This came out of my initial response to Ron's "Narrativism" essay, in one section of which he describes games that have Premise-addressing built into their mechanics but then bury it under a hefty amount of Setting, seducing players towards more Simulationist tendencies. One of his main examples is Robin Law's Over the Edge, which Laws claims to have initially run based on a few notes scribbled on a sheet of paper, but then included the setting that later developed in the published version of the game.
Also, Ralph's recent thread about Shooting Sacred Cows (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9546) made me think about the cows that follow all game designers around and tell them what "real roleplaying games" have to look like.
This caused me to think:
1. Are detailed settings one of roleplaying's sacred cows?
and a related point...
2. Are 100+ page rulebooks (most often filled with setting and subsystem mechanics) another sacred cow?
and, answering "yes" to both of those, ...
3. If I was someone interested in roleplaying, what kinds of things would provide obstacles that would keep me from actually roleplaying?
Answer A: "Detailed settings that I have to read about and digest before being able to realistically portray a character that's supposedly familiar with such a setting" (again, this isn't necessary for good roleplaying, but many beginning roleplayers have expressed this concern to me).
Answer B: "100+ page rulebooks that seem intimidating, even if I don't have to know every rule in them. They don't seem to put me on even ground with players that have invested all the time to get to know every facet of the game. I'm not THAT interested, frankly."
Time to load both barrels and take aim...
Here's the problem. Game designers like designing games. Not a huge revelation. And, since most game designers enjoying playing games, GMing games, developing complex settings and characters, making neat mechanics to cover all aspects of what we want play to look like, and (perhaps worst of all) imagining what our games might look like as 300+ page hardbacks with gorgeous cover art, we design and design and design and design, with no end in sight.
How many times have you heard game designers saying stuff like "Well, we wanted to include information about X and Y, and a cool system for Z, but we just ran out of room in the book." Hah! What a crock! We all have this sick need to publish everything cool that we come up with, whether it really supports what we're trying to do or not. After all, some gamer out there might be bummed out because X isn't in the book, so we better make damned well sure that we said something about X, otherwise that poor gamer is not going to know what to do.
So, my current design goal is this: Atkins-Friendly RPGs. Horrible name, I know, but descriptive. High protein, low carb RPGs. Or, in the words of Sum 41: "All Killer, No Filler." None of that gratuitous setting packed in to fill up those extra 50 pages that you feel your RPG needs to give it bulk or to earn real respect. Cool ideas DO NOT immediate translate into things that get published. Are they really critical to the game? No. Stop. Think again. I know it's frickin' unbelievably cool, but does it really matter?
Here's the benefits:
1. Less intimidating and more accessibile.
2. Less prep-time before play begins.
3. You don't have to write those extra 50+ pages.
4. Actual writing time cut to a fraction (might take more time to decide what to include, though).
5. You can focus on presentation and clarity of communication.
6. You can afford to print your game, since it's much shorter.
Games already following this model:
-- Everything Jared ever wrote.
-- Dust Devils & Nine Worlds.
-- My Life with Master.
-- Kill Puppies for Satan.
Wouldn't that be great company to be in?
You can add PUNK (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9371) to that list too. Once I make the PDF and host it on my webspace, that is. :P
Hi Jonathan,
No credit for Sorcerer? I'm the one who took the industry brunt for the team! "That little thing?" Geez, you shoulda seen them at GAMA 2001, and heard all the helpful and sorrowful advice that my vision was all well and good, but you see, only these kinds of games (gesture toward piles of typical whatnot) are what people want.
Only the heroic efforts of Liza Fulda and my native slightly-menacing cheer kept me from getting squished like a bug.
More seriously, Over the Edge is by Jonathan Tweet and all the passages you are referring to are written by him. Laws wrote a very important essay which is included in the game, but it has nothing to do with the aspects of the game which you're using here. My essay's pretty straightforward about that, I think.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsGeez, you shoulda seen them at GAMA 2001, and heard all the helpful and sorrowful advice that my vision was all well and good, but you see, only these kinds of games (gesture toward piles of typical whatnot) are what people want.
Hopefully, the No-Press Anthology will act as a sort of Trojan horse, packing several short-form/no-filler RPGs into a book of more familiar thickness than the average PDF game.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsNo credit for Sorcerer? I'm the one who took the industry brunt for the team! "That little thing?" Geez, you shoulda seen them at GAMA 2001, and heard all the helpful and sorrowful advice that my vision was all well and good, but you see, only these kinds of games (gesture toward piles of typical whatnot) are what people want.
Sorry, Ron. I didn't really realize that
Sorcerer wasn't one of those massive tomes because... and this is a little embarassing to admit... I don't actually own
Sorcerer... or
Dust Devils... or
Donjon... or any of Jared's games...
Yes, I'm a bad, bad man. Let me buy books for next semester, first.
More seriously, I realize that my point is not the same point Laws was making, but I found it very informative. Makes me want to make really solid, really short games. Less than 36 pages, printed on heavy stock, hardcover, maybe even full-color art, sideways-oriented, 11x8.5", like they do with children's books. Nothing threatening about that.. Very friendly and approachable.
My initial, gut reaction to Jonathan's initial post is "what the hell are you talking about?"
This smacks of attempting a paradigm shift. When paradigms shift, they tend to swing like a pendulum. The effect is not unlike stearing a car by turning the wheel all the way to the left, then when you go to far to the left, you turn the wheel all the way to the right.
On the one hand, I do agree that murdering one's darlings is important. A game should contain what is needed to play. No more. No less.
Jonathan seems to be talking about less is more. Sometimes, however, less is most certainly less.
Quote from: Jonathan Walton1. Less intimidating and more accessibile.
The idea of accessibility is like a tissue paper umberella. Fact is, most people who would be interested in RPGs are not aware of their own potential interest or, worse, have tried a game or two, such as D&D, and believe that
all roleplaying is like that and therefore are not interested.
Couple this with that most people do not learn roleplaying from the book, and the nature and size of the book diminishes in importance.
Quote2. Less prep-time before play begins.
By this, I believe, you're refering to reading the book itself before play. With a shorter book, the reading of it may indeed be shorter, but the prep time may still be considerable. I believe Ron had said something similar about his prep time. I don't have time to search for the thread a the moment, but the gist was that Narrativist play has just as much, if not more prep required as any of the other modes.
Quote3. You don't have to write those extra 50+ pages.
4. Actual writing time cut to a fraction (might take more time to decide what to include, though).
5. You can focus on presentation and clarity of communication.
These three go together and in here there is something patently false. Pascal once wrote a lengthy letter and appologized in the postscript that he did not have time to write a short one.
That is #4 is a contridiction. Actual writing time cannot be cut to a fraction if it will take more time to decide what to include. Taking time to decide what to include
is writing. and to get it concisely yet clearly expressed, you might write thousands of pages to save those fifty in the final draft.
Quote6. You can afford to print your game, since it's much shorter.
This may be, but this will depend of printer's costs. I'm given to understand that many preffer numbers of pages in a multiple of some number 12 or sixteen. I don't recall. Assuming 12, if your book is 55 pages long, you book will be 60 pages long with five blank pages at the end. This, I'm sure, varies.
QuoteAnswer A: "Detailed settings that I have to read about and digest before being able to realistically portray a character that's supposedly familiar with such a setting" (again, this isn't necessary for good roleplaying, but many beginning roleplayers have expressed this concern to me).
I'm going to disagree here, too. If the setting is not, wherever you live (and many RPGs are not since the sharks have laser-guided lasers on their heads) then it will have to be learned or else having an exotic setting is just plain worthless or, well, let me see if I can explain...
From this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9268&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15)
Quote from: M J YoungLet me pull out a Multiverser example. I was test-running Orc Rising, a setting rife with moral difficulties. The short version is that it's a post-fantasy world in which magic is fading and pre-gunpowder lifestyles are on the rise among elves, dwarfs, and men; these "free peoples" are destroying the jungles in which the orcs live in primitive tribes, and are enslaving the orcs they capture, because that's "better for the orcs" than living their primitive lives in the jungles (we give them the benefits of civilization, a work ethic, better living conditions, longer lives, and some of our advanced knowledge). I can drop people in this world and they turn it into a narrativist issue-driven game in minutes. However, the first player I brought there made a game of exploring how the men and elves and dwarfs were building their worlds, how the economies worked, how they traded with each other--he skirted the moral issues almost completely, getting no deeper than to buy himself a slave, inform the orc that he should consider himself free, but probably should stay with him so that there wouldn't be any questions about his status.
Emphasis mine to pull out the revelvant bit, which was unfortunately not very useful without the full context. MJ doesn't give us more information about how the player played. Was the PC a native of that world or someone from our world dropped into that one? The reason I ask is because the way this player handled slavery was from a more modern day American sensibility than a sensibility native to this world. That is, in MJ's world, Orcs were less than a human, dwarf of elf, even if, in fact, they were not (Hath not a Orc eyes? Hath not a Orc hands,..). The sentient races believed that Orcs were lesser. For the player to treat one as a more-or-less equal is out of character for the setting.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've sort of made a roleplaying career out of being such a character. But, if the setting is not properly understood, the pandora's box that such a character should open winds up empty.
Moreover, let say we're going to play a game set in the Aztec empire. What is this world like? I don't know about you, but aside from Zigurats in a rain forest, I have no idea. There's the old saying: "write what you know." A companion saying, which I think I read in a Harlan Ellison book is "know what you write" which refers to the importance of researching your topic when writing. I suggest "know what you play" is a good guideline to follow or else any setting will be wherever you are in a fancy dress.
Jack, I don't think we're talking about the same thing, really.
I'm talking about the need for the eqivilent of "Cheap Ass RPGs" in a market totally dominated by "Axis & Allies" and other similarly complex, high investment games. I'm talking about RPGs that you could pick up and start playing, effectively, less than a couple hours after purchasing. In most board games, you learn to play by... well, playing. Roleplaying too, but the amount of investment most games require to get to actual play, is not usually, in my experience, "worth it" to people who are beginning roleplayers.
As for the whole "well, it's necessary to play in an exotic setting" argument. That's my whole point. Why do we always need an exotic 200-page setting? Can't we trust player groups to do that for themselves? Can't you hint at the kinds of things you're thinking about and let them make up the rest? Or maybe even build in simple systems that will assist them in developing complex setting.
Yes, you'd still have to find someway to get the book into the hands of people who don't know they'd enjoy roleplaying. Yes, it might take just as long to write, because of having to distill out the good stuff. Yes, you'd probably still have to print it in multiples of 12 pages. I don't think those are insurmountable obstacles.
Also, I said: "So, my current design goal is this..." Not "All roleplaying games should be written in this way." Some people will always love 200+ page games, but I don't think those people are my target audience.
Hi, Jonathon
QuoteYes, you'd still have to find someway to get the book into the hands of people who don't know they'd enjoy roleplaying. Yes, it might take just as long to write, because of having to distill out the good stuff. Yes, you'd probably still have to print it in multiples of 12 pages. I don't think those are insurmountable obstacles.
First, I'm glad you agree. I hope you can see how I thought by your numbered points that you didn't think so.
What you seem to be talking about is a heavy focus on situation. Or, perhaps that would meet your goals here. Situation is the 800 lb gorrilla because it sort of contains a coule of the other elements of roleplaying, namely character and setting. Color and system may be heavily implied, but in a big way, I think Situation = setting + character.
The trick may be to provide enough that not only tells you what to do, but inspires one to do it and to riff on it, while not providing too much which would stiffle the very thing you're trying to inspire.
Here's my sacred cow I'd like to seen slain. The belief that the ultra-light, sparse style is anymore attractive than the other options. Its not, its proven itself to appeal to a very small subset of gamers, and really only those gamers so far. For every anecdotal story about how a sparse game brought in people who never thought about gaming before I can point to other stories about how the WoD in its most baroque did similarly (or Tweet's beautiful over the Edge as a personal example).
The sparse barebones style Jonathan describes is pretty available to the cream of gaming thanks to the internet, and I don't think its proven itself as a solution to bringing in new players. Improved the theoretical, cutting edge of the hobby? Sure has. But those are too entirely different things.
So as long as we're slaying sacred cows lets start with here.
Quote from: Jack Spencer JrWhat you seem to be talking about is a heavy focus on situation. ...The trick may be to provide enough that not only tells you what to do, but inspires one to do it and to riff on it, while not providing too much which would stiffle the very thing you're trying to inspire.
That's a nice distillation of my very stream-of-consciousness post. Yeah, I guess "roleplaying concentrate" would really just be total Situation: you hand people characters and setting and cut them loose, kinda like you do in running demos. Or, if we're trying to encourage fuctional play, what you really need to hand them is Situation + suggested Creative Agenda(s).
I really think the vast majority of roleplayers (and especially newbies who aren't set in their ways so much) can exhibit behaviors all over the GNS spectrum, as long as you push them in the right direction. So if you throw Situation at them and then say "so the point is to explore the 'shoot or give up the gun' question" or "try to be the first one to reach 100 gold" or "isn't it so cool? look, you're time travelers!" they'll know which direction to head in, pretty instictively (and especially if that type of play is supported by the System).
I cross-posted with Jere, but I wanted to respond to him too...
Jere, again, I think we're looking at different sides of this issue. Are short, low-carb games commercially successful right now, to the point that they're getting a lot of press and publicity? No, not really. All the buzz is always about the 200-page tomes. Even when stuff like Fudge goes to press, they pack it with 50+ pages of sample setting, just to beef it up. But roleplayers tend to think that "more is more," not really caring if it's stuff they'll actually use in play.
But look who's publishing the short-but-sweet games. Small indie presses with little advertising budget, who aren't usually carried by major distributers and retailers. The only real exception I can think of is Hogshead's New Style line, and that was a pretty interesting operation that James Wallis ran there.
I really don't think that "ultra-light" games have had their place in the sun yet. The internet is great, but it's not everything. And, honestly, while there have been a bunch of low-carb games on the net, they haven't been of any consistent quality and rarely had the resources (graphic design, artwork, budget, advertising, extensive playtesting, pre-existing audience, etc.) that the larger companies can leverage.
So I don't think you can blame the lack of commercial success or general appeal on the format itself.
I'm in the middle about this. On the one hand, I alway advocate very, very compressed prose; on the other, I write long posts and essays, and my game project is over 100 pages for volume 1 alone, with volume 2 looking to be double.
I think the sacred cow of length is a sacred cow only conceptually: lots of people focus on length when it should be the last concern.
1. Huge setting, background, and whatnot information
Some love it, some hate it, but value depends on the setting and world in question. The important question is whether this actually serves the game project, not how long it should be.
It should be long enough to cover what needs to be covered. Begin at the beginning, go on until the end, then stop.
Sometimes you need an enormous amount of material; sometimes, it's unnecessary; usually, you should be in between. But do not make this decision based on any of the following:
-- how long should it be?
-- what are other games doing?
-- what seems to sell?
-- how much material do I have from my campaign?
2. Sparse/dense prose
Overcomplicated, confusing prose is easy, and sucks.
Sparse prose is difficult, and works.
Dense prose is fantastically difficult, and works for some purposes.
These go in progressive order: you take the first and trim it to the second, then squeeze it to the third. To agree 100% with Jack, sparse prose takes more than twice as long to write as does complicated, rambling prose.
For the vast majority of games, I see no reason to take sparse prose and compact it ruthlessly. Most readers don't like this sort of prose, because it demands considerable work from them simply to understand. Most settings also don't go well with that sort of prose, stylistically speaking. In general, aim for sparse.
3. Audience
This is what's getting ignored. If your audience has wide experience with RPG settings, you can hand them something with no setting and let 'er rip. If your audience has experience with your setting because it's close to their actual experience, you can drop almost all of the setting, focusing only on differences from "reality." If your setting doesn't really matter much for what the game is about, you can present it very quickly and not waste time. Often, more than one of these is true (cf. Sorcerer).
If none of these is true, you need significant background presentation.
4. Commercial considerations
Does your publisher have strong opinions about length? Take this into account, but if everything else pushes the book to be long and they say it should be short, or vice-versa, then find another publisher.
Are you certain that your potential purchasing audience has strong opinions about length? If so, and your book varies widely from those opinions, then you have either (1) misjudged your audience or (2) written a game that they won't buy anyway. Rewrite the book thoroughly, or pick another audience, or consider whether you really need to make money with this anyway. Padding or slashing to make someone else happy, be it a publisher or an audience, will lead to tears.
Sorry. I'm feeling wordy today.
Chris Lehrich
Chris, you nailed it in one.
That's really what I was trying to say. Ignore everything else and just read Chris' post, instead.
Sheesh :)
Quote from: Jonathan WaltonBut look who's publishing the short-but-sweet games. Small indie presses with little advertising budget, who aren't usually carried by major distributers and retailers. The only real exception I can think of is Hogshead's New Style line, and that was a pretty interesting operation that James Wallis ran there.
I really don't think that "ultra-light" games have had their place in the sun yet.
Hrrrm. There have been a lot of short-but-sweet games during the history of RPGs, some of them by fairly major publishers.
FGU's Bunnies and Burrows (1976, 36 pages)
Metagaming's The Fantasy Trip (1977-80)
Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying (1980, 32 pages)
SJG's Toon (1984, 64 pages)
Uncle Morty Productions' Dinky Dungeons (1985, 30 very small pages)
FASA's Masters of the Universe RPG (1985)
TSR's Conan Role-playing Game (1985, 32 pages)
Reindeer Games' TWERPS (1988)
Crunchy Frog's Duel (1992, 36 pages)
TSR's Amazing Engine (1993, 32 pages)
BTRC's Epiphany (1995, 48 pages)
This is all prior to Hogshead's New Style line and other recent efforts like Land of Og, Pocket Universe, Pokethulhu, QAGS, Sketch!, and Soap.
I tend to agree that page count is not a good indicator of newbie-friendliness. Games like Pantheon and Soap tend to confuse non-gamers as well as experienced roleplayers, IMO. My favorite for newbies would be something like James Bond 007. Simple and familiar premise, characters with missions, excellent modules. I agree that games can be made shorter and still be newbie-friendly, but I also think this is a lot of hard work.
Quote from: Jonathan WaltonJack, I don't think we're talking about the same thing, really.
As for the whole "well, it's necessary to play in an exotic setting" argument. That's my whole point. Why do we always need an exotic 200-page setting? Can't we trust player groups to do that for themselves? Can't you hint at the kinds of things you're thinking about and let them make up the rest? Or maybe even build in simple systems that will assist them in developing complex setting.
Unfortunately, this is directly contrary to the stated goal you made earlier of reduced prep time.
Speaking of which, there have always been the equivalent of Cheapass Games in the RPG industry. In the early days, there was Toon, TWERPS, and even Tunnels and Trolls, where monsters were abstracted to a single number.
What we should be looking at is ways of making those 200-page settings more accessible to the new player.
White Wolf did a spectacular job of this by building all of its games around the idea that you were an ordinary person until one day, you suddenly turned into an
, and the splats themselves were made easy and accessible for new players. This works, even though its gotten a little stale with each successive White Wolf game. Everway allowed people to build stories around visual images, rather than textual descriptions. Heroquest has gone a step further by distilling foreign cultures into a two page format, on the basis of what your parents or village wise person would have told you.
All three of these approaches should inform any future games with 200 page settings.
Ascendance:
You assume that "develop complex setting" means "develop complex setting prior to play".
I'm going to assert that any realistic "Atkins-friendly RPG" will make no attempt to do such a thing; the emphasis should be on "development in play". Variants of The Pool demonstrate the power of this approach admirably; I believe it has a force of significance that is fantastically difficult to replicate with prior-to-play development.
I agree that overly complex settings may intimidate potential new players and possibly scare them away from trying games. Also, the expensive cost to get into many RPGs is another hurdle for games to overcome.
However, the settings are usually what gets people interested in a game in the first place. I ran Changeling: The Dreaming for years, despite an extreme dislike for the system, because I liked the setting. I also never felt that all the supplements were necessary for the enjoyment of the game.
My philosophy in the game settings I have designed has been to keep the settings interesting, but accessible. It should be close enough to something the audience will be familiar with, so they can identify fairly easily with the setting. If it's a fantasy, it should have enough of the fantasy cliches to be recognizable, but enough twists to be original. A GM shouldn't have to spend much time explaining what the elves are like or what dwarves are, because....presumably....the audience has some familiarity with D&D or Tolkein.
If it's a modern day world, you've already taken a huge step towards the goal.
A detailed setting description is a plus, not a minus. However, there is no need to make it a 300 page all-color book as has become popular in the industry. Start with enough detail to get audiences interested and then make supplements the GM can buy without requiring players to fork over a lot of dough for a core rulebook.
I disagree again.
It is an interesting setting, not a detailed one, that is a plus. Detail does not correlate with interesting, either.
Honestly, I don't care about the census data of nameless farming towns - but I do care about people in those towns, if I were brought up by the blacksmith, who has a long-standing rivalry with the miller-sorceror, and I'm inheriting the feud with the miller's shapechanging demon children.
Similarly, I think it's cool to be psychically-gifted people who fly around space in ships that are actually giant, bioengineered trees. I do not think it is cool to have starmaps of my empire, or speed and acceleration figures for my treeship.
Yes, that's an extreme example. But you can probably get the major thrust of the Changeling setting across to me in a paragraph, and that is the kind of setting that works. By trying to expand their idea into a 300-page book, WW introduced all kinds of thematic and logical inconsistencies, married the setting to a system that didn't work for it, and otherwise basically hamstrung the game.
Quote from: Shreyas SampatIt is an interesting setting, not a detailed one, that is a plus. Detail does not correlate with interesting, either.
If I read you right, Shreyas, you're saying that detail and interest are not necessarily connected. This I'd agree with. But I do think that a tremendously detailed and complex setting
can be a plus. The problem is that some game designers seem to assume that a detailed setting is automatically an interesting one.
Let me borrow one of your examples for clarity:
QuoteHonestly, I don't care about the census data of nameless farming towns - but I do care about people in those towns, if I were brought up by the blacksmith, who has a long-standing rivalry with the miller-sorceror, and I'm inheriting the feud with the miller's shapechanging demon children.
Okay, but that same data
could be very interesting. If you examine 16th-century Friuli (a backwater of Italy), for example, the quick sketch version of what's happening doesn't make it particularly different from any other agricultural backwater [read: nameless farming towns] of Catholic Europe. But if you get really up-close and personal, as it were, you'll find that there are all these weird agrarian cults running around, distinctive to Friuli, and Inquisitors trying to figure out what the hell is going on -- since they have a radically different picture of what popular religious movements are about -- and a very, very complicated picture of village and town life. Everybody's interconnected in weird and complex ways, and there are funny little secrets in every corner. Carlo Ginzburg's
The Night Battles (translated from his
I Benandanti, 1966) reconstructs a lot of this interesting complexity. Now that's an interesting setting, and a very vibrant one. It won't come out from a quick sketch, either; a lot of detail will be necessary to keep this from seeming like the benandanti (the local cultists) are a big organized block opposed to the Inquisitors, which simply isn't true -- it's a gross oversimplification that really misses a lot of the lived details of the place and the period. So to do this setting well, you'd need lots of detail.
To return to your example specifically,
which miller?
Which blacksmith? Are there more than one of each? Millers were often literate and relatively wealthy -- is this one so? What do they think their feud is about? Is that a feud that both sides interpret similarly? What do others think it's about? What do the Inquisitors think is going on, if anything, and have they even noticed? If the Inquisitors do investigate, what happens to those accused and convicted? Why? If the two sides are feuding about shape-changing, and the blacksmith interprets this as demonic, how does this translate into actual day-to-day feuding: does the blacksmith refuse to shoe the miller's horses, or make his tools? does the miller steal things from the blacksmith? And so on. I could readily see at least 5 major factions here [miller, blacksmith, other peasants, nobility, clergy], all with totally different interpretations of what is actually going on, and the further possibility that nobody is actually correct about any of it (assuming that you, the GM, care to work out the "real story" at all, which isn't necessary in itself).
My point is just that a lot of detail can be necessary to explain the interest of a complex setting. On the other hand, the fact that it's detailed doesn't ipso facto make the setting interesting, which I think is your main point. Similarly, a lack of detail doesn't translate into a good setting, nor can all interesting settings be explained in brief form.
I just think that this focus on how settings "should" be done, in terms of length, is missing the point, the sacred cow that has to be shot. The proper question is how to develop an interesting setting; then you just take as long as it needs to explain it -- which might be a paragraph, and it might be 300 pages.
Chris Lehrich
I think anyone would take the interesting setting over the detailed one. Still, if it's interesting and detailed, I have no problem with that. Once again, because it is the setting that will get me to try a game.
Detail for detail's sake is bad. That doesn't mean every game that comes out with a very detailed setting is bad. I agree that White Wolf mangled a great concept by connecting it to a system it didn't work with (as well as losing sight of the "feel" the original books created), but I don't fault them for putting out all the supplements. Some of the later supplements were some of the best ones I've read. Most of their Kithbooks were entertaining reads with tons of inspirational material that was not necessary to have....but was worth getting if you liked the game and had the money.
To my mind, the value of setting is one of context. Because RPGs are generally stories set in worlds that are not (or at least not entirely) our own, players need some help understanding how their characters fit into that world and how they should act within the context of that world.
Personal preference and play style dictates how much setting context a player needs. Some of the games listed earlier in the thread as being setting-light but setting-interesting can get away with it because of one of two things: either a.) the game uses the real world plus an easy-to-grasp premise or b.) the game uses a setting that is based on a very familiar style of fiction.
An example of type a is Sorcerer: as a default, just use our world + demons. Once you tell players what they need to know about demons, they can assimilate that premise with their knowledge of the world and go.
An example of type b is Dust Devils: the rules very clearly identify the type of western movies that they are emulating. Anyone who wants to play is either already familiar with the genre or can easily become familiar with it.
Other games have settings that cannot be so easily explained. For example, any game based on The Lord of the Rings would rightly provide information about the major factions and social groups of Middle Earth. This provides context for the players ("My character is from Bree, what does that mean about who he is and how he views the world").
Providing setting context can cross one of two lines into peril:
The first is when setting becomes force. Good example of this phenomenon can be seen in most White Wolf games. Werewolf (to use an example that I have actually played) could easily have gone down the same road as Sorcerer. That is, they could have established real world + Werewolves, given some general facts and set players loose. Instead, they have factionalized and stereotyped PC options in such a way that player control of character issues can be stifled.
The second is when color is confused with setting. Setting provides context when it is painted in broad strokes, not when it feels like a chore. The detailed history of a world, the obscure rituals of its people, the shape of the coins used in different nations--these things are color, not context-providing setting. Mind you, color can provide context for players as well, but when it is masquerading as vital setting elements, it more often intimidates than enlightens.
In the end, you can provide no setting or tons--depending upon your preference as a designer and player--as long as that setting adds context and value, it's length is not an issue.
J Walton: Isn't it possible to please the somewhat large market of current gamers (who use big books) and be accessible to newbies?
I mean, all you do is write a pamphlet sized game. Then you write the expanded version on after (if so inclined). And you make it clear (on the back of the book too) how big the pamphlet section is (page count and all) and that that is all you need to play in five minutes. The rest appeases those who want to go futher as well as the designers own setting and kewl idea desires.
It'd be quite easy to make sure knowledge of the rest of the book setting/rules wouldn't help you in the pamphlet version of the game. As to setting, you outline a microcosm of the world…no 'Oh, the problems with orcs and men'. Just outline there are caves/forests to explore. And I'd really suggest making it a Vs type game, with the GM having limited resources (but some leeway to design some situation). If you want to be accessible, you want to get away from 'Well, that GM or whatever they call him…he just makes stuff up!'. Indeed he does…but lets not be jaded gamers and expect everyone new to the hobby to accept that off the cuff. 'GM Vs players' might not be considered at the heart of roleplay and thus dirty or something to build in, but it is accessible.
Anyway, pamphlet with chunky bits right behind, if you want them (and the pamphlets rules strictly say that you either play small version or large and say so…blurring the line will suck). Also design some sort of quick game session development bit, so the GM doesn't have to spend much more than five minutes if he doesn't want to.
In the end, small books are like ordering pizza and big books are like a well stocked kitchen. Indeed, the pizza is good and accessible. But having a well stocked kitchen for those times you want to really make something special, that's good too.
The really important thing is to not focus on either side, really. And yeah, the well stocked kitchen is rather over focused on in the industry, your right. But best to learn by their mistakes. Don't focus too much on the opposite side of the spectrum.
6: You can afford to print your game, since it's much shorter.
I have heard some distributors (and there aren't that many big ones) do not want to distribute something small, in the RPG market. Just what I've heard, probably due some research.
More seriously, I realize that my point is not the same point Laws was making, but I found it very informative. Makes me want to make really solid, really short games. Less than 36 pages, printed on heavy stock, hardcover, maybe even full-color art, sideways-oriented, 11x8.5", like they do with children's books. Nothing threatening about that.. Very friendly and approachable.
Does this say to anyone else 'Coffee table RPG?'. Something with lush pictures (full bleed) in it that's to be left around on coffee tables to be idly flipped through (or where ever, I'm not too in touch with what a coffee table book is). The few rules you have are laced through in Vivaldi font, and perhaps their tied to some premise like 'The rules of the snake/whatever critter or interesting thing', so the rules almost sound like a story that ties into the title. Very under the radar approach. But clearly by the same token it wouldn't storm any gates. But it just sounds like a fascinating little niche to explore.
Quote from: NoonJ Walton: Isn't it possible to please the somewhat large market of current gamers (who use big books) and be accessible to newbies? I mean, all you do is write a pamphlet sized game. Then you write the expanded version on after (if so inclined). And you make it clear (on the back of the book too) how big the pamphlet section is (page count and all) and that that is all you need to play in five minutes. The rest appeases those who want to go futher as well as the designers own setting and kewl idea desires.
Actually, I disagree. Ron's spy game (attached to the Nar essay) is a nice example of a very short game, and we could all point to lots of others. There's a bit of general setting-concept, but the thing is that the game doesn't in any way require more setting -- and in fact, adding a bunch wouldn't really add anything to the game. If your game is such that minimal setting works well, it seems to me unlikely that it is
also one that would improve dramatically with a lot of setting materials.
Chris Lehrich
QuoteActually, I disagree. Ron's spy game (attached to the Nar essay) is a nice example of a very short game, and we could all point to lots of others. There's a bit of general setting-concept, but the thing is that the game doesn't in any way require more setting -- and in fact, adding a bunch wouldn't really add anything to the game. If your game is such that minimal setting works well, it seems to me unlikely that it is also one that would improve dramatically with a lot of setting materials.
Well, minimal setting works for some things, and not for others. With regards to a spy game, we're almost all passing familiar with spy movies, and if we wanted to do, we could easily do more research by watching some spy movies or reading some spy books (Body of Secrets, by James Bamford, is highly recommended, as an aside).
At the same time though, if the goal of the game was to create a realistic (i.e. sim) spy game, then a GM and a bunch of players might need more details. What's the difference between the CIA and the NSA? What are the French intelligence branches called? What kind of training do FSB field operatives receive? What kind of guns can be concealed past airport security? How much does it cost to bribe a customs officer in Budapest? Those are just random questions I came up with off the top of my head. Now, while some people are willing to make stuff up to answer those questions, or google, others want those questions answered right at their fingertips. And that's why we have detailed settings.
There are many examples of settings that don't need much explication. Zany Warrner Bros. cartoons, trashy splatterpunk, and generic action movies come to mind. In all of those genres, setting is rather secondary to the actions of characters. It doesn't matter if Jason is hacking people at a campsite, or on a space station. It doesn't matter if Bugs is making a fool out of Daffy Duck as layabout, or as Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a half century. And nothing matters in generic action movies except where the next batch of mooks are coming from.
On the other hand, just as with the spy example mentioned above, in many books, movies, and even games, the setting is almost like a character. It becomes even more important if you're big into sim, and want to feel like you're really interacting with Middle Earth, or the Matrix, or whatever.
On a more practical level, I like detailed settings like, for example, the Forgotten Realms, because I'm just awful at coming up with names on the spot. And if I don't have to name the next country over Legendaria as the players go there, well, that's a serious plus in my books. I can always turf out the stuff I don't like, right?
Quote from: ascendanceQuoteActually, I disagree. Ron's spy game (attached to the Nar essay) is a nice example of a very short game....
....At the same time though, if the goal of the game was to create a realistic (i.e. sim) spy game, then a GM and a bunch of players might need more details. What's the difference between the CIA and the NSA? What are the French intelligence branches called? What kind of training do FSB field operatives receive? What kind of guns can be concealed past airport security? How much does it cost to bribe a customs officer in Budapest? Those are just random questions I came up with off the top of my head. Now, while some people are willing to make stuff up to answer those questions, or google, others want those questions answered right at their fingertips. And that's why we have detailed settings.
No, I meant for
that spy game, not spy games in general. I'm a big fan of John le Carre, for example, who likes very complicated backgrounds, and I find the intricacies of the CIA/NSA and whatnot lots of fun. But Ron's game doesn't require any of this; it's not the point, and if you added it, you would distract from the point.
If you wanted a spy game that
does require huge background, it wouldn't be the same game at all, and it couldn't (I hope) be distilled down to a pamphlet.
That's my point. It had been suggested that games should be written as both a pamphlet and a long version, the difference being setting. I would think that for Ron's game -- a pamphlet -- a huge additional setting would be not only unnecessary but damaging. Similarly, if you did a game based on the details of some hideously complicated espionage web (fictional or otherwise), I would hope that a pamphlet version would suck: that is, if you stripped away the background you'd have a completely pointless or banal game.
Chris Lehrich
So... we come to the inescapable conclusion that some games work as pamphlets, and some games require long and elaborate settings, and are the better for them.
Maybe what we need to discuss is how to make the short games more appealing and more marketable. They clearly exist, both in print and in PDF.
Quote from: ascendanceMaybe what we need to discuss is how to make the short games more appealing and more marketable. They clearly exist, both in print and in PDF.
That's a relatively simple thing to do. If you want to write a "short" game that people will play, you need to provide enough context to "hook" players within the scope of your manuscript. As I said before, look at Sorcerer and Dust Devils. Both are perfect examples of providing enough context for players to get a handle on who their characters are without delving into detailed setting.
As for marketable--that's an entirely different kettle of fish. If by marketable you mean able to sustain high-volume sales (relative to the industry anyway) you may find that setting is your best friend. It is setting books that keep many game lines limping along financially. Also, a lot of roleplayers that I have talked to about this sort of thing are reluctant to "buy into" a system that isn't "supported". In this context supported usually means "for which new books are being regularly published".
If by marketable you mean "interesting to enough people to justify publishing", I don't think there is really a problem with short games.