What's the Point?

Two weeks ago I talked about three goals of RPG play. I somewhat playfully named them thusly: "People want to Kick Ass, they want to Make it Real, or they want it to Mean Something." This is not to say there can't be other goals, but these are the ones identified by theorists at the Forge. And remember, this is only one set of preferences, based on the actual point of play. Things like crunchy mechanics, getting deeply in character, or high fantasy settings, are different preferences entirely.

Munchkins are from Baator, Immersionists are from Elysium

So, let's break down these play goals a bit, beyond my flippant titles. First, lemme say that it's all about what's the point: if you have lots of Ass-kickin' and you also manage to say something Meaningful, but it's the Meaningful that's really the IT thing, then it's all cool to have the Ass-kickin' in there backing it up. But I mean really backing it up, not constantly push-pulling over which one is really important, or making concessions to Mister Kickass Player in hopes that he'll reward YOU, Mister Meaningful Player, with the same courtesy. I mean, do what you want; if everyone's happy at the end of the day, great, but the Theory would suggest that if you take one goal and do it up to the nines, that can be even (as in way) better.

So. Ass-kicking. This one's easy to scope out, even if we didn't have a long-standing tradition of a certain quite popular RPG catering toward it. It's challenge. Competition, though it can be co-operative as well as cutthroat. It's all about coming through when the chips are down, being a rules-god, and owning anything that gets in your way. It doesn't have to be mindless or ignore the "story," or even be combat-focused, it just has to value trouncing obstacles above all. We do this all the time with sports, boardgames, videogames, whatever, so it's no surprise that people wanna do this with RPGs too.

Then, Making it Real. This is a bit tricky. It's about imagining, but of course, all roleplaying is imagining, so it's more than that. It's when creating a perfect picture of the imagined thing is more important than anything else, when getting Middle Earth or a Galaxy Far Far Away, or making your own setting or whatever, just hum and breathe with life, is more important than rocking the combat or making important statements. Those can happen, if the internal logic of the world peremits it, but it's cool if it doesnt, and not cool if it takes over.

Aaand, Meaning Something. This one's kind of a literary goal, but it's not just aping your favorite stories or anything, that's covered above. This is about doing what all the best books and plays and movies have always done for you even if you didn't have words for it. It's making a statement about some human condition, or reveling in the fallout from a really hard choice, asking tough questions like "how far will you go for that belief?" It's what lit professors talk about when they speak of "conflict." It's not "do I kill the guy?" It's "why do I kill the guy?" or "What will it cost me to kill the guy?" There's a thousand different questions and a thousand ways to ask 'em, but that's the gist.

Agenda Clash of the Titans

So whaddya do with these goals once you know you have them? Well, the best advice is to A) play with people who share the same goals, and B) Find a system that works best to support that. "System" meaning "How you actually play," not "what's written in a rulebook." But the flipside is that game designers could benefit from learning how to put the right tools in so players wouldn't have to tweak the hell out of the rules to get what they want out of it.

So why the exclusivity? Can't you have it all? Deeply explored world, kickass fights, and meaningful statements? Sure, maybe. But there are a million little ways that things can unravel. For instance, if you're using a ruleset that incentivizes certain activity (like, oh, I don't know, kill stuff, get experience, level up, gain more ability to kill stuff), other activities are liable to get marginalized. Maybe not edged out, but probably not present enough for players who really get their meat 'n potatoes that way. And speaking of players, what if some folks in the group are after one goal, and the rest are after another, so that neither set really gets what they're after, only little hints and teases? As I said earlier, it's cool if one goal works in support of another, such as cool, competitive fights being supportive of the portrayal of the world the group is emulating, or the vivid emulation of the world being essential to the thematic statements the group is making. But if a group tries to fulfil two or more goals equally, something's probably gotta give.


So that's the three play goals; "Creative Agenda" they're called. Is everyone clear on these? Does any of this sound familiar? Any questions or objections? What does or doesn't make sense?

Peace,
-Joel