Redefining Roleplaying
by Jason GodeskyI know I should probably keep this in store for when the Fifth World blog gets started up, but I’m wondering if anyone else who’s read “The Fifth World Manifesto” finds Ryan Dancey’s latest articles at all familiar.
- “Climb the Highest Mountain“
- “Keep Hope Alive!“
- “Step 1: Redefine the Hobby“
- “Step 2: Redefine the Experience“
- “Step 3: Redefine the Game World“
- Step 4: Redefine the Platform
- Step 5: Redefine the Rules
- Final Thoughts: Wrap-up
Thoughts? Comments?
And in other gaming news, D&D 4th ed. has been announced, and promises to go in exactly the wrong direction by trying to out-MMORPG the MMORPG’s.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2007 @ 11:41 AM
It’s a bit weird of him, to first state the that tabletop gaming needs to strongly differentiate itself from MMOs, yet goes on to talk about closely integrating electronic tools. I recall a comment in there about how “baring a global disaster” the internet will spread to everyone in short order. That’s ironic, since we’re all heading towards a global disaster.
If he wants to focus on what tabletop gaming can do that MMOs can’t, why not focus on their ability to be played anywhere, at any time? Why not focus on the relatively low cost of a book, a set of dice, and some paper and pencils, compared to a computer and internet access? I wouldn’t mind having a laptop on the table for running a shadowrn game, but it would kill the mood for a dnd game. (Then again, I’m prone to playing by candlelight).
Of course, he’s also talking about “saving the industry,” not “saving the medium.” The truth is there just isn’t a lot of money in pen and paper games. The money is in collectables, be they cards, miniatures, or advanced rulebooks. The strength of a pen and paper game is that you CAN make a game that uses a single rulebook, a set of dice, and is complete in and of itself. But that’s a strength that doesn’t fit business models.
I’ve got an idea on this front, too. Why not create RPGs it’s possible to win?
I know, I know, RPGs aren’t supposed to be “winable.”
It messes with persistance, for one. But honestly, the “long running campaign” is very nearly a myth of the hobby. My longest running game was less than a year before someone moved, some people dated then broke up, and everyone left was in the mood for a change in genre. Games end, and one of the greatest weaknesses of RPGs is that ending one is less than graceful. It simply isn’t supported. I’ve seen a lot of experimental RPGs that push towards an endgame scenario. Now it might take 6 months of sessions to get there, but at some point you actually beat the game.
A game like this would make commiting to the game easier, since you can say exactly when it ends. If you liked the game, it could be played again. A properly design endgame system isn’t story-specific. It’s a plot outline that the story revolves around. designing games to end creates a new market for other games, games to play after this one is over. It creates a market for sequels. If there is anything we can learn from the computer RPGs, this is it.
Have you been to the Forge?
Comment by Andrew Jensen — 17 August 2007 @ 10:26 AM
I’ve been to the Forge quite a bit. I’m with you on the idea of playing a game anywhere, and I don’t think that’s necessarily at odds with using computer tools. The Fifth World diseminates information via a wiki, but playing it around a campfire is one of the most common play scenarios I keep in mind.
As for a game you can win, I like the idea of making game stories more … nestable? As in, making it easier to pull together a short game quickly, or stitch together games as long as they might run. I’ve heard of people keeping up campaigns for years, but my experience is like yours; I’m lucky to get in five sessions before this or that brings the whole thing down. Sure, a tribal setting where all your friends are living a few feet away and involved primarily in hunting and gathering would make that easier, but that’s not a reality for most people right now.
But winning … I don’t know. That seems like something that’d be great for a Western game, but the very fact that the Fifth World tries to cultivate that animist, oral, traditional, “old growth” mindset …. like I said, having “nestable” stories, with varying levels of resolution, I like that and I want to support that, and I think the local focus of the Fifth World can help that. We’re not talking about sprawling, Tolkien-esque epics; we’re talking about the great epic of that rock over there, for instance. It lends itself to shorter, resolved stories in sequence, so if you have to leave it behind, that could well be the end point of the whole character’s story, and there are no dangling threads.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 August 2007 @ 10:35 AM
Nerds! Hehe…
I find that MMO’s eventually become ‘grinding & rerunning’ the same thing over & over for many of the gamers. This doesn’t seem as exciting as the more dynamic imagination/social based version of RPG’s.
With so much to do and learn and so little time, I’m actively avoiding video games, and MMO’s just seem to be geared towards “time sink” type activities.
Campfire roleplaying sounds fun, but often times I just enjoy listening to the crackle of the fire and the sounds of the locust.
Comment by Bubba — 17 August 2007 @ 11:39 AM
Well sure, who doesn’t? And that’s a valuable thing to do, too. Of course, that’s not the only thing; sometimes you listen to the crackle of the fire and the sounds of the locusts, and sometimes you tell a story. This isn’t what you should always be doing, but if it’s time to tell a story, this is something to help.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 August 2007 @ 12:26 PM
OK, so “Winning” isn’t the right term. How about “completing?” Yeah, I like that better. Ending the story. There should be a mechanic for determining when the story ends (so that a new one can begin.)
Comment by Andrew Jensen — 20 August 2007 @ 1:49 PM
Also, e-tools may not have to mean you can’t play everywhere, but what I read in that article (and others) seems to suggest that having an open laptop at the game table will be almost a necessity. Additionally, I’m more concerned about the effort to focus on service delivery rather than producing actual, physical objects. It seems like they’re trying to ursup the role of facilitator away from the players, making themselves the means by which the game happens. Making playing the game a heirarchical, top down organized event rather than a self organized hanging out.
Also, I think it’s important, on some level, to keep tabletop strictly separated from computing, partly to keep it and MMOs strictly separate. They need to admit that these are strictly separate hobbies. And partly to keep a market open to people who either don’t have consistent internet access, or don’t want to rely on it.
It’s another case of the longer it is until a crash, the worse the crash is, as everything becomes design to depend on services that will cease to function.
Comment by Andrew Jensen — 20 August 2007 @ 2:12 PM
“OK, so “Winning” isn’t the right term. How about ‘completing?’ Yeah, I like that better. Ending the story. There should be a mechanic for determining when the story ends (so that a new one can begin.)”
Actually, that’s the business model of Pinnacle Entertainment with their “Savage Worlds” settings (http://www.smithandrobards.com/index.php?cPath=2_16&osCsid=4b7240785fdd9c029ae2314c2927263c)
Their games have a beginning, middle and end, though conceivably you could play in the setting for as long as you wish (as opposed to traditional modules which are more structured).
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 21 August 2007 @ 2:17 PM
Your post title sounds like something a corporate consultant would say to his dominatrix.
Comment by Uncle Sweethart — 3 September 2007 @ 7:32 PM
Well, it does come from Ryan Dancey, so I guess that makes some sense, eh?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 September 2007 @ 9:01 PM
Dude,
For real.
Please just stop.
For everything, just stop.
Take your nerd fan club piece of shit blog and stop trying to drag your demented ass idea of primitivism down in the dirt with you.
This is so pathetic I can’t even laugh at it.
Comment by Kill me now — 12 September 2007 @ 12:15 AM
You know, I have never understood the point of posting statements like this:
If you find this site so disturbing, why even stay? Perhaps you wish to provide valuable feedback. But then, surely you could provide more constructive criticism than this…?
Comment by jhereg — 12 September 2007 @ 7:51 AM
“If you find this site so disturbing, why even stay? Perhaps you wish to provide valuable feedback. But then, surely you could provide more constructive criticism than this…?”
More constructive than “please just stop”? I think that’s THE best advice and would be EXTREMELY constructive.
Comment by Kill me now — 12 September 2007 @ 3:29 PM
constructive criticism is useless for the absorbed/addicted who use moronic rationale to keep their stunted course through immaturity going. all the while trying to relate it to animism and primitivism.
‘primivitism’ (if thats what you want to call all these social retards / data “foragers”) is becoming a mockery of itself with ridiculous gimmicks, fun club websites and self-proclaimed “celebrities”.
Comment by Against Role Playing - Against Leviathan — 13 September 2007 @ 2:58 AM
Damn, dude. So much hate on a hobby. Got any interests you’d care to share, so we can be just as harsh on you?
People have interests in multiple areas. This is both natural and necessary. People also try to connect their interests to each other. This results in synthesis, which is where most valuable new thoughts come from.
This isn’t the place to debate if role playing games are stupid or not. But you may as well ask Urban scout to keep his relationship issues out of his Blog, or as Ran Prieur to keep the Occult stuff out of his criticisms of Civ.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 September 2007 @ 9:59 PM