I get a little exhausted by rpg conversations that start with questions like, "What can RPGs learn from board games?" "What can RPGs learn from improv theater?" "What can RPGs learn from communal cooking practices?" "What can RPGs learn from weaving?" And I've been trying to figure out why.
I think it's because most people think of basic rpgs like this:
Which is to say that they don't really see RPGs as their own thing but rather a thing that exists only as a blend of other things. Play culture is basically about which of these circles you put your weight on in play. Therefore some people want to think about how to add more circles like "cooking" or "musical composition" or how to bring in MORE of one of the basic circles like rarer aspects of games.
But you see, I see RPGs more like this:
I think RPGs are a unique thing. To say they don't touch those other things would be foolish, but they aren't MADE from those things. Different RPGs aren't simply changing the ratios on the blending of those other activities.
I want to talk about that black space more. I want to talk about the properties unique to RPGs and not just in terms of the blends of other activities. If you remove the classical concerns of game design ("balance", "core loops", "challenge", "economies") and the classical concerns of performing arts ("audience", "entertainment", "acting") and the classical concerns of other media ("narrative structure", "tropes", "genre"). What's left?
I use the word "concern" very carefully here. I'm talking about focusing one them as issues to be addressed rather simply whether they are present or not in a given game. Like I can say, "This game is set in Arizona in the 1880s" without being concerned with whether or not it's a "western" in the sense of tropes and genres. What if we don't *concern* ourselves with the things I've listed. What's left?
I want to talk about THAT.
origamiaround
gummygunk
titsay
jbbartram-illu
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
tangentwithtanner
kaledo-art
yousharknotpass
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
