labcats | Context, Stew, and What Works

Much rpg blogosphere chat on Vincent Baker's 'blog, anyway mostly amicable, often tense, occasionally crossing over into potential flame has gone more or less like this:

New Idea
Yuck!
Cool!
Period of Fast and Thick Comments,
Reformulation of Cool Idea
Cool! (from previous Yuck-sayers)

A lot depends on the context of the idea. So, one of the ideas under consideration is "You don't own your character. Game designers should play with this."

For me, this was problematic until I found contexts I was comfortable with that already used this idea. One is the Letter Game that I am playing with

mnemex and

batyatoon, and another is the Ars Magica idea of grogs.

Vincent pointed out that when he's got his Game Designer Hat on, he's going to talk differently than when he does in a finished work, where the dangerous game design ideas are put in the appropriate context for Joe Gamer, who is then looking at a complete game, not a concept in a vaccuum. Among the conclusions one might draw from this is: RPG design is like stew. You might not want to look too closely at the preparation, or, if you do, You Have Been Warned.

All well and good, and already old news. Man, that 'blogosphere moves fast. And many of Vincent's -- and other people's -- points seem so bleeping obvious when one stops and thinks.

But, there's that context question. Much of the time, the first context we're in is React to Dangerous New Idea context. And, a lot of the time, there's a hidden context. If you are commenting on a 'blog, are you doing this from home, with plenty of rest and relaxtion? Are you doing this in the breaks between your day job? How are you doing outside of the 'blogosphere? Stressed? Happy? Cranky that you just can't keep up with the bleeping 'blogosphere? This colors your posts.

This is, I think, a 'blog version of Vincent's Lumpley Principle, which, if I understand it correctly, is simply that rpgs are games played by real people, and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the game. 'Blogs and responses are written by real people (one presumes), and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the dialogue.

There is another factor that I think is making me leery of some of the new ideas that are actually not so new. I don't have a catchy name for it.

The idea that one does not have sole ownership of one's character is not, as Vincent pointed out, actually new. Ars Magica, as I said, starts to play with this idea. Okay, there is a clear distinction between shared grog characters and more-owned non-grog characters. Nevertheless, there is this now Respected and Traditional rpg providing a safe context for the new and dangerous idea. Does this prove that, if one remembers context, the difference between talk about design and an actual game, and how to stay civil in an online discussion, that all is well?

Not necessarily, although remembering all of these items is certainly a good thing. Ars Magica works as a game, provided you want the sort of game it provides. I have not been having the same experience with a lot of the indie games, and I want to.

That is, Ars Magica, OTE, and other pre-indie explosion games work for me. I have a game. It is a complete game. I can play it, and I have played secure in my belief that I understand that what is supposed to happen is what is happening.

This is still too rare in my experience with indie games. Fr'ex, I like Primetime Adventures. I really like it. But, it took several rounds of discussion on the Forge forums before my group figured it understood all the nuances of this not very complicated game. Note that I am picking on PTA because it is, IMO, one of the best of this crop of games, and one that I have actually gotten my group to play, more than once, and one that I am actually ready, willing, and eager to play again.

I am finding that, for many indie games, a demo is essential if we are to have a prayer of being able to play it. I think this is a problem.

I am finding that there is significantly more to some of the indie games than I had thought. This is a problem, if an odd one. At GenCon Indy, I purchased Under the Bed and Bacchanal. I enjoyed reading both games, but found them light and fluffy, and mentally consigned them to the category of "party games" as opposed to "games I really want to play".

And there they would have stayed if I had not read various posts on the Forge forums and in other places. This is a problem: The game has not sold itself well enough for me to play it. More, without the information on the Forge, if I had tried to play either game, I would, at best, have gotten the light and fluffy results I would have expected. Now, I've met the authors of both games, and, while I am sure they are delighted by the simple fact of making a sale, I am also sure that they want their games played and understood.

All a gamer should need is the game itself.

Aside: I am ignoring the games-that-need-x-books-to-be-playable. One of the many things I like about the indie games is the philosophy that a game should be complete in one book, and a relatively small book at that.

You shouldn't need to have the game designer packaged with the game. You shouldn't need to consult forum post after forum post or to hunt for hours through the 'blogosphere in order to play the game. You shouldn't need a demo to be able to play the game. You should be able to play the game after reading the game.

OTOH, this isn't exactly a new complaint either, is it? It's just in a different context, because the indie games are pushing the boundaries of what we're used to and because the indie game designers are trying to raise the bar.