The Forge Archives

Greetings Forgefolk,

In the spirit of Mike's rant, I've decided to start a new thread concerning similar issues. So my question is:

What other assumptions, presumptions, prejudices, and self-applied brainwashing can you point out in game design?  

Here are some old ones that don't need arguing:

RPG's must use randomizers
RPG's must have combat systems
System doesn't matter
Players get characters; GM gets world
There can be a universal game system

And a few debatable ones:

RPG's are unique and not like other games
RPG's must have a GM
RPG's don't need goals
Social Contract is not a System
Collaborative Storytelling is not a game

 
This is my (partial and open) list. Let's see what you come up with.

With respect,

Joe Llama

Hi there,

I think this is an excellent thread topic. I have been collecting a slightly different school of off-the-cuff phrases, all involving values and standards of play based on cliquey or quickly-memorized fashions, rather than on anything resembling thought. They include:

I don't like [some number]-sided dice.
Cards are more 'holistic' than dice
Dice pools require "too many dice" [a recent phrase]
Single-die systems are too simplistic [about ten years ago]

The perennial favorite:
There must be attributes and skills, which are added to a roll's outcome to be compared to a target number.

And let's not forget the biggies:
I won't play a game that's not supported, in which "support" refers to a current ongoing line of published supplements.
Role-playing games are really for reading, not playing.

Best,
Ron

You just neeed the right players.
The GM should fudge die rolls if it helps the story.
Non-random mechanics don't work because you always know what will happen.
The GM comes up with the story and the player are the main characters.
The less die rolling there is, the more role-playing there will be.
The Golden Rule (If a rule is getting in the way, ignore it).
There are no winners or losers in RPGs.
Play-Balance is an important factor in character creation.
The game shouldn't place limits on what the players and GM can do.
Powergaming is not role-playing, it's "roll-playing."
The GM's job is to adjudicate disputes.
If you're not in character, you're not role-playing.
OOC/IC information should be kept separate. Not doing so is cheating.
The goal of every RPG is for the players to have fun.
A game system that deals with a certain subject (color-wise) is the best choice for playing a game about that subject (ie: BESM for anime, Deadlands for Westerns).

Simulationist resolution must be based on hard numbers, not judgment calls.

All puzzles are bad.

If there's a 30% chance of one thing happening, and a 30% chance of another thing happening, you can always add them up and get a 60% chance of one or the other happening. (Several major systems are based on this little math error.)

Players powergame because they want power.

Role playing games would have a vastly wider audience if they weren't so misrepresented and misunderstood among the general public.

A biggie that gives rise to several of the items listed by others:
Games should be fair.

- Walt

"Calculation of [ships'] positions will be assisted by the use of calculators and trigonometry." -- Space Opera RPG, 1980; vol. 2, p. 53

Adventures/modules are suitable for any character of X power level
Roleplaying games should be based around campaign play, not oneshots
Mechanics always boil down to success/failure
Power is the only reward system
"What is roleplaying" should be included in every game book
Systems must have numbers
All settings should have magic/psionics/superpowers/cybernetics AKA special abilities
It's up to the GM to find players

Chris

Oh yeah, here's another:

Exploration of setting and character is a valid goal of play.

Quote from: Jared A. Sorensen
Exploration of setting and character is a valid goal of play.

Amen to that, brother.

It's time you and I have a little chat :)

Joe Llama

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenOh yeah, here's another:

Exploration of setting and character is a valid goal of play.

Jared, are you suggesting that exploration of character and setting are invalid goals?

It's late here and I'm getting dense.

Quote from: BalbinusJared, are you suggesting that exploration of character and setting are invalid goals?

Yes, he is. Or at the very least that the simple assumption that this sort of play is valid should be examined.

He's just thrown an actual bomb as opposed to my dud. Let's see if it goes off. I personally will do so from a distant bunker, as I am realtively sure that this is just representative of Jared's predelictions in play. But others may begin with the napalm, soon, as this might prove a sensitive topic.

Mike

One I utter, though I know it's meaningless - "I don't like dice pools."

One I'm surprised hasn't shown up yet - "All RPGs are about telling stories."

As far as Jared's "bomb" - unless he actually wants to explain it (in an new thread, prolly), I say we just let it lie.  It's not *likely* to explode . . . *much* lower probability than 30% twice.

Gordon

I'll explain it, G...but I need to take a break from sitting for awhile.

---

later...

You know what? I'm not going to explain it. There's really no point to it except for me to wave my hands around saying, "Bbbut...bbbut this is what *I* think!" Feel free to take it up with me via private email though.

Quote from: joe_llamaGreetings Forgefolk,
RPG's are unique and not like other games

Agree.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to uphold a lot of these. :) Have *you* ever played any other game that was like an RPG? I mean, beyond the simple fact that they are all *games* - that is, they contain the common elements required to meet the definition of the word - I don't see very many similarities between RPGs and any other style of gaming. I think that the marriage of collaborative storytelling with game elements really does make for a unique experience.

Quote
RPG's must have a GM

Disagree.

Easily overturnable. Just have a week long discussion with Fang. :)

Quote
RPG's don't need goals

Disagree... sort of.

I guess this one depends on what you mean by goals. In order for an RPG to be a role-playing game (rather than a role-playing activity) it has to meet the definition of a game. I think all the game design texts I've read include a goal as one of the required elements for a game. Without a goal, you have no game. However, goal in this context is not to be confused with motive. The motive is the reason that a gamer plays the game. This can be as simple as "I want to have fun." The goal is what the players try to accomplish while they play - this can be many things, from beating the GM's dungeon, to creating a literarily acceptable narrative. The goal is what all players share when playing, defined by the nature of the game. Each player may have a different motive from the others.

Quote
Collaborative Storytelling is not a game

Agree.

Have to agree with this one, on diferent grounds from the previous. CS does have a goal - to create a good narrative - but it lacks another of the required elements: currency. I don't believe I've ever seen a pure story-telling "game" that actually meets the definition of game in this respect. In a CS there is no expenditure or management of currency to reach the goal, and as such a CS activity can't be called a game. :)

Well, with this post I was going to do the opposite of the last one, and list all the conceptions about RPGs that I wish would go away. Except then I read Jared's post and he covered most of them. However, there is still one main thing that bugs me that has yet to be mentioned:

Raw dice mechanics do not provide game flavor.

<Edit:> That is, raw dice mechancis do not provide setting or genre flavor. Obviously they have a huge impact on the feel of the system. Big duh. :)

People are always saying things like this about the D6 Star Wars game. D6 isn't a great space opera game because of the dice *mechanics!* If that were so, what would we be implying?

That massive additive dice pools are heroic? That six sided dice are somehow better for space opera than, frex, d10s? Star Wars is a great space opera game not because of the mechancis, but because of what the designers *did* with the mechanics; the way they tied the game to the foundational elements of space opera.

The Player Character is the Player's persona in the game world

Heck, the concept of Game World bugs me these days.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

Quote from: BalbinusJared, are you suggesting that exploration of character and setting are invalid goals?

Yes, he is. Or at the very least that the simple assumption that this sort of play is valid should be examined.

He's just thrown an actual bomb as opposed to my dud. Let's see if it goes off. I personally will do so from a distant bunker, as I am realtively sure that this is just representative of Jared's predelictions in play. But others may begin with the napalm, soon, as this might prove a sensitive topic.

Mike

What the heck are you talking about? Exploration of charcter in setting is why I play! Other than maybe exloration of story or pure gaming is there.

A thread discussing this if there was one would be good.