I originally posted this message on rpg-create and several list members suggested I repost it here. I've added a few clarifications in this version of the post, included below in brackets.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've been snooping around newsgroups looking for discussions about new approaches to designing RPGs. By and large, these discussions center on introducing new powers for the players to exercise (over narrative, authorship, etc.). A few approaches aim at redefining the premise of the game, aspiring to collaborative story telling, collaborative world or setting development, minimizing the role of the GM, modeling a literary environment, etc.

I wonder if a there might not be another way to look at RPGs in an effort to discover new design elements. Specifically, to consider what kind of social interaction is taking place around the playing table. After all, when all the rules, dice, character sheets, and miniatures are stripped away the real value of a playing session is the interaction between participants. I'll call this the "meta-game," that which takes place in the real world.

I want to examine components of the the gaming experience from the participant's view in the hope doing so will provide some clues to game design. I've identified five components that I believe are important to the experience of gaming: Strategy, Evolution, Drama, Risk/Reward, and Destiny. I think good RPG will address all of these components in the course of producing a gaming experience.

Strategy has to do with the management, expenditure, and gathering of resources to achieve goals. Most games only address Strategy on a tactical level, the positioning of characters to allow them use skills in the most effective manner in overcome in-game obstacles. Strategy can also function on another level, wherein players work together to craft the gaming experience they most want to have [content, inter-player dynamics, style of play]. Strategy occurs on both a personal and communal level. Individual participants exercise Strategy over their own resources and the group also collaborates to make effective strategic decisions.

Evolution refers to developments in the [meta-]game environment that expand the opportunities available to the participants [both in-game and around the gaming table]. Examples of Evolution include new character skills, plot developments, new resources, exploration of some new aspect of the setting, etc. Evolution might also involve a change in the nature of the game or the ability to interact with the game environment on some new level, as in access to narrative control or authorship.

Drama functions on three levels. There is literary Drama, wherein the "plot" of he game advances, tension rises and dissipates, conflicts are presented and resolved, etc. There is also the Drama of the actor, wherein the participants explore the psyches of their characters and interact with the [in-]game environment through those filters. Finally, there is the Drama between the participants themselves, as they interact with one another during the course of game play.

Risk/Reward is a concept that is generally addressed in RPGs only at the Strategic level. Risk/Reward refers to the choices participants have to make in weighing what can be lost compared to what can be gained. However, RPG rules need not only focus on the Risk/Reward of in-game decisions. An RPG might address the concept of Risk/Reward as it applies to the participant's [the gaming group] pursuit of Evolution, Drama, and Destiny.

Finally, Destiny concerns who controls the gaming experience and to what degree that control extends. Most RPGs invest a GM with the majority of Destiny. The GM typically dominates Strategy (assigning the type and degree of conflicts the players will face, fudging dice rolls, etc.), controls the Evolution of the game (granting resources and determining plot), and introduces the Drama. The participants still exercise their own choices about Risk/Reward, but it is the GM who presents the choices to them.

Destiny is important to the "meta-game" because the more access each of the participants have to it the more likely the gaming experience will reflect the desires of the group as a whole. I think Destiny can be more democratically distributed in RPGs if it is addressed directly in the rules and if it is integrated with the concepts of Strategy, Evolution, Drama, and Risk/Reward. Too much control over Destiny and the Risk/Reward component becomes meaningless. Too little control and the participants become disenfranchised, unable to contribute to molding the gaming experience altogether.

This marks the end of my little manifesto. I have some ideas I'm toying with to use in developing a "meta-game" sensitive RPG, but I'm eager to hear from others on what they think defines the gaming experience and how an RPG can be better designed to enhance it.

chikoppi

Hey, this happens to be one of my pet topics currently, so thought I would try and help get the discussion ball rolling on it. Your five elements divvy up the concepts well, though some of the terms have some unfortunate connotative baggage, or association with other concepts/models.

I would say that your model hinges around Destiny in terms of relating the other four elements. The distribution of power/responsiblity among the participants is one of my pet gaming theory topics.

chikoppi wrote: Destiny is important to the "meta-game" because the more access each of the participants have to it the more likely the gaming experience will reflect the desires of the group as a whole. I think Destiny can be more democratically distributed in RPGs if it is addressed directly in the rules and if it is integrated with the concepts of Strategy, Evolution, Drama, and Risk/Reward. Too much control over Destiny and the Risk/Reward component becomes meaningless. Too little control and the participants become disenfranchised, unable to contribute to molding the gaming experience altogether.

Hi Chicoppi,

I hope you're thirsty, because you've found the fire hose. Man, have you ever come to the right place. Welcome to the Forge!

What people think defines the gaming experience, and how RPGs can be (or have been, when looking at existing games) designed to enhance it, is exactly what we discuss here. Sometimes at great length and in unbelievably intricate detail.

In particular, there's a high level of interest here in what you call meta-game mechanisms. We use the same term, with a possibly different shade of meaning. Metagame mechanisms are still part of the stated rules of a system, but they affect things outside the game world, such as who gets to narrate the results of an action, or allow players to affect things inside the game world by means other than player-character agency, such as spending a "hero point" to change the outcome of an action. Many game systems often discussed here including The Pool, InSpectres, Universalis, Shadows, and Donjon use metagame rules extensively and in some cases even exclusively.

The larger framework of what's going on around the playing table, outside of the system itself, we discuss as "social contract" issues. These include everything that relates to play within that larger framework, from the level of expected cooperation between players to who orders the pizza. Recently, new discussion has emerged about another even larger framework, which is the situation of gamers and gaming withiin society at large, including how gamers are perceived by other gamers and by non-gamers, how new players are (or could be) introduced to gaming, and how games are promoted and sold.

For much of the discussion here, we use a technical terminology derived from Ron Edwards' GNS Theory, which you can read here. Understanding the theory and the terminology is daunting but worth the effort because it will allow you to get more out of the discussion here. Don't be afraid to ask questions about anything that you find unclear. Everyone does.

You'll find that some elements of GNS agree quite nicely with some of your own observations. Other elements will put a very different (though not necessarily incompatible) slant on things. Some of your five components appear to apply to all three of the GNS "modes" of play, while others are associated with specific modes. For example, of your three types of Drama, the one you call "literary drama" applies to all modes of play (and perhaps for that reason is not much discussed here, though there has been a recent surge of interest in it in this thread and its offshoots); "drama of the actor" describes a form of Simulationism focusing on exploration of character and situation; and "drama between the participants" is an aspect of the social context to which the social contract applies. GNS might suggest other forms of Drama you haven't though of, such as the drama inherent in Narrativism, in which the main priority of play is exploration of an ethical or moral question of interest to the player.

GNS isn't the only model for defining the role-playing experience we entertain here. For some other examples see Fang Lanford's Scattershot model and Rob Muadib's SGR model. But GNS is the common reference point, used even by those who disagree with it (a point which some people don't seem to grasp sometimes).

Since you asked, I personally define the gaming experience in terms of what I call the Interactive Storytelling Problem, which is the question of how participants can have and exercise free will in making in-character decisions while producing an outcome (the "story" of what happens in play) that has certain abstract qualities that we associate with conventional narrative. (This involves the components of "literary drama" and "destiny" in your schema, but other issues too.) So my current interest is in game mechanics or other in-play tools that actively guide (instead of passively permit or actively oppose) the outcome into valid dramatic structures without impinging on in-character decision-making. Keep in mind, though, that my view is not typical of Forge members in general, and I'm not sure anyone's is.

A hefty percentage of the thousands of thread here involves defining aspects of the gaming experience and/or designing RPGs to enahnce it, in some way or another. So poke around a little, and see if anything inspires you.

I'm certainly interested in hearing more about your ideas on the subject.

- Walt

Thanks for your feedback, I think this forum (The Forge) is quickly going to become my favorite!

I'm going to try and move from theory to practice using the five-sided model sketched at the beginning of this thread. My immediate goal is two-fold, to find some way to put the Destiny of the game in the hands of the players and to balance Destiny with the concept of Risk/Reward.

First, Destiny (roughly equated to authorship) must be disassociated from fiat. In most RPGs a GM is entrusted through the power of fiat to define the gaming experience (direction of game Evolution, opportunities for Drama and Strategy, balance of Risk/Reward). My thought is to create a mechanism that allows the players to control the Destiny of the game by introducing the concept of Risk/Reward to the process (this does not supercede the need for a GM).

In its most stripped down form Destiny involves willfully moving the game from "here" to "there." "Here" is the present game environment, the point to which the story has advanced, the scope of the setting, the nature of the Drama, the style of game play. "There" is the experience the gaming group wants to have. If the space between "here" and "there" were to involve some qualifiable degree of risk the players would then have to balance their control over Destiny with acceptance of the risk associated with it. By having a set of rules that define the Risk/Reward associated with Destiny, the players will also have the opportunity to exercise Strategy in pursuit of their goals.

I'll call the abstract degree of risk between "here" and "there" The Bridge. The Bridge will manifest itself within the game in the form of some challenge, the degree of which equates to the severity of the change the players want to make in the game. The challenge of The Bridge will balance what can be lost with what can be gained.

Implementing the concept of The Bridge requires two things. First, that the object of the player's desires be qualified in some abstract terms relevant to the game. If the players want their characters to discover something about the setting (who is behind the coup attempt) then some qualifier must be assigned to their goals. This qualifier will determine the degree of Risk/Reward associated with the endeavor.

Second, the GM must translate the qualified degree of Risk/Reward into events that occur within the context of game play. In this sense, the GM moves away from the dictatorial role of author into a creative roll of interpreter. The GM controls the manifestation of The Bridge, but it is up to the players to determine where The Bridge leads and the degree of Risk/Reward it represents.

If the players are able to successfully cross The Bridge then Destiny remains in their control. If they fail then not only must they pay the price determined by The Bridge, but the change they had hoped for will not occur. Failure to cross The Bridge might even force a change in direction of the game in a direction counter to the direction they desired.

Let's use the case of the players wanting to discover who is responsible for a coup attempt as an example. The players state their intentions (implicitly or explicitly) to play major rolls in the setting and engage in some intrigue. The players have their characters begin asking questions. The GM qualifies the degree of change the players want and translates it into in-game events, using mechanics defined by The Bridge. Once interpreted into game events, the GM subtly places The Bridge in the path of the characters.

If the players overcome the challenges presented by The Bridge they are rewarded by having the game progress according to their desires. If the players fail the challenge they must pay the penalty determined by the scope of their reach and either the game remains in a nuetral position or advances in a direction they did not intend (perhaps the characters are implicated in the coup and they must make a daring escape).

In this example I used plot development as the goal of the players. However, player goals need not be so limited. Players may wish to change the nature of game play to be more or less oriented toward action, drama, exploration, or strategy. They may wish to change the measure of reward from plot advancement to combat or financial victories. They may even want to change the nature of the setting external to the direct actions of their characters (introducing a war perhaps). All of these goals must be qualified by the mechanics of The Bridge and interpreted by the GM into some sort of challenge presented to the characters. The players must understand there is a real threat of loss when facing The Bridge, so they can evaluate their desires against the Risk/Reward component.

I'll admit, I haven't yet given much thought to how such abstract concepts can be qualified, but I think it is possible. The type of rolls the characters would play (minor, supporting, major), the degree of change within the game environment their success would bring about (none, mild, major), and the type of reward involved (plot advancement, character ability, change in game style, etc.) can all be abstracted into degrees. Given some mechanic for equating these degrees with challenge levels, the GM would then have a fairly objective set of rules for implementing The Bridge.

I think the ideas sketched out here still support the concepts of Evolution, Strategy, Drama, Risk/Reward, and Destiny. I haven't addressed Drama so much as I have thhe other conspets. I do however have some foggy ideas about a set of Dramatic mechanics that allow players to move their characters from one literary archetype to the next, gaining specific advantages when they do.

I'm sure there are some game systems out there that address some of these concepts in some degree. I'd really like to hear about them as well as what you may think of the direction of RPG design I've hinted at above.

Thanks for listening...

chikoppi

Hmm, I like the idea of the Bridge you mentioned, sounds reasonable. However, I don't like the idea that if you lose, the game goes in way you didn't intend. While from a plot development point of view, a complication would be cool, however, losing in other areas, type of action, or other control, especially if you end up with the opposite of what you wanted seems strange.

I mean, your making people gamble to get the game to meet their interests, and if they lose, then the game will subjectively suck for them, as it were. Which seems kind of strange to me. I can understand the idea of introducing meta-game mechanics, but I don't see much appeal in making the player's ability to influence the direction of their game to their liking into a game itself. It also sets up the GM in an adversarial relationship.

Guess I would like to see what other ideas you had to deal with this "drawback" of the idea. As for other games that deal with "Destiny" mechanics, There is Universalis, by Ralph "Valamir" Mazza, and Mike "Mike" Holmes, which works on a point economy between players. I am designing a similar system in my game TMW:COTEC.

Oh wait, One idea where this meta-game gambling on outcomes would be interesting, would be in a Time Traveling type game, where the players go back to change the outcome/direction of some events in the past. So they have to gamble with regards the outcome they want, and the end result would be determined relative to the initital timeline results. Such that screwing up would have major consequences in making things worse than they were. That would be an interesting context in which to place such a gambling results theme, IMO. Perhaps you have some other ideas?

best

Rob Muadib