Genre / roleplayability etc. (an example)

[Thierry Michel]

In a bout of insomnia, I cooked up an example to try illustrate my point about what subjects/genre/styles are appropriate for rpgs.

So, let's say we have two game ideas (as far as I know, none have already been taken but they're just examples anyways):

Idea A) The party, a ship crew in the XVIth century Mediterrannean sea, fights or make deals with barbaresque pirates, Malte knights, ottomans potentates, christians courts etc. The goal: survive, make money, get famous or die trying.

Idea B) The party, a group of Jesuit missionaries in XVIth century China,  tries to persuade or make deals with the emperor's court, local magistrates, peasants, western merchants etc. The goal: work for the glory of the Lord by infiltrating chinese society and converting the pagans or become martyrs.

The two are purposely pretty similar, with the traditonal party + GM  approach, "show don't tell", same time, same appeal (or lack of), one could even run the same characters in both.

Now, do you think both are equally good subjects for a rpg ?




[I expect that the answer is that (A) is better than (B)]

(Bonus point: I even managed to tie in the religion thread)

[Shreyas Sampat]

I wholly disagree...
I don't think it's meaningful to compare 'sketches' like these and try to compare if they're "roleplayable".

Heck, with a good system behind it, the strangers-in-a-strange land kind of feel of the second option you present is way more exciting-sounding than the first, which just sounds like another Renaissance pirate drama rehash.  Blah.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I find it funny that selected Jesuit missionaries in example B since I believe one of the more frequent posters here is a Jesuit. Not that I think any offense is meant on your part. I just find it odd. (And no offense is meant if I am remembering his religion incorrectly)

What seems to be bogging you down, Thierry, is confusing what would make a good RPG session in play and what would make a marketable product that is likely to sell or at least break even. From the angle of what would make a good game to play, both A and B are both potentially good ideas. If a particular game group is as jazzed up about playing missionaries as they are about playing knights (if more more jazzed about playing the missionaries) then why not? Who are we to judge what a group finds is fun to play? However, if theres are poducts you are planning to sell, well, market trends and all that other rot aside, it certainly seems like idea A has more market potential. (Although it could be argued that idea B may have better potential because there simply are not a many missionary RPGs out there)

This is, I think, where you're getting stuck or why you point is not coming across very well. A group could play Nonsense the RPG, a game were sense or rational though are check at the door and to an observer, it appears that the players are merely shouting random words and sounds, and it would still be a roleplayable game (albeit a silly example). But, would it sell? Even as a free download, would anyone download it? and after downloading, read it? and after reading, play it? Pretty much any concept is roleplayable and no idea is better than one from another. It is only from a distribution angle that one is more likely to be played by others than another.

[Thierry Michel]

I find it funny that selected Jesuit missionaries in example B

It's more or less an historical example (St Francis Xavier in Japan).

What seems to be bogging you down, Thierry, is confusing what would make a good RPG session in play and what would make a marketable product that is likely to sell or at least break even. From the angle of what would make a good game to play, both A and B are both potentially good ideas.

No, actually, I'm talking also about the play angle. I have no illusion about the market value of either A) or B) (if historical rpgs were money-making  we would already have seen many of them on more popular periods).

[Thierry Michel]

with a good system behind it, the strangers-in-a-strange land kind of feel of the second option you present is way more exciting-sounding than the first, which just sounds like another Renaissance pirate drama rehash

I share that sentiment, but I doubt it is possible to find "a good system" to represent that kind of story (this is in fact my point).

But I'd happy to be proven wrong and to find someday Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam !  in my local store.

[Matt Wilson]

I share that sentiment, but I doubt it is possible to find "a good system" to represent that kind of story (this is in fact my point).

Thierry,

What would such a system need in order to represent that kind of story? I think there are a bunch of systems that would work fine for option B, so I'm wondering why you think not.

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Thierry, welcome on board !

...what subjects/genre/styles are appropriate for rpgs.

I think that you need to define what you're meaning by these terms, because each can hold a variety of significations. And even that might not suffice.
Also, I think it would be nice to distinguish playability from enjoyableness. So is your question about the possibility to play such games or the fact that one might be more fun than the other ?

Waiting for your answers, I'll take a look at what we have so far.

About your exemples, why do you think that A would be better received than B ?
If you're looking toward playability and not the market angle, whereas genre A appeals more to the action, excitement and adventurous feel of gaiming ;genre B appeals more to the intrigue, political, and "discovery" side of the gaiming experience. It will still remains a matter of taste and personnal preference.
If that's what you're talking about, sure, there's a huge differance between the two setting as the playing expectations/experience seems wholly different.

I still fail to understand why genre/style X would be better suited to rpg than genre/style Y.

(I don't include subject because I think that's not a matter of an adaptation to rpg, but more of a group's interest business)

For the sake of exemple, one could argue that an epistolary rpg isn't an rpg at all. Then, how do we consider De Profundis ? We're back to the what is/isn't a rpg ?question.

My point here is that, even if rpg doesn't seems to be the most appropriate medium to render a particular genre/style/subject, it doesn't mean that 1) it's not feasible, 2) it's not a good idea and 3) it won't be a great game.

To sum up, I think you're encountering two problem here:
1- the lack of a consise definition of the terminology you're using
2- the fact that there are on these boards many people who refuse to discard "genre/style/..." because they seem hard or impossible to adapt to the rpg medium *

* here I think of the Pool by James West, Universalis by Mike Holmes and Ralph Mazza, De Profundis, Baron Munchausen, ...among many others.

Take care,

Fabrice.

[Thierry Michel]

I think there are a bunch of systems that would work fine for option B, so I'm wondering why you think not.

Well, that's the crux of the matter.

There are several things that make it unsuitable in my opinion:

* most of the dynamics are "internal". A conversion to catholicism is not something you play with a persuade roll (or several)  if you want to do the subject justice. So either it's GM fiat (and you'd need lots of GM advice anyway), or you have to think of a mechanic to represent people's beliefs

* the dramas unfolds slowly and continuously. Instead of short bursts of fighting scenes, you'd have things that take weeks or months to solve in game-time

* the players influence the action indirectly, and there's not much that they can do as a group.

(all of this could probably be summed up as:  no combat)

[Thierry Michel]

To sum up, I think you're encountering two problem here:
1- the lack of a consise definition of the terminology you're using

Agreed, and as you can see I'm still struggling with definitions.

2- the fact that there are on these boards many people who refuse to discard "genre/style/..." because they seem hard or impossible to adapt to the rpg medium *

Which is why I'm posting here, in fact. I hope to be proven wrong.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

... I doubt it is possible to find "a good system" to represent that kind of story [example B](this is in fact my point).

Aha! OK, Now I understand what you are saying. Armed with this newfound understanding, I can say that a practical system (jettisoning the word "good" which is a hollow value judgement word) is not only possible but also quite likely. In fact, there may even be few games already available that do just that. And if there aren't, I am certain that you could. That's right, *you could.* You had said that you would like to be proven wrong, why not prove yourself wrong? It's lots of fun doing that, let me tell you.

[Shreyas Sampat]

*chimes in with Jack*
I think there's an important thing that needs to be made clear in the second situation: the characters are important.  You stated when you proposed the idea that characters would "convert the heathens or become martyrs".  Okay.  So the game isn't about what people believe at all, it's about what the characters do to serve God.

As for pacing issues, I believe that this can be solved simply through intelligent play.  You can make cuts like, "For several months your talks with the Mandarin of Qiang Si make no progress."  You can have climactic debate scenes or high-tension diplomacy with a veneer of civillity over lots of raised hackles and bared teeth.  There's no reason for the players to influence the action indirectly.  After all, the important action isn't really going on in China after all.  It's going on in the missionaries' heads.

I feel as if you're making some fallacy (in this specific instance)like "combat=protagonism because (theoretically) it's fast, tense, and its results are immediately obvious."  Heck, anything can work like that.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

(all of this could probably be summed up as:  no combat)

This, it seems, is the hurdle you need to pass here. Do not equate the presence of physical conflict with a concepts's roleplayability.

This may sound a lot more condescending than I mean. I appologize for that. It's just that I, and several others here I'd imagine, had already crossed this particular hurdle in RPG theory-- the necessity of combat. It is way too easy to talk down to those who are at where you used to be. Sad, but true.

But, let me just say that it is very possible to have an RPG that is playable and workable and fun and it does not have a chapter label III. Combat (always seems to be chapter II or IV. Don't ask me why) Are you familiar with the games Fabrice listed at all? If not check them out and then ask yourself the questions you have been asking here.

[Cassidy]

Hi Thierry,

I think there are a bunch of systems that would work fine for option B, so I'm wondering why you think not.

Well, that's the crux of the matter.

There are several things that make it unsuitable in my opinion:

* most of the dynamics are "internal". A conversion to catholicism is not something you play with a persuade roll (or several)  if you want to do the subject justice. So either it's GM fiat (and you'd need lots of GM advice anyway), or you have to think of a mechanic to represent people's beliefs

Just think of one. Off the top of my head you could possibly use a trait like Faith to denote a characters devotion to God, Superstition to denote the belief system of NPCs who are heathen non-believers. Application of in-game mechanics would need to be worked out - but it's not impossible. In fact something like Faith could be the most crucial trait in-play and could be used in any number of circumstances.

* the dramas unfolds slowly and continuously. Instead of short bursts of fighting scenes, you'd have things that take weeks or months to solve in game-time

Just pace the game as appropriate, skip things along as and when it seems right or necessary. A whole month can pass in just one sentence, nothing wrong with that.

* the players influence the action indirectly, and there's not much that they can do as a group.

I don't see why you think players can only influence the action indirectly or do much as a group.

If there are elements in the game that protagonize the characters and are of interest to the players then directly influencing events in the game is virtually assured.

If those elements aren't immediately obvious or you think that they won't appeal to your players then yes you will struggle (anyone would) to create an enjoyable role-playing experience whatever the premise.

Sparked by your ideas I can easily envisage say a group of Vatican sponsored Inquisitors roaming around Europe causing merry hell, furthering the cause of the Church and putting the fear of God into anyone that stands in their way. I can think of lots of non-combat conflicts that could arise.

(all of this could probably be summed up as:  no combat)

Instead of fighting scenes there are numerous other avenues the players can explore as a source of dramatic conflict.

Combat is just one type of conflict. Admittedly it is perhaps the most common type of conflict you will find in traditional RPGs but it is by no means the only one.

If combat is under-emphasized or even absent from your game then you need to have some other way of creating dramatic conflict as a way of engaging the players interest.

For me, if I'm playing an RPG that doesn't promote some kind of interesting conflict and encourage me to resolve that conflict through role-play then I'm unlikely to enjoy the game. I'd come away from the game feeling that "I really hadn't done anything.". I've played in games like that as I'm sure many players have. It's pretty boring.

Combat is great though. I like combat. A life-and-death combat scene is a great way of creating a sense of engagement among players.

It's not the only way of doing that though.

[Michael S. Miller]

I think you should also add a slightly-tweaked Paladin to the list of games that could handle the Jesuit missionaries setting proposed.

Make the Active and Passive Flesh traits into Active and Passive Persuasive traits (how do you convince others? How do you reinforce your own beliefs?) and make the Social trait into a single-word Flesh trait (how does your body bare your soul on its way to the grave?) Then, re-envision combat scenes as debates, persuasions, manipulations and evagelical tirades (as four willows suggested) and you're set.

Or maybe I'm just tired....

[Mark Johnson]

wish fulfillment
 
NOUN: 1. Gratification of a desire. 2. In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream, fantasy, or other exercise of the imagination.  

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000

I find the mediterranean setting better than I like the Chineese setting simply because I would rather be a pirate than a a jesuit priest.  When I play a role playing game, I want to play a role that I find attractive, heroic, noble or simply more capable than I am.  Action-adventure movies are popular because we want to be those people.  The combat in RPGs is like the combat in action films, it demonstrates the qualities in the heroes that we find attractive (style, cool, tenaticity, mastery.)  Films like A Beautiful Mind might be compelling to some, but I would rather be James Bond than John Nash anyday.

Thanks,
Mark