On the TT post Dicing With Dragons on the Crisis Point, Troy Taylor commented about the “three-legged stool of a cohesive roleplaying experience.”
This is a bit of tangent from Troy’s comment, but I see most gaming experiences as being a lot like a four-legged stool.
A stool with three legs will fall over if any of the three legs are removed — which isn’t the case with most games.
With RPGs, three of the legs on the stool have to do with the game itself. The post Troy commented on discusses three possible legs, believability, interest and balance, but there are lots of potential legs. (They’ll vary somewhat by group.)
The fourth leg, though, is consistent: Hanging out with your friends. In my experience, most games can weather the loss of one leg, as long as it’s not that one.
For example, if a game has too much intra-party conflict for my tastes (effectively knocking out one leg of my ideal gaming experience), that’s okay — I still have the fourth leg, spending time with my friends, which makes any game fun.
Do you agree with this (very loose) theoretical model? Does it have any value as a tool for thinking about GMing, or about gaming in general?
Sounds to me like the three-legged stool analogy works out: no matter how many legs a stool has, if they aren’t joined together by the seat, it’ll fall over.
Hanging out with friends is represented by the seat, not a leg, since it’s always required.
I do prefer your description of the three legs, believability, interest and balance.
But I think Fred Drake is correct, hanging out with friends, the concept of the “fun,” is part of the seat.
Your point about there possibly being a fourth leg is valid, though.I just don’t think it is the hanging out with the guys, part.
Is it possible that technology (the actual gaming gear), is the fourth leg? It’s not necessary,– all that stuff — in the truest sense, and it is the physical representation of the rules, and the game can stand without it. But all the gear that we haul around does enhance the gaming experience. All those figs, battle maps, computer aids and yes, even index cards, represent another facet of the game that seems apart from the other three legs, but somehow supportive of them all.
Something to think about?
I agree: Fred’s analogy is better, with the seat being hanging out with your friends. That makes a lot of sense.
I’d maintain that there’s a fourth leg, though, and that most gaming experiences can survive without any of their legs — along the lines of your comment, Troy.
Believability, interest and balance are actually Dicing With Dragons‘s description of the three legs. I don’t know that I agree with those legs — I’d say that what the legs are varies from group to group.
I’m not sure what my legs would be, either. 😉
It depends on the game– on the buy in. Believability is good… unless you use adherance to believability to quash cool storylines. Balance is good– unless you’re blowing off steam, enjoying a one shot, or unbalance is an important element of play.
So, yeah, you need “stuff” to keep interst in a game, but which stuff that is all depends. I certainly wouldn’t worry much about balance or believability in Paranoia…
I think I’d put it down to a bar stool. It’s got a seat and a pole. One is friends, the other is some agreement on what your group considers fun.
I think when the term “believability” is used, it doesn’t necessarily mean belieavability as opposed to the real world.
Rather, it is akin to “suspension of disbelief,” which in theater, is the willingness of the audience to set aside preconceived notions and accept that fantasy and conceits being presented on stage.
In gaming the same is true. How willing are the players to “believe” in whatever fantasy or variant of reality is being presented to them.
For example, Deadlands isn’t anything like how the Old West really was. But it is very much like the cinematic Old West — with zombies thrown in. If your players accept those conceits, the fun can really begin. But if they insist there weren’t zombies in the Old West — the game isn’t going to go anywhere.
Heh — I like the bar stool analogy, too. 😉 How would you account for the fact that many games can survive the loss of some fun stuff without tipping over, though?