RPG Laboratory

RPG: Game vs. Art

Submitted by oversoul on Sun, 2007-04-15 09:12.

This is to pick up on something Jeff Moore stated in his blog but I did not want to veer off course their so I am adding it into my blog. I like Jeff want to put the game back into rpg. I am not so much concerned with the mechanical aspect of that as I am the mindset of the players.

I have been seeing an emerging division in our hobby and players. For convenience I will refer to one division as conventional, and the other as indie.

The conventional player/game is about having fun with friends.

The indie player/game is about taking rp'ing to an artform.

(These are very simplistic definitions.)

One is not better than the other in my opinion, I tend to swing from conventional to indie from time to time.

I have also noticed that 1km1kt and the Forge fall into those categories as well. 1km1kt tends to be more about conventional gaming, while the Forge is more indie.

I am curious is anyone else has picked up on this change? How do you think it will affect the hobby in the end?

» oversoul's blog | add new comment | by oversoul | 411 reads

Do people see what they see?

Submitted by Brandon6Rose on Thu, 2007-04-19 21:29.

You know that people are being fooled. There is also the fact that people are trying to get the sim like freeness into the RPG world but then they leave behind the game of RPG. There is a line between good choices and good game, the problem is that the player dosen't know which to pick and the fact that they should demand both.

Role-Play vs Roll-Play

Submitted by Jeff Moore on Mon, 2007-04-16 17:44.

The old Role-Play versus Roll-Play debate has been going on since the inception of the RPG. I think that there are good things to be said for both sides of the argument. However, my personal experiences have been that players can have fun playing anything given the right environment for play and the right referee (GM.)

I think the role-play by its very nature tends to defy rules and conventions and take players off in numerous directions that even the most prepared referee might not be expecting. Rules designed to control or channel this creative flow might help a referee rein in some of the chaos to tell a more cohesive story. So now the question becomes, does a cohesive story make good role-play?

Sometimes, where role-play is concerned ... chaos can be fun.

It has also been my experience that when the "combat" happens all players want to feel like their characters have had an equal impact on the action. And players want a very clear picture of what is going on.

I feel like chaotic role-play is not a bad thing (and in fact is frequently hilarious...) but that chaotic combat is a bad thing.

So where rules balance is concerned, I think that a good working combat engine is far more vital to the types of RPGs that I have played then rules to bring structure to the role-play or story-telling aspect.

And it seems like that is the nature of the divide in the Roll-Play vs Role-Play debate ... it's combat vs story telling.

But is a game that focuses on the rules of storytelling over the rules of combat what you are referring to when you speak of the tendency of creating an RPG as Art over Game?

I think there has been a lot of innovation in both arenas. I think when you talk about RPGs as Art, there are truly examples out there of games that explore some really new and different and strange ideas on both sides.

A truly new combat mechanic can be "art" even as a system that focuses on story-telling can be a game.

I think that maybe "art" was the wrong word choice here ... but if we stick with it's use then I want to be so bold as to redefine it in the context of what we are doing here.

I will define an RPG that has been created as Art as an RPG that sacrifices playability for creative innovation.

Everyone has a different idea about what is playable and what is not. The question becomes ... in what ways is your game playable? What makes your ART ... your work of creative adventure fiction ... a game?

I think "gamers" like dice (or other randomizers,) they like strategy, they like numbers and they enjoy feeling a sense of evolution and progression of their specific participation in the game ... maybe not all "gamers" but enough of them.

I am one who wants to see my games "played." I want players to cheer when a lucky die roll produces a spectacular and unexpected result. I want to see players scratching their heads as they look at minis on the table and try to determine their best options for victory. I want the game.

For me, the role-play takes care of itself. As for the Art ... it seems to me like if a concept is breaking new ground then it might have something to teach us... and that's awesome... that's what art is for. So I am all for those creations that are about manipulating the genre in the interest of trying something different... even if ultimately that "something different" isn't playable.

That's why I think the 24 Hour RPG is so great! If you are forced to slap your ideas on paper in 24 hours maybe the result isn't playable... but because of the time constraints you don't have time to scrap it and start over ... the end result ... we get to see your raw ideas that don't work. If you had more time, you would have tossed them in the bin and started over. But, in the interest of the "contest" you didn't ... so what happens now?

Maybe another designer sees this very interesting but unplayable non-game ... this piece of impressionistic game art ... and they think, "Hey, this idea is great... if you just tweak it like this... or smooth out that this would make a great game!"

Keep the art coming, keep the innovation coming. I love to read it all ... but when I finally show up at the table to play with my friends ... what I have in my hands will be a playable game with a clean workable combat design... the rest we can work out for ourselves.

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

Conflict vs Combat

Submitted by Gentleman John on Tue, 2007-04-17 02:44.

I am partially in agreement with you on the above. However, I do not believe that a good RPG needs clear mechanics for resolving combat. Rsther, I am of the opinion that a good RPG needs clear mechanics for resolving conflict.

To explain the difference: combat is about physical confrontation of an active opposition; conflict is about overcoming obstacles, no matter what they are. Copmbat may make for a good 80s-style action movie (Arnie!), but conflict makes for a more satisfying story. I can quite happily enthuse with my friends about the fight between Arnie and the Freddie Mercury lookalike at the end of Commando. However, we reminisce with fondness about the obstacles we overcame during those great RPG campaigns of yore.

Good conflict resolution mechanics also result in good combat mechanics. After all, what is combat if it is not a specific subset of conflicts? They also result in good methods for the resolution of other situations. Social interaction? Yes! Evading the Ringwraiths? Yes! Climbing Mount Everest? Yes. A single, simple mechanic can cover all these.

Good examples of conflict resolution occur in the THW games, TWERPS and HKAT! 1e. Dogs in the Vineyard has an interesting set of mechanics for conflict resolution, as does Lace and Steel, but they are not the simplest of mechanics. However, they are good and applicable to all situations in the games.

Is there anything that is a ommon factor between these rules? Not really. Some of them rely on the importance of the PCs with respect to the game world; others rely on the PCs being able to narrate their actions with an ultimate goal in mind. The only commonality is that they allow conflicts of any type to be resolved using the same mechanism.

So, when designing game mechanics, I try to aim for just that.

Still trying, though ...

I am with you here and in

Submitted by Jeff Moore on Tue, 2007-04-17 10:04.

I am with you here and in full agreement. Good mechanics on resolving conflict is the trick. Most RPG's (if not all) that I have played emulate an action adventure entertainment model, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, superheroes and villains, spy vs spy, dragons and knights, good vs evil ... the 'g vs e' conflict is one that is most easily and readily adapted to an RPG tabletop session. That being said, combat may be the most common subset of this conflict. And it has some requirements that other conflicts won't necessarily have.

Wounding and death for one. Geographical positioning for another. About the wounding ... maybe your conflict mechanic includes a consequences specification that requires the player to pay some form of "cost" for failure. If this is the case and that mechanic can be applied to various forms of conflict, then it could certainly be applied to combat as well. If not, something must be devised (in my opinion) to create risk and give the combat the necessary sense of importance.

As for location ... in my experience it's very helpful for players who are trying to envision combat to know where everyone involved in the conflict is located in relationship to themselves. A mechanic for tracking this kind of information won't be needed for other conflict resolutions but it will be needed for a good combat mechanic (in my opinion.) I have played games that neglect this and inevitably end up adopting house rules to compensate for the absence.

So, I agree, but still want to see the combat specific aspects of any conflict resolution system fleshed out...

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

It's all a matter of where

Submitted by Gentleman John on Tue, 2007-04-17 12:42.

It's all a matter of where you come from. I started off mainly wargaming in my youth, so I appreciate where you are coming from when you say that combat does have certain requirements that other types of conflict may not require. Indeed, a lot of the RPGs of my youth incorporated maps and counters to allow you to play out combat encounters without having to fork out on miniatures. Star Trek, V&V, James Bond (You Only Live Twice) ... Very nice. And then there were a lot of wargames that played at the individual level: Firepower, Ambush, Squad Leader (only if you worried about the leaders, though) ... Again, all good.

However, when you remove the element of miniatures, stop being fixated on terrain and allow plyaers "editorial control" of what goes on, I find that there is no difference between combat and any other kind of conflict. When you look at things from a purely mechanical point of view, all that terrain does is give an advantage or disadvantage in combat. Wounding is just a form of failure, with death being a more extreme result.

I find myself perfectly happy to referee games in (say) Truth and Justice, where the players are given the minimum information and are encouraged to spend Hero Points to flesh out the terrain for themselves. All I give them is the bare bones, unless they ask for more information.

"I want to let in the rain to dissolve the acid monster in the mall. Does it have a glass roof?"

"Pay a Hero Point and it does ... All you have to do is break through it."

In other games, like Dogs or Octane where the players have even more editiorial control, imposing anything beyond the bare details limits them unnecessarily.

However, when I do break out the miniatures or counters, then we are merciless in enforcing movement modifiers, terrain bonusses and cover advantages. But that never happens in a RPG, only in the wargames. I have played in games that have been won or lost by a half-inch difference in ranges, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's part of the fun.

Some people are quite happy with using miniatures. I have played in groups that will break out the lead at any excuse. However, it is not my preferred method of running a RPG.

Still, it's the debate that makes this interesting.

Movement in Combat is but one form of strategic choice...

Submitted by Jeff Moore on Tue, 2007-04-17 17:17.

Movement in Combat is but one form of strategic choice for a player. I have participated in many a game session where miniatures didn't play a part. No strategic movement, no attacks of opportunity ... and the games played just fine.

I do think that 'clarity' is important and there should be tools for making sure that everyone is "seeing" the situation the same way. But, this could take many forms.

Consider the "Console RPG" this RPG is based upon old school console RPG's like the original Final Fantasy on the NES. In this game there is a front rank and a back rank and combat is described as happening exactly as one remembers seeing it in the console game on their television screen.

Personally, I prefer 8 Bit Dungeon by Levi Kornelsen to the "Console RPG" because it does the same thing it's short, concise, easy to digest, and it's free. But it's true that combat doesn't need to be based off a wargaming model. These examples base combat on a computer game model. My own game Royal Battles is based on a board game mechanic. I really need to remind myself of this going forward.

It boils down to "where you are coming from" like you said. Right now I am coming from this whole "put the game back in RPG" mindset that wants to see a strategic element of game play inherent in my RPG's. I am sure that this colors my feedback, opinions and debate as I am presenting it right now.

I will continue to defend a need for clarity in communication and also stand by my statement that most RPG genres will require some form of combat mechanic. So clarity in combat is the goal... but a wargamming model and miniatures are not the only means. I commend you for reminding me of this.

I just posted a combat game called Duel Blade that in fact contains no movement rules whatever. And I still think it has a good mechanic for not only resolving combat, but for making strategic choices (which was the goal.)

What Duel Blade doesn't have is a good "conflict" mechanic... yet. And it is not an RPG (yet.) So it is true that one does not immediately imply the other. Duel Blade is a combat dice game, plain and simple. It presents rules for a head to head conflict meant to emulate those head to head combat computer games like, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur or Bushido Blade. I plan on starting with this and these games as my "model" for my next RPG even as old fashioned wargames created the original "model" for D&D.

I seem to have swerved off-topic here... but, to jump back on board. Yes, I concede that good conflict mechanics can make a good RPG and that combat mechanics can be based upon a good conflict mechanic and do not need to be grounded in the wargamming origins of D&D so long as they provide all the players with a clear understanding of events (and their options relevant to the events,) and some interesting strategic choices.

Ah, there's what I'm trying to say... 'interesting choices.' I think any good game should provide the player with 'interesting (and maybe difficult) choices' - This is the key to my insistence that games have a strategic element. It's really about insisting that a good game involves interesting choices. Your resolution system should present the players with options... and each of these options should be valid and interesting enough to make it difficult for the player to pick between them. If you can do this you will have a successful game.

By the way, I LOVE Truth and Justice!! It's one of my favorite games!

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

The Combat Dilemma

Submitted by Relentless96 on Tue, 2007-04-17 23:10.

It is interesting to hear all of these points regarding conflict resolution and combat. As I am currently writing bits and peices of MACE, I cannot help but take everyone's words in a personal context and how it might apply to the game I am designing.

In regards to a conflict resolution, I definately agree that it should be one mechanic does all. I can think of a few games that use the same dice roll for everything (Pokethulu) and some that don't (DnD). With one universal roll or randomiser that can be applied in multiple contexts, it is much easier to get new players into the game.

With Combat, I think the beauty of a good combat system comes from having many different concerns without overcomplicating the rules. In a typical combat system players have to worry about movement and positioning, health and damage, weapons and armor, the environment they are fighting in plus the abilities of their opponents. If you can tie the above in with the core conflict resolution mechanic, it makes the whole combat system easier to transition into for players, its just with greater depth.

As far as whether a system qualifies as a game or an Rpg, I will have to be honest and state that the only thing that converts MACE to Rpg status is the Life Skills system, which is in itself rather minimal. In fact, the majority of playtesting for MACE has been done for Combat and not roleplaying. So, hence why the E in MACE is Engine.

On the topic of movement, Duel Blade and Final Stand are perfect examples of a good combat system that does not involve movement. They are fun, provide strategic choices for players, plus have original quirks to make them unique. MACE makes use of a movement system, which adds another dimension to combat due to the Knockback and Reach rules (Reach will be covered in Movement, coming soon!). Also, there are hazards and other objects which can affect combat, so placement is important. While I love the movement aspect of MACE, it doesn't make it necessary in other games, especially if it takes away from the games focus.

I hope my comments above add extra depth to others opinions. Thanks!

"The world is your arena now, Sagat, not the street!"
M. Bison, Street Fighter: The Animated Movie

What works?

Submitted by Relentless96 on Sun, 2007-04-15 23:16.

I would have to admit that I steer away from the Indie path, but I admit that is only based on my experiences roleplaying. I always found that in the games I played, the rules sometimes got replaced by the story. I also found that sometimes, getting players in the feel of the game wasn't based on reading up on setting material, but some quirky and fun rules conventions that supported the feel of the game.
So, I personally believe it is just the eventual migration between the "fudge it" players and the "its in the rules!" players. The only downside to such a thing is the seperatism that is caused. When writing an Rpg, would you want it to appeal to all gamers, or just one of the two crowds above? Me, I am hoping MACE will appeal to both, for the right reasons! If not, as long as people have fun playing it, I don't care what classification it gets. In saying that, Indie does seem to carry a negative pretense (thanks to the forge).

Hope my thoughts help :) Thanks!

"The world is your arena now, Sagat, not the street!"
M. Bison, Street Fighter: The Animated Movie

Hmm...

Submitted by xDungeonMasterx on Sun, 2007-04-15 12:03.

I have also noticed this change. Whether indie or conventional, it really depends on the people playing. I would much rather be indie but my friends are more conventional, so as GM I administer to their wants. Through all the games I played (which isn't as much as others on this site) I have noticed that they prefer to have fun rather than focusing on RPing, though they enjoy that too. I discourage them from using metagame thinking and they do that pretty well. They seem to RP better on Star Wars games but I think that is because we have more to work with using already established worlds and aliens.

In the end, the hobby is what the players make it. What can designers do but cater to what the player wants?

Just thought you would like to know.

Market Placement?

Submitted by Chainsaw Aardvark on Sun, 2007-04-15 19:01.

One possibility is that the shift is a matter of market place competition. Any industry is an investment, and while sometimes a bold venture pays off, most of the time, its really just a matter of phased improvements to keep the customers happy. Regardless of if it sealed loop-holes or works any better, just look at the uproar 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons brought out! (I haven't played enough D&D to have and opinion, but I lean towards the older versions.)

When it comes to the smaller scale, competing on equal terms with the major names varies from unlikely to nigh impossible. That leaves us with two options for direction.

First the "conventional" path with a similar system to something already out there. This grants an instant familiarity, in a hope that perhaps people are more willing to try a game if they don't need to relearn everything. It may also be a matter of - why reinvent the wheel for something that is going to have but a limited impact?

The indie path is more of the mind set, "if you don't like my driving, get off the sidewalk". They make something very different, with the hopes that someone is looking for a change.

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

Origins?

Submitted by Gentleman John on Mon, 2007-04-16 02:56.

I have never been able to penetrate more than a few of the threads on the Forge, much less get into them. However, from what I have seen of "indie" games and "mainstream" games, I think the analysis of them is hideously simplistic. Not all "indie" games are based around obscure mechanics and strange situations, and not all "mainstream" games are overblown, supplement-spawning generic monstrosities.

Perhaps we should consider them in a graphical manner. The first axis should be setting: "low setting" games are those that support one situation only (Girlfriends or the Shab-al-Hiri Roach spring to mind), while "high setting" games are those that allow multiple settings (GURPS, anyone?). The next axis should be complexity: "low complexity" games have very simple mechanics (TWERPS is a perfect example, as is Octane), "high complexity" games go in the opposite direction (Hero 5e fits the bill here, imo). Finally, I would consider player involvement as my third axis. Games with low player involvement would be those that reduce the involvement of players in favour of mechanically-decided actions (Pendragon possibly, although board/rpg hybrids would be closer), while games with high player involvement would allow players almost equal footing with the referee (Octane is the best example here).

Putting some of the games we know into context:

d20 - high setting (generic), high complexity (rules for every situation), medium involvement (players tend to make decisions based on character development mechanics)

Dogs in the Vineyard - low setting (it can be shoe-horned, but it needs work), medium complexity (only one mechanic, but it needs thought), high involvement (players narrate their actions)

Mythic Russia - medium setting (the HQ system is fairly adaptable), medium complexity (only one mechanic, but it needs thought), high involvement (players are not coerced by the rules)

Pendragon - low setting (Arthurian myths only), high complexity (specific mechanics for different situations), low to medium involvement (depending on whether you enforce the personality traits or not)

TWERPS - high setting (generic), low complexity (what rules?), high involvement (players do it for the hell of it)

Warhammer FRP - low setting (the Old World), high complexity (based on the character generation), medium involvement (what career do I take to get the best advances?)

I would classify three of the games on this list as indie (Dogs, Mythic Russia and TWERPS), but they are not the same as the indie games referred to previously, as I think they are "fun" not "art".

So, when we talk about "indie" games we should really only be referring to games that are better described as "small press".

The obvious question is: what makes the "classic indie" game here, and what are good examples?

Well put!

Submitted by Relentless96 on Mon, 2007-04-16 03:06.

Thankyou for clarifying, I think it was needed. I admit that the definition of Indie I was using was the one I felt implied by the post. What you have just typed should be done as an article for 1km1kt. Maybe even for Rpg Lab as a way to classify the games we develop. I like it :)

"The world is your arena now, Sagat, not the street!"
M. Bison, Street Fighter: The Animated Movie

Domo arigato

Submitted by Gentleman John on Mon, 2007-04-16 13:55.

Thanks for the compliment. It's an idea I've had for a while as an attempt to put some order into cataloguing my collection.

Great Comments

Submitted by oversoul on Tue, 2007-04-17 04:40.

Yall have had some great commments and helped me to refine exactly what it is I am after. Games are varied and people opinions of the same game can vary wildly. So obviously it is not the game that is conventional or indie. Perhaps those terms are not correct either.

So what is this division we are seeing? How do we define it? It is obvious there is some difference in the work and people at 1km1kt and the Forge. What is that difference? That difference is the same as I see growing everywhere so 1km1kt and the forge must be a microcosm of something greater.

I am not sure but I think it

Submitted by Jeff Moore on Tue, 2007-04-17 10:50.

I am not sure but I think it comes back to playability, longevity, and global appeal. I see much of the work done at the Forge as work that is being done for the sake of pushing boundaries into new arenas of play. It's about game theory and experimentation.

I see most of the stuff at 1km1kt as variations on established arenas of play. The key difference being that by starting with a foundation of building blocks composed of field tested successful components, the majority of games at 1km1kt are accessible and playable for the average gamer.

The same may or may not be true of works at the Forge, it seems like conventional mechanics and ideas are frowned upon by that community as being non-original. This is fine, but it means that everything they do there is experimental.

I think it's a difference in design philosophy.

If I were to design a game for both audiences my thought processes might go like this...

Designing for '1km1kt' ... I might think:

"Of all the games that I have played, which elements worked the best for me? How will I bring all of these elements together to make the best game that I can?"

Designing for 'forge' ... I might think:

"Of all the games that I have played, what has never been done? How can I bring something to the table that no one before me has ever thought to try?"

Both design philosophies are valid and needed.

I think that if I want to stretch my mind and evolve myself as a designer that The Forge is a great place to go. I think that if I am in a pinch for something to play on a Saturday night and I need to find a game quick that my friends will like, then I need to go to 1km1kt.

If a division exists (and I think you're right - it does,) then I am sad for it. I know that I have felt more welcomed at 1km1kt than I did at The Forge. I know that my style of design more frequently matches the one that I described for my 1km1kt model.

I know that because of this division I have built in my mind this sense that The Forge community is less friendly and more elitist in its views. I am sure this impression is strictly self-imposed and unfair.

I would like to ask ... is there crossover here? Are you reading this ... reading 1km1kt and also The Forge? Do you post to both forums ... live on both sides of the RPG design fence?

If you do, please raise your hand. I'd like to know that this 'division' that we speak about isn't so terribly extreme.

Regards,

Jeff Moore
http://www.1km1kt.net/Jeff-Moore.htm

In total agreement. My

Submitted by Gentleman John on Tue, 2007-04-17 12:50.

In total agreement. My limited experience of the Forge is that it is very much about pushing the boundaries, whereas my experience of 1km1kt is that it is more about finding something that works well.

To use a different analogy: the stereotypical Forger would construct a prototype concept car and put it on a test circuit; the stereotypical RPG Lab-rat would build a kit car (Caterham Sprint, anyone?) and take it for a spin at a Donnington track day.

I find it easier to develop settings than I do mechanics. Hence, I unashamedly nick my mechanics from where I can find them and use those that best fit my idea of what I want to do. If somebody else comes up with the "perfect mechanic", then I'll use it - and I have plundered in my time, believe you me! I have also created total monstrosities of bolted-together components that never got anywhere.

So it goes.

My problem with the Forge has been trying to get past the language. Discussions of simulation vs realism vs gamism do not inspire me. Reading somebody else's ideas, on the other hand, does.

Put down the philosophy, and no one gets hurt!

Submitted by Chainsaw Aardvark on Tue, 2007-04-17 19:28.

I've never really participated at the Forge. In part, its the sheer amount of stuff to shift through - it becomes exclusionary just as a matter of patience and monitor resolution (I'd have a migraine long before finishing all the forum threads!) They certainly deserver praise for their attempts, and for giving the hobby some more "air of respectability"

However, I believe that it is a quixotic effort. In the end, the experience is going to depend more on the group, and less on the game. There are those who either call the phenomenon "Cheeto-ism" and claim that the real point is to be there for the snack, and friends. Others (mis)apply the 80-20 rule to the games, claiming its 80% talking or set up, and only 20% actual lay (30 min of fun packed into four hours! is another quote on that train of thought.)

The first game I played was Rifts, which is hardly a good game for beginners, and for that matter, not quite so great for anyone else. Much of my design efforts have been focused on trying to fix the various problems I perceived in that game over the years that I played it. However, that was what the high-school club was playing when I joined,and eventually I got the hang of it and enjoyed the experience.

Furthermore, a number of the people I game with are afflicted with ADD or other problems with school. As such, I've never really had much luck teaching new rules or getting them to try something else. We played BESM for a while, but that is defiantly a step down in complexity compared to Rifts or D&D and the like. I've just found that too many rules will turn off the gamers, and too few makes it hard to control them, so my attempts are to create a median that is playable, rather than a cohesive design philosophy about certain types of stories. (I believe that rules have a major effect of the flow of the story play, but its a case by case basis - not a science)

One thing that interests me is the Hilfskreuzer of the second world war. A group of 9 merchant raiders were able to sink more shipping than all the rest of the cruisers and battleships of the German navy, combined! Bismarck sank exactly one ship - before being destroyed itself. Its sister the Tripitz, and the Japanese super ship Yamato, never even fired its main batteries at an opponent!

Battleships just scream power, they look dangerous just sitting in the harbor. Yet, with the possible exception of the Russo-Japanese war, they really didn't make a difference in history.

Its the same with games. What they look like or how well they're built is not really a concern. Its more the story that the GM tells, and being able to convince your group that that you can have fun. Perhaps we should take a look at the oft repeated "what is an rpg" and try to find a way to encourage GMs to learn more about their friends and what kind of story they want to play, or can handle, rather than try to make systems without knowing the end users.

(In the valley of geekness I shall fear no evil, fr there is a flame-war to light my way?)

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.