This is a rerun. It was originally posted on March 20, 2006.

What about the rules? Do rules make it a game? Rules exist, in my mind, to serve three purposes: to resolve conflicts, to introduce random factors, and to support the flavor of the setting.

The first is most important. Without a conflict resolution system, we’d be playing cowboys and indians yelling “Bang! You’re dead!” “No I’m not! You missed!” “I didn’t miss! I never miss! Fall down!” Success, failure and, where applicable, degree of success. That is all.

Random factors serve to inspire the imagination and keep things moving along. I have built entire campaigns (a wargaming holdover term; I prefer “series”, as in a television series, a series of novels, or a series of connected game sessions) from the shambles of plots where die rolls have gone horribly, horribly awry and having to incorporate the outcome of those events, especially players’ reactions, into the big picture. Were I just sitting at the laptop writing the story, it would have gone much, much differently.

As for flavor, there are whole schools of thought devoted to the connection between rules and setting. All rules influence setting. Pick a movie or TV show. Use it as a game setting using five different sets of rules, and you’ll have five different experiences. Why? Everything from skill lists to special abilities available to how task resolution works to what type of damage weapons do will influence the world. Rules are the physics of the world. You can use any generic system to run any setting, it’s absolutely true, but you will need to tweak, and some rules are better suited to particular settings than others.

Rules are only rules if you follow them. Even most core rules published in the past 20 years have some verbiage in them encouraging you to chuck out anything that doesn’t work for you, demoting them to mere suggestions. The proliferation of house rules and D20 flavors supports this idea. Nothing is inflexible; use rules that support the story you’re trying to tell. Like a writer writing a story, if you need something to happen, it does; if something doesn’t fit, call a do-over or ignore it.

So what do you call a roleplaying game, Uncle Bear, if it’s not a game?
You just call it roleplaying, silly. You might need to utter an extra sentance to clarify to non-roleplayers that you’re not talking about a therapeutic technique or a method of teaching critical thinking and problem solving, but it shouldn’t be so hard.

So what are all these books sitting on my shelf, professing to be games?
Some of them are systems: a way or method of doing things. Here are the laundry lists of things your character can potentially do. Here is the method of task resolution. Some of them are theories: this is how we, the authors, feel roleplaying should work, or at least how it should work in this genre or setting. When you’re roleplaying using that system, you’re testing, validating, and building upon that set of assumptions and, ultimately, accepting them, adding to them, or scrapping them in favor of a more workable theory.

To the first squirt that says I’m making this way more complicated than it needs to be, I ask: have you picked up a D20 core rulebook lately?

The comments below were cut and pasted from the legacy blog, which does not convert to WordPress.  To add new comments, scroll to the bottom.
S.L. Shirley 03/20/06 8:45 AM
I agree for the most part, but game means different things to different people. Certainly the conotations you imply are the most prevailant, but it can also imply simply “passtime.” This seems most applicable to RPGs. I think “storytelling” comes closest to what we are doing, but it doesn’t adequately cover the random elements. Role Playing Storytelling Passtime is too much of a mouthful, Cooperative Storytelling makes it sound like something it isn’t, just calling it Role Playing has way to many possible misinterpretations, and the conventional wisdom behind RPG (so prevalent I can simply abbreviate it with absolute surity that everyone reading this will know what I am talking about) is misleading.

I think it’s still a game in the way Cowboys & Indians was, so why not just stick with RPG? Different systems emphasize differnt styles of play, and that’s really what we are talking about here is styles of play. Some people enjoy a system that grinds to a virtual stand still as the 15th level “Iconic Party of 4″ face off against the elder wyrm at the end of a series (I like WW’s chronicle myself, but series works just as well). Some people prefer a system that favors narrative over miniatures and facing and AoO and so on. In the end it’s all about fun.

I’m still going to call it an RPG. It’s easier to work backwards from their than forwards from just calling it RP.

Berin Kinsman 03/20/06 10:57 AM
I’m not saying that I’m going to change the language, or even try. I think that, in spite of MMO’s and computer games co-opting the term “roleplaying game” for activites that are in many ways very different from what *we* (given variable values of we) mean when referring to tabletop roleplaying games, the theoretical “mainstream” knows by now what a roleplaying game. <i>Dungeons & Dragons<i> is a landmark on our common cultural landscape, for better or worse and with all the misconceptions or embarassing connotations that may carry with it into the popular consciousness.

Even the term “tabletop rpg”, used to differentiate from CRPF or MMPORPG (or MMO) is a loaded term because it implies the tactical and wargaming-holdover elements like miniatures and maps that require a tabletop.

I do feel, however, that as the hobby evolves and technology evolves and new types of games or pastimes or whatever are created, there will be a natural shift in terminology at some point in order to clearly differentiate what *we* do from what *they* do (or, more likely, this thing I’m doing to kill time *now* versus that thing I’ll be doing to kill time *later*).

The whole object of this article was to present my point of view (note the first word of the first paragraph is “I”) and expand upon some of the personal roleplaying philosophy that’s informed recent posts and will likely continue to influence future material. (cont)

I’m not even saying that any stance I take on things is a solid, permanent stance. I’ve moved beyond rules-hacking (at least until I complete a through second read-through of FATE and start running my next thing) and moved on to mind-hacking and method-hacking and tool-hacking. Because ultimately, that’s one of the two directions old-school, analog, human-interaction roleplaying is going to evolve: either the huge Spycraft 2.0/D&D 4.x volumes of tactics-heavy crunchy bits, or the lighter, social dynamic and imagination-driven systems like FATE and RISUS and things found on The Forge.

Woolgathering and blowing hot air as I may, the links at the top of the page still say “rpgshop” and “rpgnews”.

S.L. Shirley 03/20/06 11:11 AM
I read what you write, and it makes me think. The comments option means you get to “hear” me “think out loud.”

I do think we, as a hobby, need to have a method of differentiating folks who play the tactical and crunchy RPGs versus those of us who play the lighter (Savage Worlds or WoD) or even lite (Risus, maybe FATE) rules sets.

When I say, “we, as a hobby, need” of course I mean “I want (cause I am easily confused)”

Berin Kinsman 03/20/06 11:30 AM
I enjoy hearing you think out loud.

Well, we have the Ron Edwards Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (GNS) model, which works for designers and reviewers when trying to codify a system’s goals and how well it accomplished them. It’s still a highly controversial model and flame wars are still launched in its wake. I wonder about the need for language to codify the various type of roleplaying games for casual gamers, but then I wonder if “need” is too strong a word. People grasp that Monopoly is not Candyland is not Pictionary, but board games are finite and high concept in their “settings”. Non-hobbyists and casual roleplayers grasp that D&D is not the Buffy RPG is not the Serenity RPG, but do that really *care* that D20 is not Unisystem is not a new, unique system specifically created for the setting. They’re not playing rules, they’re playing in a setting that interests them. To them, pulling out the Player’s Handbook is the same, intrinsically, as pulling out the Monopoly box or turning on the Playstation: it’s an entertaining way to kill a couple of hours.

I think most people can grasp tactical, roll-dice-and-kill-stuff (call it “personal wargaming”) versus the roleplaying, method acting, storytelling, whatever esoteric activity other of us seem to prefer. Which brings me back to language, and marketing, and lighter systems with clearer explanations of concept. I could more easily recruit new players (i.e., first timers, previous non-roleplayers) to a RISUS game based on a popular TV show than I could to a D20 Star Wars game, or a Unisystem Buffy game, because the rulebook is intimidating. I can explain RISUS and get characters made in five minutes and run a session in an hour or two and be done, with board game simplicity. The hard part is getting non-roleplayers to grasp the whole “what is the roleplaying part I’m supposed to do” piece, and the “so how do I win?” bit.

S.L. Shirley 03/20/06 12:30 PM
conversely and not with out irony, getting “personal wargamers” to wrap their heads around and fold their characters into Risus us equally hard… or so I’ve heard… I have to actually run a game of Risus one of these days.

Berin Kinsman 03/20/06 1:01 PM
Which isn’t bad; they want what they want.

Robin Laws goes into this in Robin’s Laws of Good Game Mastering, as does Ron Edwards in System Does Matter. The perfect game system, both postulate, is the one that provides the highest level of entertainment for its participants. you can’t really argue that point.

I have a huge blizzard of ideas and questions and odd notions running through my head. I know that what I want isn’t what most people want (hence, the dire shark jump). I have to speculate why roleplaying can’t ever be mainstream, and if I accept the arguement, I have to examine why it can’t reach a larger audience. It’s more than the fact that MMO’s and video game companies have bigger budgets than RPG book publishers. There are barriers of accessability and language and culture and…

The market, and products, for people who like crunch is there. D&D and even Vampire have crunchy bits and large audiences and mainstream recognition. I think there’s an untapped market for the other kind of roleplayer, the RISUS player, the Narrativists of Edwards’ model, the Method Actors and Storytellers of Laws’ model.

I also know that there are “personal wargamers” and “crunch players” who really aren’t aware that there are people woh play differently. They’re the casual gamers who’ve been talked into playing D&D and liked it but don’t surf RPG sites on the web to see what else may be. D&D is the Alpha and the Omega in their limited knowledge. I know, because I’ve converted a couple of people from classic “hack and slash” to more character- and plot-driven sessions . This is the untapped potential. This is the outside-the-box market that’s not being catered to by anyone other the the indy scene. This is where the growth ans survival of the hobby lies… in my opinion, at least.

S.L. Shirley 03/20/06 2:30 PM
I love all my idealist friends; folks like you, bear? You all keep me from becoming a hopeless curmudgeon!

I think the growth and survival of the hobby lies in PDF publishing and a more Open Source, Copy Left, All Systems, and even Ransom additude from the dedicated fan-base. More fuss has to be made about what we have lately started to call Indie games like My Life With Master (I’m going to have to have that one), Insylum; stuff from The Forge, RPG.net, and 1km1kt.net…

There are a lot of really good entertainment experiences to be had out there by all “models” of gamer.

But, this is a future that I don’t think will ever become mainstream. The D&Ds/d20s and WoDs are forever going to be the only things in the B&Ns and Borders of the world…

Then again, that’s what folks used to say about Marvel and DC until Image came along.

Berin Kinsman 03/20/06 11:05 PM
I agree that the Next Big Thing will come out of the current indy movement.
There will be one. I’m certain of it. D&D, Vampire, Magic Cards big. Not mainstream, but large enough that non-hobbyists will have some idea what you’re talking about because someone they know is into it. It will come about via the internet, and because of the internet. And it’ll happen within the next three years. This I predict.

Check out The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell.

S.L. Shirley 03/21/06 5:57 AM
Twice is a coincidence.

First it was a conversation had on the RisusTalk list repeated in my Modern Philosophu class,

Second is your mentioning “Tipping Point.” Also discussed in the same class.

Once interesting, twice coincidence, a third time indicates a pattern. This is all inside a seven day period.

Berin Kinsman 03/21/06 7:45 AM
I know it was a typo (my comments are full of ‘em too) but my first though was “Your Modern Philoso-phu is strong! HIYAAA!”

Sorry.

But I do think it’s just a matter of time before something catches fire. It very well could be Risus or FATE or one of the Forge games. I think a setting, rather than the rules themselves, will set it off, but it will serve to introduce the rules and make them familiar to a new audience.

And it’ll happen on a social networking site like MySpace or craigslist.

Berin Kinsman 03/21/06 7:47 AM
Oh, and it’ll be written up in mainstream media like Entertainment Weekly as “hot internet buzz” and it won’t be referred to as a roleplaying game. Someone’s going to coin a new term, and that’ll be part of what makes it hip and cool.

Seriously.

NukeHavoc 03/22/06 4:45 AM
As for definitions, role-playing + rules = role-playing game for me. At some point we may need to evolve a new term for it to differentiate ourselves from the computer RPG masses (at which point we may also start wearing black turtlenecks ) but for now it works.

Regarding the non-RPG that’s going to take the country by storm … I could see a social networking site do something like this, using a low-powered rules system to handle the behind-the-scenes task resolution. The right balance could cause the thing to become viral, like an “ILOVEBEES” for the masses.

S.L. Shirley 03/22/06 6:12 AM
*installs new kybrd*
*tries again*

OK! In case anyone was wondering, Vault is no better for keyboards than any other sugary caffeine laden beverage.

Nuke, you forgot the berets; We’ll also have to start using Macs…

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/11

heh.

Actually, this conversation makes me think of Ogame.org if it was an RPG…

Berin Kinsman 03/22/06 6:18 AM
I think that ILOVEBEES (and The Beast before it) is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Especially since at one point in “bees” participants had to make up fake names and ranks for fictional starship crew members.

NukeHavoc 03/22/06 7:57 AM
I thought ILOVEBEES and The Beast were great, and wish I had the time to do any thing more than just watch. It does raise one issue for me though: although I’m interested in RPGs beyond d20 (and fear the every-growing encylopedic nature of some of its tomes) at some point I’d really start to miss the crunchy bits. The writer in me loves the story, but ultimately the geek says “hey, what happened to the number crunching?”

You may be leading us to the Promised Land, and I’ll be more than happy to vacation there … but I think ultimately I’d be content to wander the desert wastelands (as long as I’ve got my +2 shocking longsword).

Berin Kinsman 03/22/06 8:27 AM
“There is only one way to roleplay: the way that achieves the best balance between the various desires of your particular group.”
–Robin D. Laws, Robin’s Laws of Good Game Mastering

I’m not trying to lead anyone anywhere. I’m just stating personal preferences and looking at “what ifs” and observing trends. There is no One True Way.

I think there’s a compromise between light and crunchy, and I think it’s “Bring Your Own Crunch”. Define how various TYPES of things work, then allow the players to define them. Knowledge skills work like THIS, you define the area of knowledge — that’s the existing mechanic that becomes the model. Maneuver feats work like THIS, you define the maneuver. Spells that do damage work like THIS, you define the special effects. That would work within the structure of classes and levels as well as with point-based systems.

You’d end up with smaller rulebooks without losing the structure. It would also destroy most large game companies’ splat-based business models, so it’s not going to come from a big publisher.

But this is a rant for another time.

NukeHavoc 03/30/06 6:16 AM
So I’m watching LOST last night, and thinking back to this thread, and right after the big dayglo climax … ” I thought “this is one hell of a cool game…”

Because really, drama aside, what makes the show work is that it is a game. Trying to figure out how the pieces fit, digging for information online … it’s much more of an active watching experience than a passive one. Granted, it’s not a roleplaying game, but give it time … with a few twists and turns fandom just might find itself unexpectedly interacting with the show. Not saying it will happen, just saying I wouldn’t be all that surprised.

Now excuse me while I go looking for some screen shots…

Berin Kinsman 03/30/06 6:36 AM
Heh. I was just getting ready to make a LOST post.

Like

Unlike

More from unclebear

• Roleplaying and Respect
• Jumping the Dire Shark Classic
• When System Matters