Vincent Baker on narrativist RPGing, then and now

[Deset Gled]

I think that if we can't call Vincent Baker a revolutionary game designer with a list of games including Apocalypse World and Dogs in the Vineyard then the list of revolutionary game designers since E. Gary Gygax can't go beyond Sandy Petersen and Mark Reign*Hagen. And I'm not even sure about Petersen.

Regardless of whether he's "revolutionary", it's hard not to notice the amount of hero worship Baker receives. Of course, Gygax has his share of that as well. But it feels particularly noticeable for one of the bigger names in "modern" gaming to fall into the same trapping as the generations before. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I, for one, find Baker's work to be interesting, good, and respectable, but also highly overrated. Personally, one of the biggest turn-offs for me is his psuedo-academic writing style. Then again, that complaint applies to a lot of forgist dogma. And it's not like Gygaxian prose doesn't have its own foibles.

The original phrasing (“a revolutionary trying to get his message to the widest audience possible”) implied that Baker’s purpose in designing these games and talking about them is advocacy. While he has said that he designs games as a way to say something about design, the goal seems to be to get people to create better games rather than to convince them that they should design games like his. That’s the kind of “revolutionary” I’m disclaiming.

There's also the ever present goal of selling. Selling his games. Selling his reputation. And, frankly, selling his personal preferences as best practices.

 

[Fenris-77]

'Selling his preferences' might be a more defensible position if it weren't for the fact that his public design work, where he discusses how his games work and why he designed them that way, weren't freely available to anyone who wants to read them.

One of the reasons Baker was so influential for me was precisely the above. I never would have bought a book of his on the subject, but I've been through his blog series several times. I don't agree with everything he says, but his work certainly helped me see RPG design in a wider and more interesting way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think there should be space for Greg Stafford for Pendragon alone.

I actually had him as the third name in my draft; he's definitely one of the greats.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In reading the OP and subsequent discussion about required player effort, I'm left wondering: where does the truly casual player - the player who just wants to show up to the game every week, have a laugh, roll some dice, chow down on some snacks and a beer, and not put any real mental effort into any of it - fit in?

I ask because, whether any of us like it or not, those players make up the vast majority of the RPG playerbase; thus moving toward (or even catering to) those players would seem to be essential if the type of play being discussed is ever to become more than a small niche within the greater RPG realm.

To me there's a big hidden factor here. Sometimes social gamers are a category, sometimes they are people who are not as engaged by the game as they might otherwise be but it's better than nothing. And sometimes you can find the right game or playstyle for them and unlock them.

But genuine social gamers IME tend not to get on with rules heavy or too much planning but are fairly flexible when fresh but can ossify into a system. If one system is as good as another why bother to learn a new one?

 

[Umbran]

If that's genuinely---genuinely, mind you---the player's mindset, then narrativist play agendas, techniques, and overall goals don't generally align to that kind of player motivation. Casual, "beer and pretzels," "I just want to sling a few spells and smash a few bad guys" approaches to play are somewhat antithetical to the level of investment most narrativist play is looking for.

I don't think that "beer and pretzels" specifically ties with tactical wargame play, though.

It isn't like the world isn't completely filled with pulpy goodness adventure stories that are full of tropes and cliches and not given a whole lot of serious thought. A beer-and-pretzels narrative game gets you that - you still sling a few spells and smash a few bad guys, but you do it with narrative beats instead of a battlemap.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean, the short answer is---to channel the appropriate Star Wars motif---"This isn't the game you're looking for. Move along."

If that's genuinely---genuinely, mind you---the player's mindset, then narrativist play agendas, techniques, and overall goals don't generally align to that kind of player motivation. Casual, "beer and pretzels," "I just want to sling a few spells and smash a few bad guys" approaches to play are somewhat antithetical to the level of investment most narrativist play is looking for.

Now that doesn't mean that player can't co-exist in a group who is pursuing that agenda. I can sort-of, kind-of envision that kind of player co-existing in a specific type of Dungeon World / Stonetop / Ironsworn game, but that player's role and character in the fiction will be pushed steadily into the background. I can't imagine it being a particularly satisfying kind of gameplay, at least not for more than 2-3 sessions.

A lot here depends on the exact game and the way it's run. I mean I've seen it work with the right Apocalypse World playbooks (a Gunlugger mostly there to hang out and for occasional smashing things is not a problem in any direction and it's kinda what the Battlebabe does). Monster of the Week - of course. My Sea of Dead Men campaign (a BitD hack) was very definitely beer and pretzels. My Daggerheart campaign has very strong narrative arcs but also has some social gamers playing beer and pretzels style.

But all that said, I also firmly believe that the number of "truly casual players" alluded to by much of the "old school" RPG demographic is significantly overstated. Most players I introduce to narrativist techniques---more shared fictional control, player-side agendas + protagonism, reduction in GM force---suddenly find that they're more invested than they've ever been previously.

This. Or partially this. I've one player who's a casual currently but I think won't be in the Draw Steel campaign I'm planning for next.

 

[kenada]

There's also the ever present goal of selling. Selling his games. Selling his reputation. And, frankly, selling his personal preferences as best practices.

Anyone who wants to make a living at doing something is going to have that goal. Baker’s even successful at it, which suggests that he’s not merely expressing preferences but has applied his ideas to games people want to play. Games everyone wants to play? No, but that’s fine (and preferable, arguably).

Edit: I forgot to mention that being applied successfully counts for something to me. He’s not just theorycrafting.

 

[Lanefan]

Monster of the Week = for sure a good beer and pretzels narrative game!

Masks too!

Could toss in Pasion de Las Pasiones as well.

Dread for sure.

Not familiar with the first three of those, but while Dread works for a beer-and-pretzels one-off (I've played it that way and it was grand fun) I'd be curious to see whether it could support a long-term ongoing campaign.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Not familiar with the first three of those, but while Dread works for a beer-and-pretzels one-off (I've played it that way and it was grand fun) I'd be curious to see whether it could support a long-term ongoing campaign.

I tried to run Dread as a long-running ...well several session anyway... campaign using the Oregon Trail.

It works well for a Series of Unfortunate Events, if you know what I mean...

Tower falls "You get dysentery!"
Tower falls "Your oxen died!"
Tower falls "You die of gout"

We played it as "who made it alive to Oregon" with only 3 tower falls allowed before you died of whatever it fell from. (there is a bit more to it than that, but still, the idea is here...)

If you did die, you can write your tombstone epitaph and then the players that come along to play the game later, can read the tombstones for great hilarity.