Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 9432212" data-attributes="member: 30518">This is about expectations, not for yourself as a GM, but what you expect from players.[ATTACH=full]376176[/ATTACH] <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/black-and-white-round-logo-i3WlrO7oAHA" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Unsplash.</a>Let's discuss a topic not directly tied to game development that nevertheless affects game design and GMing: expectations. Not expectations for yourself, or what other people expect from you, but what kind of game your players expect to play.<h3>When Things Don’t Work</h3>We all know someone who complains when things don't work the way they expect them to work. That's a road to frustration, because not everybody thinks the way you do and not everybody has your preferences. This applies to game designers in all their forms, whether they are product designers, programmers, or game players. So naturally, not everybody does things the way you expect. In short, you can’t expect players to behave a certain way.I think of game designers who, after their game is published, see someone playing a certain way and say, “that's not the way I intended it.” But what counts is what the rules say (or the way the game is programmed), or maybe players have found a method that is within the rules or takes advantage of the programming (an “exploit” or “glitch”?)! Inevitably some people will not act as you expect them to. One reason why we playtest game prototypes is to discover unusual ways players find to exploit the rules or programming. Then we have the opportunity to change the game to prevent that exploit, before it is released.“That’s not how I intended” can only be mitigated by signaling your intent through clear rules. A robust game can survive when people find unanticipated methods, but in some cases the rules must be changed when an egregious loophole makes the game unplayable.<h3>Playing to Lose</h3>It’s not just about what you intend, though. Players play for many different reasons, some beyond what you might think. For example, can you even expect players to try to win (in games where winning is even possible)? The desire to win is pretty normal for one- or two-sided games, but what about games for more than two sides?I had a student who said his brother played games to help someone else win. And my younger brother says he plays to make sure I don’t win! Stewart Woods wrote an entire doctoral dissertation (now a book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Eurogames-Design-Culture-Modern-European/dp/0786467975" target="_blank">Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games</a>, 2012) based on a Boardgamegeek survey that showed that for many people playing to win was not their motivation.Reiner Knizia, <a href="https://x.com/ReinerKnizia/status/132697097714675713" target="_blank">he of the hundreds of published non-war games</a>, said, “When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning…” Yet many people do not play to win in multi-sided games.Which leads to how a designer or GM handles player preferences if there isn’t a unified understanding of how to play a game “the way it was intended.”<h3>Player Preferences in RPGs</h3>In tabletop role-playing games specifically, we’re in a land of uncertainty. Insofar as RPGs are “simulations” of an entire world, entire lives, there’s a lot more possible motivations for play than in a board game. But this is why a target audience is a necessary part of game design. You cannot possibly satisfy all gamers, at best you can do well for a largish subset.In RPGs there’s the big dichotomy of those who play in a more or less competitive way vs. the opposition, a game, and those who are playing what amounts to a storytelling mechanism. Can an RPG satisfy both? D&D 5e tried. If it succeeded, the great popularity of D&D and the sheer size of the game helped a lot.But there are many other dichotomies in play (see <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-the-great-dichotomies-of-rpgs.692021/" target="_blank">"Great Dichotomies" of RPGs</a>) It’s virtually impossible to make one game that can accommodate all of these, though a GM can certainly skew play one way or another. This is why a GM will benefit from vetting new players before they join the GM’s campaign; whatever the campaign is like, many prospective players may not care for it.Even different editions of the same game can differ drastically. Earlier editions of Dungeons & Dragons relied more on cooperation and henchmen/hirelings, with a gradual shift to empowering individual characters as each edition evolved, until everyone shared the spotlight as the hero.<h3>Avoiding Disappointment</h3>Given these drastic differences, you can see that if a designer expects certain behavior from players, but does not make it clear what the target audience is, disappointment will sometimes result. Session zeroes and other pre-game communication helps, but that’s an intersection of the GM building on the game designers who wrote the RPG rules to bridge the gap between what the game can do, what players want to do, and what the GM wants to do.Even asking players outright is no guarantee, as some players new to the game may not even know their preferred style. In tabletop role-playing games, where anything is possible, this might mean the only way a group understands their expectations is to play the game together first.Your Turn: How do you try to make sure that prospective players for your GMing are within your target audience?</blockquote>

Verification