A GAME SYSTEM IS LIKE A GPS

This is an old article, recycled and revised almost 10 years later. The first version was really influenced by my reading of the Forge Theories and when I was just starting to take an interest in OSR. I haven't changed my mind about the content, but I had to revise my examples and the depth of my thinking.

In short, I've been responding to discussions about role-playing systems, their real relevance and usefulness, and the way in which the GM  and the rest of the table take liberties with them.

A games system is a GPS, OK, but what does that mean?

Before going any further on this point, let's go back to a time not so long ago, the time of road maps.

So a Road map is an 'old-fashioned' system, like the Call of Cthulhu or GURPS. Not everything is very clear, some information is incomplete, but you know where you're going. To learn faster, we rely on the advice of old fellows who know the tricks and give you their tips to make your travel easier. The problem is that GPS has now been invented. The kind of gadget that makes old gamers laugh because they “don't need all that crap”.

That's how it came about.

·       Some of the lads thought that RPGs were fine, but it would be better to develop something centered on characters, a game about Drama. And what could be better than Vampires caught between their human nature and their beastly instincts? And so Vampire and the rest of the World of Darkness was created. Unfortunately, as with all prototypes, the promises were not entirely fulfilled. We were promised a trip to the mountains (Drama with tortured characters having to find their place in a sclerotic society) and we ended up on the shore of a lake (a race for power among immortals pulling the strings). Still, the journey was cool, and the idea was there.

·       Then came the Forges. These people thought that GPS is a cool idea and that perfecting it would be great fun. Even to go to exotic places ("what if we visited Canada?"). These independent games offer solid models that tend to take you where the system is programmed to go. The most extreme example is certainly Monostatos, a French game where you must play according to what the system tells you to go where it says (in this case, a rebellion by superpowered people in an aseptic ancient society). If you don't, you're off the track. But most of the time these games are developed to give you a strong incentive, like Dogs In The Vineyard, where violence is always the most effective solution. Although you always have a choice.

·       Today, many authors have understood that "system does matter" and are coming up with innovative navigation systems. The games powered by The Apocalypse, for example, are a GPS that doesn't listen to the driver, but to the passengers. Everyone says where they want to go and the guidance system keeps you out of the ditch. Clearly it's strange not to be planning your route, but it's always refreshing to drive while discovering new landscapes. FATE Core or Cortex+ are more ambiguous. You put a packet of sweets in the middle of the car and whoever wants to choose the destination hands a sweet to the others. You're always negotiating where you're going, but each choice will mark out the road ahead.

So, Doc, with a good GPS system you can go anywhere you want?

That's where the GPS metaphor ends. Let's just say that the system, as modern as it is, still offers a limited number of destinations. A bit like a GPS with only Colorado loaded. Whatever the case, the system remains a guide that is there to help you, and it's up to you whether you listen to it or not.

There are several schools of thought on the subject:

·       The old fellows and their heirs don't give a damn about these gadgets, they've always managed to get by with their old maps and know certain ways from A to Z. I'd say they're right, there's no need to bother. But what if we want to explore new places and discover new themes? Should we continue to play the adventurer of the unknown? Personally, I prefer to take precautions. Yet most games still play the "universe + resolution system" card without looking any further. It's a conservative, traditional vision, which has its advantages, but has the disadvantage of encouraging a form of laziness by playing in much the same way all the time.

·       High-tech enthusiasts who follow GPS to the letter. These people are often of the Forge or post-Forge school and collect dedicated systems. The good thing is that they never get lost, they are sure to get what the game is designed for, because the system is restrictive. It's often designed for small games, for one-shots or short campaigns. A good example is For The Queen, a game that has both a very tightly controlled mechanic and a format that is closer to classic board games. There are no endless discussions about rules or approximations - you just do what it says.

·       And then there's the third way. That of authors influenced by the new systems, but who retain a certain nostalgia for the old days. Here we find hybrid systems with directive elements, but without the compulsory side. They often tell you to follow the rules as long as they correspond to your expectations; they are there to help you, not to constrain you. By far my favorite vision. There's still one essential question: what do we frame in game’s term and what do we leave open to interpretation?

How do we incorporate this into our game design?

Again, this can take several forms because a game system is not just about solving problems. Here are a few examples:

·       A dedicated game setting or environment. Generally, this is a typical game world or setting, or one with strong constraints that inevitably lead the players to take actions in line with it. In D&D, you invariably end up exploring a dungeon, the characters are adventurers and their livelihood is to slaughter, defeat monsters and collect treasure. In Star Wars, you may not want to join the Rebellion, but it's hard to ignore the Empire‘s oppression. Similarly, in a post-Apo universe like The Walking Dead, mushroom picking will invariably lead to survival constraints in the face of zombies. Some worlds, on the other hand, are very open, especially contemporary, or historical ones with no specific pitch.

·       Well-established procedures. This is when a key moment in the game contains very precise mechanics with different stages. It’s easy to think about the moves in PBTA games (if ... you roll 2d6+something and ...) or the more complete version of Blades In the Dark. But also, and above all, Dungeons & Dragons combat! The focus depends very much on what the game favors in its gameplay. So, you fight a lot in D&D, but investigate in Brindlewood Bay or lead a heist in Leverage! And I'm not even talking about Shadowrun's legendary hacking rules (which have put a lot of people disgusted!).

·       The narrative structure can also be a constraint. In Call of Cthulhu, there's often a feeling of freedom, but in real life there's often a well-defined narrative structure with an investigation that leads to the discovery of unspeakable things. The same goes for slasher-style horror scenarios (in the woods with a maniacal killer on our trail). Not to mention the countless mission-based games.

In short, there are all kinds of game systems to help you explore your imagination. Whether the rules are thick or very simple depends on your needs, but the important thing is that they serve as a narrative support. So let's respect them, but let's not turn them into Divine Laws.

In order to exploit this, I'll be proposing a grid for reading my own games in terms of these aspects of game design.

ENJOY!

*No, in the end, there's always the zero system.