I've been tossing around the idea of trying to see RPG's not from the play perspective (GNS, GDS, etc.), but from a construction perspective. Since I have a bit of a computer background, I've struck upon the OSI Model as an analogy. For reference:

Quote from: WikipediaOSI Model

The Open Systems Interconnection Basic Reference Model (OSI Reference Model or OSI Model for short) is a layered, abstract description for communications and computer network protocol design, developed as part of the Open Systems Interconnection initiative. It is also called the OSI seven layer model.

In this model, a networking system is divided into layers. Within each layer, one or more entities implement its functionality. Each entity interacts directly only with the layer immediately beneath it, and provides facilities for use by the layer above it. Protocols enable an entity in one host to interact with a corresponding entity at the same layer in a remote host.

Essentially, it's a way to break down all of the tasks that must be done into different layers and encapsulating specific functions in each layer to handle that layer's defined purpose. A layer doesn't need to know about how things are done in the layer below it, just how to initiate the functions it needs in the lower layer.  It also needs to "publish" to the layer above it all of the functions it provides and how to initiate them.

This is a very rough description of the concept.  It's an effort to (successful) to abstract the myriad of things that need to be done in a Network situation and then instantiate common protocols so that there's a basic, common, understanding of what's getting done where.

It's not a perfect analogy. I'm not doing a thesis on the OSI model, so my accuracy in describing it is not at issue. I'm just using it as a sort of guide to talk about something that might be a more pragmatic approach to RPG design.

Think of it as RPG Layers.  At the bottom of the stack is (are) the resolution mechanic(s). Above that is the Genre layer.  Above that is the Play Style layer. Or maybe they are in a different order or the layers encompass different things RPG related. I'm not tied, yet, to defending any one model.  It's more of a high level conceptual thing. I have no idea if it holds any merit in it's form or beyond. It was just a thought – something to kick around since Pundit wants Design threads

Your thoughts? Any? Am I completely whacked (I mean with respect to this angle, smartasses)? Has it already been done and explored?

Let's complicate matters. Instead of layers think of parts instead. These parts being ...

System
Genre
Style
Setting

System: How do things work?

Genre: What sort of world is it?

Style: What sort of games is it best used for?

Setting: Where does it occur.

How each question is answered helps determined how the other questions are answered. A secret history science fiction produces a different game than a space exploration science fiction.

Do you still see each layer as having "entities" that perform the tasks within the layer, interact with the layer below them and provide facilities for the layer above?

CRAP!

Every time I edit ANYTHING, the post truncates!

-clash

Quote from: James J SkachThink of it as RPG Layers.  At the bottom of the stack is (are) the resolution mechanic(s).

Bwuh?  Why not:

Layer 1: I say thing that happen in the game worlds as I say them.

Layer 2: I say things that may happen in the game world if I use the tools, stats, dice, etc, and get the right result.  I'm interacting with the fiction through tools.

Layer 3: I fiddle with the way that my tools interact with one another, without altering them, balancing feats, etc, in a way that I believe will later produce the effect I want on the fiction of the game.

Layer 4: I alter that actual nature of the rules or our consensus on how to play the game, interacting specifically with the foundations of cause and effect on the game fiction in order to get whatecer it is I want (better genre emulation, more immersion, whatever).

I like the input.  Like I said - this isn't some grand theory I have and want to preach to the world.  It was just a way of looking at it that struck me while responding to Levi in his thread. Y'all are smarter than me in this design stuff, so perhaps the layers will end up sparking your genius.

I'd like to keep it to a layered approach, if possible.  Though its possible to be a more peer-to-peer model as MM proposes, if that's where this takes us.

Levi, I'm not sure I understand your layers, can you provide some examples or expound a bit more?

You might want to look at Brian Gleichman's ideas...he even uses the term "layers" in one of his essays: http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=elements

For that matter, The Big Model of The Forge also has a layered approach, but (typically) it's also filled with self-contradiction and problems of interpretation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou might want to look at Brian Gleichman's ideas...he even uses the term "layers" in one of his essays: http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=elements

For that matter, The Big Model of The Forge also has a layered approach, but (typically) it's also filled with self-contradiction and problems of interpretation.

Yeah..I thought Gleichman did, but I couldn't recall off the top of my head.  I know he has things like Strategic layer versus Tactical Layer, and such.

I don't want ot get bogged down in whether or not this is Forger or not. I do know that I'm not looking to focus on how people play (G versus N) accept to discuss what layer those design implementations are made.

Quote from: James J SkachLevi, I'm not sure I understand your layers, can you provide some examples or expound a bit more?

Sure.  Examples are good.

Layer 1:
I say thing that happen in the game world as I say them - "I pick up the sword".  I'm interacting directly with the 'stuff of the game'.

Layer 2:
I say things that may happen in the game world if I use the tools, stats, dice, etc, and get the right result.  I'm interacting with the fiction through tools - "I swing my sword at him".  There's something (a mechanic) between my declaration and the 'stuff', there to provide fairness / balance / guidance/ whatever.

Layer 3:
I fiddle with the way that my tools interact with one another, without altering them, balancing feats, etc, in a way that I believe will later produce the effect I want on the fiction of the game - "I'll take Cleave this level".  I'm not affecting the 'stuff' of the game yet, but I will be.  I'm adding more tools for use in that second layer.

Layer 4:
I alter that actual nature of the rules or our consensus on how to play the game, interacting specifically with the foundations of cause and effect on the game fiction in order to get whatever it is I want (better genre emulation, more immersion, whatever).  "Guys, I've been looking at the prestige class requirements, and they seem a bit to constrained for me; so, house rule: I'm going to let you guys propse alternate requirements for the ones you want to get into, and we'll negotiate so that they make more sense".  The stuff of the game, the fiction, hasn't been altered one whit; we're altering the way we use the rules to approach the stuff.

To me, the first two are the same level.  That is, the character's ability to affect the world, whether it requires recourse in the resolution system or not is part of that.

The next two would be in the layer that accesses the aforementioned layer.  That is, the feats/abilities/etc. would access the first layer for resolution, perhaps sending it the modifiers that apply due to the current layer of feats/abilities/etc.

The next layer above that would...do what?

It's a very good model.

But not on Monday. Definitely not on Monday.

 

Quote from: James J SkachI don't want ot get bogged down in whether or not this is Forger or not. I do know that I'm not looking to focus on how people play (G versus N) accept to discuss what layer those design implementations are made.

No, you don't have to get into that. Just that you might find something in "The Big Model" to steal or inspire you. The part I'm referring to is somewhat removed from the GNS stuff: basically it refers to a social layer, a layer of "imagining stuff", a mechanical layer, and a layer of actual activity at the table.