What Is Procedural Rhetoric in Video Games? A Clear Explanation
Procedural rhetoric in video games refers to the way games express ideas through their rules, systems, and mechanics rather than through traditional storytelling alone. Instead of telling players what to think, games can make arguments by shaping what players are allowed to do, what consequences follow, and how systems respond to their actions.
The term was introduced by Ian Bogost, who argued that digital games persuade not primarily through words or images, but through procedures. The structured systems and models that govern play. In this sense, a game’s mechanics are not neutral. They model assumptions about the world. They make claims. They invite interpretation.
Understanding procedural rhetoric helps explain how video games create meaning differently from film, literature, or other narrative media.
Who Introduced Procedural Rhetoric?
The concept of procedural rhetoric was developed by Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames (2007). Bogost proposed that games can make arguments not only through narrative content, but through rule-based systems.
Traditional rhetoric persuades through speech, writing, or visual representation. Procedural rhetoric, by contrast, persuades through processes. A game’s systems model how something works. Whether that is politics, war, economics, or social interaction. The player, by interacting with those systems, experiences a structured argument.
Bogost’s central claim is simple but powerful: games do not just represent ideas; they simulate and model them.
How Procedural Rhetoric Works in Video Games
Procedural rhetoric operates through three core mechanisms: rules, systems, and player agency.
Rules as Arguments
Every game is built on rules. These rules determine what actions are possible, what actions are restricted, and what outcomes follow. By defining these structures, a game implicitly argues that the world functions in a particular way. Modeling a world can never be a neutral task. Nor can it truly be objective.
For example, if a strategy game rewards relentless expansion and punishes cooperation, it models a competitive worldview. The rule structure itself becomes the argument.
Systems as Meaning
Games are systems of interacting mechanics. Resource management, combat loops, economic simulations, or reputation systems all contribute to how players understand the game world. How they perceive it.
Consider Foxhole, a multiplayer war game where every weapon must be manufactured and transported by players. The logistical system forces participants to experience coordination, scarcity, and dependence. The system communicates ideas about labor and responsibility not through dialogue, but through required action.
Meaning emerges from interaction.
Player Choice and Constraint
Procedural rhetoric does not eliminate player agency. If anything, it heavily relies on it, because it frames it to position its argument. Think of like the movie Inception by Christopher Nolan; an idea implanted within you is more powerful than one simply communicated to you. Players make choices, but those choices occur within a structured system. The constraints themselves are what shape interpretation.
If a game allows violent solutions but makes peaceful solutions difficult or inefficient, it expresses something about conflict. The player feels the weight of that design through experience rather than exposition.
Examples of Procedural Rhetoric in Games
Procedural rhetoric can be found across genres.
In management simulations like Victoria 3, economic systems may reward efficiency over ethics, encouraging players to prioritize profit. The mechanics themselves model a particular economic logic. Whereas in others like Cities Skylines, infrastructure balance and citizen satisfaction are your biggest priorities. The arguument isn’t delivered through dialogue or narrative, but through the system and world modeling.
In fast-paced shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield, the mechanics reward speed, reflexes, and constant forward momentum. Frequent respawns, rapid kill feedback, and streamlined loadouts model war as spectacle and high-intensity action. By contrast, games like Counter-Strike and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege slow the tempo dramatically. Limited lives, economic buy phases, destructible environments, and tactical planning emphasize caution, coordination, and risk management. The procedural rhetoric emerges through these systems: one frames conflict as relentless action, the other as calculated strategy and consequence.
To go even further, the weight of procedural rhetoric can vary significantly from game to game. Role-playing demonstrate this variation clearly. In Baldur's Gate 3, player decisions often produce systemic consequences that extend beyond dialogue. Quest lines can branch significantly, companions may permanently leave or turn hostile, and environmental interactions can reshape future encounters. The design relies heavily on systemic reactivity, modeling a world that meaningfully responds to player choice.By contrast, in Fallout 4, player agency is present but more constrained. While dialogue options and faction alignments offer variation, many core story outcomes remain structurally similar. The systems support role-play, but they do not always transform the underlying progression in substantial ways.
Both games employ procedural rhetoric, but to different extents. In one, systemic consequence is central to the experience; in the other, narrative framing carries more of the expressive weight.
Finally, These arguments are not delivered through dialogue. They are experienced through play.
Procedural Rhetoric vs Narrative Storytelling
It is important to distinguish procedural rhetoric from traditional narrative.
Narrative storytelling communicates meaning through plot, dialogue, and character development. It tells the player something.
Procedural rhetoric communicates meaning through systems. It makes the player experience something.
A game may tell a story about corruption, but if its mechanics reward corruption without consequence, the procedural argument contradicts the narrative one. This is why analyzing rules and systems is often more revealing than analyzing cutscenes. One such example of contradictory argumentation is Helldivers 2. The satirical narrative critiques militaristic propaganda. Yet the systems encourage and reward the behavior that is being mocked.
In games, mechanics are not secondary to story. They are expressive structures in their own right. They are the deepest layer of expression.
Why Procedural Rhetoric Matters
As video games have become the most influential forms of media, understanding how they create meaning has become increasingly important.
Unlike passive media, games require participation. They place players inside systems that structure behavior. These systems can model social dynamics, political assumptions, economic pressures, or ethical dilemmas.
Procedural rhetoric highlights that design choices are not neutral. Every rule, reward structure, and constraint carries implicit values, regardless of conscious or subconscious design. Recognizing this allows players and critics to interpret games not just as entertainment, but as cultural artifacts shaped by design philosophy.
For designers, procedural rhetoric is equally important. It reminds creators that mechanics are expressive tools. The way a system functions can say as much as any line of dialogue, if not more.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is procedural rhetoric the same as storytelling?
No. Storytelling communicates meaning through narrative elements like plot and character. Procedural rhetoric communicates meaning through systems and game mechanics.
Do all games use procedural rhetoric?
In a broad sense, yes. Any rule-based system models assumptions about how actions lead to outcomes. However, some games deploy procedural rhetoric more intentionally or visibly than others.
Can multiplayer games use procedural rhetoric?
Absolutely. Multiplayer systems can model elements such as cooperation, competition, scarcity, labor, or social hierarchy through their design structures.
Is procedural rhetoric always intentional?
Not necessarily. Designers may not consciously frame their systems as arguments, but systems inevitably express values through the behaviors they encourage or discourage. Subconscious design choices provide great insight into the cultural context of the game’s creation.
Why is procedural rhetoric important in game analysis?
It shifts focus from surface narrative to underlying systems, allowing deeper understanding of how games shape player interpretation and experience. Unlike film or literature, video games operate through rule-based interaction. Procedural rhetoric is therefore uniquely suited to games, because it examines how meaning emerges from mechanics and player participation rather than from representation alone.
