System Matters, but System Familiarity Matters More

Jeremy asked a very good question in my last post about my proposed Gamma World (or Mutant Future, really) crossed with Marvel Comics game.

Why not use the old TSR Marvel RPG (or the 4C clone of it) for the game?

I've played the Marvel RPG a bit.  You remember it, right?  The FASERIP system with the color-coded resolution chart?  Yep, that one.  I've played as a player in it a few times, but not extensively.  And I've never run the game before.  So I'd have some learning curve issues.  Maybe not extensive, but in order to run with that system, I'd at least need to read all the rules and get a better feel for them than what I have now.

In answer to Jeremy, I also said that I think that the game wouldn't be the best fit for what I want the game to do.  What do I want the game to do?  I want the game to be about neo-primitive tribesmen venturing out into the scary, dangerous, irradiated (and worse!) ruined world in search of the fabled ancient technology of the Ones Before, and running into mutated creatures and robots and such, and a lot of the robots and leftover tech would resonate with comic book readers.  Not everything in the world would be "Marvel" stuff, but there would be Sentinels and Doom Bots, you might find a wrist-mounted device that shoots webbing, or find a damnation van with a red octo-skull emblem on it, or a red and gold metal glove that shoots blasts of force, along with all the badders and orlen and spider-goats of normal Gamma World/Mutant Future play.

Marvel RPG is suited for a heroic action game, where villains are up to no good and you the heroes need to stop them.  And the Karma system (both XP and hero points, not to be confused with Ron Edwards's "karma" resolution mechanic, see below) as written enforces a Comics Code Authority style of play in order to advance and improve characters.  Now that could be modified, but then we fall into the trap that Ron Edwards discussed in his (in)famous article, "System Does Matter."

How much work will it be fore me to adapt FASERIP to what I want to run?  What benefit is there to using a super hero RPG to run a semi-supers game in a post-apocalypse version of a super hero universe?

Would it be easier for me to use Mutant Future, which I know well enough by proxy (Labyrinth Lord/Classic D&D are no sweat to run, and I'm plenty familiar with Gamma World)?  Definitely.  Would Mutant Future give me the style of game I want to run?  Definitely.  Would there be some work for me to adapt the game to have more "Marvel Comics" stuff in it?  A little, but it would be less than trying to learn and adapt a less well-known game system.

I agree with Edwards's article to a point.  I think he started off from a mistaken ontological stance regarding RPGs.  The three themes he outlines are there, but there's a lot more crossover in actual gaming and in actual gaming styles than he conceived of 10 years ago.  I'm not sure how strongly he believes in that now, so I won't put words in his mouth, but I think he was off-base a decade ago.  Also, he seems to believe that the system should do all of the heavy lifting for the GM and players.  This may be nice, but it ignores one thing -- all those anecdotal accounts of good GMs who can make any type of game work with their system of choice.  It assumes a priori that the work load of the GMs to make their game of choice "work" must be burdensome, and that they'd have more time to make the game awesome if they had a system in which the heavy lifting had been done.

But then look at my situation right now.  Look at the d20 boom of 15 years ago.  Look at the OSR, coming out with untold variations of D&D in all sorts of niches over the past five years.  Is D&D the best framework to run a space opera game, or a steampunk mystery game, or a post-apocalyptic survival game, or a cowboy gunslinger game, or a wandering hero wuxia game?  No.  There are other games that are tailor made to those genres, and I'm sure many of them do the tropes and settings well.

But D&D, and its variations, have a big leg up on any of those systems.  Familiarity.  Most gamers, although not all, began with D&D in one form or another, or have at least experienced it if it wan't their first game.  It's comfortable.  It's flexible.  It's well-known.  And it can easily be shifted without much effort to a gamist (3E), narrativist (2E) or simulationist (1E) stance while retaining a core of familiar rules and mechanics.

I'd argue that someone who had played and run lots of FASERIP games could easily use it to run this idea of mine, and make it work beautifully.  Not me, however.

System design matters, but it isn't the only factor in the "good gaming" equation.  How familiar everyone, especially the GM, is with the rules counts just as much, or maybe more.

What motivates the players?

Two and a half years ago, I blogged about character motivation here and a follow up here.

Recently, in my grad school classes we've been talking about motivation with regards to teaching English as a second or foreign language.  And it got me thinking again about motivation in RPGs.  Two years ago, I was thinking about in-character motivations for your PC.  Now, I'm thinking about motivations for you, the player (or DM).

One convenient way to classify types of motivation is as either intrinsic (internal) motivation and extrinsic (external) motivation.  Long story short, intrinsic motivation means you're self motivated, while extrinsic motivation means something outside your own mind motivates you to do something.  In ESL circles, intrinsic motivation is preferred, as intrinsically motivated students tend to work harder, but extrinsic motivations are still necessary otherwise intrinsic motivation can evaporate. 

So what motivates us to play RPGs?  I've made a list.  Not an exhaustive one, by any means.  Not necessarily the most thought out list either.  But I'm gonna put this stuff up here on the blog for people to consider and comment on, and if someone can point out where and how I'm wrong, I'll improve my model.  The essence of peer review right there.

First off, all the stuff I talked about before, the in-character motivations, are really for the player extrinsic motivations, whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic to the fictional player character.  Yes, there is some wish fulfillment in gaming, but I don't think anyone's satisfying their actual craving for gold or power or lovers by playing a game.  Living vicariously can act as a stop-gap measure, but in the end won't satisfy.  Or maybe there are a few people who are, but I'd guess they're outliers rather than part of the normal distribution of players.

Some other extrinsic motivations for players might include:
System Mastery - contact with the rules, Min/Maxing, sussing out the exploits, rules lawyering, etc.  I'd almost consider this as intrinsic, as it's something you can do in your head, but it also relies on the rule system you're trying to master, plus the fact that mastery is pointless if you don't ever play.  Still, it may be a good example of the fact that the extrinsic/intrinsic split is more of a spectrum than an either/or decision.

Character Advancement - some game systems do this better than others, obviously, but in most games there is some way to advance and improve your character, and doing so is often a motivation to play.  It stimulates our reward centers in our brains.  We've got bigger numbers or a longer list of stuff on our character sheet.  We've got a feeling of achievement.  And again, while it's personal to a large extent, it's also something that you need others to pull off.  Even with a solo game system of some sort, you're really still interacting with the designers in order to advance.

Socialization - this one's probably obvious.  Sometimes, it's not so much the game itself, or the character you've created, or the exploration of the game world.  It's spending quality time with friends that motivates you to play.  Related to this are two more types of motive I thought of:

Bragging Rights - some people play in order to win.  Yeah, there are no win conditions in an RPG.  Or at least not in the typical sense of most games' win conditions.  But yet, there is competition at times.  Players can play games of oneupsmanship with each other, and at times that might be a strong motivation to participate for some gamers.

Schadenfreude - and the converse to bragging rights, the gamer who's not so interested in doing "better" than others, but who gets a kick out of all the bad things that can happen to PCs in the game.  I don't know if this would be someone's primary motivation to play, but there is definitely a sense of enjoyment to be had in watching another player do something stupid, or fail a saving throw, or whatever.

Narrative Crafting - one last one I'll mention for now is the desire to create a story.  It's the goal of the game for some games (you know, the Forge-derived "story now" stuff which doesn't really suit my preferences, but that's just me).  Some games don't make it a goal, but players may still have it as a goal or driving force.  They attend the game to create drama, and that's where they derive their fun.

So, now let's move on to what I consider some intrinsic motivations for gaming.  Again, not intended to be an exhaustive list, and also there can be some extrinsic elements or factors within some of these, just as there are some intrinsic factors in the extrinsic motivations I've detailed above.

Immersion - one of the big intrinsic factors, I think, is the desire to lose yourself in the character, the imaginary world, or both.  While it does require some interaction with others to play the game, how deeply you immerse yourself in the imagined fiction depends on you and you alone.  One player can be very immersed in the game, while another player in the same game may not be immersed at all.  Yes, that can cause some dissonance but that's not the point.  You control how immersed you are in the game, so I consider it an intrinsic motivation.

Escapism - I think we can all relate to this one, and yes, it's connected to immersion.  We game to escape work, study, family obligations, the quotidian reality of daily life.  There's a desire to be something more than we are, if only for a few hours a week.  Does it seem like I'm contradicting myself where above I talk about wish-fulfillment being an extrinsic motivation?  Maybe I am, but the way I'm looking at it now, escapism is more of a general wanting Calgon to take me away* feeling than a specific vicarious activity performed through play. Gaming to escape worrying about the mortgage payment for a few hours = intrinsic escapism.  Gaming to pretend to do something you can't in real life = extrinsic vicarious motivation because that thing you can't do in real life is by definition not part of you.

Completionism - this is one of the weaker ones on the intrinsic list, but similar motivations exist in other types of games.  Completionism could take many forms, from wanting to play every type of character or try every option, to wanting to fully explore (or create) a fictional world, to wanting to play out that ideal character type over and over again until you get it "right."  Yes, there are some aspects of extrinsic motivation in this one.  Exploring a prepublished game world, or your DM's masterpiece involves something outside of you.  Playing "one of everything" requires lots of game time, which requires other people (usually).  But the motivation to do so exists regardless of the feelings of other players to some extent. 

Emergent Story - in contrast to the extrinsic motivation to actively craft a story, the hope that an interesting story will emerge from play organically is more of an intrinsic motivation.  It's up to semi-random chance that an interesting and satisfying narrative will emerge from any session, as player choice and the whims of the dice may see fit to scupper any coherence or sense of rising and falling action in one session, and enhance it in another.  So I consider waiting around for it to happen and basking in it when it does is again something that mostly can happen just in your own head, although if others share this motivation it becomes more extrinsic.

Fun - should I include this?  I think so.  JB was writing a while back about how fun is not a goal of play, it's an expectation of play, and I agree.  We expect playing games to be fun, so we are motivated to play them.  And while it's best if everyone is having fun together, what makes something fun for me might not be the same thing that makes something fun for someone else.  There's a whole big list of motivations in this thread, none mutually exclusive, that will lead you to have fun at the table.  And my fun is not always contingent on your fun, and sometimes may even hamper your fun (a sign of incompatible players).  So, in my opinion, fun is an intrinsic motivation of play.




*dating myself, but then I figure much of my readership is of the same generation as me.  For all you whipper-snappers reading this, Google is your friend.

I hear that train a comin'

It's rolling round the bend.
And I ain't seen the sunshine
Since I don't know when.
I'm stuck in Folsom Prison
And time keeps dragging on.
But that train keeps a rollin'
On down to San Antone.

So, for those of you who have been living under a rock or on a desert island with no internet access, WotC is releasing their public playtest of "D&D Next"* tomorrow.  Well, for me it will likely be the day after tomorrow, due to the funny time warp known as the International Date Line. 

And I'm likely going to download it.  When they announced it, I was curious.  I was hoping they would reverse their current direction and bring the game home.  At first, their stated goals were hopeful.  Overly optimistic, certainly, but they gave me hope that the new game might at least be a good compromise game for those that like Old School, New School, and whatever school it is that 4th belongs to.

More recently, it's been pretty obvious that the game is not headed that way.  But I figure I at least need to take a look at what they've got and give my feedback to them, even if my voice is not heard.  If I don't, then I'll be just another grumbling guy when the game is released.  Like someone who doesn't vote, then spends the next 4 years complaining about the president.

Yeah, that's right.  It's our civic duty to go to the polls and vote for more Old School in our D&D.  We aren't likely to win the election, but if we don't make our voices heard then we've got no right to complain about the results after the dust settles.

*They're still calling it this?  Come on!  5E is of course just as bad.  You think they'd have had someone with a bit of marketing sense come up with something better.  I just keep thinking of Pepsi Next when I read that.  And Pepsi Clear, Pepsi Blue, whatever.  Yeah, I'm a Coke drinker when it comes to colas. Currently drinking a Mt. Dew, though.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

While I'm always happy to talk about how much I like the 80's arcade games Gauntlet and Gauntlet II, this post unfortunately is not about them.

On Facebook, we've got a group now for D&D in Busan. I told everyone that since we can't play our 4E game this weekend due to the holiday, I'd be happy to run a Classic D&D one-shot in my Megaduneon. Another guy wants to start a Pathfinder game, and is looking for players interested in a campaign.

Now, I could be talked into a game of PF, if I weren't already committed to the 4E game. I just don't have the time to play in two campaigns right now. And so far, there's been more interest shown in my game than in the PF game for this weekend. So maybe it's a bit of frustration that he can't get the game he wants to play going. But he posted this in response to one of my comments about scheduling:

What is classic D&D? That garbage system with negative AC?

I responded to him this way:

Robbie, yeah, it's got negative AC in the book, but one of my house rules is to use attack bonus and ascending AC. It's still the version where Elf is a Class, not a race option. ;)

So, trying to defuse the situation with a bit of humor.  I haven't met the guy in person, but I'm wondering if our little group of RPGers are about to enter into a bit of a civil war? 

[Jeremy, Brian and anyone else in the group who reads the blog, this is a bit tongue in cheek.  But if Robbie wants to discuss the merits of Pathfinder vs. Mentzer D&D, I'll be happy to engage him!]

My project for next week

The Flying Swordsmen draft is coming along nicely.  I've just finished an alphabetical listing of spells.  I still need to add page numbers, but until I get into the formatting phase (still a while off), there's no point in doing that.  I've also decided to nix the appendices with the "100 Chinese family names" and the Pinyin/Wade-Giles pronunciation guides.  This is a fantasy RPG, not a history text.  Who cares if people pronounce Cao Cao so it sounds like a pair of bovine?  Or if they name their character Sum Yong Gai? 

So that frees up a couple more pages for other stuff (probably more art).  I'm shooting for a 120 page book when this is all said and done.  Although a switch from single column format to double column format might allow me to reduce that further.  I'm still not sure about that.  Printed, I like double column, but if most people are reading this on computer screens, single column is better. 

Anyway, that leaves me with really two more big projects to complete.  One is adding in some descriptive flavor text at the beginning of each chapter.  The other, the one I'm gonna try to tackle next week, is designing a character sheet that's both simple and complete.  Oh, and that looks good.  We'll see how well I do on that last part.

It's not about the textbook, it's about the students

I've been pondering again -- rather pointlessly, I know -- about just what divides "Old School" RPGs from "New School" RPGs.

And once again, I'm coming up with a conclusion that points more to the players than to the rules systems presented in any rulebooks.  Of course, the rules are connected, and can serve to reinforce what the players expect out of the game.  But I feel that what's actually written on the page is a lot less important than how the players (and I suppose I should state here that when I'm using players in this little essay, I'm including Game Masters/Referees) interpret and use those rules.

First off, we can pretty easily say there's no specific 'cut off date' that divides games.  We can't say that everything after 1989 is new school, or everything before 2000 is old school, or anything like that.  The existence of the retro-clone movement has created neo-'old school' games recently.  And some of those games created back in the 70's/80's definitely don't feel like what I personally, at least, consider to be that old school feeling.

Second, it again really falls on D&D's shoulders to be the benchmark by which other games are judged.  It's the first and most popular RPG, and the changes in its various editions show a lot of adaptations of, or reactions against, innovations and player desires in other games.  And those other games are often adaptations of or reactions against the current version of D&D on the market. 

Third, and most importantly from my perspective, is that there are people who can adapt any rules set to suit their preferred style of play (as evidenced by the recent "I'm with D&D...any edition" internet badges out there).   For many players, the real fun of an RPG isn't so much in what rules you're using, it's in that spark of creativity and shared imagination you have when the group you're playing with are all helping feed each other's shared imaginings.  Yes, there are some people who get bogged down in rules minutiae and love the mental challenge of it. 

The real breakdown between Old and New Schools, I'm thinking, is completely based on what the players are expecting out of the game.  And it's got a lot to do with how well a player accepts limits on their character's potential.  This is not about power gaming, but it is about being able to embrace the sub-optimal choice or to embrace the unlimited potential. 

For Old School players, not every character created needs to be able to achieve the maximum potential for 'power' under the rules.  If you get lucky, you might be able to create Luke Skywalker or Elric of Melnibone, but you're still willing to play as Fatty Bolger or Napoleon Dynamite.  The limits imposed by the game are there to make those powerful characters feel special.  Not every character is supposed to achieve the maximum potential under the game rules.  And finding the best way to play that sub-optimal character is the fun of the game.

For New School players, it's important that any particular character have the potential for the maximum development.  You don't need to get lucky, you just need to make the right choices and you can have that power (eventually).  No one needs to get stuck with an Elmer Fudd unless they purposefully choose to play him.  If you choose, you can be Gandalf.  (With an implication that you'd better play Gandalf, because Elmer Fudd won't be able to pull his weight alongside John Carter, He-Man, and Cloud Strife).

So basically, if the game has 'balanced' classes, or a completely selective skill system, or a group's house rules allow repeat mulligans or for selecting options rather than rolling randomly, that's New School.  If the players take the limits of the game and the results of random character creation and just roll with it, that's Old School.

Feel free to rip this analysis to shreds in the comments.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing

Wow, has it almost been a week with no blog posts by yours truly?  Well, the blog-quake happened at a good time for me, I had a big paper/presentation for grad school to do over the weekend, and presented Monday night.  Now it's Wednesday morning Busan time, and I've got a few ideas for the blog.  I'll likely just write them up today at work, and schedule them for release over the next week or so. 

What's on my mind?  First, a new idea of what really delineates old school/new school games.  I know this is an old (and pointless, dead horse) debate, but Tim Brannan's "I play everything" banner, and ChicagoWiz's response to it (I assume) got me thinking about it again.  And it's probably more of a 'what I like' blog anyway than anything definitive.

Second, a meta-topic about blogs.  How does our presentation affect the way we're viewed?  I know I'm not the most serious blogger, and having video game and cereal box art as my header shows that off right away.  I'm gonna take a look around the blogosphere and give some opinions on which of the blogs I follow show off their tone.

Third, gaming related and potentially useful (so it'll happen before the other two above less useful posts) would be that I've got nearly 300 ideas for 'Saturday Night Special' encounters for the Megadungeon in my little pocket notebook.  I started transferring them to my netbook on Monday when I had an hour or so after dinner before the presentation.  When I've got them all typed up, I'll post them (warning, many are borrowed, laden with pop culture references, or just plain cheesy).

Fourth, I've got my four Gamma World (92) sample characters done as of last night.  I'll post them up here as well.  And man, I wish I could play all four of them! 

"Dead Systems"

Reading an interesting post over at the Alexandrian today, and in the comments they mentioned (more or less as an aside) the 'dead system' phenomenon.

Now, myself and most of the folks following this blog play old, out of print versions of D&D, so we're not, for the most part, that sort of person.

But don't you ever wonder about the whole idea of only playing an RPG if it's being actively 'supported' by the company that originally published it?

Even the whole retro-clone movement plays on that mentality.*  I've got enough actual TSR produced D&D stuff on my bookshelf (not to mention the other stuff on my hard drive) to play D&D for years.  But there are some people who wouldn't bother playing it because TSR is out of business and WotC aren't producing anything for the old game.  But since Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and OSRIC are out there allowing new stuff to be published, they might consider it.

I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, just a loud-mouthed braggart with a blog instead of a boom-stick.  But those sorts of people just seem sorta pitiful to me.  Not pitiful in the sense that they're worthless schlubs, but pitiful in the sense that I actually pity them for their lack of imagination or initiative to just make some stuff themselves. 

I pity them for their lack of courage to try something 'new' just because there isn't something physically new on the store shelves for them to buy. 

I pity them for falling into that marketing trap that makes them think they need some company out there to produce something for the game they love.  And falling for the company line that when a new edition comes around, they should follow suit and keep feeding the beast.

I may get a few hateful comments to this post.  I may bruise a few feelings.  Likely not many, as I know most people that read my blog aren't the sort of people I'm talking about.  So be it.  Maybe Dave's comment on my last post is making me feel like being a bit smug and superior sounding for a change, but I'm hoping this leads to some constructive/positive thought on the issue.

If any of you people who refuse to play 'dead systems' are reading this, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why a 'living system' is important to you.  Give me a reason to stop pitying you, and respect your choice to only play a game that receives support from the company, and to drop it as soon as the company stops supporting it.

*Yes, the clones are meant to foster creativity, not serve as a crutch to keep those systems 'alive.'  But I've seen quite a few people hyping them by claiming that they keep the old games 'alive' to those who shun 'dead' games.

Did WotC fart or something?

About the big to-do around the blogs this past week.

Since WotC pulled their pdfs, I'm no longer giving them any of my money.

If I were in the States with easy access to second-hand WotC minis, I'd likely have picked up plenty, but I'm not, so I didn't.  Still not giving any of my money directly to WotC if I had.  And since they're discontinuing the minis line, I won't be giving them any of my money that way in the future.

If I play any of WotC's RPGs (and yes, I did have fun playing Gamma World the other day, thank you very much) friends have bought the rules, not me.

I'm playing D&D, but the version I purchased 26 years ago (plus my own house rules, of course). 

I've always been pretty good about putting together gaming groups, or getting into ones that already existed.

So all the speculation about WotC D&D dying, or Pathfinder taking over as the 800lb. gorilla (not playing that one, either), being good for the hobby, being bad for the hobby, being good for the industry, being bad for the industry, whatever, doesn't really affect me one way or the other.

The only thing keeping me from gaming at the moment are time constraints.  And so I don't waste any time worrying about the 'health' of the industry, or moves by the big corporations in it.  I may have some opinions about what they do, and ideas for what I'd like them to do.  But the goings-on within the industry give me no reason to lose any sleep, or gnash my teeth, or anything like that.

I'm a selfish gamer, but as long as my personal gaming is good, that's all that matters to me.

Not quite a New Years Resolution

More ninja on the blog! 

Of course, you won't see them.  You won't hear them.  You won't know they're here until they totally freak out and cut off your head for dropping your spoon, then wail on their guitars.

But 2011 will likely see an increase in shinobi here on "What a horrible night to have a curse..."  Google's been sending ninja fans my way, I might as well make some sort of attempt to please them. 

Don't worry, though, it should have no impact on my normal RPG posts.

By the way, does it seem like some people are taking their gaming a bit too seriously?  People claiming the 'best dungeon ever published is really only mediocre to good' or how the OD&D equipment lists are fucking up the game for over 30 years, or the 'social mechanics' discussion even I participated in still kicking around.

Meanwhile, I plan to give you plenty more Bumbles and silly videos and tales of WWF wrestlers battling the undead in the new year.  Oh, and Presidents of the Apocalypse will be coming soon, as well.

And if I start taking either my gaming or my blogging too seriously, I've ordered the ninja to step in and take control.

Cultural Differences vs. Exclusionism

Pardon my getting a bit more serious than usual on the blog today.  But it's my blog to write what I like.  If you just want stats for giant platypi or ruminations on how to best implement ninja in your games, come back tomorrow.  I'll likely be back to that sort of thing.

Satyre posted about exclusion and inclusion of non-whites on his blog.  He makes some really good points.  Game settings (and as Trey points out in the comments, the source fiction) tends to focus on European styled fantasy and everyone's white these days sci fi.  Cross-cultural or multicolored protagonists, and societies in RPGs would seem to be the smart business move.  Try to tap into more audiences to earn more revenue.

5stonegames continues the conversation.  He points out, rightly I believe, that tabletop gaming tends to be an activity enjoyed primarily by middle-class white folks (at least in the U.S.).  People in gaming aren't exclusive toward others, but blacks, Hispanics, Middle-Easterners, etc. just don't tend to be drawn to the hobby in numbers.

My take on all this?  I think it would be great if gaming crossed cultural boundaries and resulted in both an increase in revenue for the game companies and a larger player pool for us gamers.  But really, I don't know any gamers personally who exclude others.  Game companies and fiction writers could do a better job trying to diversify the settings and characters.  But I wonder how effective that would be in the end.

Sure, it would have SOME effect.  In the 90's, lots of game companies started using 'she' instead of 'he' as the generic neuter pronoun, and there was some increase in female gamers because of that, according to the anecdotal evidence I've read (don't quote me on that, in other words).  But gaming is still not the sort of thing women take to as easily as men for some reason.

Likewise, an increase in non-white (or East Asian) protagonists in fantasy and sci fi fiction might make a difference, but because it's already a genre few non-whites are reading already.

I think some things just don't cross cultural lines easily.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  You don't see many Hispanics at a bluegrass concert.  There aren't many non-South Asians into Bollywood films.  Sure, there are exceptions.  There always are.  But it's not something inherently wrong with the hobby nor the fan-base if this is so.

White males tend to dig on fantasy/sci fi, and tabletop games.  Non-whites and females to a lesser extent.  It might be nice if it were otherwise, but since it's more a case of the non-whites and females being less interested rather than the white males being exclusive, at least in the case of gaming groups, it's not really something we can change easily.  And maybe it doesn't really need to change.  I don't think bluegrass singers are worried that their audience is mostly white.

Yes, I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here.  I'd love to see game companies making bigger profits.  I'd love to have an easier time forming a game group.  If gaming, and fantasy/SF appealed to more people, that would be great.  But maybe we just need to face the fact that it could be a cultural thing that appeals to us but not others, and isn't likely to change much in the future.

Character Creation vs. Game Play: Where's the Fun?

Just a couple quick thoughts and questions for the peanut gallery.

In a role playing game, should the character generation process be fun in and of itself?  If so, is it a sign of bad game design or good game design if the process is as fun, or even more fun, than the game play itself?

Just some thoughts rolling around in my head regarding PotA, the upcoming Gamma World 4ED&D game we're gonna play, and Utilitarianism's wacky idea of 'units of pleasure.'

Luddites vs. Amish

A simple question:

Do you feel that the OSR types are more like the Luddites or the Amish?

Luddites, smashing looms

Are we raging against some machine of modernization that we believe will ruin things?

Amish, growing beards

Or are we just opting out of the race for the newest, brightest, and flashiest because we believe life is better without all that?

I have no answers, only the question.

Random Thought

Why don't we see more about the influences and inspiration of the classic fairy tales in fantasy RPGs?

The basics are there: common folk (often young) end up meeting with supernatural monsters, and often defeat them through cleverness or persistence.  Treasure sometimes is picked up along the way.

I know there have been some attempts at 'fairy tale' RPGs, and some people have had success running fairy tale themed games with D&D or other fantasy RPGs.  But why don't we hear more about it?  Is it some childish desire to make the game seem more 'mature'?

These fairy tales, along with mythology and the Medieval romance, are what informed the Pulps AND the literature that informed D&D.  Both Frodo and Fafhrd owe a debt to Jack the Giant Killer and Hansel and Gretel.

What would you do for a Klondike bar?

You know, back in the day we never seemed to feel the need to come up with intricate backstories for our characters, or motivations, or any of that.

We rolled up a character, maybe had an idea in mind from the latest fantasy book, movie or video game we'd accessed, and were ready to explore some dungeons, kill some monsters, and loot their treasures.

Then somewhere along the way (around 97 for me, when I fell in with the Evansville group and I was chock full of ideas for stories that I'd never get around to writing) I began to want those backstories and motivations. Maybe it was something about the 2E books, which I picked up around then. Maybe I felt like it was more 'mature' that way. Maybe it was just something in the air.

For the past few years, though, I've been worried less about backstory or motivation. If I've got some ideas, great. I'll roll with them. If my players want to come up with them, again, great.

But I find D&D works best if the only real motivation your characters need follows this statement:

I boldly venture forth into the dark places of the earth, face countless horrors, and all for fortune and glory.

Anything more than that is unnecessary, but the above is vital. If you're not out for the gold and glory, you probably shouldn't be playing in my D&D games (other games will vary).

[And Dave, if you're reading this, this is just a general spouting off of ideas, not directed at anyone in particular in our group.]

Shouldn't we be applauding things like this?

So you've probably read the report at Penny Arcade here about a group of 4E players having a special session where they used S&W to recreate the OD&D experience lite.

Shouldn't we be applauding and encouraging things like this? Isn't that what the OSR is about? Getting people to try out these games...either the originals, or the retro-clones? Showing people that they are fun games too?

Seems like most of the commentary I've read on the old school blogs recently has been ripping into the guys for their methodology (trying to reign in the lethality or whatever) or arguing semantics of the description of the visit to the frontier theme park.

I say who cares? Looks like they tried out Swords and Wizardry, made it their own, and had fun. Isn't that what we're all about?

War Stories

"War talk by men who've been in a war is always interesting; whereas moon talk by a poet who has not been in the moon is likely to be dull"
--Mark Twain

So the blogosphere happens to be talking about railroading and narrative control and all that sort of stuff today, and this is something that had been rolling around inside my head for a while anyway.

I tend to find that when gamers get together and talk about the great games they played in, it tends to sound similar to the war stories my uncles talk about (they fought in the Battle of the Bulge). It's personal, it's quite often more about what when wrong than what went right, and it's often got a bit of comedy and tragedy mixed together.

I rarely hear gamers sit around and discuss the grand tapestry that their GM painted for them, the wonderful roller coaster ride where the characters were just along for the ride, even if they had a ton of fun riding that midnight train to Georgia story the GM had concocted.

So I think the whole Dragonlance/Narrativist thing is way off base for what the majority of gamers want. They don't really care about the grand story of the module or of the GM's devising. Nor do they care about the grand shared tapestry if they're playing a Forge type story-focused game. They really care about those moments that will make a good 'war story' to tell around the comic book rack or over a few beers.

Or maybe I've been hanging around with the wrong people, and I'm way off base?

I'm 3' away from my actual position...

Just wondering out loud why, when WotC released the d20 SRD, they decided that the mighty Displacer Beast was iconic enough of the D&D experience to not include it?

Mind Flayers, Beholders, I can understand. They scream "This is D&D!!!" I suppose Carrion Crawlers do too, to a lesser extent.

But what about Gelatinous Cubes? Rust Monsters? Or the Displacer Beast's natural enemy, the Blink Dog? They're all in the SRD.

It's not even like the Displacer Beast was an original creation of either Gygax or Arneson anyway. It was ripped off from Voyage of the Space Beagle.

It's just one of those nutty things, I guess. Ryan Dancey or some unknown suit decided that it's fine for 3rd parties to use "The Cube," "Rusty" or disappearing dingos, but tentacled space cats can only be used by them.

Explorers Wanted

Relevant to my recent posts about my board game group is this post by James M. over at Grognardia. The OSRIC guys have it right. RPGs in general, and D&D specifically, are best when they're about the exploration.

I'm not attempting to come up with some sort of 3-fold model (there are better ones out there), but I get the feeling people in my current group like different aspects of 'exploration.'

For me, the OSRIC quote hits it right on the spot. D&D is about searching through dungeons and crypts, creepy forests and dismal swamps for the lost treasures left there by who knows who? Sure, you battle some monsters along the way. You cast spells, encounter traps, talk to NPCs, etc. But the real meat and potatoes of the game is that dungeon or wilderness exploration phase.

I think for some of the guys, though, the fun exploration comes from exploring not the 'shared imaginary space' to borrow a pretentious Ron Edwards-ism, but the meta-game level of the game system and mechanics. Alex, in particular, seems to really enjoy the crunchy, option filled character creation phase of games like 3E, 4E, and RIFTS, and the crunchy, tactical combat phase of the games as well. The more rules options and combinations on the table, the happier he is.

Myself and Josh, on the other hand, seem to enjoy the exploration of the world, and its dungeons and mystical places, and how the characters we bring into it interact with and change that world.

The third option for a 3-fold system I guess would be players who get their kicks exploring the psyche of the PC they've created above all. I don't think we have anyone like that in this group, although I've played with people like that in the past.

Are these just gussied up ways of looking at GNS stereotypes? I don't think they're quite the same. But then I've just been thinking about this as I ate dinner, then sat down at the computer to write it up. I'll give it some more thought and come back to it another day.