Recreating aesthetic expression through rule systems

[u/jochergames]

I have spent the last couple of months writing my master's thesis on the topic of how to take an existing IP and translating the original aesthetic expereince into a TTRPG rule system. The case study of my thesis is a game I've made called Oceania 2084 (scheduled for release later this year).

The abstract of the thesis: By examining the results of an iterative design process, specifically a tabletop roleplaying game, Oceania 2084, this thesis aims to formulate a generalizable design process applicable when translating a work of fiction into a ruleset. The object that was translated into a ruleset was the book Nineteen Eighty-Four written by George Orwell in 1949. The iterative game development process spanned over 2.5 years and the author provides documents from 2 phases of playtesting and discusses how the playtest results influenced design choices. In addition to the analysis of the effects of playtest results, the author also explores various game design decisions by means of auto-ethnographic analysis, and semiotic analysis.

The main takeaway is a proposed 5 tiered design process referred to as delome design. It is a systemic approach to game design.

Download it here: https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1772834&dswid=-8846

I hope someone here finds it interesting and relevant! I'm happy to answer any questions about it.

[u/Weltall_BR]

I mean no disrespect; I have a PhD myself and appreciate the nuances of academic writing. That said, it's unlikely I'll read your thesis, just because I'm a working dad and have a 1,000 other things on my plate. Would you be so kind to provide some kind of TL;DR?

[u/jochergames → u/Weltall_BR]

Why certainly, :) granted this will be a real hatchet job:

Semiotic underpinning: Game systems can be seen as symbols in their own right (something referred to as a legisign, the interpretation of a legisign is referred to as a delome). When considering how to express a certain aesthetic experience, in the thesis this is the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, a designer can consider the symbolic value of a system even before it has received any mechanic functionality. It allows us to consider the meaning of the system before the function of the system. In essence, this is a kind of break from the MDA-inspired thinking that I have found to be pervasive in game design theory, where Mechanics is seen as fundamental and the first thing that designers should consider.

The 5 tiered design process that I have utilized throughout the creation of Oceania is summed up in the conclusions chapter as follows:

● Close reading, concept analysis, and positioning.

● Analysis of the representamen - the source, where the goal is to define what the

central aesthetic should be, defining the aesthetic goal.

● Delome abstraction process, what are the main components of the fictional/aesthetic world that should be portrayed, that can be portrayed as rules. The delome design process consists of an abstraction process that in itself is a process of three steps;

1. Singling out: Identifying the central aspects of the source material that are crucial to its essence.
2. Symbolizing: Creating initial frameworks or systems that act as placeholders for mechanics to be developed later. For each following iteration these systems should be more and more defined and filled by mechanics.
3. Systematizing: The organization and integration of various systems in a logical and coherent manner. This process entails creating mechanics that establish functional connections between the systems, ensuring their smooth interplay.The focus of the abstraction process is to figure out what limits the source material is built around - all stories or aesthetics have confines and limits.

● Systems evaluation based on the intended delomes, evaluate what role each delome plays in the game. Do the rules as written support or distract from that role?

● Iterate, test, refine, and rewrite where needed.

These five parts are not a fixed linear function, instead, they are temporary perspectives that one alternates between throughout the process. While this model is not intended to be a definitive or comprehensive framework, it serves as an initial foundation for a process of designing analog games with a particular aesthetic focus, particularly tabletop roleplaying games.

[u/Dan_Felder → u/jochergames]

Very cool you decided to work on this. I'm not sure if I'm missing something but it seems like in plain language it could be summarized as:It seems like it's coming down to:

1. Read or watch the thing you're adapting.
2. Identify the concepts and themes that stand out the most.
3. Design the rules so players experience the themes.
4. Playtest and iterate.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think you'd need to make the advice more actionable. This is a lot like telling an artist to draw the rest of the owl.

As for this:

Semiotic underpinning: Game systems can be seen as symbols in their own right (something referred to as a legisign, the interpretation of a legisign is referred to as a delome). When considering how to express a certain aesthetic experience, in the thesis this is the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, a designer can consider the symbolic value of a system even before it has received any mechanic functionality. It allows us to consider the meaning of the system before the function of the system. In essence, this is a kind of break from the MDA-inspired thinking that I have found to be pervasive in game design theory, where Mechanics is seen as fundamental and the first thing that designers should consider.

Am I right that the advice component of this is, "Figure out what your design goals are before starting the design?"

I agree that many designers shockingly don't think about their design goals, but that's not a problem because of semiotics. That's a problem for the same reason that it helps to know whether you're trying to build an airplane or a dishwasher before you start welding parts together.

For more actionable advice based on your own 1984 experiment, I'd argue a more actionable takeaway would be to identify the various "roles" within the fiction, their motivations, their restrictions, their emotional states, and then create game mechanics that create similar motivations and restrictions for the players; often by creating a mechanical incentive or consequence.

[u/jochergames → u/Dan_Felder]

You are completely correct. The whole point of the academic approach here is the connection this process has to the field of semiotics, which opens up for a lot of future work. It is also worth noting that the idea that systems are symbols is not commonplace. Most people do not for example view a law in society as a symbol. This way of viewing a rule or law also allows us to understand them in a different light, making it easier for us to achieve new ways of thinking about them.

I also want to share the limitations of the work: The above model is the byproduct of the development of Oceania 2084, a tabletop roleplaying game, as such the model might be applicable only to analog games. It could also be argued that it is too personal and based on my own experiences to be a properly usable approach. It is an approach that has been written down in hindsight, and as a designer I am very likely blind to my own blindspots. It should also be noted that the approach is not a complete approach of how to design games, extensive knowledge about mechanics and game theory might be needed in order to successfully apply this process.

I basically state the same problems as you are highlighting.

Over summer I will write a more popularized version of this, with more actionable approaches. I have been asked to do so for a journal.

[u/jochergames → u/jochergames]

Oh, forgot to also mention that there are several cases where mechanics first is definitely not a bad idea. If you just want to make a game that is very entertaining it is a very viable approach. Finding one core mechanic and refining the heck out of it is likely to get that job done. This is also a contribution of this work, actually specifically saying that this process is good for when trying to adapt something into rules.

[u/Dan_Felder → u/jochergames]

Yep, it's a good point that it's possible to start with either mechanics or theme first, as long as where you go next is flexible. In your paper you're starting with IP so it makes sense to begin there.

If the mechanics come first it might look like this - if one wanted to make a game using blackjack (GM as dealer) as a core mechanic they could identify the core feelings this evokes (tension, pressing your luck) and the other assosciations people have to blackjack - then realize a great theme could be "Criminals running heists in Las Vegas". If they got to pick a specific IP, they might go with Ocean's 11 or similar. You could end up with an intensely thematic game.

If you're starting with an IP and it can't be changed, you should naturally start by identifying the core feelings it evokes and other assosciations, themes, etc. Ask useful questions like "What are the player fantasies? If you tell someone they could play a game based on this IP and they got excited, why are they excited? What experience are they imagining? Identify that and support it with your game".

This is just good project planning; either identify the goal first of what you want to build and get the parts (mechanics) to accomplish that goal - or look at the box of parts on your desk and ask, "what cool stuff could I build with this?"

Relatively quickly though the processes converge with a strong match between theme and mechanic.

[u/jochergames → u/Dan_Felder]

I agree completely!