What Makes A Good Game?

[FyreHeart]

Please post your opinions.

So I am (hopefully) going to be running a campaign soon of a game I am working on right now, but it is my first time ever running one: Ive been a player of numerous games so far but this is the first game I will be running for others.

I don't want to make this gaming experience boring and unexciting for everyone, so I want to ask you guys: what do you think a good game has in it?

[Slipperychicken]

inb4 Fun is all you need.

[Angel Bob]

Well, obviously, different people find fun in different things. The best thing to do would be not to ask the Playground, but to ask the players. :smallwink:

[Rhynn]

I'm going to assume the question is something like "what methods of running a game are more likely than average to result in fun, all other things (e.g. game system) being equal" ...

Player & PC agency. The players get to decide what to do and where and when and how, and their actions and decision affect the outcomes of the scenarios and the story created, for good or for ill (that is, they can win or lose). This extends even to directing the GM in developing certain regions, plot hooks, and characters that the players show interest in.

Consequences. This dovetails with the above. Actions have consequences, for good or ill, and the players can see them in the gameworld. They can change things (on a scale appropriate to the focus of the game).

Interesting & engaging world. This involves both of the above, but basically, the world has to grab the players' interest, and have sufficient depth of the right kind to draw them in. Being reactive helps, but feeling real or plausible (even if it's fantasy or scifi) is a big part of this, too.

[Actana]

Despite him talking about video games, I think Yahtzee puts it rather elegantly here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification) and I think it applies to tabletop games similarly with a few changes. Three things that determine a good game: context, challenge and gratification. Sure, someone could say "fun", but that's awfully vague, so it'd be better to see what contributes towards that fun.

Context is basically put the story. Lets take your typical dungeon crawl as an example. Who are we and why are we invading a dungeon and killing its inhabitants? A game without context feels, at least to me, devoid of anything interesting. Sure, the game could be fun in other ways, but I am personally a fan of context, especially in tabletop games.

Challenge is the part about encounters. The difficulty of the monsters we face in a mechanical sense, and maybe even making hard in-character choices. Both of those examples are rather different, but they do engage the same type of idea, namely the question of how do you succeed best in a given activity with expending the least amount of resources (be they HP, spells, moral integrity or IC contacts) as possible. Too easy encounters or a game where every choice is extremely simple or black and white is a bit dull, and likewise is a game where every encounter is nigh-impossible and the outcome of your decisions is impossible to predict.

Thirdly, gratification is the part where you just have fun with the game. Acquiring better loot is neither a challenge nor especially involved with context (aside from plot specific items), but it's still fun when you get a new shiny toy. The same thing comes with the various shenanigans you get up to as a player, mischief towards NPCs and just generally being a PC and doing PC things. Completing a long quest is part context and part gratification, while punching a plot-unimportant but annoying NPC in the face is mostly pure gratification.


These are all a bit vague, I will admit, but they're a good launching board for thinking what players might enjoy, and I think aspects of all three are needed for a truly good game. Everyone has their own personal preferences (I'm mainly a context person, and I have two friends who mainly enjoy challenge and gratification respectively), so it's best to see that all three areas are covered in a game.

There's also the social element, but everyone has their own preference for social elements, and typically you'll want to spend time with people you enjoy.


As a personal thing, I enjoy games that are about something. Games that have an underlying theme, if you will. I like my villains to have motivations that relate to the things being shown in the game. Preferably something thought-provoking and interesting. Being evil for the sake of being evil has its place, but being evil for the sake of something else is what I find fascinating. I rarely get very interested in a game unless there is some sort of idea or statement behind it.

For other things, I really have to enjoy the GM, other players and the system. The game shouldn't be too easy mechanically, nor too difficult. Being treated fairly by both GM and other players is important, and mutual respect is practically mandatory. Open channels of communication is what I look for too, as I tend to have opinions on everything.

When it comes down to it though, it's mostly about the group. I can play and still enjoy in a bad game with good people in it but that is despite the game, not because of it.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

These aren't strictly necessary - some people just find them boring - but I've had good luck with them:

Focus and Restraint.

Don't go for the biggest, grandest, most spectacular plot and battle you can; don't make your players into gods and their enemies into titans. Instead, start small, both in your own actions and theirs. Keep the focus on a small hh group of characters you can actually make them care about, and make their central goal relate to the fate of those characters. People can identify a lot more with someone trying to fight for their own survival, or that of their family, than someone trying to save the world. (In fact, I would just make that a rule - don't save the world. Saving the world is bad storytelling, because it means you've failed to make them care about any of the smaller themes or characters.)

On a related note - whenever possible, I like to give my players mundane challenges with very limited materials. People react more to being trapped in a locked basement that's flooding with water, then they do to fighting a dragon. Avoid having stuff like that be solved with single skill checks or spells, as much as you can. Mundane challenges also allow for outside-the-box thinking; if the players understand the logical rules of the system surrounding a problem, they can work creatively with those rules. If the problem is based on arbitrary (magical) factors, all they can do is use whatever options you or the system expressly provided them.

By far the best campaign I ever ran was focused around a group of characters who were trapped by a blizzard while passing through a town. All of the plot revolved around them trying to find food for the villagers while keeping tensions from boiling over - the closest thing to a big villain was the old lady who ran the in, who was having her family hoard food from the rest of the village.

[Guancyto]

"Fun" is nice and generic, but people play these games to get a certain emotional high. Fun is the most common of these, but fear, sadness or hatred (of things in the game, not the game itself. Hopefully) are valid ways as well. Horror games are a thing for a reason!

"Investment" is a better key word; a good game is one the players get themselves invested in. I'm not really much good at GMing, but there are a few principles.

1) Players don't tend to care how lame the plot is if they get to do cool stuff. Seriously, a lot of the stuff we get up to would not even be C-movie material, and would get you rejected from any publisher. Don't fret about this. "You aren't here to write a novel," is usually said to criticize railroading, but it swings both ways. You're here to put something together for your mates to make-believe in, it doesn't have to be Gaiman-quality. (Although bonus if it is.) And the kinds of things that are just filler in movies can actually be a lot of fun if people are doing them instead of watching them.

(Incidentally, if your players are lost and confused, don't be afraid to railroad the living **** out of things until they're at a point where they're more comfortable. Too many GMs these days hear all the roofrah about 'railroad GMs' and leave their players lost in an ocean instead.)

2) People care about people. Humans are weird like that, someone could blow up half the planet and pretty much everyone sitting here right now would be less distraught than if someone they loved died (so long as it was the other half). Roleplaying is all about characters. Writing compelling characters is tricky, and since everyone is different (even the same person playing a different character can be indulging a radically different portion of their psyche) players will latch onto the weirdest stuff.

Write this person as a love interest? They'll totally dismiss them, and may even dislike them so badly that they throw them to the wolves.

Write this person as a random flavor bit part to make your universe seem bigger? They will latch onto them, marry them and have a million babies.

There will be very little in the way of rhyme or reason to this. Let them! Sometimes GMs sound horrified that some random minor detail became the campaign's focus, but it sounds like the players found something they found interesting - which is gold.

Reward players for caring about NPCs and for treating them as people. (One of the easy ways to get investment in your latest adventure is to threaten someone their PC loves or have a betrayal - but a lot of players are jaded into not caring about NPCs any more because of this getting overused. Do that sparingly, and let their caring turn out okay most of the time)

3) You'll want to overprepare, and then be prepared to throw everything out. Most of your stuff will never get used. Steal things from other settings (be a bit circumspect about your references, unless your players are into that). Borrow things from ideas you thought were cool. Recycle things that you made and didn't get used. It's hard to be both adaptive and well-planned but both are essential.

"They planned their campaigns just as you might make a splendid piece of harness. It looks very well; and answers very well; until it gets broken; and then you are done for. Now I made my campaigns of ropes. If anything went wrong, I tied a knot; and went on." -Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington

4) If all else fails bring weed and then no one will care.
4a) Don't GM baked unless your players all are though

Edit: I like the cut of FreakyCheeseMan's jib.

[Actana]

Don't go for the biggest, grandest, most spectacular plot and battle you can; don't make your players into gods and their enemies into titans. Instead, start small, both in your own actions and theirs. Keep the focus on a small hh group of characters you can actually make them care about, and make their central goal relate to the fate of those characters. People can identify a lot more with someone trying to fight for their own survival, or that of their family, than someone trying to save the world. (In fact, I would just make that a rule - don't save the world. Saving the world is bad storytelling, because it means you've failed to make them care about any of the smaller themes or characters.)

I can't believe I forgot to mention this. Been thinking too much about mixing philosophy and games lately.

Yes, focus is very important to me too. I like to run games where the players care about what they're doing - and saving the world is pretty hard to get personally involved with, as the stakes are just too high. Making the plot about something the players care about is important too.

On another note, I also very much enjoy the little things in gaming. Small descriptions about inconsequential things, mood-creating narrative points, and things that add flavor to the world in general. They might not be plot points or even interesting most of the time, but they add to the mood. It's a bit hard to balance it though, since if you overdo the descriptions for everything it can get tiresome for a player to take it all in.


As a GM, what my ultimate narrative goal would be in a game is not to make the players laugh or smile, but to make them truly angry or sad about what has happened in the game, but not projecting their emotions onto me and instead onto the characters in the game. It's a bit similar with theatre. Making comedy is a lot easier and more forgiving than making tragedy. And I really enjoy tragedies.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Despite him talking about video games, I think Yahtzee puts it rather elegantly here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification) and I think it applies to tabletop games similarly with a few changes. Three things that determine a good game: context, challenge and gratification. Sure, someone could say "fun", but that's awfully vague, so it'd be better to see what contributes towards that fun.

Another, more fleshed out (IMO) version of that concept can be found here here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA) - it's a description of the core emotional draws games can appeal to, and I think a lot of it could really apply to running a campaign, as well.

[valadil]

I want my character to be able to leave his own unique mark on the world. If that's not possible because they game is inflexible, I don't see why I should bring my character to the game.

[Guancyto]

exclamation mark!

Extra Credits, yes!

They're generally about video game design, but an awful lot of their advice can also apply to designing a session for your mates.

Beyond "Fun" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzpgOJ2ubI) says a lot of what I fumbling around trying to say.

[veti]

Be wary how you think about "story". A "good" story, from an RPG point of view, is one that doesn't involve the players at all. Either it's in history, or it's something that's unfolding now and the players will have the chance to intervene in it, but all you know about it up-front is how it will unfold if they don't interfere. If they do, then the story changes. Resist the urge to "script" their actions, however loosely.

(On a related note: stories that include the plot point "and then the world ends" are probably not good.)

Remember Rule Zero. No matter what the books say, you're in charge. If you don't like it, then it doesn't happen. Period, end of discussion, no saving throw, no SR. As with everything else, you need to use restraint and only apply this at appropriate times and for appropriate reasons (generally, because $THING will seriously mar the players' enjoyment).

Re "challenge": I agree that this is important, but a tabletop RPG is not like a computer RPG. The players make their own decisions. You need to make sure there's sufficient detail in your world to give them opportunities to do stuff, to make progress somehow. You don't need to make sure that any given avenue is available to them at any given time. It's entirely reasonable for a 1st level party to encounter a 20th level guard, so long as they can recognise what they're up against and walk away before they get slaughtered.

Relatedly: keep enough background going on that there are always things the players could be doing, if they get stuck - or bored - with plot A.

Finally: this is controversial, but it can work - depends on your players:

You know that bit of blurb in the front of just about every RPG book, where it says this is a noncompetitive/co-operative game, and players aren't trying to out-do each other? Forget that. Give different players different XP, based on whatever the heck criteria you see fit (damage inflicted, contribution to play, loot gathered, roleplaying - you're the GM, decide what kind of game you want to be running and reward the appropriate behaviour), and publish the totals to everyone. Maintain a league table.

[FyreHeart]

By far the best campaign I ever ran was focused around a group of characters who were trapped by a blizzard while passing through a town. All of the plot revolved around them trying to find food for the villagers while keeping tensions from boiling over - the closest thing to a big villain was the old lady who ran the in, who was having her family hoard food from the rest of the village.

Oh WOW, does that sound interesting and completely different then what a normal game is like! Kudos to you for creating it!

[Threadnaught]

2) People care about people. Humans are weird like that, someone could blow up half the planet and pretty much everyone sitting here right now would be less distraught than if someone they loved died (so long as it was the other half). Roleplaying is all about characters. Writing compelling characters is tricky, and since everyone is different (even the same person playing a different character can be indulging a radically different portion of their psyche) players will latch onto the weirdest stuff.

Just to be contrary (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0774.html). And bolded for emphasis.

Investment is the important factor here. If your players invest themselves in something in the game, feel free to put it at risk sometime and drop hints that it's at risk whenever possible. My players are going to miss [Elf City] when it's gone, there's nothing they can do to stop it happening either. :smallamused:
The worst part is, when those cool NPCs/GMPCs they enjoy hanging out with, show exactly how much they're willing to sacrifice when something big and deadly starts attacking the world.

If you have an open world game and your players get lost, just give them the most recent plot/quest hooks. They're now no longer lost in the ocean, they have a choice of destinations. They just have to make a decision.
Important note: Rumours are a possibility and as in real life, they don't have to be true. Neither does quest information have to be accurate to what the quests actually involve.

[Guancyto]

:smalleek:

Um, no.

I mean, really, no.

Threatening or destroying things that the PCs have become invested in is a time-honored technique for giving the current adventure higher stakes than the last adventure.

Threatening things that the PCs have become invested in constantly, whenever they show signs of being interested, and then blowing them up without recourse... is actually a really efficient way of training them to never give a damn about anything in your world.

Don't do this.

Also, rumors don't have to be perfectly accurate, but they should at least lead somewhere interesting with at least some idea of what to expect, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time to make some sort of oblique point about realism.

Also, I was talking about our planet. Humans are weird; natural disasters that kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people are way less emotionally relevant than something that kills one person in our personal sphere of caring. You, and I do mean you in Europa or the Americas, would almost certainly be less distraught at a nuclear exchange in Asia that took out half the planet's population... than you would at your mother dying unexpectedly.

It's insane. It's also how people are wired. Exploit that like a bauss.

[valadil]

Threatening or destroying things that the PCs have become invested in is a time-honored technique for giving the current adventure higher stakes than the last adventure.

Threatening things that the PCs have become invested in constantly, whenever they show signs of being interested, and then blowing them up without recourse... is actually a really efficient way of training them to never give a damn about anything in your world.


That said, when you do drop a threat, follow through with it. If BBEG threatens to burn the elven village on the next full moon, and the players ignore him, he better do it. No cop outs. No NPCs coming to the rescue. You want the players to feel their choices matter and they chose to be irresponsible.

But I do agree that you can't take away their stuff all the time. Moderation.

[Threadnaught]

:smalleek:

Um, no.

I mean, really, no.

Threatening or destroying things that the PCs have become invested in is a time-honored technique for giving the current adventure higher stakes than the last adventure.

Threatening things that the PCs have become invested in constantly, whenever they show signs of being interested, and then blowing them up without recourse... is actually a really efficient way of training them to never give a damn about anything in your world.

Don't do this.

Knew I should've been more specific about something. I've edited the post to imply that the threats shouldn't be there all the time, the implication however...

I gave my player's Druid PC (yes, him) a Shark Animal Companion to use while under the sea. They enjoyed Herbert the cockney shark, up until his unfortunate death by t*D's insistence on damage distribution. They were sad when he died.


The whole deal about rumours and quest information, in my campaigns. My players have been sent into a cave where it's rumoured a dragon lies sleeping, it wasn't exactly a dragon and it wasn't exactly sleeping, but they did wake it, freeing the setting's god of destruction. At an excavation site, they learned that the only inhabitants were a bunch of ancient skeletons and homunculi, some members of the dig team had gone missing. They found the missing members alive and well, if a little tied up. They were held captive by a Wyrm Red Dragon and it's Lich priests. Rumours have it that a certain NPC is gay, he isn't but he's the kind that likes to keep up appearances, so he's turned these rumours into some false reality. There are rumours about the PCs themselves, some of these are true. :smallamused:
It can work if you make it work.

[GungHo]

Also, rumors don't have to be perfectly accurate, but they should at least lead somewhere interesting with at least some idea of what to expect, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time to make some sort of oblique point about realism.
Prophecies are this way, too. It should make sense. It shouldn't be some random Nostradamus-level "oh, well it could be this way from a certain point of view... okay, okay, you caught me with my hand in the cookie jar... let's just move on" type of scramble.

[erikun]

Making sure that the players are good with playing together, making sure that everyone is on the same page, and making sure that players trust each others' judgements - that the players trust the GM not to railroad, that the GM trusts the players not to cheat, that the players trust each other not to backstab - are some of the biggest factors in making sure the game is successful and everyone enjoys it. Other factors if you're looking at more than a one-shot, such as everyone arriving on time and the group being comfortable with each other, are important as well.

I'm seeing a lot of people mention factors that would be important in a specific type of game, but may not matter or even be detrimental in other types. Stuff like justifying the setting and providing a challenge are great if that's what the game is focused on, but distracting if the game is focused on something else. I'm also hesitant to rely on video game advice for helping with pen and paper RPGs. The biggest concern is that the two are played very differently and for different reasons. While some advice may be useful, such as about setting and pacing, advice along the lines of action and challenge and immersion will probably be wildly different depending on which game we are talking about.

[kyoryu]

Well, obviously, different people find fun in different things. The best thing to do would be not to ask the Playground, but to ask the players. :smallwink:

Exactly this. What we think is irrelevant. What your players think is invaluable.

[Elvenoutrider]

Couple pieces of advice I have are:

1) don't be too critical of yourself. Your probably not as good foam writer as your favorite author and you don't have to be. One adventure I was run through started with the party all getting together to cut down a tree. We all still had a blast. Running a game takes practice and it might take you a few games to get it. This is natural.

2) start the gane with the party together, don't stick all the players together and expect them to just decide to meet up. Bonus points for having the party work out their characters with each other in advance

3) give them a healing item at the start if the game to give you a buffer against tpk while you learn the intricacies of encounter creation. Make it have a lot of charges but a low effect so it isn't likely to be used in combat

4) let the players add something to the setting during character creation Amd try to work their backstories into your plot. Possibly adjust the plot to match what the characters are thinking when they get clues.

Got to catch a train. More to come

[Rondodu]

Same thing that makes a good meal. Good people around the table.

[BWR]

Find out what the players think is fun, then cater to that. You can always try them on something new but if you have a bunch of hardcore roleplayers who look down their noses on anything smacking of mechanics and scoff openly at the thought of combat or rolling dice, chances are they will not appreciate a D&D 4e game.

[ElenionAncalima]

Lots of things can go into making a good game, but here is one tip I find particularly helpful - Figure out what your players like.

I have two players in my current game. One of them loves coming up with wacky strategies. With him, I have to make sure to not shut down all his ideas and to sometimes adapt mechanics to make way for the rule of cool. My other player loves rolling, particularly knowledge checks. I know that if she rolls a natural 20 on that Knowledge Local that didn't really have a point, I still have make up something, or she is going to feel ripped off.

[FyreHeart]

Find out what the players think is fun, then cater to that. You can always try them on something new but if you have a bunch of hardcore roleplayers who look down their noses on anything smacking of mechanics and scoff openly at the thought of combat or rolling dice, chances are they will not appreciate a D&D 4e game.

Well the system we are using is one that my boyfriend made up that we are currently testing out, and it runs pretty darn smoothly.

[FyreHeart]

Couple pieces of advice I have are:

1) don't be too critical of yourself. Your probably not as good foam writer as your favorite author and you don't have to be. One adventure I was run through started with the party all getting together to cut down a tree. We all still had a blast. Running a game takes practice and it might take you a few games to get it. This is natural.

2) start the gane with the party together, don't stick all the players together and expect them to just decide to meet up. Bonus points for having the party work out their characters with each other in advance

3) give them a healing item at the start if the game to give you a buffer against tpk while you learn the intricacies of encounter creation. Make it have a lot of charges but a low effect so it isn't likely to be used in combat

4) let the players add something to the setting during character creation Amd try to work their backstories into your plot. Possibly adjust the plot to match what the characters are thinking when they get clues.

Got to catch a train. More to come

That's a bunch of solid stuff there, thanks!

[FyreHeart]

One of them loves coming up with wacky strategies. With him, I have to make sure to not shut down all his ideas and to sometimes adapt mechanics to make way for the rule of cool.

Sounds like one of the players characters in a current game. Crazy berserker-necromancer dwarf who wants to do all sorts of crazy stuff.