A question I have been asking myself lately is, when designing a world, in which order should it be designed? In other words, should one build a setting and then go back and rework the rules until they fit the setting, or is it better to take the rules and mold your setting around the framework of the rules? How do you design your settings?
Iâ,¬,,¢ll post my thoughts later, I want to hear what yâ,¬,,¢all think.
It all depends. I do both ways, but most often i will begin with a bit of fluff, thern think of a bit of crunch i want and they keep going back and forth until the setting is done or i get bored. Sometimes i start with an idea for new crunch and build fluff around it.
Both at once! Mwahaha! Mwahaha! Mwahahahahaha!
Huh?
And if a piece of rules or fluff gets cast aside I have the foundations of my next project.
I've been working on Dystopia since before I joined the CBG (over seven months ago), and I have not yet written a single word of crunch. I don't even know what system to use (GURPS would probably do best, although it's fairly rules-heavy, and Luminous' Tri-Stat looks positively boner-inspiring - I'll be damned if I'm gonna use d20), and I don't rightly care.
Oh, I'm sure we can all agree at least grudgingly that it's "all a matter of personal taste", and in that case I find it personally abhorrant to approach a setting on the foundations of crunch. Crunch, in my mind, facillitates "fluff" (oh Lord how I loathe that word, and its connotations of superfluousness). If you have to "mold your setting around the rules", you are using the wrong rules. Molding the rules around your setting is another matter, but I always favour the path of least resistance.
Again, you can always say "it's a matter of personal preference", but after all the debates we've had on these boards, that claim is now a useless tautology.
I'd argue with a specifically fluff-first approach. If I want to design a game, how that game is going to be played is crucial to how the setting develops.
Now, if I were designing this setting for a book or what have you, that's totally different (though even there, I'd prefer to develop plot and setting in tandem).
So I guess the question is whether I am designing a world for a game or a game for a world.
In writing the Jade Stage, I have tried a little from Column A, and a little from Column B.
However, in every instance I can think of where I matched setting flavor to existing mechanics, I grew gradually more dissatisfied with the result until I finally had to go back and change it. Take that as you will.
Quote from: beejazzSo I guess the question is whether I am designing a world for a game or a game for a world.
set of guideliines for the facilitation of cooperative storytelling[/b] more than anything else. The term "game" here really is sort of an abuse of language, serving only to muddy the issue.
I definitely agree that mechanics and setting flavor must not be at odds with one another, or you'll run into problems. But mechanics, no matter how cleverly designed and dazzlingly implemented, are still only a means to an end-- bending
anything to fit them seems like putting the cart before the horse.
My two cents.
In my case it's better to write fluff than crunch for two reasons:
1) Having found systems where all aspects of the characters can be built from the same pool, I no longer have to worry about things such as racial/class/magic features that are important to my setting concept but are unweildy in D&D (such as playing a cat).
2) (which actually comes from 1) I'm not very good at crunch design.
Still there may be a reason to design the setting crunch-first: if you have crunch you really want to include. This is still mostly a problem with D&D, since it's rules aren't too flexible compared to other systems.
I think there are three possible things to design around: setting, system and playstyle.
I usually prefer to focus on a given style of play and create a setting and system to support it.
Sometimes I do a setting and see which styles of play seem to work, and then design systems around those.
I never start with a system.
Fluff comes first. Always.
Bend and rip and rend and recombine the rules until they work for you, and then if they end up being so far from what you started with as to be almost unrelated, just resort to GURPS.
In fact, GURPS owns anyway, so you may as well just start with GURPS and then not have to worry about crunch at all.
EDIT: Angel, I'm sure I once saw some d20 format racial stat blocks for Dystopia somewhere...
Quote from: KindlingIn fact, GURPS owns anyway, so you may as well just start with GURPS and then not have to worry about crunch at all.
I woudn't be so sure: I just took a look at GURPS lite, and things like derived ability scores and lots of different skills to choose from are going to have a different effect than a game where you can buy everything right off and there are few skills to choose from. I'm not telling you not to use it, I'm just saying that it's going to require a different look at how characters are created from some other system, and that
does affect flavor creation.
Quote from: ScMpI'm just saying that [GURPS is] going to require a different look at how characters are created from some other system, and that does affect flavor creation.
anyone[/i]) think it is possible to have a system that leaves no stamp whatsoever on flavor creation? I know we can and often do work to minimize the "footprint" left on the game by the game mechanics, but is it possible to achieve a system of game mechanics that leaves no "footprint" at all?
No, I don't think it is LC. No matter what system you're looking it, the system has some kind of theme in it, and that's going to color our perspective when using it to some degree. I think some systems just have bigger shoes than others.
Fluff first when building a world/setting. I think this is the general consensus.
@ LC: I think it is only possible to leave no footprint if you build a good rules system around the setting.
@Thaunir: I think this is what I was getting at.
@LC: What? Not a game? I might bend on the "also a hobby" thing, but last time I checked, it was still a game. And in answer to your question, no. Mechanics impact ALOT. From how weapons interact with armor to what skills are divided how to how many rounds a fight lasts to the handling of xp, ALL of this will influence how you play.
Quote from: beejazz@LC: What? Not a game? I might bend on the "also a hobby" thing, but last time I checked, it was still a game.
in the traditional sense.[/i] It has certain game-like features (clearly-defined rules, the use of dice, et cetera), but some pretty serious fundamental differences as well.
Consider: The last time you played Monopoly (or Clue, or Risk, or Checkers, or Football, or Poker), who won the game, and why, and how could you tell? Now ask yourself, the last time you played DnD, who won the game, and why, and how could you tell? If your gaming experience is anything like mine at all, your answers for both questions vary dramatically, if you can even answer the second question at all. (I can't.)
To me, it makes much more sense to compare DnD and its cousins not to "normal" games, but to improvisatory acting games (such as just about anything on Whose Line Is It, Anyway?) Or the "take turns adding a couple sentences at a time" methods of group storytelling. They don't use dice and RPG stats, but they have a very important fundamental similarity with DnD: they involve guided group storytelling rather than victory or defeat.
Indeed. Many players that play RPGs to win often wind up frustrating the other players, who tend to feel they are missing the point and thereby detracting from the experience for everyone. I would say I've had some problems with players that don't see a difference between say a video game RPG and a tabletop game. I would say it is still game-like, in that it is played for entertainment. But a tabletop RPG differs a lot from a normal game.
On the other hand, even a carefully crafted ruleset around a campaign setting will still color the way that setting is viewed. I created a game system for a prior world of mine, and I almost cannot consider really viewing the setting without rules along those lines (though they were revised many times as I learned more and more). As long as there are rules at all, the rules will influence how people playing in the setting see their role in the setting.
I agree that crunch should be suppordinate to fluff, and lately I've been trying to post only fluff to get feedback on that.
If you were to play a game of chess against yourself, who would you say won? Why? It's still a game. The fact that it is non-competetive does not make it the domain of acting or storytelling. Check our arena battles. Yeah. There might be the appearance of those things, but they're tacked on.
Also, note that in Whose Line, everthing is made up and the points don't matter. I doubt you'll be saying anything similar when your character's on fire. More likely, you'll be shouting "REFLEX SAVE! REFLEX SAVE! DICE DON'T FAIL ME NOW!"
[note]I do think that the word "gaming" can be extended to encompass this and I have no objections to including roleplaying under standard gaming. I do think there is a very important distinction to be had, however.[/note]I've always seen roleplaying as improvisational acting within a defined rule set. Yes, there are rules as to what you can do and what occurs, but the action is acting, not gaming.
EDIT: Whoa, too slow... This was intended to be right after LC's post.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonDo you (ScMp or anyone) think it is possible to have a system that leaves no stamp whatsoever on flavor creation? I know we can and often do work to minimize the "footprint" left on the game by the game mechanics, but is it possible to achieve a system of game mechanics that leaves no "footprint" at all?
Quick-off tangent answer: No. That's what I was saying with GURPS: certain parts of it will nudge you, no matter how much freedom you want, into accepting certain constraints. Especially if you have a hard time making your own crunch. :morons:
Quote from: beejazzIf you were to play a game of chess against yourself, who would you say won? Why? It's still a game. The fact that it is non-competetive does not make it the domain of acting or storytelling. Check our arena battles. Yeah. There might be the appearance of those things, but they're tacked on.
Also, note that in Whose Line, everthing is made up and the points don't matter. I doubt you'll be saying anything similar when your character's on fire. More likely, you'll be shouting "REFLEX SAVE! REFLEX SAVE! DICE DON'T FAIL ME NOW!"
Ah, there are a few good points in here. The first is that you CAN use RPG systems to play games. The arena is certainly proof of this. However, I argue that standard roleplaying is not oriented around this and that in general, RPG systems make poor games (In my mind, min-maxers are those who treat D&D as a game and try to "win").
Second, you bring up the goal-oriented nature of improvisational acting/storytelling. If I were telling an improv story with some friends and we all had equal say in the flow of the story (we were all DMs) I might decide that I like a certain character or plot in the story. If the story started to shift in a way that the character might die or the plot be discarded, I would re-shape the story so that I could have more fun. The same thing occurs when you try to save your character's life, in that it's a direction the story could take and you act within the rule set (sometimes desperately) trying to change the outcome. There have been times I have wanted my character to die from a particularly nasty attack because I was interested in the path of the story going that way. If my character died, would I have lost or won? If you say that I "win" when I succeed in shaping the story to where I have more fun, then stand up comedy could be just as much a "game" in that I can call out suggestions in hopes of laughing more.
Still, it is primarily a game. Secondly a hobby. Then some other stuff. Then maybe sixth or seventh "drama" or "story". Seriously, if either of those things were so crucial, they'd be in the name of the thing. But what we have in the name is role playing GAME.
To dismiss that it is a game is kinda strikin' me as counter-intuitive.
As for the issue of death and win/lose... I've seen games without winners or losers, whether you win or not, you CAN lose in an RPG, and death can be winning, so long as it accomplishes something.
No, seriously. I've prevented the BBEG from escaping a train I KNEW would asplode by grappling him. BOOOOM!
"I'm sorry, but this is NOT going to be a recurring villain!"
On the other hand, we have the jedi who killed a fucking ARMY of uber-clones, then when he had to swim away, failed his check and drowned. I would call that losing.
Still, it is primarily a game. Secondly a hobby. Then some other stuff. Then maybe sixth or seventh "drama" or "story". Seriously, if either of those things were so crucial, they'd be in the name of the thing. But what we have in the name is role playing GAME.
To dismiss that it is a game is kinda strikin' me as counter-intuitive.
As for the issue of death and win/lose... I've seen games without winners or losers, whether you win or not, you CAN lose in an RPG, and death can be winning, so long as it accomplishes something.
No, seriously. I've prevented the BBEG from escaping a train I KNEW would asplode by grappling him. BOOOOM!
"I'm sorry, but this is NOT going to be a recurring villain!"
On the other hand, we have the jedi who killed a fucking ARMY of uber-clones, then when he had to swim away, failed his check and drowned. I would call that losing.
Quote from: beejazzSeriously, if either of those things were so crucial, they'd be in the name of the thing. But what we have in the name is role playing GAME.
If semantics really carried that much weight, Rhode Island would be an island. There are plenty of cases where the name of a thing provides an inadequate or downright misleading description of what the thing actually is.
And it looks like Raelifin and I are sharing the same brain today. 'Sup, brain-buddy? :yumm:
Hmm, would you say golf is a game? Even if you only ever play by yourself? What if you don't even keep your own score? I'd say that something can be a game and have goals even if there's no concept of competition or "winning".
One aspect of games can be simply trying to achieve something (or achieve it better, faster, etc.) simply for the fun of trying. Almost any tabletop RPG involves some degree of this. That makes it a game, in my opinion. Certain kinds improvisational comedy can be games like that too. As can charades.
Back to the original topic: I'd say that my design stance usually goes back and forth quite a bit. Sometimes I'll think of a rule variant, then ask myself, "What kind of world would that make sense in?" That can inspire some bit of world-building just as much as anything else. But most of the time I start with some conceptual idea, try to make it more concrete, wrap some rule ideas around it, think about the impact of taking those rules seriously, reconceive the setting, adjust the rules, repeat until I get tired of it, then move on to a different part of the world or a different aspect of the game.
Quote from: snakefingHmm, would you say golf is a game? Even if you only ever play by yourself? What if you don't even keep your own score? I'd say that something can be a game and have goals even if there's no concept of competition or "winning".
One aspect of games can be simply trying to achieve something (or achieve it better, faster, etc.) simply for the fun of trying. Almost any tabletop RPG involves some degree of this. That makes it a game, in my opinion. Certain kinds improvisational comedy can be games like that too. As can charades.[/quote]
Ezzakly!
While I'm firmly in the flavor-first camp, what really matters is that the two mesh. If you decide, I want a world where magic is really dangerous, design a dangerous magic system, and then give a flavorful explanation for why it's like that, that's still good.
The biggest problem here, In my mind is the lack of a standard definition for what a "game" is (and yes, this is once again a debate on semantics that is off topic, perhaps we need to make a GAME WARS thread. >_<). Scoreless golf, along with skipping rocks and jumping in puddles are activities that I'd consider "playing" without calling them "games." Yes, the goal of gaming is entertainment, as is the goal of playing with kittens. The difference between these to activities in my mind is that you don't have a game unless you have "victory" which is some sort of fixed goal. Beating your record in asteroids, golf or skipping rocks is a game. If you have no goal, you're just playing.
Along these lines I think that roleplaying is playing. We play pretend for the sake of having fun with friends. There are rules to help us, but no real goal is out there other than to be entertained. Cooperative storytelling, playing pretend and rules that help prevent story abuse are what constitute an RPG.
Of course, as taxonomy, this is all subjective an arbitrary.
EDIT: I get to be LC's brain buddy! My life is complete! :yumm:
Goal: Beat the shit out of a horde of orcs.
Success: Beat the orcs.
Failure: Be beaten by the orcs.
Quote from: Raelifin<snip> you CAN use RPG systems to play games. The arena is certainly proof of this. However, I argue that standard roleplaying is not oriented around this and that in general, RPG systems make poor games (In my mind, min-maxers are those who treat D&D as a game and try to "win").
Like I said, you can make a game out of roleplaying. Hell, you can make a game out of nearly any play activity (I wonder if I can hit that target a kitten...) but that doesn't mean you should emphasize the game aspect of the activity. Saying that it is more important to kill the orcs than it is to tell a story would be a major detriment to the wonderful activity of roleplaying. If you're looking for a game, there are more suitable activities.
Quote from: beejazzGoal: Beat the shit out of a horde of orcs.
Success: Beat the orcs.
Failure: Be beaten by the orcs.
Goal: Beat the shit out of the orcs.
Success: Die spectacularly, either screaming bloody fury and defiance or through some comedic misshap.
Failure: Don't have fun.
I remember my first few D&D games: I had more fun when I was about to die then I ever did succeeding. In fact,
had I died I would have felt perfectly fine.
I remember a D&D campaign that I got into late and was never actually involved in any combat. In fact I had no reason to need mechanics for what little time I was playing the game, but I had fun roleplaying.
I remember a D&D game I got into that had too much combat: a 1st-level party beat a giant scorpion, and I didn't have any fun. At 2nd level we beat up a troll, and I didn't have any fun.
I've never felt roleplaying games were about anything other than fun, and I can have as much fun almost dying (or perhaps even dying) than I ever have "beating the shit out of the orcs". Whether than means I'm "playing a game" or just "playing" there is no such thing as a goal for me in D&D.
Quote from: RaelifinLike I said, you can make a game out of roleplaying. Hell, you can make a game out of nearly any play activity (I wonder if I can hit that target a kitten...) but that doesn't mean you should emphasize the game aspect of the activity. Saying that it is more important to kill the orcs than it is to tell a story would be a major detriment to the wonderful activity of roleplaying. If you're looking for a game, there are more suitable activities.
Your point that you can make a game out of anything is true. And the reason that I asked about scoreless golf is that I would consider that a game, provided that you take it seriously enough, but I wasn't sure what you would think. Some of this is just semantics, and there is a huge gray area in the intersection between games, pastimes, hobbies, and amusements.
That said, any attempt to claim what should or should not be present in a "standard" RPG is bound to bring down a Flame Strike. I've known people who got pissy if you dared to talk out of character; personally I find that extremely tedious and distracting, largely because I'm not that good at it. Am I doing it right? Am I doing it wrong? The answer is only determined by the play style of the group I'm with.
As creative people interested in writing campaign settings, it is only natural that the flavor of the fluffy content is the most important aspect of what we write. Writing your setting without a particular set of rules in mind however, often results in things that cannot be supported by the rule system you intended to use; things that very well could end being a cantankerous annoyance when it comes time to integrate them into the actual in-game experience.
D&D in particular is not a very flexible rules system (IMO). So when you start messing with the mechanics, it frequently causes ripple effects with unforseen complications. In any future material I write, I fully intend to work within the rules system (whatever it may be), as much as possible. I can't casually rewrite the rules everytime I make a new setting; its just not worth the effort.
-Peace-
That's why I gave up on D&D a year after I started RPing. My imagination couldn't stand the restriction.
I'd argue that the "gameness" of roleplaying is a function of the people playing it and the game they use.
Some RPGs, like, say, Burning Empires (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3392), Agon (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3454) and Rune (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2412), are explicitly competitive (like board games). Others, the quintessential examples being (most) Nordic LARP and other freeforming, can't really be called "games" under any sane definition.
Good response to my somewhat over-zealous endorsement of GURPS :P
Just wanted to add that, although I adore GURPS, when world-building, I tend more towards perverting the d20 system to suit my needs. I find it quite an entertaining challenge...
Quote from: ThanuirI'd argue that the "gameness" of roleplaying is a function of the people playing it and the game they use.
Some RPGs, like, say, Burning Empires (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3392), Agon (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=3454) and Rune (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2412), are explicitly competitive (like board games). Others, the quintessential examples being (most) Nordic LARP and other freeforming, can't really be called "games" under any sane definition.
That's a good point. Perhaps I was too rash in declaring roleplaying to be solely in the domain of acting rather than of gaming. It has been my experience that Players vs. DM attitudes cause poor sessions and cheapen the experience overall, but I guess I can see it if a system is built around the game conflict rather than the story.
Quote from: RaelifinThat's a good point. Perhaps I was too rash in declaring roleplaying to be solely in the domain of acting rather than of gaming. It has been my experience that Players vs. DM attitudes cause poor sessions and cheapen the experience overall, but I guess I can see it if a system is built around the game conflict rather than the story.
This business of player vs. DM always confuses me. I think it may be a semantics issue again. As far as I'm concerned, an RPG can have major game aspects to it without devolving to player vs. DM. Usually it's players vs. orcs, to take an example from above. The decision to battle the orcs can be made for any of a number of reasons, ranging from, "It just sounds fun," to, "Now would be a good time for my character to go down to a flaming, glorious death," or just, "It seems like what my character would do."
But once the battle mat is out, the game-like elements tend to intensify. The players (acting in their roles) take on the goals of the characters, and try their best (within the confines of their roles) to achieve that goal. They do this by marshaling their resources, choosing tactics, managing the battle field, and many other extremely game-like actions. And none of it is player vs. DM, at least in the harmful competitive sense.
It doesn't have to be this way. One could just decide how it would be best for the battle to go, and play it out the same way you play out any other scene. Even with the battle mat, you can use if primarily as a visualization aid and avoid some of the game-like elements.
Of course, player vs. DM really can be bad. Most game systems give the DM virtually unlimited power to alter the game reality on the fly, which makes this generally a lose-lose competition. But some game systems do give players the ability to overrule the DM, or even to take control of the narrative process for a time. This could lead to some interesting dynamics and friendly competition that would not necessarily ruin the game.
Raelifin,
it is very possible to make a system that creates story through the conflicts.
On the footprint of system; it always is. System does matter. Many RPGs have radically different structure than D&D has; for example, in Wushu, there is the principle of narrative truth: all players can describe/narrate stuff, and all of that is real in the game fiction/setting/diegesis (there is also veto, which everyone can do, but it is rarely used in actual play).
It is (borderline) RPG. Playing it will be totally different from playing D&D.
Quote from: ThanuirRaelifin,
it is very possible to make a system that creates story through the conflicts.
You misunderstand me. What I meant by conflicts is the competitive nature likely to arise with a game. If orcs control the bridge and the dragon is behind you, killing the orcs is the easiest way to "win" (keep your character alive) and thus the DM, who says that "there are five barrels of gunpowder on the wooden bridge" is now your enemy because he can be seen as trying to make you lose. That's the conflict of Player vs. DM and I am guilty of having experienced it first hand on the DM end. I was saying that while most RPG systems (d20 for example) put emphasis on storytelling, whether through combat or peace, there might be some game systems where the Player vs. DM, "game", nature might be explored more freely and make a good game.
[blockquote=Raelifin]I was saying that while most RPG systems (d20 for example) put emphasis on storytelling, whether through combat or peace, there might be some game systems where the Player vs. DM, "game", nature might be explored more freely and make a good game.[/blockquote]What do you mean by "storytelling" in this context?
(I'm not trying to be difficult or start a semantic argument; I just honestly don't know.)