RPGaDay 2019: Part 2 (Days 8-14)

Here's seven more responses to this year's RPGaDay labyrinth...

8. Obscure
Roleplaying isn't a mainstream hobby. Yes, it's gaining popularity, but in comparison to sports, music, or movies, it's not a common hobby at all. The major players in the roleplaying "industry" are Wizards of the Coast with "Dungeons and Dragons", then maybe Paizo with "Pathfinder", and Chaosium with "Call of Cthulhu" or Fantasy Flight Games with their assorted licensed products. There are a few other big companies, but in the grand scheme of things, these companies would be considered no bigger than small businesses in most industries. When the larger elements of our hobby are tiny compared to the juggernauts of consumerism, it's hardly surprising that the rest of us wallow in obscurity. 

Of course, obscurity isn't entirely a bad thing. On the positive side, creativity can flourish outside of the public eye... a hundred designers can develop a thousand ideas, each laser focused on a specific goal. On the negative side, a hundred (or more) obscure designers all struggle to get their creativity seen by the right audience across the wider world who will appreciate their ideas. 

9. Critical
I suspect that when most people submitting posts saw this one, the first idea that came to mind was the "critical hit" or the "critical success". For me, the first idea was the duality of critical acclaim, and simple criticism. In recent years we've seen armies of critical trolls trying to take down games they don't like, and more recently we've seen that these "armies" often tend to be a few sad, lone individuals with multiple accounts and too much time on their hands. We've similarly seen gushing adoration of fans, which has similarly been exposed (often as the same misogynistic trolls responsibe for the hate). Being cynical has made me critical of almost everything. I don't take things at face value, I'm always trying to look beyond the surface to see how things work, to see who is saying what, and why certain things have been presented the way they are. 
    
I'm critical of award ceremonies, where the same group of people are nominated for bringing innovations to the world that other designers have pioneered before them. I'm critical of the "big names" in the industry who only seem to be famous for being famous. Yes, I stated in the previous part of the post that there are some great artists among the designers in our field, but there seem to be just as many charlatans and controversy seekers who generally do the hobby a disservice (especially when they are taking awards and publicity from far more deserving souls).  
    
10. Focus
I try to focus my game designs in some way. Many of the designers I respect do the same. I guess it follows the same general principals as cooking. If you narrow the ingredients and the flavours to a specific palate, you can ensure the right elements mix with one another to give a good experience. Converesely, if you add anything and everything into the pot... you might end up with conflictng flavours trying to compete with one another, or you might end up with toxic sludge. Either way you'll probaby end up with something that's just not right.

A focus might limit the types of actions characters can do in a game (consider 3:16 with its actions revolving around war and conflict), it might limit the types of characters present in the narrative (consider the character choices in Blades in the Dark , or Monsterhearts), it might limit the type of narrative (consider Call of Cthulhu), or it may have some other way of limiting the scope. Some games have a fairly wide scope, others are very limited in what they are designed to do. Personally, I find games that are too focused a bit constricting (they might be good for a one-shot, but don't do much for me beyond that), while games that are too loose get very wishy-washy after a few sessions (these are the types of games that benefit from a good GM who applies their own focus to the proceedings).  

11. Examine
I like to examine games, to pick them apart and see how they are meant to work. This isn't always successful because there is an essentially human element to the proceedings of an RPG. There have been plenty of examinations of roleplaying games, including several here on this blog, and numerous others by analysts and critics better than me. 

One of the biggest problems in our hobby isn't the analysis and examination, its the fact that most players don't bother to exaine what's out there. They'll play the first game they're introduced to (and that's often D&D), then they'll not bother straying any further because they think that game constitutes the entirety of roleplaying.    

12. Friendship
Some of my strongest friends have come from roleplaying, but I find the mechanisms of play regarding friendship and social development sorely lacking in most games. This is something I wanted to overcome in my current project Walkabout, and something that is getting refined in my side project Familiar. Friendship isn't a binary (are they a friend or not?), it's more of a continuum (are they an acquaintance, a loose friend, a close friend, someone my life is meaningless without?). There's even more to it than this. Degrees of trust can add an extra axis to a measure of friendship (I like them, but I don't trust them... they're a loose acquaintance, but I know that stand by their word... etc.) I could probably define a dozen different ways to define the nature of a friendship, and apply them in a complex matrix that boils down to specific modifers in specific situations. Then find that nobody uses it because it's too complicated.

The path most games seem to take is to embrace the fruitful void. Don't worry about mechanisms at all and just run with the way that feels right to the narrative at the time. That just feels like a cop out from people who don't examine what's out there.

13. Mystery
I've only seen a few games that handle the concept of mystery well. I was going to start looking at a few of those during the "Examine" stage, but then saw this entry and figured it would be better to talk about here. 

One of my Holy Grails for many years was a game that allowed GM and players to collaboratively work toward unravelling a mystery. Too many times I've been in games where the GM as all the answers, and there is a set order of proceedings to uncover the truth... and in too many of those games, a lack of a certain skill, a bad choice, or a bad die roll has left everyone unsatisfied because the mystery was unable to be unravelled according to the specific program of events. I think I reached my goal in The Law (and it is further detailed in The Dispatch Guide). The basic premise is that the story is divided into acts...

Act 1 - Describing the setting of the story
Act 2 - Creating as any hooks as possible for characters to pursue
Act 3 - Culling as many hooks as possible until there are only a few to follow (or even just one)
Act 4 - Following the final hooks to their conclusion and facing the final obstacle
Act 5 - Dealing with the fallout

Under this system, no one knows what the potential hooks may be until they are brought into play, and everyone may bring them into play. Everyone gets to choose which hooks they feel are most interesting for their characters to pursue, and which ones might make the most sense, or most dramatic impact in the story. Then the collective group of players, under the guidance of the GM, resolves them all together into a single narrative, or leaves loose ends to be pursed in future sessions. 

A few of the better investigation scenarios I've played in over the years have basically followed this kind of structure in an informal manner. I just decided it was about time to formally integrate it into a rule system.   

14. Guide
In many of my recent games, the role of the "Dungeon Master", "Game Master", or "Referee" has been referred to as the Oracle or Guide. This has been a deliberate choice based on my preferred style of play. I don't think a single player should be responsible for all of the narrative, simple dragging everyone through in a tension between their predefined story and the arbitrary results of the dice, where the players are the rope between the two ends. I prefer to think of that player as a person who opens the eyes of the players by descriing what their characters see in the world, and letting them roam free while encountering obstacles that may have been predetermined, or may have evolved through the actions of the player characters. The guide isn't there to limit the choices of the characters, but to ensure that the choices made have logical consequences based on the story so far (including the elements of the story that might not have been encountered yet by the protagonists). The Guide adds richness to the world, they don't necessarily choose from among the suggestions of the other players to determine which path might be most interesting for the group to take, they instead combine the suggestions of the players with the predefined world and try to remain a step or two ahead of the characters to show them what has unflded as a result of the choices they have made.

It's a delicate art, requiring quite a bit of practice, and I've seen many novice (and experienced) GMs stuff it up.   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Guide to Geomorphs (Part 7)