Let’s kick things off with a bang and dive right into the flawed origin of RPGs. The inspiration for this piece comes from Mu’s Unbelievably Long and Disjointed Ramblings About RPG Design and the concept he calls “The Grandfather Clause of Stupidity.”
One of the flaws underpinning many RPG systems is the underlying assumptions that motivate them. To be precise, RPGs as we know them today came from the original Dungeons & Dragons, which itself came from Chainmail. Chainmail was not an RPG; it was a miniatures wargame. As such, many of the operative underpinnings that form the basis for D&D, which in turn formed the body of expectations for its offspring, come not from an ideal solution for role-playing, but for war-gaming.
The quickest way to demonstrate this is to open the index of the D&D Player’s Handbook. Do you see an entire chapter devoted to combat? I do. By making combat the focus of an RPG system, the designers of D&D — and this applies to any edition — have put forward a system the intent of which is to place a fantasy world dressing around a miniatures combat game. If that’s the goal, that’s great. However, if we step back and look at the broad genre that is role-playing games, we see a great deal of dressed-up, miniatures combat games.
I’m not knocking miniatures combat games, nor am I knocking the idea of combat in an RPG. I get into a good combat encounter as much as the next person. I think it’s worth raising the awareness of this “genetic trait” of RPGs, though. A quote I’ve seen attributed to John Wick (7th Sea, Legend of the Five Rings, Orkworld) says, “All RPGs have a grand total of two mechanics: swinging a sword and picking a lock.” While I doubt the veracity of this attribution (since I’ve seen it in only one location), I think it’s a succinct way of encapsulating the flawed box in which RPG design thinking often takes place.
I define RPGs by a break-down of terms: a game in which one role-plays. One can read many possible interpretations into that. For my money, it’s a game in which the participants derive enjoyment from the portrayal of a role — a character. Absent from that definition is any mention of rolling dice, swinging swords, killing monsters, and many of the other conventions that are common in RPGs. I’m not suggesting that I don’t enjoy such things, but they are not what the reason for which I’ve come to your table.
So far, the only system I’ve encountered played that gets away from the idea of RPG-as-wargame is White Wolf’s Storytelling system. While it does have mechanics for handling combat — for which I do think RPG systems need to account in some fashion — there’s little room to argue where the focus lies: story, mood, and character. Storytelling is by no means a flawless system. An unprepared GM could find himself dealing with a party of munchkin characters if he’s not careful. Such characters, though, defeat the purpose of Storytelling and so one might wonder if such a group would be better off playing D&D.
EDIT: While I never stated it in the above, one of the unspoken assumptions in the preceding paragraph is that the core World of Darkness book did not have its own combat chapter. Imagine my chagrin when I realized it did, in fact, have one. Plain-as-day. So, I apologize for any presumption that I may have appeared to make in that regard. (Yes, I can be wrong. When I am, I will admit as much. This minor revelation does not alter in any significant way the above post, though.)
Ok, you really, really, REALLY, need to come to my Wednesday night game club. Like seriously, if storyteller is the best you’ve seen you need to come. I can list like a half a dozen games (Lacuna, PTA, Dust devils, Geiger counter, Dogs in the vineyard, Don’t rest your head) that do what you like, and do more of it than white wolf. Storyteller system is what you get when you cross D&D with story games, and if you don’t really like the D&D bit, then drop it and just play story games.
Edited comment to use blockquotes. -McC
Most of the games you cite are not, at first blush, very different from Storytelling. The biggest difference most of the systems you cited can claim is the use of cards or some randomizer other than dice. That doesn’t make them different. Further, I think you have gone too far in over-simplifying. The RPG market is not “D&D” or “story games,” and declaring that Storytelling is some kind of bastard child of those two non-categories suggests to me either naiveté or strong personal bias. Given our past discussions wherein D&D and Storytelling are involved, I’m inclined to believe the latter.
I think you missed the point of the post, though. The family tree of the modern RPG makes an inexorable return to Chainmail at some point. This is as true of Dogs in the Vineyard as it is of Storytelling as it is of D&D. Think of it like inherited genetics. Some of those systems express the Chainmail genetics in ways that are easy to see (D&D), while others drift away from them.
The point here isn’t to sing the praises of Storytelling, or any of the myriad award-winning Indie RPG games you mention, nor is it to knock D&D. It’s to raise awareness of the fact that a lot of paradigms we take for granted in RPGs may in fact no longer serve the purpose for which they were meant. To continue using the genetic metaphor, I think it’s worth getting selective with how we breed them, assuming we don’t breed them out altogether.
As an aside, most of the Indie RPGs you mention have appeared on my radar from time to time. After some investigation, few of them did anything to capture my interest.
No it isn’t… Only two of those six systems use cards, and believe me that is FAR from the biggest difference even in those systems. What you have said is just blatantly untrue, and its pretty apparent if you have played both.
I got the point of the post, and I knew just about all of the facts you stated before this. I agree that many games do descend from chainmail, and retain a number of traits from it that are not needed for role-playing. I disagree in saying that ALL role-playing games inexorably return to it in some sense. In my experience this is not at all true.
I believe that many games if not all major or award winning games have done what you have suggested to some extent. Games like PTA went the path you prescribed, while games like D&D saw what you have said, but very purposefully went the other direction. Why breed out a trait if certain people still think its good?
Edited the comment to use blockquotes. -McC
PTA uses playing cards. Dust Devils at the very least appears to be card-oriented, based on their character sheets. Dogs in the Vineyard mimics poker-style play, using dice. I don’t have enough information about Lacuna, Geiger Counter, or Don’t Rest Your Head and am quite willing to hear more about them. So, of my original statement, change “most” to “many” and the statement holds. This is quite removed from the “blatantly untrue” appellation you chose.
I also did not say that all systems make an inexorable return to Chainmail; I said that all role-playing games have it as a common ancestor. D&D1e is a more accurate common ancestor, since it was the first actual role-playing game, so far as I know. Unless you can find a precedent to counter this claim, I stand by it.
Many smaller games have indeed abandoned the wargame-oriented origins. That’s admirable, and I’m pleased to see it. To use the term “major” is ridiculous, though; you’ll have a tough time selling the idea that there are any “major” RPGs, other than D&D itself. While D&D remains the RPG, this will remain a problem.
Further, you seem to be ascribing to me something different than what I’m saying. PTA sounds somewhat dull to me, to be honest. The active embracing of a system as a TV show breaks immersion for me in a way that D&D and its classes and levels never could. PTA, indeed, has the same problem D&D does, except worse: it’s mimicking something that it isn’t. D&D is trying to mimick miniature wargaming, when it claims to be a role-playing game. PTA is trying to mimick TV shows, when it claims to be a role-playing game. But what is a role-playing game when it’s not mimicking something else? That’s the question I think some game designers aren’t answering.
As to whether or not one should breed out the trait, that’s a matter of opinion. If I think brown horses are hideous, and you think they’re beautiful, I’m not going to breed brown horses, while you’re going to breed a lot. Who’s right? At the end of the day, the person who’s right is the one who enjoys their game. That’s what this hobby, like any other, is about: having fun. How you get there is up to you. For me, D&D-style gamism, or PTA-style genre emulationism isn’t it.
I didn’t say it was blatantly untrue that the games didn’t use cards, or emulate poker. I said it was blatantly untrue that that was the biggest difference in the systems.
Ah, yes misread.
I would absolutely say there are. This is of course a matter of opinion, but I’ve always thought of White wolf games, D&D, Exhaulted and Rifts as major.
You change maybe 2 dozen or so words in the terminology and you no longer have a game based on being a TV show. You just have an insanely adaptable RPG meant to have zero mechanical simulationism or gamism, which sounds like your ideal.
Edited the post to make it clear what was quoted and what was response. -McC
Fair enough. I don’t have enough information to respond, so I will cede the argument on this point until I do.
I’m not sure I agree on Exalted or Rifts. I’d replace them with GURPS, if anything.
That said, those are major RPGs in the terms of the RPG market itself. In terms of broad, public perception, D&D is synonymous with RPGs. A few people might recognize White Wolf / Vampire / World of Darkness. Knowledge of Indie RPGs tends to be restricted to those who are in the hobby, have tried the staples, and now want something different. It’s a niche, and in economic terms it’s a tiny one.
As we discussed yesterday, I have a dualistic ideal: two halves at war. On the one hand, I am a big fan of narrativism; players and GMs should try to craft the experience to tell a story, set a tone, and in general facilitate what’s interesting. On the other hand, I love having mechanics mediate this process, and so am a simulationist, as well. Just as reality abides by a system of mechanics, so too should the game world. These two ideologies are in constant conflict for me. As a compromise, I accept some middle ground between the two, with the precise spot changing from game to game.