anyway.

I know this is really lame but ... can I have an example of 2? I find that there's actually a problem in indie RPGs with too little explanation of process and goals (no handholding! sez Ron) not too much.

More like a magician going: "oh, hey, in case you didn't notice, I, uh, pulled a rabbit out of a hat? Yeah, I know, just a few minutes ago. Crazy. Oh, was everyone watching the caterers instead? Oh well."

yrs—
—Ben

Sure!

Here's some naked theory: "Aha! Hit points aren't, like, how hurt your guy is. They're the pacing mechanism for fights." Here's the poor magician's design response: "Instead of hit points, my game has an explicit pacing mechanism for fights."

Here's some naked theory: "Aha! If my guy's holding a big gun instead of a small gun, that means that the group will readily buy into my guy hurting yours very badly." Here's the poor magician's design response: "Instead of having different gun sizes, my game has an explicit mechanism for the group agreeing how badly my guy can hurt yours."

Is that enough example? The point is that rpg theory should lay bare the underpinnings of rpg design, and that rpg design shouldn't then leave it bare, it should build beautifully back up.

Yes, clear. I was reading the points as somewhat more distinct points than they actually are: limit of the twitter medium.

I still don't really like the usage of "some indie rpgs." I'm increasingly hating that kind of term in general. That's got nothing to do with your point, though, so I'll be quiet about it.

Does this basically come down to the following?: A game should have a mechanical and fictional aesthetic, design goals, and a point. Theory is only useful inasmuch as it helps you achieve those things.

yrs—
—Ben

Me too, actually, re: "some indie rpgs." There's MY limit of the twitter medium.

Recast: As a designer, be a magician. Don't say "and now, using only this cabinet with a hidden mirrored panel, I will make her disappear!"

Yeah, and I'd follow that up with:

Do announce your trick beforehand. "And now—nothing up my sleeves—I will make this woman disappear!"

Heya,

Vincent, are you talking about a lack of Color in "some indie rpg" designs?  Specifically, System Color?

Peace,

-Troy

Wow, D&D is a series of pacing mechanisms, isn't it?  From levels to hit points to...shit, even skill rolls, its all just pacing, nothing to do at all with anything else.

Huh.

There are a lot of things we don't think of as pacing mechanisms. Losing pieces in checkers or chess for example. Victory points. But that does oversimplify it a bit. Hit points are also there for all the psychological implications: putting pressure on the players, helping measure threat levels for the GM, adding risk.

Vincent, one aspect of what you're talking about may be the inspiration piece. It's all well and good to tell a group of people "go make a great story, you go first, you second, etc." But if we don't have other structures that help 1) inspire them to do so and 2) keep them on the same page, things are likely to go awry.  The function of a mechanic can be in more than its objective.

Frex, in Polaris the function of the "but only if.." phrases is to get people to accept complications and escalations in the course of doing what they want their character to do. One could do this by saying: "Okay, you want to stab my character in the heart. What terrible thing will you accept in order to make that happen?" Instead the mechanics give someone else the job of suggesting things, and gives you ways to respond. And dice to turn to if the negotiations stall. The goal of this structure is to create high drama appropriate to the setting and situation.

In Breaking the Ice, I do something similar,but I ask people to make up their own trouble, and then bribe them for doing so. And give someone the job of encouraging and helping them to do so. Different structures, that provide similar effects, for very different reasons. The goal of the mechanics in BtI are to create pathos and humor.  The relationship between the players mirrors this in each too, at least a bit.

Judd,

All game mechanics either set boundaries, force decision points and/or creative input, or make pacing.

I would like an example of process that incorporates the third assertion, please.  I agree with it.  I'm just not certain how to put it into action.

***

On D&D pacing; I think many of the DMs who make "grim and gritty" house rules aren't at all the bloodthirsty sadists they're sometimes accused of being on forums; they're just trying to get to the interesting part faster.  I like 4E and all but the characters have too many hitpoints (or the monsters don't do enough damage quickly enough) for my tastes.

I see a lot of designs, indie or otherwise, where the characters don't feel much heat or have to make a hard decision to get the things they want for a while - multiple conflicts even.  I don't like this.  My current Fate hack starts PCs with one Fate Point...

On assertion 3:

When you start from people in a room, where do you go?

If the people is all there is, what do you draw out of them?

If you are bringing something to these people, what is your gift?

What are we making that wasn't there before?

With a lot of indie games, there seems to be the assumption that those people in the room, are actually those people in Vincent's front room, with all their assumptions about, and history of, gaming.

So when some other group, not in Vincent's front room, gets hold of the game, it's a very different experience, and not necessarily a good one.

Troy: Been thinking about it, and I don't think so. Color's implicated, of course - in everything, color's implicated - but I'm talking more about (um) designing techniques and arranging them into interacting bodies.

For instance, it's not enough to create an explicit pacing mechanism and then try to color it as though it were more. It remains just an explicit pacing mechanism! It needs to be more from the very moments of its conception; it needs to be a natural and full extension of the game's subject matter.

I would suggest these sins are symptoms of a phobia, and the phobia is this:

"I'm afraid people are just going to read this book and never actually play the game, so I'd better explictly tell them what they would learn if they actually played the game, which they won't."

I gotya, Vincent, thank you.  Saying it for myself, "It's got to be more about what the game's about."  Makes perfect sense to me! :)

Peace,

-Troy

Roger: I think Vincent's saying something different from that. He's saying "don't reveal your mechanism." Which is "don't refer every act of resolution or establishment back to the social-contract level."

This is good advice. Referring everything back to the social level is a pit-trap.

As for revealing "what you'd get out of the game if you played it," in my experience that has no effect at all on whether people will play the game, or what they get out of it when they play it. Dogs says in the first paragraph that it's a game about judgment. People play it and then are like "OMG! It's a game about judgment!" Bliss Stage tells you over and over that it's a game about love. People play it, and write to me, and say "hey, Ben, so it's strange, but I think our game was, you know, about love."

An engrossing narrative (one where you're not constantly referring resolution back to the social contract level, for example) is, well, engrossing. People tend to forget about the end state, especially if they already knew it going in.

yrs—
—Ben

I personally really like it when games talk very openly about the design behind the game.  I like it because it, first of all, helps me to see how the game is going to play from a very fundamental point of view, which for a GM is invaluable, and also because it lets me know what is important in the game.
In Dogs, it would be easy to get caught up in picking Traits, but the book really treats them rather carelessly.  I really need to be talking about conflict resolution, as that's what the game's about.  The writing in the rules helps me come to an understanding of that.
However, the game doesn't just give me a boring rules essay to deal with, either.  It gives me the basics, then gives me a few captivating situations (like "Your brother's about to go and kill the prostitute who his son's been going to") that let me see the concrete way the game will shine.

Ah, yeah - I'm not talking about how a book's written at all.

Your design should create and maintain illusion - as Ben says, it should not refer everything back to the social level.

Whether your game's text then goes on to communicate your game's design, well, that's a whole nother lookout.

Does this follow what you mean?

I've got this game in my head with an explicit pacing mechanism that says when the campaign is over.

The way that the pacing mechanism interacts with the scene and character mechanics (hopefully) creates an interesting set of choices about where and when to push things. The intention is to cause an odd layering of brutal fights and social reconciliation.

The reason this works is that it's not just an explicit pacing mechanic, it's "How close are you to stepping over the line and becoming a villain?" And walking in that neighborhood is what the game is all about.

Daniel

Before everyone reads along and nods wisely, but goes home with totally different ideas of what was written, do you guys (Ben and Vincent) want to illustrate "do not refer back to the social-contract level"? Particularly how it can go wrong?

Vincent did, above.

Here's some naked theory: "Aha! If my guy's holding a big gun instead of a small gun, that means that the group will readily buy into my guy hurting yours very badly." Here's the poor magician's design response: "Instead of having different gun sizes, my game has an explicit mechanism for the group agreeing how badly my guy can hurt yours."

Here the designer is referring the question of "what does the most damage" to the social contract level, rather than making a decision on the topic herself.

Do announce your trick beforehand. "And now—nothing up my sleeves—I will make this woman disappear!"

Out of interest, you know this is one of the cardinal sins of conjuring? Never announce what you're going to do before you do it.

I'm not sure how this relates to gaming, as I don't really understand the magician/game designer analogy. It may not.

Graham

Graham: I had no idea. Fascinating.

yrs—
—Ben

Now I can refer to Your 3 Insights and say better what I mean. Your game expresses your point of view on three things (its subject matter, roleplaying as a practice, real live human nature), and every rule is its own small part of one, two, or all three of those expressions.

So a rule like "when my guy attacks yours, the group decides how badly your guy gets hurt" says something about roleplaying as a practice. A rule like "when my guy attacks yours with a big gun, your guy gets hurt more badly than with a small gun" says something about roleplaying as a practice, PLUS about the game's subject matter, or about real human nature, or both.

I said up top: "'RPG rules coordinate social interaction, that's all' is the position from which you begin to design, not the end sum of design." All you have to work with are the social interactions of the players, yes. But nobody loves a game just because it manipulates their social interactions.

That was a nice exercise, Vincent.  Thank you.  I think I've found it VERY helpful. :)

Peace,

-Troy

Ditto! I'm thinking long and hard about my fledgling design work, now.

"But nobody loves a game just because it manipulates their social interactions."
Right there, Vincent. That is what bugs me about the smarmy, emo-manipulative indie games that Joel is so into—-err I mean that some people somewhere are into :P

Thank you for giving me a very good way to express that. Also, thank you for Dogs. I've only played approx. 3/4 of a time (Joel knows what I mean by that :D), I love that game.
—Susa
P.S. I want a preview monkey....