For videogames, IF, or Choose Your Own Adventure games, the narrative is a set thing, a story, to be consumed and enjoyed. He points out that it’s a feedback or reward, because you make choices during gameplay, but you don’t make choices during the “story” (cutscenes, results, etc.).

But, for tabletop roleplaying, the definition of a tabletop rpg depends on the value of fiction/non-mechanical elements being a meaningful part of play (in some games, the primary or sole factor in play).

A bigger, and more valuable consideration from his post, though, is that for those games, mechanics can generate many experiences, but the “set story” gives a single experience – it takes a lot of effort for a limited value, compared to the mechanics which create play.

For tabletop games, first let’s think about combat, mechanic heavy games where the GM is forced to create encounters, every week, over and over. This means the GM is now forced to be a level designer, who has no chance to playtest or edit, but is forced to create, play, and modify on the fly for their group. Is it any wonder burnout is common in this play? Luckily many games have gotten better about encounter creation and management, but it’s still a concern.

Second, consider Illusionism, which is basically creating a story, constantly, and having to engineer it into happening with unaware actors. If player input is blocked, you have the same situation as in Koster’s post- little actual gameplay, but a lot of one-shot story event responses.

The key design element I’m seeing for tabletop games, overall, given the history, is how well do they give the group tools to interact with the fictional/non-mechanical elements they create, and how well does it coordinate the group working together? That whole Clouds and Arrows discussion is the issue.

The sad irony is, for all the accusations that newer rpgs are “basically videogames”, the fact is, in the light of low gameplay high “feed you a story”, that’s pretty much mostly rpgs of the 90′s that promoted that – we’re moving away from that and more towards what rpgs actually do support best.

For tabletop rpgs, narrative (fictional events) IS a game mechanic – the group creates it collaboratively and it feeds back and forth with the mechanics.

Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won’t believe it right now—we’re designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn’t want or need. Or vice versa. It’s all up to you to decide.

Although no one has really employed this on this scale of modularity before, you need only look at 1E Fighters vs. 1E Thieves or Wizards to see that different characters can have different complexity of rules and operate just fine.

What I’m guessing is going to be more of a pain is stuff like having to design spells, feats, monsters, etc. to be balanced regardless of which subsystem is in effect or not. (the feats people picked in 3E changed drastically depending on if they were using a grid or not…)

But the big problem? The big problem is going to be whether they can get deeper than this:

This new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn’t about rules. It’s about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They’re not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games…. These stories bring us together. As D&D players, we shouldn’t allow rule preferences to separate us. In the end, we have a lot more in common than we have differences…

Being able to pick the level of complexity is an nice thing, but it’s moot if we cannot agree on what the rules are supposed to achieve in the first place.

Just because a bunch of people “want to play D&D” doesn’t automatically make them have anything in common, because D&D (or really, roleplaying) could be many things.

The problem that lay ahead is that even if players can pick their own subset rules, the group has to coordinate together for functional play.

Otherwise we return to the days of 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours, where, depending on what’s any given player is in for, they get their short bit of the thing they like and are bored while the rest of the session drags on.

Folks are trying to fundraise to put together a QPOC rpg videogame. I’d say if they need anything right now, it’s a) anyone who can help them get some funding and investors, and b) some donations, and c) word out.

A result, said David M. Ewalt, a senior editor at Forbes and the author of a forthcoming history of Dungeons & Dragons, has been a fractured fan base. The game is a group activity, he said, and playing together is tricky when players use different rules. “Imagine trying to organize a basketball team, if the point guard adheres to modern league rules, but the center only knows how to play ancient Mayan handball.”

As I’ve said for some time now, you actually need to be using the same rules for a game to work.

All that said, strategically I don’t think backward compatibility will be a good thing for WOTC, business-wise. The old school niche is already well served between the used book market, illegal scans, and the Old School Renaissance.

These sentences are short and precise, though that doesn’t necessarily make them easier to understand.

The one nice thing is that of these, only one word is used out of “general understanding” and that is “fiction” being the “Things we imagine at the table when we roleplay”.

I’ll go ahead and put up the usual, rarely heeded caveat that these descriptions indicate what each CA highly prioritizes over other things, which isn’t the same as completely excluding what the other CAs prioritize.

Narrativism:
Systems aimed at producing a creative process that creates emotionally meaningful improvised fiction.

Gamism:
Systems aimed at producing competitive challenges that includes non-quantifiable factors (Fictional Positioning) as aspects of play.

Notice that the non-quantifiable factors actually are what differentiate gamist rpgs from other types of general games (boardgames, minis, cardgames, etc.)

Simulationism:
Systems aimed at producing fiction and experiences within a given set of expectations and boundaries.

If we had a big 3 circle Venn diagram of system features*, you could put those definitions in their respective areas, and for the overlapping ones:

Narrativist/Gamist:
- Requires player agency
- Requires uncertain outcomes
- Often benefits from immediate reward systems to focus play

Narrativist/Simulationist:
- Requires coherent creative buy-in from everyone playing (even assuming everyone is going for the same agenda)
- Fictional elements are often key to decision making
- Often may benefit from having solid setting/situation materials from which to draw upon.

Simulationist/Gamist:
- Successful play requires a strong understanding of the limitations to acceptable action (whether fiction based or mechanics)
- Often benefits from mechanics designed to enforce consistency

ETA: It didn’t take long at all for people to already misread this venn diagram idea. So I guess I gotta break down.

Priorities. If you have to pick between putting A first, or B first, and you consistently pick A, we could say A is your primary priority and B is not. If you are asked to put A first, or B first, and you say “Both!”… well, you should go back to seeing if you can get the square peg in the round hole…

Creative Agendas are exclusive in that hybrids don’t make functional play, just like you can’t go both north and south at the same time.

That said, the features in Creative Agendas are identified by priorities, NOT exclusion – which means Narrativism prioritizes the things in Narrativist/Gamist and Narrativist/Simulationist OVER the stuff in Simulationist/Gamist (if such a game even gives a whit about those things at all). Likewise, Gamism puts it’s stuff in it’s two lists OVER the stuff in Narrativist/Simulationist, and likewise Simulationism puts it’s two lists OVER the stuff in Narrativist/Gamist.

For any CA, there’s one of those overlapping areas it puts last, under the things it DOES care about.

*These overlapping similarities should not be taken to assume these become compatible or hybrid options. I’d say, the illusion that the similarities might work together has probably been a source of a lot of unfun play for a long time now.

It’s rather like how a minivan, a race car and an 18 wheeler truck share similarities as automobiles but no one has really found a way to mix them in function.

Both games have shifting “GM-ish” roles, lack “success/failure” task dice mechanics, instead basing more on player judgment and rewards and play really well in one sitting.

If you want to explore rpg theory, these two games (along with; Primetime Adventures and Shadow of Yesterday) would be a great base to start with.

1. Explain the win conditions/general point of play

I start here, because it tells people what they’re TRYING to do, and makes all the rules I give after that, have context.

2. Explain the general rules that constitute the majority of gameplay and a basic strategy around them

I start general, because, again, we’re laying out context – it’s like having folders to store documents in- the folder lets you categorize what the specific rules are, and assists people in retaining the ideas.

I also give a general strategy, because any game that’s a good strategy game can’t be mastered by a quick explanation, plus it gives the new player context to see what other players are doing and why, and learn from that as well. Without that context, the actions appear opaque.

3. Go only into the specifics as immediately pertain to the new players just before, or just as it comes up in play

Save the weird, exception based stuff for last, and only as it’s immediately important or very likely to be immediately important.

Sure, it’s probably great to know that this one thing has this one exception that could be important- but odds are good a new player won’t be able to remember it, or really figure out the reason it’s important. Get them up on the basics first, and the things they’re immediately dealing with.

4. Have everyone explain motivations or highlight choices for the first part of play

“I’m choosing this because it’s good for this and that.” “I’m spending my Bonus Points to get extra dice.” etc. This helps again, give the player context and to model off of what everyone else is doing.

5. Lay out options for new players during play, and point out some strengths/weaknesses to each

Whenever it comes around to the new player’s chance to take action, be sure to list out some viable choices and what makes any of them good choices or why a few are bad choices.

Notice that this is different than simply going, “YOU SHOULD DO THIS”. You may encounter places where there is only one good option, and if that’s the case, point out why that is, and why the other ones aren’t good. (A good game shouldn’t have too many of these points in play…)

The Pitfalls to Avoid

The two big pitfalls I see happen a lot are either trying to explain the rules by the order of procedure OR by getting caught up in explaining EVERY option, instead of what’s immediate and most important.

And the reason is this:

Whatever you first tell players, is most likely to stick. The more material you explain, the less they remember.

So if you start off with explaining 20 minutes of how to set things up, or a whole lot of options but not an overall context- by the time you get around to those important things (assuming you do…) it’s all a blur at that point.

Example: Burning Wheel 101

Burning Wheel 101

Many times I will put together a “quicksheet” – a simple 1-2 page document that highlights the basic rules and procedures for a given roleplaying game. It’s not intended as a full teaching document, as much as something the players can read before the game, AND something the players can reference during the game.

And, as we play, and I highlight options or make suggestions, I point back to the sheet as a process of getting players to see that the core information is right there, and they can and should access it regularly.

“Hey, you could get 2 extra dice if you FORK in your Maps-Wise and Orienteering skills on your sheet.” *points to FORKs section on the sheet*

Making a quicksheet also helps you learn how to phrase things and figure out which aspects are most important in explaining how a given game works. Then, when you come around to teaching new people- you just follow the sheet as a list of talking points.

Narrativist gaming can go anything from a short one shot to hundreds of hours of play, which means it could hold the same length and opportunity to explore ideas as the longest epic story or tv series, to the length of a movie or tv show in terms of time.

And, when you look at these different media, you can see the types of themes and depth, is constrained by time. I’m guessing that one of the biggest areas we’ll see exploration in design for Nar play is going to be about how we handle time and coordinate our theme exploration around that.

Right now, we have about 3 means of bounding time:

1. A set number of sessions

Primetime Adventures is the key here, though self-imposed limits(such as a one-shot) tend to work well- the group can pace their exploration with this in mind. You can make sure to place anything your doing with the idea of potentially/probably seeing resolution by the end of the set limit.

2. A mechanical* ending trigger

My Life with Master really started this, though you see it in Polaris, Breaking the Ice, Bliss Stage, Burning Empires, Poison’d and a lot of other games- there’s some kind of stat, event, or score that eventually triggers off endgame for everyone. Since everyone at the table knows what that looks like, they can angle for or against it- how things end is a pretty big statement that wraps things up.

(*obviously, mechanical could also include stuff like “When two players or more decide it’s over” or such)

3. Unbounded

This, right now, seems to be the default in a lot of ways. While this isn’t too bad, and enough games still allow you to regularly hit themes with either group prioritization or mechanics (Burning Wheel, HeroQuest, Riddle of Steel), the big problem is coordinating the scale of theme to address and wrap up. Not to mention the usual problem of unbounded play in general- keeping it going. Committing to indefinite play is difficult for most people.

I’m guessing what we’re going to see over the next 10 years is actual expertise in what themes fit for what time spans and better mechanics to meet those needs. Right now, we hear about people having legendary results of long term campaigns once-in-a-while, because I’m guessing we’re lacking both techniques and mechanics to make more consistent results. (And, of course, the classic time issue)

Inspectres

I ran Inspectres, and I think I finally found my stride with the game. It basically came together with three factors. First, having pregenerated character stats just made things a lot smoother. Second, giving the most barest and necessary bits of the rules let people focus on the situation and play, instead of tumbling rules in their heads. Third, I finally figured out how best to give Stress – given that the Inspectres business is a crappy start-up, you just begin with the sorts of things that make life a hassle, and turn it all the way up to the spooky weird shit.

For our game, we had the start up which was founded by a college kid with a rich dad, operating out of one of those cubicle offices which had seen 5 other start-ups go through since the beginning of the year… a hodge-podge of leftover equipment and posters on the wall. It sped onward to their franchise being accidentally identified as working for/against the Occupy movement (much to the founders’ father’s chagrin), and media calls to their offices being answered by Dmitri, the eastern european Open Source new hire who managed to give the worst possible series of sound bites all in a row. The problem was answering a ghost problem in Oakland City Hall, actually a building underneath City Hall which (as game play revealed) turned out to be an older supernatural collection zone, which was now a magical superfund site.

The three tools I’ve found to making Inspectres sing is:

1. Pacing – be sure to move things along when the players get enough Franchise dice. I’ve seen a couple of games where the investigation takes up most of the dice, and the actual resolution doesn’t get enough space to play out.

2. Stress – Inflicting a few 1 and 2 dice Stress rolls for each character pumps up the tension.

3. Questions- stealing a bit from Apocalypse World, I made sure to ask questions about the place of business, how they operated (“What’s the company car?” “It’s a 1997 Miyata. It was a graduation gift.”) It really brought out the hilarity of the situation.

Yuuyake Koyake/Golden Sky Stories

Ewen ran this for us and what a charming game! I think it hits all the buttons of cute/feel good and I’d really like to play a campaign of this. Everyone plays magical animals who have various powers, including the ability to change into humans, and help people in their daily lives.

The game uses no dice or cards or randomizers whatsoever. Basically, you do things, and players award each other Dreams points along the way for doing anything that is cool, funny, cute, or awesome. Which isn’t hard to do, because each of the characters has “Weaknesses”, which mostly boil down to the things the given animal would do that’s entertaining. I played a lazy, skittish, selfish cat. If you know cats, that’s not hard at all. All I had to do was basically do “cat things” and points happened.

You use Dreams to build up relationships to other characters. Those relationship stats lead to you having more abilities or powers to do stuff. So it forms this interesting feedback circle of “Roleplay well, get Dreams. Spend Dreams to show us which characters you care about. Those characters you care about, give you more points to do things. Do things to roleplay well…”

I can’t wait for this to see translation and publication in the US. I will be buying a copy as soon as it happens.

You can easily figure out this is the real motivation in these threads because a) none of these people have considered other media which have used racial issues to compare against, and b) they get defensive when people point out reasons you might not want that in your game.

So what considerations would you ACTUALLY have to go through if you wanted to meaningfully engage the subject?

Let’s start with an excellent point about context, in this case, talking about sexism in Batman:

There is a 60-year tradition of Batman happening in a PG context, and one where maybe there are mass murderers, but people are often less generally shitty in terms of casual racism and sexism than the world we live in.

Suddenly, we’ve got all that shitty casual sexism, but without any rationale for why this should be. We’re outside the bracket, which makes anybody who is in any way comfortable with the usual Batman context uncomfortable. And there’s no good reason for it, which makes most people who care at all about either the integrity of this world, or about, well, women, angry.

Angry because the writers of this game have a perfectly plausible reason to indulge in being not shitty. And they chose, instead, to turn the Shitty Dial up to 11 in a way that violates the whole context of the thing they’re working on.

Context #1: Expectations

One of the points the Batman quote has is that different media produces different expectations. You expect different things from watching a Disney cartoon vs. an Aronofsky film.

Most roleplayers are in it for escapism- usually light hearted adventure, where you don’t have to deal with heavy social issues. (Cluebat for the whitefolks: Only people who don’t ever really have to be on the receiving end of racism consider it a non-issue.)

So, question #1 is whether this is something your group WANTS in the first place and wants to engage with?

Context #2 How does this serve your game?

Also, does racial issues serve the game you’re playing?

This is actually more complicated. Because there’s really only two ways you can deal with racism in your game- critically, or non-critically. (ETA: A great post on the value and harm of how art works or fails to work, critically and uncritically about problematic issues.)

Non-critically means the racism is there, and… it’s just there, there’s no real engaging it. It also means you’ve just said, “Wow, my gaming is made more fun by including racism!”

I’ll leave it to the brighter amongst you to think about what that says.

Critically means there actually needs to be a way to engage and deal with the issue of racism. And this also means saying MORE than simply, “Racism is bad”. That much is obvious, the questions start becoming, “How does it work? What does it do to people? How do you survive in it?”

This is the point when it makes sense to really consider other media dealing with race issues and where it works well, or fails.

For example, the usual cop-outs white media does with racism that makes it into a non-critical treatment:

1) Kumbayah! Racism erased overnight!
2) But everyone’s equally messed up and nice! (Crash)
3) Magical Transformations (District 9, Avatar)
4) Actually, POC are the racists! (Last Samurai, Lakeview Terrace)

Compare all of this to say, The Color Purple or Serafina.

(Cluebat for white people #2: If all this sounds really fucking hard and probably-not-fun, guess what? This is why a lot of people, don’t include it in their games. Especially for a lot of us who deal with enough aggravating shit in life, regularly.)

Context #3 No Cookies for Racists

So I mean, think about all this. If you’re playing your game with your friends, it’s not like the Game Police will show up to check you on your racially sketchy, or straight up racist gaming.

No one need ever know what your game is about.

But these recurring online conversations keep coming up because what’s really going on is that people are looking for reassurances and rationalizations for things they already know, in the back of their head, is messed up.

And in doing so, it really reveals their true intent- it’s not EVEN about pointing out the problems of racism as much as undercover reveling in it- like how a lot of media with rape glorifies the rape scenes while theoretically going, “How terrible, how terrible”

The questions are never in good faith, because they’re extremely defensive to anything except the one answer they want to hear, which is, “Yeah, awesome, doesn’t bug me!”

So yes, racism, like any other heavy real-world topic that cannot be solved with a fireball or giant robot, like child abuse, rape, drug addiction, spousal violence, etc.:

Gaming will not teach you about what you don’t know. – you and your group CREATE the content in your games, if you don’t know about something, you’re not going to magically manifest it to learn it back in play. (Otherwise, you know, we could roleplay “How to create world peace” or “Cure for AIDS” and fix the world).

Gaming MIGHT give you new perspectives or insights on what you know, but if your base assumption place is either, “Racism isn’t a problem”/”Racism is over”, you’re only going to continue from a place of ignorance.

Do whatever you’re going to do with your gaming. But every time one of those conversations pops up? Just remember, it’s yet another example of White Supremacy Evangelism at work…