NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9239045" data-attributes="member: 70468">I mentioned MDA to sidestep questions of my own design experience, though I have worked as a BA and currently work as a software engineer. In a sense, aesthetics are your requirements and dynamics your acceptance criteria, so it seems analogous to practices I have used professionally for quite a while.I am struck by this comment because it reminds me of criticism of agile I have seen. There are arguments that it doesn’t apply in this or that situation, or a particular project is special or unique in some way. I haven’t found that to be true (but there are problems with implementing agile that are real, which is out of scope for this discussion, but it would be remiss of me to fail to acknowledge that they exist). I don’t see anything about tabletop RPGs that makes them incompatible with an approach like MDA. It’s just that’s not how they’re usually discussed.This is tricky because it’s using aesthetics and dynamics differently than MDA does. An aesthetic in MDA is essentially a type of fun. It’s not about what the mechanics feel like or how they manifest — that’s dynamics. From my perspective, I’m starting from the fun I want to capture (“what is this game about?”), and then I’m answering how I want that to manifest.For example, I could¹ describe my homebrew system as an exploration-oriented sandbox game. In terms of aesthetics, that’s stuff like challenge, discovery, fantasy, expression, fellowship, narrative. Notably, I exclude submission and sensation. I’m not going for experiential, immersive, or curated play. It may or may not work, but I consider supporting those things as non-goals.The first order dynamics model involves the referee and the players. These are the participants. The referee operates according to certain procedures, and the players engage with the game in certain ways. The referee can exercise discretion (what I will probably refer to as arbitration), but how and where that is done is handled procedurally. If the players win in a conflict, that victory must be respected. There is a “story”, but it must emerge from play rather than being curated by the referee. That’s why discretion is handled via procedure. And so on (for combat, zoom, framing, etc).From there, I can start picking out actual mechanics: how I operationalize skill checks and their results, how combat works, the various procedures that are followed in play. In a way, <a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html" target="_blank">System Does Matter</a> is my sanity check. (Yes, I think there is some RPG theory that can be used to reconcile MDA with tabletop RPGs. I also find Baker helpful as well as some of the discussions about things like authority.) Do the mechanics support my outlook (the aesthetics)? Are they appropriate (supporting my dynamics)? If yes, then I’m on the right track. If not, I have work to do. Of course, you actually have to play the system.I’m a really big fan of getting something working then iterating on it. Early designs started off as OSE/WWN hybrids before evolving away from that to where I am today. Getting an MPV quickly lets you see how things work in actual play, which is important. Something may seem good in theorycraft but suck badly in play. It can also reveal gaps you didn’t expect. (And historically, that’s how D&D evolved out of Arneson’s Blackmoor game.)Hopefully the above clarifies my perspective. I would put the way you describe “imagination” and the way it is used by participants at the table in the dynamics category because there are different ways we can operationalize it. I think the inclusion of “imagination” in its dynamics is what separates tabletop RPGs from adventure board games like <a href="https://middara.com" target="_blank">Middara</a> and video game RPGs. (Note: From a design perspective. It’s possible some dynamics could be optional depending on the game, and that may even be a design goal.)[HR][/HR]1: “Could” does a lot of work here. I’m not approaching it quite this formally, but some of the dynamics are things I have thought about.</blockquote>

Verification