Early role-playing (split)

[Mike Holmes]

Not so much looking for the basic draw, but the (presumably) large reward for overcoming the work load.

That's what I'm talking about. You look at the game, and see, "Gee, I kinda get to be one of these cool characters in this alternate world, and tell their story. That rocks!" What the Big Model calls Exploration - which is unique to RPGs IMO (I think it's definitive, in fact). And you put in as much effort as you need to in order to be able to do it.

I don't know about you, but the basic draw of RPGs is like crack cocaine to me. I could no more easily give up playing them than cut of my own left arm. And I felt that way after playing in my very first game. I can remember it like it was yesterday, that's how powerful my first encounter with RPGs was. I remember going from room to room killing monsters and taking their stuff, and thinking that this was more fun than anything I'd ever done before. Despite the fact that it wasn't really particularly well run, and my cousin running the game had to cobble it together from bits of other games (the hexmap was from a WWII aircraft carrier game, your piece was just a bit of paper with your name on it, you rolled up your entire character by rolling 3d6 - scrounged from some other game - and consulting a chart that my cousin made to see which whole character you got). That is, I saw right then and there how complicated, and effort-laden playing was. But after that first game, it didn't matter what I had to do to get that reward, short of killing folks or so, I was going to do it.

I think for those people who did it reading the book, it was simply a matter of finding it as compelling as I did just reading the book, combined with a personality that finds such "work" kinda fun. Again, I had already designed games from scratch so I was clearly not put off by the effort required in any way. Again, you see that in most RPG gamers, I think.  

Yes, the ratio of effort to play is lower than in other activities in these cases. But, first, I don't think it's as low as you're making it out to be, and, second, again, it's just worth it.

If you don't see how it was worth it, then I'm not seeing how you got started. I mean, even if you were taught to play, and the games were the best RPGs sessions out there, the effort to play ratio is still higher in RPGs than in most other activities out there. The simple answer is that there's something about RPGs that we (well some of us anyhow) find compelling - getting to explore. Seems pretty simple to me.

Mike

[ffilz]

Mike, good insight on the compelling nature of RPGs. I haven't quite put my finger on it, but there is something I get from RPGs that I get from no other activity I participate in. I think part of it for me though is actually that work of coming to grips with the system (and eventually realizing that system isn't just the written rules, but covers all the unwritten rules, whether they be part of the social contract or just "this is how you do it" bits).

I know I access bits of the experience from other activities, but never as a whole. Programming accesses the tinkering, puzzle solving, and technical creativity bits. Building with LEGO accesses the imagination creativity and the visual and tactile senses. Listening to music accesses the sense of hearing. Going to church or a LEGO convention accesses the group socialization bits.

Hmm, so is that all of it? That RPG is interractive creativity that includes technical creativity and imagination creativity, along with engagement of the senses (and would RPG be enhanced if we purposefully engaged the senses of smell and taste?).

Frank

[Callan S.]

That's what I'm talking about. You look at the game, and see, "Gee, I kinda get to be one of these cool characters in this alternate world, and tell their story. That rocks!"

Emphasis mine.

But isn't this logic circular?

"I get to be in this game world!"
"How does the game facilitate you getting there?"
"With these rules!"
"The ones your making up?"
"Yes!"
"So how does the game facilitate you getting into the game world?"
"With these rules!"

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing with you by pointing out the circular logic. If it is circular logic like this, it's like a magicians illusion to early roleplayers and useful for it. I'd like to know how to replicate it with adults. Whacha think?

The simple answer is that there's something about RPGs that we (well some of us anyhow) find compelling - getting to explore. Seems pretty simple to me.

No, you don't get me. I'm not saying it's not fun enough...I'm trying to quantify what is fun about it (and mentioning the workload to indicate this opposing reward must be there in counterbalance to it). Then I can bottle the stuff so to speak.

Actually, here's a thought: Does the workload only appear latter? I mean, think about it, your a newbie player...the GM can tell you anything and you'll go with it. There isn't much workload in him just telling you anything that comes to mind.

But latter, in keeping consistant with previous statements, and previous world creation, the workload starts to creep in. But by then your hooked. But on the other hand, what hooked you wasn't the same sort of thing/same workload as now. Whatcha think?

[SicaVolate]

Hello. I read this thread and found it so interesting that I had to register and reply.

When I was about 12-13 one of my friend's older brothers introduced us all to Dungeons and Dragons. We watched one of his games, he explained the rules to us and we made up characters for a game DM'ed by his little brother. We got most stuff "right", as it were, but we mostly just steamrolled over the rules in the name of speed and/or action movie heroism.

When we had some question about a THAC0 or some other statistic, we'd quickly thumb through the PHM and DMG, find the number, and move on. We'd never actually read the rules front to back because we all kind of knew how it was played.

One of our players brought a copy of Shadowrun to one of our games, and as soon as I had flipped through the background section and looked at all the pictures I knew I wanted our group to run a Shadowrun game. I could have a character that was not just a wizard, but also a cyborg? That's like twice as good! And he could probably even be a ninja to boot! I immediately started convincing the other players to make some characters, but our DM was nonplussed. He said he'd look at the rules.

Next Monday at school, he told me the rules were too screwed up to use. He explained that every character, regardless of stats, only had 10 hit points. Even trolls! And a regular old pistol did 9 damage, no die roll attached! Crazy!

I told him he was nuts and asked him for the book. He had it with him, and he opened it up to show me the offending sections. Sure enough, the character sheet only had ten check boxes for hit points, ending in death. He flipped to the equipment table. The damage code for the standard pistol read 9M. Puzzled at the bizarre rules system, I reluctantly agreed that this Shadowrun thing wasn't very good.

We didn't think to actually read the combat section. After all, we already knew how to play a role playing game.

[Mike Holmes]

Callan,

First, your argument would assume that everyone who learned to play had to make up all of the rules themselves. They didn't, they mostly went from the book. Yes that includes interpretation of the rules, but that's true for every activity in the world. So RPGs aren't really all that different than anything else. Yes, somewhat more effort to get them to go, but not too much. In any case, without the rules to get the idea into one's head to actually play an RPG, it doesn't happen. Oh, sure people did interactive storytelling and such before RPGs, but not quite the same thing.

The rules are attractive, because they give us a structure in which to do the exploration.

Second, I've said repeatedly that it's the Exploration that's fun, so you must be asking why exploration is fun? Yes? Because if not, I'm confused. I keep answering your question, and you keep insisting that I haven't. Getting to explore is, I think, the reward that keeps us coming back.

Rewards, and why we want rewards are two different things. Money is a reward, but just because it's a reward for most doesn't mean that you know why people want it automatically. Why do people want Exploration? Well, there are about as many reasons for that, I suspect, as why people want money. Some possibilities:

*It gives them a sense of wonder
*It feels freeing
*It's an interesting way to employ the imagination
*It gives the brain a workout
*It's inspirational for some other activity like writing

I could go on and on, I think. Like most things to do with motive, most people are blissfully unaware of why they like what they like. Further, you can chase any motive back into complete obscurity if you like. Why does one person like to work their brian out? Because it makes them function better. Why do they want to function better? Because it makes their lives easier. Why do they want their lives to be easier? Because they don't like stress. Why don't they like stress? Because it makes them feel bad. Why don't they want to feel bad?

Because nobody likes to feel bad.

I mean, what's the point here? People play RPGs for the exploration. Why doesn't that suffice? What deeper digging is going to come up with something you can bottle?

Mike

[Vaxalon]

If you cut open the goose, you won't find gold there.

[Callan S.]

Hi SicaVolate, welcome to the Forge!

It's interesting how assumption can come first, system wise. Have you ever read The riddle of steel? I've read a few reviews for it where the writer basically ditched a major component of how combat works, and then wrote a scathing review of the game despite having not really played it.


Mike,

I'm not arguing with the appeal of exploration. When I brought up circular logic, I mean these early roleplayers aren't exploring the material provided...they are making up stuff, but then exploring it as if it is the game.

From the examples here, they aren't making up stuff like having +2 instead of +1. They replace pivotal rules like how to hit or such like (pivotal for combat centered games, anyway). It's like gutting SA's from TROS...your not really exploring TROS without the SA's, you've basically made a different game. Sure, lots of the same rules...but the way it'll work out is a lot different. From examples in this thread, these new roleplayers replace core elements of the system but then go on to play as if the game is great, rather than their creation is great.

If many of the rules aren't a feature of play (since the comprehension of the main rules and actual use are low, I assume they aren't), what is? Much like tacking on a combat system despite the games intent, what other traditions do we include in RPG design, despite what actually interests a begining user? They obviously like something in those pages, but they aren't actually using all sections. Why? Sure they like exploration, but that's not helping to find what's important in those pages and what was just added on because 'that's what you have in an RPG'.

[Mike Holmes]

Let me try to paraphrase what you're saying, because I may still have it wrong. It sounds like you may be saying that certain players alter rule X, and others rule Y, so at the heart of what makes RPGs interesting can't be X or Y, it must be that which never gets excised?

But that's a fallacy. Maybe you excise X. And I excise Y. But I play for X specifically, and you play for Y specifically. So then we have to say that what is "Core" to RPGs is different to each player. And given that the alterations here are all different, and that we have no reason to suggest that there's any one thing that doesn't get excised, then we can't make any generalizations at all.

In fact, you'll find that after playing for a while, there's a certain kind of player who throws out "all" of the rules. The freeformer decides that all of the RPG structure is "bad." But what are they left with?

Exploration. It's the only commonality that's never jettisoned. It's the core of what people play for. Absolutely everything else about RPGs, CA, techniques, settings, everything can be jettisoned, and you can still be playing a RPG. The point at which you say that you no longer want to explore, that's where you have decided to play Monopoly or something again, and are no longer playing RPGs.

So, again, if the question is, "What is it that all RPG players have in common that they desire, that keeps them playing no matter the problem in potentially any other part of the game?" The answer is RPGs. If the question is, "Beyond exploration, what is it individual players get from RPGs that's what attracted them to game X that they altered?" there are a million answers.

Are you looking for some of those million answers? Because we have those, too. Challenge, for example. Story for another. Etc.

This seems to be yet another of those times that you're looking for something between A and B where I'm not seeing a definition of what you're looking for that's not A or B.

Mike