Exploring the concept of a "core game loop" in tabletop board games and roleplaying games, why it benefits players, and how it can become a compulsion loop.
I'll take it further: These days in TTRPGs, I'm basically always looking for an explicit articulation of the core game loop up front. For me, it's almost a bit of a let down, or even a red flag, if I'm reading a brand new TTRPG in 2025 and I can't discern such a thing.
I've had too many excellent experiences with the power of the core game loop lately (Monster of the Week, Blades, Brindlewood Bay, arguably Mausritter) and too many major let-downs in its absence (D&D 5e) that I'm convinced we need to put core game loops at center stage.
I tend to agree, but perhaps not in EVERY case. :) Diversity in gaming is good, and I'd love to see all types of games all the time. That said, probably due to my board game background, I feel more comfortable diving into a new game if the core game loop is explicitly defined early on.
I don't know, man, I really might believe that EVERY game needs either a core game loop, or little loops built in along the way. Look at a game like 5e, and how much blood has been spilled arguing about the definition of an "adventuring day." I know my players' favorite sessions in non-looped games are sessions in which there was a divergent session structure, or some mini-game involved, or a combat with clearly articulated milestones/objectives.
I'll write my own blog post and stop gumming up your comments with unhinged rants. Great meeting you at PAXU, thanks for the sticker, man!
I’m in the current minority of Neutral/Depends, and that’s because I’m taking the ‘well-defined’ element strongly. D&D, for instance, doesn’t have a well-defined core game loop IMO. There are several implicit game loops at various levels (e.g. combat, or the explore, short rest, long rest loops) but it isn’t well defined and doesn’t need to be.
On the other hand, Blades in the Dark has a clear and well-defined core loop which is spelled out in the game - Free Play, Engagment Roll, Score, Downtime (repeat). There are implicit game loops within the game, but this is a core game loop which is explicitly defined and is one of the defining features of this game.
My recently kickstarted game, Tail-End Charlie has a core game loop of Operation - > Downtime (repeat) and that is central to the experience of the game.
So IMO, ‘it depends’ because some games use a well-defined core game loop as a central philosophy to the way the game works, and other games have one or more implicit game loops which naturally arise, but are not spelled out as such. And that is OK!
2. Players make action declarations (or request more information)
3. DM describes how the world reacts
with combat running its own core loop as an almost separate game.
The reason why I assume combat is a separate game is the reports of the players who "had a wonderful roleplaying session, yet didn't roll a single die!", which signifies for me that combat isn't the (only) core. I guess, the opposite can also be true (having a wonderful combat session without a single roleplaying interaction), which is why I hesitate to say which of the separate games is the "main"core loop.
I think you are right on the D&D loop. It even serves to help the players understand what is coming next. In my experiences, the game develops a predictable, repeatable rhythm between players and GM going back and forth.... taking actions and describing the consequences and/or the world.
Yes, the dungeon exploration game element in D&D (especially B/X D&D) is a good example of the game loop. Players propel their characters through doors and corridors into rooms. The DM describes what is in the room, and the players decide how their characters will interact with the room and decide which room to explore next. That’s a really clear way that the game works and players all know that’s what they should expect, once they have played a couple of sessions.
Checkers, Chess, Go: the game loop is driven by each of two players moving a single piece in alternating turns.
Snakes&Ladders, Candyland: each of 2 to 4 players utilizing a random number generator (RNG) to inform moving a single piece in round-robin turns.
Parcheesi, Sorry: each of 2 to 4 players utilizing a RNG to inform moving a single piece (of multiple) in round-robin turns.
Monopoly: utilizing the same loop structure as Snakes&Ladders, Candyland, plus the game board itself (Collect $200), plus the loop of landing on rental property (evaluating for purchase vs. paying rent), plus the player initiated loop of trading properties, plus a few others.
How many of these loops are employed in RPGs? How often are they explicit or implied?
The more "open world" a TTRPG is, the more I think the core game loop becomes a little more abstract and/or higher level. In the games above you have a very explicit loop of turns and rounds. For an RPG it might be a loop involving acquiring a quest, dungeon crawling, beating a BBEG, and returning to rest/resupply. So I think the answer is "both" or "all of the above." :)
Thank you so much for this comment! Perfect example of why I love SCM readers and how much I learn from them each week!
I had never heard of this concept, but it seems like a perfect analogy. I’ve heard some of the songs listed on that page but never really thought about how they never repeat. Fascinating, and I know what I’ll be listening to today.
Making a through-composed game jam with loop-less games would be fun.:)
Cool idea for a jam. My mind immediately goes to a James Bond movie, which all have a kind of meta loop, but there is no repeated sections. You start the game with a cold open (in media res) where the characters are introduced, then there is a theme song, where the players have to karaoke the song, then there’s a roleplay bit where there’s a mission briefing, then the characters start their investigation, maybe a casino game section where the players and GM play out a game of blackjack, then a chase sequence, a combat sequence, maybe love scene where you have a minigame, an interrogation sequence… would be interesting to actually write the rules of the game!
I had the same problem, for sufficiently abstract definitions of core game loop. My original thought was very open-world, non-combat TTRPGs, but they seem to have some sort of loop as well. Even, at its broadest form, if it is "go to the next scene, players react, GM tells them what happens, repeat."
Almost all of the games I design have a strong cycle of play, which is more or less the same thing. Players go through each phase in order, but what each phase looks like will vary dramatically.
In Cyberrats, the mission phase is usually beating up aliens. This is followed by performance reports, and then the downtime phase. Some groups spend half the game in downtime, chatting with NPCs and touring the base they've built. Others gloss over it, eager to get back to the next mission.
I've definitely started looking out for a tight set of loops and phases, particularly ones that are generative and push the player's imagination in some direction rather than simply making space for imagination.
I've been exploring a core loop with lots of sub-loops or sub-routines that okay moves in and out of as it progresses, I find having a loop based system that puts up some resistance or exerts some influence on the direction of play is a good way of generating a novel imaginative response.
I'll take it further: These days in TTRPGs, I'm basically always looking for an explicit articulation of the core game loop up front. For me, it's almost a bit of a let down, or even a red flag, if I'm reading a brand new TTRPG in 2025 and I can't discern such a thing.
I've had too many excellent experiences with the power of the core game loop lately (Monster of the Week, Blades, Brindlewood Bay, arguably Mausritter) and too many major let-downs in its absence (D&D 5e) that I'm convinced we need to put core game loops at center stage.
Thanks for the comment!
I tend to agree, but perhaps not in EVERY case. :) Diversity in gaming is good, and I'd love to see all types of games all the time. That said, probably due to my board game background, I feel more comfortable diving into a new game if the core game loop is explicitly defined early on.
I don't know, man, I really might believe that EVERY game needs either a core game loop, or little loops built in along the way. Look at a game like 5e, and how much blood has been spilled arguing about the definition of an "adventuring day." I know my players' favorite sessions in non-looped games are sessions in which there was a divergent session structure, or some mini-game involved, or a combat with clearly articulated milestones/objectives.
I'll write my own blog post and stop gumming up your comments with unhinged rants. Great meeting you at PAXU, thanks for the sticker, man!
Good to meet you too! PAXU is such a whirlwind.
And your comments are always welcome and appreciated here!
I’m in the current minority of Neutral/Depends, and that’s because I’m taking the ‘well-defined’ element strongly. D&D, for instance, doesn’t have a well-defined core game loop IMO. There are several implicit game loops at various levels (e.g. combat, or the explore, short rest, long rest loops) but it isn’t well defined and doesn’t need to be.
On the other hand, Blades in the Dark has a clear and well-defined core loop which is spelled out in the game - Free Play, Engagment Roll, Score, Downtime (repeat). There are implicit game loops within the game, but this is a core game loop which is explicitly defined and is one of the defining features of this game.
My recently kickstarted game, Tail-End Charlie has a core game loop of Operation - > Downtime (repeat) and that is central to the experience of the game.
So IMO, ‘it depends’ because some games use a well-defined core game loop as a central philosophy to the way the game works, and other games have one or more implicit game loops which naturally arise, but are not spelled out as such. And that is OK!
Makes sense! Thank you for your comment!
I'd argue that D&D has a core loop of:
1. DM describes the situation
2. Players make action declarations (or request more information)
3. DM describes how the world reacts
with combat running its own core loop as an almost separate game.
The reason why I assume combat is a separate game is the reports of the players who "had a wonderful roleplaying session, yet didn't roll a single die!", which signifies for me that combat isn't the (only) core. I guess, the opposite can also be true (having a wonderful combat session without a single roleplaying interaction), which is why I hesitate to say which of the separate games is the "main"core loop.
I think you are right on the D&D loop. It even serves to help the players understand what is coming next. In my experiences, the game develops a predictable, repeatable rhythm between players and GM going back and forth.... taking actions and describing the consequences and/or the world.
Yes, the dungeon exploration game element in D&D (especially B/X D&D) is a good example of the game loop. Players propel their characters through doors and corridors into rooms. The DM describes what is in the room, and the players decide how their characters will interact with the room and decide which room to explore next. That’s a really clear way that the game works and players all know that’s what they should expect, once they have played a couple of sessions.
Checkers, Chess, Go: the game loop is driven by each of two players moving a single piece in alternating turns.
Snakes&Ladders, Candyland: each of 2 to 4 players utilizing a random number generator (RNG) to inform moving a single piece in round-robin turns.
Parcheesi, Sorry: each of 2 to 4 players utilizing a RNG to inform moving a single piece (of multiple) in round-robin turns.
Monopoly: utilizing the same loop structure as Snakes&Ladders, Candyland, plus the game board itself (Collect $200), plus the loop of landing on rental property (evaluating for purchase vs. paying rent), plus the player initiated loop of trading properties, plus a few others.
How many of these loops are employed in RPGs? How often are they explicit or implied?
The more "open world" a TTRPG is, the more I think the core game loop becomes a little more abstract and/or higher level. In the games above you have a very explicit loop of turns and rounds. For an RPG it might be a loop involving acquiring a quest, dungeon crawling, beating a BBEG, and returning to rest/resupply. So I think the answer is "both" or "all of the above." :)
I can't come up with an example of game that doesn't use core loop. I wonder if we can find any!
That said (my other reply), I'm open to the idea that they exist. :)
In music, the analogy would be through-composed music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-composed_music?wprov=sfti1#Opera_and_musicals
Where there is no repetition of sections of a song. E.g. Bohemian Rhapsody or In Dreams. There is no core loop in those!
Thank you so much for this comment! Perfect example of why I love SCM readers and how much I learn from them each week!
I had never heard of this concept, but it seems like a perfect analogy. I’ve heard some of the songs listed on that page but never really thought about how they never repeat. Fascinating, and I know what I’ll be listening to today.
Making a through-composed game jam with loop-less games would be fun.:)
Cool idea for a jam. My mind immediately goes to a James Bond movie, which all have a kind of meta loop, but there is no repeated sections. You start the game with a cold open (in media res) where the characters are introduced, then there is a theme song, where the players have to karaoke the song, then there’s a roleplay bit where there’s a mission briefing, then the characters start their investigation, maybe a casino game section where the players and GM play out a game of blackjack, then a chase sequence, a combat sequence, maybe love scene where you have a minigame, an interrogation sequence… would be interesting to actually write the rules of the game!
this sounds very much like Thirty Flights of Loving!
https://store.steampowered.com/app/214700/Thirty_Flights_of_Loving/
That's awesome!
Now I can't wait to play Bohemian Rhapsody: the Roleplaying Game :D
I had the same problem, for sufficiently abstract definitions of core game loop. My original thought was very open-world, non-combat TTRPGs, but they seem to have some sort of loop as well. Even, at its broadest form, if it is "go to the next scene, players react, GM tells them what happens, repeat."
You had me at "you are a muffin"!
Almost all of the games I design have a strong cycle of play, which is more or less the same thing. Players go through each phase in order, but what each phase looks like will vary dramatically.
In Cyberrats, the mission phase is usually beating up aliens. This is followed by performance reports, and then the downtime phase. Some groups spend half the game in downtime, chatting with NPCs and touring the base they've built. Others gloss over it, eager to get back to the next mission.
I've definitely started looking out for a tight set of loops and phases, particularly ones that are generative and push the player's imagination in some direction rather than simply making space for imagination.
I've been exploring a core loop with lots of sub-loops or sub-routines that okay moves in and out of as it progresses, I find having a loop based system that puts up some resistance or exerts some influence on the direction of play is a good way of generating a novel imaginative response.