The importance to RPGing of *engaging* situations

[pemerton]

This post has been prompted by a conversation with some friends, and reflection on my Torchbearer game yesterday.

To me, it seems at the core of mainstream RPGing is the player characters finding themselves in a situation, that is, some imagined circumstance where they have to make choices or take actions to overcome a problem or avoid a threat or similar. The PCs are controlled, as "game pieces", by the non-GM participants. Typically, the situation is established and adjudicated by the GM participant. PCs-in-situations is where those two roles - player and GM - meet, and interact, to create the distinctive experience of playing a RPG.

Not all time at the table is like this - eg if its established that a PC is at the market, and if the rules of the game allow buying gear to be resolved simply by changing the tally in a "money" column while writing new stuff under an "equipment list", then we've got play happening in some sense, but no situation. Still, I think player-characters-in-situation is the core.

What makes play engaging? The situations have to be reasonably compelling; and the resolution of them has to be reasonably exciting. Sitting around the table with your friends can still be fun even if the situations are boring and their resolution fairly pedestrian (I would put some of the combats in the original Giants modules in this category), as even a boring situation resolved in a pedestrian fashion can provoke enjoyable conversation, surprise and joy in lucky (or unlucky) rolls, etc. But when I talk about engaging play I'm thinking about the play of the game itself, and not just the social context that it occurs within.

One approach to compelling situation puts the emphasis on "who has the right tools for the job?" In my Torchbearer session, the burly Dwarf was the one who lifted up the stone lid of the sarcophagus, while the Elven Dreamwalker was the one who read the runes and interpreted the mysterious sigils. This is an important feature of traditional D&D play, and other RPGing that is inspired by D&D (like Torchbearer).

But I don't think that is the only, or the most reliable, approach. First, there's no guarantee that resolution will be exciting, unless the excitement simply consists in getting to use your tools. Which might be true the first couple of times, but probably isn't going to be sustainable.

Second, most of the time, in most situations, probably more than one - and perhaps every - PC has a tool that will do the job, especially if the players are at liberty to decide what "the job" is - that is, to decide what to make of the situation and what they want out of it. Before I got my group playing Torchbearer, one of our main games was Prince Valiant, and all PCs in that game are knights by default, and two of our three knight PCs had near-identical skill and equipment lists. Another main game was Classic Traveller, and while Classic Traveller PCs tend to be pretty varied in their skill lists and equipment lists, "who has the right tool for the job" wasn't the main way that situations were compelling, because most of the time most PCs had something they could do, be that talking or shooting or radioing for backup or whatever else.

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about. This is also more likely to support exciting resolution, because whatever it is that happens, some PC's situation will be changed in a way that matters. Something will be gained or lost, a friend made or betrayed, a goal advanced or set back, etc.

Particular techniques for doing this - eg the role of prep, the technical procedures for adjudication and resolution, etc - will vary across RPG systems. Nevertheless, and despite that variety, I think this is a reliable approach to engaging play. And it also makes a number of worries that people talk about - eg niche protection, spotlight balancing and the like - largely evaporate. Framing a situation in which the PCs stumble into an archery contest that might give the Robin Hood PC a chance to strut their stuff remains fine, but not the key device for keeping play engaging; and if the real action at the archery contest turns out to be a different PC establishing an alliance with Robin Hood's nemesis, that's fine too!

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

This is something where some games with faction play have an edge. Whether it's your noble house in Dune, or just a gang in Blades in the Dark, if all your characters have been created with a strong stake in one faction's trials and tribulations, it gives the GM a clear direction to go in.

"Advancing the values of my faction" may also mean somewhat different things to different PCs, so GMs can still find ways to create vigourous intra-party discussions. For example, the Atreides bodyguard might want to protect the others at all cost, even when they want to stick their necks out to advance the cause of the House. Some of them may want to win at all costs, even through the use of dishonourable tactics, while others would rather uphold the honour of their House. And so on.

 

[pemerton]

This is something where some games with faction play have an edge.

Torcbearer doesn't quite have factions, but friends and enemies can sit in a similar sort of place.

In Burning Wheel, relationships and affiliations (which get closer to factions) are also similar.

In our Classic Traveller game, we worked some of this stuff out at the table as part of PC build; and the patron device, particularly when (as we did it) the patron gets connected into the PC backgrounds rather than just being an arbitrary quest-giver, can also help.

it gives the GM a clear direction to go in.

Absolutely this.

On the flip side, when that is muddy or muddled, play can really flounder. I've experienced this more than once as a player. As a GM it's a problem I haven't had for a long time, thankfully.

 

[Pedantic]

This seems to assume a pretty neutral relationship to gameplay itself, which admittedly, is probably a pretty fair implied criticism of a lot of TTRPG systems. Deciding on which of several courses of possible action, with an eye to both immediate positioning after resolution (possibly with regard to both success and failure of the PC's action if they're at question) and with regard to a longer term future goal, is the entire loop of most board games, certainly most eurogames.

Thus, that clearly can be engaging on its own, before you acknowledge that your action selection was not moving a pawn around a rondel and instead directing your rogue to attempt a risky pickpocket or your bard to hypnotize a guard. Not just, "I have a tool for this situation" but, "I have the best tool available to us for this situation," and then working out if your line of play was the correct choice or not.

Or, maybe I'm really saying, if resolution isn't interesting, then either the scope of the problem was too small in relationship to player capabilities, or your resolution system is boring (a problem I tend to diagnose as "too low agency" more often than not).

 

[Lanefan]

What makes play engaging? The situations have to be reasonably compelling; and the resolution of them has to be reasonably exciting.

I'd posit the first of these - compelling situations - is considerably more important to-for engagement than the second. Some highly compelling (and thus engaging) situations might never truly resolve, or end up getting resolved in an unexciting and-or drawn-out manner; I'm thinking here of ongoing interactions between characters (be they PC-PC or PC-NPC) such as love affairs, rivalries, or similar as an example. Some combat situations can be compelling and very engaging in themselves (4e-style set-piece battles come to mind, or edge-of-the-seat combats where the party stands on the verge of a TPK) even if the resolution mechanics used to sort them out are somewhat dull.

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about.

There's an argument to be made that says not to try to make situations compelling, as that way lies disappointment and possible disaster, but to rather just lay situations out there and see what grabs the players' attention-imagination-engagement - in full knowledge that any situation can through no fault of anyone's sometimes just fall flat.

 

[TerraDave]

Variety and pacing. If its a huge exciting combat after huge exciting combat, at some point it won't be so exciting.

Knowing that sometimes what is very engaging for one player may not be engaging for the rest.

And just keeping it interesting. In fact, one things I have seen so many times is when a seeming hook is out there--and it may not be intended as one--the players will jump on it or start to delve even when say stakes, or their own tools or prospects, don't really dictate they should, because it just seems cool, or they just want to figure it out.

 

[pemerton]

Or, maybe I'm really saying, if resolution isn't interesting, then either the scope of the problem was too small in relationship to player capabilities, or your resolution system is boring (a problem I tend to diagnose as "too low agency" more often than not).

This could be a minor and a major point of difference in our views.

Minor: I don't disagree that resolution systems can be better or worse, for various reasons, but I don't think that - in a RPG, compared to (say) a boardgame - the resolution system itself can do the work of holding interest.

The closest to that state of affairs that I can think of is the crit tables in Rolemaster - which are pretty fun!, and a big part of the system - but they don't hold it together on their own.

Major: As far as the idea that interest is generated via the scope of the problem inviting meaningful optimisation in the solution adopted, for me that is not what is interesting in RPGing either as player or GM. But I do accept it is a dimension that my post doesn't engage with (and if you read my Torchbearer AP report, I think you'll see the same). It is something that is important to @Manbearcat, though, and so I'm inviting him to chime in.

 

[Manbearcat]

This could be a minor and a major point of difference in our views.

Minor: I don't disagree that resolution systems can be better or worse, for various reasons, but I don't think that - in a RPG, compared to (say) a boardgame - the resolution system itself can do the work of holding interest.

The closest to that state of affairs that I can think of is the crit tables in Rolemaster - which are pretty fun!, and a big part of the system - but they don't hold it together on their own.

Major: As far as the idea that interest is generated via the scope of the problem inviting meaningful optimisation in the solution adopted, for me that is not what is interesting in RPGing either as player or GM. But I do accept it is a dimension that my post doesn't engage with (and if you read my Torchbearer AP report, I think you'll see the same). It is something that is important to @Manbearcat, though, and so I'm inviting him to chime in.

A few thoughts on the importance of table-facing resolution procedures from both all three of a strategic perspective, a tactical perspective, and a premise/thematic perspective. I'm just going to pick through some games that I'm GMing and talk about some moments of play and how they might be shifted if resolution procedures were different (or, were understood differently by the players).

1) I've got a current 4e D&D game with @darkbard and @Nephis . They're in the midst of a nested combat that came from a micro-failure in a Skill Challenge. I established a pair of Win/Loss Conditions for this combat that aren't an expression of "ablating Team Monster HPs." There as follows:

* Protect the Priestess of Omthala from the direct aggression of her foes. To this end, she is a Minion (1 HP) with (a) an Encounter Power where her deity protects her (giving her 1 HP upon her lone HP being lost; via miracle) and (b) a Radiant Bulwark (15 Temp HP). Being a Minion of relatively meager means, she is extremely vulnerable. Protecting her will require deftness and finesse.

* Exorcise her of the terrible ritual that a Warlock (the steward of his Uncle's, primary antagonist, household) has cursed her with. This is a Skill Challenge that requires a Primary Skill Success by Team PC each Round or the Priestess of Omthala loses 1 HP. This demand puts significant strain on Team PC action economy.

The combination of these mechanical aspects give expression to both stakes within the shared fiction and the very gamestate itself. And, of course, these things are nested within the architecture of a very intricate system of rationed Powers, action economy (including off-turn actions and various riders and force-multipliers), and the array of the battlefield and Team Monster. Further still, all of this is an output of prior fiction, prior Player-authored Quests, and current Player-authored Quests (which then interacts with the reward structure and advancement scheme of play).

The experience of play of 4e is sensitive to every_single_component part of what I've listed above. Render it GM-facing rather than table-facing, render the premise content of play GM-derived rather than player-derived (eg a GM metaplot while touring a GM-selected or derived setting vs player-derived via their own selection of antagonists, companions, and thematic conflict by way of Quests and PC build), render the action and conflict resolution opaque vs transparent...do any one of those things (let alone all of them at once!) and the strategic overhead, the tactical overhead, and the premise/thematic overhead assumed by the players suddenly changes dramatically.

The process of play, the experience of play, the trajectory of play, the weight of play, the nature of changes to the gamestate and the shared fiction changes in a deep and fundamental way.

2) In last week's Dogs in the Vineyard game, @hawkeyefan had to make some decisions about Sin within the flock of the Town they are presently in. An old retired Dog named Sister Constance has a ward (a feral child who is ensconced in all manner of troubles, Sin, and possibly even Sorcery...or at least the emulation of it...TBD). She has lived a hard life. She has taken on this burden because the boy was orphaned when his parents died. This is entirely outside of The Faith. The Lord of Life has a lot to say about a lot of things...but sometimes stewardship becomes very...very personal. And sometimes the hierarchy of Stewardship within The Faith becomes either unwieldy at best or "not-fit-for-purpose/the facts on the ground as we're forced to live them." Sister Constance Sins brazenly and openly.

But @hawkeyefan is reluctant to judge here because of her circumstance...perhaps maybe because he's a bit soft or too kind or maybe even a little dim (all TBD...we're still feeling that out a bit). But he's seen violence and he's seen it recently. And there is a signficant lurking threat to Sweetwater Lake (the current Town) and it comes in the way of some sort of sordid, murky alliance between The Territorial Authority (who come packing guns and 6 hands to hold them), the U.S. Government, and the Town's rather absentee (or possibly heretical) Steward.

Things are escalating. At the start of our next game, hawkeyefan's character is going to be dealing with a difficult and possibly dangerous decision. He may be glad that he spared Sister Constance and rallied her both (a) to his cause and (b) in spirit because she is elderly and long past her days of meting out The King of Life's justice via book or gun...but she is still capable.

Now the above was an express byproduct of PC build, NPC build, and via the (somewhat intricate) process of the conflict resolution procedures of the game where we outline stakes, roll our dice pools (including bringing in thematic parts of character that are related to the moves we are making or related to the stakes of the conflict; like Stats, Traits, Relationships, and Belongings) of our back-and-forth and putting dice forward to reflect our actions/what we say.

If hawkeyefan didn't understand how NPCs Help PCs (by increasing their dice pools) or didn't understand how other PCs Help PCs (by "borrowing from the future" to resolve an urgent moment now; give a big dice advantage and deal with the handicap burden later) or didn't understand how Escalating works vs Giving/forfeiting a conflict (both the mechanical consequences of either and/or the thematic implications of either) or how to best marshal his dice pools or how Fallout works...or if he didn't understand the danger before him (eg what mortal conflict like gunfights looks like in terms of dice pools and the severity of Fallout; d10 dice) or if he didn't understand how he (the player) has to shape each moment of Stewardship, Faith, and the choice to punish, cast out, or live with Sin (and the implications of these things)...

...well how is his strategic decision-making (like absolving Sister Constance of her Sins and rallying her spirits to back a later play, or Helping a PC via "borrowing from the future" where he'll be in a spot that he'll have to manage), his tactical decision-making (managing dice pools and thematic build components, playing the fiction skillfully, to Escalate or not, Fallout etc), his premise/thematic decisions (to hold people accountable for their Sin or to actively absolve them with Ceremony or mediation or to passively do so in his own heart)....how is any of that supposed to "mean anything" as an experience of actual play if he doesn't understand that stuff...if he has no means to "play better or play worse" either because the system is opaque or shifting or because my conflict framing and conflict handling and stakes-setting and consequence-handling, and decisions to Escalate or Give suck or are unclear/not provocative (as GM)?

3) @hawkeyefan might say something about that. Or he might say something about our longterm game of Stonetop where he serves as Judge of the Village where he is cast as town mediator, de facto sage, and with censuring the manyfold agents of chaos and the enemies of civilization and harmonious order in a myth-drenched world and Points of Light setting.

4) The Blades in the Dark game I GM for @AbdulAlhazred , @Campbell , @kenada , @niklinna resolved a session tonight. There is a vast and intricate matrix of strategic, tactical, and premise/thematic decisions that players make in this game at bout the PC level and at the Crew level. Perhaps one of them has something to say about that matrix and how that matrix would be perturbed violently if you removed interlocking parts or if play went from table-facing to GM-facing?

Or maybe those guys want to talk about any key moments of our prior Torchbearer game (like the Witch and the Curse and the little girl or the Bandits/Rival in Town)?

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat - I agree about the importance of transparency. But I was wondering what you think about the particular claim that interest in RPGing can arise primarily or perhaps exclusively from optimising the problem-solution space.

This is not a method of interest-generation that I favour - I often enjoy seeing non-optimal solutions adopted (eg because those solutions fit with some thematic concern) and as a player typically don't always optimise.

But I accept the proposition that it can be for others.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat - I agree about the importance of transparency. But I was wondering what you think about the particular claim that interest in RPGing can arise primarily or perhaps exclusively from optimising the problem-solution space.

This is not a method of interest-generation that I favour - I often enjoy seeing non-optimal solutions adopted (eg because those solutions fit with some thematic concern) and as a player typically don't always optimise.

But I accept the proposition that it can be for others.

An easy way to examine this is as follows:

* Every one of those games I mentioned above has both an individual decision-space that can be gamed more or less skillfully (managing the imagined space to optimize the availability of your possible suite of moves and then capitalizing on that by making the best move possible and then resolving it with maximum skill in terms of marshalling dice/resources) and a longitudinal decision-space that can be gamed more or less skillfully over the evolving gamestate and accruing fiction.

* However, the likelihood is extreme that play in these above games will ring ultimately hollow in the actual experience of the play if your mental overhead and cognitive horsepower is invested exclusively in that endeavor. This is because both discovery (of "self" as in "the character" and outwardly as in "this place I'm inhabiting and these others I'm inhabiting it with" and "the meaning behind and purpose of this inhabitation") + premise prioritization + thematic needle-threading (as I've called it in the past) are essential to (if not the nexus of) the experience.

Only very, very conscientious and rigorous design will allow for these things to "play nicely together." The alternative is a mess of incoherent incentive structures, a GM using Force to mask the reality that they're the one who is ultimately moving the gamestate and (nearly if not wholly) unilaterally deciding upon the consequential aspects of the shared fiction, and players who are relegated to affectation, pantomime, and cosplay (providing color for the GM's game of Solitaire or Ouija).


So yes, you can play a game where optimising the problem-solution space is the exclusive crux or pivot point of play. We've got games for that (like B/X D&D). It just so happens that if that is your crux then (a) you better design very deftly for it (and relentlessly give expression to it in the game engine and honor the integrity of the competitive exercise at every moment of play) while (b) being wary of smuggling in play priorities that may not play so nicely with that relentless expression of "game as game" and competitive-integrity-honoring.