I've posted a massive rant over on SG. It's actually kind of interesting. I did this instead of reading "Only Revolutions", so I hope someone gets some use out of it!
(I may expand this, either here or there. Any ideas, folks? Tell me stuff!)
Two personal thoughts.
Some time ago, I created an RPG ("Struggle") with very competitive elements. It was designed for two players, very quickly, and it wasn't perfect. But it had some good bits. My friend and I tried it, and had an interesting story. We both enjoyed ourselves; but it was clear that I enjoyed it more than he did. He seemed kind of... let down, after. But he decided to play it again.
So we did, much to the same result. He said to me after, "I think you've got some good ideas here, and this could be a good game. But it's not a game for me.". He stated the competitive elements (and the fact that they overwhelmed the story at times), as one reason. I think Rob had a similar moment here ("I'm sure this is great, but it's just not for me"), and it's actually got me thinking about a few things.
The other thought involves Magic. I've played that for longer than I've played RPGs, but probably less often - at least 7 or 8 years, though. And every time I play in a "serious" environment, like a tournament or at a card store (with strangers), I feel kind of "meh". Not bad, but not great.
But when I'm with friends, playing, I enjoy myself much more. And it's not just who I'm playing with. We still play to win, always, to the best of our ability. But A) We try to do it in fun ways, and B) We don't really care all that much.
But, primarily, the "fun" I get when playing Magic is the same "fun" I get when playing many RPGs (Beast Hunters comes to mind, as does Baron Munchausen) - throwing each other into tricky situations and watching them escape. It's racing to find the right solution. It's doing something clever or tricky. It is, on occasion, drawing the right card at the right time.
I'm rambling here, but the main point is this: Both RPGs and board/card games have spectrum of playing styles, both within types of games and within a particular game. This isn't really news, but it affects people all the time - and I daresay there's interesting, not-fully-explored design lessons in that fact.
Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts
4/8/09
The Foundations of Gamism
In my mind a so-called "gamist" game has certain requirements to be truly effective and engaging:
First: Each player (including the GM figure, if any) must have equal opportunity. Not equal power (effectiveness) but the equal chance for power.
Caveat: If there are "sides" or "teams" (player VS GM, for example), each side or team must have
equal opportunity. In a case of one GM and five players, for example, the GM's opportunity for
power should be roughly five times that of a player.
Second: This opportunity must work in the system, and it must be enforced.
Example: 3.0 & 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons - The CR system should match the GM's opportunity
to that of the player-team. However, it doesn't work very well and isn't enforced.
Third: There must be different domains (physical attacks VS magic attacks, power VS quickness, etc...) and different choices within each domain. Some choices should be better than others, especially situationally, but each domain should be roughly equal in opportunity.
Fourth: Choice is the basis of the game. Some choices NEED to be better than others. Choices will fall roughly into two catagories: Pre-Game/Between Game (for example, character building) or during game. Some games will emphasize the importance differently, but different players will enjoy the pre- or during- choices in different ways.
Fifth: Randomness is not needed, but may be useful. The game should not really too heavily on randomness, however - it should rely on player skill.
Sixth: There must be a way to "win" or at least some clear indicator of success, and players should not be made to feel bad becasue they are more effective (or "win") more than other players.
There's more, but this is a start to me putting some thoughts together. More later. Any ideas, folks?
First: Each player (including the GM figure, if any) must have equal opportunity. Not equal power (effectiveness) but the equal chance for power.
Caveat: If there are "sides" or "teams" (player VS GM, for example), each side or team must have
equal opportunity. In a case of one GM and five players, for example, the GM's opportunity for
power should be roughly five times that of a player.
Second: This opportunity must work in the system, and it must be enforced.
Example: 3.0 & 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons - The CR system should match the GM's opportunity
to that of the player-team. However, it doesn't work very well and isn't enforced.
Third: There must be different domains (physical attacks VS magic attacks, power VS quickness, etc...) and different choices within each domain. Some choices should be better than others, especially situationally, but each domain should be roughly equal in opportunity.
Fourth: Choice is the basis of the game. Some choices NEED to be better than others. Choices will fall roughly into two catagories: Pre-Game/Between Game (for example, character building) or during game. Some games will emphasize the importance differently, but different players will enjoy the pre- or during- choices in different ways.
Fifth: Randomness is not needed, but may be useful. The game should not really too heavily on randomness, however - it should rely on player skill.
Sixth: There must be a way to "win" or at least some clear indicator of success, and players should not be made to feel bad becasue they are more effective (or "win") more than other players.
There's more, but this is a start to me putting some thoughts together. More later. Any ideas, folks?
1/9/09
Pickup Gaming / Dedicated Gaming
Okay.
I've been thinking.
I need to have two groups.
Group One will be the pickup group. This will be a "loose"-er group, in the sense that it's not critical whether people show up or not. It'd probably be dungeon-crawling D&D 4 game. Everyone knows the rules, so if you feel like coming any given week, just right up a character and come. It'd be more just hanging out, playing the game for the game. For the folks that don't really care or just want to play a game.
Group Two will be the dedicated group. They're the ones who are interested in trying new games, discussing games, and flexing their play styles and ways of thinking. They want to help develop and test games, think critically about their games, and be more involved.
I think this'd be a fine way of things for everything. Here are the problems I see.
A) Not enough people for Group Two, right now. I know of one definitely, and maybe another one or two maybes.
B) Scheduling. There's probably one or two people interested in both, but maybe too busy to work both into a schedule. I've got about enough time for it, but...
C) People have too-high expectations of D&D. Essentially the game would be what it is (a game about exploring areas, combat, interesting tactical encounters)... Not anything else (Especially not making a story! No, no, no!).
Well, there are some problems. But assuming more people can be found for Group Two, I think this is close to an ideal solution.
Any ideas, please?
I've been thinking.
I need to have two groups.
Group One will be the pickup group. This will be a "loose"-er group, in the sense that it's not critical whether people show up or not. It'd probably be dungeon-crawling D&D 4 game. Everyone knows the rules, so if you feel like coming any given week, just right up a character and come. It'd be more just hanging out, playing the game for the game. For the folks that don't really care or just want to play a game.
Group Two will be the dedicated group. They're the ones who are interested in trying new games, discussing games, and flexing their play styles and ways of thinking. They want to help develop and test games, think critically about their games, and be more involved.
I think this'd be a fine way of things for everything. Here are the problems I see.
A) Not enough people for Group Two, right now. I know of one definitely, and maybe another one or two maybes.
B) Scheduling. There's probably one or two people interested in both, but maybe too busy to work both into a schedule. I've got about enough time for it, but...
C) People have too-high expectations of D&D. Essentially the game would be what it is (a game about exploring areas, combat, interesting tactical encounters)... Not anything else (Especially not making a story! No, no, no!).
Well, there are some problems. But assuming more people can be found for Group Two, I think this is close to an ideal solution.
Any ideas, please?
12/25/08
Much ado about advancement?
In my Exalted game, a few comments were made about the lack of character advancement.
Now, first of all, I feel that character advancement is not entirely necessary, but that's not the main point here.
The point is that it does have advancement. It may be a bit more subtle and/or non-traditional, but it's there.
Advancement comes in the form of
A) Building up Relationships. This shows a story gain, while also creating a bank of dice to be drawn from.
B) Lowering Drives. This decreases penalties taken, and also creates a bank of points to be used.
C) Creating beneficial Locks with excess dice.
There may even be one or two more ways, but these are they main ones. They are forms of advancement. They are, I admit, not in the standard model of 1) Get XP - 2) Level Up / Spend XP... But they're there.
Now, first of all, I feel that character advancement is not entirely necessary, but that's not the main point here.
The point is that it does have advancement. It may be a bit more subtle and/or non-traditional, but it's there.
Advancement comes in the form of
A) Building up Relationships. This shows a story gain, while also creating a bank of dice to be drawn from.
B) Lowering Drives. This decreases penalties taken, and also creates a bank of points to be used.
C) Creating beneficial Locks with excess dice.
There may even be one or two more ways, but these are they main ones. They are forms of advancement. They are, I admit, not in the standard model of 1) Get XP - 2) Level Up / Spend XP... But they're there.
12/23/08
Color and Game Issues
Greg Costikyan wrote I Have No Words & I Must Design way back in '94. Now, this is pretty old, but I imagine some of the people reading this haven't read it. In particular, I think the color and simulation sections.
"The rules do nothing to evoke the Burroughsian wonders, the pulp action thrills, the Kiplingesque Victorian charms to be gained from the game's setting. Despite a clean system and a detailed world, it is curiously colorless, and suffers for it."
I've said it before, but your game should support the color of what you're doing.
"Or take Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, which I designed. I could have taken Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons and changed it around, calling swords blasters and the like. But instead, I set out to simulate the movies, to encourage the players to attempt far-fetched cinematic stunts, to use the system itself to reflect something about the atmosphere and ethos of the films."
This is pretty funny, because after WotC got control of the Star Wars license... They pretty much did exactly this. Which ties into my point: Using one thing to do something else sucks. It's not a good idea. Sometimes you don't have any other options, but...
It should be avoided. I don't agree with the trend of using D20 to do everything. I also think it'll pass.
Any comments on this? Feel free!
"The rules do nothing to evoke the Burroughsian wonders, the pulp action thrills, the Kiplingesque Victorian charms to be gained from the game's setting. Despite a clean system and a detailed world, it is curiously colorless, and suffers for it."
I've said it before, but your game should support the color of what you're doing.
"Or take Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, which I designed. I could have taken Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons and changed it around, calling swords blasters and the like. But instead, I set out to simulate the movies, to encourage the players to attempt far-fetched cinematic stunts, to use the system itself to reflect something about the atmosphere and ethos of the films."
This is pretty funny, because after WotC got control of the Star Wars license... They pretty much did exactly this. Which ties into my point: Using one thing to do something else sucks. It's not a good idea. Sometimes you don't have any other options, but...
It should be avoided. I don't agree with the trend of using D20 to do everything. I also think it'll pass.
Any comments on this? Feel free!
12/4/08
Story When?
"You can't tell the story you want to tell, you have to tell the story you're telling."
"Nobody sacrifices the integrity of his or her character for the sake of staying together as a party or solving the GM's mystery - the action comes right out of the characters' passions."
This might not be a surprise to some people, but I figure some folks might not know. So here's the big thing for me: The majority of what's going on in a game should, in fact, go on during the game.
We need to start spending less time before and after a game making stories and enjoying it. We need to focus our fun and attention and creativity on the game.
This is nothing new, folks. Vincent Baker wrote an excellent (in my opinion) article entitled "Pre-Play / Play / Post-Play" in '04, and I think I first read it in... I dunno, '06 maybe? You can read it yourself; I won't retype it all. But the point is, we (my gaming group) have been doing pre-play and post-play for a long time now. And... I think it's time to change. And I'm trying to do that.
This small thought was provoked by Have Games, Will Travel: For A Few Games More #4, which mentions improv and story now, for a good few minutes. It is in turn sparked by an interview with Ron Edwards where he mentions "Story Now", in Theory From The Closet #8 (which I have not listened to, yet).
I'm just trying to spread awareness, here.
"Nobody sacrifices the integrity of his or her character for the sake of staying together as a party or solving the GM's mystery - the action comes right out of the characters' passions."
This might not be a surprise to some people, but I figure some folks might not know. So here's the big thing for me: The majority of what's going on in a game should, in fact, go on during the game.
We need to start spending less time before and after a game making stories and enjoying it. We need to focus our fun and attention and creativity on the game.
This is nothing new, folks. Vincent Baker wrote an excellent (in my opinion) article entitled "Pre-Play / Play / Post-Play" in '04, and I think I first read it in... I dunno, '06 maybe? You can read it yourself; I won't retype it all. But the point is, we (my gaming group) have been doing pre-play and post-play for a long time now. And... I think it's time to change. And I'm trying to do that.
This small thought was provoked by Have Games, Will Travel: For A Few Games More #4, which mentions improv and story now, for a good few minutes. It is in turn sparked by an interview with Ron Edwards where he mentions "Story Now", in Theory From The Closet #8 (which I have not listened to, yet).
I'm just trying to spread awareness, here.
11/21/08
The Basics, maybe?
Theory is a complex mother-. It's that simple. Here are a few basic things I might mention soon, so...
D/F/K: Drama, Fortune, Karma. Three resolution styles. Drama uses description and talking to resolve things. It seems pretty rare to me, but Polaris is the first that comes to mind. Also free-form roleplaying. Fortune is some random element. Dice, cards, whatever. Karma is "the biggest guy wins the fight". Fortune is the most common that I know of, but it's not the only one. Games can also use some combination of the three.
G/N/S: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist. Three play styles or stances. Games can encourage or discourage any of the three. It might or might not be clear what each means, so ask if you're curious.
Lumpley Principle: Nobody definitively knows who came up with this. Some say it was Ron Edwards. Or Emily Care Boss. Or Vincent Baker (Lumpley himself). In any case, it basically says "Everything in any role-playing game system exists for the purpose of telling you who can say what and when.".
Narrative Control: Having control over the description of a scene. Traditionally monopolized by the GM-figure.
Scene Framing: The power of any person to set the beggining of a scene.
Stake Setting: Explicitly stating what's at stake in a given conflict.
There's probably a lot more I'm missing here, so feel free to ask. I might not know, but I might be able to point you in the right direction.
D/F/K: Drama, Fortune, Karma. Three resolution styles. Drama uses description and talking to resolve things. It seems pretty rare to me, but Polaris is the first that comes to mind. Also free-form roleplaying. Fortune is some random element. Dice, cards, whatever. Karma is "the biggest guy wins the fight". Fortune is the most common that I know of, but it's not the only one. Games can also use some combination of the three.
G/N/S: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist. Three play styles or stances. Games can encourage or discourage any of the three. It might or might not be clear what each means, so ask if you're curious.
Lumpley Principle: Nobody definitively knows who came up with this. Some say it was Ron Edwards. Or Emily Care Boss. Or Vincent Baker (Lumpley himself). In any case, it basically says "Everything in any role-playing game system exists for the purpose of telling you who can say what and when.".
Narrative Control: Having control over the description of a scene. Traditionally monopolized by the GM-figure.
Scene Framing: The power of any person to set the beggining of a scene.
Stake Setting: Explicitly stating what's at stake in a given conflict.
There's probably a lot more I'm missing here, so feel free to ask. I might not know, but I might be able to point you in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)