John Wick on Rpgs and game Balance

[Krensky]

I can also emphasize... One of the people I play with is big into RPGA and what I've always though of as competitive D&D. She can't understand why I have my character make in character mistakes and actions that I, as a player know are bad.

Doing that takes maturity and skill, but it is also a bit of a different game. It isn't just right or wrong. On one hand, I greatly appreciate this type of playing. I strive for it with some PCs, but to be honest, I find it more fun to be really good at stuff. In a setting like CoC, having faults really works - the point isn't to be a great hero.

In D&D, Spycraft, and the majority of RPGs (or even, games), the point is that you are a hero. Some buds and I were chatting this weekend at a con about this. While you want a bit of a challenge in D&D, the point isn't to be challenged all the time. You didn't roll up a "kind of ok" PC. You rolled up a hero, who should succeed in being a hero. They have abilities above par, it is a fantasy setting, the idea is to be a hero, etc. Having big flaws isn't really part of it. It can be, but it isn't needed.

Perhaps I should clarify.

In the game in question I'm playing, essentially the party tank and crit monkey. He's also generally the party face. He's also strongly of the do good and to hell with the law school of Chaotic Good. This has lead to him jumping corrupt city guards in dark alleys, paying weirgelt to the families of people zapped by the evoker's over zealous use of Chain Lightning, and mocking and arguing with the local clergy when the same evoker was on trial for being a soulless abomination because they were heartless theocratic asshats hiding behind their faith and the law instead of finding the real killer. He's also ignored the party's priorities (find the dingus) for his own (save the girl). He regularly strikes to subdue when he's dealing with the stupid instead of the evil and even recently had the merciful quality added to his weapon because of it. Heck, he doesn't even loot the bodies.

He and his friends, which is honestly how the party met - they all frequented the same university district public house, are heroic. The player in question doesn't, however, understand why I "Makes things more difficult" by playing him true to the character he's become in my head. The city guard wasn't a threat to him, the families weren't threats to him, he antagonized people who were. Etc. Also, please note no one else has an issue with him or my playing and she seems to still have fun as she keeps showing upo, smiling, cracking jokes, etc.

[Crafty_Pat]

Roleplaying Games being published for more than thirty years and people isn't yet able to define what they are. That's amazing.

RPGs have been mutating and spawning progressively narrower "clique" experiences over the last decade, and I think 4E is the ultimate example of that. It's forcing us to re-evaluate what we do and what language we use to describe it, but I actually think that's the lesser concern. I've been predicting for years that the RPG industry would fracture, the divisions between game styles becoming walls. We'll see more and more players settle into "perfect experiences," which is great for their immediate circles but, I think, bad for the industry overall. Ultimately, it'll decrease competition and therefore quality and profit, which can only drive quality talent from the industry and nudge us closer to "garage" status again.

Hopefully I'm wrong. In this case it would be nice to be wrong.

[VisualStatic]

I have to admit, I agree with his idea to a point, in that any game can be a RPG and no game really is a RPG.  In my own experience, I've seen far too much min/maxing and power gamers that I have almost given up on RPGs.

The reason I say that is you can't write rules to govern emotions and motivations, these are subjective qualities of the character and the player.  The rules are there to govern the actions of the motivation and emotion of the character.  It is up to the player to give those, define those and to decide on what action would be taken by the character.

A few games, Spycraft with Origins and subplots and Traveller with their LIfe Path, have tried to help to define those for the character or present ideas for those emotions and motivations and even to rewards those.  But nothing can make the player follow those, it is the old adage of you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  There will always be games that will help define the role, but not make the player roleplay.

my 2 cents

[Golden Dragon]

A few games, Spycraft with Origins and subplots and Traveller with their LIfe Path, have tried to help to define those for the character or present ideas for those emotions and motivations and even to rewards those. 

To this list add Pendragon, with its Passions and virtues/vices.

[Alphastream]

We'll see more and more players settle into "perfect experiences," which is great for their immediate circles but, I think, bad for the industry overall. Ultimately, it'll decrease competition and therefore quality and profit, which can only drive quality talent from the industry and nudge us closer to "garage" status again.

Hopefully I'm wrong. In this case it would be nice to be wrong.

I can see you are missing Gencon. Just let your eyes glaze over with thoughts of that dude in the pink Vader outfit, a score of furries, or the kids making towers out of promo CCGs. The world will be ok.

Having said that, 3.x did really have an insane gravitational pull. It has a very cool combo of RP potential, tactics, balanced play options, new player pull, and so on. Not to mention the deep pockets and marketing department. Everyone wants to be like Mike...

With 4E, this is a different model. I had not read the article this thread was about until just a minute ago, and I was smiling at his mention of board game. At D&DXP I was mulling over the whole video game aspect, but it was only seeing the (many) 4E previews run at Gamestorm that I felt board game was a more fitting comparison. This model won't be for everyone, I don't think. I think it is super fun, and I think it ports very well to online play. I really don't think it will be everyone's cup of tea, and I would not be shocked to see other games see a renewal. A lot can change, but looking at LFR (Living Forgotten Realms)... it seems like there is less energy there than we had a few years back with LG (Living Greyhawk). That can change with good management and volunteers, or it could be an opportunity for others.

Something that most reviews of 4E forget is that the playtests/previews seem to be about showing the mechanics. The mobility, the tactical side, the balance, the customization. They don't show how RP fits in. As one of my esteemed Gamer friends says, "That's fine. I mean, I already know how to RP". True, so we have to wait and see how the system works in the RP context. We will know whether RP is enhanced or hindered only once we play it. I would have assumed, from a first read, that 3.x reduced RP. Instead, in playing, I found the customization actually helped define this. I saw more RP by average players than ever before. The customizing caused even the most gamist of gamers to evaluate what was happening to their PC as they chose various feats and levels.

The world is probably safe. And I will probably play plenty of 4E. And I hear L5R calling me and 10K and Saga. Good times.

Teos

[Bill Whitmore]

A few games, Spycraft with Origins and subplots and Traveller with their LIfe Path, have tried to help to define those for the character or present ideas for those emotions and motivations and even to rewards those. 

To this list add Pendragon, with its Passions and virtues/vices.

You can add a lot to the list, but haughtyelf has a point.  D&D has alignment, Exalted and Scion have virtues, and Star Wars comes pre-built with motivations with the Light and Dark side of the force.  But what a high compassion/low valor/lawful good/chaotic evil/light side/dark side trait says on the character sheet is largely irrelevant if the player doesn't portray those characteristics.

I've never really liked the inclusion of "forced" character traits that require you to act a certain way to gain bonuses, especially to the extent that Exalted does, where you have to make a roll against your virtue or be forced to act "in character".

[Crafty_Pat]

The world is probably safe. And I will probably play plenty of 4E. And I hear L5R calling me and 10K and Saga. Good times.

Don't get me wrong - 4E is safe. Dungeons and Dragons is largely impervious to market segmentation; the brand and budget alone ensure that. It's the rest of the industry that might eventually consist of one-shot DOA companies and low-rent side projects by folks who do other stuff with 85% of their time - because they have to. That's the nightmare scenario, where the market's "grandest innovations" are seen by 12 folks in Cheboygan before vanishing into the ether, and the professional game designer is a thing of a past.

[iconoplast]

The reason I say that is you can't write rules to govern emotions and motivations, these are subjective qualities of the character and the player.  The rules are there to govern the actions of the motivation and emotion of the character.  It is up to the player to give those, define those and to decide on what action would be taken by the character.

www.indie-rpgs.com

That is the address of The Forge, home of maybe a hundred games that all seek to do just that.  It's also home to lots of people who have been arguing for years about what is an RPG, what's a good RPG, and how tdo we talk about RPGs.  GNS (Gamist / NArrativist / Simulationist) theory was, I believe, birthed there. 

Interestingly, last time I was there all the theory forums were locked, and all theorizing was to be done in the context of actual play threads. 

Anyway, in terms of games that have rules to govern emotions and motivations, CoC's Sanity Points was a step towards this.  Pendragon had some system that everybody loved but I never read.  Unknown Armies had Obsessions and five different axes on its Madness Meter.

Then you get into the actual indie games, where emotions and motivations may very well be your only stats.

Rules are there to model the kinds of conflicts the game is designed to highlight.  In D&D, those conflicts are explore-and-exterminate, so you've got Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen, Disable Device... but no 'Laugh Politely' or 'Character Assassinate'.  In another game, those might be your core stats.

So while in the RPGs that are closest to their wargaming roots, the player handwaves motivation, and the rules are grittiest surrounding combat.  But the opposite coult just as easily be true - a game than handwaved combat, but slowed to a crawl as it attempted to simulate the intricate social combat of a high school lunchroom seating arrangement.

Basically - people are really opening up the definition of RPGs to try to encompass a wider variety of play styles, and some really nifty things have happened as a result.  (See also: Esoterrorists, Dogs in the Vineyard, Spirit of the Century)

[Crafty_Alex]

I love the indie game movement, but it also raises some flags for me, with Pat's earlier comment about walls being the most important touchpoint. Gaming could go the way of Linux - sure, you have lots of games, but you have endless variations between games, specific modes or styles that only *need* to sell 100 copies to friends or the curious to keep going. That low a bar for "success" not only allows for endless proliferation of games, it encourages it. The end result - there's a game for everything, and everyone can hunt down that game and play *only* that if they want, possibly becoming a sort of jingoist about the other games that *don't* meet that style.

Like language, I think we as gamers need a common 'gaming dialect' even if it's only to use as a touchpoint for the many game cultures that helps bring us together. The big games - the D&Ds, Shadowruns, World of Darknesses - they are the common language we have held as gamers in the past. Every time we as a culture have split that dialect more finely, the more fracticious and weaker we've become - look at D&D as a business, as a culture, when everyone played it. Back then, if you were a gamer, you played D&D; finding a group was never an issue so you could always play, and you all knew and loved the same thing. D&D was monstrous - books sold for $20 each, but in 1980 that was something closer to $60 each in today's dollars, and it was selling tens of thousands of every book. Compare that today - we have endless choices of games, variants of variants to pick when we go to the store. Finding a play group means convincing your friends to play with you (if you're not playing D&D at least) because finding someone with your exact tastes has become much more difficult. As a business, gaming has (rightfully) shrunk, but gamer expectations for price have remained relatively fixed (devaluing each product by 1/2 adjusted for inflation), overall gaming numbers are down, and competition is through the roof. Businesses are operating under much tighter market restrictions for a product that is not as highly valued by its customers, which means more struggle. Further splitting of that market makes for thinner slices of that pie, which makes everyone hungrier - even D&D.

Now I'm not a doom and gloom sort of guy, but this is the dollars-and-cents reality of the industry. Crafty is built to survive and thrive in that market - quite intentionally But everyone - indy, crafty, or otherwise - need D&D. It's the way we pull the most basic players in, and it's the easiest introduction to the hobby, the freeway entrance by way of other games are found. I don't need to like it to need it, but I know we need it. And I think having it - for good or ill - is critical because it grounds us as a group, lets us play something together, and reminds us that the love of games, not the love of *A* game, is what makes us gamers.

[VisualStatic]

Alex,

Would you say that the expansion of the gaming industry into so many smaller games is due to the "all we ever played" was D&D?

People have gotten either bored, tired, or simply want something new.  I think that's why White Wolf was so successful.  The mechanics were not that best, but it was something completely different then D&D.  Same with Shadowrun, to a point.

[palehorse864]

I like the idea of having a flaw that occasionally nags your character, but I think what the guy in the article wanted to play is a bit like free-form roleplaying. No dice, no rule books, no miniatures, nothing but either verbal or text dialog and actions.  Conflicts are handled more or less by the interests of two or more players.  You decide on the conflict, and usually have an idea of how you want it to play out in the end, then act it out through whatever medium your dialog travels along.

Dungeons and Dragons, spycraft and the like are roleplaying games as well. The difference here is that they have conflict resolution systems and rules to handle potential disagreement and to provide a challenge.  The reason these are fun is because you have an objective, and rather than being locked into one path like you might be in a video game, you play the role of your character and can think through your problems, puzzle solve and take as many paths as the DM can deal with to reach your goal.  The rules and dice and everything else just facilitate this. I don't think I've played with miniatures since I played dragon strike, mostly because I played games in chat rooms with a dice roller script, plus it seemed like it would just take longer to move miniatures around than it would take to say "Ok, the orc is 20 feet away, you can close the distance and hit him if you want,  the other orc ducked behind a pillar and is now out of your line of sight"  and have the player respond "Ok, I ignore the first orc for now and move to the left until the second orc is in sight before firing my spell." or thinking p of a different solution. "I cast fireball to the side of the pillar so that both orcs are in the radius." 

It's fun to play a game with a rules system where you essentially provide actions for your character, playing the role of that character rather than going in with a pre determined set of actions the game will let you take (Like a Computer or console rpg).  Find yourself without a weapon in a bar fight? "Umm... ok, I'm going to try to break the table leg and use it as a club." You play the role largely because you make up the character's actions as you go, give them dialogue, etc.  What the article writer does is role playing as well, but it's not the only definition.   I think he would really enjoy some free form roleplaying. I have free formed for years, but it is hardly the one and only definition of role playing.

[Argonnite]

And weighing in opposite GNS

http://imagonem.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=320&Itemid=1

[Gentry]

Ah, Sanity.

[Crafty_Pat]

Couple random follow-ups...

1. Weird (potential) market permutation: If RPG proliferation does wind up producing "perfect experiences" - which appears to be the goal of some designers - it could actually decrease competition and subdue the market, which is ass-backward from how it's supposed to work. Just another way that the hobby gaming market differs from, well, nearly any other market in existence.

2. I actually appreciate the indie game movement. I think it's important for us to examine our hobby and figure out new ways to expand it. I take issue with the term "indie," though. In what way is what they do "independent"? For that matter, how is what they do both different enough from traditional RPGs and similar enough across the spread of their offerings to deserve one title? More thought is required there.

[Alphastream]

Lots of good articles and insight. Thanks to all for sharing!

Now, what do I know, but it seems to me that most players aren't at all interested in finding the perfect niche. Most players are just in it for a certain depth, and the big name games provide that just fun. And most of those most players are happy to stay there for decades, if not for ever. Only a few will self-examine and think about what niche they want to be in and then get up the nerve to try some indie-type games.

When it comes to indie games, anything that ever looked interesting was quickly reviewed for me by one of my trusted geeks, and the answer was always something along the lines of "not worth your time". In the middle to big area of well-known names, that is seldom the answer.

So, I don't have much worry about the gaming community fracturing into tiny splinter groups. The majority can't envision a world without D&D, and we can focus our energy on getting them to try a few other major games.

The Uruguayan article was interesting. I learned a lot. Throughout it I wanted to shout "but dudes, it's all about fun!". That's really the final thing. The game has to be fun. Any game, even a very fun one, has its down moments. In the down moments of D&D or any game, you can get a player to try something else. But, you have to deliver. The game has to communicate to the new player, be accessible, and help them make a fun character. An iconic setting is one way, but rules are very important. It takes a lot of work to do this. The other side is that the promoter has to be convincing. This person is likely a pretty good gamer, and that means the game has to earn their respect and even love. These are things Crafty has done well. People who like Spycraft actually love it, and they try to sell it.

Teos