Many games, both digital and physical, contain multiple "modes" of play. In some games, these modes are distinct from one another, such as Halo's story campaign and multiplayer versus modes. In others, gameplay may naturally flow between modes, for example, moving between combat and dialogue in Mass Effect. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to the former as "Discrete Modes" and the latter as "Indiscrete Modes."
As tabletop roleplaying games are often made to facilitate stories rather than solely providing a gameplay loop, modes of play are a common tool used to help pace the rate of play. This most commonly takes the form of freeform "loose" modes (exploration, freeform dialogue) and the more rigidly structured "tight" modes (combat, structured dialogue). Some games have taken this further with explicitly defined modes of play, and today, I will take a look at three of these games to examine how they tackle modal play.
For this article, I have chosen 3 combat-focused games that are descended from the d20 engine created for Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition. The first is Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, the most popular tabletop roleplaying game in the United States, the second is Pathfinder Second Edition, a direct competitor to Dungeons & Dragons, and Lancer, a science fiction game about fighting in gigantic mechs.
Dungeons & Dragons: The Three Pillars
One of the philosophical changes made to Dungeons & Dragons in its 5th Edition is the codification of the Three Pillars of Play: Combat, Exploration, and Social Encounters. While these modes have always existed to some degree, 5th Edition is, as far as I am aware, the first edition to specifically highlight the three and introduce the term "Three Pillars."
Despite this codification, D&D 5e immediately betrays this philosophy in multiple ways. First, the grand majority of the rules and player options are for combat and combat only. As such, players are not given many tools to meaningfully interact with the other two pillars.
Second, options whose fantasy involves one of the other two pillars tend to get abilities that eliminate elements of those pillars entirely. The Ranger class, for instance, doesn't get more ways to meaningfully participate in survivalist gameplay, but instead just gets to outright ignore elements of it. Rather than character options being used to enhance fantasies by encouraging players to pursue the actions tied to those fantasies, the options simply give the result of those fantasies.
Finally, many classes are only given abilities to meaningfully contribute in the combat pillar. In the other two pillars, classes such as the Fighter or Barbarian have very little to contribute to problem solving compared to the skillful or magical classes. All else being equal, everything the Fighter or Barbarian could possibly do can also be done by other classes, resulting in classes that simply do not get to mechanically contribute to exploration or social encounters. This issue is somewhat offset by the skill system, but even that is ineffectual at providing niches to characters thanks to bounded accuracy.
Overall, I find the implementation of modal play in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition to be a poor one. The lack of player-oriented content in non-combat modes as well as the poor balancing philosophy have resulted in a game that really only has one "complete" mode, and that mode is arguably lacking relative to the game's contemporaries.
Pathfinder: Encounter, Exploration, and Downtime
While Pathfinder Second Edition has a "soft" implementation of the Three Pillars codified by D&D 5e like many d20 fantasy games, it primarily organizes its gameplay into modes based on narrative stakes and timescale: Encounter, Exploration, and Downtime.
Encounter mode is used for high-stakes instances where details such as time and exact positioning are important. While this is primarily used for combat, it also sees use in more detailed social and exploration scenes such as debates and complex hazards. Encounter mode uses a traditional initiative and round system, with each player and NPC getting 1 turn per round, with each round representing 6 seconds of time passing in-game. This is the only mode that uses Pathfinder 2e's 3-Action system.
Exploration mode, as the name suggests, is often used for exploration, but is the mode used for any sort of flexible timescale where there are still relevant stakes. General dialogue, investigation, dungeoneering, and overland travel use this mode. During Exploration mode, players choose a specific exploration activity to execute such as Search, Scout, or Sneak, but players may also improvise their own activities or perform specific tasks. Overall, this mode is used for the grand majority of gameplay that isn't combat.
The third and final mode, Downtime, is the least used of the three. Downtime mode occurs when stakes are low to non-existent, and it is primarily used for time between adventures. Downtime may take days, weeks, months, or years in-game, but for players, downtime takes very little time. A player chooses a specific downtime activity for their character to perform, such as crafting an item or acquiring income, and the character performs said activity until Downtime or the activity ends. Ultimately, Downtime mode is a rather hands-off mode that serves to give context to what player characters are doing between outings.
Pathfinder 2e's implementation of modal play is effective as a codification of how many TTRPGs handle timescale. While it does not do anything particularly novel or interesting, it is clear, concise, and well-formatted, though there are occasional hiccups when switching between modes.
Lancer: Pilot and Mech
Lancer, out of almost every TTRPG I've played, has the most discrete modal play in the form of Pilot and Mech modes. The modes do not interact in any way whatsoever, but unlike similar implementations in other games (such as Lancer's sister game ICON), the modes of play make perfect thematic sense as the Pilot and Mech are distinct entities. As a Pilot, players are given a small amount of character customization in order to enact rules-lite roleplay. Then, when players are in their Mechs, the game shifts to a grid-based combat game.
This implementation is simple, effective, and practical, but it requires the clean narrative/thematic separation of the two modes to not feel arbitrary. Divorcing combat and non-combat abilities entirely tends to result in ludonarrative dissonance in most games, but tying each ability set to different scales/characters resolves this issue in an elegant manner.
Concluding Thoughts
For d20 combat games, I find Pathfinder 2e's implementation to be the most broadly applicable, but the other two provide valuable lessons. D&D 5e shows that each mode should be relevant to all players, and that all players should have unique and interesting ways to contribute in every mode. Lancer shows that clean and discrete modal implementation can be quite valuable and that narrative structure and modality need to work in tandem to prevent ludonarrative dissonance.
Next time, I'll be discussing how Charisma as a stat in games is often mishandled and how it relates to modal play.
Comentarios