“…but not as overused as the gambler’s phallus.”
In this episode, Yanni talks about introducing “traditional” gamers to Apocalypse World, and we analyze some of the innovations that set modern games apart from their older cousins. Here’s a (partial) list of the things we came up with; not every game does every one of them, but having more seems to be better than having fewer, and some of them can be worked into any game:
- Make failure interesting.
- Make the rules about what the game is supposed to be about.
- Reward the players for doing the things you want to see in the game.
- Create mechanics that are win-win.
- Add mechanics/rewards to the stuff players will do anyway.
- Include rules or guidance for scene-framing.
- Try to create a common vision/agenda for the game and the fiction among the players.
Here’s the audio link:
IPMM-28-Innovations-in-Modern-Games
And here are some of the topics touched on in the podcast:
– Make failure interesting.
(I’ve done this with D&D. My group just role-plays it. No mechanic was required)
– Make the rules about what the game is supposed to be about.
(D&D is a tactical game with very tactical rules, but each group determines its own level of how they want to play)
– Reward the players for doing the things you want to see in the game.
(D&D has had posted suggestions by various writers allowing for X.P. awards for good role-playing)
– Create mechanics that are win-win.
(Rolling a natural 20 is definitely a win-win. There are several mechanics in place with D&D that promote outstanding role-playing situations)
– Add mechanics/rewards to the stuff players will do anyway.
(Again, DMs are suggested to award X.P. for good role-playing)
– Include rules or guidance for scene-framing.
(There have been hundreds of articles written since the creation of D&D which give DMs & Players tips on how to enhance role-playing. With a creative group that wants scene-framing, it’s easily done. I’ve done it many times)
– Try to create a common vision/agenda for the game and the fiction among the players
(D&D set the standard for the group having a shared vision of how the game will be played, in relation to the setting)
IMO, D&D is only vague in terms of the more narrative-based elements when you have a DM and/or group that doesn’t play that way. Great podcast!
Thanks for listening!
I’m glad you agree that these are important things, and like we said, a lot of DMs have been doing them in their “traditional” games for years – they’re just not part of the rules as written! Also like we said, we hope that people learn these techniques and incorporate them into their own games.
Wizards of the Coast did incorporate a lot (though not all) of these principles in their design for Fourth Edition D&D, which is why I think a lot of the folks like us that love “indie” games also play 4E. We can only speculate what will or won’t get into D&D Next, of course…
Here’s the thing, though: there is always going to be a disconnect when a game says it’s about one thing and its rules are about something else (or don’t support the thing the game is supposedly about). When you have to set aside the book and just free role-play because the game doesn’t cover social interaction adequately, or there’s no mechanic for resolving disputes between player characters, etc., you lose something. I’ve got an old post (that references some even older stuff) that summarizes why system matters and why always playing the same game might not scratch everyone’s itch.
Another really great resource for understanding why not engaging the mechanics is not ideal is Vincent Baker’s Clouds and Boxes series (there are a number of other posts on the same theme; you can google them). His writing can be kind of dense, but his arguments are sound and he is also one of the best game designers in the business.