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.

View attachment 90458​

"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

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

IMO in an RPG a mixture is good. Unfortunately the way that a lot of games are kind of relentlessly balanced it's all too easy for a character to be really good in one loop and bad in others. I really think saying "hey there are three pillars of the game, combat, social, and exploration" (to pick the ones from 5E as an example) and that you want to make sure that PCs have something semi-useful to do in all is a good design basis. Otherwise it's too easy for one of those to become a chore that some character has to take care of while the other people sit around being bored or, worse yet, being unremitting liabilities.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

This mostly deals with computer games. From an adventure standpoint, as in table top rpg adventure, this mindset doesn't work. It makes for a very linear, repetitive and predictable game. For TTRPG's my tried and true method for adventure creation is what I'd call "site based". Start with an overall 'story' (NOT plot line...just a one or two line 'story'...ie, "Slavers have been increasingly bold in acquiring slaves all along the Woodside Trail! Whats worse is that nobody knows where, or who, the slaves are being sold too!"). Draw rough map. "Stock" the map with logical and interesting people, places and things. Refine map. Refine stocking of said map. Rinse and repeat. Now think about the bad guys would behave, think, act, use, exploit, etc the surroundings in pursuit of their overall story goal (re: "get slaves"). Detail more maps as needed. Detail all the 'other stuff' that DM's are supposed to do in order to cover odd situations and mundane situations (re: encounter charts, new monster or two, perhaps a new piece of equipment, notes about weather patterns, local 'flavour' such as customs, dress and mannerisms...all the stuff that really brings the setting to life, even if there's a chance the players will never encounter/need it).

Done.

If you design an adventure around a "loop", all you are doing is playing out the same thing over and over with slight variations. The suspension of disbelief will be weak. The adventure isn't "believable" if the players don't follow the script, so to speak. For example, take the Slavers thing above. If it was a 'loop style' adventure...the PC's are expected to be fighting the slavers, obviously. But what if they decide to 'take it down from the inside'? What if they try and infiltrate the slavers gang as slavers themselves? Well, if the adventure was designed around a 'loop' of, say, fights against the slavers and their cohorts, the DM is basically going to need to rewrite VAST swaths of the adventure. That adventure will then have much of it's page content rendered virtually useless...and the DM is still going to have to come up with all the stuff that was "glossed over" or ignored due to the fact it was written to be using a 'loop method'. If the adventure was written from a Site Based standpoint, however, the DM will have all the information about how, what, why, when and where the slavers are doing their thing...and what the slavers have to avoid in the area in order to be successful. PC's trying to infiltrate them would then be a relatively simple task for the DM as he has all the information he needs to do so. Minor additions can be adjudicated on the fly because the DM has all that "mundane info" that would not be present in a 'loop based' adventure.

My 2¢ anyway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

This mostly deals with computer games.

It can make for a mighty boring and repetitive video game, too, if there aren't a useful variety of challenges and approaches. Even a good FPS will often have several different kinds of foes that feel different. The cited example HALO 1, had several different kinds of enemies (Covenant and Flood), a variety of vehicles (Human and Covenant), a variety of weapons (Human and Covenant), and some pretty big maps with unusual features. Sure you're shooting and dodging but still, there's variation and choices you need to make due to the fact that you can only carry two weapons.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION], yes, exactly. For a video game this is fine, the "loop method" works...minor variations of the general 'thing'. Different weapons, enemies, etc...but it's still very much the same thing: combat and tactics. Toss in a little bit of percieved overland travel to break it up, maybe a cutscene or two, but it's still a loop of "fight, fight, fight, fight, end, roll credits". This works for a lot of video games...even MMO's where people do the same "boss fights" over and over to get specific rewards. If you know what you are going into, this isn't a problem, it's a feature. In a First Person Shooter, I'm expecting to be doing a lot of shooting bad guys.

For table top RPG's, however, using the loop method just isn't going to work. Well, I suppose it could if everyone at the table is going for this sort of game. The only time I can remember doing this was when we played the Street Fighter RPG when if was first released. Then again...it's a TTRPG based on a video game, so...uh...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shasarak]

For table top RPG's, however, using the loop method just isn't going to work. Well, I suppose it could if everyone at the table is going for this sort of game. The only time I can remember doing this was when we played the Street Fighter RPG when if was first released. Then again...it's a TTRPG based on a video game, so...uh...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I disagree that it does not work in RPGs you just have to make sure that everyone agrees what "loop" they want to play. If Players just want to play the "kill the Kobolds" loop and the DM wants to play the "travel through the wilderness" loop then you dont have to be a Computer programmer to realise why the Players are not so engaged with the game.

 

[AriochQ]

I am also in the camp that this is a poor comparison for RPG's.

A much better analogy is that of the cinema, utilizing 'scenes' and 'story arcs'. Successful RPG adventures have a ton in common with movies. The action/significant events tend to happen in scenes (busting into a room, interacting with an NPC, etc). Plot points are developed across the adventure path, usually resulting in a climactic resolution. There is usually minor conflict and resolution throughout the path. The difference in play styles also correlate well to movie types such as action, drama, etc.

The list goes on and on, but there is a great deal of overlap. It is possible to make an RPG adventure that has nothing in common with movie style storytelling, but I think most of the successful adventures have a great deal of similarity.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I loved Lew's work back in Dragon, and this is a nice "video game design 101" kind of nugget but this is a pointless, useless article on a tabletop gaming site. Here's one example why:

I disagree that it does not work in RPGs you just have to make sure that everyone agrees what "loop" they want to play. If Players just want to play the "kill the Kobolds" loop and the DM wants to play the "travel through the wilderness" loop then you dont have to be a Computer programmer to realise why the Players are not so engaged with the game.

How on earth does anyone assume that all of the players want to play the same thing? That they are looking for the same "loop"? You can go all the way back to "Strike Force" from 1988 to see a discussion about identifying different types of players and how a GM can include elements to keep their interest.

In fact, I'd say the position presented in the above article is based on designing single-player videogames and is the WORST approach to take when working on your tabletop rules system or campaign with a DM and multiple players. D&D and every other long-lived RPG has not survived for 40 years on a 30 second loop.

"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."

Is this supposed to be insightful? This is basic GM advice in every RPG I can think of for at least the last 25 years. "You might even considering adding in many of these loops in different parts of the same adventure" - look now I've really sent it over the top!

"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."

What is the point of this paragraph? To state the obvious? There is nothing in these words - it's just a cluster of generalities. At the very least how about some examples? Good and bad? An old game that did this well that's maybe fallen out of the spotlight? A new game that exemplifies this? Maybe some reasons why?

The one example that was included is even debatable as while 4E did focus on combat it also brought us the skill challenge which was a pretty innovative way to handle the "group skill check" with specific mechanics and a framework to use it as an "encounter" instead of using yet another fight.

This looks like an outline of an article waiting to be fleshed out rather than something one would publish. I would really expect more from someone with Lewis Pulsipher's track record.

 

[Celebrim]

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!

I have the same story. I got all the exploration banners/achievements, and then I was done. The Core Loop in WoW - which is often little more than a loop of repeating, well-timed, keystrokes - wasn't in and of itself enjoyable enough to sustain the game.

As for loops in D&D, they look almost nothing like video game loops and - while tabletop games can learn a lot from video game design theory - loops are one area that can't be ported into tabletop games.

The reason is that video games with their immediate feedback, reflex based mechanics, and their visual and auditory effects are visceral in a way that tabletop games never can be. Those 'loops' in a video game activate primal centers of the brain down in the Amygdala that in return pushes out adrenalin and thereby creates addictive pleasure and excitement. You can engage the adrenalin of a player of a table top game but not so much with a loop per se.

To the extent that there is repeated satisfaction in a tabletop, it's often in character development which happens much less frequently than any ordinary loop. But cashing out and getting their XP is something players typically look forward to. The experience of leveling up is common to both tabletop RPGs and video games. One area that treasure as XP really hooked into back in the 1e AD&D days was the loot drop.

But really, what tabletop RPGs bring isn't the loop, but that thing that I was looking for in World of Warcraft and which caused me to quit as soon as I could no longer find it - novelty.

 

[Shasarak]

How on earth does anyone assume that all of the players want to play the same thing? That they are looking for the same "loop"? You can go all the way back to "Strike Force" from 1988 to see a discussion about identifying different types of players and how a GM can include elements to keep their interest.

Yep, and yet here we are again. It is almost like some kind of.... loop.