Greg has in the past left me an impression that he is at his core... a game design new ager for the lack of a better term. Someone out to change the hobby with lofty dreams and 'new' ideas. Perhaps the natural result of a culture that wants to define everyone as special and talented- even if they aren't. However that is all first impressions and first impressions can be unfair. Besides, I recall baiting Greg before (I believe the subject was 'designing for women') and he responded calmly- that is worth points and respect. Few on the net are capable of an adult reaction to criticism.
So maybe Synapse is something special. Greg has earned the right in my mind to taken seriously, so let's do exactly that over the next few posts. I'll take Synapse apart and see if it does break any ground, and if it does- was that ground worth breaking?
First up- first impressions. The type of stuff that runs through your mind when you first open a gaming book on the shelf at the store and browse the book. Would I buy it or not?
Synapse is a 281 page PDF, with art that isn't outstanding art but good enough.
It opens with a all too typical section about "What is a RPG?". Nearly everyone that buys an RPG never reads that section. Frankly they're boring for the simple reason that the typical gamer already knows what an RPG is to them, and come hell or high water that's exactly what any game they pick up well be.
But it can be an interesting insight into the mind of the designer and here the 'intro' section takes up pages 4-15. Here's the first sentence:
"A roleplaying game (RPG) is played by a group of typically four to six people, usually around a table. The goal of the game is to tell an interesting, collaborative story and to have fun doing it. To tell the story, you use your imagination. There are no winners or losers because the game is about cooperation."
As is typical for RPG books, it's horrid. For one thing it tells me to use my imagination to reach the goal ( defined as 'collaborative story'), so right off the bat it's telling me I don't need this game- I could succeed without it using my own ability to create. Yes, nitpicking that, but it's there along with defining for ME what MY goal in a RPG MUST be and that part of it put me in a cranky enough mood to do nitpicking.
To be honest, most games screw up this section, so it's nothing new. But still disappointing. Often these sections have nothing to do with the actual rules and are pure boilerplate to increase the page count. So we'll see.
The most interesting section in the intro is on page 12. I always like understanding why the game was made in the first place. There are hundreds of games out there, with nothing really to set them apart other than perhaps setting which is always the least effective influence IME. So having something to tell me what is special about a game is very useful indeed.
What does Synapse have to say here?
"Synapse is a roleplaying game system where your character is conceptualized as a brain, not an entire person.... By contrast, in Synapse, all your attributes are mental. Your physical self is more like equipment than a part of your character."
So... that.. means... well... nothing. You could say the same about any game really. It's all in how you want to look at it. So my first reaction is that this is a way of pointing out a difference that really makes no difference. I sure it makes sense to the author, but I could have used something a bit more descriptive. Nothing that immediately follows makes it more clear- instead it mostly insults gamers and other games.
"The process exists this way because traditional RPG games are, when you examine them carefully, not as much about telling a story as much as they are about killing things and taking their stuff."
Massive turn off. My campaigns have not been *about* killing things and taking their stuff for decades. Nor is Synapse above this sort of thing as back on page 9 we read:
"Maybe your character is breaking up the thieves den because she wants to get her hands on some of the loot."
Hypocrisy, thou name is Synapse. Here the designer makes a mistake I seldom see outside of the likes of the Forge. Belief in the concept that a rpg campaign is defined solely by the rule set. This has never been true, and never will be true. RPG campaigns are defined by the players and how they choose to use the ruleset.
OK, enough with poor definitions and foolish claims. What appears to be the real goal of the design is stated on page 13:
"The character creation process is matched to the actual growth and development of real human beings in the real world."
A bit more reading and it seems clear that beyond the hyperbole, the actual goals of the system are roughly as follows:
- Define the mental side of characters in more detail using something like the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (it maps poorly to this model and I reference it only in that the concept seems similar).
- Refine this with a total 'lifepath' concept that generates your character in a method similar to the real world human development.
- Resolved character changes caused by play in a method similar to real world development.
So, here are the first impressions:
- The game takes itself too seriously
- It insults gamers, basically saying they are sociopaths who aren't role-playing or creating actual stories.
- It proclaims itself the one true way of.. not creating stories... but of creating brains.
- It's founded on a concept that I consider impossible for a playable game (modeling human development as opposed to a gaming character's development), or even if it were possible it would be undesirable (as nearly all humans are boring in what they develop into).
- It claims an end result for such modeling (great role-playing, great stories, etc) that are both unlikely and even contrary to the other.
Here I would put the game back on the shelf and walk out of the store (unless said store had different, more interesting new products to look at).
Next we'll see if Synapse achieves any of these goals, if it's the game the designer described, and if there's anything useful in it at all.
5 comments:
I've never heard of this Synapse thing, thanks for taking a look at it. Right off the bat from reading the game's site, particularly its Pitch section, it just lost my interest. I had much the same impression you write in your post – it's another FORGE-style thing that thinks it's objectively better than the dungeon crawl strawman conveniently representing every other RPG. It's getting tired.
I think it's a little better than that.
Yes it tosses out the dungeon crawl stawman which was a real disappointment.
But unlike most Forge style games, it's actually trying to model something. So I give it points for that.
I'm just not certain at the moment if it's something that should be modeled... and after that how effective it is. Still making up my mind.
I think it's a common trap that game designers fall into to write games from a "better-than" standpoint. After-all, if you didn't think you could do things better than anyone else, why would you be creating this thing? Unfortunately when it shows through in the writing it can be off-putting very fast. Insulting ones customers is bad.
Having said that, I'm kind-of intrigued by this mental-stats-only idea. Mostly because I think it's the most redundant aspect of an RPG. Mental stats are often pointless to model because in the end the smart player will act smart and the dumb one will be constantly making boneheaded mistakes. Not that I don't think that some mental stats have a place in RPG systems but as a designer I've always tried to engineer them in such a way that they don't replace role-playing as the primary way the player translates his interpretation of the character's knowledge and reasoning into the game.
It is a bit harsh, but the vibe it gives off when explaining its advantages over other systems really, really annoy me.
I've read a good chunk of the actual system now. Aside from its consistent assertions that really annoy me ("This game is about ROLEPLAYING not combat") and put me off, it feels kind of like if GURPS had been written by a psychology major. I don't think I'd use it though because I don't see its utility over GURPS or similar big, encompassing systems, except that it keeps telling me that it produces more fleshed-out characters than them.
I wish you had tossed me a trackback on this Gleichman. I had managed to somehow not notice it until now.
First, thanks for taking the time to post this, even if it is mostly negative. I do take all criticism seriously. And I look forward to part 2, assuming you were able to keep going.
Second, I find the multiple references to the Forge in both the post and the comments to be ironic considering I have never read anything on the Forge except for definitions of GSN theory and a few terms like Fantasy Heartbreaker. I have never played a modern Indie game either other than basic FATE, or read more than a few pages of those I managed to get PDF copies of. I am not interested in collaborative narrative at all either. Games like Prime Time Adventures just don't excite me at all. I tried a Fate/Fudge hybrid that my friend GMed for a little while and it just didnt work for me very well.
Let me know if there are any questions I can answer directly.
Post a Comment