We've had a bit more theory discussion lately, and my own thinking about how RPGs are still games led me to a few sources I hadn't looked at before.


"A Theory of Fun for Game Design" By Raph Koster

There is (or was) a preview of this book available at Gamasutra.  You might be able to register with them and get access to it, or get it from google's cache

The preview discusses "What Games Aren't"

I thought RPGSite folk would find the preview interesting because it deals with some topics we've been discussing recently, but approaches things from a fresh perspective.  It's fairly easy to read as well, and quite self contained.

A few interesting points from the excerpt:

QuoteBy and large, people don't play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. For one thing, it's damn rare to see a game story written by an actual writer. As a result, they are usually around the high-school level of literary sophistication at best.

For another, since the games are generally about power, control, and those other primitive things, the stories tend to be so as well. This means they tend to be power fantasies. That's generally considered to be a pretty juvenile sort of story.

QuoteGame designer Marc LeBlanc has defined eight types of fun: sense-pleasure, make-believe, drama, obstacle, social framework, discovery, self-discovery and expression, and surrender. Paul Ekman, a researcher on emotions and facial expressions, has identified literally dozens of different emotions - it's interesting to see how many of them only exist in one language but not in others. Nicole Lazzaro did some studies watching people play games, and she arrived at four clusters of emotion represented by the facial expressions of the players: hard fun, easy fun, altered states, and the people factor.

QuoteGames are not stories. It is interesting to make the comparison, though:
Games tend to be experiential teaching. Stories teach vicariously.
Games are good at objectification. Stories are good at empathy.
Games tend to quantize, reduce, and classify. Stories tend to blur, deepen, and make subtle distinctions.
Games are external - they are about people's actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal - they are about people's emotions and thoughts.
In both cases, when they are good, you can come back to them repeatedly and keep learning something new. But we never speak of fully mastering a good story.

If anyone has read the entire book, let us know what you think -- is it worth picking up?

Quote from: StuartIf anyone has read the entire book, let us know what you think -- is it worth picking up?

I enjoyed it and it made me look at both computer games and RPGs in a different light.  I'm still figuring out how much can and should be applied to RPGs.  I'll probably be re-reading it again over the next couple of weeks and I might get around to posting a review

QuoteGames are external - they are about people’s actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal - they are about people’s emotions and thoughts.

Hum. By those definitions, something like The Insects of God wouldn't qualify as a game, which sounds a tad oddish. It could of course be argued (and certainly by some of the folks on this site) that IoG isn't an RPG as such since the group plays various impulses and drives struggling for dominance in the mind of someone  about to die, but not a game at all? That's a bit of an overgeneralization.

Could you post a link to that game... a review... anything?  That's a pretty obscure "game"... approaching Owlbears level obscurity I think...

Quote from: GrimGentHum. By those definitions, something like The Insects of God wouldn't qualify as a game, which sounds a tad oddish.

The author is specifically referring to computer games, but Insects of God sounds very interesting.  Got a link?

I found a micro-review of Insects of God:

Quotethe object of the game is the final and worst five hours of a person's life. a particularly nasty and unpleasant person's last five hours. the players each take on the role of one of this person's negative qualities, such as hate, addiction, lust, whatever. each player then tries to take the story in the direction of their negative qualities. eventually (i won't say how) a certain player can kill off the subject using their particular vice, or they die instantly after 5 hours of REAL time have past.  i won't say much more, except for the fact that this game is GM-less.

I don't know... I'm not sure that if played as a competitive game it would create a very good narrative...  I bet it would get gonzo pretty quick.

I guess it's easy enough to make up a game that nominally meets the  criteria of being about "thoughts and feelings"... but I think the article is generally true.  I mean, here's another game:  

Sad Sack -- by Samuel Clemens
Object: Be the first to make the other players cry.
Rules: Players climb into large burlap bags and force the other players to answer questions about their thoughts and feelings.
Optional Rules: Sticks.

I don't think it discounts the advice in the article, particularly when trying to design a game most people want to play.

Quote from: StuartCould you post a link to that game... a review... anything?  That's a pretty obscure "game"... approaching Owlbears level obscurity I think...

Yup, 'tis obscure, all right: a four-page PDF by Jason L. Blair, which used to be available on the 'Net but doesn't seem to be around these days...

Basically, each session lasts the maximum of five hours, at the end of which the person whose emotions and compulsions the players control inevitably dies, every single time; and he doesn't know that it's going to happen, so life goes on as usual until one of those passions or fears wins out and leads to his death.

Never played it, myself. Could be fun.

I had a few things to say about A Theory of Fun over on my LJ.

QuoteI finally got round to finishing Koster's book. In the end, I think it's a bit schizophrenic. The first half is indeed about engaging the mind's hunger for pattern recognition and mastery. But once Koster begins to discuss the ethics of gaming, he switches gears and begins to emphasize the non-mechanical "meaning" of games. One example that stands out is his hypothetical version of Tetris where instead of stacking abstract blocks, you're throwing human victims into a pit.

Later, Koster suggests a game of status and friendship. It's interesting to contrast the two examples, because the differences parallel a common argument among boardgamers. That is, the evil-Tetris game is little more than some ugly window dressing on the fundamentally abstract game, while the status/frienship game actually attempts to embed a theme in the mechanics. Among boardgamers, the argument would be between German games, which often have a simple theme draped over abstract (but fun) mechanics, and wargames, whose attraction largely derives from their claim to mechanically represent the fundamental dynamics of a situation.

I was also struck by Koster's comment, late in the book, that "art-like" games will be ones that don't have fixed solutions. This is similar to the ideas of many Forge designers/theorists with regard to the concept of games being a way to explore a Premise, that is, an open moral question of interest to the player.

However, I think that both Koster and the Forge designers (chiefly Paul Czege and Vincent Baker) propose an overly mechanistic and restrictive approach. In short, there's a risk that mechanics which aim directly at certain themes will not be (in Koster's metaphor) "trellises" around which ideas can grow, but rather heavy-handed topiary, i.e., "telling" rather than "showing". It's a bit like comparing September 12 to Diplomacy. The former is an editorial, not a meditation. Diplomacy (like many other multi-player wargames) on the other hand provides the player with a problem that has no fundamental right or wrong answer--but rather an infinite variety of situations relating to issues of trust, cooperation, and politics, which in turn spur meditation on those issues.

Thanks Elliot!

Hmm, very interesting.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartIf anyone has read the entire book, let us know what you think -- is it worth picking up?

Yes.

Yes, it is.

Awful lot of anti-story shit in there. Almost like he's beating a drum or something. But you've gotta love this:

QuoteBy and large, people don’t play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. For one thing, it’s damn rare to see a game story written by an actual writer. As a result, they are usually around the high-school level of literary sophistication at best.

For another, since the games are generally about power, control, and those other primitive things, the stories tend to be so as well. This means they tend to be power fantasies. That’s generally considered to be a pretty juvenile sort of story.

In other words: because the story found in play is usually a bad piece of juvenile power fantasy because of the lack of story-making skill of the participants and the very game rules themselves, it simply cannot be the story people like. That's like saying, people must not like pepperoni on their pizza because they keep picking the low quality, bad tasting pepperoni off the pizza we give them.

So long as I'm here, I can't recall if I'd posted this here before, but here are two other essays on a similar note:

Link 1
Link 2

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrAwful lot of anti-story shit in there. Almost like he's beating a drum or something. But you've gotta love this:

QuoteBy and large, people don't play games because of the stories. The stories that wrap the games are usually side dishes for the brain. For one thing, it's damn rare to see a game story written by an actual writer. As a result, they are usually around the high-school level of literary sophistication at best.

For another, since the games are generally about power, control, and those other primitive things, the stories tend to be so as well. This means they tend to be power fantasies. That's generally considered to be a pretty juvenile sort of story.

In other words: because the story found in play is usually a bad piece of juvenile power fantasy because of the lack of story-making skill of the participants and the very game rules themselves, it simply cannot be the story people like. That's like saying, people must not like pepperoni on their pizza because they keep picking the low quality, bad tasting pepperoni off the pizza we give them.

So long as I'm here, I can't recall if I'd posted this here before, but here are two other essays on a similar note:

Link 1
Link 2

This is a perfect example of creationist ideation. While it sounds reasonable at first glance, upon closer reading one notices the stridency of the position, and how it is not supported by evidence but only by assertion.

The author is either unwilling, or unable, to entertain the idea that his model of the world could be incorrect, and reacts in an emotional fashion to the presentation of evidence that disagrees with his beliefs. It's almost as if he finds anything that contradicts his tenets to be personally threatening, perhaps even a danger to his life, mental stability, or even his very soul.

Humans do like some degee of stability in their lives. Most people are able to deal productively with some degree of uncertainty. What we see in the above is someone who has serious difficulty with even the slightest challenge to what he sees as an eternal truth. So he lashes out with a despairing passion in a forlorn attempt to drive the unholy thought beyond the ken of Man.

He does not engage the abberrant idea with any degree of rigor. Rather, his objections are based on an exaggerated, irrational emotion. The meme is not just wrong, it is an abomination to be stomped under iron heeled boots and ground into the dust. It is abhorrent, it is foul. It is an assault on all that is good and right in the world. It is profoundly and deeply icky.

This is fairly typical creationist thinking. The subject is profoundly disturbed by the new, and seeks to see it destroyed by any means he considers necessary. It is not to be countenanced, it is not to be foreborne. It is anathema, and as anathema it must be obliterated by any means available; even if the means requires dissembling and deception.

It is not recommended that one try engaging such a person in debate. Such a conversation would not be an honest exchange of ideas, but a litany of objections on the creationist's part, demands for proof, and a continuous repositioning the criteria he requires to be convinced. A trick known as, "Moving the goalpost."

This author recommends one leave this sort of person to his own beliefs and engage those more capable of thinking outside the box.

Quote from: mythusmageThis author recommends one leave this sort of person to his own beliefs and engage those more capable of thinking outside the box.

I have played in games that produced story I would call juvenile, and enjoyed the juvenile, immature, power-fantasy nature of that story.

I have played in games that produced story that I would not consider juvenile, and enjoyed the nature of those stories as well.

Your statements do not match my experience.

Levi, I've read mythusmage's post and I've read your post, and I can't make any sense out of yours. I don't think he's saying what you think he is.