Nine Worlds (or whatever): Why you DON'T CARE

[Jonathan Walton]

Long story short? I've yet to hear (on the forums, at least) someone come into a discussion and "Hey, Matt, what's Nine Worlds' Premise?"

You tell me.  I shouldn't have to ask.

Amen, sister.  What do you expect of us, Matt?  To drag your game ideas kicking and screaming from your head?  I don't have time for that.  If somebody has an idea that sounds really interesting, I might be willing to commit some serious time to pondering their ideas and offering really detailed commentary (like I did with Torchbearer and Incarnate).  

However, Nine Worlds didn't seem to want or need that kind of support.  You're a published game designer.  You know how this stuff is done, for the most part.  You're capable of doing more of this on your own just because you've done it before.  I'd rather spend my time supporting games that might not happen otherwise and those that are trying some things that haven't really been attempted before.  Nine Worlds is neither of those.  You're traveling down well-traveled roads (abeit in a new and interesting way) and you're probably going to do it whether or not you have someone really working closely with you to refine it.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

These newer members don't share the lexicon and the theory that many folks like, say, Mike Holmes or Jared Sorenson, or Ron Edwards or any number of other long-standing Forge members share.

So what?  I don't throw jargon around precisely because most of the newer members don't have a firm grasp on it.  I know I don't.  But just because I don't say "Premise" or use GNS terms, doesn't mean I can't say "so what's your game about, really?" or "are you trying for a pseudo-realistic depiction here?"  If you can communicate clearly with others, who needs the lexicon & theory?  After all, most people who will be playing your game won't know jack about that stuff.  We are your potential audience as well as your fellow game designers.

In fact, it is partially the jargon and shared theory that makes the Forge, at first, seem elitist and unwelcoming.  If I have to spend a year on the forums to be able to write intelligent, jargon-filled comments, that's BS.  I can write intelligent comments now, without the jargon.  What's the difference?

Later.
Jonathan

[Matt Snyder]

I'd rather spend my time supporting games that might not happen otherwise and those that are trying some things that haven't really been attempted before.  Nine Worlds is neither of those.

Woah! One the one hand, folks are saying, "What is your game? What's it about?" And on the other, they're saying, "It isn't really anything new, so it's not interesting to me."

Really? How do you know? Have I really provided enough information so far to dismiss Nine Worlds as not-terribly-interesting? Is Nine Worlds similar to Mage and Nobilis? Yeah, particularly in setting and "flavor." That's intentional. One of the many aims here is "Mage done right." So what? Isn't Dust Devils similar in content to, say, Deadlands or the Sidewinder D20 book? Isn't Sorcerer similar to Mage or even Vampire? Isn't InSpectres rather like Ghostbusters RPG? Isn't Universalis kinda like Aria? Well, yeah,  they are.

And yet, these are really great games with some really similar qualities to their predecessors. But, more importantly, they bring something new -- particularly in terms of game rules -- a crucial point -- to the table. They also bring a totally different style of game to the table. Sorcerer is NOT apt to satisfy Mage players. I know Dust Devils won't satisfy fans of Deadlands. But that didn't deter me from making the game. In all those grand theory terms I keep refereing to, that's because both are Narrativists games that offer something different for gamers than their Simulationist predecessors.

THE MUCH DELAYED NINE WORLDS PREMISE:

Nine worlds can be summed up thusly:

Create or perish.

The game's setting and mechanics force the players to craft creative solutions that go a step beyond "beating up the bad guy." Fail to do this, and you will cease to be, cease to exist in the game (as you're carted off by the Furies). The game codifies creativity in such a way that it forces players to solve situations to explain their incentified use of mechanics. Most importantly, in terms of mechanics, the game converts narration into a kind of winnable currency. This, as I see it, is the game's primary (perhaps only) innovation.

Another take on the premise: How can you inflict your identity on the universe to save it from oblivion?

This is a game about art, the creative processes of art. It's about creation, and therefore in its way, it's meta-hobby game. It's a creative game about creativity -- one aim (though not the only) is to examine the creative process, deconstruct it and parcel the process out in a challenging game format.

Forget all that Greek myth and Domains stuff. That's just groovy color. It doesn't mean anything, because the setting could have just as easily been superheroes or gamblers or whatever the heck.

What I'm interested, then, is whether that premise compels you to find out what this game's all about, even though you might have dismissed it as another metaphysical malarkey game like mage.

You're traveling down well-traveled roads (abeit in a new and interesting way)

So, then, what is the difference between "traveling down well-traveled roads" and doing something new and interesting. Isn't the later, by definition, innovating, and isn't the former just mimicking? You're right, of course, that I'll do it anyway. I do see where you're coming from, but I think my "critics" (and you're all hardly that -- despite my overnight labeling as a crank, I'm quite appreciative) are offering up as many mixed signals as I'm putting forth for critique. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I don't throw jargon around precisely because most of the newer members don't have a firm grasp on it.  I know I don't.  But just because I don't say "Premise" or use GNS terms, doesn't mean I can't say "so what's your game about, really?" or "are you trying for a pseudo-realistic depiction here?"  If you can communicate clearly with others, who needs the lexicon & theory?  After all, most people who will be playing your game won't know jack about that stuff.  We are your potential audience as well as your fellow game designers.

In fact, it is partially the jargon and shared theory that makes the Forge, at first, seem elitist and unwelcoming.  If I have to spend a year on the forums to be able to write intelligent, jargon-filled comments, that's BS.  I can write intelligent comments now, without the jargon.  What's the difference?

What you say is true, but it is also the jargon and theory -- which I had a helluva time grasping myself! I was in your shoes not too long ago, remember -- that sets the Forge apart. Dismissing the theory out of hand says you're not willing to find out about that foundational difference that makes the Forge unique is just plain problematic to me.

It doesn't mean you have nothing to offer me, or anyone else. OF COURSE that means you contribute on the forums anyway. But, it should also mean that you at least try to examine that theory. If it doesn't suit you, or even if you just like certain parts, that's ok. Hell, that's pretty much how everyone does it. I'm saying that new folks really should make a good faith effort to check out these Forge "building blocks." Otherwise, you're taking advantage of a great resource without making the effort to pay your dues in return (and it's hardly paying -- for most, the theory pays of in spades). Also, in so doing, you improve the Forge.

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

[Valamir]

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

I would agree with that sentiment.
One of the purposes and advantages to the theories (including many things only tangentally related to GNS itself like Stance) is that they provide a common lexicon for people to talk to each other and convey information succinctly.   When I say "Joe was making vanilla narrativist decisions mostly from actor stance with no real directoral input" those familiar with the jargon will know what I'm talking about.  To explain that sentence without the jargon would take a pretty long essay.

Learning the vocabulary (even if you don't agree with all the details) is important.  Otherwise we wind up spinning wheels and making little forward progress.  If we constantly have to redefine the ground we've already covered, then it becomes impossible to cover new ground.  And a lot of great ideas and great input from creative inciteful people gets left behind because we can't communicate with each other.

If one is going to become a serious Art Critic, a connoisseur of fine wines, or a student of philosophy one must learn the jargon associated with those fields in order to discuss fully these things with other practioners.  The Forge is no different.  Unlike those fields the jargon here is new and largely under developement which perhaps adds to the difficulty (but I think adds to the excitement).  

I have no problem at all with a new member posting and because they haven't grasped all the nuances yet they don't make full use of the vocabulary (so don't read this as an injunction to not post if you don't know the jargon)...but it is a confirmation that the effort to pick it up and understand it should be made so that commmunication can be enhanced for everyone.

Note that doesn't mean every post is ladeled full of arcane jargon either.  For most purposes merely having the knowledge simmering the back of the mind adds greatly to comprehension and expression even in posts where no jargon is actually used.  Its more than just a vocabulary.  Its a whole way of viewing gaming, game systems, and player interaction.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

But I like Matt.

Therein lies the conflict.

[Jonathan Walton]

Really? How do you know? Have I really provided enough information so far to dismiss Nine Worlds as not-terribly-interesting?

No, you just didn't give us enough information for us to determine that it was, in fact, interesting.  In case of doubt, most people will skip over it and on to something that does look interesting.

Most importantly, in terms of mechanics, the game converts narration into a kind of winnable currency. This, as I see it, is the game's primary (perhaps only) innovation.

It was this innovation then, that wasn't as clear as it should have been.  If this is a real selling point of the system, then you should have said:
"Hey, isn't this neat?  Come look at my game!"  And you might have gotten more responses.  What it seemed like you were trying to sell was the setting ("Titans vs. Mages in a cool reality where you ride steampunk ships between planets"), and THAT's what turned most people off as being "derivative" or "uninteresting."

Part of game design is knowing what you've got and knowing what parts to focus on.  If Torchbearer billed itself as being "a mythic fantasy game where you play empowered beings that fight amongst themselves" I would have dismissed it as a clone of Exalted or a billion other earlier games.  But luckily I was able to see through that to the really interesting things that Shreyas was doing with the mechanics.

You can't trust us to be psychics and always know "what you're really trying to do."  Sometimes the forums can help you figure that out or clarify it, but most of the time you have to know it and, more importantly, be able to communicate that clearly to us.

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

I agree.  But this takes TIME.  Expecting people who've joined the Forge in the past month or two to have all the theory down is unreasonable.  We're all still learning.  We're doing this a favor to each other.  Cut us some slack.

Later.
Jonathan

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Matt,

How was your Halloween?

I hope everyone reading these words had a safe and fun time, however you spent the day (and in whoever's company).  Now (insert voice of your mother) "Don't forget to brush your teeth!"  (smirk)

Woah! One the one hand, folks are saying, "What is your game? What's it about?" And on the other, they're saying, "It isn't really anything new, so it's not interesting to me."

Really? How do you know? Have I really provided enough information so far to dismiss Nine Worlds as not-terribly-interesting? Is Nine Worlds similar to Mage and Nobilis? Yeah, particularly in setting and "flavor." That's intentional. One of the many aims here is "Mage done right." So what? Isn't Dust Devils similar in content to, say, Deadlands or the Sidewinder D20 book? Isn't Sorcerer similar to Mage or even Vampire? Isn't InSpectres rather like Ghostbusters RPG? Isn't Universalis kinda like Aria? Well, yeah,  they are.

And yet, these are really great games with some really similar qualities to their predecessors. But, more importantly, they bring something new -- particularly in terms of game rules -- a crucial point -- to the table. They also bring a totally different style of game to the table. Sorcerer is NOT apt to satisfy Mage players. I know Dust Devils won't satisfy fans of Deadlands. But that didn't deter me from making the game. In all those grand theory terms I keep refereing to, that's because both are Narrativists games that offer something different for gamers than their Simulationist predecessors.

Before reading further I think you've hit it on the head, Matt.  Sometimes a game premise, be it the world setting or rules system, just don't interest people.  Maybe it goes over their head?  Maybe it is too dis-similar from the sort of game they have grown accustomed to?

I don't know if you clicked that link I gave you in the other thread to the web site with all the card game rules but, if you have, just consider all those games.  Obviously this arguement would apply equally well to who prefers one *style* of card game over another.

Obviously most Bridge players and Poker players just wont see eye to eye, maybe that is what's going on here?

Just my rusty penny.  (Hey, penny's aren't supposed to rust!!!)


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Matt Snyder]

I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

But I like Matt.

Therein lies the conflict.

Hah! Now _that's_ awesome. Totally made my day, Jared. On on this day, of all days, you have no idea ... finally smiling.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Valamir,

Nice to have an opportunity to chat with you again.

I think to frequent these forums and not attempt in a dedicated manner to digest the theory is disingenous.

I would agree with that sentiment.
One of the purposes and advantages to the theories (including many things only tangentally related to GNS itself like Stance) is that they provide a common lexicon for people to talk to each other and convey information succinctly.   When I say "Joe was making vanilla narrativist decisions mostly from actor stance with no real directoral input" those familiar with the jargon will know what I'm talking about.  To explain that sentence without the jargon would take a pretty long essay.

Learning the vocabulary (even if you don't agree with all the details) is important.  Otherwise we wind up spinning wheels and making little forward progress.  If we constantly have to redefine the ground we've already covered, then it becomes impossible to cover new ground.  And a lot of great ideas and great input from creative inciteful people gets left behind because we can't communicate with each other.

While this sentiment is true, it is only to a point.

One of the problems, as I see it, which is only an opinion, is thta a lot of people don't have a basic grasp of the fundamental principles of basic essentials, which are too numerous to list.  But, for a start, understanding the fundamentals of writing.  (If anyone needs 'em I have links to writer's resources.  I was going to wait to see if the writer's resource section gets added to the Forge's Resource page but if you want some just ask.)  By that I don't mean grammar or syntax.  There is more to writing than that.

[There is the endless waiting, the despairing over the ever growing list of rejections in your log book, the sheer amazement at seeing utter tripe get published in magazines you submit to while your work... er...]


Now, back to the *theory*.  One thing a lot of people miss about the GNS thing, I think, and this is just an opinion, is that it is a GAME THEORY.

Those who may want to break people down into "camps" or "sides", well, you can do that if you want.  But it's seperatist and isn't condusive to what, and this is just my opinion, The Forge is all about...

Which is creating a COMMUNITY of role-players for role-players, not just gamers, but ROLE-PLAYERS.  Be you into Fantasy, Horror, Espionage, or some other Genre Label(TM).

Yes, the GNS Theory provide a Lexicon.  But before those "in the know" knocks the newbie members (I wandered in here at the tail end of September of this year, just so everyone knows) be aware that the GNS Lexicon is meant to supplement extant lexicons.  Deny them, and the foundation of the GNS Lexicon crumbles because whatever "jargon" you use you have to have something upon which to draw to provide your examples.

Which also explains why so many people don't understand what most role-players are talking about until they say, with lamented sigh: "It's like Dungeons and Dragons."

Food for thought.

Feel free to throw it around if you like.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


EDIT:  Forgot to include a greeting.

[Matt Snyder]

You can't trust us to be psychics and always know "what you're really trying to do."  Sometimes the forums can help you figure that out or clarify it, but most of the time you have to know it and, more importantly, be able to communicate that clearly to us.

Ok, if my crime is not properly labeling the "important parts" (which I did mildly, by saying "This is where it gets interesting" in the mechanics post -- not enough, I think), then I'm baffled why all the fuss. Ya'll can read. I should have formatted it better, yes. Should have corrected it sooner, too. Yes. I agree.

But it was there, and folks mostly looked at what the Forge calls "color" and didn't recognize the meaty rules that might be withing (jury's still out!). That's what inspired me to say, "Hey, it's possible we're slipping a bit from our earlier, rigorous examinations of game design because I've got one example where folks are dazzled by a game's color (or NOT dazzled by it) and missing the point of it's humbly submitted innovation."

Totally water under the bridge at this point, though. Let's move on. I think I've made the point much more clear, both in terms of premise and what I wager is the innovation in the game. Go into the Nine Worlds: Initial Mechanics Explanation thread and check out the info about "tricks" especially.

By the way, I HIGHLY recommend that folks look VERY carefully at the definition of color. The insights Ron makes regarding that term is the single most important thing I've learned at the Forge, because "color" was blinding me terribly to what games are about and how to design games. I can't stress that enough. UNDERSTAND "COLOR."

I agree.  But this takes TIME.  Expecting people who've joined the Forge in the past month or two to have all the theory down is unreasonable.  We're all still learning.  We're doing this a favor to each other.  Cut us some slack.

Yes, it certainly does take time. Lots of time. Took me no less than three months just to open my mouth. Upon re-reading I can see how my previous post may have been construed such that I accused _you_ of not learning the theory. I was not trying to do so; truly, that wasn't my intention.

My point simply was to make an urgent call for anyone who hasn't taken time to examine this stuff to do so. It's worth it, and it will make the Forge a bigger, better place.

Finally, while we've talked here about the role of the "newbies," my entire "rant" from yesterday to today has been me clamoring for the "oldies," the old guard to HELP THE NEWBIES LEARN THE ROPES. It's not a condemnation of either group. It was a perhaps-too-passionate call to arms that we must not let fostering of community between "old" and "young" pass away.

Oh, and by the way, I've got to check out this Torchbearer game! Sounds intriguing.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jared,

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

I hate all games about spirits, gods, Gods, etc.

I imagine a lot of people share this sentiment.  Which goes a long way to explain a lot of things, but I don't want to bore you talking about the relative silence in the "Code Name: Pleroma" thread.  I think we have all been through enough already!  (wink)


Kind Regards.

[Kester Pelagius]

Sorry everyone!

Yet fascinating...

I don't recall hitting "quote".  Yet here it was.

[Reproduced post (which was supposed to be an EDIT only) deleted.]


Apologies to Ron.  Don't know how I flubbed this one.


Kind Regards.

(can this be deleted?)

[Mike Holmes]

Oh, and by the way, I've got to check out this Torchbearer game! Sounds intriguing.

Given the context, this statement is a delightful irony.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

Oh, and by the way, I've got to check out this Torchbearer game! Sounds intriguing.

Given the context, this statement is a delightful irony.

Mike

Yeah, you're probably right about that, Mike. <shrug> I'm an ironical kind of guy. Don't ask my wife.

But, in part, it's because I feel obligated to check new stuff out, just as I'm clamoring for others to do the same.

[Mike Holmes]

But, in part, it's because I feel obligated to check new stuff out, just as I'm clamoring for others to do the same.

My point is that the Torchbearer stuff has been floating about the Indie Game Design forum for quite a bit longer than Nine Worlds (I've read them in detail, though I've not commented at all yet). Apparently you're ignoring your obligations, Matt. ;-)

That's meant in jest. My point is just to say that one can see how easily people can miss something new. Doesn't mean it's not good; just means it got missed.

Mike

[Matt Snyder]

But, in part, it's because I feel obligated to check new stuff out, just as I'm clamoring for others to do the same.

My point is that the Torchbearer stuff has been floating about the Indie Game Design forum for quite a bit longer than Nine Worlds (I've read them in detail, though I've not commented at all yet). Apparently you're ignoring your obligations, Matt. ;-)

That's meant in jest. My point is just to say that one can see how easily people can miss something new. Doesn't mean it's not good; just means it got missed.

Mike

Well, I've got two problems in that regard. First, I kept getting it confused with Wayfarer. Second, I actually did read the Torchbearere "death" therad yesterday,  which startled me because it was the first thread I'd seen here ever that I could say, "Yeah, I talked about exactly this issue in my "Fate" posts a while back. How fitting, considering that context once again. I just haven't had time to get to it yet, and I haven't read the prior threads on Torchbearer.