In another thread over in RPGs, we had a bit of digression (my fault) about the craft and background that goes into designing a game. I thought I'd start a thread about it.

This isn't meant to be my thread, or a thread that promotes my opinions. I consider game design to be my part of my profession, however, and I take it seriously. I'm hoping we can talk shop.

I'm going to state some opinions to start us off. Tell me I'm wrong, or give me some new perspectives- I'm not setting myself up as an authority. Try to use plain English, however, because not all of us have the same experiences and background education. For example, I was a math major for one year, not because I was good at math, but because I was not.  When real life reared its head I dropped out, and didn't get the full university experience. So, I essentially have a High School education, with some additional things I've picked up on my own. I'm sure that kind of thing is relatively common, so try to consider this kind of thing, unless you don't want to be understood.

Here are the things I believe:

Roleplaying Games are Games where stories happen as a natural result of play. A lot of people say that they're games where a player can "affect the outcome"....This is what I'm talking about. Aside from prepackaged or prepared modules, which are fine by me, of course. What I don't think an RPG is, however, is a "game" that forces a specific story arc... This is going to hurt someone, but I don't consider "My Life with Master" an RPG. Story game, sure, but it's not an RPG, to me. I don't want to play story games.

An RPG is a Game as much as something that creates stories. The Game part is important. It's not the only part, but it's the only part a Game designer should try to exert any control over. We really make half of an RPG, and it's our job to make sure that the half we make works. We build the machine and the GM and players run it.

We don't get to cop out and say "do whatever you want" for any subsystem we can't figure out. Either we figure it out, or we don't include it. This is why I consider FUDGE a toolkit for making RPGs, and not an RPG in itself. It's a good toolkit though, and I love it in its own way.

Since an RPG is a Game, we don't get to rely on Rule 0, which I understand to mean: "The GM can change anything he doesn't like or ignore any rule." Of course they can. If we do our jobs right, they won't need or want to. We need to give the GM good optional rules, as long as the optional rules are not a matter of indecision from the game designer. Every option should do something differently, and not just be there because we didn't want to make a statement. GURPS is a good example of the game designers making decisions and providing useful options.

We design systems. In order to be a game, the rules have to be firm and as easy to understand as possible. Interpretation has its place, but the game designer needs to make sure that the mechanical parts of the game are as clear as day. The GM or players shouldn't have to guess what the designer meant.

We can learn from board games, and other true games. In a game like chess, you don't find house rules (that I know of). I have heard about house rules for Monopoly, for example, but I would never trust them without examining them. I don't think many players would.

A lot of other games, like poker or mancala have variants that are well thought-out and examined in play to ensure that they do something worthwhile. You play a variant when you want the things the variant does to happen. These variants are considered separate versions of the game with different names. I see this as a useful distinction from the idea of house rules. This is not about tying anyone's hands. I am not a fan of Rules-lawyering. On the contrary, I think that if we do our job right when we design games, we can mitigate it.

I believe that rules should be separate from setting, as far as that is possible. I believe that versatile games are "better", in that they will reach a bigger audience, and make more people happy. If you go too specific with setting-dependent decisions without an incredibly hot license, you're making a mistake that will limit your audience to people who want to play that specific setting.

I think that a lot of game designers disregard the fact that this hobby is full of do-it yourselfers. The reason everyone and their mother has a homebrew game is that we like to do things our way. Gamers don't need your setting, unless it's awesome. What they often want are excellent rules to do their own thing. The rules are our primary responsibility. This was actually a hard lesson for me.

I don't see anything wrong with an implied genre, or baseline setting as in D&D 3e or even WoD, but I don't think that you need to make new rules for every setting within an implied genre.

Simplicity is not a virtue in itself. Too often it's a cop out.

All of the above has been about how we need to make sure that we write good rules that aren't arbitrary. The rules need to be a machine. Tight and well done. Simplicity alone isn't a measure of a good rule- whether is works is. The best rules look as simple as they can be on the surface, but do a lot of heavy lifting. That's what elegance means. There's nothing wrong with pursuing elegance, but you need to know what it means. A Swiss watch is elegant. A perfectly spherical piece of feces is not.

That's all I've got for now. Flame on!

Okay, here is my flame.

Quote from: MMSince an RPG is a Game, we don't get to rely on Rule 0, which I understand to mean: "The GM can change anything he doesn't like or ignore any rule." Of course they can. If we do our jobs right, they won't need or want to.

Bollocks!

Every game is group is different, and every game group has different days, too, different moods. This is in fact why we have different rpgs.

Supposing that a game can cater to the tastes of every gamer out there is the One True Perfect Game fallacy. It's just not true.

Every GM will have to fiddle with the RAW a bit to make them just right for their particular group on that particular day. Thus Rule Zero.

Just to make sure I know what you're saying, what kinds of changes are you talking about?

I'm mainly referring to core rules- dice mechanics, combat system, etc. Not necessarily campaign specific specific stuff like skills or powers. That stuff is what I consider to be part of the setting. I should have clarified that.

I look at it almost the same way as you'd look at the model for a video game engine or a database software.

The core system is just the mechanism by which we resolve the interaction of various data points.  The basic task resolution system, combat and other conflict system, the absolute bare core of the game.  It's vitally important that this core be absolutely rock solid, but flexible enough to handle whatever data you throw at it.  

Circling about it though, you have the actual data.  Character statistics, special abilities, setting details and statistics.  These I think you can honestly be a bit more lax about things.  For example, when I talk about the importance of getting the numbers right, I don't mean as some modern designers (especially D&D designers) do, when they talk about balance.  I just mean the numbers need to add up to simulate what you want, and that can mean the peripheral data can be wildly imbalanced, or neat and tidy, whatever serves the author's purpose in emulating the setting or genre being targeted.  And in the case of generic systems like GURPS or D6, being flexible about what kind of data the system can swallow is very important.  

On the outer periphery is the roleplaying part, and frankly, that's the part gets far too fuzzy and unpredictable and generally unrulable to be worth worrying about.  The chief concern of the designer on this front should simply be making sure the system does succeed in emulating the mood, or rather the action-consequence cycle desired for the chosen target setting and feel.  But at the end of the day, you can't force players to "roleplay", or "storytell" or any of that other crap, you're just presenting the tools to handle the parts that the players don't wish to leave to fiat. I think it's a hairy line to manage at times though, because there's always that temptation to push the bounds of player agency for the sake of emulation, fear and sanity mechanics are a good common example of this, and why I'm trying to find a way to handle those things in my games without pushing decisions on the player.

Overall though, I think the art of game design is ultimately about choosing your goal, and then finding ways to finesse the system into replicating that goal, whether it's a given feel, or setting, or genre.  The stories and the roleplaying and all that are best left to the players' imaginations.  And in the end, even the most seemingly "perfect" system is nothing more than a series of suggestions that the players will take or leave anyhow, it's just good to do one's best to make what's there as convincing a suggestion as possible.

As for the One true game fallacy, I can see where it might be evident in my OP. I have to believe that somehow it's possible to write a game that's better by some metric than what's come before, or I have no reason to try harder. If I don't believe that, then I'll settle for anything I come up with, and stop designing games. I think innovation is good.

I think J Arcane and I agree on a lot of this stuff. This isn't a matter of "Hey, J Arcane Agrees with me, so you should too", but a real agreement.

I see the core rules as a foundation to build a campaign on. What that campaign is like is none of my business, unless I offer a prefab, which the end user is free to do his thing with.

This is why I don't think rule 0 is a designer's tool. It's a GM's tool, but one that we don't need to supply. They already have it, because they're the one who has the game in their hands.

As J Arcane said, we need to offer good options and make convincing arguments for why the GM might want to use them. The options do things that change how the game plays out, so we need to understand what those things are, and let the GM know.

I think we need to present methods for doing a certain type of thing within a game so that the GM can make rulings that won't break the system.

Here's an an example from my game. I've posted about it before. Since it's foremost in my mind, I keep going back to it- I'm not pimping the unpublished game.

In my game, I decided that anything that makes success more reliable without adding to your level of success lets you roll and keep. That's the proper method for making success more reliable. I use it for skills, situational modifiers like "higher ground", etc. I'm also considering using it for armor, despite having another general purpose rule for "simple tools", including weapons. Armor is a "tool", but one that works differently than a hammer or gun (edit: guns and other tools like it actually use a different method than simple tools do).  It resists something, which makes your defense more reliable rather than actively helping you do something. The method it uses is related to what it does.

Hopefully, a GM would use that method whenever he needs to make success more reliable, because the system is built on the assumption that he will. If he chose to give a +2 modifier, instead, he might accidentally allow the player to pull off a maneuver that doesn't fit the campaign he wants, because of the way maneuvers work in the game.

What I'm trying to do is give full disclosure about what each of the methods does, and let the GM make a few sweeping decisions that will give him a framework for exactly what he wants from his campaign, minus the things that depend on him and the players.

I don't think that that's a bad goal. It doesn't limit his freedom, it just says "If you want A,B, and C, do X, Y, and Z". And if I do my job right, it actually gives it to him.

Hey Monster Manuel,

I really like most of what you say here.  It seems like some of your ideas are mutually contradictory, though, so I'll take the bait.  Nerdfight!

QuoteRoleplaying Games are Games where stories happen as a natural result of play. A lot of people say that they're games where a player can "affect the outcome"....This is what I'm talking about. ... What I don't think an RPG is, however, is a "game" that forces a specific story arc... This is going to hurt someone, but I don't consider "My Life with Master" an RPG.

QuoteWe don't get to cop out and say "do whatever you want" for any subsystem we can't figure out. Either we figure it out, or we don't include it... We design systems. In order to be a game, the rules have to be firm and as easy to understand as possible.

I can understand having a preference for one sort of thing or another, but how does My Life With Master fall down in regard to your second point here?  It's very focused, the system rigidly supports a particular sort of narrative (the arc of overcoming an abusive relationship, actually).  There's endless variation within that, but the system is in place to constrain the game with rules that are both easy to understand and very functional for the intended purpose.  And if you don't think you can effect the outcome, you haven't played.  

Dismissing it as "not a roleplaying game" because it isn't your preference is weak sauce.  If you want to exclude it from the discussion because you have no interest in that style of play, just say that.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;325976Hey Monster Manuel,

I really like most of what you say here.  It seems like some of your ideas are mutually contradictory, though, so I'll take the bait.  Nerdfight!

It's on.

QuoteI can understand having a preference for one sort of thing or another, but how does My Life With Master fall down in regard to your second point here?  It's very focused, the system rigidly supports a particular sort of narrative (the arc of overcoming an abusive relationship, actually).  There's endless variation within that, but the system is in place to constrain the game with rules that are both easy to understand and very functional for the intended purpose.  And if you don't think you can effect the outcome, you haven't played.  

Well, to me the difference between a Story Game and a Roleplaying Game is what there are rules for. In my opinion, a Roleplaying Game doesn't define what story arcs it can explore- it provides physics for any type of story that the group needs.

Yes I just said it. The rules are the "physics" of the game. I'm screwed.

When I say physics, I'm speaking broadly. I mean "the things that can happen in the game world." I'm not talking about literary controls over the plot- like many metagame rules, I'm talking about the reality that the characters have to deal with directly.

The emotional element comes from this: Your camp seems to have staked a claim on Story Games. That's cool with me. But you can't also have Roleplaying Games. As RPGs emerged from Wargames, so have Story Games crawled mewling and wet from the loins of RPGs.

RPG players don't tend to call RPGs wargames, unless we're mad at them.

Let us do our thing, and you guys can do yours. Anything else just muddies the issue, and makes things confusing.

This isn't a way to say "don't talk to me" *at all*. I'm just making a challenge. Blind me with science.

QuoteDismissing it as "not a roleplaying game" because it isn't your preference is weak sauce.  If you want to exclude it from the discussion because you have no interest in that style of play, just say that.

I don't have an interest, but I don't have a hatred either. I simply don't want to play a story game because it doesn't give me what an RPG does. When the story arc is predetermined or even bounded without foregone conclusions, I don't get to play the game I like to play. My game as a GM is weaving a story from in world facts on the fly. Other people take some time and plan a session based on the same stuff, and that's cool too.

What I find with Story Games, is that they try to shape the story. I think that an RPG has a more hands-off approach.  To know something, we need to know what it's not.

QuoteIn my opinion, a Roleplaying Game doesn't define what story arcs it can explore- it provides physics for any type of story that the group needs.

That sounds like a definition of mechanics supporting sandbox play.  It'd help me understand your POV if you could show how Pendragon or Paranoia meet your definition of a roleplaying game, if they do.  It seems like a matter of degree.  If it is "I know it when I see it", that's fine, too, but we've nothing to discuss then.

Also, if I am wasting your time, let me know.  I'm not trying to start an argument.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;325986That sounds like a definition of mechanics supporting sandbox play.  It'd help me understand your POV if you could show how Pendragon or Paranoia meet your definition of a roleplaying game, if they do.  It seems like a matter of degree.  If it is "I know it when I see it", that's fine, too, but we've nothing to discuss then.

Also, if I am wasting your time, let me know.  I'm not trying to start an argument.

I have to admit, I've played neither of those games. I know that that's heresy.

I don't think it's a matter of "I know one when I see one", which to me is a way to avoid thinking.

I thought I was clear, though; the distinction is about what there are rules for. As for supporting "sandbox play", I think that all true RPGs do.

A few metagame rules in an RPG doesn't disqualify it, but there is a tipping point. Let's say 50%. The closer a game gets to that tipping point, the less of an RPG is.

Here's an example from something I've done.

I had Fate Points in one of my settings. Very Storygamey. They let you pull off stunts, manipulate the events as they unfolded, etc. They weren't intended as a purely metagame rule, however. They were literally the will of the gods, watching you from on high. Someone else in the setting was making things go right for you.

Either that makes me a hypocrite, or you see the distinction I'm trying to make. "In world", versus at the table.

And I'm actually enjoying this. I don't post because I think I'm infallible. If I did, I'd just keep it to myself and get rich.

That last line probably sounded really douchey. I tend to make overblown jokes that come across as arrogance. My point was, I do strive to be objective.

If I 100% without a shadow of a doubt believed that I was right, I'd like to think it would be because I was. Because I don't let myself feel that way about much. So no, I don't "know" this stuff to be true, but it works to give me boundaries to work with.

The last bit was about how if I was right about something that "no one else" was right about, I'd be busy making money with that knowledge rather than talking about it.

Did that make it better or worse?

That's cool, I think we approach this stuff from very different angles.  Your fate point example is a good one - I see no difference in the fictional justification; we're all people sitting around a table making things up.  It's social agreement that allows stuff to happen, and whether we agree that it is the will of the Gods or just a way to inject fun into the game, the net result is identical - stunts!  There is no "in world" for me, any more than reading C.S. Lewis makes Narnia real.

Hmm. Do you read a lot of fiction or watch a lot of movies? When you do, how much do you engage? Have you ever been moved to tears?

I guess I'm asking about suspension of disbelief.

This isn't a setup. I'm trying to understand what you get out of that stuff, if not "being there".

Quote from: Monster Manuel;325951Since an RPG is a Game, we don't get to rely on Rule 0

While we shouldn't rely on rule zero...

We should accept and assume rule zero will, in fact, be employed.  And, what's more, that it will be employed unconsciously in many cases.

To embrace this, we should attempt to build fairly robust systems, and "show our work" on the fiddly bits so that people can make their changes easily and without serious problems.

I can't argue with that at all.

I do think that we should make sure that the GM knows what happens when he uses Rule 0, however.

We also need to make sure that there are good options for everything that can get borked if it gets rule 0'd poorly, and that we explain what all of the optional changes do. If the GM needs to make a rule beyond that, he should be able to see where it fits relative to the explicit options.

Monster Manuel,

I'm not a huge immersion guy, obviously, but yes, I'm occasionally moved to tears by films or books.  The only RPG that has ever moved me to tears is Montsegur 1244.