Comments on: Games Within Games: Fun or Distracting? http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting Game mastering advice, ideas & resources • Dedicated to helping GMs Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1029 Martin Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:35:44 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1029 I suspect I'm clouding the waters with my terminology -- especially saying "game" too often. ;) Game within a game: Stands alone, more or less, and the rules for it fall outside of the game mechanics. Most importantly, played by the people sitting around the table, not just their characters. Sub-game: An offshoot of the game mechanics that doesn't stand alone and isn't played out at the table (at least, not in the same way). Decking is a <i>perfect</i> example of a sub-game -- and based on my experience (years ago) with SR, a pretty lousy one. And I agree: Decking definitely felt like it wasn't happening in the same game as the <i>rest</i> of the game. ;) I suspect I’m clouding the waters with my terminology — especially saying “game” too often. ;)

Game within a game: Stands alone, more or less, and the rules for it fall outside of the game mechanics. Most importantly, played by the people sitting around the table, not just their characters.

Sub-game: An offshoot of the game mechanics that doesn’t stand alone and isn’t played out at the table (at least, not in the same way).

Decking is a perfect example of a sub-game — and based on my experience (years ago) with SR, a pretty lousy one. And I agree: Decking definitely felt like it wasn’t happening in the same game as the rest of the game. ;)

]]> By: Judas http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1025 Judas Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:16:28 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1025 I agree that it might be outside the threads definition of a sub-game. It sure felt like a sub-game at the time tho :) Being the "gun guy" I spent the time reading one of the arms supplements the first time a real "Decking" session unfolded. In later games it was greatly streamlined. I agree that it might be outside the threads definition of a sub-game. It sure felt like a sub-game at the time tho :)

Being the “gun guy” I spent the time reading one of the arms supplements the first time a real “Decking” session unfolded. In later games it was greatly streamlined.

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1022 Martin Fri, 16 Dec 2005 01:04:07 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1022 Frank: They can have other uses, if they fit your style, but they definitely work well as fun diversions. :) Frank: They can have other uses, if they fit your style, but they definitely work well as fun diversions. :)

]]> By: Frank http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1021 Frank Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:34:36 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1021 Right, I wouldn't really classify the poker hands in Deadlands as a game within the game. So basically I see no real use for a game within a game, except as a fun diversion. Frank Right, I wouldn’t really classify the poker hands in Deadlands as a game within the game.

So basically I see no real use for a game within a game, except as a fun diversion.

Frank

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1020 Martin Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:21:54 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1020 Frank and Judas: You both made a lot of points that ring true for me, based on my experience with games within games: involve the whole group, have a purpose in mind, and so forth. But in terms of your examples, I don't consider drawing Poker hands in <i>Deadlands</i> or running the Matrix in <i>Shadowrun</i> to be games within games. Both are part of the game mechanics, although the Poker hands do involve props and have a more standalone feel, and they don't really involve the players in the same way that, say, tossing down some Three Dragon Ante would. I agree that decking in SR <i>becomes</i> a sub-game within the larger game, but it doesn't stand on its own in any way -- it just happens to take place separately from the main game. Does that make sense? Frank and Judas: You both made a lot of points that ring true for me, based on my experience with games within games: involve the whole group, have a purpose in mind, and so forth.

But in terms of your examples, I don’t consider drawing Poker hands in Deadlands or running the Matrix in Shadowrun to be games within games.

Both are part of the game mechanics, although the Poker hands do involve props and have a more standalone feel, and they don’t really involve the players in the same way that, say, tossing down some Three Dragon Ante would.

I agree that decking in SR becomes a sub-game within the larger game, but it doesn’t stand on its own in any way — it just happens to take place separately from the main game.

Does that make sense?

]]> By: Judas http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-1019 Judas Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:13:38 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-1019 Most of the replies so far center around traditional game-in-game stuff like dice and cards. I go into something a bit different. One of the failings of the Shadowrun system (FASA) is Hacking. There were entire supplements that dealt with this, so it was in effect, a game within the game. The problem? SR was mainly geared towards a "team" with fighter types, drivers, hackers, mages, etc. So, when it was time to hack (or "Deck" to use game terms) if you did it by the book, the decker would have this mini game that could go on for a very long time (as in, the other players go out to eat). Naturally, this was modified in practice to just a few die rolls between player and GM. The bottom line; a game in a game must include all players to be fun for all I think or it will get old quick. Most of the replies so far center around traditional game-in-game stuff like dice and cards. I go into something a bit different.

One of the failings of the Shadowrun system (FASA) is Hacking. There were entire supplements that dealt with this, so it was in effect, a game within the game. The problem? SR was mainly geared towards a “team” with fighter types, drivers, hackers, mages, etc. So, when it was time to hack (or “Deck” to use game terms) if you did it by the book, the decker would have this mini game that could go on for a very long time (as in, the other players go out to eat). Naturally, this was modified in practice to just a few die rolls between player and GM.

The bottom line; a game in a game must include all players to be fun for all I think or it will get old quick.

]]> By: Frank http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-983 Frank Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:34:11 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-983 I have pretty much never use a game within a game. The exception is Deadlands where spell casters draw a poker hand to determine the strength of their spells. I think this is a cool way to include a game within a game, though hard to balance. The problem with game within a game is what is the purpose. If the purpose is to simulate what the characters are doing, then one's character is only as good at the game as the player is (unless you have some mechanics that allow the player to "cheat"). Another way is if, like in Deadlands, the game is used to generate probabilities and does not depend on player skill (the character is not gambling on the poker hands in Deadlands, nor does he have to bluff, though he does need to understand the probabilities, but we also expect that in any game system with a fortune mechanic, also, Deadlands allows more skilled characters to draw more cards, adjusting the probabilities). If the game is just to pass time, then you have to ask whether it's something all the players will enjoy, and what affect it will have on pacing (such things can be fun, I can also preparing a special meal for the players to coincide with an in game banquet or party). Frank I have pretty much never use a game within a game. The exception is Deadlands where spell casters draw a poker hand to determine the strength of their spells. I think this is a cool way to include a game within a game, though hard to balance.

The problem with game within a game is what is the purpose. If the purpose is to simulate what the characters are doing, then one’s character is only as good at the game as the player is (unless you have some mechanics that allow the player to “cheat”). Another way is if, like in Deadlands, the game is used to generate probabilities and does not depend on player skill (the character is not gambling on the poker hands in Deadlands, nor does he have to bluff, though he does need to understand the probabilities, but we also expect that in any game system with a fortune mechanic, also, Deadlands allows more skilled characters to draw more cards, adjusting the probabilities). If the game is just to pass time, then you have to ask whether it’s something all the players will enjoy, and what affect it will have on pacing (such things can be fun, I can also preparing a special meal for the players to coincide with an in game banquet or party).

Frank

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-967 Martin Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:45:29 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-967 Thanks for the link, DM T. I took my comments over to your blog. :) Thanks for the link, DM T. I took my comments over to your blog. :)

]]> By: DM T. http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-965 DM T. Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:37:43 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-965 Ok, I loaded up the dice version of my "Shipwreck" game on my blogspot. If anything is not coherent enough, let me know. Mind you, that I'm not native English speaker, just a guy hailing from Israel. It can be found here: http://dmandstuff.blogspot.com Ok, I loaded up the dice version of my “Shipwreck” game on my blogspot.

If anything is not coherent enough, let me know. Mind you, that I’m not native English speaker, just a guy hailing from Israel.

It can be found here:
http://dmandstuff.blogspot.com

]]> By: DM T. http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-964 DM T. Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:58:09 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-964 In my campaign there's a gambling game that I named "Shipwreck". It's somewhat resembles a card game called "Race". Each participating team must steer a ship through a set of course (number of rounds played, decided at each table). Each team consists of a captain and a navigator (two players). The navigator's job is to evade tricks, while the captains job is to play tricks on other teams. There are two versions for the game, a dice game based mainly on luck, and a more strategic one based on cards. I've ran the dice version for the group twice now, it's quite fun and doesn't take long to play (it's for those who really like to throw dice) and my players really like it. I might post the actual rules on our group's blog, since now that I think of it, it could be great fun not only for my group :) Anyway, I've read about Three Dragon Ante and if it's good, I'll incorporate it in my game also. In my campaign there’s a gambling game that I named “Shipwreck”.
It’s somewhat resembles a card game called “Race”.
Each participating team must steer a ship through a set of course (number of rounds played, decided at each table).
Each team consists of a captain and a navigator (two players).
The navigator’s job is to evade tricks, while the captains job is to play tricks on other teams.
There are two versions for the game, a dice game based mainly on luck, and a more strategic one based on cards.
I’ve ran the dice version for the group twice now, it’s quite fun and doesn’t take long to play (it’s for those who really like to throw dice) and my players really like it.

I might post the actual rules on our group’s blog, since now that I think of it, it could be great fun not only for my group :)

Anyway, I’ve read about Three Dragon Ante and if it’s good, I’ll incorporate it in my game also.

]]> By: Martin http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-953 Martin Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:40:16 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-953 Scott: I don't think I'd thought about myself until I played a game of <i>Bunnies & Burrows</i> back in college -- there's a game in B&B called Petals that almost fits the "game within a game" mold, and it's a lot of fun. That opened my eyes to this relatively minor -- but interesting -- aspect of RPGs. Scott: I don’t think I’d thought about myself until I played a game of Bunnies & Burrows back in college — there’s a game in B&B called Petals that almost fits the “game within a game” mold, and it’s a lot of fun. That opened my eyes to this relatively minor — but interesting — aspect of RPGs.

]]> By: ScottM http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/games-within-games-fun-or-distracting/comment-page-1#comment-945 ScottM Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:59:27 +0000 http://www.treasuretables.org/?p=144#comment-945 Mostly, I've never really run a game that made me think about it. Usually any gambling (or the like) is a character quirk, not a group's quirk. If I had a smuggler player who liked playing Sabbac, it might have come up. Mostly, I’ve never really run a game that made me think about it. Usually any gambling (or the like) is a character quirk, not a group’s quirk.

If I had a smuggler player who liked playing Sabbac, it might have come up.

]]>