From The RPG Design Resource Thread:

Quote from: Skyrock- RPG Design Patterns by John Kirk. Despite coming from the Forge, it is a pretty neutral collection and evaluation of a load of design patterns. Beware - it's a long and dry PDF, but if you manage to deal with this it's a pretty versatile resource.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, the design patterns is from 2005, so it's still the old version.  It's not that neutral, whcih was one of the issues I'd hoped he'd addressed.  IMHO, if done in a truly neutral fashion, it could be a great resource.

What's the matter with those? I have to admit that many months have passed since I've read the last time through it, but I can't remember anything biased. Could you give me the one or another example?

I have already told you so!
They are a biased waste of space, that don´t even get what D&D is about.

First of all, get the title right:

"Design Patterns of Successful Roleplaying Games"
And one his main criteria for "successful" was "if it had been discussed at the forge"

Read page 3:

Quote"...So, we are
going to set the bar fairly low and arbitrarily define a successful game as one that
satisfies at least one of the following criteria:
1) The game has an ongoing following of at least 10 active groups worldwide.
We're defining an "active" group as one that has played the game sometime in
the past year.
2) There is broad discussion about it on the Internet as determined by doing a
search on Google Groups or by popular discussion on The Forge website
(http://www.indie-rpgs.com)."

[/B]

This is an ongoing effort:

Redefining story, Redefining fun, and even redefining "success".

I've seen that. I'm not happy about it, but I can live with that as a.) most Forge games have unique mechanics which are worthy to be analyzed, b.) most Forge games are partially purified design studies and c.) are often available for free, making them a good starting point to see some patterns in action without having to buy a lot of books.
However, I'd be more happy if there had been a distinction between complete and Forge-only success.

What about the Patterns themselves, as they are the meat and bone of the file? Is there anything biased?

To be fair, he also says that discussion on Google Groups is sufficient for a game to be considered successful, and the various RPG newsgroups on Google Groups tend to be pretty mainstream.

In other words, for a game to be successful it only has to fill one of the following criteria:

- Being played currently by at least 10 groups.
- Being discussed on Google Groups.
- Being discussed on the Forge.

Criteria 1 and 2 should be easily fulfilled by pretty much any mainstream game. Criteria 3 seems designed to let avante-garde and obscure small press games slip in, but that's not necessarily a terrible thing in a project which is meant to catalogue design patterns in a wide variety of games; in that sense, the project is useful in that it lets you take a look at the indie games it covers and see whether they're really as experimental as they're made out to be, or whether they're just new implementations of old, traditional design patters. The list of games being considered in the 2005 version contains 14 or 15 I'd consider "mainstream" out of 29 games - a 50-50 split between traditional/mainstream games and experimental/Forgey games.

I'm reading through the 2005 version currently and the Patterns themselves seem reasonable, although it is a shame that (as yet) not much attention has been paid to dice mechanics - surely an important part of any design.

Quote from: WarthurTo be fair, he also says that discussion on Google Groups is sufficient for a game to be considered successful, and the various RPG newsgroups on Google Groups tend to be pretty mainstream.

In other words, for a game to be successful it only has to fill one of the following criteria:

- Being played currently by at least 10 groups.
- Being discussed on Google Groups.
- Being discussed on the Forge.

Criteria 1 and 2 should be easily fulfilled by pretty much any mainstream game. Criteria 3 seems designed to let avante-garde and obscure small press games slip in, but that's not necessarily a terrible thing in a project which is meant to catalogue design patterns in a wide variety of games; in that sense, the project is useful in that it lets you take a look at the indie games it covers and see whether they're really as experimental as they're made out to be, or whether they're just new implementations of old, traditional design patters. The list of games being considered in the 2005 version contains 14 or 15 I'd consider "mainstream" out of 29 games - a 50-50 split between traditional/mainstream games and experimental/Forgey games.

I'm reading through the 2005 version currently and the Patterns themselves seem reasonable, although it is a shame that (as yet) not much attention has been paid to dice mechanics - surely an important part of any design.

Amen, brother.  But after discussing it a bit with the author (here! at this site!), I see where he was going.  Like I said, he, at that time, seemed to be looking at re-writing/updating/etc. with feedback which is why I was excited if it was a new version.  Alas...

Skyrock - all I can think of off the top of my head is to search this very site.  He and I and several others discussed his book. I seem to remember this subtle, and oft times not so subtle, value judgement made on specific patterns.  Not in what they were or were good for, but in the underlying idea.  But my memory is a bit fuzzy and I'm too lazy right now to do the search.

I think I've found the thread you refer to: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2414

I'll read through it and pick out the points worthy to discuss.

Done. Besides the inclusion of Forge games (which we already discuss), there are three patterns critizised:

Alignment:
This is already in revision according to John Kirk, so that I think we can leave this point as it is until we see a new version. (However, I may be a bit biased on this matter, as I use the Idiom pattern myself in my own home-brew.)

Currency:
_This_ is a point that I can see clearly. The sample is a direct bashing of D&D, coupled with a bias for "modern" systems without derived attributes and with attack results directly modifying damage instead of a separate damage roll. This is something that really deserves editing.

Otherwise, the pattern is fine, and "keep it simple stupid, as long as you can do so" can't be said often enough. (_Every_ game design will turn quickly enough into a unmanageable jumble, no matter how hard you fight against it, as I've learned from my own experience )

Random Attribute Pattern:

Quote from: James J Skach

QuoteThis pattern has fallen out of favor in most modern games, although it does tend to crop up from time to time.

Hmmm…

Why the use of the term modern? D&D has been around since, what 1979? Was that in the modern era? Version 3.5 of D&D was first published in 2003. Was that the modern era? Both use Random Attribute. In fact, every version of D&D uses this method.  All published in the modern era. If I might be so bold, I'd assert the most played RPG in the history of RPGs.

These are the little indicators that the author has a bias that I don’t think even he knows he has.

I see nothing wrong in this - I often see randomly determined attributes, life-paths and so on mocked as "old-fashioned", and there was a point-buy wave in the aftermath of the success of WoD, GURPS, Shadowrun and the like that still has some influence on newer games.
However, it also wouldn't hurt to delete this sentence, as it has nothing to do with the technical side of RPG design.

I went back to that thread and saw I had a problem with the section on "negotiated contest". While searching for it, I found that the book uses the term "social contract", which isn't a good sign. (In fact, the term is never defined in the text.) Pseudoephedrine can probably best explain why.

And then if you go to the section on "negotiated contest", p. 109, first paragraph under Motivation, you find a section on "what roleplaying is, essentially" which is obviously cribbed from contentious Forge theory (the Lumpley Principle, or various interpretations of it).

If I had the time (if only you'd started this thread when I was just laid up inthe hospital) I might go through it all again.  As I'm not being paid for editing that manuscript, I'll have to prioritize it accordingly.

The point is, these were the examples given, not an exhaustive list, of the underyling tone of the book that was, IMHO, decidedly slanted.  And i'll say it again: It could be a great book if that kind of thing is removed.  Even if it talks about aspects of gaming that are more recent (ie: Forge-inspired, etc.), I think that's a great thing.  It takes the bias out of the discussion and returns it to a more concrete situation.

I've said, couple this with a book on dice and probabilites (Spike's got a thread here somewhere) and how different dice mechanics might affect the feel of a game, and you've got some really good theory stuff.

Oh...and gliechman's elements of strategy, tactics, etc.

Aye, I think you have to read over some minor parts and take it with a graint of salt. However, I think overall it's still an useful resource, especially if you keep in mind that it's only beta and that all writing and editing so far comes from the Forgies.

Good that you mention Gleichman - I'll add it to the resource thread.