Quote from: flyingmiceI don't know. I don't sit around analyzing games. I'll bet someone knows and can tell you the true facts, though.

No offense intended, but wouldn't thinking about how games work help you as a game designer? :confused:

I think its the tie in to stories and pretend - stories are Very dependent on personal interpretation.

So are games of course - is football about playing - being part of the team or the individual star, or is it about watching and supporting your team, or getting one over on the French, or about the soap opera surrounding players and managers and owners and what have you? I'd argue that all of these are important, and basically the equivalent of What The Game Is About.

Quote from: StuartNo offense intended, but wouldn't thinking about how games work help you as a game designer? :confused:

I'm not very bright or inventive. I find it much more rewarding to play and run games than read and think about them. YMMV.

-clash

Quote from: StuartWhy?  Why is it possible to compare Card Games to Board Games to Sports to Lottery to Children's Games to Game Shows -- but not RPGs.  How is it that the act of roleplaying makes these games so very different?  Or is it in fact something related but seperate from the actual roleplaying, such as the traditional role of the GM, or the way RPGs to date have been written that makes these games appear to be so different? :confused:

I will again give it a try since I am a glutton for punishment.

All the games you have laid out have a set path if you will. In the middle of a poker game you cannot decide to lay out a bridge hand. In the middle of a baseball game, you cannot decide to run for a touchdown. RPGs, by their very core nature, are much more open ended. You are bound by rules but are able to change not only your field of play but also your "token" by the mere act of play. This can be mirrored in other games in a very rudimentary way (checkers allowing the "kinging" of pieces) but it is a pale comparison at best. So, RPGs have a complex evolution within play itself combined with a long list of other traits such as evolution of the setting (baseball does not suddenly sprout extra bases), no defined win situation except those imposed by the group themselves, and generation of play tokens with complex and potentially unique characteristics.

Now, you can make an RPG that is just like a board game (I have come close with SA!) but that does not mean RPGs are just another game.

I also think it is important to say that there are aspects of RPGs that are similar to traditional games. I have always found it interesting that there are not win conditions built into most RPGs but there are loose conditions. Elements of risk, tactics and strategy, and random outcomes are all factors RPGs share with some traditional games. However, RPGs are a very different beast IMO.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAll the games you have laid out have a set path if you will. In the middle of a poker game you cannot decide to lay out a bridge hand. In the middle of a baseball game, you cannot decide to run for a touchdown.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Quote from: HinterWeltRPGs, by their very core nature, are much more open ended. You are bound by rules but are able to change not only your field of play but also your "token" by the mere act of play. This can be mirrored in other games in a very rudimentary way (checkers allowing the "kinging" of pieces) but it is a pale comparison at best.

Well sure, the kinging of a checkers piece *is* a very rudimentary change.  Many games allow you to change your field of play and your token as a result of play as well.  Look at more advanced boardgames, and particularly wargames.  After all, early RPGs were just wargames + roleplaying.

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, you can make an RPG that is just like a board game (I have come close with SA!) but that does not mean RPGs are just another game.

I'm starting to believe it's not actually the roleplaying itself that makes the difference between an RPG and "just another game" as we're discussing them here.  I'm basing that in part on other games that involve roleplaying that folks seem to agree are not RPGs.

Instead it seems to be the following:

• The RPG provides setting and some game mechanics, but not a complete "game" in the sense of Board Games, Card Games, Sports, etc.
• Players choose their own goals (win conditions)
• Players can change their goals throughout the game
• Players self-assess whether they reach their goals
• The Game Master can choose when (or whether) to apply the supplied game mechanics, use alternate ones, or simply decide on an outcome in the game

Would you say that's a fair summary?

In part it is because people want to legislate how the game goes.

Having a theme for an RPG would be like saying that you have to play the game badly and be laughed at - its not a game any more then, because you know what is gonna happen.

Quote from: StuartThis simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.

Sure it is.

I hate poker, therefore I don't play it -- unless it's what all of my friends want to do (then I grudgingly gve in). I'm certain that whoever designed it thought that it was a blast. Simialrly, I don't play Cranium, 'cause I don't find it fun (but, again, if that's what everybody else wants to do, I make an exception). But Monopoly -- I love it. However my friend Paul would rather slam his nuts in a car door than play Monopoly -- but 'cause I put up with his Cranium, he makes an exception for my Monopoly love.

Just because something isn't an RPG doesn't automatically make it fun for everybody, nor does it mean that everybody playing it is having fun. Some people will enjoy it, some people won't, and what some people think will differ considerably from what the designer thought. Reality is a very subjective thing when it comes to personal tastes such as what constitutes "fun".

The reason that a whole bunch of people disliking a game such as chess or poker doesn't impact the commercial viability of those games in the same manner that a whole bunch of peopel diliking a given RPG efffects the commercial viability of that game is because the market associated with poker and chess is huge.

Just as you don't wince when a flea bites you, the poker market doesn't falter when 500 people go out of their way to avoid it. The market for little RPG X, however, can suffer immeasureably if 500 people go out of their way to avoid it. For example, Luke Crane says that he sells approximately 1000 copies of The Burnng Wheel (an acknowldged popular "indie" game) every year. Losing 500 sales would hurt him a lot.

Of course, there's Gareth's "long tail" to consider, but that's neither here nor there. I think that the financial market realities for your typical small-press RPG are  a topic for another thread.

Quote from: jdrakehSure it is.

I hate poker, therefore I don't play it

Well, I can't speak to you, but many people who dislike poker dislike it for reasons other than "The game forces me to ante chips ... what if I want to, y'know, skip the anteing chips part of the game?"

Poker is a game that tells you with great exactitude how you must play the game.  Seems to have done alright, as a game, nonetheless.  So outside of RPGs there are examples (many, many examples) of games with constraining rules that are still pretty popular.

Now either there's something inherently different about RPGs, or else there's good reason to think that RPGs with constraining rules could also be pretty popular.  I lean toward the latter, but that's probably just me.

Quote from: jdrakehOf course, there's Gareth's "long tail" to consider, but that's neither here nor there. I think that the financial market realities for your typical small-press RPG are  a topic for another thread.

That sounds like fun!

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I can't speak to you, but many people who dislike poker dislike it for reasons other than "The game forces me to ante chips ... what if I want to, y'know, skip the anteing chips part of the game?"

That, I think, tends to be true -- but that wasn't what Stuart asserted. He cited only the portion of my post that said (in a nutshell) 'fun is subjective' and responded with a "no, it's not". And trust me. Fun is subjective

[Note: If you examine my intiial post carefully, you'll find that it is less about forcing players to do something a certain way than it is about that the certain way being forced upon them. It's not the force that causes problems, IME, but the ends to which the force is applied.]

Quote from: jdrakehHe cited only the portion of my post that said (in a nutshell) 'fun is subjective' and responded with a "no, it's not". And trust me. Fun is subjective

You mean the bit where you said this?

Quote from: jdrakehCleaving too closely to one's own personal vision of fun when designing a game for other people can cripple a game commerciailly.

It sounds (to me) like a little more than just saying that fun is subjective.  It sounds like a call to design the game such that people can play it however they want.  Not the way you meant it, I gather?

Quote from: Erik BoielleIn part it is because people want to legislate how the game goes.

Having a theme for an RPG would be like saying that you have to play the game badly and be laughed at - its not a game any more then, because you know what is gonna happen.

I disagree. I don't have a problem with a designer's theme and I don't see it as some sort of command to play the game in a certain way. I do have a problem when the rules don't reflect said theme. When it seems that the designer just says he has a theme because it sounds cool. (This part of my post has not got anything to do with the discussion )

This part does. A theme does not necessarily mean that the game is limited(command to play in a certain way). There are many ways to explore a theme. A good game/designer knows this. He incorporates this into his game. He knows that there are numerous ways his theme can be interpreted. I know when I set out with a theme, my players take it and mold it, into something...not else, because the basic framework is there.

I do, prefer it, when the designer allows the theme to emerge from the game's writing, but again this really does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBPoker is a game that tells you with great exactitude how you must play the game. Seems to have done alright, as a game, nonetheless. So outside of RPGs there are examples (many, many examples) of games with constraining rules that are still pretty popular.

What poker does not tell you how to do is bluff, or play aggressive, or a thousand other aspects of play style.

Is it possible to hate poker regardless of the fact that it leaves these aspects of style to the people playing?  Sure. But that is neither here nor there.

That's why, at least for me, the mechanic of DitV is not an issue.  It's similar to the Open Call Raise Check aspects of poker.  That mechanic does not tell a player what style of play is required.  It only tells the player that, no matter what style of play is desired, it has to be accomplished through this [/I]mechanic[/I].

It seems to me that this is completely different from telling a player how to play.

@jdrakeh

Yes, fun is subjective.

No, a game that offers a subjective type of fun will not be crippled  commerciailly.

Most successful games actually do this -- offer a subjective type of fun.  Like all the games in your example of things some people like, and other don't.  Cranium, Monopoly, Poker and Chess are all successful.

But -- the wrong type of subjective fun, something not appealing to the marketplace, will be crippled commercially.  This is the hard part.  You need a good idea, good execution... and you need to understand what other people want.

And the truth is, NO game is going to appeal to everyone.  Even games that let everyone do their own thing won't appeal to everyone -- because for many people their subjective fun in playing a game is dependent on playing the same game as everyone else at the table.

Quote from: StuartNo, a game that offers a subjective type of fun will not be crippled  commerciailly.

Seems to me that the most successful roleplaying games are games which leave it open.

You don't have to like it, but there it is. Might as well study best practice though.

Quote from: Erik BoielleSeems to me that the most successful roleplaying games are games which leave it open.

You don't have to like it, but there it is. Might as well study best practice though.

D&D is the most successful roleplaying game.  We can all agree on that.

What it is about the D&D game that's intrinsic to its success and what's a secondary element is certainly not clear.  10 years ago you could have said "the most successful roleplaying games are games without a unified resolution system".  Now that we've D&D 3.x uses one, we know that's not true.