Mad Brew Labs

Better Gaming by Design

RPP-401: RPG Community

Posted by Mad Brew On May - 26 - 2011

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Recent discussions among the online RPG community I follow and associate with has been focused on social theory. No doubt many readers will already be familiar with the post(s)[1][2] that spawned the intense debate, so I won’t revisit the topic here. However, an interesting corollary of this recent trending topic is the question of what constitutes a community?

The Issue

Specifically, is there an online RPG community that consists of you, me, the RPG blogs, RPG fora, etc.? Some do not consider the relationship between bloggers, or bloggers and readers, or general fandom to be a community. Some also seen to believe the word community carries connotations of interaction of towards a common purpose. I disagree with these points and consider roleplaying blogs a community.

Academics of Community

It is certainly not the first (or last) time the definition of community was pondered and argued:

“In sociology, the concept of community has led to significant debate, and sociologists are yet to reach agreement on a definition of the term. There were ninety-four discrete definitions of the term by the mid-1950s.”[3]

That’s quite a feat considering that there wasn’t much social science literature focusing on on community until 1915 when C.J. Galpin[4] completed his Social Anatomy of an Agricultural Community. A work on rural studies where the term community was used in terms of delineating rural socio-geographic areas (i.e. rural communities).[5]

Definition of Community

The theory of community, while rooted in geographical context, has expanded to identify groups of living organisms that share a common characteristic. I’ve compiled a list of attributes that a community possesses:

  • Consists of more than one living organism
  • Share at least one identifying characteristic between members
  • May be nested within each other and may overlap
  • The Universe is the top level community

Mad Brew’s definition of community:

A community consists of two or more organism that share at least one identifying characteristic. Communities can be nested and may overlap. They are always part of a larger community unless that community is the Universe.

The only membership requirement is to possess the identifying characteristic that all members of a community share. This is where things become complicated and where most previously mentioned disagreements about community happen. There are different assumptions about what the key identifier actually is, because no one has taken the time to clarify it.

For instance, interaction between members, while is frequently present, is not necessarily a membership requirement unless such interaction is an identifying characteristic. Many people assume interaction to be a default characteristic while others do not share that assumption. How can these assumptions be reasonably dispelled?

Naming Conventions

Should a community not have an official name, such as the RPG Blog Alliance,[6] then choosing a concise, yet descriptive name can be problematic. However, some choices are better than others. For example, what is the difference between the RPG blogger community and the Roleplaying blog community?

The former identifies a person while the latter identifies a type of website. Many would have the assumption that since the former identifies a specific individual, a person who writes web-logs about roleplaying games, then that community is limited to those people (i.e. not including readership). While the latter includes anyone who is engaged with roleplaying blogs, passive or active.

RPG Communities Defined

The above academic exercise is nice, but did it solve the issue of determining if there is an online RPG community that consists of you, me, the RPG blogs, RPG fora, etc.? Yes, by the definition provided. I would call it the Online RPG Community, the members sharing the characteristic of engaging in roleplaying culture on the internet. It includes both passive consumers of online RPG content and active developers of content published on the web.

Of course, there is no expectation that anyone will accept the provided definition. This is mostly for my benefit, allowing me to organize my thoughts and record them. However, I surely wouldn’t be opposed to other members referring to this article in their discussion about RPG communities (especially if they agree).

I have identified several roleplaying communities, which I present below:

The Roleplaying Community

  • The parent community of all other roleplaying communities
  • Includes anyone who has an interest in roleplaying games
  • It’s parent community would be The Gaming Community
  • Sister communities include The Wargaming Community and The Board Game Community

The Online Roleplaying Community

  • Includes anyone engaged in roleplaying culture on the Internet
  • Child communities include Roleplaying Game Forums, Venture Captain[7] users, and Twitter users following or involved in RPG discussions.

The Roleplaying Blog Community

  • Includes anyone engaging roleplaying blogs, including readership
  • Child communities include the above mentioned RPGBA, the RPG Bloggers Network,[7] and the Savage Bloggers Network[8]
Listening to: Silent Civilian – Rebirth of the Temple – Divided

References

[1] Player Alignment Shift: Being Chaotic Good at the Gaming Table on This is My Game.
[2] You Don’t Have a God-given Right to my Friendship on The Angry DM.
[3] Hillery, George A., Jr. (1955). Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement. Rural Sociology, 20 (4) (via Wikipedia).
[4] Galpin’s short bio via the Wisconsin Historical Society.
[5] Harper, E. H. and Dunham, A. (1959). Community Organization in Action: Basic Literature and Critical Comments. New York: Association Press (via Infed).
[6] The RPBA is a new community for RPG bloggers I recommend you check out.
[7] Venture Captain is the online Pathfinder RPG character creator I’m developing.
[8] I’m a long time member of the RPG Bloggers Network.
[9] The Savage Bloggers Network is an aggregator for Savage Worlds blogs.

Culture

RPP-450: Roleplaying is a Pastime

Posted by Mad Brew On May - 18 - 2011

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Deadorc's Question

Deadorc's Question

I’m officially dedicating this week at Labs to Deadorcs. In the same  Twitter discussion that inspired my last article, Randall Walker of Initiative or What asked a question:

deadorcs: So the question becomes: How do you make #dnd a “pastime” instead of a niche game? What social machinery has to be activated to make it so?

During the course of the discussion, Randall states D&D should (or asks how it could) transcend the status of hobby to be more ingrained in the culture, like grilling or going to the beach (two activities he cites as pastimes).

I believe that D&D, and roleplaying games in general, already are pastimes. Hobbies are inherently pastimes, if that’s what you usually do. To fully understand what I am about to say, we need to define pastime:

What is a pas·time?

noun /ˈpasˌtīm/

  1. An activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby[1]
  2. Something that serves to make time pass agreeably; a pleasant means of amusement, recreation, or sport.[2]
  3. Something that amuses and serves to make time pass agreeably.[3]

From the above definitions, I think we can reasonably say that all pastimes are hobbies, but not all hobbies are pastimes. The trait that separates the two is frequency. Looking at the first definition, a pastime is something someone does regularly.

A National Pastime

What’s missing from Randall’s tweet, and what I think he’s getting at, is a social spectrum qualifier. What would make D&D a <insert community level here> pastime? Much like baseball is referred to as the “national pastime.”

So what would it take for D&D to become a national pastime? It’s hard to put hard requirements down because there are lots of variables. Recognition, intimate knowledge, and acceptance all play major roles (and maybe seasonal shelf space at Wal-Mart). I suppose A-list celebrities might help. But the complexities, requirements, and buy-in of D&D are too great for this too ever happen.

Pastime is Subjective

In the end, I came to the conclusion that, for the most part, pastimes are determined by the individual. I certainly do not consider beach-going or baseball pastimes (or probably many things other people do). My pastimes are playing RPGs, drawing, and shooting firearms (all usually while drinking beer and listening to metal).

D&D is a pastime; whether or not it’s recognized at a specified cultural level is irrelevant to me.

Mad Brew's Rresponse

Mad Brew's Response

Listening to: Metalocalypse – Dethalbum II – Symmetry

References


[1] The definition of pastime via Google.
[2] The definition of pastime via Dicionary.com.
[3] The definition of pastime via Merriam-Webster.

Culture

RPP-099: Mad Brew's Gaming Philosophy

Posted by Mad Brew On August - 4 - 2009

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Mad Brew Labs celebrated its 1st year of existence last Thursday. It came and went without fanfare because I was actually gearing up for a more important celebration, 5 years of marriage with my lovely wife. I was pondering about what I have and haven’t done with the blog in the last year and where I want to be a year from now.

One of the things that I realized I have yet to do is give my readers an idea about what kind of gamer I am. Sure, most of it could be gleaned from how I have presented certain topics in one of the last 141 posts here at the labs. I just think it’s a good idea to write it down and I do it more for my own benefit than anything else.

Why I Play

There are many reasons why I play roleplaying games and the following list is not exhaustive:

  • manages my imagination (because I need an outlet)
  • stimulates my creativity (wouldn’t be cool if…)
  • provides interesting experiences (I never could have elsewhere)
  • accommodates my puzzle solving fetish (which leads to character optimization)
  • gives me a break from the home life (necessary to maintain healthy marriage)
  • allows my wallet to breath (because paper is cheap and dice last a lifetime)

All of the above are wonderful reasons to play, but the number one most important reason I play is because it allows me to have fun with my friends. Roleplaying is a social engagement for me. The actual game and story take a back seat to the social event; RPGs are just a vehicle for us to get to the destination of fun.

Play Style

On a recent episode (Season 1, Episode 3) of the RPG Circus podcast, the ringmasters had Phil, the Chatty DM, as guest. He said, “The age of the tyrannical DM is dead” and attributed the death knell to the design of modern RPGs (specifically 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons). I say the age never existed.

I’ve been playing since about ’88, and I never had a tyrannical (meaning adversarial) DM. Sure, that was 15 years after the inception of D&D, but I believe the adversarial DM, while existed, was not as common as many believe. Also, no rule system to date prevents a DM from being a dick.

That being said, I do believe Game Masters (or Dungeons Masters or referees) should have the final say in any situation. The GM does most of the work and receives that power by merit. The only entitlement players have is the right to have fun (so if the GM is not providing that, it’s time to for something to change).

Some might think that places me firmly in the classic gaming camp (they call themselves the “Old School Renaissance”), but I dig crunchy mechanics, tactical miniature play, character options, and story. Yet, I don’t feel like I am part of the “new school movement” either.

I take a sort of hybrid approach to my gaming. I reward both player AND character skill at the table. I do have story and plot running in the background of my adventures while still allowing the freedom of “sandbox” style play. There are consequences for actions (as well as non-action in the case of plot). I roll everything openly and pull no punches, so character death is a reality in my games (though I do offer options that help soften the blow). I pay attention to mechanics, yet let them take a back seat during outstanding roleplay.

As a player, I tend to do heavy optimization. Why? Well, because I like watching everything come together; traits supporting and enhancing each other. I also feel there is a skill involved in optimization, and enjoy applying that skill. It gives me something to do in the downtime between sessions and it makes for interesting backgrounds.  Yeah, I tend to write lengthy (2-3 page) histories for my characters, and everything on the character sheet has a rationale. These backgrounds in turn give me things to use during roleplaying.

I tend to believe that those who hate optimizers are either weak GMs who have not learned how to handle them or players that have weak GMs and their lack of optimization keeps their characters in the shadows. A good Game Master can give everyone a chance to shine, no matter what kind of character a player has.

Conclusion

I think I am a very middle of the road roleplayer and I don’t let any zealousness blind me to the benefits of any play style. I don’t wear my game of choice as a badge (I can play many systems, and enjoy most of them) and I try to keep from being pigeon-holed into any of the insular play style movements. I welcome any good-natured gamer at my table, no matter their preference.

Oh, and this is my own personaly philosphy and have no desire to force them upon anyone (though it would be cool for me if many people adopted them), nor do I claim my philosophy is the one true way, it just works best for me.

What I’m listening to:  White Zombie – Crow II: City of Angels OST – I’m Your Boogieman
Culture

RPP-310: Roleplaying Promotes Wellbeing

Posted by Mad Brew On April - 9 - 2009
Attention: People at Play

Attention: People at Play

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Roleplaying games are good for your health.  No, really.  Studies show that play is the gateway to vitality.  And rolePLAYing may be one of the most rewarding forms of play.

Earlier this year, Tony Law posted a video on RPG Centric from the TED (Technology, Entertainment, & Design) Conference.  The video features Dr. Stuart Brown from the National Institute of Play discussing how the importance of play transcends childhood (as well as species!) and continues to be vital for adults.  I urge you to visit RPG Centric and watch the video before reading further.

Basically, scientific research has found evidence that supports the theory that play is as fundamental to human development and health as is sleep, exercise (which some play could be considered), or nutrition.  It is essential:

A life or a culture devoid of or deficient in play exists as a heightened major public health risk factor. The prevalence of depression, stress related diseases, interpersonal violence, the addictions, and other health and well being problems can be linked, like a deficiency disease, to the prolonged deprivation of play. – The National Institute of Play

Seven Patterns of Play

The Institute of Play has identified seven elemental forms, or patterns, of play.  Roleplaying games are unusual in the respect that they have the potential to incorporate all seven patterns of play, making this sometimes ridiculed activity a prime candidate for individuals seeking to balance their life with play.

Attunement

Attunement play is often a wordless understanding, attunement, between people that can be marked by shared smiles and the sense that two or more people are connected at a subconscious level.  It is usually initiated by eye contact.  Perhaps the best example of attunement is when a mother and baby make eye contact and the baby smiles and makes a noise which then in turn prompts the mother to vocalize.  Studies using an EEG show that the right sides of the participants’ brains become attuned.

This base level of play is achieved during a roleplaying game through eye contact and laughter.  The sudden outbursts of excitement when a player makes a particularly good roll (or the moans & groans at a bad roll) is a form of attunement that enhances the shared experience of the play.

Body & Movement

Exploring how our bodies move is a way of knowing and learning about our environment and our selves.  A simple hop can convey the idea of gravity.  “Innovation, flexibility, adaptability, resilience have their roots in movement.” (National Institute of Play)

Live Action Role Play [LARP] obviously have this ground covered, especially if the gameplay includes physical simulation of combat.  However, even the exercise of exploring your vocal range to provide unique voices to characters and non-player characters constitutes body play.

Object

Science has established a direct correlation between the manipulation of objects and adult problem solving.  The correlation is so strong that companies like Boeing practically require potential engineers to not only have an advanced degree but also experience with fixing/building things by hand such as cars and model airplanes.

Most roleplaying games require dice to simulate the element of chance or the unknown into play.  The throwing (and often just playing with) of dice is a form of object play.  Another common feature of roleplaying games is miniatures and terrain.  Manipulating miniatures around the artificial scenery definitely constitutes object play.  An argument could even be made that tweaking a character sheet could also be considered object play.

Social

Humans are social creatures by nature and there is an instinctual desire to belong.  There are researchers who believe that further study into the science of social play and its influence on the sense of community could lead to breakthroughs on the prevention of violence.

This is an obvious component of roleplaying games, because you cannot have one (per my definition) without more than one person.  The social aspect of roleplaying games is without a doubt the primary motivation for many gamers who participate in the ritual.  In fact, there is a very strong sense of community among avid roleplayers that transcends national, racial, and cultural boundaries.

Imaginative

The ability of a person to pretend and create their own sense in their mind is key to innovation and creativity.  Studies have shown that this type of play is critical in the development of coping skills and trust.

The entire concept of roleplay hinges on imagination.  Players imagine the actions the scenes and actions of their characters.  The entire world the game takes place in is imaginary, even if it is a reflection of the real thing.

Storytelling-Narrative

“Storytelling, the way most kids love to learn, is, when under the play microscope, identified as the unit of human intelligibility.” (National Institute of Play)  Storytelling is a vicarious method of learning, helping individuals to understand others and through them, ourselves.

A by-product, or in some instances, the goal of roleplaying games is a narrative of events that revolve around the actions of player characters.  It allows players to experience hypothetical events and explore possibilities that are either impossible, too dangerous, or taboo in reality.

Transformative-Integrative & Creative

“We can access fantasy-play to transcend the reality of our ordinary lives, and in the process germinate new ideas, and shape and re-shape them. Given enriched circumstances, and access to novelty, our play drive takes us into these realms spontaneously. Whether like Einstein imaginatively riding pleasurably on a sunbeam at the speed of light, or a light-hearted group of IDEO corporation designers wildly imagining a new product, each is using their playfulness to innovate and create.” (National Institute of Play)  This form of play allows us to use the things we have learned through other patterns of play to create.

Through roleplaying games, participants create a shared experience.  Their characters become living, breathing alter egos that evolve and grow over the course of several games.  Roleplaying games often compel their participants to write stories, develop homebrew mechanics and worlds, and dabble in the arts.  Skills developed at the table can truly transcend their purpose in the game.

Future Revelations

Scientific study that researches the benefits of play is good for everyone, not just children or gamers.  Hopefully it will result in discoveries that can improve life and further our knowledge of how people develop and the impact it has on behavior and health.

Legitimate Academic Subject

Hard scientific evidence in the field of play will help legitimize the subject in academia.  Even with the giant strides made in research today, I believe that play is not taken as serious as it should be.  It is vital to our health and the faster it becomes accepted as a valid subject the better its chances are at obtaining the necessary grant money to continue its research.

Fearless Roleplaying

If it can ever be imprinted on the minds of people that play is important, then perhaps it will help remove the stigma that is still present in the area of roleplaying.  No doubt there will always remain the contingent of closed minded individuals and groups that will forever condemn the activity, but hopefully it will shrink so far as to no longer have an impact on gamers.

Selected References

Below is a list of selected reference for further research and reading.

Allen, Bekoff, M. (1994). Intentionality, Social Play, and Definition.

Bekoff, M. (1978). Social Play, Structure, Function and the evolution of a cooperative social behavior. In: the development of behavior: Comparative and evolutionary aspects.

Forencich, Frank. (2001). Play as if Your Life Depended Upon It.

Gross, J.J., Mauss, I.B., Levenson, R.W., Wilhelm, F. H. (2005). The Tie That Binds? Coherence among Emotion, Experience, Behavior and Physiology. Emotion Vol. 2, 175-90

Leslie, A.M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of theory of mind.  Psychological Review, 94, 412-426.

Schore, A.N. (2000). The self-organization of the right brain and the neurobiology of emotional development.  Emotion, Development, and Self-Organization, (pp. 155-185).

Sheets- Johnstone, Maxine. (1999). The Primacy of Movement. Johns-Benjamin Vol. 14, Advances in Consciousness Research.

Singer, Jerome L. (1973). Child’s World of Make-Believe: Experimental Studies of Imaginative Play.

Singer, J. L., Switzer, E. (1980). Mind Play: The Creative Uses of Fantasy.

Stevens, V. (2006). Transparency to Transformation.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play.

Wilson, Frank. (1999). The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture.

Winnicott, D. W. (1999). Playing and Reality.

Listening to: Corrosion of Conformity - Wiseblood – Drowning in a Daydream

Culture

RPP-399: 10 Reasons to Play Games at the Table

Posted by Mad Brew On April - 7 - 2009

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Entertainment is one of the highest grossing industries of today, is probably the United States’ biggest export, and comes in a plethora of forms.  Why would someone choose to invest time, energy, and money into a roleplaying game (or a board game) when there are so many other, more popular modes of entertainment?  Well here is my list of reasons why:

  • 10. Art: How can you avoid not picking up a roleplaying game when it has that stunning illustration on the cover?
  • 9. Dice: Can you really resist rolling all those interesting polyhedrons?
  • 8. Cleanliness: Roleplaying games give you a reason to clear off that kitchen table you haven’t used recently.
  • 7. Support: Participation in the roleplaying game hobby helps maintain a niche industry that could always benefit from more attention.
  • 6. Intelligence: Oh yeah, most roleplaying games force you to think and apply logic, so you might just get smarter.
  • 5. Stress Relief: Roleplaying games definitely allow for some healthy escapism, allowing you to relax and unwind.
  • 4. Creativity: Roleplaying games usually take place in distant realms or alternate realities which teaches you to think outside the box.
  • 3. Party: We are social creatures by nature and roleplaying games require social interaction and give us an excuse to visit with friends.
  • 2. Replay Value: Every time you sit down and play a roleplaying game it will be different, even if you play the same adventure.
  • 1. Price Point: A roleplaying game only requires a minimal initial investment of money, which can be cheaper than a movie & popcorn at the theatre.

Everyone says the economy is a bad thing (and it mostly is), but I think it is an excellent opportunity to “get back to basics” with family and friends.  Roleplaying games can be brilliant resources that can help families reconnect at the table and save money.  Of course, I cannot be responsible for any addiction one may acquire after playing a game (and therefore causing you to spend obscene amounts of money of supplements).

Listening to: Disarmonia Mundi – Fragments Of D-Generation – Red Clouds

Culture

RPP-000: RPG Theory Bibliography

Posted by Mad Brew On February - 27 - 2009

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

There has been a recent surge of interest in the study of Roleplaying Games as an academic subject.  I have also seen quite a few questions arise that are rooted in defining quintessential elements of Roleplaying Games.  For the faithful zealots that follow the Labs (are there any?), it is well established that I have a great interest in the theory behind my beloved hobby.

This entry in the Roleplaying Philosophy series is a bibliography of sources I have come across during my research.  I do not claim to agree with any of the mentioned resources, nor do I even vouch that they have well constructed arguments or accurate observations.  However, for the seriously interested, I recommend reading as much prior study as possible.  To know where we are going we should probably know where we have been.

New Blood: The IJRP

One of the recent publications that have graced several blogs of note is the International Journal of Role-Playing, which was released on December 30th of 2008.  The IJRP is definitely distinguishing itself by offering collegiate level essays.  The aim and scope as defined by the IJRP follows:

The aim of The International Journal of Role-Playing is to act as a hybrid knowledge network, and bring together the varied interests in role-playing and the associated knowledge networks, e.g. academic research, the games and creative industries, the arts and the strong role-playing communities.

Edwardian Theory

Another journal style approach can be seen with Push: New Thinking about Roleplaying.  I was hesitant to even read it at first because it looked like it was heavily influenced by Ron Edwards‘ GNS model.  Still, it provides some food for thought and is probably one of the better things to be spawned from that cesspool.

And there are also the Oracle Essays from RPG.net.  These are the surviving copies of some of the original essays written on the subject that appeared in now defunct magazines.  You can find a handful of articles written by Robin Laws, Greg Costikyan, and Chris Pramas there.

Then of course, there is the infamous The Forge.  Though not a publication, and currently closed to new threads and comments, the archive of the RPG Theory, GNS Model, and Game Design forums are still there to read.  These forums are strongly influenced by Ron Edward’s System Does Matter, Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist, and Big Model theories.

Nordic Meeting Points

The annual Knutepunkt conference, first held in 1997, is the bastion of Scandinavian (Nordic) Live Action Roleplay.  Event hosting alternates between the nations of Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark.  Every year since 2003 (along with a booklet in 2001) Knutepunkt/Solmukohta releases a collection of essays presented at the convention.

2003: As LARP Grows Up
2004: Beyond Role & Play
2005: Dissecting LARP
2006: Role, Play, Art
2007: Lifelike
2008: Playground Worlds

The Scandinavian stuff is focused primarily on LARP (which is far difference from American style LARPs), but I think many of the ideas can be applied at the table where theatrics and roleplay are concerned.  If you would like to read more on LARP, I suggest looking through the Journal of Interactive Drama and these university papers: LARP Environments as Information Systems and MIT’s Tensions in LARP.

Spinning Theory on the Web

Though it is found in the lonely corners of the web, there is much RPG Theory that exist right here on the internet, sneaking around in hypertext.  Of course, there are my articles right here at the Labs on Roleplaying Philosophy.  Brian Gleichman from Whitehall ParaIndustries, while a new-comer to the blogosphere, is an old hat in the realm of RPG Theory and has many excellent posts on the subject.

Wikipedia has a short entry on RPG Theory, too bad it doesn’t link to full treatises on the theories it mentions.  Perhaps the final resting place of the Threefold Theory and much of the early, flame ridden, debates about theory is the Google Group for Rec.Games.FRP.Advocacy.  There are probably a few gems of theory in there if you can stomach searching through all the junk.

There are a few websites that collect some of the homeless theory out there.  John Kim’s website has various collections of older material and links to offsite resources (though many are now broken).  RPGStudies.net has an excellent bibliography of publications, dissertations, essays, and case studies for research.

Interdisciplinary Papers

With various overlapping genres, there is no doubt that theory will apply across different categories.  GameStudies.org, a computer game research journal, published a paper on pen & paper RPGs and rules while this essay looks at connecting ritual acts with roleplaying.  The Daedalus Project has nice collection of works focusing on the psychology of MMORPGs.  The Questing GM even looked at how RPGs could be an academic study, and it is interesting to see how RPGs can actually require a strong foundation in the liberal arts.

Moldy Tomes

There are a number of books that explore heavier subjects surrounding RPGs, and it would take a month of proper researching to find any worth looking at, but I am going to present the few I have encountered, sans description.  A warning, many of these books focus on video games, but I think we can still take a lot from their approach and even from what they have to say:

Future Research

I think my future research will include a trip to the alma mater to look through the university’s database of journals and periodicals.  But until I can set aside some time to sit in the library, Google has a new search engine called Google Scholar that might be of use.  Sometime in the near future I want to compile this into a downloadable document that just lists the links and names of the resources.

If you have some interesting theory floating around on your blog or know some that I missed, please place it in a comment!

Listening to: Dethklok – The Dethalbum – Bloodtrocuted

Culture, Design & Development

RPP-101: Defining Roleplaying Games

Posted by Mad Brew On January - 15 - 2009
Polyhedral Dice (c) Dave Ward

Polyhedral Dice (c) Dave Ward 1

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

In the previous article of the Roleplaying Philosophy series, we defined what a game was and was not.  This time we will identify and define the elements that constitute a roleplaying game [RPG].  The execution of this process should result in a suitable definition for what roleplaying games are.

Elements of RPGs

They are Games

A roleplaying game is, as the name states, a type of game.  This means that a roleplaying game must meet the requirements of the definition of game.  As such, a roleplaying game is a dynamic form of play, structured by rules, where players participate to overcome opposition in order to achieve a goal.

However, some theories suggest games must have a victory condition and that RPGs do not meet the criteria for games because of their lack of a victory condition.[2][3] But, I have already defined game with more relaxed criteria.

I also disagree with the criteria that roleplaying games cannot have victory conditions.  I think “defeating the big bad evil guy and averting certain doom” qualifies as a victory condition and is a mainstay of roleplaying adventure/campaign tropes.  Perhaps a better delineation would be that roleplaying games can have an infinite number of goals while other games have a finite number of goals.  I think that another difference is that non-roleplaying games have clearly defined losing conditions.

There is the faction that claims RPGs are not games because games are by their nature competitive[2] while roleplaying games are cooperative.  I contend that roleplaying games are still competitive even if you are not competing directly against living players.  You compete against non-player characters, monsters, traps, and the environment within the virtual world of the game.  It is also possible to compete, or struggle against other players in roleplaying games.  The exercises of political intrigue and social backstabbing that are prevalent with White Wolf’s Vampire games have shown us that.

Some theorists propose that roleplaying games, or roleplaying can never be contained within the boundaries of definition because the genre is too fluid and tends to break any current definition when designers push the envelope on creativity.[4] I think it may be a little pretentious to think that a concept can escape a definitive description.  Humanity has been defining the universe since prehistory, and I think given our current knowledge, defining what a roleplaying game is should be within our grasp.

Needless to say, much of the controversy surrounding the question of whether roleplaying games exist within the set of games is because of what the proponents of alternate theories believe the definition of a game is.  I have provided a fitting definition for game in the previous article; under which, roleplaying games can clearly exist.

Players Assume Roles of Sentience

The crux of the matter when trying to delineate roleplaying games from other forms of games is to define what a role is.  Is choosing the yellow token in Clue and naming it Colonel Mustard a role?  I am of the opinion that it is not, at least within the limitations implied by the rules of Clue.

I propose that a key feature of a role, within the context of an RPG, is the ability for that role to develop.  This means that within a roleplaying game there are resources (i.e. stats, equipment, finances, etc.) connected to the role that are dynamic and change over time.  A role must also be sentient, something with the capability to make decisions.

Some theories[5] state that roleplaying games must be described in narrative and are not acted out physically.  I dispute this definition because acting should actually allow a player to better assume the role, which is the essence of a roleplaying game.  I believe the one of the main motivations behind roleplaying is to explore an alternative reality through the assumption of roles.  This can be done through narrative or by physical action.

Human Moderated Improvisation

McLimore also proposes that all roleplaying game must have a referee, otherwise known as the gamemaster [GM], to mediate conflicts.  I would argue that human moderation is required for a roleplaying game, yet the title of referee could be shared among the players.  A game that distributes the role of GM among the players could resolve conflicts by group consensus.  The implication of the need for human moderation means that a roleplaying game must have more than one player.

Within a roleplaying game a character, controlled by a player, has the freedom to take any action that the character could take if the given situation were real.[6] The player chooses which actions he will take based upon characterization.  In other words, the actions are taken because it is what the character would do and the successes of these actions are determined by the limitations of the character as determined by the rules and the virtual environment.

This is perhaps why many theories determine that there is a need for a dedicated referee, or GM.  Human moderation is indeed required, because there are not any conventional rules that accounts for every action that could be taken or make allowance for all the modifiers to said action.  Even if there are “catch all” mechanics designed to resolve any unknowns, human moderation is needed to verify if the action is even plausible.

Live Action vs. Table Top

I see Live Action Roleplaying [LARP] games as a subset of roleplaying games.  In LARP games, the player physically acts out what his character does, much like an actor in a play, except in LARP it is unscripted.  Actions that are beyond the abilities of living humans or actions that could be potentially harmful (such as casting spells, discharging firearms, or swordplay) are often narrated instead of being fully acted out.  LARPs still possess all the characteristics of roleplaying games.

Table Top roleplaying games are verbally narrated roleplaying games.  While facial expressions and hand gestures are common, most if not all of the action takes place in the players’ imaginations.  RPGs of this category are also referred to as Pen & Paper roleplaying games to distinguish them from video game RPGs, though neither pen and paper or table tops are actually required for play.

About Wargames

Roleplaying games were born from pushing the envelope of the wargaming hobby.  As such, wargames share many characteristics of roleplaying games and much of the terminology has carried over.  We still use the words campaign and combat round in many systems today.

While wargamers take on the roles of generals and commanders during play, wargames are not roleplaying games because they do not contain free improvisation and they have a finite amount of goals (capture objective, eliminate all enemy units, neutralize enemy command, etc.).  Even so, it does not take much to turn a wargame into a roleplaying game.

About Computer Roleplaying Games

Computer roleplaying games [CRPGs], also known as video game RPGs, of the single player variety do not allow for the freedom of improvisation or the true assumption of roles.  Therefore, CRPGs are not actually roleplaying games, but games that attempt to simulate the experience.  CRPGs use the same settings and mechanics as true roleplaying games but lack the true interaction necessary in the games they simulate.

This being said, once a network of additional living players are added to a CRPG, there is potential for true roleplaying.  This evident in the text-based multi-user dungeons (MUDs) that still exist today, but were very popular in the mid to late 90s.  Massive multiplayer online [MMO] games, the descendents of MUDs, also have the potential for true roleplaying as well, and the interactivity (along with the presentation) of these games is one reason why they are so dominant today.

Mad Brew’s Definition of Roleplaying Games

After critically analyzing the elements that comprise a roleplaying game, I am confident to put forth a strong definition of what a roleplaying game is.  Just like with my definition of game, I do not claim that my definition is perfect, and a rational discourse could convince me to change it.

A roleplaying game is a dynamic form of play, structured by rules with human moderation, where players assume and develop virtual roles of sentience and overcome opposition by freely improvising character actions in order to achieve a possibly infinite number of goals.

A less wordy definition that assumes one already knows the Mad Brew definition of Games is: An RPG is a game where players assume and develop virtual roles that freely improvise within the confines of character and human moderation.

The next chapter in the Roleplaying Philosophy series will give a brief history of roleplaying games including an overview of the first RPG and how roleplaying has evolved until its current state.

Listening to: Spinnerette – Ghetto Love – Ghetto Love

References


[1] Image retrieved from Dave Ward’s Flickr page

[2] Kinsman, B. (2006).  System and Theory.

[3] Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003).  Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[4] Walton, J. (Ed.). (2006). Push: New Thinking about Roleplaying, Volume 1.

[5] McLimore, G. (1997).  What is a Role Playing Game?.

[6] Rilstone, A.  (1994). Role-Playing Games: An Overview.

Culture, Design & Development

RPP-100: Defining Game

Posted by Mad Brew On January - 7 - 2009
Black King (c) Michael Maggs

Black King (c) Michael Maggs

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

Last time, we covered the tendency of some roleplayers to disparage the choices of others and why elitists should be strung up by their nipples, or some similar form of punishment.  In these next sections, I want to define some terms and elements found in roleplaying games.  I think that before you can really discuss and quantify a topic, that topic must be explicitly defined.  Without a clear definition the audience will not know which context to place the discussion in.

These definitions are merely theory and are not meant to be the absolute final word on the definition of any given term.  I am open to suggestions and willing to engage in civil debate about any proposal I make.

Current Definitions of Game

The problems with trying to define elements within the roleplaying universe are that 1) the elements comprising said universe are very fluid and can change over time and 2) no official regulatory body has come to the front to research, define, and standardize anything so therefore 3) no one can agree on anything.

The term, roleplaying game, indicates that it classification, type, or genre of a game.  So before moving forward with a definition of a roleplaying game, it would benefit us to first define what a game is.  Merriam-Webster has several definitions, but only one of them truly appeals to me:

Main Entry: game
Pronunciation: \’gām\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century

1 a (1): activity engaged in for diversion or amusement: PLAY

Dictionary.com offers fifteen definitions for the noun, game, but number three seems most compelling:

game [geym]
noun, adjective, gam⋅er, gam⋅est, verb, gamed, gam⋅ing.
-noun

3. A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Origin: bef. 1000; ME gamen, OE gaman; c. OHG gaman glee

The Webster definition is too loose for an accurate definition of a game.  I sometimes sleep as a diversion, or watch movies, or read books, but these activities are not games.  Dictionary.com proposes a definition that is more in line with my views of what a game is, but I think there is still room for improvement.

In 1994, Greg Costikyan wrote an excellent article for issue #2 the British Roleplaying Journal, Interactive Fantasy.  His article, “I Have No Words & I Must Design,” probably contains the most coherent definition of a game.  It still has flaws, which the author identified.   Costikyan even encourages others to build upon his work.  This is exactly what I am going to do.

What a Game is NOT

A game is a form of play, as we play games.  We could also define play as entertainment.  When attempting to define an object, it can sometimes prove useful to define what the object is not.  So what are some forms of entertainment that are not games?

Stories

Stories are a narrative of events conveyed through words and images.  Stories are static because we cannot interact with the story.  Stories are also linear, they go from the same beginning to the same end with the same choices being made every time we read or watch them.  Games are separate from stories because games are dynamic and demand active participation.

Examples of stories: novels, movies, plays, reenactments.

Toys

A toy offers interesting behaviors or properties which may be explored.  A toy may be used as a tool within a game, but the game is not intrinsic to the toy.  A toy may provide feedback and can be interactive, but there are no inherent goals built into the toy.  Games are separate from toys because a game has goals.

Examples of toys: dice, football, miniatures, SimCity.

Puzzles

A puzzle offers a logic structure, or rules, that can be solved with the assistance of clues.  Puzzles can often be found in games.  A puzzle has a goal, to be solved, but does not offer any interactive opposition.  Games are separate from puzzles because they have opponents.

Examples of puzzles: crosswords, Rubik’s cube, jigsaws, cryptograms.

What a Game Has

By defining what a game is not, I was able to extrapolate what makes a game distinct from its brethren in the realm of entertainment.  A game is dynamic and has goals and opposition.  This definition is a step in the right direction, but is still not complete.

I could use this definition to describe war or robbing a bank, which may be approached by its participants as games, but clearly are not (though that could be debated on another blog).  The key separation between a war game and a true war is that the game is a form of play, and thus artificial.  So games provide artificial conflict.  However, I feel we need more requisite elements as well as clarify current elements to accurately define what a game is.

Active Participation

Many forms of traditional entertainment accommodate a passive audience.  While there is an amount of internal interpretation and introspection on the part of the audience, the entertainment is clearly created by others and the audience is reduced to merely receiving.  A game requires input by the participants.

Dynamics

The input provided by participants changes the state of the game.  When the game state changes, the participants are given feedback which helps them react and respond to the game.  Thus the game becomes dynamic, or interactive.

Goals

A game must have one or more objectives or goals.  Without goals, the game becomes a meaningless activity with no direction; it is merely a toy to experience.  Participants will quickly lose interest and there will be no replay value.  Goals are the only way to maintain interest in a game.

Opposition

A game requires participants to struggle towards their goals.  The opposition, or the origin of this struggle, can be provided by real people or artificially.  Without obstacles to impede the path to achieve the goals provided in the game, there is no sense of accomplishment.  Competition between participants is a common method to implement opposition.  The key to opposition in a game is that it must react to participant input.

Rules

A game must be structured, possessing rules to provide resolution for actions.  The rules are the glue that holds the other elements together, providing a framework of acceptable actions and measures to resolve conflicts from opposition so that participants may reach their goals.  The rules also provide the information necessary for players to participate in the game.

Mad Brew’s Definition

So after this query into what a game is, I have formulated my own definition of what a game is.  A game is a dynamic form of play, structured by rules, where players participate to overcome opposition in order to achieve a goal.

This definition is not watertight and could probably use some good word-smithing to hammer it into something that is more eloquent and able to stand the test of time.  I do believe that I have presented a very good foundation of what a game is.

The  next chapter in the Roleplaying Philosophy series will actually tackle the definition of what an RPG is, which I am sure will not gain any sort of consensus at all.

Listening to: Mastodon – Leviathan – Iron Tusk

Culture, Design & Development

RPP-499: Gamer Elitism

Posted by Mad Brew On December - 29 - 2008
Start the Revolution!

Start the Revolution!

Roleplaying Philosophy Series:

I want to start a series on the Philosophy of Roleplaying, where I explore the different styles of play and system mechanics that support them.  But before we delve into higher level academic pursuits, I think we need a remedial course.  This essay is about gamer elitism, its origins, and why it should be eliminated.

Of Munchkins & Elitists

I am always surprised at the amount of elitism within our hobby of Roleplaying.  Our culture is permeated with terms such as twink, munchkin, power-gamer, 3etard, and 4ucktard (ok, so the last term is of my own invention).  Given the propensity for people outside the hobby to dismiss us as immature practitioners of childish games at best or to condemn, castigate, and persecute us for our sins at worse, one would think we would not censure our own brethren.  But we do (and the reactions of outsiders may actually prompt such behavior, but that is a topic for another article).

I need to admit that I am also guilty of being an elitist; my rant on World of Darkness LARPs being evidence as such.  I have definitely developed a stringent definition of what I consider the best method or style of play.  What I need to remember is that is only my assessment of what is best and it may not, and should not, apply to everyone.  Better yet, I should take this philosophy and apply it beyond just roleplaying (well, I doubt I will ever change my opinions that organized religion and any genre of music but metal suck a large phallus).

I hold no illusions that this little essay on gamer elitism will change the deep-rooted views of the roleplaying fundamentalist out there, any more than I could convince religious zealots of their misconceptions.  Nevertheless, I am going to expound upon the subject if for anything else, to improve my own understanding.

Learning to Play

A while back, I read an article on Lamentations of the Flame Princess about  James’ (the blog’s author) take on the how and why Dungeons & Dragons is played the way it is and the stereotypes that have been assigned to the venerable game over time.  Much of what James had to say hit home with me.

What I took from James’ article, “Is this how D&D is supposed to be played?” is that in the 80s a large number of players entered into the hobby because they picked up Dungeons & Dragons at their local toy/hobby store and got with their friends and began playing this cool new game.  The problem was that all these players were islands unto themselves and learned how to play using modules, which were adventures meant to be plugged into an existing campaign.

There were not any mentors, or forums, much less an internet, to guide these young players.  They focused on the mechanics because they were new, and they needed to be able to survive these adventure modules.  So these new players would hack their way through dungeons, take the loot, and level up.  And they had a blast, because it is new.

I can totally relate to his experience.  I started gaming in the late eighties and while my first game may have been under more experienced (but not by much) players, every game after that was an exploration of the hobby.  I remember ordering a few books from a Wargames West (now out of business) catalog back in the day.  I even had to sneak a money order purchase from the local Hooks RX (also out of business) with squirreled away birthday money because my mother didn’t seem to approve of the hobby (either that or the friends I played with, meh).

I read and re-read those books over and over again.  We thought we had the game nailed and we were the pinnacle of roleplaying, but we found out much later that there were many things we did wrong, at least in the eyes of rules when read as written.  I don’t give a damn, because we had a hell of a time doing it “wrong.”  I think that a lot of my nostalgia centers on the discovery of this wonderful hobby of ours.  Learning how to play was an adventure in and by itself.

But now we have a stereotype that D&D is nothing more but 10×10 dungeon rooms filled with orcs and goblins that need some mighty slashing so you can get the gold and XP.  Of course, the simplicity (which is not a bad thing) of the hack’n'slash style of game eventually loses its luster for many gamers.  And so began the evolution of RPGs as publishers tried to meet the needs of gamers looking for something different.

Evolution of RPGs

As you are aware, the modern roleplaying game has its roots in traditional wargaming, with Braunstein being credited as the first RPG.  What?  You say you don’t have a clue about this Braunstein?  Well I fully recommend this enlightening article from Ars Ludi on the roots of roleplaying games.  In fact, you must read it before continuing here, I’ll wait.

Welcome back, I knew you would like that hidden piece of RPG history.  So now you know how Dave Arneson was influenced to start Blackmoor, and all those story-gamers or narrativists thought they were trailblazing.  Arneson paved the way a LONG time ago.  Then Gary Gygax came along married his Chainmail mechanics with Arneson’s setting and that is how we got Dungeons & Dragons.

Now as gamers try to achieve that level of fun they remember having when they first began roleplaying, they begin to look for game systems that push the envelope of known playing style.  The publishers start answering this demand and new games are delivered into the hands of hungry gamers.  Two trends in gaming appeared to assuage these new gamer cravings.

On one hand, there was a trend to create gritty, more realistic mechanics.  This led to the design of systems like Rolemaster where combat became less abstracted and action resolution depends on cross referencing dice results, usually percentile based, with numerous detailed tables.  Other “rules-heavy” games included HârnMaster, RuneQuest, and Traveller (in the context of using tables for character generation at least).

But there was another trend to produce rules-light, narrative systems.  This led to the creation of games like Paranoia, Amber Diceless, and Dragonlance the Fifth Age.  These games have very simple and streamlined mechanics that may not even need dice.  The emphasis is placed upon the story and player narration.

So the elitist roleplayer, needing to prove his superiority within our grand hobby, will cling to the extremes associated with his new preference and ridicule fellow gamers about their choice of game and style.  These gamers have forgotten their roots.

Revolution of Play

I think that most gamers do not evolve.  The term evolve tends to imply a linear progression from primitive (awful) to advanced (awesome).  This idea does not sit well with me because it means that everything a gamer did before he got to the point where he is at is somehow bad.  Hence, gamer elitism.

We are ever trying to reclaim that initial sense of fun and excitement we remember from our introduction into the hobby.  The problem is that our memory of fun is tinted with nostalgia.  We do not have the same perspectives and expectations we had when we started five, ten, twenty years ago.  So we become disgusted with the “old” stuff and embrace the “new” stuff.  Some of us become pretentious pricks who view all who hold onto the “old” stuff as inferior gamers.

However, I think that most gamers revolve.  In the elusive hunt for the fun factor, we sample other styles of play.  We may chew on the gritty crunch, sip on romantic fluff, or both, but eventually we always find our way back to where we began, and that is usually a middle of the road game like Dungeons & Dragons or the World of Darkness.

Keep This in Mind

What you should take away from this essay is that each gamer you meet will probably have different expectations of what roleplaying is and which game systems meet their needs.  Their choice is not inferior to yours and your style of play is not the one true path of enlightenment.  I urge you to try new styles of play, revisit old ones, and offer to show the initiated your preferred style, but just let them know your vehicle isn’t the only one in the garage and their mileage may vary.

We need to nurture the roleplaying community, not fracture it.

Listening to: Metallica - Death Magnetic - The Day That Never Comes

Culture, Design & Development

VIDEO

TAG CLOUD

RECENT

Affliations
Stop SOPA