should get credit/blame for that.
Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?
I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.
For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.
Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.
Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).
And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.
So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?
GURPS epitomises blandness to me, even though the sourcebooks are well researched and in depth. It all smacks of numbers and charts and where there is depth and detail it's lifeless and dull. The concept is great but the appeal, like the word itself - Gurps, is just...not.
No probs! :)
Also while I'm here, on the topic: I'm in the camp where I prefer somewhat crunchy rules. If a system is too rules-lite and number-free I may find it bland.
As a player, I find a game a bit unexciting if the character options or power level is more limited - games where characters are just lists of skills aren't that exciting to me, at least not without a particularly awesome character concept (I don't like BRP so much for example; on the other hand I've never played GURPS but I can see the appeal).
From a design angle, games are fairly bland if I can't find any new ideas anywhere in it (though I find most games have something worth stealing somewhere, however small).
It requires a pretty herculean effort for an actual SYSTEM to be bland. In a lot of cases, its not so much the system itself as the presentation that makes it bland.
There are game systems that are bland in the sense of being tedious, ponderous, and failing at effectively doing what they're meant to do in an exciting way. I would say the HERO system/Champions is the best example of this.
The best example of a truly bland system is Nobilis. Borgstrom tries to cover it up with extremely byzantine language, but its basically just a beancounting exercise.
Some games in trying to cover up perceived blandness only make things worse; I wouldn't call Savage Worlds a terribly bland system, but clearly its author thought there was something wrong with it, hence the need for Jack the grinning skull or whatever, and presto, the game seems more stupid and annoying to me than it possibly could have before.
Now SETTINGS, on the other hand, can easily be incredibly bland. If all you have is generic fantasy world #924587 with nothing special to distinguish the culture, or geography or background history of the setting, you've pretty much created blandness.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;431916Some games in trying to cover up perceived blandness only make things worse; I wouldn't call Savage Worlds a terribly bland system, but clearly its author thought there was something wrong with it, hence the need for Jack the grinning skull or whatever, and presto, the game seems more stupid and annoying to me than it possibly could have before.
Smiling Jack annoyed the fuck out of me when I first read SW, and actually drove me away from it. It was only several months later that I actually gave the system a try, persuaded by SW fans at the Big Purple, and fell in love with the game.
Thankfully, the Explorers' Edition is Smiling Jack-free.
I generally find rules light games bland, but that's not exactly it.
I think its more games that rely on you to add setting and activities without inspiring any to be sort of bland. I absolutely agree that without creative input from the group, the gaming will be bland. But if your GAME offers nothing and relies on the group to provide all content of interest, what use is your game?
I liked Smiling Jack! It was a nice change from the "RPG as textbook" syndrome that too many games suffer from. Good, bad or annoying, I prefer to hear the author's voice.
I only think "bland system" when its a ripoff of another game system, like the fantasy heartbreaker that's 90% D&D while declaring itself totally new.
Quote from: Spinachcat;432023I only think "bland system" when its a ripoff of another game system, like the fantasy heartbreaker that's 90% D&D while declaring itself totally new.
Okay if were one were compiling a list of top 10 all time games I can see why you might exclude the unoriginal D&D or other game knock off. But in practical terms if you are actually playing the game, does the fact that it is a knock off actually matter?
You can do Author's Voice without it being fucking annoying.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?
I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.
For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.
Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.
Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).
And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.
So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?
I've never really thought of any system as bland, it's always individual games. I suppose that Hero (one of my very favorite systems) could be considered bland given its focus on simulating any genre, and the core fifth ed. book is pretty bland for anyone coming to to it with no background (haven't seen the sixth ed. yet but with same writers and editors it is probably the same). GURPS should be blander than it is. If I had to identify a
system as bland it would probably be the early eighties boxed set of Traveller booklets. If you did not have a fully developed SF imagination (or a sci-fi one) it was pretty much a game of trying to establish profitable interstellar trade routes,reminiscent of the infamous "triangle" slave trade.