Role Games Analysis: Analysis of Doungeons & Dragons and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen
The following analysis was done originally as an assignment for the Introduction to Game Research course at University of Gothenburg, first section fall 2019.
Role Games Analysis: Analysis of Doungeons & Dragons and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen
Likewise, EABMH has the "tell a story" mechanic which shows a social engagement dynamic in which other players can challenge/questioning to increase detail on a player’s story. Also, the main goal is to tell a good and fantastic story.
Mixing Desk Faders’ possition
The mixing desk is a technique to teach how to design LARPS by means of faders
which cover the design options that could be implemented on games. These faders are 13
with two ends each to express its design function, that covers a design topic respectively but
the thirteenth is personal by the designer to communicate the experience of its game
(Stenros, Andresen Eckhoff, Nielsen, n.d.).
Therefore, I have decided to compare the position of the faders for the two games
(D&D and EVMH), these positions have been proposed by me after having had experience
with both:
(D&D and EVMH), these positions have been proposed by me after having had experience
with both:
The first fader to analyze is openness which has different positions for the two games.
The openness of D&D is in a perfect balance between transparency and secrecy, as GM has
hide the information and reveals it according to how the players advance in the proposed
world, and also because of the fact that the players know, at the beginning of the game, the
roles of each of their playmates and they can even get to know the special skills of each
species and type of role they could play since there is extensive material on the internet or
that the GM provides at the start of each game.
But openness in EVMH is in the secrecy end because players oversee story creation and narrative, so everything that happens in the story is due to ingenuity of the players’ questions.
In the case of the runtime direction fader, the two games have the opposite positions
of each other. For D&D the fader is in the active end position because the GM has continuous
interaction with the players, as it is a kind of interface (class), but in the case of EAVMH the
experience of runtime direction is completely passive, since there is no controller figure
(game master) and by its mechanics telling a story the players are completely on their own.
The representation of the theme fader is in the middle, between actions and stories,
for D&D and completely in actions for FABMH.
Then in D&D the actions of the players help to continue with the story that the GM would have proposed, however it is possible that the players make decisions that go against what the GM may propose, for example in a D&D broadcast the players spent approximately 40 minutes trying to solve a nonexistent mission within GM's plans which caused the adventure to derail from the GM's proposal (OutsideXtra, n.d.), so for these types of cases one could say that D&D has a tendency towards actions for the fader in question. On the other hand, EAVMH is a game that must be played with the ingenuity of its participants rather than the story because its mechanics of telling a story and challenging the story are characteristic of each of the players therefore the fader positioned it completely in actions.
I have noticed that both games have the character as mask fader totally oriented to differentiation, because people, scenarios and theme are different from players’ daily life. For example, stories that can be given in a EAVMH game must be fantastic and players must have false roles and names, in addition D&D players base their characters on what the game allows and develop in a story that a GM built or narrated, which is not persistent as the common life of players who can be engineers, students, etc. who live in a city like Gothenburg or London.
The mechanics fader for both games share the same position that would be in the middle, between “intrusive” and “discrete”. Since both games’ mechanics are intrusive when it comes to continuing the game and interacting between characters, it is clear that negotiation is key between the game master or players. For example, in D&D it is not possible to have a game session without a GM explaining the rules or telling what would happen next, in addition that players can ask questions like "What happens if I do this" or "what are the skills that could use ”, and also to request continuous player skill checks, required by GM. Also, in EAVMH you can have several interruptions to the narrative of a player because when challenging players, one must use tokens which interrupts the main stage.
In both games, the fader of player motivation is in the middle between exploration and victory. As both have a goal for players: tell a favorite story in EAVMH and finish the
quest in D&D. In addition to the fact that both games are based on telling fantastic stories, the
ability to explore the world is implicit, for example in D&D players can make decisions and
explore while a GM narrates what they could find, likewise in EAVMH players can explore a
world created by their own stories told, basically stories that can continue growing by the
ingenuity of the players.
On the other hand, the two games are completely experienced in a verbal way,
consequently the communication style fader is at the verbal end. For example, D&D needs
to describe a story by the GM and players must tell what they will do. Similarly, in EABMH,
players must communicate verbally what they are imagining for the story that they are telling.
The environment fader occupies three possible values (ends): 360 illusion, clarity
and Material Independence (Stenros, Andresen Eckhoff, Nielsen, n.d.). The two games are not designed as a LARP to be able to have complete and /or complex scenarios to experience
gameplay therefore I have decided that both must be in the middle between clarity and
independent material because they have a fantastic imaginative scenario with tokens inside a
table, therefore they need game material to continue the gaming experience.
In the case of the Loyalty to the World fader, its position is completely in Playability.
Nothing in these games is totally plausible since they are played at a table(board) and
everything depends on the gameplay of the players.
The pressure on Players, for both games, is in the position of pretense, completely.
Here the players feel challenged in an imaginary world without physical representation, in
which their condition is not challenged more than intellectually, which means actions made.
In D&D, it is measured by the grilling of a dice (luck) which does not require physical effort.
In addition, in EABMH, players are tested on their wits but not physically.
The character creation responsibility fader, in my opinion, is sole responsibility of
players, but not the organizers (like the DM in D&D) because ,both games players are totally
free to create their character. In the case of D&D the player can create his character according
to the rules of classes and roles, the DM only controls that he complies with the rules. Also,
in the EABMH players must create false names and titles for their characters, because there is
no controller as such to direct the game, this is given only by its rules.
However, for Culture Creation Responsibility fader, the D&D game needs both
organizers and players guidance, as it is designed so that an organizer acts as an interface so
that his feedback is necessary to progress in an adventure. But for EABMH the culture of the
game is fully managed by players because, as in the case of the responsibility of the character
creation, players must create their own story and interaction between their characters.
Finally, I present the thirteenth fader that I called Power of direction that would have
two extremes: One and All players.
organizers and players guidance, as it is designed so that an organizer acts as an interface so
that his feedback is necessary to progress in an adventure. But for EABMH the culture of the
game is fully managed by players because, as in the case of the responsibility of the character
creation, players must create their own story and interaction between their characters.
Finally, I present the thirteenth fader that I called Power of direction that would have
two extremes: One and All players.
With this fader I try to explain how much power of direction players can have in each game, assuming that the organizer is non-existent (that is, exempting the GM or organizer) and that, according to how the game is designed, one or all players carry the narrative. In the case of D&D, this fader is totally in the position of all players because they all contribute to the narrative of the story because the quest is done in group.
But FABMH, the fader goes in the middle between one and all, because in each turn
the player should start telling a story, so the player has full control of its development,
however several players can challenge their story with new narrative scenarios, and in this
way add elements to the story and consequently distribute the direction of control.
the player should start telling a story, so the player has full control of its development,
however several players can challenge their story with new narrative scenarios, and in this
way add elements to the story and consequently distribute the direction of control.
Social Ineracion and Sense of Achievement
In order to understand the social interaction and sense of achievement I decided to
decompose the games in operational rules, constitutive rules, and implicit rules, and also use
design patterns to describe achievement.
decompose the games in operational rules, constitutive rules, and implicit rules, and also use
design patterns to describe achievement.
In EABMH, the operational rules are that players, in a clock wise order, have to tell a
story with much detail as possible which the other players would attempt to interrupt and
challenge the other player by insinuating that its story is wrong, then the storyteller must
counter the argument so if he do that successfully he will receive a token from the challenger
player (Sundry, n.d.). Which make players to act as a character, that they design, and talk as
it while telling a story and receive social reward, from other players, in the form of coins or
tokens. The social reward is the consequence of telling a good story and overcome
challenges that other players may present. In other words, the constative rules are the social
rewards which helps players to feel a sense of achieving. Moreover, the players have a social
contract which, while playing, prohibits them to talk logical things but rather talk about more
fantastic elements to add in the story, otherwise players won’t have fun with the game.
On the other hand, the operational rules for D&D are: role a dice and add a modifier
value to the result of the dice, then apply a modifier or penalty(depending on the state of the
character), and compare the result to a target, that could be a character, an enemy or an action
that the player tries to accomplish (Dndbeyond, n.d.). Which let patters such as functional
roles and combat which make players to interact socially since the actions are expressed
verbally, for example when a player wants to attack a dragon with ranger attacks, other
players can help him by sending inspiration(which is another ability from another role).These
interaction can lead to implicit rules as negotiation in the attacks to kill a monster or mix
abilities to solve a puzzle or cross a dungeon, as an example, a wizard can help an elf to fill
its life points. However, since all movements and actions must be done with a dice, the sense
of achieving on players is done by the luck pattern, therefore each time a dice result in a high
value players could feel an achievement to advance in the quest or wining against an enemy,
which can be seen as a Gamist behavior(from the GNS scale).
Games on the GNS scale
In order to explain these games with the GNS scale I decided to use an MDA perspective, so I justify each mode with design patterns and mechanics. Further to have a gamism mode in a game it is necessary that the games in question provide a list of elements which provide for the competition (Edwards, n.d.), and both, D&D and EABM have mechanics which provide it. In D&D the core mechanic for this mode is telling what a character is going to do, since by doing this the player can achieve everything in the game, as an example when players are in the middle of a fight with an enemy, they can create an strategy to kill it by telling to the game master what they want to do, this works for
other scenarios as well such as a player who wants to have as much gold as he could or if they want to get as much potions as he could, he can always tell, what it character should do for his goal. In other words, we can say the mechanics in D&D gives a dynamic with varied gameplay that helps player to have gamism feelings.
In the case of EABM, the mechanic telling a story helps it to create a gamism mode since a player can play with the goal to create the best story and win against participants’ challenges, the generated dynamic is a combat between players and a social reward, so gamism players could collect
points and seek win over another players, which I consider a resulting aesthetics.
points and seek win over another players, which I consider a resulting aesthetics.
Yet, both games can create narrativism modes since there are elements that let players
to characterize protagonists co-auth the story, which are key to a narrativism approach of play
according to GNS (Edwards, n.d.).
I noticed that D&D have the dynamic of functional roles, because in the beginning of the game every player can customize its character so each player can have a unique roll, so they can contribute to the story with the character personality and take actions in order to continue with the story or even make it more fun(narrative aesthetic as a form of fun (Hunicke, LeBlanc, Zubek, 2004)), which I think is the reason why this game can be extended for many sessions. Likewise, in EABM telling a story and challenging the story can let players to increase the granularity of the narrative, since a social
engagement dynamic with the story appears which can let to a discovery (Hunicke, LeBlanc,
Zubek, 2004) aesthetic and therefore engage players in a narrativism mode.
engagement dynamic with the story appears which can let to a discovery (Hunicke, LeBlanc,
Zubek, 2004) aesthetic and therefore engage players in a narrativism mode.
I think a simulationist mode cannot be completely fulfilled in these games, because
they lack of exploring elements(in contrast of LARPs for example) and they are played on a
table/ board(which limits simulation foresight), however players can engage into a
simulationism by exploring the narrativism. For instance, D&D players can decide what their
characters will do based on the roles, so one can say that they can simulate their next actions
based on the character characteristics.
Also, in EABMH a player can engage into simulationism mode by the way it is narrating the story or even the external elements it can use to distinguish the character, as an example in a gameplay on Nerdcon a player uses a hand fan and changes her voice in order to personify her character (NerdCon, n.d.).
In this section I expose the differences between the social contract of Board games
(Hanabi) and fantasy role games (D&D and ABMH). In order to talk about social contract I
have resorted to notes of conversations made in class (between student and teacher) that
conclude that the social contract, when talking about games, is the set of unwritten rules,
things that players must do implicitly to be able to play a game gracefully.
D&D and EABMH are games that, according to Fine's definition, would belong to the
Fantasy Role Games category for their emphasis on having fictional scenarios. Therefore, the
social contract of these games is linked to a kind of “folie a deux” because all the
participants share a fantasy where the laws and themes of the game are involved (Fine, n.d.).
Oppositely, board games only have restrictive elements for the game, for example
barriers and frames to advance in monopoly or tiles and specific movements of the chips in
chess.
Therefore, in fantasy games, freer behavior is allowed among the behaviors of the
players. For example, according to my gameplay in D&D the social contract is shown as the
relationship and behavior of the players when interpreting their characters, such as when a
role of a player A has a Greed ideal where it must behave with greedy decisions accordingly
so that other players can experience the game according to how the DM had planned it.
Social Contract differences between RPGs and Board Games
In this section I expose the differences between the social contract of Board games
(Hanabi) and fantasy role games (D&D and ABMH). In order to talk about social contract I
have resorted to notes of conversations made in class (between student and teacher) that
conclude that the social contract, when talking about games, is the set of unwritten rules,
things that players must do implicitly to be able to play a game gracefully.
D&D and EABMH are games that, according to Fine's definition, would belong to the
Fantasy Role Games category for their emphasis on having fictional scenarios. Therefore, the
social contract of these games is linked to a kind of “folie a deux” because all the
participants share a fantasy where the laws and themes of the game are involved (Fine, n.d.).
Oppositely, board games only have restrictive elements for the game, for example
barriers and frames to advance in monopoly or tiles and specific movements of the chips in
chess.
Therefore, in fantasy games, freer behavior is allowed among the behaviors of the
players. For example, according to my gameplay in D&D the social contract is shown as the
relationship and behavior of the players when interpreting their characters, such as when a
role of a player A has a Greed ideal where it must behave with greedy decisions accordingly
so that other players can experience the game according to how the DM had planned it.
Another example, by EABMH, may be the fact that players tell fantastic stories, which consequently means that no one should reduce the level of fantasy in the narrative when it comes to challenging or if the world and the narrative would not fall apart. With these examples the social contract is focused on allowing the construction of the fantastic world and not destroying it.
In the case of board games (Hanabi), the social contract would be given by the way it is played, that is following the rules but at the same time negotiating by each player, which are more rigid than a fantasy game. As an example, a player A who has a lot of experience with the game and another player B who is relatively new playing that game. The social contract in between would be: A to let B to ask questions of the rules which can break certain rules of the game such as giving clues with more details than the game allows. So, the social contract is, in the board games, focused on negotiation the rules.
In conclusion, based on experience and examples I can conclude that board games have a social contract based on rules and fantasy games have their social contract based on
the game's narrative.
References
Björk, Lundgren, Holopainen. (2003). Game Design Patterns. Proceedings of the 2003
DiGRA International Conference: Level Up, 2. Retrieved from DiGRA:
http://www.digra.org/digital-library/publications/game-design-patterns/
Dndbeyond. (n.d.). DnD Essentials: UNLEASH YOUR IMAGINATION. Retrieved from
Dndbeyond: https://dndbeyond.com/essentials
Edwards. (n.d.). GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory. Retrieved from The Forge:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
Fine. (n.d.). Fantasy Games and Social Worlds; Simulation as Leisure. Simulation & Games.
Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/104687818101200301
Gameplay Design Patterns. (n.d.). Retrieved from Category:Patterns:
http://virt10.itu.chalmers.se/index.php?title=Category:Patterns&pageuntil=First-Person+Views#mw-pages
Hunicke, LeBlanc, Zubek. (2004). MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game
Research. Retrieved from CiteSeerX:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.79.4561
NerdCon. (n.d.). Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen - Pt 1 - Mary Robinette
Kowal. Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tPW2ORbbiI
OutsideXtra. (n.d.). 7 Ways D&D Players Destroy Their DM's Plans. Retrieved from
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuTWiKyJ6sI&t=448s
Stenros, Andresen Eckhoff, Nielsen. (n.d.). The Mixing Desk of Larp: History and Current
State of a Design Theory. Retrieved from Analog Game Studies:
http://analoggamestudies.org/2016/11/the-mixing-desk-of-larp-history-and-current-state-of-a-design-theory/
Sundry, G. &. (n.d.). FABRICATE YOUR VICTORY WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY
ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN. Retrieved from Geek & Sundry:
https://geekandsundry.com/fabricate-your-victory-with-the-extraordinary-adventures-of-baron-munchausen/
Comments
Post a Comment