Trifecta of an Engaging Game

[Ion Raven]

Lately I've just really wanted to have a discussion about the three elements of an engaging game

Mechanics - The rules of the game / world. How conflicts are settled and how the players can interact. While a rules light game work better when the focus is on the story, it can be iffy with simulationist types, and falls apart with the competitive.

Goals - The goal or goals of the player. Without it, the player has nothing to play for. Setting goals is key to having any semblance of a plot. The opposite end of this spectrum is a sand-box type of game. This can work either way, player's like having choices but some player's can have a hard time setting their own goals. This becomes a conundrum with multiple players who may have differing goals.

Background - The flavor of your game; the description of your settings, the portrayal of the NPCs, the items that appear, any peculiar changes of reality that take place. Some people will indulge in the scenery and eat it up, while others will become exhausted in such details.

All of it is subjective, however I think it's something important that GMs should think about. Both what they are comfortable with presenting, and what the players want and expect. There is really no wrong way to play, though Pathfinder is rules heavy (I imagine rules-light players and GMs lean towards fudging in rules heavy systems).

[LovesTha]

I think Goals is complex, all the following combinations work well:
* DM sets goals, level of rail-roading that is acceptable is dependant on players desire to not feel like they are rail-roaded.
* One or two players set goals in a sandbox. Requires that the rest of the players are happy with the goals and the DM ensures that all PCs still contribute
* All players set goals. Requires the DM to ensure all PCs achieve some goals and participate in the other goals.

The last one sounds the most difficult to balance each players wants.

[StabbittyDoom]

I think your second point is where my groups usually fail. The goal is usually "kick ass". This is the worst goal for driving plot.

To be fair to them, however, my characters are usually somewhat single-minded in purpose as well. My current character wants to found a noble house so he can show the nobles who wronged him what a true noble acts like (i.e. MORE ethical than the commoners rather than less). He needs money to do this and has signed on with an adventuring crew for that purpose. For extra flavor, his only armor is a noble's outfit enchanted as armor (for a whopping +1 AC) and they use a mithril blade.

The other characters, though? "So... I can kill that, right? Sweet." Not saying it isn't fun, just that I've played games with more solid goals for the characters and those games were even *more* fun.

I give my group:
Mechanics - 9/10 - We resolve all rules disputes in no more than a couple minutes and rarely leave anyone dissatisfied.
Goals - 2/10 - I'm pulling this one to 2 because of my character, but the other characters would leave it at a solid 1. No real goals, generally. We generally just follow the railroad.
Background - 3-7/10 - Varies based on who is DMing, but never great. Current DM is new (and the one at the 3 end), but they're improving quickly (they were a 1 only a few months ago).

Anyway, I think the three points you provide are a pretty good rating system as they (in)directly represent the main elements of a game: Goals, Rules, Obstacles and Tools. The first is purely based on the player, the last one represents the tools the players have at their disposal to defeat the obstacles, while the rules determine whether their idea is feasible and how successful it is.

Goals maps to Goals directly. Mechanics maps to Rules and covers a good bit of the Tools category as well. Background covers Obstacles and the rest of Tools, while also being necessary for setting a goal.

In the end it's a cycle of setting goals and achieving them. It's preferable to have multiple goals, some shorter-term than the others, so that you can always be accomplishing something. Having that level-20 goal is nice, but doesn't make levels 1-19 very fun.

TL;DR - I type too much when tired.

[LovesTha]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

n the end it's a cycle of setting goals and achieving them. It's preferable to have multiple goals, some shorter-term than the others, so that you can always be accomplishing something. Having that level-20 goal is nice, but doesn't make levels 1-19 very fun.

It makes them: How do I get GP/XP!

[StabbittyDoom]

LovesTha wrote:

StabbittyDoom wrote:

n the end it's a cycle of setting goals and achieving them. It's preferable to have multiple goals, some shorter-term than the others, so that you can always be accomplishing something. Having that level-20 goal is nice, but doesn't make levels 1-19 very fun.

It makes them: How do I get GP/XP!

Getting more GP and XP is an unending goal. Those get tiring after a while when it finally sinks in that this is the case. It's much more satisfying to have a concrete accomplishment that can be done and over with forever. My character, for example, will hit a milestone when he finally gets himself a full noble title.

[kyrt-ryder]

Something to note, is that a Sandbox game actually gives a lot MORE room for player goals than a game on rails (even disguised rails.)

In a game where the plot isn't character derived, it's a lot harder to seek out and fulfill a character's goals because you're stuck on the rails.

Road might be a better analogy here to be honest. There are a lot of DM's who don't really 'railroad' but who do keep you stuck on a road in the same direction, though you have a little room to sway back and forth.

For me though? I want to go four-wheeling in the mud, driving through the brush. Sure the challenges I face are different from the road (no stop signs, traffic lights, or other cars to deal with) but there's plenty of difficulty right where I want to be, avoiding trees, working through the mud, not driving off cliffs, etc.

Such a character will typically have a fairly deep (not necessarily 'long' but deep) backstory.

[Ion Raven]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Something to note, is that a Sandbox game actually gives a lot MORE room for player goals than a game on rails (even disguised rails.)

In a game where the plot isn't character derived, it's a lot harder to seek out and fulfill a character's goals because you're stuck on the rails.

Road might be a better analogy here to be honest. There are a lot of DM's who don't really 'railroad' but who do keep you stuck on a road in the same direction, though you have a little room to sway back and forth.

For me though? I want to go four-wheeling in the mud, driving through the brush. Sure the challenges I face are different from the road (no stop signs, traffic lights, or other cars to deal with) but there's plenty of difficulty right where I want to be, avoiding trees, working through the mud, not driving off cliffs, etc.

Such a character will typically have a fairly deep (not necessarily 'long' but deep) backstory.

The spectrum for goals isn't 'goals'/'no goals', rather it's 'GM set goals'/'player set goals'

Some players feel lost when they have to set their own goals; It's also more work for the GM the more their personal goals differ, but it works if the whole group is on board, or if they elect a leader.

[kyrt-ryder]

Or if you have a GM like me who works with you to help flesh out the character's backstory and goals and dreams if you need the help, and is willing to work with you between games to help push towards that drive. (Then again I've also been known to occasionally run solo adventures between party adventures to help PC's develop their independent plots.)

[Ion Raven]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

I think your second point is where my groups usually fail. The goal is usually "kick ass". This is the worst goal for driving plot.

A player can have goals without any plot: kill enemies, level up, get loot etc.

However to have a plot, there has to be goals. There's two ways that plot can be formed:
a) GM creates plot and sets some goals
b) Player set's a goal, GM crafts a plot around it

StabbittyDoom wrote:

To be fair to them, however, my characters are usually somewhat single-minded in purpose as well. My current character wants to found a noble house so he can show the nobles who wronged him what a true noble acts like (i.e. MORE ethical than the commoners rather than less). He needs money to do this and has signed on with an adventuring crew for that purpose. For extra flavor, his only armor is a noble's outfit enchanted as armor (for a whopping +1 AC) and they use a mithril blade.

The other characters, though? "So... I can kill that, right? Sweet." Not saying it isn't fun, just that I've played games with more solid goals for the characters and those games were even *more* fun.

Some people just enjoy getting new abilities and being able to try them out.

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Anyway, I think the three points you provide are a pretty good rating system as they (in)directly represent the main elements of a game: Goals, Rules, Obstacles and Tools. The first is purely based on the player, the last one represents the tools the players have at their disposal to defeat the obstacles, while the rules determine whether their idea is feasible and how successful it is.

Goals maps to Goals directly. Mechanics maps to Rules and covers a good bit of the Tools category as well. Background covers Obstacles and the rest of Tools, while also being necessary for setting a goal.

I guess I subconsciously grouped obstacles with the goals (if there's no obstacle to the goal, why isn't it already achieved?). Another big thing for GMs to watch out for is that the goal rewards equally for its difficulty which is subjective and has to be eyeballed.

StabbittyDoom wrote:

In the end it's a cycle of setting goals and achieving them. It's preferable to have multiple goals, some shorter-term than the others, so that you can always be accomplishing something. Having that level-20 goal is nice, but doesn't make levels 1-19 very fun.

I suppose this is the reasoning behind Paizo's view of something at every level.

[Talynonyx]

My ideal is both the sand-box and the rail-road. Play in the sandbox all you want... but the train is a-comin, and when it reaches the station... if you aren't there to meet it, bad things will happen. Give them plenty of leeway, hints, clues etc... but let them do as they please. When the world ends because they thought a side quest was more important... that's on them. Now they need to fix it.

[kyrt-ryder]

I've never been a fan of 'the end of the world is coming' campaigns anyway tbh. Might as well just weather the apocalypse and play a post-apocalyptic campaign instead (or just start a brand new one if the DM is willing to throw the whole world away like that.)

[cranewings]

All this goals = plot stuff is really disconnected from the game for me. No one I play with cares about hearing me tell a tale about their characters. Players want to do what they want to do. The "plot" is whatever happens.

Sometimes NPCs you didn't think much about become important. Sometimes you never get to use your awesome NPC because they players manage to kill him straight off. That is all a part of the fun.

GMs trying to ram their stupid plot down my throat is probably the biggest turn off for me I can come across in gaming.

[kyrt-ryder]

Correct me if I'm wrong Cranewings, but I was under the impression one of the big topics of discussion was helping the players to give their characters goals and plot, and then build the campaign in that direction.

Let the characters do what they wish, but help the players to have something concrete for them TO wish beyond just "MOAR LEWT AND XPs AND LEVELS!"

[cranewings]

Even in a sandbox, when gms start talking about plot, what they are really talking about is investing in certain outcomes, which I don't like.

[kyrt-ryder]

Can you define 'investing in certain outcomes' for me? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

[cranewings]

I mean that the GM wants the characters to meet certain people at certain times, let them win or force them to lose fights, either by cheating on the die roll or unbalancing the stats, which are the same thing to me, have NPCs escape death or avoid PCs so that the struggle can go on ect...

Unless your players are really predictable, it is difficult to have on going plots involving antagonists. Players can just leave or just kill them. Using the metagame to keep them around or just pumping their stats up to where the players can't fight them are the main ham handed ways you have to keep them around.

Any GM can be boring and do these things. I'm not saying you do or that your plot has to do with ongoing antagonists or anything else. What I am saying is that there are only two things that can be a plot: the story that happened to play out or the story that the GM and players wrote and then read to each other during the "game." The second way stinks in my opinion, and is made worse if the GM is doing all the writing.

I think it is better to dispense with the idea of having a plot and just let things play out however they happen to happen.

[kyrt-ryder]

I can't speak for the others, but that isn't what I was referring to at all.

When I said I wanted the player to have a plot, it's about THEIR character. About what their character's hopes and dreams and goals are. About what they want to achieve.

The 'plot' is the plot that evolves from that character pursuing their goals, whether that goal be 'become king of my own country' 'find my destined love' or 'become a pokemon master.'

As far as 'ongoing plots involving antagonists' that varies so widely from campaign to campaign. Some antagonists will successfully escape, or might win and force something on the party rather than kill them, imprison them (dumb move I know, but they don't realize PC's always get away) or something else.

When you say that the 'players can just leave,' I have to say... 'Duh?' At least in my own campaigns, conflict arises from a character's pursuit of goals and interaction with the setting. If you leave before trouble starts, then it's never going to start in that place with that (as yet uncreated) person. If you escape after conflict begins (rare that PC's will flee, but if you do) he may not give enough of a damn to send anybody after them, or he might bring all resources he has to bear upon them (or more likely somewhere in the middle.)

I do agree with you though, that a pre-planned plot has no appeal to me personally, though apparently it has a pretty wide appeal in general, given Adventure Path sales.

[Foghammer]

What about plots that are in-world plots. IE: A plot to take over the world.

For instance, in my setting, there is a hive-mind organization of casters hell-bent on infinite knowledge (a goal that I'm sure is impossible to achieve). This organization is akin to the Illuminati in their secrecy and legend, but are even less known and even more more powerful. They are capable of fabricating wars, plagues, famine, even region-wide climate shifts through use of subtle but large-scale casting chains.

The upper echelons of the hive-mind hierarchy have a plot. My players did not set goals for their PCs when they created them, despite me telling them that they needed goals. And even now, at level 8 they rarely set goals outside me putting things in front of them to deal with. So I make extensive use of this hive-mind and casters.

Railroad? Not really. I make it up as I go. They tell me which direction they're headed and what they're looking for, I tell them what there is to oppose their efforts, if anything. That I use a plot device doesn't mean that I am making PCs into shadow puppets; it's reactionary story guided by the 'logical' (YMMV) actions of NPCs.