Turn-based structures in RPGs -- what are they good for?

[Andrew Morris]

Someone (RobNJ, I believe) recently pointed out that they dislike turn-based RPGs. Personally, I love 'em. Universalis, Capes, Ganakagok, Breaking the Ice...lots of my favorites use turns, in some form or another. Now, to be clear about the purpose of this thread, I'm not looking for an opinion poll about whether turn-based structures are good or bad. Instead, I'd like to discuss what function (if any) turn mechanics serve in a role-playing games.

My first thought is that they serve to bring some form of structure to games that don't provide it through other, more traditional methods. If everything that is traditionally defined is left wide open, as it is in many indie games, turn-based mechanics allow for a sort of "meta-structure" to keep a game from being almost or completely free-form.

Another idea is that turn-based games provide equal opportunity for all participants to contribute to the game. I used to play D&D with an ex-girlfriend and she constantly complained that she "never got to do anything" because everyone else would clamor and bellow out their actions, and the loudest and most insistent would get the attention of the GM. So, one of the possible functions of turn-based systems could be to make sure everyone, no matter how soft-spoken or unassertive, gets their opportunity to take part.

Does anyone else have any ideas as to what function turn-based mechanics might serve in RPGs? Any thoughts on why they don't serve a function?

[TonyLB]

Turns do a great job when you want to separate two roles:  "On the spot, have to do something," and "Challenging or otherwise supporting the person on the spot."

People who feel lost amidst the rules system benefit from being told "Okay, it was alright to sit and coast and observe up to this point, but you need to do something now."  People who don't know when to quit, and would otherwise dominate play by sheer verbosity (guilty!) benefit from being told "It was alright to strut your stuff up to this point, but you need to calm down, listen and act in reference to someone else's creative vision now."

[komradebob]

Another idea is that turn-based games provide equal opportunity for all participants to contribute to the game. I used to play D&D with an ex-girlfriend and she constantly complained that she "never got to do anything" because everyone else would clamor and bellow out their actions, and the loudest and most insistent would get the attention of the GM. So, one of the possible functions of turn-based systems could be to make sure everyone, no matter how soft-spoken or unassertive, gets their opportunity to take part.

This would probably be the best single reason for turn structure. Related reasons might also have to do with the part different participants wish to have in a game. Turn based design could allow a different distribution of character-player and gm duties, possibly doing away with that distinction in a given design. Scarlet Wake, IIRC, has a pretty interesting take on that. A single player has their character spotlighted at a time, with the other players, to some extent, acting as (limited) gms.

Turn based systems could also be used to allow a given player to bring an aspect of the game in to focus that they are interested in: A switch of scenes, a mini-scene, another aspect of the gameworld ( for sim fans, like myself, a decided bonus).

I suspect the reluctance for some longtime rpers to go with a turn based structure may have to do with the impression that a turn based structure precludes player interaction, sort of like the old idea that if your characater isn't physically present, you shouldn't be able to interact with players whose chracters are present at a location. In the case of a turn based structure, I would think that a designer would want to consider what the non-phasing players should be able to contribute when it is not thteir turn.

[Andrew Morris]

That's a good point, Tony. It kinda adds to my second theory.

I'd still really like to hear about whether turn-based systems take away more than they give, as well.

[TonyLB]

They take away (at the least) what I call the "Once Upon a Time Effect."  When you play that game, you find that people with good storytelling skills get longer turns, because it's an interruption mechanic, and folks forget to interrupt when they're engrossed.

Likewise, games without turn order are often interruption-mechanics, which can lead (in the functional case) to the spotlight remaining more consistently on the people who have the best inspirations at the moment.  Turn orders will often break this, forcing action away from people who know exactly what needs to happen next, and toward people who haven't got a clue of what to do.

[John Kim]

They take away (at the least) what I call the "Once Upon a Time Effect."  When you play that game, you find that people with good storytelling skills get longer turns, because it's an interruption mechanic, and folks forget to interrupt when they're engrossed.

I agree with this.  I think this is both a strength and a weakness, though.  The advantage of a more freeform structure (i.e. the Once Upon a Time Effect) is that it can be a little faster because people jump in immediately with their ideas.  In a turn-based structure, play can often stall when it comes to someone's turn and they don't know what to do.  Our first game of Soap often ground to a halt when it came to someone's turn and they couldn't come up with something.  The disadvantage, as others point out, is that people can be unfairly left out.  Also, sometimes people are fine with having less spotlight time and/or following someone else's cool idea. 

[John Harper]

Stalling is greatly reduced if a "turn" defines who has final say, NOT who is allowed to speak. PTA and Trollbabe are two games that appoint a "buck-stopper" for the turn rather than a solo narrator. This way, everyone can speak during every turn (and the people who are on a roll can continue rolling) but the final authority about what gets into the game moves from person to person in turn.

Many games that use turns don't make sense without the buck-stopping interpretation.

[ewilen]

I haven't played a turn-based RPG (outside of combat situations) but after hearing a bit about PTA I note that the turn-based structure not only gives everyone a chance to contribute and have their interests addressed, it also encourages engagement because while somone else is taking their turn, you're likely to be thinking about how it will connect to your turn.

[John Kim]

Stalling is greatly reduced if a "turn" defines who has final say, NOT who is allowed to speak. PTA and Trollbabe are two games that appoint a "buck-stopper" for the turn rather than a solo narrator. This way, everyone can speak during every turn (and the people who are on a roll can continue rolling) but the final authority about what gets into the game moves from person to person in turn.

I agree, the effect may be lesser or greater depending on the group, but it's still there. 

What speeds things up depends on the group.  For example, in my experience, kibbitzing (i.e. suggesting things for someone else's turn) doesn't always speed things up.  Sometimes it turns into a discussion, which might have positive results in coming up with good ideas, but isn't good for speed. 

To Elliot -- I'm not sure how this is different between turn-based and freeform play.  That is, players in freeform declaration also pay attention to what other players are doing, because it will affect them when they declare things as well.  The difference is that the player knows for sure when in sequence his scene will come up.  So presumably he'll pay relatively more attention right before his scene, and relatively less attention when it is a long time until his scene.  In freeform declaration, yours might be the next scene at any time -- but conversely it is never for certain the next scene.  Offhand, I can't say I've seen a real difference here in my experience. 

[John Harper]

What speeds things up depends on the group.  For example, in my experience, kibbitzing (i.e. suggesting things for someone else's turn) doesn't always speed things up.  Sometimes it turns into a discussion, which might have positive results in coming up with good ideas, but isn't good for speed.

That's why the buck-stopper matters. It turns into a discussion only if the buck-stopper lets it happen. Otherwise, they make their decision and go on with the scene, and they have the authority to do that.

... So presumably he'll pay relatively more attention right before his scene, and relatively less attention when it is a long time until his scene.

I've yet to see that happen in any turn based game I've played. Anyone else?

[Bill Cook]

I have mixed feelings about turn-based play in RPG's. Dominating input via informal interrupts can be bad. Brainstorming, even from off stage, can be very play enhancing. Some players wilt in the spotlight. Other times, even confident players simply have nothing to add. I've experienced play where informal turns are taken, and owing to that and reining in antsy progressives, wallflowers can be supported in producing some really interesting lines. And the whole group grows from it, learning to appreciate the shy guy's unique take, holding still in the future so as not to scare him off.

I'd take an excellent session manager's direction, going by tells and striving for balance, over Monopoly treatment of role-playing, in most cases. I suppose the question is: what kinds of turn-based rules promote balanced input while avoiding mind-numbing formality? I think rounds of turn opportunities are better than rounds of turns.

I remember playing Universalis and going around the table, making sure that no one had anything to add. Hell, we didn't need to do that; I could've told you no one did by the look in their eyes. But because we were supposed to, people started making shit up, because they felt like they may as well do something. And their somethings were window dressing. It was horridly aggravating. I should have spent a coin to make a rule that the scene lead says, "Input?" and you raise your hand if you've got something.

[Adam Dray]

I think it's important to design a role for players when it is not their turn. Players should have a mechanism to affect play for other characters or even for their own character (for example, rewards they can use themselves later, even if those rewards are earned while another character has the spotlight).

The game design should explicitly draw players into other players' scenes and not leave it up to chance or politeness. A design can invest players in every scene in the game.

[matthijs]

Turn-based RPGs can take away a sense of group unity under pressure. If it's four players vs. the GM's deviousness, those four can trust each other and focus their paranoia on the GM. If those players alternate performing GM tasks, they might not feel so close-knit as a group.

[TonyLB]

Matthijs:  Sounds like a question of distribution of GM-roles, which is a variable independent of the mechanics of IIEE and turn order.

Adam:  I totally agree with you that having a mechanic for people to still be playing while other folks have their turn is key.  Otherwise, yeah, it gets boring.  I'll add further that if the interruption costs some small but noticeable resource at the same time it gives you benefits (as, frex, it does in Capes) then people are less likely to use it to continually interrupt for ego's sake, and more likely to selectively use it when they've actually got something pretty clever to say.  That sort of self-filtering can be good mojo.

[Jack Aidley]

Hi Tony,

I don't think Turn structure is independent of GM roles, since determining who gets to act is part of the set of GM roles. More than that, I think it's one of the most central roles in a traditional GM setup; it's through spotlighting that you control what action is happening, and how long it happens for.