Whence comes effect-based design?

[Opsimath]

I've been hearing the term "effect-based" being used quite a bit in some game design circles over the last couple of years.  Different people seem to use the term to mean somewhat different things, and many have different ideas about the term that indicates the opposite of "effect-based."  Some say "power-based" while others say "cause-based," for example.

Surprisingly, a search of the RPG Theory forum turned up only one passing reference to the term for me.

Can anyone point me to a definition of the term, authoritative or not?  Any clues to the term's orgin would also help.  Of course, I have my own working definition, but I'd like to have a better basis of understanding for discussion.

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm under the (shaky) impression that effect baed design is a term used in reference to "design your power" games, like many four-colour hero games and Ars Magica.  Said term refers to games where the power is designed based on its mechanical properties alone, leaving description and explanation to the player.

[Valamir]

There are two common useages for the term "effect" as it applies to design strategy.

1) Design for Cause vs Design for Effect.  This useage hails primarily from wargames, but as a principal applies equally to RPGs.  Design for Cause means you have a number of factors, if you take into account all of those factors it will lead you to a desired effect.  Design for Effect says that if you already know the desired effect, just skip to the effect part and leave the factors out of it...they become assumed by the design rather than explicit.

2) Effect Based Design. This useage hails primarily from Champions and Hero System and their cousins.  It is basically a specific application of the above principal.  In an effects based super power for instance you pay points to purchase the effect...what is the range, damage, limitations, advantages and various specials.  It doesn't matter whether you describe the power as a concussion beam, a flame burst, or a lighting bolt, you pay for the effect.  Cause based Design would instead start by saying "you want a lightning bolt" and then attempt to list all of the features that a lighting bolt should have.

[Thomas Tamblyn]

Champions (and the heros sytem in general is proably the text-book example of effect-based design.  Compare and contrast with GURPS which is mostly cause-based.

Effect-based design confused me until I realised that its actually a degree of abstraction.  
Hero acknowledges this with its special effects - the description of your effect adds a few small bonuses/penalties that aren't worth paing points for and are mainly colour; for example lightning might do extra damage against a waterlogged target but you could insulate yourself against it etc.

The bit that confused me was that i was thinking that the effect of the lightning bolt isn't that you attack for X damage, its that you defeat your enemy, or to take another step towards abstraction, you get to impose your will upon the game world.

I'd say the pool is the closest game I've seen to a 'true' effects based system - but that's a loaded statement and I know it.

[Opsimath]

Interesting!  Mostly identical to my own understanding, except for the later comments about abstraction and The Pool.  I hadn't heard anyone connect "effect-basing" with abstraction in that way (or to that extent) before.

Which leaves me right where I was, unfortunately, although I appreciate the responses so far.  Maybe I'll have to find or create my own term for the specific design principle that I want to apply to the RPG I'm designing, rather than use a term so potentially ambiguous.

Thanks for the input.  Feel free to keep it coming, especially if you can point to a definition out there in the public milieu or a game that mentions it specifically in discussion of its design.

(Silver Age Sentinels uses the term to describe itself; I believe it may have popularized the term most recently.  I'm specifically curious to see if the term pre-dates SAS.)

[Mike Holmes]

I think the term predates SAS, as we've been using it longer than that, IIRC. Actually the term I've used is Effect-First. That is, instead of looking at the in-game cause first, you look at the game rule effect first in determining the applicable mechanics, and then design the "look" of the effect, it's in-game appearance, to fit the effect.

Another good example is Hero Wars. Essentially there are only a few sorts of "powers" (abilities) in the game, and everything fits into one of them. Actually their all just applications of a single d20-ish sort of system that covers everything.

IMO, this is one sort of mechanic that is vastly superior to the alternative for almost all applications (the notable exception being extremely limited scope games). The biggest problem with cause based rules is that there are infinite causes, and you can't list them all. So what you get is books of modifiers and special rules. Effects First games allow you to apply the rule-set to anything with consistency, and with the same depth as Cause First rules.

Thomas is slightly off, IMO. Champions and the Pool are both examples of Effects First applied at different granularities of resolution, and with different goals. All this means is that the principle can be applied across all styles of play.

Mike "been re-reading Hero Fifth" Holmes

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

A term that's been around for a while is "components-based," meaning that in game terms, one might have Energy Blast with the Area Effect Cone modifier, plus Entangle Linked to it. (Champions talk) But in game-world terms you could be describing literally hundreds of different "powers." The rules are an implementation, not a representation, of the imagined powers. The rules are composed of components (duh), and the imagined in-game-world effects and events are implemented using combinations of the components, not one of which really represents any specific piece of the in-game world.

I'm not sure when rules texts and gamer culture started using the term "components-based," although I'm pretty sure that none of the Champions texts ever explained their position in comparative terms. They do describe it well - even inventing the term "Special Effects" to refer to the in-game-world powers themselves, up to and including minor applications or consequences of using them that are not covered by the rules-implementations at all. If I'm not mistaken, the term "Special Effects" goes all the way back to Champs 1st edition in 1980.

Best,
Ron