Why RPGs are Failing

[Sage]

Hmm, I have to disagree, I like roll-playing as long as it's balanced with roleplaying. Whopping the bad-guy is just what you need after you've learned to "hate" him. Though roleplaying is major fun, getting high rolls on the dice is, for me, an integral part of the roleplaying experience, ecpecially in combat. Besides, dice make otherwise impossible things possible, for example, my player says "I supervise the construction of the castle" and then makes the appropriate roll, even though neither me, nor my DMwould have any idea of how to actually do such a thing, jsut a picture in our minds.
Oe of the reasons ad-hoc rules are so much fun is because they let the players do something they didn't expect they could pull off. So don't let the rules pin you down, change something if it furthers the drama and enjoyment, and otherwise appreciate that you don't have to value every situation because those who made the rules allready did.
Even here in Denmark where gaming without any "core" rules-set is wide-spred many GM's ask their players to throw a die once in a while whenever they perform something risky becasue the die ads exitement to the game.

Sage

 

[barsoomcore]

The meme seems to be, RPGs are a game, and must be played as a game.

Well, then, I guess you won't be playing them anymore, huh? Write if you find work.

 

[Vigilance]

Oh lord is it time for this discussion again *already*?

Chuck

 

[nsruf]

Mythusmage, I don't think this problem is anything new. It is and has always been a matter of playing style, and of system. D&D in its various incarnations has never encouraged roleplaying in the rules, but assumed it would just happen "alongside the rules" (or not). 3rd edition is an admirable effort to create a consistent game engine, but like its predecessors focuses only on what characters *can* do, not what they *want* to do. And by nailing down a lot of details, it becomes to complex for some tastes.

Maybe you need another system to accomodate your preferred style? If you want a fast system with less detailed rules that leaves more decisions up to the GM, I've heard good things about Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventures (never played it myself, though). If you want a system that encourages acting in character by giving mechanical benefits to PCs if they pursue their beliefs and goals, try The Riddle of Steel. Incidentally, TROS also has a combat system that attempts to emulate the actual dynamics of melee - no I go/you go initiative.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

But since I'm ranting anyway, here's an arguement that goes back and forth in my group. I like to think my point wins, simply through poignant example and the people on the far end of the argument grudgingly backing my points.

The relevance, dominance, and or mastery of the rules over the rest of the game. Is it a good thing? When is it necessarry?

I argue that strict adherence to the rules is good and a necessarry thing in the absence of trust. Or rather, that, as a player unless I have a lot of trust in the talent, skill and motives of my DM, I'd prefer everything to be run by the rules. The camp I'm arguing against is "I like the game where no one but the DM knows the rules."

1. As things get more open to inturpurtation, a larger schism opens between what you (any-non me person) and I think I'm capable of. A prime example of this was my character who had 75% in the outdoorsman skill. There was a long time where I was arguing that this should be plenty to allow me to figure out if I was facing east or not. I aruged that it should grant a bonus to climbing down a rope. Does 75% mean I'm good enough to consistantly find game trails? How about finding food in the wild? Does it help with climbing up a brick wall? What is the advantage to having a 95% drive skill? When should a drive check come up? Is gambling a worthless skill to put points into?

2. The less sure I am about mechanics, the more I feel controlled by the whims of the dice. Roll high? Succeed. Roll Low? Fail. Do my talents provide a modifier? How much? What's a risky manuver? What's a likely shot?

3. Each of the DM's who have tried this sort of technique and argued for it are also the ones with a master plan. You know, the guys who know exactly what we 'should' be doing. A bit of character assassination to prepare the way for:

4. Between 1, 2 and 3 it becomes hard to concoct any sort of plan. Is this a dumb idea? Will it work? Can I make the shot? Heck, does it even matter anyway? Either I'll roll lucky, or I won't. And either way, the result will be arbitrated by the DM however he wants. Thus, I begin to feel my choices and actions are meaningless.

5. Pointing to various examples from the last games I was in (and having all the people involved int he game point out where I'm right).

Now, I'm not saying that you can't run a game where DM fiat rules all. But the caviat is that THERE MUST BE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF ALL AROUND TRUST!

Aside from setting a common set of concepts and standards, the rules are like a sort of artificial trust. If I have +10 bab, and I miss on a roll of 10, I can tell you that one of a set number of situations are available. I can tell you about how difficult it is to hit an unarmored, unmoving human sized target, and from there, tell you about how hard it would be for my character to do that.

There's no real ending to the arguement. We seem to settle on "Ok, so it didn't work last time, and it probablly wouldn't work with us, but it'd work with the right people". Which is a fine agreement to reach.

But I'm reminded of our recent re-birth of the arguement. He told me a story to make his point. It's an example of a player using out of game knowledge of the rules to do something that's a bad action, and broke the game. In it, there was some big events happening at the bottom of a cliff. The PC's are at the top, and aren't going to make it down in time. One of the players asks how far the fall is, and upon recieving the answer (some ridiculous height) goes "That's only xD6 points of damage. I'll jump."

To which, I replied "Well, he probablly could tell if he'd die from the fall. Besides, what sort of DM puts a big important ritual in a place the PC's can't interact with it?"

I don't like the rules as a be-all, end-all. However, I do think that the rules have a very important place as a facilitator of what is possible, likely and the estimation there of.

Then again, the two big things I like in a game are consistancy and self direction. If I'm an awesome swordsman, I'd like to stay that way. Likewize, I like it when people's choices matter.

Ironically, it seems that those traits (a great deal of why I like the rules' ability to define things) are reasons why the pople I play with have expressed that they'd trust me in the whole 'unknown rules situation'.

 

[Cergorach]

They've stopped being RPGs. The meme seems to be, RPGs are a game, and must be played as a game. One must adhere strictly to the rules, and if the rules do not allow for an action, or an action by a particular playing piece, then that action cannot be performed.

What a completely useless comment! Especially with the word 'realistic' thrown in. Do you even know what RPG stands for? It's Role Playing Game. You take on a role, you play it, and it's a game. Games have rules, rules can be complex or can be simple, and if all the players agree, can be changed. Remember when you played cops and robbers? When someone shot you, you were supposed to be dead. Is that realistic? No. Was it fun? Hell yes! (at the time)

This nonsense about people not playing RPGs anymore but some kind of board game is... i hate to use the word... stupid! The fact that the biggest RPG still around was made from a tactical miniature game is completely beside the point (but worth mentioning). Different groups have different styles of play, some do treat the game as a gloryfied game of chess, but even if you play chess you take on the role of general. Just because some groups don't conform to your 'standards' of play doesn't make other players 'bad' or 'heretics'.

If actions are not possible due to the rules then all of the participants haven't agreed to allow a change. This can be due to any number of reasons. People can like the rules how they are, they don't know that they are allowed to change the rules, they are inexperienced. etc. Most RPG rules are very complex, especially if you DM, especially if your an inexperienced DM. Strict rules make the job of the DM a lot easier, but experience usually makes a DM a lot more flexible.

Realism in RPGs, as you seem to be refereing to D&D let's take D&D as an example. 5-feet step is not any stranger than hitpoints or throwing a D20 to see if you hit someone, etc. these last two things have been in D&D for decades, some have complaint, some have just enjoyed the game (i'm assmuning you did too). Talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous, not only because magic isn't real or the fact that most monsters couldn't possibly exisyt without magic, but also because if combat was 'realistic' we would have students running around in the sewers, chopping each others heads off. Been there done that, gets so much negative publicity and schoolmates keep staring at you because they think your insane (i keep telling them it was because i was persuing 'realism' ;-)

I've been playing RPGs (mostly D&D) in one form or another for more thn 16 years (damn i feel old and i did treat my character as a 'rook' at times, sometimes that was fun, somettimes it wasn't. But 'deep' roleplaying wasn't always fun either, to be honest the most entertaining moments in my RPG 'carreer' didn't have anything to do with 'realism', it had to do with fun.

Go back to meditating the zen of role playing games and don't come back unless your absolutely not serious...

(continued at: Mythusmage on Roleplaying Games, Why RPGs are Failing)

Next time quote the entire article and stop pimping your own site like that, it's annoying

(Yes, I am an attention junkie.)

overdose

 

[Nightchilde-2]

RPGs are failing? Why didn't somone alert me? I'll have to abandon my three games...

Yeah. I have two games and I'm having to turn down players in both of them 'cause I have too many!

If that's a failure, a success must be frightening.

 

[Zappo]

I reckon that before any discussion can be made on why RPGs are failing, you should prove that they are. Which definitely doesn't seem the case to me.

 

[Psion]

RPGs are failing? Why didn't somone alert me? I'll have to abandon my three games...

No joke.

But no worry. RPGs are here to stay. (Like nightchile, I have had to turn away players.) MM just didn't name his rant right. It should have been "why RPGs aren't the way I like them" or "nice thoughts on making games 'realistic' that wouldn't work in practice."

Okay, that's a little more chiding that it should be, and I hope MM can forgive me. But really, it comes down to this: rules that cause the action to flow realistically in-game tend to make it more stilted for the players, as they tally action point and weapon speeds and the like. There is a dichotomy between the theory and the practice of what you are suggesting.

 

[Piratecat]

Next time quote the entire article and stop pimping your own site like that, it's annoying

I'm getting exceedingly tired of having to remind people to be polite. Whether or not you agree with someone, being rude to them here is not permitted. Please remember this.