What are the assumptions about RPGs? What traditions have we become bound by? & how can we break these assumptions & rethink RPGs?

Off the top of my head:

* The old attributes & skills rule ("Ya gotta have both!"). This has, obviously, been broken by a number of games. But it still remains prevalent. Why?

* Experience points. Players must get some sort of reward for playing. Why? Is the experience of play not reward enough?

So, what are some other assumptions, regarding currency, for example, & player rewards & punishments (besides XP)? & why are these things seen as assumptions? What would happen if we threw them out & did RPGs much differently?

This is fun! Let me try!

*Dedicated combat systems. Almost all RPGs still have distinct combat systems, often including quite separate rules. In a lot of games, this doesn't make sense, but is kept there by tradition.

Brian--

I disagree. I don't think those rules persist because the represent "reality" to people, I think they persist because people think they represent reality & because "that's how RPGs work". For quite a few people, these rules don't represent "reality", & for others representing "reality" isn't the highest concern.

I'm also less interested in why they persist than I am in hearing people's ideas for other ways of doing thing. I think RPGs are a vast medium, & most of it remains untapped. What we've got right now is the equivalent of superhero comics, with a few "outsider" comics. I'd like to see the envelope pushed as far as possible, & then even further.

A further question would be to ask why, in fact, RPGs have a prediliction for pantomiming "reality", when in fact they are based upon the premise of "this is not reality".

I think we need to see more games making the leap from "sort of reality" to "no, this is not reality". We have the difficulty to shoot a man in the head as harder than shooting the man period... why? Because that is realistic. I say screw reality.

Sorcerer has a mechanic for bonus dice based on "coolness" (that is my own quote, not from the game) and I love it. Why not make things easier when they promote roleplaying and plot line?

However, on the flipside, looking at experience mechanics, the end result is that most people want a tangible reward built-in to the experience of roleplaying. It makes people feel as though they have accomplished something. We can modify the importance of the experience mechanic, certainly, but to eliminate it wholly means that you are looking at a game most people will approach as a "one-shot".

And Brian, I would argue that Skill+Attribute is not indicative of reality. Rather, a wide set of abilities to choose from is the core defining area of what models reality. Agreed that Skill+Attribute does contain this facet, but I don't think that this is necessarily the *only* or *best* model for that precept. However, as the "Skill Pool" system with a division of points has become tedious for many gamers I have interaction with (yes, Brian, in my experience, you are a different stripe of cat), I actively tend to avoid the 50 Skills with X points to divide theory of gaming. So, my wuestion to you, Brian (specifically), is "are there other gaming models of play out there that will provide the adequate 'realism' while still being different or unique"?

Okay, I'm all finsihed for now.

Dav

On 2001-07-25 10:36, joshua neff wrote:
What are the assumptions about RPGs? What traditions have we become bound by? & how can we break these assumptions & rethink RPGs?

It's already been/is being discussed a number of ways in various threads here on the Forge, but if you want a list of assumptions, a big one MUST be "you gotta have a GM".

Gordon C. Landis

[ This Message was edited by: Gordon C. Landis on 2001-07-25 15:45 ]

Okay, here's my Why.

Ron's mentioned here & there that he thinks we've only begun to explore what RPGs can be. I completely agree. I don't mean this as a knock on "traditional" RPGs. I just know that we've only really tapped a small percentage of the medium, & I'm curious as to see what else we can come up with. I like to experiment, I like to push, & I like it when others do it, too.
So, my big reason is: because we can. We can do things completely different from what has been done in RPGs. We've already seen a lot of changes. I think Jared's the mad scientist of RPGs. He's completely willing to throw everything out & try new things--it may not always work, but he tries, & I give him props for that. I think Ron & Jonathan Tweet & Robin Laws & the Soap guys, among others, have really pushed things. I know we can do more, & I'm curious as to what ideas people have towards that end.

Heh. Here's my contribution.

Do we need numbers? Really?

Are there ways of getting away from them? If not, can we mask them better? Should we?

Seth,

I think we need some way of defining ways in which characters or tasks may be different from each other, and numbers are an easy way to do it. I'm not against the possibility of doing it another way, though.

I do find it hard to imagine a rules-heavy system that does not depend on numbers in some way, though. If only to translate from one part of the game to another.

Lon

Seth,

I think we need some way of defining ways in which characters or tasks may be different from each other, and numbers are an easy way to do it. I'm not against the possibility of doing it another way, though.

I do find it hard to imagine a rules-heavy system that does not depend on numbers in some way, though. If only to translate from one part of the game to another.

Lon

One big assumption or perhaps it's better described as a habit is that RPGs are adventure-style games.

This habit has been broken by a few games, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

RPGs also tend to be fantastic in nature, containing super-science, fantasy and the paranormal.

Where's the Seinfeld RPG? The Game About Nothing.
Where's the Bridges of Madison County RPG?

That sort of thing.

A fairly random list:

A group of players ranging from about 4-8 people.

Meeting once a week all at the same time.

Characters are together most of the time or at least meet frequently.

Rpgs are supposed to emulate another medium as close as possible.

Each player plays one character exclusively.

The GM has the last word on rules disputes.

Characters increase in power/abilites over time.

Characters are either outsiders or 'elect' of some kind, often both.

The players have an objective knowledge of their characters abilities.

Magic accessible to players is significantly limited in some way.

Characters are supposed to cooperate most of the time.

Some games which have challenged assumptions: Ars Magica, Paranoia, Amber, Rune.

Amber is especially interesting because it actively encourages stuff like writing journals and drawing character pictures etc., which seems to me to challenge assumptions on a deeper level than just rules and setting and to actually take players emotional investment into the game actively into account.

On 2001-07-27 10:12, Damocles wrote:
Amber is especially interesting because it actively encourages stuff like writing journals and drawing character pictures etc., which seems to me to challenge assumptions on a deeper level than just rules and setting and to actually take players emotional investment into the game actively into account.

Jesse--

Falkenstein also encourages player-authoring (without any real mechanics for it) in the way of players writing scenes that happen "off stage" in their journals, for the Host to add to the larger narrative later. (The journals, by the way, were the reason my players bitched & moaned when I suggested running Falkenstein--"I don't want to do all that extra work!")

Ron's pointed out some problems with CF's mechanics, but it will always have a place in my heart for being one of the first games I ever encountered that was so freakin' Narrativist, & for having more style & panache than a dozen other games combined.

Here's one assumption I've always been fascinated by and have seen broken but never could figure out how to use effectively without angering my players.

The assumption is that the mechanics are there to model conflict resolution between a player desire and something external to the player.

In its simplest form this is the classic: model. But the only time we ever roll dice is when the opposing force is EXTERNAL to the character. I'm trying to hit a dodging enemy. I'm trying to seduce a resisting woman. I'm trying to dodge an active trap. I'm trying to climb a rope thereby resisting gravity. And so on.

But I sometimes see mechanics that ask you to roll inorder to overcome something INTERNAL to the character. This post was inspired by Ron's review of the Wuthering Heights RPG because he mentions that you have to roll inorder to be sincere. I've read that game and there are mechanics where you have to roll in order to physically attack someone and such. The idea of course is that there is some aspect of your character that is running against your desire for action.

I LIKE mechanics like this because I think they would have interesting results but I can't see too many players being happy with them. I instantly hear, "What do you mean I have to roll inorder to see if I can even ATTEMPT the action. It's my character and if I say he does X, then he does X." and so on.

Like I said, I'm not sure how to use such mechanics judiciously without angering the players.

Jesse

Jesse -

Your comments make me pine to write up a set of rules and try out these ideas on two or three people.

Unfortunately, I've already overbooked my life.

Per other comments: it occurs to me that I'm always -far- more interested in doing extensive write-ups, for instance, for other peoples' games than my own. I wonder if this is the opposite of others' experience.

- James

On 2001-07-30 20:38, jburneko wrote:
But I sometimes see mechanics that ask you to roll inorder to overcome something INTERNAL to the character. This post was inspired by Ron's review of the Wuthering Heights RPG because he mentions that you have to roll inorder to be sincere. I've read that game and there are mechanics where you have to roll in order to physically attack someone and such. The idea of course is that there is some aspect of your character that is running against your desire for action.

Well, this is a bit tangental, but related. The first question I would ask is:

"What's wrong with the box?"

In other words before you go and spend a lot of time thinking outside of it, you should have an idea what you're looking for.

I've always been a believer that "why not" is rarely ever a good answer to the question "why?"

So the answer to "why do most games do this, or have that or have this other thing" has less to do with hidebound tradition and more to do with "because it works".

If there is a certain aspect that *doesn't* work for a specific purpose you have in mind THEN you start thinking outside of the box for a new and innovative solution.

"Why do games have both skills and attributes?" Because it works. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but there aren't many situations where its harmful. Unless there is something specific you are attempting to accomplish that can't be accomplished as well with a Skill + Attribute system there is zero value to changing it.

Change for changes sake is not innovation, its brainstorming masquerading as creativity.

Useful creativity is not just about new ideas, its about new ideas that promote a goal. Columbus didn't attempt to sail to west to China because he woke up one morning and said "why not". He had a specific goal (basically to make a fortune) and applied his unconventional thinking to attempt to achieve that goal.

So for my perspective, these questions by themselves don't carry alot of weight. What would make it a more valuable excersize is to determine a specific goal that these items are an impediment to. In other words the important question is not "is it necessary to have Experience Points". It is "what situation exists for which Experience Points rules are detrimental", and then "what alternative works better for that situation".

Valamir--

Difference of attitude, maybe. I've always been of the opinion that "why not?" was a perfectly acceptable answer. I sometimes claim that I write poetry to express myself, sometime because I want to cause some sort of change or effect people in some way, but it really boils down to: I write poetry because I can. & I experiment with poetry, trying to push it as far as I can, especially in regards to performance, because I can.
Similarly, "because it works that way" is a horribly inadequate answer for me. How do we know it works well that way if we don't try other ways? ("Hey, maybe other ways have been tried, & they didn't work!"--Maybe, but I've seen no evidence of this, & I don't take very many things on faith.)

The universe wants to play, both in the box & out. To not experiment with RPGs would be, to me, a terrible crime. I'm not satisfied with just playing RPGs, I want to play with them.

Change for changes sake is not innovation, its brainstorming masquerading as creativity.

Useful creativity is not just about new ideas, its about new ideas that promote a goal.

Almost certainly a difference in attitude. I've never had much use for poetry. The only stuff I've ever liked is less a poem and more a story that happens to be told in verse. Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, Charge of the Light Brigade, Icelandic Sagas...that sort of thing.

But what I'm saying is that asking "how could this be done differently?" is a question that should be asked AFTER one decides WHY it needs to be done differently at all. First one should identify what specifically it is about the status quo that doesn't meet expectations, THEN one finds ways to make it: better, stronger, faster, cheaper.

If one can't identify a specific shortcoming than it doesn't really need to be changed. There's a reason why "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" is a common saying. And just because something isn't NECESSARY, doesn't mean its broken. This is the main reason why so many of the RPG staples you list persist. Because for most purposes in most situations they work just fine. Its when a talented designer sees something they'd like to emphasize differently that these "rules of thumb" are altered or replaced or discarded.

Change may be the spice of life, but consistancy is the main course. If you change something just to change something you wind up with a novelty. If you change something to overcome a weakness in the status quo you wind up with innovation.

I'm all for innovation. Novelty (IMO, OC) is a waste of time and effort.

Now I'm not saying experimentation is bad. But that's not what you were asking. You weren't asking for a catalog of all of the different ways that have or could be used to accomplish X, Y, and Z. In fact, it was specifically stated that WASN'T the point of the thread. You wanted to know why why X, Y, and Z persist as staple approaches to roleplaying (with strong implications that this is not a desireable state of affairs).

I'm all for experimentation. We could come up with a list of alternatives to "experience points" etc. that experimentation has provided us. But you wanted to know why such a standard persists. The answer is because it works. For specific cases where it doesn't work (or doesn't work as well as desired) people have experimented and come up with alternatives. But the fact that most game have some form of experience and those tend to look fairly similar to each other is not because we're married to tradition (at least not in the main), its because by and large it works just fine, and most people don't see the point in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Valamir--

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but never tell a poet you "have no use for poetry". It's like telling a physicist "I have no use for gravity". Anyway...

You're right, the reason I started this thread wasn't to get a catalog of all the things we could do just for experimentation.
The thing is, I'm not all that convinced that the "tried & true" standards of RPGs are there because they aren't broken. Yes, they do work for some people, but I think a lot of the time, these things persist solely because it's assumed that RPGs must be like that. & to be honest, the answer "because they work well that way" doesn't do it for me.

Folks? Ralph? Josh?

Speaking as an outsider (aka butting in), I think the two of you have beaten the general issue into a flat, evenly-distributed pancake. It's very clear where both of you stand, and the posts are starting to get away from what you are saying and into more personal territory like "how can you say that about what I said."

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm SUGGESTING that maybe this thread has served its purpose and perhaps should be allowed to retire gracefully.

Best,
Ron

I'll chime in, since I think the underlying question about looking for alternatives is important. Rather than pose an argument of some kind, lemme just give you my personal experience.

Before I came across Castle Falkenstein, I hadn't thought about merging attributes and skills, and the idea of using text labels for ability levels hadn't occurred to me. Before Vampire, I hadn't thought about Conscience as a quantifiable player attribute linked to dice. Before Amber, I hadn't thought about having players bid against each other for their stats. Before Over the Edge, I hadn't realized you could have an RPG where all character traits were open-ended. I hadn't thought about using vision cards and tarot decks for character and gameplay inspiration before Everway. Sorcerer taught me about kickers, bangs, and relationship maps. Sorcerer, Amber, Risus, most of the Memento-Mori games, and the Pool provided new ways of thinking about streamlined mechanics optimized to produce a particular kind of gameplay and milieu. Pendragon and Ars Magica showed me you can use personality stats to be a vibrant part of the game. Mage produced a powerful, versatile magic system that doesn't rely on spell memorization (or spells at all, for that matter). eight unveils a powerful and highly original text-based way to use magic. I could cite many more games, but that's plenty for now.

All these games broke with tradition and offered something new by challenging the prevailing way of doing things. They've shaped my own thinking about gaming, stimulated my creativity, and given me a great deal of pleasure along the way. I'm damned glad the designers didn't let themselves be constrained by whatever box prevailed at the time they made their particular game. If they hadn't gone beyond the mechanics and philosophy of "what worked," the discussion here would be much poorer.

Posing the question this thread asks is one of the most important things we can do. It's important for me, anyway, and when I focus on getting out of the box or losing reference to the box entirely, it's not meant as a negative judgment on what's come before; it's about finding something new. In writing, you produce a lot of crap before you hit something cool. Creativity works the same way, I think. One hits a lot of interesting but flawed ideas en route to something great.

Take computer games, for instance. Nearly every conceivable roleplaying game on the computer uses the D&D class-level model. An enormous number of them also use the stereotyped high fantasy races -- elves, orcs, dwarves, ad nauseam -- in the usual Tolkien knock-off fashion. It's a chore to convince anyone to design a CRPG without these elements, because the perception is that (a) this is what the customer is familiar with and expects, (b) that's what most designers are familiar with, (c) the code problems and game balance issues with the class-level approach are pretty well-known and thus make producing such a game much easier. Taken with the tendency for big-budget productions to be conservative risk-takers, you have little movement toward finding a new and more innovative way to make CRPGs.

The first step toward improving anything is to question the prevailing assumptions and look for alternatives. With great respect to Valamir's points, I very much appreciate Josh posing the question for our consideration. This is one of the most intensely original assemblies of people I have encountered, and I look forward to seeing what we come up with.

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-08-01 13:04 ]

Trying to look outside the box gives some idea of the box itself; how big it is, what its made of, in what context it occurs. All useful stuff, even if you decide to stay in the box.

I was just thinking about the attributes thing (because they bug me) and have an idea top throw out. What if we reversed the conventional numerical pattern of attributes and skills - had a verying number of attributes, and a fixed number of skills?

Most games use a fixed number of attributes out of what I think is a kinda sim, perhaps rationalist, idea that the character must be measured against a fixed standard and categorised as to ability in these categories. It recognises (or asserts, whichever) that skill is more variable and thus endows it with a much greater freedom of movement.

Could we get interesting relationships if we did it the other way around? What if skills were categorised - say administrative, analytical - and fixed in catgories, perhaps with a caveat of potentially different breadth. By making attributes variable in number, we approach some freeforom styles, a bit like HeroWars maybe. Many things that might have been Merits ro Flaws could become Attributes, and loses the positive-negatiove connotation.

I have not thought about this at length, nor can I offer a model to examine, but its worth thinking about, I think anyway.