# What the Heck is Fractal Adventure Design?



## Argyle King (Sep 15, 2013)

It sounds like you're describing the premise upon which GURPS City Stats is based.  http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/citystats/

"*GURPS City Stats* offers cohesive rules to define a city's  impact on adventurers. A new stat block provides a compact way to write  up a city, just like a character, vehicle, or planet. Guidelines for  using urban regions in your campaign suggest how to turn them into  exciting encounters or challenging places to live."



In general, the idea that (I think) you're talking about is one of the things that made me like GURPS 4th Edition in general.  There is a certain consistency to the rules which (I feel) provide for a broader range of solutions to a problem to be viable.  Everything from swinging a sword to casting a spell to using diplomacy is done in more or less the same way.  Despite the cumbersome reputation of the system, the consistency I've found while running the game has made me believe -my opinion- that the game is less cumbersome than some editions of D&D.  Do I still find some faults with the system?  Sure; sometimes I do, but I like having a game which has the flexibility to allow me to handle a wide variety of situations.  On the adventuring level, I like that one player can play a silver tongued bard and another player can play a hack'n'slash barbarian and both contribute to the adventure.  On a larger scale, the consistency of how things work allow me to stat up a city or a magic item in more-or-less the same way I'd stat up a character and be confident that things still work.  


All this being said, I'm still not sure that I'm entirely sure on what 'fractal' means in regards to the OP.  I feel like I do, but, somehow; at the end of the article, I still felt unsure.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Sep 16, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> It sounds like you're describing the premise upon which GURPS City Stats is based.  http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/citystats/
> 
> "*GURPS City Stats* offers cohesive rules to define a city's  impact on adventurers. A new stat block provides a compact way to write  up a city, just like a character, vehicle, or planet. Guidelines for  using urban regions in your campaign suggest how to turn them into  exciting encounters or challenging places to live."
> 
> ...




It wouldn't surprise me if similar ideas were rattling around in other games I'm less familiar with -- probably just not talked about in the same way, with the same terms.  

Where the idea becomes most interesting to me, really, is when you get to the idea of adventure design -- the idea of asking questions, and answering those questions through gameplay -- and using whatever scale of question is the most entertaining for play.  And, ultimately, that idea is system-neutral -- we can approach preparing and running adventures in any game system with those ideas. 

So, in the end, it's mostly about finding a way out of more rigid location-based and event-based adventure design.  Of course, that's all well and good until you reach a point at which you actually have to run a scene with a given system.  

Some, more free-flowing games like FATE are far easier to improvise with, because they game doesn't expect a level of detail in a scene -- the way D&D tends to -- that makes improvisation. Still, even in games that tend towards more preparation, being able to think about your campaign in these ways is still quite useful.  

-rg


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2013)

Radiating Gnome said:


> What do you think?






> A fractal is a pattern -- mathematical, perhaps, but not necessarily...




What do i think?  I think, "Arrrrgggghhhh!"  

But then, I think, "Arrrrgggghhhh!" whenever I notice math and science terms being denied their strength and origin.  I don't at all mind the analogy, but to early on outright deny the math and make it not an analogy but more like fact... Grrr.  Did you see that thread we had about whether movies should explain the science?  Same issues arise here.  For me, the piece would have been stronger if you'd said, "In math, they have this concept of a fractal, and here's an analogy to gaming..."

Sorry.  You asked 



> Where are other examples of Fractals in game design? Do you think this can be a useful way to approach running your game? Writing for your game?




That being said, the analogy does have some merit.  If the mechanics for resolving large-scale things (like the acts of countries, and the resolution of entire wars) is similar to the mechanics for small-scale things (like tactical combat), it can help your players from bogging down in rules that they don't use often.  You get to say, "It is just like X..."

You hit the point squarely, in that fractal design is not so much repeated as nested.  What happens on the planetary scale resembles what happens on the scale of nations, what happens on the scale of cities, and so on down.  In a true mathematical fractal, this goes on *forever* - there is a never a scale in which the pattern or theme doesn't show up.

And that's a way this can apply out of the mechanical arena, but in campaign design - repeated themes.  The conflicts the PCs have resemble the conflicts that happen to the town of their home base, and those resemble the troubles of the nation they are in.  This could come in the form of an organization - the BBEG is a necromancer, and he uses necromancers as lieutenants, and they use necromancers as minions.  Or, it could be in the form of dramatic themes, like "corruption" or "avarice" or "pride" or "no good deed goes unpunished" or what have you.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Sep 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> What do i think?  I think, "Arrrrgggghhhh!"
> 
> But then, I think, "Arrrrgggghhhh!" whenever I notice math and science terms being denied their strength and origin.  I don't at all mind the analogy, but to early on outright deny the math and make it not an analogy but more like fact... Grrr.  Did you see that thread we had about whether movies should explain the science?  Same issues arise here.  For me, the piece would have been stronger if you'd said, "In math, they have this concept of a fractal, and here's an analogy to gaming..."
> 
> Sorry.  You asked




No problem -- I'm not the originator of the usage, and I was just trying to explain what I'm seeing out there as I read what others are saying about it. 

I did, at least, link to an article about "real" fractals, rather than just relying on the usage I found in the FATE articles. 

And while I don't want to defend the sloppy use of terms from one sphere in unrelated sphere, I don't necessarily think it's unfair to use the concept in this way -- your complaint is not far from saying that metaphors are bad, but similes are okay -- it's okay to say something is "like a fractal" but not that something "is a fractal."  

-rg


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Sep 16, 2013)

Umbran said:


> And that's a way this can apply out of the mechanical arena, but in campaign design - repeated themes.  The conflicts the PCs have resemble the conflicts that happen to the town of their home base, and those resemble the troubles of the nation they are in.  This could come in the form of an organization - the BBEG is a necromancer, and he uses necromancers as lieutenants, and they use necromancers as minions.  Or, it could be in the form of dramatic themes, like "corruption" or "avarice" or "pride" or "no good deed goes unpunished" or what have you.




I think that works -- and clearly FATE likes it because the system of ASPECTS apply at all levels of the game. 

But I think where the ideas actually might be more useful to non-FATE players are the ideas of adventure design -- that idea of being able to zoom in and out to respond to the needs of your game, rather than sticking with a single (or a few) level(s) of focus, which tends to be where D&D can try to force us to play. 

-j


----------



## herrozerro (Sep 17, 2013)

After reading the linked google document I really love the idea of looking at things and reducing their components to the lowest question.  I feel that it will help my own foray into doing more improv DMing a little easier.  the players want to pull off a heist, well break it down into the lowest questions and start resolving them!


----------



## saskganesh (Sep 17, 2013)

This just sounds like good old sandboxing to me. Asking a bunch of "what if"questions (ahead of time and during the course of play) is a good, simple, process and a lot of people could benefit from adapting it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 17, 2013)

Interestingly enough, I think "fractal design" (and like Umbran, I think that's a silly use of the word) is one of the biggest complaints most people had about D+D 3.x

3.0 used of the same stat block and rules for creating NPCs/monsters as it did characters.  This was a really cool level of detail that let DMs and designers play around with customized enemies, and really added to the cohesive mechanics of the system.  But it was also huge pain in the ass to have to build a complete character for every enemy.  One of the biggest complaints about 3.x is the huge overhead for DMs at high level, largely due to the detail work required for enemies you know are going to die.  Using pre-built, cookie cutter monsters or just plain making up certain numbers is the only way I found to solve this problem.

What people want is cohesive design.  They want there to be consistent mechanics; always role high or always role low, but never switching.  They want there to be standardized forms for charts and stat blocks; a monster stat block and an NPC stat block (or a city stat block or a boat stat block) need to be visually similar in layout and information so that you can glance at them quickly and read all of them without familiarizing yourself to a new format.  They want common threads in the narrative that can be noted as the plot progresses, and they want recognizable symbolism across the game world.

But nobody really wants fractal design.  Nobody wants colossi that are mechanically exactly the same as fairies, because that completely destroys the sense of scale that makes colossi and fairies cool.  Nobody wants to put in the extreme level of detail into completely mundane and insignificant things that true fractal design would entail.  And frankly, true fractal design would be downright boring.  You need variation to keep things interesting.

So please, keep the design consistent, but keep fractals out of it.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Sep 17, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> 3.0 used of the same stat block and rules for creating NPCs/monsters as it did characters.  This was a really cool level of detail that let DMs and designers play around with customized enemies, and really added to the cohesive mechanics of the system.  But it was also huge pain in the ass to have to build a complete character for every enemy.  One of the biggest complaints about 3.x is the huge overhead for DMs at high level, largely due to the detail work required for enemies you know are going to die.  Using pre-built, cookie cutter monsters or just plain making up certain numbers is the only way I found to solve this problem.




That's all true -- one of key things that makes the concept more viable in games like FATE is that they're so much less crunchy that it does not imply a burden to apply the sort of same-mechanic-across-all-scales idea as it does for a game like D&D.




Deset Gled said:


> What people want is cohesive design.  They want there to be consistent mechanics; always role high or always role low, but never switching.  They want there to be standardized forms for charts and stat blocks; a monster stat block and an NPC stat block (or a city stat block or a boat stat block) need to be visually similar in layout and information so that you can glance at them quickly and read all of them without familiarizing yourself to a new format.  They want common threads in the narrative that can be noted as the plot progresses, and they want recognizable symbolism across the game world.




 if that's what everyone really wants, 4e will be a HUGE HIT.  It's got ALL of those things. 


-rg


----------



## Kinak (Sep 18, 2013)

I've been kicking around some kingdom-building rules for Pathfinder based on this sort of thinking (hexes are levels, hex types are classes, wonders are equipment, and so on). It's surprisingly flexible, even with a system as heavy as Pathfinder.

I think, however, this type of design naturally lends itself to simpler mechanics (such as Fate's aspects). Once you have a broad enough base mechanic, you can tie it to anything and let each object in your game world interact naturally. It's a thing of beauty when you get it working right.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## RivetGeekWil (Sep 20, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> Interestingly enough, I think "fractal design" (and like Umbran, I think that's a silly use of the word) is one of the biggest complaints most people had about D+D 3.x
> 
> 
> 3.0 used of the same stat block and rules for creating NPCs/monsters as it did characters.  This was a really cool level of detail that let DMs and designers play around with customized enemies, and really added to the cohesive mechanics of the system.  But it was also huge pain in the ass to have to build a complete character for every enemy.  One of the biggest complaints about 3.x is the huge overhead for DMs at high level, largely due to the detail work required for enemies you know are going to die.  Using pre-built, cookie cutter monsters or just plain making up certain numbers is the only way I found to solve this problem.
> ...





To be fair, the idea of the fractal in Fate Core (also known as the "Bronze Rule") is not full stat blocks for everything. It's that you can apply one or more components of what makes up a character (in FC terms, Aspects, Skills, Stunts, and Stress and Consequences) to what you need to in order to match how important it is or what the focus is. In other games, it's like only assigning hit points to an NPC that is just meant to be a damage sink, or only noting their 18 INT because every other attribute is average, or giving a mob some HD and having them attack as one creature. It's just that in Fate Core, this can be extended out to things that you wouldn't normally think of. Campaigns or settings can, and often do, have aspects. They can even have their own skills. You can give a storm a skill and use that to attack the characters, or a fire a stress track and consequences (think hit points) as the PCs try to put it out. But you just don't do it because you can...you do it because that's where you want the focus to be, and to make things interesting.


----------



## Argyle King (Sep 20, 2013)

I don't think you necessarily need a "lite" game in the vein of Fate for something like this to work.  A more robust game which has a solid core can be built upon as well.  Also, having rules doesn't necessarily mean you're required to use all of them; that's actually one of the great things about "toolkit systems."  They're designed with the idea that you probably will not use all of them.

I agree that the basic premise of writing up a town or a vehicle or a nation in a manner similar to a character can be helpful.  I don't agree that doing so requires a more loosely defined game; that's only one way of doing it.  The other route is something I already mentioned; you can start with a solid core that is consistent and coherent enough to support multiple pillars at multiple granularity levels.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2013)

Kinak said:


> I think, however, this type of design naturally lends itself to simpler mechanics (such as Fate's aspects). Once you have a broad enough base mechanic, you can tie it to anything and let each object in your game world interact naturally. It's a thing of beauty when you get it working right.




I had almost forgotten.  I've worked with a playtest copy of the Fate-based Atomic Robo Rules.

I am not sure how appropriate it is for me to discuss specific mechanics - I'd have to double-check the NDA.  But they have at least one nifty idea in there for having interactions across the scales of play - sometimes how things go for the PCs will impact a larger organization.


----------

