(no subject)

[benlehman]

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?

Comments

[evilmagnus]

It seems to me that when you talk of non-conflict, non-task resolution, you're talking of randomizing or automating worldbuilding in some way.

Correct?

( as an aside - I don't know if movement really needs a *system*, per se, as usually it's either a) common sense or b) you're actually talking about movement in some other context - either combat or experience-gain. q.v. Rolemaster's Movement& Maneuver charts and their Travel Experience charts )

[wirednavi.livejournal.com]

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?

Start by asking what they provide for the game experience.

The issue, I think, is that what you are looking at is non-conflict resolution mechanisms of all sorts. However, you never need system unless there is a conflict. If there's no conflict, at least among the players, then you're all in agreement and you can just narrate. I see here that you have listed:

- Guidelines for 'use the game for this', which seems mostly useful as a mechanism for goal creation among the players (this is what you should be striving for if you are using this system, etc.) As such, I think it should be well-written and thorough, but apart from that I don't think it needs to be further examined.
- Mechanisms for resolving what happens in the SIS when you don't care what happens next.
- Assumed descriptions of a particular setting or group of settings.

Both of the previous _look_ like the same mechanic: world-creation charts, and at first I think they look like a method for randomly generating a setting. However, you're going to use them in only a few situations. Situation 1 is to verify setting authenticity of some sort - the chart says that there's a 10% chance of there being a village in this map hex, etc. so the world these rules are designed for includes a village in 1 of 10 hexes of this type... Situation 2 is to determine randomly what happens when no one can think of or cares what happens next. This is when you actually roll on the charts above, and I think it happens more rarely.

What do people get out of these things? A feeling of authenticity and a shared perspective on the SIS, at the expense of freer creativity (not necessarily a bad thing). They're setting information, no more, no less, provided in a convenient format.

There's work to be done integrating these things into a story, but that part of the system is rarely written down. Which is a shame, 'cause I'd love to see it, but it's much like writing down the process of coming up with a novel, for which as yet I've never seen the Single Right Way to do it, or even quantify it.

[pillsy.livejournal.com]

Virtually every character generation system I can think of fits your description. Likewise the rarer but still relatively common systems for designing vehicles, weapons, spells and the like. They mostly exist so that the things created satisfy certain requirements (being "balanced", or "realistic", or otherwise appropriate) and can be described in a standardized manner. Often, they also exist to produce results that you might not come up with on your own, which is why they are often partially random.

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

I think a key point is that all the Explorative Elements(System, Situation, Setting, Character, Color) are basically building blocks, or lenses that can be used to focus play and give momentum to the group. For example, a detailed setting, or the generative tools you are describing, serve as ways to focus what the game is about. Some folks, when handed GURPS, or Story Engine, or whatever your favorite non-genre specific game is, get completely lost because they need to have more focus to build upon.

In general, people have figured out how to apply setting in a good focal manner, usually in conjunction with Character and Color(Whitewolf's various splats and politics in their games). The particulars you are talking about apply to Situation and Setting, but are still worth developing further.

Examples & loose categories

[(Anonymous)]

Here's hoping that I get what you're talking about, Ben, because it seems like a potentially very fruitful topic to me. If I understand you right, these might be some examples:

FLOWCHART NARRATION

Some rules structure the narration of a specific process, and can create encounters and mini-adventures of their own. These rules mould specific parts of the game, often to emulate genre, or to make very abstract situations easily manageable. Examples are:

- The flowchart for investigating unknown high-tech artifacts in Gamma World
- Lifepaths in character generation systems (if players can interact with what goes on at different stages)
- The car chase flowchart in Indiana Jones

GAMES WITHIN GAMES

Some rules provide competitive mini-games to be used within a role-playing context, mostly just to add flavor, as these games don't necessarily have an effect on the story. Examples are:

- The car-racing game in Ghostbusters' "Hot Rods of the Gods"

BATTLE EXTENSIONS

Several games have rules for larger-scale battles. They change the scale of events in the game, and usually have very different resolution systems. Examples are:

- Ship combat in "Privateers & Gentlemen"
- D&D "Battlesystem Supplement"

REWARD SYSTEMS

Ranging from experience points to tables for loot generation. Systems that determine how much game-effective currency characters get, and when.

There must be heaps of other systems out there, I think.

- Matthijs Holter

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's interesting you can use these mechanics without the results actually showing up in your gaming session. For example, I must have generated dozens of towns which where never visited by any of the PCs.

-Jasper Polane