In the past couple of days I have, for one reason or another, been leafing through several rulebooks - Unknown Armies, Apocalypse World, 3:16, and Call of Cthulhu, among others - and something I have noticed is that there is a tendency among modern rulebooks to either disavow any attempt to describe what a role playing game is, or at least to caveat that description by saying something along the lines of "you probably know what a role playing game is already..."
Hence, Unknown Armies (at least as far as I can see) does not even describe what a role playing game is in its introductory chapter. In Apocalypse World, we are told "You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation." Meanwhile, in 3:16, we get "3:16 is a role-playing game.There is a very good chance that you already know what this means. If so, please skip ahead to the next column."
I find this entirely understandable (because let's face it, if you're reading 3:16 or Apocalypse World or Unknown Armies, the chances are you're already au fait with RPGs) but also a little sad (because of the clear implication that people who design role playing games nowadays don't have a great deal of faith that they'll reach any audience outside of the hobby).
This doesn't mean that the hobby is in decline or failing to expand, of course - I think it has always grown primarily by word of mouth and people inviting newcomers along to join their group. It does speak to an increasingly clique-y approach, however: if you're in with the 'in crowd' (I use the term insofar as it is possible to use it in regard to fat nerds pretending to be elves) you'll be introduced to the hobby, whereas if you don't know anybody who is involved, you simply won't. This seems inevitable, and yet at the same time it doesn't sit right: there is a part of me, possibly equipped with rose-tinted glasses, which thinks a certain amount of ambition and hope seems to have drained from the collective subconscious of role playing gamers.
I think it's a weird situation:
ReplyDeleteyou get introduced to a book by a book
you can get introduced to a movie by a movie
so the equivalent would be introducing yourself to a game by a game
being introduced to a game by a manual on how to play the game would be--in any medium--an unusual situation. The appeal and outreach and things that make the _book_ cool to the uninitiated may not line up with the outward signs of fun that make _actually playing_ cool.
There's also the problem that we really NEED to know what each particular designer's definition of roleplaying game is. Wildly different goals and playstyles exist, and are virtually alien to each other. If I pick up a new rulebook, I really want to hear from the designer how it is meant to be played, as it is essential to understanding the rest of the rules and how to use them.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. I have read quite a few of those "what a roleplaying game is" sections that have made me think "No, that's not what it's about at all."
DeleteI find my tendency to react in that way has increased as I've got older. My reaction has changed from, 'hmm, that's interesting', to a haughty, 'well, that's not how I will be playing this game'.
DeleteNot a particularly admirable change, I'll admit.
I never liked (well never read) "What is a roleplaying game" sections. They seem stupid, condescending, and aren't even good at doing what they intend. Maybe when the hobby didn't exist there was some point. But, not now, at least not for English speaking audience.
ReplyDeleteI did read the "example of play" in my first RPG, Redbox. That is the best way, in print, of showing what the game is about and *one* way to play it. Do more of that. And more Avalon Hill style "programmed instruction" if your teaching something new or new to audience.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there needs to be something if you're a completely new player - otherwise none of the contents will quite make sense.
DeleteDo any role-playing games say something like "this is like WoW or Final Fantasy, except that a person takes the role of the computer, and this means your character has a lot more freedom of action"?
ReplyDeleteNot as far as I'm aware of. I think it sounds like a good idea.
DeleteI think that's a good way of helping to set some expectations for new players.
DeleteGood God, please no!
Delete@Dr Bargle
DeleteWhy not? What's wrong with the idea?
Just curious :)
I mean, if I can expand a little on my exclamation, what are those games? Final Fantasy games are railroads of cut scenes. Sure, people do play role playing games that way, but...
DeleteAnd WoW? Endless respawning loot amassing grind? Sure, people do play role playing games that way too, but...
I'm not looking for something that describes role playing games as some form of amateur dramatics (ugh), or interactive story telling (argh), for me *game* is the key word. But WoW is no closer to a role playing game than Gauntlet ever was, and the railroads of Final Fantasy are not much more a role playing game than Altered Beast or Rygar.
That's not to say that fantasy-themed computer adventure games can't be fun (those two aren't, in my opinion), but CRPGs bear the same relationship to role playing games that RnB bears to Rhythm and Blues.
Bloody hell, I *am* grumpy.
I think you've made a good point: maybe WoW and FF aren't the best things to be referenced.
DeleteI suppose the thing to emphasise (if any connection can be made) is that a tabletop RPG is like some aspects of them, but with much greater freedom.
You might start there, but it's important to both contrast and compare to WoW and FF. Interactive fiction (e.g. Zork) would be another comparison point, but it seems that even fewer people would have any experience there.
DeleteI liked the LotFP solo game. Much better than any blah blah discourse on what a frp is or should be.
ReplyDeleteDidn't know it existed. Is it like a gamebook?
DeleteI'll second that. I thought it was brilliant the way Raggi included an introductory "Choose Your Own Adventure"-type gamebook section in the Tutorial for Lamentations of the Flame Princess RPG.
DeleteIf I ever wrote a roleplaying game, I would combine the rules and the chargen process into a gamebook -- by the time you get to the end, you will have created a starting character as well as run through an interactive tutorial.
I think D&D Essentials might have done this, as well as one of the RPGs set in Tekumel.
DeleteI got introduced to rpg's when I got the WEG Star Wars game for christmas. I had never played before, and even though rpgs where quite a popular hobby in Sweden back in those halcyon days I did not know anyone involved in the hobby. We had to learn by reading the manuals and experimenting so I was glad for every sentence describing how this equally intriguing and confusing new game was supposed to be played.
ReplyDeleteSo such people do exist. I did think so - my introduction was through a friend's brother and then through other friends, so I had it all explained to me straight away.
DeleteSome of us had to be introduced to the hobby through books because we didn’t know anyone who could show it to us. I guess that may rarely be the case anymore, though. Today there’s also the option of just pointing people to Wikipedia rather than trying to write yet another explaination.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that many of us (explicitly including myself there) will find things to quibble about in any “What is an RPG?” text may be a big reason it gets left out.
But it is a really good point that a game should tell the reader what the author’s working definition is. (Or, really, the game’s, since it can vary for different games by the same author.) The key, I think, is to present it as a definition of RPGs rather than pretending that any finite bit if prose is really going to cover all the bases.
I more or less agree, but I think saying off the bat that "this is just one definition, there are others" might make things more confusing!
DeleteIt seems like the beginning of the book is the place for a restrictive, maybe even simplified definition, especially of there is a "where to go from here" bit at the end that talks about other games and styles.
DeleteReally though, it’s easy enough for someone to find the answer to the question themself these days. I won’t say that it should not be included, but neither do I think it should.
DeleteThe flip side is, how many people are going to pick up 3:16 or even Unknown Armies without being fans of RPGs? They don't have much presence in Barnes & Noble, where someone might stumble across them while browsing. They don't link into another property that might attract fans.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a mainstream game, like D&D or World of Darkness, you need the "how to play" section. If you have a licensed product, you also need that section, because cross-selling means there's a strong possibility that this will be someone's first game. Otherwise, we can assume that the reader doesn't need an introduction.
You don't offer training wheels on a racing bike. You don't offer golf lessons with every set of clubs. At a certain point, you recognize that your product is not a gateway product, but is intended for serious hobbyists.
While I agree that D&D and WoD have been the "gateway" game for many people, they're not the only ones. Nearly every game out there has been a "gateway" for somebody.
DeleteWell, I did say that is was unlikely somebody would be entering with 3:16, but you really do never know; my local Forbidden Planet has some surprising stuff on its RPG shelf these days.
DeletePersonally, I'd like a double-sided laminated sheet that describes "What is a roleplaying game" and "what the player does, what the DM does." You can never use it, not worry about it, or hand it out when there are new players.
ReplyDeleteAmbition and hope draining from the collective subconscious is rose tinted glasses? Never put on the blue glasses.
ReplyDelete