Reading through the various essays, something occurred to me: games can die.

To start, I need to define what I mean by "death," and by contrast "life," in terms of the GNS model. I am drawing on Nicholas Flammel's Hermetic concept of dead metals. In his letters, a dead object is incapable of any further change; life, therefore, was still capable of changing by some process. A dead game is incapable of any further new change (i.e. exploration), by the players and GM (who i will collectively refer to as the participants). A dead game has reached its end.

The idea itself assumes that exploration involves new ideas and new territory. If the participants have already exhausted the possibilities of a particular situation, there is nothing left to explore. All that can be accomplished at this point is the review of previous experiences (essentially, reading the transcript of events). Admittedly, it is rare that participants in RPG's will have the problem of running out of ideas, but certain design elements can lead to mortality.

For better illustration of this idea, let me first refer to video games. Consider Mario Kart. When you first buy the game it is full of life: few tracks are unlocked, and you haven't explored anything yet. As you play more tracks open and you continuously find new and exciting things. However, there comes a point when you have done it all: you beat the bad guy, opened all the tracks, saved the princess, and fought others in deathmatches. What now? Other than the continued deathmatches with other players, there is nothing left to explore in this game. It is now dead and, at least with me, ends up on a shelf collecting dust.

Video games and board games suffer from a high mortality rate because of their basic limit in design. A programer simply cannot include every possible solution and endless exploration. (Even video-RPG's suffer from death at some point. After a while, you simply cannot do anything new.) Video games are mortal for this very reason, with the possible exception of gamist model designs such as deathmatches.

RPG's (non-videogame) seem immortal at first, and they should be. For an RPG to die assumes the participants cannot explore any more situations or that they have simply run out of ideas; however, the limitless creativity of the imagination should prevent this from ever happening. If the participants run out of creative ideas in an RPG, they probably aren't very well suited as participants. This "running out of ideas" scenario is extremely unlikely but possible if the game design doesn't allow for continuous creativity.

But how does mortality affect the GNS model? Is there a particular model particularly susceptible to mortality? I argue yes, if it is poorly designed. Let me start with the gamist model, since it is as close to immortal as a design can get. By pitting every player against each other there are unlimited iterations of exploration: no two games will ever be exactly the same. Even simple board games like chess and go demonstrate this idea.

It is simulationist and narrativist models which have potential mortality. If an RPG's design follows a simulationist perspective and does not allow for continued exploration and creation within the game, it will die. Obviously, it requires very poor design for this to happen. The game has to be written in such a way that: 1) there are a finite number of possibilities for character creation, 2) there are a limited number of conflict possibilities, and/or 3) there are few allowed resolutions.

Narrativist design (not play) stands next to its own grave with shovel in hand and coffin open. If the design slips up even a little, it falls in and is buried forever. If narrativist designs are concerned with story, when the story ends the game dies. Again, this situation would be a case of extremely poor design, but it is possible. Imaginative participants can save even a poor design by adding story elements during play to extend the finite end into infinite time. For example, if an RPG's design calls for the defeat of some evil empire, when that is done, the game is over. The participants can continuously add conflicts so that the empire never falls, thereby saving the design from its built-in mortality. The fatal end, however, still exists and the game will never be immortal.

As one last note, i don't believe mortality truly exists in play. Even if participants run out of ideas (as mentioned with simulationist play) someone can save it. To me, RPG mortality is a function of a poor design failing to allow for the full expression of participants' creativity and exploration.

If I am reading you correctly then, while I may agree with you that specific instances of a game (Campaigns, linked sessions, whatever; which you have been calling "RPGs") can "die", I don't see that this is a problem.

If I read this correctly then My Life with Master is built to "die". It has a very specific endgame system, and the entire course of a campaign builds to this endgame. Once the endgame occurs, the game ends. You can play again with new character, or even the same ones exploring new possiblities, but the game is over.

Is this a bad thing? Is a specific thematic resolution a negative? Am I just misreading your point?

Sure, games die. So what?

Thomas

Wouldn't the "life" of a game designed to support Narrativist play be a function of the endless iteration of the answers to the question posed by the premise, much in the same way a Gamist design is sustained by the endless iterations of player interaction?

Here's us Narrativist designers doing our Tyrell impersonations: "...and you have burned so very, very brightly..."

Welcome to the Forge, Astrivian! My name's Vincent, what's yours?

The ideal of the ten-year campaign - it's just one of many possible ideals. As ideals go, it's not even a very good one, at least not from a point of view that values stories. Every story ends.

In fact consider that long-term Narrativist play is more like a novel and its sequels, than like one big novel. The first story ends, but spawns a second, which spawns a third... Not immortality but dynasty.

-Vincent

RPG's (non-videogame) seem immortal at first, and they should be. For an RPG to die assumes the participants cannot explore any more situations or that they have simply run out of ideas; however, the limitless creativity of the imagination should prevent this from ever happening.

Yea maybe i should clarify a bit more. Iterations using the same premise and "endgame" that are different from one another (using different characters, as you mentioned) is one way to keep a game alive. I think i might have come across as damning the narrativist style: this was not my intention. If the participants can use iterations or modules, the game design is lives since it allows for these variations.

Does that mean the game is alive? Well no. Your the one making the module...there will be mechanical elements of the game there that shape play, but only those few elements (assuming you don't kill them off in the way you design) survive. Bits surviving picariously.

Now imagine a P&P RPG with no campaign material in the book. It wont even have the play time you got with never winter nights. Basically most P&P RPG's are dead from the moment they are pressed. It's actually the more focused ones, the ones you identified before as having a limmited life span, the ones you can finish play on, that have some life. From this perspective, most traditional P&P games look immortal basically because they couldn't become any more dead than they already are.

Astrivian wrote: A dead game is incapable of any further new change (i.e. exploration), by the players and GM (who i will collectively refer to as the participants). A dead game has reached its end.

The idea itself assumes that exploration involves new ideas and new territory. If the participants have already exhausted the possibilities of a particular situation, there is nothing left to explore.

There're a few things here: exploration as a ceiling for continued play, program material (including the endgame) and some assumptions about how GNS follows a certain continuum. There's probably a hip, game theory way to say this, but here goes: new ground in application of play is limited by range of approach and requirements of investment. That's just an is thing. Structure to issue of play is innocuous outside an agenda. Is, again.

Your portrayal of GNS ascribes value to play that encourages developmental chaining. Some people like their closed song forms; others want to jam. I don't see your bais as being linked to any particular CA.

Astrivian wrote: Let me clarify what i have in mind: game death = participants sitting aroudn with blank looks on their faces asking "now what?"

Is this even possible with RPG's?

Astrivian wrote: Campaign information included in a text does not condem the game to death.

Let me clarify what i have in mind: game death = participants sitting aroudn with blank looks on their faces asking "now what?"

Is this even possible with RPG's?

To answer the "So what" remark, consider the game from a business angle. If it gets shelved because participants can no longer play it, you've just lost your market.

I think the death of a rpg occurs on far more levels than the lack of potential in-game exploration.

The ultimate death a rpg can suffer is the dissolution of the social contract which binds the group together. Ain't nuthin' getting round this one.

Another cause of game mortality can be player/GM hostility to the system or premise of the game. They pretend it's OK but poison it from within, it's a dead game playin' as soon as a member of the group feels like this.

Boredom or frustation are the other guaranteed game-killas, especially if coinciding with PC death(s).

To me, the strength of the current Indie, New Wave or next gen rpgs is that they look beyond the Shared Imagined Space as be-all-and-end-all and focus on a specific premise and end-state. If a game is supposed to end it don't die, it concludes.

but thats just like my opinion man.
JJ