Elegance and Deliberateness

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

Hi Fang.  I think I get what you mean by elegance, in this context.  Let me give an example of this in a game, which aught to show if I've got you there.

In Sorcerer, the game focuses on moral issues, dilemmas, and is customisable on which area of morality or humanity it explicitly focues (This is the window).  However, it has a recurring theme of human relationships - the Pc's together, the pc-demon relationship is setup to be dysfunctional, and large chunks of the GM's advice focus on these relationships.  This is the light, human relationships.

So, if that fits with what you were thinking, can I offer a refinement on your analogy.  The lamp and the window.  It is actually the light that is percieved through the window that is important.  If both work together, then the light through the window is a beutiful thing.  However, both can be good independantly, but not quite feel right together.  

Let me recast that into game language.  The window is the game - rules, setting and all the rest. Within literature, it would be the text, the plot.  The lamp is hidden behind the text, it is the sub text, the deeper intent.  It is the synergy between them that you are refering to as elegance, I think.

By generalising to a lamp and a window, I think it highlights some design methodologies:  a simple lamp and complex window; and simple window and complex lamp.  Both of these translate to clear methodologies - a simple message through a complex and detailed game, and a complex message give through a simple, and striaght forward game.  I'd submit that the former covers many popular RPG's [0], whilst the latter is not a normal design philosophy, for good reason [1].

With all that said, can I offer anything constructive?  I don't believe that not paying attention to it, and have it fall out is a good approach.  It's not possible to give a recipie that will always work [2], but it is possible to give procedures that highlight approachs that will tend not to work.

A strategy I have used is to identify what your are attempting to achieve, and write it down.  Then, break it down into the elements, both in the window and in the lamp - the explict and the implied.  In my experience, I've never seen more than 2-3 implied elements, and the design aims for the explicit elements tends to be about 10-12. Then classify how each element interacts, into one of three groups:  harmonising, non-interacting, and contrasting.

With this, you can do various analysis.  If there are too many non-interacting elements, then your message is not likely to come through (too disparate).  If the elements tend to separate into clumps, with strong interactions within each clump, and weak or no interactions between them, then, well, it's a bit fractured.  And if the explicit elements do not interact with the implied elements, then there will not be clear transmission of the message through the game. [3]  Few contrasting elements will tend to make a game where everything is in step with each other - a trait of an easy to use system



[0] Consider, say, a/state.

[1] If the game is too light to contain the message well, then the message will come through in a very explict fashion.  And (most ?) people want a game first, with depth available, not with the meanings push in their face.

[2] See mathematical theory on emergent phenomena.

[3] Note that this is not a complete, or even nearly so, set of things to look for.  It's one set - there are others that would also work, and compleatly contradict this set.  This does, however, suffice for example.

[clehrich]

Hi, Fang.

Interesting post and discussion.  It reminded me of my http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5151" target="blank">Michelangelo discussion a while back.

Just a few comments:

1. I'd avoid making comparisons, including negative ones, to novels.  I can think of a number of novels which exactly fit the description you give of being elegantly crafted.  I don't think the difference is essential, and will lead us down the garden path.

2. This kind of theory has arisen various times in the context of traditional aesthetics.  The basic principle, using your terms, would be this:

If the window refracts the light in a manner supportive of the artist's conception of the light, then you have elegance.  If the window refracts the light as little as possible, such that one sees the light directly, you have a didactic piece.  If the window is all you see, you have art as a surface, a depthless object, which is classically considered a bad thing but has been elevated by Warhol et al.

To put this differently, let me paraphrase Slavoj Zizek's discussion of the aliens in the movie Alien.

Classical aesthetics dictates a correlation of form and content.  If form (window) dominates content (light), you have shallowness: the aliens look cool as rubber suits, but aren't very interesting.  If content (light) dominates form (window), you have shock power: the aliens' interior seems to be on the outside, thus they're drippy and have a sem-exoskeleton and so on, thus are terrifying.  If content and form are perfectly balanced, you have beauty (elegance), something undesirable in the aliens, but very desirable in lots of other art-objects.

So as I understand it, what you're saying here is perfectly in accord with classical aesthetics.  It's a question of building a window that's exactly suited to the light.

2a. Let me note here that sometimes an imbalance is desirable.  For example, one could argue that the perfect balance for octaNe would be an almost total lack of light, and a really brilliant window, as the game is about shallowness in a sense.  Similarly, some of the WoD games are extremely didactic (e.g. Werewolf), and an ideal version might have minimal window to get in the way of the light.

3. To your list of types, I'd want to add another stage: refinement.  As your vision of the light becomes clearer artistically, you need to refine the window technically to refract it perfectly.  This requires endless revision and polishing, as in any art form.

4. My only worry is that this balance can become quite delicate, and in the dynamic give-and-take of actual play, might get broken.  Any ideas on robustness, or am I worrying about nothing?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I want to back up a second. It sounds like this is refering to the first two steps of art as described in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. For those unfamiliar with this, the steps are:

[1]

Idea/Purpose: The impusles, the ideas, the emotions, the philosophies of the work...the work's "content."
[2]Form: The form it will take..will it be a book? A chalk drawing? A Chair? A song? A sculpture? A pot holder? A comic books? [A rolplaying game?]
[3]Idiom: The "school" of art, the vocabulary of styles and gestures or subject matter, the genre that the work belongs to...maybe a ganre of its own.
[4]Structure:  Putting it all together...what to include, what to leave out...how to arrange, how to compose the work.
[5]Craft: Constructing the work, applying skills, practical knowledge, invention, problem-solving, getting the "job" done.
[6]Surface: Production values, finishing...the aspects most apparent on first superficial exposure to the work.[/list:u]
So, if I'm not mistaken, we're refering to the step 1 Idea/Purpose of the work. Am I right?

[clehrich]

If I understand Fang right, he means 1 as light, and the rest as window.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

If I understand Fang right, he means 1 as light, and the rest as window.

Ah, that may be. If so, hopefully this will add additional depth to the discussion.

[Mike Holmes]

Eric,

I This can regress infinitely, because every facet of a datum, every relationship, is itself a datum.

This is precisely what makes this so hard to deal with. And why I say it's an art. You have to go with feel. (To use a fannish analogy) Given the lack of computational device to discover the solution, the designer is like the Dune Guild Navigator needing to come to the conclusion as a Gestalt. To use your term.

I mean it seems odd to me that we're trying to discover a scientific way to produce an aesthetic.

A pity the word has been coopted, because 'coherence' would be a much more appropriate word here, as I understand it, than elegance.  Not just GNS coherence, but coherent message-sending from the whole body of the work, so as to reinforce whatever it is the designer is trying to say.  Holistic coherence of the game.

I've used the term Design Focus in the past. But focus does imply a narrowness that's not necessarly the case. So yes, coherence would be best. Could we have GNS coherence, and Creative Agenda Coherence?

In this case, elegance in the sense Mike is suggesting may not be the design goal.

I didn't mean to make a comparison at all, that was Fang. I used it in that context to mean something specific. Your point about my misuse of Simplicity is correct, however. There are those cases where simpler may mean ugly fixes. In wargaming this is referred to often as Kludgey. That is to make something simpler to increase quality of play, but decreasing quality of form. So, yes, my use of elegance can definitely be expanded upon. I'mjust not sure it's pertinent here at all.

The play content of Scattershot is designed to be highly variable and customizable... but the presentation is not holistically coherent with this, because the very deliberateness and methodical quality of the design shows through, and is a 'neon sign' which signals (to me, on some subtextual level) "Everything has been thought through in this, there are no loose ends left hanging."  Which feels like it contradicts the level of variability the game strives to support - stress on feels like because it's exactly on the difficult-to-pin-down level we describe with terms like elegance.

Huh, that's the thing I like best about Scatttershot. What bugs me is the lack of continuity inthe rules. I can't figure out how to play it because I can't see how part one and part A work together.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike wrote,

Could we have GNS coherence, and Creative Agenda Coherence?

Synonymous.

GNS mode = creative agenda. Same thing.

Gamism = Step On Up
Simulationism = The Dream
Narrativism = Story Now

I fail to see anything in this thread, from top to bottom, which has not already been established - and widely employed at the Forge - by the essay, System Does Matter.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Wow, so much to respond to.  You guys are really rockin' with this concept!  I've only a few clarifications left....

Hey Eric,

You really blew my doors off with your post.  Awesome!

To parse it in my own words, you're looking at the quality of communicating something - your 'neon sign' - through the characteristics of all elements of the piece, their unity, dissonance, coherence, incompleteness, etc. as part and parcel of the work.

And what you're wanting to do is talk about ways to promote, analyze, and cross-check these meta-characteristics.

An analogous act in novel-writing might be to convey a theme of 'endless repetition' by making every chapter exactly the same length, always begin them on a left-hand page, always open a chapter with dialogue and follow with action, and so on.

Yeah, I remember Roadmarks by Roger Zelazny; every chapter was either number 1 or number 2 seemingly at random (it was a time travel novel).  So yeah, "conveying a theme" is one thing you can do with the 'neon sign.'  However, there's a risk in using literary examples because theme and message have narrower meanings in literature criticism than here.  What to call them instead?  I have no idea; I've been referring to it as 'a feeling' or a sensation, but those are just about as bad.  Anyone got any better ideas?

"Meta-characteristics" is also fraught with some risk, I've been calling them "game components" so people will know they're 'what goes into the game.'  As you indicate, the minute you call something "meta" somebody comes along and points out a 'higher level.'  So let's find something else.

And you right about one thing, sometimes 'neon sign' elegance isn't about being elegant at all (I don't know how I missed that).  All in all, you added a wonderful piece.

All of that being said, I have one suggestion for another way to look at Fang's deliberate-design guidelines, which is as "filters".  Take each element of the design, and treat it as a 'filter' through which you view the rest of the design.  Observe interactions which help you, and ones which contradict the themes you're looking for.  Then come back at it with those interactions themselves as filters through which you view the design.

Uh-huh.  I missed that one too.  Looking through the 'stained glass' (your filter) at other parts of the 'stained glass window' is a design direction I hadn't even thought of (kinda wrecks the analogy, but oh well.

Finally, Fang, this talk of deliberateness and elegance does flag exactly my own issues with Scattershot, which I find perhaps the most interesting thing of all in this.  The play content of Scattershot is designed to be highly variable and customizable... but the presentation is not holistically coherent with this, because the very deliberateness and methodical quality of the design shows through, and is a 'neon sign' which signals (to me, on some subtextual level) "Everything has been thought through in this, there are no loose ends left hanging."  Which feels like it contradicts the level of variability the game strives to support - stress on feels like because it's exactly on the difficult-to-pin-down level we describe with terms like elegance.

You're not too far off.  At the point I am, this is of no concern.  Everything you see littered about here about Scattershot is the sum totality of it.  I like to get all the parts meticulously fitted together before I sit down and write the game.  The point this left me at was having all the plans, parts, and tools, but no 'neon sign.'  Y'see Scattershot is variable and customizable for the writer.  When I sit down to write Scattershot: Universe 6 (our superhero core book) I need only parts of it.  When I do Scattershot: Gothic with a K (our horror core book), I need different parts.  The time will come when I write Scattershot: Street Kombat or Scattershot: Impswitch (a pair of satellite supplements) and I'm gonna need a much narrower collection of parts.

Now, I have serious completist tendencies.  If I don't work from some kind of 'blueprint,' I tend to chuck everything in.  I could tell this was bad, but was clueless how it made a difference.  I've tried a few outlines based on 'minimum needed information,' but those ended up shouting 'Spartan' in big 'neon letters.'  What you see here is me working out, for the first time, a way of coming to the design (in my usual overly-deliberate fashion) with something I can use to change or even choose those 'neon letters.'

What you cite about "variability" underscore one of two possibilities for me; either I work up a 'neon sign' evoking a well-oiled machine with numerous switches, dials, and levers, or I keep to my original plan and never offer a 'fully customizable' version of Scattershot (because I don't believe I have the skill to create a decent 'neon sign' with all that content).

Hey Felix,

You offer a great example of messages and 'neon signs.'

...[Wallis] says this about Warhammer FRP:

...[you'll] note that Warhammer FRP isn't like D&D, and the monsters don't automatically carry gold and magic items. D&D is about quests for glory and riches; WFRP pretends to be the same, but in fact is about the PCs' day-to-day fight for survival in a universe that hates them.

At first glance, WFRP looks like a D&D clone, although the mechanics are supposed to lead to very different, gritty results. (It's a game I own but haven't played. However, that's the description the articles suggest.)

Now, if the thing being communicated (the 'neon sign') of the game was to "pretend to be the same, but..." then it does a good job. At first glance, the stained glass window of the rules seem very arbitrary and not unified, like a D&D heartbreaker, but that's a deliberate attempt to fool people into thinking it's similar.

If, on the other hand, the sign is supposed to say "day-to-day survival in a universe that hates them," the game rules obscure the sign. The stained glass window suggests that the characters will be the same mighty wizards and mighty dwarven warriors that they are in D&D.

This is why I'm convinced that calling 'what is written on the neon sign' a "message" is a mistake.

I've played The Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing Game (I was lucky enough to chosen 'the look-alike' for the modules plot, but the wandering wolfes did a crit to my hip, breaking off a bone chip which floated up to my brain...you get the picture).  I think the 'neon sign' is pretty well in force with WFRP; it says, "Don't worry, I'm just like Dungeons & Dragons...gnash, gnash, and I hate you...ROAR!."  You look at the 'stained glass' and see charts and tables and cool looking monsters, just like Dungeons & Dragons, but when you actually play it and read the tables and see how the probabilities work out...oh my!  The game 'put into practice' contrasts the 'first glance' almost intentionally.  (Well, if it isn't intentional, it sure communicates how the company felt about losing their TSR franchise rights.)

You name two very legitimate "messages" that the game can (and probably does) give.  You also see how the combination creates a certain 'baited and tricked' feel; that's the 'neon sign,' not either of the "messages."

I think I get what you mean by elegance, in this context.  Let me give an example of this in a game, which ought to show if I've got you there.

In Sorcerer, the game focuses on moral issues, dilemmas, and is customizable on which area of morality or humanity it explicitly focuses (This is the window).  However, it has a recurring theme of human relationships - the Pc's together, the pc-demon relationship is setup to be dysfunctional, and large chunks of the GM's advice focus on these relationships.  This is the light, human relationships.

So, if that fits with what you were thinking, can I offer a refinement on your analogy?  The lamp and the window.  It is actually the light that is perceived through the window that is important.  If both work together, then the light through the window is a beautiful thing.  However, both can be good independently, but not quite feel right together.

As I started out here, during the day, a well-designed game is as clear as 'sunlight shining through a stained glass window.'  It is 'at night' when you can see the 'neon sign.'  (Or by going up really close to one of the 'panes of stained glass;' if the glass is good you can get some view of the 'neon sign.')

The 'human relationships' metaphor of Sorcerer is well established.  From what I've heard, it has the 'neon sign' evoking 'don't play anything else.'  Ever wonder why Sorcerer has no setting?  Wouldn't that detract from this 'neon sign' if presented in the book?  (I mean, sure, you can and do make a setting for your game, but that isn't about the 'neon sign' the game provides.)  Each supplement seems to manage it's own 'neon sign' and evokes things not necessarily related to the original's provocative 'relationships only' neon sign (that I think it has).  Ever wonder why Sorcerer doesn't work for one shots?  (Outside of the obvious 'a one-night-stand isn't a relationship' problem.)  It certainly isn't because the rules are lacking, but how the 'neon sign' presented by the interaction of rules and play is slow to show up.

Hey Stuart,

Those are some powerful analysis tools.  I'm a little confused by your shift in the analogy, though

Let me recast that into game language.  The window is the game - rules, setting and all the rest. Within literature, it would be the text, the plot.  The lamp is hidden behind the text; it is the subtext, the deeper intent.  It is the synergy between them that you are referring to as elegance, I think.

I'm not really sure why you're replacing the 'neon sign' with a lamp.  What I'm hearing is I think you're talking about a real message or theme built into the game.  These I would characterize as the 'picture' in 'stained glass.'  Each 'pane' is some aspect or component of the game's design, how they work together is the 'picture.'  What I've been saying is that what is left in, what is taken out, the relationship between complex and simple sections, the overall presentation in detail and complete, all feed together into a sensation apart from the presence or absence of a metaphor, message, or theme within the game (which itself is another thing feeding this sensation); I call that the 'neon sign.'  In other words you only get part of the picture by studying the 'image in stained glass.'

This whole thing has given me the idea of creating a 'Trompe le Joueur' game, like WFRP, except much more subtle and profound.  (Not that I possess the skills to create such a beast.)

If anything all you've done later in your post is replace 'neon sign' with "lamp," I'm not sure to what end.  Calling it a lamp denies it a certain depth of communication.  Also your other use of "lamp" seems more in keeping with what I call 'picture.'  Separating out the 'picture' from the analogy makes the 'stained glass window' not much more than just a 'bunch of panes.'  I was really pleased with my choice of analogy, but now you leave me not so sure.  Can you go a little more into detail about what you see as the 'window,' 'picture,' and 'lamp' are?

You also go on to provide some very thought-provoking techniques for analysis; I have to say I'm probably going to use them myself at this point.  They really seem to fit the bill for those of us deliberate designers.  (I mean, if you don't have talent, fake it; right?)  Good show!

Overall, I couldn't be happier with this idea, it may really give me that 'quality' I was looking for, for Scattershot.  In all of my rough drafts, this one left me stumped, time and again.  I know this is going to help me out a lot and I hope it helps others too.

Hey Chris,

So as I understand it, what you're saying here is perfectly in accord with classical aesthetics. It's a question of building a window that's exactly suited to the light.

That piece was just awesome; I'm glad to know I travel down a well-beaten path.  I can't really add much to what you've said; you've quite got the idea.  (If you want, you could provide all the 'fine' art terminology available to this concept; I am quite curious what has been said.)

4. My only worry is that this balance can become quite delicate, and in the dynamic give-and-take of actual play, might get broken. Any ideas on robustness, or am I worrying about nothing?

No disagreement there.  I'm out of my depth here (hence 'discovering the obvious'), so I don't really know.  I guess, for me, I'll just keep trying it out on the playtesters again and again.  My intuition tells me that it is possible to construct a 'practice' of play via the influence the rules have on the players that creates a 'bowl' that play will settle into (provided they use the rules as presented, if they don't there's nothing we can do anyway), but I have no way of knowing.  Then there's also the issue of games that, by their 'neon sign' ought to break the dynamic of play (like octaNe?).  I'm looking forward to testing this one out.  Thanks for bringing up yet another issue.

Fang Langford

[Harlequin]

(Fang - crossposting, here, but I'll come back and read yours and reply in a sec.  I have to get this out.)

Wow.  Normally I find myself agreeing with you, Ron.  But in this instance I could not possibly disagree more.

I read your claim in crudest terms to read: "The creative agenda is equal to the GNS position chosen by the designer."  I call that poppycock, and I don't think the poppycock is a result of oversimplifying your post.

The creative agenda of the designer is a complex object which encapsulates themes, moods, ways to play (plural! for they may shift during the game), and a zillion other things.  Of these zillion, GNS addresses only the way(s) to play aspect.  The function of a game book as a piece of art in itself, for example, is GNS-irrelevant, but matters a great deal to the creative agenda.  So is a choice of "dissonance" as a theme and support of same via the techniques we've been talking about here, structurally and content-based and through meta-content and so on.

I thought you had stressed at several points that GNS was a wildly variable function of play.  I know for a fact that, at different points in the exact same game, I swerve into all three modes very heavily and find that the games I enjoy most support each one in a real and solid way.  This is part of an unexpressed niggling I've had over GNS coherence since reading it... on the one hand we talk about GNS as regarding a mode of play, something which one does at the time; on the other hand there seems to be a feeling that the game itself has a GNS stance, which does not match up.  The game can support modes of play; that is all.  GNS coherence is the advice "pick a mode and support it well."  Which is fine, but explains why I find the most GNS-coherent games a touch... shallow.  Because I'm looking for a little incoherence in my soup, thank you, and by overdoing the GNS coherence you can end up supporting one - but excluding the others.

Which is a different thread and one I don't quite feel up to starting right now, though I'd encourage someone to if they strongly agree or disagree with that assertion.  The assertion I want to make here, right away, is that holistic coherence is completely different.  Holistic coherence describes the techniques you might use to help support anything - say, a strong central theme - even in a game which was completely GNS incoherent, or for that matter in a game (Baron Munchausen, anyone?) which was 100% GNS coherent.

Certes, GNS coherence is a subset of holistic coherence, being the advice to "use holistic coherence methods to support your game's modes of play."  But that's a single, specific application of those methods - they are most certainly not identical.

- Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Eric, you wrote,

I read your claim in crudest terms to read: "The creative agenda is equal to the GNS position chosen by the designer." I call that poppycock, and I don't think the poppycock is a result of oversimplifying your post.

It's the result of misreading my post. Fully misreading, not merely oversimplifying.

GNS is not directly about design, it's about play. The creative agenda is realized through play. GNS exists only in terms of communication among members of a role-playing group. A GNS mode is a social, aesthetic agenda.

A well-designed role-playing game - and this is merely the Edwards take, not God's Holy Writ - permits a group of people to play such that some functional combination of GNS priorities may be realized.

That's it. All the "elegance" and "simplicity" and whatnot of design is strictly a matter of facilitation.

Design, from this framework, varies widely. One can imagine a game which is hard-core facilitative of one solid mode (Harnmaster, Trollbabe, Rune), such that playing otherwise would practically require Drift. One can imagine a game which is rather open-ended in its application, although some rules will have to be cancelled or created to do any one thing (Champions 3rd edition). One can imagine a game which is incoherent - it fails to support any given mode well (AD&D2). One can imagine a game which utilizes support in one mode to "power" another (The Riddle of Steel).

Which is better? Worse? More or less fun? More or less commercially viable? More "elegant"? I suggest that better is a matter of coherent facilitation, and that's all.

And I'm having a very hard time seeing how anything in this thread says anything different.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jack,

That's a really canny observation there; I am quite influenced by McCloud.

I want to back up a second. It sounds like this is referring to the first two steps of art as described in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. For those unfamiliar with this, the steps are:[list=1][*]Idea/Purpose: The impulses, the ideas, the emotions, the philosophies of the work...the work's "content."
[*]Form: The form it will take...will it be a book? A chalk drawing? A Chair? A song? A sculpture? A pot holder? A comic books? [A role-playing game?]
[*]Idiom: The "school" of art, the vocabulary of styles and gestures or subject matter, the genre that the work belongs to...maybe a genre of its own.
[*]Structure:  Putting it all together...what to include, what to leave out...how to arrange, how to compose the work.
[*]Craft: Constructing the work, applying skills, practical knowledge, invention, problem-solving, getting the "job" done.
[*]Surface: Production values, finishing...the aspects most apparent on first superficial exposure to the work.[/list:o]So, if I'm not mistaken, we're referring to the step 1 Idea/Purpose of the work. Am I right?

Very close to it, but remember how McCloud discussed that #1 and #2 compete for the top of the list and have a strange interaction because of that?  Not only that, but if you read really closely he's talking about communicating #1 to the reader; putting them into the idea.  Role-playing games are a little different, they put the player 'into the situation,' but they have to 'figure it out' for themselves.  (A lot of people complain about the stories I like - or how I like some stories - because they 'require thought' for them to 'be cool;' I guess my friends don't care that much for thinking, present company excluded.)

I guess what I'm working with here is how #s 2, 3, and 4 (the 'stained glass window') work together in service of #1.

Hey Mike,

As always you catch me when I go too far, I get 'too deliberate' at times.

This is precisely what makes this so hard to deal with. And why I say it's an art. You have to go with feel....

I mean it seems odd to me that we're trying to discover a scientific way to produce an aesthetic.

Very, very good point, my mistake for mistaking analysis for tools.  I'm going to concentrate on 'what can be analyzed' and remember that analysis does not equal technique.  (Is it scientific to discuss balance, color pallet, positive and negative space, in painting?  I would be a fool to think understanding these terms would give me the tools to be a great painter.  They do help me learn what I can from 'the old masters.')

The play content of Scattershot is designed to be highly variable and customizable... but the presentation is not holistically coherent with this, because the very deliberateness and methodical quality of the design shows through, and is a 'neon sign' which signals (to me, on some subtext level) "Everything has been thought through in this, there are no loose ends left hanging."  Which feels like it contradicts the level of variability the game strives to support - stress on feels like because it's exactly on the difficult-to-pin-down level we describe with terms like elegance.

Huh, that's the thing I like best about Scattershot. What bugs me is the lack of continuity in the rules. I can't figure out how to play it because I can't see how part one and part A work together.

That's exactly why I'm here.  I'm discovering what I need to get Scattershot into a usable form, a aesthetic form, and a form that has the impact I desire.  Before this all I could do was look at all the parts and whimper.  (Or sneeze, has anyone been as sick as I this season?  The kindergarten teacher suggests that after a coupla years, you've had everything and it stops....)

Once again, very good advice Mike, I'll think of you when I slip and start thinking I can 'install' this aesthetic relativity in Scattershot.

Ron,

I'm surprised at you.

I fail to see anything in this thread, from top to bottom, which has not already been established - and widely employed at the Forge - by the essay, System Does Matter.

Perhaps to a successful, published author, it doesn't.  Some of us young bucks ain't printed nothing yet and don't have a clue.  Furthermore, an "old master" like yerself might see all of this in System Does Matter, but us novices are too wet behind the ears to get anymore than the 'basics.'  The response here confirms my belief that the 'unspoken' has needed to be said for some time.

Now since I realize that you have no intention to sound so dismissive, I'm gonna take my tongue out of my cheek now.  No harm, no foul?

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

The contrast between me and, for instance, yourself is nothing so great as you state. There is no phone booth into which some of us go, and emerge as "published game designers." It's not a position of privilege.

Anyone who's been playing RPGs successfully for an extended period of time has the cred. Anyone who has a playable rules-set available for others has the cred.

Here's all I'm sayin'. If this thread is helping you out, that's great. If it's helping others, that's great too. I'm claiming credit where it's due, as part of the process of citation that we practice here.

Best,
Ron

[Harlequin]

We may need to take this elsewhere, Ron.  Because you're not reading my examples of GNS-irrelevant aspects to the creative agenda, and I think there is an important distinction to be had.

Do you agree that the function of the game book, as an art piece (cf. Nobilis), is GNS-irrelevant?

Do you agree that the choice of a particular theme is GNS-irrelevant?  That one could have a game about "rigid order" which used what I've been calling holistic coherence techniques to communicate this theme, and use those same techniques to communicate that theme, regardless of the desired mode of play?

The creative agenda is not merely realized through play.  It's realized through first-impression (the function as an art piece), through read-over (conveying themes occurs at this time), and then through play.  The actual play of an RPG is the most important element, but not the whole of the creative work - and therefore not the whole of the creative agenda.

A well-designed role-playing game - and this is merely the Edwards take, not God's Holy Writ - permits a group of people to play such that some functional combination of GNS priorities may be realized.

And I agree.  But this is not remotely equivalent to saying that the present discussion adds nothing to our body of understanding, because that is not the only thing an RPG does.  It permits that, but that is not its only function.  Never mind the art-book thing.  I will grant that without a functional combination of GNS priorities, the game is unplayable.  Therefore the creative agenda must include some take on GNS.  But your description, above, encapsulates conveying a setting, promoting a mood, and so on, into "permits a group to play," and I feel that's a false subduction, a misleading encapsulation.

I could create a completely GNS-incoherent game, with no understanding of its priorities, yet use holistic coherence on another issue.  Let's say my text mixes Narrativist priorities with rules promoting Gamist play, and advancement mechanics which are extremely Simulationist:Setting to the extent that they frustrate Gamist and Narrativist players until they explode.  And it's about Smurfs.

I then go and use holistic coherence on the issue of colour.  Literally - the entire book is printed in a medium blue ink, all illustrations are blue-and-white.  I measure hundreds of apples, average their heights, triple this, and format the book to be three apples tall.  I refer to players as "Smurf", the GM as "Smurf", the rules as "Smurf", and the dice as "Smurf."  Everyone hates it and I sell only four copies, of course.

But you know what?  I've used holistic coherence techniques to stress something, and that something had nothing to do with GNS coherence whatsoever.

Finally, as Fang said, it's obvious that this topic is unveiling things to some of us, in ways that communicate it more usefully to us than asking us to go cross-reference GNS coherence.  Even if you're right, which I vehemently disagree about, we're reparsing in a way which does not rely on GNS terms and which seems to be illuminating things.  I understand your desire to be "cited" but in this instance it does not apply.

I posit that you, yourself, apply coherence techniques to many things - GNS among them.  But that the two are not remotely synonymous; the GNS priority is not the play itself, nor the impression the book creates, it is an aspect of that play.

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

That's exactly why I'm here.  I'm discovering what I need to get Scattershot into a usable form, a aesthetic form, and a form that has the impact I desire.

Well, FWIW, I think you're doing it completely backwards. Or you're using a technique that I've never seen work. The problem with the game isn't that there's some missing aesthetic. Not IMO. It's that the sections don't seem to refer to each other in a way I can comprehend. The problem is very much that it reads like a set of chunks that have nothing to do with each other. And it's all theory.

To make it functional, you need to first write up a five page version of the game that includes everything you need to play, and nothing more. If you have to cut stuff out to make it fit, then cut. Then once you have something simple, easy to understand and playable, then put the other stuff back as meat on this framework afterwards. Actually, I'd playtest first to see that it works as written before doing the other work. But anyhow, when you add stuff back, just make sure that it doesn't obscure the working parts.

Make a functional game. Then make it do what you want.

Like I said, I've never seen a design that was created to perfection all in one swoop. It's like the little sign on my Father-in-Law's desk says, "At some point you have to kill the engineer and start the project."

That's probably not helpful, but it's the only wisdom I got.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Ron,

With all due respect, please don't dictate.

That's it. All the "elegance" and "simplicity" and whatnot of design is strictly a matter of facilitation.

...I suggest that better is a matter of coherent facilitation, and that's all.

And I'm having a very hard time seeing how anything in this thread says anything different.

I can understand how you put your creation, the GNS, on top of all things role-playing gaming.

The problem here is that we're not talking about gaming, we're talking about game design.  Try this:

(Written)

Game -> Facilitates -> Play[/list:u]Okay?  Sure GNS is in there and all over play and of course players should be all concerned about play.

The mistake you make is dictating that design can be only about play.  What I'm presenting is design focused on facilitating.  The how and why things go into a game precisely so it facilitates is what is primary here.  I'm in all agreement that GNS is about modes of play and it instructs what you want the result of using your game to be.  But it tells little about how the game does the facilitating.  It's all fine and good to put rules into a game that all facilitate a singular mode of play, but if those rules don't work well with each other what is the GNS going to tell me to do?

There are a great many games out there which are completely whacked when it comes to their 'facilitation agenda.'  There are also precious few who do it and do it well.  This thread assumes that all issues about facilitating GNS modes are well in hand; it seeks to take design 'to a different perspective.'  It's not about how you align your facilitation with the GNS (we assume you do that just fine); it's about how your facilitation aligns with itself.

There's coherent and then there's elegant.  This thread assumes coherent and seeks to discuss how to be elegant.

I'm claiming credit where it's due, as part of the process of citation that we practice here.

I'm sorry I didn't put a disclaimer at the top that said, "Okay, we all know system matters (by Ron Edwards).  And we all know that a game should be coherent in terms of the GNS (also by Ron Edwards), right?  Well, what then?"  Consider it so noted  Just because we stand upon the shoulders of giants, does that mean that the details we realize are no more than their work?  This is getting dangerously close to 'all balls are my ball.'

I feel honored to have 'system matters' and GNS to learn from, but I seriously doubt all that is aesthetic can be derived from them (with the credit going to one person).  I have always struggled with my writing, trying to learn what I can along the way.  That you can sit down and dash off a game just to illustrate a point about your theories is wonderful, for you.  When I write, it's a long struggle of self-doubt and self-censorship, a battle with grammar, theme, and metaphor.  I'm really happy that, for you, the presence of the 'neon sign' is baldly clear, but don't assume that what you've written has removed the scales from everyone else's eyes.  Some of us aren't that good at it.

Now if you'd like to cite references about the critique of the presentation of the relative elements used in a game and how they create a feeling 'around' the coherence of play (according to your model) that appear in your writing, I'd be happy to read them, because as far as I can tell.

We all missed that part.[/list:u]Fang Langford