Troy says of his questions, "What I came up with was [19] “Power Questions” designers should ask themselves before and during their design process."

So, I have looked at these questions more than once, and they do not really feel like questions that "designers should" ask themselves, not unqualified. They are loaded with a lot of presuppositions.

So my aim here is to discuss, first, what those presuppositions are and what that means for designers aiming to use Troy's questions; what are they good for? What won't they help with?

Second, I want to think about distilling the root questions out of their presuppositions, and see what we get. I hope the result will be something that helps you think about your games less bluntly than, say Jared's trinity, while not carrying so much baggage.

4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are all more or less the same question, looking at different elements with different amounts of scrutiny. In this case, they focus on character, setting, and resolution systems. I think we can see Troy's presuppositions here, about what's important and what's more important. I think, cast as they are currently cast, they're appropriate and useful for a kind of character-focused face-stabbing game (in fact, in answering them, I have found myself twisting games with other intentions into face-stabby character games), but this same bias makes them less flexible than they could be.

Here's an attempted recasting:

Supposing that you can partition the things in gameplay that recieve attention and interest, as the Big Model does with the Five Elements of Exploration (Character, Colour, Situation, System, Setting), what segments of the partition does your design give the most weight and attention to? Why? What are those focused things like? How does this reinforce what your game is about? Why did you choose not to focus on the elements that took less attention?

6 and 7, regarding player behaviors, presuppose enticement and punishment; they do not discuss mandate and forbiddance. That's easy to fix. I'm not sure if they should ask if those things exist at all; I suspect they should (plenty of Jon Walton's designs lack one or several of these things). There should be a connection to aboutness here too, like, "How do these constraints support what your game is about?"

17 is what I think of as 'the neophile's question.' I feel like it's redundant with 9, 14, and 16, but with a sort of unnecessary focus on newness and difference. If that's the designer's goal, then he'll have said so to himself already, and if it isn't, then the question isn't worth anything to him.

Okay, deep breath. Stepping off my soapbox now.

Anything I missed? I'm sure there's loads.

Troy offered to write an article about the Power 19 for Push 2, so I was expecting to have this conversation then, but having it now and letting more people weigh in sounds like a great idea.

I think Troy's model is a really useful way of understanding the design concerns of a certain batch of mostly Forge-tempered games (the design school that history will probably know as "Narrativism," despite all attempts to call it something else). This is not to say that all the involved game designers used the Power 19 (most of them didn't), but more that Troy distilled the Power 19 from their discussions of design priorities.

Personally, I like to use the P19 to measure how far I am from a "Forgey" game concept. Like, the more Power 19 questions I can answer with N/A or "Does Not Compute" the further out in open waters (or left field) I am. I've considered, off and on, doing a P19 write up for Kazekami Kyoko, Waiting/Tea, or When The Forms Exhaust Their Variety, as a way of demonstrating the limitations of the P19's design assumptions, but just having a discussion sounds better.

I feel like it would definitely be possible to create a list of design questions that would lead people to more unusual and less familiar design priorities. I'd start by stripping out bits of questions that imply specific mechanics or techniques. You'd have to get rid of mentions of:

3. the GM
5. Character Creation
6-7. Rewards & Punishments
8. Credibility
10-11. Resolution Mechanics
12-13. Character Advancement

Like Shreyas, I question the value of 17, but for different reasons. Thinking about what makes your work different encourages designers to think about their concept in terms of existing products, which I think has traditionally been the cap on innovation in most creative fields.

I would also encourage designers to approach games without being especially worried about publishing (#18). Publishing really has no necessary connection with design and I think it tends to encourage people to publish ASAP and create a game that would be successful in the existing market or easy to produce (instead of a game that requires slate tablets and a crystal goblet, as an extreme example).

I also feel somewhat uncomfortable with the way the P19 emphasizes character over everything else, even more than setting (the traditional heartthrob of game designers). I would want to see more of a balance presented between Ron's 5 Elements (setting, character, system, color, situation), or questions that avoiding that scheme entirely.

More thoughts and suggestions later, as they come.

I think you're right that the Power 19 carries a lot of presuppositions, but I still love it anyway. It's a tool or an exercise, not a template. I look on it as a sort of stretching exercise to do with my new idea. It lets me see if my idea is strong enough to maintain its shape under stress.

Sometimes I think a little ignorance is a good thing. Design tools and, yes, theory, inform the end result. We're getting close to a time when any decently smart and motivated person will be able to turn out an acceptable quality "Forge" game. That's not a bad thing, mind you. There will always be a new frontier to explore. The real problem comes when people think the frontiers no longer exist. When people start telling you that your game isn't a game because "it doesn't fit the power 19", that's when we start to worry. :)

Interestingly enough not that long ago the Power 19 was rebeling against the structure.

Expressing differently?

I think according to forum ettiquette we have to insult each other for five tedious pages before we even come close to figure out that we were kind of agreeing.

Judd, I don't want to be e.e. cummings (I like capitalization), but sometimes I don't want to write a sonnet, dig? I just want some more general ways to think about poetry

Or, to ditch the metaphor, have you ever read books about the creative process? Y'know, where a famous writer or artist or musician talks about "where the ideas come from" and how they go about giving them form and structure? It seems to me that there are two types of those books.

First there are the type which are very specific about an individual creator's process ("First, let's start with some happy little trees over here on this side of the lake..."), but not very helpful when it comes to developing a process that works for you. You can mimic someone else's process, and it'll work to some degree, probably, but it won't help you develop your own voice.

But then there's a second type of book in which creative people reach deeper and talk about the universals, the creative spark, nurturing it, finding your own voice, all that stuff. Those books are few, far between, and far harder to write. Often times they offer less concrete or structured advice, because it really does have to come from you and not some suggestion that the author recommends.

So I guess I feel like the P19 are the former (which is still pretty cool, because tons of people have gotten interested in painting by watching Bob Ross, even if they paint nothing like him), when it would be really cool if we had the latter as well.

Alright, the reason the word propaganda bugs me is because if you presented any indie RPGer with a game that blew apart what we knew about GNS and the Power 3 and the Power 19, they wouldn't cringe like a vampire in the sun but would be entirely joyous.

Heya,

People are talking about the Power 19! Woot! I've been craving some real critical feedback on this for a long time. Let me see if I can respond to some of it :)

RE: The Power 19 does not apply to all games.

-This is very true. And I hope that I have made that clear from the very begining. There are certain games (take Universalis for instance) that just don't follow that form. And that's great! The Power 19 is one among many paths one can take to designing a RPG. For some it will be extremely useful. For others, not so much.

RE: The Power 19 is really character focussed.

-Hm. I had never considered that. It is a valid criticism, and perhaps that's why I've been working on Setting so much lately on my blog. I suppose my rationale for focussing on the character is that A) from reading a lot of games, the character has been the main interface for players to interact with the game's fiction and B) a lot of games devote a lot of time explaining how to make a character, what a character can do, and what a character can become. I looked at all the different sub-systems a game has involving a character (Chargen, Advancement, Death, etc) and tried to create questions that addressed a majority of them. Hence, a lot of the P19 is devoted to that subject. I am very glad someone pointed this out though!

RE: Face-stabby, Mandate, and Forbiddence.

-I want to participate in a discussion about these things, but I don't really know what is meant by them. Could someone explain them to me?

RE: Question #17.

-This is the one I wanted to include the least, but I saw it coming up over and over and over again on the Forge and RPGnet. I mean, "Why is your game different" gets asked A LOT. I feel that a list of guiding questions like the Power 19 would be remiss for not including it.

RE: The P19 produce Forgey - Narrativist Games.

-All of my designs for which I have used the Power 19 have been almost exclusively Gamist. So I would dispute that. However, if you expand Forgey to include Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist supporting games in the vein the Forge has defined them, then I would be very inclinded to agree.

RE: The P19 is like writing a Structure Poem.

-Couldn't have come up with a better analogy myself. Spot on. Let's get real though. The Power 19 is a crutch. Some designers (like me and I'm sure others) find it very useful in helping them design games. Others can totally leave it behind and create great games. The Power 19, probably like most the things on my blog, are aimed at people who are just getting into RPG design for the first, second, or third time. I wouldn't expect someone like Vincent Baker to find it useful. Although he could! haha, I don't know. The main thing to remember is, the Power 19 is not an oppressive force. It is a tool in the chest that anyone can pick up and use at any time or leave it there and select something else.

-So anyway, that's what I have to say about that for now. I am so pleased to see people looking critically at the Power 19. It's almost a year old now (and it might already be, in fact). So it's good that we take it apart and look at it again.

Peace,

-Troy

Posted By: JuddJonathan, Get writing.

Um, isn't that what this thread is tentatively about? Writing a new set of more general and thought-provoking questions?

So, er, yeah. I'm gonna write some. But you too, y'know?

LOL, okay. Then consider that part of my rebuttle stricken. I don't want to talk about the G-N or -S word in this thread either. :)

Peace,

-Troy

Troy, here is something just for you, since you're here and you're listening---

Please, please put the P19 somewhere permanent, not a blog, but like a proper-style website or a print publication or something, and talk about how you arrived at it and what sort of design thinking it comes from and what it builds. This is stuff that needs to be...what's the word? Needs to be put into that kind of form, set in a story about its strengths and contests, preserved.

To start a list of other questions (I don't think we should worry about an order now), here's a couple:

20) What skills will players need to possess in order to play your game effectively and efficiently?

21) What skills do you hope to teach them as part of the process of learning to play your game?

Heya,

Shreyas, those are some very kind words. I will definately look into creating something more permanent.

Andy, about your two goals. The first one, I would suggest, is already covered by the Power 19. Check out the response Jon Harper got with his P19 about Stranger Things: http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_mightyatom_archive.html

The second goal you have may be really hard to reach. A set of questions like the Power 19 don't generate dialogue, they have one. That is to say, the designer basically talks to the P19, answers, and then posts. Most of the questions people are going to ask, already have been. So, as you pointed out, not much new dialogue is possible. I would think that any list of questions with similar length or bredth would suffer from the same problem. The conversation would already have been had before it even reaches the forum.

Peace,

-Troy

Andy, you'd get more discussion with a set of questions that asked about unfinished or uncertain portions of the game. Like "What about your game doesn't really work yet?" or "What kind of help do you need in order to do this right?"

Posted By: JonathanWaltonAndy, you'd get more discussion with a set of questions that asked about unfinished or uncertain portions of the game. Like "What about your game doesn't really work yet?" or "What kind of help do you need in order to do this right?"

Oooh, slick! Consider them stoled.

And just not to muddy waters too much, I'll definitely be bringing this back into its own thread in a week or month or so (to get feedback and tighten up stuff). I didn't want to start discussing the Andy Slick Six or whatever until:
* I had enough time to give proper responses and really work it out before I posted for feedback
* I give a little more thought as to what I was trying to accomplish

But man, those items are pretty good!

Here's a model I was thinking about in the shower this morning that is useful to me. Maybe others will find it useful too. It has no real relation with the P19, but is another way of thinking about games.

Roleplaying, in my mind, involves two major components (among innumberable others), which are like the big yin-yang at the core:

1. Constraint -- limitations imposed on player actions, providing structure.
2. Interpretation -- the areas open to player contributions, allowing freedom.

There are lots of diifferent types of constraint. For example, there are "hard constraints" like every PC in Dogs in the Vineyard being a Dog and having the trait "I'm a Dog." But then there are "soft constraints" that are reinforced by reward/punishment cycles instead of being flat-out mandated. Like the way Fallout and Escalation combine to say certain things about violence and consequences.

Right now, I sorta see Interpretation as the absense of Constraint, though, in reality, it's a lot more interesting than that. It's the a kind of fruitful void. It includes things like the lack of absolute morality in Dogs, something really critical to making the game work. It includes traditional areas left open to players such as Character Creation (or Series Creation in Primetime Adventures or Chancel and Imperator Creation in Nobilis or large portions of Universalis and Fudge).

To me, I find it really useful to break down Contraint and Interpretation across Ron's 5 Elements of roleplaying, to show where the structural components are and where are the pieces you leave up to the players to determine.

For example, here's the breakdown for Kazekami Kyoko Kills Kublai Khan, which has much more Constraint than most games, emphasizing the Interpretation of the details, not the larger picture:

Character
-- CON: The players play Kyoko and Kublai and are limited to specific speech patterns.
-- INT: Character traits, personalities, and the substance of their speech is up to the players.

Situation
-- CON: Kyoko has seduced many of Kublai's wives and just stabbed the khan, who is dying. She is bragging to him about her exploits as a way of gloating over him.
-- INT: Players determine how this bragging unfolds as well as how the seduction of Kublai's wives was carried out.

Setting
-- CON: An flowery, Orientalist reenvisioning of Mongol China, specifically, Kublai's chambers with flashbacks to other locales.
-- INT: The details of the setting, especially the locations of the seductions, are open to the players. The game also provides very few examples and no detailed setting descriptions, largely relying on player experience in the genre and their imaginations.

Color
-- CON: The ritual language patterns provide a certain color and the Orientalist pastiche suggests a certain overly ornate and over-dramatic speech and desciptive style. Also, the fact that it takes place within the palace of a notoriously opulant ruler like Kublai encourages certain extravagancies of Color.
-- INT: Maintaining the right Color is really up to the players, though there is some support.

System
-- CON: The exchange of ritualized sentences is a hard system constraint.
-- INT: It's still up to the players to develop a working relationship with each other and to handle any discussions that take place outside of the ritual sentences that make up play. The game is highly cooperative and requires a certain rapport in order to be enjoyable, I suspect.

Mo, I love those questions!

The thing about all these question type things is that my response is "huh, but I'll only be able to answer that when the game is done." (On reflection, the one game I ever could complete the power 19 about was a better thought-experiment than actual game ... huh.)

And not, like "done in my head." Like "done, playtested, revised, playtested more, about twenty times, printed, demoed at gencon, run for a thirty groups at cons and such, played with my good friends at home, shown to my mother and brother, discussed on the Forge for a year" done.

Seriously, people. You are thinking about the implications and social structures and design goals and creative agenda and such in your games while you design them? It's not that I don't believe you can, or that I don't believe that you do, it's just like looking at aliens reproduce with, I dunno, mechanical spores or something.

yrs--
--Ben

Each answer must begin with 'OMG.'

OMG yes!

You could almost do that with the P19:

What do the players/characters do?

OMG, anything they want! You're limited only by your imagination!