RPG Patterns

[kyoryu]

This is just a bunch of things I've seen over the years, in terms of different ways that RPGs are played. It's not intended to be complete (there's things I'm sure I haven't seen) nor exclusive (most games will switch between these to some extent).

There are certain things in here people might say "that's not an RPG!" to. That's nice. To other people, it is an RPG. I fully accept that that's not how you play RPGs, or what you play RPGs to get. That's totally cool, but please accept that others do call those things RPGs, and them doing so in no way impacts your game.

Also note that I'm not giving these names. Names end up with too many connotations and get people talking about their preconceptions of the names instead of the actual ideas. Maybe names can come later.

My hope is that this will generate some conversation about how people game and why. And some understanding of how others game as well, without the usual "THAT'S NOT AN RPG WHARRRRGARBLL" that so often dominates RPG "theory" discussions. (Note that I don't consider this a theory, as it makes no predictions. If anything, it's a taxonomy.) IOW, I would love if this creates the ability for people to say "Yeah, I mostly like RPGs that do as much Type 1 interactions as possible, with no Type 3 interactions, while mostly engaging in a Type B structure." That's, to me, a lot more useful than "IMMERSION IS KING. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS NOT AN RPG. IT'S COLLABORATIVE STORYTELLING YOU HIPPIE FREAK".

That said:

Basic Interaction Patterns

These are the basic ways that people interact with each other at the table (within the context of the actual game).

Type 1:
GM: "Here's the situation".
Player: "I do this."
GM: "Here's the new situation."

The key parts here are the GM role, and the fact that the primary communication is happening via descriptions of in-game events. There may be some rolling of dice, but that's incidental to the primary communication happening

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 2: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 3: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."

Here, while there may be a GM, they are primarily constrained to the rules. Players are fully aware of the rules and are directly engaging with them.

Type 3:
Player 1: "This happens."
Player 2: "This happens."
Player 3: "This happens."

Similar to type 2, except the rules exist mostly to decide who gets to speak next. While players may be associated with a single character, they are not constrained to narrating facts about only that character.

Now, again, no single game I'm aware of sits completely in one of these types. Most D&D versions (by the rules, individual tables may vary of course) mix types 1 and 2 in various degrees. Most "storygames" include some of Type 3. Fate is weird in that it mixes all three fairly liberally, though I'd argue most of the time it's pretty Type 1. Fiasco is almost purely Type 3, and Microscope even more so.

Type 1 is not Type 2 because in Type 1 interactions, the communication is done in terms of the game world, and the GM "owns" the rules. This gives Type 1 the advantage of immersion, flexibility, and verisimillitude (as the GM can override rules that don't make sense in the situation), while Type 2 has the advantages of transparency and consistency.

Type 1 is not Type 3 because, while they both are dealing with the game world primarily, in Type 1 a single player (the GM) is responsible for the world and everything outside of one character per player. Type 1 has the advantage of immersion (again), internal consistency, and the ability to provide challenge and handle secret information, while Type 2 has more collaboration and the ability for players to have a greater hand in shaping a narrative.

Type 2 is not Type 3 because the rules in Type 2 exist primarily to determine what happens, often to determine the failure or success in some sort of challenge. Also, in Type 2 players generally have strong control over one or more characters/pieces, while in Type 3 those boundaries are usually much less clear. Rules in Type 3 games are more about determining who has the authority to narrate at any given point. Type 2 has the advantage of providing a consistent and fair framework for challenges, while Type 3 has the advantage of providing greater collaboration in the ability to create a narrative, and greater flexibility.

Basic Game Structures

While the interaction types are all about the moment-to-moment, these are about how the game as a whole is structured, scene-to-scene and session-to-session.

Type A:
Whoever shows up plays. A given session involves figuring out what character everyone is playing, as they may have multiple, going into a dangerous location in search of loot or adventure, and returning safely back to base. The point of the session is to test player skills against the deadly environment and advance.

Type B:
Whoever shows up plays. A given session involves figuring out what character everyone is playing, as they may have multiple, and then going through a piece of pre-created content. The point of the session is to overcome the challenges in the presented content.

Type C:
There is a group of players that play, and each session will be a (large) subset of these, ideally all of them. Each session involves these players exploring a world, with no particular end goal in mind apart from what the players make. There may be (probably will be) larger events happening in the world that the players may or may not take part in at their discretion. THe point of the session is to explore and change the world.

Type D:
There is a group of players that play, and each session will be a (large) subset of these, ideally all of them. Each session involves progressing a mostly-prewritten story (though it may be pre-written just before the game starts). While some freedom may be allowed, the majority of how things go will be pre-plotted. The point of the session is to enjoy the story and to overcome the challenges presented.

Type E:
There is a group of players that play, and each session will be a (large) subset of these, ideally all of them. Each session involves going through a number of scenes that present dramatic questions. These will not be thought up in advance. The point of each session is primarily to determine what happens.

[kyoryu]

Examples:

Old-school D&D was strongly Type 1 with some Type 2, within a Type A campaign structure.

D&D 3.5+ migrated more to Type 2 with some Type 1, while adopting Type B (Organized Play) or Type C or D structures.

D&D 4 was much the same, except it was almost exclusively Type 2 in combat while being almost exclusively Type 1 out of combat.

Fate is mostly Type 1, though it has a good dollop of Types 2 and 3, and maintains a Type E structure in most cases.

Burning Wheel is almost always a Type E structure while leaning heavily on Type 2 mechanics.

[Psikerlord]

I think I prefer games with a mix of 1 & 2, and A & C.

[kyoryu]

I think I'm a mix of 1 & 2, and A & C.

That's pretty old-school AD&D style, really. While those started as A, I think they ended up with a healthy dose of C with the more regular players (while still maintaining the A style for the random/open games).

[Max_Killjoy]

Type 1 with a bit of Type 2 used in service of Type 1.

As for structure -- not sure where you'd put... "There is a group of players that play, and each session will be a (large) subset of these, ideally all of them. Each session involves these players exploring a world, with no particular end goal in mind apart from what the players make. There are likely larger events happening in the world that the PCs could well be affected by, and sometimes a threat or challenge or event that the PCs would be hard-pressed to ignore. The point of the session and "campaign" is to explore and change the world, and sometimes deal with those bigger threats, challenges, and events. NPCs are an important part of the world and the events, and will have histories and personalities and at least an implied life beyond serving the immediate needs of the PCs or their adventures. The setting is nearly a character in its own right, with history, depth, breadth, and an ongoing 'life' beyond serving the immediate needs of the PCs or their adventures."

[Thrudd]

Type 1 with a bit of Type 2 used in service of Type 1.

As for structure -- not sure where you'd put... "There is a group of players that play, and each session will be a (large) subset of these, ideally all of them. Each session involves these players exploring a world, with no particular end goal in mind apart from what the players make. There are likely larger events happening in the world that the PCs could well be affected by, and sometimes a threat or challenge or event that the PCs would be hard-pressed to ignore. The point of the session and "campaign" is to explore and change the world, and sometimes deal with those bigger threats, challenges, and events. NPCs are an important part of the world and the events, and will have histories and personalities and at least an implied life beyond serving the immediate needs of the PCs or their adventures. The setting is nearly a character in its own right, with history, depth, breadth, and an ongoing 'life' beyond serving the immediate needs of the PCs or their adventures."

That sounds like Type C, just adding more details to what is implied by "There may be (probably will be) larger events happening in the world that the players may or may not take part in at their discretion. The point of the session is to explore and change the world."

For a dedicated group playing a D&D-like or a generic, that's what I prefer. The only problem is not being able to depend on a regular group of players, as well as being able to accommodate the occasional spouse/SO who doesn't always want to play. That's why I also like having a set up that allows for drop-ins and irregular attendance - that's type 1/2 interaction with old-school D&D structure that is A with a dose of C - each session players pick or roll up characters and pick a destination to pursue those character's goals - which is mostly going to be different dungeon-type places to find loot and become more powerful. But there will be ongoing setting elements and NPCs as well, not just dungeon after dungeon but a possible move into domain building and influencing the wider world as they get up in levels - the format just needs to be such that each session is mostly a self-contained episode, so next session can include a different group of people if needs be.

I'm not actually sure Type A and Type B are different things - I mean, does the adventure location mentioned in Type A not count as "pre-created content" with challenges that need to be overcome? Or is this meant to describe a game that is run as a series of one-shot narratives, without character advancement (as that is specifically mentioned in Type A)? What game(s) were you thinking of on this one?

The closest I can think of might be Paranoia, and maybe Feng Shui:Action Movie Roleplaying. That game definitely doesn't need to be run as one-shots, and there is character advancement, but they did publish a lot of short scenarios, so that it could easily work this way. You wouldn't necessarily need to link the scenarios together, besides considering them having taken place within the same "cinematic universe". There'd be a recurring cast of rotating characters getting into new shenanigans every session, maybe with some recurring villains (but not necessarily). I ran the game mostly like this, although we did not rotate players or characters, and some episodes lasted more than one session. But I did take inspiration from their published material, treating the game like an episodic action TV-show, so many sessions placed the characters in a completely new environment/situation with a brief introduction to get them there (the obligatory scene of the weekly citizen-in-distress coming to ask the A-team for their services, the "hello Charlie" call, a tempting mystery too good to pass up, etc.)

If I ever ran Feng Shui again, it would definitely be a type-B , and I'd play up the episodic, ensemble cast TV-show style even more, since I'd be needing to accommodate those rotating players.

[kyoryu]

Type 1 with a bit of Type 2 used in service of Type 1.

As for structure -- not sure where you'd put...

Totally Type C, which is really "classic sandbox" without wanting to just say that :)

I'm not actually sure Type A and Type B are different things - I mean, does the adventure location mentioned in Type A not count as "pre-created content" with challenges that need to be overcome? Or is this meant to describe a game that is run as a series of one-shot narratives, without character advancement (as that is specifically mentioned in Type A)? What game(s) were you thinking of on this one?

Think megadungeon or hexcrawl (A) vs Organized Play mini-adventures (B).

OP games in my experience are more highly tailored, vs. a fairly large area to explore where the characters might do any number of things within that area. Also, hexcrawl/megadungeon games tend to emphasize exploration a LOT more than the more linear OP style games.

[Max_Killjoy]

Totally Type C, which is really "classic sandbox" without wanting to just say that :)

Can a sandbox have a hook that amounts to "if you'd like to save the world from looming disaster, pull this thread" ??


As a general note, I wish this thread would get a lot more eyeballs and input, this is exactly the sort of discussion that we need more of, that tries to answer real questions rather than pushing an agenda or trying to prove one sort of gaming "superior" to others or seize ownership.

[RedWarlock]

I feel like the Type A/B/C/etc structures could be broken down into more specific, further dimensions. Break apart the repetition into a checklist instead of exclusive (repetitive) definitions.

[Satinavian]

For me it is mostly type 2 with a hefty dose of type 1. While that would put it into the same basket as D&D 3.5 it is absolutely not that similar an experience because i use different rule systems prioritising differrent things. And in some of my groups we use extensive houserule packages to make sure that the majority of ingame events can be modelled according to type 2. But the houserules are always group effort, the GM does not decide which rules are the rules of the game.

Game structure fluctuates firmly between C and D. Which one it is is decided whenever the question "what do we play next" comes up. And the answer depends completely on the current mood an on which ideas are brought forward. The players and often even charaters stay the same.

Now, i do know players who would like to play E others, who like to play 3, some who prefer C vastly over D or D vastly over C, but the above is how we end up playing and it would be difficult to most of the same people to agree to any other method.

I often played B in the past and found it acceptable, never actually tried A.

[Aetis]

Type D is what I enjoy the most.

Pre-written stories allow for greatest amount of preparation from the DM (and players), and you are more likely to see crisply executed plot elements and characters in the game.

[kyoryu]

Can a sandbox have a hook that amounts to "if you'd like to save the world from looming disaster, pull this thread" ??

I'd say so, yes. I mean there's clearly some difference between a "static sandbox" and a game like that, but I think they're structurally similar enough there's little need to break them apart.

As a general note, I wish this thread would get a lot more eyeballs and input, this is exactly the sort of discussion that we need more of, that tries to answer real questions rather than pushing an agenda or trying to prove one sort of gaming "superior" to others or seize ownership.

Me too :)

I feel like the Type A/B/C/etc structures could be broken down into more specific, further dimensions. Break apart the repetition into a checklist instead of exclusive (repetitive) definitions.

While I get your point, I'm kind of explicitly not doing that - while there's some commonalities and dimensions there, what I don't want to do is create some kind of over-arching theory, and saying "these are the dimensions that game structures exist on" implicitly goes down that direction.

[oxybe]

Some mix of 1 & 2 going about it by way of C & D.

1 & 2 is largely our more beer and pretzels style of play. GM sets up a scenario and usually only calls for adjudication in when a player does an action that requires some heavy arbitration (I will admit, i do like pushing the red buttons the GMs setup. in our Cthulu one-shot I nearly lost both my PCs to two seperate third parties' dynamite shenanigans), otherwise i would say they're pretty hands off and we autopilot some stuff.

C&D is largely because The PCs are presented a scenario (or multiple scenarios) in the world at large and can choose to follow up on them, ignore them and do another scenario instead, get up to their own ideas or whatnot. The GM likely knows in advance what will happen without PC involvement or if everything goes perfectly, but time and again: no plan survives contact with the PCs. As such the end result isn't so much as defined it depends on how the PCs will deal with the situation.

[EGplay]

I agree with Max, this seems a useful way to frame the discussion.

For me, i'd say 1&2 in C and (possibly) E

Personally, I can't divorce 1 and 2.
I can see how they're separate, but I cannot do 1 without awareness of 2. The game worlds diverge too much from the real one to not need rules to inform what is reasonable there.

As for C&E, as I understand 'dramatic questions' they can equally apply to character actions enforcing changes without exernal prompting.
This is why C and E to me are linked as well, though not as strongly as 1 and 2.

I do want to clarify that for me, a 'dramatic question' doesn't have to be for drama. If it ends up functioning similarly, it counts (and I actually prefer them without said intention).

[jayem]

Can a sandbox have a hook that amounts to "if you'd like to save the world from looming disaster, pull this thread" ??


As a general note, I wish this thread would get a lot more eyeballs and input, this is exactly the sort of discussion that we need more of, that tries to answer real questions rather than pushing an agenda or trying to prove one sort of gaming "superior" to others or seize ownership.

I'd go for "no, but..."

So as for the "no", you basically have to pull the thread or end the game.
For the buts:
a) There are perfectly fine non-sandboxes
b) It could be the start of something sandboxy on all other levels where you are free to think how you save the world...
So rather than being "if you'd like to save the world from looming disaster, pull this thread" it would be "looming disaster threatens the world, here are some threads"
c) It could be the deliberate end/pause of a sandbox phase
d) Something similar could occur in the middle of a game as a result of player choices (although it's more likely to be small scale)
e) "Saving the world" doesn't really allow interesting interactions as it kind of dominates everything, if the disaster were smaller or more focused then the other threads still have relative value. [I.E "If you'd like to save the village from being destroyed pull this thread, but if you'd like to increase national agricultural output by 2% pull this thread"] and then it would be a "yes"]

I would like some more type C computer games.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd go for "no, but..."

So as for the "no", you basically have to pull the thread or end the game.
For the buts:
a) There are perfectly fine non-sandboxes
b) It could be the start of something sandboxy on all other levels where you are free to think how you save the world...
So rather than being "if you'd like to save the world from looming disaster, pull this thread" it would be "looming disaster threatens the world, here are some threads"
c) It could be the deliberate end/pause of a sandbox phase
d) Something similar could occur in the middle of a game as a result of player choices (although it's more likely to be small scale)
e) "Saving the world" doesn't really allow interesting interactions as it kind of dominates everything, if the disaster were smaller or more focused then the other threads still have relative value. [I.E "If you'd like to save the village from being destroyed pull this thread, but if you'd like to increase national agricultural output by 2% pull this thread"] and then it would be a "yes"]

I would like some more type C computer games.

* The phrasing wasn't meant to indicate a single linear solution, if it did, that's my fault.
* "Saving the world" doesn't have to be literal. It could be a city, or a state, or a country, that's important to the PCs. The world could go on, but not in a way that the PCs will necessarily be happy about.
* Someone else, some group of NPCs could set about "saving the world", leaving the PCs to deal with the consequences of that group's success or failing.


As a general follow up question, is "sandbox" binary or scalar? I tend to look at these things in scales or variables, not as yes-no questions, so my answer would be that a campaign can be "sandboxy" without being a pure sandbox.

(I use "campaign" because "game" can mean the system being used, or the things being done at the table, and I want to avoid that confusion.)

[kyoryu]

As a general follow up question, is "sandbox" binary or scalar? I tend to look at these things in scales or variables, not as yes-no questions, so my answer would be that a campaign can be "sandboxy" without being a pure sandbox.

That's why I avoided the word "sandbox".

Are you going through a linear (possibly with a few branches) story that's created by the GM? Then you're in Type D. If you're not, and are doing what interests you in the world? Type C.

And a single campaign can switch between those structures.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's why I avoided the word "sandbox".

Are you going through a linear (possibly with a few branches) story that's created by the GM? Then you're in Type D. If you're not, and are doing what interests you in the world? Type C.

And a single campaign can switch between those structures.

Is there a middle ground? My games tend to have a long-run "goal" set by the DM (but chosen from a list of such goals) but the day-to-day is based on what they do. So it's a "site/region-based open-world" game, sort of. You do have an overall mission, but usually that's just a fig-leaf to get you there and knocking down dominoes.

As I described it on another thread, my MO is to build a bunch of crisis points. Points where various forces/factions/plots are in unstable equilibrium (like a super-saturated solution). These are planned (but the results of the party's involvement or non-involvement isn't planned) and the party gets involved as the nucleus of change, the catalysts of "interesting things". From there it's a roller-coaster of change piling up with change and everybody reacting to the party poking their noses into things.

From my perspective this is neither linear (like an adventure path) nor is it a full sandbox. There's really no fixed direction (and I certainly don't have things planned out more than a session in advance, and then only planning situations) but they can't really set their own goals--they're more or less committed to a pre-chosen goal.

These goals are more like "investigate this area and figure out what's going on" or "ruined city, go find out if there's tasty loots" or "a village has gone missing" or "the dwarves say they need help with an internal matter" than "an evil necromancer's going to end the world if you don't stop him in 3 days!" They're reasons to go to this particular region and mess around with stuff and reasons not to leave until whatever situation there is resolved (however it ends up being resolved).

[kyoryu]

I really don't see a difference.

Most "sandboxes" don't exist in a state of stasis - things happen, and often there's some kind of major threat that should be dealt with eventually.

As described, it fits under Type C pretty cleanly.

Again, that's why I avoided the term "sandbox" (along with almost all other "known" terms) because, with some people, it implies this kind of stasis-world. That seems to be an extremely rare type of actual game, and even then, structurally, it's pretty close to the more usual "sandbox with stuff happening."

[Max_Killjoy]

I really don't see a difference.

Most "sandboxes" don't exist in a state of stasis - things happen, and often there's some kind of major threat that should be dealt with eventually.

As described, it fits under Type C pretty cleanly.

Again, that's why I avoided the term "sandbox" (along with almost all other "known" terms) because, with some people, it implies this kind of stasis-world. That seems to be an extremely rare type of actual game, and even then, structurally, it's pretty close to the more usual "sandbox with stuff happening."

My impression has been that "world in stasis, nothing happens" is usually a bad caricature directed at "sandbox" settings and campaigns, by certain people who either misunderstand them, or have an agenda.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I really don't see a difference.

Most "sandboxes" don't exist in a state of stasis - things happen, and often there's some kind of major threat that should be dealt with eventually.

As described, it fits under Type C pretty cleanly.

Again, that's why I avoided the term "sandbox" (along with almost all other "known" terms) because, with some people, it implies this kind of stasis-world. That seems to be an extremely rare type of actual game, and even then, structurally, it's pretty close to the more usual "sandbox with stuff happening."

My impression has been that "world in stasis, nothing happens" is usually a bad caricature directed at "sandbox" settings and campaigns, by certain people who either misunderstand them, or have an agenda.

My big difference is that unlike a fully open world (where even the large-scale plans are player-produced), mine have a lot more DM direction as to goals and methods. So they end up being linear in fits and starts (2-3 sessions at a time) with a lot of interstitial changes and all unpredictable.

I've gotten pushback when I say it's sandboxy because it's site-based (a campaign usually occurs in one relatively small area) and has very little emphasis on exploration or long-range, player-focused goals. I get mostly "blank slate" PCs that don't have much internal push--they gain their goals trying to keep ahead of the dominoes falling from getting involved at all.