benlehman | (no subject)

This is an RPG design post. It isn't a Forge post simply because it isn't focused enough to be. You have been warned.

As Vincent points out, we have the whole form of conflict resolution and resolution mechanics in general pretty much down. This is a monumental amount of work over a monumental amount of time, originating in the murky depths of the 80s and carrying through until the present day games of Dogs, HeroQuest, and Primetime Adventures. There is still a lot of work to be done, of course, but now we can classify it and really make it work.

But that doesn't mean that RPG design is done, or that it is all about refining conflict resolution mechanisms.

I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about non-conflict, non-task mechanism.

It is a sign of how hideously underdeveloped these mechanics and the theory surrounding them is that I cannot think of anything to say about these sorts of mechanics. RPG theorists (and here I am using a broad category) have, for a very long time, reducing RPG systems into their resolution systems (whether conflict or task resolution isn't really important to this point) and dismissed other aspects of RPG system as unnecessary cruft, or simply didn't recognize their existence entirely.

And I think it is time that we start to analyze them.

Here are some examples:
The chart in Polaris, and it's predecessor diagram in Sorcerer.
The Random Dungeon generation tables of AD&D1
The direct "use this game for this" instructions
Town generation in D&D3, and its predecessors in Spelljammer system generation charts and Thief's Handbook guild and city generation rules
Oriental Adventures (1st) random events charts
non-combat movement and maneuvering rules, including travel but also swimmingly, climbing and flight.

How can we categorize these things? How can we study them? How can we make them more graceful? How can we make them more fun?

Right now we are groping in the dark. We have no idea what these things mean. We throw them together, and see if they stick. Sometimes they are awesome, sometimes they aren't, but there is no understanding, yet. We are monkeys with typewriters.

Anyone want to start?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Y'know, it occurs to me that, while what you and Jon are working on is cool, it is ultimately a conflict resolution system, in that it tells you how conflicts resolve. Dave's point about the equivalence with a spell effect is a good one.

When I talk about non-conflict mechanics, I'm really talking about non-conflict mechanics.

yrs--
--Ben

Very seriously, I think that's because it makes the "all things are resolution" error. But, you are indeed correct, it's written in such a way that it is resolution.

Well, it's conflict resolution because the genre we're emulating is arthouse wuxia, which is structured around a family drama, which is, in turn, structured around interpersonal conflict. And more than a few people have argued that conflict is what drives all stories, which is why roleplaying focuses on resolving conflicts and trusts the rest to take care of itself.

However, what Ben nailed here is that telling good stories or emulating genres or creating fun instances of play is about much more than creating and resolving conflicts in an interesting way, since there's a lot of play that doesn't directly involve conflicts.

Character creation is a great example. Town creation in Dogs is a great example. Setting and color is also HUGELY important. What would Nobilis be without all the laws, including both the in-game law of "Thou Shalt Not Love" and the meta-game Monarda Law that encourages you to say "yes" to player requests? These things form the boundaries within which stories are told. They're about limiting the possibile choices so that the decisions players make seem to have a consistent feel.

Yes. And further, just because it's a conflict resolution mechanic doesn't mean it's bad.

I'm trying to say that there is unexplored territory out there. I'm not try to say that everything we've explored is shit.

yrs--
--Ben