RPGs: War Games and Theatre Sports

Settembrini · November 01, 2006, 10:07:20 AM

I don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

Settembrini · November 01, 2006, 10:16:21 AM

@Attacking from unexpected angles:

I attended a Polaris demo, and it was shocking, how trite and unimaginative most of the contributions of the participants were.
Adventure Roleplayers can recite Greyhawk history and can enter into lengthy discussions about the merits of mithril as a building materiel.
Wargame nuts know all about WWII, the Civil War etc. down to unhealthy intricacies of Wehrmacht uniforms.
Them Thematics are about the human condition? So where´s the knowledge about literature backing up all those nice little games? Where´s textual analysis, where are the gamers with rocking ideas and witty remarks derived from (un)healthy doses of reading Joyce, Twain, Shakespeare & contemporary literature?

All I see on the respective boards, and all I encountered are fans of movies and tv-shows. Too shallow for me.

When I want fun with pop-culture, Adventure Gaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with history, Wargaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with text, dialogue and the human condition, Thematic Games and Gamers seem to lack on their own playing, field big time.

Blackleaf · November 01, 2006, 10:17:01 AM

QuoteI don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

I've played games of Axis & Allies where there was impro-theatrics.

I think there can be roleplaying at both ends of the spectrum. I think there can be roleplaying in monopoly or chess if the players decide to do it. Where I think there is an axis is for design patterns that support either the tabletop style of game (eg. Make a morale check to see if your Knights hold their ground) or the Theatre Sports style of game (eg. Don't block other player's suggestions).

I can't imagine the "Always say yes" design pattern being used in a boardgame / wargame. I also have a hard time imagining Colin Mockery having his improv bogged down with stat checks, dice rolls, etc by Drew Carrey.

Can you think of an example of a game where it is BOTH extremely wargame centric and extremely TheatreSports centric? I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work -- but maybe someone has a suggestion.

Settembrini · November 01, 2006, 10:19:04 AM

QuoteCan you think of an example of a game where it is BOTH extremely wargame centric and extremely TheatreSports centric? I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work -- but maybe someone has a suggestion.

D&D;-)

Blackleaf · November 01, 2006, 10:26:19 AM

Heh. Yes, D&D is in the middle -- or possibly a bit closer to the wargaming end depending on how far out you perceive the TheatreSports end to be. I think it's a very good balance and an excellent model for an effective RPG.

However, I don't think it's VERY TheatreSports centric. Certainly games like Nobilis, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Mothra, etc etc are much more so. But in moving in that direction, they're much LESS wargame / boardgame influenced than D&D.

If you take D&D as the centre, you can see games further along in either direction, but I can't think of any that are further along in BOTH directions...

Maddman · November 01, 2006, 10:31:12 AM

Quote from: SettembriniI don´t see that it´s an axis of exchange. It´s two dimensions of Roleplaying that are perpendicular to another. They don´t influence each other. In our Empires in Arms Games (Wargame) there used to be a lot of impro-theatrics. Pundit is right though, that D&D derived games (Adventure Games, traditional RPGs) also use both dimensions without going to extremes.

There are other influences out there as well. Exalted in paticular has mechanics that were inspired far more by CCG play than either wargames or improvisational theatre.

I often say that RPGs are their own thing - while they share traits in common with both wargames/board games and theatre games they are different from either. My favorite analogy is that "It's like a mixture of improv theatre and double entry accounting." Ever tried explaining RPGs to someone that's never heard of one? No matter how many analogies you make they still aren't sure what you mean, yet after seeing 5 minutes of a game it all slips into place.

RPGPundit · November 01, 2006, 10:34:47 AM

Quote from: StuartTheatreSports is still a game, just a very different one than a wargame / boardgame. It can be entertaining to play (I've studied acting and done some TheatreSports) and even to watch -- but it's not "Theatre" in the same way that a Shakespearean play is.

Wargames are closely related to other tabletop games with discreet rulesets -- and yes, Chess is definitely one of them.

I'm not suggesting a better/worse judgement of games at any point on the spectrum, and I think even "Classic" RPGs can have slightly different balances.

D&D, the classic RPG, comes in multiple versions: OD&D, AD&D, B/X D&D, BECM D&D, AD&D 2, RC D&D, D&D 3, D&D 3.5, etc

Actually, calling them versions of the same game is a bit misleading -- it's more like multiple games sharing a name and many of the same rules. If we agree that all versions of D&D are RPGs, then there is a spectrum of RPGs ranging from closer to wargame/boardgame to closer to TheatreSports.

I think how close it gets to either end of the Spectrum while still being considered an RPG is a matter of opinion. I'm OK with a lot of games under the umbrella term -- as long as people recognize that they're VERY different at the extremes, and rules/advice for one end will not necessarily be relevant to the other.

Taking games at the TheatreSports end of the spectrum and saying "All RPGs should follow this pattern" is simply bad advice for game designers.

Ok, great.
Now for this theory to be really useful and viable, you need to do two things:

1. Figure out what range of the spectrum is considered a "real" RPG.

2. Figure out how to classify games into one place on the spectrum.

For this, you're going to have to create some criteria.

RPGPundit

RPGPundit · November 01, 2006, 10:35:34 AM

Quote from: jrientsGoing by Ron Edwards definition of indie, I don't think Nobilis counts.

Of course whether one gives a crap about Edwards's opinions is another matter entirely.

We don't go by Ron Edwards' definitions of anything around these parts.

RPGPundit

The Yann Waters · November 01, 2006, 10:52:18 AM

Quote from: StuartI can't imagine the "Always say yes" design pattern being used in a boardgame / wargame.

Why, exactly? The players would still have to conform to the structure of the respective games, which a fixed board would undoubtedly render less lenient. No soldier on that field of hexes could suddenly pull a bazooka out of his pocket just because someone around the table wished that to happen, not unless he already happened to, say, carry an Amazing Shrinking Just-Add-Water Bazooka.

For an example of someone who isn't following the "never say 'no'" principle in the context of a war game, think of a GM forbidding another player from executing a perfectly by-the-book move because he doesn't want the session to be over too quickly. You see, any game featuring a rigid ruleset with no room for their reinterpretation already follows this same principle: if it's possible according to the rules, then you can do it.

jrients · November 01, 2006, 10:58:16 AM

Quote from: RPGPunditWe don't go by Ron Edwards' definitions of anything around these parts.

Who is "we"? Last I checked around here we did the whole "everyone is entitled to their own opinion (no matter how stupid)" thing.

Besides, I thought throwing his definitions back in his face was something of a hobby of yours.

Blackleaf · November 01, 2006, 11:23:40 AM

@GrimGent

Your version of "always say yes" is simply saying the GM needs to say yes when the players want to use one of the rules of the game. Pretty straight forward, especially in a wargame or boardgame. I call that "don't cheat". It has nothing specifically to do with TheatreSports.

I haven't read Nobilis, but that sounds different from what everyone else seems to be discussing. The "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM. This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

I can't imagine that in a wargame. It would be exactly like a player announcing that one of his soldiers had a special weapon. This might even be historically accurate. In WWI many soldiers brought non-standard weapons with them. However, for a wargame/boardgame allowing players to do this without the GM/referee/banker saying "no" would be very disruptive.

Maddman · November 01, 2006, 11:31:15 AM

Quote from: StuartI haven't read Nobilis, but that sounds different from what everyone else seems to be discussing. The "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM. This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

Its not quite to that extent. Its more like if there's no reason why not, say yes. If you don't see how it could happen, tell the player to explain how it could happen. If you don't think it should be that easy, allow it to work but add a complication. One should note that in Nobilis the PCs are essentially gods, so 'that's impossible' doesn't really apply. They can just spend points to change the laws of reality if need be, so it makes sense for that game.

And I'm not an always say yes guy, more like a usually say yes kind of guy.

Erik Boielle · November 01, 2006, 11:35:01 AM

Quote from: Settembrini
@Attacking from unexpected angles:

I attended a Polaris demo, and it was shocking, how trite and unimaginative most of the contributions of the participants were.
Adventure Roleplayers can recite Greyhawk history and can enter into lengthy discussions about the merits of mithril as a building materiel.
Wargame nuts know all about WWII, the Civil War etc. down to unhealthy intricacies of Wehrmacht uniforms.
Them Thematics are about the human condition? So where´s the knowledge about literature backing up all those nice little games? Where´s textual analysis, where are the gamers with rocking ideas and witty remarks derived from (un)healthy doses of reading Joyce, Twain, Shakespeare & contemporary literature?

All I see on the respective boards, and all I encountered are fans of movies and tv-shows. Too shallow for me.

When I want fun with pop-culture, Adventure Gaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with history, Wargaming suits my needs.
When I want fun with text, dialogue and the human condition, Thematic Games and Gamers seem to lack on their own playing, field big time.

Aye - after years of forge games before there was a name for it an L5R game using published adventures was a breath of fresh air - nice to get away from endless improv arguments and in to something with a bit more thought behind it.

Maybe forgies could market themselves as something to gentle introduce people before they are ready for something thats not skin deep.

The Yann Waters · November 01, 2006, 11:35:58 AM

Quote from: StuartThe "Always say yes" design pattern I'm referring to (and which others have commented on) is the idea that players can add anything to the game narrative and their requests can not be denied by the GM. This is like "Yes, Let's" or "Don't Block" in TheatreSports.

That sounds more like the Principle of Narrative Truth in Wushu, perhaps, or the players' contributions in Donjon; it's not how Nobilis ("never say 'no'") works, or Dogs in the Vineyard ("say 'yes' or roll the dice") for that matter.

And yes, I'm familiar with those discussions. It's just that what's being discussed isn't Nob. We've dealt with that misconception before, as said.

(The Monarda Law in a nutshell: if a player asks whether her character can attempt some in-game action during play, the GM might want to consider other options than bluntly saying "no".)

The Yann Waters · November 01, 2006, 11:43:03 AM

Quote from: MaddmanOne should note that in Nobilis the PCs are essentially gods, so 'that's impossible' doesn't really apply. They can just spend points to change the laws of reality if need be, so it makes sense for that game.

Within limits. When this topic came up a little while over at RPGnet, I mentioned that Nobilis has its "jump rules" just like any other game, but those rules take into account the possibility that someone might conceivably jump to the moon. However, there are many, many things which still remain impossible, and not in the sense that they could be solved with a quick Aspect 7 miracle. Incidentally, pulling a "special weapon" out of thin air without the appropriate Domain or Gift is one of those things.