For any that happen across this site, it's worth noting that real life has asserted itself. At this time I don't foresee any more posts being made here. The future however is hard to see, so no long term promises. Now and then a miracle does come along. I've shutdown the Age of Heroes offering at Lulu, the errata for that will continue to exist here.
This is all for the best as I've come to realize that the style of design I embrace and its goals have all be disappeared from the hobby. This in fact may be its last grave marker as it goes on to join other elements of a dying culture. Such is history, good things last but a short time.
For any friends I've met along the way, thanks. It was worthwhile.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Genre Simulation RPGs
It's clear to me that in any practical sense I play and design RPGs rather differently than... well just about everybody. This is due to how I approach the subject and isn't that hard to define, but its still worth a post making it a bit detailing it a bit.
The concept arises out of three core beliefs.
- I think realism is a definable and achievable goal in game design. That puts me at odds with most people in the modern gaming scene who feel completely differently- often for the simple reason that they'd feel that admitting such a thing would lessen the games they play themselves (because they almost without exception have serious flaws with respect to realism).
- I think simulation of genre is desirable and also achievable by a mix of game mechanics and what could be called meta-mechanics (more commonly called play style). This puts me at odds with everyone who identifies as Simulationist be it Threefold, GNS, or the more individual definitions I've encountered online.
- I believe this combination allows one to create (or recreate) their own fantasy or sci-fi epics, basically on par with modern film and literature themes, plots, and events (perhaps more a sad comment of the state of modern film and literature than a comment about how great the gaming style is)- and thus serves many of the more common 'story' goals people have expressed in the past.
In total it is in short a middle of the road style that uses sophisticated and rather complex rules to reach a perfect mix of realism, genre and story without stressing one to the point that the others break. This style was born in the 70s and remained common in the 80s although most attempts at game design for it was a failure (mostly of scaling).
It has however nearly completely faded from the scene over the last couple of decades for reasons that are IMO mostly cultural and irreversible. But I still design and play according to it, and have settled on the label 'Genre Simulation RPG' to describe it.
The concept arises out of three core beliefs.
- I think realism is a definable and achievable goal in game design. That puts me at odds with most people in the modern gaming scene who feel completely differently- often for the simple reason that they'd feel that admitting such a thing would lessen the games they play themselves (because they almost without exception have serious flaws with respect to realism).
- I think simulation of genre is desirable and also achievable by a mix of game mechanics and what could be called meta-mechanics (more commonly called play style). This puts me at odds with everyone who identifies as Simulationist be it Threefold, GNS, or the more individual definitions I've encountered online.
- I believe this combination allows one to create (or recreate) their own fantasy or sci-fi epics, basically on par with modern film and literature themes, plots, and events (perhaps more a sad comment of the state of modern film and literature than a comment about how great the gaming style is)- and thus serves many of the more common 'story' goals people have expressed in the past.
In total it is in short a middle of the road style that uses sophisticated and rather complex rules to reach a perfect mix of realism, genre and story without stressing one to the point that the others break. This style was born in the 70s and remained common in the 80s although most attempts at game design for it was a failure (mostly of scaling).
It has however nearly completely faded from the scene over the last couple of decades for reasons that are IMO mostly cultural and irreversible. But I still design and play according to it, and have settled on the label 'Genre Simulation RPG' to describe it.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey
Skipped The Hobbit movie in theaters due to word of mouth, but finally got around to watching it on blue ray this weekend. There was some cool scenes. Mostly the quiet stuff like everything with Galadriel. And Bilbo the morning after the Dwarves visit, one could read his mind as he wandered his home- with everything put back in place after the chaos of the previous evening.
But... when did Middle Earth become part of the Roadrunner Show? Falling down massive chasms without harm? Domino trees? And poor Radagast the Brown, not one of my favorite characters by far- but must he now be forever connected to bird droppings? It was almost a case of split personality, half the movie seemed set in Middle Earth. The other half was more Keystone Cops.
I remember in 2001 walking out of the theater thinking, "yes- we could do all that in games". And now, I'm thinking "no we can't, and we don't want to". What a difference a decade and fame can make in a director.
But... when did Middle Earth become part of the Roadrunner Show? Falling down massive chasms without harm? Domino trees? And poor Radagast the Brown, not one of my favorite characters by far- but must he now be forever connected to bird droppings? It was almost a case of split personality, half the movie seemed set in Middle Earth. The other half was more Keystone Cops.
I remember in 2001 walking out of the theater thinking, "yes- we could do all that in games". And now, I'm thinking "no we can't, and we don't want to". What a difference a decade and fame can make in a director.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Age of Heroes 5.0: 1 year old
So it's been a year (as of last month to be honest). I hit my expected sales nicely (i.e. they were all basically to myself and my groups past and present).
And no magic supplement yet, but to be fair it's been a 'busy' year for me and if anyone could have completed a project under those conditions they be impressive. But the year marker brings the chance to pick things up again and see where they go. The trip is always fun.
It also brings up the question as to when to update the Lulu copy with the errata that's been collecting. It's less than two nicely formatted pages, so I'm not really feeling the pressure yet. But I wonder at which point it should be done. A year ago I thought the one year mark would be perfect, but those couple of pages just don't seem like enough. Someday I'll make a decision, I don't think there's a hurry.
Meanwhile the Errata link over on the top left there now goes to a PDF file instead of a blog link. Easier to update and it allows one to download it to a table or print it out for reference.
And no magic supplement yet, but to be fair it's been a 'busy' year for me and if anyone could have completed a project under those conditions they be impressive. But the year marker brings the chance to pick things up again and see where they go. The trip is always fun.
It also brings up the question as to when to update the Lulu copy with the errata that's been collecting. It's less than two nicely formatted pages, so I'm not really feeling the pressure yet. But I wonder at which point it should be done. A year ago I thought the one year mark would be perfect, but those couple of pages just don't seem like enough. Someday I'll make a decision, I don't think there's a hurry.
Meanwhile the Errata link over on the top left there now goes to a PDF file instead of a blog link. Easier to update and it allows one to download it to a table or print it out for reference.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Mother May I Gaming
I'm not sure who coined the term 'Mother May I Gaming', but I've always considered it a apt one to describe what these days seem to be a very common type of play- one that removes objective information from the game and along with it the ability of the players to make decisions based upon that information. With respect to RPGs, the concept is at most basic an appeal to authority to grant something that the player by any normal gaming approach should be able to do for himself- but isn't allowed to. Or to do something the player isn't allowed to, but wants to anyway.
Time for some examples.
Example 1
Let's take a very common one from way back, AD&D (and 3.x) gave ranges for its spell effects right in the player guide- and thus would be information one would think the player could act upon. The rules also detailed movement rates. The traditional and objective method for keeping track of and using such details is a grid with miniatures although drawn maps and/or other types of markers could be (and often were) used. The important point is the that player using the information in the player's guide, the playing grid and the starting setup provided by the GM could completely and without the GM's input or permission determine if he was in spell range or not, he could also determine the effect from his movement on his own. And he could also predict (and thus take into account) the movement options of others (assuming he knew how fast they moved). That is, he had the tools to make tactical decisions on his own, one up to date with each passing action.
The GM has no input, other than making sure the player are using the rules correctly. A good section of the game was actually out of the GM's control and passed to the player.
However many GM's refuse to use a grid and miniatures, and instead just 'mentally keep track' of everything in his own head. In this case the player is forced to constantly ask the GM for information he should already have, such as "Am I within Magic Missile Range?".
This is Mother May I. It removes the player's access to direct information and the ability to act independently upon it- instead turning the game into one of asking the GM if this or that can be done. A GM that I might add that really isn't keeping a good objective model of what's really going on himself but is instead just estimating everything. There is no real certainity he's correct or even close in his decisions (except in the most simple cases- basically two dimensional hallway fights) and indeed it's highly likely he's inaccurate on the scale of the game as presented by the rules.
In general, the more rules are ignored (or not present) and the more objective information is moved to the GM instead of being displayed to the player, the greater the degree of Mother May I we see.
Example 2
Many GM's don't feel themselves limited by the rules, and make up new ones on the fly sometimes due to a player's request. For example in a game system too abstract to consider (i.e it doesn't have rules for) throwing dirt your opponents eyes, the GM will suddenly allow just that at the player's request.
Not only is this basically breaking the rules of the game (can you imagine an on the fly call at the Superbowel allowing a team to score a touchdown by first throwing the ball to a fan who then throws it to player?), it also makes the tactical situation on the board unpredicatable as in-game reality itself changes from moment to moment. Tactics isn't making stuff up, it's predicting the actions of your foe and taking the best option in response. When completely new actions can suddenly be created- prediction becomes impossible and tactics worthless.
Instead victory is to be had by finding a new method the GM will agree to. Again Mother May I.
Some groups are good with Mother May I, and games based around the concept are certainly easy to design or use- being but one step removed from children games such as Cops and Robbers. I however find it rather pointless, if I can't have objective information to act upon as a player- I have no desire to play. Watching a movie or a TV show gives me nearly the same degree of control, and are more fun besides.
Time for some examples.
Example 1
Let's take a very common one from way back, AD&D (and 3.x) gave ranges for its spell effects right in the player guide- and thus would be information one would think the player could act upon. The rules also detailed movement rates. The traditional and objective method for keeping track of and using such details is a grid with miniatures although drawn maps and/or other types of markers could be (and often were) used. The important point is the that player using the information in the player's guide, the playing grid and the starting setup provided by the GM could completely and without the GM's input or permission determine if he was in spell range or not, he could also determine the effect from his movement on his own. And he could also predict (and thus take into account) the movement options of others (assuming he knew how fast they moved). That is, he had the tools to make tactical decisions on his own, one up to date with each passing action.
The GM has no input, other than making sure the player are using the rules correctly. A good section of the game was actually out of the GM's control and passed to the player.
However many GM's refuse to use a grid and miniatures, and instead just 'mentally keep track' of everything in his own head. In this case the player is forced to constantly ask the GM for information he should already have, such as "Am I within Magic Missile Range?".
This is Mother May I. It removes the player's access to direct information and the ability to act independently upon it- instead turning the game into one of asking the GM if this or that can be done. A GM that I might add that really isn't keeping a good objective model of what's really going on himself but is instead just estimating everything. There is no real certainity he's correct or even close in his decisions (except in the most simple cases- basically two dimensional hallway fights) and indeed it's highly likely he's inaccurate on the scale of the game as presented by the rules.
In general, the more rules are ignored (or not present) and the more objective information is moved to the GM instead of being displayed to the player, the greater the degree of Mother May I we see.
Example 2
Many GM's don't feel themselves limited by the rules, and make up new ones on the fly sometimes due to a player's request. For example in a game system too abstract to consider (i.e it doesn't have rules for) throwing dirt your opponents eyes, the GM will suddenly allow just that at the player's request.
Not only is this basically breaking the rules of the game (can you imagine an on the fly call at the Superbowel allowing a team to score a touchdown by first throwing the ball to a fan who then throws it to player?), it also makes the tactical situation on the board unpredicatable as in-game reality itself changes from moment to moment. Tactics isn't making stuff up, it's predicting the actions of your foe and taking the best option in response. When completely new actions can suddenly be created- prediction becomes impossible and tactics worthless.
Instead victory is to be had by finding a new method the GM will agree to. Again Mother May I.
Some groups are good with Mother May I, and games based around the concept are certainly easy to design or use- being but one step removed from children games such as Cops and Robbers. I however find it rather pointless, if I can't have objective information to act upon as a player- I have no desire to play. Watching a movie or a TV show gives me nearly the same degree of control, and are more fun besides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
