Difference Between Complete & Incomplete Mechanics

[Nathan]

Howdy out there,

As I continue working and clarifying the Wild for the last time (seriously), I realize that the rule system is very, very simple. Character Creation is no more than about five steps. The dice system is elegant and simple. It is a fun game, simply put.

What I want to avoid though is having a simple but incomplete game mechanic. Many simpler game systems out there tend to not be complete, probably because the designer realizes the system is simple and decides to focus on other more complex features of a game. I want to insure that does not happen with the Wild.

Question: What makes a game system complete or incomplete?

1 - Do I need to include a full combat system?
2 - Should I merely include combat rule ideas?
3 - Should I include an example of play?
4 - Can you provide too many examples?
5 - Do I need to describe how to handle natural events - falling, poison, etc?
6 - Should I put together a rule summary page?

So far, I think more is better... but I really hate having to put more paragraphs in about things like falling and what not. But, if it will help the game, I suppose I will do it.

Thanks,
Nathan

[Mike Holmes]

1 - Do I need to include a full combat system?

No. In fact, unless your game is primarily about fighting, I'd just not include a combat system at all.

2 - Should I merely include combat rule ideas?

That's more like it. How can the resolution system that exists resolve combat and other things?

3 - Should I include an example of play?

Examples of the mechanics use. How to role-play is not important.

4 - Can you provide too many examples?

Yes. Detailed examples of play that are not related to mechanics or Premise. Only use as many examples as you need to get the point across.

5 - Do I need to describe how to handle natural events - falling, poison, etc?

Again, not specifically, but as particular uses of your resolution mechanic, yes. No additional rules, just how does the existing mechanic cover these things.

6 - Should I put together a rule summary page?

Sure, why not? Anything that reduces lookup or handling time is good.

Just my $.02

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Oh God, "complete" vs. "incomplete" again .... Sorry, Nathan, that's not fair of me. It just reminds me of the very bloody and extensive debate on the Gaming Outpost, which after the smoke cleared, had only confirmed my opinion that these terms do not apply well to role-playing games. I think there's a thread on the Forge called "How much is enough?" but I couldn't find it just now.

Basically, one person's "complete and sufficient" is another person's "unforgivably incomplete." One person's "utterly necessary scenario materials" are another person's "disgusting padding."

I think it comes down to the goals of the game as expressed in the mechanics and anything else. For instance, if the character generation system produces a serious plot element for that character (e.g. tribe design and Trouble in Orkworld), then supplying scenario that have nothing to do with such things would be contradictory.

As for rules like "falling" and "drowning" and so forth ... well, that would be well in line with Simulationist-oriented play of a certain variety. I don't see what possible use they would have in, say, Sorcerer or Hero Wars, in which damage of any kind is essentially "just damage," regardless of its origins. (Side note: I find the rules for this sort thing especially jarring in The Dying Earth.)

One final question: "complete" to whom? If you are thinking in terms of a distributor or retailer flipping through it, deciding whether to carry it, rest assured that they are mainly interested in taglines, good-looking covers, and attractive layout. If you are thinking in terms of actual players, then I think the "design goal" approach is probably most effective.

Best,
Ron

[Nathan]

Thanks, Ron & Mike.

And please, I don't want to go there.

I understand that game mechanics are a very subjective mode of conversation. That may be the end all of my question, but I think there is a realm outside of that. Whether or not mechanics are exhaustive, detailed, or whatever is not the point, I guess. Maybe I mean -- I want to be sure that if someone picks up this game and run it, they have enough explanations of the rules as to grasp it quickly. Whether they like the mechanics or not is not the point - I just want them to be able to understand them well.

For example:
Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys rules are exhaustive. They are massive. They work. They provide amazing detail. BUT -- they are incomplete. They are poorly organized, take too long to learn, require repeat reading to understand, require practice before all rules are integrated....

The rules are good - they are clever. I liked them -- but in the end, I never did understand them.

Can't think of any others off the top of my head. Many indie games come up with neat little rule systems, but sort of hit them and move on to someting else too quick.

So is there a question here anymore? I don't know.

Thanks,
Nathan

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Nathan,

Actually, your example of Dangerous Journeys is an excellent one and it clarifies your initial post for me. I agree entirely with your assessment of the game and its problems as a document.

However, I wouldn't call it INCOMPLETE so much as padded, garbled, and repetitive. (Similar example: Alternity - less garbled, but so padded and repetitive as to be almost unreadable.) You seem to be using "incomplete" to mean "has problems being read and used."

But that's terminology and no big deal. Here's my proposed solution to the problem: REAL PLAYTESTING.

Ages and ages ago, I began a http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=16&forum=12&15">thread about playtesting practices. The basic observation was that many RPGs have huge slew of playtesters in the credits and no evidence whatsoever of any critical thinking about the design.

Found a http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=572&forum=12&6">thread that involves "completeness" to some extent.
Here's http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=325&forum=2&4">another with a funny ending.

Best,
Ron

[kwill]

to use a specific example, I made a few comments to Paul Czege regarding about fleshing out WF&D (ha!); in email we have discussed a few details about the game, clarifying some misunderstandings on my part, and talking briefly about extensions; all of this, though, was periphery to what I would call the "core" of WFD, which is basically what's up at the moment

any elaborations I would include on a/some seperate page/s

*I* think this principle is key; introduce your game (ie, outline your goals), give the player the core stuff, discuss implications(*) and elaborations, and give him a nice index and cheat sheet at the end

obviously that's not the only way to do it, but does that make sense?

(*) personally, I like discussion of implications, this tells me as a player how to think about a game (and also demonstrates playtesting has happened :smile:)

in this regard the D&D3E books like Sword and Blood and stuff are quite well done; they do all your min-maxing for you!