The priorities of the Cheetoist: People. Snacks. Setting. System. In that order.

Just thought about the Cheetoist way this morning, and how it could be applied not only to play and enjoy role playing games, but how it could inform game designs also.

It could go this way: the game’s system supports the whole, and the whole feeds the game’s design. Not the other way around. The game as a whole is not solely made of rules, and the rules are not the focus of the game.

People

First and foremost, what matters to the success of an RPG session is the people you game with. This means the game makes player types, play styles, personalities, front and center of the games design. This also means that the game provides advice and tools for the DM to understand his players and their expectations. This is not a supplemental matter to be put in some little box in a corner of a page, or in a “vol. 2” supplement. It is a corner stone of the game itself, and it should be explained as such.

Snacks

The people get together to play the game. “Snacks” here is a term thus understood loosely to mean that the social part of the game is fundamental to its enjoyment. It informs the game’s design: the game is meant to be played, not read alone on a couch. It’s meant to get people to enjoy the moment they spend together.

Setting

Role playing games are meant to experience an alternate fictional world. This comes before the game mechanics, which are themselves a tool to that end, not the other way around. Tools must be given to GMs and players alike to enjoy the fantastic universes the game supports (whether predetermined thematically or specifically, or not) and/or build them on their own.

System

The game’s system and mechanics thus support all these elements that make role playing games a past-time to enjoy together by actually role playing in a fictional world of fantasy and wonder (or whatever else the game emphasizes thematically speaking). The Cheetoist certainly may enjoy game systems and the way they are playing out during the game, but he considers its other elements, himself, the other people he plays with, the moment they spend together, and the fictional world they are experiencing, to be fundamental parts of his role playing enjoyment.

The Cheetoist designer thus conveys this approach through the game’s rules and advice, discusses these elements and provides tools for the users of the game to enjoy them equally.

Well, this is it, in a nutshell. What do you guys think?

Bah! The Cheetoist theory states that people come first, but if it stated snacks come first, they would. This, of course, means that with Cheetoists, theory comes zeroth, because it's the theory that tells them people come first. Without their theory, what are they? Just regular gamers! Their precious Cheetoist manifesto sets them apart - that and their sacred orange-dyed fingers. These orango-dactylines pretend to be all about the "people" and "snacks", but they are really all about their wonderful theory! All I can say is I wouldn't join any cheese-fingered cult that would have me as a member!

Say NO to the cult of Kyle!

-clash

And once again Clash is a piece of sunshine in an otherwise gloomy day.

The Cheetoists fear me because I'm on to them - I am impervious to their vaunted theory. I have no theory! In fact I haven't got a freaking clue! My ignorance makes me invulnerable. What you mistake for a ray of sunshine is the bright pitiless spotlight of utter ignorance!

-clash

Sorry Benoist we're derailing your thread... but in a very cheetoist way, I hope you can admit!

Next thing Clash will wander naked around the board holding a lantern in broad daylight shouting "I'm looking for a man".

LOL No problem!

My approach to running games is basically cheetoist. I'll point out too that cheetoist gamers are more likely to support railroading, as long as its not too heavy handed. They show up to hang out with friends and enjoy the game which usually means they'll jump on most plot hooks that arise just to get things going. Not to say cheetoism promotes railroading or anything. Just that it seems cheetoists are less likely to cry foul if the GM makes it clear he's spent a lot of time prepping the rescue the princess scenario and he wants them to go on it.

Pete

Quote from: flyingmice;403822Say NO to the cult of Kyle!

-clash

But "Cult of Kyle" has a nice ring to it.  Who wouldn't want to join it?

Hey, you could even be all edgy and spell it "Kult of Kyle," or KoK for short.

Quote from: Peregrin;403839But "Cult of Kyle" has a nice ring to it.  Who wouldn't want to join it?

Hey, you could even be all edgy and spell it "Kult of Kyle," or KoK for short.

And those deluded acolytes who fell for his cheesy scheme would be KoK-suckers. This has merit.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;403843And those deluded acolytes who fell for his cheesy scheme would be KoK-suckers. This has merit.

-clash

Did I just read that?

Quote from: pspahn;403844Did I just read that?

I don't know. It's possible you blindly copied and pasted it, Pete...

-clash

Quote from: Benoist;403819The priorities of the Cheetoist: People. Snacks. Setting. System. In that order.

Just thought about the Cheetoist way this morning, and how it could be applied not only to play and enjoy role playing games, but how it could inform game designs also.

It could go this way: the game’s system supports the whole, and the whole feeds the game’s design. Not the other way around. The game as a whole is not solely made of rules, and the rules are not the focus of the game.

People

First and foremost, what matters to the success of an RPG session is the people you game with. This means the game makes player types, play styles, personalities, front and center of the games design. This also means that the game provides advice and tools for the DM to understand his players and their expectations. This is not a supplemental matter to be put in some little box in a corner of a page, or in a “vol. 2” supplement. It is a corner stone of the game itself, and it should be explained as such.

Snacks

The people get together to play the game. “Snacks” here is a term thus understood loosely to mean that the social part of the game is fundamental to its enjoyment. It informs the game’s design: the game is meant to be played, not read alone on a couch. It’s meant to get people to enjoy the moment they spend together.

Setting

Role playing games are meant to experience an alternate fictional world. This comes before the game mechanics, which are themselves a tool to that end, not the other way around. Tools must be given to GMs and players alike to enjoy the fantastic universes the game supports (whether predetermined thematically or specifically, or not) and/or build them on their own.

System

The game’s system and mechanics thus support all these elements that make role playing games a past-time to enjoy together by actually role playing in a fictional world of fantasy and wonder (or whatever else the game emphasizes thematically speaking). The Cheetoist certainly may enjoy game systems and the way they are playing out during the game, but he considers its other elements, himself, the other people he plays with, the moment they spend together, and the fictional world they are experiencing, to be fundamental parts of his role playing enjoyment.

The Cheetoist designer thus conveys this approach through the game’s rules and advice, discusses these elements and provides tools for the users of the game to enjoy them equally.

Well, this is it, in a nutshell. What do you guys think?

I think this is totaly cool and such ideas have influenced my homebrew design for some time now...very nice Ben.
I would add that this is what gives the rules light approach so much advantage. Many Indie type games seem to be going in this kind of direction as well,focusing on the social aspect of "fun" play (char. interaction at the table,flow/easy conflict resolution etc.) over "realism" and "balanced" systems which tend to be a bit sterile and slow playing IMHO. Exceptions exist as allways...

Wait a minute, number one makes KoK-ism sound a lot like Forge-talk.

Now I'm really suspicious.

Quote from: skofflox;403848I think this is totaly cool and such ideas have influenced my homebrew design for some time now...very nice Ben.

Welcome, dude.

Quote from: skofflox;403848I would add that this is what gives the rules light approach so much advantage. Many Indie type games seem to be going in this kind of direction as well,focusing on the social aspect of "fun" play (char. interaction at the table,flow/easy conflict resolution etc.) over "realism" and "balanced" systems which tend to be a bit sterile and slow playing IMHO. Exceptions exist as allways...

I think what matters ultimately is that you appreciate the people around you, appreciate the moment spent together, and keep this in mind when you're choosing the game you want to run. Which means that if you've got some guys who just love abstract tactical combat and new school, you're going to go for games like 4E. If you've got guys who just can't stand this sort of thing, want dungeon crawling at its best and such, then you'll shoot for Gygaxian AD&D.

There's a synergy to find there, but also a chain of priorities, from the most important to the least. To me, the game system should be a consequence of a series of choices and circumstances that you learn to identify, from the people you play with to the style of game world and play they (and you) expect. Not the other way around.

Quote from: Benoist;403855*snip*
I think what matters ultimately is that you appreciate the people around you, appreciate the moment spent together, and keep this in mind when you're choosing the game you want to run. *snip*

There's a synergy to find there, but also a chain of priorities, from the most important to the least. To me, the game system should be a consequence of a series of choices and circumstances that you learn to identify, from the people you play with to the style of game world and play they (and you) expect. Not the other way around.

:worship: