Pretty much all of the below grows out of an understanding of the many works of Ron Edwards...and dissent from them.

System Doesn't Matter

As far as I can tell we have a major problem with the presence of two noticeably different, unacknowledged 'audiences' for role-playing games. I'm going to have to mangle a couple of terms to make this clear.

First of all are the 'hobbyists.' These are the people who created role-playing games and have played them from the beginning. It has been shown that the earliest incarnations of Dungeons & Dragons was not so much flawed as incomplete. This leads to the need to 'add material' in order for it to be playable. Later editions (and later games), were not so much 'incomplete' as 'broken.' To be played, these games had to be 'fixed,' customized, or Drifted; a whole traditional grew up around this very fact. This is not unlike radio-controlled model airplane hobbyists; you know, the kind who go down to the hobby store and buy balsa, paper, and airplane dope when they want to fly something. These are like the people who put bigger and bigger engines into junk cars. It doesn't matter that role-playing games are 'broken' to the hobbyists, because they have always expected to make changes.

There is also a long tradition of gaming where people take a published rule system and Drift it to their desires. I hold out the point that this tradition is met, even today, by designs that are 'incoherent' or 'broken;' these games have what could be called 'an expectation for Drift.' In ways, these were the first kind of 'customizable' games. Notably, this kind of design scheme goes all the way back to the beginning of the hobby and it could conjectured that this creates a reasonable expectation that 'this is how it is done' in the minds of the hobbyists.

The second audience is what I call 'consumers.' These are those people who saw the characters playing Dungeons & Dragons at the beginning of the movie E. T. the Extraterrestrial and went out and got a copy and played it. These people would have been quickly turned off by rules that needed to be tinkered with, tweaked, or otherwise 'fixed.' An 'incomplete,' incoherent, or 'broken' game would be nigh useless to them. I liken them to the consumers who, wanting to fly a radio-controlled airplane, go down to Toys 'R' Us and buy a finished plane. They buy sports cars instead of building them. They see 'an expectation of Drift' as an inconclusive or incomplete game. (I even would speculate that perfected, Transitional role-playing games may not appeal to them, with a caveat centered on a 'flexible' example game mentioned later.)

Now, once 'there was money' in role-playing games, companies evolved to serve this consumer audience. I have to argue that a lot of what Ron has been saying about "the realignment of the term 'mainstream'" appears to be to this point. I'd argue that role-playing games that require Drift, tweaking, or possibly even overt Transition will fall outside of this mainstream, no matter how far back or traditional it is. Furthermore, I'd have to say that it is unimaginable to me that the ultimate market of consumers could be anything but larger than the audience of hobbyists, based on looking at the parallels everywhere else.

The ultimate question you have to ask yourself, as a designer, is "Who do I write for?" I think it's clear that you can't write for both. (Not that both won't buy your product, but each will see it differently and treat it as such.) I think a lot of current design suffers from the illusion that you can write to both; that's why you get games that obviously require Drift or tweaking, yet have a remedial 'what is gaming' introduction.

This confusion usually comes into a conversation regarding the difference between "the role-playing game hobby" and "the role-playing game industry." Hobbyists quite comfortably buy consumer products and do what they've always done, change 'em; consumers, on the other hand, 'don't seem to get it' about hobbyist-targeted games and abandon them.

I'm gonna go on record as saying that the primary audience of "indie-punk role-playing games" is more hobbyist than consumer-based. And that's very, very good! There should always be a healthy fringe element kicking new ideas into 'the mainstream;' the health of "the industry" may depend upon it. And "the health of the industry" is what makes it possible for a population of 'fringies' to remain viable. This doesn't mean that either is directly dependant on the other, but that the presence of one begets and supports the other. If either were to 'die,' I'm sure the other would suffer.

There should also be some recognition that 'selling out' isn't a matter of betraying "indie punk" role-playing game design ideals, but a shift from writing for one group to the other. (And that you can alternatively write for either at any point during your career.) This does cause a problem when a designer is 'discovered' (by either side); they need to shift gears quickly or be relegated back to their original population. It should also deal with some of the acrimony between "indie punk" designers and 'for profit' designers.

This also implies that hobbyist-friendly designing is not good for 'for print, for profit' games and that consumer-friendly designs are not well made when 'high maintenance' is necessary. Therefore, concern with the structure of the market new or old should require notice of this dichotomy.

It should also be obvious by looking at any hobby/industry; the consumer side of the equation always carries larger numbers in the healthy, sustaining symbiosis. That being said, it should be obvious that the 'profit potential' of a hobbyist-targeted project is therefore smaller at best, but very rewarding in terms of community and feedback. More money is obviously to be made from the larger audience; hobbyist-targeted design is probably not the best for money-driven success models. The details of this supposition are left for other threads.

This is the problem with spending so much time using market models to dissuade people of the 'one type of success' ideal (money). Market models and their comprehension are of great importance to consumer-targeted products, but I'm not sure that these should be the first thing paraded out when discussing 'measures of success.' In the recent era, I've seen 'measures of success' and 'bringing product to shelves' discussions getting farther and farther separated from each other. Perhaps 'measures of success' discussions might benefit from more awareness of the different audiences and results of targeting them.

But ultimately the point remains; System Doesn't Matter to hobbyists (and therefore not in all cases).

The Lumpley Principle Misses the Boat

Insert definition here!

While not unimportant and somewhat foundational, this principle may be getting the somewhat problematical reputation of being 'the whole enchilada.'

While important, it is not the most important principle of role-playing game rules; by far, the most important is the concept of "Taking Part" in the role-playing game.

All these new narrative-control-distributing games break the traditional 'imbalance of power' and not only support and empower "Taking Part," but force it frequently in an in-your-face kinda way; each and every one of them underscores the need for participants to all "Take Part."

The second most important Principle is Inspiration.

All the talk about game systems having to be 'specialized to their vision,' that generic systems don't purvey what they present well (because of being 'too capable' of others) grows out of the many ways a role-playing game system can inspire. I accept that "System Does Matter" grew out of a reaction to the idea that "Only Setting Matters" which is actually the product of lazy designers recognizing this principle (but I still stand by the above). If saying "System Does Matter" only means that a game should inspire with more than just it's setting, I wonder how worthwhile the message.

The third most important principle is the Communicative or Lumpley Principle. This is the idea that the role-playing game must also (and that's an absolute must!) make communicating one participant's "Taking Part" to another more effectively. Flipping this principle to the top of the list makes role-playing game design a very complicated matter indeed, as it only implies "Taking Part," isolated from the rest of these principles.

I'm sure there'll be some disagreement over the particular order; such is the world of opinion; this one is mine. Suffice to say, I don't think "Taking Part" can effectively collapsed into the Lumpley Principle, nor to I think it should ever take a back seat to it.

Gaming at It's Least

While role-playing gaming is a lot of things (many which cannot be done without), what it is at the most central point is "Getting Caught up in a Feeling." That's what makes delineating different approaches so hairy. Feelings and emotions are things everyone has; everyone has an opinion of what kinds they have, but there is precious little consensus on the language to communicate about them.

Different people emotionally identify (knowingly or not) with different things in different ways in gaming. And these people not always that good at predicting what these are or describing them that well.

What truly matters in this discussion is that, of all the things gaming and analysis of gaming must recognize, the emotional attachments that occur during play cannot be done without. Without these there is no "Getting Caught Up" and therefore no gaming. I leave the how, what, and why to another thread, the point is we're not just talking about social contract issues, but issues of emotional engagement and entanglement. Perhaps that's why there is so much heat in discussions of 'modes of play' and such, being 'close to the heart' and all.

The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast

"The Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast" cannot be stated in such a way that it is literally impossible

This is different from just saying that it is possible; once you've argued it enough, you understand what it is that is actually impossible, and ultimately that remains trivial in each case.

It is only 'impossible' when you try and solve it for every single approach taken to gaming (or style, if you prefer) at the same time.

I've seen quotes of games claiming the impossible, but I've also come to the impression that each of these meant something different than the context-robbed quote. I'll even go so far as to say I have seen games that go on to claim that both of the contrasting intentions can be facilitated, but even they don't seem to say that it occurs simultaneously.

Believe it or not, I mean that these games are functional, because they are written for the hobbyist market! If an author includes more than one mode of play in his game, making it "incoherent" by local definition, I say that he respects the hobbyist tradition of Drift and has made a game which not only requires it, but implies that it is perfectly natural. And for the hobbyist, it is! (It is highly unfortunate for the reviewer that this 'mechanism of customization' is more implied by tradition than written in the game.)

The mistake made again and again is to assume one homogeneous audience (that's right, a "coherent" audience) that contains at least some consumers. Fudge doesn't seem to make this mistake; it is quite clearly by, for, and tailored to, hobbyists. I'm not so sure that "incoherent" is therefore anything but as insulting a term as calling Gamists, "munchkins." I'd say that calling such designs 'Naïve Hobbyist' designs is both more accurate and less insulting. (As long as "hobbyist" is understood to be the stricter definition I've given here.)

Narrativism Still Needs to 'Grow' Some More

Narrativism grew out of hobbyists trying to achieve play that created engaging themes via play with games that did anything but....

It seems to have been originally conceived as an 'up to your elbows' in conscious thematic thought style of play. It has quite satisfactorily matured beyond that since then.

As significant as this growth has been, it needs to grow significantly further still, if it is going to take its proper place as a consumer product

There doesn't seem to be any other way to achieve this end, other than as it has been evolving on the Forge (heaven knows the Dramatists don't seem to be getting anywhere with it)

One albatross future Narrativist evolution has around its neck is the connection to TITBBB; for Narrativism the answer is relatively simple. Pick one. Hide it, embed it, 'out it,' or whatever, but simply make the choice of who decides how things reach a satisfying conclusion.

Ultimately, when Narrativist-targeted (I say that with a wink and a finger pointed at the next section) role-playing games assimilate all the commentary on 'low points of contact' and 'embedded themes,' and really breaks out of the old mold of 'all-are-authors-only mentality' (not really where it is now, but surely a clingy aftertaste) will it come into its own as something common as a consumer game choice.

The GNS Isn't a Design Tool

At the most abstract, from all the sources I've read, the GNS essentially says, "Don't play role-playing games with people who don't play like you do." I don't really see much point in saying that and it hardly presents much of a tool for designing games.

As a guide for designing games the GNS is hardly worth note. To use it as such, first one must take the vision of ideal play in the potential design and analyze how it fits the GNS. For the most part that means figuring out what is 'close, but wrong,' because the GNS is primarily about 'when it's wrong.' Second, one must ascertain which specific variation or variations within a particular mode fit this; this can be quite complicated by issues of acceptable Drift and hybridization. Third, one has to 'reverse engineer' what game features will "facilitate" the mode desired, being careful not to 'invite other modes' by making rules to 'exclude' them (thereby implying their usage). Finally, one has to 'rewrite' this game in a fashion which does not seem as 'backwardly created' as this sequence implies.

Mind you this isn't hard for some of the most talented designers out there, but very many of the others get the impression that the GNS is a good tool for design. Look at the requirements to make it work: a very, very clear idea of what ideal play should look like including 'near misses;' a quite comprehensive understanding of both the GNS and workable sub-variations and hybrids; an in-depth understanding of the process of facilitation of a mode by the interrelation of rules (single rules don't point at GNS priorities all that well); and some ability to assimilate all of this into a self-dependant role-playing game.

Despite all this being said, the GNS is a very good tool for getting feedback on playtesting; one of the best. But being an analysis tool for one phase of the 'design-test-design loop' is hardly the way people comprehend the usage of GNS terms in 'designing a Gamist game' or 'designing a Narrativist-facilitating game.' Perhaps only calling it a 'playtest feedback tool' might alleviate this difficulty.

What's really absent is a set of modes dedicated to design. Each of the GNS modes contains something like this within it, but as I have seen, extracting it can be difficult at times. I suspect some of the 'three essays of the GNS' may move them in that direction, but I sense that this will create modes that collectively overlook some crucial possibilities. Furthermore, in doing this, the "three essays" will beg for a reorientation of the GNS from 'diagnostic tool' to 'design tool.' I'm not sure it will make that jump considering it's history and the continued need for its diagnostic use.

Now, I'm not in a position to say that I've gotten anywhere at all attempting to create such a 'design model,' but then the Scattershot Approaches haven't really been discussed at any length in this matter. What I can tell you is that such a 'new model' will be highly important to both Transitional games and consumer products that incorporate more 'flexibility' in application. (My favorite example of this is The Riddle of Steel, which essentially has the players embed thematic issues into the game through character generation; this is a very flexible approach to 'embedded theme' gaming and yet makes for a very consumer-targeted product.)

(Before you begin agreeing with me in principle, please consider the specifics.)

Let's review. 'System Doesn't Matter' to the hobbyists who founded the medium; they expect to Drift the system and the gameshop isn't the best of the many valid ways of reaching them. The 'mainstream' is actually made up of consumers who aren't at all afraid of 'experimental' games, but have no interest in Drift; the gameshop is the least likely place to reach the bulk of them.

I could go to a lot of effort to spell all this out in excruciating detail with the ideal of preventing a lot of argument, but you know what? As far as I can tell that can't be done. I know we both can see what I wrote and I know what I meant. Pick apart the wording and I'm sure we can easily fall into arguing taxonomy for weeks, but hey, I've got an idea. Why not try and understand my point, the spirit of my message, and then we can work out how we agree or disagree? Arguing over words might be comforting ("Ha, I proved you didn't say what I thought you said!"), but is ultimately a very slow way of reaching a point where we are both aware of our possibly contradictory opinions.

Since I'm not asking you to agree with me, don't force it. Since I'm not saying that mine is the only correct answer, 'proof' is of limited value (especially since said 'proof' must first be interpreted by the party offering it). I present an interpretation of matters that have rubbed me the wrong way for some time in as direct as fashion as possible. I don't mean to 'spill blood' here, I'm just putting things in their simplest form; I suppose I could have beaten around the bush on all of these topics over weeks in some vain attempt to convince others, but to what end?

Either you'll agree with my interpretations or you'll disagree with me. My presentation is merely food for thought, perhaps to inform your opinion more.

I'm happy to engage in discourse on these points that I better illustrate them, but I am not interested in summary denouncements (nor should I respond to such); if all you want to say is, "that's not true," without offering to discuss why, I'm not sure your point in posting it.

Fang Langford

p. s. Because of an expectation of the unpopularity of the ideas presented in this article, I am hosting it in the Scattershot forum. I request that any threads directed at these ideas (not just the questions that they raise) be subsequently posted here as well.

Sorry, "System Doesn't Matter" on a Design Level to hobbyists. System will influence play, and thus the experince of play...since there is no such thing as "standard play" (as clearly shown with or without GNS), each individual is going to have a different preference for play which may or may not be met by the system they chose to utilize.

Hence, system does indeed matter, whether or not you care about it. A well-designed system will not have to be altered for a hobbyist who enjoys the style of play it provides. Trying to argue that it won't matter is...well, to put it in a word, inane.

In fact, I think you've completely and utterly missed the point of the "System Does Matter" essay with this reading and critique of it.

Keep in mind, if Herbie didn't have to make all those changes to the system, then "imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics...I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time."

As to your other statements, you have either "boiled everything down" to the point where you aren't even arguing against the thing -- only YOUR CONCEPTION THEREOF -- as well as engaging in some questionable rhetoric about "hobbyists" and "incoherency" and so forth: ie, "Everyone plays this way, so its good because they like it, and hence the design works!" or rather, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That sort of logic has been overturned in the past, and not merely in RPG design, in that such isn't about fixing, but improving and advancing an already working product to the next stage of its evolution.

That is, clubs were "just fine" as hunting instruments, until someone raised the bar with a pointy stick.

Raven-

I agree with you that anyone, regardless of label, regards time wasteage as a bad thing.

From my read, though, Fang's arguing that Herbie (as a hobbyist) doesn't regard system-tinkering as a waste of time, but instead something enjoyable. Herbie expects to alter every system he comes across and sees this as a desirable aspect of the hobby.

Certainly, system influences play. And hobbyists are not excepted from this. But Fang's hobbyist will tinker and possibly needs to tinker for maximal enjoyment.

Clearly, the statement that "system doesn't matter (at all)" is incorrect - and I don't think that's what Fang's arguing. Instead, I read him as saying "System Doesn't Matter to hobbyists," where a hobbyist is more-or-less defined as those for whom a tightly-constructed and blisteringly coherent game doesn't offer as much.

Do you feel that these folks simply don't exist in sufficient numbers to be worth discussing?

-Matt

Hi guys,

Matt's right on it (so much that I don't need to say any more, well done), but I felt it important to use a point of argument best to raise hackles to make a point. That I can cause anyone to misunderstand the point that Matt understood by deliberately using the words, "System Doesn't Matter" is the larger point I feel needs to be made. Too many people have too much emotion invested in the three little words and not the concepts they talk about.

My real point is that there are two kinds of people playing these games. One group has an ingrained expectation of Drift going back to the first of these games. The other has little understanding of how that would be done. The essay I chose to take shots at doesn't acknowledge this difference (well, not very clearly) and this has lead a lot of its adherents to seem completely at a loss that 'incoherent' games sell so well.

I am trying to raise the bar here. I'm saying that analyzing 'old games' will only get you so far and that that is encumbered by the fact that the bulk of 'old games' and traditional play is primarily Hobbyist. In order to reach for what Ron has correctly redubbed "the mainstream" we need to realize that they only respond to "System Does Matter" games and that, when behaving as Hobbyists, the 'old gamers' won't respond to them. Building a game with both of these audiences in mind leads to an effect parallel to preventing 'Gamist Drift' (where you put rules in that are meant to prevent Gamists from 'wrecking it for everybody else' and those rules turn into an invitation for Gamists); there's this inclination in some designs to attempt to make them 'impossible to Drift' (not many, but enough to make me consider it).

I'm advocating reaching 'the new mainstream' in new and unthoughtof ways and that, to find them, we may need to put "System Does Matter" in the copilot position (still very important, but not in charge).

greyorm wrote: Trying to argue that it won't matter is...well, to put it in a word, inane.

...You've completely and utterly missed the point...

...As well as engaging in some questionable rhetoric...

Sorry, no, I don't buy it.
This argument is predicated on the existance of two currently mythical beasts: first, the traditional gamer, called here "the Hobbyist" who likes to tinker, nay, MUST tinker! The second, that incoherent games sell so well to these folks because they like to tinker.

Yet when you realize that the majority of gamers have no experience of the hobby outside these systems, you realize you cannot judge what those people want and like, because they have nothing to compare it to, nor is the existance of "the hobbyist" even proven!

Let us suppose there is a land where only apples grow, and the people have never sampled oranges, nor even know of oranges. To argue that of course the people of this land like apples because everyone eats them is circular. Whether or not they do is moot, because there is no basis for comparison: the majority have never eaten an orange, and thus what they like -- between apples and oranges -- cannot be fairly judged.

Of course, the RPG situation is much more complex than this analogy, but it serves to illustrate the fundamental problem with the logic backing the Hobbyist argument.

No, Fang, they aren't insults. Take them as such if you like to, but they remain valid counterpoints: my read of your statements leaves me with nothing to consider but that you did miss the point of the essays in question, and that you did engage in questionable rhetoric.

Surely, GNS is not merely about "Don't play role-playing games with people who don't play like you do." There is quite obviously a great deal more to it than that; your 'boiled down' statement willfully misrepresents the theory -- hence my calling your examination of it "rhetoric."

As to TITBB -- I had thought it was firmly established fairly recently that TITBB was not a problem because it does not exist, but pointed to the problem itself: that of unclear text providing guiding statements which lead nowhere, or rather, which may be interpreted in multiple ways (when such multiple interpretation is not the author's intent).

If you can't accept judgements of your statements, then don't post such for criticism.

Did you strike a nerve? No. Not in the way you'd expect.
The nerve you hit with me was one of simple logic. I failed to be convinced by your criticisms because of the gaping holes I perceive in their structure, not to mention (as I said) the questionable desconstruction of broad theory into simple (and quite obviously incorrect) phrases.

I'm with the Reverend.

I should be in your "hobbyist" category. Goodness, I've been playing since 1980, and have published my own game. I must be one of those who loves to tinker, and who buys incomplete or broken games so I can fix them. Look at all the fixes on my D&D pages. Obviously I love to tinker with games.

But I never regarded OAD&D as broken, or even really as incomplete in the sense you seem to imply. I thought there were things that my gaming group was headed into that were not covered by the rules, but this was not because the rules were in some sense incomplete--rather because we pushed the envelope. I've played board games in which someone had to make an interpretation of how to handle a situation that arose that the rules failed to foresee; I don't see that as a broken or incomplete board game.

I didn't write Multiverser because I wasn't happy with the games I'd seen. I wrote it because someone brought a great game idea to me and asked if I could make it work. I'd created two board games before that, not because I regarded all board games as broken but because I had ideas that I thought would make for interesting board games.

So I'm not the hobbyist tinkerer. Maybe he exists, but I don't think there are so many in that category as you seem to believe. Nor am I really the consumer you suggest.

As my brother loves to say, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide all the people in the world into two kinds and those who don't. Your categories don't work. System does matter for everyone, and most of them don't fit into your categories.

Interesting challenge to the theory, but in the end I think it falls short.

--M. J. Young

Hey guys,

I really appreciate the time and effort you're taking to challenge my presentation. It's obvious I need to clarify a few things. Furthermore, despite the viewpoints you espouse, I don't think this is a "I'm right, you're wrong" kinda thing. This is a 'here is what I think' kinda thing. There is nothing to prove, but I would like to make sure I don't ignore real issues in my opinion. So let's set aside ideas like 'me selling this idea' or 'challenging the establishment.' If anything, I calling for people to think about what they believe and not simply cite dogma.

greyorm wrote: This argument is predicated on the existence of two currently mythical beasts: first, the traditional gamer, called here "the Hobbyist" who likes to tinker, nay, MUST tinker! The second, that incoherent games sell so well to these folks because they like to tinker.

greyorm wrote: Surely, GNS is not merely about "Don't play role-playing games with people who don't play like you do." There is quite obviously a great deal more to it than that; your 'boiled down' statement willfully misrepresents the theory -- hence my calling your examination of it "rhetoric."

greyorm wrote: As to TITBB -- I had thought it was firmly established fairly recently that TITBB was not a problem because it does not exist, but pointed to the problem itself: that of unclear text providing guiding statements which lead nowhere, or rather, which may be interpreted in multiple ways (when such multiple interpretation is not the author's intent).

M. J. Young wrote: I should be in your "hobbyist" category...Obviously I love to tinker with games.

But I never regarded OAD&D as broken, or even really as incomplete in the sense you seem to imply.

M. J. Young wrote: So I'm not the hobbyist tinkerer. Maybe he exists, but I don't think there are so many in that category as you seem to believe.

M. J. Young wrote: Your categories don't work. System does matter for everyone, and most of them don't fit into your categories.

Interesting challenge to the theory, but in the end I think it falls short.

Surely the proof that these hobbyists still exist is Heartbreakers, of whatever genre. I mean, the whole point of a Heartbreaker is that it's basically an attempt to make coherence out of incoherence.

Fang, can I ask, how do you see this correlating with what you've said about genre and realism and so forth? I think I disagree with you on that, but that discussion has gotten so swamped by silliness that I'm just trying to make an end-run around it at this point.

Le Joueur wrote: I remain convinced that it is not a myth that there are people who...how can I describe it? Don't fully respect the 'whole package' of a system; they see no problem 'making system up' or 'ignoring system' to suit what they do in role-playing games.

However, sell they do and that very much seems to fly in the face of the whole of the "System Does Matter" rhetoric. Were this essay so easy to believe wouldn't it be evident in that incoherent systems wouldn't be selling?

Hi Fang,

I highly disagree with your method of "opening discussion" with this, since it seems to have lead to a lot of confusion about what you're trying to discuss. It seems as if much of your statements are designed to garner attention just so that you can say this:

1) There exist folks who want to play as-is, and folks who want to customize games to their tastes.
2) Designers should not try to "tinker-proof" their games.

All I can say is;

#1 is pretty obvious. I think all game designers start as the hobbyist/customizer sorts who realize that building from scratch may serve their needs better.

#2 is an empty sort of point. There's no way to make sure anyone plays the game "your way" once it leaves your hands, so I don't understand why this would be a concern.

Overall Fang, I'm not exactly sure what is the "big point" you're making here. I'm also not sure what you're trying to discuss.

As far as the point of "System doesn't always matter", I think you're changing the context of the idea here. To use your car comparison, the engine may not matter in terms of why someone is buying it or using that car, but the engine matters in terms of how it operates and runs. These two are not the same sort of "matters".

Again, Fang, I don't think anyone here is clear on what you are saying, and until you clarify your point, useful discussion isn't really going to emerge.

Chris(lost on this one)

clehrich wrote: Can I ask, how do you see this correlating with what you've said about genre and realism and so forth? I think I disagree with you on that, but that discussion has gotten so swamped by silliness that I'm just trying to make an end-run around it at this point.

greyorm wrote: In regards to the first statement, yes, such people do exist, I agree. There are people who like apples. The problem is that in the given market you cannot seperate out those who actually like apples as compared to oranges.

greyorm wrote: In regards to the second statement, if all that's on the market is apples, or people only know about apples, then how many apples sell is not indicative of whether people like or do not like apples.

In fact, Drift is precisely why System Does Matter. If it didn't, you wouldn't see the high levels of Drift you are talking about.

Hey Chris,

Bankuei wrote: I highly disagree with your method of "opening discussion" with this, since it seems to have lead to a lot of confusion about what you're trying to discuss. It seems as if much of your statements are designed to garner attention

Bankuei wrote: 1) There exist folks who want to play as-is, and folks who want to customize games to their tastes.
2) Designers should not try to "tinker-proof" their games.

All I can say is;

#1 is pretty obvious. I think all game designers start as the hobbyist/customizer sorts who realize that building from scratch may serve their needs better.

#2 is an empty sort of point. There's no way to make sure anyone plays the game "your way" once it leaves your hands, so I don't understand why this would be a concern.

Bankuei wrote: Overall Fang, I'm not exactly sure what is the "big point" you're making here. I'm also not sure what you're trying to discuss.

Bankuei wrote: As far as the point of "System doesn't always matter", I think you're changing the context of the idea here. To use your car comparison, the engine may not matter in terms of why someone is buying it or using that car, but the engine matters in terms of how it operates and runs. These two are not the same sort of "matters."

Bankuei wrote: I don't think anyone here is clear on what you are saying, and until you clarify your point, useful discussion isn't really going to emerge.

Hi Fang,

My only issue with your method of presentation is that you've made several partial-points, baiting folks to argue, so you can drop the other foot. This is wonderful in debate, and perhaps a sometimes teaching device, but also very insulting to your audience. Perhaps I'm the only one who sees it that way, and you can just write me off as reading too much into it if that's the case. We'll just note that I'm not happy with it and drop that issue and move on to the actual discussion.

That's not an empty point at all. If there is "no way to make sure," should we just sit by when people try to?

Really? When I read the actual text of "System Does Matter" I see a partial list of automobile components and systems, but no mention of overall design schemes. I talk about such and the reaction I get is that 'its already covered.' Well I don't see how and think that there should be more separation between the essay "System Does Matter" and the concept of the importance of System in game design (they aren't the same thing).

What I see with GNS is a question along the lines of "What is this vehicle supposed to do?" and "How well does it do it?"

As far as what I am receiving from what you are saying is that you are frustrated with people shutting you down based on dogma. Fair enough. That seems more like a social issue between you and whoever is aggravating you rather than a discussion issue on game theory(although they may be using game theory as their dogma, a closed mind will never see past its dogma).

Right now, you've given me the points listed above, argued that the engine doesn't matter to someone buying a car on the basis of color, and given nothing concrete or solid in terms of the areas you want to explore. Redefining functional does not disprove that a hammer makes a poor saw("Look at how well it hammers!" "I needed a saw!").

To ask you for more elaboration:

1) System doesn't matter(in some people's choice of what to play/not play)
Ok, so where is going to go? Are there designs that better facilitate hobbyist modification?(I'd say yes) What factors are involved?

2) Please explain and give me an example of something that has, or attempted to "drift proof" a game, and how it has functioned. If someone can successfully do so, then we have a tool to help folks focus the gameplay experience they are designing for, if they want to take that route.

3)Taking Part, Inspiration, Communication-

Open and listening, elaborate.

4)Narrativism Still Needs to 'Grow' Some More

Not sure how Narrativism currently isn't a marketable "consumer" product. Tell me.

Chris

Chris

Bankuei wrote: My only issue with your method of presentation is that you've made several partial-points, baiting folks to argue, so you can drop the other foot. This is wonderful in debate, and perhaps a sometimes teaching device, but also very insulting to your audience. Perhaps I'm the only one who sees it that way, and you can just write me off as reading too much into it if that's the case. We'll just note that I'm not happy with it and drop that issue and move on to the actual discussion.

Bankuei wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That's not an empty point at all. If there is "no way to make sure," should we just sit by when people try to?

I don't understand how anyone could possibly prevent drift/modification/or alternate play in any fashion...

The point is, we have no choice about it....

If your point is that folks shouldn't have to have 3 page essays in their games hand-holding folks telling them, "How this game should be played...", I agree wholeheartedly. But aside from that, I'm not sure what difference it makes whether someone tries to "drift-proof" a game or not, it is a futile process.

Bankuei wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Really? When I read the actual text of "System Does Matter" I see a partial list of automobile components and systems, but no mention of overall design schemes. I talk about such and the reaction I get is that 'its already covered.' Well I don't see how and think that there should be more separation between the essay "System Does Matter" and the concept of the importance of System in game design (they aren't the same thing).

What I see with GNS is a question along the lines of "What is this vehicle supposed to do?" and "How well does it do it?"

As far as what I am receiving from what you are saying is that you are frustrated with people shutting you down based on dogma. Fair enough. That seems more like a social issue between you and whoever is aggravating you rather than a discussion issue on game theory (although they may be using game theory as their dogma, a closed mind will never see past its dogma).

Right now, you've given me the points listed above, argued that the engine doesn't matter to someone buying a car on the basis of color, and given nothing concrete or solid in terms of the areas you want to explore. Redefining functional does not disprove that a hammer makes a poor saw ("Look at how well it hammers!" "I needed a saw!").

Bankuei wrote: To ask you for more elaboration:

• System doesn't matter (in some people's choice of what to play/not play)

Ok, so where is going to go? Are there designs that better facilitate hobbyist modification? (I'd say yes) What factors are involved?

• Please explain and give me an example of something that has, or attempted to "drift proof" a game, and how it has functioned. If someone can successfully do so, then we have a tool to help folks focus the gameplay experience they are designing for, if they want to take that route.

• Taking Part, Inspiration, Communication-

Open and listening, elaborate.

• Narrativism Still Needs to 'Grow' Some More

Not sure how Narrativism currently isn't a marketable "consumer" product. Tell me.

hmm . . . looks like two of my recent posts could easily have been here instead of where I put 'em. This one adresses the "creative agenda" bit, and this one is about why people like incoherence. I think GMs like Incoherence, and players with a good GM rarely experience it (because that GM gets rid of it before players even see it).

I may post another response here, the gist of which will be that System (that which appears in the game text) always influences System (what the group actually does during play), and can (as Vincent almost says) never dictate System (what the group actually does during play). That is what "System Matters" really means, and both are corallaries to the Lumpley Principle that people often miss. Game text will always influence what a group actualy does (System Matters), and can never force them to do anything in particular (System Doesn't Matter - or, more correctly, System Doesn't Determine).

In short - I'm getting a tempest in a teapot feeling. Don't we all actually agree on all this? It needs to be more clearly expressed sometimes, I can agree with that - but fundamentally, there's nothin' to argue over here - in the System Matters bit, anyway.

At least, I hope that's true . . .

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: That is what "System Matters" really means, and both are corallaries to the Lumpley Principle that people often miss.

In short - I'm getting a tempest in a teapot feeling. Don't we all actually agree on all this? It needs to be more clearly expressed sometimes, I can agree with that - but fundamentally, there's nothin' to argue over here - in the System Matters bit, anyway.

I think finding a way to make it easy for people to establish game play (system) would be a very worthy goal for a game text - so that the text is really about helping you establish an actual in-play system. My take is that Scattershot leans in this direction very strongly.

A text that requires very little "establishing" is also a fine goal, though by its nature it's also more limiting. But then, limits can be good things.

As far as "writing in the 'old fashioned way'", well, what do we mean by "work" for both? I mean, some new ways may be BETTER, but that doesn't mean old ones won't work at all.

In other words - sure, improve expression. Always a valuable endeavor. But when folks use an old label in a discussion ("Lumpley Principle", "System Matters"), that's not ALWAYS a sign of lack of thought. Sometimes it's a sign of a LOT of thought, that they don't want to do again.

There is a danger of losing the legitimately new in those situations, but the legitimately new seems to EVENTUALLY manage to get distinguished. Damn annoying when it takes longer than you wanted it to, though.

Gordon

I'm still getting this weird sensation; it seems like writers who make excellent use of long-standing methods of game design feel embattled somehow. I'm not sure how to pose this; don't you think there is room for both? That's what I don't get here; I talk about additional ways of design and there seems to be this backlash about some kind of implied replacement of 'old ways.' Whoever said the old ways needed to be replaced?

I understand how people can view something that is new as a threat to their perceptions, but past a certain point the 'what is wrong with the old ways?' argument is empty. I have never said there was anything wrong with any way of designing; I don't see why adding a new way in any way invalidates any 'old way.'

In one of the older versions of Gamma World, it pretty much explicitly stated that the game had to be finished by the gamemaster before play could begin. I think that was one of the most cogent designs of its time. I think a lot of the eldest designs were like that except not nearly as self-evident.

The absence of such an honest appraisal in other games prior to it left the audience to its own devices to do much the same thing. While not a quality of all the writing at that time, I think the audience had to have a certain receptivity to that. My bald speculation is that a 'future,' or 'new mainstream' audience, won't be as willing to 'go that extra mile.' Note: this does not mean I think the 'old audience' will be going away or lessening to any extent (I see their numbers growing as well), but that doesn't absent the differences.

I'm pretty sure that a product requiring such work (as it won't appeal to this 'new audience') is something that will be around for a very long time. As I've said, I'm not sure that it needs to be 'fixed' in any way. Product that doesn't require as much work (needs little "establishing") will probably appeal to both audiences. Now, granted that the 'new audience' will happen, only one of these two design schemes will appeal to it. Does this mean the 'old audience' will disappear? No. Does this mean that the 'old audience' won't want 'old style product' (the kind which needs "establishing")? Not at all. Does the fact that 'new style product' (needs little "establishing") will suit them better (even though they effectively use both)? I doubt it. Granted that at some point both audiences will exist, then both style of products will need to.

I cannot forecast, in any way, how or what this 'new audience' will be like; all I can say is that 'old style product' will never find them, if they exist. What I don't understand is the reactionary statements of some, not vitriolic, but carrying the air of embattlement. It's so odd to me because no one is attacking them or their methods. I go so far as saying these (people and methods) are vital to the continuation of the hobby for as long as I imagine it continuing. So why do I get the sense of embattlement?

Can't we talk about something new?

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Damn annoying when it takes longer than you wanted it to, though.

Hey Fang,

As far as *I'm* concerned - no, no "embattled" feeling intended. IMO - you (intentionally) were a bit agressive in your wording, so people are/were a bit aggresive in their explanations - and the root of those explanations was "no, we don't disagree with your point, just what some people might think your point means." In other words - your arguments have been used by others to cause great mischief, so even though (I'll assume) most people here don't think YOU mean to use it that way, they in some way feel the need to . . . clarify the implications. Certainly that's the only source of "defensiveness" I intended in my posts.

Now that that's out of the way - you saw my post about Gamma World, right? That's why you mentioned it here? Otherwise, the Forge synchronicity effect is just working WAY too much overtime . . .

But on the issue of "establishing" and new modes: I don't want to give up on the idea that doing a BETTER job of providing tools for establishing could make a huge difference. But I do agree that "pre-established" is also an interesting avenue to explore. Ron's Sorcerer can be a bit of a model here - there are implicit tools that allow (or in some cases require) customization by each play group. The designer-minded can use those tools to pre-establish a variant play format, which we see in the mini-supplements.

But you could just see those as baby steps towards an entirely new way to "do" RPGs. I mean, the actual scenes for a play session could be pre-built into a card deck, each scene has entry and exit conditions, the GM manages the scene cards, the players use their abilities by playing action cards and narrating the effect, progress through the scenes is tracked on a board . . .

Maybe what I'm seeing is a continuum between "build it yourself" and "prefab," with individual tastes dictating excatly where on the spectrum you like your games. Historically, RPGs lean towards the build it yourself end, whether they realize it or not.

Gordon
(hoping he managed to transition a *bit* into talking about something else . . .)

Excellent Gordon!

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Maybe what I'm seeing is a continuum between "build it yourself" and "prefab," with individual tastes dictating excatly where on the spectrum you like your games. Historically, RPGs lean towards the build it yourself end, whether they realize it or not.

(hoping he managed to transition a *bit* into talking about something else . . .)

Le Joueur wrote:
Do you have any alternative ideas or advice?

The 'traditional' way of prefabing was to have adventure modules. In some cases these were pretty detailed, in some cases they were 'adventure frameworks', i.e. a more like a kit.

Then there is various forms of player input, you mentioned Riddle of Steel's spirtual Attribs and there are various directorial power mechanics, like in Donjon.

An approach I've heard of for fantasy games is to have each player create a bunch of prophesies that the GM then uses. One could provide a framework for these to enforce genera conventions and some common structure.

You could also have each player create some generic frameworks for adventures their characther would be involved in, or maybe just common elements, most(but not all) of which would appear in every adventure for that characther. (For example the Kirk framework might include FistFight and attractive Female Humanoid)

You could also have players get together and create a generic framework for an adventure utilizing their common elements, possibly useing Solomon's Auction(if it's still there) to resolve conflicts. You might also need some method for 'restructuring' in the event that the previous structure become untendable for some reason or people just don't like it.

Fang, can you provide a couple of examples of recent games that have included Drift-proofing rules (and perhaps even cite where they occur in text)? I am far from knowledgeable vis a vis rpgames.

Also, would I pronounce your name to rhyme with rang and strangler, or gong and strong?