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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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.

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 wrote: 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.

John wrote:
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.

John wrote:
... 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hello,

Let's talk about turns.

1. I do not know why gamer culture equates "taking turns" with "solo participation in sequence." I can't think of a single card or board game in which this is the case - when it's "your turn," the whole point is relevance to the other people and providing for responses, during one's turn. In fact, in most card games, "your turn" really means "everyone else's turn towards you."

2. The first awesome role-playing game which incorporated turns that I know of (and of course, I'm talking about turns as a constant feature of play, not "combat move sequence") is Soap. When it's your turn, you frame a scene - and if anyone else's character is in the scene, they are "seized" by the system and must role-play their characters in that scene. You could also spend coins to get into scenes if you wanted to. Ralph was not a Soap player, but Mike was a Soap fanatic, and nearly-identical rules are found as the overall structure for Universalis.

3. Most role-playing groups do use turns of the sort I'm speaking of ... they just don't realize or acknowledge it. Let's take a classical situation in which the "party" is together in an area, and they aren't in a fight, but lots of important stuff is going on. Yes, I agree that the shouting-down method is dysfunctional - which is why, in most long-standing groups, you won't observe it (in con games, more so, I think). What happens?

Here's what: turns, thinly disguised as the GM going to each person in some kind of sequence and asking for their input. Whether it goes from left to right, or criss-cross, or in some other order, or no particular order per time, doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone gets to contribute relative to everyone else, and that everyone gets to respond during each person's "go."

Go ahead, observe and reflect. Consider how you and your group play when you're using a traditional RPG with no guidance at all for timing/ordering things outside of fights, and with well-defined social skills on the character sheets. I'll betcha you'll see turns.

Best,
Ron

Couldn't aggresive scene-framing by the GM be considered a de facto turn structure?

In my experience they seem the achieve the same end: killing off that dysfunctional style of play where one or two players hog the limelight while the other players (stuck in "my guy" mode) steadily lose interest due to non-participation.

Hiya,

Larry, it could be, although I'm inclined to think that "scenes" as normally construed, i.e. imaginary locales, are actually a red herring. If, on the other hand, we consider scenes more in story-unit terms ("X amount of stuff will happen to make this investment in attention-time worthwhile"), then yes.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Just FYI, I'm thinking particularly about my experience with My Life with Master and its "one roll per scene" setup. Absolutely beautiful. I guess I had assumed "aggressive scene-framing" implied the "one story unit" thing in a Forge context, but maybe it just "seemed obvious" to me.

Omnibus,

If it's cool to consider a certain type of scene-framing as turn-based, as well as the other things Ron mentioned, then I'm warming to the notion that turn structure (of some sort) may be inherent to functional play, for reasons which may be inferred from my previous post.

For me a key contribution of turn order is a definitive structure to hang game mechanics on.  This is after all the primary reason why turns are used in board games.  Since RPGs are inherently social activities I think its perhaps by default that we look initially towards the social impact of the turn order, but honestly I find those reasons to be least compelling.

Using turn order to give shy or overrun players spotlight time is basically an attempt to use rules to compensate for a shaky social contract...something that I don't think rules are particularly effective at.

What rules ARE effective at is delivering a play experience by placing boundaries and guiding play.

I think when writing rules that focus on what a game is "about" we need to write rules with an eye to delivering a particular game experience.  Often times, those rules require a bit more structure than "traditional" rules which, as written, are largely free form with GM breaks for skills, out side of combat.  One way to get the necessary structure for the game...including non combat activities...is to organize all activities the same way that traditional rules organize combat.

Its difficult to incorporate the duration of a spell effect, or the rate of fire of a heavy weapon without providing some turn-like structure to combat which has some connection (often only a vague connection) with time.  Its not the relationship to time that is important in combat.  After all D&D got with such a fast and loose concept of time that characters could only move 120 feet in 60 seconds and swing a sword once.  Much more important than the rather amorphous definition of how long a D&D round was, was the structure that knowing who gets to go when provided to play.  The idea that a round equals a certain amount of time is really just a simmy overlay on top of the real issue which is to break play up into discrete chunks...after all, nobody cares how long a turn in Monopoly is (are those monthly rents, or annual rents or what?...who cares.) 

The round or turn structure can thus be seen to be pretty independent of "scale issues" and thus not at all limited to combat.  The idea of providing structure to play by breaking up activities into discrete chunks and arranging them into an order can be seen to be equally applicable in terms of organizational benefit to ANY aspect of play.

Its the mechanical flexibility, its the ability to write rules about non combat stuff that is every bit as specific and distinct as rules about combat stuff, its the ability to map out using rules what a session of play should look like that is the advantage of turn based (hard like Universalis, or quasi like Troll Babe) play.  This, to me is MUCH more important than any of the social issues.

Since currently its indie games that are most concerned with such things, its no surprise that its largely indie game leading the way with turn based play.

I agree that turns are inherent in practice. Ralph, good call on their primary value as contextualizing a session and leveling investment of combat with other. And I appreciate the reminder about SC undermining system. Frustration can make you lose sight.

Ron wrote: Most role-playing groups do use turns of the sort I'm speaking of ... they just don't realize or acknowledge it. Let's take a classical situation in which the "party" is together in an area, and they aren't in a fight, but lots of important stuff is going on. Yes, I agree that the shouting-down method is dysfunctional - which is why, in most long-standing groups, you won't observe it (in con games, more so, I think). What happens?

Here's what: turns, thinly disguised as the GM going to each person in some kind of sequence and asking for their input. Whether it goes from left to right, or criss-cross, or in some other order, or no particular order per time, doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone gets to contribute relative to everyone else, and that everyone gets to respond during each person's "go."

Go ahead, observe and reflect. Consider how you and your group play when you're using a traditional RPG with no guidance at all for timing/ordering things outside of fights, and with well-defined social skills on the character sheets. I'll betcha you'll see turns.

To me, 'turn-based' structures mean Players are in placed into some rarified segment of spotlighted 'activity'; queued up in by the order-of-play.  Actors become audience for the duration; given their 'Day in the Sun'; Individuation.

There could be a Stream-of-Consciousness modernist self-referentiality to 'Turns' - the internal dialogue or viewpoint  (i.e. Woolf or Joyce) that only that a turn-based structure could allow.  

How about Twinned-turns? - players taking their turns together for extra emphasis (like double-teaming or dance partners; team sports like football plays or exercise classes)  - simultaneous actions - Collective and combined actions.

Turns could be potentially about Distorting Time.  How many split-seconds (or minutes or hours or years etc) does the PC Turn normally represent in a game?  This makes 'Turns' as Pocket universes of time - as many time-streams as there are Players in the RPG; channels of time switched between.

'Real-Times' advocates removal of the reliance on turn-based systems; for many activities in the world aren't turn-based...  I think in this context Colonel John Boyd's Conflict equation - 'Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action loop' times - could be seen as turns.

Maybe one could play around with the interactivity of 'turns'; a choice of the different kinds of Turns taken by the players -
Like using, say, a DVD Player paradigm of 'Turns' -
*Fast Forward time (at different speeds) turns...
*Slow motion turns...
*Rewind or Replaying or Repeated turns...
*Skipping to different chapters or to the End; 'getting to the point' turns...
*Pausing time turns...
*Return to Menu button?

John wrote: 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.

I'm thinking about the Monopoly turn thing. Part of the game is turn-based and part is not. Certainly, during a turn, a player rolls dice, moves her token, takes action based on the square she lands on, and so on. But there's also a trading aspect that isn't turn-based. Here's an older version of the rules for reference, but this really isn't about Monopoly, per se.

Players can, at any time, I believe, engage in a legal trade of any kind, including cash, deeds, houses, hotels, and "Get out of Jail Free" cards. This can lead to complications like, I roll a 10 and start to move my token to your property, and before I get there you announce you want to put a hotel on it. Is that legal? (I'll bet newer versions of the rules explicitly say that it isn't but, again, this really isn't about Monopoly.)

My point is that even board games face IIEE problems. Even turn-based board games have aspects that are not turn-based.

Hiya,

Adam's take on Monopoly matches my own. Every "turn" in Monopoly is potentially everyone's turn to respond to the fellow who rolled and moved his piece.

Yes, I agree that board games exist which differ and are more in line with the "everyone else waits," but I don't think they are as common. I request that this thread not be flooded with examples.

Best,
Ron