"System" includes the manner in which tasks are resolved, character creation (even the character sheet), terminology. . . all of it. It's quite impossible for the system to fade into the background without discarding system altogether. To illustrate, here's an example from Amber Diceless Roleplaying, which has one of the least intrusive mechanical architectures I've ever encountered. Player characters are ranked in four attributes (Psyche, Warfare, Strength, Endurance.) Higher rank always wins. Your character's rank in Warfare is part of the system. I realize that it might be said that using a description such as "Flynn is second to none in the arts of war!" is effectively fading that system into the background, but I disagree. It's still in the player's mind that Flynn-the-character is ranked first in Warfare. And there's nothing wrong with that.
What most are trying to say is that they want transparent mechanics. They don't want to have to stop, pull themselves out of the game, and figure out how to accomplish what they want to accomplish. Most games created these days certainly try to make their mechanics as transparent as possible. The issue of "fading into the background" comes into play when the players (and I include the Dungeon Master or whatever he or she may be called in the particular game) are either comfortable or uncomfortable with the game and its system. Some players are very comfortable with a heavy dose of mechanics. For instance, I've known a player that feels HERO System fades into the background. I've known others that feel anything more involved than Wushu's mechanics are far too apparent. It's a completely personal judgement
Personally, I'm fond of emulation, which requires a heavy layer of apparent system; however, I also enjoy task-resolution mechanics that are as transparent as possible. A d20 is about as granular as I can stand in task resolution for various reasons (I'm sure I'll get into those as time goes on) and see no reason why that will ever change. When I play sci-fi, I want to have the same feeling I do as when I read a good sci-fi novel or watch a sci-fi film. If I play a Lord of the Rings game, I want it to engender the same excitement and wonder the films created. I don't want to have to think about what dice to roll and what I can do to increase my modifier bonuses. Those things I want to fade into the background. If there is a "corruption" sub-system though--something similar to the Sanity Points from Call of Cthulhu--having that present in my mind emulates the dread and fear that Frodo felt while possessing the One Ring. I don't want that to fade into the background. That mechanic would emulate the feel of the films and increase the richness of experience.
I feel that game designers would do well to consider which sections of their game systems should be apparent and which should be transparent.
I think you've hit on (among other things) my mental disconnect with Spirit of the Century. I can see how, with sufficient familiarity with the system and a character, the mechanics might become fairly transparent to a player. But it looks to me like the GM has a *lot* to do - more specific cases and applications than I could ever keep comfortably in mind without reference materials. GURPS, on the other hand, fades nicely for me because 3d6-roll-under became second nature so quickly and so long ago.
ReplyDeleteHeh. And I've barely played GURPS, and thus don't find it transparent at all. Spirit of the Century has been pretty transparent as a player for me, but I've never GMed it.
ReplyDeleteWhich just goes to show that there are markets for a lot of different games out there. As you said, it's a matter of which parts of the system should be transparent or apparent, to hit the right target of buyers.
I think it is a completely personal judgment. And in my experience, gamers hate those.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily all the people playing games. Just the ones who cry for the ideal transparent mechanics of a game. Because if pseudo-transparency is a result of personal taste, mindset, and so on then you can't have a "right" answer. And yeah, many of the "Dammit, I want transparency in my games!" gamers hate that.
Because it doesn't give them their one answer. It renders the whole concept a road and not a destination. Or more accurately it renders it a series of branching paths where one road might only be transversible by someone who really likes fractions and another can only be sped down if you like genre emulation.
Which means that I tend to view the goal of transparency as a bit silly. Not that a designer shouldn't try and make mechanics he/she finds transparent. No, that makes sense. Just the idea that there's some great final shining ideal that can be reached in a way that everyone will love it.
I hope I didn't come across as thinking that there's a Platonic ideal that can be reached. There is no Table. I think what intrigues me is designing games using conscious choices either highlighting system aspects (apparent system) or masking them (transparent system.)
ReplyDeleteA good example--perhaps not consciously done but it could have been--would be the experience system in Burning Wheel. The player is consciously testing skills against greater challenges seeking improvement. Skill improvement is always in the player's consciousness in essence. I've encountered quite a few people that simply adore that or loathe it immediately. Of course there are some people that don't feel strongly about it, but it's surprising how often in this specific case the strong feelings generated by an experience system occur.
I tend to go heavily for emulation myself. I want the rules to be fast and easy to use but I am way more interested in putting, for example, a rule in that lets a PC do something from a story or other media source that inspired the game than I am worried about whether or not the rule fades away into the background.
ReplyDeleteWhich is kinda weird, because I really try to make rules easy and fast as much as possible. Which I guess is a kind of transparency. Or at least could lead some to find such rules so.