DIY RPG

[calithena]

What we're doing is, playing a make-believe game.

Make-believe we can do by ourselves or together. What if we get into disagreements about how it goes? Lots of options. Make rules that decide who gets their way. Appoint a person, a referee, to have the final authority about how things go. The ref's 'stake' in the make-believe should probably be different from the players' to keep this fair. Easily accomplished.

What makes it a game as opposed to just playing make believe? There has to be something at stake for the players, something that matters to them, that they can get or not get.

- Human desires are such that we easily get attached to things we imagine socially. If there are kingdoms, swords, members of the opposite sex, magic staffs, gold, gems, jewelry, voyages of discover, life-transforming experiences, worlds to save, we want to do it. We don't all want to do the same ones all the time which can lead to direction problems and disputes, but we graft on to things in imagination. This is a default part of the process and doesn't need 'system' to support it especially. (Except maybe in the sense that it needs 'system' not to get in the way.)

- The intensity of those desires for imaginary things (imaginary desires? this is an actual academic dispute, believe it or not) will grow if there is some kind of risk involved.

*OD&D uses a clean risk: the life and death of your character. This has pros and cons but it can work to greatly intensify the experience of play.

*A second possibility: you have to sacrifice some things in order to get others. You want the gold and the girl, but you have to choose one (usually, maybe sometimes you get both and sometimes you get neither). This is mostly worked out ad hoc in OD&D through the GM setting out interesting situations. There are more recent systems which formalize these choices (e.g. Hero's Banner), which can be interesting.

*A third possibility: instead of risking your character's life, you risk things about your character: you change when exposed to adversity. This is the underlying 'experience' system of Dogs in the Vineyard, and I think it's an excellent one. This is something that is harder to do well in OD&D, and it would be interesting to think about simple house rules for this kind of thing. I suppose certain treasures have formalized effects along these kinds of lines.

There are probably lots of others. The point is, rules seem to me to support the make-believe by introducing an element of risk in the negotiation of imaginary desires.

But now, make-believe is an infinite thing. It's different from person to person, group to group, fantasy world to fantasy world. And it's extendible in all directions, circumstantially, as the fantasy develops and deepens in one direction or another.

So the best role-playing systems are going to be ones that give you a simple core but allow you infinite room for improvisation, development, rule modification, introducing house rules, and so on.

Conclusion: The flexibility, house rules, proliferation of endless subsystems, variability from table to table, etc. of OD&D and to some degree AD&D are features, not bugs. Uniformity and 'universal resolution systems' cut directly against the free-form creativity and imagination that RPG play at its best can provide. Or at the very least, the kind of DIY spirit found in early games is a viable approach, more viable than many would have you believe.

Hypothesis: Tabletop RPG design has gone wrong by ignoring this principle. Systems that overly constrain the referee's and group's ability to create their own system out of the tools in the book in play, which include virtually everything published to day from WotC and WW to the Forge, are cutting directly against the make-believe process which RPGs do best by supporting.

(The Forge games are slightly better here in that, although they do constrain self-transformation of system through imagination and play, they also tend to tell you up front that they are particular games covering particular story or situation types and that if you're not interested in what the game's offering you should play something else instead. The mainstream games by contrast seem to be pushing in the direction of being a poor man's chess with groovy imagery.)

Common objection: But don't these ad hoc subsystems, house rules, and out-and-out GM fiat deprive players of the ability to master the game and make meaningful decisions about their characters?

Reply: They can, but they don't have to, and part of learning to be a good GM for a traditional game is learning what you do and don't do with the power you've been given. Players need to know when they are making a choice to meaningfully risking things about their character and that what they do in the make-believe will have some connection to the consequences of their action. They also need to know that if things go wrong they could have done something that a reasonably intelligent person could have figured out in advance differently. None of this requires fixed rules or standard subsystems or statistical cost/benefit analysis up front. It requires a shared sense of 'realism' relative to the game you're playing and a GM who's not a dick. These things are not nearly as hard to find or teach as some people would have you imagine.

[Finarvyn]

I’m not entirely certain what “DIY” means but this all sounds pretty theoretical and Forge-like, and I’m not sure what to make of it or where to take this discussion. The points you raise are certainly a lot deeper than we normally get on these here boards.

calithena said:

What makes it a game as opposed to just playing make believe? There has to be something at stake for the players, something that matters to them, that they can get or not get.

I would argue that a system of rules makes it a game instead of just make believe. Having a goal or something at stake maybe comes in second place, but role-playing can just be about having fun.

calithena said:

*OD&D uses a clean risk: the life and death of your character. This has pros and cons but it can work to greatly intensify the experience of play.

I’m not sure what you mean here by “it can work to intensify the experience of play” unless you mean that without risk the game is pointless. If so I would agree, since if players never feel like they may be injured/killed they will lose the thrill of the game. Everyone thinks they want to play Superman, but he wouldn’t be nearly as much fun as Batman because Superman is nearly invincible while Batman is clearly mortal.

calithena said:

*A second possibility: you have to sacrifice some things in order to get others. You want the gold and the girl, but you have to choose one (usually, maybe sometimes you get both and sometimes you get neither). This is mostly worked out ad hoc in OD&D through the GM setting out interesting situations.

This is certainly sophisticated role playing. Most of my players don’t want to pick one or the other – they see the goal and if they can’t reach the goal 100% of the way they count it as a failure. I think that this is a function of the expectations of the gaming group, and not a function of game design.

calithena said:

*A third possibility: instead of risking your character's life, you risk things about your character: you change when exposed to adversity.

Again, you’re reaching into more “modern” games and clearly going away from the OD&D concept. OD&D has clear wargame roots and playing a role is not always the main emphasis in the adventure. The quest or scenario goals play the big part, acting in persona is often not a key part of the adventure. Many games such as Vampire spend more time in character angst, but OD&D has never really been designed to do this. While you can run a campaign to make players suffer, you’re right that it would be very different from the “traditional” OD&D game.

calithena said:

But now, make-believe is an infinite thing. It's different from person to person, group to group, fantasy world to fantasy world. And it's extendible in all directions, circumstantially, as the fantasy develops and deepens in one direction or another.

I really don’t know where this is headed.

calithena said:

So the best role-playing systems are going to be ones that give you a simple core but allow you infinite room for improvisation, development, rule modification, introducing house rules, and so on.

This is a tricky statement because “best” is defined by the players of the game. I have friends who believe that realism is paramount, and they select game systems designed to simulate realism in more detail than OD&D. Others believe that character emotions are most important and they select games designed to handle such things. I personally lean towards a simple system because that’s my style, but I hesitate to state that it’s the “best” system for everyone or every situation.

calithena said:

Uniformity and 'universal resolution systems' cut directly against the free-form creativity and imagination that RPG play at its best can provide. Or at the very least, the kind of DIY spirit found in early games is a viable approach, more viable than many would have you believe.

Maybe, but universal systems by themselves don’t stifle creativity. Suppose I set up a game where I flip a coin and Heads means success and Tails means failure. This is about as freeform and creative a system as I can imagine, yet the mechanics behind the rules are very universal. Creativity is a function of the GM running the game and the players playing the game, not just a matter of what game system is being run. I dislike complex RPG systems like RoleMaster because I feel like the rules get in the way of play, not because it kills my creativity.

calithena said:

Systems that overly constrain the referee's and group's ability to create their own system out of the tools in the book in play, which include virtually everything published to day from WotC and WW to the Forge, are cutting directly against the make-believe process which RPGs do best by supporting.

Their intent isn’t to constrain the referee – it’s to cover every situation possible so the GM doesn’t have to operate on the fly. It’s counter to the OD&D philosophy, but I’m not certain that it kills the industry.

calithena said:

(The Forge games are slightly better here in that, although they do constrain self-transformation of system through imagination and play, they also tend to tell you up front that they are particular games covering particular story or situation types and that if you're not interested in what the game's offering you should play something else instead. The mainstream games by contrast seem to be pushing in the direction of being a poor man's chess with groovy imagery.)

The problem with many “indie” games is that they get overwhelming in their lingo and terminology. Rather than use the term “hit points” (for example) they have to call it something else like Essence Pool to sound creative. I’d rather keep terminology simple so that I can focus on the setting and on the game. Also, it makes sense to focus a game system on a particular type of scenario so that it has the right rules for the right situations – if a game requires investigation skills (for example), OD&D isn’t designed to handle it so make up a new game with such skills in place in order to run that type of adventure.

calithena said:

part of learning to be a good GM for a traditional game is learning what you do and don't do with the power you've been given.

Actually, that’s the most important thing for a good GM to learn. Role playing games are totally based on trust, and if the GM abuses that trust no one will want to play in his campaign anymore. I’ve seen it happen many times.

calithena said:

Players need to know when they are making a choice to meaningfully risking things about their character and that what they do in the make-believe will have some connection to the consequences of their action.

This probably comes down to campaign “style” again. In a high-fantasy game characters tend not to suffer so much for poor actions. Think about Star Wars where things tend to work themselves out. In a low-fantasy game, the style is more gritty and actions tend to lead more directly to consequences.

calithena said:

…and a GM who's not a dick.

Please be aware of vocabulary choice. I’d like to keep the language here family-friendly, and I'm sure we can articlate without resorting to questionable word choices.

[calithena]

Thanks for the reflections, Fin. DIY = Do It Yourself.
What you say provides some helpful perspective.

I guess what I'm reaching for is a kind of understanding of RPGs which I grew into partly out of playing OD&D but which doesn't seem to be very well supported by where most game designers have gone since.

As to the vocabulary choice thing, I would have thought that word in that context was pretty mild ("don't be a d-" being a common admonishment even among the youth), but I'll keep your preferences in mind.

[Finarvyn]

I've been further pondering your original post.

I don't think that Indie games are selling an innovative rules system; rather they are selling a different philosophy of gaming. Games like Sorcerer are designed with simple rules but try to instill the notion that things happening to the character must alter the character. They tend to argue "roll play" versus "role play" and insist that theirs is "role" but I think that it's just a different type of role than the hack-and-slash kind.

I think that any rules system can be angst-filled if the GM wants to set up a situation that lends itself to character-altering events. It's the setting that's a key, not what dice or how many.

For example, think about Elric by Michael Moorcock. Elric is about as "old school" a fantasy setting as you can imagine and the original books were done well before the modern fantasy glut (which I believe began in 1976 when Sword of Shannara was that generation's Harry Potter) and have been played extensively by OD&D (Gods, Demigods & Heroes) and AD&D and Basic Role Playing and eventually d20. The basic campaign is the same under any of these rules system and -- here is the important point -- Elric as written is a very angst-filled storyline. Elric conatantly kills that which he loves around him, and constantly hates himself for it. He represents an anti-hero, but somehow a likeable one.

These newer philosophy games (Vampire, et all) sell anti-heroes as "innovative" because they "role play" and by being elitist and saying this tend to look down upon the wargamers who played OD&D as "roll players".

Frankly, I have tried some of these games and always drift back to OD&D because of the simplicity of the rules, the freshness of the style of play, and the fact that I don't want to be forced to have characters who grow emotionally.

Just my current thoughts on the matter. :-)

EDIT: Caught a couple typos.

[Finarvyn]

calithena said:

DIY = Do It Yourself.

Blame the internet. Nowadays, anyone can throw together some junk and call it a RPG. It doesn't have to be clever, well written, or appealing to a large number of players.

calithena said:

I guess what I'm reaching for is a kind of understanding of RPGs which I grew into partly out of playing OD&D but which doesn't seem to be very well supported by where most game designers have gone since.

Perhaps I see where you're going with this -- if OD&D is so good, then why have so many games taken a different design route? Perhaps it's because the OD&D model is the one you see in video games so players who want that style can just go buy some game and play on their PS3. Maybe the whole LARP and angst-filled game phenomenon is tied together in the attempt to get away from the notion of just killing things and looting the bodies.

[calithena]

Hi Fin -

You have some misconceptions about what Ron thinks, but I don't think any of us what to get into that stuff, so I'll be brief. To put it really crudely, Ron's actually 'selling' story-making as a distinct third alternative to (one thing people call) 'role-playing' and to 'gaming', and in that sense trying to break down the roll/role dichotomy. Or at least that was where I think he was at a couple of years ago when we talked more often. I don't think it's really cool to talk about people who aren't here though, so I'd prefer to just leave those guys aside and talk about things as we see them. If I brought them in first somehow I apologize.

You have a point about computer games but that's the 'narrow scope' D&D that only some people play (even in the old days there were drama queens, some of my best players among them).

But! I guess I feel like in OD&D imagination always came first, whether you were hack & slashing or whatever. The idea as I saw it was always that anything you could visualize, you could do, and if there weren't rules, it was the GMs job to make some up on the spot, or just make a decision. But I think the older paradigm was:

- imagination first, rules second

even in the hack & slash context. The rules were there locally to support the imagination in its pure form.

That imagination is what I'm calling the 'make believe' since I think it's basically the same thing.

I also basically think that the whole history of game design since - even a lot of RPGs I really love - has been a gradual reversal of this paradigm, so that now the rules provide a framework for the imagination. This is true of D&D3 and Exalted just as much as it is true of the Forge games. Most smart designers believe that this is a positive development. I don't.

So I think the DIY RPG thing is actually good; I think we should all be DIY RPGers; none of us should be afraid to make up the game that we want to be playing as we play it. And change it when it seems to us that it needs changing. The rules, etc. should be a tool for the group's imagination, not the other way around.

Games that don't help the GM and group do this aren't games that I find satisfying, which is part of why I'm here instead of the WotC boards. Although, I will say you can still make imagination come first in a lot of the modern games, they're just a hell of a lot harder to houserule and modify well (because they're 'tighter') and I don't really want to do that work.

The ruminations on the different kinds of character change were just extrapolations of this model to other cases, asking 'how can a system raise the stakes of imagination'? D&D establishes two good ones: character death and growth in character power. I was just trying to think of other options there.

[Finarvyn]

calithena said:

You have some misconceptions about what Ron thinks, but I don't think any of us what to get into that stuff...

I'm sure I do. I've read a lot of the stuff at the Forge, own all of the Sorcerer rulebooks and modules, and had a few e-mail conversations with Ron, and I still don't quite "get it". Very frustrating.

calithena said:

I don't think it's really cool to talk about people who aren't here though...

A good point. That's what the Forge is for.

calithena said:

If I brought them in first somehow I apologize.

No, I think I interpreted your ideas as Forge-stuff first, going back to my reply to your orignal post.

Perhaps more concrete examples would allow us to see what you are thinking. Your initial post is very contemplative and sometimes it's hard to know if you're "on a rant" or looking for input. (I know when I get in "rant mode" often I'm just venting and not really looking for someone to tell me what they think. )

[crimhthanthegreat]

calithena said:

What we're doing is, playing a make-believe game.

Make-believe we can do by ourselves or together. What if we get into disagreements about how it goes? Lots of options. Make rules that decide who gets their way. Appoint a person, a referee, to have the final authority about how things go. The ref's 'stake' in the make-believe should probably be different from the players' to keep this fair. Easily accomplished.

Well a game of make-believe at any rate. What does the ref get out of it? I would like to see everyones opinions on this one. For me it is the joy of creating the world, mostly on the fly as I go. Probably 95%+ of everything I have done in OD&D[including Chainmail Fantasy] over the last 36 1/2 years has been done creating on the fly. Part of the refs stake as I see it, is the challenge of keeping a group interested and playing game after game for years with no loss of interest. To be able to keep coming up with something new, novel and unique frequently enough to maintain interest is extremely rewarding. To have your vision of things captivate other people, to have your own word pictures draw people in is to me much better than playing a single character. The ref gets to play dozens, hundreds, nay thousands and thousands of characters over the course of a few thousand game sessions. You get to do everything you can think of or steal.

calithena said:

What makes it a game as opposed to just playing make believe? There has to be something at stake for the players, something that matters to them, that they can get or not get.

I would not agree that even simple make believe has no rules, I think make believe has rules even if they are at a subconscious level. I don't think we humans can avoid making rules, even the most chaotic among us has a drum that he marches to. Rules written or unwritten, lite or heavy can define a game, though I agree that there is more too a game than just rules, having each player (and where there is a ref) have something at stake defines a game to me. A game, as opposed to make believe, has consequences for actions, whether it is just winning and loosing as in Chess for example (where a high level ordered logic is applied) or in Chutes & Ladders (where logic and strategy are important but often trumpted by the luck of the dice). OD&D is a very mature game in which a wide range of decisions and the luck (or lack thereof) of the dice both have a wide variety of consequences.

calithena said:

- Human desires are such that we easily get attached to things we imagine socially. If there are kingdoms, swords, members of the opposite sex, magic staffs, gold, gems, jewelry, voyages of discover, life-transforming experiences, worlds to save, we want to do it. We don't all want to do the same ones all the time which can lead to direction problems and disputes, but we graft on to things in imagination. This is a default part of the process and doesn't need 'system' to support it especially. (Except maybe in the sense that it needs 'system' not to get in the way.)

OD&D is very good about not getting in the way due to the immense amount of freedom built into the system by it conciseness and avoidance of trying to define tooooooo much.

calithena said:

- The intensity of those desires for imaginary things (imaginary desires? this is an actual academic dispute, believe it or not) will grow if there is some kind of risk involved.

Quite right, the risk enhances everything, without it all becomes bland, whether in a game or in RL. An academic dispute? Really, when it is (at least to me) a no-brainer that while the things I am desiring may be imaginary, the desires and feeling I have as a consequence are not imaginary in the slightest.

calithena said:

*OD&D uses a clean risk: the life and death of your character. This has pros and cons but it can work to greatly intensify the experience of play.

The life and death of your character is only one of the risks that OD&D offers. OD&D harkens back to the time when a man's word was his bond, a man whose word is not worth anything, who can not be trusted, who everyone requires to pay cash is nothing. A characters reputation in a game played in that light is everything. If you use the alignment system extensively, in the way that I think it was intended, has consequences for the characters. There is a downside for being known as neutral or chaotic, there are distinct benefits for being known as a very ethical and consistent lawful character. Paladins are loved by the poor and down trodden and hated by evil doers. IMC those of high reputation can receive help from unexpected places in times of trouble. Those of low reputation can receive negative help in times of trouble.

calithena said:

*A second possibility: you have to sacrifice some things in order to get others. You want the gold and the girl, but you have to choose one (usually, maybe sometimes you get both and sometimes you get neither). This is mostly worked out ad hoc in OD&D through the GM setting out interesting situations. There are more recent systems which formalize these choices (e.g. Hero's Banner), which can be interesting.

My players pretty much always try to win it all, the sacrifice they are most likely to make is usually their own lives. They tend to win or lose rather than finish in between. Life and D&D are not for the faint of heart. Although if the choice is save the girl or get the gold, my guys will routinely save the girl, and then come back to get the gold. My players have long memories and will keep tilting at the windmill until the windmill loses.

calithena said:

*A third possibility: instead of risking your character's life, you risk things about your character: you change when exposed to adversity. This is the underlying 'experience' system of Dogs in the Vineyard, and I think it's an excellent one. This is something that is harder to do well in OD&D, and it would be interesting to think about simple house rules for this kind of thing. I suppose certain treasures have formalized effects along these kinds of lines.

Actually I think OD&D lends itself to this also. Although not necessarily the way that perhaps both you and Finarvyn are thinking of it. My players tend to play a very wide open anything goes reckless young at heart don't believe that you can die at low levels and as their character survives and gets stuff the characters literally mature right in front of your eyes. If one gets captured and tortured and then escapes or is rescued he gets played in a variety of different ways by different players at different times based on that experience. If the wives and kids of a group of characters get killed etc in a raid, the characters go into a revenge mode, perhaps foolhardy mindless rage or perhaps coldly calculating plotting, or something else depending on a variety of things. Other times the game is pure hack n slash.

calithena said:

There are probably lots of others. The point is, rules seem to me to support the make-believe by introducing an element of risk in the negotiation of imaginary desires.

But now, make-believe is an infinite thing. It's different from person to person, group to group, fantasy world to fantasy world. And it's extendible in all directions, circumstantially, as the fantasy develops and deepens in one direction or another.

I agree there are only the limits that each person or group either places on themselves or their imaginations limit them to.

calithena said:

So the best role-playing systems are going to be ones that give you a simple core but allow you infinite room for improvisation, development, rule modification, introducing house rules, and so on.

I have no problem agreeing with this, since IMO this is the best for the mature player. It is the less mature players IMO than need/desire a more defined system. That is because IMO the mature player plays more like a child, ie no rigidity no inflexiblity, and the immature player who likes rigid less flexible systems has not year matured to the point that they have recaptured playing like a child and by extension enjoying the game like a child.

calithena said:

Conclusion: The flexibility, house rules, proliferation of endless subsystems, variability from table to table, etc. of OD&D and to some degree AD&D are features, not bugs. Uniformity and 'universal resolution systems' cut directly against the free-form creativity and imagination that RPG play at its best can provide. Or at the very least, the kind of DIY spirit found in early games is a viable approach, more viable than many would have you believe.

I agree with this to a substantial degree. I think that rules heavy systems destroy the fun by not leaving room for free-form creativity and imagination just as much as they get in the way of play by slowing things down to a crawl.

calithena said:

Hypothesis: Tabletop RPG design has gone wrong by ignoring this principle. Systems that overly constrain the referee's and group's ability to create their own system out of the tools in the book in play, which include virtually everything published to day from WotC and WW to the Forge, are cutting directly against the make-believe process which RPGs do best by supporting.

(The Forge games are slightly better here in that, although they do constrain self-transformation of system through imagination and play, they also tend to tell you up front that they are particular games covering particular story or situation types and that if you're not interested in what the game's offering you should play something else instead. The mainstream games by contrast seem to be pushing in the direction of being a poor man's chess with groovy imagery.)

Not familiar with WW or Forge, but agree with the point that you are making. It seems that many games strive to eliminate the ref and put everyone on the same railroad that runs the same way at the same time everytime.

calithena said:

Common objection: But don't these ad hoc subsystems, house rules, and out-and-out GM fiat deprive players of the ability to master the game and make meaningful decisions about their characters?

Reply: They can, but they don't have to, and part of learning to be a good GM for a traditional game is learning what you do and don't do with the power you've been given. Players need to know when they are making a choice to meaningfully risking things about their character and that what they do in the make-believe will have some connection to the consequences of their action. They also need to know that if things go wrong they could have done something that a reasonably intelligent person could have figured out in advance differently. None of this requires fixed rules or standard subsystems or statistical cost/benefit analysis up front. It requires a shared sense of 'realism' relative to the game you're playing and a GM who's not a d---. These things are not nearly as hard to find or teach as some people would have you imagine.

The main thing required to be a good ref is to be mature enough to play like a child. If you have ever gotten down on the floor and played with children 2-5 years and as a result everytime they see you they jump up and run to hug you, then you know exactly what I mean. An active agile imagination helps, but is not enough without the first part.

[robertsconley]

calithena said:

What we're doing is, playing a make-believe game.

Original D&D grew out of the wargaming community of the late 60's and early 70's. From playing in the 70's it had several characteristics that made more interesting than wargaming (miniature or board)

1) It ditched the scenario and allowed for a more free form style of play. The goal switched from achieving the objective or victory points to improving the character you played.

2) It had continuity. Your character grew from session to session. Past actions had an impact on the present.

3) It was individual. Instead of being a general of whole army, fleet, or force you focused on just this one guy. (or maybe two as the case may be)

Now various wargames had one or two of these elements prior to D&D but D&D was first in combining them into the RPG.

D&D was created because it overcame limitations of traditional wargames. It was found that by doing this it made for a fun and compelling game. Plus it concepts were a heck of a lot more accessible which is why it's audience expanded beyond wargames.

And as it turned out, the various ideas that combined to create D&D turned out to be very flexible.

In my experience the initial surge of RPGs after D&D were mostly created to do one of two things.

Either they were in reaction to D&D; attempting to correct flaws or extend the basic game.
(Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery, Arduin Gimoire are examples of this)

Or they were created by someone going "This D&D has some good ideas, I am going to use some of it bring life to X or play X."

(Traveller for SciFi, Runequest for Glorantha, Empire of the Petal Throne for Tekumal.)

Since then we had numerous games released and a great expansion of what can be played in a RPG, in genre, tone, system, and setting.

I apologize if I sound authoritative but many people theorizing about RPGs forget or don't know what it was like back then. When RPGs were little more than another game that wargamers played to to gain more variety.

[serendipity]

Bravo, robertsconley. Well said. To me, one of the more fascinating elements is not only that RPGs grew out of wargaming, as robertsconley said, but also that they developed from miniatures games into something which is entirely independent of props. That's not to say that minis and other props are never used in RPGs; they can add a nice element to a game. However, unlike wargames in which squadrons and units had to be carefully moved and placed, it is not absolutely necessary to have markers or chits to have a successful D&D adventure. Though they may reduce the occurrence of remarks such as, "But I told you I was standing 51 feet away at the start of the round!"

[calithena]

Being a vet of the old days myself I don't disagree with anything you say, Robert, though non-wargamers got in on the action pretty early on too.

Was there something you wanted to disagree about?

[serendipity]

calithena said:

Being a vet of the old days myself I don't disagree with anything you say, Robert, though non-wargamers got in on the action pretty early on too.

Was there something you wanted to disagree about?

lol! Until I read robertsconley's post, I couldn't figure out what this entire thread was even about. It seemed to be a response to some post we were not privy to, and a recap of further replies to an argument we had not been actually debating at the time. I don't mean to imply the points were not good, nor to trivialize the thread, merely to say that I had been trying to figure out the purpose of the thread so I might contribute (or at least understand what was going on). The discussion of RPGs' origins gave me solid footing. Now, with the implication that robertsconley's remarks were off-topic, I'm more puzzled than ever. Um, boys, I'd like to play, too. What are we talking about?

[Deleted]

Being a "cherry" to R.P.G.'s compared to most on this forum (a player since 1990 or so), I've never had the opportunity to try my hand at a wargame (I'm sure Risk doesn't count . I am aware of the roots, however. With my first exposure to the hobby, all the gentlemen playing (among them an old friend's quite older brother) utilized a hex-grid & miniatures. Since then, I've always used them, along with styrofoam models of my own creation (walls, doors, buildings, etc.). I enjoy the visual representation of the scene(s) at hand, & find it easier to "see" what is happening. IMO, there is never the confusion of Player: "Kinthal is standing 5' away for the door on the left side by the pile of dirty rags, staff at the ready". DM: "The pile of rags are 10' away from the door; are you sure that's where you want to be?"...
I also have enjoyed, & always use as a rule, calling & mapping. As for the DIY aspect of the game, while I immensely enjoy the dialog of everyone, I don't feel the need to address any of the key talking points in particular...everything, in my own view, has already pretty much been said. All I will add is that we, as players, enjoy our hobby in many ways. It's a lot like everything else in life; you get out of it exactly what you put into it. As a DM, I enjoy the creation aspect of the game, as well as the player/character interaction; as a player, I enjoy immersing myself in the story arc, as well as the DM's & fellow players' own panache. It's myth telling really, not far removed from the stories & parables of old. Life, death, epic struggle, defeat, success, love, hate, disappointment...it's all there. There is no right or wrong way to do it; if you've enjoyed yourself, & everyone else has too, then you've done yourself & the people around you a great service indeed.

[robertsconley]

calithena said:

Robert, though non-wargamers got in on the action pretty early on too.

Was there something you wanted to disagree about?

Good call, I wasn't clear about that.

calithena said:

Hypothesis: Tabletop RPG design has gone wrong by ignoring this principle. Systems that overly constrain the referee's and group's ability to create their own system out of the tools in the book in play, which include virtually everything published to day from WotC and WW to the Forge, are cutting directly against the make-believe process which RPGs do best by supporting.

I disagree with your hypothesis. The hypothesis emphasizes the creative side of RPGs too much over the rule side. No different how White Wolf overemphasizes the role-playing, the Forge the story, or 3.X the rules.

I submit that what most people want out of role-playing is a clear consistent set of rules that are fun to play that supports adventure. In early days of D&D adventure = the Dungeon with a capital D. Later people figure out that there are other types of adventures that could be run with the D&D rules.

Not all versions of D&D were equal in doing this. AD&D 2nd edition made a lot of mistake. While it remained #1, it drove a lot of existing people to alternatives and didn't excite newer players.

But 3.0 changed that, it had more choice, clearer rules and indefinite expandability. I am not saying it is perfect. Only that its strength as a D&D successor overshadowed any weaknesses. Combined with the Open Gaming License it became the overwhelming leader of the market.

I don't think that WoTC has gone wrong with 3.X. They made the outstanding choice. However 3.0 doesn't serve the entire gaming market. Heck it doesn't serve me. I play GURPS.

Because 3.0 doesn't serve every gamer there are niches that alternatives can fill. True20, Forge Games, GURPS, etc.

So your Hypothesis has some validity. It expresses a Gaming Style. Now the question becomes how much of a market is there. Are the gamers who play that style not served or underserved by what is existing.

Given that this a OD&D forum I am guessing that OD&D is what you use. If I encountered your post elsewhere I would say that if you are into light rules then True20 or Castles and Crusades would support your style of play. If you are into heavier rules then Hero Games or GURPS. Possibily the D6 system that powers West End Games stuff (They have a generic system book as well). Or Fudge.

All of those games support a freeform style of play with "tools" that allow individual referees campaign to be very different from another.
Rules light systems like OD&D, D6, True20 rely on DM rulings while Hero and GURPS does it up front before the game via the options the DM chooses to run his campaign by.

[robertsconley]

serendipity said:

lol! Until I read robertsconley's post, I couldn't figure out what this entire thread was even about. It seemed to be a response to some post we were not privy to, and a recap of further replies to an argument we had not been actually debating at the time. I don't mean to imply the points were not good, nor to trivialize the thread, merely to say that I had been trying to figure out the purpose of the thread so I might contribute (or at least understand what was going on). The discussion of RPGs' origins gave me solid footing. Now, with the implication that robertsconley's remarks were off-topic, I'm more puzzled than ever. Um, boys, I'd like to play, too. What are we talking about?

Ron Edwards and the Forge jump started the whole RPG Theory debate. Trying to figure how different games appeal to different people. Other people think their theories are bunk. And other people spun off in their own direction.

So people debate.

My strongest opinion on the matter that theory need to take in account observations of actual play and that it need to account for the genuine popularity of Dungeons and Dragons.

Note I use a loaded term... genuine. This because the popularity of D&D 3.5 is often a bone of contention went it shouldn't. Every source of data we have show its strength as a market leader.

So matter much I would like my favorite system to be #1, GURPS, the fact is that D&D is #1.

Also I use genuine because I have seen too many people just have fun with it. If it didn't have the history and the network of pre-existing players D&D in every incarnation would wind up a successful game seller.

With it external advantages is a dominant marker leader. Only thing that is going to kill D&D is D&D. If D&D 4.0 stinks beyond all belief then takes to the OGL somebody elses D20 Game will be viewed as the successor to D&D.

Plus the market history has shown that D&D is the dominant reason that new players are pulled into RPGs. When TSR mismanaged its finance and AD&D 2.0 was so lackluster it hurt the entire industry by shrinking the pool of gamers playing RPGs. 3.0 reversed that.

Yet for being some dominant 3.X doesn't serve the needs of all RPGers. Which takes me back to calithena's hypothesis. Is his type of RPG represented in the market? If it is, does the existing games do a good job supporting this style of play. If they don't is there is niche for a RPG that does. Or because we are on this forum can a certain older game be supported or adapted to fill this niche.

[calithena]

Hi Robert -

In the end we're not so far apart really.

robertsconley said:

The hypothesis emphasizes the creative side of RPGs too much over the rule side.

Guilty as charged. A lot of people don't need this, clearly. I'm reduced to the following in a limited defense of the principle:

(a) From a 'what makes this unique?' point of view, this process of creation through play is a marvelous thing about RPGs, and very unique to the medium. Dungeon crawls are emphatically included in this - what you do with the dungeon is something that's wonderfully different from group to group even if you stick to the text of the adventure and don't ad lib rules or content much at all.

Some people have thought that what makes an activity or thing unique is also its most important or essential feature. Even though 'some people' includes such luminaries as Aristotle, this principle is probably wrong. Still, you could go this way if you wanted to defend what I was saying as an important ingredient of these games we like.

(b) Traditional RPGs rely on the GM. Why would you do the work of being a GM? There are different reasons, but one that a lot of the greatest GMs have seized on is the joy of creating your own world, adventures, stories, etc. through play. If 3.x does have a problem (and I agree with you that it is a successful system) it's that there's an awful lot of work that goes into being GM for it IMO.

I think that getting intelligent, creative people into GMing is important for the long-term success of our hobby. I think that making games which support personal creativity is a good way to do that. Even cutting edge designers like Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws got their start in Alarums & Excursions, just like Hargrave and a lot of the old Runequest guys. They were all part of that creative network that early fantasy gaming (and particularly OD&D) fostered. Hell, even some of the more successful Forge designers (Edwards and Czege come to mind) have at least one foot in that bygone world.

-------------

But those are pretty weak defenses as far as they go, so most of what I say does come down to a kind of preference in the end. Still, without this lava of imagination I really don't know why I wouldn't do theater or chess (or both) instead of RPGs. But others might like them for different reasons, and then I don't have much to say.

------------------

From your original post I thought you were going to say "An RPG is a man to man wargame." (I don't think this is a stupid view BTW.) I'm glad we don't have to discuss the role imagination plays in wargames though, and the similarities and differences between wargame-imagination and RPG-imagination.

------------------

Serendipity, my apologies, it is an old discussion spanning several message boards and a long line of thought. Probably I shouldn't have posted it here, but it was where I was when the thoughts hit me.

[crimhthanthegreat]

robertsconley said:

Not all versions of D&D were equal in doing this. AD&D 2nd edition made a lot of mistake. While it remained #1, it drove a lot of existing people to alternatives and didn't excite newer players.

But 3.0 changed that, it had more choice, clearer rules and indefinite expandability. I am not saying it is perfect. Only that its strength as a D&D successor overshadowed any weaknesses. Combined with the Open Gaming License it became the overwhelming leader of the market.

I don't think that WoTC has gone wrong with 3.X. They made the outstanding choice. However 3.0 doesn't serve the entire gaming market.

While I have to agree that WotC has made a lot of money with 3.X and in that sense it is very successful, but I entirely disagree with you about why.

First, let me consider OD&D. It offers a rules lite very easily learned game that anyone from a bright 6 year old to anyone that has not yet entered senility can play. It is the most flexible version of D&D and it offers the width range of playability (choice) for any setting that you want to play. It takes about 5 min to create a new character and then you are playing again. You can set down anyplace with your friends and in 5 minutes you can have a game going from scratch with no prep time beyond the 5 minutes. In addition, since it is made to be houseruled, it can easily be altered for anyones personal taste. It appeals first and foremost to those who are educated whether through formal means or self-taught, to those who are well read, especially in the fantasy genre. When it was introduced it quickly spread far beyond its intial target audience. It is perfect for those who have rich vibrant active imaginations that can soar in an improvisational setting (i.e. creating and designing a mulititude of new things on the fly, without any pause that lets the audience [the players] lose interest).

Second, OAD&D was created for the next growth area of D&D, i.e. those who were not quite so well read and not quite so creative. Those who needed more help to get the game going and more help playing it. This version was designed with the rule lawyer in mind as it shackled and confined the creative imagination as compared to OD&D.

Third, D&D 3.X this version is designed for those who have virtually no background in fantasy literature, and who have come out of the video game era. It has much less choice than OD&D, it is a massively rules heavy and reportedly it can take hours to create a new character. It restricts, restrains, shackles and confines the creative imagination to a degree that makes OAD&D seem rules lite, it takes the Ref(DM) from the creative force in the game to a role similar to the banker in monopoly. It is successful because it is the polar opposite of OD&D and its market is players that are the polar opposite of the players of the early 70's. I have read the DM and Player manuals cover to cover for 3.0 and I find nothing simple, clear or easily playable in the game unless you just scrap it and house rule the whole thing and go play. It only serves that part of the market that is not well-read and literate enough to need something more satisfying. I have read repeatedly about how the risk of character death has been removed from the game and it is now an endless munchkin feeding frenzy as the characters are made ever more powerful compared to the monsters.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but as a crusty oldtime player this is my opinion and I am not asking anyone to agree with me.

[calithena]

Cool, let's open the whole Forge can-o'-worms and then get started on edition warz.

Fin, you have my blessing if you want to delete this thread entirely.

(No personal animus towards anyone there, I like all of you posting on this thread from your on-line personalities, it's just that I don't like where this is going.)

[Finarvyn]

calithena said:

Fin, you have my blessing if you want to delete this thread entirely.

I don't like where this is going.

I think I'll keep it here for the time being but lock the thread because I'm not a fan of where it's going, either. I don't want to get in the habit of trashing threads, but this one may vanish. I'll put some thought into it.

There are some really interesting topics here, but the focus of these boards is supposed to be centered around OD&D and clearly this thread is a bit far afield of the mark.

Let's stay with OD&D topics a bit more, okay folks?

[aldarron]

Aug 9, 2007 15:50:31 GMT -6 calithena said:

Was there something you wanted to disagree about?

Heh, that's priceless.