TheRPGSite

Many games get criticised in reviews or by those who have read them for problems which, reading actual play threads for those games, rarely seem to actually arise.

Also, I've seen more than one designer comment that on their game's mailing list they could tell those who played from those who just read by the kind of comments they made.

The reading crowd come up with issues that, when you read about them online, seem like big deals.  The actual play guys notice that you're missing a Stealth skill and that the rules for parrying seem to throw up some odd results.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?  I'm wondering how many problems are real as opposed to notional, the Forge back in the day was all over this which is why they emphasised actual play so much, because stuff that seemed tricksy on a readthrough didn't matter in play while stuff that looked fine sometimes threw up odd results.

Anyone got any good examples?  I'm trying to develop a thought, but struggling slightly with it.  I'm wondering if there are category differences in the sort of problems actual play discovers as opposed to those just reading does.

Quote from: BalbinusAnyone got any good examples?  I'm trying to develop a thought, but struggling slightly with it.  I'm wondering if there are category differences in the sort of problems actual play discovers as opposed to those just reading does.

The crucial flaws in Spirit of the Century from actual play are usually around the fact that combat takes an inordinate amount of time compared to the rest of play.  This is not at all obvious from reading it -- when reading my concerns were more with whether the fate point economy would hold up and that was a non-issue.

I'm struggling to articulate a response here. I know exactly what you're saying but my feeble brain isn't giving out the words right now. And I desperately don't want to lapse into analogy!

I think that playing a game always gives you a better 'feel' for how it should work as opposed to how you think it might work.

Aha, I have an example:

We played Contenders last year. Now I'm not at all into boxing and thought that the mechanics for boxing in the game, from reading them alone, would be dull and procedural, lacking in any kind of roleplaying interest. Then I actually played the game and found the fight scenes to be full of drama and excitement. The way the mechanics worked encouraged you to describe and dramatise events, making it a very fun experience.

I'm not sure this at all articulates what you are getting at, so apologies for a lack of clarity here.

Cheers
Malcolm

Thinking more about the SotC example I used, the reason I was concerned about the fate point economy was because I have watched these things fail or stagger along many times before but I never really thought about *why* they fail so just kind of assumed they were inherently broken.  So I think the read-level criticisms may be unduly affected by bias whereas in play we don't really have room for a ton of bias (except in the extreme case where no one actually wants to play the game because of bias but do anyway).  In play there's a certain amount of enthusiasm for just playing a game that carries you well past the analysis inherent in reading and instead you get to encounter the problems directly as problems in play rather than as intellectual "what-ifs" from reading.

Quote from: Malcolm CraigI'm struggling to articulate a response here. I know exactly what you're saying but my feeble brain isn't giving out the words right now. And I desperately don't want to lapse into analogy!

I think that playing a game always gives you a better 'feel' for how it should work as opposed to how you think it might work.

Aha, I have an example:

We played Contenders last year. Now I'm not at all into boxing and thought that the mechanics for boxing in the game, from reading them alone, would be dull and procedural, lacking in any kind of roleplaying interest. Then I actually played the game and found the fight scenes to be full of drama and excitement. The way the mechanics worked encouraged you to describe and dramatise events, making it a very fun experience.

I'm not sure this at all articulates what you are getting at, so apologies for a lack of clarity here.

Cheers
Malcolm

Actually, that is getting there, it's the flipside.

Some games throw up problems on reading that don't come up in actual play.  The flipside is some games read well or poorly but perform differently in actual play.

I've not read Contenders, though it's on my want to play list, but that's an example of a game that read poorly but played better than it read.  For me, Savage Worlds is very similar, a routine comment from its fans is that you just don't get a feel for it until you've played it, on reading it doesn't seem that great but in actual play it's a blast (if you like what it's trying to do).

It's the same issue, judgements based on reading can be very different to judgements based on play, though it still leaves me wondering if there is some kind of pattern in how.

Quote from: HalfjackThe crucial flaws in Spirit of the Century from actual play are usually around the fact that combat takes an inordinate amount of time compared to the rest of play.  This is not at all obvious from reading it -- when reading my concerns were more with whether the fate point economy would hold up and that was a non-issue.

That and your follow up post are exactly the kind of thing I mean.

I think it's a very real phenomenon, Balbinus.  My token example (and the one that really opened my eyes) was with Savage Worlds.

I thought it was a gods-awful mishmash of Deadlands Classic and minis gaming.  When I actually got around to running and playing it, it was a frickin' dream.  I'd never had such a big disconnect between how something read to how it actually played before.

Nowadays I have a real problem with taking any opinion seriously unless it's backed up by actual play experience.

Quote from: RedFoxI think it's a very real phenomenon, Balbinus.  My token example (and the one that really opened my eyes) was with Savage Worlds.

I had the same experience with SW :D

I think I'll post later about my problems with Heroquest and the problems that come up in actual play vs reading through...

Regards,
David R

Well, some games work fine while playtesting them, but really suffer in a longer campaign. Just a few sessions won't really test a game where thoroughly, unless you actually plan your game that way. To achieve True Scientific Realism, you'd probably have to come up with a way to play the same plot with every new system, so that the lab environment is suitably comparable...

Same players, same amount of session, Keep on the Borderlands ;)

Example: ORE sounds good on paper. Then we tried it (Godlike), two different times and found that the mechanics simply don't reproduce the "sample" percentage spread.

Also there is no "Slinging" power for webslingers in Godsend Agenda, which was a problem when creating characters. But that's a "this isn't in here" vs "this doesn't work the way its written when applied."*

I think the phrase Balbinus is looking for is "theory vs practice." ;) With a roleplaying game book, theory involves one person reading the thing, the practice involves a group playing it. A group playing it will show what the game's emergent properties are, an individual reading it won't.

The problem is simply that many gamers don't realise exactly what an rpg is. It's a rulebook. It is not the "game" which is the game session. Reading the rules for D&D tells you exactly as much about a D&D session as reading the rules for chess tells you about a chess match.

If you just read the rules for chess, without having any pieces before you or another player, you would never guess that those few different pieces with their few different moves could lead to so many different games, and that the mastery of it could be something people spend quite literally decades of their lives on.

It's what in philosophy and science calls "emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)" - "the way complex systems and patterns, such as those that form a hurricane, arise out of relatively simple interactions."

There's also what they call "weak emergence", and "strong emergence." The weak version is where you could see the complex property coming, pretty much; the strong version is where you couldn't - "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Something like chess has weak emergence - simply by considering all the possible moves you could see that it'd turn out to be much more complicated than the page of rules is; you might see and be able to predict a lot of the more compex things that arise. But something like roleplaying is strongly emergent, because on top of the rules people put their own creativity, people come up with things the game designer never thought of, but the rules somehow deal with it anyway; you can't really predict any of it.

I would say that the main difference between theory and practice in games is personal taste, whether it's passive or active. Just reading an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste to see what's good or not, the personal taste is aplied passively - I'm just reading. But when playing an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste actively, to make the game more like what I like.

But because I play the game in a group, you get the personal tastes of several people applied to the rules, and this is what gives roleplaying games their strongly emergent stuff. A group of (say) five people will come up with stuff that those five people working alone would never have come up with.

That's why I've always said that rules influence play, but do not determine play. That's why (for example) I describe how I played Dogs in the Vienyard and didn't like it, and droog says, "it doesn't even sound like the same game, I don't know how you got that result." It's because the rules don't determine play, they only influence it.

Emergence is the way I think about these things too.

Balbinus:  What I've seen a lot of is a situation where some people who have read the game say "There's nothing to stop players from doing X, and so X will happen," whereas people who have played the game say "Actually, the emergent properties of the game are that X never happens ... but we can't articulate why in a convincing manner until you too play the game."

Now that's cultish, and it doesn't in fact prove anything.  There are two easy possibilities (and a world of lower-probability explanations):

• 1.  The game does, in fact, have emergent properties encoded into it which prevent X, and if the readers played the games they would see X being prevented left, right and center.
• 2.  There are no such emergent properties encoded in the rules, but they are coded into the expectations and habits that the players bring to the game.  In that case, only people with those expectations and habits will find the game operating the way they want it to.

Really, this is one of those places where the game's quality is much easier to disprove than to prove.  If you've got any substantial number of people who are finding that the rules don't provide the emergent property that other people claim then it's easy to say that it only does so in some circusmtances.  But if everybody finds the same thing going on, you're still stuck with the possibility that you just haven't yet encountered the group that would break the game.

I know people who advocate for the idea that you should explain the emergent properties that you (the designer) expect to see from the game.  I'm not really sure where I stand on that.  I get a queasy feeling about it in the pit of my stomach, but I haven't properly figured out why.

Mage was notorious for these kinds of things. The online communities were obsessed with discovering some principle that would clearly determine which things were consensual and which were vulgar, and different people disagreed about what the principle should be.

In actual practice, you made snap judgements and relied on precedents and the whole business mostly sorted itself out with maybe a thirty second discussion before you got back to zapping the bad guys.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think the phrase Balbinus is looking for is "theory vs practice." ;)

I'm aware, I was just nervous that using the term theory would derail the thread before it started...

Quote from: David RI had the same experience with SW :D

I think I'll post later about my problems with Heroquest and the problems that come up in actual play vs reading through...

Regards,
David R

I had the opposite problem with SW: it looked okay on paper and then ran horribly for us. We played about six four to five hour sessions (24-30 hours) with several combats against varying mixes of opponents and with different sets of magic items (it was a fantasy venue).

Now, I'm not a SW-hater. We had a notably bad experience with it, but I still think it's a reasonably clever game and simplifies things in some good ways--but the fact is that the 'actual play' experience is highly subjective in a way reading the rules isn't.

I also think that in actual play, the experience of examining the rules is usually secondary to actually ... playing. In our Sorcerer game, the GM made some decisions and calls to speed play--if we'd been rigorous, the experience might've suffered (and in one of the combat tests we had my sorcerer get killed by two thugs with guns--perhaps a fluke--but the kind of thing  that would've colored an AP experience pretty strongly).

On the other hand, extensive play will make one far more familiar with a game system than most analysis will--my experience with GURPS 3rd was deeper than I'd ever have gotten on a read-through.

So I think there's merit to both analyzing the text and playing the game--but as with the SW experience, when someone says "I thought it was terrible--but then I played it and it was great" I think it's just as likely that if you give that more credence than "I read it and here are the problems I see" you'll get yourself into trouble as well.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI had the opposite problem with SW: it looked okay on paper and then ran horribly for us.

The d6 version? I'm running that now - but for realistic-themed postapocalyptic - and I think it's pretty stupid. The players are loving it, though - they get to roll lots of dice, and just because their characters get shot doesn't mean they get hurt much. And there's no personality mechanics or anything like that, so they only have to be as consistent in their character's personality as they feel like being. It's kind of old-school, really.

It looked okay on paper, but in practice I'm finding it pretty bloody ordinary. But as I said, the players are mostly loving it, or at least indifferent to it (they vary in how much they care about systems), so I stick with it until all the PCs get themselves killed...

What problems did you have, exactly?

I think he meant Savage Worlds, not Star Wars.

Quote from: BalbinusI think he meant Savage Worlds, not Star Wars.

Yeah--Savage Worlds--did I screw that up? Acronym collision!!
-Marco

Quote from: BalbinusMany games get criticised in reviews or by those who have read them for problems which, reading actual play threads for those games, rarely seem to actually arise.

Sure, but that just speaks to relatively low value of actual play when reviewing a game to me.

Seanchai

My experience with Savage Worlds was the polar opposite of that presented by some folks here:  I was excited as hell hen I read about it, and promptly disappointed as hell with actual play.

It just wound up being duller than 40k in actual play, with zero tactical options available, making the minis feel rather superfluous, and the split between attributes and skills wound up making one or the other feel utterly worthless.

Quote from: BalbinusAlso, I've seen more than one designer comment that on their game's mailing list they could tell those who played from those who just read by the kind of comments they made.

One of them was probably me, Balbinus. I know I've said that before, though maybe not on the ML. Thing is, read-through guys* and play-through guys see different problems, and they are both worth while listening to. I play the heck out of my games before I ever release them to beta-test, so I know how it should play. 99 times out of 100, the play through guy spots breaks in the way rules are explained, because they see that gap that my eyes miss because I already know how it should play. The read-through guys will spot language and grammar problems, missing references, and that sort of thing much better than the play-through guys.

-clash

*Using the generic New England collective pronoun. I have heard many a woman address a group of other women as "You guys."

I feel like the outsider. I don't even like to read Actual Play reviews.  If I ever have enough game time to do Actual play before reviewing a game, I wouldn't write the review around the play at the table so much as keep it in mind when I wrote.

That said, I try pretty hard to look at a game based on how it would play. Not the same thing, I know, but...

The way I see it, all to often with 'Actual Play' the play that gets produced is often more the product of the group dynamic than the rules.  Take the 'mess' that is D&D's Attacks of Opportunity.  In AP threads this may never come up: either the group just didn't use them, or fudged the living hell out of them.  Yet many groups/players struggle with them, they remain a problem regardless of how 'your' group handled them.

Closer to home: I tend to run tight character creation followed by fast and loose rules at the table.  My Runequest game is singularly ineffective for learning how well the rules work as written. Every session sees half a dozen house ruled variations on rules we just houseruled last week. Not because the game is poorly written or the rulebook is too long: We just like to keep things moving very fast and opening the book for the hard answer slows us down too damn much.  More or less: if it ain't on the rule sheet or in the basic die mechanic, we don't use it.  What would anyone get out of an AP review from my table???

Not very much.

Quote from: SpikeThe way I see it, all to often with 'Actual Play' the play that gets produced is often more the product of the group dynamic than the rules.  Take the 'mess' that is D&D's Attacks of Opportunity.  In AP threads this may never come up: either the group just didn't use them, or fudged the living hell out of them.  Yet many groups/players struggle with them, they remain a problem regardless of how 'your' group handled them.

I actually think this is a myth.  I've never encountered a group that's had significant problems with attacks of opportunity, nor "fudged" them.

No doubt some do.  But the sound and fury on internet messageboards do not strike me as particularly indicative.  Particularly since the biggest dedicated D&D boards (ENworld, Wizards') don't have tons of threads fretting about them.

Quote from: RedFoxI actually think this is a myth.  I've never encountered a group that's had significant problems with attacks of opportunity, nor "fudged" them.

I can't recall having any problem with them and I'm surprised to hear there's a fuss.  Maybe the inevitable six million splatbook exceptions add complications I'm not aware of though.

Quote from: SpikeI feel like the outsider. I don't even like to read Actual Play reviews.  If I ever have enough game time to do Actual play before reviewing a game, I wouldn't write the review around the play at the table so much as keep it in mind when I wrote.

I, at least, agree...

Seanchai

I wish I would have read this earlier...

In both d20 Star Wars and d20 Future there is a problem with the skill Computer Use. It reads fine, but in actual play it can unbalance the game quickly. Computer use covers not only computers, but all electronic devices from communications to sensors to autopilots. So, if a character buffs up enough with Computer Use, they can use that to replace almost any other skill in a technological setting by just making sure that the action they take is done through some device.

For example, in d20 Star Wars my player group was trying to escape a platoon of pursuing stormtroopers by stealing a shuttle. The only problem was that the only PC with the Starship Pilot feat and the good Pilot skills was unconscious. Yet the Tech Guy with a Computer Use around +9 (mods and skill focus) was able to fly the shuttle through autopilot as well as the PC pilot, even with all the negative modifiers for not having the right skills and feats. Computer Use turned out to be the Jack-Of-All-Trades skill for d20 Star Wars because of the genre standards (its Star Wars, everything in a tech environment is computerized and thus susceptable).

d20 Future has the same skill and the same problem. The only d20 game that I've seen and played that handles this well is d20 Traveller which breaks the Computer Use skill down into seperate Tech Skills.

Is that the kind of thing you were looking for?

That's a pretty good example, not only of the sort of thing the OP talked about but also the "my gun is my skill list" problem from The Munchkin's Guide to Powergaming. (Referring to the idea that in many modern-day games all you need is a decent firearms skill. Locked door? Shoot it open. Need to interrogate someone? Put a gun in their face...)

Quote from: SpikeThe way I see it, all to often with 'Actual Play' the play that gets produced is often more the product of the group dynamic than the rules.

To elaborate on this (from my perspective), there are two issues here.

First is the relatively mundane issue of fudging rules for whatever reason. Typically, either because the RAW are hard to reference or hard to apply, or because the RAW produce results that get in the way of fun. The latter in particular is a weird reason to handwave rules in the course of evaluating a game, but I suspect--without having any hard evidence at hand, mind you--that it happens. It certainly does in normal play, and the mindset there is, I think, that the game should be interpreted wholistically in terms of the atmosphere or spirit of the setting. And you know, I kind of support that; although I'm personally a stickler for following the rules, I think it's important to have your priorities straight when playing in a group whose main purpose isn't critical analysis of the system.

The second issue is a little more complex but I think it's critical: the procedures of RPGs are generally pretty loosely linked, to the point that the decision to apply them, and how to apply them, is optional within a broader domain of freeform "pretend". A game might have a random encounter table but no rule that forces the GM to roll on it. The GM might roll an encounter but there's no rule that forces it to be hostile. Players might wander around town interacting with the inhabitants at length, with no resort to mechanical systems. This is even true with games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris--ultimately, the decision on whether to make a roll or otherwise invoke mechanics is at the discretion of the players and/or GM. Games might do a better or worse job of suggesting when to go to the dice, but the basic fact is that if folks want to dance around the mechanics, they can--and the nature & balance of freeform play, as well as the non-mechanical criteria for invoking the dice, is going to have a huge impact on how the game is played.

(By the way, it's not a simple matter of saying you're playing wrong if you don't go straight to the mechanics. In my opinion, it's a balance: hit the mechanics too hard and you have an abstract boardgame.)

That said I really agree with the main thrust of the OP: as complex systems, games have emergent qualities that simply can't be predicted based on a read-through. (This is the same reason that playtesting is essential.) Even though social factors are part of the complexity of a game, actual play is still going to yield a better understanding of how the game plays, than just reading the rules.

Quote from: Elliot WilenEven though social factors are part of the complexity of a game, actual play is still going to yield a better understanding of how the game plays, than just reading the rules.

For a particular group. Group A's actual play producing result A is not necessarily useful to group B, whose play could produce result B instead of result A.

Seanchai

Sure...but I'm not sure what's being compared here.

If you're talking about just giving an AP report, then I think it may not have a great deal of value to group B, compared to a thoughtful review of the rules. This is especially true for AP reports which are basically just "campaign logs" (first-draft journalistic accounts of the fictional events in the game). Those are nigh useless.

If you're talking about doing a review of the rules which is informed by play, vs. doing a review without having played at all, I think the former is preferable.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf you're talking about doing a review of the rules which is informed by play, vs. doing a review without having played at all, I think the former is preferable.

I disagree. Group A's results may not be reproducable by anyone other than group A. In fact, depending on how group A approaches gaming, their results for any game might be very different than the norm.

To my mind, actual play reviews are liking seeing a movie in a theater and subsequently writing, "The cinematography was good, but the dialog was hard to hear over the audience. So I give this movie two out of four stars."

But what if you're watching it in an empty theater. Or at home. Or what if you're deaf and watching it with the closed captioning on.

Rather than let the parts of the game experience that will change from situation to situation inform the review, I'd rather read—and write—about the elements that won't change.

Seanchai

What I've seen in more than a few AP reviews is a lot of gushing about a game because the group had a lot of fun with it. Of course.... this group presumably plays together a lot and generally has a lot of fun regardless of how good or bad the books are.  You'll see comments about how Player X did this awesome thing (often without needing rules) and everybody agreed it was cool.


Great.


But Player X doesn't come with the game, dude.  Maybe the rules facilitated whatever he did, but ultimately the idea for the cool thing came from the player, and the decision to let it stand/work was in the GM's hand.  I doubt the GM comes with the game either.  So, I can't really replicate that cool thing, no matter what the book says.

Now  A normal review which is backed by having run through it with a group to highlight it... that is a stronger review admittedly than one where the reviewer just read the book.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen[H]it the mechanics too hard and you have an abstract boardgame.

Mind if I sig that? My Nox warning seems out of date now that he's gone away.

One of the things that comes to mind for me is the way some rules pop naturally to mind as you play whereas others are consistently forgotten, and when remembered, feel too much like an afterthought. Often such rules make sense when you read them, but when you go to play, they just consistently amount to dead weight on the game.

Case in point, in a game I am working on we had rules for when characters were "Locked in Combat." They included special consequences for those in locked in melee combat, but they also included penalties versus attacks from 3rd parties. The consequences for the participants who were actually Locked in Combat were easy to remember and played nicely. The consequences for defence against missile and magic were forgotten more times than remembered, and when rememberd, we'd all just kick ourselves for the last 3 times it'd be left out of the equation. Ultimately, those rules, which made perfect sense on paper, got dropped from the game. They were an interesting detail in theory; in practice they were just a pain in the ass.

Quote from: Christmas ApeMind if I sig that?

Not at all.

That's a good point, Brimshack.

I see what Seanchai and Spike are saying, but IMO those are just bad reviews. The key is not to talk about the events of play but instead to discuss how the rules get used in play and what effect they have, if any. And playing is how you find those things out.

I think all things being equal (which they rarely are), a well written actual play review is more valuable than a well written review based on a reading.

That doesn't make reading only reviews valueless, for the vast majority of gaming products a review by someone who is a decent reviewer who has read the game meets my needs.  They can flag the essentials of the product and let me know if it meets my needs.

90% of the stuff that will kill a purchase for me is sufficiently evident that an educated readthrough will catch it, but that extra 10% is valuable if the game is a touch or go decision for me or if I am inclined now to buy it but wouldn't if I knew those problems.

I see Seanchai's issues, but I think a well written review avoids those problems.  I point for example to Dan Davenport's actual play reviews, where he talks quite frankly about how it came up in play and where he is surprised that something was or was not an issue.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe key is not to talk about the events of play but instead to discuss how the rules get used in play and what effect they have, if any. And playing is how you find those things out.

Sure. But whether the review spends time discussing the game play or not, the whole point of a playtest review is that the value judgements about the rules come not from the rules as written but from the rules as played. And, again, that's the element that will probably change from group to group, game to game, experience to experience.

Seanchai

Quote from: HalfjackThe crucial flaws in Spirit of the Century from actual play are usually around the fact that combat takes an inordinate amount of time compared to the rest of play.  

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like that...

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you just read the rules for chess, without having any pieces before you or another player, you would never guess that those few different pieces with their few different moves could lead to so many different games, and that the mastery of it could be something people spend quite literally decades of their lives on.

I would.

QuoteI would say that the main difference between theory and practice in games is personal taste, whether it's passive or active. Just reading an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste to see what's good or not, the personal taste is aplied passively - I'm just reading. But when playing an rpg, I'll apply my personal taste actively, to make the game more like what I like.

Yes, and that is at least as likely to fuck up your objective perspective on a game as it is (as opposed to how you play it) then it is to give you some kind of magical clarity on the subject.l

RPGPundit

The reality is that the people who have a disconnect between how a game reads to them and how it would actually play are those who have not played a lot of games, or a wide variety of games.  If you have enough experience with RPGs, you will be able to see quite clearly the overall way a game will play.  Certainly there are minute details you might pick up in play that you would not have noticed in a read-through, but the idea that you will miss the boat entirely if you don't perform the Sacred Ritual of Actual Play is simply poppycock.

The real issue is how much experience you have in being able to read a game.  If someone hasn't got a lot of play experience already, then sure, they may end up thinking that a mechanic will be hard when in fact its just badly written, or they may think something will be straightforward, when in fact its missing huge chunks that would make it unplayable. But someone with sufficient experience in both reading AND playing a wide variety of RPGs will not need to play through a game to know exactly how and why it will suck and/or rock.

RPGPundit

Quote from: zombenI'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like that...

I'm interested on knowing more about this, as I was checking SotC as a possible buy. I like FATE a lot.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reality is that the people who have a disconnect between how a game reads to them and how it would actually play are those who have not played a lot of games, or a wide variety of games.  If you have enough experience with RPGs, you will be able to see quite clearly the overall way a game will play.  Certainly there are minute details you might pick up in play that you would not have noticed in a read-through, but the idea that you will miss the boat entirely if you don't perform the Sacred Ritual of Actual Play is simply poppycock.

The real issue is how much experience you have in being able to read a game.  If someone hasn't got a lot of play experience already, then sure, they may end up thinking that a mechanic will be hard when in fact its just badly written, or they may think something will be straightforward, when in fact its missing huge chunks that would make it unplayable. But someone with sufficient experience in both reading AND playing a wide variety of RPGs will not need to play through a game to know exactly how and why it will suck and/or rock.

RPGPundit

Generally sure, but it can make a real difference.  Until I ran it I really hadn't guessed how fun Space 1889 would be, and I've run a shitload of systems.

Equally, until I played it I had no idea how much I would hate the bidding mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard.

So yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

Quote from: BalbinusSo yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

I agree with Max here. If Forge does it, it must be WRONG!! Come on, mate.

My own example comes with Vampire: when I read it, I thought it was a wonderful and flexible system. When I ran it, I discovered that the system is awful and needed lots of mending.

Quote from: BalbinusSo yeah, generally you can tell, but sometimes actual play realy does help.  If it wasn't for the fact the Forge goes on about it all the time, I doubt you'd be arguing the point.

I'm a HUGE fan of Actual Play, for its own sake.

I disagree vehemently that only someone who's played a game is allowed to say whether it sucks or not.  That's a cheap trick used by those who are already part of a game's "Choir" insisting that unless someone's ran a campaign with a game they're somehow mentally incapable of judging that said game will be crap.

I mean, I think the Klan sucks too, I didn't have to become a Grand Dragon before I was able to figure that out; one shouldn't have to become a Klansman before saying it.

I can pretty safely say that complex heart surgery would suck ass, I don't think I have to subject to it to say so.

Nor do I have to try a scatological sex fetish to know I wouldn't get off on it.

So why the fuck would I have to subject myself to a multi-game campaign of Spirit of the Century to be able to make the criticisms I was able to see on reading it, based on my extensive pre-existing knowledge of the hundreds of games I've read and the dozens of games I have played?

Its absurd. Its like saying that a guy who has tried out hundreds of graphic design software programs should have to try yet another one to know whether it will be any good or not.
I know enough about pipe tobacco that if you tell me the ingredients of a tobacco mixture (and there are thousands of possible combinations) I could usually tell you right away not just whether I will generally like it or not, but how it will smoke, what the potential pitfalls or great points of it will be, etc.
I think people should smoke pipe tobacco as much as they like, but once you get to a certain level of skill with it you don't NEED to smoke a tobacco to know whether you'll like it or not, whether it'll be any good or not, etc. You'll know because of your prior expertise.
Ditto with RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ImperatorI'm interested on knowing more about this, as I was checking SotC as a possible buy. I like FATE a lot.

Barring combat, the game runs very quickly and smoothly even if there are frequent skill checks.  In fact having a skill check at nearly every player's tuen doesn't interestingly impact the speed or fluidity of play.  But when you hit combat by the book you go to a tactical zoning system and opposed checks track hits on a kind of hit point track that further has to be exceeded three times in order to finish the fight.  There are plenty of fairly obvious ways to speed it up, but it's kind of disappointing that this isn't an optional rule and a system more consistent with the rest of the game already in its place.

Honestly this is a minor blemish on a great game and easily patched, but worth watching out for.

Quote from: RPGPunditI disagree vehemently that only someone who's played a game is allowed to say whether it sucks or not.  

Only drooling fanboyz say stupid shit like that.

You've got the old fallacy of the excluded middle going on here. Just because it's false to say that you can't tell a game is really good or really bad without playing it, does not mean that playing it tells you nothing more than reading it does. Between those extremes there's a middle ground, a wide range of times where you might read a game one way, but it plays out another.

The play of it can give you surprises, bring out features which you didn't anticipate in your readthrough. I don't mean simply things being bad or good, just things being a certain style.

For example, in playing d6, I discovered it gives a cinematic, light-hearted feel if you get into combat. This is because there's something called the "wild die" - one of the d6 you roll you make a different colour, if you roll "1" something bad happens, if you roll "6" you roll again and add. You also roll to inflict or resist damage. So what you get in play is that one guy is killed with a punch to the head, while another guy cops a burst from a submachinegun and is unhurt. The efect of that is to make the players laugh, say, "that's stupid," and overall take things less seriously, go around shooting people needlessly, etc.

Now, perhaps if I were a genius like RPGPundit I could have anticipated this by a readthrough of the game, but as I'm a mere mortal, I didn't - I had to play it to find out. There are lots of elements of games like that. So while it may be obvious that FATAL is not for anyone over the mental age of 13, or that Dogs in the Vineyard is probably not gong to be played for a hundred-session campaign, it's not obvious that a game group which enjoyed, say, Fate, will also enjoy d6 Adventure. Some things you only discover by playing.

Quote from: HalfjackHonestly this is a minor blemish on a great game and easily patched, but worth watching out for.

Cool, thanks for the info!

Quote from: JimBobOzBut because I play the game in a group, you get the personal tastes of several people applied to the rules, and this is what gives roleplaying games their strongly emergent stuff. A group of (say) five people will come up with stuff that those five people working alone would never have come up with.

That's why I've always said that rules influence play, but do not determine play. That's why (for example) I describe how I played Dogs in the Vienyard and didn't like it, and droog says, "it doesn't even sound like the same game, I don't know how you got that result." It's because the rules don't determine play, they only influence it.

And maybe this is the reason why I find so hard to play with certain people. I think the people you play with is way more important than the RPG you play. Give me a good group and a crappy game over a crappy group and a good game everyday.

Quote from: ClaudiusAnd maybe this is the reason why I find so hard to play with certain people. I think the people you play with is way more important than the RPG you play. Give me a good group and a crappy game over a crappy group and a good game everyday.

Oh sweet lord yes.  

I'd go back to playing bloody Rifts again if I had a good group.  and I HATED Rifts.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reality is that the people who have a disconnect between how a game reads to them and how it would actually play are those who have not played a lot of games, or a wide variety of games.  If you have enough experience with RPGs, you will be able to see quite clearly the overall way a game will play.  Certainly there are minute details you might pick up in play that you would not have noticed in a read-through, but the idea that you will miss the boat entirely if you don't perform the Sacred Ritual of Actual Play is simply poppycock.

The real issue is how much experience you have in being able to read a game.  If someone hasn't got a lot of play experience already, then sure, they may end up thinking that a mechanic will be hard when in fact its just badly written, or they may think something will be straightforward, when in fact its missing huge chunks that would make it unplayable. But someone with sufficient experience in both reading AND playing a wide variety of RPGs will not need to play through a game to know exactly how and why it will suck and/or rock.

RPGPundit

Maybe I lack the experience required, but very often after having played a game I meet problems I hadn't foreseen when I read it, and discover that certain rules rock that I didn't think they would.

Of course, I don't buy that "if you didn't play you're not allowed to speak" meme. It's ridiculous. But actual play and reading is better than just reading.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou've got the old fallacy of the excluded middle going on here. Just because it's false to say that you can't tell a game is really good or really bad without playing it, does not mean that playing it tells you nothing more than reading it does. Between those extremes there's a middle ground, a wide range of times where you might read a game one way, but it plays out another.

Do you know I was thinking of you when I read that? Really, I knew you would say that, and I agree, it's the fallacy of the excluded middle ground

Quote from: JimBobOzThe play of it can give you surprises, bring out features which you didn't anticipate in your readthrough. I don't mean simply things being bad or good, just things being a certain style.

Yes, yes. That reminds me when I ran once Fading Suns. I thought combat would be fast and furious, but not so much! Sometimes, I felt that I lost the grip.

Quote from: J ArcaneOh sweet lord yes.  

I'd go back to playing bloody Rifts again if I had a good group.  and I HATED Rifts.

I agree with The Forge that system does matter, but I think the people you play with does matter even more.

For example, I didn't like Rolemaster very much, but I had so much fan playing it that I had to re-evaluate my tastes and admit to myself that I'm a fan. :haw:

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm a HUGE fan of Actual Play, for its own sake.

I disagree vehemently that only someone who's played a game is allowed to say whether it sucks or not.  

Sure, good thing I didn't say that then, look at the text you quoted.  I said sometimes actual play really helps, that's a long way from saying only someone who has played can comment.

I mean, if I'd meant that, I'd have said that.

Anyway, JimBob's got my back so all's well.  But seriously dude, respond to what I said if you're quoting me, not to some shit someone on another forum said that bears some passing resemblance to what I said if you squint real hard and don't read too good.  I think saying someone has to play to be able to comment is bollocks, which is why I didn't say that.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe play of it can give you surprises, bring out features which you didn't anticipate in your readthrough.

But how many of these are impossible to detect without actual play? And if they truly are only visible during actual play, aren't they basically engendered by actual play? And if they're based on actual play, won't they change from group to group? And if they change from group to group, wouldn't it be unwise to put them in a review, telling folks that's what they can expect from the game?

Seanchai

Seanchai,

This isn't theoretical stuff, it's not about things being impossible.

All we are saying is that with some games actual play throws up results that weren't obvious on a readthrough, therefore actual play can help for reviews.

Nobody is saying you have to play, nobody is saying read-only reviews are worthless, all that is being said is that sometimes actual play reveals things that weren't apparent on a reading.

I've found this, JimBob has found this, lots of folk have, I don't see why it keeps getting turned from a fairly reasonable statement into some pogrom against read-only reviewers.

But your queries, they're all theory.  Wouldn't it and what if type stuff, we're talking about stuff we've actually encountered.  Or were before this thread became some bizarre battle ground against a statement nobody here has made.

I'll say one thing actual play does, it trumps theory every bloody time.  Let's not fall here into the trap of working out how things should be or what seems logical and then preferring that to actual experience.  That way lies madness, brain damage and saying Vampire isn't a successful rpg.

Quote from: BalbinusAll we are saying is that with some games actual play throws up results that weren't obvious on a readthrough, therefore actual play can help for reviews.

And I'm saying, if it's not obvious on a careful readthrough, it's not because a determination about said element or quality can only be made via actual play, but because said element or quality is created by actual play. As such, it's not a part of the game, it's a part of one particular group's experience with the game.

Quote from: Balbinus...all that is being said is that sometimes actual play reveals things that weren't apparent on a reading.

I get that, and I'm saying you're wrong.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't see why it keeps getting turned from a fairly reasonable statement into some pogrom against read-only reviewers.

Probably because, historically, that's what these threads are about, especially when being discussed by Forge folk.

Seanchai

Play throughs can even help you understand how certain bits of the setting fit together as well.
In Mage: the Awakening after reading through the book, the only group I really understood was the Free Council (the newest order of Mages, believe in the free trade of Magic among the Awakened). After playing and seeing how the magic rules work out, I could understand why the majority of orders would want to keep rote spells out of the hands of "the uninitiated" and even from each other.
I didn't get the four other Mage groups on a read through, and while one or two seem un-playable in a mixed group (Guardians of the Veil mostly) I understand their place in the setting and in a Cabal.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd I'm saying, if it's not obvious on a careful readthrough, it's not because a determination about said element or quality can only be made via actual play, but because said element or quality is created by actual play. As such, it's not a part of the game, it's a part of one particular group's experience with the game.

Why?

Quote from: SeanchaiI get that, and I'm saying you're wrong.

Yet we've actual experience to say otherwise.  That we're not alone...  that in fact we are discovering the same emergent qualities in the same RPGs by disparate players. More than one of us has discovered the emergent properties of Savage Worlds, for instance.

Quote from: MarcoI had the opposite problem with SW: it looked okay on paper and then ran horribly for us. We played about six four to five hour sessions (24-30 hours) with several combats against varying mixes of opponents and with different sets of magic items (it was a fantasy venue).

Now, I'm not a SW-hater. We had a notably bad experience with it, but I still think it's a reasonably clever game and simplifies things in some good ways--but the fact is that the 'actual play' experience is highly subjective in a way reading the rules isn't.

Yep, that was a pretty bad experience wasn't it?  (Hi, Marco!)

After reading Savage Worlds, I thought it was exactly the game I was looking for.  In actual play, I found the mechanics to be far too distracting.  Perhaps the system would work better for other genres than fantasy.  We gave it a really good try but it just didn't click for us.  It was definitely a case of reading better than it played.

Quote from: mhensleyYep, that was a pretty bad experience wasn't it?  (Hi, Marco!)

After reading Savage Worlds, I thought it was exactly the game I was looking for.  In actual play, I found the mechanics to be far too distracting.  Perhaps the system would work better for other genres than fantasy.  We gave it a really good try but it just didn't click for us.  It was definitely a case of reading better than it played.

Hi Mike!

While we're on the topic, I'll aslo point out that it has gone the other way: there have been games I played that were awful (or read terribly) but I had an awesome time with. If I judged GURPS Supers on my AP experience, it'd be one of the best supers games out there!

-Marco

Quote from: SeanchaiI get that, and I'm saying you're wrong.

I see, so your theory trumps my actual experience?  

I'm done here.

Quote from: ClaudiusI agree with The Forge that system does matter, but I think the people you play with does matter even more.

For example, I didn't like Rolemaster very much, but I had so much fan playing it that I had to re-evaluate my tastes and admit to myself that I'm a fan. :haw:

Very true; hell, I could run Vampire and make it a good campaign, if I wanted to.  Games can suck, but a good GM and good players can make anything worthwhile.

I've got a RIFTS campaign in mind that I might run someday, that I'm fairly sure could make a die-hard Palladium-system hater want to keep playing if they gave it a chance.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiBut how many of these are impossible to detect without actual play? And if they truly are only visible during actual play, aren't they basically engendered by actual play? And if they're based on actual play, won't they change from group to group? And if they change from group to group, wouldn't it be unwise to put them in a review, telling folks that's what they can expect from the game?

Seanchai

That's my point. If we accept the premise that the gaming group is at least as important, if not more important, than the game system you are running, then you also have to accept the conclusion that any "clarity" you might gain about a system by playtesting it will be tempered by the added confusion between what's actually good or bad about the system as written versus what ends up being good or bad about a system as a particular group runs it.

That's where we get into the opposite problem, of "playtest reviewers" actually reaching conclusions that have way more to do with their particular group's likes and dislikes and ways of playing than anything to do with the gamebook itself in any objective way, meaning that the review will be less useful to someone who isn't in the same gaming group as the reviewer.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BalbinusI'll say one thing actual play does, it trumps theory every bloody time.  Let's not fall here into the trap of working out how things should be or what seems logical and then preferring that to actual experience.  That way lies madness, brain damage and saying Vampire isn't a successful rpg.

If that's true, then why are the Forgers/Ron so obsessed about "actual play uber alles"?  They emphasize actual play because they know that "playtest reviewers" who are part of the Cult of Ron will inevitably produce biased opinions about the Forge games they play because they are already true believers in the game; and likewise they will produce biased opinions about the non-forge games that Ron hates because their groups are already predisposed to have negative play experiences (or to retroactively create negative experiences from memory and fit them to Ron's claims about a game); and because they can then choose to discount objective criticism of any given Forge game by claiming that if you haven't actually run it you don't know what you're talking about.

RPGPundit

An RPG is nothing more than a program that runs on human brains, with character sheets for config files, and programming is all about emergent behavior.

Let's see if I can't beat this metaphor senseless.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat I've seen a lot of is a situation where some people who have read the game say "There's nothing to stop players from doing X, and so X will happen," whereas people who have played the game say "Actually, the emergent properties of the game are that X never happens ... but we can't articulate why in a convincing manner until you too play the game."

It's the difference between checking if a process has violated some constraint, and creating a process you know will never violate it. When something is impossible simply because the sequence of events (each of which can occur at some point in other sequences) will never occur, it's hard to check for.

Actually, in most cases, it's impossible.

And a strange reverse also exists. Some people look at a game and say "There's nothing to cause players to do X, and so X will never happen,". Yet it does happen in play. Often it is better to not have a specific rule for each property you want the game to exhibit, but to have those properties as a result of the system interacting as a whole.

Just because a game does not have a specific rule for negotiation doesn't mean the game is not ABOUT negotiation. And D&D does not have a specific rule for teamwork, yet it's central to the game.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut how many of these are impossible to detect without actual play? And if they truly are only visible during actual play, aren't they basically engendered by actual play?

Quite a few I imagine, and yes.

Errors you can find by reading a static piece of code are called compile time errors. These errors are typically syntax and typing errors, and often otherwise completely valid code will not pass the check simply because the compiler found it might cause a runtime error.

Now runtime errors can only be found when you run the program, and as long as you have variables the compiler is/was unaware of, you cannot eliminate them completely.

While certain things only become apparent when the game is run, it IS possible to run an imaginary group or in your head. However, the accuracy of that has a lot to do with how well you know your potential players.



In many ways, RPG design is more difficult than programming. You can't just put a break point in a thought process and look at the stack trace (well, maybe Sylar can, but he's fictional). So much goes into the process of 'enjoying' a game that may have nothing to do with the system that it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint what precisely the system is adding to the experience.

And the brain it's run on makes all the difference. It would be nice if we could certify games only for particular brains, such as "those that like D&D", but we can't, though some of us try to get as close to that as possible.

Truth be told, it's often hard for even experienced gamers to get a handle on what an RPG will deliver in play, let alone someone who's never played an RPG before. Even then, an experienced gamer is still going to carry their biases when making their assessment. Personally, I find actual play reviews far more useful as a game designer because they show me what the REAL problems are so I can attempt to fix them, as opposed to where my design does, or does not, fit the reviewer's biases.

Quote from: RedFoxWhy?

Why what?

Quote from: RedFoxYet we've actual experience to say otherwise.

And I'm saying you're misinterpreting your actual experience to be something it's not.

Quote from: RedFoxThat we're not alone... that in fact we are discovering the same emergent qualities in the same RPGs by disparate players.

How do you account for folks who run those games and get different results?

Quote from: RedFoxMore than one of us has discovered the emergent properties of Savage Worlds, for instance.

That's a good example. People say Savage Worlds plays better than it reads and many people report this to be the case. But we also have folks who report just the opposite. They don't get the same results. If Savage Worlds has emergent qualities that result from the mechanics, why the differing results? If it's the rules that engender these qualities and the rules are always consistent, shouldn't the emergent qualities be consistent from case to case?

But I have actual experience, too. I've been playing for 23 years, have well over 200 different systems and actually play a variety of system, making a point to try new ones. I've played with a number of different groups (at one point in the last five years playing with three different groups at once). Here's what I've discovered based on my actual experience:

These emergent qualities aren't the result of the rules being put into use but are the result of a set group of individual's application of the rules. Individuals vary. Groups vary. In game situations vary. Perspectives, tastes, frames, schemas, etc., vary.

If you give too much weight to actual play experience in deciding how to review a game, you're doing a disservice to the readers and the publisher.

Now, I'm not saying non-playtest reviews are the end all and be of reviewing. Plenty of mistakes are made. However, that's just the nature of the beast: Reviews aren't going to be perfect. They have subjective components. Best thing to do, in my estimation, is cleave to the factual and provable.

Seanchai

Quote from: BalbinusI see, so your theory trumps my actual experience?  

No, I'm saying your "actual experience" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Seanchai

We didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

This site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Wow, there are Uncle Ronnies everywhere!

Nah, you understand your experience just fine.

Ron says you're not really having fun, you just think you are.

I say that if you say you're having fun, you're having fun.
Sometimes that fun might come more from the friends you're with then the particular rules you're playing with, though, and you might end up thinking those rules are hipper or better than they really are.

Likewise, if your game sucks, it might sometimes have more to do with your group being fucked up than with the particular rules you're using, but you might be left with a bad memory of the game based on the bad experience you had with that group.

This is really all just common sense, I find it fairly funny that you or J Arcane don't get that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J ArcaneThis site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

The only guy I see around here clearly desperate for attention is you, Arcane.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSometimes that fun might come more from the friends you're with then the particular rules you're playing with, though, and you might end up thinking those rules are hipper or better than they really are.

Likewise, if your game sucks, it might sometimes have more to do with your group being fucked up than with the particular rules you're using, but you might be left with a bad memory of the game based on the bad experience you had with that group.

This is really all just common sense, I find it fairly funny that you or J Arcane don't get that.

What the fuck? What did I say that gave you the impression I thought otherwise? Did I someplace say that the group was irrelevant? That only the game system matters in the success of the session? If you think I see games that way, then you must have been too busy admiring your jaunty pipe-smoking reflection in the mirror to read what other people are saying.

Of course the game group matters more than the game system. This has nothing to do with whether a game's system has problems or a particular style which will be apparent in play, but not necessarily on a readthrough.

A: One issue: whether the group is more or less important than the system.

B: Another issue, which is different and unrelated: whether the system has features which will be more apparent on being played than on a readthrough.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe didn't understand our own play experience? Is that like... being brain-damaged?

Well, given your "helpful" reply, yeah, I could see how you could come off as brain-damaged.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneThis site's full of 'em.

It's like the Forge's angry little brother that secretly just wants attention.

Yeah, I'm a secret Forgie.

Did you even bother to read thread or think about issues involved before boosting your post count with empty-headed replies? That actual play is needed to properly review is a Forge view; I'm arguing the exact opposite.

Of course, neither your nor JimBob bothered to address the question raised: If these emergent qualities are the result the rules and are universally true, why aren't they universally recognized? If "Savage Worlds plays better than it reads" is a fact rather than an opinion, why doesn't it play better than it reads for everyone?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiOf course, neither your nor JimBob bothered to address the question raised: If these emergent qualities are the result the rules and are universally true, why aren't they universally recognized?

No quality, emergent or otherwise, is universally true. The rules never determine play, they only influence play.

Nonetheless, the games do have those emergent properties; that they're tendencies rather than certainties does not mean they're non-existent (fallacy of the excluded middle yet again in internet chats).

To a degree, the emergent qualities of each game are widely-recognised in the form of cliches and jokes about the game. If someone says, "typical D&D player", or "typical GURPS player" or "typical White Wolf player", an image or idea will come into your mind - that stereotype or cliche coming to mind has something in it of the emergent behaviour of that particular game.

The other reason for such qualities being not universally-recognised is quite simply people. Suppose my game group is always light-hearted and does things cinematically; we won't even notice that d6 produces light-hearted cinematic play. Suppose my group likes to focus on every little detail and last ounce of encumbrance; we won't notice that GURPS encourages that. The style of the players is more important than that of the game system itself for determining how a session turns out, just as how you steer the vehicle is more important for its direction than any left/right bias its wheels may have. Nonetheless, the bias is there.

Quote from: SeanchaiIf "Savage Worlds plays better than it reads" is a fact rather than an opinion, why doesn't it play better than it reads for everyone?

A game which reads badly will tend not to get played, so whether it plays well or badly is irrelevant; it doesn't get played, and so doesn't get talked about.

I'm not really interested in talking about this or that game being great or sucking, more about the qualities which appear in play but you didn't expect from a readthrough. I already gave the example of d6 turning out much more cinematic and light-hearted than I'd expected; light-hearted and cinematic are not bad, they're just not what I expected. It's pointless to argue about whether cinematic is better than realistic or vice versa, but we can have a useful discussion about whether the "wild die" of d6 produces a realistic or cinematic feeling to the game session, or has no real effect at all. Again, that's an example only.

I'm just saying it this way, because Balbinus began the thread talking about "actual play problems as opposed to problems apparent from a readthrough", and I think it's more productive to talk about, "actual play qualities as opposed to qualities apparent from a readthrough."  Or more simply, "stuff sometimes plays out differently compared to how it reads."

Quote from: JimBobOzThe other reason for such qualities being not universally-recognised is quite simply people.

Yes, that's my point.

They're tendancies not universal truths because the static (the game) plus the dynamic (the people and situations involved) equals different experiences at different times. What you get from the admixture depends heavily upon the dynamic.

Assuming the same printing/edition, the D6 system is always the same. If you get a light-hearted cinematic result and another group gets a frustrating, clunky experience, it's not the static (the rules) engendering these things. It's the people.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, that's my point.

They're tendancies not universal truths because the static (the game) plus the dynamic (the people and situations involved) equals different experiences at different times. What you get from the admixture depends heavily upon the dynamic.

Assuming the same printing/edition, the D6 system is always the same. If you get a light-hearted cinematic result and another group gets a frustrating, clunky experience, it's not the static (the rules) engendering these things. It's the people.

Seanchai

The problem with this whole argument is that you're rendering null the players' ability to evaluate what is an emergent quality of the game system and how it affects their play from what they bring to the table.

A given game may give a GM or player the impression that it will obstruct play, and then discover to their surprise that it does not.  That is not necessarily due to the group ignoring or glossing over the perceived problem, or some unique chemistry that would only apply to that specific group.  When many groups get the same (or very similar) mis-perception and results, it's a good argument that there is an emergent quality at work.

Quote from: RedFoxThe problem with this whole argument is that you're rendering null the players' ability to evaluate what is an emergent quality of the game system and how it affects their play from what they bring to the table.

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are no emergent qualities of games, only emergent qualities of groups using games. Could someone say, "Hey, we handled that better than I would have guessed?" Sure. But it's been my experience that they generally attribute such things to the game somehow being different than they thought. The game is static. If, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThe game is static. If, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Seanchai

But it can be, and sometimes is.  Particularly when it's not just one group.

QuoteIf, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Okay, but why a universe of 2 game groups? Is this how people actually test for the emergent properties of a game? No it isn't. A more appropriate example would address the prospect of multiple groups turning back similar results or even the prospect of 1 or 3 patterns coming back from multiple sources. The fact that groups may experience a game differently complicates the process of gathering evidence. It most certainly does not pre-empt any claims about the properties of a game itself.

Quote from: RedFoxBut it can be, and sometimes is.

No, it's not. Again, the rules as written don't vary from group to group. Whether it's two groups or two thousand, they're all starting from exactly the same place. If they get different results using the rules, it's not because some quality of the rules made it so.

In short, 1 + X = 3, 1 + Y =5, and 1 + Z = -3 not because in each equation the value of 1 differs, but because what's being added to it is different in each case. There's no special property to the number 1 that makes it provide a different result in each equation.

Seanchai

Quote from: BrimshackOkay, but why a universe of 2 game groups?

I don't know. It's something you came up with. Why a universe of two game groups?

Quote from: BrimshackA more appropriate example would address the prospect of multiple groups turning back similar results or even the prospect of 1 or 3 patterns coming back from multiple sources.

And if multiple game groups report differing result, how is that the result of the game itself? How are 1 + X = 3, 1 + Y = 5, and X = Y all true?

Seanchai

Nevermind

Quote from: BrimshackNevermind

Yeah, pretty much.

Ah, what the hell, guys, I'll take a crack. Seanchai, your argument hinges on the semantic hangup that a thing is true in once sense, therefore it must be true in all senses. Yes, the Text is not a living thing enacting its will on play. Yes, it's a static, set, "past" thing that doesn't reach out and roll the dice for you or tell you how to play it. In that sense you're right, 100%.

But you can agree that the text does have some influence, right? People don't just get together in their living rooms with these books in hand and just play by some kind of mystical instinct without ever referring to the rules? If we can agree that roleplayers, by and large, do get together and do their thing using a published ruleset, to whatever degree "using" consists of "adhering to" (like, minimal to total), then it follows that what those rules actually say will have some impact on the game played. Even if that impact is rebellion: "No, dude, that sucks, how 'bout we do it this way instead?"

So then, given that A) the rules will impact play to some degree, B) a playtest group in particular is going to tend to follow, rather than amend the rules, so they can test how well they work, and C) humans are not omniscient* and cannot always tell how a given rule will work out in play, it follows that properties of the ruleset can emerge through play.

That's all I got. Make of it what you will.

Peace,
-Joel

*Pundit excepted, naturally.

Quote from: MelinglorBut you can agree that the text does have some influence, right?

That's not what my argument is based on. The text influences play, absolutely. But it's a static influence.

For example, the text might say to use dice pools and this might influence play by delaying actions slightly as the players gather their dice. All players everywhere have to pick up the dice, so this influence is universal.

But how the players or group will feel about dice pools, whether they'll lead to a positive or negative experience, etc., is determined by the individuals and situations involved. Some people hate them, some people love them. In some games, rolls might almost never be called for while in others, the GM is having the players pick up the dice time after time after time.

Quote from: MelinglorC) humans are not omniscient* and cannot always tell how a given rule will work out in play

While I believe that's true to a limited degree, I think the vast majority of these surprises are due to folks not carefully reading and considering the rules. Or recognizing that the emergent factors are engendered by themselves, the situation and their own preferences rather than the game itself.

Quote from: Melinglorit follows that properties of the ruleset can emerge through play.

Yeah. They're the result of adding people to the equation. They don't arise sponaneously from the rules set.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThat's not what my argument is based on. The text influences play, absolutely. But it's a static influence.

I would disagree. The text is static but the interpretation varies. If 5 groups play a game this means five groups (hopefully) have read the rules. Their interpretations of the rules can be very helpful since it is a reflection of how consistently and clearly the rules are written. If all five interpret your combat rules differently that can indicate a problem.

Mind, I am coming at this more from a play test POV and not so much a review. However, to a lesser extent, AP reviews can be useful if presented and taken as such. Yes, one group may have an easier time with the way some rules are written. However, difficulties and successes that one group has I can take and look for in my implementation of the rules.

Bill

Well, I tried. Count me among the "Nevermind" crew.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: HinterWeltThe text is static but the interpretation varies.

Yes. But the interpretation is based on the individual. The result of adding said individual to the mix. So, again, it's not the game itself driving the emergent qualities.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes. But the interpretation is based on the individual. The result of adding said individual to the mix. So, again, it's not the game itself driving the emergent qualities.

Seanchai

However, it is not a simple mathematical certainty that the game will always result in the same outcome. That is a factor of the quality of the writing and explanation of the rules combined with the comprehension abilities of the players reading the rules.

In one way, I am agreeing with you. However, in reference to your statement (assuming I understand your position) that it is an unchanging rule set and thus everyone should have the same outcome...I disagree. Math is determinate while role-playing and understanding complex rule sets are interpretive. To use an example of yours, 2+x=5 then  x=3. If you try to say x=4 it is demonstrably wrong. However, if you take an interpretive rule such as "Add 3% for each level" you will get some people who add 9% at third level and some that add 6%. It may break the game but most likely it will just cause different results. This is only one example and one aspect of what I am talking about. Again, my emphasis is on play testing where such items would be folded into the final rules set. However, such occurrences will occur in play regardless.

Bill

Quote from: zombenI'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels like that...

Honestly, when I was running vanilla FATE (2.0) for a horror game, I also found that combat took forever.

-O

Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, in reference to your statement (assuming I understand your position) that it is an unchanging rule set and thus everyone should have the same outcome...I disagree.

No, that's not my position.

In response to claims that the game created emergent qualities, I pointed out that the game itself is static and thus the resulting emergent qualities should be universal if the game were creating such qualities.

I believe, and my position is, that the emergent qualities are not engendered by the game itself, but by the people playing it and the situations that arise from game play. Thus you can give one hundred people the exact same game and get a variety of different actual play experiences.

Seanchai

And, as an addendum, that's why I don't feel actual play reviews are more useful, more accurate or necessarily more fair to the publisher.

Seanchai