\documentstyle{article}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-1in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\begin{document}
\setcounter{page}{85}
\parindent=0pt
{
From: ginger@la.excelan.com (Judy ``Ginger" Edighoffer) \\
}
\begin{center}
{\large \bf 
Personal experiences with game mechanics vs GM \& player satisfaction
 \\}
\vspace{.075in}
{\large \sf \copyright \ 1990 by Judy ``Ginger" Edighoffer. All Rights Reserved. \\}
\end{center}

\vspace{.1in}

{
  ``The Schizophrenic Squire" asked about what sorts of game mechanics
produce enjoyable games.  I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on 
this issue, so I'm offering my opinions to encourage the discussion.  \\

  Background:  I have run AD\&D (variants) as both player and GM.  I've
played in a home-brew system vaguely based on Bushido.  I also have spent
quite a bit of time reading rules for assorted FRP games before designing
the GURPS-inspired system I now use (as GM).  \\

Problems I've encountered that seem to be enhanced by game mechanics:  \\
\begin{enumerate}
\item {{\bf Players' attention wanders during combat  \\} \\
I've seen this problem crop up when a player doesn't get to act
frequently.  The player's attention wanders from the combat, then
he loses state in what in going on and needs a description of what
has happened when his next turn to act comes around.  I try to keep 
up a fast pace in combat by:  \\
\begin{itemize}
\item {Keeping down the number of PC's and henchmen insofar as I can.}
\item {Switching to a more interactive combat system -- requiring a
      defensive die roll (especially if there are a couple of defensive
      tactics to choose among) gives players something to plan \& do 
      while their foes are acting.}
\item {Use a stripped down action sequencing system.  If there are lots
      of ``segments" per combat round but characters act few times per 
      round, players may stop paying attention while waiting for their
      segment.}
\end{itemize}}

\item{{\bf Reasonable NPC planning during combat \\}\\
  I don't have the best memory in the world and find I have a tendency
to forget NPC's during combat.  Even with one card/piece of paper per NPC, 
I find it hard to remember the plan for each NPC (made at the beginning 
of the combat round) when it is finally time to act.  \\
  Another problem I've encountered is the amount of time I need to work 
out NPC plans.  If all planning is done at the start of a combat-round, 
I take far more time than the players (having more characters to run) 
and so the players get restless.\\
  When I worked on my game system, I tried for game mechanics that would: \\
\begin{itemize}
\item {Use a combat system with short combat-rounds.}
\item {Use an initiative system that defers planning until the time for a 
      character to act.  This also eliminates the temptation to illegally 
      change plans in mid-round and reduces player frustration that their 
      actions have become useless due to events during the round.}
\item {Insofar as possible, do strategy \& tactics planning for foes
      prior to the run.}
\end{itemize}}

\item {{ \bf Thrashing looking up spell descriptions, etc. \\}\\
  It seems to me that there is an inherent tension between the richness
of detail in a game system and the amount of material that the GM must
memorize and/or look up during a run.  I've found that generally weapons,
armor mods, etc. can generally be digested into tables that fit onto a
GM screen.  Spells (psionics,...), however, seem to have the general
characteristic of being ``magic" -- ie, exceptions to the laws of nature
and frequently the normal game system mechanics.  Spell casting times
can be digested down to tables, but the exact effects need descriptions
that don't compress (easily).  Depending on how good your memory is, I'd
recommend looking for the following attributes in a game system: \\
\begin{itemize}
\item{Relatively small number of spells}
\item{Some underlying rules/principles for spell effects that can be
      learned in lieu of an endless list of specific effects.}
\item{Small number of variants for casting time, duration, range, and
      need for gestures, ...}
\end{itemize}}

\item{{\bf Players feeling left out in planning \\ } \\
  Whenever PC's need to work out a plan of action, they need information
about the world (campaign region) in general and possibly about specific
foes.  I've observed that generally the players with the most access to
information dominate the planning process.  Those with little or no 
information can feel bored with the planning process or left out of the
game (some PC's will wander off and do random, obnoxious actions just to 
be doing something).  Two general principles I find useful are: \\
\begin{itemize}
   \item{Make sure every character has some ability to gather information.\\
        \begin{itemize}
        \item{Some game systems have knowledge skills.  These are helpful IF
        those with no study of such skills can still prompt for common
        knowledge and for knowledge related to their skills/profession. \\}
        \item{For class-based game systems, figure out at least principles for
        winging-it when players/PCs come up with questions. \\}
        \end{itemize}}
  \item{As a GM for a long-running campaign, try to give every player the
      chance to acquire world info (via e-mail, meetings, or at least the
      occasional missive of info learned by the PC).}
\end{itemize}}

\item { { \bf Excessive ``routine precautions" \\}\\
  I like a game in which tactics and strategy matter:  in which advance
preparations are useful.  However, there comes a point beyond which
keeping track of preparations is a real hassle (e.g., a list of 20 magic
mouth spells to warn of thieves, ...;  trying to accumulate lots of
different protection spells [prot fire, prot cold, prot evil, prot normal
missiles, spell shield, ...]).  I find long lists of preparations even
more of a hassle when designing a band of NPC's [and the thrashing
during an encounter to check which NPC's have which protections is awful!].\\
  Some game mechanics which seem to reduce the problems are: \\
  \begin{itemize}
    \item{Rarity of magic items giving protection (however achieved)}
    \item{Rarity of protective spells (as in they don't exist)}
    \item{Protective spells that are helpful but not do not dominate play
      (less of a drive to have them)}
    \item{Lack of permanent or very long lasting spells (ie, keep duration 
      down to fractions of a day)}
    \item{Inability to keep too many spells running at a time}
    \item{Inability to have too many triggerable spells around (or very
      inflexible triggers)}
  \end{itemize}}

\item{ {\bf Immovable objects and irresistable forces \\}\\
  Some game systems use (at least implicitly) the phrase ``always [produces 
result X]" especially in spell descriptions.  This leads to the hassle of 
keeping track of which ``always" wins in cases like spell X makes you 
undetectable via all divination spells and spell Y lets you see through 
all magical cloaking spells.  It also leads to problems in planning --
players can feel betrayed if they bump into an NPC who has researched a
counter to a spell that the players think will always work. \\
  Systems that have absolute protections also tend to have foes (monsters)
that are invulnerable except to one specific (and sometimes unlikely)
attack form.  I find that such are intensely aggravating to players. \\
  I now look for game systems that explicitly quantify protection and
other effect strengths --- on scales that do not include zero and infinity.\\
}

\item {{\bf Players feeling ``cheated" \\}\\
  Players like to have control over the fate of their characters.  I
personally and most other players I've dealt with can handle the death
of a PC if it dies as the result of insufficiently good dice rolls or
bad decisions on the player's part.  Players tend to feel betrayed if
they don't have a chance to save their characters. \\
  I like systems that: \\
\begin{itemize}
    \item{have a defensive counter to EVERY attack (parry/block/dodge vs
       melee attacks, observation rolls versus surprise, saves for
       every spell, etc)}
    \item{have few instant-death effects -- i.e., characters can survive
       a couple of rounds even if disabled completely the first round.}
\end{itemize}}

\item{{\bf Players feeling helpless \\}\\
  I and all the other FRP game players I've encountered hate being
stuck in situations in which there is no way to influence the outcome
of events.  I mean situations in which: \\
\begin{itemize}
    \item{the PC has no skill which is relevant}
    \item{the PC is not entitled to roll dice to defend}
    \item{the foes have absolute (100\%) protection against available attacks}
    \item{tactics such as retreat are impossible}
    \item{there is clearly no hope of negotiation or screaming for help}
    \item{the GM keeps re-writing the script to produce the desired end
      whatever the PCs do}
    \item{other PCs or NPCs totally dominate}
\end{itemize}}
\end{enumerate}

  A lot of these problems are best minimized by improving your GMing
skill.  The absolute protection problem I've already discussed.\\
  I like game systems that give non-zero default skills.  This doesn't
have to mean that 200 people can each take their 1\% chance and be pretty 
sure of success.  In my system, I use critical failures to stop this
(e.g., 5\% chance of progress might correspond to 10\% chance of making
matters worse).  People don't go for the 5\% chance of progress unless
they are really desperate.\\
  I prefer game systems in which there is not too wide a disparity
between the ``hit points" (or equivalent) of a beginning character and
an advanced one.  I find that this seems to be a sufficient mechanism
for bringing the dominance problem into the tolerable range.\\
}
\end{document}

