Friday Musing: What If It Wasn't War Games

[loverdrive]

Roleplaying games were developed so you could play a character in a living, fictitious world. The creators were a fan of fantasy fiction and violent action is pretty central to popular fantasy fiction. Combat was an important consideration because many people looking to play a fantasy fiction game would expect it, want it, and would be disappointed if the game didn't include it. There isn't detailed combat rules in ttrpg's because that is what wargames simulate, but because fans of the fiction being played would want it, demand it and expect it.

Well... No. If that was the case, all the roleplaying games (as in, not only tabletop ones) would evolve to have detailed rules on combat.

Forum roleplaying games (that are often played by people who never even heard of D&D) don't. In many cases fighting another character boils down to "agree who wins in PMs and then write it out" or "ask a moderator to resolve the dispute" and NPCs? You just decide whether your character wins or loses.

And then, if that was the case, games that don't have detailed combat systems would emerge from the TTRPG community, and, well, they did. "We don't do your stupid combat, we do REAL ROLEPLAYING" was the shtick of World of Darkness fans, and those got to the party pretty early on. Well, Vampire has a ridiculously detailed combat system, but everybody hates it and nobody wants to fight exactly to avoid ever using it.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

Well... No. If that was the case, all the roleplaying games (as in, not only tabletop ones) would evolve to have detailed rules on combat.

Not everyone likes getting hit in the face. Roleplaying forms which are physically real will have less combat just for the practicality of no one getting hurt. You can do the most violent things in a ttrpg which would be impractical, impossible, and dangerous in any other form. ttrpg allows for detailed combat because it can. Other forms don't offer detailed combat because they cannot.

 

[Reynard]

Not everyone likes getting hit in the face. Roleplaying forms which are physically real will have less combat just for the practicality of no one getting hurt. You can do the most violent things in a ttrpg which would be impractical, impossible, and dangerous in any other form. ttrpg allows for detailed combat because it can. Other forms don't offer detailed combat because they cannot.

I think your thesis is way off. The mere fact that they are fantasy would in no way gaurantee that they ended up with detailed combat rules. The detailed combat rules are exactly because the started out as wargames with literally no other rules. Every other system and rule was placed on top of those wargame rules to expand play beyond just combat.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

I think your thesis is way off. The mere fact that they are fantasy would in no way gaurantee that they ended up with detailed combat rules. The detailed combat rules are exactly because the started out as wargames with literally no other rules. Every other system and rule was placed on top of those wargame rules to expand play beyond just combat.

One of the main attractions of any adventure is physical contests (fiction, films) 90% of adventure stories (fantasy or otherwise) are about some physical feat or accomplishment. The term adventure would indicate to majority of adventure media consumers of some physical contest is central to the content. To offer an adventure game with no means of resolving combat would not sell very well, because it would lack something pretty universally expected. Offer a sword and sorcery game without either swords or sorcery is going to fail to engage that audience intended.

 

[Umbran]

How is characters in a historical context more welcoming to LGBTQ+ folks than say characters in a-historical context, like a character or creature of fiction? I'm not seeing this connection.

The context of the character is less important than the social context of the real-world people actually gathering.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

The context of the character is less important than the social context of the real-world people actually gathering.

So ttrpg's don't lack inclusivity, real-world people do. So back to the original question, I believe ttrpg's grew out of the tt wargaming scene because there was the language, tools and audience there capable of figuring it out. Since no one can reasonably act out hitting another person you need to create some rules around how this is going to be represented in the course of play. Negotiating with the castle guard doesn't need rules cause you can actually do that in real time. Reasonable people can agree whether someone did a good job of landing their blow in a verbal roleplaying interaction. Reasonable people would also agree the measure of how well you stabbed someone is not going to fly in a game setting. So you need some way of resolving the action in a satisfyingly manner which doesn't get someone injured.

 

[Reynard]

So ttrpg's don't lack inclusivity, real-world people do. So back to the original question, I believe ttrpg's grew out of the tt wargaming scene because there was the language, tools and audience there capable of figuring it out. Since no one can reasonably act out hitting another person you need to create some rules around how this is going to be represented in the course of play. Negotiating with the castle guard doesn't need rules cause you can actually do that in real time. Reasonable people can agree whether someone did a good job of landing their blow in a verbal roleplaying interaction. Reasonable people would also agree the measure of how well you stabbed someone is not going to fly in a game setting. So you need some way of resolving the action in a satisfyingly manner which doesn't get someone injured.

The problem as I see it is that you are assuming that the only way those questions were answered was the way that they happened to be answered, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

For example, you position that adventure stories would need a way to resolve interpersonal conflict is true. However, the level of detail and granularity that RPGs inherited from wargames was not in any way required to resolve those conflicts. it could have been a flip of a coin or a best 2 out of 3 rock-paper-scissors contest. Depending on where the system originated, it could have been based on who described their actions the most theatrically, or which participant was able to guess closest to some number, or who solved a puzzle faster. There are innumerable ways to determine a winner of an opposed contest, and shifting figures around a table on comparing arms versus armor with a random number generator is just one of them.

I think one thing that would be different would be the "referee" relationship. I think parlor games as RPGs for example would have evolved with a greater assumption of shared input into play, without a single dominant "GM". It might have even evolved GMless from the start.

 

[JEB]

After the previous discussion here along these lines, it seemed to me that Choose Your Own Adventure or PC adventure games might represent a likely alternate model for tabletop RPGs, if D&D and wargames aren't a factor. More about telling a specific story and just adjudicating decision points, with light if any mechanics. There might not even be a GM, just a script. Maybe more emphasis on acquired plot coupons than good character stats.

That said, I'd also point out that while it's had a nostalgic comeback in recent years, CYOA and the like declined a lot by the 1990s, so it's hard to say if such RPGs would have had the same staying power. Also, the urge to create and apply meaningful stats certainly exists in other areas, like fantasy sports, so I don't know that someone wouldn't have put it together with RPGs eventually.

 

[Reynard]

After the previous discussion here along these lines, it seemed to me that Choose Your Own Adventure or PC adventure games might represent a likely alternate model for tabletop RPGs, if D&D and wargames aren't a factor. More about telling a specific story and just adjudicating decision points, with light if any mechanics. There might not even be a GM, just a script. Maybe more emphasis on acquired plot coupons than good character stats.

That said, I'd also point out that while it's had a nostalgic comeback in recent years, CYOA and the like declined a lot by the 1990s, so it's hard to say if such RPGs would have had the same staying power. Also, the urge to create and apply meaningful stats certainly exists in other areas, like fantasy sports, so I don't know that someone wouldn't have put it together with RPGs eventually.

Branching story books had been around for a while, but computer adventure games grew out of tabletop RPGs and their popularity with computer science students.

 

[Umbran]

Since no one can reasonably act out hitting another person

Depends what you mean by "act out". In the SCA they've been acting out hitting each other with swords since 1966... by strapping on armor and hitting each other kind of hard with sticks! Or they act out fencing by... fencing, rather in the way of sport fencing. And lots of modern larpers are acting out much the same by tapping each other with padded pvc pipe or latex weapons...

That tradition could easily have come up with ways to simulate their activities without having all the rigmarole of actually hitting people. The SCA, for example, has a ranking system - we could easily imagine that turning into some form of spectrum of power level....

Also, note that the "murder mystery dinner" was invented by event planner Joy Swift in 1981, apparently entirely independent from the wargame root. One could easily see that becoming themed in fantasy and sci-fi trappings, and then shifting to larping, and then coming to the tabletop as well.