An Objective Standard of Quality for RPG's

[Jeremy Cole]

I know this may seem like a minor distinction, or possibly no distinction at all, but I think the quality of an RPG has to be evaluated in the context of what it actually does, not what it was made to do.

Yes, this is what I have been saying.  AD&D is the classic example, while other threads have shown it can be used with a narrative focus, it really does functionally support gamism play best.  To review the game and state that it was designed as an all three hybrid, and play attempts in this way collapse, is to ignore that people like this game.  However, to say that it mostly supports gamism, and then review on these grounds alone, is also to ignore a lot about playing the game.

To say that people could concievably use the system for ... and on these grounds it works ... , would I think, give a better review system.

More coming...

[Jeremy Cole]

I think what is needed is a system of reviewing the varying elements of the mechanical system, from character creation to mechanic resolution, and special rules and whatever else.  These mechanics could be assessed on how well they meet different methods to play the game.  Such a review system could be very helpful for potential players and the designer alike.  "Experience is based on kills totals, giving incentive for gamism priorities" or whatever.  Here people could take in the statements about the game, and assess it to their own play style.

Jeremy

[M. J. Young]

We are standing in the tool section looking at hammers.  Hammers of different weights, hammers with smooth heads and waffled heads, hammers with straight claws and curved claws, sledge hammers, framing hammers, hatchet hammers, ball-ping hammers, a crap load of hammers that are similar and different in various ways.  Design intent and success are irrelevant to the consumer.  Just tell me what hammer works best for my specific need

All right, so let's look at hammers. My father had a sledge hammer, a ball peen hammer, a claw hammer, a tack hammer, and a mallet.

You could, in theory, drive nails with any of these. But if you use the sledge hammer, you're probably going to hurt your fingers--because even though you could probably put the nail in the wood on a single stroke, you can't easily manage the hammer with one hand while holding the nail with the other, and you're going to hit your hand. The tack hammer would also do the job, but it's light, and the amount of force it will transfer to the job is going to make it take forever. The mallet might not even do the job; you're going to do a lot of damage to the mallet trying to drive the nail, although eventually you would probably succeed. Only the ball peen and the claw hammer are really designed for the job. Ah, but the claw hammer has that extra feature: if the nail doesn't go in right, this is the tool for pulling it back out again. It is designed for the job.

But if you want to drive railroad spikes into the ground, or force wedges into cut tree trunks to split for firewood, the claw hammer just doesn't have the heft. You want a sledge for that.

And your claw hammer will probably flatten tacks and brads so quickly there won't be anything left of them, not to mention that the heads on many of these are too small for the claw to grasp. A tack hammer is much better for that sort of application.

And if you're wanting to snug up the joints in furniture, that claw hammer will leave unsightly marks on the surface which you might well avoid by using a mallet.

And the ball peen is a much better design for working with sheet metal.  It has the extra heft and the shaped head.

So which hammer is best for the job? It apparently depends on the job. But saying that any one of these hammer is no good because it's not a claw hammer is missing the point. And saying that Pendragon is no good because it doesn't convert easily to space opera, or Little Fears is no good because the combat system fails to account for the potential damage of LAWS rockets on closetland monsters, or Axis and Allies is a terrible game because it doesn't give you any insights into the personalities of the commanders, is equally missing the point. You have to judge the tool based on its intended use, not on your particular needs or preferences.

Now, as for the distinction between what the game designers intended to create and what they actually created, that is a much more difficult question. That sounds a bit like saying "these guys accidentally created a good game which was not the game they intended to create". I'm not certain what to make of this. DeadEarth is a horrible game, but the depth of medical information in its disease section is worth the price? It calls to mind images of Springtime for Hitler from The Producers, when the characters have attempted to produce a broadway flop and wind up with a runaway success comedy. I am mindful of all the "one hit wonders" of the '60's, musicians who had one single rise to the top of the charts only to vanish forever from the music scene thereafter. Praising a game because it was a fortunate mistake seems a silly notion.

On the other hand, I have discovered a number of good aspects of Multiverser that I had not realized were there when I was writing it. It may be quite common for good games to succeed because the writer did something to address one concern and wound up opening an entirely unexpected possibility in play that made it a better game. So I can't argue it would never be right to praise a game for being good in ways never intended. I just think it would be wrong to condemn it for not being good in ways never intended.

--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

So which hammer is best for the job? It apparently depends on the job.

Exactly.

M.J., you keep using words like "good", "praising", "condemn"  and "judge".  I'm not proposing a system to tell people how "good" a game is.  I'm proposing a system that will supply data as to how a game functions in play so the consumer can better judge for themselves how good a game is before its purchased.  This is really no different than the system used to rate automobiles, but since everybody pretty much wants a vehicle that hugs the road, gets them wherever they're going in style, and will keep them alive in a multi-car pile up, the distinction between function and quality has been nearly erased in that arena.  When consumers exhibit a wider variety of needs that distinction becomes much more apparent.

-Chris

[Jeremy Cole]

Now, as for the distinction between what the game designers intended to create and what they actually created, that is a much more difficult question. That sounds a bit like saying "these guys accidentally created a good game which was not the game they intended to create".

But there remains the big point that published design intentions function more as advertising than they do as actual guides to gameplay.  People at my old highschool, although I try not to talk to them, love crunchy vampire, beating down on humans and other lessers.  The stated design intentions don't show this.  Show me anywhere in AD&D 2ed that says
'munchkin fest', but people love playing this way.

More to come...

[Jeremy Cole]

Axis and Allies is a terrible game because it doesn't give you any insights into the personalities of the commanders

Axis and Allies is a great example of what I'm getting at.  If you read the hype (or design goals) you'd think you were playing a realistic representation of WWII.  The best way to win is for Japan to March infantry and tanks over Siberia.  They couldn't even draw the world right, New Zealand is shown as one island.  Its ridiculous.

But as a lighthearted game, this game is so simple we can do three other things at the same time and still follow everything that's going on, as a beer and pretzel game it holds up.  If you understand that giddy thrill of rolling 74 D6s, its fun.  When suggesting to friends they might want to play Axis and Allies, I mention that its fun on these levels, I don't tell them about any fictional design goals.

It wouldn't help my friend's understanding of the game, so why should we think any differently when preparing a General Purpose Review?

Jeremy

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I believe that, apart from issues of how compatible a game is with any given play style, there are craftsmanship issues which are broadly applicable across all games, and go deeper than "Are there a bunch of typos? How many Page XX references are there? How good is the index (if there even is one)?"

I am not prepared to describe any of them specifically at this time, however. I'll get back to you on that.

Furthermore, I believe that it is entirely possible for a game to succeed in a different play style than its authors intended. Amber Diceless RPG is one example that comes to mind.