Surrounded by Genius

[contracycle]

I fully concur with Kirk's question; I suffer exactly the same frustration despite having read all this excellent theory for some years now.  We have a collection of ideas, of principles, but we have no praxis of game design, no methodology.  And this massively, hugely, diminishes the utility of the actual theory articles.  This is exactly the same question as was posed in Site Discussion recently - where are the tools?  Well there are really no tools.

We're still stuck waiting for a magical spark of divine inspiration, still practicing alchemy trather than science.  To talk about enthusiasm, excitement, even vanity, is a total cop-out that substitutes a form of personal criticism for methodological analysis.  When Vaxalon says "Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games" we are reduced to the wit and wisdom of Forest Gump: " Good RPG is as Good RPG does".  This is 100% useless.

I fully agree with Kirk that what is missing is comparative studies, and both those terms need heavy emphasis: COMPARITIVE and STUDIES.  All we have is commentary and a bunch of opinion pieces.  We have nothing systematic, developed.  People say, for example, the D&D is a good gamist game, to which I inevitably respond "bollocks".  IMO it is an indescribably poor gamist game, massivley over-complicated, inelegant, labour-intensive and frankly no fun.  Why don't we sit down and actually discuss these things?  People can point out to me what they think is good about this engine for gamist purposes, and I can point out what I think is bad about it, and we can use the theoretical insights we already have in order to support and justify our respective positions.  Without such comparative study, our analysis of games is little more than an expression of taste.

And yes, before you ask, I do have a practical suggestion.  Why not establish an Analysis forum, in which we create threads for the dissection and examination of existing games, especially those that command wide-spread appeal and those which we feel are the most cutting edge of Indie designs.  Create a set of analyses as to HOW a particular mechanic acheives its effect, how it interacts with other mechanisms to achieved the "feel" of the game, and then armed with this, also conduict comparisons of other games that attempted to create the same effect, with whatever degree of success, or games which would have benefitted from this such a device but did not employ it.

Without such a collation of analysis, it will remain impossible to gain any real insight into how a particular goal should be achieved short of outright plagiarism.  At present you cannot establish what you want to do and then gain advice on how to achieve it, all you can do is ask for your own inspiration to be critiqued.  This is a poor state of affairs IMO; we are still incapable of performing anything that approached engineering, and I find that a great pity.

[Kirk Mitchell]

I concur, although I never imagined something this big coming out of my simple query. The theory is fantastic and provides an excellent understanding of how games work, but we need tools. I don't really see anything more that I can say, Contracycle, you've said just about all I had to say. And much more elegantly and concisely than I ever could (which seems to be my catch-phrase these days...you all put my writing skills to shame).

Kirk

[Bill Cook]

Kirk:

I got excited by the two-step combat round as the format for CP allocation in TROS. I felt it expressed gambling in footwork and commiting to a strike that happens in a sword duel (so I imagine). I was pretty much left cold by the advancement mechanic in BW:C because (1) you had to seek contests that you couldn't possibly succeed and (2) you had to do so multiple times across three categories of attempts. This seemed labored and masochistic. I liked the concept of a character becoming more effective based on facing challenges during play; I just thought the way it was done fulfilled some misplaced bias towards complexity.

I think Tony's point is largely not to include the rest of whatever RPG game you're fixing.

.. what makes a mechanic good?

To me, elegance. That is to say, each part reinforces the whole.

RE: DFK. I just wanted to make sure that you'd looked at it. Not all mechanics concern resolution, but they tend to draw the most attention. I see these categories as most relevant in getting to the how's of writing mechanics.

contracycle:

I also think D&D is kind of heavy. And I like the idea of doing system comparisons. It's kind of a shame that the theory forum is scheduled for retirement.

Bringing RPG design to the standards of engineering strikes me as being hyper-rational. I enjoy many of its "fumbling in the dark" aspects. Also, I doubt that Kirk agrees that the feedback he has received is pitiable. Anyway, I'm not meaning to be antagonistic; just more to say, at least from my POV, we're at the best worst I've ever seen.

Also, I think your collation project would be valuable work.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Still, I do feel that we need tools, or at least some aspect of theory to become a bridge between design and the rest of the theory. It is agreed that RPGs are an art-form, and to bring it to the standards of engineering is indeed a bit excessive, but even so, I think we need to find a balance between engineering and that "spark of divine inspiration". I see the suggestion of comparative studies of RPGs to be the same as comparative studies of any great text or poem. The objective is to understand not only what techniques are used according to the theory, but also the implementation of those techniques. The greatest poets were either the most well versed in their art (knowing not only the theory behind but how to implement it), those with the most inbuilt talent, or those with a mixture of both. Knowing the theory behind the art and its implemenation does not detract from the creation of that art, because there still remains that "spark of divine inspiration" to guide it. So we are still left practicing our alchemy and our voodoo, "fumbling in the dark", but we are building a spark of light to guide us. Besides, you can break the rules most effectively once you know them. If you know the techniques, it is easier to innovate away from them.

I don't know if we will be able to establish an Analysis forum, but without it we can still conduct our comparative studies and collate our analyses of the texts. However, I think that the comparative studies should also be supported by actual play experience. Its one thing to read the script, its another to watch a production of the play.

So, the thread has shifted from its original floundering (my fault) to something more concrete. A few things that I feel we need to address are whether there is already any work out there that deals with this sort of thing. I vaguely remember Vincent posting something on his blog referring to a theory that is Mike Holmes thought might be "a complete description of the arrow between Ron's Exploration level and CA level". See it here: http://ludisto.blogspot.com/

What games to look at, what to look for within those games, and perhaps specific mechanical structures are other things we should discuss. Sort of a "Yes, TROS has some cool combat mechanics, but why are they cool". Ultimately we could come out with some essays on mechanical techniques, sort of like those creative writing textbooks or something. Of course, I'm thinking more On Writing than an english textbook.

Thoughts?

Kirk

[contracycle]

Admittedly I come from an engineering discipline, but what bothers me is there is such a thing as structured programming.  I think that all mechanics could be expressed as a flowchart, and that irt would be interesting to compare the flowcharts of different designs.  It would require the developement of a bunch of symbols and conventions, but in principle I can envision diagrammatic representations of the structures and linkages that are expressed through existing mechanics.  We know, for example, that Attribute plus Skill is a common structure, we know that "reach target number threshold" is a common structure, so we can express some designs as something like:

[attrib] + [skill] + [d10]  => Number
IF Number > Threshold => Success
ELSE => Fail

And compare that with:

[attrib] + [skill] + [d10] => Number
IF Number > 2 x Number => Critical
ELSE IF Number > Threshold => Success
Else => Fail

[Kirk Mitchell]

Oh joy. I can see it now: EBNF for game design. No, my vision of the comparative studies was more along the lines of the examples I gave. More like studying a novel and seeing how the writer did what they did than comparing two flowcharts, although I can see aspects of both in RPGs. Granted, I do have more of an area of expertise in English than in engineering Having some sort of syntax for displaying mechanics might have some benifits though. We should explore this.

Kirk

[TonyLB]

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 get excited by most any game that recognizes that players (as people) are part of the system, and manipulates them.

If I read a game and say "Wow, this game gives me a really clean way to do precisely what I've always wanted to do in this setting and genre," then it gets my vote for well-crafted, but not my vote for viscerally exciting.

If I read the game and say "Holy S#^T!  This game will draw me into doing things I've never thought of wanting to do in an RPG!" then it gets my blood pumping.

Random example:  In My Life with Master, if you (as a minion) jump to abject desperation ("Please, Master! No!  Don't send me back into the forest!  The eyes, Master, I can't forget those horrible, baleful eyes!") the moment an order is given then you lock the Master out of getting any bonus dice.  I don't remember having ever deliberately sought out chances to grovel, plead and debase my character before that mechanic had me in its clutches.

[Arturo G.]

Hello everyboy! I'm a newcomer on this forum.

You are discussing a complicate point. Do you think there is an answer for the question: What does a novel be something special, something that captures your attention and makes you knees trembling?
I don't think that structural perfection is the only answer. A good novelist, in general, should be a good writer. But knowing the theory is not enough. You need to have interesting stories to tell.

I agree with those of you that say that there is a part of art in the design of an RPG. An RPG is a story-generation tool.
Something should strongly convey people minds into an imagined world where interesting stories appear to be easily developed.

Sometimes it is a mixture of setting details and the kind of activities promoted by the rules. Some rules appear to be incredible nice to me because, when I read them, they are promising that intresting things are going to happend during the game. Most of the time it is not what the rule says itself. It's what my imagination think I can do with the rule (in the context of the rest of the game). When reading a new game, I'm always imagining scenes driven by the game setting and mechanics. If I like what I see, I immediately want to play it.

Arturo

[Paul Czege]

And yes, before you ask, I do have a practical suggestion.  Why not...create threads for the dissection and examination of existing games, especially those that command wide-spread appeal and those which we feel are the most cutting edge of Indie designs. Create a set of analyses as to HOW a particular mechanic acheives its effect, how it interacts with other mechanisms to achieved the "feel" of the game, and then armed with this, also conduict comparisons of other games that attempted to create the same effect, with whatever degree of success, or games which would have benefitted from this such a device but did not employ it.

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Paul

[Arturo G.]

About a comparative study, I think that game reviews can do the job. I like the series of reviews you can find here, in The Forge, and in other places like RPGnet. I always try diferent reviewers for the same game, and different game-reviews for the same reviewer. Don't you think this makes a good comparative study?

And about tools... I don't think you can do real RPG-engineering, as well as good novelists are not engineers due to the artistic part(Gods bless Inspiration!). Of course, knowing the theory and the rules of how-to is important. You cannot flesh your ideas into working mechanics if you do not understand how to do it.

I think that the nearest thing to a RPG design methodology you can find is the approach described in the sticky thread of the Indie-Games design forum: Topic: Structured Game Design (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1896.0)


Arturo

[TonyLB]

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

[xenopulse]

Welcome to the Forge, Arturo!

I think you have a great point.  I've learned a lot from reading the reviews here on the Forge, especially because they are an example of applied theory.  Sadly, there are only very few reviews on here, and no recent ones.  That's understandable, as writing an in-depth, theory-based review is probably a lot of work.

Furthermore, I benefit immensely from design logs by people who know what they're doing; Vincent's "fishbowl" posts on his blog are the best example.  I can see how he does things and how the game comes together, and it gives me an example of how I could do the same thing.

So... I guess we can all do more Actual Play and Indie Design posts with this in mind.

[Blankshield]

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

Ya know, I was just-a gonna say that.  In the past, whenever I've seen a comparision or dissection of a game in RPG theory, it has two states, and tends to vibrate between them:
1: Very focused, specific questions, hardcore "How do I do this? questions and answers.
2: Open comparisons, general overviews and mechanical comparisions, makes Ron turn interesting shades of purple.

I'm on the AP side of the fence.  If you want to see how and why a game does or doesn't work, go play it.  A lot.  With different people.  Write about it.

James

[timfire]

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

No, while this type of discussion does appear in Actual Play, this type of discussion, I believe, is better suited for Theory.

[Graham W]

Kirk,

The games that catch my imagination most usually have some psychological depth to them. They often deal with death - so I love My Life With Master and Cthulhu-esque games. Or they go into some fairly dark moral areas - hence my current obsession with Dogs In The Vineyard and Paranoia (straight style).

I don't think that's just a personal thing. At the risk of being pretentious, most great plays deal with death and moral dilemmas; most great films do too; so I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the RPGs that seem "deep" are concerned with some fairly deep, life-changing issues.

Graham