Vector Theory #2: Vectors and Nodes
The essence of the Vector Gaming Theory comes down to a simple concept.
There are story vectors where narrative flows from one place to another in a straight line.
There are game nodes where the direction of the narrative is diverted through the actions of players or mechanisms within the game.
At any stage in a roleplaying session; one of these two modes of activity has been engaged. These two may never be engaged simultaneously, but the degree of rapidity changing between the two modes may give the impression that they are occurring at once.
Let's look at this from a macro scale.
Many early computer games (especially those designated as "computer roleplaying games") have a clear delineation between the two modes. In this style of game, the user was capable of controlling the character when the designer believed that their actions would not interfere with the story they were trying to tell. You would have a cahnce to interact with the environment, kill enemies, pick up vital pieces of information, then the control was taken away through a cut scene. During the cut scene, the actions of all characters followed a script, the narrative was furthered, the player was given a new open playground to explore.
Many current computer games follow the same pattern, especially those which are designed as multiplayer games but which have provided a single player campaign to acquaint a player to the the game mythos.
A few games take a step beyond this, and these have tended to be the highly regarded games in recent years. Jade Empire is an example that comes to mind because it's one of the few games from the last couple of years that captured my attention long enough to actually finish it. Another example is the game Fable.
These games have specific decision points along a journey; and these decisions allow new storylines to unfold depending on the choices made. A story is still told, but the game has the potential to tell a variety of stories depending on the way it is played.
The first style of game is very similar to early module based roleplaying.
a) Play encounter.
b) GM describes outcome of encounter and links this to the next encounter.
c) Repeat, Wash, Rinse...until the final encounter is met and confronted.
The second style of play is closer to a flow chart.
a) Play encounter [go to "b" if encounter is successful, or "c" if not successful.]
b) GM describes an outcome which leads to encounter "d".
c) GM describes how the situation leads to encounter "e".
d) New encounter based on earlier success [go to "f" if successful, or "g" if not].
e) New encounter based on earlier failure [go to "h" if successful, or "i" if not].
In this second option, a diversity of stories develop; but the player experience remains basically the same. Game, Scene, Game, Scene.
Discussions in game design circles have spent the last few years analysing and re-analysing the concepts of scene framing and mechanism interaction with narrative.
From the perspective of Vector Gaming Theory these are just a tiny part of the whole picture. Very important parts, don't get me wrong, but there is a lot more that could be percieved and considered.
Scene framing is purely a look at how a story vector approaches a node, and the initial choices presented to the players when the interface between modes is crossed.
Mechanism interaction with narrative (using different mechanisms to tell different types of stories) is a way to describe the way a new story vector is created when a game node is exited.
A lot can happen within a game node, and a lot can happen along the vector path of a story.
This is one of the key concepts I'd really like to explore with this year's series of blog entries.
There are story vectors where narrative flows from one place to another in a straight line.
There are game nodes where the direction of the narrative is diverted through the actions of players or mechanisms within the game.
At any stage in a roleplaying session; one of these two modes of activity has been engaged. These two may never be engaged simultaneously, but the degree of rapidity changing between the two modes may give the impression that they are occurring at once.
Let's look at this from a macro scale.
Many early computer games (especially those designated as "computer roleplaying games") have a clear delineation between the two modes. In this style of game, the user was capable of controlling the character when the designer believed that their actions would not interfere with the story they were trying to tell. You would have a cahnce to interact with the environment, kill enemies, pick up vital pieces of information, then the control was taken away through a cut scene. During the cut scene, the actions of all characters followed a script, the narrative was furthered, the player was given a new open playground to explore.
Many current computer games follow the same pattern, especially those which are designed as multiplayer games but which have provided a single player campaign to acquaint a player to the the game mythos.
A few games take a step beyond this, and these have tended to be the highly regarded games in recent years. Jade Empire is an example that comes to mind because it's one of the few games from the last couple of years that captured my attention long enough to actually finish it. Another example is the game Fable.
These games have specific decision points along a journey; and these decisions allow new storylines to unfold depending on the choices made. A story is still told, but the game has the potential to tell a variety of stories depending on the way it is played.
The first style of game is very similar to early module based roleplaying.
a) Play encounter.
b) GM describes outcome of encounter and links this to the next encounter.
c) Repeat, Wash, Rinse...until the final encounter is met and confronted.
The second style of play is closer to a flow chart.
a) Play encounter [go to "b" if encounter is successful, or "c" if not successful.]
b) GM describes an outcome which leads to encounter "d".
c) GM describes how the situation leads to encounter "e".
d) New encounter based on earlier success [go to "f" if successful, or "g" if not].
e) New encounter based on earlier failure [go to "h" if successful, or "i" if not].
In this second option, a diversity of stories develop; but the player experience remains basically the same. Game, Scene, Game, Scene.
Discussions in game design circles have spent the last few years analysing and re-analysing the concepts of scene framing and mechanism interaction with narrative.
From the perspective of Vector Gaming Theory these are just a tiny part of the whole picture. Very important parts, don't get me wrong, but there is a lot more that could be percieved and considered.
Scene framing is purely a look at how a story vector approaches a node, and the initial choices presented to the players when the interface between modes is crossed.
Mechanism interaction with narrative (using different mechanisms to tell different types of stories) is a way to describe the way a new story vector is created when a game node is exited.
A lot can happen within a game node, and a lot can happen along the vector path of a story.
This is one of the key concepts I'd really like to explore with this year's series of blog entries.
.png)
Comments
So according to this model of understanding RPGs, concerning what was formerly called simulationist games we can uncontroversially say, these games are front loaded with a lot of point allocation nodes, or something similar, for example the act of spending all that nuyen during the first part of any Shadowrun session. Or making sure you have all the proper supplies and pack animals to carry your supplies in AD&D (1st ed + Wilderness Survival Guide).
I can't speak for everyone, but I think this will really help me write and play RPGs. One guideline that's already popped into my head: "Keep nodes close to their consequences." What makes spending 500,000 nuyen and 6 points of humanity (wrong term I think) boring, is that you spend them in a vacuum, with no input from anyone else, and the consequences of one's purchases may take several sessions to come up.
Point allocation (the exact same type of node) in Mortal Coil or Active Exploits, however is done at the table, with everyone present to ooh or chuckle or trash talk your choices and the consequences of your choices are immediately revealed by the GM. So, not boring.
The SAGA system by TSR explored this as well, and called it story-based gaming, too. You had an "If-Then" flowchart of possible scenes, encounters, and outcomes that you could walk through depending on the players' actions.
Later on, it was realized the flow-chart style of play was a very clever sleight-of-hand: it wasn't that much different than early module-based roleplaying because the only real difference was that you picked a different pre-designed situation or event.
It wasn't anything other than a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book.
This realization was, IMO, one of the real development points of Ron's Narrativist play style (that is, the idea that you don't pre-design anything more than the background situation): that there is no flow-chart.
Decision points and results appear organically in play, and what is going to happen or where the players might go or do can not (must not) be guessed at in advance.
Now, this may seem like a small difference, or you may think your second method covers this, but this has as big an effect as the difference between linear module gaming and flow-chart gaming. So I point all this out only to say this should be understood as a seperate third option, rather than a mere application of the second option, if the second option is going to be understood as seperate from the first.