Last month, I discussed the basics of designing an ur-game, a tool for analyzing RPGs based on modeling the players. I also described a collection of ur-games based on a theory of groups of players developed at the Forge, called the creative agendas. These tools were based on exploiting the roleplaying skills of the designer, so as to enter into the roles of player groups using different shared aesthetics.
The need to use roleplaying directly comes from the fact that most RPGs are designed from the perspective of a single player, not the group as a whole. Thus to use creative agendas this way we need to dip into immersion, paradoxically an approach to play that isn't well handled by creative agendas. (Immersion is personal, while creative agendas are shared.) On the other hand, with most RPGs, including Homeworld Project (my example), design focuses on the decisions of single players, and so theories of those individual players can be used much more flexibly. One such theory is Moyra Turkington's socket theory.
Locking In
Socket theory consists of three reasons for players to make decisions during play: sockets - the locus of enjoyment, goals - what is worked towards, and payoffs - what rewards the player. The later two of these are fairly common ideas, which can help build an ur-game. The first step, in this case is to make the goals and payoffs quantitative. This is how we construct an idealized player. For example, if we define a player has having a sole goal of maximizing of their grains (abilities in homeworld project) we can then build other players with similar or different goals (extending as far as the GM as well), and estimate the probability of success for a near-optimal strategy using Game Theory.
A similar approach is to assign each payoff some numerical value, such as +1 for an increase in a grain, +4 for bringing a turning point (causing a new chapter to start with benefits to that player). In that case as well, Game Theory tools to analyze the situation, by looking at the steady state of the players and their game. The important thing to realize is that since payoffs are periodic, it is the rate of payoff that matters, more than a final total.
Sockets, perhaps the most interesting part of this theory of players, also continually reinforce a player's decisions. Specifically, a player will focus on one, or possible several sockets, such as character socket, story socket, system socket, or social socket. Satisfying a socket isn't something that is simply achieved, it is a recurring aspect of play. To make an ur-game that describes a socketted player, we must define what states in play are within the socket, and which are independent of it.
The simulated player will try to maximize the availability of their chosen sockets. With multiple sockets, the player would have a priority, perhaps desiring character socket and social socket equally, or perhaps focusing on the social socket, but desiring the character socket about half as much. To keep things simpler, I'll consider two sockets - character and story.
Character Socket - Character socket is fulfilled in two situations within Homeworld Project: character actions and character consequences, and since the consequences only stem from the actions, we can focus on just the character actions. The player behaviors that can encourage one's own character means choosing to take those actions for that character, rather than using manifests. However a single character can be stuck with a falling die, requiring either spending and reducing grains (a self-limiting process) or risking consequences and hence character removal. This limits the portion of actions which can be taken by a single character, needing other players or their own manifests to pick up the slack. Thus a group of character sockets would likely find Homeworld Project unsatisfying, but a few in a mix of socketting players may work well.
Story Socket - A story socket focuses on influencing the story, these states are best supported by story influence: setting up actions, describing consequences (i.e. winning actions), introducing manifests, and (for the GM) describing the turning points at the end of chapters. Fortunately, the dynamics of Homeworld Project encourage creating manifests when actions are being lost, and likewise the making of actions when they are likely to be won. On the whole, this means a story socketted player will rarely be in a situation where they lack choices as to how to influence the story. This suggests story socketted players will derive more satisfaction from Homeworld Project.
On the face this looks similar to the sort of analysis with Creative Agendas. One difference is these sockets belong to players. So now we can make predictions about how Homeworld Project would work with one story socket player, two character socket players, and a story socket GM. This opens up the design space of how different interests and styles can make the game better, rather than driving it apart. Another difference is that this analysis can be done more quantitatively, specifically, the portion of time spent "in socket" can be estimated and then the maximum can be figured by searching for optimal or near-optimal strategies.
Changing Perspective
Sockets and views are very similar ideas. In each case, the player is focused on an activity, rather than a definite outcome. But where sockets are broader, views can be very precise. And part of that precision includes how views can change during play. Studying those changes in perspective can help deal with a major problem in game design: going from the initial perspectives of the players to a steady running consensus of what the game is about.
Views are what a player is paying attention to during play, and what they are engaged by in the process of play. Views change by adjacency, when a near by view is better satisfied, a player will typically adjust and change their view. But if that view is surrounded by less satisfactory views, then that player has no where to adjust to. Only drastic measures can resolve that problem.
So, while sockets look at what a player can enjoy while playing, views can suggest what perspectives can adjust to those better satisfied views. For a simple example, consider the transition from views of a player's character to views of that player's cast (character, any ships, and any typical manifests). Looking back at the socket model, it is analogous to encouraging a shift from character socket to story socket (or more reasonably an ensemble socket - more like how a GM traditionally manages a group of characters).
We start with the character focused view, and consider the space nearby that view. Since it is focused on characters, one of the adjacent views is that of characters directly related to the player's character - relatives, sidekicks, enemies, and so on. While a GM may manifest these, if a player wants aid or assistance from them, they are compelled to put aside their resources and bring these additional characters into play. As described in sockets, this view gives more flexibility and more ability to control the satisfaction of play with those characters.
Starting characters will only have the ability to manifest fairly few characters, but as the story progresses this capacity almost certainly increases. Thus as manifests further afield, such as organizations, hired strangers, or new allies, are attempted, there remains resources to continue the more familiar manifests. This is expected to continue a slow migration to a more varied cast, which will become the focus of that character's view. Over the time frame of multiple sessions, a character focused player will begin to stretch their view and come to terms with the possibilities in an ensemble surrounding their character.
Building Your Own
Many tools exist to take a RPG and incorporate some concept of its players into the system, thus enabling the analysis of the game as it is played, not merely how it is written. I've only scratched the surface here. Applying game theoretic approaches or immersive roleplaying techniques are not the only ways to construct and analyze an ur-game.
For example, there is woefully little analysis of induction, the process where a RPG text becomes the game played by a group of players. It isn't hard to see how fields as different as literary analysis and classical information theory can apply to this problem. I've said a little about this here, and I'll be returning to that topic again later. But next month, look forward to something a little different.
Next Month: Maps
