I'm an old-school, power gamer who has been out of it for quite a while and I re-entered gaming by joining a group that was playing a D&D 3.5 campaign. My last gaming experience was when I was 15 (20 years ago) and the more sessions of D&D I played the more problems I began seeing with it. I had always wanted to design and develop my own RPG from the ground up, and I saw this as my chance. My game design was a direct reflection of the things that I thought were wrong with D&D.

Now, I'm nearly 2 years into the development of the system & setting. I've spent hundreds of hours listening to gaming podcasts, making notes, writing and re-writing content, trying out different mechanics, reading through other game systems, reading blog posts, forum threads & articles and I'm finally realizing that all of the work that I'm doing on my game is mirroring the evolution of RPGs throughout the 20 years of gaming that I had been absent.

At least I can skip to the end and see what was the final outcome of this evolutionary process is, but this is where the problem comes. I'm stubborn. It seems like the current state of RPGs is heavily focused on narrative gaming, but I like rules. I like structure. I like fairness and balance. It seems like these things are frowned on right now, that the modern, enlightened game designer is above them.

I'm not completely against the ideas I've been reading, I actually think that many of them have incredible value. It seems like game designers have finally gotten to the heart of gaming and focused on why people game and what people want to get out of a Role-playing experience. It just seems at odds with my concrete way of thinking. I enjoy the game aspect of RPGs, not necessarily the story aspect. Is there a way to use the knowledge and work that exists now in the RPG community to direct the design of a game that is following out-dated game concepts? Am I just lying to myself? If I gave in to the narrative style of gaming would I find that it really is what I want? Am I really just trying to design a dice rolling video game?

I'm having a gaming crisis and I'm not sure what to do about it. I enjoy game design but constantly designing "new" mechanics to find out that they have been done (better) already is discouraging. Am I just walking down a well-trodden path and eventually I'll catch up with everyone else or is there still some validity to Gamist games?

I like Gamist games, my very own Biohazard Dawn game is gamist. Structure can be fun, and the thoeries and discussion that you've been reading up on needn't be at odds with a gamist agenda. Just because the "mainstream" of indie has gotten into a love of Nar doesn't mean other creative agendas aren't valid, everyone plays for different reasons. I like competition sometimes, and where would I be if all the games became Nar? So make your Genesys game, I want to play it, and if you ever need help let me know I'll be more than happy to chime in.

That having been said, try a Nar game before you shed the mortal coil, you'll see that it does things differently than gamist games, not worse not better, they cater to different groups. Sometimes I feel like playing through a story, other times I want to compare kills like Gimli and Legolas, all games have their purpose and no one agenda is more important than another.

At least, that's my opinion.

If you wonder where the gamist RPG makers have gone, look on your console: Whenever I start designing a rules heavy system, I stop and say, why isn't this a PC game? The answer invariably is that I cannot program it, not that it is too flexible and so outshines the limitations of that medium. The only other reason I've found is "Because I'm bored of reading flat screens". As far as I can see, those games that fit most smoothly into our modern habits are those that take account of their natural medium: If their all about structure and pattern, they generally do best on computers, but those that are more chaotic or really rooted in a certain physicality, they work best as boardgames or rpgs. Chess for example is a game that straddles the two, as there is a certain niceness about moving the pieces about, but the rules structure is very well suited to computers.

That is why I think we are seeing a shift into computer rpgs, narrative ones and Larps, picking the right tools for the job.

Now I don't want to discourage you, I think that it is good to have games that mix and match between the still-forming categories, as I suggested with chess. But if you do make a game that does that, it should be pretty tight. People are getting lazy on maths, and expect lookup tables to come when they call. Making a rules heavy gamist tabletop rpg is more of an art than ever, because the quality on every side is up, and those who do it for nostalgia give design constraints that are hard to understand, let alone fulfil!

JoyWriter wrote:
If you wonder where the gamist RPG makers have gone, look on your console: Whenever I start designing a rules heavy system, I stop and say, why isn't this a PC game? The answer invariably is that I cannot program it, not that it is too flexible and so outshines the limitations of that medium. The only other reason I've found is "Because I'm bored of reading flat screens".

Note that many thigns aren't so exclusive. I play write games with heavy emphasis on rules to do things, details about how one thing is different from another (situation, characters, skills, equipment etc) yet the focus of game play is split between basic action and conflict, and trying to get across characterizations and stories about these characters in particular. Despite playing very combat heavy games, most of the memories people have, you couldn't imagine how it would have gone had someone been playign a differnt character, because character makes such an impact on what happens.

The absolute best idea I have seen come out of theory is being concious of what you want, of what the other players want, and being given examples of terms to help define thought about these topics, and examples on how to better enjoy play as a whole, in it's many forms.

Hi mjbauer,

I can relate to your conflict, to a fair degree. I think part of my own conflict is that I am a rules first imaginer - I use the rules options, then start imagining from the results (sometimes I imagine a bit before, but it's usually pretty minor). While, from what I've observed over the years and finally realised, most people in roleplay culture are imagination first. They imagine something and then pick and choose amongst the rules for ones which fit that, if any at all. And often enough they can't find rules that fit, even in (interestingly enough) in the newer indie games. They say the game system doesn't work or it gives bad odds for how things are supposed to go (ie, their imagination is supposed to come first).

I think roleplay is coming around to rules first imagining (not as in it's the only way to do it, but more asin imagination first is not the only way to do it). The recent threads on before and after traits are the germinating seeds of this cultural change. But it'll take a few years yet for the imagination first intertia of thirty years prior, to be stemmed. Till then if your a rules first designer, it's a desert out there. They'll call it a board or video game, not because there's an absence of room for imaginative effect in it, but because they would never lend their imagination to a rules first game. Of course it's just a board/video game, if they deliberately banish their imagination when playing it (or even just when thinking about playing it).

Since I could relate to what you've described, I thought you might be in a similar position. If not, just wrote this in case. Good luck, either way!

Hey, MJ! I think there's a world of difference between video games and Gamist RPGs. We all know that, and for me, it comes down to "Well, I'm not a computer programmer. What ideas do I actually have?"
For me as a huge fan of Nar, I know that computers don't quite provide the flexibility I'm seeking; that's true for any CA.
I think Callan's post reflects on the overwhelming Sim influence on our hobby, especially historically; this makes both Gamist and Nar efforts still a relatively new thing, and means that G & N are comrades-in-arms, of a sort.
"Balance" is a loaded term, with unclear specific meaning, but I assume it means "In the mechanics, there should be a set of options that are roughly equal in how much agency they afford, for the kind of endeavor the players engage in".
Thus, it's relevant to Nar as well - all players need to be able to make interesting, relevant choices, and the characters or whatever that they design to do that should all be roughly equipped.

This made me smile, in a sense of camaraderie:

At least I can skip to the end and see what was the final outcome of this evolutionary process is, but this is where the problem comes. I'm stubborn. It seems like the current state of RPGs is heavily focused on narrative gaming, but I like rules. I like structure. I like fairness and balance. It seems like these things are frowned on right now, that the modern, enlightened game designer is above them.

Thanks for the advice and encouragement everyone. I'm still trying to decide what to do next, but I'm feeling much better about things.

I'm new here, and arguably not that experienced with traditional table-top gaming, but from an awkward perspective... it sounds like power-gaming is more of a strategist's endeavor where as role-playing is more about being an actor / story teller. D&D seems to embrace both to appeal to a greater audience, but actually causes a bit a of rift in the process.... which means that there is a need for an RPG system that does one or the other; not both.

By taking the design to the extreme, you might be describing a niche product and that usually comes at the price of popularity. But in the end, you have to make something that appeals to you... or what's the point? If there's nothing out there that rocks your world, then design something that does. The people that end up appreciating what you've made will love it way more than something that sacrifices in order to appeal to the masses. Things that are popular are typically uninteresting anyway. ;-)

Good luck.

mjbauer wrote:
At least I can skip to the end and see what was the final outcome of this evolutionary process is, but this is where the problem comes. I'm stubborn. It seems like the current state of RPGs is heavily focused on narrative gaming, but I like rules. I like structure. I like fairness and balance. It seems like these things are frowned on right now, that the modern, enlightened game designer is above them.

Luke wrote:

mjbauer wrote:
At least I can skip to the end and see what was the final outcome of this evolutionary process is, but this is where the problem comes. I'm stubborn. It seems like the current state of RPGs is heavily focused on narrative gaming, but I like rules. I like structure. I like fairness and balance. It seems like these things are frowned on right now, that the modern, enlightened game designer is above them.

Holy Baby Jesus, I'm almost insulted by this assertion! My life is a daily war against poorly designed imitations of My Life With Master* and Dogs in the Vineyard*.

Design your game for you, man. Design it hard and heavy. There's an audience for it out there, I swear. Believe me, if people play my freakish games, they'll play yours. The key though is to make the ideas unique, don't just regurgitate designs you've already seen and put new names on them. Really get in there and tweak the mechanics until they give you the results that you want!

-L

mjbauer wrote:
Hey Luke, sorry for the inflammatory comments. I was (and still am) going through a bit of crisis when it comes to my gaming philosophy. The fact that I even have a gaming philosophy is bizarre to me. I just like fun games, regardless of the style or medium and I guess I'm trying to figure out how I can translate that into the game I've been working on. "Fun" hasn't always been the goal, but I'm recognizing that in the end the enjoyment I get from playing it is really what matters. What do I consider fun? What makes those things fun? Are those going to be fun to others?

Maybe fun isn't the right word. Engaging? Compelling? Challenging? Nuanced? Those are all too vague to be helpful.

It's funny that you, of all people, should respond to this because one of my first instances of disappointment came when I found out about Burning Wheel's Scripted Combat. It is very similar to how I intended to do combat in my system, and I thought it was a pretty original idea. It got me wondering whether I should be designing a game or just looking for an existing system to apply to my setting.

After reading through a few games I found myself disappointed, not in the games themselves but in the idea of not creating my own system. I came to the realization that I enjoy making games and to me, that's the whole point of the exercise. I'm open to borrowing, modifying or even copying bits and pieces from other systems but wont be satisfied until I've created (or, at least, assembled) a game system that is exactly what I want.

I agree that I need to make this game for me but, hopefully I'll find that I'm not the only person who thinks it's fun. Knowing that someone else is enjoying something that I made sounds really satisfying. I guess that'll only be true if I'm proud of the work I do on it. 

Hi again, MJ,

mjbauer wrote: I came to the realization that I enjoy making games and to me, that's the whole point of the exercise. I'm open to borrowing, modifying or even copying bits and pieces from other systems but wont be satisfied until I've created (or, at least, assembled) a game system that is exactly what I want.

Callan wrote:
Hi again, MJ,

mjbauer wrote: I came to the realization that I enjoy making games and to me, that's the whole point of the exercise. I'm open to borrowing, modifying or even copying bits and pieces from other systems but wont be satisfied until I've created (or, at least, assembled) a game system that is exactly what I want.

That seems a bit of a conflict of internal interests right there. If designing systems is the point, then you wont be happy if you stop designing systems. So you wont be satisfied if you ever created a game system that is exactly what you want, because stopping at that point wont satisfy you. And indeed it'd probably make the perfect game system for you seem imperfect, since it would mean you stop designing systems.

mjbauer, I think you would love Aethera, lol. (it is really this kind of evolved d&d like i think )

Thank you Joywriter for this thread! I have been lurking for a while now but have always felt my ideas too retro for this hip crowd. However since you have been brave enough to step forward I really have no excuse to not throw my hat in the ring. I have had a very similar dilemma (although I come from a simulationist 1st perspective, rather than the Gamist angle).

Echolocating wrote:
power-gaming is more of a strategist's endeavor where as role-playing is more about being an actor / story teller. D&D seems to embrace both to appeal to a greater audience, but actually causes a bit a of rift in the process.... which means that there is a need for an RPG system that does one or the other; not both.

Easy mistake to make, but it's not my thread, it was made by MJBauer.

Don't feel intimidated, people will have a poke at your ideas, but in my experience they'll do it nicely. If you feel you have ideas to make a game that works for varying styles of player, and even allows groups to shift creative agenda during a campaign, or finds overlaps between what people call creative agendas that make them compatible simultaniously, then show it off!

But if your just looking for a game to pass time while the real fun goes on over the top of it, well I wonder how much you need to design that. Surely any game you all can tolerate that doesn't take up too much brainpower is good?

Now I suspect your ambitions lie somewhere between those two, between the pinnacle of integrated creative group dynamics and the game version of background music. What games have really done what your looking for, how much of that was "in the rules", and to what extent do you think you can build rules to encourage a similar state again? But as this is MJ's thread, I suggest you post about it in a new one.