Game Design Heretic

On the Move!

2008-05-02T22:10:40Z

Well, I've finally taken the plunge. I've been spreading myself far too thinly for a long time, so I'm bringing all my points of access into one location.

If you want to read the kinda blogs you read here, then you'll have to turn your RSS feeds and bookmarks to: http://www.scattershotgames.com/?cat=12

If you want it all, aim at http://www.scattershotgames.com

You will find all parts of my efforts combined into a big mixed blog. The categories will separate it into the old familiar content streams, so take your pick.

This is one of my first php-based web design efforts, so expect a little rough on the edges. I've integrated a blog, a forum and a wiki (as well as I could) to allow a better place for feedback rather than comments and a place where explanations can grow and evolve as my understandings of the world do.

I hope you like it and humbly invite you to join in the fun!

Fang

An Idea I've Been Toying With.

2008-03-11T21:14:07Z

To me all role-playing games are a matter of exploring the self. This removes one major layer involved in enjoying narratives. There is no interpretation. In the common linear narrative, you must identify with some character in order to decode or interpret the message of the thing; what happens to them informs how you look at yourself.

In role-playing games, features of the play address you directly on a visceral level. These are your decisions, your actions and your results. Instant feedback on the matter of your character, in both senses of the word.

To conflate this with, or aspire this to, familiar narrative forms is to miss some of the essence of the practice. It is quite true that one can consciously work role-playing gaming into the olde fashioned forms and really make it click. (This has been spearheaded and perfected by the highly esteemed Forge and Story-Games.com groups. <= Not sarcasm.) There are still many unexplored ways that role-playing gaming can be engaged.

Play has often been likened to practice for life experiences. I don't see this being what actually happens in formal role-playing games. In my experience, the pleasure of gaming is becoming more aware and familiar with yourself.

Since this occurs primarily in the positive sense, doesn't it seem like another form of ego-stroking? Whereas fiction can demonstrate your convictions as being valid and true, it can't impress it. So gaming is at once more personal and less specific.

Themes and messages bound into the core of any game are much more intangible, less distinct. One of the major themes of a game like Shadowrun is that the establishment doesn't have all the answers; it's always a story of self-reliance, of self acceptance. When well-written, you can't exactly read the text of a game and glean the message. Most often, you must delve into it, become a character and play within the boundaries of the milieu. Finding your own answer to the conflicts presented then offers the wisdom or message contained within the text. Some games can even contain some surprises.

How does this translate into the realm of theory? It describes how I approach the structure and creation of games. First and foremost, I see them as a ritualized extension of social structures in culture and society. A way of 'playing', not as practice, but as a way of learning the wisdom you already possess. I present text as guides that lead to conflicts, not coded into the texts, that reveal the true character of the person playing the game.

With the safety zone that it's all 'just play'.

F

A Fresh Start? Naw....

2008-01-31T19:57:32Z

While I've been struggling with Scattershot presents: Universe 6 (SpU6), thinks¹ have been roiling around in my mind.

So let's get a group of guys² together, friends already if you will. Now they pick up this 'game' and are going to try it. One, fairly motivated guy is going to teach it to them as they play. Beyond that, it's just an average get together to 'hang out'.

This is your basic social situation and the game could be anything.

But let's say it's a role-playing 'game'. The motivated guy will be the gamemaster for the first few attempts. They go through a process of assimilation of the 'game' and how each will interact with it.³ Meanwhile, the become superficially familiar with what they can expect from the game and more importantly, as a group, determine how their group will view those expectations. Then they are playing.

As they play, they habituate this ritual of play. I would argue that no two social groups are identical in the habits around these rituals. This is a very important point! Imagine one player playing in two groups using the same 'game'. Even though the texts upon which group expectations are formed are identical, the rituals can be very different.

Understanding this leads to very complicated problems for the writer and/or publisher position as theorist. This comes from the degree which the creator of a game can actually affect the final ritual structures employed by any group. As the finished 'game' is the practical limitation of the reach of its creator, it's excusable if they theorize primarily from a 'system' point of view. What has to be said is that it is an almost cripplingly incomplete theoretical center.

It should be clear that how the group assimilates the product or 'system' into their ritual of play is the real crux of any theory. The end supplied by the creator is very important but in no way dwarfs the affect of the social situation as the ritual is formed. I could argue that the social aspect is the larger, but leave that for another time.

It could be possible to co-opt these rituals into the concept of 'system', but that makes it almost impossible to speak effectively on any such structures on the terms which the creator can affect. In other words, combining these rituals into the meaning of 'system' makes the word 'system' mostly meaningless as a theoretical entity.

As an example of the difference, I would suggest the reader consider how similar their experiences of the rituals of play are in the same group using different 'games'. I have only heard of a handful of individuals who find these more different than they are similar. However, this is purely anecdotal and therefore restricted to being only a feature of my own opinion.

Or so I would like you to understand.

F

¹ Intentional mispeeling

² Unfortunately true, hopefully for not much longer

³ Sometimes known as Chara generation

p.s. I am going to be starting a 'gamemaster advice' only relatively soon. Look here to be the first to know!

Downtime

2007-11-02T15:29:04Z

Just dropping a note to let you know. I'm taking some time off to focus on a huge project.

I finally solved (finished designing) Scattershot!

I plan to begin drafting yesterday (actually I did). If you want to keep up with this development, you can start by heading over to it's development blog.

Look for big things soon!

F

p.s. The simplest way I could nearly describe it is, "The campaign is rolled up and played just like the other player chara."

Why Can’t Gamemasters Play the Rules?

2007-10-26T22:44:25Z

Ever notice?

Ever notice that in most typical role-playing games there simply are no rules that the gamemaster must follow. In fact, there is a sad lack of rules for them at all.

Why is that?

I’m thinking it is because the mentality where the game system stands in for physics when it comes to the preternatural. It would follow that, as the figure of god in the game, the gamemaster is not bound by them. What they get instead are any number of vague, self-contradictory and explicitly reversible suggestions. Guideline quality in typical or popular gaming has always suffered from a certain amount of ambiguity.

What happens then?

This I think leads to the unspoken understanding that role-play gaming is something you must learn from people who do it. Surely this retards any growth happening in the hobby, right? I remember starting the whole gaming community in my home town; I must have been talented because it never seemed that hard (until somebody else tried it).

What’s the alternative?

Make some gamemaster rules. Now I’m not talking about broader rules for players and gamemasters alike; I doubt you could subvert the difference between them to generate such rules.

Here’s some of the thinking I’ve been putting into Scattershot. The die mechanic has already been altered such that over any period of measure, you will fail noticeably more than you succeed. In order to move towards your chara goals, you simply must spend experience dice. In short supply, you need to go out of your way to do things that garner experience dice. What is their primary use then?

To improve rolls....

So, as far as I’ve gotten, I need to work out the rules for which a gamemaster must roll his dice (and require his own experience dice). I’ve only a few ideas here. And they aren’t that good (yet).

A mirror of the ‘hunted’ disadvantage; a GM must roll to use a recurring chara
In conflict with a player’s goals; much like in a conflicted resolution
...I’m stumped and tired; let’s hear some of you suggestions!

Typically Speaking

2007-10-09T15:53:40Z

Okay to put this back together and see what we get out of it.... In order to have a common starting point, I'll talk strictly about typical play happening almost everywhere since the late '70s.

Let me reach way back to my first RPG theory; gaming is about sharing. Since it is about sharing 'new stuff', it takes a certain amount of preparation. Typically, everyone did a little, but the gamemaster did much more. It follows that he has the most to share. The players are pretty up-front about their 'new stuff' allowing each other see it right away. The gamemaster keeps his close to the vest, creating a sense of anticipation using the 'unknown'.

In typical gaming, the social circumstance determines the expectation of linearity; that is following a plot, a predetermined series of events, a cycle of escalation, and the like. Misunderstandings from the extremes of this always cause problems. Generally speaking, things move from one event to another in verisimilar order.

Spotlight time has always been handled on the social level in typical games. I mean, sure some games talk about chara abilities as the manner of commandeering the spotlight, but by and large, they are treated as more a veto power over unstructured play. Spotlight control is then mostly left to the gamemaster. Many typical games feature discussions about administering it fairly and appropriately.

Ultimately this includes other social responsibilities such as pacing control, maintaining a sense of fairness, establishing a 'tone' for the game as well as many others. Instructions have been scant on how to handle these things, but there has been a swell fairly recently.

Next time, let's tackle what people want out of their gaming.

F

Complicated Spotlighting

2007-09-27T22:19:31Z

Some designers use the idea of 'adversity' in setting up games. Typical gamemasters are supposed to craft and throw adversity at their players. That'd be interesting, except these games also instruct to adjust this adversity to what the players can handle. So how is it adverse? If it's too much, it shuts down the players (and likely their fun as well). If it's too little, players may become bored or complacent, but not joyous.

Subconsciously, I have to know that it's being adjusted to my performance or rather the expectation of my performance. It's so patronizing. When I 'lose', I have to think, "Am I being herded into another clash?" When I win, I wind up feeling, "What was the point in that?" If the gamemaster adjusts incorrectly, something usually 'magically appears' allowing chara progress.

All in all, that's too conflict, win-or-lose, for me. It's like the old chasm problem. There you are, being pursued. You reach the chasm that looks wide, but maybe not too wide. You make your jump roll.... Do you succeed or do you fail? Failure stops the game, breaks the 'chase' suspense and brings everything back to the table and mechanically determining the results. Success either ends the chase arbitrarily or it becomes less than passing scenery.

That's why I prefer complications. I always know (roughly speaking) where a typical game is going to go. In one fashion or another, the gamemaster will demonstrate something cool he has in store, be it item, situation, location, et cetera. The patronizing feeling is inescapable; I'm always aware that we are just wasting time before the 'show'. If I wanted that, I'd play CRPGs to get to see the cut scenes.

Complications on the other had, may inform the upcoming. They can set the stage, prime the pump and cock the crossbow. Each one can be tailored to create a need, foreshadow an event or carry a theme. Ultimately, we still get to the 'cool' stuff, but the complications don't wind up feeling so arbitrary; they seem more like an enhancement. The best part is when thought of as complications, rather than adversity, they can obviously play out on more and different levels, rather than just violence. Typical gamemasters might have a hard time seeing a romance adverse to the direction of a game, but everyone knows what a romantic complication is.

So here's the spotlight-driven idea: how about complications that don't offer failure? I know that sounds weird, but I've had it work quite well. Let's say a chara wants into a locked building. He attempts to pick the lock; does it end like the chasm? No, a bad roll calls for more complication, not failure. So he doesn't pick the lock, but does notice an open second-story window. You still get to do what you want, it just takes longer.

...Hence the advantage of spotlight time here. If you 'fail', you aren't stymied like at the chasm, you wind up getting more spotlight time. It becomes a tradeoff. Either you succeed or you get more spotlight time. Who complains? There is no failure.

F

Spotlighting II

2007-09-11T05:20:32Z

In the early days, typical games were set up so the gamemaster (GM) shared his milieu with the players. The typical basis was one of discovery and that required the unknown. Typically, the unknown was permitted knowledge only for the GM (even when some of its origin was with the player or players).

I have, myself, experimented with concepts involved with moving some of the unknown into the hands of the players. While I haven't reached a satisfactory solution yet, as far back as this, I have toyed with this idea.

When viewed by the recently popular 'allocating credibility' perspective, it follows that ultimately the typical game revolves around a conflict between player and GM, who gets 'the say' about what happens. This is because GM has what players want and they receive it only at his discretion. Arguably this means that only the GM's word had the final 'credibility'.

If you look at typical gaming in more of a 'spotlight manipulation perspective', the 'power' shifts back to the players' hands. Employing features offered in chara generation and play, players are able to take the spotlight when and where they wish, even though the unknown remains the purview of the GM. I've heard of this being called things like 'getting to be the bad-ass'. Either way, in typical gaming, interest in the game generally rises out of novelty and curiosity about the milieu.

My interest lie in exploring the effects of a 'spotlight' based perspective rather than the 'credibility' model, largely because it doesn't require any more 'sharing' of GM responsibilities than typical gaming did¹. The whole process of sharing the GMing destroys very much of the novelty. In the past, I was frequently guilty of forcing the unknown on unsuspecting GMs through things like amnesia or unexpected enemies. So I'm just like that.

F

¹ Maybe I should talk about 'stealth GMing' used players in typical games to this day.

How About a Change?

2007-08-15T21:52:15Z

The ground covered by the Lumpley Principle is well trod. But what if it isn't the center of your game theory? What if the whole idea of apportioning 'credibility' and the conflict over whose 'turn' it is, doesn't fit your ideal at all?

I've been playing around with these consequences for some time, but a great blog tipped it over for me. In his essay Burning Spotlight, Ben Robbins suggests that spotlight time is the coin of the realm (thus not 'credibility' say I). An interesting idea!

So here's a thought about it. What if you cast your gaze at a set of game texts looking at how it apportions spotlight time instead of the finer points of how it apportions 'credibility'? In many games, I can see a lot more problems than the essence of the 'credibility' structure suggests.

Most typical role-playing games are so absent the idea of spotlight time that anyone with a 'strong' personality can pretty much dominate a game. That would be the social 'system' overriding the game's texts. In my experience, that's why I spend so much time tinkering with my chara designs; not that I want to game the system, but that I want to ensure that at the times that I have chosen, I can dominate the spotlight.

Likewise, I used to consider 'niche protection' pretty important to chara design as a part of role-playing game design, but now it looks more like spotlight guarantee. So often in class-based systems, gamemasters are instructed to make sure that the adventure include things that require all available players' chara. Id est; make sure they all get spotlight time.

I think I was beginning to work in this direction back in Fundamental Particles of Character Class. The idea was that the parts you assemble into a chara are both you statement of 'what I want to play' and 'I will take the spotlight at these times.' And that was how I looked at it, but I never had the words.

This is yet another thing I have to mix into the Scattershot reconstitution.

F

Mode Clash: the Root of the In Character (IC) / Out of Character (OoC) 'Problem?'

2007-08-07T22:07:35Z

I'm sorry about how picky this sounds, but I thought I might open this up for consideration. I got the idea from a blog about user interfaces.

You've probably heard it before; I've heard it everywhere. Sometimes you even see it in the rulebook. Some kind of rules or suggestion that all talk at the table is IC. Or to limit OoC talk. Or advice to put a lot of character into you voice when talking IC. The point is, there is a problem here.

Role-playing game mode clash is something like putting A SHOUTED WORD in all capitals and then forgetting the 'caps lock.' Without knowing, everything from there on IS SHOUTING IN CHAT. Are we asking inexperienced gamers to subconsciously know whether someone else is speaking IC or not?

Experienced gamers (or people very familiar with the people they play with) will not have a problem here. Knowing how the group (or the familiar person) speaks when in or out of character makes the process seem effortless. So much so, I'm not sure I've seen much written about it. From games I've read, there are a lot of unformed ideas on how to handle this.

One solution (a rather awkward one) would be like only using the 'shift' key. (My wife has permanently removed her 'caps lock,' by the way.) Let's say you have everyone speaking OoC, raise their hand. Everyone knows it's OoC without even thinking. I've even seen one game that gave hand signals for use in place of all OoC communication.

I haven't really got any fresh or newsworthy ideas what can be done, but just for a moment, consider this a problem of mode clash. I know some people who play in ways they describe as 'immersive' (I make no claim to understand the term; I'm quoting) have a huge problem with mode clash. I've heard it said that it would be like having a bucket of cold water dumped on you in your sleep. Since this is the way they have fun, it is really very unfortunate.

But even typical gamers suffer from this problem. Have you ever seen someone complain that they were 'thinking out loud' and not designating what their chara was about to do? Mode clash.

Now there are still other typical modes I haven't even mentioned (or know about; that's why I like talking to you). For example, a mode where everyone is quiet while the gamemaster sets the scene or when the gamemaster communicates secret information to one player (ever see someone 'taken aside?') or note passing? These are all modes that are rarely even mentioned, yet remain a part of gaming culture.

Hopefully looking into this may lead to more humane role-playing game rules (rituals). I would very much appreciate your sharing any other modes you can think of. Likewise, let's hear ways I haven't mentioned for dealing with modes and mode switching. You guys never fail to come through, I can't wait to hear your thoughts.

F

It's a Big, Big World We Play In

2007-07-24T18:46:41Z

Last time I spoke about things which fell pretty closely to role-playing as in role-playing games (RPGs). Now let's examine some that fall outside the limits presented.

We'll start with 'solo' games. Erring towards the boundless side, I'll start with one suggested in the course of my original discourse on the subject. Let's take a moment to consider how 'lying' could be an RPG. (Being a liar or a con man was held up as an example of playing an RPG without anyone noticing.)

It does have a lot of the qualities most people associate with RPGs, but can anyone give an example of where it differs? I'll start: the person playing (inside the chara or liar) isn't really relating to anyone socially. Imagine bluffing your way into a fancy dress party; it could be fun and all, but in the end, you're all alone. Even the 'spoils' aren't really shareable; you can't reveal 'role-playing lies' without a certain amount of negative response. You might get your jollies, but you're all alone.

Given this, how could we change to making it more like an RPG? What would you do? I'm kinda naive here so I could use some suggestions. My first thought is to recruit others...and set some boundaries. No one should get hurt with this (how is that fun?), even bystanders. I'd also limit the participants to a sort of uniform or shared milieu. What I wouldn't do is require them to know each other or begin at the same time. For the most part, this sounds like an alternative reality game. We'll close; what do you think I'm missing?

Another suggestion was Holiday Villages (I love these, I don't know how I missed it¹). These are little dioramas that people often display during the winter holiday season. They have small houses and even smaller figures (sometimes moving about them). Aficionados really try to tell a story or two through this kind of sculpture. The question is, if you thought of this as an RPG, where is it deficient?

That one is a tough one. I can't really think of what it's missing or how to 'fix' it. I just have this vague sensation that it isn't. Can anyone help out here? (In the comments below.) I suppose the same answer would almost be true for model railroad layout builders (who do much the same, but with moving trains...and keeping to scale-sized schedules). But I'm stumped.

I do know I have some of the most well-read and thoughtful readers, so I thought I'd reach out to you. Thanks!

Next time we'll look at many of the different kinds of writing.

F

¹ We're planning to start a small on for all-year-round Halloween in our apartment!

If It Might be a Role-Playing Game, Would It...?

2007-07-12T02:46:40Z

I've been considering the list of 'could be looked at as gaming' hobbies and thinking. I have to thank all the contributors to this list (see earlier post); I couldn't have gotten this far without your great input! Here's a recap (edited and organized for your consumption):

Role-Playing (from Abstracted to Verisimilar | from Independent to Interpersonal)
Constrained Writing - Letter Games, Lexicons
Computer Gaming
· Networked First Person Shooter
· Multi-Player CRPG
· MMORPG
Role-Playing Games
· Tabletop
· Forum
· Post
· Email
· Internet Relay Chat
· VoIP / Teleconference
Live Action Role-Playing (LARP)
· Social
· Boffer
Parlour Games (e.g. Murder Mystery Kits)
Improv Games
Make Believe
· Cowboys & Native Americans
· Cops and Robbers
· House
Sex Games
Society for Creative Anachronism
Civil War Reenactment
Psychological / Corporate Training Role-Playing

You may have noticed commonalities with those that I listed. So did I. To look at something (like these) as if it were role-play gaming, I think it should:

1. Requires the live (even asynchronous) participation of more than one individual
2. Uses at least some fictional content that can be affected
3. Has explicit or implicit rituals that guide or limit

I found the implications of these simple ideas to be profound and difficult to understand. Here is some of the first things I've noticed:

Number One
One thing that happens here is a social framework is formed for both communication and coordination.

Number Two
And it's likely that there is some use of the imagination, but this may also occur in some very subtle and sophisticated ways.

Number Three
This suggests that there is something working above and beyond the usual rituals of the social intercourse implied in number one.

We might consider what these mean in pairs, too.

Numbers One and Two
Most often, social dominance leads to more creative control.

Numbers One and Three
It seems like group dynamics gives a stronger indication of how well things go then the design of the game.

Numbers Two and Three
I've noticed that the imposition of the practices of a game rarely support the type of fiction the game is intended to emulate, putting them in conflict both with each other as well as part number one.

How this is settled by either the people or the game becomes the unwritten centerpiece to each session. Do you, my dear readers, have any ideas how to discuss this amalgam within the 'not quite games' I listed above? I'm at a loss.

F

Old Familiar Skewed Battles

2007-06-25T20:12:31Z

To paraphrase Vincent Baker: "Role-Playing's Fundamental Act is our ongoing [content] agreement, nothing more or less."

Most expectedly, this turned into another discussion of Ron Edward's Big Model (REBM) vs Social Gaming (SG). This shouldn't matter much, except these roads are well traveled, but completely lost.

Why is that? It's like arguing oranges and IBMs (over an Apple iPhone).

Let me draw a diagram that relates these and most Role-Playing Game (RPG) theory to each other:

Now, to understand where REBM is coming from you must consider that all that can be observed about play is how the players behave. By categorizing behaviour and finding structures within it, you can readily arrive at the Gamism / Narrativism / Simulationism (GNS) at the heart of REBM. When you consider the issues around this (like socializing) you can work out the rest of REBM.

Why does this have nothing to do with SG? Simply because SG is about WHY players play. REBM is about HOW they play. REBM does say that socializing is 'how' to play, but it can't say what is prioritized; that's a motive not a behaviour.

Now if you wanted to discuss what is fundamental in REBM, it would be people behaving in a fashion recognizable as RPG play. No 'why' and no 'priorities,' nothing about what comes first or what can't happen without another thing. Just 'how.'

In ways this is an ideal approach for a publisher. Publishers, but nature, are concerned with their product (whether or not they want to make money). How recognized this product is, is more or less how you could say they value it. That puts a high accent on the product and it's use. How do you measure use? By tracking the behaviour of the consumers. How do you determine the quality of use? By how closely their practices and outcomes mirror what you intended (measuring fun has never worked in product development). A model of how you can categorize behaviours is ideal for both these uses.

More on 'the other side of the coin' later.

F

HHHEEELLLPPP!!!

2007-05-11T04:05:05Z

Okay, I admit it. I'm stuck. I need help.

So deadlines, right? I'm good with them. As a matter of fact, it's what makes me just about the best at what I do for a living. However....

When I set my own deadlines I never meet them. I procrastinate, I find more interesting things to do, I catch up on my sleep, whatever it is, it isn't what I'm supposed to get done. (This is one of the things which makes me a lousy leader.)

So here's the deal. I'm really good at breaking projects down into clear, measurable steps; I create a really targeted agenda when called upon. I can even set appropriate deadlines. But if I'm only answering to myself...you know.

I need someone who can set the deadlines and chew me out if I miss one. This project is too important to me.

So who cares enough about roleplay-insight.com and the promise of a protected space for game design ideas that subvert the mainstream of 'the community?' Who can keep me on time, on track and on point?

I'd really appreciate it!

F

To Join the Mainstream, Avoid the Fringes

2007-04-26T17:28:58Z

In the comments to my last post, R. Earley Clark makes some incredibly valuable points:

Backlash Within the Hobby Community:

One is the Grognard-effect: When you've put in a lot of time and effort (often enthusiastically and certainly voluntarily!) and mastered a style of activity, it's pretty human to loathe the idea of putting that away and doing something perceived as very different.

I think this is even [truer] with mainstream wargames and RPGs, since they tend to give real benefits to those folks willing to take the time to master them.

I also think that's why I've seen a good bit of resistance to "Lite" rules of different sorts. It just seems backwards to go to a simple/short way of doing things once you've internalized a more complex way of doing things. You don't see many Poker players taking up Go-Fish, for example.

Identification: People identify with their hobby, the way fans of music styles or bands identify with those things. It can be hard when you perceive your favorite "thing" as being displaced by the new hotness, especially if you don't like the new hotness. People can also be very unwelcoming to newcomers that they see as not understanding the social rules of a scene.

Backlash Outside the Hobby Community:

Devil Worshipping Geeks: I honestly think this one is truly on the way out and I'm thankful for it. I suspect that younger gamers (I'm in my mid-30s) really didn't go through as much of that nonsense, and I think gamers starting today really don't go through too much of that at all. An enormous improvement. Culture has just plain changed. The only broad societal thing I see right now is a sort of negative impression of anything that doesn't either produce wealth or show status based on wealth. That's bigger culturally than geekiness or scary devil-worshipper misconceptions.

Related Stuff: Broader or Multiple Markets/Demographics

With over 30 years of existence, RPGs (and other adventure games) literally have multiple age and income groups they can target in a way they couldn't in an earlier period. I think it was Ryan Dancey who recently wrote something about the key ages for players to become involved in and actively play RPGs (Tweenagers to Pre-Driver's License Teens, then a gain during college age/military first timers).

If he's on to something (I think he is, btw), it explains a whole lot about the relation between rules style and consumption of mainstream games as well as the fight over limited market share by mainstream game makers. I also see a lack of success in developing other markets, but that is very likely where a new form of breakout game **might** occur.

What you say really makes sense. You make a very, very good point. I shouldn't let the RPG2FW project suffer from the expectations of the current market of RPGers.

I'm glad you make it obvious that RPG2FW shouldn't appear as if to 'replace' current games. In fact, I can also hear you saying that I shouldn't even take RPG2FW in front of the current market. Good advice.

From the perspective of having lived through it, I have to say I thought having Pat Robertson fanning the flames over AD&D was the best PR TSR could get. It drove all the 'fringies' and malcontents into gaming (and the 'geeks' appear to have stayed).

While I completely agree that culture has much changed since then and take as good advice not to make dated assumptions, I believe that younger consumers don't understand why they parents / source of income push them towards appearing affluent. I think a polished enough product could appeal.

Heck, outside gaming, Goosebumps invented a whole new market of young adult readers. No wealth or status there. But I digress.

Your advice via Dancey is well taken; I hear and obey. However, I disagree with the implication that there even are "mainstream game makers" (meaning RPGs); I just don't think our market leaders produce anything that could be described as mainstream.

That's the untapped market I'm thinking of for the RPG2FW project. Thank you for making it clear that developing a market out from the current RPG community is not a good idea. I'll have to concentrate on something new for the mainstream that only a critic could realize is an RPG.

So much to consider! So little understood (by me)!

F

How Do We Bring Role-Playing Games to First-Worlders?

2007-04-24T20:13:51Z

How Do We Bring Role-Playing Games to First-Worlders?

I'm a big fan of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project. They began with the idea that the world would be a better place if all children (not adults) everywhere were give the real and technological tools to educate themselves. This primarily meant areas where computers had never gone before.

I was just pondering if the same kind of 're-invention' might help create some new ideas for bringing role-playing games to the real mainstream. So I got to thinking about the challenges a typical role-playing game faces when simply put into the hands of a 'first-worlder' (arguably the nearest mainstream market to me and mine). It does remind me a lot of putting a MS Office desktop computer into the hands of a third-world preschooler.

At the heart of the initiative was the idea that the OLPC machine wouldn't come with a western ideal of learning system embedded in it. The idea was to make it as flexible as possible and leverage the natural curiosity and learning patterns of the child themselves.

That sounds like a great place to start the RPG2FW project. Give them something so flexible they really can do whatever they want with it. But provide enough structure to leverage the resources of their community (OLPC mesh networking for example). The RPG2FW would have to be much more approachable and yet play on the strengths of D&D and Vampire: the Masquerade (arguably the most popular role-playing games making up most of the market).

Many hurdles had to be overcome with the OLPC machines; durability, price, connectivity, power and several more. The same position should be true for the RPG2FW. But what are they?

Here's a few I've come up with in about ten minutes of thinking:

The Tabletop: First-Worlders just don't spend any time around tables. We need to unthink the 'tabletop' part of it.

Where would they play? When do they have un-distracted time? Shouldn't gaming be THE distraction sought out?
The Character Sheet: First-Worlders don't keep that kind of thing (paper) around much anymore. We need to recreate the Character Sheet in some other form.

Are character sheets really necessary? What do they do? Do we need so finely detailed descriptions of characters? Should we track possessions so closely?
The Dice: First-Worlders might have a couple of six-sided dice if you're very lucky. We need to take away those dice and rethink resolution.

Is conflict resolution really necessary? Very Cutting-Edge Idea: Get rid of resolution systems! They're not in Make-Believe, SCA, Model RR and never used for conflict resolution in board games! But then what about tension? What about creating detail?
The Gamemaster: First-Worlders aren't willing to prepare all that much. We need to uncreate the Gamemaster as the source/guidance of 'the fun.'

What's his name (was he D&D's former owner) says that this hobby is a high-preparation pastime; must it be so?

And that's just the top of my head. What I really need is some stimulating conversation about this metaphor, cuz I know my perspective is very narrow and needs to be shaken loose from my experiences.

Can you help?

F

SIS vs EBM

2007-04-11T17:02:19Z

Shared Imaginary Space vs Edwards' Big Model

Over in I Would Knife Fight a Man, they are arguing about "hardcore Big Model: The thing(s) about Shared Imagined Space". That got me thinking about theorizing again.

Most people don't realize that Shared Imaginary Space (SIS) can't function in Edwards' Big Model (EBM) for a very simple reason. At its root, EBM is about what the participants are doing, their perspectives on the game, how they play it and what they get from it. For that you would have to rename SIS as 'shared imagined space,' focusing on it as a practice rather than a subject. EBM is a player-centric theory.

Using SIS, you are focusing on the perspective on 'what' is in play. You consider how players, rules, social relationships and other factors influence what is in play at any time, but they are not considered the center of interest in this perspective. SIS is at the heart of a play-centric theory.

To confuse those is to force arguments that go right past each other, center on straw-man argumentation and ad hominem attacks. It also suggests the problem EBM has with the numerous things which fight to be termed 'immersion.

Immersion (in many of its meanings) is most like a process. This doesn't work in a player-centric theory. Players address SIS through a process called immersion. That is not player-centric; it might be play-centric, but so many of the definitions for immersion make it impossible to determine.

This explains many of the reactions of EBM-adherents to immersion as psychosis. If a player immerses, without a game or any other context, they are crazy. But immersion doesn't exist in a vacuum and can't be considered an independent tool or practice in the player-centric EBM.

Now since the play-centric use of SIS requires players to share it, immersion suggests a number of different possible processes (remember, immersion doesn't have a single agreed upon definition) for connecting the player to the play.

I think.

F

Okay, I Tried

2007-04-03T16:44:38Z

After 78 straight Blog-a-Day entries, I give up. I just can't keep up.

From here on, the goal will be twice a week (or more as inspiration strikes). Hope y'all don't mind.

Still 78 is a lot further than I ever dreamed.

F

A New Start for Old Ideas

2007-03-30T16:14:30Z

Okay, I said I was going to review what I wrote for those articles and reconsider what I can now say about those issues. Let's start with the original outline (highest order).

Welcome
Why (Design a New Role-Playing Game)?
Why Not?
An Overview of Creativity
Intentional Design
What is Gaming?
How Does It Work?
What Do You Get Out of It?
The Play of a Role-Playing Game
Parts of the Game
How to Design All That
What to Do?

Well....

First let's just cut out "An Overview of Creativity." The only reason I put that in was because I am a Scott McCloud and his book, Understanding Comics fan. I totally stole it and honestly, I don't think I have anything worth adding to it. If you're curious, go get a copy of this terrific book.

"Why" and "Why Not" are both good to go, always relevant (but nothing I can add to). I should make "Intentional Design" its own series of articles, in fact, I will. It is what I'm really good at. Not that either I know all about it or explain it very well; I can however provide a fairly deep look into one way to do this.

"How Does It Work?" and "Parts of the Game" will need to be retuned to only what I'm familiar with, typical or traditional gaming. I can talk about those things and how they work beneath the surface in ways unclear. I think that will make a great series. (I need to backtrack and tag a few articles I've already written for this series.)

"What Do You Get Out of It?" and "What to Do?" will be tough for me to parse; my only interests were getting attention and glory. I believe I couldn't really add anything to this that everyone couldn't guess already or things which other sources treat so much better. I'm not a publisher yet and could only guess at this stuff; best to leave it alone.

I'd love to be able to write an article about "How to Design All That," but I'm thinking that this is all I ever write about here. No point in thinking I know much about this one, eh?

And of course, lest we forget, the flaming hot topics: "What is Gaming?" and "The Play of a Role-Playing Game." While I fully plan to talk about these, you may note (from a few days ago) that I've reached a point where I don't think anyone can answer those questions definitively. Like I said, it should be, "Consider EXAMPLE as a role-playing game; what makes it different from the common practice?" or some such. That I can answer (but only the parts I have experience in.

So that will be three different threads for me to follow. Fortunately, I have an old body of work to jar some new ideas out of.

F

How Not to Design a Role-Playing Game

2007-03-30T15:16:01Z

Here it is! This is the last section of my oh-so-dated articles from back when I knew everything (and was treatable for insanity). I bet your glad this is over. I'm not; now how am I going to fill those days I can't get to a computer?

This is a "Blog-a-Day" project after all.

What to Do?
Designer-Intent must exist in every part, but not overshadow any.
Later 'finishing' sections should review 'ingredients'
End with 'What Have You Done?'

How Should I Know?
It's Your Game, Do with It as Thou Wilt
I'm not a game doctor; ask other forums.
Remember to Ask Yourself, "Does This Do What I Wanted?"
Know What You Want to Know When You're Done
If it works, please share your wisdom with others. Knowledge is only useful if it is shared. This was my purpose for creating this series of articles.
If you aren't enjoying what you do, stop doing it. Remember this throughout your whole process.
So Long!

Say, "There is No Right Way" throughout; this is just a starting point (series of articles)

Review the work: each potential paragraph of the articles must be at least one line of outline. Every major 'turning point' in the article should have an introductory paragraph regardless if formally in outline. Each article should have a distinct voice throughout its length, whether frustrated, joking, angry, mocking, or otherwise (establish it up front 'loudly'). Approach all at least from the same 'place' as most of the scattershotgames.com blogs in terms of voice.
Final Drafting: Make each article have a singular (in not overly-friendly) voice. Consider incorporating a Message into each (not completely in keeping with the text, but augmenting it).

'Build up' sections must hint at later criteria - backtrack concepts like Appeal to ensure proper introduction.

There actually are a few gems in this, the very last, section.

VI. and VII. glitter intensely. Good advice in everything you do. Sections IV. and V. are the maxim of intentional design; I didn't invent them, but I was smart enough to use them. Sections I. through III. are my way of saying, "Yer on yer own!" I wanted to have a whole series of articles and all the attention that I madly thought it would bring. (Being insane, I thought everyone would worship my wisdom - not too wise, huh?) I didn't want people to attack them and I didn't want to deal with sycophants; what I big ego I had.

Sometimes I wonder, what would have happened? Then I ask myself what it would have been like to have been on medication by then? Realizing the line of thought, I usually finish with some question like, "What if I posted it from a LaGrange Point?" The old saying is, "If wishes were horses, then even beggars could ride."

Looking back, I do think I will go back and discuss many of the issues I raise with this series of articles. This time, though, I expect I will consider it more along the lines of what has been done, what might be done and what should be done. I might be able to dig up a few intuitions people might not have thought about. (Or at least people who are just starting out.

I'll start tomorrow....

F

How Not to Design a Role-Playing Game

2007-03-30T14:53:36Z

This is very nearly the last section of the outline of the series of articles I was going to write about how to design role-playing games. Needless to say, I was out of my mind at the time, but this is still a series of 'obvious' articles on how to design the world's most boring traditional role-playing game.

Here is the section referred to in every previous section....finally.

Say, "There is No Right Way" throughout; this is just a starting point (series of articles)

How It Should Look

There is No 'Right Way'

No matter what order you introduce things, they'll refer to something that cannot be explained until later.
Shelving (size) can be a concern, but not a primary one.
Stick to Your Goals (if you can figure out what those are.)

Size Matters

Smaller Games = Either 'Cheat' or Focus
Larger Games = Focus Points or 'By The Model'

Either 'Clusters of Interesting Points'
...Or Clumps of 'You Will Play Here'
Laid Out According to a Structure (by Approach or Intent)

There's the 'Flow of Play' Model
Also the 'Deal with Complications' Form
You Can Do a 'Engine -> Chassis -> Body -> Wheels -> Cabin' Line
Even 'Flow of Consciousness' is Possible (but Rarely Applicable)
And Others (I Can't Even Imagine)

Watch out how big some parts get, one-time use sections should have very good reasons for 'being large.' (And there aren't any.) A 'big skill section' isn't of much use unless it impacts continued play the way the intention means is even if it is not referred to that often, later.

'In Betweeners' Go Both Ways
Make Sure Content Size Doesn't Hamper Intent

Show Your Work?

Some people like the 'designers notes;' save them for your website.
If your audience needs them to understand your intent, start over.

What to Do With It

Publication?
Web Presentation?
Who Pays the Cost?
Circular File?

Going All the Way

Is it worth doing, if you can't find a way to finish it?
An Infusion of Cash or Interest Might be Needed
I'm not going to hold your hand or tell you this part; I don't know the answer. (This series is actually part of my answer.)

Don't Lose Your Vision
What Then?

Your Post-Publication Relationship with Your Audience
Follow Ups

Sequels
Later Editions
Milking Your Audience (in Interest or Money)

Supplements Should be for the Widest Audience - Including Players

Secret 'Gamemaster-Only' Supplements Equal Restricted (id est Poor) Sales

Your Legacy and Its Community

Section A. really didn't impress me even then. That's why I seeded "There is No Right Way" throughout the outline (one of my last acts on this outline). I was only just beginning to realize that this way wasn't 'The One True Way.' You sure can hear that I thought it was in my outline, can'tcha?

The remainder of this installment speaks directly to publishing efforts (even when they don't include paper). And frankly, I'm not that knowledgeable about VII. and well, I don't know nothin' about nothin' when it comes to actually publishing. I shouldn't have even thought I could write that. I certainly wouldn't do that now. I'm much more apprehensive of how little I know.

That's all for now!

F

What was Bothering Me?

2007-03-26T18:56:14Z

Back in this post I talked about something that was bugging me.

In short, I pointed out that a gamemaster can't referee and develop the competition without a huge conflict of interest. Here I thought I'd mention some of the problems I've seen because of this simple act of denial amoung all gamers.

I sorta demonstrated that in a olde-fashioned module, the gamemaster is instructed to adjust the opposition and fudge die rolls. I might go so far as to suggest that this 'open secret' was the source for the name of the game, "Fudge."

This unasked question ('how can the referee play the enemy?') has, in my opinion, hamstrung a large number of amateur role-playing game designs. Taking the gamemaster as the referee without question steals a lot of game design decisions right off the bat. So how can we re-examine the role of the gamemaster?

Get subjective about them.

Objectivity is off the table, how do we manage / balance these issues? Make the gamemaster a participant wholly outside of the subject of the game (see previous post). Without interface or having anything 'at stake' in the subjective arena, the gamemaster can focus on things that would be irrelevant to those involved.

For example:

Manage interest / engagement

Redirect 'Flow' away from / around obstacles

Raise the tension / excitement level

Signal the start and end of gaming

And that only begins to look at issues of 'hosting a role-playing game.' (Which I won't go into here as they are never directly the gamemaster's responsibility.)

Now there are a lot of other examples and I'm hoping to hear from all of you with your ideas. I don't feel that well-informed on this subject and would very much like to learn more.

F

A Fresh Perspective

2007-03-26T18:06:59Z

A few posts back, in one of my Not Game Design posts, I talked about a different perspective I had on the interrelation of what goes on within a role-playing game. It was based on my 'getting it to work' perspective. (I'm sorry I don't have a simple way to put that.) I thought I could go a little further into this and explain, rather than differences to extant approaches, what my idea meant on its own.

So in keeping with my ideas about all gaming being 'hypothetical play,' I thought I would hearken back to that section of "How Not to Design a Role-Playing Game" about the meta-components of design from a inner-system perspective(?)

Another way to talk about 'hypotheticals' is to call them 'subjective.' With that in mind, I'd have to say that 'the stuff what is' in the game-verse could be termed the subject. This is a nice way to step out of the player / participant way of looking at RPG design. (You aren't talking about what does what to what, 'Shared Imaginary Space' and so on.) We could use the Scandinavian idea and call it diegesis, but I think they may be misusing the English sense of the word (causing much confusion over here).

Next, you'd have to consider what connects participants to this hypothetical play and how it is complicated by the very nature of how role-playing gaming happens. To try and cast a net widely enough to encircle this complexity I'm going to think of it as how you interface with the subject.

One thing I've seen debated up and down the game theory mediums without much success is how groups have their own independent was of playing role-playing games that supersedes any gaming product. Because the nature of this manner of practice is so interwoven with how the game specifies it, I think I'll call what the group does, its rituals and what the game says is suggested methodology.

The important distinction here is that the publisher has complete control over this methodology, but none over the rituals it's used with. My suggestion is that in creating the gaming product, the publisher should consider more how the suggested methodology can be designed to affect ritual, instead of replacing it.

Now that you have the participants interacting with the subject through their individual interfaces, using ritual in ways affected by the methodology of the role-playing game product, I think we need something which allows us to differentiate some of the finer aesthetic issues (without judging them). So I think I'll call the way it all works together a game's paradigm. When you expand beyond the basics of tabletop role-playing games, the paradigm can be a very important difference between one group or game's practice of role-playing games and another's. (Or is that 'flavor?')

Since I'm also talking about how to design all of this I need to isolate the concept of how the publisher interacts with all of the above. I'd like to call this the vision of the product and practice. It can talk about how a game plays smoothly or how it 'feels' to play it; really this concept of vision allows a really flexible way to address what the role-playing game designer does.

I personally think some mention should be given to how playing a role-playing game can change you more than watching a show or reading a book. I'd steal the word 'message' from literature, but that infers a lot of 'artistic' high-horsing around I want to avoid. Let's just call it the after-effects of the game.

Now, how does this all work together? If you think along these lines, if grants a different perspective on the idea of 'getting it all to work.' Sometimes I think that might be more important than 'how it serves the players.'

But that's just me!

F

How Not to Design a Role-Playing Game

2007-03-26T17:20:14Z

This is the last section of the misbegotten series of articles I (insanely) thought would be my magnum opus of game design. I'm revealing it here partly to humble myself and partly to examine the mistakes I was making then. (Not that I'm not making an equal or greater number now, but self-reflection is what it is.)

How [Not] to Design All That
Designer-Intent must exist in every part, but not overshadow any.
Later 'finishing' sections should review 'ingredients'
End with 'What Have You Done?'

Choosing the Venue for 'Capturing the Feel' of Your Intent

Metaphor
Symbology
Being Direct
Relativity and 'Layering'
Where to Focus (and How); That's Where You 'Put All the Work'

What to Write

Tabletop - Book
Web-Based - Interactive Site
Collectible Cards - Deck & Rules Pamphlet
Live-Action - Handbook (as in Portable)
On the Road - Leaflet (even Moreso)
Console/Computer - Program/Cartidge/Disk
Fusions/Multi-Venue - a Few Exist

How to Create That

Subject - What You 'Play In'
Interface - 'Who' You Play
Practice - How It Gets Played
Systemic Methodology - Affective Design
Paradigm - The 'Flavor' (Inclination?) of the Whole Package
Vision - How It All 'Feels' Together
Message - What You 'Take Away' Afterwards

How It Should Look

Say, "There is No Right Way" throughout; this is just a starting point (series of articles)

You can see that, by this point, I was clearly running out of steam. This and following become more and more just lists. Not that this couldn't have been expanded, it really needed to be dispersed in other sections much better.

III. should have really come much earlier (and may have in too naïve form) in this series. It only scratches the surface of how to meta-structure a game, balancing rules and their interpretations with the direction of play and emergent purpose. Empowered with the concept of the Fruitful Void, this section might have laid out 'what to write' in really simple steps, oh well.

IV. was my first stab outside of well-known, self-identified, role-playing games. I clearly had something I wanted to talk about, but little idea what that was. I actually really liked section V. It relates a list of function-components in a role-playing game from an 'internal systems' perspective (to be differentiated from The Forge's play-style based approach). I may take this up again soon.

I hadn't even begun to consider VI.'s 'the look' idea. Not being a publisher, I'm out of my element as far as that goes. Still I thought it was an important concept to include in intentional design; pity I still can't do it justice.

F

How Not to Design a Role-Playing Games

2007-03-26T17:17:19Z

This series of outline fragments finally begins to wind down. It was a series of articles I started to think about years ago when I thought I knew everything. (I was crazy, after all.) It's interesting mostly as it provides an interesting perspective on the state of the art today.

How [Not] to Design All That
Designer-Intent must exist in every part, but not overshadow any.
Later 'finishing' sections should review 'ingredients'
End with 'What Have You Done?'

Ways to Connect The Audience to That

How Much is Too Much

Do Something; Use a Rule
Frequent "Look-Ups" are Normal...at First
Find a Balance Between Playing and 'Using Da Rules'
Look to the Intent for Guidance
Make a Choice; No 'Right Answer'

'Found' Intent in the System and et cetera

Ways it can be Received

'Light Reading'

As a Series of Fiction 'Novellas'
As Tools to 'Write with Friends'
The Rights to Dream 'Big'
Novelty
A Reason to Get Together
Source Material to Do 'Takes' On

Vicarious Projection

Even When You 'Never Get to Play It Anyway'
Better than Imagining You're 'a Part of the Story' with Novels/Movies

The 'Emotional Connect'

Good Stuff You Can't Deny

Being 'Good Enough' to Even Play...

</em>

Say, "There is No Right Way" throughout; this is just a starting point (series of articles)

I really, really, really shortchanged myself on II. F. I had unknowingly hinted at the Fruitful Void. Another hallmark idea missed; sigh.

The red section G. was a huge amount of hubris at the time. I thought I had solved the 'how do we play' argument over at The Forge. While G. acknowledges several such perspectives, it is not at all comprehensive and far too skewed by the one I held, which makes this section mostly useless.

F