While plugging my RPG for my college psych assignment, I fortuitously had to explain it to four people who had never gamed before. Here are their reactions:
What is role-playing?
I explained that role-playing is kind of like a book or movie, except that you get to decide what happens.
What's the goal?
Evedently from a budding Gamist. I replied that the goal can be, say to kill the most enemies, or get the most treasure, to explore the world, to create a good story.
Isn't that like acting?
I had no good reply for this one.
So you start play by getting a group of people and assigning roles?
I never thought of it this way, but this basically means completing the Social Contract first. This is wierd because most games start with rules or setting. Do you think that the whole Social Contract model should be the explicit (as apposed to implicit) structure for starting a game -- especially with people who have never gamed before?
Quote from: PalaskarDo you think that the whole Social Contract model should be the explicit (as apposed to implicit) structure for starting a game -- especially with people who have never gamed before?
Yes. Or, it's worked for me, anyway. Both Primetime Adventures (http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/pta.html) and Universalis (http://universalis.actionroll.com) have explicit Social Contract set-up phases at the beginning and they have both worked very well with non-gamers in my experience. My sample size is quite small (about 15 people) so I can't say if it's a blanket "must have" or not.
Hello,
Sorry about the quickie replies ...
Regarding the goal, I strongly suggest adopting a fairly hard-line GNS "separatist" approach. State outright that different groups have different Creative Agendas and that different games tend to support different things in regard to those agendas.
Counter to most self-designated gamers' expectations, this point is a
positive draw for most people rather than a "limiter" or a "divisive" concept.
QuoteIsn't that like acting?
I had no good reply for this one.
The answer is "no." Actors are supplied with scripts and a director has the final cut.
Gamist play is like a video game, pictionary, or poker.
Narrativist play is like an author story-conference simultaneously with the story's delivery (i.e. reading, watching the movie).
Simulationist play is like a celebration of something you all enjoy and know well, like making your own Star Trek episode.
All of these are horribly limited analogies, of course, but I think they're close enough for the present purpose.
QuoteSo you start play by getting a group of people and assigning roles?
I never thought of it this way, but this basically means completing the Social Contract first. This is wierd because most games start with rules or setting. Do you think that the whole Social Contract model should be the explicit (as apposed to implicit) structure for starting a game -- especially with people who have never gamed before?
If you think about it, what they describe is what happens anyway. Game
texts start with rules or settings, but if the
people don't start with assigning roles, they'll
do it on their own. And if those roles are self-assigned without regard to one another or to some kind of compatible Creative Agenda, then you can see what sort of disaster will happen next.
Best,
Ron
Thanks for the replies, Ron.
Anyone else?
Quote from: PalaskarIsn't that like acting?
I had no good reply for this one.
Personally, I've used the analogy of improv comedy a couple of times. You have to make you own lines and act your character. You get pointers from the other players and the GM. And the objective is to make everyone laugh ;)
Actually, thinking about it, that says more about my group than I thought.
Quote
What is role-playing?
What's the goal?
Personally, these days when I explain this, I go more into this direction:
"Well, it's a really
a way of doing things, you can do it for many reasons. The word "game" is somewhat misleading. It's more like a form of expression or storytelling. You know, like theater, or literature, or movies. Like you'd be writing a book with your friends, you're all there and take part in it and you're all writing it just for your own enjoyment. What makes it like a game is that it usually has some rules to help decide some things, like who gets to decide what. If you like, you can also let the system decide some things. (You can get those from the store.) That makes it more fun, because then you don't always know what's going to happen."
Quote
Isn't that like acting?
"Something like that yes, but it's more like a combination of many things. There's acting, simple make-believe, rules, and just talking about what goes on, in third person. You know, like a theater performance can have many things besides acting, like a narrator and music and some storyline, and some props."
Quote
So you start play by getting a group of people and assigning roles?
"Basicly, yes. You create roles for everyone and you also decide on some rules on how you go about all this, to help control things. Usually there's someone who already has an idea about what's the game going to be like. He usually plays 'the rest of the world' then."
This approach has lead to some positive results, but I haven't really tried this that much. But yes, I think you should start with the social contract, because without that the rules are hard to explain. And I think one shouldn't try to explain things like "why do you do it" or "what's the goal". It usually only leads to much confusion. Roleplaying is a way, not a goal. It's also many things, not just one.
Itse, that was a great explanation! Mind if I grab it, possibly modified a bit, for Signature 5.3?
Palaskar:
Quote
Itse, that was a great explanation! Mind if I grab it, possibly modified a bit, for Signature 5.3?
Thank you. Not at all.