The Gaming Den

Hi,

Me and a fellow game designer have for a while now thought about game-design related questions, dead ends in RPG's and other such subjects. So, we decided to put together a little manifesto about the whole thing. Comments and feedback very much welcome.

Bob Ross who hosted The Joy of Painting on PBS for a long time, changed the way many people think about painting. Painting wasn’t really viewed as a hobby, more like a calling. We get lots of that in the RPG industry and tabletop gaming circles too. As if RPG’s are something beyond a simple hobby.

Bob Ross never really talked about art, he talked about technique and using your imagination. More importantly, he boiled down oil painting to the simplest details of how to use a brush. And that’s all there is to it, really. Simple techniques.

And the most important thing is that he thought people should paint for fun. Sometimes in the RPG hobby, we forget about what we are doing. It’s easy to get caught up with things when writing a game, everyone does it.

What makes a game fun? Me personally, I have a few things I prefer to do when designing. I want to be inclusive. There’s no reason to write a game where being a minority is a drawback. If someone wants to address these themes in a game, they can do it without you, the writer, holding their hand. Fact is, most people don’t.

We also want a variety of styles to be possible. Not everyone wants to use a game the same way you do, so when writing, take into account the different styles. Lions of the North includes material for swashbuckling, political intrigue, exploration, horror and even dungeon crawls. Of course, sometimes you want a tight focus on a game, and it’s ok too. However, make it explicit. Don’t make your fantasy game all about wizards while not saying it aloud.

Forget about “dark”, forget about “adult themes” and forget about “gritty.” Everyone always says they want a low-magic realistic fantasy setting but no one really plays those. Have you ever seen a game that does “dark” and includes “adult themes” without it being repugnant or juvenile? No. Forget about it when designing, leave it to the players to decide. In short, don’t be a creep.

There’s no need to be afraid of being a little silly or just having fun. If you’re busy trying to get the hobby to be taken seriously, you lose sight of the fact that this can be a very silly hobby. If you present a face of seriousness, people think they must take these games more seriously than they have to, and if the face of gaming is nothing but grit and darkness, people won’t want to play. Embrace fun!

Last but not least, we’re not in the seventies anymore. Vallejo and Frazetta are dated. Stop using cheesecake pictures as your art. Try something new.

-Jussi Marttila, lead designer of Lions of the North
-Andri Erlingsson, writer of Sub Rosa

Original text can be found here: http://lionsofthenorth.wordpress.com/20 ... manifesto/

I fail to see anything interesting in what you said. At least when I wrote my manifesto on the state of the TTRPG industry I focused on actual problems and resolutions.

Here all I see is "have fun!" and "be a designer not an artist!" which are well enough messages on their own but are too vague to bring about any real change.

Yeah, it's not like there's anything awful in there, but it's a bit weightless, isn't it? "Be inclusive" is a bit substantive, but still.

It also seems deeply weird to me that designing RPGs could be a recreational hobby.

John Magnum wrote:Yeah, it's not like there's anything awful in there, but it's a bit weightless, isn't it? "Be inclusive" is a bit substantive, but still.

It also seems deeply weird to me that designing RPGs could be a recreational hobby.

Why? Like every single poster here is a hobbyist game designer, aren't they? That's what you do when you roll out a homebrew class for fun. Game design as hobby. Except for a select few posters who are current (myself) or disgruntled former (Frank Trollman) "professional" game designers but honestly even that is pretty damn hard to define. Even doing it professionally, there's not exactly whole heaps of money in it so the line between "amateur" and "professional" is a really, really blurry one and everyone has their own definition of where the line is. (A lot like being a writer, actually.)

Anyway, things I liked about this manifesto: the idea that imagination games are supposed to be fun, and everyone needs to lighten up a little. When I see how worked up and "towering fury" the Den gets over these imagination games originally designed for and marketed to children (don't believe me? read the introduction to the original D&D red box some time), it makes me a little sad. Not sad as in "that's pathetic" in some smugly superior hipster sense; I don't think it's pathetic to care about this stuff at all. I mean actually sad, like the emotion.

Sad as in...game design and games should be about fun and joy and relaxation, not about flying into a towering rage about how someone is "doing it wrong". So it makes me sad to see people so fucking angry about a game that's supposed to be fun for kids to play and supposed to fill people with joy and wonder. Even bad game design, as long as it's not done intentionally and in bad faith, is a morally good act, because it's based on the intent to inject more joy, fun, and happiness into the world. At least that's my perspective.

So I liked the part where they were all like "it's just a game chill out". Parts I didn't like...

Forget about “dark”, forget about “adult themes” and forget about “gritty.” Everyone always says they want a low-magic realistic fantasy setting but no one really plays those. Have you ever seen a game that does “dark” and includes “adult themes” without it being repugnant or juvenile? No. Forget about it when designing, leave it to the players to decide. In short, don’t be a creep.

This entire paragraph.

First sentence: No, friend, forget about you.
Second sentence: This has nothing to do with the first sentence. At all.
Third sentence: Yes.
Fourth sentence: I just said yes, dude.
Fifth sentence: No.
Sixth sentence: You're a creep.

***

Overall it is a bit short to be a manifesto, though.

Well, I mean, I guess designing in general makes sense as a hobby. But I guess I was imagining people rolling out entire self-contained Product RPGs recreationally. Which seems to be a very different thing from coming up with 3.x tunings.

I guess it's still all designing RPGs to share with other people so they can play them. It's a bit weird for me to think of the fun as being the actual act of coming up with rules. Although as a math dude it seems to be not a million miles removed from that, through a different frame of reference.

Coming up with rules is fun. For me, at least. Which is weird because I am trained as a writer, I wanted to be a writer throughout my entire childhood and adolescence but for the past 5 years I have slid inexorably from being a fluff guy to being a crunch guy who will work on crunch instead of fluff ten times out of ten.

It's fucking weird.

The thing is I actually know a guy who's worked on a bunch of RPGs and the answer to "Who is actually going to play these game?" is a bit nebulous but it's just fun coming up with systems and mechanics and figuring out what you're good at writing.

So maybe it makes more sense than I thought.

I vote for more cheesecake pictures. The era of the chainmail bikini was too short for my taste.

It's a silly hobby. Don't get all worked up about it, and especially don't be a prude.

K wrote:I vote for more cheesecake pictures. The era of the chainmail bikini was too short for my taste.

It's a silly hobby. Don't get all worked up about it, and especially don't be a prude.

I agree entirely. Sex appeal works, but at least make sure there's enough flesh flashing for everyone.

Also, female nerds I've met prefer the slender guys with a "pretty face" and "nice abs" rather than Conan. Artists need to consider that.

Back in AD&D no one wanted to play the Bard, mostly because of the class art. Yes we were that stubborn and stupid but it might represent young gamers as a whole; easily swayed by the characters presented in the handbook.
Characters need to look cool. They need to have fancy outfits.

And throw in some cool armor for the armor fans.

So... you're posting this here why? To raise more money for your kickstart RPG that seems to be nothing more than about 5 rambling essentially fluff only blog posts?

I mean, you've got 3 posts on TGD, 2 of which are you essentially advertising and 1 backing up your advertising. Your ENworld account has a grand total of 4 posts, 2 of which are... you just advertising your blog. therpgsite you have 5 posts, 3 of which are... you just advertising your blog.

Frankly I'm surprised at the shills people you have gotten to donate to you. A bunch of bad posts on message boards isn't a great start, especially when the reason you're making them is to get money.

Yeah, he's shilling for his own work. At least he isn't robo-shilling. I cannot entirely fault someone for coming to a site where RPG design is discussed, and presenting something germane for discussion.

Now we just need something meatier to discuss. There was very, very little in that game design manifesto that actually deals with game design. And what little flesh it does contain is not well-supported.

Nothing wrong with shilling your own work. But it needs to come with free samples. What exactly are you trying to make?

I get that you reject mid-90s sensibilities, but that doesn't really tell us what you don't reject. Having established that you personally don't think that things which were cool when Clinton was president are cool, you still have to establish what you think is cool before it goes anywhere.

-Username17

Like, looking back on the original post:

Kemper Boyd wrote:Me and a fellow game designer have for a while now thought about game-design related questions, dead ends in RPG's and other such subjects. So, we decided to put together a little manifesto about the whole thing.

What in the manifesto addresses game-design related questions, or dead ends in RPGs? There's just "having fun is good", "inclusivity is good", "gritty is bad", "cheesecake art is bad". I don't think any of those are game-design related questions. You didn't talk about any dead ends in RPGs. Like, at a bare minimum, I might expect you to say "I think this game design practice is a dead end. People have tried doing <X> for years and it hasn't made games better for reasons <Y>. Therefore, the New School recommends course <Z>."

FrankTrollman wrote:Nothing wrong with shilling your own work. But it needs to come with free samples. What exactly are you trying to make?

I get that you reject mid-90s sensibilities, but that doesn't really tell us what you don't reject. Having established that you personally don't think that things which were cool when Clinton was president are cool, you still have to establish what you think is cool before it goes anywhere.

-Username17

Much appreciated!

The advice and feedback I got early on told me to concentrate on the setting instead of presenting rules, which is why the crunch category on the blog has played second fiddle to fluff and setting. You're right though: I should put together a bit more free samples.

Let's make a quick list of what I don't reject as a designer. Adventure, for one. Scary stuff is cool too, because I'm a big fan of Call of Cthulhu, and I think scary stuff and adventures go together well. Player empowerment is another thing: the players should be able to make meaningful choices and always be the big deal in the game.

And about the manifesto: while it does have a secondary purpose of creating publicity for Lions of the North, it's not a straight shill piece. God knows I've written many of those! Instead, me and a fellow designer came up with the idea a while back and we decided to realize it today. We really want people to think about design and what it means. Some of my favorite parts in RPG books are parts where a designer shows the read what he really intended with some decision.

John Magnum wrote: What in the manifesto addresses game-design related questions, or dead ends in RPGs? There's just "having fun is good", "inclusivity is good", "gritty is bad", "cheesecake art is bad". I don't think any of those are game-design related questions. You didn't talk about any dead ends in RPGs. Like, at a bare minimum, I might expect you to say "I think this game design practice is a dead end. People have tried doing <X> for years and it hasn't made games better for reasons <Y>. Therefore, the New School recommends course <Z>."

All very germane points, I'll give you that. However, I kinda see design as a larger whole, where you also should consider the big picture of your product in the context of how it's used, what you should include to these ends, what sort of values your product represents, and so on.

Our Manifesto is by no means a finished product, maybe more like a work in progress. There's never going to be a definite view, analysis and theory on games, so I see it good to constantly revise those.

All I got from that manifest is that you're going for a Silver Age feel for your games, since you're rejecting explicitly the "dark, adult and brooding" 90's thing.

We need manifesto's now?

I thought we only needed to write interesting and viable rules sets.

But apparently aspiring game designers are putting priority on other documents. Or something like that.

Perhaps the best way to be all non-serious and fun is to write a rambling manifesto instead of a game.

Well there you go.

PS. What the heck? No Frazetta? No "Cheesecake" (poor choice of terms)? Well screw you, you are every part the stuck up over serious un-fun stereotype you criticise, and a prude to boot!

KB wrote:Let's make a quick list of what I don't reject as a designer. Adventure, for one. Scary stuff is cool too, because I'm a big fan of Call of Cthulhu, and I think scary stuff and adventures go together well. Player empowerment is another thing: the players should be able to make meaningful choices and always be the big deal in the game.

Uh... wat?


You rejected grit and brooding, and embrace player empowerment, and you are a fan of... Call of Cthulhu? Call of Cthulhu is pretty much everything you just said was bad except for the cheesecake thing. Seriously, what the hell?

More generally: "Scary Stuff" is pretty much stuff where "Power >= Player Character". The degree to which that stuff is also scary to the player has to do with how emotionally invested the player is with the character's wellbeing. So getting on a player empowerment kick and advocating "Scary Stuff" is chasing your own tail. Including shoggoths and PCs who are powerful enough to not be threatened with shoggoths isn't scary at all. It's just a generic adventure script where the enemies happen to have tentacles and amorphous bodies and stuff. Cosmic Horror is completely 100% incompatible with almost every single thing you said was important.

-Username17

Kemper Boyd wrote: The advice and feedback I got early on told me to concentrate on the setting instead of presenting rules, which is why the crunch category on the blog has played second fiddle to fluff and setting.

Advice and feedback from who?

Setting and fluff are the easiest parts for gamers to come up with, and the ones most commonly tailored by individuals to their own campaigns. As such, they are the LEAST important part of any new game, IMO. At least, if you're aiming at D&D-esque generic fantasy. They're also the part I am least likely to pay for...if they get thrown in free with the system, I'll take it, but it's not ever a reason for me to buy a game. I can adapt just about any mechanical system to a wide variety of settings and fluff.

Always lead with mechanics. Always. If you're trying to tell me about a game and don't mention some of the mechanics (preferably, mechanics that distinguish it from every other d20 clone out there) in the first five sentences, I am done listening.

FrankTrollman wrote: Uh... wat?


You rejected grit and brooding, and embrace player empowerment, and you are a fan of... Call of Cthulhu? Call of Cthulhu is pretty much everything you just said was bad except for the cheesecake thing. Seriously, what the hell?

Let me clarify this a bit.

Lions of the North doesn't have cosmic horror like Call of Cthulhu. It has unnatural baddies, such as the draugr and malicious forest spirits. They're scary, but they only have a limited impact on the setting per se, since they're beings of the wilderness. You don't go out into the wild, you'll never see them.

In both Call of Cthulhu and Lions of the North, you fight the baddies. Call of Cthulhu has the implications that it's all meaningless in the larger picture, but you might win for the day or the year: stop a cult from summoning a Shoggoth, or so on. In the cosmic horror context, it's the small victories that count, and that empowers the players. If everything they do is utterly meaningless, why even bother?

In Lions of the North, it's never the fate of the world that's at stake: it might be a village, it might be a child lost in the ruins of a wrecked city or a merchant. They're being threatened by very nasty beings, but you get to fight them and win.

Different strokes for different kinds of horror.

PoliteNewb wrote: Advice and feedback from who?

Setting and fluff are the easiest parts for gamers to come up with, and the ones most commonly tailored by individuals to their own campaigns. As such, they are the LEAST important part of any new game, IMO. At least, if you're aiming at D&D-esque generic fantasy. They're also the part I am least likely to pay for...if they get thrown in free with the system, I'll take it, but it's not ever a reason for me to buy a game. I can adapt just about any mechanical system to a wide variety of settings and fluff.

Fans of the game, of course.

But let me give you a few links to some actual game mechanics. They should give you a pretty good overview of what we're going for.

http://lionsofthenorth.wordpress.com/20 ... -creation/

http://lionsofthenorth.wordpress.com/20 ... sorcerers/

I'm trying to stay as far away from D&D-esque things as possible, to be honest. I see that field in gaming as pretty much done.

Kemper Boyd wrote:Let me clarify this a bit.

Lions of the North...

Wait. Now I'm confused too. I thought this was a broad pan genre spanning RPG manifesto or something. Hell it SEEMS to be signed on by at least some other game I never heard of other than just Lions of the North down the bottom. What's with this sudden narrowing. Does the manifesto embrace horror themed gaming and if so what?

I mean I'm going to GUESS it's Scooby Doo, it almost ALWAYS ends up being Scooby Doo in practice. But it might be nice to know.

Call of Cthulhu has the implications that it's all meaningless in the larger picture
...
In Lions of the North, it's never the fate of the world that's at stake

Not seeing the practical difference, lets get the computer guy to zoom in and enhance...

In the cosmic horror context, it's the small victories that count, and that empowers the players. If everything they do is utterly meaningless, why even bother?

...In Lions of the North, it's never the fate of the world that's at stake: it might be a village, it might be a child lost in the ruins of a wrecked city or a merchant...

...Different strokes for different kinds of horror.

Yep, these two game fingerprints LOOK practically identical when it comes to what players do and achieve in the face of a universe beyond their power to meaningfully effect. And yet it seems someone claims they are different?

I might suggest not enough thought has been put into this manifesto. Or into what Call of Cthulhu is and does. Or even into Lions Of the North even is or does, which aside from revolving around insignificant merchant village children rescues we still know next to nothing about.

PhoneLobster wrote:Wait. Now I'm confused too. I thought this was a broad pan genre spanning RPG manifesto or something. Hell it SEEMS to be signed on by at least some other game I never heard of other than just Lions of the North down the bottom. What's with this sudden narrowing.

I think the confusion stems from my moving on to tell about the game I'm designing after Frank Trollman encouraged me to do so, sorry about that.

The manifesto is broader in scope, of course, but I see a connection between what I'm writing gamewise and what i'm writing about gaming.

having a hard time seeing the forest for the "Happy Little Tree"s

i will just mention parts i disagree with....

We also want a variety of styles to be possible. Not everyone wants to use a game the same way you do, so when writing, take into account the different styles. Lions of the North includes material for swashbuckling, political intrigue, exploration, horror and even dungeon crawls. Of course, sometimes you want a tight focus on a game, and it’s ok too. However, make it explicit. Don’t make your fantasy game all about wizards while not saying it aloud.

um no.. i think ALL games should have a focus, rather than paint with a broad brush (to continue the pun).

those other elements you speak of, horror, political intrigue, etc need not be a part of the game, but the game should be able to handle them.

adventuring is NEVER about swashbuckling...that just a fancy as word for fighting/combat.

you have 3 parts of an RPG that are all conflict resolution:
-physical
-mental
-emotional

these can overlap, but thats all there is to it. all those little subcategories jsut get lost in the bigger picture and then others cannot see the forest for the "Happy Little Tree"s because they forgot there is really only the 3.

let the players of a game then decide what they want to do under those 3 and how much or how little of them there is to their game.

How to Host a Murder, does set up the focus quite clearly up front, so if you dont want an open game and do want such a game as that.. then YES explain up front what the game is about..but you should ALWAYS do that no matter how tight the focus is.

James Wyatt wrote:D&D isnt about traipsing through faerie rings and talking to the little people, its about killing things and taking their stuff.

this is how to not even KNOW the focus of your own game, or assume wrongly what the game is and throw it back 20 years to where it was less acceptable.

Forget about “dark”, forget about “adult themes” and forget about “gritty.” Everyone always says they want a low-magic realistic fantasy setting but no one really plays those. Have you ever seen a game that does “dark” and includes “adult themes” without it being repugnant or juvenile? No. Forget about it when designing, leave it to the players to decide. In short, don’t be a creep.

bolded is what i just said about the focus, and it DOES go towards the themes as well. yes the porn games...because that is all "adult themes" means...SEX. have no place for most people except drunken or juvinile trash.

Dark and Gritty however can easily be in the game and explained how to achieve...and SHOULD be explained so you dont have Candyland Murders as your game and create desensitized players that cant differentiate from the fantasy and reality.

but dont force the theme in anything, again unless, you up front state it like the few Ravenloft boxed sets did that were set in Jack the Ripper time frames.

D&D, for example, IS a medieval fantasy setting... or was before WotC borked it all up.. so there are things that fit and things that dont...so when you move to a new time frame and setting you alter what it is. pick something and TRY to stick with it unlike the crapload of settings 2nd edition had. also be sure to tell people something VERY important:

Medieval Fantasy doesnt mean emulates or is a simulation of an exact medieval time. its generic medieval that most stories can fit into, but not precise dates that involved scripted historical events.. and if you want that precision, you will have to add it yourself.

There’s no need to be afraid of being a little silly or just having fun. If you’re busy trying to get the hobby to be taken seriously, you lose sight of the fact that this can be a very silly hobby. If you present a face of seriousness, people think they must take these games more seriously than they have to, and if the face of gaming is nothing but grit and darkness, people won’t want to play. Embrace fun!

not everyone wants drunken slob games, so if your game is for "beer and pretzels" then be ready for those that actually WANT a game to not be interested in your new-age drinking game, or excuse to get drunk.

Last but not least, we’re not in the seventies anymore. Vallejo and Frazetta are dated. Stop using cheesecake pictures as your art. Try something new.

Wayne Reynolds art looks like something left on the toilet paper after i just recently wiped my ass, and think it should be flushed just the same.

do NOT try to dictate art to ANYONE. Classic or just something people like and dont NEED change for change's sake means people will like Elmore, DiTerlizzi and Sutherland for as long as they like it. stupid spiky shit "artwork" will NEVER appeal to people that dont like stupid spiky shit.

Likewise, not everyone enjoyed hearing about "Happy Little Tree"s so the influence you start off with is not as good a reference as you might think.

funny you start with an open mind and talking about an open mind, then crap all over yourself trying to force your view of what art is, after saying for others to open their mind about it like Bob tried to do.

your conclusion does not match the rest of your thesis. dont end something with an insult to people otherwise they will not care a thing about any of the rest that they had to sit through and will take it as a slap to the face because you showed your true colors in the end and wasted ALL of their time.

I am a fan of both Bob Ross and Frazetta.

I don't know who jussi and andri are, but if they can speak negatively of Frazetta, they must not have much artistic sense.