Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mearls" data-source="post: 9620122" data-attributes="member: 697">The reaction to my thread is interesting, and I've enjoyed reading some of the commentary around it.It stems from my reading of the philosopher Bernard Suits and his definition of a game: "The voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles".It fascinates me, because at Gary Con I noticed something in the Founders & Legends tournament I helped run. The groups I ran for that suffered a severe setback - losing three characters in one round to a vorpal sword, for instance - each rallied and absolutely crushed the adventure with inventive, teamwork driven play. The threat of defeat rallied them, rather than deflated them.Suits' definition interests me because I think it speaks directly to TTRPG play and why that may have happened.A TTRPG is voluntary, in that we agree to the type of game we want to play and the stakes (the AD&D players expected a deadly event). It presents obstacles to overcome, in that success is far from assured, instead requiring engagement and participation by players to achieve victory. That obstacle could be character death, or a story-based failure.That underscores the importance of a session 0 or similar tool that the group can use to get on the same page. Since this is voluntary, we all need to agree and actively support the stakes we want to set. If we are not on the same page here, the game is off the rails before it begins.That then dovetails to the purpose of rules in gameplay. If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole).If you accept all that, then the purpose of TTRPG design is threefold:1. Create a mechanism to establish the stakes of the game (what are we risking?)2. Provide the obstacles to put those stakes into question (how do we risk it?)3. Create rules to allow players and the GM to apply themselves in opposition to the resolve the stakes (what happens?)I'll be following up more on Twitter, but the con was great. I made some tweaks to my design drafting off these thoughts and have been very happy with the results in play.</blockquote>

Verification