This is an in-progress theory of RPG design based on Chris Crawford's thoughts on the differences between Puzzles, Competitions, and Games. For more info check the Wikipedia entry for "Game".
Games and Roleplaying Games
A game has one or more challenges and established rules for players attempting to overcome those challenges. In Roleplaying Games these challenges usually involve Luck, Strategy, Improvisation and Story Telling.
Players are rewarded for overcoming the challenges of a game. Some examples of rewards found in RPGs include: satisfaction in overcoming the challenge, recognition of success from the other players, entertaining performances, an entertaining narrative, and game resources that give the player an advantage in future challenges. The greater the reward(s) the greater the incentive to play the game. If players are rewarded independently of any challenge, it is not a reward of the game itself and could be available without playing the game, or merely going through the motions of playing the game.
All games, including RPGs require some form of competition. In a cooperative game all the players compete against the game system itself. In a competitive game there is competion against other players. Without any form of competition it is a roleplaying activity, rather than a roleplaying game.
What this tells us about designing games
* The rules of the game need to make it clear to the players what the challenge and reward are, and where the competition of the game is.
* A game based on Improvisation and Storytelling still requires some type of challenge(s), reward(s), and competition.
* If an activity in the game has no effect on the challenges or rewards of the game, the game could be played without it.
* Rewards based on entertaining performances and narratives are only effective if there are players who are talented enough at improvisation and storytelling to entertain the other players in the game.
* Rewards based on strategy are only effective if the game offer enough strategic options, and the players have suitable mastery of the game to allow meaningful strategic decisions.
* Some activities commonly thought of as "RPGs" are not games at all. For example, some LARPs have no challenges or competition of any sort beyond the optional personal goals of each participant. They are an activity during which games can take place, but are not games in themselves.
* The GM can be thought of as having one of the following 4 roles:
1) One of the players, with all the players working cooperatively against the game system
2) One of the players, playing competitively against the other players
3) A player in a parallel, inter-dependent game, where they are playing against the game system
4) Not a player at all. A referee.
* If the GM fudges dice rolls it diminishes any satisfaction or recognition rewards based on Luck or overcoming strategic challenges.
* If the GM changes strategic situations to reduce the challenge to the player(s) it also diminishes rewards based on satisfaction and recognition.
Does it work?
I think this explains the success of D&D, supports some of the design changes made in D&D 3.x, and is also broad enough to cover Forge-Style games with a greater emphasis on storytelling and improvisation.
It will be interesting to hear whether people believe this explains games they think work well, explains games they think work poorly, or offers useful guidance in thinking about how to make new games that work well.
Looks reasonably sound, as far as it goes.
Do you think a challenge is required to be ... well ... challenging? Should it be something that, through bad luck or bad play or whatever, a player could potentially fail at?
Or is (for instance) "hearing the story the GM wants to tell" a challenge, with set rules for how to "overcome" it and its own reward of an entertaining narrative?
QuoteDo you think a challenge is required to be ... well ... challenging? Should it be something that, through bad luck or bad play or whatever, a player could potentially fail at?
Or is (for instance) "hearing the story the GM wants to tell" a challenge, with set rules for how to "overcome" it and its own reward of an entertaining narrative?
Hearing a story isn't a challenge. The challenge could
involve the choices the players have to make in the RPG based on the story. The challenge could
involve improvising / acting based on the story. The challenge could
involve adding to the story. The challenge could
involve a tactical/strategic decision.
If there is no real difference in how or even if the players attempt the challenge, and they get the reward all the same -- the challenge isn't related to the reward, and the reward isn't part of that "game".
Edit: Changed "be" to
involve above. :)
Quote from: StuartIf there is no real difference in how or even if the players attempt the challenge, and they get the reward all the same -- the challenge isn't related to the reward, and the reward isn't part of that "game".
So ... in a railroaded plot, where the GM has set things up such that the PCs are going to win no matter what ... is there any challenge? Are they, in fact, playing a roleplaying game? Or are they doing something else?
Quote from: Stuart* If an activity in the game has no effect on the challenges or rewards of the game, the game could be played without it.
A game where none of the rewards are oriented towards any actual form of roleplaying, but which normally contains it...
Is not necessarily an RPG?
QuoteSo ... in a railroaded plot, where the GM has set things up such that the PCs are going to win no matter what ... is there any challenge? Are they, in fact, playing a roleplaying game? Or are they doing something else?
EXACTLY! This is why players (rightly) dislike railroading in RPGs -- it turns the game into something else. If you have an RPG where the decisions (strategy) and dice rolls (luck) of the players don't really matter, and there is no alternative challenge (eg. Improv. or Storytelling), it's only the illusion of a game.
QuoteA game where none of the rewards are oriented towards any actual form of roleplaying, but which normally contains it...
Is not necessarily an RPG?
A game where none of the rewards are based on any "roleplaying" challenges could still be played successfully without any roleplaying.
Quote from: StuartA game where none of the rewards are based on any "roleplaying" challenges could still be played successfully without any roleplaying.
So, a group playing D&D that didn't socially reward roleplaying or use house rules to reward it, could play it as something other than an RPG.
Successfully.
That sounds wrong.
Quote from: StuartEXACTLY! This is why players (rightly) dislike railroading in RPGs -- it turns the game into something else. If you have an RPG where the decisions (strategy) and dice rolls (luck) of the players don't really matter, and there is no alternative challenge (eg. Improv. or Storytelling), it's only the illusion of a game.
Gotcha. That makes sense. It's an interesting place to draw a line. I'll be (a) thinking about it myself and (b) seeing where you go with it. Thanks for clarifying!
QuoteSo, a group playing D&D that didn't socially reward roleplaying or use house rules to reward it, could play it as something other than an RPG.
Successfully.
That sounds wrong.
I think Mike Mearls mentioned a noon-hour D&D game at WotC that plays more-or-less like a tactical wargame. So you could play something like D&D miniatures without it being an RPG.
But...
Normally the strategic decisions in D&D are dependent on "roleplaying" -- which I'm using to mean something different than good "acting" or "storytelling". I think you can roleplay while playing lots of games -- but it actually has an effect on the game in D&D. When not in combat it's the way you interact with the other players and the game system.
I spent some more time thinking about this... :)
Whether something is a boardgame or a roleplaying game or a party game has more to do with the primary environment of the game rather than the challenges and rewards themselves.
You can definitely have roleplaying without challenges / rewards linked to roleplaying -- like a LARP. So this isn't suggesting which games are or are not roleplaying games and which should use alternate titles (eg. story games). However, if something isn't a game at all... it's certainly not a roleplaying game OR a storytelling game.
Game Rewards and Incentive to Play
The greater the reward a game offers, the more incentive people have to play it. This can be a single, larger reward, or multiple smaller rewards.
Generally, some rewards are greater than others and can help explain why some types of games are more popular than others. Regardless of the type of challenge (eg. Luck, Strategy, Improvisation and Story Telling):
Winning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well
Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.
Risks
Linked to the rewards for a game are it's risks -- what does the player stand to lose by playing the game. The greater the risk, the less incentive people have to play the game.
Risks relating to RPGs include: Expense ($), Time to learn the rules, Time to play the game, Uncertainty over the rewards (eg. Narrative quality), Embarrassment (primarily linked to Improvisation and Story Telling), and the risk of "losing" the game.
Games that take a long time to learn, play, have uncertain rewards, are viewed as potentially embarrassing, and offer little potential for the player to "win" offer much less incentive to play compared to games without the same risks, or at least a smaller number of risks.
What does this tell us?
* RPGs should seek to maximize their rewards and minimize their risks.
* Games without any way of winning are less popular than games with clearly defined winning conditions.
* Games with greater risk to players tend to be less popular, unless they have substantially increased rewards.
Quote from: StuartWinning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well
Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.
I would quibble a little bit here. You're putting a value judgement in here. Perhaps
for you Winning the game is a greater reward. For others, they might switch the order.
I think it would be more accurate to say "Here are the basic rewards available. Having a game that provides one is not as good as a game that offers two, which is not as a good as game the offers three. Your choice as to which of the three, but the more a game offers, the better."
That seems muddled, and for some reason I'm struggling with a better way to put it.
This is my Theory.
Quote from: StuartWinning the game, is a greater reward than
Being recognized for playing well, is a greater reward than
Personal satisfaction in playing well
Games that only offer personal satisfaction offer less reward than games than offer personal satisfaction AND recognition from other players for plaing well AND winning the game.
I'd agree with the second, but not the first.
Yes, winning the game and being recognized for good play and being personally satisfied ... that's a terrific trifecta.
But sometimes you come away with the plaudits of your peers, even though you lost the game, and that's good. Sometimes you win the game but nobody recognizes your good play, and that's bad. And the weight given to those different things varies from person to person.
QuoteI'd agree with the second, but not the first.
Yes, winning the game and being recognized for good play and being personally satisfied ... that's a terrific trifecta.
But sometimes you come away with the plaudits of your peers, even though you lost the game, and that's good. Sometimes you win the game but nobody recognizes your good play, and that's bad. And the weight given to those different things varies from person to person.
Maybe I should write it like this:
Winning + Recognition + Satisfaction
is greater than
Recognition + Satisfaction
is greater than
Satisfaction
I think it's unusual (unless there is cheating or a bad call be the referee) that you would Win without getting recognition + satisfaction.
Likewise if you are getting recognition as playing well, you are very likely to feel some satisfaction, even if you didn't win. It's definitely less than if you had won though.
Finally, even if you didn't win the game, and even if the other players aren't recognizing your performance, you can still have personal satisfaction in how you played.
If you lost, nobody recognizes your performance, and you are unhappy with how you did -- that's not much reward at all...
Quote from: StuartI think it's unusual (unless there is cheating or a bad call be the referee) that you would Win without getting recognition + satisfaction.
I've won plenty of board and card games and gotten no recognition worth speaking of.
Haven't you?
QuoteI've won plenty of board and card games and gotten no recognition worth speaking of.
Haven't you?
Recognition doesn't mean fawning adoration. :)
Did the other players recognized that you won the game, or did they dispute it? If they conceed that you won the game fair and square, that's recognition. I guess if they called you a cheat, that's something else.
However, I'll agree that this does suggest winning a solo game (eg. Solitaire) is less rewarding that winning a game involving other players.
Quote from: StuartDid the other players recognized that you won the game, or did they dispute it? If they conceed that you won the game fair and square, that's recognition. I guess if they called you a cheat, that's something else.
"Aw, you just got lucky."
Quote"Aw, you just got lucky."
Some games have challenges based on luck. ;)
Quote from: StuartSome games have challenges based on luck. ;)
You see what I'm getting at, though?
There are people that deliberately refuse to give 'recognition' in certain types of games. Sore losers, I believe they're called.
"The reason I no longer play Magic" could also be applied as a title for them, though.
QuoteYou see what I'm getting at, though?
There are people that deliberately refuse to give 'recognition' in certain types of games. Sore losers, I believe they're called.
"The reason I no longer play Magic" could also be applied as a title for them, though.
Yes, that's a very good point -- a sore loser will diminish the reward you should normally get from a game.
I think recognition doesn't have to be something explicitly stated either: If you're playing an RPG and you start doing some improvisation in character, you can read the reactions from the other players even if they don't actually tell you "nice work". Even having them sit and listen to you, and react in character is a much better reward than having them roll their eyes, ignore what you're doing or telling you to be quiet and stop wasting time.
Quote from: StuartI think recognition doesn't have to be something explicitly stated either: If you're playing an RPG and you start doing some improvisation in character, you can read the reactions from the other players even if they don't actually tell you "nice work". Even having them sit and listen to you, and react in character is a much better reward than having them roll their eyes, ignore what you're doing or telling you to be quiet and stop wasting time.
Okay.
So, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?
Grabbing a handful of my own jargon, the
engine does not explicitly reward roleplaying, but the strongly implied
methods certainly do?
QuoteSo, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?
Grabbing a handful of my own jargon, the engine does not explicitly reward roleplaying, but the strongly implied methods certainly do?
People who are skilled at improvisation and storytelling (both players and GMs) can get recognition as a reward for their performances.
Being explicitly told "nice job" is probably a lot more reward than just "reading the audience" too...
I think the improvisation and storytelling can become a
reward for the other players -- although it's a difficult one for them to predict.
QuoteSo, in D&D, roleplaying in the speak-as-or-for-your-character sense because the game implies, and by implication creates, a set of rewards (social ones, like recognition) for that behaviour?
I think we need to keep in mind that the "speak-as-or-for-your-character" sense of roleplaying is how you interact with the game in D&D.
"Okay I ask the wizard: 'Hey, have you seen the widget of power?'"
That doesn't assume you're getting deeply into character or delivering a incredible performance or generating an entertaining narrative.
I think you might be meaning Roleplaying as in "Good Improvisation or Good Story Telling".
Edit:
The first is your "move" in the game, and could receive recognition for it's strategic worth.
The second is your acting / storytelling, and the recognition there is based on the game system (do you get XP for RP?) as well as the other players in the group. Some groups value good "roleplaying" more than others -- so your reward would depend on the people at the table.
Quote from: StuartPeople who are skilled at improvisation and storytelling (both players and GMs) can get recognition as a reward for their performances.
Being explicitly told "nice job" is probably a lot more reward than just "reading the audience" too...
I think the improvisation and storytelling can become a reward for the other players -- although it's a difficult one for them to predict.
Okay, you're standing on the brink of a Forge idea here (one they stole from elsewhere, openly and gleefully, and which I stole in turn). Let me point it out to you.
A "Reward cycle" is wherever the total
system-of-play - the method, the engine, the social hierarchy of the players, everything, rewards a given kind of play, and thus causes it to reappear, where it can be rewarded some more, and so on.
Reward cycles can be implicit or explicit. They can be recognized or unrecognized. If I give Joe 'The Nod' whenever he kills an Orc, he's more likely to kill some more Orcs, ya know?
Right.
Now, Forge thinking says, drag all those cycles out into the light, and make 'em a recognized part of the game. That way, you can build a game that rolls just the way you want, naturally and smoothly.
Sure. If you want people to try and do X in a game, make X a condition under which you win the game. Pretty straight forward.
Challenges vs Rewards
Some activities in a game can be seen as both Challenges and Rewards. However, what makes them good challenges in a game is often different from what makes them good rewards for the other players.
Let's look at Story Telling and Improvisation. While related, we'll use Story Telling to refer to guiding the overall narrative of the game, usually involving events, the environment, and "Non Player Characters" while Improvisation will refer to the performance of each player acting "In Character" and the actions they narrate their character taking.
Story Telling
Challenges based on story telling can have various restrictions imposed on it to increase the level of challenge and keep it within theme, genre, or other pre-defined limits.
Successful story telling creates an entertaining narrative which is a reward for the other players in the game. Poor Story Telling does not generate this reward and could even be considered a "risk" associated with playing the game!
In traditional RPGs, the GM is usually selected because they are one of the best in the group at story telling, increasing the likelihood of the entertaining narrative as a reward. In games where multiple players engage in story telling, the overall reward tends to be the average of all the players abilities. This will usually be less than the reward of narrative from the best player in the group unless all players in the game have equal ability. The lessened reward from entertaining narrative is usually offset by an increased reward to each player based on personal satisfaction and recognition from the rest of the group.
Increasing the number of storytellers can also increase the likelihood that suspension of disbelief will be broken by introducing inconsistencies to the story. This can lessen the reward of an "immersive" narrative experience for some players.
Improvisation
Improvisation as a challenge can also have various restrictions imposed on it to increase the level of challenge and keep the improvisation within the bounds of the game narrative.
The reward of watching entertaining improvisation from other players is increased if some conventions of improvisational theatre are adopted, which generally removes restriction on the improvisation itself. Not blocking other players improvisational suggestions relating to the narrative tends to lead to better improvisational performances. This can be seen in RPGs that encourage players to "not say 'no' to other player's narrative contributions".
Increased improvisational freedom can require the game narrative (eg Story Telling) to be subordinate to the performance during improvisation.
What does this tell us
* Think carefully about what the actual challenges in the game are, and what the players are offered as a reward for being successful at those challenges.
Aside: I need to think a bit more about the "what does this tell us"... I also think there can be overlap between Story Telling and Improvisation... But this gets my initial thoughts out there for comment... :)
I've refined this and posted it at DesignMeme.com (http://www.designmeme.com/). Thanks for the feedback. :)