This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Levi's Heresy  (Read 3212 times)

flyingmice

  • Flunchist-Cruftist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9757
    • http://www.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Levi's Heresy
« on: April 11, 2008, 12:04:47 AM »
As requested:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
I've talked to people who are seen as saying this at some length.  So I'm going to open that box up just a little further.

A lot of the time, what comes across is "To you, designer, system matters most - the procedures, rules, techniques of play.  Because it's all you've got to work with when designing."


When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

Quote

Before you finish reacting to that, even rephrased, another odd shot.  

In theory, the bits of game advice in Amber, which describe techniques that aren't hard and fast rules?  Those are also part of the overall idea of  system that the designer should be concentrating on.


Mph! There's that "T" word again! :O

Quote

As I see it, redefining system as "the whole body of stuff the group does" has an upside - it's more holistic.  The downside is that because it's a redefinition, the brain sometime slips a gear, and you get the designer who believes that, but actually goes sideways on those examples and techniques, instead just playing clever games with numbers.


The redefiining terms mania strikes again, and that makes it hard to communicate. One of the things you've always tried very hard not to do is redefine words, Levi.

Quote

...When the word "system" is in there, it's a problem endemic to "indiehood".  Take the word out, and you've seen the same problem everywhere...

...How many game design discussions start with "Check out my GM advice on combat encounters!  Isn't it wicked inspiring?".


EDIT: Shit, I'm threadjacking.  Uh...   If this is an interesting topic to anyone, we can has new thread?


Do designers actually say "Check out my system for combat encounters, isn't it wicked?" I'm more likely to say "Check out my system for combat encounters, did I screw up somewhere?" :P

But OK, given the redefinition, it makes much more sense, but it doesn't talk about what the group can bring to the table. A designer doesn't know, but he can throw out some options. I always try to anyway... :D

-clash
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

James J Skach

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5007
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2008, 12:24:06 AM »
Look - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.

This, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?

This is one of those little cracks, in theory, that once investigated becomes a huge chasm.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Fuse lit...
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

flyingmice

  • Flunchist-Cruftist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9757
    • http://www.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2008, 12:39:49 AM »
Quote from: James J Skach
Look - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.

This, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?

This is one of those little cracks, in theory, that once investigated becomes a huge chasm.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Fuse lit...


Very nicely put, James!

-clash
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

HinterWelt

  • Nebuleon SE...Soon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3965
    • http://www.hinterwelt.com/
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2008, 12:56:00 AM »
Quote from: flyingmice
Do designers actually say "Check out my system for combat encounters, isn't it wicked?" I'm more likely to say "Check out my system for combat encounters, did I screw up somewhere?" :P

Some of prefer to say, "Check out my kick ass setting!"

Although, isn't that now a part of "system"?

Bill
The RPG Haven - Talking about RPGs
My Site
Oh...the HinterBlog
Lord Protector of the Cult of Clash was Right
When you look around you have to wonder,
Do you play to win or are you just a bad loser?

Levi Kornelsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • L
  • Posts: 2054
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2008, 03:44:48 AM »
Quote from: James J Skach
Look - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must.


Everything you do to "resolve action".  That's called the Lumpley Principle, for those wanting a GNSese translation.

...

And, see, I think there's a useful point there.  Bob declares the thing his character does, , Joe tells Bob the results.

That bit where is just as important if it's GM fiat as if it's roll 3d6+19.  It should be equally valid to look at how the GM makes his fiat decision as it is to ask why 3d6+19, shouldn't it?

But calling that whole thing "system" doesn't always actually accomplish that, though it was supposed to.

Often, I find, it actually ends up obfuscating the point.

I think.

gleichman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2008, 08:01:57 AM »
Quote from: James J Skach
Look - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.


One of the things I despise about the Forge and even many non-Forge Theorists is their tendency to define things in such a way to make them meaningless- and then claim that they've reach some sort of greater insight.

It's cheap, it doesn't say anything, and any child can do it.

System used to mean something simple- i.e. the sum of the mechanical rules. When it meant that, saying System indicated what one was speaking of a defined subject. One could crack open the rulebook and start from there.

Now that it covers everything, System is no more meaningful than the "Game Discussion" group label for this part of the board. Completely worthless.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

One Horse Town

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 10203
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2008, 08:25:50 AM »
Much like i believe that pre-written adventures or campaigns do not survive contact with the playing group, i also think that most RPG systems don't, either.

I would even go so far to say that if you are trying to design a game where your design goal is to make sure that the system does survive contact with the playing group, you are really creating a straight-jacket, not a game that has wide scope and popularity. By writing those checks and balances into your system, you are, by necessity, narrowing its scope. Which explains a lot, to my way of thinking.

madunkieg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • m
  • Posts: 32
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2008, 09:21:31 AM »
I don't think Levi is onto much at all.

Do designers ever say, "Check out my advice"? Yes, particularly in ashcan publishing where it's fashionable to include design notes, but play advice has occured in many rpgs, big and small (many descriptions in D&D's Monster Manuals, for example).

Do designers ever try to guide play in non-system ways? Yes, with background, fiction, and, more commonly these days with indie publishing, artwork, layout and font choice.

So, while I don't think that game designers are not necessarily obsessed with system, I do think game design forums are. In particular, both the Forge and this forum focus on this more than other forums, which shouldn't be surprising. It's common for opposed groups to share many traits and differ on only a few.

Why? The heavy theory work done at the Forge and elsewhere has given the game design community the language and structures to assess game systems. It was developed by gamers for gamers. Other aspects of design work (fiction, layout, artwork) already had language and structures for assessing them, but it developed in non-gaming fields (crit-lit, graphic design, art criticism), and are less common to gamers. We tend to discuss those things we can get the most and best feedback on.
Humans should have been assigned a wisdom penalty.

riprock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 350
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2008, 09:27:49 AM »
Quote from: James J Skach


This, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?


You're marely a consumer, so pony up the cash and time necessary to worship the designer.
"By their way of thinking, gold and experience goes[sic] much further when divided by one. Such shortsighted individuals are quick to stab their fellow players in the back if they think it puts them ahead. They see the game solely as a contest between themselves and their fellow players.  How sad.  Clearly the game is a contest between the players and the GM.  Any contest against your fellow party members is secondary." Hackmaster Player's Handbook

riprock

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 350
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2008, 09:32:45 AM »
Quote from: One Horse Town
Much like i believe that pre-written adventures or campaigns do not survive contact with the playing group, i also think that most RPG systems don't, either.

I would even go so far to say that if you are trying to design a game where your design goal is to make sure that the system does survive contact with the playing group, you are really creating a straight-jacket, not a game that has wide scope and popularity.


Or, alternately, you're writing a wargame that teaches tactics.

There's nothing wrong with playing a crunchy game that requires a particular set of tactics for in-game survival.

In fact, such a game can be good if it's educational but not otherwise entertaining.

In a similar vein:
Quote

Do you like crunch? Forget roleplaying games. Try cryptography.


Or, alternately, "Do you like crunch?  Forget tabletop roleplaying games.  Play crunchy computer games."

There are a lot of gamer euros and yen going to extremely crunchy computer games, some of which resemble CRPGs, others of which don't.  Some smart TRPG designers, like Steve Jackson, are trying to survive in the new marketplace without completely abandoning the old.

There are, however, a boatload of designers who want to be TRPG designers, and who harbor a hope of making enough money to cover their printing expenses.
"By their way of thinking, gold and experience goes[sic] much further when divided by one. Such shortsighted individuals are quick to stab their fellow players in the back if they think it puts them ahead. They see the game solely as a contest between themselves and their fellow players.  How sad.  Clearly the game is a contest between the players and the GM.  Any contest against your fellow party members is secondary." Hackmaster Player's Handbook

flyingmice

  • Flunchist-Cruftist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9757
    • http://www.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2008, 09:41:44 AM »
Quote from: madunkieg
I don't think Levi is onto much at all.

Do designers ever say, "Check out my advice"? Yes, particularly in ashcan publishing where it's fashionable to include design notes, but play advice has occured in many rpgs, big and small (many descriptions in D&D's Monster Manuals, for example).


Well, yeah. Levi himself mentioned Amber.

Quote
Do designers ever try to guide play in non-system ways? Yes, with background, fiction, and, more commonly these days with indie publishing, artwork, layout and font choice.


OK... Artwork, Layout, and font choices are supposed to guide play? :O

Quote
So, while I don't think that game designers are not necessarily obsessed with system, I do think game design forums are. In particular, both the Forge and this forum focus on this more than other forums, which shouldn't be surprising. It's common for opposed groups to share many traits and differ on only a few.


Actually, the Forge designers mostly talk shop over at Storygames these days, IIRC. The people in this forum are hardly "opposed" to the Forge/Storygames crowd. They're dealing with stuff that interests them, we are dealing with stuff that interests us. We just needed a place where we could talk without being flooded with guys from the forge interested in something different. Even Pundit has no problem with storygamers per se - read the definition of "swine." There are trad swine too.

Quote
Why? The heavy theory work done at the Forge and elsewhere has given the game design community the language and structures to assess game systems. It was developed by gamers for gamers. Other aspects of design work (fiction, layout, artwork) already had language and structures for assessing them, but it developed in non-gaming fields (crit-lit, graphic design, art criticism), and are less common to gamers. We tend to discuss those things we can get the most and best feedback on.


We don't want to use the language and structures developed by the Forge here. Those are tools they devised for their purposes, and our purposes may be different. We have explicitly rejected them as a starting point. Read the Landmarks of Gaming Theory thread for more info on that. If we need language other than accepted use English - and we haven't so far - we'll deal with that in our own way. We aren't a theory forum - we are a design forum.

-clash
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

Caesar Slaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2008, 10:00:03 AM »
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen
Everything you do to "resolve action".  That's called the Lumpley Principle, for those wanting a GNSese translation.


Hmmm. Consider this outtake from the FATE SRD:

Quote from: Fate SRD
8.1   Setting Difficulties

Before you – the GM – call for a die roll, it is critically important that you stop and do two things:

   1. Imagine Success
   2. Imagine Failure

It sounds simple, but it can make a critical difference. Success is usually the easy part, but failure can be bit trickier. You want to make sure that both outcomes are interesting , though interesting certainly doesn’t need to mean good.

If you cannot come up with a way to handle either outcome, you need to rethink the situation.

It’s as simple as that, because there are few things more frustrating to a player than making a skill roll and getting told that it nets them no new knowledge, no suggested course of action, no new development for the story, and so on.

So, whenever you call for a roll, be absolutely certain you understand entails. If one or the other branch does not suggest a course of action, then calling for a roll is probably a bad idea.



Now, that said, every roll does not need to have high stakes. There should always be a consequence to failure, but there are degrees of consequence, and minor setbacks may be overcome for a larger success. If there is a large issue on the table, try not to have it hinge entirely on one roll – spread it out across the scene. Just as a roll has consequences, so does a scene, and the scene should have meaningful consequences.

The whole point of the consequences is to keep players engaged. It makes rolls into something a little more meaningful than hoping to get lucky on a die roll. That fact is the ultimate informer on how you want to set difficulties. The goal is to make any roll satisfying.

With that in mind, as a general guideline, difficulties should be set low (with a few exceptions we’ll cover in this chapter). If you leave difficulties at the default of Mediocre (+0) then characters will almost always succeed, but there is still a chance for failure. What this means is that characters will rarely fail, but failure is still a possibility in most circumstances. You can increase difficulties from that, but always stop and think about why you want to do that. The answer should always be “because you want failure to be more likely” – hopefully because failure’s cool too.

If you are tempted to make a roll so difficult that failure is likely, make sure you’ve got a solid reason why that’s so, and why you’re calling for a roll.


Is that "advice" or "system"? I'll admit the line is blurry, but I personally don't see it as system, because I could easily take this advice and apply it to any game I am playing.

But then, I can see many rules or mechanics bits that I could pull out of "systems" and re-implement as "advice".
The Secret Volcano Base: my intermittently updated RPG blog.

Running: Pathfinder Scarred Lands, Mutants & Masterminds, Masks, Starfinder, Bulldogs!
Playing: Sigh. Nothing.
Planning: Some Cyberpunk thing, system TBD.

HinterWelt

  • Nebuleon SE...Soon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3965
    • http://www.hinterwelt.com/
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2008, 10:17:12 AM »
On the point of definitions, I will say I am in favor of system referring to the mechanical parts of a game. If I had to come up with the different components of a game I would probably go with

Game Play which trumps

System
Setting

And I would say GM Advice falls under separate section including player advice called
Meta-rules

And I would not say the above is all inclusive, just all I can think of. I am not putting anything on those words that are not commonly held understanding or dictionary definitions.

Bill
The RPG Haven - Talking about RPGs
My Site
Oh...the HinterBlog
Lord Protector of the Cult of Clash was Right
When you look around you have to wonder,
Do you play to win or are you just a bad loser?

Dwight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 491
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2008, 10:47:55 AM »
Quote from: HinterWelt
Some of prefer to say, "Check out my kick ass setting!"

Although, isn't that now a part of "system"?

Bill
Mechanics are intractably tied to the setting. Which way to word it? :shrug: But to pretend that something isn't part of the game because you hung a "advice" label on is to live in denial. Often harmful denial. It's in the book giving directions on how to play? Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game. Even if they discard parts of it, which they are want  to do no matter in the book or what label you put on it.


"Advice" is important, usually critically important, because the rules in an RPG are not "complete". To pretend it is something separate that you just fill some pages with, perhaps shuffled off to it's own section, is doing a disservice to everyone.

It's about the whole game, stupid.
"Though I'll still buy the game, the moment one of my players tries to force me to NCE a situation for them I'm using it to beat them to death. The fridge is looking a bit empty anyway." - Spike on D&D 4e

The management does not endorse the comments expressed in this signature. They are solely the demented yet hilarious opinions of some random guy(gal?) ranting on the Interwebs.

Caesar Slaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3585
Levi's Heresy
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2008, 10:58:31 AM »
Quote from: Dwight
Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game.


(shrug) I rather think that's where the difference actually lies. I think that many players actually consider the rules part of the game and have the expectation that the rules represent the game as it will be played under social contract, but don't extend that expectation to "advice".

But then, for contrast, I think that more active tinkerers/designers treat "rules" the way other gamers think of "advice".
The Secret Volcano Base: my intermittently updated RPG blog.

Running: Pathfinder Scarred Lands, Mutants & Masterminds, Masks, Starfinder, Bulldogs!
Playing: Sigh. Nothing.
Planning: Some Cyberpunk thing, system TBD.