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

 

[chaochou]

Not on the level of an author writing a story, though - outside and above the story.

This doesn't mean anything. There's a creative process. You imagine stuff. You tell other people. There's no inside or outside. Just authorship.

Roleplaying takes place within the world, as the characters being roleplayed.

I can't respond to this as it is completely devoid of meaning.

My roleplaying has always taken place in my house or that of a friend. Occasionally a ruined castle, or a games club. It's a creative process. You imagine stuff. You tell other people. They imagine stuff. They tell you. Authorship, with multiple authors.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This doesn't mean anything. There's a creative process. You imagine stuff. You tell other people. There's no inside or outside. Just authorship.

It sounds like you're missing the point of the discussion. Out-of-character player agency is a huge issue currently plaguing the industry. Authoring content from the perspective of someone writing a story, or sitting around a table, is entirely distinct from the decisions which players make as their characters which forms the basis of roleplaying as a hobby. If you don't recognize the distinction, then you can't address the problem.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like you're missing the point of the discussion. Out-of-character player agency is a huge issue currently plaguing the industry.

I don't think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is missing any point.

Out-of-character player agency is a relatively unhelpful way to describe an authorship role. Acting in character is a way of describing a set of constraints on an authorship role. Authorship governed by constraints is still authorship.

Authoring content from the perspective of someone writing a story

Do you mean "Writing a story about a story-writer"? Some fiction has this character, but not the bulk of it.

 

[Jhaelen]

It sounds like you're missing the point of the discussion. Out-of-character player agency is a huge issue currently plaguing the industry.

It may not be your cup of tea, but it's neither a plague nor a problem. Apparently, many players enjoy these modern approaches to roleplaying games. I have yet to give it a try, but I think some of my players would also appreciate or even prefer being given 'out of character authorship', as you're calling it.

 

[chaochou]

It sounds like you're missing the point of the discussion.

LOLOL!

Authoring content from the perspective of someone writing a story, or sitting around a table, is entirely distinct from the decisions which players make as their characters which forms the basis of roleplaying as a hobby. If you don't recognize the distinction, then you can't address the problem.

Not all authorship is rpg play. But all rpg play is authorship - something you claimed doesn't exist at all in rpg play in the post I responded to. Do you remember? You said "Nobody wields authorial power during the game, or there would be no point in playing..."

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Everyone wields authorial power during the game or there is no point in playing.

Out-of-character player agency is a huge issue currently plaguing the industry.

One true wayism is a huge issue plagueing your posts.

 

[pemerton]

Apparently, many players enjoy these modern approaches to roleplaying games.

They're not all that modern. I've recently been re-reading, and refereeing, Classic Traveller (1977). It talks about player contributions to authorship of worlds.

The idea that authorship is the sole province of the GM became predominant some time in the mid-80s, around the same time that railroading players through a pre-authored story became the default mode of RPG play (see eg most 2nd ed AD&D materials, White Wolf's "golden rule", etc).

Modern RPGs use various techniques to facilitate and structure player authorship that weren't invented in 1977, but the basic idea is not new to RPGing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not all authorship is rpg play. But all rpg play is authorship - something you claimed doesn't exist at all in rpg play in the post I responded to. Do you remember? You said "Nobody wields authorial power during the game, or there would be no point in playing..."

Only if you use "authorial" in a degenerate sense such that it includes role-playing, which is not standard usage and would render the term meaningless.

One true wayism is a huge issue plagueing your posts.

There are many ways you could decide how to role-play a character, and all are equally valid. The only thing you absolutely cannot do is to make decisions from an out-of-character perspective, because that is definitionally not role-playing.

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Out-of-character player agency is a relatively unhelpful way to describe an authorship role. Acting in character is a way of describing a set of constraints on an authorship role. Authorship governed by constraints is still authorship.

Authors write stories, whether alone or collaboratively.

Role-players don't write stories. Role-players play roles, and if you want to refer to the overarching outcome of that as a story, then that has no bearing one way or the other.

 

[chaochou]

Only if you use "authorial" in a degenerate sense such that it includes role-playing, which is not standard usage and would render the term meaningless.

No. This is just painful gibberish. I can author quotes and ideas. When one of my character speaks in a roleplaying game, I am authoring their words. When they act, I am the author of their actions. Use of the word authorship to mean the instigator of a creative process is perfectly orthodox English.

There are many ways you could decide how to role-play a character, and all are equally valid. The only thing you absolutely cannot do is to make decisions from an out-of-character perspective, because that is definitionally not role-playing.

Annointing yourself the final arbiter of what is and is not roleplaying doesn't make you right. Just self-righteous.

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.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Forbidden!!!! haHAHAHAHAHA. That's classic. Says the person accusing someone else of one true wayism! hahahahahahaha!!! Hypocrisy much?

But just to be clear, since even the most basic concepts, and even common words, seem to elude you... it's the exclusion of styles which aren't your own which is the hallmark of one true wayism. I have exluded none. You claim anything outside your preference is 'forbidden'.

My statement of roleplaying as authorship describes all the participants, in every style, as creative equals. Your assertions... well. Let's not examine your tragic prejudices too closely. They probably cause a rash.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No. This is just painful gibberish. I can author quotes and ideas. When one of my character speaks in a roleplaying game, I am authoring their words. When they act, I am the author of their actions. Use of the word authorship to mean the instigator of a creative process is perfectly orthodox English.

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.

Annointing yourself the final arbiter of what is and is not roleplaying doesn't make you right. Just self-righteous.

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.