PDA

View Full Version : Getting Rid of RPG ADD.



Erock
2014-01-01, 06:21 PM
The relative ease of getting PDFs has given me system ADD, so I've been trying to get rid of it by getting more into hard copies. Has anyone else had and solved this problem?

Bulhakov
2014-01-01, 06:44 PM
You can't try out all of those systems by yourself, you need friends to play with. So any ADD is quickly curbed by the group needing to agree on a system to try.

Rhynn
2014-01-01, 06:54 PM
I've had the problem, but I've pretty much solved it with the power of... caring!

That is, I just resist the urge to switch systems, because it ticks my players smooth off.

It's also helped that I've found systems that fit me best; Fuzion (Artesia, my hack of Cyberpunk 2020), Adventurer Conqueror King (for all my D&D needs), and very few other systems just now.

As infrequently as my group plays now, sticking to a single system is almost a requirement if we want to see any real stories.

BWR
2014-01-01, 07:39 PM
Do you actually have a problem with getting and trying out new systems, or is it just the acquisition that's the problem?

If it's just a problem of picking up too many things and trying them out, there's nothing really we can do. Since all the games I'm in are long-lived ones, usually taking 2-3 years per campaign, we don't have the luxury of trying out lots of new stuff in our limited time. Try running longer stories with real beginnings and ends instead of just unconnected adventures. It's far more rewarding to see long term advancement and more detailed character development than just running a bunch of stats (even if that is fun now and then).

If it's not a problem of trying and abandoning systems but just annoying to spend so much time buying and not using them, all I can do is suggest that you don't visit sites that sell electronic products. Delete those links from your browser favorites, read a novel instead of RPG products, use habit-kicking therapy like snapping a rubber band around your wrist when you start visiting dangerous sites.

If you really have a problem with spending too much time and money on it, it's something the forum cannot help you with. You'll have to find RL help for that.


Mostly this was never much of a problem for me because most of my gaming life I've been a player, and as a GM I've tended to run fairly long campaigns, 2 or 3 years on average with minimal character turn-over. So for one of my groups the DM has run only 2e and 3.5 (and after nearly 10 years is still a bit iffy on the rules) so there's no chance we're going to run something else there, and no chance of me trying everything that looks fun in even a single system.

As for my games there are so many fun D&D settings and adventures to run I likely won't try something new anytime soon (apart from my very infrequent L5R 3ER game).
Sure, sometimes a newsystem looks fun to try and I get a bit bored with running nothing but d20 variants with a little L5R 3ER splashed in, but this doesn't end up with me running or playing anything else because it boils down to the story and the roleplaying being the most important thing, not the system.

Jay R
2014-01-01, 08:11 PM
You're trying to solve a symptom, not the problem. And I'm not even sure it's the symptom of a real problem.

First of all, why is it a problem? If you're enjoying playing lots of games, or even enjoying reading lots of rules sets, what's the harm?

Your problem (if it is one) is that no one system is holding your interest. Why? What are your gaming goals, and how are they better met by changing systems than by keeping one?

Erock
2014-01-01, 09:14 PM
The problem is definitely not time or money. Once I hear about a system I want to try it out, and it causes me to lose I interest. I'm not sure if its the systems or the games at this point, I'll have to talk to my group.

valadil
2014-01-01, 09:26 PM
Why not embrace it? Instead of starting games and bailing on them, run shorter games. Do a bunch of 1-4 session games in whatever system catches your fancy.

Rhynn
2014-01-01, 10:43 PM
Why not embrace it? Instead of starting games and bailing on them, run shorter games. Do a bunch of 1-4 session games in whatever system catches your fancy.

Running a lot of one-shots is a perfectly great idea. A lot of games actually lend themselves best to one-shots.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-02, 12:00 AM
Why not embrace it? Instead of starting games and bailing on them, run shorter games. Do a bunch of 1-4 session games in whatever system catches your fancy.
Yes! This is a very good idea. You could also, if you're looking to manage your PDF-purchasing, decide "I won't buy any new games on PDF until I've tried at least a session of X games that I already own but haven't played." That's the sort of approach I'm taking with my Steam backlog, so it should help somewhat?

Knaight
2014-01-02, 12:23 AM
First of all, why is it a problem? If you're enjoying playing lots of games, or even enjoying reading lots of rules sets, what's the harm?

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. There's no problem here.

andresrhoodie
2014-01-02, 02:22 AM
I have a similar problem.

What i did was get one player in my group who wanted to DM to run a long time pathfinder game. He gets 2 weeks and then I get 2 weeks.

On my weeks we run lots of different games with different systems that are supposed to last 4-8 sessions.

Keeps everyone happy. The people like me who like to try new things are constantly being able to do that and the hardcore D&Ders only have to do a non D&D game twice a month, although thats really only one guy.

AMFV
2014-01-02, 02:27 AM
I'd try to figure out why you're jumping around, is it because you enjoy a breadth of systems, or because there are things you don't like in each particular system. Those both lend themselves to differing solutions. Is is it because there are story aspects you want to work in, but can't under certain systems? Because then a more universal system might be for you. It just depends on why you're jumping about.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-02, 09:13 AM
Well, I do think that every gamer should be versed in at least two different non-universal systems. I might even go so far as to say "two different non-universal, non-d20 systems", simply because there's so many d20 clones that don't diverge strongly.

It helps you appreciate and understand systems better. :smallsmile:

Airk
2014-01-02, 10:31 AM
Well, I do think that every gamer should be versed in at least two different non-universal systems. I might even go so far as to say "two different non-universal, non-d20 systems", simply because there's so many d20 clones that don't diverge strongly.

It helps you appreciate and understand systems better. :smallsmile:

Absolutely. I'd take a little further and say that if you really want to be able to discuss RPG design in any sort of constructive way (and to some extent, that includes criticizing game systems), then you should be familiar with at least half a dozen systems. And yes, "d20" really only counts as one system, regardless of how many times it's been published. ;)

With regard to the original poster, I'm really not sure why this is a problem, unless you're saying "I start getting set up to run a game of X, but then I read Y and I drop X to start working on a Y game and never get anywhere." In which case, yeah, the aforementioned "Just run some one shots!" method is absolutely the way to go. In fact, it's really the way to go anytime you want to explore more than one or at most two game systems. Trying to sustain more than one campaign-length game is generally not a good idea, though if one shots seem unsatisfying, you can always go for what I call a "few shot" - and try to run a tight, well thought out game in 5 sessions or less. Actually, I suggest you try that occasionally anyway, because it will improve your GMing.

AMFV
2014-01-02, 10:47 AM
Absolutely. I'd take a little further and say that if you really want to be able to discuss RPG design in any sort of constructive way (and to some extent, that includes criticizing game systems), then you should be familiar with at least half a dozen systems. And yes, "d20" really only counts as one system, regardless of how many times it's been published. ;)

With regard to the original poster, I'm really not sure why this is a problem, unless you're saying "I start getting set up to run a game of X, but then I read Y and I drop X to start working on a Y game and never get anywhere." In which case, yeah, the aforementioned "Just run some one shots!" method is absolutely the way to go. In fact, it's really the way to go anytime you want to explore more than one or at most two game systems. Trying to sustain more than one campaign-length game is generally not a good idea, though if one shots seem unsatisfying, you can always go for what I call a "few shot" - and try to run a tight, well thought out game in 5 sessions or less. Actually, I suggest you try that occasionally anyway, because it will improve your GMing.


Well he describes it as a problem. So I assume it is causing some kind of problem for him. I think that the best bet is to figure out what he's looking for or why he's system jumping because then we can figure out a good way to resolve the problem. It could be that none of the systems have whatever quality he likes in his games, or it could be that he just likes variety, in which case a universal system might be better. I just don't know without figuring out why he's switching. I mean I don't think it's really a problem either, but he did identify it as one.

Ailowynn
2014-01-02, 12:03 PM
The relative ease of getting PDFs has given me system ADD, so I've been trying to get rid of it by getting more into hard copies. Has anyone else had and solved this problem?

I had this. I got over my ADD with OCD :P

Basically, I just planned out which games I'm going to run, and when. I also made each campaign a three-part story; after the first arc, we switch to the next game for a bit. At the beginning, we were doing Star Wars, and then Pathfinder, so it went SW1, PF1, SW2, PF2, SW3, PF3. That helps everyone to avoid burnout...plus, more games! And if you keep the pacing pretty quick, it goes pretty quickly, even while alternating. The Star Wars game went for 2.5 years (which isn't too bad for a whole campaign).

I also do occasionally run one-shots, with a new system (either with my group or at the FLGS). Just a way to try things out.

Jay R
2014-01-02, 12:43 PM
Well, I do think that every gamer should be versed in at least two different non-universal systems.

Why? If they are having fun with one system all their life, what's wrong with that?


It helps you appreciate and understand systems better. :smallsmile:

... which has value only for people who want to appreciate and understand systems better. But it's not for everybody.

Learn the systems you want to learn for the reasons you want to learn them, and don't let anybody else's goal distract you from your own.

Lorsa
2014-01-02, 01:16 PM
I know someone who sort of suffered from RPG ADD in the way you describe. His problem was that he didn't realise it himself, but wanted to start long and large campaign projects, which we were very enthusiastic about, until he started talking about this next awesome system he had found by the second session...

There is nothing wrong with wanting to try many different systems, you just have to be honest about it and realise that it's incompatible with some other wishes (like having campaigns spanning in years).

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-02, 01:56 PM
Why? If they are having fun with one system all their life, what's wrong with that?



... which has value only for people who want to appreciate and understand systems better. But it's not for everybody.

Learn the systems you want to learn for the reasons you want to learn them, and don't let anybody else's goal distract you from your own.
I see it as being akin to watching different genres of movies, or reading different types of literature, not limiting yourself to reading books from one philosopher, etc. It's good for your gaming as a whole. Not only do you get mentally refreshed by seeing games through a different perspective, you also exercise different gaming skills by playing diverse games.

Plus, I think of every distinct RPG as a different philosophy on gaming, a different viewpoint. It's a great thing to have distinct viewpoints--helps to avoid mental myopia.

Airk
2014-01-02, 06:11 PM
Why? If they are having fun with one system all their life, what's wrong with that?

I just tend to think that people should, you know, try OPTIONS before they pick a favorite. If I've only ever seen the color blue, choosing it as my 'favorite color' is a pretty meaningless choice. So is saying "But I like blue!" maybe you do, but you've never seen green, so how do you really know?



... which has value only for people who want to appreciate and understand systems better. But it's not for everybody.

Learn the systems you want to learn for the reasons you want to learn them, and don't let anybody else's goal distract you from your own.

The reason you should want to learn systems is to find the best system for you, and just playing one system will not do that.

Black Jester
2014-01-02, 06:22 PM
Why? If they are having fun with one system all their life, what's wrong with that?

It's never wrong to learn a few new things here and there and shift one's perspective from time to time, and a different game with its different idiosyncacies is a decent way to do so. If you are utterly and completely content with the one game you play and you never have any problems to find enough players who share your taste, there are still enouh other reasons to try a new game from time to time. One reason would be couriosity; another one is that it actually helps you to reflect on various issues and it forms better players. No, really. Regularly changing systems "teaches" the ability to relatively quickly learn and memorize new systems and implement them. It also demands more flexibility and occasionally the readiness to leave the well known comfort zones, and these are definately desirable traits in a fellow player. Most importantly, you collect enough samples to understand how RPGs work in many ways and this understanding of the processes and makes it a bit simpler to actually choose a favorite game or setting, because such a choice can only be meaningful if you know any alternatives.

Just fixating on one specific RPF is pretty much the equivalent on focussing on only one series of books or TV series, deliberately reading or watching only this specific object of interest and ignoring everything else. It is not impossible, but is still somewhat.... narrow-minded.

I have run, and played in a group which specifically had the purpose of trying out new games; we rarely played a game for more than three to five sessions. That is a nice way to get to know a lot of different systems and variations, and it actually is a good way to play all that games which look interesting enough to give them a try, but not interesting enough for a major dedication of the time and effort more serious gaming requires. It also has its downsides, because of the high fluctuation of games, the characters alos fluctuate very often

Rhynn
2014-01-02, 08:27 PM
I just tend to think that people should, you know, try OPTIONS before they pick a favorite. If I've only ever seen the color blue, choosing it as my 'favorite color' is a pretty meaningless choice. So is saying "But I like blue!" maybe you do, but you've never seen green, so how do you really know?

For any person who's only ever played one RPG, there's an enormous chance that there's a game out there that they'd enjoy more. As you try more and more RPGs, you're more and more likely to find the ones that work best for you.

Plus many, many RPGs are going to have ideas you'll be able to use, even if you don't want to play the game itself.

And, finally, for people who want to create their own thing - homerules, settings, or entire games - this sort of experience is probably the most important thing.

AMFV
2014-01-02, 10:08 PM
I just tend to think that people should, you know, try OPTIONS before they pick a favorite. If I've only ever seen the color blue, choosing it as my 'favorite color' is a pretty meaningless choice. So is saying "But I like blue!" maybe you do, but you've never seen green, so how do you really know?



The reason you should want to learn systems is to find the best system for you, and just playing one system will not do that.

Alternatively if one system works for you, why change it? Why fix something that isn't broken? If the color blue is everything I need and want in a color why should I spend the hours and hours worth of effort to try the other colors when they are less likely to be what I need.

Rhynn
2014-01-02, 10:10 PM
Alternatively if one system works for you, why change it? Why fix something that isn't broken? If the color blue is everything I need and want in a color why should I spend the hours and hours worth of effort to try the other colors when they are less likely to be what I need.

Well, I think Airk's point was (and I know mine is) that without experience with different systems, you're not making any kind of comparison, so you don't actually know what works best for you. Something can work fine and be far from what you'd like best. In many cases, the investment to look into a system is minimal. (Look at all those free-to-download OSR D&D retroclones in my sig! :smallbiggrin: )

AMFV
2014-01-02, 10:17 PM
Well, I think Airk's point was (and I know mine is) that without experience with different systems, you're not making any kind of comparison, so you don't actually know what works best for you. Something can work fine and be far from what you'd like best. In many cases, the investment to look into a system is minimal. (Look at all those free-to-download OSR D&D retroclones in my sig! :smallbiggrin: )

But what if you like the rules systems you are playing. I've tried dozens of systems, and usually the only ones I enjoy involve significant time investment. Yes, those systems that are rules light might not, but you might be able to figure out without trying the system if you'd actually enjoy them, since rules-light isn't really for everybody.

Rhynn
2014-01-02, 10:25 PM
But what if you like the rules systems you are playing.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but:

The point is that without experience with different systems, you don't have any comparison. Okay, you like the only game you've ever played - but you don't have any clue if there are games out there you'd like less or more, much less what those games are like.

Nobody's saying you have to, should, or automatically or inevitably will find a game you like better than the one(s) you've played. But if you don't become familiar with new systems, you won't know.

I mean, that's just logic. If you aren't familiar with multiple , you can't compare the quality of [items].


Then, of course, there's the whole fact that a person's criteria may change over time. Mine have: D&D 3.X used to be right for me, but now I'd rather stub my toe than run it. With experience, you [I]develop those criteria.


I've tried dozens of systems, and usually the only ones I enjoy involve significant time investment.

I don't think you have to try them all (i.e. play even one session); just reading different RPGs is plenty useful. That's not a very big investment, especially when so many systems are free and you have years and years in which to become familiar with new systems.

AMFV
2014-01-02, 10:35 PM
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but:

The point is that without experience with different systems, you don't have any comparison. Okay, you like the only game you've ever played - but you don't have any clue if there are games out there you'd like less or more, much less what those games are like.

Nobody's saying you have to, should, or automatically or inevitably will find a game you like better than the one(s) you've played. But if you don't become familiar with new systems, you won't know.

I mean, that's just logic. If you aren't familiar with multiple , you can't compare the quality of [items].


Then, of course, there's the whole fact that a person's criteria may change over time. Mine have: D&D 3.X used to be right for me, but now I'd rather stub my toe than run it. With experience, you [I]develop those criteria.



I don't think you have to try them all (i.e. play even one session); just reading different RPGs is plenty useful. That's not a very big investment, especially when so many systems are free and you have years and years in which to become familiar with new systems.

But if you have items you like then why spend the money, and time to compare items you may not? I mean there is also generally a considerably funding question here. Also it's a big time commitment, when I was working and not in school I never had time to read through multiple systems, now as a college student I do, but that doesn't change the fact that when I was working and I wanted to run a game, familiarity and the ability to work through something quickly was more important than anything else to me. Familiarity is a virtue for systems.

Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't try new systems. Only that deriding somebody who doesn't try new systems as not a "true roleplayer" which actually happened, is a little bit out there, since they may just have found the system they love on the first try.

Rhynn
2014-01-02, 10:48 PM
But if you have items you like then why spend the money, and time to compare items you may not? I mean there is also generally a considerably funding question here.

But there's not, unless you want to try systems that have to be bought. I already pointed out that many RPGs are free! It's true! :smallbiggrin: And they're as good, on average, as published systems, too.


Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't try new systems. Only that deriding somebody who doesn't try new systems as not a "true roleplayer" which actually happened, is a little bit out there, since they may just have found the system they love on the first try.

Who's been deriding anybody? Why are you so defensive? It's very confusing when you appear to be having a different discussion than the rest of us - can you clue us in on the context?

AMFV
2014-01-02, 10:54 PM
But there's not, unless you want to try systems that have to be bought. I already pointed out that many RPGs are free! It's true! :smallbiggrin: And they're as good, on average, as published systems, too.



Who's been deriding anybody? Why are you so defensive? It's very confusing when you appear to be having a different discussion than the rest of us - can you clue us in on the context?

There was at least one assertion that every gamer should try at least two systems. Which could be read as a criticism of those who don't. Also I've found that non-published systems tend to be a little rougher on the edges, which is fine if you got the time to sand them but not if you haven't.

Furthermore, I have nothing to be defensive about, I've tried many different systems. I just reject the assertion that if people are having fun they should commit the time, the effort, and oftentimes the money to try a new system. Time is of course the most valuable aspect.

Grinner
2014-01-02, 11:05 PM
If I may cut in, there's clearly only one solution here...Play them all at once! We need some kind of meta-system that would allow us to match your D&D 3.5 ranger against my VtM Malkavian. It will be a glorious revolution in tabletop gaming!

Perhaps if we invent some kind of conversion chart. Maybe match statistical probabilities across dice mechanics. But what if one of the games lacks a dice mechanic? What if it's some weird story game...?

AMFV
2014-01-02, 11:09 PM
If I may cut in, there's clearly only one solution here...Play them all at once! We need some kind of meta-system that would allow us to match your D&D 3.5 ranger against my VtM Malkavian. It will be a glorious revolution in tabletop gaming!

Perhaps if we invent some kind of conversion chart. Maybe match statistical probabilities across dice mechanics. But what if one of the games lacks a dice mechanic? What if it's some weird story game...?

Usually with that kind of crossover you're better off converting the concepts into a universal system and using that, at least in my experience.

Grinner
2014-01-02, 11:16 PM
Usually with that kind of crossover you're better off converting the concepts into a universal system and using that, at least in my experience.

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I forgot to add blue.

Still, from a certain viewpoint (a masochistic one, naturally), the idea does have its merits, I think.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-03, 12:02 AM
If I may cut in, there's clearly only one solution here...Play them all at once! We need some kind of meta-system that would allow us to match your D&D 3.5 ranger against my VtM Malkavian. It will be a glorious revolution in tabletop gaming!

Perhaps if we invent some kind of conversion chart. Maybe match statistical probabilities across dice mechanics. But what if one of the games lacks a dice mechanic? What if it's some weird story game...?
I feel as though Dungeons: the Dragoning 40,000 7th Edition deserves a mention. And a link to the downloads page. (http://lawfulnice.blogspot.com/2012/12/vectron-bless-us-every-one.html)

Lorsa
2014-01-03, 07:45 AM
There was at least one assertion that every gamer should try at least two systems. Which could be read as a criticism of those who don't. Also I've found that non-published systems tend to be a little rougher on the edges, which is fine if you got the time to sand them but not if you haven't.

Furthermore, I have nothing to be defensive about, I've tried many different systems. I just reject the assertion that if people are having fun they should commit the time, the effort, and oftentimes the money to try a new system. Time is of course the most valuable aspect.

I think CarpeGuitarrem said that knowing more than one system helps you appreciate and understand systems better.

Airk said that in order to discuss game design in any meaningful way, you need to be familiar with a larger number of systems.

None of that is saying you're more or less a roleplayer by only ever playing one system.

Furthermore, Rhynn argued that without knowing all/more of the systems that exist, you won't know if the one you have is the one you will have the most fun with.

If all you want is to have the exact amount of fun you are currently having, then learning a new system is obviously pointless. If you accept that there's a potential you could have more fun with something else then you have to decide if it's worth the time investment to find that out. It's a choice and none is more right than the other.

Also, the other two statements are also true, if you want to understand systems better and participate in system discussion, you'll need to learn more than one. Again, that might not be what you want. It's a choice.

Then there is also the fact that the statement of "this is my favourite [whatever]" is incomplete. The true statement would be "this is my favourite [whatever] of [list]". If your list is only one item long then the statement will seem a bit hollow. It's like when I tell my brother that he's my favourite brother. I only have one so the statement is a bit meaningless.

Airk
2014-01-03, 09:22 AM
Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't try new systems. Only that deriding somebody who doesn't try new systems as not a "true roleplayer" which actually happened, is a little bit out there, since they may just have found the system they love on the first try.

Who said anything about anyone being a "true roleplayer"? You are arguing something a point that no one is contesting.

Giving someone advice on how to improve their roleplaying experience is not the same as telling them they are doing it wrong.

Telling someone they should try reading something besides Fantasy novels is not a criticism of Fantasy novels, it is the suggestion that there are good novels that are not, and many people who enjoy good Fantasy novels also enjoy good novels that are not. Sometimes more. But they'll never know until they try.

You sure -seem- like you're being defensive.

AMFV
2014-01-03, 10:09 AM
Who said anything about anyone being a "true roleplayer"? You are arguing something a point that no one is contesting.

Giving someone advice on how to improve their roleplaying experience is not the same as telling them they are doing it wrong.

Telling someone they should try reading something besides Fantasy novels is not a criticism of Fantasy novels, it is the suggestion that there are good novels that are not, and many people who enjoy good Fantasy novels also enjoy good novels that are not. Sometimes more. But they'll never know until they try.

You sure -seem- like you're being defensive.


Well, I do think that every gamer should be versed in at least two different non-universal systems.


That was the exact quote, I'm discussing. I'm not saying knowing multiple systems is bad. I'm not sure even what I'd be being defensive about, considering I do have knowledge of multiple systems, I'm just stating that I don't think it's really required to have knowledge of multiple systems. My knowledge hasn't really come up very often, at least beyond what would be intuitive in that respect.

Edit: Note emphasis mine. Again I just don't think that to discussion design principles you have to have examined multiple systems. The same way as I don't think you need to have studied novel writing to discuss poetry.

Airk
2014-01-03, 12:11 PM
Edit: Note emphasis mine. Again I just don't think that to discussion design principles you have to have examined multiple systems. The same way as I don't think you need to have studied novel writing to discuss poetry.

But you should have read more than one author before you discuss poetry, no question.

If you want people to take you seriously in game design discussion, yes, it's practically a requirement to have some idea of what has already been done. Doing otherwise is what gave us hundreds of "fantasy heartbreakers" that were basically D&D because the designers didn't know anything else.

Being able to discuss design is not the same thing as "having fun roleplaying" however.

Anyway, I think you are still being weirdly defensive. Unless you believe that there is NO advantage to consuming other systems, it would be hard to argue with the idea that every gamer should be familiar with at least two. o.o

AMFV
2014-01-03, 11:24 PM
But you should have read more than one author before you discuss poetry, no question.

If you want people to take you seriously in game design discussion, yes, it's practically a requirement to have some idea of what has already been done. Doing otherwise is what gave us hundreds of "fantasy heartbreakers" that were basically D&D because the designers didn't know anything else.

Being able to discuss design is not the same thing as "having fun roleplaying" however.

Anyway, I think you are still being weirdly defensive. Unless you believe that there is NO advantage to consuming other systems, it would be hard to argue with the idea that every gamer should be familiar with at least two. o.o

You should study theory before you discuss poetry, actually understanding the theory is more important than having read X number of poems. Reading the poems is useful, no doubt, but understanding the theory is more useful. I'm not saying that designing a system when you've only played one and have studied no theory is a good idea, more that studying the theory is paramount, and studying multiple game systems is secondary.

I would even argue that studying theory and then reading game systems is vastly superior to just studying game systems and trying to develop your own theories, it's much less subject to any kind of particular error or anything. At least to my thinking its a superior method.

I think that saying you understand RPG design because you've read a lot of RPGs is like saying you could build an engine because you drive a lot of cars, or that you could make a pizza because you eat a lot of pizzas, or that you could play for the NFL because you watch a lot of football. Armchair design is something I find particularly annoying, and I suspect that not understanding design principles is what leads to fantasy heartbreakers more so than "not having played enough systems"

Knaight
2014-01-04, 12:57 AM
I think that saying you understand RPG design because you've read a lot of RPGs is like saying you could build an engine because you drive a lot of cars, or that you could make a pizza because you eat a lot of pizzas, or that you could play for the NFL because you watch a lot of football. Armchair design is something I find particularly annoying, and I suspect that not understanding design principles is what leads to fantasy heartbreakers more so than "not having played enough systems"

That's not what's being said. What's being said is more that you probably can't make pizza if you have eaten one slice of pizza once, and that if your experience with cars consists of driving one and not seeing so much as the exterior of another you probably have no business designing them. Nobody is claiming that you can understand RPG design because you've read a lot of RPGs, just that you pretty much can't if you haven't.

AMFV
2014-01-04, 01:22 AM
That's not what's being said. What's being said is more that you probably can't make pizza if you have eaten one slice of pizza once, and that if your experience with cars consists of driving one and not seeing so much as the exterior of another you probably have no business designing them. Nobody is claiming that you can understand RPG design because you've read a lot of RPGs, just that you pretty much can't if you haven't.

I'm not sure if that's the case or not, I've been able to cook things that I've never tried using theory and recipe. I do think that having actual experience can help, although I'm not sure what the actual connection is. I think there is a particular kind of danger in assuming understanding from consumption of a system. Although I could be wrong. I'm suggesting that design principles are probably not as connected to playing principles as people might imagine.

Rhynn
2014-01-04, 01:50 AM
This is why similes and metaphors aren't any good online: they just turn the discussion into an argument about the similes and metaphors. I'd say that suggests that the metaphor is poor, but I don't think that's the case: online, even obvious sarcasm will be misinterpreted, so why would even the best metaphors work right?

To know about RPGs, you need to play RPGs. There are precious few ways to learn about RPG design theory on its own (mostly just blogs and the occasional good forum post), and there's certainly no substitute for experiencing how their elements things work in play (although I'll agree that theory is necessary, too); but that's pretty secondary. The big thing is that for finding the best (or a better) RPG for you, it's useful to become familiar with many RPGs.

What is obvious, though, is that there are huge amounts of people who want to create their own game when their only experience is D&D (3.X/d20, nowadays), and they are inevitably woefully clueless about the possibilities of RPGs. The Forge's forums were full of their posts. They need the theory, sure, but they also need experience with different systems just to get an idea of the range of possiblities, and get out of the single paradigm they've learned.

AMFV
2014-01-04, 01:55 AM
This is why similes and metaphors aren't any good online: they just turn the discussion into an argument about the similes and metaphors. I'd say that suggests that the metaphor is poor, but I don't think that's the case: online, even obvious sarcasm will be misinterpreted, so why would even the best metaphors work right?

To know about RPGs, you need to play RPGs. There are precious few ways to learn about RPG design theory on its own (mostly just blogs and the occasional good forum post), and there's certainly no substitute for experiencing how their elements things work in play (although I'll agree that theory is necessary, too); but that's pretty secondary. The big thing is that for finding the best (or a better) RPG for you, it's useful to become familiar with many RPGs.

What is obvious, though, is that there are huge amounts of people who want to create their own game when their only experience is D&D (3.X/d20, nowadays), and they are inevitably woefully clueless about the possibilities of RPGs. The Forge's forums were full of their posts. They need the theory, sure, but they also need experience with different systems just to get an idea of the range of possiblities, and get out of the single paradigm they've learned.

I think that may be a sign that development of the theory should follow. I would argue that a D20 clone in an of itself could possibility to have some merit and many of them have had a certain merit. I think that in Video games and Roleplaying games there is less present theory than in many other mediums, which is kind of tragic since there are so many possibilities for simulationist experiences in those medium. \

I think that Roleplaying games have a possibility for depth that is really not equalled in any other medium, not even with video games, and I think that developing some theory could significantly help with that sort of thing.

CombatOwl
2014-01-04, 11:38 AM
The relative ease of getting PDFs has given me system ADD, so I've been trying to get rid of it by getting more into hard copies. Has anyone else had and solved this problem?

I've just kind of moved to Fate, except when the group feels like playing D&D. It supports such a range of different settings that I haven't felt much of a need to keep digging around for new systems.

Airk
2014-01-06, 10:37 AM
You should study theory before you discuss poetry, actually understanding the theory is more important than having read X number of poems. Reading the poems is useful, no doubt, but understanding the theory is more useful. I'm not saying that designing a system when you've only played one and have studied no theory is a good idea, more that studying the theory is paramount, and studying multiple game systems is secondary.

Spoken like someone who has done very little research on the subject. The amount of material out there on RPG design theory is incredibly slim. Incredibly. To the point where most recommendations for it are more "General game design" stuff, a large part of which doesn't apply to RPGs.

Gaming as a study is super new, and RPGs in specific lag behind even the sad little standard for that in terms of published 'theory' work.

And sorry, but someone who has read a bunch of theory and has no experience with actual examples is unqualified to discuss any topic.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-06, 02:38 PM
Theory also can only come from practice. Theory is the generalization and extrapolation of practice, and the quality of your theory can be predicted by the quality of your practice. If you have limited experience, your theories will be limited in their quality.

RE: what I said earlier, I definitely wasn't making a statement on "true roleplayers", merely stating what I believe to be accurate--that gamers ought not limit themselves to a narrow slice of gaming. In other hobbies, that would be considered weird ("I only play Final Fantasy IV!"), but in RPGs, it seems very common for a gamer to only play D&D 3.5, for example. That hampers their understanding of how all games (including D&D 3.5) work, because they have a limited pool of understanding to draw from.

The more games you know, the better your ability to play and enjoy all games becomes.

AMFV
2014-01-06, 04:10 PM
Spoken like someone who has done very little research on the subject. The amount of material out there on RPG design theory is incredibly slim. Incredibly. To the point where most recommendations for it are more "General game design" stuff, a large part of which doesn't apply to RPGs.

Gaming as a study is super new, and RPGs in specific lag behind even the sad little standard for that in terms of published 'theory' work.

And sorry, but someone who has read a bunch of theory and has no experience with actual examples is unqualified to discuss any topic.

Well reading a bunch of RPGs also does not make one qualified to discuss the topic, any more than eating a bunch of food makes you qualified to discuss cooking in a professional sense. Certainly you can have a discussion about the topic, but you're not that much more qualified than somebody who has conceptualized the theory.

Furthermore, I did state that there was very little theory on the subject.


Theory also can only come from practice. Theory is the generalization and extrapolation of practice, and the quality of your theory can be predicted by the quality of your practice. If you have limited experience, your theories will be limited in their quality.

RE: what I said earlier, I definitely wasn't making a statement on "true roleplayers", merely stating what I believe to be accurate--that gamers ought not limit themselves to a narrow slice of gaming. In other hobbies, that would be considered weird ("I only play Final Fantasy IV!"), but in RPGs, it seems very common for a gamer to only play D&D 3.5, for example. That hampers their understanding of how all games (including D&D 3.5) work, because they have a limited pool of understanding to draw from.

The more games you know, the better your ability to play and enjoy all games becomes.

The practice you're referring to is in fact the practice of game design, not playing or reading games, that can help, but only if you read a game from a design perspective rather than from a player's perspective, the OP is clearly acting in a players perspective.

Airk
2014-01-06, 04:26 PM
Well reading a bunch of RPGs also does not make one qualified to discuss the topic, any more than eating a bunch of food makes you qualified to discuss cooking in a professional sense. Certainly you can have a discussion about the topic, but you're not that much more qualified than somebody who has conceptualized the theory.

Ugh. Just stop with the awful analogies. Eating lots of food certainly makes you qualified to be a food critic, if you eat and think about it. You have to experience something to understand it. End of stupid analogy argument. -_-

AMFV
2014-01-06, 04:28 PM
Ugh. Just stop with the awful analogies. Eating lots of food certainly makes you qualified to be a food critic, if you eat and think about it. You have to experience something to understand it. End of stupid analogy argument. -_-

Nope it really doesn't, understanding why the food is a certain way and what it's intended to be makes you qualified to be a food critic, there's a lot more that goes into that, thinking wise than you might think. Certainly you have to experience it to understand it, but eating food because you enjoy it and eating food to understand it are two completely different experiences.

Also reading an RPG because you might play it and are interested, and studying how they designed are different things. I have no problem with people saying that you need to study to design, but playing a lot of games, does not equate to having the knowledge to design them, and I think that's why you see so many fantasy heartbreakers, because people didn't think about the theory and principles properly.

Airk
2014-01-06, 04:31 PM
Nope it really doesn't, understanding why the food is a certain way and what it's intended to be makes you qualified to be a food critic, there's a lot more that goes into that, thinking wise than you might think. Certainly you have to experience it to understand it, but eating food because you enjoy it and eating food to understand it are two completely different experiences.

And the difference is the thinking, yes, as I said. Thanks. Doesn't mean that you can get to the end goal WITHOUT the experience, even though you seem to be arguing that and then saying you're not. Good day sir.

AMFV
2014-01-06, 04:41 PM
And the difference is the thinking, yes, as I said. Thanks. Doesn't mean that you can get to the end goal WITHOUT the experience, even though you seem to be arguing that and then saying you're not. Good day sir.

But I'm arguing that just reading and thinking, isn't enough, reading and thinking about the theory is important. It's a specific kind of thinking and studying and developing theories is important and it's a completely different thing than "reading and thinking". It's a specific and deliberate course of action.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-06, 04:50 PM
The practice you're referring to is in fact the practice of game design, not playing or reading games, that can help, but only if you read a game from a design perspective rather than from a player's perspective, the OP is clearly acting in a players perspective.
Well, yes, the first part of my post was about game design. Everything after "RE: what I said earlier..." was about gaming in general. You can crossapply skills from one RPG into any other RPG you play. It's like how learning multiple languages bolsters your ability to speak all of them, because it helps you understand language itself.

AMFV
2014-01-06, 04:56 PM
Well, yes, the first part of my post was about game design. Everything after "RE: what I said earlier..." was about gaming in general. You can crossapply skills from one RPG into any other RPG you play. It's like how learning multiple languages bolsters your ability to speak all of them, because it helps you understand language itself.

I disagree, the mechanics don't apply across roleplaying games and those are fundamentally the most different areas. Being good at understanding math will generally give you a good idea about the mechanics. Furthermore learning more languages doesn't necessarily increase your ability to speak one, and can sometimes be counterproductive to that end. Learning Latin can improve English, the same way as learning AD&D could improve you're ability to play D&D.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-06, 04:59 PM
I disagree, the mechanics don't apply across roleplaying games and those are fundamentally the most different areas. Being good at understanding math will generally give you a good idea about the mechanics. Furthermore learning more languages doesn't necessarily increase your ability to speak one, and can sometimes be counterproductive to that end. Learning Latin can improve English, the same way as learning AD&D could improve you're ability to play D&D.
It's something that you can only really come to understand through experience, to be honest. An RPG is more than a specific set of mechanics: it's a game designer's philosophy on roleplaying and a directed, specific approach to a game.

It's a lot more subtle than one might think. But you'd have to have experience playing with a wide breadth of systems to have a solid understanding of that.

Plus, there's the advantage that familiarity with many systems gives you a more open mind in terms of "how RPGs work", and that can help you discover new things about a familiar system.

EDIT: clarified to focus on "playing". Reading lots of systems in depth can be advantageous, but putting them on the table is even better. One can form very wrong opinions from a game, untested.

AMFV
2014-01-06, 05:04 PM
It's something that you can only really come to understand through experience, to be honest. An RPG is more than a specific set of mechanics: it's a game designer's philosophy on roleplaying and a directed, specific approach to a game.

It's a lot more subtle than one might think. But you'd have to have experience with a wide breadth of systems to have a solid understanding of that.

I've had a wide breadth of system, played dozens of them. I don't think that ever made me a better roleplayer, in fact sometimes its had a negative effect. I think the things that have made me a better roleplayer is practice and study. Which could be accomplished in any system.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-01-06, 05:06 PM
It definitely helped me. Going from D&D to Risus to Fate to Fiasco to Monsterhearts to Kingdom (so, basically, running the gamut of RPG styles, and I just singled in on a sampling of what I've played) really broadens your perspective on how games work, and how rules interact with one another and with the table. That lets you play more skillfully and deliberately.

AMFV
2014-01-06, 05:13 PM
It definitely helped me. Going from D&D to Risus to Fate to Fiasco to Monsterhearts to Kingdom (so, basically, running the gamut of RPG styles, and I just singled in on a sampling of what I've played) really broadens your perspective on how games work, and how rules interact with one another and with the table. That lets you play more skillfully and deliberately.

Mostly for understanding the how rules interact that's been more improved by better understanding of math and lateral thinking, which I don't think was really encouraged in different game systems any more than the other, although that's not strictly true. Broadening your perspective can improve your enjoyment, because then you know what you like, but it won't necessarily do so. And suggesting that to be a good roleplayer you should isn't necessarily a good conclusion.

You could definitely suggest that you believe it helped you improve your experience, and that would be true, just as I don't believe it drastically improved mine, and I love playing and trying different systems, I just don't feel that it adds anything to my enjoyment of D&D to have played MERP at one point in time, I don't think that nWoD has made me enjoy Shadowrun more. They're separate spheres of enjoyment for me.