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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up
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="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8121774" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p>I think a barrier to being able to use imagination in some tabletop games is a drastic difference in what "makes sense" (even in the context of a fantastical world) from the perspective of a player's imagination versus what "makes sense" in the context of how the game is built.</p><p></p><p>For example: Most people have some general idea that being surrounded while in combat tends to be bad. However, my D&D 4E character was built around the idea that having as many enemies around me as possible was a good thing. I understand this because of experience with the game and understanding the mechanics and design mentality of the system, but it runs counter-intuitive to the general ballpark of how I believe most people would imagine approaching a fight.</p><p></p><p>"Yeah, but it's a fantasy world, so reality has no..."</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying that a fantastical world needs to adhere to reality. However, I do believe that some common ground is helpful for an audience from whom a game wants imaginative thought and in-game engagement of the in-world narrative.</p><p></p><p>Oddly, professional wrestling is (I believe) a good case study for roleplaying game designers. Obviously, pro-wrestling is choreographed and is an exaggerated fantasy portrayal of "sports." However, when it is done well, an audience can suspend their disbelief and be sucked into the story and the action.</p><p></p><p>As a matter of fact, contemporary wrestling has been on a drastic downturn (in terms of number of people watching) precisely because of a lack of what gamers and fantasy writers might call verisimilitude. I have no idea if anybody else on these boards watches wrestling, but some guys in AEW are terrible at this when putting together a match. Of course, it's a choreographed show. However, if a match starts with two guys fighting outside and a dude being kicked in the testicles by his opponent, it doesn't make much sense to then have both guys roll back into the ring and proceed to have a sportsman-like technical-based match. If the guy who was kicked in the junk isn't incapacitated, it makes more sense that he's (even if he's a good guy) probably angry and wants to punch his opponent in the face rather than do chain wrestling. Those small details matter to believable fiction.</p><p></p><p>"Well, okay... but magic and dragons."</p><p></p><p>Those things can still exist but be presented in a way which is easier for people to buy into. Going back to the wrestling example, the Undertaker being some sort of undead creature who can occasionally command lightning is obviously fiction. However, that character was portrayed in a way which was believable and came with "in-game" fictional rules, which remained largely consistent throughout the life of the character. Likewise, Hulk Hogan being able to "Hulk up" and be rejuvenated after having the crap kicked out of him for 10 minutes defies what would normally make sense, but the portrayal of the fiction still attempted to have some level of "realism," even if it was an exaggerated and cartoonish version of realism. When it is done well, you believe it; you feel the emotion of it; you can buy into it. When it's done poorly or something jarring is introduced to the story, it's harder to buy into the imaginative space of that world.</p><p></p><p>Once a shared narrative baseline is established with the audience, a connection is made with that audience, and they (the audience) can be invited into the story. In the context of an rpg or a cooperative narrative, having a shared baseline helps give mental and emotional cues from which to mold the imagination and buy-in to being a part of what is going on. Also, once a baseline is established, it is easier to push boundaries because a framework is given from which to make sense of why something deviates from that baseline or why something defies expectations. It helps give context to both the current state of the imaginative space and future narrative developments, and that helps someone participating to think, process information, and make choices from the point of view of that imaginative space.</p><p></p><p>So, how does that apply to imagination and game design?</p><p></p><p>As stated, even a fictional world needs to have some established baseline which can be understood by the players.</p><p></p><p>Let's say a group of PCs are confronted with a hostage situation: the villainous wizard BBEG is holding a magic wand to the head of another PC who had been subdued earlier, during a battle with the wizard's servants.</p><p></p><p>From a narrative and imagination perspective, there's a big difference between mechanics which lead to the expected situation of "our friend might die if we don't back down" versus "Joe has 100 HP because he's a PC, so even a coup de grace won't kill him." This is related to some of the comments about minis and video game visuals because the underlying point is viewing moving pieces rather than imagining being one of the pieces or the situation around the pieces.</p><p></p><p>A better example might be a player trying something "cool" in combat. For example, maybe they attempt to throw a rope and snare a fleeing enemy's legs -causing them to fall down. Or maybe they're a fighter using a shield, and they want to bash the villain with a shield to subdue the villain. Those ideas seem heroic or like something they may have seen in an action movie. Unfortunately, the game says that ropes are an improvised weapon, so attempting it means no proficiency bonus and you're rolling at a penalty which is impossible to produce success at your current level. In the case of a shield, the game might say you can't even attempt that without a special class ability or a feat. So, failure after failure while attempting to use imaginative ideas leads to the player eventually thinking it terms of what the game says is correct rather than what the player imagines.</p><p></p><p>Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of new players start with the first expectation and trying to come up with an imaginative solution, but eventually learn that how they would normally imagine a situation doesn't match up with how the game says they should be thinking.</p><p></p><p>Again, fantasy and gaming aren't real life. I accept that. Changes are made both due to fantastic elements and for playability. Certain things are tropes or accepted ways of doing things which fit a game or a genre. To return to the wrestling examples, the idea of whipping somebody into ropes and them continuing to run is ridiculous, but it's an accepted genre convention, so it gets a pass. Those exceptions are easier for the audience to accept once a shared baseline is established, and an audience is often willing to give a pass on a handful of things if most everything else fits their imagined expectation.</p><p></p><p>Even considering that it's fantasy and a game, I believe it's possible to have deviations from reality and still maintain a baseline which prompts and enhances thought and imagination, rather than getting in the way of it. When it does get in the way of it, I believe that good design clearly communicates that and gives an understanding of why -or does so after having used other elements to build narrative rapport with the audience.</p><p></p><p>The more steps taken away from a shared understanding, the harder it is to effectively use imagination to approach a shared narrative.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 8121774, member: 58416"] I think a barrier to being able to use imagination in some tabletop games is a drastic difference in what "makes sense" (even in the context of a fantastical world) from the perspective of a player's imagination versus what "makes sense" in the context of how the game is built. For example: Most people have some general idea that being surrounded while in combat tends to be bad. However, my D&D 4E character was built around the idea that having as many enemies around me as possible was a good thing. I understand this because of experience with the game and understanding the mechanics and design mentality of the system, but it runs counter-intuitive to the general ballpark of how I believe most people would imagine approaching a fight. "Yeah, but it's a fantasy world, so reality has no..." I'm not saying that a fantastical world needs to adhere to reality. However, I do believe that some common ground is helpful for an audience from whom a game wants imaginative thought and in-game engagement of the in-world narrative. Oddly, professional wrestling is (I believe) a good case study for roleplaying game designers. Obviously, pro-wrestling is choreographed and is an exaggerated fantasy portrayal of "sports." However, when it is done well, an audience can suspend their disbelief and be sucked into the story and the action. As a matter of fact, contemporary wrestling has been on a drastic downturn (in terms of number of people watching) precisely because of a lack of what gamers and fantasy writers might call verisimilitude. I have no idea if anybody else on these boards watches wrestling, but some guys in AEW are terrible at this when putting together a match. Of course, it's a choreographed show. However, if a match starts with two guys fighting outside and a dude being kicked in the testicles by his opponent, it doesn't make much sense to then have both guys roll back into the ring and proceed to have a sportsman-like technical-based match. If the guy who was kicked in the junk isn't incapacitated, it makes more sense that he's (even if he's a good guy) probably angry and wants to punch his opponent in the face rather than do chain wrestling. Those small details matter to believable fiction. "Well, okay... but magic and dragons." Those things can still exist but be presented in a way which is easier for people to buy into. Going back to the wrestling example, the Undertaker being some sort of undead creature who can occasionally command lightning is obviously fiction. However, that character was portrayed in a way which was believable and came with "in-game" fictional rules, which remained largely consistent throughout the life of the character. Likewise, Hulk Hogan being able to "Hulk up" and be rejuvenated after having the crap kicked out of him for 10 minutes defies what would normally make sense, but the portrayal of the fiction still attempted to have some level of "realism," even if it was an exaggerated and cartoonish version of realism. When it is done well, you believe it; you feel the emotion of it; you can buy into it. When it's done poorly or something jarring is introduced to the story, it's harder to buy into the imaginative space of that world. Once a shared narrative baseline is established with the audience, a connection is made with that audience, and they (the audience) can be invited into the story. In the context of an rpg or a cooperative narrative, having a shared baseline helps give mental and emotional cues from which to mold the imagination and buy-in to being a part of what is going on. Also, once a baseline is established, it is easier to push boundaries because a framework is given from which to make sense of why something deviates from that baseline or why something defies expectations. It helps give context to both the current state of the imaginative space and future narrative developments, and that helps someone participating to think, process information, and make choices from the point of view of that imaginative space. So, how does that apply to imagination and game design? As stated, even a fictional world needs to have some established baseline which can be understood by the players. Let's say a group of PCs are confronted with a hostage situation: the villainous wizard BBEG is holding a magic wand to the head of another PC who had been subdued earlier, during a battle with the wizard's servants. From a narrative and imagination perspective, there's a big difference between mechanics which lead to the expected situation of "our friend might die if we don't back down" versus "Joe has 100 HP because he's a PC, so even a coup de grace won't kill him." This is related to some of the comments about minis and video game visuals because the underlying point is viewing moving pieces rather than imagining being one of the pieces or the situation around the pieces. A better example might be a player trying something "cool" in combat. For example, maybe they attempt to throw a rope and snare a fleeing enemy's legs -causing them to fall down. Or maybe they're a fighter using a shield, and they want to bash the villain with a shield to subdue the villain. Those ideas seem heroic or like something they may have seen in an action movie. Unfortunately, the game says that ropes are an improvised weapon, so attempting it means no proficiency bonus and you're rolling at a penalty which is impossible to produce success at your current level. In the case of a shield, the game might say you can't even attempt that without a special class ability or a feat. So, failure after failure while attempting to use imaginative ideas leads to the player eventually thinking it terms of what the game says is correct rather than what the player imagines. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of new players start with the first expectation and trying to come up with an imaginative solution, but eventually learn that how they would normally imagine a situation doesn't match up with how the game says they should be thinking. Again, fantasy and gaming aren't real life. I accept that. Changes are made both due to fantastic elements and for playability. Certain things are tropes or accepted ways of doing things which fit a game or a genre. To return to the wrestling examples, the idea of whipping somebody into ropes and them continuing to run is ridiculous, but it's an accepted genre convention, so it gets a pass. Those exceptions are easier for the audience to accept once a shared baseline is established, and an audience is often willing to give a pass on a handful of things if most everything else fits their imagined expectation. Even considering that it's fantasy and a game, I believe it's possible to have deviations from reality and still maintain a baseline which prompts and enhances thought and imagination, rather than getting in the way of it. When it does get in the way of it, I believe that good design clearly communicates that and gives an understanding of why -or does so after having used other elements to build narrative rapport with the audience. The more steps taken away from a shared understanding, the harder it is to effectively use imagination to approach a shared narrative. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up
Top