Game within a game

[Bankuei]

I just had a very interesting experience today running my D&D3E game today.  Two of the players had playoffs in mind, one had just exposed me to Final Fantasy X, which has a sports game built into it as sort of a mini-quest.  

     Since there was so much sports on the mind, one of the pc's decided to enter his band of followers into a game based off the aztec ball game with some elves.  About a third of the session focused on the ball game, and it was fun, as the players were finding new and fun ways to use skills and abilities in a non-dungeon manner.  Bluff, Intimidate, Jump, Spot, Sense Motive, Barbarian Rage, etc were all used, and I'm thinking it may become worthwhile to break out the map and mini's to run an actual game.  We had a blast as the non-playing pc's were out causing mayhem during the distraction the game had created.

  In some ways, I wonder how much the strategy mechanics in systems work as sort of a game within the story for the gamist mindset. My question, how many, if any of you, have included sports, gambling, or some other game within your games, and how well did it work?

Chris[/code]

[hardcoremoose]

I once ran a Rollerball-esque sports event within a larger scenario, but it really didn't amount to anything more than an encounter between the PCs and the villain.

My take on FF style mini-games is that those games typically do something within the larger game - provide you with some hidden equipment, or something.  I'd incorporate the same strategy into tabletop games - make sure the PCs are getting something substantial for the effort.  Use the mini-game to drive the rest of the adventure forward, rather than as a break from the adventuring.

A friend of mine was once considering designing a game based on the cult film The Blood of Heroes.  Obviously, that game was going to have some serious athletic contests imbedded within it.  He wanted to know how to make the game about something other than the sport featured in the movie.  My idea was to structure the game in such a way that you would do things and go on adventures like in any normal post-apocalyptic setting, and break up those extended periods of play with short interludes where the characters got to do their sports stuff.  In these interlude scenes, the players would earn some kind of metagame currency by playing the sport, and this currency would then be spent during the non-sports scenes to make the adventure happen.  Basically, the idea was to use the athletic contest as a framework for the rest of the game, rather than make the game about the sport.  Of course, that's not what you're asking about, but I think it's fun to talk about.

- Moose

[Ron Edwards]

Going back to the days of yore, we find craps rules in the appendix of the first AD&D hardbacks, written in the assumption that player-characters might find themselves gambling. Also, one of the staples of certain types of RuneQuest was Trollball, a gruesomely funny sport that was certainly played by player-characters (again, in some groups) many times over.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Taking it a  little differently from my first post on this, so what role do the actual game mechanics play in terms of being a game within a game?  Many people liken roleplaying to improv or make believe which are "games" or at least play within themselve.  Mechanics work as a second set of rules on top of them, creating a game within a game.

When it comes to gamist mechanics, I take great pleasure in the strategy decisions that open up with certain games, even if they do not really provide to the narrativist goals that I might desire.  The mechanics almost work as a game within a game, as you atttempt to improve your odds, maximize efficiency in whatever goals you have set for yourself, which may have nothing to do with the actual portrayal of the character and creation of the story which is happening simultaneously.  Any thoughts?

Chris

[contracycle]

I think there are a number of things which go to the "game" ness of games.  I find myself thinking that there is something which should be taken from Ron's theory of currency, but I can't put my finger on it.

I guess detail 1 is that there must be bells and whistles to be entertaining.  I think that the real key here is "deceptively simple" although of course thats kinda hard by definition.  I guess what I mean is that its the "now if I did thes, and then I did that, THEN..." feeling; so you need a core mechanic which produces a given result, but with "dangly bits" - like the size of the dice, or something which extends from the mechanic itself and can be manipulated.  I think any given mechanic should have 2 or 3 ways it can be modified, preferably very distinct ways, in scale or origin.

But this is a bit fuzzy - we don't really have terms to discuss the various components of an RPG mechanic.  We can generally identify the core resolution mechanic, but there are often lost of sub-mechanics, from the completely different, like some magic systems, to roll modifiers, to tanle lookups etc.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Chris,

Your second question makes my eyes narrow in a sinister way. Let's see about this quote:

"Many people liken roleplaying to improv or make believe which are "games" or at least play within themselve. Mechanics work as a second set of rules on top of them, creating a game within a game."

You see, I think this outlook is outrageously mistaken. The mechanics of the RPG in question are "what" we are doing, and that "what" either does or does not help us satisfy our "why." That's what my entire essay is about - that system is not some other activity embedded within the role-playing, or if it is, then the satisfaction is spiralling downward quickly.

This points is also related to my notion that Drama mechanics are themselves still mechanics - when, in The Window, the rules say, "GM says so, using the Three Precepts" that's a mechanic. [I personally don't find it a very satisfying one, but that's a goals issue.]

Thus I argue that the entire distinction between the imaginative "let's pretend" and the concrete "rattle-rattle, the dice say" is flawed at its root. Its consequence, to strip out as much of either the imaginative or the concrete, results in dysfunctional design and less-fun, more laborious play.

By contrast, my stated task at hand is how to make the concrete operate in service to, and even inspire, the imaginative, in line with various goals.

Your opening post to the thread makes a lot of sense to me; it's about an embedded "little" game within the larger one. (My gnomish rogue decides to play craps with the goblins; OK, the GM and I play craps as proxies for our characters.) Interesting in terms of who's a proxy for whom, player/character, etc.

However, this second topic seems wrongheaded in the extreme, as it relies on that whole "roll vs. role" thing that my entire essay is written to refute.

Best,
Ron

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

  In some ways, I wonder how much the strategy mechanics in systems work as sort of a game within the story for the gamist mindset. My question, how many, if any of you, have included sports, gambling, or some other game within your games, and how well did it work?

I'll just sort of squeeze this in, though it looks like the thread is going in another direction...

We had a riddle contest in a Vampire Larp I was co-running. It was one of the most beautiful gaming moments I've ever seen. Two Werewolves were strutting around, spitting at each other, with a big political decision to resolve. The first, Paul challenged the second to a duel. The second, Simon noted that as the recipient of the request, he got to choose what the contest was. So he chose a riddle contest. Paul was absolutely flabbergasted.

You know 'Questions', as seen in 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'? Each character had to ask the other questions, without statement, rhetoric, or repetition. The two players spontaneously genereated rules for the contest (best of three), pranced around each other, looked fantastic, and drew a huge crowd, who cheered and booed.

And the best bit was when when Simon called a halt, as a mistake had been made. Paul cried foul. Simon  admitted the mistake was his. Even though he lost the game, he came out *far* ahead as the most popular player, and so won, politically speaking.

*sniff* It was beautiful.

Apart from that... we've had card games in Mage. We've had in-character Tarot readings, which is sort of a game, I suppose. In Aberrant, we had some downtime to fill, so I divided the PCs into two teams who acted out a sort of 'wargame'.

One problem with mini-games such as playing cards in Mage was that there was no connection between the games' mechanics. I never had the players roll their gambling stat to see how it might affect their card-playing. The games were separate  in that respect, and I could see no way to link them.

Oh, and in Over the Edge, once, we had a sort of mini-game where two players took on roles as the infamous Al-Amarjan Customs&Immigration team, and interrogated another player. Again, the players spontaneously generated (very narrativist) rules for how the interviewee could 'win'.

Joe.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

To stick with the initial topic of the thread, one RPG which offers a very interesting situation is Everway. Not only is the Fortune Deck part of the game mechanics among the real people, it is also an in-world, imagined element of the setting. Thus the GM might do a Fortune-cast to prep the elements of a given scenario, but there might also be another Fortune-cast performed by a character, in-game-world, during the play of that scenario. In each case, the mechanics are the same.

I am given to understand that a subset of Everway fandom is based on jettisoning the RPG side of things and simply adopting the Fortune deck as a Tarot-like device for real people in the real world. (Totally bizarre in my opinion, but there you go.)

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Perhaps I've oversimplified my position...what I mean in terms of mechanics being a game within a game is that the mechanics can provide an additional level of goals.  Perhaps what I should have said is instead of a game within a game is "multiple levels of goals within a game"?    

While the Pool facilitates Narrativist play, it is a solid Gamist gambling mechanic.  The mechanics themselves are entertaining, because you are risking a limited resource(your Pool) and attempting to make strategic decisions about it.  In this case the rules support the systems intended goal, but also provide a secondary level of goals.

But perhaps you can direct me to a previous thread with more info, or should I take this to another thread line?

Getting back onto the note of games within games(I'm the worst wanderer on my own thread :P ) I've been seriously considering making sports elements a serious part of a campaign, but have been thinking about in what way to not make it completely the focus of it.  Has anyone had a consistant "minigame" element in a campaign, and how has it turned out?

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Let's take a look at this one ...
"While the Pool facilitates Narrativist play, it is a solid Gamist gambling mechanic. The mechanics themselves are entertaining, because you are risking a limited resource(your Pool) and attempting to make strategic decisions about it. In this case the rules support the systems intended goal, but also provide a secondary level of goals."

I agree with you. In this case, the "risk" felt by the player of The Pool is specifically about Narrativist issues, and as such is (as you say) a Narrativist device. Yet you are also correct about some other "oomph" in there, which may have some competitive/achievement type content.

Thus it fits with my argument in my essay that subsidiary, not-first-priority elements of G, N, or S may act as reinforcers of the primary goal at hand. I have always argued for this point, which often gets ignored when people mistakenly cast me as being the big "one at a time, no more no less" man.

As another example (that is often missed), I am perfectly happy with the notion that primarily Simulationist play can include the concept of "story" as a context or reinforcer of the Simulationist priorities at hand. Or any other combination.

The only problem arises when people are experiencing a conflict among goals in terms of which is the top priority. Any other interpretation of my points, ever since the first "System" essay, is mistaken.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Hope I'm not straying too far from this good thread's intentions, but I thought I'd share a couple "game within a game" instaces I've run.

The one that leaps right to mind is a D&D adventure I ran a while back. I called it the Gauntlet. The session was the first for a new campaign, and the premise was something like "Can a traditional RPG party work together as a well-oiled machine, using the example of a superhero group in comics?"

Anyway, in the first session the character entered a linear dungeon set up by a wizard seeking to employ a team of heroes. His dungeon -- the Gauntlet -- was a test. It included a simple trap, a word puzzle, etc. But the grand finale was a room that looked like a chess board.

For the scene, I played against all of my players in a kind of battle chess. The various "pieces" moved normally (and the players assumed one piece), but rather than simply capturing a pieces, the players could fight to win, even if defending.

My players had a great time on this adventure -- that and they finally managed to kick my ass at chess. Not too hard when you can kill the pieces and you've got five minds against one! But, the game within a game was quite memorable, and they were rewarded for their successful efforts with a new, generous employer and, if I remember rightly, some groovy treasure.

A second example: whenever we enter some kind of gambling scene, I like to either use cards for a simple game like 5-card stud poker or blackjack. Failing that, I usually have them play a simple kind of "yatzee" -- using the dice to make matches, straights, etc. I give characters with useful gambling skills some kind of freebie or "invisible bonus." This is far more entertaining than rolling a gambling skill to see who wins.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Using my scary new moderator ability, I have split the conversation between Gareth and me into a new thread over in the GNS forum.

Back to, "Game within a game."

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

The Game within a Game that I most remember was a GURPS game where our characters participated in an online massive-multi-player fantasy game that we used Hero for (i.e. our GURPS guys were the real ones and our Hero characters were in 'Everquest'). Note that this was years and years before the web.

The story (corporations leaning on a person who was working through the internet using the game as an interface) was story oriented and took place in "reality" but we quicky got goals and such that took place in the simulation. These were a very gamist (we had to get our characters up to a certain level to get into a dungeon where there was data that pertained to the RL adventure).

Using two systems (especially two "realistic" systems) was interesting. I think it hurt SOD a little to be 'role-playing' in our RPG but it was certainly a unique game.

-Marco