TheRPGSite

For those who haven't seen it, John Kirk's free book Design Patterns of Successful Roleplaying Games is definitely worth a look for anyone interested in the structure of RPGs.

Quote from: Neel KrishnaswamiDesign patterns are a communication tool from software development -- the idea is that successful projects will tend to have recurring patterns, and that by naming and describing them and the situations that call for their use, we can make it easier to turn tacit, experiential knowledge into a teachable skill.

http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns.zip

Oh dear Lord, and thus it begins. Presuming the book is a good read, we'll soon be flooded with RPGs that think Design Patterns are necessary. They're a useful tool, but can easily get blown all out of proportion.

Actually, it's been out for a while, yet it hasn't generated very much discussion. I keep meaning to read it myself.

It's a chunky motherfucker.

James M, are you coming from a position of knowing something about how this stuff went down in the software industry? I'd be interested to hear about it.

I read it yesterday before I saw this thread, actually, purely through chance.
Now, I'm no programmer so I can't say I knew much of anything about the history of the idea before I tripped over the thing, but after having cruised through it...  it struck me as an overly complicated, pedantic list of various concepts that ranged from common-as-dirt to derived-from-common-as-dirt that were broken into the smallest pieces possible, and then (mostly) complained about after having gotten the most dry and dissasociated 'definition' available.

Granted, I didn't give it a "Must absorb this fully and fully grok it as a whole" read, so I may have missed something, or focused too strongly on the listed drawbacks of everything.

I R a software engineer.

There's been a lot of smack-talk about the scourge of design patterns, brought on by obsessive "what design pattern fits this" mentality and a host of immitators creating their (sometimes valid, often not) own design patterns.

And yet, GoF remains one of the most influential books in the field; in introducing younger engineers to basic design techniques, I find it and Larman to be "go to" books. Though some of the backlash is justified, I think it's the "silver bullet" mentality that deserves scorn, not the concept of design patterns itself.

Whether or not this particular document deserves the position GoF has in software engineering, I can't say. Yeah, it's mostly a simmering down of basic techniques... but so was GoF. But the gaming field is a bit more artistic than the software engineering field, and I think some concepts may be more elusive to such a treatment.

Basically what Caesar said. I'm currently working o  ajoint project between three entities, my section, a "seperate but equal" section of the same company, and our customer. The "seperate but equal" group started the design on the project and apparently someone in their management gets a boner thinking about using every conceivable design pattern, even when not necessary.

For example, there is a pattern called the Singleton which ensures that one and only one instance of an object can be created. It has some overhead attached, but does what it's supposed to. For some reason though, some people think that if you can't foresee a reason to have multiple instances, you should create a singleton. This adds on the overhead without giving any benefit. Singletons should only be used where necessary.

Another example is a Facade, where you add in a layer of code used only for interfacing some other code. this is a great idea when you're accessing multiple similar modules as it makes the code easier to follow and use. But if you've got one object talking to another you're wasting your time sticking a layer between them.

Basically the premise of patterns is that they give a way to design known problems with reliable and repeatable methods. When a pattern is applied incorrectly though you end up with code that's harder to read, runs less efficiently, and will be a pain in the ass to change when it becomes apparent that the pattern was a bad choice.

My work is in embedded programming on government systems (aircraft displays and missile interfaces). Unlike a PC, where bloatware is becoming the norm, an embedded application means that processor and memory usage is always at a premium. Tossing in inefficiency without reward is a surefire way to force rework later on.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy work is in embedded programming on government systems

Small world. ;)

It's really small if you say you work for Lockheed Martin or (even smaller) EFW Inc. I'm currently working for Lockheed Martin MFC, and spent 4 1/2 years at EFW.

I'm only a little way in, though I'm already detecting a degree of sampling error -- define "successful game" for the purposes of his study.  One of his criteria is whether or not it is being discussed on The Forge, leading to a seemingly unusual preponderance of Forge-born/promoted games.  Since the author is an admitted fan of The Forge philosophy, I find that an unfortunate bias, whether he intended it or not.

More thoughts as I proceed through the individual chapters.

!i!

(P.S. Another problem.  The notion that a "pattern" emerges with as few as two occurrances in separate systems seems flawed.  To quote the infamous Bond villain Auric Goldfinger, "Once is happenstance.  Twice is coincidence.  The third time it's enemy action.")

Quote from: Ian Absentia(P.S. Another problem.  The notion that a "pattern" emerges with as few as two occurrances in separate systems seems flawed.  To quote the infamous Bond villain Auric Goldfinger, "Once is happenstance.  Twice is coincidence.  The third time it's enemy action.")

I have not read the document, but I wonder if two examples are given in the text but many more samples were used when actually compiling the data. It may be a case of being brief. That is, it sounds like the document is fairly long, but would be longer if he'd mention ever single sample he'd used in defining the patterns. It is possible he was just being brief.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrI have not read the document, but I wonder if two examples are given in the text but many more samples were used when actually compiling the data. It may be a case of being brief. That is, it sounds like the document is fairly long, but would be longer if he'd mention ever single sample he'd used in defining the patterns. It is possible he was just being brief.

No, the author comes right out and says in the beginning of the document that he's required a pattern to have appeared in two unrelated sources to qualify as a pattern.

Well, here's the list of games. Perhaps we could discuss it?

Ars Magica (Fourth Edition)
Call of Cthulhu (Sixth Edition)
Code of Unaris
Dogs in the Vineyard
Donjon
Dungeons and Dragons v.3.5
Elfs
Fudge
Great Ork Gods
GURPS
HARP (High Adventure Role  Playing)
HeroQuest
Hero System 5 th Edition
InSpectres
My Life with Master
Nicotine Girls
Nobilis
Paranoia xp
The Pool
Puppetland
The Riddle of Steel
RIFTS
Rolemaster Fantasy Role Playing
Shadowrun
Sorcerer
TORG
Universalis
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
The World of Darkness (including  Vampire: The Requiem)

I dunno, looks like a pretty good spread of games, though weighted a bit on the new/Forge end. From reading some of the book and seeing some of the comments here, though, I think people are getting the wrong idea. That is, it's not like the purpose is to canonize certain games or even to identify which game did X first. Instead the purpose is to categorize types of mechanics to provide a toolkit, reducing the need to reinvent the wheel or at least providing a resource for research (so if you want to accomplish X, you can locate a game that does X already).

I don't know if the author is still planning on expanding the book but the general concept is worthy of extension as people identify other worthwhile patterns.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI dunno, looks like a pretty good spread of games, though weighted a bit on the new/Forge end. From reading some of the book and seeing some of the comments here, though, I think people are getting the wrong idea. That is, it's not like the purpose is to canonize certain games or even to identify which game did X first.

No, I didn't mean to imply that the author's goal was to lionise and promote Forge games -- I'll give him that much credit.  My problem with his approach, coming from the perspective of a scientist who has to be concerned with research design, when a survey is self-selected, there's an inherent bias, whether it's intended or not.  I trust that he didn't intend to introduce a bias, but his close association with The Forge establishes it against his declared wishes.

I had a further problem with the author's approach as I was reading further last night.  On p.11, under the heading of "Pattern Name", he states:

QuoteBecause design patterns are neither “appropriate” or “inappropriate” for a game without first knowing the designer’s goals, their names should be neutral rather than render a value judgment. The pattern name should merely state what the pattern is about rather than attempt to serve as a sort of advertising. Even names such as “Rules Lite” and “Rules Heavy” may bias readers one way or another independent of any virtue or flaw the pattern may harbor and so should be avoided.

The declared position of neutrality is laudable -- don't use loaded or judgemental names that will bias the reader's opinion a priori.  However, in discussing actual patterns just a couple of pages later, his language is heavily loaded and judgemental.  Like this quote regarding the Alignment Pattern from p.14 under the heading of "Applicability":

QuoteAs a role-playing aid that gives guidance to players concerning the manner in which they should portray their characters, the Alignment pattern does a poor job. Other patterns, such as the Idiom pattern have been developed in modern games that satisfy this goal to a far better degree. It is highly recommended that you understand the Idiom pattern before deciding to use the Alignment pattern.

It's clear that his opinion of Alignment is pretty low, and that he prefers the Idiom Pattern, which, one may note, he exemplifies by mentioning the games My Life with Master, The Riddle of Steel, and Sorceror.  Notice the pattern?  He has similar problems with keeping his biases clear of his prose in later design pattern discussions, too.

Please, I don't think John Kirk wrote this book as a hatchet-job against some games or to purposefully place his favorite games on a pedestal.  However, I don't think he's done a very good job of keeping his opinions from coloring what was supposed to be an objective study.  Frankly, I rather like his analysis, but I find myself having to filter large chunks of his bias out of it.

!i!

You know, after reading the section on Alignment (even though I don't, personally, like alignments very much) I have to agree that the editorial tone there is poor and some of the analysis isn't very good either.

But I still think it's inaccurate to talk about this book as a "survey" in the sense that you are used to dealing with surveys. It's primarily a design handbook. Even if it were more comprehensive, the purpose wouldn't be to generalize from the "sample", to make conclusions about the patterns typically found in "successful" games. (Which is what's implied by your comment about sampling error.) "Successful" is just an a priori criterion for his research--a way to limit the number of games he had to read while hoping to cover a good range of mechanics that have seen actual use.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I still think it's inaccurate to talk about this book as a "survey" in the sense that you are used to dealing with surveys. It's primarily a design handbook.

This is true, and I think the author is pretty honest from the outset that his goal is to identify and define desireable patterns of design -- desireable to his sensibilities.  And that's fine as a stated goal, but when his study applies such focus (and favorable focus at that) to his own chosen peer group, his findings at least appear to be self-fulfilling and self-congratulatory.  Part of the problem from my perspective is that he has chosen to call this a "study", which suggests a necessary objectivity, rather than a "meditation" or some other such subjective term.

I also agree with you about the editorial tone.  Folks, this is why an editor is absolutely necessary for any serious or scholarly publication.  I think the author has a lot to say, and while I don't feel I have to agree with everything he says to appreciate it, I also feel that I shouldn't have to wade through his personal biases to get to it.

!i!

I should probably read more before exposing more of my opinions, but at least in terms of goals I think he's just trying to identify patterns, regardless of whether he thinks they're desireable. E.g., alignment does make it into the list even though he thinks it's pretty useless.

But regardless of that, the more I read the thing, the more I see stuff that doesn't live up to the promise of the project--which is uneven not only in tone but in concept. Also, in spite of claiming to want to be independent of overarching theories, the book does import some of the weirder Forge jargon and contentious theories. E.g., look at the Negotiated Contest section, where the introduction takes for granted certain theories about the "essence" of role-playing and the motivation behind player interactions.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the work the author put in--it's a worthwhile collection of observations and opinions.

It's odd, but I zeroed in on exactly the same parts to which Ian pointed. That is, in one breath claiming an attempt to be unbiased, in the next daming Alignments.  They were so close, it was odd.

But it should be of note that he is specifically talking about the name of the pattern when discussing attempts to be unbiased. He, as far as I've read to this point, made no claims not to judge the individual patterns.

It's been a while since I read the Gang of Four. Do they judge the various patterns? I don't recall them daming any, but I do seem to recall them making judgements on when the best cases were to use various patterns.

Having said all that, I think if written without any biases, it could be an interesting work. I quibble a bit with the criteria of which games to include, but that could be easily rectified.

Quote from: James J SkachHaving said all that, I think if written without any biases, it could be an interesting work. I quibble a bit with the criteria of which games to include, but that could be easily rectified.

I agree.  What the author needs at this point is an editor.  An objective editor.  An editor who doesn't play roleplaying games or know anything about The Forge.

!i!

"Nobilis ... is published by Hogshead Publishing Ltd." Well, that's slightly out of date.

Hmm. Incidentally, some of the information there is simply incorrect. For example, Restrictions do not give "more character points to spend", and Aspect also measures mental and social abilities in addition to "the physical prowess." Probably the single most amusing mistake is the bit about the miracle point pools refreshing at the end of each scene, though, since that would render all the usual means of regaining MPs essentially unnecessary. (By the book, they refresh at the beginning of every story, not every scene or even every session.)

Just look at the Currency pattern and tell me there's no bias.

As I said, it's a shame.  It could be a very interesting concept if done properly.  At least narrow the subject. The more I read this thing the more I think perhaps Settembrini is right - we're just playing two completely different games. This draft seems to highlight both the ways in which they are alike, and the ways in which they are very different.

Perhaps a Design Patterns of Adventure Games?

Hmmm....

I went through a few old Forge threads in which the author discussed the book, including this one on alignments (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17058.0)...

He says "I do not want this to degrade into an opinion poll." He then immediately solicits opinions.

I think the Alignment issue is another place where Forge theory and culture has been covertly brought into a supposedly non-theory work. Basically, the author buys into the notion that any desirable behavior needs to be mechanically rewarded.

His criticism of Alignment applies equally to things like GURPS personality quirks and disads. (He does mention a similar system in Rolemaster.) He really ought to just describe the pattern in general terms and then maybe summarize the arguments pro and con. I know there are people who don't like the "Idiom" approach so it's really not appropriate to pronounce authoritatively on whether "alignment"-type personality mechanics are any good.

I think these criticisms are fair, but let's remember that it's only a beta. Would anybody like to try rewriting the Alignment section (for example) to give a more objective view?

If he'd wikify it, I might have a hand at it. Otherwise, nope, too lazy. Like I said, the guy deserves credit just for the sweat he's put in.

Quote from: droogI think these criticisms are fair, but let's remember that it's only a beta.

I keep resisting the urge to print up a full copy and mark it up with a red pencil.  Yes, it's a beta-stage product, but I'd really rather see him re-write his own sections in response to sound, objective criticism.

You know what I was just thinking?  I'd be more willing to accept his apparent bias if this work was published more as a scholarly article, especially if another party responded with a rebuttal article.  I'm sorry to say that I'm not the one to formulate such a rebuttal.

!i!

Yes, it's a beta - A year-old beta. The Alignment Patter thread in that other forum was over a year old. Would it take a year to do a re-write and start the cycle again? I'm not familiar with what that would take, so please don't take that as a criticism, it's a real question.

My copy would have a lot of red marks.  The Game Master section alone has to be completely redone. The inherent bias against having a GM is so strong that I could barely get through it last night. It makes it sound as if the natural state of affairs is to not have a GM. This may be true for many games, but it's hardly the historical roots of RPGs; nor, I think, the RPGs in which most people participate.

NOTE: I understand and applaud peoples' effort to challenge traditional thinking on RPGs.  I just don't think it's helpful to write a book about RPGs that has the attitude this one seems to - that these new games are The Way Things Should Be (tm) - as illustrated in that GM section.

Quote from: James J SkachI understand and applaud peoples' effort to challenge traditional thinking on RPGs.  I just don't think it's helpful to write a book about RPGs that has the attitude this one seems to - that these new games are The Way Things Should Be (tm) - as illustrated in that GM section.

That's the problem I found with it, too.  From the outset, the author purports a goal of assembling a handbook of successful patterns of RPG design -- "good" or "bad" aside -- and then analysing what makes them successful to one degree or another, all with the intent of future RPG designers using the study (or meditation, as I've suggested) as groundwork for creating new games.  However, his bias toward his preferred games ends up proselytising for specialised design patterns that disregard vast tracts of the RPG landscape.  I mean, he's highly critical of the individual elements that characterise the general D&D/D20 motif, but he fails to address how such an assembly of "poor" design patterns have resulted in such an immensely popular (and therefore "successful") game.

!i!

I tell you, the more I read....

The author is talking about the Random Attribute pattern. In non-theory speak, this is rolling dice and assigning the results to your character's attributes.

QuoteThis pattern has fallen out of favor in most modern games, although it does tend to crop up from time to time.

Hmmm...

Why the use of the term modern? D&D has been around since, what 1979? Was that in the modern era? Version 3.5 of D&D was first published in 2003. Was that the modern era? Both use Random Attribute. In fact, every version of D&D uses this method.  All published in the modern era. If I might be so bold, I'd assert the most played RPG in the history of RPGs.

These are the little indicators that the author has a bias that I don't think even he knows he has.

My problem here is that I don't know enough games. I've always had a fairly small collection (I like to think of it as 'focused'). But it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

Quote from: droogBut it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

Hasn't even D&D included an alternative point-buy system for quite some time now?

Quote from: James JWhy the use of the term modern? D&D has been around since, what 1979? Was that in the modern era? Version 3.5 of D&D was first published in 2003. Was that the modern era? Both use Random Attribute. In fact, every version of D&D uses this method.  All published in the modern era. If I might be so bold, I'd assert the most played RPG in the history of RPGs.

He said "most modern games." D&D, despite its vast popularity, is still only one game.

And do you really think he means "Ancient History" (i.e. 1979) is "modern." Sure, it's modern when talking about certain branches of technology, but RPGs have a compressed timescale because of their relative youth. It seems to me that "modern" for RPGs means "in this century."

I don't imagine Mr. Skach is getting hung up on the literal meaning of any of the terms John Kirk used.  Again, it's the editorial choice of words that has the appearance of imparting bias.  For instance, rather than "modern", the words "current" or "contemporary" would probably have been better, more accurate, and more neutral terms to use.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI don't imagine Mr. Skach is getting hung up on the literal meaning of any of the terms John Kirk used.  Again, it's the editorial choice of words that has the appearance of imparting bias.  For instance, rather than "modern", the words "current" or "contemporary" would probably have been better, more accurate, and more neutral terms to use.

!i!

Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I'm just saying word choices like that indicate a certain perspective. When you are describing things, modern is usually meant to mean superior. It's the subtle implication the word carries. If I were trying to convey a more unbiased meaning I would use "contemporary" or "recent."

As for whether or not D&D has an optional point-buy system (it does) or whether there are more games that use Random Attribute than don't, my point is that if you took all the players of all games, how many are playing games that have the Random Attribute, at the very least, as an option? Do you think it's more than avoid it completely? If you think it's possible that more players participate in games that include this option, is it safe to make the assertion that they have "fallen out of favor?"

You could certainly make the point that Random Attributes are declining in use, as they used to be dominant. But even the term "fallen out of favor" implies far more than a term such as "its use is declining."

Ah, ok. I guess I just don't have that preconception of modern = superior, so it didn't cross my mind that it was a biased word.

Quote from: droogMy problem here is that I don't know enough games. I've always had a fairly small collection (I like to think of it as 'focused'). But it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

I think that's correct, my group uses it heavily from choice but that is a minority thing nowadays.

Partly I think people now don't understand often how it was meant to be used.  The number of times on rpg.net I've seen people complain that they couldn't create their concept with the rolls they got is absurd, but with random chargen you create concept after rolling, not before.

I think it's part of a wider shift.  Many older games worked on the assumption that the world was out there, characters were an attempt at modelling people in that world and life was often unfair.  That lent well to historical games as an assumption set.

Nowadays I think the assumption is that the characters are heroes, the world is there to showcase the heroes and unless they fuck up the heroes will win.  That leads to a different assumption set.

Actually, both are fine and both can work, but for some reason we got mostly the first at one time and now mostly the second, and then people see it as progress whereas really it's just a different set of assumptions about what rpgs are about.

QuoteIt's clear that his opinion of Alignment is pretty low, and that he prefers the Idiom Pattern, which, one may note, he exemplifies by mentioning the games My Life with Master, The Riddle of Steel, and Sorceror. Notice the pattern? He has similar problems with keeping his biases clear of his prose in later design pattern discussions, too.

Please, I don't think John Kirk wrote this book as a hatchet-job against some games or to purposefully place his favorite games on a pedestal. However, I don't think he's done a very good job of keeping his opinions from coloring what was supposed to be an objective study. Frankly, I rather like his analysis, but I find myself having to filter large chunks of his bias out of it.

That's fair.  I was trying to be objective, but obviously many of my own biases found their way into the text.  I've been working on a revision to address this issue.

It might surprise you to learn, though, that I don't actually have a bias against Alignment, per se.  In fact, my primary game Legendary Quest is Alignment based.  Believe it or not, what you see in the text was my honest attempt at being unbiased.  I know, it's hard to believe given what is stated.  But, the problem isn't actually in the analysis of Alignment.  The problem is in the stated goal of Alignment.  The text states the goal as: "Provide guidance on how a player should role-play his character."  If that were the actual goal, then the analysis that follows would be fairly valid, I think.  However, that is not the actual design goal of the pattern.  Because the goal is flat wrong, the analysis that follows from it is, to put it bluntly, crap.

Since then, I have split Alignment up into two patterns.  One of these new patterns, Faction, has a goal of "Segregate characters into opposing groups to promote in-game conflict."  The other, the new Alignment pattern, has a goal of "Segregate characters into categories that differentiate how in-game events affect them physically and/or restrict their abilities."

I believe the analyses of Alignment based on these design goals will be far more useful than what is currently presented.

QuoteI also agree with you about the editorial tone. Folks, this is why an editor is absolutely necessary for any serious or scholarly publication. I think the author has a lot to say, and while I don't feel I have to agree with everything he says to appreciate it, I also feel that I shouldn't have to wade through his personal biases to get to it.

A good friend of mine has agreed to edit the book and has been working on it on and off for the past year.  I have a great deal of respect in his editorial skills.  He's professionally trained as a technical writer and is a big fan of D&D (in fact, he is running the D&D 3.5 campaign I play in).  Hopefully, he will provide a good counter-balance to my own viewpoints.

I will, for one, be very interested to see the next draft. I find the idea far more helpful than most Forge Theory approach. In another thread, there is a semantic discussion about "using" theory for design.  This is a case where I think all would agree it's "usable" (assuming, of course, a more "edited" text).

While I don't have alot of case to use design patterns in my normal work, I am a software developer (BS in CS), so this fits the way my mind works. Good luck, and I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

John,

Thanks for wading in to post.  I hope it was clear, in spite of my criticisms, that I've found the book interesting and thought-provoking.  I don't expect to agree with everything, but your approach was compelling enough to make me sit down and figure out what I thought was right and wrong about it.  I'll be looking forward to the next iteration.

Cheers,
!i!

QuoteI will, for one, be very interested to see the next draft. I find the idea far more helpful than most Forge Theory approach. In another thread, there is a semantic discussion about "using" theory for design. This is a case where I think all would agree it's "usable" (assuming, of course, a more "edited" text).

Thank you.  I hope I don't let you down.  In truth, though, I think you are being a little over-generous when you say all would agree it's usable, even assuming a completely unbiased text (if that's even possible).  But, I appreciate the sentiment.  I should probably point out, though, that I don't consider RPG Design Patterns to be part of RPG Theory.  Rather, I think of it more as RPG Engineering.  I'm not trying to explain why role-playing games exist, what purpose they serve, or what qualifies as a good game.  All I am trying to do with them is to find and analyze various common solutions to individual low-level design goals so that they can be reused in future designs.

QuoteI hope it was clear, in spite of my criticisms, that I've found the book interesting and thought-provoking. I don't expect to agree with everything, but your approach was compelling enough to make me sit down and figure out what I thought was right and wrong about it. I'll be looking forward to the next iteration.

Believe me, I don't expect people to just agree with everything I say or write.  I want to be challenged, so that through discussion I gain a better understanding of whatever it is I'm doing.  I made the draft available specifically to obtain criticism so that I could make it better.  I knew it wasn't perfect or even complete.  So, I thank you for your honest critique.  You have made some valid points that I need to think about.

I really do need to get another draft out.  It shouldn't have taken me as long as it has.  But, when I released the first draft, I was already mentally exhausted from the effort.  And, I didn't really expect the flood of feedback I got.  I spent a month or so answering an endless stream of e-mails.  By the time the hoopla died down, I was so burned out on the subject I didn't even want to look at the thing.  So, I put it aside for a while and worked on other projects.  I have been chipping away at it lately, though.

Quote from: John KirkI don't consider RPG Design Patterns to be part of RPG Theory.  Rather, I think of it more as RPG Engineering.  I'm not trying to explain why role-playing games exist, what purpose they serve, or what qualifies as a good game.  All I am trying to do with them is to find and analyze various common solutions to individual low-level design goals so that they can be reused in future designs.

Which is why, if written in a completely unbiased way (or at the very least as close to that ideal as possible), it will be far more useful than trying to determine if a design is "coherent" or serves some abstract arbitrary set of "creative agendas."

I wish you well in your endeavors.