I think that a designer is required to present the best, most playable game he can.
AND that Rule 0 is a FEATURE, not a bug.

Rule 0 is not something "to be avoided", it is an essential tool of the GM's arsenal.

What is true is that Game DESIGNERS should not be using "rule 0" as an excuse to deliver a sub-par game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;326054I think that a designer is required to present the best, most playable game he can.
AND that Rule 0 is a FEATURE, not a bug.

Rule 0 is not something "to be avoided", it is an essential tool of the GM's arsenal.

What is true is that Game DESIGNERS should not be using "rule 0" as an excuse to deliver a sub-par game.

RPGPundit

Rule 0 is basically the defining feature of an RPG over other games, especially my vidgame analogy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;326051No its not. "My life with master" is NOT a roleplaying game. End of that part of the discussion. Please do not try to subvert this thread with either forge-jargon, forge-theory, or forge-promotion.

Hmm?

Dismissing something as a not-an-RPG because you don't like it IS weak sauce.

Labelling it as not-an-RPG because it has reached the point where roleplaying is used purely as a gloss on the mechanical game, and is no part of the core content of the game...   Isn't weak at all.

And descriptions of play for MLWM lead me to believe that's, in fact, the case.

But I could be wrong.  I don't own it, and haven't played it.

(And if you want to sanction me for that?  Whatever.)

I wasn't suggesting that rule 0 needs to go away, but that Designers can't use it to sweep crappy rules under the rug.

It's never going away in RPGs. We have to help GMs understand how it will interact with what we made.

Here's yet another tedious example from my game- I've talked about this specific example before.

In my game, the "reality level" of the campaign is simulated with polyhedral dice. it uses d4s-d12s mostly. The bigger the die, the crazier the action can get, and the easier it is for weaker characters to stand up to tougher enemies. This alone doesn't guarantee that a normal will survive a punch from a superhero as in the comics, so I also include a rule for giving the GM (the world) and the characters different sized dice.

I talk about how when the GM gets the big die and the players have a small die, you're modeling a horror universe, and when the situation is reversed, the universe loves the characters. Equal dice are fair.

Just because I talked about how specific dice (with a d20 as an outlier) interact, doesn't mean that a GM can't use a d24, a d14 or whatever. He can predict fairly well what will happen. That's rule 0 in action.

Incidentally, to allow for this, I had to make sure that dice rolls were relative- a specific number only has meaning in a specific campaign. But this among other mechanics lets the GM tune in on the game he wants.

I'm trying to write a GM's game first. Although, one of my friends insisted it was a player's game, which I take to mean I'm on the right track.
At the risk of more flames, I'd also say that true RPGs tend to promote the idea that a GM is at least 50% of the equation. *All* of the players combined are the other 50%.

Quote from: RPGPundit;326054I think that a designer is required to present the best, most playable game he can.
AND that Rule 0 is a FEATURE, not a bug.

Rule 0 is not something "to be avoided", it is an essential tool of the GM's arsenal.

What is true is that Game DESIGNERS should not be using "rule 0" as an excuse to deliver a sub-par game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;326057Rule 0 is basically the defining feature of an RPG over other games, especially my vidgame analogy.

Agreed on both counts.

If anything, Rule 0 is not embraced enough by game designers. Not as an excuse for sub-par design, but as a feature allowing for a wide variety of game design elements, presentations of options, discussions of the ins and outs of the game system considered, i.e. as a dimension defining what an RPG is, as opposed to a board game, computer game, or chess manual.

Fuck this noise.

You guys need to bring it.

What are some of the techniques you guys have for modeling certain things in your games? What's your personal compass like?

This isn't supposed to be about my OP, per se. I want you guys to do what I did, so we can talk about it.

Or we can quibble about my "holy writ". Your call.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326071In my game, the "reality level" of the campaign is simulated with polyhedral dice. it uses d4s-d12s mostly. The bigger the die, the crazier the action can get, and the easier it is for weaker characters to stand up to tougher enemies. This alone doesn't guarantee that a normal will survive a punch from a superhero as in the comics, so I also include a rule for giving the GM (the world) and the characters different sized dice.

I talk about how when the GM gets the big die and the players have a small die, you're modeling a horror universe, and when the situation is reversed, the universe loves the characters. Equal dice are fair.

I like this idea.  I'm fond of the linear even-numbered scale from d4 to d12, which strikes me as an elegant progression ripe for a variety of uses.  The notion that you can adjust the distro to model different tones is really cool, and I can totally see it working well, even intuitively - if you tell the players they are a d6 to your d8, that communicates a lot about the world. A one die size difference is going to have a pretty dramatic impact on effectiveness.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326087Fuck this noise.

You guys need to bring it.

What are some of the techniques you guys have for modeling certain things in your games? What's your personal compass like?

This isn't supposed to be about my OP, per se. I want you guys to do what I did, so we can talk about it.

Or we can quibble about my "holy writ". Your call.

That's the trouble with real game design.  There's no room for "Holy writ" theories beyond general stuff like "make the game fit the goal".  It's not art, it's craft, and so individual practical techniques vary.  Beyond a basic primer for statistics and probabilities there's little universal stuff you can produce, which isn't as fun for people who want to feel smarter than everyone by judging whether it fits with their pet theory.  Everything else is just practical stuff that will vary from game to game and goal to goal, though it's to me more fun to talk about because I like being a system monkey from time to time.  

One of the things I've been devoting a lot of headspace to in my Big Project (which I intend to start posting about later today) has been the aforementioned fear and sanity effects.  Thinking about some different ways to model it that still have an impact on the game, but without the usual techniques of forcing players to specific actions.  The usual technique usually devolves into some sort of check that if failed, forces the character into certain behaviors (fleeing, going nuts, whatever).  I've got to get going shortly for breakfast, but when I get back I'll throw out some of the ideas I'm working on.  

There's also all my rambling in that WoW thread, but this is in retrospect probably the wrong site for that project, since as we all know, WoW is the Antichrist and the Death of All Gaming.

Quote from: Monster ManuelI 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.

Sorry, I am at work and have eyed this thread a few times, but have not been able to answer. Nice thread and well spoken, by the way.  I also apologize up front if i touch on a subject that has already been harangued out.

I agree with much of what you say here, but you presuppose that people write systems for other people only, or for the mass market.

As you said at one point, rules ARE the physics of the game.  And unless you want to run a game myuch like others, the idiosyncrasies within the setting that are supported by the rules are stronger than those that are just fluff.

For example, lets say you want to have a setting with casters pulling power from different sources of power, and more complicated spells actually use more than one power source.  And the fluff behind it may be that there are actually different elemental or planar power sources.  Most generic systems jsut won't be able to hack this.  

In other threads in other places, I have taken setting writers to task for NOT having thier own rulesets, or for using a generic ruleset.  One of my favorite threads here was Akrasia's expose of his rule variations to fit his setting.

So for me, it falss into perfect logic that setting specific rulesets make a better game and a better setting.  This is not to say that a few minor changes to a ruleset cannot fit a setting and game perfectly.  I do suggest that a ruleset built to support a setting may produce at least as strong a game and possibly a stronger setting when matched properly.

Quote from: J Arcane;326099That's the trouble with real game design.  There's no room for "Holy writ" theories beyond general stuff like "make the game fit the goal".  It's not art, it's craft, and so individual practical techniques vary.  Beyond a basic primer for statistics and probabilities there's little universal stuff you can produce, which isn't as fun for people who want to feel smarter than everyone by judging whether it fits with their pet theory.  Everything else is just practical stuff that will vary from game to game and goal to goal, though it's to me more fun to talk about because I like being a system monkey from time to time.  

I actually started this thread based on what we talked about- how it would be cool to talk about things like what the math in the background is doing and how the rules interact to get the effects we want.

I waited for you to start it, and I decided that I'd do it instead. If you want a more math focused thread, though I can understand.

My OP was about a few concepts that I use to guide me. I was just putting them out there in case they helped someone.

QuoteOne of the things I've been devoting a lot of headspace to in my Big Project (which I intend to start posting about later today) has been the aforementioned fear and sanity effects.  Thinking about some different ways to model it that still have an impact on the game, but without the usual techniques of forcing players to specific actions.  The usual technique usually devolves into some sort of check that if failed, forces the character into certain behaviors (fleeing, going nuts, whatever).  I've got to get going shortly for breakfast, but when I get back I'll throw out some of the ideas I'm working on.  

Cool. I look forward to it.

QuoteThere's also all my rambling in that WoW thread, but this is in retrospect probably the wrong site for that project, since as we all know, WoW is the Antichrist and the Death of All Gaming.

I'll check it out.

Quote from: LordVreeg;326103I agree with much of what you say here, but you presuppose that people write systems for other people only, or for the mass market.

You're right. A homebrew game for your friends is cool, but I am admittedly interested in the games that will be played by a larger market. What's to stop you from polishing your homebrew and offering it up to more people?

QuoteAs you said at one point, rules ARE the physics of the game.  And unless you want to run a game myuch like others, the idiosyncrasies within the setting that are supported by the rules are stronger than those that are just fluff.

For example, lets say you want to have a setting with casters pulling power from different sources of power, and more complicated spells actually use more than one power source.  And the fluff behind it may be that there are actually different elemental or planar power sources.  Most generic systems jsut won't be able to hack this.  

I can see the argument you're making. I do think it's possible to try, however.

The main thrust of that for me was personal preference. I think you're right that most general-use RPGs achieve their goal by being plain, and that specific RPG rulesets tend to be better for a given setting.

I've just always wanted a generic, so-called universal system that was right for me. I think that bias came through.

I'll paraphrase something I said about this once: I don't want to play "System X: Pirates of the Caribbean", I want to play "Pirates of the Caribbean (using System X)". In other words, I want the rules system to reconfigure to fit a setting rather than squeezing a setting into the system.

That's my holy grail, at least.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326160In other words, I want the rules system to reconfigure to fit a setting rather than squeezing a setting into the system.

That's my holy grail, at least.

It's called emulation of genre.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;325989I have to admit, I've played neither of those games. I know that that's heresy.

Sweet Jesus, Manuel, go play Paranoia right this fucking instant.  And at least _read_ Pendragon (someone else can tell you which edition is best).

Quote from: JongWK;326168It's called emulation of genre.

I know, but can you think of any generic games that do it well?

Quote from: VectorSigma;326175Sweet Jesus, Manuel, go play Paranoia right this fucking instant.  And at least _read_ Pendragon (someone else can tell you which edition is best).

I will probably be playing Paranoia soon, at the least. A guy in the town I'm moving to is really into it and wants to show it to me.