anyway.

One of the great pitfalls of, we'll call it, "traditional" character creation is this notion that it can and should be a singular process. Most games I've come across don't really say anything about the *context* in which you should create a character; they merely establish "game balance" and give you the mechanical apparatus to physically make a game character.

Granted, in some games, it's implicitly implied that characters' skills should play off one another, a la D+D, but this, if anything, further entrenches the idea that each character is an island unto itself. After all, you're not just a cleric, you're the Party Cleric, and damned if anyone else is going to trod upon your niche.

When we establish characters that are relevant to each other, we make them inevitably intertwined. I mean, that's just what *happens* when characters actually interact meaningfully in a story! I was watching Farscape recently, and a friend of mine kept calling Crichton a jerk. We all couldn't imagine why the most empathic, good-natured guy on the ship could possibly merit this negative view, so we talked about it. As it happened, we concluded that one of us just wasn't used to characters who actually express concern for other people's wants and needs.

Apparently, he'd been watching too much Seinfeld or something. Emotional investment in something besides oneself is kind of, well, central to compelling character interaction, and calling that "shared character ownership" is merely another way of putting it. Granted, when dealing with the shell-shocked creatures known as Tabletop Gamers, it makes sense that such phrasing would be a bit, er, off-putting. But all they really need to get is that their characters are no more self-contained than the players are.

That's not a rhetorical statement; that's literally true, in my opinion. If you've got a room full of players who don't give a fig about having fun *with each other*, then they aren't sharing their characters very much, are they?

I also get what you're saying: it's not that you are making it such, as if Vincent Is Now Deciding that characters are collectively owned; rather, you're pointing out that such has always been the case, and you saying it doesn't make it any more or less true. Just, perhaps, clearer?

It's like Buddhism and the idea of no-self: Buddha wasn't making up something new, 'cause we're already all indelibly intermingled within each other and could never untangle it all, yea, even unto death. He was just pointing it out.

Thanks for the compliment. But, at the same time, I am actually feeling less welcome here. I am not a game designer. I could not intuit your meaning:

"You don't really own your character; you share ownership of your character with your group." [With added rider: Let's explore this idea in 2006]

from what you originally said. I am not supposed to be here.

-Lisa

"When I'm talking to RPG designers, I talk theory, like I'm doing here on anyway.

When I'm talking to roleplayers, I design games."

Where can I consistently read about & comment & participate in conversation with you in the latter? Only in fishbowls? On Forge threads in the lumpley area? I can accept that when I come to anyway I'll get an eyeful of theory which, as a gamer with a theory interest, I'll still come and read (at my own risk). If this is where you talk theory to designers, where do you talk to players while designing?

Two honest questions, not to be read as dismissive:

Lisa, if you're not a designer, what do you get out of this?

Dave, why do you want to talk to me while I'm designing?

I think there's a flaw in viewing RPG theory as only of interest to game designers.  Is physics only of use or interest to engineers?

Well, I don't, if you want to be left alone.

But if you really do like to talk to roleplayers while you design, then the answer is that I will probably want to play your games. I can accept that (at this time, anyway) I have no talent for game design, meaning I have trouble making my own coolness to play. You, well, I think we would all accept that you are capable of producing much coolness. If you are in the habit of asking potential players/customers for feedback on ideas pertaining to a particular game, I fit the bill for that type of discussion, and it would probably be interesting to me. If, on the other hand, your way of designing doesn't call for that kind of interaction during design, that's OK - I'll probably still buy the game. Or maybe you already have a circle of gamers who do that for you and you aren't looking to add anyone to that circle. That's fine too; I've no doubt that The Dragon King or Making the Tree will be interesting, engaging games without my input.

But, you made it clear that this is where you talk theory, and I don't want to be the gamer trying to talk about things in gamer terms if what you want here are designers talking about things theoretical.

I'm going to have to agree with Joshua.

As one example, my players and I are seeing consistently better play as our awareness and glossary of theory expands, and we find ways to talk about things we've never been able to articulate before.

Theory only makes sense in the context of actual games. The games are the theory.

Theory: "Here's what happens during play"
Design: "Here's how I think I can make it happen better/differently/in this specific way"
Play: "Did it work?"

You can't get to Play from Theory without Design.

Of course, you need to jettison the professionalist notion that only "Some published thing you can buy" counts as Design. As soon as you tinker with "how do I think I can change what happens?", you're doing design.

Or am I completely missing VB's point?

This is all fine. You're all welcome here.

All I want you to do, Joshua, Dave, Levi and anyone else who feels the same way, and you're practically all doing it already anyway - all I want you to do is, be clear what your objections are, when you have objections. Contribute to the conversation, don't just piss in it. Easy stuff.

Mark W: You can't get to Play from Theory without Design.

Of course, you need to jettison the professionalist notion that only "Some published thing you can buy" counts as Design. As soon as you tinker with "how do I think I can change what happens?", you're doing design.

Amen.

As soon as you tinker with "how do I think I can change what happens?", you're doing design.

...!

Oh.  Okay, then.

What do I get out of reading this blog? What an interesting question.

Bearing in mind that I had not realized that this was primarily intended as a game designer's blog for other game designers...

—I get updates on Vincent's life, including baby pics. This 'blog is how I knew the baby had been born. Otherwise, it would have been anyone's guess when I'd found out.

—I learn about other 'blogs. I would never have found out about Fair Play if I didn't read anyway. Now, it may be that I'm not the intended audience for Fair Play, which I'd be cool with, but danged if I know whether I am or not.

—I get questions that seem addressed to gamers, rather than designers, such as the question about what gaming groups like mine (barely look at character sheets, rarely roll dice or use other mechanics) might get out of new games, with a game designer bias (i.e., "How can I convince you to actually play the game I wrote as I wrote it?")

—I get questions and ideas that spawn thoughts, whether they are addressed to me or to other people. Some of these come from Vincent's posts, others from the commentary. These stretch the mind, and sometimes illuminate gaming issues I'm in the midst of. Fr'ex, in the Letter Game we're playing now, one of the players sent an OOC post explaining that she was going to handle an IC issue she raised, leading me to wonder how to handle that IC, and it was easier to phrase the question and discuss the issues coherently because of my reading here and Josh's work on Rasa.

—I get annoyed, angry, confused, frustrated, enlightened, delighted, elated, and a bunch of other emotions.

—Sometimes, I start or consider starting a post, but kill it before posting, since it strikes me as pissing, rather than contributing.

—Often, if the discussion goes on long enough and I follow it ('cuz, y'know, day job and all), I find it takes me somewhere. This place may be as obvious as realizing that yes, I am playing a game, the Letter Game, whose very point is that other people can Make Stuff Up about "my" character.

—Currently, it may net me a new game designer and a new rpg, as I'm the one who pointed Josh at this thread, and he's decided to create a 'blog and the thought experiment Rasa.

But, ultimately, I am a player, not a designer. Saying that any kind of tinkering is design is not untrue, but is a bit disingenuous. Jane Gamer deciding to tweak some tiny piece of d20 is doing game design, sure, but that doesn't mean she's Vincent's intended audience. Or, if it does, then what the heck am I to make of "If you're not an RPG designer and you're reading my theory stuff, you're doing it at your own risk"? Doing Vincent the courtesy of assuming that he means what he types, I have to assume that there is a divide between players and designers, and I am on the player side of the divide.

I do understand the idea that not all conversations are for all people. But, it's not always clear to me what the rules are. This has often been true for me at the Forge, and I think no one could accuse Ron of being shy of saying exactly what he means. (I tend to deal with this by focusing on Actual Play, where I'm mostly clear on what the rules of discourse are.)

—Lisa

Ah. I can be more clear, then.

Saying that any kind of tinkering is design is not untrue, but is a bit disingenuous. Jane Gamer deciding to tweak some tiny piece of d20 is doing game design, sure, but that doesn't mean she's Vincent's intended audience. Or, if it does, then what the heck am I to make of "If you're not an RPG designer and you're reading my theory stuff, you're doing it at your own risk"? Doing Vincent the courtesy of assuming that he means what he types, I have to assume that there is a divide between players and designers, and I am on the player side of the divide.

I'm not being disingenuous! Jane gamer is absolutely my target audience.

You're only on the player side of the divide insofar as you don't make the leap. The leap is, "I can see how this theory idea could be made to apply to actual play."

See where I say "It is, in fact, the leap of RPG design"? You could read that in two directions, I think. The one I mean is: to make that leap is to do, in however grand or modest a way, RPG design.

Lots, lots, lots of people aren't interested in making that leap. That's FINE. I can do the work for them; I love it. I can't imagine why they'd hang out here, where making the leap is what's required - and I figured it was time to remind them of that.

I could see one type of player, who doesn't want to cross the line, being interested in reading here, and even asking clarifying questions. It can be elightening to understand how and why rules are designed, even if you have no intention of even tweaking the rules.

But in a sense, you're still making the leap to design. It's just that you're applying design to analyze and understand rather than experiment and create.

Frank

Frank: Yep.

Oh and for goodness sweet sake, as though me saying "at your own risk" were the same as me saying "piss off."

It's my blog and I'll rant if I want to.

The truth is, I don't think that theory is a hundredth as useful to players as good game design is. The fact that players seek out theory to better their play is a damning indictment of the current state of RPG design.

Vincent, I'm going to have to argue with you, there, in a fashion.

I'd say that the fact that players MUST seek out theory in order to better their play is the indictment.

That is, it's not that the games are bad.  It's that the games don't ALSO teach their players the basic stuff - theory stuff, really - that equips those players design the games and gameplay to what they want.

In a way, given the way you're using the terms, many games fail because, in play, they don't teach their players how to design the game that they're playing.

...Okay, maybe I'm not disagreeing at all, now that I look at that.

This is the weirdest conversation I've ever seen here.

Vincent: Game design theory is theory for game design.

Some people: I'm not a game designer, but I like you! Why can't I be here?

V: If you're making things with this theory, you're a game designer and no one said you couldn't be here.

SP: I'm not a designer, but I want to be here!

V: Then you won't benefit much.

SP: But I want to be here!

V: ....

Nah, it's more like:

V: Smash player power!

SP: Ick!

V: Look, players don't have sole control of their characters anyway.

SP: Oh, that's different.

V: See, this is where I talk game design theory. Read at your own risk if you are not a game designer.

SP: So, I'm not welcome here?

V: But you're a game designer, too.

SP: But—you just said—I'm confused.

And we all fall victim to something like the lumpley principle of blogging.

Currently, I am trying to articulate what I think is a difference that matters between "Joe Gamer designs by tweaking the system" and "Joe Game Designer creates a game that he wants played as written". Alas, I've got an all day meeting that isn't about gaming to go to.

FWIW, this is a fairly civilized discussion. Not getting the sense that anyone's trolling or trying to piss.

-Lisa

The leap from "read at your own risk" to "you're not welcome here" is one that I strongly encourage you to NOT MAKE.

The leap from "read at your own risk" to "be prepared for me to be cranky if you don't see the value of what I'm doing" is a better one.

MSW: Good eye.

Can we be done with this topic now? Everybody okay?

I'll just throw in, since I was one of those genuinely pissing in that thread...

I had the exact opposite of the first two reactions Lisa describes above.

I was intrigued by the original suggestion that games not based around the one player-one protagonist model could be a trend in the near future.  I like the idea of such games in the first place, and I'd discussed Capes with a friend very recently prior, so I was curious about the discussion and looked through.  (I also liked some of the design ideas thrown out.)

I just found myself annoyed at the attitudes and rhetoric of some posters in the thread - the invocation of the poor, in-denial, narrow-minded average gamer who just doesn't Get It, and those people coming across as (absurdly) self-congratulatory because they Got It.  Then I got pissier at the suggestion that the fact that I balked at a claim that struck me as specious and useless indicated that I just wasn't interested in breaking new ground in rules design.

That may have been completely unreasonable of me, or it may have been justified to some extent.  I'm not demanding that anyone explain or excuse themselves...or anything, for that matter.  I'm just clarifying that I didn't come to piss in the discussion, in case that was unclear.

This all suggests this blog very well might be Not (Meant) For Me.  If so, nothing wrong with that.  Beyond content, every discussion has a social context.  Not everyone fits in every conversation.  If I continue to follow the blog and decide I fit, I'll make more mutually useful contributions.  If not, it's moot.

Either way, no more piss from me.

Eric, based on your crappy posting style so far, I don't hope that you stick around. "Heh" is bullshit.

Want to change my mind? It'll be easy. Just articulate yourself, in a way that invites an answer and further discussion as needed, up in Ask a Frequent Question.

GG, in marginalia: "Why are you such a dick? The guy wrote a fairly reasonable and seemingly apologetic response. You seem like a lot shittier of a human being than I imagined."

I have other things to do than make my blog welcoming to people who've already pissed in it. I don't read Eric's post above as apologetic - and I don't think you do either, GG; you used "seemingly" for a reason - but even if I did, my answer's the same: this blog is Not For You only if you aren't going to contribute.

If you're going to contribute, show me. If you aren't, there's no reason for you to hang around and see if you like it here.

Whether I'm a shittier human being than you imagined is between you and your imagination, but do consider that I've replied to you frankly and without heat.