So, in another thread, it was said that authors have intention on how their games are played. I do not. I build a wide range of tools into a setting and I will admit, if I write a Roman Fantasy game I am not supplying the tools for a Goth Sci-fi setting. That said, if your group wants to play slavers raping 8 year olds, I don't have much influence over that. If they invite me to play, I would whole heartedly decline probably with some choice words about content. However, you would not here me say "That was never my intent on how you should play my game". I have been asked this kind of question before and my response is usually "This is how I play" or "I like this about my campaigns" or just rattle off an example of some of my fav campaigns. To me, it is YOUR game once you buy it. It is not my job to tell you how to play.

So, with that in mind.

Do you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

Do you think this is the norm?

If so, do you care, as in would you aspire to play as intended or just junk it (assuming you found it)?

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997Do you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

Do you think this is the norm?

I bloody well hope so.

That is, when I pick up a game book, I want to know that the author or authors had a great time (or a whole bunch of 'em), and they want to use their book as a way to show me to have either that great time (or a whole bunch of different ones).

And, even if they have "a bunch" in mind, I expect they will write more directly towards one style than the others, just from preference.

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997If so, do you care, as in would you aspire to play as intended or just junk it (assuming you found it)?

I care that they can show me the way to their good time.

I don't aspire to have an identical one; hell, if I can see a different good time that I can unfold from their book, and I like it more, I'll chase that instead.

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997Do you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

Do you think this is the norm?

Contrary to what one might deduce from my comments on the other thread, yes I do.  I just don't think that this intent is always made clear by the game text, either because the author is unable to impart that intent or because the author chooses to mask it for various (often commercial) reasons.

OTOH, sometimes "no specific intent" is the author's intent.

KoOS

I try to throw lots of options into my games so people can play it the way they want. First of all, I design games for the way I run games - my games are perfect for me. OTOH, I understand that most people are not me, thus I write games to include a lot of different playstyles. It doesn't bother me in the least if folks play my games different that I would. That about covers it.

-clash

I tend to prefer games where the author has a particular playstyle or theme in mind for their game.  Where they clearly know how they intend to run/play their own product.  I find that games like this are generally written more to my liking, with few exceptions.

I also prefer that this intent of play be something optional, just like any other rule in the game.  If the intent of play is hammered too strongly in the text it tends to wear on me.  If the writing sounds like the author might actually protest any changes I choose to make then he's pressing his intent on the reader a little too hard IMO.

Does that makes sense?

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997To me, it is YOUR game once you buy it. It is not my job to tell you how to play.

This is exactly my view.

QuoteDo you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

I certainly do.

QuoteDo you think this is the norm?

I think so.

QuoteIf so, do you care, as in would you aspire to play as intended or just junk it (assuming you found it)?l

Excuse my french, but I could give a flying fuck less of what anyone who doesn't sit at my game table thinks about my game, or how I run a game. I don't care what your intent was or is, only what my group finds fun, and interesting to play. If they happen to match, then so be it. If not, what are you going to do? Show up on my doorstep with the Gamer Police?

All authours have an intent as to how their book should be read, in that they have certain ideas they want to get across and they present them in a certain way to get them across. In an rpg, those ideas will shape people's play.

But some authours are subtle about it, and others bludgeon the reader; some authours' ideas are open and leave a lot of room for the reader to think, other authours' ideas are narrow and leave not much for the reader.

If nothing else, what the authour actually writes about and leaves out influences play: if you spend half the book on detailed social systems and not one page on combat then it would be unusual if the game when played had much combat. In that case, the authour would be telling the readers, "talk, don't fight."

So there's no escaping it, you're certainly telling people how to play; but what you tell them can be open or narrow in terms of how much variation it has in reading and in play.

Quote from: flyingmice;257023I try to throw lots of options into my games so people can play it the way they want. First of all, I design games for the way I run games - my games are perfect for me. OTOH, I understand that most people are not me, thus I write games to include a lot of different playstyles. It doesn't bother me in the least if folks play my games different that I would. That about covers it.

-clash

Oh, to be clearer, I offer folks my play experiences but I do not include or expect people to play a certain way in the games I write. That is, I do not generate a lock-step method of play, I have no intent of play, in that I tell or expect purchasers of my book to play a certain way. So, when the have the book, they may well do something I did not expect with the setting but the system should support it. If they want to play slavers raping 8 year olds, well, yeah they could do it. The system sure is not going to stop them. The setting (it would be weird in squirrels) probably would not prohibit it.

Do you believe systems force certain types of play or that the group trumps the system? Likewise with a setting?

What I am trying to get at, Clash, is if I have rules for skills, and those skills are extensible, then what stops the GM or players from making a "Pedophile" with skills like "Lure Child" or just using Deception? Can you even make a game that does such things? I ask you because you are a systems guy and good at this type of thing. It just seems, and has been suggested, that somehow we, as designers, are responsible for this sort of use of our games. I just can;t wrap my head around that.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;256997Do you believe that authors of games have an intended type or style of play assigned to their work?

I think a lot of game authors do, sure.  I think it becomes a lot more apparent in some more narrow-focus or niche games.

QuoteDo you think this is the norm?

I think its pretty common, yeah.  I mean, there are games out there with continual sidebar and author's notes clarifying this or that.  I do think that although a lot of authors clearly have an idea of specifically how their game should be played in their head, some are a lot better about providing just a sandbox or toolbox or the basic framework.

QuoteIf so, do you care, as in would you aspire to play as intended or just junk it (assuming you found it)?

I'll at least mull it over.  If I'm purchasing a product, I would hope the author has some decent insight on making his game work better.  But ultimately, the decisions I make with a game are mine.  If the game is a simple D&D knockoff and I use it to play out pig-raping fantasies, that's on me, not the author.  And ultimately, I like games that give me several options or different ways in which to employ them.

Quote from: HinterWelt;257057Oh, to be clearer, I offer folks my play experiences but I do not include or expect people to play a certain way in the games I write. That is, I do not generate a lock-step method of play, I have no intent of play, in that I tell or expect purchasers of my book to play a certain way. So, when the have the book, they may well do something I did not expect with the setting but the system should support it. If they want to play slavers raping 8 year olds, well, yeah they could do it. The system sure is not going to stop them. The setting (it would be weird in squirrels) probably would not prohibit it.

I should hope not. Restricting the game so as to prevent abuse will only restrict use. If people want to be jerks, your games don't prevent it, to their credit.

QuoteDo you believe systems force certain types of play or that the group trumps the system? Likewise with a setting?

You know my position here too well. You even use my words.

QuoteWhat I am trying to get at, Clash, is if I have rules for skills, and those skills are extensible, then what stops the GM or players from making a "Pedophile" with skills like "Lure Child" or just using Deception? Can you even make a game that does such things? I ask you because you are a systems guy and good at this type of thing. It just seems, and has been suggested, that somehow we, as designers, are responsible for this sort of use of our games. I just can;t wrap my head around that.

Bill

If you sell a kitchen knife, and someone uses it to kill someone, are you responsible?

You are not responsible for the choices of the group. You only supplied a tool, the group supplied the use. You are supplying a game which can be put to many uses, which uses can include squicky sex games if the people who are playing are so inclined. This is not your problem.

If you were publishing games that had skills like "Sodomize Body Part" and "Seduce Child", It could reasonably be inferred that the game was designed to emulate raping cabin boys' esophaguses and molesting children. By narrowing the choice, you make your intent so obvious as to dictate play rather than inform play. There's the difference.

I think it depends on the author. Certainly some authors do.  And some of them aren't particularly bad at it (greg stafford, for example). But on the whole I think its better when game authors don't try to dominate how the gaming groups play.

RPGPundit

I think the most intent I put into the game is encouragement to make games less about combat and add in other kinds of tests and trials. I mean seriously--imagine your altruistic D&D party trying to rescue people from a massive fire--rather than just hacking swords into monsters. It can make for a FUN game, if the game isn't trying to force your play to be JUST about combat.

I encourage, create rules to shape play--but after that, its up to the people who pick up the game. I don't want them playing "MY" game, I want them playing "THEIR" game (sure powered by my rules but )

I wellcome the author's intent as long as there's coherency. I mean if an author designs a game around the theme of the loss of humanity in vigilantes, well then I want this reflected in the rules, examples of play and the setting itself. So, I'm saying if the author makes some big statements his/her game should reflect them.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Silverlion;257107I think the most intent I put into the game is encouragement to make games less about combat and add in other kinds of tests and trials. I mean seriously--imagine your altruistic D&D party trying to rescue people from a massive fire--rather than just hacking swords into monsters. It can make for a FUN game, if the game isn't trying to force your play to be JUST about combat.

I encourage, create rules to shape play--but after that, its up to the people who pick up the game. I don't want them playing "MY" game, I want them playing "THEIR" game (sure powered by my rules but )

I am not sure if I am following but if I understand correctly, I try not to do even that. The closest I would come is SA! There, you start with pregens and they are pretty weak. Still, I had no intent or agenda. I was not saying "This game is not about combat" and in fact, I have had groups of squirrels take down a man.

Another possible "intent" issue would be the goals for the characters. Again though, I did not do this thinking "I will form play to my intentions" but as a mechanism to enable board game like goals. I am not trying to dictate how players choose to play their squirrel (and I have seen a great deal of range) but give easily digested goals in order to speed play/setup. That said, I could see some one saying "No, you are dictating play". I can't think of the word but it is the difference between my interpretation of my actions and what an uninformed observer would make.

Anyway, I for one do not have a purposeful agenda or intent of play in my game design. Others may, and I can actually respect that just not agree.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;257112I am not sure if I am following but if I understand correctly, I try not to do even that. The closest I would come is SA! There, you start with pregens and they are pretty weak. Still, I had no intent or agenda. I was not saying "This game is not about combat" and in fact, I have had groups of squirrels take down a man.

Well any game you write will include the concept you wish to put in the game--if you have rules for combat, then  you are suggesting that combat is a way of handling situations that crop up in game. If you offer rules for fast talking and subterfuge--you are suggesting these things are ways to solve situations or influence play as well.  More specifically if you choose a certain skill list set, you are influencing what kinds of things can be done in your game by those choices (without houserules.)

Basically if I choose to measure a persons Social traits. (Like White Wolf's system.) I'm providing an influence on what can be done in play.


Author's influence can be vastly subtle--in the simple choices you make in your games presentation of material, its system utilization, and so on.


For example if I write a game and the stats are: Brains, Body, and Faith, this suggests something specific is important to play.  If I have traits that are: Strength, Dexterity, etc. (D&D stats), then I'm indicating that there are things I am wanting measured in the game and influence how play folds out.

A more finely detailed example: My friend decided to use Hearts & Souls for a Naruto game, and he was calculating chances of success and noticed a certain lean for heroes at the Human scale. He asked if this was intended (of course.) That choice I made in writing the mechanics, influences outcomes, which means my intent has impacted play by merely designing the mechanics.