moth hovel

RPG Theory: Moth Hovel Manifesto (v1)

Playing a roleplaying game is fundamentally an exercise in design.

As players (both DMs and others) make decisions at every level of granularity, they are engaging in collaborative design practices continually throughout the course of play. Effectively, they are designing the experience (i.e., the game, the session) every time they contribute or participate. On the one hand, this is as obvious as the fact that players and their decisions, descriptions, and questions (and answers) constitute the very lived experience of play. This scales up from character creation (and the reciprocal process of designing or generating characters that fit, or contrast with, a given setting) to other worldbuilding practices of various kinds. (It also scales down to things like word choice when speaking, insofar as how we describe and perform actions and consequences affects table tone, opens up and closes down various options for collaborative worldbuilding, etc.) On the other hand, players don’t typically think of what they’re doing at the table in design terms. Nevertheless: They are doing it whether they know it or not.

In any case, good design is always a function of constraint, and this applies as much to DM materials as anything else. Regarding DM materials, every design element in a module or sourcebook communicates (hopefully) relevant information to the DM. This is one reason why PrinceofNothing‘s No Artpunk compilations (1, 2) are such fascinating exercises in design. They’re fascinating because they’re so classically and idiosyncratically constrained. But the constraints he imposes are also playfully perverse misrepresentations of DM materials and how design inflects those materials, insofar as he seems to think that high-intensity designs (“artpunk”) necessarily degrade or disrupt playability by their very nature. This is patently untrue (and so, something like MÖRK BORG, by dint of appearing very exotic or unconventional in appearance, is communicating something absolutely central about the style and tone of play it solicits from players, not to mention infusing the DM’s workspace with tonal content). Note that I’m not suggesting that all designs are equal, much less equally successful. That design practices are open doesn’t imply that bad design (like bad writing) isn’t a problem.

In any case, here’s a brief statement of the design practices underlying a number of modules I’m currently working on (generally inspired by Games Omnivorous‘ Manifestus Omnivorous and my own interests). Consider it a kind of Moth Hovel Manifesto (v1), at least for now (examples to follow soon):

  • Only Z-fold pamphlets (back and front) are allowed.
  • Imply more than you explain.
  • Include at least two undead factions.
  • Make animals figure prominently.
  • Embrace camp and intertextuality (i.e., shameless pastiche).

Posted

in

,

by

mothhovel

Tags:

, , ,

Comments

6 responses to “RPG Theory: Moth Hovel Manifesto (v1)”

  1. PrinceofNothing Avatar
    PrinceofNothing

    Promising start, though the heavy use of jargon fills me with trepidation. I hope you enjoy written debates.

    “But the constraints he imposes are also playfully perverse misrepresentations of DM materials and how design inflects those materials, insofar as he seems to think that high-intensity designs necessarily degrade or disrupt playability by their very nature.”

    You will have to elaborate upon that one, I have an inkling of your meaning but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Is it your contention that I think that “high-intensity design,” and in this case I will assume the design refers to the aesthetics, layout and other outward characteristics, is by nature antithetical to how playable the adventure is?

    “This is patently untrue (and so, something like MÖRK BORG, by dint of appearing very exotic or unconventional in appearance, is communicating something absolutely central about the style and tone of play it solicits from players, not to mention infusing the DM’s workspace with tonal content)”

    Two things before we get into this one.
    1) MB stripped of its aesthetic is a triviality, simple and limited even when compared to the simplified version of DnD created for teaching purposes so 12 year olds could learn DnD from a reference work, rather then direct experience
    2) The MB aesthetic is shallow and incongruent, vividly coloured hyper-reality and cartoonish grotesquery robs it of the sting of its apocalyptic premise. The best analogy is that of Hot Topic to Goth Culture. Compare something like Xas Irkalla, Warhammer Fantasy or even Lamentations of the Flame Princess for works that convey a style.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. Prince Avatar
    Prince

    I hope my comment was not eaten.

    “But the constraints he imposes are also playfully perverse misrepresentations of DM materials and how design inflects those materials, insofar as he seems to think that high-intensity designs necessarily degrade or disrupt playability by their very nature.”

    This I take issue with, but I am unsure of the exact meaning because of the liberal use of the word ‘design.’ Would you elaborate?

    If my first comment is awaiting moderation, feel free to delete this one.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. mothhovel Avatar
    mothhovel

    re: “Is it your contention that…”: On the one hand, yes, that’s the impression I’ve gotten. I’m happy to be corrected. I understand the frustration with “high-intensity” design when the design is bad, or the writing is bad, or the adventure is boring, terrible, etc. Or even just if the design factors aren’t to your taste. (On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about the explosion of community content for things like MB, Cairn, etc. Good stuff evolves out of the churn of amateurish, bad, and lazy productivity, so I can never really bring myself to disdain stuff that gets made out of intoxication, passion, or even just weirdness.)

    re: MORK BORG: Sure, it’s very rules-light, which means it’s useful in certain contexts and useless in others. There are a lot of rules-light systems out there, and MB isn’t especially one of the better ones. But the “incongruent, vividly coloured hyper-reality and cartoonish grotesquery” is part of what makes it entertaining (to some of us, anyway – e.g., I don’t really care about MB that much, because as you note there are better grimdark fantasy blah blah games out there, but PIRATE BORG is delightful to me). It has a kind of camp factor, like a BAD Tiki cocktail (mostly fruit, which gives you a headache if you drink too many), but which generally serves as a gateway to a GOOD Tiki cocktail (mostly eighteen different kinds of rum, which puts you upside-down in a dumpster somewhere if you drink too many). But a Tiki cocktail is still a Tiki cocktail, and I’m still going to drink it if you put it in front of me.

    re: WFRP or LOFTP: Of course, I agree completely. On that note, I’d be curious to read your review of Bee-Ware! The adventure is simple, but the design factor (and general tone) of the module is completely delightful to me. It has this kind of gauche, sloppy playfulness that’s both aesthetically pleasing and begging to be played with.

    re: design: That’s the meat of the thing, which I hope to write about more later. In short, though: By “design,” I don’t just mean the aesthetic or visual representation of DM materials (although design considerations certainly obtain there).

    In the broader context you’re asking about, I guess I’ve started thinking about the experience of playing an RPG itself as an exercise in collaborative design. What does this mean? It means that everyone playing is making design decisions about the game in ways they do not if they are playing a game like chess. Playing chess is a strategic exercise, not a design exercise. The design is already fixed. Maybe this is just a different way of saying that RPGs are non-deterministic. But not just in the sense of incorporating RNG directly. RPGs are non-deterministic in a peculiar way, because what happens is a function of the creative agency of the players talking to each other, identifying courses of action, and describing actions, decisions, and consequences. Dice (or whatever alien mechanism you like) adjudicate and do stuff, so it’s not just about “making it all up as you go along” (that can be fine, but typically it’s boring and lazy).

    But there’s an inextricable element of design that animates the whole process. Players are designing the game they are playing as they are playing it (and by “game” here I’m not just referring to the rules, because the rules constrain or regulate game-play, but are not themselves the game – the game is an interactive, live experience that takes place, involves people, involves rules, involves outcomes, etc.).

    What do you think?

    Like

    Reply
    1. PrinceofNothing Avatar
      PrinceofNothing

      Thank you for your reply.

      I’ve found that in the wake of NAP I my goals and positions would be misinterpreted, either deliberately or out of honest misunderstanding, so I have recorded my responses against these frequently asked questions as clearly as possible.

      https://princeofnothing.itch.io/no-artpunk-ii/devlog/475244/nap-ii-faq

      [The definition of High-intensity design]

      This is the meat of the matter, and until we can extract the meaning of this definition, our progress is stalled. I must admit a bit of confusion at your explanation. Perhaps it helps if you define High Intensity Design as opposed to Low-intensity design.

      Design in the TTRPG sense refers to the process of creating rules, procedures, tools, gygaxian building blocks and the presentation thereof. The act of playing the game does not in itself constitute design, although it is possible to see how doing so can create situations where the GM is encouraged or even forced to alter existing rules, add rules, make rulings and so on, effectively doing additional ‘design.’ Players can offer suggestions for such changes but the final say is in the hands of the game master.

      However, for the purposes of NAP, such design is not relevant, not because it is not interesting (because it is), but because it falls outside of its scope since the relevant design decisions are made before it is ever played. As an additional point, the percentage of material that gets added or altered as a result of actual play is unlikely to be very high unless the campaign enjoys extreme longevity, and should it be high for another reason, it is clear the game is incomplete.

      The observation that gave birth to NAP is that the focus on short-term creative expression and heterodoxy at the expense of a knowledge of existing material creates problems in the long run. Material is created not as an addition to an existing legacy of work but as a stand-alone exercise in creativity. This lack of a common frame of reference has eventually completely eroded any sort of adventure craftsmanship in the more remote branches of the OSR, with MB being a great example of having a glut of material with few worthwhile entries.

      The idea of NAP is not a prescription for all adventures (although many fine entries have come from the contest, illustrating its potential), but as an exercise designed to strengthen design chops by forcing engagement with the existing source material, the backbone of OSR design that few of the would-be grandees of the new OSR have more then passing familiarity with.

      [MB].
      You are articulating a point that I more or less expressed in my (arguably overly generous) review of it here, that there is a place somewhere for ultra-lites as a sort of onboarding or for very short sessions but the reality is that instead of onboarding these people to DnD (the focus and core of the OSR), many become embroiled in a web of endless rules-lites, clones of rules-lites and so on, never moving on, never gaining greater understanding. It is not the existence of such games that offends, or the generally poor quality of the material that is put out for it (it is even understandable) it is the prominence they are given. MB cannot exist without relying on a vast substrate of implicit knowledge that is contained in DnD.

      [Beekeeper]

      I have been slamming high-level adventures in order to get ready for NAP (I will also be publishing a high level adventure somewhere between the launch of NAP III and the termination of the deadline, so as to illustrate that I can walk the walk as well as talk the talk). I will do an Lotfp catchup run at some point, my thanks for the recommend.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. mothhovel Avatar
        mothhovel

        Thanks for the reply! Very interested. You’ve certainly improved my understanding of NAP, and I’m generally convinced I misunderstood. Cool beans. A few quick and partial replies below:

        re: high-intensity vs. low-intensity design: You’re right that much turns on the distinction here. Design re: TTRPGs certainly involves the elements you list, perhaps even centrally. But not exclusively. How those elements are presented, for example, is also a design consideration. (So, for example, take Necrotic Gnome’s house style, which I know isn’t your favorite due to just how spare it can be. Whether it’s great, or even good, can certainly be debated, but it seems strange to me to say that the aesthetic and visual mode of presentation isn’t central to NG products. It’s not just about having a house style – so you could point at a thing and say, hot damn! that’s Necrotic Gnome for sure. It’s about underlying aesthetic design principles that communicate something about how the game designers want the game to be played… Maybe? So, when I run Hole in the Wall, or whatever, aspects of the table experience are streamlined, flipping is minimized, etc., and this affects the experience of play itself in a meaningful way. There’s nothing in the rules, procedures, etc. re: these aesthetic design features, but they affect the actual gameplay itself. Substantially, in my experience. I’m willing to concede it may be a failing of me as a DM – I’m sure there are many – that aesthetically consistent and powerful DM materials help me run the games I run. But whether it’s a failing or not, I think it’s pretty common. Arguably, the vast majority of TTRPG materials out there, good and bad, are really there to tickle DMs, stimulate our minds, eccentricities, and good or bad habits.) To return to my point: design re: TTRPGs absolutely involves the elements you mention, but I think it involves more than that. It involves the materials themselves (at least to some extent), and how they present themselves aesthetically and practically (or impractically, as the case may be).

        Even more importantly than that, though, I’m not sure I agree that “playing the game does not in itself constitute design” unless we accept the claim that ONLY “creating rules, procedures” etc. constitutes design in the TTRPG sense. If we accept that claim, then sure. It follows, perhaps even definitionally. Arguably, we could make an even stronger claim: only the people who wrote the rules, procedures, etc., are involved in the design process, and DMs (if they are DMs at all in this limited sense, meaning, mere enforcers and executors of the rules-as-written) are functionaries at best. I don’t think you’d say this (I’m not sure?). But that seems like a really hardline position. So, I’m not sure I follow exactly. You say that it’s possible to “create situations where the GM is encouraged or even forced to alter existing rules, add rules, make rulings and so on, effectively doing additional ‘design’,” but that this additional design somehow isn’t actually design. I don’t understand why this additional design doesn’t qualify (and, just to be clear, I’m not playing a weird semantic game here). I totally agree with you that the final say is (typically) in the hands of the DM, but this is a pretty porous final say, I think. Not because the DM should be arbitrary (they shouldn’t) or give in to player whims or whatever, but because interpreting the rules, consequences, outcomes, possibilities, etc. is itself (even if things like table tone weren’t important) radically underdetermined by the rules, procedures, etc. Not only do I think one can’t get around this (the need for constant interpretation, on whatever set of principles or skills the DM has mustered up, consciously or unconsciously), but I think it’s the big sell for TTRPGs as such, as opposed to other kinds of (more deterministic) games. Does that make sense at all (whether you agree or not)?

        re: the tension between “short-term creative expression and heterodoxy” vs. “knowledge of existing material”: That’s all (genuinely) very interesting, and it’s something for me to think about. The issue may be less immediately apparent to me because I came to TTRPGs via Call of Cthulhu first and LOTFP second, so D&D has never figured as prominently in my experience as it typically does. This is to say nothing about the history of RPGs or whatever, mind you. So, it may well be that I’m just guilty of what you describe here (passing familiarity, etc.), despite being a nobody instead of a grandee. =) That being said, I’m not sure exactly. It’s a really interesting argument. I wonder, though, if the aggressive mainstreaming and blandification of D&D (see WOTC, recent film, etc.) has more to do with flattening interesting philosophies of play, etc., than people making weird, often borderline incomprehensible shit that at least has a kind of acid tinge to it? I may be opening a separate can of worms here…

        re: “a place somewhere for ultra-lites as a sort of onboarding”: I agree with this, and I understand your concerns and reservations here. My perspective is a little bit different because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time onboarding casual and new players, so things that let me get some of the hits of weird, psychedelic horror I need to breathe I’m generally friendly toward. But I do agree that getting stuck in a labyrinth of mere or sheer novelty can really detract from getting anywhere deeper in gameplay, and this is a problem. For me, for the hobby, etc.

        Finally, re: “MB cannot exist without relying on a vast substrate of implicit knowledge that is contained in DnD”: This is one of the ironies of all this rules-lite stuff, isn’t it? Most of it is basically impossible to run unless you have at least a DM who knows how to manage tables, improvise, remain consistent, etc., and those things (not just the general philosophy of play stuff, but the whole chinchilla of implicit knowledge) don’t actually stem from the material provided. …I’m not exactly sure it goes along with crunchy, more deterministic TTRPGs, either, though. Bad DMing and good DMing are skillsets before they are knowledge bases, don’t you think? I’m not suggesting one can’t improve, refine the skillsets, or that the skillsets take place outside of the constraints rules, procedures, etc. impose, or that DMing would exist without D&D. But the actual skills involved in DMing well (so: the game is interesting and provocative, players including the DM have fun, interesting, weird experiences, game worlds take shape, are destroyed, unicorns are murdered, etc.) seem to have more to do with soft skills than anything else… Maybe? This may reflect my own background, player base, etc.

        re: forcing engagement with existing source material: That’s one reason why NAP is cool and worth doing. Keep it up.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Prince Avatar
        Prince

        We have the same Appendix N, more or less, including rare pepes like Hodginson’s the Night Land, Rennie’s Bleakwarrior, Watt’s Echopraxia, Nihei’s Blame! and Ballard’s The Terminal Beach. I think your non-fiction reading is more contemporary while mine veers towards the ancient but that’s pretty good, I can count on one hand the number of people I know that read like that.

        [Presentation etc.]
        Ah, so the point of contention was more along the lines of layout and presentation? I think the stickling point is that in my mind, it is not that such matters are entirely irrelevant, as there is such a thing as terrible formatting, it is that beyond a certain point such aesthetic matters have a force multiplier that is much lower then the actual content and structure of the adventure. I would venture that constructing more intricate dungeon designs and exciting encounters probably outweighs the extra time gained by the GM not having to flip through the back as often, which would be expressed in minutes at best and is hardly a deal breaker, in particular when one considers many games are played online using PDFs, or using some form of tablet.

        In my additional defense, I did mention somewhere in my opening paragraph that I consider the presentation to be a legitimate part of design.

        As with Ultralites, it is not the thing in and of itself, but the primacy and attention that is put into it that I consider a legitimate target for criticism.

        [On Design and NAP]

        There’s two considerations. Your definition of game design seems to involve not only the creation of the initial game, but also any and all changes that are made to it following its creation by individual GMs and players through the act of playing it. While I think that is a very broad definition that might muddle the waters in some sense, and the act of playing it does not necessarily constitute design, I have no explicit problem with your definition, which I mention here.

        “although it is possible to see how doing so can create situations where the GM is encouraged or even forced to alter existing rules, add rules, make rulings and so on, effectively doing additional ‘design.’”

        However, for the purposes of NAP this additional process is not important because it focuses on a different area. NAP is concerned with the Starting Point of the design process for adventures specifically.

        My contention is that in general superior results will be produced if the would be adventure designer either:
        A) works mainly with the existing library of Building Blocks (that is to say Spells, Magic Items and Monsters) with a few additions to fill niches that do not already exist.
        OR
        B) Has such a familiarity with the existing framework he can make entirely and genuinely novel content that adds a new dimension to the game

        And there are absolutely exceptions, such as DCO, which was made by Patrick Stuart, who is almost completely ignorant of DnD, but as a rule I think it holds up.

        Any design and growth of the game that takes place while playing it through the interaction of the players and GM over the course of many sessions is very far from the process of the design of a single adventure within the same constraints and as such I have no opinion on it, other then the fact that such a process was probably instrumental in the enduring longevity of AD&D 1e (and to a lesser extent OD&D) compared to its many imitations.

        [Ortho-heterodoxy]

        Lotfp is interesting as a testcase because it was designed with the most artpunky of philosophies (it did not even HAVE a bestiary or a magic item compendium) while still having a very distinct philosophical direction and period. It is also interesting that people have written very interesting adventures for Lotfp, while the material that came out of the Lotfp fandom (Troika, MB) has been trash. Perhaps the vestigial links with BX and WHFRPG give it a sort of grounding? There’s a reason I don’t include Lotfp in NAP, it would not be fair, considering the intent of its owner.

        I think the rpg hobby is one of overcorrections. The rules-bloat and min-maxxing of 3e and extreme streamlining of 4e produced an interest in the more free wheeling, skill-based, randomly generated playstyle of the older editions of DnD and was funnelled into the OSR. The early OSR focused on making content for the older editions of the game, this was followed by successive waves, with people making weirder campaign settings, modules and eventually their own games. This ever-broadening expansion inevitably runs into problems because a common frame of reference is lost. It is not even clear what someone who is into ‘OSR games’ even means. As such NAP and I expect, other culturally consolidating currents, must neccessarily emerge to restore equilibrium. If they are going to emerge, why not have them be about playing oldschool D&D, which was the original impetus?

        My ideal is one of gradual expansion and addition, while maintaining coherence with an existing legacy of earlier material. I’m sure there will be quibbles over minor definitional issues or what can be considered orthodoxy and what is considered apostate or apocryphal etc. The old ‘is 2e OSR’ canard can be dug up. But I do believe DnD was central to the OSR’s enduring success and to remove it from that center seems the height of lunacy.

        [Enduring vs ephemeral]

        In turn there is nothing wrong with doing a spot of weirdo tourism for a group of friends. I mean, that’s what CoC and to a lesser extent Lotfp have become about. But the game of oldschool D&D is not meant for such uses, or at the very least using it for this is only using a fraction of its power. This is again a question of importance and comparative advantage, there is room for Tournament Play or the odd weird adventure (take EX1-2, written by Gary Gygax himself). But such things are exceptions.

        [Implicit Knowledge]

        Your statement of GMing not coming from books is true, in the sense that you must play and no amount of reading can help you if you are unfit for GMing…but! I will offer a single two tomes of advice for the prospective GM, and this is the PhB 1e and the DMG 1e. Confusing, obtuse, horribly laid out? Yes! But within it is a great deal of wisdom of procedure and the underlying philosophy and spirit of the game. I don’t know any other game that can boast the same. Soft skills are absolutely essential to GMing and writing a tract that would focus on improving them is beyond the scope of any game surely 😛

        My thanks for indulging my inquiries and talking in candor and arguing in good faith. Such a thing is rare on the internet now. Do not feel pressured to reply, or even reply quickly. I am used to the long format through frequent wrangling sessions on my blog with people even more longwinded then my own and it is not fair to expect the same.

        Have a fine evening,
        Prince

        Like

Leave a comment

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started