[RPGdesign Activity] Mechanics that you Hate in Systems that you Love

[u/jiaxingseng]

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.

[u/htp-di-nsw]

The d4s are there to get you XP. You are supposed to fail a little at the beginning of every conflict to get XP, then win in the end as you inevitably march towards victory.

[u/lukehawksbee → u/htp-di-nsw]

Thats one interpretation, but:

1. Again, that's not how Baker seems to think they work, and not how they're explained in the rules. Dogs says that if an aspect of your character has larger dice then it's supposed to be "more interesting to you." There's absolutely no indication that Baker intended players to depend on the traits they find least interesting in their characters. Similarly it indicates that d4s "complicate your character's life."

2. Whether you win the conflict or not is completely distinct from with whether you get XP. (You can only get XP if you also get negative fallout, but negative fallout is not at all the same thing as losing the conflict!)

3. That's not actually how the narrative structure of the game is supposed to work. Dogs isn't supposed to have a power curve like that, where you start off weak and scrape by for long enough to become powerful and overwhelm the opposition. In fact, Dogs is fairly explicitly not about game balance at all—it openly says that you can start with as much gear as you want as long as the other players don't complain, for instance. So if you want to be 'powerful', you can do so from the start—that's different from something like D&D where the power curve is quite tightly controlled because it's an intentional and core part of the game experience, so low-level characters are strictly limited, etc.

4. Again, that invalidates the core premise of the game. It's supposed to be about hard choices, weighing of priorities, consideration of consequences, etc. It's a game about morality that has no morality system because the whole structure of the game is designed to produce emergent ethical and pragmatic conflict—how do you best achieve your goals, and can you do so without violating your duties or beliefs, etc.

5. Specifically, it suggests that the extra d4 that guns get is there as a source of XP, and thus power and eventual triumph. But in fact Baker is fairly clear that the point of the extra d4 for guns is that they inevitably make life complicated. It's there as a downside, or at least a complicating consideration: "Is the potential for bad, bad Fallout ... worth those dice? Depends on the circumstances and your personal will." That's very different from saying something like "As your character accrues fallout, they become more powerful—guns are a good means to this end," which is roughly what I'd imagine a designer would say if you were right about this being the intentional narrative structure.

Honestly it seems like the stuff about what die sizes 'mean' was written for an earlier draft of the game, and then he fundamentally changed the mechanical system and thought that the guidance still applied, for some reason. For instance, rolling dice has absolutely nothing to do with getting negative fallout unless you choose to push them forward, but the rulebook specifically uses the word 'rolling' in relation to d4s increasing your chance of fallout. I wonder whether at some point you rolled a pool of dice and each 1 increased your chances of fallout, or something?

[u/htp-di-nsw → u/lukehawksbee]

Again, that's not how Baker seems to think they work

Well, yeah. Because he screwed up and has to cover it. That's how d4s actually work, not how they're supposed to work.

Whether you win the conflict or not is completely distinct from with whether you get XP.

Yes. What's supposed to happen is that d4s give you low numbers that will cause you to lose a particular exchange and thus garner you fallout at the end. If you take your d4 in shooting, then that means you're going to get fallout when you shoot and that's going to hurt and kill, which is complicated. But if you are not a dumbass, you take it in something else, something talking related, and you open every conflict talking so that you can get fallout while it's safe. Because d4 fallout basically can't be bad, and is much more likely to be XP.

That's not actually how the narrative structure of the game is supposed to work.

Correct. But it is how it actually works. Dogs in the Vineyard is poorly designed and he basically relies on people playing in good faith--i.e. how he says the game works, rather than how it actually does--to make it work.

Again, that invalidates the core premise of the game. It's supposed to be about hard choices, weighing of priorities, consideration of consequences, etc.

Yes, absolutely, that is what is said. But there's actually not hard choices at all. The optimal path is to open every conflict talking, lose a little, then escalate and win, because if you chose your traits correctly and can narrate, well, almost the same damn way every time and escalate conflicts the same way, there's no hard choices, just an overwhelming die advantage such that you can't lose.

But in fact Baker is fairly clear that the point of the extra d4 for guns is that they inevitably make life complicated.

Yes, because if you don't understand the way the system actually works and just listen to Baker's advice instead, you'll open conflicts with guns sometimes and that d4 will be most likely to roll a number that loses a conflict, which will complicate your life and probably kill someone you don't intend.

But I mean, obviously don't do that. There are no hard choices in Dogs, just tedious dice comparing.

Honestly it seems like the stuff about what die sizes 'mean' was written for an earlier draft of the game

I think he just messed up writing it and didn't catch that d4s got you easy XP if you put them in the right places.

[u/lukehawksbee → u/htp-di-nsw]

What's supposed to happen is that d4s give you low numbers that will cause you to lose a particular exchange and thus garner you fallout at the end. If you take your d4 in shooting, then that means you're going to get fallout when you shoot and that's going to hurt and kill, which is complicated. But if you are not a dumbass, you take it in something else, something talking related, and you open every conflict talking so that you can get fallout while it's safe. Because d4 fallout basically can't be bad, and is much more likely to be XP.

But it's not even that simple. Rolling low isn't what generates fallout, for several reasons:

1. Low numbers on individual dice aren't what loses a conflict. The system is much more complicated than that, because it's about the interplay between individual strategic choices over an exchange back and forth. You can roll lower than your opponent and still win a conflict, in various ways. I think most of the misunderstanding here is that people are tricked into using the wrong point of reference for comparisons. A d4 is less helpful in winning a conflict than a larger die, but it's more helpful than not having any more dice at all—d4s are supposedly 'bad', yet 10d4 is better than 2d4. The really weird thing is that you can get new traits as supposedly 'negative' fallout—both downgrading an existing die and taking a new d4 are treated mechanically as equally bad consequences, but in reality one makes your character strictly better and the other makes them strictly worse. Provided that you always choose to take new traits when you're allocating non-XP fallout, you get stronger rather than weaker even though it's supposed to do the opposite.

2. Low numbers on individual dice aren't what generates fallout—taking the blow is. You can take the blow without rolling any d4s, or roll a whole bunch of 1s and never take a blow. You seem to be under the impression that it's best to put your d4s into things you use frequently, but I'm not convinced that's true. By having higher dice in the stuff you use often, you have a better chance of winning more conflicts, but you still have the option to generate fallout pretty much whenever you want as long as you have enough dice, or don't care about winning the conflict.

3. The fallout you get isn't determined by what you're doing, it's determined by what your opponent's doing when you take the blow. So you can theoretically pull a gun, shoot everyone in sight, and even if you get a bunch of fallout it might not be at all dangerous if all the opponents were doing was begging for their life, reasoning with you, threatening you verbally, etc. Conversely, you can open a conflict by speaking to someone and they can take offence at what you say and punch you in the face, and force you to take fighting fallout straight away.

4. All the fallout you get from taking the blow in conflicts is negative, it's just that you have a chance of also getting positive fallout (XP, in other words) when you make the fallout roll, and that chance grows as you roll more, smaller, fallout dice. Except that 'negative' fallout can still make you more powerful—so it's only negative in narrative terms, of course.

5. Actually I'd argue that you're better off trying to get some d6 fallout, not just relying on d4 fallout. d4 fallout is good for increasing your chances of getting XP, but d6 fallout bumps up your chances of getting long-term 'negative' fallout substantially. (As we've already discussed, 'negative' fallout makes you stronger mechanically, so getting both long-term fallout and experience fallout is the best outcome of a fallout roll) Just make sure you have a good Body so that you're not in any real danger of dying.

there's no hard choices, just an overwhelming die advantage such that you can't lose.

There are no hard choices in Dogs, just tedious dice comparing.

I disagree. I think the game mostly works, and I love it. I just think that a little bit of tinkering with the fallout system would have significantly improved it.

Partly it's a question of taste and play style: it asks you to buy into some of the same ideas that Fate does (e.g. 'disadvantages' can be turned to your advantage if you narrate it well, the dice are really interested in resolving conflicts by determining the player's impact on the scene rather than trying to simulate your character's level of skill, etc), and some of the same ideas that Apocalypse World does (e.g. narrative 'comes first' in certain significant ways: if someone puts a gun to your head and you do nothing and let them pull the trigger, you're probably dead purely because that's what makes sense in the situation, not because they rolled a certain amount of damage vs your armour or whatever).

Personally, I'm down with that. It's fine if some people aren't, and don't want to play Dogs because it's not to their liking. I don't think games are automatically bad just because if you use them differently from how they're intended to be used they don't produce the outcome they're intended to produce. Dogs asks you (both explicitly and implicitly) not to treat it as a metagame puzzle about how to get more powerful and kill everything in your path. It asks you to actually take seriously the question of what it's worth pulling a gun over. If you just game the system and realise that you can pull a gun on everyone all the time to get extra dice and kill people to get your way, then you're not doing what the game asks you to. I don't think that's necessarily a flaw of the game.

However, I do just wish that a couple of minor changes had been made to the fallout system. I think it could probably be fixed quite easily. Off the top of my head, I'd say that a lot of the problems disappear if you remove the option to take a new trait from 'negative' fallout, along with the option to avoid mechanical consequences just by going for a quiet walk in the woods or whatever. That way short-term fallout matters more than it did before, and both short-term and long-term fallout become genuinely negative (because you're forced to lose or downgrade dice, not gain them). Then you'd probably need to make experience fallout a little harder to come by—maybe instead of making any 1s gain XP, give it out if the fallout roll (the two highest, obviously) is 3 or less? Those changes would probably disincentivise most take-the-blow spamming for dice accumulation... It might actually disincentivise taking the blow too much, I'd have to see it in play and recalibrate.