Quote from: SeanchaiI get that, and I'm saying you're wrong.

I see, so your theory trumps my actual experience?  

I'm done here.

Quote from: ClaudiusI agree with The Forge that system does matter, but I think the people you play with does matter even more.

For example, I didn't like Rolemaster very much, but I had so much fan playing it that I had to re-evaluate my tastes and admit to myself that I'm a fan. :haw:

Very true; hell, I could run Vampire and make it a good campaign, if I wanted to.  Games can suck, but a good GM and good players can make anything worthwhile.

I've got a RIFTS campaign in mind that I might run someday, that I'm fairly sure could make a die-hard Palladium-system hater want to keep playing if they gave it a chance.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiBut how many of these are impossible to detect without actual play? And if they truly are only visible during actual play, aren't they basically engendered by actual play? And if they're based on actual play, won't they change from group to group? And if they change from group to group, wouldn't it be unwise to put them in a review, telling folks that's what they can expect from the game?

Seanchai

That's my point. If we accept the premise that the gaming group is at least as important, if not more important, than the game system you are running, then you also have to accept the conclusion that any "clarity" you might gain about a system by playtesting it will be tempered by the added confusion between what's actually good or bad about the system as written versus what ends up being good or bad about a system as a particular group runs it.

That's where we get into the opposite problem, of "playtest reviewers" actually reaching conclusions that have way more to do with their particular group's likes and dislikes and ways of playing than anything to do with the gamebook itself in any objective way, meaning that the review will be less useful to someone who isn't in the same gaming group as the reviewer.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusI'll say one thing actual play does, it trumps theory every bloody time.  Let's not fall here into the trap of working out how things should be or what seems logical and then preferring that to actual experience.  That way lies madness, brain damage and saying Vampire isn't a successful rpg.

If that's true, then why are the Forgers/Ron so obsessed about "actual play uber alles"?  They emphasize actual play because they know that "playtest reviewers" who are part of the Cult of Ron will inevitably produce biased opinions about the Forge games they play because they are already true believers in the game; and likewise they will produce biased opinions about the non-forge games that Ron hates because their groups are already predisposed to have negative play experiences (or to retroactively create negative experiences from memory and fit them to Ron's claims about a game); and because they can then choose to discount objective criticism of any given Forge game by claiming that if you haven't actually run it you don't know what you're talking about.

RPGPundit

An RPG is nothing more than a program that runs on human brains, with character sheets for config files, and programming is all about emergent behavior.

Let's see if I can't beat this metaphor senseless.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat I've seen a lot of is a situation where some people who have read the game say "There's nothing to stop players from doing X, and so X will happen," whereas people who have played the game say "Actually, the emergent properties of the game are that X never happens ... but we can't articulate why in a convincing manner until you too play the game."

It's the difference between checking if a process has violated some constraint, and creating a process you know will never violate it. When something is impossible simply because the sequence of events (each of which can occur at some point in other sequences) will never occur, it's hard to check for.

Actually, in most cases, it's impossible.

And a strange reverse also exists. Some people look at a game and say "There's nothing to cause players to do X, and so X will never happen,". Yet it does happen in play. Often it is better to not have a specific rule for each property you want the game to exhibit, but to have those properties as a result of the system interacting as a whole.

Just because a game does not have a specific rule for negotiation doesn't mean the game is not ABOUT negotiation. And D&D does not have a specific rule for teamwork, yet it's central to the game.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut how many of these are impossible to detect without actual play? And if they truly are only visible during actual play, aren't they basically engendered by actual play?

Quite a few I imagine, and yes.

Errors you can find by reading a static piece of code are called compile time errors. These errors are typically syntax and typing errors, and often otherwise completely valid code will not pass the check simply because the compiler found it might cause a runtime error.

Now runtime errors can only be found when you run the program, and as long as you have variables the compiler is/was unaware of, you cannot eliminate them completely.

While certain things only become apparent when the game is run, it IS possible to run an imaginary group or in your head. However, the accuracy of that has a lot to do with how well you know your potential players.



In many ways, RPG design is more difficult than programming. You can't just put a break point in a thought process and look at the stack trace (well, maybe Sylar can, but he's fictional). So much goes into the process of 'enjoying' a game that may have nothing to do with the system that it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint what precisely the system is adding to the experience.

And the brain it's run on makes all the difference. It would be nice if we could certify games only for particular brains, such as "those that like D&D", but we can't, though some of us try to get as close to that as possible.

Truth be told, it's often hard for even experienced gamers to get a handle on what an RPG will deliver in play, let alone someone who's never played an RPG before. Even then, an experienced gamer is still going to carry their biases when making their assessment. Personally, I find actual play reviews far more useful as a game designer because they show me what the REAL problems are so I can attempt to fix them, as opposed to where my design does, or does not, fit the reviewer's biases.

Quote from: RedFoxWhy?

Why what?

Quote from: RedFoxYet we've actual experience to say otherwise.

And I'm saying you're misinterpreting your actual experience to be something it's not.

Quote from: RedFoxThat we're not alone... that in fact we are discovering the same emergent qualities in the same RPGs by disparate players.

How do you account for folks who run those games and get different results?

Quote from: RedFoxMore than one of us has discovered the emergent properties of Savage Worlds, for instance.

That's a good example. People say Savage Worlds plays better than it reads and many people report this to be the case. But we also have folks who report just the opposite. They don't get the same results. If Savage Worlds has emergent qualities that result from the mechanics, why the differing results? If it's the rules that engender these qualities and the rules are always consistent, shouldn't the emergent qualities be consistent from case to case?

But I have actual experience, too. I've been playing for 23 years, have well over 200 different systems and actually play a variety of system, making a point to try new ones. I've played with a number of different groups (at one point in the last five years playing with three different groups at once). Here's what I've discovered based on my actual experience:

These emergent qualities aren't the result of the rules being put into use but are the result of a set group of individual's application of the rules. Individuals vary. Groups vary. In game situations vary. Perspectives, tastes, frames, schemas, etc., vary.

If you give too much weight to actual play experience in deciding how to review a game, you're doing a disservice to the readers and the publisher.

Now, I'm not saying non-playtest reviews are the end all and be of reviewing. Plenty of mistakes are made. However, that's just the nature of the beast: Reviews aren't going to be perfect. They have subjective components. Best thing to do, in my estimation, is cleave to the factual and provable.

Seanchai

Quote from: BalbinusI see, so your theory trumps my actual experience?  

No, I'm saying your "actual experience" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Seanchai

We didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

This site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

Nah, you understand your experience just fine.

Ron says you're not really having fun, you just think you are.

I say that if you say you're having fun, you're having fun.
Sometimes that fun might come more from the friends you're with then the particular rules you're playing with, though, and you might end up thinking those rules are hipper or better than they really are.

Likewise, if your game sucks, it might sometimes have more to do with your group being fucked up than with the particular rules you're using, but you might be left with a bad memory of the game based on the bad experience you had with that group.

This is really all just common sense, I find it fairly funny that you or J Arcane don't get that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J ArcaneThis site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

The only guy I see around here clearly desperate for attention is you, Arcane.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSometimes that fun might come more from the friends you're with then the particular rules you're playing with, though, and you might end up thinking those rules are hipper or better than they really are.

Likewise, if your game sucks, it might sometimes have more to do with your group being fucked up than with the particular rules you're using, but you might be left with a bad memory of the game based on the bad experience you had with that group.

This is really all just common sense, I find it fairly funny that you or J Arcane don't get that.

What the fuck? What did I say that gave you the impression I thought otherwise? Did I someplace say that the group was irrelevant? That only the game system matters in the success of the session? If you think I see games that way, then you must have been too busy admiring your jaunty pipe-smoking reflection in the mirror to read what other people are saying.

Of course the game group matters more than the game system. This has nothing to do with whether a game's system has problems or a particular style which will be apparent in play, but not necessarily on a readthrough.

A: One issue: whether the group is more or less important than the system.

B: Another issue, which is different and unrelated: whether the system has features which will be more apparent on being played than on a readthrough.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Well, given your "helpful" reply, yeah, I could see how you could come off as brain-damaged.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneThis site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

Yeah, I'm a secret Forgie.

Did you even bother to read thread or think about issues involved before boosting your post count with empty-headed replies? That actual play is needed to properly review is a Forge view; I'm arguing the exact opposite.

Of course, neither your nor JimBob bothered to address the question raised: If these emergent qualities are the result the rules and are universally true, why aren't they universally recognized? If "Savage Worlds plays better than it reads" is a fact rather than an opinion, why doesn't it play better than it reads for everyone?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiOf course, neither your nor JimBob bothered to address the question raised: If these emergent qualities are the result the rules and are universally true, why aren't they universally recognized?

No quality, emergent or otherwise, is universally true. The rules never determine play, they only influence play.

Nonetheless, the games do have those emergent properties; that they're tendencies rather than certainties does not mean they're non-existent (fallacy of the excluded middle yet again in internet chats).

To a degree, the emergent qualities of each game are widely-recognised in the form of cliches and jokes about the game. If someone says, "typical D&D player", or "typical GURPS player" or "typical White Wolf player", an image or idea will come into your mind - that stereotype or cliche coming to mind has something in it of the emergent behaviour of that particular game.

The other reason for such qualities being not universally-recognised is quite simply people. Suppose my game group is always light-hearted and does things cinematically; we won't even notice that d6 produces light-hearted cinematic play. Suppose my group likes to focus on every little detail and last ounce of encumbrance; we won't notice that GURPS encourages that. The style of the players is more important than that of the game system itself for determining how a session turns out, just as how you steer the vehicle is more important for its direction than any left/right bias its wheels may have. Nonetheless, the bias is there.

Quote from: SeanchaiIf "Savage Worlds plays better than it reads" is a fact rather than an opinion, why doesn't it play better than it reads for everyone?

A game which reads badly will tend not to get played, so whether it plays well or badly is irrelevant; it doesn't get played, and so doesn't get talked about.

I'm not really interested in talking about this or that game being great or sucking, more about the qualities which appear in play but you didn't expect from a readthrough. I already gave the example of d6 turning out much more cinematic and light-hearted than I'd expected; light-hearted and cinematic are not bad, they're just not what I expected. It's pointless to argue about whether cinematic is better than realistic or vice versa, but we can have a useful discussion about whether the "wild die" of d6 produces a realistic or cinematic feeling to the game session, or has no real effect at all. Again, that's an example only.

I'm just saying it this way, because Balbinus began the thread talking about "actual play problems as opposed to problems apparent from a readthrough", and I think it's more productive to talk about, "actual play qualities as opposed to qualities apparent from a readthrough."  Or more simply, "stuff sometimes plays out differently compared to how it reads."