Comments on: Now, the Twist: The Ties that Bind

By: libranchylde

libranchylde — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:58:34 +0000

First off: excellent article.
Now, that said, I want to argue a couple points. first is that you list other players as opponents. while typically true in most games, in pen and paper rpgs this is wholly untrue. the other players are your allies in games such as d&d. this does not cause conflict but rather helps resolve it.
Next: you only briefly mention interaction, and only as the conflict. while the conflict certainly causes interaction, it is not the only source of interaction between the player and the system or other players. other interactions could be merely introductions, discussion etc, that do not actually cause or resolve conflicts.

By: Colin McComb

Colin McComb — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:43:10 +0000

Lesley – I need to say at the outset that I largely agree with you, but I also like to argue. In tabletop RPGs, players work with the GM to help set some of those goals, and a wise GM will make his or her objectives enticing–and subtle!–enough that players will seek to overcome those objectives in preference. Alternately, a good GM can take the player’s self-imposed objectives and creating an overarching objective, something that the players must defeat/solve/destroy before they can reach their own objectives. You might even make the overall campaign arc a series of nested objectives that force the players to achieve their objectives before they can tackle the most serious end-boss.
That is to say, I agree that in tabletop RPGs especially, players need to be invested in developing and providing their objectives. and the GM needs to think a step or a magnitude beyond them, so that the GM can continue to surprise them.

@Todd – Absolutely. This is one of the difficulties of writing a scripted adventure, because it’s very hard to predict what the players will do next. Some of the earliest adventures (and hell, even into the ’90s) still saw a basic assumption on the part of the designer that the players would have no choice but to follow on rails. One of the great advantages tabletop RPGs have over computer games is that tabletop games have a wide latitude for improvisation, and railroading players in that milieu is a fantastic way to lose a gaming group. When the designers can step back and provide what is essentially a sandbox adventure, players and GMs can respond more freely to the hooks. (and thanks!)

By: Todd the Bladesmith

Todd the Bladesmith — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:08:47 +0000

Nicely done, Colin. IMO your elements are comprehensive and complete. You talk about the “shared narrative” – The author may have a particular storyline in mind when the game is written, but ultimately the players write the story as they play. The author is saying “here, run with this” and walks away, although the author’s ideas will be a thread through the story the players tell.

Good stuff!

By: Lesley

Lesley — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 20:40:26 +0000

Nice breakdown.

The only part I’d question is the statement on Objectives: A game without objectives quickly becomes pointless, and while we can generate our own objectives in games, it is not nearly as satisfying to do so as it is to overcome the objectives built into the game.

I’ve seen many cases where players gain far more satisfaction out of their own objectives than out of the objectives the game sets for them. In fact, I would argue the reverse – that in pen & paper at least, players frequently gain more satisfaction from objectives they’ve defined for themselves than the GM has defined for them. (I have also seen the same to occur in very defined video games, but less frequently). I think that while setting up a world that works well with that is harder on the GM, it offers more satisfaction to the players when it feels like a real world, where they can set their own goals and pursue them.

By: Wolfgang

Wolfgang — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:40:14 +0000

The most recent game I ran was Empire of the Petal Throne last weekend. 50% casualty rate, and the party was largely successful in its goals.

I’d say it was very uncertain outcome, because of the pure lethality of the system. Quite enjoyable all around. The longer I play RPGs, the less committed I am to the long-term campaign style.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:29:15 +0000

our RPG of choice is a Home brew, in which the players determine the difficultie of a scene

By: Calvin Roach

Calvin Roach — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:24:44 +0000

There are, however, a certain number of players for whom Uncertain Outcome is almost never an option, because they will cry foul and harass the GM about how hard it was to achieve the game’s objectives (the stories I could tell..oy). Usually, these games have an accommodating GM, though, and the players are never faced with a true uncertainty. They will overcome the opponents, defeat the traps, and win the treasure at the end every time.

By: Wolfgang

Wolfgang — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:14:37 +0000

I’d say the uncertain outcome also depends on the players, who are certain to surprise the DM with their decisions regarding the story.