Inspired by this thread over on RPG.net, I have thought of a wonderful puff-piece of a game to write:

That's Not an RPG!, the RPG

I think the way to do it is for each player to get a character (who will, in turn, be a player in the fictional gaming group), and for that character to have a randomly assigned set of skills: ways of approaching an RPG that they are good or bad at. So "Rules Manipulation" would be a skill. I'm not sure yet whether social manipulations (like "Whining" or "Passive Aggression") should be skills, or whether they should be in-game actions that can make up for a lack of skills. Each player's goal is to accumulate "Satisfaction" with the game.

Rounds would each be a session of the fictional game. People can describe what happens, and how their character perceives it.

The goal (apart from raw silliness) is to give people some mechanics-structure insight into the way that social structures evolve and are informed by the desires and capabilities of the people at the table. What issues do you think I particularly need to address?

How high a level should creative agenda be described at (to support "Satisfaction)? GNS strikes me as a bit too high, but I'm not sure where to break it down.

PvP the comic did a wonderful little story arc on this very idea. Francis (the geek kid) creates an RPG where all the players play themselves playing an RPG. Skills like Bluff DM and other fun ensues.

1) Wow. I just read the thread in its entirety. I like my Forge just fine, thank you very much!

2) Actually, GNS seems a pretty reasonable place to start, even if you do pitch it out later.
Say each 'player' has a certain level of each they'd need to satisfy- X Amount of Gamist tactics & looting, X Amount of Nar focus on issues important to the PC, X amount of world simulation. Too much of one results in other things (IE Lack of Attention, Disruptive behavior - OOC) while too little of one results in others (IE Pushing 'One Way', Disruptive behavior - IC)

I was mostly thinking that the group would have some way to all effect where the "Bars" for achievement in various arenas would be set. You get a fixed reward for meeting a certain Bar, which is dependent upon how high the Bar is set. Exceed it by one or exceed it by a hundred, you still get the same reward.

So people with the skills to (say) heavily Address Theme would want that Bar set very high. People with less skills would want it set somewhat lower, and would want Bars where their skills are better set higher.

I small point, I admit, but one of the things I thought of when you mentioned this would be a feature of my gaming group:

A sort of one-upmanship in regards to book buying, dice collections, etc. occurs in my group. Bought the new book? Cool for a second, until someone comments on the reasons they didn't buy the book. Huge cube of dice? Cool for a game or two. Bought all the new miniatures? Then you've added to the game and its satisfaction for games to come (admittedly, not all groups are like this).

Also, food preparation or purchasing could come into play.

I hope this helps.

Dice and pizza and miniatures and giving people rides hom. I think there's a central issue of "Appreciation" somewhere in here.

Effort + Appreciation = Satisfaction

Effort + No Appreciation = Frustration

And that, of course, also expands to things like "Making a killer tactical plan" or "Knowing the stopping power of every handgun ever made, sorted by caliber" or "Improvising a monologue worthy of a Shakespeare play."

The question becomes how to manage Appreciation as a resource such that people have to make meaningful choices about whether or not to Appreciate an action that another player's in-game-proxy puts forth.

Maybe each thing that someone does affects the tally of others.

One player always brings the latest books. 2 of the other 3 players increase their Appreciation by 1 (One player loves to read the new crunch, the other likes to see when others invest in the game they play). The last one, however, is jealous of that player and lowers their Appreciation tally by 1. Reciprocation is given, the original player with the new book gets for his action 1 Appreciation point due to good reciprocation (2 from players 2 and 3, -1 from player 4).

Does that make sense?

Yes, but I think there's more strategic/structural crunch to be added.

Because, in my experience, for example, very few people ever love crunch when they're bad at it. They love new books and the crunch they bring because they are good at using such material. So a player who brings in a new book has just increased the tactical options of the rules-skilled players, presumably at the expense of those who are rules-unskilled.

People (in my experience of roleplaying) often contribute extras to the game in areas that will primarily benefit them. Like someone who is a compulsive immersionist sits down and writes up an immense background to the world, the culture, what types of clothes people wear, etc., etc. That will help that person to achieve their goals.

Now if nobody else has that same goal... or they have the same goal, but their bar is so much lower that the lexicon of trivia is of no use to them, then they are (quite naturally) not going to appreciate it.

In game-mechanics terms, if Player A puts something into the game that helps Players A and B achieve their goals, Player B is likely to appreciate it, while Players C and D are likely to not.

Does this (rough as it is) seem like a valuable addition to mapping mechanics onto the interpersonal dynamics of RPG groups?

TonyLB wrote: So a player who brings in a new book has just increased the tactical options of the rules-skilled players, presumably at the expense of those who are rules-unskilled.

TonyLB wrote: People (in my experience of roleplaying) often contribute extras to the game in areas that will primarily benefit them. Like someone who is a compulsive immersionist sits down and writes up an immense background to the world, the culture, what types of clothes people wear, etc., etc. That will help that person to achieve their goals.

TonyLB wrote: Now if nobody else has that same goal... or they have the same goal, but their bar is so much lower that the lexicon of trivia is of no use to them, then they are (quite naturally) not going to appreciate it.

TonyLB wrote: In game-mechanics terms, if Player A puts something into the game that helps Players A and B achieve their goals, Player B is likely to appreciate it, while Players C and D are likely to not.

The issue of appreciation and satisfaciton makes me think of a situation in a game I played a while ago...

There was this one player who definitely showed appreciation for any non-game things brought to the table (e.g. food) but was just so much dead weight once the game actually started. That was not satisfying.

Basically, and I don't know if this will end up too complicated, it's possible to be dissatisfied because the "wrong" people end up appreciating your contribution. It might be that they use it in a way you disagree with, or you just don't like them.

TonyLB wrote: The goal (apart from raw silliness) is to give people some mechanics-structure insight into the way that social structures evolve and are informed by the desires and capabilities of the people at the table.

Selene Tan wrote: Basically, and I don't know if this will end up too complicated, it's possible to be dissatisfied because the "wrong" people end up appreciating your contribution. It might be that they use it in a way you disagree with, or you just don't like them.

Aman the Rejected wrote: We know the game is going to have be complicated, in my opinion, due to the stated goal above.

TonyLB, were you thinking of devoted game groups only? Would pick up games, convention games, or the like be included as well?

TonyLB wrote:

Aman the Rejected wrote: We know the game is going to have be complicated, in my opinion, due to the stated goal above.

No we don't. My Life with Master handles issues of greater complexity, and it's barely even got stats.

TonyLB, were you thinking of devoted game groups only? Would pick up games, convention games, or the like be included as well?

Just continuing game groups. Whether or not they're "devoted" will become clear as the characters evolve in the game.

Oh, that would be cool!

Like, Jesse and Brent have been having a great time doing dungeon crawls, while Emily is very frustrated because she never gets to roleplay. Then they go off to a convention, and get a random grab-bag of styles, and Emily finds out "Hey! You can do both if you back off on the tactics and make room for some other things."

That throws the whole player dynamic out of whack, right there.

Okay, I think it's time to start brainstorming abilities of the characters (which is to say the players in the game-within-the-game). What I'd like is for none of them to have inherently negative connotations. "Munchkin," for instance, is talking about both a skill (mini-maxing, probably) and an attitude. The skills we define, the attitudes emerge in play. I'll end up selecting probably four of the best... but if there are more than four that I absolutely need, then there'll be more than four stats, and if I can get by with three then there'll be three. I'll start:

Artistry
Socializing
Tactics
Minutia
Patience

Don't forget "Disposable Income," especially if "Bring to the Table" is going to be a central mechanic rather than a cute side item.

The Meta-RPG has already been attempted. Can't think of where, but I've seen this somewhere already.

Some similar ideas -

What was that one game about hacking RPGs? Anyone? Might have had Punk in the title and changed title more than once?

Then there was Raven's Sorcerer adaptation where, IIRC, the demons were the player's characters in an RPG or somesuch (or was that my own modification on the idea?).

Powerkill.

Just some things to look for. I'll bet there are others, too.

Mike

TonyLB wrote:
Artistry
Socializing
Tactics
Minutia
Patience

This sounds like an interesting simulation game. if you try it out let us know how it comes out.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Artistry
Socializing
Tactics
Minutia
Patience