Design Theories behind Action RPG's

[F. Scott Banks]

While not a fixture, I am ever a disciple of the design theories put forth here.  Mostly because my own means lie along the lines of exploiting the internet for community-based gaming, my theories and interpretations of existing theories tend to be "out there".  My current superproject (the D&D killer every little game designer dreams of making)...incorporating Narrativism into an online RPG...is going well thanks to the talented staff found here and the inoovative ideas, gentle guidance, and scathing criticism that I've been able to get.

Again, I have a question.

While pouring through the history of RPG's, I was captivated by the "Action" RPG.  Games broken down into acts and scenes with narration and such minimized to make room for the genre's core gameplay element....action.  Most of these games take their inspiration from movies or comic books and all of them center on the fights, battles, and overall "cool stuff" that characters do to one another.  One of my partners even has a game that personifes this genre quite well (only now does that occur to me...prolly coulda just asked him).

Anyway, what are the core elements of this particular type of RPG?  I could always cannibalize an existing system and ta-da...kickass combat module, but there are genuine gameplay elements there and I would rather expand upon an good idea than reduce it to it's most useful crunchy bits and discard the rest.

P.S.  On an unrelated note, any good ideas for the title of a fantasy kung-fu RPG?

[Alan]

I've never heard of an "Action" rpg.  Can you give a link to the source?

[F. Scott Banks]

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html#cinematic

Here it is...the link describing what I've been calling an "Action" RPG.  I guess the proper term is "cinematic".

[ghoyle1]

P.S.  On an unrelated note, any good ideas for the title of a fantasy kung-fu RPG?

Kicking the Dragon

Guy (Hoyle)

[Alan]

I think you've already identified the core elements of these games:
1) framing directly to the action
2) rules that support and reward the kind of action desired

Past that, I think the list of cinematic games on John's page range from simulationist-supporting to gamist-supporting. To proceed further, I think you need to choose either sim or gamist CA to aim for.  Then you can start thinking about what combinations of techniques best support what you want.

Do you want players to recreate some ideal of, say, kung fu action movies, or would you like to give them chances to risk their standing and skill as players?  While you can have elements of both, in the crunch--if you want an experience consistently reproducable from group to group--one always has to dominate.

[Shreyas Sampat]

To proceed further, I think you need to choose either sim or gamist CA to aim for.

I strongly disagree with this statement, but otherwise, Alan is asking very useful questions.

[Josh Roby]

I think you've already identified the core elements of these games:
1) framing directly to the action
2) rules that support and reward the kind of action desired

I'd suggest explicitly giving the players the scene-framing powers, and/or allowing players to fiat or spend currency to make convenient props accessible to their characters.  It's not an action sequence if the hero doesn't use the set to take out the badguys (swinging from chandeliers, impaling on spikes, throwing off cliffs, et cetera).  In fact, I can see an entire effectiveness-reward system that's all about exploiting the environment rather than merely using character abilities.

While you can have elements of both, in the crunch--if you want an experience consistently reproducable from group to group--one always has to dominate.

Hogwash.  If you want an Action game, focus on recreating Action.  Don't worry about which flavor of play you're supporting; as long as you hit your target -- Action -- you'll have succeeded in your attempt.

[F. Scott Banks]

I'd imagine the focus of the game would revolve around the most creative use of scenery (kicking your own cigarette across the room to start a fire, pulling the ornate asian rug your opponent went to so much trouble to describe out from under him).

Perhaps each player describing the scene as well as they can, each adding a little something to the area (spending points for each potential weapon they add) and then they begin, rolling to see how many points that can allot to picking up and using those weapons (you spent ten points to put an ornate sword on the wall but until you roll a ten...you can't use it).

Basically diving the action between the setting (a mainstay in Action movies...no one ever gets their buts kicked in an empty parking lot...always some industrial park full of jagged metal) and the actual action...both playing upon the players storytelling ability to either create a beautiful scene, and then use that setting to beat their opponent.

We're talking a very quick, pick-up-and go RPG with the GM being more of a referee than anything and really...don't we owe it to GM's to make their lives a living hell.

So gameplay is forming into...

Roll for currency to put into setting
Set the scene
Duke it out
Referee applies or subtracts points until one of the players runs out of 'em.

So even though losing means you got beat to a pulp (storywise), actual gameplay rewards the more creative thinker who can weave scenes of cool ass-kickery upon his hapless foe.

[gsoylent]

Check out Wushu http://bayn.org/wushu/index.html for a modern, interesting take on the action-genre in rpgs.

[Josh Roby]

WyldKard, what happens to the game if players are specifically not allowed to use elements that they themselves put in the set -- they can only use the elements that other players put into the set?