Quote from: estar on June 02, 2023, 12:33:17 AM
I will repeat this point again. The point of running a campaign is NOT to play a particular game. It about, players pretending to be characters having adventures in a setting. What makes it work is the human referee and the procedure I outlined in other posts I made. The rules are an aid to make it easier and more fun. But the rules are NOT the point. Until you realize this then RPG design will be for you frustrating.

I agree, but I'll go further. I think it's a common sentiment that people can roleplay in any game system by simply adhering to the basic procedure you outlined. It's valid in the sense that that's the true core of the game. It's also not the whole picture - I genuinely don't think I could roleplay as well with certain rules systems (such as PbtA) over others. That isn't because of the way the rules force me to think mechanically or narratively or whatever else, but rather it's the problem that a game needs to provide ways of revealing the significance of setting elements to players without just pulling the curtain back and revealing the innerworkings of how the system "works". PbtA and many story games actually reveal quite a lot of the innerworkings of the "setting" because the setting is actually just a backdrop on an imagined stage, and all of the world functions according to rules decided for the sake of narrative. That revelation undermines the roleplaying even though it ought to strengthen it or provide a useful framework. I can't unsee the man behind the curtain because he's always looking me in the face when I read a PbtA playbook.

A positive example of rules are saving throws. They're great because a saving throw let's you know something is acting upon you, but not necessarily what, and most certainly not it's ultimate nature. If I fail the saving throw and I start feeling sick, my Strength score might be lowered. That's a hint at the significance of what I'm facing and some elements of its nature, but an impact on Strength need not be the totality of what is actually happening. This poison or disease or magic (whatever its nature) might have myriad effects and the mechanics are a prompting point to remind you to engage with what's happening to your character. So, saving throws (or their equivalents) are quite nice to facilitate roleplaying because just saying "you feel sick" doesn't really convey much information to a player to help them make useful decisions.

The better the understanding of most people around the table about the nature of how the setting works, the more the rules can be allowed to recede in lieu of the basic procedure and GM adjudication. A good example of a setting like this is the modern world - we live in it, most adults know the essence of it, so a lot of detailed rules about the setting are frivolous, we just need the contact points with the natural uncertainty and complexity of the world which we need to model in the game. In a fantasy setting, it's harder to have that shared understanding of the world without rules to help illustrate aspects of that setting without outright revealing its secret ingredients and ruining the magic (or conversely, feeling totally mysterious and arbitrary).

So rules are frameworks for establishing and maintaining a shared imaginary space (the setting). Once that core objective is accomplished, good rules will facilitate play so it's easier to manage, faster, easier to grasp, and ultimately more fun. The fun aspect and the recognition that this is a game is important because campaigns naturally hit lulls and the fun can keep momentum going to the next peak. It's part of the importance of something like verisimilitude in the rules, because once you've lost that you've already lost a cornerstone of the underlying concept of establishing an imaginary world.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 01, 2023, 10:30:00 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 01, 2023, 08:26:54 AM

Even if you were able to confirm that OSR sees more online discussion, I do not grant that popularity equals good. All games start with zero players, therefore game quality exists in abstraction, before any players actually picked up the game. Appealing to popularity means you understand these factors exist, but rather than actually trying to understand them...you just take popularity on face value.

That statement was so pretentious I got a film degree just for reading it...

First of all, people aren't disagreeing with you because they don't "understand" game design theory.  They are disagreeing with you because they think you are wrong (which you are).  Maybe you don't understand as much as you think you do.

As to popularity, popularity is directly nor inversely related to quality... but that doesn't mean they aren't related.  Some games are high quality and popular.  Some are low quality and popular.  Some are low quality and unpopular.  And some very few are high quality and unpopular.  These ratios are not proportional.  You will find that most high quality games are also pretty popular.  You will find a decent number of low quality games are also popular.  So positive popularity does not insure quality.  There are a handful of high quality games that, for some odd reasons, never become popular.  But these are rare, compared with the reverse.  And there are many low quality games that are unpopular.  In fact, this is probably the norm.

So seeing that a game is popular does not ensure it is high quality.  But seeing a game is unpopular is overwhelmingly indicative of low quality.  That's the domain inhabited by most storygames...

By your own admission popularity is not a solid reflection of quality because there are more variables at stake. So why fixate on it? It's my thesis that if you brain-hole game design theorycrafting, you literally lack the vocabulary and concepts necessary to assess a game in something besides popularity, but if you have an alternative suggestion, I'm open to it.

Quote from: estar on June 02, 2023, 12:33:17 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 01, 2023, 09:40:36 PM
And bear in mind I mean broader game design theorycrafting and not just The Forge. Yeah, I've studied the material from The Forge, but I really consider myself more a student of video game and board game design. Video games especially are a multi-billion dollar industry, so the theorycrafting behind them tends to be razor-tight. If I had to describe my design approach, it would be to use board games as a parts bin to take game experiences and theory structures from video games and bring them into tabletop RPGs. Frankly, the theorycrafting and single-player experiences found in the cream of the crop of video games far eclipses the experience in tabletop RPGs. Why? Because video game design theories include haptic feedback. They call it game feel. And board games have a wide variety of mechanics and tool-sets designed to create a similar sense of haptic feedback in the tabletop game space.

What one has to do to make a good videogame and a good boardgame is not relevant to writing material to help people run tabletop roleplaying campaigns.

I will repeat this point again. The point of running a campaign is NOT to play a particular game. It about, players pretending to be characters having adventures in a setting. What makes it work is the human referee and the procedure I outlined in other posts I made. The rules are an aid to make it easier and more fun. But the rules are NOT the point. Until you realize this then RPG design will be for you frustrating.

Video game design is literally derived from tabletop RPG design. The Fallout SPECIAL attribute system resulted when Obsidian lost the rights to adapt GURPS into a video game medium and hand to re-brand. The fact you don't see a connection doesn't mean no such connection exists; it just means you don't see it.

That is also what limits a human referee game model; the human referee only has so many skills and knowledges. There are things that individual GMs can't do if you over-rely on the GM because, while the GM might know everything about the game, the GM also almost certainly doesn't know everything there is to know about game design. You need to have a fair three-way handshake between the game designer, the GM, and the players.

Poor human GMs, unable to reach the lofty heights of a videogame program with its expert design.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 02, 2023, 07:46:47 AM
The fact you don't see a connection doesn't mean no such connection exists; it just means you don't see it.

I coded video games back when the tech was such that it was possible for a programmer to make something decent in their hobby time. Later, I coded up a complete simulation of the Mercury Space Capsule that was accurate enough that you could use the original NASA check lists using the Orbiter Space Simulator.
https://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/. In my day job I deal with user interfaces for metal cutting machines as one of my primary responsibilities. Coupled with the fact my company is a small manufacturing firm, there isn't an area of software development that I don't code for at some point during the year ranging from web interfaces, database development, 3D graphics, and computer-machine I/O. Also, I had several suggestions accepted by various researchers working on the design patterns for software development.

Any particular qualification I am lacking to render an opinion on the difference between videogame and RPGs?

Quote from: Fheredin on June 02, 2023, 07:46:47 AM
Video game design is literally derived from tabletop RPG design. The Fallout SPECIAL attribute system resulted when Obsidian lost the rights to adapt GURPS into a video game medium and hand to re-brand.

A tabletop RPG is where players interact with a setting as their characters where their actions are adjudicated by a human referee.

A computer RPG is where players interact with a setting as their characters where their actions are adjudicated by a software algorithm.

Sound pretty close right? Except for one thing. What a software algorithm can deal with versus what a human referee can deal with. That one element makes the two completely different experiences even if they use the same mechanics under the hood.

Tabletop roleplaying campaigns work because there is a human referee listening to what a player wants to attempt, adjudicating, and describing their circumstances. How does a human referee adjudicate? They have options, they can adjudicate on the basis of their life experiences, what they know about the setting, or using procedures found in a wargame. The human referee can judge that given the circumstance the outcome is certain and describe the results accordingly. Or it is uncertain and the use of dice is called for.

In contrast, a software algorithm is a series of predetermined judgment calls. The developer along with their team imagine as many circumstances as they can for the setting of the game and then code the responses. Yes they have similar options to the human referee before they decide to code. But once decided it is baked in stone until they have a chance to make an update and change their mind. As a result, CRPGS are just more sophisticated "Choose your own adventure" books. Even if you introduce the latest AI models, it is still an elaborate "Choose your own adventure" style book.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 02, 2023, 07:46:47 AMThat is also what limits a human referee game model; the human referee only has so many skills and knowledges. There are things that individual GMs can't do if you over-rely on the GM because, while the GM might know everything about the game, the GM also almost certainly doesn't know everything there is to know about game design. You need to have a fair three-way handshake between the game designer, the GM, and the players.

Other forms of roleplaying such as LARPS, MMORPGs, CRPGS, etc. require a team of people to pull their campaigns off. You have to coordinate the efforts of dozens if not hundreds of individuals in a particular way. For what they do the results are amazing and there is no way for tabletop roleplaying industry or hobby to compete. Unless you focus on what they can't do.

Where you see limits, I see possibilities. Game design is not the challenge. The challenge is help hobbyists be better referees in the time they have for a hobby. Since the focus of what we do is players pretending to be characters in a setting. The primary focus is on helping referees come up with interesting settings, interesting characters, come up with some aids (i.e. mechanics) to help adjudicate when players do things as their characters, and finally advice and support how to keep this going throughout the session and the campaign.

Most of this is not addressed by a game. When it is, the result invariably feels constrained and limited. They are mostly metagame issues about how a campaign is setup and managed.

As for as game design goes a good RPG will
- Communicate how the setting works for example the combat and magic subsystem.
- Tersely describe elements of the setting for example a character sheet, or a UWP from Traveller.
- Teaches a novice what they need to know to run a campaign in that setting (or genre) for example the various GURPS worldbooks like GURPS Egypt.

Finally, folks have a remarkable ability called abstraction. Pick the right abstraction and whatever complex task you are trying to teach will become far more manageable. Something I learned through the experience of developing and supporting software for metal-cutting machines for four decades. Writing a good RPG is about abstracting a setting (or genre) in a way that a hobbyist finds fun and enjoyable as a hobby. Even detailed systems like GURPS with all the options are abstractions of how a setting works. Part of what makes a good RPG designer is figuring out the right level of abstraction for their work.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on June 02, 2023, 03:29:28 AM

Quote from: estar on June 02, 2023, 12:33:17 AM
I will repeat this point again. The point of running a campaign is NOT to play a particular game. It about, players pretending to be characters having adventures in a setting. What makes it work is the human referee and the procedure I outlined in other posts I made. The rules are an aid to make it easier and more fun. But the rules are NOT the point. Until you realize this then RPG design will be for you frustrating.

I agree, but I'll go further. I think it's a common sentiment that people can roleplay in any game system by simply adhering to the basic procedure you outlined. It's valid in the sense that that's the true core of the game. It's also not the whole picture - I genuinely don't think I could roleplay as well with certain rules systems (such as PbtA) over others. That isn't because of the way the rules force me to think mechanically or narratively or whatever else, but rather it's the problem that a game needs to provide ways of revealing the significance of setting elements to players without just pulling the curtain back and revealing the innerworkings of how the system "works". PbtA and many story games actually reveal quite a lot of the innerworkings of the "setting" because the setting is actually just a backdrop on an imagined stage, and all of the world functions according to rules decided for the sake of narrative. That revelation undermines the roleplaying even though it ought to strengthen it or provide a useful framework. I can't unsee the man behind the curtain because he's always looking me in the face when I read a PbtA playbook.

A positive example of rules are saving throws. They're great because a saving throw let's you know something is acting upon you, but not necessarily what, and most certainly not it's ultimate nature. If I fail the saving throw and I start feeling sick, my Strength score might be lowered. That's a hint at the significance of what I'm facing and some elements of its nature, but an impact on Strength need not be the totality of what is actually happening. This poison or disease or magic (whatever its nature) might have myriad effects and the mechanics are a prompting point to remind you to engage with what's happening to your character. So, saving throws (or their equivalents) are quite nice to facilitate roleplaying because just saying "you feel sick" doesn't really convey much information to a player to help them make useful decisions.

The better the understanding of most people around the table about the nature of how the setting works, the more the rules can be allowed to recede in lieu of the basic procedure and GM adjudication. A good example of a setting like this is the modern world - we live in it, most adults know the essence of it, so a lot of detailed rules about the setting are frivolous, we just need the contact points with the natural uncertainty and complexity of the world which we need to model in the game. In a fantasy setting, it's harder to have that shared understanding of the world without rules to help illustrate aspects of that setting without outright revealing its secret ingredients and ruining the magic (or conversely, feeling totally mysterious and arbitrary).

So rules are frameworks for establishing and maintaining a shared imaginary space (the setting). Once that core objective is accomplished, good rules will facilitate play so it's easier to manage, faster, easier to grasp, and ultimately more fun. The fun aspect and the recognition that this is a game is important because campaigns naturally hit lulls and the fun can keep momentum going to the next peak. It's part of the importance of something like verisimilitude in the rules, because once you've lost that you've already lost a cornerstone of the underlying concept of establishing an imaginary world.

I agree completely!  The rules are aids (for consistency and easy repeatability) for the GM, not a straight-jacket.  This is the genius of the Braunstein-like model. \

I think your example of saving throws is very apropos.  And, not to harp on a subject excessively (I don't want to become the Tenbones pimping SW of this subject... Love ya, dude!), but I think this is one of the consequences of the modern game fixation on unified mechanics.  The genius of early D&Ds was the fact that the rules accumulated.  They were created by need and molded to simulate what was necessary for that instance in the game.   Or, like saving throws, adapted from other mechanics where applicable.

To compare back to a post I made in the "Alternative to GNS Theory" Thread, if the "referee describes, players act, referee decides" resolution is the basis of RPGs, then the rules developed should support that process, rather than dictate, supplant, or derail it.

For example, you said:

QuoteThe better the understanding of most people around the table about the nature of how the setting works, the more the rules can be allowed to recede in lieu of the basic procedure and GM adjudication. A good example of a setting like this is the modern world - we live in it, most adults know the essence of it, so a lot of detailed rules about the setting are frivolous, we just need the contact points with the natural uncertainty and complexity of the world which we need to model in the game. In a fantasy setting, it's harder to have that shared understanding of the world without rules to help illustrate aspects of that setting without outright revealing its secret ingredients and ruining the magic (or conversely, feeling totally mysterious and arbitrary).

So, when you have a character faced with a problem, say... crossing a chasm, the game mechanics should support the internal and external consistency of the setting at a level of abstraction that preserves the player's agency.  If the setting is grounded in physics similar to ours, then the rules should help the GM decide the outcome of the player's actions that seem reasonable to both the GM and player (so they shouldn't result in the character jumping a 40' chasm sans magic, etc.).  If the setting's conceits offer different outcomes than normal for our world, there should be mechanical support so that the players and GMs can understand that difference.  These rules should operate as abstractly as is possible to both clearly define cause and effect, as well as allow the circumstances to drive the rules and their usage (and not "OK, roll to cross the chasm" like in a board game).  And the point of the rules is to allow the player to try anything, and to help the GM decide the outcome of that attempt.  Not to delineate what "moves" or actions the players can apply to the situation and how those must be resolved.

This is where the storygames tend to fall short.  By abstracting to a level that allows unified mechanics to operate for everything, storygames often reduce challenges to mechanical operations, using metagame concepts.  They often force players to think outside the character's perspective in the world in the moment to resolve their hurdles using a mechanic contrived to fit a pre-established pattern ("Roll skill plus 2d6 plus attribute, 6 or less fails") rather than mechanics that fit the in-world physics of what has occurred.  Based on the setting and shared world, why should a 6 or less fail?  How does that mechanical operation simulate crossing a chasm?  Why are those odds appropriate to the chosen action?  None of these questions are answered by unified mechanics  So, while unified mechanics can be easier to learn, I feel like they also can abstract mechanics to the point where the mechanics are based in metagame concepts, rather than grow from the needs of the chosen action in that moment.

In some ways, good RPG mechanics are like laws of physics.  They guide GMs to the outcome of actions based on the starting conditions; but they don't dictate those starting conditions as a prerequisite of operation.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 02, 2023, 12:23:36 PM
I agree completely!  The rules are aids (for consistency and easy repeatability) for the GM, not a straight-jacket.  This is the genius of the Braunstein-like model.

Yup, however, keep in mind the common objection to this sentiment, "What limits the referee from making up any ruling they like?". My answer is that it is the setting of the campaign that limits the referee.

I think the discussion is drifting into different gaming cultures territory. Hobby is old enough at this point that it developed different styles and cultures of play. Some value rules as tight as possible from a game design standpoint, while others see rules as loose aids to help people around the table, while others still value completely different aspects. There's no right or wrong here, only what leads each culture to have fun.

So going back to the original question "What's the biggest mistake in RPG Design", the correct answer is: "it depends, for what culture/style of play?". Vampire players will value different things over OD&D players, which will value different things over D&D 3E players, which will value different things over PbtA players, etc.

What constitutes quality for one culture won't necessarily communicate across to others (as this very thread proves).

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 01:03:11 PM
The discussion is drifting into different play cultures territory. Hobby is big enough that it contains different styles and cultures of play. Some cultures value rules as tight as possible from a game design angle while other cultures see rules as aids to help the people around the table. There's no right or wrong here, only what leads each culture to have fun at the table, which will be different things.

So going back to the original question "What's the biggest mistake in RPG Design", the correct answer is: "it depends, for what culture/style of play?".

This is dodging the general question. There is a set of consequences to having tight rules if your focus is pretending to be characters adventuring in a setting. Another set of consequences to having tight rules is if your focus is playing a game with a set of victory conditions. And a different set of consequences if your focus is collaborative storytelling.

And to cap it all of the ones I mention (including others I haven't) are pretty flexible in what they can cover at least as a publisher's product or a shared work. So within each, you can have different play styles and cultures.

My point is that when it comes to tabletop roleplaying, rules are an option, not a requirement to make the campaign happen. Which does not me I am advocating ditching all systems and going with rulings alone. I make this point to stress because of that, tabletop roleplaying campaigns have a lot of flexibility in what they can pick for rules. Handling one aspect of a campaign with mechanics and another by rulings.

Stressing that doesn't mean tight systems are not necessarily a bad thing. They only become worse if the group is trying to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign and says "Because the rules don't cover X, you can't do X.". If they are running a boardgame/wargame campaign instead that attitude would be perfectly fine. Basically the difference between a Battletech campaign and a Mechwarrior campaign. But if the group happens to use Mechawarrior and does "Well the rules don't cover X, so you can't do X" then  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 

Unless they try to claim what they are running is a tabletop roleplaying campaign and in this case, I will say they are not because of the above. But just because I say that doesn't mean their campaigns stop being fun or quit working.

Quote from: estar on June 02, 2023, 01:43:23 PM

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 01:03:11 PM
The discussion is drifting into different play cultures territory. Hobby is big enough that it contains different styles and cultures of play. Some cultures value rules as tight as possible from a game design angle while other cultures see rules as aids to help the people around the table. There's no right or wrong here, only what leads each culture to have fun at the table, which will be different things.

So going back to the original question "What's the biggest mistake in RPG Design", the correct answer is: "it depends, for what culture/style of play?".

This is dodging the general question. There is a set of consequences to having tight rules if your focus is pretending to be characters adventuring in a setting. Another set of consequences to having tight rules is if your focus is playing a game with a set of victory conditions. And a different set of consequences if your focus is collaborative storytelling [...] My point is that when it comes to tabletop roleplaying, rules are..

You seem to be missing the fact that "Tabletop roleplaying" at this point IS an umbrella of distinct cultures and playstyles, and not a monolythic culture.

So, even forgetting Forge/storygames for a moment, it's undeniable that OSR runs on different assumptions than say, D&D 3E or Pathfinder. Same goes for Vampire or FATE or whatever. "Rulings over rules" is a very important principle for OSR but not so much for 3E/4E/Pathfinder. Having the social aspect covered by rules or at least good advice is almost mandatory for Vampire and WoD games as they're predicated on social conflict hapenning sooner or later, but that's not necessary for OSR where it rarely (if ever) happens. Damn, even pre-planned linear plots and illusionism finds cultures/playstyles where it's a positive or at least not end of the world, as most mystery games like CoC and Delta Green depend on pre-planned plots and clue placement. How about significant GM fiat as seen in diceless games like Amber? Etc, etc, etc.

Each one of those points may be considered qualities or defects, depending on the culture one considers.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 02, 2023, 12:23:36 PM
This is where the storygames tend to fall short.  By abstracting to a level that allows unified mechanics to operate for everything, storygames often reduce challenges to mechanical operations, using metagame concepts.  They often force players to think outside the character's perspective in the world in the moment to resolve their hurdles using a mechanic contrived to fit a pre-established pattern ("Roll skill plus 2d6 plus attribute, 6 or less fails") rather than mechanics that fit the in-world physics of what has occurred.  Based on the setting and shared world, why should a 6 or less fail?  How does that mechanical operation simulate crossing a chasm?  Why are those odds appropriate to the chosen action?  None of these questions are answered by unified mechanics  So, while unified mechanics can be easier to learn, I feel like they also can abstract mechanics to the point where the mechanics are based in metagame concepts, rather than grow from the needs of the chosen action in that moment.

Elaborating on that thought ...

Unified mechanics (and abstractions too, for that matter), are useful when done well and always in danger of being pushed too far.  It's true in games.  It's true in software.  It's true in anything that uses a model or even a model-like thing in its design. 

In RPGs, because of all the reasons estar has listed, you can get away with a lot of mistakes with mechanics and abstractions, both too unified or not unified enough, too abstract or not abstract enough.  The rulings and the GM having some common sense can paper over a lot of trouble. Still, there's a point at which even that giant saving throw isn't enough to bail out the thing.

Not infrequently, the trouble starts when someone confuses mechanics and abstraction.  For example, I doubt anyone would advocate to change AD&D to use a different mechanic for each weapon attack.  Only swords get to use a d20 to hit.  We'll use 2d10 for axes.  And 2d8 for daggers.  And then we'll blend some of the assumption for the weapons vs armor chart into the dice chosen.  Though doing something like that would certainly be a way to make every group of weapons feel unique--and done well, might even incorporate some other interesting distinctions into the choices. Even done well, it would still have "issues", I'm sure.  Not least of which is requiring another column on the character sheet for each weapon so the players aren't expected to remember all the distinction.  Never mind the poor GM and the more inflated monster stat blocks.

Assume for a moment that OD&D had started that way.  Then AD&D comes along and unifies the attack on a d20.  It works, because it's about one thing (attacks) and the trade off in fancy details is probably worth it for all the nice things that come with some consistency. 

Then someone notices that the saving throws also use d20s.  So they assume that saving throws should work exactly the same as the attacks.  Two different abstractions, same underlying mechanics--on the surface.  But the "mechanic" is more than the d20.  It's the d20 and the modifiers and how it all connects to the rest of the system.  Maybe saving throws and attacks can be unified under the same mechanic.  Maybe not.  But if they can, you can bet it's going to change one or both in some way, possibly losing something in the translation.  Might still be worth it in that case, but it's not this supremely obvious thing that some people seem to think it is.  It's Chesterton's Fence.  Once you've fully understood both, then you are only now prepared to explore and possibly make a case for unification.  That case should include "what will be lost" in the unification.

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PM
You seem to be missing the fact that "Tabletop roleplaying" at this point IS an umbrella of distinct cultures and playstyles, and not a monolythic culture.

When I say tabletop roleplaying is about players playing characters interacting with a setting with their action adjudicated by a human referee. I am deliberately not describing any particular setting, type of interaction, or methods of adjudication.

Play cultures and playstyles are what people choose to do with the elements of tabletop roleplaying. What I describe and the slightly more elaborate procedure I outlined earlier is common to all tabletop roleplaying campaigns regardless of play culture, focus, or playstyle.

If it is not then that group is doing something different. Fun but different. Just as in the 70s tabletop roleplaying rapidly was perceived as something different than wargaming.

Now if you think the only requirement to be a tabletop roleplaying game is the mechanics focusing on individual characters then I disagree. There is a larger category of roleplaying games where that is true. But for what Pundit is talking about, what I have been talking about is not about the broad category of games that focus on individual characters.

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PM
Even forgetting Forge/storygames for a moment, it's undeniable that OSR runs on different assumptions than say, D&D 3E or Pathfinder. Same goes for Vampire or FATE or whatever. "Rulings over rules" is a very important principle for OSR but not so much for 3E or Pathfinder.

Just because rules are not required to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign doesn't imply a OSR style "Rulings over rules" is the correct way, the best way, or any other objectively positive adjective you want to tack on.

The designers of 3E and Pathfinder elected to create a system where rulings were rarely needed. The same with SJ Games, Hero Games, and many other designers and publishing company. That OK that as valid of a creative choice to run a tabletop campaign as one where you rely mostly on Rulings coupled with a minimal system.

However, I will note that there isn't a system designed that will cover everything a character can do within a setting. Both editions of Pathfinder don't cover all that you could do as a character within Golarion. They cover a great deal and certainly, the adventure paths Paizo is known for.

It is also a creative choice to decide as a group to limit what characters can do to what the rules cover. However, if a situation comes during a campaign that isn't covered the group shouldn't hesitate to come up with a ruling. And that is where I think the hobby's general attitude toward rules needs to change.

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PM
Having the social aspect covered by rules or at least good advice is almost mandatory for Vampire and WoD games as they're predicated on social conflict hapenning sooner or later, but that's not necessary for OSR, where it rarely (if ever) happens.

If you and your group feel the need to create or obtain the equivalent of GURPS Social Engineering to make the campaign by all means do so. I stated numerous times elsewhere that groups should think of something fun to play first, and then assemble the rules to make it happen.

Those rules exist in Vampire because the setting focuses a lot on the social interaction of different vampiric factions and the factions that exist in the larger World of Darkness. In contrast, I been aware of many Vampire and WoD campaigns that were run as Monsters with super powers, and the social rules all but ignored. Both seem to work equally well for various groups.

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PM
Damn, even pre-planned linear plots and illusionism finds cultures/playstyles where it's a positive, or at least not the end of the world, as most mystery games like CoC and Delta Green depend on pre-planned plots and clue placement. How about significant GM fiat as seen in diceless games like Amber? Etc, etc, etc.

Seem like different choices in how to adjudicate and different choices on how to interact with a setting.

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PMEach one of those points may be considered qualities or defects, depending on the culture one considers.

Yes but it doesn't change the fact that the core of what these different groups do is the same and what definite this hobby as distinct from other types of gaming.

You are looking at what divides the hobby as a whole. I am looking at what unites the hobby as a whole. The best part what I am saying is already baked into all these systems. GURPS won't break if you happened to make a bunch of rulings during a campaign. OD&D won't break if you add a detailed subsystem to handle trade and commerce or (gasp) combat. Might even get your own company and niche out of the effort (looking at you Iron Crown).

Quote from: zircher on June 01, 2023, 02:42:39 PM
Let me put on the devil's advocate hat for a minute or two...

In my practical experience, some story games have replayability.  For example, while someone may not use the same PbtA playbooks twice in a row, they can be customized enough to appear different when re-used by others.  Is that any different from classes in D&D?  Some games like Monsterhearts also have a stupendous number of fan made playbooks.  Uncharted Worlds had a strong classic Traveller vibe and has what it needs for campaign play.  Traveller itself offered fairly stagnant characters after generation so that is far from something new.

Yup, it's so obvious PbtA games present lots of variability through their playbooks, world creation, custom moves, etc. It makes me conclude that people arguing the contrary probably never actually played these games.

QuoteI also see a fair amount of focused indie stuff in the solo game community.  There is a tendency for lighter weight mechanics there.  Ironsworn and Starforged are PbtA powered and very popular for campaign play.  Me, Myself, and Die is a stellar example of that (season two used Ironsworn, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDvunq75UfH_Z92nrYPUsTO_fTHnLTNaT) Of course, there are folks that also use solo tools for traditional games like D&D or Call of Cthulhu.

True. Don't know the others, but Ironsworn is great.

QuoteHaving said all that.  I don't think the game system matters as much as is implied.  The demographics, the gamers themselves, have changed.  Even WotC has admitted that campaigns are much shorter than they used to be.  (The average being six sessions.)  So, I think the one-shot and mini-arc thing is actually a reflection of people's changes in desire, attention span, and commitment.  It could be argued that story games are a reaction to that and not a flaw at all.  Many traditional RPGs have great sprawling epic stories, but it takes years to get there and a lot story games offer a sweet and short path to get there.

Also 100% true.

(I think storygames already started their lives as one-shots and short campaigns though, so it was probably part of that gaming culture from the start)

Quote from: Zalman on June 01, 2023, 06:53:54 PM

Quote from: Vestragor on June 01, 2023, 08:30:50 AM

Quote from: Kahoona on June 01, 2023, 07:37:11 AM
There's normally more booths and sellers dedicated to Storygames then anything else at these conventions. And they tend to sell alot of product unless, they had the same product the previous year. In which case they are hard press to sell anything. On the other hand, other games tend to have fewer sales but will still sell the same products the following year.

This is normal, considering what they're selling. Would you buy twice the same campaign setting, especially after having played it already ?
Storygames are little more than ready to play single campaigns with integrated rules that allow for very little variance in play and effectively zero replay value.

The people buying the same games the next year aren't the same people, and that's the point. The poster is seeing OSR games maintain a long tail of new players, while storygames flash in the pan and are gone.

Aye, this was the point I was making. OSR and other games continue to be sold, but these Storygames have a splash then die off it feels like.

Quote from: estar on June 02, 2023, 04:06:47 PM

Quote from: Itachi on June 02, 2023, 03:09:36 PMEach one of those points may be considered qualities or defects, depending on the culture one considers.

Yes but it doesn't change the fact that the core of what these different groups do is the same and what define this hobby as distinct from other types of gaming.

Sure, in no moment I denied the existence of that core activity. But then, that core doesn't tell the whole story, does it? See this very thread: full of people ditching each other styles/cultures for details that go beyond that core. "PbtA is shit because it lacks long campaigns" or "3E/4E is shit because it's too rules-driven" or "OSR is shit because it just regurgitates old D&D", etc. which completely miss the mark when we realize the fanbases for those are doing totally fine. And they're fine because PbtA players don't care about long campaigns, OSR players don't care about every new game being a variant of OD&D, and Vampire players don't care if new editions come with wonky combat, as those elements are not indicative of quality for their cultures.

The correct question should be: What do the gamers who play those specific games, and the authors who create them, think their big mistakes are?