jeuderologie: draft/elements11dec02.txt@6e24ee2b02ff

RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net>
<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.polymancerstudios.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/polymancer3.jpg>

Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>
News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> Columns &
Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> RPG Wiki
<http://wiki.rpg.net> RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net>
<http://www.rpg.net/members/>

Elements

Layers of Design

*by Brian Gleichman*
Dec 11,2002

Layers of Design

(or RPG design from the ten thousand foot view)

What do people think of when they think of game design? Generally things
like character generation, resolution mechanics, combat rules, etc.
Sadly this common view often causes people to miss most of the game as
it is actually played. This in turn results in either poor design that
fails to achieve its goals, or in poor evaluation of existing games
(which causes endless flamewars).

In the simplest terms, an rpg campaign consists of two very different
influences- the Game itself and the Meta-Game. These terms are generally
understood by most gamers and are a useful short hand. That split
however covers too much ground for my taste and I've identified five
layers (one in Game, and four in the Meta-Game) that differ
significantly enough from each other that a solid treatment of the
subject must give each their due.

Any game operates within (and is in effect designed for) these five
layers. Let's consider each of them in turn:

Game

This layer is made up completely of the actual rules, i.e. the game's
mechanics. These rules must be objective and visible.

By objective, we mean that the mechanics would be resolved the same way
and produce the same outcomes (assuming equal rolls, card picks, etc) no
matter who the players are (assuming they are of course following the
rules). For example, in HERO it takes a roll of 11 or less on 3d6 to
succeed with an unadjusted 11- skill. Thus a die roll of 10 will be a
success for any player in any group no matter the opinions and thoughts
thereof.

By visible we mean that all data, resolutions and decisions in respect
to the mechanics are visible to all players at all times.

It is very important to realize that this level's primary purpose is to
define LIMITS on the available actions and results. In chess rooks can
move vertically and horizontality but never diagonally. A broadsword
does a specified amount of damage- no more, no less in D20. Etc. It is
by forcing limits that the mechanics assure objectivity, visibility and
provide a framework for play.

Game play at this level is based upon known certainties. Examples: "The
orcs have massed their greatest fighters in the center, we should..." or
"I have a 68% chance of taking down the goblin, but only a 33% chance on
the bigger hobgoblin. We're outnumbered right now and that's gives heavy
modifiers against us so I'll..."

In general tactical game design if done (the subject of a previous
article of mine) exists at this layer.

Near Game

This layer consists of any hidden mechanics.

This includes but is not limited to such things as pre-plotted movement
(seldom used in RPGs, one example slightly modified is /The Burning
Wheel/), various rock-scissors-paper resolutions systems (hand-to-hand
combat in /Top Secret/, RSP itself in many LARPs, etc), hidden movement
(defined by Line of Site rules for the most part, D&D 3rd edition for
example defines the range limits of sight under various conditions),
hidden damage, and simultaneous assignment (such as the drop of the
initiative die in /The Riddle of Steel/)

The effect of this layer is to move decisions away from the visible
certainties above to one of predicting the decisions of other players or
guessing what information that they are hiding. Examples: "Tom tends to
mass his power in the center but he likes the cover forests give as
well. Let's deploy here so as to be within range of both and send scouts
in those two directions" or "I'll buff with this hand, Bill can never
tell when I'm buffing".

It should be noted that this layer remains objective and as such
contains many of the characteristics of the Game layer. But it has moved
into the Meta-Game to a large extent as the focus switches from visible
characters and their abilities (stats, locations, resources) to players
and their abilities (to guess and deceive).

In general, strategic game design if done (a subject of a future
article) exists at this level.

Near Meta-Game

This layer consists of any subjective or invisible mechanics.

Subjective Mechanics are those that rely upon the interpretation of the
GM (or a player) to determine the final effect. D&D alignment is the
classic example of such a subjective mechanic, the GM is required to
determine when and if a character violates his Alignment and the player
is required to role-playing with its goals and limits in mind. Another
example is fumble mechanics where the actual effect is left up to the GM.

Another way of looking at these mechanics is to view them as "guiding
mechanics" or "advisory mechanics'. They may point in a direction, but
how far you go and sometimes even if you make the trip at all is
squarely a heavily subjective decision of the GM/Player.

A number of systems even toss combat modifiers that they normally
reserve for the Game Layer here. In HERO System for example the GM is
advised to give a bonus (+1 to +3) for creative and/or unexpected types
of attacks. In /Age of Heroes/, I leave specific terrain modifiers up to
the GM after providing a few examples.

Meta-Game

This layer consists of pure subjective resolution/methods, "group
contracts', and role-playing itself.

Subjective resolution is free form or mechanic-less play. The classic
example is a GM or player just calling the outcome of an action: "I
think your character is more than able to track down the guy by using
legwork, you find him that evening at 8 PM".

However subjective methods covers more ground first comes to mind
including the "world" and adventure design essential to RPGs. If the GM
has decided (without resort to mechanics) that the mob boss has three
bodyguards, each highly skilled- he has engaged in the pure subjective
resolution of a question.

Huge sections of most games are turned over to Subjective
Resolution/Methods. One of the interesting aspects of that is that by
nature you can't design rules for it, each person does that himself
according to his own needs and desires. At best one can provide advice.
Thus in game design terms, this method is defined not by rules enforcing
limits, but by the absence of rules preventing subjective
decision-making. It is worth remembering that not including rules is as
a result game design as well.

Group Contracts are those agreements made by members of a group to
either engage ("we want to do a lot of hack and slash," "Let's try to
keep the game focused on court intrigue," "players should create
characters that work with others") or refuse ("we don't want evil
characters," "no rape will occur in this campaign) events, ideas or
storylines. Such group contracts are often informal although there are
exceptions, and they tend to be added on top of the game outside the
control or influence of the designer.

Role-playing itself is typically done at this layer with the players
determining the personality, actions and reactions completely on their
own without input from mechanical rules.

The main characteristic of this layer is that it's subjective. It is
also limited only the constraints accepted by the players themselves.
Since it's contained mostly within the minds of the players, it is also
in large part hidden with uncertain influences or outcomes.

Far Meta-Game

These are influences unrelated to the game itself, but even so they
still carry great impact. There is almost no way to define all the
possible examples for the extent of their reach. Common ones are "GM's
girlfriend syndrome" or "Sherri worked late and is off her game, let's
be easy on her."

There is however one point in this layer where game design does matter:
the decision to play the game at all. Here we get game design that
attempts to make entry easy and attractive either by way of light and
simple rules, by seductive settings, or "new" concepts. These days we
see lots of effort to design at this layer in an attempt to expand or
open up new markets, often at the cost of other Layers.

Designing by Layers

One of the first things a designer should do is decide which parts of
the game are to be handled by which Layer and for what reasons.

This will in large measure determine the character of the game and the
campaigns that result from it. Those things contained at the Game layer
will be highly defined and limited. Those at the Near Game will defined
and limited, but unknown to some in the short term. Those at the Near
Meta-Game will be guided, but not specifically controlled. The Meta-Game
level itself is its own lord and master. The Far Meta-Game may cause the
design to forgone certain mechanics as "too complex for his market" or
otherwise unacceptable.

For example, I designed /Age of Heroes/ to handle character creation,
advancement, combat, etc at the Game Layer. A few elements (like the
Personal Appearance Stat) are covered in the Near Game. I assigned a
large number of areas (all the world design, storyline, and
role-playing) to the Near Meta-Game. I gave no attention to the Far
Meta-Game not really caring why people chose to play.

An important concept to keep in mind is the fact that it's quite
possible to move elements I lumped into specific layers above to another.

A number of games for example move some parts of role-playing from its
normal Meta-Game subjective method to a subjective mechanic in the Near
Meta-Game. (D&D's alignment) or even to the Game Layer (CoC's Sanity at
certain points). Another example of crossing Layers is those systems
that determine at the Game Layer which player has control (and sometimes
for what ends) in the Meta-Game.

Since such "crossing" of layers is typically defined in one and resolved
in another, I've coined the time "Calling to the X Layer" (such as
Calling to the Meta-Game) for this type of design. It's an increasing
common method that many are finding exciting.

Judging by Layers

Anyone attempting to judge the usefulness of a game system can benefit
by considering five layers if they are interesting in not greatly
misrepresenting other people's campaigns and tastes.

For example, it's easy to say that D20 or /Age of Heroes/ are purely
hack and slash designs given that most of the rules cover combat and
near combat events. They have forgotten the importance of the Meta-Game
level and the fact that both games are specifically designed to use it
for certain parts of the campaign. It's entirely possible for a group to
spend five gaming nights in pure role-playing without a single die being
toss, and then engage in a single evening's combat. To characterized
such a campaign as hack and slash would be a grave error- and a defining
statement of the limits of looking at a single Layer.

Knowing the Layers and your own tastes in them can be helpful anytime
you're thinking of trying out a new game system. It will quickly point
you towards things not to your taste and allow you to house rule it away
from the start or to turn your attention elsewhere.

What do you think? <http://trio.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>

Go to forum! <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>
RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net>
<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.polymancerstudios.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/polymancer3.jpg>

Available Forums
* About the Industry <index.php?f=4>*
Forum Folder

Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through
business.

* Columns <index.php?f=2>*
Forum Folder

Individual discussions for the RPG columns

* Outside RPGnet <index.php?f=82>*
Forum Folder

Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet

* RPGnet <list.php?f=5>*
Posts: *118469* Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30*

General discussion about the game industry and where it's going,
and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing.

* Tangency <list.php?f=61>*
Posts: *40163* Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24*

Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly,
folks!

* The RPGnet Awards <list.php?f=84>*
Posts: *235* Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07*

Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards

* Trouble Tickets <list.php?f=57>*
Posts: *741* Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00*

Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad
code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read
this and fix things. Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous columns

* Elements of Strategy </news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html>
by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03
* Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes)
</news+reviews/columns/elements14jan03.html> by Brian Gleichman,
14jan03
* Layers of Design </news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html> by
Brian Gleichman, 11dec02
* Elements of Tactics </news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html>
by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02
* Elements of Complexity
</news+reviews/columns/elements20sep02.html> by Brian Gleichman,
20sep02

Other columns </news+reviews/columns.html> at RPGnet

[ Read FAQ <http://forum.rpg.net/faq.php> | Subscribe to RSS
<http://www.rpg.net/rss.phtml> | Contact Us <mailto:www@rpg.net> |
Advertise with Us <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml> ]

author	fabien
	Sat, 05 May 2007 14:29:36 -0400
branch	ecjdr
changeset 95	6e24ee2b02ff
parent 92	bdef1afd1170
permissions	-rw-r--r--