Current thoughts re: RPG design

[benlehman]

I realized that there's a strong trend in my latest RPG designs, which is present as sub-text in the previous games, but has become really strong in the designs that I'm presently working on.

I think that the Forge tradition of narrativist design is very strongly focused on what a character decides to do and, by extension, what a player decides to do. There's a great statement of Dogs' premise somewhere, which says something like "the sinner's fate is in your hands. What will you do?" which I think captures the whole thing pretty damned well. It's a pretty great mode of design, and has produced (and will produce) some great games.

There's something which I've been doing lately (and I think is present, but not formally, in Polaris, Breaking the Ice, the Mountain Witch, etc. It's formally present in Spione) which I think is a pretty neat and underexplored area for design. The premise in these games is not based on "what will you do?" That's locked down. It's based on "how will you do it? And why?"

Like, for instance, in HGMO, the two leads are going to have a sexual relationship. The existence of their relationship, and the existence of sex in that relationship, are not on the table. What is on the table is what sort of relationship will they have and how? And that question is wide open, with an infinite number of possible answers, ranging from kidnapping and stockholm syndrome to intense, shameful passion to repressed simmering to open, loving commitment.

There's a similar thing (not with sex) in Clover. Clover is a happy child. Why? How? What does that mean?

I'm really grooving on this design principle right now. It requires a whole new set of techniques and there's a lot of fulfilling stuff there.

Comments

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

There's temptation to lazy thinkers here, which I've fallen into a few times, to relate this to I Will Not Abandon You and Nobody Gets Hurt. But it's actually not a parallel structure at all.

Happy to elaborate on this point as well.

[l-the-fangirl.livejournal.com]

Not formally present in Polaris?

...

Um.

It's a tragedy. Your character WILL make a Mistake in Polaris. How and why is the entire reason it's worth player.

Not formally present in Polaris. That's funny, on my end.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. But in moment-to-moment play, Polaris is still about *what do you do?* So is Bliss Stage, although it has a similar fatalism to it.

As opposed to my more recent stuff, where that question is just no longer front-and-center. The focus of play and premise is not at moment-to-moment decisions about character action. Period.

yrs--
--Ben

[l-the-fangirl.livejournal.com]

Ah, a fine distinction.

But yeah, compared to HG, MO Polaris is not driven by that moment to moment.

Shift from What to How

[judd-sonofbert.livejournal.com]

Could you describe how this focus is shifted in game design?

I do not understand.

Re: Shift from What to How

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Okay, so, HGMO. Say.

In the game, the physical and emotional intimacy of the relationship between the two main characters escalates. Necessarily. That's just ... what the game's about. It's mechanically impossible.

So the question doesn't become: do you fall in love? It's *how* do you fall in love. I talked with Joe about this after the first playtest. I was worried that the game would be wrecked by someone leading with, say "I grab you and pull your clothes off and we have sex right there in front of god and everyone."

And Joe was like "no, that's cool. Because we still have to play the rest of our game. And now we have to define our relationship in terms of what just happened."

yrs--
--Ben

[jake-richmond.livejournal.com]

"How will you do it? And why?" is almost kind of what I was going for in Ocean, and a concept that I'm really fond of in general. The end of the game is (to a large extent) pre-determined. We know what's going to happen. how we get there is what matters.

Maybe these are separate things? Maybe I'm missing what you mean?

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Haven't played Ocean yet. I wouldn't be surprised.

Is it related to time?

[(Anonymous)]

Heya Ben,

I think I see what you're saying. Do you think that part of your desire to design in that direction is a result of another desire to get past introductory crap and jump into the good stuff right away?

Right now, my gaming time is severly limited, so I've been trending towards games that have clearly stated goals for the characters up front. This way there's no wandering around wondering what we're going to do and how. We just have to figure out how. Is that a factor for you as well?

Peace,

-Troy

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

I've begun meandering thoughts about the role/place of character advocacy, and what ways player input can be structured outside of that focus (obviously, Universalis, 1001 Nights, Polaris, etc. playing in on that...)