Two Dice in my Pocket
Chris Hanrahan, being an intensely cool guy, sent me a pair of dice from the Endgame 8 mini-con out in Endgame, Oakland . They’re gorgeous six siders with a mother-of-pearl finish and the endgame logo where the 6 should be. I found them in my pocket today and have been rattling them around in my hand every now and again, thinking.
Specifically, I’m thinking “What else do I need to game?” I’m a great fan of minimal, lightweight games, from Risus to Over the Edge to the Amber DRPG to my own Wheel of Fate, but this question often haunts me. On some level, I could use any one of those systems to run every game ever, and it would probably work out, but it always seems to feel a little hollow in practice.
Sitting there, rolling those dice, I turned it into one of those great Apollo 13-engineering problems. Assuming I had these dice, a few slips of paper or index cards, and a pencil, what could I run? And perhaps more importantly, what can’t I run?
That last finally cracked the ice for me, and it broke down what I need from rules along lines that are making me rethink a few games. The issue is the gap between the common frame of reference of recognizable actions and the representation of the fantastic.(1)
See, for most actions described in a game, there’s a common frame of reference that is shared at the table, in at least broad strokes. We know that it helps to be strong to lift things, and that a thief can probably pick locks better than a barber. There’s a whole other discussion to be had about where this knowledge comes from, but in practice, it’s there and is simplifies things greatly. With that context, all you need is a means to handle uncertainty. However it's done, the process is roughly the same - events proceed without the system so long as the shared understanding suggests the reasonable outcome. When something happens that doesn't have an obvious outcome (or an unwelcome obvious outcome) then the system is used to choose an outcome.
This is a space where a simpler game thrives. While you can have a more complex system if that's to taste, it can be a simple as a coinflip or a stat lookup. That is to say, a very simple system can be used to handle all these situations.
This breaks down when the game leaves that common frame of reference, and that’s where the wordcount starts piling up. While it might be possible to extrapolate the frame of reference to account for the super-normal(2), there are going to be genuine disconnects. If a character can teleport or cast spells, the players need a new common frame of reference, and that’s what the rules provide. This may be as simple as an explicit list of spells and their effects, or it could be a comprehensive model, like Hero. In large part the amount of rules needed is tied very strongly to how much of a new frame of reference is needed. (3)
And this brings me back to that core question of what a very minimal game needs. While it is possible to stick with the simpler model and just settle for extrapolating the frame of reference, I think doing so is the heart of the problem. It’s not really a technical assessment, but it feels like that bit of mechanical crunch is the dash of salt that brings a bland meal to life (and like salt, too much can introduce all manner of problems). So the question is how to introduce those elements without introducing a ton of extra bookkeeping - these explicit rules call for rules to be written down somewhere, and that means material that must be carried around or committed to memory. And that, right there, is the thing I need a workaround for.
So, time for some more thinking.
(1) - There are a ton of assumptions implicit in this, so for purposes of this, assume I am focusing on actions of play, not the creations of narrative, and not looking at the other things rules bring to the table.
(2) - This extrapolation also includes “reskinning”. For example, a system may have “Fire Magic” but it could be mechanically identical to another weapon, but with a different special effect. Extrapolation can be very versatile, but it also gets unbalanced very quickly, as “Super skills” often end up trumping other system elements. If one character is a skilled acrobat and the other is a wind mage (who can, among other things, fly) the acrobat is left in a kind of crappy position.
(3) - This is one of those things that can transform games over time. If all the players internalize the new frame of reference (the rules), then the gameplay can go back to the simpler model. Put more specifically, if everyone knows how D&D works instinctively, then they don’t need the rules for matters outside their frame of reference anymore, they just proceed within the logic of the setting. This is one way that players can end up in the much-maligned fun session with no dice rolled.
Specifically, I’m thinking “What else do I need to game?” I’m a great fan of minimal, lightweight games, from Risus to Over the Edge to the Amber DRPG to my own Wheel of Fate, but this question often haunts me. On some level, I could use any one of those systems to run every game ever, and it would probably work out, but it always seems to feel a little hollow in practice.
Sitting there, rolling those dice, I turned it into one of those great Apollo 13-engineering problems. Assuming I had these dice, a few slips of paper or index cards, and a pencil, what could I run? And perhaps more importantly, what can’t I run?
That last finally cracked the ice for me, and it broke down what I need from rules along lines that are making me rethink a few games. The issue is the gap between the common frame of reference of recognizable actions and the representation of the fantastic.(1)
See, for most actions described in a game, there’s a common frame of reference that is shared at the table, in at least broad strokes. We know that it helps to be strong to lift things, and that a thief can probably pick locks better than a barber. There’s a whole other discussion to be had about where this knowledge comes from, but in practice, it’s there and is simplifies things greatly. With that context, all you need is a means to handle uncertainty. However it's done, the process is roughly the same - events proceed without the system so long as the shared understanding suggests the reasonable outcome. When something happens that doesn't have an obvious outcome (or an unwelcome obvious outcome) then the system is used to choose an outcome.
This is a space where a simpler game thrives. While you can have a more complex system if that's to taste, it can be a simple as a coinflip or a stat lookup. That is to say, a very simple system can be used to handle all these situations.
This breaks down when the game leaves that common frame of reference, and that’s where the wordcount starts piling up. While it might be possible to extrapolate the frame of reference to account for the super-normal(2), there are going to be genuine disconnects. If a character can teleport or cast spells, the players need a new common frame of reference, and that’s what the rules provide. This may be as simple as an explicit list of spells and their effects, or it could be a comprehensive model, like Hero. In large part the amount of rules needed is tied very strongly to how much of a new frame of reference is needed. (3)
And this brings me back to that core question of what a very minimal game needs. While it is possible to stick with the simpler model and just settle for extrapolating the frame of reference, I think doing so is the heart of the problem. It’s not really a technical assessment, but it feels like that bit of mechanical crunch is the dash of salt that brings a bland meal to life (and like salt, too much can introduce all manner of problems). So the question is how to introduce those elements without introducing a ton of extra bookkeeping - these explicit rules call for rules to be written down somewhere, and that means material that must be carried around or committed to memory. And that, right there, is the thing I need a workaround for.
So, time for some more thinking.
(1) - There are a ton of assumptions implicit in this, so for purposes of this, assume I am focusing on actions of play, not the creations of narrative, and not looking at the other things rules bring to the table.
(2) - This extrapolation also includes “reskinning”. For example, a system may have “Fire Magic” but it could be mechanically identical to another weapon, but with a different special effect. Extrapolation can be very versatile, but it also gets unbalanced very quickly, as “Super skills” often end up trumping other system elements. If one character is a skilled acrobat and the other is a wind mage (who can, among other things, fly) the acrobat is left in a kind of crappy position.
(3) - This is one of those things that can transform games over time. If all the players internalize the new frame of reference (the rules), then the gameplay can go back to the simpler model. Put more specifically, if everyone knows how D&D works instinctively, then they don’t need the rules for matters outside their frame of reference anymore, they just proceed within the logic of the setting. This is one way that players can end up in the much-maligned fun session with no dice rolled.