So, Neil asked me to share some thoughts about indie games / story games / narrative-focussed RPGing in this other thread…
Which I will of course gladly do ^^
To get the discussion started, I asked everyone to post what questions they had, what criticisms they had heard and generally anything that interests them about these new(er) type of roleplaying games.
- H - made the beginning, and posted a few statements (well, actually criticisms!) that he has heard levelled at these games. I will try and comment them now.
Interestingly, I’ve never heard that one before… maybe you would like to specify? Try as I might, I can’t readily think of any such credits taken or claimed by the Indie movement at large…
Well, let me think what it could be. It certainly can’t be hallmark aspects of (some) indie games such as GM-less play, or experimental game design á la “strip down the rules until nothing remains that does not directly support the communal creation of a shared story”, now can it?
On the whole, however, it has to be said that of course indie games did originate from out of the mainstream RPG culture. They certainly did not completely invent themselves from the ground up, but rather built on an already existing hobby (and the traditions, practices, techniques, clichees existing therein)
True, some indie designers tend to sound a bit like they just invented the wheel, I’ll grant you that 
But really, what I’m seeing is more of a disecting and recombining of existing elements, so to speak.
(For example, they are looking at the role(s) of the GM in various traditional RPGs, and pondering what might happen if these various responsibilities and prerogatives were “messed with” somehow. As in “can there be GM-less play” in the more extreme cases, or stuff like “what if the Players invented, or even controlled certain NPC’s, instead of the GM…”)
So yes, it can be said that the entirety of the hobby originated within the mainstream of games, of course. Then again, recombining existing elements can be an artform in itself, and many of these games can be seen to bring to the fore various aspects that in traditional RPGs have perhaps been existent, but maybe merely peripherally so…
(For example, Call of Cthulhu had this neat Madness mechanic, which was really something special in this game. Apart from that however, CoC was pretty much the most traditional game imaginable… Attributes like Strength and Intelligence, dozens of skills measured in the percentage range, hit points (or some variant, i don’t recall atm)…
Now, looking at a game like My Life with Master, it’s like looking at something that has no rules, no attributes, no skills… except for stuff like that Madness mechanic from CoC. Surely that is something different entirely, and surely taking some credit for that is not entirely unjustifiable in this case?)
(MLwM has “attributes” such as Weariness, Self-Loathing and Love. That’s what PCs get. The setting gets Reason and Fear. All the NPCs, the evil Master himself, and really any situation in the game is resolved using these 5 stats. Its nothig short of revolutionary, so much so in fact, that people have doubted whether it is really even still a roleplaying game in the strictest sense of the term - and i’m not sure it is, either! but its a fun experience to play, very intense, very freeform, but still very focussed…)
What other credits have you heard of that the indie community has allegedly claimed unjustifiedly?
Well, yes and no.
I can see where this criticism is coming from, but on the other hand, it is probably based on a misunderstanding, or simply on different perspectives.
You see, in trad-games (i’m gonna use that term from now on, because of ease of typing as opposed to “traditional RPGs”) empowerment is often understood as levelling-up in some way, shape or form. Storygames certainly do not cater to that type of empowerment.
Instead, what they try (or most of them, can’t really speak for absolutely any and all of 'em here) is to slightly change the approach of a “player” to the “RPG”. It could be put this way: in trad-games, you usually have this GM, who like, prepares a story, and then the players come in, and they “participate” in that story - whether that be trying to solve the riddles, survive the fights, enjoy the tale, etc.
We in the indie-fandom call this the “actor stance”, a type of attitude that has players concentrate on being “immersed in their character”. You listen to the GM’s description of a situation, say, and then attempt to react accordingly, ideally aiming for the most realistic and/or the most tactically viable options in describing the behaviour of your character…
There are also two other “stances”, these are the “director stance” and the “author stance”. The first of these is usually reserved for the GM, of course. He/she describes the scenery, controls the NPCs, works to convey the flavor, theme and mood of the RPG world, etc. The GM “directs” the game.
But what if players were allowed to do some of that, too? Here’s where the “author stance” comes in. As anyone who has ever written even the shortest bit of prose will be able to attest, writing a story about a lone protagonist doing things is very different from your typical RPG-experience, where you are playing that character as if it was yourself.
In practice, “author stance” means that you, as a player get to participate in writing your character’s story. You know how in, say, World of Darkness, or Shadowrun, your character can have “contacts” in the game world? Usually, the players themselves come up with who these people are, how they know them, and what the relationship is between them. See, that’s author stance right there! The GM then merely needs to take this (player-created) material and work with it. “So you got a contact in the military who you know from your days in the war, right? Okay, he calls you one day and asks if you two could meet. He sounds a bit nervous…”
(as opposed to strictly director stance, where the player would have to request being allowed to take “contacts”, and the GM would come up with who they could be and what they would do…)
Another example for author stance in practice would be a D&D game where the GM asks all players at the start of the campaign: “You’re making 1st-level-chars now, everybody. But I want you all to think about something for me. Where do you want your character to be by level 5? And who will your character have become by level 12? Imagine the archmages, warrior kings, master thieves etc. that you will wanna be, and tell me about them, please…”
(I have actually done this in the past, and let me tell you, it worked wonders for me as a GM to “get” my players’ char concepts, and work with them accordingly over the story. Won’t work so well with pre-made adventure modules, obviously, although it can still be woven in… but works like a charm when you’re coming up with your own story - and is great fun, because really it’s everyone’s story, then.)
I think this is the kind of empowerment that is meant by that claim. So maybe it’s all just a misunderstanding of the term “empowerment”? Or else, I would be sincerely interested to learn how else it could be understood to make this claim “a myth”…
This one is certainly true. If only to a degree, in certain cases.
The thing is, “immersion” is a concept that has been severly doubted by “the indie community”. Considerations such as “does simulationism even exist?” and “is immersion at all possible?” are often heard in those circles…
I for one believe that Immersion is possible, and that it can be great fun. In fact, the traditional approach to RPGing all but builds around that very concept. (“Imagine YOU could be THAT CHARACTER from this immensely cool movie or book you’ve seen/read!” is about the oldest way of explaining what RPGs are that I can remember)
Of course, and that’s where the answer to this question touches upon the previous one, with so many indie games trying to “walk new paths of RPGing”, and focussing so heavily of furthering “author stance” and other things to “enhance the narrative”, Immersion is likely to suffer.
It is especially older indie-games that were notably clumsy in their approach in that respect.
Newer ones, such as DitV or ApocWorld (both by Vince Baker, incidentally), manage to bridge the gap way more efficiently (and/or elegantly) in many cases.
But sure, if part of your attention is on “making this a good story”, you will not be able to focus as fully on “being that character”, similarly perhaps to how many actors don’t like to watch their own movies… after all, reading a good book and writing one, are two very different sorts of fun as well.
Many indie games cater more to the “writing” than they do to the “reading” part, then.
That’s it for right now. I hope I managed to maybe answer a few questions? Got any more for me?
best regards,
Auburney
.
)