---
A little over a year ago, I started blogging on my first blog. The one for my game called Synapse. Since then, I have read an enormous deal about RPGs, more so than I have in my entire life preceding March 2010, and I have engaged in a number of arguments, some heated and some civil. It has certainly been an interesting ride and I intend to stay in the saddle for as long as I can.
The Three Styles
In the course of this year, I have seen a huge range of opinions on how an RPG should be organized. However, I think these can be grouped into three rough categories which I will refer to as Styles; classic, strategic, and story games. Note that I said rough categories, of course there are going to be outliers to these groupings.
Classic Games:
These are typically games made in the very beginning of RPGs and it must be noted, the most successful at mainstream culture penetration. The defining feature of this style is heavy reliance upon RANDOMNESS to determine how the game develops. Character creation is dependent upon high randomness with the potential for extreme highs and lows (ex. 3d6 in order) and most of the decisions tied back to that randomness (ex. class pre-requisites). When the game begins, there is a strong random element to overland travel, dungeon exploration, and treasure (and therefore advancement). These games make extensive use to tables to determine outcomes.
Since the game is random, neither the GM or the Players can truly control how it develops. The GM and the Players can attempt to shape how things develop, for example the GM designs the dungeon and the players choose what order to open doors, but the outcomes are highly random.
Strategic Games:
These games emerged from 2nd and 3rd edition D&D and expanded out with the D20 license into a variety of other genres. The defining feature of this style is heavy reliance upon STRATEGIC CHOICE to determine how the game develops. Character creation involves extensive choice (feats, powers, abilities, etc) laid on top of a robust core system that gives few poor scores (4d6, drop the lowest, place as desired). There is a strong GM emphasis on laying out exactly how things are in the world. Dungeons are stocked ahead of time with level-appropriate monsters. Villains have plans, escape routes, etc. Since the game is highly structured, the gameplay develops in a predictable way. However, this style requires extensive work on the part of the GM.
This was the style that was adopted by video games when they created CRPGs.
Story Games:
These games really began to rise to popularity with White Wolf's triad of games; Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage. It dominates the independent gaming scene and has a lot more ink on paper than many realize. The success of FATE has been essential in moving the independent elements of this design wing into FLGS locations. The defining feature of this style is heavy reliance on PLAYER WILL to determine how the game develops. Character creation tends to be fairly simple and provides hooks upon which the player can attach their own goals and objectives. These games tend to have a minimal mechanical basis and are instead heavily reliant on simply the will of the player. If you want something to happen, it can happen. Many of these games significantly curtail GM powers and place large creation responsibilities in the hands of players. There are even GM-less games where everyone is responsible for creation.
Where Did All the Players Go?
There has been extensive talk in the community about RPGs dying. We have hemorraged players for the past decade. Why?
The obvious scapegoat is video games, but let me present a slightly more nuanced analysis than that. Due to design decisions at WotC and the rise of the D20 license, a huge number of people came to see RPGs purely as Strategic style games. When CRPGs took off, these people saw the computer as a BETTER GM than the one they had at the table. So they jumped ship and started playing CRPGs instead.
I don't believe those players are coming back, unless we change what people think about RPGs.
I think we might need a 4th style. Each of the three styles that exist have deep flaws that prevent mass-marketability.
Weaknesses of the Classic Style:
This style requires an emphasis on "grind". It is hard to create an actual storyline out of randomness. So instead, you have people clearing land one hex at a time or clearing a dungeon one room at a time. CRPGs do dungeon exploration REALLY well. As much as individuals might like it, it does not have mass-market appeal.
Weaknesses of the Strategic Style:
This style requires too much of the GM. There are really great GMs out there, but we cannot design the game assuming that the GM will be a virtuouso. Additionally, these games are way too complex for a new person to master. For better or worse, kids today are not as willing to read a huge book of rules and learn them all. They just aren't.
Weaknesses of the Story Style:
This style requires too much of the Players. There are some really great players out there, but we cannot design the game assuming that the players will be virtuousos. This is a perfect mirror of the strategic weakness. In fact, most of the complaints against this style that I have read on the web focus on this aspect, that the players don't want to have to make everything up. They don't all want narrative power. Some people just want to show up and drink beer and not read the rules (as Zak has mentioned in the past on his blog).
The Challenge
How can we take the best ideas from these three styles and build a fourth?
I don't have an answer..... yet.
Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment