Veteran's Day

A rare sidestep from rpgs for a moment if allowed...

Today is a important day for me. A the son of a man who served in the Army for World War II, and the father of two sons currently serving in the Coast Guard and the Navy, it's a time for reflection.

Reflection both upon the amazing man who raised me, and that I somehow managed well enough to raise my boys such they that too serve the highest ideas of my country. I stand humbled, between one great generation, and the best of the next.

Heartfelt thanks to all who serve- past, present and future.



With that sidestep, one little bit on rpgs. There have been few rpgs about military service, and sadly they didn't last long. Of them I've played two that were a significant influence on how I approach rpgs both in play and in design.

The first was SPI's game Commando from 1979. It was published as a wargame, but had in its optional rules everything needed for a kick-backside rpg campaign.

Behind Enemy Lines was published in 1982 by FASA, and while I considered it's cover rules flawed, it captured the danger of warfare, and the heroism of those who endure it.

People should title their posts better...

Browsing RPG bloggers can be interesting sometimes. More often it just causes one to roll their eyes.

Like this post on Justin Achilli's blog. One would think that something titled "Realism Stinks, or What's It's all About" would have something to say about realism.

But it doesn't, or rather only says it's stinks in passing. The article is really just What's It's All About, and in respect it just trots out the rather old adage that a writer doesn't put a gun in scene one that isn't used someplace later.

Even here the article goes off the rails.

Why? Well, that may work for books and movies, with their very limited focus. RPGs however tend to more open in what they allow. In that line, vampires interacting with the modern world may well learn how to take advantage of the toys of the modern world. And that may include hacking computers and tricking the Army into launching an Apache Gunship attack on a rival clan.

Justin's failure here is very typical of online Theory writers- too much theory, not enough experience with how people actually play rpgs. Instead of wide open vistas, they offer limited little windows that one must squeeze through.

Oh, and they whine about realism in passing without saying anything.

Disconnected from Reality?

I was watching the new video preview for Warhammer Fantasy 3, and was in general... dismayed.

A mixture of board game and rpg, with a heavy focus on linking role-play and game mechanics. It has all the hallmarks of an expensive attempt to put into practice some of the worse rpg design theory to appear online.

Which brings up the idea that many of the new game designers (Mearls and 4E being the first significant one) may have been too involved with the Internet and it's unrestrained (and unrealistic) idealism and too detached from how people actually play rpgs.

Or it may be something more boring. People love to break new ground in general just to do it, heedless of the downsides. Combining board games & RPG might look like a good idea to such people.

Whatever the case, the last thing I need is an rpg with a bunch of cards and cardboard that will wear out in play. As much as the game company would like the constant income, I have better uses for my money.

Not that warhammer was ever a setting or game that interested me in the first place. But I bet a lot of old fans of the game are going to be disappointed at this change in direction.

Reflections on Complexity

In response to my series of articles on complexity, one of my regular readers (Helmsman) make a couple of interesting assertions.

"One thing I've noticed since I started following the gamer blogging community is that among "bloggers" simplicity is favored.", Helmsman

I've noticed much the same thing. Love of simple systems seems overwhelming online, and that doesn't match the larger market or my offline experiences. Not even close.

To be honest, I don't really know how to explain this. But here are two possible reasons:

1. People are really bad at game design, either doing or understanding. Thus those gamers driven to write sort of have to be those who favor simple systems because they'd end up looking like fools when they screwed up talking about complex ones.
2. Fans of complex systems stick to writing about them on forums for those complex system. Enworld for D&D, Steve Jackson boards, or the HERO System boards are examples.

I think item 2 is more likely than item 1. But, frankly having spent some time reading some of the system specific boards- item 2 tends to prove that they should have followed item 1.

Helmsman second point that I wanted to comment on:

"The truth I think is something no blogger wants to admit though, complexity is preferable to the masses, but there's a better medium for it now. Why should anyone write a cool tabletop driving simulator when there are about to be 5 iterations of GranTorismo?", Helmsman

I'm going to have to disagree markly here.

Computer/Console games by nature aren't complex. Sure, they are from a programmer's viewpoint- but not the players. There they are little more than learning the pattern and mastering a handful of controls. The real complexity of mass and implementation has all but been removed and is handled by the computer.

The real complexity of mass and These types of games also suffer in other ways when compared to PnP RPGs. The player doesn't 'own' the system, house rules are limited to mods and those are very restrained as they must always operate under the core program's constraints.

The players also don't own the world. The day (back in the 90s) when Wing Commander killed Angel was the day that I realized that computer games would never allow me to play out a story the way I wanted to play them out. They were in the end little better than watching TV.

These factors, ownership and ability to control the game system (and interact with it direct), world, and story are things computer games are still very far away from. And I doubt they'll get there in the next 10-20 years.

So no, there is not a better medium for complexity. They is however certainly a more popular one.

Musings on Complexity

So I've defined what complexity in game design is, how an individual selects what degree of complexity is best for them, and how a gaming group relates to complexity.

In the process a number of thoughts occurred to me. Counter arguments as it were to some common assertions made online about RPGs. In each there is no doubt room for actual research and collection of data (that no one had done). That hasn't kept people from making the assertions, and it won't keep me from pointing out where they may have gone wrong.

1) What the hobby needs is a simple introductory game.

I consider this to be highly doubtful.

Given that successful game design must reach a state of Complexity Equilibrium with its players to be of long term interest- it's likely that a simple game will quicky bore most, and if that's their first experience- it may turn them off the hobby forever.

There might be room for a 'basic' set, 'advanced' set approach that meets this idea. However that was done by D&D- and then abandoned by D&D. Businesses are driven by costs and income, and that history stands strongly in the way of this concept.

Why would a Basic edition fail? I think the labeling of 'Basic' itself would be as much or more of a turn-off as it would be a suitable introduction. Add in the increased production costs, and it's just not worth it.

2) Splat books are nothing but an money grab from gaming companies.

I also consider this to be highly doubtful.

As a matter of fact, I consider Splat books to be the 'Advanced' with the core rules being the 'Basic' of concept number 2. But it's without the negative labeling, and without a watered down system to start.

The fact that they are released after the core rules also provides on on-going increase to system complexity needed by gamers who have mastered the core rules and are perhaps growing bored of them.


3) You can either role-play or roll-play

Often this is directed towards a specific game system.

This old bit of flame-bait can be seen as nothing more than sour grapes by someone who hasn't mastered a certain level of complexity. It is akin to a checkers players saying that those who play chess can't really play a game because they are so focused on the ways the different pieces move.

Not that one can't roll-play, but when viewed through the lens of Complexity Equilibrium it's clear that such play is a style choice- not a system one.


Finally, a bit of reflection.

If all this applies one would expect that the most successful games would be those who's complexity reached equilibrium with the largest number of players. That these games would have core rules and expansions them that are released over the life span of the edition.

And this is actually the case in the market.

I almost feel smart. If not for the fact that the major game companies figured this out back in the old days...