Stories are for Books, Mechanics are for Cars

[Dracos]

Recently I participated in a discussion where I heard yet another iteration of the a common debate about video RPGs; specifically, which element of the game is most important.  First, a brief introduction of this argument and the positions it contains.  This will be familiar with many of you, and I will not go into detail, so those of you who understand the argument feel free to skip the next couple paragraphs.

   These arguments tend to start with the statement that a role-playing game has excellent story and poor play mechanics, more or less.  These take lots of forms from load time to glitches to general design goofs.  Some vigorously object to the concept of a game with bad gameplay.  Some also denounce the game because of it, noting that no matter the story, a game must still be played, and thus can be ruined by bad gameplay.

   Their counterparts, though they admit to the flaws in the gameplay, feel the game was worthwhile because of the story.  They'll usually add that gameplay in RPGs tends to be monotonous, repetitive and generally not cerebrally exciting and fun.  Therefore, no one would possibly play for anything but the story.  They usually get the quick retort back: If you really want a story and don't find the mechanics fun, go read a book.

   Then there is the 'middle of the road' crowd, which advocates the generally true statement that it's personal opinion which is more important; that why people play is a personal thing and in effect, everyone is right because of it.  This position usually ends the argument since it is often pretty agreeable, though sometimes the debate continues unabated.

   These, as a whole, are a form of self-deception.  They're all wrong in a way.  It can be true for a specific game, but not in general in any meaningful way.  

   The complaint often lodged against those who play for the stories is correct.  If you want a story, you should go read a book.  If you want an animated story, TV shows and movies cover that base, and show virtually every plot (or plot device) featured in a RPG.  These mediums are better equipped to handle stories without interaction.

   Likewise, the complaint often lodged against those who play for the mechanics is correct.  The gameplay for most RPGs doesn't provide the same kind of entertainment as other genres; why sit through hours of story for it?  Yes, this argument isn't nearly as clean as the story one, but the point remains: as pure gameplay mechanics are concerned, RPGs do not compare favorably to other types of games.  Additionally, there are always spinoffs, if less popular, that remove all this troublesome 'story' from the equation if you really hunger for that kind of experience.

   What about the personal opinion one?  This is self-deception.  While the appeal of any given game may be a matter of opinion, if you're continuing to play these types of games, the reason isn't the stories or the mechanics.  The reason is that you like the games themselves, enough to keep playing instead of seeking either of those facets individually.

   Folks continue to play games because, at some level, they like the game.  RPGs as games are not stories or mechanics.  They are a specific blend of such things, a combination of system engineering and creative construction.  They are holistic, working both multiplicatively and additively upon the nature of the parts that construct the system; their individual parts cannot be properly discussed in a vacuum.  It is this combination that is sought when folks continue to play RPG after RPG.  Yes, they like the music.  Yes, they like the stories.  Yes, they like the gameplay.  But it isn't for any one of them that they come for.  It's for the combination of them in a single coherent product.

   The concern over whether any single part of the combination is poor is a valid one.  While one can personally ignore when a given part does not add favorably to the experience, games as holistic experiences depend strongly upon each of their corresponding parts being of relatively equal quality.  A single part working out of sync with the rest of the system not only shows its own weakness but also lowers the overall enjoyability of the game.  A single part working extremely well can overcome weaknesses in other areas, but it is likened best to a star football quarterback playing with a bunch of 5 year olds.  As awesome as it might be to see the man play, it bears an intrinsic weakness when compared to a full professional football team with an average professional quarterback.

   This is why we don't see many amateur products achieving great appeal.  Production quality is one of those parts in the system.  Music is another.  None of these parts should be casually sideswiped away from the experience.  The expectation of seeing them working together for a fulfilling entertainment experience is neither greedy nor antagonistic.  It's something that game designers have a need to address and deal with and game customers are well in their rights to take issue with.  RPGs are not about the story.  They're not about the mechanics.  They're not about the victory fanfare.

They're about the entire collective interactive experience – something not found in those other mediums – built up from the systematic working and creative combination of a collection of elements, each of which are important to the RPG working right.