Types of patterns

The other day, I proposed that the solution to making a setting mysterious is to develop in on and around some form of pattern.

From this, I offer that there are at least three levels of patterns: recurring, predictive, and systemic.

A recurring pattern means that similar things happens several times. This is the lowest level of a pattern, since if offers very little information to the player-characters except the realization that they have had similar experiences before. Basically, a recurring pattern is what happens if you never say "orc" and the player-characters figure out that it is in fact an orc they are encountering. This allows them to rely on proven tactics, thus making them more expert at survival. To have this type of pattern, all you need to do is to make sure that not everything in the setting is unique.

The recurring pattern only involves the PCs through reaction: they encounter the orc, they realize that it is an orc, and then they can apply their knowledge to overcome the obstacle. What I call a predictive pattern instead allows proactivity. It means that the player-characters can use their understanding of the setting to extrapolate results. They might figure out that the encounter table is weighted so that their next encounter will probably be an orc, or that the attack pattern of the dragon means it will use its its breath weapon in two rounds. Or, as in Isle, they might figure out where the next magic-user lives and who they are.

Note that this is not the specialized knowledge of rumors or similar information, but has much more to do with the general accumulation of information through experience. To include this type of pattern, you need to make sure that not everything in the setting is unique, and that there's some - any - logic to where and when things happen.

The third level of patterns are systemic. By this I mean that they enable the player-characters to form predictions not only about what will happen, but why. In other words, they sense the underlying logic of how and were systems are applied. It occurs to me that this is a large part of the appeal of the appeal with builds and combat-as-sport: you might become so intimately familiar with the system that you know with confidence that the party can push through an additional four encounters - any encounters - without any real risk. So the kick comes not from threat to the character or exploring the unknown,  but from seeing whether your estimates were correct. Like a mars landing: did the feet-to-meter conversion check out? If not, were the backup systems robust enough to still ensure victory? Point is: in these types of games, you can and is rewarded for cracking the system. In an OSR context, this is generally not something desirable. So if we want this kind of pattern, it has to be part of the setting. But if I'm correct, the consequence is that one cannot start the campaign with a city, two dungeons and a random encounter chart. Instead, the pattern must come first.

I don't really have a solution to how to do this. But my gut feeling is that you do it by revealing the setting through random encounter tables, connected items, landmarks and other things that are experienced in play and not in a "the story so far"-chapter. Or more generally: by presenting the consequences of your ideas, rather than the ideas themselves. At least, that's how I'll try to approach it for my next campaign.