#29: Status Quo at the Setting Level

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/roughquests/roughquests29.phtml

Summary:

Measuring changes in a character's status quo.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/roughquests/roughquests29.phtml) for more information.

[Seroster]

That was all about setting?

It seemed like an introduction of a column about setting combined with the rest of the column about game mechanics. How is the character's physical state part of the setting?

[smascrns]

Yes, it was all about setting. To understand it I'll start with your last question, "How is the character's physical state part of the setting?"

By setting I mean the game world, the place where gaming happens, the people present there, the things, the events, etc. I mean this not only in a static sense (the game world as it is at a certain point in time) but also in a dynamic sense (the changes that happen in time) - remember, I'm discussing status quo and the changes to it. The characters are part of the game world, so they are part of the setting. Their physical state is thus part of the setting. In my view there is not separation between characters and setting, the former are part of the latter.

Now, was the discussion about setting or about mechanics? For this question to make sense we must assume that there is a difference between the two. The setting is something we can describe. The events that take place in the setting are things we can narrate. We don't need a game to do this: we can write fiction about the setting, we can draw it, we can even produce music that allows us to experience it. What is specific about rpgs is that they turn our experience of the setting into a game where we impersonate people (or in some cases other entities) present in the setting. Through them we become part of the setting, we live in it. For this to happen we need a way to provide structure to the game, we need rules and mechanics*. But rules and mechanics are there for something more than this. They are there not only for the purpose of facilitating the way we handle the setting. Their other function is to ensure that we, real world persons, have an enjoyable and fun experience in the real world. That's why rpgs are games. In general games don't require settings (they can be 'abstract') but rpgs do, they are like coins, they have two faces and one cannot go without the other. Still, we can identify what in a rpg pertains to the setting and what has to do with the system.

What I write about in the present column concerns the setting. I could use all these concepts to make decisions on how to write a piece of fiction or how to study an historical event (whether the piece of fiction or the historical study would be any good is another question) instead of designing a rpg. The only moment where I introduced system considerations was in the RQ example, but I focused on the way they allow this game to handle the setting instead of thinking about the way they are used for gaming. It seems you didn't read it that way, though. Why did you think it was about system and mechanics?

Keep in mind that most of what I present in the column are specific and narrow exampes, not broad views of how to handle a setting. After all, a setting is a collection of minute details and their interrelations. Like the real world.

The concepts I framed, on the other hand, are those that for me are more helpful to handle the setting from a rpg design point of view. Next column I'll focus on status quo at the system level and its interplay with the status quo at the setting level. Thanks for the feedback.

* I'll return to this issue in a future column so I'll not be more specific about it at this stage.

[Tony Irwin]

Hi Sergio,

Just wanted to say that I particularly enjoyed this week's column. The list of different types of change you put forward seems really insightful. I think it's something I can apply to a particular type of game I'm working on, but more in the vein of "the types of change that PCs can effect in the game world setting" rather than the types of change players can enjoy in their own characters' lives.

Good stuff

Thanks,

Tony

[smascrns]

Hello Tony, I'm glad the column is helpful to your design. I use the list to most any type of status, not only for personal physical status. It can be about social position, about wealth, etc.

What you say about the changes the PC can effect in the world is very true. After all, the PC wants to protect himself from, say, negative qualitative changes to his social status (being turned into an outcast or a slave, for instance) but he may also try to change the status of NPCs or other PCs (that's whant happens when your fighter wants to kill his adversary).

Yet, it seems to me that you are looking at something bigger. Not changes at the personal, micro-level, instead I got this feeling that you are looking at macro changes to the game world as a whole. An example would be to put an end to the prevailing 'Raign of Terror'. Is that so?

[Tony Irwin]

Yet, it seems to me that you are looking at something bigger. Not changes at the personal, micro-level, instead I got this feeling that you are looking at macro changes to the game world as a whole. An example would be to put an end to the prevailing 'Reign of Terror'. Is that so?

Hi Sergio, yeah that's exactly it, and that's a really nice example you use. I'm looking at different ways for the players to express their intentions in bringing about change to the gameworld through conflict. Using your list we could get stuff like this:

Narrow vs Broad change
Personally remove the dictator from power vs start a grass roots revolt against her

Short term vs Long term
Force the dictator out of the palace vs exile her for ten years

Reversible vs Permanent
Imprison the dictator vs execute her

Quantative vs Qualitative change
Weaken the dictator's power vs find a situation in which you and the dictator are allies

For this particular game I'm starting with the idea that players have an aesthetic need to see how the game world changes in response to their characters' actions. (and also see how their characters change in response to living in the game world).

I think defining different spectrums of change in the way you have will help to create a believable and compelling world for certain types of players.

One very simple approach (which quickly illustrates the way I'm thinking about this) is that the player rolls 4 dice. For each success the player defines one aspect of change - for each fail the GM defines one. So with 3 successes I'd get to define the impact my character's actions have on the world using three of those spectrums/scales, but then the GM gets a chance to qualify the result with (say) deciding whether the change is going to be reversible/permanent.

It seems like an easy way to get to the world to respond in a complex way to the PCs' actions, without having to start assigning numbers to everything in the world.

Anyway, I put a lot of thought into this a while back but got really stuck when it came to thinking about the different ways the world can change around us. Your list has really inspired me. Thanks!

[GoodGame]

Nice article, and nice analysis.
I had to read it twice myself to get that it wasn't just about Personal Status Quo interactions with the Setting; I was about to write you should rename the title. Some examples of other than Personal Status quo changes, and maybe more a transistion between sections and listing would make it easier to follow in one read.

I like how you show the setting, in the general sense affects the players, even though we term that the game system rules, it's actually that the rules are where the setting is 'hard-balled' at the players---like the idea that critical wounds will cause lameness well after the fight, unlike old school D&D where full recovery from 1 HP is considered the rule. The difference in rules systems is not just about an arguement of realism vs. playability, but also an arguement about the 'setting'.


Under Status Quo domains, definitely include the Environment, as well as the Politics. Social status quo as stated in the article seems mainly the Player's status quo interactions with the Setting. Politics and Environment will describe the setting's status quo that exist independent (or minimally affected) by the players actions. My first thought was this article would tackle making the independent setting aspects appear to be dynamic, even when they're really static Status quo backdrop.

My thought on how the independent aspects could be described was to set up a mean, around which things like the environment and politics vary randomally, but within statistical limits (e.g. having a pile of dice roll stats to generate the specific dynamic state of Politics in the village on a given day, but knowing that on average, they'll be static). The point being so things are persistent in the world, but not guaranteed to be perfectly the same, without requiring the GM do any serious plotting or scripting. And obviously the point wouldn't be to eclipse the roleplaying by focusing on sim-ing the world ( though a computer-aid could do a thorough job without burdening the GM).

[smascrns]

I'm looking at different ways for the players to express their intentions in bringing about change to the gameworld through conflict. Using your list we could get stuff like this: (skip examples)
A nice thing about your list of examples is that it blends nicely the micro level (the action is on the dictator) with the macro level (the changes that come about by targeting the dictator). This is quite good because roleplaying happens at the micro level, after all, but it can have macro level consequences. An excellent drama example of this is, of course, Romeo and Juliet (I suppose I don't need to explain why).

One very simple approach (which quickly illustrates the way I'm thinking about this) is that the player rolls 4 dice. For each success the player defines one aspect of change - for each fail the GM defines one. So with 3 successes I'd get to define the impact my character's actions have on the world using three of those spectrums/scales, but then the GM gets a chance to qualify the result with (say) deciding whether the change is going to be reversible/permanent.
I'm not certain I understood this well. Can you provide a more detailed example?

[smascrns]

Nice article, and nice analysis.
Thanks, I'm glad it's useful.

I had to read it twice myself to get that it wasn't just about Personal Status Quo interactions with the Setting; I was about to write you should rename the title. Some examples of other than Personal Status quo changes, and maybe more a transistion between sections and listing would make it easier to follow in one read.
Good suggestions. Please keep in mind that I have a very limited time to write my column so it usually is not as well presented as it should be.

I like how you show the setting, in the general sense affects the players, even though we term that the game system rules, it's actually that the rules are where the setting is 'hard-balled' at the players---like the idea that critical wounds will cause lameness well after the fight, unlike old school D&D where full recovery from 1 HP is considered the rule.
I'll get back at this in a future column. The reason is that there are different aspects into a game and the game design may focus on some. Thus in a setting/game like D&D it may make sense to have full recovery while in another setting/game that would be just plain wrong.

The difference in rules systems is not just about an arguement of realism vs. playability, but also an arguement about the 'setting'.
Exactly. In fact, 'realism' makes sense as long as the setting is 'realist', otherwise it is just distracting (like having detailed weapon stats in a game inspired by your tipical action movie).

Under Status Quo domains, definitely include the Environment, as well as the Politics. Social status quo as stated in the article seems mainly the Player's status quo interactions with the Setting.
Well, what I ment was that detailed Status Quo descriptions for things that are not going to be played out may be interesting but don't contribute to the game. From the game's perspective what is relevant is the things that impact the PCs, directly or indirectly. That's why I focuzed on the PCs. Needless to say, they are part of the whole so the great issues must be painted at least in wide strokes. (Notice that I refer to the PCs instead of the players because it's the PCs that are in the setting; of course, the implict assumption is the players define what the PCs do.)

Politics and Environment will describe the setting's status quo that exist independent (or minimally affected) by the players actions.
Yes, the PCs may not be able to impact these dimensions of the setting but their action may be heavily influenced by it, so it is relevant to describe politics, environment, economy, etc.

My first thought was this article would tackle making the independent setting aspects appear to be dynamic, even when they're really static Status quo backdrop.
Well, this depends on the setting/game. In some settings the players are able to change things a lot (see my comments on Tony's examples), while in other settings everythings happens at the micro level. My take is that even when the PCs actions can influence the macro level this should be done at the micro level through their interactions with key/important people because... it's a rolplaying game, not a board game.

My thought on how the independent aspects could be described was to set up a mean, around which things like the environment and politics vary randomally, but within statistical limits (e.g. having a pile of dice roll stats to generate the specific dynamic state of Politics in the village on a given day, but knowing that on average, they'll be static). The point being so things are persistent in the world, but not guaranteed to be perfectly the same, without requiring the GM do any serious plotting or scripting. And obviously the point wouldn't be to eclipse the roleplaying by focusing on sim-ing the world ( though a computer-aid could do a thorough job without burdening the GM).
I see better where you are going. Yes, this kind of tools are nice. Another way of looking at it is to consider how macro things change and work from there. Here are some ideas:

Cataclistic, fast change vs. incremental, slow change. Economists and historians speak about conjunctures and structures, and these are useful concepts for us as well.

Cataclistic changes can be due to nature (huge catastrofes like a major tsunami, hurricane, etc.) or happen at a personal level (the unexpected death or killing of a major leader). The GM can have a list (some 10 or 20 are enough) of these that are consistent with his game world, maybe even in reference cards. These should not happen all days so he should have them happening every 2d6 years (game world years, I mean). When they happen, he just picks a reference card or makes a table and rolls on it. He may even have different levels of magnitude (a local level earthquake), with lower levels happening more often (say, on a roll of 1d6 years) and higher levels of magnitude (a regional level earthquake) happening less often (say, on a roll of 3d10+10).

Incremental changes take time to lead to a qualitative change to the setting. Once more, smaller changes happen at the conjunctural time-scale (say, 2d4 years) while "structural" changes may take decades.

The bottom line is that the GM should consider a narrow set of macro changes that may happen from among those that are more fit to drive into gaming situations; he should consider different levels of magnitude for those changes; and pace them accordingly, in such terms that they don't happen every game session or the players will get tired of it fast. Furthermore the GM must decide how the actions of the players may impact the macro level. So-called 'greater than life', 'heroic' games are the ones where the players are supposed to influence extensively the macro level but, in this case, that impact should be the result of the campaign, not something that will happen every game session. At least from my POV.