What is your Game About?

[Thasmodious]

I agree with Mr. Wick in a lot of ways. Any story can be boiled down to a core essence, even if what exactly that is is somewhat open to perception.

For example, while I agree with Midget's post, I don't agree with his summary of LotR. I think evil largely stands as a metaphor for any struggle of humanity (one example from the story is the encroachment of industrializiation) and is subject to perception. To me, LotRs central theme is fellowship and the everyman. That the smallest among us can have world-changing impact through the effort. If I was designing a system around that, I would be reluctant to use a level based system, at least one where the power gulf between the low level characters and high characters was insurmountable (like D&D) and the little guy, the hobbit gardener, couldn't make much of an impact.

This got me thinking about what my upcoming game is about and I realized I hadn't really addressed this. I've been working in the details, writing notes, scenes, bits of adventures, planning specifics, but I hadn't really thought about a core direction for the game. The game is a space western set in Whedon's Verse and using Savage Worlds. So what does it come down to, what's Firefly about, or the pulp space western genre in general? In my view, freedom. In the 25th century humanity is still struggling against its own nature to dominate and control (and the individual is losing and on the run). In the galaxy far, far away it was the same struggle, freedom from the tyranny of not "evil" as a concept, but control. Many of your pulp westerns (the spaghetti variety) were about the same thing, although Leone often explored the other perspective, that maybe freedom as a ruling principle was archaic and that the needs of the social order held over the self interest of the individual. After all, it was man's ability to act cooperatively that led us out of the jungle and to building civilizations and advancing the human race as a whole. Is the good guy the one who rebels against that and "does his own thing" or the one who fights to protect the ideals of civilization?

So which side of the coin would I like to explore in my game? Freedom as a moral principle against the control and order of the society at large? Or defend peace and order against the outlaw actions of those who would disrupt society?

The first is always fun, but more standard, while the latter might have the benefit of being more interesting to explore...

As for as mechanical tools, I think Savage Worlds provides those handidly, in either direction, marking the individual heros and villains on either side of the coin as special, incorporating luck into the mechanics, etc. Pulp mechanics have a good feel for this from either side. "Freedom" would be represented by the ship, so could Order, when its an Alliance ship and its crew are a military/police unit, utilizing the symbol of freedom (the lone ship) to carry out their mission. Hmm, now I need to think for awhile.

 

[Ariosto]

Are you acting as a screenplay writer, or as the referee of a role-playing game?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They do have overlapping skillsets and responsibilities.

 

[El Mahdi]

"You must spread some experience points around before giving them to Hussar again."

Excellent thread!

I like the idea of distilling down what your game is about. I think that would be an excellent tool for starting a game, campaign, or individual adventure. I also like the idea of tailoring the mechanic. Doesn't mean you have to be a slave to the mechanic, but you can use it as a tool to create the feel and theme your game is about.

Very thought provoking thread. Good stuff.

 

[Ariosto]

They do have overlapping skillsets and responsibilities.

Sure, but the devil's in the details. If I've got some kind of hangup that keeps me from being honest with myself about what I'm trying to accomplish, then I've got a problem when it comes to choosing the right tools for the job. And if even I don't know what I'm about, then I can hardly represent it accurately to folks considering whether to get involved in it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

This is one of the reasons I create a new setting every time I start a campaign because I tailor it for the themes and ideas of the campaign. So not only does the plotline flow around these core concepts but the world itself does as well.

Before I start anything with making a setting or plotline I set down stuff like Theme, Atmosphere, Concept, Style and so forth. I use that as the basic framework for everything to follow. Heck, I don't even map out that much and just use that framework to map stuff out as the game uncovers and revolves around the concepts and ideas of the campaign.

My current campaign deals with the pursuit of knowledge and the extremes it can take.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, but the devil's in the details. If I've got some kind of hangup that keeps me from being honest with myself about what I'm trying to accomplish, then I've got a problem when it comes to choosing the right tools for the job. And if even I don't know what I'm about, then I can hardly represent it accurately to folks considering whether to get involved in it.

I think the main difference between the screenwriter and a GM is that the screenwriter is basically in control of the whole creative process, including the nature and character of the people who populate his little universe.

The GM, in contrast, rarely has anything more than situational control of the world- he sets up the environment, but someone else has exercised their creativity to partially populate and interact within it.

IOW, he doesn't choose all of the tools involved in the job.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So which side of the coin would I like to explore in my game? Freedom as a moral principle against the control and order of the society at large? Or defend peace and order against the outlaw actions of those who would disrupt society?

Related to Ariosto's point about the GM's job, I think one of the interesting aspects of running a game is that you don't have to decide which element of that to explore.

You can leave it an open question. You can have the players explore it. You can have their characters come down on different sides of the argument.

As the GM, you set up conflicts. You don't need to decide on it, you just need to be able to present both sides as valid options (and perhaps depict both extremes as unwanted).

This is a unique ability in an interactive medium. A movie doesn't have as much of a luxury of letting the audience figure out what they want to support. Games can do that, and doing that also increases the player's investment in what is at stake.

 

[Jack7]

This is purely an assumption on my part since I haven't read the thing, but it seems to me that what Wick is implying, based upon your brief presentation of his ideas, is not that you need a stat for hope, but that you need a concrete way of measuring what you mean by saying "hope."

That is to say one can express the answer of the question, "what is your game about?" as hope, but what does that mean? Absolutely nothing in reality, or rather perhaps dozens of different things depending upon who is addressing their own assumptions about what the answer means, and how it is properly defined.

So it strikes me that what Wick is really saying is, "have some concrete formulation in mind, something that can be measured and analyzed and used for comparative purposes" to see if the answer of hope is really being addressed, and in what exact way.

You can't really have a hope stat. It's like saying you have a stat for thought (versus an IQ), or love (versus a display of affection), or courage (versus an act of bravery), or whatever intangible ideal. What you can do however is develop a way of thinking about, measuring, addressing, and analyzing the elements, or constituent parts, or behaviors, or components of hope to see if enough of these things are being addressed that one may say more or less conclusively, "yes, that is indeed a game about hope."

For instance if a scientist wanted to measure "love" he cannot of course measure "love." What he must do instead is measure the elements of love, those behaviors, traits, and expressions normally associated with "love." This is not to say love does not exist, it is to say love is beyond the normal methods of analytical control and measurement. But what you can do is measure those things which constitute the various definitional elements we claim when normally speaking about the ideal of "love." Same thing for hope. If I said to you, "I have hope in my heart, my ideals are all about hope," what does that in fact mean other than a purely subjectively linguistic expression? Suppose you behaved in a depressed, cynical, despondent way most of the time but every someone asked you how you felt you said, "I am absolutely hopeful." Does the language define the ideal or the ideal the language?

What is the real measure of the ideal? (Personally I'd never say my game is about hope. That is in my opinion not a what question but a why question. Hope deepens not upon the "what of things," - after all anyone can be hopeful under the proper what conditions - everything goes your way, you face little friction, you prosper - but rather hope is a question of the why of things. Are you hopeful despite opposition, despite failure, despite setback, and if so, then despite the immediate evidence of events, why...?)

In any case I think Wick is trying to dissuade from the idea that purposeful creation or even purposeful expression of an ideal requires nothing more than a vague generality or conception open to multiple interpretations of possible definition. Rather it requires a venue, a vector, a path of progress, motion, or movement. Yes, one wants to go to the City of Hope. But hope is not a plan, hope is the destination.

Therefore Wick is encouraging, obversely, that to achieve an aim one must have a navigational route. Methods, procedures, tools, maps, plans, and that these things are not to be confused with the goal, but they are necessary to the goal, for without the method there is no good chance of achievement of the goal. The point is not to stat Hope, but rather to gain concrete idea of what constitutes hope, and that it is in many cases possible to stat such things as compositional elements, if by statting a thing you mean objectifying, measuring, and testing those same elements.

It's like saying "I'd like to be Happy." But that's not a question or even the question, or an enlightening path towards achievement. Because happy is the goal. And therefore the goal is not in question, and never really has been, once you first conceive of it. The real question revolves around the problem, "what must I do to be happy?" Or rich, or famous, or moral, or good, or successful, or happy, or holy, or whatever the case may be. The goal is already known, it is the course that must be properly charted. What you don't know about the goal is not the goal itself, but the what, when, where, how, and why of the goal. How to navigate it. How to chart and measure it. And the charts must of course, for this is the goal, lead closer towards the detonation, but the destination is not a description of method. the goal is the intention, the method is the instrument.

Therefore, in my opinion, if you want to follow Wick's advice, develop methods to match your madness.

General discussion of theory and ideal is fine, but it never drew a map of the Amazon. And it most assuredly never actually explored it. Anywho, that's my story and I'm stickin to it.

 

[Cam Banks]

It's also important to note that while you do have to figure out what the game is about, you still need to explain what it is the characters do in the game. You can't leave that part out.

I asked this question to the Dragonlance fan community a little while ago. What I wanted to know was the following:

1. What is Dragonlance about?
2. What is D&D4E about?
3. Are they the same thing?

Dragonlance (and other settings paired up with D&D) do have all of the "trappings" of D&D inherent in them, but often the worlds seem as if they'd be even better if they weren't tied to D&D. I have long wondered if there's actually a game (or set of mechanics to tweak a game) that really addresses what it's about.

Same for Birthright, Planescape, etc.

Cheers,
Cam