Quote from: StuartIf you changed your POV it could work... you could apply aboutness/resolution mechanics to any game... but you need to abandon the GNS idea that Narrative games are not games.

A game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

... okay -- that seems pretty vague to me (and about at the level of most rpg theory).

I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it's especially insightful: sort of along the lines of saying, "Movies that are character studies should have interesting characters."

Yeah... but that's not a design principle.

I've been told the Power 19 can apply to designing games. I'm trying to apply it: but when they ask, "What is your game about?" I'm not sure what they mean.

I'm told "Pirates" is a "stupid" answer... okay -- so, why is it stupid? I'm not being dense -- can't a game be about Pirates?

If we can't look at existing games (Hero, DiTV) and figure out what they're about, then that suggests to me that the idea that a game can really be "about" anything is flawed.

And if I assert that DiTV is about "Mormons" and I'm told it's "about 'how much would you risk for '" and there's *no way* for us to have a conversation about which of us is right (or if either of us are right), then I don't see this concept as being useful in design.

Let me suggest this another way:

Let's say I'm thinking about doing DiTV in D20. Power 19 asks if the resolution mechanic (1d20 + modifiers, roll-over) supports what the game is "about."

Does it? I have no idea... and I know the theory pretty well.

How would I apply the Power 19 in this situation?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Where is that body of thought and theory?

Let me be really clear:

Even if such a body of thought existed, I would refuse to accept it.

A body of theory attempting to create a fixed and predictive model of the full range of possible content in RPGs is a body of theory doomed to failure.  Attempts to create fixed models, if followed clearly, only calcify the thinking of those using such models exclusively, for as long as they continue to use them.

A community of theory containing multiple contradictory thoughts, in tension, does not suffer this problem.  But most communities of theory don't retain that tension - which is why I spend as much time reading here as on Story-Games.

I maintain a personal community under tension.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me be really clear:

Even if such a body of thought existed, I would refuse to accept it.

A body of theory attempting to create a fixed and predictive model of the full range of possible content in RPGs is a body of theory doomed to failure.  Attempts to create fixed models, if followed clearly, only calcify the thinking of those using such models exclusively, for as long as they continue to use them.

A community of theory containing multiple contradictory thoughts, in tension, does not suffer this problem.  But most communities of theory don't retain that tension - which is why I spend as much time reading here as on Story-Games.

I maintain a personal community under tension.

I think there's something between

"Nothing exists. these terms have no meaning and no deep, reflective thougth behind them."

and

"Theory must be completely comprehensive and deterministic."

A request that the theory say something specific or even be clear isn't a demand that it be "fixed" and predictive of "the full range of possibilities."

Do you really think that by asking questions like what the Power 19 means when it says a game is 'about' something I'm asking for an extreme, and finalized model?

I assure you, I'm not.

But c'mon -- does saying a game is "about" something mean anything?

You said earlier that saying "My game is about Pirates and uses a roll under mechanic" was a stupid answer.

On what grounds? Why was that stupid? Is that just a personal judgement or does theory help with this?

Because if theory doesn't help distinguish stupid answers from not-stupid ones, then how does one apply it?

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteBy that measure, DitV would be about "How much of your character are you willing to risk for this?"

I don't know DitV enough to comment.

QuoteI'm told "Pirates" is a "stupid" answer... okay -- so, why is it stupid? I'm not being dense -- can't a game be about Pirates?

Ok, the theme is pirates -- but what's the game?  The theme in a classic Chess game is medieval, you can buy a Simpson's Chess set and it's the same game.

QuoteI don't disagree with it, but I don't think it's especially insightful: sort of along the lines of saying, "Movies that are character studies should have interesting characters."

I don't just mean the theme.  I'm not saying a game "about" Pirates should have Pirates in it. (Although "Dungeons & Dragons" seems to have a lot fewer Dungeons and Dragons than I remember... )

What I'm saying is if the game itself -- the gameplay -- the challenges the players are trying to overcome -- THAT should be supported by the resolution mechanics.

If this were my "theory" I wouldn't talk about "aboutness" and resolution mechanics.  I'd probably say something more straight forward like:  If you want a game about (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck), then make success at challenges to (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck) lead to success in the game.

Quote from: StuartOk, the theme is pirates -- but what's the game?  The theme in a classic Chess game is medieval, you can buy a Simpson's Chess set and it's the same game.

I don't just mean the theme.  I'm not saying a game "about" Pirates should have Pirates in it. (Although "Dungeons & Dragons" seems to have a lot fewer Dungeons and Dragons than I remember... )

What I'm saying is if the game itself -- the gameplay -- the challenges the players are trying to overcome -- THAT should be supported by the resolution mechanics.

If this were my "theory" I wouldn't talk about "aboutness" and resolution mechanics.  I'd probably say something more straight forward like:  If you want a game about (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck), then make success at challenges to (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck) lead to success in the game.

In my experience, in a roleplaying game -- even a pretty narrow one like Call of Cthulhu or James Bond -- the challenges and themes varry *wildly* from game to game...

Sometimes there are a lot of gunfights. Sometimes there's slow, creeping personal horror. Sometimes there's nothing but dialog, and so-on. Sometimes the conflicts come from the outside. Sometimes, from within.

I'm not talking about rules-set to rules-set. I'm not even talking about campaign to campaign. I'm talking about session-to-session.

So when someone asks what a game is "about" I don't know how to answer in the framework you're using: today it's about "what would you sacrifice for love." Last week it was about, "How many Viper Agents can I kill?" Next week, it'll be about something different.

That's why I think the Power 19 is probably a bad way to go about designing a game: the 'aboutness' in terms of challenges and conflicts of any play session comes overwhelmingly from the players -- not the game system (and I maintain that's true, overwhelmingly, for rpg's. Even the Indie ones, like Sorcerer and DiTV).

I'm not convinced that the mechanics have any direct relationship to "aboutness" and that implying they do (as the Power 19 does) is actually based on a misunderstanding of the role of game-designer in game play.

But maybe I'm wrong: that's why I'm asking the questions.

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteSo when someone asks what a game is "about" I don't know how to answer in the framework you're using: today it's about "what would you sacrifice for love." Last week it was about, "How many Viper Agents can I kill?" Next week, it'll be about something different.

I think this is both a strength and weakness of many RPGs.  Some are not games at all -- they're toolkits for creating games.  That can be great -- it gives people more options.  It can also be bad, because people who are looking to play "a game" don't  immediately get their needs met -- and some of the "games" built with the toolkit are both better constructed than others, and also more or less in line with what the player was hoping for.

Beyond thinking of RPGs as toolkits for games, I do think there are some things that are built into the system that make them better suited to creating games "about" certain things.

For example -- Vampire: The Masquerade
Does this look right?  "If you want a game about Storytelling, personal horror, etc, then make success at challenges to Stat Optimization and Dice Based Combat system lead to success in the game."

To me, it doesn't look like it's setup properly.

Pish.

Wargames have rules. Improv doesn't.

Adding rules for the improve bits is ass backwards gamer thinking.

You get a wargame about arguments. Woot.

It's a useful crutch for people who arn't creative enough to do their own acting, but a skilled player won't need it.

Quote from: -E.Do you really think that by asking questions like what the Power 19 means when it says a game is 'about' something I'm asking for an extreme, and finalized model?

I assure you, I'm not.

*Snip*

Because if theory doesn't help distinguish stupid answers from not-stupid ones, then how does one apply it?

I despair of this line of thinking; I honestly believe that you're chasing a dead end here - that you want RPG theory to be something fundamentally different from what it is, and are trying to cast it in your terms.  In your terms, it is a complete failure.  So, if you are willing to accept that it has produced useful concepts, you need to change your terms.

So I'm trying to point at another set...

Here's a theory, Forge-type (my terminology):

It is useful for a designer to clearly answer "Who are the characters?" and "What kinds of things do they do?".  By answering this question, the designer creates a common foundation - a consensus of action - among players.  By studying existing games, a designer can learn the kinds of things that characters do in those games that players tend to enjoy, and in what combinations, allowing the designer to give answers that appeal.

Here's another theory, Pundit-type (my terminology):

It is useful for a designer to understand that most gaming groups, seeking their own consensus of action inside a game, will come to their own agreement as to who the characters are and what kinds of things they do.  A good design, therefore, is broad enough in terms of material and style to allow groups and GMs to create the game they want - no designer will ever know another group well enough to fine-tune a game for them perfectly.

These theories are both sensible.  They are usually portrayed as conflicting.

They are better because they conflict.

QuotePish.

Wargames have rules. Improv doesn't.

Adding rules for the improve bits is ass backwards gamer thinking.

You get a wargame about arguments. Woot.

Not sure if you're serious or not... but I'll raise you a Tish Tosh.

Games have rules.  Improv doesn't.  If someone wants to talk about Roleplaying Improv, then they're right.  And that might be a really fun activity, and I'm not disparaging it... but if we're not talking about roleplaying games... well... WTF?

Wargames?  You decide!
* Charades
* I Spy
* Simon Says
* Hide and Seek
* Pictionary
* Blackjack
* etc etc etc

:domokun:

Quote from: StuartWargames?  You decide!
* Charades
* I Spy
* Simon Says
* Pictionary

Well, with these the rules are intended to encourage interaction instead of replace it.

In depth rules to social interaction would be like adding in depth rules to replace drawing pictures in Pictionary  (I roll my Draw a Donkey skill to Draw a Donkey - I get a six' 'you draw a donkey' 'Bitchin!' - worse than pointless.

In short, you can focus on roleplaying, and reward it, and focus on it, without a involved mechanical system for actually doing it (lets play football! I roll a 9 on my dribble! I get a six for my challenge! Excellent!).

I don't think we're disagreeing at all.  

I'm going to go back to my micro-theory:
If you want a game about Improvisational Acting, make success at challenges to Improvisational Acting lead to success in the game.

You would NOT make stat optimization and dice rolling, instead of improvisational acting, lead to success in the game.

If you don't want a game at all, and just want to do some Improvisational Acting?  That's cool too.

In the Improv. Acting game, you really want to make sure players can't just number crunch and dice roll their way to success.  Like in Vampire.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI despair of this line of thinking; I honestly believe that you're chasing a dead end here - that you want RPG theory to be something fundamentally different from what it is, and are trying to cast it in your terms.  In your terms, it is a complete failure.  So, if you are willing to accept that it has produced useful concepts, you need to change your terms.

So I'm trying to point at another set...

In *my* terms?

Hmm... I didn't create the Power 19. I didn't ask question 11.

I just asked what it meant, how it might be used, and if the concepts it hints at could be applied to games I see around me.

Is that really so hopeless? Are there no answers to these basic questions?

I'd like to talk about the (less problematic) questions you've pointed to in a second, but before we move on, I'd like to know if I'm understanding this right: what I'm getting is that theory provides no answers -- even basic ones -- to how Question 11 might be answered or used, or how it's answer might help a game designer.

Do I have that right?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.what I'm getting is that theory provides no answers -- even basic ones -- to how Question 11 might be answered or used, or how it's answer might help a game designer.

Do I have that right?

It provides multiple conflicting answers.

No one of which I'm interested in speaking for - it's the whole mass of them that makes it useful to me.

Quote from: StuartIn the Improv. Acting game, you really want to make sure players can't just number crunch and dice roll their way to success.  Like in Vampire.

Nah man - because of the rules lite approch of things like Vampire and DnD you have to rely on your acting ability for talky bits, while in something with 'Social Conflict' rules, like, say forgy games, you can totally munchkin the speaking parts, relying on stats and feats instead of talking.

Course, some lesser beings may think that Talking Munchkins are better than Combat Wombats, but, lets face it, most people arn't very bright.

In short, DnD is the ideal roleplayers game, and once the forgers get the hang of improv their games will likly get more like it.

Quote from: StuartI think this is both a strength and weakness of many RPGs.  Some are not games at all -- they're toolkits for creating games.  That can be great -- it gives people more options.  It can also be bad, because people who are looking to play "a game" don't  immediately get their needs met -- and some of the "games" built with the toolkit are both better constructed than others, and also more or less in line with what the player was hoping for.

Beyond thinking of RPGs as toolkits for games, I do think there are some things that are built into the system that make them better suited to creating games "about" certain things.

For example -- Vampire: The Masquerade
Does this look right?  "If you want a game about Storytelling, personal horror, etc, then make success at challenges to Stat Optimization and Dice Based Combat system lead to success in the game."

To me, it doesn't look like it's setup properly.

First: toolkit games? Like fudge? I'm not sure what other tool kit games are out there -- just to be clear: you're not talking about, say, D&D or GURPS or whatever, right? Or are you?

I think that, for almost any game, except maybe Host a Murder, people are going to have to do some prep work, so I'm not sure where you're drawing a line.

In terms of V:tM -- I don't think success at dice based combat is in any way a problem with personal horror and story telling...

Really.

How can I think such a thing?

Well, here's how I look at it: people don't need special rules or mechanics or reward systems to tell stories. They do it all the time without games or dice, or anything.

So "storytelling rules" seems -- to me -- to be unnecessary.

But figuring out if a character in a story wins a fight or survives a fall, or can hold his breath underwater (fighting, falling, and drowning -- three rules all good games should have ) might be more tricky.

Having some guidelines for that are things I find helpful.

Vampire (and a lot of traditional games) work exactly as I need them to: they provide rules for things I want rules for (fighting, falling, and drownding) and they stay away from things I don't want rules for (Story telling, most social interactions, etc.)

I can see how folks might have other preferences, but there's certainly nothing objectively wrong with the choices Vampire made--in fact, for a game of personal horror, I don't see a set of choices that would make it better for me.

Cheers,
-E.