Mechanics and their effect on theme?

[tahu88810]

Hey all,

So I've recently begun to look into making a system for a game I plan on running with a few friends, and it occurred to me during the initial "ideas" stage that the mechanical aspect of a game can very much effect the theme and mood of the game being played. A quick example of this might be the comparison between D&D 4th and nWoD. Without trying to start an argument about the merits of either system, I think it's fair to point out that early in D&D 4th's development and release there were more than a few complaints about it being too "gamey," citing the seemingly fixed growth paths and abilities of characters. nWoD, in comparison, actively strives to be what we might call a narrative system; while your mileage may vary, the lack of hard numbers combined with reinforcement of behavior through morality, willpower, and the virtue/vice system allows the system to easily fall into a less gamist and a more narrativist mindset.

I thought it might be interesting (and useful to my own endeavors) to try and start a discussion on how different game systems encourage and discourage different moods, themes, and feelings during play by virtue of their design. While I'm mostly interested in what sort of rules and design create more "video-gamey" and more "realistic" effects respectively, I'm interested in just about everything.
So what sort of systems do you enjoy, and how would you say their mechanics go about creating the themes that are inherent to them?

[Eisenheim]

I've never played anything that made me want to describe its mechanics as 'video gamey' or 'realistic', never actually sure what those are supposed to mean in this context.

In terms of mechanics evoking flavor, I generally consider this to be closely tied with mechanics driving and being driven by roleplaying. For me, D&D in both 3.5 and 4e lacks much integration between mechanics and role-playing, and thus evoke little flavor of any kind for me, and I have similar problems with many systems.

Systems that are strongly bound to a well developed and compelling setting, like 7th Sea of L5R are a little better, because mechanical choices in those systems at least serve to place the character in relation to the world, with things like organization membership, social status, etc.

I mostly play FATE at the moment, which is great at evoking flavor, any flavor you like. Because characters in fate are defined by aspects, which are just pithy, descriptive phrases about the character, you can get very different flavors of game by simply having different styles of aspect for both players and the opposition.

I play in a pulp-action fate game as a "Ghost-talkin Gunslinger on his Second Life", alongside the "Last Keeper of the Scrolls of Tsung-Dao" and a "Super-Science Hero from the Future We Were Promised", and those concepts and the other aspects that both PCs and NPCs have do a great job keeping the pulp heroism feel through every session.

I'm running an investigative game in Victorian England, with a slight supernatural horror flavor developing as we go, but the characters for that are an "Indulgent Wastrel Looking for Meaning" and a "Confidential Secretary in Training", both my players have made mostly ordinary members of Victorian society, and I'll evoke the supernatural Horror with some subtle aspects on the enemies they meet.

This is essentially why I'm playing FATE now instead of any other system, it mechanically encourages and drives evocative role-playing from both players and GM. For my money, what kind of flavor mechanics produce is secondary to finding some that produce a bunch of any flavor other than 'bunch of people sitting around a table rolling dice and doing math.'

[Airk]

So yeah, setting aside any issues I have with the examples, a little bit of game design theory here.

The EASIEST mechanic to manipulate to produce results is the reward mechanic. What do players get rewarded for doing?

In early D&D, they got rewarded for getting loot out of dungeons. Incentivizes: Getting loot out of dungeons by any means possible.
In later D&D, they got rewarded for "overcoming challenges" or "encounters". Incentivizes: Not avoiding challenges or encounters.
In oWoD (Sorry, no experience with nWoD), they got rewarded...when the GM felt like it. Incentivizes: Doing what the GM wants you to do (See also: Illusionism)
In Fate, they get rewarded for accepting compels. Incentivizes: Roleplaying the 'negative' aspects of your character's....er...aspects.
In Houses of the Blooded, they get rewarded for, essentially, doing things the GM judges as stylish. Incentivizes: Trying to be stylish.
In Dungeon World, players are rewarded for following their 'alignment' and for...well, failing. Incentivizes: Playing your 'alignment' and trying to do stuff even though you might fail.
In Golden Sky Stories, players are rewarded for doing things that, I quote "other players find appealing." Incentivizes: Doing things other players find appealing.
In Mouse Guard, players are rewarded for using their skills, and acting on their beliefs and goals. Incentivizes: Using skills in pursuit of beliefs and goals.
In Tenra Bansho Zero, players are rewarded for doing things that people think are awesome, and doing things that direct connect to their Fates. Incentivizes: Well, you get the idea.

So. Think long and hard about how you reward players.

The next obvious thing that mechanics do for a game is direct the time and attention of the players. If a game has a LOT of rules for doing something, then that something is going to consume a greater amount of time than something that doesn't have as many rules. It also generally means that a larger portion of the character sheet will be tied to doing that something, and therefore, it causes that something to be perceived as important. The easy example is combat in a lot of games. Though Decking in Shadowrun is another example. If you want something to be important in your game, your rules should direct the player's attention towards it.

Then you have stuff like difficulty and danger. Games in which tasks are hard to succeed at, or where failure is punishing discourage risk taking.

This is all beginner level stuff though. If you're really looking to meaningfully shift the focus of a game, you need to think hard about your basic assumptions about how roleplaying games work. Because if you end up producing something that's a lot like D&D with the deck chairs rearranged, it's going to feel a lot like D&D, even if you've got a very clever magic system or something. Actually, a good rule of thumb here is to keep asking yourself "Why would I play this game instead of GURPS in the same setting?" And if you can't come up with a really compelling answer, you probably have a problem.

Honestly, while I think everyone should try to design their own system once (I did), I think 95% of them are going to be garbage (mine was) and that most people who do it are probably not doing it for the right reasons (I wasn't) or with sufficient knowledge of what other stuff is out there (I -really- didn't.). The only way you're -really- going to get better at this is to read and play other games. And not just the 'iterative' stuff coming from the big publishers. (If nWoD is your idea of a 'narrative' game...) There's a TON of really smart game design out there at this point, that drives play in all sorts of interesting directions. Some of it works for some people, some of it does not, but at the end of the day, unless you see what other people are doing, you're just going to end up building another "Stat+skill combination" derivative without much to set it apart.

So do your research. :)

[Sith_Happens]

I'd say the lethality of the system is another major tone-informing factor. In Mutants & Masterminds, for example, pretty much the only way to kill a "heroic" character (i.e.- not a random mook or civy) is to kick them while they're down. This gives it a much more light-hearted, four-color comic book-y feel and encourages the players to take risks.

A system where one wrong move can get you killed, in contrast, is going to feel much darker and encourage a much more careful style of play.

[Airk]

I'd say the lethality of the system is another major tone-informing factor. In Mutants & Masterminds, for example, pretty much the only way to kill a "heroic" character (i.e.- not a random mook or civy) is to kick them while they're down. This gives it a much more light-hearted, four-color comic book-y feel and encourages the players to take risks.

A system where one wrong move can get you killed, in contrast, is going to feel much darker and encourage a much more careful style of play.

Yeah; I was trying to point to this in broad strokes with "difficulty and price of failure" because I didn't want it to just be about combat, but I think the extra call out of lethality is a good point.

Edit: Also, rereading the first post, unless you've got some really clever idea that you're dying to put into practice right away, I don't suggest designing your own system so that you can use it in a game "soon." Doing these things right takes a lot of time. Of course, playtesting and messing with it is key, but doesn't necessarily lead to a very satisfying ongoing game experience ("Yeah, I know you bought shield based on how the shield rules worked last session, but I'm changing them..."). So yeah. I strongly encourage exploring other games.

[Eisenheim]

I very much like to look at how much of the role-playing detail of a character makes it onto the character sheet as a quick, approximate measure of how well the game system drives a particular theme or style or tone for the games you play with it. There's a continuum in the systems I'm most familiar with that goes like this.

D&D: essentially none, the mechanical entity written on the default character sheet could represent an infinity of different played characters. While some feats are campaign or setting specific and tie the character to a particular setting or organization, it's entirely possible to build something that contains zero information about the role-play of the character on the sheet.

AEG products like 7th Sea or L5R: a good deal, the sheet definitely shows your character's position in society, their clan or nationality, in many cases how they make a living, schools may link them to particular in-game organizations where they were trained. For seventh sea, it also shows a conspicuous virtue or tragic flaw central to their character.

FATE: Basically everything. The five aspects on the sheet represent a huge amount of the roleplaying detail of the character, and since aspects are unique to a character, there is very little generic overlap outside of the skill pyramid between even similarly themed characters. Certainly there is more to be said about the characters mannerisms and style than goes on the sheet, but the aspects are essentially the elevator pitch for the character. There will plenty of additional small details, but they hit all the central points.

This is basically what I mean when I talk about mechanics evoking flavor. It's entirely possible to build a campaign with a strong consistent tone and characters deeply tied to the world in D&D, but none of that detail makes it onto the sheet. That stuff is outside the mechanics.

Picking up on the idea of damage being a tone-setting mechanical element, another really important one is the presence or absence of no-win scenarios. They're out in the standard D&D encounter design advice, and that goes to a heroic tone. Once the potential for no-win scenarios is there, you shift quickly into noir/horror/dark fantasy territory by forcing the players to salvage what they can when everything goes south.

[The Dark Fiddler]

When it comes to this topic, there's one game I absolutely have to mention: Don't Rest Your Head. It's a game where you fight your exhaustion and try to stave off madness to achieve goals in the Mad City, but as you get more tired and more unhinged you get more powerful... at the risk of falling asleep (bad) or going insane (also bad). As you push yourself to the limit, you get closer and closer to outright failure; it's a slow spiral downwards and it fits the tone of the game (psychological horror) perfectly.

[tahu88810]

Stuff

I think that's a pretty good point. Mechanics that essentially force the player to think of how the character exists within the world during character creation certainly do a great job of evoking flavor. I haven't yet had a chance to play or run FATE (I'm running two games at the moment, and the other GM in our group is fairly set on only running one at a time, so it may be a while yet), but it's certainly something I'll need to look into.

You used Legend of the Five Rings as an example. I'm familiar with the system, and while I've run a game or two with it, I haven't had as much time with it as I'd like, but I can't agree more with your assessment of it. As a player (I've only ever run it, unfortunately, which can provide a narrow scope of view), would you say that it was primarily the Advantages and Disadvantages that helped to tie your character to the setting, or did evocative naming of the attributes help as well?


More stuff

I'll admit the examples I chose maybe weren't the best. I was a bit leery of using more obscure examples like Dungeon World or Warrior, Rogue & Mage. Having said that, I do think you bring up a lot of good points. It hadn't really occurred to me that the reward systems are so important. Which is ironic, I suppose, given I routinely get into arguments supporting that same ideal in the chats for RPI MUDs.

I'm primarily looking to make a system to run a game with a similar premise to shows like Sword Art Online or .hack//, albeit without the "we are trapped in a game!" aspect. Since I'm currently in the brainstorming phase and would like a clear delineation between The Real World and The Virtual Reality mechanically, I thought it might be a good idea to branch out and see what others might have to say on the subject. It seems like rewards in the real world would be much less concrete than in the virtual one, given that it would be more focused on mystery solving and day to day activity. I'll certainly need to come up with a way to make it clear that both aspects of the game are equally important. (Though it occurs to me that, just as in real life, devoting all of one's time to a videogame might be detrimental in a variety of ways. I might use that as a starting point. I think Sith_Happens brings up a good point that regard, as well.)


When it comes to this topic, there's one game I absolutely have to mention: Don't Rest Your Head. It's a game where you fight your exhaustion and try to stave off madness to achieve goals in the Mad City, but as you get more tired and more unhinged you get more powerful... at the risk of falling asleep (bad) or going insane (also bad). As you push yourself to the limit, you get closer and closer to outright failure; it's a slow spiral downwards and it fits the tone of the game (psychological horror) perfectly.

I played that with a small group back in college. It was pretty fun, and I can't disagree with that assessment. I'll have to take a look and see what I might be able to borrow and twist to my own ends. Thanks for reminding me of it!

[NichG]

One sort of separation I like to use to think about this kind of thing is the distinction between the mechanics which are intended to model stuff that players will associate with sort of everyman/common sense aspects of the world, versus mechanics that distort that sort of common sense to make the world distinctive.

An example of that might be, a player could reasonably expect that a character can pick up objects up to a certain weight/bulk/etc, because its something that in general 'a person could do'; they might have expectations about being able to hold one's breath underwater or survive a certain fall or whatever. If the game system models these in a way in which the results violate the player's preconceptions, that can create the 'gamey' feel - things that appear to be obviously different simply for sake of creating a certain kind of gameplay.

This can also apply to common sense/expectations associated with a particular genre as well, not just the real world. For example, if your game is trying to feel like an action movie, then it violates the common sense of the genre if there are rules that mean that people can get gangrene and die from minor nicks and scratches in dirty environments - even if its 'realistic', it violates the expectations associated with what its trying to be.

Then on top of that, you have the things which are basically called out as exceptional. These are things which says 'the world is different because this particular thing is here'. Magic, or heroes with unique abilities/skills, or the world being based on Aristotelian elements, or monsters roaming around, or super-technology, or whatever. These are the things that explicitly say to the players 'because of this, therefore the world is different'.

[Eisenheim]

tahu: I've mostly only run L5R as well. The main things I was thinking of that really do a good job of providing tone and fixing players in the setting were the presence of things like status and honor scores on the character sheet, as well as school and clan of course. I think the advantages and disadvantages are a mixed bag in terms on evoking tone. Some are really flavorful, but some just change a few numbers without driving any role-play.

The real thing that fate brings to the table, which is actually applicable in any system, is to treat game and character creation as play. You don't begin the first session of a new campaign with the players bringing characters they made alone beforehand to play in an adventure the DM wrote without seeing the characters. Your first session is about deciding what kind of game you want to play, and then collaboratively developing the characters and the world at the same time.

[Fiery Diamond]

Every time I read threads like these, it makes me so frustrated that D&D is the only tabletop RPG I've had any experience with at all. I live in a small town and haven't had the opportunity to play RPGs at all in a couple years on top of that.

I'd REALLY like to experience playing other games (but would never, ever, do PBP - I can't handle anything that isn't realtime and prefer to actually hear and if possible see other people when playing), but I can't see that happening any time soon. One major reason I'd like to experience other games is the topic of this thread - my experience is so limited that I have trouble imagining how these other systems could even possibly do what they do. I'd LOVE to play a game that didn't have the vast majority of its mechanics focused on combat, which had engaging mechanics for the other interesting aspects of the game: when I run D&D, I usually end up spending the majority of the session on non-combat and I outright ignore how most of the social skills are supposed to work because D&D does such a bad job with them.

[Airk]

Every time I read threads like these, it makes me so frustrated that D&D is the only tabletop RPG I've had any experience with at all. I live in a small town and haven't had the opportunity to play RPGs at all in a couple years on top of that.

I'd REALLY like to experience playing other games (but would never, ever, do PBP - I can't handle anything that isn't realtime and prefer to actually hear and if possible see other people when playing), but I can't see that happening any time soon. One major reason I'd like to experience other games is the topic of this thread - my experience is so limited that I have trouble imagining how these other systems could even possibly do what they do. I'd LOVE to play a game that didn't have the vast majority of its mechanics focused on combat, which had engaging mechanics for the other interesting aspects of the game: when I run D&D, I usually end up spending the majority of the session on non-combat and I outright ignore how most of the social skills are supposed to work because D&D does such a bad job with them.

Well, a couple of suggestions, coming from someone who also had trouble imagining these sorts of things a couple of years ago.

First off, if you just want to gain some understanding of how games do things differently, you can always READ games, even if you don't have the chance to play them. The SRD for Dungeon World (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/index.html), for example, is free, and isn't a bad place to start. It's not a positively groundbreaking game, but it's certainly clever in a number of interesting ways. From there, well, there's a LOT of stuff available, digitally and cheap on DriveThruRPG. A few that I personally feel are worth looking at:

Fate (Accelerated (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114902/Fate-Accelerated-Edition) and Core (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114903/Fate-Core-System))
Golden Sky Stories (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/118784/Golden-Sky-Stories)
Heroine (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115174/Heroine)
Houses of the Blooded (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/61061/Houses-of-the-Blooded)
Monster Hearts (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/100540/Monsterhearts)
Mouse Guard (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/60496/Mouse-Guard-Roleplaying-Game)
Mythender (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/110779/Mythender-Roleplaying-Game)
Tenra Bansho Zero (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/111713/Tenra-Bansho-Zero-Heaven-and-Earth-Edition)

The most expensive thing in that list is $20, and some of it is literally free (There's also a Quickstart for Houses of the Blooded available free on their web site) and some of it is 'pay what you want'. Oh, and honorable "not on DrivethruRPG but still available digitally and cheap" to Polaris (http://www.tao-games.com/hello-world/).

That's step 1. Read some games. Find a game you like.

Then engage with it's community. Lots of these games have Google+ Communities in particular, and with G+ comes Hangouts. Which a LOT of people are using these days to play tabletop RPGs with people hundreds of miles away, in real time. It might not be quite as awesome as playing in person, but it's a whole lot more 'real' than Play By Post. And you might be surprised how easy it is to find a game. (or you may not, but you'll never know if you don't try.)

So yeah. Your situation isn't awesome, but there are still ways you can explore awesome games.

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, a couple of suggestions, coming from someone who also had trouble imagining these sorts of things a couple of years ago.

First off, if you just want to gain some understanding of how games do things differently, you can always READ games, even if you don't have the chance to play them. The SRD for Dungeon World (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/index.html), for example, is free, and isn't a bad place to start. It's not a positively groundbreaking game, but it's certainly clever in a number of interesting ways. From there, well, there's a LOT of stuff available, digitally and cheap on DriveThruRPG. A few that I personally feel are worth looking at:

Fate (Accelerated (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114902/Fate-Accelerated-Edition) and Core (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114903/Fate-Core-System))
Golden Sky Stories (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/118784/Golden-Sky-Stories)
Heroine (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115174/Heroine)
Houses of the Blooded (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/61061/Houses-of-the-Blooded)
Monster Hearts (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/100540/Monsterhearts)
Mouse Guard (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/60496/Mouse-Guard-Roleplaying-Game)
Mythender (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/110779/Mythender-Roleplaying-Game)
Tenra Bansho Zero (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/111713/Tenra-Bansho-Zero-Heaven-and-Earth-Edition)

The most expensive thing in that list is $20, and some of it is literally free (There's also a Quickstart for Houses of the Blooded available free on their web site) and some of it is 'pay what you want'. Oh, and honorable "not on DrivethruRPG but still available digitally and cheap" to Polaris (http://www.tao-games.com/hello-world/).

That's step 1. Read some games. Find a game you like.

Then engage with it's community. Lots of these games have Google+ Communities in particular, and with G+ comes Hangouts. Which a LOT of people are using these days to play tabletop RPGs with people hundreds of miles away, in real time. It might not be quite as awesome as playing in person, but it's a whole lot more 'real' than Play By Post. And you might be surprised how easy it is to find a game. (or you may not, but you'll never know if you don't try.)

So yeah. Your situation isn't awesome, but there are still ways you can explore awesome games.

Oh my goodness. Thank you SO much! I might have just glossed over your post coming away with "nice, someone is being understanding and advicey" if you hadn't given those links. Pay-what-you-want is such an awesome concept, by the way: it makes people like me who really don't want to/have the means to shell out large amounts much more willing to purchase something rather than rooting around to try to find things in a ... er... different way... or just giving up. So yeah, thank you very much. After my exams I'm gonna do some reading. :)

[Airk]

Oh my goodness. Thank you SO much! I might have just glossed over your post coming away with "nice, someone is being understanding and advicey" if you hadn't given those links. Pay-what-you-want is such an awesome concept, by the way: it makes people like me who really don't want to/have the means to shell out large amounts much more willing to purchase something rather than rooting around to try to find things in a ... er... different way... or just giving up. So yeah, thank you very much. After my exams I'm gonna do some reading. :)

No problem, I enjoy a chance to plug some good games when I get the chance anyway.

Most publishers these days understand that getting someone to buy a $10 or $15 PDF is better than not getting them to buy a $50 book, so there's a lot of inexpensive digital stuff out there. If you're seriously interested in interesting games, it's worth having accounts of DriveThruRPG (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/), and IndiePressRevolution (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/) just to keep an eye out for sales and see what's new on the market.

[neonchameleon]

Well, a couple of suggestions, coming from someone who also had trouble imagining these sorts of things a couple of years ago.

First off, if you just want to gain some understanding of how games do things differently, you can always READ games, even if you don't have the chance to play them. The SRD for Dungeon World (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/index.html), for example, is free, and isn't a bad place to start. It's not a positively groundbreaking game, but it's certainly clever in a number of interesting ways. From there, well, there's a LOT of stuff available, digitally and cheap on DriveThruRPG. A few that I personally feel are worth looking at:

Fate (Accelerated (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114902/Fate-Accelerated-Edition) and Core (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114903/Fate-Core-System))
Golden Sky Stories (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/118784/Golden-Sky-Stories)
Heroine (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115174/Heroine)
Houses of the Blooded (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/61061/Houses-of-the-Blooded)
Monster Hearts (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/100540/Monsterhearts)
Mouse Guard (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/60496/Mouse-Guard-Roleplaying-Game)
Mythender (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/110779/Mythender-Roleplaying-Game)
Tenra Bansho Zero (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/111713/Tenra-Bansho-Zero-Heaven-and-Earth-Edition)

The most expensive thing in that list is $20, and some of it is literally free (There's also a Quickstart for Houses of the Blooded available free on their web site) and some of it is 'pay what you want'. Oh, and honorable "not on DrivethruRPG but still available digitally and cheap" to Polaris (http://www.tao-games.com/hello-world/).

That's step 1. Read some games. Find a game you like.

Then engage with it's community. Lots of these games have Google+ Communities in particular, and with G+ comes Hangouts. Which a LOT of people are using these days to play tabletop RPGs with people hundreds of miles away, in real time. It might not be quite as awesome as playing in person, but it's a whole lot more 'real' than Play By Post. And you might be surprised how easy it is to find a game. (or you may not, but you'll never know if you don't try.)

So yeah. Your situation isn't awesome, but there are still ways you can explore awesome games.

I'm going to second everything here and add a couple more games.

Dread (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/83854/Dread) - Dread is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and very very effective because of it. Its resolution mechanic is the Jenga tower. Pull a block (or more) for a complex action. Succeed, you succeed. Fail, you die. PVP is chicken. And Dread is the tensest horror game ever because you have that immediate, visceral tower that shows you just how bad things are.

Apocalypse World (http://apocalypse-world.com/) - Apocalypse World was the first game I ever read that did a class system really, really right. Classes are things like the Hardholder (you own the post-apocalyptic settlement), the Chopper (You have a Mad Max style biker gang), the Gunlugger (you're a stone cold post-apocalyptic badass - one of your moves is quite literally "NOT TO BE ****ED WITH!"). As you can see the rules point you very much at archetypal characters in the setting. (Dungeon World is a hack of Apocalypse World - and IMO a second rate one).

Monsterhearts (http://buriedwithoutceremony.com/monsterhearts/) - a hack of Apocalypse World that's IMO better than the original (and that's not because the original is in any way, shape, or form a bad game). Monsterhearts is a game about teen horror, and people coming to terms with their bodies changing and their monstrous nature. The classes are all types of supernatural monster, and the monsters are themselves metaphors for the human condition, meaning that the classes are all parts of the human condition turned up to 11. This makes the game of monstrous teenagers trying to find their place much more real than most other RPGs. For more I'll point you at this review (http://www.flamesrising.com/monsterhearts-rpg-review/).

Also Fiasco (http://www.bullypulpitgames.com/games/fiasco/). The jury's out on whether it's technically an RPG as it's largely played in author stance. Everyone should own a copy of Fiasco - and if you want to see what it's about, watch the Tabletop session (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXJxQ0NbFtk). Then bear in mind it's a good but not outstanding example of the game.

Finally, I'd recommend looking at some of my games. Houses and Wands (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1avqZm0uZXEVLLki7OfvveyxEF4awjWSQ_62aABPO3Ko/edit?usp=drive_web), for example, is a Harry Potter game about sneaking out after lights out, poking your nose where it doesn't belong, and waving pencils around and talking in cod-latin to produce magical effects. Silver Age Superheroes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XAJPvm4x_bSmwcp0CPKbKNi-gw_OeQFX-dH4WznDgyQ/edit?usp=drive_web) is about Marvel's Silver Age, so your reputation is both as important as hit points, and normally bad. And there's a specific move pointing you at rescuing innocent bystanders. And Panem et Circenses (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IZN2EYB5p96fdbIdY5kiRujanNZDgaYZuvX6FGQGIVM/edit) is about stress and finding humanity and trust in the middle of ... horror. Quite how important the stress track in that game is is not meant to be immediately obvious.

[Knaight]

This can also apply to common sense/expectations associated with a particular genre as well, not just the real world. For example, if your game is trying to feel like an action movie, then it violates the common sense of the genre if there are rules that mean that people can get gangrene and die from minor nicks and scratches in dirty environments - even if its 'realistic', it violates the expectations associated with what its trying to be.

I'd say that this is actually pretty key. What can characters just easily do (or have an inordinate amount of trouble with) because of the genre, in the face of realism? To use a favorite example, Fudge Firefight introduces a mechanic called Knacks, which are essentially talents that allow mimicry of action movie tropes. These include things like Houdini Hold Out, where you can instantly draw a gun regardless of how well concealed it is, Glass Dancer, where you can jump through a sheet of plate glass and draw a whole bunch of fire towards you that is guaranteed to miss, and Double Barreled Badass, where you can use a pair of pistols and get to use maneuvers like suppression fire which normally take automatic weapons. It also has a very fluid system with ammunition, wherein you count magazines instead of bullets, and you run out of bullets whenever you roll a -3 (1/27 chance) and the gun jams whenever you roll a -4 (1/81 chance).

Are these rules realistic? No. Heck no. They aren't mean to be, and it shows. Do they emulate action movies? Absolutely, and quite well at that.

[Airk]

Dread (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/83854/Dread) - Dread is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and very very effective because of it. Its resolution mechanic is the Jenga tower. Pull a block (or more) for a complex action. Succeed, you succeed. Fail, you die. PVP is chicken. And Dread is the tensest horror game ever because you have that immediate, visceral tower that shows you just how bad things are.

I always forget about Dread, which is a bit embarassing, because I own it. I'm going to excuse myself on the grounds of not liking Horror games very much.


Apocalypse World (http://apocalypse-world.com/) - Apocalypse World was the first game I ever read that did a class system really, really right. Classes are things like the Hardholder (you own the post-apocalyptic settlement), the Chopper (You have a Mad Max style biker gang), the Gunlugger (you're a stone cold post-apocalyptic badass - one of your moves is quite literally "NOT TO BE ****ED WITH!"). As you can see the rules point you very much at archetypal characters in the setting. (Dungeon World is a hack of Apocalypse World - and IMO a second rate one).

I figured two *World games in the list was enough. What do you think is less good about DW? I haven't actually read AW.



Monsterhearts (http://buriedwithoutceremony.com/monsterhearts/) - a hack of Apocalypse World that's IMO better than the original (and that's not because the original is in any way, shape, or form a bad game). Monsterhearts is a game about teen horror, and people coming to terms with their bodies changing and their monstrous nature. The classes are all types of supernatural monster, and the monsters are themselves metaphors for the human condition, meaning that the classes are all parts of the human condition turned up to 11. This makes the game of monstrous teenagers trying to find their place much more real than most other RPGs. For more I'll point you at this review (http://www.flamesrising.com/monsterhearts-rpg-review/).

This was already in the list. ;P

[Airk]

And to re-rail this thread slightly, THIS THREAD (http://story-games.com/forums/discussion/19403/possibilities-versus-probability-discuss-how-different-games-handle-this) has some good insights into the difference between "simulation" mechanics and "Story" mechanics (note: I am using these terms vaguely, and not in the GNS sense.).

Of particular interest, I think, is the part that talks about trying to model "all" the possibilities of an action vs just saying "Something goes wrong, and the player tells us what it is." It's not, at the end of the day, a huge shift in RULES - you're still rolling to find out if you succeed at, say, keeping the Demon of an Older World at bay by chanting Words of Power, but the shift from trying to have the dice or the game tell you why you failed to having the player explain what went wrong is fundamentally powerful.

[neonchameleon]

I figured two *World games in the list was enough. What do you think is less good about DW? I haven't actually read AW.

Just about everything from concept onwards. I'm not exaggerating for effect here. In most places the difference is minor, but it's there just about everywhere. I'd first off suggest reading the classes and moves (http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicplaybooks-legal.pdf) which should tell most of it.

First off, Apocalypse World is emulating a type of fiction and translating it to another medium. Dungeon World starts off on the wrong foot by emulating a type of game using the rules for another game. It's almost an exercise in meta-roleplaying. You're roleplaying being 12 year old roleplayers of D&D.

The classes of Apocalypse World are fundamentally more interesting and varied. Dungeon World you have standard D&D classes. And fair enough - but they are descriptive and not terribly inspiring partly because they've been done a hundred times, and partly because it's very hard finding pure examples of any of them in non-D&D Fiction. Apocalypse World classes set out your place in the world from the Hardholder (Who rules Bartertown?) to the Hocus (Cult Leader), the Savvyhead (Mechanic), and Angel (Medic). If I look at Streets of Fire (and remember that Apocalypse World is aimed at a Mad Max aesthetic), Cody's a Battlebabe, Mac a Driver, and Ellen Aim a Skinner. Firefly? Mal's an Operator, Zoe a Battlebabe, Jayne a Gunlugger, Wash a Driver, Simon an Angel, Book a Touchstone (Expansion), Kaylee a Savvyhead, Ianara a Skinner, and River a Brainer (also? I can kill you with my brain).

Second there are stats. Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha are either generic or have become as generic as the name hoover. I'm not sure which. But one of the two. On the other hand Cool for your "Do something under fire" move sells a lot of the setting, as does Hot for your social intrigue. Hard and Sharp likewise. And Weird as a stat? It's minor, but it runs throughout.

Third, there's the basic moves. Both have two basic moves to attack people. Dungeon World has two moves because melee is different from ranged combat. Fair enough. Both have simple outcomes. Apocalypse World on the other hand has two different moves based on what you are trying to do. If you are working on the basis that "A weapon is a device for making the enemy change his mind" then you are Going Aggro (for instance using covering fire is Going Aggro). If you are trying flat out to kill them or otherwise your goal is to get what you want rather than keep the consequences down you Seize By Force. A much more interesting split, based on what you are trying to do and a very important distinction (especially with guns).

Another clear example in the basic moves (and one for which there is less excuse) is the difference between Dungeon World's Discern Realities and Apocalypse World's Read A Sitch. For people who favour associated mechanics, Apocalypse World is the single most associated game I am aware of - and the questions you get from Read A Sitch (with the arguable exception of "What should I be on the lookout for?") are things you absolutely can get by looking carefully and thinking. On the other hand Discern Realities contains the question "What is about to happen?" which you can't directly know without precognition, and "What happened here recently?" which is a very different type of question. There are several other details like this that make DW nothing like as associated or immersive as AW. It's all minor grit here - but minor grit in a normally very smooth engine.

A third is the nature of the skin moves. The Gunlugger picks moves from "Battle-hardened", "**** this ****", "Battlefield instincts", "Insano like Drano", "Prepared for the inevitable", "Bloodcrazed", and "NOT TO BE ****ED WITH". By contrast the move for the other lethal loner, the Battlebabe, includes:
Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird.
* On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live.
* On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live.
Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible.
On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take -1 throughout the battle.

Apocalypse Word doesn't hold back anywhere even where arguably it should (sex moves). On the other hand DW doesn't take either the sex moves or the awkward Hx mechanic forward.

[Airk]

Okay; Digesting that, but at the moment it just sounds like you don't like what the game is trying to do. It's not trying, like AW is, to emulate a certain type of fiction, unless you consider it to be "idealized D&D". You're right that it's kinda meta, but it's more like "roleplaying the kind of game D&D should have produced if the rules weren't in the way all the time." All the stuff that you are listing as things you don't like are things that are in there very deliberately to produce that effect, all the way down to Alignment.

It's fine if that's not something that appeals to you, particularly, but I don't think it's strictly objective quality difference, because a lot of the stuff you're listing about Apocalypse world produces in me the same sort of reactions that Dungeon World appears to be creating in you. I look at the AW stuff and go "yeah, that's clever, and I see where they're going with that, but it's not interesting to me." (Well, except in the cases of some of the classes, where I'm not even sure where the inspiration comes from.) The stat choice works for AW because it produces a certain sort of reaction. Similarly, I think the 'generic D&D' stats work for DW in the same way.

[neonchameleon]

Okay; Digesting that, but at the moment it just sounds like you don't like what the game is trying to do. It's not trying, like AW is, to emulate a certain type of fiction, unless you consider it to be "idealized D&D". You're right that it's kinda meta, but it's more like "roleplaying the kind of game D&D should have produced if the rules weren't in the way all the time." All the stuff that you are listing as things you don't like are things that are in there very deliberately to produce that effect, all the way down to Alignment.

I'm not objecting to alignment. In fact I really like the way DW handles alignment. It's one of the places where I think they've excellently meshed the two engines. The big hit against the game is the tightness of the moves - see my illustration of the difference between Read a Sitch and Discern Realities, and that is not a consequence of the things the game is trying to do.

The other point is that what I'm asking the game to do and DW doesn't is the things that make the AW engine sing. DW is a perfectly good rules-light version of D&D designed to encourage you to run it fast. But if Dungeon World had been based on the Cinematic Unisystem engine* rather than the Apocalypse World one the main difference would be the 7-9 results wouldn't be codified as well. (This admittedly would weaken the game).

* Taking Unisystem as one of the two best rules light generic game engines I can think of, the other one being classic Fudge. Fate Core is probably lighter than Fudge, but isn't generic in quite the same way - and Fudge wouldn't be suitable here.

[Airk]

I'm not objecting to alignment. In fact I really like the way DW handles alignment. It's one of the places where I think they've excellently meshed the two engines. The big hit against the game is the tightness of the moves - see my illustration of the difference between Read a Sitch and Discern Realities, and that is not a consequence of the things the game is trying to do.

I'm not sure I agree with your criticisms of the questions in Discern Realities. "What is about to happen?" is a little vague, but to me clearly -is- an observational thing. It's a combination of things like spotting ambushes, understanding what actions people are about to take, and discerning the outcome of that dark ritual the hooded cultists are performing around their altar.

Similarly, "What happened here recently?" maps clearly in my mind to tracking, and otherwise 'reading a scene'. "There's a splash of blood here, and signs of a struggle; Clearly the orcs we were pursuing were waylaid by something else. Large, and with lots of claws."



The other point is that what I'm asking the game to do and DW doesn't is the things that make the AW engine sing. DW is a perfectly good rules-light version of D&D designed to encourage you to run it fast. But if Dungeon World had been based on the Cinematic Unisystem engine* rather than the Apocalypse World one the main difference would be the 7-9 results wouldn't be codified as well. (This admittedly would weaken the game).

* Taking Unisystem as one of the two best rules light generic game engines I can think of, the other one being classic Fudge. Fate Core is probably lighter than Fudge, but isn't generic in quite the same way - and Fudge wouldn't be suitable here.

I guess I can understand this criticism, but I'm not at all sure your point about Unisystem underscores it effectively at all. Maybe DW isn't the greatest implementation of the AW engine, but if the AW engine is still the best engine out there to do what DW is trying to do... is that really a problem?

On a tangential note, please tell me more about Unisystem; I've literally JUST bumbled into the term reading about Ghosts of Albion today and now I'm curious.

[neonchameleon]

I'm not sure I agree with your criticisms of the questions in Discern Realities. "What is about to happen?" is a little vague, but to me clearly -is- an observational thing. It's a combination of things like spotting ambushes, understanding what actions people are about to take, and discerning the outcome of that dark ritual the hooded cultists are performing around their altar.

That's what "What should I be on the lookout for?" does. Which DW keeps.


On a tangential note, please tell me more about Unisystem; I've literally JUST bumbled into the term reading about Ghosts of Albion today and now I'm curious.

I'm amazed the official rules for the Buffy RPG are still on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/buffystuff/roleplaygame/) - that's a good example of Cinematic Unisystem. A fast, light system that plays well thematically and tries to balance someone being the Slayer with someone being Xander Harris. The other big games are C J Carella's Witchcraft (I don't know at all) and All Flesh Must Be Eaten (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/97810/The-Waking-Dead?filters=0_0_10102_0_0), a zombie survival game same streamlined rules, oodles of hit points so you can take them away 1 or 2 at a time for minor things like tripping and raise the tension. For light and thematic Unisystem was the class of the turn of the century.

[Airk]

That's what "What should I be on the lookout for?" does. Which DW keeps.

All I can say is that that 'feels' different to me, and I would provide different answers to "what should I be on the lookout for?" and "What is about to happen?" - though I also think they are distinguished somewhat by the circumstances in which you would want to ASK them, which might not be ideal.



I'm amazed the official rules for the Buffy RPG are still on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/buffystuff/roleplaygame/) - that's a good example of Cinematic Unisystem. A fast, light system that plays well thematically and tries to balance someone being the Slayer with someone being Xander Harris. The other big games are C J Carella's Witchcraft (I don't know at all) and All Flesh Must Be Eaten (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/97810/The-Waking-Dead?filters=0_0_10102_0_0), a zombie survival game same streamlined rules, oodles of hit points so you can take them away 1 or 2 at a time for minor things like tripping and raise the tension. For light and thematic Unisystem was the class of the turn of the century.

Can you summarize? I've got a quickstart of something that I can read if I want to get some more detail, but a few bullet points of how it goes about doing what it's trying to do would be nice.

[Knaight]

* Taking Unisystem as one of the two best rules light generic game engines I can think of, the other one being classic Fudge. Fate Core is probably lighter than Fudge, but isn't generic in quite the same way - and Fudge wouldn't be suitable here.

I could see classic Fudge working pretty well - Hack n' Slash was based on it, and I've absolutely seen Fudge work for dungeon style stuff.

[neonchameleon]

Can you summarize? I've got a quickstart of something that I can read if I want to get some more detail, but a few bullet points of how it goes about doing what it's trying to do would be nice.

Cliff notes? Very simple core mechanics, and a lot of thought and attention matching the extensions to the game to fit the genre to the genre it was supposedly in. Sounds basic - but not many games did this before Unisystem - and I can't think of any that did it with the same core system and games in more than one genre. (When they were setting out to make Fate, Unisystem was one of the possibilities they considered - but they'd have needed to license it).


I could see classic Fudge working pretty well - Hack n' Slash was based on it, and I've absolutely seen Fudge work for dungeon style stuff.

Fudge deliberately has a very low variance. You can do dungeon style stuff - but D&D is its own subgenre.

[JeenLeen]

I haven't read the full thread yet (hope to later when I have time), but the opening post reminded me of this conversation from a while back (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?323046-Definitions-narrativist-vs-gamist-simulationist&highlight=narrativist) about narrativist, gamist, and simulationist types of games. I found it rather enlightening about how the mechanics encourage certain playstyles and roleplaying methods.

This post (3rd paragraph) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?337856-Monsterhearts&p=17247039&viewfull=1#post17247039), from an unrelated thread, also has some good insight.




I'm primarily looking to make a system to run a game with a similar premise to shows like Sword Art Online or .hack//, albeit without the "we are trapped in a game!" aspect. Since I'm currently in the brainstorming phase and would like a clear delineation between The Real World and The Virtual Reality mechanically, I thought it might be a good idea to branch out and see what others might have to say on the subject. It seems like rewards in the real world would be much less concrete than in the virtual one, given that it would be more focused on mystery solving and day to day activity. I'll certainly need to come up with a way to make it clear that both aspects of the game are equally important. (Though it occurs to me that, just as in real life, devoting all of one's time to a videogame might be detrimental in a variety of ways. I might use that as a starting point. I think Sith_Happens brings up a good point that regard, as well.)


If you want a game with real world and 'video game' world elements, and the players don't mind, you could try running two systems at the same time. I could see nWoD plain mortals for your 'real world' game--perhaps drop the morality system unless you like it a lot--and maybe some fantasy system for the video game; that could work well for investigation and be somewhat gritty. I'm not sure what to recommend for the 'video game' system, though.
A big pro of this is that you get to try out two systems at once, but that's also a con in that you all have to understand two systems at once, and it would make it hard if you want 'in-game' stuff to carry over to the 'real world'.

I thought of doing something like that once, but could never figure out a good implementation. I definitely don't have a good idea yet for using a mechanic that rewards good character-driven RP, but I could see M&M rewarding fantastic stuff, if you like that idea for the game world. (Could be a little too D&Dish for you, though, if you want to avoid that.)

[NichG]

For a 'trapped in the game' sort of campaign, the important thing to figure out is whether or not the 'real world' parts of the game are actually going to need any sort of mechanics at all. Using two systems for one campaign is a significant amount of effort for both players and DM, so if you aren't actually going to have people do very many mechanical things in the real world its better to just use something very free-form for those segments. E.g. if the real world characters are going to have to infiltrate a corporate facility, etc, etc, then you need to stat them; but if 90% of the game is going to be them logged in, then its best not to bother.

If you do have both worlds matter, then one thing you should look out for is that descending from the sort of epically powerful characters with lots of options in the game to completely mundane characters on the outside can be pretty unpleasant for the players just from the point of view of gameplay - the contrast risks making the 'real world' segments very tedious. On the other hand, if the out-of-game characters are e.g. expert hackers and can make things happen in the game by using an out-of-the-game hacking mechanic, then that better balances the two sets of gameplay.

[Knaight]

Fudge deliberately has a very low variance. You can do dungeon style stuff - but D&D is its own subgenre.

If you specifically mean things like the power scale of D&D, then I'd agree that Fudge isn't the best option (though the scale mechanic is a very powerful little design feature and can get that across). If you mean granularity, there are ladder expansions involving half and even third levels that are pretty straightforward - Fudge Factor had a few, before it went defunct. I've seen a 27 step ladder which barely extends the Abysmal-Legendary scale, and a 21 step ladder that barely extends the Terrible-Superb scale.

That said, it wouldn't be my first choice for a distinctly D&D style thing, unless the D&D style in question was specifically something akin to e6 or lower levels in earlier editions.

[Fiery Diamond]

So I just stumbled across Anima Prime; I'm reading the rules because they're free, and I'm about halfway through the 151 pages of the pdf. I absolutely adore what I've read so far. Now I'm curious as to why it didn't merit a mention. Admittedly, I haven't gotten to the powers section yet.

[Knaight]

So I just stumbled across Anima Prime; I'm reading the rules because they're free, and I'm about halfway through the 151 pages of the pdf. I absolutely adore what I've read so far. Now I'm curious as to why it didn't merit a mention. Admittedly, I haven't gotten to the powers section yet.

In my case, I totally just spaced it - I've read it, it looks decent for certain things (it's not my type of game specifically as a GM, and the odds of me ever playing it with my current circle of friends who game are pretty low), and it could have been mentioned, but the aforementioned lack of actual use or even serious consideration of use caused it to drop off my short list of games that I tend to think of for examples.

[sktarq]

in terms of their mechanics and their effect on theme: The more focus there is on family of actions on the character sheet, better chances than not, the more focus on that family of actions will turn up in play. It isn't a hard and fast rule but if for example the way to deal with social challenges is basically have the player and ST/DM/GM talk in character it becomes hard for people who are less socially adroit from using that skill set much. If there are tones of combat skills, actions, options etc. people will spend a lot of time on those things in build and see them as defining traits of their character-and thus want to use them making combat more likely in this example. That could actually be generalized to whatever mechanics are focused on in building characters will define them in players heads and drive how the players act in game. Also in mechanics the creators give relative values to different things via cross equivlancy-hmmm I'll try to explain In terms of low level DnD spells...Mage armor gets you +4 ac while Glibness gives +20 or Charm person wipes out almost non combat social roll..and as they take up the same amount of wizardly resources they are treated as basically equivilant in value by the players. +4 ac = +20 bluff which in attributes would be +8 Dex = +40 Cha ....and if Charm person is a 1st level spell and invisibility and silence are 2nd level spells and they both basically say "you win" to a skill challenge then the hide and move silently skills are more valuable-if only because magical equipment to bolster them is going to be more expensive. While this is easy to point out with combat vs social skill it applies everywhere Magic vs equipment vs skill (assuming all apply), distance vs ranged combat, going around vs through a challenge. Also mechanics to an extent follows rules of cool when it comes to theme....things that look cool on paper will attract player attention disproportionately to their usefulness or how much they add to actual gameplay. Starwars games have a habit of becoming Jedi/Sith clusters in part for this reason. Lethality has been mentioned as a driver but I feel it should be repeated every hour of initial game planning. Another mechanical thing that effects theme is absolutism. If you can always cast spell X and Y will always happen then the team can plan around that completely...or if a spell,skill, power, etc WILL tell the party if there are traps or not....these absolutes push confidence, dramatic actions (less guarded systems and contingencies)...if there are few absolutes (especially absolutes that effect anything other than the character themselves). Another mechanic/theme link is how much the mechanics describe the everyday life of the character. "Downtime" usually takes up the majority of a characters life but very little of player attention. Even mini downtimes like when in a wilderness players will decide to skip learning how to cook well and skimp on bringing a hireling for reasons of min maxing but the player doesn't have to eat the food. Yes some players will learn to cook well as a RPing detail but it cost them elsewhere and has little chance of coming into play unless the DM/GM/ST twists things that way....so the things that describe a character's daily life have to be able to interact with the game world reasonably well if you want those things developed...if it is about focusing on the moments and thrilling cinematic hurrah's then such things would probably just drain momentum and should be skipped.

[Fiery Diamond]

In my case, I totally just spaced it - I've read it, it looks decent for certain things (it's not my type of game specifically as a GM, and the odds of me ever playing it with my current circle of friends who game are pretty low), and it could have been mentioned, but the aforementioned lack of actual use or even serious consideration of use caused it to drop off my short list of games that I tend to think of for examples.

I've finished reading it now.

It definitely has a very different feel to it than games like D&D for sure. I'm a bit ambivalent on how the character scenes are handled because I'm used to playing with things continuously and fluidly moving from one thing to the next without scene breaks, but it looks really awesome. It's also something that I think one of my best friends would enjoy - I tried to get her to play D&D in the past and she wasn't interested, but I think she'd like this. She and I do 2-person freeform text-based RPs...kinda. It's more a collaborative novel-writing, actually. This... meshes well, I think. If we can't find a third person to play Anima Prime I'm sure we can come up with a way of splitting the GM role while each running PCs - something that would be pretty unthinkable in D&D but I don't think would be too hard in Anima Prime. Anima Prime also would work much better than D&D for having a rotating GM if we do manage to get another person. I hope we get a chance to play.

Obviously I'm planning to make a few tweaks to powers and such since I have no intention of playing in the default setting, but it looks like it won't actually be that hard to balance new stuff against what exists after playing for a while and getting a feel for it.

[Airk]

No mention of Anima Prime from me because I know nothing about it. Probably because the name lends itself to immediate conflation with Fantasy Flight's "Anima: Beyond Fantasy" which is apparently a bit of a train wreck.

Also, good gravy, sktarq, PARAGRAPHS, man, I can't read that!

[Knaight]

No mention of Anima Prime from me because I know nothing about it. Probably because the name lends itself to immediate conflation with Fantasy Flight's "Anima: Beyond Fantasy" which is apparently a bit of a train wreck.

Also, good gravy, sktarq, PARAGRAPHS, man, I can't read that!

It's a very different game, starting with how the fundamental design principle isn't "find the most complicated rule possible to model things, then explain it as poorly as you can".

[Airk]

It's a very different game, starting with how the fundamental design principle isn't "find the most complicated rule possible to model things, then explain it as poorly as you can".

Yeah, that's my understanding after doing some research but I think you can see how I managed to get them mixed up. :P