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 :D ). 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
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.
I'm making a distinction between the players themselves and the player characters who are being played by the players. The PCs are the pieces the characters move in the game. While the players roll for initiative, they are rolling to determine which PC goes first - not which player.
Lets say a player has two or more player characters in game. The initiative roll would be done by the player, but a roll would be made for each individual PC. The PCs would not all have the same identical initiative.
Quote from: jeff37923I 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.
Which means, to my way of thinking, that the GM is the arbitrator, not the rules. I think i posted somewhere else that no game system survives contact with a gaming group. The game acting as arbitrator is fine when there is no conflict about what a certain rule or situation throws up; just look up the rule and hey presto! But where an area doesn't fit the group's preference or there is one of those many times when there is no rule or advice to cover what is being done at the gaming table, then the GM becomes the arbitrator between what the players want to do and the existing rules from the rule system. I don't think you can ever say that it's 100% one thing or the other or if you do, i'd think you're fibbing.
Arbitration:
The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.
Quote from: One Horse TownWhich means, to my way of thinking, that the GM is the arbitrator, not the rules. I think i posted somewhere else that no game system survives contact with a gaming group. The game acting as arbitrator is fine when there is no conflict about what a certain rule or situation throws up; just look up the rule and hey presto! But where an area doesn't fit the group's preference or there is one of those many times when there is no rule or advice to cover what is being done at the gaming table, then the GM becomes the arbitrator between what the players want to do and the existing rules from the rule system. I don't think you can ever say that it's 100% one thing or the other or if you do, i'd think you're fibbing.
Arbitration:
The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.
So you get what my meaning is, good. And I acknowledge your opinion that no game system survives contact with a gaming group.
Now, when the GM must make a judgement on a situation not covered by the rules does the GM not have the game system to use a reference guideline to make the judgement? I'm still processing all this, but I wonder if the mark of a good GM may be the ability to make arbitrary decisions on game play not defined by the game system (in the rules) - but still in the spirit of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.
Obviously, I'm going to need more beer for this. :D
Quote from: jeff37923Now, when the GM must make a judgement on a situation not covered by the rules does the GM not have the game system to use a reference guideline to make the judgement?
Absolutely. He also has his and his game groups' preferences and experience to draw upon. He marries up what is required with what guidelines he has to work with (the system).
Quote...but still in the spirit of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.
Change that to the "spirit of his gaming groups' likes and dislikes using the rules as a tool to facilitate that" and i would agree. The only spirit around my table is my groups, not the systems. Tone is another matter though...
Quote from: One Horse TownChange that to the "spirit of his gaming groups' likes and dislikes using the rules as a tool to facilitate that" and i would agree. The only spirit around my table is my groups, not the systems. Tone is another matter though...
I wonder if the mark of a good GM may be the ability to make arbitrary decisions on game play not defined by the game system (in the rules) - but still in the
tone of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.
Better?
Quote from: flyingmiceRolling 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.
If two players can just interact and decide things which are issues between players, why not the issues between characters? Careful, that way madness lies. Before you know it, you're putting on a leotard and doing improv drama.*
Initiative rolls are about which
character goes first, and at the same time also about which
player goes first. You do not usually find that the player whose character
lost initiative goes
first - unless the winning character lets them go first, sacrificing their initiative.
Fact is, players can't always sort their shit out. I don't think this is a new problem, if Gygax was writing about it in 1978.
Actually, mentioning AD&D1e makes me remember that its modern parody (or postmodern LARP) version,
Hackmaster - they've got rules for resolving disputes between the participants. Among other things, there's a HM Smackdown Table. If you diss the GM, then they roll on that, and maybe a demon appears to eat you, or a trap opens under your feet, or you lose a random bit of your loot, or... And when players diss each-other, they lose Honor if they don't respond, and... well, there's all sorts of stuff there, but I forget the details. Point is, it's got rules for disputes between the participants, not just their characters.
* Thanks to Screenmonkey for the joke, though he was referring to diceless games.
I've got to borrow Hackmaster and look at it, just for that.