The RPG Wave

Do you like charts? Cos, baby, I got charts! RPG charts! 

Last time I tried applying a literary theory to an extract from an actual play of Into the Odd. This led me to pick out the idea that the language of RPG play seems to move between four levels of perspective when players speak. 

I decided to try and track these levels of perspective within through multiple games. I decided to take a similar moment between them alla similar moment in multiple games. This moment was action or event resolution and the games range from Into the Odd, through 5e and Night Witches.

I'll start with sharing the chart and the data it's based on for Into the Odd, then show the other charts and then write a little about what they mean to me (and maybe a bonus chart or two!).

Into the Odd (Tuesday Knight Games)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D46WpD9wSB0 (24:52 - 27:08)

GM	[1.5]You probably could take a shot at them now, if that’s what you wanted to do.
P1	[1.5]Yeah, let’s light em up.
P2	[1.5]Yeah, Definitely. YEah.
GM	[1]So are you both shooting at like the lead one?
P1	[1]I would not because I would know that Gizzard would probably shoot at the one would first appear. So I would shoot at the one that was the next in line.
GM	(Rules explanation) [2] So, if Gizzard is shooting at the first and you are shooting at the second, I would say that they’re aware of one of you but theyre not expecting Gizzard to be lying in Ambush.  [2]G, your attack is enhanced which means normally you would roll a d8 for a musket, but you’ll roll a d12 this time.
GM	[3]Sean, if you can roll; sorry, Gizzard if you can roll.
P2	[2]I got a 7 damage.
GM	[2]Oof. So that is definitely enough to hit, [1]so your musket kind of blasts through this thing. The exit wound blasts through this creature and you see this kind of loike phospherescent blue glue hit the wall. It just crumples to the floor lifelessly, Its big dumb eye just looking at you. So it’s completely obliterated.  [1]Volta, you’re shooting at the next one in line?

The chart corresponds to the transcript (all transcripts and their method here). When I have judged there to be a change in perspective or speaker, I have given it a grade plotted into the chart. 

Player/table (3). The information is only usable or verifiable by the people at the table. For example: 'Sean, if you can roll'.

Player-narrator (2). The information wouldn't necessarily be usable or verifiable by the characters in the game-world, but it is used by the players to affect the game-world. For example: 'I would say that they're aware of one of you but they're not expecting Gizzard'. 

Character-narrator (1). The information would be usable and verfiable by the characters in the game-world. It might be a character's narration of their own actions, bringing the information closer to the players. For example, 'I would not because I would know that Gizzard would...'

Character (0). This captures the direct speech or thoughts of characters, which can only be used or verified in the game-world. 

The boundaries between these levels isn't always clear. For example, when the players says 'Yeah let's light em up.' We know it isn't direct speech. It may be the character-narrators expressing their game-world intention, or it might be the player-narrators showing their more player/table-world intention at this point in the scenario. In these cases I have indicated a position between two levels as it may belong to either or both. There are more ambiguities than this,  but this is the main one to remark on here.

On the charts I have also marked the 'event resolution' this is the part of the speech where the actual sorting out of the outcome happens. Afterwards is the outcome and before is the set-up. 

Let's take a quick stop in Caveat corner before I continue.

Caveat Corner

• I am not making any judgements about the quality of any of these games published or performed
• I am not making broader claims about the games either as a session, campaign, or as the product
• My method is pretty flawed
• This is not in anyway a "scientific" undertaking, it can only provide thoughts
• These games are all recorded as performances and this influences the language choices by the players.  

RESULTs

A short resolution happens in a peak surrounded by a relatively uniform level.

A medium resolution with a couple of high peaks.

A medium resolution happens almost entirely at the player/table evel.

A medium resolution that rises and falls from a wide peak.

Two short split resolutions, each rising relatively sharply to a peak.

A long resolution that is uniformly high and drops off sharply in the outcome.

The set-up is high and resolution has a dip, before dropping sharply.

Does not follow the same model. The set-up is the peak resolution/outcome is combined.

What does this mean?

I think there is a question whether this experiment has been rigorous enough to reveal anything. But here we go:

Resolving actions/events represents a peak in the wave of the perspective. 

In many of the games the rolling of dice or active referring to a list (as in the case of Night Witches) brings the perspective to the table as events are resolved. Both before and after the resolution the perspective tends towards being lower.

The nature of this peak is different in the different examples. Into the Odd has only a short peak at the table perspective, compared with 5e and OSE which spend longer higher before dropping. Night Witches and Troika  have relatively high and flat peaks. 

The Price of Coal is the outlier in that its peak happens in the set-up for the event-resolution, which takes on a duel role as outcome and so is lower in the scale. 

After the resolution the waves falls. 

This is perhaps too obvious to state, but the important point is that the outcome tends towards being lower than the set-up as well. Sleepaway for example has the set-up and resolution at the player/table level before dropping down to the character level afterwards. In games like OSE and 5e (and potentially Into the Odd depending on interpretation) the lead in to the even resolution comes from the player-narrator, functioning almost like a bridge from more game-world considerations.

This feature could be better seen across a longer time scale. Call of Cthulhu for instance contains further resolution as a part of the outcome in a way that Night Witches, for example, does not. See the bonus charts at the bottom for some of this. 

Overall the average across the games seems to be: set-up = player-narrator, resolution = player/table, outcome = character-narrator.

There are differences in the rate of rise and fall. 

Into the Odd and 5e are two examples of where there is a gentle roll up and down the wave. The largest shift is of one step in these games (theoretically the smallest). In contrast Nightwitches has a drop of 2 levels as does The Price of Coal (and potentially Troika, OSE, CoC). Sleepaway has more than one drop and rise of three levels (theoretically the largest possible). 

These steeper or shallower shifts can clearly tie in to things like humour in a game, but may also link to the idea of "taste" in gaming. For instance, I personally feel like I prefer something with less jarring changes in the perspective. Of all the charts above the two which I find most pleasing are Into the Odd  and The Price of Coal. 

Conclusion and Bonus charts

This was an interesting exercise, even if my method leaves a lot to be desired. In talking with Rook's Press about this, I thought I would try and do a slightly longer scale. Therefore I present three additional charts showing the length of an "encounter" or "scene". I used the same method as above, though this time the moments of resolution are marked with red points. 

Something that stands out here is that the way in which resolution is handled is very different leading to quite a different wave. In Into the Odd we see multiple short peaks and drops across the span of the encounter all roughly of the same structure (Character Narrator, Player Narrator, Player/table, Character narrator). In contrast Night Witches  has two larger sections of resolution. The second is almost totally associated with the player/table where the first has elements of the character narrator functioning within the resolution. Overall though I feel here we see between 2 - 3 large waves across the span, compared to the multiple shorter ones in Into the Odd.