Greetings,

Hope you all had a good holiday season.

That said, there was another thread here in which I was hoping to get some feedback about what other gamers thought about certain underlying game mechanics. Alas, as if often wont with good discussions, the topic sort of wandered a bit into more philosophical context than pure rule mechanics discussion. Quite interestingly so at times, too.

But there are a few fine points, if I may, I'd like to try and get your feedback on. So, to preface, in summation, and to use other gignormous words that I don't otherwise get a chance to...

What makes a game world playable?

Note I don't mean the game system itself, but the game world.

There is a distinction, IMO.

For instance from a purely rules stand point one might ask: Are Priests and Clerics merely "magic users" who must obey strict rules other spell wielding characters don't have to?

Of course if you are playing a different sort of game world, perhaps one whose setting doesn't allow for such character types, that may be a moot question.

Also some systems use their own internal methods to simulate certain affects. For instance the D&D family of games uses alignment. Yet, at times, one has to wonder if it is really necessary at all. After all what the D&D system mechanic of alignment was for, it seems, was to provide an method to allow the DM to properly reign in character types like the Priest/Cleric. Characters that have some archetypal need for codes of conduct and morality. This despite the fact most DMs probably didn't need to pay alignment much attention for any other PC type.

Of course some systems abandon such arbitrary mechanics for Piety, thus making the character's action directly linked to a personal skill. Of course such systems may also provide other mechanics such as Renown, for hero types, and Manna (ie: Magic/Spell Points) for other classes of spell caster.

But do such considerations really have any bearing on other characters, indeed on any other non-fantasy based RPG system?

When setting up a world what do you, as game author or game master, think about?

For that matter do you think game authors/game masters SHOULD bother thinking about what will effect the meta-game mechanic that defines the Game World?

I don't mean simulations of religion, or even religious organizations, political groups, or what not. But rather I am wondering what sorts of considerations are necessary for a good world mechanic to provide a fun setting?

For instance: Gamma World. It had mutants and super powers, yet it wasn't about super heroes. Yet it did have the "cleric" archetype, sort of, depending upon which edition of the game you had.

So what made it so much fun to play?

Was it the well developed world mechanic, the core rule system, or the fact it didn't have classes and alignment?

That’s the sort of think I’d like you to consider. In short: What is it that you think makes your favorite RPGs work for you?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that. With Sorcerer, this is answering the "Big Question" that the Premise asks of the players. In D&D, this is "Kill monsters, take their stuff and level up." In Magic, this is "Use a library of spells to reduce your opponent to 0 lives." What makes the game interesting are the various choices that the player makes along the way...either before the game even begins (building a deck, creating a character, choosing a "path") or during actual play.

So the question is, "What makes an RPG world work?"

Tell the players want you (the game designer) expect from them.

Give them the tools with which to fufill that goal.

Allow them the freedom to create their own tools or use existing tools in exciting new ways.

Don't pull a bait and switch ("This is what you do...No! Now THIS is what you do!").

Don't confine them to a single path (especially with an open-ended goal...then it turns into the dreaded, "You can do anything in this game...provided you do this thing, this way.").

I'm afraid that this topic only brings up the purely philisophical question of "What is a game world really? What do we mean or refer to when we say 'game world?'"

Sorry. That's all I've got.

O.K., I agree that there's a difference between what matters in a system and what matters in a game world. Obviously I create a lot of game worlds.

The starting point for me, I think, is what makes this game world interesting?. That is, why am I even bothering to make this? Once I know that, I know what it is that needs to be the focus of the materials.

For example, over on the Multiverser site we've got the free world Orc Rising. The central ideas here were something on this order: we're in a post fantasy world, in which magic is fading and probably won't play a part. Dwarfs are moving into mining and industry; humans are focused mostly on livestock and ranching and related fields such as leather; elves are expanding into communal agriculture. In the midst, in what these peoples would call the untamed wilds, live the orcs, tribal groups who war with each other. Of course, the "free peoples" are expanding their territories by "taming" the wild, cutting back the jungles for their use. In the process they encounter the orcs, people who have little or no concept of property rights beyond whether they are allowed to hunt and forage somewhere. The orcs are captured and "given the benefits of civilization" by enslaving them. This leads to growing conflict between orcs and the other peoples.

The interesting aspects here are that the "free peoples" don't see anything wrong with what they're doing; they have good reasons for everything they do. The orcs are indeed "primitive". But players will immediately see the injustice of the situation. At the same time, the orcs are primitive, and warlike; and the situation is pushing them toward war and evil. Many now believe that all humans, elves, and dwarfs must be killed to assure the survival of the orc race. Thus, it is the complexity of what people think and believe, and what they are doing because of it that made this world work; and that's where the focus of the material falls.

By contrast, we use to have a world posted called The New Ice Age. The interesting aspect of it was survival against the elements. It thus spent a great deal of time detailing what resources existed in the glaciated Northern Hemisphere, and how player characters could access these. There were people in that world--Innuits, primarily (it was set in North America)--but we didn't give much thought to the culture and religion of these people beyond how it related to their survival in the cold.

What makes a world interesting is whatever it is that interests you about it, usually. Sure, I've created worlds which I though would be interesting for one reason and the players were not interested in that and so sought some other focus for play; that just means that what interested me did not interest them, and I had to roll with what they wanted to do there. But ultimately, if you find a world interesting enough that you want to create it, there must be something about that world that interests you. If you can get to whatever that is and bring it forward, it will probably interest someone else.

--M. J. Young

Hey, all.

To expand a bit on something M.J. said, I think it all comes down to focus. That is, most game (or other ficitonal) worlds can be assumed to be (to the eyes of the characters in them) as complex as our world is to us. To the players, however, the world is relatively abstract, and only what is dramtically important to the game/story is detailed.

So, if I want to run a world where the focus is on the mythic clash between cultures (like Glorantha/Hero Wars), I'm going to want a lot of detail on how the characters interact with the mythic otherworld, and other details (like the specific details of crushing vs. chopping weapons against various armor types) can be glossed over.

On the other hand, if I want to play a game centered on political intrigue, a system that facilitates social interaction and various contacts would be better (actually, Hero Wars does that pretty well, too).

So I guess that the world mechanic I would look for would be one that:
--Allows me to zoom in on one aspect of the world without increasing the complexity across the board
--Allows in-focus aspects to work smoothly with out-of-focus areas (i.e., the game must change gears smoothly)

For example: In Hero Wars, the three resolution mechanics (Ability Check, Simple Contest, and Extended Contest) allow the GM and Players to put maximum play-time into the areas they're interested in and minimum time into what they're not. A group could have a social contract rule that important social interactions are always Extended Contests, and combats almost never are, if they want to emphasize intrigueing and minimize fighting.

You can't do that in D&D. The rules themselves place a very heavy emphasis on combat, glossing over a lot of other potential areas of action. Also, the magic system has certain fundamental assumptions that may not work within all settings.

Lon

Hi.

In terms of making a given RPG world interesting, and also giving a clear sense of "what you do is this," what do you all think about deliberately genre-breaking games, i.e. games where the point is to take a given genre and show its least savory sides?

One game I was briefly involved in, but discussed a lot with the GM afterwards, was set in the Tolkien universe, but the concept was that (1) the War of the Ring never happened, although Sauron disappeared anyway on his own, and (2) the Silmarillion was essentially Elvish propaganda. The rules were very straight AD&D, with alignments irregularly applied.

The orcs, for example, had a vaguely Nietzschean concept that Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth had put them into a hell-universe in order to make them tough, and now that both were gone it was up to particular orcs to become super-beings (not killers, but superior entities). The Elves were dangerous freaks, who considered themselves racially superior.

So there was a lot of play on race, obviously. Various Elvish types (and sympathizers) would go around exterminating orcs and other "lesser beings" and claiming that this was all inherently right because orcs were Chaotic Evil. The idea was to get the players to react with disgust, challenge the whole D&D alignment framework, and recognize that the most perfect paladins constructed (a bunch of Dunedain Elf-sympathizers) were essentially Gestapo death-squads.

I don't love this game, I want to say right now. But the idea was to make the genre interesting again by breaking it ethically, rather than mechanically.

What do you people think of this sort of thing, as an approach to world design?

Well, a game world needs conflict of some description (yes, I know, duh). For my mind, the best conflicts challenge what a character finds important, his loyalties and ethics, challenging so helps define the character as a developed individual, and also as a dramatic movement (I've found doing this often cuts away the excess stuff to leave a character as "crooked as an old man's cane" or whatever). Anyhow, providing these challenges gives the questions that help a player define his character however.

To this end, the best game world is one where the players have very well defined loyalties and values, and one where these are constantly threatened. To get this working as I wanted for my game Prespiate, I've found the best thing is a very small world, with a number of often opposing factions.

Small world, lots of valued people nearby, complex relationships due to the static nature of the players (can't just go to another town), the game world I'm after.

Oh, and guns make game worlds fun too :)

M. J. Young wrote:
The starting point for me, I think, is what makes this game world interesting?.

Thierry Michel wrote:

Quoting what I wrote:
The starting point for me, I think, is what makes this game world interesting?.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean, as opposed to a "book world", or do you mean, more generally, what makes a fantasy setting interesting ?

Greetings All,

Another semi-long one, hope you have munchies and soda at hand.

In reading over the posts I’ve been wondering where, how, what, and mainly if I had something meaningful to contribute. Well, I’m going to toss my marbles into the pool, and hope I don’t loose them all beneath the ripples.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that. With Sorcerer, this is answering the "Big Question" that the Premise asks of the players. In D&D, this is "Kill monsters, take their stuff and level up." In Magic, this is "Use a library of spells to reduce your opponent to 0 lives." What makes the game interesting are the various choices that the player makes along the way...either before the game even begins (building a deck, creating a character, choosing a "path") or during actual play.

M. J. Young wrote: If there's nothing about the world that is particularly interesting, nothing that grabs you and makes you say, this world is about this, then why are you wasting your time trying to create such a world? Use any generic world of the sort, and you'll save yourself a lot of work probably with better results. If you know what is interesting about the world you're creating, then pay attention to those details and don't waste a lot of effort on the ones that don't matter.

It's certainly different if you're working on an epic novel like Lord of the Rings. In that case, you really need a lot of background and detail, because your characters are going to explore them.

Uncle Dark wrote: To expand a bit on something M.J. said, I think it all comes down to focus. That is, most game (or other ficitonal) worlds can be assumed to be (to the eyes of the characters in them) as complex as our world is to us. To the players, however, the world is relatively abstract, and only what is dramtically important to the game/story is detailed.

nipfipgip...dip wrote: Well, a game world needs conflict of some description (yes, I know, duh). For my mind, the best conflicts challenge what a character finds important, his loyalties and ethics, challenging so helps define the character as a developed individual, and also as a dramatic movement (I've found doing this often cuts away the excess stuff to leave a character as "crooked as an old man's cane" or whatever). Anyhow, providing these challenges gives the questions that help a player define his character however

nipfipgip...dip wrote: To this end, the best game world is one where the players have very well defined loyalties and values, and one where these are constantly threatened. To get this working as I wanted for my game Prespiate, I've found the best thing is a very small world, with a number of often opposing factions.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Allow them the freedom to create their own tools or use existing tools in exciting new ways.

By world mechanics, I prsume we're talking about game mechanics that are partricular to a particular world, such as Alignment in D&D, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, Personality Traits in Pendragon. All these games have game mechanics for combat and interpersonal skills, but these partricular mechanics are novel to those games. (I think many of these mechanics are realy more to do with specific genre or sub-genre conventions than 'world' as such, but it's all the same thing from a game design point of view).

In general I find such mechanics usefull at first, but limiting in the long run. When I started playing Call of Cthulhu I thought SAn was a great idea and it helped focus the player and GM's attention on the mental state of the characters. If forces you to think about this factor. As such I think it's a usefull aid at first, but soon the limitations of such a mechanic can begin to grate. The SAN mechanic is a blunt instrument that many groups have modified heavily to suit themselves.

I think world mechanics have a place because they highlight areas of concern to the game designer, but ultimately I believe they should be kept flexible and limited in their effects.


Simon Hibbs

Kester Pelagius wrote: Greetings All,

Yes, but how much description should an author include?

I’ve look at a lot of games available for “free” online. Most start off by dumping pages of what are essentially short stories in your lap. (Can you say “eyes glazing over in disinterest”? I knew you could.) Short stories are fine, I have nothing against them, but IMO they have no place in a rule book. What’s more some of these “games” seem to be more concerned in presenting someone’s fiction that they are in presenting a game. I find this humorous, if understandable. After all I, too, have more short story MSS sitting around (the market is tight and there are hundreds of minnows in the waters) but would you want to suffer through them in a book that is suppose to be a game’s core rules manual?

Intrigue. Gotta love that, right?

Sure, eventually. But up front what you need is a thumbnail outline of what the game is, how it is played, and a page or two condensing character creation.

Then jump heedlessly into the explanations of why those sinister pepperoni stealing Shadow Grimlings live in giant five story mud brick pyramids they build in dank caverns two miles beneath the Oxford Fen, which just so happens to be beneath the very people they are at war with, the surface dwelling tribe Von Daniken who…

After issuing a hearty second to Jared's view, I'd like to return to the idea of focus for a moment.

Thematic or premise-based focus in a setting entails some kind of inherent conflict as an engine to drive play, ideally something that drives the players into making conflict-relevant choices at the point of character creation. Working settings should produce, in my view, compelling characters, as characters reflect their environment. Characters with problems make for story. Setting should, at a minimum, suggest lots of lively problems and challenges for characters to adopt and nurture. In Sorcerer, the Kicker takes this a step further, putting the character into motion from the get-go, but whether detailed or sketchy, I propose settings should advance some kind of conflict to embroil characters. Further, good conflict should pose difficult choices that lead to meaningful consequences down the line.

Best,

Blake

Greetings Simon,

To properly answer your question I am going to have to go back and do a bit of quick on-the-fly editing from a old post, as I covered this answer in depth there. For those interested click here for the original thread. Shouldn't have to, but in case you would like to see the original context there it is.

So, to recap...

simon_hibbs wrote: By world mechanics, I prsume we're talking about game mechanics that are partricular to a particular world, such as Alignment in D&D, Sanity in Call of Cthulhu, Personality Traits in Pendragon. All these games have game mechanics for combat and interpersonal skills, but these partricular mechanics are novel to those games. (I think many of these mechanics are realy more to do with specific genre or sub-genre conventions than 'world' as such, but it's all the same thing from a game design point of view).

simon_hibbs wrote: In general I find such mechanics usefull at first, but limiting in the long run. When I started playing Call of Cthulhu I thought SAn was a great idea and it helped focus the player and GM's attention on the mental state of the characters. If forces you to think about this factor. As such I think it's a usefull aid at first, but soon the limitations of such a mechanic can begin to grate. The SAN mechanic is a blunt instrument that many groups have modified heavily to suit themselves.

I think world mechanics have a place because they highlight areas of concern to the game designer, but ultimately I believe they should be kept flexible and limited in their effects.

Greetings Blake,

Sorry, no good Blake's 7 joke comes to mind. Yeah, I know, you're just crushed. ;)

Blake Hutchins wrote: Thematic or premise-based focus in a setting entails some kind of inherent conflict as an engine to drive play, ideally something that drives the players into making conflict-relevant choices at the point of character creation. Working settings should produce, in my view, compelling characters, as characters reflect their environment. Characters with problems make for story. Setting should, at a minimum, suggest lots of lively problems and challenges for characters to adopt and nurture.

Hey Kester,

Good question!

Kester Pelagius wrote: What makes a game world playable?

Note I don't mean the game system itself, but the game world.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it. Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: If there's nothing about the world that is particularly interesting, nothing that grabs you and makes you say, this world is about this, then why are you wasting your time trying to create such a world? Use any generic world of the sort, and you'll save yourself a lot of work probably with better results. If you know what is interesting about the world you're creating, then pay attention to those details and don't waste a lot of effort on the ones that don't matter.

It's certainly different if you're working on an epic novel like Lord of the Rings. In that case, you really need a lot of background and detail, because your characters are going to explore them.

One of the things that I have noticed, and wonder if anyone else has, is that a lot of the discussion currently filling up the other threads in this forum are based upon premises that rely upon preconception of how things are, or rather should be, and thus what is reality is put through the sieve of assumption.

Kester Pelagius wrote: ...It is very important for a game author to establish what is and isn’t possible in a game 1) by presenting clear and concise rules that are consistent with the milieu, and; 2) understanding that the rules of play are a separate entity from the world (and thus background setting) mechanic in which a RPG is to be staged.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

nipfipgip...dip wrote: Well, a game world needs conflict of some description. For my mind, the best conflicts challenge what a character finds important, his loyalties and ethics, challenging so helps define the character as a developed individual, and also as a dramatic movement (I've found doing this often cuts away the excess stuff to leave a character as "crooked as an old man's cane" or whatever). Anyhow, providing these challenges gives the questions that help a player define his character however

Yes, but how much description should an author include?

I’ve look at a lot of games available for “free” online. Most start off by dumping pages of what are essentially short stories in your lap. Short stories are fine, I have nothing against them, but IMO they have no place in a rule book.

...Would you want to suffer through them in a book that is suppose to be a game’s core rules manual?

Kester Pelagius wrote:

nipfipgip...dip wrote: To this end, the best game world is one where the players have very well defined loyalties and values, and one where these are constantly threatened. To get this working as I wanted for my game Prespiate, I've found the best thing is a very small world, with a number of often opposing factions.

Intrigue. Gotta love that, right?

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Allow them the freedom to create their own tools or use existing tools in exciting new ways.

Tools?

What, precisely, do you mean by that Obi Wan?

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote:

Citing what Kester Pelagius wrote:

Quoting what I wrote: If there's nothing about the world that is particularly interesting, nothing that grabs you and makes you say, this world is about this, then why are you wasting your time trying to create such a world? Use any generic world of the sort, and you'll save yourself a lot of work probably with better results. If you know what is interesting about the world you're creating, then pay attention to those details and don't waste a lot of effort on the ones that don't matter.

It's certainly different if you're working on an epic novel like Lord of the Rings. In that case, you really need a lot of background and detail, because your characters are going to explore them.

....

...I don't think that's what M. J. is talking about, though. I think he's talking about the K.I.S.S. principle.

Fang also wrote: This is where I took to the 'carrot and stick' approach to offering rewards for 'reaching to the narrow-genre'....

M. J. Young wrote:

Fang also wrote: This is where I took to the 'carrot and stick' approach to offering rewards for 'reaching to the narrow-genre'....

I hope you don't mean that. The "carrot and stick" approach means putting the carrot on the end of a stick which is held out from the back of the donkey, so that the donkey keeps moving toward the carrot but the carrot keeps moving away, and he never gets any closer to obtaining the reward. Even with donkeys, they eventually figure out that they're never going to get the carrot, and they stop trying to reach it. People figure it out a lot faster.

Sagely M. J. Young wrote: What I am saying is to be complicated or complex only where you need the detail, and to keep everything else as sketchy as will still support what needs to be done.

...each world needs to have the detail it needs to have;

That detail should be where the interest lies.

Greetings Fang,

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Kester,

Good question!

Kester Pelagius wrote: What makes a game world playable?

Note I don't mean the game system itself, but the game world.

I can see how it might seem how they're inseparable, but I take your meaning. Before I list what I write to and look for, I'd like to talk about some of the commentary so far.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it. Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

That's what I meant; the 'feel' of a game isn't just its world, but how that 'plays.' Or how the rules bring the world to life. It strikes me as one of the hardest things in design, to make the narrow-genre 'come to life' by the action of the rules.

...

So "what makes a game world playable" is how it, in brief passages, it grabs your attention (in one or two of these fields) and makes you want to know what'll happen.

At least that's what it is to me and what I try to create.

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Good question!

Kester Pelagius wrote: What makes a game world playable?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I think that one of the cardinal rules of game design is (more or less) as follows: Set forth a limited number of choices but allow for as much variation as possible in the application of those choices.

For RPG worlds, the best way (I think) to do this is to tell the player, "Okay...in this game you do this." Then allow them tons of choices in how to do that....

...There is premise of a system and premise of the game, as I see it. Most RPGs are open ended, within strict genre labels, though as you point out they are shaped by the rules of play.

That's what I meant; the 'feel' of a game isn't just its world, but how that 'plays.' Or how the rules bring the world to life. It strikes me as one of the hardest things in design, to make the narrow-genre 'come to life' by the action of the rules.

...

So "what makes a game world playable" is how it, in brief passages, grabs your attention (in one or two of these fields) and makes you want to know what'll happen.

At least that's what it is to me and what I try to create.

Is story really everything?

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

Kester Pelagius wrote: Is story really everything?

If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

Greetings Le Joueur,

Le Joueur wrote: Now the more important problem: who brought up story? I spoke only of keeping the game to the minimum components that grab consumer interest (and enough else to 'keep it together'). That could be story, but it could be many other things. (See my post about Personae, Relationships, Sequences, Circumstances, Backgrounds, Props, and Mechanix; any one of these is good enough.) Usage of the word 'story' in this instance is only going to invite all kinds of misunderstanding (I know I don't understand); can you redefine your question ("Is story really everything?")

Greetings Jack,

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Kester Pelagius wrote: If so which is more important, the background story or the story that is to be discovered by the players in a pre-fab campaign module?

First, I think the mention of the pre-fab campaign module is out-of-place in this discussion since it assumes an awful lot, namely that the players are using a pre-fab campaign module which is a topic in it's own right.

I think that the most important thing about playing an RPG is the actual play of it. This is why I cannot understand people who write pages and pages of character history and world history beforehand. One common closed-minded refutal of Narrativist play is, "If I wanted to write fiction, I would just write fiction." What is writing such backstory if not "just writing fiction?"

Hey Kester,

Kester Pelagius wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: ...Can you redefine your question ("Is story really everything?")

Are the interlocking series of details that serve as the foundation and cornerstones of the underlying narrative, as pertains to the established game milieu, in both premise and design, really the "end all" of a given RPG's plot structure and rules of play?

This may be redundant, but it's my opinion.

A game world is playable if there are things for the characters to do that players will enjoy.

- drew