I have a different perspective from Frank, and to a large extent, I can summarize it as follows:
"For people actually playing an RPG, a game's strengths are far more important than it's weaknesses."
That is, while it is fun to discuss binding cheese, the wish economy, degenerate builds, self-stooging in FATE, when I actually observe actual people playing actual games, the strengths of a specific set of role-playing mechanics have far more to do with determining how much people enjoy playing a game than the theoretical mechanical flaws of a specific game. That is, I rarely see a game of D&D ruined by binding or polymorph cheese, but I quite often see people taking advantage of feats, skill points, and multi-classing in order to create characters that are interesting to play, and having a good time gaming with their groups.
What do I mean by "quite often?"
A little background. I moved to my current neighboorhood a little over 2 years ago in order to take care of my invalid mother. A few miles from my new home is a card shop, which devotes over half its floor space to gaming tables, and which was focused on CCG play--Magic, Yugioh, Pokemon, Naruto, Battle Spirits, UFS and Chaotic, mostly. They host multiple games and tournaments scheduled days a week. Soon I went to work for them as their non-CCG buyer/sales manager, and now they do a fair chunk of their business in board and roleplaying games. For the month of July, 2010, I expect to see a few dozen roleplaying sessions held at the store. I'm not there all the time, but so far this month, as of Saturday afternoon, July 17, we've hosted:
- ~20 sessions of D&D 4E, mostly, but not all, RPGA and Encounters.
~10 sessions of PathFinder/3.5, mostly homebrew campaigns and scenarios.
3 sessions of Traveller.
Individuals sessions of Ryvah, ShadowRun, Savage Worlds, and FATE Homebrew Fantasy.
Each of these games is mechanicly flawed, to a greater or lesser degree, but these flaws are not generally observed in play. Instead, players are focused on how the games allow them to have fun with their characters, and with their friends. No amount of criticism of PathFinder (for example) detracts one whit from the obvious enjoyment players have building characters and having those characters do stuff.
All of these games have strengths, which attract players to each game.
For example, I found D&D3.5 a huge step forward over earlier published versions of D&D. Between feats, skill points, and multi-classing, I found I could build pretty much any character concept I cared to, and have a pretty good time campaigning up to around 10th level or so. D&D3.5's basic D20 mechanic does an excellent job of keep player and DM information separate: D20 + bonus and player-controlled penalties versus Difficulty Class and DM controlled modifiers. From a design perspective, that is the proper place to split the information.
D&D4E, for all it's numerous faults, almost did some things right. Standard, Move and Minor is much cleaner than D&D3.5's mix of standard, move, move-equivalent, and full-round actions. At low levels, the game is easy to teach even to a completely new player. Re-casting Fortitude, Reflex and Will as defenses instead of "savings throws" is more rational. Skills are easier to manage. Despite the huge amount of fail in 4E, it is played with relish by lots of people. And it's not because those players are stupid.
The problem I have with the so-called Oberoni Fallacy is that it misses the point. I'm not arguing that degenerate game mechanics aren't a problem because they can be "house-ruled away." Instead, I see the over-emphasis on bad mechanics misses the point of how game mechanics are used in practice by actual players. Game mechanics are like pen, paper, miniatures, maps, battlemats, mood music, and so on: they are tools that facilitate group story telling. Game mechanics are one important element of a larger game, but they are not the game itself.
If D&D were like chess or go, that is, definite games defined completely by their mechanics, then binding cheese would be a fatal flaw in the game's design, and the game would be unplayable. But the role of mechanics in an RPG is more akin to that of pen and paper. Rules function more like a medium in which stories are created. Saying that binding cheese ruins D&D is akin to saying that because pen and paper allow you to write degenerate stories (e.g., nonsense), that pen and paper are bad. One may reply that we might as well play "Pretty Pretty Princess," but in fact, we are, regardless of what rule mechanics we use. "Pretty Pretty Princess" relies on consensus, and using game mechanics to determine outcomes is just another way of attaining consensus.
So when I evaluate a set of RPG mechanics, I am more concerned with the strengths of those mechanics, rather than their weaknesses.
- Is the game playable?
How easily is it taught to new players?
How playable are the character sheets?
Can I act on reasonable expectations about my character, and the world?
Are the mechanics elegant, rather than arcane?
Are the game elements fun to play?
I'm sure my perspective is influenced a lot by the fact that I am a salesman, and my job is to sell games. In serving my customer, I am selling them fun, and my job is in large part to describe to them how they can have fun playing a specific game, and which games might be more fun for them. Thus, I am drawn to the strengths of a game more than its weaknesses. And what I observe, when I watch people play, are players largely taking advantage of the games strengths, in order to have fun, and largely avoiding the game's weaknesses, even when they know them quite well.
Smeelbo
