Quote from: Silverlion;257137Well 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.)

This is absolutely true. On the other hand, I put a lot of different skills into my games - which are all strongly skill-based - and center-define them broadly so that they overlap somewhat, in the manner of Venn diagrams. This is intentional, because I want there to be answers to questions I never thought to ask - in effect deliberately diluting my own influence over the game to make more room for the group's influence. The more choices players and GMs have, and the more flexible these choices, the less predictable the direction of the game. I prefer giving the group the tools to take the game where they want to go, not where I want them to go.

-clash

Unless a game is simply a mechanics system, there is author intent. It might be the theme of the game, it might be the background or setting, but it is there. Seems so are confusing intent with "can only be played this way".

Maybe I haven't read as many game books as others here, still it's more than I care to remember accurately. The thing that strikes me is how uncommon or inadequate play style or play directions are in general. White Wolf at first had me very interested by their "artistic" critic of how to set moods and design campaigns in their games. But later I wouldn't even read these chapters and dismissed them as bullshit because they felt like a literature lecture more than a player talking to another player. Actually it's one reason I stopped buying their products at some point : I felt there was half of the pages printed with pseudo intellectual crap, another quarter filled with lame pregen characters and illustrations. It ended making me very angry.

On the opposite, a book like Paranoia (2nd edition) had a thought provoking chapter about the different styles of Paranoia games, ranging from goofy cartoons to dead serious utopia enactment. When I read this second version I realized my players and I had spontaneously chose a middle way between loony and dead serious. It probably had been inspired by the way the first edition was written, I'd have to read it again to be sure. In this case though I found it was an improvement to explicitly expose the range of styles possible. Though often this kind of exposition lacks an explanation of what method, what strategy to apply to enforce a style.

I wish more game tips, methods and examples of play would find their way in a game redaction. But not the abstract wanking nonsense typical of the old WW games. I think of something concrete, tested, reproducible. Like say for a game of Paranoia or Amber, where building tension and sabotage players mutual trust can be interesting, one would give the advice to often write notes to players. And a justification of the advice : (to continue the same example) the secret note is good because it allows GM-player communication without leaving the table and creates an atmosphere of conspiracy.

I think more than authors intention I'm looking forward to knowledge transfer. If some elements of style improved games during play test, I'd like it to appear somewhere in the book. It might be a pain in the creator's butt, if every test brings a change to the rule book, when shall he stop ? But too many games are written by guys who don't play their own games (I remember the blog of Monte Cook and what he described about ICE). And too many games don't give the full extent of what makes the game an exciting game : a peek at how to successfully use the written material.

I agree also with Silverlion : the very choices of the author from system rules to character creation, from settings concept to writing style, influence GMs and players on how to play the game. Still I prefer when it's supplemented with an explicit reflection on play style, not in terms of canon but options.

Quote from: CavScout;257157Unless a game is simply a mechanics system, there is author intent. It might be the theme of the game, it might be the background or setting, but it is there. Seems so are confusing intent with "can only be played this way".

Some mechanics systems can be entirely expressive of author intent, sans setting or background. See Dogs in the Vineyard or Pendragon for examples. I do acknowledge that settings are theoretically a type of expression of intent, but in practice  it is usually so diffuse as to be meaningless. Most settings are no more restrictive than a band playing a blues song instead of a pop song. It's just necessary structure to frame the group's play. There are an infinitude of numbers between zero and one as well as between zero and infinity. It's just a different order of infinite. When there is no real restriction on player intent, author intent is not important.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;257169Some mechanics systems can be entirely expressive of author intent, sans setting or background. See Dogs in the Vineyard or Pendragon for examples. I do acknowledge that settings are theoretically a type of expression of intent, but in practice  it is usually so diffuse as to be meaningless. Most settings are no more restrictive than a band playing a blues song instead of a pop song. It's just necessary structure to frame the group's play. There are an infinitude of numbers between zero and one as well as between zero and infinity. It's just a different order of infinite. When there is no real restriction on player intent, author intent is not important.

Again, confusing author intent and "restrictions".

Quote from: CavScout;257178Again, confusing author intent and "restrictions".

I am NOT confusing the two. READ WHAT I WROTE! I said author intent has no great impact on play without restrictions, not that they are the same thing. If you want to argue the point, read it first.

-clash

Well, this really is the question. To whit, it doesn't matter what the author's intent is or is not - it's whether or not they make the attempt to, through the rules and the outcomes, instantiate that intent.

So, as clash says, if there's nothing in the rules that forces the players, in order to actually play the game, author intent is unimportant.

I doubt it's a switch. It's probably a huge spectrum of possibilities - various places in the rules where the author's intent is more strictly instantiated and other places where the rules do little to nothing to forward the author's intended play. I think recent design movement is towards more structure in the rule set that drives the author's intended method of play.

When there is no real restriction on player intent, author intent is not important.

You certainly seem to have linked player restrictions and author intent. Without one you don't have the other.

Quote from: James J Skach;257181Well, this really is the question. To whit, it doesn't matter what the author's intent is or is not - it's whether or not they make the attempt to, through the rules and the outcomes, instantiate that intent.

There is a difference between an author's intent existing and gamers going with it or ignoring, yes?

I just don't see the connection of author's intent is determined by how exclusively the rules force you to play a certain way. There's certainly different lengths that authors will go to influence play but not all are going to make in binding by the rules.

Quote from: CavScout;257182When there is no real restriction on player intent, author intent is not important.

You certainly seem to have linked player restrictions and author intent. Without one you don't have the other.

No, authorial intent is still present without restrictions - it is merely unenforced. Restrictions enforce intent, but intent exists without enforcement. Intent is unavoidable, but enforcement of intent is entirely optional. This is my point.

-clash

Quote from: James J Skach;257181Well, this really is the question. To whit, it doesn't matter what the author's intent is or is not - it's whether or not they make the attempt to, through the rules and the outcomes, instantiate that intent.

So, as clash says, if there's nothing in the rules that forces the players, in order to actually play the game, author intent is unimportant.

I doubt it's a switch. It's probably a huge spectrum of possibilities - various places in the rules where the author's intent is more strictly instantiated and other places where the rules do little to nothing to forward the author's intended play. I think recent design movement is towards more structure in the rule set that drives the author's intended method of play.

Exactly, James! Spot on!

-clash

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

An obvious example of game rules that try to channel a specific intentions are mental sanity/humanity rules (like in CoC and VtM). At first I was trying to comply to their restrictions and enforce them with my players. Soon we would ignore them pretty much because of the inertia it caused during play. It was slowing down role playing without satisfying benefits. So yeah game designers may have grand plans on how to play their game. Does it mean shit at the table ? Not always.

Damn, gleichman should've stuck around for this one.  I know one of his pet peeves (and one I agree with) is the lack of designer's notes in most RPGs.  Designer's notes are very useful in that they tell you what the author was trying to accomplish and give you a better idea of their thrust or intent.

Like Zachary said above, I try to at least keep what authorial intent I can glean from a text in mind while playing so I can better understand why the game was built the way it was.  My personal campaign may well (read: will inevitably) diverge from that baseline, but at least I have an understanding of why I liked/did not like certain parts of the game and can intelligently house rule from there.

I think my own views on the issue have been covered by other people, so I'd like to interject an ancillary view: I like games where the authors' intent doesn't get in my way. FASA, for instance, has always been pretty good about providing rules for everything - too good at it, for many people's tastes! - whether it's something they'd like you to be doing or not. I want the game to be mine when I buy it, and not be hamstrung by someone else's idea of how the game should be played.

This means rules should be as broad and all-encompassing as possible. That doesn't mean a specific mechanic needs to be provided for every damned thing; all you need is a general mechanic you can apply to all things.

That's not to say games with very specific intent and very narrow rules aren't enjoyable for some people, but I prefer a broad pallet with which to paint my world. On the other hand, a system that's too broad - d20, for instance, for my tastes - ends up flavorless and bland for me. So there needs to be a balance, if the game's going to satisfy me.

I don't think inclusion of authorial intent necessarily makes for a narrowly focused ruleset.  Whatever you think of it, 1st edition AD&D had a fairly broad scope, but the rules were definitely written to best facilitate a certain style of play (although this intent poorly explained in many cases).  And it included a heap of rules that operated outside of that stylistic range for those that wanted to take the game elsewhere.

Hmmm...I think I've just written a paragraph that can be summed up better by just referencing post #4.  In other words, "What Clash said!"