Quote from: One Horse TownNot to be combative...but prove it!

I did!  I wrote a game.  People enjoy it.  When it is played there are great roars of laughter and approval, often from the same people who are also letting out the anguished cries crushing defeat.

Quote from: TonyLBFor the record, I'm claiming that my theory has allowed me to more clearly identify good things that some people have (in most cases) already been doing, and to create rules that let everybody do them more reliably.

Your last post told me nothing. How have you applied theory to address this quote?

Quote from: One Horse TownYour last post told me nothing. How have you applied theory to address this quote?

I noticed that I (and many GMs who I admired) made a point of creating adversity that was not merely challenging but also emotionally engaging ... the exactly right conflict to get an emotional rise out of the players.  So, I put that front and center by devising a conflict system that give mechanical rewards to the person who gets the other players interested and engaged in that way.

Playing the game has helped me to refine a technique I already had a vague grasp on, and helped many people to start that skill from scratch where they had very little proficiency before.

I've identified a good thing that people were doing already, and made rules that help everyone to do it more reliably.

Quote from: TonyLBI've identified a good thing that people were doing already, and made rules that help everyone to do it more reliably.

Example?

Note: This may be well off topic. If so, please feel free Tony to start a thread on exactly how you applied this principle.

Quote from: One Horse TownExample?

Creating adversity that is emotionally engaging.  Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Quote from: TonyLBCreating adversity that is emotionally engaging.  Sorry I didn't make that clear.

?? How so?

OHT:  I don't suppose I'm going to get away with referring you back to post #93, am I?

I must admit that I'm wondering what sort of proof we're going for here.  I've told you what I aimed for in the game.  I hope I've made clear how I used concepts from theory to help me clarify that goal and express it.  I've told you that it gets those results when people play the game.

What, beyond that, am I suppose to "prove" here?  Can you give me an idea of our final destination?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... D&D for one.  Fail your save against petrification and now your character's a statue.  Since the character is (in most D&D play I've ever seen) your only way to interact with the game, you're stuck as a spectator until either you're stone-to-flesh'd or you write up a new character.  Not as much fun as being in the thick of the action.

Now when someone house-rules it so that once you're taken out of combat you get to take over (say) a bunch of NPCs and play them ... then we're back into win-win territory.  I can either (a) keep fighting with my own character or (b) get to fight with some fun disposable goblins.

The problem I often have with designs like that is that in the transition from house-rule to official rule, what was once likely an option offered by a GM who knew their players (e.g., "How would you like to run some of the goblins the party is fighting until they figure out how to reverse the petrification?") becomes a mandatory part of the game.  That's not bad if I want to play the goblins but what if I'd rather be a spectator than play the goblins?

Quote from: TonyLBFor the record, I'm claiming that my theory has allowed me to more clearly identify good things that some people have (in most cases) already been doing, and to create rules that let everybody do them more reliably.

The challenge, in my opinion, is often moderation.  If a spoonful of sugar makes a cup of tea taste better, it doesn't necessarily follow that 20 spoonfuls of sugar makes a good tasting cup of tea.

For example, while I was in Japan, I spent a day talking to a couple of Japanese role-players.  A game they talked about was, I think, Tenra Bansho (the game being talked up on RPGnet and Story-Games).  They said that the game rewarded players for bringing elements of their background into play.  Sounds fun, right?  The problem is that they found that doing so constantly made the game pretty silly, so they reversed it.  They turned it into a game where the goal was to not mention aspects of your character's background and the players would try to taunt the each other into bringing up things about their background.  What could be pretty neat in a normal game, making elements of a character's background relevant to play, became silly for them once it became a major and constant concern of play.

So if you take an element like creating adversity or emotionally engaging the characters and instead of sprinkling it in like a teaspoon of sugar, you pour it in like a cup of sugar so that it's constant and inescapable, what was once good might not be so good for everyone, though I'm sure some will like it.

I'm not saying that's what you've done nor am I saying that it can't be done right.  I'm simply pointing out that just because something is good doesn't mean that more of it is better, and that's how some people might take this advice.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not saying that's what you've done nor am I saying that it can't be done right.  I'm simply pointing out that just because something is good doesn't mean that more of it is better, and that's how some people might take this advice.

I totally agree.  Any time I write a possible reward into a system I say to myself "Okay, let me imagine for a moment that somebody dedicates their game-play completely and without variation to earning this reward every time it could possibly be earned ... does the game still play enjoyably for all concerned?"

I do wish that more designers (in all segments of the hobby) ran the same rough checks.  Yeah, CP2020 Netrunners, I'm looking straight at you right now

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem I often have with designs like that is that in the transition from house-rule to official rule, what was once likely an option offered by a GM who knew their players (e.g., "How would you like to run some of the goblins the party is fighting until they figure out how to reverse the petrification?") becomes a mandatory part of the game.  That's not bad if I want to play the goblins but what if I'd rather be a spectator than play the goblins?

Well put, and I have nothing to really add to it, except to clarify: The problem is a failure to comprehend the role of the game designer vs. the role of the DM (a general problem with most Theorists, who seem to believe the DM should have no role aside from the "monopoly banker" syndrome, and tend to arrogantly believe that they can know better what will be best for every single gaming group than said gaming groups will... that's pretty well what Theory is predicated on).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem is a failure to comprehend the role of the game designer vs. the role of the DM

The role of the DM/GM is defined by the rules of each specific game.  Now, many RPGs use almost the exact same model*, so the role of the DM/GM remains similar between a lot of different games.

However, if you have a game with substantially different rules and a genuinely different gameplay, it's reasonable to expect the actions of the participants in that game will be different.  This may mean the GM role is different in that game.  Maybe there's no GM.  Maybe there's two.

* (In fact, it could be argued that many RPGs aren't really different games at all -- just different settings and some alternate dice mechanics.  Really, how different is Robotech from TMNT?  Or even D&D for that matter?  The actual gameplay is pretty similar.  You might say that only these games should be called "RPGs", but then again other people might say "only games with dice are RPGs" -- so it's pretty subjective. )

Just as an aside:

Quote from: John MorrowFor example, while I was in Japan, I spent a day talking to a couple of Japanese role-players.  A game they talked about was, I think, Tenra Bansho (the game being talked up on RPGnet and Story-Games).  They said that the game rewarded players for bringing elements of their background into play.  Sounds fun, right?  The problem is that they found that doing so constantly made the game pretty silly, so they reversed it.  They turned it into a game where the goal was to not mention aspects of your character's background and the players would try to taunt the each other into bringing up things about their background.  What could be pretty neat in a normal game, making elements of a character's background relevant to play, became silly for them once it became a major and constant concern of play.

As an aside, it sounds like this might have been an element of the original game, and not the second edition (Tenra Bansho Zero), or a misreading, I'm not sure. The second edition makes it pretty clear that you reward your fellow players for doing something cool, entertaining, whatever. It's exactly like Fan Mail from Primetime Adventures. It basically rewards those "mie poses" in kabuki theatre, when the characters (through their players) do cool, dramatic things, with chits they can later spend to get bonus dice and the like.

Your friend silences the room with a dramatic speech? They get a chit.

Your friend describes an awesome manuver where they whack four dudes at once, ala Feng Shui? They get a chit.

They bring their character background into the game? ... ... ... uh....

They bring their character background into the game in some particularly awesome once-in-a-game-moment way? They get a chit.

There's not really a focus on "character background" in the Zero edition (the second edition) that brings an immediate reward of any kind. Again, that might have been something from the original edition from 1997 that got changed.

Back to your scheduled argument.

Thanks-

Andy
( //www.tenra-rpg.com )

Quote from: Andy KAs an aside, it sounds like this might have been an element of the original game, and not the second edition (Tenra Bansho Zero), or a misreading, I'm not sure.

Entirely possible, since I'm talking about 1999 and  they didn't mention the "Zero".  Not sure what they changed between the two editions.

Quote from: John MorrowEntirely possible, since I'm talking about 1999 and  they didn't mention the "Zero".  Not sure what they changed between the two editions.

Ah, ok.  Second Edition (the "Zero Edition") came out at the end of 2000.  It sounds like that "bring up the background" stuff was evolved or jettisoned. Unfortunately from the 1997 edition I only have the Worldbook and Sourcebook, and neither explain thae behavior of the core rules (instead, they're chock full of setting info and the like). Sounds like the newer edition (the one we're bringing into English) is a different beast then.

Thanks!

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KIt sounds like that "bring up the background" stuff was evolved or jettisoned.

My guess is that the broader intent was to involve various hooks written into the character in play. I can see that evolving into what you described.