Design Room: Arkham Horror

Wow, what a game. Arkham Horror is a game based on the Lovecraftian Horror mythos, and is sort of like a pen-and-paper RPG boardgame. Players take control of per-generated investigators, get equipment cards, adjust statistics, visit locations, and play through encounter cards while avoiding the horrors that lurk in the night. It is a seriously fun game, and I urge you to check out the reviews on the Amazon link above. Today we will do another Design Room discussion, which is not a traditional review, but more of a discussion behind game design theory using the game as a springboard for discussion.

Pen-and-Paper Boardgame

The game is best described as a traditional pen-and-paper RPG converted into a boardgame. No referee is required, and players take turns running the game's world events and monster movement. The city is divided up into locations where encounter cards can trigger monster spawns, skill checks, NPC encounters, and any number of random events. The events are self-contained and are typically handled within a player's encounter phase. Some players go to town with these cards, and roleplay out the interactions, with someone reading the card, and the player acting 'in character.' We tried that, and it was a hoot.

Something tells me the design of D&D4 followed the 'make it a boardgame' design theory, but they didn't quite make it. Arkham Horror goes all the way, but it does lose a couple pieces of pen-and-paper baggage for simplicity. Gone is character creation, long item and spell lists, character advancement, and tactical combat. Combat is handled in the abstract, with a failed attack roll resulting in damage to the character. The question arises, can you call yourself a roleplaying game without these things?

The roleplaying game Tunnels and Trolls has a similar abstract combat system, so not having a chess-like combat system does not disqualify the game from being considered a RPG. Items and spells are on cards, and I can think of couple RPGs like that (such as the new Gamma World); also, many RPGs did not have character creation (the old Indiana Jones game, or the basic Marvel Super Heroes may qualify here) - so those simplifications do not rule ut the game as an RPG.

The only thing I can see as a RPG disqualification is the tight play structure, and a lack of being able to do anything you want, such as explore outside the town. Then again, some D&D4 modules I've seen share this tight focus, but with an implied 'roleplaying and exploration' mode built into the game (D&D4 Essentials laid this out explicitly). It is easy enough to house-rule exploration, travel, and roleplaying into the game with a referee - and that is an interesting point. The soft areas of a RPG require an interpreter (the referee). This helps us define the question 'what is a referee good for?' and also clarifies the boardgame-RPG difference.

Axis and Allies: Roleplay Generals

Backing away from the roleplaying elements, how does the game play? George and I came up with an analogy of it's like the MB game Axis and Allies, but you roleplay a general on the map. It's a weaker comparison because you don't have free standing armies (maybe the monsters qualify), but it is an apt description to setting up the board and playing a long game across a couple days. Not a lot of pen-and-paper games are capable of this, as a roleplaying situation needs to be handled live, and can quickly grow stale if left on the table overnight, With this game, you pick up where you left off, and the game-in-progress keeps fresh quite well.

Another interesting play thought is that the game is entirely self-contained. Many RPGs try to be all-inclusive, and tell referees to pull in outside material to surprise players and customize the game. Everything in this game resides within the box: the world, the gear, the characters, and the challenges. Played straight, the original Marvel Super Heroes was a little like this, the Marvel Universe could be considered a self-contained entity within the game, and the pieces inside felt like a sandbox with all the parts in play: heroes and villains, equipment and locations.

Could you pull in outside materials, like having Count Dracula show up in the middle of a game? Again, this would require an interpreter, and the requirement of needing a referee comes up again. D&D4 feels a little more self contained than other versions of the D&D game, and one frequent complaint was that referees felt like computers who's job it was to run the monsters and setup the encounters. Note this, if D&D4 was setup a little more like a boardgame, it could play very much like Arkham Horror. Right now, that is not the case, and the iconic 'dungeon master' must be present at all games. The old D&D Miniatures game did not need a DM, but it worked more like a skirmish game - without the adventure elements.

Are Dungeon Masters Obsolete?

The above statement will probably cause a lot of controversy, but it is a question that naturally comes up when you consider games like this - and MMOs. World of Warcraft does not need a dungeon master, and the ease-of-use of MMOs is a huge part of their popularity and accessibility. One of the more interesting parts of the pen-and-paper industry that some of the D&D3 designers brought up were that dungeon masters were the largest attractor of new players - if the game lost DMs, it lost popularity. Is such a heavy reliance on an interpreter and adventure creator actually a hindrance in playability?

Let me put in a paragraph here stating I love referees and dungeon masters, I am one myself, and have been for decades. Nothing beats putting an adventure together and running it with players, a MMO's NPCs will always be flat and static quest givers, a dynamic story cannot be told without a referee, and we bring the game alive in many ways a deck of cards or quest scripting system for an MMO can't. You can never replace a DM with a rules system or computer (though D&D4 has come close, if you stick straight to the battles).

Is there an answer? Probably not, but asking the question if Dungeon Masters are obsolete can focus the role of a DM down like a laser, and help us determine exactly 'what does a referee do?' If there are some systems better suited for the players only to handle, the game should design these to be run without a referee. Could you come up with a combat system that excluded the requirement for a referee, by giving monster's goals and scripts for the players to run? It is possible, and would free up the referee's time to do other things better suited for a live interpreter.

Cutting the referee free may also allow players to setup games on their own in hobby shops and other formal settings. If the goals of a game could be formalized, a group of players could work together to achieve that on their own. All of a sudden, the mechanical: run combats, think for monsters, and handle the environment things are automated - and the referee is free of these obligations (along with the group needing one to do this). Part of what prevents pen-and-paper games from being played is the lack of a referee, and letting everyone play - being a player - is a good thing for some games, especially cooperative and competitive games. The 'everyone is a player' idea is powerful, and opens up the game for a larger audience. This idea doesn't exclude a referee from participating, but rigging a game to play without one does three things:

1. It expands the game's accessibility
2. It allows anyone to join and play a game
3. It frees up the referee to do more creative 'game enhancing' things

Concentrate on the Fun

Let me close this design room session out by saying that one of the best things Arkham Horror does is concentrate on the fun. The game has multiple personalities, more than on big boss, random elements, and a sandbox to play in - a lot can happen, and what happens is often unpredictable. Un-fun elements in previous editions of the game were worked out and eliminated, leaving a very concentrated play experience.

This is game design done right, you publish a new edition of the game to concentrate on what is fun, eliminate the drudgery, and even cut out cruft and junk that makes the game complicated, heavy, and slow. Steve Jobs has a line where he said he was more proud of what Apple said "no" to, and game designers should work in the same mindset. Too many pen-and-paper games go too far, include everything and the kitchen sink, over explain (SBRPG is guilty of this), and just try too hard to cover everything. Games are complicated enough without all this extra explanation and fluff.

It is tough, and finding a game that leaves marketing agendas, edition wars, and designer bias behind is rare. When you find a game made for the players it is a cool thing, and makes you happy to play and become involved. That magic is key, making you happy you became involved, and pulling you into the excitement of the hobby. How many games can do that? Again, we see design pulling together many elements to make a success story, from art, graphic design, playtesting, rules, mathematics, and many other fields to make a solid game. The design serves the play experience, and that experience is king.

 Arkham Horror gets it right in many ways.