Saturday, December 26, 2009
Champions Offline
In something somewhat related to HERO Games, Champions Online crashed Christmas day and was still down as I went to bed last night.
For those who are unaware, Champions Online is a MMO using the HERO Games setting. Sort of fun, but IMO an incomplete game. Its system isn't based on HERO (in fact, being not effect based it's a complete reversal of HERO System). Just the background and characters and even those seem greatly altered at least in appearance.
The owning company isn't HERO Games, but rather Cryptic. Still, Long is always talking about it at the official web site. So I consider the crash on what had to be an important day of first experiences to many customers to be karma for 6th edition.
I'd smile except that I work in IT and know that the poor slobs working at Cryptic are in for a major backside chewing over this. Someone there deserves it, but it may not be the people getting the worse of it.
For those who are unaware, Champions Online is a MMO using the HERO Games setting. Sort of fun, but IMO an incomplete game. Its system isn't based on HERO (in fact, being not effect based it's a complete reversal of HERO System). Just the background and characters and even those seem greatly altered at least in appearance.
The owning company isn't HERO Games, but rather Cryptic. Still, Long is always talking about it at the official web site. So I consider the crash on what had to be an important day of first experiences to many customers to be karma for 6th edition.
I'd smile except that I work in IT and know that the poor slobs working at Cryptic are in for a major backside chewing over this. Someone there deserves it, but it may not be the people getting the worse of it.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas Everyone
The Holiday's have kept me away from the blog spending time with visiting family. I've been having a great time- and to all the readers of this blog, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year of your own.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Comments on the State of the 'Market'
Busy time for me, Christmas is on the way and it's something of a big deal for my family. A lot to do that takes time away from my blog. Insult to injury, the latest expansion for Lord of the Rings Online shipped and that means we need to stay 'current' and that eats a bit of time.
So I'll be returning to my series on Hit Points soon.
In the meantime, some passing comments…
HERO 6th edition has shipped. As readers of this blog know, I'm not rushing out to buy it. With this change of editions, there's no longer a currently published game system of note (i.e. that you're likely to find on mainstream store shelf) that I use or support. Rather sad.
The largest change that I saw was to Killing Attacks, where one now gets to apply their non-resistant defense against the stun of the attack. I see this basically as a further move towards D&D style hit points, a style that the official HERO line has pushed since the days of Fantasy HERO- but now the option to build characters in a different style has been removed from the rules.
Or rather that seems to be the case. Does anyone know if the official rules include an option to use the old Killing Attack methods?
In more general terms, it seems the major gaming companies have all decided to revise (i.e. redesign) their game lines. New WoD, Shadowrun, D&D, HERO, Salvage Worlds, etc all represent this trend. Vast changes in core systems producing significantly different styles of play.
I suppose GURPS (a system I never liked) is the only standout of note. Or maybe it isn't, I didn't follow their latest edition changes.
It's difficult to say what the future holds, but such wholesale directional change indicates the beginning death throes of a hobby. A feeling by the companies that the old game styles no longer work, and that they have to risk everything on radical new editions.
Or maybe it's driven by the ego of the current owners. From my examples only Salvage Worlds and GURPs haven't changed either owners or management teams. HERO would seem to be an exception, except Long is on record as saying this edition was the first that allowed him to make the changes he wanted.
Whatever the case, I now see in the online world what I've seen only once before except for a few off-line groups: old edition hold outs. The last time I this, it was with FUZION. And that failed completely resulting in flameouts for the owning companies.
Will that history repeat as history often does?
Time will tell.
For now, my money is on the RPG hobby mirroring that of the comic books: A decline in sales and importance in their original offering by an order of magnitude.
With this, a transfer of their concepts to a new media. Yes, computer games will be the future for rpgs much like movies have become the future for comics.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Freedom from Hit Points- Part II: Other Options
Last time I considered various modifications to traditional Hit Points systems, in order to produce a reasonable simulation of a style of combat that might be called a 'Battle of Fatigue' .
To a certain degree, such modifications work. But as I noted, they do so with some serious stain. The primary problem was Single Target Focus, i.e. it is better to focus all your attacks on a single target in order to bring him down than it is to split your fire (much more genre for the most part) between different targets.
One might wish to try to move to different game mechanics in order to avoid this pitfall, modifying them to allow the desired long drawn out battle.
There's a serious problem with this approach however- if you attempt to use any system that resolves combat as a matter of attrition, you will bring Single Target Focus into being.
That's the core problem with attrition, it means that you can only win by slowly removing a resource of your opponent- and that means the best way to win is to focus all your methods of resource removal on one target until it's gone.
There are three solutions to this and lots of variations within each. But in interest of space I'll present them in wide strokes and call it good enough.
The first is to use a serious Death Spiral with traditional Hit Points or other systems. By applying enough of a negative modifier for lower levels of damage that fall short of defeating your foe, you can make his defeat almost certain as he can no longer effectively defend or attack. Thus players will split their fire between targets in order to quickly force them to suffer said modifiers. In this way, they in practical terms have removed them from the battle.
This avoids Single Target Focus by defining meaningful damage as something else.
I have a simple reaction to such systems, why waste the time? If you're going to have the first landing of any significant damage win the battle- end it there. I don't see much of interest in a slow resolution of a matter that has already been decided.
Such an approach is just a delayed one-shot, one-kill system.
The second solution is to use one-shot, one kill mechanics like those in early RuneQuest or Boot Hill but add a mechanic I'll call 'Battle Points'. Battle Points can be spent to avoid damage, the amount you start with naturally would scale with character power. They also refresh at the start of each combat.
Additionally, say that when a character spends a Battle Point in a round he's protected against all other attacks in that round. Once he's out, he's out and he has to take the full damage effect on the following attacks.
While this works well for group vs. group, what happens when you have a group of heroes fighting a single powerful foe? Do they attack in turn until someone 'hits', and the rest go out to lunch until the next combat round? Rather silly, and attempts to make exceptions run counter to the core mechanic enough that they appear as what they are: meta-game exceptions.
The third solution is to forget about attrition completely and go with a single blow system. This is the method I used in Age of Heroes, and the approach I take in most of my HERO System games.
Here any single damaging attack can easily take a character out of the battle, if it doesn't- it also doesn't meaningfully reduce his combat effectiveness. There can still be rules for 'bleeding out' and other such events- but they would need to be rare outcomes compared to being whacked and dropped.
Character defense is based upon defensive ability (which may be active, passive, or both). Damage soak systems can fit in here in some cases. If the defense/offense is balanced well enough, such fights can last for a good long time between equals.
There are problems here.
First, while it's a long fight that may well see many unimportant wounds- it's not a Battle of Fatigue. The issue isn't resolved by someone getting tired, it's resolved by someone overcoming another's defense- it may happen on round 200, or round 1.
Second, there's a high 'whiff' factor to this system. That is most of the time your successful attack is going to be blocked, parried or otherwised avoided. Some people object to that, despite it's core realism and ability to model movie style combat.
So, no perfect choice that meets all the desired goals. One is left with choices that solves some problems, but that leave others open.
And making such choices is what game design is all about.
Next- We'll leave Battle of Fatigue behind and start examining various damage systems
To a certain degree, such modifications work. But as I noted, they do so with some serious stain. The primary problem was Single Target Focus, i.e. it is better to focus all your attacks on a single target in order to bring him down than it is to split your fire (much more genre for the most part) between different targets.
One might wish to try to move to different game mechanics in order to avoid this pitfall, modifying them to allow the desired long drawn out battle.
There's a serious problem with this approach however- if you attempt to use any system that resolves combat as a matter of attrition, you will bring Single Target Focus into being.
That's the core problem with attrition, it means that you can only win by slowly removing a resource of your opponent- and that means the best way to win is to focus all your methods of resource removal on one target until it's gone.
There are three solutions to this and lots of variations within each. But in interest of space I'll present them in wide strokes and call it good enough.
The first is to use a serious Death Spiral with traditional Hit Points or other systems. By applying enough of a negative modifier for lower levels of damage that fall short of defeating your foe, you can make his defeat almost certain as he can no longer effectively defend or attack. Thus players will split their fire between targets in order to quickly force them to suffer said modifiers. In this way, they in practical terms have removed them from the battle.
This avoids Single Target Focus by defining meaningful damage as something else.
I have a simple reaction to such systems, why waste the time? If you're going to have the first landing of any significant damage win the battle- end it there. I don't see much of interest in a slow resolution of a matter that has already been decided.
Such an approach is just a delayed one-shot, one-kill system.
The second solution is to use one-shot, one kill mechanics like those in early RuneQuest or Boot Hill but add a mechanic I'll call 'Battle Points'. Battle Points can be spent to avoid damage, the amount you start with naturally would scale with character power. They also refresh at the start of each combat.
Additionally, say that when a character spends a Battle Point in a round he's protected against all other attacks in that round. Once he's out, he's out and he has to take the full damage effect on the following attacks.
While this works well for group vs. group, what happens when you have a group of heroes fighting a single powerful foe? Do they attack in turn until someone 'hits', and the rest go out to lunch until the next combat round? Rather silly, and attempts to make exceptions run counter to the core mechanic enough that they appear as what they are: meta-game exceptions.
The third solution is to forget about attrition completely and go with a single blow system. This is the method I used in Age of Heroes, and the approach I take in most of my HERO System games.
Here any single damaging attack can easily take a character out of the battle, if it doesn't- it also doesn't meaningfully reduce his combat effectiveness. There can still be rules for 'bleeding out' and other such events- but they would need to be rare outcomes compared to being whacked and dropped.
Character defense is based upon defensive ability (which may be active, passive, or both). Damage soak systems can fit in here in some cases. If the defense/offense is balanced well enough, such fights can last for a good long time between equals.
There are problems here.
First, while it's a long fight that may well see many unimportant wounds- it's not a Battle of Fatigue. The issue isn't resolved by someone getting tired, it's resolved by someone overcoming another's defense- it may happen on round 200, or round 1.
Second, there's a high 'whiff' factor to this system. That is most of the time your successful attack is going to be blocked, parried or otherwised avoided. Some people object to that, despite it's core realism and ability to model movie style combat.
So, no perfect choice that meets all the desired goals. One is left with choices that solves some problems, but that leave others open.
And making such choices is what game design is all about.
Next- We'll leave Battle of Fatigue behind and start examining various damage systems
Monday, November 23, 2009
Freedom from Hit Points- Part I: Traditional Battles of Fatigue
A while back, I made a post about the flaws of traditional (i.e. D&D style) Hit Point systems called The Tyranny of Hit Points. One of my readers (Wyatt to be specific) asked about alternative solutions to a rather specific case, and I thought it would be worth writing about the subject in general. So here goes.
We'll deal with these by the desired end goal, and examine possible ways of getting there. There is little doubt that I'll be unable to cover all possible options, but I'll hit a few possible methods.
First up in our series is a combat style like that found in WWE wrestling and Hong Kong Action Theater, where people are often hit with massive death-dealing or maiming blows only to completely recover seconds latter to put the smack-down on their foes. Over the top and flashy in the extreme- these types of battles are about as far from realism as one can possibly get.
One way of viewing them is that the combatants can only win after they have worn down their foe, such contests can be viewed as a Battle of Fatigue.
Thus 'damage' to Fatigue must be tracked in some way before any combat ending injury can be achieved.
To be perfectly honest, D&D style systems do this type of combat well, with HP standing in as a type of Fatigue. They do however have problems. They tend to be very static (i.e. characters standing toe-to-toe trading blows) and players also tend to benefit greatly from focusing all attacks on single targets.
For today's post, let's look at how to to correct these two problems while remaining within a D&D style HP system.
D&D 4E (and to some degree Star Wars SAGA) attempted to deal with static combat by adding various abilities to involve or force movement. Added to modifiers for positioning, and the static movement issue is dealt with to some degree.
But not completely, the very nature of HP systems mean the effects of movement and position are passing and not in and of themselves critical. Sure the extra damage you took from getting blindsided in the battle could be a turning point. But it could also just be something that happened without final influence on the outcome. That's what HP systems do, turn combat into a war of attrition- not one of decisive action. Even when decisive, that decision is delayed until all HP are removed from the losers.
Still, this methods at least causes movement even if it's not decisive. And can help maintain the illusion of battle far better than just standing there.
On top of this, D&D 4E added healing surges- which mirrors WWE and other wild styles of fictional combat quite well. Now you can get someone on the ropes, and have them jump right off them the next round.
The remaining problem- that of single target focus (i.e. it's better to drop one target than split your damage up between many for little effect) remains, and it's a big one. Generally in the source material for these types of battles, characters tend to pair off. If that's not happening, it's often a single (or each) hero fending off many foes.
And those two concepts are in direct conflict making a universal rule handing the matter basically impossible.
D&D 4E approached the one hero vs. many foes with the minion rule, an exception to the standard combat rules. This works on that end, but leaves the 'single target' focus between 'heroic' foes intact.
One could attempt an 'unengaged foe' rule, where any character who isn't engaged by a foe is given significant bonuses (to hit, damage, or both) such that it becomes extremely dangerous to leave a foe unengaged.
However this runs into problems when the sides are unequal in number. Thus out-numbering your opponents becomes a huge factor in winning. And not just at the start, even if equal at the beginning- the first side to drop one of their foes gains the upper-hand.
And that may not fit the genre either.
Still, it's an approach. Maybe you can inflict such modifiers for unengaged foes only if there you had someone who could have engaged- but instead ran off to engaged an already engaged foe (i.e. wanted the single target focus). Very artificial, but workable in a way.
Add in strong Zone of Control, toss minions in the same fight together with NPC opponents, and you have the start of something that almost works.
I wouldn't use this sort of system. Too inflexible, it does only one thing well- and it does that in a very artificial way with too narrow of a sweet spot.
Next time we'll look at non-D&D style methods of reaching our goals.
We'll deal with these by the desired end goal, and examine possible ways of getting there. There is little doubt that I'll be unable to cover all possible options, but I'll hit a few possible methods.
First up in our series is a combat style like that found in WWE wrestling and Hong Kong Action Theater, where people are often hit with massive death-dealing or maiming blows only to completely recover seconds latter to put the smack-down on their foes. Over the top and flashy in the extreme- these types of battles are about as far from realism as one can possibly get.
One way of viewing them is that the combatants can only win after they have worn down their foe, such contests can be viewed as a Battle of Fatigue.
Thus 'damage' to Fatigue must be tracked in some way before any combat ending injury can be achieved.
To be perfectly honest, D&D style systems do this type of combat well, with HP standing in as a type of Fatigue. They do however have problems. They tend to be very static (i.e. characters standing toe-to-toe trading blows) and players also tend to benefit greatly from focusing all attacks on single targets.
For today's post, let's look at how to to correct these two problems while remaining within a D&D style HP system.
D&D 4E (and to some degree Star Wars SAGA) attempted to deal with static combat by adding various abilities to involve or force movement. Added to modifiers for positioning, and the static movement issue is dealt with to some degree.
But not completely, the very nature of HP systems mean the effects of movement and position are passing and not in and of themselves critical. Sure the extra damage you took from getting blindsided in the battle could be a turning point. But it could also just be something that happened without final influence on the outcome. That's what HP systems do, turn combat into a war of attrition- not one of decisive action. Even when decisive, that decision is delayed until all HP are removed from the losers.
Still, this methods at least causes movement even if it's not decisive. And can help maintain the illusion of battle far better than just standing there.
On top of this, D&D 4E added healing surges- which mirrors WWE and other wild styles of fictional combat quite well. Now you can get someone on the ropes, and have them jump right off them the next round.
The remaining problem- that of single target focus (i.e. it's better to drop one target than split your damage up between many for little effect) remains, and it's a big one. Generally in the source material for these types of battles, characters tend to pair off. If that's not happening, it's often a single (or each) hero fending off many foes.
And those two concepts are in direct conflict making a universal rule handing the matter basically impossible.
D&D 4E approached the one hero vs. many foes with the minion rule, an exception to the standard combat rules. This works on that end, but leaves the 'single target' focus between 'heroic' foes intact.
One could attempt an 'unengaged foe' rule, where any character who isn't engaged by a foe is given significant bonuses (to hit, damage, or both) such that it becomes extremely dangerous to leave a foe unengaged.
However this runs into problems when the sides are unequal in number. Thus out-numbering your opponents becomes a huge factor in winning. And not just at the start, even if equal at the beginning- the first side to drop one of their foes gains the upper-hand.
And that may not fit the genre either.
Still, it's an approach. Maybe you can inflict such modifiers for unengaged foes only if there you had someone who could have engaged- but instead ran off to engaged an already engaged foe (i.e. wanted the single target focus). Very artificial, but workable in a way.
Add in strong Zone of Control, toss minions in the same fight together with NPC opponents, and you have the start of something that almost works.
I wouldn't use this sort of system. Too inflexible, it does only one thing well- and it does that in a very artificial way with too narrow of a sweet spot.
Next time we'll look at non-D&D style methods of reaching our goals.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thoughts on OSR and Agile game design
I love browsing blogs, although I bet some bloggers wish I didn't. Found this article today on Troll and Flame and I must comment.
The basic idea is an old one, debated back and forth I'm sure since the first days of the hobby. I saw it in endless detail first back on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 90s, and in my own groups since the release of original D&D.
r.g.f.a called it design in play vs design at start. But who really cares at this point.
My point is that for many players, Mr. Harman is completely right. And for at least as many, he's completely wrong.
His OSR 'Agile' method would never have produced JRRT's Lord of the Rings. That was immense detail of setting before the first words of the Ring novels were ever set to page. Instead it would produce something less than the latest Dragonlance novel which at least has some consistent background to be had. An even better comparison would be between LotR and Improv night.
Yes, one may not use 95% of the developed background- but the 5% you do is consistent, and ties in with a much greater whole. The result is immense depth, and bodies of work like Middle Earth can project that depth upon the reader. The same is true of rpg campaigns.
Further such vast amount of detail impacts how the GM runs their campaign. It makes them consistent with the world and the in-game characters, and not the moment to moment desires of themselves or their players which is a hallmark IME of 'agile' campaigns.
More pointedly, I disagree with using software design concepts (a field that I'm well versed in myself) in campaign or game design. Software is very direct, highly specific and highly literal. Those factors keep reusability low.
World backgrounds, history, and people in contrast are not. They are diffused, generalized, and often subject to individual viewpoint.
It would thus be no surprise that tools for software would produce shallow results when applied as a control method for something as wide ranging as fantasy world simulation.
Not everyone is capable of the work involved in creating a complete fantasy world, and not eveyone can is capable of handling a detailed ruleset in play. Others must change their character and world at whim in order to enjoy themselves.
That's fine, but I wish they'd realize that their limits or methods don't apply to everyone.
Oh, one more thing. I'm getting real tired of the OSR label. Their 'Old School' has nothing to do with the 1970 gaming scene as I live it. Or any scene other than the Internet for that matter.
The basic idea is an old one, debated back and forth I'm sure since the first days of the hobby. I saw it in endless detail first back on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 90s, and in my own groups since the release of original D&D.
r.g.f.a called it design in play vs design at start. But who really cares at this point.
My point is that for many players, Mr. Harman is completely right. And for at least as many, he's completely wrong.
His OSR 'Agile' method would never have produced JRRT's Lord of the Rings. That was immense detail of setting before the first words of the Ring novels were ever set to page. Instead it would produce something less than the latest Dragonlance novel which at least has some consistent background to be had. An even better comparison would be between LotR and Improv night.
Yes, one may not use 95% of the developed background- but the 5% you do is consistent, and ties in with a much greater whole. The result is immense depth, and bodies of work like Middle Earth can project that depth upon the reader. The same is true of rpg campaigns.
Further such vast amount of detail impacts how the GM runs their campaign. It makes them consistent with the world and the in-game characters, and not the moment to moment desires of themselves or their players which is a hallmark IME of 'agile' campaigns.
More pointedly, I disagree with using software design concepts (a field that I'm well versed in myself) in campaign or game design. Software is very direct, highly specific and highly literal. Those factors keep reusability low.
World backgrounds, history, and people in contrast are not. They are diffused, generalized, and often subject to individual viewpoint.
It would thus be no surprise that tools for software would produce shallow results when applied as a control method for something as wide ranging as fantasy world simulation.
Not everyone is capable of the work involved in creating a complete fantasy world, and not eveyone can is capable of handling a detailed ruleset in play. Others must change their character and world at whim in order to enjoy themselves.
That's fine, but I wish they'd realize that their limits or methods don't apply to everyone.
Oh, one more thing. I'm getting real tired of the OSR label. Their 'Old School' has nothing to do with the 1970 gaming scene as I live it. Or any scene other than the Internet for that matter.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Internet doesn't tell you anything worth knowing...
...about people's tasted in rpg games. Or rather, the part of the Internet you're reading likely doesn't tell you anything.
It's all too common to make the same mistake Zachary does here. One reads a number of sites online and starts to draw conclusions from them, and then goes on to try apply them to the hobby as a whole.
And that's wrong. At best it applies to those sites you happen to run.
People are still playing HERO, it's just had a new version released. People are playing D&D 4E (in some ways, the most rules heavy version of ever). People are still playing GURPS.
It just happens that he doesn't read those forums or visit the sites of those people.
IME, light rules are what they have always been: play things of online talking heads, and a small niche in the gaming hobby at large.
It's all too common to make the same mistake Zachary does here. One reads a number of sites online and starts to draw conclusions from them, and then goes on to try apply them to the hobby as a whole.
And that's wrong. At best it applies to those sites you happen to run.
People are still playing HERO, it's just had a new version released. People are playing D&D 4E (in some ways, the most rules heavy version of ever). People are still playing GURPS.
It just happens that he doesn't read those forums or visit the sites of those people.
IME, light rules are what they have always been: play things of online talking heads, and a small niche in the gaming hobby at large.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Can you really claim to be The Resource for D&D...
...when you've never seen a PC killed in a game before?
That was the first question that came to mind when I ran across this post at the poorly subtitled "The D&D Resource Blog for DMs & Players". A more fitting subtitle would be 'a wrong-headed newbie's best guess at how things should be done'.
Maybe to be fair, I should note that they have more than one writer on that blog. The others might be better.
Other than that, the article is about one of the first conflicts new DMs encounter when first taking up the hobby. Is one manly and thus goes with the truth of the game world? Or is one a wimp that alters that reality at whim to overturn the errors of their players?
Ameron is a wimp, willing to trade anything for 'fun'. A rather good definition of hedonism if one thinks about it, and a very short-sighted approach to just about anything.
I would have done the same as the DM who was running the game with but a couple of exceptions.
First, I wouldn't have told them a thing about the number or nature of the encounters ahead. That's knowledge they should have.
And second, the player who lost his character could run (within limits) some of the NPCs they encounter later in the game. Like some of the people they were trying to save. Sure, those may not be exciting as his former PC...
...but they're alive. And the player did get his character killed afterall.
And finally, by enforcing the reality of the game world- it remains alive too.
That was the first question that came to mind when I ran across this post at the poorly subtitled "The D&D Resource Blog for DMs & Players". A more fitting subtitle would be 'a wrong-headed newbie's best guess at how things should be done'.
Maybe to be fair, I should note that they have more than one writer on that blog. The others might be better.
Other than that, the article is about one of the first conflicts new DMs encounter when first taking up the hobby. Is one manly and thus goes with the truth of the game world? Or is one a wimp that alters that reality at whim to overturn the errors of their players?
Ameron is a wimp, willing to trade anything for 'fun'. A rather good definition of hedonism if one thinks about it, and a very short-sighted approach to just about anything.
I would have done the same as the DM who was running the game with but a couple of exceptions.
First, I wouldn't have told them a thing about the number or nature of the encounters ahead. That's knowledge they should have.
And second, the player who lost his character could run (within limits) some of the NPCs they encounter later in the game. Like some of the people they were trying to save. Sure, those may not be exciting as his former PC...
...but they're alive. And the player did get his character killed afterall.
And finally, by enforcing the reality of the game world- it remains alive too.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veteran's Day
A rare sidestep from rpgs for a moment if allowed...
Today is a important day for me. A the son of a man who served in the Army for World War II, and the father of two sons currently serving in the Coast Guard and the Navy, it's a time for reflection.
Reflection both upon the amazing man who raised me, and that I somehow managed well enough to raise my boys such they that too serve the highest ideas of my country. I stand humbled, between one great generation, and the best of the next.
Heartfelt thanks to all who serve- past, present and future.
With that sidestep, one little bit on rpgs. There have been few rpgs about military service, and sadly they didn't last long. Of them I've played two that were a significant influence on how I approach rpgs both in play and in design.
The first was SPI's game Commando from 1979. It was published as a wargame, but had in its optional rules everything needed for a kick-backside rpg campaign.
Behind Enemy Lines was published in 1982 by FASA, and while I considered it's cover rules flawed, it captured the danger of warfare, and the heroism of those who endure it.
Today is a important day for me. A the son of a man who served in the Army for World War II, and the father of two sons currently serving in the Coast Guard and the Navy, it's a time for reflection.
Reflection both upon the amazing man who raised me, and that I somehow managed well enough to raise my boys such they that too serve the highest ideas of my country. I stand humbled, between one great generation, and the best of the next.
Heartfelt thanks to all who serve- past, present and future.
With that sidestep, one little bit on rpgs. There have been few rpgs about military service, and sadly they didn't last long. Of them I've played two that were a significant influence on how I approach rpgs both in play and in design.
The first was SPI's game Commando from 1979. It was published as a wargame, but had in its optional rules everything needed for a kick-backside rpg campaign.
Behind Enemy Lines was published in 1982 by FASA, and while I considered it's cover rules flawed, it captured the danger of warfare, and the heroism of those who endure it.
People should title their posts better...
Browsing RPG bloggers can be interesting sometimes. More often it just causes one to roll their eyes.
Like this post on Justin Achilli's blog. One would think that something titled "Realism Stinks, or What's It's all About" would have something to say about realism.
But it doesn't, or rather only says it stinks in passing. The article is really just What's It's All About, and in that respect it just trots out the rather old adage that a writer doesn't put a gun in scene 1 that isn't used someplace later.
Even here the article goes off the rails.
Why? Well, that may work for books and movies, with their very limited focus. RPGs however tend to more open in what they allow. In that line, vampires interacting with the modern world may well learn how to take advantage of the toys of the modern world. And that may include hacking computers and tricking the Army into launching an Apache Gunship attack on a rival clan.
Justin's failure here is very typical of online Theory writers- too much theory, not enough experience with how people actually play rpgs. Instead of wide open vistas, they offer limited little windows that one must squeeze through.
Oh, and they whine about realism in passing without saying anything.
Like this post on Justin Achilli's blog. One would think that something titled "Realism Stinks, or What's It's all About" would have something to say about realism.
But it doesn't, or rather only says it stinks in passing. The article is really just What's It's All About, and in that respect it just trots out the rather old adage that a writer doesn't put a gun in scene 1 that isn't used someplace later.
Even here the article goes off the rails.
Why? Well, that may work for books and movies, with their very limited focus. RPGs however tend to more open in what they allow. In that line, vampires interacting with the modern world may well learn how to take advantage of the toys of the modern world. And that may include hacking computers and tricking the Army into launching an Apache Gunship attack on a rival clan.
Justin's failure here is very typical of online Theory writers- too much theory, not enough experience with how people actually play rpgs. Instead of wide open vistas, they offer limited little windows that one must squeeze through.
Oh, and they whine about realism in passing without saying anything.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Disconnected from Reality?
I was watching the new video preview for Warhammer Fantasy 3, and was in general... dismayed.
A mixture of board game and rpg, with a heavy focus on linking role-play and game mechanics. It has all the hallmarks of an expensive attempt to put into practice some of the worse rpg design theory to appear online.
Which brings up the idea that many of the new game designers (Mearls and 4E being the first significant one) may have been too involved with the Internet and it's unrestrained (and unrealistic) idealism and too detached from how people actually play rpgs.
Or it may be something more boring. People love to break new ground in general just to do it, heedless of the downsides. Combining board games & RPG might look like a good idea to such people.
Whatever the case, the last thing I need is an rpg with a bunch of cards and cardboard that will wear out in play. As much as the game company would like the constant income, I have better uses for my money.
Not that warhammer was ever a setting or game that interested me in the first place. But I bet a lot of old fans of the game are going to be disappointed at this change in direction.
A mixture of board game and rpg, with a heavy focus on linking role-play and game mechanics. It has all the hallmarks of an expensive attempt to put into practice some of the worse rpg design theory to appear online.
Which brings up the idea that many of the new game designers (Mearls and 4E being the first significant one) may have been too involved with the Internet and it's unrestrained (and unrealistic) idealism and too detached from how people actually play rpgs.
Or it may be something more boring. People love to break new ground in general just to do it, heedless of the downsides. Combining board games & RPG might look like a good idea to such people.
Whatever the case, the last thing I need is an rpg with a bunch of cards and cardboard that will wear out in play. As much as the game company would like the constant income, I have better uses for my money.
Not that warhammer was ever a setting or game that interested me in the first place. But I bet a lot of old fans of the game are going to be disappointed at this change in direction.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Reflections on Complexity
In response to my series of articles on complexity, one of my regular readers (Helmsman) make a couple of interesting assertions.
I've noticed much the same thing. Love of simple systems seems overwhelming online, and that doesn't match the larger market or my offline experiences. Not even close.
To be honest, I don't really know how to explain this. But here are two possible reasons:
Helmsman second point that I wanted to comment on:
"The truth I think is something no blogger wants to admit though, complexity is preferable to the masses, but there's a better medium for it now. Why should anyone write a cool tabletop driving simulator when there are about to be 5 iterations of GranTorismo?", Helmsman
I'm going to have to disagree markly here.
Computer/Console games by nature aren't complex. Sure, they are from a programmer's viewpoint- but not the players. There they are little more than learning the pattern and mastering a handful of controls. The real complexity of mass and implementation has all but been removed and is handled by the computer.
The real complexity of mass and These types of games also suffer in other ways when compared to PnP RPGs. The player doesn't 'own' the system, house rules are limited to mods and those are very restrained as they must always operate under the core program's constraints.
The players also don't own the world. The day (back in the 90s) when Wing Commander killed Angel was the day that I realized that computer games would never allow me to play out a story the way I wanted to play them out. They were in the end little better than watching TV.
These factors, ownership and ability to control the game system (and interact with it direct), world, and story are things computer games are still very far away from. And I doubt they'll get there in the next 10-20 years.
So no, there is not a better medium for complexity. They is however certainly a more popular one.
"One thing I've noticed since I started following the gamer blogging community is that among "bloggers" simplicity is favored.", Helmsman
I've noticed much the same thing. Love of simple systems seems overwhelming online, and that doesn't match the larger market or my offline experiences. Not even close.
To be honest, I don't really know how to explain this. But here are two possible reasons:
- People are really bad at game design, either doing or understanding. Thus those gamers driven to write sort of have to be those who favor simple systems because they'd end up looking like fools when they screwed up talking about complex ones.
- Fans of complex systems stick to writing about them on forums for those complex system. Enworld for D&D, Steve Jackson boards, or the HERO System boards are examples.
Helmsman second point that I wanted to comment on:
"The truth I think is something no blogger wants to admit though, complexity is preferable to the masses, but there's a better medium for it now. Why should anyone write a cool tabletop driving simulator when there are about to be 5 iterations of GranTorismo?", Helmsman
I'm going to have to disagree markly here.
Computer/Console games by nature aren't complex. Sure, they are from a programmer's viewpoint- but not the players. There they are little more than learning the pattern and mastering a handful of controls. The real complexity of mass and implementation has all but been removed and is handled by the computer.
The real complexity of mass and These types of games also suffer in other ways when compared to PnP RPGs. The player doesn't 'own' the system, house rules are limited to mods and those are very restrained as they must always operate under the core program's constraints.
The players also don't own the world. The day (back in the 90s) when Wing Commander killed Angel was the day that I realized that computer games would never allow me to play out a story the way I wanted to play them out. They were in the end little better than watching TV.
These factors, ownership and ability to control the game system (and interact with it direct), world, and story are things computer games are still very far away from. And I doubt they'll get there in the next 10-20 years.
So no, there is not a better medium for complexity. They is however certainly a more popular one.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Musings on Complexity
So I've defined what complexity in game design is, how an individual selects what degree of complexity is best for them, and how a gaming group relates to complexity.
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
Friday, October 30, 2009
In favor of Luddism
Well, not really since Luddism is a concept that I'm not really invoking- but I'll be called a Luddite for what I'm about to say anyway.
I hate pod casts, streaming video, and the like exploding upon rpg/greek scene. Yes, I'm looking at you RPG Circus and other similar things. This despite that fact that I find Zachary's blog interesting and fun.
Blogs are easy to quote, the writen word easy to scan. I can read much faster than someone can talk. They can be quickly referenced, and pages searched for a tidbit in but seconds.
In contrast, Pod Casts are slow and I feel like I'm wasting more time than what they are worth. The makers of them have moved too much of their thoughts to this unsearchable and thus in the end forgettable format.
Pod casts are fine for those people (like talk radio or TV personalities) who's primary method of communication is vocal. I wouldn't expect them to step outside their skill set and actually *write*.
But gaming geeks should stick to the written word. These are PnP games- keep to the format.
I hate pod casts, streaming video, and the like exploding upon rpg/greek scene. Yes, I'm looking at you RPG Circus and other similar things. This despite that fact that I find Zachary's blog interesting and fun.
Blogs are easy to quote, the writen word easy to scan. I can read much faster than someone can talk. They can be quickly referenced, and pages searched for a tidbit in but seconds.
In contrast, Pod Casts are slow and I feel like I'm wasting more time than what they are worth. The makers of them have moved too much of their thoughts to this unsearchable and thus in the end forgettable format.
Pod casts are fine for those people (like talk radio or TV personalities) who's primary method of communication is vocal. I wouldn't expect them to step outside their skill set and actually *write*.
But gaming geeks should stick to the written word. These are PnP games- keep to the format.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Looking Back: Elements of Complexity
I've sort of backed into a series on RPG Complexity, backed into as I didn't set out to do a series on it- it just sort of happened. Since it's happened, let's do a reprint of an article I wrote for RPGNet back in 2002. There I defined what makes a game complex.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Should have started with this, but better late than never:
Elements of Complexity
Go onto any gaming forum and you'll quickly run into someone making the comment that a certain RPG is "complex." It's not unusual for such a statement to draw replies of disagreement, and it quickly becomes obvious that we have yet another case of people using the same word for very different purposes.
Given how common it is to see the question "How complex is this?", I think it would be useful to explore the term some. Not only might it reduce some misunderstandings, it could even have a direct influence on game design.
It seems obvious to me that complexity in game design is the result of various elements- for that is the heart of exchanges like "Rolemaster is too complex!" "No it isn't, it's just a d100 roll with some charts!" Both people are telling the truth from their POV, and what we're seeing is a simple case of different people looking at different specific sub-meanings of a single word.
For my use, the complexity of a game's design can be broken down into three elements: Implementation, Mass, and Concept.
Each of which has its own characteristics and appeal, the highlights of which I'll detail below.
Complexity of Implementation
This is how difficult the actual mechanical steps are. Let's look at a couple of examples pulled out of the middle of damage resolution:
Example 1: Roll 1d8 and add 1 for every point over 12 in the character's strength. Subtract these points from the target's hit points.
Example 2: Determine which body location on the target was struck, take the weapon's penetration factor and subtract the armor rating for that location, multiple the result by the weapon's impact factor which results in the final Damage Potential, divide the Damage Potential by the target's location Structure Points to get the damage ratio, cross reference the damage ratio on the Ballistic impact chart to determine the wound level and final effects.
In implementation terms, Example 2 is far more complex than Example 1. It has more steps, and those steps include more types of operations (multiplication and division as well as subtraction plus a table lookup). And of course we're talking about more than single digit whole numbers in the second example as well.
Games like Phoenix Command are representative of designs with high Implementation complexity, as are elements of other systems- such as GURPS Vehicles or Hero System Character design, systems that call for many to reach for a spreadsheet instead of pen and paper.
Some people love games with high Implementation Complexity. There are entire websites devoted to characters worked up in HERO while others spend days designing vehicles for their GURPS campaigns- much of this seems to be simply inspired by the joy of creating something and in the mastery of the method.
Yet another common draw for this type of complexity is found in the desire of some people to model in detail specific elements of a game. Not content with the typical high level of abstraction used in many games, they wish to see more detailed influences and a more detailed breakdown of events. Combat in Phoenix Command is a prime example of this type of thought. Here the desire for detailed objective simulation drives the need for complex mechanics.
Complexity of Mass
Rules may be simple to Implement in every case; however, there may be a large number of very specific cases, each with their own simple rules.
Example 1: The system defines all one-handed weapons as doing 1d8 points damage with a +1 strike and +1 initiative bonus.
Example 2: This system defines 50 different one-handed weapons each with their own specific damage (a 1d3 to 1d20 range) with strike and initiative bonuses independently ranging from +0 to +3.
Any game that defines large numbers of simple modifiers (say combat modifiers for position and environment and/or attack options) has increased its Complexity of Mass. Having large numbers of specific powers or spells has the same result- individually each are easy, but in total one is looking at a large number of rules, and for many that is overwhelming in itself.
Complexity of Mass is the easiest and quickest to judge; one can almost weigh the rulebook (however, be sure to leave out the setting information and other fluff). D&D is a good example of this type of complexity, as is Rolemaster with its dozens of charts, each of which uses a simple d100 + bonus mechanic.
Why would anyone want to deal with pages upon pages of rules? Two reasons come immediately to mind.
First, some people love options and different ways to approach things. How often does one hear something like "My last character was a Paladin, I think I'll run a Wizard this time..."? The best way to highlight options is to include them in the rules and this produces a simple relationship- more options mean more pages of rules. The very rules themselves become a reason to expand play. For example, include an extensive set of castle building mechanics and someone is going to play with them just to do something different.
A second reason is pride of mastery. It's difficult to master a lot of rules and even more difficult to keep them all at your fingertips. To some, knowing the rules and using them to achieve a desire outcome is a major source of satisfaction in gaming. The more rules to master and use, the greater the satisfaction.
These two reasons drive the design concepts of entire game lines like D20 and WoD, a fact easily determined by a passing examination of their splat books and other expansions. Indeed, this one element is so connected to D&D that the first reaction I typically see in reviews of high Mass games is to call them a D&D copy, even if mechanically they have little in common.
Complexity of Concept
There are games with few rules, those rules very simple, that are still viewed as complex in the extreme, with uncounted possibilities that take even the greatest of players years to master.
Think Chess.
Mechanically, it's simple to move a pawn. The entire rules for the game can be contained on a few sheets of paper. But which pawn to move? What will the effect be? Those are questions that are far from easy to answer, and the choice can be far from obvious. I refer to these games as Complex in Concept to represent the fact that the difficulty isn't in the "how does one do it," but rather in "what does one do and how much will it affect."
In one sense, all RPGs rate high in this area due to their open-ended nature. Even so, I tend to limit this to those games where the player is presented with a wide number of options under conditions that require a great deal of thought in order to find an optimal choice. Games with complex tactical environments like Heavy Gear top the list here.
Complexity of this type tends to draw players who value the importance of individual decisions in a challenging environment.
Just Plain Complex
Games can be complex in more than one way, and there is a tendency to rate high in others if you rate high in one.
Perhaps the ultimate example was SPI's game Air War, which pegged very high levels in all three measures. Over two hundred pages of small font rules concerned solely with jet era air combat, intricate mechanics to represent the fine details of aerial maneuver, dozens and dozens of aircraft with very specific stats and individual rules, and a very complex tactical environment where each choice could alter the entire course of the game.
While any RPG pales in comparison to that wargame, some examples include Hero System and Age of Heroes. A common combination is Mass and Concept, with the prime example being D&D with its volumes of rules and spell lists (Mass) combined with its detailed resource management (Concept).
Eye of the Beholder
Like everything, how complex a game is depends upon who is judging it. Every person has different levels of tolerance for each of the above elements. Below that tolerance, the game is easy - go above it and it becomes complex.
Additionally different people desire different mixes of complexity. One person may like a fairly high level of Mass and Concept and as low a level of Implementation as possible. Another may want a game that is the complete reverse. Games suitable for each are going to look vastly different from each other.
And of course, there are people who desire low levels of Complexity in all three elements. At their most extreme, games for such people become completely free form.
Knowing the complexity desires of your target players (and attempting to fulfill them) will greatly impact the choice of what games to play, or how to design your own. And hopefully knowing the core elements of what makes games complex will also make it easier to talk about them to others.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Groups and Complexity
Last time I spoke about how players in general will move towards a game whose complexity is high enough that the game isn't trivial, but low enough that they can be successful with it (however they define success). For the general market, that means complexity in game design will follow the common bell curve, with the most players running with the game that bests fits the top of that complexity bell curve and very easy/very complex systems found at the ends.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Equilibrium of Complexity
RPGs run a wide range of mechanical complexity. Covering free-form styles (one could debate if these can be called rpgs at all) to games such as HERO System or GURPS.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The nature of RPG discussion online?
I came across something interesting the other day speaking about the nature of debate on the Internet. The subject was global warming and I'd like to pass on that subject itself as this isn't a science or political blog, what's important here is that the author (Roger Pielke Jr.) is for the most part a supporter of the idea of global warming but objects to certain statements made by other proponents.
That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:
"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."
Further on...
"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."
Full article found here.
Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).
It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.
That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:
"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."
Further on...
"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."
Full article found here.
Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).
It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Death of RPG Bloggers?
From this it appears that there was something of a meltdown at the RPG Blogger's Network.
I imagine most reading this know who they are (there's a link to them on the right), basically they work as a sort of dashboard for various RPG blogs, posting the first few lines of a new post from their members in a single place allowing readers a one-stop 'shopping' exerience to decide what to read (or not) that day.
I've been a member for most of this year. In general it was a good experience, and I have little to complain about. It drove a fair amount of traffic and I hope it continues under new managment.
It was a useful stop for me. Left to one's own, the tendency is to hit your favorite links an stop. RPG Blogger opens that up a bit and I've read interesting things that otherwise I would have never saw.
The cause of the series of events resulting in the current crisis are unknown to me in detail. The general direction however is quite familar. The Internet runs on conflict, and conflict found its way to the management of RPG Bloggers.
I think it likely that it started early. When I first joined they had a section set aside for what they considered the best current blog entries. I was on the list once (that I know of), for a couple of hours or so before I was removed. Somewhere along the way, the section was removed completely.
That sort of thing indicates strong disagreement, and it looks like it overwhelmed them at last. Here's hoping that they can find new management, and that they can carried it forward with more agreement, and do so in a neutral way that allows it to be a hub of different viewpoints.
Update: The best blog entries list has been explained as a techinical issue, and not one of editor disagreement. I see no reason not to accept this, so the above 'sign of disagreement' should be ignored. Such is the danger of an outsider reading tea leaves.
I imagine most reading this know who they are (there's a link to them on the right), basically they work as a sort of dashboard for various RPG blogs, posting the first few lines of a new post from their members in a single place allowing readers a one-stop 'shopping' exerience to decide what to read (or not) that day.
I've been a member for most of this year. In general it was a good experience, and I have little to complain about. It drove a fair amount of traffic and I hope it continues under new managment.
It was a useful stop for me. Left to one's own, the tendency is to hit your favorite links an stop. RPG Blogger opens that up a bit and I've read interesting things that otherwise I would have never saw.
The cause of the series of events resulting in the current crisis are unknown to me in detail. The general direction however is quite familar. The Internet runs on conflict, and conflict found its way to the management of RPG Bloggers.
I think it likely that it started early. When I first joined they had a section set aside for what they considered the best current blog entries. I was on the list once (that I know of), for a couple of hours or so before I was removed. Somewhere along the way, the section was removed completely.
That sort of thing indicates strong disagreement, and it looks like it overwhelmed them at last. Here's hoping that they can find new management, and that they can carried it forward with more agreement, and do so in a neutral way that allows it to be a hub of different viewpoints.
Update: The best blog entries list has been explained as a techinical issue, and not one of editor disagreement. I see no reason not to accept this, so the above 'sign of disagreement' should be ignored. Such is the danger of an outsider reading tea leaves.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
HERO System Posts Suck, HERO Games sucks more
I was reviewing the traffic to my site over the last few days and noticed a pattern. The HERO System posts draw far less traffic than other subjects. And the actual HERO System builds draw even less (from what I can tell, the Giant Ant PDF got all of two downloads).
Dying game system? Maybe, who knows. Rather foolish to leap to that thought with this as the only data point.
Besides, this blog is 'marketed' (actually, its not really marketed in any real sense- but the word sort of applies) as a design theory blog and not as a HERO System blog. So I imagine a drop in interest like that should be expected. Plus I don't draw huge amounts of traffic anyway.
So I guess its time to go back to my core competency, and count that type of post as a failure. Pity, they were easy and fun (for me).
In other HERO System news, am I the only one getting the impression that HERO Games is running around with its head cut off?
HERO 6th still hasn't shipped, although you can now get a basic book and some other odds and ends from their website.
And speaking of their online store- I haven't seen a worse one in a long time. Rather than presenting their new 6th products in a single entry each with full descriptions and multiple purchase options, they have individual entries with next to no descriptions.
They are also doing some sort of basic/advance lineup, but the online store doesn't say where the 6th edition book they're waiting on fits into that. In short, there's little to nothing there describing their product line and the options they are offering their buyers.
Also, their first 6th edition support book coming out is Ultimate Base instead of Champions (it will be second). What idiot came up with that publishing plan?
I used to say that as far as Game Designers go, Long was a fine editor and publisher. For now at least, I should take out that 'publisher' part.
Dying game system? Maybe, who knows. Rather foolish to leap to that thought with this as the only data point.
Besides, this blog is 'marketed' (actually, its not really marketed in any real sense- but the word sort of applies) as a design theory blog and not as a HERO System blog. So I imagine a drop in interest like that should be expected. Plus I don't draw huge amounts of traffic anyway.
So I guess its time to go back to my core competency, and count that type of post as a failure. Pity, they were easy and fun (for me).
In other HERO System news, am I the only one getting the impression that HERO Games is running around with its head cut off?
HERO 6th still hasn't shipped, although you can now get a basic book and some other odds and ends from their website.
And speaking of their online store- I haven't seen a worse one in a long time. Rather than presenting their new 6th products in a single entry each with full descriptions and multiple purchase options, they have individual entries with next to no descriptions.
They are also doing some sort of basic/advance lineup, but the online store doesn't say where the 6th edition book they're waiting on fits into that. In short, there's little to nothing there describing their product line and the options they are offering their buyers.
Also, their first 6th edition support book coming out is Ultimate Base instead of Champions (it will be second). What idiot came up with that publishing plan?
I used to say that as far as Game Designers go, Long was a fine editor and publisher. For now at least, I should take out that 'publisher' part.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Morrow Project meets THEM!
A post-apocalyptic world without giant radiated ants is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the jelly.
Add in the fact that THEM! was one of my favorite movies of my childhood (and one of the best 50s monster movies), and the case was settled. Giant ants would be one of the first villains the players would encounter.
The HERO System write-up is fairly straight forward, and is based upon the movie. There are a couple of points that likely need to be explained however.
The Physical Limit: Takes Cumulative Body for example is an exception to a house rule I've used since Hit Locations became part of the system. In HERO Body is cumulative like HP is in D&D- add up the total damage and when it equals or exceed your Body you're dying.
That's fine (well, not really- but it works ok) if one isn't using Hit Locations. But if you are, characters who have been shot in the foot or hand for injuries that aren't even impairing are suddenly dying. And that's silly both from a genre and realism point of view.
So normally Body damage isn't cumulative in my campaigns (bleeding is), you take the effect of the individual injury and go on down the road.
For THEM! however, cumulative body works very well. The ants don't feel pain as such and in the movies would wade through gunfire unless it was fully automatic or done in mass.
The combination of the Damage Reduction and cumulative reflects this perfectly.
The second thing I'd like to point out is the Mandibles Multi-power. The movie didn't have THEM! cutting people in half (and it's a better movie IMO for that, I hate stupid and excessive gore). I reflected this by saying that the Mandibles aren't sharp by human standards- thus the normal damage attack. They however convert to a kill attack against large enough targets.
Reflects the movie well, and from a game PoV makes it easier for the players to live through a encounter greatly roughed up instead of dead. Assuming they win of course...
So, with the explanation finished, it is time to deal with: THEM!
Add in the fact that THEM! was one of my favorite movies of my childhood (and one of the best 50s monster movies), and the case was settled. Giant ants would be one of the first villains the players would encounter.
The HERO System write-up is fairly straight forward, and is based upon the movie. There are a couple of points that likely need to be explained however.
The Physical Limit: Takes Cumulative Body for example is an exception to a house rule I've used since Hit Locations became part of the system. In HERO Body is cumulative like HP is in D&D- add up the total damage and when it equals or exceed your Body you're dying.
That's fine (well, not really- but it works ok) if one isn't using Hit Locations. But if you are, characters who have been shot in the foot or hand for injuries that aren't even impairing are suddenly dying. And that's silly both from a genre and realism point of view.
So normally Body damage isn't cumulative in my campaigns (bleeding is), you take the effect of the individual injury and go on down the road.
For THEM! however, cumulative body works very well. The ants don't feel pain as such and in the movies would wade through gunfire unless it was fully automatic or done in mass.
The combination of the Damage Reduction and cumulative reflects this perfectly.
The second thing I'd like to point out is the Mandibles Multi-power. The movie didn't have THEM! cutting people in half (and it's a better movie IMO for that, I hate stupid and excessive gore). I reflected this by saying that the Mandibles aren't sharp by human standards- thus the normal damage attack. They however convert to a kill attack against large enough targets.
Reflects the movie well, and from a game PoV makes it easier for the players to live through a encounter greatly roughed up instead of dead. Assuming they win of course...
So, with the explanation finished, it is time to deal with: THEM!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Tyranny of Hit Points
I've always considered that D&D style Hit Points to be one of the most of the depressing things in the RPG world.
Gygax himself was open about why they were there. He stated that they served the purpose of making the game predictable such that the players would know if they could win, and slowed things down so that if they weren't- they could retreat. In one article from the old days of the Dragon (I believe it was), he even stated that Saving Throws were originally incorrectly done with their 'Save or Die' nature- that they should be altered to fixed damage amounts to uphold this single goal.
Hit Points serve this goal well, and that usage is why they are found in the most popular RPGs table top or computer. Because the lowest common element in players is that they like to win, and HP systems are easy to win in. Find the right pattern, use it, repeat and victory is yours with small margin of error.
And this in turn makes things easy for the GMs the world over. Adventures are easy to make and manage. MMORPGs easy to design and balance.
But they are so terrible for any other use. And perhaps worse is the hoops that people leap to to justify them in other terms.
To use one example, I'll often see people claim that they represent your classic lengthy sword fight (think of The Dread Pirate Roberts against Inigo Montoya). Well, yes- you have a long fight with a winner and a loser (any system could do that by starting the battle and going out to dinner before resolving it). But I didn't read or see them hacking chunks out of each other- which is what 'roll to hit, roll to damage' indicates. I saw them striking and parrying/dodging blows until someone was disarmed.
And what about those fights where someone dies before the first D&D round can even finish? These are even more common in the source material, and not just for minion level foes which didn't even exist in D&D until recently.
"But", claim the HP people, "D&D includes that- it's just all abstract."
Sure, if one is good with an abstraction system that does Y and then afterwards claims that it did X. Do people get on an America Airlines Flight to go to New York and call it acceptable when they end up in LA? Order a steak and then are good when given a hamburger for their 25ドル?
One possible suggestion is to just rename Hit Points and call them what they are- either Fatigue or perhap Battle Advantage. Stop rolling to damage, and instead roll to Press the attack. Add an 'actual damage' table to anyone taken below 1 HP to represent the final outcome of the battle. Then at least things are clear, and the only remaining objection is that so much of the source material (i.e. any quick kill) either can't be done or must overturn the core combat system (such as extreme critical hit systems).
Such a mess.
There are other options, and I've used them for decades. Age of Heroes uses a strike/defense system combined with a damage system that typically will drop a foe in a single blow. One's ability to hit and defend (and length of combat) is thus very dependent upon the relative skill of the combatants.
And what is interesting about this is that over the decades nearly any player I've encountered likes that better than D&D style Hit Points. New Players, old players, D&D haters and D&D (originally) fans. The couple of exceptions almost prove the rule.
Most recently we did two tests with different players comparing Star Wars SAGA with a Star Wars modified version of Age of Heroes. One group was basically new to rpgs and tested blind, the other was my own experienced gaming group.
No one in either group liked the SAGA approach (done first in the blind test, second in the experienced group). Or rather, the blind novice group liked it until they tried the other option. After that they completely rejected the SAGA approach as boring, in their view AoH seemed much more exciting and modelled the movies so much better.
But my experience seems to be the exception.
While other games have attempted a different approach, they either failed or at best are 'also rans'. Some (like HERO System) can be played in different manners, are instead typically used in the D&D style. Others use the D&D style, but attempt to hide it (Dark Heresy).
It may be due to D&D's ownership of the market. It may be due to players who want simple HP systems because the other options are too uncontrolled for them. Or it may be due to the system design failures of the early non-HP game systems (like Rune Quest) giving other non-HP designs a bad name. Or it may be that non-HP systems require too much of their GMs.
Whatever the cause...
...it's just depressing.
Gygax himself was open about why they were there. He stated that they served the purpose of making the game predictable such that the players would know if they could win, and slowed things down so that if they weren't- they could retreat. In one article from the old days of the Dragon (I believe it was), he even stated that Saving Throws were originally incorrectly done with their 'Save or Die' nature- that they should be altered to fixed damage amounts to uphold this single goal.
Hit Points serve this goal well, and that usage is why they are found in the most popular RPGs table top or computer. Because the lowest common element in players is that they like to win, and HP systems are easy to win in. Find the right pattern, use it, repeat and victory is yours with small margin of error.
And this in turn makes things easy for the GMs the world over. Adventures are easy to make and manage. MMORPGs easy to design and balance.
But they are so terrible for any other use. And perhaps worse is the hoops that people leap to to justify them in other terms.
To use one example, I'll often see people claim that they represent your classic lengthy sword fight (think of The Dread Pirate Roberts against Inigo Montoya). Well, yes- you have a long fight with a winner and a loser (any system could do that by starting the battle and going out to dinner before resolving it). But I didn't read or see them hacking chunks out of each other- which is what 'roll to hit, roll to damage' indicates. I saw them striking and parrying/dodging blows until someone was disarmed.
And what about those fights where someone dies before the first D&D round can even finish? These are even more common in the source material, and not just for minion level foes which didn't even exist in D&D until recently.
"But", claim the HP people, "D&D includes that- it's just all abstract."
Sure, if one is good with an abstraction system that does Y and then afterwards claims that it did X. Do people get on an America Airlines Flight to go to New York and call it acceptable when they end up in LA? Order a steak and then are good when given a hamburger for their 25ドル?
One possible suggestion is to just rename Hit Points and call them what they are- either Fatigue or perhap Battle Advantage. Stop rolling to damage, and instead roll to Press the attack. Add an 'actual damage' table to anyone taken below 1 HP to represent the final outcome of the battle. Then at least things are clear, and the only remaining objection is that so much of the source material (i.e. any quick kill) either can't be done or must overturn the core combat system (such as extreme critical hit systems).
Such a mess.
There are other options, and I've used them for decades. Age of Heroes uses a strike/defense system combined with a damage system that typically will drop a foe in a single blow. One's ability to hit and defend (and length of combat) is thus very dependent upon the relative skill of the combatants.
And what is interesting about this is that over the decades nearly any player I've encountered likes that better than D&D style Hit Points. New Players, old players, D&D haters and D&D (originally) fans. The couple of exceptions almost prove the rule.
Most recently we did two tests with different players comparing Star Wars SAGA with a Star Wars modified version of Age of Heroes. One group was basically new to rpgs and tested blind, the other was my own experienced gaming group.
No one in either group liked the SAGA approach (done first in the blind test, second in the experienced group). Or rather, the blind novice group liked it until they tried the other option. After that they completely rejected the SAGA approach as boring, in their view AoH seemed much more exciting and modelled the movies so much better.
But my experience seems to be the exception.
While other games have attempted a different approach, they either failed or at best are 'also rans'. Some (like HERO System) can be played in different manners, are instead typically used in the D&D style. Others use the D&D style, but attempt to hide it (Dark Heresy).
It may be due to D&D's ownership of the market. It may be due to players who want simple HP systems because the other options are too uncontrolled for them. Or it may be due to the system design failures of the early non-HP game systems (like Rune Quest) giving other non-HP designs a bad name. Or it may be that non-HP systems require too much of their GMs.
Whatever the cause...
...it's just depressing.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Another Morrow Project Build
Given yesterday's post on the Landmaster, I thought I'd follow up by providing an example character sheet for one of the PC in the Campaign.
The team consists of half a Special Forces A-Team plus a couple of scientists. Rather than the hard-core realism of the original game, it's done as almost a pulp style version action adventure.
The team consists of half a Special Forces A-Team plus a couple of scientists. Rather than the hard-core realism of the original game, it's done as almost a pulp style version action adventure.
Creating a good Special Forces write-up in HERO System takes more than just a few points. The real world training is extensive and they start with already experienced soldiers for the most part. A base of 100 points plus disadvantages will just get you there leaving little to individualize the character, so we started with the top end (for non-superheroes) of 125 points plus up to 125 points of disadvantages.
The character sheet is laid out in a rather odd way. It actually starts on the back with the package deals that make up the character's training presented in chronological order, and presented in their complete form. The front contains specialized training and individual skills.
The result is that the same skill may appear more than once, when this happens we've put the skill roll on the first occurrence of the skill on the back of the sheet, or on it's appearance on the front if present. The rest of the entries are marked with a '$' (called cash money upgrade by the players).
This makes the sheet dificult to read until one gets used to it, but keeps the training history of the character intact.
These characters are in many ways the most competent and well-rounded characters we've ran in HERO System.
Our example PC is First Sergeant Preston Walker.
By nature Preston is an idealist protected by enough experience to understand realism. He joined up to protect his country and takes the SF motto of de oppresso liber (to 'free the oppressed') to heart. His grandfather was a hero in WWII and he strives to live up to that idea.
A strong family man who's lost track of his wife and son due to the breakdown of the Project. He was told that they were to be taken to safety and likely put into stasis at one of the major bases. However he doesn't know if they made it there as the last transports left under fire. Nor does he know which base, or for that matter where any other base at all may be located.
As a result he is quite angry at waking up long after the planned period, and is currently thinking that things are moving too slowly. This is often most reflected in conflict with Prof Winston, one of the scientists who in Preston's mind is taking this as more of a puzzle to be solved than the serious disaster that it is.
His Captain is worried about this mindset, given that Preston is his top Sergeant currently, and he needs him calm and in control.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Behold the Landmaster!
Back in 1997, Fox released a movie by the name of Damnation Alley. It's subject was a cross-country run by a small band of survivors through the 'safest' 100 mile wide 'alley' in a post-apocalyptic world.
While that was a very promising setup (one of the best IMO), it was a rather bad movie. The special effects couldn't handle recreating the mutant threats that would have given it real kick, and the writing was sub-par as well. Sigh.
It's most remembered for two things. The first was being almost forgotten in the year that saw Star Wars come to the screen.
The other and more important was the Landmaster. For a generation that loved special vehicles like Bond's car or the Batmobile, the Landmaster was pure wishfulfillment. An armored all terrain RV with the teeth and electronics able to take the worst the post-apocalypitc world could throw at it.
And it was a real vehicle too. Well, the weapons were just props bolted on, but the core was real enough.
I've kept it in my imagination down the years along with the Enterprise and some other icons of sc-fi. It was a natural for it to appear in my Morrow Project campaign. And the designers of the original Morrow Project thought so as well, as it was the basis for the MARS One vehicle.
The MARS One however was too expanded- double the size with enough weapons to make an desert painted Abrams turn green with envy. It was just too much.
So I went back to the original and like the original put two in the hands of my players. They just reached them in play, although digging them out of the bunker will prove to be hard and dangerous work...
Given that the original was from 1977 and mine would be made in 2012, it needed some updates although far less than I at first expected.
First up was the standard Project almost magical Fusion power system and the electrical engine that comes with it.
It's already impressive 1 cm thick armor would be improved by concepts from a project that I read about- the use of magnetic fields to greatly enhance vehicle armor. The idea was to provide the same protection found on the M1A2 battle tank to an armor car like the LAV 25. That sounded perfect for my new model Landmaster.
The original had six machineguns mounted at different points. These were cheap Hollywood props as the forward ones clearly are glued on barrels without room for the actual gun. I decided to go with pulse lasers (again taking something from both current projects and the original MP game itself). I decided a low rate of fire would explain why the side mounts (and front for that matter) were in pairs. Powered by the fusion reactor, their independance from ammo will be useful in the game and they could look like they were bolted on as the 'gun' wouldn't have to be of conventional shape.
The twin rocket pods on the back were clearly 2.75" seven shot pods in common military use even today. Mostly an air-to-ground weapon, what were they doing on the Landmaster?
I thought that maybe if one replaced the warhead with a HEDP one (i.e. able to double duty for anti-vehicle and anti-personal) and added laser guidance- one might have something...
... look no further than the real world Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) and the M247 warhead of the Hydra 70.
The forward firing mortars at first seemed odd with the APKWS system installed. But if they were basically just an auto-loading 60mm mortar using cheap (and small) ammo- they could be used for targets not requiring the expense of the APKWS. So I kept them for this use.
Toss in the Boomerang shooter detection system, which I expanded to detect the location of any incoming fire, and I was just about done. Except for the sensors and a few other odds and ends that made up the vehicle.
So here's my HERO System 5th Edition Morrow Project Landmaster write-up. It's my first draft, but is very close to final. Note that it is built to my own house rules and standards.
While that was a very promising setup (one of the best IMO), it was a rather bad movie. The special effects couldn't handle recreating the mutant threats that would have given it real kick, and the writing was sub-par as well. Sigh.
It's most remembered for two things. The first was being almost forgotten in the year that saw Star Wars come to the screen.
The other and more important was the Landmaster. For a generation that loved special vehicles like Bond's car or the Batmobile, the Landmaster was pure wishfulfillment. An armored all terrain RV with the teeth and electronics able to take the worst the post-apocalypitc world could throw at it.
And it was a real vehicle too. Well, the weapons were just props bolted on, but the core was real enough.
I've kept it in my imagination down the years along with the Enterprise and some other icons of sc-fi. It was a natural for it to appear in my Morrow Project campaign. And the designers of the original Morrow Project thought so as well, as it was the basis for the MARS One vehicle.
The MARS One however was too expanded- double the size with enough weapons to make an desert painted Abrams turn green with envy. It was just too much.
So I went back to the original and like the original put two in the hands of my players. They just reached them in play, although digging them out of the bunker will prove to be hard and dangerous work...
Given that the original was from 1977 and mine would be made in 2012, it needed some updates although far less than I at first expected.
First up was the standard Project almost magical Fusion power system and the electrical engine that comes with it.
It's already impressive 1 cm thick armor would be improved by concepts from a project that I read about- the use of magnetic fields to greatly enhance vehicle armor. The idea was to provide the same protection found on the M1A2 battle tank to an armor car like the LAV 25. That sounded perfect for my new model Landmaster.
The original had six machineguns mounted at different points. These were cheap Hollywood props as the forward ones clearly are glued on barrels without room for the actual gun. I decided to go with pulse lasers (again taking something from both current projects and the original MP game itself). I decided a low rate of fire would explain why the side mounts (and front for that matter) were in pairs. Powered by the fusion reactor, their independance from ammo will be useful in the game and they could look like they were bolted on as the 'gun' wouldn't have to be of conventional shape.
The twin rocket pods on the back were clearly 2.75" seven shot pods in common military use even today. Mostly an air-to-ground weapon, what were they doing on the Landmaster?
I thought that maybe if one replaced the warhead with a HEDP one (i.e. able to double duty for anti-vehicle and anti-personal) and added laser guidance- one might have something...
... look no further than the real world Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) and the M247 warhead of the Hydra 70.
The forward firing mortars at first seemed odd with the APKWS system installed. But if they were basically just an auto-loading 60mm mortar using cheap (and small) ammo- they could be used for targets not requiring the expense of the APKWS. So I kept them for this use.
Toss in the Boomerang shooter detection system, which I expanded to detect the location of any incoming fire, and I was just about done. Except for the sensors and a few other odds and ends that made up the vehicle.
So here's my HERO System 5th Edition Morrow Project Landmaster write-up. It's my first draft, but is very close to final. Note that it is built to my own house rules and standards.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Seems I need to tackle weather...
The Morrow Project game is off and running.
I was in evil GM mode to start with, this team was placed in an unfinished bolt-hole (located SW of Colorado Springs) to start with due to the world falling apart around them. Their transport crashed short of their planned location, so they had to make do with a bolt-hole with nothing but their assigned personal (i.e. carried) gear. No vehicles, no extras.
Upon waking, they decided to head to the nearest town and get more information on why upon waking they don't have any radio sat contact, and how they have full growth trees around their location when the plan was for a 5 year 'sleep'. Upon finding ruins, they turned south east and headed for their 'planned' location in the hopes of getting both more equipment (vehicles they cry!) and perhaps more information.
About a week of cross-country hiking though wilderness.
So I got to hit them with mutant rats and lizards, many outdoor survival experiences (great fun), and the run away weather as they enter something of a wild zone (that I like calling Damnation Alley, stolen from the movie of course).
By pure luck, one of the eight PCs took all the significant 'hits'. He was grabbed by the man-eating plant. He had to live with common if painful insect stings, He was hit not once, but twice by the random post-apoc Lightning storm that is common in the Alley.
Oh, and he was stabbed in the backside by a flying piece of lumber blown by the wind storm in the same Alley after their failed 'find/make Shelter' roll left him in the open.
One other character got sunburn...
Such is the roll of the dice.
Oh, about the title of this post. I used the weather charts from the original Morrow Project rule book. But I was hoping to find something with a bit more detail broken down by various weather 'zones'.
Anyone have any suggestions that I can find online? I want something in table/chart format and not a generator program.
I was in evil GM mode to start with, this team was placed in an unfinished bolt-hole (located SW of Colorado Springs) to start with due to the world falling apart around them. Their transport crashed short of their planned location, so they had to make do with a bolt-hole with nothing but their assigned personal (i.e. carried) gear. No vehicles, no extras.
Upon waking, they decided to head to the nearest town and get more information on why upon waking they don't have any radio sat contact, and how they have full growth trees around their location when the plan was for a 5 year 'sleep'. Upon finding ruins, they turned south east and headed for their 'planned' location in the hopes of getting both more equipment (vehicles they cry!) and perhaps more information.
About a week of cross-country hiking though wilderness.
So I got to hit them with mutant rats and lizards, many outdoor survival experiences (great fun), and the run away weather as they enter something of a wild zone (that I like calling Damnation Alley, stolen from the movie of course).
By pure luck, one of the eight PCs took all the significant 'hits'. He was grabbed by the man-eating plant. He had to live with common if painful insect stings, He was hit not once, but twice by the random post-apoc Lightning storm that is common in the Alley.
Oh, and he was stabbed in the backside by a flying piece of lumber blown by the wind storm in the same Alley after their failed 'find/make Shelter' roll left him in the open.
One other character got sunburn...
Such is the roll of the dice.
Oh, about the title of this post. I used the weather charts from the original Morrow Project rule book. But I was hoping to find something with a bit more detail broken down by various weather 'zones'.
Anyone have any suggestions that I can find online? I want something in table/chart format and not a generator program.
Friday, September 25, 2009
On a less serious note
Taking a bit of break from serious theory (as if anything connected to RPGs can really be serious).
I've always wanted to run a game in a setting close to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qTEAYKXwJU
There was an RPG published for it, using the ill fated (and poorly done) FUZION system which was a horrid hybrid using HERO System in part. Not very good, but I'm happy I have the books.
Never played it. It's still one of my 'want to do campaigns'.
I've always wanted to run a game in a setting close to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qTEAYKXwJU
There was an RPG published for it, using the ill fated (and poorly done) FUZION system which was a horrid hybrid using HERO System in part. Not very good, but I'm happy I have the books.
Never played it. It's still one of my 'want to do campaigns'.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
HERO 6th Still on that slow boat from China
According to the Hero Games website, their books didn't make it on the boat on the 10th after all, but is said to have managed it more than a week later.
Far as I'm concern, it can stay on that slow boat forever.
I wonder if I could start an Old School HERO movement like the D&D OSR guys? Likely not. I think D&D is the only game that could support that type of thing.
Far as I'm concern, it can stay on that slow boat forever.
I wonder if I could start an Old School HERO movement like the D&D OSR guys? Likely not. I think D&D is the only game that could support that type of thing.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Flaws of GNS- Part VI: Conclusion
We've reached the end of our series review GNS, what it claims to do and what it in fact actually does. To recap:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
- GNS becomes a circular assumption.
- GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
- Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
- Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
- Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
- The Big Model core and basis is GNS
- The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS
Logically flawed, we can now see that GNS fails completely in its effort to define or model RPGs as most people think of them. Indeed, if followed the model will produce something that is basically another type of game completely.
Does this mean that there's nothing of value to be found in GNS or any of the rest of the Forge's body of work?
Not really. There are good things to be found in it, if only at the edges.
The beginning concept of Game, Story, Sim does have its grounding in what makes a rpg. GNS may take it beyond 'too far', but that original insight can help people decide on their own what type of mix they may want in their campaigns or if the mix is even important to them. Just remember points 1-3 from above- the definitions will be your own and shared views of them will be difficult if not impossible. Further, the mix will likely change moment to moment.
Further, the greatest danger of even a well formed Threefold style model is that it may blind you to only thinking in those three terms. I consider it highly unlikely that the world of RPG gaming is so limited.
With that in mind, for those wanting something like that three-way split, I'd suggest the original r.g.f.a Threefold as a starting point to be altered to taste. Better yet, go four-way with the WotC model. It's good to use real data even if you don't have all of it (WotC released the summary, but not the questions and responses).
Edwards often references the work of others, and those references certainly point to things of value. Tweet's resolutions methods for example. Another example is that much of his article on Gamism seems to be influenced by various self-declared Gamists (likely including myself) that objected to his original more insulting short definition. It even links to a couple of my own articles on tactics and strategy in game design and uses my homebrew game Age of Heroes as an example.
Now I feel it's better to come across these things in a way other than the Forge. But at worse the GNS movement has some value in exposing real work on RPG theory to interested people by means of criticisms such as this series. Try some of the links on this blog. Explore other blogs. Generally anyone not talking about GNS has something interesting to say.
The Forges definition of Narrativist while very specific is still a method of viewing a Story based campaign. Some people like it. The games produced (for the best examples of the theory) by the theory are not what people commonly consider to be RPGs- but they are still games of some type liked by a certain type of player.
And finally, GNS stands as an excellent example of what not to do. Such experience is always gained at a cost. Don't waste it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Flaws of GNS- Part V: The Big Model
GNS is the foundation of Edward's thought on RPGs, and the driving goal of Forge style game design. As I've shown in this series, GNS is basically junk and wishful thinking.
One of the common responses by GNS believers to anyone pointing this out is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense, i.e. they claim you can't talk about GNS because you have to first understand (and it's implied, agree with) the Big Model. Leonardo did this very thing in the comments for Part III.
It's a bit like saying you need to understand Special Relativity before you can comment on someone claiming that F = m*a^2 (Force = Mass * Acceleration squared), when anyone with a basic grounding in education should know it's F = m * a.
And really, that's all one need say about the Big Model with respect to GNS, anyone invoking it is trying to change the subject. Johnnie Cochran would be happy with them, but most people would like to slam them upside the head with something heavy. I'd suggest a fifth edition revised HERO System book, or a baseball bat. Baseball bats have the advantage of tradition and effectiveness, but the HERO book suits our hobby. Your choice.
But I like picking apart things, so lets look at that Big Model a bit more (i.e. more than it deserves).
So, what is the Big Model and how does it relate to GNS?
Sadly it has its own wiki entry, which goes to show that one doesn't have to be worth a dime to be in wiki- you just need someone to add it. The upside is that its noted as lacking any information on notability (i.e. why it should have an entry), and that almost makes wiki my friend. They will be when they delete it.
One can also go to the Forge Articles for information, but there's not a single article on it there. You'll have to dig through all of them, collect the pieces and assemble them on your own time That was actually of value to the Forge supporters as it means anyone questioning them would have to put more work into it than it was worth.
If however you have time to waste, the Glossary is the best place to start. Note that it references the same GNS articles we've already talked about as its components.
What it breaks down to is something similar to my own Layers Model, but with a completely different goal showing in effect how people interact in order to achieve their Creative Agenda. Oh, and Creative Agenda is GNS.
Along the way it stops to define a few common elements of games- like characters and settings (as if people don't know about them) while adding highbrow terms like Color and Ephemera in place of simpler words just because it wouldn't be a Edward's thing without them.
What is key about this is that the Big Model is focused on GNS, it's that big arrow that runs through the whole mess in the diagram found at the link. It exists only to show the reader how everything in the view of its creator depends upon GNS.
Logically however that is true only if GNS is true. And we know that's false.
So to return to GNS supporters who say you 'have to understand the Big Model in order to comment on if GNS has any value'...
Here's another way of saying the same thing: 'In order to say Nessie doesn't exist, you have to understand field of Cryptozoology'.
There's a word that sort of claim- stupid.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
One of the common responses by GNS believers to anyone pointing this out is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense, i.e. they claim you can't talk about GNS because you have to first understand (and it's implied, agree with) the Big Model. Leonardo did this very thing in the comments for Part III.
It's a bit like saying you need to understand Special Relativity before you can comment on someone claiming that F = m*a^2 (Force = Mass * Acceleration squared), when anyone with a basic grounding in education should know it's F = m * a.
And really, that's all one need say about the Big Model with respect to GNS, anyone invoking it is trying to change the subject. Johnnie Cochran would be happy with them, but most people would like to slam them upside the head with something heavy. I'd suggest a fifth edition revised HERO System book, or a baseball bat. Baseball bats have the advantage of tradition and effectiveness, but the HERO book suits our hobby. Your choice.
But I like picking apart things, so lets look at that Big Model a bit more (i.e. more than it deserves).
So, what is the Big Model and how does it relate to GNS?
Sadly it has its own wiki entry, which goes to show that one doesn't have to be worth a dime to be in wiki- you just need someone to add it. The upside is that its noted as lacking any information on notability (i.e. why it should have an entry), and that almost makes wiki my friend. They will be when they delete it.
One can also go to the Forge Articles for information, but there's not a single article on it there. You'll have to dig through all of them, collect the pieces and assemble them on your own time That was actually of value to the Forge supporters as it means anyone questioning them would have to put more work into it than it was worth.
If however you have time to waste, the Glossary is the best place to start. Note that it references the same GNS articles we've already talked about as its components.
What it breaks down to is something similar to my own Layers Model, but with a completely different goal showing in effect how people interact in order to achieve their Creative Agenda. Oh, and Creative Agenda is GNS.
Along the way it stops to define a few common elements of games- like characters and settings (as if people don't know about them) while adding highbrow terms like Color and Ephemera in place of simpler words just because it wouldn't be a Edward's thing without them.
What is key about this is that the Big Model is focused on GNS, it's that big arrow that runs through the whole mess in the diagram found at the link. It exists only to show the reader how everything in the view of its creator depends upon GNS.
Logically however that is true only if GNS is true. And we know that's false.
So to return to GNS supporters who say you 'have to understand the Big Model in order to comment on if GNS has any value'...
Here's another way of saying the same thing: 'In order to say Nessie doesn't exist, you have to understand field of Cryptozoology'.
There's a word that sort of claim- stupid.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
- GNS becomes a circular assumption.
- GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
- Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
- Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
- Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
- The Big Model core and basis is GNS
- The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS
Monday, September 21, 2009
Flaws of GNS- Part IV: Conflict with Reality
The proponents of GNS have never offered anything except their own opinions and anecdotal examples as evidence of its validity. That doesn’t mean that more reasoned evidence on its effectiveness can’t be found. Indeed, we can look at what the model presents and test it against real world results.
GNS makes basically two key predictions that we can match against real world data:
GNS makes basically two key predictions that we can match against real world data:
- There are three (and only three) exclusive and driving goals for players of rpgs- Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism
- These three goals are directly related to mechanics of the game.
If GNS is a valid theory, we'd expect those two statements represented in any study of players, their needs and desires. That is: we'd find a three-way division of player goals with players of certain goals favoring certain styles of rpgs and avoding others.
RPGs are not a heavily studied field, and that fact has been to the advantage of GNS as they ask their critics to prove a negative (instead of proving their assertions, which is where the burden actually rests). There is however one study performed by WotC that directly answers the above prediction.
Rather than three goals or types of players, WotC found four: Power Gamers, Thinkers, Storytellers, and Character Actors. None of these really match any of the three GNS corners although Gamist and Power Gamer can be said to be the closest pairing.
So no three way split, and the measuring sticks (determined by WotC after the study was completed and thus determined to be the most effective of the possible measurements) are completely different (given that Narrativism Story): Story - Combat, Strategic - Tactical.
To quote the Study article:
"We also found no additional segmentation based on what games people identified as their "favorite"; in other words, there are just as many Power Gamers as there are Storytellers who like Vampire, and just as many Thinkers as Character Acters who like D&D."
No difference in player goals across different games? But GNS says this cannot be the case, in it's view System Does Matter. Real world data says differently, and theory must always give way to fact.
GNS takes additional hits from the following (again quoting the article):
"All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying."
Some of these 8 core values are matched to the original definition of a RPG I've been using in this series. To review:
It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.
The 8 core values are:
- Strong Characters and Exciting Story
- Role PlayingComplexity Increases over Time
- Requires Strategic Thinking
- Competitive
- Add on sets/New versions available
- Uses imagination
- Mentally challenging
Some of these match the definition above rather nicely, and since GNS pulled from to get its three assumed corners- there is some match there as well. However the WotC study showed that ALL 8 values were important to the RPG gamer. Not just one.
The conclusion is rather clear. When gamers are studied and their play styles grouped- they don't break out into the GNS expected three groups. Further, the GNS exclusion doesn't have any significant match in reality. Players and their games are mix of goals- not a search for only one.
Not only are the goals not in fact exlusive, players actually meet their goals independently of the game systems. The two defining elements of GNS don't match reality, and the Theory lies disproved.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
- GNS becomes a circular assumption.
- GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
- Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
- Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
- Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
Friday, September 18, 2009
Flaws of GNS- Part III: Plan Meets Need
Continuing our examination of GNS, we've reach a parting of the ways with its processor the Threefold. Until now the failures have been shared between the models as one would expect given their similarities.
At this point, although flawed- the Threefold could at least be useful to a set of people who could agree on terms. It would likely be highly limiting given it's lack of a serious foundation and errors of logic and it would draw flamewars like mad. But even so, a few might find some use in it as a way of saying 'different people play for different reasons' if nothing else.
GNS however makes some serious additional mistakes.
First, let's toss that simple definition of what a RPG is back up to keep it in mind. It will become important latter.
It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
In addition to greatly changing the Threefold definitions to suit himself, Edwards would make two other new claims that would take GNS down a completely different path.
First is that he would in effect make a circular argument. After pulling the Gamist, Story (renamed Narrativist) and Simulation out of the above definition of a RPG and making them into goals, he would then claim that those goals are directly supported and must be supported by the game system.
Thus saying, in order: (RPG components) == (Play Goals) == (Mechanic Systems).
This is done just by claiming it's so, without evidence and backing.
His next step however would be even more impactful. It drives GNS and the game design approach that arises from Edward's body of theory. Quoting from System Does Matter:
"To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."
A rather amazing statement and one critical to what GNS is. To realize its impact let's plug this assumption back into the original definition of a RPG.
It is table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people OR it consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) OR it is set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
That certainly isn't the original instinctive definition now is it?
The original was inclusive saying that all three components made up an RPG meanwhile GNS is basically saying that a good RPG only contains one and avoids the other two. So GNS took a simple instinctive definition of the RPG, and completely turned it upon its head. Basically a bait and switch.
The goal of any RPG Theory (i.e. its 'need') is to better explain what a RPG is and how to design them. But the method (i.e. 'plan') of GNS drives one to create something that isn't an RPG at all.
At this point some could say that perhaps GNS has it right, and that the instinctive definition that I and others would put forth was an error. Edwards is big on saying that the original writers of RPGs were wrong.
Let's take that up in Part IV.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
Part I, II, IV, V, VI
At this point, although flawed- the Threefold could at least be useful to a set of people who could agree on terms. It would likely be highly limiting given it's lack of a serious foundation and errors of logic and it would draw flamewars like mad. But even so, a few might find some use in it as a way of saying 'different people play for different reasons' if nothing else.
GNS however makes some serious additional mistakes.
First, let's toss that simple definition of what a RPG is back up to keep it in mind. It will become important latter.
It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
In addition to greatly changing the Threefold definitions to suit himself, Edwards would make two other new claims that would take GNS down a completely different path.
First is that he would in effect make a circular argument. After pulling the Gamist, Story (renamed Narrativist) and Simulation out of the above definition of a RPG and making them into goals, he would then claim that those goals are directly supported and must be supported by the game system.
Thus saying, in order: (RPG components) == (Play Goals) == (Mechanic Systems).
This is done just by claiming it's so, without evidence and backing.
His next step however would be even more impactful. It drives GNS and the game design approach that arises from Edward's body of theory. Quoting from System Does Matter:
"To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."
A rather amazing statement and one critical to what GNS is. To realize its impact let's plug this assumption back into the original definition of a RPG.
It is table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people OR it consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) OR it is set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
That certainly isn't the original instinctive definition now is it?
The original was inclusive saying that all three components made up an RPG meanwhile GNS is basically saying that a good RPG only contains one and avoids the other two. So GNS took a simple instinctive definition of the RPG, and completely turned it upon its head. Basically a bait and switch.
The goal of any RPG Theory (i.e. its 'need') is to better explain what a RPG is and how to design them. But the method (i.e. 'plan') of GNS drives one to create something that isn't an RPG at all.
At this point some could say that perhaps GNS has it right, and that the instinctive definition that I and others would put forth was an error. Edwards is big on saying that the original writers of RPGs were wrong.
Let's take that up in Part IV.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
- GNS becomes a circular assumption.
- GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new.
Part I, II, IV, V, VI
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Flaws of GNS- Part II: Devil in the Details
To continue our examination of GNS (and the related Threefold), let's review that nearly instinctive definition of an PnP RPG:
It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
Jumping from there to a Threefold or GNS like Model sure is tempting. It would be flawed of course. Saying goals == components is quite the leap; and then limiting ourselves to only three possible goals is yet another. But it is tempting.
And when left vague, maybe not all that harmful. After all, it would seem likely that people may favor one component of an activity over another. So why not flow with it?
Why not? Because people need more than just a vague idea from their models. They need to stake out their ground, what is theirs and what is not. That is the point of labels. That's the first thing we do when we encounter them.
And that is when things fly apart.
Let's take one example from the early days of Threefold debate in rec.games.frp.advocacy. The Simulation people wanted to claim self-consistent settings as a characteristic of Simulation, i.e. they should be internally realistic. This is after all the key point of the Simulation concept- the very attempt to make something as real as possible within its framework.
Makes sense doesn't it?
Well... not so fast. The Story/Drama people were insulted. After all they claim, everyone knows a key element of good fiction is suspension of disbelief, and to have that one must have self-consistent settings that appear real to the viewer.
Sigh
We're not even out of the gate with a threefold theory and we already have a flamewar to the death going. Years and many electrons were burned in r.g.f.a over that one issue (alongside others of course). The feelings on both sides were very strong and reasonably so, as each considered the concept key to how they did things. In effect, the Simulation side (who controlled the FAQ and thus the model) was seriously insulting the Story side by claiming they didn't do what they felt was key to the success of what they were doing.
Neither side were willing to give nor did they, and the news group fell apart when they just should have given up the Threefold.
That's only one example that I wasn't directly involved in. I have lots more (some I was involved in), but let's save space. I think the point is made. Moving from something vague and on the surface reasonable to something actually defined is one heck of a long distance move- and may not even be possible.
The key point here is that the maker of any model is highly likely to lump those things important to him into those parts of the model he favors and deny it to the other parts. Even when those things are shared by multiple parts. They are in turn likely to split away any feature that they don't like from their favored label to a unfavored one.
The pressure to do this is immense, after all the point of having three different labels is for them to be different- and they're not if they're doing the same things. The conflict is nearly unavoidable. In fact, let's give it a name- Definition Conflict
GNS is subject to these same pressures and reality.
Consider Ron's full length article on what Narrativism is, assuming your eyes don't glaze over and you go brain-dead from the effort. Roughy 23 thousand words there to define a very specific concept of Story. One that isn't one in common use by any means, and one that likely didn't apply to any significant number of rpg campaigns until he started to apply it. But without doubt, one that is important to Ron himself.
Such a thing by itself would construct a model that would only be useful to those who are seeking that specific sub-definition of story. And we all know what Ron thinks of other definitions of Story, I covered that in my history of GNS series- he considers them to be brain-damaged.
The same applies to the other two corners, GNS defines very detailed sub-definitions of what are started out as vague concepts and excludes all others sub-definitions. This is on top of the inherent Definition Conflict.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
Part I, III, IV, V, VI
It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
Jumping from there to a Threefold or GNS like Model sure is tempting. It would be flawed of course. Saying goals == components is quite the leap; and then limiting ourselves to only three possible goals is yet another. But it is tempting.
And when left vague, maybe not all that harmful. After all, it would seem likely that people may favor one component of an activity over another. So why not flow with it?
Why not? Because people need more than just a vague idea from their models. They need to stake out their ground, what is theirs and what is not. That is the point of labels. That's the first thing we do when we encounter them.
And that is when things fly apart.
Let's take one example from the early days of Threefold debate in rec.games.frp.advocacy. The Simulation people wanted to claim self-consistent settings as a characteristic of Simulation, i.e. they should be internally realistic. This is after all the key point of the Simulation concept- the very attempt to make something as real as possible within its framework.
Makes sense doesn't it?
Well... not so fast. The Story/Drama people were insulted. After all they claim, everyone knows a key element of good fiction is suspension of disbelief, and to have that one must have self-consistent settings that appear real to the viewer.
Sigh
We're not even out of the gate with a threefold theory and we already have a flamewar to the death going. Years and many electrons were burned in r.g.f.a over that one issue (alongside others of course). The feelings on both sides were very strong and reasonably so, as each considered the concept key to how they did things. In effect, the Simulation side (who controlled the FAQ and thus the model) was seriously insulting the Story side by claiming they didn't do what they felt was key to the success of what they were doing.
Neither side were willing to give nor did they, and the news group fell apart when they just should have given up the Threefold.
That's only one example that I wasn't directly involved in. I have lots more (some I was involved in), but let's save space. I think the point is made. Moving from something vague and on the surface reasonable to something actually defined is one heck of a long distance move- and may not even be possible.
The key point here is that the maker of any model is highly likely to lump those things important to him into those parts of the model he favors and deny it to the other parts. Even when those things are shared by multiple parts. They are in turn likely to split away any feature that they don't like from their favored label to a unfavored one.
The pressure to do this is immense, after all the point of having three different labels is for them to be different- and they're not if they're doing the same things. The conflict is nearly unavoidable. In fact, let's give it a name- Definition Conflict
GNS is subject to these same pressures and reality.
Consider Ron's full length article on what Narrativism is, assuming your eyes don't glaze over and you go brain-dead from the effort. Roughy 23 thousand words there to define a very specific concept of Story. One that isn't one in common use by any means, and one that likely didn't apply to any significant number of rpg campaigns until he started to apply it. But without doubt, one that is important to Ron himself.
Such a thing by itself would construct a model that would only be useful to those who are seeking that specific sub-definition of story. And we all know what Ron thinks of other definitions of Story, I covered that in my history of GNS series- he considers them to be brain-damaged.
The same applies to the other two corners, GNS defines very detailed sub-definitions of what are started out as vague concepts and excludes all others sub-definitions. This is on top of the inherent Definition Conflict.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
Part I, III, IV, V, VI
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)