The Forge Archives

Ben Lehman proposed that we discuss Toy Quality, which he defines as "Any part of the game that is enjoyable when divorced from the SIS" [paraphrase].

I quickly derailed the conversation, and then we spent a while flailing around trying to come up with some definitions.  C. Edwards, Vaxalon, and I spent about an hour or so hashing some of this out, so I decided to kick up a new thread to get a fresh start.

The problem we first ran into was that Toy Quality, as Ben had defined it, was far too broad to really discuss.  We have broken it up into three major categories: Aesthetics, Props, and Mechanics.

Aesthetics is pure aesthetic appreciation.  This includes pretty pictures, nice layout, the attractive qualities of the platonic solids, whatever.  For example, I love my copy of The Burning Wheel.  Not just for the mechanics and stuff, but because I find it to be a very attractive book.

Props are physical objects that are manipulated.  A lot of Props also have Aesthetic value.  Those figurines are pretty and there's something about moving them around that is fun.  The real key for the Toy Quality aspect of Props is that they are played with.  If it's just sitting around looking pretty then it's about the Aesthetics, but once you start manipulating it it's about the Prop-ness (or something).

Mechanics, as Toy Quality applies to the term, is about the manipulation of complex systems.  "Complex" in this case meaning "having interconnected parts".  Basically Mechanical Toy Quality is about the enjoyment of manipulating a system iteratively.  The system feeds back into itself such that choices impact your future choices.  Mechanical Toy Quality can include Character Creation, detailed Combat Systems, really any sort of system in which the mechanics impact each other directly without SIS input.  Again, I point at The Burning Wheel for their combat mechanics, but you could also point at The Riddle of Steel or d20.

One of the important distinctions that came out of our discussions was that Toy Quality itself is relative.  If you don't like chess then chess holds little or no Toy Quality for you.  Quantifying Toy Quality is like trying to quantify fun, a game is only "fun" in context of the players.

That said, games can be designed to maximize Potential Toy Quality.  If you have non-complex mechanics then there is not potential for Toy Quality in the mechanics.  The purpose of this thread is to discuss specific ways to design Potential Toy Quality into RPGs.

I think that we have a pretty good grasp of the Aesthetic.  Art, layout, and all that is something that we have done, perhaps without calling it Toy Qulity, but we have a prett solid understanding of it.  

Props are a much less discussed topic, so: What Props have good Toy Quality?  How can those Props be integrated into RPGs?  What use can Props be put to within the SIS (not Toy Quality)?

Mechanics are what I find most fascinating about all this personally.  It's also the thing I'm having the hardest time analyzing.  I can point to a system that does have mechanical Toy Quality for me, and for others (which indicates a high level of Potential Toy Quality), but I am unable to precisely point out what gives something Toy Quality.  I believe that Mechanical Toy Quality is what non-RP games are aiming for since they don't have an SIS.

It's possible that I've misrepresented one of the other parties in this discussion.  This was my final understanding, but there may be some point that they wish to highlight or contest.  Also, if anyone wishes a log of the conversation in order to see how we got to where we did, feel free to PM me.

Thomas

Here is one thread dealing with Props, as I understand your breakdown, which may have some seeds of ideas that refer to those questions. Somewhere in there I threw out some half-baked ideas for integrating Props as something required for continuous play, which I'm not sure get to the point of this thread or not.

Anyhow. I think that Mechanical Toy Quality is a big part of things like mapping, NPC creation, and all the effort that the stereotypical D&D DM goes through to "prepare" for his games. I think this also leads to, or accounts for, part of the disconnect between planned play and actual play.

I know that, back in the day when I was a DM, I really enjoyed creating maps and magical items, placing things just right and coming up with cool NPCs. It all formed a coherent whole, entirely outside of the SIS. During actual play, when everything got mucked up and I was constantly changing and revising things to fit the play better, that was an entirely different kind of thrill. Part of it was also that I could enjoy the mechanical action of creating by myself - stay up all night drawing maps, essentially.

Thanks Thomas,

This topic needed a fresh post.
I think you've got my points spot on.

I would though add that toy-quality is necessarily related to SIS.
How many people would desire a 7" blond-haired action figure "with punching action and half a sword"
And how many people wanted a He-Man figure?
And those toys had no mechanics whatsoever....

Yes I am bitter 'cos the knock-off transformers I got bought had less Toy-Quality than the official Transformers with their 'backgrounds' and their 'cartoons' :-P

M:TG is worthless if you can't share an imagined space (or learn the rules as it's called in that case).

Where am I going with this? Forget that and enjoy the journey - that's role-playing :-)

Seriously though I feel aesthetics and props are an integral part of mechanics  -some people really do love just rolling loads of dice.
Like why they love playing Yahtzee.
I hate it my Mum always gets like two Yahtzees a game - how can you compete with that?

I think that's the key - toy quality is a subset of gamism, divorced from narrativism and sim (to use Big Rons terms as found in the forge glossary) - as something you're just playing about with dosen't need a narrative or explorative values.

I've just realised narrativism and simulationism feature highly in any conception of what is fun - thus what is good Toy Quality. Damn.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can never divorce aspects of the game from Shared Imagined Space - SIS being part of the game even for Masters of the Universe.
Ergo potential toy quality stems from buying into that SIS.

Anyways discuss

JJ

Quote from: JJI think that's the key - toy quality is a subset of gamism, divorced from narrativism and sim (to use Big Rons terms as found in the forge glossary) - as something you're just playing about with dosen't need a narrative or explorative values.

I disagree. First of, Props such as handouts and maps are certainly part of exploration, which is a part of all three CAs as I understand them (please correct me if I'm wrong, of course).

I'm not sure whether Toys of any kind have any kind of relation to CA. It seems to me that the involvement of Toys in actual play is a technique, more than anything else. Couldn't a narrativist group use a certain painting as a symbol of the premise they're addressing (Aesthetics), a simulationist group use detailed maps and miniatures (Props), or a gamist group use a complicated point-build system (Mechanical-ness)? Or am I off-base with my understanding of Toy Quality - or CA - or both, I guess...

I guess I'm trying to say that I don't see any inherent CA-ness to Toy Quality. First off, CA is all about the SIS, and TQ is about things considered specifically away from the SIS. A gamist player can't Step On Up when he's by himself, right? There's no-one to measure against.

Now, if you're saying that the kind of person that tends to play gamist games would also tend to enjoy a RPG's TQ when not playing it, I can respond that that makes sense, but I'm sure its not an absolute corrolation.

It's still basically the exploration which is simulationism, IMO. In the sim essay, Ron notes how reading a sim book can be actual play...reading how numbers relate lets you explore causality as depicted there (the essay even notes how this can seem very bizarre to a nar or gamist gamer). Your by yourself when you read it, but it's still actual play.

The real life quality doesn't really matter. Say your manipulating a transformer to turn it into a tank...your exploring how it moves as well as how those moves can change its appearance. So you built up knowledge of that real life structure and how it works...in your head, that structure has been learnt.

Reading the sim based book is the same. You learn a structure from how the numbers interact in a causality based way.

Most importantly, both are fun because your brain likes learning (which is a very good thing). You can't easily attach where this fun comes from, because it doesn't so much come from a particular thing which you could attach it to. Instead it comes from learning about that thing, and once you've learnt it (assuming that's possible...permutations might not permit), then learning about that object isn't fun anymore.

So the real life quality of the object doesn't matter, since in the end its about getting it (real or made up stuff) into your head. Nor does the the lack of SIS matter, since sim play can start from someone reading by themselves (the sim essay notes this is a common design structure).

Probably a way of looking at TQ is that it's different to the usual Lumpley principle were used to. In that, you might assert 'There is a giant robot ahead of you', and your assertion is accepted into the SIS based on the usual stuff. With an actual toy, say a toy robot, it's more like your sponsoring it 'There is a giant robot just like this one, ahead of you'.

The difference in sponsoring is that it's up to the qualities of the physical object, and not the person, to determine what gets into the SIS. Sure, people still need to accept the sponsorship, or sponsor parts of that object into SIS themselves. But it isn't their assertion that the stuff is there, it's their sponsor ship of it. God, I hope I'm using the word sponsor right...I'm thinking of it in the way in the old days someone might not be able to come into a important place unless a respected person sponsored them.

Nothing can get into the SIS without permission. You can't say a stranger is ahead, but not mention his huge gun and then expect to apply it in play latter, without having described that as well and gotten lumpley permission for its SIS state. The problem is that as you give something permission, you've pretty much explored it. You know there's a stranger there, you know he's got a big gun...he couldn't have either if you didn't okay it, and if you've okayed it, you've explored it. What's intriguing about TQ is that when the toy/prop is sponsored, unknown qualties about it come with it. Not that these qualties couldn't be vetoed in the lumpley process, but the trick is that like causality of A then B being vital to sim, so are these special hidden qualties of the toy (pop out big gun, for example) attached to the toy like B comes after A. There's a compulsion to accept it to the SIS, and a sexy unknown factor to bringing in toys which have this. Although these toys might have unknown factors in them, when they are given permission in general to be in the SIS, the hidden qualties basically get in as well. Cool! Giving permission AND you still get to look forward to exploring the thing thoroughly!

Extra note: I'm talking about sim in sim designs, but of course this gets used in gamist or nar designs. The thing is, sim is a secondary there, not primary.

Nathan P. -
please read the rest of my post after the bit you quoted.
I already disagreed with myself :-)
It pretty much answers all the points you put forward.

Except - yes a gamist player can Step On Up on their own - consider patience, solo rules for rpgs and computer rpgs.

As far as toy quality goes I'd love to know what people rate as good toys and why they consider that to be the case.
I'm undecided as to whether we should divorce toys from games.

As principal Skinner says - it's fun if you make a game of it.

Maybe this keys into GNS - toys can have sim, nar and gamist qualities, which each impact upon an individuals  conception and experience of 'fun'.
In this regard, Principal Skinner is a hard-core gamist - it's beating pre-defined goals that matter.

I'll also add that TQ seems dependant upon an individual's imagined space, and this TQ can be greatly diminished when the same phenomenon is introduced to a SIS.

JJ

More musings,

Ok, I have a couple other notions that might be useful to the discussion. I'm probably coming at this sideways, but since this is all still pretty exploratory, I'll indulge in it with the hopes that it'll contribute to end result after we shake it all out and figure out which notions work well together and which ones help us make sense of this.

So I'm going to start by saying that I think these two points from the previous thread are particularly interesting to me.

Quote from: KeithI wish I had some proper references but I am sure I read that the creator of the Sims conisidered it a toy rather than a game, comparing it with a ball with which one could play any number of games - throw and catch, football (aka soccer), netball, dodgeball, keep-it-uppy etc.

I think what is being talked about here is more than the 'toyness' or 'ballness' of part of the game but the fun involved in moving around with the ball - people can enjoy messing around with a ball without a marked out pitch, without as referee or goal posts. We are not talking about how nice that physical ball is but how nice it is to move around and do stuff with it. It only becomes part of a game when there are more rules and definitions.

and

Quote from: ChrisSo, we need to either discuss the physical props or we need to discuss the rules that are being used to manipulate the props. The props are toys and the mechanics possess Toy Quality. I think this whole concept will stay hopelessly muddled until that distinction is made.

I don't know if I'm expanding directly on either of these comments or coming at the issue sideways, so I'll hedge and say that I've quoted them because in some way they've shaped how I'm approaching this in this post. Hell, once I've written it we may find that I'm just saying some of the same things in different words, or that I'm addressing some of the same issues that Thomas summarizes in the first post just in different terms. Either way, I think it'll still prove useful. (I hope, anyway.) Also, I think the issue of toy quality in relation to GNS is interesting but I probably won't say too much about it. Instead I'll let Callan and Nathan (and anyone else, of course) continue to hash it out, since they're well on their way to figuring it out already.

So some notions that might be useful when talking about this. And I'll use the "toys" as physical objects as a jumping off point. The tokens, I'll say, so as to include dice as well. I think their qualities can be partly understood in relation to a) what they are, physically, and how we can manipulate them and b) where they've been. I'm stealing all this from a couple of guys called Kress and van Leeuwen, and they stole it partly from semiotics and reframed it in their own way. I'll do the same. They refer to a) as semiotic potential (or experiential meaning potential in their earlier writings) and b) as provenance (if you're old school, I think this is very similar to Barthes' notions of "myth" and "connotation"). I'm just going to call a) what it is and b) where it's been.

a) what it is: Here we've got the physical thing and the feel of it, like the weight and clatter of a handful of dice. The colors and lines and feel of the paper in a map. And the emphasis here is on action, on how we can interact with the thing, how we can make use of it, how we can do stuff with it. If we're not doing something with it (and doing can include perceiving it, thinking about it, etc.), if we're not doing something with it, it doesn't matter. But all the stuff we can or could do with it, that's in here. Different people will find different aspects of this appealing or won't, will do different things with it or won't. So it's got potential. Each person, and the RPG group as a little social bubble, will make use of different parts of this potential, or won't, will bring different aspects of it to the fore.

b) where it's been: Here we've got all the uses that the thing has been put to in the past, in the society at large as well as in the group, the conventional, habitual associations. If you look at a lot of the "toys" we're talking about here, you can see that many of them (but not all) will have associations with childhood play. I don't think it's an accident that Ben called it "toy quality" and that a lot of people are bringing up childhood toys in their examples. And these have various associations based on each of our individual uses of toys in the past as well as the conventional associations. In RPG and wargaming circles, legos seem to have made a jump to acceptability that they may not have in wider social circles – is it ok for grown men to play with legos? Well, that depends on whether legos are "kid's stuff" or not. For some people they are. They've been freed of this somewhat in wargaming and RPG circles, I think, but they're also used partly because of those very same associations of play. Or take miniatures – ok in RPGs, sure, there's a long tradition of wargaming markers and so on as serious stuff. GI Joes? Well, hell, I'd use them. But that's a lot like legos, and I'm not sure they're as widely redefined in RPG circles (although again there are all these strands that contribute to making them ok, like geek cultures of action figure collection, and so on, that are contributing to re-defining them). Would I use them the same way as I did as a kid? No, I don't suppose I would. I'd re-define them, what could be done with them, how they'd be used at the table, and that re-definition would partly be in how they were related to the game system. Again, like the potential uses I talked about in a), there's a wide variety of associations that will be partly shared and partly not shared among players in the group, uses that various folks will associate more or less strongly with the token, uses that they will or will not see as conventional, and so on; and as a group as well, various conventions will be established from past shared uses and new conventions can be created, partly drawing on the actual potential of the items and partly drawing on uses and associations that one of the players brings to the table and contributes and that the rest of the players pick up on and incorporate.

As another example, take the use of playing cards in RPG systems. Playing cards come with a set of physical differences from dice (they lack the weight, there's no rolling, you hold them differently in your hand, they are physically manipulated in a different way; but also they relate to other playing cards in a different way from how dice relate to other dice; there's more here but I'll stop here for now). They have a different potential as physical objects and as systems than dice. (Which of these are most useful will depend on the goals of the game.) They also have different associations, different past uses, both in wider culture and in RPGing. In RPGs in particular, they've been used at times to capitalize on commonly shared cultural associations, say in Matt Snyder's use of cards and poker both in Dust Devils. They've also been used in spite of these cultural associations. I use them in Fist of the Assassin in spite of their associations because I like the mechanical options that they open up. But it's not a trivial choice, and it would be foolish of me to claim that there are, or should be, no associations and connotations from past use. I'd like people to re-define these associations or recast them for use of the system. Dice are largely naturalized in RPG circles in this way, to the point that they have picked up associations with roleplaying itself, or with specific games. And again, some of these will be associations shared broadly in RPGing circles but many of the finer associations will be related to personal histories of gaming.

So what does all this have to do with toy quality? Well, I'm not sure yet, or how much, but I'm working it out. Something that strikes me as particularly useful is this:

They cut across objects, mechanics, and SIS: These notions are stolen from an approach to talking about semiotics and meaning, and so they are not tied to physical objects. They could give us a way to understand why toy quality is being talked about as something that a system can have but also as something that a object brought to the table can have – because the system also has its own potential interactions that we an draw into the game and make use of, just like the object. And it also has associations, perhaps partly from other games played with similar systems or with puzzle solving activities and so on. The same thing goes for elements of the SIS that aren't drawn from immediately present physical objects. (The tavern in D&D has both a potential as concept and it also has a set of conventional uses, for example.) So these notions can be applied to a) "toys" as objects, b) "toys" as rules systems, c) "toys" as imaginative elements introduced into the game, and d) to the way toys and rules systems SIS are brought into interaction. I think d) is one of the most interesting bits, but all could benefit from further explanation.

As for the "play-ness" or "toy-ness" versus "RPG-ness," here we get another way to look at these things – how much of the "-ness" of the thing is coming from the thing itself and its meaning potential? How much of the "-ness" is coming from past uses of the thing, conventions, etc.? These are questions worth asking probably with each thing, and it's not necessarily likely or possible that we will be able to establish a kind of all-encompassing "grammar" for talking about them. Rather, they're questions that can be asked with each "toy," and that will get probably various responses (not infinite, and with definite overlap; but also varied in content and strength of importance for any one person and for any group). From a design perspective, this encourages asking questions like, "What could be done with this thing?" "What has been done with it?" "What hasn't been done with it?" "What are the associations it carries for me?" "What are the associations that it probably carries for others, especially what are the associations it probably carries for lots of others who will be picking up this game?" And also, as related to MJ's post in the previous thread and Callan's reply, "How much work will it be to implement these?" "How much work at the beginning, when you're learning it?" "How much work over time, even after you've got it down?" "Is it worth it, to me?" "Will players find it worth it?" "Are there ways to get similar toy quality with less work?"

And so on.

Rich

In this post, I stole these ideas from these guys, mostly:

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.

They have some older stuff related to this, but the newer stuff I just listed above is better. Also, there are other people doing similar things that are quite relevant but that I haven't stolen from so much here. If you want a lightly annotated bibliography, PM me and I'll be happy to oblige.

Quote from: Nathan P... CA-ness ..

That's the toy quality of your cat walking away.

I tried to respond last night before Rich's post, but the server ate it.  That turns out to be a good thing because it means I now get to address Rich's points.

First of all, Rich: I think you have a lot of really good stuff in there, tons of good stuff.  Especially your suggested questions.  But that's not what I am talking about when I say "Toy Quality".

Same thing to Callan.  I don't think that there has been enough discussion of Exploration in general, much less the exploration of toys.  I highly suggest you start a thread on the subject.  But again, that's not what I am talking about.

I think part of the confusion comes from the term "Toy Quality".  The word "toy" calls to mind the things we did as children.  And those things are so tied up in imagination that we automatically make a connection to SIS.

I want to highlight the definition that we are working with here: "Anything that is fun specifically divorced from the SIS".  By "divorced from the SIS" I am not saying "fun in SIS and fun outside SIS", I am saying "totally independent of SIS".

Perhpas a better, less confusing term might be "Game Quality".  Because that's what I'm seeing here.  The fun of chess, the fun of darts, the fun of whatever other game you want to play.

I apologize for any points here that are unclear and will be happy to clarify.  Let me assure you, in the absence of any ability to actually judge for yourself, the post that the server ate was a glowing example of analytical and teach brilliance.  Anyone who read it would have attained enlightenment.  Alas, it seems that you'll simply have to muddle through this other post...

Thomas

Heya Thomas,

Once you hit a couple of paragraphs, cut and paste into notepad, is what I say (not that I always remember myself).

Anyway, I know, your trying to cover how these things are fun divorced from the shared imaginative thing a ma jig. That's handy, but it's not much help finding out why you would include them in RP even though you don't have to (If they are already fun by themselves, why are you adding them to a RP game?). Am I correct in what the goal is? If it's to extract elements of RP games which qualify as fun on their own and to develop them further, separately,  as a non RP product, then I'm way off.

Otherwise, a definition which is entirely independent of SIS isn't going to help RP design...RP is largely about the SIS. If you developed a definition that's independent of SIS, your then going to have to go backwards with it until you can connect it to an SIS exercise. Otherwise your basically working on something that helps with board game design (which isn't bad, but confuses me).

That's why I headed into individual imagined space, and how it leads to/is simulationist play. Because that links up with SIS. On objects which have aesthetic appeal, or props, your going to start with independent IS. On other things which qualify as games by themselves, how it'll end up being treated depends on the CA involved. But even for something like a gamist CA, I think such elements are still sim...Fast lane uses a casino wheel (right word?). I can only think it will be interested to see how it effects play, rather than the wheel itself being what is interesting (focus isn't on the toy like it was before). If you used chess or darts as a resolution mechanic, either the focus will be on the resolution and not the means of getting it or if focus is applied on the means to get a resolution, its simulationist exploration of that means.

Once again, I'm tying it into SIS. Because I think it wont help to work in another direction. Am I wrong on that?

What I'm reading toy quality as:

You get your kid this huge, cool, super complex toy, spend hours putting it together and s/he sees it, goes gaga over it, plays with it for five minutes and wanders off only to come back with the box...only its not a box, its a pirate ship! Or a Rocket Ship, and you're a Martian!

If I'm reading it right, the "Toy Quality" is something that is a part of the system you like to play with for whatever reason. Had a boardgame once, Tower of the Wizard King. Played it like two or three times, didn't really like it. The Tower, on the other hand, was 'magic', put a figure in, turn it, and it spit out another figure. THAT saw a lot of use, just screwing around with it. The figures themselves saw a fair bit of use, first displayed on my shelf, then used in a homebrew D&D campaign as my minis.
In my situation, the TQ related to the figures and the tower.
Like the Yatzee example, there may be a slick die mechanic you dig out of a real snoozer of a game. For some reason, its a cool mechanic, you like it, you'll chuck the die a few times to see what rolls up even if it has nothing to do with the game.

As to why it should be considered for RP Design? Why not? Its fun already by itself, combine it with something equally suitable thats also fun, you have 2 fun things in one package, and that could possibly appeal to two demographics.
Take Beyblade (ugh). Tops are pretty cool. As a little kid, you can be mezmorized by one of those, seeing what you can do with it. POW! Theres a cool new anime with awesome dragons, cool robots and...battling tops? So the anime buffs look at it, play with it, get bored after a little bit when the new fad comes as usual. Little kids pick it up, have no idea what it is, but play with it as much as the older kids. Its simple concept is easy to grasp, theres some other complexities they can pick up on but its not needed to basically enjoy smacking your top against Bobby's.
SO, you have collectors who think they're pretty, you have the kids who love to play with them, and because the anime and toy are battling systems of some kind, you have folks who dig it for the 'stratagy'.  
Three demographics, one product. THAT is why TQ is important.

Callan,

That is it exactly.  I am talking about the Game part of RPGs.  Here's why: Let's say you have two RPGs that impact the SIS in the exact same ways.  From a Role Playing standpoint they are identical.  But one of these two games is more fun to play, not due to SIS (role playing) concernts, but due to the really cool game that is built in.

Clearly the RPG with the better game qualities is going to be more enjoyable.  The people who don't care about the game parts can ignore it, but the people who do care get an extra bonus: good role playing, and good game playing.  That is what I'm talking about: Gaming, totally divorced from role playing and then reintegrated into it.

Quote from: daMoose_NeoAs to why it should be considered for RP Design? Why not? Its fun already by itself, combine it with something equally suitable thats also fun, you have 2 fun things in one package, and that could possibly appeal to two demographics.

This is close to what I'm getting at, but instead of appealing to two demographics, I'm talking about appealing to your audience in two different ways: fun Role Playing and fun Gaming.

My basic point here is that improving the non-SIS elements of your game without decreasing the impact of the SIS elements of your game is always a good thing (this is a strong statement, and I would love to discuss it).  I am also saying that for each RPG design there is some amount of SIS impact loss that is appropriate in order to develop game qualities in your RPG.  That amount of acceptable loss varies from game to game, but I think it is there.

All that said, what you are talking about: the way in which Props impact the Personal Imagined Space, and from there impact the SIS is possibly more important than the purely game concerns that I am discussing.  In fact, I encourage you to go start a thread on the subject right now.  It needs to be discussed, and you seem to be the one to do it.  I am not kidding, I will gladly participate in such a discussion.

I haven't spent much time considering that topic, and the specific purpose of this thread was to discuss the non-SIS elements of a game.  I would welcome discussion of the following: The idea that reducing the SIS impact of a game in order to increase its game qualities is okay (i.e. sacrifice RPG-ness for Toy Quality).  To what degree such a sacrifice is allowable.  How to identify and increase Potential Toy Quality in a set of rules.  And, possibly most importantly: Does Toy Quality distance players from the SIS with its presence?

Thomas

Thomas,

Well it sounds like you mean to focus on partitioned play. Where you actually stop roleplaying and do an entirely different activity, then start roleplaying again latter. Your doing two seperate activities in spurts, one then the other.

An example is where you might use Tekken or some fighting computer game, as your resolution mechanic (I've considered writing something like this myself). So you roleplay along until you need this resolution, then absolutely stop roleplaying and start playing Tekken. Once you finish that, you go back to RP, using the game of Tekken's results as part of your resolution.

Clearly, you can play Tekken by itself and have fun. It's so indipendently fun of RP fun, it is a seperate activity.

If you find that a stilted idea, then I don't know where to go. Either tekken is a seperate activity which is done after bouts of RP, or it gets absorbed into the SIS and combines the activities into one hybrid.

I started going into this combinational SIS thing because you mentioned aesthetics, of things like cool maps or neat pictures. These things have a lot more trouble being entertainment by themselves, unlike a game of Tekken. Instead of the RP stopping and the new activity of making or admiring a map happening, the RP doesn't stop, it simply absorbs these elements into it's SIS. The things you mentioned just didn't count as enough of an activity by themselves to be avoid being absorbed into the SIS. Everyone drawing a map will most likely get absorbed into SIS as part of that. A game of Tekken or lunch money is more likely to make itself a definite activity seperate to the SIS. Probably for the same reasons as when someone turns on the TV or plays a video game while others nearby are roleplaying, it disrupts the roleplay. In the reverse, you might think of roleplay disrupting the drawing of a cool map, absorbing it into the SIS activity, which will take away qualties it had as a seperate activity.

As an example of toy quality and it's application into RPG's a friend of mine runs a site where he sells pdf's to make cardboard cut out castles and dungeons.  Check out www.worldworksgames.com if you want to see what I'm talking about.

At one point we were designing a fold up circular dice roller.  You'd roll to hit on the card board with a rim around the edge to keep the dice inside.  On the bottom was an outline of a human body divided into a few locations.  Where the dice landed gave you a hit location.

Callan,

I think that we are very close to the same idea here.  What I am saying is not that Toy Quality stuff is always divorced from the SIS, but rather that it is still fun when it is.

Your Tekken example is an interesting one.  Consider that a game of Tekken is fun on its own, as you said.  Now let's say that you have an RPG about the Tekken characters, and whenever they fight you play a round of Tekken.  While playing the RPG there is a pretty good chance that the round of Tekken you play for resolution will be tied up in the SIS.  You might taunt your opponent in character for example.

Toy Quality as I see it does not indicate that something can not be integrated into the SIS, but rather that it is still fun when it is not.  I don't consider the mechanics of Sorcerer to be fun with no SIS support, I have no desire to roll d10's against an opponent without some reason.  I do, however, find The Burning Wheel's combat system to be fun on its own.  I don't need SIS to make that fun, whereas I need SIS to make Sorcerer's mechanics fun.

So, I would say that Sorcerer has very little Toy Quality for me, whereas the combat sub-section of The Burning Wheel has tons of Toy Quality for me.

Thomas