|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 9:03:40 GMT -8
But I *do* agree, the GM's application of the system is critical -- perhaps moreso than the system itself.
I think that's why people have so much trepidation about GURPS. I think a lot of people make the mistake (and it is a mistake) to try to take the rules in their entirety and apply them at the table.
That's a great way to turn people away from the game.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 9:03:56 GMT -8
I do suspect though that the sacrosanct nature of systems is, in part, a product of the nature of the RPG industry itself. Their system matters because they tell us so . . . So we should buy it to participate. Yet what's to stop the creation of a game, with the consent of the group, that organically evolves its ruleset . . . Like precedents in English Law - no rule, no law until a situation arises that requires adjudication . . . At that point, depending on the groups desired flavour, a rule is codified. What would happen is that we would not need to buy products . . . And really what makes you, I or anyone else anymore or less of an expert in the creation of a game. Experts often exist because they convince everyone else that they are 'specialists' . . . It's more a case of what one doesn't know rather than what one does that makes an expert.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 16, 2012 10:20:47 GMT -8
But I *do* agree, the GM's application of the system is critical -- perhaps moreso than the system itself. I think that's why people have so much trepidation about GURPS. I think a lot of people make the mistake (and it is a mistake) to try to take the rules in their entirety and apply them at the table. That's a great way to turn people away from the game. People do the same thing with Hero, and then add the impact of the arcane way information is presented and bam ... Game that people think is hideously complicated. JiB
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 16, 2012 10:22:17 GMT -8
I do suspect though that the sacrosanct nature of systems is, in part, a product of the nature of the RPG industry itself. Their system matters because they tell us so . . . So we should buy it to participate. Yet what's to stop the creation of a game, with the consent of the group, that organically evolves its ruleset . . . Like precedents in English Law - no rule, no law until a situation arises that requires adjudication . . . At that point, depending on the groups desired flavour, a rule is codified. What would happen is that we would not need to buy products . . . And really what makes you, I or anyone else anymore or less of an expert in the creation of a game. Experts often exist because they convince everyone else that they are 'specialists' . . . It's more a case of what one doesn't know rather than what one does that makes an expert. There is also a question of where does the authority of the contract of play reside. In your description, the authority of the contract of play resides in the consensus of the group. In a game that leans more heavily on rules as written the authority resides in the rules, or more accurately the common understanding of the rules. JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 10:53:23 GMT -8
I do suspect though that the sacrosanct nature of systems is, in part, a product of the nature of the RPG industry itself. Their system matters because they tell us so . . . So we should buy it to participate. Yet what's to stop the creation of a game, with the consent of the group, that organically evolves its ruleset . . . Like precedents in English Law - no rule, no law until a situation arises that requires adjudication . . . At that point, depending on the groups desired flavour, a rule is codified. What would happen is that we would not need to buy products . . . And really what makes you, I or anyone else anymore or less of an expert in the creation of a game. Experts often exist because they convince everyone else that they are 'specialists' . . . It's more a case of what one doesn't know rather than what one does that makes an expert. There is also a question of where does the authority of the contract of play reside. In your description, the authority of the contract of play resides in the consensus of the group. In a game that leans more heavily on rules as written the authority resides in the rules, or more accurately the common understanding of the rules. JiB True, but what I was really getting at was the nature of RPG's and our 'dependence' on publishers and game company's to produce the rule sets we consume. The multitude of systems shows how very different RPG's are from other games . . . we sort of agree to subscribe to a certain degree of consumption and universal codification, possibly because of the high nerd/geek factor involved - the same drive that makes comic and comic memorabilia collectors or (in my case before discovering mp3 convenience) vinyl record acquisition (the rarer the better) . . . When I say expert I mean game designers . . . The secret is, I believe (as an example of what people don't know), that anyone can design a game: given the time and motivation. Whether anyone else would want to play it is another question altogether. RPG's are by default an extension of the games of childhood (cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, nazi and allies) just more sophisticated. We all 'know' how to roleplay it's just a question of being given permission and context . . . Non-gamers roleplay, in a different context, all the time as exampled by certain professional services available to the lonely businessman away from home . . . What makes a system, more often than not, is its associated fluff and the sense of belonging to something bigger than just the people sat at your particular table. All to often though we tend to idolate the people/company's involved in the industry of making and selling systems and fluff . . . Like they're some sort of untouchable demiurges that have come to this mortal plane to bless us all with their arcane wisdom which we, mere mortals, cannot hope to understand. This isn't limited to RPG's it's prevalent on all sorts of levels . . . Soccer, comics, music, films. The danger is when we all cease to be participants in these endeavours and become merely passive observers/consumers . . . Maybe I'm just still a little too 'Punk' - everyone deserves their turn on the stage, even if you're rubbish . . . Rock on 'Pistols cause I am an anarchist
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 12:51:47 GMT -8
Around my second or third year of college, I began designing my own RPG. I showed it to a friend of mine, and he said, "this looks a lot like GURPS (from what I've heard)".
I went out and bought it, paged through it, and realized it was not only similar to what I was designing, but in many aspects more elegant. And it was already finished.
So I abandoned my work and started playing GURPS. *Could* I have designed a good game? Maybe. But as it was, I didn't want to design an RPG, I wanted to play a certain kind of RPG that in my experience didn't exist (until I found GURPS).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 14:45:11 GMT -8
Around my second or third year of college, I began designing my own RPG. I showed it to a friend of mine, and he said, "this looks a lot like GURPS (from what I've heard)". I went out and bought it, paged through it, and realized it was not only similar to what I was designing, but in many aspects more elegant. And it was already finished. So I abandoned my work and started playing GURPS. *Could* I have designed a good game? Maybe. But as it was, I didn't want to design an RPG, I wanted to play a certain kind of RPG that in my experience didn't exist (until I found GURPS). But you were willing to design your own . . . it's just that SJ beat you to the punch with that one. That doesn't, however, imbue SJ with extraordinary powers . . . just good fortune, luck and timing. In another universe no so far removed from this one there is a Stu who designed GURPs and a SJ who hosts a podcast and sings at rennie fairs. Who knows, your unfinished system may have been an undiscovered gem which, in the process of it's development, revealed some revolutionary mechanic. The old Punk/New Wave rebel that still lurks within me, thinly disguised and just below the surface, rankles constantly at how readily people hand over ownership of 'our hobby' to our perceived superiors as if they were our Lords and Masters as well as our Masters and Commanders. To this end I cite specifically WoTC and the whole advent of edition doctrinal adherence . . . it reminds me of the history of the Catholic Church with Papal authority and the Protestant Reformation challenging it, Papal Schisms and everyone running around screaming heresy and burning heretics and the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) over the words of an Israelite of uncertain parentage who merely seemed to think that it'd be good idea if we all tried to get along together for a change and enjoy life. The allegory being it's a game it should be fun it shouldn't be hard work or lead to arguments about editions or promote an attitude of exposing the grognard unbelievers as those who have strayed from the path. Nor does WoTC have some sacrosanct right to be the arbiter of what is or is not D&D . . . truth is they bought a name/trademark, the actual creators are both dead. But rules continue to evolve and different game genres and styles continue to emerge yet at their very heart they're all the same game/system (metasystem?). Amber Diceless (she's reeeeal dirty) is good example . . . it's an RPG but it doesn't use dice like other 'systems' . . . but that is just a segway into the real lesson of Amber: in it's mythology there is the Prime Reality of Amber (the metasystem) where all other divergent/alternate realities (systems) exist because they are shadows cast by the Prime. Systems may appear separate and unique but they probably share more commonalities than differences . . . thus every unique system 'can' probably be shoehorned to suit any desired flavour or genre . . . making 'system' less important provided the metasystem remains. What is the metasystem? - Roleplaying, the actual nuts and bolts of social interaction, immersion in a game of shared make believe . . . cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, 007 and smersh (after mum and her boyfriend took me to see my first Bond film as an impressionable 8 year old) . . .
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 16, 2012 15:00:08 GMT -8
And in that, I wonder if you've stumbled on something very important.
When I was designing my game, I was designing it because the game I wanted to play didn't exist (or I didn't know it existed).
I was designing *that* game, because I wanted to play *that* game. The same can probably be said for Steve Jackson, Gygax, Arneson, etc.
But fast forward a couple decades... can the folks designing DnD5e at WotC, with the crowd-sourced playtesting and designed-by-the-masses process, say they're designing the game they want to play?
Hmm.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Aug 16, 2012 18:20:46 GMT -8
But fast forward a couple decades... can the folks designing DnD5e at WotC, with the crowd-sourced playtesting and designed-by-the-masses process, say they're designing the game they want to play? Absolutely not. The designers of D&D Next (or whatever it will be called) are designing the game that the fans want to play. Which has me very very worried. Now that the second playtest packet has come out, we've seen a few changes that illustrate this. Initiative got changed back to "lose your turn if surprised" and opportunity attacks are back. All because the fans clamored to have them returned. Asking for feedback is good; pandering to your audience is not. Can you imagine a band that polled the audience before the release of every CD about the type of music they should play and they instruments it should be played on? That would be a total nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 16, 2012 22:04:34 GMT -8
But fast forward a couple decades... can the folks designing DnD5e at WotC, with the crowd-sourced playtesting and designed-by-the-masses process, say they're designing the game they want to play? Absolutely not. The designers of D&D Next (or whatever it will be called) are designing the game that the fans want to play. Which has me very very worried. Now that the second playtest packet has come out, we've seen a few changes that illustrate this. Initiative got changed back to "lose your turn if surprised" and opportunity attacks are back. All because the fans clamored to have them returned. Asking for feedback is good; pandering to your audience is not. Can you imagine a band that polled the audience before the release of every CD about the type of music they should play and they instruments it should be played on? That would be a total nightmare. I tend to agree as the play test marches on . . . At first I was all for it and really positive, caught up in the hubris of the moment. Now the dust has settled I'm wondering if it is such a good idea . . . There is a difference between polling a target audience for what they want and asking them how they want it. Consensus/design by committee tends to fail most times because in trying to please all of the people all of the time one tends to just piss off most of the people most if the time. Unless the whole play test is just a marketing ploy . . . Like when Disney channel has a vote for what you want to watch weekend - umm more like here's a bunch of repeats in random order . . . The sense of control being just an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 0:05:49 GMT -8
Around my second or third year of college, I began designing my own RPG. I showed it to a friend of mine, and he said, "this looks a lot like GURPS (from what I've heard)". I went out and bought it, paged through it, and realized it was not only similar to what I was designing, but in many aspects more elegant. And it was already finished. So I abandoned my work and started playing GURPS. *Could* I have designed a good game? Maybe. But as it was, I didn't want to design an RPG, I wanted to play a certain kind of RPG that in my experience didn't exist (until I found GURPS). So... GURPS is a tool for playing your system? I mean the wheel is not a system but a tool for many different systems. Every RPG played (I mean the effort of playing it) is different. It is not a systemetized, standardized RAW experience. I mean, it can be that kind of page flipping mediocrity but even then there is a player conversation to take into account and the influence on the system (i.e. GM) such a dialogue exerts. One GM's game of GURPS can be very different from another GM's game of GURPS... are these two separate games using the same system or (a selection of) the same tools...? A douchey GM will refuse to listen to his players same as douchey players wont listen to their GM. Same as professional gamers won't listen - or allow a voice - to new-to-the-hobby players. OR we can say the players won't listen to one another; and, in that, recognise that all at the table are players and only the GM is the system. He runs the game as RAW GURPS or as modified house-ruled GURPS or as a new game creation... or, comes out with: "I have these tools, like the 12 degree system in Thousand Suns, and will utilize them instead of rolling for weapon damage in D&D..." The issue of trust is a criteria in choosing a system. If one does not trust a GM, one will not play with a GM but against him or her, and/or not join in the game. So, does the GM matter? It is the same question, but more honest, than saying system. GM and system are interchangeable at this point in my argument. I would play any game with you as my GM Stu so long as I dug the theme (not into disempowerment themes). You can use any tool you choose, make stuff up on the spot (like Tappy's Cosplay) or make modifications (like CADave's Top Secret) and I would still play with you as the GM. My character might die and the game might not be as, let's say CreativeCowboy-centric, as I wish it were to be but I am sure I will have fun playing because I trust the system - you. The admonition to GMs in RPGs is: be consistent in rulings (and here's our tool to help you and may it serve you well brother). That speaks to the GM being the system; and what may be more commonly understood and referred to as "system" is, in application, no more than a tool.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 0:27:34 GMT -8
But you were willing to design your own . . . it's just that SJ beat you to the punch with that one. That doesn't, however, imbue SJ with extraordinary powers . . . just good fortune, luck and timing. In another universe no so far removed from this one there is a Stu who designed GURPs and a SJ who hosts a podcast and sings at rennie fairs. Who knows, your unfinished system may have been an undiscovered gem which, in the process of it's development, revealed some revolutionary mechanic. The journey and not the destination is often more telling to the Traveller® And you make an excellent point, Aaron, about edition wars and how such arguments have no reason to even be let in our hobby. Something the business syndicate does not understand. Complain about the GM (preferably, politely to the GM) and not about a “system” of tools supplied in a guidebook. The GM has the power to change the “system” using his or her tools – even allowing greater player input to contribute their tools. Talk about an engrossing game!
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 0:30:23 GMT -8
can the folks designing DnD5e at WotC, with the crowd-sourced playtesting and designed-by-the-masses process, say they're designing the game they want to play? Hmm. No. Ironically they are designing your game. And they are marketing it is as such in hopes of bringing back Pathfinders and consolidating the players of D&D whatever edition. This is the chasm-a-clysmic difference between the hobby and its business syndicates, and a reason why the hobby market itself is shrinking away.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 0:41:03 GMT -8
Absolutely not. The designers of D&D Next (or whatever it will be called) are designing the game that the fans want to play. Which has me very very worried. I am not worried because I see DnD NeXt as no more than a set of tools for the system/GM to play or ignore. Hey, Mike Mearles, we're already playing the game we remember. But thanks anyway.I am sure Mike made a marketing pitch with words to that effect in it. Words matter but often times the denotation is overcome by the connotation, and the meanings of words change over time or get overshadowed by useage.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 17, 2012 0:49:50 GMT -8
Unless the whole play test is just a marketing ploy . . . In public relations we could call this a co-optation. It works. But it means the game is already set and being built up for launch. I wonder what Monte Cook has to contribute on this topic now. The sense of control being just an illusion. Exactly what the sense of being a GM subject to a system is like.
|
|