One of the things I hear quite often when discussions of “what makes a game a roleplaying game?” are going on is that roleplaying games don’t have boundaries. That is, you can tell whatever kind of story you want to tell with a roleplaying game. This is, in a very interesting way, at the same time true and false.
It is true in that some things simply lie outside the scope of a game. Stealing an example from Wittgenstein, in a game of tennis there is no rule determining how high to throw the ball when you serve. There is no rule you can break by throwing it “too high”. Maybe you throw it a foot up, maybe you throw it 50 feet, either way you are still playing the same game. How high you throw the ball simply lies outside the scope of tennis. (Note that throwing the ball in and of itself is within the scope of tennis, you can not serve without doing so.)
Yet, the reason how high you throw the ball is not addressed in the rules of tennis is, quite simply, that the question is an uninteresting one for tennis. It is not an uninteresting question in and of itself, I recall a game I played as a child in which the object was to throw a baseball the highest. The question is simply uninteresting within the game of tennis.
I imagine that you could develop a game that was remarkably like tennis in which how high you threw the ball was vitally important. Perhaps a simple change in the rules such that if you throw too high it counts as a fault. There would arise an interesting question of whether or not you would still be playing the game of tennis or whether you would be playing something else, but I am going to put that aside for now, suffice it to say (for now) that I think you would not be playing the same game.
The point of all this is to draw the analogy it probably looks like I am trying to draw: if the rules do not speak to something, then that is a statement that that something is not important to the game. That is, the question is quite literally uninteresting from the perspective of the game.
For instance, you could play a game of Monopoly and, during play, tell a story about how you are all cut-throat real estate tycoons. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but I think you would be very hard pressed to justify a claim that Monopoly is about the players acting like they are real estate tycoons.
Since this is ostensibly a discussion of roleplaying, I suppose I should bring us back to that. This is, ultimately, a take on the mantra of “System Does Matter”. Your game, whatever it may be, is not about anything that you do not address in the game.
Let us examine some actual roleplaying games: Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Edition, My Life with Master, and Dogs in the Vineyard.
First, good ol’ D&D. Look at the game (by which I meant the totality of the PHB and the DMG), and you will quickly notice what the game is about. You will note that the game “keeps score” through levels and abilities. As you get a higher score you get more kewl powers.
How do you score though? According to the reward mechanics you score by “overcoming challenges”. It is pretty clear that these challenges are to be overcome using the game mechanics, and that overcoming these mechanical challenges give you kewl powers to give your character so that he gets cooler.
The fantasy setting? Who cares?! That is not what the game is about. I think this is pretty clearly demonstrated by the great success of games like D20 Modern and D20 Future. They use the same basic “overcome challenges with these rules to get kewl powers” paradigm. The setting is not important to the game. It is important for the game, just as throwing the ball up in the air is part of tennis, but your specific choice of what setting you want does not actually matter.
While you have to have such a setting to play, that setting is not what the game is about. In fact, from the perspective of the game, the setting turns out to be somehow uninteresting.
What about My Life with Master? What is important in that? Reading the book it seems pretty clear that what is important is: A) The unstable/dysfunctional relationship between the minions and master, B) Intimacy, desperation, and sincerity (why else would you have dice for them?), and C) Building functional relationships.
While there is a sort of default expectation regarding the setting, the game does not actually care where the game is set. The game is about those three things. I do not have my copy with me, but I am virtually positive that Paul mentions this in the text itself. You can set it anywhere/anywhen as long as you keep those three elements listed above in play. Those elements are what the game is about.
Finally, let us examine Dogs in the Vineyard. What is the game about? What do the rules speak to? Blood relationships, escalating conflicts, using violence to get what you want, and absolute moral authority. Note that in Dogs, the game actually is tied to the setting: all characters are required to have a coat, and all characters must take an ability related to the organization of the Dogs.
One of the things that makes Dogs in the Vineyard such a great game (from a game designer/writer perspective) is that it is so intensely focused on the point of play. (This is somewhat true of My Life with Master too, I just do not think it is to the same extent.) Further, the game does not claim to be about things that it is not, in fact, about.
That last is important. When people start talking about Dungeons and Dragons, eventually someone talks about how it creates these great epic fantasy stories. Yet an analysis of the game pretty clearly demonstrate that that’s not what the game is about at all. While you may be telling great epic fantasy stories while playing D&D, that is great for you, but it does not really have anything (or at least much of anything) to do with the game you are playing (or at least say you are playing).
So, the moral of the story is the old adage: actions speak louder than words. It does not matter what you say your game is about if the game is not actually about that. You could claim that tennis is about who can throw the ball highest on the serve, but you would be wrong.
(Interesting note: this essay started off as a discussion of scope in game design. It morphed as I wrote it. I think this may work out a bit better. This piece will serve as an (I hope) useful springboard for a discussion of scope next week. Of course it may turn out that this is a side-track, and simply wasting time when I could be talking about something useful… Ah, well.)
Thomas
Tags: Theory
Well stated.
Hey, Thomas, I have a “brief” reply over at my LJ.
I do not agree that this need to be the case at all. Why do you define what a roleplaying is about by looking only at the rules? Why are the rules more important than the setting?
Consider watching a movie at a theatre. There are certain rules you have to obey like buying a ticket, show up when it plays, sit in your seat and not talking load during the movie. When asked what watching a movie is about do you talk about this stuff? No? But they are the most important stuff for actually getting to watch a movie. The thing is that they are only there for *enabling* you to watch a movie. These rules take care of the unimportant stuff in a well defined way so you can focus on the actual experience. Watching the movie is the point of the activity, yet there are no rules for that, just the unimportant stuff around it.
It’s the same thing with many rpg:s. The mechanics is only there to take care of the stuff that is needed for play but really isn’t important at all.
I want rules for the unimportant stuff, rules that quickly and without debate takes care of the suff I want in my game but do not want to spend a lot of time on.
I want a rule for rolling to fool the bouncer when entering a random bar looking for information. I want no rules when trying to fool the evil genius that I have been searching for and finally found. Is my game about fooling the bouncer?
Not at all. You cannot know what a roleplaying game is about by looking at the system.
Not at all. You cannot know what a roleplaying game is about by looking at the system.
Rewrite that as:
Not at all. You cannot know what a book is about by reading the book.
Does that still make sense? If the game isn’t about what’s in the rules, then why the heck have the rules? Your analogy of the rules of the movie theater is not valid. The correct analogy for the rules of the movie theater to your gaming is things such as “My house is smoke free.” “Take your shoes off at the door.” “The host doesn’t supply the munchies.” And yes, these are incredibly important rules that support what’s important (the movie, the game).
Here’s another angle to think about. Your game, where you roll to fool random folks, and whip out the best of your oratory to fool the big bad guy, has a system. It has rules. And those rules govern what is important in play. The thing is, that if you don’t grok how the other players are playing, you don’t get the game. Because the most important rule isn’t written. The most important rule in your game is “when talking to the big bad guy – you the player need to convince the GM, you can’t just fall back on your dice.”
Now if your rule book had that rule explicit in it, in fact talked about that right up front in the introduction, folks like you would know you’ve found the right game. And folks like me who aren’t confident in our oratory, or just want a different kind of play, can pass over that game.
And here’s another question: if it isn’t important whether you fool the bartender or not, why even waste time rolling dice? Why not just say “you fool the bartender.”
I would strongly suggest you look for a Dogs in the Vinyard game to play in. You will see just how having rules that address what the game is actually about works. In Dogs, you never pick up dice unless it’s important. “Say yes or roll the dice.” And it’s worth adding Chris Chinn’s corrolary to that – if you’re not rolling dice, you aren’t doing important things.
A last though: when I played my first game of Dogs, we spent something like an hour not rolling dice. And I was frankly bored and uninvolved. When the dice came out, boy did that change. We spent an hour not playing, but just diddling about.
Frank
“Not at all. You cannot know what a book is about by reading the book.
Does that still make sense? If the game isn’t about what’s in the rules, then why the heck have the rules?”
You can know what a roleplaying game is about by reading the book but not only by looking at the rules. There is a lot of other stuff in the books and they matter to me and I’m sure a lot of ther people.
“The most important rule in your game is “when talking to the big bad guy – you the player need to convince the GM, you can’t just fall back on your dice.â€
Now if your rule book had that rule explicit in it, in fact talked about that right up front in the introduction, folks like you would know you’ve found the right game.”
No, becasue if there is a rule like that in the game is not what matters to me. What matters is what the game is about and a roleplaying game is not only about the rules. To me is is very little about the rules. I play a lot of pre written games with absolutely zero rules in them. They are still about something.
“f it isn’t important whether you fool the bartender or not, why even waste time rolling dice? Why not just say “you fool the bartender.—
If he is fooled or not is important, but how the caracters goes about suceeding or failing in that goal is unimportant. If it is not an interesting situation for roleplaying but still with an uncertain outcome, a dice roll does the job. In many cases just deciding works as well.
“I would strongly suggest you look for a Dogs in the Vinyard game to play in. You will see just how having rules that address what the game is actually about works. In Dogs, you never pick up dice unless it’s important. “Say yes or roll the dice.†And it’s worth adding Chris Chinn’s corrolary to that – if you’re not rolling dice, you aren’t doing important things.”
I’ve played it and while is was fun in some ways it forces me to play contrary how I like. To me, picking up the dice reduces the intensity of an situation. In the worst case it turns roleplaying into a board game. When it really matters, keep the dice away. That may not apply to you but it applies to me. Why should your way be universal?
My main point is that the rules is just one part of a roleplaying game. For some persons it is the most important part and for some it is the least important part. When talking about what a game is about both types of people need to be considered.
Taking Dogs in the Vineyard as an eaxmple:
Do you know what dogs is about simply by reading the resolution mechanics? No. Do you know what it is about by only reading the background? No. To know what a game is a about you need to consider both the setting and how that setting is handled by the rules.
Saying that D&D is not about fantasy heroes at all is like saying Dogs is not about religion at all. Or not about morality at all. Certainly dogs is about conflicts as shown by the system but that is not all. If you used the Dogs mechanics in a high scool setting it would become another but related game. If you play D&D in a modern setting it becomes another but likewise related game.
Jonas, first thanks for stopping by, I always appreciate people with views different from mine chiming in.
First, I agree with you that you have to look at the entire work to really understand what the game is about. I just look at things a bit differently, and here’s how:
You say that you want the book to tell you what play is about and the rules to get out of your way so that you can do that. I want the book to tell me what the game is about and the rules to actually help me do that.
Think about it: If my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, and the rules actively assist us, then we’re that much better! On the other hand, if my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, why do I need to read your book at all? It’s not like you’re going to offer me anything that isn’t already out there because there are tons of systems that are appropriate for just hanlding the stuff I don’t care about playing out.
Does that make sense?
Thomas
Thank you for replying!
“On the other hand, if my group and I are already really good at doing whatever it is, why do I need to read your book at all?”
You could read my book because of the setting.
“It’s not like you’re going to offer me anything that isn’t already out there because there are tons of systems that are appropriate for just hanlding the stuff I don’t care about playing out.”
I agree if you are only looking for a rules system. But that is the problem with your reasoning. You immediatly think about a game as its system. I mainly think about it as its setting. Both ways are equally valid but your definition of “what a game is about” seems to imply that “games as their rules” is the objectively better one.
“Does that make sense?”
It makes sense in that I get what you are looking for in a roleplaying game. It do not make sense as a definition of what a roleplaying game is about.
I also want to add that I do think system matters, but it is certainly not everything that matters. A system can be better or worse at handling different stuff. The Dogs system would be very bad att handling the peripheral stuff I want rules for. The D&D system is bad for telling stories in a nar way. But as the purpose of the rules vary you cannot say that for every game the rules define what the game is about. The existance of completely rule less games is enough to invalidate that statement as they are certainly still about something.
First off, I agree with you that system isn’t all that matters, but I do think that system matters so much that it is pointless to produce a game without some new system in there somewhere, and here’s why:
I can get setting material from anywhere, and to be completely honest I can get better setting material from other places. If all I want is setting or other atmospheric material then I can watch a movie or read a novel.
You’ve mentioned “completely rule-less games”, and I must admit that such things lie outside my experience. How do those work?
Thomas
Hey, Thomas,
I just want to pop in and point out that “There are tons of systems out there for handling the stuff I don’t care about” isn’t the same as “What a game is really about is contained in its mechanics.”
(The former is a point well-taken in a design blog, I’ll grant you.)
“I can get setting material from anywhere, and to be completely honest I can get better setting material from other places. If all I want is setting or other atmospheric material then I can watch a movie or read a novel.”
For me personally it is not the same, but I do get your point.
Om the rule-less play it is of course not void of any structure (if that is even teoretically possible in any activity) but the majority of the free form scenarios is just “Here are your characters in prose form. Portray them as good as you can and otherwise listen to and obey the GM.”. Like “nomal” roleplaying but no resolution mechanics and very little defined structure of play. (I prefer those with a more well defined procedure of play myself, but they are less common.)
Getting one of these games for the system would be pointless, if it’s there at all it is short and nothing new. It is the setting that is the part that matters. Had I known of any good examples in English I would have posted them.
Thanks for filling me in.
I think I just have a really hard time understanding why you would want to use someone’s, at least in some sense, generic characters instead of some you make yourself. I tend to think that the only real purpose of standardizing like that is for competative purposes: Did you portray the character better than someone else did?
I may need to kick off another thread to discuss this: Why do some roleplayers prefer to play in games in which they are told what to do?
It seems clear that some people do, and my gut reaction is: “But that’s not right! They shouldn’t do that!” But that’s a bit judgmental of me considering I have no idea why they might prefer that…
So, Jonas, thanks for sticking with me. Hopefully the follow-up discussion will be as interesting as this one has been. (Also, I’m not cutting you off, feel free to discuss this some more, but I’m going to have to take some time to think about this.)
Thomas
Thomas is utterly right in his assertion and point. Perhaps his examples muddy the waters a bit, but regardless every game has something that it is “about.” And that about is encompassed within its mechanics, everything else is window dressing.
Dogs is not about playing Mormom Zealots in the Old West. Dogs is about playing a moral authority of vaguely defined scope and nature answerable to no one in complicated social situations that often escalate to violence. That’s why you can play it in the Old West, at Sekigahara, in the Old Republic or in highschool. The mechanics flex to the setting color.
-Luke