indie game design styles

[Doctor Xero]

I've been reading (and sometimes participating in) a number of the Forge threads, and the great majority of postings have been interesting and insightful (even when occasionally "snarky").  I've noticed certain trends in the game mechanics styles discussed on the various fora, and in light of these trends, I'm not sure whether the Forge would be open to the style of the game I've been working on.

The game has a single individual alone as game master, who functions as host, arbiter, ombudsman, set designer, and supporting cast.  It is not GMless; there are no mechanics for multiple game masters, no delegation of any game master duties to any player, and no player veto (except as implicit in the social contract).

The game uses gaming dice.  It is not diceless; it does not use playing cards, Tarot cards, pennies, bus tokens, paper chits, or ordinary six-sided dice -- it uses polyhedrice, so playing requires at least one visit to a local gaming store, with perhaps luck tokens.

The game master may hide her or his dice rolls behind a game master's screen to increase the mystery of the game.  The game master is assumed to be working with and for the players, and she or he challenges the players only because this makes the game fun for everyone and never out of friendly competition nor from any effort to best the players (even though this may be fun for some players).

The game reality is not mutable -- the game relies upon tales of exploration and roleplayed social interaction with solutions set ahead of time only by the game master.  The game scenarios do not work if players can directly alter the setting, NPC behaviors, or solutions to challenges; all these must be addressed through the effects of the PCs and never by the players directly.

After reading a number of Forge postings, I may try my hand at writing a gaming system which allows for a highly mutable game reality and which plays with delegation of traditional game master duties to sub-game masters or to players, but right now, I'm been working on a more traditional style of game system.

Is the game system I've been working on seen as too old-fashioned or too retro or too outre' for consideration on The Forge?

Doctor Xero

[Loki]

Nope. Go for it! ;^)

[Valamir]

Loki's absolutely right.  Definitely go for it.

The only thing I'd recommend (and no snarkiness intended) is to make sure that it offers something that none of the legion of available games that already do what you describe offers.

[Jasper]

Not at all.  The only reason people talk about new, "avante garde" techniques is that they haven't been talked about much before, so they're exciting.  On the other hand, if you take to heart advice given at the Forge, your traditional game might not remain traditional for very long ;)

[Gordon C. Landis]

No problem at all with seeing this game design here at the Forge - many (not all) games designed/discussed here can be played that way.

Now, applying some Forge thinking to the parameters you've set - unless you mean something different than I think you do by "solutions set ahead of time only by the game master", your design is NOT going to be well-suited to Nar play - but so what?  Not all games need to be well-suited to all modes of play.

Also, a Forge-esque insight on your "must be addressed through the effects of the PCs and never by the players directly" requirement - it's useful (IMO) to note that outside a particular group agreement, you actually can NOT prevent "players directly" from exerting this influence.  Social pressure is always available as a tool.   Influence not directly related to the PCs/world, but purely "what I/we as real people want" is almost always (IME) a factor in addressing issues within the shared imagined space, even when there's an agreement to minimize it after whatever up-front negotiations about the parameters are completed.

Not that striving to minimize that is a bad thing, nor that individual play groups can't do a GREAT job of doing so.  But  . . . I've seen an AWFUL lot of "addressing" that is, in fact, outside the "effects of the PCs" even in groups very commited to not doing so.  Sometimes, driving that influence "underground" (pretending it doesn't exist when in fact it does) ends up giving it an even greater potency than simply acknowledging it and incorporating it would.

I've no idea if any of that matters to your design, or in what way, but that's a response to your presented parameters provoked by MY experience here at the Forge.

I'll look forward to hearing more about what your particular goals are - especially, as Ralph says, what is special about YOUR design for this purpose as opposed to the many others out there,

Gordon

[quozl]

Wow, that sounds absolutely groundbreaking!

I think you should dive in to the indie game design pool immediately and come up with a playtest document ASAP!  I would love to try a game like the one you are considering.

I look forward to seeing your creations, Doctor Xero!

[Loki]

To elaborate on my earlier post, take a game like Great Ork Gods--developed here on The Forge. While it has some elements that are different than the traditional GM/player division of labor and it has slightly unusual dice rolling, it's still basically the same "GM runs the world, and players run characters" game that you played 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, it's still a very fresh take on fantasy gaming, regardless of the fact that it's not diceless/GMless/avant-whatever. So, I'd say there's a lot of room for the type of game you're describing here on The Forge.

[orbsmatt]

I've always been a fan of the "GM running the world, the players run the characters" concept as I love to GM.  It gives you the opportunity to entertain others and have a lot of fun at the same time.

I don't think that style will ever become outdated.  In fact, I think it will outlive most of the new styles.  It's simple, easy, and fun!

Matthew

[timfire]

The only thing I'd recommend (and no snarkiness intended) is to make sure that it offers something that none of the legion of available games that already do what you describe offers.

I think this statement is key.

It may just be me, but I think this is the goal that everyone at the Forge has; and as I personally see it, there are 2 basic ways to acheive this. The first is to come up with a new game concept. The second is to infuse a standard game concept with "avante garde" techniques.

Personally I think coming up with avante garde techniques is alot easier than trying to come up with an entirely new game concept, and that's probably why you see more discussion about these experimental techniques. (That's my opinion, anyway.)

Not to imply that people are lazy, maybe its just my own personality but I find the engineering/ mechanical side of designing easier than the creative.

[Shreyas Sampat]

timfire, I disagree.

There is a third way to do this, and that is to provide a game that is absolutely the best, by hook or by crook, at achieving its stated goals, and this means it can't be sneaky about those goals.

This, I think, is where you're getting the "avant garde" impression from - a lot of mainstreamy RPGs don't have clear goals, and so they doggy-paddle around, not really accomplishing what their designers want them to do - because their designers aren't aware that games are supposed to do something.

Obviously this is the most difficult approach of the three we have discussed, and that's one of the reasons it hasn't been accomplished as much as the other two. But it certainly has been accomplished, and often it's been done without staggering concepts or clever techniques; just elegant, intelligent application of existing tools.

[Valamir]

That is actually my hope for Robots & Rapiers.  We'll see how well I manage to pull it off.