Indie Story Game Design - A Rant
I spent some time the other night ranting with some fellow players of story games about a subject that I feel very strongly about when it comes to Indie Role-Playing Games and RPGs in the mainstream too.
I think, for far too long, buyers, creators, and players of RPGs determine the buying value of a particular game dependent on how much text it has, and the complexity of its rules.
I think this has continued even into the indie renaissance, even with games that have dead simple rules, still padding them with distracting and eventually confusing explanations, side chatter, setting descriptions.
I think a possible next step for indie games awaits the adventurous indie designer in making games that look as dead simple, elegant, and beautiful as a well-made children’s picture book or graphic novel. Think Frank Miller’s 300, James Gurney’s Dinotopia, Will Huygen and Rien Poortvliet’s Gnomes, Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics.
My friend Jana, a graphic designer, tells me design blossoms from what you leave out, not what you put in. Bruce Lee says the same thing about martial arts, by the way.
So why do I see even my favorite indie games with gobs and gobs of background and text that nobody but the evangelist for the game will read?
Instead of pages and pages of setting, provided a streamlined setting oracle.
Instead of descriptions of character possibilities and worldbuilding, provide awe-inspiring portraits and landscape panoramas.
Instead of trying to teach someone how to play with the book, know that people only really learn role-playing games face-to-face, and let the book support that kind of learning.
I of course see some designers experimenting with this already; Nordic RPG poems in a sense may already have the tiger by the tail for some of this ethic - Jonathan Walton’s Murderland contest produced a whole bunch of awesome possibilities for exploring this territory - Matthijs Holter’s Archipelago works this angle really well Judd Karlman’s Dictionary of MU rocks this idea - Vincent’s IAWA design seems within the realm of this kind of thinking too. For just rules simplicity, check out Creative Advantage’s Juicers deck.
To sum: rather than ensuring value by the thickness of the book, or the amount of text, ensure value by making it beautiful and elegant. If people will slap down $15-$25 on a short children’s picture book or graphic novel, potential players will do that for your indie game, believe me, if you design it beautifully enough.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:48 am
Did this come up in response to Mouse Guard? Because the text itself is actually really short. I read the whole thing in a couple of hours, but the font size is big (for ease of use and younger readers, I imagine) and there’s a ton of art that really doubles the length of the game. So, in that sense, page counts can be deceiving.
On the whole, though, I think many folks agree with this and there are some standouts in this regard. Agon comes to mind as being just the rules. And Bliss Stage. And Roanoke. Honestly, I’m hard-pressed to think of a really great indie game with lots of padding. I do think that there’s a tendency to page bloat over making all the various special cases clear in the text instead of trusting individual groups to come up with their own solutions. I also think that there’s a kinda of subjective ’sweet spot’ of mechanical complexity that many games try to hit, instead of being dead simple, which leads to more rules text than might be necessary in a more streamlined game.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
No, I haven’t seen Mouse Guard - but that gets me excited if it matches the direction that I’d like to see indie game design go in. Tons and tons of art, not that much text, pretty much fits the bill.
But I have seen Agon, and Bliss Stage, and though I enjoy the games, I don’t think they fit. Every time I read Bliss Stage I got lost in the text; Agon too. Lots and lots of text, proportional to the rules, surely, but then that indicates too many rules for ‘dead simple’ design that I want. Think children’s picture books and graphic novels.
I play with many folks who haven’t played RPGs before, and I see a huge niche for simple, beautiful games, designed for people who just want to create fiction together; not necessarily freeform, but as simple as freeform.
As an aside, I don’t see any reason why a designer couldn’t create a modular game, like Burning Wheel (but even simpler!). You could string a few ‘dead simple’ games together to create a more complicated game.
Some of this rant involves the pedagogy of play, the difficulty of learning role-playing games, and such. In school, did you ever do the ‘PBJ sandwich making instructions’ exercise? Where you try to explain, through writing, what someone needs to do to make a Peanut Butter Sandwich? I feel often times that role-playing games get most of their text from this kind of problem.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 am
I edited the article to add links to more examples of books that I just realized fit the mold, without actually containing games:
Dinotopia, James Gurney
Gnomes, Rien Poortvliet
Beautiful books that communicate a LOT of information, fantastical or no…
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Yeah, Dinotopia and its sequels are nothing short of brilliant. But, yeah, then you’re talking not just about making texts and products better but changing the culture about what a product is supposed to look like. I’d love to do that too, but it’s hard. People like me buy Poison’d, aren’t really able to play it with the information at hand, and then get upset and complain on the internet because the game isn’t complete. I definitely think it works when combined with teaching people to play face-to-face, though. It would just require really simple, clear rules (simpler and clearer than Poison’d), a different business model, or both.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[…] Smaller About Design 2009 Feb 2 Over on the College of Mythic Cartography (which you should be reading, if you aren’t), Willem’s wondering — as I have in […]
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I would love to see portions of the design community embrace the aesthetic you’re describing, Willem, but be careful of replacing one form of pedagogy with another.
For instance, I disagree with the idea that no one learns how to play roleplaying games from books. While face-to-face play informs and strengthens my understanding of games, I do learn rpgs from texts, and I do it without much effort. What’s more, I enjoy reading roleplaying texts for what they are in and of themselves, even if I never play them or even intend to play them.
I know from our few discussions and the games we’ve played together that you have very specific goals with your roleplaying and storytelling, and I agree that it would be fantastic if there were more games designed in such a way that they helped you meet those goals, both in play and in presentation. My preference, though, would be that our library of games and techniques expand to include those goals rather than transforming all existing design philosophies to only meet your outlined standards. Other players, storytellers, and game designers have different aims and desires that may not be fully served by your ideal design aesthetic.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
News: I have edited the article to include another great example, Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. I wouldn’t call it gorgeous per se, but it gets the job done visually, and I want more o’ dat! Also, check out the Juicers improv game warm up deck: http://www.creativeadvantage.com/juicers.html
Jonathan: Yes! Another business model, plus really simple clear rules. I love it. And most importantly: changing the culture about what a product is supposed to look like. I agree 100%. I want to do that. It think it would further enlarge the indie flood of creativity and innovation but most of all: it would produce readily playable games! [disclaimer: for those who like the complex stuff, go for it, I just want more for us keep-it-simple-and-pretty types].
Lukas: Fortunately I don’t have the superpowers to abuse in such a way as to make all game designers make only games I like.
So no worries for now. I definitely just want to broaden the field; to create another niche like the ashcan one. Simple and Pretty Games. Fast Playing Collaborative Fiction.
My friend Joel definitely enjoys the rules-text-reading too; we have a lot of catfights about this kind of thing and usually end up rediscovering that different people want different things from play. Ha ha. Oh well. If I get a tad evangelical at times I hope the text-ies will forgive me.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Oh noes, Willem! We’re gonna destroy gaming!
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
TEOGAWKI = The End of Gaming as We Know it
Haha! The true revolution begins!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:58 am
Some of the things we’re talking about are more like exercises based on a certain philosophy of play. You can read a book by Johnstone or Boal, and you’ll get a LOT of “play time” from them. They don’t say “try this one complex thing twenty times”, they say “try these twenty different things a few times each”. Role-playing poems and other tiny, focused designs are like that.
Role-playing needs to be taught in person, after a certain level. Tactical games, dungeon crawls, solo/programmed scenarios can be learned from a book; good group dynamics, saying yes, pacing, flow etc might need personal tuition.
Workshops would be good, perhaps even as a business model. “Pay for my workshop, get free rulebook” or “pay for the rulebook, get free workshop”, for instance.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:18 am
Yes, exactly, which explains why I love those tiny focused designs. They can warm you up for a session that contains a certain tone of play.
Too true; which means that designers can design their games to support this reality, rather than fight against it!
Yeah. Right on. And some games take some skill development; I’d like to design a game that depends on Riddle solving and creating, but I know most folks need a lot of practice to get there. So a workshop on riddlin’ could precede a game session that requires a knowledge of riddles.