1. I think a major portion of a game's ease of play depends on how well it works at getting players to overlap those understandings. (which may or may not be actually what the designer had in mind, but still...)
2. The other part, is that if players' understandings are based in what they imagine ALL roleplaying to be like, and -those- don't overlap, expect trouble. "The Gamer Hurdle" as I call it.
Yeah, really, I meant, "Hey, among all these players, that red box shows where people are actually having fun. The rest, not so much. Player A isn't having fun at all, but he probably would if he played the game as the designer intended (or, if you prefer, if he played the game the same way his friends do).
Also, the fun box can be moved anywhere on the diagram and still be "true" (but show another situation). For example, put the box over Player A's ellipse and it shows that Player A figured out how to have fun by playing totally different than either his friends or the designer.
Player A’s using the rules differently from Authorial Intent may be just as fun (and in some/many cases more fun) than the maximized overlap with Authorial Intent.
In fact, I’ll be the Lone Heretic here and say I don’t think Authorial Intent should be on this graph at all, because it has nothing to do with what fun is. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. The author is not in my play group. The only forces at play in having the play be fun are the areas of overlap between the members of the play group’s understanding and use of the rules … and even those can swerve pretty hard from one another as long as a bare margin of overlap occurs.
Short Example: If my group’s playing D&D but have turned Hit Points into a non-item, roleplaying out physical damage based on narrative principles and success margins but added in the idea of Social Points which we’ve decided should be worn down by various arguments and tactics in a mirror of the combat system, that’s a huge swerve from Authorial Intent. But if we’re having an
( ... )
Sure, Player A could be having fun, but on that diagram, he isn't. The lower diagram doesn't represent some truism (play how the designer intends or you won't have fun!).
If you want, reach into my Visio drawing and slide the fun box to the right so that it overlaps only the right half of Player A's experience to show an alternative scenario where only Player A is having fun, even though Players B and C are playing more as the designer intended.
Better to be the lone heretic than the hare lunatic!
Authorial Intent does matter to the fun. That's why some games suck and other games don't suck. Sure, even games that suck will have some fans, but the rest of the fans will still think the game sucks. Why? Because the author wrote the game a certain way.
See my recent post, Designing Fun with Rules, that addresses Authorial Intent in a clear way (he says with hope
( ... )
This is why we post diagrams with commentary, so we can avoid having our actions interpreted as espousing One True Wayism, which one receives quite enough of from the fanatic Forgies, thank-you-very-much.
I will take some issue here, though:
The author is not in your play group, but he has written the rules you’re using (or not using). His intent has an influence on your play, like it or not.
His acts have. His intent, not so much. There’s been more than once where I’ve read an author in an online forum or speaking at a Con about what his intent with a game design was and that in no way matched up to what I and people I know got out of a game as written. Sometimes surprisingly differently, in fact. We take it as an emergent rule-set from which events emerge, they take it as a model (which doesn’t actually model the targeted thing, but I digress).
Yes, some games suck. But I doubt, in my heart of hearts, that such was the authors intent. It’s a terrible word to describe “the mechanics and setting as written.” No one intends to
( ... )
This is why when we post comments in people's blogs, we don't jump to conclusions about what they're trying to communicate. ;) Don't blame me for your false interpretation of One True Wayism in my post. Moving on...
I don't know why you're hammering Authorial Intent. It really wasn't on this diagram at all. All the picture shows is the Designer's understanding of his own rules text and how it may or may not match up with the player's understanding of the same rules text.
But let me address your comment. I think it's splitting hairs to separate the designer's intent from the designer's act (of writing). I think Authorial Intent is less useful than Authorial Understanding, in any case. I intend Verge to play a certain way but I haven't figured out how to do it yet; I understand Verge to play a different way, but it's not yet a publishable thing. When I publish it, my intent may still differ from my understanding of it, but my understanding should at least provide fun reliably
( ... )
I'll chime in with the expansion of the "fun" box to include the whole thing (potentially).
I'm going to go somewhere else too: what is "setting." A lot of people play JAGS Wonderland without the JAGS part. They use our setting which includes ... rules for magic based on setting. It's got a magic-setting more than a magic-system (yes, there are mechanics--but understanding what you can do is based on setting).
Anyway: if they're doing it in FATE, are they using "rules"--because they're using an awful lot of content from us--just not specific mechanics--and if they translate, say, the Twists, then they are using "some rules" but not, again mechanics. How does that fall?
This is one reason I like the Gamma World formulation where the players (esp. the GM in the GW book) complete the game). It makes every session its own game (yes, that's a problem)--but it also challenges ideas about "authorial intent" (hey! The GM is an author!! Who knew!? ;) ) and what a complete system is.
See my latest post. My little diagram was just meant to show one possible configuration of overlapping fun, player understanding/use, and designer expectation/use. So you could have a big ol' "fun" box around it all, but I can't imagine it includes the version of JAGS where Vin Diesel comes to your house and sticks a fork in your eye. So there are limits to the "fun" box, is my point.
If someone came up with the Vin Diesel Edition JAGS mechanic earnestly in a drive to add fun to their games, maybe it is fun for them and their play group! They could all be regenerators, or all already blind and get to grope Vin on the way. Who are we to judge their fun?
Other people do things for fun every day that I can’t imagine being fun. That doesn’t keep them from having fun.
If people are having fun doing X, then they draw their fun box over X. I'm saying that when the box is here and the designer's expectations are there and the actual rules are this other place, then certain things happen.
It's when the rules don't work without Vin Diesel stabbing you in the eye, and that isn't fun for you, that sucks.
Comments 20
1. I think a major portion of a game's ease of play depends on how well it works at getting players to overlap those understandings. (which may or may not be actually what the designer had in mind, but still...)
2. The other part, is that if players' understandings are based in what they imagine ALL roleplaying to be like, and -those- don't overlap, expect trouble. "The Gamer Hurdle" as I call it.
Reply
2. Yeah, absolutely, but if they're having fun doing what they do, that's fine.
Reply
Okay, not the colors. But the actual picture itself.
I might add little other-color boxes for "this is Player X's perceived fun" and change the red box to "this is the fun the text supports".
But that would make the thing confusing, rather than pointed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Also, the fun box can be moved anywhere on the diagram and still be "true" (but show another situation). For example, put the box over Player A's ellipse and it shows that Player A figured out how to have fun by playing totally different than either his friends or the designer.
Reply
Player A’s using the rules differently from Authorial Intent may be just as fun (and in some/many cases more fun) than the maximized overlap with Authorial Intent.
In fact, I’ll be the Lone Heretic here and say I don’t think Authorial Intent should be on this graph at all, because it has nothing to do with what fun is. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. The author is not in my play group. The only forces at play in having the play be fun are the areas of overlap between the members of the play group’s understanding and use of the rules … and even those can swerve pretty hard from one another as long as a bare margin of overlap occurs.
Short Example: If my group’s playing D&D but have turned Hit Points into a non-item, roleplaying out physical damage based on narrative principles and success margins but added in the idea of Social Points which we’ve decided should be worn down by various arguments and tactics in a mirror of the combat system, that’s a huge swerve from Authorial Intent. But if we’re having an ( ... )
Reply
If you want, reach into my Visio drawing and slide the fun box to the right so that it overlaps only the right half of Player A's experience to show an alternative scenario where only Player A is having fun, even though Players B and C are playing more as the designer intended.
Better to be the lone heretic than the hare lunatic!
Authorial Intent does matter to the fun. That's why some games suck and other games don't suck. Sure, even games that suck will have some fans, but the rest of the fans will still think the game sucks. Why? Because the author wrote the game a certain way.
See my recent post, Designing Fun with Rules, that addresses Authorial Intent in a clear way (he says with hope ( ... )
Reply
This is why we post diagrams with commentary, so we can avoid having our actions interpreted as espousing One True Wayism, which one receives quite enough of from the fanatic Forgies, thank-you-very-much.
I will take some issue here, though:
The author is not in your play group, but he has written the rules you’re using (or not using). His intent has an influence on your play, like it or not.
His acts have. His intent, not so much. There’s been more than once where I’ve read an author in an online forum or speaking at a Con about what his intent with a game design was and that in no way matched up to what I and people I know got out of a game as written. Sometimes surprisingly differently, in fact. We take it as an emergent rule-set from which events emerge, they take it as a model (which doesn’t actually model the targeted thing, but I digress).
Yes, some games suck. But I doubt, in my heart of hearts, that such was the authors intent. It’s a terrible word to describe “the mechanics and setting as written.” No one intends to ( ... )
Reply
I don't know why you're hammering Authorial Intent. It really wasn't on this diagram at all. All the picture shows is the Designer's understanding of his own rules text and how it may or may not match up with the player's understanding of the same rules text.
But let me address your comment. I think it's splitting hairs to separate the designer's intent from the designer's act (of writing). I think Authorial Intent is less useful than Authorial Understanding, in any case. I intend Verge to play a certain way but I haven't figured out how to do it yet; I understand Verge to play a different way, but it's not yet a publishable thing. When I publish it, my intent may still differ from my understanding of it, but my understanding should at least provide fun reliably ( ... )
Reply
I'm going to go somewhere else too: what is "setting." A lot of people play JAGS Wonderland without the JAGS part. They use our setting which includes ... rules for magic based on setting. It's got a magic-setting more than a magic-system (yes, there are mechanics--but understanding what you can do is based on setting).
Anyway: if they're doing it in FATE, are they using "rules"--because they're using an awful lot of content from us--just not specific mechanics--and if they translate, say, the Twists, then they are using "some rules" but not, again mechanics. How does that fall?
This is one reason I like the Gamma World formulation where the players (esp. the GM in the GW book) complete the game). It makes every session its own game (yes, that's a problem)--but it also challenges ideas about "authorial intent" (hey! The GM is an author!! Who knew!? ;) ) and what a complete system is.
-Marco
Reply
Reply
If someone came up with the Vin Diesel Edition JAGS mechanic earnestly in a drive to add fun to their games, maybe it is fun for them and their play group! They could all be regenerators, or all already blind and get to grope Vin on the way. Who are we to judge their fun?
Other people do things for fun every day that I can’t imagine being fun. That doesn’t keep them from having fun.
Reply
If people are having fun doing X, then they draw their fun box over X. I'm saying that when the box is here and the designer's expectations are there and the actual rules are this other place, then certain things happen.
It's when the rules don't work without Vin Diesel stabbing you in the eye, and that isn't fun for you, that sucks.
Reply
Leave a comment