About the way you "design" game!

[Patrick Boutin]

Hello again!

I'm not sure where this thread belong but I will post it in the RPG Theory forum!

I would like to know how everybody design there games. What I mean it's do you design your games as a player or as a gamemaster?

Personally, I design my game the way I master them not the way I necessarily play them. When I play a game as a player I adapt my style of play to the "gamemaster" and to the rules of the game but when I master a game I generally adapt the system to be fast and story oriented.

When I "design" a game or a rule system I always think about it at a gamemaster level, not at a player level.  Anybody doing it at a player level?

It might not be an interesting post but it was something I wanted to share!

Patrick

[Le Joueur]

Hello Patrick, welcome to the Forge,

I would like to know how everybody design there games. What I mean it's do you design your games as a player or as a gamemaster?

When I design a game, I think of it as a social engineering problem of unequal positions (that frequently shift).  I consider it from both a speculative marketing perspective and a practical "I've seen what sells" point of view.

I didn't start with any concept of player or gamemaster, but of what's 'in there' and who gets dibs on it.  (Some of Scattershot is played in 'live action' with nothing more than referees and no recognizable gamemaster at all.)

My concepts are based upon an unusual model that holds gaming is about 'who you wanna be' and slaves everything to that.

Now to make this a thread, as opposed to a series of 'what I do' posts, tell me, why do you ask?  Looking for advice?  Direction?  Seeking the 'best way?'  (Hint: there isn't one.)  Honestly, I can't say that I have ever heard of anyone who takes a 'gamemaster only' or 'player only' approach to design, do you believe this would be productive?  (Wouldn't it alienate whichever you didn't choose?)

Fang Langford

[edited to repair cordiality and in a vague hope to save face.]

[Patrick Boutin]

Why did I ask? Good question! I really don't know! Just to try to see game design from another point of vue!

I'm not looking for advice or anything like that with this post (I will ask for advice this weekend for the "fantasy" game that i'm trying to make) and I know that there is no "best" way.

If we're talking about rpg than we necessarily talking about "players" and "referee". If a game doesn't have a refere than maybe we're talking about theater or "improvisation". Can a player, I mean somebody that never master a game, design a game?!?!

When you designe a game do you take a player and a master approch or are you just "designing" a game? Can you design a game that you won't master?!

I know that games are made with the player and the master in mind but can you design a simulationist (or gamist, or narrativist) game if you can't master it?

Maybe my explications are not good enough (sorry, but i try to do my best with my poor english!!)

Patrick

ps: Ron or Clinton can you delete this thread?!?!  Finally, I think that it was a waste of time and a waste of space to go with this thread. I will try to best put my ideas together and maybe come back later with another post.

[Andrew Martin]

Hi, Patrick.

Welcome to The Forge.

I'm not sure what you are writing about. Here's my interpretations of your questions:

If a RPG game system doesn't have a referee or games master, is it a roleplaying game?

Can a player of a RPG design a game?

Can a RPG designer design a game they won't play?

Can a player design a RPG that doesn't require a referee or games master?

My answer would be "yes" to all the above. :)

If I've misunderstood the questions, feel free to explain some more or give some examples.

[Bankuei]

Hi Pat,

I'm also not clear on it, so let me know if I'm off mark here....

Is what you're asking, "When you design, do you do it from the viewpoint of a GM or a player?"

If this is what you're asking, I always come from the viewpoint of a player.  If its not a game I would want to play, then its not a game I want to make, or run.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Pat,

Well, no threads or posts are deleted on the Forge. And perhaps we can all work together to make this a strong one for others to read later.

Your basic question is actually a very good one. I am convinced that the bulk of role-playing games are written under the assumption that the only person actually to read the book is going to be the GM.

(Side note: actually, not all role-playing games use one game-master. But let's stick with the traditional model for purposes of this discussion.)

I also think that this assumption reduces the chances that the game will actually be played.

Any thoughts on this point, anyone?

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. The way you make it sound, Patrick, it seems that you are creating in a "reactive" way. Perhsps it's just miscommunication, but it sounds like you are creating games by looking at what didn't go right for you as a GM, and trying to "fix" those problems so that you'll never have to GM through them again. If I misread you, then you may want to restate what your saying about the GM perspective of design (and ignore the following).

If this is what you are talking about, I can only say that I think that its a common, and really bad, way to design games. That is, a game should be designed from the ground up, from first principles, to do what your design goals demand. And a goal should never be to "fix" something broken. Because to do so is to start with potentially flawed assumptions in the first place.

Chuck the baggage, and start fresh. Otherwise what you get is another "Improved D&D" or something similar. See the Fantasy Heartbreaker essay for more on why this is just not useful.

Mike

[Patrick Boutin]

Ok. I will try to make it "constructive" for everybody and I will try to answer to every posts.

Andrew:

Hi Andrew.

You answered yes to all the question you've mentionned. But I can't answer yes to all of them.  

For me the referee or game master is a necessity. We have, here in Quebec (I think that it has been discuss before on The Forge), a sort of game that we call "Improvisation". In this game, two team make a story around a specific subject. They (all the players) interact together around the subject trying to do the best possible story. No referee. No Dice. If you don't have a referee thant you don't need rules? Just my opinion. I know that I may be off the track with this one

That was one of my questions: can we design games only from a "player" point of vue? Probably, but I'm not really sure.  Can we design "rules" without having a referee's mind?

Why designing a game that you won't play? If it's your day job and it bring bread on your table than I can understand but as an indie game designer you can really design games that you won' play?

Do you have some examples of games that don't recquire referee? I would like to put my hands on some of them just to see how they implement this.


Bankuei:

Hi Bankuei.

Yes, it's practically what I'm asking. What everybody have to keep in mind it's that players and the referee play the game not only the players. They don't have the same "role" (players and referee) but they all play the game. What I'm trying to say (or to ask as a question) is that creating game from only a player point of vue has not the same implications as creating it from a player-referee point of vue? Is it ok to think that way?

Ron:

Hi Ron.

Yes Ron, you have it.  If we assume that the only person that will read the book is the GM then is it ok to assume that we design it as a GM?

Why is it reducing the chances the game will be played? Not really sure here. If you're only a player and you never "master" a game (if we stick with the traditionnal model) why even bother to read the game? Wait for the master to explain it to you (I would say that it's generally what is happening). You only need some background about the setting and the character creation section or maybe you just need D20, the player handbook and, as a player, will never need anything else. Here, Ron, don't misinterpret my comments. It's not directed at you but it's a general comment about the "thought" you're asking.


Mike:

Yes and no Mike. I don't think that I'm creating on a "reactive" way but... maybe yes. Hard to explain. Designing a game is not a "reaction" to what has not been done? and to what that has not been done right? (to a certain point)

I'm not trying to fix anything. I start from scratch and try to do the best game I can do. Not necessarily focusing on part of other games that didn't work for me but trying to make a game that will work for me.. as a GM. If it's ok as a GM it will be ok as a player.

If you don't like hit point in D&D you will surely not put hit point in the game you are designing. Is it fixing D&D? Not necessarily.


Wow. That was a long one. Just hope that it will help getting something from this thread.

Patrick

[Matt Wilson]

Hi Pat,

Your basic question is actually a very good one. I am convinced that the bulk of role-playing games are written under the assumption that the only person actually to read the book is going to be the GM.

Any thoughts on this point, anyone?

Absolutely. But is that because games often place most of the responsibility on the GM?  How often do you see sections for players on how to handle "troublesome" GM's?

What probably makes it worse is the inclusion of tons of "GM only" secret stuff in many game books. How many paranoid GM's figure the players will read those sections and actually tell the them not to buy the game?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Patrick,

I think you'll do well at the Forge. It's important to all of us that we are debating ideas, not attacking or defending ourselves personally, and your post shows that you share this ideal.

Let's take a game text that is written very clearly for the game master (GM). A player who picks it up will have a hard time finding material written for his or her viewpoint; whenever the text uses "you," it refers to the GM.

Of all the people who buy it, and remember that people buy games because they're read the advertising or because it has a good cover, how many will play it? Only the ones who are already designated as the GM for a group.

Now let's compare a game text that's written very clearly for both the GM and players. It presents examples from either perspective and makes the expectations for each one clear, without writing just to one or the other.

In this case, of all the people who buy it, nearly all of them can potentially play. The player might be excited about the game and give it to the GM of that group. The GM of the group might be excited.

In other words, I think that writing a game text so that it can be understood and enjoyed by anyone, regardless of GM or player, will increase the chances of actually playing the game.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Wilson]

If we assume that the only person that will read the book is the GM then is it ok to assume that we design it as a GM?

Why is it reducing the chances the game will be played? Not really sure here. If you're only a player and you never "master" a game (if we stick with the traditionnal model) why even bother to read the game?

These questions are worth a multi-page essay, IMHO.

For starters, it's worth considering that maybe a GM-oriented game leads to a GM having an idea and then desperately trying to hook in players. Whereas a game that's directed at multiple players at the same time leads to a group of people being interested.

What GM wouldn't love being approached by a group who say "hey, will you run this game for us? We have a whole bunch of cool character ideas?"

[Mike Holmes]

There is some debate over whether or not games that have no GM are RPGs. But I can assure you that there are such games that have lots of rules, and with good reason.

For that matter, why does an RPG with a GM need rules?

Mike

[Eric J.]

VERY good question (topic).  I write from the GMs perspective, I think.  I find this to be infinitelley inferior, becasuse of several reasons.

First: Premise.  Premise; premise!  Premise!!!  RPGs should be designed so that the group has fun in the game.  This includes every one.  However, GM-centric design would probably focus greatly on the mechanics and how you run the game, not on what you actually do.  It's just the how/what you do argument.

Second:  Let us look at the conventional definitions shall we?

play·er   Pronunciation Key  (plr)
n.
One that plays, especially:
One who participates in a game or sport.
A gambler.
One who performs in theatrical roles.
One who plays a musical instrument.
An active participant: a major player in world affairs.
The mechanism actuating a player piano.
A machine that reproduces recorded audio or audiovisual material.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

(This one was too long.  This is just an excerpt)
mas·ter   Pronunciation Key  (mstr)

n.
1. One that has control over another or others.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now.  If a player is a participant, would not that make the GM a player as well?  Now if master is a controller, would that not make a player a master (to a lesser degree) as well?  So, now you can say that I'm not using definitions in the context of the genre.  Well, true BUT... You must look at how these words can be linked whithin the context of the question because gamemaster has been the controller in traditional roles and the player the participator.  From whose perspective do you make a game?  The controller or the participater?  Rule documentation is seconded by the application of the rules themselves.[/b]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Eric,

Your post is very interesting, because many folks here at the Forge (myself and Vincent in particular) consider the concept of the "GM" to be a sub-set or type of "player." This is because Premise exists as a manifestation of the Social Contract, not as an "owned" item or quality for which only one person is responsible.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Here's a great thread about it: Players, players, I can't stand it any more, although I've failed to follow my own advice very well since then.

[Andrew Martin]

For me the referee or game master is a necessity. We have, here in Quebec (I think that it has been discuss before on The Forge), a sort of game that we call "Improvisation". In this game, two team make a story around a specific subject. They (all the players) interact together around the subject trying to do the best possible story. No referee. No Dice. If you don't have a referee thant you don't need rules? Just my opinion. I know that I may be off the track with this one

Here's an alternative. Two players get together and want to play a wargame. They decide on a general setting "Let's have a World War 2 wargame set on the Eastern Front!"; the agreed rules "WRG's 1950 - 2000 OK with you? OK!"; the amount of forces on each side "Say, 2,000 points? I'd like about 2,500? OK!"; and the type of forces "I've got German and Russian miniatures? I've only got Russian stuff. OK, I'm German and you're Russian."; and a time/place, "next weekend at 1:00PM at my house? OK!". Next weekend, the players get together, setting up and playing their game. They refer to the WRG rules and resolve disputes according to the rules in the WRG rules book, along with any agreed upon house rules. The game finishes, with a winner and a looser or a draw each. In the wargame, was there a need for a referee or GM?

Now consider a skirmish game, where each player is in charge of one or several miniatures, and the players are using a good skirmish wargame rule set. Does the skirmish wargame require a referee or GM?

Now consider a RPG ruleset for a gamist RPG like AD&D and suddenly we need a GM? Doesn't this imply that there could be something a little odd about the rules? :)