Incoherent kit-bashing

[Marco]

I do see your point, Marco, that the "new" game created by a lot of work with the old game can have advantages over any other game that exists.

How about this? Is there a point where it would simply be better to create a game from scratch than to have to deal with the problems of the original game? I
Mike

Oh hell yes--thinking about it, I come up with this:

Games have core elements (classes in AD&D) and tertiary elements (charisma rules). In some cases for some people that line will be fuzzy ("I MUST have Charimsa rules--it's ALL important") but in the VAST majority of cases the Core Elements are highly relevant.

If you are changing a core element then the point is crossed when the work of the change is greater than your weighted appreciation of the other Core Elements. Call this the "Bingo" point (taken from when a plane is too far out to get back to a carrier with remaining fuel). When you cross that, I think you're better off with a new game. It's gone from "effort" to "work" to use Valamir's description. Each person determines the weights and therefore their own Bingo point (note: this is NOT an aspect of game design).

Sometimes even a Major Drift will simply be (new term) an extrapolation of the system. This cuts down on effort necessary (my ideas for gear rules dovetailed nicely with the extant Mayhem system, IMO)--so even though it's a major change it's not so hard.

Now: in systems where drift was not intended, we look at what kind of effort is necessary to get coherent play out of it.

VtM: if you play with a low instance of combat and don't need to use special powers all *that* often (situational drift) then the simmy aspects aren't so huge. The skill resolution system might need some Result Drift (which is, in my opinion, moderately major)--so if you need that level of narrativist support perhaps it's time to fly.

But if you don't--if you concentrate on politicking and romances and stuff and the combat is high-drama risk because you gamble anti-climax against satisfaction then the rules work pretty well with Sit-drift.

That doesn't let me tell *you* if you need another game. It does tell *me* something. More importantly, it removes the idea of coherence from design and puts it back in play where I think it belongs (a game's design doesn't facilitate/inhibit coherent play).

-Marco

[contracycle]

I don't buy it.

If I may, the kit bash analogy is weak.  It may be the case that if there are no elves commercially available, you can kit bash your own elf - but how does this stand as a better alternative to being able to buy an elf?

So maybe you just can't buy an elf 'cos thats the way it is in the market at the moment, too bad so sad.  But - that is exactly WHY concern for coherence should appear at the design stage.  In fact I would go so far as to say that the assertion that some designers/publishers make that they expect their product to be kit-bashed exhibits contempt for their audience.  

Even there, I can see an argument for it - like the elf, what you as an individual may want may be a niche or specialiust market for which the costs of produciton are just too high to be viable.  Thus you are left to figure it out for yourself.  But this is NOT superior to a scenario in which the producer is able to recognise your desires and prioduce accordingly.

This may never happen for a given individual.  But I cannot see how drawing attention to the problems with incoherence can fail to be an asset.

[Marco]

I don't buy it.

If I may, the kit bash analogy is weak.  It may be the case that if there are no elves commercially available, you can kit bash your own elf - but how does this stand as a better alternative to being able to buy an elf?

So maybe you just can't buy an elf 'cos thats the way it is in the market at the moment, too bad so sad.  But - that is exactly WHY concern for coherence should appear at the design stage.  In fact I would go so far as to say that the assertion that some designers/publishers make that they expect their product to be kit-bashed exhibits contempt for their audience.  

Even there, I can see an argument for it - like the elf, what you as an individual may want may be a niche or specialiust market for which the costs of produciton are just too high to be viable.  Thus you are left to figure it out for yourself.  But this is NOT superior to a scenario in which the producer is able to recognise your desires and prioduce accordingly.

This may never happen for a given individual.  But I cannot see how drawing attention to the problems with incoherence can fail to be an asset.

If what I want is to play the same game over and over in the same way each time--and I'm not especially in love with something like, say, the AD&D monster list or the Paranoia list of secret societies then sure: mail me my perfect game. If you can give me exactly what I want each time that'd be awesome--assuming my specifics don't change that often. But the real effect of that is not a well designed game it's, say, Narrativist AD&D, not Hero Wars--because nothing has all the trappings of AD&D but AD&D and much of it would be protected as copyright.

You'd also have to have the right sub-sector of the mode I'm looking for. Dunjon's mechanic doesn't do Gamist for me. Nicotine Girls *is* Gamist for me. As a designer both of the intents (as I understand them) wildy missed the mark for me. I think you're aksing for something that no designer can realisitcally plan to deliver.

The best you can do is make the game you want to play--and then let people do what they wish with it.

If that sounds like I'm saying an incoherence is a good thing--rest assured I'm not. It's a bad thing. But, taking the definition of a game that must be drifted for fun play leaves us, presently, nowhere. What you think that means can be (obviously is) way different from what I think that means. It's not, really, definitively saying anything at all. It just sort of sounds like it is.

-Marco

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Actually, the purpose of the miniture analogy was to answer Ron's question about the seeming contridiction by some that drifting the system is part of the fun but the game's design effects how well it plays. That is, You don't convert an dwarf mini into a elf and, most likely, you will start with an elf mini you like the look of, not some ugly thing. That's about it.

[contracycle]

If what I want is to play the same game over and over in the same way each time--and I'm not especially in love with something like, say, the
AD&D monster list or the Paranoia list of secret societies then sure: mail me my perfect game.

Hang on - a game that is simply coherent is not a Perfect game.  Coherency =/= personal taste.  A perfectly coherent game may well turn you right off (not becuase of its coherency, though).

You'd also have to have the right sub-sector of the mode I'm looking for. Dunjon's mechanic doesn't do Gamist for me. Nicotine Girls *is* Gamist for me. As a designer both of the intents (as I understand them) wildy missed the mark for me. I think you're aksing for something that no designer can realisitcally plan to deliver.

Possible solutions:
1) the author blew it when designing those games
2) you don't recognise your preference correctly
3) neither of the above, but some other element is aesthetically displeasing to you

None of these is an argument against coherence as a design goal.

The best you can do is make the game you want to play--and then let people do what they wish with it.

Which is a reduction to "it's all down to personal taste" which is of course, useless.  Further, it presupposes that the author is able to correctly articulate their own desires, such that they can reach out to other peoples corresponding desires.  Surely, a theory about coherency, and thus how one carries out that communication, or the pitfalls one can avoid, would be an asset in this process?

If that sounds like I'm saying an incoherence is a good thing--rest assured I'm not. It's a bad thing. But, taking the definition of a game that must be drifted for fun play leaves us, presently, nowhere. What you think that means can be (obviously is) way different from what I think that means. It's not, really, definitively saying anything at all. It just sort of sounds like it is

But, I think it is saying something.  I thought the points made previously about the discrepancy between the rules as writ and how they are played is a good one.  In any other field, such a product would at least come with a label: "Warning - some home assembly required".  Maybe some screws and an allen key, too.  By contrast, M:tG seized customisability and ran off into the sunset with it.  Those RPG's do neither of these, but depend upon the end user figuring out for themselves that "nobody actually uses this rule" or similar AND carrying out the necessary corrections.

I think the recognition of the extent to which the actual game text is distorted by its end users in practice is a valuable observation; I also think it clues us in to a major problem in need of solution.  I regard the claim that RPG's will never be mainstream until they actually do what it says on the tin is pretty much unchallengeable.  I don't think any of this is an assertion that a coherent game will be all things to all people even of its GNS niche; nor do I think it implies that games designed on such principles will never be kitbashed by their end users.  To me, all it says is that when you get it home, it works there and then, not only after you have modded it.

[Marco]

You'd also have to have the right sub-sector of the mode I'm looking for. Dunjon's mechanic doesn't do Gamist for me. Nicotine Girls *is* Gamist for me. As a designer both of the intents (as I understand them) wildy missed the mark for me. I think you're aksing for something that no designer can realisitcally plan to deliver.

Possible solutions:
1) the author blew it when designing those games
2) you don't recognise your preference correctly
3) neither of the above, but some other element is aesthetically displeasing to you

None of these is an argument against coherence as a design goal.

1) did he? Just because *I* play it different? I don't think Clinton *blew* anything. His mechanic grants Gamist play for him, I would guess. It doesn't for me. If something can be both right and wrong at the same time isn't it clearly *neither?*

2) My preference? I recognize how I'd react to Nicotine Girls. FWIW Val and Ron understood my assessment and didn't consider it a misunderstanding. I don't think *I'm* wrong about that--I don't think I *could* be--but it's an interesting observation.

3) I don't dislike *either* of those games. Nor Mayhem--I'm saying the degrees between design goal and how-the-game-is-played can be damn big. Maybe so big as to be *unpredictable* (if a super-focused, elegant, and GNS-knowledgble design misses the mark as often as it hits it, perhaps Drift of some sort *is* ubiquitious to most play).

As for the "some assembly required"--I read MayhemPT (Chris's game). I dug it. We discussed. I said "I'd want multi-phase resolution--at least a 2-step process for climactic battles) and I'd want gear rules.

Turns out he was already putting in a) and we dithred a bit on b).

The game, as writ--would require mucho-re-assembly by me to do what I want: play a climactic robo-race game out with the system providing scene-by-scene drama (i.e. not just one roll). That's what *I* want--and note:

1) it's not beyond the scope of the game (as seen by Chris' semi-agreement with me about some rules that might be added)
2) it does require a rules change to do what *I* want wihtin that scope--but not, necessiarly, to do what *Chirs* wants.

So, you gonna slap a warning label on it? Declare it to be bad design?

Advocating clean design is fine--I'm not arguing that. If in play no one uses a rule: throw it out--or put some meta-rules around it discussing it--or alter it so it *is* used. Fine--all good.

But going and thinking *your* clean design where all rules are used and there's no need to change anything will be precieved by *me* that way? I wouldn't wanna bet on it.*

-Marco
*It is possible to make *very* focused games (Nicotine Girls) where it's hard to change the rules and you wouldn't want to use that game to do soemthing it wasn't designed to. Yes--but that design is something of a straight-jacket or *very* abstract (and if I ever run an NG game, I know one aspect I'd add to it that's not presently modeled to my satisfaction--so even *tight* design sometimes may need modification to meet my needs).

[Marco]

If what I want is to play the same game over and over in the same way each time--and I'm not especially in love with something like, say, the
AD&D monster list or the Paranoia list of secret societies then sure: mail me my perfect game.

Hang on - a game that is simply coherent is not a Perfect game.  Coherency =/= personal taste.  A perfectly coherent game may well turn you right off (not becuase of its coherency, though).

Also: this was in reference to a kit-bash--not coherence (althoug drift does tie closely into Incoherence and then to coherence, I agree). "Kit-bashing" can (and I think implicitly does) take place with coherent games (insfar as I think they exist at all).

I may change any game--your game--my game--the most coherent design you can imagine because (as discussed above) it gives me better results than anything else on the market.

Sometimes (often, I think) much better results than anything which *could* legally exist on the market (modification of existing Intellectual Property, usually).

You suggest the market sell me the elf I want. I'd love for that to happen. I don't think it's a realistic alternative to rules-mod though. And I don't see Jack's analogy as weak at all.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Advocating clean design is fine--I'm not arguing that. If in play no one uses a rule: throw it out--or put some meta-rules around it discussing it--or alter it so it *is* used. Fine--all good.

But going and thinking *your* clean design where all rules are used and there's no need to change anything will be precieved by *me* that way? I wouldn't wanna bet on it.*

So... what does this have to do with Coherence?  As I said - a game may simply not do what you want it do, and you change it as you see fit.

How is this an argument that a game can be produced as Incoherent, and then drifted?  At leats,m those for whom the game is thematically right as writ will NOT need to kitbash.  That seems to me a step up from a product in which kitbashing is anticipated, or even requisite.

It seems to me that this is a grosverextension; I don't see anything in "coherence" to indicate that a coherent game is all things to everyone.