Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[pemerton]

I feel like playtesting and tuning could serve purposes for games analogous to editing for film or novel. So game texts of various sorts (beyond typical adventure paths) will still have benefited from those common best practices. An example is where I author a rule, play that rule with various groups, and then substantially revise or cut it... which seems analogous to making editorial choices over other media.

Or is it more analogous to James Watt testing various prototypes, experimenting with various sorts of seals and valves, etc in the invention of his "perfect engine"?

Editing is, primarily, about changing and (thereby) perfecting the way that certain content is presented. My experience as an editor is with non-fiction works in specialised academic fields (my own work, as well as the work of colleagues and students). Editing in that context involves cutting out surplus words to meet word limits, without losing content; attending to, and improving, structure, so that ideas and arguments are more clearly presented; improving the quality of prose; as well as more prosaic copy-editing.

The parameters for good editing of fiction writing will be a bit different from the sort of editing I'm familiar with, but the basic goal is I think the same: it's about strengthening the way that a work present what it is that it is presenting.

Improving a prototype of a machine is not much like editing, beyond the fact that both involve iteration with a goal of improvement.

Playtesting of game rules is aimed at improvement, again by way of iteration. But is it much like editing, beyond that? It doesn't operate on the content of a fiction, except for the special case of playtesting a plotted adventure. It doesn't change the way that a vehicle for a fiction presents that fiction, again with the exception of that special case.

I don't think we need strained analogies to help us understand RPGing. Does it help us understand playtesting to compare it to editing? I mean, would that be a useful way of describing it to someone who was new to the whole idea of RPG design? I don't think so. I think a comparison to iteration in the design and development of a machine would actually be more apt, at least in most cases - again, a plotted adventure could be an exception in this respect.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps in that sense like acting in or being audience to a live performance of a play, which will not be edited during the performance. Where that performance is shaped by a script comprising dialogue and stage directions, TTRPG is shaped by a text comprising rules, cues, and descriptions.

But a play - at least in its most mainstream form - is experienced by the audience only after extensive rehearsal by the performers, under the guidance of the director(s) and others.

That is how, again in the mainstream case, a theatre company ensures the aesthetic quality of their live performance, in the absence of the ability to edit a given performance before the audience encounter it.

The idea of rehearsal has no analogue in RPGing, except perhaps for a tightly plotted adventure where the GM rehearses their narration in the same way that a stage performer might.

Comparing the role of cues in a RPG to the role of stage directions and scripts in theatre therefore seems, to me, quite inapt. The cues - if they are good - have to be capable of generating aesthetically satisfying fiction even when they are encountered and used spontaneously, rather than being the subject of extensive rehearsal. In this respect what is striking about (say) the Oracles for In A Wicked Age, or the GM agenda, principles, and moves for Apocalypse World, is not any resemblance to a script or stage direction, but rather the ways in which they differ from those things.

 

[prabe]

Perhaps in that sense like acting in or being audience to a live performance of a play, which will not be edited during the performance. Where that performance is shaped by a script comprising dialogue and stage directions, TTRPG is shaped by a text comprising rules, cues, and descriptions. I mean "text" here in the broad sense of game-as-artifact that can be critically analyzed, so description may include illustrations etc. I'm not sure if the parameterization ought to be counted separately from cues, as the same set of cues can form substantially different instances depending on the tuning of their parameters. Above I used the term "signifiers" which I would revert to here for the meaning-carrying content of the text, which includes cues as a subset.

Given that I tend to think participating in a TRPG involves being author, actor, and audience all at the same time, the comparison to theater seems apt, though the fact the narrative is being composed at the same time it's being performed and observed--and the fact that in parallel there is (I hope) some sort of gameplay happening, with implications as far as optimization and decisions; and the fact the game's rules constrain the possibilities in ways not really relevant to (most) theater or literature--would seem to me to limit the usefulness of a direct comparison.

 

[clearstream]

Comparing the role of cues in a RPG to the role of stage directions and scripts in theatre therefore seems, to me, quite inapt. The cues - if they are good - have to be capable of generating aesthetically satisfying fiction even when they are encountered and used spontaneously, rather than being the subject of extensive rehearsal. In this respect what is striking about (say) the Oracles for In A Wicked Age, or the GM agenda, principles, and moves for Apocalypse World, is not any resemblance to a script or stage direction, but rather the ways in which they differ from those things.

Given that I tend to think participating in a TRPG involves being author, actor, and audience all at the same time, the comparison to theater seems apt, though the fact the narrative is being composed at the same time it's being performed and observed--and the fact that in parallel there is (I hope) some sort of gameplay happening, with implications as far as optimization and decisions; and the fact the game's rules constrain the possibilities in ways not really relevant to (most) theater or literature--would seem to me to limit the usefulness of a direct comparison.

These (which I do not have any strong disagreement with) would fit with the ludologist's dislike of presupposing critical methods for traditional forms of narrative will say anything useful about games. However, there have been arguments put about narrative structure (development of themes, rising tension, etc.) that do seem to express or rely on a familial relationship between RPG and other kinds of performed fiction.

Cues and other signifiers (rules, descriptions, perhaps parameterizations) are expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. There's that superficial likeness to a script, which is also expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. The difference seems to be spontaneity as you said, including freedom of interpretation and arrangement.

As a minor aside, RPG testing and iteration isn't solely about how well its mechanisms function, it's also how well those mechanisms give rise to fiction of the desired kind. The experience of choosing which mechanisms to include, which to retune, and which to cut feels authorial when instigating the design, and editorial when finalizing it. That's if editing includes preparing a text (in the broad sense) for consumption or performance. An example could be if an early version of an Oracle contained a prompt to "Writhe" and it was felt that writhing would be jarring to the intended conversation. I suspect that the Stonetop discord channel is replete with further examples, as Strandberg proposes, playtests, accepts feedback upon, and revises the rules etc.

In that light, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point about "not the subject of extensive rehearsal". It is only that they're not rehearsed by the group at the table. They are rehearsed by groups from whom conclusions are drawn about how they will most likely play out at the table. Blades in the Dark works as well as it does because Harper was able to extensively playtest it (a sort of rehearsing on behalf of). It wouldn't be surprising if there were lessons to draw from theory around editing for other media, just as there have been lessons to draw from theory around narratives presented via those other media.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

These (which I do not have any strong disagreement with) would fit with the ludologist's dislike of presupposing critical methods...

The...ludologist?

The mind reels. Yes, the word can be looked up, even defined. But truly comprehended as something used without irony? I dare say: No.

 

[niklinna]

These (which I do not have any strong disagreement with) would fit with the ludologist's dislike of presupposing critical methods for traditional forms of narrative will say anything useful about games. However, there have been arguments put about narrative structure (development of themes, rising tension, etc.) that do seem to express or rely on a familial relationship between RPG and other kinds of performed fiction.

Cues and other signifiers (rules, descriptions, perhaps parameterizations) are expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. There's that superficial likeness to a script, which is also expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. The difference seems to be spontaneity as you said, including freedom of interpretation and arrangement.

As a minor aside, RPG testing and iteration isn't solely about how well its mechanisms function, it's also how well those mechanisms give rise to fiction of the desired kind. The experience of choosing which mechanisms to include, which to retune, and which to cut feels authorial when instigating the design, and editorial when finalizing it. That's if editing includes preparing a text (in the broad sense) for consumption or performance. An example could be if an early version of an Oracle contained a prompt to "Writhe" and it was felt that writhing would be jarring to the intended conversation. I suspect that the Stonetop discord channel is replete with further examples, as Strandberg proposes, playtests, accepts feedback upon, and revises the rules etc.

In that light, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point about "not the subject of extensive rehearsal". It is only that they're not rehearsed by the group at the table. They are rehearsed by groups from whom conclusions are drawn about how they will most likely play out at the table. Blades in the Dark works as well as it does because Harper was able to extensively playtest it (a sort of rehearsing on behalf of). It wouldn't be surprising if there were lessons to draw from theory around editing for other media, just as there have been lessons to draw from theory around narratives presented via those other media.

WAT

 

[clearstream]

The...ludologist?

The mind reels. Yes, the word can be looked up, even defined. But truly comprehended as something used without irony? I dare say: No.

But also: Yes! I'm obliquely referring to (quoting here from Wikipedia)

"the ludology vs. narratology debates. The narratological view is that games should be understood as novel forms of narrative and can thus be studied using theories of narrative. The ludological position is that games should be understood on their own terms. Ludologists have proposed that the study of games should concern the analysis of the abstract and formal systems they describe. In other words, the focus of game studies should be on the rules of a game, not on the representational elements which are only incidental."​

Here I was unironically casting @pemerton's argument that

"what is striking about (say) the Oracles for In A Wicked Age, or the GM agenda, principles, and moves for Apocalypse World, is not any resemblance to a script or stage direction, but rather the ways in which they differ from those things"​

​

as one that those on the ludologist side might have readily agreed with. Seeing as those disagreements were considerably reconciled over their first decade, there is in truth a mild irony hinted at, that is found in my suggestion further down that there could yet be lessons transferable from traditional media.

 

[bloodtide]

Everyone at the table is, among other things, the audience. Even if someone can, in principle, go back and edit (retcon) a thing that's been established, the people at the table see the edit in ways that someone reading a novel or watching a movie probably wouldn't.

While sure there are a couple of amazing players that can see such things, the vast majority won't.

If the GM isn't playing solo, then they have an audience - ie the players - for everything they say.

I don't really think of the players as an audience.

If they say X to the players, and then say Y to the players, they haven't edited X in to Y. They've just said two things to the players.

EDIT

I guess you can say changing something is adding something.....but it's more common it say it is an edit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While sure there are a couple of amazing players that can see such things, the vast majority won't.


I don't really think of the players as an audience.

I guess you can say changing something is adding something.....but it's more common it say it is an edit.

I think there are a few assumptions you’re operating under which you assume everyone is, and that’s not the case, and it’s causing confusion.

For instance, until something is introduced in play, it’s not yet established. You can only change things that are established. So therefore, the players will absolutely notice. You seem to be assuming that play must be prep heavy and that changes to the prep can go unseen. But many folks here would not view it that way.

Also, as a GM, I don’t think I’m allowed to change anything I want. Again, this is related to things introduced into play. Those things are not generally meant to be changed… though they can perhaps be given a new context. As long as I don’t contradict what’s previously been established. There are even some rules systems that tell a GM when they can take such an action, and don’t grant the GM carte blanche to do whatever they like.

As for the players being an audience… they are the people who are partaking in the events of play. They are very much an audience in that sense. Especially if we’re going to talk about things like “edits” and such that come up in literature and film. Whether you consider the players an audience or not does not change the fact that they would witness “edits” in a way that the audience for a film or book would not.

 

[pemerton]

As a minor aside, RPG testing and iteration isn't solely about how well its mechanisms function, it's also how well those mechanisms give rise to fiction of the desired kind.

I'm not feeling the force of this contrast. Giving rise to fiction of the desired kind is the central function of a RPG's mechanisms. Not something that is different from the mechanisms' functions.

The experience of choosing which mechanisms to include, which to retune, and which to cut feels authorial when instigating the design, and editorial when finalizing it. That's if editing includes preparing a text (in the broad sense) for consumption or performance.

Part of preparing a text for consumption is settling on the page size, the margin width etc. This is editorial only in some loose sense. Choosing which ink is best for a given paper is also part of that preparation, and I don't think that's editorial at all.

In the context of a RPG rulebook, choosing which rules to include is editorial in the sense that it is a decision about what to include in a published work. But the process of winnowing out by testing is not editorial.

The analogy would be a cook book: deciding which recipes to include, and how exactly to present those recipes (eg with or without metric/non-metric conversions), is editorial. But the process of testing the recipes to see which ones are worth including is not editing. It's cooking.

Suppose that James Watt wrote an instruction manual for building a steam engine. In writing the bit about how to prepare the leather for the seals, a decision has to be made about what to assume the reader will know and do, and what to leave out: that's editing. But the process of working out what systems of seals will work is not editing: it's engineering.

RPGs create a bit more room for confusion because not only do they resemble recipe books and instruction manuals, including written descriptions of rules/processes for doing a thing; but the thing that one does by following those rules and processes is the creation of a fiction. But I think it's better to avoid this confusion than lean into it!

An example could be if an early version of an Oracle contained a prompt to "Writhe" and it was felt that writhing would be jarring to the intended conversation. I suspect that the Stonetop discord channel is replete with further examples, as Strandberg proposes, playtests, accepts feedback upon, and revises the rules etc.

In that light, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point about "not the subject of extensive rehearsal". It is only that they're not rehearsed by the group at the table. They are rehearsed by groups from whom conclusions are drawn about how they will most likely play out at the table. Blades in the Dark works as well as it does because Harper was able to extensively playtest it (a sort of rehearsing on behalf of). It wouldn't be surprising if there were lessons to draw from theory around editing for other media, just as there have been lessons to draw from theory around narratives presented via those other media.

I also prefer to maintain clarity of terms, rather than blur their use.

A rehearsal is when a performer, or a group of performers, practices a thing - a play, a recitation, a musical piece, etc - to get better at performing it. A composer working on their piece, and on their score, perfecting each, and also perfecting the relationship between the two, is not rehearsing. They are composing. Suppose they call in some musicians to perform the piece, or some part of it, to help work on both the composition (and its sound) and the score (and its adequacy in conveying the piece to a musician): that is still not rehearsing. It's part of the process of composing.

A group of people play-testing a RPG rule to see what sort of fiction it tends to produce, and then using that experience to improve the rule and/or the written presentation of the rule, is not rehearsing. The group are designing and/or developing a game's rules.

The way they use the rules in this process might also give some insights into better ways of writing those rules, and we could call those insights, if we speak broadly, editorial insights. Vincent Baker gives an example in the AW rulebook, where he says that he wanted to start with 4 dots for improvement, with the fifth "dot" triggering an erasing of the 4 filled dots and earning an improvement, but this didn't work: players would treat the 4 dots, when filled, as complete, and so he had to introduce a fifth dot to fill in even though, as soon as it is filled in, all five dots are erased as the improvement is earned. But this is not any sort of editing of the fiction that the play of the game will produce; it's all about improving the communicative qualities of the game rules, which are a set of instructions.

These (which I do not have any strong disagreement with) would fit with the ludologist's dislike of presupposing critical methods for traditional forms of narrative will say anything useful about games. However, there have been arguments put about narrative structure (development of themes, rising tension, etc.) that do seem to express or rely on a familial relationship between RPG and other kinds of performed fiction.

Cues and other signifiers (rules, descriptions, perhaps parameterizations) are expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. There's that superficial likeness to a script, which is also expected to lead to performances that are recognizably of a kind. The difference seems to be spontaneity as you said, including freedom of interpretation and arrangement.

The development of theme, rising tension, etc, is a property of the fiction that is created in the play of a RPG. It is not a property of the cues that are used in the course of that play, except for the special case (that I already mentioned) of a pre-plotted adventure where the play of the game consists in the particular group, in their play, reproducing the pre-authored fiction of the adventure.

Even in that special case, we have to make some careful distinctions. The way a pre-plotted adventure encodes and presents a fiction with theme, rising action etc is different from how (say) a novel does, and from how (say) a script does, because it is written to be used by the GM of a group of RPGers to lead the other participants through the fiction. A novel, if well-written by mainstream standards, will draw the reader into the experience of the theme, the rising action, etc. A pre-plotted adventure module is not likely to produce that same sort of experience just by being read though. Even more than a script, it is likely to need to be experienced in play to actually generate those narrative phenomena.

Once we turn away from the special case to RPG rulebooks more generally, we wouldn't expect to, and we won't, find theme, rising action etc in the books themselves, any more than you will literally find good things to eat in a recipe book.