Worlds of Design: Story vs. Gameplay

Which comes first for an entire game design (not an adventure): story, or how the game plays?
the-bones-2395135_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Which Comes First?​

This is an age-old question in the realm of game design: Which element takes precedence—the narrative arc of the story, or the functional constraints and mechanisms of the gameplay? We must consider this question from two perspectives: which comes first in the design process, and which is more important for the final version of the game? For an established adventure, the gameplay is largely predetermined by the ruleset, but for designing an entire game from the ground up, the choice of starting point fundamentally alters the outcome.

When tackling game design, it’s a common mistake for newcomers to begin with a rich story. When I taught game development (now retired), and I asked beginners to write a treatment for a game (a brief description of a game, a few pages), they wrote about a story. They didn't have a game at all, because they hadn't thought about how the mechanisms of the game might support their story.

Ernest W. Adams, founder of the International Game Developers' Association (IGDA), argues strongly against this approach:

It is absolutely, positively, better to design the gameplay first and then weave a story into it afterward. Starting with the story is a mistake that far too many young designers make because that's (comparatively) easy and fun, and you get to be very creative. But often you find that you've spent a lot of time and money on it without having checked to see if your game will be fun to play.

Starting with the story is appealing because it is creatively easy and fun, but it often leads to a substantial investment of time and money before determining if the game is actually enjoyable to play. In essence, a strong narrative without a fun mechanical core is not a game at all; it's just a treatment.

Mechanisms Define the Game

A game, fundamentally, is a set of mechanisms that provide constraints which players must follow. Whether these constraints are built into the code of a video game or written into the rules of a tabletop game (where a GM usually enforces them), they are the necessary engine of action. While a few genre-specific video games might prioritize "experience" over mechanism, true game design is not equivalent to writing a story. What happens in a game may resemble a story, but that is the result of the mechanics, not the starting point.

This mechanical-first approach is supported by industry veterans like Mark Maratea, Technical Director and Software Architect for AAA and mobile games:

You want 1% of the story. Then 80% of the mechanics. Then the rest of the story and the 20% of the mechanics that depend on the story. Why 1%? Because you need to know a few things to make informed decisions. Is that combat? Indoors environments? Outdoors? Both? Biped enemies? Quads? Flying? Melee attacks? Ranged? 1st person? 3rd person? Single player? Multiplayer? Both? Drop in/drop out?

This 1% of story is vital because it determines foundational decisions: Is the game about combat? Are the enemies bipedal or flying? Is it 1st or 3rd person? These mechanical questions must be answered before a full story can be properly supported.

Player Agency vs. Designer’s Story

Ultimately, the goal of a game designer is to design a game, not write a story. As Adams notes:

Players buy games to do things: explore, shoot, drive, fly, build, design, buy, sell, solve puzzles, and so on. If they wanted just to be told a story, they would watch TV. The story serves a number of functions, but you must prototype and test the moment-by-moment gameplay first, so you know that it's enjoyable. Then you can weave the story around the action.

If players only wanted story, they would watch television. In the final design, prioritizing story severely limits replayability, as players "beat the game" and move on. More significantly, a dominant, built-in narrative can alienate "serious" players by reducing their agency—their ability to make a significant difference in the outcome.

Game First, Context Second

While there are many excellent, small-scale RPGs that are based on specific, story-heavy situations, the "big" tentpole RPGs—the ones designed for enduring, long-term play—invariably prioritize the gameplay mechanisms first, even if they are situated within a rich setting. What matters in the end is the designer’s intent, but the most enduring titles are those where the mechanics are solid enough to let the players write their own story.

Your Turn: Do you prefer to play specific-scenario RPGs, or the “big” ones that let you attach your own setting/stories to it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
I tend to ignore published scenarios but do mine them for ideas, setting info or well-developed NPCs.

Story arcs are useful for a setting, but not exactly set in stone but as aspirations of major stakeholders. I like playing a living sandbox, with known places subject to gradual change, whether by player agency or by NPC-driven arcs.

I like to allow some "building" aspects in rpgs, too, as that creates emotional stakes that can provide future hooks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think this is just a terminology issue I'm not understanding, not a problem with the article, but for the life of me I can't understand what "story" means in this context so I can't extract any meaning from this.

Story is what happens when the characters act within the situation set up by the GM. What does "story" mean when designing an RPG?

I'm wracking my brain to try to fit a definition that could possibly apply. Maybe, but unlikely, story means the types of stories the rules focus on. For example, D&D is a big tent game that supports a lot of different stories, though the default 5e rules push more towards the heroic fantasy subgenre, while a game like Masks: A New Generation is specifically a teen superteam drama RPG, with rules that support that strongly and don't necessarily fit as a general supers game. I don't think that's the meaning of "story" in this context, but it's the only thing I can think of. If it does happen to be the meaning of story, they I 100% disagree with this article -- a good ruleset not only allows but actively supports the feel you are going for, the tropes and archetypes of it, and you need to know what they are to design the rules around it. But again, this is a stretch just trying to imagine what the word "story" means in context of designing an RPG.

So, what does "story" mean here?
I think story, as it's used in this article, means a broad outline of the expected fictional content of gameplay, so the "story" of D&D would be something like a group of capable adventurers overcomes challenges in a medievalesque fantasy world which likely include fighting against fantastic creatures and encountering other sorts of obstacles, often gaining fantastic treasure along the way.
 

I think story, as it's used in this article, means a broad outline of the expected fictional content of gameplay, so the "story" of D&D would be something like a group of capable adventurers overcomes challenges in a medievalesque fantasy world which likely include fighting against fantastic creatures and encountering other sorts of obstacles, often gaining fantastic treasure along the way.
Yup. I definitely don't want the mechanics to push any more story than that. That's up to the players and how they choose to interact with the setting through their PCs IMO.
 

I think story, as it's used in this article, means a broad outline of the expected fictional content of gameplay, so the "story" of D&D would be something like a group of capable adventurers overcomes challenges in a medievalesque fantasy world which likely include fighting against fantastic creatures and encountering other sorts of obstacles, often gaining fantastic treasure along the way.
Yeah, that's my worry. Because the article says that you should do your rules before figuring that out. If you don't know what type of RPG you are making, how can you design rules to support that type of play?
 
Last edited:

Which Comes First?​

This is an age-old question in the realm of game design: Which element takes precedence—the narrative arc of the story, or the functional constraints and mechanisms of the gameplay? We must consider this question from two perspectives: which comes first in the design process, and which is more important for the final version of the game? For an established adventure, the gameplay is largely predetermined by the ruleset, but for designing an entire game from the ground up, the choice of starting point fundamentally alters the outcome.

When tackling game design, it’s a common mistake for newcomers to begin with a rich story. When I taught game development (now retired), and I asked beginners to write a treatment for a game (a brief description of a game, a few pages), they wrote about a story. They didn't have a game at all, because they hadn't thought about how the mechanisms of the game might support their story.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg. (I know, I know. It's the chicken). But do you have a game if you don't have the framework of a story? With no objectives is it even a game? But I'm seeing a category error here; I believe you taught computer game design rather than tabletop roleplaying game design. And there are some fundamental differences between a computer and a person; you have to tell a computer everything and without mechanics you do not have a game. With a tabletop roleplaying game you can literally go freeform with no rules and work on vibes but without a reason to play you do not have a game.

And then you absolutely 100% get good tabletop RPGs that start with the story. Just about all Grant Howitt One Pagers for starters. My Life With Master of course. Most of these are capsule games. I'm not calling this the only way just saying that this is a way and can work well. You also, more rarely, I suspect get computer RPGs that start with the story (Papers, Please and Depression Quest come to mind).
If players only wanted story, they would watch television. In the final design, prioritizing story severely limits replayability, as players "beat the game" and move on. More significantly, a dominant, built-in narrative can alienate "serious" players by reducing their agency—their ability to make a significant difference in the outcome.
I've never found this an issue with ttrpgs; the ones that are one story are rare enough to use it as a selling point. And people get alienated by a mismatch between their expectations and the way the game works. No one is upset because Montsegur Castle falls in Montsegur 1244 or by the end of Ten Candles.
 

Which Comes First?​

This is an age-old question in the realm of game design: Which element takes precedence—the narrative arc of the story, or the functional constraints and mechanisms of the gameplay?
A ruleset does not and cannot contain a narrative arc, by definition. This article is almost entirely incoherent.

What is the narrative arc of a Might - Weight table?
 



So the ruleset tells me what decisions I'm going to make before I create my character? If not, it does not contain a narrative. If it does, there's no reason to play.
Nope. The ruleset gives something that will happen.

In the case of My Life With Master the story is that the Master (played by the GM) abuses the Minions (played by the players) until one of them snaps and tries to kill the Master. Who will snap? Why? How will they try to kill the Master? Will they succeed? The story doesn't know what or how but if it's played at all well you will have the story of the abused minions of whom one snaps and tries to kill the master.

Masks is subtler. In D&D as you gain experience you get more powerful and what challenged you then will not after five levels. This is a simple and crude story that the rules mandate. Masks is a lot subtler because it's a teen superheroes game where the PCs start out as superpowered hormonal teenagers. And in masks as you level up you don't gain that much power. Instead you gain options, many of which are about either emotional control or control of your powers (with the most egregious of which being that level 1 characters start able to "Unleash your Powers" but one of the options for high level characters is "Wield your Powers"). It's about growing up.
 

I take "Story" as the overall fiction that the "Gameplay" creates. In other words: Story is what the game is about. Gameplay is how it goes about it. In that sense, they are both vitally important and which one you start with is less important than them being in sync with one another.

Take a Sword & Sorcery game concept. You want to create a game that emulates Conan and similar classic tales of muscle-bound warriors taking on fiendish demons and evil wizards. Great! Sounds like fun! But in writing your rules you happen to make sword-fighting dull and uninteresting and magic fun and powerful. Also sounds fun! But if you continue to think of the game as "Conan-esque", you will be very unhappy.

Some game systems are more versatile than others, but most can be adapted to a variety of settings and "Stories" with a bit of work. They solve the same problem in different ways and appeal to those of different tastes. If a system has a combat procedure that you and your group already find fun, then adapting that system to a different setting might be more effective for you than choosing a system purpose-built for that setting.

On the other hand, if you look at Traveler vs. Mothership. Traveler is a very robust, highly-detailed scifi rpg with a ton of released content. Mothership covers some of the same ground, but is much less supported, and has an intense focus on a specific-type of scifi horror story. Can you do Mothership-style stories in Traveler? Absolutely. Will it hit with the same effect? Probably not. Can you steal Mothership stuff for your Traveler game and vice versa? Sure!
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top