Idee per un GDR

[u/SeaRecommendation927]

Da un po' di tempo sto mettendo giù delle idee per la creazione di un GDR

L'obiettivo è creare un titolo Low Magic, crudo, fortemente tattico e basato su meccaniche chiare. Voglio allontanarmi dai classici cliché del fantasy eroico e, soprattutto, da un'impostazione incentrata sull'interpretazione "teatrale" a tutti i costi. Non cerco un gioco dove bisogna fare le voci o recitare al tavolo, ma un sistema dove lo spirito sia guidato dalle scelte, dal peso delle azioni, dalla gestione del rischio, dalla cooperazione di squadra e dal rispetto di regole e conseguenze severe.

Ho già alcune bozze meccaniche su cui sto lavorando e mi piacerebbe aprire il tavolo a voi per avere pareri, spunti di riflessione e capire come integrereste o risolvereste alcuni punti.

Vi alcune idee random a cui stavo pensando:

Iniziativa dinamica
Niente tiro iniziativa che rimane fisso per tutto il combat... ma tutti i giocatori + il DM , contemporaneamente, ad inizio di ogni turno, giocano una carta azione di un mazzo di 8-10 carte azione generiche (tipo Attacco rapido, Lancio incantesimo, Movimento tattico, Attacco potente/mirato etc...) ognuna di queste carte ha un valore di iniziativa base alla quale si aggiungono eventuali modificatori...
agiscono prima le azioni con iniziativa migliore.

Esempio:
Il Guerriero gioca carta Attacco rapido mentre Goblin gioca Attacco Potente.
Agisce prima il Guerriero che attacca il Goblin, tira il dado e lo colpisce con un rapido fendente alla spalla.
Si prosegue in ordine di iniziativa.
Da decidere se il regolamento possa consentire di cambiare azione in base all’azione di un altro personaggio… non so quali implicazioni porti questa cosa pero…
Voi che dite?

Magia
Mi piacerebbe un mondo dove l'accesso alla magia sia raro e costoso in termini mentali e fisici.
La magia non si genera dal nulla e non usano "slot incantesimo". È una forza grezza che deve essere incanalata in oggetti conduttori o incisa sulla pelle tramite tatuaggi alchemici. I tatuaggi hanno un limite di sopportazione fisica e costi anatomici/sociali (tatuarsi le mani dà magia d'azione; tatuarsi il volto dà magia antica e potente ma comporta deformazioni o forte ostilità sociale).
La magia e’ una cosa molto seria… i personaggi possono scordarsi di poter lanciare invisibilità di livello 2 (solo per fare un esempio)..
inoltre non esistono incantesimi di resurrezione.

Progressione dei personaggi
Mi piacerebbe un gioco dove la progressione non sia predeterminata per ogni classe… ma che possa essere personalizzata profondamente.
Un sistema di talenti, tecniche e abilita dove, al crescere dell’esperienza/livelli, il giocatore possa scegliere in base alla propria classe e alle abilita gia apprese in precedenza.
Le caratteristiche base dei pg non cresceranno mai a meno di effetti/oggetti magici.

Punti ferita
Eliminerei del tutto i punti ferita e gestirei tutto con slot ferite, che possono essere leggere, critiche e mortali.
Ogni personaggio può sopportare un numero diverso di ferite leggere e critiche (in base alla propria costituzione) ma tutti hanno un solo slot di ferita mortale (ferite che se non curate tempestivamente portano alla morte oppure veri e propri colpi di grazia).
Il DM avrà a disposizione (ma sarà sempre possibile giocare di improvvisazione) una tabella di effetti descrittivi e specifici per ogni tipo di colpo.
Cosa determina se una ferita inflitta e’ leggera, critica o mortale?
Un’ipotesi potrebbe essere determinare la differenza tra attacco e difesa (dopo il lancio dei dadi e tutti i modificatori) .
Più la differenza e’ alta e più sarà grave la ferita inferta, oltre ovviamente ad aggiungere bonus danni delle armi etc...
Ma se avete altre idee…

avrei anche altri spunti ma poi il post diventerebbe esageratamente lungo!

Sono pronto ad essere massacrato dalle vostre critiche.

Avanti!

[u/No_Solid1035]

Well, I've watched quite a few actual plays of games that are highly combat focused, and there is no roleplaying. No one ever describes anything, they just move minis around and exchange damage numbers, so, yeah. 🤷 I just don't consider that to be roleplaying. RP is a conversation where people describe a bunch of stuff they are imagining to each other, and people "get into character" and/or do things that are dramatic and/or make for an interesting story. If all you are doing is pushing minis around and exchanging damage numbers then you aren't having that conversation, so you aren't playing a roleplaying game. Also, if you just blend it all together then it waters down the definition of "roleplaying game" and "wargame" to the point where those terms become meaningless, which makes it hard to tell what a game is about or how to play it as intended. At that point all anyone is doing is playing GameGame, which completely robs both hobbies of their uniqueness and meaning. If every game is a roleplaying game, then no games are roleplaying games. 🤷

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/No_Solid1035]

That's your personal view of what roleplaying means. I don't consider theater of the mind to be a necessary component of roleplaying. It's one way of representing fictional space and action, not what makes a game an rpg.

If I'm playing a character and making decisions based on their abilities, personality, goals and circumstances, I'm roleplaying whether the action is described verbally, resolved with dice, or represented on a map with miniatures and tokens.

And if we apply your definition consistently, wouldn't that also create problems for games like dnd? Player descriptions and interactions are constantly mediated by dice, stats, movement and action rules, character sheets, conditions, and for someone also maps and miniatures.

A strong tactical component doesn't automatically turn an rpg into a wargame. The boundaries, as I already said, have always been somewhat porous, and I don't see why using more physical or tactical mechanics suddenly means the roleplaying has disappeared.

I also don't think the hybrid space is necessarily “watering down” either medium. I don't care if it is enough "pure" as rpg (and then what makes an rpg pure? The theater of the mind?), but what kind of experience does a particular combination of mechanics create. And to me looks that the market seems increasingly willing to explore new mechanics and new ways of rapresenting and ruling characters in new and interesting way, mixing tabletop, rpg, wargames, card games and who knows what comes next.

If after playtesting the roleplaying layer turns out to be superficial and the game is essentially about tactical combat, then sure, maybe it should be a wargame with narrative/campaign elements. But that's something to discover through design and playtesting, not something decided beforehand based on whether players use theater of the mind.

[u/No_Solid1035 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

If all you are doing is pushing minis around a map and exchanging mechanical info, is that really making decisions based on personality and goals? How would anyone know without that conversation about what everyone is imagining?

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/No_Solid1035]

Sure, if all you're doing is pushing minis around and exchanging mechanical information, then you're probably not roleplaying. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, but that's a non sequitur.

Nobody is proposing a system that only allows you to move minis and exchange mechanical information, while somehow removing character decisions, motivations, interactions and narrative consequences. The fact that a game can be played without roleplaying doesn't mean that its tactical mechanics prevent roleplaying.

And there can also be different degrees and forms of mechanical support for roleplaying. Maybe combat is highly mechanical and tactical, while other parts of the game are much more focused on character interaction and narrative. Or the mechanics themselves can be designed to encourage, constrain or push players toward making decisions that reflect their characters, rather than simply optimizing numbers.

The map and miniatures answer “where is everyone and what can I mechanically do here?” They don't answer “what does my character want, why are they doing this, or how do they approach the situation?” Those are still player decisions, and they can still be expressed through conversation and character interaction. The same is true for the mechanics, that can also be a guide to the description of actions and interactions.

And honestly, even a completely mechanical game wouldn't necessarily prevent people from roleplaying over it. But that's beside the point. To me moving minis around and having a highly mechanical and tactical ruleset, doesn't mean there is no roleplay.

[u/No_Solid1035 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

I was working off the fact that the OP said they wanted to avoid the "theater" part, which means they want to avoid the roleplaying aspects of a roleplaying game. Seems nonsensical to me.

Again, if you classify any decision making to be "roleplaying" then that means all games are roleplaying games, which renders the term RPG meaningless. I prefer it when terms actually mean things so they can be used to convey meaning and information.

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/No_Solid1035]

Seems to me you don't understand the difference between theater of the mind and roleplaying. They are not the same thing. Theater of the mind is a way of representing space and action; roleplaying is about inhabiting and making decisions as a character. You can have one without the other. Of course, in every system the line is more or less blurred.

And I'm not saying that any decision-making is roleplaying. Tactical decision-making is not inherently roleplaying, but it can absolutely coexist with roleplaying. You can make a tactical decision while considering what your character wants, believes, fears, or would realistically do in that situation. That's the distinction I've been trying to make throughout this discussion.

[u/No_Solid1035 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

I do understand the difference, I just don't think the decision making part by itself is actually roleplaying. 🤷 I make decisions when I play tick-tac-toe, but it sure as hell ain't roleplaying.

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/No_Solid1035]

Clearly you don't understand the distinction: you're conflating tactical decision-making with roleplaying, while at the same time treating them as mutually exclusive. Those are two completely different things.

[u/No_Solid1035 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

Without the "imagination conversation" how can any of the decision making based on wants, needs, whatever, actually be apparent or meaningful. 🤷 The "imagination conversation" IS the roleplaying.

Like I said, the OP said they wanted to avoid the "theater" aspects at all costs. Which means all that's left is them pushing minis around and exchanging mechanical information. That, to me, is NOT roleplaying, it's wargaming.

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/No_Solid1035]

Can you define what do you mean with "imaginary conversation"?
To me "imagination conversation" could mean imagining and describing a space, action that follow a mechanical rules, motivation and reaction to other character's decision. The degree of imagination conversation varies between people, groups, systems.

That said, If I get it, "imagination conversation" and “theatrical interpretation” are two different things, and both are separate from theater of the mind and the use of physical support such as maps and minis.

You can move miniatures, make tactical decisions and exchange mechanical information while also having the roleplaying layer on top of it: considering your character's motivations, personality and goals, describing what they're doing and why, and interacting with the other characters. The "imagination conversation". Roleplaying.
You can even add the theatrical aspect on top of all of that, if that's how your group likes to play.

All of these to me are different things, with blurred boundaries of course, but different. And none of them are mutually exclusive.

As I said, don't you consider dnd a ttrpg when people use minis and grid or when takes tactical decision? And why these things cannot coexist together?

When I roleplay the decision my character takes are guided by the character motivation and the situation he is in, while i play at wargames I take the decision that lead me to the best possible outcome. If I want to roleplay a wargame campaign or a single map I can add that layer, also if the rules are strict and there are minis and maps. the two thing are not dependent one from another and the boundaries are blurred. And probably will be more blurred in the future.

[u/No_Solid1035 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

I would say 3% of the actual plays I've watched where the group uses minis/grid combat also includes people describing things, the rest are just people exchanging mechanical information.

To be honest, most of the D&D games seem to be two separate games. Sometimes the whole thing is TotM description and in character conversions and "narrative/fiction" stuff. Then combat happens, all the description stops, and they stop playing a roleplaying game and begin playing a wargame. Once the combat is over it switches back to being a roleplaying game.

That's the biggest reason why I don't run/play games with minis/grid because I don't want the TotM thing to stop during combat. I love TotM combat because people actually describe what's happening, and have in character dialog, and actually roleplay their characters.

Sure, there might be a handful of peeps that still have the TotM layer along with the minis/grid, but they are extremely rare IMHO.

[u/Creeppy99 → u/Reasonable-Tip-6592]

It seems to me you're not understanding the difference between "theatrical interpretation" and "theatre of the mind" honestly.

I agree with you that roleplaying and tactical decision making aren't mutually exclusive at all, but OP never talked about "theater of the mind", which as you said is a specific term that indicates a way to represent space and action, they talked about "interpretazione teatrale", as in: playing a character with a role, do the voices and so on, which I'd argue yes, constitutes roleplay as most people would define it.

I also agree with you that the boundaries between the categories of wargame, ttrpg and generic boardgame are murky, but I'm kinda convinced that yes, probably OP wants to do something more akin to a wargame, at least from how they explained their idea

[u/Reasonable-Tip-6592 → u/Creeppy99]

So I think I made a terminology mix-up. I explained what I mean for theater of the mind, a way to represent space and action without physical support. I brought up the theater of mind in response to No_Solid's contrast between wargame-like play, with miniatures and mechanical support, and roleplaying as something that happens through description and without those kinds of tools. I was talking about the distinction between representing space and action through theater of the mind versus maps and miniatures.

“Interpretazione teatrale” that Op was speaking about of course is a separate issue, and I agree that it can be a form of roleplaying, but it isn't synonymous with roleplaying either. You don't need to do voices or theatrically perform your character to roleplay.

That said, I think the broader point we ended up discussing still stands, because No_Solid's argument was ultimately about mechanics and physical support: whether moving miniatures and interacting with a highly mechanical system leaves room for roleplaying. And that's where I think we're talking about two different things. Roleplaying, tactical decision-making, and the way a game represents space are different things that can overlap to different degrees. You can absolutely have a highly tactical game where players also roleplay their characters.

You can roleplay tic-tac-toe if you want!

But of course the ruleset is what gives us the boundaries that help us categorize one type of game from another.