TheRPGSite

Folks in the Currency (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3381) thread got to talking about whether games should/must/mustn't/shouldn't encourage or enforce certain types of behaviors in their players.

Me, I don't have terribly strong feelings on it.  I, personally, prefer games that strongly encourage the type of behavior that makes the game fun.  I don't mind going along with the system, because there are lots of different ways to play, and I find a whole lot of them fun.  So if the game system rewards me for one particular thing, I'll have fun doing that thing, and reap the rewards.

Other folks had other opinions.  The Currency thread clearly wasn't the place for them.  So I made a place, and this thread is that place.  Have at it, folks!

I saw the thread title "Currency" and gave it a low priority to read.  I thought it would be about Gold vs. Silver pieces, or different coins and their use historically.

Clarity in thread titles (and avoiding the desire to coin new jargony terms) would be a good thing.

The more coercive the means, the less I am interested. I don't like being dictated to, and I don't like dictating.

-clash

I must agree with Clash. In games I write I prefer to offer advice on what elements should be emphasized in play but it is just that, advice. Fun is far too subjective a term to have meaning. More a case of fun, the way to attain fun play and what constitutes fun is different depending on the players and GM. Therefore, when I offer advice on who to play/run a game of mine, it is usually "listen to your group and what the GM thinks is entertaining" not "employ method one to process A and you will have fun. If you do not, then you are doing it wrong."

In the end, I respect games that are clear and honest about the elements of play they emphasize as opposed to what the designer thinks is neat.

Bill

Nearly all games enforce a particular type of behaviour -- it's how you "win" the game.  Kick the ball in the net.  Collect mushrooms.  Find the treasure.

Games can (and should) encourage the type of behaviour that leads to winning the game.

RPGs all have ways to win and lose -- but they're often more subtle that other games, and there are a wide variety of them.  Is it roleplaying well?  Creating a great story?  Tactical mastery?  Telling funny jokes?  Tricking the other players?  Solving the puzzle? Creating a deeply immersive experience?  etc.   Many RPGs try to support various ways to win and lose concurrently.

Quote from: StuartNearly all games enforce a particular type of behaviour -- it's how you "win" the game.  Kick the ball in the net.  Collect mushrooms.  Find the treasure.

Games can (and should) encourage the type of behaviour that leads to winning the game.

RPGs all have ways to win and lose -- but they're often more subtle that other games, and there are a wide variety of them.  Is it roleplaying well?  Creating a great story?  Tactical mastery?  Telling funny jokes?  Tricking the other players?  Solving the puzzle? Creating a deeply immersive experience?  etc.   Many RPGs try to support various ways to win and lose concurrently.

I would argue this point only in the definition of win. It is again, self defined. The system should not tell you the "winning" condition in an RPG. You (the player or GM) define the winning condition. In some games, it is killing all other players while that would be out of the question with a different group. However, both can be played with the same system and setting. Win conditions are agreed upon, either implicitly or expressly stated, when the group plays. This may even change from campaign to campaign.

It is one of the primary things that newbies to role-playing often struggle with.

Bill

Some RPGs include a built-in win condition.

In D&D you "win" by leveling up.  You level up by getting XP.  You get XP by killing monsters, dealing with traps, and collecting treasure.

If you don't do any of the things to gain XP, you don't level up, and don't "win".

You can run around in lots of video games and avoid scoring points.  In Defender you can shoot all the little waving men if you want to.

The game DOES include a standard way to "win" though.

There are of course many RPGs with no XP equivalent.

Stuart: regarding XP:

XP is one motivation. But let's look at people playing D&D at Cons, or in online play by post games where (usually) no XP is awarded. Or the D&D Open which is a three round competitive elimination played at Gen Con:

XP doesn't factor in for any of those.

Also you have to think of all the times you've seen the regrettable advice "don't track XP- just say the characters only level up when the Dm says they do"..

I can accept that XP isn't the actual win for everyone. Having multiple ways to play through is nothing but good.

*Shrug*

I like it when a game tells me, straight up, what I will be doing in it.

I would not like it, however, if a game tried to add "and that's all you'll be doing" to the end of that.

Quote from: StuartSome RPGs include a built-in win condition.

In D&D you "win" by leveling up.  You level up by getting XP.  You get XP by killing monsters, dealing with traps, and collecting treasure.

If you don't do any of the things to gain XP, you don't level up, and don't "win".

You can run around in lots of video games and avoid scoring points.  In Defender you can shoot all the little waving men if you want to.

The game DOES include a standard way to "win" though.

There are of course many RPGs with no XP equivalent.

AM said it above. This is not necessarily a system defined win. It is a method of play, a motivation and if one chooses, a means of defining a win situation. I question the last one since a win situation tends to (IMO) be a resolution, an end. I win! is not usually followed by I continue to play! You might play again but to win usually means a final solution. For instance, in football you score goals during the game but when the preset time limit has elapsed you determine the winner by totaling the points. Again, though, let me stress, you could (your group, you personally, your GM or any combination) decide that when you level up you are winning the game.

For RPGs, it is just a nebulous concept. In the end, informing someone about a game, the strengths and weaknesses of a system/setting, and communicating that in a non-authoritarian mode is a good thing IMHO.

Bill

Every game tells you how to play.

Quote from: droogEvery game tells you how to play.

But does anyone listen?

:-)

Quote from: Erik BoielleBut does anyone listen?

:-)

YMMV

I think the trick is knowing when to give guidence and when to back the hell off.

All the real greats tell you what you are going to be doing - you are vampires playing politics, you are adventurers trawling tombs for loot and whores, you are gods watchmen here to solve problems, you are investigators here to investigate the creepy house your uncle has left you - and then broadly back off, allowing people the flexibility they need to customise the experience to their own particular needs.

The real magic is in knowing when to give guidance, and when to give people their head.

Brand Robins says

Quotethe real art is of making a game in which the mechanics matter and make play portably fun, but still allow for group control of the variables that hit their particular needs and rhythms. Dogs and TSOY both rock because they do this: they have strong core visions and systems that none-the-less have lots of places where Vincent and Clinton say "your group will have to decide how that works for you." It works because the issues core to the game and the fruitful void are constructed and protected, and both designers made sure to work those correctly. They then also realized where it wasn't so important to make the game work one way, and left those areas open and malleable.

I see a lot of games these days that err too much to one side or the other. The old model, of course, was to leave way too much up to the group for portability to work. But I've seen a lot of newer Indie games that don't leave enough open. They're so tightly wound that there isn't a place for the individual group to get their fingers into it. The game is a solid little ball that will only bounce one way, and so becomes less portable and replayable and more one shot and disposable.

I also see a lot of players making the error of thinking that because a game is portable it must also be sealed and only work if played as tight as possible. I think a lot of people miss the potential of a lot of games because they don't take advantages of the places where the game is loose, and so never get that "individual group experience" that makes RPGs such a unique medium.

which I didn't really want to post because its full of the mutual masturbation so typical of the forge, and I like Vampire and find it entirely portable muthfucka, but I broadly agree with the point.

Quote from: droogEvery game tells you how to play.

True, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

-clash

Quote from:  flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

:rolleyes:

That's a pretty broad use of "railroading"... to mean "rules".  

Telling a player in baseball they have to leave their bat behind when running around the bases is technically removing a choice they would otherwise have (bat, or no bat?).  That's not a polite suggestion either.  It's totally against the rules and if you do it, you're breaking them.  Despite this rules straight-jacket against rounding third-base swinging your bat... I'd hardly think of Baseball as a "railroaded" game.  Then again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game.  I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

Railroading Clearly defined rules has never been the sole domain of GMs - game designers have always included them as part of games, including RPGs from day one.

Quote from: Stuart:rolleyes:

That's a pretty broad use of "railroading"... to mean "rules".

You know I don't use coarse language unless I really mean it, but what the fuck ever. I refuse to argue with brick walls.

-clash

Yeah, this part was pretty inflexible:

QuoteThen again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game. I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

Here I'm suggesting there's a difference between a specific game, with a standardized set of rules, and a game built from a set of game components.  Like the difference between a narrowly focused RPG, and an RPG that leaves figuring out what kind of game to make up to the players and GM.  

I also say that it depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

You're saying clearly defined rules are akin to Railroading, and hence Badwrong.  

Who's the brick wall?  :confused:

Quote from: flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

-clash

Clash,
We see eye to eye on a lot of things and this seems to be no different. Let me give a try at explaining and you tell me where I get it wrong. :)

I think one of the primary disconnects here is that I mean dictating what I consider "style" to the GM and players. Rules are "Roll initiative, resolve combat and assess damage". You can argue that style is part of the rules but I see it as something that should be held separately. For instance, requiring your players to "Do the bidding of God" in a paladinic setting is one thing, to enforce the way they do it with the rules is another. Players (I am one of them) often have a different view on "The mission of God through His Paladins". I play the equivalent of Lawful Good paladins who rape and kill the enemies of God. It causes GMs no end of fits since I do it with the proper style of a fanatic doing the will of God. I interpret the signs and listen to the voice in my head. At one point, my dog (Godar) was telling my dwarf to perform all manner of atrocities. The GM was panicked and the players ended up killing Uwe since he was such a loose cannon. However, if the GM wanted to, he could have stripped all of Uwe's powers based on not doing the will of Awle as written in the rules. This is an example of style over rules.

So, in the end, yes, rules strictly enforced may cause the squashing of style or force a player or GM into a style choice not if their liking, but I do not think Clash and I prefer games or to design games of this nature.

Now, in an attempt, futile as it is, to head off the free form debate, no, I do not prefer absolutely no rules. As I have said in the past and will say again, rpgs are a strange lot. Comparing them to conventional games has limited utility. One of the primary attributes of an RPG is the ability to have many options in play. When you limit the style of play with rules you limit this aspect of rpgs. This is most prevalent in games where you have very focused character types expected to act in a certain way. Vampires need blood to survive. You could say, within the rules, that only blood from a living human will satisfy and no matter the amount of blood the human will die from a bite. Or, you can say there are many sources, animals as well as human, previously harvested blood is fine (blood banks) and a vampire can take a small amount from many donors. This is a very different feel and allows many options. You can still be a hardcore killer or you can be a repentant victim. Suddenly, style is freed up.

That is about as clear as I can make it.

Bill

Quote from: StuartTelling a player in baseball they have to leave their bat behind when running around the bases is [itechnically[/i] removing a choice they would otherwise have (bat, or no bat?).  That's not a polite suggestion either.  It's totally against the rules and if you do it, you're breaking them.  Despite this rules straight-jacket against rounding third-base swinging your bat... I'd hardly think of Baseball as a "railroaded" game.  Then again I wouldn't call it "some game" with a bat and ball either, with rules to be determined by the players and Umpire at each seperate game.  I guess it really depends on what you want to get out of your gameplay.

What a horrible analogy, Stuart.

There are a thousand ways, styles, to play baseball. The rule says if you catch a ball on the fly, the batter is out.  It does not tell you how to catch the ball.

See? We could do this all day.  I agree with Hinter - comparing typical games, board games, sports, etc., to RPGs is of limited utility. One of the things most difficult to explain to people when I first started playing in - God - something like 1978 - was when they asked "How do you win?"

If that simple question and the difference in the answer between that and sports/board games doesn't show that, I don't know what does.

I think of "Roleplaying Game" like I think of "Board Game" or "Card Game" -- a broad term that can include a wide variety of different games, genres, and play styles.  I absolutely agree that "when you limit the style of play with rules you limit their ability to have many options in play".  Sometimes the point of the game, the goal of play is for the players to be as creative as they possibly can -- and they should have as few limits on their creativity as possible.  In other games the goal of play is something else.  This is particularly important if the game relies on the players competing or interacting in a specific manner, or is tied to the genre somehow.

A statement like:  "I prefer RPGs that only include a small number of rules and lots of suggestions" is a perfectly valid one.

I think it's equally fair to say:  "I prefer RPGs that include clearly defined rules and limit the scope of options."

I also think that you can like both types of game depending on your mood or the people you're playing with.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat a horrible analogy, Stuart.

There are a thousand ways, styles, to play baseball. The rule says if you catch a ball on the fly, the batter is out. It does not tell you how to catch the ball.

It was an analogy of a non-suggested rule.  One that was completely non-optional.  If I wanted to make an analogy of how even games with clearly defined rules have lots of room for style, then yes, I'd use your analogy of the thousands of different ways to catch a ball.

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. :)

Games with clearly defined rules don't mean there isn't room for style.

And there's no reason you can't add a win-condition to an RPG.  Just because most don't, doesn't mean it's not possible.

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
We see eye to eye on a lot of things and this seems to be no different. Let me give a try at explaining and you tell me where I get it wrong. :)

Hi Bill - as usual, you nailed it.

Stuart:

In the most basic terms, RPGs are not baseball, nor are they card games, nor board games. They are themselves. Rules which tell you not just what to do, but how to do it, are the issue. I'm not setting myself up as arbiter of what is or isn't an RPG. That's the Pundit's job. I am, however, competent to know what I like. I don't like these sorts of rules. You may. That's your judgement.

Your may think your analogies about baseball are clever, but I think them silly and tiresome. They waste my time, and they don't answer Tony's question. They attempt to call into question my competence to know or state my own feelings, and as such, they are insulting. You are obviously playing some game of your own for rhetorical points. I refuse to play that game.

Enjoy.

-clash

Quote from: StuartIt was an analogy of a non-suggested rule.  One that was completely non-optional.  If I wanted to make an analogy of how even games with clearly defined rules have lots of room for style, then yes, I'd use your analogy of the thousands of different ways to catch a ball.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two analogies - between carrying a bat around the bases or how you catch a fly ball - speaks volumes.  Are you saying that carrying a bat around the bases is analgous to a style decision?

The point is, if a baseball player was suddenly faced with a rule on "how to catch the ball properly," he would feel railroaded.  Nobody feels railroaded by being told they can't carry the bat aournd the bases.

Quote from: StuartGames with clearly defined rules don't mean there isn't room for style.

I'm not sure who said this so I'm not sure why you're responding with it. If you took my statement to mean that, we have miscommunication.

Quote from: StuartAnd there's no reason you can't add a win-condition to an RPG.  Just because most don't, doesn't mean it's not possible.

I never said it was impossible. It was an example of how RPG's are, in general, different from Sports or Board Games and so the comparisons are not always of use.

Quote from: James J SkachThe fact that you can't tell the difference between these two analogies - between carrying a bat around the bases or how you catch a fly ball - speaks volumes.  Are you saying that carrying a bat around the bases is analgous to a style decision?

He seemed, to me, to be explicitly saying that he was not likening it to a style decision.

If something is explicitly stated in the rules, in a "This is how you do it" way, then it is not a point that's up for players to "stylize."  If they wanted to have a choice of styles on such a thing then they're probably better served by choosing a different game.

Quote from: James J SkachThe point is, if a baseball player was suddenly faced with a rule on "how to catch the ball properly," he would feel railroaded.  Nobody feels railroaded by being told they can't carry the bat aournd the bases.

Well, suppose a pitcher were told "You can't pitch overhand in this game.  Only underhand, though you can pitch as hard and as nasty as you want, underhand."

That could either be horrible railroading of baseball ... or it could be a perfectly legitimate game of softball (at least for some softball rulesets I've seen).

I'm not exactly sure where people are drawing the line and saying that some explicit, non-optional rules are "just the rules" and some are "railroading of player styles."  I suspect that, in reality, this is more about what type of things people want choice over, which is more an issue of personal preference than universal truth.  But hey, maybe somebody will show me where the line is sensibly drawn in the sand, and I'll understand the difference.

Quote from: flyingmiceTrue, but some games phrase this in the form of polite suggestions and recommendations, while others strap you in a rules straightjacket and push you down a greased slide with a kick in the arse. Railroading is no longer the sole domain of GMs - now designers are getting in on the fun.

Well, I wouldn't call it 'railroading' myself. But we need to get specific here.

Quote from: droogBut we need to get specific here.

I think so too.

For me this means, examples of games "that tell the player how to play" .

I see a lot of abstract discussions which does not really say anything. Perhaps with actual examples we could move beyond the theoretical - which seems to plague these kinds of discussions - and into a place which is actualy relevent to most gamers.

David R

Well, my ax is things like Vampire -

It's a game of personal horror!

No, it's a game of superheros with fangs!

No, it's a game of high school politics with fangs!

Truth is, it is all of the above, at least in practice. A game which chose one of these aspects and focused on it would not be as good.

Similarly, is Call of Cthulhu about crap people going mad or gangsters and G-men mowing down deep ones with Tommy Guns? Again, it is both, and a game which focused on one aspect would be a lesser game.

Also Dogs in the Vineyard - well, almost by definition no one can agree what it is about.

So, it seems to me that successful games concentrate more on situation and leave Theme and Style up to the players.

Quote from: Erik BoielleTruth is, it is all of the above, at least in practice. A game which chose one of these aspects and focused on it would not be as good.

Similarly, is Call of Cthulhu about crap people going mad or gangsters and G-men mowing down deep ones with Tommy Guns? Again, it is both, and a game which focused on one aspect would be a lesser game.

Hang on – you're asserting that a game that focuses on an aspect would not be as good. I have anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts that. Where does that leave us?

Quote from: David RI see a lot of abstract discussions which does not really say anything. Perhaps with actual examples we could move beyond the theoretical - which seems to plague these kinds of discussions - and into a place which is actualy relevent to most gamers.

For example: Dogs in the Vineyard appears to have been put forward (by two different people) both as a game that tells you what to do and a game that doesn't.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm not exactly sure where people are drawing the line and saying that some explicit, non-optional rules are "just the rules" and some are "railroading of player styles."  I suspect that, in reality, this is more about what type of things people want choice over, which is more an issue of personal preference than universal truth.  But hey, maybe somebody will show me where the line is sensibly drawn in the sand, and I'll understand the difference.

Exactly, Tony - it's a personal preference thing, which is how you phrased the question. My answer was for myself only - I'm not speaking for anyone else. I suspect we all have a line drawn in the sand somewhere, but exactly where that is varies enormously.

-clash

Clash:  Gotcha.  Personal preferences, I won't read more than that into them.  I suggest that other people do likewise.

No, I'm afraid personal preference cannot be allowed to stand in the way of progress.

Rigorous analysis shows Your Favorite Games sucks, and must be written out for the good of the hobby.

So sorry. I mean, I know you like your little games, but, lets face it, they arn't very good when viewed dispassionatly.

We can't afford emotion. I know you have some sentimental attachment, but there you go. You have to let go of your preconcieved ideas and examine things with a critical eye, and the evidence just shows your ineptness.

It hurts me as much as it hurts you to see em go, it really does, but, lets face it, it is for the best.

Did I mention how much I hate the forge?

:-)

Although I really do think that deciding what to give guidance on and what not is a crucial question, and things like Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, DnD and Dogs get the balance about right. Its a big part of WHY they are so popular.

And in these games it is SITUATION that is heavily discussed, while THEME and STYLE are very open.

Quote from: Erik BoielleSo sorry. I mean, I know you like your little games, but, lets face it, they arn't very good when viewed dispassionatly.

Just to be clear ... you are not trying to merely express your opinion, right?  You are claiming to speak the objective truth?

Quote from: TonyLBJust to be clear ... you are not trying to merely express your opinion, right?  You are claiming to speak the objective truth?

Hell yes. I think it is incontrovertable that the important part of a game design is creating situations that inspire players to think of reactions. It is NOT to control those reactions railroading players in to specific paths and modes of behaviour.

Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Examples, damn it!

Quote from: Erik BoielleHell yes. I think it is incontrovertable that the important part of a game design is creating situations that inspire players to think of reactions. It is NOT to control those reactions railroading players in to specific paths and modes of behaviour.

Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Well, I'd like to know where you intend to draw the line between "just rules" and "railroading."

Take, for instance, My Life with Master:  It is a game that specifically tells you that you must play the simpering minions of a horrific master.  You must do inhuman things at the master's behest.  You really don't get a choice about that stuff, and it genuinely is pretty horrific.

The things you get a choice about are whether you will try to find love, how much you will sacrifice your own pride and safety to try to protect others and ... hrm.  That's about it, really.  That general question crops up in a lot of different ways (particularly the perennial "Will you try to defy the master, even knowing that you will fail and be punished?")

There's some stuff there that's dictated, and some stuff that isn't.  How do you draw the line and say whether the important freedoms (objectively) are being infringed?

Quote from: TonyLBTake, for instance, My Life with Master:  It is a game that specifically tells you that you must play the simpering minions of a horrific master.  You must do inhuman things at the master's behest.  You really don't get a choice about that stuff, and it genuinely is pretty horrific.

And, lets face it, the game ain't gonna have legs.

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Second_Annual_Top_5_Small_Press_RPGs_Poll

4 votes.

Dogs? 41 votes.

Grabby it ain't. I sure got no interest.

Dogs now - Dogs is the kind of game people love because it inspires rather than telling you what to think.

I don't know, Erik. I'll agree with you that Dogs is more popular, and why that might be. But the game that caused the most buzz at the con I went to was MLwM. The two guys I played with said they were going to buy it.

Quote from: droogI don't know, Erik. I'll agree with you that Dogs is more popular, and why that might be. But the game that caused the most buzz at the con I went to was MLwM. The two guys I played with said they were going to buy it.

Meh - lots of Harsh games get talked about - Paranoia! Its so cool! You die in the first five minutes! and then everyone goes home and plays Vampire. Or frikkin jew pirates of the carribean or WFRP/Doctor Who crossovers.

Thats a slightly tangential issue though. Don't you have to make up your Master in whatnot? Simpering henchmen is always going to be a hard sell (I mean!), but would the game be easier to swallow if the choice of Breaking Free and Bringing Down The Man or Continued Simpering were yours to make?

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnd, lets face it, the game ain't gonna have legs.

Heh ... I'm almost tempted to get into that with you, but I think I'll pass.

The question isn't whether the game "has legs."  The question is whether this (and Paranoia, if you want to include it) is one of those games that you think only "a fool" could think were well designed.

And, if so, can you point out some specific elements that make them bad games?

Quote from: Erik BoielleThats a slightly tangential issue though. Don't you have to make up your Master in whatnot? Simpering henchmen is always going to be a hard sell (I mean!), but would the game be easier to swallow if the choice of Breaking Free and Bringing Down The Man or Continued Simpering were yours to make?

That's one of those 'what if' questions, unless you're prepared to do the playtesting. I don't know where such a game would go. It seems to me that one of the only things that makes MLwM bearable is the Master's death.

Hmmm, 1984: The Stomping....

Quote from: droogHmmm, 1984: The Stomping....

I strongly suspect that any game that really captured peoples imagination would have some people going - 'This is so cool! Its just like Equilibrium or Total Recall! I'm totally gonna bring down The Man!' and others going 'This is so cool! Its just like Brazil! I'm totally gonna get chewed up and spat out by the machine!

And would probably have Edition Wars with people arguing about which bits are the True Core of the game.

QuoteAnd, if so, can you point out some specific elements that make them bad games?

Well, there was the famous Crap edition of paranoia, where they went All Zany All The Time. The current edition tries really hard to escape its rep, but I think its to late.

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, there was the famous Crap edition of paranoia, where they went All Zany All The Time. The current edition tries really hard to escape its rep, but I think its to late.

You've got to pick out particular editions?  I thought any game that crossed the line was objectively bad, and only a fool would think otherwise.  Are you saying that some editions of paranoia cross the line in terms of railroading the players, and some don't?

Quote from: TonyLBYou've got to pick out particular editions?  I thought any game that crossed the line was objectively bad, and only a fool would think otherwise.  Are you saying that some editions of paranoia cross the line in terms of railroading the players, and some don't?

Actually yeah - Luke Crane says he played Paranoia as straight future spy stuff. Then there was the edition with the cartoony art and constant zanyness, and everyone says it sucks.

So, yknow. They took away room for interpretation and people didn't like it as much.

What do you mean by "tell?"

A little friendly advice is good. D&D rulebooks have always recommended that the players work together, use some caution when exploring, etc.

Do you mean anything other than that?

Quote from: Erik BoielleI strongly suspect that any game that really captured peoples imagination would have some people going - 'This is so cool! Its just like Equilibrium or Total Recall! I'm totally gonna bring down The Man!' and others going 'This is so cool! Its just like Brazil! I'm totally gonna get chewed up and spat out by the machine!

Either of those things could happen to individual characters in MLwM.

But here's my anecdotal evidence, take it for what it's worth: I had a shitload of fun playing MLwM and I'd play it again in a minute. I felt it had creative constraints that helped my fun (I enjoy working off constraints).

Quote from: Erik BoielleActually yeah - Luke Crane says he played Paranoia as straight future spy stuff. Then there was the edition with the cartoony art and constant zanyness, and everyone says it sucks.

So, yknow. They took away room for interpretation and people didn't like it as much.

So, a game that says you must be silly (some editions of Paranoia, all editions of Toon, TFOS and Tales of the Floating Vagabond) will obviously and objectively suck?

Quote from: TonyLBSo, a game that says you must be silly (some editions of Paranoia, all editions of Toon, TFOS and Tales of the Floating Vagabond) will obviously and objectively suck?

It's certainly never going to hit the big time.

Some gamers just don't have a sense of humor. (I almost like my humour played so straight you can hardly tell its there - the Russians call it Thin English Humour, although they don't mean it as a complement.)

QuoteI felt it had creative constraints that helped my fun (I enjoy working off constraints).

I think thats going to be true for everyone - but I Think the constraints that work best are going to be around Situation rather than Theme or Style.

So you want situations like 'Go Repair That Photocopier!' or 'Entertain Those Children' rather than 'you must fail at what you do' or 'your character must be a twonker'.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIt's certainly never going to hit the big time.

Well, are you arguing that the games are bad or are you arguing that they're unpopular?  Or that it's the same thing?

If you're arguing that they're bad games (as you seem to have been doing in the past) then let's skip the pointless tangents about popularity, and stick to the main point.

This discussion has drifted into " games I hate and the people who play/design them" waters. Maybe that's what most rpg discussions are really about anyway.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBWell, are you arguing that the games are bad or are you arguing that they're unpopular?  Or that it's the same thing?

If you're arguing that they're bad games (as you seem to have been doing in the past) then let's skip the pointless tangents about popularity, and stick to the main point.

Well, if you want to chase off in to ghettos...

Good games everyone can love are the way forwards.

I have my preferred style, others have different ones. I ever get the beast before the public I will provide advice on how best to use it, but I aint gonna bitch if they use it for something completely different.

If you want to worship the Magic Deer, that's your biz. Me? I think it's a waste of good venison.

Quote from: TonyLBI, personally, prefer games that strongly encourage the type of behavior that makes the game fun.

The thing is, for different folks, different things make the game fun. What the designer thinks is fun may noy be what the consumer thinks is fun. Cleaving too closely to one's own personal vision of fun when designing a game for other people can cripple a game commerciailly.

QuoteSo if the game system rewards me for one particular thing, I'll have fun doing that thing, and reap the rewards.

Rewards don't necessarily equal fun. If they did, more children would be itching to do homework ;)

QuoteOther folks had other opinions.

I have no problem with a game encouraging a particular play style by default, though if it does so at the exclusion of all other play styles or by making it very difficult to engage in other play styles, I think that the designer is a clod who is mistaking a commercial product for a personal soapbox.

Genrally speaking, deliberately isolating a product from all but one demographic within the RPG community by virtue of design will keep said product small and obscure (unelss the demographic that you target is D&D players). It also makes the designer sound like a pretensious boob.

Those games that are successful tend to encourage a particular play style, but stop short of actively discouraging others in the process. That is, they give you the tools to do X, but don't construct deliberate roadblocks that make doing Y difficult. Indeed, they may provide optional rules for Y.

Quote from: jdrakehThe thing is, for different folks, different things make the game fun. What the designer thinks is fun may noy be what the consumer thinks is fun. Cleaving too closely to one's own personal vision of fun when designing a game for other people can cripple a game commerciailly.

This simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.  I don't understand why the activity of tabletop roleplaying would change this so completely in an RPG.

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

Well, thats their problem. I suspect that many games are worse off for being games - I know I've played a LOT of pool and poker when the group would have been better off doing something cooperative like clearing an allotment or hiking or whatever. We just play pool because thats what you do.

Also, I race sailing boats, and I know that of any given sunday peoples main reason for turning out runs from get some exercise to spend some time with the kids to get away from the family for a few hours to hang out with your mates to impress your new girlfriend to boost you ego by showing how good you are to do better than last week to just enjoying the sailing on a nice day with lots of boats on the water.

The mutability of RPGs isn't a failing - its one of their biggest advantages.

Quote from: StuartThis simply isn't true when you look at non-RPG games.  I don't understand why the activity of tabletop roleplaying would change this so completely in an RPG.

Because non-RPG games are - by definition - not RPGs. They are very, very different animals, and treating them as if they were board games or card games will be problematic.

-clash

Why?  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:

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

-clash

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.

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.

Except we're still miles away from you having made any statements about what this thing you're supposed to leave open is.  D&D puts tons of constraints on the players.  But, clearly, people who think that "successful games are open games" must feel that D&D is "open."  So those constraints don't count, or are acceptable for some reason.  I never have quite figured out how that line gets drawn, if you're trying to make an objective argument.  It's perfectly clear how it gets drawn for people who are just expressing their personal preferences.

Like I said way back when:  It sounds to me like people have got their own little internal laundry lists of what freedoms are "important" in various games.  A game that gives them the important freedoms while constraining them (even really tightly constraining them) in non-important ways is a good game.  A game that constrains the important freedoms, even while giving them tremendous freedom in unimportant areas is a bad game.

But that's got to be "good game for them" and "bad game for them," because it sure doesn't look like everyone agrees on which things are important and which aren't.

Quote from: TonyLBIt sounds like a call to design the game such that people can play it however they want.

Well, it wasn't meant that way. I only meant to point out that boxing players into a certain structure that the designer considers to be fun, but which may not be seen as fun by others, can cripple a game commercially (especially in the event that the majority of the potential consumer base doesn't see things in the same light as the designer).

It's why some games (of all stripes) fail and others succeed. Appeal is what makes a game popular. The more people that a game appeals to, the more popular it will be. What some designers forget is "What I personally dig!" isn't the same thing as "What consumers dig and, therefore, will pay for" (incidentally, a lot of game store owners should take this to heart, too).

@ jdrakeh

Cool, we seem to be agreeing on this now. :)

Quote from: TonyLBOther folks had other opinions.  The Currency thread clearly wasn't the place for them.  So I made a place, and this thread is that place.  Have at it, folks!

Here's what I think:

Games don't interest me nearly as much as what people do with them -- the value/content/art/etc. (for me) is in the execution.

The game provides a framework. How restrictive the framework is varies from game to game (say, GURPS to MLWM at extreme ends).

I think history has shown that:

1) Somewhat structured games (e.g. ones with classes, ones where 'what you do' is fairly specific, etc.) are the most popular (e.g. D&D/Vampire).
2) Games with very little "what you do" framework are popular but not as popular (GURPS, Hero, D20)
3) Games that are *highly* structured are niche (How to Host a Murder being, maybe, an exception)

That's just an observation -- I find that I overwhelmingly prefer not-structured games... however, typically, I *add the structure* with the group during campaign design.

At some point, it's good to get a common understanding of what we're going to do and how it's going to work, and what sorts of metrics we'll use to judge that -- but I'd prefer to leave that up to the group and have it be very flexible... rather than having it "hard coded" (to use a computer metaphor) into the game itself (requiring a re-write or new rules set for each change).

I'd say that "what you do" framework, then, is best placed in a scenario or setting-book.

Which, not coincidentally, is what I see a lot of indie games as: I think they, with very minor exceptions, should use D20 or GURPS instead of creating new systems for Sorcerer, DiTV, etc.

Cheers,
-E.

Were I a real publisher I would tell potential custormers the following.

QuoteI wrote this RPG to suit my preferred style of play. One that is a little too in depth for some, and which involves matters a number of people would find uninteresting. How you use this game is entirely your business, I won't tell you how to run your own adventures. Whatever style of play you prefer, whatever sort of world you prefer to adventure in, I hope you and your friends have a good time.

Quote from: mythusmageI wrote this RPG to suit my preferred style of play.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Designing games primarily for yourself is largely at odds with the goal of selling them to other people, unless you're making the assumption that your own, personal, tastes are representative of the purchasing public's (if that assumption is made in error -- which I think it often is -- you're screwed so far as finances go).

Now, obviously, in your own example you're not making that assumption, which would prompt me to ask "If you think that many people do not share your tastes, then why are you trying to market this game commercially?" -- to which there is really only one answer that makes any sense (although I see it phrased a lot of different ways):

"It's not about the money!"

Or, in straight English "I get a stiffy when I see my name in print!" -- and to be clear, that's perfectly okay (I know that I get a stiffy when I see my name in print). If you're not in it for the money (and can afford to burn through some cash) then it really doesn't matter whether your games are designed for yourself or a target audience, as making money isn't of any concern. That said. . .

If you want to sell games to other people, it works best if you design said games for those people. If the primary goal for a publisher is to make money, then their priorities should reflect that -- they should be more concerned with that their intended audience like and against, as opposed to what they personally like and want.

This is a fundamentally basic principle of marketing (you may know it better as "meeting demand"). The problem is that many publishers who are out to make money know fuck all about business and, instead, mistake what they like and want with what consumers like and want. As a result, they go belly up and are left wondering what happened, totally clueless to the large part that they played in their own demise.

Now, to bring this back on topic. . .

When it comes to dictating play styles, you're golden if you're dictating a play style that other people dig and/or want to explore. That is, so long as you're preaching to the choir and the choir is large, you won't have too many problems. If, on the other hand, you're dictating a play style that appeals to very few people, don't be surprised if very few people show interest in your game.

Now, admittedly, this all sounds very basic as I've laid it out above -- sadly, in practice, there are many publishers who demonstrate that they don't get it and, as a result, cese to exist. The good news is that recent advents in publishing (notably the explosion of PDF popualrity) have significantly minimized the impact that such lack of business savvy has on many companies.

This is, of course, a double-edged sword -- some publishers have taken this reduced impact as an opportunity to throw caution to the wind, ignoring the wants of their potential consumer base altogether. In the past, this would have spelled instant death. In the current market, it is my belief that such careless disregard will still kill a company -- I merely think that it will do so very slowly, acting more like a a cancer than the bullet of days past.

Indeed, I think that Palladium's current predicament can be held up as a sterling example of such long term decay (I know, I know, they're really hurting 'cause some guy stole Kevin's StarWars action figures). So. . . back to rigidly encforcing certain play styles. In a nutshell. . .

If you're going to enforce a certain style of play, and you're in this thing to make some money, make certain that the play style you are enforcing is one with wide appeal or consider leaving a few alternate avenues open for folks who may want to do something a bit different.

If it's all about you, chances are that you'll be the only person who truly loves your game.

[Edit: I'm not just talking about gamers when I say "consumers" -- I'm talking about people who may potentially lay down money for a product.]

Consider World of Warcraft for a second:

You can go on, never team, and just hunt monsters all the time.

You can go on, join a guild, and just hang out with your guild, or run around one of the highly populated hangout areas and socialize.  

You can make a character that is optimized for team play- like a healer, and team up constantly.

You can play just to collect resources like skins and ore and really only concentrate on making stuff/crafting.

You can only follow quests and avoid fighting most other creatures. Quests are general "go here and do X".  

You can do PVP.

You can optimize a character and only play in the competitive minigames: Warsong Gulch, etc. These are like team-based capture the flag and so on.

You can also kinda switch around and do all of these on different days.

I don't play World of Warcraft any more, but when I was playing, it kept me on an extra month or two- trying out some of the "other ways to play this game".

Quote from: jdrakehThis is what I was talking about earlier. Designing games primarily for yourself is largely at odds with the goal of selling them to other people, unless you're making the assumption that your own, personal, tastes are representative of the purchasing public's (if that assumption is made in error -- which I think it often is -- you're screwed so far as finances go).

To be quite honest with you, I'm not aiming for a broad audience, just those who share some of my tastes. And if what I present catches some people's interest, regardless of their preferred play styles, then good.

Besides, we keep asking ourselves what gamers are interested in. What about non-gamers? Are they truly not interested? Or is it that they are not interested in how we're doing it now. Maybe if we learned how to make it interesting to them.

No, I don't mean dumbing down. Learn to write better, learn to present better. Learn how to rouse and retain the reader's interest. Show how putting the work into the enterprise can lead to rewards later.

A few days back I saw a local story on illegal immigration. It featured one person pointing out that illegals got the grunt work because Americans wouldn't take it. It's beneath us for some dang reason. We've been taught that hard physical labor is degrading, and so have come to see that effort in most any endeavour as bad. We've forgotten how much fun it can be to work.

I'll spin this off into another thread.