Semi-RPGs?

[DevP]

(Thanks to Mike for his major, major review work.)

So plenty of games picked up aspects of the MLwM/finite-options vibe. Mine certainly did, even if it happened subconsciously. The very notion of this pre-structured narrative is just very appealing. Because...

(1) The "finite rpg" ideas are very liberating, in that limits are providing borders, you can "hardcode" the narrative tropes into the story, etc. MLwM endgames end perfectly, properly, because they're supposed to end that way and can only end that way.

(2) Maybe, just maybe, it seems easier to build towards? To some extent, you could try to take story type X, break it into events/stages a-f, and create some unified economy to push it through the stages into a final genre-appropriate ending. Color to taste, and you just might have genre emulation.

(3) More casual play? (GNS + tremendous speculation ahead.) Ron's essays suggest that Nar and Gam play are more "intuitive" to non-gamers than Sim play. Moreover, Nar + Gam designs often push towards Pawn or Author stance, giving the player some distance from his character, whereas the meat of Sim, the Dream, often relies on Actor stance, and getting "into your character" in a way that is often intense. I love the Dream, but I also would understand that, if I was explaining RPGs to a totally vanilla n00b, "we tell the story" and "we kick the ass" is easier to walk into that "we be this alter ego in a virtual world". Poker and Once Upon a Time are easier pickup games than most RPGs, and in this scale I would imagine being a certain RPGs, like NinjaBurger and MLwM, having better pickup (ad hoc) play value than HERO or Sorcerer.

I feel like there are more nuances to #3 that slipped my mind just now, but anyway...

(Now, MAJOR conjecture ahead.) So, I hope we don't have a single design meme get too strong or be a fad, but I was wondering about this spate of potentially short-form RPGs as a good thing. Many of the seemingly finite RPGs that Mike reviewed were described as being "potentially interesting, but lacking replayability".

Is that necessarily bad? Whereas many RPGs want investments of time in preparation or rule familiarity, there could be a parallel track of short-form finite RPGs working on a different economy of time/money. Instead of renting a movie, you pick up someone's latest short-form RPG. Supposing that my semi-RPG about "Robot Greeks Losing Their Humanity" has no replayability, and gameplay is in fact focused on hammering a single Premise ("Are you more Greek or Robot?"), you've still enjoyed a 2 hour game and its narrative, all for free. Or $2. Or your zine subscription.

But more importantly, it's a different economy of time, or rather, it's for a different kind of gametime/experience. Thoughts?

[dalek_of_god]

I have to add a big "me too" to Dev's point. I think a lot of the semi (or finite) RPGs in Iron Game Chef were that way for a reason. In my game, I intentionally used MLwM as an inspiration - even though I've yet to actually buy or read that game. I needed limits and structure because I wanted a game that would be over in a few hours. That meant character creation had to be insanely fast, which definitely encourages Pawn stance - it's hard to care about plausibility for a character that you whipped up in 30 seconds.

As an aside, this thread has got me thinking about CCGs and the RPG market. I've heard that RPG sales dropped off severely after Magic became popular, and I know that my friends and I switched from getting together to play AD&D, Vampire or Cyberpunk to hanging out playing Magic. (Not anymore, the push to keep buying more cards to compete got irritating as we got older.) I think this had a lot to do with not wanting to spend the time required to plan and play a largely Sim RPG. It was just too much effort. I think there is a large untapped market for games that support fast, ad hoc planning and play. At least I've usually enjoyed short one-shot games more than long-term campaigns.

[Mike Holmes]

Jonathan,

That doesn't make them "not an RPG" it makes them a Semi-RPG. Which, as Miracle Max would say, means that it's only partly not a RPG. :-)

And, again, maybe we should trash the term, because people are already railing against it as pejorative. Note that Dev's game won first runner up, despite being a good example of the game.

My comments in the "complete" sections were just to note that replayability makes "more" of a game product for the person receiving it. There's nothing wrong with one-shot RPGs, and I have been an advocate of them for a long time people may note. For example, I've pointed out in the past how they are similar in scope to the "Host Your Own Murder Mystery" products, which retail for far more.

So, again, there's no "problem" with these games. I did deduct points if the game seemed to be so "semi-" as to hardly be a RPG any longer - case in point Dav's Treasure game which he's told me he made on a lark, and which I think he won't mind me beating up on. Sure, it might be a good game in some other sense (or maybe not), but I have to draw the line somewhere in order that I don't start getting handed boardgames that are completely not RPGs.

But as long as there's at least a little dedicated evidence that the game has moments that promote in-game characterizations and the like in a manner that indicated plausibility, then I have no problem calling a semi-RPG a RPG for purposes of the contest (FWIW). And, even if a game isn't a RPG, hell, I play more boardgames that most of y'all. All I've said here is that the extreme examples of these games might belong in another competition is all (or that maybe the designers might want to think a bit more about the more RPG elements).

Consider that some games are downgraded for not using the ingredients well. That doesn't make them bad games, it just makes them losers in my competition, which uses the ingredients to create constraints. Just because some games didn't win the competition doesn't mean that they aren't really good. I feel that I picked the best game in this case, but I can definitely see a competition where I'd be forced to pick other than the best game, because it stepped outside the boundaries of the competition.

Are we all clear on that? There's nothing wrong with Semi-RPGs or boardgames.

Mike

[quozl]

Face it, there is a negative perception of semi-RPGs among hardcore RPG players.  What I was trying to determine was where that line is between accepted RPGs and semi-RPGs.  Baron Munchausen is on that line.  Soap is on that line.  My Life With Master is generally regarded as an RPG but approaches that line for many RPG players.  Universalis is regarded by most RPG players as having crossed the line into semi-RPGs.

This thread was meant to explore why there is a line and what determines that line.  It seems that having pawn stance is a major criterion but I'm not sure it's the only one.  I know the line isn't important if you are trying to market your game to non-RPG players but it is extremely important if marketing to the hardcore RPG player.  This isn't an exercise in good/bad labeling.  It's defnition-delving so that more effective marketing can be explored.

[Mike Holmes]

To be clear, the Semi-RPG label that I came up with was only intended to enumerate the sort of game that we saw in the competition. Universalis crosses a completely different line in becoming a collaborative storytelling game. MLWM, is only vaguely a semi-RPG, as there are rules like the bonus dice where you get bonuses for role-playing in certain manners (in a plausibly in-game fasion, of course). I mean, it's a pretty wide infinity of choices that are involved with being Sincere.

As to negative perception, all you're talking about it preference. I've heard nobody say that Universalis or any of these games was a bad design, just some talk about them not being what they expect out of RPGs. That's just confirmation of the border, and, perhaps, a statement of preference.

I see no bias overall against these games. That The Forge is a site for RPGs, and that these might not be RPGs is a different matter.

Mike

[quozl]

Mike, I agree completely with your last post.

Now, can we examine why there is that perceived border between RPG and semi-RPG in the perception of most RPG players?

[pete_darby]

Mike, I agree completely with your last post.

Now, can we examine why there is that perceived border between RPG and semi-RPG in the perception of most RPG players?

Time to drag out one of my bugbears: convention.

Most RPG's follow the conventions set down in the original D&D (one player <=> one character, one GM runs everything else and has a raft of other responsibilities, Characters are modelled with numerical statistics, task resolution not conflict resolution... heck look up any number of standard rants).

So, whenever a game moves away from these conventions, it gets marked down as "odd" and "not a proper RPG" by players of conventional RPG's.

[contracycle]

A potential role for semi-RPG's is that of sub-RPG, by which I mean a component of a broader system that is itself an RPG.  Possibly, several semi/sub-RPG's linked together.  I say this becuase it seems increasingly to me that most extant combat systems are themselves only semi-RPG's; that is, the degree of Pawn stance required is so high that it almost becomes boardgame-like.  Some RPG's have half gone their with their vehicular combat systems, I suspect.

Dungeoneer, and Thomas Denmarks thread on the forge a little while ago on Finite RPG's might also be wortth considering in this light.

[Mike Holmes]

I've always agreed with the notion that specialized combat systems and the like are "semi-RPG-subgames".

This is why I like HQ. In generalizing all conflicts to one system, the only limiter at all is that of conflict whatever you can make that to mean. Which is a far greater infinity than the combat infinity in many systems. Not saying it's better for everyone, just that I like my RPGs to be RPGs, and my boardgames to be boardgames. Since I do both, I don't feel a huge need to mix the two.

But it's definitely doable.

I don't want to sound like I'm making a circular argument, but it's the Pawn stance that bugs most RPG players, Jonathan. When somebody does end up doing something implausible, because they're treating their character as a pawn, that makes many RPG players furious. That basic level of exploration is having it's floor dropped out. We feel that we're no longer exploring another world, but "just" playing a game.

Mike

[Nathan P.]

Re: The line between RPG and semi-RPG, and why RPGamers seem to look down on things like one-shots or other semi-RPGs

Here's a line of thought this thread sparked in my little brain.

I, personally, would feel kind of wierd playing a "one-shot RPG". Why? Because it's been hardwired into my brain by years of "campaigns" and "chronicles" that a RPG is meant to be played for a long time. It's supposed to be an investment that gives me a return, which it does by being long and, in many ways, neverending. In my brain, there is no finite endpoint to a RPG. To me, this is what a RPG is. A boardgame is meant to be played a couple times, a CCG is meant to be a series of shortish games whenever I want, and an RPG is meant to be a long-term time investment.

Now, I'm trying to break out of this mindset. Really hard, especially in my game design. But it's difficult, because I have all this background telling me what a RPG requires in terms of time investment. I feel like this is how a lot of gamers are.

The line, it seems to me, is how much time I expect to invest in playing a game. If it's a longterm thing, its a RPG. If I'm only going to play it a couple times, and if the entire game can be played through in a night, I view it as...something else.

This is kind of how I'm feeling about Mr. Aidleys Great Ork Gods. It looks like a blast, and I'd love to play it some time when I actually have a night free, but I'm not gonna present it to my buddys as I would a game of Adventure!. In fact, I would love to play that with my friends who aren't gamers, both to introduce them to a large part of my life, and just to have some fun.

To me, its a...I dunno. I don't like the "semi-RPG" label either, it just seems awkward, as if the game is somehow incomplete, which it definitely is not. I can't think of a good term that captures the slot I think these kinds of games fit into the RPG spectrum. Anyway...

Point? Things like, for lack of a better phrase, semi-RPGs are better marketed as "icebreakers" to bring people into the hobby, or as something like boardgames-without-the-board, an evenings entertainment, though not necessarity designed as such. I wouldn't expect them to appeal to hardcore gamers, for the most part, because, as Mr. Darby mentioned, gamers are steeped in the D&D paradigm, which includes this time investment thing.

[John Kim]

I think a lot of the semi (or finite) RPGs in Iron Game Chef were that way for a reason. In my game, I intentionally used MLwM as an inspiration - even though I've yet to actually buy or read that game. I needed limits and structure because I wanted a game that would be over in a few hours. That meant character creation had to be insanely fast, which definitely encourages Pawn stance - it's hard to care about plausibility for a character that you whipped up in 30 seconds.  
...
I think there is a large untapped market for games that support fast, ad hoc planning and play. At least I've usually enjoyed short one-shot games more than long-term campaigns.

I definitely prefer the term "finite RPGs" to "semi-RPGs", by the way.  Does anyone have better suggestions?  I agree that there isn't anything inherently bad about them, but I am concerned about some possible pitfalls -- particularly if so many designs fall into this pattern.  This has the potential to be a fad rather than a reasoned pattern of design.

[*] I consider it highly questionable to be inspired by a game which one has never played.  Design should be informed and guided by actual play.
[*] If one is going to make a short-term and quick-play RPG, why does it need to have a character creation system at all?  You can just have pregenerated characters.  This seems like a sacred cow of sorts -- i.e. an RPG has to have character creation as a required step.  
[*] If you're going to design for a one-shot, I think it makes sense to be scenario-based as well as including pregenerated PCs.  For example, I think my mystery game http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/murder/business.html">The Business of Murder can be viewed as a one-shot RPG.  [/list:u]

[contracycle]

[*] If one is going to make a short-term and quick-play RPG, why does it need to have a character creation system at all?  You can just have pregenerated characters.  This seems like a sacred cow of sorts -- i.e. an RPG has to have character creation as a required step.  

I don't see it quite that way... as I would see the purpose of designing finite sub-games would be to interact with one another.  That is, character generation might be a game, and combat might be a different game, and the rules would include governing how one takes outputs from the chargen-game into the combat-game, and how one feeds back the other way.

[*] If you're going to design for a one-shot, I think it makes sense to be scenario-based as well as including pregenerated PCs.  For example, I think my mystery game can be viewed as a one-shot RPG.  [/list]

I agree, but one-shot RPG's are not, at least, the reason I am interested in the concept of finite games.  I want to build a non-finite, fairly conventional RPG that employs sub-games in the places that conventional RPG's would have employed combat systems, spell lists and table lookups.

[dalek_of_god]

I consider it highly questionable to be inspired by a game which one has never played. Design should be informed and guided by actual play.

In designing Habakkuk I wasn't inspired by MLwM itself, but rather by a review of it that pointed out how the mechanic of limiting the types of stories a game could tell allowed the designer to free up the types of actions characters could take in telling them. That's probably an even more questionable source of inspiration, but it did get me thinking in a different direction. I agree that design should (must) be guided by actual play, but I feel that the Forge is an excellent example of the fact the the actual play in question can sometimes be other peoples. The important thing is for someone to play the game and provide feedback to the designer.

As for character creation systems in a one-shot game, they provide part of the infinite character options a RPG seems to require. A highly structured game with finite play options would have vastly different play with pregenerated characters. A simple character creation system allows for player input into the narrative. With Habakkuk the only way to replay the game at all would be with different characters. The narrative framework doesn't allow for different types of stories, only different protagonists.

[quozl]

It looks like we have another criterion of the line between RPGs and semi-RPGs -- "one-shot" RPGs.

Are "one-shots" RPGs that are designed to only play once, like the name implies, or is there another defnition that people are using?

[Lxndr]

I consider it highly questionable to be inspired by a game which one has never played.  Design should be informed and guided by actual play.

Game design definitely should be informed and guided by actual play (at the VERY least, play of the game in question, and hopefully play of other games as well).  

But inspiration for that design can (and should) come from anywhere - roleplaying games one has played, roleplaying games one has seen others play (either live, or through Actual Play posts/reviews), roleplaying games one has only witnessed and/or read, games with no roleplaying element (poker, roulette, craps, monopoly, chess, backgammon, go), and, of course, things that aren't games at all (economic theory, music, the color wheel, the culinary arts, television shows, movies, literature, etc.).  

That's what makes inspiration so great as a tool.  Personally, I wouldn't consider a game suspect simply because the designer was inspired by descriptions of a game he had not played.  There's still that 99% perspiration clause.