Saturday, January 2, 2010

Meaningful Play

What do you think the game mechanics in an RPG are really for?

A recent thread started by CodexArcanum asked this question.

It started with an example by David J Prokopetz, of, in my opinion, some pretty bad play:

“This may be going against the grain a bit: GMs whose preferred style boils down to "total up the modifiers, roll the dice, then ignore the results and make something up". On the rare occasions I've made an issue of it, the usual response I get is something along the lines of "well, everything is really down to the GM's discretion anyway" - or snarky accusations of being a "rules lawyer", as outlined up-thread. To my mind, you shouldn't have a rule unless you're actually going to use it*; however, I've run into many GMs for whom the only function of the game mechanics is to serve as a time sink for the players, affording the GM time to decide what happens next, without reference to mechanical resolution. Really irritating. “

CodexArcanum proposes an answer to his own question in list form:

1)Provide some means of pacing
2)Eat up a certain amount of time, which helps pacing and provides some thinking room.
3)Be a fun game in their own right. (Combat is entertaining, even if it usually is kind of a distraction from the story.)
4)Guide the story in unexpected but interesting directions.

His answer is best describes his description of what he uses Game Mechanics for.  The answer misses the mark by a wide margin, in my opinion.
Taking one at a time.

Provide some means of pacing.  I think story pacing is being conflated with pacing within mechanics.  The former is not, in my experience, something Game Mechanics are well equipped to handle, and is often left in the realm of “good GMing.”  One of the few pacing mechanics that springs to mind is The Shadow of Yesterday's “Bring the Pain”.  Every conflict is resolved with one roll, unless the player wants to make something more of it.  Play zooms into a detailed conflict resolution, and then zooms back out to broader play once the conflict is resolved.  Most GM's handle this sort of pace control without a defined mechanic telling them when the action is broad and when it is highly, action by action, detailed.  “Bring down the Pain” is a mechanic for Pace control specifically because it transfers this normally GM controlled activity to the Player.

Pacing within Mechanics is not what they are for, per se, but a tool they use to improve and enhance Game Play.  Some examples of Mechanical pacing:  Seasons in Mouse Guard and Pendragon, Short and Extended rests in D&D 4E, and land drops in Magic:The Gathering.

Eat up a certain amount of time.  I'm going to have “Bring down the Pain” on this one.  In other words, address it a little latter, in more detail.

Be a fun game in their own right.  This one's tough to discuss without getting underwear all in a twist.  I'll go for succinct.  The mechanics of a system were designed for a purpose, and if the design is good, they are there to enable a certain kind of play.  If the Mechanics are an entertaining side game for the “real” Play, then either the Mechanics are not well designed or the Mechanics are not being used for what they were intended.  I can steal d6's from Monoploly and play Hero Clix with them, but that's not why they were included in the box.  That's not what they are there for.

Not that there is anything wrong with stealing Mechanics and using them to play whatever is being Played.  I am all for it.  But we are discussing what they are for.  Saying a knife makes great paperweight is not discussing what a knife is for.

Guide the story in unexpected but interesting directions.  This one is misleading.  So misleading I would call it an Argument Heart Breaker.  It is seductive and so, so well meaning.  Of course we want our Mechanics to move the story in unexpected and interesting ways.  Except we don't, not really.

It is difficult to explain why, without first explaining when we do want the unexpected.  Randomization.  That's when designers use the unexpected.  And when is randomization used?  When designing Mechanics.  In other words, it is a tool within Mechanics, not the actual reason for Mechanics.

To really nail this point, I need to quote from Rules of Play by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman.

“Playing a game means making choices and taking actions.  All of this activity occurs within a game-system designed to support meaningful kinds of choice-making.  Every action taken results in a change affecting the overall system of the game.  Another way of stating this point is that an action a player takes in a game results in the creation of new meanings within the system.  For example, after you move a piece in Chess, the newly established relationships between pieces gives rise to a new set of meanings-meanings created by the player's action.”

What Mechanics are for is to create Meaningful Play.  Play where a Player's actions affect the game state in ways that are discernible.  My character swings an axe, that choice is meaningful.  It either succeeds, and the monster's health is less, or it fails, and another turn passes with the possibility of my character losing more life. That choice is significant.

Randomization in this context is an ends to a means.  In most instances we don't want the outcome of a meeting with orcs to be unexpected.  What we want is for this meeting with orcs to be different and allow for different choices then the last meeting with orcs.

We don't want the outcome of the story to be random, we want it to be purposeful, the result of our choices to the unexpected within the story.  Randomness is a tool to enable Meaningful Play, not the purpose.  Gygax's table of potion interactions provides levity and the unexpected.  What is interesting about it though is the choice it offers.  Take two potions and potentially suffer these consequences.  Is the character desperate enough to tempt fate?  Are they mischievous enough?  What does this say about the character or their situation?  That is what Mechanics are for, to provide a meaningful choice with effects that are significant and discernible.

Which is why I must bring down the pain on number 2 above, as well as David's original description of (bad) Play.  Using Mechanics to stall inherently means they are not being used for their intention.  Stalling = lack of meaningful action.  (Good) Mechanics enable meaningful action.  A style of Play that “boils down to total up the modifiers, roll the dice, then ignore the results and make something up" is once again stripping away a player choice, and without choice there cannot be Meaningful Play.  Once the dice hit the table, there has to be an effect that is both discernible and significant.  Ignoring an outcome makes the choice to roll irrelevant.

No comments:

Post a Comment