The more I think about it, the more I like the toxicity. The danger is what would make this fun. Well, that, and the confusion it generates when people who aren't aware of your campaign start looking at the crazy new content you've posted to their wiki.
On further consideration, there's no real drawback to somebody posting stupidly broken houserules. Since most wikis are set up to let you see the history of changes, you'd just go edit them away. I guess there's the drawback of all the time you'd waste setting things back to how you wanted them.
Showing posts with label Wikiland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikiland. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2007
Explaining "meta-RPG"
This used to be part of my Wikiland post, but I decided it needs it's own post I can refer to later.
By "meta-RPG", I mean an extra-layer of RPG you apply on top of another RPG (which I'll call the Host). Without a Host, you'd find it very hard to play the meta-RPG, as it provides few rules and precious little structure on it's own. I didn't make up this term, I suspect it was coined by John Tynes.
Examples of existing meta-RPGs include:
By "meta-RPG", I mean an extra-layer of RPG you apply on top of another RPG (which I'll call the Host). Without a Host, you'd find it very hard to play the meta-RPG, as it provides few rules and precious little structure on it's own. I didn't make up this term, I suspect it was coined by John Tynes.
Examples of existing meta-RPGs include:
- Tynes' PowerKill, which is played for 5-10 minutes before and after it's Host RPG.
- The world-creation system from Universalis is sort of a meta-RPG. Universalis comes with it's own Host built in, but it's very simple to strip the basics of the meta-system out and apply it to a new Host as a way to build unique worlds and settings.
- By the same token, the d20 System and GURPS can both almost qualify as a meta, or perhaps more accurately as a Host for campaign settings. The same goes for True 20, though intentionally even more so, such that I'd be tempted to remove the "almost". But I wouldn't actually give in to those temptations.
- Moebius Campaigns (a concept Jeff Tidball first presented in Games Quarterly Magazine, if I recall correctly) are definitely a meta-RPG structure.
- Wikiland is a meta-RPG I created earlier today, 12/21/07.
The Wikiland meta-RPG
Here's my idea for a new meta-RPG, called Wikiland.
In it's simplest stages, Wikiland is an online version of any other pen-and-paper RPG. You play it on the official wiki for that RPG, with everybody posting their actions via the wiki instead of email or instant-message. You start with a page that defines that you're playing Wikiland, and includes links to as-yet-unbuilt pages for character sheets and an a page that is the campaign's narrative, where players can post their actions. So far, so simple. What makes wikiland special?
In wikiland, the only valid source material is what's on that Wiki. That applies to both setting info and rules systems. If you want to have a power from a rulebook, you'd better hope someone has wiki'd the gist of it. If only one monster (presumably homebrewed) has stats on the wiki, then that's the only monster you can fight. Clearly, some sort of character creation rules need to be posted to the wiki right away.
Furthermore, if something is on the wiki, it's treated as canonical and is considered applicable to the narrative. When the wiki contradicts itself (and it will, in fact it probably did long before you got there) each player gets to decide personally which version he or she will use at any given time.
Which sounds like a scary amount of power in the hands of the players (can't they just go wiki some new broken house rule that totally makes them ubermunchkins?) until you realize there is no GM in wikiland. Since anyone can alter the narrative, or post new rules, you all have GMing powers. Everyone is a player and a GM. As a result, the story would go crazy places, the rules would mutate constantly, and sometimes the history would shift without you noticing.
(If the Narcissist: Crash Free RPG had a wiki, it would be the perfect match for Wikiland)
Depending on who was playing and what their play style is, Wikiland could result in rapid, abundant (and healthy) growth to that wiki, with much of the rulebooks being paraphrased and summarized, and tons of new house rules being authored. The trick is, where does copyright law draw the line? You want enough info to play a fast-and-loose version of the game. What you don't want is to make purchase of the rulebook irrelevant and hurt the financial bottom-line of your Host.
On the other hand, unscrupulous players could author broken rules or pages that assert craziness in stark contrast to the official setting of the host RPG. In that way, Wikiland is a guerrilla RPG. It's a meme that has the potential to go toxic at any moment. Wikiland directly tests (challenges?) the hypothesis that the implied social structure of a wiki overcomes (i.e.: edits back to a semblance of reality) the extravagances of overzealous editors and the inaccuracies of manipulative editors. How long can Wikiland exist before someone deletes all references to it on it's Host's wiki?
Wikiland probably needs some more form. Depending on whether I decide to ever try it, I may expend some more energy on this topic, hashing out formatting rules. Here's one I'd like some feedback on: One way to reduce the toxic potential of Wikiland is to restrict players freedom to post outside the narrative page. Another way would be to require any rules or stats posted purely for use in Wikiland to carry a disclaimer so the wiki remains usable to non-Wikiland players. Should either such restriction be applied/enforced? Or is that guerrilla potential the very thing that makes Wikiland tick? Is it better to straight-jacket the game, or to run the risks inherent to the honor-system?
In it's simplest stages, Wikiland is an online version of any other pen-and-paper RPG. You play it on the official wiki for that RPG, with everybody posting their actions via the wiki instead of email or instant-message. You start with a page that defines that you're playing Wikiland, and includes links to as-yet-unbuilt pages for character sheets and an a page that is the campaign's narrative, where players can post their actions. So far, so simple. What makes wikiland special?
In wikiland, the only valid source material is what's on that Wiki. That applies to both setting info and rules systems. If you want to have a power from a rulebook, you'd better hope someone has wiki'd the gist of it. If only one monster (presumably homebrewed) has stats on the wiki, then that's the only monster you can fight. Clearly, some sort of character creation rules need to be posted to the wiki right away.
Furthermore, if something is on the wiki, it's treated as canonical and is considered applicable to the narrative. When the wiki contradicts itself (and it will, in fact it probably did long before you got there) each player gets to decide personally which version he or she will use at any given time.
Which sounds like a scary amount of power in the hands of the players (can't they just go wiki some new broken house rule that totally makes them ubermunchkins?) until you realize there is no GM in wikiland. Since anyone can alter the narrative, or post new rules, you all have GMing powers. Everyone is a player and a GM. As a result, the story would go crazy places, the rules would mutate constantly, and sometimes the history would shift without you noticing.
(If the Narcissist: Crash Free RPG had a wiki, it would be the perfect match for Wikiland)
Depending on who was playing and what their play style is, Wikiland could result in rapid, abundant (and healthy) growth to that wiki, with much of the rulebooks being paraphrased and summarized, and tons of new house rules being authored. The trick is, where does copyright law draw the line? You want enough info to play a fast-and-loose version of the game. What you don't want is to make purchase of the rulebook irrelevant and hurt the financial bottom-line of your Host.
On the other hand, unscrupulous players could author broken rules or pages that assert craziness in stark contrast to the official setting of the host RPG. In that way, Wikiland is a guerrilla RPG. It's a meme that has the potential to go toxic at any moment. Wikiland directly tests (challenges?) the hypothesis that the implied social structure of a wiki overcomes (i.e.: edits back to a semblance of reality) the extravagances of overzealous editors and the inaccuracies of manipulative editors. How long can Wikiland exist before someone deletes all references to it on it's Host's wiki?
Wikiland probably needs some more form. Depending on whether I decide to ever try it, I may expend some more energy on this topic, hashing out formatting rules. Here's one I'd like some feedback on: One way to reduce the toxic potential of Wikiland is to restrict players freedom to post outside the narrative page. Another way would be to require any rules or stats posted purely for use in Wikiland to carry a disclaimer so the wiki remains usable to non-Wikiland players. Should either such restriction be applied/enforced? Or is that guerrilla potential the very thing that makes Wikiland tick? Is it better to straight-jacket the game, or to run the risks inherent to the honor-system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)