* I - Vocabulary; Manual x Encyclopedia
* II - Crunch x Fluff
* III - Crunch IS Fluff (excavators can't jump!)
* IV - Theme, Mechanics, and Narrative
* V - Incongruous and dissociated mechanics
* VI - Unproductive fluff (and crunch)
---
Here is one of the most interesting and straightforward articles I've ever read on game design. It seems to focus primarily on board games (like monopoly, etc.), but the jargon and ideas are useful for RPGs too (and, I'd bet, computer games, etc.). Go take a look:
http://www.leagueofgamemakers.com/theme-vs-mechanics-the-false-dichotomy/
Awesome stuff, right? I often feel that board games are light-years ahead of RPGs as far as game design is concerned.
Now, notice that, like I've said in the last post in this series, RPGs are unique among tabletop games.
For example, one article in the same site says that (emphasis mine):
"When talking non-RPG tabletop games, mechanics make the game. Mechanics ARE the game. Themes and components can enhance games and create more immersive experiences, but the core of a game is ultimately the mechanics"
In other words - the CRUNCH is the game, the FLUFF is a "coat of paint", like we discussed in this series.
When talking about other games, you can agree or disagree with this affirmation. In RPGs, however fluff IS crunch and vice-versa, which is why the affirmation doesn't apply.
Trying to use the exact same jargon to talk about RPGs is hard - feels like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, specially because "mechanics" and "narrative" have other connotations in RPGs, and components aren't nearly as important (although dice, pen and paper are still fundamental to RPGs).
It would be possible, I"m sure - but not as useful as doing something specific to RPGs, IMO.
Here is my attempt a similar Venn diagram for RPGs. It looks awful in comparison, but includes the ideas I find important.
- Crunch: the game mechanics, rules, procedures, etc.
- Raw Crunch: rules as written. The game mechanics, rules, procedures, etc. in abstract. They exist before you start playing.
- Fluff: Whatever happens in the fictional game world. "The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material" (source).
- Pure fluff: Things that happen in the fictional game world and do not affect the crunch directly. For example, the illustrations inside a book, or little pieces of "flavor" fiction.
Some aspects of the characters can be pure fluff. Again, because of the unique nature of RPGs, it is hard to think of an example with no exceptions. But let's say your character wears a purple cape because he likes the color, or has a big nose - this is pure fluff. Likewise, the fact that your sword is curved and not straight is pure fluff in most games.
Likewise, some settings details are pure fluff. In a Gothic world, the moon might be blood red, but if this doesn't affect the mechanics, it is pure flavor.
- Role-playing: or, more accurately, "pure role-playing"; when the players are playing their characters with no reference to the mechanics. For example, if they are talking to an informant that is already willing to help, no dice roll.
- Game: the interaction between the crunch and the fluff. For example, the player says "I rolled a 17", and the GM answers "you hit the goblin, it dies screaming in pain".
- Emerging narrative / experience: Emerging narrative is what happens to the characters during play(i.e., their backgrounds- whatever happened to them before the game begins - is not part of it). Experience is what happens to the players during play (we should probably include the GM too).
I put both in the same circle because this is what we understand as RPGs: players experience waht their characters go through, in a way. Of course, the fact that a player is hungry can affect her experience, but this is irrelevant to the act of playing an RPG.
Notice that "raw crunch" does not affect this circle directly. The crunch only comes into play in interaction with the fluff. In RPGs, there is no rolling dice just for the sake of it. All those annoying +1 and +2 bonuses included in the rules aren't necessarily annoying because they exist, but because you must use them during play.
This is also why people say things like "if the result isn't interesting, don't roll". For example, say the PC wants to pick a lock. She fails, than tries again, and again, until she succeeds (if there is no rule in place to prevent this). She rolled four times with no effect in the fluff - "the door is now open".
While the crunch isn't in contact with the fluff, the game feels to be "on hold", which detracts from the experience.
"Useless crunch" and "useless fluff" deserve a post of its own.
This yellow circle includes both the "role-playing" bit and the "game" bit. Although I had some difficulty to represent this visually, the entire intersection between fluff and crunch is part of the game.
There might be some corner cases, say, when a GM is rolling on a random table to create a dungeon room. But this isn't part of the role-playing game (nobody is playing a role here), just a tool for the game (usually employed before the game, in preparation).
- Theme: theme is "what your RPG does". It encompasses everything. For example, my preferred theme is dark fantasy, which is why I use "dangerous magic" rules, but also why my NPCs are often morally grey. Preferably, all the rules and all the fluff should fit the theme. Ultimately, the player's experience will reflect the chosen theme.
(It might be possible to play a fun game without adhering to a single theme; but this is a different subject).
We didn't talk about components much. The components can fit the theme - a"grim" character sheet, or using cards instead of dice in a Victorian setting - but this is highly optional, not an integral part of RPGs.
The exact components are not as relevant to RPGs except as parts of the "crunch", which would encompass both the mechanics and the components. One player could use an app to count HP, while other uses a pen, and the third uses counters, and it wouldn't matter.
Anyway, this is a complex subject, and I would appreciate any feedback.
Further reading:
* The League of game makers stuff is very interesting:
http://www.leagueofgamemakers.com/theme-vs-mechanics-the-false-dichotomy/
http://www.leagueofgamemakers.com/mechanics-are-more-important-than-theme/
* The Disorietned Ranger also has interesting stuff on the subject, from another angle:
https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2019/01/lets-talk-setting-and-genre-folks.html
https://the-disoriented-ranger.blogspot.com/2017/09/rules-are-compromise-you-agree-upon.html
"I often feel that board games are light-years ahead of RPGs as far as game design is concerned." That's putting it mildly. I think it's because generally theme sells the RPG, not the mechanics -- brand recognition and thematic artwork moves the product. Mechanics are obscure, except for the systems that power market leaders: "D20", "Storyteller", etc. Middle Earth products are maybe the best example of this -- huge thematic recognition, but clunky/obscure systems (CODA & whatever TOR runs on). Even 5E with unprecedented levels of testing has horribly obscure DM-facing rules -- they should have taken a page from Moldvay.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I preferred to put it mildly to avoid bashing my own hobby, but you're right - as the quote above says, in BG the "mechanics ARE the game", while in RPGs the fluff takes some precedence (which is no excuse for bad mechanics, of course).
Delete"They should have taken a page from Moldvay" is usually a good advice for RPGs no matter the subject! ;)
I remember the expectation (at least in my local area) when AD&D was coming out that it would update the system drawing on classless and XP free systems like Runequest and Traveller. But instead it was just more of the same without any innovation at all. At that point I stopped playing D&D for more than 40 years.
ReplyDeleteWell, D&D is a bit stagnant, yes, and it clings too hard to its origins; Runequest itself also didn't change much (which the exception of Heroquest by Robin Laws, I think).
DeleteI think nothing beats playing multiple RPGs and seeing what you like best.
Great article. I think one of the reasons RPGs have progressed so slowly compared to board and video games is precisely the disregard for components. The physical space is powerful, and ignoring it creates a void. It's a mistake to think RPGs are an exception.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Well, I am not sure. I think components are important, but nobody quite nailed it in RPG-land. I would hardly ever buy an expensive RPG full of components, but I would buy some "additional" components to go with an adventure, etc. That is probably a good idea for a future post...
DeleteI don't mean it even as buying extra things. The physical space is so much more important to the experience than average RPGs give credit to it. It's getting better, but it's a slow process. What is the user interface for the game? How are players supposed to reference rules? What does the character sheet look like?
DeleteExplicit procedures for interacting with physical space goes a long way. For example, I know that player map-making isn't popular, but it's a powerful feature of play. It tells the player how to interact with a component in a very tangible way. The physical space is the tangible stuff to interact with, and ignoring tangible stuff is why games get so nebulous, leading players to search for "how do I even play?" advice.
Compared to video/board games again, both have a major progression over time with their presentation. How does the designer show what the game does, and how does the player actually experience the result? UIs, tutorials, limiting exposition delivery, and clear feedback on decision-making have all gotten way better.
I think RPG designers are afraid to limit their players by explicitly laying out how the physical space should be set up for optimal play, but it's a misguided fear. Limitations are not bad for gaming, they are good.
Ah, yes, I think I can see were you're coming from. Yes, I agree - the physical space is important and very often neglected in RPGs. RPGs often treat the hobby as if it happened entirely inside our collective heads, with little regard to things such as how the dice function on the table, how to use random tables during play, how a character sheet or stat-block should be organized, in which order the decisions are made, etc.
DeleteOne example: I've been running Curse Of Strahd and it is obvious to me that a deck of items or a deck of encounters would be useful. Instead, the game has a customized "tarokka deck" that is used a little more than once PER CAMPAIGN. Likewise, the maps are internally consistent, but very hard to navigate on the table, and they look good, but they do not look clear. Same thing for chapters, NPCs, etc. Awesome in "fluff land", but hard to use on the table.