Hello again!

I'm not sure where this thread belong but I will post it in the RPG Theory forum!

I would like to know how everybody design there games. What I mean it's do you design your games as a player or as a gamemaster?

Personally, I design my game the way I master them not the way I necessarily play them. When I play a game as a player I adapt my style of play to the "gamemaster" and to the rules of the game but when I master a game I generally adapt the system to be fast and story oriented.

When I "design" a game or a rule system I always think about it at a gamemaster level, not at a player level. Anybody doing it at a player level?

It might not be an interesting post but it was something I wanted to share!

Patrick

Hello Patrick, welcome to the Forge,

Patrick Boutin wrote: I would like to know how everybody design there games. What I mean it's do you design your games as a player or as a gamemaster?

Why did I ask? Good question! I really don't know! Just to try to see game design from another point of vue!

I'm not looking for advice or anything like that with this post (I will ask for advice this weekend for the "fantasy" game that i'm trying to make) and I know that there is no "best" way.

If we're talking about rpg than we necessarily talking about "players" and "referee". If a game doesn't have a refere than maybe we're talking about theater or "improvisation". Can a player, I mean somebody that never master a game, design a game?!?!

When you designe a game do you take a player and a master approch or are you just "designing" a game? Can you design a game that you won't master?!

I know that games are made with the player and the master in mind but can you design a simulationist (or gamist, or narrativist) game if you can't master it?

Maybe my explications are not good enough (sorry, but i try to do my best with my poor english!!)

Patrick

ps: Ron or Clinton can you delete this thread?!?! Finally, I think that it was a waste of time and a waste of space to go with this thread. I will try to best put my ideas together and maybe come back later with another post.

Hi, Patrick.

Welcome to The Forge.

I'm not sure what you are writing about. Here's my interpretations of your questions:

If a RPG game system doesn't have a referee or games master, is it a roleplaying game?

Can a player of a RPG design a game?

Can a RPG designer design a game they won't play?

Can a player design a RPG that doesn't require a referee or games master?

My answer would be "yes" to all the above. :)

If I've misunderstood the questions, feel free to explain some more or give some examples.

Hi Pat,

I'm also not clear on it, so let me know if I'm off mark here....

Is what you're asking, "When you design, do you do it from the viewpoint of a GM or a player?"

If this is what you're asking, I always come from the viewpoint of a player. If its not a game I would want to play, then its not a game I want to make, or run.

Chris

Hi Pat,

Well, no threads or posts are deleted on the Forge. And perhaps we can all work together to make this a strong one for others to read later.

Your basic question is actually a very good one. I am convinced that the bulk of role-playing games are written under the assumption that the only person actually to read the book is going to be the GM.

(Side note: actually, not all role-playing games use one game-master. But let's stick with the traditional model for purposes of this discussion.)

I also think that this assumption reduces the chances that the game will actually be played.

Any thoughts on this point, anyone?

Best,
Ron

Hmm. The way you make it sound, Patrick, it seems that you are creating in a "reactive" way. Perhsps it's just miscommunication, but it sounds like you are creating games by looking at what didn't go right for you as a GM, and trying to "fix" those problems so that you'll never have to GM through them again. If I misread you, then you may want to restate what your saying about the GM perspective of design (and ignore the following).

If this is what you are talking about, I can only say that I think that its a common, and really bad, way to design games. That is, a game should be designed from the ground up, from first principles, to do what your design goals demand. And a goal should never be to "fix" something broken. Because to do so is to start with potentially flawed assumptions in the first place.

Chuck the baggage, and start fresh. Otherwise what you get is another "Improved D&D" or something similar. See the Fantasy Heartbreaker essay for more on why this is just not useful.

Mike

Ok. I will try to make it "constructive" for everybody and I will try to answer to every posts.

Andrew:

Hi Andrew.

You answered yes to all the question you've mentionned. But I can't answer yes to all of them.

For me the referee or game master is a necessity. We have, here in Quebec (I think that it has been discuss before on The Forge), a sort of game that we call "Improvisation". In this game, two team make a story around a specific subject. They (all the players) interact together around the subject trying to do the best possible story. No referee. No Dice. If you don't have a referee thant you don't need rules? Just my opinion. I know that I may be off the track with this one

That was one of my questions: can we design games only from a "player" point of vue? Probably, but I'm not really sure. Can we design "rules" without having a referee's mind?

Why designing a game that you won't play? If it's your day job and it bring bread on your table than I can understand but as an indie game designer you can really design games that you won' play?

Do you have some examples of games that don't recquire referee? I would like to put my hands on some of them just to see how they implement this.


Bankuei:

Hi Bankuei.

Yes, it's practically what I'm asking. What everybody have to keep in mind it's that players and the referee play the game not only the players. They don't have the same "role" (players and referee) but they all play the game. What I'm trying to say (or to ask as a question) is that creating game from only a player point of vue has not the same implications as creating it from a player-referee point of vue? Is it ok to think that way?

Ron:

Hi Ron.

Yes Ron, you have it. If we assume that the only person that will read the book is the GM then is it ok to assume that we design it as a GM?

Why is it reducing the chances the game will be played? Not really sure here. If you're only a player and you never "master" a game (if we stick with the traditionnal model) why even bother to read the game? Wait for the master to explain it to you (I would say that it's generally what is happening). You only need some background about the setting and the character creation section or maybe you just need D20, the player handbook and, as a player, will never need anything else. Here, Ron, don't misinterpret my comments. It's not directed at you but it's a general comment about the "thought" you're asking.


Mike:

Yes and no Mike. I don't think that I'm creating on a "reactive" way but... maybe yes. Hard to explain. Designing a game is not a "reaction" to what has not been done? and to what that has not been done right? (to a certain point)

I'm not trying to fix anything. I start from scratch and try to do the best game I can do. Not necessarily focusing on part of other games that didn't work for me but trying to make a game that will work for me.. as a GM. If it's ok as a GM it will be ok as a player.

If you don't like hit point in D&D you will surely not put hit point in the game you are designing. Is it fixing D&D? Not necessarily.


Wow. That was a long one. Just hope that it will help getting something from this thread.

Patrick

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Pat,

Your basic question is actually a very good one. I am convinced that the bulk of role-playing games are written under the assumption that the only person actually to read the book is going to be the GM.

Any thoughts on this point, anyone?

Hi Patrick,

I think you'll do well at the Forge. It's important to all of us that we are debating ideas, not attacking or defending ourselves personally, and your post shows that you share this ideal.

Let's take a game text that is written very clearly for the game master (GM). A player who picks it up will have a hard time finding material written for his or her viewpoint; whenever the text uses "you," it refers to the GM.

Of all the people who buy it, and remember that people buy games because they're read the advertising or because it has a good cover, how many will play it? Only the ones who are already designated as the GM for a group.

Now let's compare a game text that's written very clearly for both the GM and players. It presents examples from either perspective and makes the expectations for each one clear, without writing just to one or the other.

In this case, of all the people who buy it, nearly all of them can potentially play. The player might be excited about the game and give it to the GM of that group. The GM of the group might be excited.

In other words, I think that writing a game text so that it can be understood and enjoyed by anyone, regardless of GM or player, will increase the chances of actually playing the game.

Best,
Ron

Patrick Boutin wrote:

If we assume that the only person that will read the book is the GM then is it ok to assume that we design it as a GM?

Why is it reducing the chances the game will be played? Not really sure here. If you're only a player and you never "master" a game (if we stick with the traditionnal model) why even bother to read the game?

There is some debate over whether or not games that have no GM are RPGs. But I can assure you that there are such games that have lots of rules, and with good reason.

For that matter, why does an RPG with a GM need rules?

Mike

VERY good question (topic). I write from the GMs perspective, I think. I find this to be infinitelley inferior, becasuse of several reasons.

First: Premise. Premise; premise! Premise!!! RPGs should be designed so that the group has fun in the game. This includes every one. However, GM-centric design would probably focus greatly on the mechanics and how you run the game, not on what you actually do. It's just the how/what you do argument.

Second: Let us look at the conventional definitions shall we?

play·er Pronunciation Key (plr)
n.
One that plays, especially:
One who participates in a game or sport.
A gambler.
One who performs in theatrical roles.
One who plays a musical instrument.
An active participant: a major player in world affairs.
The mechanism actuating a player piano.
A machine that reproduces recorded audio or audiovisual material.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

n.
1. One that has control over another or others.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Hi Eric,

Your post is very interesting, because many folks here at the Forge (myself and Vincent in particular) consider the concept of the "GM" to be a sub-set or type of "player." This is because Premise exists as a manifestation of the Social Contract, not as an "owned" item or quality for which only one person is responsible.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Here's a great thread about it: Players, players, I can't stand it any more, although I've failed to follow my own advice very well since then.

Patrick Boutin wrote: For me the referee or game master is a necessity. We have, here in Quebec (I think that it has been discuss before on The Forge), a sort of game that we call "Improvisation". In this game, two team make a story around a specific subject. They (all the players) interact together around the subject trying to do the best possible story. No referee. No Dice. If you don't have a referee thant you don't need rules? Just my opinion. I know that I may be off the track with this one

I think there is a degree to which you have to design at least the core mechanics of the game system from the perspective of how do I run this game? You might as well ask this: if you're writing the rules of baseball, do you write them for the player or the umpire? Certainly in that case the player needs to know them; but it is in essence the umpire for whom they are written. He has to be able to recognize when something is illegal; he has to be able to identify foul and fair balls, balls and strikes, force and non-force plays, and whatever else the game requires. When it comes to a moment in which the players are not certain of the outcome, the umpire--the referee in that game world--steps in and gives his ruling based on the rules as written.

The players in that case would do well to learn the rules, because they have to play by them; but the umpires have to know them far better than the players, so in that sense the rules have to be written with the umpire in mind.

It is even more pronounced in role playing games. As a player, I don't really need to know my precise chance of success at doing anything in the game. If I've got a rough idea that some things are easier and others more difficult, when it comes down to the moment in which I have to roll I can rely on the referee to make that determination. But the rules have to provide the referee with whatever level of guidelines are required for that game, whether it's a chart or a set of clear modifiers or a way to derive a target number. Thus in that sense the rules must be written more for the referee than for the players.

It has been my experience that this is how most people approach most games, to a lesser degree. When we learn to play a new board or trivia or similar game, one of us reads the rules and then tells everyone else how to play. If there's a question or problem during play regarding how we're supposed to resolve something, the person who read the rules either gives the answer as he understands it or goes back and finds it in the rules. In that case the "referee" is a much less distinct position than in role playing games (and it is more common in those cases for someone else to look at the rules and give their opinion of what they mean). But it is rare that we will all read the rules to a game, or that anyone will read them aloud for all to hear. Much easier to have one person familiarize himself with the game and explain it to everyone else, and then be responsible for overseeing how it goes at least while everyone else learns it.

At the same time, I think that if you are writing rules "from the perspective of the referee", you need to be asking the right questions. Those aren't really "how do I make a game that I can run more easily", but rather "how can I design rules which will facilitate the kind of play my players will enjoy?" Given this priority, there is a sense in which the referee's perspective is the players' perspective: you are attempting to explain to the referee how to give the players what they want.

I design games and game materials and I write articles and books; that's pretty much what I do at present. I designed board games before I knew anything about role playing games, and I also design card games. There aren't a lot of kinds of games I don't play and enjoy (although I really really hate Canasta, largely because I keep getting creamed by my wife and her friends who are horribly cutthroat and brilliant players). But I could certainly design a game I wouldn't particularly want to play. I might do it because I'm trying to provide something for an audience that excludes me, such as a game for children which I would not find interesting or challenging but they would find quite enjoyable. Similarly, I've become involved in designing a wrestling-based game world although I don't care at all for professional entertainment wrestling, because someone I know needs help making it work (he's not a game designer, but has some good ideas for how to make this one fly). I'm told that Toon was designed merely to prove that it could be done, and I can relate to that idea--designing a game purely to test one's own ability to do it, even if it's not something I would play. It is a lot harder to evaluate the merits of such a game (because right off it's something you don't like, so how can you tell whether anyone would like it?), but there are reasons for doing it.

The idea that writing the game for both players and referee is interesting; there is some merit to the idea. How often does that happen? Does anyone really know, personally, situations in which someone has come with a game and said, "I was looking at this, and I'd like you to run it?" I've come close twice that I recall. Once was that I was given the AD&D2E Viking Handbook and asked by a player if he could bring a Trollborn Runecaster into my OAD&D campaign (I agreed). The other was from someone running a 3E game who wanted me to learn to run 3E so I could run some adventures for his players (I have not come up with a good reason to waste my time learning that system yet, but that wasn't it). In neither case was this a matter of a player finding a game he liked and asking me to run it; and I haven't seen it elsewhere. I have seen roleplaying games as gifts, but again these either 1) are the games requested by the person who is going to run them or 2) are a surprise which may or may not ever see the light of day as a game in play.

Multiverser expressly states that the rules are for the referee. We have often thought of creating a player's edition, but there would be nothing in it that doesn't also belong in the referee's book (how could there be rules the referee didn't need to know? It's a bit redundant), and there isn't really that much a player needs to know or even should know before play begins but what he already knows. Even though the rules are for the referee, their function is to facilitate play for the players, by giving the referee the tools needed to accomplish that.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: Does anyone really know, personally, situations in which someone has come with a game and said, "I was looking at this, and I'd like you to run it?"

Ron Edwards wrote: In other words, I think that writing a game text so that it can be understood and enjoyed by anyone, regardless of GM or player, will increase the chances of actually playing the game.

Mike Holmes wrote: For that matter, why does an RPG with a GM need rules?

Pyron wrote: Now. If a player is a participant, would not that make the GM a player as well? Now if master is a controller, would that not make a player a master (to a lesser degree) as well? So, now you can say that I'm not using definitions in the context of the genre. Well, true BUT... You must look at how these words can be linked whithin the context of the question because gamemaster has been the controller in traditional roles and the player the participator. From whose perspective do you make a game? The controller or the participater? Rule documentation is seconded by the application of the rules themselves

Andrew Martin wrote: Here's an alternative. Two players get together and want to play a wargame. They decide on a general setting "Let's have a World War 2 wargame set on the Eastern Front!"; the agreed rules "WRG's 1950 - 2000 OK with you? OK!"; the amount of forces on each side "Say, 2,000 points? I'd like about 2,500? OK!"; and the type of forces "I've got German and Russian miniatures? I've only got Russian stuff. OK, I'm German and you're Russian."; and a time/place, "next weekend at 1:00PM at my house? OK!". Next weekend, the players get together, setting up and playing their game. They refer to the WRG rules and resolve disputes according to the rules in the WRG rules book, along with any agreed upon house rules. The game finishes, with a winner and a looser or a draw each. In the wargame, was there a need for a referee or GM?

Now consider a skirmish game, where each player is in charge of one or several miniatures, and the players are using a good skirmish wargame rule set. Does the skirmish wargame require a referee or GM?

Now consider a RPG ruleset for a gamist RPG like AD&D and suddenly we need a GM? Doesn't this imply that there could be something a little odd about the rules? :)

"gamist RPG like ad&d"...

This simply means that the game's rules make it easier to run and play in a Gamist manner rather then in one of the other modes. You're entirely right that the players bring their own priorities to the game, but it's also valid to say that a game can be designed with priorities in mind.

Patrick Boutin wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: For that matter, why does an RPG with a GM need rules?

Good question Mike. Maybe because it's what that make the difference between RPG and just storytelling with a person who runs the "main" story. It's what that keep the "game" to RPG. Anybody else have comments on that one?

Mike Holmes wrote: Most people here feel that "freeform" or mechanic-less play with a GM is an RPG. But again, who cares about the definitions. You aren't saying that if it's not an RPG, it's not worth doing, are you? Then by this definition that game they play that you described would not be worth doing.

No, the answer to the question is that structure has it's own value (and problems, admittedly). As such, some people desire it. And as such, you can play a game that's like an RPG with rules, and with no GM. I (and Ralph Mazza) have published such a game, so I'm pretty sure it's true.

Patrick Boutin wrote: Again I have to go with a question:if it's like an rpg is it an rpg? De facto, what is an rpg? Different people... different views I suppose! What's the name of the game that you have published? Where can I find it? I really would like to read it to see with what you've come with. Maybe it can help me see something different and help me stop thinking by the old model.

Le Joueur wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: Does anyone really know, personally, situations in which someone has come with a game and said, "I was looking at this, and I'd like you to run it?"

I can't remember the last time this didn't happen....They give me settings, I run them. They give me movies, I run them. They give me television shows, I run them. It comes from our work on playing 'systemless' and bad habits formed there. Internally, I often work with things I've come up with as Emergent Techniques for Scattershot, but ultimately they come to me and say 'can you run this?'

Patrick

I read through the thread and thought I would address some of your basic assumptions/ideas. My first question is have you read through my, admittedly dense and possibly arcane SGR post? You can find it at

the SGR Model - Adding the 4th dimension to GNS (LONG)


It promulgates many "answers" to questions you bring up in this thread.

First, in that article I propose the following idea.

RPGs must be designed with an explicit understanding of the distrubition of power among the participants, and that explicit understanding must be conveyed to the participants via the games language. Second, the fundamental focus of an RPG is character, and the games language must provide the means for Character to be constructed such that it is primary means to engage in each mode of play.

M. J. Young wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: Does anyone really know, personally, situations in which someone has come with a game and said, "I was looking at this, and I'd like you to run it?"

I can't remember the last time this didn't happen....They give me settings, I run them. They give me movies; I run them. They give me television shows; I run them. It comes from our work on playing 'systemless' and bad habits formed there. Internally, I often work with things I've come up with as Emergent Techniques for Scattershot, but ultimately they come to me and say 'can you run this?'

Sorry, Fang; that's not exactly what I meant. I get that all the time, too--"Could you run The Postman, I'd like to drop into a World of Darkness setting, it would be cool to be a ninja". What has never happened to me is no one has ever brought me a game system and asked if I could run it.

M. J. Young wrote: They bring me supplements for games I do run,

M. J. Young wrote: If you do--if people bring games to you to run because they think the game looks cool and want to play that game (not just "a setting like this")--then I guess Ron is right about writing games that will catch player interest.

On the other hand, that seems a bit like trying to include your promotional materials in the text. Wouldn't it be better to write good advertising copy that would make players want to play a game, and not include it in the game book itself?

O.K., let me see if I can put context to this.

I believe it was Ron who suggested that game rules books ought to be written to grab the attention of players, that they might get the game and take it to a referee to run. That, to my mind, means that someone might pick up Sorcerer, or Multiverser, or Little Fears, on the shelf of a book store or game store, page through it a bit, and say, "I'd really like to play it, I'm going to buy it and get Fang to run it for me."

Now, that's foreign to my experience. I have been running games since 1980, and can probably count on my fingers the number of different game systems I have actually run. In every case, I decided I wanted to run the game, I went out and found the game, and I ran it. In one case, I chose to run it because I'd read about it in an article that was not about playing games at all, but about using role playing games in psych therapy. In most cases, I had played the game at some time, and decided I liked it and wanted to run it. There is one game in my house that no one has ever run; it was a gift from someone who doesn't play with us because he doesn't live close enough, and who chose the game because he was involved in its production, not because he had ever played it (I don't know whether he has or not). I might run it some time; but that's not the same thing as a player bringing a game to me and asking me to run it.

All of your examples seem to be about someone bringing you setting material and asking you to do a game with it. I don't care to argue whether Multiverser or Scattershot is a better tool for this, or whether I could as easily create a game for a particular setting. The point of Ron's statement was that a game system book should be written in such a way that a person would buy it who intended to play but not run it, to be given to someone else. The idea that someone wants to play a movie setting or a cartoon or video game setting or a book is not relevant to this (and I do that all the time). Ron's point was (if I grasped it) that there was a sense in which we would sell more copies of Multiverser and Scattershot if the rule books themselves were written so that players would pick them up, find they were written to appeal to players, and buy them to give to their referees to run the game. My response was that this doesn't happen to me, at least, and I don't know anyone to whom it does happen.

But then, I was out of college before role playing games rose to my attention (quite remarkable, really, since we were avid gamers, buying Avalon Hill stuff and subscribing to Games Magazine) so I don't really know too much about what high school and college role playing groups are like. (I ran games for a very large mostly high school group in my home; but they never asked me to run anything but D&D and later Multiverser, and those because they knew I knew them.)

As for the last comment about writing good advertising copy, that too was addressed to the issue Ron raised, in this sense: if I read something on the web, or in a game magazine, or another magazine, that itself should make me want to play the game and ask my referee if he would run it. If I'm not getting people to make that buy decision until they happen to pick up the book in the store, I'm really putting my promotional efforts in the wrong place if I try to sell them in the text. They should already know they want to buy my game before they get there. That's not to say it's a bad idea to write a game book that is interesting to people who happen to pick it up; it just doesn't seem to me that the best place to promote the book is in the book.

--M. J. Young

Hi M.J.,

I think you've mis-read me a little, or maybe I wasn't clear enough.

1) I don't think hardly anyone "picks up" a game and then their interest is or isn't sparked. I agree that the interest has to be there first. However, I do think that the decision to try to play comes upon interacting with the text (positing that we're talking about someone and a book, not other means of learning about a game like chit-chat).

2) I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of "giving it to the GM," which you repeat a couple of times. That's kind of a highly formalized now-do-this interpretation of what I'm trying, probably badly, to say.

I'm talking about a group of people who might, in the fullness of time, role-play with one another. The traditional view is that the only one of them who brings a game up as a possibility is the person who is probably going to GM the game. Surely it's not hard to see that the frequency of this event is going to be limited. In many cases, that's the same person every same, in which case the frequency goes down further.

Compare instead a group in which anyone, regardless of whether he or she plans to GM the game, can bring a game book to the group and say, "Hey, check this out, you play like thus-and-such," and be heard with full attention and with the possibility of play just as high as if the GM had brought it.

This is a Social Contract issue as well as a game text issue, of course. But since this thread is about the game text, my point is that I'd like to see more texts written to turn on role-players, with the player-GM distinction being accounted for, rather than one or the other being exclusively catered to.

Best,
Ron

Mea culpa on the notion of "giving it to the referee"; that was an extrapolation on my part. In my original gaming group, we generally each picked up games we wanted to run for the others to play. If someone brought a new game to the group, it was always "I bought this, I thought you guys might like to play it, so I'm reading up so I can run it." The other major group was more focused on "this guy has run this game before, let's get him to run it for us". The idea of someone bringing a new game to a gaming group outside the context of the expectation that they would run it was what seemed alien to me.

Then again, I'm a lot more utilitarian in my approach to game books. To me, the book is about providing the tools to play (which certain must often include some illustration of what play is like). I'm curious about what sort of text might particularly inspire players to want to play the game; or perhaps more specifically, how does one incorporate such a thing into game text? (This incidentally sounds like a new thread; but rather than start the thread with the question I'll let you consider whether there's an answer.)

I note that Multiverser's first chapter begins with three short paragraphs which describe something of the feeling and concept of the game; this might be the sort of thing you mean. I also note that many games get slammed for large quantities of "game fiction", which would seem in some sense to be exactly the sort of text that is included to attempt to spark player interest (although Wick's OrkWorld has been praised for its use thereof). I recall that you recently commented that you are using such fiction in a forthcoming work, and wonder if that is the sort of thing you mean. What do you have in mind on this?

--M. J. Young

Hi M.J.,

This must be free-association day at the Forge; a whole bunch of recent posts seem to wander about internally lately. Anyway.

You're bringing up quite a variety of things to talk about, but I'd like to focus on the topic of the thread. People seem to be bringing way way more unspoken assumptions to the discussion than I'd imagined possible.

You wrote,
"In my original gaming group, we generally each picked up games we wanted to run for the others to play. If someone brought a new game to the group, it was always "I bought this, I thought you guys might like to play it, so I'm reading up so I can run it." The other major group was more focused on "this guy has run this game before, let's get him to run it for us". The idea of someone bringing a new game to a gaming group outside the context of the expectation that they would run it was what seemed alien to me."

Right. Exactly. Why should it be alien? Since I essentially re-invented the entire Social Contract of role-playing for myself and anyone I've played with since 1996, concepts like this one have become, to me, like the big-eyed alien going "meep meep." I can't begin to understand why such a thing is taken as a given (any more).

Currently, exactly what you describe happens all the time in my groups. But you'll also see: "Hey, what are we playing next?" "I'm thinking of Game X." "Cool. Did you plan to run it?" "Actually, I always wanted to play it. Can you check it out and see if you want to run it?" NB that player vs. GM is meaningless in this group as a constant thing; all of us have GM'ed with this group at one point or another. In my other main group, it's more centered on me as GM, but that's begun to re-shape itself recently as well (at last).

Or: "Did you ever read Game X?" "No, I just heard about it." "Well, it's totally your type of game. Borrow my copy, see if you want to run it." Add to all of this a constant lending of game texts across the group, with constant discussion about them being part of our conversations before and after play of whatever game we're playing at the moment.

One of the predictable side effects of such a Social Contract/Context for play is that habitual-players get interested in GMing, and habitual-GMs get interested in playing characters.

Best,
Ron

Usually, I try to use my Signature RPG metasystem, which seems to generate nice Sim games that I like.

First I ask myself, "What's the setting like? What Traits are required?'

Then I go down the list of parts needed in an RPG. Social Contract? Check. Character generation? Check. GM's section? Check. And so on.

Then I go back through it and run some thought experiments, as well as making sure everything is covered. For example, in Horus I found the Tut-Ankh (patron god, essentially) section was not there.

To me, octaNe is precisely the sort of game that Ron is talking about. I picked it up, I read it, and I said to my friend Mike, "Hey, Mike, I want you to run this game. I don't want to run it, I want to play it, because I have this really cool character idea." (Alas, he hasn't. Maybe someday he will.)

So it does happen.

Ok, enough lurking, I actually have a somewhat strong opinion on this topic.

To return to the original question:

I would like to know how everybody design there games. What I mean it's do you design your games as a player or as a gamemaster?

Personally, I design my game the way I master them not the way I necessarily play them. When I play a game as a player I adapt my style of play to the "gamemaster" and to the rules of the game but when I master a game I generally adapt the system to be fast and story oriented.

When I "design" a game or a rule system I always think about it at a gamemaster level, not at a player level. Anybody doing it at a player level?

cruciel wrote: I think that if a GM is part of your game's design you have to keep the GM's ability to create a story in your setting in mind, or your game will be fundamentally dysfunctional. For example, if the setting of your game is geared towards mystery stories including moderately powerful "view the past" type abilities in your magic system (or devices) will hinder the ability of the GM to craft the prefered type of story in your setting (without cheaping the players out of their cool stuff and adding the greatest bane to effective play - frustration).

Hi, Cruciel.
Welcome to The Forge!

Just a thought about powers like divination and mind reading; what about if the players were given the power to describe what their characters find on a successful use of their power? Sure, an uncooperative player could shortcircuit the plot straight away, but the player could equally as well put extra complications into the plot.