Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[howandwhy99]

I am not particularly worried about the conception of the hobby as much as what it developed into. By the 80s you clearly have something called RPGs that include GURPS, Dungeons and Dragons, Traveller, Call of Cthulu, Pendragon and many other types of games. Any definition of RPG that excludes D&D is absurd. Any definition that excludes GURPS or Call of Cthulu is also absorb on the face of it. We can construct all kinds of arguments going to the root of the hobby, going to the root meaning of the individual terms in RPG, etc. But that isn't how language works. You are not chained to the meaning from a word's inception. What matters is how the community of gamers uses the term RPG and how people outside the community use it. Giving it a definition in order to exclude elements we don't like from the hobby is a bad idea. Whether that is story gamers trying to make all RPGs narrative or immersionists trying to remove story gamers from the hobby. I think both are trying to set limits on how others can enjoy themselves at the gaming table. I am personally in the camp of immersion, but that doesn't mean I feel people who like bennies or are into shared narrative mechanics are doing it wrong. They are just doing it differently. I didn't always take this view. My vision of RPGs was much more narrow in the past. Now I give people the courtesy of not imposing my preferences upon the entire hobby and I expect the same courtesy from them in return.

Fundamentally that is the problem with Wick's article. He tries to set his preference as the default definition of RPG. That is the problem with some of the issues you site where people have used the word "story" to enforce a design philosophy on the whole hobby. But the worst thing to do is to simply inverse that. We can have a clear sense of what makes our style of play (immersion) work without tearing down other styles. I can play the way I want, without narrative mechanics, and not deny people who do play with them he right to call themselves role-players. This kind of back and forth doesn't get us anywhere. It is just tribalism.

Good post. And I do agree with much of what you're saying.

Admittedly, I do not identify as an "immersionist" as that has been beat to a pulp by narrativists into "yet more storytelling, be it character or world exploration". What I believe we are doing in D&D is pre-generating all game content in a kind of formula/map and allowing players to decipher its underlying meaning. Exactly as Chess players do in their game designs, but with more recognizable and relatable game constructs. But I do feel where you're coming from. I don't seek to exclude, but to highlight the act of self-righteous exclusion by others.

You don't have to agree with my understanding of RPG for early D&D. But I believe it's becoming more accurate the more I learn.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yes. That's basic game theory.

Really. Then the question is why do you think that's interesting here, and does "game theory" in this sense have anything to do with RPGs?

Okay. But role playing isn't storytelling and RPGs have nothing to do with it.

Great, you've asserted something. Stop making assertions and argue the case.

There is no overlap between storygames and roleplaying games except to say that both use the label game. They are utterly different activities.

I can draw a continuum between OD&D and Torg and Amber and My Life With Master and about any story game you want. I can do that with boardgames, too, which doesn't prove they should have the same name, but does mean they aren't trivial to separate.

But for anyone who has experience with both can see they each deserve their own term to preserve their identity.

I have no clue what that means. Inanimate games "deserve something"? "to preserve their identity"? Right now, people understand what storygames are, and their existence as RPGs does nothing to make D&D not the prototypical RPG.

 

[Hussar]

This is why story is a somewhat tricky term when it comes to RPGs and why I thin we need to be cautious. Here is the thing about this case, most sandbox players are not there for the story. They will acknowledge that a story can be described after the fact, but I find the folks are into sandbox are very much against things like mechanics that give players control of the "narrative", devices that give players plot immunity, or obvious efforts by the GM to "tell a story". This is a crowd who want to feel like they are inhabiting a character in a world that feels real. If you talk to these people you don't see words like "story" or "narrative" but rather "exploration" or "setting" or "events". So I think Janx's point stands here. Story may be said to emerge or exist in some way in an RPG depending on how one defines it, but that doesn't mean that is the most important aspect of the game to people. And this is especially true if one's definition of story starts getting into territory that sandbox players explicitly reject.

Now I understand that story can simply mean "there is a dragon ravaging a village, what do you do?". And most people would agree that sort of thing is a feature of sandbox. But that is different from saying people who play sandbox are there for the story. Most would say they are there to play a character. If your focus is on character rather than on story itself that does lead to a whole different set of expectations and conventions around play. So while I don't think the term "story" is bad on its own, and while I can say "story" to mean 'stuff that happens in game', once we start talking about why people are there to play in the first place, we need to listen to what they say, not impose "story" upon them as the ultimate aim of the game. And again most sandbox players I meet either are adamant they are not there for story, or they see story as this emergent thing that develops out of the actual goal which is to play a character and explore a world.

Story does have connotations in gaming beyond "there is a dragon ravaging the village". It suggests to some folks things like adventure paths, railroading, story RPGs, narrative mechanics, etc. Those are generally the things people are referring to when they say there is no story in their sandbox. And there are definitely folks out there who leap from RPGs include "There is a Dragon ravaging the village" to "your game should tell a good story". That is exactly what Wick does in his article and it is why people get a bit edgy around that term sometimes (even though it has multiple other meanings and some of them apply to pretty much any RPG).

OTOH, I think that sandbox players who are adamant that story is only emergent are fooling themselves.

Note, story in no way equates to player having narrative control, at least in the way that I think you mean it - narrative style mechanics that allow players to affect the story beyond the capabilities of their character. Although, to be fair, the entire point of Sandbox play is to give players as much narrative control as possible, so long as it only is generated by the capabilities of their character. Since sandbox play should largely be player driven, it could easily be argued that the players are largely in control of the narrative.

But, "there is a dragon ravaging the village" absolutely IS a story. It's generally people who are trying to draw lines in the sand who will bring in those extra connotations. "My game isn't a story game because there's no story" is a ludicrous statement about any RPG in play. Of COURSE there is a story. You can't play an RPG without one. And, really, it's more of a short step to say your game should tell a good story.

 

[Hussar]

I agree. My explanation is not THE way. It's my best understanding of early D&D design and play.

I just don't see anyone else explaining what games and game theory have been for millennia in the face of the Big Model's one true understanding.

I'd prefer people to be aware of multiple viewpoints and have unbelittled access to long standing game philosophy. That isn't the current climate as Mr. Wick is clearly trumpeting.

What long standing game philosophy?

Blackmoor had several stories built right into it. Col Playdoh (AKA Gary Gygax) is on record on these boards, that the story developed in his campaigns was a driving force behind the design of D&D. One only has to read the AD&D 1e books to see how much story is directly built into the game. Heck, much of the negative reaction to 4e is because WOTC changed story elements that have very little mechanics impact.

Game theory for millennia? That's a trifle hyperbolic don't you think?

It's not that people don't understand your point howandwhy99. I, for one, understand your point. I just think you are very wrong. But, huge props for sticking to your guns.

 

[Hussar]

Good post. And I do agree with much of what you're saying.

Admittedly, I do not identify as an "immersionist" as that has been beat to a pulp by narrativists into "yet more storytelling, be it character or world exploration". What I believe we are doing in D&D is pre-generating all game content in a kind of formula/map and allowing players to decipher its underlying meaning. Exactly as Chess players do in their game designs, but with more recognizable and relatable game constructs. But I do feel where you're coming from. I don't seek to exclude, but to highlight the act of self-righteous exclusion by others.

You don't have to agree with my understanding of RPG for early D&D. But I believe it's becoming more accurate the more I learn.

Umm, you have that particular drum to beat backwards. Self-identified "immersionists" react very strongly against narrativists and storytelling. All you have to do is look at Bedrockgames's posts to see that. Narrativism allows for the player to affect the game outside the abilities of the character, typically in service to creating a specific type of story, which pulls the player out of the "immersion" of play.

Then again, by deciphering "its underlying meaning" aren't players generating story? After all, the story IS the underlying meaning of an RPG. Unless the game content is nothing but a string of completely random events with no causal link, you have no choice but to generate a story during play. You have character, you have plot and you have location. That's a story. Even going back to the Braunstein experiences, roleplaying has always been tightly bound to story generation.

 

[howandwhy99]

Really. Then the question is why do you think that's interesting here, and does "game theory" in this sense have anything to do with RPGs?

If RPGs are games, then it matters here. It's what leads game design so players can engage in game play.

I can draw a continuum between OD&D and Torg and Amber and My Life With Master and about any story game you want. I can do that with boardgames, too, which doesn't prove they should have the same name, but does mean they aren't trivial to separate.

There is virtually no relationship between the two, so attempting to define them both under the same definition would not just be a waste, but ultimately an injustice. At least one or both must be robbed of their identity as someone tries to determine it for them.

For instance, I could define storygames under a definition that no storytelling ever occurs within them, but that hardly helps those who believe it does.

I have no clue what that means. Inanimate games "deserve something"? "to preserve their identity"? Right now, people understand what storygames are, and their existence as RPGs does nothing to make D&D not the prototypical RPG.

But D&D isn't a story much less a story making game. It's a game. Meaning it's about putting players in the position of deciphering. Original D&D does that. Storygames, when they are actual games, do that only so much as the players navigate their rules in order to stop playing (discerning) and start creating (inventing) a story.

Making stories and playing games are two completely different acts. Attempts to make storytelling (or any act of creating) as the unending universal act of everyone is part of the prejudice being pushed here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OTOH, I think that sandbox players who are adamant that story is only emergent are fooling themselves.

Note, story in no way equates to player having narrative control, at least in the way that I think you mean it - narrative style mechanics that allow players to affect the story beyond the capabilities of their character. Although, to be fair, the entire point of Sandbox play is to give players as much narrative control as possible, so long as it only is generated by the capabilities of their character. Since sandbox play should largely be player driven, it could easily be argued that the players are largely in control of the narrative.

But, "there is a dragon ravaging the village" absolutely IS a story. It's generally people who are trying to draw lines in the sand who will bring in those extra connotations. "My game isn't a story game because there's no story" is a ludicrous statement about any RPG in play. Of COURSE there is a story. You can't play an RPG without one. And, really, it's more of a short step to say your game should tell a good story.

'

Whether one characterizes something as a story is a bit subjective. And like I said story has multiple meanings, some of which will apply to most RPGs. A man telling the President not to touch his wife at the voting booth was a story in the news but it was also a real event that happened. People went to the event were not there to experience a story they were there to participate in an actual moment in time. For sandboxes, that is more the experience they are after. And I think the goal for them is not a story, therefore story is emergent, not the purpose. I think they are coming from a reasonable position in that respect. Where I think people go wrong is trying to say story doesn't exist there or that we can;t use the word story to talk about in game events.

But where I think your post starts getting into the realm that creates problems in these discussions is you pivot on that very broad and basic meaning of "story" to then say sandbox is all about narrative control. I think that is not the case. Narrative control is about conscious manipulation of plot and events external to your character. Sandbox is about inhabiting a single character and exploring a world through that character. A character in a sandbox campaign has the same level of narrative control over its experience as I do over my experience. Your definition of narrative control then would stretch it so far that it is essentially meaningless because every game ever made has it. But we know when we talk about narrative control in games we are not referring to taking actions through your character, we are talking about things that allow you to edit the script or the "fiction", to assume powers over the setting that a sandbox game would limit to the GM.

The problem with saying "you should therefore tell a good story" is once you do that now you really are focusing story as a literary concept. It suggests that a game shouldn't just have mechanics for resolving conflict but it should propel narrative forward and that a good adventure should have themes and make use of pacing and plot devices. I don't think this is true. Sure for some people that is what they want from a game and that is what they expect from an adventure, but I really have no desire for such things. This is a taste issue. And this kind of rhetoric is exactly why people are so hostile to the word story in RPGs. If you are going to use it to just talk about the stuff that happened in game, no one will care. But if you turn on that to tell people how they should play and how their games should be designed, as if that is the only or the best way, then you will meet resistance and the term will continue to generate a negative response from some gamers.

 

[howandwhy99]

What long standing game philosophy?

Look at any game design book prior to 2000 (and some later) and you see that the Big Model doesn't have anything to do with game design at all. Nor does the postmodern critical theory he's borrowing as unquestionable certainty. These are theories, which us to say they are stories. They are us discerning reality.

Game theory for millennia? That's a trifle hyperbolic don't you think?

Not if you study games as mathematical constructs. I'm trying to be accurate here.

It's not that people don't understand your point howandwhy99. I, for one, understand your point. I just think you are very wrong. But, huge props for sticking to your guns.

If you understood where I'm coming from I think you'd be asking more acute questions. If anyone else was traveling down the same roads of the past in order to understand I think we'd actually have people on this forum who did understand more of what D&D is and where it came from. But if they are, they aren't expressing these ideas whatsoever.

Umm, you have that particular drum to beat backwards. Self-identified "immersionists" react very strongly against narrativists and storytelling. All you have to do is look at Bedrockgames's posts to see that. Narrativism allows for the player to affect the game outside the abilities of the character, typically in service to creating a specific type of story, which pulls the player out of the "immersion" of play.

Neither of those occur in games. Immersionism is a failed attempt to define their gaming from a bunch of guys in 2001 or so in response to the Big Model and has since been sucked back into its one true wayism. Of course some OSR guys identify with it. It's all that's been left them from widely known contemporary theory. And I don't begrudge anyone understanding themselves through it. If you think I was claiming Bedrockgames was a storygamer, you've misread what I said.

Then again, by deciphering "its underlying meaning" aren't players generating story?

Players come up with theories, not stories. And they note them on their character log. Same with when they track time or location on maps. This is them theorizing what the referee has behind the screen. That's called game play. Story making it isn't. Story making is invention. Invention is used to come up with informed (hopefully) strategies to use in the game.

Every player is continually discerning, tracking, comparing with others, and revising their current understanding. That's D&D.
The Referee simply relates what has already be constructed without their decisions coming into it after the game starts. Quite like Mastermind. So the players can decipher the game.

After all, the story IS the underlying meaning of an RPG.

In no way is role playing about stories. This is an algorithm at best being discerned.

Unless the game content is nothing but a string of completely random events with no causal link, you have no choice but to generate a story during play. You have character, you have plot and you have location. That's a story. Even going back to the Braunstein experiences, roleplaying has always been tightly bound to story generation.

You are completely off base here. There are no plots. Locations are game board constructs, not stages. Game pieces are instruments of the players, not personalities.

Stories are not inevitable. Only religious true believers believe in inevitables. Please stop pushing story as if it had anything to do with the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But I do feel where you're coming from. I don't seek to exclude, but to highlight the act of self-righteous exclusion by others.
n.

I appreciate this and understand what you mean here. I certainly know the kind of attitude you describe, but in my experience fighting exclusion by setting up definitions that also exclude just escalates the flames. Most gamers could care less about the discussion we are having right now. They just want to roll the dice, have some fun and they are not rigidly aligned to a point of view like all of us on this thread are. They will slip in and out of various modes that we all see as the one true way, not think twice about what that means for gaming as a whole, and have a lot more fun doing it than we will ever have because they are not chaining themselves to strange philosophies that emerge around internet flamewars over how to play RPGs. I realized a while ago while gaming discussions online can provide some helpful tools for making your game experience better there is also a huge downside and I had to deliberately stop seeing things in forum discussion terms because I realized it was causing me to see and play games in a way that was disconnected from the way people at my table actually experienced things. At the end of the day now, all I care about is whether my players have fun. If that means one of my players wants me to give them a little dramatic pacing every so often, find, who cares what it means in terms of immersion versus story games. I am a pretty immersion heavy GM, and I think I am pretty good at developing believable setting and characters, but I am not there to tell my players how to think about gaming.

 

[howandwhy99]

SNIP
....It suggests that a game shouldn't just have mechanics for resolving conflict but it should propel narrative forward and that a good adventure should have themes and make use of pacing and plot devices..."

I don't agree with most of what you're saying here. But wanted to point out that there is no such thing as a conflict resolution mechanic in a game just like there is no such thing as narrative resolution outside of a story.

Game mechanics define the game constructs that make up games. There are no narrative components to games. Including conflict, which is a narrative device.

What the Big Model does is use narrative theory and hundreds of narrative terms and uses them exclusively in reference to games. And never references actual game design theory from the hundreds of years prior to it. It is not just the whitewashing of roleplaying games and peoples thoughts, but all games in general. Which is what it purports to be. A theory that explains all games.

Nowhere else will you see the belief that all games require the act of performing a character and therefore all gamers must have a "stance" and all games must be treated as "fictional narrative". There are no narrative in games because games are simply different. Making all things stories is the uniformity of groupthink bordering on fascism from that community.

I mean, stories don't even exist except as a culture. It's simply a long tradition of ideas. Not an actuality. No one should let their culture be conformed into another's, especially narrative culture, just because of some determinedly close-minded people.