We hear this often: "Oh, the game seems to have problems now, but you'll love it in actual play." It's used by designers and fan to sell us on games and convince us that the flaws we've identified aren't actually there without debating them.

Bull.

Bull. Nope. Nada. Actual play doesn't magically make problems disappear. It may make them seem less important or emphasize them, but they're still right there in black and white.

A few of things.

First, I paid for the book. The solidified, codified expression of the game. It's unchanging. Thus even if actual play really did magically solve the problems, there would still be a problem with the product when we're not in the middle of play. I didn't buy the actual play experiences of whomever the fix worked for, I bought the rulebook.

Example: I buy a fridge and it doesn't work. I take it back to the salesperson and he says, "Oh, just set up a fan to blow down the back of it. That'll fix the problem fast!" I don't care if a fan will fix the problem. I bought a fridge, not a fan and fridge combo - I want the fridge itself to work independent of the fan. If a fan really is needed to make the fridge work, stop selling fridges by themselves.

Second - and this touches on the first point - game books don't come with a group. I have yet to stumble across an RPG that had a blurb on the cover that read, "Instant game group included - just add water!" I may not have a game group. I may never have a game group. My game group may refuse to touch the game in question or refuse to touch a game that seems to rules that don't work.

Third, tastes, perceptions and approaches vary. A solidified, codified expression of rules can have wildly different results when put into use by different groups. Actual play that fixes problems for one group may not work for another - or it might cause a whole new set of problems.

Example: I take my fridge back and say, "Hey, this rattles and hums too loudly." The salesperson responds, "Try painting it blue. Some of our customers have reported that painting their appliances blue increases their tolerances for such noises, eliminating the problem." Painting the fridge blue might work for me or it might not - either way, it's not correcting the cause of the problem.

In short, I don't care if you think actual play solves the problems and issues I've raised. It's not a good solution. It's not a good answer. It is, at best, a band-aid for something that shouldn't exist in the first place...

Seanchai

I think the idea is often that things that seem like mechanical problems, while reading, aren't in actual play when you see how they work.

But I do agree with you in this way: If I don't get inspired to run your game from reading the text then, well, I'm not going to play your game.  This could be due to confusing or questionable mechanics that aren't explained well, dry text, or whatever else.  Pitching a game doesn't stop with a purchase.

To help clarify: Can you name names of the games where this is a real problem?  I suspect Shock is going to get mentioned, but are there others you feel this way about?  I'm having a tough time thinking of games that have a big problem that disappears in play (except for editing/formatting problems).

Savage Worlds is often cited as a prime example of this. My own group (along with many others, it would appear) discovered emergent properties within the system that weren't communicated very well at all in the text. On first read through the game seemed to be a little clunky, particularly regarding combat and damage. It was only after a session or two of actual play that everything clicked together and we realised just how fast and slick the system actually was.

Mind you, my group makes a point of playing new systems we've bought, even if they seem wonky on first appraisal.

Savage Worlds was my first thought as well.  I felt the text in the first edition didn't do a good job of explaining the fairly straightforward mechanics.  But after a session or two I was really digging it.

Quote from: jrientsSavage Worlds was my first thought as well.  I felt the text in the first edition didn't do a good job of explaining the fairly straightforward mechanics.  But after a session or two I was really digging it.

Indeed. To expand on Seanchai's analogy, Savage Worlds isn't so much a defective refrigerator as a wonderfully efficient one with a piss-poor installation manual.

C.W., what's the problem in Shock?  I'm considering purchasing it, and I was unaware of anything like this.

D&D 3e comes to my mind.  I can't think of specifc examples off hand, but it coalesced in actual play, making certain issues that were confusing during the read-through make better sense.

In point of fact, I'm trying to tink of a single game that didn't benefit from an actual play-through over simply reading the rules, no matter how explicit the authors attempted to be.

!i!

If you buy a refrigerator with an icemaker, don't you have to buy the tubing/wiring to connect it to the water line separately?

Or did I get ripped off?

I think there is something to both sides of this argument.

I do think there are cases where some ideas don't seem that special on paper, but in play, work out well.

But I do think there are cases where:
1) criticisms about the authors ability to communicate are valid
2) play style and techniques that are not in the book are the driving mechanism and cannot be expected to be portable to different buyers of the book
3) authors disclaim valid criticisms with this claim, where the validity of the rules as written depend on some unwritten assumptions, or (it happens) authors put out their product as a theoretical exercise and they don't really play and/or aren't receptive to feedback from actual play experiences.

I've always assumed this comment to mean something like, "Our group was ok with any handwavium that arised during play."

Quote from: joewolzC.W., what's the problem in Shock?  I'm considering purchasing it, and I was unaware of anything like this.

I'm not aware of any problem, personally, and haven't read the game.  Some folk have accused it of being a mechanically incomplete game, however.  But then there are others who strongly disagree.

If you're really interested I believe we have *four* new reviews of Shock this week at RPG.net for Sci-Fi week.  Two are up already.

Quote from: One Horse TownI've always assumed this comment to mean something like, "Our group was ok with any handwavium that arised during play."

Oh man, talk about pet peeves.  "If there's a problem with the game system then just house rule it."  Ugh.

Quote from: joewolzC.W., what's the problem in Shock?  I'm considering purchasing it, and I was unaware of anything like this.

Many people, including Ron Edwards, have criticized it for being incomplete because all it does is present rules without telling you how to use them. That is, the author doesn't discuss how one might actually play Shock.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonI think the idea is often that things that seem like mechanical problems, while reading, aren't in actual play when you see how they work.

That's always a possibility.

Of course, just playing the game doesn't necessarily mean you're playing it correctly. People get rules wrong all the time. If you tell me playing Game X will resolve my issues with it and you get the rules wrong or I get the rules wrong, well...

Quote from: C.W.RichesonTo help clarify: Can you name names of the games where this is a real problem?

I was told yesterday that this was the case with Esoterrorists when I expressed surprise that it was up for an award.

Savage Worlds is often cited. Unlike many folks here, I found the reverse to be true, however. I liked the game, thought better of it, before I played. After playing, I decided it wouldn't be suitable for my purposes.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIn short, I don't care if you think actual play solves the problems and issues I've raised. It's not a good solution. It's not a good answer. It is, at best, a band-aid for something that shouldn't exist in the first place...

:idunno:  If you're not going to actually play the game, does it even matter whether the system works or not?

I teach martial arts.  I have had occasion, many times, to tell people "Move your body like so and so, and you will find that the result is that you easily throw a person twice your size through the air to land, crash!, on the ground."

I have had people look at me incredulously.  I have even had people say "Uh ... that's just not going to work."

My general answer is: "Do what I said, THEN talk to me about whether it works or not."

Sometimes seemingly simple combinations of things have emergent properties that are hard to see without actually getting all of the pieces moving and observing what they do together.  If I told you about a game where:

• There are only two types of tokens (white for you, black for me)
• The only thing we got to do is to take turns putting tokens down on a big board, and
• If a group of adjacent pieces is entirely surrounded by opponent pieces, they are removed.

... you might quite reasonably say "Damn, that's a stupid, boring game.  Where's the strategy?  Why can't you move the pieces after you placed them?  And, really, who's ever going to be stupid enough to let an entire group get surrounded?  You can just keep adding new pieces to the bits that aren't surrounded, and expand into unclaimed space.  Stupid freakin' game."

Really, the only argument to be made there is the Actual Play argument:  Dude, give it a try.  People dedicate their lives to that game.  It's got more going on than the simple ruleset might lead you to believe.

Caesar Slaad's right, though, that the argument-to-actual-play can be (and has been) used in situations where actual play doesn't actually resolve anything.  Alas!