The previous post focused on the Mechanics-Dynamic-Æsthetics (MDA) framework and its application to the role of the dice in RPGs. One of the aspect of dice rules only briefly mentioned in the previous post is the choose-then-resolve style of play.

This post discusses this specific point. A future post gives an alternative to dice-based randomness which keeps some of the dice æsthetics (fantasy, challenge) but changes this specific feature.

Choosing first, resolving second

The success/failure test mechanic of most RPG systems, in whatever variation, gives an overarching style of play: choose first, resolve second.

In this style of play, players can choose to attempt different actions (based on the circumstances in the game and the abilities of their character). Once the choice is made, the game master selects a suitable success test in accordance to the rules. In some cases, the game master may decide immediately on the success – “yes, your character can move that chair across the room” – or failure of the action – “no, your character cannot break this wall with their bare hands.” The player then resolves the outcome of the attempt of their character.

This style of play creates tension and suspense (the future is unknown, the survival of the party may depend on the result of a dice roll) and a sense of freedom (you can try anything).

Choices and outcomes and role-play

Under this style of play, the players make choices based on expectations of outcomes (reward and probability of success). The actual outcomes are the product of randomness.

Another drive for players choices is role-play: “what would my character try to do?” Players imbue their characters with personality, with agency. However, even in that case, the choice of action is sometimes made as if the character (rather than the player) is estimating the outcomes. Specifically, the player might decide “my character is a gambler, they do not care about this action’s likeliness to fail,” or “my character has a moral stance according to which this outcome is better than that outcome.”

And more importantly, even in this case, the choices and the outcomes are disconnected. The same sense of tension, suspense and freedom still arises from this style of play.

A support role and a leading role

The choose-then-resolve style of play create tension and suspense which contribute to the narrative æsthetics. However, other elements also contribute to the narrative: the setting, the acting from both GM and players, the descriptions from the GM, etc. All in all, the suspense of the dice is only a minor contributor to the narrative.

The more important role of the dice is to provide a fair simulation of the universe of play: to make more difficult actions less likely to succeed.

All in all, even though the dice is a core mechanic of many RPGs, it only contributes a little to the core æsthetics of RPGs. This is especially true for the fantasy æsthetic.

MDA in practice

The MDA framework offers three levels of descriptions of games: Mechanics, Dynamics and Æsthetics. More interestingly, it offers two points of view on games:

• the players enjoy the æsthetics – which arise because of a combination of dynamics, themselves the result of mechanics;
• the game designers create, modify, fine-tune the game mechanics – to give rise to dynamics and eventually æsthetics.

Combining this with the prior observation about dice (a core mechanic with little contribution to the core æsthetics) leads to the conclusion that alternatives to dice are probably possible. Specifically, it should be possible to develop alternative mechanics which also simulate the universe of play, in addition to supporting the core æsthetics more.

A follow-up post discusses a possible alternative: card games mechanics such as deck building and hand management. This next post focuses on how these mechanics can be flavourful: how they can match the universe of play more fully.