Quote from: MGuy;565771Because you cannot predict everyway someone will handle your stuff so you design your stuff with the assumption that the stuff you make is in place.

Of course I can't. I don't WANT to. As far as I can tell I don't even need to. I'm not trying to design a game that imposes my setting (through the default of the detailed rules) on a GM. I'm trying to design a game that the allows GMs to come up with their own setting with their own details using the guidelines/rules I provide as a framework.

Yes, any game I design with probably not get the MGuy Seal of Approved Game Design, but from reading your posts on this board, I'm almost positive that I would not be interested in playing or running (let alone designing) a game that would get MGuy Seal of Approved TTRPG Design. What you seem to expect/want/need from a TTRPG (again based on your posts here) are mostly things that I don't want or need in a TTRPG.

Nothing you can say will convince me that the way you want TTRPGs designed is the "one true way" that all TTRPGs must be designed that way or they will automatically "fail".

Filibustering was never a display of one's strength of argument, just a political delaying tactic to silence argumentation. Just sayin'.
:cool:

Quote from: RandallS;565803I'm beginning to thing that what MGuy really means when he says "you cannot design a game that...." is something like "You cannot design a rules complete game that would get my seal of approval that...."

He seems to make an exception for "rules lite" games but what is rules lite is subjective and varies with time.  For example, OD&D would be considered a rules light game today, but it was considered rules heavy by many in the 1970s.

No, I mean to say what I fucking said in my fucking posts. You cannot design a game based off of unknowns. You can't design a game with the intent that people aren't going to use what you've written down. And I was saying that EVEN in a rules lite game you have to expect that people will use what your write down even if its something as simple as "Creates fire". This is not complicated stuff here. Its not opinion its motherfucking fact. It is almost tautological because when you design anything you have an end result in mind.

Quote from: MGuy;565885No, I mean to say what I fucking said in my fucking posts. You cannot design a game based off of unknowns. You can't design a game with the intent that people aren't going to use what you've written down. And I was saying that EVEN in a rules lite game you have to expect that people will use what your write down even if its something as simple as "Creates fire". This is not complicated stuff here. Its not opinion its motherfucking fact. It is almost tautological because when you design anything you have an end result in mind.

This is demonstrably not true. You can very easily design such a game. It can be done in a number of ways. One could design a game with clear rules but also with the understanding that those rules should be altered when they don't make sense in practice. This is actually very reasonable and why we have things like rule zero. Alternately one could design a game with very little intention of people using the rules in the book. Personally I wouldn't design such a game, but it is possible.

However, I don't think many people are even talking about this at all. Folks are talking about leaving space for GM fiat.

Quote from: MGuy;565885No, I mean to say what I fucking said in my fucking posts. You cannot design a game based off of unknowns. You can't design a game with the intent that people aren't going to use what you've written down. And I was saying that EVEN in a rules lite game you have to expect that people will use what your write down even if its something as simple as "Creates fire". This is not complicated stuff here. Its not opinion its motherfucking fact.

Either what you actually mean is not coming across in your posts so BedrockBrendan, I and others are not responding to what you actually mean or you do actually mean what we think you are saying. In the latter case, what you are claiming is NOT a fact and repeating it often does not make it one.

QuoteIt is almost tautological because when you design anything you have an end result in mind.

I can design rules where the end result I have in mind is "GM Fiat is to be used a lot" or even "The GM will probably not use some of these rules and I have no way to know which ones will be used, not used, or replaced by other rules."

Quote from: RandallS;565990I can design rules where the end result I have in mind is "GM Fiat is to be used a lot" or even "The GM will probably not use some of these rules and I have no way to know which ones will be used, not used, or replaced by other rules."

The reason you and Brandan can't seem to follow is because I honestly think you're not trying to understand me. Brandan doesn't disagree with me at all but he can't seem to figure that out. The only way he'd discover it is if he went back and read the post where I talked about the "Bluff" skill and then MAYBE he'll understand what I've been saying because even when I put it in the simplest terms he's still saying things that don't counter my point.

I can try and break it down to you in pieces.
1)Yes you can make a game where the entirety of it has you telling people to make shit up on their own. There are games like (cowboys and Indians, Magic Tea Party) that but here's the thing: Anybody can make shit up on their own. Designing a system where you're telling people to make shit up is backwards.

2) So logically when you're talking about designing a game you're talking about making mechanics that (if you want a well designed game) are used as written or at least as intended.

3) If you're doing that then you cannot consider, when making the actual rules, that people will simply not use them nor can you design around them changing them. You can design a tool-kit and explicitly state that people can pick and choose which pieces they use but the core system should work and that core system cannot be built off of GM fiat. In a rules-lite game you expect people to ignore the rules but you still have a core system that, if used, maybe barely works (though rules-lite systems always have terrible rule sets).

4) Even if you wanted to let GM fiat be the main focus of your game you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say "this thing does X". Whether or not you tell people to roll a certain number of dice, tell people the average TN number for doing something, etc that's you making a design decision no matter how passively you try and make it.

TL: DR: If you are going to make an actual set of rules that isn't just straight up playing "make believe" without rules then you're going to design a system. The only way to design a system that makes sense at all is to assume people use it.

McGuy: There is more than one approach to game design, while I appreciate and agree in part with what you say, I see no reason why someone couldn't or shouldn't design a system with the expectation that the rules will be ignored or altered on occassion. No system is perfect. Just about every rule can fail to hold up well in certain conditions. If I make rule X, it might work perfectly and make sense 8 out of 10 times. It may even work 9 out of 10 times. But for the 10% when it falters, i would expect and encourage the GM to not use the rules as written.

I also think you are using GM fiat in a very limited way here. You can in fact build a system around GM fiat in key areas. You could have an elaborate and detailed combat system but leave all RP and skill to GM fiat. This is entirely workable and for many a much better game than one that has a system for all things. It is also clearly a system built around fiat.

Quote from: MGuy;5660282) So logically when you're talking about designing a game you're talking about making mechanics that (if you want a well designed game) are used as written or at least as intended.

Emphasis mine. That's where your argument turns from fact to opinion. What makes a game "well-designed" as opposed to "not well-designed" is subjective -- despite the claims of various game "experts" to claim that their criteria is the one true way to decide the "well-designed or not" question. Your personal definition of a well-designed game apparently includes a clause that basically says (again from what I have gathered from your post) the game must be designed under the assumption that the rules will be used as written without change.  

However, there are many games that others consider well-designed that do not do that.  For example, are you familiar with the Nomic family of games -- games where the actual play of the game involves players changing the rules -- with all rules of the game subject to change in play including the rules for changing the game and winning the game?

While Nomic games are not RPGs, they are examples of what are generally considered by many to be well-designed games that assume the rules can and will be changed. There is no reason why an RPG could not be designed with such changeable rules, in fact, such a system might even be a great way to design a RPG where the characters have deity-like powers or where magic is extremely powerful. You might not like such a game and might consider such a game "poorly designed" but as I said whether a game is "well-designed" or not is a subjective decision.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566037McGuy: There is more than one approach to game design, while I appreciate and agree in part with what you say, I see no reason why someone couldn't or shouldn't design a system with the expectation that the rules will be ignored or altered on occassion. No system is perfect. Just about every rule can fail to hold up well in certain conditions. If I make rule X, it might work perfectly and make sense 8 out of 10 times. It may even work 9 out of 10 times. But for the 10% when it falters, i would expect and encourage the GM to not use the rules as written.

I also think you are using GM fiat in a very limited way here. You can in fact build a system around GM fiat in key areas. You could have an elaborate and detailed combat system but leave all RP and skill to GM fiat. This is entirely workable and for many a much better game than one that has a system for all things. It is also clearly a system built around fiat.

Ok, now that you've gotten over the hump of realizing part of what I've been saying let me remind you that the first part of what I said (when I first dropped in on this conversation) is that you can't ever get rid of GM fiat as long as the GM is a thing. Most of what the GM does is fiat. About the only parts that aren't are the parts where the GM rolls dice. Everything else that goes on is open to GM fiat. GM fiat isn't even a thing you have to design for because its a thing that is going to happen.

Quote from: MGuy;566028The reason you and Brandan can't seem to follow is because I honestly think you're not trying to understand me. Brandan doesn't disagree with me at all but he can't seem to figure that out. The only way he'd discover it is if he went back and read the post where I talked about the "Bluff" skill and then MAYBE he'll understand what I've been saying because even when I put it in the simplest terms he's still saying things that don't counter my point.

McGuy: with all due respect, you are the only poster I have had any trouble understanding. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I am missing some key details in your posts, but this consistently is an issue when you and I communicate. I have no desire to make constant back and forths where we talk past one another and accidentally shift goal posts. If you and I agree, then no point in arguing. If we disagree, then we need to identify where and how then proceed. But a meta debate about whether or not we are even arguing in the first place seems somewhat pointless.

Quote from: RandallS;566038Emphasis mine. That's where your argument turns from fact to opinion. What makes a game "well-designed" as opposed to "not well-designed" is subjective -- despite the claims of various game "experts" to claim that their criteria is the one true way to decide the "well-designed or not" question. Your personal definition of a well-designed game apparently includes a clause that basically says (again from what I have gathered from your post) the game must be designed under the assumption that the rules will be used as written without change.  

However, there are many games that others consider well-designed that do not do that.  For example, are you familiar with the Nomic family of games -- games where the actual play of the game involves players changing the rules -- with all rules of the game subject to change in play including the rules for changing the game and winning the game?

While Nomic games are not RPGs, they are examples of what are generally considered by many to be well-designed games that assume the rules can and will be changed. There is no reason why an RPG could not be designed with such changeable rules, in fact, such a system might even be a great way to design a RPG where the characters have deity-like powers or where magic is extremely powerful. You might not like such a game and might consider such a game "poorly designed" but as I said whether a game is "well-designed" or not is a subjective decision.

I could go into detail as to why your game can't be well designed if you just leave most of your design decisions up to the people playing it but that's beyond the scope of the point of my argument and I'm not going to indulge this particular strawman.

Quote from: MGuy;566039.... let me remind you that the first part of what I said (when I first dropped in on this conversation) is that you can't ever get rid of GM fiat as long as the GM is a thing. Most of what the GM does is fiat. About the only parts that aren't are the parts where the GM rolls dice. Everything else that goes on is open to GM fiat. GM fiat isn't even a thing you have to design for because its a thing that is going to happen.

Except it is something you design for because different games leave different openings for fiat. Some games have a roll for A,B and C. Others have rolls for A and C but leave B to GM fiat. This very much impacts how the game plays and where to encourafe fiat in the system is an important design decision.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566043Except it is something you design for because different games leave different openings for fiat. Some games have a roll for A,B and C. Others have rolls for A and C but leave B to GM fiat. This very much impacts how the game plays and where to encourafe fiat in the system is an important design decision.

The fact that games leave different things open to GM fiat isn't something you design "for" its something you explicitly don't design for. If you don't make rules for ABC you're not designing for A, B, or C. AS I just said, if the GM is a "Thing" then fiat is almost all he does.

Quote from: MGuy;566041I could go into detail as to why your game can't be well designed if you just leave most of your design decisions up to the people playing it but that's beyond the scope of the point of my argument and I'm not going to indulge this particular strawman.

And we would have equally detailed counter points. At the end of the day how well a game is designed depends on its goal and its target audience. Just because you don't like a game that leaves these decisions up to the people playing, that doesn't make it bad design. It makes one kind of design among many different possible design approaches.

I am not trying to knock your approach. A game that covers everything can be great and lots of people like it. But there is demand for looser structures than you are advocating and in the end the only real measure of esign quality is whether people think something is well designed and produces fun.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;566045And we would have equally detailed counter points. At the end of the day how well a game is designed depends on its goal and its target audience. Just because you don't like a game that leaves these decisions up to the people playing, that doesn't make it bad design. It makes one kind of design among many different possible design approaches.

I am not trying to knock your approach. A game that covers everything can be great and lots of people like it. But there is demand for looser structures than you are advocating and in the end the only real measure of esign quality is whether people think something is well designed and produces fun.

If you want to talk about why doing that is bad for design make a thread and I'll post in it but I'm not going to engage that particular argument when its hard enough to get the one I am pushing through.