Luke, I understand that rules can be written to alleviate some bad habits but can't a game just as easily describe the bad habits and how to use the rule structure to avoid them?  It seems like a games can be designed from experience in play vs. games can be learned how to play from experience argument.  Is the former done to encourage new gamers into the hobby or to encourage older gamers back into the hobby?  Is the hardest sell for these games for people that have shared these experiences and corrected them or ones that have never had these experiences with the game they are using?

Hi James,

I agree with your initial point. I'll go through the questions.

1) The hobby is in a continuing state of contraction at the moment. But more than that, compared to all other hobbies, RPGing is small. Tiny. I think it is worth looking at some of the sacred cows of the hobby and questioning them. I know that the death this particular sacred cow isn't going to liberate us from our niche status all alone. But questioning basic group power dynamic stirs up a very emotional response in many gamers. Given how small the hobby is, I have to wonder if this attitude and perhaps what it was born from isn't limiting us in some way.

2) I think I folded this into my answer above, but just to reiterate. 3.X  was the best thing to happen to the hobby in over a decade. But all it really did was revitalize a jaded fan base and alleviate (albeit massive) pent up demand.

3) Just mostly a gut feeling that I get when passing from  non-gamer groups to gamer groups.

4) It's just bad game design. Giving one player the ability to supersede the rules in high energy and emotional situations is a recipe for that player getting his way. Once players figure out that there's a rule to end all rules, the game becomes more about manipulating that player in order to get access to that rule than playing the game. At least that's been my experience in the extended play groups I'm involved in.

5) That's a bit of a loaded question. Maybe. One bad rule doesn't necessarily ruin a great game, and omitting one bad rule doesn't necessarily make a game great.

I suspect you found these answers unsatisfying. But while I may seem evasive, look at it more like this: I'm well aware that my opinions are not universal facts. This doesn't mean I'm not going to try to change the world.

Gunslinger,
Why go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

I don't understand how the idea of games designed from experience is opposed to learning how to play from experience. Can you rephrase that?

Luke,

Thanks for the answers.  I didn't find them all unsatisfying.  In fact, little by little, I'm getting down to it.  So again, Thanks.

A few comments and followups.

Quote from: luke1) The hobby is in a continuing state of contraction at the moment. But more than that, compared to all other hobbies, RPGing is small. Tiny. I think it is worth looking at some of the sacred cows of the hobby and questioning them. I know that the death this particular sacred cow isn't going to liberate us from our niche status all alone. But questioning basic group power dynamic stirs up a very emotional response in many gamers. Given how small the hobby is, I have to wonder if this attitude and perhaps what it was born from isn't limiting us in some way.

Fair enough.  Good Luck with your search.  But just to let you know one thing.  I don't think it's that actual questioning that sturs up the emotional response.  I think, perhaps, it's the idea that the answer already exists and that answer is "GM Fiat is bad/corrosive/damaging to the hobby/game/rules."  Which may seem to you to make perfect sense and be backed up by your experience.  But to others who have completely different experiences, it's not a far leap to infer that you are saying they are playing a shitty game and all that implies (and have been for 20 or 30 years); this includes the implication that they are participating in a badwrongfun game.  I think that is where the emotion comes in.

Quote from: luke2) I think I folded this into my answer above, but just to reiterate. 3.X  was the best thing to happen to the hobby in over a decade. But all it really did was revitalize a jaded fan base and alleviate (albeit massive) pent up demand.

But, you would have to admit, then, that the pent-up demand was for a game with GM Fiat, right?  I mean, I don't want this to come across as some kind of gotcha.  But that jaded can base and their pent-up demand were looking for a game that included GM Fiat.  We'll never know, but do you think a game without GM Fiat would have revitalized those jaded fans and alleviated pent-up demand?

Quote from: luke3) Just mostly a gut feeling that I get when passing from  non-gamer groups to gamer groups.

Interesting. Can yo expand a bit on this? Were the non-gamers the ones looking for collaborative storytelling?  If so, why did they come to RPG's to find it?

Quote from: luke4) It's just bad game design. Giving one player the ability to supersede the rules in high energy and emotional situations is a recipe for that player getting his way. Once players figure out that there's a rule to end all rules, the game becomes more about manipulating that player in order to get access to that rule than playing the game. At least that's been my experience in the extended play groups I'm involved in.

5) That's a bit of a loaded question. Maybe. One bad rule doesn't necessarily ruin a great game, and omitting one bad rule doesn't necessarily make a game great.

First, it wasn't meant as a loaded question. Second, the two answers together are a bit amusing to me.  I say this because the answer to 4 is so emphatic. It's bad design! I would assume the answer to 5 would then be "Yes." So I'll try to clarifiy in the hopes that it helps the discussion.

I'll start with #4 - You say it's bad design as an assertion - an objective truth. The description that follows seems to contradict that.  I mean, the things you describe could happen, and have apprently happened to/for you.  But what about all of the other evidence from people that suggests the conclusion is not foregone? How does that evidence, as anecdtoal and instictual as yours, inform your opinion?

As for #5 - Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that two games are alike in every way except that one includes GM Fiat.  I don't know if it could happen, but let's assume. What would your answer be then? Can you help me understand why?

Quote from: lukeWhy go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

Personally, I don't think there's a problem with that at all. Clear instructions. Of course, players get told exactly how to play all the time by DMs, so I don't know what all the fuss is about from people who claim to support DMs. I don't really see Burning Wheel, for ex, as disempowering.

Quote from: lukeWhy go half measures? Why not just put clear instructions into the game text that says, "You play like this." Are accessibility and ease of use bad?

Luke,

Are you saying that GM Fiat reduces accessiblity and ease of use?
Are rules that include GM Fiat inherently unclear in their instructions?

Thanks,
Jim

Assume a game where the GM can (and does) Fiat almost anything.  Assume that this is not some failure state of the game, but rather is how it's designed to play ... it's a game of social interaction/manipulation.  Amber in some styles, for instance, plays very like this.

(4) What goals do you think this type of play would serve very poorly?
(5) What goals do you think this type of play would serve very well?

Paranoia is another example.

Quote from: lukeI don't understand how the idea of games designed from experience is opposed to learning how to play from experience. Can you rephrase that?

There are games where the designer has hardwired mechanics to avoid pitfalls/bad habits from their experiences of running and playing.  Many people feel that the designers are imposing their preferences into the game.  It seems to me, that the players that oppose these games are the ones who've learned how to use their experiences to model their game to avoid pitfalls/bad habits in their playing group.  The game is deciding "play like this" as opposed to group deciding "play like this".  I hope that's clearer.  

QuoteAre accessibility and ease of use bad?

No.  It seems to be two different methodologies to achieve the same goal.  Having fun playing a game with a group of people.  Are having mechanics to avoid pitfalls/bad habits done to encourage players back into the hobby who've had bad experiences and/or to keep new players in the hobby from avoiding those bad experiences?  

Good.  Bad.  I'm the guy with the gun.

Here's another question for Luke:

A while back we had a thread about innovation in RPGs. I'd like to ask you the question posed on that thread: What do you think are the most interesting innovations in RPGs being worked on right now? Design/presentation, mechanics, setting, business model, anything counts.

Hi James,

2) It's kind of the only show in town. So yeah, was pent-up demand for a product that I think is flawed. That doesn't make it right, or mean that there's no room for change.

I think the situation would have been exactly the same regardless of the content of the rules of the game.

3) RPGs have a reputation for being a storytelling medium. It's a misconception, I know. I'm going to have to answer this one in-depth at another time when I have more time. I'm a bit rushed now and all of the answers I've written for it so far suck.

4) I don't know where you're going with this. I'm saying that one rule does not a game make.

5) But a game without an inherently flawed, half-baked rule is going to be a better design than one with it.

James

Yes, fiat reduces accessibility.
No, but fiat can muddy the waters when a player wants recourse to the rules and another player can say, "We're not playing with that rule now."

Tony,
"Goals" is really tripping me up. Amber has it, Paranoia has it, Dying Earth has it. It's explicit in those texts if I'm not mistaken.  

4) I think it would serve my goals poorly. If players could ignore rules at a whim in any of my games it would be grossly unfair. I design very tight currency mechanics. Each mechanic happens for reason. Sometimes that reason may not be clear until further down the line. Changing mechanics due to preference or lack of understanding breaks the currency cycle and essentially makes the whole process pointless.

5) Obviously, this type of play has served cliquish, small group adventure gaming quite well.

Gunslinger,
I think the designer is best judge on how get his game going. While playtesters help find loopholes and players often find unexpected strategies, the designer usually has spent more time researching how the game works. He's not trying to inflict his will on the group and tell them they're wrong. He's simply laying down a play process that, if followed, will bear fruit.

Do you get mad at Richard Borg and tell him to get off your back when you play Memoir? Do you get upset with James Ernest for telling you how to play when he outlines rules to a cheap ass game?

EDIT:
Pseudo,
I think it's the short form game -- a roleplaying game that can be learned and played to its conclusion in one evening. That seems like a tremendous innovation to me.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrinehave you considered a modern detective (or espionage or whatever) version?

This is a good idea, Luke. Use the old Flying Buffalo game MSPE as a template and used a stripped-down version of the BW system with a cool gun version of the range and cover rules as the main combat system. I think your basic mechanical framework would handle this genre very well.