Objectives in Play

This kinda' comes hard on the heels of my earlier post about my sudden "re-disenchantment" with Rifts. Folks who have been reading this blog for awhile (or at least reading my earlier posts) know I have a bit of interest in game design (specifically RPG), and that I went so far as to pen my own "first axiom" of game design.

Welp, I've got another one for ya'; call it Axiom #2:

Good game design requires rules that set clear objectives for players.

Now, as usual when I say "players" I refer to everyone sitting around the table...whether one is taking the role of the DM/GM or a character-wielding participant makes no nevermind to me. Everyone present is "playing the game;" thus, all are players.

So what is an "objective" anyway?

Well it's not the usual diatribe found in most RPG's introductions, "the objective of the game is to have FUN!" As my wife might quip: barf.

OF COURSE we are all playing the game with the hope that play will be fun! Hell, it's a game after all! Most of us aren't getting money or sex for it, so it better be fun.

That is, there is NO NEED TO SAY that "fun" is an objective. That's what we call "a given."

When I say "objective" I mean that there is an OBJECT of play. Something one is to DO, besides simply sit around gabbing and occasionally rolling a set of dice. But there is a point to play, aside from the "meta-goal" of enjoying your gaming group's company and occasional pizza feed.

If there is no objective to play than you might as well be sitting around in an acid circle...or a collaborative writing session...or a circle jerk. But you ain't playing a game.

Games have objectives. Objectives provide direction. Direction allows action. Without action the game is simply talking about how "kewl" your guy is...whether that guy is a heroic PC or antagonist NPC doesn't matter. Likewise "talking about" your guy may involve actual talking about his/her various traits...OR it might be showing what the character can do (for example, in a game's combat system). Regardless, it's still a wank-fest.

Objectives may be distinct between the different types of participants, but they should still be present and should be clearly stated within the text of the game...well, at least in a game with good design. If not, well...it leads to problems. And fairly shoddy role-playing in my opinion.

Most RPGs that I consider to be of the "old school" variety, have fairly specific objectives in game play, and specific methods of measuring whether or not those objectives are being met ("points"). But many of the newer indie games also have clearly stated goals and objectives of play.

[by the way, I'm still mulling the idea of "objective" versus "expectations." Right now, they seem to be very distinct in my mind: an EXPECTATION would be a type of in-game behavior and would appear to be difficult to teach through text alone, save perhaps with several examples of play. But there's a fuzzy line between "expected behavior" and pursuit of objectives, as that itself is a type of behavior]

Some examples of games with clear objectives (here I will separate participants into "GM" and "players"):

Dungeons and Dragons: At the basic level has very clear objectives in play. The DM's objective is to create an adventure scenario that is stocked with both risk and reward (monsters, traps, and treasure) and then fairly adjudicate the outcome of the exploration. The players' objective is to gain as much reward as possible while surviving the risk. Sometimes, there are additional secondary objectives (free prisoners, defeat a specific foe, recover a specific treasure).

Sorcerer: An indie-game designed at facilitating "story now," this game also has clear in-game objectives. The players create characters that each possess a "kicker," an issue of tantamount importance to both the player AND character. The in-game objective is to push the narrative in such a way that the kicker is resolved. The GM's role is to weave the characters together within a loose plot using techniques like relationship mapping. In-play the GM's objective is to drive the plot by introducing "bangs" - decision points that force player action and that (by making choices) allow premise to be addressed and defined within play.

Call of Cthulhu: The Keeper's objective is to create a horror mystery that will engross the player characters. The player's objectives are to solve said mystery (survival and retention of sanity being optional).

InSpectres: The GM's objective is to keep the story coherent while introducing elements that allow the players to take action and "collect dice." The player's objective is to solve the (randomly generated) mystery/job by succeeding at tasks and collecting dice.

In none of these games are there questions about "how is this game supposed to be played," or more specifically "what the hell do we do once we get to the table." The objectives provide direction and the direction facilitates action. Left bereft of objective, play stagnates, degenerates, or simply doesn't "go anywhere."

That's poor game design, in my opinion.