What can rules actually contribute?

[Mike Holmes]

How long did the decision take? Sounds like the kind of thing where the reader goes, "Gah, that's not going to fly" and just moves on.

It seems that I alone amongst gamers actually used those rules (I'm being facetious, please don't all pile on with the "I played em too!" posts). That is, I used them until I realized that nobody else was paying attention to them, and that I was doing all the work of making the rules work in this case. That is, it didn't seem to be adding anything for anybody except me, so I quit only when I realized that. I'm thinking it was about a year, meaning about 100 sessions at a guess (I played stupid amounts of AD&D in gradeschool).

Having been the wargamer that Gygax was more or less writing for, I guess it's obvious to me that the reason for those rules is to give a greater sense of detail to the interaction of weapons and armor, and, maybe more importantly, to make selection of weapon less simple than just looking at the damage ranges. Sans the rule for armor, everybody just grabs the baddest sword (assuming standard gamism here). AKA the longsword (especially for it's 1d12 vs large) or the two hander if you didn't mind giving up the point of AC.

You're really going to tell me that's not pretty obvious? Assuming so, then if Gygax had written that, would you have played the rule? The point being that it still seems to be the execution of the rule that's the problem (have to do an additional chart lookup for every attack). Not that it wasn't well explained.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Never having used the rule, I can't say for certain how well it worked. I do recall quite clearly that one player was rather upset that his battle axe not only didn't out-perform a long sword for damage, but was actually worse against larger targets where he would have expected it to have been better. It may be that the solution to that was in those tables I did not use, and not having taken the time to sort through them I never found it.

I'm reminded that a couple years ago I was subjected to someone's discussion of his game design (not here, on another list), in which he was making a change that made size significant in the amount of damage something could withstand. One of the players in his playtest group was very upset at this, because when he'd determined to play a fairy size was not going to make any difference, and now he was going to be considerably more vulnerable. A lot of electrons were spent trying to find ways to raise this character's durability until I suggested they were working on the wrong bit. Flies aren't a problem because they can withstand so much damage; they're a problem because you can't hit them. Give the fairy significant bonuses in the chance that someone will land a blow, and it offsets the reduced durability of the character. Numbers integrate that way in this sort of play, and most of us fail to attend to how they are integrated. All of which is to say that it might be that a rule which gave some advantage to the battle axe over the long sword would have been welcomed in my group--I just never found out whether this was that rule.

So maybe there was a sense in which it was obvious that this rule made the game "more realistic" to someone's standard; what was not obvious was whether it made the sort of differences which mattered to us, particularly at that early point in our gaming careers when we did not realize just how closely connected chance to hit and damage were. An explanation of how that worked might have helped a great deal in getting us to understand why rules like that particularly mattered.

Then again, maybe they wouldn't have.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Well, that's what I was getting at. Not that it can't help in some circumstances, but that the design has to match the player's need in the first place. That is, clarifying that the rule isn't something that the player needs doesn't make it any more likely to be used.

The question becomes how often is a rule's purpose "correct" for the player, but they can't see that in reading it, and need further clarification? Hard to say. Again, the danger is that the extra reading might put them off the whole game. You're balancing this potential benefit against people's attention spans.

Further, if you put the stuff all in design notes, instead, doesn't that allow for better context? So they can see how it all hangs together? Just as another option?

Mike

[Callan S.]

That is, clarifying that the rule isn't something that the player needs doesn't make it any more likely to be used.

From my own (perhaps warped) perspective, ones design goal is to get a particular effect into play. Getting people to use your rule isn't the goal...getting the effect if they do use your rules, is.

I'll double devils advocate: If you don't inform someone as to a rules purpose, aren't you trying to sucker punch them into using the rule rather than let them make an informed descision on its use?

[Tomas HVM]

If you don't inform someone as to a rules purpose, aren't you trying to sucker punch them into using the rule rather than let them make an informed descision on its use?

No. You may, or may not, explain the reason for the rules and tricks, the method of your game. To do so may be seen as part of an open game design, and perfectly alright as a design strategy. Not to do so may be seen as an enveloped game design, and as sound a design strategy as the other.

The player may very well presume that the method is given with reason, and try to play the game as it reads, or he may not. That is no real concern of mine, as a game designer, even if I give him ample reason for each element in the method.

My real concern is to make a game that is highly playable and true to my artistic vision, and to publish it.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, that's assigning a value to the act that may or may not be there. You're trying not to "fool" them, but to get them to be able to use the rules with the least amount of cognative effort on their part. Possibly under the assumption that requiring more effort will prevent the player from using the rule at all. Or any other reason.

The point is that it's done all the time and it's effective. In Monopoly, people roll two dice, and move around the board. Does it say why to roll two dice instead of one in the rules? No, yet people still play the game and have fun. All of the rules hang together in a way that is entertaining.

The "reason" for the rule is that the game board is set up with the individual monopolies about seven spaces apart, which is the average roll of 2d6. Meaning that you don't end up in a single monopoly for long (if you hit Park Place it's very unlikely that you'll also hit Boardwalk), that you tend to visit each one, and that occasionally you skip one, etc. It works well with the board to create a certain pace.

Now, would Monopoly have been a better game if the above explanatory text had been included? Again, as designers notes after the fact, I can sorta see the purpose. But my assumption, generally, is that players will try the game with the rules as written the first time out.

Now, RPGs have a history of people tinkering with them. So perhaps this isn't true. But if a person feels that they understand what's going on well enough to play with the "free parking" rule, then why should I worry? Yes, people will alter the rules of a game to make it work for them. The designers goal is not - I say again, not - to prevent them from making these adjustments. It's to provide a game that plays well with the rules as written so that either the player doesn't have to alter the rules, or, if he does alter the rules, he does so from a stable platform so that he understands as best possible what effect his changes will have.

And that has been done before sans any comment whatsoever as to why particular rules exist.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I should have been more clear. I was more addressing a design concern that may be 'Aww, if they know what this does they wont use it...better not tell them'.

That is, they may not like the result, so best not to tell them if you want it to happen.

Of course, if your not describing the purpose of a rule it doesn't mean your doing this. But there aren't many reasons to avoid describing a rules purpose. One is brevity (a very good reason and often used) and the other main one is the above reason. There's also a mixed one...don't tell them, because they're not up to absorbing that information and may avoid it because of it.

In relation to that monopoly isn't such a good example. If you stop using 2D6 in monopoly, your not really playing the game that much. How about in D&D? If I skip the grapple rules, or don't have much combat, or don't use particular skills ever? RPG's are basically a smorgasboard (sp?) of effects (delivered by rules) the users pick and choose from. Come to think of it, most RPG's do leave this to blind picking and choosing.

Basically it's a threshold thing. Sure, more information can overwhelm. But if someone steps up to an activity that involves many choices, but expects to be able to choose without being informed, its contradictory.

[Mike Holmes]

If, indeed, the designer intends for the rules to be optional, then he does need to state the purpose of those rules, I agree. But, in fact, I don't believe that designers do intend them to be optional. In theory, the rules are all presented together because they work well together.

The smorgasboard phenomenon comes from OAD&D's presentation of a bunch of rules that were tacked on. I agree people see it this way, because of that, and tradition has many (though I'm not sure most) "gamers" think of RPG rules as a smorgasboard. But it's long been the idea here that this is not a particularly good idea. This is just one of the many ways that incoherence is enabled in design - presenting rules to pick and choose from without any commentary on what this does to the CA. Generally a tighter design is what most folks around here would suggest. That is a design that doesn't look like a smorgasboard, but instead like a coherent set of rules.

Which is what you were saying before. Basically, if we buy into your particular design note created by your theory above, then we have to believe that a game as tight as Monopoly can be created. And lo, we have designs such as MLWM, Inspectres, and so on that would not be "themselves" if you altered even the slightest part. And neither of these has any commentary as to why the rules are the way they are. And both play very, very well.

So, yeah, if you want your rules to be a toolkit, then definitely provide the rationale for each. If, instead, your rules are meant to be played as a whole, then present the rules as a coherent whole. Like any other successful game.

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

I get the impression that Mike considers the toolkit-idea to be inferior, and to be avoided. It may be that I am wrong in reading him like this, but any way:

- most gamers I happen to know have experienced that the resolution system has to be stretched and hammered to cover the conflicts arising within a game. it's a fact of play with most RPGs. Most RPGs are not made to deal with a strictly framed environment, like Monopoly is, but rather to make some kind fo fictional world come to life. In this context it is sensible to consider the game system as a kind of "toolkit".

Most game designers take this into consideration when designing their games, and leave comments to indicate that they expect players to use the system as a tool. Frequently the setting is considered a toolkit too.

I believe it is sound to make your game into a toolkit, but at the same time to have some clear idea of what you want this game to be, and to communicate your vision. Making your game into a "toolkit" for the gamer makes it easier for him/her to explore it, and learn it by doing. A toolkit is meant to be used roughly. To communicate your vision is to give the gamer an insight into what this game may be, and what may be achieved when the game is played "by the book". Such visions may create enthusiasm in some gamers, while others will shrink back from such "arty-farty" ambitions.

I believe there is good to be had in both stances, and in a proper balance between them.

[Mike Holmes]

I believe there is good to be had in both stances, and in a proper balance between them.

Um, me too. Not the subject of the thread.

Mike

[Callan S.]

Hi Mike,

I take your point if your not looking to make a tool kit design. But looking at how I pictured it before; what can I do to support the effect I intended as a designer, to occur? This covers more than trying to inform.

For instance, describing how the rule works is an error detection system. The user can compare the rules purpose with the output the group has generated and check if its within the 'parameters'. For a possitive example of where something like this would help, a player might say to a designer 'Hey, this game plays really well' and then shows how he plays. The designer then might say 'Well, I'm glad your having fun but I can't take credit for helping with that fun. This is just something of your design'.

It sounds like it doesn't matter since atleast in this example they are having fun. But if as a designer you cared about the effect you wanted to get across, why publish something which is more likely to fail in that regard? Especially since users can and usually do feel free to adjust rules and don't need help with that.

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry, I don't get what you're saying.

I've never said that there cannot be positive effects of having notes describing the purpose of individual rules. What I'm asking is whether, on the whole, they actually produce much benefit, and whether that benefit outweighs any of the potential problems that might come along with the additional text.

I think the perfect example of the "toolkit" presented with extensive design notes along with the rules is Hero System 5th edition. I think it's a paragon of this ideal, in fact. I like it, and I've played it. That said, there are vast numbers of players who won't get anywhere near it, because of this very "feature." For anyone who wants to just read and play, Hero System 5th is a nightmare over 400 pages long. And that's sans any of the supplementary material. If you want to play a fantasy game, and get the design notes on how to do that, there'a an additional 1000 pages that cover that in the form of Fantasy Hero, Grimoires 1 and 2, and the Terakian Age (which is not so much a setting as an example of how to build a setting using the rules).

So, yes, this is the perfect toolkit approach. It's just that the perfect toolkit appeals to only a small portion of players. So, again the question becomes one of goals. If you're interested in having lots of people play your game, I think that overdoing the design notes can be really problematic. If you're trying to provide a toolkit in the first place - in which case you've accepted the limited audience already - then, as I said, of course you're going to want to include notes on everything.

I'm not seeing where anyone is disagreeing anymore, here - it seems that the consensus is to know your goal, and use the appropriate ammount of design notes to support that goal. Which principle seems to be: the more a toolkit, the more one should annote.

But if the supposition is that all games have to assume that they will be handled as toolkits, no matter the designers intent, I completely disagree. Given a game designed well to support one particular tight vision, I see no reason to put in the extra rules. It seems to me, again, that the tradition of game hacking, and the expectation that it will happen comes from early designs being poorly cobbled together, which required that people hack them to make them work. For those games that are better designed, such hacking simply isn't neccessary.

Take Hero Quest, for example. Being an inveterate game hacker myself (I often create entire systems just to play as little as one adventure), when I started playing the game, I made several changes thinking that I could instantly improve the game. Well, it turns out that the more I understand that system, the less it needs changes. To the point where, even though I don't play in the original setting, I find that I can use the system as presented with almost no changes whatsoever. In fact, any "changes" that I currently have in play could be seen as creative interpretations of the rules as written.

Basically, the game needs no hacking to play well. And, believe me, I've tested it from all angles.

Now does that mean that nobody will hack it? Of course not, the tradition still exists. But it does mean that it doens't require hacking to play, and it also means that, where people are hacking it, they have a very stable "base game" from which to make alterations. Meaning that these are more likely to be successful as well.

Nowhere in the text are there design notes.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I get what you mean and see your points. Can I just check something in terms of my last post: The assertion that a description of the rules expected results can help ensure the designers intent behind the rule comes about.

The most common form of this is just an example of the rule in action after the rule itself. This helps ensure some odd interpretation doesn't crop up 'huh...how would they get that result I see here in the example...oh, I see, that's a plus there in the rule, not a minus!'. No arguement there? Or only arguing against an over saturation of such expect result descriptions?

[Mike Holmes]

Well we're getting a tad tautological. Yes, anything that clarifies the use of a rule clarifies the use of a rule.

I'm not talking about clarifications like expamples, however. This is a clarification of "how" not "why." I was specifically speaking to the question of adding material that answers the question "why?" It's my contention that, in many cases, "how" suffices, and that "why" can actually be detrimental to getting people to use the rules. Not only because there's more to read, but, in fact because people may not agree with your ideas. That's not to imply that not putting a description of why a rule exists is attempting to "fool" the player into using it. It's that the player may have his own perfectly valid perspective on the reason once he's played with the rule. You, as the designer, might actually be incorrect as to why a rule works well in play, for example. At the very least the player might disagree with you.

The point is that if you observe that people use a rule and like it, then commenting on why it works is asking for people to read that and disagree with the purpose. And then not use the rule, possibly without trying it.

There are other reasons, too. For example, some readers might find the "why" stuff preachy, condescending ("Like I had to be told that!"), or defensive. Again, I'll say categorically, never ever ever compare your game to another like: "Unlike D&D, our system doesn't have unrealistic levels." It's tempting to do so, because it can actually be informative to use this tactic - you get to refer to a frame of reference that most gamers can be counted on to understand ("They'll know what I mean when I say this!") The problem is that it always reads the same, like the designer is afraid that his game isn't as good as the other, and has to defend it. A good game wouldn't need to make such a comment. And indeed this is true. (Note that Ron's attacks on other games in Sorcerer don't come off this way, but can alienate people for other reasons - like if they like D&D).

The point is that sometimes "why," even devoid of comparison, can come off as defensive. The reader may feel: "Why, when most games don't feel the need to explain themselves, does this one? If the game is really good, then just playing it will convince me of why the rules need to be there, right?"

Now, I'm not saying that these problems will occur with every design note included, or with every reader. I'm saying that I'm sure it happens occasionally at least - I've had these responses personally (especially to the comparison thing).

So, again, I'm not saying overall that these things have no place at all. They probably do in certain circumstances. Just that I think one has to give a ton of serious consideration to when and where to include notes on the "why" of a rule.

As for "how" I'd generally agree that more is better. But even here you can overdo it. The key with "how" text is to be sure to have summaries. That is, the rule should be easily referenced in a short amount of time in a way that implies everything, if not stating it all in perfect clarity. The rest of the text about the rule should point back to the summary and explain what the summary means. Such that, optimally, after reading the entirity of the rule the first time, they can just check the summary and that will trigger a rememberance of all of the clarifications on implications.

I'm a big believer in this, in part from having done it badly in the past, and having learned it the hard way. If the specifics of a rule are strewn across a couple pages, some people will not play that rule entirely correctly just based on not being able to remember it right.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I wasn't really focusing on 'why' except for toolkit design. And I don't think I hinted something like 'we do it this way because it's better than D&D'. I think self referencing is far better 'Why use these diplomacy rules when with all our combat rules you might have lots of fun concentrating there? Well, if you use diplomacy like this, you get this nifty result in your combat...yadda yadda yadda'.

I don't get the urge not to describe why the rule is there; that the user should be left to form their own, perhaps more correct opinion is pointless. They can already do that (barring some rules lawyer shouting at them about the true intent of the rule...and is that the books fault?). And that they might find it patronising or defensive; why think that when your presented with choices and then being informed about each? Surely anyone who thinks 'Bah, I've RP'ed for X years, I'll understand all the rules in this book' is headed for a fall if they expect, when buying a new book, something like D&D 'but done right' and thus they'll know it all already. As much as your (hopefully) not writing a fantasy heartbreaker, they are buying something quite different. Catering to their need to feel as if they can easily make choices in your very different toolkit system (different enough to be commercially viable), is pretty wrong headed. They can't for the same reason you've got a product that is differentiated enough from others to actual be sold and in their hands in the first place.

Regardless, on tight (non toolkit) designs its not sliding into tautology. A lot of RPG design seems to end up revolving around judgement calls rather than 'if X is greater than Y, then apply Z'. Take for example a spell that scares someone and 'causes them to run away wildly'. Well, what does that mean...would they notice a pit trap as they ran away? Would they forget a pit trap they actual saw as they past by earlier? Describing the possible spectrum of results becomes part of the rules then. The example is like a set of rules itself.