Worlds of Design: Story vs. Gameplay

Which comes first for an entire game design (not an adventure): story, or how the game plays?
the-bones-2395135_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Which Comes First?​

This is an age-old question in the realm of game design: Which element takes precedence—the narrative arc of the story, or the functional constraints and mechanisms of the gameplay? We must consider this question from two perspectives: which comes first in the design process, and which is more important for the final version of the game? For an established adventure, the gameplay is largely predetermined by the ruleset, but for designing an entire game from the ground up, the choice of starting point fundamentally alters the outcome.

When tackling game design, it’s a common mistake for newcomers to begin with a rich story. When I taught game development (now retired), and I asked beginners to write a treatment for a game (a brief description of a game, a few pages), they wrote about a story. They didn't have a game at all, because they hadn't thought about how the mechanisms of the game might support their story.

Ernest W. Adams, founder of the International Game Developers' Association (IGDA), argues strongly against this approach:

It is absolutely, positively, better to design the gameplay first and then weave a story into it afterward. Starting with the story is a mistake that far too many young designers make because that's (comparatively) easy and fun, and you get to be very creative. But often you find that you've spent a lot of time and money on it without having checked to see if your game will be fun to play.

Starting with the story is appealing because it is creatively easy and fun, but it often leads to a substantial investment of time and money before determining if the game is actually enjoyable to play. In essence, a strong narrative without a fun mechanical core is not a game at all; it's just a treatment.

Mechanisms Define the Game

A game, fundamentally, is a set of mechanisms that provide constraints which players must follow. Whether these constraints are built into the code of a video game or written into the rules of a tabletop game (where a GM usually enforces them), they are the necessary engine of action. While a few genre-specific video games might prioritize "experience" over mechanism, true game design is not equivalent to writing a story. What happens in a game may resemble a story, but that is the result of the mechanics, not the starting point.

This mechanical-first approach is supported by industry veterans like Mark Maratea, Technical Director and Software Architect for AAA and mobile games:

You want 1% of the story. Then 80% of the mechanics. Then the rest of the story and the 20% of the mechanics that depend on the story. Why 1%? Because you need to know a few things to make informed decisions. Is that combat? Indoors environments? Outdoors? Both? Biped enemies? Quads? Flying? Melee attacks? Ranged? 1st person? 3rd person? Single player? Multiplayer? Both? Drop in/drop out?

This 1% of story is vital because it determines foundational decisions: Is the game about combat? Are the enemies bipedal or flying? Is it 1st or 3rd person? These mechanical questions must be answered before a full story can be properly supported.

Player Agency vs. Designer’s Story

Ultimately, the goal of a game designer is to design a game, not write a story. As Adams notes:

Players buy games to do things: explore, shoot, drive, fly, build, design, buy, sell, solve puzzles, and so on. If they wanted just to be told a story, they would watch TV. The story serves a number of functions, but you must prototype and test the moment-by-moment gameplay first, so you know that it's enjoyable. Then you can weave the story around the action.

If players only wanted story, they would watch television. In the final design, prioritizing story severely limits replayability, as players "beat the game" and move on. More significantly, a dominant, built-in narrative can alienate "serious" players by reducing their agency—their ability to make a significant difference in the outcome.

Game First, Context Second

While there are many excellent, small-scale RPGs that are based on specific, story-heavy situations, the "big" tentpole RPGs—the ones designed for enduring, long-term play—invariably prioritize the gameplay mechanisms first, even if they are situated within a rich setting. What matters in the end is the designer’s intent, but the most enduring titles are those where the mechanics are solid enough to let the players write their own story.

Your Turn: Do you prefer to play specific-scenario RPGs, or the “big” ones that let you attach your own setting/stories to it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Your Turn: Do you prefer to play specific-scenario RPGs, or the “big” ones that let you attach your own setting/stories to it?
I like both and find the right tool for the right job. Just becasue a context first experience may not be long enduring as a game, doesnt make it worse/bad. If I can dial in an experience that I enjoy once a year, or two, or five but have the exact experience I want its still a value to me. If the gameplay doesnt aid that, it can be a rather experience draining aspect.

As game design I think baord games are interesting to look at for a moment. For quite a long time folks avoided anything based on an IP. Why? It often was a game designed first without any context and it didnt match the expctation. Folks didnt get the experience of the specific media they wanted. Now, something made up entirely on general themes has the luxury of being game first becasue it has no expectations other than generalities.

Folks like generic genre games becasue they can "story" it their own way. I dont really see one any better than the other. In fact, I think its soemthing a game designer needs to consdier and understand in both instances to not get it wrong.
 

I kind of think it "depends", there is no formula for a good game, otherwise companies like EA and Ubisoft wouldn't be in so much trouble these days... They would just use the 'formula' to kick out Bangers. I even suspect that it really depends on what kind of game you're making. And while there's an comparison of Story vs. Gameplay only element in this article, you can make technically a great game, but if it doesn't sell...

Look at the developer of Vampire Survivor, I doubt that was well thought out game design (from what I saw in interviews), but it was a success none the less. Jonas Tyroller (Islanders/Thronefall) has an interesting YT channel where he discusses his experiences and (evolving) theories on how he tries to make successful games.

What's a good game/story also really depends on era, audience, etc. Some games, while extremely popular, just didn't age well and we're not talking just about graphics. Look at something like Dune 2, a BIG RTS title. It already had a TON of story, six books, a movie and a couple of games. Then they designed a RTS around that massive story. But 33 years later, sure the graphics aren't great, but probably the biggest issues is that the UI is clunky. Today RTS is a pretty dead genre, as the folks behind Frost Giant Studios (Stormgate) found out... There's still fans out there, it's just tiny compared to the AAA consumers, so you need to a LOT with relatively little to be economically viable.

Looking at RPGs.. Story is important, where would Vampire: The Masquerade be without the story? The system is pretty darned good, but they still needed a second edition a year later. Mark Rein-Hagen, it's creator (also of Ars Magica), continued for another couple of years and then completely disappeared from the pnp RPG scene. When you look at his last project Exile (Sci-fi), it was mostly story, there was some stats, but no coherent rules set. Then we have something like Vampire, that remained popular despite it's rules. Something like D&D 4e had 34 years of story before it, the rules were pretty good if it was anything but D&D, it still failed because that particular story+mechanics!=D&D.

What do I like? It depends... Sometimes it's the concept, sometimes it's the presentation, other times it's the mechanics, and sometimes it's the price... Something like Vampire Survivors looked interesting on YouTube, but at €60, or even €40 or €20 I wouldn't have bought it. But at €2,39 sure! Played it a lot on my Steam Deck and spent another €12 on DLC over the years. Quins did a YT review of the pnp RPG Spire, that sounded absolutely awesome! But because at the time I didn't expect to ever be able to GM it, I wasn't looking at spending money on books or PDFs, especially not at MSRP. A couple of months later Bundle of Holding came out with a Spire bundle, ~10 pdfs for $23, sure I'll pay that (and there was also a Heart companion bundle)! Since then I see some hope to GM in the future and those pdfs were a good read...

Other times, I pay close to full price for a game (discounts, discounts everywhere! ;) ). As an example, I'm a big fan of Warhammer (40k). When Warhammer Total War came out, I bought it, I bought every DLC, every standalone expansion at as good as MSRP. I also liked WFRP, 1st edition bought a few books, because back then I couldn't afford more. I liked WFRP2e, bought it all, disliked 3e (as I still really like 2e), and when I got the Humble Bundle with all the WFRP4e pdfs, eventually I bought all the Foundry VTT modules for WFRP4e. I mostly bought RPG products for concept/theme beyond the D&D we played. I have a similar tendency with board games, often buying the heavily themed miniature games, but a few I actually bought for mechanics. Century: Spice Road, Star Realms, Splendor, Raiders of the North Sea, Lords of Waterdeep, and Dune Imperium are good examples of mechanics over theme for me (doesn't mean that some don't also have an excellent theme).

Generally with pnp RPGs it isn't about mechanics, it's more often about theme an concepts. If it was all about mechanics, we wouldn't be playing D&D on and off again for 30+ years... And the importance of mechanics in our pnp RPGs has decreased for some of us over the years as well. On the other hand I'm now in a place (technologically speaking) where I can far easier detach theme/concept from rules and attach a whole different rulesset relatively easy onto a setting or using an old system with new content (the power of PDFs and VTTs!)...

My conclusion: It's not as simple as one way or another, sometimes things grab me mechanically, other times they grab me with concept/theme/story. And even if one part grabs me, that doesn't mean I'll like the other, depending on cicumstances, I might or might not buy it. And even IF you make the greatest story/gameplay game ever, if it's not economically viable, it either never shows up (problematic with crowdfunding), or doesn't stay around for long...
 

I think this is just a terminology issue I'm not understanding, not a problem with the article, but for the life of me I can't understand what "story" means in this context so I can't extract any meaning from this.

Story is what happens when the characters act within the situation set up by the GM. What does "story" mean when designing an RPG?

I'm wracking my brain to try to fit a definition that could possibly apply. Maybe, but unlikely, story means the types of stories the rules focus on. For example, D&D is a big tent game that supports a lot of different stories, though the default 5e rules push more towards the heroic fantasy subgenre, while a game like Masks: A New Generation is specifically a teen superteam drama RPG, with rules that support that strongly and don't necessarily fit as a general supers game. I don't think that's the meaning of "story" in this context, but it's the only thing I can think of. If it does happen to be the meaning of story, they I 100% disagree with this article -- a good ruleset not only allows but actively supports the feel you are going for, the tropes and archetypes of it, and you need to know what they are to design the rules around it. But again, this is a stretch just trying to imagine what the word "story" means in context of designing an RPG.

So, what does "story" mean here?
 

I think this is just a terminology issue I'm not understanding, not a problem with the article, but for the life of me I can't understand what "story" means in this context so I can't extract any meaning from this.

Story is what happens when the characters act within the situation set up by the GM. What does "story" mean when designing an RPG?

I'm wracking my brain to try to fit a definition that could possibly apply. Maybe, but unlikely, story means the types of stories the rules focus on. For example, D&D is a big tent game that supports a lot of different stories, though the default 5e rules push more towards the heroic fantasy subgenre, while a game like Masks: A New Generation is specifically a teen superteam drama RPG, with rules that support that strongly and don't necessarily fit as a general supers game. I don't think that's the meaning of "story" in this context, but it's the only thing I can think of. If it does happen to be the meaning of story, they I 100% disagree with this article -- a good ruleset not only allows but actively supports the feel you are going for, the tropes and archetypes of it, and you need to know what they are to design the rules around it. But again, this is a stretch just trying to imagine what the word "story" means in context of designing an RPG.

So, what does "story" mean here?
Perhaps im also wrong, but I took "story" to mean same as you did.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top