Just the kids playing with an alynx? Oh well... :-)
Howdy Folks
Re: Sandy's recent diatribe against systemless games.
SYSTEMLESS GAMING AND GLORANTHA Normally I'd ignore such straw-dolly chopping, but in this instance I just can't let Sandy's challenge go by. Perhaps its because I come from a roleplaying culture where systemless gaming has been a strong feature of convention roleplaying for nearly a decade, a culture that I've done more than my fair share to develop. Perhaps its because when I read Sandy's post I'd just returned from running a systemless module at ICON in Wollongong, and the tears and laughter of that very powerful experience (as well as the growing versatility of the form itself) demand to be defended against caricatures like the one above. But mostly its because I believe the future of Glorantha as a roleplaying environment is tied up with issues of maturity, real storytelling, genre awareness, emotional depth and mutual creation and responsibility for background, story and atmosphere (team trust) -- the very issues that systemless gaming (at least in Australia) addresses head on.
First, what do *I* mean when I talk about systemless roleplaying? Well, in Australia its a collection of convention and campaign gaming styles. Most of these styles are associated with 'multiforming' (a three-dimensional playing style where players act and move as if on stage) and with TadultU themes and concepts. A semi-serious definition of a convention multiform is Tlock five characters in a room and turn up the heatU. They are not truly systemless -- no game can be -- but operate according to the rules of drama, ritual and storytelling rather than a mechanical dice-driven system. Generally, they emphasise indepth characterisation, atmosphere, and concentrate on exploring emotional or moral themes, being character- rather than plot-driven. They rely on inter-player trust and group ethic, and on mutual storytelling.
One of the challenges facing Gloranthan roleplaying is to escape from (or at least offer alternatives to) the 'roleplaying is wargaming' paradigm that strangled the hobby in the seventies and eighties. In particular, if we are realise Greg's hope for Heroquest, it has to be a game where transformation and insight become something more than thinly disguised dice-rolling combats. Here in Australia, systemless gaming, based on a more theatrical and storytelling paradigm, has helped us develop a greater maturity and breadth in our storytelling and roleplaying styles, to create modules with emotional depth and thematic bite, and to develop our team and individual skills to new levels. It's upped the involvement of women as designers and players, and kept people roleplaying long after the adolescent thrill of power gaming has waned. In short, it's become a very important tool in our collective toolkit.
I'm not saying it's perfect - far from it. I'm saying its a new start, and it has lots of promise.
SYSTEMLESS IS ONE TOOL AMONGST MANY That's the key idea. Its a TOOL in a collective TOOLKIT. It is to be used in stories and situations where it suits. It's not a universal panacea or a replacement for dice- or rule- driven systems -- there are situations where such structures are necessary. But it helps put things in perspective -- there are many many types of story that don't need dice at all. After a while, you realise just how few. In fact, the only ones that DO are those that emphasise combat and strenuous physical action. Go into any bookstore. Such stories occupy only a small space on the shelves. We've still got a lot of creating and rethinking to do.
I believe its an age thing as well. As we grow older, we begin to confront the hidden aspects of our personalities Q the areas that lie undeveloped, the paths of our lives we have not taken, the relationships that have or have not grown. Our inner lives take new paths, and our hopes and dreams and fantasies all change. The power fantasies and escapism that largely fuelled our youthful gaming give way to subtler, more questioning styles Q chaotic ten-headed Ulerian were-hampsters are replaced by issues of clan or religious ethics and loyalty as the usual centre of our gaming. We tend to explore the world more as shades of grey than black and white. We use roleplaying to understand other people and other perspectives. We use roleplaying to understand ourselves. And different needs require different tools.
I'm not some 'scholarly' killjoy. (well, not usually...) I'm a get-down- and-get-dirty roleplayer who's been writing and running modules for the Oz roleplaying circuit since 1982. I run, write and play RQ/PDP, systemless multiforms and other games as well. I enjoy 'duck and duggery' and comedy as well as 'dramatic/thematic' gaming. In fact, I love RQ and Glorantha in all its manifestations. 'Seven Mothers Do Ave 'Em', live-action trollball - hardly the credentials of a purist! <g>
Whatever our motivations, the prime object of any game is to have fun, to entertain ourselves and each other. Systemless gaming styles are about creating new, satisfying ways to enjoy ourselves. Even a TseriousU game is about having fun, about being creative, about having the freedom to step outside the labels that define you and for a short time be someone (or something) different. Its about surprising yourself and the people with whom you share the experience. Its about collectively weaving a magic spell. As with any other genre or game, success lies in matching up presentation and technique with playersU expectations, interests and capabilities: in choosing and combining the right tools for the job from our common roleplaying toolkit.
WHY SANDY'S DEPICTION IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE Let me get my objections to Sandy's depiction out of the way, so I can concentrate on a positive message rather than risking interminable diatribe and debate. Now I realise we are talking across a cultural divide here. In my experience, systemless games have NEVER involved argument or debate amongst gms and players. It comes down to understanding the basic strengths and weaknesses of the medium you're operating in. (That's why I always conduct pre- and post- game briefings). Its also a maturity, trust, mutual storytelling thing that comes from the type of stories you present and the manner you present them.
As for not getting things done -- well 'Kick', the module I've just run at ICON ,was about a group of Koori street kids during Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras. It was very much a part of Australia's mainstream systemless tradition. The first three hour session involved three murders, a haunted brothel, a drug overdose and hospitalisation, a sexual assault, the Big Parade, several mens and womens ceremonies, plus stories and lessons about Aboriginal mythology, the Dreaming, Mens Business, Womens Business and 'Everybodies Business'. Oh yeah, and the Big Rock Finish. Hardly a dragging pace by anyone's standards. And all without dice or stats, but using a 'system' of team trust, joint responsibility for creativity, and an awareness of the needs of the story and the genre. One of the great things about it was how the players themselves kept it all moving - once I'd set them up, my need for intervention was minimal.
In a campaign or convention module, the most successful stories result
from utilising the things best explored by the particular tools you
choose - I would have thought this was fairly obvious. So systemless
modules work best when they emphasise characterisation - motivation,
inner growth and
catharsis - just as the most obvious thing to do with most commercial
systems is to fight and cast spells. If you're running endless combat
and derring do, obviously you use a rules system. Trying to conduct a
session-long broo bash (Oh no, not that!) with a systemless toolkit is as
silly as running an inter-player seduction in descending strike rank
order. (Any takers?) The trick is finding the right balance, trusting your
freedom to create, and having the noos and experience to use the right
tool for the right job.
(What has been particularly instructive for me over the years has been how the playing styles of a group change after being exposed to both paradigms - their toolkit expands, and their range of options and responses increase dramatically).
RQCon Down Under will be offering several systemless multiforms, in addition to RQ, PDP and Chaosium games of all stripes, persuasions, and geographical backgrounds. The Wyrms and I will be running a heroquest multiform, and Ian Whitchurch (the Aussie who ran a systemless game at RQ Con II) has a merman module in mind. There may be others -- we'll have a full games list out by mid June.
This defence has concentrated on perspective rather than practical technique. I'll be discussing some practical ways in which systemless gaming techniques can be useful in running heroquests in my next 'Questlines' column in TOTRM. I've quoted a few paragraphs from that article above. (Don't tell Dave!)
END PART THE FIRST [OF TWO]
Powered by hypermail