System/Mechanics mechanic hatred

[Lorsh]

What if you hate mechanics, or at least can't find the same time/will/whatever to make those same tedious mechanics as you used to?

What should you do if you still want to run a complicated roleplay that would need different things to be kept track of? Like, say, if the players were leaders pitted against each other, somehow.

 

[Idea]

What if you hate mechanics, or at least can't find the same time/will/whatever to make those same tedious mechanics as you used to?

Then you can simply not use them. If you view something as something you hate or something tedious inherently, then well if you can at all avoid it you probably simply not engage with it. There are of course times when it can be inevitable that we have to interact with or even do something we don't like, but this really doesn't seem like the type of thing that could generate such a situation.

That being said naturally excluding anything requires a level of compromise, namely that of missing out on the things you could have had by engaging with those things. But of course, that's the type of trade-of that makes up individual decisions.

What should you do if you still want to run a complicated roleplay that would need different things to be kept track of?

---> Be clear about what you want / needs to be kept track of
---> Trust players to do it or do it yourself.


I could try to offer more concrete advice, but I'd need a more concrete thing to address to that effect. You do seem to have a very particularly idea in mind given the example.

Either way, I hope this helps. Best of luck and happy RPing!

 

[Beckoncall]

Have somebody else do it. I'm a GM and use very freeform mechanics that the players don't need to know, but that I can read and follow.

When in doubt, use dice, modified by a referees interpretation of advantage/disadvantage on the basis of how good/bad the ideas and odds should be.

Either that, or forget mechanics and fly without them... negotiating beforehand how rivalry between players and other such things that normally need mechanics be handled.

 

[Lorsh]

Have somebody else do it. I'm a GM and use very freeform mechanics that the players don't need to know, but that I can read and follow.

it is a good strategy

When in doubt, use dice, modified by a referees interpretation of advantage/disadvantage on the bsis of how good/bad the ideas and odds should be.

That is a sound plan. In the past, I would just put a clause in the RP that basically says "GM word is law, whatever I say happens happens!" which is basically necessary, but as impartial as I'd like to think of myself, behind-the-scenes person(s) to talk things out with would be a pretty big help.

Some things would be a little obvious, like you shouldn't send horsemen charging headlong into a block of spears, if you can help it. But when there's many factors and different tactics and units in play (cavalry, archery, foot soldiers, random militia, etc.), it can be hard to say who'll end up winning/losing more, or if the PCs themselves should come into direct danger and get hurt or killed. A PC-on-PC duel would be a tricky one.

One hassle of GMing something like this would be taking into account a lot of different NPCs. Delegation of tasks to your subordinates, interacting with different legal personalities, managing finances (ugh) and whatever important resources there'd be (what would they be? at least cattle, 'corn', money, land, people?) The players themselves would be someone like a lord - or someone with de facto power if they aren't the lord/abbot/lady regnant/whatever themselves.

Another thing would be metagaming in a scenario like this. If this RP took place on the same thread, I wouldn't trust someone to not just read the other player's posts (or could I?) and, even if they know metagaming is failRP and try to avoid doing it, they could still subconsciously alter their strategy to make themselves more likely to win.

What I find works (because I can't think of another solution) is having each thread be an interconnected 1x1 using the same map, with the GM being there as the "fog of war". You could still interact with other player characters, but you'd have to actually physically travel to them, send a letter, a representative of your faction or a lowly runner, etc. Info is filtered through by the GM, basically.

 

[Beckoncall]

Interconnected 1x1s sounds BRILLIANT in theory, but running/GMing ONE successful RP is hard enough, nevermind a series of linked campaigns.

I'm presently running a nation-builder called "YOU ARE A GOD!" and everyone is having a good time of it, but I have been taking time off for the holiday and dealing with slight analysis paralysis that comes from nation builders inherent trait of often becoming more complex as they get older/bigger.

 

[Lorsh]

People love "court intrigue rp" but it just gets spoiled because it's all on the same thread, yknow

Interconnected 1x1s sounds BRILLIANT in theory, but running/GMing ONE successful RP is hard enough, nevermind a series of linked campaigns.

It can be very fun. But unfortunately, my last one died before a battle involving different players could happen, because I ended up getting burnt out (got names of NPCs mixed up, huge bitch subtracting wages, I also had a stupid system where people drank alcohol every day and I had to deduct it) and eventually took a million years to respond, so it fizzled out.

Spoiler: tha story

There was one player (a vassal lord) that was told to crush a minor rural rebellion against his liege lord (a baron). The player mobilized levies from his villages, and set out with a force of archers and spearmen, along with a couple knights and squires (the former being named characters, basically acting as his officers). Along the way, they met a small troop of knights and horsemen sent by the baron as 'help'.

The player deescalated the fight with the 'rebels' by having parley with them, even though his liege had (for some reason) expressly forbidden parley. After he met with the rebellion's leader anyway, he learned that the rebellion was occurring due to some kind of necromantic plot at the baron's court. So, he joined forces with these rebels and strongarmed the 'backup' knights into his army, though at least a few were prepared to betray him the moment they could.

So, this player sent out letters to other NPC and PC lords, explaining the situation.



Meanwhile, in another thread, the castellan (his dad was the real lord but was really old) received the letter and scrounged together like 70 men, putting his household captain in charge of the token force, while keeping most of the good men behind, at his own castle. His captain wasn't incredibly impressed with the quality of the force, so he asked for five extra retainers to go along with him, which was granted.

Another lord was preparing to mobilize but the RP died before much could happen - he spent most of his time investigating the countryside and putting down a zombie outbreak inside of an NPC lord's castle, ultimately ending up with them as a sorta protectorate, since they had been doing a poor job protecting their lands from zombies.

The last lord was actually on the Baron's side, because he met with him and learned the reason why a necromancer was being kept. So he agreed to send some men to fight on the baron's behalf.

There could have been a battle once the forces of these players met in earnest, perhaps there could have been a parley, who knows. But it was super fun, even if ultimately anticlimactic (then again, that's just my fault! also way too sidetracked working on an updated version of the map, which admittedly became funner to do than actually reply, 'cept it never got released)

Aside from background mechanics, if there were to be 'tabs' for player threads, which ones should there be? Like, estate tab, finances tab, military tab - some of those things would be interconnected themselves, though. Should players be able to edit their own threads?

 

[GojiBean]

Hoyo!

I'm an odd ol' bean, and my RP's needs always outweigh my wants. So I'll force myself to do whatever's necessary for the RP's sake, like it or not.

But for those who can't or won't do that, I always recommend this simple piece of advice: Think less about "mechanics" and more about how you'd describe your world.

Now, what do I mean by this?

I often find that the RP's I make which garner the most attention are the ones where I don't post any strict rules or restrictions in my Interest Check or on the RP's main thread or Lore pages. And this makes sense given that mechanics are effectively sets of rules and limitations that the players must follow. Cause let's face it, nobody likes to read a list of rules or limitations.

So, instead of thinking in terms of mechanics think in terms of how you'd describe your world.

I'll use a magic system mechanic as an example since it's something I'm quite familiar with:

This world, crafted by the Gods, is saturated by a remnant force left behind by their power called Mana. This power, unlike that of its progenitors, is finite and ever shifting, and is ever coveted by the mortals of this world. But not all can harness its vast potential. And in regions where mana runs scarce or where it no longer flows freely, magic cannot be utilized by those who've harnessed its power elsewhere.

These few sentences don't exactly sound like a strict list of restrictions, do they? But they are:

1) Mana is a byproduct of the power of the Gods, so there's a divine element to it meaning not everyone can use it (aka, not everyone who joins can be a mage)
2) Mana is not infinite, and therefore magic isn't infinite either (therefore, no mass casting as if it doesn't cost you anything)
3) If Mana isn't present, no magic can be used (so if you're a mage character and we're in a no-Mana region, you're SOL and sidelined unless you know how to use a normal weapon)

But again, the descriptive version that's just talking about the world sounds so much nicer and more inviting, doesn't it? It sounds and feels more immersive. And it doesn't sound like I'm listing genuine restrictions so much as giving you information about the world and how things came to be.

And in this way, I'm avoiding having to make a list of strict rules and restrictions (aka "mechanics") that require constant watching and moderation on my part as the GM. If anyone has questions, I always put out the option to ask me since that's what I'm there for as the GM. But the description is pretty clear as to how the magic system and mechanics work. So questions should be minimal. But there's always a few who think a little too far outside the box who come up with ideas to manipulate or distort the mechanics as they're presented who you have to keep an eye out for and keep in line.

Still, when you simply let your world descriptions act as the moderator it takes a bit of weight off your shoulders since you don't need nearly as much conscious effort to keep an eye on that magic system when you know everyone read and understands that description you left. And the less you have to think about it, the less like a mechanic it feels. At least, that's how I feel about it.

---------------------------------​

In closing, my advice is to stop thinking in terms of mechanics and more in terms of how you would describe your world and the way it functions, and let that act as your list of "mechanics" instead.

Doing so will help not only other players, but you as well, to simply enjoy the world for what it is without having to think about things you have to regulate or monitor. The more you openly describe your world in the Lore pages, the more everyone will have the understanding from said Lore that the world functions a certain way. And they'll work within those boundaries much more willingly and easily than they would if it were a listed set of rules. And in doing so, you'll have less policing to do which gives you more freedom to just kick back and enjoy the experience with everyone.

Hopefully this helps!

Cheers!

~ GojiBean