Youve been there before. Youre role-playing with a group of friends and you love to get into combat but either the DM doesnt like combat or the rest of the party tries to avoid it. Or it may be the other way around, but you get my point. And inevitably, we gamers all try to figure out how many kinds of gamers there are. Some of us wonder why others put so much focus on character development and even romance, while others wonder how you could not be fascinated with rules and systems.

If we were asked how male and female gamers differ, I think we could come up with a quick set of stereotypical preferences. And now were one step above the simple categorization scheme. Were tying those gaming differences to some trait that is outside of the gaming world. And if we could do that with gender, what would we come up with if we did it with age, how long youve role-played, how introverted you are and other personality factors?

Wouldnt it be interesting if, say, introverted people tend to dislike combat and prefer character development? Isnt that more interesting than just saying that some gamers like combat while others dont? Sitting in front of my college computer, I realized I had the resources to pull off an online study to do just that. And I did.

The study was done under the supervision of a psychology professor at Haverford College. If you are interested in the details of the methods, you can go to my formal online presentation of the study. I will gloss over them here. The study was in two parts - a pilot survey and a questionnaire. I received 102 responses from my survey, realized it would be hard to analyze statistically and then created a questionnaire. I received 225 responses to my questionnaire over 6 days. About 40-50 of my survey respondents also filled out a copy of the questionnaire.

I used 4 personality scales, so there are 8 extremes altogether, as well as the following 3 factors: age, gender, number of years role-playing. I will now present each factor in terms of how they influence gaming behavior. I will also insert quotes from people who replied to both survey and questionnaire to illustrate what I mean. As you read along, remember that very few people are extremes on the personality scales and that these scales interact with each other.

Introversion - Extraversion

The Introvert: Introverts are people who appear reserved and shy in social situations. They are taxed by interactions and thus prefer to be alone or with a small group of friends. Introverts often hide their real personality in real life and put up a façade for the world. In role-playing, they allow their real identities to be expressed in their characters. Because of this, they often choose the same kinds of character classes or character types to role-play. They would find it hard to role-play characters that are too different from who they really are. They dislike the hack-and-slash aspect of role-playing games, but systems of classes and types appeal to them. They probably tend to drift towards the rogue and mage classes.

IE 1/20: In AD&D I used to play only thieves at the beginning because I wanted my characters to be cunning and not just do the hack and slash thing. Then eventually I had one warrior as well just to see if it could be fun too and finally I stuck with mages. I like the idea of a basically very weak character in physical terms who then has magic to defend him/herself. Especially when they are still at a low level they are a challenge to play because they are so weak.

The Extrovert: Extroverts are people who are energized by social interactions. There are usually many people who they can call friends. In role-playing, extroverts find it easy to role-play characters with very different personalities and experiences. Thus, they do not have a preference for one character class over another. They enjoy the hack-and-slash aspect of role-playing, but they would rather be playing in a system that does not base characters on numbers and fixed classes. The main appeal of RPGs for extroverts is the social aspect. They like the opportunity to be able to interact with other people.

IE: 17/20: I actually try to vary my character types. I try to challenge myself with different roles, as opposed to pigeon-holing one type.

IE 17/20: [On what similarities there are between the character and himself] There usually are none. I try to play a different personality, sense of humor, moods, actions than what I would in real life! That is the fun of role playing.

Sensing - Intuitive

The Sensor: Sensors are people who like to learn through their five senses. They want to be able to feel and touch what they are working on. They are down-to-earth and practical. Sensors find it hard to role-play different kinds of characters. They would probably find it hard to connect and immerse themselves in the role-playing world because it is ungrounded and fantastical. In the sample of 225 people, only 10 people scored below the average. Again, this relates to the other findings of gamers being more open, imaginative etc. Because of this, I feel that sensors would probably not enjoy RPGs which is why so few of them were in the sample.

The Intuitive: Intuitives enjoy thinking about what is possible. They enjoy exercising their imaginations and coming up with creative solutions. Intuitives find it easy to be in the shoes of very different characters. They are attracted to RPGs because it allows them to take different perspectives and they find it to be an intellectual challenge. They prefer RPG sessions to be deep and intense and they add emphasis on character and plot development. In taking these developed perspectives, they are able to learn a lot about themselves and they find that they grow as a person through participating in RPGs. Through their characters, they are able to better understand and resolve some of the problems they have in real life.

SN 18/20: yes, I know I learned a lot because I started playing when I was four years old & and most importantly the importance of all perspectives in life. I saw why it was important to have respect because I may start a fight with a friend or get in trouble with my mother and she may “drop a slug on my head”.

SN 18/20: [On RPG Appeal] The role-playing, the fantasy of taking on a persona, developing a history, learning the character inside and out.

Thinking - Feeling

The Thinker: Thinkers are objective and cool-headed. They often pride themselves on being logical, firm-minded and being fair. They believe in standards and universal laws or rules. Thinkers are somewhat detached from the emotional and subtle aspects of the role-playing game. This is because of their objective analytical nature. In a game setting, they are probably the ones who know all the rules and are able to set things straight when the players are not clear on the rules.

TF 5/20: [On Whether People Learn Anything in RPGs] Not really. A lot of Fantasy stuff has very real historical references though.

TF 6/20: [On Character Empathy] Not really. They are interesting constructs, in the same way that a favorite character from a book or movie would be, but my own emotional state is not tied to them or their fate.

The Feeler: Feelers believe that emotions and personal feelings should be accounted for when making decisions. They are soft-hearted and prefer to find common grounds between opposing ideas so that harmony can be achieved. Feelers are able to immerse themselves in their characters. Feelers build characters who are idealized versions of themselves. Because of this, they often find that they become easily attached to their characters and are able to feel their characters pain and joy. They too are attracted to RPGs because of this perspective power but probably more in the emotional aspects. This intense interplay of emotions and personal interactions allows them to learn about themselves in RPGs. They too find that RPGs help them grow and understand their real life problems. Furthermore, they are able to vent their pent-up emotions through their characters. While both intuitives and feelers learn about themselves, they are probably learning different kinds of things. Feelers learn about their own emotions and resolve problems that are emotionally related. Intuitives are probably less specific in this context, and simply enjoy being in someone elses shoes.

TF 19/20: My characters tend to be what I WISH I was in real life… Each of my characters is a different aspect of myself. I have an assassin character, who is very quiet and forceful. I have an elf character who is the woman of many faces, and beneath her masks is really, really insecure. Each of those characters is very like some things I see within myself.

TF 18/20: So I do have a tendency to empathize with my characters (and other people’s characters as well.) I can usually recognize my tendency to become maudlin during a gaming session and I’ll usually excuse myself to use the restroom or get a snack or drink from the kitchen and take those couple of minutes to calm down a bit (choke back the tears) and return to the table.

Judging - Perceiving

The Judger: Judgers are planners and superb project managers. They like things finalized and set, and are not afraid to make decisions. Judgers are often comfortable with their physical appearance. They are attracted to role-playing because of the logistical aspect. They love the elaborate tables and charts and how the game system is built up. They are less likely to be very attached and emotional with their characters, and they have very little trouble with playing a character with the opposite gender. They usually wait and fill in for a missing character class or skill area in the character creation process.

JP 4/20: I’ve always been attracted to the systems. I know real life isn’t something that can be defined by odds so simple that they can be rolled out on d20s or percentiles, but I’m always fond of the attempts to do so. I’m pretty sure I’m the only idiot attracted to quantification of the universe, though.

The Perceiver: Perceivers are spontaneous. They want to let life live and prefer to leave things flexible and open-ended. They are adaptable and go with the flow. Perceivers usually are less comfortable with their physical appearance and would like to be more physically attractive. In role-playing, they create characters who have the physical traits that they would want in real life. They play RPGs because it lets them escape from mundane reality. They tend to be attached to their characters and empathize with them. Part of this comes from venting their pent-up emotions through their characters.

JP 17/20: [On RPG Appeal] I like the freedom involved… I can do whatever I want, and be whatever I want. To get away from reality every once in a while is a great thing. [On player-character comparison] Physically, I try to make my characters what I hope to look like later in life. They resemble me, but are more muscular, and generally two to four inches taller than I am (I am 6′2″, and I like a 6′4-6″ character). I, admittedly, give my characters more facial hair as both a way to assuage my feelings of inferiority in the facial hair area, and an homage to Kevin Nash and many of my role models (My cousin Matt is one of these).

Age

Age: Young role-players are more likely to feel that their characters are closer to who they really are. They are more likely to prefer one kind of character class or type over others, and often base their characters on their own quirks and motivations. They tend to choose character alignments that are different from their own, perhaps both as an act of safe rebellion and trying out different moral perspectives. Young role-players see the RPG as a way to escape from reality and to be immersed in fantasy. Older role-players are usually less consistent in character choice and prefer not to role-play characters that are based on themselves. They are not as drawn to RPGs because of the escapist and fantastical aspects. Instead, they find that RPGs provide a good atmosphere for socializing.

Age 14: [On RPG Appeal] The ability to escape into another world where I can be whatever or whoever I want. I can relieve everyday stress with becoming someone else who’s stress is not only completely different but interesting. [On player-character comparison] They usually are a lot like me. As I stated above I like quick and intelligent characters. The personality is usually what I always would think of saying or doing but never do in reality. My characters are closer to my real personality than what most people see in my facade.

Age 45: [On Character Choice] No, I have a variety of classes and genre. [On alignment comparison] Oh, yes…in AD&D term I consider myself Chaotic Good and I find it easier to portray my own morality. I put a high price on personal freedom but not to the detriment of others.

Gender

Gender: Men in general have role-played for a longer period of time than women. Women tend to be score closer to the Feeler side of the Feeler/Thinker spectrum and usually find themselves more attached to their characters than men do. Women also tend to enjoy the perspective taking aspect of RPGs more than men do. While men prefer RPG sessions to be fun and light-hearted, women prefer them to be deep and intense. Men are more likely to see dice as an integral part of gaming.

Number of Years Role-Playing

Number of Years Playing RPGs: Beginners, like young role-players, tend to base their characters on themselves and have a character class preference. A beginners character often looks physically similar to the player. As a beginner role-plays for longer, their characters often look less and less like them physically. And as time goes on, players find it easier and easier to play a character of the opposite gender. Moreover, beginners are more attached to their characters than RPG veterans. Also, the escapism appeal tends to decrease for veterans. The appeal probably shifts to other areas.

Years 2: [On character choice] Yes; usually a character to do with knowledge. I think it’s because it’s a personality that I’m most familiar with and approve most of. [On player-character comparison] personality-wise, it basically the same version of myself with a few twists (such as being a witch = knowledge of lore and herbs, being a singer, etc.). Usually I have a high charisma and beauty, which I think leans more towards my “ideal” self.

Years 20: I do not stick to any archetypes, enjoying more the attempt to role-play or act different types of characters. I amplify and expand upon little parts of myself with my characters. [On player-character comparison] Extremely variant … too many different characters with too many different morphologies to be very helpful on this question. [On alignment comparison] Of course I align my characters based on my own personal ethical compass. As these beliefs are so core to myself, I think my ethical structures would be the hardest to go against. I am a good enough role-player that I could “act” in a way contrary to my own ethics and might even be able to do it convincingly. But I would not be comfortable and it would certainly be the exception rather than the rule.

The important thing to realize is that people are not introverted or young in a vacuum. They are introverted, intuitive, feeling, judging, young and male at the same time. All these factors influence each other and the players behavior. Clearly, there are also other factors I did not take into account that would also affect the final outcome.

So, how many kinds of gamers are there? Reality has just upped the ante on us. Psychologists have always tried to tell us that personality is chaotically complicated and that the kind of simple categorizations presented in pop psychology books just dont work. But hey, who listens to real psychologists?

Endnotes:

If this article interested you, I encourage you to read a fuller discussion of the results found at my online presentation. I would also appreciate any feedback, ideas for future studies as well as questions or clarifications through email.

References:

- Abeyata, Suzanne; Forest, James (1991). Relationship of Role-Playing Games to Self-Reported Criminal Behavior. Psychological Reports, December 1991, 69, pp. 1187-1192.



- Carroll, James; Carolin, Paul (1989). Relationship between Game Playing and Personality. Psychological Reports, June 1989, pp. 705-706.



- DeRenard, Lisa; Maink Kline, Linda (1990). Alienation and the Game Dungeons & Dragons. Psychological Reports, 1990, 66, pp. 1219-1222.



- Simon, Armando (1987). Emotional stability Pertaining to the Game of Dungeons & Dragons. Psychology in the Schools, October 1987, p. 329-332.

Gaming is one of those hobbies that presents rather daunting obstacles to

the would-be enthusiast. The books can be awfully intimidating and RPGs are

so radically different from other forms of entertainment that it’s hard to

learn how to play them without someone to show you the ropes. Worse yet,

RPGs don’t have the mainstream coverage needed to get them in front of every

person who might be interested in playing them. Most people have only a

vague idea of what Dungeons & Dragons is. So RPGs aren’t the easiest

hobby to get into. Tell me something I don’t know, right?

Well, here’s a thought: what have you done to keep the hobby going? Have you

ever run a demo game? Have you ever given your little cousin or your nieces

and nephews an RPG for Christmas?

A lot of fans like to complain about the state of gaming. They like to moan

that they’re paying more money for less content, that all the good games

never get a large enough fan base to stay in print, that the game companies

owe them something as fans.

Well, what do you owe them?

One time in college, I happened to spy a copy of the old red box D&D

Basic Set on the clearance shelf of the local chain toy store. In a fit

of nostalgia, I picked it up. When I paid for it at the check-out counter

the clerk picked up the box, smiled, and said, “A lifetime of fun for only

$12.”

That really stuck with me. RPGs are important not just because of their

entertainment value but because they teach us that we can be active

participants in the creative process. We don’t have to passively sit back

and accept whatever garbage comes out of the TV. We can map out own worlds,

write our own stories, build something that is ours in the truest sense of

the word. They open our eyes to the stories that we can create. All for the

price of a pizza and a movie.

So I think we do owe the industry something a little bit beyond our hard

earned cash. If we want RPGs to remain a viable industry it’s up to us, the

fans, to keep it going. The next time some small press gem hits the shelves,

run a demo game at your local store. Organize an event at a con, expose more

people to your small press faves. When Christmas and birthdays roll around,

pick up that $10 starter D&D set for those would-be gamers you know. RPGs

taught us the beauty of creation, the wonders of imagination unleashed with

a form and purpose. They liberate us from the shackles of passivity and hand

us the tools of creativity.

Evangelize, preach, convert, let the cat out of the bag and keep it out

there. RPGs are great fun, a wonderful tool for expression and entertainment.

Why wouldn’t you want to spread that to a new generation of gamers?

An often-ignored aspect of role-playing is the music that’s playing in the
background, and that’s often because it’s not actually there. While lack
of background noise can be conducive to roleplaying at some times, and
indeed switching around between CDs and cassettes can be extraordinarily
distracting to a GM, music remains a fundamental part of storytelling, and
the right music can change a game from “what we do on Wednesdays” to “the
story we’re all collectively writing.”

The first trick to use is one stolen from movies and *gasp* CRPGs - get
together with your players and decide on theme music for each character.
This helps a lot in character definition, and when one character comes into
focus, that music helps keep things that way. You can also use this as a
prelude to bringing back an NPC, as having his theme music playing just
before he walks in adds a touch of drama to the scene.

Oddly, this is greatly useful in online games and PBEMs. In a
non-face-to-face setting, naming tracks and themes can help a good deal in
setting a mood; a description of the room the characters are in needs aural
atmosphere as well as visual and tactile surroundings.

The second trick is avoiding the oldies-but-goodies. When you’re in
combat, high-speed pulsing backbeat heavy metal may be appropriate, but
it’s so clichéd it’s disgusting. Try some Holst - Mars works - or perhaps
the Rites of Spring. Combat music doesn’t have to be fast-paced; what it
has to be is forceful. On the other hand, you can use music like Vivaldi’s
“Spring” or the Skaters’ Waltz to make the combat more surreal; this often
works well in fantasy games due to the already-alien nature of the game,
and dark-and-gritty games because of the contrast it provides.

The third trick - related strongly to the second, actually - is using the
soundtrack to either lead your players on or throw them off. Building mood
is extremely appropriate, and the right kind of music might be enough to
convince players and characters that although everything seems fine,
Something’s Not Quite Right Here.

On the flip side, you can use your CDs and tapes to your advantage, “crying
wolf” with tense, pulsing music when nothing’s actually happening. It’s a
psychological trick, and often only good for use on players - but if you’re
a sadistic GM, it’s a lot of fun.

Free Trader EDG, who is way too tired to be writing something like this,
signing off.

Everyone likes to whine about the death of RPGs. Sales are falling, there’s no

new blood coming into the hobby, the total number of gamers is dropping with

each passing year.

So, just what the hell is anyone doing about this?

The biggest hurdle to doing anything about the problem is that newbies, like

some species of birds, are attracted to bright shiny objects. Bright shiny

RPGs are the playground of the big boys, or rather what passes for the big

boys in the RPG world. GW continues to rake in the profits because their games

are particularly nice to look at.

The second biggest hurdle is distribution. You have to make sure that your

game can get out there if you want newbies to buy it.

So that leaves the established companies to convert the heathens. Which is a

little disturbing, because rule #1 of RPG marketing is:

What’s always bothered me about RPGs is that you always see ads for them in

the same two places: Dragon and comic books.

Most RPGs are made with RPG players in mind, not newbies. Of course, every

game has a little song and dance routine about “What is an RPG?” but almost

all of them caution newbies to find a group of established players and learn

from them.

This is why I think so many gamers hate D&D, the game responsible for most

introductions to RPGs: It isn’t made for gamers. The

rules emphasize teamwork (a new concept to most board game players), build on

easily recognizable archetypes (good for people not used to dealing with world

creation), and draw on black and white, good v. evil themes (mirroring most

video games and mass market entertainment). Experienced gamers want none of

that. They’ve grown out of D&D and want something more. Obviously, then, D&D

isn’t their cup of tea.

But someone has to initiate the clueless. TSR is one of the few companies that

makes an active effort to recruit new players. FASA has the right idea, too.

BattleTech and Crimson Skies are both easy to learn, come as complete

packages, and effectively exploit ideas and images accessible to the average

newbie. BattleTech also crosses the divide into the computer game world,

though I always wished that FASA could include a quick-start BattleTech game

with their licensed computer games. TSR is doing exactly that with Blizzard’s

StarCraft and Diablo, packaging both games with an Alternity or D&D mini-game

respectively. TSR also recently released a $10 (!) introductory D&D game. How

many other companies have released similar products?

So here’s the lesson from Uncle Mearls kiddies: thar be newbies in them thar hills!

RPG companies need to make genuine efforts to attract new gamers. Not only

will the industry as a whole benefit, but individual companies stand to

increase both their market share and their total market base.

Start treating RPGs as games and not just fodder for a subculture. You don’t

have to like RPGs or miniatures to like Crimson Skies, you just have to like

airplanes. Content (vampiric machinations, sword and sorcery, cyberpunk) is

more important than media (RPG, board game, miniatures game). Market the

content; don’t handcuff yourself to the media. I’d love to see someone hawking

a horror RPG at Fangoria’s Weekend of Horrors in Manhattan. Will that ever happen?

“Bang, you’re dead.” “Nope, you missed me.” “No, I didn’t.”

That’s the classic example of why we put rules in our games - to settle disputes and to give everyone a level playing field. But it’s also an example of the story affecting the ‘rules’ of the game.

The person being shot at could have responded all sorts of ways to justify his continued existence - “Bounced off my Titanium Armor”, or “You can’t see me, I’m invisible” or even “The bullet goes right through this holographic simulation of me.” The point is that the background story of the game can and should dictate how the rules work within the story.

Now, it’s possible to have a game without benefit of story (Chess, for example), and stories can be told without a game behind them. By far, however, the standard in the adventure gaming industry is to combine them; mechanics are set based on the story, and story pulls together all of the mechanics. Even the name “Adventure gaming” combines the two elements of story and mechanics.

Two of the big styles of games right now are Collectible Card Games (CCGs), and Role-Playing Games (RPGs). There really isn’t anyone out there that would argue that they represent the two sides of that spectrum between stories and game mechanics. Certainly, RPGs focus more heavily on the world and background as the players work together to create an interesting story. In RPGs, winning tends to be a fairly nebulous concept, and character development (and thus story development) is truly the primary goal. CCGs, however, have a much greater focus on winning. Because of that focus, the mechanics which keep the playing-field level are much more important than they are in an RPG.

However, neither mechanics nor story works best without the other. The best games have a interesting and absorbing world that draws in the players and a set of rules that enhance rather than distract from that world, while still providing the balance of a good set of mechanics.

But what happens when a CCG becomes and RPG? What happens when an RPG becomes a CCG? I’ve been fortunate enough to have been the lead designer on two CCGs - Legend of the Five Rings and Deadlands: Doomtown. For those that are unfamiliar with these two worlds, Legend of the Five Rings (L5R) is set in the empire of Rokugan - a fantasy version of feudal Japan, and Deadlands is set just after the civil war in the U.S. except that magic, mad scientists, and zombies fight for control and the ‘wild west’ has become the ‘weird west’.

When we began the design of L5R, we knew that we had to be different somehow. The CCG market had peaked and was beginning it’s descent. Games were starting fail where before any CCG that came along was making money hand-over-fist. One of our first goals was to build the world along with the cards. Rather than a game where the players had nebulous goals, we wanted our players to be able to answer the basic “Ws” of Journalism while they played their games. “Who am I”? “Why am I fighting this person”? “Where are we”? “What are we fighting about”? If the players had those questions in mind while they were playing, then the story of the game would answer itself, but if even one of those questions couldn’t be answered, then the game would be as abstract as moving pieces around the board in Risk or Monopoly.

To answer all of those questions, there had to be some large back-story within which all of the “mini-conflicts” that the players would be playing would make sense. Even in the beginning of development of the CCG, we knew that we would need to do as much world development on the CCG as companies typically spend on their RPGs. So, that’s where we started. We actually spent the first month of development of the CCG without any mechanics or cards; we only worked on the world of Rokugan and the people in it. So, when we were ready to work on the actual card game, we already had a detailed and (hopefully) interesting world to set it in.

Then, over the next couple of years, as we continued to develop the card game, the world got more and more detail added to it. Three years later, when we finally began developing the L5R RPG, we actually had more detailed story information than we could possibly fit into a core rulebook. It was simply a matter of deciding on which information to pass along in the first book, and what to save for future books. After that, we chose a set of mechanics that we thought fit the style and flavor of Rokugan, and sent the book to press. Possibly the easiest core RPG that anyone has ever written, just because we had spent 3 years getting ready to write it.

Just a little while later, we got the contract to design a CCG set in the Deadlands world. This was an entirely different design problem than the L5R CCG had been. This time, we were playing in someone else’s sandbox. Also, their sandbox had a whole bunch of rules we weren’t allowed to break. Now, those rules made the sandbox very cool, but they presented two very distinct issues.

First of all, unlike the L5R CCG, we didn’t have complete control over the world - the rules had already been written in Deadlands and we couldn’t just do whatever we wanted to. One example of this was that originally, we were designing spells to work like action cards - you play the card using a spell-caster, but then it goes to the discard pile. When the guys at Pinnacle (the owners and original developers of the Deadlands RPG and world) saw that, they gave us a call and we had to change it - spells would attach to the spell caster so that they could use them over and over again.

On the other side of the same coin, however, is that all of the rules and the world that Pinnacle had developed were so cool and interesting that it also made our job easier. We didn’t have to decide why magic worked, or how zombies were walking around, or what people would be fighting for in the CCG - Pinnacle’s world had already created the “Who, what, where and why” that would put players smack into the middle of an exciting story when they sat down to play the card game. It became our job simply to make the rules that would keep the CCG fun to play.

We knew from the beginning that we wanted to have mechanics that immediately gave over the feel of the old west. The initial design work on the game was done by Matt Wilson and Matt Staroscik before they left to follow some new opportunities for them. They left a terribly sound foundation that we built on both in story and mechanics. It had been decided that we would be working within one little boomtown in the corner of the Deadlands world. While the ‘rules’ of Deadlands were in place there, we could basically do whatever we wanted within the tiny town of Gomorra. It was a good arrangement, giving us a degree of freedom without risking any of the stories that Pinnacle was developing outside of northern California.

Because the back story was a Boomtown, the obvious “why” was answered - lots and lots of money (money in this case being the mysterious ‘ghost rock’ fuel that makes the world of Deadlands go). The “what” gave us our winning condition - control of the town. Once we knew we wanted control of the town to be the focus, we had to find a way to gain control of the town. Besides just influence, this being the old west, we had to have gunfights all the time and they had to be fun.

Fortunately, just about everyone out there has played Poker, so we were able to get away with a combat mechanic that is actually relatively complex, but is really easy to teach people - they already know it! Everything after that was details, and incorporating the long-term story into the characters and events of the game. In the end, we were very happy with the results and Pinnacle was pleased with our handling of their ‘baby’ - everybody won.

Both of these worlds, Legend of the Five Rings and Deadlands, are entire properties at this point - they each have a Collectible Card Game, Role Playing Game, and Miniatures Game line going strong and each of them is developing into other areas as well. Each of those games has to fit together for the story to stay cohesive. A duel is a duel. A gunfight is a gunfight. When the story and the mechanics enhance each other, you’ve got a game that’s really fun to play. When they don’t, it’s time to go back to “Bang, I gotcha”.

-David Williams is the driving force behind the Legend of the Five Rings CCG and RPG, and the Doomtown CCG. Just don’t call him out for a shootout at High Noon.

While it might seem rather trifling to some, recent references to Role-Playing Games as "table-top" RPGs disturbs me. What do those people who refer to actual RPGs with the unnecessary appellation, "table-top" mean? What are they trying to do? If one plays with a group on the internet is it then "monitor-stand RPGing?" If seated in the living room "armchair RPGing?" Patently this is foolish. So as to establish the groundwork for the insidious attempt at name stealing by a certain element, let us now go back over the history of the Role-Playing Game.

The first formal RPG was published in 1974. Before that, folks called such games "Let’s Pretend" or "cops & Robbers" and the like. The latter versions of the RPG lacked form and substance, though. Actually, as they had no rules at all, and nothing else but the imagination of the players, they were and remain likely the purest form of role-playing, but let’s not go down that path… So the commercial RPG has been with us for 25 years and counting.

Now what is it that constitutes an RPG? Pretty easy. It has a Game Master who sets up the environment and manages all within it, alters and expands it as necessary. It has players who create game personas, their character for assumption of the role designated by its statistics. The players, through their game avatars, then interact with each other and the environment to explore, discover, solve problems, overcome obstacles, and grow progressively more able thus. Random probability, chance if you will, plays a continual part in the adventures of the characters in the make-believe environment. The game itself has no winner per se. It has no conclusion. It ends only when the participants—notably the Game Master—cease playing. That defines an actual RPG well enough, I should think.

If the game form is taken to the internet, it can indeed be played online, or through messages, and this does not alter its basic form or structure. Such play is certainly RPG activity, as I am sure you will agree.

Something entirely wrong is occurring, however. Those offering a much lesser and entirely inferior form of semi-role-playing seem to be attempting a coup-de-main. That is, the computer game industry has attempted to seize the RPG name, apply it to their electronic products, and pass them off as actual RPG. While such products have certain elements of real role-playing, they are not actually valid RPGs as has been defined by a quarter-century of play. They are Computer RPGs, or CRPGs.

CRPGs lack a thinking and responsive Game Master that can alter the course of play as called for by players’ needs. While some wags in the electronic games industry might suggest that this is often true in "live" GMs, I suggest you ignore such rude comments as I have become accustomed to doing.

CRPGs have limited character creation scope, as their Game Master, the memory chip, has no imagination, and can not manage more than a very limited number of choices for the players’ game personas to make, actions to perform. Again, some wags in the actual RPG field have suggested this is mainly a problem with the capacity of designers and programmers. However, most of those same detractors are notorious LARPERS, so need more be said?

The whole CRP "Game" is likely little more than a most restricted and limited adventure scenario, or maybe a mass-murder-mess (MMM, sometimes called MUD, MOO, etc,). It ends when it ends…you "beat" the machine or get tired of dying horribly. Even in the best of the so-called multi-user CRPGs, the player’s character activities are prescribed and must, perforce, then become repetitive. There is no room for growth and change, of course, and no Artificial Intelligence is likely to enable that soon. Real, Game Mastered multi-player RPGs run online do not fall into this category—at least too often, I am assured by some.

CRPGs allow "cheating." In theory at least, RPGs do not. Forget the few games with young players whose characters have levels of at least twice their years of age, or whose skills surpass that of the most accomplished person ever known in a dozen different specialties. Remember, "beginner’s luck" is the likely reason for this. CRPGs are flawed. RPGs are not.

Finally, can you imagine a CRPG that goes on forever? Not likely! The poor benighted persons playing it would never survive. While one might spend days and weeks doing little else but playing so as to "beat the game", months and years are right out.

In summation, let is be clear that the CRPG is not now, and will not likely be in the foreseeable future, a real RPG.

Now we come back to the matter of "table-top", odious as it surely is.

Do the publishers of actual RPGs point to those garishly illustrated but pale imitations of their real products and call them "view-screen" RPGs? I should say not! Unthinkable. They are managed by a computer program, so that are best identified as Computer Role-Playing Games. The CRPG form cane well after the actual RPG, and it is a limited (cramped, crimped, curtailed) form of true role-playing, no? It is the CRPG, then, that must accept a nominative before the RPG, not the progenitor, and currently only actual, form of RPGing.

Should the weight of masses of ignorant participants in this lesser form of RPG activity be taken into account in this matter. Never! Put any who champion this to the test by asking: "Just to whom is it that you play your role, pray tell? Do you speak eloquently to the monitor?" Ha! You’ll have them then. There is no role-playing at all in the CRPGs, let it be trumpeted. They are nothing but vehicles for role-assumption play. All those big-money types producing such inferior imitations of the RPG should be tickled pink that the community of real RPGers, publishers and players alike, haven’t forced that appellation upon their products. Rather than CRPGs, they might be offering RAGs. So think about that, all you computer guys!

My advice to all the players of true RPGs is to stand firm. Hold your ground. Never agree to add any word before the name of your game. Let the foe beware. They have (clearly late-coming, lesser, inferior, limited) CRPGs, and we have (real, actual, authentic, full-scale, wonderful, real-live-human-GM) RPGs.

On the other hand, remember to be nice. CRPGs even as marginally role-playing as they are, seem to be fun, and are getting better all the time. When real "intelligence" is available in computers, when the chip adds to its own memory and programs on its own, then the days of the second-rate GM are over. When the computer is akin to that on the Starship enterprise, and a "holodeck" is available for RPG activity, perhaps we might be willing to surrender the title RPG, admit that its (still loyal) adherents play "Old Fashioned RPGs". Then again, I noticed the other night that they were playing military miniatures on the table top in Deep Space Nine, so…

-Gary Gygax is a long time member of the gaming community.

We’ve all been there. You know, that cold, dark past that persists as a fleeting, painful memory in our matured, wizened brains. A time in our life in which we did and said things that just don’t hold up to our revised moral standards. Yes indeed, we’ve all lived in the past as a NUMBER GAMER.

A Number Gamer is a player who pursues winning and success in such a single-minded procession that all other facets of the gaming experience are relegated to the back seat. Role-playing, accuracy, and even fun are sad victims of the Number Gamer. The Number Gamer sees only the raw statistics of the system they are playing (be it miniatures wargaming or role-playing). The Number Gamer chooses characters or troops rarely because of their inherent richness of background or depth, but always instead on exactly how the numbers stack up. The Number Gamer feverishly pursues maximized efficiency.

This article serves two purposes: for recovering Number Gamers to be reminded again that the sordid ways of their shadowed past are unacceptable, and for current Number Gamers to be shown the error of their ways and see the steps forward to a more rewarding gaming life. First, let me illustrate the Number Gamer more in depth; then I will discuss the ways and joys of kicking the habit.

Before I go on, though, let me clarify: I am not a pompous Old-Guard gamer speaking on a pedestal to those with which I have nothing in common. At least not totally! I, in fact, have lived a sad past as a Number Gamer. I have been down that desolate road that dead ends in lonely nights spent at the kitchen table with a calculator, army lists, and Jolt.

However, I am breathing testimonial that even those deeply rooted in the Number Gaming ways have a chance at recovery.

Now I will illustrate the Number Gamer with some examples for both role-playing and wargaming.

THE ROLE PLAYING NUMBER GAMER-AD&D EXAMPLE #1

18/00 Strength. That says it all. If you are a Number Gamer, then anything less is nearly unacceptable. 18/98 is “OK”. 18/70 is barely passable. 18/30 is positively scrawny. Raw 18-ewww! 17 or less is the strength of an invalid. At 15 strength, mere ants and tse-tse flies are your equal. A 12 means that the character must be torn up or sacrificed at the earliest opportunity.

Any self-respecting Number Gamer will only be happy with a minimum of 2 18’s and the rest of his scores being 15 and above.

Chances are, the above sort of hits a nerve with many of you. That means one of three things: you are a Number Gamer, you’ve been a Number Gamer, or you are feeling called to be a Number Gamer. In any case, keep reading…

THE ROLE PLAYING NUMBER GAMER-AD&D EXAMPLE #2

The two-handed sword. I don’t know about your gaming experiences, but many of the past AD&D campaigns I’ve played are littered with two-handed swords. Every self-respecting fighter has one. Heck-even mages covet them, they just can’t usually wield them effectively. Most peasants carry them instead of pitchforks, it seems.

Why the universal interest in the two-handed sword? Because it does the most damage, of course! I mean, why choose a lesser weapon? You’d just be giving away damage for no reason! Longswords only do 1-8/1-12, which just isn’t enough. Battle-axes and warhammers??? 1-8…2-5…yeah right, like you’d be caught dead using one of those (unless of course it was +5-then maybe).

THE WARGAMING NUMBER GAMER-WARHAMMER EXAMPLE

When playing a customizable miniatures battle game, the first thing a Number Gamer will do when looking over the available army lists is head straight for the stats. Every army exists only as a series of small 1 row x 10 column tables that have little numbers in them. Before choosing an army, a Number Gamer will assess all tables from all armies and determine which army has the best value. Once an army is selected, the Number Gamer will further determine his troops solely on the basis of what their stats are and how each troop relates to each other troop. Finally, at the end, he will fill in the names of the units and see what kind of army he has ended up with.

THE NUMBER GAMER IN PLAY

Generally, a Number Gamer in play can be heard uttering one of the following choice phrases: