What can rules actually contribute?

[Callan S.]

Uh...

Nope.

I mean, I can tell the difference between crap and good. I'm counting on my players to be able to do the same.

A good RPG's rules contribute a lot more to a game than just some outcomes, expected or otherwise. They contribute a whole social dynamic. As far as I'm concerned, that's what roleplaying game design is: social dynamic design. I see something I like in my own group's social dynamic, so I build rules to get at it and make it portable to other groups.

Have you played Universalis? That's a good place to start.

-Vincent

I think your talking about this: banking on the idea there are other groups like yours, so designing well for your own means designing well for them. It's a good move in guessing your markets needs, I agree. But it's a guess (often fairly accurate over a fair demographic, but still a guess). I'm talking just about what rules can contribute, rather than what they can contribute and what I'm guessing they will contribute (in terms of being good or bad).

I'm looking at the raw 'what can these rules contribute' before consideration of what the market will think is good or bad. Never mind good or bad, before you get to that stage of hypothesising (sp?); what can rules contribute?

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, what can rules deliver other than potential participant satisfaction?

I dunno, is there another goal?

Mike

[Callan S.]

Uh, what can rules deliver other than potential participant satisfaction?

I dunno, is there another goal?

Mike

Think of it as looking at what is left if you remove your opinion, as designer, of what you think will make a user happy. What are you still giving if you remove that concept from what you think your handing over. I suppose its easier to give an example, like how cars aren't designed to run people over. Yet they do. You might know what a crap result and a good result is. But like looking at the cars physics, what are you actually handing over beyond trying to hand over your personal intent (as the intent handed over with a car isn't to run people over).

It might seem a matter of, like the car, putting it into the 'user missuse' basket. But really, intending something to give a good result and trying to get that intent across doesn't do anything in terms of mechanics. So, to really see what your making, what can rules contribute sans your intent in designing it?

[Mike Holmes]

I still don't get it. Not at all.

One doesn't first design a car not to run people over, and then put in the intent of the design, which is a device to get people from one place to another. Not only is that not how people think about the process, it would be pointless to do. The fact is, that if/when not running people over becomes a concern (and you'd have to prove to me that it is in the case of your example, because I don't think it is), that becomes part of the intended design, part of the designers attempt to make the end user happy.

You seem to have some idea that there are some principles that exist a priori in a game design, but I just don't believe that there are. There is only the intent, to make an activity that's fun for the participants.

To think that there is something else, is to become mired in some epistemological sinkhole that leads nowhere.

Now, maybe you're talking about something that's pure genius, and we're all just not keeping up. But you'll have to do a better job of describing what it is, or...well, for me at least, there isn't much more I can say about it (and I'd suspect that's true for others as well).

Your only concrete example so far is to ask what a fortune system "contributes" to a game, before the intent. Well, nothing. It only exists to satisfy the player's desire to have a model with some unpredictability to it.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

...You might know what a crap result and a good result is. But like looking at the cars physics, what are you actually handing over beyond trying to hand over your personal intent (as the intent handed over with a car isn't to run people over).

It might seem a matter of, like the car, putting it into the 'user missuse' basket. But really, intending something to give a good result and trying to get that intent across doesn't do anything in terms of mechanics. So, to really see what your making, what can rules contribute sans your intent in designing it?

I'm in the same boat as Mike. If you seperate the intent of a game mechanic (Roll 1D10, if the number is <= your Skill, you succeed), then all you have is (roll 1D10 <= some arbitrary number. Have a nice day!).

Seperated from yuor intent, all the players are doing is generating meaningless random numbers in this case. A contribution is directed towards some goal within a value system, otherwise how do you differentiate between a contribution and impossition, or mere provision?

Simon Hibbs

[Callan S.]

Ever remember in school where the teacher would set you to describing the actions for some task. Like spreading butter on toast or something. And you might write something like 'Take the toast out of the toaster and spread the butter on it' and the teacher would take the container of butter and mash it against the bread ineffectually? Or some such error?

The exercise is about stripping intent. The intent being a reference to shared information which might very well not be shared at all.

It's basically keeping in mind the choke in communication you have between yourself and the user. You might design with good results in mind, you might intend good results. But what happens when your book goes through that choke, the choke being non shared information. That's why I'm not sure about this 'rules provide good results' thing, because of the choke. I mean, one meant a good result to happen when one said to spread the butter on the toast.

Much like looking at what result you get from saying 'spread the butter on the toast', what can rules contribute?

[lumpley]

Callan, the answer to your question is a lot more complicated than "rules contribute unexpected results." I'm going to try to answer again, but if you don't want to hear it, that's your thing.

Rules contribute a social dynamic not native to the group.

When you roleplay, you're constructing a Situation - a Situation is a dynamic interaction of Characters with one another and with Setting elements, remember, from the glossary - and then you're resolving it into a new Situation. The Situations you construct, and then the process of resolving them into new Situations, and then the details of the new Situation - they all depend on your group's social dynamic. That is, they all depend on how, precisely, your group plays. Who says what to whom about what.

When you play by rules, they influence the way you play at any or every point: the initial construction of Situation, the process of resolving one Situation into the next, the details of the new Situation.

This is all still social. Who says what to whom about what. Short of Rolemaster's stupid crit tables, the rules don't contribute outcomes at all. They organize, constrain, and provoke the players into contributing outcomes. And setups. And intermediate steps of all kinds.

So: "the rules contribute unexpected outcomes" isn't right: "the rules provoke and constrain the players into contributing unexpected outcomes" is better. And even so it's not close to the whole picture. The whole picture is more like "the rules provoke and constrain the players into contributing all kinds of things, unexpected and expected, at every stage of the Situation-to-Situation process."

It should be very clear that yes, that includes unexpected outcomes.

NOW, all this stuff I just said?

It's old news, and it's boring.

You don't want to talk about quality and what rules can contribute to make a game good instead of crappy - that's fine, your thread. Absent quality, I consider the topic exhausted.

-Vincent

[Callan S.]

Okay, to repeat what I've already said: There are two layers of design concern that have been brought up in this thread. One is just what the rules can contribute and the second is speculating on what will be enjoyable for end users. The second is a great and huge subject and I think more than a few threads have and will tuck into the many little details of this just fine. Ie, it's a standard topic. This thread is about number one and there will be no river dancing to liven it up either. Not even a little bit, sorry.

I had thought it was being argued that number two is intrinsically part of number one. Really it was an urge to just move on to two and I wish I'd been able to mod that sooner.

Okay, looking at number one. I brought it up as an interesting clarification process. For example, weaving anti cheating (by any user) rules into a game is typically pointless and is recognised as so. They are going to choose what they use and how, so those rules don't enforce anything because if someone wants to cheat they wont embrace the rule...the rules only provide nifty results.

Then theres structural indulgence. You might like to have every part of the rules structure interfacing intimately. But that's making the assumption everyone will use what you want them to, which you don't actually have control over. If all the rules interlace but the users pick and choose as they will, you'll get lopsided results as rules that rely on other rules go out of kilter. When you starkly look at just providing results, its certainly suggests modularity. But go in with an indulgent feeling that they are going to use just what you want them too, rather than just thinking of yourself as an FX provider, and there may be probs.

Then there's a couple of almost conflicting issues about all this:
1. Users need to make their own descisions on what rules get used next...the rules can't mind read them and give them just what their hearts desire. You can't automate this descision.
2. Dice rolls can produce results we'd never think of or perhaps do to ourselves.

Number two can produce results that users will seek, but sort of because it goes against what they would have done themselves. You can't make rules that guess what they player likes and deliver it without their having to decide. But your rules do need to produce relatively unusual results and not have those results fade away by users being able to shy away from bad results (for example) with the descisions they must make. Ongoing effects but without stipulating the use of this chunk of rules or that chunk.

Dull...meh. It's just difficult to think in terms of this. Which makes it easier to skip to that second design concern I suppose.

[simon_hibbs]

Okay, to repeat what I've already said: There are two layers of design concern that have been brought up in this thread. One is just what the rules can contribute and the second is speculating on what will be enjoyable for end users.

What is the point of a rule that doesn't contribute to enjoyment for the end user? Can you give an example of a rule that is both completely irrelevent to user enjoyment, and yet has some kind of value? What other kids of value are there? Without some measure of value, how can we 'evaluate' the 'worth' or 'contribution' of a rule?

I had thought it was being argued that number two is intrinsically part of number one. Really it was an urge to just move on to two and I wish I'd been able to mod that sooner.

But what if number two realy is part of number one? You haven't demonstrated that it isn't, and if it is then discussing number one in isolation is valueless.

Okay, looking at number one. I brought it up as an interesting clarification process. For example, weaving anti cheating (by any user) rules into a game is typically pointless and is recognised as so. They are going to choose what they use and how, so those rules don't enforce anything because if someone wants to cheat they wont embrace the rule...the rules only provide nifty results.

If a rule isn't worth writing becaus it might be ignored, then every game designer on the planet is pissing in the wind. I fail to see why anti-cheating rules, such as requiring dice rolls to be made in public, are special in this regard.

Then theres structural indulgence. You might like to have every part of the rules structure interfacing intimately. But that's making the assumption everyone will use what you want them to, which you don't actually have control over. If all the rules interlace but the users pick and choose as they will, you'll get lopsided results as rules that rely on other rules go out of kilter.

Surely that's the user's problem? It's their responsibility if they make changes, not the game designers. Also, there's nothing inevitable about what changes, if any, the users might make. There's no way for a game designer to anticipate that, so why bother trying?

When you starkly look at just providing results, its certainly suggests modularity. But go in with an indulgent feeling that they are going to use just what you want them too, rather than just thinking of yourself as an FX provider, and there may be probs.

Yes, but those problems are not the responsibility of the game designer. They can't be.

Then there's a couple of almost conflicting issues about all this:
1. Users need to make their own descisions on what rules get used next...the rules can't mind read them and give them just what their hearts desire. You can't automate this descision.

You're simply using your judgement as an inteligent, emotional human being with a certain cultural context, to imagine what might be fun for other inteligent, emotional beings with a similar social context.  You can't automate the game design process, true, but you can automate the type of experience you want the audience to experience. That automation is what game rules are.

2. Dice rolls can produce results we'd never think of or perhaps do to ourselves.

I doen't realy see why this generic discussion about game design suddenly launches off at a complete tangent about specificaly fortune based game mechanics, but ok, let's take this at face value.

Number two can produce results that users will seek, but sort of because it goes against what they would have done themselves.

I don't see how you can know this. How do you know what they are seeking? How do you know a particular fortune mechanic is even capable of alligning with the specific goals or needs of a specific player in an instance of play? How do you know it will go against what they might choose? Why does the pesence of fortune make any difference?

You can't make rules that guess what they player likes and deliver it without their having to decide.

Yes you can, game designers do this all the time. It's because game designers and their target audience share a lot in common.

But your rules do need to produce relatively unusual results and not have those results fade away by users being able to shy away from bad results (for example) with the descisions they must make.

You seem to be saying that systems with mechanics like Hero Points are intrinsicaly bad, as an objective assessment. That's not my experience.

Also, this seems contradictiory to your previosu statement that you can't stop players ignoring or changing rules. Surely that also applies to the outcomes of such rules. How can you force people to accept outcomes if you can't even force them to accept the rules that generate them?

Dull...meh. It's just difficult to think in terms of this. Which makes it easier to skip to that second design concern I suppose.

That's because all of the about is actualy directly relevent to player enjoyment of the game, and can't be properly understood unless it's considered in relation to the intentions of the game designer.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

What Simon says.

Sorry.

Sure there are two factors here, the tool, and communicating the tool. Yes, sometimes the intent or benefits of using the tool aren't communicated. Communication, after all, being imperfect. But the goal of the tool is to give the player something that they can enjoy. The purpose of the communication is so that they understand the tool's use. The how, and perhaps why (though often that's left to experience).

As the man says above, sans the question of satisfying some player goal - making the game enjoyable - I have no idea what criteria to apply.

Do we do this well, trying to determine what will be fun? Well, yes and no. That is, RPGs are fun, starting with D&D. As long as you're doing as well as D&D, or even close, you're succeeding. Can one do better?

Welcome to the whole point of this website. Both in terms of better tools and better communications.

Mike

[clehrich]

As the man says above, sans the question of satisfying some player goal - making the game enjoyable - I have no idea what criteria to apply.

But since "enjoyable" has a number of independent criteria, not consistent from group to group, surely there are different methods of constructing rules so as to satisfy different aims.  I mean, if different creative agendas (in the technical sense or otherwise) reflect different priorities for what's enjoyable, then rules can support those in different ways and based on different structures.  Simply to say "they support fun" is reductionist: it denies the whole value of distinguishing among game-types, play-modes, and so forth.

Yes, if we're looking for one single goal that encompasses the value of all well-constructed rules, then "making the game enjoyable" is probably accurate.  But it's also so general as to be utterly useless.  This, I think, is why Callan wants to set aside the specifics of what makes a game enjoyable and focus on how, theoretically, rules might support such aims.  This gets into questions of representation, adequation of rules-structures to desired ends, the range of system-composition from totally exterior to SIS to as interior as possible, and so on.  These are all different, and have different concerns.  At base, yes, they're about enjoyment, but that says nothing; we might as well say, "Rules support the game."  True, but so what?

[simon_hibbs]

But since "enjoyable" has a number of independent criteria, not consistent from group to group, surely there are different methods of constructing rules so as to satisfy different aims.

Yes.

Ok, to elaborate, rules are still constructed so as to satisfy aims and can't be understood if divorced from that context. Not everyone will necesserily enjoy staisfying those aims. So what? The game designer isn't forcing those people to play the game.

Simply to say "they support fun" is reductionist: it denies the whole value of distinguishing among game-types, play-modes, and so forth.

That's not what Mike and I are saying. We are sayig that the intentions of the game designer, the kinds of fun they are aiming for, are important and must be taken into account. Callan is trying to discuss the rules without taking designer intent and the player's experience of the game into account. You've got this the wrong way around.

Yes, if we're looking for one single goal that encompasses the value of all well-constructed rules, then "making the game enjoyable" is probably accurate.  But it's also so general as to be utterly useless. [/quote[

What I'm saying is that the game designer's specific goals are important, and the rules can't be understood if that isn't taken into account. I am not saying that all games have the same specific goals to produce the same fun experience, but that the nature of the experience they are intended to provoke, whatever that may be, is important in any analysis of the rules.

This, I think, is why Callan wants to set aside the specifics of what makes a game enjoyable and focus on how, theoretically, rules might support such aims.

But you're talking about supporting aims. Callan wants to do away with any consideration of aims or intent in this discussion. How can you discuss how rules support the aim of making a game enjoyable, without any reference to the enjoyability of the game?


Simon Hibbs

[clehrich]

This, I think, is why Callan wants to set aside the specifics of what makes a game enjoyable and focus on how, theoretically, rules might support such aims.

But you're talking about supporting aims. Callan wants to do away with any consideration of aims or intent in this discussion. How can you discuss how rules support the aim of making a game enjoyable, without any reference to the enjoyability of the game?

I don't think this is the case.  Callan wants to set aside, "in brackets" as some would put it, the specific aim of enjoyability.  There are other aims, after all.  If we have decided that we want narratives that emulate Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV shows, that is an aim; it is presumably dependent on the players' actually thinking this will be enjoyable, but those two things are separable.  They might, in fact, get exactly what they asked for -- but not like it.

That's probably a trivial distinction, but we can back up a further step.  What Callan is asking, I think, is what sorts of aims rules can support, specifically rules with fortune in the middle.  After all, if System is as large as the Lumpley Principle, then an awful lot of what produces the desired end comes not from rules but from a lot of other social factors.  Callan wants to know what FitM rules, specifically, are capable of, not what System can do.

Suppose, hypothetically, we were to develop a precise list of every possible aim that such rules can support, and how they can do so.  Then if you wanted (back to enjoyment now) to do X, Y, and Z, you'd pick the rules that support this and discard the rest.  I think Callan is trying to generate, or rather to move towards generating, that list.

I'm not convinced that this exercise will be profitable, myself, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable way to look at things.  What I think you and Mike are missing here is that rules can support things not desired, and things desired can fail to be supported, which means that rules and aims are not codependent; success would be measured by an adequation of the two.  Callan isn't interested in success, as such, only in what rules can possibly do.

You might consider an analogy from my own field of comparative religions.  Certainly particular religious rituals might aim at, for example, mystical union with divinity.  But the scholar of religion cannot analyze this in terms of success or failure, because he cannot assert that this divinity does or does not exist; to do so requires making normative claims about others' religious beliefs, which is precisely what he must usually avoid.  So instead he can analyze how rituals work, what they claim to do, how they claim to produce these effects, what sociological effects they actually do produce, and so forth.  But he cannot analyze the intended end itself.  Callan is, I think, trying to do the same thing: he wants to analyze how rules work and what they're for without asking whether they do, in any given case, succeed.

Callan, am I getting this right, incidentally?

[Mike Holmes]

There are other aims, after all. If we have decided that we want narratives that emulate Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV shows, that is an aim; it is presumably dependent on the players' actually thinking this will be enjoyable, but those two things are separable.

Yes, the answer to the question "what does a fortune system provide" separated out, has been given, repeatedly. It's to make the results uncertain.

When asked why that's important, we respond that this is because players prefer uncertainty in their models (perhaps because it emulates the uncertainties of reality).

Then we're told, no, there's "something else." Well, my answer is that I don't know what "else" there is. And I doubt anyone else does, either, because I don't think there is anything else.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Obviously I can only assert my understanding of other's opinions, but here goes.

I don't think this is the case.  Callan wants to set aside, "in brackets" as some would put it, the specific aim of enjoyability.

No, not just the intent of enjoyability, it's any intent at all. IMHO that was the point of his analogy with making buttered toast. The buttered toast is an outcome, he's interested only in discussing processes. Another example:

Think of it as looking at what is left if you remove your opinion, as designer, of what you think will make a user happy. What are you still giving if you remove that concept from what you think your handing over. I suppose its easier to give an example, like how cars aren't designed to run people over. Yet they do.

Callan wants to analyse the mechanics of roleplaying seperately from the outcomes in game play, in the way that a physicist can analyse the mechanics of a car independently of the goal of moving people around, or the outcome of running people over. Emulating the Buffy series is an outcome based on designer intent so, as I understand it, for Callan it's off limits for the discussion he wants.


Simon Hibbs