RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[AbdulAlhazred]

Best citation I can give you is my brief in-person conversation with David Wesely (creator of Braunstein) some years back, in which he quickly detailed the progression from Arneson learning the role-playing ropes in Braunstein to Arneson's tacking on of various other aspects to build his own system, which went on to become part of the foundation for D&D. The war-game elements were largely Gygax's doing; and the real genius lay in the combining of those war-game elements with the role-play elements first seen in Braunstein to produce what became D&D.

In D&D at least, the GM is often both a player (playing the world and its NPCs as her "character") and not a player (an impartial referee) at the same time. Attempts to define a GM as strictly "a player" or "not a player" are doomed to failure.

Well, I am hardly one to question David Wesely of course, but what I have seen of Arneson's rules include at least basic 'wargame like' elements of AC, hit points, and some mechanism for gauging attack probabilities (it has been speculated to be essentially THAC0, but nobody has a pure inarguably Dave-authored draft). The story I always heard was that Dave stole hit points and AC from a game called 'Ironclads'. So I am a bit unsure as to what the minis wargame aspects were that Gary mixed in. He may well have written the 'domain rules' for name-level PCs acquiring land and a demense. I think that speaks to something like the 'Great Kingdom' play, but it doesn't seem like its really core wargame stuff.

 

[darjr]

Though, again, I do have to note that "wargames" in the sense they're using were hardly lacking in 1975. Ask an old SPI game collector.

Edit: I think I get it now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Only to a point: if those hallways etc. are being drawn out on a board (or, even more so, built with Dwarven Forge terrain pieces) and the players are placing minis to show where their characters are positioned and which way they're facing etc., then the degree of imagination required drops significantly.

That said, the use of such things also greatly helps unify the imagination among the participants.

Undoubtedly, but D&D (nor even AD&D) presented any solid rules for how to do that. I mean, there are 'heuristics' effectively like spell ranges and AoEs, but if you read the 1e DMG combat chapter, there's NO SUCH THING as a specific 'square' or 'hex' in which a specific character is to be found! There are no rules for moving from one place to another (albeit there's a movement rate, and you can extrapolate some 'rules' from concepts like the poorly explained idea of being 'engaged'). So, I believe you can play 1e or 2e AD&D on a grid and utilize the ranges and such that are provided, but a LOT of what in a game like 3e, or 4e would be regulated by the rules, is simply up in the air and decided by the GM, grid/map or no grid/map.

 

[kenada]

As related by the examination of a PBTA gameloop, I still believe it to be playstyle reinforcement, and there isn't an RPG I've examined that doesn't utilize it in some form as, at least one, core of the gameplay.

My contention in post #9 was that having playing-style reinforcement was neither necessary nor sufficient. I thought there was agreement based on your response in post #11, but it seems like we don’t.

Exactly, if we want to use some other language, the crux of what we're talking about is choices and consequences. An RPG will give you X probability space to perform actions in, and it will provide Y feedback in response, which reinforces you to follow Z playstyle. If you kill, people hate you, you either kill more because they hate you or you stop killing because thats not the style you intended.

I’m having trouble reconciling this with the text cited in post #5, which seemed to be about allowing the player to specialize an avatar via the effects of their actions.

In my Undertale example, the narrative changes, but your avatar does not. The text suggests that the purpose of the feedback loop is to allow the player to customize their avatar via their actions in the game, but that’s not what happens. The story changes, but that seems like a separate concern from specializing your avatar. However, if you do kill things, your stats go up. There’s still no specialization (which the text called out as an issue in OD&D).

That’s not the case for Mass Effect. Your Paragon and Renegade ratings have some effect on dialog options. In ME1, they also provide a few other character benefits. This would allow you customize your experience, so I guess it’s technically a form of specialization, but it seems a bit weak. Apparently, Mass Effect: Andromeda apparently doesn’t have that system anymore because they wanted “more shades of gray” (I skipped ME:A).

So I’m not seeing where playing-style reinforcement comes into play with Undertale. You choice of route matters, and your actions in those routes do cause changes in the game, but those things don’t seem to be what the text has in mind. If it’s actually broader than that, then that would suggest games like OD&D actually do have playing-style reinforcement. All I need to do to reinforce my conception of being a careful adventurer is by listening at every door to get surprise on the monsters (and hopefully find some elven boots).

However, I feel like that would be too broad. I would like to modify suggestion in post #32 and say that an RPG is a game where you take on the role of a character for the purpose of experiencing something as that character. Maybe it’s finding treasure, or exploring new worlds. Maybe it’s about overcoming challenges and proving your mettle. Maybe it’s about experiencing a particular emotion or learning more about oneself (the player). From there, we can then hybridize it with different elements (playing-style reinforcement, improv play, etc).

 

[Emberashh]

If you are playing a role, even if that role is dictated by things like Actions or Checks or Dice etc etc, you have to make the script -- the sequence of events to come -- as you play. In otherwords, there is some level of improv already in the game. And even if you're playing pawn-style, you are still fulfilling the role of the character, and since that role isn't scripted, you are improving what happens next.

So there's a lot to unpack here.

First, there's a specific meaning to the word Actions in this context. Actions are what a player can perform under the pretense of the game to change its state. The interaction between these and whatever the Actions serve to change are what comprise the overall gameplay thats generated.

Second, improvisational Actions are not inherently a part of any given game, and especially not if such Actions don't actually exist, implicitly or otherwise. oDND, as presented, for example, has no improvisation mechanic as part of the system it creates. People have said otherwise, but their comments just aren't relevant because its not in the goddamn book. If you put oDND in someone's hands, whose never seen an RPG before, has no idea what wargames are, and ask them to play oDND, they are not going to find their way towards improvising going off whats in the book. They just aren't.

That conundrum gets obfuscated because of the oral tradition that basically taints new players before they can be exposed to what the game actually before its been house ruled.

But anyway, unless a given video game designs for it, Improvisation isn't inherent to them either, though its a lot easier to recognize that for what it is.

Thirdly, the sequence of events isn't always improvisational either. Most modern games of all kinds are, because emergence is generally more fun and adds better replayability, but progression games are also out there. Point and click adventure games like The Longest Journey have long since fallen out of vogue, but they're games where you can't do anything but ride the rails, and that can be quite fun in of itself. Visual novels and the like are another example. And theres a lot of weird, esoteric arthouse games out there that rub up against this.

I can't remember the name but there's one where you're literally just staring at a mountain as things happen to it over time.

Furthermore, there is no proof that early D&D games involved an absence of what some members call improv games.

If its not in the book, its not a part of the game as presented. House rules don't count.

And there isn't anything to be gained from making this separation either.

Accurate data gives you accurate fixes. If the problem lies in the improv game, no amount of mechanical jank added to the RPG is going to fix it. Likewise going in the other direction.

Especially going in the other direction in fact. We even have a term for why this isn't the way to go: Oberoni Fallacies.

This interpretation is key to TTRPGs and it also includes the overall game state too.

Yes, but that doesn't contradict whats being said. Recognizing a TTRPG is 2-3 games in one doesn't negate the overall label, nor provide a value judgement.

Its been kind of reoccurring in these two topics that people aren't really examining why they're reacting so negatively to that idea. The games aren't made lesser by making the distinction, there is no gatekeeping or badwrongfun accusations, so why the resistance?

What, precisely, is the problem?

I've already exhaustively elaborated on why i think its important to distinguish, because I think accurate data provides accurate fixes. I don't want to eyeball fixing my radiator, I want to take a wrench directly to the lugnut and tighten it. I can't do that if I'm refusing to distinguish between a wrench and a fork and the lugnuts and the wall socket.

My impression over the last day has been that a lot of people have just not been exposed to games, nevermind just RPGs, being talked about in as abstract a manner as I've been doing, and for whatever reason thats making people uncomfortable. I still don't see why, because it shouldn't.

The point of what all I've been talking about is to design better, funner games that consistently do what they're supposed to do. That shouldn't be a controversial aim, and the discussions thus far have largely focused on debating more than anything actually constructive.

 

[Shardstone]

"If it's not in the book, it's not in the game" is not a maxim worth adhering too when discussing oD&D in particular. Those three brown booklets were incomplete, and there were many ideas Arneson and Gygax are on record mentioning as being missing, unintended, or otherwise noting how incomplete they are. Many of the people who bought and used those books filled in the gaps themselves because the game failed to actually work as a coherent system. Furthermore, it is a proto-RPG, the first of its kind, and the maxims that govern RPGs today were still being formed back then. Trying to base any maxim off of oD&D is bad practice.

 

[Lanefan]

If (1) the game is played with minis on terrain, and (2) moves like "I walk up to the door and tap it with my crowbar - what do I hear?" are not permitted, then it's not a RPG. It's a boardgame. (Or perhaps a board-based wargame.)

If moves like "I walk up to the door and tap it with my crowbar - what do I hear?" are permitted, then it's a RPG: it's a game where the making and resolution of player-side moves occurs within the context of a shared imganation.

Oh, I agree. The difference in degree of imagination, however, between map-minis-terrain and full-on theatre of the mind is fairly large.

Moving your mini over to the door while others move their minis to cover you isn't quite the same as imagining the whole scene; and different players (and GMs) are more comfortable with different points along this line.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There was a general note on training, but it was extremely slow and there was no learning-by-doing (something that only makes sense given how chunky the skill ranks are, and I'm not sure entirely even then).

Yeah, the game just wasn't intended to be about advancement. Characters don't get supernaturally tough, etc. You CAN get more powerful, by amassing money, influence, ships, weapons, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I am hardly one to question David Wesely of course, but what I have seen of Arneson's rules include at least basic 'wargame like' elements of AC, hit points, and some mechanism for gauging attack probabilities (it has been speculated to be essentially THAC0, but nobody has a pure inarguably Dave-authored draft). The story I always heard was that Dave stole hit points and AC from a game called 'Ironclads'. So I am a bit unsure as to what the minis wargame aspects were that Gary mixed in. He may well have written the 'domain rules' for name-level PCs acquiring land and a demense. I think that speaks to something like the 'Great Kingdom' play, but it doesn't seem like its really core wargame stuff.

That all makes sense. Arneson's wargaming side wasn't brought up when I spoke with David Wesely; he was telling me (well, a few of us, in lead-up to his running a Braunstein game) how the roleplaying side evolved; and I (and others) asked some questions.

 

[Emberashh]

I’m having trouble reconciling this with the text cited in post #5, which seemed to be about allowing the player to specialize an avatar via the effects of their actions.

The Intent section covers it, and as related, what you're reading are examples of the pattern in practice, specifically the factually most common form it takes. They are not an exhaustive listing of every form the pattern can take.

If we step out of that specific one for a moment, lets take a look at another:

This is relatively straightforward (energy here is just an abstract Resource of some kind that acts as currency for a given Action), and it can take a lot of different forms, but this is the mechanic that makes Action economies in TTRPGs work well. In PF2E, the multi-attack penalty is such a mechanism.

In a narrative game, there's typically some kind of enforced dramatic turn that directly results from actions (success with a cost in PBTA, for example). That too is a stopping mechanism.

And the list goes on. Most games have tons of different variants of these all over the place for obvious reasons, and when one "cheats", most of the time they're basically just turning all of these mechanisms off.

The book itself, for reference, references Warcraft III's (the RTS) lumber harvesting mechanics as well as the board game Power Grid, where the price of fuel acts as a stopping mechanism to prevent leading players from snowballing.

So with all that said, it should follow then that we can look a given pattern, like playstyle reinforcement, and realize that it can apply as a generalized pattern that describes the overall mechanics of many different kinds of games, as well as different mechanics within the same game.

If it’s actually broader than that, then that would suggest games like OD&D actually do have playing-style reinforcement. All I need to do to reinforce my conception of being a careful adventurer is by listening at every door to get surprise on the monsters (and hopefully find some elven boot).

That is actually a completely fair point; Id have to actually set up and run ODND myself to verify, but that doesn't seem to be too farfetched a hypothesis.

And Id also grant that how the pattern listing was set up in the book is wanting, which I still think makes sense given the audience the book is aimed at. Most video game people aren't going to care about the specifics we've been chewing on unless they're among the ones trying to build emergent storytelling systems. Like, Id wager the Shadow of Mordor devs had this pattern in mind, even if they don't specifically use this methodology to guide their mechanic design.

But even so, I am providing only screen grabs of relevant sections. It is textbook, and there's entire chapters here that Im basically paraphrasing or otherwise neglecting to cover. Reading the whole book (and treating it as textbook and doing the exercises it recommends) provides a much clearer picture than reading screen grabs basically out of context.

As far as the Undertale example goes, as Im not familiar with the game, Id ask if playing a Pacifist style results in feedback from the game. I would assume the game is harder playing that way, and that in of itself is feedback, but from your posts it seems as though the game responds to Pacifism more directly than that, for good or bad, and if it does, then it is reinforcing that playstyle. It may be positive or negative reinforcement, but that doesn't necessarily matter to the pattern.