Where Did it All Begin?

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

Given current events I thought we could all use a distraction.  So, without further adieu, part two.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius
#



The Alchemy of Role-Playing

Copyright © 2002, 2003 by C. Demetrius Morgan

Part 2 of 3

Part One of this Article may be found >>>HERE<<<

Where Did it All Begin?

Games have been with us perhaps since the very beginning of the human race.  Our ancestors' etched game boards into rock and wood, molded game pieces from clay and carved them out of bone, even used the bones of sheep, called astragals, as the first form of dice.  Dicing originated with lot casting, thus it is to the astronomer-priests of ages past, and later the diviners and fortune tellers who kept much of that ancient lore alive, if in adapted form, that modern gaming owes a great debt.  For without those first methods of randomly determining outcomes gaming, as we know it today could not exist.

Yet it is to the Greeks and Romans of classical times that the real credit must go for the familiar shapes of game implements in the Western world today; board games especially.  True, board games of a type have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs, yet the flat table top board game and dice as we know them today had their direct antecedents in the European cultures of antiquity as passed down by word of mouth through the Dark and Middle Ages, revived during the Renaissance, and rediscovered by archaeologists in recent decades.  Games with names like Tablut, the precursor of Backgammon, Draughts, Ludo, and even Chess are games with hundreds of years of history behind them.  However, for the historian of modern role-playing games, the tale begins in 1915 with H.G. Wells and the publication of a rather unassuming book titled "Little Wars".  A book that would become known for containing the first set of amateur war gaming rules.  Rules intended for use by anyone who owned those once popular lead army men of yesteryear, now long surpassed by the ever present green army men found in most stores toy aisles.

That Mr. Wells found it necessary to provide a codified set of rules for resolution of conflicts which arose in games played with toy army men is proof that, from the very beginning, a debate has waged amongst game aficionados about resolving basic game issues.  Chief amongst these is determining victory conditions, defining styles and methodologies of play, and making these "rules of play" available in a set format.  We take it for granted that our games come with rules, but it was not always so.  In centuries past board games were purchased and the rules of play literally passed on by example, meaning through first hand experience.

Of course it is unlikely that Mr. Wells, or the war gamers that followed, realized that they were ushering in the modern role-playing era.  Yet once such parameters were put into black and white, printed for all and sundry to use, it was only a matter of time before game players began to wonder why it should be that units, as a whole, were always destroyed.  After all in real life warfare much could hinge upon sorties made by the individual; be they a soldier, spy, scout, or saboteur.  Thus rules for running individual units were created.

What does that have to do with role-playing?  Quite a lot.  Once individuals were created they ceased to be units.  Thus players began to associate with individual pieces, naming them, giving them traits, qualities that eventually developed into personalities.  Beginning to see anything familiar?  Odd, isn't it, for role-playing games aren't said to have been created until the mid nineteen seventies! Never mind that many old parlor and dinner games could be said to share basic elements of the role-playing experience, or that theatrical troupes have been taking on roles far longer than the RPG is said to have existed.  Yet, amazing as it may sound, role-playing games are not the evolutionary culmination of any singular extent form of game; at least not by conscious design.

Role-playing games contain elements from a myriad number of game forms.  The use of characters, specifically the taking on of character roles, has existed in parlor games and murder mystery games since well before the first role-playing game was printed.  Yet none of these precursors are truly a role-playing game anymore than Chess would be classified as a historical war game, despite the fact few would argue that Chess is the direct precursor of the modern historical war game.  Yet, for the average role-playing game enthusiast, the story of role-playing doesn't really begin until roughly 1974 and the publication of Dungeons & Dragons.

Why should any of these details matter?  This question is one of perspective and definition.  Some definitions can be easy and straightforward, witness the following:  "In a fantasy game, each player assumes the persona of a particular character, be it witch, warlock, mighty warrior or pious priest...".(1)  This from "Fantasy Wargamming", an early book upon the subject of role-playing.  Or the explanations can be vague and ambiguous non-starters like: "The very nature of RPGs makes them almost impossible to codify in any exacting terms."(5)

Oddly enough that last quote comes from the opening paragraphs of a chapter attempting to provide an explanation of how a RPG is played.  When read in comparison to the previous example one might assume this if from some older tome, yet it is not.  The book was published circa 1999 while the previous one circa 1982.  But is the ability to define what a role-playing game is really so impenetrable that some feel it necessary to make statements like, "Getting involved in gaming can sometimes feel like trying to join a secret society."(5); or is it merely that the hobby, read the role-playing game itself, has evolved to the point that it now encompass not a single type of game but rather games of a type.  Thus leaving hobbyists racing to catch up with the realization.

Certainly that was the case when Fantasy Wargamming was published.  The facts loudly declare themselves in the terminology employed.  It is, yet isn't, role-playing jargon.  But this is only because the book was written during the developmental infancy of the role-playing game.  Yet it is the peculiar jargon that readily identifies a game.  Poker has it's full houses, but use the word "houses" in reference to Monopoly and the meaning shifts dramatically.

Which leads us to the eternal question. . .


What is a role-playing game?

In short game play was, and remains, strictly defined by the sorts of character that you are playing.  Or rather the archetypal "persona" which you are going to be slipping into during the game.  The actual style of play wasn't so important in those early days as was the rules of play, however this has since changed somewhat.  Of course the biggest problem in the early days of FRP games was in getting gamers to understand the difference between "player knowledge" and "character knowledge", thus the IC (In Character) and OOC (Out of Character) short hand often seen in discussions of game play, which is perhaps how the larger debate of "gaming styles" truly began.

Once the distinction was made it opened the doors to debate about how the game should be played.  Ah, but where a game is concerned, can there really be a right or wrong method of play?  After all don't the rules themselves tell you all you need to know?  Well a game is a game, true, but what is called soccer in America is football in Europe.

Over time the terminology used by those debating the perceived differences has changed.  Once the distinction was summed up as the difference between "roll" and "role" gaming, but no one would think to use those terms today.  Of course as the role-playing hobby evolves so, too, will the terminology used to describe it.  Something to consider when thinking about the games we know and love.

Early FRP games existed in a simpler time.  A time before minimalist rules and storyteller systems.  A time before CCGs.  A time before debates about whether diceless or generic rules systems were better than systems that used one sort of dice type over another, or which might be set in specific genre milieu.  Thus those early FRP games could all too simplistically mark this distinction as being between whether or not a Game Master or gaming group stressed table top "roll play" over dramatic "role playing".  Alas times have changed since the early days of FRP gaming.  Not because role-playing is not a clear cut gaming form, but rather because it provides such a dynamic background of possible modes of play that every group eventually develops their own unique styles of play.  Styles of play that are all equally valid, styles of play that confuse and confound many novice gamers.  Even so what feels right is usually based upon the rules of play, as the players understand them, and how they want to use them, right?  

Next Installment -> Of Stratagems and Theorems Maligned