Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326003While we shouldn't rely on rule zero...

We should accept and assume rule zero will, in fact, be employed.  And, what's more, that it will be employed unconsciously in many cases.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;325953Every GM will have to fiddle with the RAW a bit to make them just right for their particular group on that particular day. Thus Rule Zero.

I think that Manuel was trying to say that designers shouldn't deliver a flawed game, forcing GMs to waste their time fixing leaks when they could be deciding how to customize it to their personal tastes.

Quote from: JongWK;326009I think that Manuel was trying to say that designers shouldn't deliver a flawed game, forcing GMs to waste their time fixing leaks when they could be deciding how to customize it to their personal tastes.

That is a sentiment that I heartily agree with.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;325951Roleplaying Games are Games where stories happen as a natural result of play. A lot of people say that they're games where a player can "affect the outcome"....This is what I'm talking about. Aside from prepackaged or prepared modules, which are fine by me, of course. What I don't think an RPG is, however, is a "game" that forces a specific story arc... This is going to hurt someone, but I don't consider "My Life with Master" an RPG. Story game, sure, but it's not an RPG, to me. I don't want to play story games.

Then don't use the word "story". RPGs do not tell "stories". RPGs allow people to assume the role of someone else during actual, spontaneous events as they occur. The "story" is the stuff you can tell your friends once the game session is over.

QuoteSince an RPG is a Game, we don't get to rely on Rule 0, which I understand to mean: "The GM can change anything he doesn't like or ignore any rule." Of course they can. If we do our jobs right, they won't need or want to.

This is the kind of modern game design bullshit that needs to die a horrible, painful, yet instant death. As a game designer you cannot know all the people playing your game. You can not read minds, see in the future. You cannot know how people's interests will combine at one particular game table or any other.

So stop acting like you can.

Make it easy for people to understand your game and how it works. Assume that people will use it to cut and plug what they want. THEY know what's going on around their game tables. You don't.

The rest of your stuff just expresses preferences in game presentation and influences. It's not objective, and not really about game design, aside from the occasional wankery (though I do share your opinion that simplicity is not a panacea, the same way that simplicity does not necessarily mean "rules light", or "written for retards"). I just got one thing to say: I do not believe RPGs gain anything from constantly being subjected to the tyranny of the techniques and inspirations of other, non-RPGs, media. RPGs are NOT board games. They are NOT novels. NOT stories. They are NOT movies.

It's time, IMO that we considered RPGs as they are, rather than what they might look like.

Quote from: JongWK;326009I think that Manuel was trying to say that designers shouldn't deliver a flawed game, forcing GMs to waste their time fixing leaks when they could be deciding how to customize it to their personal tastes.

This is a lovely possiblity, and quite likely what was meant.

"I made it work as smoothly as possible so that you can spend your time screwing with it instead of fixing it."

Quote from: Benoist;326014Then don't use the word "story". RPGs do not tell "stories". RPGs allow people to assume the role of someone else during actual, spontaneous events as they occur. The "story" is the stuff you can tell your friends once the game session is over.

Of course. I don't know what other word to use for the events of the game. I'm not talking about a "pre-plotted story". I should probably say adventure or something.

QuoteThis is the kind of modern game design bullshit that needs to die a horrible, painful, yet instant death. As a game designer you cannot know all the people playing your game. You can not read minds, see in the future. You cannot know how people's interests will combine at one particular game table or any other.

So stop acting like you can.

Of course. I'm saying exactly that we can't, and that we should build games that account for that fact.

QuoteMake it easy for people to understand your game and how it works. Assume that people will use it to cut and plug what they want. THEY know what's going on around their game tables. You don't.

Did you read the post or just build up a barbarian rage on clicking the link?

QuoteThe rest of your stuff just expresses preferences in game presentation and influences. It's not objective, and not really about game design, aside from the occasional wankery (though I do share your opinion that simplicity is not a panacea, the same way that simplicity does not necessarily mean "rules light", or "written for retards"). I just got one thing to say: I do not believe RPGs gain anything from constantly being subjected to the tyranny of the techniques and inspirations of other, non-RPGs, media. RPGs are NOT board games. They are NOT novels. NOT stories. They are NOT movies.

It's time, IMO that we considered RPGs as they are, rather than what they might look like.

What are they?

Quote from: JongWK;326009I think that Manuel was trying to say that designers shouldn't deliver a flawed game, forcing GMs to waste their time fixing leaks when they could be deciding how to customize it to their personal tastes.

This is exactly what I meant.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326025What are they?

Role-playing games.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;325951What I don't think an RPG is, however, is a "game" that forces a specific story arc...

Hmm.

I agree with this, taken exactly as written.

But I will say that a good game defines the environment clearly.  And that environment often includes lots of things internal to characters, and lots of limits on the action (and thus on the resultant storystuff).  

Imagine that I say the words "I'm running a superhero game".  That has a serious effect.  And I damn well better have mechanics to back that shit up.

Imagine that I say "I'm running a Film Noir game".  That has an effect too - and in this case, it doesn't define any given arc, but it does limit the available arcs of the action by setting a style.

There isn't anything bad about a designer doing big piles of the "GM Prepwork" in advance, for the GM - and the prepwork does include defining broad things about the player characters.

Can this be taken too far?

You bet your ass.

Can I define what I mean by "too far"?

Nope.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326025Of course. I don't know what other word to use for the events of the game.

How about "events of the game"?

Quote from: Benoist;326031How about "events of the game"?

Fair enough.

The rest of my post was just a bunch of disjointed opinions. I wasn't intending them to be objective. However, I stand by every word (except the part about story) exactly as written. I chose everything I said carefully.

I wanted a thread where we could all just talk about what we've learned about designing games. Not so much where we'd debate religion.

There are techniques to designing games. That's a simple fact. Every undertaking has techniques. Not everyone uses the same ones, and I wanted to talk about them.

I'm not proposing codifying these techniques and goals with labels, just talking about what you think works, and what you believe we need to do to make good games. The stuff in bold wasn't meant to be "Monster Manuel's Laws", so much as a convenient way to express the core ideas. They were tools meant to be discarded once the meaning was expressed.

I do think you're on the opposite side of meaning from the Story Games guys, however. To them, everything's an RPG, and to you, "you know it when you see it". At least, based on your post. As Jason Morningstar said, if the answer is "I know it when I see it", there's not much of a conversation to have.

Regarding how careful I was- even the bit about stories say that "stories Happen" in RPGs. They are not written, preplotted; they come about as you play. When you're done playing you have a story of some kind.

What's wrong with that?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326038What's wrong with that?

Nuttin'.  I'm just tangenting, a bit.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326018This is a lovely possiblity, and quite likely what was meant.

"I made it work as smoothly as possible so that you can spend your time screwing with it instead of fixing it."

I love tinkertoys and legos. I want RPGs like them.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;326040Nuttin'.  I'm just tangenting, a bit.

That was actually a part of my previous post, without editing.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;325976Dismissing it as "not a roleplaying game" because it isn't your preference is weak sauce.  

No its not. "My life with master" is NOT a roleplaying game. End of that part of the discussion. Please do not try to subvert this thread with either forge-jargon, forge-theory, or forge-promotion.

RPGPundit