1. The supposed production of offspring markedly different from either parent.
“A roleplaying game is a wargame where each player controls one mans (unit) rather than an army or a squad.”
When Matt told me that, I was knocked off balance. I didn’t know what to say.
We were talking about my previous D&D post (you can find it here) and my in-transit definition of roleplaying games. (I’m still not happy with the definition.) Matt’s reply was above. One player, one mans, wargame.
Took me a while to come up with an intelligent reply. You know, something other than, “That’s stupid!” or “You don’t know anything!” Well, here it is.
When we all first started playing RPGs, the tools we had were unsophisticated. They were crude. This reflected in the characters we made with them. The tools are crude, the craftsmanship can only go so far. The characters we first made were identified by “What can I do?” rather than “Who am I?”
I’m a big comics fan, and sometimes I have to demonstrate the differences between Marvel and DC characters. The early DC characters were identified by “What can I do?” Superman and Batman and Green Lantern really didn’t have personalities, they had powers. Big, smiling faces who fought for truth, justice and the American way. The only difference was their capabilities. That’s the fundamental flaw with most of the older DC characters. Identified by “What can I do?” rather than “Who am I?”
Stan Lee/Jack Kirby/Steve Ditko did a lot to change that. Spider-Man was one of the first characters to break that rule. The Fantastic Four, too. The stories in those early books were less about Spider-Man or the FF fighting bad guys (although, that was certainly the case), and more about the relationships those characters had. That’s what made the books dynamic. Relationships.
As we grew as gamers, our own needs grew as well. More complicated characters. Relationships. Consequences. Games that followed D&D (a wargame where each player controls one unit rather than a squad or an army) still involved hex paper and lead miniatures, but they were more sophisticated, taking into account the need to tell stories with the hex paper and miniatures. Games like RuneQuest and Traveller certainly did not fit the stereotype created by D&D.
But that raises a question. D&D is the first roleplaying game. Nobody can question that. But if D&D is a wargame where the players control one unit rather than a squad or an army, then what are the games that followed? They certainly don’t fit that definition; they are closer to the flawed definition I was working through in my previous essay: a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices that are consistent with the character’s motivations or further the plot of the story even if the choices are not strategic or tactically wise.
So, the games that followed D&D experienced Xenogensis. Offspring who do not resemble the parent.
Granted, D&D has matured, but it never quite caught up with its kids, seemingly content to remain what it is: a wargame. Players may not treat it like a wargame (remember: you can make any game a roleplaying game–even chess), but there it is. A wargame where each player controls one unit.
But if RuneQuest and Traveller and other first-generation games are not roleplaying games… then what are they? And, is D&D the only roleplaying game?
I’d say “No.” But that’s just a gut reaction. I don’t have anything to back it up. Not yet.