Atkins-Friendly RPGs (Shooting Cows Part II)

[Shreyas Sampat]

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.

[Nuadha]

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.

[Shreyas Sampat]

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.

[clehrich]

It 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:

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.

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

[Nuadha]

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.

[coxcomb]

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[clehrich]

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.

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

[ascendance]

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.

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?

[clehrich]

Actually, 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

[ascendance]

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.

[coxcomb]

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.

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.