What makes an RPG work for you?

[Le Joueur]

Hey Kester,

Good question!

What makes a game world playable?

Note I don't mean the game system itself, but the game world.

I can see how it might seem how they're inseparable, but I take your meaning.  Before I list what I write to and look for, I'd like to talk about some of the commentary so far.

I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it.  Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

That's what I meant; the 'feel' of a game isn't just its world, but how that 'plays.'  Or how the rules bring the world to life.  It strikes me as one of the hardest things in design, to make the narrow-genre 'come to life' by the action of the rules.

I want to write a wide variety of games under the Scattershot label; to do that, I need to provide both a world and the "strict genre label" set.  Moreover, I have to get the Mechanix to direct things along narrow-genre lines more than a simple 'generic' game.  If I don't, it diffuses the impact of what I want people to play.

Jared alludes sagely to the 'easy to learn, lifetime to master' model of game orientation.  One which I am fond of as well, but more on that later....

If there's nothing about the world that is particularly interesting, nothing that grabs you and makes you say, this world is about this, then why are you wasting your time trying to create such a world? Use any generic world of the sort, and you'll save yourself a lot of work probably with better results. If you know what is interesting about the world you're creating, then pay attention to those details and don't waste a lot of effort on the ones that don't matter.

It's certainly different if you're working on an epic novel like Lord of the Rings. In that case, you really need a lot of background and detail, because your characters are going to explore them.

One of the things that I have noticed, and wonder if anyone else has, is that a lot of the discussion currently filling up the other threads in this forum are based upon premises that rely upon preconception of how things are, or rather should be, and thus what is reality is put through the sieve of assumption.

That's very true and bound up in the problems I felt inherent in separating 'the world' from the narrow-genre.  There are all these expectations involved, not just with the world, but with the narrow-genre; eventually, I gave up and kludged them together into the concept of Scattershot's Genre Expectations.

I don't think that's what M. J. is talking about, though.  I think he's talking about the K.I.S.S. principle.  I follow that religiously when working on our products (don't you wish I did that when I was writing?); I try to look at everything in terms of sine qua non (the elements of a creation that, deprived of any one of them, it ceases to be what it is).  I liked the idea so much I decided to base Scattershot's Persona Development Technique on it.  (Make your character as interesting as M. J. suggests a world should be.)

...It is very important for a game author to establish what is and isn’t possible in a game 1) by presenting clear and concise rules that are consistent with the milieu, and; 2) understanding that the rules of play are a separate entity from the world (and thus background setting) mechanic in which a RPG is to be staged.

1) "Consistent...."  Aye, that's the rub; like I said, I think rules need to do more than adjudicate reaching communal imagination of game events.  I believe it needs to "bring the game to life" along the lines of the narrow-genre in ways both subtle and explicit.  This is where I took to the 'carrot and stick' approach to offering rewards for 'reaching to the narrow-genre' in Scattershot's Experience Dice Mechanix.  It gives me a lot of latitude when creating different games; I can emphasize different parts of what I think are important in a Genre Expectation by what I put in.

2) Are you differentiating between resolution mechanics and narrow-genre 'reinforcers?'  One is traditionally spoken of as 'the physics' of the game world, the other is rarely spoken of at all.

Well, a game world needs conflict of some description. For my mind, the best conflicts challenge what a character finds important, his loyalties and ethics, challenging so helps define the character as a developed individual, and also as a dramatic movement (I've found doing this often cuts away the excess stuff to leave a character as "crooked as an old man's cane" or whatever). Anyhow, providing these challenges gives the questions that help a player define his character however

Yes, but how much description should an author include?

I’ve look at a lot of games available for “free” online.  Most start off by dumping pages of what are essentially short stories in your lap.  Short stories are fine, I have nothing against them, but IMO they have no place in a rule book.

...Would you want to suffer through them in a book that is suppose to be a game’s core rules manual?

I believe this stems from exactly what I'm saying about narrow-genre 'reinforcing' rules being almost unknown (as a principle).  What all these products do is substitute fiction as a 'how the game should be played' in their place.  I am most excited about games that practically toss out the resolution mechanics in favor of nothing but these.

As far as "conflicts [that] challenge," this is a hard thing to provide as a designer.  You can make a world dynamic and filled with tension and the promise of intrigue, but you can't force a specific challenge on all players.  (Well, Ron can with Trollbabe, but so far that's the exception.)  I think it's important for the product to work towards a sine qua non ideal (the K.I.S.S. principle again); a game should be as "crooked" as that man's cane.  A dynamic background should offer no short amount of hooks to inspire players to make characters around, but like Jared posits, it should open up as many possibilities with the least amount of components.

To this end, the best game world is one where the players have very well defined loyalties and values, and one where these are constantly threatened. To get this working as I wanted for my game Prespiate, I've found the best thing is a very small world, with a number of often opposing factions.

Intrigue.  Gotta love that, right?

Actually, I think you mean it should be intriguing (not intrigue in the courtly sense).  The game should have a certain mystique (I like that idea a lot too, so much so I applied it to both Personae and the game with Scattershot's Mystique Technique), it should seduce the customer, draw them in.  It ought to make them wonder 'what might happen' and offer them 'powerful tools' to 'go in and find out.'

I think working with a player's part in terms of its obligations and drives is good, but we probably shouldn't overlook their raison d'etre, any peril their player starts them with, their métier, their preoccupations, and any other hooks that interest the player.  One important, and outside of Narrativism overlooked, idea is what direction the player wants the character to go in (as opposed to simply the character's goals).  Any of these can take center stage and a 'game that works' will be very evocative or suggestive of the potential choices in some of these.

Allow them the freedom to create their own tools or use existing tools in exciting new ways.

Tools?

What, precisely, do you mean by that Obi Wan?

I think what Jared is talking about is back at the beginning of this post.  It's his 'easy to learn, a lifetime to master' approach.  Provided a game is purveyed as simply as possible (cut right down to the sine qua non) with narrow-genre 'reinforcing' rules (with possible resolution mechanics too, if needed), the simplicity of the set-up will dictate what ways the players could have their character approach the conflicts and mystiques of the game.  (Original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons had classes which functioned as 'super-tools' along these lines; you only had a few to choose from and the array of your party dictated what "existing tools" you had to deal with the scenarios possible within the game.)

Ultimately, I create and look for a few important things in games.  One of the major failings of 'detailed setting' games is usually the biggest difference between games and stories.  In stories, it isn't the rich depth of setting that interests you, it's the characters; you are cajoled into identifying with (or at least taking interest in) the central characters of the story, the setting merely exists to magnify aspects of them.  In games, you are that character; no such 'identification action' is necessary.  Many writers mistake the background's depth and detail for what really interests you in playing.  And what exactly is that?

No knowing.

You never know how the game will turn out; if you did, and in every way, how long would it keep your interest?  That's the point.  "What makes a game world playable" is having something to find out.  In some games it has to do with mysterious Circumstances to reveal, in others there are intense Relationships to become enmeshed with, in still others the spiral of tension is a Sequence you want to see bear fruit.

I have this list of things I break every game into.  Different games focus on different things, but I've not found anything not fitting my list pretty well:

Personae

In focus, you are interested in seeing what your 'piece of the action' is about, what it can do, what'll happen to it, or who it is.[/list:u]

Relationships

A game centered on these, tangles you in the lives of the characters and organizations connected in them.[/list:u]

Sequences

Not at all limited to just plots and ultimately climactic interactions, these focus on bits that 'go the way you expect them;' the superhero beats the villain, the villain returns in force, and so on.  Mission-based games focus on this, yet how many of them have

rules that accentuate the Sequence of the missions?  (Other than InSpectres, that is?)[/list:u]
Circumstances

Explore the haunted house?  Solve the murder?  Win the war?  These are Circumstances as a focus of gaming.  One problem many authors have is they mistake the Sequence of a horror movie with the Circumstances of its start (hint: the Sequence dominates).[/list:u]

Backgrounds

Yes, it's true, you

can have games that focus on richly detailed backgrounds, but alone such Backgrounds are flat without characters with some drive to explore them.  (They need something to suggest, create, or force this drive.)  Likewise a detailed Background is no substitute for not having a focus for the players to pursue.[/list:u]
Props

Hey, some games focus on the neat things you can pick up.  What they can do, what you could do with them, and what having them does to you; these are the sorts of grist for a truly Prop-heavy game.[/list:u]

Mechanix

Finally, there are games where it's all about the rules.  This isn't as bad a thing as it sounds.  I think

The Pool is an excellent example; if you aren't gambling your pool are you playing it right?[/list:u][/list:u]From these things, I look for the direction the game wants you to go (the 'what do the characters do' stuff in ways or the 'where the story goes' junk).  I find the hooks that I might build characters on, what potential drives or goals might be sought, what perils to face, and even what obligations to fulfill.  I also read the tone of the narrow-genre for what kinds of Mystiques to expect and what kind of character play will take.  Any of these things can motivate me to make a character and play (or a world to gamemaster).

(

Dust Devils is an example of a game that drips with character where the rules thrust the Personae into focus; resolving the content of the character they start out with is what the game is all about.  It may seem to follow the archetypical escalating tension Sequence common to the source material, but the timing of the resolution of the characters is under no such control.  Also it plays heavily upon implied tropes internalized by the players prior to getting the game, therefore succeeding at the principle of 'Keeping It Simple Silly.')[/list:u][/list:u]So "what makes a game world playable" is how it, in brief passages, it grabs your attention (in one or two of these fields) and makes you want to know what'll happen.

At least that's what it is to me and what I try to create.

Fang Langford

[M. J. Young]

If there's nothing about the world that is particularly interesting, nothing that grabs you and makes you say, this world is about this, then why are you wasting your time trying to create such a world? Use any generic world of the sort, and you'll save yourself a lot of work probably with better results. If you know what is interesting about the world you're creating, then pay attention to those details and don't waste a lot of effort on the ones that don't matter.

It's certainly different if you're working on an epic novel like Lord of the Rings. In that case, you really need a lot of background and detail, because your characters are going to explore them.

....

...I don't think that's what M. J. is talking about, though.  I think he's talking about the K.I.S.S. principle.

Half right, I think? I don't see how Kester's (edited) comments follow from what I said, but I'm not really saying to keep it simple per se. What I am saying is to be complicated or complex only where you need the detail, and to keep everything else as sketchy as will still support what needs to be done. As I've said somewhere, you want the game world description to be exactly as complex as it needs to be, in those areas that are going to matter in play.

For the application of this, I'll point to our Multiverser world books. They each contain one world of about fifty pages, with plenty of detail--not the same kind of detail, as one is about the strange places that cover the world and the other is about the strange people and their culture (although both include suggestions for encounters), but abundant detail. Both are designed to provide a wealth of possibilities for player characters to become involved, individually or collectively, in the events of the world. It also happens that each of them contains a world eight or nine pages in length. These worlds are completely playable as written, with everything the referee needs to run them. The eight page world, in fact, is a world with unlimited possibilities (the nine page world is primarily a linear story with guidelines for where to take it if the player doesn't take the hooks).

The point is that each world need to have the detail it needs to have; it needs to put that detail where the questions are going to be asked and need answers. I don't have to create details for a world if those details don't matter in play; the referee can invent something to fill the gap, and it won't particularly matter what.

That detail should be where the interest lies. It should provide what is needed to grasp what this world is about and have answers to the important questions. Whether it takes two pages or two thousand, when it's done the person running the world should feel like whatever questions are asked he either knows the answer or knows what sort of answer he should invent to fill the gap.

This is where I took to the 'carrot and stick' approach to offering rewards for 'reaching to the narrow-genre'....

I hope you don't mean that. The "carrot and stick" approach means putting the carrot on the end of a stick which is held out from the back of the donkey, so that the donkey keeps moving toward the carrot but the carrot keeps moving away, and he never gets any closer to obtaining the reward. Even with donkeys, they eventually figure out that they're never going to get the carrot, and they stop trying to reach it. People figure it out a lot faster.

--M. J. Young

[Le Joueur]

This is where I took to the 'carrot and stick' approach to offering rewards for 'reaching to the narrow-genre'....

I hope you don't mean that. The "carrot and stick" approach means putting the carrot on the end of a stick which is held out from the back of the donkey, so that the donkey keeps moving toward the carrot but the carrot keeps moving away, and he never gets any closer to obtaining the reward. Even with donkeys, they eventually figure out that they're never going to get the carrot, and they stop trying to reach it. People figure it out a lot faster.

Okay, ya got me.  What I use is more a trail of breadcrumbs.  If you want the reward, you go along the trail.  It's not a railroad, but a path well worn and taken willingly.  Players may leave the path without fear of repercussions, but it's always there seducing them along the narrow-genre.

I chose the 'carrot and stick' metaphor knowing full well how wrong it is; I'm kinda waging this personal war to correct people's mistaken ideas about it (hence the overusage).  Too many people have got this weird image that you offer the carrot when the subject behaves appropriately and hit them with the stick otherwise.  I invoke the metaphor even incorrectly to solicit this response, thus you illustrated the correct form and beautifully.  Thank you for helping in my cause.

By the way...

What I am saying is to be complicated or complex only where you need the detail, and to keep everything else as sketchy as will still support what needs to be done.

...each world needs to have the detail it needs to have;

That detail should be where the interest lies.

Which is the essence of the K.I.S.S. principle in world design; the idea is to keep it as simple as possible, not to oversimplify.  Well said here too.

Fang Langford

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Fang,

Hey Kester,

Good question!

What makes a game world playable?

Note I don't mean the game system itself, but the game world.

I can see how it might seem how they're inseparable, but I take your meaning.  Before I list what I write to and look for, I'd like to talk about some of the commentary so far.

I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it.  Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

That's what I meant; the 'feel' of a game isn't just its world, but how that 'plays.'  Or how the rules bring the world to life.  It strikes me as one of the hardest things in design, to make the narrow-genre 'come to life' by the action of the rules.

...

So "what makes a game world playable" is how it, in brief passages, it grabs your attention (in one or two of these fields) and makes you want to know what'll happen.

At least that's what it is to me and what I try to create.

I don't know about the last remark, certainly that would apply to a campaign or module, but the game world?

I'll assume you meant playing through the game world, since the game world is after all an integrated part of every campaign.

Even so this makes me wonder if a poorly written game world could then be made playable by decent campaign modules?

Is story really everything?

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Le Joueur]

Good question!

What makes a game world playable?

I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it.  Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

That's what I meant; the 'feel' of a game isn't just its world, but how that 'plays.'  Or how the rules bring the world to life.  It strikes me as one of the hardest things in design, to make the narrow-genre 'come to life' by the action of the rules.

...

So "what makes a game world playable" is how it, in brief passages, grabs your attention (in one or two of these fields) and makes you want to know what'll happen.

At least that's what it is to me and what I try to create.

Is story really everything?

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

Two issues, in reverse order: in answer to your last question, it depends.  That's right, there is no single 'right answer.'  In some games the background 'story' is more important, in others it's the 'story' "to be discovered" (although I'd argue the point of a background 'story' is also "to be discovered by the players").  Personal preference is king here and you cannot isolate any 'more important' quality, other then what's 'more important' to a single individual.  Caveat emptor!

Now the more important problem: who brought up story?  I spoke only of keeping the game to the minimum components that grab consumer interest (and enough else to 'keep it together').  That could be story, but it could be many other things.  (See my post about Personae, Relationships, Sequences, Circumstances, Backgrounds, Props, and Mechanix; any one of these is good enough.)  Usage of the word 'story' in this instance is only going to invite all kinds of misunderstanding (I know I don't understand); can you redefine your question ("Is story really everything?")

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Is story really everything?

This is a thorny question and I think I would have to rephrase your question to be accurate.

First of all, what is "story?" Yeah yeah there's the whole narrativist thematically satisfying yaddah yaddah, but that doesn't necessarily apply to everybody, does it? Not everyone incorporates what can called a "story" into their play. What I see is experience. Most human activity can be boiled down to the experience, which is sort of what exploration seems to be talking about, at least a little.

So the experience is the end-result of playing a RPG, so I daresay that is is very important if not the most important, although I hestitate to call it everything.

Now, the mention of "story" implies to me a specifc desired result out of the experience. I have often liked this to the description of the movie Magical Mystery Tour in the documentary The Complete Beatles:

"The Beatles along with some circus performers and some close friends travel the English countryside and filmed whatever happened.

"Nothing did."

Attention to the story seems to me to be taking pains to assure that something does happen. Something of interest to the players in some way, whatever that may be.

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

First, I think the mention of the pre-fab campaign module is out-of-place in this discussion since it assumes an awful lot, namely that the players are using a pre-fab campaign module which is a topic in it's own right.

I think that the most important thing about playing an RPG is the actual play of it. This is why I cannot understand people who write pages and pages of character history and world history beforehand. One common closed-minded refutal of Narrativist play is, "If I wanted to write fiction, I would just write fiction." What is writing such backstory if not "just writing fiction?"

This doesn't mean I don't like backstory, but I think that it can happen like it does in some fiction and film, where the backstory is learned slowly overtime though play.

But that's just my crazy opinion.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Le Joueur,

Now the more important problem: who brought up story?  I spoke only of keeping the game to the minimum components that grab consumer interest (and enough else to 'keep it together').  That could be story, but it could be many other things.  (See my post about Personae, Relationships, Sequences, Circumstances, Backgrounds, Props, and Mechanix; any one of these is good enough.)  Usage of the word 'story' in this instance is only going to invite all kinds of misunderstanding (I know I don't understand); can you redefine your question ("Is story really everything?")

Ok, let's see...  How about:

Are the interlocking series of details that serve as the foudation and corner stones of the underlying narrative, as pertains to the established game milieu, in both premise and design, really the "end all" of a given RPG's plot structure and rules of play?

I'm not sure that's the best way to put it, but it's a beginning.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jack,

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

First, I think the mention of the pre-fab campaign module is out-of-place in this discussion since it assumes an awful lot, namely that the players are using a pre-fab campaign module which is a topic in it's own right.

I think that the most important thing about playing an RPG is the actual play of it. This is why I cannot understand people who write pages and pages of character history and world history beforehand. One common closed-minded refutal of Narrativist play is, "If I wanted to write fiction, I would just write fiction." What is writing such backstory if not "just writing fiction?"

I can answer this.  Maybe.

It helps to establish stage dressing for what is going on in the world milieu.  In my own campaign of old it began much as you describe, pretty much free form havoc with free range player characters... of course after a while every player wants a *point* to the play session.  They want to know the why's and whatfore's.

What most of us fail to realize is that that is a very very GOOD thing.  It means the world we have crafted has become of INTEREST to the players.  Rather than penalize them, we should instead be happy to hear such questions.  Alas tis not always so.

Which, to get back to my point, is how I developed my world background; as needed during play.  Of course I further developed what I had so that, after a few game sessions, I had a "potential game" campaign plotted out for two months of "game time".  That included thumbnail outlines of possible intrigues, wars, plagues, and various other sundries.

Alas, as often happens, most of the players did their own thing... despite the 4x4 hints of potential adventure here and there that they seemed to brush off the shrug of veteran players who have that "special" die that always rolls what they want during saves.

Then again I also have been known to throw normal creatures at them in unusual ways and, for reasons I no longer recall, the players all recoiled in fear from sight of any ship sailing black sails.  Especially with red devices on them.  *shrugging innocently*

Of course when I threw potential side treks at them, being unexpected, they often either never took the necessary steps to properly take the hook or were non-starters.  Which is why having a lot of small minor sketchy details outlined for a world is helpful.  It gives the GM greater freedom to shape a story around the players actions.

But, like you say, the long drawn out stuff that says "this and this and such and such are so" are, for my money, pointless.

However, based upon observation, I'd say the following should be a rule in every RPG manual ::

A game world must evolve of its own accord out of the actions of the players, no matter how "idiotic" ;) a GM may think they are playing their player characters.

Of course, to me, "pre-fab module" doesn't equate with "commercial off the shelf module", but I see your point.  That is really what most pre-fab modules are.  And, truth be told, I guess mine really weren't modules so much as they were folders and notebooks full of notes and sketchy details.

*big smile*

Then there was that Crystal Sphere I created, populated, wrote up details about the in-Sphere politics, established thumbnails of religions, outlined squadron strengths, plotted planetary orbits (and named them) and yada yada yada only to find out my players did NOT want to play Spelljammer since the pre-fab store bought stuff mostly turned them off to it.

Don't know why.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

P.S.  I almost forgot the most important aspect of my game.  I made use of a "Rumour Mill".  Meaning I had a long list of rumors, indexed for use with a %ile roll, of information that the characters could stumble upon at any given time.  My players knew this and, when new players would come into the campaign, that was one of the first things they always would wrangle the new player to do.  Find out rumours, interact with the NPCs, etc.  Of course this also means keying encounter tables and having sketches of possible mini-adventures and side treks ready to hand.  But, for me, this worked.  Most of the time.

[Le Joueur]

Hey Kester,

...Can you redefine your question ("Is story really everything?")

Are the interlocking series of details that serve as the foundation and cornerstones of the underlying narrative, as pertains to the established game milieu, in both premise and design, really the "end all" of a given RPG's plot structure and rules of play?

Absolutely.  That's the whole and total sum of what the traditional game product can supply.  Pretty much everything else comes from two places, simply the players themselves and then from the interaction between them and the product.

So what does this have to do with the craft of design?  A couple of things, first of all, many writers stop at the point of creating 'the world' or the "story really everything."  'How to play,' or how to interact that to create a unique gaming experience, is something I struggle with all the time.  I want to instruct, but I can't put it into very good words.  Some of the most intriguing new designs are not at all about 'the world' but about 'how to play,' can someone who has tried it tell me if that's what goes on in The Pool?

Does that clarify my opinion?

Fang Langford

[erithromycin]

This may be redundant, but it's my opinion.

A game world is playable if there are things for the characters to do that players will enjoy.

- drew