This manifesto is interesting, and it's taking a different approach on this topic than I expected---focusing on discourse rather than design. I agree with the idea that online TTRPG discourse is generally shit (Reddit makes me want to climb up a roof and see if I can fly), and I like the idea of providing clear tools that enable this discourse. I did, however, have a bit of trouble following you here.
After 2-3 reads, I think I've got it, but I was unsure of what you were presenting initially. It seems like the framework prompts people to ask the following questions about a game while they're discussing it:
What are its inputs? That may be better split into:
What prior knowledge does it leverage (What is the expected prameya)?
How does it expect players to interact with it and each other (What is the danda)?
What are its outputs, or the experiences that the game promises?
What are its processes, or how does it turn those inputs into its outputs?
How essential are those processes to producing its promised outputs?
I feel like there are 2 more questions in there---1 about flow vs. look focus, and 1 about how DIY vs. dictated play is--- but I'm not certain what those exact questions are based on this text alone. Still, I think I got the core idea and I like what you're getting at.
Also, I like the idea that TTRPGs are machines that take inputs (player knowledge, experiences, and interactions) and turn them into outputs (a promised experience) via specific processes (a rules framework) because that's pretty close to my own working definition of game, though I place a much heavier emphasis on processes and outputs.
The only part I disagreed with (and it's not really even a disagreement with you) is the "III. DIY Machinery." I'm with Stone Cold Fox there: I think that those "spaces" are usually a form of very lazy, I'd even call it neglectful, design. They often offload the work of creatin those processes which deliver the outputs onto the players when I think that is solely the designer's job. That latter portion is related to some other strong opinions I have on what complete and good games look like, though, and I don't think acknowledging the existence of spaces/fruitful voids detracts from your overall ideas.
i wasnt necessarily tryna focus on discourse vs design cuz i dont see them as separate; design is a kind of auto-discourse, ur game exists in dialogue w all other games in existence & so as u design a game, u discuss internally the linkages, the comparatives, the contrasts, the theses & anti-theses. defo coulda made that more clear tho
on the prime questions, those r the essence of it yea. prameya isnt strictly prior knowledge - its just first ideas, which are informed by past and presents social contexts bc im a communist, further clarified and detailed by corroborations between things (i,e, danda). i took the terms from wtf, in part cuz i thought it was funny, and in part cuz theyre suitable labels for the general creative matter which play is built out of; in their og context, they referred to the setting and by extension reality of the game itself—prameya as base setting elements, danda as additional detailing sourced from other players. thus, better questions for both would be "what are the fundamental ideas (prameya) this game coaxes out of the Player" and "what are the kinds of clarifications and additional details (danda) does it corroborate with the Player/what clarifications & details does it need corroboration on".
ill also note that outputs need not be what a game promises - though unequestionably, a designer should align a game's actual outputs with its promised outputs. the outputs just have to be whatever play experiences are produced by the processes; this is how you get game-breaking exploits and games that dont live up to their premises (which isnt always the same as player expectation)
on flow vs look, the point was to not look at this oppositionally, but rather to reify components of play that every instruction directs - how play goes and how play appears aesthetically. i think the issue u might be coming up against is the granularity of it - flow and look are to be understood on an instruction by instruction basis, u cant make an overarching question of the game over it. if u were to phrase it into a question, i think itd be like "what does [this specific process] direct and how does it do it?", which would be applied individually
diy vs dictated has a similar-ish issue of granularity, as a lot of games have small intentioned spaces as many games have big ones, sp a broad sweeping "how much work does the Player need to do to make the game work" or "how much creative agency does the Player have in the play experience" are only really useful in the latter but not the former. sometimes thats enough but if we were to narrow the scope, something like "what intentioned spaces are littered throughout the game (if any)? how do these affect the outputs?" might be usable
Fair on the first point. I would almost say that's too abstract for me, but I've definitely done similar dissections for my various games' touchstones, they've usually just been targeted---looking at 1 specific mechanic or system at a time rather than the game as a whole---and I (obviously) wasn't applying your theory to them. It's also good to get some clarification on prameya and danda as these aren't terms that I've encountered before.
On flow vs. look and DIY vs. dictated, however, I understood that you were trying to say a game (typically) isn't entirely 1 or the other, rather that its individual components are. My issue was that I didn't know how to turn that concept into a useable question. The example question you gave is a good direction, though.
What intentioned spaces are littered throughout the game (if any)? how do these affect the outputs?
I think that gets people thinking about a game in terms of components, as well as how those components individually affect play.
I love a good academic paper. Having a couple of references is a nice touch as well. I kind of agree with a lot of the stuff that you’ve written about the way a TTRPG is basically a mechanism that turns creative outputs into experiences and stories for the players to relate once the moment has passed. There are elements here that remind me of the seminal “clouds and boxes” posts by Vincent Baker which ended up leading to Apocalypse World (and its gaming descendants). I like the way how you’ve suggested that both “crunch” and “fluff” are a part of the mechanisms and feedback loops that drive the game experience. I’m kind of not sure where I sit with the idea of the creative void, or the intentionally placed “spaces”… to me that feels like lazy game design in a lot of ways…shifting the heavy lifting from the designer to the player, which can be unfocused at best, or problematic in a lot of situations at worst. I can see where you’re coming from with the terminology you’ve used, and it’s wonderful to be introduced to new terms, but I’m trying to resolve how those ideas fit in with my own game design ideas at the moment. It feels like there’s a lot of similarities in the directions I’m aiming, so I’ll be interested to see where your future designs head.
I don’t even know if you wanted a critique or discussion on the manifesto, but I’m going to try to add some ideas to every entry that gets posted.
yea bakers how to pbta series was a big influence lol. re: ur thoughts on intentioned spaces, i dont necessarily disagree lol - personally, the games i enjoy, find interesting, & seek to make r all tightly-bound play experiences wherein prameya-danda is minimal. i only devoted a section to it bc to make an actionable model for ttrpgs as a whole, i cant just ignore major scenes in the indie space that follow such a philosophy i.e. osr/nusr & the like. this does make me realize i mb shoulda included paragraph or two on the forge's concept of "fruitful void" bc itd be a v useful comparison/contrast to intentioned spaces - all games (and i mean all of them) are designed with a central void that is filled in the moment, which we call play; i think the question just comes down to whether it is lead by game instruction or by the Player themself
Agreed, there's a lot to discuss here, and many types of games under the wide umbrella of RPGs. That's kind of the reason why I aimed my manifesto toward my own methodology at the moment, I've got a friend who has been working on his own taxonomy of TTRPGs, and has a set of structural ideas about what these types of games traditionally have been and what they could be. He's hoping to add a manifesto here shortly. It's a really interesting topic that shows how RPGs (whether live-action or tabletop) are so different to other types of media or social activities.
Comments
This manifesto is interesting, and it's taking a different approach on this topic than I expected---focusing on discourse rather than design. I agree with the idea that online TTRPG discourse is generally shit (Reddit makes me want to climb up a roof and see if I can fly), and I like the idea of providing clear tools that enable this discourse. I did, however, have a bit of trouble following you here.
After 2-3 reads, I think I've got it, but I was unsure of what you were presenting initially. It seems like the framework prompts people to ask the following questions about a game while they're discussing it:
I feel like there are 2 more questions in there---1 about flow vs. look focus, and 1 about how DIY vs. dictated play is--- but I'm not certain what those exact questions are based on this text alone. Still, I think I got the core idea and I like what you're getting at.
Also, I like the idea that TTRPGs are machines that take inputs (player knowledge, experiences, and interactions) and turn them into outputs (a promised experience) via specific processes (a rules framework) because that's pretty close to my own working definition of game, though I place a much heavier emphasis on processes and outputs.
The only part I disagreed with (and it's not really even a disagreement with you) is the "III. DIY Machinery." I'm with Stone Cold Fox there: I think that those "spaces" are usually a form of very lazy, I'd even call it neglectful, design. They often offload the work of creatin those processes which deliver the outputs onto the players when I think that is solely the designer's job. That latter portion is related to some other strong opinions I have on what complete and good games look like, though, and I don't think acknowledging the existence of spaces/fruitful voids detracts from your overall ideas.
i wasnt necessarily tryna focus on discourse vs design cuz i dont see them as separate; design is a kind of auto-discourse, ur game exists in dialogue w all other games in existence & so as u design a game, u discuss internally the linkages, the comparatives, the contrasts, the theses & anti-theses. defo coulda made that more clear tho
on the prime questions, those r the essence of it yea. prameya isnt strictly prior knowledge - its just first ideas, which are informed by past and presents social contexts bc im a communist, further clarified and detailed by corroborations between things (i,e, danda). i took the terms from wtf, in part cuz i thought it was funny, and in part cuz theyre suitable labels for the general creative matter which play is built out of; in their og context, they referred to the setting and by extension reality of the game itself—prameya as base setting elements, danda as additional detailing sourced from other players. thus, better questions for both would be "what are the fundamental ideas (prameya) this game coaxes out of the Player" and "what are the kinds of clarifications and additional details (danda) does it corroborate with the Player/what clarifications & details does it need corroboration on".
ill also note that outputs need not be what a game promises - though unequestionably, a designer should align a game's actual outputs with its promised outputs. the outputs just have to be whatever play experiences are produced by the processes; this is how you get game-breaking exploits and games that dont live up to their premises (which isnt always the same as player expectation)
on flow vs look, the point was to not look at this oppositionally, but rather to reify components of play that every instruction directs - how play goes and how play appears aesthetically. i think the issue u might be coming up against is the granularity of it - flow and look are to be understood on an instruction by instruction basis, u cant make an overarching question of the game over it. if u were to phrase it into a question, i think itd be like "what does [this specific process] direct and how does it do it?", which would be applied individually
diy vs dictated has a similar-ish issue of granularity, as a lot of games have small intentioned spaces as many games have big ones, sp a broad sweeping "how much work does the Player need to do to make the game work" or "how much creative agency does the Player have in the play experience" are only really useful in the latter but not the former. sometimes thats enough but if we were to narrow the scope, something like "what intentioned spaces are littered throughout the game (if any)? how do these affect the outputs?" might be usable
Fair on the first point. I would almost say that's too abstract for me, but I've definitely done similar dissections for my various games' touchstones, they've usually just been targeted---looking at 1 specific mechanic or system at a time rather than the game as a whole---and I (obviously) wasn't applying your theory to them. It's also good to get some clarification on prameya and danda as these aren't terms that I've encountered before.
On flow vs. look and DIY vs. dictated, however, I understood that you were trying to say a game (typically) isn't entirely 1 or the other, rather that its individual components are. My issue was that I didn't know how to turn that concept into a useable question. The example question you gave is a good direction, though.
I think that gets people thinking about a game in terms of components, as well as how those components individually affect play.
Feedback on PALARONG MAKINISMO
I love a good academic paper. Having a couple of references is a nice touch as well. I kind of agree with a lot of the stuff that you’ve written about the way a TTRPG is basically a mechanism that turns creative outputs into experiences and stories for the players to relate once the moment has passed. There are elements here that remind me of the seminal “clouds and boxes” posts by Vincent Baker which ended up leading to Apocalypse World (and its gaming descendants). I like the way how you’ve suggested that both “crunch” and “fluff” are a part of the mechanisms and feedback loops that drive the game experience. I’m kind of not sure where I sit with the idea of the creative void, or the intentionally placed “spaces”… to me that feels like lazy game design in a lot of ways…shifting the heavy lifting from the designer to the player, which can be unfocused at best, or problematic in a lot of situations at worst. I can see where you’re coming from with the terminology you’ve used, and it’s wonderful to be introduced to new terms, but I’m trying to resolve how those ideas fit in with my own game design ideas at the moment. It feels like there’s a lot of similarities in the directions I’m aiming, so I’ll be interested to see where your future designs head.
I don’t even know if you wanted a critique or discussion on the manifesto, but I’m going to try to add some ideas to every entry that gets posted.
yea bakers how to pbta series was a big influence lol. re: ur thoughts on intentioned spaces, i dont necessarily disagree lol - personally, the games i enjoy, find interesting, & seek to make r all tightly-bound play experiences wherein prameya-danda is minimal. i only devoted a section to it bc to make an actionable model for ttrpgs as a whole, i cant just ignore major scenes in the indie space that follow such a philosophy i.e. osr/nusr & the like. this does make me realize i mb shoulda included paragraph or two on the forge's concept of "fruitful void" bc itd be a v useful comparison/contrast to intentioned spaces - all games (and i mean all of them) are designed with a central void that is filled in the moment, which we call play; i think the question just comes down to whether it is lead by game instruction or by the Player themself
Agreed, there's a lot to discuss here, and many types of games under the wide umbrella of RPGs. That's kind of the reason why I aimed my manifesto toward my own methodology at the moment, I've got a friend who has been working on his own taxonomy of TTRPGs, and has a set of structural ideas about what these types of games traditionally have been and what they could be. He's hoping to add a manifesto here shortly. It's a really interesting topic that shows how RPGs (whether live-action or tabletop) are so different to other types of media or social activities.