when the game played isn't the game in print

[Paul Czege]

On the "Gamism In Action or Why I Hate Arts and Crafts" thread in Actual Play, EpochMike wrote:

You can also borrow the "And, two years later" technique. It works like this:

PC's start out as 1st level. They advance to 2nd level naturally.

...And two years later, they're fourth level...
.
.
.
...And two years later, they're twelfth level...

And you begin the campaign showdown.

And it got me thinking how very pervasive it is for the culture of gamers that surrounds a given game to develop common ways of playing that "fix" problematic aspects of the system. Separate and distinct from powergame modifications, the "and, two years later" technique Mike describes is a culturally sanctioned drift designed to make the game functional that has crept into the mass consciousness of the gamers who regularly use the system.

Perhaps the best examples of unofficial, but culturally sanctioned game conventions are associated with D&D and AD&D.

One is the "make a roll" thing using a d20. It ain't nowhere in my AD&D books. Did they add it in 3e? Regardless, it's part of the cultural landscape associated with the game. Convention game GM's will call for attribute rolls. It's pervasive.

Another AD&D example is the experience points as currency method GM's use for starting higher level games. In brief, the GM will give players an allotment of some thousands of experience points to use as part of character creation. The specifics vary, but the player is generally allowed to purchase levels for the character, and starting magic items from the experience point values attached to them in the rules. It's commonly recognized that the experience point values for magic items are freer of bizarre fluctuations in the usefulness and effectiveness of what you get in return for the price you pay than the gold piece prices are.

When I described the experience points as currency thing to Ron, he hadn't heard of it. But I think that's only because he's had anomalously limited experience with D&D and AD&D for a gamer his age, who started in the hobby when he did. Experience points as currency is also really a part of the game's cultural landscape.

So I guess what I'm saying is that a game as generally conceptualized by players is sometimes very different than the game as written. What do you make of that? Is a way of playing a game that's not in accord with the rules as written that happens to enter the mass culture of the game's consumers something undesirable? What does it say about the game? What does it say about the game designer's goals and how they relate to the goals of the players? Does it represent a failure in the design? Did the writers and producers think the audience would reconfigure the nature of what it means to watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is this the same thing? Do games whose cultures have ways of playing the game that aren't in accord with the rules as written have anything in common with each other?

Paul

[hardcoremoose]

A long time ago I suggested that the act of actually playing a roleplaying game can be likened to literary criticism.  Now, there are all sorts of literary criticism, but the one I most often come back to is the idea of Authorial Intent, because it is the easiest to understand and apply.  In short, Authorial Intent (as I use it anyway) suggests that when an author writes something, he's intending to get across some point.  If the readers "get" this point, he has succeeded; if they don't "get" it, even if that means coming up with what seems like a personal and meaningful interpretation of the author's words, the author has failed.

We could discuss where authorship of an RPG begins and ends, and I guess that would change what I'm about to say.  For sake of argument, let's say that authorship of the game ends with the literal author, and think of playing as the criticism of that author's work.  If, when you play that game, you feel inclined to play it the way the author intended, and that you truly feel that is the best way to play the game, then the author has succeeded, and the game has succeeded.  If you feel inclined to "fix" things about it, if you interpret it differently than as intended by the author, then the author and the game have failed.

The question then becomes, should you reinterpret the game to your liking, play it the way it was meant to be played out of respect for the author, or go find a game that gives you what you want?

I can certainly read and enjoy a novel without necessarily knowing or agreeing upon the author's intent.  But maybe there is some utility in looking at commonly misinterpreted or reinterpreted rules in roleplaying games - such as attribute checks in D&D - and then building a better game based on those "criticisms".  This may all seem terribly obvious, but I do believe this sort of criticism is a subtle art by which the audience can communicate what they consider to be important.

- Moose

[contracycle]

My gut feeling is the D&D attribute checks were borrowed from Call Of Cthulhu.

[gentrification]

If I recall correctly, the 3E DMG gives explicit guidelines for starting characters at higher levels, including how many magic items to give them. It's not quite as simple or haphazard as giving them a pile of XP to distribute, either; rather, you pick a number of starting levels, distribute them among whatever classes you want to have, and sort of reverse-engineer your feats and skills from there.

[joshua neff]

Paul--

I don't think it signifies a failure in design at all. I think it has to do with what RPG rules (or setting, or anything else that gets retooled & messed with by gamers) really are.

RPGs aren't novels, they aren't scripts or screenplays. RPGs are guidelines for facilitating a particular kind of play. They're (to use Ron's "band" metaphor) instruments. Some guitars are made to be jazz guitars. But some musicians buy jazz guitars & play rock on them. They hook the guitar up to effects pedals, filter them through synthesizers or computers or special amps. I think RPGs & the people that play them are the same way. You buy the instrument (D&D or Hero Wars or Sorcerer or Amber or Rolemaster), & then you proceed to make music with it in the way you want to, rather than the way the creator intended.

I just realized something. I read as many how-to-write books as I do actual short story & poetry collections. The actual fiction & poetry are great, like listening to a good album. But the how-to books are like instruments--I can take the exercises in the books & mess with them, using them to make my own writing. In a similar way to RPG books.

So, I don't really think it's that odd a phenomenon. It's as typical as people building their own crystal radios from kits & messing with the design, building their own strange contraptions. A Robin Laws game doesn't mean "this is by Robin Laws" any more than a Les Paul guitar is "by Les Paul"--their names are on their work, but once it's done, it doesn't belong to them anymore, it belongs to the people who use the instruments to make their own beautiful noise.

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-21 09:51, gentrification wrote:
If I recall correctly, the 3E DMG gives explicit guidelines for starting characters at higher levels, including how many magic items to give them. It's not quite as simple or haphazard as giving them a pile of XP to distribute, either; rather, you pick a number of starting levels, distribute them among whatever classes you want to have, and sort of reverse-engineer your feats and skills from there.

Yes. Which means that what players had been doing in earlier editions of D&D, as Paul describes, were improvements good enough to include in a later edition (if more rigidly defined there).

Mike

[unodiablo]

I would venture to say that I rarely play RPG's 'exactly' the way they were written to be played. Since I first started playing Gamma World 1st edition in 7th grade, there have always been rules I've ignored or changed...

For example:
Gamma World and D&D - we never used encumbrance rules, never exactly totaled exp points, we also never used fatigue rules.
Champions/ Hero - we never used all of the distance modifiers or many mod's at all in combat. We eventually did away with endurance costs for powers. Did the same with Villians & Vigilantes & Superworld.
Extreme Vengeance - I wrote 2PAM to be 'EV-lite'. No Reps, no Popularity, Stunts are moved from an opposition to a Char ability.
Deadlands - I feel that DL is the most over-worked and under-thought game I've ever read OR played. I tossed all the different TN levels, the card system for initiative, the damage system, and more. Until I just gave up and used the backround with a playable set of mechanics (2PAM, and another older, more sim RPG I wrote called The Frame, and The Window).

I would almost go so far as to pose the question the other way. How many times are RPG's played EXACTLY as they are written? I think every gaming group I've ever met has house rules. Of course, that's blocking out all painful memories of trying to play with rules lawyers. :smile:

I think it's more important to annouce rule changes to the group, and to impose them fairly, so they effect the GM and players and PC's/NPC's equally.

Sean  

[Marco]

On 2001-12-21 10:17, joshua neff wrote:
Paul--

I don't think it signifies a failure in design at all.

(snip)

A Robin Laws game doesn't mean "this is by Robin Laws" any more than a Les Paul guitar is "by Les Paul"--their names are on their work, but once it's done, it doesn't belong to them anymore, it belongs to the people who use the instruments to make their own beautiful noise.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Often games only contribute a setting (and the players then interpert that as they will). That's one reason I've always been a bit confused with discussions about 'drift' being applied to an RPG system (as in "if you suggest playing GURPS with Narrative intent you're advocating drift.")

-Marco

[Skippy]

I have never found a game that I could play without modifications.  Now, granted, my experiences are somewhat limited (for a gamer my age who started when I did).  This usually is a matter of culling certain useless rules from the system, but not always.

No one, in my experience, except the most militant hard-liners plays any game strictly by the rules.  Any GM that has "fudged" a roll, or changed the stats mid-combat, or any other slight modification is guilty of failing to play by "the rules".  

Moose brought up the issue of authorial intent, a concept that can be applied to many forms of communication.  During my stint in the military, we used sound powered phones for shipboard communication.  One of the principals we were taught is that a message improperly received is a message improperly sent.  The onus is on the sender to properly communicate the message to the receiver.  This is verified by having the receiver repeat the message back to the sender, giving him a chance to correct any misconceptions.

Now in communication, this second step is vital, and provides the sender with information about his message.  A poor speaker can gradually be molded into someone capable of effective communication.  Eventually, with discipline and feedback, he can become one of the clearest, finest senders of messages anywhere.

This second step is largely lacking in RPG's, and the means of verification must be carefully examined to provide a clear picture.  Setting aside the ability of the author to write well (which for the sake of this discussion we will grant him), the author's ability to successfully create a good game may be another question entirely.  Without proper feedback, the author may never have a chance to improve his skill at crafting successful communication in the form of a game.  One could argue that sales are feedback, but I am not entirely sure that is true.

When Gygax introduced D&D to the world, it was the RPG equivalent of Thak walking in among his fellow neanderthals with a branch of fire.  The clan liked his fire, oh yes they did.  They wanted to know how to make fire.  So Thak carefully explained to them how HE had made fire.  Apparently, one had to stand on top of a hill in the middle of a lightning storm, branch held high (as if to ward off a cave bear), and wait for the gods of lightning to brind the fire to the stick.  If Thak had been able to write, (and his fellows able to read) he could have sold a thousand copies of this instruction manual to his buddies for some dried sloth dung, and four turns with each of their women.  Why?  Because they were desperately enchanted with this wondrous new fire.

Today, Thak would be laughed off the planet.  Not because we appreciate fire any less, we just recognize that his methods are out of date.  Are they any less effective?  Depends on how much time you want to spend getting your fire.  This doesn't mean Thak is stupid, he just didn't have the benefit of everyone who built upon his knowledge, and improved it.  I'm sure he collected plenty of dried dung, enough that he wouldn't care about my opinion.

The final point of authorial intent is that no matter how effective the author, there is no limit to the range of users.  The finest, best designed game, targeted and played by a select group of players who subscribe to the same principles and play methods, enjoyed by everyone who plays it...I guarantee that some schmuck is going to modify it.  Probably me.

This should not detract from the author's burden to do his job as effectively as he can.  However, as with any form of communication, there will always be someone who is incapable of receiving the message as sent.  Perhaps this entire thread has departed from the author's intent; we won't know without feedback.  The fact remains that like a game, we have all modified the concept based on our theories, ideas, and opinions, of what it should be.  Personally, I'm glad we have the opportunity to do this.

In case I've lost anyone, the point is that any system will be modified by someone, somewhere.  I do think that the prevalence of these modifications could well be taken as a commentary on the fitness of the game for its intended purposes.

Skippy

[hardcoremoose]

Hey guys,

Skippy's military communication analogy really struck a chord with me.  That's how playtesting should work for rpgs, but we all know that it doesn't.  Or it least, not often enough.  I know I've playtested a game or two, and all the designers ever wanted to know was whether we liked it or not (Jason Blair and I could tell you a couple stories about a game called Cosmic Enforcers ).  If we did it Skippy's way, by forcing game designers to communicate their design to us so we "get" it, we might end up with some pretty phenomenal games.

So here's a question.  How many games have you played where you definitely felt you connected with what the game designers were trying to convey?  You really, honestly thought you had sussed out their intent, and were so taken by it that you tried to play by the rules as they wrote them?  I know it's happened to me a couple times...with the Whispering Vault and Sorcerer.

Mind you, I'm not saying I truly did understand the author's intentions in both of these games.  But I thought I did, at least at that time, and out of respect to them, I did my damnedst to learn and understand the game and play it as it was given to me.

- Moose