The importance to RPGing of *engaging* situations

[pemerton]

This post has been prompted by a conversation with some friends, and reflection on my Torchbearer game yesterday.

To me, it seems at the core of mainstream RPGing is the player characters finding themselves in a situation, that is, some imagined circumstance where they have to make choices or take actions to overcome a problem or avoid a threat or similar. The PCs are controlled, as "game pieces", by the non-GM participants. Typically, the situation is established and adjudicated by the GM participant. PCs-in-situations is where those two roles - player and GM - meet, and interact, to create the distinctive experience of playing a RPG.

Not all time at the table is like this - eg if its established that a PC is at the market, and if the rules of the game allow buying gear to be resolved simply by changing the tally in a "money" column while writing new stuff under an "equipment list", then we've got play happening in some sense, but no situation. Still, I think player-characters-in-situation is the core.

What makes play engaging? The situations have to be reasonably compelling; and the resolution of them has to be reasonably exciting. Sitting around the table with your friends can still be fun even if the situations are boring and their resolution fairly pedestrian (I would put some of the combats in the original Giants modules in this category), as even a boring situation resolved in a pedestrian fashion can provoke enjoyable conversation, surprise and joy in lucky (or unlucky) rolls, etc. But when I talk about engaging play I'm thinking about the play of the game itself, and not just the social context that it occurs within.

One approach to compelling situation puts the emphasis on "who has the right tools for the job?" In my Torchbearer session, the burly Dwarf was the one who lifted up the stone lid of the sarcophagus, while the Elven Dreamwalker was the one who read the runes and interpreted the mysterious sigils. This is an important feature of traditional D&D play, and other RPGing that is inspired by D&D (like Torchbearer).

But I don't think that is the only, or the most reliable, approach. First, there's no guarantee that resolution will be exciting, unless the excitement simply consists in getting to use your tools. Which might be true the first couple of times, but probably isn't going to be sustainable.

Second, most of the time, in most situations, probably more than one - and perhaps every - PC has a tool that will do the job, especially if the players are at liberty to decide what "the job" is - that is, to decide what to make of the situation and what they want out of it. Before I got my group playing Torchbearer, one of our main games was Prince Valiant, and all PCs in that game are knights by default, and two of our three knight PCs had near-identical skill and equipment lists. Another main game was Classic Traveller, and while Classic Traveller PCs tend to be pretty varied in their skill lists and equipment lists, "who has the right tool for the job" wasn't the main way that situations were compelling, because most of the time most PCs had something they could do, be that talking or shooting or radioing for backup or whatever else.

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about. This is also more likely to support exciting resolution, because whatever it is that happens, some PC's situation will be changed in a way that matters. Something will be gained or lost, a friend made or betrayed, a goal advanced or set back, etc.

Particular techniques for doing this - eg the role of prep, the technical procedures for adjudication and resolution, etc - will vary across RPG systems. Nevertheless, and despite that variety, I think this is a reliable approach to engaging play. And it also makes a number of worries that people talk about - eg niche protection, spotlight balancing and the like - largely evaporate. Framing a situation in which the PCs stumble into an archery contest that might give the Robin Hood PC a chance to strut their stuff remains fine, but not the key device for keeping play engaging; and if the real action at the archery contest turns out to be a different PC establishing an alliance with Robin Hood's nemesis, that's fine too!

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

This is something where some games with faction play have an edge. Whether it's your noble house in Dune, or just a gang in Blades in the Dark, if all your characters have been created with a strong stake in one faction's trials and tribulations, it gives the GM a clear direction to go in.

"Advancing the values of my faction" may also mean somewhat different things to different PCs, so GMs can still find ways to create vigourous intra-party discussions. For example, the Atreides bodyguard might want to protect the others at all cost, even when they want to stick their necks out to advance the cause of the House. Some of them may want to win at all costs, even through the use of dishonourable tactics, while others would rather uphold the honour of their House. And so on.

 

[pemerton]

This is something where some games with faction play have an edge.

Torcbearer doesn't quite have factions, but friends and enemies can sit in a similar sort of place.

In Burning Wheel, relationships and affiliations (which get closer to factions) are also similar.

In our Classic Traveller game, we worked some of this stuff out at the table as part of PC build; and the patron device, particularly when (as we did it) the patron gets connected into the PC backgrounds rather than just being an arbitrary quest-giver, can also help.

it gives the GM a clear direction to go in.

Absolutely this.

On the flip side, when that is muddy or muddled, play can really flounder. I've experienced this more than once as a player. As a GM it's a problem I haven't had for a long time, thankfully.

 

[Pedantic]

This seems to assume a pretty neutral relationship to gameplay itself, which admittedly, is probably a pretty fair implied criticism of a lot of TTRPG systems. Deciding on which of several courses of possible action, with an eye to both immediate positioning after resolution (possibly with regard to both success and failure of the PC's action if they're at question) and with regard to a longer term future goal, is the entire loop of most board games, certainly most eurogames.

Thus, that clearly can be engaging on its own, before you acknowledge that your action selection was not moving a pawn around a rondel and instead directing your rogue to attempt a risky pickpocket or your bard to hypnotize a guard. Not just, "I have a tool for this situation" but, "I have the best tool available to us for this situation," and then working out if your line of play was the correct choice or not.

Or, maybe I'm really saying, if resolution isn't interesting, then either the scope of the problem was too small in relationship to player capabilities, or your resolution system is boring (a problem I tend to diagnose as "too low agency" more often than not).

 

[Lanefan]

What makes play engaging? The situations have to be reasonably compelling; and the resolution of them has to be reasonably exciting.

I'd posit the first of these - compelling situations - is considerably more important to-for engagement than the second. Some highly compelling (and thus engaging) situations might never truly resolve, or end up getting resolved in an unexciting and-or drawn-out manner; I'm thinking here of ongoing interactions between characters (be they PC-PC or PC-NPC) such as love affairs, rivalries, or similar as an example. Some combat situations can be compelling and very engaging in themselves (4e-style set-piece battles come to mind, or edge-of-the-seat combats where the party stands on the verge of a TPK) even if the resolution mechanics used to sort them out are somewhat dull.

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about.

There's an argument to be made that says not to try to make situations compelling, as that way lies disappointment and possible disaster, but to rather just lay situations out there and see what grabs the players' attention-imagination-engagement - in full knowledge that any situation can through no fault of anyone's sometimes just fall flat.

 

[TerraDave]

Variety and pacing. If its a huge exciting combat after huge exciting combat, at some point it won't be so exciting.

Knowing that sometimes what is very engaging for one player may not be engaging for the rest.

And just keeping it interesting. In fact, one things I have seen so many times is when a seeming hook is out there--and it may not be intended as one--the players will jump on it or start to delve even when say stakes, or their own tools or prospects, don't really dictate they should, because it just seems cool, or they just want to figure it out.

 

[pemerton]

Or, maybe I'm really saying, if resolution isn't interesting, then either the scope of the problem was too small in relationship to player capabilities, or your resolution system is boring (a problem I tend to diagnose as "too low agency" more often than not).

This could be a minor and a major point of difference in our views.

Minor: I don't disagree that resolution systems can be better or worse, for various reasons, but I don't think that - in a RPG, compared to (say) a boardgame - the resolution system itself can do the work of holding interest.

The closest to that state of affairs that I can think of is the crit tables in Rolemaster - which are pretty fun!, and a big part of the system - but they don't hold it together on their own.

Major: As far as the idea that interest is generated via the scope of the problem inviting meaningful optimisation in the solution adopted, for me that is not what is interesting in RPGing either as player or GM. But I do accept it is a dimension that my post doesn't engage with (and if you read my Torchbearer AP report, I think you'll see the same). It is something that is important to @Manbearcat, though, and so I'm inviting him to chime in.

 

[Manbearcat]

This could be a minor and a major point of difference in our views.

Minor: I don't disagree that resolution systems can be better or worse, for various reasons, but I don't think that - in a RPG, compared to (say) a boardgame - the resolution system itself can do the work of holding interest.

The closest to that state of affairs that I can think of is the crit tables in Rolemaster - which are pretty fun!, and a big part of the system - but they don't hold it together on their own.

Major: As far as the idea that interest is generated via the scope of the problem inviting meaningful optimisation in the solution adopted, for me that is not what is interesting in RPGing either as player or GM. But I do accept it is a dimension that my post doesn't engage with (and if you read my Torchbearer AP report, I think you'll see the same). It is something that is important to @Manbearcat, though, and so I'm inviting him to chime in.

A few thoughts on the importance of table-facing resolution procedures from both all three of a strategic perspective, a tactical perspective, and a premise/thematic perspective. I'm just going to pick through some games that I'm GMing and talk about some moments of play and how they might be shifted if resolution procedures were different (or, were understood differently by the players).

1) I've got a current 4e D&D game with @darkbard and @Nephis . They're in the midst of a nested combat that came from a micro-failure in a Skill Challenge. I established a pair of Win/Loss Conditions for this combat that aren't an expression of "ablating Team Monster HPs." There as follows:

* Protect the Priestess of Omthala from the direct aggression of her foes. To this end, she is a Minion (1 HP) with (a) an Encounter Power where her deity protects her (giving her 1 HP upon her lone HP being lost; via miracle) and (b) a Radiant Bulwark (15 Temp HP). Being a Minion of relatively meager means, she is extremely vulnerable. Protecting her will require deftness and finesse.

* Exorcise her of the terrible ritual that a Warlock (the steward of his Uncle's, primary antagonist, household) has cursed her with. This is a Skill Challenge that requires a Primary Skill Success by Team PC each Round or the Priestess of Omthala loses 1 HP. This demand puts significant strain on Team PC action economy.

The combination of these mechanical aspects give expression to both stakes within the shared fiction and the very gamestate itself. And, of course, these things are nested within the architecture of a very intricate system of rationed Powers, action economy (including off-turn actions and various riders and force-multipliers), and the array of the battlefield and Team Monster. Further still, all of this is an output of prior fiction, prior Player-authored Quests, and current Player-authored Quests (which then interacts with the reward structure and advancement scheme of play).

The experience of play of 4e is sensitive to every_single_component part of what I've listed above. Render it GM-facing rather than table-facing, render the premise content of play GM-derived rather than player-derived (eg a GM metaplot while touring a GM-selected or derived setting vs player-derived via their own selection of antagonists, companions, and thematic conflict by way of Quests and PC build), render the action and conflict resolution opaque vs transparent...do any one of those things (let alone all of them at once!) and the strategic overhead, the tactical overhead, and the premise/thematic overhead assumed by the players suddenly changes dramatically.

The process of play, the experience of play, the trajectory of play, the weight of play, the nature of changes to the gamestate and the shared fiction changes in a deep and fundamental way.

2) In last week's Dogs in the Vineyard game, @hawkeyefan had to make some decisions about Sin within the flock of the Town they are presently in. An old retired Dog named Sister Constance has a ward (a feral child who is ensconced in all manner of troubles, Sin, and possibly even Sorcery...or at least the emulation of it...TBD). She has lived a hard life. She has taken on this burden because the boy was orphaned when his parents died. This is entirely outside of The Faith. The Lord of Life has a lot to say about a lot of things...but sometimes stewardship becomes very...very personal. And sometimes the hierarchy of Stewardship within The Faith becomes either unwieldy at best or "not-fit-for-purpose/the facts on the ground as we're forced to live them." Sister Constance Sins brazenly and openly.

But @hawkeyefan is reluctant to judge here because of her circumstance...perhaps maybe because he's a bit soft or too kind or maybe even a little dim (all TBD...we're still feeling that out a bit). But he's seen violence and he's seen it recently. And there is a signficant lurking threat to Sweetwater Lake (the current Town) and it comes in the way of some sort of sordid, murky alliance between The Territorial Authority (who come packing guns and 6 hands to hold them), the U.S. Government, and the Town's rather absentee (or possibly heretical) Steward.

Things are escalating. At the start of our next game, hawkeyefan's character is going to be dealing with a difficult and possibly dangerous decision. He may be glad that he spared Sister Constance and rallied her both (a) to his cause and (b) in spirit because she is elderly and long past her days of meting out The King of Life's justice via book or gun...but she is still capable.

Now the above was an express byproduct of PC build, NPC build, and via the (somewhat intricate) process of the conflict resolution procedures of the game where we outline stakes, roll our dice pools (including bringing in thematic parts of character that are related to the moves we are making or related to the stakes of the conflict; like Stats, Traits, Relationships, and Belongings) of our back-and-forth and putting dice forward to reflect our actions/what we say.

If hawkeyefan didn't understand how NPCs Help PCs (by increasing their dice pools) or didn't understand how other PCs Help PCs (by "borrowing from the future" to resolve an urgent moment now; give a big dice advantage and deal with the handicap burden later) or didn't understand how Escalating works vs Giving/forfeiting a conflict (both the mechanical consequences of either and/or the thematic implications of either) or how to best marshal his dice pools or how Fallout works...or if he didn't understand the danger before him (eg what mortal conflict like gunfights looks like in terms of dice pools and the severity of Fallout; d10 dice) or if he didn't understand how he (the player) has to shape each moment of Stewardship, Faith, and the choice to punish, cast out, or live with Sin (and the implications of these things)...

...well how is his strategic decision-making (like absolving Sister Constance of her Sins and rallying her spirits to back a later play, or Helping a PC via "borrowing from the future" where he'll be in a spot that he'll have to manage), his tactical decision-making (managing dice pools and thematic build components, playing the fiction skillfully, to Escalate or not, Fallout etc), his premise/thematic decisions (to hold people accountable for their Sin or to actively absolve them with Ceremony or mediation or to passively do so in his own heart)....how is any of that supposed to "mean anything" as an experience of actual play if he doesn't understand that stuff...if he has no means to "play better or play worse" either because the system is opaque or shifting or because my conflict framing and conflict handling and stakes-setting and consequence-handling, and decisions to Escalate or Give suck or are unclear/not provocative (as GM)?

3) @hawkeyefan might say something about that. Or he might say something about our longterm game of Stonetop where he serves as Judge of the Village where he is cast as town mediator, de facto sage, and with censuring the manyfold agents of chaos and the enemies of civilization and harmonious order in a myth-drenched world and Points of Light setting.

4) The Blades in the Dark game I GM for @AbdulAlhazred , @Campbell , @kenada , @niklinna resolved a session tonight. There is a vast and intricate matrix of strategic, tactical, and premise/thematic decisions that players make in this game at bout the PC level and at the Crew level. Perhaps one of them has something to say about that matrix and how that matrix would be perturbed violently if you removed interlocking parts or if play went from table-facing to GM-facing?

Or maybe those guys want to talk about any key moments of our prior Torchbearer game (like the Witch and the Curse and the little girl or the Bandits/Rival in Town)?

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat - I agree about the importance of transparency. But I was wondering what you think about the particular claim that interest in RPGing can arise primarily or perhaps exclusively from optimising the problem-solution space.

This is not a method of interest-generation that I favour - I often enjoy seeing non-optimal solutions adopted (eg because those solutions fit with some thematic concern) and as a player typically don't always optimise.

But I accept the proposition that it can be for others.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat - I agree about the importance of transparency. But I was wondering what you think about the particular claim that interest in RPGing can arise primarily or perhaps exclusively from optimising the problem-solution space.

This is not a method of interest-generation that I favour - I often enjoy seeing non-optimal solutions adopted (eg because those solutions fit with some thematic concern) and as a player typically don't always optimise.

But I accept the proposition that it can be for others.

An easy way to examine this is as follows:

* Every one of those games I mentioned above has both an individual decision-space that can be gamed more or less skillfully (managing the imagined space to optimize the availability of your possible suite of moves and then capitalizing on that by making the best move possible and then resolving it with maximum skill in terms of marshalling dice/resources) and a longitudinal decision-space that can be gamed more or less skillfully over the evolving gamestate and accruing fiction.

* However, the likelihood is extreme that play in these above games will ring ultimately hollow in the actual experience of the play if your mental overhead and cognitive horsepower is invested exclusively in that endeavor. This is because both discovery (of "self" as in "the character" and outwardly as in "this place I'm inhabiting and these others I'm inhabiting it with" and "the meaning behind and purpose of this inhabitation") + premise prioritization + thematic needle-threading (as I've called it in the past) are essential to (if not the nexus of) the experience.

Only very, very conscientious and rigorous design will allow for these things to "play nicely together." The alternative is a mess of incoherent incentive structures, a GM using Force to mask the reality that they're the one who is ultimately moving the gamestate and (nearly if not wholly) unilaterally deciding upon the consequential aspects of the shared fiction, and players who are relegated to affectation, pantomime, and cosplay (providing color for the GM's game of Solitaire or Ouija).


So yes, you can play a game where optimising the problem-solution space is the exclusive crux or pivot point of play. We've got games for that (like B/X D&D). It just so happens that if that is your crux then (a) you better design very deftly for it (and relentlessly give expression to it in the game engine and honor the integrity of the competitive exercise at every moment of play) while (b) being wary of smuggling in play priorities that may not play so nicely with that relentless expression of "game as game" and competitive-integrity-honoring.

 

[JAMUMU]

I can't remember which game it was that advised the GM to "prep situations, not scenarios", but cleaving to that advice has definitely improved my GMing. System matters, of course. I have the same "situation area" written up for D&D and for Burning Wheel. The optimum problem-solving solution for D&D involves a lot more direct violence than the BW version, though in both versions information gathering and social factioneering can lead to non-violent (for the players) solutions.

Often when my players have a handle on any given situation they take a long time deciding what levers to pull and which buttons to push to achieve a desired outcome. Sometimes the actual playing out of that final stage often becomes secondary to the discovery and planning portions, meaning they want it resolved narratively. As variety is the spice of life I'll let that happen now and again.

 

[Manbearcat]

One last set of thoughts before I go MIA for a few days. Just a few examples of the Blades in the Dark game I mentioned above to flesh out the point:

At any given point, there is a constellation of Threats in play that manifest mechanically and within the shared imagined space in the following ways:

1) Setting or Faction or Rival Clocks. These are some combination of "extra-Score Clocks" that have emerged as a direct product of either (a) action resolution Complications during a Score (that can't be fully Resisted) or (b) a Devil's Bargain(s) or (c) Volatile tags (these are "auto-Complications" for some dangerous thing like a Ritual or Alchemical). A Setting Clock might emerge (d) as a byproduct major collateral fallout of a Score + a Fortune Roll that comes up as a 6. The final way these things emerge is (e) during Downtime as adversaries and allies both have dramatic needs and the means (Downtime Activities and Assets and Allies) to put into action those needs.

2) Players (f) choosing Rivals and our conversation during the Score yields us bringing them into play. This is, in effect, a player-authored kicker in a roundabout way.

The thing about a version of Blades in the Dark that employs neither the game's GMing Principles nor the game's Players' Best Practices nor the game's Advancement scheme which rewards dangerous, volatile, reckless play and the associated sucking up of the hardship that comes with it? That conceptual game? That game surely has a "solve" for each of (a) through (f) above. There is an optimal answer to the problem-solution space for each instantiation of those things during play of the game.

But Blades in the Dark is not that game (precisely because of the GMing Principles, the Players' Best Practices and the nature of Advancement). Each of that (a) through (f) above has an complex matrix of decision-space for the players where they are weighing simultaneous optimal arrangements that are at tension with each other...and there is also a layer of speculation and randomization (particularly when it comes to Resistance Rolls and the potential gamble of incurring devastating Stress to mitigate Consequences):

* Do I want to pursue this dangerous, volatile course to mark an xp in Playbook, Insight, Prowess, or Resolve?

* Do I want to pursue this dangerous, volatile course because that is the point of playing in the first place...AND my PC can deal (both mechanically with the robust toolkit for "dealing" and within the fiction itself...these are badass scoundrels with blood-soaked pasts!)?!

* Do I want to Resist this Consequence or turn down this Devil's Bargain because any of (i) I can't take the potential fallout, (ii) I don't love the course the potential fallout charts (thematically/premise-wise), (iii) there are just too many spinning plates in the air right now. BUT...can I even afford to Resist here...will I Trauma out of the scene (and hit one tick of my macro Clock to retire my PC)? Action resolution wise, can I afford to turn down this Devil's Bargain...like do I desperately need an extra die here? Can I think of an alternative Devil's Bargain or can someone else at the table?

* Do we really want this smoke? These guys are 2 Tiers higher than us with lots of dangerous Allies! But you know what...they did x and y...will we actually just sit idly by and let them do x...or y? Is that the kind of Crew we are? Is that the kind of Scoundrel I am? EFF THESE GUYS, WE WANT THIS SMOKE (or, let's just pay them off or find some other way to lower our profile...we want nothing to do with this trouble...for now).


This sort of stuff goes round and round and round and round and round in any given session of Blades in the Dark I GM. Its not here or there. Its not once or twice. Its perpetual. And that is by design.

So...yeah, there is a "solve" for every conceptual move in the hypothetical Blades in the Dark game above. But that ain't the actual game conceived-of...designed...-and-played. That game has omnidirectional push-pull and at-tension incentive structures that deeply complicates the reality of the constellation of "Threats on the Board" and the matrix of any given player and Crew's decision-space. An optimal "solve" there would require a seriously robustly parameterized model and a LOT of computing power!

 

[SaltheartRPG]

I think a lot of engaging play depends on the how the table is set. Is a game runner open to hearing any kind of proposed action/interaction and making it work within the ruleset? This is the old debate of rules v. rulings. Does your game system have a rule for everything from successfully sitting in a chair, to attempting to fast walk (I am being facetious)? Or, does the game system provide the room for game runners and players to negotiate any course of action, letting some dice/skill/ability combo mechanic be the final arbiter?

Finally, have you placed your players on the ole' railroad with but one 'correct' way to solve a problem or situation, thus killing improvisation and fun?

Any system can be placed in the fun category, although some are better for it. There must be some formula that reveals "engagement" level that is negatively related to rule and scenario rigidity.

 

[clearstream]

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about. This is also more likely to support exciting resolution, because whatever it is that happens, some PC's situation will be changed in a way that matters. Something will be gained or lost, a friend made or betrayed, a goal advanced or set back, etc.

With the caveat that I am replying prior to reading all posts thus far in the thread, and accepting the premises ad arguendo, this proposal got me thinking about some ways I have seen a situation become compelling.

• As you note, clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about. That can be as to the situation itself (the content of the situation) and as to the foreseeable outcomes of the situation (the envisioned consequences), and connected with that, what got them here; which all in turn point to nesting or framing. It goes without saying that "speak to" is doing a lot of work here.
• Another factor that I have seen to be compelling is a mystery players become intrigued by. In this case, they might not know whether that mystery connects with anything they care about... rather they come to care about the mystery itself. A new itch they want to scratch, might be another way to put this. I mention this, because "have shown" perhaps puts things unnecessarily into the past tense. It is as good if players find that their PCs care about the somethings in question.
• Expanding on itches to scratch, wrongs to right can powerfully compel players, and those can occur in-situ. Especially slights or other wrongs against the player-characters. Revenge is one of the more powerful motivators. I mention this because again, I think it shows the possibility of the compelling thing being found in the situation, rather than before it (without ruling out that possibility.) And generally speaks to emotional engagement.

One could make a longer list. My rough intent here is to suggest that we can have a construction in which the caring about is not established in the contents of the situation, but before it, and we can have constructions in which the caring about is established in the contents of the situation. One difficulty is of course that the boundaries of "situation" are undefined, so we have a vagueness that might lead to talking at cross-purposes. Possibly, we should think of nested or framed situations and it cannot be adequately explained how a situation in isolation will be compelling*.


*This obviously touches on meaning, and everything (or a great deal) of what can be said about meaning may apply here.

 

[clearstream]

The essence has always seemed to me that the situation must not be simply a set-piece or static narration: it must be capable of being engaged-with and unravelled. Crucially, it must be possible for the players to form actions (intentionally) that will engage-with and unravel.

Players must be able to see how what they do will matter (and go on to matter.) I think that implies that the meaning in the situation cannot subsist solely in facts about the situation itself, but must subsist in virtue of the relationship of those facts with facts about the players / their imagined characters. This may be trivial conclusion, but it is also instructive.

This is an "and" to speaking to something players have shown or can entertain that their characters will care about

 

[Pedantic]

This could be a minor and a major point of difference in our views.

Minor: I don't disagree that resolution systems can be better or worse, for various reasons, but I don't think that - in a RPG, compared to (say) a boardgame - the resolution system itself can do the work of holding interest.

I don't really classify TTRPGs as a fundamentally different activity than board games, possibly because I pretty much play them both with the same people.

Fundamentally, I think TTRPGs are separated by 2 unique features. Unbounded playtime, and undefined (or player defined) victory conditions. Instead of trying to acquire the most victory points before turn 8, or deplete the enemy's threat deck, players get to pick goals, like finding just what is hidden in that ancient ruin, or rescuing the kidnapped barkeep. Then, informed by the success or failure in regards to that condition (or proactively, as new information becomes available) they can select new goals to pursue, in a theoretically endless manner. And much like in other games, you can subdivide and pursue different strategies to achieve your goals.

I think you can separate, and try to drive the appeal of those two layers independently. My character wants something, and I will try to get that thing as efficiently and effectively as possible.

 

[Pedantic]

So...yeah, there is a "solve" for every conceptual move in the hypothetical Blades in the Dark game above. But that ain't the actual game conceived-of...designed...-and-played. That game has omnidirectional push-pull and at-tension incentive structures that deeply complicates the reality of the constellation of "Threats on the Board" and the matrix of any given player and Crew's decision-space. An optimal "solve" there would require a seriously robustly parameterized model and a LOT of computing power!

This is my single biggest frustration whenever I've tried to play Blades. The game does not want players to ever make good decisions. Every system is calculated to make your situation slightly worse, and then look askance at you of whenever you find some way to mitigate the bleeding.

I actually hate this kind of parasitic design in board games too, I struggle to get into games like Warchest or Undaunted, where you're generally starting from the highest peak of strength you'll ever have and every action thereafter will decrease it. Those are universally agreed to be solid designs, so that's very much a me thing, bit the problem compounds in a TTRPG where I can't know when the game will end. Adversity is interesting to overcome, I certainly want obstacles and challenges, but I don't want to fight with the basic resolution mechanics of the game to play well.

I'd much prefer that struggle exist independent of the player taking action.

 

[kenada]

This is my single biggest frustration whenever I've tried to play Blades. The game does not want players to ever make good decisions. Every system is calculated to make your situation slightly worse, and then look askance at you of whenever you find some way to mitigate the bleeding.

I actually hate this kind of parasitic design in board games too, I struggle to get into games like Warchest or Undaunted, where you're generally starting from the highest peak of strength you'll ever have and every action thereafter will decrease it. Those are universally agreed to be solid designs, so that's very much a me thing, bit the problem compounds in a TTRPG where I can't know when the game will end. Adversity is interesting to overcome, I certainly want obstacles and challenges, but I don't want to fight with the basic resolution mechanics of the game to play well.

I'd much prefer that struggle exist independent of the player taking action.

Our crew has gone from tier 0 weak to tier IV weak. We’re a major player in Duskvol now. I’m having trouble reconciling the idea that every system is calculated to make our situation slightly worse with the fact that we are rapidly approaching a point where we could subvert or take over the government after having started as basically nobodies. That seems like the opposite of worse except for the fact we do have a lot of alliances and enemies and obligations and trauma we’ve picked up along the way, but that also seems emblematic of our actions having consequences and our play generating things that matter to us (since these outcomes all followed from our pursuit of things important to or interesting to us). Are you speaking at a lower level than that?

Like, how in a score, you’re going to be facing consequences and having to decide how you want to handle them. Do you take them (the clocks, the heat, the harm, etc)? Do you resist and risk stress and trauma? These are decisions you have to make as you work towards your goals, and it inevitably involves expending resources (gear, stress, etc) as part of getting there. I see that as similar to a game like Pathfinder where you have to deal with things like traps (make a saving throw) and monsters (try not to take too much damage in combat) along the way to your goal. Those are both a form of attrition model, though BitD arguably works more completely (there is no way to really avoid it while newer versions of Pathfinder and its peers tend not to enforce the model very strongly if at all). Another difference with BitD is it gives players more control over how they resist a consequence instead of relying on luck alone to mitigate it (and hence the reason why games have evolved away from save or die/suck effects or to make them more gradual with multiple failures required for the full effect).

Am I off base or at least somewhat close? You say it’s you, so I’m not arguing with that. I’m just trying to understand a different viewpoint.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is my single biggest frustration whenever I've tried to play Blades. The game does not want players to ever make good decisions. Every system is calculated to make your situation slightly worse, and then look askance at you of whenever you find some way to mitigate the bleeding.

I actually hate this kind of parasitic design in board games too...

See I would frame this quite differently.

* The game demands players not only make strategic and tactical decisions that are net "positive gamestate-forward", but the game demands those same decisions be integrated with "Advancement-forward" and "dramatic need-forward" (both the individual Scoundrel the player is playing but the Crew at large) and "bold and compelling play-forward." Put another way BIG GAME LAYER + INTEGRATED BIG PROTAGONISM rather than just BIG, DISCRETE GAME LAYER.

That is an imminently more difficult decision-space (and maps profoundly more closely to the way actual, flawed-yet-capable, living creatures in a complex biome and social strata work) than "solve each obstacle optimally, no theme/premise/dramatic need or at-tension incentive structure strings attached."

* As such, I don't call that parasitic design. I call that brilliantly complex and integrated systemization of a premise for play. Particularly so given how capable and robust the PCs are (through the myriad means/resources at the disposal of the PCs and the layered decision-space).

EDIT - All of the above being said, the element of "Spinning Plates" or “Walls Closing In” of Blades in the Dark (and kindred games) can be "bug" rather than "feature" for some players. I've talked to at least one whose cognitive state is just fundamentally wired to be triggered by all of those plates perpetually in the air. This isn’t a game about aligning every incentive structure perfectly in the same direction so there is no tension between them and no tradeoffs, so risk profiles and conflict can be reduced to zero, so consequences can be defanged entirely. So that absolutely is "a thing."

 

[chaochou]

Probably the most reliable way to make situations compelling is to make them clearly speak to something the players have shown their PCs care about. This is also more likely to support exciting resolution, because whatever it is that happens, some PC's situation will be changed in a way that matters. Something will be gained or lost, a friend made or betrayed, a goal advanced or set back, etc.

For me, the bolded text doesn't differentiate sufficiently between games where the players choose what to care about and those where the GM tells them what they must care about.

However, I agree with your central premise that 'players caring' is the fuel which powers engaging situation. Letting the players create settings, situations and characters which they're excited about has been the most reliable method I've found of achieving that. Scripted 'adventures' which players then 'create characters' to hit the GMs 'story beats' have been - by some considerable distance - the poorest.