For the Story's Sake

There's this pernicious misconception that's been around for a while and which has always kind of bugged me. A few threads on Story Games recently have brought that misconception out into the open, and crystallised my thoughts on the issue.

The misconception I'm talking about is the idea that Story Now play is about doing "what's best for the story". The idea goes something like this:

Simulationists are all about "what's realistic?" or "what fits with the genre"
and Gamists are all "what will make me win?", Narrativists are always asking
"what's best for the story?"

Now aside from the stupid idea that creative agendas are a label you can stick on people, what's dumb about this is the fact that asking "what's best for the story?" is completely, directly, and unambiguously the opposite of Story Now play. Play in which the players are focused on creating a "good story" as the point of play is directly incompatible with Story Now play.

That seems kind of counter intuitive.

But it's not! The whole deal with Story Now play is that no one, not the GM, not the players, not anyone, knows what the story you're creating is going to be about, how it will eventually resolve the premise (if it does), and whether the story will eventually have a happy ending or a sad one. All this shit is up in the air. We don't even really know much about the genre of the story we're telling (There's a whole digression here about how genres are things that are retroactively applied to creative works, rather than a formula to be emulated, unless you're doing pastiche).

In Story Now play, it's impossible to know what will make the story "good".

So no one gets to say what the story is about, until it's done, until it comes out in play. If we knew what would make the story "good" we wouldn't be exploring a premise, we'd be emulating a genre. And yeah, sometimes that means that the story is going to suck a little. There'll be times when everyone will wish that the NPC hadn't got his head shot off, or that the dice had come down some other way, but we stick with how it happened in the fiction, because that's the contract we all made with each other when we started playing. We agreed that we'd see this thing through to the end, play by the rules, and live with it.

A "good story" is a shield for players to hide behind when they don't want the responsibility of making a statement in play. My character in Dogs doesn't slap a young woman NPC because I've decided that would titillate the other players. He does it because I'm saying right now that that's how he rolls. He's a guy who will slap a woman right in the face, and you have to deal with that. I'm judging him in my own mind, thinking "Fuck me, this guy is an ass", but I'm also thinking "I can't be honest to who this character is and not have this come out in play". And when the other players' characters judge mine, and find that he's not good enough to be a Dog, I agree with them. But it's not just something I thought would be "cool" in the moment. It was me saying "Here's a guy who, given this power over other people, thinks he's got the right to slap a woman in the face". And the other players are saying "Here are some people, given the same power, who won't cross that line."

It's us, the players, having a conversation about morality and power and the right to judge, and we're doing it through the medium of the game, and it's only possible because we stand behind our portrayals of the characters, and we don't let some idea about what's "good for the story" get in the way of that.

My character in Dogs, Michael, decided to stop being a Dog in our game last Thursday. It was tough, surprising for a lot of players, and the first real sign of the wear that the job is having on the Dogs' faith. Michael struggled to overcome his weakness, but he couldn't do it, and he knew it. He asked another Dog for help, and she told him she didn't think he was good enough either. It was harsh, and awesome. And none of us ever caved to what was "best for the story". There were panicked looks about the table as we discovered what was at stake in the conflict. I think Malcolm and Steve were worried that we'd somehow gone too far, that we should pull it back somehow. But we stayed on course. We saw it through to the end. And it was good.

Dogs Interview

I don't normally listen to podcasts, mostly because I don't have time, but I've been home sick with the Bacon Fever the last few days, so I gave a few a listen.

Since we're playing Dogs at the moment, I checked out this interview by "ninjas vs pirates" with Vincent regarding Dogs.

I was impressed with the interview. They'd clearly done their homework, because they asked a bunch of questions that had popped up in Story Games threads from the previous couple of weeks. Vincent was cogent as always (is it just my New Zealand ear, or does he sound just like Adam from Mythbusters?). I think what I found most interesting was how they asked about specific mechanics, and how that contributed to the way the game plays. That was interesting from the perspective of playing Dogs, and from the perspective of designing games.

For my own play of Dogs, the question about "what's at stake" in conflicts was the most relevant. In our last game, we'd had a conflict where it took us a long time to figure out exactly what was at stake. I think we came to the right conclusion in the end, but some of the advice in the interview would have helped.

I'm definitely going to check out part two of the interview.

"Roleplaying" in RPGs

I've been having a frustrating couple of weeks with Story Games. It seems like the interesting threads with good topics get ignored, while bickering and inane banter just piles up the comments. I guess I'm mostly frustrated because I feel like I've made some interesting comments which haven't had any kind of useful response. So in other words, I'm feeling whiny because I haven't been getting enough attention.

Rob Bohl started an interesting thread about encountering players for whom "roleplaying" was an undesirable impediment to the process of playing roleplaying games. The thread (and my comments in it) didn't get the attention I think it deserved, so I'm blogging about it here.

This is largely a semantic issue, which usually means it's boring and pointless, but I thought it was a good opportunity to expand on a thought that had been percolating in the back of my mind for a while.

I think that "roleplaying", in the sense that the gamer Rob is talking about means it, is best described as a set of techniques. An (incomplete) list of these techniques would look something like this:

• Saying aloud what your character says
• Thinking about and describing "what your character would do"
• Having your character interact socially with other characters in the fiction
• Describing non-essential information about what your character does

These techniques are often very important to people's experience of roleplaying games, to the point that games that don't support these techniques are often described as "not roleplaying games".

Defining what a roleplaying game is is a notoriously difficult subject, because, I think, there's no clear consensus on which techniques are essential to defining a game as such. For example, there are a large number of techniques that are employed in "traditional" RPGs but not in some newer games, leading some people to lable those new games "not RPGs". Some of these techniques include:

• Each player controlling one in-game "piece"
• Increasing in-game effectiveness
• Mechanics for simulating violence
• A "GM" or similar

I think most people likely to be reading this would agree that none of those techniques are essential to a roleplaying game. I'd like to argue, therefore, that the techniques from the first list are not essential either. They're all techniques that are commonly associated with RPGs, but none of them alone make or break the definition.

So are there any techniques that are essential to something being an RPG or not? The best I can come up with is the idea of a shared imagined space.

"Shared Imagined Space" is the idea that the players all contribute to a shared understanding of what is happening in a fictional space. In short, it's players describing fictional stuff about what's happening in the game, and the other players all agreeing that yes, that is happening.

But Shared Imagined Space itself doesn't make an RPG, right? Otherwise you could describe stuff happening in your game of Monopoly, like "oh, the hat and the iron are getting married" or whatever, and make it an RPG. Some people play a lot of games like this (especially games like "Bang!" and "Lunch Money"), but I don't think that makes them RPGs.

Or maybe it does. I don't know, but it doesn't sit easy with me, mostly because I hate playing games like this.

So another way to think about it, that gets around that problem, is to define RPGs by the use of the technique of Shared Imagined Space with impact on the mechanics of the game.

In other words, you describe stuff, and what you describe has an impact on how the rules of the game work. Purely based on judgements about the fictional content of the game, you make decisions about how to impliment the rules of the game.

That's a pretty controversial definition though. It excludes some indie favourites like "Contenders", and nearly excludes "My Life With Master", and I would argue (based on my previous post) that it comes close to excluding D&D4E as well.

So it's close, but not quite right. It's floating around in there though. It's something about how the Shared Imagined Space impacts on the game, or on the decisions that the players make.

In the end though, I don't think it's a very useful thing to have a definition of what is, or is not, an RPG. I think it's more useful to look at the whole list of techniques I described above, and look at a game as having more or less "RPG qualities". That's a useful definition I think, because it frees up thinking about designing and playing games. There is no technique that is "essential" to an RPG, and there is no technique that is forbidden. Not all RPGs use the same techniques, and when you play an RPG, it is useful to be aware of the techniques it supports.

Gaming and Hierarchy

This post on Chris's blog that links to this post about sexism and violence as "stress release" in RPGs got me thinking about hierarchy in gaming groups and how there are some issues that are kind of "third rails" in discussion of gaming. They're sure to produce sparks when you bring them up.

One of them is the issue of "wish fulfilment" in gaming, how people play these games so they can do things they can't do in day-to-day life. That's an interesting subject, but I think it's being covered in the discussion on Chris's post.

What I've been thinking about though is hierarchy in games, how RPGs sometimes act as a way for groups to reinforce the power structure of the group, how "in character" actions can be a substitute for real life actions, and how sometimes real life issues come out "in game" in ways that we don't expect. I think sometimes players use "in character" actions as a way of keeping others in line socially. I know that looking back at even some quite recent play, there were times when people's in-character actions were clearly about punishing a player for not playing "right", and for not fitting in with the group.

I think "the party" is a pretty clear metaphor for the out-of-play social group.

This is most obvious in adolescent play, where there's a lot of tension and one-up-man-ship in play, where the players are all struggling to define themselves against each other. A lot of interpersonal aggression comes out as in character bickering, fighting, and so on. I don't think it's an accident that GMs tend to be the more socially competent and respected members of their groups. I think the amount of power that traditional games give GMs over the players in the game is directly related to the ways that the people who habitually take the GM role dominate their social groups. I know this was a feature of my early play, and from listening to others, I don't think that's an unusual experience.

I want to take a moment to say that I'm not at all bagging on the concept of GMs in games, or saying that roleplaying is an inherently damaging activity for young people. I'm saying that the format of gaming which has a GM position with considerable power over a group of players naturally facilitates and reinforces the existing social structure of a lot of social groups, and that in-game actions are not exempt from the interpersonal relationships that exist in those groups.

Groups reproduce in play the power structure that exists outside of play. So groups with a strong leader type are going to gravitate towards games that facilitate that role.

I talked about some of this stuff in my post grad thesis, which was about the local gaming club in my town. I didn't really have the roleplaying experience or theoretical grounding to explore the idea fully at the time, but I was very aware of the way that the GM position worked in social groups, and how in-game actions reflected out-of-game social structures. I wrote about how the breakdown in a game I observed was directly related to the power struggle between two players in the group.

Of course, none of this made me very popular in the club. Talking about this stuff was implicitly forbidden. The "It's just a game" mantra was strongly invoked to dispel any analysis of power in gaming.

I think it's pretty clear that it's not "just a game", and that social structures do influence the way people play with each other. What I'm interested in is not the really obviously dysfunctional ways that adolescent players interact with each other in play, but rather the way that all in-game actions are really interpersonal interactions.

I think as a hobby we've got this really strong cognitive divide between "in character" and "out of character" as two totally distinct things. It's an article of faith that what happens in play is totally distinct from our real-life social interactions, and I think that's a mistaken idea.

Not that that is a particularly original observation, but I think it's an important consideration to keep in mind during play, and in design. All interactions between characters are interpersonal interactions between players in the game. They are all "real life" interactions. I think that's one of the strong differences between rpgs and other mediums, and it's both a strength and a weakness of the hobby.

Review of "Radiance" by M.J.Graham

Here's Vincent from his blog:

"Let's say that you're playing a character who the rest of us really like a lot. We like him a whole lot. We think he's a nice guy who's had a rough time of it. The problem is, there's something you're trying to get at with him, and if he stops having a rough time, you won't get to say what you're trying to say.

Our hearts want to give him a break. For the game to mean something, we have to make things worse for him instead.

I'm the GM. What I want more than anything in that circumstance - we're friends, my heart breaks for your poor character, you're counting on me to give him more and more grief - what I want is rules that won't let me compromise.

I don't want to hurt your character and then point to the rules and say "they, they made me hurt your character!" That's not what I'm getting at.

I want, if I don't hurt your character, I want you to point to the rules and say, "hey, why didn't you follow the rules? Why did you cheat and let my guy off the hook? That sucked." I want the rules to create a powerful expectation between us - part of our unity of interest - that I will hurt your character. Often and hard."

So what I think Vincent's saying here is that the point of game rules is to make things happen at the table that no one wants to see happen, but players are invested enough in the rules of the game that they go with it anyway.

It's that bit in the game where a character is on the brink, hanging off the edge of the cliff, and everyone's cheering for him to drag himself back up, but they know that if that die comes up a 1, he's going over.

It's that bit where the couple is fighting and hurting each other, and everyone's hoping that they'll stop it and get back together, but the dice go the other way, and everyone's heart breaks but they go with it.

That (Vincent argues, and I agree), is what conflict resolution is for.

"Radiance", (link is to pdf) a free game by M.J.Graham, is designed with a different philosophy, I think.

What the game's rules do basically is apportion out narration rights to various players. One player describes some stuff happening, other players suggest complications or "redirections" that may occur, and you draw beads from a bag to see if the redirection is relevant or not. If it is, the player who introduced it gets to narrate what happens next. There's no direction as to how the "redirection" affects the story, just a change in narrator.

So the game doesn't introduce anything into the fiction that the players don't want to be there.

But that's good, right? It means the only stuff that happens is stuff that the players want to happen!

I don't agree. Vincent again (from the same essay):

"The only worthwhile use for rules I know of is to sustain in-game conflict of interest, in the face of the overwhelming unity of interest of the players. "

In other words, if your game rules aren't providing some tension in play, if they're not "pushing back" against the unity of interest of the players, they don't achieve anything. I think what "Radiance" boils down to is M.J.Graham giving you permission to tell a story with your friends.

Let me expand on that. What the rules of "Radiance" do is apportion out narration to various players. They tell you who gets to speak at what time. But there's no rationale for why this particular configuration is better than any other. What does distributing narration around the table add to a story? Why do you need a bag of beads and some candles to do that? If you're going to tell a story with your friends, why would you bother with this, rather than any other way of telling a story?

The author reenforces this impression at the end of the document in a "Q&A" section:

"Why don't you give more tips or instructions on how to make a story?

Because I don't think I know more than you do about creating good stories. I certainly don't know more than you do about creating the kind of stories that you enjoy. Besides, there's nothing I can tell you that you won't pick up faster and more completely than by creating your own stories. "

So what's the game for?

List of Free Games for Designers

I wrote this post for the Forge, in a thread about getting the most out of a First Thoughts thread. There are a lot of new people posting games over there, and one of the recurring things I notice is that they're often not very aware of what's out there in terms of design, often even inside their own paradigm.

Since this took a long time to put together, I thought it could do double-service as a blog post.

Disclaimer: I can hardly claim to be an expert at game design. I've published a couple of things (to very little acclaim), and I've played a heck of a lot, but I don't have the kind of experience or expertise that you'll find from other people on this forum. I have, however, read a LOT of First Thoughts posts, and participated in a number of them. When I say this stuff, it comes from having seen which posts go on to become published games (virtually none of them), and which get recycled back into the designer's pot of ideas. I think that posting in First Thoughts is as much about learning game design as it is about producing a game, and with that in mind, I think reading other games is a great thing you can do to help yourself.

What this list is for:

This is not a manual for how to design an RPG. Don't look at these games as examples of "how to do it right" or "what works". In my view, this list has only one purpose: To challenge assumptions.

I think the number one enemy to good game design is assumption. People come in with an idea of "how an RPG is made" or the "right" way to play an RPG. These assumptions don't add anything to a design, they just cause trouble, and lead to sucky, derivative games. So challenge those assumptions. There are no objectively "good" rules. Reading games that are similar to, or wildly different from your own design will help you realise what possibilities are out there, and what's been done to death.

A note
A common reaction when reading games that challenge your assumptions is to think "that doesn't work" or "I don't like games like that". I really strongly urge you not to give in to those thoughts. How do you know it doesn't work? How do you know you don't like games like that? What don't you like about them? Thinking about the answers to those questions will help you work out what you want in your own design.

First of all, there's a huge list of free games here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/

It's listed by keywords, so there's good milage in just browsing what looks interesting. Be aware that any game can be listed here, so there are a lot of games that have never been playtested, or even finished.

"Hippy" games

"Hippy" is a jokey name for games that do some really different things with the mechanics of RPGs, often changing, distributing, or removing the GM's authority, or otherwise challenging the "traditional" game structure. These are good games to read if you're considering making a game like this yourself, of if you've never encountered games like this before.

The Shadow of Yesterday
(http://tsoy.crngames.com/)
This is a full length, complete, and very well-loved game, that contains some very interesting ideas. As "hippy" games go, it's pretty traditional, but you'll especially want to check out "Keys" (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Crunchy_Bits#Keys) and "Bringing Down the Pain" (http://tsoy.crngames.com/Resolution#Bringing_Down_the_Pain) as stand-out aspects of the system that mark it as a "hippy" game.

The Pool
(http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.rtf) - Link is to rtf file
The Pool is an interesting game that really breaks down roleplaying to some basic ingredients. It's very focused on the narrative of a game, over simulating an in-game reality. Particularly look at the "monologue of victory" rules, for a mechanic that puts some GM power in the hands of players.

Harlekin-Maus Games
(http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games.html)

This isn't one game, but a whole lot of games. I don't know why Zak Arnston isn't better known in the gaming scene. He's produced a whole host of interesting, funny, challenging games. Some of these games seem almost designed to challenge assumptions. I'd particularly check out Shadows (http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games/shadows/shadows.html) and Metal Opera (http://www.harlekin-maus.com/games/metalopera/metalopera.html) as games that get a lot of play, and have some interesting ideas.

"Generic" games

"Generic" is, I think, a total misnomer. The system inevitably puts some slant on the kind of play that you'll get out of it. A game where guns kill you nine times out of ten is going to give you a different feel to one where you can take a number of hits and still keep fighting. A game with half a book worth of detailed combat rules gives a different feel to a game where all conflicts are treated the same. Check out some of the different feels you get from these different games.

GURPS Lite
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/)
I have a confession to make: I've never played GURPS. I made a character once, but that's as far as I got. I've heard a lot about it though. It seems GURPS is the game with a supplement for everything. The rules are extensible, reasonably detailed, and to some people's tastes "realistic". This is a stripped-down, free version of the rules.

Fate
(http://www.faterpg.com/)
Fate is an increasingly popular, free "generic" system, that you're free to adapt to your own game. My sense is it's got a more freewheeling, action-oriented take than GURPS, and a few mechanics that play with the normal GM/Player divide.

Savage Worlds (Test Drive)
(http://www.peginc.com/Downloads/SWEX/TD06.pdf) - Link is to pdf file
Savage Worlds is a game I enjoyed for a very long time. It has a bit of a "pulp" flair to it, but it's adaptable to a lot of different genres. It's a very fast and easy system, with some tactical depth and an emphasis on combat. This set of rules is a "test drive" which means you're only getting the very basics of the system, but it's enough to play the game with, and get a feel for the system.

Old Games

I think there are still lessons in design to be learnt from some older games. I think a lot of younger players (and even some older ones) have assumptions about what "old school" play was like, which are pretty misguided. Taking a look at some of these games, you'll see that a lot of the things that are often considered essential aspects of an RPG are actually not present, and that the games promote quite a different style of play to many current games.

Labyrinth Lord
(http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm)
Labyrinth Lord is a "retro clone" of the Moldvay edition of Dungeons and Dragons, published in 1981. That means that it is almost an exact copy of that set of rules, with some editorial changes, and incorporation of rules from supplements. I've had a lot of fun with this game. Pay attention to how almost everything in the world is instantly lethal to first level PCs. The only way to survive is to take advantage of minute details of the fiction.

Warrior and Wizard
(http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dcsfz7gv_9gzdh7hdz&hl=en)
I actually know very little about this game. It's a clone of "The Fantasy Trip" a game that came out very soon after D&D, and contains some things that, at the time, were completely innovative. It also has some board game aspects, which are interesting given the current trend in D&D.

GORE
(http://www.yourgamesnow.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&manufacturers_id=71&products_id=1958) - Link is to an online store, but the game is free
GORE is a clone of the percentile-based "Basic Roleplaying" system used in both Call of Cthulhu and Runequest. Honestly, I'm not sure what design lessons there are here, but these are still very influential and popular games, so maybe it's worth a look?

Heartbreakers

Ron described these games as "truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start." in his essay, here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Heartbreakers get a lot of criticism, but I think there's a lot to learn from them as well. When I read these games, I find myself marveling at the truly interesting and original ideas, while being frustrated with the baggage they carry from the author's influences.

By definition, none of the games linked here are truly heartbreakers, as they're published after the 90's, they're often influenced by different sources, and some of them are very innovative. I'm playing very loose with the concept. These are fantasy games that retain a lot of the trappings of traditional play, but also have some new ideas. A lot of these are genuinely good games as well.

Barbarians of Lemuria
(http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/barbarians-of-lemuria)
I've not played this game, so I can't comment too much. Its most recent (and no longer free) version has gotten some good reviews. It's probably an example of some of the better design in this field, a game that has one or two new ideas to offer, in a package that is largely very familiar.

Red Box Hack
(http://redboxhack.blogspot.com/)
Calling this a heartbreaker is going to get me some mean looks over the internet, so let me explain. It started as an attempt to "fix" D&D (though in a direction different to most heartbreakers), it was driven by the enthusiasm and drive of its creator, and it had some interesting and innovative ideas. It's definitely worth a look.

On Mighty Thews 1.2

On Mighty Thews is a player-empowered pulp fantasy game I wrote last year. It's a combination of Jason Morningstar's "Dungeon Squad" with Clinton Nixon's "Donjon", and a few other elements stolen from various places. It's great for creating pulp fantasy short stories, in the vein of Howard, Leiber, and especially Moorcock.

Since I published the game, I've had heaps of great feedback on it. Which parts work, which parts don't, what's easy to understand and what isn't. I've compiled all that playtest feedback into a new "1.2" edition of the game. The system is largely unchanged, but I've clarified a lot of rules, refined the expression of some others, and added more advice on how to make the game fun in play.

You can download a pdf of the game here, or view it online here.