[Semi-Forked] Defining / Creating the best RPG - A Study in the Delphi Method

[innerdude]

I was highly fascinated by howandwhy99's response in an earlier thread, as well as the thread asking the question, "If you were the CEO of WoTC, what would be your strategy now?" I thought it might be appropriate to fork a separate thread here.

I'm certain someone has done this before, in another thread, or on another Web site / forum entirely, and if so, please forebear with the usual "Been there, done that" responses.

For those of you familiar with the Delphi Method (Delphi method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), I'm hoping to set up this thread as a hypothetical Delphi method application to the question of, "If you were RPG Company X, what would you do now?"

Here's the setup:

You're the newly-appointed CEO of a subsidiary of a larger corporate conglomerate whose primary business is in manufacturing. One of your parent company's many businesses has been the fabrication of "game" materials, including minis for various systems, dice, cardboard cutouts / displays, cards, pieces, etc. Though their primary focus in these products has been fantasy and sci-fi, the corporation is open to pursuing new product lines.

Based on market research and the approval of the board, the company has asked you (and your new management team) to create a brand new, heretofore unknown RPG system to market and sell in conjunction with their existing game materials business.

You have been given complete freedom to design, produce, market, and sell this new RPG product in any way you see fit. Understanding the nature of a new product start-up, the board recognizes that for the product to ultimately be successful/profitable, it is going to take some time to get ramped up.

Your company's goals are to have the new product be a "break even" proposition within 24 months, to be profitable within 36 months, and to have a 7-10% total market share of the pen and paper RPG market within five years.

With these goals in mind, what type of product would you ultimately create?

The Delphi Method comes into play here because I don't want everyone to just start throwing out their own personal "Perfect RPG." The idea is to create a series of propositions, and then use Delphi Method analysis to ultimately revise, and come to a community consensus about what type of product should be created.

First, we create maxims, or propositions that discuss the general framework under which the product itself is created. Then, once the frameworks are agreed upon, we decide what the game itself should look like.

For example, do we want to create a genre-specific product, or make a generic ruleset for all kinds of settings? Which dice rolling method (i.e., D20, 2d10, 3d6, 'roll and keep') should the system use? Perhaps even broader, how do we define role-playing at all, and how should a rule system support that definition?

(based on howandwhy99's comments):

"[Thinking about] the conciseness of a rule, achieving each rule's particular purpose, knowing their effects on player behavior during the game, and the resulting workload for the referee/DM/GM are all important to every game."

So here's my first set of maxims:

1. A successful RPG creates a unique "space" wherein participants assume one or more fictional alternative identities, or egos.

2a. A successful RPG should provide opportunities for participants to explore aspects of their identity--through conflict, interaction, geographic and cultural exploration, negotiation.

2b. The framework of the game should provide opportunities for participants to use all of its explorative aspects.

3. A successful RPG should develop a sense of community, on an individual, group, and broader social levels.

4. A successful RPG should provide rule-governed frameworks for adjudicating participants abilities, successes, and failures.

5. Whenever possible, those rule-governed frameworks should provide the most fair, balanced, and customizable options for participants to explore the milieu.

6. An RPG assumes that one participant will primarily act as the adjudicator, not a core participant.

7. A successful RPG allows the adjudicator/DM/GM the broadest freedoms and opportunities to create content while balancing other constraints, such as cost, time, materials, system mastery, and other factors (feel free to add more).

8. A successful RPG places the vast majority of useful/significant decisions, both in terms or character development and play, in the hands of the players.

9. A successful RPG makes non-standard rule adjudication streamlined, flexible, easy to understand, and "sensible," meaning that it makes sense within the constraints of the constructed space.

Add more as you see fit!

 

[howandwhy99]

Okay, so I disagree with most of the maxims. (please don't take it personally)

1. The hypothetical is imaginary, but character identity is not central to roleplaying (when roleplaying was originally posited and termed, fictional identities were not thought to be part of it at all). That we are performing fictional personas whenever we express fiction (i.e. something we believe is false) is why roleplaying is theatre and not a "third mode of being" as Dr. Moreno created it to be.

2a. D&D was created for role exploration of class, not personality. It was and is highly popular, which I see as a measure of success.

2b. Equal ability to explore or affect the game is divided by role with each role having its' particular niche in OD&D. This means not everything in the world is open to every player unless they pick up another class or character. Narrative equality in story rights differs vastly by game design. Designing in equality in every instance is a something of a myth anyways (re: balance).

3. I agree

4. In logic pattern finding games (PFGs) the majority of the "rules" are hidden, even though they are being expressed throughout the game. A storygame can do what you say, but they tend to be competitive games for story rights rather than cooperation games. The rules are peripheral, if complementary to the improvised fiction.

5. Fair, balanced, and customizable are going to be debatable terms, but otherwise this makes sense. I think it makes more sense in a d20 game design than any other though.

6. A PFG requires one by rule, storygames can be GM-less though. So this is not an assumption I'd make into a maxim.

7. I like this.

8. This is more of a preference. As a maxim it will constrain your conclusions.

9. I think "non-standard rule adjudication" needs to be better defined.

All in all, these aren't bad ideas. What I do see is a great deal of assumption to a particular game form, something that will limit both PFG and storygame design discussion. It's hard to break out of old paradigms and common practice, but I think you are moving in the right direction. Having fewer rather than more maxims may aid in opening up new areas of thought. I say, let the theorizing define more to be followed up on or not rather than having a number of agreed upon principles limit your scope at start. Too often in theory the conclusions are inherent in the premises held. A truism for logic, but not the best for a systematic forecasting method.

I didn't know about the Delphi method before, but it find it interesting. Thanks.

 

[innerdude]

Hmmm, so I see that you're debating somewhat just how "bounded" versus "open-ended" the actual gameplay should appear in practice.

For purposes of the hypothetical Company X, I think it would be safely assumed that one of the core purposes of creating this new RPG system would be to sell material for it which necessitates the need to have something to sell (i.e., some rules ).

I think your point is well taken, though, that I am operating under a specific assumption, namely, that a typical "role-playing system" incorporates a set system of rules that in some ways bound the interactions and outcomes of those interactions of the participants in their game world. A more open-ended, high-narrative system would require fewer organized "rules," because the interactions and outcomes have little need to be controlled by "chance."

Thus, as you say about Maxim #4, such an assumption is tied to some sort of competitive outcome--meaning, the player wants to see how well they manage their character against obstacles without the adjudicator simply waving their hands. There's no point in running a 100-meter foot race if the judge at the end of the line is simply going to wave his hands and say, "Okay, person in Lane 5 is the winner!" when the participants are still 50 yards away from the finish.

Are you speaking from experience with some "freeplay" games? Because I'll be honest, I have never participated in one.

Love to hear more from you.

 

[howandwhy99]

For purposes of the hypothetical Company X, I think it would be safely assumed that one of the core purposes of creating this new RPG system would be to sell material for it which necessitates the need to have something to sell (i.e., some rules ).

I don't think most are selling rules though. A lot of companies are selling paraphernalia now. And my own preference is not for new rules much at all (those are all guidelines and suggestions IMO anyways). What I do want are modules and settings to be modified to the rules of my choosing as a referee. Those I need. Brilliant ideas I will pay for. Plastic pieces purposefully tied to rulesets in order to make more money I don't need and won't pay for.

Are you speaking from experience with some "freeplay" games? Because I'll be honest, I have never participated in one.

Love to hear more from you.

What do you mean by "freeplay"? Freeform? I don't care for those games, but I have played in them (I find it hard to believe someone in the hobby for awhile hasn't). Though there was a huge splashback against storygame theory to accept such a thing, I cannot believe freeform storytelling, solely or as a group, is in any way a "game". Games have rules. That is their defining feature. As I said before, I prefer interactive pattern finding games or GM-less storygames (no storygames have GMs anyways).