Premise vs. Convention

[Zak Arntson]

For those of you emulating a particular genre, I would recommend following that genre versus established RPG conventions.

Snippet from an interview about the upcoming Lord of the Rings RPG at http://mevault.ign.com/ ...

When we [create new things for the RPG], we always proceed with great caution, constantly asking ourselves, "Does this seem right? Does it have the LOTR "feel"? Does it fit into the setting properly?" For example, while the characters in LOTR generally didn't have to worry about money or what goods cost, in a roleplaying game characters often need to know that sort of thing. So, even though Tolkien doesn't explicitly discuss the economics of Middle-earth, we can take what snippets he does provide - names and types of coins, the price of ponies in Bree - and use that to provide gamers with the information they need, while remaining true, I think, to Tolkien's works.

So wouldn't it be truer to the game if it didn't cover currency explicitly?

The mindset of an RPG requiring equipment lists and equipment costs is kind of a gripe of mine (and after reading Ron's Sorcerer & Sword, I found at least one other kindred soul) ...

I just wanted to give some food for thought to all indie game designers.  In general, I think it's good design to double-check your RPG and cut out anything that is RPG-based rather than Premise-based.

Remember when every RPG was level-based OR skill-based (D&D vs. Call of Cthulhu)?  Or every RPG had statistics that had calculated modifiers (STR 13 gives a +1).  As a design exercise, examine your RPG-design efforts (or look at your favorite game) and try to trim it down to it's essential premise, removing any trim.

I remember reading Vampire 1st Ed. and LOVING the setting and premise.  But in play, we never explored the main premise of the game ... Vampires coping with their loss of humanity.

Anyhow, just a little opinion I wanted to share.  I'd like to see people taking their favorite premise/game and trimming it down.  I still love D&D, and every few months I sit down and scribble out some simplifications (like a level-based classless system, or extend a few skills to cover the BIG list, etc).

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Zak, yes yes yes...

As a design exercise, examine your RPG-design efforts (or look at your favorite game) and try to trim it down to it's essential premise, removing any trim.

My advice, almost word for word, to Scott Knipe about Wyrd (and game design in general). What is the game about? What parts of the game are not moving toward what it is about? Remove those parts!

It's like the Jack Lemmon/Billy Wilder exhange. Wilder says, "A little less" each time Lemmon reads his lines. Lemmon does so, only to have Wilder repeat, "A little less..." Finally Lemmon says, "Whaddya want, nothing?" TO which Wilder replies..."YES!"

Oh, and re: the LotR game...dollars to donuts it's a simulationist engine + the LotR setting. Wanna make a wager?

[Zak Arntson]

On 2001-08-22 21:27, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
Zak, yes yes yes...

I'd better take that in context ...

What is the game about? What parts of the game are not moving toward what it is about? Remove those parts!

So succint!  Yup, that's exactly what I was getting at + ranting about LOTR license becoming bogged with rpg-industry expectations (granted, I'm guessing you probably look more "professional" = sellable-by-distributors if you have industry-standards like cool equipment lists.  Oops, I'd better lay off on the bitter.)

Oh, and re: the LotR game...dollars to donuts it's a simulationist engine + the LotR setting. Wanna make a wager?

I can't make a bet AGAINST that ... since I'm guessing it'll be the same.  It will be a semi-generic fantasy game, despite the authors' attempts otherwise.  In the example of play, I read something like:

To attack someone, you make a Test (a skill roll) with the appropriate Skill (Armed Combat or Ranged Combat), modified by the relevant Attribute (usually Nimbleness) and the circumstances (cover, terrain, your Wound and Weariness levels, and so forth). The Target Number (TN) to hit in melee combat depends on the Swiftness modifier of the target; in ranged combat, it depends primarily on the distance between the shooter and the target. If you equal or exceed the TN, you hit; the more you beat the TN by, the more damage you inflict. Each weapon's effectiveness is rated in a number of dice of damage, which you roll. From that total the target subtracts the rating of his armour. The rest then applies to his Wound Levels. Each character has six Wound Levels, with a certain number of points in each. After you take all the points in one Wound Level as damage, you drop to the next Wound Level, and suffer whatever penalties apply. When you reach the last level, you are dead.

Doesn't sound very groundbreaking or setting-specific to me.  Why not just grab the d20 license, make some LOTR-specific changes, and run with that?

But then, I have a personal gripe on fantasy games with an emphasis on combat rules.  Sandy Antunes (I think) wrote something along the lines of most roleplaying games cover most situations with a few die rolls, but combat becomes this micro-managed, near "bullet-time" experience.

Was LOTR really about figuring line-of-sight, your wounds and weariness, and people's skills?

I'm tempted to turn this into a rant against fantasy gaming vs. fantasy literature in general ... but I'll let y'all read Ron's Sorcerer & Sword.  And maybe write a fantasy game of my own.

There's nothing better for investigating the ins-and-outs of a premise than REALLY designing a roleplaying game.  Especially when you are trimming things down to their essence.