S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[Numidius]

It is fascinating the convoluted, shifting, refining process of game design by Baker, looking at his games in chronological order

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

In those hypotheticals, the players show in the same room, eat the same snacks, roll the same dice, and have the same "gm describe--> player act-->assign consequence-->gm describe" loop of play.

The cosmetics of play (genre, setting, power level) differ, some details (like episodic vs. continuity and length of campaign) change, but the game remains the same.

Really?

So, in one game, we're playing a really high RP game with tons of intrigue and mystery, and virtually no combat, and in the other game, we're pretty much doing nothing but combat with a bit of talky bits interspersed, and those are the same game?

A game which lasts 10 hours of play, for the same campaign, has all the same elements as a game that lasts 1000 hours of play, across multiple players? Those are the same games?

See, no matter what, in a normal game, the end point is pre-defined. When you reach point X, the game ends. But, in an RPG, that simply isn't true. RPG's don't define the parameters of the end of the game. At least, not typically. Granted, there are exceptions - Dread comes to mind - but, those are exceptions, not generally the rule.

Like all genre definitions, we define by the commonalities, not by the edges.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Writing a novel comes to mind, @Hussar . They can be about wildly different things, from “Little Women” to “Perdido Street Station”. They can be just about any length. And so on.

But their crafting is a process. It requires imagination and then the actual work of writing, and related things like editing. No writers will follow all the same processes or use exactly the same tools, but the bones are the same.

In the end, they’ve written a novel. “Little Women” is nothing at all like “Perdido Street Station”, but yet they are both novels.

 

[Nagol]

Really?

So, in one game, we're playing a really high RP game with tons of intrigue and mystery, and virtually no combat, and in the other game, we're pretty much doing nothing but combat with a bit of talky bits interspersed, and those are the same game?

A game which lasts 10 hours of play, for the same campaign, has all the same elements as a game that lasts 1000 hours of play, across multiple players? Those are the same games?

See, no matter what, in a normal game, the end point is pre-defined. When you reach point X, the game ends. But, in an RPG, that simply isn't true. RPG's don't define the parameters of the end of the game. At least, not typically. Granted, there are exceptions - Dread comes to mind - but, those are exceptions, not generally the rule.

Like all genre definitions, we define by the commonalities, not by the edges.

Yeah, pretty much. The trappings are different, sure. The individual challenges differ from moment to moment, but it's the same game under the hood.

"Heroes who defend their home from external threats" can describe a group protecting Earth from Galactus level threats just as easily as a group of knights defending a isolated manor house in Arthurian times. It can describe politicians just as well and warriors. The cosmetics change, but the play stays the same.

The end point for open-ended RPGS is "when the game ends by consensus or TPK". Much like tennis the end point is defined by a relative measure and can go on and on and on.

The other way I've seen it measured is "We won because we get to continue." A game is won at the end of every session that allow continuation. There are just a lot of potential matches.

 

[Lanefan]

If we want a new Forge the question is "What do people want from RPGs that is not being delivered well"?

What about "What do we want from RPGs that is being delivered well"?

 

[Lanefan]

Such exposure as I've had to the Forge and some of the key people involved leads me mostly toward thinking their main contribution was (and still is?) to add a thick and entirely unnecessary layer of ivory-tower pretention and maybe even arrogance to a field of study and discussion - that being RPG theory and design - much better conducted in the pub with a bunch of gaming friends over numerous beers; with the results of said study and discussion never intended to influence anything or anyone beyond those present and their immediate circle.

 

[prabe]

What about "What do we want from RPGs that is being delivered well"?

That hardly seems like the sort of question someone dedicated to revolutionizing TRPGs would ask. ;-)

 

[Lanefan]

That hardly seems like the sort of question someone dedicated to revolutionizing TRPGs would ask. ;-)

Seems simpler somehow to fisrt determine what doesn't need messing with before moving on to that which (maybe) does.

 

[prabe]

Seems simpler somehow to fisrt determine what doesn't need messing with before moving on to that which (maybe) does.

That's reasonable, and in some ways obvious, in the only fix what's broken say. I was thinking more that the Forge, from what very little I've read about it, seems to have been motivated by dissatisfaction (mostly with some specific games they didn't feel had played in ways that kept the promises in the cover copy). In addition to some flippancy, I was gesturing at the fact that people satisfied with what they have may be less likely to examine why they're satisfied with it. It's actually worthwhile to explore that, I think.