|
Daniel Cook wrote about feedback loops, learning and game mechanics in his blog Lost Garden a couple of years ago (he then wrote another article about this on Gamasutra). What has stuck in my mind about these articles is what DanC describes as skill atoms. Skill atoms are things that can be learned by playing the game:
- The player interacts through the game, does something,
- the game responds to the action,
- the game provides feedback on the results
- player interprets the feedback and essentially creates a model of how the game works in similar situations.
The player learns a singular skill by looping through this sequence multiple times. This is called a skill atom. An example from DanC's article is from a Mario Bros-like platformer game.
Learning successive skill atoms usually requires the player to have mastered some of the more simple skill atoms. The example (this one too is from DanC's article) is also from a platformer.
DanC suggests improving the method of game design by designing skill chains out of these skill atoms and designing the game mechanics and levels based on those. This sounds like tremendous advice for designers of video games.
I recently got thinking that the same kind of feedback loop, only possibly more complicated, happens also in role-playing games. I got to thinking about this as I was trying to come up with an article on how to get the most of the excellent modern war role-playing game Shell Shock.
In RPGs the player interacts with the game's mechanics but also with the
fictional situation that is grounded with the players' collaboration
and other players. Someone (A-P?) might even suggest that the players
interact with each other and everything other is secondary (the rules
are first interpreted as players etc.), but that's beside the point for
now.
When learning a new RPG a player looks for possible actions and their
relation to the mechanics of the game. For instance if the game has
detailed rules for combat, the player sees that if there's a combat
situation in fiction there are specific procedures for handling that.
Where I think this gets hairy for most games is right at the start. In
most games it is not clear how the starting situation is set up. After
that is taken care of the skill atoms can be seen more readily. The
responsibilities of different player roles (GM, player, facilitator
etc.) are usually described well in the game text, as well as the
different procedures and when and how to use them in the game.
So let's look at Shell Shock for an example. Below is a list of skill
atoms I've identified in playing Shell Shock. They are categorized by
player role (player or GM). The related skill atoms are grouped together
and as a whole they form a kind of semi-timeline with the atoms that
are learned first at the beginning and more advanced ones at the end.
Character creation related skill atoms are also in their own category as
I couldn't find them a suitable place on the semi-timeline I created.
- PC = player character
- NPC = non-player character
- GM = game master
General Skill Atomsin Shell Shock
|
Player: For my PC to succeed in something that someone else is
opposing, I have to roll dice.
|
|
|
|
GM: I can drive play towards a conflict by risking something that
the player / PC cares about.
|
|
Player: My PC has more chance to triumph in conflicts using what
he/she is good at.
GM: I can up the odds by challenging the PCs were they are weak.
|
|
|
Player: I can play safe by sticking to actions where my PC is
good at.
|
|
|
Player: I can play unsafe by having my PC try something he/she
sucks at.
|
|
|
Player: I can improve my PC's chances of succeeding by spending
trauma points.
|
|
|
|
GM: I can tempt the players to use trauma points by putting a
carrot (an outcome they care about) behind an obstacle (an opposition
that is hard to overcome).
|
|
Player: When I spend my trauma points the rules govern the
guidelines of how my PC acts. But I'm still in charge of the specifics.
|
|
|
|
GM: I can use the situation in fiction and the opposition to
enforce tough choices on part of the player choosing to use trauma
points or whether to back down from conflict.
|
|
Player: If I use a trauma point and it results in something
disadvantageous to happen to my PC, that too can lead to awesome
situations.
Player: If I use many points of the same trauma, my PC will be changed
forever. The rules give the guidelines, but I'm in charge of the
details.
|
|
|
|
GM: If I can create a situation where the player must choose
between backing out on something the PC cares about, trying to overcome
the opposition with less chance to win without using trauma points or
with more chances to win with using trauma points but risking changing
the act into something my PC is fighting against, results can be
awesome.
|
|
Player: If the GM is on the top of his/her game, I will have to
use trauma points to have my PC both stick to his/her ideals and succeed
in what he/she is pursuing. And then he/she may be changed forever by
the trauma.
|
|
CharGen & related skill atoms
|
Player: What I choose as my PC's attitude towards the conflict
(fictional war we are playing) and attitude towards the army flag inform
the rest of the group what my PC is about and how to involve him/her in
fiction or make me/him care about the events in fiction.
|
|
| |
GM: I can look up PCs' attitudes, find contrasts and use those to come
up with situations that will get the PCs to interact over them (and by
interact I mean fight over, mess each other etc. in fiction).
|
| |
GM: I can use the NPC squad members in the same way, even fitting them
with extreme opinions. The contrast of them being in the same squad and
having completely different ideals and attitudes will lead to
interesting situations.
|
| |
GM: Friendships between PC and NPC squad members and PCs and NPC
civilians are also a good tool for leveraging situations.
|
This representation is of course ideal and doesn't necessarily represent
reality for many of the players of Shell Shock. That's partly because
it was originally written by me as a guide on how to play Shell Shock
and then modified as a more general representation of how our group
learned to play. A lot of things are also missing completely such as
skill atoms related to the scene structure of Shell Shock and a couple
of other stats. It would be interesting to try and create a complete
skill chain of Shell Shock with dependencies and all, but I think that
the game's author Kobayashi might be the only one qualified to do that.
So, what do you think? Could the skill chain be a good tool for
designing RPGs? Could the skill chain be a good tool for making
tutorials for RPGs? Good a descriptive skill chain like the one I've
provided be helpful in learning a new game?
|
). Some of this advice is tied to the game mechanics (create a conflict scene) most of it isn't (create an NPC, choose a conflict, what will your war be about ? Etc.). For this specific tasks skill chains don't help me much as a game designer.