One thing that's often ignored in game design is what players are actually doing when they roll the dice (or draw cards, or what have you). I think this resolves a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth when people ask why gamers are persistent in enjoying things like Exalted and the Rifts.

I'm not talking about story, or success, or anything to do with what we normally talk about as play. I'm talking about:

* The sensation of counting bonuses and penalties.
* The feel and look of a handful of d10s.
* What the player associates with a single die roll.

I'm talking about the basic monkeywork of play. Lots of people seem to like doing the following:

* calculating bonuses
* avoiding complex math
* rolling high/over (exception! People like to roll under percentiles.)
* a roll that is equivalent of a single, discrete action ("roll to parry")
* rolling dice pools of dice with fewer sides, or single dice with more sides.
* not having to look things up.

Some of this is subjective. You can train yourself to do math for a game quickly once you get to know it. People can doo HERO math easily after they get into it and people can memorrize books so they don't have to look stuff up.

In fact, this training is a deliberate part of some designs. As Monte Cook noted, D20 is deliberately written to take time to grasp. He calls this principle System Mastery. Commerically, it encourages players to stick with a game because they've invested time learning it.

In this context, the popularity of many games is easier to get.

Rifts: discrete action+bonuses+roll high+single die, lots of sides.
Exalted: discrete action+bonuses+roll high+dice pool, few sides+low math.

Now you may agree or disagree with the tendencies I'm talking about, but in any event, what about the principle of the thing? Lots of games seem to focus on getting to the result in game and not so much on the aesthetics of actually using a game system, in of itself. Any other thoughts?

I can say that I have definitely been thinking more of the in-game aesthetics of die rolls lately. it was the reason why I made slight changes to the way Court of 9 Chambers handles rolls, for example. I decided that rolling all the dice on your turn, then physically pushing forward each die one at a time while interpretting the result as in-game description gives the game a much better feel; you intuitively know, after playing this way, that more dice means more opportunity to work in description, which means more successes. it also allows the player to describe one die, then the opponent to respond, then the player to describe or respond, then the opponent to respond again, and so on, which keeps everyone totally involved at all times, instead of other players having to wait while the current player finishes all possible descriptions before taking their turn.

Interesting mechanic from talysman - never played a 'non-standard' rpg, but that sounds kinda neat.

Interesting and, to me, pretty accurate assessment by eyebeams. I know I personally fall under those categories. I don't like doing math for anything more than a few plusses or minuses, as it slows things down and I lose my train of in-game thought.

I lean heavily toward D6s, though I am unsure about dice pools - I understand and like the concept that every skill level of what-have-you is an entire die that might roll really well (or poorly), but first off, this limits you (in my opinion) to a pracitical maximum of about 5 dice at once (it really is hard to hold more than 5 dice at a time, and I have fairly large hands) - PLUS, each face on a SINGLE die has the same chance to come up as any other - making it absolutely random. If a 1 is a failure and a 6 is a success, even though you're rolling like 5 dice, you still don't have any real application of your "5 dice ability score" - you're as likely to fail or succeed or "stay put" with 5 dice as 1 - this makes the point of having a skill level seem weak - thus I have recently been favoring a simple 2D roll with a bell curve, with more likelihood of "average" outcomes being the middle of the die roll range.

talysman wrote:
I can say that I have definitely been thinking more of the in-game aesthetics of die rolls lately. it was the reason why I made slight changes to the way Court of 9 Chambers handles rolls, for example. I decided that rolling all the dice on your turn, then physically pushing forward each die one at a time while interpretting the result as in-game description gives the game a much better feel; you intuitively know, after playing this way, that more dice means more opportunity to work in description, which means more successes. it also allows the player to describe one die, then the opponent to respond, then the player to describe or respond, then the opponent to respond again, and so on, which keeps everyone totally involved at all times, instead of other players having to wait while the current player finishes all possible descriptions before taking their turn.

eyebeams wrote: *snip*
Now you may agree or disagree with the tendencies I'm talking about, but in any event, what about the principle of the thing? Lots of games seem to focus on getting to the result in game and not so much on the aesthetics of actually using a game system, in of itself. Any other thoughts?

I think this may be an example of the Gamble aspect of Gamism (see the "Step On Up" essay). I know I get no payoff to speak of from that aspect of play unless I'm playing in a Gamist mode, and even then, the payoff I get is less that what I get from seeing my tactics prevail (the Crunch).

When I'm playing in a Simulationist mode, having to roll the dice is annoying, because it interrupts my creative focus on Exploration. When I'm playing in a Narrativist mode, rolling the dice is sometimes interesting, but only when the story could go in two equally fascinating directions based on the result, and I can't wait to see which.

I agree with Seth, I think the aesthetics of the dice greatly depends on which CA is being used. Other than that, I enjoy a variation of systems. Each handles differently and I find that to be part of the fun of playing a new game.

In terms the dice themselves, I'm not a big fan of D6's. I like my funky dice. D6's harken back to the young trama of "family board game night." Emphasis on BORED. Also it seems a shame not to put the variation that has evolved out of my dice collection, through natural selection, to good use.

I'm not really talking about gambling. You can get the same issues with Karma, though with Drama, you're really going back to the story, so it really doesn't concern what I'm talking about. Even the feeling of certainty that comes from having a static level of ability (like Amber of Nobilis) has a certain feel to it that can be better or worse depending on its implementation.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: Just great. I should have known that I should have read that game right away instead of leaving it to wait. But oh, no, I just had to go and duplicate the system in my IGC work. I'm starting to have trouble with keeping track of all the games I've ripped of either coincidentally or unintentionally with the Battle of the Frozen Waste.

Word to the wise: never leave reading a game for tomorrow if you can do it today. Saves you from looking stupid.

talysman wrote:
dunno why you are being so hard on yourself. there's LOTS of material to read here. I try to read much of it, but I certainly fall behind; and I certainly don't expect everyone to read my stuff, either. heck, some people are going to look and say "surrealist artists fighting each other with symbolism? PLONK! not interested!"

I don't think of myself as "Gamist" really. In practice I mostly waffle between Nar and Sim, or so those who have observed me have let on (and it is an observational theory).

But I LOVE playing with numbers, using resolution systems, the whole shebang. Games without any numbers at all make me feel uneasy, like a landlubber tossed aboard a ship at sea. I like Nobilis more than Amber for exactly this reason - Nobilis has NUMBERS, and a way to play with them.

For some gamers anyway (me, obviously, included) I think there can be something aesthetic to the dicerolls, the manipulation of bonuses and penalties, and all the rest of that stuff. What you're describing sounds pretty close to, I suppose, pure "Exploration of System", if you had to put it in the GNS model at all.

(In fact, that's where Exalted disappointed me - the dice rolls and stuff look great on paper, but it turned out to be such a let-down in play, promising much more than they deliver. At least with convention games.)

Anyway, I'm not sure about the whole training issue and stuff, but I do enjoy the aesthetics of dice. I'm not sure I like what YOU like in the aesthetics of dice (i.e. task resolution, etc.) but I appreciate them myself. Heck, I created a game using a roulette wheel in part 'cause of the psychological aesthetics of betting and spinning. Dice are just another part of that.

Yeah, that's definitely the kind of thing I'm talking about. Even though it's a good trick for focus to divorce it from the story, the relationship is definitely there -- but I'm afraid too much talk about it will muddy concrete discussion. I'm not sure.

I think that considering this end really lets us evaluate certain games. Take the Palladium system for instance. There are lots of problems with it -- lots and lots of problems -- but the aesthetics of dice rolling seem to be very appealing. Rifts has three kids of rolls:

Combat
Damage
Skills
(There are saving throws, too, but I have never seen them used in a game.)

Combat has the action/roll parity I'm talking about (one roll, one shot, parry or dodge). People like to roll for damage, most of the time. Skills are a simple roll under, which, given the combat focus of many games, seems to work fine. Instaed of dallying with complex results, the player gets the instant gratification of a yes/no answer.

The question now becomes: Can we make a game with the same dice rolling feel but without the dodgy structure beneath it? Wouldn;t that be a cool game for combat oriented roleplaying? Maybe.

I kind of get the idea behind paying attention to the aestetics of play. This is why whenever play-by-mail ever comes up I always bring up De Profundis. It's a play by mail game where the characters communicate by writing letters to each other. Other PBM games are fighting against the method of communication to try, as best it can, to replicate a tabletop play experience. It's an uphill battle IMO

At some point you need to take a step back and see what you are trying to accomplish with the game and then see what stuff is contrary of contradictory to that goal.

Hi folks,

There's several things we're talking about here, but the common thread being the joy of using the system itself. Some of the factors include:

-Tactile("I like rolling a handful of dice")
-Gambling/Suspense("I like not knowing how it's going to turn out!"
-Player Skill/Mastery of System("I like the fact that my strategies and skill make a difference in the performance of my character")
-"The Shopping List"("I like trying to figure out what feats/spells/kewl powers I want to get, and how they work together")

Chris

So, do we mean being entertained by the tool itself, rather than just being entertained by what the tool can make?

Sort of like being fascinated at a switch army knifes construction, or in watching a clock work devices innards rather than what the device does once wound.

I think the analogy can stretch to each of Bankuei's points fairly easily.

If this is the appreciation type, what CA does it come under?

Hello,

I love this topic; you can find some musings on it all the way back in System Does Matter (not that anyone ever read the second half of the essay, after flipping out over the GNS stuff in the first).

Overall Creative Agenda is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We are talking about the Color of the System. Whether it contributes, in an individual case, to a specific way to encourage Creative Agenda, is a great question.

Point #2: Can the System's Color (physical objects' texture, motions, etc, just to name a few) enhance the overall Exploration? I think that everyone's experience that I've talked to about it, as well as my own, overwhelmingly votes Yes. The classic example is "handfuls of dice!" in Champions; it feels good to roll 15d6 for your solar-radiation blast. But there are lots and lots more. The first three d10s I bought with designing Sorcerer in mind are gray, red, and black, with matte finish and a strange, stark symbol for the "10." I still make sure to use them when playing Sorcerer.

The most recent example for my role-playing concerns the 3x5 cards used as character sheets in Tunnels & Trolls, as recommended in the 5th edition text. I even went and got a bunch of the Flying Buffalo T&T character sheets after we played a session, and the players turned up their noses. It was 3x5 cards or nothing; they like the implication of disposability, even as they grieve a bit for a lost character.

Best,
Ron

For a moment I forgot why I asked which CA it comes under back then, but I remember now (I'm pretty sure). It was really supposed to highlight how it doesn't come under any. The idea of enjoying the object not for what it does (or in RPG's, what CA it's designed to assist with), but for what the object is itself. Admiring its workings, admiring its knobs and dials/dice.

Sort of reminds me of that Andy Warhol (sp?) picture of a can of cambells soup. It'd be like an RPG, pages fanned open and nifty looking dice strewn around it, in a frame. Certainly the framed version doesn't examine how good the soup or the game is.

Anyway, are dice and such comprable to the artwork in an RPG, in terms of a feeling they convey and perhaps a CA direction that assist with? Certainly those sorcerer dice sound like it.

The odd thing is, the more these things like dice and artwork are used to assist CA, the more the RPG becomes a piece of art itself, outside of it actually doing anything.

But I'm not sure I'm adding anything much.

The Color of the mechanics definitely matters to me. I particularly like little tricks like exploding dice.

I've got an example of Color really mattering. I've tried, and failed, at several extensive attempts to convince one of the players in my group that rolling 1dX versus 1dX is the same as rolling 1dX - 1dX. He just won't believe me - Color matters.

And in some instances I've been in, Color simply *made* the game.

I was with a smaller, shorter lived group (than my current one), suffering from WW Larp Big Lies Before Breakfast conflicting with what they'd 'known and loved', but still wanting to 'roleplay right.'

Deadlands gave them a chance to really have a lot of fun and not feel "guilty" about it, as they "weren't exactly roleplaying, I mean, it's not a LARP with rock-paper-scissors or just dice, it's got cards and poker chips. It's different, and damn, it's fun!"

I do, believe, though, that my Premise to them made all the difference:

"Hey, guys, let's do something different. How would you like to get some poker cards, some ante chips, some paper and a pencil and we'll play some Cowboys vs. Zombies ..."

That, and the fact that the most enjoyable part for them was all taking a Weird Background flaw/feature thing which allowed them to get powers or get screwed over with some draws from a card pile.

Come to think of it, we also heavily enjoyed a D&D game after that which only involved one session on one night: some random characters, around a table, staring at a Deck of Many Things ....

AtR