Spend enough time online and you'll see this subject come up now and then. I came across it most recently over at the RPG Blog II today.
My own view on this subject is very straight forward. After selecting a set of rules, and then modifying them to meet the group's needs- there is never a good reason to not play them as written. The very act of needing for whatever reason to alter them on the fly is proof that you've selected the wrong rules to begin with, or failed to modify them to suit your needs. In other words, you don't know what you're doing.
Perhaps I need to rephrase that last, while it's true that you may not know what you're doing (or at the very least failed to do it well)- it is perhaps even more likely that you're not willing to admit what you're doing. You say you want to play D&D, and perhaps most of the time you're happy with that- except when it doesn't agree with you and then you in effect cheat to get what you want.
Yes, cheat. That's when someone breaks the rules of a game to suit a desire of their own. Even if it's by agreement. A golfer who shaves strokes off his score with no more than a laugh from his buddies is still cheating. The difference between the golfer who does this and most gamers however is that the golfer is typically at least honest with his pals who heckle him for it but accept it.
Gamers just lie to themselves, saying it's a normal and accepted part of the hobby. And then get mad if someone like me calls them on it. They aren't man enough to admit what they're doing, to others and perhaps even to themselves.
The behavior is very childlike really. It's that greedy part of ourselves that demands things go our way. It's someone losing a bet who then refuses to pay up instead begging for 'the best two out of three'. It speaks ill of the person doing it, and it speaks ill of the hobby that it is commonly accepted.
What's interesting about this is that there are game systems that include mechanics that in practical terms give you anything you want. Don't like those, you can add subsystems to any game to achieve the same goal. Thus a person has to select a system that doesn't (and then refuse to modify it) in order to have the option to cheat. Which tells me that to these people- the act of cheating is more important to them then the playing of the game itself.
Or they can take the golfer's approach, and just admit that they cheat and laugh off the heckling they get for it. It has the advantage of at least being honest.
Showing posts with label Common RPG Questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common RPG Questions. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Common RPG Questions
Since I've started this blog, I've written number of series that drove rather deeply into specific subjects and in a way I consider those to be the highlights of this blog.
There are however a number of common questions that I see raised again and again. The answers for these are typically rather short and I've been debating how to approach them as a body of work. So far I've just done one-off posts. This then is an attempt to take advance of the tools a blog offers.
This will be a parent post that I'll link to on the right together with those to the more in-depth series. I'll update this entry with links to future posts that address common and basic questions about RPG design and usage I often see. Further I'll toss a label on it of Common RPG Questions so that feature can be directly used.
It will at least be useful to me, and we'll see how it goes. I'll add in few links to pass articles to kick it off
Complexity
Using the Rules as Written
There are however a number of common questions that I see raised again and again. The answers for these are typically rather short and I've been debating how to approach them as a body of work. So far I've just done one-off posts. This then is an attempt to take advance of the tools a blog offers.
This will be a parent post that I'll link to on the right together with those to the more in-depth series. I'll update this entry with links to future posts that address common and basic questions about RPG design and usage I often see. Further I'll toss a label on it of Common RPG Questions so that feature can be directly used.
It will at least be useful to me, and we'll see how it goes. I'll add in few links to pass articles to kick it off
Complexity
Using the Rules as Written
Monday, November 2, 2009
Musings on Complexity
So I've defined what complexity in game design is, how an individual selects what degree of complexity is best for them, and how a gaming group relates to complexity.
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.
1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.
I consider this to be highly doubtful.
Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.
There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.
Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.
2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.
I also consider this to be highly doubtful.
As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.
The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.
3) You can either role-play or roll-play
Often this is directed towards a specific game system.
This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.
Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.
Finally, a bit of reflection.
If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.
And this is actually the case in the market.
I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Groups and Complexity
Last time I spoke about how players in general will move towards a game whose complexity is high enough that the game isn't trivial, but low enough that they can be successful with it (however they define success). For the general market, that means complexity in game design will follow the common bell curve, with the most players running with the game that bests fits the top of that complexity bell curve and very easy/very complex systems found at the ends.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
But that's for the general market or an individual player. Groups have a somewhat different relationship with their rules.
While I'm sure there are groups where all the players are masters of their choice of system, IME these are quite rare. Very often only a few of the players have any significant mastery of the rules being used. The others have basic knowledge and it's not uncommon for groups to have one or more players whose gaming sessions consists of making choices- and leaving enacting those choices through the game mechanics up to other players ("ok, you want to attack that goblin- roll the 20 sided die...").
Under such conditions, the choice of game system (and its complexity) isn't an average of all the group members. Rather it's a choice of the most rule focused players in the group. Sometimes it may be selected solely by the GM.
The players making the choice may well be selecting a level of complexity too great for the rest of the group. In that case, expect them to often be seen aiding others in 'proper' tactical choices and mechanics usage up to and including character design. To me, this is the most common type of rpg group (the experience of others may differ).
Or they may select something too simple for their group, resulting in them moving much of their play to the meta-game levels (as per Layers of Design). Another option they have is pressing the group to move to another game system as they grow bored with the simple systems placed before them. If another too simple system is selected, the cycle will repeat.
A somewhat different version of the this last group, is the one where the rules aren't complex enough for *anybody* to last any length of time. Here, expect lots of movement from game system to game system- but it comes from the rule focused players instead of from the group as a whole.
Groups where everyone is on the same page are quite rare from what I can tell.
I don't consider any of these types of groups horrible*, but rather the natural result of a group of people with different abilities working together.
*Well, I do consider the group where the rules aren't complex enough for anyone to be horrible. The common reason for this is someone overthinking their rpg play, using 'Theory' over their real world gaming experiences to make their choices.
Or maybe they're just have a bad case of A.D.D.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Equilibrium of Complexity
RPGs run a wide range of mechanical complexity. Covering free-form styles (one could debate if these can be called rpgs at all) to games such as HERO System or GURPS.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Often a system may have a mechanical focus or rule section that is almost the reason for the existence of the game at all. Pendragon's virtues for example or Call of Cthulhu's Sanity system. These too run across the full range of complexity.
It is natural to assume therefore that players will seek greater complexity in those areas of interest to them. Most people think for example that players who enjoy combat will play games like D&D or GURPs and not say Resolute or RISUS.
That natural assumption however is completely wrong, as was shown by the WotC study I've quoted before on this blog. That study broke players down into four style groups (one of which focused on tactical combat), and found that number of players of each style does not vary by game system.
How can this be?
If I was the one paying for that study, I would have wanted to look deeper into that question. It does after all seem key. If any level of complexity nets you the same result, the clear answer is to make the easiest to produce games possible, i.e. those of low complexity. This in turn can be sold at a low price with the result of more sales, and likely at a better margin to boot.
However it's clear that the market leaders are games of significant complexity, while the simpler systems barely exist on the sale charts.
Again, how can this be?
I'd like to offer one possible suggestion.
Consider players of traditional games. Why do some people play checkers, while others play chess? Some card players are happy with Hearts, while others insist on Bridge or Poker.
Those games too run a range of complexity, and while there are some differences in style as a result of those differences in mechanics (poker includes betting and bluffing that Hearts generally doesn't), others are less clear (Chess and Checkers).
I'd like to assert that players will move towards a level of complexity that suits them. They will avoid those games that are too easy, for they will decide that they are a waste of time after quickly mastering them. In a similar manner they will avoid those that are too difficult, for it is just too much work.
When viewed in this manner, the clear market leaders would become those games that hit the sweet spot of being complex enough to hold the long term attention of most people.
This view explains a few things we see in the gaming market.
Why D&D holds more of it than simpler game systems, and more complex systems. Because it has hit that sweet spot and will hold the player's attention for the long term.
What is the advantage of holding a player's attention over the long term? Why expansions of course. You can get them into the stores before the players have moved on to something else.
Why do players of simple games tend to move from one game to another? Because while the premise of the game can hold their attention for a while, the game mechanics are likely too simple to hold it over and extended period. Thus these types of games don't see much in the way of expansions- both because a new game is as easy to make as an expansion, and because the players have already moved on before it can reach the shelves in any case.
Thus for a game designer, the result of creating simple systems should be obvious- small market response. The same would be true of creators of highly (i.e. above the sweet spot) complex systems. A true market success must first hit that sweet spot of complexity- before it will ever have a chance at major success.
Now I doubt this explains the whole of market share, as anyone experienced in the markets would know. There are other factors of course. But I think this one is significant, because unless it's met- the other factors won't matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
