What I'm about to say is completely unscientific, and if there has ever been any published or private research on this topic, I'd love to get it.
I was thinking this morning about demographics, specifically the demographics of people in our hobby, by which I mean pen and paper RPGs.
My general impression, again, merely from my own observations, has been that the majority of gamers are white, male, and typically are 30 or more years old. This is of course not entirely true - I know and play with many women (who are also typically white and more than 30 years old) and have played with gamers of other races (usually male, but not always, and usually 30+ years old). Women are a minority, certainly, but are vastly more common than gamers of color, especially male gamers of color.
ACNW is one of my favorite gaming conventions in no small part due to the near parity between male and female gamers, and because there are quite a few gamers of color there. I have long known that I like gaming with women more than men, typically, and enjoy playing with gamers of all races, so this is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
But, it's rare. At least that's my impression.
Part of the issue here, I think, is that gaming is a niche hobby. Not that many people are into it, not that many people are exposed to it, or even necessarily think of it positively. Certainly, within the broader society, gaming is often vilified as being strange or aberrant, or even evil (among some misguided folks within religious communities). This has often struck me as odd, because most people like games in general. Gameshows are a popular thing on TV. Most people can be convinced to play a card game, or a board game from time to time. Chess and checkers and dominoes and backgammon are all very popular games in a variety of cultural contexts.
But for some reason, RPG games have never caught on broadly. Even at the height of the D&D fad in the 80s, my impression is that it was mostly contained to young white men, of moderate to high income backgrounds.
This might be changing with the advent of RPG games on computers and consoles. This is not a group of people I know anything about, other than having met a lot of MMORPG gamers over the years at work, and being somewhat amused to hear them talking about their characters, much the same way I did 25 years ago about mine. The demographics seem broader with the MMORPGs, but still mostly male. It does seem to skew younger, though.
I'm not particularly interested in going on a long rant saying that we need to change things to appeal to a broader audience. While I'd certainly be happy to see more people into our hobby, I am suspicious of any calls for change solely to get more people involved.
What I am interested in examining is how this demographic profile affects us in the way we play, and in how we relate to each other. On rpg.net and other forums, I've seen some pretty awful (in my opinion) posts that express very misogynistic, racist and classist thought. I tend to attribute this less to gaming itself than to the tropes that some players bring to the table. There's been a fair amount of writing on, for example, race in RPGs, and I'd like to see more of that, and more about gender and class too. This sort of self examination is useful, if only because by examining our assumptions about games will make them better.
There have been some trends that I applaud. It's rare these days that you find a game with modifiers based on gender of the character, for example. Those were common in the old days. It's rare that I've run into the "chainmail bikini" trope for female characters of late, but there's still plenty of stereotyped depictions of women around.
Depictions of other races in RPGs (non-human races at least) are still typically completely homogeneous (all elves are like this, all dwarves are like this) and are, more often than not, based on stereotyped understandings of other human cultures (my elves are different because they're all Rastafarians, or are into voudoun).
These sorts of things show a marked lack of understanding on the part of game designers and world-creators. They express some inherent racism, I think, and are also just pretty lame, oversimplified plugins when the designers don't have the creativity to create something unique.
On the one hand, it's probably very hard to imagine characters that aren't at least something we're familiar with in real life, or at the very least comply with the ideas we have of others, even if those ideas are not correct. I generally don't play cross race, or cross gender, because I have a hard time getting into the heads of characters who are really different than my experience as a white male. I prefer to avoid playing across those lines more out of respect than anything else; it's preferable to me to not play characters who I have a hard time understanding, since if I do, I would likely cause offense or not respect the background I'd be trying to portray.
But that's just me, and I know a lot of people who enjoy getting out of their gender, or race, to play a character very different from themselves.
I'll just open this up to a bunch of questions. How do you feel about race and gender and class in RPGs? Among players of RPGs? Do you play cross gender or race? If you're a person of color, or a woman, what's your experience been of playing in RPGs?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Randomness in RPGs
One thing that's come up from time to time, when discussing our hobby with fellow aficionados, is the use of dice, or other random generators, in determining what happens.
Dice, specifically funny shaped ones, are a symbol of our hobby. You see a picture of a twenty-sided die somewhere, and you know, immediately, what the topic is going to be, and the use of them were and are central to the way that a lot of people game.
I see a number of reasons why this should be, putting aside received tradition and history for a moment. The use of dice can be simulationist, for example. If you roll 3d6, you get a range of 3-18, and the distribution will be on a bell curve, which works out nicely if you want to simulate distribution of something like an attribute across a population, where the majority of people will be of middling strength, say, with a relative few being either very weak or very strong.
That's how it was in classic RPGs - stats used randomization to simulate distribution of something across a population. Actions, though, were usually rolled with a single die, say a d20, generating a level sort of distribution of numbers, that when compared with a target number, would indicate success or failure.
I get the simulationist approach to stats, but dislike the implications of it. It makes character creation a different sort of proposition - it puts the random generation of some basics about your character first, and then your job, as the player, is to create a story around those stats to flesh things out. I personally find this annoying, but some people really like that challenge.
It seems like many other people, perhaps for different reasons, also disliked this sort of character creation, and so first we started modifying stat rolls. We would discard any 1's that came up. Or we would roll 5d6, and discard the two lowest results. Or we would say that the player could control which of the stats they applied the results to, so that if they really had their heart set on a strong character, they could assign their highest roll to the strength stat.
After that, point based generation systems became popular, putting all the control in the hands of the player, but still limiting the overall level of power of the character to a fixed level, relative to the other players, and the overall power level of the campaign.
There are a couple of things worth teasing out here. Completely random generation of character stats, still favored by some folks I know in the old-school gaming community, forces the player to work with what they get - it's fair, in the sense that everyone has the same statistical chance to roll a really powerful character, and likewise the same chance to find themselves with someone a lot less capable. But, from a different perspective, it's not fair, because you might find yourself being the only average person in an otherwise lucky and powerful group. This dovetails nicely with the old-school adage about forgetting about game balance, and also with the overall story of old-school gaming, which is taking a character of relatively low power and developing them through play into something heroic.
Points based character generation is fair in a much broader sense - everyone starts with the same level of generic power, and then decides how this will be expressed in their particular character. Some folks might choose to be very good at just one or two things - others will put together something more balanced but less specialized.
Even as rolled character generation was modified or even abandoned for points based systems, we still were using random generators in conflict resolution systems. One could argue, I suppose, that this was more simulationist stuff. Even the best fighter in the world occasionally will be caught with their pants down, and be dispatched by a much less skilled opponent. The amount of effect this had on how things played out varied by games, but since most systems had rules for critical success or failure, it was still possible for someone with a much lower chance of success to win a contest, or for a very skilled character to have something terrible happen.
Some people really like this too. There is, I admit, an emotional response to it all coming down to a single, random die roll. We've all probably got stories like this. We remember that time when we got in the lucky shot that saved the day, or completely failed and fell flat on our faces at a critical moment.
Again, that issue of fairness comes up, and in much the same way. The fairness of having a chance for someone really capable failing keeps the tension up. On the other hand, even a capable character whose player has a series of really bad or even just mediocre rolls grates on the idea of game balance, and isn't very much fun to play. Then again, everyone having the same element of randomness is fair, in the other sense.
My main criticism with using dice, either in character generation or in conflict resolution, is that it places the emphasis on the rules, and on the randomness itself, rather than on the story or the character.
Now, there's a mindset that seems to think that taking the final decision about what happens out of the hands of the player or the GM is a good and needed thing. The dice become the completely fair arbiter of fate. But that implies, I think, that there isn't any trust between the GM and the players. That the players will always be looking for the advantage and won't follow storylines likely to bring their characters harm. That the GM will be arbitrary in the worst sense, screwing with the players in order to "win".
I find that unsatisfying. I'd rather have a game where the GM and players were cooperating with each other to tell a good story, respecting the needs of each and helping each other get to where they're going. This means that my GM will trust me to act in character, including making mistakes, and not be angry when the story goes against my characters best interests. That also means that I trust the GM to be sensitive to what I want out of the story, and allow me moments to shine, give me moments when things go my way.
There's also the larger matter of finding that rules, and rolling dice, interrupt my ability to focus on the character and story. But that might be good for another post.
How do you feel about dice? Do you need really random resolution in your games, or can you be satisfied with the results of just letting the GM determine what happens?
Dice, specifically funny shaped ones, are a symbol of our hobby. You see a picture of a twenty-sided die somewhere, and you know, immediately, what the topic is going to be, and the use of them were and are central to the way that a lot of people game.
I see a number of reasons why this should be, putting aside received tradition and history for a moment. The use of dice can be simulationist, for example. If you roll 3d6, you get a range of 3-18, and the distribution will be on a bell curve, which works out nicely if you want to simulate distribution of something like an attribute across a population, where the majority of people will be of middling strength, say, with a relative few being either very weak or very strong.
That's how it was in classic RPGs - stats used randomization to simulate distribution of something across a population. Actions, though, were usually rolled with a single die, say a d20, generating a level sort of distribution of numbers, that when compared with a target number, would indicate success or failure.
I get the simulationist approach to stats, but dislike the implications of it. It makes character creation a different sort of proposition - it puts the random generation of some basics about your character first, and then your job, as the player, is to create a story around those stats to flesh things out. I personally find this annoying, but some people really like that challenge.
It seems like many other people, perhaps for different reasons, also disliked this sort of character creation, and so first we started modifying stat rolls. We would discard any 1's that came up. Or we would roll 5d6, and discard the two lowest results. Or we would say that the player could control which of the stats they applied the results to, so that if they really had their heart set on a strong character, they could assign their highest roll to the strength stat.
After that, point based generation systems became popular, putting all the control in the hands of the player, but still limiting the overall level of power of the character to a fixed level, relative to the other players, and the overall power level of the campaign.
There are a couple of things worth teasing out here. Completely random generation of character stats, still favored by some folks I know in the old-school gaming community, forces the player to work with what they get - it's fair, in the sense that everyone has the same statistical chance to roll a really powerful character, and likewise the same chance to find themselves with someone a lot less capable. But, from a different perspective, it's not fair, because you might find yourself being the only average person in an otherwise lucky and powerful group. This dovetails nicely with the old-school adage about forgetting about game balance, and also with the overall story of old-school gaming, which is taking a character of relatively low power and developing them through play into something heroic.
Points based character generation is fair in a much broader sense - everyone starts with the same level of generic power, and then decides how this will be expressed in their particular character. Some folks might choose to be very good at just one or two things - others will put together something more balanced but less specialized.
Even as rolled character generation was modified or even abandoned for points based systems, we still were using random generators in conflict resolution systems. One could argue, I suppose, that this was more simulationist stuff. Even the best fighter in the world occasionally will be caught with their pants down, and be dispatched by a much less skilled opponent. The amount of effect this had on how things played out varied by games, but since most systems had rules for critical success or failure, it was still possible for someone with a much lower chance of success to win a contest, or for a very skilled character to have something terrible happen.
Some people really like this too. There is, I admit, an emotional response to it all coming down to a single, random die roll. We've all probably got stories like this. We remember that time when we got in the lucky shot that saved the day, or completely failed and fell flat on our faces at a critical moment.
Again, that issue of fairness comes up, and in much the same way. The fairness of having a chance for someone really capable failing keeps the tension up. On the other hand, even a capable character whose player has a series of really bad or even just mediocre rolls grates on the idea of game balance, and isn't very much fun to play. Then again, everyone having the same element of randomness is fair, in the other sense.
My main criticism with using dice, either in character generation or in conflict resolution, is that it places the emphasis on the rules, and on the randomness itself, rather than on the story or the character.
Now, there's a mindset that seems to think that taking the final decision about what happens out of the hands of the player or the GM is a good and needed thing. The dice become the completely fair arbiter of fate. But that implies, I think, that there isn't any trust between the GM and the players. That the players will always be looking for the advantage and won't follow storylines likely to bring their characters harm. That the GM will be arbitrary in the worst sense, screwing with the players in order to "win".
I find that unsatisfying. I'd rather have a game where the GM and players were cooperating with each other to tell a good story, respecting the needs of each and helping each other get to where they're going. This means that my GM will trust me to act in character, including making mistakes, and not be angry when the story goes against my characters best interests. That also means that I trust the GM to be sensitive to what I want out of the story, and allow me moments to shine, give me moments when things go my way.
There's also the larger matter of finding that rules, and rolling dice, interrupt my ability to focus on the character and story. But that might be good for another post.
How do you feel about dice? Do you need really random resolution in your games, or can you be satisfied with the results of just letting the GM determine what happens?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Some thoughts on the old-school
A number of people I know are part of the old-school gaming movement, including the publisher of Fight On!.
While I'm only just learning what this idea is all about, I've been tipped off to a number of good resources, including Matthew Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming which I just finished reading last week. It's short. And free. Go read it.
While I'd love to claim some old-school cred myself, I can't really. While I was gaming in that period of time, what "old-school" means is really not "playing things like we did back then" but rather taking a new look at old rules, and developing a way of play that may be old, or may be new, but is mostly defined in contrast to "the way things are now", which really means more modern rule systems and styles of play, like AD&D 4th Edition.
So, what are the hallmarks of old-school gaming? Briefly, according to Matthew (he calls them Zen Moments)
Rulings. not rules
Player Skill, not Character Abilities
Heroic, not Superhero
Forget "Game Balance"
There are a large number of things that I find fascinating about this approach, and since I have been sitting firmly in the system-light, dice free space for quite a while, there are some natural parallels between the two styles. On the other hand, there are some things that I find problematic. Not that it won't work, just that I'm concerned with the implications.
Rulings, not Rules - On the one hand, I'm completely down with this. Having a relatively simple way to determine success and failure that emphasizes in-game action or setting, rather than having a rule for everything, makes a great deal of sense to me. In many ways, if you put aside the dice-rolling, this is basically how most diceless games work. The issue of randomness is a big one. Suffice it to say that the old-school likes it, it seems like, and diceless games don't need it (and if you don't like that, I would avoid diceless games).
Now, this implies a strong GM. More and more, I'm wondering about the role of a GM in a game, but that's probably another post.
Player Skill, not Character Abilities - This one is a bit problematic for me. On the one hand, I understand that the point of this is to have fun by trying to figure out puzzles or take novel approaches to problems, rather than checking your character sheet and seeing if you have the "amazing combat maneuver" feat. It's meant to emphasize role-playing, but it's a different sort of role-playing than what I mean when I say that. I mean "inhabiting a character" which includes, for example, not doing the obviously right thing to do in a situation because the character has a mental block on it. Old-school thought seems to imply less inhabitation of the character in that sense...it's assumed the player brings all their faculties to bear on the issue at hand, not just those that would be available to the character.
If powergamers treat their characters as game pieces, old-school gamers seem to treat characters as a costume to don. Players like me think of characters as "fictional inhabitations". There is a big difference here.
Heroic, not Superhero - This one is interesting. As I noted in a previous post on powergaming, many diceless games presume that your character is pretty darn powerful right off the bat, because it in some ways makes resolving conflict easier, in terms of game dynamics. The assumption is that no one wants to inhabit a character if that character is a schlub.
Old-school gaming takes the approach that the point is to start off as a normal person, perhaps slightly better than most, and then slowly progress, via story and action, to becoming something much more heroic and powerful. There's an assumption that this will be a central "story" in the game. While I understand that this is a check on the sort of "epic" powers that are more common in more recent games, and does provide an engaging story, it's not enough for me, personally. I don't particularly find it attractive, as a story. I prefer stories that engage me emotionally. So in some ways, I'm happy playing a schlub, as long as the schlub has an interesting interior life.
Forget "game balance" - as used by the old-school, this seems to mean "you won't always encounter problems that are perfectly matched for your power level, nor will your characters always be at the same level of power." There are so many assumptions about what role-playing games are about here that it's hard to disentangle. Again, this seems to be a check on the concept that some gamers have that the contest has to be "fair", that the PCs will always win, and that the level of power in the game will be controlled to protect their characters from running into stuff they can't handle, yet.
Now, generally speaking, I agree with the old-school on this. I'd much rather have a setting that allows me to make huge mistakes, and possibly get myself killed, or badly messed up. In this sense, I don't care about game balance. All the better in fact if it generates good stories. But again, there's a presumption about what role-playing is - old-school games talk about a slow rise from normal to heroic, with a lot of risk. New RPG games can sometimes be merely a series of not very challenging challenges that allow you to be a badass. The sort of games I like tell different stories, perhaps like "you're a normal person who is in a f-ed up situation, and will likely end up badly damaged, or perhaps triumphant, but at great personal cost."
To put it bluntly, I can imaging enjoying a game that's all about how you deal with the fact that your girlfriend has just turned into a vampire. You love her, she loves you, but she wants to eat you. You're dramatically outclassed, and it's all about convincing her not to eat you, while struggling with the fact that she's not human anymore, and trying to pick up the pieces of your relationship. I can imagine having great RP sessions where all you do is talk about how you thought that you were going to have kids together, but now that everything has changed, you're not sure how you feel about it.
All told, old-school gaming is a pretty cool idea. It's got a lot of presumptions though. Like the fact that you'll be playing something heroic. That the characters are going to grow in power. That there's a strong GM. That you will be bringing your own problem solving abilities to bear. Often, it seems to imply particular settings - fantasy, SF, and other common tropes where the heroic story can be told.
I'm really curious if I've at all got it right, so old-school friends, please chime in here.
While I'm only just learning what this idea is all about, I've been tipped off to a number of good resources, including Matthew Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming which I just finished reading last week. It's short. And free. Go read it.
While I'd love to claim some old-school cred myself, I can't really. While I was gaming in that period of time, what "old-school" means is really not "playing things like we did back then" but rather taking a new look at old rules, and developing a way of play that may be old, or may be new, but is mostly defined in contrast to "the way things are now", which really means more modern rule systems and styles of play, like AD&D 4th Edition.
So, what are the hallmarks of old-school gaming? Briefly, according to Matthew (he calls them Zen Moments)
Rulings. not rules
Player Skill, not Character Abilities
Heroic, not Superhero
Forget "Game Balance"
There are a large number of things that I find fascinating about this approach, and since I have been sitting firmly in the system-light, dice free space for quite a while, there are some natural parallels between the two styles. On the other hand, there are some things that I find problematic. Not that it won't work, just that I'm concerned with the implications.
Rulings, not Rules - On the one hand, I'm completely down with this. Having a relatively simple way to determine success and failure that emphasizes in-game action or setting, rather than having a rule for everything, makes a great deal of sense to me. In many ways, if you put aside the dice-rolling, this is basically how most diceless games work. The issue of randomness is a big one. Suffice it to say that the old-school likes it, it seems like, and diceless games don't need it (and if you don't like that, I would avoid diceless games).
Now, this implies a strong GM. More and more, I'm wondering about the role of a GM in a game, but that's probably another post.
Player Skill, not Character Abilities - This one is a bit problematic for me. On the one hand, I understand that the point of this is to have fun by trying to figure out puzzles or take novel approaches to problems, rather than checking your character sheet and seeing if you have the "amazing combat maneuver" feat. It's meant to emphasize role-playing, but it's a different sort of role-playing than what I mean when I say that. I mean "inhabiting a character" which includes, for example, not doing the obviously right thing to do in a situation because the character has a mental block on it. Old-school thought seems to imply less inhabitation of the character in that sense...it's assumed the player brings all their faculties to bear on the issue at hand, not just those that would be available to the character.
If powergamers treat their characters as game pieces, old-school gamers seem to treat characters as a costume to don. Players like me think of characters as "fictional inhabitations". There is a big difference here.
Heroic, not Superhero - This one is interesting. As I noted in a previous post on powergaming, many diceless games presume that your character is pretty darn powerful right off the bat, because it in some ways makes resolving conflict easier, in terms of game dynamics. The assumption is that no one wants to inhabit a character if that character is a schlub.
Old-school gaming takes the approach that the point is to start off as a normal person, perhaps slightly better than most, and then slowly progress, via story and action, to becoming something much more heroic and powerful. There's an assumption that this will be a central "story" in the game. While I understand that this is a check on the sort of "epic" powers that are more common in more recent games, and does provide an engaging story, it's not enough for me, personally. I don't particularly find it attractive, as a story. I prefer stories that engage me emotionally. So in some ways, I'm happy playing a schlub, as long as the schlub has an interesting interior life.
Forget "game balance" - as used by the old-school, this seems to mean "you won't always encounter problems that are perfectly matched for your power level, nor will your characters always be at the same level of power." There are so many assumptions about what role-playing games are about here that it's hard to disentangle. Again, this seems to be a check on the concept that some gamers have that the contest has to be "fair", that the PCs will always win, and that the level of power in the game will be controlled to protect their characters from running into stuff they can't handle, yet.
Now, generally speaking, I agree with the old-school on this. I'd much rather have a setting that allows me to make huge mistakes, and possibly get myself killed, or badly messed up. In this sense, I don't care about game balance. All the better in fact if it generates good stories. But again, there's a presumption about what role-playing is - old-school games talk about a slow rise from normal to heroic, with a lot of risk. New RPG games can sometimes be merely a series of not very challenging challenges that allow you to be a badass. The sort of games I like tell different stories, perhaps like "you're a normal person who is in a f-ed up situation, and will likely end up badly damaged, or perhaps triumphant, but at great personal cost."
To put it bluntly, I can imaging enjoying a game that's all about how you deal with the fact that your girlfriend has just turned into a vampire. You love her, she loves you, but she wants to eat you. You're dramatically outclassed, and it's all about convincing her not to eat you, while struggling with the fact that she's not human anymore, and trying to pick up the pieces of your relationship. I can imagine having great RP sessions where all you do is talk about how you thought that you were going to have kids together, but now that everything has changed, you're not sure how you feel about it.
All told, old-school gaming is a pretty cool idea. It's got a lot of presumptions though. Like the fact that you'll be playing something heroic. That the characters are going to grow in power. That there's a strong GM. That you will be bringing your own problem solving abilities to bear. Often, it seems to imply particular settings - fantasy, SF, and other common tropes where the heroic story can be told.
I'm really curious if I've at all got it right, so old-school friends, please chime in here.
Inhabiting character
Once upon a time, I was playing in a game at U*CON with a few people who have since become quite good friends. One of them, who will remain nameless, is a really fine role-player. I had only recently met her, but already had the inkling that we would be close. Sometimes you just meet people who you think to yourself "this is someone I'll be friends with." I was, therefore, pretty keyed into her presence.
So, we're in this game, and her character is dealing with something, and getting angry about it. But, you see, I wasn't quite in the game yet, and her anger was palpable, something she was expressing in her body language, tone of voice, as well as the actions and words of her character. I got my wires crossed, and thought that the player was angry, out of game, and actually was getting a bit scared and concerned.
Once I figured out what was really going on, that she was just really into her character, all was well. But then I realized that I was playing with someone who really knew how to inhabit a character, who really was role-playing. It was a revelation. I really, really liked it. It was exciting, and a little bit scary. You see, it had been years and years since I had last actually gamed face to face with anyone. It took me a bit of time to remember that this was what it was all about. For me, at least.
Since then, I've been playing with various techniques to try to get my head to go into the character's head, to really integrate, for the duration of the game, myself with whoever it is I'm playing. I think I do pretty well, but really, it's not a performance - it's just for me. This is the way I like to play.
Interestingly, it's less about imagining specifics from the outside, as it were, although that certainly is part of it. Visualizing the character as they would be seen externally is important, but only, I find, to the point where the most gross sorts of details are worked out. Size, that sort of thing.
Once I've got that down, I try to imagine what it would be like to be in their body. How does it feel? How do they move? I try to open my mind and ask myself what sorts of small little tics or habits they might have. Do they tap their foot unconsciously when bored? Do they fiddle with a ring?
From there, I move onto asking myself all sorts of questions about very minor things, things that are not terribly important if you're playing a "role" as an archetype, but are very important for real people, things like "what does their apartment look like?" and "what's their favorite sort of soap, and why?"
This obviously doesn't need to be completely detailed out. Just play with ideas, letting the character tell me who they are. I find that once I start to do this, it comes pretty easily, and I learn a lot about the character that way, and also get used to living in their head. Little details come out - I played a young Scottish soldier in a game once where I was wondering what sort of personal gear he might have, and determined that he had a Bible. I let myself imagine what this looked like, and found out that he had been given it by his grandmother. I also found out that he almost never read it, but used it to keep little bits of paper, curios, keepsakes and the occasional letter from home in. That told me reams of stuff about who he was.
Maybe this seems like a lot of work for naught. Nothing about that Bible ever came up in play. It wasn't a powerful artifact, didn't give me any benefit at all as a character in game play. It was just a little thing that I told myself about this character. But somehow, it was really important to him, and that was enough to help me really get into character when I played him.
For me, at least, it's these little things that make characters come alive, and make them a joy to play.
What sorts of techniques do you use to get into character?
So, we're in this game, and her character is dealing with something, and getting angry about it. But, you see, I wasn't quite in the game yet, and her anger was palpable, something she was expressing in her body language, tone of voice, as well as the actions and words of her character. I got my wires crossed, and thought that the player was angry, out of game, and actually was getting a bit scared and concerned.
Once I figured out what was really going on, that she was just really into her character, all was well. But then I realized that I was playing with someone who really knew how to inhabit a character, who really was role-playing. It was a revelation. I really, really liked it. It was exciting, and a little bit scary. You see, it had been years and years since I had last actually gamed face to face with anyone. It took me a bit of time to remember that this was what it was all about. For me, at least.
Since then, I've been playing with various techniques to try to get my head to go into the character's head, to really integrate, for the duration of the game, myself with whoever it is I'm playing. I think I do pretty well, but really, it's not a performance - it's just for me. This is the way I like to play.
Interestingly, it's less about imagining specifics from the outside, as it were, although that certainly is part of it. Visualizing the character as they would be seen externally is important, but only, I find, to the point where the most gross sorts of details are worked out. Size, that sort of thing.
Once I've got that down, I try to imagine what it would be like to be in their body. How does it feel? How do they move? I try to open my mind and ask myself what sorts of small little tics or habits they might have. Do they tap their foot unconsciously when bored? Do they fiddle with a ring?
From there, I move onto asking myself all sorts of questions about very minor things, things that are not terribly important if you're playing a "role" as an archetype, but are very important for real people, things like "what does their apartment look like?" and "what's their favorite sort of soap, and why?"
This obviously doesn't need to be completely detailed out. Just play with ideas, letting the character tell me who they are. I find that once I start to do this, it comes pretty easily, and I learn a lot about the character that way, and also get used to living in their head. Little details come out - I played a young Scottish soldier in a game once where I was wondering what sort of personal gear he might have, and determined that he had a Bible. I let myself imagine what this looked like, and found out that he had been given it by his grandmother. I also found out that he almost never read it, but used it to keep little bits of paper, curios, keepsakes and the occasional letter from home in. That told me reams of stuff about who he was.
Maybe this seems like a lot of work for naught. Nothing about that Bible ever came up in play. It wasn't a powerful artifact, didn't give me any benefit at all as a character in game play. It was just a little thing that I told myself about this character. But somehow, it was really important to him, and that was enough to help me really get into character when I played him.
For me, at least, it's these little things that make characters come alive, and make them a joy to play.
What sorts of techniques do you use to get into character?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
"Powergaming" so called
Most of my friends really don't like "powergaming" as a style of play, or at least that's what they say. Some might consider this a fundamental misunderstanding of what the point of RPG play is. Terms, like "roll playing" vs. "role-playing" are used to try to get at this.
I'm going to state for the record that I personally don't really like powergaming either. But what I've observed is that it's really very common in our hobby, and rather than define it as "something bad" I'm going to let it be what it is, and then try to understand it better.
It may have become apparent already, but I'm pretty open minded when it comes to games, and how they're played. I accept that there are a lot of different motivations and diverse play styles that meet some need on the part of the players in a game, and I'm also going to accept that these are all equally valid, if at some times, not compatible styles of play. Our hobby is a big tent. It should stay that way.
So, back to powergaming. There are actually a lot of different things that come up when people are asked to define this. We might say that powergaming falls under the mindset of "winning" the game, but that's not very useful, since I want to "win" too, it's just that how I define a "win" is different.
But, we can tease out some common manifestations of what powergaming is, and look at them. Here's my list.
1) powergaming using character generation - min/maxing, creating a character that is very, very good at one thing, and not creating anything approaching the fully fleshed out character with quirks and flaws and weaknesses, but rather generating an unstoppable machine, as much as possible.
2) powergaming using the rules - looking for loopholes to avoid bad things happening to the character, rules lawyering, using the rules to force the GM into letting your character get the best of any situation.
3) powergaming using objects of power or money - using the special things in a game (magic items, etc) in ways that the GM hadn't thought of to again create a situation where the character "wins" and isn't exposed to risk.
4) powergaming by ignoring the story - being singlemindedly determined to advance character power and abilities without regard to whatever the story says, or what the character might reasonably be expected to do, such as a paladin murdering people to possess an item of great power.
Looking back on this, I'm struck by how this all sits firmly in the realm of how a player sees their character. A common bit of advice from the diceless gaming world says "Love your character" which, actually, is exactly what the powergamer does. He just loves it from afar. In other words, it's more important to develop the character's abilities, rather than their interior life. To make the character powerful on paper, rather than something more realistic, flawed, or deep.
I would think that, for the powergamer, the satisfaction of playing a character comes from seeing that character, as defined by it's abilities, grow.
Implicit in this is the idea that the GM is the source of all power, and it's the player's job to cajole, force or blackmail the GM into giving it up. It turns the game into a competition between the GM and the player.
In many ways, modern online RPGs are a perfect expression of this. The GM is faceless. It doesn't provide much in the way of moral quandary or ethical choices, it's just a machine that if interfaced with in the right way will provide levels, artifacts, and powers. Success is defined by getting to level N, and completing quests or missions, for which there are awards.
It is important to remember that these online games came out of our hobby - we're all the fathers and mothers of that style of play. I'm not actually knocking it. It can be a lot of fun to play that way, and if a group of players and a GM want to play that way, more power to them (sorry, I couldn't resist).
There are an awful lot of bits of advice for GM's about how to control this sort of behavior, often with the implication that it's "bad" and needs to be stopped, or transformed into "good" RP by using various tactics. I'm not so sure if that is necessarily true. It's a fundamental difference in view, actually, and until that is addressed, openly and compassionately, trying to change a powergamer into something else is probably going to fail.
Because, even if you take away the rules, even if you take away advancement, even if you make it extremely onerous to disregard story, the true powergamer will find a way to get what they want out of the game. A game like Amber DRPG tries to encourage RP and get around the powergaming issue by making all the characters immensely powerful right off the bat, but even so, there's always some goal implicit - take the throne, recreate the universe - that plays right into the mindset of the powergamer. Yes, the means by which a powergamer will try to accomplish their desire to make their character really powerful will be different in a game like that, but it will still be there. And it's probably impossible to set up a game with any sort of conflict and goal without providing opportunities for powergamers.
In other words, powergaming is a state of mind. This is not something that can be addressed by rules, or by in-game stuff. It's the basis for what a player brings to the table.
So, you have a few choices. First, I suppose, is to not play with powergamers. This is perhaps the easiest solution, but of course, it means that you need to be able to know ahead of time if a player is a powergamer, and this can be subtle, so it may not always be obvious.
Another option is to try to accommodate them, and just live with it, but this means almost running two different games. On the other hand, this is much the same as what we do when we've got players with other styles, say someone who is into tactical stuff, and another who is more about screen time and character drama. You would need to structure your game in such a way that the powergamer gets what they want, and also in such a way that the powergamer won't mess things up for everyone else. This is hard.
Third, you can try to block or otherwise mess with the powergamer, which is probably doomed to fail, and is a ton of work. It also reinforces the GM vs Player model that's at the core of powergaming. So this approach contains the seeds of it's own failure.
For many of us, we've been conditioned to accept different styles of gamer, because we're somewhat thin on the ground, so we're used to playing with whoever will show up. This is a philosophical position - is it better to play with styles you find problematic, or better not to game at all? I leave that up to you.
Ultimately, I think I can conclude that the powergamer views the game differently than someone who is more into role-play, specifically in the sense that the character, to the powergamer, is something outside of himself, a set of abilities and scores to increase. For someone who is more of a role-player, it's a character to inhabit, to view the world from the characters perspective. That's the difference. Both valid, but often incompatible.
I'm going to state for the record that I personally don't really like powergaming either. But what I've observed is that it's really very common in our hobby, and rather than define it as "something bad" I'm going to let it be what it is, and then try to understand it better.
It may have become apparent already, but I'm pretty open minded when it comes to games, and how they're played. I accept that there are a lot of different motivations and diverse play styles that meet some need on the part of the players in a game, and I'm also going to accept that these are all equally valid, if at some times, not compatible styles of play. Our hobby is a big tent. It should stay that way.
So, back to powergaming. There are actually a lot of different things that come up when people are asked to define this. We might say that powergaming falls under the mindset of "winning" the game, but that's not very useful, since I want to "win" too, it's just that how I define a "win" is different.
But, we can tease out some common manifestations of what powergaming is, and look at them. Here's my list.
1) powergaming using character generation - min/maxing, creating a character that is very, very good at one thing, and not creating anything approaching the fully fleshed out character with quirks and flaws and weaknesses, but rather generating an unstoppable machine, as much as possible.
2) powergaming using the rules - looking for loopholes to avoid bad things happening to the character, rules lawyering, using the rules to force the GM into letting your character get the best of any situation.
3) powergaming using objects of power or money - using the special things in a game (magic items, etc) in ways that the GM hadn't thought of to again create a situation where the character "wins" and isn't exposed to risk.
4) powergaming by ignoring the story - being singlemindedly determined to advance character power and abilities without regard to whatever the story says, or what the character might reasonably be expected to do, such as a paladin murdering people to possess an item of great power.
Looking back on this, I'm struck by how this all sits firmly in the realm of how a player sees their character. A common bit of advice from the diceless gaming world says "Love your character" which, actually, is exactly what the powergamer does. He just loves it from afar. In other words, it's more important to develop the character's abilities, rather than their interior life. To make the character powerful on paper, rather than something more realistic, flawed, or deep.
I would think that, for the powergamer, the satisfaction of playing a character comes from seeing that character, as defined by it's abilities, grow.
Implicit in this is the idea that the GM is the source of all power, and it's the player's job to cajole, force or blackmail the GM into giving it up. It turns the game into a competition between the GM and the player.
In many ways, modern online RPGs are a perfect expression of this. The GM is faceless. It doesn't provide much in the way of moral quandary or ethical choices, it's just a machine that if interfaced with in the right way will provide levels, artifacts, and powers. Success is defined by getting to level N, and completing quests or missions, for which there are awards.
It is important to remember that these online games came out of our hobby - we're all the fathers and mothers of that style of play. I'm not actually knocking it. It can be a lot of fun to play that way, and if a group of players and a GM want to play that way, more power to them (sorry, I couldn't resist).
There are an awful lot of bits of advice for GM's about how to control this sort of behavior, often with the implication that it's "bad" and needs to be stopped, or transformed into "good" RP by using various tactics. I'm not so sure if that is necessarily true. It's a fundamental difference in view, actually, and until that is addressed, openly and compassionately, trying to change a powergamer into something else is probably going to fail.
Because, even if you take away the rules, even if you take away advancement, even if you make it extremely onerous to disregard story, the true powergamer will find a way to get what they want out of the game. A game like Amber DRPG tries to encourage RP and get around the powergaming issue by making all the characters immensely powerful right off the bat, but even so, there's always some goal implicit - take the throne, recreate the universe - that plays right into the mindset of the powergamer. Yes, the means by which a powergamer will try to accomplish their desire to make their character really powerful will be different in a game like that, but it will still be there. And it's probably impossible to set up a game with any sort of conflict and goal without providing opportunities for powergamers.
In other words, powergaming is a state of mind. This is not something that can be addressed by rules, or by in-game stuff. It's the basis for what a player brings to the table.
So, you have a few choices. First, I suppose, is to not play with powergamers. This is perhaps the easiest solution, but of course, it means that you need to be able to know ahead of time if a player is a powergamer, and this can be subtle, so it may not always be obvious.
Another option is to try to accommodate them, and just live with it, but this means almost running two different games. On the other hand, this is much the same as what we do when we've got players with other styles, say someone who is into tactical stuff, and another who is more about screen time and character drama. You would need to structure your game in such a way that the powergamer gets what they want, and also in such a way that the powergamer won't mess things up for everyone else. This is hard.
Third, you can try to block or otherwise mess with the powergamer, which is probably doomed to fail, and is a ton of work. It also reinforces the GM vs Player model that's at the core of powergaming. So this approach contains the seeds of it's own failure.
For many of us, we've been conditioned to accept different styles of gamer, because we're somewhat thin on the ground, so we're used to playing with whoever will show up. This is a philosophical position - is it better to play with styles you find problematic, or better not to game at all? I leave that up to you.
Ultimately, I think I can conclude that the powergamer views the game differently than someone who is more into role-play, specifically in the sense that the character, to the powergamer, is something outside of himself, a set of abilities and scores to increase. For someone who is more of a role-player, it's a character to inhabit, to view the world from the characters perspective. That's the difference. Both valid, but often incompatible.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The sandbox
I apparently don't spend enough time reading about gaming theory. I have run across a new (to me) term - that is, "sandbox".
The idea, as near as I can tell, is that the "sandbox" is a style of RPG where there isn't any direction or plot, rather, a world to explore for the players, and the GM just adapts to whatever they want to do. Explore, or get into a beef with someone, or whatever.
I honestly can't say I like games like this, and I'm wondering why. I've certainly played in them before, although it's really been years since I even encountered one of these.
If I had to guess, it seems far too open ended for my taste, at least these days. It seems to imply a long campaign, which is not something I have time for, anymore, and also seems to lack what I find increasingly interesting in gaming, which are in-character limits and specifics. In other words, I really want less freedom, not more. I want hard choices, and when I've got the freedom to just wander away from trouble, that lessens the fun for me. Far better, for me at least, to have a very constrained character, which some sort of goal or problem, and a limited set of tools to accomplish it.
Am I interpreting this term correctly? How do you feel about these sorts of games?
The idea, as near as I can tell, is that the "sandbox" is a style of RPG where there isn't any direction or plot, rather, a world to explore for the players, and the GM just adapts to whatever they want to do. Explore, or get into a beef with someone, or whatever.
I honestly can't say I like games like this, and I'm wondering why. I've certainly played in them before, although it's really been years since I even encountered one of these.
If I had to guess, it seems far too open ended for my taste, at least these days. It seems to imply a long campaign, which is not something I have time for, anymore, and also seems to lack what I find increasingly interesting in gaming, which are in-character limits and specifics. In other words, I really want less freedom, not more. I want hard choices, and when I've got the freedom to just wander away from trouble, that lessens the fun for me. Far better, for me at least, to have a very constrained character, which some sort of goal or problem, and a limited set of tools to accomplish it.
Am I interpreting this term correctly? How do you feel about these sorts of games?
Player responsibilities
Following up on my last post about GM roles, here are some thoughts on player responsibilities.
It may seem strange to put this much effort into what are, at the core of it, just games we play. But if it's to the greater good, then it's worth it.
We all want specific things out of our gaming experiences. Some things to consider:
1) How much time do you have? Our hobby is an odd one, in that it can require a pretty significant time commitment. I can't think of many other games, other than people who are really, really into a sport, that requires you to block out a 5-6 hour time period to play the game, as often as once a week, and may even require more time outside of that for doing things like character generation, or in some styles, keeping a character journal or helping develop material for the game.
If your time is constrained, and let's be honest, most of us have other commitments, be they work, or family, or other hobbies, it's good to get a sense of how much time a game will be taking, and how often. Be clear with your GM and the other players about how much time you have, and if the difference between what you have to give, and what is desired is too large, bow out, or work with the group to figure out a solution.
Related to this, there seems to be three rough categories for time commitments - there's the "show up and play once" of one-shots, the "we'll do this in 12 episodes" style that has a time limit, and the classic "we'll go as long as we want" of the on-going campaign. It's important to know what is expected.
On a personal note, these days, I find the first two much easier to deal with. Between negotiating time spent with my family, and the demands of work, it's much easier for me to block out the occasional one-shot, or a limited series of nights to play, rather than an open ended time commitment.
2) Listen to the GM. GMs sometimes have a hard time communicating exactly what sort of game they want to run - it might sound like just the sort of dark fantasy dealing with existential issues that you really love, but it might really be a dungeon crawl where the main goal is to have fun killing monsters. If you have any doubts, or even if you don't, get this defined ahead of time, and push the GM to tell you what they are wanting to have, since this is a key factor in your enjoyment.
3) Related to this - know what you like, and find out what the other players like and what the GM likes too. It will work better if you're all on the same page. If you really have fun playing for intrigue, and backstabbing, but everyone else hates that and wants to run things as a team, cooperating, then this might not be the game for you. It's entirely fine to try things out that may be outside of what you usually do, but our habits run deep, and it's best to make it clear that you're not completely 100% down with what appears to be the central theme, but want to try it anyway. That way, there aren't any surprises, and if the GM and other players are OK with you "trying it out" and possibly dropping out because you don't like it, they can at least plan for this ahead of time.
4) Strive for compassion - in other words, the game is not just about you. It's not just about the players, either. It's about the players and the GM and doing something together. This means that you shouldn't hog the spotlight, you should not try to drag the game in a direction that you find good but that others are not ok with, don't force things on other players (especially hot-button issues) without negotiation beforehand. You should make space in your play for others to interact with you, be open to things happening that might not be what you planned, and generally be flexible and keep others in mind at all times.
5) Keep in-game and out of game dialogs separate. Once you're playing, it's not the time to bring up how bored you are, or how much you hate what you're currently doing. Keep that for before or after the game. Of course, if there's no space to talk about the game outside of it, you might need to insist on it. Most GMs are actually really pleased to talk about how the game is going outside of it, but others aren't, or don't think about it. Being forthright and clear is the best strategy.
6) Whatever you do, don't sabotage things. Don't just act crazy out of spite, or boredom. Don't stir up trouble for the sake of trouble, and play in character. If you're playing someone who is law-abiding, for the most part, don't just go rogue because you aren't having a good time or the adventure isn't going quickly enough for you. Sit with the role. Figure out what you can do in character. If that doesn't work, talk to the GM, tell them that you're not having fun, and come with a list of suggestions for how to make it more interesting. This can range from "I want more combat" to "I was wondering what you thought of the idea of giving my character a storyline that goes something like this..."
7) And on that note, take pains to make sure that the GM and you are on the same page with what your character is like, and what's going on with them. This is especially important for those of us who like to really get into character, and often like to tell ourselves stories about the character - there's a danger that we'll go off the rails and then be disappointed when our stunningly detailed bit of fiction involving our character doesn't work with what is really going on in the game.
8) Finally, do the usual bits of social lubrication. Be on time. Do what you say you're going to do. Bring food, if appropriate. Don't mooch. Don't delay. Attend to personal hygiene. If you can't make it, make sure that everyone knows that in advance. Be gracious and say thank you to whoever is hosting.
*) Most of these (if not all) apply equally well to GMs.
GMs, what other things should players do? Players, what other things should GMs do?
It may seem strange to put this much effort into what are, at the core of it, just games we play. But if it's to the greater good, then it's worth it.
We all want specific things out of our gaming experiences. Some things to consider:
1) How much time do you have? Our hobby is an odd one, in that it can require a pretty significant time commitment. I can't think of many other games, other than people who are really, really into a sport, that requires you to block out a 5-6 hour time period to play the game, as often as once a week, and may even require more time outside of that for doing things like character generation, or in some styles, keeping a character journal or helping develop material for the game.
If your time is constrained, and let's be honest, most of us have other commitments, be they work, or family, or other hobbies, it's good to get a sense of how much time a game will be taking, and how often. Be clear with your GM and the other players about how much time you have, and if the difference between what you have to give, and what is desired is too large, bow out, or work with the group to figure out a solution.
Related to this, there seems to be three rough categories for time commitments - there's the "show up and play once" of one-shots, the "we'll do this in 12 episodes" style that has a time limit, and the classic "we'll go as long as we want" of the on-going campaign. It's important to know what is expected.
On a personal note, these days, I find the first two much easier to deal with. Between negotiating time spent with my family, and the demands of work, it's much easier for me to block out the occasional one-shot, or a limited series of nights to play, rather than an open ended time commitment.
2) Listen to the GM. GMs sometimes have a hard time communicating exactly what sort of game they want to run - it might sound like just the sort of dark fantasy dealing with existential issues that you really love, but it might really be a dungeon crawl where the main goal is to have fun killing monsters. If you have any doubts, or even if you don't, get this defined ahead of time, and push the GM to tell you what they are wanting to have, since this is a key factor in your enjoyment.
3) Related to this - know what you like, and find out what the other players like and what the GM likes too. It will work better if you're all on the same page. If you really have fun playing for intrigue, and backstabbing, but everyone else hates that and wants to run things as a team, cooperating, then this might not be the game for you. It's entirely fine to try things out that may be outside of what you usually do, but our habits run deep, and it's best to make it clear that you're not completely 100% down with what appears to be the central theme, but want to try it anyway. That way, there aren't any surprises, and if the GM and other players are OK with you "trying it out" and possibly dropping out because you don't like it, they can at least plan for this ahead of time.
4) Strive for compassion - in other words, the game is not just about you. It's not just about the players, either. It's about the players and the GM and doing something together. This means that you shouldn't hog the spotlight, you should not try to drag the game in a direction that you find good but that others are not ok with, don't force things on other players (especially hot-button issues) without negotiation beforehand. You should make space in your play for others to interact with you, be open to things happening that might not be what you planned, and generally be flexible and keep others in mind at all times.
5) Keep in-game and out of game dialogs separate. Once you're playing, it's not the time to bring up how bored you are, or how much you hate what you're currently doing. Keep that for before or after the game. Of course, if there's no space to talk about the game outside of it, you might need to insist on it. Most GMs are actually really pleased to talk about how the game is going outside of it, but others aren't, or don't think about it. Being forthright and clear is the best strategy.
6) Whatever you do, don't sabotage things. Don't just act crazy out of spite, or boredom. Don't stir up trouble for the sake of trouble, and play in character. If you're playing someone who is law-abiding, for the most part, don't just go rogue because you aren't having a good time or the adventure isn't going quickly enough for you. Sit with the role. Figure out what you can do in character. If that doesn't work, talk to the GM, tell them that you're not having fun, and come with a list of suggestions for how to make it more interesting. This can range from "I want more combat" to "I was wondering what you thought of the idea of giving my character a storyline that goes something like this..."
7) And on that note, take pains to make sure that the GM and you are on the same page with what your character is like, and what's going on with them. This is especially important for those of us who like to really get into character, and often like to tell ourselves stories about the character - there's a danger that we'll go off the rails and then be disappointed when our stunningly detailed bit of fiction involving our character doesn't work with what is really going on in the game.
8) Finally, do the usual bits of social lubrication. Be on time. Do what you say you're going to do. Bring food, if appropriate. Don't mooch. Don't delay. Attend to personal hygiene. If you can't make it, make sure that everyone knows that in advance. Be gracious and say thank you to whoever is hosting.
*) Most of these (if not all) apply equally well to GMs.
GMs, what other things should players do? Players, what other things should GMs do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
