PDA

View Full Version : Layers in RPGs



PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-04, 07:23 PM
I am intrigued by your idea about layers to model an RPG. I work in information security so I reference the IP model somewhat regularly. This may be a topic for another thread, but what do you interpret as layers in an RPG model?

I decided to make this its own thread so as not to derail the other.


It's fluid, and different people have different ways they cut them up, but you'll see things like:

* a "fiction layer" that comprises the setting as a "world that could be real" inhabited by the characters as "people who could be real"... to me, this is the "real place", the "territory", the actual thing.
* a "system layer" with all the rules and character attributes and dice and whatnot -- personally I treat this as the "map" of that territory
* a "social layer" because of the player interactions that aren't inside the construct of the game, everything from who sits next to each other to how pizza gets ordered to how the players' personalities affect their PCs' interactions

And so on.

So you might see someone say that the fiction layer and system layer are out of sync, because the system layer keeps producing results that are out of whack with the fiction layer (or because players have the wrong fiction layer expectations for the system they're using).

I mostly agree with this view that these (fiction/system/social) are three of the major layers. I'd describe the system layer differently. Instead of a "map" of the fiction layer, it's an interface between the other two layers. It lets us translate social layer things (which include, for me, all the real life things people do) into fiction layer things and vice versa. The difference, as I see it, is about the looseness of the fit.

I accept a lot of disconnection between system and fiction, just like I accept that a mouse/button click and a cast bar and enemy health bars in an MMO are not actually part of the game and aren't known to the character. They're aids for the user. To change the metaphor, I could hand-edit those XML files that are stored inside a Microsoft Word document and insert my changes that way. But that's a pain. I'd rather let a tool do it for me. In a similar way, I see the game system as a set of aids for the players to ease their load (compared to just doing everything free-form which is the default).

But mainly I wanted to bring this discussion into a broader audience.

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-04, 07:38 PM
I decided to make this its own thread so as not to derail the other.



I mostly agree with this view that these (fiction/system/social) are three of the major layers. I'd describe the system layer differently. Instead of a "map" of the fiction layer, it's an interface between the other two layers. It lets us translate social layer things (which include, for me, all the real life things people do) into fiction layer things and vice versa. The difference, as I see it, is about the looseness of the fit.

I accept a lot of disconnection between system and fiction, just like I accept that a mouse/button click and a cast bar and enemy health bars in an MMO are not actually part of the game and aren't known to the character. They're aids for the user. To change the metaphor, I could hand-edit those XML files that are stored inside a Microsoft Word document and insert my changes that way. But that's a pain. I'd rather let a tool do it for me. In a similar way, I see the game system as a set of aids for the players to ease their load (compared to just doing everything free-form which is the default).

But mainly I wanted to bring this discussion into a broader audience.

I don't look at it as a set-in-stone theory that has to have hardline definitions and a bunch of debate about exactly where to draw the lines, for me it's simply a useful tool and useful shorthand to avoid typing out a paragraph every time I want to differentiate between system, setting and characters, player, interplayer, etc.

One could add a "player layer" to the example list I posted, if that helped.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-05-04, 07:50 PM
I don't look at it as a set-in-stone theory that has to have hardline definitions and a bunch of debate about exactly where to draw the lines, for me it's simply a useful tool and useful shorthand to avoid typing out a paragraph every time I want to differentiate between system, setting and characters, player, interplayer, etc.

One could add a "player layer" to the example list I posted, if that helped.

I totally agree. Just commenting on the differences in outlook I saw. It's an interpretation and discussion tool, not an intrinsic distinction.

Vorpal Glaive
2019-05-04, 08:04 PM
Most games have similar elements: game, players, strategies, actions, payoffs.

Mechalich
2019-05-04, 08:06 PM
In this concept, I think it is useful to consider the 'System' as a model for the fiction, in the same way that an economist might create a model for the economy. Looked at this way, an adventure module is a script that is being run on the model in order to produce output fiction. Such modules may include material that is added manually to the system to the point of violating existing frameworks of the model (in a computerized model system this is done all the time, as a 'forcing' or other term). The contrast point here is a freeform game, which has no model at all and attempts to produce at the fiction level directly.

So if the system produces outputs that don't match the expectations at the fiction level, that generally means there's a problem with the model, but it could also mean there's a problem with the scripting because the people producing scripts may not understand how the model actually works. This actually happens a lot in D&D video games where you may run into encounters that are absurdly difficult without intending to be because the person doing the encounter designs clearly didn't realize how certain power interactions would work (like the Wild Hunt encounters at the end of Pathfinder: Kingmaker).


I accept a lot of disconnection between system and fiction, just like I accept that a mouse/button click and a cast bar and enemy health bars in an MMO are not actually part of the game and aren't known to the character. They're aids for the user. To change the metaphor, I could hand-edit those XML files that are stored inside a Microsoft Word document and insert my changes that way. But that's a pain. I'd rather let a tool do it for me. In a similar way, I see the game system as a set of aids for the players to ease their load (compared to just doing everything free-form which is the default).

I think this hits on the differentiation between 'rollplaying' and 'roleplaying.' When a player attempts to interact with the fictional layer they are roleplaying, they're attempting to determine what the character would do within the context of a fictional world based on presumed motives and capabilities for that character in said world. When they're rollplaying, they're interacting with the model. That's not to say that interacting with the model is bad or anything - many games are low immersion and it's often simpler to just say 'I attack' rather than launch complex descriptions of what the character is doing (especially for players who are not especially talkative at a table) - but choosing to find ways to manipulate the model to produce impractical outputs for personal advantage is generally not beneficial at the fictional layer. Even in single player, breaking a game to become an OP god is rarely a satisfying long-term play experience.

Knaight
2019-05-04, 08:46 PM
I don't generally demarcate out the social layer, mostly because it stands out so clearly. Clearly noting the difference between the fiction and the mechanics I do, and in my experience it's pretty standard. I know in the thread that spawned this one it was treated by at least one person as a novel and groundbreaking thing, but it seems both obvious and to have been clearly stated as a standard in a lot of places.

Max_Killjoy
2019-05-05, 11:30 PM
I think this hits on the differentiation between 'rollplaying' and 'roleplaying.' When a player attempts to interact with the fictional layer they are roleplaying, they're attempting to determine what the character would do within the context of a fictional world based on presumed motives and capabilities for that character in said world. When they're rollplaying, they're interacting with the model. That's not to say that interacting with the model is bad or anything - many games are low immersion and it's often simpler to just say 'I attack' rather than launch complex descriptions of what the character is doing (especially for players who are not especially talkative at a table) - but choosing to find ways to manipulate the model to produce impractical outputs for personal advantage is generally not beneficial at the fictional layer. Even in single player, breaking a game to become an OP god is rarely a satisfying long-term play experience.


Depends on the game... I've had some video games for which it was VERY satisfying to do that, after dealing with the poor difficulty scaling or wonky enemy design or some odd mechanical quirk...