What is system?

[coxcomb]

I have committed a crime. It is a crime that I am certain is common among long-time role-players such as myself. I have judged games on a brief look at the core mechanics.

You see, I have long labored under the unconscious and totally false assumption that all role-playing games are played exactly the same way, and that what makes them different is their core mechanics. Of course, I don't think I would have ever taken that stance consciously--it sounds absurd. And yet, I have often picked up a new game, flipped to the section on task or conflict resolution, and made a snap judgement about the system based on that information.

In the past few months, I have been playing a some games that you might call cutting-edge: Donjon, Dust Devils, Trollbabe. And I have read a fair few more. What each of these games has shown me is that every RPG makes assumptions about how the game is played at a fundamental level. What's more, these assumptions occur as a separate concern from the core mechanics of the game. Some games, particularly those grown here on the forge, don't just make assumptions, they make assertions. But, as I look back over the many games on my shelf, I realize that all games make these assumptions. No two games assume the exact same method for playing.

What I think is revolutionary about the new crop of indie games is that the authors have made a switch from the traditional, "this is how you should run your game," sections to more assertive, "this is how this game is played," rules that transcend mere mechanics. Designers are moving away from apologetically putting forth the style of play that they intended for the game, but telling the players that they can play however they like. What they are moving toward is the notion that when a game is designed it is designed to be played a certain way, and if you don't like to play that way, you should play another game.

The problem I see is with old dogs (self included). We don't learn new tricks very well. At least, not without a lot of coaching. I assert that it is a good thing for games to distinguish themselves in actual-play terms from others, but that they cannot understate those differences. As designers, we have a duty to boldly and without apology state how the game is to be played. We need to include detailed examples of how a session of play should go in our rules. We need to reinforce the concepts and differences in play with frank discussion in the rules, on our Web sites, and on public forums such as this.

I realize that this rantish post is probably preaching to the choir. But the conscious realization of all of this has opened my eyes to better role-playing. And I am certain there are still lots and lots of folks still committing the crime that I now shun.

[clehrich]

Thanks for the rant, Jay.  Well said!  I certainly have committed this crime; another old version is to look only at the setting.

I like your remarks about the "here's how we think you maybe should run your game" to "play this way" switch.  Does anyone else get tired of reading, "If you don't like a rule, feel free to throw it out -- it's your game now!"  Well, duh.  Thus house rules.  I suppose this arises in reaction against Gygax's "If you don't play this way you're not really playing at all and are probably a bad person" sort of rhetoric, but it does get rather tedious.  And let's note that Gygax's rhetoric hardly prevented people rewriting the rules freely, so this sort of thing needn't be said.

Instead, one might say, in effect, "Look, think of this like Monopoly.  Sure, you can take the pieces and play some other game, but if you want to play Monopoly there are rules.  These rules include whose turn it is, who goes when, and so on.  Same here in this RPG.  And I don't mean initiative in combat: I mean who gets to talk, about what, when, and what the shtick of the game is.  That's how the game is designed, so if you want to play it, play it that way.  Feel free to cannibalize for parts, but recognize that you're now playing a different game.  Don't tell me that you hate my game because the combat system, which you ripped out of context and played stand-alone in something completely different, didn't work for you.  You don't hate my game, because you haven't played my game.  I'm sorry to hear that your game sucks, but that's not my problem."

Obviously, one wouldn't put it quite like that, but this is increasingly how I feel about various bitchings and rantings I've heard for years about this game or that game not being a "good game" because it doesn't work perfectly for something completely different from the original setup, with half the rules rewritten and the other half thrown out.

As to assumptions about how games are played, I'm increasingly thinking that in writing game text, it's best to discard such assumptions and just explain in great detail what you want.  I usually tend to think it's easier to say, "Here's what you're probably used to from X game, and here's how this game is different," but as you note everyone plays and assumes so differently that the first half of the statement is pure guesswork.  So I'm now working on, "Here's how to play this game, which may or may not be familiar to you, so I'm going to explain in detail."

As to the old dogs problem, there's actually more to it -- you're right, but you can go farther, I think.  When you try to get a publisher to make a contract for a scholarly book, for example, one of the things you have to do is explain how your book is new and different.  The way you do that is to say, "Here are the big eight other books on this subject, and here's what they do, and here's what I do that they don't, or what I do that's better than what they do."  The same principle usually applies with RPGs: you say, "Here's what D&D or Vampire did, and here's how what I do is different and better."  The problem is that it's very difficult to make this claim effectively.  So what you're really looking for is a way to explain, "Here's what's just too cool for words about my game; never mind the other games, on which I have nothing to say."  And I think that can be difficult to sell.  Heck, Sorcerer and TROS have text on the back that says, more or less, "Here is a game that does what no other game does, and why that's better."  Sells copy, right?

Partly I guess it's a sound-bite issue.  It's hard to say, really really fast, "Here's an example of what play is actually like in this game and you can see for yourself that it's totally awesome, although I guess I do need to explain a couple things before you can understand what you just saw."  It's much faster to say, "They suck!  I rule!  Play now!"

Anyway, you rant, I rant.  :p

Chris Lehrich

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The problem I see is with old dogs (self included). We don't learn new tricks very well.

In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning but just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds.

[clehrich]

Hey Jack, you dropped a negative somewhere:

In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning but just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds.

Do you mean the old dog doesn't realize that:
1. it's NOT a new trick, but an old one
2. it's a new trick, and NOT just an old one
Sorry; I think it's #1 but I'm not sure.

Chris Lehrich

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Sorry. tis #2 not became but somehow

In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning NOt just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds

[coxcomb]

In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning NOt just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds

I totally agree. That's why I think writers should basically put a big neon sign saying "HOW TO PLAY THIS GAME" at the front of the rules.

Think about it. The majority of RPGs have a section called "What is Roleplaying" or something like it. Experienced role-players usually just skip that section to get to the "crunchy bits". This traditional style of rulebook writing reinforces the fallacy that role-playing is role-playing and every game plays the same as every other.

I really like Chris' Monopoly analogy, but I think it is even more absurd than that. You never see a board game with a section in the rules called "What is a Board Game". The rules tell you how to play that game, and make no claims one way or another about how any other game is played.

Somehow the idea got going years ago that role-playing games were all the same thing with some different bits (this myth is tangled up in the whole "System doesn't matter" myth too). The differences between style of play from one game to the next are traditionally attributed to the players, not to the game itself. If my friend Bob doesn't like the way D&D is played, it is the players who are "twinkies" or "munchkins", it isn't that the system doesn't support the style of play that Bob wants.

I guess what I'm saying is just reinforcement of Ron's original notions with GNS: not all games are the same, and the differences do matter. But I'm also saying that the differences in a particular game need to be taught to players. Folks don't just grok how to play a game, they need to be told. And if you don't tell them, they'll take your fabulous, cutting edge rules and play with them in exactly the same way that they played AD&D in 1982 (or whatever). And when they can't play that way with your rules, they'll tell their friends that your game sucks.

[matthijs]

I really like Chris' Monopoly analogy, but I think it is even more absurd than that. You never see a board game with a section in the rules called "What is a Board Game". The rules tell you how to play that game, and make no claims one way or another about how any other game is played.

Wow. Yes! Thanks!

[Tomas HVM]

It is nice to see people opening their eyes, looking at what is, and what may be.

Try to couple this newfound insight of yours, with some new terms on roleplaying games, and you may soon be able to map this newfound landscape.

The gamesmith has a vision, which he tries to communicate to his players. If communication is untrue, the players will create a fiction based on their own agenda, using whatever tools they possess. If communication is true, the players will create a fiction related to the vision.

Vision = a gamesmiths idea of how his game shall be played, and what fiction it will produce
Fiction = the actual drama created, how the shared imaginary space looks like in actual play, the end result of any roleplaying game

Game = the content of a gamebook, a specific set of instructions, the setting and method of a particular roleplaying game
Method = the ways of the game, the tools, techniques and tricks of the gameplay, how to make it all work towards a fiction
Setting = the elements of the fiction, the building bricks, the soul and song of the fiction
Gameplay = the actual gamesession, and how it is experienced

Player = any participant in a roleplaying game
Role = the players avatar, the hearth of the game, the creative will, the inspiration, transformation, imagination
Interaction = the ever ongoing play between players and their roles, their actions and reactions
Immersion = the flow experienced when the role takes over and leave the player to follow in the wake of the drama

[Callan S.]

Designers are moving away from apologetically putting forth the style of play that they intended for the game, but telling the players that they can play however they like. What they are moving toward is the notion that when a game is designed it is designed to be played a certain way, and if you don't like to play that way, you should play another game.

I don't think it's apologetic, I think it's pure ego. Its a big urge to say 'my RPG can do ANYTHING! It never limits you in the least! You can use your boundless creativity to its UTMOST!'

They all wanted to have a wonder RPG, and didn't want any creative focus to get in the way of that.

I get the feeling it's a real hang up, actually having a definate goal instead of a broad gesture of what it can doe. In this thread asking what RP accomplishes ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4414 ) it never really gets anywhere except 'oh, you can do most everything' and then in a drawn out 'wine glass in hand' sort of way.

It's like we can't accept anything but an all encompasing RPG. And the worst thing is, when someone else gives a description of the all encompasing RPG, it typically gets rejected strongly. Which really goes to show you can't be all things to all men, thus an all encompasing RPG is a crap idea.

The only real option is to set up a goal and go for it. Of course the 'all encompasing' thing is so entrenched in the hobbies culture that many will say 'Aww, thats NOT REALLY roleplay', as it doesn't fit their idea that it needs to cover everything or its nothing. Then theres the writers ego saying it simply must do everything (but of course it wont, it'll still have a direction, just a muted one), and also his hip pocket warning him that 'if it can't do everything, it wont sell and you'll end up selling your body to pay for all this'.

With those discussions about 'what roleplay really is(tm)', instead of really trying to work out what 'it' is, we need more designs out there that actual have goals. Each of these will be roleplay with a particular definate flavour/direction. Then we can get away from the idea of roleplay as just one particular thing (which also, strangely, is supposed to be all encompasing as well as being one thing). Instead we'll see all the directions it can go, and the more definate, strong directions we have going out, the more we can trace them back and really find out about the core. But with a real cultural cringe in the hobby about strong direction and definate goals, that's stifled.

[Ron Edwards]

High five to you, Callan. I've been fightin' that fight for about ten years now. It feels damn good to have allies at last.

Best,
Ron

[W. Don]

Welcome rant, Jay. Three cheers for honest and focused game-smithing.

Recently, on some other RPG-ing forum, there's been a somewhat lengthy discussion about "generic role-playing systems". Someone asked what criteria might you judge to find the generic system that's right for you. Various folks replied with words like rules-light, adaptable, versatile, cinematic and so on; also phrases like allows nuances to the genre you want it to run, rules become invisible during play, emphasizes skills over innate abilities, etcetera.

The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

- W.

[coxcomb]

Recently, on some other RPG-ing forum, there's been a somewhat lengthy discussion about "generic role-playing systems". Someone asked what criteria might you judge to find the generic system that's right for you. Various folks replied with words like rules-light, adaptable, versatile, cinematic and so on; also phrases like allows nuances to the genre you want it to run, rules become invisible during play, emphasizes skills over innate abilities, etcetera.

I can't (or at least shouldn't) be too harsh about reacting to this sort of thing. I played the Hero System for years and years (staring from before it was called that). I grew up with the notion of a one-size-fits-all system. I think that notion it is a misguided reaction to poorly designed games.

Thing is, universal RPG folks have this tendency to say things like, "I love X because I can create any character I want, but it doesn't handle Y very well." Then they do what I did: they spend years of their life trying to find the silver bullet. The one RPG to rule them all. I spent 15 years or so chasing the unicorn. All I have to show for it is a big box of notes for an unplayable game.

I think the problem lies in a universal game not being "about" anything. I'll be the first to admit that I prefer a game not tell me exactly what I am supposed to play. I hated playing White Wolf games for precisely that reason. But I understand now that a game does need to be "about" something.

I was looking through the post again this morning and I realized that I didn't clarify my title very well. The point, for me, is that "System" describes the entire set of rules that govern play, and that those rules, either implicitly or explicitly, include how to play the game in general terms.

[John Kim]

The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

Well, I agree about the first part.  And indeed, when I look at the cover of my HERO System rulebook, what I see it call itself is "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit".  It has a long chapter on customization of the system to specific campaigns and the steps and logic to be done for that.  I think many gamers and certainly the HERO designers are aware of this.  When something is called a "universal system", it is generally with an understanding that it is more of a toolkit for build-it-yourself.  I don't see anything wrong with that, either.  

The difference between a universal system and other systems is primarily one of packaging.  For example, White Wolf has a "house system" rather than a "universal system", but the functional differences are small.  WW releases a new game with some mechanics changed but most the same.  It takes a system developed for modern horror, and changes some things to release it for heroic fantasy, and so forth.  The HERO System started as genre specific, then turned into a house system as other games appeared from Hero Games, then was re-packaged as a universal system.  

For example, Sorcerer was developed for modern horror -- but has been adapted to diverse uses like Sorcerer & Sword and Charnel Gods.  After a few more adaptations appear, I can picture someone packaging it as a universal system:  you have a core book which presents the basic mechanics, and the modern-day-demon-summoners is presented as a supplement.  Would the functional differences between core + supplement and the original game be that huge?  I wouldn't think so.

[Callan S.]

The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

Well, I agree about the first part.  And indeed, when I look at the cover of my HERO System rulebook, what I see it call itself is "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit".  It has a long chapter on customization of the system to specific campaigns and the steps and logic to be done for that.  I think many gamers and certainly the HERO designers are aware of this.  When something is called a "universal system", it is generally with an understanding that it is more of a toolkit for build-it-yourself.  I don't see anything wrong with that, either.  
*snip*

I think the basic problem is that generic/universal systems aren't. They all end up taking a direction regardless with each rule created, it can't be helped.

It's then taking the worst of both worlds: Its goal is to be universal and its states it, but it isn't. While the direction it actually takes isn't guided and is weak (and then goes on to get in the way of the groups prefered direction, yet so weakly sometimes you might not think its happening).

Better to take a direction and then go hard and proud that way, than the wishy washy way. But apparently a lot of designers find no pride in anything except 'it can handle everything!'.

Edit: I'd just like to say I've only recently come to these conclusions myself (had some notes that I was going to write up into a post on it, that I wrote as I figured some things). So I'm not pure, I've previously liked the universal idea. Just adding this note for humility purposes just in case I sound like I'm talking as if I'm a guru or something.

[coxcomb]

To clarify, I never intended this point to be a critique about universal systems or the viability thereof. To put universal systems in the context of the thesis of this post:

If (as I assert) all RPGs make assumptions about the way the game is played, I think one of the assumptions common to universal games is that players will always want to fill in the details of genre (and often setting) themselves, with little direction from the game company. To continue using HERO as an example (though GURPS would serve as well), when you pick up the core book, you can't just make characters and play (well, you could, but it isn't a good idea). You need something more, in the form of setting and color. The assumption in HERO is that the GM will come up with this stuff (maybe with input from players, maybe not).

I think the real fallacy of universal games is the assumption that having to fill in the details for every game is easier than just using another game. I personally like HERO a lot. It has a special place in my heart. But I'll be the first to admit that setting up a new game (in a new genre) is a huge time-sink.