RPG Philosophy

A few weeks ago a co-worker found out I make RPGs. He started asking some really heavy questions about how they work. He had actually played before but was bewildered by things that regular players eventually just intuitively accept. He likes the idea of RPGs but not "getting" certain concepts make it hard for him to enjoy playing.

Everything he was having difficulty with were questions I've heard before, so he wasn't alone in asking. I bring these questions up to other players and they usually dismiss them as unimportant since they've heard them also but this is unwise. For every player that figures them out through trial and error, there are others that never get over them and don't keep playing.

Happily I've been working on how to express some of the things that tripped him up. Although I'll work these concepts into future projects, I'll share the meta concepts with you here. Some are really simple. Some are more theoretical and need real world testing. They may be controversial so if you agree or disagree, I'd like to hear from you. Lastly, if you're one of those folks that doesn't get RPGs let me know if this helped or if there's another aspect that you'd like clarified.

This isn't a model of RPGs, these are practical applications of ideas that are often not expressed but frequently practiced.

Curiosity

Your imagination

A willingness to look at things a little bit differently

This one isn't mine. James P. Carse has a book on the subject. Wikipedia article here. You don't have to buy the book unless you want to really dive deep into this concept. The basic idea is all we need for this.

The reason I put this concept first is that in my 30 some year career as a designer, the question I get asked most often is "How do you win?" It's the first motivation that new players struggle with. I tried my hand at answering the question many times and got some lukewarm responses. The concept of finite vs. infinite games explains things more completely to me. Hopefully it can fill in a blank or two for you.

Although RPGs can be played as a finite game or an infinite one, the default is infinite play. What does that mean?

A finite game has a win condition that ends the game. Somebody wins. This is a competition.

An infinite game has a different motivation. The goal is to keep the game going. Think of a game like hacky sack. The game continues until someone can't keep the beanbag in the air. The enjoyment comes from working together to accomplish something as a group.

RPGs have a blend of both. Often there are finite win conditions in the story elements, where once they're accomplished, they're finished and someone "won". There's usually a finite goal in each session, a quest or personal goal that the player wants. Overall the act of playing an RPG has an infinite goal of seeing all the things that can be accomplished in the game. There are the wins an losses session to session but there is also the enjoyment of seeing what can be built in the form of a story.

Even in a "One shot" game, where there is only one session that will be played, there is the need for the players to keep the game going for that session. If the goal is to keep the game going, even for one session, the co-operation make the game infinite. Usually, you could pick that story line back up if you so desired.

People that score low on Agreeableness on the Big 5 model love competition and love finite games. They may have trouble enjoying the idea of an infinite game because there isn't that final state where someone comes out on top. Rest assured there's a lot of competition in RPGs but it isn't usually against the other player characters. It's you coming out on top against an often hostile world.

In cinema there are two philosophies to telling the story visually. Very few movies are entirely one or the other and the same concept can be applied to RPGs.

Realism is the idea that you are portraying things as they would happen in real life. It could be a fantasy life, a science fiction life, an urban drama life but you're describing things in a way that a "real" person would experience them. Games in the 90's strove for realism and often ran into very heavy page counts because of the need for specificity.

Formalism is presenting a structure that gives you a story but the player has to fill in the details. A very early example of a formalism that to this day a lot of players have trouble with is the original concept of hit points. In Dungeons and Dragons, hit points don't mean how many times the character's flesh can be hit by a sword and stay alive. They're more the energy the character has to dodge or block a hit. Formalism suffers in that it's not concrete and can be easily misunderstood. Games of the early 2000s waded heavily into formalism.

The key here is to understand what is intended to be realistic and what is formalistic. In RPGs Realism is displayed when the game gives you a specific concrete result. For instance, a random encounter table says that X monster shows up. That's an example of realism.

Formalistic systems in RPGs require interpretation. If you use a story point to change the events of a narration, what does that mean? Usually there will be examples of what your story points can do but it still requires the players to imagine and describe the result.

Some games will describe a passing roll as giving the character a "Success". Even though the idea of a Success is a discrete concept, it usually has to be interpreted by the players. Formalisms are usually things a new player takes some time to digest but practiced players have their preferred methods of interpretation. In the old days, before you could watch other player groups in real time, the only way to learn radical new interpretations was to sit in and play with a new group of players.

So what does formalism and realism do for you as a player? Some people enjoy the freedom of formalism. Others prefer the definite nature of realism. You're not wrong to prefer one or the other. So be aware that some games will come more intuitively to you than others. It also doesn't mean that you can't play a game you don't take to immediately. If you're a player that prefers realism, you might just need someone to show you how they approach a formalistic structure. If you're a player that prefers the freedom of formalism, a game heavy in realism may feel like it has too many rules. If you make an effort to learn the rules and get comfortable with them, you may find yourself enjoying the game more.

Understanding your preferences and those of your group can help you negotiate play more successfully. Whatever successfully means.

If you're someone that has played RPGs for a long time, you've probably heard of someone that said "We played a whole session and never touched the rules." This can be confusing to a new player, they wonder if you can do that, why have rules?

Part of that answer is that we've been giving the game structures we use the wrong name. Instead of calling rolling the dice and adding them up a rule, they should be called a tool. Why? Because you pick up a tool when you want to make a job easier for you and then you put it down when you don't need it anymore. You might have several tools that do similar things and you pick them based on personal preference.

For our intents, a rule is something that applies all the time. It's dictate that should never be broken. With that definition in mind, RPGs really have only a few rules and they're not often explicitly stated.

With that, I give you the real rules of most RPGs. Someone will always make a game that doesn't include one or more of these and some may have an additional rule or two.

• There is a chain of events described in the game that is sometimes referred to as "the narrative".
• There are players and each player has authority over aspects of the narrative. For most players they have authority over their character.
• The majority of games have the rule that there is a player with expanded authority that facilitates the game play.
• Tools used in the game have a narrative authority. Some games will allow the facilitating player to veto a tool.
• Tools handle player (not necessarily character) conflict, a player's narrative extends beyond their authority, if there is a need for the tone of the narrative to harmonize or a player's addition to the narrative causes discord with another player's intention.
• A player's authority in their portion of the narrative should not be ignored or circumvented. There may be tools that mitigate the player's authority but their intent is always honored.
• There are "rounds" where players take turns acting on their authority.
• Most games assume that each player should have the opportunity to take a turn each round, even if it's not explicitly stated and the model is an opt in. If a player wants to take their turn, they should be given their authority.
• More time and potentially more tools will be used on the aspects of the story that the players find the most interesting.
• There is continuity between the events of each turn and often each session. Actions taken in the past are treated as real persistent. There may be tools and actions that mitigate past events but they are treated like they actually happened and the characters involved remember them.

And that's it. Most of the time those are the only rules that are always applied. Nearly every other "rule" in a game book is a tool to be picked up and put down. There can be a lot of tools but understanding their place in the game as being useful for answering hard questions but not vital to all play is important to digesting the sometimes extensive texts.

This one is simple, I'm just formalizing things a RPG player already knows.

Players in an RPG have to remember a lot. They have to interpret a lot. The more things they have to remember and the number of interpretations they have to make are what make up complexity.

A game can have different demands on a player's cognition. Some players will handle memorization tasks easily but struggle with interpreting formalisms. Some players might struggle with math operations used in various tools but be able to interpret and describe the the results of a die roll creatively. Different players have different aptitudes and will be able to support the other players with their strengths. As long as support doesn't remove a player's agency, their narrative authority, encourage it.

When looking at games and figuring out if you want to play them, look at the number of math operations expected to be carried out each turn. Math operations are not all equal to each other as far as difficulty. The easiest operation is a comparison. Is this number greater than, equal to or less than another. Players can do a lot of these with relative ease.

The next hardest is addition. Smaller numbers are easier to handle than larger numbers. Players can do quite a bit of small number addition but it will slowly tire them out.

Subtraction is problematic in game. Small number subtraction is okay in limited doses but will quickly fatigue players.

Multiplication is hard in game. Unless it's to multiply by 2 or 10, avoid doing this manually. Pull out your phone and use the calculator.

Division is to be avoided at all cost. It's tolerable occasionally if it's by 2 or 10.

The more complex a game, the more it can tire out your players. As they tire, they'll be less able to handle novel situations. Introducing new concepts or story elements should be done earlier in a session or at the very end of a session if the players are supposed to engage with it. If you want the players to gloss over it or find the quickest method of dealing with it, introduce something new at the late middle.

Another topic that confuses new potential players is the way they are sometimes called on to roll for something but they're not required to roll for everything. Often there are no formal tools for conversation other than to test if an argument is given persuasively enough. This is because all the players already know the formal rules of conversation. You don't need to simulate conversation, you're really doing it. What it comes down to is, most people don't need any tools to help them. Conversation is intuitive.

So why don't you roll for turning a doorknob and opening a door? Other than the fact that the task is so simple it's hard to model properly, the task isn't interesting. There's really no question as to if the character can do it (usually) so there's no question being answered by the test. Ultimately though, even if the character was so uncoordinated they failed to turn a doorknob, what would happen next? They'd try again and likely succeed.

If a character was not human, possibly a dog or a cat, maybe a primitive robot without hands, opening a door might be an interesting story point. But what if they needed to open a dozen doors? It becomes boring again.

So when do you roll? When the result is interesting to the players. Maybe failing would be funny because failing an easy task displays the character's limits. Showing the character's competence can also be fun for the players especially if passing a roll by a large margin gives them extra narrative control.

Primarily, interesting means there are players that have conflicting interests. Their characters are working against each other and the question is, who will prevail? In most games this will be a player directing their character towards a goal and the Game Master having their characters oppose them.

Tasks are not interesting if the character has ample time to try repeatedly and statistically will eventually make it. It's a forgone conclusion. It might be interesting to roll and use the result to say if the character took a short time or long to accomplish.

On a related note, when do apply the game's tools, it's mechanics? When using them answers questions that are difficult to answer without them. An often cited example was the old game of "Cops and Robbers" (which I'm not sure if any child plays anymore,) where one player says "I shot you!" and they answer "No you didn't!" This is an example of two player's interests conflicting. Having a formal tool for resolving the question is one of the main reasons a game book is useful and we don't just free form our way through.

Can your barbarian hit the monster with his sword? A tool to resolve the skill of the characters and their various abilities is moderately difficult to answer with no guiding tools. Whenever there's a hard question, hopefully there's a tool that gives you guidance.

Some players would quibble with me for putting story so late in this series of essays. "Story is the whole goal of the game." they might assert. In reality, few starting players are concerned with story. They most often want to roll dice and have the tools tell them a story. So in practice, players start to hone their ability to tell a story later (we all develop at different rates).

The main goal of many players is not to tell a story, but to have fun. For many, that fun may be a tactical challenge, using the games tools to overcome obstacles. Fun for some might primarily be social in nature, hanging out with friends and relating to them in a new way. Others like to explore all the possibilities in a game and get their fun from new discoveries. I'll go out on a limb here and say that worrying about crafting a compelling story emerges later as a matter of looking for a way to use the game to have a new kind of fun.

Story in an RPG is different than what you might expect from a book or a movie. There's often a three act structure and there are specific roles that different characters take like protagonist or mentor. You don't need to concern yourself with that kind of structure in an RPG. There are some games that try to recreate these structures but they're rare.

An RPG's story is emergent and gets it emotional poignancy from the players having a stake in the characters success or failure. A player that recognizes Story as a goal can set their own goals instead of simply picking from options that are presented to them. They can now work on things like character arcs and relationships in the game. Playing the game becomes layered with authorship which can be enjoyable if everyone is on the same page. If players at the table haven't decided to spend time authoring their character's stories, this new focus can actually get in the way of their fun and cause some dissension. As one of my players once said "We don't care about all that, we just want to blow stuff up."

So what do you do if there's a player that's looking to develop the in game story? As a player they can become the goal setter in the group. If they can rally the rest of the players to the goals they set for their story, the Game Master can make sure to include motivation for the rest of the players along the way. A player that sets their own goals is emotionally invested, and will bring that energy to the table. Fostering that interest makes it easier on the Game Master because they don't have to figure out how to motivate the players anymore, all they have to do is lay out the steps to get to the goals and watch the players knock them down.

Pacing

Where a Game Master should worry about Story is emotional pacing in the game. There are complex formulas out there for how to structure "scenes" in a game but the most effective structure is one you'll remember and can manage to implement. Perfect is the enemy of done.

What you want to do is not burn out the players. As the game becomes difficult, the tension the players feel gets higher which leads to a feeling of exhilaration. This is enjoyable up to a point. If pushed too far for too long, the players can burn out emotionally and just feel stressed. To avoid that, when you feel the players reach a high emotional point from the challenge of the game and theres a logical break point, give the players a break.

You can do this by actually breaking from the game for snacks or a meal but tension will partly carry over if the players know they face more challenges when they get back.

Once you have that break point in the action, when it makes sense to, transition from challenge to temporary safety. This might be the characters getting a chance to stock up on supplies, to blow off steam at a watering hole, a chance to rest, recover and plan their next steps or it could be a friendly encounter where they meet someone new or an old ally. You can also give them a break by allowing the players to show off their character's mastery. Give them the chance to save a bystander from a danger they can easily handle but make sure someone appreciates their effort.

Once they've calmed down, they're ready for you to ratchet up the tension again.

If you're a planning Game Master, lay things out so there's a challenge followed by fun. If you're an improv Game Master, in the middle of a challenge, have in mind that the players are going to need an emotional break and try to find that as the challenge at hand comes to an end.

The problem with a lot of Game Mastering advice is, it's negative. As a starting GM you might be told that you have unlimited power… but whatever you do, don't railroad. Don't have a GMPC. Don't is the refrain. But what you're supposed to do is often lacking. Lets give new GMs positive guidance. Can we describe the role so that the player knows what steps to take instead of just what to avoid?

Misconceptions

Let's start with the terms "Game Master" or "Dungeon Master". These have the weight of decades of precedence behind them and people are going to keep using the terms but let's be honest, they give a lot of new players the wrong ideas. Two poor interpretations is that the players are there to be mastered, bent to the will of the GM or that the player could never take up the mantle because they haven't "mastered" the game. These are just the most common misconceptions I've heard potential players express. There are many more.

So what about alternatives to Game Master? There've been plenty of them, Referee, Story Teller, Guide to name a few. The problem is these terms also have misconceptions associated with them. They might be less harmful than GM but these terms haven't been readily adopted.

My alternative is Facilitator. I know some that don't like the term because it's used in business meetings and they've formed unpleasant connotations from their experiences but it really does fit the job description and I don't think there are very strong misconceptions one could form with the term on their own. Do I expect all you to start using the term. Nope.

Facilitator

From Wikipedia "A facilitator is a person who helps a group of people to work together better, understand their common objectives, and plan how to achieve these objectives, during meetings or discussions. In doing so, the facilitator remains "neutral", meaning they do not take a particular position in the discussion. Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a solid basis for future action."

With just a little bit of explaining how to build a narrative and how to think about challenging the player characters, that pretty well describes what a GM's role is. It carries the impartiality that a fair GM should have and the cat herding they have to do very succinctly.

The immediate objection would be, "If the Facilitator is neutral, isn't that going to make the game too easy?" The answer is, that the Facilitator is neutral to the players intents whether they prefer their actions or not. The world and the characters the Facilitator portrays would have their own motivations with or without the player characters but react to their presence according to those motivations. The world in general is mainly indifferent to the players unless the players become entwined with the motivations of characters around them.

A Facilitator will however focus the narrative on the group's objectives, offering tools to reach them. The rest of the players have to do the work of reaching for their goals by interacting with a world driven by it's own agenda.

Stars and Passions

Kevin Levine, a video game designer uses the terms "Stars" for characters that will interact heavily with the player characters. He calles the goals that intersect with the path of the player characters "Passions." The context he uses them in are different for video games so I'm adapting the idea a bit.

I'm aware that relationship maps and significant NPCs have been around for a very long time, but the terminology makes it easy to focus on what's important for the facilitator to think about and what makes the Stars potentially interesting.

They may have goals that the player characters can use, like offering resources in exchange for making their passion move forward. Their passions could conflict with the player characters, setting the Star up as an antagonist. A Star's passion might compete for the very same thing that the player character wants, turning the narrative into a race to see who will get to their goal in the end.

Play What You Know

Rules mastery is great but the concept makes games intimidating to new players. When I started playing RPGs, we didn’t know a lot but we played anyway. We got a lot wrong but we still had fun.

So if you can have fun not using the rules, do you need them? Rules can help you tell a story, they’re a partner in the creative process that makes for a level playing field.

Ignoring rules can make things too easy, too hard or maybe make things that should be possible impossible. They change the story being told. But if you leave them out, as long as you have a way of handling conflicts between players you can form a narrative together. The most common conflict to resolve is establishing a cost for success. Usually that cost is passing some kind of skill check.

Aim for play that follows the rules as you understand them. There will be times when you realize you don’t know how something is supposed to work. Usually this results in the Facilitator frantically reading through the book trying to find a relevant rule. That may be necessary if the condition is likely to come up frequently.

If It’s something that’s only going to come up once a session, consider ruling in favor of the players this time and make a note to study the problem later in between sessions. Automatically favoring the players can serve as a signal that no rule is being used and the players should not always expect that result.

There is a problem with establishing the precedence of a house rule. It will stick in the players minds and it will be hard for them to remember it was a stop gap. There is a long history of house rules in RPGs. They became an important part of play because rules were often poorly written and players were left to fill in the gaps.

Today there’s more page count being dedicated to better descriptions and a greater knowledge of what works for players. House rules are best when a tool gives the players an experience they don’t want or they don’t cover a subject the players are interested in exploring.

As you learn, update your play to match the rules as written. This way you’ll get the experience that was intended.