From: ajross@husc9.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dark games
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:49:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc9.ajross.711780546

Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:


>Chic logos aside, I think that this reflects a bit of maturity in the
>world of game design.  Role playing games are finally realizing that
>they aren't just glorified wargames.  The central struggle in RPGs is
>often good versus evil.  In the past, characters fought evil opponents. 
>Why were they evil?  Because the Know Alignment spell said so.  Evil was
>usually much more variable than good; there are thousands of evil
>monsters.  But the struggle against evil was always a tactical one.

>Eventually players began to yawn, ready to face down Yet Another Evil
>Wizard.  Some GMs, and eventually some game designers, responded to the
>challenge by making the opponents more interesting.  This was
>accomplished by;
>(1) Make the "evil" forces noticeably evil.  This requires a little bit
>of psychology about why people do what they do, and how "good" men can
>allow evil to gain the upper hand.  It also requires you to introduce
>some background features that may not be suitable for children.
>(2) Make the evil forces powerful.  If the good guys felt that all they
>needed to do to win was run good tactical, that's all they'd do.  The
>players have to know that, if they make the wrong move, the forces of
>evil possess the power to crush them utterly.
>(3) Make their choices ambiguous.  If the path to evil is clearly
>marked, the path to good is much less so.  Even when the players know
>what to do there should some ambiguity.  Why am I struggling when the
>penalties for a misstep are so severe?  Why do I bother when all my
>efforts will only delay the inevitable victory a few years?  The GM may
>even want to say that there is no good, only a few people who are called
>evil by others; but here I think your players will disagree (there's a
>strong romantic streak among RPGers).

>This is the origin of "Dark" games.  It's harder to run, but when it
>works its a lot better than the run-of-the-mill fantasy.  And these new
>games are dedicated to making it work.  Well, some of them.  CoC and
>WFRP are the founders of the genre and the two masters.  I don't know
>about Dark Sun; with the right GM it could be very good Dark Fantasy;
>without proper GM intervention its just advanced tactical.  Cyberpunk
>2020 is definitely dark, Shadowrun less so.  Dark Conspiracy would work
>if it plays like the novels read.  Ars Magica could be played dark, but
>it's not meant to be so played, graphics aside.  Vampire is a dark game
>that can truly question your faith in good, definitely too intense for
>most players and GMs.

>Sorry if this was an in-depth response to what was meant as a fluff
>thread. I do that sometimes.

	This is a recreational newsgroup; I fail to see how anything
entertaining could be considered inappropriate, as long as it dealt with
RPGs. I find your arguments sensible, although I don't see how "dark"
games are the natural outgrowth of the factors you mentioned. 
	Most of what you talked about dealt with the psychological factors
which were not a part of early FPRG. I agree that some degree of
plausibility would inevitably be demanded by gamers. What I fail to see is
how "dark" games accomplish this any better than "light" games would.
	The "dark darkness" that has fallen over the gaming world is not
the legacy of a desire for realism and plausibility. It is a reaction to a
re-molded hero stereotype. I find Cyberpunk and the rest as trite as
Dungeons and Dragons; they are just as hackneyed, if a bit more timely.
Optimism is "out" in RPGs not because optimism is less realistic but
because pessimism is more popular. "Dark" games may seem deep, but any
rational analysis of them will show that that this depth comes from
societal trends it associates itself with, not with the characters themselves.
	The trend is not limited to roleplaying games: compare the Batman
movies with the Superman movies of the early eighties. It might be
economically caused... it could just as well be fashion. Batman is no more
realistic because he has serious psychological and moral difficulties; if
anything, more of us are more like the Superman mold (i.e., more or less
capable of dealing.) But society now venerates a different kind of hero;
perhaps with the absence of an external threat, we have become afraid of
the evil in "ourselves". I will hold off on my speculations. Suffice it to
say that "darkness" attracts the gamer of the nineties.
	Psychological depth was and remains the province of the individual
designer and player. I do not see dark games being played with any more
flair than their predecessors. The modern systems (even for non-dark
games) do encourage more roleplay, but that is a factor of the evolution
of the hobby, and will probably outlast the fascination with darkness.
	As a disclaimer, I too have my fascination with dark things. I've
found a kind of play that I like; it isn't as dark as is currently
popular, but it is darker than previous fads. I personally think that the
dark games have overdone darkness, stylized it to the point of silliness,
and so I find the "Dark Darkness" lampoons very funny! :)

Edward P. Ross
ajross@husc.harvard.edu