"Sentai" is the Japanese word for stories about teams of characters who have special powers in combination, by the way.

In Art: Does It Matter?, Lxndr made a comment that opened up a door for me. He commented that the visual element is the least important part of the game, since the roleplaying game in practice is concerned with words and numbers. (I'm paraphrasing, but I think I'm being honest to the spirit of his words.)

I think that art is important in game books precisely because it's scarce in play. It's pretty well established that most people learn best when they get a point reinforced several different ways. It's why teachers do well to say something and show it on a board or screen and have students take notes, if it's important. I have friends who can draw well (or assemble Photoshop graphics or otherwise produce illustrations), but most of the people I play with can't. I sure can't. When there's a good picture to point at and say "this is the tone I want," it's as good in its way as having an external source like a movie or painting to cite. By adding a visual dimension, the game book reinforces the experience of play in a way my players and I can't readily manage ourselves.

Once I thought of it in that way, I started wondering if it might apply to other areas. In a game where poetry is important but players aren't poets, examples of the right sort of poetry in the book would be helpful. My old roommate the Tekumel junkie seemed to find the Tekumaleni (sp?) script and art styles helpful in supporting his descriptions in play. Games with a strong prose style might do the same sort of thing for players whose narrative skills aren't so hot.

Am I onto something here?

I agree with you. I dunno if you've seen the out of print Zero RPG from Archangel, but the three sections of Steve Stone color plates perfectly convey the tone of the setting.

In fact, the game was actually designed from the art.

I saw Zero in the store once, and figured, "I can always pick it up later." Well.

I gather that the point you're making is that the game book is a tool, not just for mechanics, but for Color. This is non-obvious, and in some cases (The Pool and Lxndr's designs in general come to mind) absolutely not the case, but with that caveat I agree with you completely. You're definitely getting somewhere.

You go on to suggest that gamebook Color source should be matched to play Color, if I'm not off my rocker. I'd like to discuss how this could be done effectively - since text and graphics are more or less the limit of a paper game - and, more importantly, how one can exploit this possibility.

Shameless Plug Says: Hey! You can use mechanics to reinforce Color too, and even manipulate the tools of play, to make a game a visual, tactile, and auditory experience! I've done it, twice!

Certainly I wouldn't want to say that all RPGs work this way. I'm not even sure I want to say that I think all RPGs should. I just think that many of them do for many of their players.

Tell me about tacticle and auditory input, please. ("Tell me about the rabbits, George.")

Auditory is what you'd expect it to be - talk about the game. You can also use recordings and music here... it seems to be popular, in some circles, to have 'game theme music'. I've never used this, being a very visual person myself.

Visual input can be taken farther than it has - I'd contend that mime is a form of visual input for the people not actually miming. The gameplay environment can be manipulated for effects - I try to run sessions that feature a lot of travelling outdoors, and use the kitchen or dining room for social situations.

Tactile input seems to be a newish thing - Dust Devils with its cards, Fastlane's roulette wheel, Torchbearer's Insignia, and the mah jongg tiles of Refreshing Rain are all tactile elements that can invoke Color.

Then there's the realm of clicky miniature gaming... that's all three senses bound up into one device!

Shreyas Sampat wrote: I gather that the point you're making is that the game book is a tool, not just for mechanics, but for Color. This is non-obvious, and in some cases (The Pool and Lxndr's designs in general come to mind) absolutely not the case, but with that caveat I agree with you completely. You're definitely getting somewhere.

A lot of game texts in this tradition reach for a fascinating ideal: that reading the book is actually the start of play, moving seamlessly into group play via character creation. Features of some texts like the NPC-to-PC explanatory style and GM-only sections are consistent with this ideal, as well as the otherwise-puzzling statement that character generation is a form of Director stance.

Forgetting about woulds, shoulds, and coulds, and which RPGs do and which RPGs don't, I think the important point here is that we're talking about another tool in the toolbox, another gun in the aresenal, another technique in the Tesuji Bottle.

When designing a game, I think it's safe to say this: Everyone should keep in mind that the game-book itself is a tool that can communicate color. It has the potential to contribute input that can't be produced via actual play.

Yes, that's it precisely, Paganini: to be aware of it as a possibility you can choose to follow up on. You don't have to. Sometimes it's not the right answer. But sometimes it can be just the thing.

John: That's an interesting distinction. So it's the difference between "the game is part of what we consult while preparing to play" and "what we do in play is an extension/continuation of what we've read?" Or am I just projecting my own interest here?

A.B.W wrote: John: That's an interesting distinction. So it's the difference between "the game is part of what we consult while preparing to play" and "what we do in play is an extension/continuation of what we've read?" Or am I just projecting my own interest here?

Hi there,

I think my point about Color extends into actual play, not merely reading the book. 'Way back in System Does Matter, in fact.

Game books are often picked up, shown to one another, referenced, and generally handled during play, depending on the group or on the game. The pictures and so forth, or even the size of the lettering of a significant piece of game text, are all contributory Color (or rather, the person's use of them is such) during play.

I also think the tactile elements, which is what I mention in the System essay, aren't all that new. My favorite example is the sensation of rolling big ol' handfuls of dice in Champions or Tunnels & Trolls. "Yeah, this is a real Energy Blast, chump!"

Best,
Ron

John: I like the idea of "the game" as extending out in a bunch of directions from play, but that's my bias showing, I guess.

Ron: Fistfuls of dice. Different polyhedrals. Colors. Yeah. Hmm. If I had more free time, it would be interesting to try some comparison study of the presence of such feedback systems in use at the table and feedback like art in the books. Do bare-bones presentation and straightforward, unvarying mechanics go together a lot, sometimes, not at all? I have no idea, I realize.

Ron, I'd wonder, how long have tactile elements been used deliberately, as opposed to emerging from a confluence of factors that happens to produce tactile feedback?

To make an example, I'll compare Mage and Exalted.

In Mage, a fistful of dice is a coincidental feature; it emerges from the way the system works. Not knowing anything about the design process of this game, I think I can hypothesize that the designers did not consider the "fistful of dice phenomenon" while working on the game.

Exalted, on the other hand, quite deliberately uses this. Virtue dice-adding and stunts, two strong feedback methods, consist of handing people dice. Character 'kewlness' is measurable, in part, by the heaps of dice they can generate through the use of their magical powers, in contrast to Mage 'kewlness', which stems from being able to creatively use a rather narrow spectrum of abilities in a versatile manner.

It happens that I was recently chatting with one of Exalted's authors, who mentioned that when he runs the game he uses a programmable calculator to generate large dice rolls. He doesn't care if the players want to roll all those dice, but it's too much trouble for him. (Players often object to this choice on his part, but he's rather firm on it.)

I'm curious whether that means he doesn't need the tactile reinforcement, whether being the referee makes it different, or whether there's something else involved on this level.

--M. J. Young

A.B.W wrote: I think that art is important in game books precisely because it's scarce in play.

I wanted to pick up and direct this discussion a little bit back towards the original post, which seems to be more about using the learning modes (audial, visual and tactile-kinesthetic) in the conveying of the game (rules and setting) in the game book itself, not in a play session.

Actually, this topic really turned me on- I studied human development as part of my Sociology undergrad, and back then never really thought about the learning modes in relation to the experience of reading or producing a game book. Interesting topic!

I like the metaphor of the learning modes as a Sentai Team in gaming books. I think that more designers would be good to take non-audial modes into consideration: With most games, I see the book design (towards the three learning modes) not as a functioning Sentai team (Audial Red, the leader; Visual Blue, the strongman; and Tactile-Kinesthetic Yellow, the brains: "Design..... BEEEEEAAAAAM!"), but rather a Stong, fast, powerful Audial Red, a Visual Blue who is strong, punches hard, but has no stamina and gets taken out with one hit, and a TC Yellow who is nothing more than a blind, deaf gimp in a broken wheelchair...

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Auditory is what you'd expect it to be - talk about the game. You can also use recordings and music here... it seems to be popular, in some circles, to have 'game theme music'.

Sweet jumping Jehosaphat yeehaw, as Lawrence Fishburne says in the commercial. I wasn't expecting anything like this quantity of really cool comment. I'm learning a lot.

Andy, would you be willing to recommend a few good books or articles online to study on this subject? I'm pretty good at self-study but I also sometimes find that I've wasted by time on refuted work or just plain cranks when I sail blind into the stacks.

Very quickly, the dyslexia is coming in handy again. Auditory is outmoded as a description because what's been determined is that the mode in question is actually "Symbolic". That is, language and text are both symbolic, as opposed to visual, which is an actual direct sensation (as is tactile sensation). Hence why text isn't visual; and why dyslexics often have problems with spoken language in addition to reading.

At least that's what I've been given to understand. In fact, IIRC, this is an observation that's been around for a while now.

If we could figure out how to make text and pictures in games work together, effectively, I'd be happy as a clam.

Oh, BTW, on the tactile thing, I like to note that lot's of retailers are trained to put products into people's hands. Because this tends to form an instant bond between the holder and the object. Somewhere deep in your lizard-brain, something says, "It's mine!" the moment you touch something interesting. Hence why I think that "candy" rewards are so powerful. I've seen Jake do it mechanically, actually; occasionally when awarding dice, he throws them to you so you have to catch them. You could as easily pick one up later, but in making sure you touch it, he's ensuring that you get a little kick from recieving it.

Mike

A.B.W wrote: Andy, would you be willing to recommend a few good books or articles online to study on this subject? I'm pretty good at self-study but I also sometimes find that I've wasted by time on refuted work or just plain cranks when I sail blind into the stacks.

Mike Holmes wrote: Auditory is outmoded as a description because what's been determined is that the mode in question is actually "Symbolic". That is, language and text are both symbolic, as opposed to visual, which is an actual direct sensation (as is tactile sensation).

Mike Holmes wrote: If we could figure out how to make text and pictures in games work together, effectively, I'd be happy as a clam.

If by "tactile" you means "more hands-on experience" with learning the game, than I think it's worth offering up the classic traveller boxed Starter set as a sterling example.
A game of it's time (the Seventies), Traveller is made up of seperate sub-systems: you have your character creation (with that infamous lifepath system with 4-year "terms" of enlist / advance / roll survival in a selection of mostly-military careers), you have your combat, you have modular spaceship creation system (spend X credits, try to figure out all the trade-offs between faster drives, roomier compartments, more weaponry, larger fuel tanks, etc), you have star-system generation, space sector generation (basically, fill up a hex page with star systems), animal encounter generation, etc.
Each sub-system has it's own chapter in the rulebook. Besides the rulebook, you've got a booklet of charts in the box. All the charts for a specific chapter are laid out nicely on a double-page spread in the charts booklet, so you can have them both open, take pen, paper and dice, and amuse yourself rolling up retired merchant captains, aquatic worlds with technologically advanced theocracies and 100Kg. diurnal horned omnivores, or trying to squeeze the max performance out of a 100,000 credit ship design.
In fact, the book encourages this, letting you learn the system's components while putting together stuff you can use later in your game.
Now, since most games assume you already know how to play RPGs, the didactic quality of games hasn't improved much. The last serious attempts I recall were the solo adventures in GURPS 3rd Edition and the Champions Blue Book (or was that Fantasy Hero?).
- Dotan

Andy: Thank you for the links! I like those illustrations. Man, I'd love to see something like that in a Western game. Um, a game made in North America or Europe, that is, not necessarily Six-Gun Roleplaying.