Worlds of Design: “All About Me” RPGs (Part 2)

Part 2. Continuing to describe the “All About Me” style, and asking why it’s popular. It has to do with player (not character) backgrounds, certainly. Is it generational in some way?

Part 2. Continuing to describe the “All About Me” style, and asking why it’s popular. It has to do with player (not character) backgrounds, certainly. Is it generational in some way?

Photo by Hello I'm Nik on Unsplash

Last time I talked about the “All About Me” RPG style, and how it differed so drastically from the semi-military style I’ve always been accustomed to. I’ve been trying to compare the two, to describe rather than prescribe, though it’s obvious which style I prefer.

Another element of this style seems to be a lot of what I would call wacky ideas that the GM is supposed to take seriously. I recall one group where the player/character wanted to throw an old-fashioned wood-burning oven (they are remarkably heavy) a hundred yards, and expected to be given a reasonable chance to do it (as in, a 20 on a d20). I would have simply said “that’s impossible,” but that might not satisfy the “All About Me” crowd.

I occasionally wonder how one could encourage such players to play the more semi-military/mercenary style. Probably the first thing to do would be to impress upon the players before they joined the group that this was the kind of game we were going to play, that you had to be on your toes and cooperate or you were going to die. Of course, if someone accustomed to the “All About Me” style comes into an existing game with people playing, shall we say, more seriously, they would probably learn to conform pretty quickly; it’s when you start out with an entire group of new people (new to your style of GMing) that things can go wrong quite quickly.

I remember particularly the case of one player who attempted to do something, where the GM warned him that it was dangerous and it might result in his head exploding. Yeah sure, he said, and did it anyway. And his head exploded! But in less than a minute a fully formed version of himself walked out of a nearby building, some kind of special power that he had even though these characters had not been playing for more than about five sessions.

Use of this style is mostly a GM-player thing, but rules can contribute one way or the other. Rules that allow for a great deal of customization, and for wildly neurotic characters who are nonetheless supposed to be functional, encourage “All About Me”.

Why is this style popular?

An obvious point is that the great majority of players are not wargamers, and may not be gamers at all, that is, they’re not accustomed to leisure activities where you can lose. When you cannot lose in an RPG, that is, you cannot die (and not come back), then individualism is easy to express and adopt; when you CAN lose, cooperation is more natural. Single player computer RPGs with their respawning and save games are part of the “cannot lose” mentality (far more people play computer RPGs than tabletop RPGs).

The ultimate question of the game is one often asked of people throughout history: what is more important, the individual or the group? In difficult times, such as World War I or WW II, cooperation was at a premium, which tended to make the group more important than the individual. More recently, in the “safer” post-Cold War environments, the emphasis tends to be on individuals. Individuals are what “All About Me” is, well, about.

Though some people still doubt it, there are clear differences between generational behavior, as discussed in many books. People of the World War II generation naturally cooperated, because of their experiences in a very difficult situation. And each generation since then has behaved differently as their shared experiences have been different. Corporations have hired consultants to help them cope with the newer generation’s tendencies and preferences.

Maybe it’s natural for younger people of any generation to play this way. I don’t know, I was 25 when I started playing, and my first game involved meeting dozens of humanoid monsters in dungeon corridors, where only cooperation could allow survival.

I also understand military history quite well. So the “All About Me” style never occurred to me. As always, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. YMMV.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Arilyn

Hero
There have always been a small percentage of players who wreck games, either through selfishness, or silly behaviour taken to extremes. Characters being played as people with individual motivations are not the problem, and have nothing to do with "All about me," which as other posters have pointed out is a trait, not a playstyle. In my experience, video game players do not come to the table expecting rpgs to run the same as games on their PS 4. I have been playing rpgs since the 80s, and have found players haven't changed much at all, if anything there has been a slight decrease in annoying behaviours.

I personally never enjoyed the military style, and I don't expect everyone to enjoy my more narrative driven style. This article, however, has hinted that my style is based on self centered player behaviour, by contrasting military style with " All about me". It's frankly insulting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Hussar

Legend
Well, give credit where credit is due. [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]' articles do always generate a fair degree of response, even if that response tends to be ... err... somewhat similar in nature. :D

But, frankly, I'm really not seeing what [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] is seeing. The whole "I'm in it for me" thing goes all the way back to my earliest days of gaming. We've all had those players at our tables. It's not generational or age or anything like that. It's simply that some people just don't get the idea of cooperation being a key element of RPG's. The thief that steals from the party is hardly a new trope, for example. And, the idea of the game being about the story goes all the way back to the earliest days as well - Dragonlance being a perfect example of this.

The more things change...
 

S'mon

Legend
The thief that steals from the party is hardly a new trope, for example. And, the idea of the game being about the story goes all the way back to the earliest days as well - Dragonlance being a perfect example of this.

1e AD&D DMG advises the DM to penalise with extra training time/cost the poorly roleplayed Thief who fails to steal from the party!
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
The idea that RPGing might be something other than semi-military dungeoneering is not a new one. Greg Stafford's RPG designs helped pioneer it, beginning with RuneQuest: characters embedded in a social world, with values and aspirations comparable to those of fictional and mythic figures, and at the same time also more recognisable as the sorts of things that motivate ordinary people (loyalties, familial obligations, religious convictions, etc).

D&D has always had wizards with mythical powers. There's no in-principle reason why other sorts of PCs can't be comparably mythical.

A lot of the classic source Appendix N material for D&D has clear illustrations of "all about me" and actions that are not remotely semi-military wargamey. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, for instance, are pretty clearly motivated by loot, but not always. Furthermore, many of the stories, "The Two Best Thieves in Lankhmar" being a classic example, give the duo their comeuppance when their greed and pride get the best of them. In other cases, they're motivated by exploration, anger, personal angst, or just pure survival. A few of their classic stories are motivated by them having a serious falling out. Other source material, very notably Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson, the influence of which cannot be understated on Gygax, has a protagonist not motivated by loot at all. Finally, Jack Vance's The Dying Earth has a cast of crazy "all about me" wizards and shiftless rogues. Vance was so influential on D&D that the magic system was substantially lifted from him and Vecna is an anagram of his name.
 

pemerton

Legend
[MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION]

Absolutely! I've often posted on these boards that if you want to get REH Conan-style Swords and Sorcery adventure, you've got to change the D&D XP system (at least) and probably other aspects of the system also, so that players are rewarded for having value beyond the acquisition of loot, and don't get hosed when they leap before they look.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
There have always been a small percentage of players who wreck games, either through selfishness, or silly behaviour taken to extremes. <...> I have been playing rpgs since the 80s, and have found players haven't changed much at all, if anything there has been a slight decrease in annoying behaviours.

Agreed, though I suspect that part of it is that I'm better at avoiding those kinds of players. For the most part I play with people I've known for a long time, so that's part of it.


I personally never enjoyed the military style, and I don't expect everyone to enjoy my more narrative driven style.

Those aren't really mutually exclusive. In one campaign I'm in, the PCs (currently level 14) have their own individual motivations and wouldn't necessarily be pals but we work together as a team. Recently the party has taken on high end mercenary jobs because we're financing a move to Sigil, which is expensive. However, we're just coming off a big narrative arc where the PCs ended up going on a pretty big quest that ended with us blowing the Horn of Change... hence one reason we're moving to Sigil, due to the fact that the folks back home aren't exactly happy with us!
 

Arilyn

Hero
Agreed, though I suspect that part of it is that I'm better at avoiding those kinds of players. For the most part I play with people I've known for a long time, so that's part of it.




Those aren't really mutually exclusive. In one campaign I'm in, the PCs (currently level 14) have their own individual motivations and wouldn't necessarily be pals but we work together as a team. Recently the party has taken on high end mercenary jobs because we're financing a move to Sigil, which is expensive. However, we're just coming off a big narrative arc where the PCs ended up going on a pretty big quest that ended with us blowing the Horn of Change... hence one reason we're moving to Sigil, due to the fact that the folks back home aren't exactly happy with us!

Agreed. What I don't like is crawling through dungeons at a snail's pace poking at walls with ten foot poles, and being unrealistically tactical all the time, in order to survive the death trap dungeon set up by the GM. This turned me off DnD for quite a long time. Your example sounds cool and engaging.

As far as players go, I've probably been avoiding potential trouble makers, so numbers probably haven't changed.☺
 
Last edited by a moderator:

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Well, give credit where credit is due. [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]' articles do always generate a fair degree of response, even if that response tends to be ... err... somewhat similar in nature. :D

But, frankly, I'm really not seeing what [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] is seeing. The whole "I'm in it for me" thing goes all the way back to my earliest days of gaming. We've all had those players at our tables. It's not generational or age or anything like that. It's simply that some people just don't get the idea of cooperation being a key element of RPG's. The thief that steals from the party is hardly a new trope, for example. And, the idea of the game being about the story goes all the way back to the earliest days as well - Dragonlance being a perfect example of this.

The more things change...

I couldn't shake the feeling that lewpuls might just as well have been describing RPGA tournament play back in the 1980s with his "All about Me" style. In my experience, from playing in more than one RPGA 1e tournament with players who frequently won them, successful players were the ones who grabbed onto a particular aspect of their PC's personality and then played it hard in an effort to dominate the DM's attention. So if this is a generational thing, it's something from right smack dab in his own generation.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Agreed. What I don't like is crawling through dungeons at a snail's pace poking at walls with ten foot poles, and being unrealistically tactical all the time, in order to survive the death trap dungeon set up by the GM. This turned me off DnD for quite a long time. Your example sounds cool and engaging.

A little Ye Olde Classick Dungeonne Crawling goes a long way for me. I don't mind a bit of it, but if that's the majority of what makes up a game... thanks but no thanks.


As far as players go, I've probably been avoiding potential trouble makers, so numbers probably haven't changed.☺

Hard to say. I suspect there's just as much but the nature of it has drifted.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top