Recipe

Okay, my first recipe for Live Journal.

Boil about a pound of wide, no-yolk noodles -- these come in 12-16 oz packages, and I cook one package. When the water boils, I add olive oil.
Drain noodles, then mix with:
chicken or tuna fish -- either works for me
a can of goya beans -- I've used red and black
avocado -- I used two avocados this time, which seems about right

For spices, I used a chili oil with a nice bite, and Arwen's Flame Breath powder and her Garlic Salt. Yum.

We Lost a City

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this.

Musing about RPGs

I've been reading various posts at The Forge and elsewhere, and also talking with a lot of people who create roleplaying games. It is interesting starting to categorize my own philosophical principals of rpgs.

First, I think a game should be a game first. This is true of any game, not just rpgs.

If you've got something that is an educational tool that also entertains, fine. But it is an educational tool first, and should not be marketed as if it is a game first.

If you are trying to write a novel, write a novel. Don't call it a game.

It was interesting watching mnemex play one of the LucasArt games, something with pirates and gambling and such. The game has a script, with limited variations, so it might seem like a novel, but it isn't. It's a puzzle solving game, as far as I can tell. Not my cup of tea, but not a would-be novel masquerading as a computer game. That's fine.

An rpg is not a self help manual. I have read passages in rpgs that could have come out of a newage book. The rpgs were not improved by such passages.

Corollary for possible later development: Metaplots can be good things, but they should not get in the way of the game. This is especially true if your metaplot is tied into a CCG. (A Metaplot exists when an rpg has a certain setting, and the game's authors have a timeline of events that occur in that setting.)

Corollaries: Games have rules. The rules should work. The rules should be easily comprehended.

Second, I like it when an rpg is complete in one book. If it is one easily portable book, so much the better.

Third, I do think that when the rules get in the way of the players having fun (counting the gm, if any, as a player), changing the rules is a good thing.

It is one thing when people decide to change the rules around, have a terrible time, and wonder why. It is another when they decide that playing with rules variations or ignoring certain rules will mean greater enjoyment, especially when they find they are correct.

I have heard this response to that idea: People don't suddenly change the rules for board games. They don't suddenly decide that the knight in chess moves differently, or that they're going to play Monopoly with different rules.

My first reaction was to dismiss the response without thinking about it. Monopoly is not like the Call of Cthulhu RPG. Chess is not like Dungeons & Dragons.

My second reaction was to think, "Okay, maybe there is a point there." Some rpgs have been written with a very careful balance in mind, whether it's D&D balancing classes or the latest cutting edge indie game balancing a number of factors ranging from narrative control to whether the game is about narration or winning, something theoretically anathema to rpgs. Tinkering with the rules may mean one is losing track of a careful balance.

My third reaction is this: Wait a minute. People use house rules for board games all the time.

You don't like how the knight moves? Ever hear of Fairy Chess? There are a ton of chess variations.

Monopoly? I've always played with the rule that a certain amount of money gets put on the middle of the board and is picked up by whoever lands on Free Parking. This is not in the rules, nor was it ever intended to be.

Granted, Fairy Chess is not standard chess. Monopoly with that variation is not standard Monopoly.

So, okay, you're not playing the game as it is written. You're playing a variant. I don't actually have a problem with that.

It is also sadly true that not all games are as well written as their authors think. This is not just true of rpgs; it is true of all games. Some games become more playable, or, in extreme cases, only become playable at all when certain rule variations are adopted.

The people playing the game do make a difference. There are some games where a rule variation is absolutely essential for a certain mix of people. I remember playing the board game Encore with the same group, month after month. This is a game where people have to come up with song after song that contains a particular word or phrase, or that fits a theme. We adopted house rules that disallowed certain people from being on the same team, as that would make the team's victory a forgone conclusion. We disallowed certain people being in a 1-on-1 competition when we thought it would lead to a long turn in which no one else got to do anything. We discarded certain words or themes on the grounds that there were just too many songs fitting them.

Without these rules, the game would not have been viable for our group. Those last three words are important here. Other groups would not need to discard the words or themes we discarded, because those groups did not know the same songs we did, and not only would they not have an infinite number of songs to go through; it would never occur to them that there might be an infinite number of songs fitting the theme or containing the word. These are the groups the makers of the game had in mind, I suspect.

Vincent Baker, author of Dogs in the Vineyard and Kill Puppies for Satan, wrote a thoughtful piece here. It's called "Selling Rules", and it's dated August 11, 2005. He talks about people who are having fun, and how he, as a designer, is trying to have a dialogue about roleplaying games. I think I understand where he's coming from. And, I think Vincent is really cool and that Dogs in the Vineyard is awesome.

But, philosophically, I am on the side of the players who are having fun. Their fun may not be my fun, but an it harm none, they can do whatever they like with the rules.