Topic: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Started by: jdagna
Started on: 10/18/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 10/18/2002 at 10:56am, jdagna wrote:
RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I often hear people refer to the so-called "wargaming roots" of RPGs, almost always used in a derogative sense, the same way people will refer to the difference between roll-players and role-players. This seems especially true for the diceless fans, who tend to argue that real role-playing is stifled by dice and that more mature players shouldn't use them.
Perhaps it is just me, but I tend to see things in the entirely opposite light.
Now, I do acknowledge the historical order of the games. Gary Gygax talks about how Chainmail - a 1:1 wargame - formed his inspiration for D&D. Clearly wargames do predate role-playing games to some extent. Clearly they were an influence.
But it seems to me that the true roots of role-playing lie in the games played by young children. Boys, in particular, seem to play either "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" quite a bit. Both ot these are essentially diceless role-playing games - the children take on the roles of police, burglars, cowboys or indians and then pitch battles and escapes whlie acting out their imaginary persona. Girls are more likely to play the role of a housewife, but in an identical manner.
Role-playing games simply formalize this early role-playing behavior. They add rules and resolution mechanics so that players can avoid the "I shot you." "No you missed! I shot you!" arguments and have a deeper, often mathematical concept of their artificial world.
No wargame ever asked you to accurately portray the feelings of a medieval foot soldier or a Vietnam artillerist. The fact that Chainmail predated D&D and that Gary Gygax was influenced by his design of both doesn't necessarily indicated "wargaming roots." To me, the inspiration and focus of an RPG is something clearly different from a wargame. An RPG has "cowboys and indians roots" with features borrowed from wargames to facilitate play - especially combat, because childhood role-playing was often at least as combat-focused as any RPG group.
Perhaps this opinion of mine is due to a relatively late entry into RPGs - my first game was purchased in '86 and happened to be Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play. I never played D&D much (and my first real exposure wasn't until 2E AD&D). But, having started play with WFRP (a game with "wargaming roots" if there ever was one), the differences were obvious to me from day one. Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000 are painfully boring to me, but I continue to play WFRP to this day. They may share concepts and rules, but the roots of the two are (in my mind) absolutely separate and discrete entities.
If anything, I would say that diceless games are a reversion to a more primitive style of play based on that old cops and robbers tradition, except that I wouldn't want to put a negative connotation on any form of gaming - different people enjoy different styles and to each his own.
But I feel like the "wargaming roots" argument is an unjust fallacy based more on historical precedence than on true origins.
I would be interested in other people's opinions on this subject.
On 10/18/2002 at 11:07am, contracycle wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I think that "wargaming roots" is a description of emchanical pedigree; the way that the Actual Product developed hisotrically. It may well be that RPG is a formalisation fo something that happens automatically in people in a variety of cirucmstances; but in many ways the mechanical conventions we have (like using dice) originate from the wargame context.
On 10/18/2002 at 11:11am, Christoffer Lernö wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
For me (a little on a tangent here), "wargaming roots" are painfully obvious in the glaring "suspension of disbelief"-breaking stuff of D&D.
In a wargame, having abstract hitpoints works very well. All we care about is that we have a resource which tells us how close the miniature is to biting it. We don't need the details.
Similarly with the AC system. There is no need to know you hit but it didn't do damage or if you missed when you play a miniature game.
In a miniature system, it's ok to have weapons to do a limited damage.
Levels are a convenient measurement of skill.
And so on and so on.
However, at a more detailed level those things break down. On one hand these things could be bridged by narrative control and things like that, but it isn't. Instead there is the insistence that this is simulating reality in some way. Something which doesn't make sense. You basically kept the wargaming priorities, abstract nature of mechanics and which turning up the detail on which you treat the character. This is what works very poorly. Unfortunately a lot of games kept sticking to the legacy for no other reason than old habit.
That's what my complaint is about anyway.
On 10/18/2002 at 2:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Justin, I think when most people mention "wargaming-roots" they, as Gareth points out, are saying that the mechanics of wargaming were used to facilitate doing Role-Playing play, which is, as you point out, a drive that we all seem to have indulged in our youths.
Nobody is saying that the urge to role-play comes from wargaming. Just that the rules do. And this is precisely why this is brought up. As wargaming rules do not seem to be a very good way of supporting certain styles of play. The play styles that it does support well, came about immediately. But the other play styles emerged almost immediately after that, and players of those styles have felt that there were problems with this genealogy of mechanics ever since. In fact it's something that designers of these sorts of games have been struggling to get out from underneath ever since.
Note that his is not an endictment of those styles of play that wargaming rules do support well. For that, I think they are excellent. But that doesn't change the fact that some people would prefer to play in a way that these rules actually hinder rather than support.
Is that something we can agree with?
Mike
On 10/18/2002 at 3:48pm, MR. Analytical wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
To my mind the remark that something shows its "wargaming roots" is not entirely about mechanics but is also about style of play.
As has been pointed out no wargamer cares about how a napoleonic footsoldier cares about charging into the Russian guns. Similarly, I think that to say that an RPG is a bit like a wargame is to say that characterisation and plot have little to do with the game, what's important is winning and (more importantly) playing in a tactical way.
So in D&D ( the usual suspect) some might argue that it's all about checking for traps and effectively using fireball spells as artillery while the fighters wade in. It's about checking for traps in the dungeon and generally caring more about the tactical details of roleplaying than the plot or story (the strategic side fo the game).
Is it a stupid prejudice? Well yes and no. Yes in that there's nothing inherrently wrong with playing this way if the players enjoy it; no because roleplaying is capable of much more sophisticated and subtle play than wargames and to roleplay in a way consistant with wargaming seems to be a bit of a "throwback". I don't think that the latter is objectively strong but it is a reason and a valid reason at that.
Ultimately I suspect that this is another variation on the gamist Vs. narrativist wars.
On 10/18/2002 at 5:07pm, damion wrote:
Re: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I actually started off as a wargamer, before realizing I liked RPG's better and hated painting. :) I'd say wargames major contribution to RPGS is the concept and prototype of simulating reality, i.e. having a mechanical infrastructure that would determine the outcome of events, a resolution system, which could be blended with the imaginative play jdagna mentioned.
If you consider wargames basicly very complex board games, then RPGS are a combination of imaginative play and board game resolution mechanics.
Later inovations were for different types of resoltion systems, such as microeconomic ones(frex tokens that depend on the number of players). Another later development was that this resoltion system could by applied to things other than resolving the outcome of actions of things that couldn't happen in the game anyway, i.e. resolution could be applied to the imaginative play side and not just the board game side.
Well, that's my way of thinking of it, if it makes sense.
On 10/18/2002 at 5:17pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
damion wrote: I actually started off as a wargamer, before realizing I liked RPG's better and hated painting. :)
Heh...I love to see comments like this, because it really does highlight the transitory nature of these labels and feuds.
Damion is obviously referring to a past as a minis gamer, yet he simply refers to it as "wargaming".
There was a point in time where he'd be crucified for such a statement. Where miniatures gamers and wargamers hated each other with almost the same passion as RPGers and CCGers did (to make a sweeping generalization) a few years back.
"Wargaming" as a term refered to paper hex maps, cardboard counters, and d6s rolled on a CRT.
"Historical Miniatures Gamers" reviled them and vice versa. Of course the "Historical Miniatures Gamers" reviled the "Fantasy Miniatures Gamers" with equal fervor.
Now Damion can just casually refer to it all as "wargaming" and no one but a few old grognards really cares.
I figure this whole Wargaming / RPGing thing will eventually go the same way until its all just "gaming".
On 10/18/2002 at 5:22pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: Re: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
jdagna wrote: Now, I do acknowledge the historical order of the games. Gary Gygax talks about how Chainmail - a 1:1 wargame - formed his inspiration for D&D. Clearly wargames do predate role-playing games to some extent. Clearly they were an influence.
The problem here (and the line blurs if you look too closely) is that the term "role-playing" is generally accepted as being a relatively recent, and modern, coinage. Thus many forget the games which pre-dated modern role-playing which contained elements of "role" play.
This is evidenced in many of the "party games" of yester year, especially those from Victorian times. Of course as anyone who has had the misfortune to have their filters turned "off" can attest there is also a whole other world of "role-playing" out there for your perusal on the spiny dragon's back (Internet). Obviously the taking on of a "role" is nothing new, actors have been doing it for centuries, as have young children in their timeless pursuit of imaginative games made up on the spur of the moment.
Of course it is not until the existance of a form is widely recognized that is gains acknowledgement and attribution of origin. This can be plainly seen in how compilers of dictionaries often take several years to add new words, especially slang or minor derivations of established word meanings.
And I wont even go into the sort of festival events which pre-dated LARPs in which people ernestly took on roles, dressed up in those roles, and literally played those roles out. Save to say that Mardi Gras is one of the few hold overs of those ancient folk customs.
jdagna wrote: But it seems to me that the true roots of role-playing lie in the games played by young children. Boys, in particular, seem to play either "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" quite a bit. Both ot these are essentially diceless role-playing games - the children take on the roles of police, burglars, cowboys or indians and then pitch battles and escapes whlie acting out their imaginary persona. Girls are more likely to play the role of a housewife, but in an identical manner.
Yes and no.
Attempting to find the elusive origins of role-playing is like trying to identify when the first Tarot deck was created. We know the Tarot exists, it sells in droves, but of its origins? There are many possible ways to explain it.
For modern FRP games it is a fact that they grew out of wargamming, if only because those games to which the term "roleplaying" was first applied were games which combined various elements of game play. Elements which typically included rules for table top play, meaning the use of miniatures.
Then again it is also a histotrical fact that a certain king (though which eludes my imp of memory at the moment) used to play chess using live people dressed up in their parts.
Why mention that? Because while many will attribute wargamming as originating either with Napoleon or H.G. Wells, games of this type actually predate the modern variety. Only they weren't necessarily called wargames.
Why?
Wargames, by definition, are games meant to simulate actual historical battles. Which is why the early FRP games were not well recieved by hardcore wargammers. They were not recreating actual events but rather playing out fantastical battles with no basis in reality, as they saw it.
Confused yet?
jdagna wrote: Role-playing games simply formalize this early role-playing behavior. They add rules and resolution mechanics so that players can avoid the "I shot you." "No you missed! I shot you!" arguments and have a deeper, often mathematical concept of their artificial world.
As has been pointed out in the introductions to many a role-playing game.
Although I wouldn't necessarily say there is any sort of "deeper" (which to me intimates forethought) organized "mathmatical concept" to most FRP game mechanics. Most simply use what, on the surface, appear to be arbitrary charts. Which is a natural development from the ratio systems used in most miniatures rules.
Of course only a mathmatician would care for a game with deeper mathmatical formulae, for the rest of the gaming community a simple system which consistent rolls works just fine.
Which also explains the D20 mechanics that have been used in D&D for all these years. They are quick, simple, and easy to use.
What every gamer loves.
jdagna wrote: No wargame ever asked you to accurately portray the feelings of a medieval foot soldier or a Vietnam artillerist. The fact that Chainmail predated D&D and that Gary Gygax was influenced by his design of both doesn't necessarily indicated "wargaming roots." To me, the inspiration and focus of an RPG is something clearly different from a wargame.
Alas one can not divorce FRP games from wargamming so easily.
Remember how I mentioned the Tarot?
Tarot could not exist without the pre-existance of *cards*. Cards had to exist before the Tarot could be created. Without the one the other could not exist, so it is with *modern* role-playing games.
Although *conceptually* you are correct.
The game designer of today need not ever have played a wargame to create a decent FRP.
But if you want that FRP to be more than a mere excersize in mental masterbation then you need rules. Most rules will generally be written reflective of some sort of table top environment, irregardless of whether or not the designer has played a wargame.
Why?
Because it is far easier to conceptualize a board game environment with pieces moving about.
Don't think so?
Take a Monopoly board out of its box. Find someone who has never played the game before. Give them the board. Tell them the concept is to create a environment in which they are to move pieces around the board, oh, and the rules, well that's up to your imagination. The dice, well, you know, be imaginative.
I think you'll find it wont work. In order to explain something, even a storyteller game, one first must have some basic understanding of the concept. That is why role-playing developed out of wargamming. Because the first authors of FRP games were wargammers, thus they explained things in wargamming terms, even though they were probably well aware their games were not, by a long shot, traditional war- or boardgames.
EDIT:
Interested in historical games? Try one of these books:
"Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations"; R.C. Bell, Dover, 1979. (reprint) ISBN 0-486-23855-5
Want to read a book on the subject from around the time the lines were still blurred? Try this one:
"Fantasy Wargaming"; ed. Bruce Galloway, Stein and Day, 1982. ISBN 0-8128-2862-3
On 10/18/2002 at 5:38pm, jdagna wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Pale Fire wrote: For me (a little on a tangent here), "wargaming roots" are painfully obvious in the glaring "suspension of disbelief"-breaking stuff of D&D.
Actually, I don't think it is a tangent, and in some ways gets to the core of what I was talking about. The interesting thing is that I hear the wargaming roots argument used most often against games with a high level of combat detail - the kind of games you'd prefer. Generally, the ones criticizing a game for having wargaming roots want to see fewer rules for combat, faster resolution and are willing to sacrifice buckets of detail to "get on with the story."
In my mind, the concept of applying wargame mechanics to the question of an RPG is an appropriate step. After all, wargames (especially those where one figure represents one soldier) answer some fundamental questions like where you are, how you got there, what you can do and what your health status is. These are fundamental mechanics for an RPG.
However, in that conversion, one has to provide the features that apply most to the RPG setting. You cite the need for more specific detail (again, something that most people say is actually because of wargaming roots).
In response to Mike:
I can definitely agree with what you say. I guess the best way to sum up my problem is the pejorative use of "wargaming roots" when I see wargaming elements as being grafted onto the top of a pre-existing role-playing structure in order to facilitate certain elements of it. It's a lateral transition, not a linear evolution.
Which doesn't mean people haven't royally screwed up at various points (past and present). If D&D had done it perfectly, there wouldn't be much call for the Forge.
On 10/18/2002 at 5:39pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Kester Pelagius wrote:
"Fantasy Wargaming"; ed. Bruce Galloway, Stein and Day, 1982. ISBN 0-8128-2862-3
A great book to read, and a great example to use. The actual progression from table top minis war game (and the rules for that are actually quite good if you can dredge them out from the lousy presentation) to the main part of the rules of actual old school RPG (with alot of really innovative features that I still borrow from to this day) is right there in black and white. The author made absolutely no distinction between the two in the sense of "here's a seperate minis game that is compatable with the RPG game". To him it was all part of the same game and the very title of the book bears this out.
On 10/18/2002 at 5:46pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me...
Valamir wrote:Kester Pelagius wrote:
"Fantasy Wargaming"; ed. Bruce Galloway, Stein and Day, 1982. ISBN 0-8128-2862-3
A great book to read, and a great example to use. The actual progression from table top minis war game (and the rules for that are actually quite good if you can dredge them out from the lousy presentation) to the main part of the rules of actual old school RPG (with alot of really innovative features that I still borrow from to this day) is right there in black and white. The author made absolutely no distinction between the two in the sense of "here's a seperate minis game that is compatable with the RPG game". To him it was all part of the same game and the very title of the book bears this out.
Yes, back then it was all about the game. Alas someone let that imp the Rules-Lawyers out of Pandora's box and it's been breeding like a devil rabbit ever since.
To add to what Valamir said the book really is a great resource. Not just for a presentation of FRP/wargamming rules in transition but also for historical reference.
Plust you get stats for angels, demons, Satan, and God.
What more could you want in a role-playing game? ;)
Don't know why I didn't think to mention any of that. Oh, yeah, I was rambling! heh
Great follow up post!
On 10/18/2002 at 6:58pm, Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Kester wrote: Of course only a mathmatician would care for a game with deeper mathmatical formulae, for the rest of the gaming community a simple system which consistent rolls works just fine.
Which also explains the D20 mechanics that have been used in D&D for all these years. They are quick, simple, and easy to use.
What every gamer loves.
I can only assume that these three paragraphs were intended sardonically...?
On 10/19/2002 at 6:56am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I think the major issue with the wargaming roots concept is that a lot of the mechanics or more importantly, assumptions about what is necessary and unnecessary in order to play a roleplaying game, have been passed down without critical examination.
Some examples:
•There must be a mechanic for death/elimination from play
•Characters must have physical traits/stats
•Characters must improve/improvement must be in power
•Players can only act through characters, player information is limited to the character's information.
Etc. etc.
Of course, many games have already demolished these assumptions as being necessary, but many gamers and game designers are still operating with these and many more assumptions. Of course, the derogatory note aimed at wargames really reflects worse on roleplayers, since it's not the wargaming community that continues to create stagnant rpgs. :P
Chris
On 10/19/2002 at 7:04am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Bankuei wrote: Of course, the derogatory note aimed at wargames really reflects worse on roleplayers, since it's not the wargaming community that continues to create stagnant rpgs. :P
One could even take elements from wargames now and create more interesting RPGs. For example Crossfire, with movement that isn't fixed in length, but can be any length.
On 10/21/2002 at 9:05pm, ADGBoss wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I think more so then anything that its not mechanics that have spread down the line as it is the Assumption of Conflict. You play awargame under the premise that you will be coming into conflict with a side or sides. This has been passed on to skirmish gaming or Role playing if you will, in that when you Roleplay there is an assumption of Conflict.... NOTE I did NOT say combat. There is a difference. In RPG's the conflict can be no violent but its always there. Even in Narrativist game where the conflicts are internal in many ways.
However, there has been a tendancy with War games that are Campaigns to have a kinf of NArrative Gamism, asking oneself for what is it worth to take that country? Well that may be a reach but I believe its there...
Yet why do we have to say War Game with such distaste? Not having read the history of Role playing or anything (1 history book I missed) I can tell you that Role Playing a General or COlonel or King has been around for some time. The Original Prussian Wargames, with HUGE halls and small wooden soldiers. Diplomacy is as much role playing as it is wargaming and it is DICELESS.
Also the Tarot analogy can be taken a little further, as if it were not for Cards AND the Art of Divination, Tarot would not exist...
SMH
ADGBoss
On 10/21/2002 at 10:51pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
A few comments...
Greetings Bankuei,
Bankuei wrote: I think the major issue with the wargaming roots concept is that a lot of the mechanics or more importantly, assumptions about what is necessary and unnecessary in order to play a roleplaying game, have been passed down without critical examination.
Actually the origins of the dispute stem from the "historical wargaming" verses "fantasy wargaming" school.
Remember, way back then, it was, as it is now, a hobbyist sport. (More or less.) As with any sport there are certain rules. For the wargammer, those ground rules were the recreation of historical battles.
Fantasy? Why that just flew in the face of the premise. Not to mention people were turning a sport into a mere game.
Historical wargaming was popular with simulationists and historians, as the early wargaming journals would probably reflect. However, as with any good thing, eventually others discover it and want to "play" it themselves. I think you will find, if you have the resources to hand, that the arguements were already in place. Fantasy wargaming just happened to come along at the right moment in time for the brunt of the arguement to be displaced (or rather redirected) to it.
Of course that is a matter of opinion.
Kind Regards.
On 10/21/2002 at 10:59pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Greetings ADGBoss,
ADGBoss wrote: Also the Tarot analogy can be taken a little further, as if it were not for Cards AND the Art of Divination, Tarot would not exist...
Not to count apples in the basket but... Yes and no.
Tarot would probably be far more obscure than it is today if not for the fact it became associated with divination and fortune-telling, to be sure. But it was as the game of Tarock (or Atouts = Trumps) that the Tarot which we have today originated.
Despite the fact you can probably do a Google search and find a trick taking game or two calling itself Tarock or Tarrochi, very little is actually known about the original game of Tarock. Which is part of the Tarot's basic enigma.
For those interested most modern Tarock games you will find rules for are really varients of Whist, with elements borrowed wily nilly from other trick taking games.
On 10/22/2002 at 3:50am, wraeththu wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I think that I tend to view Wargames and RPG's on something of an elaborate scale measuring roughly "Role-play content" and "Tactical content". Not to say that those two are neccessarily opposed - they aren't. Let me give an example.
I play dnd3e. Usually I play it as a traditional RPG, with each player having a PC and a DM presiding over the game. Occaisionally though we play it as a Wargame. Everyone gets 20 levels to divide amoungst their Warparty, within certain limits and there's no DM. We play that style out on an actual terrain board with minitures and little to no real RolePlay.
So.. is dnd a Wargame? It certainly can be played as one - quite well and better than Chainmail if you ask me. Is it an RPG? certainly. The difference is in how we play it.
When playing it traditionally, I generally refer to it as Roleplaying.
When playing with full minis and Warbands, I refer to it as Wargaming.
Somone on here suggested that Wargames don't really care about the psychology of the lone russian fighter charging the hill - I'd put that that's a mistake. Wargamers *Do* care about that. Just from a Different perspective. Wargamers want to correctly mimic psychology so as to mimic the actions of troops in conflict. They don't care about re-creating it as a method of experiencing it, but instead as a way of more acurately trying to mimic behavior. Do they care if the individual soldier is in love with his girl back home or is he merely "doing her?" No. They do care though about whether or not he breaks in fear at the sight of his opponent.
As an aside on definitions. Someone posted that there were "Wargames" and "Fantasy Wargames" and "Historical Wargames" etc.... I classify them all under teh same banner. And I've never really had any trouble from doing so.
Anyway, sorry if I ramble. My point? That there's not that much of a gulf between the two artforms.
-wade jones
On 10/22/2002 at 8:59pm, jdagna wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Bankuei wrote: I think the major issue with the wargaming roots concept is that a lot of the mechanics or more importantly, assumptions about what is necessary and unnecessary in order to play a roleplaying game, have been passed down without critical examination.
Some examples:
?There must be a mechanic for death/elimination from play
?Characters must have physical traits/stats
?Characters must improve/improvement must be in power
?Players can only act through characters, player information is limited to the character's information.
Looking at these elements that were supposedly inherited without critical examination, I'm really not sure how you could do away with them in an RPG.
A mechanic for death would be essential in any game pretending to be vaguely realistic, since people die all the time.
The need for physical traits and stats is also important because some people are clearly stronger, tougher and/or faster than others. How else do we define what the person is capable of doing? Even if you do away with attributes, skills still provide this information.
The assumption that character must improve (and do so in their power) is another assumption that I think is warranted. We can all attest that experience, practice and education improves what people are capable of. Now, D&D's class system makes this advancement much more dramatic than other systems do. I don't demand that my 20th level character be 20 times as powerful (I don't even like levels), but I'd be a little suprised if you told me a Sergeant with three tours of duty was no better a soldier than a PFC straight out of boot camp.
Your final "inherited mechanic" is that player information and action is limited to what the character can do or know is only assumed by some styles of play. I personally feel that such player/character separation is the best way to play. I have seen games encourage other methods (such as director stance) and am still not sure I'd want to play them regularly.
Is it really fair to chalk these features up to assumptions inherited from wargaming? Haven't you simply described features of Simulationist gaming, and the Actor stance? Even if early RPGs borrowed these features from wargaming, you haven't mentioned the features of wargaming they intentionally abandoned (concepts like controlling more than one character).
On 10/22/2002 at 9:44pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
jdagna wrote: Looking at these elements that were supposedly inherited without critical examination, I'm really not sure how you could do away with them in an RPG.I find InSpectres to be eminently "realistic", yet it has no rules for character death.
A mechanic for death would be essential in any game pretending to be vaguely realistic, since people die all the time.
The need for physical traits and stats is also important because some people are clearly stronger, tougher and/or faster than others. How else do we define what the person is capable of doing? Even if you do away with attributes, skills still provide this information.To use another of Jared's games, Idoru, you play computer programs. Certainly Strength would be unnecessary in such a game. In fact, if I were to make a game about Corporate raiding, I'd think that strength would be entirely unneeded. What, am I going to get the head of ReallyBigCo to sign over his proxy rights by putting him in a headlock?
The assumption that character must improve (and do so in their power) is another assumption that I think is warranted.Again, if that's what the game is about. However, many, many RPGs are all about stuff that has nothing to do with characters improving. So what do these mechanics add in those games?
Your final "inherited mechanic" is that player information and action is limited to what the character can do or know is only assumed by some styles of play. I personally feel that such player/character separation is the best way to play. I have seen games encourage other methods (such as director stance) and am still not sure I'd want to play them regularly.So, what your really saying here is that these assumptions fit your style of play. Is it so hard to admit that they might inhibit someone elses?
Is it really fair to chalk these features up to assumptions inherited from wargaming? Haven't you simply described features of Simulationist gaming, and the Actor stance? Even if early RPGs borrowed these features from wargaming, you haven't mentioned the features of wargaming they intentionally abandoned (concepts like controlling more than one character).What does it matter what was abandoned? How does that affect what I play today? The fact is that these ideas come from the Wagaming roots. Some like them. Some do not. So what?
Mike
On 10/22/2002 at 9:53pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
I'm a little confused by this association with "wargaming roots".
Aren't these things really associated with "First Generation RPGs" and not really wargaming. I can't think of any wargame that has rules for improvement or physical attributes (or rather so few that they are the exception and hardly the rule).
Wouldn't it be more accurate that the items that have been listed above are those things that the early progentors of this new field of game used to DIFFERENTIATE what they were creating FROM existing wargames.
So in a sense it ties back into those early wargaming days but hardly as an evolution from them. Rather more as a specifically identified point of departure from them.
On 10/23/2002 at 2:06am, ejh wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Isn't it the case that in the precursors to the published D&D games, people originally played what later became 12th level characters, and the notion of working up to that level from level 1 was one of the innovations?
I remember reading that somewhere.
On 10/23/2002 at 4:21am, jdagna wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Mike Holmes wrote: What does it matter what was abandoned? How does that affect what I play today? The fact is that these ideas come from the Wagaming roots. Some like them. Some do not. So what?
Mike, you seemed to miss the point of my reply.
I was not saying "These are the things that RPGs do." I was saying "These things make sense in an RPG in their own right, and are not just wargaming assumptions that never got questioned."
Motorcycles and bicycles both have two wheels. Bicycles predate motorcycles, so can we say that motorcycles have "bicycle roots"? I don't think so. If you want a vehicle that carries one person, you already want something small. You might try one wheel, but you're going to have stability issues. Two wheels works well - bikes even proved it. Three wheels also have stability issues, and they're making things larger to boot so have two strikes against them. Four wheels makes the vehicle even larger - why not just do a car? Two wheels have no negative points, one and four wheels each have one negative and three wheels have two negative points.
So motorcycles have two wheels because it makes sense, not because they were merely imitating a bike.
RPGs have features also seen in wargames because it makes sense, not because they were merely borrowed from wargames.
On 10/23/2002 at 3:28pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
jdagna wrote: RPGs have features also seen in wargames because it makes sense, not because they were merely borrowed from wargames.
Sure, but they were included originally because Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax played wargames, and when they made D&D, then used simlar rules, because that's what they knew. Sure they make sense for the style of play that was subsequently created by those mechanics. But people instantly realized that, hey, there are other ways to play. And these parts that come from wargames, they don't make sense in these styles. Then they go on to say, "Hey, if only D&D had been created from something other than a wargame, perhaps the rules would have been different, and they would have supported our style better. But that didn't happen. So when looking at design, we should level a critical eye at the designs that exist and only include the elements that make sense with our style of play. And not just include them because they were included in the first RPG, and that because the designers were wargamers."
Or rather, and to summarize, the rules that are included in RPGs because of the Wargaming Heritage are such that they do not support all styles of play well. And as such one should not automatically include them just because they worked for the style they engendered (which, of course, they did).
I am confused as to how any of this is in any way controversial. It doesn't way that the wargaming heritage is a bad thing. In fact, had it not been for wrgames, perhaps we would never have had RPGs. It just says that some games adhere to tradition for no particularly good reason. And only those ill designed games can be criticized. For the rest that either adhere to the "wargaming heritage" for all the right reasons, or for those games that sensibly break from it, there is no problem at all.
I think you may be reading in some sort of anti-gamist or anti-simulationist stuff with the phrase. But that's only true when that's the agenda of a person saying it. So, if I don't like such games, and say, damnit, why do people have to continue making games that adhere to that wargaming heritage, I'm just stating my opinion. Which is not much different from sying that I like Tiddly-winks, or Cherry Cola. I'm just not sure how you can object to an opinion.
The only "fact" here is that RPGs were inspired by, and were caused by the existence of Wargames, and that has affected their design considerably over the years (mostly just because of tradition). If that's not important to you, then I can't see why all the railing about it is so important.
Mike
On 10/23/2002 at 6:22pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
jdagna,
I'm not criticizing the rules when they serve a purpose, but I am criticizing the rules when they are kept without any thought as to if that particular rule serves its purpose for that game. There are many games which use the aforementioned rules very well, and many which do not. My only beef is with those that do not, and simply have them because they are assumed to be necessary, whereas, in fact, they are not.
Looking at these elements that were supposedly inherited without critical examination, I'm really not sure how you could do away with them in an RPG.
There are several examples available on the Forge and our Resource Library of games that do away with several of the examples I gave, as well as many other game standards. As you yourself said, Director stance games are one example.
Again, I am not criticizing wargames, but simply identifying the reason many people do(also without thinking). As I said, wargames are not responsible for by rpg design. Lack of critical thinking on the part of designers is responsible for that.
If you care to explore what are the baseline framework rules for rpgs, we can do so in another thread.
Chris
On 10/25/2002 at 5:26pm, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Greetings Valamir,
Interesting points. Let's see, where to begin...
Valamir wrote: Wouldn't it be more accurate that the items that have been listed above are those things that the early progentors of this new field of game used to DIFFERENTIATE what they were creating FROM existing wargames.
To expand: I think one of the things which are confusing people is what a wargame is.
There are actually three varities that I can think of off the top of my head. The sort in which you have nice hex maps with flat counters to represent your troops-- viz.The Arab-Israili War, The Battle of Five Armies, Against the Reich, Magic Realm, &tc-- for the most part these are meant as simulations of battles. Though Magic Realm really simulates a RPG adventure.
Then there are the "miniatures" games. These come in two basic types. 1) Games using boards and 2) Games that merely use a field/area of play and ofen require rulers and such to measure movement.
In the miniatures category I think some good examples might be Battletech (least I hope that is the right -tech game), Ogre/GEV, HeroQuest (yes, plastic figures are miniatures too), &tc.
That said it must be realized none of these modern classifications really apply because...
Valamir wrote: So in a sense it ties back into those early wargaming days but hardly as an evolution from them. Rather more as a specifically identified point of departure from them.
...as Valamir so astutely points out things were different in the ancient of days. For one there was no Internet when FRP games first started, nor were there many BBSes when they started to fill the shelves of toy stores. Back then wargaming was, quite literally, a full fledged entertainment cum diversion which people gathered together to enjoy and participate in. (At least that is how it is often described.) So, while we may have a lot of computer games that seem to be wargames, they really don't have the same feel of what the wargames of old were.
So what does that have to do with the price of whip cream in aisle seven?
Not much, save to say that AD&D, the much heralded and little disputed "first" true RPG was developed by wargamers. It evolved out of a *supplement* set of rules intended for use with Chainmail. However, from what I recall reading about it, this supplement was apparently purchased by a lot of people who didn't realize this was the case. In fact many thought the rules were just badly written so, guess what?
Yep, they re-wrote them in a effort to make them playable.
Thus role-playing was born. So it continued, with gamers regularly and freely adapting ideas to fit their game designs, until the dread Lawyer Lizards and Ogres of Copyright came crashing through the Wall of Fun.
Ok, that last bit might have been a tad over dramatic. ;)
Kind Regards,
Kester Pelagius
EDIT: Cleaned up syntax.
On 10/31/2002 at 6:32pm, b_bankhead wrote:
RE: Re: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
jdagna wrote: I often hear people refer to the so-called "wargaming roots" of RPGs, almost always used in a derogative sense, the same way people will refer to the difference between roll-players and role-players.
I sometimes do this myself but for different reasons. The reasons being that I find miniatures wargames about as fast paced and exciting as watching paint dry. And D&D in particular is an rpg that embodies this. But in an actual wargame this isnt as much of a problem because even though the game seems sluggish, what is being simulated is combats involving sometime thousands of participants. An all day miniatures game might actually be occuring in real time because the actual battle being simulated took all day!
Indeed in most wargames the scale of time in playing the game is shorter than the time taken by the events being simulated. This is particularly the case in grand strategic games where a turn might simulated months of combat.
In rpgs however the time scale of resolution is usually MUCH longer that the scale of combat. Indeed it was a combat that lasted 2 1/2 hours (when I walked out) between about 10 figures that made me vow NEVER to play D&D again. Every dungeonmaster promises their game is different and then you look at the clock and you find half of the time of a six hour session has been spent resolving and playing combat!
Look at the battle between the fellowship and the cave troll in the LOTR movie. Frantic ,frenetic,exciting ,pulsepounding and so fast I had to watch it a couple of times on DVD to get a handle on what was happening.
Would you have enjoyed it if they freeze framed it every few seconds so that it lasted an hour? If not why should I in an rpg?
Compare with rpg combat which is usually sluggish, turgid, punctuated by arguments from rules lawyers and people standing around making meticulous measurments to make sure their fireballs wind up in the right place. The primary reason I hate rpg combat is that for me the game dies when combat starts.
And this is directly the result of the wargame paradigm. D&D was based on a mass combat system, it was scaled down directly without being mindful of how the change in scale affects things. And now we are stuck with tropes irrelevant to the new form because it was the first rpg!
My primary pleasure in rpgs (I have come to realize) is in creation of the narrative. (yes I can enjoy gamist and sim stuff too, but they are a DISTANT second and third behind the narrative) and most combat narratives are fun only small doses. I mean really would you read a fantasy novel with 5 pages of "I hit-I damage, I miss , I swing, I miss ,I hit...' every time there was a combat?
For me slow pacing is one of the deadly sins if the GMs in this area. They dont keep things moving ,particulalry combat.
Which I why I stopped using miniatures. Something about them just makes people want to stand around drinking cokes and telling the same 30 year old monty python jokes while they ruffle their charts and graphs. My own style of running combats follows the rule KEEP IT MOVING. I give people a few seconds to announce what they are going to and if they stammer or flub, tough beans , you miss your turn! Myself I yell, roar, jump around throw objects, violate personal space and generally keep things intense and uncomfortable, in my games doing SOMETHING is better than standing around like some jackleg Napolean trying to figure out the perftect move, or select the perfect spell.
Which is one of the reasons I'm moving away from simulationism and gamism in combat. They almost inherently slow donw the narrative to a degree that is unnaceptable for me...
On 11/3/2002 at 3:34am, Evan Waters wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Certainly, if we're going to agree that D&D was the first RPG, then Wargaming had, if not the primary influence, certainly a big influence on the whole hobby. It's actually interesting to see how it developed, even just in reference to D&D itself: first a supplement to a large-scale battles game, then an odd little psuedo-miniatures game in itself where you have a character and move him around a dungeon and fight monsters and get treasure- and slowly people start to realize what you can do with this. "Hey, it's like a kind of adventure story. What if there was an entire world outside this dungeon, and your character is an epic hero?"- I think maybe at this point memories of "Cops and Robbers" and stuff like that start to creep in, and the infamous "Let's pretend with rules" definition develops.
I purchased the First Edition AD&D books not too long ago from EBay, and in certain sections there is a feeling of newness, like Gygax and TSR saw what others were starting to do with RPGs and applied that to their own game, this time talking a bit more about worlds and campaign play and all that stuff and opening things up. And of course since AD&D is really popular, a lot of other designers see it and run even further- it's like a loop developed, where RPG makers kept building on each other. Soon we arrived at our current sense of RPGs, where it's a bit like a wargame but a bit like a story, too, and maybe like that stuff you played as a kid.
On 11/3/2002 at 7:34am, Kester Pelagius wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Greetings Evan,
Evan Waters wrote: Certainly, if we're going to agree that D&D was the first RPG, then Wargaming had, if not the primary influence, certainly a big influence on the whole hobby. It's actually interesting to see how it developed, even just in reference to D&D itself: first a supplement to a large-scale battles game, then an odd little psuedo-miniatures game in itself where you have a character and move him around a dungeon and fight monsters and get treasure- and slowly people start to realize what you can do with this. "Hey, it's like a kind of adventure story. What if there was an entire world outside this dungeon, and your character is an epic hero?"- I think maybe at this point memories of "Cops and Robbers" and stuff like that start to creep in, and the infamous "Let's pretend with rules" definition develops.
How true.
But here's something weirder which I read in, I believe, "The Role-Playing Gamer's Bible"... namely that those early gamers used to get together to sometimes play-act their parts out.
Unless I am misremembering that just gave me a funny thought:
So which came first the RPGer or the LARPer?
Evan Waters wrote: I purchased the First Edition AD&D books not too long ago from EBay, and in certain sections there is a feeling of newness, like Gygax and TSR saw what others were starting to do with RPGs and applied that to their own game, this time talking a bit more about worlds and campaign play and all that stuff and opening things up. And of course since AD&D is really popular, a lot of other designers see it and run even further- it's like a loop developed, where RPG makers kept building on each other. Soon we arrived at our current sense of RPGs, where it's a bit like a wargame but a bit like a story, too, and maybe like that stuff you played as a kid.
Yeah 1st ED was nice, then I am probably biased since that (and the Red, Blue, and Black D&D books) is mostly what I used when I DMed. My old group had a sort of hybrid system which I can't even remember how worked, but it must have because all I remember about it is we had a lot of fun playing!
Of course we also used miniatures from time to time, though mostly just to show who was where in party order when traveling and such.
Anyone else?
On 11/4/2002 at 5:33am, CowperColes wrote:
setting theory aside for a moment (long)
I remember reading an old article on the creation of D&D by Gygax in which he elaborates on the game's "Wargaming Roots".
He wrote Chainmail as a large scale medieval wargame with a figure ration of 20:1 or 40:1 per figure. Any size figure could be used, but at the time Gygax and his buddies owned tons of 54mm plastic and tin Marx Co. toy soldiers. They made battlefields in a big sandtable in Gygax's basement.
Occassionally they'd refight sieges. Gygax made a special Man-To-Man chapter in the rules in which 1 man = 1 miniature. There was even a section on "sapping", in which an invading force would dig tunnels under the castle walls to infiltrate the castle or burn the foundations under a wall section, causing it to collapse. He developed special rules for counter sappers intercepting the attackers, in which a GM kept track of where the two groups of sappers were on a map, and then a "tunnel fight" occurred underground when contact occurred.
Gygax also made special rules for fantasy troop types (orcs, dragons, trolls, etc) in another chapter in the back of the book.
The story is that Dave Arneson, a guy who GMed a wargames campaign in Minneapolis, set up a fantasy-themed wargame. Set in "Blackmoor", the players all invented alter egos to serve as army leader characters in the game. This "role assumption" has been done a lot by historical wargamers, who would get into the spirit of their games by say, acting like Napoleon (strutting around, talking in a silly french accent) when leading the French army in a wargame. It's not true roleplaying though. It's more akin to making silly car noises when you use the racecar token in a game of monopoly.
Arneson was the judge or "Game Master" for the campaign. Running a game with an impartial judge to simulate the kind of "fog of war" that happens in real life has been around ever since the Prussians started doing it in the 1840s to train their officer corps.
Anyway, Arneson developed the man-to-man tunnel fighting rules into a stand alone game. Blackmoor players ran their fantasy countries economies as part of the campaign (kinda like axis and allies). To get extra money to finance their wars, players could play "raid the mines of moria" style tunnel wargames by gathering a force of figures, led by a general character and hacking their way through a dungeon, stocked with monsters and treasure by the GM. Sometimes rival players would battle each other underground.
It was pretty much a dungeon crawl skirmish wargame, similar to Games' Workshop's HeroQuest or Warhammer Quest games. Arneson gave Gygax a copy of the rules to see if he'd want to publish it.
Gygax then made major changes in the rules. He changed the emphasis from fighting small unit actions in tunnels to players fighting with individual characters. Gygax was brought up on fantasy stories like Conan & Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and thought it would be cool to play a game in which you could fight battles with these cool characters. Gygax took his tactical wargame and combined it with make-believe games like Cops & Robbers. Characters were heavily statted up to stand out from other figures. The rules focused on scoring "experience points", "levelling up" and keeping your character alive. He eventually rewrote the combat rules so that they stopped using the Chainmail system. Instead they used a new skirmish rules set called "Swords & Spells" which was the prototype of the Hit Point/Armor Class/THACO system used by D&D.
The game focused a lot more on playing characters and telling stories. It still relied heavily on it's wargaming roots through the use of an impartial gamesmaster to simulate "fog of war". The main story of play sessions was about fighting underground battles with miniatures and scoring "gold" and "experience" points to "power up" the characters.
So here's my take on the development of RPGs from miniature wargames. Gygax made a wargame which could be expanded into a campaign system. Campaigns used judges (Gamemasters) to simulate "fog of war". Arneson made a dungeon crawl game as an expansion to the wargame in which role assumption occurred (players pointed to their general figure on the table, said "that's me" and acted silly for the sake of having fun). Gygax developed the game into a dungeon crawl where players each commanded a force of just one character, and infused the game with classic "let's pretend" games like cops n' robbers. As more people played the game, they invented their own games and own styles of play. RPGs today aren't exclusively about fighting a skirmish game with some pretend characters and a story tacked on.
just my 2 cents worth
On 11/4/2002 at 4:06pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Hi there,
That was a great summary, Cowper. Thanks, and welcome to the Forge.
I looked around for the thread, unsuccessfully, in which I laid out some 60's history about groups who essentially wargamed, but whose main effort during play put aside the "big picture" in favor of this-or-that character who they'd made up. In other words, they'd play out the War of the Two Sides on the board with dice and all, and then they'd hang out and make up the stories of what Hero John and Heroine Jane did during the battle or whatever.
Groups varied in their emphasis and techniques for the two activities, but apparently this was going on ever since the early 60's. Greg Stafford's Glorantha saw this treatment, and although I don't know when, I'm pretty sure it pre-dated the publication of D&D. Dr. M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel setting definitely evolved in this context from the mid-60's, if not before. I have a few novels beginning with "Wargamer's World," published well before D&D was, that were based on these practices.
Probably none of this was role-playing as we currently see it (or maybe certain games like Universalis are finally a powerful system-design return to it). However, evidence of all this activity leads me to think that this culture of hobbyists seized upon the Gygax/Arneson work like starving carnivores, and the ferment that appeared (mainly in the midwest between Springfield IL and Madison WI, as well as on the west coast of the U.S. and in Britain) is how "role-playing" was "invented." That's definitely a personal take on the matter.
I think it's interesting that the earliest versions of D&D, RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery, DragonQuest (I think), and High Fantasy all assumed that a wargame was already proceeding among the people who'd bought this new game, and that they would continue to wargame, and adopt role-playing into it as a "grounds-eye-view" of the larger-scale events that were being generated through the wargame. Tunnels & Trolls and early TFT, both of which were very mano-a-mano Gamist, were the exceptions for fantasy games (as opposed to the early SF and spy spinoffs of existing RPGs, which popped up right about the same time).
Best,
Ron
On 11/4/2002 at 4:30pm, Evan Waters wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
However, evidence of all this activity leads me to think that this culture of hobbyists seized upon the Gygax/Arneson work like starving carnivores, and the ferment that appeared (mainly in the midwest between Springfield IL and Madison WI, as well as on the west coast of the U.S. and in Britain) is how "role-playing" was "invented."
That fits with a "history of RPGs" I read in PLACES TO GO, PEOPLE TO BE (I think), which said that the very first D&D thing- the supplement to CHAINMAIL- was, well, a supplement and not a complete game on its own. So it was incomplete in some areas- for Combat they just said "combat is as in CHAINMAIL except 1 figure represents 1 man" or something like that- but people who bought it were so intrigued by the idea that they were willing to fill in the gaps themselves. They mined it for ideas, added whatever they needed to make it work, and that created enough of a stir that Gygax and Arneson decided a complete game was in order.
On 11/4/2002 at 4:32pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: RPGs "Wargaming Roots"
Just to reinforce the idea of wargaming roots, take a look at the designers of other early RPGs.
Steve Jackson: Had already created Ogre, and a number of other board/wargames. His TFT, is a direct extension of boardgames. Melee and Wizardry (no RPG elements other than the 1:1 play) became Advanced Melee, and Advanced Wizardry, and along with In the Labyrinth (ITL) formed TFT. ITL was essentially the concrete that took the other wargame elements and made them into a RPG.
Marc Miller: I believe he had again already created the Striker miniatures rules. In any case was into naval miniatures. Again, Traveller was his move from a Wargame that he was playing to an RPG.
Most other games of the time were rip-offs of D&D (heck that can be argued of TFT, even). So, not only did these games come from Wargames, but they attracted mostly wargamers as designers at first. Who else?
I, in fact was, and still am a wargamer (learned to play Panzerblitz at the age of seven; my father was an officer). Further, I know, and still play games with, some of that same crew that originally played with Gygax and friends. I can assure you that it was all just an elaborate wargame at first.
Ron is right in pointing out the "West Coast" influence. I think that a lot of what pushed RPGs away from wargaming came from the left coast very early on (I, in fact, played my first game of TFT with a cousin of mine from Santa Barbara).
Anyhow, just a little persepctive.
The point is that, as soon as it got to other places outside of Wisconsin, and the primary gaming groups, it mutated almost immediately to other forms. In fact, one can argue that from the start, TFT is trying for Simulationism, rather than Gamism; Traveller as well. But they were all based around the idea of fighting as the primary activity, and this belies their heritage well.
Mike