When people sit down to play an RPG, three things are happening at the same time.  While it might be possible, from moment to moment, to seperate out individual moments, it's not the focus of what's being described.

First, the game is social.
Put three people in the same room and set them to kibbitzing, even in a structured way, and you're at a social event.  A game that tries to eliminate the social aspect of play will rarely see play, even if it's great otherwise - note how few people actually play Puppetland, despite the many that think it's really cool - this is because it doesn't allow out-of-character speech, distorting socialisation.  On the other hand, a game that channels the social impulses of players - often the humorous ones - into the game can be successful above and beyond what it's apparent; Hackmaster provides an example of this.  Dungeons and Dragons doesn't facilitate any great social mode, but neither does it interfere with basic socialising.

Second, a game follows a vision.
There must be a common vision for the game of what kinds of characters exist in the game, and most especially of what kinds of things those characters do, and the procedures players are to use to do those things with their characters.   Games where the players can't agree on these things can come apart, as players with different priorities work to put their favorite action at the center of the game.  The central action of Dungeons and Dragons is fantasy action, though the d20 system as a whole is certainly robust enough to support different visions, if the GM has one strong enough.  Not all systems with a clear vision are capable of this, and many are not expected to be.  Other systems lack a clear vision.  However, while a vision describes the central focus and direction of the game...

Third, gameplay is divided.
Each player has a set of goals and an approach to play that is their own.  These goals and approaches are different from one player to the next.  In addition, they are flexible; a player can have different goals for different games.  And finally, these goals are parallel; it's possible, even common for players to come at the exact same scene from radically different approaches - one looking to win conflicts, while another seeks good story, and another is simply trying to get good character flow - and for everything to not only work out fine as a result, but for play to be actively improved because the different approaches each bring depth to the moment that the other players can build on.  It's also possible for that the different approaches won't run so closely parallel, or that they'll go all over the place and conflict with one another.

So what does this mean?
If this 'three things happening at once' ideology is true, then that means:

• Games that attempt to deny the social nature of a game aren't ideal socially.  Games that attempt to channel that social nature may very well strike many as a bit 'gimmicky'.
• Games that lack a central vision tend to appeal less for play than games that possess one - despite magnificent research, flawless editing, and entertaining writing, GURPS has less raw appeal than Dungeons and Dragons.  Games that try to push their central vision to the forefront are, again, likely to strike many as 'gimmicky'.
• Finally, games that don't show any way for parallel styles of play to support one another are likely to end up with a tangle of cross-wired goals; games that actively encourage goals in ways that set them at cross-purposes often see their "how to run the game" advice ignored outright.  on the other end, games that push a single style of play to the point where everyone must play very nearly in that same way or the rules fail them may do well as a one-off or short-run game, but won't have enough range in terms of player styles to support many groups for any significant duration as most gamers measure it.

So.  I'm talking theory again, it seems.

Go on, bash it about a bit.  Let's see if it holds up.
.

You commie mutant traitor, you're stealing Cheetoism and rephrasing it in a non-humorous way!

For this to be true, you need to include the possibility that sometimes players do have the same goals and approaches.  Old school dungeon crawl would be a good example of this -- the player with the Ranger and the player with the Fighter might be using the same approach for the same goals.  This might even be a group-wide thing.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEach player has a set of goals and an approach to play that is their own. These goals and approaches are may be different from one player to the next. In addition, they are may be flexible; a player can have different goals for different games. And finally, these goals are can be parallel; it's possible, even common for players to come at the exact same scene from radically different approaches - one looking to win conflicts, while another seeks good story, and another is simply trying to get good character flow - and for everything to not only work out fine as a result, but for play to be actively improved because the different approaches each bring depth to the moment that the other players can build on. It's also possible for that the different approaches won't run so closely parallel, or that they'll go all over the place and conflict with one another.

Well ... yeah.  Sometimes people all follow the same game-path, and sometimes they'll tend to want to diverge.  The general idea seems to imply that we'd be well served by looking for practical ways to design a game in such a way that it self-adjusts (or, rather, that players adjust it through the actions they would have taken anyway (D&D-tems:  What classes they choose because they want them, what spells and feats they select because they want them) rather than forcing them to step outside of play in order to adjust the system deliberately.

Amber's got this real explicitly, for instance:  "Look at what the players pay a lot for in the auction.  This tells you what their style is, which tells you what you should base the game around."  Do you guys think this sort of thing helps to make sure that people can pursue diverging tracks, but when they don't want to they can still get the more focussed game-play they're craving?

I think you can have games that are wide open -- supporting very diverse goals and play styles.  I think some free-form / LARP games would be an extreme example of this.

You can also have games that have very clearly defined goals and play styles.  Most games outside of the world of RPGs/LARP would probably fall into this category.

And you can have games that are someplace in between.  They might have a strong central goal and play style, but also allow varying amounts of alternate goals and play styles.

If you want to get into setting up a definition of "This is an RPG, and all the rest are not" then sure, you can pick a point on the spectrum and say -- this is the way to do it when creating an RPG.

Because there are successful LARPs, successful board and card games, and successful RPGs at various points in between, I don't think you can say -- this is the one true way to make a game on the focused>>open goals + play style spectrum.

Quote from: StuartIf you want to get into setting up a definition of "This is an RPG, and all the rest are not" then sure, you can pick a point on the spectrum and say -- this is the way to do it when creating an RPG.

Levi can correct me, but I don't think he's trying to define what an RPG is with this dialog, just to try a shot at a more flexible theory.

Quote from: TonyLBThe general idea seems to imply that we'd be well served by looking for practical ways to design a game in such a way that it self-adjusts

I've said in other threads something similar.  The real Holy Grail of games would be one that equally supports/facilitates the various play styles and goals ("Creative Agendas") from person-to-person and from moment-to-moment.

The question is, are there styles and goals that are just incompatible? If so, is there any way to design a game that will faciliate these incompatible styles and goals simultaneously?

I dunno.  I haven't even really gotten my mind around whether stylistic goals are inherently positive (i.e. "I want X") or whether they can also be negative ("I want not Y").  Personally, I'm all about the positive ... as long as I get my good human drama, there is no bad in my view to also getting some kick ass tactical challenge.  Oh hell yeah!

But I'm certainly not ready to discount the people who say, for instance, that their fun is ruined by out-of-game discussions of any sort.  They're probably just wired differently from me.

If I could answer that one then I'd be able to answer your question too:  If your goals are purely positive then you can probably mix anything.  The Dogs can render the judgment of a righteous God they create and run around spanging bullets off their longcoat of perfect divine protection.  If you have negative goals too then you're much more likely to find things that are contradictory.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenFirst, the game is social.

Are two people, in a room, speaking only in character (like in a LARP, or, apprently, Puppetland?) still socializing? I don't want to split hairs or pick nits, but wouldn't the very fact that a game is being played imply social activity? Wouldn't this, then, become a question of taste?  Many (IMHO, most) are Cheetoists - that is they want the game to be a social gathering.  Some (few IMHO) want to eschew the social, diminish it as much as possible so it doesn't break their immersion.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSecond, a game follows a vision.
There must be a common vision for the game of what kinds of characters exist in the game, and most especially of what kinds of things those characters do, and the procedures players are to use to do those things with their characters.

Agreed.  But how much of this flows inherently from the design of the game? At what point is it about the layers put on top of the system (like genre) that provide direction.  I'm thinking along the lines of computers where the most fundamental layer only handles certain things, leaving more complex and detailed things to layers above. So D&D covers the stack all the way up to "fantasy action" whereas GURPS just covers the mechanics (the lowest level?) and leaves the higher levels to supplements, genres, etc.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThird, gameplay is divided.

I agree with Stuart's minor modifications.  I might also suggest terms different than parallel.  I mean, parallel means, literally, the goals will never meet.  And what you seem to be talking about is the exact opposite - the goals and style are converging. But that's just terminology (though it would be nice to see theories where the common use of the terms was not so absent).

First thoughts...I'll have to digest it more.

Edit: Forgot a closing Quote tag...

Quote from: TonyLBI dunno.  I haven't even really gotten my mind around whether stylistic goals are inherently positive (i.e. "I want X") or whether they can also be negative ("I want not Y").  Personally, I'm all about the positive ... as long as I get my good human drama, there is no bad in my view to also getting some kick ass tactical challenge.  Oh hell yeah!

But I'm certainly not ready to discount the people who say, for instance, that their fun is ruined by out-of-game discussions of any sort.  They're probably just wired differently from me.

If I could answer that one then I'd be able to answer your question too:  If your goals are purely positive then you can probably mix anything.  The Dogs can render the judgment of a righteous God they create and run around spanging bullets off their longcoat of perfect divine protection.  If you have negative goals too then you're much more likely to find things that are contradictory.

Interesting - I hadn't thought of the negative. But I wonder how much of this then turns on the group dynamics, and not the design of the game.  Let's say Game X (If it's not taken, I'm taking that name) supports goals and styles X, Y, and Z. If you're playing with a group of people who all want and focus on X, and X ruins your fun, is that the game or the group?

Quote from: James J SkachThe question is, are there styles and goals that are just incompatible?

Sure there is: PvP. Some people love it. Some people absolutely despise it (often because of bad experiences in games where the ground rules on PvP weren't clearly established). Some people, like me, are happy with it if it makes sense IC but don't go out of their way to make it happen.

QuoteIf so, is there any way to design a game that will faciliate these incompatible styles and goals simultaneously?

I think you could conceivably make a game which allows the PvP enthusiasts to get on with what they're doing without a) the consequences of their actions affecting the PvP-haters, and b) the GM's time being eaten up by the PvPers.

However, even this would have problems - specifically:

• A very few people don't like PvP on an emotional level - they get distraught seeing two of their friends bickering, even if it's just IC, because they just don't like conflict. (I think these people are spineless, but they exist.)


• It would be really difficult to find some way of resolving situations where a PvPer wants to go after someone who's opted out of PvP - especially if the PvP-hater has IC done something the PvPer finds absolutely beyond the pale. The PvPer could end up accusing the PvP-hater of hiding behind the game rules to avoid the consequences of his/her actions (and you never know, the PvPer might be right), whilst the PvP-hater would resent being challenged, there'd be bad feelings all around, it'll be a mess.

Gah. There's one specific roleplayer I know who a) really, really doesn't like PvP in games, but at the same time b) likes to play evil, sociopathic, bloodthirsty, or otherwise contentious characters. This person will play their character, end up in a stand-up row with another PC, and then be all upset because the PCs argued (and woe betide you if you try to save a hapless NPC from the murderous rage of this person's character...). I'd love to play in more games with this person, but it'll be difficult unless we set OOC ground rules that there'll be no PvP, and no unsympathetic characters.

Quote from: TonyLBIf your goals are purely positive then you can probably mix anything.  The Dogs can render the judgment of a righteous God they create and run around spanging bullets off their longcoat of perfect divine protection.  If you have negative goals too then you're much more likely to find things that are contradictory.

I think a common problem people have is that they want to stop people from doing something - with games it tends to be STOP TRYING TO KILL EVERY NPC YOU MEET YOU GUN OBSESSED MORON!, because, yknow.

I THINK its better to work togeather to create something you can all work with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FEU7MOwhY&mode=related&search=

I doubt theres any roleplayer in existance who couldn't find a home somewhere in there.

Quote from: Erik BoielleI think a common problem people have is that they want to stop people from doing something - with games it tends to be STOP TRYING TO KILL EVERY NPC YOU MEET YOU GUN OBSESSED MORON!, because, yknow.

But, actually, I've run a game that catered to two people with what looked like irreconcilable differences on that.  It was a high-tech game where people were an inquisitor (seeking out invasions of space-cthulhu) and his bodyguards.

The player of the inquisitor wanted to have meaningful and important interactions with NPCs.  One of the bodyguards just wanted to shoot people.

So I made sure they secured a technology that would let them do virtual seances with the dead people that the bodyguard shot, and all was well.  It wasn't (at least in that case) so much "I don't want you shooting people," it was "Hey, man, after you shoot them it's really hard for me to do the fun things I want to do with them."  Fix it so both of them could have their fun, and nobody had any further problems.  I mean, except for all the NPCs being shot, but they're fictional so screw 'em

Quote from: StuartFor this to be true, you need to include the possibility that sometimes players do have the same goals and approaches.  Old school dungeon crawl would be a good example of this -- the player with the Ranger and the player with the Fighter might be using the same approach for the same goals.  This might even be a group-wide thing.

Oh, yeah.

That's right.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou commie mutant traitor, you're stealing Cheetoism and rephrasing it in a non-humorous way!

I...  am?

Sweet!

Quote from: James J SkachSome (few IMHO) want to eschew the social, diminish it as much as possible so it doesn't break their immersion.

Some do, yes.  And almost all of thaose, IME, want to do a lot of talking and character scenes.  As in immersive LARP - they want to move the social aspect into the game.

And that can be done, as I see it - but the group has to all be in on it; anytime someone makes a one-sided effort to alter a game, it's likely to end up as one of those "our goals are diverging instead of running parallel or converging" bits, I think.

Quote from: James J SkachSo D&D covers the stack all the way up to "fantasy action" whereas GURPS just covers the mechanics (the lowest level?) and leaves the higher levels to supplements, genres, etc.

See, this is where generic systems run into a bit of trouble, I think.  GURPS doesn't have a strong central vision of play - what is has, in spades, is well-researched, clearly written, and actually-edited support for a large range of visions that a GM or group might develop.  But you need to get a central vision of your own, and then pull together that support from that overall structure.

Quote from: James J SkachI agree with Stuart's minor modifications.  I might also suggest terms different than parallel.  I mean, parallel means, literally, the goals will never meet.  And what you seem to be talking about is the exact opposite - the goals and style are converging. But that's just terminology (though it would be nice to see theories where the common use of the terms was not so absent).

Converging goals, diverging goals, and parrallel goals.

Hmm.  Not sure if that's too jargonesque.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSome do, yes.  And almost all of thaose, IME, want to do a lot of talking and character scenes.  As in immersive LARP - they want to move the social aspect into the game.

And that can be done, as I see it - but the group has to all be in on it; anytime someone makes a one-sided effort to alter a game, it's likely to end up as one of those "our goals are diverging instead of running parallel or converging" bits, I think.

I think we're in agreement, I'm just wondering how this impacts design.  I mean, if the game is designed to facilitate that immersive play, I'm not sure many would come to it with a different goal.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSee, this is where generic systems run into a bit of trouble, I think.  GURPS doesn't have a strong central vision of play - what is has, in spades, is well-researched, clearly written, and actually-edited support for a large range of visions that a GM or group might develop.  But you need to get a central vision of your own, and then pull together that support from that overall structure.

On at least one level, we concur.  That is, with a truly generic game like GURPS, you need your own central vision layer on top of the mechanics. I'm not making a value judgement on whether it's good or not, as I think some want to do that, and some want it done as part of the design. In what could be a radical statement for this forum, in a way, you could see D&D as a step towards more focus.  GURPS, and those like it, are on the far end of the focus scale. MLwM would be at the other far end. D&D would be a tiny little itsy bitsy step from the GURPS end.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenConverging goals, diverging goals, and parrallel goals.

Hmm.  Not sure if that's too jargonesque.

It's only jargon if it doesn't really help.  I think these are much better than GNS because it doesn't pigeon-hole anyone.  It describes the goals not by categorizing the styles, but in how they relate to each other - which seems more important in the long run.