PDA

View Full Version : Toy/Game/Play vs Mechanics/Design/Aesthetics



Pleh
2018-03-30, 09:58 AM
I feel like this conversation has taken up enough of the Sandbox thread.

This felt like a good point to branch off into a separate topic. Lorsa had mentioned that the descriptions of the Toy/Game/Play theory sounded like the 8 Aesthetics of Play with fewer categories, which I would say is partially true.

Actually, I'd say that the Toy/Game/Play theory more closely resembles the broader subject of Mechanics/Design/Aesthetics.

Game is more or less the same concept as Mechanics, except it has the emphasis of being the derivation of enjoyment from the execution of mechanics (which more often than not involves a metagame strategy).

Play is likewise mapped to Design because it is meant to describe how the game "feels" when used. Not to be confused with Aesthetics, which more or less define Genre (for video games), Play/Design in TTRPGs probably more often comes into use in Level/Map creation with conversations about how linear/open the player agency is meant to be. Extra Credits describes Design in a FPS to be the "running and gunning" sensation a player might experience when playing such a game. I think of it like the nuanced feel a fishing pole might give you compared to other poles and depending on what is or isn't on the other end of the line; that intuitive sense you can feel as you grow in familiarity with the game.

Toy is the really complex part that people seem to balk at, which makes sense if it is meant to map to Aesthetics, since there are at least 8 commonly accepted Aesthetics of games. Since "toy" is a concept often introduced as, "playing with barbies" it feels like an oversimplification to equate every kind of aesthetic with only the one aesthetic being given as example; Barbies would fall under Expression Aesthetic and labeling a game meant to be emphasizing Cooperation as merely Expression can feel as though it is meant to belittle the other Aesthetic.

What are some "toys" of the various different Aesthetics? Well, a Ball is a common Toy for games with Fellowship as a Core Aesthetic. Props are common Toys for games that employ Sensation (mood music), Fantasy (a mock weapon), or Narrative (costumes with details relevant to the plot). A Map itself can be a Toy for games that incorporate Discovery as a Core Aesthetic.

Just a few thoughts built off of our previous discussion. What do you think?

Darth Ultron
2018-03-30, 10:52 AM
I'm not really getting the idea of Toy/Game/Play.

Ok, Game is the pure Mechanics. Simple enough.

Play is Role Playing?

Toy is....having fun?

erikun
2018-03-30, 12:06 PM
I hope you will excuse me for not reading a 30+ page thread to know where the current conversation is. Still, the terminology does look familiar.

The concept behind "Toy" is that there are parts of the system which are designed to be amusing to interact with in themselves, as opposed to making the game session more interesting. The whole character creation aspect of D&D3e, with its whole huge number of options for creating a character, could be considered "Toy"-like. Similarly, D&D4e's combat and power mechanics could be considered Toylike as well. The idea behind a Toy aspect is that the game mechanics themselves provide entertainment or amusement to use, independent of what is going on in the game.

Game is more an overall satisfaction with the end result of the system, as I understand it. That is, if the resolution of a combat or a character creation results in a satisfying result, then that could be considered a Game element. The difference is that a Toy element is fun to play around just by itself: putting together characters in D&D3e can be a fun exercise, even if the end result isn't interesting or even completed. But a Game element is something which creates an end result which is enjoyable: character creating in Burning Wheel or Mutants & Masterminds might get annoying at parts, but the characters created in doing so feel interesting.

Play is more involved in the overall activity, typically during a game session. It refers to the overall enjoyment of a game at large, while the other two refer to the enjoyment of interacting with a particular game system (Toy) or enjoying the end result of a particular game system (Game). So the "Play" could be how well it all fits together, how smoothly it transitions, and how consistent everything works. Needing to interrupt a session to look up how rules work in combat might not interrupt the Toy aspect, or even the Game aspect, but would certainly interrupt the Play aspect.

I'm not sure how these are supposed to interpret into Mechanics, Aesthetics, or Design though.

Florian
2018-03-30, 12:37 PM
I'm not really getting the idea of Toy/Game/Play.

Ok, Game is the pure Mechanics. Simple enough.

Play is Role Playing?

Toy is....having fun?

Itīs a little bit more complicated because how interconnected (1) those three things are.

Spiel/Game includes the mechanics, as well as the set-up, style, social contract. This is what you want this particular game with your players to be. (2)

Spielen/Play is what you actually do during your session, how you do it and how the things set up in Spiel/Game are actually executed. (3)

Spielzeug/Toy is the purely personal level of each participant. This includes mechanics that you yourself like to handle because whatever, things that must be in or out because they cause you joy or grief and also the aesthetics that you aim for/need. (4)

(1) Interconnectivity is important, so it doesn't make sense to only look at one of those three as isolated. For example, someone who doesn't like Combat as Sport (Toy level) will not be happy when D&D 4E is the chosen system, or someone who doesn't like scenarios below a certain complexity to explore will not like playing Wilderlands as a Hex Crawl (play level).

(2) "We play Pathfinder" is a meaningless term, unless you stick to the RAW implied game of more or less pure dungeon crawl, CaS, CR system in place and enforced. "We play a hex crawl in the Varisia region, beginning at level one, CaS and CaW in effect, weīre using the Pathfinder rules but we replace classes A-C with D-E and have the following house rules in effect. The edge of the explorable map is here and here". This defines what a game is.

(3) This is the source of the arguments in the "Sandbox" threads. How should the Sandbox, as we defined our goal in (2), be executed for actual game play and how do we game within it? How does it play and what expectations for it do we have?

(4) While (2) and (3) can be roughly summed up as "how?", (4) entirely deals with the "why?" of it.

So, in short and overly simplified: How is the engine designed? How is the experience using it? Why do you like it/donīt you like it?

Pleh
2018-03-30, 12:40 PM
I'm not really getting the idea of Toy/Game/Play.

Ok, Game is the pure Mechanics. Simple enough.

Play is Role Playing?

Toy is....having fun?

Erikun has it down pretty well (I believe):


I hope you will excuse me for not reading a 30+ page thread to know where the current conversation is. Still, the terminology does look familiar.

No worries, this offshoot came up rather recently in the Sandbox thread and you really wouldn't be missing all that much to skip it.


The concept behind "Toy" is that there are parts of the system which are designed to be amusing to interact with in themselves, as opposed to making the game session more interesting. The whole character creation aspect of D&D3e, with its whole huge number of options for creating a character, could be considered "Toy"-like. Similarly, D&D4e's combat and power mechanics could be considered Toylike as well. The idea behind a Toy aspect is that the game mechanics themselves provide entertainment or amusement to use, independent of what is going on in the game.

Game is more an overall satisfaction with the end result of the system, as I understand it. That is, if the resolution of a combat or a character creation results in a satisfying result, then that could be considered a Game element. The difference is that a Toy element is fun to play around just by itself: putting together characters in D&D3e can be a fun exercise, even if the end result isn't interesting or even completed. But a Game element is something which creates an end result which is enjoyable: character creating in Burning Wheel or Mutants & Masterminds might get annoying at parts, but the characters created in doing so feel interesting.

Play is more involved in the overall activity, typically during a game session. It refers to the overall enjoyment of a game at large, while the other two refer to the enjoyment of interacting with a particular game system (Toy) or enjoying the end result of a particular game system (Game). So the "Play" could be how well it all fits together, how smoothly it transitions, and how consistent everything works. Needing to interrupt a session to look up how rules work in combat might not interrupt the Toy aspect, or even the Game aspect, but would certainly interrupt the Play aspect.

I'm not sure how these are supposed to interpret into Mechanics, Aesthetics, or Design though.

Florian was also reminding us that this theory seems to be bouncing back at us from Germany, where their words for "toy/game/play" can lose some nuance in the translation.

I think my point is that MDA (I say, "Mechanics/Design/Aesthetics" rather than "Mechanics/Aesthetics/Design" because MAD already has a different meaning on this forum) and TPG map directly to one another; they're very nearly saying the same things, but not quite.


The concept behind "Toy" is that there are parts of the system which are designed to be amusing to interact with in themselves, as opposed to making the game session more interesting. The whole character creation aspect of D&D3e, with its whole huge number of options for creating a character, could be considered "Toy"-like. Similarly, D&D4e's combat and power mechanics could be considered Toylike as well. The idea behind a Toy aspect is that the game mechanics themselves provide entertainment or amusement to use, independent of what is going on in the game.

Character Creation is likely a good example. It's clearly the Toy side of the TPG framework, but under MDA it is not only an example of Aesthetic, but actually a very particular aesthetic. If you're making characters that are just fun to play with and not considering their effectiveness within the mechanics, it's very Toy-like because it's an Expression and/or Fantasy Aesthetic. If you're using Character Creation to generate a High Optimization character, it starts to slip more into a hybrid of Toy and Game from TPG theory. Similarly, High OP characters are often touching on elements of Mechanics and Challenge Aesthetic from MDA.

The point being that a Toy designed for Expression Aesthetic, Fantasy Aesthetic, Challenge Aesthetic, or any other Aesthetic will be fundamentally different from other Toys, but still perform that same function of being the most directly interactive element of entertainment for the player.


Game is more an overall satisfaction with the end result of the system, as I understand it. That is, if the resolution of a combat or a character creation results in a satisfying result, then that could be considered a Game element. The difference is that a Toy element is fun to play around just by itself: putting together characters in D&D3e can be a fun exercise, even if the end result isn't interesting or even completed. But a Game element is something which creates an end result which is enjoyable: character creating in Burning Wheel or Mutants & Masterminds might get annoying at parts, but the characters created in doing so feel interesting.

This is certainly where conversations like this can really help us nail down what we're trying to convey. In my mind, the element of Game in TPG is mostly the Player's attempt to master the rules by directly understanding the Mechanics so they can predictably win at challenges. Like coaches in american football choosing to make a risky play even though odds of success are minimal because they have to be able to keep the opposing team unsure of which play they're going to make next. In my mind, Game elements are about understanding what is and isn't allowed, calculating risk versus rewards, and making tactical decisions pursuing a clearly defined goal of some kind. I'm not sure there is a Game if there is no direct Contest with some method of objectively evaluating success.

In 3.5, the Game behind Combat is making Hit Points on each side of combat go up and down. Wizards are known as "game changers" because they often target saving throws rather than AC and hit points to generate effects that might not even affect the creature's HP while still winning the combat.

In 3.5 character creation only, the "game" might be creating a character who can beat a certain DC either reliably or unquestionably, or create a particular mixture of class features not easily created.

Not that you have to be analytical to play with Game elements, just that it seems to usually be the point of such game elements to do so.


Play is more involved in the overall activity, typically during a game session. It refers to the overall enjoyment of a game at large, while the other two refer to the enjoyment of interacting with a particular game system (Toy) or enjoying the end result of a particular game system (Game). So the "Play" could be how well it all fits together, how smoothly it transitions, and how consistent everything works. Needing to interrupt a session to look up how rules work in combat might not interrupt the Toy aspect, or even the Game aspect, but would certainly interrupt the Play aspect.

I think you've got it. I like to think of Mirror's Edge or Minecraft when I think about games with a high element of "Play" to them. It seems to be largely about creating an atmospheric sensation within the game experience. In Mirror's Edge, there are times that you might really feel as though you are an expert at parkour. In Minecraft, you might really begin to feel the open, endless possibilities the game entices you with. This is kind of what I meant when I was talking about Fishing Poles: Mechanics is about how good a pole might be at pulling in various kinds of fish, the handle is the Toy that you directly interact with, while the rod and line are the Play that gives you some indirect sense of connection to something outside of yourself.

Like Mechanics/Game are something you study, understand, and manipulate, Toy/Aesthetics are the user interface where you directly input your will into the game, and Play/Design are expressing how smoothly your input with the Toy/Aesthetic translates into the Game/Mechanics.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Florian

Quertus
2018-03-30, 03:40 PM
The more I hear of TPG, the more confused I get.

First and foremost, high level question: what value does it have? How does learning the nuances of these words help me discuss games? For example, Angry's 8 Aesthetics help me discuss having preferences, because I can point top individual vectors of fun, and say that my favorite part of a game is X, or that I require Y, or get no value from Z. It provides a handy (if insufficiently detailed and specific) list of vectors of fun to use to discuss why some games soak to me more than others. The terms sandbox / linear / branching / railroad / Participationism do a reasonable job explaining the toys of games I like, where I want the GMs attention, and laying out whose responsibility each piece of the fun is. But what is the value is TPG?

Next question... cooperation is a "Toy"? Did I really hear that right?

Florian
2018-03-31, 03:49 AM
@Quertus:

Itīs a system-agnostic framework. Notice a pattern that comes up when talk touches on theory even the slightest: I say "dog" and think "German Shepard", you say "dog" and think "Poodle", we both nod and agree on "dog" and then look stupid when comparing pictures of the "dog" we mean.

Now that is accentuated by people like Alexandrian, Zak S. or Angry formulating things with their own idea and understanding of what "role playing game", more concrete "D&D", is and should be played, but the hobby has expanded in width and depth, so that "D&D" has long ago ceased to be the "role model" for how to understand and play "role playing games". Add to this that we now use borrowed concepts from other media that essentially borrowed their initial concepts from "D&D" and communicating ideas and concept has more and more reached the point that they are "meaningless" or empty words that doesn't transport anything anymore because crucial context is missing.

Do a little homework: Grab the D&D 3E PHB and then separately the DMG and look for the implied and supported game/style/game-play, write them down separately and then compare the results of your findings - maybe even starting with writing down your understanding of "proper D&D" first. I would actually be surprised if the results match.

Edit: Reason is that we could then compare the findings with the understanding what a "sandbox" is, for example.

Quertus
2018-03-31, 05:59 AM
@Quertus:

Itīs a system-agnostic framework. Notice a pattern that comes up when talk touches on theory even the slightest: I say "dog" and think "German Shepard", you say "dog" and think "Poodle", we both nod and agree on "dog" and then look stupid when comparing pictures of the "dog" we mean.

Now that is accentuated by people like Alexandrian, Zak S. or Angry formulating things with their own idea and understanding of what "role playing game", more concrete "D&D", is and should be played, but the hobby has expanded in width and depth, so that "D&D" has long ago ceased to be the "role model" for how to understand and play "role playing games". Add to this that we now use borrowed concepts from other media that essentially borrowed their initial concepts from "D&D" and communicating ideas and concept has more and more reached the point that they are "meaningless" or empty words that doesn't transport anything anymore because crucial context is missing.

Do a little homework: Grab the D&D 3E PHB and then separately the DMG and look for the implied and supported game/style/game-play, write them down separately and then compare the results of your findings - maybe even starting with writing down your understanding of "proper D&D" first. I would actually be surprised if the results match.

Edit: Reason is that we could then compare the findings with the understanding what a "sandbox" is, for example.

Now let me get this straight. In response to me trying to understand a) the definition of TPG, and b) the purpose/value of TPG, your response is to have me try to implement a detailed division of content by the TPG method? :smallconfused:

... As a theoretical question... Can I see that different people would give different answers? Sure. Heck, put me in a D&D session with a dozen people, have us tell the important details mid-session, and, IMO, the responses won't match*.

But that doesn't make TPG in any way special or useful.

"Sandbox" is a meaningful word, because it allows the user to convey information regarding attention to detail and division of labor. A sandbox is a game where the GM creates content, while the players create the adventure - both the destination and the path there. It communicates that the GM needs to populate the sandbox with a) sufficient volume and variety of toys and b) toys that are not designed for a single function, that many games are really possible. If the GM is whining that the players are playing with their toys "wrong", then they have probably epic failed at understanding the concept of a sandbox.

"Metagaming" is a meaningful word, because it allows the user to convey information regarding focus. If one is completely immersed and focused on role-playing their character, they are not metagaming. If one is thinking in terms of the enjoyment of others, or "the GM wouldn't...", they are metagaming. If the user conflates "that's what my character would do" or using common vernacular with metagaming, they have probably epic failed at understanding the concept of metagaming.

TPG are meaningful words because... ?

And, keep in mind, they'd best be bloody brilliant, because of the issues around the word "toy". I mean, the psychology community abandoned their totally awesome word "retarded" when the general public started abusing it and creating a sigma around the word, and now they use the much less catchy "developmentally something or other". Picking a word like "toy", that already had the associated sigma? That puts TPG at a huge disadvantage for mainstreaming.

* unless it's me and my brother, in which case we'll pick out the exact same details... then come to completely contradictory conclusions as to the correct approach to dealing with the problem.

jayem
2018-03-31, 07:02 AM
Now let me get this straight. In response to me trying to understand a) the definition of TPG, and b) the purpose/value of TPG, your response is to have me try to implement a detailed division of content by the TPG method? :smallconfused:

... As a theoretical question... Can I see that different people would give different answers? Sure. Heck, put me in a D&D session with a dozen people, have us tell the important details mid-session, and, IMO, the responses won't match*.

But that doesn't make TPG in any way special or useful.

The exercise/question was actually the same person doing the exercise on different D&D* supporting things.

*Edited to avoid confusion overuse of game

Quertus
2018-03-31, 03:38 PM
The exercise/question was actually the same person doing the exercise on different D&D* supporting things.

*Edited to avoid confusion overuse of game

Ah. Interesting. Two things.

One: wouldn't it make more sense to understand the system first? If I said, sort them by Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, wouldn't you get more meaningful results if you knew what I meant by those terms?

Second, yes, different editions of D&D have differences. I feel - perhaps incorrectly - that my existing vocabulary is sufficient to describe the meaningful portions of those differences (see talk of tools for world building, disassociated mechanics, bounded accuracy, Gygaxian pros, common resolution mechanic, etc).

Is the claim, then, that TPG is a toolset for discussing differences between systems? If so, what does it tell you about the system that is either better than or different from the results of using existing words?

Lastly, if I tried to make opposing labels of "sandbox" and "retarded", that would clearly be... bad. The "toy" in TPG is little different.

Florian
2018-04-01, 01:42 AM
@Quertus:

Sometimes, learning by doing and case studies are the better method.

I picked 3E because that s quite a curious case and you mentioned playing by RAW previously.

Ah, well, let's do it:

PHB: This gives you the core rules, how to build a character, the class mechanics and spells.

DMG: This gives you the CR system, XP tables, the Encounter/adventure/world creation tools, the WBL system and the NPC creation rules and we learn that it is a group based game with niche protection and has a troubleshooting section for parties without trap monkey, healer and so on.

MM: This gives you the monster rules, the monster creation and advancement rules and the random charts associated with placing them (unmodified)

So, now we have a slight problem talking about "playing it by RAW", because one out of five players has a very different set of "RAW" to handle then the others - the GM. Which is slightly problematic, because only the GM has insight into the crucial math that is behind how the character classes were designed and how the intended balance should work, based on resource attrition.

If the GM sets up a scenario based on "DMG RAW", this is something that happens on the "game" level and heavily informs the "play" level, while you as a player will create a character and play it as you see fit using the "PHB RAW" ("toy" level informs "play" level), we already have a big disconnect happening here.

Let's add the Forgotten Realms. What they will bring into it is "Setting RAW". Gravity works, the sky is blue, itīs no Tippyverse, Wizards don't rule the lands and never will, most successful conquerors are Fighters, people don't use spell traps. This will heavily inform the "play" level, because it sets the expectations of how things work and behave, how verisimilitude should be reached and what actions are adequate.

At that point, we actually have three types of "RAW" that apparently stand alone, but are interconnected by the three mentioned levels. Now itīs time to decide how we rank those three and what will modify the other, like saying "Setting RAW" > "PHB RAW" when the later creates implausible results (which can easily happen when people automatically assume epic level rules are part of the core rules and want to have epic skill check results happen).

So, now do please tell me what this "RAW" is that you are talking about.

Quertus
2018-04-01, 10:41 AM
@Quertus:

Sometimes, learning by doing and case studies are the better method.

I picked 3E because that s quite a curious case and you mentioned playing by RAW previously.

Ah, well, let's do it:

PHB: This gives you the core rules, how to build a character, the class mechanics and spells.

DMG: This gives you the CR system, XP tables, the Encounter/adventure/world creation tools, the WBL system and the NPC creation rules and we learn that it is a group based game with niche protection and has a troubleshooting section for parties without trap monkey, healer and so on.

MM: This gives you the monster rules, the monster creation and advancement rules and the random charts associated with placing them (unmodified)

So, now we have a slight problem talking about "playing it by RAW", because one out of five players has a very different set of "RAW" to handle then the others - the GM. Which is slightly problematic, because only the GM has insight into the crucial math that is behind how the character classes were designed and how the intended balance should work, based on resource attrition.

If the GM sets up a scenario based on "DMG RAW", this is something that happens on the "game" level and heavily informs the "play" level, while you as a player will create a character and play it as you see fit using the "PHB RAW" ("toy" level informs "play" level), we already have a big disconnect happening here.

Let's add the Forgotten Realms. What they will bring into it is "Setting RAW". Gravity works, the sky is blue, itīs no Tippyverse, Wizards don't rule the lands and never will, most successful conquerors are Fighters, people don't use spell traps. This will heavily inform the "play" level, because it sets the expectations of how things work and behave, how verisimilitude should be reached and what actions are adequate.

At that point, we actually have three types of "RAW" that apparently stand alone, but are interconnected by the three mentioned levels. Now itīs time to decide how we rank those three and what will modify the other, like saying "Setting RAW" > "PHB RAW" when the later creates implausible results (which can easily happen when people automatically assume epic level rules are part of the core rules and want to have epic skill check results happen).

So, now do please tell me what this "RAW" is that you are talking about.

Well, you've given me a lot to think about.

The idea that only the GM looks at the DMG is rather outdated. In fact, the players need to utilize DMG content to create their build: to pick items and prestige classes. But, afaict, that's a completely separate issue.

What informs what? Well, the way I play, rules > fluff. However, the gentleman's agreement trumps rules. The Forgotten Realms is a particularly silly case, because they try to bake the gentleman's agreement into the fluff. I mean, sure, "never get into an arms race with your players, because they can't win" is sound advice. But if my group's play style and gentleman's agreement allows, I'll break FR over my knees and not look back.

For me, gentleman's agreement > rules > fluff. RAW is the "rules" portion of that comparison. "please play nice" is fluff trying to assert itself as gentleman's agreement, making is sound like you're having Badwrongfun if you play otherwise.

So, from this example, I'd have to say that TPG obfuscates, rather than facilitates clear communication, since what I mean is much clearer using non-TPG terms.

Edit for clarity: RAW is contained within the "rules" portion, alongside RAI, rulings, house rules, etc. So... it depends on what your definition of "is" is. :smallamused:

Darth Ultron
2018-04-01, 01:06 PM
The idea that only the GM looks at the DMG is rather outdated. In fact, the players need to utilize DMG content to create their build: to pick items and prestige classes. But, afaict, that's a completely separate issue.

Well, the players need to read the PH from cover to cover, but they only need to read a couple chapters in the DMG, and do not need to read the MM at all. The DM needs to read all three, cover to cover.



The Forgotten Realms is a particularly silly case, because they try to bake the gentleman's agreement into the fluff.

Humm, I use the Forgotten Realms and don't use a gentelman's agreement....

Quertus
2018-04-01, 01:39 PM
Well, the players need to read the PH from cover to cover, but they only need to read a couple chapters in the DMG, and do not need to read the MM at all. The DM needs to read all three, cover to cover.

Funny, last time I played a half-dragon troll, I made heavy use of the MM (and Savage Species) as a player. Last time I checked on the LA of a Merilith (there is none :smallfrown:), or played an ogre cohort, or investigated an Improved Familiar, or, Heck, summoned a monster, I was using the MM as a player.

We are happily past the dark ages of gaming, and recognize that the opportunity for more knowledge is better for the health of the game.


Humm, I use the Forgotten Realms and don't use a gentelman's agreement....

Sorry, I don't quite get your meaning. Can you explain this one with a few more words?