The Forge Archives

Sorry, I'm a bit on the edge about game stuff this morning.  And I downloaded the free Tri-Stat DX core rulebook, and the first thing I saw was the following manifesto.

QuoteRole-Playing Game Manifesto
These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
There are no official answers, only official opinions.
When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
This book contains the answer to all things.
When the above does not apply, make it up.

It irritates me, so I've got a better one in mind:

-Don't say you're using a set of rules if you're not going to use them.
-Find rules that suit the game you want to play.  Never settle for less.
-If the group agrees on the set of rules, then they are rules and not guidelines.
-When dice conflict with the story, you're using the wrong system.
-There are two types of problem players.  One kind doesn't belong in your specific group.  The other doesn't belong in any group.
-The Game Master does not have full discretionary power over the game.  It belongs to the players as much as to the GM.
-A game that is no longer fun is still a game.  It's just a bad one.
-Know what you want from a roleplaying game.  And don't be afraid to demand it.

It's just a reaction, but I think that the fact that this kind of thing is plastered in a game shows why the roleplaying "industry" is going down the tubes.

-Wayne

I don't know about going down the tubes, but it does demonstrate the Grand Canyon divide that exists between different types of gamers.

For the record I've been preaching your list for years.

Does that mean they're list is invalid...well...perhaps not...but, I've never been shown anything to suggest that lists like that are anything more than the perpetual regurgitation of the same tired ill concieved stuff that has been written in gaming books since they began.

MAYBE they thought about the list.  Maybe they actually analysed each statement they made and what the implications of believing them to be true really are.  But I doubt it.  I suspect their "manifesto" is nothing more than a bullet point list of all of the same old "rules of thumb" that continue to float through the collective gamer subconcious.

Guardians of Order demos very widely, including for the audience of interested non-gamers in anime fandom, and also has an audience who actually plays a lot with their games. I know that their views on these matters are not the concensus in these parts, but it's a stance also taken on the basis of experience - and at that, wider-ranging experience in terms of types of players than most game companies get. It works for them.

The fact that Bruce says it works for them is kinda telling. Presumably they *do* know what works for them.  Here are some possible implications.

These rules are written in paper, not etched in stone tablets.
Possible Implication: If you find our product lacking in some way, we respect your view point.

Rules are suggested guidelines, not required edicts.
Possible Implication: This is how we think you'll enjoy our product best. But we're not intending to enforce our views.

If the rules don't say you can't do something, you can.
Possible Implication: These rules are not intended to be restrictive. [possibly: if it's not covered, go for it.]
I'd have a hard time defending this one as it literally reads though.

There are no official answers, only official opinions.
Possible Implication: We don't claim to have all the "right" answers.

When dice conflict with the story, the story always wins.
Possible Implication: If a roll ruins the evening for you, and over-ruling it won't make matters worse under your groups social contract by all means, over-rule it. Don't go blaming us.

I kinda agree that if you're fudging dice rolls you're doing something wrong. The idea that it must be the game tho *boggles* me.

Min/maxing and munchkinism aren't problems with the game; they're problems with the player.
Possible Implication: A player who uses these rules in a way the group as a whole doesn't like is seeking conflict with the group. Address that issue.

* I think this *is* probably something I'd consider a problem wiht the game (but then I believe in the myth of game balance, so that's just the delusions talkin'). I think anyone who stays in a group they're having conflicts with is gettin' something out of the conflict, making the rules a tool and not a cause.

The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.
Possible Implication: The elected leader has power while in office.*

* Considering that a tradtional game stops if the GM quits, this, while somewhat abrutply put is essentially true. It's a veto power.

The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.
Possible Implication: however, with that power, comes the responsibility of leadership.

A game that is no longer fun - it's a chore.
Possible Implication: If it stops being fun stop playing.*

* indimnification? Maybe a calculated response to someone who says "BESM ate my dog and ruined my life for FIVE YEARS!"

This book contains the answer to all things.
Possible Implication: I have no idea. Even reading "about the game" into it doesn't work too well for me. Maybe: This is the bible. Read it and believe it.  ... is this really part of the cannonical nonsense that gets floated everywhere?

When the above does not apply, make it up.
Possible Implication: We were joking. If we don't say, use your judgement.

Now, I'm okay with the hard-core approach that Valimir is talking about if you dig it. But I'm not sure every implication above is ill-considered. The idea that we're the only people who think about these things--or are smarter than everyone else about them is, itself, ill considered.

-Marco

Bruce, I'm not sure I get some parts of what you are saying. (Specifically, the "audience who actually plays a lot with their games" line -- does that mean to say gamers who tinker with rules / create house rules, or does it indicate simply people who play their games frequently?)

In total, though, it seems you are basically saying this list is ok because it "works for them."

This is not the first time I see you representing the Forge as a small, non-representative core of the gaming public, and point to sales of, say, Tri-stat as evidence of its views as generally irrelevant. Very likely, there are many, many more people buying and playing Tri-stat games, or even GoO D20 games, than there are people even aware of the Forge. But to assume that because those numbers exists, then this list is ok is a leap of logic that I can't see.

It's no secret that I'm far more in line with what Cadriel and Valamir are supporting. I don't think lists or comments like this one in the Tri-Stat book are the cause of any dire state in the industry as a business.

I do think that lists like these are indicative of weak thinking and problems with how RPGs are conceived as a hobby or entertainment medium. Plainly, such thinking just isn't being done on any significant level. If it were, then absurd contradictions in such lists like this one would hopefully be absent:

Quote
The Game Master has full discretionary power over the game.

The Game Master always works with, not against, the players.

But to say that it "works for them" assumes that the lists are appropriate or even "correct" simply because they sell more books than there are visitors "round these parts." I don't see it that way. Number of copies sold does not make the game author(s) "correct" as thinkers. It makes them relatively successful as entrepreneurs.

Is there really a "correct" way of thinking about this? Are you sure it's not preference? I mean, if there is, I pretty clearly think wrongly (or at least not *all the way correct*).

Is that a judgment you feel completely comfortable making?

And remember: your absurd contradiction is my "yeah, I get what he's saying."

-Marco

Yes, Marco, absolutely I'm comfortable with it. This list does everything but blurt out The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. I'm very comfortable with saying that is "incorrect."

But even if the list doesn't violate the Impossible Thing, I'm still comfortable with the position that such language still is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that it violates the principle of System Does Matter, which I agree with strongly. Another is that the text is suspiciously derivitive of things past, with no acknowledgment of game designs and thinking that really could benefit the way people play games. Breaking, for example, the paradigm of the GM as Almighty Creative Master (even if it IS "correct") is something many games would benefit from.

In short, these rules, if not violating the Impossible Thing, are a treatise on Illusionism. Illusionism is a functional, valid way to play. But the text presumes 1) that it's the only way to play and 2) that it's the only way to play THIS GAME (without any critical thought on whether that's true).

EDIT: And your "I get what he is saying"  does less than nothing for me. I do not expect readers of games I design to read between the lines when I'm being plainly instructive of how to play the game. Marco, I read many threads in which you debate this issue of interpretation with many folks. I'd MUCH rather avoid such potential confusion in games I read and especially games I write.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Hmm.  I may not agree with all the points on the Tri-Stat manifesto, but I'm having trouble seeing why it's so irritating.  Unfortunately, there are folks out there who bring all sorts of dysfunctional behavior to games - and who interpret the rule book in what can only be characterized as a fundamentalist manner.  I think the manifesto is aimed at them.  Overall, the gestalt message there is "Have fun.  Remember it's a game.  Play nice.  Don't treat this as gospel; change what you want to change."  It's boilerplate, and I expect boilerplate to include broad common-sensical catechisms, much like the absurd disclaimers like, "This is only a game.  Do not sacrifice your sister to the Black Goat of the Abyss.  Do not whack your buddies with meat cleavers."

Pretty much the only place I differ from Tri-Stat significantly is in the GM discretion part - but that goes to my particular playing style.

Best,

Blake

Fair enough, Blake, I can see that. But why cater to this crowd? Is there really any pleasing such dysfunctional approaches? Why in the world waste space on these people. Devote that space and instruction to people who WILL play the game in a more functional manner. And, hopefully, they'll be more apt to become viral marketers and repeat buyers for you.

Boilerplate is for insurance forms. The very idea of such instruciton as boiler plate flies in the face of System Does Matter.


The reason that it's so irritating to me is that this becomes part of the tradition. That gamers assume this is the way gaming Is Done. And the next ambitious soul who hits a home run with a game like BESM keeps this kind of boilerplate stuff in his game to cater to the fundamentalist majority. I view this as profoundly unhelpful to the hobby of RPGs, an I don't really care too damn much what it might mean to GoO's business model.

Quote from: Matt SnyderYes, Marco, absolutely I'm comfortable with it. This list does everything but blurt out The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. I'm very comfortable with saying that is "incorrect."

But even if the list doesn't violate the Impossible Thing, I'm still comfortable with the position that such language still is problematic for a number of reasons. One is that it violates the principle of System Does Matter, which I agree with strongly. Another is that the text is suspiciously derivitive of things past, with no acknowledgment of game designs and thinking that really could benefit the way people play games. Breaking, for example, the paradigm of the GM as Almighty Creative Master (even if it IS "correct") is something many games would benefit from.

In short, these rules, if not violating the Impossible Thing, are a treatise on Illusionism. Illusionism is a functional, valid way to play. But the text presumes 1) that it's the only way to play and 2) that it's the only way to play THIS GAME (without any critical thought on whether that's true).

Well, I'm still unclear (and if I can be unclear reading your post, perhaps your unclearness on their text is each our own problems?)

1. You decided those two lines you quoted were an absurd contradiction.  I read you as above saying that "even it IS correct" there might be a better way. No joke. But either I'm missreading you (probably) or there's a damn long way from "absurd contradiction" which is indicative of weak thought to "not inclusive enough for me" in one post. If I *am* reading you right, then consider holding yer reins before blasting them for not thinking things through. If I'm reading you wrong, it's another semantic argument about absurd contradictions.

2. The Impossible Thing is created by those who believe in it as a boogeyman. The text in the glossary uses words like story (situation) author (creator of situation) and protagonist (actor on situation). It says nothing about creating a pre-destned string of events and then paradoxically allowing player freedom.

It isn't 'everyone else' who believes in the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. It's you.

And to boot, it's not up there in the text.

3. Illusionism: I guess you can read that from their list if you want. I think it's a somewhat biased read (as indicated by your post's response to it)--but it's immaterial. Even if they said "play illusionist" and then sold a buncha books that'd be, like Rock ON GOO! Right? Not "hey! Where's MY THEORY in your rules!?"

-Marco

I'm at a loss, Matt. I thought that the meaning of my words would be plain. I'll try again.

Guardians of Order has a lot of experience dealing with a very wide range of customers. Their total sales are relatively small - they're not about to displace any of the top three or five companies - but they're spread widely in terms of player interest and experience. And from what I can tell, a relatively high fraction of their customers actually play their games. This isn't trivial, in an industry where too many copies of books get bought and then never used. It's a sign of doing something right.

I doubt that Guardians would ever claim to have universal truths. But they can claim that their advice stands up under repeated testing.

As for the position of the Forge...

I should distinguish here between actual and potential results. I make no secret of the fact that I think there's a substantial population of subcultures whose members would take to gaming that's as in sync with their outlook and interests as Vampire and Big Eyes, Small Mouth proved to be for theirs. I'm quite sure that we haven't come anywhere close to exhausting the pool of folks who could and would game if they had the right game, and I'm equally certain that reaching them will require games that turn away from the conventional wisdom in ways big and small. In many cases, the right answer for a particular audience will prove to be one I don't care for or that challenges my wisdom, too - I'm certainly not claiming to have all the answers, and if I ever do, you are authorized to beat me with a trout the next time we're in the same room. The Forge is as likely a seed bed for some of these breakthroughs as any place, too, given the admirable emphasis on actually trying things out. Work trumps guessing.

But I can also look at sales data to see about impact in the market as it actually exists. In http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6901">Indie Successes and Failures?, I see folks reporting sales in the dozens of copies a year, some getting over a hundred. Looking at sales data for projects I've been involved in the last few years, I see several with net sales - that's after returns and all - in the range of eight to twelve thousand, and some better than that. Some are worse off, with maybe only a couple thousand sold in the last couple years. Some projects I had to drop out of or am just watching as a friend are in that spread as well: maybe one to three thousand for smaller companies (GURPS books and such), five to fifteen thousand for smaller lines at larger companies, up some from there for the bigger-ticket ventures. (I'm going to be fascinated to see what Gamma World sales are, though I expect I won't be allowed to say much about it in public.)

A hundred happy customers is no trivial thing: it is a hundred happy customers. I have no idea what portion of customers for these games play them, but I'm guessing it's pretty high. Call it half. That'd be fifty players in the course of a year, plus the influence had on readers who don't play, and sometimes that influence can be pretty significant. Take one of my ten-thousand-copy releases. Say that a tenth of its customers play it. (It's higher than that, but I don't want to stack the deck.) That'd be a thousand players, plus the influence on readers - twenty for each one playing the indie game that moved a hundred copies. If total sales or fraction of players is higher, then the discrepancy grows.

Now, small communities can matter. Alarums & Excursions, Lee Gold's gaming amateur press association, had somewhere around 700-1000 subscribers in its heyday, I believe, dropping down to 100-200 in the late '80s/early '90s. That's obviously not a large group. But it proved the incubating ground for several folks who influenced gaming in the '90s, in obvious and unobvious ways: Robin Laws, Jonathan Tweet, Rob Heinsoo, Mark Rein*Hagen, Spike Y. Jones, John Nephew, Nicole Lindroos, and me, among others. And then there were the folks who shaped us, including the crucial role of folks uninterested in being pros but who shed illumination constantly, like Glenn Blacow, Carl Rigney, and Wayne Shaw, and the people I think of as belonging to the preceding "generation" of creators, like Phil Masters and Scott Bennie.

So in saying that I don't think the Forge has yet had any significant impact on the shape or course of gaming, I'm not saying that I think it can't. I see an absence of influence on both the market and the surrounding community of gamers; I also know from my own experience of the possibility for both kinds of influence.

A quick follow-up: No, I don't worship the market. But if we're talking about how much influence any game can have, starting with how many copies of it are out there makes sense. There'll be some folks influenced by discussion about it who never get it, but that's not going to be a large group ever, I don't think.

Marco, with respect, I'm not going to argue the existence of the Impossible Thing with you, as has been done elsewhere to exhaustion. It exists. There's more to it than semantics and apologetic interpreations.

Further, I'm not interested in your specific interpretations of game texts. I think I understand your position. I've certainly read your position many times in many threads. I'm far more interested in what I can do and what I believe Joe Gamer can read plainly from texts I write.

Finally, it's not my theory, so I'm having a hard time understanding your criticism ("Hey, where's MY THEORY ... ?"). I believe the text is strongly indicative of illusionist play. That's fine. Such play exists functionally in many, many games. My point, as I've already stated, was that I see no evidence, and strongly doubt that illusionism is the "default" viewpoint of the creators without any significant consideration on the creator's part on 1) whether illusionism is really what the game does best and 2) even whether illusionism as a form exists or what else might exist outside of that.

Quote from: Matt SnyderFair enough, Blake, I can see that. But why cater to this crowd? Is there really any pleasing such dysfunctional approaches? Why in the world waste space on these people. Devote that space and instruction to people who WILL play the game in a more functional manner. And, hopefully, they'll be more apt to become viral marketers and repeat buyers for you.

Boilerplate is for insurance forms. The very idea of such instruciton as boiler plate flies in the face of System Does Matter.
.

I think it likely GOO are proably doing what serves their majority best. That means doing the following: providing a tool kit and telling people not to get too hung up on drifting it. You could consider it the page on Transitioning ...

The fact that they're successful with that boiler plate might say something very profound about System Does Matter.

And while it's somewhat fair not to give a damn about GoO's business model, if I told you that you were hurting the industry by not giving your indie design away for free--and that I really thought you'd do the world a favor by hooking the PDF's up on Kaaza, I suspect you'd give me a dim look at least.

-Marco

Bruce, our disagreement is fundamental and very simple.

You are saying that games which contain certain small amount of instructive text (among many other things, perhaps entirely functional -- as in the game may be great, the intro text misguided) have become financially successful. Therefore, they must know something about writing said instructive text, and therefore, said instructive text is right on (and especially right on for their audience).

I am saying that in the case of said instructive text (written, I imagine, before a single copy was sold, but well after age-old RPG assumptions have set in), total number of sales is entirely, totally irrelevant to whether instuctive text is critically thoughtful, helpful and functional.

That's it. If we still disagree, cool with me if it's cool with you.

EDIT: Yes, this means that I think 12,000 people CAN be wrong. As in "Product X: 12,000 people can't be wrong." That's because I'm not, nor have I said at any point in this discussion that the entire game is flawed, incoherent or dysfunctional. Tri-Stat may be wondrously crafted -- I'm only rougly knowledgable. However, this list Cadriel's highlighted is flawed for reasons I and others have said.

QuoteA quick follow-up: No, I don't worship the market. But if we're talking about how much influence any game can have, starting with how many copies of it are out there makes sense. There'll be some folks influenced by discussion about it who never get it, but that's not going to be a large group ever, I don't think.

Ah! Another reason I think we're disagreeing. Yes, a game with thousands copies sold can have profound influence. I'm not disagreeing with this at all, Bruce.

I'm questioning very strongly on whether these games have the BEST influence possible, the RIGHT influence.

By "Right" I mean the best influence in terms of creating games, making gamers think abou their hobby in new ways, and especially ensuring that gamers continue with their hobby throughout life and see that someday it's no longer a niche of a niche, but more mainstream and respected.

And, yes, obviously I am of the opinion that we can say what would be the "right" influence. Otherwise, we might all be cribbing notes from FATAL it only would sell 12,000 copies or so.