Reinventing Roleplaying Games

[Remathilis]

But now at a remove. It's no longer Joe versus Bob, but Throng vs. Garas the Black. Though it does help if people keep in mind the necessary distinction.

'other side's' honesty would certainly help there. Removing the need to see roleplaying as competitive would make it a lot easier on all concerned.

Sounds more like a problem with people in the group taking things WAAAY to seriously and not like a problem with the game itself. Trust in imperative to this sort of activity, and it sounds like there is a lack of trust amongst whomever you base such assertions off.

I'm done with this. I'm going back to prepping for my game, I mean hobby.

 

[mythusmage]

Yes, well, the problem here is that you've yet to tell us what you are looking for. You wave your hands and say, that RPGs can be much more, but you've not told us in what way. Please pardon us if we then have to guess, and we guess incorrectly. We are rather limited by your vague approach.

For example - right here you say that RPGs could gain a wider audience if they did what they do best better. But you don't tell us what you think they do best. Until you put down a list, in clear and unambiguous language, we will find it difficult to discuss the point with you cogently.

Okay, you have a point here. But, to understand where I'm coming from you need to know how I see RPGs, and it's not, necessarily how others see them. To quote myself:

A roleplaying game is a pastime where the participants assume the role of characters in an imaginary setting; with a set of mechanics that perform the following functons:

1. Describe characters and the creation thereof.

2. Describe the setting the characters live in.

3. Describe how characters and setting interact.

4. Describe conflict resolution. Where conflict can be described as any situation where an action can fail.

That is what I'm aiming for. That is my goal. A "...pastime where the participants assume the role of characters in an imaginary setting..." It is my position that by seeing RPGs as games we are limiting what can be done with and in them. By changing how we see them we open up the possibilities

As you already seem to note - the very first introduction is with the name.

You argue against using the term "game" because (in you opinion) it gives the wrong idea even before they ever see the actual activity. I've already pointed out that the word "hobby" does the same exact thing - it gives the wrong idea before they ever see the activity.

So, what we are then faced with is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Pardon if we differ in opinion on which is the lesser.

The thing is, I don't see hobby as being a bad word in this situation. (Maybe a little misunderstood. Maybe a little chic... Okay, no more channelling past lives, I promise. Would I lie to.. Bad past life! Down!)

Of course they can learn. The point, however, is that before they learn, the term has little information for them. They will then turn to the other terms for their information. "Hobby" tells them little to nothing about the contents of the activity. And what it does say they may not like. So, it does nothing to draw them to it. "Game" does tell them something, and it's something that's generally viewed positively by the audience, rather than neutrally or negatively. As a marketing point, "game" is a better advertisement than "hobby".

An even better selling point is the name of the 'game'. Dungeons & Dragons® has weight in this business.

"What is this?"

"Vampire: The Requiem."

"What do you do?"

"You play a character in a world where vampires exist, and the very nature of reality is a sham."

"How do you do that?"

"I can show you if you have a few minutes."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Because, despite your protestations, it is not the wrong word. With the small problem of emphasis of the win condition, which they can unlearn easily enough, the term fits rather nicely. You focus very much on the connotations you feel are negative. You seem to disregard the negative or innacurate connotations of "hobby". You say calling it a game limits possibilities. You seem to miss the fact that calling it a hobby similarly limits possibilities.

I say it is the wrong word because it is the wrong word. It's not a game, it's an entirely different beast. See my self-quote above.

Given that you've been so vague about what it is about RPGs you want emphasized, perhaps you should go first in answering that question.

What do I want to see emphasized? The adventure. The lands and the people. The getting up at ohgodit'stoodamnearlytogetupandwhoputthearrowinmyhorse o'clock. The Cool Stuff™. But, for the love of God, not the "game".

Interesting. Because, if you ask the designers of D&D, the rules are also there to make things equal and fair - that's what "game balance" is about. It has been seen that without it, many people are put off by the activity.

In any event, what the rules are there to do is not the issue. All that's required to be a game are rules that control, focus and/or mediate what happens in play. And RPG rules do exactly that.

So then judicial procedures are a game? They do, after all, have rules that control, focus, and/or mediate what occurs during a court session.

Let's face it, you present RPGs as games of course people are going to want game balance. The image of games as being competitive activities after all. Present them as chances to adventure and explore in strange worlds in the comfort of your own home, with mechanics to keep events from being arbitrary occurences, and you may get totally different attitudes. In a roleplaying world things need not be fair, all one should be able to ask for is the chance.

Yes, it is, actually. To you, who do it a great deal, it seems simple. But modern folk are used to their fiction as passive entertainment, or very tightly scripted as it is in some video games. They stop playing games of role-assumption pretty early in life. What you suggest is pretty strange stuff as a leisure activity.

I say people are more adaptive than you might think. Why not give them a chance?

 

[Umbran]

First off - please keep it civil, remathilis and mythusmage. Likening another person's words to "snot" is not constructive.

Dramatic conflict, not game conflict. Different critters altogether.

When the dramatic conflict is controlled by the two people involved in the activity, they are most certainly not different creatures altogether. Instead, the two critters are joined at the hip.

But now at a remove. It's no longer Joe versus Bob, but Throng vs. Garas the Black. Though it does help if people keep in mind the necessary distinction.

Changing the word "game" to "hobby" will do nothing to keep that remove in mind. Because, you see, the people who enage in the activity are not idiots.

They see a conflict in the story, between their character and those controlled by the GM. They see the lines of control, and can thus see very clearly the implied competition between themselves and the GM. The fact that it was introduced as a hobby, and not a game, will not keep the player behind Garas the Black from feeling put upon when he runs out of hit points. Better to call a spade a spade - call it a game, and enforce good gamesmanship.

Honestly - so far your proposal seems to fail to strike at the actual problem - poor gamesmanship. Rather than address the problem, your proposal attempts to avoid it. Avoidance is usually not a terribly effective method of conflict resolution

The reason for playing is the adventure. For dramatic purposes there may be conflict, though not necessarily the type of conflict most think of when they hear the word. Competition in a form may even arise (as in two rogues competing to see who can garner tho most 'cool stuff' in a night's work). But competition as occurs in games need not arise.

Okay, your reason for playing is adventure. But for many folks the tactics and competition are a major reason to play the game. They like the more standard game aspects of the hobby. Who are you (or we) to try to remove them?

 

[mythusmage]

"Dungeons and Dragons: Rules for Fantasitc Medieval WarGAMEs Campaign PLAYABLE with with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" - 1978 White box by Gygax and Anderson

Doesn't mean they were right. Perceptions have changed over the years. Gary, Dave, and the rest of the crew didn't really understand what they had. It grew out of a game, so it was a game. As I recall, the first time anyone referred to it as roleplaying was around 1975, when a fellow by the name of Glenn Blacow mentioned it in the APA (Amateur Press Association) zine, Alarums and Excursions. A tag which quickly caught on since it described what you did so well.

In the skeptical community what you did is know as an, "appeal to authority." Unfortunately, even authorities can make mistakes.

While there are "correct" and "incorrect" ways of doing something, I have yet to see a comprehensive rulebook on crocheting. Most of them teach you the basics and send you on your way. In the end, the afghan you've created is the final test of whats right and wrong.

Some activities have explicit rules. In some the rules are implicit. Crochet has implicit rules. When you break those rules, you lose. Your loss being evident by what you've produced. Those who follow the rules produce items that sell. Those that don't, don't.

Calling the "game" a "hobby" is a matter of shorthand writing convience. Game is short for "whatever we've been doing for the past 30 years"

Listen carefully. And yes, I am ticked. The "game" is not the "hobby". the "hobby" is not the "game". The "game" is a subset of the "hobby", the "hobby" is composed of many "games". "Hobby" is a catch-all term for what the people involved in the "hobby" are involved in. The roleplaying hobby is composed of many roleplaying games. Each could (and usually do) become a hobby for the participants, but they are not, and never could be, the hobby. Are we clear now?

[quote}Gotta start somewhere. You need some level of rules to keep things together, especially in anything involving large groups of people. Go (re)read "Lord of the Flies" by William Goldring.[/quote]

In that sense, I agree with you. But here you're speaking more of codes of conduct than anything else. Rules in the sense of a mechanism to regulate activity in an RPG is another matter entirely. When they do act to keep conduct civil it is as an intended consequence of their main function.

I know lots of people who sneer at RPGs as a game played by pimply-faced teenagers. Game implies childish. Most people don't usually care.

That's their problem.

Serious consideration, IMHO. if your going to institute radical change, get rid of the only problem I have with describing my "hobby"

Son, I've seen a flame. I've seen a flame done by masters. This barely qualifies as cigarette lighter.[/quote]

What flame? You wanted to know what I think, I told you. BTW, I've been to alt.flame on USENET. Amusing, but hardly what I would call flaming.

(Besides which, Pirate Cat knows flaming, and he'd shut people down pronto if they ever engaged in it. Nope, me good boy now, me no flame.)

There is something to be said of remembering your roots. It keeps humbled and connected to others in the community.

It doesn't mean you have to let them limit what you can be.

How do YOU know it will?

I don't. I hope it will. But only by trying will we learn.

Such as?

Such as calling it a game. Insisting on game balance. Playing it as a game when doing so places limitations on what people will do.

What proof do you have that the RPG industry is dying a horrible death anyway? More people play RPGs now than 10 years ago, and hundreds of companies exist thanks to OGL. RPGs are carried in large chains like Wal-Mart, and the video game/online system explosion has brought RPG style games to the mainstream in new and different ways. While we still lack a descent D&D cartoon (or movie, for that matter) we have more growth now than in the height of the 80s.

I don't think the sky is falling. We've endured the 97 crash of TSR, the death of FAFSA, the collapse of West End, and CCG craze. We'll endure still with organic growth and word of mouth support, as we always have.

Unfortunately, that growth and vitality you cite are but the vines slowly strangling the life out of the tree that is D&D®. I'm going by impressions, but the impressions I've gotten from reading around the hobby is that the hobby is in worse shape than you think. Falling sales keep getting cited. People leaving the hobby. Once 15,000 sales was considered a failure by a third world company, now people are happy with sales in the hundreds. We live in a time of lowered expectations, and that's not good.

I say it's time we raised our sights and went for the glory. However much glory there is out there for this hobby of ours.

As the man once said, "And the horse may learn to talk."

 

[mythusmage]

Sounds more like a problem with people in the group taking things WAAAY to seriously and not like a problem with the game itself. Trust in imperative to this sort of activity, and it sounds like there is a lack of trust amongst whomever you base such assertions off.

I'm done with this. I'm going back to prepping for my game, I mean hobby.

It's what you get when people compete. Which is what people do when they see an activity as a competitive activity, and games are competitive activities. People are like that. Remove OOC competition and you get a different dynamic. IC competition is another matter entirely, and does not make the 'game' a game in any sense.

Correction; prepping for your game is part of your hobby. BTW, I hope it goes well.

 

[mythusmage]

First off - please keep it civil, remathilis and mythusmage. Likening another person's words to "snot" is not constructive.

But he sta... No, I'm not going to go there. Uh-unh, not again. Sorry.

When the dramatic conflict is controlled by the two people involved in the activity, they are most certainly not different creatures altogether. Instead, the two critters are joined at the hip.

Does that mean they become the same thing? I submit that Throng is not Bob, Throng is Bob's character. While Bob may become emotionally invested in Throng, that does not mean he has to be as emotionally invested as he is in himself.

This allows for a certain degree of distancing between Bob and Throng, and so what happens to Throng becomes of less importance than if it were Bob himself engaged in the conflict.

This is, of course, a bit off the path. The subject of player-character relations really deserves it's own thread.

Changing the word "game" to "hobby" will do nothing to keep that remove in mind. Because, you see, the people who enage in the activity are not idiots.

"Games", not "game". For "game" I'd rather just drop it entirely and use the name of the "game" itself. So instead of the Dungeons & Dragons® game it would simply be Dungeons & Dragons®

They see a conflict in the story, between their character and those controlled by the GM. They see the lines of control, and can thus see very clearly the implied competition between themselves and the GM. The fact that it was introduced as a hobby, and not a game, will not keep the player behind Garas the Black from feeling put upon when he runs out of hit points. Better to call a spade a spade - call it a game, and enforce good gamesmanship.

What implied competition? The players have their parts to play, the GM has his. So long as all parties remember this there need be no player/player (after all, the GM is as much a player as those he runs each adventure for, for all his roles are different than their's) competition.

Honestly - so far your proposal seems to fail to strike at the actual problem - poor gamesmanship. Rather than address the problem, your proposal attempts to avoid it. Avoidance is usually not a terribly effective method of conflict resolution

Bad manners is another matter entirely. One best dealt with by each group, and the assistance of the authorities should it get out of hand

Okay, your reason for playing is adventure. But for many folks the tactics and competition are a major reason to play the game. They like the more standard game aspects of the hobby. Who are you (or we) to try to remove them?

What of those who might enter the hobby were it not for those who treat it as a game?

 

[Faraer]

'Hobby' asks would-be participants to define themselves, to modify their sense of identity, in order to take part. Most will balk, and that's no way to make something mainstream. RPGs need to be seen as just another medium.

'Game' is understood differently by different people. I see it broadly as activities that are play; others have a sharp image defined by games they're familiar with. Most people don't understand play, consciously, at all well; thus the very curious phrase "it's just a game".

People don't stop playing roles early in life: watching anyone who is more than averagely a social chameleon will tell you that. Some people have barriers that make the opening-up of playing an explicit fictional role hard; plenty of people don't. But certainly the fact that in this medium you do it yourself and don't just buy-and-consume (which means the RPG industry is more secondary than in other media) is a giant thing in any discussion of RPGs.

 

[mythusmage]

'Hobby' asks would-be participants to define themselves, to modify their sense of identity, in order to take part. Most will balk, and that's no way to make something mainstream. RPGs need to be seen as just another medium.

'Game' is understood differently by different people. I see it broadly as activities that are play; others have a sharp image defined by games they're familiar with. Most people don't understand play, consciously, at all well; thus the very curious phrase "it's just a game".

People don't stop playing roles early in life: watching anyone who is more than averagely a social chameleon will tell you that. Some people have barriers that make the opening-up of playing an explicit fictional role hard; plenty of people don't. But certainly the fact that in this medium you do it yourself and don't just buy-and-consume (which means the RPG industry is more secondary than in other media) is a giant thing in any discussion of RPGs.

Hobbies are most certainly mainstream. Some individual hobbies more so than others. Then you have some hobbies that are not mainstream, and may never be.

"...modify their sense of identity..." When did that start? When I started playing back in 1975 I stayed me. I rather doubt anybody modified their sense of identity when they started playing.

As to games, ask most people what they think of when they hear the word, and I'll bet most will respond with something very close to a an activity where somebody wins and somebody loses.

As to 'wall flowers'. That type tend to self-select themselves out of most activities. I'm looking for people who might be interested, not everybody.

 

[barsoomcore]

I propose calling what we are involved in the roleplaying hobby, because that's what it is.

You go right ahead, then. I don't see how this involves anyone else. Heck, call it "Landmarks of the Durdogne" if you like. I won't squawk.

What it ACTUALLY sounds like you're proposing is that the rest of us call it what you call it, and you're not offering a shred of evidence to suggest it's a good idea. Nor are you putting forth any reasons to suggest that calling it what we currently call it is bad.

I'm sorry if you "feel" that the hobby is dying on the vine. I disagree -- but more importantly, I DON'T CARE. I'm not about to stop playing just because RPG's aren't as "cool" or "popular" as they once were. Believe me, I played these games when they were a LOT LESS popular than they are today, and I didn't notice having less fun then.

It is not my purpose to create my own little RPG world (not that sort of RPG world), it is my purpose to re-create the one that already exists.

Good luck to you. Let me know if you have any reasons why I should help. Cause so far you don't.

The way things look now the hobby is not going to grow. Indeed, it may well fade away.

Gee, you mean "they" "won't let" me play anymore? Come on. The industry's not going to "fade away". That's nonsense. There's money to be made selling people RPG materials. There always will be. There'll never be very much money to be made, but that's okay.

This isn't going to change because suddenly we use the term "hobby" and strip out any suggestion that the "activity" isn't competitive. Competitive pursuits are very, very popular and there's NOTHING WRONG with people playing D&D in a competitive manner.

Point to ANY non-competitive activity that generates the kind of numbers that say, NFL football, World Cup soccer, Stanley Cup playoffs or the Olympics generates. Competition is FUN for most people in the world. It's attractive. Stripping D&D of any sense of competition will, in all likelihood, REDUCE its popularity.

The best course is obviously to steer a bit of a middle ground -- don't push it as a competitive practice, but don't get up on a soapbox and insist it isn't such. That way you attract the competition-seekers (who will, as everyone else on this thread agrees, learn pretty much the first time they play that it isn't a "traditionally competitive" game) AND the "drama weeds" who want to engage their improvisational story-telling abilities. Your suggestion would serve only to cause the competition-seekers to disregard the game, at the supposed benefit of attracting those hordes of drama weeds (forgive the title, I'm one myself) that YOU suggest (without any evidence) are turning away from the hobby because they think it's too competitive.

I suggest those hordes don't exist. I challenge you to prove otherwise. And if they don't exist, who do you think is going to come flocking to this activity once we start calling it a hobby?

And for the record, it's ALREADY called a "hobby".

If somebody asked me, "What hobbies do you have?", RPGs would be included in my answer. It's already a hobby and we all know that. You want to chuck the word "game" because TO YOU it primarily means competition and you want to de-emphasize that aspect of role-playing.

You are mistaken if you think simply renaming the activity will bring that about. You are further mistaken if you think that de-emphasizing the competitive nature of the activity will attract more people. You are wrong, mythusmage, and you have not yet, in SEVEN PAGES, presented ONE SCRAP of evidence that has convinced ANYONE.

Find another shtick.

 

[Faraer]

You may think Alan is grandstanding, and I wouldn't disagree, but these are real questions. Of course there's mileage in selling RPGs to story-type people as well as game-type people. We're all just guessing as to how much, though, because it's NEVER BEEN TRIED, and how best it might be done.