The Gaming Den

silva wrote:

Daniel wrote:How you play as a designer is more inportant, than the game you play... if your actual play mode is 90% Magical Tea Party, 9% basic skill checks, 1% combat using a stripped down version of the combat system, you are not going to learn anything specific from whatever specific game you picked.

This is such an obvious thing, no ? I mean, whats the point of taking lessons from games if you dont follow any games text as is and just steamroll your own way of playing whatever game you come across ?

Though I admit I know a few people who does exactly that.

The reason Call of Cthulhu is such a classic despite all the gearheads on this site thinking it is garbage, is that it dovetails nicely with this school of gaming.
It is a very common approach.

Daniel wrote:How you play as a designer is more inportant, than the game you play.
If your actual play mode is 90% Magical Tea Party, 9% basic skill checks, 1% combat using a stripped down version of the combat system, you are not going to learn anything specific from whatever specific game you picked.

While technically correct that playing other games won't teach you anything if you're not the type to use 'rules', that's kind of self-evident. But, if you're the type of person to not use rules, can you really call yourself a designer? One would think that your self-professed title & goals would be better expressed as "setting writer" or something to that effect.

Thinking again, Daniel point is not so obvious as it seems. When I started playing RPGs back in early 90s there was this dominant trend (in my circles at least) that the "directive" rules of the game - how to prep for it, how to conduct it, how and when to play the dice, etc - was something monolithical, set in stone, and the you replicated ad nauseum whatever you were playing, and the only thing that changed from game to game was the "procedural" rules - how task resolution works in this game, the kind of dice it uses, how its combat mini-game works, etc.

Nowadays this notion is certainly bizarre, but I still have friends whose conception of GMing is precisely that. Aka: "lemme skip the How to play this game chapter, and go straight to the task resolution and combat mini-game chapters, because I'm already an experienced GM and already know how this game is supposed to be run".

Add to that the number of games released nowadays that are still agnostic on how they are supposed to be run, and you see Daniel's point is not obvious at all.

Daniel wrote:

silva wrote:

Daniel wrote:How you play as a designer is more inportant, than the game you play... if your actual play mode is 90% Magical Tea Party, 9% basic skill checks, 1% combat using a stripped down version of the combat system, you are not going to learn anything specific from whatever specific game you picked.

This is such an obvious thing, no ? I mean, whats the point of taking lessons from games if you dont follow any games text as is and just steamroll your own way of playing whatever game you come across ?

Though I admit I know a few people who does exactly that.

The reason Call of Cthulhu is such a classic despite all the gearheads on this site thinking it is garbage, is that it dovetails nicely with this school of gaming.
It is a very common approach.

No, the reason Call of Cthulhu is a classic despite being garbage is because detectives are great, Lovecraftian mythos is great, 1920s are cool, and CoC was first to implement them.

But your reasons - Daniel's and Longes - are not self-excludent, are they ?

Making this thread more useful, how does one avoid getting bored or "eyes glossed" when trying to read a given RPG book? I've had this issue when I go to a hobby shop and just read/skim whatever they have on shelf. I think part of it is lack of fancy art (much as I don't feel it should be needed), and the ever infamous page-bloat.

I know its a stupid query, but this thread's purpose is on similar pretense, so figured I'd see if any useful information can come from asking.

I'm not disagreeing with Longes, about what makes CoC a success.
I'm just saying that plenty of locals think the CoC rules are garbage, but that a specific rules light playing style that the CoC rules support reasonably well is good enough rules support to help turn the game into a classic.

Aryxbez wrote:Making this thread more useful, how does one avoid getting bored or "eyes glossed" when trying to read a given RPG book? I've had this issue when I go to a hobby shop and just read/skim whatever they have on shelf. I think part of it is lack of fancy art (much as I don't feel it should be needed), and the ever infamous page-bloat.

I know its a stupid query, but this thread's purpose is on similar pretense, so figured I'd see if any useful information can come from asking.

If you can't speed read, then I'd go to where the money most likely is: Basic dice mechanics section, combat section, important game specific subsection (Magic rules, narrative rules silliness, skill list, downtime/kingdom builder rules), the opposition chapter, etc. Read the first page: hopefully they break things down there. If not, read the end of the chapter those mechanics are in.

If there are play examples, read those. If there's any specific mechanic you need, read the chapter on that. If it's a White Wolf book, you're fucked until you see numbers or game world jargon in high concentrations.

Daniel wrote:I'm not disagreeing with Longes, about what makes CoC a success.
I'm just saying that plenty of locals think the CoC rules are garbage, but that a specific rules light playing style that the CoC rules support reasonably well is good enough rules support to help turn the game into a classic.

Yep, it's the "fade to background" quality most fans talk about, as in "it's fantastic how unobtrusive the system is! It's almost like there no system at all!". I do not adhere to this reasoning myself, but I can see its appeal for the fans.

Aryxbez wrote:Making this thread more useful, how does one avoid getting bored or "eyes glossed" when trying to read a given RPG book? I've had this issue when I go to a hobby shop and just read/skim whatever they have on shelf. I think part of it is lack of fancy art (much as I don't feel it should be needed), and the ever infamous page-bloat.

I know its a stupid query, but this thread's purpose is on similar pretense, so figured I'd see if any useful information can come from asking.

That's one hell of a threadjack you've got there, Lou.

Josh_Kablack wrote:*some good stuff*

This is pretty much why I was recommending HERO, yes. It is a great example of a 1) generic-ISH RPG, that 2) teaches effects-based design. I think it both shows the limitations of generic RPGs and also their strengths very well.

Vampire is pretty much "the otherwise-typical RPG that tried to actually enforce a genre and told you it was doing so and what it used to do so." So it's fairly instructive. Someone who walks away from reading Vampire is way more likely to consider the utility of genre emulation, and even if Vampire wasn't always good at enforcing a theme through its mechanics, it plants a seed that is important.

And a board game is useful, partially because if you are going to seriously consider involving strategy and/or tactics in your RPG, you should uh, actually play a game with those first. And frankly pretty much any board game is going to outperform an RPG on those. And probably outperform most wargames, too.

Aryxbez wrote:Making this thread more useful, how does one avoid getting bored or "eyes glossed" when trying to read a given RPG book? I've had this issue when I go to a hobby shop and just read/skim whatever they have on shelf. I think part of it is lack of fancy art (much as I don't feel it should be needed), and the ever infamous page-bloat.

I know its a stupid query, but this thread's purpose is on similar pretense, so figured I'd see if any useful information can come from asking.

Mask De H pretty much nailed it here. Any decently written text should try to tell you what it's going to tell you in that section within the first couple paragraphs of a section. If it doesn't have a useful ToC, check the index. If it doesn't have a useful index, put it back on the shelf.

@Almaz:

I can't see how Vampire may be considered a lesson on genre-emlation, except as a cautionary tale about how NOT to do it. Really, I never saw a single group, mine or otherwise, to actually explore its supposed central theme of "personal horror" like, ever.

Pendragon precedes it and is an actually successful lesson on the matter.

silva wrote:@Almaz:

I can't see how Vampire may be considered a lesson on genre-emlation, except as a cautionary tale about how NOT to do it. Really, I never saw a single group, mine or otherwise, to actually explore its supposed central theme of "personal horror" like, ever.

Pendragon precedes it and is an actually successful lesson on the matter.

Considering how many of my Vampire games successfully recreated close-enough approximations of the narratives of Lost Boys, Blade, Random Vampire Romance Novel, etc. without even really trying, mostly by having lots of mayhem and then sobbing about it, or politicking (better know as "drama" and also a good example of why playing that out might not actually be fun to play), I'm going to consider your anecdote largely irrelevant. Vampire might not have succeeded at the supposed stated goal, but if it succeeded in being a game that had pretensions of horror but mostly was action thriller stuff laden with romance and betrayal, I think that's actually a fine recreation of most vampire stuff, since vampires have basically never not been pulp fiction with pretensions of something more.

See ? That's the point - your groups explored those themes at their own will. A game that's good at genre-emulation do not rely on "good will" for focusing on its target genre(s). The fact the "katanas & trench-coats" playstyle is so popular around the net - with zero focus on personal horror - proves this point.

Vampire has lots of good lessons. Genre-emulation is just not one of them.

Considering people play games "at their own will" I am going to basically dismiss you as a ranting idiot now.

For now, I will consider your childish insults the equivalent of "shit, He owned me and I have no arguments". When you grow up or manage to produce some resemblance of argument (or both) lemme know.

silva wrote:See ? That's the point - your groups explored those themes at their own will. A game that's good at genre-emulation do not rely on "good will" for focusing on its target genre(s). The fact the "katanas & trench-coats" playstyle is so popular around the net - with zero focus on personal horror - proves this point.

Vampire has lots of good lessons. Genre-emulation is just not one of them.

Vampire would never have become as popular as it did if the players were somehow incapable of wresting it from the "personal horror" navel-gazing pretensions it was written with. Nobody wanted to play the bullshit White wolf was trying to sell, as evidenced by so many games (tabletop, net, and LARP) turning out very similarly styled campaigns despite those not being the "proper" way to play Vampire.

Vampire successfully emulated a genre, it just wasn't the one the writers intended.

violence in the media wrote:
Vampire successfully emulated a genre, it just wasn't the one the writers intended.

Furthermore, it did so (as per Call of Cthulhu and Rifts) in spite of poor design decisions. There's a comment about people liking Call of Cthulhu for (reasons, which are accurate) - yes, but the design is still awful. Hence my original advice to aspiring designers: DESPAIR.

In the 90s, any game that said "here, play vampires!" would be successful with some vaguely-evocative splats. People weren't playing it "as intended" but the original Brujah, Nosferatu, Gangrel, Ventrue and Toreador provided useful prompts for the sorts of vampires 90s goth kids wanted to play. So did Malkavians but that was a bad design decision (and Tremere were just broken, and lived in the same conceptual space as Ventrue.)

So there are some design lessons in V:tM - character classes are good! - but the real lesson isn't about design at all, it's about seizing the zeitgeist.

DrPraetor wrote:Furthermore, it did so (as per Call of Cthulhu and Rifts) in spite of poor design decisions. There's a comment about people liking Call of Cthulhu for (reasons, which are accurate) - yes, but the design is still awful. Hence my original advice to aspiring designers: DESPAIR.

Lol. Spot on, my good doctor.

Actually Praetor there is something to be said for having simple rules that fade into the background.

violence in the media wrote:

silva wrote:See ? That's the point - your groups explored those themes at their own will. A game that's good at genre-emulation do not rely on "good will" for focusing on its target genre(s). The fact the "katanas & trench-coats" playstyle is so popular around the net - with zero focus on personal horror - proves this point.

Vampire has lots of good lessons. Genre-emulation is just not one of them.

Vampire would never have become as popular as it did if the players were somehow incapable of wresting it from the "personal horror" navel-gazing pretensions it was written with. Nobody wanted to play the bullshit White wolf was trying to sell, as evidenced by so many games (tabletop, net, and LARP) turning out very similarly styled campaigns despite those not being the "proper" way to play Vampire.

Vampire successfully emulated a genre, it just wasn't the one the writers intended.

I might agree with you there. It was at it's best for me when it was modern day game of thrones. It's what made the LARP fun. You'd get 30 people all scheming to backstab each other and scrabble to the top of an arbitrary heap and the plot would often move faster than the storytellers could keep track of. They'd introduce shit and we'd be like "oh yay. More Baali demon worshippers. I'm too busy buddyfucking the town Sheriff over to take his position to give a shit." Every tabletop game fell apart unless we fully embraced the politics, and the ones where we did tended to last longer and be more fun.

Strangely enough, there hasn't been a great politics/backstabbing TTRPG since. You'd think with as popular as the Game of Thrones TV show is, someone would be totally down to exploit this.

TheFlatline wrote:Strangely enough, there hasn't been a great politics/backstabbing TTRPG since. You'd think with as popular as the Game of Thrones TV show is, someone would be totally down to exploit this.

Take a look at some PbtA games. Monsterhearts and Sagas of the Icelanders have that in spades.

The only other game I could see having this level of intrigue well done is Paranoia, but it's intended comedic play style do it a disfavor in this regard, I think.

*Edit*: oh almost forgot - the recently kickstarted Shinobigami also does that. Its basicly Vampire: the Masquerade with ninjas.

Daniel wrote:Actually Praetor there is something to be said for having simple rules that fade into the background.

I wonder if it can be said to be its own sub-genre ? I know a lot of CoC/BRP/Runequest influenced groups value this rules "invisibility" highly.

Not just CoC/BRP/Runequest. I've met fans of rules invisibility who played a stripped down versions of many different games including Gurps and Rolemaster.

silva wrote: The only other game I could see having this level of intrigue well done is Paranoia, but it's intended comedic play style do it a disfavor in this regard, I think.

But you get to call it 'The Game of Clones' at least.

Sendaz, dont know why but your idea made me wonder how an hypothetical Game of Thrones with clones would be.

Daniel wrote:Not just CoC/BRP/Runequest. I've met fans of rules invisibility who played a stripped down versions of many different games including Gurps and Rolemaster.

True.

Interesting that most crowds seem to like their game's main "thing" brought to the fore and engaged with in an involving manner: D&D with combat, Shadowrun with mini-games, Fate with aspects, Pendragon with virtues & passions, etc. While the "invisible" crowd seems to prefer their game's main "thing" relegated to sideline/abstracted affairs that disappear as soon as possible.