This week has seen some developments in RPG theory, from looking at older theory concepts to looking at the contractual aspects of game systems.
A Change in Status
Graham Walmsley discusses the utility of status changes in the construction of stories. He specifically offers this as the beginning of a series of articles on improvisation techniques for use in RPGs.
Rules as Contract
Rich Warren describes the difficulties that can arise from modifying system before or during play. Specifically he characterizes the way in which the game mechanics of a RPG can act as a contract among the players and the GM.
Unreconcilable Goals
Over at I would knife fight a man is a thread focusing on various unreconcilable goals that arise in RPGs. It starts with the "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" (which, curiously enough, is not something you should believe), described as the inability to have the GM author the story and the players control the protagonists. It also discusses the "Method Actor Trap" where a group of method actors all share a goal of a coherent story, but expect it to arise without any constraints on their characters.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Weekly Review August 12th to August 18th
Likely due to GenCon this has been a slow week in RPG theory.
Spotlight
Fang Langford considers a variant on the definition of system, namely how the spotlight is moved among players. This perspective suggests looking at niche protection and turn-taking as well as resolution mechanics to understand how a game works.
Game?
Over at Story Games is a discussion about when roleplaying is or is not a game. Like game discussions in the past this has produced a variety of ways to say what is a game, from common use (if you play it with someone, it is a game) to stricter constructive definitions.
Spotlight
Fang Langford considers a variant on the definition of system, namely how the spotlight is moved among players. This perspective suggests looking at niche protection and turn-taking as well as resolution mechanics to understand how a game works.
Game?
Over at Story Games is a discussion about when roleplaying is or is not a game. Like game discussions in the past this has produced a variety of ways to say what is a game, from common use (if you play it with someone, it is a game) to stricter constructive definitions.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Editorial: Words Have Power
In RPG theory, much like RPG design, we should be constantly aware that the words we use to describe and classify have a depth of meaning and a history of use beyond our particular use of them. The choice of what to call a new concept or how to rename an old one has consequences in how we use that concept and what connotations the concept will gain.
This is an important reason to engage with multiple theories and to examine ideas and concepts from multiple perspectives and approaches. It is very easy to become lost in the connotations of names when we should be exploring the meaning that lies beneath them.
One excellent object lesson in the power of naming in design and theory is the Brain Damage debate started by Ron Edwards in 2006. Specifically he observed specific story difficulties in long time players of Storyteller games, which we called Story Blindness in reporting it. Examining his claim of Brain Damage opens up several interesting places where naming had a surprising amount of influence.
First, is in Storyteller games themselves. Specifically, these games name the common role of GM, the Storyteller in the context of the game producing a story. While we often treat the choice of such words to be incidental, the subtle implication of Storyteller is that the GM role is the giver of story, while the players are thereceivers of it, an audience who, while involved does not participate in the same way. Consider if the GM has been called Narrator how different the implied dynamics would be, with players being the main characters, not the audience.
Thus the Storyteller dynamic sets up the presumption that the story is what the Storyteller gives you, regardless of the quality or pertinence. This is despite the presence of tools that could just as easily foster collaboration (such as explicit theme, mood, and motifs). It is reasonable to see the Storyteller mystique as a major root of the brain damage that Edwards identifies.
This makes it all the more interesting that Edwards' use of the phrase brain damage is such an excellent example of how words can influence our use of them in unintended ways. Few discussions of RPG theory have reached the level of polarization and venom that the brain damage debate entered. At the same time, the term puts a pressure on extracting from the discussion some consensus. How can such a consensus be reached without using our (quite possibly damaged) brains?
Consider, again the difference had the debate started with the term story difficulty or story blindness (as this reviewer used to attempt to express the ideas of both sides in a reasonable manner). Would the debate have focused less on the visceral feelings and more on an examination of the causes of what Edwards observed? Over a year later the debate has polarized itself into stagnation, with only a brave few seeking to explore it, despite how well known it may be.
It is more than reasonable to say that the games and hence the stories from those games will affect our own views of stories. Indeed, the words we use to describe the process we take in building a story can do so. Edwards believed that the Storyteller games do have this effect, but that it could be remedied (in some ways) by games with a different view of stories, those with a Narrativist (also known as Story Now) bent.
One of the critical concepts in Edwards' flagship design, Sorcerer, of this sort is something he calls a Bang. A bang is a moment of decision, a choice for the player characters to make. As a choice of words, bang has very different connotations than, say, choice. Not the least of these is a sense of urgency and violence.
As the term bang has become an important piece of Edwards' theory and its use beyond Sorcerer, it is important to ask does this term present a similar risk as Storyteller does? Do Story Now bangs risk a different kind of damage in understanding stories? These are difficult questions, but ones we must ask when accept that the words we use have power beyond how we intend to use them.
This is an important reason to engage with multiple theories and to examine ideas and concepts from multiple perspectives and approaches. It is very easy to become lost in the connotations of names when we should be exploring the meaning that lies beneath them.
One excellent object lesson in the power of naming in design and theory is the Brain Damage debate started by Ron Edwards in 2006. Specifically he observed specific story difficulties in long time players of Storyteller games, which we called Story Blindness in reporting it. Examining his claim of Brain Damage opens up several interesting places where naming had a surprising amount of influence.
First, is in Storyteller games themselves. Specifically, these games name the common role of GM, the Storyteller in the context of the game producing a story. While we often treat the choice of such words to be incidental, the subtle implication of Storyteller is that the GM role is the giver of story, while the players are thereceivers of it, an audience who, while involved does not participate in the same way. Consider if the GM has been called Narrator how different the implied dynamics would be, with players being the main characters, not the audience.
Thus the Storyteller dynamic sets up the presumption that the story is what the Storyteller gives you, regardless of the quality or pertinence. This is despite the presence of tools that could just as easily foster collaboration (such as explicit theme, mood, and motifs). It is reasonable to see the Storyteller mystique as a major root of the brain damage that Edwards identifies.
This makes it all the more interesting that Edwards' use of the phrase brain damage is such an excellent example of how words can influence our use of them in unintended ways. Few discussions of RPG theory have reached the level of polarization and venom that the brain damage debate entered. At the same time, the term puts a pressure on extracting from the discussion some consensus. How can such a consensus be reached without using our (quite possibly damaged) brains?
Consider, again the difference had the debate started with the term story difficulty or story blindness (as this reviewer used to attempt to express the ideas of both sides in a reasonable manner). Would the debate have focused less on the visceral feelings and more on an examination of the causes of what Edwards observed? Over a year later the debate has polarized itself into stagnation, with only a brave few seeking to explore it, despite how well known it may be.
It is more than reasonable to say that the games and hence the stories from those games will affect our own views of stories. Indeed, the words we use to describe the process we take in building a story can do so. Edwards believed that the Storyteller games do have this effect, but that it could be remedied (in some ways) by games with a different view of stories, those with a Narrativist (also known as Story Now) bent.
One of the critical concepts in Edwards' flagship design, Sorcerer, of this sort is something he calls a Bang. A bang is a moment of decision, a choice for the player characters to make. As a choice of words, bang has very different connotations than, say, choice. Not the least of these is a sense of urgency and violence.
As the term bang has become an important piece of Edwards' theory and its use beyond Sorcerer, it is important to ask does this term present a similar risk as Storyteller does? Do Story Now bangs risk a different kind of damage in understanding stories? These are difficult questions, but ones we must ask when accept that the words we use have power beyond how we intend to use them.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Weekly Review August 5th to August 11th
This week has seen several developments about communication in RPGs.
Signalling
Fang Langford describes how the different modes of communication work within RPGs, and how the differences between these modes are (often informally) signalled. He also discusses some ways of making the signalling more overt in design and play. Chris Chinn looks at signalling at another level, specifically that of determining the duration of a group game commitment. He suggests the more concretely this is understood the greater willingness players will have to take risks.
Distilling Fiction
Over at Story Games is a discussion on a possible purpose for story-focused game designs of recent years. Specifically, Brad Murray suggests that these designs are a dissection of a specific genre to be reconstructed in varied ways during play. He likens this to an experimental analysis of the genres in question.
Learning the Game
Mike Mearls talks about learning RPGs, relating the difficulty in making a text both a reference and a learning tool. He suggests that RPGs could benefit by playing as you learn approaches, especially those that do not sacrifice fun.
Signalling
Fang Langford describes how the different modes of communication work within RPGs, and how the differences between these modes are (often informally) signalled. He also discusses some ways of making the signalling more overt in design and play. Chris Chinn looks at signalling at another level, specifically that of determining the duration of a group game commitment. He suggests the more concretely this is understood the greater willingness players will have to take risks.
Distilling Fiction
Over at Story Games is a discussion on a possible purpose for story-focused game designs of recent years. Specifically, Brad Murray suggests that these designs are a dissection of a specific genre to be reconstructed in varied ways during play. He likens this to an experimental analysis of the genres in question.
Learning the Game
Mike Mearls talks about learning RPGs, relating the difficulty in making a text both a reference and a learning tool. He suggests that RPGs could benefit by playing as you learn approaches, especially those that do not sacrifice fun.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Monthly Review July 2007
This month has seen various discussions on and around the way that players balance their contributions in RPGs, especially when one of those players is the GM. Over at Story Games, Tony Lower-Basch describes how a GM provides the ingredients to the story crafted by the players. A similar idea is further explored by Rich Warren as he discusses the way traditional RPGs treat the control and influencing of characters.
Moving away from the control of specific players, Ashi brings up fanfiction-based roleplaying, and specifically the effect that canon on the authority of the players. Also at Story Games Joshua BishopRoby suggests looking at RPGs as the interplay of situation, character, and adversity. Specifically he traces the change in these areas that arises as a game progresses and the impact of player decisions becomes more pronounced.
Moving away from the control of specific players, Ashi brings up fanfiction-based roleplaying, and specifically the effect that canon on the authority of the players. Also at Story Games Joshua BishopRoby suggests looking at RPGs as the interplay of situation, character, and adversity. Specifically he traces the change in these areas that arises as a game progresses and the impact of player decisions becomes more pronounced.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Weekly Review July 29th to August 4th
This week has been somewhat slow, but still evidences some contributions to RPG theory.
Community of Discourse
Bradley "Brand" Robins describes his intentions at a series of RPG reviews, specifically to build a discourse on the critical analysis of existing RPGs. Referencing reviews in other areas, as well as inadequacies in present RPG reviewing, he hopes to set a bar for effective and constructive criticism.
Character Death and Worse
Rich Warren describes the importance of character loss to building tension and a sense of risk into a RPG. He contrasts this with the overtly known setting of stakes in conflicts, suggesting that unknown risks provide more tension and energy.
Community of Discourse
Bradley "Brand" Robins describes his intentions at a series of RPG reviews, specifically to build a discourse on the critical analysis of existing RPGs. Referencing reviews in other areas, as well as inadequacies in present RPG reviewing, he hopes to set a bar for effective and constructive criticism.
Character Death and Worse
Rich Warren describes the importance of character loss to building tension and a sense of risk into a RPG. He contrasts this with the overtly known setting of stakes in conflicts, suggesting that unknown risks provide more tension and energy.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Weekly Review July 22nd to July 28th
This week has seen discussion of the relationship of system and setting, as well as investigation of some boundaries of RPGs.
The Solo Fringe
Fang Langford describes some activities bordering on RPGs, but lacking the social component. Starting with social bluffing and other confidence artist type situations, he extends these to more social RPG-like activities, such as alternate reality games. Similarly he considers model building activities, such as model railroad as other ways of generating imagined spaces, shared or otherwise.
System and Setting
Over at RPGnet and Gamecraft are discussions of system and setting (and to a lesser extent, genre). The former surveys designers about how they approach system versus setting design. The later deals with focused design versus more generic views of system, culminating in attempts to describe how well a system fits a setting or genre.
The Solo Fringe
Fang Langford describes some activities bordering on RPGs, but lacking the social component. Starting with social bluffing and other confidence artist type situations, he extends these to more social RPG-like activities, such as alternate reality games. Similarly he considers model building activities, such as model railroad as other ways of generating imagined spaces, shared or otherwise.
System and Setting
Over at RPGnet and Gamecraft are discussions of system and setting (and to a lesser extent, genre). The former surveys designers about how they approach system versus setting design. The later deals with focused design versus more generic views of system, culminating in attempts to describe how well a system fits a setting or genre.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Lesson: Story
Story is one of the more contested terms in RPG theory. Much like game, it doesn't seem to have a precise meaning, so much as a general way in which it is used. Whether the events of a game count as a story or not can depend on the perspective of the players and observers. So, story is a term most often used informally, to get an idea across without specifics.
Where things get very messy is when we start talking about the quality of a story. Part of the reason for this is that while we can all have ideas of what stories are, and those ideas overlap fairly well, the same isn't true of the purpose or worth of a story. What instead appears is a large mix of different reasons to value stories, many of which have carved their own niche in RPG theory. Here are some examples:
stories are about fun - At first, this seems a simple perspective. But fun is hard to specify. Sad stories, silly stories, slow stories, and fast stories can all be fun, but often in different ways. This is empirical, people finding a story fun gives it value, but that is something of a popularity contest, and doesn't give much of a deeper understanding of how stories work.
stories are about conflicts - This view tends to build from the idea that stories have a basic formal structure. Thus, tensions rise and build to a climax based on some conflict, as the tension reaches its peak the conflict is resolved, and the story enters an aftermath. This structure can include smaller instances of itself, like a fractal, building small conflicts within bigger ones. This gives a precise road map of stories, but doesn't tell us much about how conflicts can work.
stories are about ideas - Another perspective is that stories are ways to express some idea, often a theme. Thus the quality of a story is two-fold. First, how well the story relates its theme, and the quality of that theme. One variant of this is that stories have a premise, in this case a moral or ethical question which is explored through the decisions of characters. This tells how stories can affect people, but borders on the didactic, downplaying the less purposeful aspects of stories.
Where things get very messy is when we start talking about the quality of a story. Part of the reason for this is that while we can all have ideas of what stories are, and those ideas overlap fairly well, the same isn't true of the purpose or worth of a story. What instead appears is a large mix of different reasons to value stories, many of which have carved their own niche in RPG theory. Here are some examples:
stories are about fun - At first, this seems a simple perspective. But fun is hard to specify. Sad stories, silly stories, slow stories, and fast stories can all be fun, but often in different ways. This is empirical, people finding a story fun gives it value, but that is something of a popularity contest, and doesn't give much of a deeper understanding of how stories work.
stories are about conflicts - This view tends to build from the idea that stories have a basic formal structure. Thus, tensions rise and build to a climax based on some conflict, as the tension reaches its peak the conflict is resolved, and the story enters an aftermath. This structure can include smaller instances of itself, like a fractal, building small conflicts within bigger ones. This gives a precise road map of stories, but doesn't tell us much about how conflicts can work.
stories are about ideas - Another perspective is that stories are ways to express some idea, often a theme. Thus the quality of a story is two-fold. First, how well the story relates its theme, and the quality of that theme. One variant of this is that stories have a premise, in this case a moral or ethical question which is explored through the decisions of characters. This tells how stories can affect people, but borders on the didactic, downplaying the less purposeful aspects of stories.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Weekly Review July 16th to July 22nd
This week has been comparatively slow in RPG theory developments.
Introductions
Nathan Paoletta outlines an introduction to roleplaying, including such topics as forming or finding a group, choosing a RPG, and deciding between short or long form play. He specifically focuses on the social element around RPGs, not simply the activity itself.
Situation, Character, and Adversity
Over at Story Games, Joshua BishopRoby describes a novel way to examine the broad structure of play. He suggests three aspects which are introduced by players (including the GM) over the course of a RPG: player resources (character), counter-player resources (adversity), and situations ripe for conflict. He suggests that many games can be examined based on the order in how these elements are introduced. Even more, the changes in the order could also be telling, such as in how the characters are created last at the start of a long-term game, but are retained as new situations and adversities occur.
Introductions
Nathan Paoletta outlines an introduction to roleplaying, including such topics as forming or finding a group, choosing a RPG, and deciding between short or long form play. He specifically focuses on the social element around RPGs, not simply the activity itself.
Situation, Character, and Adversity
Over at Story Games, Joshua BishopRoby describes a novel way to examine the broad structure of play. He suggests three aspects which are introduced by players (including the GM) over the course of a RPG: player resources (character), counter-player resources (adversity), and situations ripe for conflict. He suggests that many games can be examined based on the order in how these elements are introduced. Even more, the changes in the order could also be telling, such as in how the characters are created last at the start of a long-term game, but are retained as new situations and adversities occur.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Editorial: Goals
Like playing and designing RPGs, it helps a great deal to have an idea of what your goals are then theorizing about RPGs. Without knowing your goals, you can't evaluate the directions you are taking, or determine when you have achieved something of worth. Also, like playing anddesigning, theorizing has a variety of possible goals.
On one hand, a practical direction of theory focuses on your needs of play or design. Whether you theorize for the purposes of making your own play more enjoyable, helping others enhance their play, or to better design new RPGs, the ultimate measure is your success. Just like any strategy, you must be weigh the costs and benefits of your theory.
Alternatively you may have a goal of curiosity and understanding. If so you'd have a compulsion to learn and delve into the unknown around a subject you already have interests within, namely RPGs . Thus the quality of your work is based on how it reveals and clarifies the subject, rather than some more specific applications.
Sometimes the goals come from other places, an interest motivated by other fields. If you want to understand small group interactions, RPGs are one rich area to tap. Likewise, if you study games as a broad category, RPGs likewise present a valuable resource.
The more honest you are about your goals, the more clearly you can evaluate your work, and how useful the work of others is in aiding you. One of the risks of theorizing is that our purposes drift, causing us to lose sight of why we are trying to understand RPGs. When this happens we find ourselves lost in a forest of ideas, only with care can we find again a path we wish to follow.
On one hand, a practical direction of theory focuses on your needs of play or design. Whether you theorize for the purposes of making your own play more enjoyable, helping others enhance their play, or to better design new RPGs, the ultimate measure is your success. Just like any strategy, you must be weigh the costs and benefits of your theory.
Alternatively you may have a goal of curiosity and understanding. If so you'd have a compulsion to learn and delve into the unknown around a subject you already have interests within, namely RPGs . Thus the quality of your work is based on how it reveals and clarifies the subject, rather than some more specific applications.
Sometimes the goals come from other places, an interest motivated by other fields. If you want to understand small group interactions, RPGs are one rich area to tap. Likewise, if you study games as a broad category, RPGs likewise present a valuable resource.
The more honest you are about your goals, the more clearly you can evaluate your work, and how useful the work of others is in aiding you. One of the risks of theorizing is that our purposes drift, causing us to lose sight of why we are trying to understand RPGs. When this happens we find ourselves lost in a forest of ideas, only with care can we find again a path we wish to follow.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Weekly Review July 8th to July 15th
A variety of theory developments were made this week, from examining fanfiction to a further attempts to extract the uniqueness of RPGs.
Perceiving Story
Guy Shalev discusses the relationship between stories and games. He argues that stories are after-the-fact perceptions of the events and fictions of play. He describes play as a scaffolding which can be perceived as a story in different ways.
Extracting from the Boundary
Fang Langford returns to his earlier exploration of the periphery of RPGs. Listing out the many games and activities he and others put together he suggests some regularities: "live (even asynchronous) participation of more than one individual", "at least some fictional content that can be affected", and "explicit or implicit rituals that guide or limit". Expanding from these he proposes some ways of looking at the necessary dynamics of the broad class of things in and about RPGs.
Fanfiction
Ashi discusses fanfiction, specifically interactive fan roleplaying using internet lists and blogging software. She describes how the software structure provides elements of system which in face-to-face play requires conscious management. Beyond this, she describes how the rules of the fiction (related to writing exercises and the like) as well as the importance of keeping to canon influence the authority of the contributors as they play.
Character, Control and Change
Rich Warren discusses how traditional games treat the control and influencing of characters. He describes the balance between affecting a character by threats and opportunities, and wholesale control such as fictional mind-control. He examines these from two directions, the immediate control of the character, and the longer term changes in the character.
Perceiving Story
Guy Shalev discusses the relationship between stories and games. He argues that stories are after-the-fact perceptions of the events and fictions of play. He describes play as a scaffolding which can be perceived as a story in different ways.
Extracting from the Boundary
Fang Langford returns to his earlier exploration of the periphery of RPGs. Listing out the many games and activities he and others put together he suggests some regularities: "live (even asynchronous) participation of more than one individual", "at least some fictional content that can be affected", and "explicit or implicit rituals that guide or limit". Expanding from these he proposes some ways of looking at the necessary dynamics of the broad class of things in and about RPGs.
Fanfiction
Ashi discusses fanfiction, specifically interactive fan roleplaying using internet lists and blogging software. She describes how the software structure provides elements of system which in face-to-face play requires conscious management. Beyond this, she describes how the rules of the fiction (related to writing exercises and the like) as well as the importance of keeping to canon influence the authority of the contributors as they play.
Character, Control and Change
Rich Warren discusses how traditional games treat the control and influencing of characters. He describes the balance between affecting a character by threats and opportunities, and wholesale control such as fictional mind-control. He examines these from two directions, the immediate control of the character, and the longer term changes in the character.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Weekly Review July 1st to July 7th
Several discussions of theoretical import for RPGs occurred this week.
Ingredients and the GM
Over at Story Games, Tony Lower-Basch began a thread on the GM influence of RPG stories. Specifically he offered the idea of the GM as provider of ingredients for the players to use to build the story. While this constrains them, it doesn't proscribe the players from making important creative decisions.
Culture and Endangerment
Jonathon Walton relates a discussion about cultures as depicted by outsiders versus insiders, specifically relating to the portrayal of cultures within RPGs. He follows this by quoting Shreyas Sampat who describes how the portrayal of a culture represents a potential danger to people in that culture, and so an outsider must prove their intentions, as they are not at risk.
Ingredients and the GM
Over at Story Games, Tony Lower-Basch began a thread on the GM influence of RPG stories. Specifically he offered the idea of the GM as provider of ingredients for the players to use to build the story. While this constrains them, it doesn't proscribe the players from making important creative decisions.
Culture and Endangerment
Jonathon Walton relates a discussion about cultures as depicted by outsiders versus insiders, specifically relating to the portrayal of cultures within RPGs. He follows this by quoting Shreyas Sampat who describes how the portrayal of a culture represents a potential danger to people in that culture, and so an outsider must prove their intentions, as they are not at risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)