What can rules actually contribute?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm agreeing with you on toolkit design. I've said that. I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

As far as non-toolkit designs, I'm telling you that in practice it doesn't work well. You can ignore my anecdotal evidence if you like.

A lot of RPG design seems to end up revolving around judgement calls rather than 'if X is greater than Y, then apply Z'.

See, this is where you and I have always disagreed. You seem to believe that there will always, in every RPG system be some amount of unavoidable wishy-washiness that makes all RPGs sorta "toolkitty." I completely disagree. Not that there aren't judgement calls, but that the game can be designed such that those judgement calls are all within the scope of the CA projected. Meaning that as long as the player "gets it" that they'll have no problem.

Yeah, that includes using examples. Again, I see that as a "how" issue, and I always, always, always support lots of examples. Yes, you do need to give the player a vision of how to play - that's my point. You just don't need to do an examination of the undercarriage of the game in order for that vision to be formed in many cases.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I think I was confused on what you were refering to. So no, no more arguement from me on the tool kit Vs the streamline thing. I take your point: Streamline doesn't really need 'why' in there, since its so tight.

See, this is where you and I have always disagreed. You seem to believe that there will always, in every RPG system be some amount of unavoidable wishy-washiness that makes all RPGs sorta "toolkitty." I completely disagree. Not that there aren't judgement calls, but that the game can be designed such that those judgement calls are all within the scope of the CA projected. Meaning that as long as the player "gets it" that they'll have no problem.

"Drifty" might be a better word. For example, one group might decide there's a chance the bad guy will fall in the pit once scared...and if they yell (perhaps an intimidate check) there's a greater chance he'll get confused and fall in for this tactic and apt skill point resource allocation. Another group might have someone declare the bad guy is going to accidentally knock some innocent down with them into the pit, but if you withdraw to stop it you'll get hit badly...which is more important, your life or potentially that of an innocent?

In the latter one, the player might decide to withdraw but then they find the rules don't allow him to move. So they skip those rules to facilitate this CA drift, and the effect you as a designer intended those 'you can't move' rules to have is moot. I think drifty rules can have much more of a significant effect than the addition/removal of a toolkit rule. That addition/removal can make a gamist game, for example, limp along. A drifty one can let it exit gamism entirely. Unless your design can handle where they go, the system will most like not matter to them. Which would mean (I think) that as a designer system doesn't matter to you, since you left this open.

Were both in agreement on examples, but I just wanted to clarify my position. Which is likely nothing you have any arguement so I've probably not added much to the thread with this post. Time for last comments from yourself or others and that's the thread wrapped up?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm good. I would ask that maybe you could summarize the point of the thread again, and whether or not any headway was really made anywhere with it. I think you have some sort of overall subtle point that I, at least, am still not really getting.

Mike

[Callan S.]

The basic intent of this thread was to look at rules design in a similar way you might design a space probe designed to land on another planet. In the same way you might guess the gravity of that planet, the materials there to test, the consistancy of its surface, or even the impact of the launch and landing on your probe, it's a lot of guess work. So instead, one might look at the factors one does definately know and go from there.

We didn't progress much past the idea that you can only work from your guess of what people might like (My delivery in the thread didn't help). There may not be many concrete rule beyond guessing your audience, but I think they are strong ones like non redundant design (ie, the faster you get to the point, the more likely that point will come about). Also I think Vincents breaking up of player unity may be another.

I was in a tricky position, since I wanted to explore this difficult to think about area, but found I could only define it by exploring it myself and showing my results.

Still, it may prove an interesting design challenge: Instead of imagining your book going into the hands of a happy and ready to have fun group, imagine it's going to some real enigma group, who are a blank to you. Despite not being certain on anything about them, what could your design still deliver regardless (assume they read, write and speak your language though! :) )??