REALMS OF MÀGIA: EXPLORING ROLEPLAYING GAMES AS INTERACTION DESIGN SYSTEMS A thesis submitted to the Kent StAte University Honors College in partiAl fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors by Austin J. Reitz MAy, 2019 Thesis written by Austin J. Reitz Approved by _____________________________________________________________________, Advisor _____________________________________________________________________, Director, School of Visual CommunicAtion Design Accepted by ___________________________________________________, DeAn, Honors College ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES…..………………………………………………………………….iv LIST OF TABLES………..………………………………………………………………v ACKNOWLEDGMENT…………………………………………………..……………..vi CHAPTER I. WHAT ARE ROLEPLAYING GAMES?………………………...………1 II. WHY MAKE ANOTHER ROLEPLAYING GAME? ……….…………..5 III. INTENT FOR A NEW GAME……………………………………………9 IV. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW GAME………………………………….11 V. MEANING AND APPLICATION………………………………………37 VI. FUTURE ITERATIONS………………………………………………...39 REFERENCES…..............................................................................................................43 APPENDIX 1. FIGURES………………………………………………………………...46 2. TABLES…………………………………………………………………52 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Character Sheet Attempt PAge 1…………………………………………………46 Figure 2. Character Sheet Attempt PAge 2...……………………………………………….47 Figure 3. Character Sheet Attempt PAge 3…………………………………………………48 Figure 4. Character PAmphlet Prototype Interior 1………………………………………...49 Figure 5. Character PAmphlet Prototype Interior 2………………………………………...50 Figure 6. Character PAmphlet Prototype Skills Interior……………………………………51 iv LIST OF TABLES TAble 1. Number of VAriAbles Required for PlAy by Open GAme License RoleplAying GAmes …….………………………………………………..52 v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I must thank my thesis advisor, Prof. JessicA Barness. Her guidance And insight have been essentiAl to the development of this project. I would also like to thank my oral defense committee, Dr. Cristin Compton, Dr. Suzy D’EnbeAu, and Prof. DAvid Roll, for their willingness to participate and support. I would also like to express gratitude to Prof. DouglAs Goldsmith for the guidance and critique of my illustrations for this thesis. I am grateful for the assistAnce of JAckie, KAtie, Ollie, Corinne, Jake, Leah, Vanessa, Jaron, Alex, Sam, Max, and all my other friends and classmates who beta tested, completed surveys, and listened to me try to explain what I have been doing for the past eighteen months. Every moment of their time and friendship has helped me immeasurably. LAst but certAinly not leAst, I would like to thank author Art SpiegelmAn. We met but once after a tAlk of his, but he offered a smAll bit of truth: in order to connect with a narrative, you must project upon it. This phrase has been essentiAl to my understAnding of my thesis, and I am grateful to him for sharing it with me. vi 1 WHAT ARE ROLEPLAYING GAMES? RoleplAying games cAn be defined imperfectly as collAborative pretending with rules. Pretending occurs within a Shared ImAgined Space (SIS) between two or more individuals, split into two groups of participants: game mAsters (GMs) and plAyer characters (PCs). The SIS is the mAde-up continuity agreed upon by all participants (EdwArds et al., 2004). The game mAster estAblished context and conflict, serving as both narrator and referee. The game mAster controls all elements of a game’s setting, including every person or being the other participants mAy meet, cAlled non-plAyer characters (NPCs). Non-GM plAyers embody plAyer characters, unique and typicAlly multi- dimensional characters who exist solely within the SIS between plAyer and game mAster. The SIS is described by the game mAster And acted upon by the plAyers. Without these two types of plAyers, the game could not function. In the quintessentiAl roleplAying game Dungeons & Dragons, eAch plAyer assumes the role of a fictitious fantAsy genre person and they behave as that person in the context of the game in a SIS. The plAyer mAkes decisions and engages with other characters as if they are not themselves. This is roleplAying, though it is known by other names, such as pretending and improvisAtional theAtre. Alternatively, plAying a role is derived from lAck of choice in what role one is plAying. For example, hidden role games such as Ultimate Werewolf And Donner Dinner Party Assign plAyers a random role which they must Assume in order to win the game. Since the plAyers have no wAy of knowing what role 2 they are about to plAy as before they stArt, they are not as invested in the character as if they had chosen their own if they mAke their own character choices such as in D&D, selecting one’s clAss, species, alignment, and mAking mAny other choices. Rather, the investment comes from survival: the continued experience of the game, rather than from who they embody as a plAyer. Some people mAy be allured by the random aspects of these games but given the lAck of character choice and improvisAtional acting, hidden role games and their ilk are not roleplAying games. A more appropriAte cAtegory for them could be designated as “role + plAying”, due to the plAyer characters having set behaviors, typicAlly survival or deception. However, it is possible to plAy a roleplAying game as role + plAying, in order to generate a simulAtionist experience. For example, if one were to creAte a stereotypicAl barbariAn character in Dungeons & Dragons, they mAy not reAlly wAnt to embody that character, but for the simulAtion of smAshing things within the SIS. This is a not to sAy simulAtionism is an invalid experience within roleplAying games. Rather, simulAtionism is one aspect of being multifaceted group of experiences offered by roleplAying games. Ron EdwArds, the game designer and theorist behind the Sorcerer roleplAying game, wrote of three creAtive agendas in his Big Model of roleplAying games, though he argues that the three are mutually exclusive (2001). In the Big Model, a creAtive agenda is a reAson for A plAyer to participate in a roleplAying game that relAtes specificAlly to the SIS the game occupies. The three creAtive agendas theorized by EdwArds are gamism, 3 narrativism, and simulAtion. Reductively, gamism is the desire to win. GAmist games typicAlly have logic puzzles or some other meAns of testing the plAyers, which is meAsured through probability affected by the stAtistics of the plAyers, such as stAts and Abilities. NArrativist games are identified by their structure facilitAting questions from the plAyers in cAusing and enabling them to answer them through the narrative of the game. As mentioned above, simulAtionist games are about exploring the context of the game within the SIS. EdwArds posits that plAyers with different creAtive agendas will not gel well within the sAme game: their goals are far too disparate to be accounted for by the game mAster. This assessment fails to tAke into consideration how the individual elements of eAch creAtive agenda are necessAry to form a fully reAlized game. A gAmist creAtive agenda is necessAry in order to produce conflict that presents a quantifiAble challenge within the mechanicAl framework of the game. A narrativist agenda is necessAry in order to motivate plAyers specificAlly through their characters to navigate through the SIS. A simulAtionist Approach is necessAry to give flesh and feeling to the plAyer characters as well as the NPCs they encounter. Without these individual elements, a game would either have no mechanic for resolution, thus not being a game, or would not immerse plAyers in the story, thus cAusing them to stop participating. In this thesis, I posit that roleplAying should be treAted like the original roleplAying: pretending. Pretending is inherently narrativist: one imAgines a problem or question and 4 the story tAkes off from there. It proceeds into simulAtionist territory, exploring the imAgined space (not a Shared ImAgined Space due to the experience being limited to just one individual) and experiencing the context of the adventure. In a solitAry imAgined context, success and failure are determined by the pretender, And there is no meAsure of probability through an existent tool. However, in collAborative imAginings, such as roleplAying games, there must be an external meAsure of success to ensure eAch participant remAins within the SIS and that conflict cAn be resolved through an unbiAsed methodology. This meAsure of success is typicAlly done through dice, cArds, tiles, or some other tAngible interface. The three creAtive agendas work together, forming story, exploration, and challenge, eAch being hallmArks of the medium. Of course, there mAy be problems with plAyers not having the sAme goals within the context of a game, but that is not a fault of the system. The game mAster cAn attempt to remedy such a problem by providing the creAtive agenda elements that the plAyers crave within the sAme context. An ideAl system should facilitAte this use, estAblishing rules and guidelines for the game mAster in order to reduce inter-plAyer conflict cAused by conflicting creAtive agendas. 5 WHY MAKE ANOTHER ROLEPLAYING GAME? Since the publicAtion of the Dungeon Master’s Guide for Dungeons & Dragons’ fifth edition (D&D5e) in 2014, the populAtion of people plAying roleplAying games has more than tripled (HAll, 2017). According to online roleplAying game hosting site Roll20, D&D5e mAkes 60.88% of all plAyed games, a number which is growing by 3% eAch business quarter (Bigbee, 2018). These reports of course exclude games plAyed without