jhkimrpg (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jhkimrpg) wrote,@ 2005-11-07 16:13:00 |
|
Possible Rants
A little while ago, I started a thread on The Forge entitled John's Standard Rant #1: Freeform Traits. This was a bit of a departure for me, in that I am pretty middle-of-the-road. That is, I like traditional tabletop games, new indie tabletop games, traditional larps, art larps, and so forth. I don't play computer-based RPGs, but I don't have anything against them, and I at least dabbled with MUDs for a time.
Still, I do have my pet peeves, and I was wondering about listing out what some of them are for what my future standard rants would be.
#1 Freeform Traits
Covered in the Forge thread mentioned above.
#2 Realism vs Art
All too often, I hear people complain that a game concentrates too much on realism -- and that what they're really interested in is "story" or "drama" or "art". I'm perfectly willing to grant an aesthetic preference for less realistic rules, perhaps ones which emulate the pacing or other features of other genres like movies or novels. But realistic rules are themselves art.
These days, no one suggests that a realistic painting isn't art. Or that a lifelike sculpture isn't art. Yet somehow, people are dismissive of rules that represent reality as being uncreative and opposed to artistic expression.
#3 Dramatic Meaning vs Ludologic Meaning
Somewhat more subtlely, I think that the model of drama is often overemphasized in games. Drama has a particular form which sets up fictional characters whom the audience identify with. But this sort of imaginary conflict isn't actually central to meaning. Ultimately, meaning comes out of differences between the real people and the fiction. Forms like a landscape, a portrait, or a descriptive poem still have meaning.
This is important for games like Mellan Himmel Och Hav on the one hand, or September 12th on the other. A game's meaning doesn't need to come from the dramatic arc. While I'm a pretty firm believer in the importance of dramatic arc for plays and movies, games are a very different form in many ways.
#4 Characters and Other Sheets
I am frequently frustrated at the state of play. In my mind, the most important elements of play as expression are what physically appears in the play itself. i.e. Imagine you're making a movie. What is important is what appears on the screen. So, too, what is important in a game is the physical elements of play that are in front of the players. What do the players say? What visuals do they see?
The character sheet is the single most seen and referenced visual piece in a tabletop RPG design. Therefore, it should be the focus of a lot of careful thought. Yet most people seem to dismiss it. The same applies to a lot of other pieces of play. i.e. The process of speaking. It seems rare and strange for a game to have rules about dialogue -- Puppetland and Polaris being among the exceptions.
Similarly, there is the use of miniatures. For example, D&D as well as other games have the laborious process of the GM copying out a map from his notes onto the big battlemap which the miniatures are put on. I think that a better design should be able to address this. This may have to change how location exploration works, however, rather than a different trick for doing the same process.
#5 Extended Contests
This is a bit of a personal thing, but I'm often annoyed by repetitive rolling. Cases that grate on me are old AD&D combat, extended contests in systems like GURPS or Storyteller, and to a degree in HeroQuest. If there aren't significant changes of player choice from one step to another, then I'd prefer that it just be skipped. My preference is where each round involves an important tactical choice, like Champions or Dogs in the Vineyard. If there isn't such a choice, then just make the conflict a single roll like My Life With Master.
#6 Death Spirals
I talk about this a bit in my short essay on Techniques for Action Pacing in RPGs. Basically, the pacing of a system depends a lot on the strictly pure mechanics. My essay uses pretty neutral language, but I see this as a frequent mistake in design.
So those are short forms of some of potential rants. Thoughts? Are some misdirected? Which (if any) should be expanded on?
A little while ago, I started a thread on The Forge entitled John's Standard Rant #1: Freeform Traits. This was a bit of a departure for me, in that I am pretty middle-of-the-road. That is, I like traditional tabletop games, new indie tabletop games, traditional larps, art larps, and so forth. I don't play computer-based RPGs, but I don't have anything against them, and I at least dabbled with MUDs for a time.
Still, I do have my pet peeves, and I was wondering about listing out what some of them are for what my future standard rants would be.
#1 Freeform Traits
Covered in the Forge thread mentioned above.
#2 Realism vs Art
All too often, I hear people complain that a game concentrates too much on realism -- and that what they're really interested in is "story" or "drama" or "art". I'm perfectly willing to grant an aesthetic preference for less realistic rules, perhaps ones which emulate the pacing or other features of other genres like movies or novels. But realistic rules are themselves art.
These days, no one suggests that a realistic painting isn't art. Or that a lifelike sculpture isn't art. Yet somehow, people are dismissive of rules that represent reality as being uncreative and opposed to artistic expression.
#3 Dramatic Meaning vs Ludologic Meaning
Somewhat more subtlely, I think that the model of drama is often overemphasized in games. Drama has a particular form which sets up fictional characters whom the audience identify with. But this sort of imaginary conflict isn't actually central to meaning. Ultimately, meaning comes out of differences between the real people and the fiction. Forms like a landscape, a portrait, or a descriptive poem still have meaning.
This is important for games like Mellan Himmel Och Hav on the one hand, or September 12th on the other. A game's meaning doesn't need to come from the dramatic arc. While I'm a pretty firm believer in the importance of dramatic arc for plays and movies, games are a very different form in many ways.
#4 Characters and Other Sheets
I am frequently frustrated at the state of play. In my mind, the most important elements of play as expression are what physically appears in the play itself. i.e. Imagine you're making a movie. What is important is what appears on the screen. So, too, what is important in a game is the physical elements of play that are in front of the players. What do the players say? What visuals do they see?
The character sheet is the single most seen and referenced visual piece in a tabletop RPG design. Therefore, it should be the focus of a lot of careful thought. Yet most people seem to dismiss it. The same applies to a lot of other pieces of play. i.e. The process of speaking. It seems rare and strange for a game to have rules about dialogue -- Puppetland and Polaris being among the exceptions.
Similarly, there is the use of miniatures. For example, D&D as well as other games have the laborious process of the GM copying out a map from his notes onto the big battlemap which the miniatures are put on. I think that a better design should be able to address this. This may have to change how location exploration works, however, rather than a different trick for doing the same process.
#5 Extended Contests
This is a bit of a personal thing, but I'm often annoyed by repetitive rolling. Cases that grate on me are old AD&D combat, extended contests in systems like GURPS or Storyteller, and to a degree in HeroQuest. If there aren't significant changes of player choice from one step to another, then I'd prefer that it just be skipped. My preference is where each round involves an important tactical choice, like Champions or Dogs in the Vineyard. If there isn't such a choice, then just make the conflict a single roll like My Life With Master.
#6 Death Spirals
I talk about this a bit in my short essay on Techniques for Action Pacing in RPGs. Basically, the pacing of a system depends a lot on the strictly pure mechanics. My essay uses pretty neutral language, but I see this as a frequent mistake in design.
So those are short forms of some of potential rants. Thoughts? Are some misdirected? Which (if any) should be expanded on?
