If you're not Levi or Clash, please don't post in this thread.  Post about it, send us messages, whatever.  Just not in it.  Thanks.

Okay, this might seem a bit odd to some - an interview on a forum.  But, hey, why not?

................

So, since I'm going to be linking this interview from a few places, let's do some introductions first.  I'm Levi Kornelsen; I make weird little games, babble about theory, and generally roam a few different corners of the internet-as-regards-tabletop-gaming.

I'm interviewing Clash Bowley, also known as Flyingmice, and a few other things; he makes games, and we're going to talk about that a bit.

We're here on theRPGsite, which is a pretty interesting discussion forum with very deliberately loose moderation.  

...................

So, Clash, just to get everyone acquainted that isn't, could you start with a link to your website, a few words about your company, and a quick run-down on the kinds of games you make?

Hi Levi!

I'm clash, my company is Flying Mice Games which is part of the Better Mousetrap Games consortium along with the JAGS group, Timeless Gamez, Daemornia Studios, Silverlion Studios, Goshu Otaku, Chine Games, and Karmatech.

I design pretty traditional RPGs, with an emphasis on SF and Historical games.

-clash

To get a quick sense of scale here, my impression the companies in Better Moustrap Games - including your own - are one or two person outfits, which occasionally hire outside people.  Is that right?

And, if that's correct, are there any interesting (to you!) details on how the group relates, how that happened, or how that relationship benefits those involved, that you'd like to share?

Quote from: flyingmiceI design pretty traditional RPGs, with an emphasis on SF and Historical games.

It's been pointed out to me a few times that "traditional" can be a pretty broad spectrum, so I'd like to get a good handle here on what you mean by it.

From your perspective, what are a few of the games that define "traditional" to you?  

And can you point out specific things that make them traditional, or is it more of an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" kind of thing?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTo get a quick sense of scale here, my impression the companies in Better Moustrap Games - including your own - are one or two person outfits, which occasionally hire outside people.  Is that right?

Yep! That pretty much nails it. We're all small outfits.

QuoteAnd, if that's correct, are there any interesting (to you!) details on how the group relates, how that happened, or how that relationship benefits those involved, that you'd like to share?

We pass around our games, try to help each other out where we can, like with editing and illos as well as suggestions, and if we see someone ask about one of our group's games, we talk about it, or recommend what we think would suit the persona asking.

QuoteIt's been pointed out to me a few times that "traditional" can be a pretty broad spectrum, so I'd like to get a good handle here on what you mean by it.

From your perspective, what are a few of the games that define "traditional" to you?  

Hmmm... Traveller, Palladium, D&D, GURPS, and the like are probably the core. Some games are further out, like Dying Earth, but still Trad. There is no border, or hard line.

QuoteAnd can you point out specific things that make them traditional, or is it more of an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" kind of thing?

Off the top of my head, there's not a lot of metagame mechanics, generally there's a GM of some sort, the players have a mainly cooperative relationship, and the play group is the ultimate arbiter - a lot of options are left at the play level. The more of these things are in a game, the more traditional it feels.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmicethe play group is the ultimate arbiter - a lot of options are left at the play level.

This has come through a few times in other discussions I've had with you - and it's something that I think deserves a bit of attention.

As I see it, one of the places where a division occasionally gets marked down between traditional thinking and 'indie' thinking is that indie games are seen as having a "right way to play", and that people who really dig on traditional stylings want to avoid that to a greater or lesser extent.

Now, reading through In Harms Way, I noted that there are a few instances - especially in regards to Rank and Notice - where it's clear that there is a potential sort-of "optimum way to play" in order to accrue benefits.

But I've never seen anyone react to that, or even really frame it, as if you were trying to prompt that kind of behaviour.  Instead, so far as I can tell, you wrote it that way because that's how the setting works, and players take it that way - neither they nor their characters are expected to like it or treat it as their source of fun (though they might); it's just how things are.

Now, if I've mistaken your intent somewhere along the line there, please correct me.

If I'm more-or-less correct...

Do you think that basing mechanics like that directly out of setting, rather than on something else, makes the difference in such terms?

Do you think that the way you describe play, and the non-mechanical techniques, do it?

Or is it simply that the expectation isn't there, that people will "play to the numbers"?

Basically, I can feel the difference when I put down the book, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf I'm more-or-less correct...

Do you think that basing mechanics like that directly out of setting, rather than on something else, makes the difference in such terms?

Yes, to an extent. The expectation is there in the setting. This is modelling something inherent in the source material, not something I've inserted. The other part is that the game can be fun without playing attention to the advancement mechanics, and that is also there in the source material.

In the Hornblower series, for example, Lt. Bush at a certain point realizes he will never be able to compete with Hornblower, even though he starts out above him in seniority, but there are other pleasures he gains to compensate - he has a firm friendship, he gets into interesting scrapes, and he gets involved in things on a level he could never have hoped to reach on his own.

I've seen that happen in every campaign of the IHW series I've run - at a certain point the players realize that one player is going to win the Notice derby, and the others can sit back and enjoy the ride on another level entirely.

QuoteDo you think that the way you describe play, and the non-mechanical techniques, do it?

It helps, I think. I try to just lay it out straight and let the group decide how to handle it.

QuoteOr is it simply that the expectation isn't there, that people will "play to the numbers"?

Perhaps there's some of that, but I don't think it's a large factor.

QuoteBasically, I can feel the difference when I put down the book, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Such as they are...

-clash

So, at least in that game, the design, and the resulting play, are pretty firmly based on you modeling out specific elements of setting.  Then, the group plays with those, and the play results.

What strikes me as especially interesting about In Harms Way - and I suspect that it's true of at least some of your other work - is that, for a game that emulates the world, it's impressively short.  As a few alternative examples of emulation, I'll point at Tekumel, Dark Heresy, and Star Wars - each of which either started big, or got big pretty quickly as more bits were added through supplements (or both).

To steal a bit from Rob Donoghue's recent LJ posts (and mutate it), there's a fine gradation that includes "creating a simuation of the setting", "creating an emulation of the environment", and "creating an authentic feel in play".

What kind of place in that overall spectrum have you been aiming for with these recent games?   And do you think you've hit it?

...

In addition to that, in at least one minor bit (the dogfight rules in Aces & Eights), it strikes me that you've at least come close to an slightly different kind of design - that of turning the thing being emulated into a unique, and flavorful, mini-game.  The whole set of mechanisms, the flow chart for using fuel / moving power, has it's own complexeties that do something very specific and interesting.

What were you aiming for there?  And, again, do you think you hit it?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTo steal a bit from Rob Donoghue's recent LJ posts (and mutate it), there's a fine gradation that includes "creating a simuation of the setting", "creating an emulation of the environment", and "creating an authentic feel in play".

What kind of place in that overall spectrum have you been aiming for with these recent games?   And do you think you've hit it?

I think the last - creating an authentic feel in play. In the In Harm's Way series, the goal has been to have the player feel like the important bits feel right. I think I've achieved it.

For example, the mook rules in boarding actions for the original In Harm's Way - in the source material, the boarding actions are fast and furious, with the main characters rallying their men as they charge across the ship's decks. The important part in the game is the leadership they display or the discipline they use to control their men. The individual fights the PCs have along the way are not nearly so important, so they're over in a few slashes. By leadership or discipline, they must cow the enemy and force them to surrender. The mook rules are not there to make the PCs seem better than the hoi polloi, but to get the feel of a boarding action right.

QuoteIn addition to that, in at least one minor bit (the dogfight rules in Aces & Eights), it strikes me that you've at least come close to an slightly different kind of design - that of turning the thing being emulated into a unique, and flavorful, mini-game.  The whole set of mechanisms, the flow chart for using fuel / moving power, has it's own complexeties that do something very specific and interesting.

What were you aiming for there?  And, again, do you think you hit it?

In Aces In Spades and Aces And Angels - not Aces and Eights! - the PCs are fighter pilots in the first and second world wars respectively. As such, the most important part of that experience is the twisting, turning, zooming dogfight. In order to get that feeling right, I went to the source. According to pilots, the most important edge you can have in a dogfight is energy. You use energy to maneuver, and if you can't maneuver, you are a sitting duck. You can gain energy by diving, so altitude is a way of banking extra energy.

So the mini-game is all about energy-control - the aircraft sheet is a model of your plane, and the markers show you where your plane's energy is and allow you to control that energy graphically. You are literally flying your plane through the interface of the sheet.

What makes this roleplaying is that you have to work through the medium of your pilot. You may intend a particular maneuver, but your pilot character has to execute it, and there are consequenses for failure. You may know the GM has an enemy right behind you, but if your pilot doesn't spot that enemy, he's going to be in trouble.

As for whether or not I hit it, again, I think I did. Watching the intensity on the players faces as they visualize the fight internally, sometimes unconciously moving their bodies as if G forces were hitting them, or sweating bullets as they try to eke out some maneuver to gain advantage, lets me know I did it. It feels right. After the game, the players talk to each other about their experience, and they say things like "Did you see it when I hit that barrel roll and the Zero lost sight of me? He never knew what hit him when I got on his tail!". They don't talk about moving energy markers.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThe mook rules are not there to make the PCs seem better than the hoi polloi, but to get the feel of a boarding action right.

I'd like you to do a quick comparison for me, if you would.  There are a lot of games where the mook rules are present exactly in order to show the PCs as better than the hoi polloi.  Exalted comes to mind for me, but might not for you.

Where's the difference?

Quote from: flyingmicesometimes unconciously moving their bodies as if G forces were hitting them,

I don't have a question on this bit.  I just wanted to flag that out for the indie-type readers.  Because, so far as "emergent player behaviour" goes, that totally kicks ass.

(Also, sorry about the name confusion.  :deflated: )

.....

Now, speaking of the indie side of things, I've gotten some curiousity (and some enthusiasm for the discussion) 'whispered' in over on Story-Games.  The general hope there is that's I won't totally bail out on the business stuff in the middle of talking design; so let's wander back that way a bit.  This might be a bit of a barrage, so take your time, split these up, or just keep to the ones you think would be illuminating!

When you're doing design and production yourself, what 'steps' do you mark out on the way, and what (roughly) would a timeline on that look like?

You do source printing rather than POD or dropship POD, is that correct (I think I have the terms right, there)?  Do you have a single, preferred printer (and why them?), and how do you manage and size print runs?

Do you have any opinions, advice or experience on informal sole proprietorships, incorporation, and the finagling details of "the paperwork", that you'd like to share?

Could you give us an example to show how the BMG Consortium operates...  maybe just tell about a "regular week"?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'd like you to do a quick comparison for me, if you would.  There are a lot of games where the mook rules are present exactly in order to show the PCs as better than the hoi polloi.  Exalted comes to mind for me, but might not for you.

Where's the difference?

The difference is mostly in intent. If the group has to resolve a boarding action or similar mass combat by the one-on-one combat rules, things would slow to a crawl. the intent of the mook rule is to streamline combat so it rips by fast - so the PCs have the feeling of blurring action punctuated by stabbing boarding pikes or slashing blades trying to bar the character from his goal, which is to intimidate the officers and crew of the other ship into submission. The faster you can do this, the lower the butcher's bill will be for both sides.

Mechanically, your PC - as a fighter - doesn't really matter any more than any other enemy. The purpose of the opposition is to stop you from leading your men. If they can put your PC out of action, or even wound your PC so he has a penalty, that's good enough.

QuoteI don't have a question on this bit.  I just wanted to flag that out for the indie-type readers.  Because, so far as "emergent player behaviour" goes, that totally kicks ass.

Yeah - I love it when I see that! It means their minds are right there in that plane with their character.

Quote(Also, sorry about the name confusion.  :deflated: )

It throws me too, particularly since the games were all released about the same time.

QuoteNow, speaking of the indie side of things, I've gotten some curiousity (and some enthusiasm for the discussion) 'whispered' in over on Story-Games.  The general hope there is that's I won't totally bail out on the business stuff in the middle of talking design; so let's wander back that way a bit.  This might be a bit of a barrage, so take your time, split these up, or just keep to the ones you think would be illuminating

When you're doing design and production yourself, what 'steps' do you mark out on the way, and what (roughly) would a timeline on that look like?

Since I am adapting a standard system to suit the setting, the first thing that has to happen is for something to click in my head - a "Hey! I can model this in this way!" moment. That starts things going. Then I begin setting up chargen, because that's the most important part of a system to me. I try to think of what kind of what kind of characters folks might want to play in this setting, then give them the tools to do so. With the IHW series, up until Wild Blue, your main character isn't distinguished by what he does - you are all naval officers, or pilots - but by how he does what he does. Thus I try to open several different ways to get to the goal. I also like to put lots of non-core skills and quirks out there for people, for several reasons: it models people better, it gives you something to do besides fight, and these skills and quirks can help you in certain situations to reach your goal. This process takes about a week or two. If I was creating a new system, this period would be much longer!

BTW - since my StarCluster system is a meta system, I can drop different Task-Resolution sub-systems into the framework. I *never* test a game with a new TR system! I always test them separately - using the new TR system in a familiar game, and using a familiar TR system in a new game. This reduces the variables enormously!

Then I have my alpha group tear into it - make up characters, play out the game - with me improvising with makeshift rulings based on previous rules as needed. Between sessions I codify what I had to improvise, or make up a different, better way with some thinking about it. This takes about a month or two to come up with these bits and bobs. My alpha group are masterful rules twisters and exploiters. If there are holes, they generally find them.

When I'm satisfied that the rules are basically there, I set up a groupof beta playtesters. Some of them run games, some of them read the rules and comment. Both are helpful in different ways. The purpose of Beta testing is not to test the rules, which have been tested by my alpha group, but to test the expression of the rules - i.e. can these people pick up the game and play it as written? When they can, the game is ready for release. This varies a lot as to time period. IHW:Wild Blue took exactly 3 months from first conception to completion. Michael Scott suggested it when I released Sweet Chariot 2 on January 1, and I released it on March 31.

QuoteYou do source printing rather than POD or dropship POD, is that correct (I think I have the terms right, there)?  Do you have a single, preferred printer (and why them?), and how do you manage and size print runs?

I have done source printing, but right now I'm doing dropship POD.

QuoteDo you have any opinions, advice or experience on informal sole proprietorships, incorporation, and the finagling details of "the paperwork", that you'd like to share?

Keep it simple. Complicated setups are seldom worth the bother.

QuoteCould you give us an example to show how the BMG Consortium operates...  maybe just tell about a "regular week"?

Mff! We generally communicate when we need a hand or when we release something new, or in forums where we are members, like here. Sometimes a month will go by with no chat. Since the consortium itself has no source of funding and everything passes through to the members, we really don't need a lot of meetings and such. The consortium is really just a cooperative brand, saying "we really like each others games, and choose to associate together." It's nothing more than making explicit what a lot of Forge-based indie designers do informally.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceMff! We generally communicate when we need a hand or when we release something new, or in forums where we are members, like here. Sometimes a month will go by with no chat. Since the consortium itself has no source of funding and everything passes through to the members, we really don't need a lot of meetings and such. The consortium is really just a cooperative brand, saying "we really like each others games, and choose to associate together." It's nothing more than making explicit what a lot of Forge-based indie designers do informally.

Actually, I'd love to dig into that a bit.

There's been a lot of talk about "mutualism" in some circles.  Now, my own opinion is that the most powerful thing that a group of such people can do informally is to help each other other is to simply to play each other's games, and then talk about that play honestly and in public  (I'll note that the idea of formalising and branding is a little outside how I think about this stuff).

Heck, even Pundit has been prodding at the same set of ideas a little (which is great!).

So, if you would, I'd like not just your opinions on what is happening, but what you'd like to see, what you could imagine.  

Let's say you had a community of perfect mutual support - and that it all got organised online (I'm throwing that in because a lot of the support you've mentioned happens offline).  

What would happen there?   What else could people be doing with and for each other, to get different works and people the attention they deserve, without wandering into being weird or dishonest?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenActually, I'd love to dig into that a bit.

There's been a lot of talk about "mutualism" in some circles.  Now, my own opinion is that the most powerful thing that a group of such people can do informally is to help each other other is to simply to play each other's games, and then talk about that play honestly and in public  (I'll note that the idea of formalising and branding is a little outside how I think about this stuff).

Heck, even Pundit has been prodding at the same set of ideas a little (which is great!).

So, if you would, I'd like not just your opinions on what is happening, but what you'd like to see, what you could imagine.  

Let's say you had a community of perfect mutual support - and that it all got organised online (I'm throwing that in because a lot of the support you've mentioned happens offline).  

What would happen there?   What else could people be doing with and for each other, to get different works and people the attention they deserve, without wandering into being weird or dishonest?

Just what you say, get to know each others' games and honestly suggest them when people ask. It's very important that the endorsements be both honest and pertinent, as honestly saying you like game X when the person asking has already pointed out objections to X or to games like X just pisses people off. I regularly point out games by other companies and people which on some level compete with my own because I think they are more suitable for what the poster was after.

I really like Bill and Brett's games, for instance, and will recommend them when I feel they approach what the person is after in a better way than my games, even though neither is a member of BMT. I have often told people that they should not get my game as game X does what they want to do better or easier. My belief is that honesty and pertinence together as a regular practice lets people believe me when I do recommend my own games. No game can be all things to all people. If I recommend game X to Joe, and Joe buys it and it's a waste of his money, who is Joe going to blame? Me. On the other hand, If I recommend game X and Joe buys it and it's perfect for what he wants to do, Joe will remember that.

The side benefit, of course, is that I can live with myself, and not being honest and pertinent would go against my nature.

The thing with BMT is that we got together because we liked each others' games, and we like each other as people. Thus not only can we recommend each other' games honestly, but we can work together  harmoniously when we need to. It's a win-win situation, with no downside.

-clash

Getting back over to design for a second, this is a big sprawling lead-up to a pack of (possibly easy, possibly really tough) questions; I apologize for that, but wanted the context to be really clear...

I went and dug up the post from Rob Donoghue (Evil Hat is the company, Spirit of the Century a fairly noted game).  I'd like you to take a look at this for a moment:

http://rob-donoghue.livejournal.com/290461.html

Now, there's a set of dogfighting rules that got written for Spirit of the Century, but left out (on account of the fact that the book is already a happy big chunky block, I suspect).  And, when discussing those in an interview, Rob and Fred talked a bit about "getting that feel" for car chases - of having events come out just so, but they talked about getting it based on "what happens" in car chases.

Now, if you were to visit Story-Games right now, there's a thread running called "What is Roleplaying and How do I find it?", and it has some comments about 'actor stance' and 'author stance' and other such.

I keep seeing this thing pop up - some people seek out authenticity by trying to get an intense first-person perspective, while others aim to get the same thing by trying to get a third-person perspective that jives with the fiction.   And I wonder if this is something to do with how those people define what roleplaying is.

So, from that context, what is roleplaying to you?  Is a first-person, being-in-the moment perspective necessary or desirable to you?  Why or why not?  

Is stepping into that mental space where you're looking at "the story of events" to see if they feel right desirable in play under some circumstances?  How and when?

Is it good for players in your games to actively try to enforce authenticity in play, under some circumstances?   Or do you generally feel that the game - rules, advice, playstyle, all those things - should make that natural?

Interesting discussion, Levi.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI keep seeing this thing pop up - some people seek out authenticity by trying to get an intense first-person perspective, while others aim to get the same thing by trying to get a third-person perspective that jives with the fiction.   And I wonder if this is something to do with how those people define what roleplaying is.

So, from that context, what is roleplaying to you?  Is a first-person, being-in-the moment perspective necessary or desirable to you?  Why or why not?  

It's not necessary, but it is desirable. When I'm playing, whcih is rare, I like that feeling. Since I mostly GM, it's not imperative.

QuoteIs stepping into that mental space where you're looking at "the story of events" to see if they feel right desirable in play under some circumstances?  How and when?

I'm the guy who came up with "story happens" Levi. The story of events is a byproduct of play. Is it nice? Sure! Is it something I worry about? No. If the story of events is a bit disjoint or doesn't feel right, it's no big sweat. That usually doesn't happen though. Usually things work out neatly without thinking about it.

QuoteIs it good for players in your games to actively try to enforce authenticity in play, under some circumstances?   Or do you generally feel that the game - rules, advice, playstyle, all those things - should make that natural?

My personal preference is that the game be able to make things flow for the group, so that they feel things were right and proper, without them making any effort to make it go anywhere in particular. Thus, I would say the second would be better for me.

-clash

Hrm.  That's pretty much all the questions I had kicking around for "out in public".

I should have set a post count or something, so I'd know how to end this gracefully.  Instead, I'll just say that it's been a pleasure, and interesting as hell.

Thanks, man!