I've been lurking on these boards for about a week, and have decided to jump in. I don't think I'm quite up-to-speed on the jargon that gets thrown about here (still having a hard time wrapping my head around Ron's GNS essay in its entirety), but I felt that shouldn't keep me from tossing out some ideas.

I've been thinking of some game rules lately as "in-the-box" and "out-of-the-box." "In-the-box" is when the game brings the imagination to the table. Lists of skills, advantages/disadvantages, feats, spells, etc., are an example. So is all the specific combat resolution rules, like hit points. Games like GURPS and DnD are comprised almost entirely of "in-the-box" rules.

Meanwhile, "out-of-the-box" is when the player brings the imagination to the table. Character creation in Over the Edge is an "out-of-the-box" experience. Anytime you're coming up with a descriptor or a concept without having to refer to a list, or a set of game values then it's definitely "out-of-the-box." Lots of GM duties are "out-of-the-box." Things like scenario and campaign creation.

To give an example, we'll use Unknown Armies. To create a character in UA, you need to formulate three passions, come up with descriptors for your stats, and basically make up your skills. All "out-of-the-box". But UA has four stats which you spread 220 points to, and has lists of spells with specific effects. That's "in-the-box."

Now, maybe there's a concept out there that describes exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm just redundant. I'm sure if anyone would know, it would be around here.

The only reason why I think about this, is its a real issue in my gaming groups. While you want players to be these fountains of creativity, I've found many flounder when forced to be creative on the spot. I first noticed it accutely when playing Feng Shui. Some players could do stunts, some couldn't. Some could create hooks on the spot, some couldn't. Some players could think "out-of-the-box," some thought "in-the-box."

I'll make a bold statement (unsupported by facts) that a game's rules are designed to move "in-the-box" thinkers along, since "out-of-the-box" thinkers probably need no rules anyway.

What's the feel for this around here?

Thanks for listening to me,
Steve Dustin

Steve,

I think this is a great way to examine RPG pieces. It's so simple, yet it defines one of the elemental differences in RPG design.

In some ways, it reminds me of what I've heard called a "sandbox." When an RPG hands you a constrained area, and the tools to build whatever you want inside that area, it's a sandbox. (I know there was an opposing term, but I can't think of it.) Everway is a great example. Over the Edge is like The Universe's Sandbox - really big, and you can create anything in it.

I'd like to discuss your idea that "out-of-the-box" players probably need little or no rules. I think this is a common fallacy when coming to a wider view of RPGs. I made the same mistake myself, and starting playing games with less and less rules. What I found was that I wanted different rules, rules that let me leverage my imagination. I can't tell you how many times I was frustrated at a rule set that stopped me from using my imagination, and I thought that a smaller rule set would prohibit me less. I found instead that a good rule system designed to let me build whatever I wanted inside it (examples: Over the Edge, Sorcerer, d20 - not D&D, Extreme Vengeance, even my new game Donjon) let me take my imagination and use it to leverage the game world.

Hi Steve, and welcome,

One of the best frees games out there is called "Ghost Light." Its author, Doug Bolden, referred to what you're calling "out of the box" as "loose-element" design. The first game to do this, I think, for really central components of character design, was Over the Edge.

The idea is that we know everyone's going to get four dice in something, no more and no less. So if it's four dice, then what does it matter what you call it? In OTE, four dice of effectiveness is four dice of effectiveness, used as damage or social clout or whatever makes sense for whatever it is.

I recall discussing running OTE one time, and a fellow asked, "So I could play God?" I told him sure. He got this lit-up look in his eyes (which in retrospect alarms me), and said, "I can do anything?" And I said, sure, to the tune of four dice. If you play God in OTE, you do "God stuff" up to four dice' worth.

Most games of this sort are a bit less free about things (eg in Ghost Light the elements are emotions), but the basic idea is there.

So I think that in and out of "the box" look like this:
- fix the game mechanic fairly tightly, and let the definition of the element fly free
- or define the element tightly and provide lots of latitude to vary it relative to the other elements

Best,
Ron

Clinton R Nixon:

I'd like to discuss your idea that "out-of-the-box" players probably need to rules. I
think this is a common fallacy when coming to a wider view of RPGs. I made the
same mistake myself, and starting playing games with less and less rules. What I
found was that I wanted different rules, rules that let me leverage my imagination.

"Loose-element" design? Ok. Does that mean its inverse is "tight-element" design?

So I think that in and out of "the box" look like this:
- fix the game mechanic fairly tightly, and let the definition of the element fly free
- or define the element tightly and provide lots of latitude to vary it relative to the other elements

Don't be alarmed Steve, I didn't get what Ron was saying either. And I read him all the time. BTW, he's not a Lawyer. No, it's worse than that. ;-)

The problem with these definitions is that I think they are describing something that isn't exactly binary, or, if it is, is one of those "know it when I see it" things. Might be more of a spectrum with tight on one end and loose on the other. Compare the concepts of hard and soft mechanics, which usually deal with how much actual physical activity is associated with each (rolling dice, recording specifics, etc).

Mike

Hi Steve,

In reading my essay, you should keep in mind that it's written to address existing concerns. If you're coming in without those existing concerns in mind, then you'll have to do some orienting. No, I'm not a lawyer, but your situation is very much like someone wandering into the middle of a court case. The first question should be, "What's being asked?"

On to the "box" issue ....

I'm not necessarily advocating Doug's terminology, but if I did, I'd suggest that the opposite of "loose-element design" would be "fixed-element design."

I'll try to clarify my observation about the distinction between these different types of design. To take my own advice, here's the question I asked myself after reading your post: "Is the 'in-box' or 'out-of-box' issue independent of other aspects of design, or does it relate to some other aspect in a definite way?" I answered it with the idea that it does relate to another aspect. You have raised the issue of naming elements of a character; I am comparing that issue with the second issue of the numerical values of those elements.

In "out of the box" or "loose element" or whatever we call it, the person making the character may call the game mechanic whatever they want (or whatever they want within the parameters; say, "an emotion"). Now for my claim: for this to be functional among members of a role-playing group, everyone must be using the same or very similar values for those game elements. For instance, in Over the Edge, the mechanic in question is a specified number of dice (four, for one's highest score), no matter what it's called. In Sorcerer, which is less "free" or "loose" than OTE, all characters' Will scores are within a fairly limited range, although each player may describe/define Will for that character in any way they'd like.

Contrast this with the more extreme versions of "in the box" or "fixed element" or whatever we call it, in which every character has the same list of attributes and at least the same list of skills from which to choose. My claim in this case is that, to be functional, each attribute and most other elements of the character's features must be permitted to vary. Thus in D&D we have six fixed attributes, no matter what - but note that they have a very wide range from character to character. Same with GURPS: four fixed attributes, tons and tons of fixed/named skills - but the range of each attribute and skill, from character to character, varies a lot.

Now conceivably, one might provide a game with lots of room to define the elements on the sheet, as well as lots of room to vary their values. The Window comes close to this. Or, conversely, one might design a game with utterly fixed elements and essentially fixed values for those elements, which to some extent is what Feng Shui offers. In my opinion, both of these combinations are less welcome to most role-players. Functionally, in playing The Window, I have seen groups tend to "fix" the range of the values they'll permit among members of the group; similarly, in observing Feng Shui in action, I have seen groups tend to permit more latitude in character creation than simply copying down the archetypes in the book.

Now for a bigger issue. I'm afraid I disagree with you very strongly about the designs of games like The Pool and their relationship with "rules."

Compare the design of, say, Vampire and Legends of the Five Rings, in which the authors are careful to specify that if you don't like a rule, you may ignore it. You won't find that in Sorcerer, Hero Wars, or The Pool. Why not? Because these latter games have definite, coherent goals of play, and their rules operate specifically to bring those goals into reality. Ignoring a dice-roll in Vampire is often necessary to preserve the (vague) goals of play; ignoring a dice-roll in The Pool literally destroys the goal of play. Therefore I consider the latter three games actually more rules-oriented than the former two, despite the fact that they have less text or detail or "mass" of rules. Because the rules are focused toward a goal of play, they are simpler and more elegant. They are, however, more important.

Well, that's enough debate for one day. Welcome, again, to the Forge!

Best,
Ron

Steve Dustin wrote:
I'll make a bold statement (unsupported by facts) that a game's rules are designed to move "in-the-box" thinkers along, since "out-of-the-box" thinkers probably need no rules anyway.

or, systems which are "player configurable objects" may sort of hang over the edge of the box; they have a causal relationship with things in the box, but they themselves are undefined until manifest through player decision.

Ron Edwards says:

I'm not necessarily advocating Doug's terminology, but if I did, I'd suggest that the
opposite of "loose-element design" would be "fixed-element design."

Ron Edwards says:

You have raised the issue of naming
elements of a character; I am comparing that issue with the second issue of the
numerical values of those elements.

                     y

                      |    OTE         Feng Shui

                      |                    

                      |                   

                      | 

   values of element  |                    GURPS

                      | No rules             DnD

                       __________________________ x

                       

                         definition of element

I like your graph above.

As far as games that define scenario and world building, I'd first offer Aria as a prime example of this. Then Hero Wars has very specific rules for Heroquesting, at least, which is interesting. Also, Rune, Fungeon, and Dunjon (SP?) are examples of highly gameist games that have lots of rules for building scenarios (hell, petty much that's all there is to Rune). Lastly I'd point to Universalis, a game by Ralph Mazza and myself that has a universal currency system that meters out world and plot developments.

So, there are a few systems that do this.

Mike

Hi,

Let's not forget Everway, which has a very highly focused "scenario structure" integrated with many aspects of the system, and even more importantly, the "squad mission" structure found in so many games - the assumption that your little cell or squad is going to begin each adventure with an assigned mission and a couple of clues. Call of Cthulhu is perhaps the king of this, but it's also common for SF games of many stripes.

Best,
Ron

Steve Dustin wrote:
The only reason why I think about this, is its a real issue in my gaming groups. While you want players to be these fountains of creativity, I've found many flounder when forced to be creative on the spot. I first noticed it accutely when playing Feng Shui. Some players could do stunts, some couldn't. Some could create hooks on the spot, some couldn't. Some players could think "out-of-the-box," some thought "in-the-box."