THE SPECTRUM OF ROLEPLAYING

There are, perhaps, as many ways to roleplay as there are people who enjoy this fantastic hobby and at least initially, it may seem a lost cause to try to classify such a wide range of playing styles. But with the attempt may come knowledge and an appreciation of a variety of playing styles and maybe some insight into their differing approaches to roleplaying. Armed with this knowledge, one's own appreciation and scope of play frequently increases, and the chances of finding the right game for you, or avoiding the wrong ones, may increase as well.

Before entering into a roleplaying game, many desire to first know a little about its general makeup (other than specific genre). Commonly asked questions concern a variety of things, but they frequently dwell on a dozen issues most players feel they must know about a game before deciding whether or not it's right for them. These questions, when examined, reveal the spectrum of roleplaying, each question concerning itself with a single topic or aspect of the game, and each topic having a range of intensities. The spectrum of roleplaying is divided into topics (like colors in a rainbow) and intensities (the flavor or rating level for the topic). The topic names are usually self explanatory, and their ratings increase from 1 to 9 with (1) indicating little or no emphasis, (5) indicating an average emphasis, and (9) indicating maximum emphasis for the given topic.

By using these spectrum and their associated intensity ratings, each campaign ever played within a genre can be quantified and expressed as a simple 12-digit number. And though thinking of a campaign type in terms of a 12-digit number isn't important, knowledge of what each digit represents may yet be instructive. Thus, I give you the spectrum of roleplaying.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

A.) Character Development: (a player's approach to the depth of their characters).

Differing levels of character development are important to most players. Some will practically insist on in-depth development, others may not care, and some will actively avoid what they feel to be too deep.

(1 to 3) Toward one end of this spectrum can be found those players who like to treat their characters as simple game pieces, moving them to and fro, rolling dice, letting random chance dictate nearly everything. "Pretending" to be the game piece isn't important, and knowing why the piece acted as it did isn't necessary. Why the "Hat" decided to stay at Boardwalk when he could scarcely afford to do so just isn't something most people have on their minds. Similarly, a player who rolls their dice to make character decisions rather than considering how and why their character feels or would act could be found here.

(4 to 6) Most players find a more middle of the road approach to their liking. Player: "Dornabald will jump into the lake to retrieve the treasure." GM: "Don't you think he may wish to treat his injured comrades first, being a lawful good priest and all?" Player: "Huh?, Oh, right, sure, I do that first. But I'll get the treasure right after I finish that."

(7 to 9) Near the opposite end of this spectrum are those who enjoy the considerably more complex range of the underlying feelings and logical reasons that drive their characters and create the detailed-interpersonal interactions between them, other PCs, and all NPCs. True, Marta the thief doesn't always do the right thing, but she's just trying to get by. It's not her fault she was orphaned and forced to do anything she had to just to survive. And when I saw how she risked her life to save that child, and how much she has come to love the little tyke, I can tell she has a good soul. I can't help but feel love for her, and I'll do all that I can to help her be safe and happy.

Ultimately, you will wish to play in a game whose rating gives you something you like to do, while perhaps avoiding those ratings that you feel to be too random or too complex.

ORIGINALITY

B.) Originality: (A consideration of a Game Master's source material).

Creativity isn't everything, and though a Game Master may have a greater sense of pride in their original creations, as far as the players are concerned, if they haven't seen it before, it's new to them. For many, however, the originality of the game can be a big factor for a variety of other reasons, so it is a question most would like answered.

(1 to 2) Initially, and don't laugh because I have seen this work, we can find the Mimics. Mimics are people who are players in a Game Master's game one day, then that player becomes the GM and turns around and runs a nearly identical scenario for a different group of players the next day (perhaps for a group of less experienced players). True, the mimic must have a certain skill to take into account the possible differences, but they can usually keep the second game moving along parallel lines, perhaps even improving on the original game since they've already seen its pitfalls. Yet, for some reason, they don't feel their own ideas are good enough, original enough, or frequent enough to run a game without benefit of the original game idea and without seeing how it could be presented. In fact, they must often have an understanding with the primary Game Master who both knows about the Mimic's game and will help them when requested.

(3 to 4) Others may forever use nothing but prefabricated modules, finding everything they want or need there, and drawing on the rich imaginations of other, more professional gamers.

(5) More ambitious still, one can utilize these fantastic, tried and proven game ideas from prefabricated modules or worlds to jump start their own games or add supplemental ideas to their existing games. Though they started their games with prefabs, or built upon a pre-made world using them, their games eventually continue under their own steam, perhaps only occasionally incorporating another prefabricated module as a supplement.

(6 to 8) Many avid gamers, however, are so dedicated we can find them building their worlds such as in a Whole Cloth Campaign. They create maps, political backdrops, cities, creatures, and a myriad of other things necessary for their own game. Complex cities, kingdoms or nations, national or worldwide histories, or even whole worlds spring from their fertile minds.

(9) On the furthest end of this spectrum we can find those rare individuals who have started from square one, creating the rules, the game mechanics, and everything necessary to play an entirely original game. These people have made the roleplaying games most of us play, such as AD&D, Rune Quest, Gurps, or any number of other roleplaying systems. Though the creator of AD&D could be found here, most people using such a system will have a rating lower than 9 for their game.

Knowing the rating for this topic can help you find the game you like. If the world has lots of prefab under it, for example, you may find that some of your fellow players seem to figure out the most amazing puzzles/traps/secrets (and grab up lots of xp compared to you) because he previously read and recognized the module being used. If the world is highly original, you may find you must be more creative and on the ball and pay very close attention. For some, this is what they seek; for others it is more like work. So one may wish to have or avoid a high rating here for those reasons.

With a campaign that is low in this value, you could expect to have to tolerate sitting there watching the GM shuffle papers while looking up the information about room #43. You would expect this to happen less if the GM made up the scenarios himself. On the other hand, if Biff has a nice campaign that rates low in this value (because he uses all prefabs) then you know you can ask Biff for the module numbers or source material so that you can use it in your next campaign. Biff is much less likely to give out the details to stories behind his on going 100% original campaign, so if your are looking for ideas, you may wish a lower rating here. And some players may find playing in a 100% original campaign to be more enjoyable because they can have a greater effect of "writing the story" than they can in a mostly prefabricated world.

SCOPE

C.) Scope: (the typical time scale of goals within the campaign).

Many people love a good short story, though others prefer a novel. Some enjoy starting fresh with each game day; others like to build on what has happened before. Players also flock to their preferred style of gaming here. The scope of the game can make a huge difference. It specifies the average length of the campaign's separate "adventures" or "forays."

(1 to 2) On the extreme left is the group that gets together, heads to the fight-of-the-day, whacks it up, and is home for supper; next session's festivities are probably entirely unrelated.

(3 to 4) This would be a series of forays back & forth to the same dungeon or setting for awhile, but always home for supper at the end of the player's day. This style makes it easier for various players to be included or not included each week depending on whether they show up to play, and their unexpected appearance or absence from the gaming table is no great difficulty for the Game Master.

(5 to 7) Many enjoy the medium-length foray where the group might be out in the field for several sessions of game play. This is a good style if you have players that show up reliably, or through the use of various GM 'tricks' to explain why characters are here one session and gone the next while in the middle of a dungeon or out in the field somewhere.

(8 to 9) On the extreme right is a campaign where the group spends a huge number of actual playing sessions with the characters out in the field and not returning to home base (assuming they even have one) until the completion of the current goals. Naturally, this is nearly impossible unless the players are so dedicated it might take a family emergency to make them miss a session.

This spectrum can give players a good idea of how much story they might miss, and how much bother it would be for the Game Master if a player is going to miss one or more game sessions.

On this spectrum, a low value represents a campaign that one can easily enjoy by coming occasionally (though it may be uninteresting to players who enjoy being in and figuring out a vast story). A medium value indicates that you should plan on coming regularly for the next couple of weeks or months to get the most out of it. The higher values are NOT for players who don't want (or can't make the time) to make a serious effort.

PATH CONTROL

D.) Path Control: (player freedom versus the Game Master's number of possible scenarios or their ability to improvise).

From the Game Master's opening statement of "Here's today's scenario" to the more dangerous "Here's the Universe...Where do you want to go?", we've all seen examples on both ends of this spectrum, and we have our preferences as well.

(1 to 3) When the Game Master knows exactly where the players will be, and the players equally know the Game Master always tells them what they're going to try to do, there is a sense of certainty and efficiency. Concentrating all efforts on making or running the one scenario, the Game Master can put in much more detail and even better balance the scenario knowing full well the current power of the group. Not having to worry about decisions as to where to go or why, the players can use nearly all the game time playing today's prepared scenario instead of using hours of game time to get to the meat of tonight's game. However, some people don't like it when they are told where they can go, why they went, how they got there, or what they must do, preferring to make up their own minds while enjoying the appetizers before the main course. Many prefabricated modules fall into this rating since the GM and players are forced to follow the written scenario with very little improvisation. Also, many competitions or one shot games are built around a single idea. If you have a group that can only get together once in a blue moon, you may prefer having most things already set up and concern yourself far less with character development.

(4 to 6) A happy middle ground can also be found. Here, for example, the Game Master may write two to three possible scenarios for the session, perhaps guiding the players (but not forcing them) to discover one of these and follow that path. Frequently, each of the scenarios was written with the GM's knowledge of one of the PC's goals. For example, scenario one may be along the lines of how the mage may find some rare material component, scenario two may concern a holy quest for the cleric, scenario three deals with some underworld figures for the thief, etc. Depending on how the game unfolds and which player is digging often dictates which way the session will go, so in fact, the players do decide their own path. And if the players still take another path besides one of the prepared scenarios, the Game Master may improvise a quick-balanced scenario using information they have already written about their game world and their knowledge of the current group. Having several scenarios in advance for each session may sound like a lot of extra work, but the unused scenarios can always be used later, either as they were or slightly rewritten for another time or another power level, so after the initial set up, only one scenario idea per session is still required. Yet, since there are limited scenarios prepared and the GM will likely take the players down one of these paths, the GM has a good deal of control. One GM skill, often appreciated by many players, is the art of having control, yet seeming to let the players make up their own minds as to where they will go and what they will do, all the while subtly guiding them toward one of the prepared scenarios. The better the GM has mastered this skill, the more likely his game will seem to have a higher rating on this scale. Similarly, there are those rare individuals who are so quick of mind and posses a glib tongue that they can do everything on the fly with no preparation, and the players often can't tell the difference between a master at improvisation and a GM who is well prepared.

(7 to 9) When the Game Master instead creates nearly an entire world in advance and gives the players free reign, the players have ultimate control over their own destinies, going where they will for good or ill. For example, they may blunder into a dragon's lair long before they are up to the challenge, and quite realistically die horrible deaths, or they may find the Kobold brothers, easily taking them on and winning dozens, if not hundreds of copper pieces (wow). The Game Master doesn't force them to go anywhere and may even give many clues as to the potential dangers or profits, but it is the player's decision where they will go and what they will do. Unfortunately, if the players are not motivated to do something when they find no obvious avenues of exploration, the game can stall while the players almost seem to be waiting for the GM to make group decisions for them and tell them what they must do or where they should go, or waiting for the GM to throw down an obvious path to follow. In such a world, players must be highly motivated, having a life and personal goals within it. They are always on the move and have something to do, and when their path crosses a point of interest, you have tonight's adventure. If you like to lead and explore, you'll love this game, but if you like to follow and help, leaving the decisions as to where to go or what to do for better minds, then you may hate this game's flavor, especially if not a single player in the group likes to lead or has the skill required to do so.

A more highly original world (where the path of control is high) can also fit your characters better. For example, you wouldn't expect to find some primitive tribe of people worshiping "E-ala-pew" who happens to look like one of your characters if you are playing in a prefabricated world. Thus, there are lots of reasons a player would find this rating useful in choosing a campaign.

STORY DETAIL

E.) Story Detail: (Game Master planning and description versus Player Ambition and willingness to dig for details).

There can be little doubt that some Game Masters put far more detail into their worlds than the majority of players will ever see, let alone care about. Similarly, we've all seen Game Masters who haven't bothered to think things through at all.

(1 to 3) Some GMs will give no consideration to the up coming story before they start to play, at best perhaps taking the time only for a simple PC review before the session starts. There is little buried detail in this game and therefore little for the characters to discover aside from the obvious.

(4 to 5) Or, vague ideas and sketchy outlines may be enough for the GM and his players. A player will want to know why, at least in general, their characters are doing certain things. The details may not be too important, but the overview is important. We are trying to rescue the princess from that tower. OK, fine, but who she is (apart from a princess), a princess of what, why do we care, how did she get there, and other details are frequently lacking.

(6 to 8) Or the GM may create detailed-scenario write ups and maps as well as NPC personality traits, their family backgrounds, and even perhaps brief written accounts of centuries of local and world history. The Game Master must decide what is worth their time to include.

(9) An entire world may be hammered out here, complete with such detail it boggles the mind. Or, one may use actual historical settings on earth, not just as ideas or starting points, but with such a sense of history and reality that the game MUST follow the parameters of history. At best, if anything unusual happens, there is probably a good reason that goes with it as to why it never got into the history books.

If players tend to be disinterested in even an NPC's name, they will hardly care whether or not he's married, has a brother in another city, has children, or is 2 months behind in his rent and will do nearly anything for money. If a player doesn't care all coins are the same size and weight, it's unlikely the Game Master will calculate the diameters, thickness, or densities or give metallurgical consideration to their manufacture. If it is enough to know your character can make their herbalism roll to find the proper herbs and make a cure, then needing to know that in order to make a "poultice" they must obtain "wort-root" which is found only in "swamps" during the "spring" is information the GM will never feel inclined to write. Thus, when players do not care about detail, the Game Master can hardly be expected to create it.

Still, just for their enjoyment, many dedicated Game Masters may create some of this detail anyway even in the face of overwhelming disinterest. This is usually a good thing. This is bad, however, if they also feel compelled to shove their creation down the disinterested throats of the players, but if they can smile quietly to themselves and reveal it only when solicited, it makes a better game. After all, if the Game Maser has this detail and no one looks, so what? But if a player tries to find out the why of something and there is no reason why, the Game Master looks foolish and the game seems ill-contrived.

Many players may enjoy knowing this rating to understand what is expected of their characters. With a low rating, they needn't worry about detail (and perhaps that is what they want), and with a high rating, they can both expect the detail to be there and know they will probably need to dig it out. A middle rating, of course, will have the larger points of interest apparent to all who pay attention, but finer detail will only come if they persist in looking for it and the GM sees this and responds to it with better planning for future scenarios.

But just because the GM has a wealth of background detail doesn't mean the players will ever get around to investigating it (and what actually comes out during the play of the game is the truer rating of this campaign on this spectrum, and this is always is a result of the interaction between the GM and the players).

BOOKKEEPING

F.) Player Preparation, Detail, and Bookkeeping: (a dedicated player consideration).

There will always be those players who haven't given their PCs a single thought since they last played it, as well as those players who spend hours in between sessions fleshing out their characters. Examples on both ends of this spectrum abound.

Q: "Does your character have an iron spike with him?"

(1 to 2) A1: "Assign a percentage chance to it and I'll roll to see if I do."

(4 to 6) A2: "I assume so since it's such a useful thing to have." Or "Yeah, that's in a standard back pack and I have that."

(8 to 9) A3: "I have one handy in a my buttoned, left-uppermost pocket at all times and half a dozen in the right-saddle bag of my stead as well as a dozen in my backpack. After all, they only cost 1 copper piece and a half a pound isn't too encumbering for me. Here's a detailed list of my backpack's contents. The money indicated here is with me, but the rest is at home, under guard, as indicated by the map of my stronghold that I have prepared here."

Like Game Master preparation, a lot of player preparation and detail is probably done simply for the personal enjoyment of the player. If called upon to show some detail, they can proudly present it. On the other hand, without that level of detail there will frequently be times when the Game Master is suspicious that one miraculously had an iron spike handy, perhaps even over compensating for the player's good fortune by sending nastier creatures at him if his "good fortune" continues to hold.

This rating is more of a player thing (like character development) than a GM thing. I have had groups that seemed unnecessarily concerned with buying their gear and arranging their finances, and I've had GMs not let me do stuff because I didn't specifically have written down that I had certain items in my pack, even when common sense would suggest otherwise. This is a measure of how much detailed record keeping and stuff that the GM and players indulge in for a particular campaign.

With a low rating, one can expect certain details to be glossed over or ignored. Free form campaigns, for example, are fine in roleplaying but require little detail and preparation (they may even not use dice), so these may rate low on this spectrum. A medium rating will let the players know they must have character sheets and a certain level of detail ready just to play in that game. They are expected to have the gross details ready at all times, but the fine details can be made up on the spot. A high rating, however, takes work and though it can be very realistic, it may not be very enjoyable for some players. Conversely, a lack of detail can also be no fun since the lack of structure may let too many players run amok or just happen to have an iron spike (or whatever) always on hand, so if you were a player who thought ahead and brought one, you may feel cheated that the other player who doesn't put any extra effort into his character may have one too, just by saying he does.

Many players can handle this level of roleplaying, even saying they have no spike and accepting the dire consequences when they could just as easily have said that they did have one, but many others cannot do this and will always have it (even if they never gave it a single thought beforehand) when the GM allows it.

Thus, this rating will give you an idea of what is expected, and you can find the campaign you like while avoiding the flavors you detest.

LETHALITY

G.) Lethality: (expected half-life of average character).

Let's face it, some campaigns are harder than others are. From the walk in the park to the hell-torn battle fields of the Killer Game Master, how long one's character can expect to live is a function of where one finds themselves on this spectrum.

(1 to 2) If a campaign is too easy, most players will avoid the game, finding no challenge without the threat of death and thinking all their accomplishments were akin to taking candy from a baby. One can hardly brag about that!

(4 to 6) So the majority of games fall somewhere in between, but where exactly is a matter of taste. True, most players hate it when their PCs die, but without the possibility of death, the game loses excitement and the PC's accomplishments ring hollow.

(8 to 9) If a campaign is too lethal, the Game Master will probably kill the PCs ever chance they get, even taking delight in it. Most players tend to avoid these games as well soon after discovering what they're like. Many such campaigns have the "death button." This is not actually a button, but the tendency to be lethal should a player make one mistake, make one bad roll, or make one wrong decision (push the button, so to speak). Games with lower ratings often demand a combination of mistakes, two or more bad rolls, and/or a string of bad decisions to kill a PC. Even death poison (save or die), for example, usually takes two rolls to kill (one to hit their AC, the other where they fail save), and that's still nasty. But a campaign where it regularly happens that the GM says you stepped on a trap, "make save or die," or brings the moment of death to a single roll (by not even giving you a roll to see or avoid the trap, or any clue there were likely to be traps, for example), then this campaign has a much higher rating and might be considered a killer campaign. Do not confuse this with a single roll of "make save or take damage" (even if the damage, though it normally wouldn't, might be enough in your wounded condition to kill you). It is not the same.

Lethality is a measure of how likely your character is to die irrevocably during the course of an adventure. As a GM, I always adjusted things on the fly so that, barring stupid actions, the characters had a better than average chance to survive. Bickering with each other, pulling in different directions, or just not caring enough to watch each other's backs would all count as stupid actions when faced with the extreme conditions found in many game scenarios. I've even seen characters die since they pressed on under the assumption the GM wouldn't have a "no win scenario." Sometimes, the correct course of action is to retreat. When characters use such player information (like trying to figure out what the GM may be thinking, or treating the situation like a game, instead of trying to figure out what their characters are faced with), this is stupid and also deserves to lower their chances of survival. Stupidity in the field is a capital crime, and this includes player or character stupidity.

Players may wish to know the rating of this game to find the challenge (if that's what they seek), or avoid the lethal consequences of putting their favorite characters into an unknown GM's world.

POWER LEVEL

H.) Character Level Or Power: (this may relate to character class choice or skill choices).

As most games progress, different powers, skills, and other abilities come into play. Sometimes, the newly acquired skills of a particular level can radically alter the flavor of the game, and many players will have their preferences for where they like to play on this spectrum. Sometimes, money is a measure of power, a mid to high level group may finally acquire enough cash to buy a navigation consul or an artificial intelligence computer, or even a magic item that allows one to track like a ranger, all of which might make normally indispensable skills nearly valueless and the character who had them, considerably less enjoyable to play. "My compliments to Captain Dunsel." (From Star Trek, though my spelling of 'Dunsel' might be incorrect, the term referred to a now, useless part).

(1 to 3) Some players thrive on low-level, more mundane activities and less magical, more "realistic" scenarios, tending to dislike the overly powerful. They much prefer more traditionally oriented stories, disliking even the possibility of simply solving a normally dire problem by casting a spell tailor made to handle it. The curse of Lycanthropy, a great story line, is ruined for any who has access to a Remove Cursespell. Agonizing over the safety of a long-lost relative is mitigated when a Commune will help ascertain the loved one's status. The quest to get to Mount Doom and toss in the One Ring is ludicrously simple with a Plane Shift or No Error Teleport spell. And the intrigue of trusting or not trusting an NPC is not an issue with the power of the Detect Lie or Know Alignment or ESP.

(4 to 6) Other players prefer the mid-ranged-levels, having some real power while not being too powerful, finding a lot of challenges out there but having the tools and the talent to cope with them. They may require the right spell to get there or get out, but while on the scene, they have much to accomplish. So a Water Breathing spell may allow them to search an old ship wreck, but that shark and octopus may not like it, and the characters will still have a challenge on their hands.

(8 to 9) Then there are those who love the high-powered stuff, wielding incredible power and going through most normal walks of life with impunity. An arch mage is hardly likely to barter with a shopkeeper over the price of a loaf of bread. Just the time to do this would cost him more than what hundreds of loaves are worth, considering the "hourly" value of his time. Instead, they have their servants do such things while they concentrate on tomes of arcane lore, desperately seeking answers to epic problems, or calculating the required mass to offset the disturbance of the introduction of their castle onto a shadow demi-plane. Similarly, the captain of a star ship needn't bother with the things a normal man might fret over, such as money, transportation, or job security since his thoughts may be on a more planetary scale. He needn't have a lot of certain skills to do this job, but could easily rely on his subordinates to be experts in medicine, engineering, navigation, and science. The point is, the power level of the game will help the player determine what class or what skills they wish to have.

Whether you enjoy the low-level, mid-level, or high-level campaigns is a matter of taste, but consideration should be given to the other players as well. Just when you think your group is really starting to get it together, a player may up and quit. This could be for a variety of reasons, but it may simply be the campaign acquired a different flavor when the power level of the game changed or a new skill or item was acquired.

For a game like AD&D, for example, certain character classes are more important than others at various power levels. A warrior is much more important than a mage in a low-level game, but the reverse is true in a higher-powered game. It may even be considered selfish or inconsiderate to quit simply because one's warrior character now takes a back seat; after all, the mage's player has paid their dues and supported the warrior when the warrior was prominent in power, and now that the tables are turned, to be fair the mages should be supported too, shouldn't they? So one should at least consider this before quitting.

Naturally, this is true of other games as well. Certain skills are more prominent when starting out but less so after the game develops and new skills or technological items may outshine older ones. Unless all characters are identically skilled, their innate abilities could be valued more or less highly as the game moves forward.

Players may certainly wish to know this rating to fit into a game they will like. A player who wishes to run a warrior may prefer a low rating, for example, since they are prominent there. A player wishing to play a mage, on the other hand, may desire a higher rating. If it is assumed the game will continue from low level to high level, then some players may accept characters or skills that are not so impressive to begin with, thinking they will have their fun down the road. But some players may quit when this time draws near, without consideration for these others. There can be little done to stop players from abandoning a game when its flavor changes, perhaps screwing over a player who was patiently waiting while enduring a flavor he didn't like just to get to one he did like. Only consideration for others may do it, so perhaps talking about it will help you discover why other players prefer the ratings they do and give you a heads up warning before being let down.

COMBAT DETAIL

I.) Combat Detail: (Realistic combat versus bookkeeping and time consumption).

I have never met anyone who actually believed in the perfect, realistic combat system. All of them make compromises, usually sacrificing some aspect of reality in favor of speed or ease. If the combat detail becomes too simplistic, it really rubs some people the wrong way (typically those who have greater knowledge of the subject of actual combat, medieval or otherwise). Conversely, when it becomes too complex the amount of time is considered "wasted" by those who would prefer to be doing other things in the game besides fighting (especially fighting random encounters that have little to do with the story). Everyone has their preferences for where they fall on this spectrum, and hopefully one will find themselves in "good" company.

(1 to 2) A King beats a Five.

(3) I have a colonel, a 3, and your major is a 4, so I win.

(4 to 6) AD&D combat is sort of like this. Simplified, maybe it has a rating of 4, while using options or adjusting it a bit, maybe it has a rating of 6.

(7) GURPS (Generic Universal Roleplaying System) might fall here, a second by second blow using fatigue points, hit locations, and a dozen other interacting factors.

(8) Computer simulations which take hundreds of variables into account in a matter of seconds would be placed here, some of the better SCA battles might be here as well.

(9) Real life battle or combat.

SERIOUSNESS

J.) Seriousness: (A consideration of "In Character" and "Out Of Character" styles).

Yet another personal choice on how to "properly" roleplay, this spectrum covers the serious nature of attempting to think and speak as your character would (while sitting at the game table or even wearing the funny hat and costumes), to the totally irreverent approach of cracking wise with "out of game" and "out of character" comments. Most players freely mix the two and fall on some middle ground, but often times there is an unwritten code as to when it is acceptable to go "out of character" and when it is not. Trial and error may help you find where your group draws the line, but your personal inclination as to where this line is "properly" placed is a matter of subjective opinion.

(1 to 3) My character, Frodo Big Ones, gets drunks at the tavern and tries to make his lute sound like an electric guitar so he can pick up hot women like Pamela Anderson. "Hey baby, wanna play with my instrument?"

(4 to 6) I'll have my character ask him why he wants us to go into the tunnel.

(7) "The tunnel you say? What good would come of that journey? Unless you can give me a good reason why we should risk our necks in such a place, I think we'll be on our way."

(8 to 9) Starlight looked over at his companions, a feeling of uncertainty washing over him for the first time in many months. "The tunnel you say? What good would come of that journey? Unless you can give me a good reason why we should risk our necks in such a place, I think we'll be on our way." He levels his gaze upon the stranger, trying to gauge his response, looking for any signs the man may be trying to lead them into a trap.

A low rating here may be exactly what you're looking for, or a high rating may be, or even a mid range rating so you can be serious when you want and make an out of character joke when you feel like it. In any event, knowing the rating for the game will help you decide if you wish to be included in it.

CHALLENGE

K.) Challenge: (considerations on how generous the Game Master should be).

Most players have heard of a Monty Haul Campaign where the Game Master gives out power and wealth at the drop of a hat, perhaps even to the point of belittling the actual character accomplishments of many veteran players. On the other side of the coin, they may have seen a Poverty Campaign where the Game Master was so stingy with a coin or two that a character may have had trouble buying shoes let alone excellent equipment like armor and swords, a good solid club, or even a hand phaser or cobalt grenade. Just as in real life, most people tend to be unappreciative of things handed to them that they didn't have to work for, and with equal realism, they can become extremely frustrated when nothing goes their way, they can't get a break, and they are in danger of succumbing to exposure.

(1 to 3) You defeat the evil lone Kobold and find his hoard of treasure. On a gleaming pile of over 100,000 gold pieces, your 1st level paladin finds a +5 holy avenger and your 1st level mage finds a staff of power.

(4 to 6) You have managed to kill the nasty trolls, but you have expended almost all of your potions and you broke your magic sword in the process. Also, your comrade Elmire has died. Luckily, you find a magic wand and about 16,000 gold pieces in the troll's cavern, scattered about in the remnants of many fallen adventurers who have come before you. And though you personally can't use such a wand, you could probably sell it (even at a loss) for a sword better than the one you just lost. Furthermore, Elmire can be raised for 5,000 gp, but only if you can get him back home within 9 days.

(7 to 9) The battle out of the orc encampment was difficult. You were wounded, and without taking care of it soon, a slight infection may set in. Unfortunately you lost much of your equipment and food. You did see, however, the map in the tent, and though you couldn't procure it, you have a rough idea of where it led. Perhaps 2 weeks from here by foot, but you are wounded, under equipped, and have only enough food and water for two days. There may be some wild berries along the river this time of year, but that is a half a day out of your way. What will you do?

As far as gaming is concerned, most preferences are somewhere in between the extremes. Many prefer to earn their characters, but with a decent chance to do so. How challenging the Game Master makes this will usually depend on their player's preferences, so let your GMs know when things come too easy or things come too hard. They will probably make adjustments (unless you are so far off base that you will never fit into this GM's worldview). After all, unless you aren't even in the same ballpark, the GM wishes to keep you in the game and everyone wants to have fun.

FREQUENCY AND DURATION

L.) Frequency and Duration of Play. (The commitment, how much time will I invest?)

Players will certainly wish to know what level of time commitment will be expected of them. Playing for hours every day is way over the top for most (unless they are at a convention or something), and playing once a year (and for only an hour or so) is rather pointless as well. Campaigns may frequently meet for very short periods (like over lunch 5 times a week), or for longer, less frequent sessions, like for 6 hours every Sunday afternoon. A player must know this if he is to be able to tell if he can play in a game or not.

One may simply look at the rate of play and add up the hours played/year and get a number, but this may be misleading since high frequency, short duration games would have similar numbers to short frequency, long duration games, and these are quite dissimilar. The only way to handle it is to use both numbers separately in actual practice, but a rough idea can be put on this scale as well.

(1 to 3) Low frequency games, less than twice a year OR Short duration games, less than an hour per session.

(4 to 6) More typical sessions will meet between 2 and 4 times per month and last from 2 to 12 hours a session.

(7 to 9) High frequency games, more than once per week, but only if the sessions last more than two hours each. Herculean sessions, lasting days, only taking time out to sleep and eat, but only if these get-togethers are more than once a year.

FINAL CONSIDERATION AND NOTES

Remember that no intrinsically superior quality can be assign to any particular rating. 1, for example is not exceedingly bad while 9 is exceptionally good (or vice versa). These are just personal preferences, and if you enjoy a particular rating, then it's a good rating for you. If you dislike a particular rating, then it may not be your cup of tea, but you could hardly claim a game was flawed if the other players in it were enjoying it. So, no matter what rating or flavor a game has, please remember that no particular rating is, in fact, a special goal of gaming. The point is, as always, to have fun.

To be sure, there may be other "topics" or questions one may wish to know, but I find they are frequently more of a product of a particular game or game system rather than a question for gaming in general. For example, one may wish to know what "alignment" a game is, but this is a question one would only ask for an AD&D campaign and not ask at all for a GURPS game, so such a question or topic is excluded from the general considerations here.

Now, with these twelve topics or scales on this spectrum of roleplaying, one could characterize any game of a particular genre by a 12 digit number, but this would only have meaning if there was a standard order to them, and this order would also have to be easily memorized (like the colors of the rainbow may be remembered with ROY G. BIV). However, though one could do this, that really wasn't the point of this paper. Instead, it is meant to teach you to gauge various differences, see what you like and where you fall on this spectrum, learn what others may or may not like and where they fall on the particular scales, and perhaps grow in knowledge and appreciation for other aspects of a great game. It also may help a player communicate with another player or GM what standards they are looking for in a game, and excellent communications between people is one good way to avoid misunderstandings and disappointments. As always, when you learn more about a game, the greater your chances become of finding and enjoying a game you like.

Finally, though the rating system was originally designed to rate various games, one could also have some fun and rate themselves as players, using the numbers to indicate what their personal preferences are. Naturally, if your preferences matched up with a game's 12 digit rating, you should greatly enjoy that game. Conversely, if it was a poor match, you probably should avoid that game right from the start. But if you match well in some areas while not in others, then you might give it a try. Who knows, you may find a new appreciation for a different flavor or rating on one of the topics.

As far as the order of these 12 digits is concerned, I suggest you use the order in which I have given them. Why? No particular reason unless people use this paper as their standard, so they will have the same order to their digits. Remember, however, that the point isn't really to manufacture a 12 digit code you can carry around with you or flash at another player to convey a great deal of information in mere seconds, so much as it was an exercise in learning about these 12 questions or topics, their ratings or flavors, and perhaps developing an appreciation for where another roleplayer or game master may be coming from. Besides, broadening one's horizons never hurts.