Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[billd91]

It's very easy to fake simulation. Make something that looks plausible, and most people either will not know enough to object or will prefer not to think too hard about it. This is admittedly more of a problem in games that attempt Process-Sim, because their larger number of "moving parts", many of which are only superficially correct, interact in some very odd ways.

If the inputs (decisions made, factors in the game's environment, etc) are providing reasonably plausible outputs, that's not really "faking" simulation. The process may be fairly abstract and simplified to satisfy the game's usability requirements, but it's still engaging in simulation. It doesn't matter what sorts of gamist constructs are taking you from point A to point B. If it is taking you from A to B because it is following some process in reality or in the genre the game is emulating that is also taking you from point A to point B, it's pretty much engaging in a simulation. Some of the methods involved may be more gamist-oriented than others depending how simple or smooth the designers want the game play aspects to be compared to how true to life/genre they want the simulation to be, but that doesn't mean they're "faking" simulation.

 

[Wicht]

Heck, I personally think you'd have a hard time proving that Gygaxian D&D was created to serve only one agenda.

"Agenda"s that come to mind include

• Having Fun
• Socializing
• Escapism
• Projection (Immersion)
• Creation
• Simulation
• Exploration
• Progression and Construction

Any hobby which fulfills only a single "agenda" at any given time seems like a rather shallow hobby to me

The real question is: "What do you mean by 'the hobby'?"

Gaming, specifically the role-playing branch of gaming, including the painting and collecting of miniatures as a sub-branch of the hobby and the collecting of RPG books.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You sir likely run a simulationist table as do I.

I don't know about that. I had significant education in film and theater and writing as a child and came to D&D as a creative outlet. I base a lot of my DMing style on ideas from theater and creative writing courses I've taken, and film and TV commentaries and interviews (as well as, of course, D&D books).

I think that drama comes from truth, even very stylized genre fiction. There's emotional truth as well as rational modeling of reality. I try to make my narratives feel true.

I've had players who might be more strict on simulation issues than me, a history buff, an engineer, among others.

I do, however, agree that "narrativism" would be a massive paradigm shift from the way I use rules. I think a lot about issues like where the spotlight is and how the players can shape the narrative and themes and emotions and messages, but that has little if anything to do with game mechanics in my approach.

I appreciate a lot of what you write Ahnehnois.

Thanks.

 

[Dausuul]

That was the real point - while some RPGs may be designed for a single agenda, I don't think you'll find many such any more. Heck, I personally think you'd have a hard time proving that Gygaxian D&D was created to serve only one agenda. And these days where the internet gives designers a great deal of feedback on what the market wants (which is decidedly mixed), and games are often built by teams, rather than by individuals with a focused bias, games are even less focused on just one aspect.

And, by the way, I think that's a good thing. For pretty much any Forgist agenda, if you really wanted to serve just one, an RPG would not be the best way to serve it. I think RPGs are, by their nature, mixed.

This is one of my biggest problems with the Forge approach: The assumption that an RPG should be designed to serve only one agenda. It's like saying that a car should be designed either to be fast, or to be reliable, or to be safe in a collision, and no car design should attempt to pursue more than one of these goals. In fact, any car designer should be paying attention to all three. The mix will vary from car to car--some put a higher priority on speed, others on reliability, etc.--but it is always a mix.

 

[Umbran]

The Forge people don't dispute that a single person can enjoy different things.

"The Forge people" is not a well-defined group. I have heard folks who espouse precisely that - that *really*, a particular player only ever wants one agenda, and is lying to themselves and others when he or she says they want and enjoy multiple things.

A second point of vulnerability, and I think one that a lot of people (perhaps including Umbran?) have in mind, is to question the monolithic nature of the group.

I do have that in mind. I also question the monolithic nature of the individual. Yes, there are some folks who are hardcore for one agenda all the time, but many (perhaps even most) are not.

I think the idea is that you have one participant who derives pleasure from subordinating "gutsiness" to fidelity to character and setting, and another participant who derives pleasure from playing in a gutsy style. WotC seems to favour this sort of idea, with its discussion of "player types" in its DMGs (derived, at least loosely, from Robin Laws' similar ideas, I think).

Not just Robin Laws' ideas, but actual data! Data they paid a goodly sum to collect, so I'm actually kind of happy that they try to listen to it.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

The research suggests four basic agendas, rather than the Forge's three, and recognizes a mixed "middle of the road" mode as well.

You also see it in the frequently-expressed idea that combat is an alternative to, rather than a site of, characterisation and roleplaying.)

In D&D, you see such, but games like FATE demonstrate that the two need not be so separated. Of course, one would also probably argue that FATE doesn't serve gamist needs very well, the "game" part of it being rather simple.

The Forge response to this rebuttal of the "single agenda" argument, and one for which I personally have some sympathy, is that a game in which you have participants looking for different things in this way, is in some sense unstable or "second best".

And thereby making perfect the enemy of good? Or, perhaps more importantly, forgetting the social nature of the endeavor, such that being with people may be a more important part of the experience than purity of the activity.

I can analogize to a dinner party. At such a gathering, perhaps the food may be more perfectly executed if, for example, I have no individuals coming that are gluten intolerant. As soon as I have any person with any food allergy or restriction, I compromise the integrity of my menu. I'd argue that the menu is only one aspect of the overall gathering, and being too big a stickler about the food can put a damper on the other aspects.

Which is to say, if my friend is vegetarian, I'm making sure there's food for her at the darn party! Integrity of the menu can go to heck!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is to say, if my friend is vegetarian, I'm making sure there's food for her at the darn party! Integrity of the menu can go to heck!

Oh, if only more people did that (speaking as a vegetarian).

 

[billd91]

This is one of my biggest problems with the Forge approach: The assumption that an RPG should be designed to serve only one agenda. It's like saying that a car should be designed either to be fast, or to be reliable, or to be safe in a collision, and no car design should attempt to pursue more than one of these goals. In fact, any car designer should be paying attention to all three. The mix will vary from car to car--some put a higher priority on speed, others on reliability, etc.--but it is always a mix.

I assume the Forge's approach to agendas is more of an analytic construct rather than a prescription for making a real game.

 

[Umbran]

I assume the Forge's approach to agendas is more of an analytic construct rather than a prescription for making a real game.

That would depend who you talk to, and perhaps at what point of Forge history you're considering. I certainly have run into people (some in the rather distant past) who have claimed that the Forge theory was the only way to make Real Games. I've also seen folks who think of it only in terms of using it as one framework of analysis, but that should never be used for actual design. So, I figure opinions vary.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Questions

We've discussed the issue for 18 pages and seeing many people agree with the statement that Paizo would be the better steward that WotC, if it has not already become the steward.

With that in mind, a follow-up question:
What does WotC have to do to become the steward again?
Or, alternatively
How does WotC retain stewardship and become a better steward for the hobby?

From a strategic level, it means treating the D&D brand and its fans with respect. D&D needs to be well supported through high quality products that each serve a clear purpose and provide a great value.

The goal should be to release fewer products, but to have each one heavily anticipated and loved.

Let's look at some Paizo products that exemplify this:

Advanced Players Guide - The purpose of this book was to greatly expand the number of character archetypes available to players. It has great value because it's comprehensive. It's a single book that is comparable to the entire line of 3.5 Complete books.

Pathfinder Pawns: Bestiary Box - This product contains tokens and stands for every monster in the Bestiary, making it infinitely useful.

Ultimate Equipment - This single book compiles all of the equipment from the core and advanced books, and expands the list thoughtfully.

The thing these all have in common is an attempt to be complete and purposeful resources. They are all high value propositions.

If WotC can copy and build upon this model, they will do well.

 

[Bluenose]

If the inputs (decisions made, factors in the game's environment, etc) are providing reasonably plausible outputs, that's not really "faking" simulation. The process may be fairly abstract and simplified to satisfy the game's usability requirements, but it's still engaging in simulation. It doesn't matter what sorts of gamist constructs are taking you from point A to point B. If it is taking you from A to B because it is following some process in reality or in the genre the game is emulating that is also taking you from point A to point B, it's pretty much engaging in a simulation. Some of the methods involved may be more gamist-oriented than others depending how simple or smooth the designers want the game play aspects to be compared to how true to life/genre they want the simulation to be, but that doesn't mean they're "faking" simulation.

My experience is that a lot of games, especially ones that attempt to simulate the How (Process Sim games, basically) are much more interested in the individual steps of the how than they are in getting from A to B. And for that reason they often end up at places other than B, and require that I check my sense of what is a sensible outcome at the door or be thoroughly dissastified with the result. The plausibility of an individual step may seem adequate, but when it and the other steps come to a ridiculous final result that's where the problem lies.