Loops in RPG Adventure and Game Design

Video game designers use two terms worth understanding for all game and adventure designers, "atoms" and "loops". This time I'll talk about loops.


"In Halo 1, there was maybe 30 seconds of fun that happened over and over and over and over again. And so, if you can get 30 seconds of fun, you can pretty much stretch that out to be an entire game." Jaime Griesemer

A "loop" in a game is a repeated action that makes up a significant part of the game or adventure. A "core loop" is a part of the game repeated many times during play, or perhaps more than any other loop. Aiming and shooting a gun while dodging in a first-person shooter is a core loop. A loop is somewhat like the chorus of a song, or a repeated guitar or piano riff. Many games (especially video games) amount to little more than the core loop. If the core loop isn't enjoyable, the game fails.

A vital question in any RPG campaign is the nature of action in the core loop. Is the core combat or some part of combat? Planning? Social interaction? Politics? Exploration? Something else? If a player doesn't enjoy the core loop, that player isn't likely to stick with the campaign.

If the core loop in your RPG adventures is that players are on the lookout for traps, that's not likely to be enjoyable with most groups. For a hack and slash RPG the core loop is rushing the enemy and chopping them up in melee. I'd guess that's the most common core loop in fantasy RPGs. If your players are primarily interested in story, you probably don't want a core loop that is combat.

A student in one of my Community Education courses said he started playing the online game World of Warcraft (WoW) as soon as it was released. Exploration isn't the core loop in WoW, but he explored EVERYWHERE. When he finally looked behind the last nook, he stopped playing and hasn't played since!

For many groups, of course, a mixture of loops with none dominating can be the most entertaining. And for best pacing, you probably want to emphasize one loop or another from one session or adventure to the next. For example, one adventure might be combat heavy, another might be puzzle heavy, another might consist mostly of talking with and persuading creatures, and so forth.

The most versatile RPG rules sets are going to be ones that quickly enable the GM to run a variety of loops, and adventures where one loop or another is emphasized. Most of us have read RPGs that are all about story, or all about combat (4e D&D?), or even all about politics. These are fine for people who want to focus on that kind of core loop, and not worthwhile for others.

When you design an adventure, or choose a published adventure to run, you'll likely have more fun if you choose one with loops that your players are likely to enjoy. They still have to do whatever-it-is you require for success, but they'll enjoy the journey.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

pemerton

Legend
Authors write stories, whether alone or collaboratively.
Authors write stories. Poems. Scripts. Adveristing copy. Scientific reports. Etc etc.

Role-players don't write stories.
Well, collectively they produce stuff which issues in sequences of imaginary events connected by character, time and place (which is a minimal instance of a story). Depending on the techniques used, they may produce such sequences which are stories in more than a minimal sense (ie involve dramatic conflict, rising action, climax and resolution, etc).

There is a simple example found in Book 3 of OD&D, The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures (pp 12-13) - the interaction is between the referee and the party caller:

REF: Steps down to the east.
CAL: We're going down.
REF: 10', 20', 30' - a 10' square landing - steps down to the north and curving down southeast.
CAL: Take those to the southeast​

It's not the most riveting fiction of all time, and I won't quote any more of it, but look at what is actually happening there. First, the referee establishes, as an element in a shared fiction, that the player characters are at the top of steps descending east. The caller then introduces a new element into the fiction - the PCs are descending those steps. The referee elaborates - the descent is 30' before the PCs arrive at a landing where they can see more steps going down. The caller then authors more fiction: the PCs go down the southeast stairs.

Now we can talk about the methods used to generate the shared fiction (eg the referee is probably narrating the architecural details from some pre-written notes and a pre-drawn map; the caller may be consulating with the other players to decide what the PCs do). But discussion of possible methods of authorship doesn't change the fact that what is going on here is the collective authoring of a sequence of fictional events concerning these characters in this place at this time.

The player cannot decide that their character takes any action. The player can only decide that their character wants to take an action, and the actual resolution of that action is left up to the GM. There is a difference, and it is a significant one.
This claim isn't true as a matter of RPGing procedure. Look at the example of play I just gave: the players (or, at least, the caller) decide that their PCs are going downstairs.

Here is another example, from the 5e Basic PDF (p 2):

DM: . . . From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. . . .

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues. . . .

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?

Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?

DM: Make an Intelligence check.

Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply?

DM: Sure!

Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.

DM: They look like decorations to you.​

In that example of play, it is Phillip who authored Gareth's investigation of the gargoyles, and Phillip who made it the case (in the fiction) that Gareth was wondering whether or not these statues are merely statutes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AriochQ

Adventurer
my .02...I tend to refer to RPG sessions as a 'co-construction of reality' between the players and GM. I think the best GM's allow their players to influence the environment. It is never the case that the DM has worked out every single detail of the adventure, and the players often fill in those voids. For example, a critter is attacking a comrade at the bottom of a staircase. The player asks "is there a bannister I can slide down?". The GM probably hadn't considered bannister location in their planning, but agrees there is a 'slidable bannister' in the moment. [You can easily find another example if you are the type of GM that ALWAYS considers bannister location when planning an adventure].

This has two main advantages...1. It fully supports the Rule of Cool. 2. It adds detail to the setting independent of the GM (although they still have final say). The players have 'co-constructed' reality. If the GM were to later write a written account of the session, it would include the character sliding down the bannister to attack the baddie. Although the player obviously controlled the actions of the PC, they also influenced the construction of the campaign setting to some degree.
 

In that example of play, it is Phillip who authored Gareth's investigation of the gargoyles, and Phillip who made it the case (in the fiction) that Gareth was wondering whether or not these statues are merely statutes.
Phillip tells the DM that Gareth wants to look at the gargoyles, but the DM is the one who actually makes it so (after stopping to confirm that this is what he actually wants to do). It doesn't matter what a player says, until the DM confirms that it is or is not the case.

Phillip doesn't have agency to decide that Gareth actually does anything. The agency of the player (in the real world) is identical to the agency of the character (in the game world) - they may want, decide, or attempt, but it's up to the DM to tell them what they actually do.
 

pemerton

Legend
Phillip tells the DM that Gareth wants to look at the gargoyles, but the DM is the one who actually makes it so (after stopping to confirm that this is what he actually wants to do). It doesn't matter what a player says, until the DM confirms that it is or is not the case.

Phillip doesn't have agency to decide that Gareth actually does anything.
Phillip seems to be permitted to decide what Gareth wants to do, and to decide what Gareth is feeling or wondering. That is authorship of elements of the fiction.

Also, the fact that under certain circumstances the GM can veto Phillip's desired contribution to the fiction doesn't make the GM the author of un-vetoed contributions. To offer a parallel: I have authored elements of co-authored publications. I have not always been the lead author in such cases, meaning that my contributions have been subject to veto or editing by someone else. That doesn't mean that, in choosing not to edit or veto, they nevertheless become the authors of what I wrote. I authored it, proposed it for inclusion, and it was accepted.

Likewise here. Phillip proposes that Gareth looks at the gargoyles. The GM accepts that proposal. The GM didn't author the proposal.
 


Arilyn

Hero
The player cannot decide that their character takes any action. The player can only decide that their character wants to take an action, and the actual resolution of that action is left up to the GM. There is a difference, and it is a significant one.
Spoken like a true meta-gaming troll. You don't get to change any definitions just because they point out how you're the bad guy in all this. Nobody does. If you insist on dragging the RPG hobby through the mud, you should look for a more receptive audience.

Nobody is dragging the RPG hobby through the mud. This is a very interesting thread on loops in RPG design. You have turned it (once again) into your personal crusade against the evils of meta-gaming. Guess what? As people keep telling you over and over again, the hobby supports many styles of play, and that's a good thing. If you don't like games that give players agency, that's fine, but please quit calling fellow players trolls, and quit claiming modern designers are not writing "true" RPGs.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
If you insist on walking down the only path which is explicitly forbidden, then you are the troll who is guilty of one-true-wayism.
Riiight.
You're clearly on a crusade. I don't think there's any point in continuing this line of discussion with you.
 

Nobody is dragging the RPG hobby through the mud. This is a very interesting thread on loops in RPG design. You have turned it (once again) into your personal crusade against the evils of meta-gaming.
I'm not the one who derailed this thread. I'm the one who tried bringing it back on topic. Blame those despicable meta-gaming trolls for going off-topic.
Riiight.
You're clearly on a crusade. I don't think there's any point in continuing this line of discussion with you.
I will continue to fight for as long as villains stand here and spew their disgusting meta-gaming rhetoric all over the hobby. I'm certainly not going to let those monsters have the last word.
 

Phillip seems to be permitted to decide what Gareth wants to do, and to decide what Gareth is feeling or wondering. That is authorship of elements of the fiction.
[...]
Likewise here. Phillip proposes that Gareth looks at the gargoyles. The GM accepts that proposal. The GM didn't author the proposal.
Phillip doesn't just decide that Gareth should do a thing, in his capacity as creative-consultant on a work of shared-fiction, and then look toward the DM-as-editor as to whether they're going to move ahead with that. Phillip simply imagines himself to be Gareth, inputs all of the information that Gareth has, and whatever his brain spits out as the next step becomes his best model for what Gareth will try next.

It's a difference between first-person decision-making and third-person decision-making. Role-playing is first-person decision-making. You might be able to argue that Phillip is authoring Gareth's thoughts, if you really wanted to be pedantic about it, but you couldn't argue that he authors any elements of the fiction any more than you could argue that your own thoughts define any element of our reality; the two are directly analogous.
 

pemerton

Legend
Behaviour in the real world is governed by causal laws (plus the exercise of free will, if you believe in such).

The behaviour of a character in a PC is authored. That authorship is an instance of behaviour in the real world (qu [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] upthread, pointing out that he plays games in houses, at clubs etc). So whatever causal laws govern the behaviour of a character in a RPG, they are real-world causal laws.

Authoring something by imagining yourself to be someone else is a pretty standard case of authoring.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top