Emotional responses in RPGs
davidvs:
I only have a partial answer.
(As a preface, I understand you to be asking about what I call "game mechanics" as opposed to "sample setting". There are plenty of RPGs with amazing sample settings that draw in and energize many people who read or play them, completely apart from the accompanying game mechanics.)
In my personal experience the dominant issue is how slowly combat happens. Some players really enjoy detail and are invigorated by rolling dice several times for every swing of the sword when the action is suspenseful, detailed, and internally consistent. Other players find that their suspension of disbelief is shattered when the game's pace abruptly slows from narrative storytelling to combatants making attack rolls.
Thus your question has two answers.
Yes, there are players that get more into their characters and the story with positive emotions when the game's combat mechanics show them "Your brave outlaw is backing up the stairs, fencing with three palace guards, able to use the height advantage to parry successfully while dishing out small nicks and scratches; but he is tiring dangerously quickly" or even "Whish! There goes the kobalt's left ear! I guess his hearing is all right now."
And, yes, there are games that use no dice or minimal dice to avoid blow-by-blow combat, which is what other players need to maintain positive emotional connection with their characters and the story.
Callan S.:
Quote
You need the right people, to make the game do it's magic. I think this might've been Callan's point.
Pretty much the exact opposite, really. But it probably seems similar as it's just a slight shift of priority.
"You need people to choose the right game for them, to make the game do the magic it does (for the people who'd choose it)"
Quote
If you've got five funny guys around the table, they might not need Paranoia to laugh a lot. But without Paranoia, it would just be talking and joking.
Even with the book 'Paranoia' open upon the table, if they make the same jokes and talk the same talk as they did if the book wasn't there, the books presence and refering to it is a pointless act. The rules need to be designed so when refered to, they create a significant difference as to what would have happened if you just free formed. 'Need' to as in otherwise it's just more effort for no result, which is surely a waste of time? It reminds me of an old joke where an old man has been advised to please his young bride by bringing in a young stud to wave a towel around while they made love. It didn't work, so he's advised to wave the towel around while the young stud makes love to her. They do so and after she climaxes the man says to the young stud 'SEE! THAT'S how you wave a towel around! Do I have to show you everything!?'
If the RPG rules involve just waving a towel around, it's pointless to refer to the book.
intorporeal:
I'm a little late to the game on this thread, but I think it's a really interesting topic. In my experience, one game which consistently succeeds in eliciting it's desired emotional response set (tension, anxiety, fear, defeat, and relief) is Dread.
For anyone who hasn't played Dread, a quick summary:
You play the game with a big jenga tower in the middle of the table. Any time you take an action which could result in failure, you pull a block from the tower and place it on top. If you do so successfully, your action succeeds; you can give up part way through and your action fails. Or, if you knock over the tower, your character dies / is removed from the story.
Unlike any dice-based (or card-based) game I have played, Dread evokes it's desired emotional responses through a physiologically-taxing system. Pulling a block out of a jenga tower becomes increasingly difficult, and thus increasingly stressful (moreso, and in a different way, than rolling dice). The stress increases your heart rate, etc etc physiological science with which I am not intimately familiar, and due to your involvement in the game, you may experience the stress of the system as fear (or anxiety, etc).
This is, I think, similar to the spicy food comparison. Fundamentally, it is a physical stimulus which is designed to encourage a certain emotional response from the players. Of course, if you simply aren't connected to your character or the game, then there is no stress in removing the blocks -- you have nothing to lose if the tower falls. Similarly, if you just don't like (for example) thai food, then you don't lose anything by not subjecting yourself to the spiciness.
Anders Gabrielsson:
So creating a game that elicits positive emotional responses could be done by creating an environment that creates the corresponding physiological responses? Hm.
Earlier today I thought about what the emotional impact would be if you played in a dimly lit room with each player in a relaxed position on a couch out of the line of sight of the others, with maybe some candles and soft music. It's something I'd like to try, but it would require a game you could play comfortably lying down.
masqueradeball:
Jenga tiles don't do anything so predictable. I know a lot of people who would be bored or careless or too agitated to enjoy a game based on a Jenga tower (I love Jenga and hate that I haven't played Dread yet). I have seen grow men get giddy when they pick up more dice than they can comfortably hold, cheer for high rolls, throw fits over low ones, etc... I'm pretty sure there's something physiological behind those responses too.
I think the problem with talking this whole elicit emotions thing is that in RPGs there SEEMS TO ME to be a lack of "this is good, in and of itself, despite my personal tastes" kind of talk or interaction. Think about other artistic mediums: anecdotally I can site dozens, maybe more, instance where someone said, you know I hate the style of music that Slayer makes, but I can recognize how technically proficient they are, or I don't go in for classics, but I understand why Casablanca is such a significant film. What I get from exchanges like that is there is a recognition that something can be good, or of high quality, but not fit our particular tastes, and that people who are very into music or film or whatever medium, learn what marks various standards of "good" without (necessarily) having any personal connection to the art. I'm not saying that this is totally lacking in the RPG community, or that any given individual fails to see things from this perspective, but I would argue that in game design there is not enough history or variety (perhaps until very recently) to teach people "Game Appreciation" the way that we teach "Art Appreciation."
I hope that ramble makes sense, and I would love to clarify anything thats confusing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page