We Need a Term

[Josh Roby]

We need a term (or do we already have a term?) for all of these compact little roleplaying games that come out to nothing more than a few pages.  They're usually specialized, narrow-focus games which are nonetheless really damn fun.  Commercial application is more or less infeasible, since few will pay for four pages of text.  I'm talking about Otherkind, Dungeonkind, two games we've been talking about here: The Order and Conquer the Horizon, and the like.  Stuff that gets released as a free pdf.

I am not by any means trying to imply that these games are inferior -- in fact, I think there's probably an art to desiging these games that is similar but not the same as writing a 'big' RPG.  It's like the difference between a short story and a novel.

Anyway, what do we call these things?  Mini-RPGs?  RPGlets?  Roleplaying Parlour Games?

[Graham W]

I rather like RPGlet. After "novelette".

[Jasper]

The term "mini-RPG" has been used by some.

[Jeph]

The No Press Anthology, a collection of 8 such games, calls them 'Short-Form RPGs.'

[Addix]

In France we often call those very short RPGs (or any kinds of games in general) aperitif-games (jeux apéritifs), since they are games you generally can learn and play faster than "regular" games.

[Keith Sears]

One term that might apply is a "microgame." These were applied to quick, complete games in a compact format.

[rickr]

That might be confusing to people who know "microgames" as "those little board games published by Metagaming / Steve Jackson Games over 20 years ago."

Why not borrow a description from fiction? There are stories, short stories, and short-short stories (Isaac Asimov wrote a book of good short-short science-fiction stories).

So... call them short-short RPGs, or "short-shorts" for short. :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My preference, for whatever it's worth, is to say that we do not need a new term. Instead, what I think is needed is to jettison any assumptions about the length, content, and appearance of a "real" or "full" RPG. The only metric for such terms is playability.

I can think of quite a few products which are very thick, hard-cover, beautifully illustrated, and otherwise physically "complete" which are not, in fact, playable without intense revision and interpretation. Compared with, say, Fastlane or Dust Devils, I know which end of that comparison I'd call an RPG and which end I wouldn't.

Best,
Ron

[Josh Roby]

The distinction between a microgame (my current favorite) and a traditional RPG would have some fallout significance, to my mind.  There's a certain art in expressing something in short-form rather than long-form, in choosing three highly evocative examplar details rather than explaining something in detail.  Microgames would focus a lot more on emergent rules, that is, rules whose simple structure create complexities that are not evident in the rules themselves, whereas traditional RPGs have the freedom to explicitly offer many options.  I mean, Puppetland and Riddle of Steel both produce functional game experience, but they go about them in totally different ways.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I have to break with Ron and concur that a good term is needed. Smaller-scope RPGs have a market that isn't the traditional RPG market (that is, it intersects, but isn't exclusive to) and so marketing them as such is a good idea. Short-story RPGs is a good start.

Me - I'm about to start using the term "artisan RPGs" instead of "independent RPGs," just because I like it.

[Bankuei]

Hi Josh,

Could you better define what qualities define this "class" of rpgs?  From your initial post, I'm seeing several different issues:

- page count
- cost (or commercial viability)
- focus in content

For example, some editions of OD&D would also have fit under this definition as well.

Chris

[Eero Tuovinen]

I disagree with the need of a new term. Or rather, I think you've misclassified the phenomenon: the crucial feature of the kind of games you cite is not the length of the rule-book, but rather the way the game approaches setting (and rules, to some degree). A good name for this kind of games describes this different approach to what the game should contain.

Think about it: all traditional games you wouldn't call mini-rpgs or whatever have a substantial setting and very unfocused rules. While all the games you would call mini-rpgs always go with minimal setting notes and only rules for the central activities of the game. You can only play these games in one way. Considering this, it's not very descriptive to call attention to the page count.

Thus, I suggest using three terms for three different kinds of games:
- Traditional: games where you can "do anything". Detailed setting, rules for all imaginable situations, huge combat section, tens of pages of equipment or spell lists.
- Focused: games like most Forge stuff. Focus on one way of playing, exclusion of ulterior concerns. Few setting details either because it's universal, or the setting is familiar from elsewhere, or because you're supposed to add any needed detail during play.
- Sketch: focused games that exclude any irrelevant and/or normal rules and play advice, attaining usually even shorter page counts than the Focused games. Only the central mechanics and the kernel of the game are left, enabling a player to bootstrap it into a whole game by filling the obvious himself.

Of course, calling games traditional, focused and sketch, while good English, won't ring any "cool new jargon" bells. So you might want to think up some suitably impressive special terms.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I invoke moderator right to totally take over this conversation.

What we're talking about are "closed-loop" RPGs, games with a definite plot/structure. Traditional RPGs are open-loop - you can play D&D forever and accomplish nothing in game. Same with almost everything else, including my own TSOY.

Closed-loop examples: The Mountain Witch, Breaking the Ice, City of Brass, Under the Bed, Polaris, My Life with Master

Open-loop: Sorcerer, TSOY, Champions, Burning Wheel, everything else

Interesting to note: Burning Wheel's Jihad supplement is almost a closed-loop system.

[Eero Tuovinen]

But Clinton, all of your examples are something that isn't within Joshua's definition at the beginning. He's talking about games that are just a couple of pages long, and usually free. They're pretty different from your examples, which are, I grant, closed-loop as you define it.

Not that I want to challenge your Moderator authority. Bow to the mods!

[Josh Roby]

I, who started the thread but do not have moderator rights, wanted a term for 'short-form' RPGs, the kind of game that you can write in a week or so (by 'write' I mean 'write, edit, playtest, maybe layout').  My focus is entirely page count and time spent in development.  I'm talking about the quickies that allow us to test concepts and see if something works in the space of a couple weeks rather than spending a couple months writing an entire book.  One of the reasons I want a term is because I think it might encourage more experimentation that yields experiential results, allows everyone at the Forge to play/test/break these things and see what can be seen.

While I think microgames are more likely to be 'focused' or 'closed-loop', Risus, which is a great microgame example that I should have used as a starting example, is most certainly open-loop.

Perhaps we need two sets of terms, one that deals in development time, production values, manufacturing requirements (microgame, minigame, long-form game) and another set that deals in terms of scope and focus (closed-loop, open-loop).  Maybe we should calve off a sister thread?

That said, Eero, I'd respectfully question whether you can "do anything" in Traditional games with their huge combat sections -- obviously there is some focus there, even if the scope is a bit broader.