Popular Opinion

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by walt c at 2005-11-30 06:47:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

Very interesting article, Mendel!

I think the biggest question that pops up whenever you push the boundaries of RPG design is "When does it stop being an RPG?"

While one can look up the definition of "roleplaying" and "game" and apply them very liberally, popular opinion remains that a "roleplaying game" is about players creating characters and working through plots that are the province of a GM. You can't easily change that (forgive my Amero-centric example, but it's like two baseball teams meeting for a game. Every move each player makes, every decision of the coaches, is in reaction to the movements of the baseball. Take away the baseball, and you have two teams staring at each other. They may decide to do something else, but it's no longer baseball).

There's also a difference between "innovation" and "revolution." There have been many innovations in RPG design over the last 3+ decades, but none of them have knocked the 900lb. (D&D) dragon off it's perch.

Vampire (and perhaps WoD as a whole) came close. It popularized two innovations, the "Monster as Protagonist" and the LARP. Neither of these concepts, however, revolutionized the RPG culture. The "MaP" concept quickly degenerated into "undead superheroes," while LARP remains a niche.

Another innovation was the "no GM" concept (also popular with LARPs). I've played and enjoyed sessions where everyone at the table has a character and simply plays through a scene. These games rarely last, as they tend to lack depth.

To address your possibilities, I think any one of them can be played, provided that 1) the players are willing and 2) you have to consider that a "session" will probably be brief. I think your "no characters" concept has the most promise, since that's what many of us do when we have "what do we want to play?" sessions. The group provides input and creates a setting to play in, which is as much of a session as the "traditional" roleplaying that follows. Many of us have also taken on the role of whole militaries and nations when we get really involved in a boardgame.

I look forward to your next column!

Walt

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Mendel Schmiedekamp at 2005-11-30 08:49:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

Since my column focuses on experimental game design, I'm more interested in advancing the possible, rather than revolutionizing the market. That said, I do believe that experimental design can prove useful in terms of marketable RPG design, in at least two major ways. First, the practice of experimental design teaches a would-be designer how to design out of the box, and avoid simply reproducing the mistakes of the most predominant games, as well as provide practice in game design as an art. Second, the development and vetting of novel designs can lend tools that will can be of great use in later design, typically to add a new and functional aspect to a marketable design.

But I personally believe that advancing our understanding of RPGs is beneficial in its own right. Which brings me to your initial question. "When does it stop being an RPG?" This is in fact the point. It is not enough to claim that a feature is required for a RPG simply because we have always seen it present. Attempting to remove these pervasive elements may produce insight and potential even greater than the no GM or the no Randomizer games. Or they may turn out to be ultimately necessary for any remotely reasonable sense of a RPG. But unless we plumb those depths how can we say?

Oh, and for clarification "no characters" is actually a stronger constraint than you are reflecting. Taking on the role of militaries or nations is quite typically taking on a character. It is the sense of identity which makes a character, not the idea of a single person.

In general, the challenge is not merely to find instances of play or a play group which can maintain the restriction for a time. The goal is to design the game so that it will support the restriction directly, in which the game plays most effectively under the restriction, rather than around it.


- Mendel