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?
Showing posts with label old-school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label old-school. Show all posts
Saturday, December 5, 2009
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
