A multi-way conversation between roleplaying game authors and developers. Occasionally useful.

 
Toward a New Grand Theory . . .
posted by Jim at 7:49 PM

I suggested a couple of years ago on the Forge that the way to build a Theory of Roleplaying Gameplay was to start from the premise that, before you have anything else, you have a bunch of guys (and too infrequently, gals), talking to each other. Gaming preference is expressed by how you choose to restrict the conversation. I called the default "Dude stance" (to go with the widely-recognized Actor and Author et al). Dude stance doesn't even necessarily disappear - you can see its outline when the GM favors her boyfriend or avoids killing someone's paladin because everyone knows the player just lost her job, so why pile on? Both examples are presumptively dysfunctional, and the first interesting thing about Dude stance is that it seems like it must always be so - especially if what makes a conversation a roleplaying game is a restriction on what is to be discussed and how.

And yet - there was a time when it was universally acknowledged that making use of metagame knowledge was "bad roleplaying." Then people began designing entire games based on using metagame knowledge. By that point, it became clear that the use of metagame knowledge, and the type and degree of same, was a matter of preference rather than divine law. So, two issues to be explored when I get around to it - RPG style as "Dude-minus," and "Dude stance: what is it good for?"

 
Thinking Inside The Box
posted by Adam at 6:57 AM

I was thinking about a post elseblog by our blogmaster. He talked a little about what was positive in the gaming experience and that got me to musing on what was missing from my gaming today that I enjoyed way back when. The answer was simple:

Boxes filled with cool stuff.

Let me explain. On my honeymoon, I found myself wondering up a street in a small Devon town with my wife. We stumbled across one of those all-purpose geek shops that thrive in such rural environments, and I ducked inside. I was looking for copies of my own works, of course, so I could boast and feel self-important. My wife is wise to my ways, and headed off to a charity shop nearby instead. I found some of my books inside (in the sale) as well as a copy of the Hero Wars boxed set (also in a sale). Giving all due thought to the wedding costs, the fact I was now supporting my wife and the need to be a responsible adult, I whipped out my credit card and bought it. Then I bought my wife a skirt in the charity shop, because I was feeling guilty.

Sat on the steam train back to our cottage (yeah, it was that sort of honeymoon) I eagerly opened up my box and got all excited by the dice and books and maps and booklets inside. Damn, but this was cool. All of a sudden I was that 10-year old who got his hands on a copy of Runequest 2nd back in the early 80s and got over-excited by all the cool stuff in the box. Back then, I took this precious thing to my brother, who got excited by all the cool stuff in the box. We showed it to our friends, who also got excited by it all. That summer, six of us, 50% male, 50% female roleplayed for all we were worth. It was, well, cool.

The roleplay business has long shifted into an essentially book-publishing model. Boxed games are rare to the point of non-existence. I suspect that the industry's recruitment problems stems from that fact to some degree. It was easy for us as kids to make the transition from the traditional kids boardgames we played as kids to roleplaying because the form of the product was similar, even if the content was very different. I love the graphic design of modern books, from the glorious Exalted fat splats to the innovative Nobilis, but they don't generate in me the same childish excitement that copy of Hero Quest did. If the industry wants to grow, and bring in those younger gamers once more, we need to bring back that excitement.

So in this age of hardback books and PDF publishing let me put in a plea for big boxes full of cool stuff. Yeah.

 
Permission to Roleplay, Sir!
posted by Jim at 9:59 AM

Seems appropriate for an inaugural post somehow:

I'm increasingly intrigued by games that reverse the old order of description and resolution. By which I mean, the procedure we're used to is broadly like that of the Marvel Universe RPG the group I'm in currently uses. In MURPG, you declare what you want to do, allocate stones to the various actions and then, by comparison with the other players/GM's stone allocations, determine how well you did. During the declaration is your time for "good roleplaying" - if your tactics are especially clever, your description sufficiently entertaining or your intentions consistent with the tropes of the genre, you get situational modifiers - free stones that improve your success chances. Similar rewards feature in many diced games - from result bonuses in fixed die-quantity games to extra dice in games that use a pool. The underlying principle is the same: your clever description earns you (a greater chance of) success.

It turns out that this is not the only way to do it. Some new games essentially reverse the procedure. Take Nine Worlds by Matt "Dust Devils" Snyder, now in a playtest version. In Nine Worlds, your PC has three levels of traits (Virtues, Urges, Muses). At the onset of a conflict, you choose, in a very general way, which Virtue you wish to govern the conflict and which Muses are implicated. That determines the number of cards you draw. (The suits tie to Urges.) You compare "hands" among participants; the winner(s) then get, within certain limits, to narrate what their victories mean. That is, your success earns you your right to clever description.

It's the difference between

Player: I try to shoot the gun out of his hand before he can kill my girlfriend, then leap across and kick him in the head.
GM: Okay, that's a trick shot so it's minus-two. [Checks results.] You succeed. Your arrow spangs off the barrel of his pistol and it flies out of his hand. [Checks results.] Your sudden leap closes the distance while he's still flailing futilely after his lost gun. Your foot catches him just below the jaw, and his head snaps back as he falls. He's stunned for the rest of the round and has no action. (I gave you a coolness bonus that offset the two-action penalty.)

and

GM: [Checks result.] You win this round, pretty handily too.
Player: Okay, I shoot the gun out of his hand before he can kill my girlfriend. My arrow spangs off the barrel of his pistol and it flies out of his hand. This leaves him flailing after it for just a split-second - the split second it takes me to leap on him. My foot catches him just below the jaw, snapping his head back as a falls. He looks stunned.

The two big differences here are the order of (real-world) events and the reversal of polarity. In "trad mode," the player proposes, but the GM (and system) disposes. In "alt mode," the player gets to do much of the disposing too.

I suppose you can look at the difference two ways, and which way you choose will say a lot about your preferences as a gamer.

Bright side: "Alt mode" is a license to be cool. In trad mode, you can attempt cool, but your fancy descriptions and clever strategems are only subjunctively cool until the GM/resolution system confirms it by returning a success. (The difference between the two systems is also the difference between "Player: I do all this cool stuff. GM: Awfully complicated. You're at -3 and . . . you fail." and "GM: You win this round. Player: I do all this cool stuff.") Even many "swashbuckling" games include default penalties for trick shots, multiple actions and daring maneuvers. The incentive can be for the player to keep it safe/simple. It can be like applying for a job.

Dark side: "Alt mode" is a license to be cool if you succeed. Failure "outlaws roleplaying." If I have a great maneuver in mind, or a clever quip, a fabulous description or a cunning plan that cannot fail, I ought to be able to throw it out there - that way I earn my success with my efforts. If I only get to be cool when the dice/cards/stones let me, then I'm going to get awfully frustrated.

I can see both sides. But I'm also sure that both approaches are viable, for all that one is a lot more established than the other. Interestingly, one complaint you can't level against "alt mode" that has frequently been aimed at "story-oriented" RPG developments: "It's not really a game." Because the various alt-mode games (Nine Worlds is only one of them) definitely depend on chance or resource management - entirely "gamey" tropes, that is.

 
On shifting away from d20 to OGL
posted by E. Burns at 5:44 AM

With the recent decision to change the d20 license, limiting on the basis of content and instituting the capacity for review of third party products for suitability, Wizards of the Coast has begun the slow (but some have always claimed inevitable) process of poisoning the d20 well. As more and more companies approach the revised d20 License rules with trepidation, more and more products are now being prepared and released without the d20 logo under the far more lenient (and irrevocable) OGL that covers the rules itself.

Naturally, the 3.0 and 3.5 SRD's (as well as the d20 Modern flavor of the SRD) are listed as open content these days, and more than one group has begun work on their own, in-house version of an SRD. One thing that the major SRDs don't contain, however, are character generation and experience application rules. There's a good reasons for this -- the d20 license prohibits such rules from any d20 product, and the original, traditional rules for chargen and chardevelopment aren't open game content to begin with. However, as products continue the process of stepping away from d20, the drivers to avoid chargen are diminishing. (And certain games and game lines, including S&S's "Everquest" and Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds among others, already include chargen and experience rules and act as complete standalone products, of course.)

I propose the metausefulness of standardized, open rules for character generation and development, to be released under the OGL, published to such OGL-centered sites as the Open Gaming Foundation and spread throughout the community. In fact, I propose a product listing as many different character generation and development systems as possible -- something available for PDF purchase or Print-on-Demand, containing nothing but rules for creating characters and helping them grow. I have been working on a goals based character advancement system myself, and have played around with alternate chargen rules. I know I'm not the only one. The questions now are threefold:

1. What necessary components would need to be part of each character generation and character advancement system to be 'certified' as workable with the 3.5/3.5 Modern SRDs?

2. What pitfalls would need to be avoided to ensure Wizards of the Coast can't sue such a product for everything it's worth?

3. How universal would each system need to be? Would it be better to include many different idiosyncratic systems, best suited for very specific styles of game, or emphasize general systems that could slide into place of the AD&D or D20 Modern rules with minimal fuss.

Comments?

 
Out of the Graves, Into the Weblogs?
posted by Bruce Baugh at 8:37 PM

Man, we're moribund. I've extended invites to some new folks. Existing people with posting rights, consider yourselves shamed a bit into traffic. :)