Theory The Forge - Essays on RPG Theory 2023-07-29

[sharps54]

That said I appreciate designers as I do like games that are made for specific genres like Boot Hill, Top Secret and Barbarians of Lemuria. There is no doubt a lot of thought and theory went into designing them.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think theory is much more useful to a game designer than the average consumer whether they are the DM or a player.

Some types of theory, for sure. More useful for DM than Players too for sure. At the DM level a lot of games really don't do a good job explaining what is actually happening at the table when people play RPG games. Discussing that in different ways and from different points of view has made me a much better DM because I have a better grasp of what my job as DM is and how my job impacts and is supposed to impact play at the table. I will say that some games are better about this theory bit than games used to be, but overall most games still suck at explaining it.

 

[robertsconley]

Vincent Baker had a very clear theory set about how RPGs work

Which is?

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is?

He outlines it in a whole series of design posts on Lumply Games. I can't link to it right now because of my goofy work firewall, but it's there if you want to read it. Just google PbtA design Lumply and it should be the first or second result.

 

[robertsconley]

He outlines it in a whole series of design posts on Lumply Games. I can't link to it right now because of my goofy work firewall, but it's there if you want to read it. Just google PbtA design Lumply and it should be the first or second result.

Baker writes a lot of stuff. I guess you mean this then?

Powered by the Apocalypse, part 1 – lumpley games

lumpley.games

 

[Fenris-77]

Bakers writes a lot of stuff. I guess you mean this then?

Powered by the Apocalypse, part 1 – lumpley games

lumpley.games

Probably, like I said, I can't access Lumply Games at work to check. I'm almost sure that's the first article in the series though.

 

[thebigh]

What types of theory craft are valuable in your opinion?

I for one think mathematics is important. If you're designing a game involving rolling dice, it is handy to have a good knowledge of probability. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time balancing the game properly.

 

[Fenris-77]

I for one think mathematics is important. If you're designing a game involving rolling dice, it is handy to have a good knowledge of probability. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time balancing the game properly.

The design theory bit comes in when you have to figure out how to connect probabilities to your desired conflict resolution model. What does hard and easy mean in my game? What kind of conflicts are going to be core to the game I want? How much swing and how much modification do I want and what will that feel like on the player end? There are a lot of moving parts.

 

[robertsconley]

From here then

Powered by the Apocalypse, part 1 – lumpley games

lumpley.games

Vincent Baker pitches Apocalypse World as

Apocalypse World offers a powerful, flexible framework you can use to outline, draft, and potentially finish your own roleplaying games.

Then, he further claims that.

It's not a game system as such, it's an approach to game system design. It's easy, and it's a reliable way to get your creative vision quickly into a playable form.

I have to roll my eyes a bit at this because while the current (and the first version) RPG does talk about its general philosophy, it is pretty much focused in the same way most RPGs are written. An intro, what kind of character there are, a bit about the setting, and so on. It doesn't make these posts more or less useful as a theory or game design aide, but you definitely have to watch out for unnecessary hype and promotion.

1. Goal: Create a Playable Outline

This is the first step where he advocate an iterative design process.


While I am a fan of iterative design, I don't think talking about it first is helpful without establishing some context first. Namely, what is being designed and why. Skipping ahead to Part 2 for a second, this is better explained there but remains #1.

An Alternative
The focus of what we do is to pretend to be characters having adventures in some imagined setting. This is accomplished in a fun and interesting way by a back-and-forth conversation between a referee and one or more players. This conversation is structured in the following way

• The referee describes a situation or a setting of interest to the group
• If they like the setting or situation, the players create the characters they would like to adventure as. As well as the character's background.
• The referee describes the circumstances in which the players' characters find themselves.
• The players describe what they do as their characters.
• The referee then decides how successful the characters are.
• The referee then described the changed circumstances
• The last three steps are repeated until the session or campaign ends.

Now, notice I don't specifically describe how any of these steps are accomplished or at what level of detail they are handled. Nor do I state the exact meaning of what a referee or player is and how the process of adjudication actually works. What this does is establish the goal the design process is working towards. The definition of what these things mean and how they are accomplished during a session and a campaign of multiple sessions.

Is iteration going to be part of the design process? Yes, but the explanation should be put until later when folks have understood the central idea of why this is being done in the first place.

2. "An Approach to System Design"?

Here Baker states

What do I mean when I say that PbtA isn't a game system, it's an approach to system design?

Then gives examples

First we have the D&D approach to system design: races, classes, levels, hit points, you know the one.

Next we have the GURPS approach, which I guess was actually spearheaded by Champions: skill-based, point-buy, with an expansive description of your character's competencies in any number of situations, and a limited set of mechanisms for testing them for success and failure.

Not pictured is the Forge approach, which appears in several of my games pre-Apocalypse World: a more-or-less specified situation of conflict, freeform character traits, and a universal conflict resolution system.

Then he wraps it up with

PbtA isn't a system you can adapt to different genres, like GURPS, d20, Fate, One-Roll Engine. It's an approach, a framework, a vocabulary for designing new systems that work how you want them to work.

I am not impressed with this. What he mentions as examples of system design are lists of system mechanics for D&D, GURPS, and Forge (very generalized). I am getting the feel that he has a very weird definition of what is commonly meant by system design. In most computer science, engineering, and even game design, talking about system design is about describing a process to define elements of a system.

To be fair, Baker is trying to describe a process in these essays, which is good. But these examples are total nonsense as they are the end results of whatever design process Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Steve Jackson, and Forge authors were using to come up with these RPGs.

Furthermore, based on my experience with these types of conversations, this raises a red flag in that his view of what RPGs are about will be about the game being played rather than focusing on pretending to be a character having interesting adventures. But it is early in this essay series, so we will see where this goes.

Alternative
Earlier, I outlined how the way to make pretending to be characters having adventure fun and interesting. However, this is just a broad outline of what has to be done to run a session or campaign. These steps are insufficient for most hobbyists with limited time to prepare and play RPGs. To allow this to be fun and interesting within the time one has for a hobby. We need to give additional details for each of these steps, including how to create a setting quickly (or just define one outright) and a system that can be used to adjudicate what the players do as their characters quickly.

The process of defining how each step works will be created through an iterative process. This iterative process aims to zero in on what is fun and interesting. Along with the level of detail, each design element of the various steps should be handled. Also, the process may result in changes in the order of the steps. For example, the final version works better if characters are created first and the setting is described second.

This iterative process consists of

• initial design
• playtesting
• revision
• repeating the above two steps until that element is considered finished.

The biggest challenge of using this process will lie in your ability to listen to feedback. Then, incorporate it into your design. There will be tension between your (or the group's) initial creative vision and how it works in actual play. Sometimes, the initial creative vision is abandoned, and sometimes, it results in a more refined and interesting version of what you initially thought.

3. Apocalypse World's Philosophy

Baker starts out with

love this little picture.

Here we have a playgroup having a conversation. They're talking about fictional things – that's the roller coaster – and they're talking about real things – that's the ground and structure beneath it.

Then ends with

Apocalypse World's philosophy is: use the real things, the dice and stats and so on, to give momentum to the fictional things. The design is a roller coaster, with ascents, moments of suspense, dizzying drops, sudden curves, moments of terror, moments of exhilaration.

The game's real components do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways, but they're all in place to serve the excitement and momentum of the fictional action.

First, I have to ask, "What is momentum?". I am guessing

moments of suspense, dizzying drops, sudden curves, moments of terror, moments of exhilaration.

And then, he states what is going to impart this momentum.

The game's real components do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways, but they're all in place to serve the excitement and momentum of the fictional action.

The real components are the dice, the stats, etc. The game mechanics of the system will be part of the RPG.

To me, this means his philosophy is to bake in what the author considers suspenseful, sudden, terrifying, and exhilarating into how things are adjudicated with the system that will be in the final product.

Alternative

The point of undergoing this design process is to enable pretending to be a character having adventures in a fun and interesting way. The problem is, what is fun and interesting? One way is to create something like a book, film, or an RPG with care. Then, hope an audience finds it fun and interesting. Another way that works well for RPGs is to make something that allows a group to come up with something they find fun and interesting within the time they have for a hobby.

The rule system's role in this design process is to help the referee and the group figure out success or failure when the players say they do something as their character.

The process of finding out what is fun and interesting for the group is handled by how the design handles setting and character creation. In addition, creating support to help the referee or group figure out how circumstances change after characters attempt something.

4. Apocalypse World's Structure

Vincent Baker explains that

Apocalypse World is designed in concentric layers, like an onion.

Then later

A crucial feature of Apocalypse World's design is that these layers are designed to collapse gracefully inward:

My problem with this isn't about using this idea to design a system. The problem I have is using this idea to design an RPG. It leaps right away into the process of making rulings with game mechanics. Only cursorily giving consideration to what setting is being used, what interesting characters there are to play, and what situations may be interesting to adventure in. Reading ahead to the other parts where moves, conflicts, and playbooks are being discussed, the focus remains mostly on the mechanics.

Keep in mind that Vincent has stated that he talking about a design process for creating RPGs. That earlier in 2. Approach to System Design conflates the design elements of (D&D, GURPS, Forge) with the process of how they are designed.

Alternative
The goal here is to allow a group to play characters having adventures in a fun and interesting way. Mechanics are going to be important, but what determines what mechanics are needed will be the setting in which these adventures are taking place and the type of characters having adventures. So, those need to be defined first.

Since we are designing a system to help others to pretend in a fun and interesting way, we have to be careful about being too specific. The more specific our ideas are about settings and what type of characters there are, the more limited the usefulness of our final design will be to our target hobbyist. We want to get hobbyists most of the way there. Design things to the point so that preparation, setups, and play all fit the time and resources they have for a hobby.

To this end, the system should be laser-focused on the how, not the why. When it is about swinging a sword, sweet-talking a barmaid, or hacking a computer, an RPG system works best when it focuses on answering just the question of success or failure (or in between) when characters attempt these things. The why is left to the players and the referee to decide.

But to be clear, the players and referees won't be expected to come up with Why any of these things occur on their own. The final design should offer enough support to allow a group to figure out why these actions could occur within their time for a hobby. Helping them most of the way there but stopped short to allow them to figure out the exact type of situation, character, and setting they found interesting.

5. Apocalypse World's Systems

So Vincent Baker talks about core systems using ones he came up for AW as examples. But the heart of this section is found talking about these ideas.

1. They don't cycle in a circle like a windmill.
2. They work over different timeframes.
3. They work by a pretty strict principle.
4. As they cycle, they hand off to each other in a variety of ways.
5. They're consequential.
6. In sum, the game's rules, subsystems, and sub-subsystems work together to create a system of permissions and expectations.

For #3 They work by a pretty strict principle, Baker further explains that

Remember the roller coaster? The purpose of the real-world stuff is to keep the fictional stuff in motion. When a real cause has a fictional effect, that's what holds the roller coaster up. When a fictional cause has a real effect, that's what keeps the roller coaster from disconnecting, spinning off into insolidity

My counterpoint is that the purpose of the system is to answer what happens when a character attempts to do something, and that is all. Other parts of the design will help the group determine the consequences of what happened. That part could be more mechanics like the examples Baker gives. Or can it handled more by how the referee decides to roleplay the NPCs afterward? However, I feel using this as a crucial principle in the process of system design limits the possibilities the designer has.

As for #6 In sum, the game's rules, subsystems, and sub-subsystems work together to create a system of permissions and expectations.

Baker writes,

As a player, as the MC, here is what you're permitted to do, and here is what we expect you to do.

Knowing what you're allowed to do, and what you're expected to do, lets you act with your feet under you.

To be clear, the "we expect" here is the author of the RPG, not necessarily Baker in this case, but whoever is using what he wrote as their design process. The counterpoint is that design should only go so far and let the group, the players, and the referee, decide what is permitted and what the expectations are not the system.

Alternative
I haven't addressed designing a system in the process I have been outlining so far.

The system focuses on figuring out what happens when a character attempts something. However, there are several elements to consider when designing mechanics. Some of which Baker does touch on in his essay.

The attributes and mechanics of characters are defined. Characters could be any being in the setting, including robots, plants, etc.
The attributes and mechanics of stuff that characters can use or impact them. Like gear or things in the environment like Blackmarsh's viz.
A list of things that different types of characters can do.

This is a bit of an iterative process, as mentioned earlier. It is best to start out small and then gradually add elements as the initial issues are worked out. Broadly speaking, the focus is making sure that the common things that are expected to happen are covered by the mechanics. One of the big decisions that will have to be made is how detailed you want the design to be to figure out success, failure, and in-between. The mechanical description of characters, stuff, and the environment will be important factors in determining the odds of success when things are attempted.

6. "Accidents" of the System

Here Vicent Baker talks about design elements he feel are specific to AW as a specific RPG and stress that other RPG created using his design process may not include them for various reasons.

Alternative
Earlier I mention support to help a group finding a fun and interesting situation or characters with the design. This support could be in the form of advice or some written coaching. More than a few times there could be mechanics that help with this like adding a lifepath subystem to the mechanics of character creation.

Also mentioned is support for figuring out the consquences after figuring out success or failure. Again this couple be advice or coaching. But also mini-games and subsystem could be used to great effect. Especially if we talking about what we call in sandbox campaign the World in Motion. So having something that support how cyberpunk corporations develop over time may be useful, system to resolve mass battles, or the social dynamics of a cotillion.

As Baker said most of these will feel like "Accidents" of the design, resulting from it particular focus and how the author engineering the design to handle various elements.

Wrapping it Up

So Fenris-77 offered Baker's articles as something related to Theory that not about the Forge. These are my comments and criticisms combined with my thoughts on theory.

I hope some of this useful.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, Baker's stuff is somewhat peripherally Forge related since he was in the thick of things there when it was happening place and the development in his thinking on game design between Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World was shaped to some extent by those interactions.

That's a very thorough and fair write-up Rob, and I'm sure people will find it informative. I'm not going to point-by-point reply because I don't have a lot ot add, but I do have a couple of comments.

So first:

To be fair, Baker is trying to describe a process in these essays, which is good. But these examples are total nonsense

We don't have access to a full and coherent account of the process for any of the examples, so the best that can be done to try and divine the process and intent from the finished product (and perhaps what historical materials we might find). I don't think that's nonsense.

My problem with this isn't about using this idea to design a system. The problem I have is using this idea to design an RPG. It leaps right away into the process of making rulings with game mechanics. Only cursorily giving consideration to what setting is being used, what interesting characters there are to play, and what situations may be interesting to adventure in. Reading ahead to the other parts where moves, conflicts, and playbooks are being discussed, the focus remains mostly on the mechanics

The system begins to reflect the setting once you begin choosing what conflicts to target and how to define the conversation about that conflict via moves. The agenda gives you purpose and direction, so it's central, then the mechanics (the moves and dice) give shape to what conflict will matter and how it will be handled by the players. This is where Baker is concerned about setting. I think he's correctly identifying the idea that setting generally isn't as important to an RPG as the conflict resolution system is. Depending on how and when a character has to roll (i.e. introduce fortune) into his interaction with the setting changes how that setting feels and seems. The same setting with two different systems will not feel the same at all - for example, you could run Faerun with Dungeon World or with Mythras, and both would do that job well, but they certainly won't feel the same at the table.

And finally,

My counterpoint is that the purpose of the system is to answer what happens when a character attempts to do something, and that is all. Other parts of the design will help the group determine the consequences of what happened. That part could be more mechanics like the examples Baker gives. Or can it handled more by how the referee decides to roleplay the NPCs afterward? However, I feel using this as a crucial principle in the process of system design limits the possibilities the designer has.

This is a very common piece of commentary on the PbtA engine. I think what Baker is getting at with the rollercoaster metaphor there is that he is indexing one of the reasons that RPGs are awesome. When the mechanics and game play create real tension and anticipation in the players then things are probably going really well at the table. So yes, the mechanics are ostensibly about adjudicating PC actions, but their broader impact on play goes beyond just that. One example would be that systems where the chances of success seem to be lower than they should be and 'competent' PCs struggle to seem competent will quite often fail to create enthusiasm and engagement with players. In much the same way a system where things are to easy will also probably fail to engage the players. Thus the idea that adjudication mechanics have a purpose beyond the simple math of adjudication doesn't seem so odd, at ;east to me. Obviously a skilled GM build player engagement as well, that role is crucial, but the mechanics have a part to play as well, which means that the design of a game should account for that fact.

 

[xanther]

The design theory bit comes in when you have to figure out how to connect probabilities to your desired conflict resolution model. What does hard and easy mean in my game? What kind of conflicts are going to be core to the game I want? How much swing and how much modification do I want and what will that feel like on the player end? There are a lot of moving parts.

Knowing probability and probabilities can give one a big head start here, but the key to understanding all of the above is play test, play test, play test; then really stress test it, then test it against the whole dynamic range of character power you seek to emulate.

So many things look good on paper, and pass a few rounds of simple play (or worse yet pass play with people that play it the designer's certain pre-conceived way), but fail in the wild of for other styles of play, more creative situation solvers, higher levels of character power etc.

Failing for other styles of play isn't necessarily bad, but good to know and to let people know.

Or you could just tell people to fudge the dice or give out often a lot of "do what you want points" so you don't need to worry if the rules and rolls fail to convey what you desire.

Ohhh I forgot the other old standby is to tell people they must not understand and are playing it wrong as the rules as written are complete and perfect as written.

 

[xanther]

...The system begins to reflect the setting once you begin choosing what conflicts to target and how to define the conversation about that conflict via moves. The agenda gives you purpose and direction, so it's central, then the mechanics (the moves and dice) give shape to what conflict will matter and how it will be handled by the players. This is where Baker is concerned about setting. I think he's correctly identifying the idea that setting generally isn't as important to an RPG as the conflict resolution system is. Depending on how and when a character has to roll (i.e. introduce fortune) into his interaction with the setting changes how that setting feels and seems. The same setting with two different systems will not feel the same at all - for example, you could run Faerun with Dungeon World or with Mythras, and both would do that job well, but they certainly won't feel the same at the table.

....This is a very common piece of commentary on the PbtA engine. I think what Baker is getting at with the rollercoaster metaphor there is that he is indexing one of the reasons that RPGs are awesome. When the mechanics and game play create real tension and anticipation in the players then things are probably going really well at the table. So yes, the mechanics are ostensibly about adjudicating PC actions, but their broader impact on play goes beyond just that. One example would be that systems where the chances of success seem to be lower than they should be and 'competent' PCs struggle to seem competent will quite often fail to create enthusiasm and engagement with players. In much the same way a system where things are to easy will also probably fail to engage the players. Thus the idea that adjudication mechanics have a purpose beyond the simple math of adjudication doesn't seem so odd, at ;east to me. Obviously a skilled GM build player engagement as well, that role is crucial, but the mechanics have a part to play as well, which means that the design of a game should account for that fact.

I couldn't agree with the above more. I say in short, your system/game mechanics should not have a disconnect with reasonable genre expectations.*
So you don't need vehicle combat rules for a fantasy RPG, but if you want to do Mad Max, you certainly better.
More so I would say, good rules can make it easier, or much harder, to achieve real tension and anticipation.**

All that is simple to say, and should be a cornerstone in any game designers process. The difficulty is always in achieving it. I see three things that arise most often that irk me (1) the rules constrain the setting, in that the natural consequence of the rules is a setting that is at odds with the genre or relevant real world parallels; (2) probabilities are all over the place where things are ridiculously easy or hard compared to their parallel in the real world that is not required by the genre; (3) pacing, the speed of use of your rules compared to the situation they intend to resolve, being too slow or too fast can kill tension and anticipation depending on the situation.


* With the caveat that D&D seems to have become a whole genre of it's own, distinct from the wargame and sword & sorcery genre that inspired it. In that people balk if things don't play like D&D because they don't care about the game being able to bring to life and emulate the inspirational genre.

**I've come to believe that no matter what people say, in their actions there are more than enough players that do not want real tension and anticipation, or even referees for that matter, they (in essence) want a guaranteed outcome, their power fantasy fulfilled no matter what. Their characters need to face no real threat or failure, as not getting your way sucks, and the same applies to a referees end of the game.

 

[robertsconley]

That's a very thorough and fair write-up Rob, and I'm sure people will find it informative. I'm not going to point-by-point reply because I don't have a lot ot add, but I do have a couple of comments.

Appreciate the compliment.

Well, Baker's stuff is somewhat peripherally Forge related since he was in the thick of things there when it was happening place and the development in his thinking on game design between Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World was shaped to some extent by those interactions.

He addresses that in his essay

Not pictured is the Forge approach, which appears in several of my games pre-Apocalypse World: a more-or-less specified situation of conflict, freeform character traits, and a universal conflict resolution system.

PbtA represents an approach to RPG design as broad as any of these. Choose two given PbtA games, and you shouldn't expect them to be any more similar than two point-buy games or two Forge games.

Which I take as "I tried the Forge stuff, but now I am doing something different than my own approach."

We don't have access to a full and coherent account of the process for any of the examples, so the best that can be done to try and divine the process and intent from the finished product (and perhaps what historical materials we might find). I don't think that's nonsense.

Actually, we do. The development of D&D has been the subject of serious academic research in works like Peterson's Playing at the World. Steve Jackson has written numerous design notes, a wargaming tradition that SJ considers himself part of, about Melee/Wizard, the Fantasy Trip, and GURPS. Of course, the Forge has extensive forum archives that can be looked at to understand the Forge design process.

Also, Peterson's Playing at the World is slated to get a new edition this summer. So this stuff isn't mysterious and was available to Baker by the time he wrote this essay in 2019. I feel my criticism of his failure to distinguish the result of a design from the process itself is valid.

The system begins to reflect the setting once you begin choosing what conflicts to target and how to define the conversation about that conflict via moves.

Assuming the designer opts to handle conflicts via the use of game mechanics, i.e., the system. The alternative to handling conflict with mechanics is roleplaying. The system is limited to resolving specific actions, such as persuasion checks. The outcome of many types of conflicts can be influenced by how persuasive characters are. However, the exact method and timing of when persuasion is used is left up to the group and how they choose to roleplay the situation.

When the entire conflict is handled by mechanics, then the possibilities become more limited as the designer's assumptions about how things "ought to go" get baked in. There are upsides as well, such as making the RPG more approachable to folks who know little about the genre and want to give it a try. Or quicker resolution. Or, in some cases, the subsystem itself is an interesting and fun game.

One source of my criticism of Baker is that his approach leads to most everything being handled by mechanics. That the initial (and later) posts are all about the mechanics and very little about the roleplaying side of things or how it all ties back to playing characters having adventures. Both of which remain big parts of PbtA-style RPGs.

The agenda gives you purpose and direction, so it's central, then the mechanics (the moves and dice) give shape to what conflict will matter and how it will be handled by the players. This is where Baker is concerned about setting.

And when the campaign leads the players or the referee to conclude that the conflict or agenda is something else I don't see Baker's approach helping much with that. Remember the point of RPGs is to pretend to be characters having adventures. While it may be only a virtual life, it does share one crucial aspect with real life in that people's priorities change over time and as circumstances change. If the system of an RPG has a limited idea of what the conflicts are and how they can be resolved, then when that group's priorities change, then a system designed using Baker's approach starts to fight against what they want to do.

But on the other hand what I said is not relevant when the group wants to play a group of specific characters having a specific adventure for a short amount of time. Plus, they want to get up to speed quickly in the limited time they have to play. In which case, my process will broadly lead to the same outcome as Baker's approach. The difference is that it is a deliberate decision to go that route using my process, while Baker doesn't even discuss it at all.

I think he's correctly identifying the idea that setting generally isn't as important to an RPG as the conflict resolution system is.

Many hobbyists don't feel the same way as you, including myself. It would be a mistake for any RPG design process to decide that roleplaying, conflict resolution systems, ad-hoc rulings, and detailed simulations are THE solution. A good RPG design process allows you to figure out the exact mix that works for your creative idea and for your target audience. Sometimes this means putting conflict resolution systems at the forefront. Sometimes, it means that detailed simulations are the answer. In my experience, the answer is often a judicious mix of a variety of techniques.

In 35 years of designing complex systems for metal-cutting machines, if there is one thing I learned, it is that if you assume that one approach is the answer before doing the homework, then you are already down the wrong path to a solution that works for the customer you are trying to help or sell too. In this respect RPG system design is no different.

Depending on how and when a character has to roll (i.e. introduce fortune) into his interaction with the setting changes how that setting feels and seems. The same setting with two different systems will not feel the same at all - for example, you could run Faerun with Dungeon World or with Mythras, and both would do that job well, but they certainly won't feel the same at the table.

On the one hand, you are right. It doesn't feel the same. In GURPS, you have defenses, different styles of attacks, hit locations, and various skills that are improved in different ways that cover different ways of persuading people. In OD&D, that is considerably different with a single to-hit roll, the reliance on player ability, and perhaps a morale check or two.


But on the other hand, when it comes to the central focus of what it is we are doing here, pretending to be characters having adventures, then there is no difference at all. I have found through decades of actual play players playing similar types of characters in similar circumstances will roleplay in similar ways, leading to similar outcomes to the campaigns. This works because most RPG systems are grounded in how life works for human beings. So, switching from AD&D 1e to Toon would not have worked out well. Switching to Fantasy HERO, GURPS, Runequest, Fantasy AGE, and a half dozen other systems all worked because, at their core, they grounded in how things work in life. So while there are differences, as you mentioned, they have surprisingly little impact on the outcome of the campaign.

However, switching to a system made using Baker's design process would result in similar issues to switching to Toon. The issue with Toon is that its mechanics assume a very different reality from real life. The issue with Baker's design process, is what I mentioned earlier, is that the author's assumption gets baked into the conflict resolution mechanics, which are high-level enough that it impacts how characters are roleplaying. So when presented with a similar set of circumstances, the players will act differently, and the range of outcomes will be different as well.

Which again is fine if that is what the designer is going for. But as a focus, it makes the design process more limited.

This is a very common piece of commentary on the PbtA engine. I think what Baker is getting at with the rollercoaster metaphor there is that he is indexing one of the reasons that RPGs are awesome. When the mechanics and game play create real tension and anticipation in the players then things are probably going really well at the table. So yes, the mechanics are ostensibly about adjudicating PC actions, but their broader impact on play goes beyond just that.

Again, the system is just one element of an RPG. My design process envisions RPGs as something more than just a set of rules. If handling everything via mechanics is what the designer thinks best, then so be it. However, to advocate it as the focus of a design process is limiting. Baker, in his series of posts, continuously stresses at certain points that the process he outlines may well result in an RPG that differs a lot from PbtA. And I agree when it comes to the mechanics. But I am also critical of the fact he only focuses on the mechanics thus cutting out proven alternatives for RPG design. And for baking into his design process the assumption that game mechanics are the solutions for everything that an RPG needs to address in order to be useful.

One example would be that systems where the chances of success seem to be lower than they should be and 'competent' PCs struggle to seem competent will quite often fail to create enthusiasm and engagement with players.

It the D&D problem. What the D&D problem? Well D&D's original sin is that its 1974 release was written for a specific audience and their assumptions. Sure, Gygax thought it would be successful, but within the early 70s wargaming community had a set of shared assumptions. But as we know, D&D exploded beyond to other groups who didn't share those assumptions and have been playing catch up ever since.

And a lot of RPGs fail to set their assumptions. Why did the authors choose to do what they did? After digging into it, I found it is rare that the author baked something into their system "just because". There is generally always a reason that makes sense to them. But if they don't share that reason in one form or another, then often it leads the reader scratching their head.

I would be willing to bet that the case with the system you described above.

Thus the idea that adjudication mechanics have a purpose beyond the simple math of adjudication doesn't seem so odd, at ;east to me. Obviously a skilled GM build player engagement as well, that role is crucial, but the mechanics have a part to play as well, which means that the design of a game should account for that fact.

I disagree resolving what the characters attempt to do is the simple math of adjudication. There are a lot of factors to consider as a designer. For one thing, figure out whether the mechanics work with the expectations and assumptions of the target audience. How easy it is to learn is another reason why designing mechanics as part of a system rather than isolated bits is better for designing RPGs.

I think characterizing the simple math of adjudication is a myopic view of this part of the design process. In my experience, there is no difference in the amount of creativity, playtesting, and careful consideration that a designer has to do with either approach. Last, I addressed how larger conflicts within a setting, genre or situation can be handled.

Earlier I mention support to help a group finding a fun and interesting situation or characters with the design. This support could be in the form of advice or some written coaching. More than a few times there could be mechanics that help with this like adding a lifepath subystem to the mechanics of character creation.

Also mentioned is support for figuring out the consquences after figuring out success or failure. Again this couple be advice or coaching. But also mini-games and subsystem could be used to great effect. Especially if we talking about what we call in sandbox campaign the World in Motion. So having something that support how cyberpunk corporations develop over time may be useful, system to resolve mass battles, or the social dynamics of a cotillion.

Where I differ from Baker is not making mechanics the first choice every time.

 

[Fenris-77]

The alternative to handling conflict with mechanics is roleplaying.

Indeed, and that's why a move isn't always triggered but is at the GMs discretion. What Baker is really getting at when he talks about conflict isn't just the mechanics but conflict resolution as a defining element of play at the table.

Many hobbyists don't feel the same way as you, including myself. It would be a mistake for any RPG design process to decide that roleplaying, conflict resolution systems, ad-hoc rulings, and detailed simulations are THE solution.

Who's talking about 'the' solution? AW is just Baker's solution. You and I will have our own, as will everyone else. Different games lean into this in different ways and players have different interests and wants. That's why it's good that there are so many different games!

But on the other hand, when it comes to the central focus of what it is we are doing here, pretending to be characters having adventures, then there is no difference at all. I have found through decades of actual play players playing similar types of characters in similar circumstances will roleplay in similar ways, leading to similar outcomes to the campaigns. This works because most RPG systems are grounded in how life works for human beings. So, switching from AD&D 1e to Toon would not have worked out well. Switching to Fantasy HERO, GURPS, Runequest, Fantasy AGE, and a half dozen other systems all worked because, at their core, they grounded in how things work in life. So while there are differences, as you mentioned, they have surprisingly little impact on the outcome of the campaign.

However, switching to a system made using Baker's design process would result in similar issues to switching to Toon.

Yeah, it's really not though. Toon is a super extreme example. I don't think you're crediting the example with enough nuance. The Faerun example stands, IMO. I don't actually agree that "RPG systems are grounded in how life works for human beings" and would argue that they really aren't that at all in many cases, including old standards like D&D. I do think that the way you run and design games is focused that way mind you (and I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing). I've actually played Dungeon World and it isn't like switching to Toon at all either, so I'm not sure where that comparison is going. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I'm all for verisimilitude though, I just disagree that 'real life' is where all those expectations really flow from - I think genre and other media have a huge role to play there, but this is a difference you and I have been over before I think.

I disagree resolving what the characters attempt to do is the simple math of adjudication. There are a lot of factors to consider as a designer. For one thing, figure out whether the mechanics work with the expectations and assumptions of the target audience.

I was talking about exactly this - the greater impact on the target audience. So I don't see where your objection comes from.

In general I disagree that Baker is "making mechanics the first choice". I think that ignores almost everything he has to say about questioning, about player agendas, about setting building, and about what makes the game tick. Even in cases of in-game adjudication the mechanics aren't the first choice, just a choice, and one the GM has complete say over. I've played many, many, PbtA games and in general I find that the mechanics of the system sit very lightly on the game in actual play, something wouldn't seem to be obviously true if they were mechanics first.

 

[ffilz]

Theory is all crap. Actual play is where its at. The best bit of wisdom I have ever heard that can be applied to rpg play comes from Spinal Tap keyboardist Viv Savage. " Have a good time all the time."

I don't think all theory is crap, but I think it's good to be clear in one's own mind what any given theory is actually for. Is it an engineering manual to tell you how to "build" a game in the first place? How to litcrit them? As a "people who liked this game also liked [...]" buyer's/player's guide? I don't think The Forge was ever clear in its own mind which of those it wanted to be when it grew up, and if it was, it didn't successfully communicate that to others. Much like it failed to communicate a lot of things. In fact, one might wonder if its real "purpose" was like the Charismatic Wisdom skill in a certain RuneQuest cult format: a manner of speech that exists purely to define who's in the In Group, their status within, and who isn't. Or perhaps it just ended up like Douglas Adams' theory of the universe: someone accidentally understood it fully, at which instant it was immediately replaced by something else that was even more needlessly complex.

To be a bit fair to the Forge, Ron Edwards was pretty upfront that theory discussion occur in relation to actual play. Now some folks there did continuously spout theory not grounded in actual play. And then certainly Ron was constantly using poor choice in wording. And then I agree, the Forge didn't present a consistent message about it's purpose. One the one hand, it was about independent games (but Ron's definition that independent meant the creator(s) had full control of their creation). On the other hand, it was litcrit. And many other angles. And yea, I think it mostly served as a clique.

I appreciated the Forge as a forum to discuss gaming, and I'm glad I tried Dogs in the Vinyard and Burning Wheel and enjoyed them, and Burning Wheel still holds a spot in my hypothetical "RPG briefcase challenge." In the end though, I've returned to the games I played between 1977 and 1989 (even D&D). I've tried, and enjoyed a few other games from that era, but ultimately, I like those early games., whether they are coherent from an RPG theory point of view or not.

 

[Exploderwizard]

To be a bit fair to the Forge, Ron Edwards was pretty upfront that theory discussion occur in relation to actual play. Now some folks there did continuously spout theory not grounded in actual play. And then certainly Ron was constantly using poor choice in wording. And then I agree, the Forge didn't present a consistent message about it's purpose. One the one hand, it was about independent games (but Ron's definition that independent meant the creator(s) had full control of their creation). On the other hand, it was litcrit. And many other angles. And yea, I think it mostly served as a clique.

I appreciated the Forge as a forum to discuss gaming, and I'm glad I tried Dogs in the Vinyard and Burning Wheel and enjoyed them, and Burning Wheel still holds a spot in my hypothetical "RPG briefcase challenge." In the end though, I've returned to the games I played between 1977 and 1989 (even D&D). I've tried, and enjoyed a few other games from that era, but ultimately, I like those early games., whether they are coherent from an RPG theory point of view or not.

Coherent? The only metric that matters is are you having fun playing them. If the answer is yes then those games are doing their job as an entertainment medium. If not then the games are not fun and regardless of how perfect they are regarded in white room theory space they are not viable entertainment for you.

 

[robertsconley]

Coherent? The only metric that matters is are you having fun playing them. If the answer is yes then those games are doing their job as an entertainment medium. If not then the games are not fun and regardless of how perfect they are regarded in white room theory space they are not viable entertainment for you.

You are not paying attention to what I and others are saying in this thread about the importance of iteration through playtesting. An important part of the feedback one gathers doing this is how fun it was.

And yes if somebody offers a design process that doesn't incorporate iterative development through actual play then it is probably not worth anything.

 

[xanther]

Well there is how "coherent" was often used on the Forge and a more typical understanding of the term. It got to be a pretty loaded term.

IIRC correctly eventually in any discussion, you got to a point where a game could only be "coherent" if it followed one and only one of the GNS agendas. A game that attempted to do any two, and god forbid all three, to one degree or another was "incoherent". Being "incoherent" was never good on the Forge, and no such game could really be any good. If you (or even millions) expressed that they had a lot of fun with an "incoherent" game; read somewhere that was a sign of literal brain damage. So yikes!

I'll just say when I use the term coherent I use it in the sense of making sense.
A game that says roll 4d6 on a strength check but 1d12 and draw a card on a dexterity check, going to call that incoherent.
Another example, I'd say AD&D is coherent overall even though it is some unholy chimera of G, N and S, or maybe just G and S. What I find incoherent is how Ability scores are handled, specifically STR has a percentile attached to it and no other ability does. It is also incoherent in that you have an integer scale then you insert a percentile scale between 18 and 19 then go back to integer.
Not that is doesn't work for what it was meant to do, but a more coherent design would remove the need for STR to be sui generis, or conform the other abilities to the same scale.

 

[thebigh]

Yeah... that "brain damage" comment was in really bad taste.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah... that "brain damage" comment was in really bad taste.

I’m gonna jump in to say that it really wasn’t.

Was it hyperbole? Yeah. Did he double down on it? Yeah.

Was it anywhere near as bad as many claim? No. Was it worse than much of the things said by forum posters about Edwards, other designers, and games? Not even close.

It was a criticism. And the reason it stung so many people and seems to still today many years later, is because there’s some truth to it.

The Forge was far from perfect, but it’s a very interesting analysis of play and player goals. I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as hostile to certain game styles as many claim.

 

[thebigh]

I dunno. I suppose I see it as more hate and bitterness coming out of absolutely nowhere than you do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it was mostly an expression of frustration. I think it was negative, for sure. I don’t know if I’d say it was about hate.

I also don’t think it was ultimately productive, given its impact, and the frequency with which it’s used to dismiss a lot of the more reasoned things he said.

 

[robertsconley]

What I find incoherent is how Ability scores are handled, specifically STR has a percentile attached to it and no other ability does. It is also incoherent in that you have an integer scale then you insert a percentile scale between 18 and 19 then go back to integer.

Just for the record Hackmaster 4e fixed that. (Unlike current HM 5e, 4e was a AD&D 1.75e on steroids.)

 

[sharps54]

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn’t look back through all the pages, but here is a series on YouTube where Ron Edwards discusses revisiting AD&D and his thoughts.

 

[Alai]

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn’t look back through all the pages, but here is a series on YouTube where Ron Edwards discusses revisiting AD&D and his thoughts.

I haven't watched it yet, but from my experience of other Rontent, I wonder if there's a version available in English?

 

[sharps54]

If you want more Rontent…

 

[Fenris-77]

Rontent needs to be added to the Pub lexicon.

 

[DeadBob]

Having watched that other video, I’m now sure I would rather read Rontent than watch Rontent.

 

[Alai]

Having watched that other video, I’m now sure I would rather read Rontent than watch Rontent.

That'd be Rontext rather than Rontent, then!

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

reported this thread for abusive ronposting

 

[Fenris-77]

Are we having BadRonfun?

 

[robertsconley]

Having watched that other video, I’m now sure I would rather read Rontent than watch Rontent.

There is a utility called Vox Script on Chat GPT that can read transcript from Youtube videos. Here are the summaries.

GNS After 20 years
The video "GNS after 20 years | Ron Edwards" from the channel Polishing RPGs is part of a trilogy of podcasts featuring Ron Edwards. In this segment, Edwards critiques the use of overly complex terms in role-playing games, specifically addressing the GNS (Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism) and the Big Model. He argues that these terms, originally meant to describe goals of play, have been misused and oversimplified. The discussion also touches on the historical context of these models, tracing back to a Usenet discussion in the late 1990s which proposed that play goals significantly impact role-playing interactions.

Why do people play bad Games?
The video "Why do people play bad games? | Ron Edwards" from the channel Polishing RPGs is part of a trilogy discussing tabletop role-playing games (RPGs). Ron Edwards explores why people engage with games considered 'bad' by some. He begins by discussing the broad category of games as a social leisure activity, emphasizing that his focus is specifically on tabletop RPGs and not on other forms of games like digital or board games.

Edwards questions what constitutes a 'game' and 'people' in this context, aiming to understand the motivations behind engaging with RPGs. He notes that his remarks are centered on those who identify as hobbyist role-players, who are familiar with the gaming scene and its jargon, and are typically engaged in the gaming community.

Why are published games so bad?
The video titled "Why are most published games so bad? | Ron Edwards" on the Polishing RPGs YouTube channel features an in-depth podcast with Ron Edwards, a significant figure in the tabletop RPG community and co-founder of The Forge. In this podcast, Edwards discusses his journey from earning a PhD in zoology to becoming a pivotal game designer and thinker in the RPG world. He elaborates on the development of the GNS theory and the Big Model, which aim to frame the role-playing experience in a comprehensive way. The conversation also covers Edwards' distinction between role-playing games and storytelling games, describing the latter as more suited for screenwriters where players often adopt an author's or director's stance to create a story collaboratively.

If anybody want more details on any of these I can get ChatGPT to parse the transcripts so you don't have to sit through the entire video just to find a particular point.

 

[robertsconley]

For example this is the first couple of minutes of "Why are published games so bad"

---

Yeah, worldwide the term "role-playing" is primarily associated with sex play. [Music] Hello there, I'm Mache from my Polish YouTube channel Dobre. We focus on tabletop RPGs, or as I prefer to call them, tabletop narrative games, which will be relevant during this podcast. Some time ago, one of our patrons mentioned that Ron Edwards might be interested in doing a podcast with us, and it turned out to be true, so we proceeded with it. Welcome to all the English-speaking viewers, both from Poland and from other countries.

For those who may not know him, Ron Edwards earned a PhD in Zoology and then took the next logical step by self-publishing a tabletop RPG called Sorcerer. Subsequently, he co-founded an internet forum for game designers called The Forge in 2001. Through discussions, talks, posts, and essays on these forums, he developed the GNS theory in 2002. In 2003, he developed the Big Model, aiming to encompass the entire act of role-playing into a comprehensive model. Over the years, he wrote and published several RPGs including Elves, Trollbabe, Spione, It Was a Mutual Decision, Slay With Me, Shakida, and Circle of Hands. In 2017, he moved to Sweden where he now runs the company Adept Play. In 2019, he wrote Champions Now, and two years later, in 2021, he agreed to do a podcast with us just before he had to go and give classes on game design. Enjoy the interview.

In our email exchange, I used the term narrative games, which our channel discusses, and you mentioned wanting an explanation of what I mean by narrative games. Yes, I do, and I even have advice to help me record this. Basically, I myself, and maybe a few other people, have worked this out during one of our discussions on our Discord server. I've come to make a distinction between role-playing games and storytelling games.

Firstly, let me define what storytelling games are: these are games that cannot be played in an actor's stance. More generally, I think of them as games for screenwriters, where a group of people comes together to create a story, usually in an author's or director's stance. Prime Time Adventures, I believe, is a perfect example of what I would call a storytelling game. Powered by the Apocalypse games are mostly in this category, where people at the table usually think outside of the characters and come up with a story together.

One of the defining traits of storytelling games is the inability to play them in an actor's stance, which makes it harder to achieve higher degrees of immersion or to build mood and atmosphere, or even quick pacing. On the other hand, role-playing games allow for play entirely in an actor's stance, achieving higher degrees of immersion and mood.

This is not a very precise definition, but based on what I've seen and why I've come to distinguish between these two types of games, there are significant numbers of people, especially in Poland, who value immersion and atmosphere highly among many groups. Those players typically do not enjoy Powered by the Apocalypse games or Fate or Prime Time Adventures because they dislike being out of character.

It doesn't really work the other way around; people who enjoy Prime Time Adventures or PBTA games also often enjoy role-playing games like Warhammer and Dungeons & Dragons. For the most part, Dungeons & Dragons is considered an RPG, but there were enough people who didn't like storytelling games that I've come to distinguish them from RPGs. I call both RPGs and SDGs narrative games as a whole.

Lastly, it's very encouraging to me when people talk about narrative games, often as a subset of what you describe. I like to ask them, what role-playing game does not employ narrative as its primary medium? They all do, creating fiction—not for your literature teachers, okay, but as the medium we use to make up fictional events and discuss what Bob did and whether he hit Sally with the axe or not.

If we are talking about people and the medium is composed of listening, then listening is the primary activity. For listening to occur, there must not only be someone talking, but also someone else paying attention and treating what was said as the new normal for what they will say next. In this sense, the phrase "narrative" becomes redundant since either everything is narrative, or it's just a feature we don't need to highlight separately. What you've said about narrative now makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Alai]

If anybody want more details on any of these I can get ChatGPT to parse the transcripts so you don't have to sit through the entire video just to find a particular point.

That might be good, as I too would prefer Rontext to Rontent. Though my optimal form would be some sort of "too long, didn't Ron" summary that condenses and clarifies the key points -- where available -- from the... idiosyncratic means of expression.

 

[sharps54]

That might be good, as I too would prefer Rontext to Rontent. Though my optimal form would be some sort of "too long, didn't Ron" summary that condenses and clarifies the key points -- where available -- from the... idiosyncratic means of expression.

I listened to the third video while driving today, it was fine. He talked about history and some story games forum with a bunch of pretentious jerks and how a lot of people totally misinterpret what he wrote back in the day.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Watched 1st of the rontent vids and some of the rontext. Tbh I found he made better points in the video than what I've read from him, notably on the structural aspect of production/distribution


but


the guy is too meandering and (another poster put it well) idiosyncratic. If I understand correctly from what I've read he refuses to look too much into non-RPG focused game theory as well as "post modern" philosophy based on mostly biais (not read a convincing argument) and it hurts his communication because now he has to reinvent the wheel/do with depriving himself of useful words and analytical concept for no good reason. It leads to unclear logical chains, long tengencies, and me (and seemingly him too) getting lost in the weeds.

As a result after watching 1h45 of rontent and a half dozen rontexts I feel like I have only received a handful of ronphrases worth pondering. Endearing guy tho.

 

[Alai]

bunch of pretentious jerks and how a lot of people totally misinterpret what he wrote back in the day.

Well, no doubt. In fact, that was a lot of the problem even "back in the day". He'd write something that sounded potentially interesting, wander off into obscurantism, dogma, and ranty hyperbole -- "literally braindamaged" and shizzle -- then complain even more bad-temperedly about how he'd been "misinterpreted".

Because as everyone knows, if you fail to communicate your ideas successfully, the correct and classy thing to do is to blame everyone else for being idiots.

 

[sharps54]

Well, no doubt. In fact, that was a lot of the problem even "back in the day". He'd write something that sounded potentially interesting, wander off into obscurantism, dogma, and ranty hyperbole -- "literally braindamaged" and shizzle -- then complain even more bad-temperedly about how he'd been "misinterpreted".

Because as everyone knows, if you fail to communicate your ideas successfully, the correct and classy thing to do is to blame everyone else for being idiots.

He talked about people misinterpreting the brain damaged comment. He said reread the two posts where that was said, take it in the context he wrote it in, and then come to him with complaints.

He stands by his comments even if he agrees it wasn’t the best way to express it in the world of socially charged media

 

[DeadBob]

I liked the one summary:

Story games are games you can’t play in actor stance exclusively.

Works for me. ( Note, I like those)

 

[thebigh]

I think he likes to play "motte-and-bailey" a bit.