Role-Playing Game Design (No Really!)
For my first article on this new venue, I’d like to take a moment and discuss something I’ve never seen discussed. Role-playing game design.
I know, I know, but play along, okay?
I’m not talking about the actual design of role-playing games. I’m not even talking about the culture of role-playing game designers. What I’m going to attempt to discuss is the orientation of those designers to their work. Not the body of their work, but the approach to working on it.
It has been a stumbling block for me and mine for some time. No one ever discusses this abstractly or objectively. (Not that I’m all that objective, but I can get pretty abstract.) This article stems from a basic problem.
I design differently.
Disputative Design
This is probably the most heard-from and the most familiar of approaches. It establishes that not only are role-playing game systems about authority, limits and rewards, but even the discussion about them is carried most familiarly as the ‘adversarial system’ (like in the criminal justice system).
Common disputative system tenants include conflict over ‘who has say’, game / social system as arbiter, player ‘rights’ to command the narrative, as well as many other issues of control and such. This approach is frequently misapprehended as being about structure or product, and while it might look like such, what really characterizes this approach is how disagreement and unconscious conflict is (unconsciously) assumed.
On the down side, this approach will often dismiss successful play which doesn’t make use of ’system’ to assign induction as degenerate. It is also confounded by ’systemless’ and free-form gaming for having little formal negotiation processes. Disputative design has a weakness relative to players who forego the ‘authority’ for passive or internal goals. Their focus on limits and rewards can make this approach something like writing instructions for herding cats.
And this is, of course, by far the most successful and most common practice thus far. (I’m not ready to go into the gender bias issues that are stereotyped onto this, unless your comments request it.) Next, one that appears to be the obvious converse (though it isn’t at all).
Synergistic Design
This approach is characterized by a strong teamwork ideal. It holds that role-playing games should be made to support and foster unified and supportive play. Synergistic approach discussions are generally supportive and differing opinions are meant to provide fresh perspective on their subjects and the presence of questions isn’t considered detrimental.
A few of the types of the synergistic designs I’ve seen include things like supportive focus; mechanics as communication not arbitration; rules as in-game metrics; players prompting interaction from other players (instead of the setting); the game text is taken as suggestive, not prescriptive; player characters as ingredients of play and play is considered as a shared reward for the effort to come together.
Common problems to synergistic design include too little support for disagreements, tending to dismiss play around in-game goals and advancement as ‘violent’ or immature, leaving not much room for self-reflective play or escapism and for either play having somewhat ambiguous direction or a heavy-handed bearing. Synergistic approach discussions can be a given a little too much to affirmation and back-patting, lacking in serious critical input. Games designed this way can often make too many unspoken assumptions about group cohesiveness to play well in blind tests.
This approach has gathered some cachet with the new crop of independent designers, but it is struggling to find its feet in the current marketplace. The outlook is good as the hobby grows to be more inclusive.
Individualistic Design
Taking note of an approach taken by some players to gaming, these designers work to provide their kind of play directly. The focus is entirely on the personal or internal rewards of play and adopts the perspective that design is likewise a personally rewarding experience. Taking this approach means much comparing of notes and bearings of play between different games; opinions are expectantly unassailable and only get compared for orientation purposes rather than relative value.
The principles of this approach involve self-reflection, rules as a form of physics, heavy importance on verisimilitude (very often wrongly called ‘realism’), game text as canon and the player character as the ‘costume’ or window into the game-world for the player. The aspect of escapism is so taken for granted, that it goes without mention.
Designers in the approach often struggle to communicate that their concepts are set and that they look for external perspectives on them. Like many of these approaches, arguments befuddle these designers who look for an automatic mutual respect in their approach. Many player expectations find these designs too aimless and lacking in structure for ongoing play. Concepts like ’story’ or ‘narrative’ are quite irrelevant to this approach where player character point of view is king; discussion of these issues is perplexing to these designers.
With one of the eldest, masked manners of play that this approach caters to, it is only just awakening to its market. Reaching an audience in the current marketplace remains elusive (despite the commonplace nature of this design) except with licensed properties. And that audience tends to be very dedicated.
Collaborative Design
Often thought of as affecting ’social gaming’, this approach elevates casual personal interaction. Discussions out of this approach are often signed by the assumption that all players already ‘know how to play’. The focus becomes on what motivates play and gathering as well as different approaches to player conflict mediation.
Central concepts here are appropriate play space and ambiance, running a game as a social event, game text as a point of interest, a focus on the divide between In-Character and Out-of-Character speech (as well as other issues), companionship and ‘involvability’ issues, dealing with hurt feelings and ‘comfort zones’ and an overall attention to everyone having a good time. And there is the assumption of socializing that is not game-critical in most cases. Discussions here are as much about social science as game mechanics.
Even though every game played between people has to include the issues raised by this approach, few designs ever give them any space. Most other approaches look down at this one as being ‘not serious’ about gaming. Collaborative designs mostly fall down when it comes to action-adventure play and meticulous combat systems. Designers of this fashion often struggle to create concrete rules covering the uses of social capital that don’t overly complicate the natural flow of the same during play.
It’s a shame how few designers take this approach seriously; it may be the ‘next big thing’ (only history will tell). I know I’ve been dabbling in this enough to know I’m way out of my depth.
Finally….
Of course, it is very likely you will recognize attitudes, practices and beliefs from several of these concepts in yourself. You know what?
That’s exactly how it should be.
No one is such a nut that they do things only one way. I don’t now, nor ever have, believed that anyone has or would design any role-playing games that were coherently of any one philosophy, my scheme or any others. I believe it is impossible to eliminate all other perspectives from one’s work as much as it is impossible to categorize anything as completely one philosophical genre or another. These don’t just overlap, they are at times equi-present. (Try not to be too divisive using these points.)
It should also be painfully obvious that this is an incompletely list. I’ve stretched my experience to its extreme just roughing these out, so don’t expect it to be miraculous. I’m still learning and that’s why I’ve embedded a link to a wiki page where these ideas can be clarified, complemented, grown and added to. Feel free to drop by with your own ideas; each wiki pages also has its own discussion page and I look forward to fruitful interchange.
(And if you’re disputative, don’t look here for a good fight. I don’t work that way anymore. I much more want your input and experiences; please add them when you can!)
Fang Langford
5 Responses to “Role-Playing Game Design (No Really!)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Greetings, Fang.
Could you give an example, preferably an archetypal one, of each category?
As far as I understand them, Universalis is the archetypal disputive game, but the other categories are a bit hard to penetrate.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hey Tommi! Thanks for writing.
Examples are a little difficult, really. These concepts are about more than just the specific designs; they are also about the ways game designers approach the work. It would be impossible to find or design a single game along only one (or mostly one) approach.
More likely you could talk about how the resource system in Universalis seems primarily disputative, but it actually fosters some forms of synergistic play. (As far as designing goes, I was there and Universalis was all hugs and teh love-in. No arguments there.)
Try to think of these approaches as adjectives, not -isms or -ists.
If you’d like, we could take this to the forums and give it a good going through. Let me know (I’ll set up some categories).
Fang Langford
May 8th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Hey.
First, I’d like to call into question if it is actually useful to use one label to describe both the way a game and the way the game is designed, as I’d assume these can be quite different methodologies.
Second, on labeling: I consider adjectives to be interchangeable with -isms: They both define sets where certain games clearly fit better and others are closer to the border (they particularly define open sets, in a way, which is probably meaningless unless you happen to know some mathematics).
Personally, I’m more interested in the play of different games then the actual design process, so if you are willing to discuss that, provide a venue and I’ll be there (this blog is okay for me).
May 9th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hmm. That’s a good point.
I’d have to say that learning to separate labels from concepts is an important step for philosophy. And you’re not a philosopher! Point taken.
When I say something isn’t a label, that means that I’m only using (for example) disputative for the moment because I think it’s a keen word I just learned this week. Next week, I might call these designers (and their games) conflict-based or rights-seeking or (on a grouchy day) divisive. You can see, I have no label for this concept. I abhor labels because disputative discussions focus entirely too much on connotative meanings that are peripheral to the use of the label word as…well a label.
I’m hoping that using my wiki will help me cut through that stuff and keep ‘on meaning’ instead of semantics.
Actually, I would very much like to discuss the play of different games at length with you. Can you pose a clearer question in my forums to get things going?
F
May 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hi Fang.
Philosophy is my, what do they call it, minor? The thing that you do study but not quite as much as the major subject of study. Anyways.
It seems that I am using all words as you are using words that are not labels; they are just convenient ways of referring to concepts (which I think of as sets, axioms, or other fairly well-defined entities). I’ll try the forum.