Hi Monte, I really enjoyed this article. I am a games designer/world builder who (as with everything I do) came into the business by accident and have been figuring it out ever since. Now with two Kickstarters funded, I am still asking that question ‘so what do I and how does it work?’ I have long accepted that quasi perma-bafflement is a healthy thing, but reading from much more experienced creators is a pleasure and helps answer many questions.
I enjoyed this very much. It's wonderful to have a space like this to discuss. It's also interesting how we have reached similar conclusions in our tabletop learning games, even though we have been designing for the corporate sector. Our player classification is extremely similar, but we place them in different levels, we are biased towards Story, which would be the 4th and highest level. This is followed by Accomplishment (3rd), Mechanics (2nd), and a 1st level that is motivated merely by socialization. These levels are set in terms of the player's contribution to group entertainment.
It's possible to slice "how do gamers approach gaming?" many different ways, and there's no single right answer.
This 3-way slicing looks useful, but IMO misses one pretty big / common motivation - Other Players. Folks motivated by interaction / roleplaying (different than story!); by player attention / spotlight moments; by comboing abilities with other PCs; for whom the "curse of silence + need to communicate" scenario prompts focus on the thrill of interesting-and-different engagement with another player at the table - not success or failure, not the story or narrative, not the mechanics, but the *interaction* in that moment.
This isn't just the purview of casual/"social" gamers - it's a motivation which can be found in many different gamer "types".
I've missed seeing you and hearing your insights at conventions. It's so great to be able to peek into your thoughts on games.
This is something I think about a lot as I've played with a lot of GMs and try to parse what I enjoy or dislike about how they run things. But when it comes down to game design, it seems like some games don't put enough emphasis on what they want to encourage people to do. I like your team's games because they build those things right into the system. But I've still seen some of your games run into the ground because GMs either ignore or don't understand the mechanics are supposed to inform the play. How much more verbose can you be in your instructions to drive the point home? Or do you just accept that some people aren't going to get it "right?"
Gygax sort of infamously took a "my way or the highway" sort of approach to playing AD&D when it launched. And while I can understand why he did that, it's an important lesson to learn as a designer: your way isn't the "right" way. It might be the (subjectively or objectively) the optimal way, or the intended way, but everyone's got to play the game they want. You can't approach Apples to Apples the same way you approach a game of chess, and you can't approach Fate the way you approach D&D. I, too, have seen people playing a game of X but doing it as they would play game Y, and their experience with X is terrible. But other than making Y's approach as compelling (or more compelling) than X's approach, there's not a lot you can do as a designer to get people to use your material in a particular way. RPG designers, ultimately create toolboxes and lumber. GMs and players take that and make a house.
In my old 2e games Accomplishment was what my players enjoyed the most. I would say with the rise of Critical Role and the broader artful community that Story has taken over for the masses, where people want to perform, amuse, enjoy interacting with their friends, more than "winning".
Hi Monte, I really enjoyed this article. I am a games designer/world builder who (as with everything I do) came into the business by accident and have been figuring it out ever since. Now with two Kickstarters funded, I am still asking that question ‘so what do I and how does it work?’ I have long accepted that quasi perma-bafflement is a healthy thing, but reading from much more experienced creators is a pleasure and helps answer many questions.
I enjoyed this very much. It's wonderful to have a space like this to discuss. It's also interesting how we have reached similar conclusions in our tabletop learning games, even though we have been designing for the corporate sector. Our player classification is extremely similar, but we place them in different levels, we are biased towards Story, which would be the 4th and highest level. This is followed by Accomplishment (3rd), Mechanics (2nd), and a 1st level that is motivated merely by socialization. These levels are set in terms of the player's contribution to group entertainment.
It's possible to slice "how do gamers approach gaming?" many different ways, and there's no single right answer.
This 3-way slicing looks useful, but IMO misses one pretty big / common motivation - Other Players. Folks motivated by interaction / roleplaying (different than story!); by player attention / spotlight moments; by comboing abilities with other PCs; for whom the "curse of silence + need to communicate" scenario prompts focus on the thrill of interesting-and-different engagement with another player at the table - not success or failure, not the story or narrative, not the mechanics, but the *interaction* in that moment.
This isn't just the purview of casual/"social" gamers - it's a motivation which can be found in many different gamer "types".
I've missed seeing you and hearing your insights at conventions. It's so great to be able to peek into your thoughts on games.
This is something I think about a lot as I've played with a lot of GMs and try to parse what I enjoy or dislike about how they run things. But when it comes down to game design, it seems like some games don't put enough emphasis on what they want to encourage people to do. I like your team's games because they build those things right into the system. But I've still seen some of your games run into the ground because GMs either ignore or don't understand the mechanics are supposed to inform the play. How much more verbose can you be in your instructions to drive the point home? Or do you just accept that some people aren't going to get it "right?"
Gygax sort of infamously took a "my way or the highway" sort of approach to playing AD&D when it launched. And while I can understand why he did that, it's an important lesson to learn as a designer: your way isn't the "right" way. It might be the (subjectively or objectively) the optimal way, or the intended way, but everyone's got to play the game they want. You can't approach Apples to Apples the same way you approach a game of chess, and you can't approach Fate the way you approach D&D. I, too, have seen people playing a game of X but doing it as they would play game Y, and their experience with X is terrible. But other than making Y's approach as compelling (or more compelling) than X's approach, there's not a lot you can do as a designer to get people to use your material in a particular way. RPG designers, ultimately create toolboxes and lumber. GMs and players take that and make a house.
In my old 2e games Accomplishment was what my players enjoyed the most. I would say with the rise of Critical Role and the broader artful community that Story has taken over for the masses, where people want to perform, amuse, enjoy interacting with their friends, more than "winning".
For me its exploration. The sensation of something undiscovered, is it Mechanics, Story or to what the Actions of my Player lead
This is so good Monte! Thank you so much for sharing, looking forward to the next entry.