engagement

[whattime]

I remember the first time I saw any D&D stuff, mentioned it on another thread.  An older kid showed me some of it.  There were a couple miniatures involved, and I think a book.  Likely a BECMI volume, but I don't remember.  I had no idea what it was all about.  There was talk about my being a cleric, which I think he said meant I could do magic and "fight".  Honestly, if I'm going on actual memories, I remember little but this. I think the cleric miniature stood on a map. I think the kid asked if I wanted to fight or cast my spell. I chose the spell, expecting that something would happen. But (and this I remember for sure) instead, he said "okay, so you stand there and chant." What was this about? Casting time? It seemed to take forever. It seemed other things were going on while I stood there and chanted. What would happen when I was done chanting?

I think there were several instances of this kind of play. He told me stuff and asked little questions and told me things in reply to my replies. I don't remember his name and have no idea where to find him. He probably doesn't even remember this.

But I mention it because I remember looking at that cleric mini and feeling engaged. Not invested, really—I had no notion of a character, really—but engaged. I was alert to what I was hearing. I remember looking at that figure expectantly. I was more than big enough to know that this little doll wasn't going to start talking or dancing. But I was engaged.

A similar kind of engagement, I think, happened when I first attempted and failed to read the Lord of the Rings at around the same age. I think I started with the in-world Prologue (or whatever it's called). And I didn't quite get it...was this real, or a fiction? If you know the Prologue, you know what I mean. Stuff about translation, the Red Book, and so on. I just didn't get what kind of thing I was reading. But I was engaged.

I don't have a grand statement here. Just...I wonder what controllable factors go into this kind of engagement at the table. Sure, adults have a better idea what to expect. It's not the same. But...what were the factors?

apparent belief from the teller?

a degree of personal engagement, putting himself out there?

no hedging, no apologies?

Any comments, replies, thoughts?

[Samwell Turleton]

There isn't an opportunity to read body language in the play by post format but I sometimes feel an excitement in the writing a player uses in their posts when something interesting is happening in the story. It can sometimes lead to a surge in participation. There is a momentum that builds behind interesting storytelling in this format. When there is that flow between posts I get more engaged.

I don't know the specific alchemy that creates that dynamic but it is a fun outcome of this format.

[whattime]

There isn't an opportunity to read body language in the play by post format but I sometimes feel an excitement in the writing a player uses in their posts when something interesting is happening in the story. It can sometimes lead to a surge in participation. There is a momentum that builds behind interesting storytelling in this format. When there is that flow between posts I get more engaged.

I don't know the specific alchemy that creates that dynamic but it is a fun outcome of this format.

I've wondered about this, too. It's impossible to remember specifically what happened at the table that made it fun rather than boring. I'm sure, as you say, body language and seeing others' engagement is a big part of it. With PbP, at least in principle, you should be able to track it more because everything is recorded. I had a bit of that during a PbP game. But still it's kind of hard to nail down. Of course, I'm not very experienced in PbP. I did play by "live chat" with dice rolling and stuff many years ago, before this site even existed, I think. I guess that was somewhere between PbP and tabletop. I did not love the system but I had a lot of fun.

[Leitz]

When you read a book, it's called "transference". Your connection to the main character. It helps if they are likeable, and each of us has different things that we can connect to. In games, likely, it's different. I don't *know*, but the thoughts that come to mind are:

How well the character fits something we want to play. While there can be a fun thought exercise playing someone very different that what we are comfortable with, there's a level of cognitive dissonance involved. That likely diminishes engagement.

How well we trust and get along with others in the game. If we have to always watch our back, or ensure we get "DM time", it's less fun and likely harder to engage.

How much agency we have as players. I like to write, and often do scenes for games I'm in. Some DMs are okay with that, and I've done a lot in their games. Hopefully I added to the story, too.

How much agency our characters have. Really, if we're playing a first level character in a tenth level game, there's likely not much we can do that won't be overshadowed by the other characters. Even if we're all the same level, but nothing we do makes any difference, it gets to a "What's the point?" time.

Is there a story actually going on? Really, this combines with character agency. Is something big going on that the PCs can get involved with? Are there challenges that the PCs have a chance at overcoming?

Are we there yet? Do the DM and the other players work to make the game feel "real"? Are descriptions descriptive?

[whattime]

I wasn't thinking of this when I started this thread, but I'll add it. I like the notion of the occasional connector, something that's the same in-game and in the world of the players. I know some refs make maps, "feelies," and so on, but one special fantasy of mine is the minigame. I imagine that actually playing a minigame against an NPC could be really engaging.

-dominoes
-a quick card game
-checkers
-a mancala-type game
-fox and geese

Of course, you have to know that a player can play ome of these games, but if so...the idea is very attractive to me.

The weirdest one I've imagined is using the fantasy combat table from Chainmail to resolve a "magical miniatures" game played against a wizard or someone.

Anyone done any of these?

[Paladin]

It's an odd thing for me.

What caught me about fantasy literature as a child was that it felt more real than our world.

Everything around me was plastic, particle-board, prefab, faux, and disposable.

Here was a world (Middle Earth and Narnia were my first two) where things were real. Age-blackened beams, heavy wrought-iron, ivory bone. Good food you can name every ingredient in, drinks made by someone in your village. Produce from your own farms. You interacted with a real, very present world. Nothing came from a faceless "other" you'd never meet. You were, in some small way, a part of it all.

Whereas I lived in the realm of throwaway culture. Fantasy realms had an air of permanence that appealed to me. I never imagined fathers leaving their families in Narnia, or random criminal acts marring the peace. That sort of evil was reserved for dark lords and witches.

Obviously, a child sees things differently than most adults, but that's what engaged me then. And still does to a degree, if I'm honest. I suppose it's called fantasy for a reason, eh?

[whattime]

What caught me about fantasy literature as a child was that it felt more real than our world.

Books in general felt more real to me that the anguished and fake 'real world' that I knew.

Your post reminds me of the quote from Tolkien. I imagine many here know it

Faërie contains many things besides elves and fays, and besides dwarfs, witches, trolls, giants, or dragons; it holds the seas, the sun, the moon, the sky; and the earth, and all things that are in it: tree and bird, water and stone, wine and bread, and ourselves, mortal men, when we are enchanted.

The 'elemental objects' (tree and bird, etc) that lead up to 'ourselves, mortal men' say something to me about fantasy RPGs. The power of these simple but rich things that we are so distracted from is somehow present. More accessible. Stats, rolls, and settings aside, that's somehow what I sit down for. Water and stone.

[Samwell Turleton]

whattime - I think the mini-game idea is interesting. I haven’t played the dead lands RPG but the card game had a mechanic where you would play a hand of poker to resolve an issue. The cards were printed with a number and a suit as a graphic in the corners. I have always thought that was really clever.

There are a lot of possibilities there!

[whattime]

whattime - I think the mini-game idea is interesting. I haven’t played the dead lands RPG but the card game had a mechanic where you would play a hand of poker to resolve an issue. The cards were printed with a number and a suit as a graphic in the corners. I have always thought that was really clever.

There are a lot of possibilities there!

I hadn't seen that. It sounds pretty cool.

I know imagination and stuff should be plenty, but I am really stuck on this mini-game idea right now. Particularly dominoes.

One limitation is that at least one player has to be able to play the game.

One bonus piece of engagement is that something is riding on the outcome.

The flavor should fit the setting, but a lot of these games are pretty ancient and common and can fit without problem into a lot of settings.

Three-Card Monte—Not strictly a game if you're playing it as a scam, but might be fun to see the DM try to pull it off as well as a professional con artist.

Faro-let the whole party play for a bit. Can turn into a win, loss, or brawl! Who knows who's cheating and how?

Go-board games. Especially Gomoku (five-in-a-row), which any player can learn on the spot. Two out of three? The wizard will be impressed if you take him in a match...

In Eastern Europe there is a common card-game mechanic of "beating" cards. (https://www.pagat.com/beating/) Some simpler ones might be suitable for this mini-game purpose. The mechanic is not so familiar in anglophone countries (I think), so it might be fun as a familiar / unfamiliar thing. For example, this game (https://www.pagat.com/beating/prostoy_durak.html) might be used...

That "beating" mechanic is similar to the trick-taking mechanic from bridge and similar games, but differs in that if you can't beat a card, you have to pick it up, maybe with others, and add it to your hand. Generally the goal is to get rid of all your cards.

So, if you adapted a beating game for an NPC-PC match to be played by DM and player...there could be a Deck of Many Things element where each card has some dastardly power that transfers treasure or ability scores or life away from the loser to the winner. If you lose with one card in your hand, not too bad. If ten...bad news. And the PC can also win.

Is the above the sort of thing, worked out, that people share on here?

[Leitz]

What caught me about fantasy literature as a child was that it felt more real than our world.

Books in general felt more real to me that the anguished and fake 'real world' that I knew.

That seems to be a big challenge for sci-fi games like Traveller, we have less of a "feels different" sense. In many ways sci-fi games don't actually work on the feeling at all, and I think we lose a lot because of that.

Along with that goes "PC engagement in the setting". I ask players to tell me about their characters so I can put stuff, specifically for them, in the game. There's still the major plot arc for the game, but there are PC arcs available as well. Often the PC arc can wind up driving the course of the game, and it gives the PC a lot of agency in how things go.