There has been some talk on various blogs lately about the 'Endgame' in Role Playing Games. Generally speaking, by 'RPGs', what they are primarily referring to is Dungeons & Dragons or one of its brethern. As such, it should come to no one's surprise that I don't share quite the same view point as others do.
Go figure.
I've been playing table top RPGs since the Summer of 77' and the first time I ever heard the term 'Endgame' was very likely the Fall of 2004. This was when I tried my first Massive Multiplayer Online RPG (which was City of Heroes by the way).
See, I was always under the impression, naive as it may seem today, that there was no 'Endgame' for table top, pencil-paper-dice RPGs. That was partly the point of them actually. Sure, some games have and even need an 'Endgame', like Chess or World of Warcraft, where you have essentially won or achieved sufficient success to the point where there is nothing else to do. How could that possibly happen in an true RPG?
Additionally, even MMORPGs have Endgame Content. That is, once you reach the maximum level achievable in a game, there is still stuff to occupy your time without making up a new character. We don't have that automatically in traditional RPGs by their very nature? Isn't there still stuff for a high level PC to do in your campaigns?
First, let's truly define 'Endgame' shall we?
According to Wikipedia:
End game is the ending scenario of a particular game; when and how it will end, most prominently used in chess. Derived from that Endgame, Endgames, or End Game may refer to:
- The final stage of an extended process or course of events.
- (chess) The part of a chess game in which there are few pieces left.
OK, so now that we know what an Endgame is, do traditional RPGs have them?
While it is true that Class and Level based games often define a top or maximum level, many also have an experience point system pattern that is easily extrapolated to raise PC levels 'beyond the maximum'.
Putting levels aside, assuming you are playing a game with a maximum listed level of 11 (original edition of Advanced D&D) or 20 (D&D 3.0) and you and your fellow players have all reached that level with your PCs, does that mean you're done. Is there no 'Endgame Content'?
Check this out from the World of Warcraft Wiki regarding Endgame Content:
In most MMORPGs, this occurs when the players hit the maximum level or skill and look for new ways to keep themselves busy now that they're off the levelling treadmill.
In EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot for instance, the part of the end-game consists of hours of raiding extremely challenging locations in an attempt to earn prestige, alternate advancement points, and "phat lewt". Meridian 59, Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Shadowbane, and World of Warcraft all attempt to provide an end-game consisting of PvP activities: you have nothing to lose, no real risk, and can gain prestige by killing other challenging players.
Historically, a game company without a solid plan for an end-game risks alienating its player base. The end-game should grow and change over time, to keep things interesting for the players who still enjoy participating after "winning the game."
The term "End-game" is not entirely accurate considering that World of Warcraft is a multiplayer world and does not "end" in the same sense as a traditional video game. It merely refers to the most challenging content.
Endgame Content has been notably expanded with the release of the latest expansion as of this writing, The Mists of Pandaria.
Now then, what I am really getting at is this...
At one point in D&D's history it was not uncommon for a high level PC to set up a castle, attract followers and before long he or she would be ruler of their own little domain. Two questions pop into my mind. The first is, "What happened to that?", which I'm sure has been answered at some point by James Mal at GROGNARDIA or Jeff Rients. The second and more important question to me is, "And then what happened?".
A story can certainly end (and many of the best ones do) but there is no reason a game should ever have to end. Post castle and land development your D&D campaign isn't over but rather just beginning in a different format. It is now a political and economic game with resource management and military strategy elements. Sadly, I don't think the makers of D&D ever really developed that game but should have as a continuation of the game they had.
While I intend to go into this in further detail next month (Barking Alien is turning traitor in December and focusing on his D&D campaign universe for the entire month!), I will say that this not only happened in one of my D&D-But-Not campaigns, it has happened repeatedly.
Also, numerous players have retired PCs in order to play their offspring, proteges or simply heroes in their employ. Many times players will switch between playing their original PC, now a high level, powerful and prestigous patron and their much less experienced character, newly employed by the aforementioned mover and shaker.
In this way, characters played as far back as 30 years ago are still active in some fashion. They're not gone, their story isn't over. They command armies, lead nations and assemble new adventurers for various quests. My world of Aerth has continued with roughly the same continuity (though we do sometimes jump around the timeline a bit) since 1983. If my ex-wife or any of my old friends showed up at my game table this Saturday that could play their old characters, their characters' kids or any number of other characters in an ever continuing saga of this world and it's people.
To me, there simply is no end game.
AD
Barking Alien
"No one wants to be ugly."
This statement, simple, straightforward and general though it may be, can pretty much be held as a basic truism. While what constitutes beauty and ugliness may vary from culture to culture, it is the culture of role playing gamers I am concerned with here.
I have heard the above phrase uttered and paraphrased numerous times in my life but the last time was by my good buddy Dave, who was referring to World of Warcraft and other Massive Multiplayer Online RPGs.
In those games, the bulk of the player community (which is young and male regardless of the total demographic which includes many women and older players of both genders), prefers to play which ever side has the Humans, Elves, Dwarves and other traditional 'Good Guy' races of Fantasy. World of Warcraft is a particularly interesting example of this, since the story behind the game has the Alliance (Initially made up of Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes and generally thought of as the good guys) being real a**holes, while the Horde (the bad guys - Orcs, Trolls, the Undead and the Minotaur-like Tauren) are very honorable and spiritual in many ways.
The Alliance PCs outnumber the Horde PCs by quite a bit on many servers. Why? Well, mainly 'cause people want to play the 'heroes'. But...according to the plot of the game, the Alliance aren't necessarily the heroes. Each side has done both right and wrong by the world, themselves and each other. Maybe it's because people, being Human, want to play Humans. It's easier. Logical reason if there ever was one...for table top RPGs but not necessarily MMOs. Could the reason be...
"No one wants to be ugly." No one wants their character, their avatar, the representation of themselves in their fantasy world to be less than amazingly handsome or beautiful?
You see pretty much the same attitude in table top games. Most players I've encountered play Humans and Elves, with a lesser number as Dwarves and Halflings and finally Gnomes and Half-Orcs. Dwarves get away with being more on the ugly side since they are also tough and sometimes portrayed as humorous. Few want to be Gnomes who aren't as cute and "Aw shucks" as Halflings.
In Science Fiction, especially Star Trek, the camp is really divided. Most people I have spoken to on the subject say the same thing, their campaign crews are largely Human with a smattering of Vulcans, Andorians and the occasional Orion (you'd be surprised how many women I've met and known who want to be Green Orion Women is a Star Trek game - more on that another time - but it does fit my hypothesis - people want to play what they believe to be attractive characters).
Now, this statement is a generalization. Of course people, men and women, younger players and experience veterans, play strange and even ugly looking characters. Usually it's because that species has some cool ability or interesting background. Klingons are popular with many Star Trek fans but (and I apologize to the Klingon contingent waiting just off my port bow) they really aren't very good looking.
Now my players, at least those I have had very successful games with in the past, have been very different. Eager to get into the head and other body parts ("Eh?" - I mean explore the exobiology of... - "Eh?!" - Quit it will you!) of an alien species and culture, we see our fair share of real weirdies.
While Andorians are my favorite Star Trek alien, I myself have played a Kazarite (the last alien in the image at top going left to right). The first of the aliens in the image above, the Chelarian or Rigellian Chelon has been played by a number of players in my games (people just like turtles I guess) and my good, and very much missed friend, Allen is especially adapt at playing bizarre and obsure Star Trek species such as the three armed, three legged Edoans (now renamed the Triexians) and the squid-like Xelatian.
So what do you think? How much does the aesthetics of a species play a part. Rather, how Human does a species need to be for you to want to play it? Does it matter? Why does it matter? Is it purely ego? After all, how many people out there are getting their PCs involved in romantic relationships with the opposite sex (or heck, the same sex...or heck, the sexless exchange of spore pods...)?
More on aliens coming up...
AD
Barking Alien
If the people who created Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition had half the creativity of this fellow, the game would have been genius.
Age of Ravens proves what I have been saying for some time now and shows just what some 'out of the box', indie game thinking can do for a classic old school concept.
D&D 4E isn't a poor RPG because it added MMO elements to it's make up. It's a poor RPG (IMHO of course) because it did so without including enough of those elements that make table-top gaming unique and special. All fighting and little dramatic role play interaction can be done online. No dice needed.
Also, its developers initially couldn't decide whether or not to deny the inspiration of the MMOs or make it a focal point of why the game would appeal to more people.
The problem I find with the latter is, the game they created doesn't go far enough if they really intended to bring in popular MMO elements. A number of Japanese TRPGs do this and they rock because they do it in a way that blends it more seemlessly into the table top experience.
This brings me back to the real reason for this post, which is to get as many people as possible to check out Age of Ravens notes for his crazy cool Last Fleet campaign. He has created a system where the he and the players develop powers and abilities along a 'Talent Tree' of sorts which resembles WoW, D&D 4E and in a weird way my own Talent system for my D&D-But-Not game. Definitely something more people should be checking out. Awesome stuff.
Laters,
AD
Barking Alien
