Role play theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Role-play theory is the generic term for various theories and models that deal with the processes and elements of pen & paper role-playing games . So far there is no generally valid role-play theory. The various approaches and models often differ fundamentally in their objectives and only have in common that they deal with role play. Comparing the approaches with one another without keeping an eye on the different objectives is therefore often ineffective.

Glenn Blacows "Aspects of Adventure Gaming"

In the 1980 article Aspects of Adventure Gaming , Glenn Blacow describes different types of gamers and how they play. He typed role players in four categories:

  • Powergamer (optimizes his character by increasing the game-relevant values ​​that describe his skills and properties),
  • Wargamer (focuses on combat operations, which he must deal with tactics, skills and equipment of his character),
  • Role-Player (finds his way into the game by creating a character, whose personality he represents in all its facets) and
  • Story-Teller (attaches great importance to a lively game world that gives the impression of continuing to exist even without the players)

This article describes for the first time how different ideas about the same role-playing game can be.

However, Blacows classification is quite rough.

Threefold model

The threefold model was created in 1997 in a forum. It does not define fixed types of players, but rather the styles of play. Since it arose within a forum discussion, it is not particularly clearly defined and is subject to a certain evolution. In its later forms it describes the playing styles of the gamist, the dramatist and the simulationist, which can be imagined as the corners of a triangle. Players and their preferred style of play are seen as a mixture of these extremes.

  1. Gamism ( game-oriented role-playing game ): Gamism deals with the amount and type of challenge players face as the game progresses. Ideas like "balance" and "fairness" and "victory" belong in this area.
  2. Drama ( dramaturgical role-playing game ): Drama concerns the narrative qualities of the game, such as story, nuances of meaning, exploring topics, etc. It does not mean following a given story, but strives for well-plotted stories and meaning in the unfolding events .
  3. Simulation ( simulatory role-playing game ): The simulation strives for the inner consistency of events that take place in the game world. Factors outside the game world (such as rules or the wishes of the players) should, if possible, not influence the game world and its population (including player characters). Rather, events should be explained from previous events and occurrences.

Since the model was mainly worked out by simulationists, the other play styles remained vaguely defined. There was also a debate about the best style of play that continues to this day in various forums.

Robin Laws player types

In 2002, the Canadian role-playing game designer and author Robin D. Laws describes in Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering what he understands by good role-playing game : role-playing game that is fun. He only deals with classic role-playing rounds (e.g. D&D or DSA rounds with game master and characters who more or less follow a storyline specified by the game master). The most frequently quoted passages from Laws' text are the descriptions of the types of players , of which Laws lists seven:

  • Powergamer (optimizes his character by increasing the game-relevant values ​​that describe his skills and properties),
  • Butt kicker (likes to fight),
  • Tactician (likes to plan),
  • Specialist (likes to play a certain type of character),
  • Method Actor (likes to play his characters),
  • Storyteller (wants a good story to be created) and
  • Casual gamer (He doesn't really care about role play, the main thing is that he is with the other players. That means the casual gamer too).

Laws does not make judgmental comparisons between these types of players. They all want to have fun role-playing, but have different goals. A power gamer will be disturbed by the character play of the Method Actor just as, conversely, the Method Actor will be disturbed by the non-atmospheric play of the Powergamer . It is now the task of the game master to satisfy these various needs so that the game is fun for everyone - that creates a positive atmosphere in the group, and the game also makes the game more fun for the game master himself. Tips and suggestions are given: From the choice of the game system and settings to the planning of adventures to instructions for improvising game elements.

The biggest criticism of this theory of player types is that very few players clearly assign themselves to these types; some players even fall completely off the grid. Furthermore, it is warned that Laws mix game goal and playing techniques. In addition, the division of player types is only suitable for classic game rounds.

The big model

The Big Model is currently one of the most popular models in role-play theory. The origin of the Big Model is The Forge , an English-speaking forum for independent role-playing game developers. It serves as a theoretical basis for game authors to help them design their own role-playing games. The most important founder of the Big Model is Ron Edwards (see also GNS theory ).

The Big Model can be summarized in the following diagram: 

   [ Social Contract [ Exploration [ Techniques [ Ephemera ] ] ] ]
        ----------- Creative Agenda ---------------->

The upper part of the diagram shows the formal structure of a role play with the four elements Social Contract , Exploration , Techniques and Ephemera . The lower part, the Creative Agenda , is the type of game that is played in a specific round of role-playing games. The creative agenda is the hard part of the big model.

  • Group contract (social contract): The entire role play is seen as a social process. The playgroup, consisting of the players (this term always includes the game master in this context), has negotiated a group contract. This includes all social circumstances and rules that apply during the game. The negotiation takes place only in small parts explicitly and is often not perceived as such by the players.
  • Exploration: subject of each role-play is the common notion space (Shared Space Imagined, SIS). The lumpley principle applies (named after Vincent “lumpley” Baker), ie all elements that are to be introduced into this imaginary space are proposed by a player or by the rules of the game and negotiated at the gaming table. The course of these negotiations is determined by the rules of the game and the rules of the group contract. Often some players are authorized to bring certain elements into the imagination space. For example, a character player has the power to describe his character's actions; In many games, the game master also has the right to shape the world as he sees fit. Other elements, especially those that cannot be predicted, are introduced with aids such as dice or cards , i.e. mechanical random generators. In addition, the exploration is divided into five elements: characters (a fictional person who can act in the SIS), setting (scene), situation (interaction between characters and setting), color (the unimportant, decorative accessory) and system (the entirety all rules that are needed to negotiate new SIS elements).
  • Techniques: Techniques include throwing dice, drawing cards, speaking, etc. Techniques are specific parts of the rules that are used to achieve a result when negotiating new SIS elements.
  • Ephemera: This describes the specific applications of the techniques. A certain roll of the dice, a sentence or the elimination of life points are examples of ephemera.
  • Creative Agenda: The arrow indicates that the Creative Agenda (CA, creative agenda) permeates the entire game: Starting with the group contract through the game elements down to the smallest units, the ephemera. CA means "what needs to be done on a creative level". If a playgroup has such a creative agenda, all players agree on the type of game. For the right creative input, a player receives positive reactions from his teammates and is thus encouraged to provide this type of input in the further course of the game. If, on the other hand, a playgroup does not have a CA, the reactions to a creative performance are not reliable, and the individual players may not enjoy the game.

The important thing here is that a creative agenda is always a fundamental preference for a specific game round. It's not about evaluating individual players or individual actions within a game. To find out whether a game round follows a CA, one must observe the round for an instance of play . Unfortunately, there is currently disagreement about what exactly this instance of play is. The only thing that is clear is that it is likely to be one or more sessions.

In the Big Model it is initially open which creative agendas there are. In addition, it is unclear whether different CAs can occur simultaneously in a game round. Because if a group followed several agendas, it would no longer be clear for which creative performance there would be which feedback from the other players, ie the group did not follow any agenda. In addition, multiple agendas do not fit a basic preference.

So far, three creative agendas have been identified:

  1. Gamism ( achievement role-playing game , GAM): The players want to win. In extreme cases, this can express itself in a game against one another, but also in defeating monsters, deciphering secrets or solving the game master's story. All of these are possible targets of a gamistic group. It's about the feeling of knowing at the end of the day whether you have won, if possible that you have won. Edwards sees gamism on two levels: the social level and the in-game level. On the social level, the players have to be able to improve (“step on up”), to do this they take risks. They try to achieve this with the help of their understanding of the game and possible strategies. There have to be challenges for this at the in-game level. These challenges face the characters who are controlled by the players.
  2. Narrativism ( thematic role-playing game , NAR): The objective of this agenda could be described as “Story Now”. An engaging task or a problematic (human) characteristic should be brought into play. More precisely: the problem must be installed in the game world so that it becomes a central element of conflict. Characters might switch sides during the game, or it sheds light on why the opposing side exists. Ultimately, the decisions made by the players in the game world resolve the problem. In the narrativistic game there is usually no given plot that the characters follow, because the problem has to be solved creatively by the players.
  3. Simulationism ( adventure role play , SIM): This creative agenda is the most difficult to define positively. Exploration is not a side effect, but the main goal of the game. Edwards describes simulationism as "The Right to Dream", but Ralph Mazza argues that this can be said of all role-playing games. Hence, he prefers to use “discovery” than the word that best describes simulationism. The goal is not just to look at everything that appears in the SIS, but to actively discover, research, and simulate. Like a question about "What if ...".

This part of the big model is also known as the GNS theory . It is important here that it is not a matter of classifying players or games, but of playgroups. For short , a player who likes to play in GAM rounds is often referred to as a gamist , a player who likes to play in NAR rounds as a narrativist and a player who likes to play in SIM rounds as a simulationist . Similarly, role-playing games that are particularly suitable for GAM / NAR / SIM agendas are called gamistic / narravistic / simulationistic games. This abbreviated way of speaking is somewhat problematic, since by no means all players fit into one of the three drawers and many are interested in more than one of the agendas. Just as a person can enjoy playing chess, debating political issues, and going to the movies, an RPG player can enjoy all three types of game.

In addition, a CA is neither a guarantee of a functioning round of role-playing games, nor does a lack of a Creative Agenda enforce a non-functioning game. According to the Big Model, however, it is considered beneficial to design games in such a way that a specific CA is promoted. This should make it easier for the group to implement this CA in the game, and the probability increases that the playgroup will be successful and that everyone involved will enjoy it.

Critics consider the GNS theory impractical because no reliable method is known to judge which CA a group plays by, or whether a group follows a CA at all. In addition, the division into only three different agendas seems to be very rough. The scope within an agenda is quite large, so that a game designer hardly has any guidelines for the game design despite an agenda. Critics often advocate mixed forms, which, however, have always been rejected by Ron Edwards.

Process Model

The Process Model of Role-Playing was developed in 2005 by the Finns Eetu Mäkelä, Sampo Koistinen, Mikko Siukola and Sanni Turunen. Role play is seen as several parallel social processes that use certain methods. This produces results that can be described as gains and losses. The winnings are the reason that role-playing games are played. The outcome of the parallel social processes is influenced by the circumstances under which the game is played.

The Process Model therefore propagates a greater separation of social processes and role play itself. In addition, it provides tools to identify and present existing processes, methods and circumstances. Overall, the process model essentially provides a kind of framework and shows aids with which one can describe a certain round of role-playing games. However, this round must be analyzed in detail. Some processes and methods are listed as examples that can typically be identified in rounds of role play.

Newer development

After Ron Edwards closed the theory section on The Forge in December 2005, the main further development of role-play theory is carried out via various English-language blogs. But also in the German-speaking area there are discussions and further developments of role-play theories in various forums , wikis and blogs .

Web links

Blogs and forums

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Glenn Blacow: Aspects of Adventure Gaming. In: Different Worlds # 10. October 1980.
  2. ^ The Evolution of the Threefold Model . John H. Kim. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
  3. ^ Robin D. Laws: Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering . Steve Jackson Games 2002, ISBN 1-55634-629-8 .
  4. ↑ Types of players according to Robin D. Laws . On: www.nexus-stuttgart.de
  5. ^ The Forge Forum: indie-rpgs.com .
  6. ↑ The Big Model . Graphic representation by Ron Edwards, 2004 (PDF, 55 kB).
  7. ↑ On the following explanations, Ron Edwards: The Provisional Glossary . On: indie-rpgs.com , 2004.
  8. ↑ Ron Edwards: Gamism: Step On Up . On: www.indie-rpgs.com .
  9. ^ Ron Edwards: Narrativism: Story Now . On: www.indie-rpgs.com .
  10. ^ Ron Edwards: Simulationism: The Right to Dream . On: www.indie-rpgs.com .
  11. ^ Ron Edwards: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory . On: indie-rpgs.com , 2001.
  12. ↑ Eetu Mäkelä, Sampo Koistinen, Mikko Siukola, Sanni Turunen: The Process Model of Role-Playing ( Memento of the original from July 4, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . 2005 (PDF, 189 kB). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / temppeli.org