I have committed a crime. It is a crime that I am certain is common among long-time role-players such as myself. I have judged games on a brief look at the core mechanics.

You see, I have long labored under the unconscious and totally false assumption that all role-playing games are played exactly the same way, and that what makes them different is their core mechanics. Of course, I don't think I would have ever taken that stance consciously--it sounds absurd. And yet, I have often picked up a new game, flipped to the section on task or conflict resolution, and made a snap judgement about the system based on that information.

In the past few months, I have been playing a some games that you might call cutting-edge: Donjon, Dust Devils, Trollbabe. And I have read a fair few more. What each of these games has shown me is that every RPG makes assumptions about how the game is played at a fundamental level. What's more, these assumptions occur as a separate concern from the core mechanics of the game. Some games, particularly those grown here on the forge, don't just make assumptions, they make assertions. But, as I look back over the many games on my shelf, I realize that all games make these assumptions. No two games assume the exact same method for playing.

What I think is revolutionary about the new crop of indie games is that the authors have made a switch from the traditional, "this is how you should run your game," sections to more assertive, "this is how this game is played," rules that transcend mere mechanics. Designers are moving away from apologetically putting forth the style of play that they intended for the game, but telling the players that they can play however they like. What they are moving toward is the notion that when a game is designed it is designed to be played a certain way, and if you don't like to play that way, you should play another game.

The problem I see is with old dogs (self included). We don't learn new tricks very well. At least, not without a lot of coaching. I assert that it is a good thing for games to distinguish themselves in actual-play terms from others, but that they cannot understate those differences. As designers, we have a duty to boldly and without apology state how the game is to be played. We need to include detailed examples of how a session of play should go in our rules. We need to reinforce the concepts and differences in play with frank discussion in the rules, on our Web sites, and on public forums such as this.

I realize that this rantish post is probably preaching to the choir. But the conscious realization of all of this has opened my eyes to better role-playing. And I am certain there are still lots and lots of folks still committing the crime that I now shun.

Thanks for the rant, Jay. Well said! I certainly have committed this crime; another old version is to look only at the setting.

I like your remarks about the "here's how we think you maybe should run your game" to "play this way" switch. Does anyone else get tired of reading, "If you don't like a rule, feel free to throw it out -- it's your game now!" Well, duh. Thus house rules. I suppose this arises in reaction against Gygax's "If you don't play this way you're not really playing at all and are probably a bad person" sort of rhetoric, but it does get rather tedious. And let's note that Gygax's rhetoric hardly prevented people rewriting the rules freely, so this sort of thing needn't be said.

Instead, one might say, in effect, "Look, think of this like Monopoly. Sure, you can take the pieces and play some other game, but if you want to play Monopoly there are rules. These rules include whose turn it is, who goes when, and so on. Same here in this RPG. And I don't mean initiative in combat: I mean who gets to talk, about what, when, and what the shtick of the game is. That's how the game is designed, so if you want to play it, play it that way. Feel free to cannibalize for parts, but recognize that you're now playing a different game. Don't tell me that you hate my game because the combat system, which you ripped out of context and played stand-alone in something completely different, didn't work for you. You don't hate my game, because you haven't played my game. I'm sorry to hear that your game sucks, but that's not my problem."

Obviously, one wouldn't put it quite like that, but this is increasingly how I feel about various bitchings and rantings I've heard for years about this game or that game not being a "good game" because it doesn't work perfectly for something completely different from the original setup, with half the rules rewritten and the other half thrown out.

As to assumptions about how games are played, I'm increasingly thinking that in writing game text, it's best to discard such assumptions and just explain in great detail what you want. I usually tend to think it's easier to say, "Here's what you're probably used to from X game, and here's how this game is different," but as you note everyone plays and assumes so differently that the first half of the statement is pure guesswork. So I'm now working on, "Here's how to play this game, which may or may not be familiar to you, so I'm going to explain in detail."

As to the old dogs problem, there's actually more to it -- you're right, but you can go farther, I think. When you try to get a publisher to make a contract for a scholarly book, for example, one of the things you have to do is explain how your book is new and different. The way you do that is to say, "Here are the big eight other books on this subject, and here's what they do, and here's what I do that they don't, or what I do that's better than what they do." The same principle usually applies with RPGs: you say, "Here's what D&D or Vampire did, and here's how what I do is different and better." The problem is that it's very difficult to make this claim effectively. So what you're really looking for is a way to explain, "Here's what's just too cool for words about my game; never mind the other games, on which I have nothing to say." And I think that can be difficult to sell. Heck, Sorcerer and TROS have text on the back that says, more or less, "Here is a game that does what no other game does, and why that's better." Sells copy, right?

Partly I guess it's a sound-bite issue. It's hard to say, really really fast, "Here's an example of what play is actually like in this game and you can see for yourself that it's totally awesome, although I guess I do need to explain a couple things before you can understand what you just saw." It's much faster to say, "They suck! I rule! Play now!"

Anyway, you rant, I rant. :p

Chris Lehrich

coxcomb wrote: The problem I see is with old dogs (self included). We don't learn new tricks very well.

Hey Jack, you dropped a negative somewhere:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning but just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds.

Sorry. tis #2 not became but somehow

In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning NOt just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: In my experience, the problem with old dogs and new tricks is that the dog often doesn't realise it's a new trick they're learning NOt just an old trick they already know. Convincing them otherwise is more difficult than that sounds

coxcomb wrote: I really like Chris' Monopoly analogy, but I think it is even more absurd than that. You never see a board game with a section in the rules called "What is a Board Game". The rules tell you how to play that game, and make no claims one way or another about how any other game is played.

It is nice to see people opening their eyes, looking at what is, and what may be.

Try to couple this newfound insight of yours, with some new terms on roleplaying games, and you may soon be able to map this newfound landscape.

The gamesmith has a vision, which he tries to communicate to his players. If communication is untrue, the players will create a fiction based on their own agenda, using whatever tools they possess. If communication is true, the players will create a fiction related to the vision.

Vision = a gamesmiths idea of how his game shall be played, and what fiction it will produce
Fiction = the actual drama created, how the shared imaginary space looks like in actual play, the end result of any roleplaying game

Game = the content of a gamebook, a specific set of instructions, the setting and method of a particular roleplaying game
Method = the ways of the game, the tools, techniques and tricks of the gameplay, how to make it all work towards a fiction
Setting = the elements of the fiction, the building bricks, the soul and song of the fiction
Gameplay = the actual gamesession, and how it is experienced

Player = any participant in a roleplaying game
Role = the players avatar, the hearth of the game, the creative will, the inspiration, transformation, imagination
Interaction = the ever ongoing play between players and their roles, their actions and reactions
Immersion = the flow experienced when the role takes over and leave the player to follow in the wake of the drama

Jay wrote: Designers are moving away from apologetically putting forth the style of play that they intended for the game, but telling the players that they can play however they like. What they are moving toward is the notion that when a game is designed it is designed to be played a certain way, and if you don't like to play that way, you should play another game.

High five to you, Callan. I've been fightin' that fight for about ten years now. It feels damn good to have allies at last.

Best,
Ron

Welcome rant, Jay. Three cheers for honest and focused game-smithing.

Recently, on some other RPG-ing forum, there's been a somewhat lengthy discussion about "generic role-playing systems". Someone asked what criteria might you judge to find the generic system that's right for you. Various folks replied with words like rules-light, adaptable, versatile, cinematic and so on; also phrases like allows nuances to the genre you want it to run, rules become invisible during play, emphasizes skills over innate abilities, etcetera.

The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

- W.

WDFlores wrote: Recently, on some other RPG-ing forum, there's been a somewhat lengthy discussion about "generic role-playing systems". Someone asked what criteria might you judge to find the generic system that's right for you. Various folks replied with words like rules-light, adaptable, versatile, cinematic and so on; also phrases like allows nuances to the genre you want it to run, rules become invisible during play, emphasizes skills over innate abilities, etcetera.

WDFlores wrote: The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

John Kim wrote:

WDFlores wrote: The interesting thing for me to note is that the talk was more about the way a particular person wanted to play. The "system" they refer to is basically a toolkit of various mechanics that they then re-arrange and put into service for a specific goal. They still have to make a system (in the sense that Jay reffers to) out of the "system" that they think they already have. The word "generic system" or "universal system" suddenly appeared to me to be an oxymoron, or just this side of meaningless at best.

Well, I agree about the first part. And indeed, when I look at the cover of my HERO System rulebook, what I see it call itself is "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit". It has a long chapter on customization of the system to specific campaigns and the steps and logic to be done for that. I think many gamers and certainly the HERO designers are aware of this. When something is called a "universal system", it is generally with an understanding that it is more of a toolkit for build-it-yourself. I don't see anything wrong with that, either.
*snip*

To clarify, I never intended this point to be a critique about universal systems or the viability thereof. To put universal systems in the context of the thesis of this post:

If (as I assert) all RPGs make assumptions about the way the game is played, I think one of the assumptions common to universal games is that players will always want to fill in the details of genre (and often setting) themselves, with little direction from the game company. To continue using HERO as an example (though GURPS would serve as well), when you pick up the core book, you can't just make characters and play (well, you could, but it isn't a good idea). You need something more, in the form of setting and color. The assumption in HERO is that the GM will come up with this stuff (maybe with input from players, maybe not).

I think the real fallacy of universal games is the assumption that having to fill in the details for every game is easier than just using another game. I personally like HERO a lot. It has a special place in my heart. But I'll be the first to admit that setting up a new game (in a new genre) is a huge time-sink.

Universal systems are relying on a reusable pattern much like a lot of computer programs do. The setting and the mechanics are abstracted into different layers with this mind set. That way you can easily "plug and play" different settings on top of the same reusable rule mechanics layer and potentially have rule mechanic componentized to reduce impact to other rule components when you make changes to one rule component. The problem is that this really is a framework, not a system that does anything. While this methodology is great for business software, it starts to feel bland for entertainment purposes like RPGs or even computer games (slap a new setting on the same 'ol First Person Shooter engine and you have a new "game", but really it still feels like Doom to me.)
"Analog" game companies receive the same kind of reusability benefits in that they don't have to playtest a new setting as much using the a generic system, just the tweaks. I believe this is another reason why you see the market flooded with d20 and GURPS material, because it is faster and cheaper to produce (along with the large fan bases).

I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

That would be something of a blow to me.

However, I will recognize that all systems must make assumptions, and that includes universal, generic, multiversal, and composite systems.

Multiverser makes these assumptions.

• Players would rather not have their characters come to the end of their existence; whatever happens, the character must be allowed to continue.

• There must be some risk in play to give play meaning; if death is not the end, it still should be something. Using death as the end of the round, but not the end of the game, maintains this tension.

• Most gamers would like to play in many different kinds of game worlds, but don't have time to get to them all. If all different genres and settings could be incorporated into one game such that continuous play of the same game with the same characters would include as a feature the ability to experience many different kinds of worlds, that would be something most gamers would enjoy.

• Gamers have different interests in how games run and on what they focus. The game should adapt to the players; the more individually this can be done, the more enjoyable the game will be for each player. Thus if characters can adjust the detail in combat through their own character choices, they will enjoy combat more. Similarly, if they can focus on those aspects of a world or situation that appeal to them with minimal interference from others at the table, they will enjoy that more.

• Worlds and characters must be protected such that they remain true to what they purport to be; a mechanic that balances these effectively against each other can give the feeling to the players that they are still playing the same characters, but in different worlds. The rules themselves must change to adapt with the change of world, but do so smoothly.

• Some games are going to capture the nuances of their imagined reality better through their mechanics than any other system can. A game that can adapt other game systems to itself, such that its characters become characters in the other game system while in that setting can in a sense use its advantages.


Multiverser attempts to do these things--make it possible for player characters to enter any world. That is in part accomplished by allowing the rules to adapt by interfacing with the rules of other games.

I think I can give as an example the forthcoming Legends of Alyria game. There is an appendix in the rear which provides what we would call interfacing rules--not really conversion rules, because it's not really about how to play Alyria with Multiverser mechanics. Rather, it's about how to bring Multiverser characters into Alyria and use Alyria as part of a continuing Multiverser campaign. Alyria does things Multiverser, alone, could not; but in a sense, because Multiverser includes this interfacing aspect, Multiverser players can take their characters into Alyria, play under Legends of Alyria rules, and continue beyond that into other worlds, equipped with such skills and devices as they may have acquired while there.

Thus I think Multiverser really can provide "play in any world", because it has this as part of its basic rules structure. That requires a certain amount of adaptation on the part of the referee (except in those cases in which such an interface is provided at the courtesy of the publisher), but then this would not be more work than merely picking up and playing Alyria, and it fits into your ongoing campaign.

I'm a strong supporter of games built for what they do. I don't think that negates the value of universal games, as long it's understood what their objectives are as games.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

Hi all,

M. J. Young wrote: I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

I think the real fallacy of universal games is the assumption that having to fill in the details for every game is easier than just using another game.

coxcomb wrote: Perhaps we should stop using "universal" as a label for all games with scopes that range beyond a single genre. Though I do not have personal experience with Multiverser, it is obvious from what you're saying that it is as different from Hero as D&D is from Trollbabe.

As far as I know, what may be called "universal games" are not universal as games, but as conflict systems. A traditional conflict system may very well be constructed to cater for multiple genres. Then again; you'd have to make the setting for each genre, and give some observations on method, to make the genre come alive with the game. The effort necessary to make each setting come alive within the game, by both gamesmith and gamer, constitutes such an effort that you may consider it an individual game. If not taken seriously, you will probably make multisetting games without genre specifics, playing the same dramatic content in each and every setting. That makes for multiflavoured games, and not much more.

As for enjoying games with multiple genres/settings included; I tried Rifts, and found it tedious. I've enjoyed different sessions of GURPS, but don't expect to enjoy playing the same character as a fantasy hero, a space opera pilot, a superhero, etc.

I disagree on two of the points made by M.J.Young, not as assumtions made by Multiverser, of course, but as anything like general observations or design principles.

---> The assumption that "most gamers" will enjoy multisetting is not generally true, in my view. It may apply to a fair share of players, and may very well be an effective sales-argument for a game. However; I see dangers to the use of this assumption in game design.

I guess the main problem with multisettings, if part of one campaign, is for the setting to easily loose it's significance to the character. Such a game has to deal with characters not bound by family, culture or time. I'm one gamer and gamesmith hooked on the hooks inherent in such relations, and I expect most gamers are. I think most players find their engagement limited, when playing characters perpetually adrift.

---> The assumption that "the game should adapt" to the players, is an assumtion many gamesmiths have tried to live by, and as a consequence made them loose the aim on their design goals. I can imagine that having it as a design goal in itself, would be different, but fear that many gamesmiths will try to adapt such a goal, not seeing the obvious dangers in doing so. I expect most gamesmiths to dig their own grave by choosing such a design goal.

I still think M.J.Young has an interesting listing of the qualities found in universal systems, and as assumptions made by this particular game; Mulitverser, it certainly rattles my curiousity.

Tomas HVM wrote: ---> The assumption that "the game should adapt" to the players, is an assumtion many gamesmiths have tried to live by, and as a consequence made them loose the aim on their design goals. I can imagine that having it as a design goal in itself, would be different, but fear that many gamesmiths will try to adapt such a goal, not seeing the obvious dangers in doing so. I expect most gamesmiths to dig their own grave by choosing such a design goal.

coxcomb wrote: When you design a software program, you have to know your audience. When you write a novel, you have to know your audience.
...
We need to acknowledge that our game is for a specific type of player, define that type, and go without looking back. To not do so is a recipe for incoherence, or at the very least confusion.

Tomas HVM wrote: The process should go like this:
- Ideas
- Creation
- Critics
Over and over again, should this prosess turn, until a new game is formed.

coxcomb wrote: My point, and I do have one somewhere, is that the process should go like this:

1.) Realize that gamers are not all the same, and you will never please all of them.
2.) Decide on the goals for your game (which, I assert, also defines your audience)
3.) Ideas / Creation / Critique process as you listed
4.) Write rules (making certain to clarify the whole system, not just character creation, resolution, and rewards).

1) Write rules based on some random idea you have
2) See who likes it -- i.e. your "core audience" -- and observe how they play
3) Revise rules to please your core audience
4) Repeat #2 and #3

Now, there are potential flaws in this, but there are potential flaws in any method. It's at least reasonable and I think it fits. Even though it is a "universal system", that doesn't mean that BESM (say) doesn't have a core audience which it is interested in pleasing.

Oops, got me all worked up again!

Started to elaborate on the creative process, and ended up doing an full fledged lecture on it. I'll turn it over to Ron for consideration when it is finished. I hope he will be kind enough to publish it here.