I got to thinking about this never-ending debate between RPG Gamists and RPG Storyists. Which takes precedence over the other? Story or Rules? Usually the answer is related to what people on either side of the debate claim is more "fun". Some think story is more fun (as long as the story goes the way they feel is fun ... some stories are actually not fun, though they are definitely stories. For example, as Bannister points out, Romeo and Juliet is a classic tragedy). Other people feel that playing RPGs as a game is more fun.
Of course one might immediately notice that "fun" is completely subjective. For some people playing an RPG as a game is the most fun. For other people playing an RPG as a story is the most fun. Usually the debate turns into a burning pile of turds when either side claims that what they think is fun is the only true fun, and what the other people think is fun, to borrow a nasty turn of the phrase from yesteryear, is BadWrongFun. This claim that one group's fun is wrong is at the heart of the entire controversy. I've written about this in the past and don't care to regurgitate my position endlessly. It's all old history by now anyway, but for the record, I blame the phrase "BadWrongFun" (and the attitude behind it) for a great deal of animosity in the RPG Community over the years.
So there's two orientations for RPG Players (more, actually, but let's keep it simple for this discussion). There's Story Orientation and Rules Orientation. Sometimes people want to orient their game towards Story, sometimes they want to orient towards Rules. For those who prefer Story-Orientation, the objective is often stated to be Immersion. And since Immersion is fun, Story wins for them. In the other case of Rules Orientation, the objective is to play a Game, and for those people this is fun.
What seems to be the case, and what makes this so messy and un-resolvable, is that RPGs appear to straddle this strange realm between these two incompatible desires. Most players seem to want both from their RPGs, but in differing degrees based probably on something as whimsical as their mood of the moment while they're playing. In one turn strict adherence to the rules seems perfectly justified to them, while in the next a fudged die roll so that the plot does not get derailed by an errant bit of bad luck feels just as justified. It's kind of schizophrenic, actually. But I do see it quite often among most of the players I know.
What is almost impossible is to actually balance the two objectives. This is because in the case of Rules it's a binary proposition you are either following the rules, or you're cheating, and in games cheating is not allowed. But for Story Oriented players cheating seems ok so long as the story is interesting, or meaningful, or at least fun, and the cheating is done as discretely as possible.
There are risks with both styles. For story oriented players the risk is that the GM will railroad the game in order to create a "fun" story. Usually this means, in most cases I've encountered, that the Players win. They save the princess, get the loot, kill the monsters, or what have you. However, the problem is that this takes away their agency as players and that ruins their fun because it eliminates challenge in the game. It should be understood that Challenge is a great deal of the fun of the game for both Story and Game players.
On the other hand, for Gamist Players, there is a risk the GM will secretly or overtly cheat (or make mistakes), or the other Players will cheat, or the Players will behave like munchkins, which ruins the fun because cheating is Not-Fun.
What is really at issue here, I think, is that from the days of yore, RPGs have attempted to fuse two completely different and incompatible objectives into a single game. Making a game both Story oriented and Rules oriented at the same time is, well... contradictory. The problem goes back to the very foundations upon which RPGs are built, and has its roots in the difference of style between Gary Gygax and David Arneson. Gygax was a Rules oriented player, stemming out of his love of Wargames, as is reflected in the development of the miniatures game Chainmail, which is at the roots of the original Dungeons & Dragons. On the other hand Arneson, whose focus was on Story, came out with an alternate view of the game, of which Blackmoor is a wonderful representation, that focused more on the story aspect. So the schizophrenia of RPGs was born at the dawn of the hobby. I don't think it has ever been resolved, and very possibly never can be. It appears to be a fundamental contradiction in the core concept of RPGs.
Since the beginning the game has twisted into a rather complicated braid of Rules and Story with a zillion variations on the mix. I don't think it is likely there will be answer to the question "Which is better?" any time soon. This is ultimately because everyone's play preference totally subjective.
All I ask is that people avoid claiming that their own preference is the "One True Way", because neither preference is better than the other. And in most games, there is a fusion of both aspects. One of my principal objectives as GM is to balance the two during the course of each game. Sometimes the Story gains the upper hand. Sometimes the Game aspect predominates while we focus on the rules, battle map tactics, and the exact factors involved to accurately derive the necessary die rolls needed for success in a tactical situation. I think this approach is not uncommon. I see GMs swinging back and forth between the two all the time. I know I do. Because frankly, I like both aspects and I think both are necessary for me to have a truly enjoyable game. But dang... it really is a difficult thing to balance well! It takes the right feel for the thing. And I don't think you can teach that easily at all. It just comes from experience... or intuition.
So for those GMs who may be new to this debate, and who are hearing both sides tugging at their ear with "Do it my way!", I just want to mention, there's a difficult but rewarding middle way. You can see it as the small red region on the diagram above. My experience tells me that this is the target to shoot for when GMing, as difficult as it may be to hit. Good luck, and happy gaming to you!
What is really at issue here, I think, is that from the days of yore, RPGs have attempted to fuse two completely different and incompatible objectives into a single game. Making a game both Story oriented and Rules oriented at the same time is, well... contradictory. The problem goes back to the very foundations upon which RPGs are built, and has its roots in the difference of style between Gary Gygax and David Arneson. Gygax was a Rules oriented player, stemming out of his love of Wargames, as is reflected in the development of the miniatures game Chainmail, which is at the roots of the original Dungeons & Dragons. On the other hand Arneson, whose focus was on Story, came out with an alternate view of the game, of which Blackmoor is a wonderful representation, that focused more on the story aspect. So the schizophrenia of RPGs was born at the dawn of the hobby. I don't think it has ever been resolved, and very possibly never can be. It appears to be a fundamental contradiction in the core concept of RPGs.
Since the beginning the game has twisted into a rather complicated braid of Rules and Story with a zillion variations on the mix. I don't think it is likely there will be answer to the question "Which is better?" any time soon. This is ultimately because everyone's play preference totally subjective.
All I ask is that people avoid claiming that their own preference is the "One True Way", because neither preference is better than the other. And in most games, there is a fusion of both aspects. One of my principal objectives as GM is to balance the two during the course of each game. Sometimes the Story gains the upper hand. Sometimes the Game aspect predominates while we focus on the rules, battle map tactics, and the exact factors involved to accurately derive the necessary die rolls needed for success in a tactical situation. I think this approach is not uncommon. I see GMs swinging back and forth between the two all the time. I know I do. Because frankly, I like both aspects and I think both are necessary for me to have a truly enjoyable game. But dang... it really is a difficult thing to balance well! It takes the right feel for the thing. And I don't think you can teach that easily at all. It just comes from experience... or intuition.
So for those GMs who may be new to this debate, and who are hearing both sides tugging at their ear with "Do it my way!", I just want to mention, there's a difficult but rewarding middle way. You can see it as the small red region on the diagram above. My experience tells me that this is the target to shoot for when GMing, as difficult as it may be to hit. Good luck, and happy gaming to you!
About Me
No comments:
Post a Comment