Sandy's Soapbox

Iron Man, the Marvel Method, and RPG Design

by Sandy Antunes

The recent movie "Iron Man", a successful film based on a Marvel comic book, heralds a new way to design RPGs. Impossible? Stay tuned, true believers!

Let's start with the Marvel Method. Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and the other early marvelites developed a rapid collaboration method for comic books. The writer creates a rough outline, the artist then draws the book to match the plot, then the writer returns to fill in dialog that matches the art. Three stages: outline, creation, elaboration.

"Sandy is writing while on the phone with an editor, not noticing Death watching. Then they fight."

Most comic books-- especially today-- are done as full script. The writer creates the outline and fully describes the book, leaving the rest of the team to fill in the rest. Art is brought in afterwards to close it out. There are only two stages: creation and execution.

"Use a Giffen 9-panel layout. Panel 1, Sandy is sitting at a homemade cherrywood desk, back to the viewer, wielding a fountain pen while talking on the phone. 'Listen, Chris, I'll have that column by Friday. Double promise.' Over the next 4 panels, we slowly pan back (with no dialog) to reveal the writing den. By panel 5 we see the hunched figure of Death unnoticed behind Sandy. Panels 6 and 7 repeat this, with neither noticing the other (emphasizing loneliness). Sandy looks up in the last panel, asking 'Is that tea?'. We then go to a full page splash where Sandy, tiny in one corner, is battling Death, who occupies nearly the entirely of the page. It's an even match, and Death looks nonplussed."

Both are valid methods, and both clearly involve a different level of collaboration. In Marvel-style, the writer and artist tag-team to make the work; in full script, the writer is king. Now we can work with the methods in other media, understanding that we are moving past the concept of 2-man teams to a broader look at how different creators control different stages of the process.

A George Lucas movie such as "The Phantom Menace" is full script all the way. The writer specifies, the director then forces the actors to perform the dialog and scenes as written. In constrast, "Iron Man" (the 2007 movie) was, essentially, done the marvel way.

Director Jon Favreau notes "As a director, you understand the story, but from a writing perspective, the script usually isn't caught up yet to where the story has evolved to through storyboards, so you hit the set understanding what the scene is about, but how you get there is achieved in different ways." The movie was strong with dialog and scene improvisation, within the bounds set by the visual storyboards and the needs of location and staging.

In short, a Marvel Method Movie. That this method can apply to books and movies suggests it can apply to both playing and designing RPGs. First, for players. Most adventures are scripted-- the scenario creator or the GM has a clear image of how things will go. The characters are actors in a role. They improvise within the setting. So playing an RPG is already very marvelous. The players are given a big picture (from the adventure writer), the artist has added the detail (as GM), and they are now writing in the dialog to the set pieces created.

Some games, such as "Over the Edge" and some indie ad freeform games, are extremely marvel. The character isn't bound strongly by the game design, so the original writer's concept is minimal and the player gets to create in the collaborative framework created by the GM. The GM then provides closing bits as needed.

There's even a term for going 'full script' in RPG play-- railroading. So we already have RPG playing as a collaborative parameterized improvisational medium, more Marvel then full script. How about we approach RPG design this way?

In most RPG design, the game world is created and parameterized by the designer(s) as rules. Adventure writers are brought in to fill in that original vision by following the rules. It is full script: creation followed by execution. The adventures follow the rules.

Could you design a game marvel style, let the rules fall from the adventure and story without being designed up front? The answer is obviously yes, because basic D&D did this. It started simple, with 'here are the rules we made to explain what we did with our figures'. Then it let adventure writers, GMs and players add rules as new things came up. 3rd and now 4th edition took the 'full script' approach of codifying everything in advance.

All RPGs run into the problem of increasing complexity over time. RPGs and comic books are an industry predicated on growth in complexity to keep readers. If comic books laid out all the angst, interconnections, clones, twists, and power boosts up front, the fun would be gone. An RPG that anticipates increasing complexity over time is just a natural extension of the existing trend towards splatbooks, character kits, and increasing reference material.

It's not a far extension to imagine an RPG that takes the route of not just expecting increasing complexity over time, but enforcing it by applying minimal complexity at the start. Instead of saying "let's cover everything then go more detailed later", just throw out the mythical idea of 'completeness' and be intentionally sparse.

So for a Marvelicious RPG, we start with writing the adventures, then back fill in the rules only to the degree needed to support the adventure. So as with Marvel, the game designer first posits the intended goal. Say the goal is "kill monsters and take their stuff". Okay, that's enough, now have a few adventure writers go to it. They write some adventures and hand them back to the designer. The designer then works out the most suitable rule set to handle the desired play.

Are we ready to buy issue #1 of a (hypothetical) great new game, knowing it's intentionally just the start? Issue 1 sets up how to rob a bank, but it's not an RPG about bank robbing. In subsequent issues, you'll find out how your PCs can pilot mecha, overthrow governments, and hunt Lovecraftian critters -- all by doing it.