watershed games

[Tim C Koppang]

This post is in reference to Ron’s latest article, originally mentioned by Clinton in this thread.

Ron,

While I’m still reading through your first Heartbreakers article (I just encountered these), and I should probably crawl through past discussions before posting this, I want to get this down while it’s still fresh in my mind.

But isn’t what you are describing a fairly common issue in all areas of creation—not just RPGs?  I mean let’s take music for example.  You have the grunge movement starting out in the early nineties (around there anyway, just roll with me) and from there future musicians went about creating songs that all sounded like Nirvana and Pearl Jam rip-offs.  This continues until some artist comes along and creates something wholly apart from the original style, which in turn catches on and then gets imitated.

So of course this applies to RPG design.  There are certain watershed games that redefine the way people think about playing games, but as a rule most games just reiterate what has already been said—with a twist.  D&D and Vampire are two of the most popular RPGs ever made and we see all sorts of new games released that simply try to achieve what those games did.

What’s interesting to me about the whole issue, is this idea that players feel that they need to redesign their favorite games.  As you say, it really is a form of therapy to some people.  But of course they never escape from the confines of the original design.  They have yet, in many cases, to look outside the boundaries of one particular system.  I did exactly the same thing when I started playing early Shadowrun and Mechwarrior (which pretty much copy themselves in my opinion).

So how do you solve this problem?  You suggest just getting it out of your system, but I’d also add simply playing a different style of game—and doing so before you get too locked into a “this way is the only way” mindset.  For me, the biggest breakthrough in roleplaying was when I realized that different styles of play are ok, and that I shouldn’t badger people about playing “correctly.”

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

The real problem with Heartbreakers is their astounding anachronism. The guys I met at GenCon, the authors of Demon's Lair, were probably about one year old when "D&D Headquarters" banners started flying in the windows of hobby stores. You know, those places that smelled like airplane glue and carried all the tank or army-men magazines. But I digress.

Your music parallel is valid, except that it would be very much like a young band today eagerly presenting their self-produced album with "we are innovative" splashed all over it, with the main feature thereof being the wa-wa pedal.

So I'm not talking about influences. Any endeavor is influenced by things, whether to adopt assumptions, to sophisticate them, or to provide alternate means or applications. Nor am I talking about plain old goals; Rune is balls-to-the-wall Gamist much like D&D tourney play back in the late 70s, but Rune isn't a Heartbreaker.

No, I'm talking about a very narrow understanding of what RPG design is, and of what the so-called industry is. This narrowness is no sin, and the energy and endeavor brought to the game's design and production is wonderful ... but the combination is heartbreaking.

As for solutions, the only way is to open up the culture of the hobby to wider understanding. There are so many avenues to do this ... one of them is the Forge itself, I hope, and others include getting some insitutional memory into game texts (I was really happy to see other role-playing games casually referenced in several places throughout Godlike), and the basic issue, as you very rightly state, is to get some quality time in with a variety of play experiences.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Your music parallel is valid, except that it would be very much like a young band today eagerly presenting their self-produced album with "we are innovative" splashed all over it, with the main feature thereof being the wa-wa pedal.

This happens, man. A few years back, Michael Stipe from REM said something stupid about their upcoming album, I forget which but I think it was Automatic For People, but he said that the album will change Rock 'n' Roll. It didn't, really. SO this kind of crap does happen.

No, I'm talking about a very narrow understanding of what RPG design is, and of what the so-called industry is. This narrowness is no sin, and the energy and endeavor brought to the game's design and production is wonderful ... but the combination is heartbreaking.

You mean like the hair band boom of the late eighties? Everybody and their brother had a hair band back then. Hard rock & heavy metal are viable forms of music, but for every Led Zeppelin or even Poison there were 100's of Wraithchyldes. (never heard of Wraithchylde? There's a reason)

[James Holloway]

No, I'm talking about a very narrow understanding of what RPG design is, and of what the so-called industry is. This narrowness is no sin, and the energy and endeavor brought to the game's design and production is wonderful ... but the combination is heartbreaking.

This "narrowness" is pretty common on the ground, at least in my experience. Most of my gaming buddies are pretty hardcore; we talk about gaming online or hang around our FLGS a lot. But in my experience, most gamers aren't like that. The president of my local University gaming society has never played any RPGs other than Shadowrun and D&D.

Heartbreakers are produced, I think, when a creative endeavor has a sufficiently low barrier to entry that you can be relatively unaware of / uninterested in the rest of the industry and still be able to put out a product.

Games may be very well suited to this. Most novelists probably read a lot, and that means reading lots of books by different authors. Most film directors are probably film school grads, and have therefore probably seen lots of films by different people. But a hardcore gamer can have played three times a week for his entire life and only ever have played one or two game systems.

It's interesting to note that in historical wargaming, it's not considered odd to put out games which are fixes to a single problem with another game. A local group here in Durham plays a game -- a published product, mind -- which requires the use of another published game (by a different company!) This game is basically a "fix" of certain areas of the other game, and why print the material twice? Mind you, wargames have usually had designer's notes detailing their relationship with other games.

- James