The first full chapter focuses on what
they think are the three such basic characteristics of games that we often
forget to talk about them: 1. playtime, 2. number of players and 3.
"heuristics."
What they mean by heuristics are those
"rules of thumb" by which players come successfully to play the game
(not the "rules" of the game itself).
So, e.g., the rules state that a fireball
fills a 20' radius and conforms to the volume of the space in which it is cast.
A good "heuristic" for a player with a magic-user is to be aware of
the size of the space he is in before he casts one!
They give this great list of differing
and sometimes overlapping units of gameplay length (pp. 12ff):
1. atom = smallest unit of play where you
could walk away and say you had actually played the game a little
2. game = what is usually thought of as a
standard round of play (most of the time, the determination of a winner)
3. session = a single continuous period
of play (e.g., an evening of poker)
4. campaign = a series of games or
sessions linked together in some way
5. match = a series of games grouped
together to determine an over-all victor (e.g. best 2 out of 3, etc.)
They use the term "metagame" to
refer to things like trinkets, "merch," fan-talk about a game at the
water-cooler, etc. So "campaigns" usually engage a lot of
"metagame," e.g., the "season" of any given sport, etc.
They then dive into examples (rightly
so). But when they get to D&D, again, they get it "wrong" (IMHO)
because they are thinking of the newer group-story-telling party games than the
original fantastic medieval wargame campaign. Here are my thoughts:
1. atom of D&D: the recovery of treasure
and/or the awarding of XP
2. game of D&D: the leveling-up of a
given character
3. session of D&D: a typical gaming
session
4. campaign fo D&D: the on-going
shared game world of players and referees allowing the continued advancement of
characters (and their in-game goals, e.g., warfare, etc.)
5. match of D&D: reaching "top
level"
The authors tend to see D&D as having
no structure comparable to other games. But, again, this is because of their
new-school story focus. An old school wargames campaign was just that: a game.
I think what struck me after I contemplated an attempt to match up their
differing time structures to the game we all love is that players can engage in
the game simultaneously, apart, as a team, against one another: but
"victory" conditions, etc., are all character-focused and driven and
independent of any other character. The player is competing with himself in
order to develop his character(s) from mistakes hard-learned, etc.
Someone reached "name level" in
Planet Eris the other day. We all kind of had a spontaneous party - we all knew
that was the goal of our characters as well. Sadly, the player retired this
character! I was ready for the WAR game to start! Oh well. He had
"won" his "match." Nice.
"Many games with 'good' atoms (short
atoms with clear and satisfying boundaries) are point-based." p. 20. Hence
my description of the "atom" of D&D being, ideally, the accrual
of XP, but, at least, the discovery of treasure (gp).
The section on number of players was less
interesting for me with regards to D&D. I know there are engines for
solo-dungeon crawls. I cannot imagine many of us accepting players who gave
their characters XP based upon such adventures!
They then move on to
"heuristics." They give two major types: positional and directional.
Positional heuristics evaluate the state of the game (score board check, etc.),
directional heuristics guide the players in terms of strategy / tactic to
achieve a new game state, etc. Of course, these are closely related and tied to
one another, but still conceptually distinguishable.
They then say that some folks are
attracted to games because of the quality of the heuristics, regardless of the
rules. Players derive great enjoyment from "climbing the heuristics
tree," e.g., learning the kinds of things that help beginners, heading
through the plateau of minimally helpful but necessary heuristics to get
through "middle game," and, finally, those last, difficult, but
ultimately rewarding heuristics of "end game" (think, especially,
chess here). So, they say, per any given game ask if the heuristics are: clear
or muddy; rich or sparse; satisfying or unsatisfying; powerful or weak?
When I first returned to playing D&D
after many years, I had forgotten a lot of basic heuristics. I bought a bunch
of equipment for Nimrod the dimwit barbarian, thinking leather armor and a
spear would be a good way to go till I found some more gold. Well, he died
fast. Heuristic: buy the best armor you can afford, per class, ASAP! That is a
clear, rich, satisfying and powerful heuristic! And it kept me coming back. But
it is NO WHERE stated in the rules. For obvious reasons! Thinking this way has
helped me to see how many basic and helpful heuristics there really are for
D&D! Players really don't need the rules: but they sure need the
heuristics.
One final thing I want to point out about
this great chapter. They shy away from single, unified, normative definitions
of games. But then they inadvertently throw a really great one into a footnote!
". . . games are to some extent
abstract and purified models of everyday human existence." (p. 32.) Wow. I
could talk a lot about that one. But I think I will just conclude this post
here.
Next post in the series.
Next post in the series.
No comments:
Post a Comment