GaelofDarkness
2020-05-19, 06:59 PM
So I've been designing a ttrpg with some friends primarily as a distraction from *gestures vaguely in all directions* and a way to get more familiar with different design concepts. But it occured to us that one thing we really hadn't put any thought into is the kinds of modes of play we'd want to include. We automatically assumed that there'd be turn-based combat and turn-less non-combat and jumped straight to deciding how initiative was decided. That's mostly because that's reflective of the systems we enjoy and are most experienced with - it's not inherently negative - but I was wondering what thoughts the Playground has on the topic.
What counts as a mode of play?
So I'd argue that DnD has two modes of play: combat and non-combat. Those are the two modes that are meaningfully, mechanically distinct. You can do lots of other things of course, but they're not treated any differently by the game itself, the difference is created purely in the minds of those playing. But one of my friends argues there's three - at least in her games - because when she runs social interactions she doesn't let players brute force their way through with some Charisma/Insight rolls. She makes them use a certain level of emotional/social intelligence to figure out what the NPC wants or what their limits are (in or out of RP) to better navigate the encounter before any dice are rolled - the same skills we use to navigate irl social interactions (and having been a player of hers, she does run really good NPCs and encounters). But does "No dice until you know something about the NPC" really count as defining a new mode of play?
So what does count as a "mode of play" exactly? Or at least, what's a working definition? I'd certainly count the Mouse Guard RPG's GM's turn and Player's turn as distinct modes or phases within the game. Pathfinder certainly calls out Encounter mode, Exploration mode and Downtime mode by name, but I feel like it's pretty easy to slip between Exploration mode and Downtime mode without noticing. Does that make the distinction less meaningful or is that exactly what you want from this kind of transition in an rpg, smooth and rooted in the fiction? DnD 5e does discuss Downtime but really only as something that happens because an adventure is not currently happening which I don't think constitutes a defined mode of play. What do ye all think? Are there any examples of games you can think of that made interesting distinctions or had you thinking about those distinctions in your play? And not just adventuring rpgs on the dnd family tree, all takes are welcome.
Why use distinct modes of play?
What's the point? I think we all have some intuitive sense about why so many games have turn-based combat instead of a free-form-free-for-all: structure, tactics, fairness. And why such a system would be kinda cumbersome and counterintuitive for delving a dungeon or haggling over a weapon. But we could interrogate the idea a bit further. I think the thing that the near-ubiquitous turn-based combat mode does well is making it clear that there is an immediate win condition and there is a definite structure to go about reaching that win condition. But at the same time that can be limiting. When was the last time you ended a combat encounter by escaping? Is the purpose of a mode of play to narrow/change the focus of the game? To provide a path or at least scaffolding on how to reach a particular goal? Or do you have a totally different take on their purpose?
When should you use distinct modes of play in a game?
Where's the line when something is just far enough outside the intended implementation for it to justify a new mode of play? Does having more modes of play create a sense of depth and choice or does it feel clunky and empty? In order to really play through, say, a heist in a game like DnD do you need a stealth mode? Or do you find the existing framework satisfactory (imo stealth encounters in DnD never really clicked)? Do you feel the same about haggling? Wilderness exploration?
How do you implement modes of play when designing/hacking a game?
What are the boundaries and how do we build them? What kinds of modes of play have you encountered or built yourselves? How do you make the transition between modes work effectively?
I've thought of three ways that one might go about defining a mode of play. Defining a structure for taking actions: free-form, turn-based (and all the many, many ways of deciding who takes turns when), or simultaneous and hidden actions. Defining a win/lose metric: the hp of an npc for an escort mission, some kind of alarm level (like a collective stealth hp) for stealth encounters, a meter to define how far you need to get ahead to escape/how close you are to being caught in a pursuit. Defining a situational resource/ability/opportunity: A friend hacked the flashback mechanic from Blades in the Dark into a game a while back - each player has a number of days for prepartion and then you launch right into a job being able to spend those days of preparation for flashbacks, for a travel or wilderness exploration mode there could be a way to divide up roles/tasks for the journey, I remember Zweihander doing a gritty version of this well I think.
What counts as a mode of play?
So I'd argue that DnD has two modes of play: combat and non-combat. Those are the two modes that are meaningfully, mechanically distinct. You can do lots of other things of course, but they're not treated any differently by the game itself, the difference is created purely in the minds of those playing. But one of my friends argues there's three - at least in her games - because when she runs social interactions she doesn't let players brute force their way through with some Charisma/Insight rolls. She makes them use a certain level of emotional/social intelligence to figure out what the NPC wants or what their limits are (in or out of RP) to better navigate the encounter before any dice are rolled - the same skills we use to navigate irl social interactions (and having been a player of hers, she does run really good NPCs and encounters). But does "No dice until you know something about the NPC" really count as defining a new mode of play?
So what does count as a "mode of play" exactly? Or at least, what's a working definition? I'd certainly count the Mouse Guard RPG's GM's turn and Player's turn as distinct modes or phases within the game. Pathfinder certainly calls out Encounter mode, Exploration mode and Downtime mode by name, but I feel like it's pretty easy to slip between Exploration mode and Downtime mode without noticing. Does that make the distinction less meaningful or is that exactly what you want from this kind of transition in an rpg, smooth and rooted in the fiction? DnD 5e does discuss Downtime but really only as something that happens because an adventure is not currently happening which I don't think constitutes a defined mode of play. What do ye all think? Are there any examples of games you can think of that made interesting distinctions or had you thinking about those distinctions in your play? And not just adventuring rpgs on the dnd family tree, all takes are welcome.
Why use distinct modes of play?
What's the point? I think we all have some intuitive sense about why so many games have turn-based combat instead of a free-form-free-for-all: structure, tactics, fairness. And why such a system would be kinda cumbersome and counterintuitive for delving a dungeon or haggling over a weapon. But we could interrogate the idea a bit further. I think the thing that the near-ubiquitous turn-based combat mode does well is making it clear that there is an immediate win condition and there is a definite structure to go about reaching that win condition. But at the same time that can be limiting. When was the last time you ended a combat encounter by escaping? Is the purpose of a mode of play to narrow/change the focus of the game? To provide a path or at least scaffolding on how to reach a particular goal? Or do you have a totally different take on their purpose?
When should you use distinct modes of play in a game?
Where's the line when something is just far enough outside the intended implementation for it to justify a new mode of play? Does having more modes of play create a sense of depth and choice or does it feel clunky and empty? In order to really play through, say, a heist in a game like DnD do you need a stealth mode? Or do you find the existing framework satisfactory (imo stealth encounters in DnD never really clicked)? Do you feel the same about haggling? Wilderness exploration?
How do you implement modes of play when designing/hacking a game?
What are the boundaries and how do we build them? What kinds of modes of play have you encountered or built yourselves? How do you make the transition between modes work effectively?
I've thought of three ways that one might go about defining a mode of play. Defining a structure for taking actions: free-form, turn-based (and all the many, many ways of deciding who takes turns when), or simultaneous and hidden actions. Defining a win/lose metric: the hp of an npc for an escort mission, some kind of alarm level (like a collective stealth hp) for stealth encounters, a meter to define how far you need to get ahead to escape/how close you are to being caught in a pursuit. Defining a situational resource/ability/opportunity: A friend hacked the flashback mechanic from Blades in the Dark into a game a while back - each player has a number of days for prepartion and then you launch right into a job being able to spend those days of preparation for flashbacks, for a travel or wilderness exploration mode there could be a way to divide up roles/tasks for the journey, I remember Zweihander doing a gritty version of this well I think.