Using all a game's Mechanics - Designer responsibility?

[Zak Arntson]

Snipped from Math in games: why the stigma?

I think moreso than simply math, people are inclined towards certain types of resolution(by nature, by experience, who knows?). But some folks simply cannot understand basic math, some just can't get conflict resolution, some don't get metagame mechanics... I think it's more based on the type of person you are and how your brain works.

I can see if participants can't figure out basic math. That's not a design flaw. If you can't add two numbers to play a game (or perform logarithm, etc), then you'd better learn or find a way to compensate: A calculator, different game, let others do the math.

My question concerns the mentioned conflict resolution, metagame mechanics. and other parts of the rules. Is it the designer's responsibility to make sure the game supports their use? How far does this responsibility go?

Examples:
- When playing InSpectres, we've forgotten to do Confessionals entirely in two different sessions. Is this our fault through inexperience or forgetfulness? Or should the designer have presented the rules differently?

- When playing Chthonian Redux, the Players would forget they could Burn Safety for a bonus. I noticed this and started mentioning it to them before the roll. Since I'm the designer of course I'm going to know how the game works. But will other GMs remind their players?

I'm using this heads-up to make it very clear in the game's write-up. Rolling the dice consists of explicit actions, written down very clearly: Grab Skill Dice, Burn Safety (if wanted), Roll Dice. I even stuck the Burn Safety chart on the character sheet. When the dice are rolled I want every roll to consider Burning Safety.

- Dying Earth's rules are pretty complicated. We used less than half of them, I suspect, during play. We ignored a lot of trumping and special cases. It still ranks among the best roleplaying experiences. Should we have played using the actual rules? Or is the designer at fault for not presenting them clearly and coherently?

---

When a group forgets to use a rule, it's a design flaw. This is different than forgetting how to use a rule. That's easy, look it up. But when the group doesn't even know they should look it up; that's the problem.

I'm throwing this out there because I think it's something a lot of designers miss, and getting your design to match actual play is a serious goal/tool for the toolbox.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

This is a problem with which Ron seems to be struggling in Sorcerer. I can't even count the number of threads in which Ron has responded along the lines of "If you actually play according to the rules, then that perceived problem goes away." It makes the learning curve for Sorcerer somewhat higher than it would otherwise be.

[Mike Holmes]

It's an interesting phenomenon. I do think that a comment in the rules about the importance of using the rules as written is a possible solution (the problem is that this is one of those negative sttements, "Don't play like you play other RPGS!"). But it doesn't serve as a reminder in play. The more interesting way to design so that this is not a problem is to write the rules such that the rule comes up via the mechanics regularly. This way the players are reminded of it when this occurs.

As an example, in InSpectres, if you were only allowed the option to do a confessional on a roll of a Six, then such rolls would remind players that the mechanic is there to use. Not that this is a good example of actual design, but you can see what I'm getting at. Rules that are "tacked on" or unrelated to the normal flow of play will often seem opttional and will always get disregarded if play is rolling along. Even if rolling along badly.

For Sorcerer set up, what you could do is have a flowchart or checklist that the players are required to physically copy and fill out completely before they are allowed to play. Even with this, though, I'll bet experienced GMs will still ignore it thiniking it's stuf they can gloss over with their skills. Perhaps if they had to refer back to it in play somehow, such that if not completed it would make play impossible? Hmmm...

Not easy in any case. But a definite design goal in my book.

Mike

[Laurel]

(Assuming that you've done your best to write a functional game in a coherent format)

It seems to me that this is where independent game testing comes in.   If you personally test and test and restest, then ship the game out to be tested, tested, and retested and you keep an open mind and really pay attention to the trends in the feedback you get, and you make changes and do it again.... and again....

and finally, the system seems to have a simple elegance that you're proud to put your name on, and most players seem to catch on easily enough, I don't think you, the designer have any more obligation as to what players do or don't use from the rules system.  

I'm also a believer that just because a rule (especially regarding dice and dice pool modifiers) happens to exist, that it must be implemented if the instance of play is flowing smoothly and everyone is having a good time without it.

[Bankuei]

I believe that it is the designer's responsibility to provide the rules in a clear, easy to understand fashion.  While certainly there is going to be a percentage of the population who will never get it, ever, you cannot be expected to download the info straight to their brain.  

My best advice is to bring up the critical issues in examples, perhaps in multiple examples.  As a prime case, everyone forgets the roleplaying bonus in Sorcerer.  If that is a key element of design, it would probably help to make it show up in several other examples as a reminder of how widespread it is.  Likewise with Spiritual Attributes in RoS.  But it isn't your responsibility to have to repeat yourself, it just helps the less astute folks get on the same page.

This, of course, isn't the same thing as when folks choose to ignor rules on purpose(encumberance in D&D).  We ignored a lot of the Bloodloss rolls in RoS.  This occurs when the rule provides less benefit than the work involved in implementing it(at least in the opinion of the players).

As far as folks just not being aware of rules that are clearly stated, well, that's on them.  Especially if you put it on the character sheet as a reminder.  No amount of rules, design, or preparation makes anything foolproof(just ask Moses, Chinese Legalists, or any lawmaker).

Brief aside, I'm toying with the idea that it's probably a very good idea to put your goals/purpose of gameplay on the character sheet.  In the case of RoS, it's Spiritual Attributes, Whitewolf it's the "Enlightenment/Corruption" score according to the game, Sorcerer, "Humanity".