Sometimes games have emergent properties -- a synergy of elements that can be guessed at, but not experienced or fully understood until played out.

I think it's a feature of game design, not a bug. I love seeing the enlightened look on a player's face when he finally "gets it."

-L

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

I only aim to buy systems that work, whether I currently have plans to play them or not. (Because, for example, plans change.) So, yes.

Quote from: TonyLBSometimes 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.

I disagree.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI disagree.

Then how do you explain your dissatisfaction with Savage Worlds?

QuoteSavage 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.

Sounds like you needed an AP experience to cement how worthwhile the system was to you.

Quote from: DrewThen how do you explain your dissatisfaction with Savage Worlds?

I didn't read it careful or ponder how the rules might work. All the things that I don't like about Savage Worlds I was able to find there on the page after I'd played.

Seanchai

Quote from: jdrakehMany 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.

How very odd.  Because, recently, I've been working with the original Traveller rules, and I've been marvelling at how they do noting but explain the mechanics, and not how to interpret them in terms of roleplay.  This is commonly hailed as one of the great things about classic Traveller, that succeeds in providing you with a solid game without forcing preconceptions of a setting or play style on the player.  I suppose this runs contrary to Ron Edwards' whole idea of roleplaying as "story", but perhaps it serves as an example of what we're discussing here.  By today's standards, Traveller may seem incomplete, with its lack of play-by-play examples and explicit digressions, but in actual play the purpose of the rules becomes very evident.

!i!

THe game mechanics of Time Lord are some of the simplest I've ever seen in a game, but in terms of how they are explained, it sounds much more complicated than it is.

The basic die mechanic is just 1d6 minus 1d6, with the lower of the two always subtracted from the higher, added to the effective skill and attribute, versus a target number.

The way it's explained, with it's talk of "beat the difference" and one not, conveys the simplicity of the mechanic very poorly, by breaking down the process more than it needs to be and putting it in a somewhat counterintuitive order.

It nonetheless plays very smoothly and is quite simple to understand once explained right, the rules as written just don't adequately convey how the system actualyl works.

Hey Sean -

Maybe you're just blowing Tony off, but, um, if you really can see all the possibilities of Go just from reading the rules, there's a really good living awaiting you in the far East.

Quote from: CalithenaMaybe you're just blowing Tony off...

No, sweetums, blowing off Tony is your job.

Seanchai

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow very odd.  Because, recently, I've been working with the original Traveller rules, and I've been marvelling at how they do noting but explain the mechanics, and not how to interpret them in terms of roleplay.  This is commonly hailed as one of the great things about classic Traveller, that succeeds in providing you with a solid game without forcing preconceptions of a setting or play style on the player.  I suppose this runs contrary to Ron Edwards' whole idea of roleplaying as "story", but perhaps it serves as an example of what we're discussing here.  By today's standards, Traveller may seem incomplete, with its lack of play-by-play examples and explicit digressions, but in actual play the purpose of the rules becomes very evident.

!i!

Indeed, I found most of the rules of Traveller pretty clear jsut on a read through, without almost any play examples to speak of.  I'm still a bit fuzzy on the ship design though, need to paly with that a bit more perhaps, and give it a second read.

Which brings to mind a point that never seems to be addressed, in that with play examples, the converse can sometimes happen, in that a poorly presented example can actually make a mechanic less clear than the rule itself as written.

I have a tendency to ignore examples often because of this, unless it's an especially unclear rule.

for example, there was a huge flamewar I got into about AD&D2 once, about the alignment mechanics, because I was actually taking the rules as written, while a bunch of others were pointing at a very idiotic example portion that I'd skipped over, some nonsense about a paladin giving to charity costing it XP that was, basically, totally wrong by the written rules, and yet a number of people had taken it as an official ruling and declared therefore that it "discouraged roleplaying" or somesuch nonsense.

It was a bogus example, and it would never come up in play unless you took said bogus example as a concrete rule, because the alignments and alignment rules as written don't support the example at all.

Quote from: TonyLBSometimes 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.

Quote from: SeanchaiI disagree.

I find this strange, because unless I am mistaken, I believe you were part of the lucky folks who playtested 3rd edition D&D. Why do you think they went through such a gigantic playtest phase?

Every company would do just the same as WotC if they had the means because Tony LB is absolutely right: You have to actually do stuff with the system to see all the ramifications. And even then, in most systems, a gigantic playtest is not going to find every little glitch.

I know you are a veteran gamer and I have no doubt that, with your experience, you can anticipate most of the stuff that will happen in play. You probably know your tastes well. But I doubt you can, from just reading, picture how a game plays out, its feel, tempo, good points and bad points (as related to your taste) with 100% accuracy.

Nobody can do that. We're all going to be surprised positively or negatively at some point.

And to come back to your fridge analogy, I find that a more accurate example would be returning the fridge "because it doesn't work" without even plugging it. It's a fridge. You're supposed to put stuff in it, plug it. By the same token, games are supposed to be played.

Now, if you're talking about judging RPG books as an instruction manual, then I agree with you. Books that do not explain things well, are poorly written, etc... can certainly be judged from reading. But tempo, handling time, balance, etc... are trickier, wouldn't you agree?

I am edging closer and closer toward 30 years of roleplaying experience and I still can't see the day where I'll just scan books and know exactly what it's like in play. I don't know anybody else who can either. You need to put ideas and concepts into action to be sure.

Even then, as can be seen on forums, extensively playing a game will reveal further perks or flaws. It is far from static and you can still discover things after months or even years of play.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhy do you think they went through such a gigantic playtest phase?

Because it's easier to see how things fit together when you're fitting them together - and have hundreds of people doing it.

Quote from: Consonant DudeBut I doubt you can, from just reading, picture how a game plays out, its feel, tempo, good points and bad points (as related to your taste) with 100% accuracy.

I agree, but the things you're referring to are extrinsic to the game as written. They're the result of the game in play, which varies from group to group.

Here's my problem with emergent qualities.

There's a set of static rules. A static rulebook or game (or game as written). It does not vary from individual to individual, group to group. It reads the same in Fairbanks, Alaska and Miami, Florida. If we say that the game contains X, Y, and Z, we know that every copy will contain X, Y, and Z.

Playing the game - adding the human element to the static rules - won't change the static rules. There's no magic involved that changes the layout of the ink so that letters now spell something different.

Oh, there's a new entity - the game in play - that's based on the game as written, but they're not synonymus.

The example game has been played, games like it has been played, mathematics are universal, etc. Based on this, we can say that the conjunction of X and Y produces quality A.

We also know, given the paragraph about the static nature of the game, that the game - the conjunction of X and Y - will always produce quality A.

The talk about emergent qualities is basically saying that despite all this, there can suddenly be quality B.

I say that's impossible. If the static game - the conjunction of X and Y - produced quality A and quality B, we'd know. The production of quality B, too, would be universal.

Remember, I'm talking about the game as written. The static form. The rulebook that consumers purchase.

When the game is put into play, I have no problem with quality B suddenly arising. But that has nothing to do with the static game. The only way quality B can arises is with the addition of P,Q, and R. So we're not talking about X and Y producing quality B, we're talking about X, Y, and Q producing quality B.

And where does Q come from? The players. The participants.

In other words, what is supposed to be an emergent quality of the game is actually an emergent quality the players interacting with, putting into use or not putting into use, the static form of the rules.

Here's the thing about that: The elements the players bring to the game in play vary. It's not just P, Q, and R. It's A,B,C, D, E, F, G, H...Well, you get the idea. You might get quality B when you combine the players and the game. Or you might get quality C, D, E or F.

And it's that which makes me discount actual play. You can say that I misunderstand and the game doesn't produce quality A but rather quality B - which is essentially the argument here - but the truth of the game is that it produces quality A, B, C, D, E, F, et al..

That aside, I don't really believe in emergent qualities. Or, rather, emergent qualities that we can't quantify beforehand with careful study and the application of knowledge. In the vast majority of cases, anyway.

Anyway...go eat alphabet soup.

Seanchai

Anything I have to say about this topic has already been said, not necessarily by me, in this thread.

Quote from: C.W.RichesonOh man, talk about pet peeves.  "If there's a problem with the game system then just house rule it."  Ugh.

The reason to say that is that what's a problem for you may be quite individual, and not general. General problems get fixed in the second edition, individual problems get house-ruled. No rpg system can ever deal with everyone's individual problems. That's why rpgs have got optional rules to cover as wide a range of playstyles as possible, and why we have more than one rpg in the world.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe reason to say that is that what's a problem for you may be quite individual, and not general. General problems get fixed in the second edition, individual problems get house-ruled. No rpg system can ever deal with everyone's individual problems. That's why rpgs have got optional rules to cover as wide a range of playstyles as possible, and why we have more than one rpg in the world.

That's true, some folk have problems that others don't.  My comment was meant to address the argument that no game has a problem because it can be "house ruled", even if there are serious rules problems, missing rules, or what have you.

I am not, in fact, arguing that all game systems must be perfect for all people and/or that houseruling is bad.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe reason to say that is that what's a problem for you may be quite individual, and not general.

The annoyance comes in the form of a game not doing a specific thing by design and its fans saying "Oh no, it does do that, you just have to write the rules yourself!". There is a very common logical fallacy that not including rules for Thing X in a game actually means said game was designed to address Thing X out of the box. And it is maddening.