the-Game-Design-that-will-not-Die (working title)

[Jason E Leigh]

Okay, so I've been working on this thing for nearly 4 years now, and while I'm not done in a formal sense, I've got notes spread across dozens of pages.

It's time to formalize the thing and playtest the hell out of it.  I've done sporadic playtesting and used that to guide my design so far.

So, I'm trying to design a game that captures a certain feel, namely cinematic.  I want the game to drive play toward relentlessly increasing tension, pushing toward an inevitible, probably explosive climax.

The question, the issue that I constantly grapple with, is that I don't care much what genre the game takes place in.  I don't have a specific setting or world history in mind.  I think the game should be able to support an action-packed, cinematic style of play across many genres - everything from martial arts to sci-fi to low-grade supers and lots of ground in between.

So, the question is, can I (or one in general) design a setting-agnostic game that focuses play enough to produce a cinematic feel?  More importantly, if such a design is possible, would it actually be as fun to play as a game with a specific setting in mind?

Games like Ron Edward's http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/">Sorcerer are setting agnostic, but they have a clear focus in terms of the type of character being played.  Is this type of focus necessary, or can a game design be both setting and character agnostic and still be able to reliably produce focused, functional, fun play?


Cheers,



Jason

P.S. - I'm mirroring this discussion, should there be any, on my http://www.deadpanbob.net/b2">blog

[Kesher]

Howdy.

Well, you might want to look at the Reverend Bayn's Wushu: The Ancient Art of Action Roleplaying.  It seems to me that it does exactly what you're talking about.  If not, it might help you find the focus for your game.  

To tell you the truth, though, from your post, I'm not entirely clear on why you're "grappling" with not having a specific setting.  Is it that you feel you should, for some reason, due the "cinematic" nature that you're envisioning?

Is it possible for you to give an example of play from two different genres?

[Jason E Leigh]

Kesher:

Yeah, Wushu is cool.  It's heavily focused on martial arts action - and I'm looking to design a game that could do that well, but also other kinds of action.

I'm struggling because, like Wushu, all the really, really good games I've read and played lately (Sorcerer, Capes, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc) all have either a really tight setting focus (such that to take the conflict resolution systems out of the setting wouldn't work) or a really tight character-archetype focus (such that to apply the mechanics to other types of characters wouldn't work), or both.

I can't think of one 'generic' game (with freedom of character type development and setting-agnostic) that I've really enjoyed playing.

Thanks for posting a response.  I'm working on a sample of play along the lines of the Structured Game Design thread sticked on the top of this Forum.

As I get the bits of it done, I'll post them here (and on my http://www.deadpanbob.net/b2">blog).

Cheers,


Jason

[Brendan]

I can't think of one 'generic' game (with freedom of character type development and setting-agnostic) that I've really enjoyed playing.

Sometimes the answer is part of the question.  Good luck with your design all the same.

[Shreyas Sampat]

So, I'm trying to design a game that captures a certain feel, namely cinematic.  I want the game to drive play toward relentlessly increasing tension, pushing toward an inevitible, probably explosive climax.

Two things.

First thing, your blog's "Comment" links say Comments (1) when there aren't any comments; it's a trifle confusing.

Second, and actually relevant to your design:

Cinematic is kind of a hard-to-define word. I think the best thing you can do for your game, at this stage, is to come up with a detailed description of exactly what you mean by it.

You make an interesting observation about games and character- or setting- focus, but I think that the strong constraint on character and situation are basically Narr-facilitating tools; you don't seem to indicate that that's where you're going, so I wouldn't worry overmuch about it.

[Kesher]

Yeah, Wushu is cool. It's heavily focused on martial arts action - and I'm looking to design a game that could do that well, but also other kinds of action.

I honestly have no Wushu agenda here (I've only read it; never played it), but I have to disagree with your assessment.  It certainly does martial arts well, but it's been adapted to noir pulp, westerns, fantasy, etc.  However, I might just be misunderstanding your views on "cinematic".  I'd throw in my hat with Shreyas that a definition of that term, in the context of your game, would be a good idea.

I can't think of one 'generic' game (with freedom of character type development and setting-agnostic) that I've really enjoyed playing.

Could you give an example here?  What games have you tried that met your criteria (char freedom/setting agnostic; I like that term, btw...), and why didn't you like them?

[Jason E Leigh]

Shreyas:

On the blog, yeah, I've still got some technical issues to iron out - and thanks for the feedback.

Also, re: Cinematic, (and for Kesher too), yep, I need to define that.  Right now, it's "I know it when I see it."

I'm not sure I agree with your contention that strong constraints on setting and/or character are stricly Narr facilitating tools.  I might be willing to go so far as to say they are required for a Narr facilitating design, but I think they have application in Gam and Sim facilitating designs too.

Kehser:

I've never played any of the Wushu adaptations, just the original.

As for an example, I can't think of a good indie-example.  The best examples I know well are GURPS and the Hero System - which both have their good points and have, at times, been fun to play.  But games like that usually require a monomanical creative vision on the part of one or two people to pull off well (at least in my experience).

The only indie-design that comes close is Fudge and perhaps FATE.  I've played the former, and to me it's really more of a game design tool kit.  I've only read FATE, never played it, so I don't want to speak for how it plays.

So, I guess what I'm looking for in terms of Cinematic is action, conflict, and constantly rising tension that drives toward an inevitible, explosive climax.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Games-to-see note: JAGS, EABA, and Pocket Universe. All independent, all much more elegant than GURPS or the Hero System. Whether you'll enjoy them or not, I don't know, but maybe good for comparative purposes.

Also, perhaps this thread is wandering a little? You seem to be trying to justify something you don't have to justify: the degree of focus. Whatever you say you're going with, from wide-open to "setting-agnostic" (I like that term!) to play-this-Trollbabe, we'll help you with.

Best,
Ron

[Jason E Leigh]

Ron:

Thanks.  Sorry about the lack of focus in the thread.  I'm working on an example of play ala the Structured Game Design sticky that hopefully will illuminate more where I need help.

I'm really not trying to justify anything, what I'm struggling with is this: I have a game design that thanks to a lot of help from the Forge (and from some personal gaming friends), is pretty close to being a workable design.

Where is fails is that it's prone to having spurts of 'dead-ball' syndrome (a phrase I think you coined).

It's been pointed out to me that this is becuase the game lacks one of the two types of focus I mentioned - either a tight character focus (i.e. everybody is playing a sorcerer) or a tight setting focus (i.e. Alyria).

And of course, leave it to you to bring up two games I've actually played but couldn't remember for some reason.  Yes, both JAGS and EABA fall into the category of game I'm talking about, and both are more functional designs than GURPS or Hero.  I'll have to give some thought to my experiences playing those two games and see if that enlightens me any.  It's been a couple of years at least since I tried either one in actual play.

Thanks, everyone.  I'd say let this simmer until I get my example of play done.

Cheers,


Jason

[Jason E Leigh]

Okay, so this is my problem: I have an otherwise functional design (that still needs a lot of editing, but it's playable) that is prone to 'dead ball' moments in paly for various reasons.

The game is set up for now to have a Step On Up engine in terms of the mechanics that aims at driving Story Now - i.e. it's a hybrid design.  Take my word for it that I think it works, for now, for the purpose of my question.

Would a set up like the one proposed in my example of play (it's a combination of some stuff from PTA, maybe CAPES and maybe UNIVERSALIS), help stave off dead-ball syndronme?  If you ran into a game prep session like this, would you think, 'hey, if the rest of the rules are like this, this'll be fun' or 'this is crap, and won't lead to any kind of focus for play'?

This would be an attempt to explicitly, with formal rules, deal with some social contract/expectations setting difficulties that have cropped up in playtesting.  Any comments, or thoughts would be useful.

This is the first bit of my Structured Game Design, I'll be doing more of this with other design questions I have.

An imaginary (mostly) game session played using tGDtwnD.
The players are:
Jake - who has a copy of the rules and has read them, and introduced them to his small gaming group.
Bill - Jake's longtime friend, married to Mary.  Experienced roleplayer.
Mary - Married to Bill, good friends with Jake.  Experimental roleplayer (in the likes to try new things sense).

Let's pull back the curtain and take a look.  Typical gaming den, littered with the toys of Bill & Mary's kids.  Card table with folding chairs.  Everybody's got a big stack of 3x5 cards, pencils, lots and lots of dice in 3 colors, and 2 colors of fancy poker chips.

Bill: "Why do we need all this stuff again?"

Jake (sighs): "To play the game, silly."

Bill: "What's this game about, anyway?"

Mary: "Yeah, what're gonna be doing?  I like elves, so I hope we can play elves – but D&D elves suck.  I wanna play real elves."

Jake: "You always rag on D&D elves.  Okay, so the first thing we have to do, actually, as a group is decide on what kind of story we're going to play.  We have to develop The Pitch."

Bill: "I can hear the capital letters there, Jake.  You said something about this pitch thing when we talked about this last week.  What is it, again?"

Jake: "Like a movie pitch.  Like we're movie concept developers or whatever you call them, and we're going to get five minutes with a major studio head to Pitch him our movie.  We all have to explicitly agree on the type of movie we want to emulate."

Mary: "Cool."

Bill (skeptically): "Okay.  But I thought you were the GM?  Isn't it your job to drive the plot?"

Jake: "Not exactly.  I do know the rules pretty well, so I guess I should be the Director – the GM if you will.  In this game, the Director doesn't provide the plot, they just make sure to challenge the character sufficiently."

Bill (shakes his head): "I feel a dead-ball night comin' on."

Jake: "Bill, give it a shot.  It might turn out to be okay."

Mary: "Yeah, let's try something new for a change."

Bill (holding up his hands): "Okay, okay, you win.  So how do we develop the Pitch?"

Jake (pulls a timer out of his gaming bag): "We set the timer for 20 minutes.  That's how long we have to come up with the pitch.  We have to be able to right down all the basic details on one side of a regular sheet of paper, in fairly big prints, like double spaced.  It'll be like the rules of the universe – the cosmology or whatever."

Mary: "Like axioms from Torg?"

Jake (nodding): "Kind of, sure.  Anyway, we start by discussing movies we like.  They have to be movies we've all seen, one's we thought it'd be cool to either be one of the characters, or at least be a character who could do that stuff in that world."

Bill (blurts out): "Star Wars..."

Mary (rolling her eyes): "I knew you'd say that."

Jake: "Okay, wait, I'll start the timer in a sec.  We have to stay focused.  We can't criticize each other's ideas.  You can't so 'no', 'but', 'however' like that.  You can say 'yes, and' thereby adding to the detail contributed by someone else."

Mary: "Right, like those improv classes you took..."

Jake: "Yeah, kind of.  Okay, so we should spend the first five minutes throwing out cool movies we've seen, then after that figure out quickly which two or three movies we've all seen and all liked a lot, and then spend the rest of the time talking about the details that we'll write down for our Pitch.  I'm going to start the timer...."

Mary: "House of Flying Daggers!"

Bill: "Star Wars!"

Jake: "Sideways."

Mary & Bill look at Jake and shake their heads.

Mary: "Heat!"

Bill: "Clone Wars"

Mary: "You already said Star..

Jake: "Mary, the rules.."

Mary: "Yes, and you already said Star Wars.."

Jake (shaking a finger): "Mary.."

Mary: "I said yes, and..."

Bill: "Deadwood!"

Mary: "But, that's not a movie..."

Jake: "No critique..."

Mary: "Fine.  Kill Bill, both volumes..."

Jake: "Okay, that's time on the movie titles.  I've seen Star Wars, and Clone Wars, of course.  Not House of Flying Daggers, and not Deadwood.  Seen Kill Bill.  Loved it."

Bill: "Me too.  I've seen all the movies, but I think I like Star Wars the best..." (holds up his hands).."followed by Kill Bill."

Mary: "You haven't seen Deadwood?  Are you living in a cave?  Yeah, I've seen all those movies too.  I like House of Flying Daggers better than Kill Bill, and Star Wars is okay, I mean I like it, it's just every time we play a game based on Star Wars it's never really like the Movies..."

Jake: "I don't know how you two manage to see so many movies...sheesh.  Okay, so sounds like we're going for Kill Bill meets Star Wars?"

Bill: "Yeah, like bad-ass ex-Jedi out for revenge against the Sith!"

Mary: "Ooh, better yet, how about ex-Jedi who, while they don't want to be Sith, blame Yoda for being a goody-goody and getting them excommunicated.  So they're trying to get to Yoda, kill him..."

Jake: "KILL YODA!  Volume 1..."

All (chortle).

Bill and Mary nod their heads.

Mary: "Cool, Kill Yoda.  I want my character to be tall, thin, with pointy ears and pale skin..."

Bill: "You always play an elf..."

Mary: "...with a purple lightsaber.  A real bad-ass too.  Tough as nails, rip your balls off kind of militant bad-ass."

Bill (sigh):  "Okay, I'd like to play a guy that has..."

Jake: "Stop, we're not doing characters yet.  It's cool that you're all excited, but bottle that enthusiasm and let's get to nailing down the details of Kill Yoda in the time we've got left."

Bill: "Okay, okay, so what's next?  We know we're going to be playing Kill Yoda, what does that mean?"

Jake: "Now we have to make sure we're all on the same page in terms of the game we're playing.  We need to spend the next ten minutes generating a set of statements about the two movie sources we've chosen.  The two types are "What if..." and "I really liked...".

Mary: "So, you mean we propose changes to the universe described in the movies with What if type statements and propose things we'd really like to see in the game with I really liked statements, right?"

Jake (smiles): "Yep.  We take turns going around the table until we've all passed twice in a row, and then we have a list of these statements to consider.  Since I'm the director, I get to start.  Same rules apply here – no critique of someone's statements is allowed at this point.  We'll be able to vote on them later."

Bill: "When are we going to play?"

Jake: "The rules say we can finish the prep in an hour if we stay focused and follow the rules.  So my first statement is this, 'What if strong emotional behavior isn't really a path to the Dark Side, it's just that the Jedi see it that way – they have a kind of monomania about the way they view the Force, and think everyone should follow their viewpoint.'"

Mary: "Cool.  Okay, I really liked the blood opera aesthetic of Kill Bill.  I want to see lots of fight scenes with visceral visual effects."

Bill: "I can't really think of anything..."

Mary: "The ultimate Star Wars fan can't think of anything he really likes about Star Wars.."

Bill: "Okay, I really like the cool things Jedi can do – the lightsabers, the deflecting blaster bolts, the TK the whole adolescent wish fulfillment fantasy stuff..."

Jake: "I really liked the complicated relationships in Kill Bill, the fact that there was more underneath the surface than just Bill being a bastard."

Mary: "What if the whole Sith thing is just a scare tactic set up by the Jedi – what if the Sith don't really exist, it's just a way for the Jedi to keep control of the Order and knowledge of the Force?"

Bill: "What if there is a lightsaber craftsman like the guy in Kill Bill – somebody who swore to never create another special lightsaber again, but will do it for our characters when he finds out we're after Yoda?"

Mary: "Can he do that with his statements?  Can he add an element to the backstory?"

Jake (shakes his head): "It's just a suggestion at this point that we'll all vote on later, so sure."

This goes on for the remainder of the 10 minutes allotted for this part of game prep.  Once the ten minutes are up, Jake reigns them back in.

Jake: "Okay, okay.  Now we've got a list of statements that we've put out there about our game.  Now we vote.  Here's how this works.  We each now take one of the statements, either one we said, or one somebody else said, and say something like 'this statement is true about the game'."

Bill: "That doesn't sound like voting..."

Jake: "I'm not finished yet, Bill.  Then, that statement is true unless someone else challenges it.  We each have 20 chips of Fate in front of us.  You challenge by sliding a chip of Fate out into the middle of the table and saying "I challenge".  Then everyone takes turns anteing up Fate on both the pro and con sides for the statement.  Once everyone passes once in a row, the voting is over, and if more Fate was placed in favor of the statement, it stands, if not, it's out.  Either way, all the Fate spent is lost."

Mary: "Is that a bad thing?"

Jake: "Well, Fate is the primary currency for the players in the game.  You'll use it during the game to improve and change your character.  So, the more you spend of it here, the less you'll have when the game begins."

Bill: "Is 20 chips all we get?  How hard is it to gain Fate?"

Jake: "Not that hard.  Most of the game is about how you manage that.  Certainly, if you spend a lot of Fate on challenges now, you'll be at a disadvantage in the start of the game.  But it's something you can overcome with smart play. " (shrugs).

Mary: "Okay."

Bill: "Yeah, got it.  Why can't we all agree that everything we just said is true?"

Jake: "We could, but it all has to fit on this paper, and it won't under the rules.  So we go through the statements and write down the winners in order.  We stop when we run out of statements, or when we run out of space to write them down.  This paper then becomes like a style guide about the game – it's a thing we can reference to make sure everyone's play is in line with our expectations starting out."

Mary: "That's neat."

Bill: "I don't know.  I don't want my play constrained to these statements.  That feels a little too much like railroading to me..."

Jake: "Bill, your play won't be restricted to this set of expectations per se, but we can refer to it when challenging your play later on..."

Bill: "Okay, I'm willing to see how it plays out.  Do you get to start off again, o mighty Director?"

Jake: (Shakes his head). "Okay, I say that the statement about blood opera and lots of cool cinematic, gory, visceral fight scenes is true..."

Bill & Mary (silence).

Jake: "Okay, going once, going twice, it's in!"

Bill: "Can I say a statement is definitely NOT true?"

Jake: "Yep, and it can be challenged too.  Sorry I forgot to mention that."

Mary: "I say that passionate emotions are not a path to the Dark Side statement is true, and in the game."

Bill (slides a chip of Fate out onto the table) "Challenge."

Jake: "Okay, we now go in order starting to the left of the challenger.  That's me.  I feel pretty strongly about this." (Slides 3 chips of Fate out onto the table)

Bill: "Hey, you said we could only put 1 chip..."

Mary: "No, he didn't."

Jake (smiles): I may have forgotten to mention that, sure.  Still, you now need at least 3 chips more to beat me.  Mary, your turn to ante into the challenge.

Mary: "I'm staying out of it.  You two piss testosterone all over the room."

Bill: "Rats.  Okay, fine, you win this one."
They continue this process until they end up with a list of expectations about the game that they add to their title and the names of their two references.  They'll move right into character generation next..



Cheers,


Jason
"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"

[Bill Masek]

Jason,

I like your "what if" and "I really like" rules.  They are clear, concise and I believe will focuses your game.  Its hard to tell, but it doesn't seem like you have much structure to how you determine which movies to start with.  (I can't say for sure though, since I've only read your example and not the rules themselves.)  If you gave that element of your game structure and your rules otherwise support it then it will work fine.

Best,
       Bill

PS:  If you're looking for other cinematic universal games, check out  http://forsakenrealities.webspace4free.biz/AlmostUniversal.html#a">Almost Universal and http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html">The Pool.

[Jason E Leigh]

Bill:

Thanks for the feedback.  I'm trying to put together a beta-test version of the rules.

Almost Universal is new to me.  I'm familiar with and have played The Pool and some of it's variants.

What movies to start with - and whether or not the rules give any direction in that regard is something I'll have to think about.  This 'super-structure' to provide focus is something new that hasn't been playtested much at all yet.  More playtesting will hopefully provide the answers.

Cheers,



Jason