Clash,
  Ha ha ha. I did say "character death", btw.

  I do appreciate your answers though, thanks.

Ken, Paul,
  Care to elaborate? When have you avoided risk because of system mechanics. When have you accepted risk regardless of the penalties of the mechanics you were using at the time?

Yes mechanics influence play a great deal.

Example: ORE (Godlike), has what they feel is a gritty system. You roll a pool of dice and assign matching sets to successes. The problem is, that the game system really doesn't want you rolling dice. So it makes success by this system without making specialized builds to succeed as specific tasks, difficult to get.

When we played it we found the results of failure more like Keystone cops--because it was consistent, regular failure. Now the game says this is gritty, but failure so often doesn't feel gritty, it feels silly.  Now the game recommends NOT applying the system (dice rolls) except when things are stressful. (When are characters with demi superpowers, not stressed in World War 2?)

So it basically says the mechanics work, BY NOT applying them. This influences play a great deal making most things simply freeform; Why should someone pay money for a system which tells you NOT to apply it, I don't know. Yet the fact that its biased results shapes how play unfolds.  

The same goes for a great number of games--how the mechanics are applied, when they are applied, and to what ends, greatly impacts play.

A game system which expects you to roll dice (or cards, or spend points) ANYTIME you want to make an impact in the event, will play much differently than one which asks you only to do so when its something very important.

What types of mechanics a system has, will ALSO influence play. If only a few choice character designs are valid. (That is you must choose A,B or C for your character) then you'll see a different type of play than if any valid concept to the setting works.


Example: D&D

In D&D it assumes magic works a specific way. Because of that design element, it doesn't allow common fantasy concepts. (Such as the enormously powerful young wizard, who must learn control.) While the latter is sometimes a valid archetype in fantasy, it is not one the mechanics of D&D handles, or wants to emulate.

I imagine such a concept can be handled in GURPS. (It's designed to have a tinkerable magic/power system.)


Now mechanics aren't the only thing that influences play.

Quote from: dindenver;272153Clash,
  Ha ha ha. I did say "character death", btw.

I can't resist a straight line, even if I have to stretch it a bit...

QuoteI do appreciate your answers though, thanks.

No problem. Some of my points are also addressed in my reply to Jaeger as well.

-clash

Quote from: Silverlion;272160In D&D it assumes magic works a specific way. Because of that design element, it doesn't allow common fantasy concepts. (Such as the enormously powerful young wizard, who must learn control.) While the latter is sometimes a valid archetype in fantasy, it is not one the mechanics of D&D handles, or wants to emulate.

I imagine such a concept can be handled in GURPS. (It's designed to have a tinkerable magic/power system.)

That was one of the points Klaxon and I addressed in the Book of Jalan magic system. Power is inborn, and separate from Skill, which is learned.

-clash

Wow. I think I will have the unpopular view here. I believe that the elements that the group brings to the table trump the system that is chosen for play. That is to say, elements that group brings are things like a desire for lots of combat. Let's run with that. Then the GM is going to adjust the monsters appropriately. The players will adjust the character actions appropriately and the system will be forced into the profile the group has for it based on the elements that describe there play style preference.

So, yes, system can effect play, if the group desires it. This is an element as well, one of desiring to play the system as written or as close as possible. Alternatively, it can be to change the system. Elements are merely the discrete expression of the groups collective play style.

Unfortunately, some groups are not aware of this and feel bound byt he system they choose. However, eventually, it will seep through and morph the system to fit the needs and desires of the group.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Bill

My view is that mechanics will influence play if there are too many of them or if they are made to very important by the designer.

They won't influence all players or maybe not even most player but there is a rather large segment of the gaming communting that it will influence and those are the players that are really into the "game" aspect of mechanics.

IMO, any game that has mechanics that influences how I would play a character beyond the most basic sense is a bad game.

Well, my players chose clash's IHW instead of the GURPS powered Napoleonic campaign I had created. What influenced play was stuff like Notice , Practicallity/Honor , the surgery/healing rules.....the whole tone of the campaign would have been different if we had stuck with my GURPS version. BTW my players are still pricks for rejecting my awesome hardwork with better plagarized art.

Big difference when we played Star Wars using Feng Shui instead of d20....hell big difference when we used d6.....

Regards,
David R

Yes, the group dynamic trumps system, I agree. If the group want to,  it is entirely possible to run a serious Call of Cthulhu using Ghostbusters. The question is why would you want to?

However the other point is that a lot of players and GMs don't just have one style of play. The choice of system then becomes one of the clearest to communicate to everyone what kind of game you are about to play.
.

Quote from: Soylent Green;272169However the other point is that a lot of players and GMs don't just have one style of play. The choice of system then becomes one of the clearest to communicate to everyone what kind of game you are about to play.

I agree with this but I'm not too sure of clearest.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: dindenver;272144Well, a lot of people are just saying "yes" without elaborating, so I will re-iterate the question, do the characters act differently? Are the stories told by the group at the table different?
  Just because the rules "feel" different doesn't always result in different play, right?

Game mechanics do influence play, however they are the thing which influences it the least. More important are people, snacks and setting.

For a few years now I've run the Tiwesdæg Clíewen series of games. Each was run with a different system. GURPS 4e, FATE, RuneQuest, and lastly HarnMaster.

It made very little difference. GURPS 4e hindered play a little because I chose it poorly for the group, I had only one player who was interested in it, and one player who wouldn't read even one page of rules and so got some nasty surprises in play. "What? Why can't I...?" This was not really the fault of the system, but of my poor choice of system as GM.

HarnMaster hindered play once or twice because it had a "whiff factor" with some fights being heaps of dice rolling with not much result. This was a fault of the system, but should have been forseen by me.

Aside from those minor things, which were only issues in about half an hour of play in more than a dozen sessions, system made very little difference to play in the Tiwesdaeg series of games. GURPS and Harnmaster encouraged combat (simply by having lots of rules for it), FATE gave a more thespy literary sort of feel, but really these were very subtle things. All the significant differences in style can be attributed to the people at the game table.

Game mechanics do influence play, however they are the thing which influences it the least. More important are people, snacks and setting.

The most important thing is the people at the game table. Their personalities, their likes and dislikes, how talkative each is, how open to new ideas, and how they all get along. Game groups rarely break up because somebody didn't like the Attacks of Opportunity rules or something like that, they break up because Anna decided Bob is a cocksmock, or whatever. People.

Once I asked a heap of gamers what the best, most memorable moment in a game session was for them. One guy mentioned a scene where his character was just watching while a couple of other players had an intense scene - his best moment was when someone else at the game table was having fun. And he wasn't alone in this. The fun we have is often just enjoying that someone else is having fun. People.

People make or break a game session, and are absolutely the most important thing determining its success.

The next most important thing is the snacks at the game table. Sharing food is a social experience which binds people. And the kind of food they eat sets the mood. A silver service four course dinner with obscure and expensive ingredients sets a certain mood, pizza, coke and cheetos sets another mood. If one or two of the people are new to the group, eating food together is a way for them to slowly settle into the group, it gives them something to talk about, and an excuse to say nothing while others are talking. The right snacks help the people get along.

After the people and snacks comes the setting of the campaign. Players need something to capture their imagination. "Make a character for a universal campaign" will not inspire me. "Make a character who comes from a world where faster-than-light travel was discovered in the 1950s and now there's the Cold War in space!" or "Make a character who comes from a world which is sort of medieval but dragons and magic are real and the character will make their living from travelling around slaying monsters!" may inspire me.

Down at the bottom of the list comes system. You want a system which is going to help you with the setting and the people (no system can help you with snacks). If you have players who love reading big books and being incredibly detailed with their character, you'll need one system. If you've players who never read anything except comics and Mechwarrior novels, and who want to just show up and play, then you'll need a different system. And obviously your system must have rules for things which happen in the setting, like magic.

So remember,

1. People. 2. Snacks. 3. Setting. 4. System.

Get the first three right, and the last one makes little difference.

Quote from: dindenver;272157Care to elaborate?

I'll try. The question is pretty broad, and open ended from where I stand.

QuoteWhen have you avoided risk because of system mechanics.

I don't think the majority of my players do. Avoid risk based on system that is. We heartily encourage players to make decisions that their player character would make.

For instance, if you're playing a Neutral Evil Barbarian who tends to be self centered, and self promoting why would he voluntarily help someone in need, especially if there's nothing in it for him?

On the opposite end why doe your Chaotic Good Fighter bypass the village in need, and obey the head man's wishes on how to fight?

For us it's about internal consistency. We don't expect anyone else to get their kicks this way, it;s just how we play and what we enjoy. Characterization has always been more important to us than the rules. I'd be willing to violate every rule in the book to make a fun game, or fun scene. Luckily after 15 to 20 years gaming together we know each others limits pretty well.

QuoteWhen have you accepted risk regardless of the penalties of the mechanics you were using at the time?

I run the game so for me it's an easy answer, never. But my players have, generally speaking, no problems what so ever accepting the consequences of their actions. They know if they mass murder, eventually law enforcement will bring it's resources to bear. If they rip off the villagers, maybe one or two will come looking for their gold. Or hire another group to get even.

For us real life consequences don't need a mechanic. Like others said things are never constant, and we change things up-sometimes just to try fun, or new stuff. I've used or added rules after we come across a situation where we think rules need to come into play, but generally we try to keep it rules lite.

Bill,
  I did post this question on other boards. And your view is actually quite predominant across all the threads I started.
  By and large, people seem to think some combination of these three things:
1) Mechanics don't change your preferred course of action, just how you feel about it afterward
2) Whenever possible, players will avoid games that do not promot their playstyle.
3) If Mechanics and playstyle do not mesh, players will house rule the system to match their playstyle

  Now, it depends on how self-aware these people are, but the prevailing belief across different forums and different splay styles tells me there is at leastr a kernel of truth in there somewhere, what do you think?

Paul,
  Thanks for the thoughtful answer (I had to really try not to say "serious, lol). I think you are in the majority. But I wonder why?
  And I wonder what it says about all those designers that make a game more lethal in order to discourage combat?

Quote from: HinterWelt;272166Wow. I think I will have the unpopular view here. I believe that the elements that the group brings to the table trump the system that is chosen for play. That is to say, elements that group brings are things like a desire for lots of combat. Let's run with that. Then the GM is going to adjust the monsters appropriately. The players will adjust the character actions appropriately and the system will be forced into the profile the group has for it based on the elements that describe there play style preference.

So, yes, system can effect play, if the group desires it. This is an element as well, one of desiring to play the system as written or as close as possible. Alternatively, it can be to change the system. Elements are merely the discrete expression of the groups collective play style.

Unfortunately, some groups are not aware of this and feel bound byt he system they choose. However, eventually, it will seep through and morph the system to fit the needs and desires of the group.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Is that just a long way of saying, "system/mechanics influence play unless the group ignores the system/mechanics"?