Dysfunctional Gamers
So there have been a number of discussion recently around the idea that storytelling and social ability was hampered by certain "traditional" RPGs -- in particular "storytelling" designs that became dominant in the nineties. I don't want to get into the original language (which I'm discussing elsewhere), but I want to comment on the larger perspective. In general, I'm tired of the perennial claims that role-players are dysfunctional or broken because they differ from the norm. Differing from the norm doesn't mean that people are broken.
I'm not a pure relativist in terms of design, though. I agree with Ron Edwards particularly that the dominant design style of nineties RPGs was poorly considered. There were a lot of negative trends, particularly imitating bits of Star Wars and Vampire: The Masquerade. Rather than a description of locations and background, published modules often were a linear sequence of scenes which the PCs had to go through -- with matching GM advice to pre-plot story. The worst here were Torg and Deadlands where linearity was an absolute formula. I feel this makes for poor game play. Even AD&D went to this for their modules, and it slowly started dying as a game line until the point that it was acquired by Wizards of the Coast. Also, many game books had highly polished layout and atmospheric illustrations, but terribly edited and often broken mechanics. White Wolf published some of the worst cases for that. Promising lines of innovations were ditched -- like troupe style play from Ars Magica, for example.
However, keep this in perspective. Bad design wrapped up in cool, glossy packaging is absolutely standard in the world of consumer products -- not at all a unique sin of RPGs. And there is some good among the offenders. Torg had some nice innovations in its Drama Deck, while Deadlands did good stuff with dice and card mechanics. By comparison, pre-German-invasion boardgames were in something of a rut as well. A lull in design innovation doesn't mean that the players are fundamentally broken or damaged. I think it's interesting to look back. Glenn Blacow's "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" was published in Different Worlds magazine in 1980. It divided gamers into Power Gaming, Role-playing, Wargaming, and Story Telling. About Story Telling, Blacow said the following: Now, the pure form of the story telling game is rare, and every campaign emphasizing it is unique. The details of what's going on depend entirely on what story the GM is telling. A role-player encountering such a game for the first time will usually find it a trifle odd, for unlike the heavily role-playing game, the player characters are not on the center of the stage, not the element about which events revolve. The player characters can only act within the tale, and their freedom is somewhat limited...
I think this pretty accurately matches Edwards' criticism of nineties storytelling RPGs. However, this wasn't some new innovation come up with around 2000 -- it was from a well-known article in 1980.
Now, to be fair, experiences differ. I absolutely believe that many people had terrible experiences in role-playing. I haven't seen all of the ways that happens. I don't completely fit the profile of the problematic games. I am familiar with White Wolf, but mainly through Mind's Eye Theater larps in the Chicago area and a few convention games. I never played tabletop White Wolf, Torg, or Deadlands. My most common mainstream games were Hero System and GURPS, with side play of Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Simply Roleplaying, Fudge, and others.
From my perspective, I would say that games which promoted GM control over a preplanned linear storyline instilled bad habits in gamers who followed it. What should we do about it?
1) Promote functional rules
This goes beyond everyone designing their own indie games which has functional rules, though that is also good. If a published game has dysfunctional rules, we need to call them on it. Write scathing reviews of the games which are the worst offenders. Talk online about it. (My own reviews tend to be tame. I consider what I said about Aberrant and Lord of the Rings to be pretty damning, say, but it lacked force.)
A key part here is that to effectively do this, we need to distinguish between dysfunctional rules and rules that we don't happen to like. If you're not interested in looking in detail at a variety of traditional games and how they work, then you shouldn't talk about them in general terms. Instead, talk positively about the new games you're trying, or talk in detail about the games that you know.
2) Emphasize social function
I think there's often too much emphasis on what games do in abstract terms about the fiction. Most people don't give a damn if you can "Explore Setting" or "Address Premise". Can you score with goth chicks? Can you learn about real cultures and real people? Can you make a great party that all your friends want to come to?
This includes more attention to the real physical conditions of play. What are people saying? Who talks to who? How do they gesture? What pictures and images are they seeing? Where are the sitting or standing? What are they wearing? All of these things are normal things to think about for social activities, but are neglected in most analyses of RPGs.
3) Cross-polinate
Play other games and engage in other activities, and draw in ideas from them. Many of the cool ideas from larp can apply to tabletop games, and vice-versa. Outside of RPGs, we can look at theater games, board games, party games, psychological role-playing, literary theory, film theory, and so forth.
Anyhow, that's my piece.
I'm not a pure relativist in terms of design, though. I agree with Ron Edwards particularly that the dominant design style of nineties RPGs was poorly considered. There were a lot of negative trends, particularly imitating bits of Star Wars and Vampire: The Masquerade. Rather than a description of locations and background, published modules often were a linear sequence of scenes which the PCs had to go through -- with matching GM advice to pre-plot story. The worst here were Torg and Deadlands where linearity was an absolute formula. I feel this makes for poor game play. Even AD&D went to this for their modules, and it slowly started dying as a game line until the point that it was acquired by Wizards of the Coast. Also, many game books had highly polished layout and atmospheric illustrations, but terribly edited and often broken mechanics. White Wolf published some of the worst cases for that. Promising lines of innovations were ditched -- like troupe style play from Ars Magica, for example.
However, keep this in perspective. Bad design wrapped up in cool, glossy packaging is absolutely standard in the world of consumer products -- not at all a unique sin of RPGs. And there is some good among the offenders. Torg had some nice innovations in its Drama Deck, while Deadlands did good stuff with dice and card mechanics. By comparison, pre-German-invasion boardgames were in something of a rut as well. A lull in design innovation doesn't mean that the players are fundamentally broken or damaged. I think it's interesting to look back. Glenn Blacow's "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" was published in Different Worlds magazine in 1980. It divided gamers into Power Gaming, Role-playing, Wargaming, and Story Telling. About Story Telling, Blacow said the following: Now, the pure form of the story telling game is rare, and every campaign emphasizing it is unique. The details of what's going on depend entirely on what story the GM is telling. A role-player encountering such a game for the first time will usually find it a trifle odd, for unlike the heavily role-playing game, the player characters are not on the center of the stage, not the element about which events revolve. The player characters can only act within the tale, and their freedom is somewhat limited...
I think this pretty accurately matches Edwards' criticism of nineties storytelling RPGs. However, this wasn't some new innovation come up with around 2000 -- it was from a well-known article in 1980.
Now, to be fair, experiences differ. I absolutely believe that many people had terrible experiences in role-playing. I haven't seen all of the ways that happens. I don't completely fit the profile of the problematic games. I am familiar with White Wolf, but mainly through Mind's Eye Theater larps in the Chicago area and a few convention games. I never played tabletop White Wolf, Torg, or Deadlands. My most common mainstream games were Hero System and GURPS, with side play of Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Simply Roleplaying, Fudge, and others.
From my perspective, I would say that games which promoted GM control over a preplanned linear storyline instilled bad habits in gamers who followed it. What should we do about it?
1) Promote functional rules
This goes beyond everyone designing their own indie games which has functional rules, though that is also good. If a published game has dysfunctional rules, we need to call them on it. Write scathing reviews of the games which are the worst offenders. Talk online about it. (My own reviews tend to be tame. I consider what I said about Aberrant and Lord of the Rings to be pretty damning, say, but it lacked force.)
A key part here is that to effectively do this, we need to distinguish between dysfunctional rules and rules that we don't happen to like. If you're not interested in looking in detail at a variety of traditional games and how they work, then you shouldn't talk about them in general terms. Instead, talk positively about the new games you're trying, or talk in detail about the games that you know.
2) Emphasize social function
I think there's often too much emphasis on what games do in abstract terms about the fiction. Most people don't give a damn if you can "Explore Setting" or "Address Premise". Can you score with goth chicks? Can you learn about real cultures and real people? Can you make a great party that all your friends want to come to?
This includes more attention to the real physical conditions of play. What are people saying? Who talks to who? How do they gesture? What pictures and images are they seeing? Where are the sitting or standing? What are they wearing? All of these things are normal things to think about for social activities, but are neglected in most analyses of RPGs.
3) Cross-polinate
Play other games and engage in other activities, and draw in ideas from them. Many of the cool ideas from larp can apply to tabletop games, and vice-versa. Outside of RPGs, we can look at theater games, board games, party games, psychological role-playing, literary theory, film theory, and so forth.
Anyhow, that's my piece.