Hi all,

This is my first post. I read the various posting stickies, and I hope my post follows the proper procedure. If not, I certainly apologize.

"Escape from Hell!" is my Ronnies entry and is available here.  My question feels a little odd in that it is a question about game design that refers to game design.

The short version: should I explain within the game the reasons for a design element of the game?

The specifics: in "Escape from Hell!" all of the random elements are in the players' control. Not just the standard active actions of the characters (their attacks, their damage, their perception, etc.) but also the effect of NPC actions upon their characters (are they hit, are they damaged, are they seen, etc.).

There is one big reason for this, and that is the concept, "Hell is what you make of it."  In essence, the players have a game mechanic that alters the probability of their success, but the overarching idea is they alter everything that happens to their character.  So the players have control over these effects because the characters unconsciously have some control over them.  It's not infallible (free will providing the freedom to fail as well), and thus the random element, but it is there.

Going back, the question is whether I explain that in the game.  Part of me feels like there is no need to explain it. The people who get it will get it, and those who don't aren't necessarily missing anything in their actual play of the game.  I also worry that explaining the design philosophy could come across as pedantic and sanctimonious ("if you don't play the game this way, you're missing the whole point").

The other part of me that believes I should explain it is a bit more pragmatic.  Some people are going to ask why the game works that way or want something in the rules that is counter to that design philosophy (someone already has).  If the reasoning is explained in the game then it doesn't have to be explained individually to each of those persons, and if they want to make a change, they at least understand the reasons so they can make an informed decision.

So, I ask for your thoughts and thank you in advance.

Clint

Hi Clint and welcome to the Forge!

Not having read your game, I can answer only based on your own conclusions. As long as understanding your design goals is not important to playing the game, I guess it's a matter of taste whether you explain it. But if there is an actual chance of people "not getting the point of the game", you should, imo, include a sentence or two at least regarding that point.

Myself, I'm a fan of explaining one's own design goals and play philosophy for a given game. Of course, that leads to me editing out entire paragraphs of my work in every review, because they sound so patronizing and inapropriate. Ah well. There is this cool quote, I can never remember whom it's from:

"Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left you could add, but when there is nothing left you could take away."

Does that help at all?

- Frank

Hello,

If we were dealing with a developed medium for design/expression, then explaining one's design decisions becomes a kind of unnecessary promotion that some or most of the audience enjoys as a secondary art form. A great example is commentary on DVDs.

In a developing medium, like role-playing (so-called), in which no one knows how it's going to look or expand or anything at any moment, explaining one's design decisions is a much more valuable thing. It literally helps the reader know what to do with the material, and it reinforces the creative community as a whole.

Best,
Ron

Hi Clint,

It seems to me that if you're presenting a mechanic with non-obvious purpose and a few different possible ways to implement it in play, it is your responsibility as a designer to remove this ambiguity. This ensures that the game produces the play experience you wrote it to produce. I often find that laying out a rule or procedure is less effective when it's not explained in at least a cursory manner.

So, in reference to your question, this means that, if your mechanic's purpose isn't transparent (you seem to think it's not), then it may produce better play results if you explain it.

The puzzle of craftsmanship is to do this without doing those things you complain of, being pedantic or sanctimonious.

Hi Clint, nice to see you on this Forum (people everywhere, buy Necessary Evil if you like fast superpowered gaming!) I'm printing your game off right now; do you want any playtest feedback? I might be suspending my Savage Setting, DownTown, at my game club tomorrow because of an important player shortage and it might be nice to ambush them with this... I know they've played other indie RPGs before, so they ought to be a receptive group.

First off, thank you to everyone again.  I think I see it now.

In essence, it's at the core of game design.  If it helps the game, it needs to be in there.  You don't take it out because there are people who don't need it; you put it in for those who do.

And thanks to Ron, I may even have a way to do it without coming across as pedantic and sanctimonious.  Excellent!

Clint

Hey Clint,

I just read the game. Nice! Good use of "sphere".

Clint wrote:
There is one big reason for this, and that is the concept, "Hell is what you make of it."  In essence, the players have a game mechanic that alters the probability of their success, but the overarching idea is they alter everything that happens to their character.  So the players have control over these effects because the characters unconsciously have some control over them.  It's not infallible (free will providing the freedom to fail as well), and thus the random element, but it is there.

Thanks, Graham.

I think you've hit the exact thing I have been looking for.  If the mechanics are tied to the mythology, then they deserve the same recognition.

Right now, I'm going to hold off for some more feedback on other issues before forging ahead.

Thanks again, everyone.