When Can We Stop Making "Games"?

[pete_darby]

Okay, focussing on reforming RP from within the current subculture: in this respect, I personally feel that Universalis is the most significant release of recent years, and simultaneously my present top recommend for getting newbies to the hobby started.

It fundamentally strips away all the accreted wargaming roots of RP, and actually delivers on the promise of every "what is role playing chapter." It answers those niggling questions of "why do you have a GM then? Why does one guy get to decide everything if the possiblities are limitless?"

Now, I'm not giving up on more conventional RPG's and just playing Universalis (there's a line about cold dead fingers that comes here), I enjoy the more conventional style immensely. But every time amongst conventional RP'ers when new styles of gaming where, to keep with the same example, narrative authority is more evenly distributed, the general response is along the lines of "that would never work," or "but who stops players exploiting the system," or "that isn't RP, it's mutual intellectual masturbation." To the last, the ususal reply is "And your style of play would be...?" To the others, we can point to Universalis first amongst many others and say "It can be done, it has been done, it's enormous amounts of fun."

And, feeding into other concerns, since it explicitly lets you fix the social contract at the start, you can eliminate (or at least question) the assumed habits of RPG'ers at the outset. And you'll never look at your entrenched game habits in the same way again.

But I'm preaching to the choir here: the best thing is to get out and play games like Universalis with both grognards and newbies, and argue by the doing not the arguing. Maybe one day, the naysayers will look up from their dice to find that they're surrounded by a vastly increased market, hobby, industry, whatever, and wonder how it happened. I mean, isn't that what happened when Vampire took off?

Incidentally, Jonathan, why aren't you using Universalis? Not that I'm pimping (any more than I normally do, and I'm cutting back since no game designers or publishers have yet sent me any material reward for doing such), but it seems that it may be a solution for your friend's concerns out of the can. Even if it doesn't work, the failure can be informative to your friend why things are normally done "the old way."

Pete

PS Re-reading before posting, I know Jonathan's not going to entirely (or possibly even mostly) agree with me, but I still think it's relevant to the thread, and the responses should be a lot more useful, especially given that Jonathan's experience with Universalis trumps mine by several magnitudes.

[Marco]

I play with a GM because I *want* a GM--I've recently started a group with not one but three newbies (of various degrees--one of the "what is role-playing").

I had no problem justifying the existence of a GM whatsoever.

-Marco

[pete_darby]

I play with a GM because I *want* a GM--I've recently started a group with not one but three newbies (of various degrees--one of the "what is role-playing").

I had no problem justifying the existence of a GM whatsoever.

-Marco

Well, I was just using that as an example, as Jonathan's newbie asked it. As long as the answer isn't "That's the way we've always done it," or "RPG's HAVE TO HAVE A GM OR ELSE THEY AREN'T RPG'S!!!!" (sadly, I deleted that e-mail I got long ago), I'm a happy camper.

As if my permission matters...

Before I start it as a separate thread, has there already been a thread that collects "RPG design myths," like "You have to have a GM", etc.

It'll probably look like the Illusionist Design Handbook (The Impossible Thing for Idiots), but if it ain't there already....

[ejh]

Jonathan's conversation with his theatrically inclined GF does bring up the interesting point that what is "radical" to traditional roleplaying gamers, such as systems without detailed Points of Contact, or the idea of playing without a gamemaster, or whatever, may seem obvious and sensible to people who have never been exposed to Traditional RPGs.

This point was brought up by Ron before in the discussions about the "Vanilla vs Pervy" terminology before that terminology was weighed in the balances and found wanting, and replaced by "Points of Contact."

[Mike Holmes]

Before I start it as a separate thread, has there already been a thread that collects "RPG design myths," like "You have to have a GM", etc.

Actually, yes. Quite a while back there was exactly that thread. I can't search it up, but maybe somebody else can find it. What I do remember of it is that it got a bit self-indulgent at the end. Partly my fault, as it was triggered, IIRC, by my combat system rant or somesuch.

Also, I'd point out that the GM is a phenomenon largely created by RPGs. I agree that it's the wargaminess of D&D that caused the requirement, however. That is, wargames occasionally used refs for simulating "Fog of War" situations. By going to the one to one scale and perspective for the players, this became absolutely neccessary. The GM is the guy who knows whats around the corner.

That all said, I always prefered that sort of wargame, when you could get a ref. And I see a lot of value to the GM as a participant with an alternate agenda in the game. It's just another design choice. Like you said, as long as it's informed, it's a good choice.

Thanks for the kind words about the game.

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Actually, yes. Quite a while back there was exactly that thread. I can't search it up, but maybe somebody else can find it.

My Google-fu is strong. whosyourdaddy whosyourdaddy whosyourdaddy
Do you believe everything they tell you? based on Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems

[ross_winn]

Jonathan, you wrote that you find yourself "trapped by terminology." Rather than flail about in an over-ful sink, I'd like to examine that more carefully. How are you trapped? By whom? Keeping you from what?

I think that ideas are forced upon designers as well as players. However the designers (myself included) are extremely guilty of forcing us into one lexicon. People argue fairly strongly about 'gamism', 'narrativism', etcetera. Basically one of the things that makes the forge of limited utility for me, is that the structure of the community sets up a lexicon. This lexicon limits the effective discourse. This limited discourse describes a self-selecting subset of ideas. The net result of this is that we all make the same thing, or very similar things. Just like the generally mechanically less complex games we commonly see on The Forge. I personally tend to doubt that we will see something like Theatrix, or Living Steel, or Hero spring from this community for this reason. While I may enjoy Sorcerer, or WuShu, or Octane; does that make more rules-heavy games less good? Of course not. Because we rely on these specific phrases and words to communicate concepts common to ourselves, we also limit the kind of games we can create.

[John Kim]

Basically one of the things that makes the forge of limited utility for me, is that the structure of the community sets up a lexicon. This lexicon limits the effective discourse. This limited discourse describes a self-selecting subset of ideas. The net result of this is that we all make the same thing, or very similar things. Just like the generally mechanically less complex games we commonly see on The Forge. I personally tend to doubt that we will see something like Theatrix, or Living Steel, or Hero spring from this community for this reason.  

I don't agree with this.  There is nothing in the structure of the community which really enforces much of a lexicon -- with the exception that GNS has a forum of its own.  For example, I would point out that Marco Chacon is a frequent poster here, and his game JAGS is much closer to Hero than it is to Sorcerer.  I don't think there is any inherent limitation here -- all it takes is a few more people like Marco on here to start talking about and planning their game designs here.  As far as I have seen, Forge posters are very open to a variety of designs -- including mechanically complex ones.

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with John. Actually I think that JAGS might not be a good example for various reasons (I think it pre-dates The Forge, for example). But consider the game that Rob's putting together COTEC: Million Worlds. Very Hero System in some ways but with more layers of complexity.

One of the reasons you don't see such games more is that they do take long to make, and aren't as easy.

But take Ralph's new game, Robot's and Rapiers. Already comes in at well over 100 pages sans art, and can't be called simplistic in any way.

Anyhow, I'm just wondering what terms are doing the limiting? Simulationist? The term we use to describe games like Hero System? How can a descriptive set that is meant to include all extant games, and all potential games be limiting?

We're all limited by language. But that doesn't change by allowing people to use whatever terms they like. That just thwarts communication of any sort. It's an imperfect system, but we're using it as well as we can. That means we don't "Force" anything on anyone. We say, "here's how we say X, here's how we say Y". People are free to challenge these terms in any way they want. And they do so very frequently. Which results in changing meanings over time, rather than a rigid cling to meanings for no reason. Which means that thought evolves rather than staying at the sort of point where people just shout "Roll playing vs. Role playing" at each other.

Mike

[Valamir]

But take Ralph's new game, Robot's and Rapiers. Already comes in at well over 100 pages sans art, and can't be called simplistic in any way.

Heh, thankfully I'm not the only one who puts an apostrohe in Robots where it doesn't belong :-)

There is something of a selection process towards the lighter games here, but its not a matter of the lexicon.

There was a point in R&R's design where I swear I was channeling the Ghost of Jareds Past and gave serious consideration to reducing all of R&R to one single ability score (role vs self awareness) and basically create a game like Inspectres.

People tend to design what they're familiar with (that's what causes so many Fantasy Heartbreakers to get made).  Around here we tend to be familiar with Sorcerer and the Pool and Octane...so I think there is a natural tendency to produce games like this.

Plus there is the whole feedback thing.  I announced R&R in the Indie Design Forum a week ago and have recieved only the most preliminary of comments because I'm asking people to read through 158 pages of information).  Alexander Cherry can put up QuIRC and get a much more immediate response, because all of the rules to that game fit in a single forum post.  So I think the nature of the design forum tends to select towards shorter quicker, more immediate response type games.

There is also the Freelance angle.  Big thick heavy crunchy games are rarely the exclusive work of one person, unless its one person over the course of 20 years.  But if a 228 page game goes from concept to completion in a years time you know its because the credits page is full of freelancers.  Most games designed with heavy freelancer contribution aren't going to meet the definition of Indie here, so there is somewhat of a selection towards games that can be completed by 1 person in a reasonable length of time.


But while there may be tendencies in that direction, its far far far from exclusive.  The most posted two game forum on the Forge is TRoS...that's a "full sized" RPG.  Matt Snyder is pounding away at Nine Worlds, and while it is a fairly quirky system, I don't know that I'd call it "light".  Before he left for other fields, Fang's Scattershot was turning into a fairly involved game.

Marco and MJ Young both have crunchier systems that are well appreciated here.  They weren't designed here, but I think it would be great to see a game like those designed here.

[xechnao]

I am gonna return to the entertainment or game and art debate. I think what Jonathan has in mind is a question of type or level of education. Games can entertain but they can't educate in the way a classical theatric play could. While games directly force to respcect the rules and this could be considered education, art educates by teaching, which stands for showing you experiences of some* else's (hi)story or simply, experiences of some* else. Some* that is not yet you, that is still out and away of you.
In that I have to agree with Jonathan. While wargames are simply games and can't educate in the manner of art, role playing games endorse this by the way they have to be deployed and played.

*someone, somebodies, somethings..whatever

[Jonathan Walton]

Xechnao got my point in one try.

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art."  I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic."  Yes, they were beautiful.  Yes, they were entertaining.  But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc.  Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose.  I think even the general movie goer recognizes this.  Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

Roleplaying is different.  Board & card games are differerent.  Until recently, comics was different too.  Within the general audience of people appreciating them, they were/are pure entertainment and nothing else.  I imagine that most people on the Forge would be willing to contest this view and say that, yes, roleplaying can have other motives too.  But I feel like we're a pretty strong minority and we don't really speak up much because we feel a bit silly.  The only way we really push for "meaningful" games is by designing ones that directly address certain issues.

Sorceror is about disfunctional, addictive relationships (which, at one time or another, describes ALL relationships). My Life with Master addresses similar issues, as well as the internal conflict of the oppressed.  Dust Devils' "shoot or give up the gun" is a different example of the same kind of thing.  To some extent, you might equate this issue with the fairly recent "rise of Narrativism" (in game design, since there has been Narrativist play ever since roleplaying began) and the inclusion of universal themes in play.

The reason Nobilis resonates so much with me is that every situation says something about the human experience.  You can be the embodiment of Suicide serving Heaven, trying to find a way for this horrible concept to benefit the cause of beauty.  You're constantly wrestling, constantly learning, and constantly growing while you play the game, simply because of complex issues that come up and need resolving.

Anyway, I'm wandering a bit.

[damion]

I'm surprised no-one mentioned this(or I missed it...).

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art." I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic." Yes, they were beautiful. Yes, they were entertaining. But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc. Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose. I think even the general movie goer recognizes this. Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

I don't think there is any reason a RPG can't give this kind of experiance. I don't think RPG's
could get the same type of acceptance though, just because they are interactive. A person can
get the other experiances by themself, RPG's require others, morever you need the right combination of others to actually get the 'correct' experiance. It's like if there was a play that
was for the benefit of the actors, rather than the audiance(Not that that actors don't get anything out of it, but the intended audiance is....).  Basicly, an artist can create art for themself, and it's good or it isn't, but RPG's include a usability component, i.e. it generally needs playtesting(I could be wrong here. People could create perfect games on the first try).

 
I think games definaly can educate, heck it's a standard psychological technique. But your audiance has to really want to play. I guess I don't feel RPG as art in the same sense that other forms is, is realistic. I think there is a potential to affect more deeply, but your audiance is smaller, due to the high inital cost of interacting with the art(I.e. you can go to a museum and look art and walk by the stuff that doesn't appeal to you, but you gotta use a RPG for a while.).

[damion]

I'm surprised no-one mentioned this(or I missed it...).

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art." I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic." Yes, they were beautiful. Yes, they were entertaining. But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc. Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose. I think even the general movie goer recognizes this. Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

I don't think there is any reason a RPG can't give this kind of experiance. I don't think RPG's
could get the same type of acceptance though, just because they are interactive. A person can
get the other experiances by themself, RPG's require others, morever you need the right combination of others to actually get the 'correct' experiance. It's like if there was a play that
was for the benefit of the actors, rather than the audiance(Not that that actors don't get anything out of it, but the intended audiance is....).  Basicly, an artist can create art for themself, and it's good or it isn't, but RPG's include a usability component, i.e. it generally needs playtesting(I could be wrong here. People could create perfect games on the first try).

 
I think games definaly can educate, heck it's a standard psychological technique. But your audiance has to really want to play. I guess I don't feel RPG as art in the same sense that other forms is, is realistic. I think there is a potential to affect more deeply, but your audiance is smaller, due to the high inital cost of interacting with the art(I.e. you can go to a museum and look art and walk by the stuff that doesn't appeal to you, but you gotta use a RPG for a while.).

[pete_darby]

I think the point being made was that RPG's can't educate us about someone, thing, whatever, else. I'd say it's arguable whether art can ever do that, but hey.

But certainly, Sim style playing can certainly do that, at least as well as film, theatre or literature: I'd argue that well played nar is better at telling you about yourself in other situations, but that's a function of art too.