Role-playing game theory
Role-playing game theory is the generic term for various theories and models that deal with processes and elements of pen & paper role-playing games. There are no universal role playing game theory. The various approaches and models often differ fundamentally in their objectives and have only in common is that they talk about role-playing. Compare the projections with each other, without keeping the different objectives in mind, therefore, are often futile.
The Big Model
The Big model is currently one of the most popular models of the role of game theory. The origin of the Big Model is The Forge, an English-language forum independent RPG developers. It is used there as a theoretical basis which game authors to help you design your own role-playing games. The main founder of the Big Model is Ron Edwards (see GNS theory).
The Big Model can be summarized in the following graph:
[ Social Contract [ Exploration [ Techniques [ Ephemera ]]]] ----------- Creative Agenda ---------------- > The upper part of the diagram shows the formal structure of an RPG with the four elements of the Social Contract, exploration, Techniques and ephemera. The lower part of the Creative Agenda, is the kind of game that is played in an actual RPG round. The Creative Agenda is the hard part of the Big Model.
- Group contract ( Social Contract ): The entire role play is perceived as a social process. The game group consisting of the players (which term in this context always the team captain a ) has negotiated a group contract. This includes all social conditions and rules that apply during the game. The negotiation takes place only in small parts rather than explicit, and is often not perceived by the players as such.
- Exploration: The subject of each role-play is the common space of representation (Shared Imagined Space, SIS). It applies the lumpley principle ( named after Vincent " lumpley " Baker), ie all elements that are to be introduced in this presentation space are proposed by a player or by the game rules and negotiated at the table. The pattern of those negotiations is determined by the rules of the game and the rules of the group contract. Often some players are empowered to introduce certain elements in the realm of imagination. For example, a player character has the power to describe the actions of his character; in many games also gets the GM the right to design the world as he sees fit. Other elements, in particular not be predictable, with tools such as dice or playing cards, so mechanical random number generators is introduced. In addition, the exploration is divided into five elements: characters ( a fictional person who can act in the SIS), setting ( venue ), situation (interaction between characters and setting ), color ( the unimportant, decorative accessories ) and system (the total all the rules that are needed to negotiate new SIS elements).
- Techniques: Techniques include the throwing of dice, draw cards, speeches, etc. Techniques are certain parts of the rules that are applied to arrive at a conclusion when negotiating new SIS elements.
- Ephemera: Allows the concrete applications of the techniques are referred to. A certain dice roll, a phrase, or prune 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 by the game elements to the smallest units ephemera. This means CA, " what to do on a creative level." Has a playgroup such a creative agenda, so all players on the nature of the game agree. For the right creative input a player gets positive reactions of his teammates and is encouraged to provide this kind of input in the further course of the game. Has a play group, however, no CA, the responses to a creative power are not reliable, and it may happen that the game each player is not fun.
Important here is that it is always a fundamental preference of a specific game round with a creative agenda. It is not to evaluate individual players or individual actions within a game. To find out if a game round a CA follows, one must observe an instance of Play ( game instance ) long the round. Unfortunately, at present there is disagreement about what exactly that instance of Play. What is clear is that this is likely to be one or more sessions.
In Big model is initially open with the creative agendas there. In addition, it is unclear whether different CAs can occur simultaneously in a turn. Because followed a group multiple agendas, it would no longer clear what creative power there which feedback from the players, ie the group did not follow any agenda. In addition, several agendas do not fit to a fundamental preference.
So far, three creative agendas have been identified:
This part of the model is known as the Big GNS theory. It is important that it is not a classification of players or games, but of playgroups. Abbreviated is often a player who likes to play in GAM - rounds, called Gamist, a player who likes to NAR rounds played as Narrativist and a player who likes to play in SIM laps when Simulationist. Are role-playing games, which are particularly suitable for GAM / NAR / SIM agendas, called gamistische / narravistische / simulationistische games analog. This shortened way of speaking is somewhat problematic, since not all players fit into one of three drawers and many are interested in more than one of the agendas. Just like a human likes to play chess, discuss political issues and can go to the movies, a role player like all three types of game.
In addition, a CA is neither a guarantee of a working RPG round, still enforces a lack Creative Agenda not working game. After the Big Model, it is however considered to be beneficial to design games so that a particular CA is encouraged. Thus, it should then be easier for the group, the game also implement this CA, and increases the likelihood that the playgroup is successful and everyone involved is fun. Critics consider the GNS theory for impractical, since no reliable method is known to judge, according to which CA plays a group, or if a group ever follows a CA. In addition, the division into only three different agendas seem to be very rough. The scope within an agenda is quite large, so that a game designer despite an agenda hardly has a policy for the game design. Often touted by critics mixed forms, but they were ' always been rejected by Sites Ron Edwards.
Process Model
The Process Model of Role-Playing was developed by the Finns Eetu Mäkelä, Sampo Koistinen, Mikko Siukola and Sanni Turunen 2005. Role play is regarded as more concurrent social processes that make use of certain methods. This leads to results which may be referred to as gains and losses. The profits are the reason that role-playing games are played. Influenced is the result of social processes running in parallel on the circumstances under which the game is played.
The Process Model propagated have stronger separation of social processes and the role play itself. In addition, it provides tools to identify and represent existing processes, methods and circumstances. Overall, the process model is essentially a kind of frame available, pointing to tools with which one can describe a certain RPG round. This round must, however, to comprehensively analyzed. Some examples of processes and methods are enumerated, which are typically detectable in RPG rounds.
Player types according to Robin Laws
In Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering the Canadian role-playing game designer and author Robin D. Laws, what he means by good role play portrays: RPG that is fun. He goes exclusively to classic RPG rounds a ( ie, for example, D & D or DSA rounds with game director and characters that follow a given by the GM storyline more or less). Probably the most quoted passages from Laws ' text are the descriptions of the types of players, of which seven Laws enumerates:
- Power Gamer ( optimized its character by increasing the game-relevant values which describe its capabilities and characteristics)
- Butt- Kicker ( fights like )
- Tactician ( like planning )
- Specialist ( likes to play a certain character types),
- Method actor (who plays his characters like from )
- Storyteller ( wants a good story arises ) and
- Casual gamers (RPG actually does not care, the main thing he is with the other players. Proverb also the casual gamers ).
Laws compares these types of players do not judgmental. They all want to enjoy role-playing game, but have different performance objectives. A Gamer is the character study of Method Actors equally disturbing as, conversely, the method actor is not evocative game of Power Gamers. Is the task of the game master it now to satisfy these different needs, so that the game is fun for everyone - the generating a positive atmosphere in the group, and the game makes the game master as well as even more pleasure. These tips and suggestions are given: from the choice of the game system and settings on the planning of adventures to a manual of improvisation and game elements. The biggest criticism of this theory of player types is that assign the fewest players this guy clearly; many a player fall even completely off the grid. Furthermore, been urged that Laws Aim of the game and playing techniques mixed. In addition, the classification of the types of players is only suitable for classic rounds.