Ben Lehman proposed that we discuss Toy Quality, which he defines as "Any part of the game that is enjoyable when divorced from the SIS" [paraphrase].

I quickly derailed the conversation, and then we spent a while flailing around trying to come up with some definitions. C. Edwards, Vaxalon, and I spent about an hour or so hashing some of this out, so I decided to kick up a new thread to get a fresh start.

The problem we first ran into was that Toy Quality, as Ben had defined it, was far too broad to really discuss. We have broken it up into three major categories: Aesthetics, Props, and Mechanics.

Aesthetics is pure aesthetic appreciation. This includes pretty pictures, nice layout, the attractive qualities of the platonic solids, whatever. For example, I love my copy of The Burning Wheel. Not just for the mechanics and stuff, but because I find it to be a very attractive book.

Props are physical objects that are manipulated. A lot of Props also have Aesthetic value. Those figurines are pretty and there's something about moving them around that is fun. The real key for the Toy Quality aspect of Props is that they are played with. If it's just sitting around looking pretty then it's about the Aesthetics, but once you start manipulating it it's about the Prop-ness (or something).

Mechanics, as Toy Quality applies to the term, is about the manipulation of complex systems. "Complex" in this case meaning "having interconnected parts". Basically Mechanical Toy Quality is about the enjoyment of manipulating a system iteratively. The system feeds back into itself such that choices impact your future choices. Mechanical Toy Quality can include Character Creation, detailed Combat Systems, really any sort of system in which the mechanics impact each other directly without SIS input. Again, I point at The Burning Wheel for their combat mechanics, but you could also point at The Riddle of Steel or d20.

One of the important distinctions that came out of our discussions was that Toy Quality itself is relative. If you don't like chess then chess holds little or no Toy Quality for you. Quantifying Toy Quality is like trying to quantify fun, a game is only "fun" in context of the players.

That said, games can be designed to maximize Potential Toy Quality. If you have non-complex mechanics then there is not potential for Toy Quality in the mechanics. The purpose of this thread is to discuss specific ways to design Potential Toy Quality into RPGs.

I think that we have a pretty good grasp of the Aesthetic. Art, layout, and all that is something that we have done, perhaps without calling it Toy Qulity, but we have a prett solid understanding of it.

Props are a much less discussed topic, so: What Props have good Toy Quality? How can those Props be integrated into RPGs? What use can Props be put to within the SIS (not Toy Quality)?

Mechanics are what I find most fascinating about all this personally. It's also the thing I'm having the hardest time analyzing. I can point to a system that does have mechanical Toy Quality for me, and for others (which indicates a high level of Potential Toy Quality), but I am unable to precisely point out what gives something Toy Quality. I believe that Mechanical Toy Quality is what non-RP games are aiming for since they don't have an SIS.

It's possible that I've misrepresented one of the other parties in this discussion. This was my final understanding, but there may be some point that they wish to highlight or contest. Also, if anyone wishes a log of the conversation in order to see how we got to where we did, feel free to PM me.

Thomas

Here is one thread dealing with Props, as I understand your breakdown, which may have some seeds of ideas that refer to those questions. Somewhere in there I threw out some half-baked ideas for integrating Props as something required for continuous play, which I'm not sure get to the point of this thread or not.

Anyhow. I think that Mechanical Toy Quality is a big part of things like mapping, NPC creation, and all the effort that the stereotypical D&D DM goes through to "prepare" for his games. I think this also leads to, or accounts for, part of the disconnect between planned play and actual play.

I know that, back in the day when I was a DM, I really enjoyed creating maps and magical items, placing things just right and coming up with cool NPCs. It all formed a coherent whole, entirely outside of the SIS. During actual play, when everything got mucked up and I was constantly changing and revising things to fit the play better, that was an entirely different kind of thrill. Part of it was also that I could enjoy the mechanical action of creating by myself - stay up all night drawing maps, essentially.

Thanks Thomas,

This topic needed a fresh post.
I think you've got my points spot on.

I would though add that toy-quality is necessarily related to SIS.
How many people would desire a 7" blond-haired action figure "with punching action and half a sword"
And how many people wanted a He-Man figure?
And those toys had no mechanics whatsoever....

Yes I am bitter 'cos the knock-off transformers I got bought had less Toy-Quality than the official Transformers with their 'backgrounds' and their 'cartoons' :-P

M:TG is worthless if you can't share an imagined space (or learn the rules as it's called in that case).

Where am I going with this? Forget that and enjoy the journey - that's role-playing :-)

Seriously though I feel aesthetics and props are an integral part of mechanics -some people really do love just rolling loads of dice.
Like why they love playing Yahtzee.
I hate it my Mum always gets like two Yahtzees a game - how can you compete with that?

I think that's the key - toy quality is a subset of gamism, divorced from narrativism and sim (to use Big Rons terms as found in the forge glossary) - as something you're just playing about with dosen't need a narrative or explorative values.

I've just realised narrativism and simulationism feature highly in any conception of what is fun - thus what is good Toy Quality. Damn.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can never divorce aspects of the game from Shared Imagined Space - SIS being part of the game even for Masters of the Universe.
Ergo potential toy quality stems from buying into that SIS.

Anyways discuss

JJ

JJ wrote: I think that's the key - toy quality is a subset of gamism, divorced from narrativism and sim (to use Big Rons terms as found in the forge glossary) - as something you're just playing about with dosen't need a narrative or explorative values.

It's still basically the exploration which is simulationism, IMO. In the sim essay, Ron notes how reading a sim book can be actual play...reading how numbers relate lets you explore causality as depicted there (the essay even notes how this can seem very bizarre to a nar or gamist gamer). Your by yourself when you read it, but it's still actual play.

The real life quality doesn't really matter. Say your manipulating a transformer to turn it into a tank...your exploring how it moves as well as how those moves can change its appearance. So you built up knowledge of that real life structure and how it works...in your head, that structure has been learnt.

Reading the sim based book is the same. You learn a structure from how the numbers interact in a causality based way.

Most importantly, both are fun because your brain likes learning (which is a very good thing). You can't easily attach where this fun comes from, because it doesn't so much come from a particular thing which you could attach it to. Instead it comes from learning about that thing, and once you've learnt it (assuming that's possible...permutations might not permit), then learning about that object isn't fun anymore.

So the real life quality of the object doesn't matter, since in the end its about getting it (real or made up stuff) into your head. Nor does the the lack of SIS matter, since sim play can start from someone reading by themselves (the sim essay notes this is a common design structure).

Probably a way of looking at TQ is that it's different to the usual Lumpley principle were used to. In that, you might assert 'There is a giant robot ahead of you', and your assertion is accepted into the SIS based on the usual stuff. With an actual toy, say a toy robot, it's more like your sponsoring it 'There is a giant robot just like this one, ahead of you'.

The difference in sponsoring is that it's up to the qualities of the physical object, and not the person, to determine what gets into the SIS. Sure, people still need to accept the sponsorship, or sponsor parts of that object into SIS themselves. But it isn't their assertion that the stuff is there, it's their sponsor ship of it. God, I hope I'm using the word sponsor right...I'm thinking of it in the way in the old days someone might not be able to come into a important place unless a respected person sponsored them.

Nothing can get into the SIS without permission. You can't say a stranger is ahead, but not mention his huge gun and then expect to apply it in play latter, without having described that as well and gotten lumpley permission for its SIS state. The problem is that as you give something permission, you've pretty much explored it. You know there's a stranger there, you know he's got a big gun...he couldn't have either if you didn't okay it, and if you've okayed it, you've explored it. What's intriguing about TQ is that when the toy/prop is sponsored, unknown qualties about it come with it. Not that these qualties couldn't be vetoed in the lumpley process, but the trick is that like causality of A then B being vital to sim, so are these special hidden qualties of the toy (pop out big gun, for example) attached to the toy like B comes after A. There's a compulsion to accept it to the SIS, and a sexy unknown factor to bringing in toys which have this. Although these toys might have unknown factors in them, when they are given permission in general to be in the SIS, the hidden qualties basically get in as well. Cool! Giving permission AND you still get to look forward to exploring the thing thoroughly!

Extra note: I'm talking about sim in sim designs, but of course this gets used in gamist or nar designs. The thing is, sim is a secondary there, not primary.

Nathan P. -
please read the rest of my post after the bit you quoted.
I already disagreed with myself :-)
It pretty much answers all the points you put forward.

Except - yes a gamist player can Step On Up on their own - consider patience, solo rules for rpgs and computer rpgs.

As far as toy quality goes I'd love to know what people rate as good toys and why they consider that to be the case.
I'm undecided as to whether we should divorce toys from games.

As principal Skinner says - it's fun if you make a game of it.

Maybe this keys into GNS - toys can have sim, nar and gamist qualities, which each impact upon an individuals conception and experience of 'fun'.
In this regard, Principal Skinner is a hard-core gamist - it's beating pre-defined goals that matter.

I'll also add that TQ seems dependant upon an individual's imagined space, and this TQ can be greatly diminished when the same phenomenon is introduced to a SIS.

JJ

More musings,

Ok, I have a couple other notions that might be useful to the discussion. I’m probably coming at this sideways, but since this is all still pretty exploratory, I’ll indulge in it with the hopes that it’ll contribute to end result after we shake it all out and figure out which notions work well together and which ones help us make sense of this.

So I’m going to start by saying that I think these two points from the previous thread are particularly interesting to me.

Keith wrote: I wish I had some proper references but I am sure I read that the creator of the Sims conisidered it a toy rather than a game, comparing it with a ball with which one could play any number of games - throw and catch, football (aka soccer), netball, dodgeball, keep-it-uppy etc.

I think what is being talked about here is more than the 'toyness' or 'ballness' of part of the game but the fun involved in moving around with the ball - people can enjoy messing around with a ball without a marked out pitch, without as referee or goal posts. We are not talking about how nice that physical ball is but how nice it is to move around and do stuff with it. It only becomes part of a game when there are more rules and definitions.

Chris wrote: So, we need to either discuss the physical props or we need to discuss the rules that are being used to manipulate the props. The props are toys and the mechanics possess Toy Quality. I think this whole concept will stay hopelessly muddled until that distinction is made.

Nathan P. wrote: .. CA-ness ..

I tried to respond last night before Rich's post, but the server ate it. That turns out to be a good thing because it means I now get to address Rich's points.

First of all, Rich: I think you have a lot of really good stuff in there, tons of good stuff. Especially your suggested questions. But that's not what I am talking about when I say "Toy Quality".

Same thing to Callan. I don't think that there has been enough discussion of Exploration in general, much less the exploration of toys. I highly suggest you start a thread on the subject. But again, that's not what I am talking about.

I think part of the confusion comes from the term "Toy Quality". The word "toy" calls to mind the things we did as children. And those things are so tied up in imagination that we automatically make a connection to SIS.

I want to highlight the definition that we are working with here: "Anything that is fun specifically divorced from the SIS". By "divorced from the SIS" I am not saying "fun in SIS and fun outside SIS", I am saying "totally independent of SIS".

Perhpas a better, less confusing term might be "Game Quality". Because that's what I'm seeing here. The fun of chess, the fun of darts, the fun of whatever other game you want to play.

I apologize for any points here that are unclear and will be happy to clarify. Let me assure you, in the absence of any ability to actually judge for yourself, the post that the server ate was a glowing example of analytical and teach brilliance. Anyone who read it would have attained enlightenment. Alas, it seems that you'll simply have to muddle through this other post...

Thomas

Heya Thomas,

Once you hit a couple of paragraphs, cut and paste into notepad, is what I say (not that I always remember myself).

Anyway, I know, your trying to cover how these things are fun divorced from the shared imaginative thing a ma jig. That's handy, but it's not much help finding out why you would include them in RP even though you don't have to (If they are already fun by themselves, why are you adding them to a RP game?). Am I correct in what the goal is? If it's to extract elements of RP games which qualify as fun on their own and to develop them further, separately, as a non RP product, then I'm way off.

Otherwise, a definition which is entirely independent of SIS isn't going to help RP design…RP is largely about the SIS. If you developed a definition that's independent of SIS, your then going to have to go backwards with it until you can connect it to an SIS exercise. Otherwise your basically working on something that helps with board game design (which isn't bad, but confuses me).

That's why I headed into individual imagined space, and how it leads to/is simulationist play. Because that links up with SIS. On objects which have aesthetic appeal, or props, your going to start with independent IS. On other things which qualify as games by themselves, how it'll end up being treated depends on the CA involved. But even for something like a gamist CA, I think such elements are still sim…Fast lane uses a casino wheel (right word?). I can only think it will be interested to see how it effects play, rather than the wheel itself being what is interesting (focus isn't on the toy like it was before). If you used chess or darts as a resolution mechanic, either the focus will be on the resolution and not the means of getting it or if focus is applied on the means to get a resolution, its simulationist exploration of that means.

Once again, I'm tying it into SIS. Because I think it wont help to work in another direction. Am I wrong on that?

What I'm reading toy quality as:

You get your kid this huge, cool, super complex toy, spend hours putting it together and s/he sees it, goes gaga over it, plays with it for five minutes and wanders off only to come back with the box...only its not a box, its a pirate ship! Or a Rocket Ship, and you're a Martian!

If I'm reading it right, the "Toy Quality" is something that is a part of the system you like to play with for whatever reason. Had a boardgame once, Tower of the Wizard King. Played it like two or three times, didn't really like it. The Tower, on the other hand, was 'magic', put a figure in, turn it, and it spit out another figure. THAT saw a lot of use, just screwing around with it. The figures themselves saw a fair bit of use, first displayed on my shelf, then used in a homebrew D&D campaign as my minis.
In my situation, the TQ related to the figures and the tower.
Like the Yatzee example, there may be a slick die mechanic you dig out of a real snoozer of a game. For some reason, its a cool mechanic, you like it, you'll chuck the die a few times to see what rolls up even if it has nothing to do with the game.

As to why it should be considered for RP Design? Why not? Its fun already by itself, combine it with something equally suitable thats also fun, you have 2 fun things in one package, and that could possibly appeal to two demographics.
Take Beyblade (ugh). Tops are pretty cool. As a little kid, you can be mezmorized by one of those, seeing what you can do with it. POW! Theres a cool new anime with awesome dragons, cool robots and...battling tops? So the anime buffs look at it, play with it, get bored after a little bit when the new fad comes as usual. Little kids pick it up, have no idea what it is, but play with it as much as the older kids. Its simple concept is easy to grasp, theres some other complexities they can pick up on but its not needed to basically enjoy smacking your top against Bobby's.
SO, you have collectors who think they're pretty, you have the kids who love to play with them, and because the anime and toy are battling systems of some kind, you have folks who dig it for the 'stratagy'.
Three demographics, one product. THAT is why TQ is important.

Callan,

That is it exactly. I am talking about the Game part of RPGs. Here's why: Let's say you have two RPGs that impact the SIS in the exact same ways. From a Role Playing standpoint they are identical. But one of these two games is more fun to play, not due to SIS (role playing) concernts, but due to the really cool game that is built in.

Clearly the RPG with the better game qualities is going to be more enjoyable. The people who don't care about the game parts can ignore it, but the people who do care get an extra bonus: good role playing, and good game playing. That is what I'm talking about: Gaming, totally divorced from role playing and then reintegrated into it.

daMoose_Neo wrote: As to why it should be considered for RP Design? Why not? Its fun already by itself, combine it with something equally suitable thats also fun, you have 2 fun things in one package, and that could possibly appeal to two demographics.

Thomas,

Well it sounds like you mean to focus on partitioned play. Where you actually stop roleplaying and do an entirely different activity, then start roleplaying again latter. Your doing two seperate activities in spurts, one then the other.

An example is where you might use Tekken or some fighting computer game, as your resolution mechanic (I've considered writing something like this myself). So you roleplay along until you need this resolution, then absolutely stop roleplaying and start playing Tekken. Once you finish that, you go back to RP, using the game of Tekken's results as part of your resolution.

Clearly, you can play Tekken by itself and have fun. It's so indipendently fun of RP fun, it is a seperate activity.

If you find that a stilted idea, then I don't know where to go. Either tekken is a seperate activity which is done after bouts of RP, or it gets absorbed into the SIS and combines the activities into one hybrid.

I started going into this combinational SIS thing because you mentioned aesthetics, of things like cool maps or neat pictures. These things have a lot more trouble being entertainment by themselves, unlike a game of Tekken. Instead of the RP stopping and the new activity of making or admiring a map happening, the RP doesn't stop, it simply absorbs these elements into it's SIS. The things you mentioned just didn't count as enough of an activity by themselves to be avoid being absorbed into the SIS. Everyone drawing a map will most likely get absorbed into SIS as part of that. A game of Tekken or lunch money is more likely to make itself a definite activity seperate to the SIS. Probably for the same reasons as when someone turns on the TV or plays a video game while others nearby are roleplaying, it disrupts the roleplay. In the reverse, you might think of roleplay disrupting the drawing of a cool map, absorbing it into the SIS activity, which will take away qualties it had as a seperate activity.

As an example of toy quality and it's application into RPG's a friend of mine runs a site where he sells pdf's to make cardboard cut out castles and dungeons. Check out www.worldworksgames.com if you want to see what I'm talking about.

At one point we were designing a fold up circular dice roller. You'd roll to hit on the card board with a rim around the edge to keep the dice inside. On the bottom was an outline of a human body divided into a few locations. Where the dice landed gave you a hit location.

Callan,

I think that we are very close to the same idea here. What I am saying is not that Toy Quality stuff is always divorced from the SIS, but rather that it is still fun when it is.

Your Tekken example is an interesting one. Consider that a game of Tekken is fun on its own, as you said. Now let's say that you have an RPG about the Tekken characters, and whenever they fight you play a round of Tekken. While playing the RPG there is a pretty good chance that the round of Tekken you play for resolution will be tied up in the SIS. You might taunt your opponent in character for example.

Toy Quality as I see it does not indicate that something can not be integrated into the SIS, but rather that it is still fun when it is not. I don't consider the mechanics of Sorcerer to be fun with no SIS support, I have no desire to roll d10's against an opponent without some reason. I do, however, find The Burning Wheel's combat system to be fun on its own. I don't need SIS to make that fun, whereas I need SIS to make Sorcerer's mechanics fun.

So, I would say that Sorcerer has very little Toy Quality for me, whereas the combat sub-section of The Burning Wheel has tons of Toy Quality for me.

Thomas

I was going to mention the SIS bleeding in, in the Tekken example, but didn't want to complicate it.

Anyway, ahhh, I think I get you now. This is why I took so long to...your not talking about the game part of an RPG, your talking about an entirely independent game, which is used within another game as well (an RPG).

Looking at the definition at the start: "Any part of the game that is enjoyable when divorced from the SIS"
This isn't some sort of toy quality parts of an RPG have, this is an entirely indipendent game that is also used in the RPG.

It's like if you were LARPing and started playing poker as part of the LARP. You wouldn't say poker is "a part of the roleplay game that is enjoyable when divorced from the SIS". It's an entirely independent game being used inside another game. It is not part of the LARP rules at all, even if they call upon it's use. I'd ditch the idea of 'toy quality'...it's current use seems to revolve around the idea that some 'part' can be fun independently, but aren't actually independent despite that and it's just a part of the RPG.

Indeed, it's actually the opposite. The roleplay game is 'part' of this independent game. An RPG that uses poker as a resolution mechanic, is actually only a part of the game of poker. Certainly it isn't independent of it (it relies upon poker for resolution, while poker doesn't need the RPG to resolve).

What your looking at are components which can resolve enough to be fun, when sepereted from other rules they are presented with in a book.

And I'd chuck the 'seperate from the SIS' factor too. If I were running one game, but instead of using poker as a resolution mechanic I used the PC's themselves playing D&D to resolve my game (boggles the mind, eh?), that's clearly an independent game, and it's also one that uses SIS. Just like I can enjoy poker by itself, so could I enjoy these D&D rules seperate from the RPG in the example. I don't think it's important whether these elements can be enjoyed on ones own or in a group.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. Any further discussion over where things fit into the SIS is probably arguing semantics.

So, with this understanding: what does this mean for design?

(Note: I still want to discuss your ideas on Exploration of toys. Hurry up and start that thread!)

Thomas

(Note: I still want to discuss your ideas on Exploration of toys. Hurry up and start that thread!)

So, with this understanding: what does this mean for design?

I think that now that we've established the seperate-ness of Toy Quality (as I define it), you are taking that too far.

I feel that TRoS combat has Toy Quality, it is also incredibly well integrated into the RPG part of the game throug SAs. As its own game, the combat engine is rather fun; inside the SIS the combat engine is still fun, but is enhanced in some interesting ways.

It's not even necessarily true that the Toy Quality part acts the same way in game as it does out of game. The only thing stipulated here is that it is still fun when you cut away SIS. This is why a cool prop can have Toy Quality despite the fact that it may be used in a very specialized way within the SIS.

Basically, I'm not sure that you're right about developing something stand alone purely so that it can stand alone. What about developing a system primarily for in-SIS use, but developing it in a way that makes it fun even without the SIS?

That strikes me as an important design consideration: if you can grab your players on two levels it may be easier to hold their attention and increase their enjoyment. At the same time, grabbing your audience on two seperate levels means that you are not fully engaging them on either one as you would with a system that just grabbed them on the one level really strongly.

What do you think?

Thomas

Examples of "Toy quality" subsystems (as I understand the term):
- The flowchart for investigating unknown high-tech artifacts in Gamma World
- Lifepaths in character generation systems (if players can interact with what goes on at different stages)
- The car chase flowchart in Indiana Jones
- The car-racing game in Ghostbusters' "Hot Rods of the Gods"
- Ship combat in "Privateers & Gentlemen"
- D&D "Battlesystem Supplement"
- Treasure generation systems in AD&D, especially the "Deck of Many Things"
- The entirety of the CORPS Vehicle Design System
- Random dungeon generation in AD&D
- TORG's Drama Deck (integrated with the combat system)

Some functions of "Toy quality" subsystems:
They make certain situations attractive to play through. When certain situations make for especially fun gaming, the group will tend to try to get into those situations. A game with a cool combat system will make it more attractive to get into combat. A game with a fun vehicle design system can make players spend a lot of time building cars, mecha etc.

They let you play alone. A toy quality subsystem will let you try out parts of the game all by yourself, providing incentive to actually play it with your friends. When you buy a game and for some reason can't start playing it right away (no players around, everyone's in some other campaign etc), you can still sit in your room and tinker with it.

They allow for different styles of play. They diversify the play experience, so that people with different CA's can enjoy themselves during the same session. In other words, if you're a sim player in a nar group, if your group is using a cool spaceship maneuvering system, you'll still get your kicks everytime you're chasing the bad guys through a meteor storm.

LordSmerf wrote: I think that now that we've established the seperate-ness of Toy Quality (as I define it), you are taking that too far.

I feel that TRoS combat has Toy Quality, it is also incredibly well integrated into the RPG part of the game throug SAs. As its own game, the combat engine is rather fun; inside the SIS the combat engine is still fun, but is enhanced in some interesting ways.

It's not even necessarily true that the Toy Quality part acts the same way in game as it does out of game. The only thing stipulated here is that it is still fun when you cut away SIS. This is why a cool prop can have Toy Quality despite the fact that it may be used in a very specialized way within the SIS.

Basically, I'm not sure that you're right about developing something stand alone purely so that it can stand alone. What about developing a system primarily for in-SIS use, but developing it in a way that makes it fun even without the SIS?

That strikes me as an important design consideration: if you can grab your players on two levels it may be easier to hold their attention and increase their enjoyment. At the same time, grabbing your audience on two seperate levels means that you are not fully engaging them on either one as you would with a system that just grabbed them on the one level really strongly.

What do you think?

Thomas

I think that, at the moment, what I'm willing to concede (and this with no resevation) is that a game which is fun outside of the SIS can be considered Stand Alone. I'm not entirely sure what effect this has in play.

I thinkyou are also probably right that having a game on two levels (the fun of the RPG-ness and the fun of Toy Quality) can be as distracting as it is enhancing. In fact, it may fun/distracting in the same way as watching a movie with friends. That is, you get the fun of socialization + the fun of watching the movie, but you may also get the distraction of socialization and miss part of the fun of the movie.

So, I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in discussing the impact on design this kind of dual-activity stuff might have. Can we analyze the good of the second tandem activity in comparison with the bad it contributes due to distraction?

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: I think that, at the moment, what I'm willing to concede (and this with no resevation) is that a game which is fun outside of the SIS can be considered Stand Alone. I'm not entirely sure what effect this has in play.

I thinkyou are also probably right that having a game on two levels (the fun of the RPG-ness and the fun of Toy Quality) can be as distracting as it is enhancing. In fact, it may fun/distracting in the same way as watching a movie with friends. That is, you get the fun of socialization + the fun of watching the movie, but you may also get the distraction of socialization and miss part of the fun of the movie.

So, I think we're on the same page here. I'm interested in discussing the impact on design this kind of dual-activity stuff might have. Can we analyze the good of the second tandem activity in comparison with the bad it contributes due to distraction?

Thomas

I believe I may have mis-stated my question...

You are right, having two seperate sources of enjoyment can detract from an experience, but I'm wondering if it can enhance one as well. I find that I enjoy watching some movies at least partially because I'm watching them with friends.

Now, a surface analysis (by me, done just now) indicates that this tends to happen with movies that are simply not as good. With a very high quality movie I am even able to appreciate it more without the distraction of other people.

So, I am wondering if this idea holds true for RPGs too. If you had the "perfect" RPG would enjoyment be lost through the distraction of Toy Quality? Or would Toy Quality only enhance in this case? Further, in a world of imperfect RPGs, does it make more sense from a design standpoint to work on Toy Quality rather than squeezing that last 1% of perfection from your system?

Thomas

Thomas--For what it's worth, I think there's something in this idea of "Toy Quality" that indeed can make a game more fun. The problems we're having discussing it are that we can't quite get a clean definition of what "Toy Quality" is, and it seems that different people may find it in different parts of the game.

For example, I remember one day I was pouring over some Star Frontiers character papers, trying to figure out how to outfit our five characters with the best choice in weapons from what we had available. Suddenly I saw the math behind the thing--how chance to hit times average damage per hit times attacks per combat period gave you a clean representation of your combat potential with any weapon. As soon as I saw that, I converted it to D&D and came up with my ADRs and Survs, statistics that would enable a player to figure out his best weapon choice, a party leader to recognize who the best melee and missile fighters were, a means of comparing high hit points to good armor class. That was toy quality for me--I could crunch the numbers behind the scenes, and increase my tactical abilities and even my strategic abilities by converting my party members into comparable numbers. I could indeed "play" with it now by running monsters through the same process and comparing the character against the monster to see which would win. In essence, I'd yanked one of the modular components out of the system and got a good look at how it worked, so that I could use it better in play.

Most people would find such an exercise homework. In fact, I used such an exercise when I was tutoring a gamer in algebra once. It didn't make it less like doing homework for him, but at least it helped him see how the numbers worked.

Meanwhile, I get nothing out of miniatures, and dice pools seem more trouble than they're worth--too many dice for my tastes. What is toy quality for one player is going to be bothersome for another.

I think it's good to build toy quality into games. You do have to recognize, though, that different players are going to react positively to different things. If you put something too far forward, you're going to alienate players for whom that has no appeal. You need to include it at a level at which players can decide whether to bring it forward or push it to the background, without hurting the game either way.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.

--M. J. Young

Yes, IMO this is the next step tot ake, especially for gamist design. I think an RPG should be seen as group of inter-related games that in large part operate autonomously. Its exactly this sort of thinking that lead to my recent "abandon ship minigame" proposition.

I think the "toyness" discussed here is a little of the mark though. A couple of years ago I proposed this distinction between a toy and a game: a game is something you play, a toy is something you play with. You can only play a game one way, but you can use a toy in multiple games.

Now I will agree that some aspects of existing systems are fun in their own right, However, I suspect that this is because they are actually full, balanced games in their own right, and merely appear to be subcomponents of larger games. Thos emoments in which people get joy out of manipulating them might be reasonably thought to be moments of latent gamism shining through.

Thomas,

Sorry, didn't read you right.

I think that's a really hard question. Currently I can only think of one thing and that is that most RPG designers seem to have some sort of message they want to hand over through their design. Now, games like chess or lunch money don't have a message like that. I think if your trying to go for a super saiyan of a RPG design, your probably following this message idea more fully. Which would be detracted from by a messageless component, either by it's lack of message in play or even by how indipendent it is of the message when played by itself.


Mike,

I think this toy quality were talking about here are: Components of a game that when removed from other components in the game, still resolve enough by themselves to be fun (and in the process, become a game all by themselves). PS: I think this applies to art and such like too. Try cutting out a tiny square of art...can you 'resolve' it from looking at just that piece? No. You need to take a lot of it so it resolves enough to be fun.

I just keep using the term toy quality, because its handy rather than it being applicable anymore.

M.J: Yes, I think you are right, "Toy Quality" is incredibly subjective. I may be willing to posit that there is a split of TQ preferences that is roughly analagous to Creative Agenda preferences (that is, some people are looking for certain things, and those things can be categorized to some degree). This would mean, for design, that we can create systems that are optimized towards a specific preference, but that a focused design couldn't really coherently please everyone.

Contracycle: Yeah, "Toy Quality" is really a misnomer for what we are talking about here. The problem is that I believe it may have been the proper term for what Ben Lehman was referring to in the original thread. As we have discussed it here it is probably more appropriate to call it "Game Quality" or something similar.

Callan: I think you are probably right. Current design wisdom states (roughly) that any part of your game that does not directly contribute to advancing its specific pursuit of it's CA (or possibly "Design Goal", whatever that may be) is extraneous. I also think I agree with that idea. Under that thinking it seems that "Toy Quality" (or "Game Quality", or whatever) is extraneous because it is a distraction from the "main thing".

So, I've pretty much answered most of my questions. The only thing I really have left is consideration of utilizing "Toy Quality" in spite of its distracting elements, and what sort of design goals include Toy Quality such that it is not a distraction. Both of those issues are so vague that I'm not sure that current discussion of them would be profitable.

Therefore, I'm going to give this a couple of days, and if no one jumps in with a "That's what I've been trying to say all along" then I'll close the thread out.

Also, looking back, I think it will be confusing to term what is discussed in this thread as "Toy Quality" in future discussions. Not to mention that it probably twists the meaning of the term as Ben had intended it. I am therefore proposing that we call what we discussed in this thread "Game Quality" instead.

So, we still don't have a good definition for "Toy Quality" but we did get some nifty discussion here. Thanks to everyone who participated.

Thomas