TheRPGSite

Quote from: Ian JohnsonI like game design more than I like actually playing games. Most of what I write these days is cute math tricks or interesting modular subsystems or investigating game mechanics. (Hack & Slash blog (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-osr-new-wave-ian-johnson.html))

*sigh*

Well, I wouldn't give a proportion of games that suck versus those that don't - there IS a lot of cool stuff out there, after all - but I imagine this is indeed one of the major reasons why some game products out there really do suck: because their "authors" are into wanking about stuff in theory, and not really that interested in playing games.

Ditto the wanna-be novelist using RPGs as a substitute venue for fiction writing and composition.

Maybe stop buying games that haven't been playtested then, champ.

Quote from: Benoist;689779Well, I wouldn't give a proportion of games that suck versus those that don't - there IS a lot of cool stuff out there, after all - but I imagine this is indeed one of the major reasons why some game products out there really do suck: because their "authors" are into wanking about stuff in theory, and not really that interested in playing games.

Ditto the failed/wishful novelist using RPGs as a substitute venue for writing, as well.

For every 100 cool ideas and design theories I have, only about 5 make it past a few sessions of game play into the actual design.

One of my biggest faults is that I start coming up with rules for a million different scenarios, and the reality is that unless you're obsessive compulsive or something similar, no one enjoys the slowdown that accompanies that stuff.

Such is life.

Playtesting with as large a variety of gamers as possible is King.



Listening to the playtesters feedback is useful too.



"La La La my game mechanics are perfect" is not good.

Quote from: The Traveller;689780Maybe stop buying games that haven't been playtested then, champ.

"Playtested" is meaningless. If the designer plays it with his/her regular group then the game has been "playtested."

Good external playtesting is another matter. The ease of self publishing these days is the reason we get so much untested material. Publishing a pdf is cheap,and what can be obtained on the cheap isn't as carefully thought out as something requiring a major investment to get in print.

After all, if it costs next to nothing to publish, who cares how many people buy it?

Quote from: Bill;689783Playtesting with as large a variety of gamers as possible is King.

Listening to the playtesters feedback is useful too.

"La La La my game mechanics are perfect" is not good.

Yes, but none of this replaces a personal love of games, a personal practice in playing games, and a particular aim at creating things which are meant to be played by others, first. If you don't like or don't care for gaming, the activity, the actual act of playing games, you can theorize all you want, playtest all you want, your end result is still going to suck, because the buck ultimately stops with you.

It sounds like a truism, but you'd be amazed how many game designers don't play games.

Shrug.  If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can.  The only thing I don't grant them the right to do is bitch that nobody buys their game.

Quote from: Benoist;689788Yes, but none of this replaces a personal love of games, a personal practice in playing games, and a particular aim at creating things which are meant to be played by others, first. If you don't like or don't care for gaming, the activity, the actual act of playing games, you can theorize all you want, playtest all you want, your end result is still going to suck, because the buck ultimately stops with you.

It sounds like a truism, but you'd be amazed how many game designers don't play games.

I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

I don't think playtesting guarantees a good game. Certainly, the fact that Game A has been playtested more than Game B is no guarantee that Game A doesn't suck, for many reasons; but the reason that matters in particular, in the context of this thread, is: you can test a bunch of mechanics and guarantee that they work fine and perhaps even efficiently at the table, but that doesn't mean the kinds of things that happen in the game are enjoyable.

A playtest group -- internal or external -- may enjoy the fact that they're part of a playtest, enjoy each other's company while playtesting, enjoy the challenge the game presents, enjoy the clever way the mechanics produce results, and enjoy the general concept of a game. But they might not report the fact that most of the non-mechanical substance of the game just isn't that interesting. There might not be enough entertaining ideas in the game to make it worth playing if you aren't a playtester. Or the ideas might not have a broad appeal.

Quote from: Bill;689797I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

Based on the number of theorywankers who post online and argue about rules who don't actually play, it shouldn't be surprising.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;689802Based on the number of theorywankers who post online and argue about rules who don't actually play, it shouldn't be surprising.

Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

Quote from: Bill;689804Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

Easy:

-They will regard the rules as the game.

-All examples will assume that if something CAN be done via the rules then it will always be done to the absurd extreme.

- will express a love for playing rpgs but hate the very idea of a GM running the game instead of a ruleset

- numerous white room ruleswanking theories involving shit that wouldn't come up or be tolerated by other people in an actual social setting.

Quote from: Bill;689797I admit, it does surprise me that a non gamer would want to design a game.

I don't think he said he wasn't a gamer, just that he preferred to design games. Which, when you think about it, is probably the kind of person that should be designing games. If they're also good at it, the games will succeed. Car designers probably spend more time designing cars than driving them, movie makers probably spend more time making movies than watching them.

Quote from: talysman;689799I don't think playtesting guarantees a good game.

Which is away from the question of what a good game actually is. This classic Black Vulmea troll thread doesn't lay out any definitions either, only wanting to stir things up. Because as usual the closer you look at it, the less sense it makes.

A good game for you might be a bad game for me, and vice versa.

Quote from: Bill;689804Well, you are probably right, but how do you know someone does not play?

It generally seems to come down to whether or not you agree with them, or possibly just don't like them. I think someone did up a 'standard RPGsite thread' thread, a feat of metaposting which mentioned the regularity with which the accusation surfaces. With that said I can think of one example where the poster was definetely a non gamer, that was Mr GC. He'd obviously read the books but everything else was lifted directly from MMORPGs like WoW. I mean it was scary when you realise what was going on, I've no idea what he thought he was doing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;689790If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can.

Sure, but that makes him a jerk-off, not a game designer.

I think stupid dice tricks (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/10/stupid-dice-tricks.html) become an end in themselves, 'a solution in search of a problem.' That said, there is an undeniable market of gamers who love stupid dice tricks.

Ian likes the 'toy' aspect of design, messing with stuff, and screwing around with funky subsystems.  Don't confuse that with "doesn't game".  I've played in his campaign, and he's played in mine; he's not a 'Bitter Non-Gamer' or whatever.

Of course no amount of playtesting makes a "good" game because that's entirely subjective.  When designing a game, you have a good idea on the theme and feel of the game.  For example, when I design games, I am very much pro "adjust/remove/add rules that makes the experience funner for your group."  I view rules as guidelines.  I am also very much pro "you make the call" for GMs.

For someone who absolutely needs firm rules in their game with no GM fiat, they will think my game sucks no matter how much I've play tested it.  Or if I design an adventure to be fast, quick, with little GM prep (sort of like a one-shot adventure you can just open up and play), then I have an intention of understanding it will be fairly linear.  If someone doesn't like linear adventures, they will think it sucks, regardless of the context in which it was designed.

There are probably people here now who have played more than Gygax or Arneson did when they started codifying D&D. Personally, I think people write crappy games because they're just bad at writing games. It's not like writing a good game with mass appeal is some easy thing everyone should be able to do.

Quote from: VectorSigma;689822Don't confuse that with "doesn't game".  I've played in his campaign, and he's played in mine; he's not a 'Bitter Non-Gamer' or whatever.

Yes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;689823Of course no amount of playtesting makes a "good" game because that's entirely subjective.  

Yes.

Quote from: beejazz;689824Personally, I think people write crappy games because they're just bad at writing games.

Yes!

YHBT HAND.

Quote from: Old Geezer;689790If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can.

Somebody who is the real deal in hardcore "math tricks", is probably better off being a mathematician writing original research papers and publishing them in referred math journals.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689777*sigh*

Not a fan of Stab City? What was your experience when you played it?

Surely you played it before critiquing the author for writing bad games due to not playing them, right?

Quote from: ggroy;689832Somebody who is the real deal in hardcore "math tricks", is probably better off being a mathematician writing original research papers and publishing them in referred math journals.

:rolleyes:

Foolish Reiner Knizia, raking that fat Lego board games dough.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;689809Easy:

-They will regard the rules as the game.

-All examples will assume that if something CAN be done via the rules then it will always be done to the absurd extreme.

- will express a love for playing rpgs but hate the very idea of a GM running the game instead of a ruleset

- numerous white room ruleswanking theories involving shit that wouldn't come up or be tolerated by other people in an actual social setting.

OP, this why so many games suck, question answered. This is why we can't have nice things ^_^

I don't know about you guys but I'd really like it if people who are writing rulebooks cared about rules. 'cause rules are the part of the game I'm paying them actual money for ;3

I don't know if "regards the rules as the game" means the person is a non-gamer, but they have a very different view of games from me.  In many games, not just RPGs, huge, important areas of the game are not covered in the rules at all.  Two that come instantly to mind are bluffing in poker, and strategy in chess.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689777*sigh*

Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

I'd hate to think that my comment about spending more time designing than playing is an indictment of my abilities to make a game. The fact is, it's a lot easier for me to set up probability worksheets and write design theories on my laptop at home every day than it is for me to get my friends over to test things every time I have an idea. Don't think that this means I don't believe in play testing - I actually think play testing is a huge part of designing any game. I also feel that running it for my home group certainly isn't enough - I've had open play tests on G+, and I've run it for some of my friend's RPG groups as well. Heck, my hope is that I'll get feedback from backers of the Kickstarter once I mail out the play test episode, because the further divorced from the play test I am, the better the feedback I'll get.

Do I like mechanics? Heck yeah. The mechanisms and framework of a rule system can, in my experience, drastically change the way a game plays out. Just something as significant as change from GP=XP to XP for defeating monsters has really changed the way people play Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. There is obviously a lot more to games than the numbers and math behind them, but I think I've got a talent for that particular aspect of game design, and it's a fun hobby for me.

If you just don't like Stab City! because it's not the kind of game you play, hey man, that's totally fine. I like ketchup on my eggs, but I'm not going to get mad when someone orders breakfast different. There are all sorts of genres of games, and if I'm assuming correctly that you like old school trad games, then hey, we've got that in common. I just feel like life is too short to get stuck playing the same thing over and over. I've got Mentzer basic on my shelf right next to the box set for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3e, which itself is sitting next to my collection of old Wraith: The Oblivion books. I just happened to write this particular book this particular way, and hopefully people who like this sort of game will like it.

Anyway, I'm sorry for destroying the hobby or jerking off to numbers (is there a name for that fetish?) Maybe once Stab City! comes out, why don't you take a look at it and send me a review? I always enjoy hearing differing opinions on game design, and I love arguing about the correct way to play elfgames.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

I'd hate to think that my comment about spending more time designing than playing is an indictment of my abilities to make a game.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Black Vulmea is a well known troll. Welcome to theRPGsite and I'd be personally delighted if you'd join in a few of the threads hereabouts, they could use the touch of any man or woman versed in the arcane arts of game design!

Quote from: Mistwell;689833Not a fan of Stab City?

I said absolutely nothing about Stab City.

I commented on an attitude toward game design that I think leads to crap games. Stab City may or may not be one of those games, but whether it is or not is, to me, irrelevant to the larger point, that, in my experience, so-called game designers who are more interested in "cute math tricks" tend to produce boring games.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs.

I just want you to know that that's where I stopped reading your post.

If you want to climb down from that cross you built, we'll talk.

Quote from: Cheneybeast a.k.a. Ian JohnsonI don't like playing with the people who like simulationist, really immersive games. The kind of people who remind other players that they can't talk because their characters are in different rooms, or are unconscious, that sort of thing. Dude, shut up, it's a stupid game where we are pretending to be elves. Who cares about that stuff? It destroys the harmony of the social experience that is RPGs, and I won't stand for anyone doing things that ruins other peoples fun in my games.

Do you not get the supreme irony of you saying "I won't stand for anyone doing things that ruins other peoples fun" in that passage?

You have just basically insisted that people should be free to ignore basic believability about which characters are able to talk to the others. Do you understand that that could break someone's suspension of disbelief and thus ruin their fun? (Obviously, depending on the exact circumstances - it would have to be obviously in-character chatter when it was obviously impossible for it to happen.)

If you want to insist that the experience be non-immersive, or at least only lightly immersive, and that people have the right to remind each other in all sorts of ways that it's "just a stupid game", then you are insisting on the right to ruin immersive players' fun.

Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - it's your game, your group, you run things how you want to. But don't then turn around and justify it by saying that people mustn't ruin other people's fun. What you mean is "people who don't game the way I do mustn't ruin the fun of people who do game the way I do". Say that instead.

Because if you're imagining that these immersive gamers just "pull those stunts to bring people down a peg or two as a power trip", then you're showing a severe lack of imagination in the empathy department. And remember, it only destroys the social harmony of the experience if it runs counter to the group dynamic, or, to use that awful phrase beloved of Forge-fans, the "social contract". In a room full of players committed to the playstyle you detest, obviously it's not going to ruin the harmony of anyone's experience. That's just people enforcing their own social dynamic (or "social contract", if you must).

Welcome to the RPG Site. But please drop the GNS lingo. "Simulationist", "system matters", even "elegant", it's all bullshit jargon. It will brainwash you, turn you into a zombie and make you hunger for brains.

Thanks :D

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

I'd hate to think that my comment about spending more time designing than playing is an indictment of my abilities to make a game. The fact is, it's a lot easier for me to set up probability worksheets and write design theories on my laptop at home every day than it is for me to get my friends over to test things every time I have an idea. Don't think that this means I don't believe in play testing - I actually think play testing is a huge part of designing any game. I also feel that running it for my home group certainly isn't enough - I've had open play tests on G+, and I've run it for some of my friend's RPG groups as well. Heck, my hope is that I'll get feedback from backers of the Kickstarter once I mail out the play test episode, because the further divorced from the play test I am, the better the feedback I'll get.

Do I like mechanics? Heck yeah. The mechanisms and framework of a rule system can, in my experience, drastically change the way a game plays out. Just something as significant as change from GP=XP to XP for defeating monsters has really changed the way people play Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. There is obviously a lot more to games than the numbers and math behind them, but I think I've got a talent for that particular aspect of game design, and it's a fun hobby for me.

If you just don't like Stab City! because it's not the kind of game you play, hey man, that's totally fine. I like ketchup on my eggs, but I'm not going to get mad when someone orders breakfast different. There are all sorts of genres of games, and if I'm assuming correctly that you like old school trad games, then hey, we've got that in common. I just feel like life is too short to get stuck playing the same thing over and over. I've got Mentzer basic on my shelf right next to the box set for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3e, which itself is sitting next to my collection of old Wraith: The Oblivion books. I just happened to write this particular book this particular way, and hopefully people who like this sort of game will like it.

Anyway, I'm sorry for destroying the hobby or jerking off to numbers (is there a name for that fetish?) Maybe once Stab City! comes out, why don't you take a look at it and send me a review? I always enjoy hearing differing opinions on game design, and I love arguing about the correct way to play elfgames.

Welcome to the Grand Temple of the OneTrueWay. Now run like hell!

You have been warned.

This thread has the potential to be one of the RPGSite-i-est threads.

We've got Black Vulmea already on the noble counter-defensive, and Omnifray talking about...whatever it is Omnifray talks about.

BV, I think your general point in the OP about "designers who are primarily math-masturbators" is fair, but introducing it with the quote from Ian has perhaps made some folks think your intent with the conversation is more specific than intended.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;689869Welcome to the Grand Temple of the OneTrueWay.

Right. Because nowhere else on the Internet is there OneTrueWay, and no other clique of gamers has OneTrueWay it propounds.

In particular, Cheneybeast/Ian Johnson, in the interview I quoted from 3 posts up, where he says in effect that the only acceptable way to play games is to let players talk as their unconscious characters / characters in different rooms, he's not indulging in any kind of OneTrueWay elitism at all. Sure.

Quote from: Omnifray;689873Right. Because nowhere else on the Internet is there OneTrueWay, and no other clique of gamers has OneTrueWay it propounds.

In particular, Cheneybeast/Ian Johnson, in the interview I quoted from 3 posts up, where he says in effect that the only acceptable way to play games is to let players talk as their unconscious characters / characters in different rooms, he's not indulging in any kind of OneTrueWay elitism at all. Sure.

"MY One True Way is the CORRECT One True Way.  YOUR One True Way is a FALSE One True way and must be destroyed!"



Now ALL of you git offa my lawn!

Well I've GMed a fuck ton of games for Ian and he's a fantastic roleplayer. So don't worry your pretty little heads too much.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851The fact is, it's a lot easier for me to set up probability worksheets and write design theories on my laptop at home every day than it is for me to get my friends over to test things every time I have an idea. .

I can relate to this.  Just about every day at work on a conference call that I don't have to pay attention to, I'm working on game design ;)

Can't exactly do actual gaming then though.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689855I just want you to know that that's where I stopped reading your post.

If you want to climb down from that cross you built, we'll talk.

In all fairness, you put him there yourself with the first post.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

Imma chime and join the voices strongly suggesting you not post here.

'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689878Imma chime and join the voices strongly suggesting you not post here.

'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

Wow.  This post is full of irony.  Complaining about people being dismissive of others in the same sentence as dismissing them yourself with comments like "neckbeard."  Good job on that.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689878Imma chime and join the voices strongly suggesting you not post here.

'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

Fuck off then, you little shit.

You add A - Little or B - Nothing to this place other than annoyance.

You're almost certainly A - A sock-puppet of a previously banned Denner or B - A new Denner with your head up your arse.

Oh, and the first sentence again.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689878Imma chime and join the voices strongly suggesting you not post here.

'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

* pisses on gamerGoyf's head *

Quote from: One Horse Town;689880Fuck off then, you little shit.

You add A - Little or B - Nothing to this place other than annoyance.

You're almost certainly A - A sock-puppet of a previously banned Denner or B - A new Denner with your head up your arse.

Oh, and the first sentence again.

You are, after all, referring to the creature that started a thread on "How do I not get banned at RPGnet," and then ignored all the advice and went there and started a thread that pretty much began with "You're a bunch of fuckwits" and wondered why he got banned.

Whether or not you like the place, that's a stupid way to start a thread.

It would help if game designers would bother to think in terms of playable space.

Rifts, for example, is a product line that can be (and has been, by me) explained as "many games sharing a brand identity" when talking to business-minded sorts.  This is because there are multiple playable spaces within that product line, each of which could be spun off into its own game (as we see, in reverse, with supplements such as The Mechanoids, where Siembieda took a stand-alone product line and integrated it into the Rifts brand).

With just the Coalition States alone you have a Post-Apocalyptic Vietnam game (a campaign focused upon Coalition Army infantry personnel--Grunts and Specialists--and their experiences directly fighting the enemies of the States), two distinct forms of Espionage games (the 24 model, using a lot of Dog Boys and Psi Stalkers vs. external threats; the Homeland/CSI/Criminal Minds/NCIS model, using Intelligence agents and (more or less) sanctioned telepaths vs. internal threats), and you have the Police (Gendarme, really) Procedural model in a less-than-civil environment as an alternative if you're not into the full-bore spy game.

Each of these subsets of the setting is a distinct--but not necessarily hard-bounded--game due to its possession of a clear space wherein one can discern a gameplay structure that is as easy to comprehend and execute as the dungeon crawl of D&D or the investigation of the unusual of CoC.  What, I think, contributes to the continued success of Rifts is that it contains so many playable spaces within its product line and brand identity and does not hard-wall them apart as some others do.

That said, not all playable spaces are equal. What works in passive media is not necessarily applicable to the tabletop RPG medium, which is a medium of active participation by the user and thus compels a completely different mode of thought from both user and maker.  Fiction centered around a unit whose primary playable activity vs. external challenges, such as a fighter squadron or a ship's crew, simply becomes boring as fuck in tabletop RPGs (which is why they are few, far between, and often best adapted as part of a ruined milieu as the Invid Invasion subset of Robotech shows) due to the significant--even severe--differences between those media; this makes such spaces not-so-playable, vs. the classic adventuring company (or mercenary company) of D&D and those games like them.

The best game designers, often in there own language, acknowledge that this is so and do their best to build their works around such playable spaces.

Quote from: One Horse Town;689880Fuck off then, you little shit.

You add A - Little or B - Nothing to this place other than annoyance.

You're almost certainly A - A sock-puppet of a previously banned Denner or B - A new Denner with your head up your arse.

Oh, and the first sentence again.

Personally my vote is for 'just discovered the dorm wifi is an alternative to having friends.'

This topic is shaping up to be a great example of too much theory and ego wank overtaking actual play.

Keep up the good work! :cheerleader:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689853I said absolutely nothing about Stab City.

OK, so you said "Why so many games suck", then you cited Ian's comment.  Ian wrote Stab City!, that's the only game I am aware of that would connect to your "Why so many games suck" comment.  If you didn't mean that game, and you meant games in general, then it would make no sense as you'd have to know Ian's game sucks to be able to say that Ian's comment is what leads to games sucking.  If Stab City! is awesome, that it immediately disproves your claim.  Which is something you'd want to know before making the comment you made - particularly given your comment is judging someone based on whether they play games.

So, if you didn't mean Stab City!, then your comment sucks.  You should have played Stab City! first, given the nature of your critique of his comment.

QuoteI commented on an attitude toward game design that I think leads to crap games. Stab City may or may not be one of those games, but whether it is or not is, to me, irrelevant to the larger point, that, in my experience, so-called game designers who are more interested in "cute math tricks" tend to produce boring games.

Yeah, that's a load of bullshit, it's absolutely relevant because you MADE it personal to Ian by naming him and relating it to him.  If "Game Designers who Say X" = "Games Suck", and Ian = "Game Designer Who Says X", then you're saying Ian's game sucks.

But you have not read Ian's game, much less played it.  You have no clue if his game sucks.

Therefore we can conclude from this that critics like yourself who make a bash on a particular named designer for his attitude, who have never even fucking laid a single eye on that game, suck.  That is, through and through, the logic of your post.

Seriously dude, that was a shitty thing you did.  I usually agree with your posts, but this one is embarrassing.  WTF were you thinking calling him out by name for not playing games when you never played his games? Now you just look like a hypocrite telling game designers to do as you say and not as you do - as you can't be bothered to even play a game whose designer you will gleefully bash for not playing a game.

Quote from: Mistwell;689892OK, so you said "Why so many games suck", then you cited Ian's comment.  Ian wrote Stab City!, that's the only game I am aware of that would connect to your "Why so many games suck" comment.  If you didn't mean that game, and you meant games in general, then it would make no sense as you'd have to know Ian's game sucks to be able to say that Ian's comment is what leads to games sucking.  If Stab City! is awesome, that it immediately disproves your claim.  Which is something you'd want to know before making the comment you made - particularly given your comment is judging someone based on whether they play games.

So, if you didn't mean Stab City!, then your comment sucks.  You should have played Stab City! first, given the nature of your critique of his comment.



Yeah, that's a load of bullshit, it's absolutely relevant because you MADE it personal to Ian by naming him and relating it to him.  If "Game Designers who Say X" = "Games Suck", and Ian = "Game Designer Who Says X", then you're saying Ian's game sucks.

But you have not read Ian's game, much less played it.  You have no clue if his game sucks.

Therefore we can conclude from this that critics like yourself who make a bash on a particular named designer for his attitude, who have never even fucking laid a single eye on that game, suck.  That is, through and through, the logic of your post.

Seriously dude, that was a shitty thing you did.  I usually agree with your posts, but this one is embarrassing.  WTF were you thinking calling him out by name for not playing games when you never played his games? Now you just look like a hypocrite telling game designers to do as you say and not as you do - as you can't be bothered to even play a game whose designer you will gleefully bash for not playing a game.

I'm gonna stick my pecker in the sausage grinder here because I obviously haven't learned better.

"I like game design more than I like actually playing games" is not a quotation that inspires ME with a whole lot of confidence either, actually.

Most of the outstanding game authors of my youth were gamers first and foremost and wrote games to get the kind of games they wanted to play.

The quotation above is like a fiction writer saying "I like writing better than I like reading."  It makes me suspicious as hell.

Grind away.

I think he meant something like:- "I love game-design, I live and breathe it, I love it more than anything else in the world, even more than I love playing games, which I actually do like doing, honest!"

It just doesn't necessarily come across that way to a bunch of curmudgeonly old reactionary sceptics. :p

But seriously, this thread is a complete trainwreck already. BV started it with a post quoting from a game-designer to illustrate the shitness of that designer's school of game design, and then claims that it wasn't casting aspersions on that game-designer's games? Well, that's not exactly the best-thought-out thread idea I've ever heard of. One ban already [ed. I thought it was a ban for gamerGoyf but apparently not?], and a new recruit to the site whose idea of the "worst player ever" is anyone deeply committed to immersion (or to what he calls "simulationism", which is not the same thing), and who thinks that such players are busy ruining people's fun all the time. And then a few accusations of OneTrueWayism, some whinging about theorywank plus some allusions to the usual diet of compulsory bitching and whining about that other RPG-related site with a big tangency section. And now even the usually placid Old Geezer is getting bitchy!

If we carry on like this, we might just end up reanimating the mercifully dead corpse of the Forge. How about a new thread about game-design rooted in practical experience instead?

0_0

Yeah looks like I fucked the dog there. I'd delete the offending post but several people already quoted it.

Quote from: J Arcane;689887'just discovered the dorm wifi is an alternative to having friends.'

Back in the day, the same type of individual probably would have spent all their time at the campus video arcade or playing the atari 2600 all day.  :banghead:

(ie. Away from anybody else).  :rolleyes:


These days, such individuals are harder to avoid.

I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience with RPG forums; I mostly stick to G+. Is TheRPGsite usually like this, or did I just get dragged into a particularly poor example of a thread?

Quote from: Omnifray;689898I think he meant something like:- "I love game-design, I live and breathe it, I love it more than anything else in the world, even more than I love playing games, which I actually do like doing, honest!"

It just doesn't necessarily come across that way to a bunch of curmudgeonly old reactionary sceptics. :p

That is, more or less, how I meant it. I probably should have been more clear, but admittedly I did that interview back in May, and didn't really expect anyone to actually care about an interview about a guy who doesn't use his blog much.

Quote from: Omnifray;689898a new recruit to the site whose idea of the "worst player ever" is anyone deeply committed to immersion (or to what he calls "simulationism", which is not the same thing), and who thinks that such players are busy ruining people's fun all the time

Immersion isn't my goal when I play, but I certainly believe it can be fun. There's a big difference between people who like immersive games and people who are dicks about it. We all have pet peeves in games, mine just happens to be people who take the game too seriously, and more specifically, people who are evangelical at the table about it.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689910Is TheRPGsite usually like this, or did I just get dragged into a particularly poor example of a thread?

Welcome to theRPGsite.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689910I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience with RPG forums; I mostly stick to G+. Is TheRPGsite usually like this, or did I just get dragged into a particularly poor example of a thread?

Yes.


Meaning this is an example of a train wreck thread, but we have train wrecks a lot, people just go to a different thread.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689912That is, more or less, how I meant it. I probably should have been more clear, but admittedly I did that interview back in May, and didn't really expect anyone to actually care about an interview about a guy who doesn't use his blog much.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689912Immersion isn't my goal when I play, but I certainly believe it can be fun. There's a big difference between people who like immersive games and people who are dicks about it. We all have pet peeves in games, mine just happens to be people who take the game too seriously, and more specifically, people who are evangelical at the table about it.

Well, I think "Don't be a dick about it" is a pretty good rule in general.  And of course there's a vast middle between "The room recedes into the background and I feel like I'm really there," (a claim I've seen elsewhere) and "Could we cut out the fucking Monty Python jokes for a MINUTE?"

This is actually a very good exemplar of threads on theRPGsite.  If this thread is closed, it'll be perfect.  

I enjoy game design at least as much as playing - probably more, because I can do it more.  I like to work on setting and rules in my spare time (which isn't as common as I'd like).  While I play weekly, I fully agree that it's easier to work on game design basically anytime rather than getting the gang together for a session.  In fact, we're likely to be skipping the next 2-4 weeks due to conflicting schedules.  But I'll be thinking about the game during the brief hiatus.  

Put some links in your sig for the game you've designed.  If Black Vulmea doesn't think he'll like it, it's worth checking out.

It's the price we all pay for the freedom to kvetch. Overall, it is well worth the price. Actually good ideas are hammered out here, probably due to the free flow of phlegm, blood, and bile. (Not as much lymph, but I think perhaps other websites wallow in their self-tortured misery better. We have room to improve!)

Quote from: VectorSigma;689872BV, I think your general point in the OP about "designers who are primarily math-masturbators" is fair . . .

Thank you for not reading more into what I quoted than what I quoted.

If I had anything to say - anything at all - about SC!, I'm more than capable of saying it, without the slightest degree of ambiguity.

Quote from: VectorSigma;689872. . . but introducing it with the quote from Ian has perhaps made some folks think your intent with the conversation is more specific than intended.

Not "some folks" - just [strike]Mistwell[/strike] Mangina, Queen of the Desert.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;689921Put some links in your sig for the game you've designed.  If Black Vulmea doesn't think he'll like it, it's worth checking out.

Oh wow, so I can be a shill, but on the DL? That's convenient.

Oh look I'm just posting casually don't bother looking down here or nuthin'
VVVVVV

Quote from: Sacrosanct;689879Wow.  This post is full of irony.  Complaining about people being dismissive of others in the same sentence as dismissing them yourself with comments like "neckbeard."  Good job on that.

That post is also a LITERAL quote of Frank Trollman running his mouth about the RPG Site (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=346163#346163) on the Den, without quotation marks. So either gG is a sock puppet of Frank, in which case that's pathetic, or he's such a fan of Frank he reads him and thinks he's some sort of absolute font of wisdom or something, which is just as pathetic.

Either way, . . . Yeah. That's pathetic.

I hadn't checked out the Gaming Den in a couple of years. Seems pretty quiet over there now. Lot of similar threads, some even with the same title as here. Is there a group of shills running around posting the same lame trolls/comments to a bunch of RPG forums just to boost the RPG traffic?

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689932Oh wow, so I can be a shill, but on the DL? That's convenient.

Oh look I'm just posting casually don't bother looking down here or nuthin'
VVVVVV

Dude, your game Kickstarter is a real turn-off. It looks like nothing new. It is gonzo for the sake of gonzo and uses a cutesy playing card mechanic.

Quote from: jeff37923;689939It is gonzo for the sake of gonzo and uses a cutesy playing card mechanic.

I'm pretty sure both of those things are rjght up-front in the description (as is the 'story game' moniker, which nobody's bothered to jump on yet).

I haven't played it yet, but I'm looking forward to giving it a try.  Looks fun for con games and quick pick-ups ("Everybody scrounge for a deck of cards while I stat up some Robot Nazis - we start the mission as soon as I finish this smoke.")

And I do like comedy games.  Which, c'mon, Stab City totally is.

But this thread is not (apparently) about Stab City per se.

Quote from: VectorSigma;689943I'm pretty sure both of those things are rjght up-front in the description (as is the 'story game' moniker, which nobody's bothered to jump on yet).

I haven't played it yet, but I'm looking forward to giving it a try.  Looks fun for con games and quick pick-ups ("Everybody scrounge for a deck of cards while I stat up some Robot Nazis - we start the mission as soon as I finish this smoke.")

And I do like comedy games.  Which, c'mon, Stab City totally is.

But this thread is not (apparently) about Stab City per se.

Meh. Feel free to like it. I'm just tired of the advertising schtick of, "My game is more gonzo than the next!" as a feature.

As far as cutesy mechanics go, it is totally about that. The whole playing card mechanic in Stab City! is cutesy. If you like novelty for the sake of novelty, then enjoy yourself. It turns me off.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689910I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience with RPG forums; I mostly stick to G+. Is TheRPGsite usually like this, or did I just get dragged into a particularly poor example of a thread?

We do occasional good work over on design and development. I've had good results getting feedback over there.

Quote from: beejazz;689948We do occasional good work over on design and development. I've had good results getting feedback over there.

Thanks for the suggestion, beejazz. I'll take a few to poke around over there.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689910I'll be honest, I don't have a lot of experience with RPG forums; I mostly stick to G+. Is TheRPGsite usually like this, or did I just get dragged into a particularly poor example of a thread?

While we are a hive of scum and villainy, I'd say you happened to walk in on the day when an unexpected shoot-out occurred that was bad enough to make the band stop playing and duck.

Quote from: VectorSigma;689943But this thread is not (apparently) about Stab City per se.

What it's about is games like MHR, which comes across to me as playing a hand of Yahtzee then telling a story about Spiderman.

As I noted in the linked post upthread, I understand the impulse, but I try to resist that impulse.

Quote from: Mistwell;689952While we are a hive of scum and villainy, I'd say you happened to walk in on the day when an unexpected shoot-out occurred that was bad enough to make the band stop playing and duck.

Oh fer fuck's sake, don't sugar-coat it. This is so typical the band returns fire instead of ducking.

Rough place.

Quote from: Mistwell;689952While we are a hive of scum and villainy, I'd say you happened to walk in on the day when an unexpected shoot-out occurred that was bad enough to make the band stop playing and duck.

Maybe you should have stuck with ENworld....

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;689956Oh fer fuck's sake, don't sugar-coat it. This is so typical the band returns fire instead of ducking.

Rough place.

If you want an emotionally safe environment, there's always tBP.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689878Imma chime and join the voices strongly suggesting you not post here.

'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

Except of course that this is also a site where any number of people not of that "dominant clique" post regularly and can do so without the clique getting to use moderation to control the discussion.  So all the "Dominant clique" get to do is be dismissive.

That would make it a better place to have this kind of discussion, I would think, as long as you're not a wuss who needs to hide behind consensus.

RPGPundit

Anyways, welcome to theRPGsite!

I wonder if some people here aren't having an understandable gut reaction to the interview title referring to your game as "new wave OSR".  But since you stated on G+ that you wouldn't refer to the game as such yourself, I take that as a good sign, at least.

As for the rest, I certainly don't know enough about the game to judge, though as a rule I'm not a big fan of gimmicky mechanics.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jeff37923;689958Maybe you should have stuck with ENworld....

Are you assuming that was a complaint, meathead? Shouldn't you have me back on your ignore list for the fourth time at this point?

Quote from: Mistwell;689966Are you assuming that was a complaint, meathead? Shouldn't you have me back on your ignore list for the fourth time at this point?

At least I got you to stop posting quotes from fucking ENworld. :p

Quote from: Exploderwizard;689786Good external playtesting is another matter.

Unfortunately, I've also found it to be virtually impossible. What inevitably happens is that you spend a massive chunk of time soliciting volunteers, organizing the volunteers, and then disseminating the material. (I've made several attempts in which this work actually chewed up more time than initially developing the material.)

And then you hear back from less than 5% of the volunteers you sent material to (which, in many cases, means that you hear back from literally nobody). Of those you do hear back from, 95% of them didn't actually play the game or scenario: They read it and now they're just theory-wanking or armchair quarterbacking.

I'm guessing that even companies like WotC and Paizo don't see percentages much different than that. They just have big enough numbers that they can occasionally get some useful feedback mixed in with the chaff.

I posted that article.

It is my fault that it wasn't posted back in May when the interview was done.

It was part of a series about "New Wave" OSR, i.e. those people who were A) Not grognards/players of the original edition(s), B) Not people who started blogging about it back in 2008-2010, but were instead: New creatives with no previous exposure to the old games, blogging and creating games in the OSR style. That is: using a DIY aesthetic focused on the actual play of the game.

The release of Stab City! sent me to look for where I had posted it, and I discovered I hadn't. So I went ahead and did.

I don't come here very much, and many of the comments in this thread remind me why I don't. Many of the responses to the rhodomentade in this thread would be trivially dismissed by a cursory examination of the series of article, or the kick-starter page of Stab City! itself.

Is this the thread where I should warn people of Alphonso Warden's adventure modules (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=543801&postcount=17)?

Quote from: Melan;689977Is this the thread where I should warn people of Alphonso Warden's adventure modules (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=543801&postcount=17)?

Yes. I believe you just did, matter of fact. ;)

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689878'cause TheRPGSite is a reactionary forum. The dominate clique are convinced that everything anyone talks about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who  share their neckbeardy ways. 'cause they're projecting and almost everything they talk about is a dismissive attempt to belittle people who don't share their neckbeardy ways.

Huh?  Think so?  

I signed up for this site a week or so ago.  As a staunch GURPS fan and D&D-hater, I'm swimming against the tide here; most of the posters seem to be D&D players.  Nonetheless, on a forum with much lighter moderation than I'm used to seeing, I've run into very little jeering, and a good number of people who disagree with me but do so civilly and with a modicum of tolerance.  That works for me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689777*sigh*

Great. So you created a stupid fucking thread, purely for the sake of trolling someone who dares to like designing games more than playing them. Was that really necessary? I mean we can't have more people having "badwrongfun" now, can we?

Quote from: BenoistWell, I wouldn't give a proportion of games that suck versus those that don't - there IS a lot of cool stuff out there, after all - but I imagine this is indeed one of the major reasons why some game products out there really do suck: because their "authors" are into wanking about stuff in theory, and not really that interested in playing games.

Ditto the wanna-be novelist using RPGs as a substitute venue for fiction writing and composition.

Gary Gygax wrote novels, and he had tons of flavor text in his rpg books. Maybe he was a "wanna-be novelist" too? Never mind; don't answer that...

Quote from: BillPlaytesting with as large a variety of gamers as possible is King.

Listening to the playtesters feedback is useful too.

"La La La my game mechanics are perfect" is not good.

Quote from: BenoistYes, but none of this replaces a personal love of games, a personal practice in playing games, and a particular aim at creating things which are meant to be played by others, first. If you don't like or don't care for gaming, the activity, the actual act of playing games, you can theorize all you want, playtest all you want, your end result is still going to suck, because the buck ultimately stops with you.

It sounds like a truism, but you'd be amazed how many game designers don't play games.

Maybe, but there's no evidence that Ian doesn't play games. In fact, it sounds like he does play games....therefore, Black Vulmea was just engaging in some trollish bullshit, as usual.

Quote from: Old GeezerShrug. If somebody wants to jerk off to math tricks they can. The only thing I don't grant them the right to do is bitch that nobody buys their game.

Games use rules. Even the games that Gygax created were designed via Gygax "jerking off to math tricks". The difference is that he did not so easily verbalize the mathematical processes that he used. That's it.

This thread's just classic. It's got just about everything covered. OTOH, it's entertaining!

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689988So you created a stupid fucking thread, purely for the sake of trolling someone . . .

Yes, Lambchop, all disagreement is trolling. Well done.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689988. . . who dares to like designing games more than playing them.

Did you miss the sentence that followed that one, or did you deliberately ignore the context?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689992Yes, Lambchop, all disagreement is trolling. Well done.

:mad:

Quote from: Black VulmeaDid you miss the sentence that followed that one, or did you deliberately ignore the context?

I didn't miss it. Note that he never said anything about not liking games or not playing games. In fact, it seems that he still does play games. So again, what was the point of this ridiculous clusterfuck of a thread?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689994So again, what was the point of this ridiculous clusterfuck of a thread?

Asked and answered several times by a number of posters already.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689995Asked and answered several times by a number of posters already.

....what?

But I'm asking you, not them. You are the one who created this semi-trainwreck of a thread. It's a fair request, don't you think? :cool:

Quote from: Benoist;689936That post is also a LITERAL quote of Frank Trollman running his mouth about the RPG Site (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=346163#346163) on the Den, without quotation marks. So either gG is a sock puppet of Frank, in which case that's pathetic, or he's such a fan of Frank he reads him and thinks he's some sort of absolute font of wisdom or something, which is just as pathetic.

Either way, . . . Yeah. That's pathetic.

The problem here....

....is that Frank Trollman is right.

This is a reactionary forum. It was initially created as a reaction against rpgnet. Now....therpgsite may have partially evolved beyond that, but we cannot escape that simple truth.....especially since we still bitch about rpgnet every chance we can get.

Furthermore, this place has become increasingly reactive against the very idea of game design. Or to be more precise, people here have been freaking out when other people do a breakdown on how various game mechanics actually fucking work. That's insane.

Seriously...think about it. Many of you have been having a shitfit over other people doing mathematical exercises using rules for D&D. But you can't have a functional D&D game without math, just like you can't have a functional car without an engine.

And with all the bitching lately about both 3e and 4e, it seems like this place is damning itself with a staggering lack of understanding about how or why so many other people play roleplaying games. It's becoming like fucking Dragonsfoot Part 2. I see much more "onetruewayism" here now than I did a couple years ago, and I don't like it one bit.

Trollman is also sadly right about the whole "Magic Tea Party" thing (although I hate that fucking term, and want it to die in a fire). Games require a basic framework of rules, and those rules should absolutely make sense and have a purpose. It is the game designer's job to iron out these rules ahead of time. If a rule can't be quickly and logically explained, then we have a problem. If we must constantly houserule to make simple shit work, then we have an even bigger problem.

And please do not say, "the rules are not the game". It's a retarded statement. That's like saying, "the engine is not the car"....and thus, it remains an utterly pointless thing to say.

Just say that you prefer more modular games that allow you to houserule more easily, and leave it at that. :cool:

Well, I went and actually read that interview... :pundit:

Cliché hipster elitist is cliché.

C'mon, I'm from SF bay area, give me more! Your gonzo is banal; you're trying too hard.

*sigh*
I wasted precious C-SPAN time. Back to my salted lemon juice seltzer.

Some people only buy games that have gloss paper and breasts.  Some people only want anime art in their books.  Then someone thinks a cool RPG can be designed for those illustrations.  Buyers think how cool it will be to generate a character from a cartoon or from a comic poster.

There will always be someone to buy such RPGs.  Then dumb-down the splat books for it.  Eventually, buyers will look elsewhere for an RPG.  Rinse/repeat.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690003This is a reactionary forum. It was initially created as a reaction against rpgnet. Now....therpgsite may have partially evolved beyond that, but we cannot escape that simple truth.....especially since we still bitch about rpgnet every chance we can get.

Actually the forum began as a forum then the Pundit bought it and started shouting about stuff he didn't like. And yet you can call him a bollocks to his virtual face and not get banned. Try that elsewhere and see how far you get.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690003Furthermore, this place has become increasingly reactive against the very idea of game design. Or to be more precise, people here have been freaking out when other people do a breakdown on how various game mechanics actually fucking work. That's insane.

This is complete nonsense. I have two seperate threads on the front page about mechanics, one with mechanics in the title, and they've received a lot of positive and interesting responses. Go read them yourself, join in even. There's also a seperate area dedicated entirely to game design, which sees a good bit of traffic.

This is a troll thread where every initial claim has been shown to be either wrong or meaningless, don't read too much into it.

Oh, I dunno, it's a quote that encapsulates a lot of the ennui amid modern design.

Reading broader into the post seems unnecessary. It rather speaks for itself with just a title, quote, and a sigh. But everyone has been rather vigorous whipping it into a froth beyond its beginning volume. There must be quite a bit of latent cooking talent here...
:rolleyes:

Quote from: The Traveller;690006Actually the forum began as a forum then the Pundit bought it and started shouting about stuff he didn't like. And yet you can call him a bollocks to his virtual face and not get banned. Try that elsewhere and see how far you get.

Yes, it used to be Nutkinland. But when this place changed hands (and became Pundit's), it became a reaction against rpgnet. We're rising above that, but we're not completely there yet.

Quote from: The TravellerThis is complete nonsense. I have two seperate threads on the front page about mechanics, one with mechanics in the title, and they've received a lot of positive and interesting responses. Go read them yourself, join in even. There's also a seperate area dedicated entirely to game design, which sees a good bit of traffic.

This is a troll thread where every initial claim has been shown to be either wrong or meaningless, don't read too much into it.

I haven't read those threads, so I can't comment on that. However, I'm talking about people on other forums doing min-maxing discussions using the rules of 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4.x....and people here are whining about that.

I say...let people min-max the shit out of these games, because it lets us find any glaring holes in the rules.

When I first started playing 3e, I didn't know that Toughness was such a shitty feat. I didn't know how horribly weak a 3.x Fighter was compared to a competent 3.x Cleric, Druid, or Wizard. It's good to know these things.

Some people will bleat that these theoretical min-max exercises are missing the entire point of the game. I disagree. The truth is....these types of mathematical exercises can help make it easier for a game setting to make sense, and prevent some classes from being rendered useless. So while I'm not particularly excited by the min-max discussions myself, I do believe they have their place in D&D.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690015I haven't read those threads, so I can't comment on that. However, I'm talking about people on other forums doing min-maxing discussions using the rules of 3.5, Pathfinder, or 4.x....and people here are whining about that.

I say...let people min-max the shit out of these games, because it lets us find any glaring holes in the rules.

When I first started playing 3e, I didn't know that Toughness was such a shitty feat. I didn't know how horribly weak a 3.x Fighter was compared to a competent 3.x Cleric, Druid, or Wizard. It's good to know these things.

Some people will bleat that these theoretical min-max exercises are missing the entire point of the game. I disagree. The truth is....these types of mathematical exercises can help make it easier for a game setting to make sense, and prevent some classes from being rendered useless. So while I'm not particularly excited by the min-max discussions myself, I do believe they have their place in D&D.

A D&D thread anywhere becomes a shitstorm the instant invisible edition warrior lines get crossed. Bitter tears of nerdrage are shed, weighty tomes clasped to breasts, all sorts of nonsense better suited to a child's tantrum is not ignored but held as the standard.

Big difference between that and this place being against mechanical or theoretical discussion. It really isn't.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690003This is a reactionary forum. It was initially created as a reaction against rpgnet.

That is not what 'Reactionary' means.

Quote from: Mistwell;689952While we are a hive of scum and villainy, I'd say you happened to walk in on the day when an unexpected shoot-out occurred that was bad enough to make the band stop playing and duck.

Or a punk rock band continuing to play, with the lead vocalist adding more fuel to the fire by egging on the crowd.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: jadrax;690017That is not what 'Reactionary' means.

Then please enlighten me. I'm not being sarcastic here, but would like to know what detail I'm missing.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690043Then please enlighten me. I'm not being sarcastic here, but would like to know what detail I'm missing.

The point.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690043Then please enlighten me. I'm not being sarcastic here, but would like to know what detail I'm missing.

The Wikipedia  page should give you a basic grounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689996But I'm asking you, not them.

Again, asked and answered.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689816I think stupid dice tricks (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/10/stupid-dice-tricks.html) become an end in themselves, 'a solution in search of a problem.' That said, there is an undeniable market of gamers who love stupid dice tricks.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689853I commented on an attitude toward game design that I think leads to crap games. Stab City may or may not be one of those games, but whether it is or not is, to me, irrelevant to the larger point, that, in my experience, so-called game designers who are more interested in "cute math tricks" tend to produce boring games.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689955What it's about is games like MHR, which comes across to me as playing a hand of Yahtzee then telling a story about Spiderman.

As I noted in the linked post upthread, I understand the impulse, but I try to resist that impulse.

Pay attention.

In the interest of being more constructive Black Vumea is totally right. Making you dice system more complicated is bad design. If you can't understand why that is you have no business designing games, end of story -_-

Stupid dice tricks is one of the things that tick me off.

I can see the point of trying to pack more information into a dice roll; I've tried that, myself. And I understand the origins of the practice: back when the first competitors to D&D came out, some designers thought that, to avoid infringing on D&D or other games, they had to be as different as possible, and they usually focused their efforts on doing the dice differently. It just became a bad habit. Now, every time someone comes up with a new game idea, the first thing they think about is "what kind of dice mechanic can I come up with?"

But honestly, almost all the good dice mechanics were invented before RPGs even existed. There's really no point in coming up with a new mechanic; dice mechanics are the least important part of the game. The important part is the rules structure around the dice mechanic (and also around the scoring mechanic and the character generation rules, which are also trivial.)

Not "what do I roll?" or "what can I do with my dice after I roll?" but "when do I roll?" and "what are the effects of my action?"

Quote from: gamerGoyf;690074In the interest of being more constructive Black Vumea is totally right. Making you dice system more complicated is bad design. If you can't understand why that is you have no business designing games, end of story -_-

No, not end of story.  Once again, it comes down to the scope of your game you're designing.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;690074In the interest of being more constructive Black Vumea is totally right. Making you dice system more complicated[Than it needs to be] is bad design. If you can't understand why that is you have no business designing games, end of story -_-

Bolded part added for emphasis.

An unusual die mechanic usually means a shitty game when the mechanic is developed first and the rest of the game packed around that mechanic to support it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690079Bolded part added for emphasis.

An unusual die mechanic usually means a shitty game when the mechanic is developed first and the rest of the game packed around that mechanic to support it.

In principle, I think that design processes can and should go back and forth - with the setting sometimes informing the mechanics, and sometimes the mechanics informing the setting.  In the end, they both should support each other.  

That said, I definitely agree there are gimmicky mechanics.  This is how I feel about the One Roll Engine, for example.  

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689932Oh wow, so I can be a shill, but on the DL? That's convenient.

Oh look I'm just posting casually don't bother looking down here or nuthin'
VVVVVV

OK, so I briefly checked it out - but it seems to me like there is a disconnect between the mechanics and the fiction.  What is the grid of zones with no diagonal connections supposed to represent, even in the abstract sense?  Is there anything you're trying to convey?

Quote from: Ravenswing;689987...As a staunch GURPS fan and D&D-hater...

I am a big GURPS 4e fan. :-) I also don't like D&D in it's classic or even new presentations. I've tried everything but D&D as designed is not fun for me. We're currently playing Novus for a lighter, D&D-esque game that's NOT D&D and it ticks all the right D&D buttons for me without being annoying.

[On Topic] I agree with the general assessment; stupid dice tricks generally detract from the games I like to play/run. I've heard some good things about Star Wars but my close friends who tried it out at Gen Con found it overly complicated. Personally I like things more "traditional" with things like levels-of-success, critical hits/fumbles and the like.

I think SDTs (don't switch letters around!!) and many of the story-game mechanics introduced these days are trying to address the front-loaded work of traditional GMing AND the in-play work of traditional GMing. So we don't need lots of mechanics so prep is fast. We don't need to prepare "reactions" or "random" adventures because the dice roll results give us more information to drive creativity without having to predetermine possibilities. For some gamers, these kinds of mechanics are welcome and exciting. They enjoy leaning on the improv side of GMing and see what falls out of the game engine.

I believe calling more complex dice mechanics SDTs is somewhat insulting to people who like these sorts of mechanics. I appreciate the appeal of bullying the other kids on the playground, but calling something "stupid" is fighting words. It's meant to invoke a fighting response from someone. This has not changed since the days we all grew up on the playground.

The challenge with theRPGsite is not any adherence to "onetruewaysim" or the Tyranny of Fun or grognardism extremis but a lack of genuine desire to on the part of some to engage in a meaningful conversation. Which is what forums are for. There are posters here who attempt to spark conversation. There is no reason that Black Vulmea couldn't have started this thread with a stance that sparked CONVERSATION versus defensive snarky controversy. However, if you look at what turns us on via post count, it's the gladiatorial snark-fests that garner the most attention.

I wish people would start threads with a more subjective tone. Reach "across the aisle" and ask what others think. Maybe word things in a way that is not directly offensive but instead speaks to how YOU see something and ask for other views. That's a conversation. However, you WILL probably get fewer responses and post count in your thread. Watching mortal combat in any form has always held us in thrall since the begging of time, and as it turns out, the InterTubes are no different.

Just my two cents...

Quote from: trechriron;690083I believe calling more complex dice mechanics SDTs is somewhat insulting to people who like these sorts of mechanics.

As the original coiner of the phrase 'stupid dice tricks,' I'm in a unique position to tell you the precise origin of the usage.

I took the name from a David Letterman skit called Stupid Pet Tricks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_Pet_Tricks), and swapped out the word 'pet' for the word 'dice.'

I then applied it to my own attempts at novelty dice mechanics, using a LEGO die frame.

Quote from: trechriron;690083I appreciate the appeal of bullying the other kids on the playground, but calling something "stupid" is fighting words. It's meant to invoke a fighting response from someone. This has not changed since the days we all grew up on the playground.

Well, I was going to suggest if you want to be safe from trigger words like stupid, perhaps you'd be better off over at Big Purple instead.

Except this very morning I was told something I wrote was "objectively stupid" over there, so I don't think it's quite the safe space you're looking for, either.

By the way, my response to the poster who called me "stupid?" Nothing, because I'm an adult, not a child in a schoolyard, and silly taunts don't phase me.

Quote from: trechriron;690083The challenge with theRPGsite is not any adherence to "onetruewaysim" or the Tyranny of Fun or grognardism extremis but a lack of genuine desire to on the part of some to engage in a meaningful conversation. Which is what forums are for. There are posters here who attempt to spark conversation. There is no reason that Black Vulmea couldn't have started this thread with a stance that sparked CONVERSATION versus defensive snarky controversy. However, if you look at what turns us on via post count, it's the gladiatorial snark-fests that garner the most attention.

I wish people would start threads with a more subjective tone. Reach "across the aisle" and ask what others think. Maybe word things in a way that is not directly offensive but instead speaks to how YOU see something and ask for other views. That's a conversation. However, you WILL probably get fewer responses and post count in your thread. Watching mortal combat in any form has always held us in thrall since the begging of time, and as it turns out, the InterTubes are no different.

:enworld:

Some of us have been having a conversation about gaming. Others expressing their outrage at the form that conversation takes. Guess which ones are actually contributing to the thread?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690003This is a reactionary forum. It was initially created as a reaction against rpgnet. Now....therpgsite may have partially evolved beyond that, but we cannot escape that simple truth.....especially since we still bitch about rpgnet every chance we can get.

Furthermore, this place has become increasingly reactive against the very idea of game design. Or to be more precise, people here have been freaking out when other people do a breakdown on how various game mechanics actually fucking work. That's insane.

Seriously...think about it. Many of you have been having a shitfit over other people doing mathematical exercises using rules for D&D. But you can't have a functional D&D game without math, just like you can't have a functional car without an engine.

And with all the bitching lately about both 3e and 4e, it seems like this place is damning itself with a staggering lack of understanding about how or why so many other people play roleplaying games. It's becoming like fucking Dragonsfoot Part 2. I see much more "onetruewayism" here now than I did a couple years ago, and I don't like it one bit.

Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

Basically every time someone raises an idea of game design, there's great stomping in expectation of Furor Teutonicus, as someone may dare to say that he does not like old D&D's design, and that's simply madness, like every guy who tries to approach things mathematically is going to be new Foul Ole Ron.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;689996....what?

But I'm asking you, not them. You are the one who created this semi-trainwreck of a thread. It's a fair request, don't you think? :cool:

Let us eat shit. Millions of flies can not be wrong.

Quote from: Haffrung;690094Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

I think the greatest shame is  that despite proud stomps of how "noise to content" ratio on RPG.net is so so so low...

Quote from: jhkim;690082OK, so I briefly checked it out - but it seems to me like there is a disconnect between the mechanics and the fiction.  What is the grid of zones with no diagonal connections supposed to represent, even in the abstract sense?  Is there anything you're trying to convey?

The grid combat is designed to be an abstraction of combat, not a physical representation like most the way most games handle grids. The system was designed mechanics first to ensure that the combat engine was fun in and of itself, even divorced from the narrative. It is, essentially, a "mini-game" used to both generate a story about the fight, including determining a winner and loser.  Having LOS with a target means that, in the fiction of the game, your character is in a position to pull off a shot. Not having LOS/not being adjacent with a melee weapon means that your character is not in a position to attack, busy dealing with mooks or the environment, re positioning for a killing blow, ect. The mechanical interactions inform the narrative. If you like the way D&D 4e handled combat (ie system first) then you'll probably enjoy Stab City! If you don't like board game style combat, then hey, this might be a fun one-shot, but you probably aren't going to invest a great deal of time into it.

Quote from: Haffrung;690094Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

Still the best general RPG forum, and that's the depressing part.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."

Quote from: jeff37923;689972At least I got you to stop posting quotes from fucking ENworld. :p

All yah gotta do is ask me to stop posting those, and I am happy to oblige.

But just for you.  Cause you fill a special place in my dark, cold, black heart.

Quote from: jhkim;690082That said, I definitely agree there are gimmicky mechanics.  This is how I feel about the One Roll Engine, for example.  

Haven't played ORE, so I can't comment on that, but...

to me, the thing that I look for is whether the mechanics are in place to solve some problem, or if they're just there to be novel.  That can be hard to determine without mind-reading, so I look to see if the mechanics actually do something that couldn't be achieved with a more widely-used mechanic, at least without more effort.

Personally, I couldn't care less about die mechanics as a rule.  I wouldn't choose or avoid a game because of how it used the dice.  But a focus on gimmicky mechanics to me is an indicator of what the designer thought was important, and generally what I care about isn't what a "gimmicky" designer cares about.

Interesting, an improvement to the topic! :D

Finally we get that this starts with an exemplar comment to the "losing the forest for the trees" sort of navel gazing. The RPG game is lost for the mighty-meta-mini-games within. "Stupid dice tricks," if one may.

And now we have gamerGoyf actually contribute with commentary on the tangential issue of design elegance. Still not exactly on point, but we are meriting progress!

Soon, soon!, our shared critical reading will catch up and we'll make a mighty soufflé!

Keep practicing! :cheerleader:

Quote from: Cheneybeast;690099The grid combat is designed to be an abstraction of combat, not a physical representation like most the way most games handle grids. The system was designed mechanics first to ensure that the combat engine was fun in and of itself, even divorced from the narrative. It is, essentially, a "mini-game" used to both generate a story about the fight, including determining a winner and loser.  Having LOS with a target means that, in the fiction of the game, your character is in a position to pull off a shot. Not having LOS/not being adjacent with a melee weapon means that your character is not in a position to attack, busy dealing with mooks or the environment, re positioning for a killing blow, ect. The mechanical interactions inform the narrative. If you like the way D&D 4e handled combat (ie system first) then you'll probably enjoy Stab City! If you don't like board game style combat, then hey, this might be a fun one-shot, but you probably aren't going to invest a great deal of time into it.

I love many board games and enjoy tactical combat, but there are many board games that I don't like and consider badly designed.  I have more experience with the D&D4 board games (i.e. Wrath of Ashardalon etal) than I do with D&D4 as an RPG, but I have some experience with both, and didn't hate them - but wasn't particularly taken by either one.  In the board games, a drawback is how successful tactics clash with what made sense - and seemed unintentional, such as hinging on details of counting squares and tiles.  

Among abstract RPG systems, I know reasonably well Dogs in the Vineyard, In a Wicked Age, Polaris, Marvel Heroic Role-playing, Lacuna, and others.  I enjoyed Polaris a lot - and I thought that the abstract game did a good job of being flavorful without being representational.  In many games, though, the abstract system doesn't add anything to the flavor of the game.  With effort, descriptions can be thrown in - but the system isn't helping.  Marvel Heroic Roleplaying felt this way to me.

Quote from: jadrax;690047The Wikipedia  page should give you a basic grounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

"A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."

Well....Pundit (and many others here) want rpgnet to return to its previous state before the mods and passive-aggressive posters destroyed it. Also....many posters here want D&D to return to its previous state before WoTC got its hands on it. People here tend to be pretty cranky and almost narrow-minded about demanding it.

I mean, let's face it....as written by Trollman, Black Vulmea's post (and other posts on this site) are "a dismissive attempt to belittle people who have a different gaming style than their own". So Trollman pretty much nailed it. Of course, the Denners are guilty of the same shit over there....though in a different way. But in this case, I don't think he's actually wrong.....though I will admit that he should look in the mirror sometime, and recognize that he's actually more narrow-minded about roleplaying games than the crowd over here. But whatever. That doesn't necessarily invalidate his point.

Quote from: Opaopajr;690120Soon, soon!, our shared critical reading will catch up and we'll make a mighty soufflé!

Neigh, neigh I say for that's common sense talk and that horse won't race! This is the internet where rage runs apace! A troll and a lol, that's a day's wage, as I don't need to tell you in this day and age!

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690122I mean, let's face it....as written by Trollman, Black Vulmea's post (and other posts on this site) are "a dismissive attempt to belittle people who have a different gaming style than their own".

I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690126I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

Well technically right now you're talking about people talking about people talking about games ;3

but I digress let's talk about dice, at what point do dice mechanics become too complicated in your opinion :?

Stupid Dice Tricks are only stupid if they don't accomplish what they intended to accomplish. And there are two ways to model what they accomplish: Math and Play. Both are important.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690126I'm talking about games. You're talking about people talking about games.

Which of us is on topic?

I don't even know any more.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088As the original coiner of the phrase 'stupid dice tricks,' ...

Doesn't really matter who originated the term. I'm sure if you referred to a professional lion tamer's animals as performing stupid pet tricks, they would be offended. The original term is sardonic. In the case of our night show antics, one might agree that a dog that farts on command is a SPT, but less might agree that a lion that back-flips on command qualifies. So there IS context here. You don't like these mechanics. You refer to them as SDTs in a derogatory manner. You started a fight, you got a fight.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088Well, I was going to suggest if you want to be safe from trigger words like stupid ...

I don't need safety on the InterTubes. Just because I'm calling out your obvious trolling thread as such, does not mean I need protection from your trolling thread. I'm in here posting in it, yes?

 

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088Some of us have been having a conversation about gaming. Others expressing their outrage at the form that conversation takes. Guess which ones are actually contributing to the thread?

1) I'm not outraged, just discussing, stating my onion. 2) You started out the thread by flinging shit. I'm just pointing out that is a somewhat disingenuous way of starting a conversation. As I stated above, calling something "stupid" is being derogatory. In the vein of night show comedy, the term can be amusing, but it could also be CONSTRUED as being rude (again, the context of it seems obvious to everyone who's posted in the thread so far...). I'm not saying you're an evil bastard because you used the term. Nor am I suggesting you should not be allowed to post as you see fit. I'm just pointing out that starting the thread in this manner steered the conversation in a more hostile direction.

2) The conversation happened by pure accident. Most would not expect a conversation to fall out of a fight. :-) Also note that I agree with your premise. I feel that game designers should play games. I'm just pointing out that the execution was not ideal and I see that as a reoccurring problem here (I have been guilty of it as well).

Don't mistake my discourse for dislike (or a personal attack) BV. I have nothing against you personally. :-P

Quote from: Black Vulmea;689777*sigh*

I think the point Black Vulmea raised in his initial post is a really good one.

I've done design and community consulting on about 12 different MMOs. In the MMORPG industry, there is a huge disparity of in-game expertise between the designers and the players. Hardcore MMO players generally play 40+ hours per week. Truly hardcore raiding guild players may rack up even more time. Since most video game designers work 60 - 70 hours per week, they physically cannot play their own game that much. A lot of problems arise because many designers simply don't understand how their MMO works in practice as well as their own players do. The good designers acknowledge this and find workarounds; the bad designers pretend it's not a problem.

Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.

Quote from: amacris;690139Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.

Yes and no.  

The campaign I'm currently playing in that meets weekly (mostly) is due for our 33rd session, and we'll be hitting the 1 year anniversary on Halloween.  That's a lot of play, but it's only one campaign, and it's only one group of players.  

A good designer should play the game.  I don't disagree with that at all.  But a game designer should also consider 'white room' situations and confirm if the rules work as expected.  

You'd expect, for instance, that any campaign would be likely to experience the healing rules and for the designer to know if they work no matter what.  But it's totally possible to play a campaign where poison never comes up.  If something doesn't happen in game, it can be worth imagining a 'likely scenario' to see if it works as intended, even running a simulated encounter.  

While the conclusions drawn from that form of play won't necessarily be applicable to all campaigns - because they're based on a certain set of assumptions such as what a 'standard' character might look like - it's definitely better than not looking at it at all.  

Likewise, if you start at low level, you may never succeed in reaching 'high level play'.  Unless your play testers start at that point, you're not likely to get much feedback (unless you have an unusually long development cycle).  Once again, assumptions will have to be made about what a 'reasonable' high level character looks like - but there's no excuse for not testing the damn system to make sure it at least LOOKS like it works as expected.  

Of course working as expected can mean different things.  Some games seek to achieve a certain 'feel' - so one can evaluate whether the rules do that.  Other games seek to achieve a degree of realism - if your results don't match reality well, you might need to revise them.  

Testing can take all different forms.  Thought experiments are often some of the most useful.  But don't take my word for it.  You can take it from Einstein.

Quote from: amacris;690139I think the point Black Vulmea raised in his initial post is a really good one.

I've done design and community consulting on about 12 different MMOs. In the MMORPG industry, there is a huge disparity of in-game expertise between the designers and the players. Hardcore MMO players generally play 40+ hours per week. Truly hardcore raiding guild players may rack up even more time. Since most video game designers work 60 - 70 hours per week, they physically cannot play their own game that much. A lot of problems arise because many designers simply don't understand how their MMO works in practice as well as their own players do. The good designers acknowledge this and find workarounds; the bad designers pretend it's not a problem.

Tabletop RPG designers shouldn't have this problem nearly as much, though. In tabletop RPGs, it only takes 4 hours per week to be a "regular" RPG player, so tabletop designers have no excuse for not playing their games... a lot. As Justin Alexander points out, given the difficulty of getting external playtests, tabletop designers are really the only ones who are going to play their game before it gets published, and they really ought to.

If I ran a game design company, even if I only used freelancers for 90% of the content I would insist on one afternoon a week being a gaming afternoon where everyone plays probably drawing a scenario from a hypothetical situation, 10th level party versus a Litch or whatever, as well as running a campaign for anyone that wanted to play as an optionalsocial thing.
Shit I would do it here at work if only this evil corporation would see the benefits :)

Quote from: deadDMwalking;690141Yes and no.  

The campaign I'm currently playing in that meets weekly (mostly) is due for our 33rd session, and we'll be hitting the 1 year anniversary on Halloween.  That's a lot of play, but it's only one campaign, and it's only one group of players.  

A good designer should play the game.  I don't disagree with that at all.  But a game designer should also consider 'white room' situations and confirm if the rules work as expected.  

You'd expect, for instance, that any campaign would be likely to experience the healing rules and for the designer to know if they work no matter what.  But it's totally possible to play a campaign where poison never comes up.  If something doesn't happen in game, it can be worth imagining a 'likely scenario' to see if it works as intended, even running a simulated encounter.  

While the conclusions drawn from that form of play won't necessarily be applicable to all campaigns - because they're based on a certain set of assumptions such as what a 'standard' character might look like - it's definitely better than not looking at it at all.  

Likewise, if you start at low level, you may never succeed in reaching 'high level play'.  Unless your play testers start at that point, you're not likely to get much feedback (unless you have an unusually long development cycle).  Once again, assumptions will have to be made about what a 'reasonable' high level character looks like - but there's no excuse for not testing the damn system to make sure it at least LOOKS like it works as expected.  

Of course working as expected can mean different things.  Some games seek to achieve a certain 'feel' - so one can evaluate whether the rules do that.  Other games seek to achieve a degree of realism - if your results don't match reality well, you might need to revise them.  

Testing can take all different forms.  Thought experiments are often some of the most useful.  But don't take my word for it.  You can take it from Einstein.

I don't think we disagree at all. I do lots of "thought experiments" of my own games. I also will "chunk off" particular aspects and do what-if tests. All are good things to do, and doable.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690129Stupid Dice Tricks are only stupid if they don't accomplish what they intended to accomplish. And there are two ways to model what they accomplish: Math and Play. Both are important.

Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;689879Wow.  This post is full of irony.  Complaining about people being dismissive of others in the same sentence as dismissing them yourself with comments like "neckbeard."  Good job on that.

Par for the course. He's like our resident rpg-themed 'almost-politically-correct redneck'.

Quote from: Cheneybeast;689851Hey VM, I'm Ian, that guy destroying RPGs. I'm pretty new in the industry, so I'm small enough that I like to apply that "personal touch" and reply to comments.

I'd hate to think that my comment about spending more time designing than playing is an indictment of my abilities to make a game. The fact is, it's a lot easier for me to set up probability worksheets and write design theories on my laptop at home every day than it is for me to get my friends over to test things every time I have an idea. Don't think that this means I don't believe in play testing - I actually think play testing is a huge part of designing any game. I also feel that running it for my home group certainly isn't enough - I've had open play tests on G+, and I've run it for some of my friend's RPG groups as well. Heck, my hope is that I'll get feedback from backers of the Kickstarter once I mail out the play test episode, because the further divorced from the play test I am, the better the feedback I'll get.

Do I like mechanics? Heck yeah. The mechanisms and framework of a rule system can, in my experience, drastically change the way a game plays out. Just something as significant as change from GP=XP to XP for defeating monsters has really changed the way people play Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. There is obviously a lot more to games than the numbers and math behind them, but I think I've got a talent for that particular aspect of game design, and it's a fun hobby for me.

If you just don't like Stab City! because it's not the kind of game you play, hey man, that's totally fine. I like ketchup on my eggs, but I'm not going to get mad when someone orders breakfast different. There are all sorts of genres of games, and if I'm assuming correctly that you like old school trad games, then hey, we've got that in common. I just feel like life is too short to get stuck playing the same thing over and over. I've got Mentzer basic on my shelf right next to the box set for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3e, which itself is sitting next to my collection of old Wraith: The Oblivion books. I just happened to write this particular book this particular way, and hopefully people who like this sort of game will like it.

Anyway, I'm sorry for destroying the hobby or jerking off to numbers (is there a name for that fetish?) Maybe once Stab City! comes out, why don't you take a look at it and send me a review? I always enjoy hearing differing opinions on game design, and I love arguing about the correct way to play elfgames.

Welcome to the forums. Not everyone here is an ass. Well, at least not 100% of the time. ;)

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690152And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

The ghost of Gary Gygax as translated through online posters' Ouija Boards.

Quote from: TristramEvans;690155The ghost of Gary Gygax as translated through online posters' Ouija Boards.

:P Good to know.

There's only one reason why so many games suck, and that's a poorly-written system.

Quote from: talysman;690150Not everything that can be accomplished is worth accomplishing.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;690152And who is the judge of what is worth accomplishing?

*I* am. DUH.

OK, seriously: the general market. If your design includes many weird criteria that you actually fulfill, you've accomplished your goal. But if no one wants what you have to sell, that's a hollow achievement.

Stupid dice tricks and other such gimmicks often fall into this category. This doesn't get caught in the playtest stage, because it's my feeling that the kind of people who sign up for playtests are often too interested in clever solutions instead of lowest-common-denominator levels of playability. ESPECIALLY if the pitch for the playtest mentions the gimmick. They, too, are frequently math dweebs.

So, instead of a focus group, you get an echo chamber. They confirm that your design works, but not that it's fun for the general public.

In all honesty, if I'm designing a game, its not going to be for the general public. I just don't care that much about the general public.

Its RPGs, its not exactly a market where anyone much is raking in the cash, so I would rather write something that I like and that fans like me would like.

That is the problem with most of the schisming in the RPG fandom. The idea that every game has to be written and enjoyed by everyone, or even a MAJORITY of fans is just not really true.

With D&D? Maybe. Mostly because of their position in the hierarchy of the industry, its important for them specifically to appeal to the general public, but for almost any other game? Not really.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;690159There's only one reason why so many games suck, and that's a poorly-written system.

I'd qualify that by saying that there are several pretty decent systems hindered by presentation. Bad indexes, bad organization, bad or no examples, even bad art can hinder a game. I also am not a fan of games written to be read as novels rather than reference manuals.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690122"A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."

Well....Pundit (and many others here) want rpgnet to return to its previous state before the mods and passive-aggressive posters destroyed it.

That's like saying hiring a plumber is reactionary because he's going to return your bathroom to the state of shit being in the toilet and not all over the floor.

Quote from: TristramEvans;690164I'd qualify that by saying that there are several pretty decent systems hindered by presentation. Bad indexes, bad organization, bad or no examples, even bad art can hinder a game. I also am not a fan of games written to be read as novels rather than reference manuals.

Bad organization drives me insane, as do bad indexes. I don't tend to look up rules during game, preferring just to make shit up and figure out how the actual rules work later (and maybe change them if I like what I did better) rather than slow down play, but if I DO feel like looking up a rule, it shouldn't take me longer than a trip to the index to find the page.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;690127but I digress let's talk about dice, at what point do dice mechanics become too complicated in your opinion

I don't think complexity is necessarily the issue, so much as novelty for the sake of novelty or elevating dice-play over roleplaying.

Quote from: trechriron;690135You don't like these mechanics. You refer to them as SDTs in a derogatory manner.

No, you've completely missed the point. 'Stupid _________ tricks' is a humorous, self-deprecating label.

That lion-tamer stuff is just nonsense.

Quote from: trechriron;690135Just because I'm calling out your obvious trolling thread . . .

Disagreement != trolling.

Quote from: trechriron;690135. . . as such, does not mean I need protection from your trolling thread. I'm in here posting in it, yes?

Yes, you posted in this thread, first to actually engage the subject, which I appreciate, and then to complain that this site doesn't offer the same veneer of moderator-enforced faux-civility as other roleplaying game forums, which is just an enormous thread-crap.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690131I don't even know any more.

I do, and I want to thank those who actually engaged the topic, instead of using the thread as an excuse to complain about my tone or the tone of the site, or to make up bullshit never said.

I think I've said all I have to say on this subject. Moving on.

Quote from: Haffrung;690094Yep. I pointed out a while ago that this site has become little more than a bitchy Dragonsfoot.

This sort of thing can be seen just about anywhere, where there's a significant concentration of "get off my lawn" types.  :rant:

Whether it is an online message board, a local watering hole, live radio call in shows, "letters to the editor" pages, etc ...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690088As the original coiner of the phrase 'stupid dice tricks,' I'm in a unique position to tell you the precise origin of the usage.

You did that? I heard that term first from James Wallis, at a Gen Con around the publication of 3e.
He used it in an interview on Ogrecave (cached version (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YNzQCsuDlZsJ:ogrecave.com/interviews/jameswallis.shtml+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a) as the site seems to be offline?).
(That interview was published between 2000 and 2001, before DeProfundis and WHFRP1 Realms of Sorcery.)


A stupid dice trick is only stupid if it is more complicated than necessary and opaque so that nothing is gained. (The bidding in DitV is such a case.)

The most prominent stupid dice thrick in Germany is the skill check of Das Schwarze Auge: Each skill is based on three attributes, like this:
   Climbing (STR/STR/DEX)
To climb a tree a character has to succeed at three attribute tests (roll under with d20). A skill rank is noted like that:
   Climbing (STR/STR/DEX) 7
meaning that you have a total of 7 points that you are allowed to fail any or all checks by.
This is one of the least intuitive mechanisms that I know. The skill rank alone says nothing about the competence of the character; a rank of 10 is still abysmal if the three tested stats are only 8, and a rank of 1 is still good if your stats are 18. (Purely theoretical numbers, I don't know how realistic an attribute of 18 is.)
A player can't easily gauge the % chance of three consecutive d20 rolls versus different targets (or even the same target) - add in ranks and you are lost forever.

Holy shit, David Letterman-esque spin off joke comment ninja'ed from an old Gen Con -- with citation!

With that I think the circle is complete. Thank you Dirk, your work here is done. Now someone fetch me a fainting couch, I feel positively giddy!

:cool:

(hush! the soufflé must now rest. give it time to rise, so no premature necro-posting...)

I have done quite a bit of game mechanic design, and I often catch myself overengineering things. When I don't realize I have screwed up, it can be very helpful to me anyway, for another person to say "Stop...you are doing it wrong"

You can't satisfy everyone though, in regards to desired level of detail.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;690207A stupid dice trick is only stupid if it is more complicated than necessary and opaque so that nothing is gained. (The bidding in DitV is such a case.)

The most prominent stupid dice thrick in Germany is the skill check of Das Schwarze Auge: Each skill is based on three attributes, like this:
   Climbing (STR/STR/DEX)
To climb a tree a character has to succeed at three attribute tests (roll under with d20). A skill rank is noted like that:
   Climbing (STR/STR/DEX) 7
meaning that you have a total of 7 points that you are allowed to fail any or all checks by.
This is one of the least intuitive mechanisms that I know. The skill rank alone says nothing about the competence of the character; a rank of 10 is still abysmal if the three tested stats are only 8, and a rank of 1 is still good if your stats are 18. (Purely theoretical numbers, I don't know how realistic an attribute of 18 is.)
A player can't easily gauge the % chance of three consecutive d20 rolls versus different targets (or even the same target) - add in ranks and you are lost forever.

Oh wow. What a terrific example of dice wanking. Thanks.

I don't mind new dice mechanics, but when complication is added by them just for the sake of being different then they aren't useful.

There are games I like that feature novelty dice tricks that would still be great without them. DCC comes to mind. The game is good enough to be interesting without all the weird sided dice.

The first thing I think of when looking at a new gimmick mechanic is, can I come up with a simpler way of producing the same results in a short time? If the answer is yes then the rest of the game gets looked at with a more critical eye, because usually, novelty for its own sake is an attempt to hide the absence of substantial content.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690220Oh wow. What a terrific example of dice wanking. Thanks.

I don't mind new dice mechanics, but when complication is added by them just for the sake of being different then they aren't useful.

There are games I like that feature novelty dice tricks that would still be great without them. DCC comes to mind. The game is good enough to be interesting without all the weird sided dice.

The first thing I think of when looking at a new gimmick mechanic is, can I come up with a simpler way of producing the same results in a short time? If the answer is yes then the rest of the game gets looked at with a more critical eye, because usually, novelty for its own sake is an attempt to hide the absence of substantial content.

As a mental exercise I am curious what the theory behind that mechanic is.

Here goes : They are trying to mitigate 'one uber stat' dominating rolls.
With two or three stats represented, and 3 rolls needed to succeed, it 'averages out' things.

That's all I got.

My suspicion with DCC was they were deliberately trying to recreate that situation in the dawn of gaming when the dice used were strange and hard to come by outside of mail-order, and seemed like odd, magical things adding to the experience of exploring of a strange new world of perilous adventure and strange sorceries.

Quote from: TristramEvans;690226My suspicion with DCC was they were deliberately trying to recreate that situation in the dawn of gaming when the dice used were strange and hard to come by outside of mail-order, and seemed like odd, magical things adding to the experience of exploring of a strange new world of perilous adventure and strange sorceries.

Yeah. The problem is that its not 1974 anymore and polyhedrons are no longer the wonderous magical objects that they once were. You can't put that experience back in the box.

The game has a cool vibe and would play just as well without them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690229Yeah. The problem is that its not 1974 anymore and polyhedrons are no longer the wonderous magical objects that they once were. You can't put that experience back in the box.

The game has a cool vibe and would play just as well without them.

And I admit that this next bit may matter to nobody else but myself.

If you include a stupid dice trick, and it is exclusionary instead of inclusionary to playing the game, then it is an automatic failure. Case in point, the special dice used by FFG's version of the Star Wars RPG. You need specialized dice to play the game, and that is a barrier to entry for that game. It does not help the RPG industry because while it makes more profit for the individual company, it also gives the buyer one more pause to not purchase the game. It does not help the hobby, because it makes games in general seem to be much more insular than they actually are with a major intellectual property.

Quote from: jeff37923;690235And I admit that this next bit may matter to nobody else but myself.

If you include a stupid dice trick, and it is exclusionary instead of inclusionary to playing the game, then it is an automatic failure. Case in point, the special dice used by FFG's version of the Star Wars RPG. You need specialized dice to play the game, and that is a barrier to entry for that game. It does not help the RPG industry because while it makes more profit for the individual company, it also gives the buyer one more pause to not purchase the game. It does not help the hobby, because it makes games in general seem to be much more insular than they actually are with a major intellectual property.

The trend of being over-gimmicky and full of exclusive bits is a simple reaction to the realization that rpg players don't really need that much product to enjoys years of entertainment. Its what keeps the industry from becoming the huge cash cow that some companies are trying to turn it into.

WHFRP 3E did the same thing. Tons of unique fiddly bits included largely just to prevent piracy. These types of publishing tricks just show us that some game companies don't really give a shit about roleplaying, only about how to turn the biggest buck from IP in the roleplaying market.

Quote from: CRKrueger;690165That's like saying hiring a plumber is reactionary because he's going to return your bathroom to the state of shit being in the toilet and not all over the floor.

Interesting observation, considering RPG.net is more moderated than it used to be, and there used to be a helluva lot of shit getting flung around everywhere  on any given day. Now theRPGsite is deliberately avoiding moderation in reaction to RPG.net's policies, and guess what? There's shit all over the place, and it stinks.

Not that I don't enjoy stopping by occasionally, but I have to type my posts with one hand because I'm holding my nose with the other.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;690241Interesting observation, considering RPG.net is more moderated than it used to be, and there used to be a helluva lot of shit getting flung around everywhere  on any given day. Now theRPGsite is deliberately avoiding moderation in reaction to RPG.net's policies, and guess what? There's shit all over the place, and it stinks.

Not that I don't enjoy stopping by occasionally, but I have to type my posts with one hand because I'm holding my nose with the other.

So go post on TBP and enjoy the moderation that keeps the place free of shit, or meaningful discussion.

I'm interested in DCC but two things keep me from buying it:

1. The PDF is $25.

2. The dice.

Quote from: jeff37923;690235Case in point, the special dice used by FFG's version of the Star Wars RPG. You need specialized dice to play the game, and that is a barrier to entry for that game.

How are they required?  Most 'specialty dice' I've seen may have different symbols, but they seem to have normal number of sides.  

For example, JAM dice in Warhammer 40k are a 6 sided dice that has 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, Jam (I think - I haven't used them in a long time).  

But they could just as easily be represented by 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=JAM.  Mapping the values can be a little more complex, but if you know what the original dice has on the faces, recreating it isn't hard.

Actually, substituting any die in for another isn't THAT hard, but it does take some thought.  For example, if all I have is a d6 and I want to represent a d20, I can do it with 3 rolls.  First roll 1-3= 1-10, 4-6=11-20; Second roll 1-3 = 1-5 or 11-15, 4-6 = 6-10 or 16-20.  Finally, roll again (ignore 6).  

Using a d6 in place of a d20 wouldn't be a good system (it'd be a stupid dice trick) but there are times when it has value as a SUBSTITUTE.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;690207I heard that term first from James Wallis, at a Gen Con around the publication of 3e.

Great minds, convergent evolution, yadda-yadda, and another bit of proof that there's no such thing as a new idea.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690236The trend of being over-gimmicky and full of exclusive bits is a simple reaction to the realization that rpg players don't really need that much product to enjoys years of entertainment. Its what keeps the industry from becoming the huge cash cow that some companies are trying to turn it into.

Huge cash cow? Nobody is making real money from RPGs. Paizo, WotC, and FFG make enough from their RPG segments to keep a small number of professionals employed full time. And what's wrong with being a 'cash cow' anyway? If you're making lots of money, it's because you're producing things that a lot of people want. And people who don't want it don't have to buy it. These are discretionary entertainment items, not necessities. Nobody is being ripped off.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690236WHFRP 3E did the same thing. Tons of unique fiddly bits included largely just to prevent piracy. These types of publishing tricks just show us that some game companies don't really give a shit about roleplaying, only about how to turn the biggest buck from IP in the roleplaying market.

The fiddly bits in WFRP 3E aren't gimmicks. The dice enable a much more diverse range of action outcomes than succeed/fail. They're tactile and functional. Cards for players powers are a great idea. Far more efficient that writing down a half-dozen abilities and actions long-hand on paper, or constantly passing around a book to flip through. The components serve the system.

And a lot of people love tactile bits in games. It's not a trick or anti-piracy measure. FFG blings out all of its games because that's what its fan-base wants. They feel ripped off if there isn't a bunch of cards, tokens, stand-ups, etc.

None of that is anti-gamer. If you only like games that involve pens and paper, then good for you. That's a personal preference. Companies that publish games with all sorts of flashy components aren't breaking into your house and torching your books. They're offering options for people who like those sorts of products. If you don't want them, don't buy.

Quote from: Haffrung;690261Huge cash cow? Nobody is making real money from RPGs. Paizo, WotC, and FFG make enough from their RPG segments to keep a small number of professionals employed full time. And what's wrong with being a 'cash cow' anyway? If you're making lots of money, it's because you're producing things that a lot of people want. And people who don't want it don't have to buy it. These are discretionary entertainment items, not necessities. Nobody is being ripped off.

what keeps the industry from becoming the huge cash cow

Thus I agree that there isn't a great deal of real money in rpgs.

There isn't anything wrong with making an honest buck. Turning an rpg into something else and selling it as an rpg ( forex turing D&D into MtG and claiming the game remains the same) just sucks.

If you want to make a fortune selling your rpg, then go for it, but don't turn it into a competitive, deck building wankfest and still call it an rpg.

If you need to turn an apple into an orange just to generate sales then you are better off sticking to just selling oranges.

Quote from: Haffrung;690261The fiddly bits in WFRP 3E aren't gimmicks. The dice enable a much more diverse range of action outcomes than succeed/fail. They're tactile and functional. Cards for players powers are a great idea. Far more efficient that writing down a half-dozen abilities and actions long-hand on paper, or constantly passing around a book to flip through. The components serve the system.

And a lot of people love tactile bits in games. It's not a trick or anti-piracy measure. FFG blings out all of its games because that's what its fan-base wants. They feel ripped off if there isn't a bunch of cards, tokens, stand-ups, etc.

None of that is anti-gamer. If you only like games that involve pens and paper, then good for you. That's a personal preference. Companies that publish games with all sorts of flashy components aren't breaking into your house and torching your books. They're offering options for people who like those sorts of products. If you don't want them, don't buy.

I don't, and I don't mind board/card games with lots of fiddly bits-they just aren't rpgs. If you need a card, chit, or specialized die to determine what you do next, it ain't an rpg.

 Thus oranges being marketed as apples.

Quote from: Endless Flight;690250I'm interested in DCC but two things keep me from buying it:

1. The PDF is $25.

2. The dice.

Same here.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;690256How are they required?  Most 'specialty dice' I've seen may have different symbols, but they seem to have normal number of sides.  

For example, JAM dice in Warhammer 40k are a 6 sided dice that has 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, Jam (I think - I haven't used them in a long time).  

But they could just as easily be represented by 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, 4=1, 5=2, 6=JAM.  Mapping the values can be a little more complex, but if you know what the original dice has on the faces, recreating it isn't hard.

I get what you are saying here, but the dice in FFG's Star Wars RPG are normal polyhedrons without numbers but symbols. There is no conversion chart telling you what number means which symbol. So without a conversion chart, you need the dice.

Yes, you could reverse engineer this to create your own conversion chart, but then someone has to buy the gimmick dice to do the reverse engineering.

That alone is enough extra work to prevent most people from spending money on a game that they do not know if they will like or not. It is exclusionary and not inclusionary.

There actually is a conversion chart in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire telling you what number on a "normal" die means what symbol. They kind of went out of their way having a section telling players they didn't need to buy the dice to play the game.

When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for. YMMV.

Quote from: Bill;690222As a mental exercise I am curious what the theory behind that mechanic is.

Here goes : They are trying to mitigate 'one uber stat' dominating rolls.
With two or three stats represented, and 3 rolls needed to succeed, it 'averages out' things.

That would be a gamist reason, but it is even easier: simulation.

Maybe they took RQ as an inspiration where two stats lend their bonuses to all skills of a certain category.
They thought "hey, we can do better than RQ: not only do three stats have a say in each skill (and not necessarily three different stats as there can be a combination as STR/STR/CON as well as DEX/WIS/CHA*) but we have different combinations for each single skill - and spell!"

The thing is that this 3d20 skill system has become a sacred cow. The publisher did a survey earlier this year (to help them decide what to do with the upcoming 5th edition) and the result was that they can't change it without alienating a lot of their customers.
It's as if THAC0 was a beloved part of AD&D and WotC couldn't change it for their ascending AC system.

They are between a rock and a hard place as several former DSA authors and designers (as well as some Cthulhu and Shadowrun editors) teamed up to design a brand new mainstream fantasy RPG. DSA5 is a reaction to that but they struggle what to do - change the system to make it more accessible or cater to the fans that they already have.


* DSA doesn't have D&D's attributes, I "translated" them for easier comparison.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690267I don't, and I don't mind board/card games with lots of fiddly bits-they just aren't rpgs. If you need a card, chit, or specialized die to determine what you do next, it ain't an rpg.

 Thus oranges being marketed as apples.

So, Dungeons & Dragons, Castle Falkenstien, The Saga System, DCC, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Earthdawn, Call of Cthulhu, et al are not RPGs because they use specialized dice or cards? Methinks you didn't think that argument through very hard.

And yes, WHFRP 3rd is definitely an RPG. Presenting the information differently doesn't change the game. If D&D's rules were written out on a roll of toilet paper, a deck of cards, or all on one big poster, it wouldn't stop being an rpg.

Yes, I think the argument that using some specialized dice or whatnot makes a game an instant failure is way overstated. By this definition, Dungeons & Dragons should have tanked with Supplement 1 Greyhawk. That obviously didn't happen. And when you start a game with newbies, it's also quite obvious that the dice are part of what makes people curious about the game in the first place.

There's a healthy medium in everything, however. So you can certainly take that sort of "gimmickry" to hindering extremes.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690257Great minds, convergent evolution,...

I figured that much already.

I am surprised that a google search doesn't turns up more hits in English usenet so I must have overestimated the exposure of that term in the language that it originated in.

The (English) term "stupid dice tricks" has been a part of German RPG critique (on usenet (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22stupid$20dice$20tricks%22%7Csort:date), in magazine reviews, and in personal discussion) since the Wallis quote. So I honestly thought it was in wide use in English debate as well.

Quote from: jeff37923;690272I get what you are saying here, but the dice in FFG's Star Wars RPG are normal polyhedrons without numbers but symbols. There is no conversion chart telling you what number means which symbol. So without a conversion chart, you need the dice.

Yes, you could reverse engineer this to create your own conversion chart, but then someone has to buy the gimmick dice to do the reverse engineering.

That alone is enough extra work to prevent most people from spending money on a game that they do not know if they will like or not. It is exclusionary and not inclusionary.

Quote from: Endless Flight;690275There actually is a conversion chart in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire telling you what number on a "normal" die means what symbol. They kind of went out of their way having a section telling players they didn't need to buy the dice to play the game.

Again, not familiar with the rules, but it seems like this would sort of have to the way of it.  

If there are 8 unique symbols on the die, and your book tells you what each symbol means, you can just assign the values 1-8 in order to the symbols as they're listed in the book.  

The benefit of a dice with symbols is that it can reinforce the game 'feel'.  I could flip a coin and 'heads' equals 'rebels have advantage' and 'tails' equals 'empire has advantage', but thematically, it would be better if I had a specialized coin with the Rebel symbol and the Empire symbol on opposite sides.  While a US Quarter is a perfect substitute in terms of the 'randomizing' aspect of the die roll, it doesn't reinforce the theme of the game the same way.

Again - no experience with this PARTICULAR set of dice, but most specialty dice seem to fit that pattern.  They are more tied in to the 'fiction' of the world to help create a more 'immersive' experience...  Since you're already divorced from the action by using dice and imagination, reducing that disconnect even a little is considered worthwhile to some folks.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;690277The thing is that this 3d20 skill system has become a sacred cow.

When I read that version of Das Schwarze Auge I thought the idea was interesting at first glance. Then I realized how over-complicated that was for a base mechanic, and I wondered what the fuck happened to the game I liked when I was a kid.

I recently re-read the Initiation au Jeu d'Aventure game box, and I still like that game a lot.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;690284Again, not familiar with the rules, but it seems like this would sort of have to the way of it.  

If there are 8 unique symbols on the die, and your book tells you what each symbol means, you can just assign the values 1-8 in order to the symbols as they're listed in the book.  

The benefit of a dice with symbols is that it can reinforce the game 'feel'.  I could flip a coin and 'heads' equals 'rebels have advantage' and 'tails' equals 'empire has advantage', but thematically, it would be better if I had a specialized coin with the Rebel symbol and the Empire symbol on opposite sides.  While a US Quarter is a perfect substitute in terms of the 'randomizing' aspect of the die roll, it doesn't reinforce the theme of the game the same way.

Again - no experience with this PARTICULAR set of dice, but most specialty dice seem to fit that pattern.  They are more tied in to the 'fiction' of the world to help create a more 'immersive' experience...  Since you're already divorced from the action by using dice and imagination, reducing that disconnect even a little is considered worthwhile to some folks.

I took a picture of the chart from the book just to provide some evidence.

(http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu79/smilewbrian/dice_zps8c49b8a8.png) (http://s635.photobucket.com/user/smilewbrian/media/dice_zps8c49b8a8.png.html)

Quote from: Benoist;690286and I wondered what the fuck happened to the game I liked when I was a kid.

• Dragonlance - metaplot railroads and storyteller/illusionist GMs
  
• "Magical realism" - Hârn-like simulation of medieval (or rather, early Renaissance) life
  

Two concepts that don't mesh at all.
A rule system that supports gritty low-life and simulation of tiniest bits (and makes the fans fill out 4-page long character sheets) doesn't work with modules that handwave the most important elements.

"Let the players sweat for a few rounds, then let the ruffians escape. The players have no chance of capturing one of them." invalidates every single stat, skill, or equipment on the sheet. You don't need a skill check that relies on three attributes for that kind of play.

Quote from: Benoist;690276When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for. YMMV.

So I guess all the kids who had this up on their wall (not to mention the half-wit who designed it) were useless wankers who didn't understand what RPGs are designed for.

(http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/map_images/603062/DarleneMapSection_Greyhawk_1200.jpg)

Not to mention these goofy gimmicks...

(http://www.morningtoast.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads//dice1.jpg)

...or this garbage.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxt8liF0q2KNPIAx-NDaRAETe1h-soSsi3Evri-qMgVxMp_uSE)

Quote from: Haffrung;690316So I guess all the kids who had this up on their wall (not to mention the half-wit who designed it) were useless wankers who didn't understand what RPGs are designed for.

Those are nice and cool things. Besides being fun to play with they all have something else in common. Know what it is?

Spoiler

All of it is optional. You can play D&D without any of that

Haffrung nailed it.

There are 'casual gamers' and there are 'hobbyist gamers'.  I've played with a lot of people over the years and hobbyists like to think about the game even when they're not playing.  The often make great DMs (because they're thinking about campaign stuff between sessions) but they also participate in other related hobbys.  

I have boxes of miniatures, most of which require some attention.  I even got the Reaper Bones kickstarter package (because how could I not) even though I'm at least 4 years behind on my painting (kids will do that to you).  

Expensive minis as a requirement for the game can be a deterrent due to high cost of entry.  But if all of these things are an enhancement of the game, GREAT.

Paizo understands that pretty well.  They probably make as much or more on their printed battlemats and map-cards as they do on their books.

Quote from: Haffrung;690316So I guess all the kids who had this up on their wall (not to mention the half-wit who designed it) were useless wankers who didn't understand what RPGs are designed for.

LOL. You completely misunderstood the point. Oh SO surprising! :D

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690318Those are nice and cool things. Besides being fun to play with they all have something else in common. Know what it is?

All of it is optional. You can play D&D without any of that

Agreed about the Greyhawk map and the minis, but polyhedral dice are pretty much required to play D&D - and at the time that D&D first came out, they were not widely available.

Quote from: jhkim;690330Agreed about the Greyhawk map and the minis, but polyhedral dice are pretty much required to play D&D - and at the time that D&D first came out, they were not widely available.

They make things so much easier but are hardly required.

When the first Holmes printings were released, they came with chit cards you could cut out and put in little cups.

Less fancy perhaps, you could make your own chits with paper or cardstock and a pen. The dice are just handy number generators they are not the game.

The important part of rpg play is that the action take place in the minds of the participants. Use whatever physical play aids you wish to add to the fun but if you can't remove them and still have an rpg then the game has failed as an rpg.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690332They make things so much easier but are hardly required.

When the first Holmes printings were released, they came with chit cards you could cut out and put in little cups.

Less fancy perhaps, you could make your own chits with paper or cardstock and a pen. The dice are just handy number generators they are not the game.

Weren't you just complaining about the dice in DCC?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690332They make things so much easier but are hardly required.

When the first Holmes printings were released, they came with chit cards you could cut out and put in little cups.

Less fancy perhaps, you could make your own chits with paper or cardstock and a pen. The dice are just handy number generators they are not the game.

The important part of rpg play is that the action take place in the minds of the participants. Use whatever physical play aids you wish to add to the fun but if you can't remove them and still have an rpg then the game has failed as an rpg.

OK, but those dice were still presumed in how the game was written (i.e. roll d12).  If you allow that D&D can be played with substituted equipment, then doesn't the same thing apply to the Star Wars specialty dice, for example?

Quote from: VectorSigma;690335Weren't you just complaining about the dice in DCC?

The dice are not the game in DCC either. You could use chits for that too if wanted.

That's it, imma start my own troll threads, with blackjack and hookers.

Quote from: jhkim;690337OK, but those dice were still presumed in how the game was written (i.e. roll d12).  If you allow that D&D can be played with substituted equipment, then doesn't the same thing apply to the Star Wars specialty dice, for example?

I'm not that familliar with the Star Wars game. Hard to say without reading it.

Quote from: Benoist;690329LOL. You completely misunderstood the point. Oh SO surprising! :D

I understand your point alright. All the items beyond plain text in books that were around in 1983 - glossy maps, DM screens, polyhedral dice, hex paper, miniatures, dungeon geomorphs, illustration books in modules, these (http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.ca/2012/11/monster-cards-discovery-review.html) - are perfectly acceptable. Anything beyond plain text in books in the last 15 years - full-colour books, cards, dice with anything other than numbers on them, flip-maps, pogs - is gimmicky, non-RPG material that only those who lack imagination would want.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;690332The important part of rpg play is that the action take place in the minds of the participants. Use whatever physical play aids you wish to add to the fun but if you can't remove them and still have an rpg then the game has failed as an rpg.

Are the To Hit tables in the AD&D DMG necessary to play? And does putting them on a screen (along with a kick-ass illustration on the player's side) invalidate the game as an RPG?

Quote from: Endless Flight;690275There actually is a conversion chart in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire telling you what number on a "normal" die means what symbol. They kind of went out of their way having a section telling players they didn't need to buy the dice to play the game.

Well, mea culpa. I haven't seen the conversion chart and thus assumed otherwise.

EDIT: But why not just use numbers? Why have task resolution be tied in to a specialized language of funky symbols? It still comes back to being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

QuoteEDIT: But why not just use numbers? Why have task resolution be tied in to a specialized language of funky symbols? It still comes back to being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

I feel the same. Some have argued those symbols help with immersion, but they don't work that way for me... they take the game out of my head and put it into the toys in my hand (I actually have a similar gripe about character sheets... but they're pretty much perma-bonded to most players' expectations).

I like DCC but the dice ALMOST set off my 'gimmick' alarm... almost.
For one thing they're pre-existing sorts and can easily be used in other games.
I might happily draw up a 7, 14, 24, 30, etc. entry wandering monster chart for my BRP games. No symbol conversion chart necessary.
There are also simple ways to use more common polyhedrals to get those rolls... or the free Crawler's Companion app that lends pretty great support for DCC.

The game cards and symbol dice and whatnot for WFRP 3 on the other hand... those DO feel like a play for 'toy value' and tactile experience... not that those keep it from being an RPG... but they do add board-game elements that I don't think are as easily dropped if I don't want them.
FFG makes their dough selling lots of cardboard with pretty pictures, so it figures they'd go with what has worked for them in the past. It just isn't my taste so I'll abstain.

Quote from: jeff37923;690357Well, mea culpa. I haven't seen the conversion chart and thus assumed otherwise.

EDIT: But why not just use numbers? Why have task resolution be tied in to a specialized language of funky symbols? It still comes back to being exclusionary rather than inclusionary.

I like the Star Wars dice personally. They combine everything into the die roll in an interesting way. The only real "downside" to the system other than the strong incentive to buy specialty dice (yes you can use the chart, or a chit system, but it would be nowhere near as easy), is that its a bit hard to hide the difficulty of the roll. Though you could, if you wanted to roll the difficulty part behind a screen so they couldn't see what dice you rolled.

You roll by doing the following. A character picks up a number of green dice equal to the higher of the skill and characteristic he is using, then replaces a green die with a yellow die equal to the lower of the skill or characteristic he is using. (So skill 3, characteristic 2 = 1 green, 2 yellow, Characterestic 3, skill 2 = 1 green, 2 yellow).

Then the DM determines the difficulty. This is a number of purple dice that are added into the pool. In really bad situations, he might exchange one purple die for a red die.

At this point, based on the circumstances, blue dice (good) or black dice (bad) might be added for anything that might affect the roll. (The sun was in your eyes, the wind is at your back)

Then you roll and read the dice.

The reason I like it is that it has a nonbinary resolution. It doesn't just track 1 variable. It really creates 4 variables:

Success/Failure: Number of Success symbols minus number of Failure symbols, determines if you succeed in the task you were attempting

Advantage/Threat: Number of Advantage symbols minus number of Threat symbols, you can spend this on good or bad things happening that are related to the action, but not based on the success or failure of the action. Maybe you missed the enemy, but he kept your head down letting you move in closer, maybe you hit the enemy, but he fell backwards behind some cover.

Triumph: The number of Triumph symbols showing. These are basically Advantage on steroids.

Despair: The number of Despair symbols showing. Threat on steroids.

(Note: Triumph and despair DO NOT cancel each other out).

I like it. You don't have to like it. But saying that because it uses specialty dice its not an RPG is a little weird. (This sentence isn't a reply to Jeff, just a reply to something said in the thread in general)

Quote from: Haffrung;690351I understand your point alright. All the items beyond plain text in books that were around in 1983 - glossy maps, DM screens, polyhedral dice, hex paper, miniatures, dungeon geomorphs, illustration books in modules, these (http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.ca/2012/11/monster-cards-discovery-review.html) - are perfectly acceptable. Anything beyond plain text in books in the last 15 years - full-colour books, cards, dice with anything other than numbers on them, flip-maps, pogs - is gimmicky, non-RPG material that only those who lack imagination would want.

Nope. You just proved your reading comprehension is abysmal AND project all sorts of shit on posts that trigger knee-jerk reactions on your part.

Thank you.

Quote from: jeff37923;690272I get what you are saying here, but the dice in FFG's Star Wars RPG are normal polyhedrons without numbers but symbols. There is no conversion chart telling you what number means which symbol. So without a conversion chart, you need the dice.

Yes, you could reverse engineer this to create your own conversion chart, but then someone has to buy the gimmick dice to do the reverse engineering.

That alone is enough extra work to prevent most people from spending money on a game that they do not know if they will like or not. It is exclusionary and not inclusionary.

My friend did that. He's an engineer so you'd think it would be a fun challenge and everything for him. He said it was far more troublesome than at first glance and ended up being a pain in the ass.

He had to rearrange tables for conversion charts because the dice are like Descent's dice, they aren't an even distribution along the die's faces. So the d8s and d12s are not really d8s and d12s in distribution -- AND they come with attached Degree of Success values that have to be charted onto another table. He did it, but the resultant page of conversion tables was worse than just sharing dice across the table.

In other words, it sucked. Hard.

Quote from: Endless Flight;690275There actually is a conversion chart in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire telling you what number on a "normal" die means what symbol. They kind of went out of their way having a section telling players they didn't need to buy the dice to play the game.

That must have been post-Beta. But then, lowered expectations from Fantasy Flight "paytest" products and all that. Still annoying as fuck to read conversion charts atop conversion charts (you still gotta look up the two types of DoS checks as well, the adv/disadv and ultra adv/disadv ones. no clue how they did that).

edit: just saw the pic of it. still sucks hard. pain in the ass to read. roll a d6 with blanks here, but contains some DoS there, with differing distribution between bonus and malus die... ooh, and the d12s explode with another DoS type -- that stacks!

Just shoot me already if I had to GM that and figure % distribution on the fly. It's about as ugly as Roll & Keep system for % calc during improv. I have a better idea, let's play WEG Star Wars d6 already!

I've spent some time looking at the Star Wars Dice, and I think that they've got a good idea.  When you're rolling for 'successes' and 'failures', symbols is easier than setting a range.  Symbols are easier to 'cancel' than numbers.  

If this were a matter of generating numbers against a TN or DC, numerical dice would be more appropriate.  

If my combat involved a number of attacker dice versus defender dice and I need to compare 'successful attacks' against 'successful blocks', the symbols would be more intuitive than numbers - as long as I know what the symbols mean.  

I don't see 'specialty dice' as any more damning to the game than 'specialty character sheets'.  

Personally, if I liked the game, I'd probably buy the dice.  Apparently, if I don't want to buy the dice I can get specialty dice rolling apps, or stickers that I can attach to my existing dice.  

But if a game is good, I don't begrudge spending a few extra dollars on an accessory.

Quote from: Haffrung;690351I understand your point alright. All the items beyond plain text in books that were around in 1983 - glossy maps, DM screens, polyhedral dice, hex paper, miniatures, dungeon geomorphs, illustration books in modules, these (http://dungeonofsigns.blogspot.ca/2012/11/monster-cards-discovery-review.html) - are perfectly acceptable. Anything beyond plain text in books in the last 15 years - full-colour books, cards, dice with anything other than numbers on them, flip-maps, pogs - is gimmicky, non-RPG material that only those who lack imagination would want.

Real roleplayers use protractors. Also contact gleichman on lesson how to imagine incorrectly.

Wait, sorry, Really Real roleplayers only use sheets of paper, goose pens and self - made ink.

Games only suck as much as the players do.  That's how fanboys defend their sucky games.

That's all well and good, deadMwalking. Now go try and play it, let alone run it. Theory is all well and good until it has to face application. On paper, everything can look nice.

My friend is a huge Star Wars fan and said it takes time to get used to, but of his various groups trying it none liked the obscurity of the odds and decoding of symbols to values. Sure they liked the game, because plenty just like Star Wars. But a lot of comments were they liked the game -- and some even the Degree of Success factors -- but it was in spite of the dice.

I have no problem with specialty dice, though they are a barrier to entry and if a company is going to use them, making sure people can acquire replacement dice relatively easy is important (otherwise you stop playing the game or figure a workaround after you lose a couple). If the specialty dice make for fast and fun play, not a problem for me. However if the specialty dice are a game in themselves, that is not something I have much interest in.

Quote from: Bill;690214I have done quite a bit of game mechanic design, and I often catch myself overengineering things. When I don't realize I have screwed up, it can be very helpful to me anyway, for another person to say "Stop...you are doing it wrong"

You can't satisfy everyone though, in regards to desired level of detail.

I'm always showing people what my systems do.  If a light goes off in their head, and they want a copy, then I'm on to something.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;690489I'm always showing people what my systems do.  If a light goes off in their head, and they want a copy, then I'm on to something.

I have always believe that the best products are collaborative. Take the Star Wars films.  When Lucas was just some guy he got his friends involved and together they produced something that reflected each of their strengths and only a few weaknesses.  But once he was a big shot he decided he didn't need any friends and produced the prequels with as little help as possible.  I think the difference in quality is pretty well settled.

Jobs and Woz is another example.

Dave and Gary is a good one from RPGs.  I am sure there are others.

All this is to say - I hope the mechanically minded people are making the mechanics for my games.  I just hope they are working with other talented people who can prop up their shortcomings.

Quote from: Benoist;690379Nope. You just proved your reading comprehension is abysmal AND project all sorts of shit on posts that trigger knee-jerk reactions on your part.

Thank you.

I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690515I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Agree.

There is probably some discussion to be had around degrees, requirements, etc.  But the two positions aren't so far apart as you think.

It's the attestation that at some point something is 'no longer an RPG' that is see as the biggest hurdle.  If it is true, it needs clarity.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690515I think you're both talking past each other in order to score passive aggressive points.  That is, you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun, and he's pointing out that they've existed since day one.  Neither one of you is wrong.  You don't need tokens and minis and whatnot to play AD&D.  But at the same time, they did exist, and lots of people did use them, and it wasn't a sign that they were playing the game wrong if they did.

Pretty much. Some people like to wear funny hats and light candles when they play D&D. Some like to draw detailed character portraits. Is it necessary? Nope. But whatever floats your boat. Cards are just another way to present the same information found in books. It's only scary because it's not trad. And professional layout, artwork, and glossy paper? That's simply modern publishing. There's nothing meritorious about keeping the state of RPG book design in the 80s. It just makes RPGs look they're stuck in a amateurish backwater. And that's no way to grow the hobby.

Quote from: Haffrung;690550Pretty much. Some people like to wear funny hats and light candles when they play D&D. Some like to draw detailed character portraits. Is it necessary? Nope. But whatever floats your boat. Cards are just another way to present the same information found in books. It's only scary because it's not trad. And professional layout, artwork, and glossy paper? That's simply modern publishing. There's nothing meritorious about keeping the state of RPG book design in the 80s. It just makes RPGs look they're stuck in a amateurish backwater. And that's no way to grow the hobby.

I am firmly convinced that if POD printing and the internet (network with artists) existed in 1974 like they do today, OD&D would look much different from a presentation perspective.  So it's a bit silly to use technology advancements as a form of critique.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690515you're saying that all those things like tokens are completely unnecessary and signs of some badwrong fun

This is not what I am saying.

"When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for."

What that means is: IF the main criteria you are using to call a RPG "professional" is the presence of cardboard counters or glossy paper and color artwork in order for you to read through the book and look at the pretty pictures and basically "wank on it on your spare time", THEN I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are about.

IF/WHEN... THEN.

Condition ---> Consequence.

When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for.

It does NOT mean that "counters and glossy paper are unnecessary and bad wrong". It does NOT mean that the presence of counters and glossy papers are for wankers, or that they can't be great added value to games, or that they can't have an effect on the actual purpose of the game, which is to PLAY IT.

Good Lord man, you are talking to the guy who is drawing all the maps of the Hobby Shop Dungeon in full color, who wants films over the fold-ups and high quality paper in the boxed set in order for these things to be useful at a game table, so that you can spill some Mountain Dew on it and not wreck the map. Nice paper, color, protective films are not bad things in and of themselves! They are means to an end, and the end is to create GAMING products, to actually PLAY with those things, not to have them all "prettified" because they'd make for great reading/wanking material.

It means that if you're talking about RPGs as "professional" because you'd buy the books to read and look at them instead of playing them, well then, you are missing the point of a game, which is to be played. It's a truism, to me.

If you are saying that a game like Pathfinder or Warhammer 3rd ed is a better game product because glossy paper and full color artwork and all that when compared to say, DCC RPG, Arrows of Indra, RuneQuest 6th edition or other games like this, you are missing the point that games are meant to be PLAYED, at an actual game table, that they are GAME products, not reading or coffee table material.

THIS was my point. Jesus.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690557I am firmly convinced that if POD printing and the internet (network with artists) existed in 1974 like they do today, OD&D would look much different from a presentation perspective.  So it's a bit silly to use technology advancements as a form of critique.

...and the same may well apply to dice and minis in a decade or two.  3d printing is a reality now, if it gets just a little more accessible...

Benoist, you know I agree with you more often than not, but when you say:

"When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for."

It pretty much implies that those things are badwrong, and at the very least personally attacking people who do think like that.  That's why you get the disagreeing reactions you get.

I know this, because I am just as bad at doing the same thing ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690584Benoist, you know I agree with you more often than not, but when you say:

"When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for."

It pretty much implies that those things are badwrong, and at the very least personally attacking people who do think like that.  That's why you get the disagreeing reactions you get.

I know this, because I am just as bad at doing the same thing ;)

NO it does not. It's grammar.

Let's deconstruct the sentence.

[IF] When your idea of a professional RPG / is / to have cardboard counters (...) to wank on in your spare time, / [THEN] I think you might be missing ...

=

When you want glossy paper and counters to wank on and that is your criteria to call an RPG product "professional", then I think you miss the point that RPGs are products meant for play, not reading/looking at.

That's what the sentence means.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but you clearly associated those things (tokens, etc) as appealing to people who like to masturbate over them.

That's why you got the reaction you did, because it's insulting.

Quote from: Benoist;690577If you are saying that a game like Pathfinder or Warhammer 3rd ed is a better game product because glossy paper and full color artwork and all that when compared to say, DCC RPG, Arrows of Indra, RuneQuest 6th edition or other games like this, you are missing the point that games are meant to be PLAYED, at an actual game table, that they are GAME products, not reading material.

Design is inseparable from usability. Sometimes cards and tokens can detract from usability. Sometimes they can enhance it. Poor layout always reduces usability, though some people will notice it more than others.

One of the reasons I prefer WFRP 3E to WFRP 2E is because the font in the 2E books is way too small for me to read comfortably. The system does require reading away from the table, as well as referencing books during play. And I can do that easier and more pleasantly with professionally designed and laid out books.

Furthermore, for a lot of gamers play aids greatly enhance immersion. Really, that's the only function of artwork in a gamebook. Joseph Goodman clearly thinks it's important, or he wouldn't have paid all those artists to fill up the DCC with old-style illustrations. Now, if only he'd spent some of that money to hire a professional layout person...

I don't think 'wank' is a useful word here.  Nobody intends for these products to be a completely self-indulgent thing.  Ergo 'badwrongfun' is the only logical reason to use that word, IMO.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690590I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but you clearly associated those things (tokens, etc) as appealing to peopel who like to masturbate over them.

That's why you got the reaction you did, because it's insulting.

It's not semantics. It's grammar. And I certainly did not say, AND mean, what you and others want to project on that sentence.

I know, because I wrote it.

There has been many a game that has been play tested to death by companies before, they ask for play test results opinions and suggestions, then when the game goes to print, they keep the same bullshit in the game the play testers told them to take out or change this for that, but they keep it in anyhow because they know best.

Play testing doesn't always mean a good game with a deaf publisher.

What Benoist's saying isn't hard, people.

"Production values are great.  Adding pretty stuff is great.  But they should lead to more playability, and be in service to it.  If you'd consider a glossy, unplayable game professional, while a perfectly crafted game in black and white typewriter text to be crappy, then you're putting the cart before the horse."

Quote from: Haffrung;690591Design is inseparable from usability. Sometimes cards and tokens can detract from usability. Sometimes they can enhance it. Poor layout always reduces usability, though some people will notice it more than others.

I agree. Sometimes black and white will make for good layout, and sometimes color will make for good layout. Sometimes adding counters and cards and all sorts of things will fit the design and the ultimate usability of the game, and if so, they should be there. If not, they shouldn't be there.

Quote from: Haffrung;690591One of the reasons I prefer WFRP 3E to WFRP 2E is because the font in the 2E books is way too small for me to read comfortably. The system does require reading away from the table, as well as referencing books during play. And I can do that easier and more pleasantly with professionally designed and laid out books.

What you construe as a "professionally designed and laid out book" is not a general objective rule. What matters is what the game is trying to achieve, and the way the form and layout and so on help to achieve this game play intent. In that sense, DCC RPG has a LOT going for it in terms of professional design and specific lay out aiding it to achieve its goal in terms of game play...

Quote from: Haffrung;690591Furthermore, for a lot of gamers play aids greatly enhance immersion. Really, that's the only function of artwork in a gamebook. Joseph Goodman clearly thinks it's important, or he wouldn't have paid all those artists to fill up the DCC with old-style illustrations. Now, if only he'd spent some of that money to hire a professional layout person...

... and that is exactly what you are intimating here. The layout actually incorporates all these illustrations, the black and white style is clearly intentional, and so on. After, whether you personally don't like black and white books and such is neither here nor there. If you have a massive problem with it, maybe you aren't the target customer of the design? It seems to please a damn lot of people besides you, myself included.

So my point really is that because you'd prefer a big font or color in a book does not construe an objective set of criteria to determine what is professional and what is not. All depends on what the game, its format, layout, content, ultimate use at a game table are meant to achieve, and whether they achieve this. The interesting case is when you have a precise set of intents, but the actual use of the game product is different than what you intended, but just as successful, if not more, than your original intent realized as you wanted it to would have been. I guess there's a lot of that going on with role playing games actually, because you can never exactly predict how your game is going to be used, as opposed to what you intended when you conceived it.

Quote from: Haffrung;690591Furthermore, for a lot of gamers play aids greatly enhance immersion. Really, that's the only function of artwork in a gamebook. Joseph Goodman clearly thinks it's important, or he wouldn't have paid all those artists to fill up the DCC with old-style illustrations. Now, if only he'd spent some of that money to hire a professional layout person...

Honestly, while good art can cover a multitude of sins I don't know if it's really essential. For example I recently had the opportunity to look at a couple of the Pathfinder books, and the art absolutely carried them. Take away the art and what remains is frankly pallid and unoriginal. Maybe they were trying to be unoriginal and if so kudos to them, but I found nothing inspirational about the text as written.

Books, plain old books, can enrapture us without the use of pictures so clearly it is possible to do better, but in RPGs there's an expectation that some art should be in place. The more and glossier the better to be honest, otherwise the writing had better be either new or top notch, preferably both.

Quote from: robiswrong;690599What Benoist's saying isn't hard, people.

"Production values are great.  Adding pretty stuff is great.  But they should lead to more playability, and be in service to it.  If you'd consider a glossy, unplayable game professional, while a perfectly crafted game in black and white typewriter text to be crappy, then you're putting the cart before the horse."

You guys are conflating "professional" with "good", and "unprofessional" with "bad."

Hand drawn maps and whatnot can be a perfectly good product, but it's not professional.  A glossy map and layout can be a bad product, but still be professional.

It would probably help eliminate a bunch of confusion if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

Quote from: mcbobbo;690492I have always believe that the best products are collaborative. Take the Star Wars films.  When Lucas was just some guy he got his friends involved and together they produced something that reflected each of their strengths and only a few weaknesses.  But once he was a big shot he decided he didn't need any friends and produced the prequels with as little help as possible.  I think the difference in quality is pretty well settled.

Jobs and Woz is another example.

Dave and Gary is a good one from RPGs.  I am sure there are others.

All this is to say - I hope the mechanically minded people are making the mechanics for my games.  I just hope they are working with other talented people who can prop up their shortcomings.

Yes.  THX1138 is way different than later Lucas stuff.  He had his peers working with him on that movie.  Then he surrounded himself with "yes" people 30 years later.  I guess any company can suffer from this.  See FFE.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690603You guys are conflating "professional" with "good", and "unprofessional" with "bad."

Hand drawn maps and whatnot can be a perfectly good product, but it's not professional.  A glossy map and layout can be a bad product, but still be professional.

It would probably help eliminate a bunch of confusion if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

I've seen a lot of professionally written bad games and professionally drawn terrible maps.  Professional just means you got your money.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690603You guys are conflating "professional" with "good", and "unprofessional" with "bad."

Hand drawn maps and whatnot can be a perfectly good product, but it's not professional.  A glossy map and layout can be a bad product, but still be professional.

It would probably help eliminate a bunch of confusion if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

I've seen a lot of professionally written bad games and professionally drawn terrible maps.  Professional just means you got your money.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690603You guys are conflating "professional" with "good", and "unprofessional" with "bad."

Not on my part. Professional products can be bad, and non-professional creations can be good. It's neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned.

Professional (Merriam-Webster)

: relating to a job that requires special education, training, or skill
: done or given by a person who works in a particular profession
: paid to participate in a sport or activity

Professional (Dictionary.com)

pro·fes·sion·al  [pruh-fesh-uh-nl]  Show IPA
adjective
1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies.
3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity.
4. engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person.
5. following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;690603Hand drawn maps and whatnot can be a perfectly good product, but it's not professional.  A glossy map and layout can be a bad product, but still be professional.

I disagree. Whether a product is professional has nothing to do with whether the maps are hand drawn, glossy, or not.

Assuming you'd have unlimited funds and all possible tools of production at your disposal, you might still want to include hand-drawn maps in your product for reasons that have to do with its design, what it tries to actually achieve as a product. Not to mention, drawing maps by hand can be done with particular skill and a command of those skills, i.e. professionally. Ergo, whether a map is hand-drawn does not necessarily mean a product is not professional. Conversely, a computer generated, glossy map does not necessarily make a product professional.

Ditto counters, color layout, and so on.

D&D is basically crap.  Yet professionals are paid to work on it.  If another RPG comes along and it is better than D&D, and the designers didn't get paid, then they are not pros.

Quote from: robiswrong;690599"Production values are great.  Adding pretty stuff is great.  But they should lead to more playability, and be in service to it.  If you'd consider a glossy, unplayable game professional, while a perfectly crafted game in black and white typewriter text to be crappy, then you're putting the cart before the horse."

But nobody has claimed that. It was a strawman when Benoist said it, and it's a strawman when you say it.

Quote from: Benoist;690601What you construe as a "professionally designed and laid out book" is not a general objective rule. What matters is what the game is trying to achieve, and the way the form and layout and so on help to achieve this game play intent. In that sense, DCC RPG has a LOT going for it in terms of professional design and specific lay out aiding it to achieve its goal in terms of game play...


... and that is exactly what you are intimating here. The layout actually incorporates all these illustrations, the black and white style is clearly intentional, and so on. After, whether you personally don't like black and white books and such is neither here nor there. If you have a massive problem with it, maybe you aren't the target customer of the design? It seems to please a damn lot of people besides you, myself included.

This is why you come across as such a dick; reading into things that people don't actually say.  I said nothing about liking or disliking black and white illustrations. I happen to think they work quite well in the DCC (and even better in FantasyCraft). The comment about the DCC books being unprofessionally laid out is about running the text across the whole page with a single column, instead of break it into two columns. How headers are used. White space. FantasyCraft does all of this much better than DCC, even though they both have roughly the same production values in terms of B&W, paper, binding, etc.

Readability is not entirely subjective. If you're a professional layout designer, you can't hand whatever the hell you please into your client and say 'hey, works for me.' There are techniques which are empirically proven to be more effective than others, and enhance ease or reading and retention. People actually study this stuff, with eye tracking scanners, blinking, retention tests, etc. A few RPG publishers get this stuff (or rather they employ people who are trained in it). Some don't. It matters to me, because RPG books are a product like any other, and usability matters.

Quote from: Haffrung;690628But nobody has claimed that. It was a strawman when Benoist said it, and it's a strawman when you say it.

Well then what did you mean when you went on a rant about how only FFG and Paizo produce real professional products and games like DCC RPG, Labyrinth Lord and others are these God awful amateurish pieces of crap, and people who like those things are retrograde and don't know what's good for the hobby, should go away and so on?

Because that's actually a drum you've been beating for a while, unless I've completely misunderstood your ranting about the professionalism of RPG publishers, these grognard neckbeards who should just go away, those Shatner moments (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27582) you are wishing for, and you actually mean something else, in which case, I'm all ears, and would love to know what you actually meant when you ranted about all this over years of postings.

Quote from: Haffrung;690629The comment about the DCC books being unprofessionally laid out is about running the text across the whole page with a single column, instead of break it into two columns. How headers are used. White space.

I disagree with you. I do not see how running the text in a single column or two actually makes the game objectively worse, or badly laid out.

Since we are at the point where we tell each other why we think we're dicks, my problem with you is that you are constantly confusing your own perspectives and tastes with objective truth, and/or generalize them, along with your own particular experiences, to such an extent that if someone says something that doesn't remotely pan out with your point of view, then they must be dishonest, liars, revionists and/or dicks.

Like when we were talking about how the OD&D game was played in a wide variety of ways in the 70s, that basically it is just as revisionist to say the game was played entirely hack n slash by most people or entirely thespian or whatnot by these same "most people," and that you had this knee-jerk reaction because that did not pan out with how you experienced the game from your own corner of the hobby past 1980 and started ranting about how modules are all hack and slash and bad, that the games never explained that back-and-forth to-and-from the dungeon stuff, avoiding encounters, players deciding on their own objectives, etc, which was proven wrong (AD&D PH page 107-109 FYI), which then prompted more shifting of goalposts...

That's the bullshit I have a problem with.

Quote from: Haffrung;690629Readability is not entirely subjective.

I agree. But readability depends on the user, and different products are aimed at different audiences, therefore the lay out and presentation of a product, including its art, whether the text is in two columns or one, what to do with blank spaces, how big they should be, where, etc, will vary depending on that which you are trying to create and market to that audience. So subjectivity, tastes, perceptions are ALSO part of the picture.

I didn't think what Benoist said was confusing. When collectible tchotchkes become the ends instead of the means, we'll have problems. Same issue with a lot of products; when the market skews towards collectibility over usability problems arise.

The collector's market is a very different market from the player's/user's market -- however tempting their money assumes otherwise. It's been the boon of speculators for ages, but the bane of many producers who lost sight of their product's original purpose.

Similarly insular theory crafting rides the same death spiral. You *can* try to improve a product nigh indefinitely. And you also can lose sight of the product in the pursuit of refinement. See: high end food art, Japanese infatuation with improving the toilet (they're great!... to a point. then just spooky), etc.

But soufflés, people, soufflés! You've been doing so well beating things into a peaking foam. Just remember to stop before broken peaks, the proteins can only take so much of a beating.

Quote from: Haffrung;690629There are techniques which are empirically proven to be more effective than others, and enhance ease or reading and retention. People actually study this stuff, with eye tracking scanners, blinking, retention tests, etc. A few RPG publishers get this stuff (or rather they employ people who are trained in it). Some don't. It matters to me, because RPG books are a product like any other, and usability matters.

As someone who's studied graphic design and knows a ton of graphic designers and designed a book that gets used an awful lot because it doesn't follow graphic design orthodoxy, I'm sick of seeing this idea being used as a cudgel.

Yeah: there is such a thing as professional-looking (i.e. expensive looking) graphic design. There are scientifically ways to make a thing easier to read. There are also scientifically proven ways to make songs more memorable--it doesn't mean those are the only sentences worth writing.

The moment you assume the industry standards are the only or best ways to engage a reader, or that trade-offs that graphic designers make are always worth it, you fall into a trap that your graphic design teacher will stright up tell you that you fell into.

Sometimes there's an overall effect a designer is trying to get, and to get it they need to do something that isn't the same Picture Left Text Right White Space Everywhere Thematic Border over and over.

There isn't actually any graphic design teacher worth their salt who will actually tell you "Don't try different things, and when you do try them, don't judge whether they worked by actually looking at how the audience for the thing responds to it".

And there aren't actually a lot of high-end groundbreaking graphic designers  who have actually looked at RPG game book design as a separate problem (the way they've looked at cook book design and album cover design as a separate problem) and really come up with solutions distinctive to the fairly unusual way RPG books are used compared to other books. So the field is actually wide open.

Sometimes a solution trades obvious ease of reading to a majority audience for something else. And sometimes the audience wants that something else.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;690614I've seen a lot of professionally written bad games and professionally drawn terrible maps.  Professional just means you got your money.

Some things are often done as well by amateurs as by professionals:

Writing music
Playing music
Designing games
Illustrating games

Some things are rarely done as well my amateurs as by professionals:

Mixing music
Laying out and editing game books

The difference is that the former activities are creative, fun, and rewarding in themselves, while the latter are much less obviously so. People will plunk away on a guitar, or scribble away on a game design as a kind of hobby. Few people mix and arrange music, or lay out and proof books, for fun. They usually expect to be paid. The difference in quality between an amateur product and professional product often comes down to those technical roles that the audience/customer is largely oblivious to, except in their absence.

I'll say it again, though, I don't necessarily want the guy who is good at laying out the book to design the mechanics or write the setting, etc.  Like most professional skills, it should be hired out to someone really really good at layout.

Someone that does something successfully as a living is a professional.  Anything else is just a tinkerer or hobbyist.

Quote from: mcbobbo;690650I'll say it again, though, I don't necessarily want the guy who is good at laying out the book to design the mechanics or write the setting, etc.  Like most professional skills, it should be hired out to someone really really good at layout.

I think that the graphic designer of an RPG book should be a GM (at least some kind of GM).

The reason shit is so hard to find in 90% of RPG books is the graphic designers are just random "professionals".

Quote from: Zak S;690663I think that the graphic designer of an RPG book should be a GM (at least some kind of GM).

The reason shit is so hard to find in 90% of RPG books is the graphic designers are just random "professionals".

Alternatively, layout should be reviewed by people who aren't graphic designers but are GMs.

Sort of like playtesting.

Quote from: Benoist;690276When your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for. YMMV.

For a moderator here, you sure set a poor example for posters to follow.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;690715For a moderator here, you sure set a poor example for posters to follow.

Luckily enough, the RPG Site is a place where you can say something like "RPGs are meant to be played, and not to primarily serve as coffee table reading material" without sounding too controvertial.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;690715For a moderator here, you sure set a poor example for posters to follow.

Eh, hopefully everyone here is old enough to have outgrown the need for role models (no pun intended).

Quote from: Zak S;690640And there aren't actually a lot of high-end groundbreaking graphic designers  who have actually looked at RPG game book design as a separate problem (the way they've looked at cook book design and album cover design as a separate problem) and really come up with solutions distinctive to the fairly unusual way RPG books are used compared to other books. So the field is actually wide open.

Have these people published their results somewhere accessible? I am interested.

Quote from: Zak S;690640And there aren't actually a lot of high-end groundbreaking graphic designers who have actually looked at RPG game book design as a separate problem (the way they've looked at cook book design and album cover design as a separate problem) and really come up with solutions distinctive to the fairly unusual way RPG books are used compared to other books. So the field is actually wide open.

The field is wide open because it consists of sand and rocks and, like, two turnips and a sparrow. Cook books benefited from having money involved and albums had both money and prestige.

I don't think any high-end groundbreaking graphic designers are coming. :)

Quote from: BenoistWhen your idea of a professional RPG is to have cardboard counters, glossy paper and color artwork throughout to wank on in your spare time, I think you might be missing something about what RPGs are actually supposed to be designed for. YMMV.

That is my idea of a professional rpg. Most sensible gamers agree with me.

Quote from: Benoist;690718Luckily enough, the RPG Site is a place where you can say something like "RPGs are meant to be played, and not to primarily serve as coffee table reading material" without sounding too controvertial.

To be honest, dude...what you're saying is controversial. You're basically implying that the physical presentation of a roleplaying game is unimportant, and that if we find it important...then there's something wrong with us. I'll never agree with that.

Because if the book doesn't look beautiful enough to be put on a coffee table, then I assume that the authors were either inept, or didn't fully respect the presentation of their work. If the author of a game can't be arsed to make sure his game looks professional, or is too stupid to realize how important it is...then I assume that his game is going to suck. After I come to that conclusion, I usually put that game right back on that fucking shelf...and never play that rpg in the first place.

And guess what? There's an army of people that agree with me.

Quote from: Melan;690742Have these people published their results somewhere accessible? I am interested.

Whose results?

Quote from: Imp;690743The field is wide open because it consists of sand and rocks and, like, two turnips and a sparrow. Cook books benefited from having money involved and albums had both money and prestige.

I don't think any high-end groundbreaking graphic designers are coming. :)

A lot of really great game designers and illustrators who later went on to larger and more lucrative fields started in RPGs, there's no reason that the same couldn't happen with graphic designers.

F'r'example Kirin on Old School Hack did some new and innovative stuff.

Quote from: Zak S;690752F'r'example Kirin on Old School Hack did some new and innovative stuff.

Absolutely - all the more impressive because it was a one-man project.

Quote from: Zak S;690750Whose results?

High-end graphic designers who have come up with useful RPG-specific design solutions. If the work they did for RPGs is available to the public, I'm interested in checking them out.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690746To be honest, dude...what you're saying is controversial. You're basically implying that the physical presentation of a roleplaying game is unimportant, and that if we find it important...then there's something wrong with us. I'll never agree with that.

Good, because that isn't something I believe at all.

I believe the contrary: I believe the physical presentation, the form, is important. I also believe the physical presentation of a product should serve its destination. In other words, the form should fulfill the function. The function of a role playing game product is to be played.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690746Most sensible gamers agree with me. . . . There's an army of people that agree with me.

:rotfl:

"This is not the way of Landru. You are not of The Body! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg)"

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690746Because if the book doesn't look beautiful enough to be put on a coffee table, then I assume that the authors were either inept, or didn't fully respect the presentation of their work. . . . After I come to that conclusion, I usually put that game right back on that fucking shelf...and never play that rpg in the first place.

Your tastes are as shallow as your understanding.

Tell me, would you put the original Traveller black box back on the shelf?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690840:rotfl:

"This is not the way of Landru. You are not of The Body! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg)"


Your tastes are as shallow as your understanding.

Tell me, would you put the original Traveller black box back on the shelf?

Original Traveler rules. The particular art style used works, and I am not sure a glitzy color art upgrade would add anything.

Some games, sure. But perhaps not Traveler.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690840Tell me, would you put the original Traveller black box back on the shelf?

Today, yes.

Thing is, there are enough intriguing, appealing RPGs that also have professional layout and design that there's no need for me to dip into the amateur hack stuff. It's not a tradeoff - by eschewing ugly and unappealing products, I'm not sacrificing anything, because I already buy more readily appealing RPG books (in both a system sense and aesthetically) than I can realistically play.

I returned the Slumbering Tsar book from Frog God press last year because, in spite of the cool cover art, the layout inside was brutal. The prospect of reading a 300+ book with difficult fonts and spacing, smudgy art, distracting stat blocs, etc. had no appeal. I got a refund and ordered some WFRP 3E stuff instead, confident from the WFRP 3E products I already had that it would be both functional and pleasant to read.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690746To be honest, dude...what you're saying is controversial. You're basically implying that the physical presentation of a roleplaying game is unimportant, and that if we find it important...then there's something wrong with us. I'll never agree with that.

Because if the book doesn't look beautiful enough to be put on a coffee table, then I assume that the authors were either inept, or didn't fully respect the presentation of their work. If the author of a game can't be arsed to make sure his game looks professional, or is too stupid to realize how important it is...then I assume that his game is going to suck. After I come to that conclusion, I usually put that game right back on that fucking shelf...and never play that rpg in the first place.

And guess what? There's an army of people that agree with me.

Don't bother Lamb. This is the classic "Back in my days we hiked 40 miles to get to school, up hill" line. It's not even an argument.

Sure you don't need glossy paper, formatting, shiny tokens and all that jazz. You also don't need soft toilet paper, alcohols that don't taste like they are made out of cotton dust to get drunk, or an mp3/mp4 player with enough space to hold a year's production of record company.

Isn't there some wiggle room between "OMG! SO PRETTY!!! and "Plain black text?"

Not to mention content of the game.

I like art quite a lot, but if the game sucks....

Quote from: Bill;690874Isn't there some wiggle room between "OMG! SO PRETTY!!! and "Plain black text?"

Of course!

I think the Pathfinder core book is too big, uses a font that is too small, with a layout that is too busy for the eye. I think 4th edition D&D is actually a step ahead of Pathfinder in that regard. Does that mean that Pathfinder should look like Labyrinth Lord? No, because the audiences aren't the same. Should Labyrinth Lord look like Pathfinder? No, because the audiences aren't the same.

What really matters in my mind is to identify your audience, identify the function of your product, to then come up with a form that fulfills the function and satisfies (or exceeds) your audience's expectations at the same time.

Quote from: Zak S;690752A lot of really great game designers and illustrators who later went on to larger and more lucrative fields started in RPGs, there's no reason that the same couldn't happen with graphic designers.

F'r'example Kirin on Old School Hack did some new and innovative stuff.

Sure, but, ya know, game designing and illustrating is its own reward in a lot of ways. RPGs have never had problems – well, since the mid 80s, let's say – finding dudes who wanna draw dragons no matter how little money they have. People want to draw dragons. People want to design games. People, even designers, don't go laying out 250+ pages of lorem ipsum dolor in their spare time. Layout is work, and analysis, and making changes, and trying to get the client to see the logic in what you are doing – the poorer and less prestigious the client the more they are going to stick their hands into what you are doing and your top-end cutting-edge graphic designers just don't put up with that (at least, when trying to do cutting-edge work; not sure if anybody these days can completely avoid autopilot jobs).

You might get someone who started out playing RPGs, worked in top-end ad agencies or whatever, who then comes back and decides laying out an RPG is an important problem for them to work on, but they still have to get the client to shut up and go along with their groundbreaking design whatever, and then they have to deal with the conservatism of the customer base... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote from: Rincewind1;690869Sure you don't need glossy paper, formatting, shiny tokens and all that jazz. You also don't need soft toilet paper, alcohols that don't taste like they are made out of cotton dust to get drunk, or an mp3/mp4 player with enough space to hold a year's production of record company.

My version of good, professional design for an RPG rulebook is the same type of good design that you'd find in the average college textbook or average reference book.  I want it to be easy to read and easy to refer to using easy-to-read fonts in black(ish) type on off-white/whitish paper

Many things that others seem to consider examples of professional layout and design in RPGs that turn me off because they make the book harder to read and/or harder to refer to in play. Some examples:

* page backgrounds: I really do not want to try to read text printed on colored backgrounds, over line art, printed over pictures, etc. It may LOOK very nice when you flip through the book, but it makes actually using the book (that is, reading the text) harder for many people.

* Weird layouts: Standard layouts may be boring but they are proven by long use to be easy to read and follow.

* distracting page borders: A fancy border every once in a while (like for the first page of a chapter) is okay. Busy or distracting borders are seldom okay, and never okay on most pages in the book. A border that isn't distracting and is actually useful (thumbs for each chapter, for example) is fine.  If they aren't actually useful all they do is take up space and if they are busy/distracting, they don't really count as white space either.

Quote from: Benoist;690718"RPGs are meant to be played, and not to primarily serve as coffee table reading material".

Wait why else would anyone buy Pathfinder books :?

Quote from: Bill;690874Not to mention content of the game.

I like art quite a lot, but if the game sucks....

I thought that 4E was a great example of this. The books were very well done and pretty, but the content they held was not up to the standards that most people had developed by then.

I think that RPG books have three, often contradictory purposes.  First, they must attract potential buyers and inspire the reader with the awesomeness of their Big Idea (usually the setting or metaplot, or whatever).  Second, they must teach a prospective player how to play the game before they ever sit down at a table.  Third, they must serve as a reference for reasonably knowledgeable players while they are playing the game.

If board game rules folios and software technical documentation are anything to go by[1] these three purposes require different and arguably irreconcilable design aesthetics.  It's why software tends to have a "user's guide" and a "technical reference" as two completely separate books, and why most boardgames have both a rulebook and a "cheat sheet".[2]

I don't think it's possible to make a single-book RPG design that can do all three, and single-book publishing has been the norm for decades.


[1] These are the only other similar fields I have any familiarity with
[2] To be fair, the cheat sheets are nearly always fan-created

Quote from: jeff37923;690945I thought that 4E was a great example of this. The books were very well done and pretty, but the content they held was not up to the standards that most people had developed by then.

I think the 4e art is very hit or miss myself.

Quote from: daniel_ream;690951I think that RPG books have three, often contradictory purposes.  First, they must attract potential buyers and inspire the reader with the awesomeness of their Big Idea (usually the setting or metaplot, or whatever).  Second, they must teach a prospective player how to play the game before they ever sit down at a table.  Third, they must serve as a reference for reasonably knowledgeable players while they are playing the game.

If board game rules folios and software technical documentation are anything to go by[1] these three purposes require different and arguably irreconcilable design aesthetics.  It's why software tends to have a "user's guide" and a "technical reference" as two completely separate books, and why most boardgames have both a rulebook and a "cheat sheet".[2]

I don't think it's possible to make a single-book RPG design that can do all three, and single-book publishing has been the norm for decades.


[1] These are the only other similar fields I have any familiarity with
[2] To be fair, the cheat sheets are nearly always fan-created

I agree 100 per cent. WotC took a stab a creating a genuine 'technical reference' with the Rules Compendium for Essentials. It's a very well done and effective book. However, a lot of RPG fans go ballistic if they think the company is "forcing" them to buy the same content twice.

Furthermore, when I've questioned the lack of summary sheets for RPGs (or even half-decent GM screens), the response I've gotten back is that they're unnecessary because gamers worth their salt will simply internalize this stuff and keep in in their heads.

So once again, you've got the preferences of the ubergamers at odds with the needs of the new or casual player. Combine that with the ferocious conservatism of a good portion of the RPG player-base, and publishers face an almost irreconcilable dilemma - they need to innovate to achieve their goals, but they will be punished for that innovation. I don't envy them one bit.

Quote from: Benoist;690835Good, because that isn't something I believe at all.

I believe the contrary: I believe the physical presentation, the form, is important. I also believe the physical presentation of a product should serve its destination. In other words, the form should fulfill the function. The function of a role playing game product is to be played.

Well...okay. If that's what you're saying, then that makes sense. If I misunderstood, and got snippy about it...then I apologize.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;690840:rotfl:

"This is not the way of Landru. You are not of The Body! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48xii7ndcg)"

I don't fully understand the reference, because I missed that episode. But now I suddenly want to watch some original Star Trek...

Quote from: Black VulmeaYour tastes are as shallow as your understanding.

Tell me, would you put the original Traveller black box back on the shelf?

Sadly, I have not read original Traveller. I've always wanted to pick it up, but it was one of those things that I somehow never got around to. I do like those Traveller covers though...

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690997Sadly, I have not read original Traveller. I've always wanted to pick it up, but it was one of those things that I somehow never got around to. I do like those Traveller covers though...

Spend no money!

Go to DriveThruRPG and download Starter Traveller  (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/80190/CT-ST-Starter-Traveller)( a free basic version of the original Classic Traveller).

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690997But now I suddenly want to watch some original Star Trek...

Then this thread hasn't been a total waste!  Hooray!

Quote from: Old Geezer;691039Then this thread hasn't been a total waste!  Hooray!

Ditto. The Landru episode is actually one I particularly like. Watch away! :D

Quote from: Melan;690820High-end graphic designers who have come up with useful RPG-specific design solutions. If the work they did for RPGs is available to the public, I'm interested in checking them out.

You misread me, I said they haven't appeared yet.

And I totally did. Where is my coffee? :/

Quote from: valis;689975I posted that article.

It is my fault that it wasn't posted back in May when the interview was done.

It was part of a series about "New Wave" OSR, i.e. those people who were A) Not grognards/players of the original edition(s), B) Not people who started blogging about it back in 2008-2010, but were instead: New creatives with no previous exposure to the old games, blogging and creating games in the OSR style. That is: using a DIY aesthetic focused on the actual play of the game.

This term makes no sense. You're just taking "New game designers not in any way related to OSR" and choosing to call it "new wave OSR".  Its a bullshit tactic whose only possible purpose is to dilute the definition of OSR.

And the author of the game in question agrees, in this case.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;690015Yes, it used to be Nutkinland. But when this place changed hands (and became Pundit's), it became a

I think the right way to complete this sentence is "massive success that nutkinland had never managed to be, thanks to the Pundit's superior brilliance".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;691299This term makes no sense. You're just taking "New game designers not in any way related to OSR" and choosing to call it "new wave OSR".  Its a bullshit tactic whose only possible purpose is to dilute the definition of OSR.

"Only possible purpose"....don't be a conspiracy theorist.

The reason the series is called that is because "People With Game Blogs Who Hang Out With OSR People On G+ That Courtney Likes And Just Found Out About Recently" is a mouthful.

Jeez.

Who the designer (Ian) really is is a recovering (?) internet-snark addict who learned about the OSR a while ago because of his bros making fun of it and then discovered a whole bunch of cool games and gamers in the OSR and has been hanging out with them ever since.

So Ian is a person. He did actual things in real life and has a social relationship with lots of people who are really into old school D&D. He is still really into newie mechanics--possibly (having played with him) because his home group is way better with that kind of game than his onlne pals.

The mechanics that made it into his published game aren't very Old School at all. That doesn't mean that he's part of a conspiracy. He's just this guy, you know?

Quote from: RPGPundit;691299Its a bullshit tactic whose only possible purpose is to dilute the definition of OSR.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I mean, it could by a cynical, calculated attempt to lure in gamers who'd have nothing to do with the game on its actual merits by using a current trend in gaming as a meaningless marketing blurb.

Or it could simply be complete ignorance about the OSR's origins leading to using a term the author really doesn't understand enough to use meaningfully.

Given the number of possible explanations, let's not jump to conclusions here. That would be bad.

Agreed. I think this type of thing is unavoidable, and born out of ignorance more than sheer malice. The more the "OSR" as a Thing becomes popular and wide-spread, the more things like this happen, the more the term itself loses its meaning. There isn't really much new under the Sun here: this happened with rock n' roll, punk rock, and pretty much whatever-the-fuck else. Doesn't stop people from enjoying Sex Pistols music today, or creating their own bands, mind you.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;689973Unfortunately, I've also found it to be virtually impossible. What inevitably happens is that you spend a massive chunk of time soliciting volunteers, organizing the volunteers, and then disseminating the material. (I've made several attempts in which this work actually chewed up more time than initially developing the material.)

And then you hear back from less than 5% of the volunteers you sent material to (which, in many cases, means that you hear back from literally nobody). Of those you do hear back from, 95% of them didn't actually play the game or scenario: They read it and now they're just theory-wanking or armchair quarterbacking.

I'm guessing that even companies like WotC and Paizo don't see percentages much different than that. They just have big enough numbers that they can occasionally get some useful feedback mixed in with the chaff.

This quote is so much truer than I wish it was. :(

Pundit-

I consider myself tangentially involved in the OSR - both by playing in it's infamous FLAILSNAIL games, and by running a blog where the majority of the posts deal with old school D&D. Stab City! is, you are correct, nothing at all like D&D, but I enjoy many different approaches to RPGs, and just happened to want to make a game that is inspired by contemporary game design. I'm sorry if there was any confusion.

-Ian

Quote from: Cheneybeast;691333Pundit-

I consider myself tangentially involved in the OSR - both by playing in it's infamous FLAILSNAIL games, and by running a blog where the majority of the posts deal with old school D&D. Stab City! is, you are correct, nothing at all like D&D, but I enjoy many different approaches to RPGs, and just happened to want to make a game that is inspired by contemporary game design. I'm sorry if there was any confusion.

-Ian

That sounds good; and I get where you're coming from now. Wish you luck with your games.

RPGPundit

The soufflé... is good. :cool: