Okay - we're getting close to the middle of this debate, so I'm going to restate almost my whole set of positions, updated to suit the conversation thus far.
Some of these, I think we agree on more, others, not so much.
----------------------------
Roleplaying games are a fusion.Roleplaying games are much like what they sound like – there are elements of roleplaying, in a generally theatrical sense (but the bit about art not being special applies here too), and elements of gameplay like you’d find in a board or card game, and these things come together to form a unified thing distinct from it’s component parts. Despite this, though, all roleplaying games provide at least slightly different fusions of these elements.
----------------------------
Roleplaying Games are art. This doesn’t make them special.When we play these games, we are taking part in the performance of art. Art isn't some kind of elite title. If, in calling an RPG art, you’re just speaking to what the games already are, good on you. But if, in doing so, you’re trying to somehow “elevate them”, shove off. I don’t want to be elevated that way; very few gamers do. And walk carefully; plenty of folks out there have seen the “elevate” thing one too many times, and immediately believe if you call an RPG art, that’s what you’re up to.
----------------------------
Roleplaying Games create stories. But they aren’t for telling stories.Every game creates stories, as a side effect if nothing else. People tell stories about their game experiences, reliving the moment; some of these stories can be good, or funny; some of them, you had to be there. They also sit back at the table now and then and think things generally like “That was really cool, story-wise”. That’s something some gamers want to explore further. But the first impulse of a lot of GMs when they meet this idea is to
control the story so they can be sure that it’ll turn out ‘properly’. This is a mistake; if you want the story to turn out your way, go write it down. If you do it, you’ll take away the ability to make meaningful choices from the players and you’ll have to interfere with their ability to play their characters; this means that your game will have problems both as something to roleplay and as a game. If you want an RPG to act as an engine that works purely for the generation of collaborative stories, you’re likely going to push outside of the boundaries of what most people would consider a Roleplaying Game – it might be good, and RPG rules may be a good place to start, but you’re looking for a different creature than the one I’m talking about.
----------------------------
Getting more ‘story’ from an RPG is simple.You front-load, and you drive (I’ll define those in a second), and that’s
all you really need to do. Going further than this can, again, carry your game outside of either “roleplaying” or “game” or both, and unless your players are with you in doing that, it’s best avoided. I’m going to talk about those two things for a moment.
Front-Loading: Front-loading is another way of saying that the group (sometimes the GM, sometimes the players, sometimes both together) builds a starting situation that focuses on the same stuff that the characters are focused on. Not only that, but this situation involves conflicts that the characters will be drawn into, but which could be resolved any number of ways. The person or people creating this situation should
not know how things are going to turn out, only that conflict will always occur. This is just basic preparation – an evil army threatening the town where the characters live is some serious front-loading. The place where this turns into specifically story preparation is that a group (in this case, almost always the GM) can front-load elements that
require choices from the characters – hard stuff that will give depth to the character no matter what they choose. Again, the creator shouldn’t have picked “right choices” out in advance, just created things that require those choices be made.
Driving: This may not be the best word for it, since ‘driving’ implies a degree of control that really isn’t involved. Driving is pushing the characters to make to those choices on their own, harder and harder, until they do, by adding intensity and requiring action based on each choice as play continues. This often requires that the GM bring on characters and events that hit those choices in new ways; this is the part that takes practice, because doing it ham-handedly produces artificial-feeling play.
----------------------------
Every group has it’s own style of play.No two players are the same – they have different attitudes, different past experiences, and sometimes want different things out of an RPG - some want more roleplay in their gaming, some want more gaming in their roleplay, some want more story, some want to get further “into character” than others. That’s just the nature of what happens when you get people together. But if they play together, they start to balance out a singular style of play between them that works for them. This group style includes how they use the mechanics of the game, the things they agree on as other rules, and even the social structures that exist between them when they sit down at the table.
----------------------------
Games influence style.Every actual game book out there has its own slant – the writers had at least some of the elements that make up a style of play, however loosely or firmly conceived, in mind when they wrote it. These are passed on to the players in a variety of ways.
First, and most obvious, a game book has advice in it that talks about how to run the game. Some games go on at length about how to get just the game you want from the rules, working to accommodate different playstyles. Others give the reader a solid impression of the kinds of play the creators had in mind, but also talk about adjusting it to get what you like. And still others (though not that many) describe a single, tightly focused style that the game is “fine-tuned’ for.
Second, and either more or less obviously, a game shows you what it’s about in the presentation of the material itself. If it has a lot of art, that can be pretty obvious. Even if it doesn’t, examples of play given in a book speak to the style, as do descriptions of the various smaller bits of “how you do things”.
Third, the actual physical components of a game can have an impact. If the game requires big piles of dice or miniature figures, its best played at an actual table, which can change the group dynamic to something less casual than just sitting around a living room.
And finally, the characters you can build, the various components of them, and the specific kinds of rules-based fun that you can get from those components, all speak to the style. If there are detailed rules on some specific thing, and players engange with those often and enjoyably, the game will be drawn to those things more often, making the game more “about” those things. Some examples of this; and I’m going to use games that I wrote myself because I’m a big stinky egomaniac.
--
Perfect 20 is a d20-based system; because it has a lot of emphasis on combat and the like, it lends itself basically to action-adventure games; this is pretty much the “baseline” kind of thing.
The Playtest kit for The Pulse presents something notably different – the rules drive the characters to do and get things in a completely blatant fashion, because the game is about raw
need. And if anyone thinks they can get that same feel, at the same speed and intensity, from d20, without basically rebuilding that system, I’d love to hear about it.
The Exchange does something different again; it’s all about description, nothing else. You can plug it into whatever genre you like, but what you always get is a game that’s high-description, low-tactics.
8bitDungeon isn’t even a roleplaying game; it’s an adventure game. And while it’s all about action and adventures, certainly, it pushes the “feel” that it’s aiming for so hard in it’s game mechanics that most people that have tried it out never even consider actually roleplaying with it.
----------------------------
In many places, roleplaying games have an image problem (Revised slightly)People that play roleplaying games are often looked at as being “weirdos”, simply because of what we do, and because of the popular media impression of us. It’s a bit of a sore spot in some places, and a complete non-issue in others. But what we do, really, isn’t freaky at all.
In order to keep, or make, the hobby healthy in your area, gaming needs one thing above all else - to maintain a healthy image. The image that we have now in many places is pretty crappy, and making it healthy again isn't that hard. We have four basic image problems, and each one is a kind of person. They are:
The first, and most common, is "silent" but otherwise perfectly great. There are loads of gamers out there that are great people, but the more they keep quiet, the more that regular hear about roleplaying by means of people that
aren't them. This isn't a good thing, people. Don't be ashamed - the majority of gamers are totally cool people. Be confident; it’s amazing how many people will be interested in what we do when it’s presented to them by someone who does so smoothly.
The second is the basically thoughtless – gamers that speak up, but are plainly bad at it. These are the gamers that babble on about roleplaying in earshot of non-gamers in ways that freak them out. The group of LARPers that wear their costumes home on public transit and talk loudly. The guy that talks about his outrageous character to people at his work that really don't want to hear it. If you think that you're guilty of this, check with a friend that you can trust to be honest – after all, it’s not just
our image that this one is about – it’s
yours, too.
The third is the slightly unwashed. These are gamers that have taken the idea that they'll be accepted as they are just a few steps too far. Folks, we need to tell these people that they can't be this way. A lot of these people are great folks, and may be friends of yours - and if they are, give them a hand if you can. Sometimes giving them a hand
means you'll need to tell them that specific form of behavior won't stand. Sometimes it's easier than that. Sometimes it's harder. And if it simply doesn't happen, maybe you can't help them - maybe they're just not willing to put in the energy; if that's the case, you decide if you want to keep on playing with them. Again, this isn’t just about us – this about you. Do you really want to keep having to put up with a guy at your table who is great fun, except for his volume control problem? If you’ve got him, or someone similar, chances are you’ve got to work up the guts to talk to him, sooner or later; personally, I recommend “sooner”.
The fourth, and the rarest by
far, is the unrepentant. These are the few that have irredeemable habits, utterly inexcusable behavior, and no intention of changing it. The best thing we can do as gamers for these people is put as much distance as possible between us and them, and make that completely clear. We're not camouflage for them; we shouldn't act like it.