How do games play?

[kylesgames]

[Onix]

I've been looking at the principles you mention but from a different angle. I think that in principle they at least partly describe why more people don't play RPGs.

Are you asking if it's better to hide the mechanics from players to make them take more risks? That might work the first time but they'll quickly hit a level of risk that is too painful and ratchet it down to a safer level.

A good example of this is a video game. Players don't really know the mechanics underlying the game but after a few errors, they figure out what kinds of action get them killed and avoid them.

[Rob Lang]

Awesome post/discussion.

When designing a game (or campaign), you must know what your goals are. If you and your players desire a certain style of play then the system must be able to support it. It sounds like a combination of your campaign and system does not support the way you want it to be played.

Shadowrun is lethal. This is echoed in other modern/sci fi settings because a grunt can be armed with a powerful rifle. How does Shadowrun mitigate its lethality? Does it have crazy-fast health regeneration or limb growing? Does it use magic to dial it back? Whatever the mitigation is, you need to make sure the players know that's a mechanic they can use and make it available. Then running into battle will be more of an option.

The other thing that jumps to mind is rewarding for the kind of play you expect. Players might find smug comfort in attaining profit without risk but beyond cash, what reward did you give in terms of XP? If they chickened out, then they get no XP for courage and doing something interesting but instead get a much smaller batch of XP for the idea of going for the gold.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[kylesgames]

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

That is a great list of XP criteria. I'll need to borrow at least some of those.

Perhaps what they need is a different sort of challenge. If sneaking in is old hat, combat unexciting and non-lethal, and explosives have lost their luster - then try something else. Perhaps a more intellectual challenge - try to get something legally - or something off the wall. Watch the movie "Hudson Hawk" for a good adventure to attempt. Or Blues Brothers. ("I hate Illinois Roach Spirits...")

On Skotos.net there is a series of articles called "". It details thoughts on designing games, as well as a number of entries about using John Nash game theory/economics in game design (Tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma, free rider problem, etc.).

A big part of what makes games interesting, is the type of challenge and reward. To be happy, people want their skills challenged in interesting ways, and good proof that what they're doing has meaning. School is boring because we don't really see a payoff until years down the line, while games are great because its a strange challenge and results come quickly.

Could the players be bored of their characters? It is possible for a PC to be too hyper-competent and the challenge gone. I wouldn't want to be one of those rent-a-cops trying to stop a bunch of runners, but perhaps a lower level game would break the mold. Otherwise, try to think bigger - what would be a real stretch for characters like these?

Or perhaps the location - I'm not sure what happened to Hawaii in Shadowrun, but that could big a big paradigm shift. Tropical climate means it is too warm to wear armor all the time or coats long enough to conceal weapons. That alone changes the game, before you consider hacker hide-outs in undersea caves, or sneaking onto a cruise ship, mingling, and getting off with the safe.

[Evil Scientist]

[kylesgames]

[Onix]

[kylesgames]