PDA

View Full Version : The Game & The Game within the Game



Tormsskull
2008-11-25, 11:03 AM
After having read recent threads (namely the 'Now that 4e had been out for a while'), and seeing some good points being made, a critical issue came to mind.

The Game = The actual storyline progression. Lark the Fighter, Shauna the Wizard, Bishop the Cleric, and Thane the Rogue band together at the local tavern to explore the lost caverns of Thocca. Exploring the caverns and eliminating the evil monsters inside, the group successfully returns to town with treasure where they are immediately met with several requests for assistance now that people realize these four adventurers are capable of braving dangers and destroying evil.

The Game within the Game (GwG) = Bob is playing Lark the Fighter, selects skills and feats for his character, purchases items with his characters listed amount of gold pieces. When in combat Bob moves his mini around the map to illustrate where his character moves, and attacks, defends, or uses abilities as necessary. (i.e. mechanics or out of character actions).


Now, obviously a great DM and group find a way of merging the Game and the Game within the Game into a cohesive experience that is fun for all (please, for the love of all that is holy don't tell me that the two above examples are not mutually exclusive, I understand that 100%).

With the above in mind, how do you as a DM or player create that cohesive experience? Any suggestions, examples of play, or anything else anyone wants to share regarding the game, the game within the game appreciated.

Heliomance
2008-11-25, 11:07 AM
Whichever Game you're talking about, you guys just lost it.

potatocubed
2008-11-25, 11:11 AM
1. Your terminology is confusing. Might I suggest replacing the term 'game' with 'storyline' and 'GwG' with 'game'?

2. More later. I have to work. >.>

Kurald Galain
2008-11-25, 11:22 AM
1. Your terminology is confusing. Might I suggest replacing the term 'game' with 'storyline' and 'GwG' with 'game'?

Yes. Or use "fluff" and "crunch".

ColdSepp
2008-11-25, 11:24 AM
Personally, I use system and game.

Charity
2008-11-25, 11:29 AM
1. Your terminology is confusing. Might I suggest replacing the term 'game' with 'storyline' and 'GwG' with 'game'?

2. More later. I have to work. >.>

Now there is no need to swear P3

I'm with ColdSepp here, game and system is the least ambigious combination... to my mind.

valadil
2008-11-25, 11:31 AM
I agree with calling the game the story but I'd rather call the game within the game the mechanics.

I create stories that resolve themselves at mechanically interesting points. A story has conflict and that conflict has to be resolved. In D&D this often ends up meaning combat.

In my games there's no such thing as a random encounter. All encounters have meaning and will eventually be tied into a greater story. This is harder to write initially, because I have to come up with more, but once the game gets going it's easier to continue from the progression of the last story.

Here's an example. I just started a Game of Thrones based game. I wanted the players to have a run in with some bandits that lived in the mountains and called themselves hillpeople. I could give them a random encounter with the hillpeople. It'll be a 1-2 hour fight. If I'm lucky the players will decide to track down the hillpeople later or if they don't maybe the hillpeople will attack again. Either way, it's a random encounter and I'm not interested in throwing it at the PCs.

Instead the hillpeople attacked an NPC. A messenger was coming back from the war and the hillpeople kidnapped him. His horse got away though and the players found it. They formed up a search party and went looking for the guy. When they eventually ran into a bandit ambush, it had meaning because they cared who the bandits were. It was no random encounter at this point, but part of the story. They left a couple of the bandits alive and started negotiating about getting the messenger back. What would have been a random encounter lasted most of the session. The game I had planned for next session is going to be delayed because they still have to go ransom their friend back. Oh and because I'm a jerk there will be repercussions from ransoming him back too. The hillpeople weren't interested in gold, but in good quality arms and armor to replace their bronze and leather. Now when other people get assaulted by this well armed brigands, they'll take it up with the PCs who are responsible for giving barbarians good weapons.

Sorry if I strayed off topic there. This was an instance of a random encounter getting wrapped in story. The encounter itself was still fun for the mechanics players, but the story made it more important to everyone involved.

Totally Guy
2008-11-25, 11:34 AM
It the the game within not the meta game?

potatocubed
2008-11-25, 11:53 AM
Now there is no need to swear P3

Who the what now?

Anyway, whatever. Here are some random thinks on the subject:

I find that, when playing D&D at least, we play the system. The storyline generates situations which are resolved using the mechanics of the system. We 'fluff' the mechanical resolution to get an idea of what's going on, which in turn generates more storyline situations. For example:

Storyline: Farmer Smith has lost his prize chicken. He hires the adventurers to retrieve it. Alive.
System: The players roll Survival to track the chicken, and then the wizard barbecues it with scorching ray because the player wasn't paying attention.
Storyline: The ranger spots chicken tracks and follows them. Upon sighting the chicken the wizard then screams and roasts it with a spell because he was terrorised by a half-fiend chicken as a child. The party destroy the evidence (om nom nom) and then cast about for a near-identical chicken they can steal.
System: Various skill checks as they steal a chicken, etc. etc.

I think that in games where the mechanics are more easily fluffed (or where they overlap) the alternating segments start to blur together around the edges or work in the opposite direction (fluff driving crunch, a la Exalted stunts).

I think blurring the boundaries between system and story makes for a good game, even if that blurring is not directly encouraged by the system you're using. You can do this by being prepared (as a GM) to come up with rules for any action the players might attempt, and encouraging them to attempt anything they feel like (converting storyline to system) and you can do this by always keeping one eye on the fluff descriptions of the character's in-system actions - remembering that while you're playing a game, your character is fighting for his life against Skarloc Dwarfchewer, The Dragon With A 'Thing' About Beards.

So much for terminology. I think I used every possible word for both things in that ramble. =/

Starsinger
2008-11-25, 12:00 PM
It the the game within not the meta game?

I believe the meta-game is the game beyond the game, not the game within the game.

Charity
2008-11-25, 12:12 PM
Who the what now?


1. Your terminology is confusing. Might I suggest replacing the term 'game' with 'storyline' and 'GwG' with 'game'?

2. More later. I have to ****. >.>






I think blurring the boundaries between system and story makes for a good game, even if that blurring is not directly encouraged by the system you're using. You can do this by being prepared (as a GM) to come up with rules for any action the players might attempt, and encouraging them to attempt anything they feel like (converting storyline to system) and you can do this by always keeping one eye on the fluff descriptions of the character's in-system actions - remembering that while you're playing a game, your character is fighting for his life against Skarloc Dwarfchewer, The Dragon With A 'Thing' About Beards.

So much for terminology. I think I used every possible word for both things in that ramble. =/

I agree, in our current game we have mostly adopted (very poor) accents to underline in character speech, it has been an amusing success.

Totally Guy
2008-11-25, 12:24 PM
I believe the meta-game is the game beyond the game, not the game within the game.

I was trying to set up a joke where you all argue over terminology then I get to say the puchline: "That sounds more like the game without the game!" It would have been hilarious.

Honest.:smalltongue:

RTGoodman
2008-11-25, 12:35 PM
Man, I thought we were gonna be talking about this:


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tabletop_roleplaying.png (http://xkcd.com/244/)

:smalltongue:

That said, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you looking for suggestions on how to get people to see the game and participate in way that is NOT entirely OOC ("My guy goes up and swings his sword."). If so, there have been a thousand "Setting the Mood for D&D Games" threads out there, and they should be your friends.

If you're trying to talk about something else, I don't really know what to say.


Also, @Glug - is the new face/mask on your avatar supposed to be William Peterson, from CSI? Cause it's kinda freakin' me out, man.

Starsinger
2008-11-25, 12:46 PM
I was trying to set up a joke where you all argue over terminology then I get to say the puchline: "That sounds more like the game without the game!" It would have been hilarious.

Honest.:smalltongue:

Oh. I was just trying to be mildly amusing. I'm sorry for ganking your joke.

Prometheus
2008-11-25, 01:52 PM
To answer the OP, it usually falls under one of two scenarios, depending on your style of play:
-The Game follows The Game Within The Game: That is, your character is one who is concerned about doing everything that is possible for their own safety or to obtain the highest power, so this naturally coincides with character optimization and combat strategy.
-The Game Within The Game follows The Game: Rather than choosing options that are the best optimization path for a character, a player chooses the paths that make the character into the persona that the player has in mind, so that character progression is realistic from the character's perspective, not the players.

The boards get into debates all the time about which is superior, but in truth, everyone plays a little bit of both. This has a lot more to do with how the player plays the game than how the DM sets up the game, but it is the DM's job to make sure everyone can play the game how they like and still mesh well with each other. For this reason, DM's encourage balance, optimization, role-playing, cooperation, and OOC fun.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-25, 01:55 PM
Whichever Game you're talking about, you guys just lost it.Dammit, so did I.

Kalirren
2008-11-25, 03:26 PM
You know, for all the blather about layers of games and meta-games, it seems to me that the thread still has managed to miss an entire layer. It's not just about "fluff" and "crunch", or what the IC world is and the rules that are used to describe it. People forget that they are playing a game; that there is a dimension to the game consisting of just the players that are sitting around the table, or on the couch, or over IM and PM; that the enjoyment of the game, as determined OoC, is usually more closely related to this dimension of real interpersonal interaction than it is to either the crunch or the fluff. (Thought experiment: would you rather continue to play a mediocre campaign with friends, or a stellar campaign (solely in terms of rules and IC interaction) with jerks you don't know? Most players I know would choose the former.)

The people who play the game, their habits, and their approaches to the other aspects (read, gameworld and system) are very important to the integrity of the overall gaming experience.

For example, one of my current groups thrives a lot on the constant shifting between IC and OoC. We as people talk about things that our characters are doing even as they are in the process of being resolved. It's something that we like doing, so we end up doing a lot of it. It's a big part of what makes our group enjoy the games that we play. And I know full well that it would drive the LARP group I used to play with absolutely bonkers.

If I had one piece of advice it would be for each group to become more conscious of how the way they interact as people affects the way they approach the game world and the system they use (the fluff and the crunch). As game moderator, you have to probe out each person's expectations of the gaming activity itself and fulfill them in the format you have (sessions, posts, etc.).
If he's a intelligent player

Ridureyu
2008-11-25, 03:31 PM
I see no reason why you can't integrate them, and even use aspects of one to help with the other.

One example would be putting an Inevitable miniature on the map of the city at the entrance, and steadily moving it forward while the players are shopping, barhopping, etc. Don't say anything about it. Don't give any extra description. Now, watch how the players and PCs react at the Marut.


Using the same general pattern, when a planar spell goes wrong, just start putting Slaad miniatures on the table. Not just on the map - put them everywhere. On the books, in players' drinks, peeking out of your front pocket...

Matthew
2008-11-25, 03:35 PM
I tend to think of "character building" as the game within the game, in that it has become a sort of game of its own, independent of actual play. World building is also something of a game within the game. These things cannot really be too clearly separated from the "greater game", but they can be minimised or emphasised according to preference.

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-25, 05:05 PM
I have to agree that calling a storyline a game is not good terminology. A novel is not a game. Chess, checkers, horseshoes, and poker are games. Games have rules. So the rule side of things is the part that it makes sense to call "the game". That's the game part of the RPG experience. The other part is the roleplaying of characters. Combining roleplaying with a game creates an amalgam which we might call a "roleplaying game". :smalltongue:

Kalirren makes a good point. The social aspect of the game -- that is, social interaction between players rather than characters -- is an important part of the whole experience too.

We could probably break a tabletop RPG down into several elements, each of which can involve both flavor and game mechanics:

- Game system design
- Worldbuilding
- Setting detailing
- Character creation
- Roleplaying

There are two basic ways to combine game and roleplaying: The players can take on the roles of the characters, or they can manipulate the characters. To put it another way, character actions can be decided either in character or out of character. For the former, it's best to have each PC statistic and die roll represent something particular within the game world. For the latter, it's fine to have things like action points and daily limits on the uses of abilities that don't represent anything IC, because the rules determine what the players can decide to make the characters do, not what the characters can choose to do.

Deciding which way to go with that stuff is a system design thing. Recognizing which playstyle a given system supports to what degree helps you to better choose which system to use and to make the best use of it.

Doomsy
2008-11-25, 05:37 PM
There are a handful of types of players.


http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr258


That link can basically be applied to roleplayers. Of course, unlike magic, you have to basically balanced your game between your players and their personality and play style.

The key that I've found is to never pit them against each other - especially the Spike types. They like to win, so give them goals that reflect that and let them feel like they've accomplished concrete things. Timmies can just have fun being there much of the time, and Johnny can be worked with to make his own goals if you can get synergy with him.

Jølly
2008-11-25, 05:57 PM
I've never lost this bad before...

Raum
2008-11-25, 06:18 PM
With the above in mind, how do you as a DM or player create that cohesive experience? Any suggestions, examples of play, or anything else anyone wants to share regarding the game, the game within the game appreciated. The mechanics of gaming (the Game within the Game if you prefer) are the building blocks of a game's story (the Game in your terminology). As such, selecting mechanics which enhance the style and genre become important. Mechanics which fit seamlessly into your story simply make better building blocks.

That's not the only way to view it - some prefer to start with a cohesive story and use the mechanics to shape or color it. Mechanics as paints adding color to a line drawn story - so to speak. Of course it's not black and white either, emphasis changes between groups.

As for how I use mechanics as building blocks - I try to create lots of 'blocks' to build with. Lots of NPCs, organizations, and communities all with agendas to pursue. Lots of events involving the PCs. Interesting objects and locations which add their own flavor to the mix. Creating conflict for the PCs to resolve in the course of building the game's story. As they do, the story unfolds.