Just a thought I've got on what a game system is.

A game system is a method of arbitration when people are playing an RPG. It sets the parameters of play and gives a resolution system for actions during play.

Now, I understand that this may seem like, "In other news, water is still wet".  Yet when what we are doing is playing a game to begin with, a game system is just a way to make playing that game easier and thus more enjoyable (by providing rules for in-game actions instead of people squabbling over who did what). Now what constitues "easier" and "more enjoyable" is up to the individuals playing the game, what does it for one group won't do it for another.

By saying arbitration, I'm not talking about disagreements outside of the game (a game system should not be used to solve problems in Real Life). The arbitration is for "Did I make my skill check?" or "Have I killed the monster?" not for "Are you going to chip in $5 for the pizza you're eating, deadbeat?"

I'm trying to think out game systems as tools for playing RPGs, analogous to how languages are tools for communication.

I'm still thinking this out, so please feel free to kick the idea's tires and take it for a test drive. Let me know what ya'll come up with.

Quote from: jeff37923A game system is a method of arbitration when people are playing an RPG. It sets the parameters of play and gives a resolution system for actions during play.

Yep. I've always viewed a game system's primary purpose as providing instructions for playing games. If a system doesn't tell the reader how to implement it to that end, it's broken. And, sadly, there are several systems like that in existence (Aria being a stunning example of system without context, actually).

Quote from: jeff37923(a game system should not be used to solve problems in Real Life). The arbitration is for "Did I make my skill check?" or "Have I killed the monster?" not for "Are you going to chip in $5 for the pizza you're eating, deadbeat?"

Why not?

Of course that's the way it's almost always done. But aside from "tradition", why should we not have in our game system things which allow us to deal with real-life disputes related to the game session?

As far back as AD&D1e (1979), old Gygax told us that if player took a look in the DMG their character should lose a magic item or two, and if players were "troublesome" their characters could be struck in the head by a "blue bolt from heaven", or lose (appropriately, Gygax said) a point or two of charisma. So Gygax told us that real life player-GM disputes could be resolved by the game system (specifically, the GM's arbitrary powers to just make bad shit happen). He didn't address player-player disputes, though I guess he probably assumed the GM would just decide which player was the most "troublesome" and give them the same treatment.

Suppose that two players are both trying to talk at once, and neither will give way to the other and let them be heard. Is it wrong for the GM to say, "dice off! Roll 1d6, whoever rolls highest gets to speak first"? Would it be wrong for that to be in the game system? And why?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhy not?

Of course that's the way it's almost always done. But aside from "tradition", why should we not have in our game system things which allow us to deal with real-life disputes related to the game session?

I get what you're saying and I see nothing wrong with that, as long as everybody at the table agrees to it. The thing that gives me pause is getting everybody to agree to some ground rules for that, which may take awhile. You can buy a game system and it will have the rules you need for the game. You can't really go out and buy a set of arbitration rules for gamers themselves to adhere to during play. Nobody has yet published a gamer Code of Conduct, AFAIK. The closest thing to that currently is using the GM as Final Arbitrator of behavior at the game table - which isn't such a bad thing at all.

More and more I find myself wanting my games to be interesting as games in themselves.

By which I mean, I can take D&D3, and boil it down to a tactical combat game, entirely independent of the roleplaying element, and it will still be an interesting game.  

Fallout's SPECIAL system was actually adapted to jsut such a game, where they stripped out the rolepalying part, and turned it into an X-Com type tactical game.

Traveller's chargen makes such a good game on it's own, that it's become a favorite pasttime for me.  When I'm bored and can't think of anything to do, I'll roll up Trav characters.  

So I can't really accept a model where the system is nothing more than an arbitration method, because to me, that results in a system that jsut isn't interesting to me.

Quote from: jeff37923You can buy a game system and it will have the rules you need for the game. You can't really go out and buy a set of arbitration rules for gamers themselves to adhere to during play. Nobody has yet published a gamer Code of Conduct, AFAIK.

Yep, I don't think anyone has, either. Again, with the notable exception of old Gygax. But we're talking about what a game system is. Shouldn't we include what it could be? Or are we going to stick to describing just what is?

And isn't it true that there are some things in the game which apear to be for resolving disputes between the characters, but in fact are about resolving disputes between the players? For example, initiative in combat.
"Me first!"
"No, me!"
"Roll for it."

If you see an RPG as a structured conversation, obviously the rules you use will in part help to create that structure. They will influence the kind of things you talk about and the relative amount of time spent on any specific thing.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut we're talking about what a game system is. Shouldn't we include what it could be? Or are we going to stick to describing just what is?

Pushing the envelope is part of the reason why I posted this, I just wanted to get my starting thoughts in order on the idea (that's the describing part ). I see no reason why a game system cannot be used as a teaching tool, for instance.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd isn't it true that there are some things in the game which apear to be for resolving disputes between the characters, but in fact are about resolving disputes between the players? For example, initiative in combat.
"Me first!"
"No, me!"
"Roll for it."

I'd quibble here and disagree. Because it isn't the players who are about to engage in combat, it is their characters (which are extensions (proxies?) of the players, yes, but still not the players themselves).

Quote from: jeff37923Because it isn't the players who are about to engage in combat, it is their characters

But the players are going to roll dice and apply damage, right?  And the game doesn't work if they all do it at once, so they have to decide who chucks the dice first.

While i think that's arse about face. The system provides the framework and the GM acts as arbitration between the play group and the rules when necessary.

Quote from: J ArcaneTraveller's chargen makes such a good game on it's own, that it's become a favorite pasttime for me.  When I'm bored and can't think of anything to do, I'll roll up Trav characters.  

So I can't really accept a model where the system is nothing more than an arbitration method, because to me, that results in a system that jsut isn't interesting to me.

You find the Classic Traveller chargen interesting, right? Well, you could consider all those rules to be the common agreement between Classic Traveller players for character creation so that different players with the same book will have compatible PCs.

Going back to the language as a tool analogy, just because different people are using the same game system to arbitrate rulings does not mean that the content of play is diluted. It just means that the different players can communicate, but doesn't concern itself with what that communication is. The game system is not the playing of the game, it only facilitates playing the game.

{God, somebody shoot me if I enter too far into pseudointellectual territory.}

Quote from: TonyLBBut the players are going to roll dice and apply damage, right?

To their characters, not to each other. I'm trying to establish that a player is not the character, that they are two different things. A chess piece is not the chess player moving it, same thing here.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd the game doesn't work if they all do it at once, so they have to decide who chucks the dice first.

Agreed, but we aren't talking about which player goes first, but which player character goes first.

Quote from: jeff37923Agreed, but we aren't talking about which player goes first, but which player character goes first.

Well ... what if we were talking about which player goes first?  How would you say that people resolve that question?

Seems to me they roll for initiative, but maybe I'm missing the distinction you're making.

Quote from: One Horse TownWhile i think that's arse about face. The system provides the framework and the GM acts as arbitration between the play group and the rules when necessary.

I think we may be talking past each other. To use a law analogy, I'm looking at the GM as the judge while the game system is the laws (rules) that the Judge must interpret in implementation. To use the language as a tool analogy, the GM is the one facilitating communication between the game environment with the players and their characters while the game system is providing the common language to do so.

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what if we were talking about which player goes first?  How would you say that people resolve that question?

Seems to me they roll for initiative, but maybe I'm missing the distinction you're making.

Why not just use the social skills you have and use everyday? What if two people at work want to talk at once. Do they roll initiative? Not usually, in my experience. They work it out between themselves. Rolling dice is a rather coarse and clumsy thing compared to actual human interaction, so why replace human interaction with dice when it's not necessary? The players can deal. The Player Characters can't.

-clash