Procedure of Play, Determined by Nothing but the Group

[Josh Roby]

How rigid does a guideline have to be in order to be a "procedure"? When if ever is it best to leave a guideline "loose"?

Well, these aren't terms yet, so they have no 'real' definition, so everybody will have a different response to this.  My own definitions follow.

A guideline is a suggestion and is usually (but not always) abstract.  "Include other players in your narration" is a guideline that I present in FLFS with some elaboration and examples.  It is a commentary on the game as played.

A procedure is an outline of steps that the actual players around the table perform.  It is never abstract; it is always concrete.  An example of this would be "When you address another character's Thematic Battery, sign the Spoils Scrip and hand it to that character's player."  You'll note that this procedure directly supports the above guideline example.  Procedures are part of the game as played.

The important distinction between guidelines and procedures are, to my mind, the fact that guidelines are stupidly easy to ignore.  There is a White Wolf book out there that advises players to eat healthy foods like vegetables at the gaming table -- no joke.  I don't know how that actually made it to print, because it's a terrible guideline even if it is good advice.  Nobody will follow the guideline (unless they already were doing so), and it's wasted space in the book.

Procedures, on the other hand, can mechanically tie into elements of game design such as currency, player effectiveness, reward cycles, and the like.  These are a lot harder for your typical player to ignore because they're pieces of the greater whole, rather than commentary on the whole.  They are also concrete instructions that are easier to follow -- the handing over of the Spoils Scrip is a nice, tangible recognition of behavior that includes other players.  Other players can see it happen and replicate it themselves.

Another guideline/procedure example would be in Buffy or PTA where it gives specific instructions on how to outline a whole season of adventures to ensure that all the characters get their spotlight and the greater plot moves forward.  It's just a guideline if you tell the player "uh, make sure they all get a chance to shine but make sure the story works out."  Once you start listing out episodes, naming them, giving them functions in the overarching campaign arc, then you've got procedures.

As for the second part of your question, it's often useful to leave some guidelines as guidelines and not systematize them into procedures, but (to my mind) you should only do this to guidelines that are not central to the game you're designing.  If I'm designing a game about the price of success, I'm going to make specific procedures for determining the price of success; I'm not going to get all nitty-gritty about how many shots get fired from a gun on full auto.

[jmac]

Beforehand I must say that my statement about necessary modification and all my points are strongly dependent on my vision of rpg (which is quite narrow as I found out, and it can be called Illusionism, I guess).

Here are couple of thoughts explained.

So, there is a GM and players, they want to play a game. They choose a genre and stuff bla bla, at last they've got a game that fits. Now GM is to prepare something like a story or guidelines for a story to be developed during play. To work, these should fit the genre and meet other requirements, but most important - story events should be percievable by the players and make them react to them (hooks or whatever you call such stuff). Acceptable types of those hooks are limited by personalities of PCs, personalities of players and skills of players to play their respective PCs.
The system itself and it's application is definitely linked with this "mechanism", so design can't be done completely independent of particular players or, at least, GM.

The second point is about passing information through game media - game designer is actually passing information about system (including procedure of play) to potential players. It's hard to tell something without addressing particular general stereotypes and knowledge, which definitely differs from one gaming party to another. We read the rules, try to understand them and come across those referencing parts. Then, if reference is not intuitive enough we investigate, what author had in mind and try to replace it with something appropriate. That already is a modification, that can ruin a game - it's like localization in computer games.

I wonder what is better - to play original, but possibly misunderstood, or localized but actually different. But here - we make such "localization" on our own and conciously take  the responsibility. Something from Open Source Software stuff comes to mind.

There is hardly a doubt that RPGs are very personal kind of entertainment - we can never blame another for his approach which helps you not, but any hint to positive or/and creative case of communication should be celebrated and encouraged, and never to be restrained in any way.

[lumpley]

Elliot, Joshua: I use "procedures" to refer to the actual procedures in play, as enacted by the real people at the table. Thus I'll say things like "the procedures described in the game text" or "whatever procedures you're using, whether you learned them from a rulebook or not."

A "guideline," therefore, would be part of a description of a procedure, or a hint at a procedure, or a description of a class of procedures, or a description of a bound on a procedure, or something.

Seems straightforward to me.

Ivan: I think it's awesome too that you've identified your preferred approach to roleplaying. I can see that you're already thinking about how your attitude toward game designs goes along with your goals for play - all I can really do is point out that, for non-illusionist play, other attitudes toward game designs can be more productive.

Cool!

-Vincent

[Jason Lee]

I'll put aside that there is no conflict between the original statements for a moment.  I think that's important, but I suppose not what is trying to be conveyed.

Good design does not, in my experience, endure modification well.  That's just part of having something focused.  The greater integration between parts of a system then the greater the consequences to changes within that system.  The nature of compromise is that neither person is happy.  From where I'm standing that makes "focused on game design" and "able to endure modification" paradoxical. 

Think of something like FUDGE with a clear purpose.  Though you can add alot onto it, the system itself is just a base and if you start changing elements of that base you're better off just starting from scratch.

If we take Illusionism as an example, my group has intentional engineered the ability to engage in Illusionism out of the system.  Because of the structure of passing information between players, it becomes impossible for the GM to adjust the results of player actions.  Changes to allow Illusionism would ripple throughout the design to the point of no longer having a Conception -> Proposal -> Validation -> Integration structure and resolution would be confusing, and again you're better off starting from scratch.