Digging into the Three-Way Tension
The last post generated a bit os discussion on the socials (but not here, so I can't really archive what's been said without extensive cutting, pasting, and screenshots), so it's time to delve a bit deeper into the way I understand TTRPGs to work. Remember that this is my observations, archived and written down, your mileage may vary.
Crystallisation for Vcetor Theory and the 3-Way Tension model occurred during a BBQ I cooked for three Norwegians in my home at the time in southwestern Sydney. The meal I cooked was kangaroo and salad, the guests were Matthijs Holter (designer of Archipelago, here's his itch page), Ole Peder Giæver (designer of Itras By) and I want to say the last visitor was Martin Bull Gudmundsen (co-designer of Itras By). I think it was about 2009 or so when they came down to our part of the world to visit a few of our gaming conventions. I ran a game of something for them that I had recently written, but the majority of the evening was spent talking game design, theory and the differences in how gaming was approached in various parts of the world. They were really looking forward to experiencing Australian Freeform gaming (see parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of a series from 2014). A lot of it was based on the way games are written, but also the gaps in what is written... I distinctly remember Matthijs using the phrase that the rules were a "third voice" at the table.
Three forces pulling on the flow of the session,each with their own aims and intentions (I won't use the word agenda, because that's already a loaded term). I touched on these a bit in my "How to Run a Game" sequence, especially the third blog post in that series about getting everyone on the same page. The key is not making sure everyone is doing exactly the same thing in the game, but knowing how to get the best result from a situation where tensions are pulling a game in different ways. Going with the flow when everything is going your way is easy, maintaining a positive experience in the face of adversity is trickier. So I'm going to break down the three sources of tension and break them down diegetically and non-diegetically. This isn't going to be a perfect description, there's always going to be a balance between detail and accessibility.
At the basic level, what I've seen when playing hundreds of game with dozens of player groups and dozens of systems. I've often found that if the same group of players and same GM/Narrator plays a different game, the results will often be predominantly similar but flavoured a bit differently due to the nature of the game rules. If the same players play the same game but with a different GM/Narrator, a similar phenomenon will hold as the GM/Narrator brings their own energy to the table. The same holds true when I've run literally the same game at a convention with different groups of players, as the beats stay the same, the overall structure holds, but the players bring their distinct contributions to the unfolding of play. It even varies in groups where the same group of players are involved, but different members of the group step up to take over the GM/Narration duties, the change of power dynamic changes the flow of the session (sometimes for the better, sometimes worse, but always a bit different).
To start looking at how these elements influence the session, I'll describe what I've observed happening when the balance is shifted.
The GM/Narrator
There's no one way to "correctly" run a TTRPG session. Different games call for different styles of adjudication, or guidance through the session. Some run tight games or linear narratives with specific ed points in mind, other allow a far looser range of interactions and work collaboratively with the players to construct something.
What if they have too much power?
"GM fiat" is a term describing situations in TTRPGs where the players don't really get input into decisions, when the rules are vague, or when the final decision is let in the hands of the GM/Narrator. A little of this can be beneficial to help maintain the focus of a session, but when it goes too far we start getting into territory where terms like "railroading" arise. Some players don't mind this, because they're used to more passive entertainment styles and simply want to move through a narrative with an avatar that is guided toward a conclusion. Some players really chafe at this, and feel deprotagonised when they aren't permitted a sense of agency within their escapism. I've seen this kind of control drive people from the hobby, because they didn't see their session play out the way they'd seen on Youtube videos, podcasts or episodes of their favourite TV show about teenagers facing horrors in the 1980s, or maybe their session didn't match the anecdotes they'd been told about by players who were enjoying their collaborative storytelling.
What if they don't have enough power?
I like to think that the GM/Narrator provides focus for the game, taking cues from the players and providing them with a range of story hooks and situations that allow the players to shine through their characters within the imagined liminal space of the session. If the FM/Narrator doesn't have enough power, there's a good chance that a player will step up, and potentially take control of the narrative for themselves. I've certainly seen this happen in games, sometimes where a player has leverage over the GM (I've seen this in groups of friends and in cases where a player might be the girlfriend/boyfriend of the GM). Generally though, a game with a GM lacking power starts to drift and starts to lose it's coherence. Less dominant players start trailing the more forceful ones...this is generally non-diegetic, the power levels of the characters within the narrative are less important than the social dominance outside the imaginary world. I've also seen situations where a less powerful GM/Narrator starts relying more on the rules to bolster their power in the structure. On the whole though, I've found that a less powerful GM/Narrator is the easiest imbalance to work with. A group group of players can take the slack from a situation like this, and support the GM by taking on some of the responsibilities themselves and keep the game running.
What if they don't exist at all?
Games without a participant in the GM/Narrator role certainly exist. However in every case it seems to be like that last part I mentioned about GMs without enough power. A variant on the GM-less game is sometimes called the "GM-ful" game, where each player portrays a role of control regarding a specific element of the session, or the control rotates between the participants. In some cases the rules take on a more dominant role is such games, often providing procedures to explain how the control shifts between participants and what the limitations on that control might be.
The Players
There is no single method to participate in a session. Some players may enjoy the escapism of portraying a character with agency in their world beyond the agency they feel in the real world, some may view it as a game to be won, others may want to tell a new story or may be stuck in a pattern of retelling the same story over and over, some players may be working through issues by bringing up problems in game and working through them in a safe space... I've certainly encountered each of these types of players at conventions, in social play, and in the various public play spaces at stores or bars where I've run game sessions over the years.
What if they have too much power?
If the players have too much power, there simply isn't enough tension to keep them in check. Their escapism risks becoming unfettered, and their anything their might be working toward in the session starts to become meaningless because it is simply too easily obtained, obstacles become too easily overcome. In games with levelling mechanisms of play, the characters face more powerful adversaries of increased levels of their own, but when players become too powerful no such similar effect comes into play. It's not like more advanced players will shift to a more advanced GM to balance against.
What if they don't have enough power?
Similar to the GM having too much power and a reflection of the idea of not having enough power, players need a tension that allows gradually progress and meaningful movement toward their character's goals, but this can't come too easily. It is said that we like characters for their powers, but we love them for their weaknesses. A good GM/Narrator needs to prompt players like these, to open up their opportunities and their ability to manipulate the storyline. more invitation need to be offered, more ways to draw the story along.
What if they don't exist at all?
A game without players is basically a solo journalling game. Games like this not only exist but they are a popular genre. Almost everything in such a game is the interaction of a single person with a set of rules, and without the dynamism provided by multiple participants pulling at the narrative a game like this often end up very linear and railroady. To some extent, such effects can be mitigated with random tables and quirky ways that dice, cards, or other randomisers are used. However, when random effects are added in, it can be difficult to ensure focus is maintained.
The Rules
Despite what you might think from reading the high profile media, there is more to the TTRPG hobby than just D&D. There are hundreds of games out there, many of which are just variants from the mainstream products, and just as many that are weird experimental things you've probably never heard of. Different games prioritise different parts of the session, they may leave certain parts of play purely in the hands of the players or the GM/Narrator, while being extremely explicit in detailing how other elements of the session should unfold. However, the three-way tension theory looks beyond the elements of mechanical gameplay when considering the rules. It also examines diegetic rules (the "fluff" and setting descriptions) as a regulator of the session experience, and the social conventions that the group might develop as a part of their play dynamic. The rules are generally what is agreed to as the framework of play.
What if they have too much power?
First, let's look at what too much power might mean in a game. From a non-diegetic perspective it could mean that a game is excessively crunchy, it slows things down and makes the players bored while they work out how the procedures of may are meant to resolve the situation and allow the session to move on. From a diegetic perspective, it might mean that the social systems in the game are too restrictive, or that the relationships within the setting as so volatile and reactive that any action taken by the characters will have detrimental repercussions. If the rules of the game have too much power, most groups will often homebrew things (but this often just ends up with a different set of rule, which may end up just as potent), in many cases the GM/Narrator and the players will just start ignoring parts of the rules altogether.
What if they don't have enough power?
If the rules don't have enough power, or leave gaps where inconsistent ruling may become necessary, that's often where the GM/Narrator steps up and adjudicates the situation for themselves, oir where players propose ruling based on existing elements of the rules. This can render the game confusing at best, or unfair at worst. The rules serve a purpose, and that purpose may be to establish a setting and the systems by which that setting functions. A purely diegetic set of rules might be an in-game book that allows the players to read something that their characters might has access to within the story.
What if they don't exist at all?
I don't know if this can even be a thing. Australian Freeforming as a genre of game prides itself on not having written rules to govern the interactions of the players, so arguably there are no non-diegetic rules in games like these. However, in freeforms there are often diegetic rules governing players interactions with one another, and the social conventions and etiquette that limits completely uncontrolled imagined effects. Such games also tend to work off a "realism" aspect that suggests characters only have special powers if their character sheet says they have special powers (ad once that occurs, there is suddenly a set of non-diegetic rules governing how such a power might be used). Similarly, to ensure safety (both physically and emotionally) such games regularly have basic rules in effect to explain how combat, trauma, or other effects might impact the game. Written or otherwise, every game has rules, otherwise it wouldn't be a game.
In every case, when one part of the tension pulls too hard, another area has to pull back otherwise the game gets unbalanced and risks falling apart. Conversely, when one part of the tension isn't pulling enough (or isn't present at all), other parts have to step up and take their place in some way. Note that so far, this description doesn't say much about the GNS split, it's purely about who (or what) is pulling the session in a direction, not indicting which direct that pull is going. Note also that different styles of play suit different people, these are just some of the things I've seen over the years. Some people love tightly scripted GM-driven narratives where they can just follow along for the ride, but that just isn't for me. I'd love to hear other responses.
.png)
Comments