Ok, this thread might be something new, or it might have already been dealt with before, in which case give me a swift kick in the ass and point me in the right direction.

So I'm browsing about the Forge and oogling at all the cool games. I mean seriously, this is an awesomness BONANZA (and I never use that word. Sounds plain stupid). We've dealt with what makes an RPG, what an RPG needs to function and such, but what makes an RPG good. Why is it that other games manage to get everybody up, excited and gushing, while others leave people going "Right. That sucked" (looks pointedly at own games). I'm not complaining, and if it appears that way it is not my intent. The fact that my games aren't that brilliant doesn't bother me so much as the fact that I don't know why.

So, could anybody give me a hand here? Some case studies or examples would be cool, but at least what to look for or aim for would also be very helpful.

Thanks,
Kirk

Ignore any percieved self-pity (real or unintential) please. Or give me said swift kick. Do me good it would.

Kirk

So you would like us to analysize you game? Is that what you're asking?

By now, the Forge has enough material together to make a semester-long, sophomore-level college course on the subject, complete with requirements in mathematics (basic probability) english (technical writing) and philosophy (myth).

It's not something that most people can pick up from a single forum post.

Here's your starting reading list:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/25/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/

(yes, I know the last one is out of order.  That's on purpose)

Now "Wait," you might say, "Those articles aren't about what makes roleplaying games good, they're about how roleplaying games work."

Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games.

All that other stuff you've been reading, they ARE about what makes a roleplaying game good.

I could be wrong, but it sounds more like Kirk is asking what (totally apart from theory and technical skill) makes one RPG good and another bad. That is, Game A and Game B could both be well-founded in theory, but Game A is "good," while Game B is "bad."

If that's the case, it's somewhat like asking what makes some art good and other art bad. First, the terms are subjective, and people will disagree as to what is good and what is not. Second, no amount of technical skill will make an artist's work good if they don't  have a core of  inspiration/artistry/that -indefinable-something. I think the same goes for RPGs.

"Indefinable something" ... eh.  I think it's definable.  I think it's about whether you write the game that personally makes your breath come fast and your knees get rubbery, or whether you cop out and write something that you hope other people will like.

And that's, y'know, the whole answer as far as I'm concerned:  You need the arrogance to spill your own guts and say "Check out how cool my guts are!"  Look at some of the game designs people have made 'round here:

• A game about loser satanists mutilating pets and getting horribly fucked over by the universe.• A game of debauched sex and death, and how the two are intertwined.• The game where the only guarantee is "You will die, and everything you love will die, and the best you can hope for is to choose the order that happens in."• The very famous game whose central mechanic is a simulation of co-dependent abusive relationships (with the players in the roles of the abusers).• The likewise famous game of the same abusive relationships with the players in the roles of the abused.• The game where everything you ever say is God's will, and anybody who thinks differently is just plain wrong and needs to wise up or die.

In all seriousness... do these games look as if they were written by people who gave a flying fig whether anyone else liked them or not?  They sure look, to me, like people who just got excited about an idea and wrote every wrong, terrible, unforgivable, human thing that got their blood fizzing straight into the game.

I can't speak definitely for anyone else, but while designing Capes I had plenty of times when people said "This thing you're doing here, nobody's going to like it."  To which my reply was, pretty much universally, "Screw 'em then!  They're too weak for my game.  Perhaps, someday, they'll be cool enough to enjoy it.  It's something they can aspire to."

I don't think so, Tony. While it's easy to look at games where the "spilling your guts and being jazzed about your own creation" method worked, that doesn't show that one caused the other, or that they're even related. It's harder to show examples where the creator did everything you mention and their game still wasn't good. But the ranks of Fantasy Heartbreakers is probably a good place to start. Heck, for an easy non-RPG analogy, look at all the blogs out there. Tons of people are pouring out their hearts online, but does that make them good reading? Hell, no. I have friends who have blogs, and they always want me to read them, but I'd rather saw my leg off with a rusty bread knife.

Or from the other direction, look at the latest incarnation of D&D. I'm sure no one was following the process you describe, though I'm sure they were working hard on the project. And it's probably the most popular game on the block. And, for what it does, it's a good game.

Personal honesty might contribute to creating something good, but I can't see it as the only requirement. I think you've got a blind spot, Tony. Like most people who have a gift in some area, you assume that everyone either has it or can learn it, and that's simply not true.

Perhaps what I was aiming for was a comparative study. All this theory is great, but I need something solid to plant myself in (and I'm shit when it comes to examples). What I want is to look at all of these kickass RPGs and find out what makes them good, so that I can steal it. I'm good at comparative studies, but the problem here is that I don't know what I'm looking for.

What combination of what makes these games good? It may very well be in the theory itself, but I have a hunch its in the actual application of the theory.

Oh, and I agree with Andrew, Tony. People who have a gift often find it difficult to see why others can't do the same thing. Getting jazzed about something you do doesn't make it good (although in your case, it probably is).

Thank you for the links Vaxalon. I've read those already, but I'll read them again. And again. Until the thing that has sunk in for you guys finally sinks in for me.

Kirk

Whoops!  Yes, my bad.  It's not the only thing.  Gentlemen, your statements are (a) flattering and (b) quite correct.  An appealing combination!  I'm going to give my argument one last gasp though... I think it's going down for the count, but I feel some loyalty.

Craft plays a big part.  But I think the technical skills are (somewhat) easier than people assume them to be.  Again, mixing your own inspiration with stuff that's directed at an obscure and unknowable "public" makes a hash out of most people's technical skills.  At least it does for mine.  It's hard to create a game when you pander to other people.  You don't know what you're attempting to do.  The mechanics get all inconsistent and convoluted.  It's easier (not easy, but easier) when you're only serving yourself.

Particularly, I think Fantasy Heartbreakers are, for the most part, exactly the sort of cop-out that I'm talking about.  These are people who take some things that they're excited about:  say the notion that fantasy characters should be defined by their place and progression in a series of mythic archetypes... so that a Young Aspirant can become (through play) an Arrogant Hero or... anyway, something else, and that progression is what matters in the game.  Then they admix it with material that they aren't excited about, but which they think is necessary for other people to appreciate their work:  so now they have to figure out whether the Young Aspirant should be taking an STR penalty... whether the Arrogant Hero has to have a WIS score of under 12, and what sort of bonusses he gives to henchman NPC morale.  You see how, already, the cool idea starts to sound stupid?  The admixture turns a game that some people would have gotten really, really excited about into a game that almost everybody is going to find dissatisfying in some way.  It's what makes it heartbreaking.

Kirk:

Well, I just scrapped my post after reading your last comment. It was gonna say "steal the best," but you're already on about that. And I think I see better what you're asking: "what combinations of mechanics best support various styles of play." Yes? Rather than survey the field, could you help us by describing the kind of game you're trying to create? And describe your best game design effort and why you're dissatisfied with it.

<little clicking noise in my head> That makes some sense to me. I think that may be part of it, but not the whole picture. I certainly feel that it would keep the writer's self esteem up. If you mix in things that you don't like, then you find it harder to express what you want. Or, the opposite occurs: you can't express how you want something to happen mechanically, so you mix in things that you don't like. What you are saying has some merit, it would seem, but is only a small aspect of the whole problem. <notes down in little book: link between technical skills/writing and theory>

Tell me, when you look at rules, why do you think you get excited over one and go "blah" over another? I mean mechanics here. Not concepts, but how the mechanics give the concepts shape. Hell, here must be part of my problem. I can't even figure out how to explain the relationship between concepts and mechanics!

Bill: I'm not sure if this is the same thing, what I'm also looking for is how you express concepts mechanically (got it that time!). Tony caught part of it, in what not to do when writing mechanics, but that is a side issue. How do you write mechanics in the first place? How do you express the concept of, to use his example, Young Aspirant becomes Arrogant Hero, through mechanics?

Or am I just being confusing...

Generally I design narrativist games. I'll come back later with more in-depth information, as well as comments and descriptions of my best game design effort. This is the thread where most of the design was discussed: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16456.0

Thanks
Kirk

Ok, I understand you better. I just skimmed your design thread, giving a closer read to the rules reduxes. It's an interesting concept. It takes aspects of Sorcerer and DitV and turns them on their head. I like the formulaic structure. I like how the action is all about digging up the past.

It looks like you've got a headstart on expressing concepts as mechanics. Mechanics are structure and formula. They support exploration of your chosen concepts, if the game's tight. So that's the sermon to the choir. How do you do it? I don't know. I get my best stuff by trial and error in actual play. Just like other writers, I get flash moments and hide in my room for days, pulling the meme I caught by the tail out of the ether. But eventually, I leave my room and corral players. Some of my little children prove themselves while others fall to one side or the other: weighty dross or cracking veneer.

Vanity is a good high, but you've got to stand in line to get kicked in the nuts if you ever want to get anywhere. So there's my push for "prove it through play." I worry that I missed what may have been a more basic request: How do I physically capture my ideas? If that's more what you meant, I guess, my first thought is to ask you your reaction to DFK.

Kirk et al,

You seem to be asking: what's the difference between a well-crafted RPG and a great RPG - one that people love, that captures everyone's imagination?

I think it's a valid question. So when Vaxalon says:

Vaxalon wrote:
Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games.

It looks like you've got a headstart on expressing concepts as mechanics. Mechanics are structure and formula. They support exploration of your chosen concepts, if the game's tight. So that's the sermon to the choir. How do you do it? I don't know. I get my best stuff by trial and error in actual play. Just like other writers, I get flash moments and hide in my room for days, pulling the meme I caught by the tail out of the ether. But eventually, I leave my room and corral players. Some of my little children prove themselves while others fall to one side or the other: weighty dross or cracking veneer

I worry that I missed what may have been a more basic request: How do I physically capture my ideas?...your reaction to DFK

Graham, to me, the well-crafted bit is the design of the mechanics, while the "indefinable" element is the ideas and concepts that go behind them. What I suppose I am trying to discover now (to further re-define my aims) is the connection between the two, and how it works. I'm not looking for some blanket "Make great RPGs formula", but some hints as to what makes one RPG better than another through that connection.

Unless (and I always allow for this possibility), I am completely, utterly and sorrowfully wrong.

Kirk

I fully concur with Kirk's question; I suffer exactly the same frustration despite having read all this excellent theory for some years now.  We have a collection of ideas, of principles, but we have no praxis of game design, no methodology.  And this massively, hugely, diminishes the utility of the actual theory articles.  This is exactly the same question as was posed in Site Discussion recently - where are the tools?  Well there are really no tools.

We're still stuck waiting for a magical spark of divine inspiration, still practicing alchemy trather than science.  To talk about enthusiasm, excitement, even vanity, is a total cop-out that substitutes a form of personal criticism for methodological analysis.  When Vaxalon says "Roleplaying games that work well and do what they're intended to do, are good roleplaying games" we are reduced to the wit and wisdom of Forest Gump: " Good RPG is as Good RPG does".  This is 100% useless.

I fully agree with Kirk that what is missing is comparative studies, and both those terms need heavy emphasis: COMPARITIVE and STUDIES.  All we have is commentary and a bunch of opinion pieces.  We have nothing systematic, developed.  People say, for example, the D&D is a good gamist game, to which I inevitably respond "bollocks".  IMO it is an indescribably poor gamist game, massivley over-complicated, inelegant, labour-intensive and frankly no fun.  Why don't we sit down and actually discuss these things?  People can point out to me what they think is good about this engine for gamist purposes, and I can point out what I think is bad about it, and we can use the theoretical insights we already have in order to support and justify our respective positions.  Without such comparative study, our analysis of games is little more than an expression of taste.

And yes, before you ask, I do have a practical suggestion.  Why not establish an Analysis forum, in which we create threads for the dissection and examination of existing games, especially those that command wide-spread appeal and those which we feel are the most cutting edge of Indie designs.  Create a set of analyses as to HOW a particular mechanic acheives its effect, how it interacts with other mechanisms to achieved the "feel" of the game, and then armed with this, also conduict comparisons of other games that attempted to create the same effect, with whatever degree of success, or games which would have benefitted from this such a device but did not employ it.

Without such a collation of analysis, it will remain impossible to gain any real insight into how a particular goal should be achieved short of outright plagiarism.  At present you cannot establish what you want to do and then gain advice on how to achieve it, all you can do is ask for your own inspiration to be critiqued.  This is a poor state of affairs IMO; we are still incapable of performing anything that approached engineering, and I find that a great pity.

I concur, although I never imagined something this big coming out of my simple query. The theory is fantastic and provides an excellent understanding of how games work, but we need tools. I don't really see anything more that I can say, Contracycle, you've said just about all I had to say. And much more elegantly and concisely than I ever could (which seems to be my catch-phrase these days...you all put my writing skills to shame).

Kirk

Kirk:

I got excited by the two-step combat round as the format for CP allocation in TROS. I felt it expressed gambling in footwork and commiting to a strike that happens in a sword duel (so I imagine). I was pretty much left cold by the advancement mechanic in BW:C because (1) you had to seek contests that you couldn't possibly succeed and (2) you had to do so multiple times across three categories of attempts. This seemed labored and masochistic. I liked the concept of a character becoming more effective based on facing challenges during play; I just thought the way it was done fulfilled some misplaced bias towards complexity.

I think Tony's point is largely not to include the rest of whatever RPG game you're fixing.

Kirk Mitchell wrote: .. what makes a mechanic good?

Still, I do feel that we need tools, or at least some aspect of theory to become a bridge between design and the rest of the theory. It is agreed that RPGs are an art-form, and to bring it to the standards of engineering is indeed a bit excessive, but even so, I think we need to find a balance between engineering and that "spark of divine inspiration". I see the suggestion of comparative studies of RPGs to be the same as comparative studies of any great text or poem. The objective is to understand not only what techniques are used according to the theory, but also the implementation of those techniques. The greatest poets were either the most well versed in their art (knowing not only the theory behind but how to implement it), those with the most inbuilt talent, or those with a mixture of both. Knowing the theory behind the art and its implemenation does not detract from the creation of that art, because there still remains that "spark of divine inspiration" to guide it. So we are still left practicing our alchemy and our voodoo, "fumbling in the dark", but we are building a spark of light to guide us. Besides, you can break the rules most effectively once you know them. If you know the techniques, it is easier to innovate away from them.

I don't know if we will be able to establish an Analysis forum, but without it we can still conduct our comparative studies and collate our analyses of the texts. However, I think that the comparative studies should also be supported by actual play experience. Its one thing to read the script, its another to watch a production of the play.

So, the thread has shifted from its original floundering (my fault) to something more concrete. A few things that I feel we need to address are whether there is already any work out there that deals with this sort of thing. I vaguely remember Vincent posting something on his blog referring to a theory that is Mike Holmes thought might be "a complete description of the arrow between Ron's Exploration level and CA level". See it here: http://ludisto.blogspot.com/

What games to look at, what to look for within those games, and perhaps specific mechanical structures are other things we should discuss. Sort of a "Yes, TROS has some cool combat mechanics, but why are they cool". Ultimately we could come out with some essays on mechanical techniques, sort of like those creative writing textbooks or something. Of course, I'm thinking more On Writing than an english textbook.

Thoughts?

Kirk

Admittedly I come from an engineering discipline, but what bothers me is there is such a thing as structured programming.  I think that all mechanics could be expressed as a flowchart, and that irt would be interesting to compare the flowcharts of different designs.  It would require the developement of a bunch of symbols and conventions, but in principle I can envision diagrammatic representations of the structures and linkages that are expressed through existing mechanics.  We know, for example, that Attribute plus Skill is a common structure, we know that "reach target number threshold" is a common structure, so we can express some designs as something like:

[attrib] + [skill] + [d10]  => Number
IF Number > Threshold => Success
ELSE => Fail

And compare that with:

[attrib] + [skill] + [d10] => Number
IF Number > 2 x Number => Critical
ELSE IF Number > Threshold => Success
Else => Fail

Oh joy. I can see it now: EBNF for game design. No, my vision of the comparative studies was more along the lines of the examples I gave. More like studying a novel and seeing how the writer did what they did than comparing two flowcharts, although I can see aspects of both in RPGs. Granted, I do have more of an area of expertise in English than in engineering Having some sort of syntax for displaying mechanics might have some benifits though. We should explore this.

Kirk

Kirk wrote: Ok, so bringing this back to my other question: Tell me, when you look at rules, why do you think you get excited over one and go "blah" over another?

Hello everyboy! I'm a newcomer on this forum.

You are discussing a complicate point. Do you think there is an answer for the question: What does a novel be something special, something that captures your attention and makes you knees trembling?
I don't think that structural perfection is the only answer. A good novelist, in general, should be a good writer. But knowing the theory is not enough. You need to have interesting stories to tell.

I agree with those of you that say that there is a part of art in the design of an RPG. An RPG is a story-generation tool.
Something should strongly convey people minds into an imagined world where interesting stories appear to be easily developed.

Sometimes it is a mixture of setting details and the kind of activities promoted by the rules. Some rules appear to be incredible nice to me because, when I read them, they are promising that intresting things are going to happend during the game. Most of the time it is not what the rule says itself. It's what my imagination think I can do with the rule (in the context of the rest of the game). When reading a new game, I'm always imagining scenes driven by the game setting and mechanics. If I like what I see, I immediately want to play it.

Arturo

And yes, before you ask, I do have a practical suggestion.  Why not...create threads for the dissection and examination of existing games, especially those that command wide-spread appeal and those which we feel are the most cutting edge of Indie designs. Create a set of analyses as to HOW a particular mechanic acheives its effect, how it interacts with other mechanisms to achieved the "feel" of the game, and then armed with this, also conduict comparisons of other games that attempted to create the same effect, with whatever degree of success, or games which would have benefitted from this such a device but did not employ it.

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Paul

About a comparative study, I think that game reviews can do the job. I like the series of reviews you can find here, in The Forge, and in other places like RPGnet. I always try diferent reviewers for the same game, and different game-reviews for the same reviewer. Don't you think this makes a good comparative study?

And about tools... I don't think you can do real RPG-engineering, as well as good novelists are not engineers due to the artistic part(Gods bless Inspiration!). Of course, knowing the theory and the rules of how-to is important. You cannot flesh your ideas into working mechanics if you do not understand how to do it.

I think that the nearest thing to a RPG design methodology you can find is the approach described in the sticky thread of the Indie-Games design forum: Topic: Structured Game Design (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1896.0)

Arturo

Paul wrote:
I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Welcome to the Forge, Arturo!

I think you have a great point.  I've learned a lot from reading the reviews here on the Forge, especially because they are an example of applied theory.  Sadly, there are only very few reviews on here, and no recent ones.  That's understandable, as writing an in-depth, theory-based review is probably a lot of work.

Furthermore, I benefit immensely from design logs by people who know what they're doing; Vincent's "fishbowl" posts on his blog are the best example.  I can see how he does things and how the game comes together, and it gives me an example of how I could do the same thing.

So... I guess we can all do more Actual Play and Indie Design posts with this in mind.

TonyLB wrote:

Paul wrote:
I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

TonyLB wrote:

Paul wrote:
I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

Kirk,

The games that catch my imagination most usually have some psychological depth to them. They often deal with death - so I love My Life With Master and Cthulhu-esque games. Or they go into some fairly dark moral areas - hence my current obsession with Dogs In The Vineyard and Paranoia (straight style).

I don't think that's just a personal thing. At the risk of being pretentious, most great plays deal with death and moral dilemmas; most great films do too; so I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the RPGs that seem "deep" are concerned with some fairly deep, life-changing issues.

Graham

Graham wrote:
The games that catch my imagination most usually have some psychological depth to them. They often deal with death

Wow, I love threads that go to three pages in two days, and I have to read read read to catch up.  *Huff puff*

First off, Kirk, you're not as far off as you think you are.  Have you playtested The Order yet?  I think you'll find that you've created an awesome game.

Secondly, one of the things that any game designer really needs to understand, and understand in a bone-deep way, is that a roleplaying game book is not a roleplaying game.  You can talk and talk and talk about the words on the page and the names of attributes and rules that the book outlines, but if you do that, you will never be talking about the game.  A roleplaying game is a social structure that is created from or inspired by that book, and by addressing the book you will only ever be looking at the social structure obliquely and indirectly.  That's why I don't think the Forge needs an Analysis forum; it already has one in Actual Play.  Some of the threads aren't as descriptive or exhaustive as they could be, but this is the data that we need to be looking at and processing, not the words on the page of the book.  Then, when you sit down to write out a game, you can think of the people playing the game, rather than the "content" of the game itself -- think of five people around a table rather than the heroes, monsters, and castles.

Thirdly, Nathan is picking at an important point over at Hamsterprophecy, where he's asking about Structured and Emergent games.  The things that make players go "Oooo" are the emergent properties -- the things that are not nailed down in the rules, but become real because of the rules.  The "story" of a game is an emergent property; the thrill of competition and victory is an emergent property; immersion is an emergent property.  It's hard to think about emergent properties directly, especially without lots and lots and lots of actual game play and playtesting to observe them.  The book does not have the emergent properties in it (except maybe some verbiage about what the game is about, or the rare very very good examples of play), only play does.  Look up the rules for Fantan or Spite&Malice (both card games) -- nothing in the rules suggest how cut-throat and manipulative actual play of these games are, and it's that emergent quality that makes the game fun.

And lastly, in addition to playing lots of games (something that I don't do, much to my chagrin), you can get a lot of mileage out of designing and playtesting short games, especially microgames.  There's a reason that a lot of the articles here have little microgames attached to them -- these little things allow us to focus on one or two mechanics and hammer away at them to see how they work.  These are the testing grounds where we develop the tools and where we develop our understanding of the tools.

Oh, and another 'lastly'.  Whenever I write any game text for any purpose, I keep my sister-in-law in mind.  She games with us, she enjoys it, but she is not, shall we say, hardcore.  I'm sure you know other gamers like this.  Whenever I write or read anything about games, I consider whether she would understand it and enjoy reading it.  It needs to be clear, direct, and without any unnecessary or tangential bits to get hung up on.  If it passes that test, then the social structure that those rules inspire will be streamlined and at least playable.

First off, Kirk, you're not as far off as you think you are.  Have you playtested The Order yet?  I think you'll find that you've created an awesome game

And yes, before you ask, I do have a practical suggestion.  Why not...create threads for the dissection and examination of existing games, especially those that command wide-spread appeal and those which we feel are the most cutting edge of Indie designs. Create a set of analyses as to HOW a particular mechanic acheives its effect, how it interacts with other mechanisms to achieved the "feel" of the game, and then armed with this, also conduict comparisons of other games that attempted to create the same effect, with whatever degree of success, or games which would have benefitted from this such a device but did not employ it

I'm still half expecting Ron to come in and either say that he's written this already, or that I'm totally on the wrong track.

Kirk

Graham wrote:
The games that catch my imagination most usually have some psychological depth to them. They often deal with death - so I love My Life With Master and Cthulhu-esque games. Or they go into some fairly dark moral areas - hence my current obsession with Dogs In The Vineyard and Paranoia (straight style).

I don't think that's just a personal thing. At the risk of being pretentious, most great plays deal with death and moral dilemmas; most great films do too; so I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the RPGs that seem "deep" are concerned with some fairly deep, life-changing issues.

Paul Czege:

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

And about tools... I don't think you can do real RPG-engineering, as well as good novelists are not engineers due to the artistic part(Gods bless Inspiration!). Of course, knowing the theory and the rules of how-to is important. You cannot flesh your ideas into working mechanics if you do not understand how to do it.

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

A roleplaying game is a social structure that is created from or inspired by that book, and by addressing the book you will only ever be looking at the social structure obliquely and indirectly.  That's why I don't think the Forge needs an Analysis forum; it already has one in Actual Play.  Some of the threads aren't as descriptive or exhaustive as they could be, but this is the data that we need to be looking at and processing, not the words on the page of the book.

contracycle:

With this sort of view we can then ask the meaningful question: under what circumstances would you establish a value as a "score" as opposed to a "slider"?  What effects fo the two structures impart to the game and how are they employed by the game?

It is this level of genuine analysis that we are not achieveing, and instead relying on fuzzy impressionism and individual genius

Yes and no.  I agree that the important decisions are taken at the upper level.  But your example sort of gives me my point, I feel: you CAN have a discussion about the "death spiral" because the death spiral is particular form of mechanical behaviour which we have identified and labelled.  That is precisely the kind of thing I want to accumulate more of.

You see I think GNS has in many ways already solved the top level problem.  Deciding which CA your design is going to support has allowed us to do design that is more "on purpose" than the simplistic representation of causality that characterised early RPG design.  But the process breaks down precisely at the implementation level - having decided what your top level goals are there are still few guidelines as to how those goals can or should be implemented, and little in the way of terminology with which to have the discussion.

Heya,

I'd follow such threads with a great deal of interest. Is this idea out of scope for the RPG Theory forum?

Isn't that sort of analysis covered in the Actual Play forum?

Clarification: the Actual Play forum is indeed "Actual Play and Reflection." See the sticky.

Kirk, "it's done." What you're looking for, it's done. It's here. You're not seeing it yet, or (given your cool Ronny submission) not realizing that you've seen it. Post like a motherfucker in Actual Play. I strongly suspect you don't have a good handle on what that forum is for, and the range of things that can be posted in it. Keep designing. Find or construct another group, which I think you'll do very soon unless you decide you like being miserable and take steps to avoid finding it.

This is merely another of the periodic self-doubting, anxious threads we see all the time. It's a phase. It's an active thread because people like to whine in groups, or because they spy an opportunity to vent, or similar things. That doesn't mean it's a good discussion or means a damn thing, but I permit these threads because they blow off steam. You can find them in Site Discussion like clockwork, every six months or so.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:

This is merely another of the periodic self-doubting, anxious threads we see all the time. It's a phase. It's an active thread because people like to whine in groups, or because they spy an opportunity to vent, or similar things. That doesn't mean it's a good discussion or means a damn thing, but I permit these threads because they blow off steam. You can find them in Site Discussion like clockwork, every six months or so.

Gareth,

"No." To everything you're saying, just "no." You're grossly incorrect. What I see are great games being produced a mile a minute and generating great play-satisfaction and in many cases business satisfaction. The "thing" we are doing here, at the Forge, is working. The same people who post as Kirk has posted are the ones who, a year later, release fantastic games and mentor others.

This is the second time you've made a crack about me whining. I said it in PM before, and I'll say it publicly now: fuck you.

I'll also follow up on a Site Discussion thread I began a while ago. You're a Forge parasite, Gareth. I don't see your accounts in Actual Play. I don't see you helping others in Indie Design. I don't see you doing anything except spinning your Big Thoughts.

So basically, shut up in the Theory forum, because you're worthless here. This is the last time I'll be responding to any post of yours here, and I suggest others do the same. Get to work at something constructive in the most important forums here. Help someone else. Let us know how you play and how it's going. Be an actual participant rather than this pseudo-Harlan-Ellison gadfly pose you've perfected.

Best,
Ron

Oh please.

AP is 90% worthless without any systematic analysis.  The fact that eventually, by osmosis, and despite the fact that there are no tools, people eventuially stumble across something that works does not in anyway validate the unwillingness to actually DO such analysis.

No you don't see my accounts in actual play.  Thats becuase its simply not worth typing.  No you don't see me do much in design, although you do see some, because all I can offer is my perceptions.  And you DO see my contribution in theory because I am not grandstanding on my laurels, I am actually trying to help rather than be a hindrance - unlike your self-important disdain.

You fucking well do not get to tell me to be an actual participant when you can barely be bothered to discuss your own ideas in theory.  All this high-n-mighty nonsense is worthless when you are actually frustrating constructive effort.  That horse is too high for you I reckon.

Great bunch of ideas. Really. I completely agree that in-depth analysis of why a given game works the way it does is a great thing. Personally, I think about that a great deal, as can be seen in my Manifesto on Mastery, this post on how Sorcerer fits together, my brief thoughts on why Burning Wheel is built the way it is. Also, read all of the reviews, and add in Ron's comments on InSpectres

Pity none of these great ideas are going to come to anything. Reading over this thread, I see a lot of "we should" but I'm not seeing any "I am" or "I will." Kirk, if you want a comparitive study of why one game works and another one doesn't, then write it. Don't worry about not knowing what to do--you will bring enthusiasm to the project that no one else can match. Even if you just write a rough draft and post it, then folks can discuss the specific points of the comparison. The Forge will be a better place because of it.

If you want to dissect a given game to see what makes it tick, write a review. AFAIK, reviews are still open to anyone. It's funny how people desperately wanted to be able to write Forge reviews back in the days when only Ron was allowed. Once the policy changed and non-Ron reviews were welcome, only one person ever wrote one. If you want to see that trend changed, then change it.

Michael wrote:
Pity none of these great ideas are going to come to anything. Reading over this thread, I see a lot of "we should" but I'm not seeing any "I am" or "I will."

Here, for example, is a previous post with a systematic, comparitive approach by me dating back to 2002:

Well, I came up with these terms for the four layers, as I read ‘em.  I’m not keen on seeing them as a matrix at this point as I feel they are not arranged on easy axes.  So I’ve come up with these to toss into the pot:

Human Social
Character Relative
World Realisation
Activity Vector

I would label the categories as above, on my readings of the initial description and subsequent discussion. 

Human social: the human level of interaction among the participants, including support and leadership behaviours as outlined by fang.

Character Relative: The relationship between the characters in terms of how they interact with other and the resonance that has for player-player interaction.  This can occur in terms of duty slots (thief, fighter) or stereotypes (sneaky ventrue, brash brujah) or job description (fixer, assassin).  These are the roles they take on relative to the group of characters.

World Realisation
This is the level at which the characters are defined in terms of the game: the abilities are broken up and defined in game terms.  The place in society of the role is defined, as well as the impact it has on society and its material context.

Activity Vector
Packaging of abilities and the like, merits and flaws, the specifics of the commitment the player makes to fulfilling certain tasks and informed b certain motives.

Analysis of AD&D
Human Social: There was discussion of a caller and hence efforts to mandate leadership among the group of players.  The players are implicitly encouraged to adopt functional roles in proportion to a stock distribution of classes for efficiency purposes.

Character Relative: The only motivation for character relationships addressed is that of efficiency and filling each of the broad effectiveness slots, combat, combat magic, healing, sneaking.  Although social interactions are implicit in its class structure, no mechanism is provided for addressing them nor are they addressed.  Personal interactions are addressed only in terms of alignment.

World Realisation: This is expressed almost exclusively in terms of the objective impact a character may have on the world through positive action; they make little mention of the world pushing back, bar weapon restrictions on some of the classes, and selecting a church according to alignment.  No specific context is designed in and hence much remains nebulous, frex the ambiguous status of alignment languages and assembly of weapons.

Activity Vector
Controlled by classes, spells, and proficiencies and magic items.  These were not consistent across classes even by type: thieves had on set of special abilities resolved a certain way, clerics had another.  As a result it was actually very explicit, both in terms of what actions a character was expected to carry out and how they were to do them.  The only exception was magic items, which allowed the GM a measure of influence over how the characters were empowered to act.

Vampire
Human Social: the game advocates that the dynamic of play should be conscious of moral consequence and reflective of the personal experience.  There is no pressure supporting a standard distribution of roles, and hence the group is may have a diverse array or concentration on functional/social groups from whatever human motive.

Character Relative: First of all, all characters are co-conspirators and therefore share a common interest.  Characters are empowered to act on each other through factions of the conspiracy and their historical/stereotyped interactions.  In this sense, a gangrels stock suspicion of a tremeres stock sneakiness is strongly supported.  Characters also often have a lot of power to effect other characters emotionally through mechanical action.

World Realisation: each group is rendered from its own perspective with commentary on stock opinions of other groups, with objective abilities to influence the external world.  There is a form-follows-function literalism in the expression of the characters power over the context and their niche within that context.  Back-story elements are primarily limits to action, or more accurately the abrogation of implicit limits, although the descent/mentor structure enables a lot of embedding in the world.

Activity Vector: Activity is strongly typical, in that characters are most empowered to act along the lines mandated by their contextual group membership, which are highly functional.  These can be moderated or amplified through parallel selection of complimentary abilities (skills etc).  However, strongly expressed resource shortages impel certain sorts of activities.

Cyberpunk 2020
Human Social: the players are expected to adopt an efficiency/problem-solving stance in relation to objective challenges.  An optimum minimum set focussed on division of labour is expected to motivate character selection, although this is not strongly required. 

Character Relative: Division of labour of the implicit group, the band of antiheroic freelancers, may prompt inter-character relationships and dependencies.  Characters are not obliged to be on truthful terms, but are expected to be on amicable terms, with each other.  Back-story is supported and may lead to a wide array of (uncoordinated) interactions and motivations.

World Realisation: Character groups are quite strongly defined through a special ability, but are not heavily prejudiced thereafter in terms of activity selection.  Back-story is strongly exploited to present particular pressures in the past and/or the likely future.  Personalisation through crunchy bits allows a lot of fine-tuning of the characters identity because of default resource shortages and the need to explain how the implicit limits were overcome.

Activity Vector: The character special ability as special ability (rather than default ability) lends a lot of versatility to the vector of activity the character adopts through other mechanical devices, the crunchy bits (cyberware, skills, weapons).  Most of these are available regardless of character identity, although many are focussed on avenues coincident with character functional roles.  The implicit functional motivation tends to produce specialisation around the character ability as a variation on a theme.  Only one notable exception exists, the decker, who operates quite literally in a parallel universe with its own rules.

Blue Planet
Human Social: Nothing mandated in terms of character interdependencies.  There is weak support for a “law on the wild frontier” structure that might encourage the proficiency niche approach amongst players, but this is not strongly reinforced.  The potential exists for a need for a specialist aquatic character of one of several varieties, but this is neither strong nor taxing.

Character Relative: Back-story hooks are provided but no mechanism or encouragement is advanced to interlink the characters beyond task-driven cooperation.  Background in terms of origin (incorporate, native, colonist) is important to character identity and perhaps implicitly inter-character relationships but this is not strongly reinforced.

World Realisation: This occurs through strong world-based background selection that governs abilities, although selection is freeform if limited. The individual experience of the world is reinforced and characters are not strongly grouped, bar the specialist aquatics. These are not especially difficult to explain/obtain, however, although resource limits do exist.

Activity Vector
This will have been heavily focussed by background selection and will focus on various functional areas, and there is encouragement for all characters to diversify into aquatics and combat.  Characters are not governed by post-creation prejudices, and may diversify where they see fit.[/quote

And as we also see:

Ron Edwards wrote:

I'm pretty convinced by Gareth's post. That makes a lot of sense to me. "Character Relative" is clunky as hell, but it's a bit better than my term.

... the principle did not appear to be as irrelvant then as it has since become.

Now I'd be more than happy to pick tnhat discussion up again and expand the list.  for one thing, the concepts I propose should be critiqued and challenged, and other peoples perceptions of the games I discussed in these terms should also be aired.  Thats the way this should work, multiple inputs, not one person declaiming the Truth from on high.

Coming out of the Five Games post on This Is My Blog, I would argue that we have a whole lot of tools for Narrativist-inclined designs - games that focus on human issues, and focus on them hard. The bumper crop of such games (with more coming out all the time) shows that, in my mind.

Now, how did these games happen? Through actual play and reflection on the corpus of the first such games (Sorcerer, MLWM, etc). How long did this take? On the order of 4-5 years, if my timing is right.

So I think one - not the only, but one - process is established. Play the games that align with your design interests and learn lessons from them.

Now, what we can work on in a substantive matter is reducing that turnaround time for other goals of play. This is where analysis of techniques comes in, I think. Establishing what effects mechanics, or sets of mechanics, produce consistently. Starting the design process from a known baseline, instead of nothing. Combined with playing other games, could this make the "flash of brilliance" less critical and result in more games of good quality? I don't see why not.

I'm also gonna plug the work Joshua is doing on Game Foo as steps in this direction.

This is foul.

Gareth, you have a choice.

Either the reasons you're here are paying off, for you and others, or they're not. If not, then you must decide whether continuing to be here is worth your time.

I am telling you that from my perspective, clearly they are not. Plenty of ideas get proposed here and incorporated. If yours aren't, then either they aren't making some kind of cut, or you are being ignored or devalued in some way.

Stay or go. If you stay, and if you choose not to post in Actual Play or Indie Design, then you'll have nowhere to post when the forums change over. Which will solve the problem for everyone.

Folks, take valid topics to new threads. This one is polluted and I'm killing it now.

Best,
Ron

Either the reasons you're here are paying off, for you and others, or they're not. If not, then you must decide whether continuing to be here is worth your time.