Topic: Momentary lapse into practicality
Started by: Jack Spencer Jr
Started on: 5/4/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 5/4/2002 at 6:25pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Momentary lapse into practicality
After keeping my head so deep in RPG theory for so long, mostly because I haven't been able to game much myself so all I have is theory, I've sort of forgotten that when you design a game, it will eventually have to be played by someone.
James Ernest of Cheapass Games wrote an excellent article on designing a game found here.
Well, I think it's excellent. It's got one of those silly analogies that I seem to love so much. You know. Stuff like "RPG design is like a jar of yogurt."
Here's a relevant quote:
...it's the way you want the players to interact, it's the tools you want to give them...
What seems to be what's on my mind is, in the "Do You Believe WHat They Tell You" thread we've been listing unwritten (or written) assumption of RPG design. Stuff most seem to take for granted that every RPG will contain because that's just how RPGs are made. By listing them, we've got them in front of us and can then figure outvarious way to make an RPG without going by the assumption.
This is all well and good, but I've noticed that I've lost sight of the simple fact that eventually someone will have to sit down and play a game to truely be successful. WHat I need to do is imagine how I see the players interacting in play and then provide tools to that end. But even moreso, I need to better imagine the sort of player who'd be playing. What sort of person would want to play my game?
These are good questions to ask oneself because pretty much all of the other design decisions will eventually need to come back to this.
On 5/5/2002 at 6:23am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: Momentary lapse into practicality
Tools are not always /rules/ sometimes tools are way's of using rules--for example a chapter that suggests how to design scenarios isn't explicitly a rule, but it is a tool. If your game has a setting, giving a list of example names, or name construction is a tool, not a rule.
I agree with you in general which is why I just wanted to perhaps expand a little on the difference.
On 5/5/2002 at 4:23pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Momentary lapse into practicality
Jack,
I love the title of this thread.
I also want to say that one of my biggest issues in role-playing design, all the way back to the Sorcerer mailing list and the first forums I participated in at GO, is meaningful playtesting.
When it all comes down to it, the most important forum here at the Forge is Actual Play. Every game designer should be reading that and thinking very carefully about whom they want to satisfy with their game, and how those very people can be alerted to the game and reached with its content.
("Content" is the best word I can come up with. Rules, tools, techniques, guidelines, blah, blah ... call'em what you want, we are talking about "how to play" at a very basic level.)
Best,
Ron
On 5/8/2002 at 2:00pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Momentary lapse into practicality
[quoteTools are not always /rules/ sometimes tools are way's of using rules
I think I may be reading this a little out of context, but to my mind a rule that is to be used in a way not contained within itself as written is a rule that needs editing.
a chapter that suggests how to design scenarios isn't explicitly a rule, but it is a tool. If your game has a setting, giving a list of example names, or name construction is a tool, not a rule.
Well, the name thing is like sprinkles on a sundae. Some like them, some don't. But the real meat of it isn't the sprinkles but the ice cream and chocolate sauce. The sprinkles are an extra. Nice perhaps, but unnecessary.
Scenerio creation is a tad more useful to the discussion here. Recap:
What seems to be what's on my mind is, in the "Do You Believe WHat They Tell You" thread we've been listing unwritten (or written) assumption of RPG design. Stuff most seem to take for granted that every RPG will contain because that's just how RPGs are made. By listing them, we've got them in front of us and can then figure outvarious way to make an RPG without going by the assumption.
This is all well and good, but I've noticed that I've lost sight of the simple fact that eventually someone will have to sit down and play a game to truely be successful. What I need to do is imagine how I see the players interacting in play and then provide tools to that end. But even moreso, I need to better imagine the sort of player who'd be playing. What sort of person would want to play my game?
Actually you've noted two fairly big assumptions in your post without really realizing it, I think: scenerios creation and the game setting or world. In both cases, a large part of the assumption is that both are made completely beforehand. Nifty, but this deserves another thread.
Ron,
Thanks for the comments. My only problem is that you'd started out by mentioning playtesting. Not that I'm against playtesting. Only an idiot would be against the idea. But what I'm talking about here is a form of playtesting in one's head. That the designer should keep the idea that someone will need to read & play their game as they design.
Perhaps many do this without me saying so, but plenty of people do not so it bears mentioning. This way, when the game is playtested, it will at least be usable, right?
On 5/9/2002 at 4:44pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Momentary lapse into practicality
Jack- thank you for posting that link and bringing up this topic. Its already proven useful to me in a discussion on simple, elegant game design elsewhere and caused a minor epiphany for me yesterday with my current project.