Why adventure at all?

[TonyLB]

Most RPGs you will ever find have two elements:  Adventure and Kewl Powerz.  Even games that clearly do not focus on such things most often include them.

White Wolf's various games (particularly Vampire) are totally classic examples of this:  Many people play them because they want to play depressed, angsty nobles who abuse each other and the peons under them.  And yet, the same people aren't happy playing a conflict-laden medieval court, where nobody has exceptional abilities (except their rank) and no threat enters from the outside to disturb the dysfunction.

Yes, I'm sure there are many exceptions, but we have not seen any huge financial support for a "Lion in Winter" RPG, for instance.  I'm going to assume that the market as a whole isn't drop-dead stupid.  There's a reason for these things, apart from history and laziness.  I have theories.

Kant's Categorial Imperative

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.

What Kant basically says is that there are no exceptions.  It's not okay for you (for instance) to sneak into somebody's room and rifle through their belongings unless it's alright for everybody to sneak into each other's rooms and rifle through their belongings.

Players want the freedom to do lots of things.  In many ways their characters are inherently sociopathic, because society often restricts choice down to just one single possibility, and that level of restriction destroys... oh, just about every CA.  It's not fun.  So they want to be exceptions.  Therefore they require exceptional circumstances, to justify (for their characters) the needs of an exciting game (for the players).

Or, to boil that down:  It's not okay for everyone to kill things and loot their bodies.  That's why adventurers seek out dark dungeons full of unholy fiends.  And it's not okay for everyone to wander into deadly dungeons full of unholy fiends.  That's why adventurers are the best of the best, great heroes set aside from the normal run of humanity.

[Andrew Morris]

Tony, what are you looking for here? I'm not sure what the focus of this thread is. Are you saying that RPGs should have adventure and "kewl powerz?" Or that they shouldn't? Or are you questioning whether or not that's really the way it is? Or something else?

[TonyLB]

Given that the vast majority of RPGs do have kewl powerz and adventure, I am trying to figure out what purpose or purposes they serve.

I don't, for instance, see them directly contributing to the address of CA very often.  My Life with Master would totally still address its premise if there were no Less than Human or More than Human.  But it would be a different (and, I suspect, a diminished) game.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Given that the vast majority of RPGs do have kewl powerz and adventure, I am trying to figure out what purpose or purposes they serve.

I don't, for instance, see them directly contributing to the address of CA very often.  My Life with Master would totally still address its premise if there were no Less than Human or More than Human.  But it would be a different (and, I suspect, a diminished) game.

Well, for Gamists I believe Kewl Powerz do directly contribute to the addressing of a CA.  Their style of play is about risk, strategy, and courage in crunch time.  Having Kewl Powerz is one way (not the only way) to accomplish all three of those things- both for players and GMs.  

Peace,

-Troy

[TonyLB]

Why is firing a lightning bolt more Gamist than throwing a plate of jello in a carefully strategized, risk-laden food fight?

I'm not saying it isn't.  But if it is, then why?

[Eve]

I guess RPGs are a way out of every day's life. They are a way to do things we normally cannot do or won't do for one reason or an other. Two of the major things we don't have normally are those kewl powerz and adventures. But also games about 'special ordinary' things exist, like Breaking the ice (though I have to confess I don't have any experience with that game). Perhaps they stress this point even stronger: in order to find a way out of dayly life, there must be a great difference.

Or another real life example: I'd like to play our frustration with a group of students, leading their kind of protected lives, complaining about things as the government slowly breaking down the educational system (and social security, public transport, the environment, etc). This group could just be me and of my friends, playing ourselves. So why do I want to play this "daily life"? Well, for one time only maybe they DO fight. (again an important difference)

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Why is firing a lightning bolt more Gamist than throwing a plate of jello in a carefully strategized, risk-laden food fight?

I'm not saying it isn't.  But if it is, then why?

I never suggested lightning was more Gamist than jello. :)  I simply stated that Kewl Powerz is one way Gamists can address their CA.  You origonally wrote:

I don't, for instance, see them directly contributing to the address of CA very often.

And I say I do when I look at many Gamists games especially and including DnD3e.  Now I could envision a Sim game of Superheroes examining what it would be like in New York City if a couple super powered heroes showed.  And I could see a Narrativist game where super powered heroes must examine the choice to either use their powers to help others or further their own agendas.

But really, super powers are fun.  That's why many games have them.  I wouldn't contend they are necessary for fun, but it's hard to deny that having them is really cool :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Remko]

Tony...

Perhaps a useful quote of one of my players:

I want to have other powers. Why should I allways play someone who is weak or human? Then I'm just leading my normal life. I want to be able to do stuff normally isn't possible.

A lot of people want to use RPG's to escape from daily live. Kewl Powers is simply one of those ways to feel special. Adventure is also such a thing, although I must say that with eg MLwM you cannot really speak of adventuring...

[Victor Gijsbers]

Leaving Kant's categorical imperative for what it is (I personally detest Kant as an ethicist, with a deep and profound loathing), I am nevertheless intrigued by your suggestion that we want our characters to be exceptional so that we can let them do exceptional things. Let me just offer some theories why this would appeal to us.

1. Escape responsibility. If the characters are exceptional and are allowed - or even forced - to act in certain ways we would normally classify as 'immoral', the players do not have to take full responsibility for these actions. We kill everyone we meet? Sure, but that's because we're in a dungeon! To be fair, I don't think this reason is very important.

2. Create meaningful decisions. The greater the impact of your decisions, the greater their weight, their import, their meaning. If you are the only one who can defeat the orcs, then whether you succeed or not actually matters. If anyone has the same chance as you, your character is not central to what is happening in the story world, and therefore not very interesting as a protagonist. I think this is a very important reason. Now, it is obvious that one can play a protagonist without special powers - Breaking the Ice is a very clear example - but this may be harder to design.

3. Intrinsic fun. Sure, faery tales, superpowers an whatnot are simply fun. We delight in hearing stories about the impossible, the fantastic and the exceptional, and exceptional characters fit neatly into this enjoyment.

[Andrew Norris]

I've been wondering about these questions as well, as I'm wrapping up a Sorcerer campaign where the players have tried to get as far from "cool powers" as possible. (We never had any "adventuring".)

The closest we've gotten to a power fantasy is our most pop-culture player enjoying the fact that her actress character is married to the game world's Russell Crowe analog.

We have a fair amount of sorcery in the game, but mostly it's been a convenient shorthand for letting characters trip themselves up in their frustrated desires. If I were to do it over, it'd have been just as easy for the junior professor to blackmail his department head with research rather than Hint, or for the aspiring pro wrestler to turn to steroids rather than Boost.

Okay, we do have one PC with a katana that gives him superpowers. But it's turned out to be far less important than the fact that he's an obsessive medical student who uses expensive clothes and formal etiquette to cover for his total lack of confidence in social situations. (Take the sword away, and two scenes in the entire campaign change.)

I will admit that "cool powers" were a convenient hook to grab the group's interest. As it turned out, though, I didn't need them: We decided up front the game would be about crossing lines to fulfill your desires, and that's been the focus. As it turned out in play, though, neither the experienced roleplayers nor the newcomers wanted to use the supernatural to make things easier, just to introduce additional difficulties.

If there was a "We're different" hook that applied to the characters, it was uniformly "We're damaged people who are all in danger of drifting into sociopathy." There is some escapism there, but nobody wishes they were their character, that's for damn sure. If anything, we'll consider it a win if those characters come out of the campaign more like us.

[TonyLB]

Yeah, it's examples like Andrew's that undercut my ability to just casually accept that "powerz are fun" is the end of the discussion.  Powers are, indeed, fun.  But so are many other things.  In several of my Capes sessions the world-shaking powers at the disposal of every single character were left untouched because the emotional tangles on the table were so much more interesting.

So the notion that almost every RPG ever written has kewl powerz and adventure, and that's just because it's "fun" is sort of like saying "Well, pretending to be an elf or a dwarf is fun... so it's no surprise that every RPG ever created is in a tolkien fantasy setting."  

Imagine that world for a moment.  No non-fantasy RPGs, at all.

From the point of view of us, people who have seen different types of fun (modern-day, sci-fi, horror, old west, etc., etc.) the world where every RPG was Tolkien would seem flat and unnecessarily restricted.

So, now, imagine our current world:  No RPGs of plain human drama.  No romantic comedy RPGs.  No Columbo or Agatha Christie murder-mystery RPGs.  No Shakespearean tragedy RPGs.  Just action, in its various denominations.  That seems flat and restricted.  I'm not ready, though, to say that it is unnecessarily restricted.  Exceptional characters in life-threatening situations clearly serves a purpose above and beyond "It's fun."


Victor:  Your statement that an unimportant character isn't an interesting character resonates with me, and strikes me as very strange, all at the same time.

I've certainly felt it in my own games.  But then, in many other forms of entertainment I've felt exactly the opposite.  Seriously, who do you value more as a protagonist in Futurama:  Zapf Brannigan, who has all the power to change the world, or his oppressed sidekick Kiff who has no power whatsoever?  For my money, Kiff is the more interesting and entertaining of the two characters.

I definitely agree that it's hard to have fun playing such a character in an RPG, though.  So... why?  What is it that the power and meaning contribute to fun in RPGs that isn't necessary in (say) television?

[Alan]

I have a few thoughts on why rpgs are fantasies about characters with larger than life powers in larger than life situations.

1) Fantasy events are insubstantial.  By portraying larger than life we may well be amplifying the fantasy so it is more meaningful to the real people.

2) In fiction, events and characters are often arranged with unique traits in order to highlight a particular theme.  Same for RPGs?

3) This month's Discover has an article on how computer games engage the human desire for challenge, clear cut decisions and reward.  I think this same mechanism appears in RPG play.  Larger than life situations and characters may well allow the challenge, choices, and rewards to be clearer.

[Callan S.]

Why is firing a lightning bolt more Gamist than throwing a plate of jello in a carefully strategized, risk-laden food fight?

I'm not saying it isn't.  But if it is, then why?

Hi Tony,

Remember foreshadowing? How in a movie, if a gun is shown near the start, you can bet it gets used near the end? In fact, you start asking yourself who it'll get used on.

In RPG's, kewl powers ask questions. If you can throw a lightening bolt, it immediately asks 'who are you going to throw this sizzling dose of electricity at?'

Jello just isn't as evocative. You can't imaginine it resolving something like a gun or lightening bolt can. In a food fight, I can be as strategic as I like, but what's the end resolution? Someones a bit more messy? What if I shoot them with a gun!?

Both can be mathematically the same, if making someone messy/making someone dead are worth a point each. But for exploration purposes, the latter asks more questions of the player.

[Bankuei]

Hi Tony,

Kewl Powerz are popular because they fulfill adolescent wish fulfillment, both in terms of control over one's life as well as a self esteem boost in being special.  You'll find a similar kick for fashion and wealth in romances, for ballistics in gun magazines, "elite warriorship" in martial arts, great holy wisdom in religion, etc. etc.

Rpgs happened to key in on the fantasy/sci-fi/comic book crowd and for the most part, have stayed firmly there.

Chris

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Tony Wrote:

Powers are, indeed, fun. But so are many other things.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that Powers are the only things that are fun, the only way to explore characters, or the only way to engage a CA.  I think everyone is in agreement that they are necessary for a game, but they indeed fun no matter how you slice it.  A game can function great with them or it can function great without them.  I think that I'm becoming unclear on exactly what your argument is.  Could you clarify for me real fast? :)

Peace,

-Troy