I run in a lot of different circles. And I, personally,
like to use the word "Traditional RPG" when I'm in a discussion where the different types of RPGs are being debated.
However, I occasionally see folks using it in a very different way than I mean it. Some of them are just saying "trad games" in the sense of "those games over in that frame of reference, back-at-hobby-central". Others
seem, to my eye, to be saying "Those outmoded games". It's that second one that makes me twitch; the first use just means that the writer is thinking about something a ways off from hobby-central.
So, here's a bit of long-earned praise for tradition:
- Traditional games provide the central focus for the RPG hobby. They are, in plain fact, the hub where most of the action is taking place. To get a hint of it, go forth and discuss D&D class builds on the WotC forum; it's damn cool if you can get into it.
- Traditional games work. Yes, they have "weak points" - and those weak points are basically well-known, have been discussed at length, have had solutions found. D&D, when run in the traditional fashion (which includes developing skills to improve your play, rahter than shortcutting the skills out), consistently produces fun games. That massive body of game-tweaking knowledge that many GMs possess, can pass around, and can pass on to other GMs - that is a strength of traditional gamers.
- Traditional games work hard to serve all of us. They are written, for the most part, assuming that the players will be a mixed bag. That makes it easier to find a group, since they won't be put off by the game itself; once you have a group, that group can develop their own style, which serves all of them to exactly their desires.
That doesn't mean "Non-traditional games are evil!", mind you. These are just my thoughts about the center I visit, not the fringe where I live.
I love dabbling in lots of games, try out Nobilis, My Life with Master, Dust Devils. I love my 'do anything' game of choice, Mutants and Masterminds.
But, you know, when I've been bending my brain in a hundred different ways, I settle back and think about how cool a D&D game could be...
Right now I'm in a D&D campaign, and it's refreshing to inject all the cool characterization and fun stuff I like to do into a rather traditional mode of play.
Quote from: Will... and it's refreshing to inject all the cool characterization and fun stuff I like to do into a rather traditional mode of play.
Yeah, my players (who I've introduced to a lot of
fringe games) tell me the same thing.
Me, I'm dying to run a
C&C campaign based on the Original Known World Gazeteers (
with Bargle etc). Sometimes, all you want to do is go home...or rather spend some time there :)
Regards,
David R
Jeez, people! You can do better than that! Not that I'm not a fan of the things that traditional game design does because of its place in the community, but there are also strengths of the design paradigm that would be just as powerful if traditional games were being introduced for the first time today ...
- The traditional GM-Player dichotomy (particularly when it is extended to say that players only have control of the actions of their characters) is a powerful constraint that evokes powerful creativity. It makes it easy for players to know what to do, and allows them to contribute strongly without fear or self-censorship.
- Traditional task resolution mechanics keep people on the same page and (often) give them all a shared measure of success (e.g. XPs gained vs. hit points lost) that allows everyone to work together (or against each other) cleanly and enjoyably.
- A general "do anything" umbrella in terms of what games cover allows people to make the game that they discover they want in play (but could not have said that they wanted when they began) with a minimal of (often unconscious) rules drift.
It's a strong design paradigm with many powerful benefits. For my money, any designer worth his or her salt should be taking a very close eye at the lessons of traditional design, and seeing what pieces work for their particular game.
Amen, Tony. I perhaps didn't go far enough...
It was theory, contempating really different games, that made me appreciate the design of trad games (for example, where the GM DOES have most decision power, exploration, immersion) all the more. And I think it's improved my traditional gaming a lot.
Analogy: I never understood the structure and logic of the English language until I studied other languages.
Of course, in addition, I've coopted a few little bits along the way to integrate into traditional games. For example, I've very fond of drama points to allow players to step in a little bit into 'authorial ownership.' But still with the basic assumption that they generally don't have it.
More than anything else, Wushu, which was the answer to the kind of gaming I'd been searching out for over 20 years, turned out to not be what I really wanted at all. And, by being not what I wanted, really opened my eyes.
Quote from: TonyLBJeez, people! You can do better than that!
I think you'll find people are grinding their teeth and trying to to even acknowledge the distinction.
Course, I think Forge Crap revolves around zero prep games heavy on character acting.
(I've played Forge Crap games for years - we called em con scenarios)
Improvisation has it's downsides, obiviously - its spontaineous but not considered. By dogmatically rejecting all gm created material you cost yourselves a lot of the obstacle course nature of the game, and almost any chance of real finesse.
Hey, Erik ... do you have some positive things to say about traditional gaming? 'cuz I, for one, think that would fit the thread a lot better than negative things said about non-traditional gaming.
Quote from: Willtrad games
(http://www.sfist.com/attachments/sfist_chuck/bodysnatchers.jpg)
You are saying I am doomed? it is YOU who are doomed! Cue the music!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80z-F2liafU
Quote from: TonyLBHey, Erik ... do you have some positive things to say about traditional gaming?
Well, like I say traditional low/no prep con scenarios like The Shab Al Hiri Roach are really fun. Real excuse for wild overacting.
I remember a game of a Junta like thing at Stabcon in '99 where I got ousted from the ruling coalition when I went to the loo, and so retreated to the hills to run to become a charismatic rebel leader.
The win condition, incidentally, was how much money your guy squirreled away in to secret bank accounts. Not that the players were told this before it was annouced at the end...
- insert pet peeve here -
Well, the advantage of long form-high prep games are broadly that the GM can do a better job of painting the world - he can have a relationship web of NPCs planned out and prepare props and handouts, and having an adventure means you can do Missions instead of having to bounce off other PCs all the time, which is fine if you want do acting all the time, but less good if you'd rather people stopped stabbing each other in the back so you can get on with raiding the tomb/investigating the temple/banishing the demon etc.
Last night I found another good reason for traditional long form-high prep games.
A couple is part of the group, and they have a 2 month old. We've been gaming without them since the kid was born, but now they've started hosting the game, starting last night.
Well. We had fun, but the parents only participated in maybe 30% of the game, due to child crying and assorted business.
While you COULD do Wushu or something with folks like that, it's kind of nice to have a GM to carry events forward and track what's going on.
My traditional-outmoded-longform-highprep-mainstream game kept a bunch of us occupied for twenty years while we worked out what we wanted to do. Good enough?
I sort of see the topic as like 'overdue praise for capitalism'. It's all around you, it shapes your interactions with other people, it's a fact of life. More pertinent to analyse than to praise.
Quote from: droogMy traditional-outmoded-longform-highprep-mainstream game kept a bunch of us occupied for twenty years while we worked out what we wanted to do. Good enough?
I sort of see the topic as like 'overdue praise for capitalism'. It's all around you, it shapes your interactions with other people, it's a fact of life. More pertinent to analyse than to praise.
Well, like capitalism, there's lots of folks who will tell you it's the root of all evil, and was responsible for social trauma when they were teenagers, and so-on.
I think a little praise for traditional games can't hurt (especially in a Theory section, since so much Theory attempts to improve on or move away from the traditional model).
My points
* Traditional games are tools to express the player's vision more so than the game designers (contrast to narrow indie games like MLWM or DiTV)
* Traditional games are hugely flexible (at their most flexible, they're generic systems), and can, in skilled hands, support vastly different goals and play styles -- at the same table, at the same time!
* Traditional games are fun (this isn't exclusive to traditional games, of course, but it's a positive) and they're popular -- I download dozens for free, I can walk into any game store and pick up an armload. They're ubiquitous
Cheers,
-E.
Traditional RPGs offer superior Immersion / Virtual World experience for players (except the GM) compared to current non-traditional RPGs.
This is important because Immersion / Virtual World experience is one of the primary appeals of playing an RPG.
Traditional games support a variety of play styles and levels of player experience and involvement, compared to many non-traditional games that require a single play style from a group of experienced, engaged, roleplayers.
Traditional RPGs often (but not always) have stronger gameplay, without requiring gameplay to be made subordinate to storytelling.