Quick ? about a couple of systems

[The GM]

Xiombarg says:

>>Lisa, I think the answer is that Vampire is a bunch of pieces that can be turned into three or more different games, which isn't the same as it being three different games. <<

Ok, I'm following you here. So what exactly, in your opinion, makes a game what it is? For instance: What makes a Vampire game? Is it setting? Is it genre? Is it techniques (system)? What is the key element here when you're classifying what a game actually is?

I'm really trying to pin down this technique business. How does it work? Why does it work? How can it be employed? How closely does it relate to any given game/setting? How can players and GMs adopt techniques that further enhance their play experience? Is there a way for troupes to actually create their own techniques? If so, how? etc...

I asked about WW and SR specifically because they have all kinds of 'how to' advice throughout their books. I know what the Rules have to say, but often those types of published Rules leave something out. Sometimes it's that certain something, that if added in for a particular troupe could make the game evolve from 'no go' to a riot of fun.

This stuff has been pretty dense material to really critically think through. Thanks for your view points, it really does give me some perspective.

[xiombarg]

Lisa, your question comes perilously close to: "What makes a thing that thing and not something else?" I'm tempted to start quoting Plato at you. ;-D

I think, in the context of this discussion, and in the context of GNS, that what makes a game is the combination of Techniques, which includes all of the things you mention. Ralph or Ron, who probably have a better handle on this than I, are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong and/or clarify and expand.

Regardless, there are a lot of threads on "What is a game?" You might want to look at those.

I asked about WW and SR specifically because they have all kinds of 'how to' advice throughout their books. I know what the Rules have to say, but often those types of published Rules leave something out. Sometimes it's that certain something, that if added in for a particular troupe could make the game evolve from 'no go' to a riot of fun.

First of all, I'm not sure why you think the "How To" advice is seperate from the "Rules". Both tell you how to play.

And you put your finger on why System Matters. Imagine, if you will, a system that didn't require that "certain something, that if added in for a particular troupe could make the game evolve from 'no go' to a riot of fun". Instead, that "certain something" was there from the first, so the "riot of fun" happens with no additional work.

An incoherent set of Rules that has to be Drifted into a coherent System in order to play takes a lot more work -- for anyone -- than starting out with the right rules in the first place. System, and Techniques, matter because they affect how much work is required in order to have fun. Ever heard of someone talking about "fighting the system" to get what they want out of the game? That, alone, shows the importance of System in terms of having fun, tho in a negative way.

This is why there are so many "rules light" systems out there. People get so used to having to fight the Rules to get what they want, that they come to the conculsion that the only way to get what they want is to throw out all the Rules. The Golden Rule in White Wolf exists because of this.

However, if you understand different Techniques, you can pick ones that don't simply get out of the way of play, but actively enhance the style of play you're going after. This allows you to build Rules (and, in actual play, a System) that makes things even more fun. In a well-written, coherent game, a troupe whose preferences match that of the game will have fun instantly, perhaps more fun than they've had in years, because not only do they not have to fight the Rules, but the Rules push them to do things that are fun in unexpected ways.

(Also, a coherent Ruleset can lead to people enjoying a mode of play they previously disliked, by focusing in on one clear instance of that mode of play that is fun. I mean, who would have thought Jared Sorensen would have enjoyed the Gamist elements of The Riddle of Steel?)

As for Techniques, I've touched on that a lot above, but re-read Ron's definition. A particular type of die roll is a Technique. A way of describing success and failure are Techniques. The way people apportion control of the game world is a Technique. How do you create a Technique? You've probably already done it. Ever create a House Rule, or interpret an ambiguious rule a certain way for your group, or adopt some sort of narrative convention for the group (like a certain hand sign that means "my character is thinking this but not saying it")? Congratulations, you've created a Technique.

How do you know what Techniques to use? You try them out and see if they work for you and your group. You can listen to the actual play of others (and descriptions of it) to get an idea of what Techniques might work for you, so you can narrow down the playing field, but the only way to really know if something works is to try it. That's why there's such an emphasis on Actual Play here at the Forge.

Actual Play is also how you figure out if certain Techniques work well together...

[M. J. Young]

I've run a Multiverser game set in what is clearly a V:tM world with the serial numbers filed off. The setting is not the game. You could use any of a dozen game engines to play in that setting, and play would be a bit different for each of them.

Parchessi, Sorry, and Trouble are all the same game, aren't they? You have four playing pieces which start in a start area. You must move each of them seven eighths of the way around the board and enter the home area. You can be blocked by someone else on the square on which you would land. In Parchessi you roll dice (usually from a dice cup, strictly speaking, as I recall), and treat each die as a separate entry; it is not possible to roll one, and if you roll boxcars but someone is sitting on the square six space in front of you you cannot move twelve. The dice can be split between two pieces. Sorry has you draw cards; this changes the probable results significantly, and some of the cards have special functions (go backwards instead of forwards, e.g.). One is included in the possible outcomes, and the card can only be used for one playing piece. Trouble has the popomatic dice cube, which guarantees that the dice will roll and keeps them from getting lost between games or falling on the floor in play. It also, as I recall, has the double track, so you can sometimes take the shorter inner track to get around someone on the outer track, or vice versa. So do these techniques make them different games, or just the same game? I tend to think of them as variants of the base game (which is Parchessi in this case), in the same way that we say Bridge and O Heck are Whist variants, and Gin Rummy, Michigan Rummy, and Knock Rummy are all essentially Rummy but with variations.

Now, are you no longer playing AD&D if you don't use the AC Adjustments by Weapon Type table (which it is rumored even Gary doesn't use)? Probably not. Probably there's a certain amount of material you can overlook, because it's the little stuff. If you couldn't buy a short sword, or there weren't any wood elves in this world, or the Drow all worshipped a good goddess instead of the demon queen of spiders, that wouldn't really change the game any. On the other hand, if you had to roll percentile dice to hit, or fighters could learn magic from spell books, or you spent your experience points to increase your skills instead of to go up in levels, these would all be substantial changes to the game. Arguably if you eliminate levels, or alignment, or proficiencies, or any of the basic aspects, you've made it so it's not the same game.

I suppose the test is, if someone came to your house to play the game who had played it before somewhere else, and you said, "In our game X", if there response is most likely to be "Yeah, X is cool" then it's probably still the same game tweaked a little for your preferences; if the response is most likely "But if X, then Y and Z, and that makes no sense at all", then you're not playing the same game.

The point about V:tM seems to be that you can't play it without discarding some of the rules, and everyone discards different rules--which is fine for playing a game with your friends, but very bad for playing a game in which people who play with other groups are likely to play with you, since they'll expect different rules to be enforced.

In a sense, incoherence is measurable by the probability that a new player in your group will say, "we never used that rule".

I think I'm starting to ramble.  I'd better stop.

--M. J. Young

[The GM]

Hmm...
Lots of good stuff to consider. Still don't know if I agree that changing Rules changes the game however. Here's an example of what we're doing right now that makes me lean that way.
Our current game is called Hunter. It's based loosely on Hunter's Hunter, Sorcerer (of the WW variety, not of the Ron variety) Demon Hunter X using the ST engine for Rules. The type of game that we're playing has a heavy Narrative emphasis. The question is: Would you sell your soul to the devil to defeat him?
Now, we're using stock WW rules for things like conflict resolution, order of turns, level of abilities, etc... The character sheets are straight out of the book. What we've changed is the way we're interpreting certain pieces of that puzzle. For instance, we're using the Humanity rating as a measure of how the premise question is being answered. For instance, if player 1 decides, 'yeah, I'm gonna bomb the bad guy headquarters, even though I know innocents will be killed' then that player addressed the premise question, and thus there's a measurable, real thing that occurs not only in game play, but on his character sheet too. Was Humanity really designed w/ that thought in mind? Probably not, but it's how we're using it. The way we've chosen to utilize that particular trait doesn't fall outside of the Rules, however. We've just applied technique to that particular Rule.
Now, the setting is completely different from WWGS' Hunter in any of its variants. We've taken setting elements from movies, books, theatre and the like to create something totally different in terms of genre and vibe. We use the splat books strictly for mining ideas about abilities and so forth, but the end product isn't recognizably Hunter:TR.
So do you call this a Hunter game simply because we use those Rules? Do you call it something else because we changed the setting? Do you call it a different game altogether because we're applying Technique to think of the Rules in a different light?
See, this Technique stuff can radically change an existing set of Rules. Kind of like changing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it.
Now, if that last statement is true ( let me know what you think) then could groups begin to really think of their games in different terms (in different techniques) while still keeping a game recognizable?
Yes, I understand that game designers should be thinking about this stuff ahead of time. A lot of times that hasn't happened. So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

Yeah, I know, figure that out, box it, sell it, become a gaming Warren Buffett. ;)

[Valamir]

See, this Technique stuff can radically change an existing set of Rules. Kind of like changing the spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. Now, if that last statement is true ( let me know what you think) then could groups begin to really think of their games in different terms (in different techniques) while still keeping a game recognizable?

This is why Ron insists that when someone says "back when we were playing original D&D" that they elaborate on exactly which version and which set of non canonical supplements they were using.  25 different groups in 1980 all ostensibly playing D&D were likely playing 25 different ways.  Some close enough to be considered just house rules variants and some so radically different from each other that if players swapped games they'd barely recognize what the other group was doing.  All them, if asked however, would have said "yeah we're playing D&D".  Many of them would have gone so far as to say the other group was playing "wrong".

So yes, its very important to recognize how different techniques lead to different, sometimes radically so, play experiences.  Is there a way to draw a bright line and say "past this point its no longer a variant but a new game".  Doubtful.

Its like those old maps of the world.  At some point they just scrawled "Here be Dragons" but they never actually drew a border around it.

Yes, I understand that game designers should be thinking about this stuff ahead of time. A lot of times that hasn't happened. So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

Yeah, I know, figure that out, box it, sell it, become a gaming Warren Buffett. ;)

One thing I've found here at the Forge is that it generally takes 3 or 4 threads just to find a way to actually describe the question accurately.  The first threads stumble around an idea, spend alot of time carving out "no that's not really what I was getting at" parts and then the threads sort of collapse under the weight of intense discussion.  

Some time later, the idea resurrects itself, gets bandied about again, hopefully with the benefit of links to the old thread so as not to retread old ground, and so on.  Eventually proto ideas like "decision points" and "Congruency" get worked out to become part of a more complete picture.

In other words.  Keep asking that question in different ways at different times, and eventually ideas about it will start to coalesce.

[Andrew Martin]

So now how does a group take the technique path that is right for them? Furthermore, how can gamers take a measured approach to creating or compiling their own techniques that works specifically for them?

Be different. Try out a lot of games and see what techniques work and don't work. Get players with different play styles, like munchkins, roleplayers, ruleslawyers, rollplayers, powergamers, and try out various game systems with them. Get feedback from players, "I liked that" "I hated that!" about various techniques, then get the best of the bunch and assemble those together and play test that again. Remove stuff that's redundant, shuffle the components and play test again. Keep an idea or description or vision of what kind of play experience you and your friends want; keep those techniques that work to produce that vision, discard those techniques that don't.

[Mike Holmes]

You seem to be caught up with the problem of naming the game, Lisa, which really doesn't matter at all. Who cares what you call the game? Is it Hunter, or isn't it? I don't know. Don't care. What matters is what the differences are, and how that'll affect different people who play. Because you'd agree that, even if we keep all of the setting essentially the same, that different systems would appeal to different people, right? I mean, consider that you can play that setting without a ruleset, or "freeform". That's a system, and one that some people just don't like. Then I could use GURPS Vampire (very easily, I have the books). Some people really don't like GURPS. I can play the original system, but some people don't like how that works.

Now these are gross examples, but even the smallest of changes can have an effect. I'd go so far as to say that every single group that plays every single game out there does so at least slightly differently. So you don't have any clear lines that say, "Here! Here's where it's this game, and here's where it's not any more." But every application of system has an impact on play. So System Does Matter.

I'm not sure where the confusion comes from. To say that System Doesn't Matter means that if you change systems that the experience will be so similar that it doesn't matter that you've made the change. Well, this is just not true. That's not to say that everyone has only one form that they'd prefer to play in or anything, or that all changes are make or break in terms of enjoyment. Only that differences in system have an some effect on how player's percieve the game, and can affect enjoyablility for some players.  

Mike

[xiombarg]

Amen to what Mike said. Name doesn't matter. What you're actually doing matters.

Lisa, it's obvious that you are running a very different game -- setting aside -- from the way, say, I would run Vampire, or even a Hunters Hunted game. And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System, and, as Mike said, shows that System Does Matter in terms of the experience of play.

And, if I came into that game, I would be confused by not using Humanity to enforce the personal horror "oh God I've become a monster" aspect of things, because that's what Humanity is for, IMHO, in White Wolf. So, for me, it would be a different game.

[The GM]

Mike says:

>>You seem to be caught up with the problem of naming the game, Lisa, which really doesn't matter at all. Who cares what you call the game? Is it Hunter, or isn't it? I don't know. Don't care.<<

Not really, except in the academic sort of sense. Our game could just as easily be termed 'Flash, Matt, Ton and Lisa's fun emporium.' That isn't what I'm terribly concerned w/. What I'm still trying to get at here is the idea of Techniques and the what, when, where, how and why of that particular concept. I'm interested in categorizing said techniques and events in the hopes that by doing so, it'll not only be easier to explain to players and GMs alike, but also w/ the thought that by being able to categorize techniques, you could then have a way of explaining how to create new techniques for any given game group. This is interesting stuff to me, because from where I stand, Techniques can make or break a game for any particular group. I don't know that my last sentence can be refuted, really. (Well, I guess it could be. ;) ) It just seems to make sense to me that if techniques are where the rubber meets the road for game experience, then the successful implementation of that idea could lead to great game experiences for any different number of people.


>>What matters is what the differences are, and how that'll affect different people who play.<<

Right. I think that's what I'm really trying to get at here.

>>But every application of system has an impact on play. So System Does Matter.<<

Sure, but if you'll read back through the thread, I've already addressed this.

Xiombarg says:

>>And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System<<

Ok, so you are saying that by changing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, you have now changed System? By the Rules, we've changed nothing about the function of Humanity, just the way we interpret (insert technique here).
If I've interpreted you correctly, that's a very interesting thought, and one that I'll have to mull over.  
Thanks again, everyone. This is helping me sort my thinkin' on the matter.

[John Kim]

And it's a direct effect of the way, say, you're interpreting Humanity. That's a different System

Ok, so you are saying that by changing the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, you have now changed System? By the Rules, we've changed nothing about the function of Humanity, just the way we interpret (insert technique here).  If I've interpreted you correctly, that's a very interesting thought, and one that I'll have to mull over.

Just wanted to put in a word about similar experience.  I ran many HERO System games which were pretty close to letter of the rules while still having very interesting personal moral conflicts.  I suppose the big change was that Psychological Limitation were generally role-played without recourse to EGO rolls.  EGO Rolls could be called for by the player if he was in doubt, or by the GM if he thought the act was actually out of character.  As far as I see, this is not out of the spirit of the rules, however.  

Now, I don't think that the HERO games we played were typical usage of the system, but I also don't see that we varied significantly from the rules as written.  I don't have any big conclusions from this -- just wanted to note my experience.

[greyorm]

Now, I don't think that the HERO games we played were typical usage of the system, but I also don't see that we varied significantly from the rules as written.

You know, John, I have an interesting parallel to that with my 3E game -- I didn't think it was being played all that differently from the rules as written, either, until a number of items were pointed out to me which made me pause and consider that other folks playing the exact same game (D&D) would balk at the minor alterations to the rules, even to the point that some of them would proclaim it wasn't really D&D anymore, that some essential element of the game had been removed for them.

[John Kim]

You know, John, I have an interesting parallel to that with my 3E game -- I didn't think it was being played all that differently from the rules as written, either, until a number of items were pointed out to me which made me pause and consider that other folks playing the exact same game (D&D) would balk at the minor alterations to the rules, even to the point that some of them would proclaim it wasn't really D&D anymore, that some essential element of the game had been removed for them.  

That's certainly a possibility.  Still, I have played and run in a number of HERO system games at conventions.  There have been occaisional grumbles (for example at how I interpret the Special Effects rule), but mostly they have gone over very well.  I have also experienced similar play in other people's HERO system convention games.  (Monte Cook has similar observations of HERO players in his rant on http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html">The Evolution of Munchkin, for what it's worth).

Now, convention play (as well as personal play) is selective.  I only played in con games where the description looked interesting to me, and conversely my descriptions gave an idea about the story content of my games.  Still, I think that at least there are a fair fraction of HERO players compatible with how I ran my games (although they might run their own games differently).

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Let's not forget that leaving stuff out is important too.

I played Champions for many years, with many groups and people, much as you're describing, John. Psychological Disadvantages might as well have been called "thematic responsibilities" at the player-level, and we didn't change a single numerical feature of the game ... or did we? What's hardest to hold fixed in the mind, unless you're thinking about it, is what got jettisoned.

My standards for allowable point-spending were extremely restricted. In my final game (3+ years), no character, PC or NPC, could exceed a ratio of 5:4 Active Points to Real Points. Defenses were not permitted over a certain level. Killing Attacks were flatly disallowed. We never used a hex map, and all modifiers based on "how many hexes" became GM's wavey hand. "Agents" (that's "mooks" for you youngsters) were taken out using the two-hit or one-hit principle. I disallowed Damage Reduction. Comeliness was required to start at 14.

It'd probably take me a day or so of dredging, but I think this list would go on for quite a while. The important point, though, is to say that I would have been extremely committed to telling anyone, at the time, that I was playing Champions, exactly right and exactly by the book.

Best,
Ron

[The GM]

Naw, I don't think you're doing the wrong thing by trying to be specific. Clear communication, no matter the business line that you're involved in, is a Good Thing (tm).
I think RPGs suffer greatly from a lack of clarity, and I further think this is bad for the hobby in general. After all, if there was clear communication, would there be mistaken stereotypes about what gaming actually is? Would the general population see gaming in a bad light if it weren't for ambiguous and often faulty marketing campaigns? How much easier would your (and every other game designer's life be) if they weren't fighting an uphill battle when it comes to bad press, propogated by stunning instances of miscommunication about the hobby?
Being clear is the best thing you can do, on so many different levels, from game play to game marketing.
Of course, others may have more to say on this. Just MHO.

[Ron Edwards]

Lisa's post above is actually replying to Matthijs in GNS and game success (split), which I was splitting at the time. All will be sorted out eventually.

Best,
Ron

Editing in later: 'K, all set. I'll leave the above two above posts here after all, just as archeological evidence of the kind of community we have here. Many thanks, Lisa!