the role of supplements

[Nick the Nevermet]

I read somewhere Ron criticizing a lot of supplements as either working off assumptions of playing a certain way at conventions, or as being disguised fiction.  I don't remember for sure, but I think these criticisms were made from the perspective of an N-supported game (Sorcerer).

Ok, so, I may be asking a stupid question that'll turn ugly, but what qualifies as valid content for supplements?

I'm guessing that games that fall on different places in GNS would / should have different kinds of supplements.  A directly gamist game, for example, I think would have supplements that either are about "new things to kill," or "New things to kill with".  After seeing plenty of Rifts and Shadowrun supplements, I think this is definitely at least part of what gamist supplements would be about.

Narrative supplements and very hazy on.  I guess supplements should help focus energy toward specific types of story?  (Such as morality or gender, to keep bringing up Sorcerer)

And Sim... well, this is where I really have no clue.  Are these supplements just bigger models of how the world works?

I am fully aware these initial guesses aren't very good, and that's why I am asking.  

So, once again: What is the role of the supplement, and does it vary according to GNS?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The role of a suppliment is to enhance play of the game. This will vary by the goals and methods of the game. One way this can vary is along GNS lines.

The complaint of suppliments being thinly-vieled fiction was indeed from  Narrativist perspective. It came from trying to understand Narrativism, which is designed as creating stories. Persons trying to understand would point to suppliments with a good deal of fiction, think that this is what is meant by "story games." It may contain story, but it is not Narrativism. Narrativism is when the players creat a story during play, not read it from a suppliment. Such things can support other styles of play, such as Illusionism and other modes that would benefeit from what is called a metaplot.

So the role of the suppliment is to enhance play. This is why D&D has been a monster killing game since a primary type of suppliment has been lists of interesting stuff to kill.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I have this nasty suspicion I asked a question that was so broad as to be near meaningless. :)

Thanks for the answer, though, it helped.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I have this nasty suspicion I asked a question that was so broad as to be near meaningless. :)

Not meaningless. It will have more meaning if you narrow this down to a specific game, preferably a game you're currently working on since this is the Indie Game Design forum.  :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nick,

Actually, I think you asked a pretty good question. Also, your initial ideas of what makes a good supplement from each of the GNS perspectives were very accurate, in my opinion, although necessarily limited to a subset of each mode rather than the whole mode.

But there's a bigger issue here, isn't there? It concerns the relationship of a supplement to the "game, period." Does it make the game "bigger" in terms of imaginative material that affects every aspect of the game? In terms of more options of one kind or another (e.g. new kinds of characters)? In terms of changing the setting in terms of in-game time/events (e.g. the rulebook takes you to the year 1400, the supplement takes from 1401-1450)? In terms of ... (list continues)?

What I'm driving at is that "supplement" is a pretty broad term - in fact, it's only defined in terms of publishing and physical objects, meaning, "extra book related to the game." Hell, it could be anything, perhaps even just a picture-book or a consolidated glossary.

It would be interesting to subdivide that a little and then take a look from a GNS perspective. Can you think of any subdivisions of "supplement" that would give us a framework to do that with?

Best,
Ron

[Nick the Nevermet]

Hi, first off, my apologies to posting in the wrong forum.  I read more than write around here, and sometimes better choices can be made.

For my second apology, I spent some time and effort on this, and I fear I may have made it a tad longer than I should have.

Actually, I think you asked a pretty good question. Also, your initial ideas But there's a bigger issue here, isn't there? It concerns the relationship of a supplement to the "game, period." Does it make the game "bigger" in terms of imaginative material that affects every aspect of the game? In terms of more options of one kind or another (e.g. new kinds of characters)? In terms of changing the setting in terms of in-game time/events (e.g. the rulebook takes you to the year 1400, the supplement takes from 1401-1450)? In terms of ... (list continues)?

What I'm driving at is that "supplement" is a pretty broad term - in fact, it's only defined in terms of publishing and physical objects, meaning, "extra book related to the game." Hell, it could be anything, perhaps even just a picture-book or a consolidated glossary.

It would be interesting to subdivide that a little and then take a look from a GNS perspective. Can you think of any subdivisions of "supplement" that would give us a framework to do that with?

I agree 'supplement' is a very broad term.  I didn't focus on a specific form of supplement for a number of reasons (the definitions overlap in practice, I was concerned that by focusing on certain definitions I would exclude something that should have been key, etc).  However, I should have put in your structure to the discussion.  So structure we'll have: before I can talk about GNS at all, I think it is important to talk about supplements & exploration.


Exploration & Supplements
I want to argue at the moment that the simplest way to subdivide supplements is to talk about them in terms of what they explore.  I would argue that what many people call 'splat-books' are based on the exploration of a specific kind of character, for example.  I'm sure similar general claims about other general kinds of supplements (adventures, 'campaign worlds,' etc.)  Most supplements choose one or two key elements that others revolve around to varying degrees of relevance.  I am sure there are very few 'pure types' among supplements.  A new rule here, a new character type there, a few sample adventures over yonder... but the point remains that any given supplement is attempting to aid in the exploration of something.  


GNS & Supplements
For a particular game at a particular point within the GNS model, the appropriate role of a supplement can be evaluated on how effectively the supplement continues to support the style of play the original game did.  

For example, as far as a game supports sim play, an evaluative question for a supplement is does the supplement effectively give out new paths of exploration for exploration's sake?  I would further argue that supplements that stray too far from what the game explores, no matter how well written, will fall short as effective supplements.  So, for example, someone here once argued that Fading Suns is an RPG that supports sim play, specifically oriented towards the exploration of the setting.  A supplement on the martial arts of the Known Worlds that focuses purely on new mechanics, no matter how good those new mechanics are, would 'miss the point' for many players.  I would expect that most supplements 'tweak' the exploration that occurs in the basic game, pushing it in a slightly different direction.  Anything more than a tweak, however, would probably trip over /something./

The questions for narrative and gamist play then only differ from the sim evaluation of a supplement with an additional question on how well the exploration supports the creation of a story or heightens competition, respectively.


A Particular subdivision
I realize at this point that talking about a specific kind of supplement may be a bit off, after giving that ramble.  However, I gave the ramble because it explained how I will categorize supplements, and my current best guess on how they are evaluated.  Sim is a good place to start, I suppose, as I think most naturally in simulationist playing.  I guess we may as well jump in with splat books, as I mentioned it earlier.

This should be a familiar type of supplement to anyone who has been buying games in the last.  A supplement devoted to the exploration of a specific kind of character.  The exploration of this character involves at least another element; often mechanics or setting, or frequently both.

So how would one go about commenting on the proper role of splats within a sim-supporting RPG?  I suppose one answer could be that it doesn't move to radically toward G or N.  In other words, the exploration in the book is not for exploration, but for some other purpose.  I cannot off the top of my head think of an example of a splat ridiculed for a shift toward narrativism, but there are numerous complaints about supplements being too obsessed with 'kewl powerz,' indicating an inappropriate shift towards gamism.

Another possible answer is about the exploration of character itself.  In short, the less an RPG is about the exploration of character, the less it should have splats.  Additionally, if a given RPG is not really about exploring a certain type of character, then there shouldn't be splats about it.  For example, I doubt there will be a D&D supplement entitled "The Complete Peasant's Handbook," unless it is either a gag or really about much more than just the exploration of peasant characters.

A third question I believe is important for sim splats would be the effect they have on /other/ types of characters.  I'm getting dangerously close to the "character balance" bugaboo, but there is something here about the unintended consequences of information on 1 kind of character on playing other types.

At any rate, this is my hypothesis at it currently stands.  I apologize again for it being in the wrong forum, and I believe/hope I have kept it in the realm of what should be in RPG Theory.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nick,

No apologies necessary! Ain't no big thing for me to shift a thread around.

You're making tons of sense, and this thread represents an excellent mix of the interface between game design and publishing tactics.

It's interesting, isn't it, how GNS-facilitation can be altered by continued publishing? Imagine a game with a strong Situation emphasis; the setting is pretty much an atmospheric frame, and the characters may be colorful but really don't differ too much in their application within the group or from group to group. Then imagine supplement after supplement ... the first ones being perhaps "adventures," i.e. more Situation options, but the later ones being more and more Setting-based, with all sorts of material like maps that are less and less like props and more and more Setting for itself, to be revealed and gripped through prep and play.

That's an example of a shift within Simulationist design, which seems to me to describe Call of Cthulhu pretty well up until The Chaosium underwent meiosis.

As for a more radical shift, I agree with you that character-splats can give rise to more and more Gamist priorities over time. If the game already starts pretty Gamist (e.g. Deadlands), that's one thing; but if it starts as (e.g.) Sim/Char and then the material gets more and more tactical and "crunch it this way" per new character type ... well, I'm probably not too far off pegging Vampire as an example, although its initial Coherence isn't really strong anyway.

Best,
Ron

[Nick the Nevermet]

The question about GNS-facilitation changing over a game's catalogue is a really interesting question.  But that's a thread for someone else to start in publishing :)

To keep on splats, I wonder if there are specific pitfalls that put one on the path toward shift in the kind of play supported.  Supplements, it seems, can cause an unintentional shift in style of play, depending on what it is about.  Additionally, Splats for sim-facilitating games seem to run a risk of pushing things toward gamist interests.

So, I suppose one question is are splats doomed to always have this risk?  Does printing up information specific to character types in individual books inevitably cause an 'arms race' of a sort?  If not, then what is the trigger to be avoided?

Also, as always, I am a tad fuzzy on the Narrative end of things.  I'm having some difficulty moving beyond the beginning statement of "a narrativist splat attempts to explore a specific character in a way the helps support the creation of a story."  What I THINK this means is that a narrativist splat would have to somehow facilitate the creation of stories about a certain kind of character.  It isn't enough, for example, to just explain how to adventure if you're a fighter, but what themes and values come up with fighters in this game that are deeply embedded with that character type?  How are the themes and stories of fighters different from, say, wizards or rogues?  Am I on the right track here?

EDIT: I was repetitive

[Felix]

To keep on splats, I wonder if there are specific pitfalls that put one on the path toward shift in the kind of play supported.  Supplements, it seems, can cause an unintentional shift in style of play, depending on what it is about.  Additionally, Splats for sim-facilitating games seem to run a risk of pushing things toward gamist interests.

So, I suppose one question is are splats doomed to always have this risk?  Does printing up information specific to character types in individual books inevitably cause an 'arms race' of a sort?  If not, then what is the trigger to be avoided?

I think that to answer the question of why the 'arms race' occurs, you need to ask why splats are published. Ignoring financial considerations, I'd imagine a splatbook is written to address a perceived problem; I think the reason is to draw attention to a particular character type's features, and encourage players to use them more. That is an attempt to answer  the question "Why aren't players using the Snark race more when designing their monsters in Alice in Wonderland: The RPG?"  

How do you fix that? In a book aimed at Gamists, the Snark will have to be made more competitve, introducing new powers.  ("With the new boojum feat, you can cause all your enemies to instantly disappear forever.") In a Sim approach, you'll point out the inherent features that people might have overlooked or misunderstood, making the Snark more interesting as an explorative tool. ("As noted in Chapter 2 of AiW, all snarks have a free bathing machine. This can be used in a variety of ways, such as ...") I think a Nar splatbook would explore themes and hooks for the Snark. ("Snarks are a symbol of the hunt; they fit in well with stories about pursuits.") In practice, Splatbooks seem to do a combination of all three, which probably leads to the drift, as (e.g.) Sim players take what are supposed to be power balancing elements and treat them as a new area to explore, which winds up making them play like gamists.

In all three cases, you run the risk of making the Snark too powerful or interesting. People might want to play the Snark to the exclusion of all others. The only way to fix that is to come up with new splat books that make the other races seem usable again.  That leads to the arms race.  (For those who want a real world example, AD&D 2E's kits did this.)

Another possibility is that  the splatbook has shifted the game's focus from its original purpose to a new one, and the game is no longer about Wonderland, but has become about the Snark. This does avoid the arms race situation, but causes new problems altogether. (Real world example: The origninal Ninja Hero made martial arts much more interesting, but encouraged an entirely different style of campaign.)

I should mention that I don't like splats, since the majority I've encountered have fallen into the above categories. I find the second type less bad, since it isn't unbalancing, but it still means that I'm not playing the game I originally wanted to.

Can this be prevented somehow? My guess is normally no, since I'm starting with the premise splats are normally created to fix a perceived problem. I suppose if it was written with the idea "The game was fine, but I couldn't fit in these notes on playing Snarks; they're all implied by the main rules, but they might be useful as a supplement since they're not obvious," it could work.

Felix