Dave Arneson interview spinoff - early objectives in wargaming/ proto-RPGs

[hengest]

From this 2004 interview with Gamespy (there's something pleasant and wholesome about this interview, so maybe check it out if you haven't).

Around 1968 I got in touch with some gamers in the Twin Cities that were playing with military miniatures and thought that was interesting and exciting. I played games with them for a couple of years and we started to make our own battles. That ended up leading to something a little bit closer to true role-playing when we started to set objectives for different generals that weren't necessarily military in nature. At that point I guess we started role-playing.

GameSpy: Can you go into a little more detail about how "different objectives" became role-playing?

Arneson: We started setting different objectives for the players. It wasn't just about fighting; we started stealing things: bombs, guns, food supplies, that sort of thing. Players could negotiate with each other for who captured the goal, and then had to figure out how they were going to slip the products past a blockade and sell them on the black market. Things like that.

I wasn't there for this interview, but just judging by the text, it seems like Arneson says two things here: first, objectives (for generals) that weren't military in nature.  Then, when asked for more about that, he names things that sound fairly military in nature: stealing bombs, guns, food supplies.  I assume he know what he means here, so the best I can make of it is this: formerly the objectives were obviously military, like "take this area and hold it," but now there were things like "profit personally by stealing weapons and selling them on the black market."  So the change that I see described here is:

textbook military objective...then is supplemented by objective important to an imagined person.

I am inclined to think about places, strange events, "cut scenes," tone, adventure hooks...not so much personal goals.  I tend to assume that those goals can be found in play for those who want them.  So I do not think about assigning goals...ever.  But maybe it's worth giving a touch of thought to.  

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Aug 5, 2021 21:10:18 GMT -5 hengest said:

From this 2004 interview with Gamespy (there's something pleasant and wholesome about this interview, so maybe check it out if you haven't).

Around 1968 I got in touch with some gamers in the Twin Cities that were playing with military miniatures and thought that was interesting and exciting. I played games with them for a couple of years and we started to make our own battles. That ended up leading to something a little bit closer to true role-playing when we started to set objectives for different generals that weren't necessarily military in nature. At that point I guess we started role-playing.

GameSpy: Can you go into a little more detail about how "different objectives" became role-playing?

Arneson: We started setting different objectives for the players. It wasn't just about fighting; we started stealing things: bombs, guns, food supplies, that sort of thing. Players could negotiate with each other for who captured the goal, and then had to figure out how they were going to slip the products past a blockade and sell them on the black market. Things like that.

I wasn't there for this interview, but just judging by the text, it seems like Arneson says two things here: first, objectives (for generals) that weren't military in nature.  Then, when asked for more about that, he names things that sound fairly military in nature: stealing bombs, guns, food supplies.  I assume he know what he means here, so the best I can make of it is this: formerly the objectives were obviously military, like "take this area and hold it," but now there were things like "profit personally by stealing weapons and selling them on the black market."  So the change that I see described here is:

textbook military objective...then is supplemented by objective important to an imagined person.

I am inclined to think about places, strange events, "cut scenes," tone, adventure hooks...not so much personal goals.  I tend to assume that those goals can be found in play for those who want them.  So I do not think about assigning goals...ever.  But maybe it's worth giving a touch of thought to.  

Another thing you could say is that he made it more realistic from a character stand point. In real life where you find people in chaotic circumstances you find black markets and parts of the military and parts of the government are often part of or even running the black markets.

[hengest]

Aug 5, 2021 21:48:50 GMT -5 The Perilous Dreamer said:

Another thing you could say is that he made it more realistic from a character stand point. In real life where you find people in chaotic circumstances you find black markets and parts of the military and parts of the government are often part of or even running the black markets.

Yes, I think that must be right. Maybe I overcorrect with my reaction to the super character-centric storytelling games, a ton of backstory right away, etc. But there is no reason to think of characters as goalless avatars of the players. And apparently they were treated as "real people" even at this early date when it was barely beginning to detach itself from wargaming. Probably news only to me at this late date, but to me, this was revealing.

(Maybe a thread not of character motivations, but character goals?)

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Aug 5, 2021 21:54:50 GMT -5 hengest said:

Aug 5, 2021 21:48:50 GMT -5 The Perilous Dreamer said:

Another thing you could say is that he made it more realistic from a character stand point. In real life where you find people in chaotic circumstances you find black markets and parts of the military and parts of the government are often part of or even running the black markets.

Yes, I think that must be right. Maybe I overcorrect with my reaction to the super character-centric storytelling games, a ton of backstory right away, etc. But there is no reason to think of characters as goalless avatars of the players. And apparently they were treated as "real people" even at this early date when it was barrly beginning to detach itself from wargaming. Probably news only to me at this late date, but to me, this was revealing.

(Maybe a thread not of character motivations, but character goals?)

When I hear storytelling game that only means one thing to me - scripted railroad, don't dare deviate from the script.

But here is the flip side, I have read and heard of those who want the referee/DM/GM to provide a motivation for the players character. That is just alien and in some sense in-human to me, how can you come to a game and not have a motivation; why would anyone need someone else to give them a motivation. Now a director will give an actor a motivation to elicit the acting performance of his vision; however, in an RPG the referee/DM/GM is overstepping their bounds in a big way if they are telling the players what their characters motivation is. I from the first seconds of my D&D gaming treated the character as "real people." I was not playing myself, I was playing a better version of myself or something entirely different. I cannot imagine playing any other way. 

When I play Risk, I adopt a persona with goals, a different persona for every game. When I play Monopoly I do the same. Always seemed to me a natural way to play.

What people don't realize is that OD&D played in the natural original open-ended sandbox full of options way with no back story for the characters. with everything developed through play as the characters explore the world seeking fame, fortune and trying to stay alive to enjoy it and most importantly the character choices matter, well that is as character centric as it gets. Old School is character centric, New School with the 14 hour long character build, the multitude of straight jacket options and a plethora of rules to tell you what you can't do, that is faux character centric.