Quote from: StuartWho cares.

It's not really very relevant to the point I was making -- that calling out DitV as "Sleazy" because they have a narrower scope game for $22 isn't reasonable when popular mainstream RPGs have many books of that price and higher as part of their game(s).

I agree - I don't think there's any intent to soak the fans here, or at least no more so than trad games. I think it ties in more to design philosophy and adherence to tightly held beliefs.

-clash

Well, in part how can one say that traditional game do this what the real traditional core games DON'T.

It's silly. Certainly one gets crap like, sadly, Transhuman Space that just isn't really a game, but 90% of EVERYTHING is crap.

But a revolution based around what makes Vampire and DnD good? Bloody Hell!

Traveller! What you do in traveller is cruise around as middle aged ex military doing crime. A revolution based on recreating Traveller! Thats so old school it hurts!

ITS NOT MY FAULT YOUR GAMES SUCKED IN THE NINETIES, AND YOU ARE NOT A GENIUS FOR LEARNING HOW TO FUCKING PLAY!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, changing from a central vision that guides prep and play to a standard process of preparation and play feels confining?

Or, only when the game gives the vibe that "the standard process" is the right way?

Sorry, I've tried several times to reply but I need to do too much interpretation. I think I agree with your first sentence; no idea about the second.

Quote from: Erik BoielleCertainly one gets crap like, sadly, Transhuman Space that just isn't really a game...

And tangentially, could you point me to a more complete version of this opinion? Because I've heard so much good about ThS that I was almost ready to put it on my want list.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSorry, I've tried several times to reply but I need to do too much interpretation. I think I agree with your first sentence; no idea about the second.

Say I have a game.

It walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play.  This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

That the game does this at all?

Or, that it seems to say (or, in some cases, implies quite strongly) that the one procedure that it has laid out is The Right Way To Play This Game?

Or both?  Or do they seem inseperable?

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd tangentially, could you point me to a more complete version of this opinion? Because I've heard so much good about ThS that I was almost ready to put it on my want list.

TS is The posterboy for roleplaying games that arn't. The material is really interesting, the spaceships are SO COOL and

But theres just no game in there. The setting is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make common roleplaying conceits impossible. The tech undermines a lot of traditional adventures, but it concentrates on describing tech instead of trying to figure out how to make it in to a game (frex, you can track every object in the solar system, meaning you can't sneak up on things, but theres no thought on what to do instead.

I do recomend it, but when a forgite is talking about roleplaying games for people to read instead of play, he isn't talking about DnD, he's talking about Transhuman Space.

TS just about single handedly rescued my interest in skiffy, but, like, so Not What To Do.

QuoteIt walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play. This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

Incidentally, this is how most games that are not RPGs are presented...

Erik: Gotcha, thanks. (Great thread idea: figuring out how to use a given setting and/or how [not to] to design a setting for play.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSay I have a game.

It walks me through all the procedures of play, step-by-step, laying out in detail one (and only one) complete method of play.  This differs from many traditional games, which occasionally skip little bits that the authors thought should be bloody obvious.

Now, what's offensive?

That the game does this at all?

Or, that it seems to say (or, in some cases, implies quite strongly) that the one procedure that it has laid out is The Right Way To Play This Game?

Or both?  Or do they seem inseperable?

Neither's offensive. I'm saying that people are wrong to criticize games for not doing those things. E.g.,

Quote from: Vincent at the Forgemany of us here, including me for certain, consider that to be a real problem, a real indictment, of conventional RPG design. Anybody can create some isolated resolution mechanics, slap on a setting, and say "here you go! You figure out what to do with them! If you have fun with them, good job, it's not my fault!" That's a pretty crap game.

As far as I'm concerned, a well-designed game forces me and my group to play in a way that a) is fun, but b) we wouldn't have come up with on our own. It makes us adopt a whole new set of general procedures, a whole new way to play.

You got into a related back & forth with him on his blog, when he wrote, "The fact that players seek out theory to better their play is a damning indictment of the current state of RPG design."

Then there's all the negativity over "toolbox games" ("Design what doesn't matter") as compared to games that are "ready to play out of the box" ("Design what matters"), as seen in some threads over at Story Games and elsewhere.

The "narrowly focused" philosophy is based on the idea that an RPG can and should be written in such a way that the participants don't have to rely on things outside the text (like, say, their own interests), and that there's no need for craft or socialization. At least it's marketed that way, and I think it's doubly wrong: craft & socialization (the sort of stuff that JimBob is often on about) are not only effective methods of achieving fun, they're key attractions of traditional RPGs. Reduce their role in games, and you're marketing to a different audience--in fact, one whose existence is pretty much speculative outside a small niche.

Those boys never played a decent "toolbox"-derived Traveller campaign.

"Pity the fools!", as Mr. T put it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe "narrowly focused" philosophy is based on the idea that an RPG can and should be written in such a way that the participants don't have to rely on things outside the text (like, say, their own interests), and that there's no need for craft or socialization.

I agree with that part of the philosophy.

The trick to me is that word, need.

I think should be able to plunk down a game, walk through it's stuff, and be able to play it straight up.

I also think that the game should also spur me to developing content of my own, set me to tinkering, and fit smoothly inside of a social atmosphere.

Maybe that's too much to ask for.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen there's all the negativity over "toolbox games" ("Design what doesn't matter") as compared to games that are "ready to play out of the box" ("Design what matters"), as seen in some threads over at Story Games and elsewhere.

Yup, that's there.  And I argued over there on Story Games that toolkit design is valid and reasonable.  

But this thread started out with the opposite, which was that design which shows you a way to play (i.e. "focused design") is inherently a mistake.  

I think that both of these positions are dumb.  There is room for both kinds of products.  Some people may prefer one or the other, and some people may play both.  It doesn't matter.  But the claim that one is better than the other is just like a fight of fantasy versus sci-fi, or how diceless games are better than diced (or vice-versa), and so forth.

Levi: Yes, a game should offer a sort of "basic scenario"--a core story that gets you up and running. Thus: the dungeon. Or: the mission. Or a number of other options.

But once you're familiar with the mechanics and you've played through a few iterations of the core story, the game shouldn't discourage you from branching out. Unfortunately, the message I get from certain quarters is that a game that's designed to allow this process is wrong. Instead, once you leave the dungeon and start engaging in political intrigue, you should play a different game. A game which is political intrigue, every time.

(Note: I don't think this is typical of all Forge games. In fact if I didn't say so earlier, Burning Wheel is pretty obviously not of this ilk. On the other hand, it doesn't do a very good job of presenting a core story in the first place. I think this is a minor flaw, though.)

John: I think focused games are okay, although they necessarily limit the audience. What Pundit started the thread with, though, I think there's a good deal of truth to it. The problem is that two points are being argued that aren't really in conflict. It's probably true that unfocused designs will dominate actual play for the foreseeable future--even if the bulk of that is just a handful games. If there are any Forgers who're thinking "We will bury you", they're just deluding themselves. But simultaneously it's obviously true that some people enjoy focused games, and that choosing to focus is a viable market-differentiation strategy.

Beyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think focused games are okay, although they necessarily limit the audience. What Pundit started the thread with, though, I think there's a good deal of truth to it. The problem is that two points are being argued that aren't really in conflict.

I'm not sure what two points you mean.  The point I am arguing about is what Pundit said in his first post: that making focused games is an error in design.  Since you think focused games are OK, then presumably you agree with me.  So I'm not sure what the disconnect is.  

What two points are you talking about?  

Quote from: Elliot WilenBeyond that, though, we have a fundamental clash between the interests of hobbyists and those of designers. It's hardly in a designer's financial or career interest to make a D&D clone (maybe with a different setting). The paradox is that's what most hobbyists want.

This doesn't really have to do with the topic, but I address this in The Error of Tradition-based Game Design -- so I'm going to follow up over there.

Pundit says focused games are an error in design because they constrain play.

Others say that focused games are great because they focus play. (Duh.)

From an aesthetic standpoint you can't really weigh the two statements. Personally, I think the freedom of unfocused design is truer to the RPG form, that which makes RPGs different from boardgames and even wargames, but I doubt I could make a theoretical case for the superiority of unfocused design, across the board. Besides which the practical fact is that there are people who like each, and people who like both. Including me.

From a marketing standpoint, I can at least hypothesize that my sense of what makes RPGs stand out is shared by the market at large. I.e., people in general will continue to prefer the experiential, unfocused form of game over the focused, narrative or competitive variety.

But even here, if you're looking to break into the market, I think a focused design is probably a better choice. At least in terms of picking a specialized subject, if not strongly focused mechanics. The reason for this is: D20 already exists, so do GURPS, BRP, etc. If they didn't, I'd advise people to make them, but since they do, I don't think it's smart to compete with them.

Quote from: flyingmiceI agree - I don't think there's any intent to soak the fans here, or at least no more so than trad games. I think it ties in more to design philosophy and adherence to tightly held beliefs.

-clash

Oh, its ideological, for sure. But ideology always ends up serving someone. It might not be conscious, but I'm sure on some level of the reptile brain, the Forge guys realize that if they can actually hype up a new game that is playable for 4-8 sessions max every couple of months, they can consistently make new sales more easily than by creating a single game system that can be playable for years.

RPGPundit