labcats | Montroll, Origami, and Game Design (Reply)

There's been a lot of talk about rpg design in the blogosphere, and one idea that a lot of folks have is that anyone who has ever tweaked the rules of an rpg is, in all important respects, a designer.

In one sense, I suppose that is true. In another sense, it may be meaningless. If one defines all gamers as designers -- since I'm not sure there exists a gamer who hasn't tweaked the rules -- then, to a degree, the term "designers" becomes meaningless.

I suppose it is true that if I play Monopoly or Encore using a set of house rules, what I am playing is not Monopoly or Encore, but a different game. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I -- or I and my fellow players -- have suddenly designed a new board game in the same sense that someone who designs, creates, markets, and sells a new board game has done.

John Montroll once wrote that he could tell if a given origamist would or would not go on to design original origami models. If the folder is trying to recreate the model exactly as it appears in the book, and is content with that, that folder will not design models. This is where I fit in on the origami spectrum. My goal is to fold a perfect Montroll or Lang or .

If, on the other hand, the folder creates the model, and then starts fiddling with it, making changes, that folder may well go on to design models. That isn't me. I am content to copy what I see.

mnemex said that my analogy did not apply to rpgs. Basically, he's correct. I have tweaked rules, and borrowed bits and pieces, and collaged, and otherwise did fiddling. But, I think Montroll's idea may still hold the key to explaining the difference I believe exists between fiddling with rules and designing games in the narrower sense.

Contentment. I am content to copy a Montroll exactly. This is no small feat for me. I am an intermediate folder, and I have trouble with a lot of Montroll's (relatively) simple designs. And that's cool, but I will never design models with that attitude.

I am largely content with the OTE rules system. Have I twiddled with it? Yes. And then, I stopped, and it may be years before I make another change to my default rules system. I am content.

Sure, I run other systems. And, I may tweak those. I am giving serious thought to whether I want to tweak Sorcerer in ways that I know Ron Edwards would warn against. Sorcerer is, moreover, a game that has a built in "Tweak Here".

But again, there is an end point where I am content, and that end point does not involve trying to sell the result, whether for money or for ideology or simply because I want lots of people to try it.

The people discussing design theory who then apply it to great games which they later sell? They are not content. They are driven. They cannot not create.

I think that's the key point of difference.

Oh, there are side points as well. If I use a tweak in my group, I don't give a dang whether anyone I am not playing with will ever use that tweak. Authors of a lot of the indie games have made it very clear that they want their games played as they were written, by the rules. If the game is not played by the rules, they reckon that one of two things is going on. Either the rules are broken, or the gaming group will discover that they are not having fun and that there was a really good reason for the rules to be played as written.

But, mostly, I am content to get something that works and keeps me happy week after week. I like cutting edge, but I'm leary of bleeding edge. I play with design. I may be a designer, but I am not a Designer. Designers are not content. They have tasted the Wild Magic that may bring much satisfaction, but never peace.