Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9197980" data-attributes="member: 7040941"><p>Thats an issue that I believe reveals a drawback in asserting RPGs as being limitlessly capable. </p><p></p><p>Pretty much any other kind of game, people will readily accept as part of the premise that not everything is going to match up with personal preferences, and most will in turn modify their expectations accordingly. Its not foolproof of course, as a game can still be pretty abrasive even if a players attempted to embrace it, but you don't really see these kinds of issues popping up unless something is really, really bad. </p><p></p><p>But in RPGs, so many of them try to sell themselves on this idea of being limitlessly capable when they aren't. In fact, apropos to the topic, Bakers games and the many derivatives that followed embody exactly that. </p><p></p><p>There's no shortage of people that will tell you a given a PBTA game has to be played to its premise, and not doing so <em>will</em> break the game. If you try to play Masks as anything other than what it is, it will break. </p><p></p><p>And yet, when the zeitgeist collectively insists on RPGs being limitless, people get funnelled towards Masks as its considered one of the better supers games, and unless they're able to buy into its specific premise, they're almost assuredly going to bounce right off of it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Id say it is in the context of what pemerton was saying. I don't have any doubt that Baker himself would say he used his ideas to design his game, and he probably could explain exactly how he did so. </p><p></p><p>But thats not any different than me doing the same thing from my perspective when I talk about synchronicity, and I can point to a few different examples in my game that follows that approach. </p><p></p><p>But what pemerton is doing is simply quoting Baker and leaving it at that. There's no logical "arrow" from A to B that reveals any sort of practical design method. While my alternative might be esoteric to someone who hasn't read the book I've been referencing, it doesn't lack the logic arrow. Ie, you abstract the mechanics in such a way that you can directly examine the effects they generate. </p><p></p><p>This meanwhile, is a handy diagram that breaksdown the overall process and why its valuable:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]331589[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Handy indeed, given it basically makes a feedback loop out of making games, which is the precise thing we're aiming for to keep gameplay going mechanically. The problems outlined in the OP are things that can be identified through simulation (typically playtesting, or if applicable through an abstract simulation of the loop itself; the "Tool" in the diagram), and you can break them down into a diagram so you can then make controlled adjustments to the mechanic. </p><p></p><p>This was how I ended up figuring out how to refine my combat system so that it was both easier to explain and grokk, as the resulting diagram I was working with was sound, meaning it should have been producing the effect I wanted, and so the fact that it wasn't is qhat pointed me towards the aesthetic issue of what the Actions were called. </p><p></p><p>Simply calling them Actions instead of two different terms dramatically simplified the entire system, and it took minimal adjustments to the overall pattern to account for the change. And as fortune had it, the change also ended up being an overall boon for gameplay as it made it easier to justify a second Action source for players, which in turn meant I didn't have to upend my entire combat system, and now players have a lot more room to do things. </p><p></p><p>And now Im in the process of using this technique to finish building my Exploration system, as well as to set up my Social system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9197980, member: 7040941"] Thats an issue that I believe reveals a drawback in asserting RPGs as being limitlessly capable. Pretty much any other kind of game, people will readily accept as part of the premise that not everything is going to match up with personal preferences, and most will in turn modify their expectations accordingly. Its not foolproof of course, as a game can still be pretty abrasive even if a players attempted to embrace it, but you don't really see these kinds of issues popping up unless something is really, really bad. But in RPGs, so many of them try to sell themselves on this idea of being limitlessly capable when they aren't. In fact, apropos to the topic, Bakers games and the many derivatives that followed embody exactly that. There's no shortage of people that will tell you a given a PBTA game has to be played to its premise, and not doing so [I]will[/I] break the game. If you try to play Masks as anything other than what it is, it will break. And yet, when the zeitgeist collectively insists on RPGs being limitless, people get funnelled towards Masks as its considered one of the better supers games, and unless they're able to buy into its specific premise, they're almost assuredly going to bounce right off of it. Id say it is in the context of what pemerton was saying. I don't have any doubt that Baker himself would say he used his ideas to design his game, and he probably could explain exactly how he did so. But thats not any different than me doing the same thing from my perspective when I talk about synchronicity, and I can point to a few different examples in my game that follows that approach. But what pemerton is doing is simply quoting Baker and leaving it at that. There's no logical "arrow" from A to B that reveals any sort of practical design method. While my alternative might be esoteric to someone who hasn't read the book I've been referencing, it doesn't lack the logic arrow. Ie, you abstract the mechanics in such a way that you can directly examine the effects they generate. This meanwhile, is a handy diagram that breaksdown the overall process and why its valuable: [ATTACH type="full"]331589[/ATTACH] Handy indeed, given it basically makes a feedback loop out of making games, which is the precise thing we're aiming for to keep gameplay going mechanically. The problems outlined in the OP are things that can be identified through simulation (typically playtesting, or if applicable through an abstract simulation of the loop itself; the "Tool" in the diagram), and you can break them down into a diagram so you can then make controlled adjustments to the mechanic. This was how I ended up figuring out how to refine my combat system so that it was both easier to explain and grokk, as the resulting diagram I was working with was sound, meaning it should have been producing the effect I wanted, and so the fact that it wasn't is qhat pointed me towards the aesthetic issue of what the Actions were called. Simply calling them Actions instead of two different terms dramatically simplified the entire system, and it took minimal adjustments to the overall pattern to account for the change. And as fortune had it, the change also ended up being an overall boon for gameplay as it made it easier to justify a second Action source for players, which in turn meant I didn't have to upend my entire combat system, and now players have a lot more room to do things. And now Im in the process of using this technique to finish building my Exploration system, as well as to set up my Social system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs
Top