We spent the morning of Rules Day #1 2019 considering some of the underlying dynamics in gaming and game design in general and how we want them to apply to the game as it is. The conclusion was that, in general, we like where we’re at and don’t particularly want to change anything – just clarify some points to make sure we’re actually practicing what we want to do. Here are the four factors we looked at, where we scaled them to, and a summary of the reasoning behind each one:
The Role of Randomness
There are two factors we looked at here: Absolute vs. Scaled and Predictable vs. Unpredictable.
“Absolute vs. Scaled” refers to how “swingy” the randomness is. A fully absolute system means that on a 1d100 die roll, a 100 would be the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen regardless of likelihood, and vice versa for a 1. A fully scaled system would mean that that same 1d100 roll is for options only within the likely range. We put our scale at about an 80, favoring Scaled:
(Absolute) 0————————50————–|——–100 (Scaled)
This means that, when making a 1d100 roll, the majority of possible outcomes are within the “likely” range – but it leaves room for the unlikely: a small chance on either end that the outcome could either be unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad.
“Predictable vs. Unpredictable” refers to how much control a player has over the random element. Heavily favoring predictable might mean choosing when randomness happens or always getting an immediate response to influence the randomness; heavily favoring unpredictable would mean the player has little control over how and when randomness happens at all. We put our scale at roughly 62, slightly favoring Predictable:
(Unpredictable) 0————————-50——|—————-100 (Predictable)
This value reflects a wide-ranging discussion about risk, reward, stakes, stagnation, and disturbance. We agreed that randomness (and the risk that comes with it) tends to be more fun in low-stakes situations and when used in a generative capacity (to come up with new problems and situations), and tends to be less fun in high-stakes situations or when used as a monkey wrench thrown into situations that are already well-developed. As such, it is better used more towards the beginning of a given arc, and less towards the end. Because our game is primarily a narrative rather than an environment and the players’ part in that narrative is their capacity for agency, we agreed that randomness should be avoided in situations where it would compromise either game element – but that because it is also an improvisational game, it can be put to good use as a form of ambience and breaking up stagnation when appropriate.
Fairness and Playing Field
Even though our LARP does not have any objective point-type system towards victory, success and failure still matter – and, as such, means that we ought to consider whether the system we have at the moment is fair, and what “fair” means for our system. This meant a discussion about Equality vs. Merit.
In regards to our game, Equality vs. Merit has to do with a few different factors: Resources, Opportunities, and Return on Investment. Resources refers to both in-game resources, such as gold or tradecraft levels; but also out-of-game resources, such as a player’s ability to spend time or energy on the game. Opportunities simply refers to places to spend those resources, both in and out of game. Return on Investment refers to the fact that any system in which you can “invest” something – time, energy, XP, what have you – you tend to get a bigger reward down the line the more that you invested up front. This can create a vicious cycle that wildly unbalances the power dynamic between players if it is not carefully pruned.
The question of Equality vs. Merit comes down to what degree the difference between the most and least “successful” – on any given metric – should be allowed to grow and at what point there should be steps taken to equalize the two. We agreed on roughly a 75:
(Equality) 0———————-50————-|————-100 (Merit)
The goal that we agreed upon was for players to have relatively equal pools of starting resources and opportunities to make use of those resources, but that how they proceed to invest those resources should reflect the effort they put into making their choices and developing their skills.
Following that, we spend time discussing how to address then fact that players’ resources and opportunities and inherently unequal when those include out-of-game elements like time and player experience. This resulted in a side conversation about game culture and group dynamics: how we as a group attribute “success” or “failure” and how we measure status in the game. We agreed that, fundamentally, what players ultimately want is to feel valued; and that part of feeling valued is being able to contribute in a positive way to the group at large (and acknowledged for these contributions), and one of the ways that people feel most able to contribute is when they have something unique to offer.
One of the ways that we thought to address the qualities of being valued for something unique is to make sure there is a way to diversify into a wide variety of niches; such, even if two players want to have a similar focus for their characters – say, diplomacy – those two players can diversify into two different diplomacy niches so that there are situations where each of them can shine. The idea would also be for this to promote a more collaborative style of play in which players all have to lean on each other sometimes, rather than one or two players dominating the whole narrative.
This led into a discussion about how far we want to lean towards a collective vs. individual play style; we put the value for that at 27, favoring collective:
(Collective) 0————-|———–50———————–100 (Individual)
This was to put emphasis on teamwork as a major part of the game; and for “wins” to be when the whole group wins – not just one person. We felt that individual comparisons of which player is “best at” which skill were ultimately unproductive and helped contribute to the feeling of devaluation in players who need more support, and thus that the focus of the value of a player should shift to whether players are helping out the group or not.
We finally circled back around to practical ways to help address inequality in resources and opportunity rather than just game culture adjustments. Options we discussed included early morning catch-up time for players who missed events, making sure game information is accessible to players outside of events, and removing unnecessary rewards that contribute to inequality (see incentive vs. reward).
Incentive vs. Reward
This discussion started with defining and contrasting incentive vs. reward:
- Incentive: Why you do it, beforehand, requires awareness, includes a goal or desire, adds pressure to do/not do something.
- Reward: What you get, afterwards, happens regardless of awareness, independent of a goal or desire, may become an incentive.
To illustrate with a practical example: when choosing missions, the incentive is to get the mission done and solve the problem that the mission addresses – the reward is the xp. We decided that we wanted to balance game incentives vs. rewards the following way:
(Incentive) 0———-|———–50———————100 (Reward)
This is about a 25, favoring incentive. Discussion centered primarily around intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. We observed that most of the motivation to participate in a part of the game – whether it is showing up at an event, going on a mission, RPing, writing a chronicle, etc – is intrinsic, or comes from the inherent fun in participating. On the other hand, most of the rewards we have in place for participating – such as XP in the inn – are not sufficient motivators in and of themselves and mostly have the unintended consequence of biasing the playing field further in favor of people who already have plenty of resources and opportunities to participate in the game.
We also talked about rewards as its own form of bias that detracts from the fun of the game: in the mission XP example, the incentive to do the mission is to solve the problem because doing so is fun; but if I were to start listing the rough XP amounts for each mission on the board next to the missions, it would bias incentive towards the reward – and in favor of missions with higher XP, regardless of whether they were actually more fun or not. We agreed that rewards are most fun as a surprise, but that otherwise we should focus on providing more incentives for participation.
One of the primary forms of incentive that players cited was acknowledgment and recognition; and that it applies to a wide variety of situations. This includes making well-developed characters, sending in actions to accomplish tasks, writing chronicles, risking choices on missions, roleplaying, etc. As such, one of our goals is to support a culture of acknowledgement that is inclusive to all players and all aspects of the game.
Mechanics vs. Story
The last topic we discussed was where we want to fall on a mechanics vs. story scale when it comes to interpreting rules and abilities. A heavily mechanics-ended approach would mean that rules are followed to the letter: they do exactly what they say and neither more nor less. A heavily story-based approach would mean that the rules are mostly suggestion, and may vary widely depending on the situation at hand. As part of the discussion, we realized that we needed to measure this scale in three places: in combat, out of combat, and in player-to-player situations. The scales are as follows:
IN COMBAT: (Mechanics) 0———-|———–50——————–100 (Story)
OUT OF COM.: (Mechanics) 0————-|——–50——————–100 (Story)
PLAYER-TO-P: (Mechanics) 0———————50————–|——100 (Story)
Respectively: In-Combat at 25, Out-of-Combat at 77, and Player-to-Player at 33. Per each:
In-Combat is at 25, favoring mechanics, because combat needs to flow; everyone needs to know what everyone else’s abilities do in order to minimize holds, confusion, and frustration. However, we left a little room for using abilities in creative ways in controlled combat situations – such as using acrobatics to use a rope to swing out towards an opponent.
Out of Combat is at 77, favoring story, because this is a storytelling game. If it makes sense for an ability to work a certain way that wasn’t factored in the rules, it ought to be able to do that; and, because out of combat situations are typically slower-paced, we can afford time to consider any unintended consequences before using an ability in an unusual away. We agreed, however, that this should be done only in a way that adds to or expands on what is already there, not a way that would take elements out of an ability or change how the text works.
Player to Player is at 33 because, without a GM nearby to supervise, players need to have a common context for how an ability works; otherwise, it severely increases the chances of less-experienced players being taken advantage of. Additionally, without a GM to make calls about how rules work, players risk accidentally making calls that conflict with the setting. We rated player-to-player slightly higher than in-combat, however, once again because this is a storytelling game; and if a group of players engaged in a roleplay agree that it would make sense for an ability to work a certain way in the roleplay situation, they can all mutually agree, play it that way, and then check with the GM later. Making it a group decision lowers the risks of advantage and setting conflict because it means more heads are thinking through the situation.
What I have written here is only a summary of the discussion; in actuality, discussing all of these points took about four hours and covered a great deal more ground than is portrayed here. If you have questions about other aspects of what we discussed, let me know and I can try to cover them in more detail with you.
(Note also that this writeup is based on the scrawling of the notes that I wrote up at the time, and some of these notes had gaps or were otherwise difficult to decipher. If I have missed anything important or misrepresented it, please let me know.)
Falnorian Games 
1 thought on “Rules Day 2019: Game Dynamics”
Comments are closed.