The BROSR's emphasis on Rules-As-Written to explore how a game actually operates at the table is not to be disdained. Right now, this is focused on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st Edition followed by other early D&D editions. What this produced is the rediscovery of the true campaign paradigm that Jeffro Johnson is responsible for, that the BROSR is responsible for promulgating up to critical mass, and now others are stealing credit from him for clout.
That complaint aside, it is now time to consider doing the same to tabletop RPGs that are not D&D.
The question that I want to be considered: "Will using the same approach lead to the same result as D&D, or will something else emerge?"
I speculate that the answer will, at times, be "something else". I also speculate that which games will produce that "something else" will not be so obvious as it seems at first glance, or even given long-time popular perception.
I speculate that one could, as-written, run Call of Cthulhu and get the same campaign style as D&D- just with less player-controlled NPC assistance as there is no expectation of player-controlled Henchmen or Hirelings. I speculate that, likewise, Pendragon will not; the campaign model therein has been very consistent across its editions over the decades and it is significantly different from D&D despite sharing some literary (and thus cultural) roots.
But, and this is the big one, I speculate that far more tabletop RPGs will conform to the D&D campaign model than those that will not. This is because far too many RPG designers are lazy and, wittingly or otherwise, presume familiarity with D&D to fill in the gaps that appear in their rulesets and especially their gameplay models. Therefore the D&D models are the default position, and when employed even in games like RIFTS or Legend of the Five Rings you will see that they do work and have the same effect.
In short, I hypothesize that a tabletop RPG has to go so widely from the wargame roots of the medium to avoid this result that few will remain actual RPGs. The aforementioned Pendragon and its offshots (Paladin, Prince Valiant) are the one universally-recognized example of a clearly not-wargame RPG that is yet a RPG, and there are a few others, but most true RPGs will turn out to conform and fake RPGs will be most of those that do not.
Traveller is meant to be played this way. It hewed so closely to OD&D in its inception, it's unavoidable. Reread Mercenary after watching Jon Mollison's Trollopulous Megaverse videos and you should immediately see how to do it. (The rules booklets assume you will just know... and this is true if you are running with a group of bros.)
ReplyDeleteThe ability to jump up to large miniatures battles both within sessions, on a play-by-chat basis, or in separate events live played in about one or two hours is ESSENTIAL. Further, the ability to get non-wargamers more excited about those things than even typical wargamers is the other key component.
Only OD&D/AD&D has that feature. B/X omits it and BECMI completely botches the implementation. Other knockoffs fail to address this area or else (due to loss of early gaming knowhow) come up with unworkable, unscalable systems.
I think real time Call of Cthulhu would work really well. You PC finds the Necronomicon and then spends one year of real time studying it while two or three other PCs of yours cycle through play in various parts of the world. Cthulhu themed board games are already set up on this premise and it would not be difficult to make the jump. (The rule books I have assume you will be running canned adventures and then pushing time forward at will to adapt your "campaign" to whatever supplement product you want to use-- very tacky!)
Come to think of it... the Braunstein approach would work really great with bit, broad brush Call of Cthulhu roles mostly operating outside of sessions. The original Braunstein was intended to be a prelude to a wargame, but it worked so well the wargame never got played.
You have such a bigger canvas to play your games on with the old style approach. A dozen things can fail and it won't matter. But when something really jells, it is astonishing.
I've been running a RuneQuest campaign since November 78 and a Call of Cthulhu campaign since it came out in 1981; this is how those games were played back in those days. Game supplements weren’t adventures that ran on rails but descriptions of places that you put on your campaign map. I'm not sure whether it was just the culture at the time or whether it was because there simply were no supplements when those games first came out; what you started with were the rules and your players. Where you went from there depended on the players' luck (encounter tables are invaluable), decisions and interactions. The games themselves didn't really limit you that much. If you take a look at the cover of CoC 1st ed., it says up front "...adventures in the WORLDS of H.P. Lovecraft". So, 1920's Chicago? Yep. The Dreamlands? Okey fine. Ancient Rome or Egypt? Sure, why not? And the number of options you had expanded immensely if you had read any of the pulps.
ReplyDelete***Less player-controlled NPC assistance in CoC/RQ – That’s correct. You can still get that assistance eventually, once your gold, Charisma, reputation, cult standing and the essential Oratory skill % are high enough, but there is no expectation of such assistance for new characters.
***Pendragon – I think you’re right. I ran a campaign set in Eire that was centered on a warrior brotherhood like the Heroes of the Red Branch; we started the campaign in 400 A.D. and traveled quite a bit outside of the British Isles. It was fun but it didn’t feel like Pendragon.
Glad to see the idea that (most) RPGs are wargames spreading once again. For a long time, that statement would get me a blank stare from most.