We need a term (or do we already have a term?) for all of these compact little roleplaying games that come out to nothing more than a few pages.  They're usually specialized, narrow-focus games which are nonetheless really damn fun.  Commercial application is more or less infeasible, since few will pay for four pages of text.  I'm talking about Otherkind, Dungeonkind, two games we've been talking about here: The Order and Conquer the Horizon, and the like.  Stuff that gets released as a free pdf.

I am not by any means trying to imply that these games are inferior -- in fact, I think there's probably an art to desiging these games that is similar but not the same as writing a 'big' RPG.  It's like the difference between a short story and a novel.

Anyway, what do we call these things?  Mini-RPGs?  RPGlets?  Roleplaying Parlour Games?

I rather like RPGlet. After "novelette".

The term "mini-RPG" has been used by some.

The No Press Anthology, a collection of 8 such games, calls them 'Short-Form RPGs.'

In France we often call those very short RPGs (or any kinds of games in general) aperitif-games (jeux apéritifs), since they are games you generally can learn and play faster than "regular" games.

One term that might apply is a "microgame." These were applied to quick, complete games in a compact format.

That might be confusing to people who know "microgames" as "those little board games published by Metagaming / Steve Jackson Games over 20 years ago."

Why not borrow a description from fiction? There are stories, short stories, and short-short stories (Isaac Asimov wrote a book of good short-short science-fiction stories).

So... call them short-short RPGs, or "short-shorts" for short. :)

Hello,

My preference, for whatever it's worth, is to say that we do not need a new term. Instead, what I think is needed is to jettison any assumptions about the length, content, and appearance of a "real" or "full" RPG. The only metric for such terms is playability.

I can think of quite a few products which are very thick, hard-cover, beautifully illustrated, and otherwise physically "complete" which are not, in fact, playable without intense revision and interpretation. Compared with, say, Fastlane or Dust Devils, I know which end of that comparison I'd call an RPG and which end I wouldn't.

Best,
Ron

The distinction between a microgame (my current favorite) and a traditional RPG would have some fallout significance, to my mind.  There's a certain art in expressing something in short-form rather than long-form, in choosing three highly evocative examplar details rather than explaining something in detail.  Microgames would focus a lot more on emergent rules, that is, rules whose simple structure create complexities that are not evident in the rules themselves, whereas traditional RPGs have the freedom to explicitly offer many options.  I mean, Puppetland and Riddle of Steel both produce functional game experience, but they go about them in totally different ways.

I have to break with Ron and concur that a good term is needed. Smaller-scope RPGs have a market that isn't the traditional RPG market (that is, it intersects, but isn't exclusive to) and so marketing them as such is a good idea. Short-story RPGs is a good start.

Me - I'm about to start using the term "artisan RPGs" instead of "independent RPGs," just because I like it.

Hi Josh,

Could you better define what qualities define this "class" of rpgs?  From your initial post, I'm seeing several different issues:

- page count
- cost (or commercial viability)
- focus in content

For example, some editions of OD&D would also have fit under this definition as well.

Chris

I disagree with the need of a new term. Or rather, I think you've misclassified the phenomenon: the crucial feature of the kind of games you cite is not the length of the rule-book, but rather the way the game approaches setting (and rules, to some degree). A good name for this kind of games describes this different approach to what the game should contain.

Think about it: all traditional games you wouldn't call mini-rpgs or whatever have a substantial setting and very unfocused rules. While all the games you would call mini-rpgs always go with minimal setting notes and only rules for the central activities of the game. You can only play these games in one way. Considering this, it's not very descriptive to call attention to the page count.

Thus, I suggest using three terms for three different kinds of games:
- Traditional: games where you can "do anything". Detailed setting, rules for all imaginable situations, huge combat section, tens of pages of equipment or spell lists.
- Focused: games like most Forge stuff. Focus on one way of playing, exclusion of ulterior concerns. Few setting details either because it's universal, or the setting is familiar from elsewhere, or because you're supposed to add any needed detail during play.
- Sketch: focused games that exclude any irrelevant and/or normal rules and play advice, attaining usually even shorter page counts than the Focused games. Only the central mechanics and the kernel of the game are left, enabling a player to bootstrap it into a whole game by filling the obvious himself.

Of course, calling games traditional, focused and sketch, while good English, won't ring any "cool new jargon" bells. So you might want to think up some suitably impressive special terms.

I invoke moderator right to totally take over this conversation.

What we're talking about are "closed-loop" RPGs, games with a definite plot/structure. Traditional RPGs are open-loop - you can play D&D forever and accomplish nothing in game. Same with almost everything else, including my own TSOY.

Closed-loop examples: The Mountain Witch, Breaking the Ice, City of Brass, Under the Bed, Polaris, My Life with Master

Open-loop: Sorcerer, TSOY, Champions, Burning Wheel, everything else

Interesting to note: Burning Wheel's Jihad supplement is almost a closed-loop system.

But Clinton, all of your examples are something that isn't within Joshua's definition at the beginning. He's talking about games that are just a couple of pages long, and usually free. They're pretty different from your examples, which are, I grant, closed-loop as you define it.

Not that I want to challenge your Moderator authority. Bow to the mods!

I, who started the thread but do not have moderator rights, wanted a term for 'short-form' RPGs, the kind of game that you can write in a week or so (by 'write' I mean 'write, edit, playtest, maybe layout').  My focus is entirely page count and time spent in development.  I'm talking about the quickies that allow us to test concepts and see if something works in the space of a couple weeks rather than spending a couple months writing an entire book.  One of the reasons I want a term is because I think it might encourage more experimentation that yields experiential results, allows everyone at the Forge to play/test/break these things and see what can be seen.

While I think microgames are more likely to be 'focused' or 'closed-loop', Risus, which is a great microgame example that I should have used as a starting example, is most certainly open-loop.

Perhaps we need two sets of terms, one that deals in development time, production values, manufacturing requirements (microgame, minigame, long-form game) and another set that deals in terms of scope and focus (closed-loop, open-loop).  Maybe we should calve off a sister thread?

That said, Eero, I'd respectfully question whether you can "do anything" in Traditional games with their huge combat sections -- obviously there is some focus there, even if the scope is a bit broader.

Hey. My suggestion was a "sketch game". It's the full-on Forge games I'd call "focused games". So I recognize the difference you're trying to make. And whether the "traditional games" with their big settings and bloated combat sections can do anything, they certainly think they can. And the people who play and design them think they can. (Of course I don't, what're you thinking. I just used that as to characterize that type of game.)

Sketch game is a good name because it captures the idea that the game's not intended to be a fully functional tool for any particular market segment, but rather just enough notes to get a game going if you happen to like the idea. More of a tool-box. It should be noted that this is still segment-dependent, because you have to say different things when writing for trad players or newbies. Both can have sketch games.

On the other hand, sketch is a bad term because it doesn't look like a special term. Thus it's easy to mistake for a descriptive term. If somebody figures out a suitably latin-sounding but still understandable alternative, that's good.

Disclaimer: As an author of what some would call a "short-form" RPG, I take this issue somewhat personally.

I question the usefulness of focusing on page count or time in development. I wrote the original draft of The Mountain Witch in under a week, and it was about 20 pages long. Does that make it a "micro"-RPG? Even though the current version is 140-something pages long? Even though the current version, rules-wise, is not much different from the original? (Also worth noting that the current draft is longer than both Sorcerer and Universalis.)

I also have to take issue with the implication that these games are somehow less than a "big" RPG. Look at chess. How many rules does it have? Yet it's one of the most sophicated games out there. You need to look at the play experience of the game itself. Some of these games (like Otherkind) *play* just like a normal RPG. The assumption that they play differently, just based on the length, is highly unreliable. Now I admit that some games do play differently, and for those I wouldn't mind a new term---as long as it was properly applied.

Personally, I think Clinton's got it with the whole "open/closed loop" thing. Eero's idea of the "sketch" is also helpful, though personally I would call those games "unfinished."

I'm with you Tim, on the prestige thing. However, I think everybody else here is, too, so it's hardly a relevant angle. Or is there somebody here who thinks that it's necessary to "warn people they're not getting a complete game" or something like that?

timfire wrote:
Personally, I think Clinton's got it with the whole "open/closed loop" thing. Eero's idea of the "sketch" is also helpful, though personally I would call those games "unfinished."

Eero wrote:
I'm with you Tim, on the prestige thing. However, I think everybody else here is, too, so it's hardly a relevant angle. Or is there somebody here who thinks that it's necessary to "warn people they're not getting a complete game" or something like that?

Eero wrote:

timfire wrote:
Personally, I think Clinton's got it with the whole "open/closed loop" thing. Eero's idea of the "sketch" is also helpful, though personally I would call those games "unfinished."

Except that not all of them are unfinished...

timfire wrote: I question the usefulness of focusing on page count or time in development. I wrote the original draft of The Mountain Witch in under a week, and it was about 20 pages long. Does that make it a "micro"-RPG? Even though the current version is 140-something pages long? Even though the current version, rules-wise, is not much different from the original? (Also worth noting that the current draft is longer than both Sorcerer and Universalis.)

timfire wrote: I also have to take issue with the implication that these games are somehow less than a "big" RPG. Look at chess. ... You need to look at the play experience of the game itself. Some of these games (like Otherkind) *play* just like a normal RPG. The assumption that they play differently, just based on the length, is highly unreliable.

timfire wrote: I have to deal with this issue all the time when talking to gamers about my game who are not familiar with Forge-games. I believe that a term like "micro" or even "short-form" to a certain extent would only add to this misconception.

Those in favor of a new term:  What do you plan to do with the new term? 

Is this about finding new opportunities specifically for those types of games (like the NPA collection)?  Or is it about carving off a section of games that defy a lot of otherwise-tidy rules, then ignoring them ("Well, we're talking here about RPGs, not RPGeenies, so we'll only talk about games with an episodic, unlimited story structure")?

If the people who benevolently support the first can't see why other people fear the second, and vice versa, then maybe that's why we're bogging down in "Should!  Shouldn't!" discussions.

As someone who's had his product called "not an RPG" up and down several boards, I totally sympathize with any level of pissed-off that Tim is feeling right now.  No matter how well intentioned the labelling, no matter how wordy the disclaimers, at the point where you say "The Mountain Witch is something other than an RPG" you cross a line that I wouldn't personally cross.

I find it interesting that we're not even particularly talking about TMW (except Clinton and his moderator powers). The games we're discussing are more like The Pool or even Puppetlands. The subject of discussion: do these games differ in any fundamental way from your usual focused Forge game, therefore, do we need a word to characterize them? And what that word might be? 'Microgame' is NOT used to refer to Dust Devils or Universalis or Mountain Witch here, so any arguments for their rights go amiss.

I write literally hundreds of pages of pedagogical texts about indie games per year, and thus am always in a sore need of (especially Finnish) terminology. I wouldn't mind it if I had some commonly recognized terms to differentiate between traditional (well, that's a good one), Forge-type and perhaps even these micro-games. How else am I going to say that a game is or isn't something, if not with words? It'd be good if I had a word for both the general Forge-type games (which isn't the thread topic!) and the micro-games (which very much are). Right now I have to refer to the former as "non-traditional", while the latter has no word at all, which is a shame if they're to be developed into a semi-established form.

If you have to be politically correct, I suggest saving that for when somebody actually uses some terminology as an offensive weapon. I know I've been myself found at the RPGnet, defending the rights of Universalis to be called a roleplaying game.

TonyLB wrote: Those in favor of a new term:  What do you plan to do with the new term? 

Cool.  For those purposes I do think that microgame is better than many of the other terms (like RPGlet) which seem to take on both the question of "How is it a roleplaying game?" and "What size is it?"  "Microgame" just says to me "small, plus game."  Plus, catchy!

See, here's my problem: I agree, 'microgame' is good for all the reasons you state.  but 'RPGeenie' is so damn cute!

Suggestions:

Microgame - incredibly short, stripped-down game expressed in ten pages or less.  Almost impossible to market on its own -- might be salable as part of a compilation.  Risus, Otherkind.

Capsule RPG - a game contained in one package, usually a book.  Little Fears, Nobilis, Primetime Adventures; lots and lots and lots of heartbreakers.

Encyclopaedic RPG - a game intentionally designed to be communicated through a multitude of supplements, and difficult to play without a significant minority of the books.  Usually produced only by corporate game publishers.  Exalted, Rifts, 7th Sea.

Modular RPG - like an Encyclopaedic RPG in terms of number of products, but with the supplements functionally optional -- the game still works as designed without including all the books. GURPS, Sorcerer.

Minigame? - I personally find it smooth and easy. But it's pretty much the same as microgame... To me, it evokes a certain physical shortness (say, 1-15 pages) or/and a certain quickness to read, understand, assimilate and put in practice the materials in it. It doesn't carry any specific connotation to me, perhaps since I'm very used to it.

(Note: That's a term that is extensively used in France, all kinds of games included; think it's also used quite a bit in English... But sorry to bring so specific references on the table over and over :/ )

(Note 2: What about my former "aperitif/aperitive-game"? ^^ Shorter term's "apéro/apero(game)" ^^  sorry.......... :P)

Eero wrote:
I find it interesting that we're not even particularly talking about TMW (except Clinton and his moderator powers). The games we're discussing are more like The Pool or even Puppetlands.

Addix wrote:
Minigame? - I personally find it smooth and easy. But it's pretty much the same as microgame... To me, it evokes a certain physical shortness (say, 1-15 pages) or/and a certain quickness to read, understand, assimilate and put in practice the materials in it. It doesn't carry any specific connotation to me, perhaps since I'm very used to it.

I've been thinking on this today and the thoughts it brought about. Pocket Game is what I thought of. Then I thought of a game that could be physically be put in a pocket. The size came to 5.5 inches by 4.25 inches i.e. a quarter page of a standard letter size piece of paper. White paper interior with a colored piece of light cardstock for a cover. 10 sheets of paper at the most. Interior font of Times Roman at 10 point. Simply saddle stitched.

The system would have to be ultra simple and be able to be written in several quarter sized pages at most.The world of the game would be necessarily limited and useful for several scenarios but long term playability would be out of the scope of the game. Black & white artwork would be limited to the cover and maybe some maps/icons in the interior. Character sheets would be a 3 x 5 index card at the most.

I did a quick pricing (read wild guess) at $2.95 for impulse buys. Taking this idea to a friend who runs the FLGS he thought the idea could fly with a once per month release of new titles. I would need to use the same basic system and release new background with each booklet.  He also suggested a simple cardboard display to catch the customer's eye.

I envision the old Metagaming style of interesting little games with a role playing twist. I'll probably use my Alpha game concept along with a short history and scenario to beef it up.

That's all I have for right now. I'll keep cranking it around in my brain and see what I can come up with. If I come up with something to test, I'll post for some playtesters in the Connections board.

Keith

timfire wrote:
I was trying to discuss games like The Pool (sorry, I'm not too familiar with Puppetland). What makes The Pool different from, say, GURPS? If you play by the core rule book, in GURPS you have to decide on all the genre & setting stuff like you do with The Pool. What's the major difference you see?

Keith -- awesome.  Please keep us informed!

Eero --

I concur on 'Collectible' instead of 'Encyclopaedic' -- it turns the drawback into a feature, which is patent marketing.  I'm not sure about 'Complete' instead of 'Capsule' since I'm sure a lot of corper publishers would like to market their games as 'Complete' (and in fact already do).

On the other point, I'm sure there is a worthwhile conversation to be had about open-loop and closed-loop games, and the means by which we pursue these goals in game design.  In fact I'd like to participate in that conversation.  It's just not what I started the thread to define.  Games are more than just their manuscripts and conceptual frameworks -- although those parts are certainly important! -- but they're also manufactured artifacts used by people.  We can't ignore that physicality because it does have a very real impact on game design -- both conceptually and in terms of manufacturing.

I'm a fan of using "fun RPGs" and "crap RPGs." That's really begging for loud, unconstructive arguments, though.