In a bout of insomnia, I cooked up an example to try illustrate my point about what subjects/genre/styles are appropriate for rpgs.

So, let's say we have two game ideas (as far as I know, none have already been taken but they're just examples anyways):

Idea A) The party, a ship crew in the XVIth century Mediterrannean sea, fights or make deals with barbaresque pirates, Malte knights, ottomans potentates, christians courts etc. The goal: survive, make money, get famous or die trying.

Idea B) The party, a group of Jesuit missionaries in XVIth century China, tries to persuade or make deals with the emperor's court, local magistrates, peasants, western merchants etc. The goal: work for the glory of the Lord by infiltrating chinese society and converting the pagans or become martyrs.

The two are purposely pretty similar, with the traditonal party + GM approach, "show don't tell", same time, same appeal (or lack of), one could even run the same characters in both.

Now, do you think both are equally good subjects for a rpg ?




[I expect that the answer is that (A) is better than (B)]

(Bonus point: I even managed to tie in the religion thread)

I wholly disagree...
I don't think it's meaningful to compare 'sketches' like these and try to compare if they're "roleplayable".

Heck, with a good system behind it, the strangers-in-a-strange land kind of feel of the second option you present is way more exciting-sounding than the first, which just sounds like another Renaissance pirate drama rehash. Blah.

I find it funny that selected Jesuit missionaries in example B since I believe one of the more frequent posters here is a Jesuit. Not that I think any offense is meant on your part. I just find it odd. (And no offense is meant if I am remembering his religion incorrectly)

What seems to be bogging you down, Thierry, is confusing what would make a good RPG session in play and what would make a marketable product that is likely to sell or at least break even. From the angle of what would make a good game to play, both A and B are both potentially good ideas. If a particular game group is as jazzed up about playing missionaries as they are about playing knights (if more more jazzed about playing the missionaries) then why not? Who are we to judge what a group finds is fun to play? However, if theres are poducts you are planning to sell, well, market trends and all that other rot aside, it certainly seems like idea A has more market potential. (Although it could be argued that idea B may have better potential because there simply are not a many missionary RPGs out there)

This is, I think, where you're getting stuck or why you point is not coming across very well. A group could play Nonsense the RPG, a game were sense or rational though are check at the door and to an observer, it appears that the players are merely shouting random words and sounds, and it would still be a roleplayable game (albeit a silly example). But, would it sell? Even as a free download, would anyone download it? and after downloading, read it? and after reading, play it? Pretty much any concept is roleplayable and no idea is better than one from another. It is only from a distribution angle that one is more likely to be played by others than another.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I find it funny that selected Jesuit missionaries in example B

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: What seems to be bogging you down, Thierry, is confusing what would make a good RPG session in play and what would make a marketable product that is likely to sell or at least break even. From the angle of what would make a good game to play, both A and B are both potentially good ideas.

four willows weeping wrote: with a good system behind it, the strangers-in-a-strange land kind of feel of the second option you present is way more exciting-sounding than the first, which just sounds like another Renaissance pirate drama rehash

I share that sentiment, but I doubt it is possible to find "a good system" to represent that kind of story (this is in fact my point).

Hi Thierry, welcome on board !

Thierry wrote: ...what subjects/genre/styles are appropriate for rpgs.

itsmrwilson wrote: I think there are a bunch of systems that would work fine for option B, so I'm wondering why you think not.

Fabrice G. wrote:
To sum up, I think you're encountering two problem here:
1- the lack of a consise definition of the terminology you're using

2- the fact that there are on these boards many people who refuse to discard "genre/style/..." because they seem hard or impossible to adapt to the rpg medium *

Thierry Michel wrote: ... I doubt it is possible to find "a good system" to represent that kind of story [example B](this is in fact my point).

*chimes in with Jack*
I think there's an important thing that needs to be made clear in the second situation: the characters are important. You stated when you proposed the idea that characters would "convert the heathens or become martyrs". Okay. So the game isn't about what people believe at all, it's about what the characters do to serve God.

As for pacing issues, I believe that this can be solved simply through intelligent play. You can make cuts like, "For several months your talks with the Mandarin of Qiang Si make no progress." You can have climactic debate scenes or high-tension diplomacy with a veneer of civillity over lots of raised hackles and bared teeth. There's no reason for the players to influence the action indirectly. After all, the important action isn't really going on in China after all. It's going on in the missionaries' heads.

I feel as if you're making some fallacy (in this specific instance)like "combat=protagonism because (theoretically) it's fast, tense, and its results are immediately obvious." Heck, anything can work like that.

Thierry Michel wrote: (all of this could probably be summed up as: no combat)

Hi Thierry,

Thierry Michel wrote:

itsmrwilson wrote: I think there are a bunch of systems that would work fine for option B, so I'm wondering why you think not.

Well, that's the crux of the matter.

There are several things that make it unsuitable in my opinion:

* most of the dynamics are "internal". A conversion to catholicism is not something you play with a persuade roll (or several) if you want to do the subject justice. So either it's GM fiat (and you'd need lots of GM advice anyway), or you have to think of a mechanic to represent people's beliefs

Thierry Michel wrote: * the dramas unfolds slowly and continuously. Instead of short bursts of fighting scenes, you'd have things that take weeks or months to solve in game-time

Thierry Michel wrote:
* the players influence the action indirectly, and there's not much that they can do as a group.

Thierry Michel wrote:
(all of this could probably be summed up as: no combat)

I think you should also add a slightly-tweaked Paladin to the list of games that could handle the Jesuit missionaries setting proposed.

Make the Active and Passive Flesh traits into Active and Passive Persuasive traits (how do you convince others? How do you reinforce your own beliefs?) and make the Social trait into a single-word Flesh trait (how does your body bare your soul on its way to the grave?) Then, re-envision combat scenes as debates, persuasions, manipulations and evagelical tirades (as four willows suggested) and you're set.

Or maybe I'm just tired....

wish fulfillment

NOUN: 1. Gratification of a desire. 2. In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream, fantasy, or other exercise of the imagination.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000

I find the mediterranean setting better than I like the Chineese setting simply because I would rather be a pirate than a a jesuit priest. When I play a role playing game, I want to play a role that I find attractive, heroic, noble or simply more capable than I am. Action-adventure movies are popular because we want to be those people. The combat in RPGs is like the combat in action films, it demonstrates the qualities in the heroes that we find attractive (style, cool, tenaticity, mastery.) Films like A Beautiful Mind might be compelling to some, but I would rather be James Bond than John Nash anyday.

Thanks,
Mark

I get what you're saying, Mark, just so long as we understand that it's what you want, but not necessarily what everybody wants, OK?

Thanks for the answers. I'm afraid I can't quote everyone, so I'll try to summarize my reactions.

I know the Hogshead games cited, but not the others (Ill check them out). I was also thinking of Hero Wars and its generic mechanics.

By combat, I do not mean necessarily physical combat. In Hero Wars, for instance, everything is combat-like (with the generic tug-o-war mechanics). So you could say I'm half-way past the "combat stage". I agree that some games can handle non-combat-like situations, but I'm not sure they should.

To continue the example, the "Jesuits in China rpg" would be about putting the fear of God in heathens or climatic debates scenes. But the historical Jesuits in China issues (as far as I remember) were somewhat different: the great tension was between means and ends. The Jesuits tried to make the religion compatible with the Chinese customs and beliefs - with the risk of straying from doctrine. With no army to back them, they had to tread carefully with the authorities (and if memory serves well, they failed). More generally, they were criticized for their worldliness and propensity to mingle in secular concerns (to further the cause of the church, naturally). The central tension should be between blending in society by watering down faith (and losing your soul), or hold to your orthodoxy and fail to make any progress towards your conversion goal. A bit too heavy (or "serious"), for a rpg to tackle, and not that spectacular either.

A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best. If so, why try to tackle genres that the medium is not the best suited for ?

[if I sound a bit dogmatic, it's just because I'm thining out loud, not because my opinions are set in stone]

Thierry Michel wrote: The central tension should be between blending in society by watering down faith (and losing your soul), or hold to your orthodoxy and fail to make any progress towards your conversion goal.

Thierry Michel wrote: A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best. If so, why try to tackle genres that the medium is not the best suited for ?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: A medium need not stick to what it does best because "best" is a value judgement, someone's opinion, not a fact

I mean, it sounded like you said "RPGs can only do this kind of thing, right?" Several said "No" and from there it has become pointless.

Michael S. Miller wrote: Did you say "losing your soul?" Does this sound like a Sorcerer mini-supplement in the making or what? Humanity would be Faith. Demon powers would have to be expanded to include lots of influence over people, providing "worldly" benefits to would-be converts, but Needs ... well, they pave the path to hell.

Hi Thierry,

Let see ...

Thierry wrote: I learned that most of you consider that the current limits of rpgs are self-imposed and are genre convention rather than technical limitations.

Thierry wrote: By combat, I do not mean necessarily physical combat.

Thierry wrote: A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best.

Fabrice G. wrote:
I almost agree with you, but there's still that genre word that bug me. I think that your sumary would be fairly nice if we take that loaded word out of it.

Thierry Michel wrote: I learned that most of you consider that the current limits of rpgs are self-imposed and are genre convention rather than technical limitations. A fair summary ?