I Made a Break-Through

[mjbauer]

That might be, it's just the way it appeared to me was that he was saying that player freedom should fall to the side for the sake of making something the way you want to. The whole thing seemed like he was saying that the players' wants from the game have no bearing on it because the GM is the one putting in the work to create it.

It comes down to this. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. If you don't give a player the freedom to get out of a game what they wan to, then they don't have fun. Stifling the potential for players to have fun for sake of artistic vision is counter intuitive and pretentious in this medium. If you want to focus on artistic vision without regard to forcing someone's hand, then you might as well be writing a story. If you're making a game forsaking the player interaction for artistic vision, it's nothing more than egotism.

I don't know exactly how you are getting that out of my post but that's not my meaning at all. I want my game to fun for whoever plays it and I want to encourage improvisation and collaboration during the game. That's part of the break-through, that by eliminating inconsequential and restrictive rules I can actually help the players to be more creative and to enjoy themselves more.

[TheDeadlyPlatypus]

Not your post, Callan's. Maybe I misinterpreted, but the way he said it made it seem like he was saying that a designer should make the game that he wants without regard to what a player might want out of it. After my fifth or sixth run-through of his posts, I thinkt hat I was probably looking at what he was sayign wrong.

[Callan S.]

That was the correct reading. Annoying, politically correct disclaimer: I don't know if the following applies or will help anyone.

I was suggesting as the default, make what you want to without compromise to anyone else/any player. Without feeling you'll be thrown out of the roleplaying club if you do so. Once that default is internalised, then consider as an author whether you want to colaborate or not. If not, that's fine, but probably best to say that on the cover/back of any roleplay game made that there is no interaction. Because, and I haven't really tendered any evidence toward this but I think it's true, continually compromising your art isn't healthy. If there's no respect for zero interaction/it's not called a roleplay game, then roleplay culture continually expects something which is unhealthy to continually do.

The main thrust is that the game can't be 'fun' for everyone, because people often have notions of fun that are, to varying degrees, conflicting. They will quite likely reduce the fun you were seeking, with any game powers they have, because their notion of fun conflicts with your intention for the game as game author. If your not ready to have your vision for the game screwed up to even a small degree in play, your not ready to write a collaborative work. And the above paragraph tries to respect that non collaboration intention for a work, rather than kicking it to the curb as being 'just writing a book' or such.

Mjbauer, when you were writing with cause in mind first, you didn't have to deal with this because you wrote causes then prayed it got the effects you wanted. Now your authoring directly in the effects you want. But when you author effects directly, by default no other player can interact. You have to actively write in the capacity for other people to be able to interact. And how much you do so depends not on some galactic code of honour for roleplay design, but instead on how much you want others to be able to.

I thought this was the next speed bump for you and this might help avoid a walk in the wilderness. I may be wrong on both accounts, as much as anyone could be wrong on a matter.

[mjbauer]

Mjbauer, when you were writing with cause in mind first, you didn't have to deal with this because you wrote causes then prayed it got the effects you wanted. Now your authoring directly in the effects you want. But when you author effects directly, by default no other player can interact. You have to actively write in the capacity for other people to be able to interact. And how much you do so depends not on some galactic code of honour for roleplay design, but instead on how much you want others to be able to.

I thought this was the next speed bump for you and this might help avoid a walk in the wilderness. I may be wrong on both accounts, as much as anyone could be wrong on a matter.

I think that I understand what you are saying. Let me see if I am getting it right:

If I create a game, with producing an effect as the goal, then I'm negating player discovery and interaction, because I'm forcing an outcome?

[JoyWriter]

I would say that people get "chucked out of the roleplaying club" because there is this nice balance in rpgs that people are trying to preserve, that is barely found anywhere else, which is where the artistic content is only partially found in the book: There is an extent to which designing an rpg is about structuring the process of collaborative creativity! So I think there's a whole "sustain the revolution" thing going on when people start pushing rpgs as a product to be consumed, rather than a tool to help expression.

It's easy to fall back on "I'm the author, and if you don't like it don't play my game", but I would say that shouldn't be your first port of call; start with open arms, and if you need to constrain stuff to make the feel right, then by all means do, because it will often produce benefits for those playing, not to mention allow you to actually realise your vision.

Actually, that is what I would say I have learned about mechanics; they are provocations, inspirations and peacemakers, at the same time as expressing your vision:

Provocations, because they stop players just following their old routes;
"I kill him and then..."
"Dice say you don't kill him actually, he escapes"
"Oh, ok then hmmm"
or
"I go down the tavern"
"Sorry there is no tavern, but there is the longhouse"

these things force players to be creative, and the inspirations help them to do it:

"So there's a longhouse? How is that different?"
or
"Right well in that case, I'll use my contacts to hunt him down"

Peacemakers stop fights between people, because either the rules favour one side, you roll off to decide, or some other means resolves the authorial authority business.

At the same time, the provocations are restrictions to make actions fit your game's tone and dynamics, the inspiration is setting detail, random tables or questioning procedures to help people see what your game is about and how to work with it, and peacemakers favour events that move the way your game moves.

So mechanical interventions into "pure" player creativity can be really good, but each of those can be ineffective, by restricting players so much that they can see no space to be creative, by overloading them with detail, and by not letting players be adult in solving disagreements. This can often be done in the cause of realism or setting integrity, or just writing too much! Naturally they can also be underdone, in the sense that groups dysfunctions are never helped, or that people never get to see why you like robot and machine gun games!

Also, now you understand that the effect is the important thing, don't go all waterfall about it, starting from pure player needs and psychology and stuff (although it's fine and even good to mix that in), play with systems you make and discover what is good as you design. Keep your eyes open to see what is working and what is just there "cos", and even when people make mistakes that work better. That way you can reach a game specification that is different from what you planned; your own game can teach you something!

[Callan S.]

If I create a game, with producing an effect as the goal, then I'm negating player discovery and interaction, because I'm forcing an outcome?

Yes. If you are grasping effect authorship, then you have complete control. Having complete, 100% control of course means no one else has control of what effect is produced.

IF (and let me stress that if, and respect if you don't want to) you want others to have some control over the effect, then you have to actively attack your own control. Put dice in the way of getting the effect you want, or such. The 'cause' designer doesn't have to do this, because his control over the effect is already under attack. So much so, he doesn't do much authoring. A true 'effect' designer is under no such attack - he has to provide it himself.

Also that's why I think it may be unhealthy to always compromise - if your continually putting things in the way of getting the thing you want to artistically create, then you never fully express your art. It's continually stifled. I think it's robust enough to compromise and be stiffled every so often, but even guys in bands often do side, solo projects. And it's still called 'making music'. Or maybe I'm being a mother hen and this doesn't apply - just saying it in case it looks after you.

But yeah, if your deciding the effect/goal by yourself, then your deciding it by yourself. Unless the players can potentially adjust the outcome to something other than what is your first preference for the games effect, then you have full control. But on the other hand if they can adjust the outcome to something other than what is your first preference for the games effect, then your obviously not getting the game you primarily want. Which can be stimulating if your ready for it and want it, or horrific if your not. To enjoy that you have to be ready to enjoy not quite getting what you wanted. I thinkz, anywayz.

[mjbauer]

Yes. If you are grasping effect authorship, then you have complete control. Having complete, 100% control of course means no one else has control of what effect is produced.

IF (and let me stress that if, and respect if you don't want to) you want others to have some control over the effect, then you have to actively attack your own control. Put dice in the way of getting the effect you want, or such. The 'cause' designer doesn't have to do this, because his control over the effect is already under attack. So much so, he doesn't do much authoring. A true 'effect' designer is under no such attack - he has to provide it himself.

Also that's why I think it may be unhealthy to always compromise - if your continually putting things in the way of getting the thing you want to artistically create, then you never fully express your art. It's continually stifled. I think it's robust enough to compromise and be stiffled every so often, but even guys in bands often do side, solo projects. And it's still called 'making music'. Or maybe I'm being a mother hen and this doesn't apply - just saying it in case it looks after you.

But yeah, if your deciding the effect/goal by yourself, then your deciding it by yourself. Unless the players can potentially adjust the outcome to something other than what is your first preference for the games effect, then you have full control. But on the other hand if they can adjust the outcome to something other than what is your first preference for the games effect, then your obviously not getting the game you primarily want. Which can be stimulating if your ready for it and want it, or horrific if your not. To enjoy that you have to be ready to enjoy not quite getting what you wanted. I thinkz, anywayz.

I wasn't suggesting creating a game where the players have no choice. When I mentioned starting with the 'effect' I didn't mean that I was intending to design a game that's sole purpose was to create one single effect. I simply meant that I wanted to consider what types of experiences I was most interested in (experiences that I think players will enjoy) and focus my rules on those areas. Similar to the way that many games incorporate mechanics which encourage behaviors and help reinforce the setting.

Role Playing Game design is new to me, so maybe I'm not using the right terminology to try to explain myself, so I apologize if there was any confusion.

[Selene Tan]

I wasn't suggesting creating a game where the players have no choice. When I mentioned starting with the 'effect' I didn't mean that I was intending to design a game that's sole purpose was to create one single effect. I simply meant that I wanted to consider what types of experiences I was most interested in (experiences that I think players will enjoy) and focus my rules on those areas. Similar to the way that many games incorporate mechanics which encourage behaviors and help reinforce the setting.

Role Playing Game design is new to me, so maybe I'm not using the right terminology to try to explain myself, so I apologize if there was any confusion.

You're perfectly clear to me. I think there are two things Callan is talking about. One is that the more you try to pin down a very specific experience, the less freedom the players of the game will have to express themselves. You can design games to support a broader or narrower range of experiences, so it's your choice how much you want to pre-determine.

Designing a game with the desired experience in mind doesn't mean that only a single experience is possible when the game is played. Even Jonathon Walton's Waiting for the Queen/Tea at Midnight is different every play-through, and there the players can only choose what they say, since their actions must follow a pre-determined script.

The second thing is that there will be people who play your game in a way you didn't intend. Be ready for it. Good things can come out of the surprise.