Talking To Myself

[Bill Cook]

I just finished writing a lengthy running example that tied together most of the significant points of my combat system.  I found the experience to be quite cathartic.

I'm reminded of a thread I read 1-2 weeks back that recommended writing out a dialogue of ideal play as a starting point for design.  What I've done is similiar, limited to the scope of a battle.  I intended to have it explain some of the finer points of my take on combat and how they relate in the context of actual play, but it ended up being a virtual playtest that forced me to go back to qualify and integrate the rules, all to the benefit of the system.

It was amazing.  I found myself arguing with players who fixated on advantage or who tried to cast everything by their play experience in other games.  I even had a guy get so pissed that the whole group tried to talk him down.  At some point I realized I was all those people, and I noticed how the game master handled player concerns and was shocked at how cold some of it was.  And I thought about how I played a particular player and saw myself being rigid.

And I thought, these are digressions.  They don't serve the purpose of the example.  So I rewrote the parts that argued.  I wrote a softer, more conciliatory tone for the game master.  I wrote more flexible, involved-yet-unexpecting players.  And another revelation hit me: this is who I'd want to be in either role.

It made me feel great.  I not only edited down to a focused, functional example, I also got in some virtual play-testing, considerably improved the text of a number of core rules and exercised the tone and manner of the role-player I want to be.

Highly recommended.

P.S. I can post or PM a sample of my running example if requested.

[Lxndr]

I did a recent "test of combat" but without the GM/PC interactions, and I can agree that WOW, it a burst of playtesting that forced me to go back and revise some of my rule assumptions.  I depersonalized the actual players involved though, rather than giving their dialogue.

I can only imagine dialogue would be even more cathartic and perceptive, on more levels, as you proposed.

[Mike Holmes]

It's funny, when you read examples of play in almost any game text, you'll find that they're all very functional, and very fluid. The GM and players are all on the same sheet of music, and everything is smooth as silk. And I suppose that as exemplars of play, it makes sense to do this so that everyone sees what play might look like under optimal conditions. Such that people understand how to play coherently, and strive for that.

But they always strike me as bullshit.

I mean, as idealized examples, they don't tell you anything about what's really going to happen in play. I've never seen one in which in the middle of your best ever flavor text reading, some player belches, and everyone is thrown off the narration. I've never seen an example in which a player says, "I'm charging the door" and the GM thinks that the character is running to knock down the door, instead of what the player intended, taking it to the counter to pay for it with a credit card. I've never seen an example where the GM forgets that NPC B was in the room when narrating for NPC A something that A wouldn't want B to know.

Yet stuff like this happens all the time. Playing an RPG is only as perfect as we are. So not very.

I think that looking at examples with problems in them like the above, is really a good way to make a game solid enough to withstand the problems that may come up in play. Assuming perfect players will only lead to a game that can't take the imperfection of play. Rugged design is important.

I think it might even do to have examples of problem play in texts. IIRC, there have been a few games that have had sections on how to deal with "problem players". These turn me off, however, because I don't believe in problem players, I think that these players become problematic because the system enables it (assholes aside, for whom we all know the cure). Instead what I'd like to see are examples of what you should do in the case of, say, a misunderstanding of previous narration. Or problems in general when the Creative Agenda isn't being shared.

Just a thought.

Mike

[Marco]

Although I have not see it, appearently in Spawn of Fashawn there's an example of play that ends with a frustrated player buying an empty steel box (after teh shopkeeper tells him repeatedly he's out of other gear) and beating the guy to death with it.

If someone can find that online, I'd love to see a link.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

lol

I knew there had to be an exception somewhere. Do you remember if it gave some advice regarding the situation, or was it just for humor's sake?

Mike

[pete_darby]

I have to say, the examples of play in HeroQuest seem to be very good at presenting a group of (quite diverse) players and characters, many of whom obviously don't quite grock HQ or Glorantha at the start, "getting it" as play goes on.

Guess it would have been a bit destructive to include obviously dysfunctional play in there... Can't think of anyone who'd put a "failed" section of actual play in a "serious" rulebook.

That's what the Forge is for!

[Marco]

In JAGS we included The Frankenstien Rule (which is, thankfully, about our only how-to-play text in the basic game). It suggests that if a character so offends the other participants that it can be expunged from the group (the characrter, not the player).

While it doesn't go into detail the single blood-chilling example did, unfortunately, come from actual play.

-Marco

[Bill Cook]

I have to say, the examples of play in HeroQuest seem to be very good at presenting a group of (quite diverse) players and characters, many of whom obviously don't quite grock HQ or Glorantha at the start, "getting it" as play goes on.

That's the tone I took: a group of players who are "giving it a shot," who ask a number of questions.  These introduce a conversational explanation of how to mix complex rules in the context of play.

Instead what I'd like to see are examples of what you should do in the case of, say, a misunderstanding of previous narration. Or problems in general when the Creative Agenda isn't being shared.

This is a tall order.  I'm dubious as to how a designer can address this concern other than from a perspective of aesthetic.

A friend of mine and I used to get into fights about how to interpret card rulings for M:TG.  Our group had been using the model of "Billy's right since he seems to have a sound explanation for everything" to "it is more important that we agree than that we are right."  It was that particular friend I mentioned whose influence led to that shift.

Last weekend, some friends from that old group got together to play a member's new boardgame he was all excited about called Civilization.  I noticed a new pattern emerging where we "fill a share of focus with a selected idea," in an effort to equalize our turns, and "accept exploration of method as the game experience."

Even if Dr. Garfield and the publishers of Civilization added a line in their rules to the effect of "play nice," they'd just be paraphrasing common sense, wouldn't they?

[MongoosePaul]

My own intent (if and when I do one of these) is to play a game of the system/setting concerned, tape it and then transcribe. Though, in a way, I think it's much like the 'what is roelplaying' section - something I'd rather do statistic and probability crunching on dice theory to avoid.