Reference

Re-phrasing:

To what extent are cliches viable in our designs? As was discussed in the last thread which got closed, some good gaming moments have been had in various types of RPGs from "predictable" plot elements. Fallout having some examples of playing on expectations to present humorous moments.

What about Munchkin? Decidedly on the side of embracing cliche . . . but to what extent is it trying to be "serious" or "tongue-in-cheek" . . . ?

What is the value of poking fun at these conventions? Conversely, what is the value of NOT making fun, but rather "seriously" designing around them?

Is there some kind of value we can extract from one or both of these considerations?

Have I asked enough questions and phrased them in a clear enough manner to appease the concrete rationals and to not get locked down? :D

There is an old saying...

"It's only a cliche if it sucks. If it's good it's an archetype."

Interesting point.

Not always universally agreed-upon, however.

How many people do you know who have said, "I wish that I could do x, but I can't because my character is a y" . . . where x is something like "wield a sword" and y is "a mage" . . .

So if we just use one archetype example, like "mages cast spells and cannot fight in melee well" and hand it off to four players, maybe two of them go, "ok, yeah" but the third says, "I dunno, seems like z system" and the fourth says, "well this is complete crap, I'm not going to buy in to that recycled trash, because my mage was a nobleman at birth and was a squire to a famed knight errant, so he damned well CAN use a sword!"

So at this point "good design" is subjective, no? Or is it possible to objectively classify it? Does it remain in the eye of the beholder, or can we find a universal "yes, that is good design" measurement?

I suspect we'd need to start with how well integrated things are though, right? I mean, we can't possibly expect anyone to buy into a product which has mages who can't melee but fighters who CAN cast spells, right?

Or . . .

The reason the fighters can cast spells is due to the fact that every person in the world can do magic. It's intrinsic, and part of their lives. NOT everyone has spent time learning to swing a sword, and in fact martial instruction is reserved for only those in the standing army. There are NO adept mages (those with great magical power) allowed into the army, simply because they are too valuable to be squandered fighting wars and keeping the peace.

So now we have a cliche (mages can't fight) and an aberration (everyone can use magic) mixed together.

Good? Bad? Ugly?

Mathew wrote:
Interesting point.

Not always universally agreed-upon, however.

How many people do you know who have said, "I wish that I could do x, but I can't because my character is a y" . . . where x is something like "wield a sword" and y is "a mage" . . .

So if we just use one archetype example, like "mages cast spells and cannot fight in melee well" and hand it off to four players, maybe two of them go, "ok, yeah" but the third says, "I dunno, seems like z system" and the fourth says, "well this is complete crap, I'm not going to buy in to that recycled trash, because my mage was a nobleman at birth and was a squire to a famed knight errant, so he damned well CAN use a sword!"

So at this point "good design" is subjective, no? Or is it possible to objectively classify it? Does it remain in the eye of the beholder, or can we find a universal "yes, that is good design" measurement?

I suspect we'd need to start with how well integrated things are though, right? I mean, we can't possibly expect anyone to buy into a product which has mages who can't melee but fighters who CAN cast spells, right?

Or . . .

The reason the fighters can cast spells is due to the fact that every person in the world can do magic. It's intrinsic, and part of their lives. NOT everyone has spent time learning to swing a sword, and in fact martial instruction is reserved for only those in the standing army. There are NO adept mages (those with great magical power) allowed into the army, simply because they are too valuable to be squandered fighting wars and keeping the peace.

So now we have a cliche (mages can't fight) and an aberration (everyone can use magic) mixed together.

Good? Bad? Ugly?

It's one thing to borrow from various sources and make something you're own; it's a fully accepted practice and many great and unique games have done it.  It's another thing to take a fictional device and perpetuate it as a worldly fact.  This is going beyond the realm of cliche into that of information degradation.

Let's take the word "chainmail" for instance.  The actual word is mail, as it already implies the armor is made out of a chainlink design.  Therefore "chainmail" is redundant.  However, everyone calls it chainmail now (a DnDism), and then add it to their own games, betraying a designer's basic lack of research.  Furthermore, "ringmail", another DnDism (although they probably got it from historians with a poor grasp of inquiry), is accepted as an actual piece of armor.  As far as I am aware, there are no surviving pieces of ringmail.  This is probably because it never existed, and the reason it was ever conjectured in the first place is because medieval artists found rendering mail texture to be difficult.

chronoplasm wrote:

Mathew wrote:
How many people do you know who have said, "I wish that I could do x, but I can't because my character is a y" . . . where x is something like "wield a sword" and y is "a mage" . . .

So if we just use one archetype example, like "mages cast spells and cannot fight in melee well" and hand it off to four players, maybe two of them go, "ok, yeah" but the third says, "I dunno, seems like z system" and the fourth says, "well this is complete crap, I'm not going to buy in to that recycled trash, because my mage was a nobleman at birth and was a squire to a famed knight errant, so he damned well CAN use a sword!"

Elric of Melnibone used a sword.
Gandalf used a sword.
Heck, even Harry Potter used a sword at one point.
There is a rich literary tradition of wizards using swords.
The whole idea that wizards cannot use swords is a pure D&Dism.

Well, you're not being cliche if you invented it!

I understand that DnD was never intended to be historic - that was always obvious to me.  I'm not blaming DnD for anything other than being the subject of artlessly derivative game designs.

Have I derived design elements from DnD?  Of course - DnD has created many good design elements ("archetypes", hahaha!) that I believe should survive to the next roleplaying generation - but I've never 'jacked the ideas as is.  For example, I use the term "adventurer" in respect to a player character.  But I've modeled the design as a hypothetical result of introduced variables (magic-economy) to the setting.  Furthermore, since it was an age of great exploration, adventurer fits perfectly and does not feel like an arbitrary derivative.  They do not explore dungeons; they do not muck about with overly elaborate traps; they don't mug dragons.  So I've taken inspiration from a source, but the resultant product is something I can honestly call my own.

Which I take to mean that capturing a cliche and repurposing it is perfectly reasonable design strategy.

What about this, folks:

Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

Are these design cliches? Do we avoid them? (I'll admit to having a document in my design folder in which not a single one of these words exists, yet I'm outlining player attributes . . . and their absence was intentional.)

Mathew wrote:
Which I take to mean that capturing a cliche and repurposing it is perfectly reasonable design strategy.

When presented with an award for innovation, Paul Tevis said of "A Penny For My Thoughts" the following (and I paraphrase):

Innovation is apparently stealing ideas from sources that haven't been stolen from yet.

So even in a category that is prizing unique and innovative mechanics, the winners still borrow from what has come before.

We can't escape cliches as such entirely then, but we can absorb them, yes?

However, let's look at video game RPGs from the 90s.  Shamelessly derivative: reluctant hero (and a teenaged one at that, who somehow manages to find only highly skilled teenagers to help him in his quest...I guess in fantasy worlds, all adults are incompetent farmers), absurd fetch quests, mysterious stranger who's your dad (lol, and the mom is always long deceased), non-sensical labyrinthine dungeons with invisible monsters that some mad engineer took exorbitant sums of disposable wizard income to build, random ass puzzles.  I mean really, wtf with the fucking puzzles?!  Nobody likes them.  It's not fun to blow 20 bucks on a strategy guide just so you can get to the next room in a dungeon.

And then finally, someone who doesn't drink mercury came along and said "What if we just took the foundational elements of role-playing and modernize the genre?"  I doubt anyone actually said that, but the near-instant paradigm shift seems to suggest it's certainly a feasible assumption.  Then North American RPG designers finally started making games that weren't Japanese rip-offs.  Hit points stayed, and so did dexterity bonuses and armor class or what have you, but you didn't feel as if you were playing the same game over and over again.  Fallout felt different from Baldur's Gate.  Mass Effect, which I theorize was derived from KOTOR (which was derived from Baldur's Gate / D20 with its combat system and old school RPGs with its linear progression), started feeling like its own game halfway through and then completey unique come its second iteration.  Morrowind felt different from...well everything, but you still had dungeon crawls, dungeon-punk equipment, elves, dwarves, and fetch quests and such.  So it's all about artful execution, not about where you derive inspiration.

Mathew wrote:
We can't escape cliches as such entirely then, but we can absorb them, yes?

Hi Mathew,

I'm going to answer the final question in your first post very directly: this forum is not for any musing about RPGs and design.

Or rather, that's welcome at the Forge, but only in the Actual Play forum, subject to that forum's rules.

This forum, First Thoughts, should focus mainly on specific game ideas, i.e., something that you would like to design.

I suggest one of two things: (1) provide an example of a role-playing experience, a real one which you participated in, which highlights some aspect of the question you're asking; or (2) describe a bit about some in-progress game design idea you have for which this issue matters. If it's #1, I'll move the thread to Actual Play. Either one is good. But the thread as it stands does need to change.

Best, Ron

See post halfway down regarding use of statistics in a design I've got in progress. It's related to that.

If the only two options for discussion threads are "I am doing this, feedback it" or "I had a game experience where"  . . . it seems there's a pretty massive gap in between where a lot of things which are completely valid to RPG design just fall through.

Not to slam on anyone's venerable institutions, but are you sure you're doing it right?

There is in essence no location on the Forge forums where people can discuss design considerations in abstract? It seems like historically that was more the case, otherwise where would things like GNS, etc. come from?

I guess I just seriously miss the point of a forum dedicated to RPG design that doesn't actually support talking unless it's on a concrete design. Oh well.

Mathew wrote:
Which I take to mean that capturing a cliche and repurposing it is perfectly reasonable design strategy.

What about this, folks:

Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

Are these design cliches? Do we avoid them? (I'll admit to having a document in my design folder in which not a single one of these words exists, yet I'm outlining player attributes . . . and their absence was intentional.)

Hi Mathew,

Mathew wrote:
There is in essence no location on the Forge forums where people can discuss design considerations in abstract? It seems like historically that was more the case, otherwise where would things like GNS, etc. come from?

The chart was more of a catalyst. Something to use as an exaggerated example of how there are conventions which we rely upon, or deliberately eschew. I work better with illustration. I think in metaphor. Apparently those things don't mix well with the structure laid out here. That's fine, I'm not in charge.

Since you asked, here's the listing of potential ability scores which I drafted for a fantasy-genre game (order is random):

Aptitude
Might
Fidelity
Resilience
Celerity
Acumen
Insight
Finesse
Tenacity

Note that none of these follow the "big six" as set forth by D&D. It's an example of me deliberately steering clear of that design cliche, while still maintaining the element of attributes for that system.

Hence the line of discussion asking people if it's worth steering clear of things, or going the other way and fully embracing them. Or just studiouly ignoring the fact that they are cliches.

Hence the line of discussion asking people if it's worth steering clear of things, or going the other way and fully embracing them. Or just studiouly ignoring the fact that they are cliches.

The problem being that I'm more interested in general thoughts than I am in ones that are super specific.

I totally appreciate the fact that you're taking the time to point these considerations out, and I agree with them. It does matter what you are trying to do.

But my queries have to do with what other people think about it. I'd imagine it's possible that someone has taken the stance (like I did in designing the attribute conventions in my example) that you want to strive to avoid anthing which points too heavily towards a popular system. I can also imagine that it is equally viable for someone to have said, "I'm not going OGL, but I'm going to use as many familiar concepts as possible anyway." Considering you can't copyright a lot of things, you can get pretty damned close to D&D (or any other system for that matter) just by going for very familiar naming conventions and mechanical flows.

Originally (when drafting this attribute section) I was leaning one direction. Upon further consideration I began to question if it was necessary. This started me thinking. The original image cropped up elsewhere, and I co-opted it as an example which highlighted the train of thought I was running along.

So, that's how I got here. For me it's less about what I am doing with a subset of mechanics (one of any number I've been kicking around) and more about the philosophy. (Which is why I think there's a piece of the puzzle missing, because games and their design start before "first thoughts" and have a lot more that goes into them before they get to "playtesting" and that ephemeral layer follows on, influencing things until we reach "actual play" . . . Again, just my opinion. Since there's not that fourth forum, I'll just skirt around those issues by "cleverly" disguising any rebellious, seditious, tripe in the future. ;)

So, in short: agreed that these questions relate directly to the treatment of specific games. However I also believe they may be more deeply ingrained in the design philosophies of specific designers, and one may lean more towards one side or the other.

Mathew wrote:
I'd imagine it's possible that someone has taken the stance (like I did in designing the attribute conventions in my example) that you want to strive to avoid anthing which points too heavily towards a popular system. I can also imagine that it is equally viable for someone to have said, "I'm not going OGL, but I'm going to use as many familiar concepts as possible anyway."

The amusing thing about Chris' post being that I'm halfway violating god knows how many of his guidelines as we speak, and perfectly happy and comfortable doing so. :) (I also have a fairly unusual set of life circumstances. I'd suspect that as general guidelines for the majority of people looking at designing a game they're extremely valid!)

But it's a very good piece indeed. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it. :)

The "why" is not solely up to me though . . . which was kind of my point.

I get that people are really focused on what a game is to the designer, but that doesn't mean there's no space for discussion of differing viewpoints. For example: has anyone else actually consciously sat down and asked the question "do I want to avoid/embrace x because it's present in y" . . . ? Really, I'd love to know how many people actually have considered it in the past.

Thus for my why, for example, I might have "avoid association with a specific brand" as a motivation for blatantly designing my way around the attributes question. Someone else might also design around them, but for the completely different reason of wanting to "offer an intricate system which meshes better with reality" . . .

So yes, indeed . . . why? But for everyone that's different. And I'd love to know what considerations go in. My answer for the record breaks down to something like: "the use of design elements which directly conjure up associations with a specific product should be mitigated when possible, but homage to a genre of products or a set of mechanical conventions is acceptable."

Something I have noticed to be honest: the cliche in answers around the Forge is very much "what does it mean to you" or "how does it relate to your game" . . . not entirely unhealthy, mind you, to be thinking along these lines. However, it's not like every single person who comes along is aimless, drifting along, and in need of the basic advice of making a plan for a design and considering it as a whole. (Nor does everyone work identically! Some people will work better when they start with an outline, others with a short story, others need to get a mechanic down.) "Is my system good," may certainly be met with that kind of response, but when someone is asking a question of game design philosophy and technique as opposed to specific mechanics, it (to my thinking at least) might deserve a bit more considered response than "well what do you think" . . . (I can pay a shrink to ask me that for an hour! :) )

It's this diversity that I am curious about. Not because I am unsure of how I want to proceed, but because I am a naturally curious kind of guy, and am interested in what others may see in any case, when looking at a certain issue like the one I've brought up regarding the use of either mechanics or story elements which have been "beaten to death" via popular familiarity or repetition.

Who's your target market, then?

I don't grasp the question being asked. In reference to the aforementioned system with the various "non D&D" attributes, the answer would be "experienced" role-playing gamers. Or was the question on a wider scale? :)

If the target market for your game is experienced gamers, there's no reason anymore to stick close to D&D in the way you design anything. They already have D&D. They don't need it again, and if they happen to want it again, well, that market is already well served.

Which would be a reason why I stepped away from the D&D paradigm for attributes, yes. :)

You didn't step all that far away. Several of your proposed new stats are just the old ones renamed. Experienced gamers will not be fooled by this. To know what your stats should really be, you will in fact need to base that decision on the overall design goals of the game.

See, your goal is to set up a company - that means you need strong product. If you want strong product you need to make sure that every part of your design is backing up every other part. This recurring question of what the larger context of the game is, it's not some airy-fairy distraction; it's the foundation of your first product and hence of your company.

Making the assumption that my goal for the company is to publish only my own work.  Which it arguably isn't.

Which probably explains why I am much more interested in what others think.  After all, if you're not being self-absorbed and constantly thinking about your own personal babies, it's a lot easier to help other people with theirs.

I'm a ways off being able to really explain what it is that we're doing. But suffice it to say that I'm absolutely NOT worried about the specifics of what THE product will be . . . because there is no THE product.

As for the design influence on the stats mechanic, it wasn't D&D. It was however a fairly venerable game.

I'm not making an attempt with that design (note I say that design because I am not working on "the one true game") to be modern and hip and trendy using all the latest awesomesauce that makes people ask why not just make it an AW hack. (Go go Vincent, that's really cool.) Instead with that specific design there is a definite "classic" appeal. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Attributes with numbers attached that influence how well you perform is a pretty old convention, after all. :)

In any case, I appreciate the "here, look, this is why you need to know" type of vibe your post has. But the fact is that my original point revolved around the "what to do" as a general concept, and has sadly all too little to do with any one of my designs. The tree you are barking up is perhaps not the droid you were looking for? :)

"What to do" is not a general concept.

And not to moderate, but the Forge is a design workshop. If a design isn't on the table to work on, then maybe you should ask questions in the Publishing subforum.

If you read the thread you'd see it's already been moderated . . .

In your estimation you cannot generalize, fine. I don't happen to agree with you. I think that every single day decisions involving consumer markets are made which revolve around generalizations. *shrug*

If you don't like it that I'm attempting to poll for opinions on what use design cliches have in our work, let the thread die. You're the only one responding to it right now, right?

But if you're going to respond, try to respond to the subject at hand. Which, amazingly, is NOT what I am doing, but rather a question which arose as I was designing.

In my eyes: directly related to design. Not yours? Don't post. :P

Enough already. Everyone who's replied, this isn't a discussion; you're being used for ego points.

Mathew, this thread hasn't gone anywhere except for you to give yourself public credit for various things. You're now being discourteous despite several people's attention, respect, and time. It's closed now. Further posts to it will be sent to the Inactive File.

It's your choice. Posture and chalk points onto your personal scoreboard, or post here according to the topics and standards of the site. No skin off my ass either way.

Best, Ron