Worlds of Design: Goal-Oriented Play

There was a time when finishing the mission was core to RPG play.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

A Different Style of Play​

If you have not played RPGs for as long as I have, this may be new to you. Goal-oriented play is an approach to gaming that was common in the early days of Dungeons & Dragons. It grew out of the games wargaming roots and is not nearly as popular as it once was. This is my perspective as a game master with decades of experience, as both a historian and wargamer.

Expectations​

Goal-oriented gaming is less about the individuals and more about group success. This squad-type play requires experts in their field (fighters tank, casters blast, clerics heal, etc.) but is not about putting the spotlight on any one character. These expectations are reinforced by the stakes of the game: when lives are at stake, characters take things seriously enough to focus more on the mission and less on their individual needs.

Despite this focus, “cool” things can still happen in interesting situations through emergent play. I don't have to manufacture it as GM nor try to find it as a player, it will happen, or at least the opportunity will happen.

Delayed Gratification​

Most of the time parties have objectives, even if it's as simple as “find loot.” Instant gratification is not part of the equation nor part of the plan. The party's overall goal is that everyone stays alive and completes its objective or mission.

When the stakes are high, there’s a chance characters die if they make poor choices. As a GM or party leader, I try to talk players out of doing suicidal things, but I don't try to tell everyone what to do. It's a cooperative game. I try to get players to reach a consensus as to what should be done as a team.

Playing Smart​

This style of play requires tactical thinking and (when possible) advanced planning. The second century A.D. author Polyaenus said:

bravery conquers by means of the sword but superior generalship prevails by skill and stratagem, and the highest level of generalship is displayed in those victories that are obtained with the least danger.

I agree that stratagems are critical to team success. It’s not uncommon for players to want their characters to rush in, bash the monsters, and take the treasure, and that's all they’re really interested in. It's okay to have those people in the team – preferably as fighter or stealth types – but somebody's got to think beyond that.

As a party leader I ask for party input, because several minds are better than one. In my experience, the best adventure is one where the bad guys never know you were there and you achieve your objective, though that can be hard to pull off (and the GM has to be willing to work with you to achieve this).

Gathering Intel​

Pulling off stratagems makes gathering information very important. In play, I encourage the party to gather information in whatever ways are possible, magical and otherwise, including taking prisoners and magically interrogating them. If this requires splitting the party to grab a prisoner, so be it.

Collecting information to avoid just barging into the room depends on having a GM who permits info gathering (some do not). If they do, it can be a simple but effective means of dealing with threats, including enemies that might be much more powerful than the party. This includes bailing out, a perfectly valid tactic when intel determines that the monster is too powerful for the party.

A Soldier’s Point of View​

Goal-oriented, tactical approaches to gaming aren’t for everybody. Some players want to role-play their character's flaws, which is part of the fun. But that requires buy-in from both the players and the game master.

But many high fantasy adventures have world-shattering implications if the party fails. When the stakes are high, fighting is a last resort, because people get killed, and one of those might be you or your friends. That means fair fights are for suckers, and a party does its best to stack the odds in its favor before the showdown with the Big Bad.

Your Turn: What’s your playing philosophy?

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the OP was talking about party goals, not individual player/PC goals. Lots of games focus on individual character development and exploring the PCs stories over anything else. The entire storygame category of playing works that way to my mind.

Strange - here most seem to agree that party goals are the key and individual character goals are secondary at best, yet mentioning this in any of those long argue-about-indie-games threads usually gets me flayed.

As for the OP, I agree to a large extent. My only concern comes if-when goal orientation trumps exploration; when the get-in get-it-done get-out approach takes precedence over exploring/clearing out/looting the whole adventure site, as I'd often rather take the time to explore the whole place.

What the OP hints at but doesn't outright say is that the game also revolves around the story* of the party as a whole rather than any individual characters, with a corollary implication that the party is bigger than the sum of its (sometimes interchangeable) parts.

* - whether that story is pre-scripted, emergent, or some combination is irrelevant here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Strange - here most seem to agree that party goals are the key and individual character goals are secondary at best, yet mentioning this in any of those long argue-about-indie-games threads usually gets me flayed.

As for the OP, I agree to a large extent. My only concern comes if-when goal orientation trumps exploration; when the get-in get-it-done get-out approach takes precedence over exploring/clearing out/looting the whole adventure site, as I'd often rather take the time to explore the whole place.

What the OP hints at but doesn't outright say is that the game also revolves around the story* of the party as a whole rather than any individual characters, with a corollary implication that the party is bigger than the sum of its (sometimes interchangeable) parts.

* - whether that story is pre-scripted, emergent, or some combination is irrelevant here.

Once again you're speaking my language. If you have a newsletter or manifesto handy, please send me a link.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My only concern comes if-when goal orientation trumps exploration; when the get-in get-it-done get-out approach takes precedence over exploring/clearing out/looting the whole adventure site, as I'd often rather take the time to explore the whole place.

Then exploring becomes your goal. I don't see why that would be a problem. Conan the Cartographer wants to map everywhere he goes.

 

[Tonguez]

Im not sure what the central thesis of your essay is, especially as your discussion of pc tactics and interactions seem basic to all rpg play. I would love if you gave examples of where earlier eras were more goal-orientated. Surely as soon as PCs engage in an adventure they are focussed on a goal?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have no idea what would qualify as not "goal-oriented" play, so I cannot meaningfully respond to the final question.

The tone and phrasing of the post implies that the kind of game I run does not qualify. That is, one centered on character growth and development, a "story" (though I do not plot things), and the experience of putting valued things in danger and finding out what the PCs are willing to risk/sacrifice to succeed.

But...literally every stage of the journey has been something that meets the definition given for "goal-oriented." The group sticks together because they have Responsibilities and know secrets they can't allow to simply run free. They have several times accepted missions needing to be completed, or chosen to make effectively a mission out of something. Each time they work to see the mission through. They always take opportunities (when possible) to gather information, petition allies, harry opponents, shore up defenses, scout aroune, and/or conceal their efforts so they can proceed from the most advantageous position. They value their reputation as a group, they work with significant factions (local rulers, business people, religious groups, foreign dignitaries, academics, etc.), and they make a point of not leaving a mission half-finished if they believe they can get it properly done.

So...I'm just sort of at a loss.

 

[Lanefan]

Im mot sure what the central thesis of your essay is, especially as your discussion of pc tactics and interactions seem basic to all rpg play. I would love if you gave examples of where earlier eras were more goal-orientated. Surely as soon as PCs engage in an adventure they are focussed on a goal?

Not the OP, but there's different types of goals:

--- goals for an individual character, short-term (I will deliver this sword to my uncle)
--- goals for an individual character, long-term (I will become Empress of Rome)
--- goals for a party, short-term (e.g. a specific mission goal)
--- goals for a party, long-term (e.g. how the end point of a long adventure path might be viewed)

I suspect the OP is suggesting the latter two types of goals are more important to play at the table than are the first two types. I'm not sure about which of the latter two he sees as more important, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There was a time when finishing the mission was core to RPG play.

View attachment 286166
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

A Different Style of Play​

If you have not played RPGs for as long as I have, this may be new to you. Goal-oriented play is an approach to gaming that was common in the early days of Dungeons & Dragons. It grew out of the games wargaming roots and is not nearly as popular as it once was. This is my perspective as a game master with decades of experience, as both a historian and wargamer.

Expectations​

Goal-oriented gaming is less about the individuals and more about group success. This squad-type play requires experts in their field (fighters tank, casters blast, clerics heal, etc.) but is not about putting the spotlight on any one character. These expectations are reinforced by the stakes of the game: when lives are at stake, characters take things seriously enough to focus more on the mission and less on their individual needs.

Despite this focus, “cool” things can still happen in interesting situations through emergent play. I don't have to manufacture it as GM nor try to find it as a player, it will happen, or at least the opportunity will happen.

Delayed Gratification​

Most of the time parties have objectives, even if it's as simple as “find loot.” Instant gratification is not part of the equation nor part of the plan. The party's overall goal is that everyone stays alive and completes its objective or mission.

When the stakes are high, there’s a chance characters die if they make poor choices. As a GM or party leader, I try to talk players out of doing suicidal things, but I don't try to tell everyone what to do. It's a cooperative game. I try to get players to reach a consensus as to what should be done as a team.

Playing Smart​

This style of play requires tactical thinking and (when possible) advanced planning. The second century A.D. author Polyaenus said:

I agree that stratagems are critical to team success. It’s not uncommon for players to want their characters to rush in, bash the monsters, and take the treasure, and that's all they’re really interested in. It's okay to have those people in the team – preferably as fighter or stealth types – but somebody's got to think beyond that.

As a party leader I ask for party input, because several minds are better than one. In my experience, the best adventure is one where the bad guys never know you were there and you achieve your objective, though that can be hard to pull off (and the GM has to be willing to work with you to achieve this).

Gathering Intel​

Pulling off stratagems makes gathering information very important. In play, I encourage the party to gather information in whatever ways are possible, magical and otherwise, including taking prisoners and magically interrogating them. If this requires splitting the party to grab a prisoner, so be it.

Collecting information to avoid just barging into the room depends on having a GM who permits info gathering (some do not). If they do, it can be a simple but effective means of dealing with threats, including enemies that might be much more powerful than the party. This includes bailing out, a perfectly valid tactic when intel determines that the monster is too powerful for the party.

A Soldier’s Point of View​

Goal-oriented, tactical approaches to gaming aren’t for everybody. Some players want to role-play their character's flaws, which is part of the fun. But that requires buy-in from both the players and the game master.

But many high fantasy adventures have world-shattering implications if the party fails. When the stakes are high, fighting is a last resort, because people get killed, and one of those might be you or your friends. That means fair fights are for suckers, and a party does its best to stack the odds in its favor before the showdown with the Big Bad.

Your Turn: What’s your playing philosophy?

I'm not sure how this all would be a 'new' style of play. I mean, maybe to some, but speaking from c1975, it ain't new! The very earliest admonishments to players basically involved "be a team player, don't backstab your party, do the job, take your split and play fair." Not to say people TOOK that advice necessarily, but you can see it all codified quite nicely in the 1e PHB. I'm here to attest it was not new even then (1978).

I'm more prone to engage in play that is a bit more nuanced these days though. However, you can still have a goal, even when things are not so clear cut. Characters can be tempted (think Boromir) or just plain have their own agendas. Patrons can be dubious, fickle, or downright treacherous too (well-worn trope, but still fun). The goal could turn out to be a bad idea, complete suicide, etc. Mix in some narrativist style individual goals/traits/weaknesses/whatever and stir that mix!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Strange - here most seem to agree that party goals are the key and individual character goals are secondary at best, yet mentioning this in any of those long argue-about-indie-games threads usually gets me flayed.

As for the OP, I agree to a large extent. My only concern comes if-when goal orientation trumps exploration; when the get-in get-it-done get-out approach takes precedence over exploring/clearing out/looting the whole adventure site, as I'd often rather take the time to explore the whole place.

What the OP hints at but doesn't outright say is that the game also revolves around the story* of the party as a whole rather than any individual characters, with a corollary implication that the party is bigger than the sum of its (sometimes interchangeable) parts.

* - whether that story is pre-scripted, emergent, or some combination is irrelevant here.

I don't think you can simply discuss 'indie games' as being a category in these terms. I mean, there's going to be VERY little in common in terms of PC/Party goals in games like My Life With Master or Dogs in the Vinyard, vs a game like Blades in the Dark, which is BUILT around the 'party' (crew).

I think the same can be said for games which are usually deemed 'trad'. Gangster! is not a game where the PCs work together harmoniously as a team! Nor Paranoia. Yet these are fairly classic trad RPGs from the '70s and '80s.

Basically I think the orientation towards or against 'group play' and thus the possibility or salience of group goals is fairly independent of other design techniques. Obviously those techniques are going to shape where the game falls, but that's going to depend on tone, reward systems, and what sorts of situations are covered by the material.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm a fan of asking people about the environment to challenge my beliefs about what is happening out there when I have not been seeing a huge number of games being played. I used to see 20 to 30 different DMs running games within a year through game stores, conventions and home play. These days I am seeing far fewer. To that end, I'm trying to cut back on talking about what I think to be true and spend more time asking people whether my belief lines up with their experience.

With regard to this topic: When I run games, I typically start out with a railroad that runs from levels 1 to 5. The PCs have a specific goal, which is often just surviving, for this railroad. Then we create a sandbox environment where I drop a huge number of hooks out there that they can investigate as they see fit - but many of the hooks play into central storylines that pull the PCs towards goals that reveal themselves over the levels and gravitate towards a high level railroad ending to the campaign that ties up all the major storylines. Then, unresolved storylines from the sandbox era are allowed to modify my world between campaigns so that the PCs can see that everything matters.

Each PC has their own storylines, goals and desires. I look at these and figure out how elements of their story fit into the big picture. If their PC dies and is replaced by someone else, the things I designed to incorporate their old PC still play out. For example, if a PC had missing family, but the PC dies and is replaced by another PC, that missing family ios still out there and the storyline will play out - often resulting in the tragedy that the PC was going to have the opportunity to prevent occuring. However, sometimes the rest of the party steps in to resolve the issue "In the Name of" the fallen PC. It is all good. A lot of my planning time during those first five levels is figuring out how to set the pieces in place in a way that it builds off of the tools the PCs provided me with their background and low level play without feeling formulaic or contrived.