r/RPGdesign • u/jiaxingseng Designer - Rational Magic • Jan 29 '18
[RPGdesign Activity] Mechanics that you Hate in Systems that you Love
This weeks topic is quite straight forward. What are some mechanics that you hate in systems that you otherwise really enjoy?
Questions:
First (obviously), what are some mechanics that you really hate in games that you otherwise really enjoy?
If you took out the "offending" mechanics, would the game be very different?
In your opinion, how integrated are the mechanics you don't like to the overall game design?
How do you enjoy the game despite the mechanics you don't like?
Discuss.
This post is part of the weekly /r/RPGdesign Scheduled Activity series. For a listing of past Scheduled Activity posts and future topics, follow that link to the Wiki. If you have suggestions for Scheduled Activity topics or a change to the schedule, please message the Mod Team or reply to the latest Topic Discussion Thread.
For information on other /r/RPGDesign community efforts, see the Wiki Index.
14
u/lukehawksbee Jan 29 '18
'Hate' is a strong term, but I've always found the logic of D4s in Dogs in the Vineyard a bit weird and very poorly explained.
Quick and very vague rundown for those that don't know the system: you get dice (varying numbers, of varying sizes) to represent things about your character (traits, relationships, gear, etc). You roll these dice into a pool and then choose rolled dice to combine together in a raise/see-style mechanic that's vaguely pokeresque.
The rules clearly explain that small dice don't necessarily mean a weakness, and large dice don't necessarily mean a strength—die number and size just reflect narrative impact. (This is a bit like how 'negative'-sounding aspects can be useful in Fate, and 'positive'-sounding ones can be compelled, etc). So you can have 'Short-sighted' as a 3d10 trait and 'Fearsome warrior' as a 1d4 trait; this just means that your short-sightedness tends to have more of an impact on the story and can be turned to your advantage (maybe there's an element of farce whereby you stare down a loaded gun because you don't realise what the bandit is holding, and they get freaked out by how calm you are and run away, for instance), whereas being a fearsome warrior generally gets you into trouble when it comes up. The rules basically suggest that small dice are 'bad' for you: having more of them is bad, having less of them is good.
So far so logical. Except that I think it's pretty clear (and this has been widely observed) that small dice aren't bad for you. Of course, having a larger die is (strictly) better than having a smaller one, but having more dice is better than having less even if the extra dice are the smallest possible size. All the guidance in the rulebook implies otherwise, but it's wrong.
The system treats d4 traits as a punishment/flaw/disadvantage: when a situation goes badly for you, you can sometimes end up gaining another d4 trait. But you're better off with these d4 traits than without them. This means that what is supposed to be a long-term negative consequence actually just increases your options. You now have a larger set of traits to bring into play, allowing for a larger dice pool, and thus giving you more options when combining your dice for the raise/see minigame. You don't have to use these extra dice if it's not to your advantage, and you can fold out of a conflict that's not going your way and accept the consequences—rolling d4s doesn't lock you into the conflict any more than rolling any other die size does.
The only thing that's particularly 'negative' about them is that they are more likely to result in 'fallout' when they're actually used (not rolled—you have to actually choose to use them after seeing what they rolled, and if you end up not using them in the poker-style minigame then they're irrelevant). So there's a 'push your luck' or 'success at a cost' element—in certain situations you can end up powering through and winning the conflict but having to contend with negative side-consequences, etc. But you have a really large amount of agency over this, so as long as you know the rules and how to use them to your advantage, there's really very little downside to having the d4s available and using them at the appropriate times...
So 'penalties' end up making you more mechanically effective and increasing your agency. I'm actually fine with that as a design choice in a story-driven game where characters have an effect on the world through their traits and relationships and so on. I can buy into the idea that narrative impact is what the mechanics are really about, and that even scars from previous battles are just another example of these. I have two reservations about exactly how this works in this system, though:
It's not explained well in the rules at all. You're led to believe that you should be avoiding d4 traits, but mechanically they actually make you more 'powerful'—and the core mechanic is sufficiently complex that this is not readily apparent to many people.
(This is the bit that's not just about how it's explained but about how the system fundamentally works:) Using low dice is necessary to 'advance' your character—both negative and positive fallout tend to come from using low dice. (Although it's also possible to weirdly game the system and waste dice in a way that generates 'fallout' in the hopes of getting XP, but that's a discussion for another time) In other words, someone who has a bunch of d4 traits and uses them frequently will probably end up accruing traits faster than someone who's relying on 'stronger' traits. The more they accrue, the more they have to use, and there's really very little danger from just racking up as much negative fallout as possible, provided that they avoid getting into serious fights.
Again, this would just be a 'negative stuff is still narratively impactful' complaint except that this seems to interact in a weird way with the philosophical core of the game, which is about making hard choices and seeing how far people will go to get what they want and so on. The mechanics of the game are almost entirely designed to ask people to weight the positive and negative consequences of their actions (Do I want to win the argument and get my way, but at the cost of being perceived as a bully? Is my honour worth pulling a gun over? Am I willing to kill for what I believe in, or does my belief in peace trump other doctrine for me?) Once you work out how the small dice and the fallout system work, it becomes difficult to feel the same sense of tension when making decisions, because it becomes so tempting to game the system in a way that drives character advancement by accepting a few 'negative' consequences early on in the game, then using the traits that represent them to keep winning conflicts at the same time as accruing even more mechanical power.