Changes in good old roleplaying?

[raymond_turney]

I've noticed no anime influence. But then I don't play the anime influenced games and I've never lived in Japan, nor has any member of my gaming group.

I'd say in evolutionary terms that the original FRP genre has radiated; there are now games for Space Opera, Cyberpunk, etc, which did not exist in 1980. There are a wider variety of games that support different role-playing styles - some people love Herouest, it leaves me mostly cold, and some people hate it. At the same time that RPG was radiating into different niches and becoming a hobby {like model railroading was when I was growing up} that makes you merely slightly odd as opposed to downright weird; it has lost its original niche of weird college students who had two much time on their hands to World of Warcraft.

As for character death, it has probably become more rare for four reasons. The first is that in a fairly complicated system it can take a long time to create a character, so character death costs you something. The second is that as more decisions are made, and characters acquire personalities rather than being simple power gaming avatars, losing a character costs more. The third is that we just have less time to play the games - meeting once every three weeks if I kill off a character it might take 6 months for the player to get as good an understanding of his next character as he has of the one he is playing now. Finally, GM's are now more likely to have something besides character death to create dramatic tension in the game. In D&D 1st edition, the issue was whether you survived and came back with your EP, or rolled up a new character. Once you got to were you knew a cleric with Raise Dead, it was whether you brought back your EP from the current run you were on. LEDA {life energy draining} monsters were often more feared than ones that merely killed you, because they cost the player more.

I'd say that an increase in the importance of settings relative to rules is probably the biggest change. Nowadays, you're playing Fading Suns or Glorantha first; BRP or RQ or the Fading Suns system second.

On the other hand, I could probably find an AD&D game with a dungeon without looking too hard. Most players still play D&D; most of them still powergame {of course I also powergame }. etc. There has probably been less change in the hobby as a whole than people who change genres, try out edgy new systems, and put a lot of effort into their gaming would like to think.

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by raymond_turney

There has probably been less change in the hobby as a whole than people who change genres, try out edgy new systems, and put a lot of effort into their gaming would like to think.

I'm someone who does change genres regularly, frequently tries out edgy new systems (alternating with old-school games I never played the first time around), and puts a lot of energy into my gaming, and I'll agree with you 100% here.

[soltakss]

I don't know much about gaming in general - I rarely buy games except RQ/BRP/HQ and I don't go to gaming clubs. So, I can only really speak about my own experiences in gaming.

One thing that has changed is that games are a lot more commercial nowadays. When you look at the lithographic prints of games such as White Bear and Red Moon they look so amateurish compared with the glossy games of today. Also, with the advent of PDF publishing and print on demand companies such as Lulu there are a lot of small publications coming out.

Back to the original points, people bring a lot of baggage to roleplaying games. None of the groups I have played with have been particularly influenced by Manga, although some players did buy the comics and watch the films. Maybe some games have been but, as I said, I don't buy a lot of games these days.

Are scenarios more railroaded nowadays? I haven't noticed. Looking at some scenarios in the past, the ones in classic RQ supplements were normally very linear. Sure, the settings had a lot of plot hooks and were open but the individual scenarios were never more than do this then do that. There was a time in the 90s when scenarios were made into cameos with very little structure and were very open. However, such scenarios are difficult to write, GM and play, to say they are challenging is an understatement. Where games have a high scenario-churn it is easier to write the scenarios as simple linear ones.

It's hard to kill PCs now? Well, that depends on your style of play. If you sit down to a session, roll up a PC, play one session and then throw it away then it is not important if your PC lives or dies. If you play in a campaign over a long period of time then you invest a great deal of time and effort in your PC and you want him/her to survive. In our RQ2 campaign back in the 80s, we had a huge amount of PC death, sometimes we lost 5 or 6 PCs per session, but we always had healers available with copious Resurrects and Divine Interventions, so they generally came back again. So, those games were dangerous but not completely deadly. mOne of the many reasons I don't like Call of Cthulhu is that all my PCs have died or gone insane in the first session so I have never played in a proper campaign and I like campaigns. You could say that Hero Points make it harder to kill PCs, but GMs have always fudged rolls to keep PCs alive, so it's not really a new thing.

One thing that has changed is that I am now 26 years older than when I started roleplaying. My attitudes have changed, the way I thinnk has changed, the way I live has changed and the way I roleplay has changed. If I behaved, acted and thought the same way at 44 than I did at 18 then something would be very wrong with me. So, my gaming has become more mature. Also, I've played for a long time and have played in many similar scenarios, so I have experienced a lot of gaming, so it takes a lot to surprise me. All this makes me look at scenarios in a different light.

So, I don't think that roleplaying has changed a lot, although the quality of games certainly has. We still gather every week, month, holiday or year and sit around a table talking, having a laugh and playing games. Some of us might have laptops with scenarios on, others may be heavier and greyer but we still enjoy gaming.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

-scripted/railroading approach to adventures - gone are the days where in a module you just could not predict the outcome and stories have been simple, chaotic and non-linear. Are the adventures "overdesigned?".

Always been that way. Most of the early D&D adventures were incredibly linear.

-refusal to let PCs die - even in old D&D (spit) you could die in the first levels

Well, the truth is that its just that many modern games are more honest about this rather than having it occur by GM fudging.

[Simlasa]

I don't see the anime thing as anymore than one section of the gaming market. None of the games I've read recently seemed to have much anime influence... but then anime is a pretty wide open field.

Most of what we play is really open ended... there has been meta-plot stuff that has shown up... back ground events the PCs might get swept up in for a while that will most likely resolve regardless of their actions... but not much of that. I don't think there are any big changes there that I can see.

As for character death... I think there has been more emphasis on games as 'stories'... narrative... consensual realities... whatever. Seems mostly to be hokum for the loftier reaches of RPG.net... and not much on the mind of the kids playing D20 down at the game club. Even when I was in high school there were RPG groups I knew of that were all about magic and power and leveling... where no PCs died... or if they died they didn't stay dead for long. That was probably more about adolescent power fantasies... rather than narrative splendor.
I think there has been more emphasis lately on mechanics recreating genre... stuff like Spirit Of The Century, though not my cup of cocoa, seems pretty popular, and seems less lethal by design.
My friends were more of the sort that wanted a believable world, with believable consequences... we avoided violence as much as possible because it would get us killed. We didn't have any concerns about the PCs being the 'protagonists' and needing to succeed for the sake of the story...
Since then I've gravitated towards those same sorts of groups... I don't care for cinematic games... I like knowing my character can die... even for ridiculous, meaningless reasons (though none of my characters have ever been killed by a car as they walked out of their house!).
I'm fine with that... but I know a lot of people aren't, and never have been.

I don't see newer games going all that much one way or the other, rather they seem to go 'every which way'... BRP is certainly on the sharper end of the deadly-stick... it's got 'fate points' as an option, but I for one am glad they are 'only' an option.

[Aycorn]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I don't know much about gaming in general - I rarely buy games except RQ/BRP/HQ and I don't go to gaming clubs. So, I can only really speak about my own experiences in gaming.

One thing that has changed is that games are a lot more commercial nowadays. When you look at the lithographic prints of games such as White Bear and Red Moon they look so amateurish compared with the glossy games of today. Also, with the advent of PDF publishing and print on demand companies such as Lulu there are a lot of small publications coming out.

I am like soltakss - I rarely buy any other kind of game stuff. I know a little about d20, and next to nothing about any other current (or even more recent than say, 20 years old) systems. I don't go to gaming cons or clubs. So I can't comment on a lot. I don't know about the anime influence, but anime is so popular now with college-age and below that I imagine it has influenced games.

But certainly, the games are much more polished now. Sometimes, I think they lost as much as they gained. Sure, the artwork's more polished - but I wouldn't say a lot of it is "better." The books are cosmetically nicer but a lot more expensive as a result.

The really tricky part is that I think some of the imagination has been stifled. Having these very detailed, heavily-supplemented settings - they're very nice, very impressive, sometimes even awesome - but it's taken some of the creativity out of the players. In a way, old D&D or AD&D had an advantage - you had spells, monsters, magic items - but no backstory. It was up to you to assemble them into a coherent (or incoherent) world or setting. I took it as a challenge to my imagination, and creating my first D&D world-setting was one of the most fun things I ever did with the game.

Ah well ... maybe I'm just a ol' fart.

[TrippyHippy]

Actually, if you were to throw the roleplaying community and games open for analysis for this last decade, I would say that the 'pulp' style has had a bigger influence on game aesthetics than anime has. There are dozens of 1920s pulp games around now, while even mainstream games like D&D (Ebberon) and WoD (Mage: the Awakening) have shown a large dollup of 'pulpy' flavour.

Of course, BRP has always had a substantial pulp involvement the form of Call of Cthulhu, although the characters weren't quite as powerful as they are in some of the more modern games.

It has been said that the late 1980s and 1990s were dominated by a continual 'punk' motif. This last decade, however, has definitely been a 'pulp' one in rpgs, rather than anime.

The other counter point, which is well represented in some of these posts actually, is Forge-esque analysis. A decade ago, most gamers didn't continually make reference to GNS theory when criticising or commenting upon games. Personally, I think the whole Gamer-Narrativist-Simulationist debate is every bit as stereotyped as expecting every character to conform to Defender-Leader-Controller-Striker roles, but hey, I guess some people must feel it's very important to do so.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

As for character death... I think there has been more emphasis on games as 'stories'... narrative... consensual realities... whatever. Seems mostly to be hokum for the loftier reaches of RPG.net... and not much on the mind of the kids playing D20 down at the game club.

Well I think it also is a sign of a change from dungeon claws, and unconnected adventures to campaigns. If a GM wants to run anything that bring out characters as opposed to rolling dice, then he needs to work plot hooks around the PCs. That creates a potential problem in that if the PC dies at the wrong time, it can derail an adventure or even campaign.

As for whats on the minds of the kids playing D20, well with them it is generally, kill monster, get EP, get treasure-anything that keeps a PC around longer is good. Anything that doesn't is bad.

[Simlasa]

I don't know... we always played games with 'campaigns'... I don't remember ever playing a series of sessions of unconnected dungeon-bashing (that came much later... more as a wargame than an RPG)... and we always had character deaths (though usually with some hope for resurrection... maybe).
Probably a lot of my preferences and memories are owed to the great GM we had back in the day. He always made is game world seem so full of possibility for exporation and adventure.

None of use were 'master thespians' though and I don't recall much emphasis on character development... it happened, but most of us just started off with some stereotype and kept playing it that way.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

I don't know... we always played games with 'campaigns'... I don't remember ever playing a series of sessions of unconnected dungeon-bashing (that came much later... more as a wargame than an RPG)... and we always had character deaths (though usually with some hope for resurrection... maybe).
Probably a lot of my preferences and memories are owed to the great GM we had back in the day. He always made is game world seem so full of possibility for exporation and adventure.

None of use were 'master thespians' though and I don't recall much emphasis on character development... it happened, but most of us just started off with some stereotype and kept playing it that way.

Let me rephase thing. Now people are more likely to use long term character goals and themes for a series of adventures. The more character driven the campaign the more important those characters are.

RPGs have a lot in common with fiction. We are introduced to a central character (heroic or otherwise) and we watch him (her, it) face challenges until we get to the end of the story. If we see the central character get killed off early on, it can derail the story. It can get worse if the character gets killed off three quarters into the story, after the viewer has invested time an attention getting to understand the character and story.

Now the same holds true in an RPG game. Maybe more so, since the players have a vested interest in their characters that a viewer usually doesn't. No one really want the PCs to die, especially not the GM (if a GM brags about how many characters he is killing something is wrong).

In order for the game to be exciting there needs to be an element of the unknown and some risk. On the other hand we don';'t really want to wipe out the characters as it is counterproductive. The GM's job is to walk that tightrope between conflicting expectations.

Recently RPGs some RPGs have looked into other ways to maintain the risk other that death. For instance in most films, novels and legends we know the main character is going to be around, at least until the end. That's how stories work. Yet we can usually be kept interested in see how the character gets out of whatever mess he got into. we know Batman, King Arthur, James Bond, etc. is going to survive the current peril and make it to the end of the movie. In most fiction the writing ensures this. If is is good, it is still exciting to follow.

What some games have done is reduce lethality in one way or another to get that same sort of result. Some better than others.

But there are also games that just do it because people don't like loosing characters.