 |
|
|
The Nature of RPG's
Frank Perez wrote:
Adrian, you wrote:
Just asking. Does this mean that a GM would have to search for or build a system for each milieu he'd like to run? Your assertion has got me thinking and I'd like to explore your ideas.
If you find that the game system that you are using does not allow you and your players to do the things you want to do, the following options are available:
1. Live with it. Either forbid your players from doing the things that your RPG system does not cover or simply role-play the whole thing without rules.
2. Tweak the rules of your present system.
3. Find yourself another system that allows you to do the things you and your players want to do.
4. Find yourself a better system AND tweak it to your liking.
5. Create a new system from scratch and hope that it covers everything while retaining game balance. This is the option of last resort. Not for the faint of heart.The very purpose of gaming is to live out the life of an alter ego in a shared "reality" that exists only in the players’ minds.
Interesting. Dariel and I were discussing this off-line and we're approaching the notion that rpgs produce memories as their "artifacts". We're pursuing that idea now in an effort to understand the nature of rpgs more. Please share your ideas about this.
The nature of RPGs? Hmmm... This sounds like the topic of another article, if not an entire book altogether. What is your purpose in trying to understand RPGs? What end would it serve?
When a player creates a character for a game, how does he know what skills are best to acquire? For example, creating an entire party of combatants may be perfect in a game of Recon, but it will be terrible in a game that also emphasizes investigation and research skills, such as Call of Cthulhu. Players who have a good guess as to what their campaign’s victory conditions are will be able to choose the complement of skills that their party will need.
Thus the need for a good write up of the campaign. I'd point to Dariel's Red Branch write-up as an example. Could you look at this (it’s on the AEGIS website) and give your comments?
A good write-up is essential to any campaign. It gives the players background information that he might otherwise not have. The roles that characters have to play, the goals that they might have to take, and the overall theme are absolutely necessary for smooth play. Kudos to Dariel for taking the time to give a detailed background.
Note that while we have been talking about designing game systems, the true game is not in the system but in the campaign. The system provides the engine. The GM provides the game.
Dariel Quiogue wrote:
Frank Perez wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. Dariel, please tell me about your Suspension of Disbelief barrier.
Hearing and obeying sahib ...
Basically, the first requirement for anyone to enjoy a work of fiction is to be able to suspend his sense of disbelief; that for as long as you are "in" the experience, you are willing to accept that what is happening is real. It is in large part this willingness to accept that allows you to care about the characters in the story and the consequences of their actions.
To me, this is a barrier through which I must be drawn, and kept from recrossing else I will lose my enjoyment of the experience (whether it be a movie, a novel, or a game session).
In fiction, this means good writing, narrative-wise; everything happens for a good reason, there are no uses of deus-ex-machina, and continuity is observed. In science fiction, it means that all the author's speculations are at the very least plausible and consistent with the internal logic of the whole piece. In fantasy, this means, among other things, that the author came up with rules for the operation of magic and bases all magical effects on those rules.
It's a bit more difficult in an RPG. Here the GM and players have to deal not only with each others' different perceptions of the same "reality" that exists within the context of the game, they must also deal with the imperfections of the avenue by which they experience and interact with that reality - in other words, the game's mechanics.
For example: in AD&D, a 20th-plus level fighter will survive a fall from a 100-foot cliff more often than not if you follow the rules to the letter (1d6 damage per 10 feet, or is it per 15 feet?), because on the average a fighter at this level will already have 100+ hit points.
Or, in most game systems, a mage simply pops off a spell without really expending any effort or doing anything of story significance that gives him the ability to cast that spell. Contrast this:
"She took supplies from her purse and found a length of wood. She took out two mirrors and held them opposite each other with the wood in the center, reflections echoing. Then she said a spell and ordered Pip to cut the wood into fragments with his dagger. She separated each splinter from the other and said another spell, and my eyes hurt as the splinters twisted and grew and there was a long line of wood, each length exactly the same as the next." - from Kingdoms of the Night, by Allan Cole and Chris Bunch (recommended reading!).
With this:
"I cast Create Wood." - nameless character in a nameless RPG.
Which would you be inclined to believe? The first example demonstrated that magic followed some logical rules, that magic was governed by cause and effect, strange though their applications might be. The second example is all too common with RPG systems; it simply assumes an ability that by its very nature strains our belief, without grounding it sufficiently in context or logical causes. But discussion of magic systems belongs properly in another article ...
But perhaps the greatest frustration is when a player comes up with a cool idea that would have been possible in real life – but cannot be handled by the game's mechanics, or if it can, simply involves such a headache that the GM actively steers his players away from such actions. Compare for example a swordfight from an Errol Flynn movie and a combat scene from, say, AD&D; the moves performed by Flynn's character each have a purpose and a consequence, which wears away the opponent's defenses and make possible the final victory; in AD&D, all you do is roll to hit, roll for damage, roll to hit, roll for damage. Describing your actions in detail has no effect; nor does attempting a move that would make sense in real fencing, such as a beat (hit the opponent's sword to drive it down, making him less able to parry), because either the system does not handle it well or it is simply too difficult to be worth it. Were such an action so difficult, fencers would not have made it a standard move in their repertoire.
BTW, if anyone points out that mimicking Errol Flynn's fencing and real-life fencing are two different things, I have two points to make: a) Errol Flynn was a master fencer in real life; and b) which reality would you rather simulate in your RPG's, "real" real life, or cinema real life?
But to cut this short, breaking the Hymen of Reality, er the SOD Barrier, and remaining on the other side, depends on good internal logic.
Real life teaches us and builds up in us certain expectations based on understanding of cause and effect: Because gravity operates the way it does, if I take this anvil and drop it on your head, you will likely not survive, inspite of what Tom and Jerry cartoons try to teach you. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, we know the rabbit was somewhere within reach all along; he did not have it stashed away in another dimension. There is a logic behind each and every move taught in all martial arts, else they would never have been devised.
If a game system fails to satisfactorily model "real-world" cause and effect relationships, it will fail the SOD Barrier.
If a game system introduces an element that is not part of our current reality - magic, magical beasties, superpowers – and fails to provide a self-consistent system for their operation, it will fail the SOD Barrier.
Take for example Adrian's Matrixx; in one of its earlier incarnations, we were parsing some spells for use in the War of Winter campaign. Then Tommy found out that because of a tweak made earlier, it was harder to cast a simple light spell than a spell which he (or was it Dennis) used to defeat a whole gang of Redcaps. The situation pointed out a problem in the magic system which was fixed by next session, but it would have strained the SOD Barrier heavily had a character tried casting a light spell then.
(Rest assured, though, that the current edition of Matrixx does not have any such problems; once perfected I bet the author's *** its magic system will be better than Ars Magica's. Being a wise and prudent man, I of course have hedged my bet by staking someone else's *** ...).
Dariel
Adrian Martinez wrote:
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand"
Baruch SpinozaFrank Perez wrote:
"I yam what I yam and dat's all dat I yam."
Popeye SpinozaDariel Quiogue wrote:
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Get even."
Baruch Khan
Frank Perez wrote:
Dariel Quiogue wrote:
BTW, I'll be collating this series of posts, beginning with your seed article on "What is my ideal system" and then put it up on the AEGIS web page; both Adrian and I feel that this discussion is turning into something gamers at large may benefit from. In other words, I'll be asking you to pull out all the stops and pour everything in your brain pan into this, if that's what you feel like doing ...
Much as I would like to inundate everyone with my cerebrospinal fluid, I'm afraid that it will have to come in trickles instead. Lack of time precludes me from writing as often as I like, but I most certainly will contribute my crazy ideas whenever I can.
There's a good reason why each person thinks the way he or she does, and to try to write anything, much less a complex simulation such as an RPG, in any other mode of thought but one's own is to do both oneself and one's work an injustice (dammit, Jim, I'm beginning to sound like Adrian!!! HELP!!!!).
You have been assimilated. Resistance is futile. :-P
In the end analysis, I find myself restating my goals as a would-be game designer; not to make "the game that will replace every other system in existence," but to make "the game that satisfies MY craving for a system that allows me to weave a GOOD story with the participation of my friends."
A tall order, but a worthy challenge, no?
Can't think of a better reason to create a game system. It's also my reason for cooking up my own flavor of FUDGE.
Ah, but that's not my point. I'm saying that resolving conversation should be as objective as resolving combat.
Agreed. How? Not the definitive answer, I'm sure, but I've got the glimmerings of an idea ...
Our initial attempt to come up with rules opens up a Pandora's box of problems mixed with glimmers of hope. This is new territory we are blazing, and the path is still uncertain. I will mull over what you have written and eventually write another article about it.
Though it may be my fantasy bias speaking, I firmly believe that all our RPGs revolve around the "Hero's Journey" as their true theme, concealed though it might be in some games (such as V:tM). The best gift a GM could give me, as a player, is to give my character the chance to embark on this mythic quest in a manner that is both entertaining and illuminating.
The Hero's Journey makes for an excellent theme. It uplifts the human spirit and allegorically sheds light on the task that the unhewed soul must do. But it is only one theme, and our literature embraces other themes as well. Horror, for instance, takes a bleak look at life. You won't find any Hero's Journey in most of H. P. Lovecraft's stories. Still, of all the themes that a GM can adopt, the Hero's Journey is one of the best.
A CHALLENGE TO GAME SYSTEM DESIGNERS
No system exists at present for adequately handling this experience. The time to make a difference is now. Devise such a system, and you will revolutionize the art of gaming.
I accept! Wish me luck!
Use the force, Dariel. I, too, will take up my own challenge. We will slice through this morass with our laser swords - er, light sabers.
Signed,
Darth Frank Perez
Adrian Martinez wrote:
What I'm saying is that we should have detailed rules for resolving conversation in a game.
In hindsight it seems to me that players (not characters) seem to engage in four modes of conversation (RPGs being a conversation game after all. The mechanics are meaningless without the conversation) during a game: narrative, dialogue, consulting and kibbitzing. All four modes seem to be essential to the gaming experience and cannot be excluded without diminishing the enjoyment of the game:
Narrative: the player describes what his character looks like, what he does, how he reacts. This is usually done is a matter-of-fact tone though a dramatic narrative would go far in enhancing the entertainment of all those involved in the game. This points to encouraging the players to develop vocal variety skills, a sense of drama and a colorful, vivid and expansive vocabulary.
The effect of a dramatic narrative in the game is that it would inspire the GM and the other players to portray their world in the same manner thus mutually enforcing the suspension of disbelief (call it mass hypnosis, if you will). The burden lies on the GM as the lead narrator, but this also depends heavily upon how the players view the GM: is he adversary, editor, collaborator, etc? This will color the way the players will receive the inital narrative.
Narrative directs our eyes and ears in the game world. Given this, there would have to be a game mechanic that will give weight to the effectivity of dramatic narrative. There would also have to be meta-game conventions accepted by all participants to ensure that the narrative is received in the most useful light (in my opinion, this would be as collaborator and editor)
Dialogue: the player speaks as his character and lends him the nuance and subtlety that dramatic narrative cannot. Ideally, when the player speaks through his character in dialogue he does two things. First, he interacts with the milieu world and second, he offers the other players an insight into the personality of his character and a glimpse on his own as well. The skills demanded by the dialogue are the same as that as Narrative, except that vocabulary is adjusted to fit the character's definition and an understanding of the character's personality becomes essential. I call this last skill authoring.
Once again, the effectivity of the dialogue affects the game as it offers a model for other players to follow. Once again, the burden falls on the GM as the initial portrayer of dialogue. He unconsciously offers the players a model to follow and thereby sets expectations. Dialogue directs our feelings and instincts in the milieu.
Consulting: This is a meta-game practice wherein the players signal that they are going out of character to ask the GM for clarification on rulings and situations. This breaks the narrative and dialogue flow but is necessary because of the variance of perception and the absence of an external, objective reality. It is also good communication practice as the players who do this signal the GM that they want to pay attention and that they care about what he says enough to verify and deepen it.
The value of this mode is that the players get better information upon which to base their character's actions and the GM develops an even more effective vocabulary and style of communicating with this particular group of players. The skills that this mode seems to call are question-asking skills, question-clarification skills and being able to hold several threads of thought at the same time. This engages our intellect in the milieu
Kibbitzing: this mode is a paradox of sorts. On the face of things, it is disruptive as the many jokes and gaffes seem to point out (Dariel, remember our last session of Red Branch at Henry's place? We probably spent 75% of the time laughing!), yet it adds to the satisfaction and catharsis of a gaming session. Add to this the futility of banning mirth from the session--we are, after all, at play.
That being the case, I am forced to accept this as an intergral part of the gaming experience much like actors are wont to pull off pranks and bloopers from time to time (which, at least in the case of Star Trek, become part of the culture). I view this as the seed bed of creativity and it engages the visceral sense (as in belly laugh) in the milieu. On the other hand, try to be funny in the game, and it frequently falls flat on its face. To quote the world's most terrible actor (I forget his name) "Dying is easy! Comedy is hard!"
Given this, it seems that we need to deal with game and meta-game talk as all of these modes appear and interact during a game session. What's more, directly or indirectly, they influence the game through the players.
We may honor the fiction of the film edit convention (Cut! Retake! Ambershae, check your lines!), but that is just part of the gaming experience. The real experience is the socialization characterized by on-going many to many unedited (and uneditable) talk. We seem to use the game as a means to talk to each other and not an end in itself.
<snip>
Many gamers would be shocked if their GM were to declare that rules are no longer necessary to resolve combat because the GM can resolve it faster by using his subjective judgment. Nevertheless nobody bats an eyelash when the GM uses his subjective judgment to resolve all character-to-character conversation. Considering that a number of potential arenas lie within the realm of conversation, the lack of a good gaming model to resolve conversation renders most systems terribly inadequate.
True since many of them are still based in their wargaming roots. Thus the need to understand the nature of this beast.
<snip>
Amber Diceless Role Playing comes to mind. I haven't played it myself, but I've read reviews and talked to players who've tried it. Then again, since I am relying on second hand information, it could very well turn out to be an urban legend.
I believe that a better way to handle this <snip> is to come up with a number of principles (rules, in other words) that players may apply in a variety of ways to achieve a victory. If comprehensive enough, this set of rules can very well be part of a non-combat role-playing game system. By adding combat rules, you have a powerful game system that covers most of the activities that characters are likely to pursue.
In an effort to free ourselves from the hit point and "I roll to hit" paradigm (that word again) of resolving combat and to make combat as mythic as our magic system seems to promise to be (or not to be, that is the question...), Dariel and I came up with the idea of looking at combat as a game of Tag. This is not the chase game, but rather a treatment of everything in the game world as descriptors. I have an article I can send you in case you are interested.
The challenge was to come up with an "arithmetic of descriptors" where in the existence of particular descriptors would imply the existence of others. I would also refer you to a great article by Greg Costikyan titled "I Have No Words and I Must Design" (I can send it to you, just give the word) about how players interact with the game through the options of their playing pieces, in this case, their character. Bringing these two ideas together: treating RPGs as a game of compiling descriptors and structuring character mechanics to have influence over the milieu descriptors through conversation could hold the beginnings for the RPG rules of conversation. Then again, there would be the concern about the depth of those rules as ordinary language shows that nuance plays an important role in meaning and the meaning of a milieu is dependent on that shared by the participants.
A CHALLENGE TO GAME SYSTEM DESIGNERS
Game system designers, I appeal to you to give us a good set of rules to handle conversation. The objective should be to come up with a way to make the achievement of victory conditions through conversation a viable gaming experience.
The appeal has been aired and I shall respond. Wish me luck as well!
Dariel Quiogue wrote:
<snip>
Our initial attempt to come up with rules opens up a Pandora's box of
problems mixed with glimmers of hope. This is new territory we are blazing,
and the path is still uncertain. I will mull over what you have written and
eventually write another article about it.You're right. One of the difficulties of defining character traits is the player's willingness to roleplay them and accept the consequences thereof.
RPGs are a game, after all, and game theory teaches us that there will always be a division between optimal and non-optimal or even bad choices; we cannot remove from the RPG experience the fact that the player is a Tactician trying to succeed by making the best of his resources and options. The problem is, when a character's personality is defined and its prominent traits quantified, there now exists a means to make the character make choices based not on the player's assessment of the situation, but on the character's; it is now also possible to have a character motivated by passion rather than reason. It's also very possible that the character's choices (as opposed to the player's choices) could get the character in trouble, even killed.
Now personally, I don't mind this most of the time since I am after all exploring the experiences of another person (my character). Character death is something I wouldn't mind if it occurred for good reason in the story. But even then there are times when I find myself stopping and saying, "Hey! Waitaminnit, I'm not going to do THAT!"
This is a knotty question to which I personally believe there is no cut-and-dried answer. Willingness to let one's character take the plunge and think and act in a manner entirely unlike oneself is a matter of trust and maturity - trust in the GM not to take unfair advantage but weave the character's occasional failings into the story to make it richer, and the maturity to accept that sometimes, it's possible for a person to defeat himself.
(The other side of the equation, however, is what has gotten me positively sold on having such a mechanic in my system; when a character can show proper motivation and use it to a higher purpose, the results can be glorious!)
Yet another problem is in the mechanic itself. Modeling physical actions and their effects is pretty easy; everything is more or less quantifiable and the data are easily available if you're willing to do the extra bit of research. Modeling social interaction is nowhere so precise. I get the feeling that any system that is flexible enough that a player will feel his character is still an extension of himself (as opposed to being an automaton programmed entirely by the character's traits) will demand a lot of the GM in terms of judgment and improvisational ability.
To be a little more concrete, let me pose a question: How would you model social interaction in FUDGE? Let's use the same example you gave earlier (the story of the baron's daughter).
Once again Frank, thanks for sharing your thoughts so freely on the list.
Dariel
 |
||
|
|