Topic: Developing the other stuff.
Started by: Jack Spencer Jr
Started on: 5/20/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 5/20/2002 at 3:59pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Developing the other stuff.
Note: I agonized a bit over whether to post this in Design or Theory. There is cross-pollenation, as there should be. In the end, I decided to post in Design since I would mention my own design by way of example. Should the thread drift more toward theory, then a new thread should be started
On many RPG design forums, the usual is discussed: dice rolling permutations, weapon damage lists, classes or the validity thereof, and so on. Who's up for some discussion of other concerns that are just as important but rarely discussed?
For example, im my game I'm working out some material for the composition and size of the game group. This is inspired by something Ron said once.
First off, I see a group composing of 4-5 persons as ideal. One person is not a group and two is no better since it's just you and the other guy. Three could work, but it's still too few to have the necesary social dynamic. Six and above can also work, but the more players you add, the more cumbersome it gets. Not only does the group need to have more scenes per session so that everyone get a turn, but the chance of group participation decreases. A few players in a large group may decide to simply sit back and let the others interact with the story, assuming that someone will ask the question they wish to ask or make the offer they wish to make, and if no one does, they wait for the others until it's too late and the scene has moved on. So 4-5 is ideal since it's a large enough group to cause some of those behaviors that people have when in a group but not so large that anyone would feel redundant, thus encouraging every player to participate.
Also, I will have to compose a section on selecting a group. I'm not sure what to do here since human relations are crazy and ever changing. I think I'll suggest that it should be people you at least can get along with, but I'll have to dwell on this a bit.
After the group is assembled, I'll also give some exercises and such to develop a rapport. The group is like a band and the time spent outside of play is just as important as the time inside. Moreso, I think since one depends on the other. There are some good warm-up exercises for improv theatre groups that would work well here. These will help break the ice, get the blood flowing, the mind working, and get the players used to acting silly together. This is very important to play since the main engine for the game is the rapport and creativity of the players. If they feel too self-concious to participate, then the game fails.
If I'm going to include all of this, I should probably include a section on troubleshooting problems and finally a section on breaking up the group, as many bands tend to break up. But this is just an opportunity to take your experience with the previous group to begin a new group, and so my game will spread like cancer Boo-wa-ha-ha-ha.
Nice dream, isn't it?
So, are there any other concerns that should be developed in the RPG design? Post here of start a new thread, if you like.
On 5/20/2002 at 5:30pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Re: Developing the other stuff.
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Who's up for some discussion of other concerns that are just as important but rarely discussed?
Oh! Oh! Me! Pick me!
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: For example, in my game I'm working out some material for the composition and size of the game group. This is inspired by something Ron said once.
First off, I see a group composing of 4-5 persons as ideal. One person is not a group and two is no better since it's just you and the other guy. Three could work, but it's still too few to have the necessary social dynamic. Six and above can also work, but the more players you add, the more cumbersome it gets. Not only does the group need to have more scenes per session so that everyone gets a turn, but the chance of group participation decreases.
A few players in a large group may decide to simply sit back and let the others interact with the story, assuming that someone will ask the question they wish to ask or make the offer they wish to make, and if no one does, they wait for the others until it's too late and the scene has moved on. So 4-5 is ideal since it's a large enough group to cause some of those behaviors that people have when in a group but not so large that anyone would feel redundant, thus encouraging every player to participate.
I'm right there with you Jack, except I have a huge number of extra complications in development. First off, one division of our game is to be played as a live-action role-playing game (under the concept that 'the more, the merrier'). Yet another (romance novel-based, with potential need for consenting adults) needs to go to the exceptionally small group size, primarily one player to one gamemaster.
Now all this seemed ultra-complicated until I concluded exactly the same as you did. How do we handle that with a LARP? Easy, we divide up the 'duties' normally assigned to the gamemaster and then franchise. One thing traditionally left to the gamemaster (or the game system) is setting origination; this still ideally works for a single person (or a tightly-knit design team). After that is plotting; I don't mean pre-generating 'story'-content in advance, I mean the way the supervillain does it. In a large LARP, this is pretty much taken care of by the players through their characters.
Next is arbitration/mediation; since this boils down to rules interpretation, our solution was to deputize and train referees (in the mechanics, conflict resolution, and conflicts of interest). Here's the funny part, our requirement is that at least 20% of all participants (in a distributed gamemastering games, like our LARP game) are referees. That works out to 4 players for every 'gamemaster;' almost exactly the same breakdown you identified.
For smaller groups, our Techniques actually run more towards a gamemaster-full style of play (or erroneously gamemasterless play). In practice it turns out that more sharing of the 'ownership of the details' seems necessary to keep both parties engaged. (The theory we have for this relates how much 'work' it is to run 4 players to keeping the gamemaster 'occupied' or rather 'interested.')
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Also, I will have to compose a section on selecting a group. I'm not sure what to do here since human relations are crazy and ever changing. I think I'll suggest that it should be people you at least can get along with, but I'll have to dwell on this a bit.
Trust me, that part is a bear. Of the two approaches I've seen (gamemaster 'hand picks,' and group compromises), we opted to work on a system of group consensus. After several attempts we concluded the only way we could see doing it was create something like Ron's GNS or r.g.f.*'s threefold model, except for 'pro-action,' rather than analysis. What this means is that members of the potential group use a model of play desires and terminology to conclude what they expect, not only from the game, but also from each other before they begin. From that a compromise of play grows.
This turned into two separate Techniques in Scattershot; one for self-analysis and one for game expectations (we call them Genre Expectations because of the tendency of certain genres to lend themselves to certain approaches to play). Welded together with a Technique to handle participant conflicts (sorry, that one is still in the works), these seem to satisfy what you're describing.
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: After the group is assembled, I'll also give some exercises and such to develop a rapport. The group is like a band and the time spent outside of play is just as important as the time inside. Moreso, I think since one depends on the other. There are some good warm-up exercises for improv theatre groups that would work well here. These will help break the ice, get the blood flowing, the mind working, and get the players used to acting silly together. This is very important to play since the main engine for the game is the rapport and creativity of the players. If they feel too self-conscious to participate, then the game fails.
If I'm going to include all of this, I should probably include a section on troubleshooting problems and finally a section on breaking up the group, as many bands tend to break up. But this is just an opportunity to take your experience with the previous group to begin a new group, and so my game will spread like cancer Boo-wa-ha-ha-ha.
Good ideas. These are definitely the stumbling blocks we've faced in composing the 'conflict resolution' material. Trying to formalize this has lead to a couple of separate issues. In order to expedite these resolutions, we have had to identify two kinds of 'ownership' for the mediation. The first kind, I've called proprietorship, deals with who is 'the final authority' about the use and abuse of conceptual entities within game play.
The second is something along the lines of leadership, or a 'whose in charge' idea. A leader not only has 'ownership' of the current goings-on, but also must 'take it somewhere.' (And be responsible for the satisfaction that engenders.) That 'direction' often becomes the source of contention, so identifying 'the leader' has been a priority in formalizing 'conflict resolution.' (I am right now struggling to compose the central focus of this part for the next "Emergent Techniques" thread down in the Scattershot Forum.)
Folding the group has been an area we've really been foundering on. Short of numerous, 'just find someone else to play with' comments, we haven't really come up with anything that could be formalized as a role-playing game rather than a social aid.
I like the way you think, we've also been considering a section on 'warm-ups' for each session. (So far, that is a bit far out there on the schedule though.)
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Nice dream, isn't it?
Definitely. Can you go into any specifics? How are you thinking about these topics in a more formal, 'here is what you do' spell-it-out, way? I've been waiting a long time to discuss these ideas and am very glad you brought this up.
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: So, are there any other concerns that should be developed in the RPG design? Post here or start a new thread, if you like.
I guess the most important part is how you plan to formalize this into text for your consumers and what criteria you use to decide what is gaming material and what can be expected of the 'natural' social contract involved.
Details, man, give us details!
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 1662
Topic 2043
Board 22
On 5/20/2002 at 5:58pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Developing the other stuff.
Hey,
Well, for my own publications, I seem to have struck a nerve based on the Afterword essays in Sorcerer & Sword, which are pretty pointed regarding social issues of setting up a game. Responses include enthusiastic agreement, mingled outrage and shame, and requests for debate. There's a serious need for discourse about this topic.
Best,
Ron
On 5/20/2002 at 6:03pm, wyrdlyng wrote:
re: Getting together a group
I use the same rule that a friend taught me several years back: "Don't game with someone you wouldn't socialize normally with." It's proved to be the most useful rule ever.
As it is once we finish the D&D module I've been killing time running I plan to clip our group a little.