Who plays Licensed RPGs?
I rarely consider RPGs based on novels, movies and TV shows at all. I mean, I was a big Star Wars fan and Lord of the Rings fan when I started out in roleplaying (well over 15 years now I’d say) but I wouldn’t touch any RPG based on those settings at the time. Inspired by, certainly. I remember people going on about Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and telling me it’s fun to be running around with Buffy and other characters from the show - but it failed to get me interested. I didn’t even bother to flick through it.
I guess it might hark back to my computer gamer nerd days when, as a general rule, computer games based on movies sucked. They were created quickly and cheaply to try to profit from the hype of said movie’s release. I believe the traditional mostly continues these days too (with a few exceptions). (I don’t believe this is actually true for RPGs based on movies and novels, but it’s part of my consumer reflexes - “beware the hype”).
Another part of it is that I’d rather a “blank canvas” type of setting, one where the characters are first (or rather foremost) on the scene. There isn’t already an established story-line with well known characters there already (anywhere in the setting). The setting is free to be re-interrupted by the GM and players. Established movie/novel settings provide too much canon that can’t be changed. Players are free to avoid the character/stereotypes of the novel or TV show. Another thing about TV show and novel based RPG settings is that they are “snapshots” of the story-line. A static picture of the setting set aside to turn into an RPG. If the series is popular enough, the setting will change later in the story-line and the RPG, technically, becomes out of date (unless of course you’re using a series that has finished). And a last issue that would worry me is that players may expect very similar story-lines and atmosphere as the original novels or TV shows, but that’s generally that’s not necessarily under the control of the GM or system (it can be a combination of everything). I think the thing is, I get more excited about original or innovative settings for RPGs than already established settings getting ported to RPG land.
There was one TV show I thought about adapting myself, for the fun of it: Relic Hunter. I liked the simple premise of each episode, entertaining archetypes, the completely human characters, and that there was this second layer to the world that got exposed occasionally (the relic hunter community). I thought it might make a fun RPG. But I never pursued it.
(Call of Cthulhu though, that’s sorta an exception. It’s based on a mythos, a setting, rather than an existing story-line like Lord of the Rings.)
Of course, if I don’t know much about the original material, I’d be more open to treating the RPG as a pure blank-canvas type of game and then of course if a game has something that intrigues me I’d probably ignore the original material concessions.
Out of curiosity, does anyone else think the same or am I the only freaky one?
Guest
February 8th, 2008 at 7:46 am
I am of two minds about licensed RPGs. If the concept or setting is the focus, I will consider it. Doctor Who, Star Trek, the Young Kingdoms of the Elric Saga, Cthulhu Mythos, the Hyboria of the Conan stories, Judge Dredd - all were licensed RPGs that I have purchased in the past (not all of which were good, but I liked the settings). All of them could be playgrounds for my imagination because there was ample room for expansion and interpretation. On the other hand, if the storyline of the adapted novel/film/television show is the focus, I will probably not consider it. I am not interested in reliving old stories or story arcs when I role-play. That is why games set in Middle Earth hold no attraction for me. I love the books, but anything players could think of doing would just be anticlimactic in comparison to the storyline of Lord of the Rings. I’ve been a fan of the original Star Wars movie since 1977, but the setting and stories have become so dense, so convoluted, so contradictory, and so dominated by a handful of “chosen ones” who hold the fate of the galaxy in their hands that it really seems self-defeating and pointless to role-play in anything resembling an “official” version of the Star Wars universe. (I know many do, but it’s just something I can’t relate to.) I just feel no motivation as a GM or a player in such settings. Even RPG settings that are unique creations are sometimes too stifling for me if they do not allow enough room for me to fill in the gaps. Some of these are games that would be fun to read as fictional histories, but which I have a hard time imagining myself playing (a/state or Blue Planet for instance), whilst others are just boring, poorly written, overly detailed dead ends. In other words, licensed RPGs should not even be considered for movies and novels that do not lend themselves to continuing development.
Of course, even if the source material lends itself well to adaptation, it does not necessarily mean that the game designers charged with adapting it will do a good job. Very often they won’t. To accentuate the positive, I will say that I enjoyed playing Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, and a variety of other licensed RPGs in the past, but as a rule, even if I buy a licensed RPG nowadays, I’ll probably only use it for the setting material and adapt it to Fudge.
Whether it is licensed or original, I think the best RPG setting is a careful balance between detail and freedom of opportunity (for GMs and players alike). Television shows that were written by many different writers (especially freelancers) are often good examples of settings that had just enough standards in place to enforce a sufficient level of continuity, but granted enough leeway to writers to define their own niches (such as planets, villains, and entire species in the case of Star Trek).
I was thinking for the past few weeks about writing an article comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of three RPG campaign settings - Greyhawk, Tekumel, and Harn - but I’ve only actually played in one of them. The other two I have only read. I know what I like, but I’m not sure what actually works and doesn’t work in practice. Each has elements I like, but Greyhawk did one thing better than the others: it gave just enough detail to inspire GMs to fill in the rest. It probably could have given a little more detail, but the important thing is that it left plenty of areas to be developed and scattered ideas and adventure seeds everywhere. Licensed RPGs ought to do the same; let the people who play the game make it theirs.
Administrator
February 8th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Thanks Gordon for the great reply!
(I see that your first comment was marked as spam. Don’t know why I’m afraid.)
My big problem is that I don’t even consider licensed RPGs, particularly of settings I’m fond of. They don’t filter into my perspective of gaming unless there is something inherently special about the game (such as the sanity-mechanic in Cthulhu). But I’d have to agree that some settings simply strangle out any leeway for gaming. The comments on the LJ version of the post seem mostly in agreement.
I think part of the problem for us is that we’re Fudge fans and Fudge encourages us to create our own settings. (Is it that we’re drawn to Fudge because we like to create or that Fudge encourages to create?) Why spend money on buying someone else’s interpretation of your favourite setting when you can just convert it yourself to Fudge. Also, this way, you take your realisation of the game with your opinions of it…
Also if I plan to run a game based on a TV show, I’m tempted to look to Now Playing to run it. In fact I’d run a “spin-off” show based on it. But I wouldn’t look for someone else’s version of the show (unless there is something remarkable about the RPG).