Came across a blog post located here at the Omnipotent Eye (which isn't looking to be all that Omnipotent at the moment).
There's some good things there. Andreas realizes there's a problem, but flails around looking for some other reason than the one thing causing the disconnect in the first place- the idea that "rules reinforce and support a certain style of play".
Maybe that original idea is just wrong, or at best incomplete. Maybe someone should read my Layers of Design article :)
Posts
I want to be this guy when I grow up.
7 hours ago
26 comments:
You sir, have redefined conceited.
Your article was shit, BTW.
An Anonymous post with nothing but insults. Yep, that's the mark of a wise and well learned poster.
Lol. Obviously someone who disagrees :)
Regrettably, I have to agree with part of it. I enjoyed his writeup, and a link with an "I did it better" along with the opening barb is a bit...below you.
His article stressed a specific component of a specific game, and expressed his dislike of it. Is there something innately unintelligent about that?
I'll agree that it was a bit beneath me, but I've seen it so often and it's such a cause of foolish error that I can't treat it with any degree of respect any more.
As to what's innately unintelligent- Only the refusal to admit that his model of game design was in a error to such a degree that made it and everything that follows from it questionable at best.
To believe that "rules reinforce and support a certain style of play" is roughly the same as saying that the rules of baseball also control ticket prices, food vendors, family relationships, team support, and all the other factors that make up the experience of going to or playing in a baseball game. They don't, and one would have to be very narrow minded indeed to think that they do.
Rules only influence what they control, and that is always a subset of the total experience. Thus answers Andreas was looking for often can only be found outside those rules- and his firm belief in them needs to be significantly modified as style and reason for play is determined by so much more.
But those rules (and associated connections implied) are out of step.
It's not the rules of baseball that control those things, it's the rules governing our economic system. You have to step back as far as you can go (i.e. the game's core rules ARE the universe as seen by the players.)
The laws of supply and demand influence the rise and fall of whole nations, not to mention corporations and such.
4E is a perfect example. It still has all of the iconic monsters and other imagery, but the RULES it uses have driven people into frothing fits of rage.
In their view, they can't get "into" it because the universe (as defined by the rules) while familiar DOESN'T SUPPORT THE STYLE OF PLAY THEY DESIRE. Not yelling :) would have preferred bold.
That you can make some minor flavor tweaks here and there is all good, but things like healing surges are necessary in the game, and that makes some folks sick to their stomachs.
Would this not be an example of the rules dictating a style of play? The reason would be to play a fantasy game with orcs and elves, but each set of rules offers completely different options for experiencing that.
Economic laws affected some of it sure, what about team loyality? Family relationships? Just being out in the 'air'? All these have their own rules too- but they're not the rules of baseball and most you're won't find well defined in any book. An rpg ruleset is in effect 'just the rules' of baseball. Which is a good thing, as I wouldn't want it controlling if I liked my mother or not.
About your 4E example-
In short, yes it does (if the rules are followed, which is not always the case) define a style of play - *when* battling orcs and elves. Otherwise- not so much.
Next time you're playing, note how often you're actually invoking D&D's rules. And how often you're speaking in character, trying to figure out a riddle, taking in the GM's desciption, making a choice on something not covered or influenced by the rules (should we help NPC A or B?)and all the other elements that make up an rpg.
That varies from group to group, but since these are rpgs and not board or computer games- that split must by definition be present.
Let's say that you find a group somewhat like my own (rather heavily combat focused IMO)- and it's a 50/50 split. That means half the time, we're not using the game's rules at all, thus they fail to describe half of our campaign at least. I've know of groups where perhaps 10% of their game time is spent on things controlled by the rules (the rest is role-play, setting, etc).
Once you've seen that an rpg campaign is made up of such an array of parts- and that the actual game rules only make up one of the pieces, you can next ask which piece is the most important to any one group. And it may not be the rules.
To return to Andreas' CoC example, let's examine one possible multiple layer (i.e. more than the game rules) view of a campaign.
What if in one such a campaign the group's most important desire is the solving of a mystery? The rules may provide clues yes- but the puzzle must be put together by the players. Logic and insight are their choice of weapon, solving things on their own is their reward (and doing it with a die roll is a type of failure to their mind).
What would the Sanity rules represent to such a group?
Here SAN lose would represent the risks of approaching the mystery meaning that they pick at the edges of the puzzle- gaining clues and risking SAN as little as possible until and only until they solve the puzzle. The key from their PoV is to dig only deep enough to solve the mystery- and not more as they would lose too much.
SAN isn't they reason they play much like the score in baseball isn't by itself the reason many play- it's just a bound on how they *at times* play.
Such a group may spend nearly all the game looking at pullouts and quizzing witnesses. Yes this may result in a SAN check now and then- the risk of the game. But that's not the goal anymore than the risk of death in most rpgs mean that the goal is death. Instead SAN is something to manage and to 'beat'.
In the CoC games I played, rules were very seldom used- I think we hit that 10% or lower figure in fact.
In short as this example shows, the joy of the game is found elsewhere- outside the rules.
This is but one method of showing how a group may approach a game, and but one example showing that the rules of the may well not be the reason people are playing, and not defining of anything but a tiny amount of their total playing time.
One more point to make:
IME D&D groups tend to make much greater use of the rules, with some spending 80% or more of their time interfacing with them. Here the rules defining the style can almost be justified. But there's still that last 10-20%.
And that's why even D&D players don't agree all the time. It's why some players don't get along in some groups.
Something that if rules were the only thing that mattered- they would. But they don't- the 'styles' just in the end don't match.
I am unfortunately forced to be anonymous. But as someone who has worked in game design I must say that he is far closer to real game design than your layer's theory. CoC does encourage people not to play, that is why most gaming groups can't handle CoC. It relies heavily on the understanding for many groups that you will die and go insane if you do nothing, relying on a lose-lose scenario to motivate.
Now this doesn't apply to everyone, some enjoy it more as an experience than a game. This is how one would enjoy a movie differently than a video game.
But mechanics in a game, shape how it is played. If the players are playing as a game (to achieve "success") then the mechanics are everything to how it goes down. The rules of baseball very strong implications for how the team plays the game and what strategy they follow. This is not a half-assed internet theory, this is true of all games and entire doctorates are available on game theory (not in specific to RPG's). The only difference with RPG's is some people use them as a form of "collaborative storytelling", in which case you aren't playing a game, you are joint writing media. You aren't playing a character's role, you are using the character as a tool to make an interesting plot for you the viewer ("player").
I take it that your game design work isn't pen and paper- as you show some serious disconnects with how that hobby is structured with the very statement that "CoC does encourage people not to play".
That statement is false upon its face, you need to expand your viewpoint until you can account for what is in fact a rather popular and well thought of design.
I honestly don't get people who don't get Call of Cthulhu. There are monsters threatening the world. Someone must stop them, even though stopping monsters is dangerous. If you aren't that someone, then there is no game.
You might as well say that a smart player in a WWII game would never fight Nazis, because that way their PC won't get shot. I can stay home and not have adventures in real life, for Christ's sake.
@Jeff Rients: I think in this case it comes from overthinking game theory and insisting on sticking with it no matter what. If one must insist that rules drive everything, then one as a result is forced into confusion with CoC as they by themselves don't seem to drive anything but people away.
You would think that very result would cause a re-examination of their starting point, but it almost never happens.
Now what drives such a narrow and fixed mindset is IMO the real question.
I posted on your theory. I don't think you have a good insight into RPG design (IMHO) but I think you are intelligently spoken.
You might "hold more water" if you were more respectful and less pompous.
I would be interested in exploring your designs.
I think your baseball analogy is a bit of a straw man, injecting a lot more into Omnipotent Eye's assertion that rules define the style of play than can be reasonably supported by what he actually said. And I don't think that he "insists that rules drive everything."
SAN loss, as a game mechanic, *can* affect how people play the game without it being a fundamental change to the entire system and all that revolves around it, so the baseball analogy does not invalidate his point.
Game rules *do* affect how a game is played. This is demonstrable, even for this particular rule; you can test it yourself by simply asking your current non-CoC DM to add SAN loss as a mechanic to your current campaign. See what happens!
Also, I'm not sure that you're reading him right (although perhaps I'm not reading him right). The impression I get from a few re-reads is that he's aware that players don't actually shy away from investigations and delving into the dark secrets of the CoC setting merely because of a fear of SAN loss. I suspect that may be, in fact, central to the point he's trying to make.
I *think* what he's doing is pointing out the curious nature of SAN as a mechanic. It explicitly punishes you for doing that which the game is about: follow up on leads, read forbidden tomes, and hunt down monsters. From a character optimization standpoint, you'd think that would cause people to avoid those tasks, but they don't, as he acknowledges.
I *think* what he's getting at is exploring that apparent dichotomy. WHY do people still play the game the way they do when the rules punish them for it? It's an interesting question, but it doesn't nullify the thesis that rules affect gameplay; it merely demonstrates that the effect of rules on gameplay is not so cut-and-dried that it boils down to a mathematical optimization problem. There's more to it than that, and I think that's what Omnipotent Eye is trying to express (or at least explore) with his post.
Call of Cthulu is not a very popular game overall, despite the strong following of its mythos. And the reason is simple, its a game that goes against human reward mechanisms to play. It may be deep and interesting subject matter, but for most people they don't want to spend their free time playing it. Its not that they don't "get the concept" its that they think the concept is not fun to play.
And no, my experience is not in P&P RPG's. Which is my point. Alot of P&P developers have this idea that the medium is somehow special and unique and different. It is not. When played as a game (as most players do) it follows the same rules as every other game in the history of mankind. If played as collaborative story telling (rather than roleplaying, and no roleplaying is not story telling, roleplaying has a definition that is not confined to roleplaying games and is part of training and therapy) then it invokes the reward mechanisms that cause humans to create stories.
Its not a blend of meta and game. Its either triggering game behaviors or creativity behaviours. Bad group dynamics are what often happens when a group of two different types of players (one who want to game and one who want a story) mix and act like they are playing the same game.
RPG's are not special, Roleplaying Game Designers would do well to take the Astronomy Mindset. If you ever think something that makes your part of the playground (Earth, Our Solar System, Our Galaxy etc) is unique in the mix, assume you are wrong until you can irrevocably prove otherwise.
Its easy to develop myopia and assume the problems facing RPG's are due to their unique status. But its a comforting myth with no basis in reality.
@Trentin C Bergeron: So you determine how valid a theory by how respectful it's presented do you?
I take it then that the next time gravity insults you with injury after a fall that you'll claim gravity doesn't hold water as well.
Grow up, and learn to split your personal feeling from logic and reality. I'm not here to make people like you feel good.
@CC: I think you are trying to overplay my statements. I've stated that mechanics do matter- *when they are used*. I'm only saying that their use is but a subset of a complete rpg.
I could easily add the CoC SAN mechanic to any number of campaigns with little to no effect, for the simple reason that I as GM control when SAN rolls are and are not called for- and I also control when SAN points are and are not gained.
If my gaming goal is to ram them down the throat of the players so that they can't do anything without losing SAN points, I can. If my goal is just to treat them as window dressing for more interesting adventures, I can.
Since I'm generally more interesting in fun and interesting adventures than SAN mechanics, my CoC campaigns (I have ran and played in the game a number of times you know) bear little similarity to what Andreas describes.
In short, what you and Andreas claim is that people have no control over the use or their reaction to game mechanics. That if there's not a direct mechanic reward, we can't find our joy elsewhere. What a sad view of human ability you have.
Now if Andreas had simply said upfront that there's a problem with what I used to consider a fact (rules drive gaming style), I wouldn't have reacted as I did. Instead by my read he is hanging onto that opinion with both fists screaming into the night, much like our Anonymous poster here.
If he in truth accepts that there is far more to rpg design and play than simple mechanical rules, then I would think better of him.
@Anonymous: As someone with experience in a number of game designs- rpg and not, across more than three decades, you'll forgive me if I reject the opinion of an outsider who seems to have an emotional need to consider everything to be within his area of expertise even when he admits its something he's never done.
Your stance makes me think of you as someone involved in MMORPG work, I seen it produce the mindset you describe- although I know well that isn't always the case given outstanding examples like Richard Bartle.
In any event, this is very simple. Just examine the pure logic of the matter.
Andreas and yourself both claim the CoC provides no mechanical reason to play the game. I agree.
The only difference between us is that I say the reasons for play therefore must be something other than the given game mechanics. Thus the total rpg experience is far more than those mechanics.
You are the other are are shouting that your disagreement with the old cliche: "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Have fun with that.
Now I followed up on the trails in by visitor log and discovered this discussion! Fun! Glad to see there's more to this discussion still.
Like some of my readers have noted I wasn't saying that saying that I "insists that rules drive everything". That is to misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
I must take the blame for not expressing myself clearly (that's my epic fail!) so let me make a few points and then I'll address it in full in a follow up post on my blog.
1. The way the rules work tend to influence play.
2. CoC provides no mechanical reason to play the game
3. The SAN mechanic is what sets CoC apart, but it actually discourages investigation!
4. There are more than meets the eye with CoC
5. I love CoC, and am interested in design so I wonder what makes that game work, because it does!
So, I was basically engaging in a ongoing dialogue with myself about what can be taken away as a design lesson from CoC.
This is the core:
Also, I'm not sure that you're reading him right (although perhaps I'm not reading him right). The impression I get from a few re-reads is that he's aware that players don't actually shy away from investigations and delving into the dark secrets of the CoC setting merely because of a fear of SAN loss. I suspect that may be, in fact, central to the point he's trying to make.
Exactly.
Also, I might pitch in that I do agree that there is far more to rpg design and play than simple mechanical rules.
CC? Would you like to be my editor? You seem to understand me fairly well, even when I'm less than clear. :)
@Anonymous: "Call of Cthulu is not a very popular game overall...Its easy to develop myopia..."
Um, Call of Cthulhu is still being published, nearly 30 years after its release. It's seen seven or so editions, depending on how you count them, and according to the publications database, Chaosium alone has put out about 140 supplements, and the game is available in French, German, Japanese, Italian, Polish, and Spanish, if not other languages. At least 10 other companies have released licensed adventures for CoC, too - about 100 or so - so there's even a cottage industry around the game. You can find the rule books in brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes and Noble. The Amazon sales rank for the latest CoC version beats out both the current GURPS core rules, as well as the deluxe versions of the 4e D&D core rule books, and the Pathfinder adventures (although not the Pathfinder rulebook). None of the above happens for unpopular RPG's.
So it's ironic that you're accusing others of myopia. You might consider doing your research first, rather than assuming that because CoC is unpopular in your experience that it's true globally. CoC is one of the most popular RPG's in the hobby's brief history, and hinging your argument on its lack of popularity makes the exact opposite of your argument ring true for those who know a bit about the game's history.
@Gleichman: "I think you are trying to overplay my statements."
When Andreas disagreed with you, you characterized it as "hanging onto that opinion with both fists screaming into the night." No, I don't think I'm overplaying your statements.
@Gleichman: "In short, what you and Andreas claim is that...if there's not a direct mechanic reward, we can't find our joy elsewhere. What a sad view of human ability you have."
I made no such claim. In fact, I wonder if you even understood what I wrote when I said the SAN mechanic "demonstrates that the effect of rules on gameplay is not so cut-and-dried that it boils down to a mathematical optimization problem", since I was essentially *agreeing* with you there.
@Gleichman: "I could easily add the CoC SAN mechanic to any number of campaigns with little to no effect, for the simple reason that I as GM control when SAN rolls are and are not called for- and I also control when SAN points are and are not gained."
Well, then, you haven't really added it to the campaign, then, have you? Sure, if you never actually use a mechanic in your game, it will have limited effect. Touché.
Luckily, your statement reinforces the larger point I was trying to make, namely, that if you introduce something like CoC's SAN mechanic AND ACTUALLY USE IT THE WAY IT IS INTENDED (ahem), then it will, indeed, affect gameplay. By saying that you can control the degree to which there will be an effect by choosing how often to apply the rule, that's a tacit admission that the rule has an effect.
But I'm willing to go a step further and say that even if you don't ever call for a SAN roll in your campaign, I suspect you'd *still* see some small effect from the mere act of adding a "Sanity" score to your players' character sheets, at least until they realize you have no intention of ever using it.
For instance, say you had players in a new D&D campaign roll a d12 for their "starting sanity." By merely providing sanity as a measure, it invokes the specter that characters will be susceptible along that axis, and they'll be expecting sanity-draining events ahead. It will set a tone. It will imply something about the game world they're entering.
During play, players who rolled a 1 sanity may be skittish and cautious, or may find themselves distrusted by other party members, while normally cautious players may find themselves taking more risks if they rolled the highest sanity. Some players may seek to trigger the sanity rule, just to see how it works. Some players may take it as a roleplaying cue, having fun acting a bit off-kilter if they rolled low, which in turn would prompt reactions from other players.
Replace "sanity" with "piety" or "karma" and you'll likely see more discussions about moral action. Replace "sanity" with "rubber chicken juggling ability" and it sets a whimsical tone for the game instead of a sinister one. All this without even using the stat.
It's good that Andreas brought up the topic of the SAN mechanic, because understanding its effect on the CoC game gives insight into how game mechanics affect the shared game experience.
@Andreas: "CC? Would you like to be my editor? You seem to understand me fairly well, even when I'm less than clear. :)"
Heh. Thanks for the invite. But I have enough writing projects as it is that I shouldn't take on another. Keep blogging. You're clear enough, and you're trying to explore interesting design questions. Don't let a few misunderstandings dissuade you.
@Andreas Davour: Thanks for the stop over and sorry for not reading between the lines. Seems we have much more in common than not on this subject!
@CC: I think this comment by you "...namely, that if you introduce something like CoC's SAN mechanic AND ACTUALLY USE IT THE WAY IT IS INTENDED (ahem)" is very telling.
If I was such a person as to believe that is only one proper "THE WAY IT IS INTENDED" to play a game, and that one should always seek to find and do just that using only the rules as my guide- well, you and I would be in agreement.
But I find that to be a sad, depressing method of gaming. Unlike you I will not tie my dreams to mere words on a page written by someone I may never have met. I play rpgs for more and better reasons than that.
And unlike my viewpoint, which easily allows me to understand where you're coming from- your approach makes it impossible for you to understand others- for your only answer is that they are doing it wrong.
Thus you have no answer to Andreas original question as to way people play CC. You think they shouldn't and you're at a dead end.
Nor do you have an answer to why so many people playing the same game don't get along. For if rules determined style- they should.
Sad, dark and lonely is your world from what I can tell. I'm glad I'm not part of it.
@Gleichman: "Sad, dark and lonely is your world from what I can tell. I'm glad I'm not part of it."
...wow. Okay. Good luck on your blog.
@CC: Thanks for the good wishes. Sorry you seem surprised at my response.
Perhaps the next time you encounter someone you disagree with, you won't flail about half-illogical and then end up claiming they play their games wrong. It doesn't help your image, nor does it inspired respectful responses.
Forgive me for digging up an old post... :)
CoC is obviously not a game about winning. The indie game Polaris is like that, too. Both of these games have done quite well in their respective circles.
I'd be intrigued by a version of CoC in which players have to choose, on the meta-level, to "advance" their characters' madness in order to get to the next step of the story. By that I mean maybe it's impossible to save the day *unless* you go half-crazy first; conversely, your average Lovecraft story wouldn't go anywhere if the investigators didn't risk going mad.
One of the themes in Lovecraft's writings is "alien logic" or "alien mindsets" - people have to refit their minds to accommodate the insane, the non-Euclidean (best Lovecraft word ever!), and the inhuman. Going crazy is a side effect. Playing that angle would mean that you gain, like, Insight, which enables you and gives you agency; at the same time, you'd have to test your Constitution (in the Victorian sense of the word; a total-mind-body thing) to see what ravages are inflicted upon you by gaining Insight.
There should be some kind of upswing in response to going mad - even if it just means you write "now I know ghouls exist" on your character sheet. After all, that's the trajectory that the stories themselves take, isn't it?
This is the kind of thinking I was intending to induce by my first post! I like your ideas, Zac!
@Zac: I see that claim often made online, but frankly I think it's a minority viewpoint.
The modules published by the company can easily be won, nearly every group I've ever encountered win their adventures.
While I agree that one can always find the exception easily online- the vast majority of people don't play rpgs to lose, and this includes CoC.
And no, not all CoC stories (even those by Lovecraft) take the path you claim either. They run quite the range, from pure horror and failure to almost pulp like adventure.
Yowsa! There's some venom going around here - fightin' words and such... Oh well, in I go, impervious to the stings of the internet.
1. You guys all seem to agree that rules/systems do have an effect on gameplay. Or at least you agree that playing Vampire would be different from playing CoC, which would be different from playing D&D and so on and so forth. Why are you getting so cross with each other?
2. Gleichman is (quite aggressively) making the point that rules/system accounts for only a portion of the roleplaying experience. This is indeed true. Why are you so cross with each other?
@Gleichman - the reason that rules/systems keep coming up as a way of structuring player experience in game is that *they're the bit controlled by the game designer*. You can run a game of CoC where all the Cthulhu monsters have been replaced with giant cuddly teddy bears - Chaosium can't *stop* you. You could equally run a talk-heavy, ultra-angsty D&D game about necromancers struggling to come to terms with the hideous demands their magic makes of them. WotC... might actually be able to stop you... but enough of that!
My point is that, if you're so interested in the non-rules components of games, why bother designing anything other than scenarios for free-form LARPS, or theorising about rules and systems at all? If system doesn't influence play style (and play style is the element that decides whether or not you enjoy gaming with a group) why play any game rather than any other game?
3. Why are you all getting so angry with each other?
Wolfboy: I'm not so much anger as I am disgusted :)
Post a Comment