There are a number of issues that are raised by Jon Peterson's excellent book,
The Elusive Shift. But one that I am going to keep coming back to is that all the issues we keep discussing have already been discussed before. Now, I don't want to say that there isn't a purpose in discussing these things. Nor do I want to say that these issue can't be looked at with fresh eyes, and new attempts to make RPG systems cannot be devised- only that we keep forgetting this history, and seem doomed to continue the same arguments without the benefit of the knowledge that the parameters of these arguments were laid out decades ago.
And I'm going to begin with one of the more interesting and controversial bits that can be gained from the book. First, however, I'd like to start by summarizing Evan Torner's work in the book Role-Playing Game Studies- in noting another attempt to provide a coherent RPG theory, Torner correctly notes that the same rhetorical tropes are consistently used- first, the person provides it in a semi-professional form (zine, on-line BBS, personal blog, forum, wiki, etc.). Second, it continues the same debates we are all familiar with (e.g., realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice etc.). It will almost always do so through the utilization of
player and system typologies (what players enjoy about different games and how different games accommodate those preferences). Third, the author will almost always claim to be a "big tent" and unbiased observer of the typologies seeking only to end the prior debates, while actually looking to continue the debate and, more often than not, delegitimatize other methods of play through the seemingly-neutral goal of helping people design and play 'better.' Fourth, and finally, the author will inevitably make the act same points that were made years or decades ago.
Now, imagine my interest when I saw the development of these same arguments in the historical context. While the book lightly touches on the wargaming antecedents (the use of player typologies, and how some different wargamers had different preferences. as typified by Thornton's typologies), and continued throughout the 70s with FRPs (or RPGs ... depending on who you talked to ... there was a community divide as to what to call these things), even continuing with such luminaries as Lewis Pulsipher (who would argue at some length, using player typologies, for a more skilled play / war-game-y style of game), the most fascinating passages to occur are, naturally, at the end of the book.
In the final chapter prior to the Epilogue, we encounter Glenn Blacow's famous model- sometimes called the ... wait for it ... Fourfold Way after, inter alia, publication in such sources as Different Worlds with handy guides. Basically, Blacow observed that ... oh boy ... different types of players had different types of goals. And that because they had different goals, there could be conflict at the table. And this was back in the Spring of ... 1980. He did make sure to note that most campaigns were blends, but the four "types" of players were ....
1. Role-players. (The PC is the most important thing - all considerations of tactics or advancement are secondary to the player inhabiting the PC)
2. Wargamers. (SImulationists- the rules and mechanics that simulate the world; encounters are tactical problems to be solved by players)
3. Ego-trippers. (Um, yeah. The term in currency at the time was minimax, which Blacow found too offensive ... so ... yeah. Anyway, when the article was re-published, this became "power gamers." The major driver here is, of course, power for the characters. Levels, magic items, and so on.
4. Story-tellers. (Players and the referee cooperate in writing a script)
Now, these distinctions mattered immensely to the communities at the time- the roleplayers and wargamers had been a long divide dating back to the origins of D&D, exemplified by the split between, for example, the usual MIT death dungeons and the more Sci-Fi/Fantasy LA style of play. While power gamers had always been present, the massive boom in popularity that had just started caused a massive influx of new, and young, players; by 1981, approximately 60% of TSR products were being sold to people between the ages of 10-14 (!!- I know, I saw that statistic in the book and I couldn't believe it). The story-telling contingent had also always been present, but had gained even more steam due to the efforts of individuals like Simbalist (in the Kismet essays).
But just as interesting as the creation of the typologies is the later application in RPG theory. Obviously, there is the initial typology, which both acknowledged that this was an unbiased look at the games and preferences of players, while also putting its fingers on the scale (acknowledging that a game like OD&D might cause some to gravitate toward powergaming, and that it is an element of any FRP, but implying that it was not sufficient to maintain the interest of a mature gamer).
But, as Peterson points out, what good is this typologogy- how is this any different than Kevin Slimak's comment in 1975 that different people like different games? How is defining people like this any better than just saying that the like what they like?
Well, Don Miller provided the answer in A&E 74, that "players and GMs are influenced in their FRP playing orientation by the particular set of rules that they are exposed to ... [players] may be permanently prejudiced by their first indoctrination to FRP. ..." He proposed that systems should have typologies (he offered two Manichean options; simplicity/complexity, and realtiy/abstraction). Stating that he was in the "creative vanguard," Miller then articulated that the rules could no longer be designed without thought or sophistication, and that "a game's underlying philosophy affects everything that the game's systems do or fail to do" and that designing systems can be aided with theory to serve the interests of particular groups.
Woah. If you've followed any RPG theory discussions, this is ... well, familiar,
This was, of course, immediately argued against. And from that point on, it was just rinse, repeat. People would advance slightly different typologies (for players, for systems), always careful to put a thumb on the scale, and the arguments would continue from there.
That might be the most interesting revelation, and I'm going to throw this out for comment now.
My next post will be about the constant battle between rules-lite (or rules-free) systems, and additional rules, and what the commercial impulse might have to do with that tension.
