My goal in RPGs is to, as much as possible, move towards a three-dimensional, flesh & blood experience for the players, and away from a two-dimensional, board gaming experience. If you share a similar desire, read on.
Player-to-Character Unity-of-Perspective
To enhance this flesh & blood experience we can make changes to strengthen the unity between the perspectives of the players & their characters. In miniature wargaming we control our character’s actions, but we are also “looking down on events” from a detached, lofty stance (focusing on numbers, rules & the many mechanics affecting the outcome).
But we can eschew such wargaming habits and adopt methods to align the perspectives of the players much more closely with their PCs. We can therefore descend from the conventional Archimedean perch to step into our characters’ boots.
What is the character experiencing & feeling? What can they actually see, hear and smell? What would they actually believe? What are they convinced of? And how can we help the players focus on this more keenly?
The Power of Descriptions
A commonly accepted tool is to become heavily descriptive with environments, people, creatures, and actions. GMs should do so to introduce players to an array of elements during each session, and players can shift to describing the actions of their characters rather than merely rolling dice and declaring numbers. The best descriptions are clear and specific, well-considered and unique. The effects of this method are obvious, and little else needs said to endorse its use. But while I agree that employing such descriptions is great, there’s much more we can do to help unite the two points of view.
The Mirth of Mystery
Ever had a movie or novel spoiled for you when some idiot blurted out secrets in that story? This is the reason we call them ‘spoilers’, for some of your enjoyment was ruined by robbing you of the mystery & discovery.
But in RPGs, we habitually spoil some of the mystery with practices that create a schism of perspectives: The PCs have one body of knowledge (what they believe based on their finite experiences) while their players have another (higher, Meta) body of knowledge by viewing mechanics & numerical results.
We often hear, “Good role players force their characters to behave as if they believe X, even when they know Y.” This is true, but it’s still largely functioning under a miniature wargaming paradigm (using Meta gaming methods).
Discovery Requires Opacity
Almost all GMs keep some secrets from the players during the campaigns: The identity and locations of some enemies, the kinds of threats awaiting the PCs, perhaps some intrigue, deceptive NPCs, etc. But we can push mystery significantly further by employing Opacity methods: Obscuring swaths of information (notably, some mechanics) from the players that help align the players with their characters’ limited knowledge and perceptions. This is the “fog of war”, which makes legitimate discovery possible.
Opacity with Rolling & Mechanical Results
One of the PCs is hiding from enemies in the woods. Under conventional methods, the player is told the numbers needed to succeed, rolls, and knows the result. That is, if she rolls extremely well, she knows (for a fact) that her character is hidden.
In such cases, the player may enjoy having succeeded, but we have a schism between the player’s perspective and her character’s. An entire realm of fun is diminished—mystery, suspense, uncertainty…wondering if the enemies have actually seen/heard her.
Now consider the Unity method: Instead of the player making those rolls and calculations, the GM does it and then tells the player what her PC perceives and believes. The GM describes the surroundings and everything hitting her senses, but the Meta (numbers, mechanics) remains concealed from her, and the duality of perspectives is eliminated. Players now no longer need pretend their characters don’t know X & Y, because the players really don’t know (for certain) one way or another.
This pays off in a host of situations. Now when the GM says, “You have found no trap here,” the players cannot know (as a certain fact rooted in the Meta) that there really isn’t one there. A PC may have good cause to believe it—he may be very skilled and justifiably confident. But this is quite a different experience from the player knowing that his character is right because of the mechanics (or that he rolled a high number).
Tracking, listening, interpersonal interactions & searching for enemies, etc. results are still bound up with the mechanics, but they are filtered through the GM, who relays only descriptions to the players. This allows the players’ focus to remain more tightly aligned with their characters’.
Avoiding 'Switching Costs'
By incorporating such methods we can avoid paying what psychologists call, Switching Costs: constantly shifting gears between two very different mental activities. For our purposes, this is the juggling of the Meta vs. Make Believe.
Under conventional RPG methods, the players’ focus is repeatedly swapping back & forth between the perspective of their characters and the mechanics governing outcomes. That toggling diminishes the steady flow of imagination which allows the players to have a deeper connection with their characters.
To the degree that we minimize player attention on the Meta (numbers & algorithms), the cheaper the players’ Switching Costs, and the stronger their focus can be on pure imagination.
Experimenting
Of course, all of this might have some of you screeching, “heresy!” I get it. Many of our RPG methods/habits are so old that they feel like dogmas. Players seeing numbers and rolling for all results may feel so integral to the game that giving it up is unfathomable.
I simply invite you, yet again, to ask yourself, “What gaming experience do I most want?” If the answer is, “To have a stronger ‘flesh & blood’ (more ‘real-life’) experience,” then you should have no Sacred Cows. Be willing to topple all dogmas, to change all gaming habits if there are ways of playing that help you reach your goals.
Experimenting (in good-faith) is the only way to see the effects of changes like the shift I describe above. Run through multiple scenarios and see if Unity of Perspectives doesn’t pay off for you.