In the When can we stop making "games" thread it was mentioned that often, ideas that people who have spent time gaming find radical, seem rather logical to people who have never been involved in gaming.

This raises a point that i'm sure most of us have considered (but maybe not): how susceptible are we to "It's always been done that way" syndrome? I know that i personally am extremely vulnerable to this. This was driven home the other night when my sister (who is not a gamer, though she is interested in the subject) joined my regular game design buddies in a conversation on design. We were discussing Universalis, which is something of a departure from more "traditional" RPing anyway, but she made some comments that seemed pretty radical. It turns out that these were pretty sensible, once i got over my shock at someone challenging things that i knew were optimal.

So, i guess my point is this: what methods can we and do we employ to lose the baggage that comes from being involved in games for so long? I've decided that i'm going to have to find some new blood, poll the uninitiated, and above all eliminate the view that my understanding of RPing is superior to a newbie's because i'm been doing it longer. The opposite may in fact be true.

Anyway, i guess i just wanted to throw that out there and generate discussion on the following lines: What baggage do we have as "veterans", and how do we recognize that something is baggage and not nearly universal because it really is a near-optimal solution?

I know that some person's baggage may be another's key element, but please, humor me.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Could you post some of your sister's comments so I could get a sense of what you mean by "radical."

Thanks,
Christopher

Baggage that I'm continually in the process of dumping:

-- GM/player distinctions
-- the need for a GM
-- the party system
-- having numeric traits for things
-- the need for "campaigns," instead of just one-shots
-- looking at the social contract as "rules," something static instead of something arbitrary and flexible
-- the need for character sheets
-- the need for pre-determined stuff, as opposed to having things created on the fly during play
-- clear distinctions between tabletop/LARP/board/card games
-- one player per character/one character per player
-- advancement, as opposed to change
-- limiting people from doing something that they want to do (Monarda Law)
-- calling what we do "gaming"
-- thinking that all players must have equal importantce/attention in the narrative (look at theater where you have major and minor roles)
-- thinking that roleplaying has to be private and not performed for an audience
-- trying to make online roleplaying replicate tabletop, when it's an entirely different beast

And that's the short list...

Thomas,

LordSmerf wrote: Anyway, i guess i just wanted to throw that out there and generate discussion on the following lines: What baggage do we have as "veterans", and how do we recognize that something is baggage and not nearly universal because it really is a near-optimal solution?

John:

Well, Hell, that's what it is. I mean, if people weren't sitting around a table eating oven pizza, drinking cokes, rolling dice and looking across a screen at some guy that says what happens, they wouldn't be role-playing.

And I guess I'm guilty of saying my way is best, but does sitting in a kiddie pool on your apartment balcony with a feather in your mouth, contemplating infinity, bring value to the range role-playing may encompass? Point being, you have to have some frame of reference.

I just had to sound off . . .

LordSmerf wrote: This raises a point that i'm sure most of us have considered (but maybe not): how susceptible are we to "It's always been done that way" syndrome?

I may have been a bit harsh, John. I was meaning to sound more playful. No offense.

LordSmerf wrote: What baggage do we have as "veterans", and how do we recognize that something is baggage and not nearly universal because it really is a near-optimal solution?

Jonathan Walton wrote: Baggage that I'm continually in the process of dumping:

-- GM/player distinctions
-- the need for a GM
-- the party system
-- having numeric traits for things
-- the need for "campaigns," instead of just one-shots
-- looking at the social contract as "rules," something static instead of something arbitrary and flexible
-- the need for character sheets
-- the need for pre-determined stuff, as opposed to having things created on the fly during play
-- clear distinctions between tabletop/LARP/board/card games
-- one player per character/one character per player
-- advancement, as opposed to change
-- limiting people from doing something that they want to do (Monarda Law)
-- calling what we do "gaming"
-- thinking that all players must have equal importantce/attention in the narrative (look at theater where you have major and minor roles)
-- thinking that roleplaying has to be private and not performed for an audience
-- trying to make online roleplaying replicate tabletop, when it's an entirely different beast

And that's the short list...

Perhaps this could be a Forge article. Something like "Check Your Assumptions at the Door," where each assumption could be matched with games that have disproven them. This would also let us see what assumptions continue to stick around in design, even though many people know them to be false.

Let me get my Fulbright application turned in next week, and I'll see if I can find time...

This is quite a list of baggage, and certainly not one I agree with. I am very far removed from the majority of these pieces. Some of them of course would seem to be universal in some form or other but...

-- the need for a GM
Don't really need one in some games, but it depends on how you're looking at the game and how you're playing it. Some games are basic roleplaying but use miniatures in large battles (or individual battles) that don't have GMs at all but do have personalities behind the characters. This would still be roleplaying, IMHO.

-- the need for "campaigns," instead of just one-shots
-- one player per character/one character per player
I much prefer one-shots, and of course the 1PG games are based on just that idea. A few games have linked scenarios, but you don't have to play the thing like a campaign if you don't want to. Also, the characters are very one dimensional, and often people play more than one at a time.

-- limiting people from doing something that they want to do (Monarda Law)
This has always been a pet peeve of mine with most systems, which is why when we created all our systems, we chose to throw it out. You can try anything. Succeeding is a different ball o' wax, but you certainly can try.

Anyway, those are the big ones I had comments on. Maybe 17 years of gaming just isn't long enough to come up with enough baggage?

Hi folks,

I'd say that there's A LOT to be learned from examining the social actions in Actual Play, and that a lot of the conditioning happens then and there, more than anyone else.

For some groups, "functional play" simply means a stable status quo of power, with an "Alpha"(usually the GM) firmly in charge, backed by sufficient supporters in the group to squash any attempts to step out of line in "acceptable ways to play". If this sounds like a cult or abusive family situation, you'd be right. You may find some scary corelations in terms of social power struggles, politicking and ego dominance going on.

In terms of dropping those assumptions, I find games with explicit rules that prevent those old habits from just sliding in easily as a great methods of "untraining" the conditioning.

Chris

Damn. My email doesn't seem to post. Reach me at kharudim@earthlink.net. If that doesn't work, try palaskar@yahoo.net

Reading your big list of baggage, I realized that my Signature RPG does most of this. I'm on version 3.10 now, but the 3.8.1 version should still be at:

http://www.meant2be.150m.com/44index.html

Anyway, to answer the list:

-- GM/player distinctions:
Under Signature, both players and GMs can (optionally) control non-PC Traits like, say, for a HeroQuest game, "The Lunar Empire." This is further broken down in version 3.10 by the introduction of Simulators, player experts on a given facet of the game (say martial artists, gun bunnies, etc.)
-- the need for a GM
It's possible to play Signature without a GM simply by distribution all of the usual GM traits among the players.
-- the party system
Again, Signature doesn't -mandate- the party system. It's entirely possible to play without it.
-- having numeric traits for things
There's an option in Signature called "Unrated Traits." Basically, your Traits default to 3, instead of having a value from 1 to 3.
-- the need for "campaigns," instead of just one-shots
One-shots are entirely possible under Signature by not taking any Carry-Over Traits. These Carry-Over Traits determine the game's continuity. No Traits carried over from session to session? One shots. All Traits carried over? Soap Opera style. And anything in between.
-- looking at the social contract as "rules," something static instead of something arbitrary and flexible
You've got me here. Perhaps this idea could be discussed further in a separate thread?
-- the need for character sheets
Signature character sheets default to one Trait, the Signature Trait. You could theoretically elimate character sheets by not taking any extra Traits in play.
-- the need for pre-determined stuff, as opposed to having things created on the fly during play
In Signature, only the character's Signature Trait is fixed at beginning. Everything else is (traditionally) added in-play.
-- clear distinctions between tabletop/LARP/board/card games
I missed this one too. I've been toying with an optional card resolution mechanic, but as it stands, Signature is strictly tabletop.
-- one player per character/one character per player
Signature is totally open to having more than one character per player, or more than one player per character. To do the first, you take multiple Signature Traits, one for each character. For the second, you take the Viewpoint Trait, also called the Multiple Personality Trait on each character you want to control. Think of Wraith's Shadow.
-- advancement, as opposed to change
In Signature, the mechanic for advancement and change of a character is the same.
-- limiting people from doing something that they want to do (Monarda Law)
Signature explictly says in the Guide (GM) section, "The First Rule: When in doubt, allow it."
-- calling what we do "gaming"
Ok, you've got me here too.
-- thinking that all players must have equal importantce/attention in the narrative (look at theater where you have major and minor roles)
Signature players are free to designate their PCs as major or minor players, depending on how often a particular PC is involved in play. Think Ars Magica's mages and grunts.
-- thinking that roleplaying has to be private and not performed for an audience
I've never tried to make Signature a performance art, but I don't see why you couldn't. Nothing in the rules prevent it.
-- trying to make online roleplaying replicate tabletop, when it's an entirely different beast
Wouldn't even try it with Signature. It's too freeform for modern day computers, IMHO.
(Andrew Martin)
-- Character Creation, Play and Advancement Phases, as opposed to allowing all changes to the character during play;
Signature assume that all Traits beyond the Signature Trait will be introduced in play.
-- email roleplaying (PBeM) is no different from table-top roleplaying;
Signature doesn't address this. I think it'be interesting to try.

Hallo, new to this forum, actually, but one has to begin somewhere, neh? I think the important thing to keep in mind when thinking about gaming in terms of "baggage"-- what needs to be dropped and what retained-- is that, like so much of what we do, gaming is more than simply an abstract "activity." It is that, of course, but it is also a culture, defined by its own set of cultural reference points that are historically established. In other words, there is nothing distinguishing a "role playing game" from any of the other activities which might fall under the heading of "game," other than the self-identification of role-players as such based on their experience role-playing.
We're generally exposed to the hobby by seeing it done, or by seeing some of the paraphanelia in the possession of a friend and asking questions: "Oh, what are those funny-looking dice?"
"I use them for roleplaying."
"What's that?"
"Here, I'll show you."
Roleplayers really have no experience of roleplaying other than through the act of roleplaying itself. As a result, individuals who roleplay (as opposed to non-gamers on the outside looking casually in) generally find it hardest to really pin down with a definition just what RP actually is (as an example of which, witness the godawful attempts at the beginning of most gaming books). In this way, RP falls under the general heading of what Wittgenstein was talking about as "language-games"-- ill-defined, but "understood" by the participants in a way that does not necessarily involve definition.
Because gaming is a culture defined by the experience of the individuals participating, it is probably impossible to separate any particular aspect as "baggage" that wouldn't be challenged by another player--in general, one player's "baggage" is inevetably viewed by another as an essential aspect of the hobby. An additional consequence of this is that gaming can only evolve in reaction to what has gone before, and in response to values generated within the history of the gaming experience itself. Two players, having begun playing the exact same system, may arrive at totally opposite conclusions as to what needs to be done to elimenate the "essential" aspects of gaming from the "baggage," in both cases arising naturally from the gaming experience itself (i.e. one player decides all the dice are too complex and need to be reduced to a single die and a single task-resolution system so as to facilitate the flow of narrative, whereas another, for whom the idea of roleplaying is somehow emotionally inseparable from the use of oddly-shaped dice, invents hit-location charts, etc so as to make battle more "realistic").

Sorry to make my first post a doozy, but the upshot, I guess, is that it's just as invalid to look at any current aspect of RP as "baggage" as it is to look at the existence of the coccyx or male nipples as "defects" in the human design, ingnoring the fact that these are both intimately bound up in the biological processes it took to get us here in the first place.

Once again, sorry to be forward. If it helps, blame the philosophy classes.

Welcome to The Forge!

LeftWingPenguin wrote: Two players, having begun playing the exact same system, may arrive at totally opposite conclusions as to what needs to be done to eliminate the "essential" aspects of gaming from the "baggage," in both cases arising naturally from the gaming experience itself (i.e. one player decides all the dice are too complex and need to be reduced to a single die and a single task-resolution system so as to facilitate the flow of narrative, whereas another, for whom the idea of roleplaying is somehow emotionally inseparable from the use of oddly-shaped dice, invents hit-location charts, etc so as to make battle more "realistic").

What's the problem? The game design is so "fuzzy" and unfocused that it doesn't know what it's doing, so the players feel the need to fix it.

Hello,

We're going off-topic in this thread.

Thomas' original concern, it seems to me, is about what assumptions about role-playing are challenged (in a good way) by people who aren't embedded in it. This is an important topic. It's especially interesting when dealing with young children or with adults, i.e., not with adolescents who are greatly fixated on fitting in and doing-it-right.

Unfortunately, thread-drift set in when "baggage" set in as the point of interest, meaning, anything that can be identified as assumptions of play that aren't universal. We've had at least one, and possibly two productive threads about this in the past and don't really need a new one starting from scratch. Everyone: please focus on the assumptions identified by newcomers to role-playing, in your experience. This is a very concrete topic.

Thomas, you didn't make it clear whether you're discussing actual play or published game design, although your thread title at least hints at the latter. Since the recent discussion has focused on game design, I'd like to clarify that play itself, relative to a game text, is the key variable rather than designer's intent, for typical Forge discourse than the reverse.

Best,
Ron

Ron, thanks for getting us back on topic.

To answer your question i decided to split over to The Difference between Published Design and Actual Play? since i feared that i might draw us off topic again.

The short version is this: I don't believe there is a signifigant difference between actual play and published design when we discuss theory because play has enormous influence on design and design has enormous influence on play. I believe that this influence is great enough that for most discussions they can be considered one and the same.

Of course i may have misunderstood the thrust of your question. It appears that i am not all that bright...

Thomas

Lord Thomas Smerf wrote: Of course i may have misunderstood the thrust of your question. It appears that i am not all that bright...

Thanks for the encouragement. I guess part of my problem is trying to play catch-up. Often i fear (sometimes accurately) that whatever i'm thinking has already been discussed. I don't like wasting people's time... Truth be told i consider myself to be rather intelligent, and i spend most of my time with other people i consider to be intelligent. I always enjoy meeting other intelligent people. The problem i guess i have here is not one of intellegince, but rather one of experience. Most of the posts i find most helpful are by people who have been doing this far longer than i have (in some cases for longer than i've been alive).

I'll get it eventually. In the meantime please do call my on pointless melodrama, and if i make any foolish assertions let me know.

Thank you,

Thomas