Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Beleriphon" data-source="post: 7928135" data-attributes="member: 27847"><p>For video games the reason that Tetris and Candy Crush work as games is very similar, and can be spun out to more complex games. In fact I think using the MDA paper The Angry GM used is very helpful. <a href="https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf" target="_blank">Here's a direct lin</a>k. In MDA Tetris and Candy Crush are mostly challenge and submission, because they present a challenge for the sake of being over come and submission in that they are played as kind of "mindless" fun.</p><p></p><p>As a quick summary of MDA: M is Mechanics, that is to say the base level of a videogame (ie. the actual programing code and rules) up through how you design a level; D is the Dynamics of a player interacting in the run time (ie. playing the game); A is Aesthetics which determines the emotional response we want the player to have, or the emotional reason that players play specific types of games. For example I find the Civilization series dull as dirt, but other like them a lot</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I actually do think it is possible to break games into relatively broad categories, and then break individual aspects of play down from there. For example how much player agency does a game provide? Does a particular rule facilitate role play or hinder it? Defining those terms is applicable to most RPGs.</p><p></p><p>This why I think the MDA theory is helpful because it actually starts from basic principles of design. It starts off with the idea that we're design a video game. As a designer I need to bake in particular aspects from the core code if I want players looking for specific responses to actually get those responses. The most interesting part however is the aesthetics section, specifically why players engage with a game.</p><p></p><p>From the paper:</p><p></p><p>1. Sensation Game as sense-pleasure</p><p>2. Fantasy Game as make-believe</p><p>3. Narrative Game as drama</p><p>4. Challenge Game as obstacle course</p><p>5. Fellowship Game as social framework</p><p>6. Discovery Game as uncharted territory</p><p>7. Expression Game as self-discovery</p><p>8. Submission Game as pastime</p><p></p><p>What is important is that a game can be all or some of these to varying degrees at any given time. There is no secret sauce combination that is right, it is simply a very basic taxonomy of how to describe responses and goals.</p><p></p><p>On [USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER] referring to win conditions, RPGs still have them, they just don't end the game, simply the scenario the group is engaging with immediately. When my party all dies in a fight, we've lost the scenario, but the game doesn't end. So, that is a fairly unique mechanic in games.</p><p></p><p>Any way, I think my prevous assertion about RPGs being primarily games got lost somewhere in that since RPGs are games (it's right in the name!) using existing discussion of games and types of games might be a salient place to start since RPGs have more in common with other games than they do with something like a movie, at least in so far as the way one interacts with the game.</p><p></p><p>I think it might helpful to break down the essential components of an RPG. And I mean super, super basic break down here and include stuff that should be obvious but often gets over looked becasue it is such a basic premise.</p><p></p><p>Think of a as the most basic check list you need to play and RPG.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">we need players</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Characters the players use</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">rules of some kind</li> </ul><p>At the absolute most basic (that I can think of) that is an RPG.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Beleriphon, post: 7928135, member: 27847"] For video games the reason that Tetris and Candy Crush work as games is very similar, and can be spun out to more complex games. In fact I think using the MDA paper The Angry GM used is very helpful. [URL='https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf']Here's a direct lin[/URL]k. In MDA Tetris and Candy Crush are mostly challenge and submission, because they present a challenge for the sake of being over come and submission in that they are played as kind of "mindless" fun. As a quick summary of MDA: M is Mechanics, that is to say the base level of a videogame (ie. the actual programing code and rules) up through how you design a level; D is the Dynamics of a player interacting in the run time (ie. playing the game); A is Aesthetics which determines the emotional response we want the player to have, or the emotional reason that players play specific types of games. For example I find the Civilization series dull as dirt, but other like them a lot I actually do think it is possible to break games into relatively broad categories, and then break individual aspects of play down from there. For example how much player agency does a game provide? Does a particular rule facilitate role play or hinder it? Defining those terms is applicable to most RPGs. This why I think the MDA theory is helpful because it actually starts from basic principles of design. It starts off with the idea that we're design a video game. As a designer I need to bake in particular aspects from the core code if I want players looking for specific responses to actually get those responses. The most interesting part however is the aesthetics section, specifically why players engage with a game. From the paper: 1. Sensation Game as sense-pleasure 2. Fantasy Game as make-believe 3. Narrative Game as drama 4. Challenge Game as obstacle course 5. Fellowship Game as social framework 6. Discovery Game as uncharted territory 7. Expression Game as self-discovery 8. Submission Game as pastime What is important is that a game can be all or some of these to varying degrees at any given time. There is no secret sauce combination that is right, it is simply a very basic taxonomy of how to describe responses and goals. On [USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER] referring to win conditions, RPGs still have them, they just don't end the game, simply the scenario the group is engaging with immediately. When my party all dies in a fight, we've lost the scenario, but the game doesn't end. So, that is a fairly unique mechanic in games. Any way, I think my prevous assertion about RPGs being primarily games got lost somewhere in that since RPGs are games (it's right in the name!) using existing discussion of games and types of games might be a salient place to start since RPGs have more in common with other games than they do with something like a movie, at least in so far as the way one interacts with the game. I think it might helpful to break down the essential components of an RPG. And I mean super, super basic break down here and include stuff that should be obvious but often gets over looked becasue it is such a basic premise. Think of a as the most basic check list you need to play and RPG. For example: [LIST] [*]we need players [*]Characters the players use [*]rules of some kind [/LIST] At the absolute most basic (that I can think of) that is an RPG. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism
Top