Subject:
|
Re: Lego RPG DraK'en.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 04:39:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2415 times
|
| |
|
|
"Hendo (John P. Henderson)" wrote:
>
> Copied and followed up to .fun.gaming
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Frank Filz writes:
> > See the problem with defining what you and I would call an RPG is that
> > each of the key elements is common in other types of games. I think the
> > key elements of a D&D or LARP type game are:
> >
> > 1. assumption of a role
> > 2. talking and acting "in character"
> > 3. some kind of continuing story line which links game sessions
> > 4. a set of formal rules which govern interractions
> > 5. a defined way for the rules to be changed.
>
> I can see the point here too. You are saying that not all role playing is a
> Role Playing Game. Cops and Robbers, or for that matter manipulating
> mini-figs and making them "talk" with silly voices, etc. are forms of role
> play. But those are not specific games. Only with a set of rules (elements
> 4 and 5) does the play become game.
>
> If this is the case, then I would argue that strategy games that allow a
> player to give a squad leader or a minifigure a voice are simply strategy
> games with extra role play, but not themselves RPGs. The same would hold
> true for your Monopoly example or my Amoeba Wars example -they are other
> types of games that have room for role *play*, but are not true RPGs.
Yes, that's a useful distinction to make.
> > Number 3 eliminates many games, though it also eliminates one-off
> > convention games. On the other hand, there are many strategy games which
> > can be played as a bunch of scenarios and would qualify on all these
> > points (Up Front, the Squad Leader card game for example). Number 4
> > eliminates "cops and robbers" (though in Junior High a group of us did
> > play a "cops and robbers" style game which did have some somewhat formal
> > rules).
>
> The one-off con. games can still have an element of storyline, if the GM
> offers more than one scenario, or more importantly, if he *could*. However,
> considering that wargames can have continuing stories (take WWII board games
> for example), and PC games tend to have sequels and prequels with some form
> of linked story (Command & Conquer series comes to mind), I would argue that
> your point number 3 is not unique nor needed to define an RPG (although it
> is a common element in many).
I still think the continuing story line element is an important
distinction. In fact, it's probably one of the most important
distinctions. It's what keeps players coming back. If a game is just
one-off, there's less incentive to come back, instead, you might try a
totally different game. It also enables much greater depth of character
development. It's certainly a recognized seller in the entertainment
business (books, TV, and movies).
So the question raised is what is the difference between a D&D one-off
con scenario and a D&D campaign? I think they are actually different
animals, even though they use the same set of rules.
> > > What was once Computer Adventure Games (text programs like Zork) have
> > > evolved to have a graphic interface (like Myst). These are sometimes
> > > marketed as RPGs, but it is a matter of opinion how much (if any) role
> > > playing there really is.
> >
> > Actually, I would classify Myst as a different sort of game than Zork.
>
> Would you? I honestly have not played Myst, but my impression of it and
> games like it was that you had to solve a series of puzzles to overcome
> obstacles to reveal the plot. That would fit with the definition above on
> Interactive Fiction. I may be wrong due to lack of experience.
Games like Myst have a lot less of a simulation aspect. I also think
they don't have as sophisticated plot interaction (though there is
absolutely no technical reason they couldn't). Myst and Zork are
certainly very similar games, but I really do think they are different.
> I could agree that PBB is a general style of game, such as Board Game, PC
> Game, Consol Game, Card Game, Team Sport, PBB, etc., wherein each of these
> styles can contain games that are of any of the other catagories we might
> define (Strategy, RPG, Family, etc.).
That's a good distinction to make between style of play (function), and
style of presentation (form). There are definitely games which don't
translate as well between different forms. RPGs are a good example
(really so much of the game is the social interaction, so a computer
game doesn't work, while the live action form works well). Pictionary
would be another example (I think the game would lose a lot by being
computerized). Sports of course don't translate well to different forms
(those old table top hockey games, a computer baseball game, and a
football board game all have almost nothing in common with the real
sport [the table top hockey having the closest relationship probably,
and even that's tenuous]). On the other hand, Zork would not translate
very well to a live action form (no, no, just because you can stuff that
6th item in your pocket doesn't mean you can pick it up... plus you'd
look REALLY goofy I think walking around from room to room, and having
very limited interaction with each room [no, you can't take that picture
off the wall...]) or a board game (how would you look up the reactions
to actions?). 3-D first person shooters of course are even more
dependent on the computer game form (go back and take a look at Dragon's
Lair for what a 3-D first person shooter would look like without a
computer doing real time animation).
> > On the other hand, it is useful to label the games
> > as PBB, and it may be useful to come up with labels which help identify
> > the brickness of the game (for example, the fact that most PBB games
> > include at least some degree of disassembly is a significant factor). Of
> > all the PBB games I am familiar with, I would say that the campaign form
> > of Evil Stevie's Pirate Game is the most like an RPG (though it has yet
> > to be run in a fashion which allows a continuing story line - it also
> > has a pretty small degree of brickness, the only changes which would be
> > necessary to use Playmobile instead of LEGO would be to define the
> > classes of each of the Playmobile ships). Brick Wars and Matt's new game
> > both have potential to be expanded into something more like an RPG.
>
> They have the potential, but would it be a rule-defined RPG (according to
> your elements 4 and 5)? Or would it just be a PBB with some role play?
They could be expanded into a full fledged RPG if one desired. The
question is would the effort be worthwhile.
> Most PBB games so far seem to focus on the minifigure, so their level of
> brickness is low, as in your example where any toy figures of similar theme
> might be easily adapted to the same rules. The nice thing about using the
> brick is that each player can develop a unique minifigure, a unique pirate
> ship, automobile, spaceship, etc. And the GM might use the brick for some
> rather detailed environments and layouts.
The scenery element is something which makes a PBB game interesting,
though miniatures gamers make some astounding scenery. The advantage we
have is that the scenery can be disassembled and built into something
else. It's also easier to build in some ways (though probably more
expensive, but for the same ease of building, it's probably no more
expensive). We also don't have to paint (ask Bruce what one of the main
reasons he's doing PBB gaming...).
> > I'm still tossing ideas through the back of my head on how to make a PBB
> > RPG with a significant degree of brickness. To me this would be key to
> > the creation of a PBB RPG. If the game is basically just going to use
> > bricks as the playing pieces, I think it would be better to use an
> > existing RPG system, probably one of the simpler ones. The one
> > adaptation which might be worth doing is re-defining the weapons list to
> > match the available brick weapons, and perhaps a few other things like
> > that (but that only creates a small degree of brickness).
>
> I have been involved recently in developing two brick related games...
>
> BrickSiege, which I think of as a PBB strategy game, is not unlike Matt's
> new game in some respects. It also has elements of Age of Empires (and the
> like) that allow collection of brick resources to build new units,
> fortifications, etc. It is intended for medieval settings. I apologize to
> any who have read my earlier posts, but my play testing keeps getting
> postponed, so I have yet to post the rules online in hopes that my final
> offer is relatively free of error.
>
> Starship, which I think of as a PBB RPG (just what you're trying to toss
> around your head), is a group project being developed by a several of us
> online. Basic gameplay is by e-mail. Each player has one or more
> spaceships of brick they can post pics of. Players define the crew, giving
> at least the captain of each ship a name and personality. When a ship
> adventures, it "flies" to an imaginary sector of space and once there, a
> Sector Mediator (SM) sends e-mails to the player explaining what the crew
> experiences. The player then e-mails back 'in-character' to explain what
> the crew does next. And so on. Most e-mails are in-character, and players
> can send 'communications' to each other in-character also. This has been
> done before, somewhat, but the idea of Starship is that there is a whole
> galaxy of Sectors (each offering adventure of varying sorts). Each Sector
> has its own SM, and movement between them is monitored by an overall
> Galactic Mediator (GM). We have a short set of rules governing the galaxy
> for continuity between local Sectors. Local adventures are up to the local
> SMs who can set rules and do as they wish within the framework of those
> galactic rules. And each SM can also be a player in other people's Sectors.
> Put all this together, and we will have a game that is PBB and has all five
> elements of an RPG that you mention.
You're certainly right there. The question I still have is how will the
brick play actually interact with the game.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en.
|
| (...) Hmm. Currently, based on what we've developed so far for Starship, I would say the only real use of the brick is how the game encourages (pretty much demands) that everyone build spaceships and other space related MOCs and share images of them (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.gaming)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego RPG DraK'en.
|
| (...) the rules, I would not really call this an RPG. While any game (including Monopoly) could be considered a "role playing game", in the (non-computer) gaming industry, the term RPG has traditionally reffered to a game style where players (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.gaming, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
