mearls: Stross's Law of RPG Design

Mearls (

mearls) wrote,
@ 2005-08-09 20:38:00

Stross's Law of RPG Design
Charles Stross invented the githyanki, the githzerai, and the slaads. Those monsters are cornerstones of D&D, up there with mind flayers and lichs in terms of icons that sprang from D&D, rather than from the pop culture and myth that surround the game.

I've been pondering the githyanki and others a lot lately. Not for any specific work project, but simply because I find it fascinating that game material with so little supporting text took root and played such a role in the culture of D&D. For a great example, look at the 1e Monster Manual description of the mind flayer.

Thus, I christen the following law of RPG design in honor of the inventor of the githyanki:

Stross's Law of RPG Setting Design: A setting element should never require more than two paragraphs to explain it in full.

Stross is also a brilliant SF novelist, so maybe his creations are simply the products of a mind wholly in tune with that undefinable quality that makes "D&D cool" (IOW, things in D&D that gamers love) what it is.

EDIT: I'll provide my thinking for this law soon, before the end of the week. This is another place holder. Maybe this one won't generate 50+ posts and flame wars on three different RPG message boards.

(Post a new comment)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-10 04:52 am UTC (link)

I absolutely agree with the "two paragraphs" requirement. It's one of those elements that generally is prefered in all writing. "Brevity is the soul of wit", and all that... I sometimes lament that it has lost its cachet in design circles.

It should be remembered that there is an importance difference between "explain it in full", and "describe it in full".

Regards,
Eric Anondson (Still no Blogger account)

(Reply to this)

	metallian 2005-08-10 05:33 am UTC (link)
	I love the Githyanki. Not really sure why, even. They've featured prominently in my soon-to-be-finished campaign. I have to say, though, that I've found the supplemental material in Dungeon and Dragon to be very inspirational. (Reply to this)

	sim_james 2005-08-10 05:53 am UTC (link)
	Maybe this one won't generate 50+ posts and flame wars on three different RPG message boards. Losing the passion? :P (Reply to this)

inkylj
2005-08-10 06:45 am UTC (link)

This reminds me a lot of this post by Vince Baker (the whole thing is cool, but the specific bit I mean starts with "Then he told me how he'd done it.")

I'd like to hear what you mean by "setting element", though. Like, I consider the big list o' magic items to be a setting element of D&D. I don't need to see more than two paragraphs (or even more than a sentence or three) about the Ring of Chameleon Power, Cloak of Arachnida, or Apparatus of Kwalish, but I still want a long listing that has all of those and dozens more.

(Reply to this)

	gbsteve 2005-08-10 08:08 am UTC (link)
	Charlie has also just won a Hugo for his short story The Concrete Jungle (it's packaged with the Atrocity Archive). I think a corrolary to the law is that anything that takes more than two paragraphs is overspecified. You need to leave that kind of space for players and GMs to add their own to it. (Reply to this)

	the_never 2005-08-10 09:47 am UTC (link)
	Man. That 1st Fiend Folio was great.. but I seem to remember there being a couple of pages on the Githyanki. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Referring to the book itself... botrytis 2005-08-10 10:29 am UTC (link)
	The Githyanki have about a page (most of 2 columns worth of text) plus a full page illustration, and the Githzerai have a bit over 1 column of text. Charles Stross is also credited for the Death Knight. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Referring to the book itself... the_never 2005-08-10 11:05 am UTC (link)
	What I remember the most about them is that they had certain guys with those special magical silver two-handed swords. Then, if they ever lost one, they'd have these strike-team groups (made up of high level magic users, monks, fighters, etc) that would come out to recapture any magical silver two-handed swords that fell into the PCs hands. =) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Referring to the book itself... metallian 2005-08-10 11:40 am UTC (link)
	I got a lot of mileage out of that in my campaign...Githyanki have been chasing my wife's charactr around for ages because she found one of their swords early in the campaign. Dungeon had a cool Githyanki prestige class that was entirely geared towards hunting down and retrieving silver swords. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Referring to the book itself...

boymonster
2005-08-10 11:06 am UTC (link)

I think having the githyanki appear as the primary element of the cover of Fiend Folio had a lot more to do with its ability to stick in the minds of those 1st edition AD&D gamers. Fans of the githyanki and githzerai after 1st edition (such as those who got on board in the 80's with 2nd edition) got a lot more background information and opportunity to see these creations in use.

I used to be fond of them, but now I find them incredibly over-hyped. I also really can't stand the use of certain gith-related words as standard terms for D&D now on message boards, specifically "gish" as a word for multiclassed warrior/spellcaster combinations. It's the most ridiculous word ever to describe such a character and it's somehow wildly popular with character optimization folk who seed discussions with it elsewhere.

The other thing which really helped the githyanki and githzerai back in the day was the illustrative talents of Russ Nicholson, who seemed a mainstay of British fantasy at the time, as distinctive as Erol Otus was. Had the githyanki and githzerai been illustrated by Dave Sutherland or one of the other not-so-quirky artists, they may not have become as rooted in the mind of fans.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Referring to the book itself... gwyndolin 2005-08-10 01:08 pm UTC (link)
	I do remember those pictures in the original Fiend Folio. I think you're right -- for me, they really brought the races to life. That gaunt, slightly hunched, not-quite-undead look gave me shivers; I knew these folks were alien beyond our understanding. (Reply to this) (Parent)

invader_haywire
2005-08-10 12:25 pm UTC (link)

The mindflayer was the first creature I was introduced to before I ever played D&D. I was at camp, and one of my cabin mates had the books. On one of the modules there was a picture of a mindflayer eating someones brain. This was way before I even knew about HP Lovecraft. It was the most horrific thing my 12 year old brain could handle. It was the art more than the write-up that hooked me.

(Reply to this)

	osito71 2005-08-10 03:22 pm UTC (link)
	I always found the image of the Lizard King fighting the Lava Children to be very evocative. . . Note to self: Use Lava Children in my current campaign before it ends. . . (Reply to this)

Why do you think that happened?

monkeynova
2005-08-10 03:36 pm UTC (link)

I came to D&D during college, during 2e; there are some conventions I didn't appreciate at the time, and still don't quite get (e.g., nostaglia for 1e or the old boxed sets). Why did some monsters become iconic (such as the ones you've described), and not others? The aboleth is a D&D creation too, I believe, as are the modrons and shambling mounds...

Also, had TSR/WotC/Hasbro done studies of monster manual use, and looked at it what kinds of monsters tend to get the most use in the "average" DM's game? And how do new monster manuals get created, anyway? Do you specifically create new monsters for the manual, or do you just collect manuals from existing sources and compile them into a new book (and release it as a monster manual)?

About setting design, if you use a small amount of paragraphs to describe a setting element, should you have first worked out a more larger treatment and then reduce it to a couple of paragraphs? And if you elect not to work out a substantial treatment first, should you as a designer bother going back after the fact to come up with an expanded treatment? As designer, my concern about releasing a handful of paragraphs on a subject, without including pointers to an expanded sourcebook on the same subject, would be that I would be "trampling" on the creativity of other DMs who may have found more satisfactory interpretations of my "hook".

Specifically, does WotC typically have ideas for expanded treatments of certain subjects before or after they've released a core supplement? For example, the expanded treatments on dragons, aberrations, undead, and races: when D&D 3.x was a gleam in Wizards's eye, had they planned on coming back to popular monsters or classes and giving them a broader treatment as they were releasing the core books, or did time pass before the D&D team decided to create their race- or monster-specific books? And was there any discussion about whether or not the "official" stance on subjects with expanded treatment was going to override a DM's homebrew creations? (My intention is not to criticize or accuse, but from a customer relations POV, this seems like a question which would be a legitimate concern at some level...)

(I guess a larger question would be, should a new game be designed with most, if not all, of the supporting material worked out ahead of time, or should a new game be more organic, with the core rules released first and new supporting material designed and released after the core books?)

Eric

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Why do you think that happened? boymonster 2005-08-10 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	I totally doubt they do, but then again, the designers and writers in question might have thought about it somewhat. It seems more likely that they throw a few hooks and teasers in there and forget about it, moving onto the next monster. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Why do you think that happened?

armadillo_king
2005-08-10 08:36 pm UTC (link)

Also, had TSR/WotC/Hasbro done studies of monster manual use, and looked at it what kinds of monsters tend to get the most use in the "average" DM's game?

This would be interesting to see. I know that despite more than two decades of gaming, there are many classic creatures that I have never used in a game (e.g. gnolls, cloud giants, shaugin, mind flayers (this may need to be corrected)).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sad_genius
2005-08-10 05:13 pm UTC (link)

As golden boys of the current new historicist D&D movement, I'm sure you guys are tight, but for reference, there's a post over at Erik Mona's blog about himself, James Jacobs and a few others trying to recreate the appeal of the Githyanki in new monsters for the 3E Fiend Folio.

My two cents? I think the Stross monsters have a feeling of "living in" the D&D world (as opposed to being part of the generic fantasy wallpaper) just like the PCs do, which naturalises the very mechanics-inspired aspects of their society (i.e. psionics, multiclassing, riding dragons), meaning that they come across as equals or at least legit challenges to the PCs. In other words, the Stross creatures are like cunningly rules-lawyered *monsters* to fight similarly PCs, and for some reason that makes them cool. There's a parralel to the Borg from ST:TNG here, I think.

(Reply to this)

	Githyanki as 3E drow rsdancey 2005-08-10 07:12 pm UTC (link)
	I had hoped at some point that the Githynaki would become the "drow" of 3rd edition - the iconic bad guys who can be counted on to be more "uber" than the PCs, with an organized network of support making them far more dangerous than a bunch of wandering monsters, and a culture that could be developed to allow "play the monster" games to make sense. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Githyanki as 3E drow

boymonster
2005-08-10 07:27 pm UTC (link)

So did they? Or did the drow remain the drow of 3E?

I'm actually curious to know which 3e monsters (not used prior to 3e) have become so iconic as to be worthy of inclusion in the same group as githyanki, drow, mind flayers, etc. I'm sure people were trying to make some new creatures iconic, but so often this seems to be a result of the gaming audience, not the designers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Githyanki as 3E drow

rsdancey
2005-08-10 08:51 pm UTC (link)

To the best of my knowledge, the Githyanki are still just a curiosity, and the drow are still very popular.

I am a 1E player. I remember the feeling of (pardon the term) shock & awe when we met drow for the first time in the Giants series. How they kicked our asses, and seemed >way< cooler than anything else we'd seen in the whole game up to that point. Evil elves with a spider fixation who live underground? Holy Cow!

The combination of Drizzt and "Drow of the Underdark" solidified drow as near the pinnacle of coolness for 2E - (in addition to great backstory, as demihumans they were easy to apply PC classes too (something that Just Wasn't Done with your average Shambling Mound or Aboleth)).

I know that Bruce Cordell had kicked around some ideas regarding the Githyanki at one point for 3E adventures, and they show up in all their glory in the little seen Dark Sun Megaadventure "Black Spine". Other than a few odds and ends here and there, that's the only place I know of where the Githyanki are given center stage (for at least part of the time).

I think 3E needed/needs a new drow, because I think drow have become trite, overused, and boring. All things that are deadly for a game based on speculation and fantasy.

If there is a breakout monster in the 3E books, I'd guess its the demons/devils, which seem to be extremely popular, very alien, morphable into virtually any scenario, and serve a wide range of story needs from combat fodder to Kill the Foozle to Mr. Smith.

I've advocated in the past for the idea that 4E, when it comes, should come equipped with a monster manual where every monster is new and designed from scratch - no repeats. No centaurs, no pixies, no Red Dragons, no stirges, etc. That would serve two purposes: 1) It would give WotC an IP that it owned outright as opposed to the current situation where the provenance of most monsters is lost in the mists of time, and 2) It would give DMs a toolbox of surprises vs. jaded players, and shoot some badly needed imagination and creativity back into the game.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Githyanki as 3E drow

blackdogsdad
2005-08-12 01:24 am UTC (link)

I've advocated in the past for the idea that 4E, when it comes, should come equipped with a monster manual where every monster is new and designed from scratch - no repeats. No centaurs, no pixies, no Red Dragons, no stirges, etc. That would serve two purposes: 1) It would give WotC an IP that it owned outright as opposed to the current situation where the provenance of most monsters is lost in the mists of time, and 2) It would give DMs a toolbox of surprises vs. jaded players, and shoot some badly needed imagination and creativity back into the game.

I agree with you on this point. When I first started DMing back in the early 80s, I immediately learned that any book I had access to, my players did as well. Kinda sucked some of the challenge and fun out of the game when everybody at the table knew the strengths and weaknesses of every monster. So, I began creating all of my monsters from stratch, even the common ones like dragons and such. And, I never saved the stats. Instead, each time I started over again. That way, the monster was unique and fit into the environment of the adventure better than a stock version.
The one difference I would propose would be to forgo a Monster Manual outright, and simply provide a monster creation system in the DMs Guide. To the best of my knowledge, D&D doesn't have a standardized method of monster creation (my only real evidence is the fact that none of the monsters currently published can be reversed engineered, nor show any common points of construction). By having a standardized system, anyone can make an interpretation of an orc, etc. or create an entirely new monster, and that monster, theoretically, is suitable for use in most any campaign. And this would most certainly promote creativity as individual DMs, as part of their world design process, will need to create stock monsters (just as movie and video game designers, along with novel writers, must do)...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Githyanki as 3E drow

botrytis
2005-08-15 09:21 pm UTC (link)

I've advocated in the past for the idea that 4E, when it comes, should come equipped with a monster manual where every monster is new and designed from scratch - no repeats. No centaurs, no pixies, no Red Dragons, no stirges, etc.

While I agree that changing the game so that experienced players don't consciously or unconsciously use knowledge of monsters to metagame is a good idea, I don't know that I'd buy a game that's called 'Dungeons and _Dragons_' that didn't feature Dragons in it's monster manual.

My preference would be to suggest that a redistribution of the material might be one way to solve the issue - don't confine the publishing of core material to ideas from 1E that split it into DMG, PHB and MM. Another, as suggested by blackdogsdad would be to provide a system where the DM can create their own monsters - perhaps with basic templates ("goblinoid", "dragon", "fey", etc) that DM's can build their own unique Orc's, Dragons and Drow from?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Wemics Too cayzle 2005-08-11 03:24 am UTC (link)
	The brevity point is a key one. The original wemic was designed to fit on the back of a card, including game stats. But that terse description contained the basic elements that define wemics to this day: nomadic, low-tech, organized in prides, etc. Here it is for you to look at. http://www.geocities.com/cayzle/DnD/1Eanalysis.html (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Wemics Too sim_james 2005-08-11 11:36 am UTC (link)
	I have that card! It’s quite a nice illustration. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	wordwill 2005-08-11 02:25 pm UTC (link)
	This seems like an unnecessary addendum to a key writing rule: omit needless words. The presence of a symptomatic problem in game writing (over-writing) is not cause for another highfaluting "rule of game design." (Reply to this)

	r0mp3r 2005-08-12 02:23 am UTC (link)
	I had never put two and two together and realized that both the SF writer and the RPG writer are the same... maybe this explains why I like Cory Doctorrow so much... (Reply to this)

Applying Stross's Law

hastur_cultist
2005-08-12 04:00 am UTC (link)

I like this idea! Assuming that "explain it in full" means "sum it up," I'd like to propose a method of applying Stross's Law to the setting elements in your game.

The basic concept comes from "The Seven-Sentence NPC," a fabulous article from Dragon #184: as a framework, cover the following 8 areas in your description, in one (or two) sentences apiece, and in this order:

1. The most important thing about it (the core idea).
2. What it looks like.
3. How it fits into the setting.
4. Why it matters in the setting.
5. Something memorable or unique about it.
6. Why player characters should care about it.
7. Connections to other setting elements.
8. Ways to use it in the game.

(My reasoning behind this list is a bit long to include here, so I've posted it on Treasure Tables, my weblog for GMs.)

(Reply to this)

	wookies (Anonymous) 2005-08-12 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	You know what's cool? Wookies are cool. The reason people have turned orcs into wookies is that there aren't any wookies in D&D. Gamers like me like wookies and want to play wookie-like characters. If you want orc to be orcs, give us some damn wookies. Speaking of what gamers think is cool and why. (Reply to this)

mythusmage
2005-08-13 02:40 am UTC (link)

All in all I agree with Mike, keep it to the basics. But, when space allows expand on the information. 2 paragraphs for a basic description is fine. The average player or GM should get enough information to present the monster well, and get a decent idea of what the creature is like. When space is available provide additional information on the subject, enough to allow for more in depth use of the monster and for variations on the theme.

In short, the first 2 paragraphs should provide enough information for use, with any additional information adding to usability.

(Reply to this)

autopope
2005-08-13 12:29 pm UTC (link)

Actually, I disagree :)

While it's a good idea -- especially in the context of gaming -- to keep each element in a game (or story, or whatever) terse, sticking over-rigidly to this rule ends in the abandonment of anything that aspires to more complexity than you can cram into such a short description. Which is sad. Not everything can be decomposed into just two paragraphs, and I don't think you should necessarily ditch ideas just because they don't fit the procrustean bed.

(Having said that, you should take what I say with a pinch of salt: I pretty much stopped gaming back in 1983 or thereabouts, so I've got zero experience of anything post-AD&D, post-Gygax. Except Neverwinter Nights, of course. Getting twatted by a bunch of Red Slaadi was a very strange experience after all those years ...)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

mearls
2005-08-14 03:06 am UTC (link)

!

If you ever have any desire to check out the current state of D&D (or RPGs in general) drop me a line at my work email address: user name mike.mearls, domain wizards.com. I'm sure we can put together a package of game books and stuff from around the office. You have a number of fans here, and not just for your Fiend Folio work.

Anyway, my next journal entry goes into my thought process behind the idea of Stross's Law of RPGs. The essence of it is that a DM wants to create her own world and stories. At some point, the volume of data that we provide on a game element (such as a monster) crosses the line between enough information to inspire the DM's creativity and too much information, to the point that the DM is forced to shoehorn her creative vision into the material we provide. The trend over the past few decades has been towards more detail - I'm not sure if that's the right way to go.

Oh, and if naming this law after you is a bit strange, just let me know and I'll change it. I never considered you'd actually see this journal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	autopope 2005-08-14 11:31 am UTC (link)
	I have hordes of well-trained minions combing the interweb on my behalf. (Plus an LJ of my own.) I'm currently sticking my head back in, but mostly on the MMORPG side -- planning a novel about skullduggery and computer crime inside a couple of gaming companies. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs