fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
Marshall Burns:
Somewhere, there's a draft of the Rustbelt that, in the resolution rules, does the sort of thing that David's talking about. I mean, it set up resolution in general as a sort of flowchart that was persistently being run through over and over through the course of play. Every contribution to the fiction was cast as interaction with the resolution system, even if it didn't require dice rolls (the rules were and are pretty explicit about when you should and shouldn't roll dice).
I took that text out because a.) it was kinda dry, and b.) I thought it was kinda, y'know, obvious, unless the person reading the book has never done any roleplaying in their life (I didn't bother trying to write to that particular audience because, well, how'd they end up with this book anyway if they've never been introduced to roleplaying?). This text was largely due to a certain type of thinking that I learned from programming, which requires very strictly logical steps without any intuitive leaps. I later came to the conclusion that, while explanation and explication were a good thing in an RPG text, it wasn't necessary to write out everything as though I was talking to a computer. Because people's brains aren't computers, and they can calculate in ways that computers can't.
I don't really have a point; it's just a thing.
Callan S.:
The ironic thing being 'everybody else thinks the same as me and makes intuitive leaps in the same direction as me' is probably the only thinking or intuitive leap that people share in common. Otherwise their minds head in the same direction about as much as a herd of cats all head in the same direction. This includes people in the same gaming group (well, perhaps except for some who can practically finish each others sentences like they are married)
When I've written rules, I've noticed how the slightest nuance can often change the game entirely, just about. Leave things unexplained, and first and foremost for early gamers they argue over the 'right' way to play the game, when their intuitive leaps go in entirely different directions. Latter on they just folds their arms or turn to socialising (usually the player rather than GM), and put up with it. Then second thing is, given even small changes almost change the game entirely, a game text that leaves multiple points for 'intuitive leaps', the resulting game will have nothing much to do with the author at all, and also wont have much to do with the end group, as even though they are inventing a game, they have a whole bunch of left over text rules they grasp tenaciously at, thus getting in the way of them actually outright inventing a new game of their own.
Given the nuances of currency interaction differentiate one game from another, pretty much any game which goes "Hae! Roll when you wanna, Kae!", leave their major currency completely to the group, pretty much all behave in the same way with that same group (indeed the advice 'don't like it, play with someone else' is treated as some sort of wisdom). New games give the group the opportunity to do the same thing they've always done, but call it new, reskin the fiction and have new artwork on the cover to look at.
Basically there's three conditions that maintain its practice. 1: It's alot harder to write explicitly/technical writing rather than airy prose, 2: 99% of RPG's are written with 'intuitive leaps' and there's a large, keen audience who'll buy them regardless (and regardless of play results) and 3: There's no one to design with in terms of explicit design. Design talk is currently all intuitive leap talk.
So basically with a bunch of negative things in the way of change, nothing changes and the process gets lauded as. Lauded as much as, say, using leeches was lauded as high medicine once in medical circles.
There are alternatives to pretty much doing it as it's always been done, since Gygax. There's a great deal more work involved in them and alot less community to give warm human feedback about it. But there are alternatives. As another thing to consider or mull over.
David Berg:
Callan,
I too have encountered the phenomenon you're describing. Players clashing over what's "correct" to do with a given game, groups playing every game the same way but with different color, etc. However, I've yet to observe the flipside. Neither Delve nor other procedurally specific games I've played has been able to answer every "What should we do now?" player question without requiring any player interpretation.
Scene framing, for example, needs to take inputs from the specifics of prior play, so it's hard to write instructions to cover those bases. An endless list of "If you've introduced X, achieved Y, and are wondering about Z, then your next scene should include the following:" is unfeasible, so I resort to more general rules of thumb. But those are plenty fallible.
Although I'm in agreement with you philosophically (wouldn't it be nice if there were more RPGs that gave you all the guidance you needed to play that specific game?), I think it's also worth looking at the polar opposite approach. That approach is to say, "gamers are going to make intuitive leaps, there's no use in trying to obviate that; what we really need to do is get all the gamers in a group on the same page about what play is supposed to feel like, so their intuitions will be compatible". The fact that most places that sell RPGs have at least a quarter of their shelves covered in World of Darkness books speaks to the feasibility of this approach, no matter how high the whiff factor. The fact that those games sell partly from art and fiction is not entirely a bad thing when it comes to actually playing them. (I can back this up with Vampire AP if needed.)
I'm not trying to say "let's not bother with clear, comprehensive instructions", I'm just mentioning that there are other ways to get some degree of success. Which may become relevant depending on whether "perfect instruction" is actually achievable or merely approachable.
I'm also wondering if you have any thoughts on scene framing instructions!
Ps,
-David
P.S. Marshall, I'm guessing you fall somewhere in between "all-encompassing instructions" and "screw instructions; perfect aesthetic!" but I'd be interested in hearing your own take on that.
Callan S.:
David,
You've address your post to me, rather than something for anyone to possibly consider. But as far as I can tell, you've simply said 'I think it's also worth looking at...', I don't see a discussion point or arguement there, it's more like an advert. Which is fine, as my post pretty much was in a way as well. I'm just making it clear because I think I've been caught out before where people post, I've taken it to be a discussion when it's not, then I get moderated on it all in the end, for simply charitably reading it as a discussion. I've read what you've said and I think I touched on those points in my general consideration post myself, already.
Quote
I'm also wondering if you have any thoughts on scene framing instructions!
This sounds like a discussion! Okay.
Now, in asking the question, how much of the creative act are you deciding to manage, as game designer? Keep in mind a guy who makes guitars is managing a portion of the creative act of the guitarist. And keep in mind the guitar making guy doesn't throw up his hands in the air and say 'I don't want to limit your creativity in any way - make your own guitar or whatever you want!'. All musical instruments limit in as much as they enable. It's like a law of creative physics - every enablement has an equal and opposite disablement.
So how much do you want to control the creative act via your creation? It's basically up to you to draw your own line in the sand for your particular project. Note: Even chess doesn't entirely control the creative act of trying to win. Snakes and ladders could be said to basically control play (and the player only controls whether they play or not)
Also, and this may be projection on my part, is that your question is more like 'How do I tell them to scene frame really good, so my game is really good!'. This is the other side of that line in the sand - you can have an excellent guitar craftsman, then someone who is shit at guitar using it and declares that the guitar "Sucks!". The more creative room the game design allows the participant, the more the participants own ineptitude can dominate the final play experience. Equally: The more someones aptitude can dominate the final play experience - leading to the 'My GM herbie can run anything! System doesn't matter!' meme, because they confuse aptitude at an actual game and aptitude at inventing a game despite the game text before them on the table. But if your concerned unless you do some mysterious X your game will suck, then it's the ineptitude that comes to mind first.
Once you've drawn a line, then you can differentiate what you want to control utterly via rules constructions, and, defined by those very same rules constructions, what options the rules grant to players and their intuitive leaps or moments of judgement or whatever you want to call it. (Note: I am saying the rules give you option A, B, C, etc to select from. Not some capacity to ignore rules as the method of supposedly enabling player choice)
It might be hard to envision where that line is - but simply the commitment to eventually setting it is enough to procede further on designing scene framing and the rest of your game.
Quote
Neither Delve nor other procedurally specific games I've played has been able to answer every "What should we do now?" player question without requiring any player interpretation.
It depends on whether you mean the rules gave you an option of A, B or C and you used interpretation to pick from A, B or C. OR whether you mean the rules gave you no fucking clue what options you had to pick from next and you were blindly stabbing at what ,procedurally, to do next.
The weird thing is with traditional RPG's is how heavily, pedantically and even boringingly A, B and C are defined in character generation. But then they fuck that right off the moment char gen ends.
David Berg:
Callan,
Yeah, I concur, there was some advert in there. I guess I was fine with discussion or no discussion of the "look how White Wolf's approach turned out!" point.
I like your summary of drawing the line in the sand. It's quite a quandary for me! As a player, I want the creative freedom to make play as awesome as I know I can make it. As a designer, I'm terrified of leaving so much freedom that players can make or break the game regardless of whether they dig the game's intent. The less freedom, the more I can know they'll like or dislike my game, rather than just some experience they made for themselves. But I also want to make the kinds of games I enjoy playing, which have lots of freedom.
As for scene-framing rules leaving you to pick or flail, I've seen a lot of rules that ask you to:
a) watch for certain conditions: "If Fred hasn't been in a scene in a while," "If Larry's scene has come to a natural conclusion," "If the group is getting bored," etc.b) when the conditions are met, take action: "Work toward revealing the monster," "Escalate what's at stake," "Reveal a new piece of information," etc.The experience produced has varied a lot! Sometimes, "What next?" was so obvious that we followed those rules without even remembering them. Other times, we looked at them, and said, "Ah, yes, okay, now I know what to do next." And other times: "Great, thanks a lot. Fred's been out for 2 scenes, Larry's conflict seems most fun to drag out, one dude in the group is bored, all the monster traces and unveiled secrets I can think of aren't going to give the players an idea for what to do next, despite the fact that the stakes are high."
It's hard to cover all these potentialities without strangling freedom pretty severely! When I played Burning Empires, I felt like my goals and options were nicely clear, but every character decision I made felt like a retcon. I got used to this eventually, and overall quite enjoyed the game, but it still isn't my preferred way to play.
My first post details an attempt that I'm fairly happy with, but there's certainly room for improvement. I'm happy to hear about others' attempts and results as well.
Ps,
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page