ftp.ee.pdx.edu/2014.02.ftp.ee.pdx.edu.tar/ftp.ee.pdx.edu/pub/frp/general/gameworlds

Text File | 1991-06-12 | 17KB | 335 lines

Article 13033 of rec.games.frp:
>From: [e-mail] (Paul "Scooter" Estin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Gameworlds-- A Matter of Taste
Summary: a long article I wrote, dealing with several issues
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Jul 89 01:37:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul "Scooter" Estin)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 320


    A couple of months ago, I wrote an article for a local gaming
magazine (UC Gamers on Campus) that I'd like to post here for replies
and comments.  Some of the issues the article discusses have been
covered extensively in recent postings, and indeed I have changed my
mind in some cases (for example, there is a reference to physics in
Champions that I wouldn't include if I wrote the article today), but
I thought I would just post the article as I originally wrote it.
    Enjoy!

-------------------------------------------------------------

               GAMEWORLDS-- A MATTER OF TASTE

                        by Paul Estin

INTRODUCTION

     Most role-playing games take place in some sort of a
gameworld.  By "gameworld" I refer not only to the actual
fantastic or futuristic or alternate-earth setting, but more
generally, to "how things work" in the game.  A gameworld is
both defined and limited by the gamemaster (GM), the players,
and by the rules system under which the game is being run.
Oftentimes, problems can occur when these three sources come
into conflict.  For example, a GM may want to run a universe
with certain physical laws, only to discover that the system
he uses restricts the laws of the universe in quite a
different way.  Or, perhaps a player comes into a game
expecting lots of combat taking place in an anarchic world,
only to discover that the gameworld has a complex
governmental and historical structure, and that the
adventures are based around puzzle-solving and diplomacy.
     This article will attempt to outline some of the ways in
which gameworlds can vary according to the tastes of the game
designers, the GM, and the players.  Some of the variations
tend to be things about which people have strong opinions;
for example, some players refuse to play in gameworlds which
incorporate characters and settings from external literary
sources.  Other issues are more a matter of minor personal
preference, subject to change from game to game, such as the
level of violence in a game.  Nobody's opinion is
necessarily right or wrong on any of these issues; it is
simply true that games will proceed more smoothly the more
the game system, the gamemaster, and the players are all in
agreement.
     I will outline two general categories of variation.
First, there are issues concerning "how the world works",
including the scientific and pseudoscientific laws, the way
societies work, and other issues.  The other category is
"what the players do"; this includes what sort of adventures
occur, the levels of violence and lethality, and the levels
of ability and responsibility possessed by the player-
characters (PCs).

HOW THE WORLD WORKS

Organized and Open-ended Gameworlds

     The first variant of a gameworld is whether there are
really any hard-and-fast rules at all.  Many GMs like to run
under the idea of "anything goes, anything can happen", or at
least that "anything within the rules is OK".  There are
problems with the "no-rules" world, however.  A gameworld can
get very chaotic, with players confused as to which actions
are in the realm of possibility, and which are not.  Besides,
a gameworld always has some limitations; they may simply be
inconsistent or subject to the GM's whim.  It's probably best
for a GM, when designing a world, to build self-consistent
rules.  Otherwise, there will be arguments when a player's
designed character isn't acceptable for unexplainable
reasons, or when an event occurs that shouldn't have, based
on previous rules.  (GM: "You are struck by an invisible
creature and knocked out."  Player: "Wait!  You said that in
your world, nothing can attack while invisible!")  Obviously,
a GM doesn't have to reveal everything about his world to the
players, but he should be able to build a consistent
framework which can be gradually revealed to the PCs.

Science, Pseudoscience, and Fantasy

     Most gameworlds have some elements of fantasy, whether
they be paranormal superpowers, magic, or simply the fact
that heroes don't die as easily as normal people.  There are
two things that can vary.  First, how do physical science
laws differ from "real life"?  The Champions game system
allows a normal person to throw rocks the length of a
football field, for example.  Normal people can kick cars
apart, they almost never take physical damage when they are
knocked out, and they can go from complete exhaustion to
complete recovery in far less than a minute.  Is this what
you want in your game, or can you at least tolerate such
discrepancies?  Another possible variable in a gameworld is
the technical level.  As a player or gamemaster, make sure
you understand what is physically and technically possible in
a gameworld.
     The second variable of fantasy lies in how physical laws
are superceded.  For example, the Ars Magica magic system is
fairly tightly structured.  A spell that works on an animal
(animalem) is different from one that works on a person
(corporem), and both are different from one that works on a
creature's brain (mentem).  This may or may not be the
magical structure you want, be you GM or player.  As another
example, I ran a Champions campaign called "Polyworld", in
which all paranormal powers had to work by some form of
telekinesis, by access to one of five specific pocket
dimensions, or by ability to move oneself between dimensions.
Thus, it was easy to determine what would occur in a specific
situation, or what effects a specific type of "power damper"
would have.  On the down side, it somewhat restricted the
possible conceptions of character's powers.
     Decide what is possible and consistent with your fantasy
or pseudoscience, and stick to it.  That will help avoid
problems such as a GM telling his players, "That's a great
technical solution; it will work on everyone except magic-
users."  I myself prefer the definition of magic as simply
being science we don't understand, but I can play in a system
where this clearly isn't the case, and in which magic breaks
the gameworld's physical laws, as long I know this ahead of
time.  There other decisions that should also be made and
understood.  Does luck exist as a separate entity?  Is time
travel possible?  Does the gameworld have a "multi-
dimensional" structure?  If so, what are the "rules"?
     Note that sometimes players' tastes will change.  For
example, normally I have nothing against a gameworld wherein
many or infinite parallel worlds exist, if such a subject is
done well, but lately I have played in or GMed many such
gameworlds, and I'm tired of the concept.  If you're a GM
starting a campaign, find out your player's likes and
dislikes, and try to respect them, or at least warn them.

Special Interests

     Players and GMs may also differ as to their opinions on
"special interests".  For example, as both a psychology
major, I am often unsatisfied by a GM's system of handling
mental abilities.  For example, I believe that a telepath
couldn't help but learn a lot about psychology, but I play in
a Champions campaign where a certain non-player character
(NPC) who is a telepath is simply a snide teenage paranormal
whose powers happen to be telepathic; her powers have
affected her personality not at all.  Furthermore, her mental
powers work on artificial intelligence devices, as in
accordance with strict Champions rules, but in opposition to
my own views on how telepathy "should" work.  Most games have
a dualistic view of mind and brain (which shows up in magic
systems, definitions of mental powers, astral forms,
afterlife, and reincarnation).  Once in a while, this would
be all right, but to me it becomes monotonous to have mind
and body categorized separately in every game I play.
     As a more common example of a special interest, someone
interested in history or political science, for example,
might be upset playing in a game where the GM has put little
thought as to how a certain governmental structure arose.  I
played in a Champions game in which there was a vast
infrastructure of conspiracies and secret organizations,
although most of the players disagreed with or were bored by
the concept; conversely, I have seen a gameworld in which the
world government was supposedly unpopular and on the verge of
collapse, although there were no underground organizations
working to that end.  Neither one of these games satisfied me
in that respect.
     Other common special interests that vary from person to
person include computer science and medicine.
     Conflicting special interests tend to be a fairly minor
problem between players and GM, in terms of causing
arguments.  More often, the difference in opinion simply
causes the problem that players do not think of a possible
action, or they put an inappropriate priority on a given
problem, because they have a different understanding from the
GM of what is "possible" or "important" in the gameworld.

External Sources:

     One very large source of discontent is conflicting
opinions on how, or even whether, external sources should be
brought into a gameworld.  Some people believe that all
gameworlds should be kept "pure" of characters and places
from books, movies, TV shows, comic books, music, etc.  The
purists tend to believe that an external source should only
be brought in if the gameworld is a "literary" world based on
that source; for example, a game played in the Archipelago
of Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy.  Otherwise, ideas
brought in form other sources should have names and details
changed, so that they are unrecognizable to the players.
Other people believe that "crossovers" with many different
characters, places, and sources adds flavor and humor to a
gameworld; GMs of this category build "post-modernist" worlds
containing a myriad of derivations.
     It is very difficult for two people whose opinions
differ greatly on external sources to game peaceably
together, particularly if the GM is a post-modernist and the
player is a purist.  I will try to make some suggestions,
however, for the GM who is in such a situation.
     Realize that the use of crossovers and external sources
tends to undercut other parts of the gameworld.  As an
example, I was in a Champions campaign in which one adventure
featured the PCs being trapped in a pseudo-medieval world.
This was very different from the normal "superhero" gameplay,
and very engaging to me as a player.  After nearly two game
sessions, the characters did escape from the world-- only to
wind up in the Bugtown of the comic books by Matt Howarth,
where they met Savage Henry, the Caroline clones, and
C'thulhu the Elder God.  Metaphorically, I was suddenly sent
from "being my character" to sitting at a table with some
sheets of paper in front of me, listening to the GM discuss
comic book characters.  The illusion of actually being one's
character, one of the best parts of role-playing, was
destroyed.
     Don't be a "lazy GM" who lets crossovers substitute for
giving your players descriptions.  Since it is almost certain
that some of your players won't know a given reference, don't
just say "John Constantine walks out; what do you do?"
Describe the character's appearance and behavior, just as you
would for any other NPC in your game.
     Post-modernism isn't as bad of a transgression if the
world isn't very serious to begin with, but it can be fatal
to a game which is otherwise very "real" to the players.
Crossovers and in-jokes can be used as a change of pace, to
inject humor, much as they are used in the comic book
"Cerebus", but be very careful not to destroy the plotline
and the gameworld for the sake of a laugh.  Keep the serious
sacred, if that's what your players want.

WHAT THE PLAYERS DO

The Type and Tone of the Game

     What kind of a game is this, anyway?  Are the players
supposed to be superheroes, traveling wizards, greedy
adventurers, world-savers, space merchants, what?  It can
cause problems if the players are expecting to be self-
interested adventurers, and the GM expects them to be world-
savers.
     Beyond the general type of adventures that will take
place (which probably should and will vary somewhat, anyway),
a GM should try to be flexible as to how players come up with
solutions.  It can be frustrating, as a GM, to plan out an
adventure, only to have the players do something totally
unexpected; likewise, it can be frustrating, as a player, to
have the GM expect you to work out a "puzzle" that you're
incapable of solving.  Here, the GM must tread a thin line;
he can't script the adventure so that player's actions are
too limited, but if he tries to "wing it" (and he must, to
some degree) he runs the danger of making a decision he'll
regret later, perhaps because it contradicts other
information about the gameworld.  Striking a balance between
good planning and scripting, and between good extemporaneous
gamemastering and self-contradiction, is one of the most
difficult aspects of GMing.

Levels of Combat and Lethality

     One of the most obvious variables in a game is what
players have to do to succeed.  Though several actions play a
part in this, perhaps the most obvious is violent action.
How much combat will play a part in each adventure?  Here, it
is almost impossible to satisfy everyone; doubtless a GM and
players will have a wide variety of opinions of what
constitutes the "proper" amount of combat.  The best you can
do as a GM is to try to see what the majority of players
want.  As a player, try to go along with the majority; if you
just aren't getting what you want, you may have to leave the
game.  And if neither the players nor the GM are satisfied,
the problem may be that the system is geared towards setting
up combat, and that it takes special effort (or a different
system) to break out of the mold.
     Another game variable is how lethal any given combat is.
There are GMs who play their NPCs as a general would,
tactically destroying large numbers of the player-characters.
Many of their players, however, dislike having their
characters killed off.  Other GMs never, ever, kill off a PC;
even when the game system rules say that a PC is dead and
gone, they'll find a way to resurrect the character.  This
can be very annoying to a player who believes that heroism is
useless without risk, knowing that the GM will never let him
die.  The lethality of a game is one of the most important
things for players and a GM to agree upon.

With Great Responsibility Comes Great Power -- Or Should

     The opposite of combat is non-combat; however, defining
non-combat varies from game to game.  The GM should try to
adapt to what players want to do.  For example, if the PCs,
knowing that the world is in danger, want to seek out
experts for help, then it is frustrating to them if none of
the NPCs give them any information.  On the other hand, a
mysterious stranger shouldn't suddenly appear with the
world's secrets in hand, either.  There should be a balance.
     Along the same lines, the PCs often have an increase in
both power and responsibility as a campaign progresses.  For
example, a Champions game may begin with a group of local
heroes, who grow to become world-savers.  The important thing
for a GM to keep in mind is that the PCs' abilities should
keep pace with their responsibilities.  If it has already
been established that there are people in the world more
competent than the PCs, but the GM expects the PCs to save
the world, there had better be a very good reason why the
NPCs can't do the job themselves.  Otherwise, players can get
frustrated.

CONCLUSION

     In this article, I have attempted to outline some of the
variations that can exist among different gameworlds and
games.  This information will be most useful to gamemasters,
in terms of picking the proper game system and satisfying
their players.  It will also be useful for players looking
for games with which they will be satisfied.  Many of these
issues are a matter of taste, but if you are careful to find
gamers with similar tastes, you'll be a happier role-player
for the effort.

------------------------------------------------------------
"How can you keep 'em down on the farm, after they've killed
a god?!"

Scooter  aka Paul Estin [e-mail]
5142 S. Blackstone Ave., Chicago IL 60615
11 Whitcomb St., Belmont MA 02178