Heya,
The quick answer is Yes, of course Setting still matters. I won’t deny for a moment that when I’m working on a design, I feel the System > the Setting, but they are both necessary for good play and good design. Okay, so why does Setting matter?
Well, first off the PCs need to BE somewhere. So in the very basic sense, there must be a Setting in which they exist. But that’s a non-helpful answer. Setting matters because it is the material the participants build conflict out of. Yes, the resolution systems detail how you resolve those conflicts, but the mechanics themselves don’t spell out where the conflicts come from. The Setting provides the context for the conflicts. It helps the conflicts make sense.
For instance, my game Cutthroat is VERY light on Setting. I barely mention it at all (basically I can sum it all up with “Biker gangs in the 1970’s”). But even though I just barely touch on it, that is enough to give the players all the context they need to create hilarious stories and rivalries among the characters. Take that small bit of Setting away, and everything from the Challenge to the Status Rolls to the Top Dog stop making any kind of sense. Dogs in the Vineyard’s setting focuses heavily on religion. And it is out of the religion that the characters follow that the conflicts in each town arise. Strip out the setting, and you just have a nifty way to roll dice, IMO.
So what about Setting Agnostic/Generic RPGs? Good question. I’m going to divide these two kinds of games into two camps for the purposes of this essay. The first kind is the type of game that gives you procedures for creating your own Setting. Universalis and Prime Time Adventures are examples of this sort of game. The games do not contain an exact Setting, but provide explicit rules for making your own. In fact, it’s part of the fun! The other kind of game is where Setting is implicit. For instance, the core books of ADnD2e had no official “setting”, yet it was very clear that you would be playing in some kind of fantasy world. People often point to GURPS as a game with no Setting. But I would in turn point to the insane amount of supplemental books that’s come out of SJG that deal directly with Setting elements. To say GURPS as a whole doesn’t deal with setting is absurd. It most certainly does. And each group that plays GURPS will have to deal with it in some way also.
So what’s the best use for Setting? That’s another long essay. The main thing to keep in mind when creating the Setting for your game is to make the setting elements drive the conflicts. If your Setting isn’t involved in what the characters are fighting for, then it’s time to redesign it.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: On the topic of Settings, the grandaddy of all settings is coming out soon: Ptolus! I've seen a few previews and from what I read and seen, I give it a preliminary thumbs up! If you're into D20, you really should check this thing out.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
Just So Ya Know...
Heya,
Just throwing out a little FYI here. I am officially signed up to be at the Forge booth at GenCon this year! It runs August 10-13ish I believe. If you regularly read this blog and will be there, drop by the Forge booth. I'd love to shake hands and meet ya! :)
Peace,
-Troy
Just throwing out a little FYI here. I am officially signed up to be at the Forge booth at GenCon this year! It runs August 10-13ish I believe. If you regularly read this blog and will be there, drop by the Forge booth. I'd love to shake hands and meet ya! :)
Peace,
-Troy
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
When should a Character Die?
Heya,
When designing an RPG, the issue of character death always comes up. Some people feel it is a necessary part of design (untrue), while others feel it should be avoided because it is un-fun play (also untrue). It can be hard sometimes to know when to include and when to leave out character death. To my way of thinking, there are only four reasons to include it in your design: 1) it adds to the atmosphere, 2) it increases the stakes, 3) it fulfills the player’s goal, and 4) it escalates the overall conflict/scenario all players are participating in. Let me break them down one by one.
1. It adds to the atmosphere
It certain games, mainly those that explore the setting or situation, character death can be an integral part of play. In fact, character death is expected, and the lack of it will diminish the fun. I am reminded of many Call of Cthullu games I have participated in and read actual play reports about. There was even a really hilarious thread on RPGnet many years back where people posted the most outlandish and fun way their characters died. For this game, at least the way I’ve seen it played, character death is well accepted, and honestly it’s anticipated. The thing that really makes it work, IMO, is the speed of Chargen. I know many CoC players who can draw up a brand new character in 5 to 10 minutes. So when their character dies, they jump right back in during the next scene no biggie. To me, that’s the key for using character death in this way. If your game has a time-intensive character creation and advancement process (imagine recreating a level 15 character in DnD 3.5 from scratch) then I would counsel against using character death to add atmosphere to your game. Three things to remember for this use of death: Frequent, Fast Chargen, Expected.
2. It increases the stakes
In my game, The Holmes and Watson Committee, players have the option to put their character’s life on the line. Choosing to do so grants them an additional bonus, but also makes the situation a lot more crucial. This is an example of character death increasing the Stakes. Sometimes it’s important to put everything you have on the line to accomplish something important. In RPGs, that can mean everything from nabbing the bad guy (like in Holmes and Watson) or saving a town from corruption (like in Dogs in the Vineyard). For designers, using death to increase the stakes means limiting the conditions where a character death is possible. Usually, that means making it a player option of some kind. Choosing that option ought to grant the player beneficial but dangerous bonuses of some kind. Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, and The Holmes and Watson Committee are the best examples I can give you of games that do this. Three things to remember for this use of death: Optional, Bonus, and Lethal.
3. Fulfills a Player’s Goal
Some games have players create a destiny or goal for their character to achieve by the end of play. The death of a beloved character can be a very moving experience. I can easily envision a game that incorporates that fact into the mechanics. The payoff would be the character dies with *something*. For instance, a character could die in redeeming himself. He could die with dignity in a war. He could die saving another person. Or he could die in order to allow another character ascend to a great position. The point of using character death in this way is to allow the player to choose the outcomes, but not necessarily the means of the character’s death. I can see a functional design that allows another player to choose the way a character dies so long as the character’s player gets to choose the conditions leading to and the consequences of that death. Three things to remember: Resolves the Character’s Story, Player Controlled, Consequences.
4. It Escalates the Conflict
Escalating the conflict means that the death of one PC impacts all the other PCs and their enemies in a way that makes the conflict more meaningful. Using character death in this way requires that all players be invested in everyone’s characters in some way or fashion. A dungeon crawl where everyone is out for himself to grab as much loot as possible and then skedaddle is not an effective atmosphere for character death that will escalate the conflict. A game where characters are dependant upon each other or where characters are related to each other in some way (blood, sex, loyalty, duty, etc) is the type of game where the death of one will add meaning to the final victory. In cases like this, character death IMO should still be at the option of the players playing the characters. However, the conditions that the game puts the characters in can make and should make death an attractive option. For instance, if I sacrifice my character, everyone else gains two bonus die and has enough time to rescue the princess from the evil sorcerer. Without my character’s death, the mission might fail. Of course now the sorcerer is really pissed and will take his vengeance out on the whole kingdom. Three things to remember: Sacrifice, Relationship, Meaningful.
In any of the four examples, character death needs to be explicitly mechanically supported by your game. Just including a rule like “When your hit points equal zero, your character dies” is not good enough. What does that death mean? Why might a player want his character to die? What does the character’s player get in return for putting his character’s life on the line? What does everyone else get if he does die? Answering these questions will add a lot of depth and meaning to the death mechanics of your game. Consider them carefully as you design.
Peace,
-Troy
When designing an RPG, the issue of character death always comes up. Some people feel it is a necessary part of design (untrue), while others feel it should be avoided because it is un-fun play (also untrue). It can be hard sometimes to know when to include and when to leave out character death. To my way of thinking, there are only four reasons to include it in your design: 1) it adds to the atmosphere, 2) it increases the stakes, 3) it fulfills the player’s goal, and 4) it escalates the overall conflict/scenario all players are participating in. Let me break them down one by one.
1. It adds to the atmosphere
It certain games, mainly those that explore the setting or situation, character death can be an integral part of play. In fact, character death is expected, and the lack of it will diminish the fun. I am reminded of many Call of Cthullu games I have participated in and read actual play reports about. There was even a really hilarious thread on RPGnet many years back where people posted the most outlandish and fun way their characters died. For this game, at least the way I’ve seen it played, character death is well accepted, and honestly it’s anticipated. The thing that really makes it work, IMO, is the speed of Chargen. I know many CoC players who can draw up a brand new character in 5 to 10 minutes. So when their character dies, they jump right back in during the next scene no biggie. To me, that’s the key for using character death in this way. If your game has a time-intensive character creation and advancement process (imagine recreating a level 15 character in DnD 3.5 from scratch) then I would counsel against using character death to add atmosphere to your game. Three things to remember for this use of death: Frequent, Fast Chargen, Expected.
2. It increases the stakes
In my game, The Holmes and Watson Committee, players have the option to put their character’s life on the line. Choosing to do so grants them an additional bonus, but also makes the situation a lot more crucial. This is an example of character death increasing the Stakes. Sometimes it’s important to put everything you have on the line to accomplish something important. In RPGs, that can mean everything from nabbing the bad guy (like in Holmes and Watson) or saving a town from corruption (like in Dogs in the Vineyard). For designers, using death to increase the stakes means limiting the conditions where a character death is possible. Usually, that means making it a player option of some kind. Choosing that option ought to grant the player beneficial but dangerous bonuses of some kind. Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, and The Holmes and Watson Committee are the best examples I can give you of games that do this. Three things to remember for this use of death: Optional, Bonus, and Lethal.
3. Fulfills a Player’s Goal
Some games have players create a destiny or goal for their character to achieve by the end of play. The death of a beloved character can be a very moving experience. I can easily envision a game that incorporates that fact into the mechanics. The payoff would be the character dies with *something*. For instance, a character could die in redeeming himself. He could die with dignity in a war. He could die saving another person. Or he could die in order to allow another character ascend to a great position. The point of using character death in this way is to allow the player to choose the outcomes, but not necessarily the means of the character’s death. I can see a functional design that allows another player to choose the way a character dies so long as the character’s player gets to choose the conditions leading to and the consequences of that death. Three things to remember: Resolves the Character’s Story, Player Controlled, Consequences.
4. It Escalates the Conflict
Escalating the conflict means that the death of one PC impacts all the other PCs and their enemies in a way that makes the conflict more meaningful. Using character death in this way requires that all players be invested in everyone’s characters in some way or fashion. A dungeon crawl where everyone is out for himself to grab as much loot as possible and then skedaddle is not an effective atmosphere for character death that will escalate the conflict. A game where characters are dependant upon each other or where characters are related to each other in some way (blood, sex, loyalty, duty, etc) is the type of game where the death of one will add meaning to the final victory. In cases like this, character death IMO should still be at the option of the players playing the characters. However, the conditions that the game puts the characters in can make and should make death an attractive option. For instance, if I sacrifice my character, everyone else gains two bonus die and has enough time to rescue the princess from the evil sorcerer. Without my character’s death, the mission might fail. Of course now the sorcerer is really pissed and will take his vengeance out on the whole kingdom. Three things to remember: Sacrifice, Relationship, Meaningful.
In any of the four examples, character death needs to be explicitly mechanically supported by your game. Just including a rule like “When your hit points equal zero, your character dies” is not good enough. What does that death mean? Why might a player want his character to die? What does the character’s player get in return for putting his character’s life on the line? What does everyone else get if he does die? Answering these questions will add a lot of depth and meaning to the death mechanics of your game. Consider them carefully as you design.
Peace,
-Troy
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Yet Another Process
Heya,
I have found a third Game Design Process I thought I’d share with you. If you haven’t checked out Ron Edward’s thread on The Forge (Click Here) about his new game “It Was a Mutual Decision” then go check it out. He has a very thorough run-down of the process he used to bring that game from concept to finished product. Also, other people chime in with their own experiences. This thread is a treasure trove of helpful hints, models, and suggestions for designers who intend to write and publish a RPG. Troy’s Rating: two thumbs up! Enjoy :)
Peace,
-Troy
I have found a third Game Design Process I thought I’d share with you. If you haven’t checked out Ron Edward’s thread on The Forge (Click Here) about his new game “It Was a Mutual Decision” then go check it out. He has a very thorough run-down of the process he used to bring that game from concept to finished product. Also, other people chime in with their own experiences. This thread is a treasure trove of helpful hints, models, and suggestions for designers who intend to write and publish a RPG. Troy’s Rating: two thumbs up! Enjoy :)
Peace,
-Troy
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Another Process
Heya,
This is a follow-up to Troy’s 12 Step Process. Another game author responded to my article and gave his design process. It’s a good read, IMO. You can check it out here: Mike Miller’s Blog Talk.
I’ll give you a brief outline of what he says his process is like. Before he begins, he divides the process into two distinct activities: Designing and Writing.
1st he designs his game at the genre level. He brainstorms about tropes, issues, conflicts, fun, etc. Generally, he accumulates a pool of ideas and emotions he associates with the initial game concept.
2nd he focuses on player interactions and behaviors. Followed closely by mechanical enforcement and reinforcement of those behaviors.
3rd he does some self-testing of various and potential resolution mechanics, all the while keeping the main themes of the genre in mind.
4th he takes it to trusted advisors. He does not even have a complete draft at this point. It is, essentially, an oral game, not a written game yet.
5th Notes from the closed playtest with his friends become the basis for the rules of the game.
After explaining the game in a verbal a sufficient number of times, he converts it to written form. The writing process is also broken down into stages.
1st is the outline stage, giving himself a template to follow.
2nd is the draft stage, where he creates the first complete written version of the game.
3rd, interestingly, he gets his artists working on graphics for the game.
4th he sends the game to an external reader who makes notes, suggestions, and edits.
5th the test-revision-test-revision process begins until he is satisfied that he has a complete and playable game ready to go.
It’s very interesting and very good to get multiple viewpoints on the RPG design process. Note that Mike relies very heavily on trusted friends. Relationships with people who think and play in ways similar to him are the key to his design process. He has built these relationships over years, I would assume, and uses them to help build his games. If you have friends like Mike, I encourage you to think about using this process or hybridizing it with the 12 step process I gave earlier. It will take practice and experimentation to find the process that works best for you. Good luck!
Peace,
-Troy
This is a follow-up to Troy’s 12 Step Process. Another game author responded to my article and gave his design process. It’s a good read, IMO. You can check it out here: Mike Miller’s Blog Talk.
I’ll give you a brief outline of what he says his process is like. Before he begins, he divides the process into two distinct activities: Designing and Writing.
1st he designs his game at the genre level. He brainstorms about tropes, issues, conflicts, fun, etc. Generally, he accumulates a pool of ideas and emotions he associates with the initial game concept.
2nd he focuses on player interactions and behaviors. Followed closely by mechanical enforcement and reinforcement of those behaviors.
3rd he does some self-testing of various and potential resolution mechanics, all the while keeping the main themes of the genre in mind.
4th he takes it to trusted advisors. He does not even have a complete draft at this point. It is, essentially, an oral game, not a written game yet.
5th Notes from the closed playtest with his friends become the basis for the rules of the game.
After explaining the game in a verbal a sufficient number of times, he converts it to written form. The writing process is also broken down into stages.
1st is the outline stage, giving himself a template to follow.
2nd is the draft stage, where he creates the first complete written version of the game.
3rd, interestingly, he gets his artists working on graphics for the game.
4th he sends the game to an external reader who makes notes, suggestions, and edits.
5th the test-revision-test-revision process begins until he is satisfied that he has a complete and playable game ready to go.
It’s very interesting and very good to get multiple viewpoints on the RPG design process. Note that Mike relies very heavily on trusted friends. Relationships with people who think and play in ways similar to him are the key to his design process. He has built these relationships over years, I would assume, and uses them to help build his games. If you have friends like Mike, I encourage you to think about using this process or hybridizing it with the 12 step process I gave earlier. It will take practice and experimentation to find the process that works best for you. Good luck!
Peace,
-Troy
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Where can I get Art for my Game?
Heya,
One of the things I’m working on right now is getting art together for the games I’m about to release. I’m on a pretty tight budget at the moment, so economical art is really what I’m after. I imagine you are too. So to help out, here’s a list of links I’ve been using to fill in the spaces for my games:
Ed Heil’s Art Trove:
Ed has done the RPG world a favor here. He’s got a collection very good art and an equally generous offer. You get access to all the drawings on this website for only 25 bucks! Not only that, he’ll draw another picture for you according to your specifications. If you’re new to RPG design, let me let you in on something- this is a steal! Take Ed up on it.
Dover Art:
For years Dover Publishing has been releasing “clip art” type books. You can use up to 10 images per book without violating any copyright laws. If you want to use more, just write them and ask. You can find books on almost any subject here. I own over twenty at the moment. This is another high recommend. Oh, and I recommend that you order the books that come with CDs if you can. They’re a little more expensive, but scanning art is a pain and can have certain complications as far as fuzziness and resolution scale of the images.
MSN Clip Art:
Clip art can serve a purpose to help break up a page or add in small designs for stuff like page numbers and backgrounds. I don’t recommend making a whole book out of clip art, but you should be able to find some useful images here. They are free to download, so help yourself!
Wikimedia:
As much as I loathe and despise Wikipedia for academic reasons, I hail Wikimedia as a gift from heaven. There are tons of free pictures here that are very applicable to RPG designs. Make sure you read the warnings at the bottom of each picture. Some require accreditation and some aren’t actually free. But if you’re working on your game setting, especially if it’s based on a real place (like London or New York for instance), then this website is an answer to your prayers.
RPGNow Stock Art:
RPGNow has several pieces and collections of Stock Art for sale. It can really vary in price and usefulness, but if you’re in a pinch, you might be able to find something here. Of all the options I’m mentioning, this will be the most expensive. But remember, these guys are just trying to make a buck just like you. They should charge whatever they feel they can get for their product.
So anyway, I hope that helps some of you out. I know from experience how much of a pain getting art can be. Good luck to you guys :)
Peace,
-Troy
One of the things I’m working on right now is getting art together for the games I’m about to release. I’m on a pretty tight budget at the moment, so economical art is really what I’m after. I imagine you are too. So to help out, here’s a list of links I’ve been using to fill in the spaces for my games:
Ed Heil’s Art Trove:
Ed has done the RPG world a favor here. He’s got a collection very good art and an equally generous offer. You get access to all the drawings on this website for only 25 bucks! Not only that, he’ll draw another picture for you according to your specifications. If you’re new to RPG design, let me let you in on something- this is a steal! Take Ed up on it.
Dover Art:
For years Dover Publishing has been releasing “clip art” type books. You can use up to 10 images per book without violating any copyright laws. If you want to use more, just write them and ask. You can find books on almost any subject here. I own over twenty at the moment. This is another high recommend. Oh, and I recommend that you order the books that come with CDs if you can. They’re a little more expensive, but scanning art is a pain and can have certain complications as far as fuzziness and resolution scale of the images.
MSN Clip Art:
Clip art can serve a purpose to help break up a page or add in small designs for stuff like page numbers and backgrounds. I don’t recommend making a whole book out of clip art, but you should be able to find some useful images here. They are free to download, so help yourself!
Wikimedia:
As much as I loathe and despise Wikipedia for academic reasons, I hail Wikimedia as a gift from heaven. There are tons of free pictures here that are very applicable to RPG designs. Make sure you read the warnings at the bottom of each picture. Some require accreditation and some aren’t actually free. But if you’re working on your game setting, especially if it’s based on a real place (like London or New York for instance), then this website is an answer to your prayers.
RPGNow Stock Art:
RPGNow has several pieces and collections of Stock Art for sale. It can really vary in price and usefulness, but if you’re in a pinch, you might be able to find something here. Of all the options I’m mentioning, this will be the most expensive. But remember, these guys are just trying to make a buck just like you. They should charge whatever they feel they can get for their product.
So anyway, I hope that helps some of you out. I know from experience how much of a pain getting art can be. Good luck to you guys :)
Peace,
-Troy
Monday, April 17, 2006
What is Troy's 12 Step Process?
What is the design process?
Heya,
By now if you’ve been reading this blog, if you haven’t go back and look over the stuff in the Anthology #1, you’ve seen me introduce thoughts and suggestions on various aspects of design. Sometimes I’ve talked about components (Death Spiral, Magic, Situation) and sometimes about tools (Big Three, Alt 3, Power 19). What I haven’t really talked about is a process to use these things. So here’s what I’m going to do today. I’m going to show you the process I’ve used on my games like Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Holmes and Watson. Perhaps, it will help you out also and perhaps someone can offer an alternate or better version of a design process.
#1-Initial idea-
The first stage is generating a game idea. I carry around two spiral notebooks wherever I go, and I’m never very far from a computer. In the notebooks I jot down any game idea that comes to me. I feverishly write down all my thoughts without worrying about if the idea is workable or playable. The reason is that I forget stuff very easily. If I focus on working out all the details right away, I’ll miss the next wave of inspiration when it comes. This is just a brain storming exercise at this point.
#2-Colation-
After several days or weeks of jotting notes, I sit down in front of my computer and type up everything I’ve written down. I organize it, categorize it, and delete redundant or extraneous ideas. It’s at this point where I actually see what I’ve created and where my imagination was going with this.
#3-The Big Three/The Power 19-
After gathering up all my notes and ideas, I see if I can answer the Big Three about the game. Usually I can, but if I can’t, I know that either it’s not a game I can make or I need to do more work. If the Big Three come easily, I set to work on the Power 19. I meticulously go through them and answer as many as I can. Sometimes the answer is “I don’t know yet” or “Not applicable” which is just fine.
#4-Feedback-
Once I have the Power 19 in hand, I’m ready for feedback on the Internet. Whether I post my answers or I post a more general idea of what I plan on creating depends on what I need for the game design to progress further. Feedback is important because it will point out gaps and inconsistencies that the Power 19 or other design tools aren’t able address. Sometimes I take the advice and run with it. Sometimes I politely say thank you and go with my original idea. I wish I could give you some method of knowing when to do which, but it’s very much based on the individual who is designing the game.
#5-Rethink-
After feedback, it’s time to rethink things. Questions like “Can I finish this?”, “Is this game worthy of being finished?”, or “Will this game be enjoyable if I do finish it?” are the way I approach this phase. If I can answer yes to all three, then it’s time to get to work. Reexamining the Key Components is the next step I take in the Rethinking process. I call Key Components of a RPG design the following: Chargen, Resolution, Reward Cycles, Currencies, and Color. Using the feedback I have gotten, I explore how each of these areas of the game can be improved and how they relate to one another. Once I have that done, I’m ready for the draft.
#6-First Draft-
The First Draft comes in at the 6th stage of the design for me. I think a lot of people start at the draft stage and get overwhelmed by the project. I really encourage people to make an outline, use the Power 19, or come up with some other sort of devise to organize and categorize their design thoughts before attempting to write a playable draft. The work of writing an RPG, even one that’s only 50 pages or so, is immense. Breaking it up into smaller parts helps make the job more manageable. In any event, for me, the first draft is intended to be a coherent, readable, and playable version of the game. This is the “Alpha” design stage.
#7-Feedback-
Getting feedback on a draft used to be the hardest stage for me. Mostly because I couldn’t figure out how to share the draft. Now, with so many designers having their own websites, it’s easy to get someone to help out in that department. I gotta thank Blankshield Press for helping me out with Cutthroat in that regard. They were awesome about helping me out. And there are many more out there willing to help just like them. Anyway, posting your draft on the ‘net and getting people’s reactions is the next stage. It’s here where your game will really be molded into the RPG it wants to be. Even though you’ve already done a lot of work, expect many more changes to your game to come as a result of this stage. Be persistent here. Sometimes it can be deflating when no one responds to your posts. Keep trying and try on many websites. The Forge, RPGnet, and Story Games are all open forums for this sort of thing.
#8-Revision-
After getting feedback on the draft, it’s time to revise. This step is pretty simple. Choose the feedback that makes the most sense and adapt it to your game. Disregard the feedback that doesn’t make sense to you or that simply praises your design. Sadly, praise isn’t all that helpful when it comes to revising a draft. You may revise your draft, post it again for more feed back, revise it again, post, and repeat this process many times. Once your revisions are finished (at least for now), it’s time for the most fun and most agonizing part of RPG design.
#9-Playtest-
Playtesting is fun because you get to actually play! But it is also excruciating because it is slow, shows SO many weaknesses and ambiguities in your game, and requires constant revision. When I playtest, there is one thing I hold as important. That one thing is to play the full playtest session with the rules as they are currently written. I don’t change the rules midstream during a session just because we hit a bump in the road. Like any new game, it can take while to learn the system. Allow for that learning curve to take place before changing anything. Also, it’s hard to know how playable your draft was if you keep changing things constantly as you go. Playtesting needs to give you a clear picture of what your game is like and can do. It can’t do that, in my opinion, if you’re constantly stirring the waters with new ideas and mechanics on the spot.
#10-Revision-
Our old friend Revision is back. This time we take the feedback from the playtest sessions and use that to upgrade and revise the game. It will probably take several “playtest and revise” cycles for you to get a design hammered into shape. There’s no exact number, but I can definitely tell you it is greater than one. Somwhere in the middle of these cycles, you ought to open up the playtesting to groups outside your direct influence. The feedback you get from them will be invaluable.
#11-Feedback-
After playtesting and revision, its good to open your game up for one final round of feedback on the ‘net. This is when they can point out what sections of your game need more words, better clarification, and more examples. It’s really helpful if people who have never read your game before are able to look at it at this point. A fresh set of eyes will usually find the vagaries and oversights in a design. Get as many people to read it as possible. And for heaven’s sakes don’t worry about someone stealing your design and publishing it before you do. That’s one of the biggest mental obstacles new designers face. No one is going to steal your design and publish it. They might take inspiration from your mechanics and write their own game, but that’s only good for you! More than likely they will mention your game as they write theirs and, boom! that's free advertising for you. Never fear about someone swooping in and taking credit for your work.
#12-Revision-
With the final feedback in hand, you are ready for what will likely be the last revision. At this point your game will probably not be perfect. But here’s the truth when it comes to that. Your game will never be “perfect.” At some point, you will have to cut off the playtesting, revision, and feedback. If you don’t, you’ll never publish the darn thing, and publishing your game will teach you more about the whole process than you can possibly imagine. Double check your spelling, grammar, punctuation, make an index and table of contents, get a cover, and do the layout. These are the last parts of revision you will pass through for your game. So the only thing left is the business stuff of publishing, and that’s a post for another time. :)
I hope that the process I use will be helpful to some of you out there also. I’m sure that many other designers have different and fascinating methods they use as well. Check into the processes used by designers you admire and see if you can adapt them to your style. As always, questions are always welcome here at Socratic Design :)
Peace,
-Troy
Heya,
By now if you’ve been reading this blog, if you haven’t go back and look over the stuff in the Anthology #1, you’ve seen me introduce thoughts and suggestions on various aspects of design. Sometimes I’ve talked about components (Death Spiral, Magic, Situation) and sometimes about tools (Big Three, Alt 3, Power 19). What I haven’t really talked about is a process to use these things. So here’s what I’m going to do today. I’m going to show you the process I’ve used on my games like Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Holmes and Watson. Perhaps, it will help you out also and perhaps someone can offer an alternate or better version of a design process.
#1-Initial idea-
The first stage is generating a game idea. I carry around two spiral notebooks wherever I go, and I’m never very far from a computer. In the notebooks I jot down any game idea that comes to me. I feverishly write down all my thoughts without worrying about if the idea is workable or playable. The reason is that I forget stuff very easily. If I focus on working out all the details right away, I’ll miss the next wave of inspiration when it comes. This is just a brain storming exercise at this point.
#2-Colation-
After several days or weeks of jotting notes, I sit down in front of my computer and type up everything I’ve written down. I organize it, categorize it, and delete redundant or extraneous ideas. It’s at this point where I actually see what I’ve created and where my imagination was going with this.
#3-The Big Three/The Power 19-
After gathering up all my notes and ideas, I see if I can answer the Big Three about the game. Usually I can, but if I can’t, I know that either it’s not a game I can make or I need to do more work. If the Big Three come easily, I set to work on the Power 19. I meticulously go through them and answer as many as I can. Sometimes the answer is “I don’t know yet” or “Not applicable” which is just fine.
#4-Feedback-
Once I have the Power 19 in hand, I’m ready for feedback on the Internet. Whether I post my answers or I post a more general idea of what I plan on creating depends on what I need for the game design to progress further. Feedback is important because it will point out gaps and inconsistencies that the Power 19 or other design tools aren’t able address. Sometimes I take the advice and run with it. Sometimes I politely say thank you and go with my original idea. I wish I could give you some method of knowing when to do which, but it’s very much based on the individual who is designing the game.
#5-Rethink-
After feedback, it’s time to rethink things. Questions like “Can I finish this?”, “Is this game worthy of being finished?”, or “Will this game be enjoyable if I do finish it?” are the way I approach this phase. If I can answer yes to all three, then it’s time to get to work. Reexamining the Key Components is the next step I take in the Rethinking process. I call Key Components of a RPG design the following: Chargen, Resolution, Reward Cycles, Currencies, and Color. Using the feedback I have gotten, I explore how each of these areas of the game can be improved and how they relate to one another. Once I have that done, I’m ready for the draft.
#6-First Draft-
The First Draft comes in at the 6th stage of the design for me. I think a lot of people start at the draft stage and get overwhelmed by the project. I really encourage people to make an outline, use the Power 19, or come up with some other sort of devise to organize and categorize their design thoughts before attempting to write a playable draft. The work of writing an RPG, even one that’s only 50 pages or so, is immense. Breaking it up into smaller parts helps make the job more manageable. In any event, for me, the first draft is intended to be a coherent, readable, and playable version of the game. This is the “Alpha” design stage.
#7-Feedback-
Getting feedback on a draft used to be the hardest stage for me. Mostly because I couldn’t figure out how to share the draft. Now, with so many designers having their own websites, it’s easy to get someone to help out in that department. I gotta thank Blankshield Press for helping me out with Cutthroat in that regard. They were awesome about helping me out. And there are many more out there willing to help just like them. Anyway, posting your draft on the ‘net and getting people’s reactions is the next stage. It’s here where your game will really be molded into the RPG it wants to be. Even though you’ve already done a lot of work, expect many more changes to your game to come as a result of this stage. Be persistent here. Sometimes it can be deflating when no one responds to your posts. Keep trying and try on many websites. The Forge, RPGnet, and Story Games are all open forums for this sort of thing.
#8-Revision-
After getting feedback on the draft, it’s time to revise. This step is pretty simple. Choose the feedback that makes the most sense and adapt it to your game. Disregard the feedback that doesn’t make sense to you or that simply praises your design. Sadly, praise isn’t all that helpful when it comes to revising a draft. You may revise your draft, post it again for more feed back, revise it again, post, and repeat this process many times. Once your revisions are finished (at least for now), it’s time for the most fun and most agonizing part of RPG design.
#9-Playtest-
Playtesting is fun because you get to actually play! But it is also excruciating because it is slow, shows SO many weaknesses and ambiguities in your game, and requires constant revision. When I playtest, there is one thing I hold as important. That one thing is to play the full playtest session with the rules as they are currently written. I don’t change the rules midstream during a session just because we hit a bump in the road. Like any new game, it can take while to learn the system. Allow for that learning curve to take place before changing anything. Also, it’s hard to know how playable your draft was if you keep changing things constantly as you go. Playtesting needs to give you a clear picture of what your game is like and can do. It can’t do that, in my opinion, if you’re constantly stirring the waters with new ideas and mechanics on the spot.
#10-Revision-
Our old friend Revision is back. This time we take the feedback from the playtest sessions and use that to upgrade and revise the game. It will probably take several “playtest and revise” cycles for you to get a design hammered into shape. There’s no exact number, but I can definitely tell you it is greater than one. Somwhere in the middle of these cycles, you ought to open up the playtesting to groups outside your direct influence. The feedback you get from them will be invaluable.
#11-Feedback-
After playtesting and revision, its good to open your game up for one final round of feedback on the ‘net. This is when they can point out what sections of your game need more words, better clarification, and more examples. It’s really helpful if people who have never read your game before are able to look at it at this point. A fresh set of eyes will usually find the vagaries and oversights in a design. Get as many people to read it as possible. And for heaven’s sakes don’t worry about someone stealing your design and publishing it before you do. That’s one of the biggest mental obstacles new designers face. No one is going to steal your design and publish it. They might take inspiration from your mechanics and write their own game, but that’s only good for you! More than likely they will mention your game as they write theirs and, boom! that's free advertising for you. Never fear about someone swooping in and taking credit for your work.
#12-Revision-
With the final feedback in hand, you are ready for what will likely be the last revision. At this point your game will probably not be perfect. But here’s the truth when it comes to that. Your game will never be “perfect.” At some point, you will have to cut off the playtesting, revision, and feedback. If you don’t, you’ll never publish the darn thing, and publishing your game will teach you more about the whole process than you can possibly imagine. Double check your spelling, grammar, punctuation, make an index and table of contents, get a cover, and do the layout. These are the last parts of revision you will pass through for your game. So the only thing left is the business stuff of publishing, and that’s a post for another time. :)
I hope that the process I use will be helpful to some of you out there also. I’m sure that many other designers have different and fascinating methods they use as well. Check into the processes used by designers you admire and see if you can adapt them to your style. As always, questions are always welcome here at Socratic Design :)
Peace,
-Troy
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
How can Magic be used in an RPG?
Heya,
First let me apologize for not posting in a while. Real life has been quite busy lately, and I’ve been participating in the Game Chef competition, which took up a lot of time. I’ve also been revising my upcoming RPGs (Cutthroat, Hierarchy, Standoff!) which is going well but not quickly. So anyway, I’m back. :)
Okay, back to the question at hand. Magic (and I include under that term things like mad science, alchemy, psionics, super powers, etc.) can often be a real obstacle in game design. The temptation to add it can be strong, but the ability to “do it right” is sometimes elusive. John H. Kim has some interesting articles and HERE that might be useful reading, though I plan to take a slightly different tack on the subject.
The title of this article might be a little misleading. This essay is not intended to give suggestions about how magic spells might be cast and/or created in a game, but what purpose magic can serve in a game design. The problem I run into personally, and can see in other games that are in the design stage, is a failure to focus the purpose of magic in the design. To me, I see three major purposes that magic can serve in a game’s design: Tool, Hazard, or Theme (motif).
If you are thinking about using magic in your game, there are three questions you need to ask yourself:
1. Is magic a tool the player-characters can use to accomplish their goals?
2. Is magic a tool the GM (or opposing player) can use to add hazards/danger to the situation the player-characters face?
3. Is magic a neutral element of the Setting’s theme?
The absolute worst answer is a knee-jerk “All three!”
Magic, mechanically speaking, is just one of many possible design elements (including weapons, technology, monsters, equipment, etc.). Its presence in a game can be useful to GMs, Players, Both, or Neither. Whatever you decide, magic in your game should matter. Using it should reinforce what your game is about and not just be something tacked on because “people like it.” Let’s look at, what I think, are some good answers to the above three questions.
--Answer 1A: Magic is a tactical tool used by players to enhance their options in contests.
--Answer 1B: Magic is a tool used by players to create effects that are necessary to advance the game’s events (ie A Story Telling Device).
--Answer 1C: Magic is used by the players to differentiate the player-characters from each other.
--Answer 1D: Magic is an exclusive, balancing tool used by the players to overcome other, equally potent resources used by the GM.
--Answer 2A: Magic is a tactical tool used by the GM to enhance his options in contests.
--Answer 2B: Magic is a tool used by GM to create effects that are necessary to advance the game’s events (ie A Story Telling Device).
--Answer 2C: Magic is a tool used by the GM to thwart and/or challenge the abilities and intentions of the player-characters.
--Answer 2D: Magic itself is the enemy the player-characters must overcome.
--Answer 3A: Magic is a tool used to circumvent normal conventions and allow necessary game elements to appear in the game that otherwise would have been forbidden or out-of-place.
--Answer 3B: Magic is used to create the Situation that the players will address in the game.
--Answer 3C: Magic is used as Color to enhance the description of the Setting.
--Answer 3D: Magic is an inherent element in all things that raises the overall threat level in contests.
Each of these answers focuses the use of magic in a specific way. They aren’t talking about a gigantic list of spells in the back of the book for anyone to use or not use however they see fit. They denote explicitly how magic will be useful in play.
When you are deciding what role magic will play in your game design, imagine what a session of play should look like. Then ask:
-Would magic help or harm play?
-What impact on strategic options would adding or subtracting magic have?
-Who would benefit from the availability of magic?
-Who would suffer from the availability of magic?
-Who could and who could not use magic?
-When could the use of magic be inappropriate?
-Does the magic help reinforce what this game is supposed to be about?
I’m sure there’s more I could come up with, but these are a good start. Question, and examine everything. Truthfully, it’s important to ask yourself these sorts of questions concerning each of your design elements as you go. Magic is just one of many possibilities that I happened to focus on today.
Peace,
-Troy
First let me apologize for not posting in a while. Real life has been quite busy lately, and I’ve been participating in the Game Chef competition, which took up a lot of time. I’ve also been revising my upcoming RPGs (Cutthroat, Hierarchy, Standoff!) which is going well but not quickly. So anyway, I’m back. :)
Okay, back to the question at hand. Magic (and I include under that term things like mad science, alchemy, psionics, super powers, etc.) can often be a real obstacle in game design. The temptation to add it can be strong, but the ability to “do it right” is sometimes elusive. John H. Kim has some interesting articles and HERE that might be useful reading, though I plan to take a slightly different tack on the subject.
The title of this article might be a little misleading. This essay is not intended to give suggestions about how magic spells might be cast and/or created in a game, but what purpose magic can serve in a game design. The problem I run into personally, and can see in other games that are in the design stage, is a failure to focus the purpose of magic in the design. To me, I see three major purposes that magic can serve in a game’s design: Tool, Hazard, or Theme (motif).
If you are thinking about using magic in your game, there are three questions you need to ask yourself:
1. Is magic a tool the player-characters can use to accomplish their goals?
2. Is magic a tool the GM (or opposing player) can use to add hazards/danger to the situation the player-characters face?
3. Is magic a neutral element of the Setting’s theme?
The absolute worst answer is a knee-jerk “All three!”
Magic, mechanically speaking, is just one of many possible design elements (including weapons, technology, monsters, equipment, etc.). Its presence in a game can be useful to GMs, Players, Both, or Neither. Whatever you decide, magic in your game should matter. Using it should reinforce what your game is about and not just be something tacked on because “people like it.” Let’s look at, what I think, are some good answers to the above three questions.
--Answer 1A: Magic is a tactical tool used by players to enhance their options in contests.
--Answer 1B: Magic is a tool used by players to create effects that are necessary to advance the game’s events (ie A Story Telling Device).
--Answer 1C: Magic is used by the players to differentiate the player-characters from each other.
--Answer 1D: Magic is an exclusive, balancing tool used by the players to overcome other, equally potent resources used by the GM.
--Answer 2A: Magic is a tactical tool used by the GM to enhance his options in contests.
--Answer 2B: Magic is a tool used by GM to create effects that are necessary to advance the game’s events (ie A Story Telling Device).
--Answer 2C: Magic is a tool used by the GM to thwart and/or challenge the abilities and intentions of the player-characters.
--Answer 2D: Magic itself is the enemy the player-characters must overcome.
--Answer 3A: Magic is a tool used to circumvent normal conventions and allow necessary game elements to appear in the game that otherwise would have been forbidden or out-of-place.
--Answer 3B: Magic is used to create the Situation that the players will address in the game.
--Answer 3C: Magic is used as Color to enhance the description of the Setting.
--Answer 3D: Magic is an inherent element in all things that raises the overall threat level in contests.
Each of these answers focuses the use of magic in a specific way. They aren’t talking about a gigantic list of spells in the back of the book for anyone to use or not use however they see fit. They denote explicitly how magic will be useful in play.
When you are deciding what role magic will play in your game design, imagine what a session of play should look like. Then ask:
-Would magic help or harm play?
-What impact on strategic options would adding or subtracting magic have?
-Who would benefit from the availability of magic?
-Who would suffer from the availability of magic?
-Who could and who could not use magic?
-When could the use of magic be inappropriate?
-Does the magic help reinforce what this game is supposed to be about?
I’m sure there’s more I could come up with, but these are a good start. Question, and examine everything. Truthfully, it’s important to ask yourself these sorts of questions concerning each of your design elements as you go. Magic is just one of many possibilities that I happened to focus on today.
Peace,
-Troy
Thursday, March 23, 2006
What is a Death Spiral?
Heya,
A lot of game design jargon gets tossed around sometimes. And sometimes it’s not explained all that well and there exists a certain amount of trepidation in those who don’t understand the meaning. Asking for a definition is sometimes intimidating because it seems like everybody already knows. And who wants to be left out? I know that people feel this way, because I am someone who has felt that trepidation many times.
Toady I’m going to talk about Death Spirals. First, what is a Death Spiral? It’s a game mechanic involving the resolution system that somehow creates diminishing capabilities of the character and makes it more likely for the character’s capabilities to further diminish. That is to say, suffering an initial failure makes the second failure more likely, which makes the third even more likely and so on. There is virtually no escape from a Death Spiral once it’s begun.
What about an example? Risus is a good downloadable example, but rather than make you read that and then come back here, I’ll give you a hypothetical example (do go download Risus, though). Okay, pretend for a moment DnD3e had a Death Spiral. Whenever your character takes damage in combat it would not only decrease his Hit Points, but also diminish he Strength and Dexterity. This means, not only is he closer to dying, but his ability to hit, deal damage, and avoid damage are also lowered. This makes it harder for him to defend himself and/or kill his opponent.
So what makes this so bad? Shouldn’t characters suffer penalties for losing? Sure, but here’s the thing about Death Spirals that make them so bad. After the initial exchange, none of the further exchanges have any meaning. The stakes of the situation have already been decided! Go back to the above example. With an opponent’s Atk, AC, and Hit Points lowered, the chances of your harming him again are much greater. The chances of him harming you are less. Baring a great stroke of luck, you will harm him again. Then his STR and DEX lower even more. Making him even easier to hit and less likely to hit you. Will further exchanges change the course of the future for that character? No. So after the initial hit, the fight was decided. People just ended up wasting a lot of time rolling more dice. That’s boring.
A second kind of Death Spiral is a Party Death Spiral. If you have ever played an MMORPGs then you know exactly what I mean. But let’s look at DnD again. I’m going to make up a typical party: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, and Paladin. The party happens on a four orcs and combat commences. The orcs suddenly have a shaman show up with them and prove tougher than the PCs or the DM first imagined. So tough that the Paladin goes down. Okay, so we now have 5 orcs vs. 4 PCs. The fighter can at best keep 2 busy. The cleric can handle one, but the thief and wizard are made of paper. The wizard gets shellacked next. Now one of the party’s major damage sources is out. The thief goes down next, there’s too many and his HPs are low. Perhaps by now 2 of the orcs are dead. However, we’re down to the warrior and cleric. Before long, the cleric bites it and with no one to heal him, the fighter is doomed. The party wipes out. All because one character, the Paladin, died first.
What we’ve just witnessed is a Party Death Spiral. In MMORPGs, as soon as one of or two of the party members die in an encounter, the rest are sure to follow. Tabletop RPGs that have strict niche protection and defined roles for characters can risk the same fate. As soon as a group’s Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, or Healer goes down, the party is at severe risk.
So how does one avoid creating a Death Spiral? Well, the easiest way is to make sure that losing an exchange does not affect the character’s ability to avoid further losses or inflict a loss on his opponent. Hit Points are an excellent example of how to avoid a Death Spiral. Yeah the character gets closer to death, but his Atk and AC are not affected. You can also make losing an exchange in a contest not dependant in whether or not the character succeeds at the action. My own Holmes and Watson does this. As far as Party Death Spirals go, one can avoid designing these by making sure that characters are diverse. I personally don’t think niche protection is all it’s cracked up to be. So, don’t be afraid to drop it in your game. Having a lot of overlapping abilities will help insure a party’s survival even if one or two go down in combat.
Anyhow, the main point of this essay was to just get out there what a Death Spiral is. If anyone needs further clarification, feel free to post :)
Peace,
-Troy
A lot of game design jargon gets tossed around sometimes. And sometimes it’s not explained all that well and there exists a certain amount of trepidation in those who don’t understand the meaning. Asking for a definition is sometimes intimidating because it seems like everybody already knows. And who wants to be left out? I know that people feel this way, because I am someone who has felt that trepidation many times.
Toady I’m going to talk about Death Spirals. First, what is a Death Spiral? It’s a game mechanic involving the resolution system that somehow creates diminishing capabilities of the character and makes it more likely for the character’s capabilities to further diminish. That is to say, suffering an initial failure makes the second failure more likely, which makes the third even more likely and so on. There is virtually no escape from a Death Spiral once it’s begun.
What about an example? Risus is a good downloadable example, but rather than make you read that and then come back here, I’ll give you a hypothetical example (do go download Risus, though). Okay, pretend for a moment DnD3e had a Death Spiral. Whenever your character takes damage in combat it would not only decrease his Hit Points, but also diminish he Strength and Dexterity. This means, not only is he closer to dying, but his ability to hit, deal damage, and avoid damage are also lowered. This makes it harder for him to defend himself and/or kill his opponent.
So what makes this so bad? Shouldn’t characters suffer penalties for losing? Sure, but here’s the thing about Death Spirals that make them so bad. After the initial exchange, none of the further exchanges have any meaning. The stakes of the situation have already been decided! Go back to the above example. With an opponent’s Atk, AC, and Hit Points lowered, the chances of your harming him again are much greater. The chances of him harming you are less. Baring a great stroke of luck, you will harm him again. Then his STR and DEX lower even more. Making him even easier to hit and less likely to hit you. Will further exchanges change the course of the future for that character? No. So after the initial hit, the fight was decided. People just ended up wasting a lot of time rolling more dice. That’s boring.
A second kind of Death Spiral is a Party Death Spiral. If you have ever played an MMORPGs then you know exactly what I mean. But let’s look at DnD again. I’m going to make up a typical party: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, and Paladin. The party happens on a four orcs and combat commences. The orcs suddenly have a shaman show up with them and prove tougher than the PCs or the DM first imagined. So tough that the Paladin goes down. Okay, so we now have 5 orcs vs. 4 PCs. The fighter can at best keep 2 busy. The cleric can handle one, but the thief and wizard are made of paper. The wizard gets shellacked next. Now one of the party’s major damage sources is out. The thief goes down next, there’s too many and his HPs are low. Perhaps by now 2 of the orcs are dead. However, we’re down to the warrior and cleric. Before long, the cleric bites it and with no one to heal him, the fighter is doomed. The party wipes out. All because one character, the Paladin, died first.
What we’ve just witnessed is a Party Death Spiral. In MMORPGs, as soon as one of or two of the party members die in an encounter, the rest are sure to follow. Tabletop RPGs that have strict niche protection and defined roles for characters can risk the same fate. As soon as a group’s Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, or Healer goes down, the party is at severe risk.
So how does one avoid creating a Death Spiral? Well, the easiest way is to make sure that losing an exchange does not affect the character’s ability to avoid further losses or inflict a loss on his opponent. Hit Points are an excellent example of how to avoid a Death Spiral. Yeah the character gets closer to death, but his Atk and AC are not affected. You can also make losing an exchange in a contest not dependant in whether or not the character succeeds at the action. My own Holmes and Watson does this. As far as Party Death Spirals go, one can avoid designing these by making sure that characters are diverse. I personally don’t think niche protection is all it’s cracked up to be. So, don’t be afraid to drop it in your game. Having a lot of overlapping abilities will help insure a party’s survival even if one or two go down in combat.
Anyhow, the main point of this essay was to just get out there what a Death Spiral is. If anyone needs further clarification, feel free to post :)
Peace,
-Troy
Friday, March 17, 2006
What are the 'Alt. 3' ?
Heya,
The Alt. 3 (or Alternative 3) are a set of RPG Design questions that are complimentary to the Big Three. The first person I ever saw use them was Jared A. Sorenson, so I’ll credit him with inventing them until told otherwise. I am fairly certain that he and others have employed them at various seminars at gaming conventions (such as VeriCon) to test the systems of new game designers. The Alt. 3 focus on one very central aspect of a game: “What is your game about?” and then probe that more deeply and more deeply. I’ve actually seen two versions used. Here is the first:
1. What is your game about?
2. How is your game about that?
3. How does your game enforce/reinforce what it’s about?
The second runs something like this:
1. What is your game about?
2. How? How is your game about that?
3. What behaviors does your game reward/punish?
As a design exercise, I prefer the former over the latter. It continuously pounds away at the central idea of the game. That’s important. One must look at “What your game is about” in as many lights as possible to truly know exactly what sorts of play and experiences you are wanting as the designer.
The Alt. 3 do not replace the Big Three or the Power 19. Instead, all three sets of questions should be used together as you design your game. Complete a Big Three answer list. Complete a Power 19 Answer list. And then complete an Alt. 3 answer list. Once you have all that done, then you can go back and examine what you have written and know that you have created your own outlines and tools for making a solid RPG.
I can’t stress enough the importance of continually asking questions of yourself. Use as many tools as you can to examine your game from as many angles as you can. Doing that won’t ever replace good old fashion playtesting, proofreading, and feedback, but it sure will cut down on extraneous design elements and wasted space. And that, in and of itself, will make your game better.
Peace,
-Troy
The Alt. 3 (or Alternative 3) are a set of RPG Design questions that are complimentary to the Big Three. The first person I ever saw use them was Jared A. Sorenson, so I’ll credit him with inventing them until told otherwise. I am fairly certain that he and others have employed them at various seminars at gaming conventions (such as VeriCon) to test the systems of new game designers. The Alt. 3 focus on one very central aspect of a game: “What is your game about?” and then probe that more deeply and more deeply. I’ve actually seen two versions used. Here is the first:
1. What is your game about?
2. How is your game about that?
3. How does your game enforce/reinforce what it’s about?
The second runs something like this:
1. What is your game about?
2. How? How is your game about that?
3. What behaviors does your game reward/punish?
As a design exercise, I prefer the former over the latter. It continuously pounds away at the central idea of the game. That’s important. One must look at “What your game is about” in as many lights as possible to truly know exactly what sorts of play and experiences you are wanting as the designer.
The Alt. 3 do not replace the Big Three or the Power 19. Instead, all three sets of questions should be used together as you design your game. Complete a Big Three answer list. Complete a Power 19 Answer list. And then complete an Alt. 3 answer list. Once you have all that done, then you can go back and examine what you have written and know that you have created your own outlines and tools for making a solid RPG.
I can’t stress enough the importance of continually asking questions of yourself. Use as many tools as you can to examine your game from as many angles as you can. Doing that won’t ever replace good old fashion playtesting, proofreading, and feedback, but it sure will cut down on extraneous design elements and wasted space. And that, in and of itself, will make your game better.
Peace,
-Troy
Sunday, March 12, 2006
What is the Iron Game Chef?
Heya,
One of the best ways to learn about game design is to actually do it. If you've been looking for an excuse or just needed some inspiration, here's some on a silver platter. The Iron Game Chef is a contest where many game designers are given a list of "ingredients" that they must use as game components. They are also given a theme they have to follow in some way. They basically have just over a week to get it done. Whoa, what can you design is just a week, you may ask? Well, these are just alpha stage designs. No one is expecting a polished product here.
Origonally, I believe the contest was started by Mike Holmes, but the torch has been passed to Andy Kitkowski who is doing a great job with it. Here is a link to the Game Chef Main Site and a link to the Discussion Boards.
If you are new to design, this is an excellent way to get your feet wet. Go in with the idea that this is a learning process and a great chance to get some feedback on your design style. I heartily encourage everyone to participate.
Peace,
-Troy
One of the best ways to learn about game design is to actually do it. If you've been looking for an excuse or just needed some inspiration, here's some on a silver platter. The Iron Game Chef is a contest where many game designers are given a list of "ingredients" that they must use as game components. They are also given a theme they have to follow in some way. They basically have just over a week to get it done. Whoa, what can you design is just a week, you may ask? Well, these are just alpha stage designs. No one is expecting a polished product here.
Origonally, I believe the contest was started by Mike Holmes, but the torch has been passed to Andy Kitkowski who is doing a great job with it. Here is a link to the Game Chef Main Site and a link to the Discussion Boards.
If you are new to design, this is an excellent way to get your feet wet. Go in with the idea that this is a learning process and a great chance to get some feedback on your design style. I heartily encourage everyone to participate.
Peace,
-Troy
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A Call for Playtesters
Heya,
I have finished the “final” drafts of the playtest versions for all three of my up coming games: Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Stadoff! If you are interested in playing them and then filing a report on how the session went, reply to this thread or send an email to my email address: legacyboss @ hotmail . com. It would be a great help to me and something I would be very thankful for. :)
Peace,
-Troy
I have finished the “final” drafts of the playtest versions for all three of my up coming games: Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Stadoff! If you are interested in playing them and then filing a report on how the session went, reply to this thread or send an email to my email address: legacyboss @ hotmail . com. It would be a great help to me and something I would be very thankful for. :)
Peace,
-Troy
Friday, March 03, 2006
Socratic Design Anthology # 1
Heya,
As I look down my page here at the links on the right, I’m seeing some really important articles vanish from the front page. Stuff like The Big Three and Power 19 should be kept, IMO, front and center. So here’s my solution. Every quarter, I’ll be making an Anthology of Articles. This one will cover, December, January, and February. I’ll link all the ones I feel were important to the mission of Socratic Design in one single article. This way, anyone new to the site will be able to catch up with those who have been reading it from the beginning. Heh, I kinda wish more blogs would do this. Anyway, the order I will put them in will be the order I think they should be read, not necessarily the order in which I wrote them. Feedback, as always, is welcome.
Anthology #1
What is ‘Diaspora’ ? (mainly for the Universal Disclaimer)
What are ‘The Big Three’ ?
What are ‘The Power 19’ ? pt. 1
What are ‘The Power 19’ ? pt. 2
What is ‘Chargen’ ?
What is Situation?
Is Play its own Reward?
What Should I Expect from my First Design?
What if my Game turns out Crappy?
Appendix: 1
Why Design an RPG?
What is a Traditional RPG?
What is a ‘Heartbreaker’ ?
So What are We Looking For?
The Appendix is more personal opinion stuff on my part than design tools. I don’t consider them to be a true part of the Anthology, but are important to me none-the-less. If you have any questions about any of the articles, feel free to post about them here. I’m always happy to field questions and lend a hand :)
Peace,
-Troy
As I look down my page here at the links on the right, I’m seeing some really important articles vanish from the front page. Stuff like The Big Three and Power 19 should be kept, IMO, front and center. So here’s my solution. Every quarter, I’ll be making an Anthology of Articles. This one will cover, December, January, and February. I’ll link all the ones I feel were important to the mission of Socratic Design in one single article. This way, anyone new to the site will be able to catch up with those who have been reading it from the beginning. Heh, I kinda wish more blogs would do this. Anyway, the order I will put them in will be the order I think they should be read, not necessarily the order in which I wrote them. Feedback, as always, is welcome.
Anthology #1
What is ‘Diaspora’ ? (mainly for the Universal Disclaimer)
What are ‘The Big Three’ ?
What are ‘The Power 19’ ? pt. 1
What are ‘The Power 19’ ? pt. 2
What is ‘Chargen’ ?
What is Situation?
Is Play its own Reward?
What Should I Expect from my First Design?
What if my Game turns out Crappy?
Appendix: 1
Why Design an RPG?
What is a Traditional RPG?
What is a ‘Heartbreaker’ ?
So What are We Looking For?
The Appendix is more personal opinion stuff on my part than design tools. I don’t consider them to be a true part of the Anthology, but are important to me none-the-less. If you have any questions about any of the articles, feel free to post about them here. I’m always happy to field questions and lend a hand :)
Peace,
-Troy
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
So what are we looking for?
Heya,
This is the fourth and final in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
In the initial question, when I say “we” I mean “me.” Others can speak for themselves. These last few articles are really intended to get out there what I’d like to see here at Socratic Design and on other game design forums like those at the Forge, RPGnet, and Story Games. I’m not going to be very long winded about it (I hope), because it’s pretty simple.
I have four things I’m really looking for when it comes to deciding how interested I’m going to be in someone’s design:
1. The game is based off the idea that the author is trying to maximize some kind of fun he is already having.
2. The game breaks with Tradition in some way, shape or form.
3. A game where the designer is determined to avoid the publishing aspect of the Heartbreaker.
4. A game that will be finished in one form or another.
So what do I mean by these? First, if someone is designing a game “just cause”, “to participate in the community” or “for fun/an exercise” then it’s really a waste of my time and frankly anyone else’s. No offense. There are a certain number of minutes a day I (or anyone else) can devote to reading, reviewing, and offering advice on a game design. Personally, I would want to use those minutes to help someone who is serious about designing a game that he will use to enhance his fun and the fun of those he games with. I want the time I put in to helping someone to matter to more than just one other person.
Second, hey Traditional Games can be fun, but they’re well…Traditional. I’ve seen them before. What really sparks my interest is something new and different. Okay, you want to make a Fantasy RPG. How’s it going to be different from most of what I’ve seen before? Got a vampyre game? Sweet! What’s new? If you want to design a Traditional Game to get some experience in game design as David Chunn said, that’s fine. You want to really get my (and no doubt others’) interest sparked? Do something that’s out of the ordinary with your game. And I’m not saying you have to abandon every aspect of a Traditional RPG. Far from it. Even doing one thing in a wild and new way is righteous. I just want to encourage folks to expand their ideas beyond what’s been termed “regular” in the broader RPG community.
Three, if you’re planning on sinking thousands of dollars into a game that makes the same offering as say DnD, Vampire, or Rifts then I’m probably not going to help you. In fact I’ll hope that you get discouraged and scrap the design. Talking about three tiered marketing plans, building a network of games stores and distributors, and ignoring the internet/pdf market are big red flags for me. If you are an independent designer, then sinking gobs of money into trying to get your game “out there” into the public is a very risky endeavor- one that I’d advise avoiding in the early part of your production and publication. The last three questions of the Power 19 will tell me a lot about your plans for the future of your game. Consider them carefully.
Last, I hate helping people who just flame out two months later. No doubt in my mind they had a gem of an idea, but gave up anyway. That sucks. I hate it for them because I know if they could have just finished it, they could have added a verse to the chorus of games indie designers are producing. Heck, I probably would have bought a copy. So please, if you start a game, work to finish it. I’m always available to help.
Speaking of being available, let me establish this right now. If you would like some feedback from me on your design, feel free to post a reply to any article on this blog. I don’t care if it’s off topic or not. The main mission of Socratic Design is to help newer designers get started and get finished. So I’ll drop whatever I’m doing to lend a hand. Now I’d *prefer* to talk about your game on your blog (if you have one) or on a forum like the Forge or RPGnet. So including a link to such a place would be helpful. But if none of that is a possibility, this is an open space for feedback and response. Consider the welcome mat dusted off and the door wide open :-)
In closing, I hope that nothing I’ve said here sounds harsh. But if it does, think about it in this way. I’m truly after people who want to design and publish an RPG. I’m serious about it, and I want them to be serious too. We’re all in this fight to publish together, and I want to be the most effective resource I can for you. Meeting those four requirements above will help me be that.
Peace,
-Troy
This is the fourth and final in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
In the initial question, when I say “we” I mean “me.” Others can speak for themselves. These last few articles are really intended to get out there what I’d like to see here at Socratic Design and on other game design forums like those at the Forge, RPGnet, and Story Games. I’m not going to be very long winded about it (I hope), because it’s pretty simple.
I have four things I’m really looking for when it comes to deciding how interested I’m going to be in someone’s design:
1. The game is based off the idea that the author is trying to maximize some kind of fun he is already having.
2. The game breaks with Tradition in some way, shape or form.
3. A game where the designer is determined to avoid the publishing aspect of the Heartbreaker.
4. A game that will be finished in one form or another.
So what do I mean by these? First, if someone is designing a game “just cause”, “to participate in the community” or “for fun/an exercise” then it’s really a waste of my time and frankly anyone else’s. No offense. There are a certain number of minutes a day I (or anyone else) can devote to reading, reviewing, and offering advice on a game design. Personally, I would want to use those minutes to help someone who is serious about designing a game that he will use to enhance his fun and the fun of those he games with. I want the time I put in to helping someone to matter to more than just one other person.
Second, hey Traditional Games can be fun, but they’re well…Traditional. I’ve seen them before. What really sparks my interest is something new and different. Okay, you want to make a Fantasy RPG. How’s it going to be different from most of what I’ve seen before? Got a vampyre game? Sweet! What’s new? If you want to design a Traditional Game to get some experience in game design as David Chunn said, that’s fine. You want to really get my (and no doubt others’) interest sparked? Do something that’s out of the ordinary with your game. And I’m not saying you have to abandon every aspect of a Traditional RPG. Far from it. Even doing one thing in a wild and new way is righteous. I just want to encourage folks to expand their ideas beyond what’s been termed “regular” in the broader RPG community.
Three, if you’re planning on sinking thousands of dollars into a game that makes the same offering as say DnD, Vampire, or Rifts then I’m probably not going to help you. In fact I’ll hope that you get discouraged and scrap the design. Talking about three tiered marketing plans, building a network of games stores and distributors, and ignoring the internet/pdf market are big red flags for me. If you are an independent designer, then sinking gobs of money into trying to get your game “out there” into the public is a very risky endeavor- one that I’d advise avoiding in the early part of your production and publication. The last three questions of the Power 19 will tell me a lot about your plans for the future of your game. Consider them carefully.
Last, I hate helping people who just flame out two months later. No doubt in my mind they had a gem of an idea, but gave up anyway. That sucks. I hate it for them because I know if they could have just finished it, they could have added a verse to the chorus of games indie designers are producing. Heck, I probably would have bought a copy. So please, if you start a game, work to finish it. I’m always available to help.
Speaking of being available, let me establish this right now. If you would like some feedback from me on your design, feel free to post a reply to any article on this blog. I don’t care if it’s off topic or not. The main mission of Socratic Design is to help newer designers get started and get finished. So I’ll drop whatever I’m doing to lend a hand. Now I’d *prefer* to talk about your game on your blog (if you have one) or on a forum like the Forge or RPGnet. So including a link to such a place would be helpful. But if none of that is a possibility, this is an open space for feedback and response. Consider the welcome mat dusted off and the door wide open :-)
In closing, I hope that nothing I’ve said here sounds harsh. But if it does, think about it in this way. I’m truly after people who want to design and publish an RPG. I’m serious about it, and I want them to be serious too. We’re all in this fight to publish together, and I want to be the most effective resource I can for you. Meeting those four requirements above will help me be that.
Peace,
-Troy
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
What is a 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' ?
Heya,
This is the third in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
As if Traditional Games wasn’t a controversial enough topic, I thought I’d talk about Heartbreaker games next. ;-D In case you haven’t read it yet, please check out the Universal Disclaimer explained here in This Article.
Talking about Heartbreakers can be a very touchy subject, but I feel it is very appropriate to bring it up here at Socratic Design. I mentioned them slightly back here when I talked about how people misuse the term in a mean-spirited way. I’ll cover that slightly again here, but it’s probably good background reading for this article. For additional reading, I highly recommend reading Ron Edward’s articles Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers. I’ll give him the credit of coining the terms originally, but it was never his intent that the term would become a hammer to insult and hurt fledgling designers.
The first part of my article, I’m going to split into two parts. First, what is a Heartbreaker not?
- It’s not an illegitimate design
- It’s not a game unworthy of publication
- It’s not a sign of stupidity
- It’s not a sign of uncreative designing
A natural follow-up question would then be, “Well, what are Fantasy Heartbreakers?”
- They try to fix another game
- They are sometimes a gold mine for game ideas
- They are one Entry Point to game design
- They often try to capture a “feeling” of some kind
- They tend to follow the pattern of a Traditional Game
- They are often really fun to play
- They are rarely long lived
It is that last point I’d like to talk about in more detail. By its very nature, a Heartbreaker is like another game (IE, that’s a part of its definition). Some have taken that to be an insult, but it’s not really. That’s just an observation of what a Heartbreaker is. As a result of being like another game already in print, the Heartbreaker is in competition with the game it emulates for attention (not talking about sales here). Heartbreaker or not, a fantasy RPG will immediately be compared to DnD, Runequest, Palladium, or Rolemaster. A horror game will be measured against Call of Cthullu or Vampire. Sometimes those comparisons will lead to the conclusion that the game is not like those. Such is the case with games like The Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, and Sorcerer. Sometimes those comparisons lead one to see redundancy.
Redundancy is one of the most potent enemies of game design. Reasons are many. First, gamers are sometimes lazy. The effort it takes from them to learn a new system that invokes a lot of the same experiences and sensations of play isn’t worth it to them. They’ll just stick with whatever they’re playing right now. Second, some gamers are very territorial. They see any game that is similar to their pet game as a threat. Any challenge to their view of the way games ought to be they take as a personal attack. See just about any Palladium thread on RPGnet. Third, creativity and originality are qualities of any kind of writing that are held in high regard. Something that’s new and unique tends to be something that draws interest. “Newness” appeals to a certain type of gamer who finds pleasure in trying something completely different from all his other play experiences.
Unfortunately, a Heartbreaker game appeals to none of these groups. Those stuck in a rut or protecting their rut won’t be willing to try something new. Those who only try something new won’t see enough reason to go for a Heartbreaker. Therefore, before a Heartbreaker even gets released, there is already a hostile environment waiting to receive it, bash it, and reject it. Before long, a designer will get discouraged and the updates to his website will falter and soon the game will pass into the annals of John H. Kim’s RPG history file.
But emulation of another game is only one aspect of a Heartbreaker and by itself, really doesn’t a Heartbreaker make. There is a second, more vital ingredient that will tag a game a Heartbreaker. So where does the real Heartbreak come from? It comes not so much in the design, but in the publication.
All too frequently (see the examples in Ron’s essay and in my own life), the Heartbreakers that make it past the design phase into publication are done so at a high cost to the designer(s). They look into printing (traditional or POD), compare prices, and find the best cost per book ratio they can. Unfortunately, that is usually in the hundreds or thousands of copies which is often way beyond their ability to sell. They’ll say, “Wow! Loot at the deal we’ll get if we order 2,000 books!” Those books will end up just sitting in a storage facility somewhere collecting dust as the reality of things sets in.
That reality being an indie publisher would absolutely kill to sell 1,000 copies of a book a year, let alone 2,000. That reality being distributors are impossible to deal with, pay little and pay late. That reality being there just aren’t ravenous RPG fans out there dying for the yet another fantasy/sci-fi/superhero/vampire game.
The real Heartbreak is that these good designers end up sinking a ton of money into a project they dearly love and put a lot of honest work into only to find out they bought into a lie. That lie being game stores want their product, distributors serve their customers not their own bottom line, and everyone can have the same success John Wick did with Orkworld.
It is far better to start with a small print run of like 200 books rather than one ten times that size. Or even better, IMHO, is to start by selling the game on pdf through places like RPGNow and DriveThru RPG. See what the initial reaction there is to the game and then use that money to help fund hard copies and point out areas that need revision.
So, should we avoid designing Heartbreakers? In a way I’d say yeah. I know the temptation is there. I feel it all the time. If it’s your first game and you don’t plan on spending much if any money on it, then hey it’s totally cool. Count me in to give you feedback on your design. But my own sincerest advice is to direct your creative energies in another direction. Go for something more original and new. Then come back later and examine a Heartbreaker type design.
It’s possible that someone reading this believes I’m a cynic. That I believe only certain kinds of games deserve to be published and RPGs that don’t follow my prescription are doomed to failure. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will defend every person’s right to publish whatever game their want. I have walked in the Heartbreaker’s shoes, and I have great empathy for them.
My purpose, in this article, is to warn my fellow designers about the pittraps of making a Heartbreaker. It’s a hard, hard road to walk. And I wouldn’t want anyone to have to live with the sort of guilt I’ve had to deal with.
Peace,
-Troy
This is the third in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
As if Traditional Games wasn’t a controversial enough topic, I thought I’d talk about Heartbreaker games next. ;-D In case you haven’t read it yet, please check out the Universal Disclaimer explained here in This Article.
Talking about Heartbreakers can be a very touchy subject, but I feel it is very appropriate to bring it up here at Socratic Design. I mentioned them slightly back here when I talked about how people misuse the term in a mean-spirited way. I’ll cover that slightly again here, but it’s probably good background reading for this article. For additional reading, I highly recommend reading Ron Edward’s articles Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers. I’ll give him the credit of coining the terms originally, but it was never his intent that the term would become a hammer to insult and hurt fledgling designers.
The first part of my article, I’m going to split into two parts. First, what is a Heartbreaker not?
- It’s not an illegitimate design
- It’s not a game unworthy of publication
- It’s not a sign of stupidity
- It’s not a sign of uncreative designing
A natural follow-up question would then be, “Well, what are Fantasy Heartbreakers?”
- They try to fix another game
- They are sometimes a gold mine for game ideas
- They are one Entry Point to game design
- They often try to capture a “feeling” of some kind
- They tend to follow the pattern of a Traditional Game
- They are often really fun to play
- They are rarely long lived
It is that last point I’d like to talk about in more detail. By its very nature, a Heartbreaker is like another game (IE, that’s a part of its definition). Some have taken that to be an insult, but it’s not really. That’s just an observation of what a Heartbreaker is. As a result of being like another game already in print, the Heartbreaker is in competition with the game it emulates for attention (not talking about sales here). Heartbreaker or not, a fantasy RPG will immediately be compared to DnD, Runequest, Palladium, or Rolemaster. A horror game will be measured against Call of Cthullu or Vampire. Sometimes those comparisons will lead to the conclusion that the game is not like those. Such is the case with games like The Burning Wheel, The Riddle of Steel, and Sorcerer. Sometimes those comparisons lead one to see redundancy.
Redundancy is one of the most potent enemies of game design. Reasons are many. First, gamers are sometimes lazy. The effort it takes from them to learn a new system that invokes a lot of the same experiences and sensations of play isn’t worth it to them. They’ll just stick with whatever they’re playing right now. Second, some gamers are very territorial. They see any game that is similar to their pet game as a threat. Any challenge to their view of the way games ought to be they take as a personal attack. See just about any Palladium thread on RPGnet. Third, creativity and originality are qualities of any kind of writing that are held in high regard. Something that’s new and unique tends to be something that draws interest. “Newness” appeals to a certain type of gamer who finds pleasure in trying something completely different from all his other play experiences.
Unfortunately, a Heartbreaker game appeals to none of these groups. Those stuck in a rut or protecting their rut won’t be willing to try something new. Those who only try something new won’t see enough reason to go for a Heartbreaker. Therefore, before a Heartbreaker even gets released, there is already a hostile environment waiting to receive it, bash it, and reject it. Before long, a designer will get discouraged and the updates to his website will falter and soon the game will pass into the annals of John H. Kim’s RPG history file.
But emulation of another game is only one aspect of a Heartbreaker and by itself, really doesn’t a Heartbreaker make. There is a second, more vital ingredient that will tag a game a Heartbreaker. So where does the real Heartbreak come from? It comes not so much in the design, but in the publication.
All too frequently (see the examples in Ron’s essay and in my own life), the Heartbreakers that make it past the design phase into publication are done so at a high cost to the designer(s). They look into printing (traditional or POD), compare prices, and find the best cost per book ratio they can. Unfortunately, that is usually in the hundreds or thousands of copies which is often way beyond their ability to sell. They’ll say, “Wow! Loot at the deal we’ll get if we order 2,000 books!” Those books will end up just sitting in a storage facility somewhere collecting dust as the reality of things sets in.
That reality being an indie publisher would absolutely kill to sell 1,000 copies of a book a year, let alone 2,000. That reality being distributors are impossible to deal with, pay little and pay late. That reality being there just aren’t ravenous RPG fans out there dying for the yet another fantasy/sci-fi/superhero/vampire game.
The real Heartbreak is that these good designers end up sinking a ton of money into a project they dearly love and put a lot of honest work into only to find out they bought into a lie. That lie being game stores want their product, distributors serve their customers not their own bottom line, and everyone can have the same success John Wick did with Orkworld.
It is far better to start with a small print run of like 200 books rather than one ten times that size. Or even better, IMHO, is to start by selling the game on pdf through places like RPGNow and DriveThru RPG. See what the initial reaction there is to the game and then use that money to help fund hard copies and point out areas that need revision.
So, should we avoid designing Heartbreakers? In a way I’d say yeah. I know the temptation is there. I feel it all the time. If it’s your first game and you don’t plan on spending much if any money on it, then hey it’s totally cool. Count me in to give you feedback on your design. But my own sincerest advice is to direct your creative energies in another direction. Go for something more original and new. Then come back later and examine a Heartbreaker type design.
It’s possible that someone reading this believes I’m a cynic. That I believe only certain kinds of games deserve to be published and RPGs that don’t follow my prescription are doomed to failure. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will defend every person’s right to publish whatever game their want. I have walked in the Heartbreaker’s shoes, and I have great empathy for them.
My purpose, in this article, is to warn my fellow designers about the pittraps of making a Heartbreaker. It’s a hard, hard road to walk. And I wouldn’t want anyone to have to live with the sort of guilt I’ve had to deal with.
Peace,
-Troy
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
What is the 'Fun Now Manifesto' ?
Heya,
Bankuei over on his blog posted something very interesting. He calls it “The Fun Now Manifesto.” Have a read:
1. Not everyone likes the same thing
2. Play with people you like
3. Play with rules you like
4. Everyone is a player
5. Talking is good
6. Trust, not fear or power
7. It's a game, not a marriage
8. Fun stuff at least every 10 minutes
9. Fix problems, don't endure them
Now, it refers mostly to play. It gives good guidelines for selecting your fellow players, what you’ll play together, and how you’ll play. So what does it have to do with design? Well, there’s some important stuff designers can take from this.
#1: “Not everyone likes the same thing” this tells us that no matter how hard we try, we won’t please everyone. So don’t try. Target an audience with your game. You’re an indie game, not a mega-corp like WotC or Wizkidz. Realize that there will be people who don’t like your game, and that’s okay. Design it for the people who will like your game.
#3: “Play with rules you like” I could just as easily say, “Design with rules you like.” Don’t add in junk just because you think other people will not buy your game if you don’t have it. Design a game you’d like to play with rules you’d like to play with. Chances are very good that others have tatstes very similar to yours. Those are the people you’re after. Adding equipment lists, falling damage tables, setting ficiton, or whatever else to your game to make it “more marketable” will end up making it less so.
#4: “Everyone is a player” this includes a GM. For designers, it means if you’re going to have a GM, make the game fun for him too. Give him explicit instructions and then the tools to help him carry out those instructions. Very few games incorperate explicit GM rewards. Why is that? Come up with ways for the GM to earn extra currency/influence/whatever in your game. Don’t leave him out of your design.
#6: “Trust, not fear or power” Don’t fear spreading power out among all the participants. And don’t fear letting all the players have a say in each other’s characters. Also, don’t include horrific punishments in your game for charactes and/or players who “don’t play the way you want them to.” If they’re looking for a good time, they’ll stay pretty close to the rules you’ve written. If they’re looking to ruin everyone’s fun, there’s not a thing you, as the designer, can do about it anyway. Trust the playes to play your game.
#8: “Fun stuff at least every 10 minutes” Every ten minutes, especially if a group is very sociable, may be a high goal, but never-the-less, your game should provide avenues for action, engagement, and resolution often and in a powerful way. Rules for travel time, equations for fuel tank capacity, or encumberance tables often bog down play. If during playtesting they get in the way of getting to what the game is really about, then drop them. No one’s gonna miss them.
#9: “Fix problems, don't endure them” playtest, playtest, playtest! And then revise. Don’t leave unsolved issues in your game just because you saw them in another game. Don’t ignore a problem that you think players won’t run into very often. And lastly, don’t give up. Your game is good. It has potential. Don’t settle for a half-assed project. A designer can’t be afraid to change things that need changing no matter how long they’ve been in the design or how dear that broken little mechanic is to their heart. If it causes problems, it should probably go.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: I really want to thank you, Chris, for coming up with this, and I hope you don't mind me expaning on it here.
Bankuei over on his blog posted something very interesting. He calls it “The Fun Now Manifesto.” Have a read:
1. Not everyone likes the same thing
2. Play with people you like
3. Play with rules you like
4. Everyone is a player
5. Talking is good
6. Trust, not fear or power
7. It's a game, not a marriage
8. Fun stuff at least every 10 minutes
9. Fix problems, don't endure them
Now, it refers mostly to play. It gives good guidelines for selecting your fellow players, what you’ll play together, and how you’ll play. So what does it have to do with design? Well, there’s some important stuff designers can take from this.
#1: “Not everyone likes the same thing” this tells us that no matter how hard we try, we won’t please everyone. So don’t try. Target an audience with your game. You’re an indie game, not a mega-corp like WotC or Wizkidz. Realize that there will be people who don’t like your game, and that’s okay. Design it for the people who will like your game.
#3: “Play with rules you like” I could just as easily say, “Design with rules you like.” Don’t add in junk just because you think other people will not buy your game if you don’t have it. Design a game you’d like to play with rules you’d like to play with. Chances are very good that others have tatstes very similar to yours. Those are the people you’re after. Adding equipment lists, falling damage tables, setting ficiton, or whatever else to your game to make it “more marketable” will end up making it less so.
#4: “Everyone is a player” this includes a GM. For designers, it means if you’re going to have a GM, make the game fun for him too. Give him explicit instructions and then the tools to help him carry out those instructions. Very few games incorperate explicit GM rewards. Why is that? Come up with ways for the GM to earn extra currency/influence/whatever in your game. Don’t leave him out of your design.
#6: “Trust, not fear or power” Don’t fear spreading power out among all the participants. And don’t fear letting all the players have a say in each other’s characters. Also, don’t include horrific punishments in your game for charactes and/or players who “don’t play the way you want them to.” If they’re looking for a good time, they’ll stay pretty close to the rules you’ve written. If they’re looking to ruin everyone’s fun, there’s not a thing you, as the designer, can do about it anyway. Trust the playes to play your game.
#8: “Fun stuff at least every 10 minutes” Every ten minutes, especially if a group is very sociable, may be a high goal, but never-the-less, your game should provide avenues for action, engagement, and resolution often and in a powerful way. Rules for travel time, equations for fuel tank capacity, or encumberance tables often bog down play. If during playtesting they get in the way of getting to what the game is really about, then drop them. No one’s gonna miss them.
#9: “Fix problems, don't endure them” playtest, playtest, playtest! And then revise. Don’t leave unsolved issues in your game just because you saw them in another game. Don’t ignore a problem that you think players won’t run into very often. And lastly, don’t give up. Your game is good. It has potential. Don’t settle for a half-assed project. A designer can’t be afraid to change things that need changing no matter how long they’ve been in the design or how dear that broken little mechanic is to their heart. If it causes problems, it should probably go.
Peace,
-Troy
PS: I really want to thank you, Chris, for coming up with this, and I hope you don't mind me expaning on it here.
Friday, February 10, 2006
What is a Traditional Game?
This is the second in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
For the purposes of this website (reread that) this is how I’ll define a “Traditional Game.”
First, a Traditional Game has a GM. The GM is imbued with the power to control everything but the PCs. He is also the one who will come up with the overall campaign (aka plot) for the game and the one who is the final arbiter of all disagreements. Players play one and only one character and maintain an Actor Stance as much as possible. Actor Stance is basically playing “in character” where the player cannot affect anything in the Setting except what his own character could normally affect. All of the character’s actions are done in accordance with character knowledge and ability. Player knowledge and player motivation are put aside and considered “out of the game.” Traditional Games employ a Task Resolution system where difficulties and opposition are set by GM fiat with minimal guidance from the game’s text.
They may or may not have such things as levels, classes, races, equipment lists, spell lists, combat subsystems, skills, stats, etc. These are not what make a game a Traditional Game. So don’t confuse them with what I wrote in the paragraph above. They are all elements of game design. Their presence or absence has nothing to do with a game’s traditional-ness or its cutting edge-ness.
These traditional games hale back all the way to basic DnD and progress right through World of Darkness today. The thing that traditional games tend to do is empower the GM and suppress the players. They encourage, sometimes implicitly sometimes explicitly, the idea that the GM is the one who creates the story, the characters just add their voice and color. They propagate the ideal that the GM is the guy who gets to finally decide when a campaign is “done” and who gets what rewards and how much (XP allotments is a fine example of a GM-only duty). Additionally, they engrain the idea that if some ability or action the player wants his character to do isn’t covered in the character sheet, the players must just narrate what happens or not even bother to attempt it. For instance, debating, romance, and negotiation are things that are commonly left up to “roleplaying” and rarely supported by mechanics. Lastly, these games give GMs next to nothing when it comes to tools for creating a Setting, addressing player motives, or altering the Situation to fit the individuality of all the characters. It’s supposed to be done “on the fly” or in some grandiose “world builders guide book” sort of way. Neither of which are consistently effective or useful. Sooner or later both methods will break down.
Obviously, not all games are Traditional Games. There are many good games that break this mold. Sorcerer, The Shadows of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Burning Wheel, Polaris, Breaking the Ice, Dust Devils, Prime Time Adventures, Inspectres, Multiverser, My Life with Master, and Universalis are all excellent examples of such games. They are more on the cutting edge of things.
For the purpose of this post, I’m not going to make any value judgment on Traditional Games. Whether they are good or not, whether they are harmful or not to gamers is something for another discussion. The main thing I want to do with this post is establish what they are and invite feedback that will help me construct a more accurate definition.
[EDIT]: Big thanks to Bankuei, John Kim, and Fang for helping me refine my list of traits a 'Traditional Game' tends to have. That list follows here:
-GM imbued with ultimate authority
-GM charged with creating entire plot and setting for the game
-Players play one and only one character
-Players encouraged to stay in 'Actor Stance'
-Task Resolution System
-Difficulties set by GM fiat
-GM receives minimal guidance or tools from text to cary out his duties
-Character Advancement tied to increasing statistical values
-Character Death
-Dice used as the sole randomizer for play
-Assumption of long term play
-Player/Character goals not mechanically supported in plot/setting creation
[END EDIT]
Peace,
-Troy
For the purposes of this website (reread that) this is how I’ll define a “Traditional Game.”
First, a Traditional Game has a GM. The GM is imbued with the power to control everything but the PCs. He is also the one who will come up with the overall campaign (aka plot) for the game and the one who is the final arbiter of all disagreements. Players play one and only one character and maintain an Actor Stance as much as possible. Actor Stance is basically playing “in character” where the player cannot affect anything in the Setting except what his own character could normally affect. All of the character’s actions are done in accordance with character knowledge and ability. Player knowledge and player motivation are put aside and considered “out of the game.” Traditional Games employ a Task Resolution system where difficulties and opposition are set by GM fiat with minimal guidance from the game’s text.
They may or may not have such things as levels, classes, races, equipment lists, spell lists, combat subsystems, skills, stats, etc. These are not what make a game a Traditional Game. So don’t confuse them with what I wrote in the paragraph above. They are all elements of game design. Their presence or absence has nothing to do with a game’s traditional-ness or its cutting edge-ness.
These traditional games hale back all the way to basic DnD and progress right through World of Darkness today. The thing that traditional games tend to do is empower the GM and suppress the players. They encourage, sometimes implicitly sometimes explicitly, the idea that the GM is the one who creates the story, the characters just add their voice and color. They propagate the ideal that the GM is the guy who gets to finally decide when a campaign is “done” and who gets what rewards and how much (XP allotments is a fine example of a GM-only duty). Additionally, they engrain the idea that if some ability or action the player wants his character to do isn’t covered in the character sheet, the players must just narrate what happens or not even bother to attempt it. For instance, debating, romance, and negotiation are things that are commonly left up to “roleplaying” and rarely supported by mechanics. Lastly, these games give GMs next to nothing when it comes to tools for creating a Setting, addressing player motives, or altering the Situation to fit the individuality of all the characters. It’s supposed to be done “on the fly” or in some grandiose “world builders guide book” sort of way. Neither of which are consistently effective or useful. Sooner or later both methods will break down.
Obviously, not all games are Traditional Games. There are many good games that break this mold. Sorcerer, The Shadows of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Burning Wheel, Polaris, Breaking the Ice, Dust Devils, Prime Time Adventures, Inspectres, Multiverser, My Life with Master, and Universalis are all excellent examples of such games. They are more on the cutting edge of things.
For the purpose of this post, I’m not going to make any value judgment on Traditional Games. Whether they are good or not, whether they are harmful or not to gamers is something for another discussion. The main thing I want to do with this post is establish what they are and invite feedback that will help me construct a more accurate definition.
[EDIT]: Big thanks to Bankuei, John Kim, and Fang for helping me refine my list of traits a 'Traditional Game' tends to have. That list follows here:
-GM imbued with ultimate authority
-GM charged with creating entire plot and setting for the game
-Players play one and only one character
-Players encouraged to stay in 'Actor Stance'
-Task Resolution System
-Difficulties set by GM fiat
-GM receives minimal guidance or tools from text to cary out his duties
-Character Advancement tied to increasing statistical values
-Character Death
-Dice used as the sole randomizer for play
-Assumption of long term play
-Player/Character goals not mechanically supported in plot/setting creation
[END EDIT]
Peace,
-Troy
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Why Design an RPG?
This is the first in a series of shorter articles that will hopefully bring newer designers up to speed on the kinds of expectations I have for this blog and those who help in the Design forum on the Forge have for new games.
Why design an RPG?
I’ve had this question put to me a couple times about game designers. “Why design an RPG? There’s plenty out there, make do with those.” Is that a valid point? It’s true that there are hundreds of RPGs out there. They’ve been around now for over three decades. Countless supplements, small press runs, and core rule books have hit the stands. Isn’t there one out there that will work for us?
The answer is “Yes, there are plenty of games out there that will work for us.” But we’re not satisfied with a game that will just “work.” No, we’re looking for a game that will maximize our fun. We’re out to find a game that will take what we like, enhance it, and make it better. We’re looking for an RPG that can surpass what’s out there and push our enjoyment to a degree no previously published game can. That’s why we design. We know there’s MORE out there. We know that the current rules systems leave plenty to be desired. To think that any of or all of them will suit everyone’s tastes is an absurd notion to designers. That’s why we design. We want to suck the marrow out of our enjoyment, nut just reheat the leftovers.
Especially in today’s culture where you can go to a Starbucks and see thirty kinds of coffee or to McDonalds and order one of twenty different burgers. Variety is a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Having a game that fits your style better than any other game is a great thing! This is our rallying cry.
The reason we design is because we want to maximize our fun with RPGs, and we truly believe that others will be able to maximize their fun with our games. That is the purpose of the design forums on the Forge and RPGnet and the purpose of this and many other blogs.
Peace,
-Troy
Why design an RPG?
I’ve had this question put to me a couple times about game designers. “Why design an RPG? There’s plenty out there, make do with those.” Is that a valid point? It’s true that there are hundreds of RPGs out there. They’ve been around now for over three decades. Countless supplements, small press runs, and core rule books have hit the stands. Isn’t there one out there that will work for us?
The answer is “Yes, there are plenty of games out there that will work for us.” But we’re not satisfied with a game that will just “work.” No, we’re looking for a game that will maximize our fun. We’re out to find a game that will take what we like, enhance it, and make it better. We’re looking for an RPG that can surpass what’s out there and push our enjoyment to a degree no previously published game can. That’s why we design. We know there’s MORE out there. We know that the current rules systems leave plenty to be desired. To think that any of or all of them will suit everyone’s tastes is an absurd notion to designers. That’s why we design. We want to suck the marrow out of our enjoyment, nut just reheat the leftovers.
Especially in today’s culture where you can go to a Starbucks and see thirty kinds of coffee or to McDonalds and order one of twenty different burgers. Variety is a good thing. Choice is a good thing. Having a game that fits your style better than any other game is a great thing! This is our rallying cry.
The reason we design is because we want to maximize our fun with RPGs, and we truly believe that others will be able to maximize their fun with our games. That is the purpose of the design forums on the Forge and RPGnet and the purpose of this and many other blogs.
Peace,
-Troy
Monday, February 06, 2006
A Good Example
Heya,
I've dealt with the Power 19 lately mainly by talking about them. That's all well and good, but just talk is not always the best way to learn. It's like being in a lecture hall and never having a lab practical. I am the type of person who learns well from examples, so I thought I'd provide you guys with one here:
http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2006/02/19-questions-stranger-things.html
Look how thorough John is in answering each question. Note also that he doesn't spend rhemes of text explaining each nuance. He states his answer and his rationale for each each answer. If you want to see how a good set of answers to the Power 19 might look, read his.
Peace,
-Troy
I've dealt with the Power 19 lately mainly by talking about them. That's all well and good, but just talk is not always the best way to learn. It's like being in a lecture hall and never having a lab practical. I am the type of person who learns well from examples, so I thought I'd provide you guys with one here:
http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2006/02/19-questions-stranger-things.html
Look how thorough John is in answering each question. Note also that he doesn't spend rhemes of text explaining each nuance. He states his answer and his rationale for each each answer. If you want to see how a good set of answers to the Power 19 might look, read his.
Peace,
-Troy
Thursday, February 02, 2006
What if my Game Turns out Crappy?
Should we make crappy games?
Yes! And I say yes because we really don’t have much of a choice. What??? You may ask. Well, I’m going to be blunt with you guys because A) sugar coating won’t do you any good, and B) I care about you enough to tell the truth: Your first game is gonna be crappy. More than likely, your second and third game will be too.
Your first try won’t turn out like you had hoped. Trust me. I learned this from painful, PAINFUL experience. But you know what, I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything. Looking back on my first foray into game publishing, I realize how much I learned. It was awesome. We got to talk face to face with the product developer of a huge corporation (well, huge in the gaming industry anyway), we got to learn how to use PageMaker, we built a website, we had our own GenCon booth, we dealt with over-stock, distributors, and all kinds of wacky stuff.
None of the original members who worked on Ember Twilight are happy with it now. And we sunk a ton of money on it. But now that I’m working on Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Standoff, I realize just how much those experiences meant to me and how much they will help me get these games out the door. So why am I telling you this? Because I want to encourage you and warn you at the same time.
Encouragement: Don’t wait for your game to be “perfect.” It won’t be. Get it complete, play test it, then publish it. There is no need to obsess for years over your design. Hit it hard, get it finished, and then get it out there. See what happens, and learn from your experience. There really isn’t any better way to learn how to write and publish an RPG than to do it. You’ll get your nose bloody for sure, but that’s okay. It will make you tougher the next time. Don't lose out on an opportunity to get this experience because you don't think your game is"worthy" to be published. 'Cause it is.
Warning: Don’t sink a ton of money in your first design. Let it grow at its own pace. Selling your game through online companies like RPGNow, Drivethru RPG, or Lulu is a great way to start. Thinking you’re going to succeed with a “multi-tiered marketing and distribution strategy…” is the road to heartache. Start small and let the games you design grow at their own pace.
Go back and notice that I said “games” with an “s” at the end. Once your first design is done, start your second. You’ll be surprised how much easier the process is and how you’ll see where you have already learned and improved.
So let us see your crap! Publish your game with no fear. Then design another.
Peace,
-Troy
Yes! And I say yes because we really don’t have much of a choice. What??? You may ask. Well, I’m going to be blunt with you guys because A) sugar coating won’t do you any good, and B) I care about you enough to tell the truth: Your first game is gonna be crappy. More than likely, your second and third game will be too.
Your first try won’t turn out like you had hoped. Trust me. I learned this from painful, PAINFUL experience. But you know what, I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything. Looking back on my first foray into game publishing, I realize how much I learned. It was awesome. We got to talk face to face with the product developer of a huge corporation (well, huge in the gaming industry anyway), we got to learn how to use PageMaker, we built a website, we had our own GenCon booth, we dealt with over-stock, distributors, and all kinds of wacky stuff.
None of the original members who worked on Ember Twilight are happy with it now. And we sunk a ton of money on it. But now that I’m working on Cutthroat, Hierarchy, and Standoff, I realize just how much those experiences meant to me and how much they will help me get these games out the door. So why am I telling you this? Because I want to encourage you and warn you at the same time.
Encouragement: Don’t wait for your game to be “perfect.” It won’t be. Get it complete, play test it, then publish it. There is no need to obsess for years over your design. Hit it hard, get it finished, and then get it out there. See what happens, and learn from your experience. There really isn’t any better way to learn how to write and publish an RPG than to do it. You’ll get your nose bloody for sure, but that’s okay. It will make you tougher the next time. Don't lose out on an opportunity to get this experience because you don't think your game is"worthy" to be published. 'Cause it is.
Warning: Don’t sink a ton of money in your first design. Let it grow at its own pace. Selling your game through online companies like RPGNow, Drivethru RPG, or Lulu is a great way to start. Thinking you’re going to succeed with a “multi-tiered marketing and distribution strategy…” is the road to heartache. Start small and let the games you design grow at their own pace.
Go back and notice that I said “games” with an “s” at the end. Once your first design is done, start your second. You’ll be surprised how much easier the process is and how you’ll see where you have already learned and improved.
So let us see your crap! Publish your game with no fear. Then design another.
Peace,
-Troy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)