Surrounded by Genius

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ok, this thread might be something new, or it might have already been dealt with before, in which case give me a swift kick in the ass and point me in the right direction.

So I'm browsing about the Forge and oogling at all the cool games. I mean seriously, this is an awesomness BONANZA (and I never use that word. Sounds plain stupid). We've dealt with what makes an RPG, what an RPG needs to function and such, but what makes an RPG good. Why is it that other games manage to get everybody up, excited and gushing, while others leave people going "Right. That sucked" (looks pointedly at own games). I'm not complaining, and if it appears that way it is not my intent. The fact that my games aren't that brilliant doesn't bother me so much as the fact that I don't know why.

So, could anybody give me a hand here? Some case studies or examples would be cool, but at least what to look for or aim for would also be very helpful.

Thanks,
Kirk

[Kirk Mitchell]

Ignore any percieved self-pity (real or unintential) please. Or give me said swift kick. Do me good it would.

Kirk

[timfire]

So you would like us to analysize you game? Is that what you're asking?

[Vaxalon]

By now, the Forge has enough material together to make a semester-long, sophomore-level college course on the subject, complete with requirements in mathematics (basic probability) english (technical writing) and philosophy (myth).

It's not something that most people can pick up from a single forum post.

Here's your starting reading list:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/25/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/

(yes, I know the last one is out of order.  That's on purpose)

Now "Wait," you might say, "Those articles aren't about what makes roleplaying games good, they're about how roleplaying games work."

Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games.

All that other stuff you've been reading, they ARE about what makes a roleplaying game good.

[Andrew Morris]

I could be wrong, but it sounds more like Kirk is asking what (totally apart from theory and technical skill) makes one RPG good and another bad. That is, Game A and Game B could both be well-founded in theory, but Game A is "good," while Game B is "bad."

If that's the case, it's somewhat like asking what makes some art good and other art bad. First, the terms are subjective, and people will disagree as to what is good and what is not. Second, no amount of technical skill will make an artist's work good if they don't  have a core of  inspiration/artistry/that -indefinable-something. I think the same goes for RPGs.

[TonyLB]

"Indefinable something" ... eh.  I think it's definable.  I think it's about whether you write the game that personally makes your breath come fast and your knees get rubbery, or whether you cop out and write something that you hope other people will like.

And that's, y'know, the whole answer as far as I'm concerned:  You need the arrogance to spill your own guts and say "Check out how cool my guts are!"  Look at some of the game designs people have made 'round here:

• A game about loser satanists mutilating pets and getting horribly fucked over by the universe.
• A game of debauched sex and death, and how the two are intertwined.
• The game where the only guarantee is "You will die, and everything you love will die, and the best you can hope for is to choose the order that happens in."
• The very famous game whose central mechanic is a simulation of co-dependent abusive relationships (with the players in the roles of the abusers).
• The likewise famous game of the same abusive relationships with the players in the roles of the abused.
• The game where everything you ever say is God's will, and anybody who thinks differently is just plain wrong and needs to wise up or die.

In all seriousness... do these games look as if they were written by people who gave a flying fig whether anyone else liked them or not?  They sure look, to me, like people who just got excited about an idea and wrote every wrong, terrible, unforgivable, human thing that got their blood fizzing straight into the game.

I can't speak definitely for anyone else, but while designing Capes I had plenty of times when people said "This thing you're doing here, nobody's going to like it."  To which my reply was, pretty much universally, "Screw 'em then!  They're too weak for my game.  Perhaps, someday, they'll be cool enough to enjoy it.  It's something they can aspire to."

[Andrew Morris]

I don't think so, Tony. While it's easy to look at games where the "spilling your guts and being jazzed about your own creation" method worked, that doesn't show that one caused the other, or that they're even related. It's harder to show examples where the creator did everything you mention and their game still wasn't good. But the ranks of Fantasy Heartbreakers is probably a good place to start. Heck, for an easy non-RPG analogy, look at all the blogs out there. Tons of people are pouring out their hearts online, but does that make them good reading? Hell, no. I have friends who have blogs, and they always want me to read them, but I'd rather saw my leg off with a rusty bread knife.

Or from the other direction, look at the latest incarnation of D&D. I'm sure no one was following the process you describe, though I'm sure they were working hard on the project. And it's probably the most popular game on the block. And, for what it does, it's a good game.

Personal honesty might contribute to creating something good, but I can't see it as the only requirement. I think you've got a blind spot, Tony. Like most people who have a gift in some area, you assume that everyone either has it or can learn it, and that's simply not true.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Perhaps what I was aiming for was a comparative study. All this theory is great, but I need something solid to plant myself in (and I'm shit when it comes to examples). What I want is to look at all of these kickass RPGs and find out what makes them good, so that I can steal it. I'm good at comparative studies, but the problem here is that I don't know what I'm looking for.

What combination of what makes these games good? It may very well be in the theory itself, but I have a hunch its in the actual application of the theory.

Oh, and I agree with Andrew, Tony. People who have a gift often find it difficult to see why others can't do the same thing. Getting jazzed about something you do doesn't make it good (although in your case, it probably is).

Thank you for the links Vaxalon. I've read those already, but I'll read them again. And again. Until the thing that has sunk in for you guys finally sinks in for me.

Kirk

[TonyLB]

Whoops!  Yes, my bad.  It's not the only thing.  Gentlemen, your statements are (a) flattering and (b) quite correct.  An appealing combination!  I'm going to give my argument one last gasp though... I think it's going down for the count, but I feel some loyalty.

Craft plays a big part.  But I think the technical skills are (somewhat) easier than people assume them to be.  Again, mixing your own inspiration with stuff that's directed at an obscure and unknowable "public" makes a hash out of most people's technical skills.  At least it does for mine.  It's hard to create a game when you pander to other people.  You don't know what you're attempting to do.  The mechanics get all inconsistent and convoluted.  It's easier (not easy, but easier) when you're only serving yourself.

Particularly, I think Fantasy Heartbreakers are, for the most part, exactly the sort of cop-out that I'm talking about.  These are people who take some things that they're excited about:  say the notion that fantasy characters should be defined by their place and progression in a series of mythic archetypes... so that a Young Aspirant can become (through play) an Arrogant Hero or... anyway, something else, and that progression is what matters in the game.  Then they admix it with material that they aren't excited about, but which they think is necessary for other people to appreciate their work:  so now they have to figure out whether the Young Aspirant should be taking an STR penalty... whether the Arrogant Hero has to have a WIS score of under 12, and what sort of bonusses he gives to henchman NPC morale.  You see how, already, the cool idea starts to sound stupid?  The admixture turns a game that some people would have gotten really, really excited about into a game that almost everybody is going to find dissatisfying in some way.  It's what makes it heartbreaking.

[Bill Cook]

Kirk:

Well, I just scrapped my post after reading your last comment. It was gonna say "steal the best," but you're already on about that. And I think I see better what you're asking: "what combinations of mechanics best support various styles of play." Yes? Rather than survey the field, could you help us by describing the kind of game you're trying to create? And describe your best game design effort and why you're dissatisfied with it.

[Kirk Mitchell]

<little clicking noise in my head> That makes some sense to me. I think that may be part of it, but not the whole picture. I certainly feel that it would keep the writer's self esteem up. If you mix in things that you don't like, then you find it harder to express what you want. Or, the opposite occurs: you can't express how you want something to happen mechanically, so you mix in things that you don't like. What you are saying has some merit, it would seem, but is only a small aspect of the whole problem. <notes down in little book: link between technical skills/writing and theory>

Tell me, when you look at rules, why do you think you get excited over one and go "blah" over another? I mean mechanics here. Not concepts, but how the mechanics give the concepts shape. Hell, here must be part of my problem. I can't even figure out how to explain the relationship between concepts and mechanics!

Bill: I'm not sure if this is the same thing, what I'm also looking for is how you express concepts mechanically (got it that time!). Tony caught part of it, in what not to do when writing mechanics, but that is a side issue. How do you write mechanics in the first place? How do you express the concept of, to use his example, Young Aspirant becomes Arrogant Hero, through mechanics?

Or am I just being confusing...

Generally I design narrativist games. I'll come back later with more in-depth information, as well as comments and descriptions of my best game design effort. This is the thread where most of the design was discussed: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16456.0

Thanks
Kirk

[Bill Cook]

Ok, I understand you better. I just skimmed your design thread, giving a closer read to the rules reduxes. It's an interesting concept. It takes aspects of Sorcerer and DitV and turns them on their head. I like the formulaic structure. I like how the action is all about digging up the past.

It looks like you've got a headstart on expressing concepts as mechanics. Mechanics are structure and formula. They support exploration of your chosen concepts, if the game's tight. So that's the sermon to the choir. How do you do it? I don't know. I get my best stuff by trial and error in actual play. Just like other writers, I get flash moments and hide in my room for days, pulling the meme I caught by the tail out of the ether. But eventually, I leave my room and corral players. Some of my little children prove themselves while others fall to one side or the other: weighty dross or cracking veneer.

Vanity is a good high, but you've got to stand in line to get kicked in the nuts if you ever want to get anywhere. So there's my push for "prove it through play." I worry that I missed what may have been a more basic request: How do I physically capture my ideas? If that's more what you meant, I guess, my first thought is to ask you your reaction to DFK.

[Graham W]

Kirk et al,

You seem to be asking: what's the difference between a well-crafted RPG and a great RPG - one that people love, that captures everyone's imagination?

I think it's a valid question. So when Vaxalon says:

Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games.

I think he's both right and wrong. A game can be technically "good" - it can work well and do what it's intended to do - and still capture nobody's imagination.

Having said that, I don't think it's possible to define the difference between something well-crafted and something great - you're trying to define what gets people excited, what makes them think "this is really something different" - and that's undefinable.

[Kirk Mitchell]

It looks like you've got a headstart on expressing concepts as mechanics. Mechanics are structure and formula. They support exploration of your chosen concepts, if the game's tight. So that's the sermon to the choir. How do you do it? I don't know. I get my best stuff by trial and error in actual play. Just like other writers, I get flash moments and hide in my room for days, pulling the meme I caught by the tail out of the ether. But eventually, I leave my room and corral players. Some of my little children prove themselves while others fall to one side or the other: weighty dross or cracking veneer

Ok, so bringing this back to my other question: Tell me, when you look at rules, why do you think you get excited over one and go "blah" over another? I mean mechanics here. Not concepts, but how the concepts are expressed by the mechanics. Looking at Tony's example of Young Aspirant to Arrogant Hero and then making it not so cool, if that's how not to write mechanics, what makes a mechanic good? I suppose the easy answer here is "Its effectiveness at encouraging a particular style of play", but how is that measured?

I worry that I missed what may have been a more basic request: How do I physically capture my ideas?...your reaction to DFK

Could you elaborate on this? I mean, I understand what DFK is and all, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Kirk

[Kirk Mitchell]

Graham, to me, the well-crafted bit is the design of the mechanics, while the "indefinable" element is the ideas and concepts that go behind them. What I suppose I am trying to discover now (to further re-define my aims) is the connection between the two, and how it works. I'm not looking for some blanket "Make great RPGs formula", but some hints as to what makes one RPG better than another through that connection.

Unless (and I always allow for this possibility), I am completely, utterly and sorrowfully wrong.

Kirk