|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realms of role playing
Let’s start pushing the pendulum the other way
by Gary Gygax
©1985 E. Gary Gygax. All rights reserved.
There was a long period of time when
action, rather than role playing, was the
major focus of gaming, and this was espe-
cially true with respect to tournament sce-
narios at conventions. Thus, an AD&D®
game scenario would typically stress combat
with monsters to achieve the goal set before
the characters. Now, the pendulum has
swung the other way — much emphasis is
being placed on how well the player takes
on the role of his or her character. Personifi-
cation and acting are replacing action of the
more direct and forceful type — be it sword
swinging, spell casting, or anything else.
Before this trend goes too far, it is time to
consider what the typical role-playing game
is all about.
First, it is important to remember that
(‘role-playing”is a modifier of the noun
“game.” We are dealing with a game which
is based on role playing, but it is first and
foremost a game. Games are not plays,
although role-playing games should have
some of the theatre included in their play.
To put undue stress upon mere role-playing
places the cart before the horse. Role play-
ing is a necessary part of the game, but it is
by no means the whole of the matter.
Role playing is similar to, but not the
same as, role assumption. The latter term is
generally used to identify the individual’s
acceptance of a part which he or she could
actually perform. While a child might play
the role of a parent, an adult would assume
that role when dealing with his or her chil-
dren. This distinction is important in the
context of gaming because of the stress now
being placed upon role playing. Too much
emphasis in this direction tends to make
playing out an adventure more of a chil-
dren’s “let’s pretend” activity than an
action-packed game which involves all sorts
of fun, including the playing of a role but
other fun aspects as well.
A role-playing game should be such that
players begin the personification portion as
role play, and then as they progress the
activity should evolve into something akin
to role assumption. This does away with
stilted attempts to act the part of some
character. In place of this, players should
try to become that person they are imagin-
ing during the course of the game, and
conduct the actions of their characters ac-
cordingly. A spy, for example, speaks in one
way to his superiors, in another way when
he converses with his equals, and in yet an
entirely different way when he is attempting
to penetrate an enemy installation and is
impersonating a plumber, perhaps. Imple-
mented in this fashion, the concept becomes
one of roles within roles.
This applies to all role-playing games, of
course. Straining to play a role is certainly
contrary to the purpose of the game. The
actual reason for gaming is fun, not instruc-
tion in theatrics or training in the thespian
art. Role playing is certainly a necessary
and desirable part of the whole game, but it
is a part. Challenge, excitement, suspense,
and questing are other portions equally
necessary to a game of this nature.
Problem solving is the typical challenge
in a role-playing game. Whether it is dis-
covering a murderer, finding a magic
sword, or seeking to expose a gang of crimi-
nals, this element is an integral part of such
interactive gaming. And ‘note that problem
solving, in this context, has to do with a
problem to be solved by the character, not a
problem (such as“How do I role-play this
situation?”) to be solved by the player.
Combat, survival amidst threatening
conditions, or stalking an opponent are
typical means of adding excitement and
suspense into the whole. These are action-
oriented portions of the game activity which
call for little role playing but a fair amount
of role assumption. The magic-user charac-
ter (and thus, the player of that character)
must know his or her spells and how to
utilize them efficiently. The explorer must
know outdoor craft. Whatever the situation,
setting, or character being played, skill —
not theatrics —is what is called for here.
Having a goal, understanding it, and
remaining steadfast in its completion are
likewise necessary to role-playing games.
This questing, if you will, again has little or
nothing to do with role playing in the acting
sense. It is closer to role assumption and is a
measure of gaming ability and skill.
Role-playing games are different from
other games in that they allow participants
to create a game persona, develop this
character, and enhance his or her skills and
abilities. While some considerable amount
of acting is most beneficial to play, this is by
no means the sole objective or purpose. The
fun of such gaming includes all the other
elements mentioned, plus the interactive
relationships which develop between the
various characters of the players participat-
ing. In the well-balanced game, role playing
should quickly become role assumption,
which then again leads to character role
playing —roles within roles!
Not every game of this sort must be
completely balanced with regard to all of
these aspects. Such a decision is entirely in
the hands of the game master and the play-
ers. If a particular group desires to stress
acting, or combat, or problem solving, or
any other singular feature of the whole, that
is strictly up to the individuals concerned.
How they enjoy gaming, and what consti-
tutes fun, is theirs alone to decide.
This last point extends not only to players
but to products as well. A particular game
might be designed to stress one aspect over
others. Role playing can be the major
thrust, or action and combat, or any of the
other elements. Similarly, the underlying
game might offer one or another while its
accessories and scenarios develop some
different aspects. Most games and support
material are general and offer a reasonably
well-balanced mix.
But is this true for competition situations
as well? In contrast to a long period when
such tournaments tended to feature hack-
and-slash, shoot-‘em-up, and blast-‘em-out
situations, there is now a trend toward
downplaying everything
cal side of gaming. This
except the theatri-
tendency has evi-
denced itself to a lesser extent in some
support materials, it must be noted. The
reaction is not altogether unwarranted, for
many particpants seem to have been ignor-
ing role playing completely, or nearly so,
their games. Instead, it is usual for such
in
games to stress direct, usually violent,
action. This is a true detriment to fully
appreciating the scope of role-playing
games; as with most things, one extreme is
just as undesirable as the other.
The current vogue of placing seemingly
undue importance on the role-playing por-
tion of the game is simply meant to inform
and educate participants about a very im-
portant segment of what differentiates these
games from other types of games. It is to be
hoped that the needed training thus af-
forded will enable game participants to go
beyond role playing of their characters and
enter into role assumption instead. Once it
is understood that role playing is a vital
ingredient of the game, and players under-
stand how to actually accomplish it, the
undue attention can be discarded.
Balanced games are certainly the most
enjoyable sort for the great majority of
players. A meal does not consist of but one
thing —if it is to be an enjoyable one. By
the same token, a role-playing game must
have all the ingredients which allow it to be
varied and enjoyable. Playing and assump-
tion of roles, interpersonal dealings, action,
problem solving, excitement, suspense, and
questing are all important to make the
whole. The portions can be mixed in differ-
ent amounts, but each should have a degree
of existence within the scope of the whole.
It is common for scenarios to identify the
level of experience and skill recommended
for those utilizing the material they provide.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to also
identify any particular stress the scenario
places upon a certain aspect of the game
activity — role-playing, action, problem
solving, or any other.
Tournament scenarios and competitions
might also benefit by such identification.
Prospective entrants would then be able to
determine which aspect they favor, or possi-
bly need to learn more of, before they en-
tered the event. Participants who find their
enjoyment lies in one area or another would
thus be able to select events optimal for
their tastes and avoid those which they
might find less fun — making the competi-
tion experience more enjoyable for everyone
who does take part. Is the player who has
difficulty personifying a well-understood
character any different from an excellent
thespian who misplays the game otherwise?
By being able to identify the focus of a
scenario, not only would players be in-
formed, but they would also be given the
opportunity to round out their abilities in
weak areas if they chose to do so.
Play of the game is the thing. Play in-
cludes development of the character and
personification thereof, role assumption and
role playing, and the rest. After all, fantasy
in whatever form is integral. Whether fight-
ing a dragon, piloting a starship, or shoot-
ing it out with evil enemy agents, the action
imagined during the game is what really
makes it fun. The pendulum did need to
move a bit to balance things, but it must
not go too far, or the realms of role playing
will become small and constricted instead of
being — as they should be — as broad and
varied as the imagination.
Gord: More to come!
Gord of Greyhawk has adventures in
other places besides these Splendid Pages.
What’s this, you ask? I shall explain . . . .
As those of you who read “At Moonset
Blackcat Comes” in issue #100 are aware,
there are books on the way which are all
about this young thief. Well, Gentle Read-
ers, in addition to Saga of Old City (sched-
uled for release in November) and its
sequel, Artifact of Evil (January 1986),
there is more! DRAGON® Magazine is,
after all, a gaming journal, and this Indefa-
tigable Key-pounder can’t take up its space
with stories of Gord and Associates as they
go about their affairs in that strange city
and its environs in probability and time.
There are more adventures to be told than
those chronicled in the two abovementioned
books, and these tales will be appearing in
AMAZING® Stories Magazine.
In case you can’t find AMAZING Stories
at your local newsstand, don’t despair. The
TSR subscription department is ready and
able to take your order well in time for you
to receive the May 1986 issue, which will
contain The Strange Occurrence on Odd
Alley, a story of about 15,000 words. Gord
and his companion Chert stumble into
something unexpected, and when the tale is
concluded, the duo is off on yet another
rollick. What’s this, you say? Some devious
device to snare us? But of course! There is a
sequel to “Odd Alley” in the typewriter
even now, and if the Beneficent Editor of
AMAZING Stories will but smile upon it,
you will be reading that bit of action and
adventure in a subsequent issue as well.
So don’t forget to get your copy of the
May issue. Subscription orders should be
sent to TSR, Inc., P.O. Box 72089, Chi-
cago IL 60690. Be sure to provide us with
your complete name and mailing address,
tell us what you want, and include a check
or money order in the amount of $9.00 (or
$11.00 if you are paying in Canadian funds)
for a one-year subscription. Be forewarned
that the May issue is mailed out well in
advance of that particular month, but if you
get your money to us by the end of 1985,
that issue will certainly be among the six bi-
monthly magazines you will receive.
THE FORUM
This letter is on the issue
of role-playing.
Throughout the issues of
DRAGON
Magazine
(starting with #72),
there have been several
articles on how to successfully
and realistically
role-play certain characters.
Role-playing alignments
and clerics have made up
the majority of
such articles, but there
was also a section on
character background by Katherine
Kerr that has
most likely helped develop
characters? personalities.
So, role-playing is usually
based upon an
individual being that moves
and works on its
own.
Lately, TSR, Inc., has come
out with the
BATTLESYSTEM? and War Machine
rules for
the AD&D and D&D®
games respectively, but
this takes away from the
essence of role-playing.
Which takes more personality:
playing a character
going into a dungeon, fighting
it out individually
and making individual decisions
such as
?which door?? or how to avoid
a monster; or,
making mass-combat battlefield
decisions? The
latter takes away the flavor
of role-playing, and
changes the D&D and AD&D
games into war
games. Saying the BATTLESYSTEM
supplement
is part of a role-playing
game is like saying
games such as Blitzkrieg
are actually role-playing
games. (Aren?t the players
role-playing generals?)
Now, some may say that miniatures
take away
the flavor of role-playing
characters. Miniatures,
representing a 1:1 scale,
are helpful in keeping
arguments over enemy placement
and player
placement from occurring.
True, one could then
ask if Squad Leader
isn?t a role-playing game.
That could be the basis for
an interesting article
or forum item.
Why not try something simple
when battles are
fought, in which players
play minor roles (unless
they happen to be high-level
PCs commanding
squads). Roll d6: 1-3, they
lose; 4-6, the other
side loses, with applicable
modifiers. Meanwhile,
the players have fun and
inflict casualties in a
wonderful hack-and-slash
routine.
There has been only one circumstance
in which
I have used massive war game
rules, and that was
when a 12th-level fighter
was the highest and
most respected character
in a village, though
somewhat of a recluse. He
was voted to lead the
village into battle against
the invading orcs (150
orcs against 70 0-level,
able-bodied villagers).
Otherwise, unless PCs are
of highly noticeable
levels or influence, PCs
should have fun and roleplay,
not roll-play. Even then,
they should roleplay
instead of move markers and
roll dice. (Even
in the Conan books by Howard,
the Cimmerian
fought beside his troops
in almost all battles.)
Brian
Hook
Pinellas
Park, Fla.
(Dragon
#103)
I'd like to comment on two
statements in
DRAGON® issue
#102.
First, I applaud Mr. Gygax
on his choice of
words in "Realms of role
playing." For a long
time I?ve tried to convince
people that ?role
playing? is not saying archaic
words in a funny
voice or mouthing stereotypical
attitudes to let
everyone know from your first
breath what class
and alignment you are, but
is rather using actions
and words to play the character
in an internally
consistent manner. The phrase
?role assumption
? says it all. The rest of
the process ? varying
language and actions to fit
the situation, etc.
-- falls into line once the
role is assumed.
Second,
I'd like to comment on Mr. Sheldon?s
comment in the Forum. Yes,
it is difficult to role
play with one
character and a GM. But it can
also be rewarding. The joy
of gaming is that
game systems are flexible
-- you don?t always
have to be part of a large
group going to a specific
place to find a specific
object and fight
masses of creature just to
have fun. A good GM
can tailor an adventure to
fit the number and
level of the available characters.
Playing a 1stlevel
character lost in the woods
and encountering
minor beasts can be as enjoyable
(and dangerous)
as running a party of mid-levels
through a jungle
full of lions, tigers, and
bears.
The adventures available to
the single character
are many. A robbery attempt
by a single thief,
wandering through the city,
and going to an inn
to meet a potential employer
all offer the chance
for role playing and role
assumption that can be
challenging and enjoyable.
Single-character
adventures also offer the
GM who likes role
playing the chance to run
multiple NPCs. This
type of adventure can be
difficult, but this is
balanced by increased player
involvement.
In fact, some games seem to
be made for oneon-
one playing. The TOP SECRET®
game is a
good example, with a subject
suited more to lone
agents than to groups of
the same. The superpowered
hero games also provide single-character
quests as close as your favorite
comic book.
Admittedly, my gaming group
(which has been
together for eight years
now) tends to go on
group adventures more often
than not, with 4-6
players being the norm. But
it is very common
for one or two of us to get
together with our GM
for adventures between or
instead of the group?s
meetings. After all, if one
assumes the character
properly, there will be things
that the character
wants and needs to do that
don?t involve the
other characters. Thus, single-player
adventures
can grow logically out of
character assumption.
Bob Kindel
Cuyahoga
Falls, Ohio
(Dragon
#106)
Gary Gygax's article in issue
#102 really bothered
me. I guess that it would
be really silly to
contend that Mr. Gygax misses
the point of
adventure role-playing, as
he is in large part
responsible for creating
the point, but perhaps I
can say that fantasy role-playing
games have
evolved a long way from the
D&D® game?s early
days, that maybe Mr. Gygax
is missing the full
potential of the point.
What Mr. Gygax seemed to be
saying is that
role- playing (i.e.,
assuming a character different
from yourself and then playing
it accurately) has
become too much of a priority
in role-playing
games, that it bogs down
the action of the game
and blurs a distinct line
between role-playing and
acting, which is for some
reason bad. Instead of
playing a role different
from oneself, one should
play oneself, assuming the
role of a fighter, wizard,
or whatever.
Mr. Gygax is wrong, and here's why.
To begin with, how can a character
who has
grown up in a fantasy society
(and is perhaps not
even human) have the same
personality as a
person who has lived his
life in the twentieth
century on Earth? Human nature
is a constant,
but the environment has a
significant effect on a
person?s character. Besides,
what if your character
is a nonhuman? Is it possible
to play a nonhuman
character with your own personality?
It
seems to me that one cannot
take a personality
out of the Eighties and assign
it to a person in a
totally different environment.
Secondly, role playing is
not acting. In many
respects it is similar, but
in the most important
one, it is not. The main
difference is that an actor
plays the role of a pre-invented
character. The
script writer is responsible
for the creation and
development of the character;
the actor?s job is to
convincingly change the character
from a written
format to a visual format.
The closest thing to
that in role playing would
be to have a player use
an NPC created by the DM,
but that would still
have nothing to do with actually
getting up and
acting. No, if you must compare
role playing to
any other art form, it should
be with writing, in
which the author creates
his character, then
guides it through a series
of events, having it
behave as befits its personality.
This, however, is trivial
when placed next to
Mr. Gygax?s assertion that
role-playing is difficult
and is done at the expense
of action. This is not
necessarily true; in fact,
if it is, then someone is
doing something wrong. Role
playing is very
simple, once you define your
character. It has
been my experience that if
you really enjoy your
character, playing it will
become almost second
nature. Furthermore, role
playing actually enhances
the action in a game, in
that the characters
tend to take new approaches
in handling
situations. If I were playing
myself as a fighter in
a fantasy world, as Mr. Gygax
suggests, then I
can hardly help but to draw
on my years of
experience in fantasy RPGs
to help me in a
difficult situation. However,
if I play a character
different from myself, I
find the character takes
novel approaches to various
situations, almost as
if it had a mind of its own.
Granted, sometimes
the character makes mistakes
that get it into
trouble, but then, what fun
would the game be if
everything went right all
the time?
Furthermore, a campaign can
be tailored
around certain characters.
I have run several fun
games in which the adventures
were specifically
designed around the personalities
of the characters
involved. These games had
more mystique
and atmosphere than any others
I?ve ever seen,
as well as action that rivaled
the best. Also, the
relationships between the
characters in the party
may be different than those
between the players,
if the characters are different
from their players.
Generally, a group of players
are friends who
have known each other for
some time. Their
relationships, good or bad,
are usually straightforward
and known. Why should this
be so for
the characters? In the campaign
I just mentioned,
two of the characters were
for all appearances the
best of friends, yet they
were plotting against each
other behind each other?s
back. There were
distrustful relationships,
as well as amorous ones,
that did not exist in real
life. This threw a lot of
spice into the game and made
it a lot more fun.
Sometimes playing a character
who is not only
different from the player
but different from the
adventuring type in general
can be fun. Ever play
a character who was totally
averse to adventures
but was drawn into one by
circumstance? That
can lead to a very interesting
and entertaining
campaign, as I'm sure Bilbo
Baggins would
agree. Maybe Mr. Gygax prefers
to play adventuring
machines, Herculean characters
who know
all the tricks, even at 1st
level. To my way of
thinking, that is not a character;
that is an automated
chesspiece. But to each his
own ? that?s
what this game is all about.
Still, characters who
are a little different from
the player are generally
more realistic and have so
much more ?fun
potential? that I don?t feel
that Mr. Gygax should
attempt to sway other people?s
opinions away
from them.
Charles
Ryan
Blacksburg,
Va.
(Dragon
#106)
I am penning this in order
to have my say
before the AD&D
game institution is overrun by
a hoard of romantics who
indulge in heavy
storytelling and excessive
role-playing, and who
often have an acting habit
to support. I have
been playing AD&D
games now for seven years,
being a DM for six. The DRAGONLANCE
saga,
which asked that players
forget about contributing
anything even vaguely intelligent
in favor of
purple prose, was a farcical
indulgence. As the
story line takes charge of
TSR adventures, so
interaction within such becomes
role-playing
gluttony. In an issue of
DRAGON Magazine
many moons ago [#102], Gary
Gygax warned
that the radical role-playing
revolutionary
reaction to previously dominant
monsterbashing
needed curbing before AD&D
game
players were forced to subscribe
to the actors?
union. Please note Mr. Gygax?s
warning,
although it may be too late.
I suggest that any
future modules published
for AD&D games
have the plot introductions
on the back covers
replaced by some indication
of the modules?
suitability for adventurers,
role-players,
and
problem-solvers,
the three being the player
types outlined in the DSG,
page 99.
Peter Kirkup
Cook, A.C.T., Australia
(Dragon
#137)
I would like to respond to
the letter written
by Peter Kirkup (issue
#137) about what
appears to be the appalling
return of roleplaying
to role-playing games. I
have some
concern that this gentleman
feels that it is a
terrible thing for people
to do things other than
hacking-and-slashing.
I’ve been playing RPGs since
1974. I remember
the brother of a friend introducing
us to the
original rules. We started
out enjoying ourselves,
and I must admit that we
indulged in
quite a bit of monster bashing.
I’m sure you’ve
encountered this scene:
DM: “You come across an unknown
creature.
It is very big and looks
like [anything from a
dragon to a storm giant].”
Player A: “What is it?”
Player B: “Who cares? Let’s kill it!”
This was usually followed
by PCs getting
creamed by an extremely powerful,
yet ordinarily
neutral, beast.
As time went on, we began
to get rather tired
of the simple thud-and-blunder
games, so we
moved on to other things.
I played many other games,
including the
BOOT HILL® and TOP SECRET®
games, and I
also got involved in simulations.
I never really
enjoyed violence for violence’s
sake, like some
gamers I knew.
After eight years in the USAF
(including four
years at Pope AFB), I have
noticed that the
challenge of RPGs has vanished.
I mean, I enjoy
adventure, and sometimes
there comes a time
for PCs to get involved in
the ever-popular
shoot-outs and sword fights.
Perhaps my view has been biased
by two
years of experience in the
1st Special Operations
Wing, but it seems that there
is enough
violence in this world without
using it as the
main reason for playing RPGs.
In fact, if you
were to ask anybody who is
a veteran of RPGs,
you’ll find that there’s
enough going on that’s
exciting without blowing
people away. There
are times when violence can
be useful, but
charging blindly into a situation
will virtually
guarantee a massacre.
Mr. Kirkup quotes
Gary Gygax’s article in issue
#102, but I think that either
he or I misread that
material. I took it to mean
that the whole idea of
role-playing is ROLE-playing—i.e.,
interacting
with people and creatures
you wouldn’t meet in
real life. If you just want
to kill things, go smash
some anthills.
Getting back to my example:
That PC massacre
actually happened in a game
I was playing at
Torrejon AFB, Spain, a few
years ago. The party
my PC was with charged full
bore into a fight
with hill giants. One PC,
in addition to my
assassin, waited for the
results. The PCs that
survived (two) didn’t live
long, since none of the
PCs was a cleric. It turned
out that the giants
were chasing the same evil
NPC that our party
was chasing. Two PCs gained
a couple of powerful
allies, and the other players
had to create
new PCs.
Wayne Roberts
Danville VA
(Dragon #146)
Re: Re: Re: More questions
Quote:
Originally posted by BOZ
hmm, i've heard "roll-playing"
plenty of times, but i think this is the first time i've heard this one. 
i think it needs to be said a lot more often...
Heh, Boz 
Many people knock "roll-playing," but it is a necessary part of the PRG game form where chance is a major factor in the game--as it is in real life. The real bad rap against dice rolling is if combat is the predominate feature of play, that negating the other elements that make up the game...such as role-playing.
Rules are necessary for a structured game, doubly so when it is based on fantasy where no real facts are available to the participants. then the structure becomes the major feature of play, though, then it is at least as onerous as roll-playing, so both terms are equally daming. If a game is nothing but role-playing, then it is not really a RPG, but some form of improvisational theater, for the game form includes far more than acting out assumed roles.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally posted by BOZ
right, we need a good balance
between all three for it to work well as a whole. over-emphasizing one
or diminishing one takes away from the feel of the game.
That's the way I feel, Boz.
There are those who really
love to emphasize one or another feature though.
What the heck, if they are
having fun it can't be bad...just sort of wring in terms of what the RPG
is meant to be
Cheers,
Gary