I realized the other day that my specific take on roleplaying, especially roleplaying design, stems from a somewhat odd outlook on interaction in general. I see games as social interfaces. Literally, not metaphorically.
The game\’s mechanics are the points of fixed interface. In \’Monopoly\’ the rules tell you that you gain money in certain situations and lose them in certain other situations. This is a point of interface. It shapes the sorts of interactions you have with your fellow players. They must pay you in some situations, and these payments hurt them and help you.
This is important stuff, and it explains precisely why system does matter. Interfaces shape interaction. A \’good\’ interface is one that shapes actions in a positive way for whatever purpose you have. In the same way, a good system is one that shapes play toward whatever it is you play for.
It is important to realize that games can only fill in part of the necessary interface for social interaction. They do not provide all the necessary tools. Games don\’t teach you to talk, or use non-verbal stuff. Instead games provide a part of the interface needed for interaction. They provide some mechanics and some goals, but are not sufficient for interaction on their own.
This is where things get interesting. Since any given game can only provide part of the social interface necessary for interaction, the game has to plug in to the existing social interface of the group playing it. This is where you can run into trouble: the game-interface that works great among people with certain types of existing social interfaces can crash and burn in social interfaces that are even slightly different as long as that difference is in the \’right\’ place.
Of course people can develop new pieces for their core social interface such that they can successfully utilize the game-interface in question. In fact, this is one of the important functions of games: they provide new methods of interaction and enforce them. This creates a forced learning environment in which the players use and absorb the new methods and are able to evaluate from experience whether those methods are worth incoporating into more general interactions.
So, I see games as interfaces for social interaction. And it struck me that not everyone else does, and that I might make more sense if it was understood that I\’ve got an odd view of things.
Thomas
Tags: Foundational, Theory
[...] Pacing mechanics are going to narrow and focus your audience. Thinking back to my post on games as interfaces, it should be noted that some groups have pacing and timing locked down. They already have working procedures for this stuff. They can sit down at the table, decide to play for an hour (or two or four) and finish their game in close to that self-imposed time limit. Those people don’t need mechanics to cover that, and chances are that such mechanics will be less optimal for their group than their evolved procedures will be. [...]