The Forge Archives

Since the Elegance and Deliberateness thread is now closed, and upon reflection is seems that I was breaking off from the original discussion, I've decided to start my own thread. To recap:

First are the six 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]
We're focusing on the first two steps, which McCloud focuses on as potentially the driving foce of the art in question.

But what you're discussing here is content in RPGs. This is a fairly tricky topic, IMO. It's almost like talking about content in a writing program. The programmer creates the program for writing, but it is up to the end user to actually utilize it in writing stories and, ultimately, the content.

Most development in RPGs I've noticed have been step 2 driven, making statements about the art form of RPGs more than any content form. Universalis is probably a prime example since it challenges may old notions of how an RPG "should" be. It makes a statement about the art form itself in this way.

But this is not to say that the game designer cannot add content or guide the eventual content of the RPG by way of the design

Hi Jack,

Because roleplaying games are, in fact games, where in(or outside) of the McCloud scheme would stuff like Drift kick in?

Chris

I think drift is just outside of these six steps since McCloud was talking about comics, not an interactive medium. I have yet to read Reinventing Comics, which may have something in there. Drift is probably, when talking about steps 1 & 2 concerns at least, the players having a different step 1 concern than the designer did and as such, restructuring the system to meet their concerns. But this assumes a step 1 content reason for Drift. House rules in general, at least to sort I have seen, have usually been at the craft or structure level. "Doing D&D better," anyone?

Lately, I have been looking at RPG design like constructing a building. The RPG building have the common foundation: RPGs are an activity concerning a shared imaginative space.* The RPG system develops concensus among the participants for what is in this shared imagined space, the Lumpley Principle. The system can also act as inspiration for adding things to the shared imagined space, but this is merely an extention of the Lumpley Principle. Providing inspiration is just a particular way to develop concensus. This is the common bedrock all roleplaying is built on. What we often thing of as the roleplaying game is a structure that is built on top of it.

The structure will be different depending on the designer's purpose. Just as an architech will use a different design when building a four-beroom colonial or a Wal-Mart. But, once built, the structure is then in the hands of the end-user who may have a different purose. The end-user may convert the large fron family room into a shop for a business or convert the upstairs or downstairs into separate apartments.

This purpose I'm refering to includes GNS. I don't think of it in terms of GNS since have been finding the categories somewhat difficult lately. What I refer to as purpose is not a single word but, most likely an essay. A list of design specifications. "Fireplaces in the living room and master bedroom; full bath upstairs, 1/2 bath downstairs, etc." or "Heavy-duty illusionist play until a combat situation occurs in which case play shifts into combat tactical wargame. etc."


* This definition obviously includes items we can all argee are not RPGs. That's OK. My purpose here is simply to define RPGs at their baseline for the purpose of understanding, not to construct a dictionary definition with a water-tight definition that states what RPGs are while not including what is not RPGs.

I'm not sure I spot a question here. (Grin.)

I think I would extend the architecture model slightly, again based on stronger views of the designer's influence on play.  Lumpley Principle sure, but the game has a strong effect on what consensus the players reach.

In the architect analogy, I'd ask whether a really good architect could design a family home which didn't just "suggest" that putting a Wal-Mart in it would be awkward, but did something more subtle and manipulative as well.  Let's say the architect wanted to build a home which would not only tend to suit a family of 4-6 people, but wanted to build one which would tend to help that family get their kids enthused about school, reading, and doing crafts.

So he builds a TV nook with slots for a stereo and all the trimmings, in a really comfy room... but it faces a back corner so there isn't much room to sit there, the room is situated where it won't get much light during the day, and the room is far from the kitchen and bathrooms.  But he puts gorgeous built-in bookshelves in a big, sunlit room, which divides up naturally into a couple of spaces just the right size for a loveseat or comfy chair.  He makes the area where a kitchen table would most naturally go, also well-lit, with lots of storage drawers and cabinets right nearby (including some the size of big posterboard or newsprint rolls), and ready access to a sink.  The master bedroom is the most comfy, but the smaller bedrooms get windowseats with a small built-in bookshelf in each one.

It won't always work.  Some families will put plants in the TV nook, take out the crafts cupboards and watch TV in that space, and put soccer trophies in the little shelves in the kids' windowseats.  But if you assume that the architect makes a thousand of these, the odds of it making a difference and imparting his message are pretty good, and his subtlety and skill at the craft become the question.

Which is, indeed, the question.  His uses of space, lighting, travel distances within the home - those are our uses of contrast, realism issues, layout, and the like tricks.  And I think we really are working our way toward a better-understood bag of such tricks...

- Eric

Interesting.  I actually think i'd take the manipulative architect idea even farther.  The architect may not even provide an obvious location for a TV.  There's no room that looks like it will go well there, there is no coaxial cable run through the walls and therefore nowhere to plug the TV into.  Then, he includes books and art/craft supplies with the house.  I think this is the form that most RPGs end up taking.  The actual rules and setting details that are supplied provide a focus for the game.  Sure you could work out a place to put that TV and rewire the house, but you'd probably be better off just buying a different house entirely...

LordSmerf

I have to jump in with a voice of disagreement with the above.  When it passes subtle, it becomes intrusive.  Many families won't buy the house.  Many gamers won't buy the game.  Those who do will complain about having to deal with the metaplot everywhere.  The architect must remain a quiet voice in absentia or he will be ignored - remember, per Lumpley, the one area where the social contract completely denies the rules a voice, is in the group choosing to give the rules power to begin with.

Of course there is a limit to how overt you can get without alienating some group.  But what about the family that doesn't want a TV, and specifically wants lots of shelfspace and crafts-space?  This house is more suitable to them than the more subtle approach.  It's an interesting balance.  Is this architect building a general house in order to attract all buyers and to influence whoever buys the house into reacting a certain way?  Or is the architect instead trying to design the best possible house for a specific type of buyer?  I think that's the reason that homebrewing systems is so common.  The comparison to building could easily liken this to remodeling.  Building something for everyone is generally difficult, whereas building something that is highly specialized and focus is pretty simple...

LordSmerf

Eric,

There are a lot of people here who think that Smerf (whatinthehellis your real name anyhow) is absolutely right. Me being one. That is, no game is going to cater to everyone, or we'd all be playing GURPS the generic universal game, right?

So that means that all games focus to some extent.

Now, you can try to make your game appeal to some larger crowd by making the game more "open", in theory. But in quite a bit of practice this leads as often to people not knowing what to do with the game. I mean, if I don't have an idea of what sort of game I want to play, I sure as hell am not going to use GURPS, right? Because it doesn't give me any direction.

The most popular RPG, D&D is about as narrowly focused as you can get. It's about overcoming (c'mon, who we kidding, killing) monsters taking their stuff, getting more powerful, and moving on. Far from making people feel limited, most people are comforted by the notion that it's easy to determine what to do with the game. It's "grabby" in its Creative Agenda.

What's not "grabby" is "you can do anything with it". I mean, even in a fantasy world, it's typically either like D&D in that it's about killin monsters, or it's about "well, you play characters in this fantasy world, and you can do 'anything' you want in it". Well, games with the latter lack of focus either get played like D&D, or they don't get played.

The point is that there are a ton of failed designs out there where the architect made his house with too few details. And the people he's selling it too, look at it, imagine what they might do some, and move right down the road to the furnished apartment.

Are there some players who won't want to play a particularly focused game? Sure. But like I said, you can't appeal to everyone. Make the game at least appeal to someone.

Thus you see designs here like SOAP which is played in hour long sessions. Is that limiting? Yes. But it actually makes people like the game more. In InSpectres, you play the same plot segments out every session. Boring? Far from it.

Focus is a good thing. In the theoretical parlance, a tight Creative Agenda.

Mike

Quote from: HarlequinLumpley Principle sure, but the game has a strong effect on what consensus the players reach.

In the architect analogy, I'd ask whether a really good architect could design a family home which didn't just "suggest" that putting a Wal-Mart in it would be awkward, but did something more subtle and manipulative as well.  Let's say the architect wanted to build a home which would not only tend to suit a family of 4-6 people, but wanted to build one which would tend to help that family get their kids enthused about school, reading, and doing crafts.  

That's an interesting analogy, in that it brings up what the role of a game designer or architect is.  Stewart Brand's book on "How Buildings Learn" is a long argument against this.  He looks at how buildings are actually used, and how they change over time (i.e. the equivalent of 'Drift').  In doing so, he decries "magazine architecture" which focuses primarily on aesthetics and interior design.  cf.
http://www.spies.com/~rawdon/books/nonfiction/how.buildings.learn.html

Stewart very convincingly shows that the home design you describe is pointless.  A family of a different sort will buy the house, and they will knock out walls, build extensions, and in general re-arrange things in unforeseen ways.  

The parallel to this in RPG would say that a game design should not try to constrain the uses it is put to.  The game is not the end product, and the game designer does not necessarily know what the games played will be like.  In this view, Drift is natural and indeed good, because I as a game player am bringing in original thoughts to the game -- things which the game designer never imagined.  It is hubris on the part of the game designer to pretend that he knows what sort of mechanics best suit my campaign, because my campaign will have things which he never thought of.  

There is something to be said for this.  In particular, we see that in practice successful systems are stretched to new purposes.  RuneQuest became the basis for Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Stormbringer. The same has happened to virtually all other successful systems.  Even Sorcerer has been stretched fairly far.

The idea, then, is to design with Drift in mind.  We should look at Drift works in practice -- and rather than trying to eliminate Drift (i.e. second-guess where the gamer wants to take the game), we should try to make Drift easier.

Hi there,

I think people's use of "Drift" is, well, drifting a little.

For instance, customizing a game in terms of mechanics is one thing, grading perhaps imperceptibly from not-worth-bothering-to-name into altering those mechanics' literal function. Another thing is customizing (for instance) setting or aspects of the options, such as one does when playing Sorcerer (e.g. the score descriptors). I can see the former as a means of Drift, although not necessarily Drift per se, and I don't consider the latter Drift at all.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsFor instance, customizing a game in terms of mechanics is one thing, grading perhaps imperceptibly from not-worth-bothering-to-name into altering those mechanics' literal function. Another thing is customizing (for instance) setting or aspects of the options, such as one does when playing Sorcerer (e.g. the score descriptors). I can see the former as a means of Drift, although not necessarily Drift per se, and I don't consider the latter Drift at all.

Well, OK, the general point doesn't involve GNS at all per se -- so probably I should have referred to "house-ruling" or "variation" of the game rather than "Drift-with-a-capital-D".  

The general question was just about what the content of an RPG is -- i.e. what does it include, and perhaps what should it include?  Now, there is of course a range of possibilities.  Some RPGs include a setting (i.e. Harn, Jorune) -- some do not (GURPS).  Some RPGs have a template for adventure (i.e. ShadowRun is about illegal operations-for-hire, Sorcerer is about bargaining for magical power, etc.) -- others do not.  Some RPGs have a narrow set of characters (i.e. Vampire is about vampires, Trollbabe is about trollbabes).  

The point of Stewart Brand's argument is that buildings (and by extension RPGs) should be built for change.  This is because buildings are not static artistic statements -- they are used and modified by other people, just like RPGs.  Change includes not only cosmetic change like what color is it painted, but substantial changes in its use and meaning.  What was imagined as a dining room might be used as a children's playroom, a study, or a library.  

In RPGs, the parallel would be to design RPGs which don't make rules or attempt influence unless it is called for to make other parts of the system work.  Contrary to Eric, I don't feel that it is a game designer's place to try to subtlely push at the stories used.  Personally, I don't want a game to subtlely influence me.  If the designer has suggestions, I prefer them to be open about it.  The game is there to help me realize my vision, not as a substitute for me having one.  I see the game as a toolkit.  

For example, the Lord of the Rings RPG has a rule that you cannot play female dwarves.  (I like to pick on LotR these days.)  That rule is pointless -- you can remove the restriction and absolutely nothing is changed.  

For that matter, from my initial impression, Sorcerer is a game which is fairly designed for change.  It includes it's basic mechanisms, but acknowledges that the user is going to bring their own meaning to, say, Humanity (unlike Vampire).

Hi John,

You're making a hell of a lot of sense. I hope that people can see that the widely-held view at the Forge that coherent game design is desirable does not contradict your points at all - in fact, I'd suggest rather the opposite, that your points are one of the primary design/aesthetic considerations for making a coherent game.

Best,
Ron

Boxes.

To use the analogy, the foundation of the building has to be steady, and support...something. The walls need to be sturdy, and contain the whole so that it will not fall, and the elements you don't want are kept outside. Or rather, the dimensions of the space make the edifice what it is in a gross sense.

But then, yes, the interior should be made as malleable as possible. If we could have walls that could be moved at whim, wouldn't that be cool.

The extent to which the inner partitions should be malleable will be a design decision. Too malleable, and they'll be meaningless. To rigid, and they'll prevent any originality.


The problem with the metaphor is, well, its a metaphor. What are walls in a game design. To get back to game design, the idea is to creat coherent boxes that constrain play at some level, but leave the internal play to be "whatever you want". Just how big the box is, will be a design choice. All I've ever said is that you can make the box too big. You can also make it too small, I suppose, but I can't think of a design that's done this.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou can also make it too small, I suppose, but I can't think of a design that's done this.

In the Murphie's Rules collection from SJG, there were a couple game jokes. One was the world's simplest wargame. A single hex space, single square counter. Flip a coin. Heads, you win. leave counter on space. Tails, you lose. Remove counter from space. A joke but too small a box.

You are right about the metaphor being a metaphor. I've thinking about this and how the RPG written relates to the RPG in play as it relates to the six steps of art. Then I realized that an RPG written should be, in some way, a method of capturing play so that others can replicate it. This sounds like I'm saying two things here:

[*] that playtesting is very important to designing a game, which we already knew
[*] but I also seem to be thinging that playing before writing is possible. The game is played and then what went on at the table is written down.[/list:u]
The second bullet sound like a strage chicken and egg deal. I wonder if it is so far off. I recall from the Intellivision site that the EXEC for the Mattel Intellivision was created along with the first game written for it, Major League Baseball.

I doubt that RPGs are created this way since D&D, which may very well have been created in this manner at least partially.

But the point is that play is more important than the written word when it comes to RPGs. Comparasons to how-to books had come up before. Perhaps we should be comparing them to How to write books like How to Write Mysteries That Keep People Guessing by O.G. Whitmore. It is a how to make art book and from this, the players will receive guidance on the content.

Or am I just babbling?

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrThen I realized that an RPG written should be, in some way, a method of capturing play so that others can replicate it.

This seems like a leap in logic. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know how you got to this conclusion.

Mike