thread: 2014-07-16 : When is a game a game?
On 2014-07-17, Tim C Koppang wrote:
Vincent,
Here's my beef: you're throwing around terms like "poor," "ignorance," and "prejudice," which makes it sound as though your way of thinking is fundamental, expansive, and inclusive. If true, get me some of that! Especially if it helps me to communicate more easily and design games in a way that frees me from the shackles of my old way of thinking. The problem is that I think we may be talking past one another because I find myself wanting to apply some of the same labels to what (I think) you're saying. In other words, I read some of what you write and think to myself, "Why is Vincent trying to limit himself in that way?" It's confusing!
Take the following two paragraphs as a question. Please correct me where I'm mistaken because I'm making some assumptions about what I think you might be saying, and those assumption could be incorrect:
When I see you makes strong comparisons between RPGs and board/card games, when I see you label the term "RPG" as nothing more than marketing, it seems to me like you're saying that RPGs, board games, and card games (and another other type of game for that matter) not only fit into the same category, but also follow the same set of core design principles. You say that designers should at least have the ability to look at their RPGs as games (as board/card games?), and imply that by doing so they will, what?—be able to make better games? That to me rings false. What's more, I'm certainly not going to cram RPG design into the same set of design constraints as board games. Board games are awesome, but they attack the design space from a different direction that is fundamentally focused on competition at the expense of thematic premise, "roleplaying," etc. Requiring RPG design to follow a similar path just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems limiting and backwards-thinking. I want to open up my designs to do things that board and cards games do not or will not do.
Historically, some designers tried to cram their RPGs into the design space of traditional board and card games, and then got themselves into trouble. I thought we were trying to move away from those sorts of limitations. Frustratingly, I see some games veering too far in the direction of board games, and paying a price for it: those games tend to "play themselves."
—
On the other hand!!!—After reading and thinking on the subject, I'm not sure I have understood what you are saying. I certainly agree (strongly!) that we can learn a lot from board games. If you've read my games, Mars Colony especially, you know that I draw heavily from board games. In Hero's Banner, the three influences are basically a resource pool. Players move their resources around in a zero-sum game. In MC, there is a similar mechanic. More directly, the core dice mechanic in MC is based on a board game, Pass the Pigs. The thematic tension of MC is created in much the same way that Pass the Pigs creates competitive tension: through a push-your-luck mechanic that then feeds into the fiction. Board and card games influence my RPG design so naturally that I think it's getting in the way of me understanding your point.
