Ok, here are my recent thoughts on different approaches to RPG design.  Please feel free to discuss, but please avoid using jargon from other RPG theories.  Thanks.

* * * * * * * * *

Dungeons & Dragons, designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, evolved in the early 1970s from tabletop wargames.  Chainmail a medieval miniatures wargame created by Jeff Perren and Gary Gygax, is the direct predecessor of D&D -- the first modern roleplaying game.  Some improvisational storytelling elements were added to the existing wargame rules to make the earliest versions of the game.

Over the years some RPGs have moved further away from RPG's tabletop wargaming roots, and more towards improvisational theatre.

Originally developed by director Keith Johnstone, TheatreSports is a form of improvisational theatre which uses the format of a competition for dramatic effect. The television show Whose Line is it Anyway? uses many games that first appeared in TheatreSports. The content of TheatreSports scenes are often structured games which can double as entertainment and as training excercises. A notable example of a theatre sports game is:

Yes, Let's, in which each improviser in a scene makes a suggestion that is loudly accepted by the others on stage with the words "Yes, Let's". When used as an exercise, this game teaches acceptance of suggestions by other improvisers and the value of a positive attitude on stage.

Another popular Improv theatre rule is to avoid "Blocking" -- the practice of refusing another actor's offer or dismissing the traits another actor has assigned you.

The "Always say yes" design pattern adopted by several recent indie RPGs, including Rebecca Borgstrom's Nobilis, is based on these conventions from improv theatre.

Roleplaying games then, can be thought of as being on a spectrum ranging from War Games on one end, and Improvisational Theatre on the other.

Both ends of the spectrum can provide rich immersive experiences, and create entertaining narratives players and audiences.  It's worth recognizing that War games and Improv theatre are very different entities -- which means there is a wide range of games that fall under the "RPG" umbrella.  

Design patterns suitable for a war game, such as dice based resolution mechanics for unit psychology, would not be suitable for a game at the improv theatre end of the spectrum.  Similarly the free-form story creation and narrative empowerment of improv theatre is ill suited for application to a war game.

Since there are games right across the spectrum, up to and including actual war games and TheatreSports themselves, any discussion of RPG theory will tend to focus on a particular section of this spectrum and may not be applicable to all types of games described as "RPGs".

This suggests less time should be spent on developing unified theories of RPGs, and more time spent on making each individual game the best it can be.  It also means recognizing that the various RPGs will have very different play styles -- and that one isn't better than another -- just at a different point on the spectrum.

Quote from: StuartRoleplaying games then, can be thought of as being on a spectrum ranging from War Games on one end, and Improvisational Theatre on the other.

See, again you hand the floor to the Great Satan.

'Oh, thats just a wargame...'

Examining the amdram vs. storyteller divide allows presents an alternative axis for examination - are your favorite bits character interaction or considered shaggy dog story.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his theory.

Look at it this way, if you create a spectrum where pure make-believe (ie. cops and robbers) is at one end of the spectrum, and completely rules-based abstract games (ie. chess) is at the other; you have wargames next to chess, and you have things like theatresports next to make-believe.

Real RPGs are smack dab in the middle of that spectrum.  Anything that tries to pull RPGs into being a sit-down version of theatresports is trying to create something that isn't an RPG.

RPGPundit

I think you are going to get better results from denying the enemy the moral high ground.

'Thats not a Proper Old Fashioned RPG' is not a statement they must defend against.

'Thats not as pretentious as it could be' is.

Attack from unexpected directions - it keeps people off balance, and reacting instead of driving the discussion!

Note that the White Wolf swine were defeated not by DnD but by something more Worthy! You must somehow imply that your way is somehow More Classier, consigning Them to a ghetto playing their fun but essentially shallow games about endless pretend arguments and mellowdrama.

That's not what I'm accusing them of. I'm accusing them of NOT BEING AN RPG, PERIOD.

So if they're trying to pretend to be an RPG, it definitely does put them on the defensive.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's not what I'm accusing them of. I'm accusing them of NOT BEING AN RPG, PERIOD.

So if they're trying to pretend to be an RPG, it definitely does put them on the defensive.

RPGPundit

I fail to see how helping them convince people that they don't play RPGs, which, lets face it, are dorks pretending to be wizards in their parents basement, and are instead something new, something more, is a good debate tactic.

Because what they're doing isn't "something more", its something less. As in "so less appealing to the average human being that they have to try riding in on the coattails of RPGs in order to sell more books".

Which, considering most RPG sales, is pretty pathetic indeed.

RPGPundit

TheatreSports is still a game, just a very different one than a wargame / boardgame.  It can be entertaining to play (I've studied acting and done some TheatreSports) and even to watch -- but it's not "Theatre" in the same way that a Shakespearean play is.  

Wargames are closely related to other tabletop games with discreet rulesets -- and yes, Chess is definitely one of them.

I'm not suggesting a better/worse judgement of games at any point on the spectrum, and I think even "Classic" RPGs can have slightly different balances.

D&D, the classic RPG, comes in multiple versions: OD&D, AD&D, B/X D&D, BECM D&D, AD&D 2, RC D&D, D&D 3, D&D 3.5, etc

Actually, calling them versions of the same game is a bit misleading -- it's more like multiple games sharing a name and many of the same rules.  If we agree that all versions of D&D are RPGs, then there is a spectrum of RPGs ranging from closer to wargame/boardgame to closer to TheatreSports.

I think how close it gets to either end of the Spectrum while still being considered an RPG is a matter of opinion.  I'm OK with a lot of games under the umbrella term -- as long as people recognize that they're VERY different at the extremes, and rules/advice for one end will not necessarily be relevant to the other.

Taking games at the TheatreSports end of the spectrum and saying "All RPGs should follow this pattern" is simply bad advice for game designers.

Quote from: StuartThe "Always say yes" design pattern adopted by several recent indie RPGs, including Rebecca Borgstrom's Nobilis, is based on these conventions from improv theatre.

Nobilis is considered an indie RPG now, is it? In any case, I sincerely hope that you are not extending its principle of "never saying 'no'" into an OOC player privilege of changing the rules or the setting at will. That particular misconception has turned up in far too many threads on these forums already.

(As someone over at RPGnet pointed out recently, the Monarda Law simply advises the GM against arbitrarily refusing to let the players use the game system.)

QuoteNobilis is considered an indie RPG now, is it?

What -- Nobilis the RPG from Guardians of Order?  

Yes, of course.  Guardians of Order is (was) based here in Guelph, Ontario.  GOO is (was) very much an indie company, and thus Nobilis an indie RPG.  

I've never played the game, or even read the rules.  I have seen the "Say yes" design pattern discussed on a few different RPG design boards, and know it's been adopted by other indie games.

Going by Ron Edwards definition of indie, I don't think Nobilis counts.

Of course whether one gives a crap about Edwards's opinions is another matter entirely.

Great opening post, Stuart.  I think Pundit is right in his "smack dab in the middle" assessment insofar as I like games with both wargame and theatrical elements.  Nowadays I tend to stress the wargame part in online discussion simply because the pendulum has swung far the other way.

Quote from: StuartGuardians of Order is (was) based here in Guelph, Ontario.  GOO is (was) very much an indie company, and thus Nobilis an indie RPG.

The game has had three different publishers over the years, from Pharos Press to Hogshead Publishing to GoO. Actually, Guardians merely continued to reprint the Hogshead edition.

QuoteThe game has had three different publishers over the years, from Pharos Press to Hogshead Publishing to GoO. Actually, Guardians merely continued to reprint the Hogshead edition

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... Pharos Press and Hogshead Publishing sound like indie publishers.  They're not WOTC, White Wolf, or anything close to that level.

Let's try to keep the discussion on track -- it will be more useful for everyone.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure what you're trying to say... Pharos Press and Hogshead Publishing sound like indie publishers.  They're not WOTC, White Wolf, or anything close to that level.

Ah, so you are going by that definition of indie. Sure, then it qualifies.

Anyway, as I've said before, Nobilis is a rather traditional RPG at heart, especially when compared to various Forge games.

I actually do like Uncle Ron's definition of an indie RPG - one where the person writing the game and making the business decisions about it are the same person.  Thus Nobilis isn't an indie RPG, not the way My Life With Master of Dogs in the Vineyard is.