Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Garthanos]

I mean seriously, what's with that guy and who took a leak in his cheerios?

Here is a weird one I agree I have difficulty digging past the overly exaggeratedly critical portrayal of other peoples play style to meaningful
elements which might be in there.

 

[Garthanos]

Take baseball as an example, I'm guessing the reasons someone likes or dislikes baseball is a play here. If you are sitting in the stands and your favorite team is at bat, you are attending the game but you are not participating.

I would rather take football...

"Baseball is a nineteenth-century pastoral game.
Football is a twentieth-century technological struggle."

--George Carlin.

Note football involves lots more dynamic and explicit gaining of advantage via positioning not a bad analogy. D&D has become more like football. Lots of explicit roles including defenders and strikers.

Though there are also soccer or hockey elements anyone and everyone on the field can score goals...at most anytime.

 

[jmucchiello]

Note football involves lots more dynamic and explicit gaining of advantage via positioning not a bad analogy. D&D has become more like football.

So like AD&D, the players will designate a caller and he'll take orders from a coaching team of 5 other people to direct each round or "play". Then everyone will take their actions simultaneously and then huddle up for no more than 30 seconds while the coaching team tells them what to do. The caller relays this info to the players and every takes their actions simultaneously. After a few plays a whole new group of players will come in to finish the encounter and the yet another whole group of players will come in to start the next part of the adventure. Football, yeah, that makes sense.

And it's too bad George is dead. We'll never find out what the 21st Century game is.

 

[Garthanos]

It has become much more like Football. It has always been somewhat true but it feels more true with the newer mechanics.

In 4e the warlord is a quarterback archetype... the runners and recievers are strikers the line is defenders... who stop you from getting to the others etc. There is even an Archer warlord for the quarterback who specializes in the passing game ;-). The characters with the various roles have more abilities to reinforce there functions.(like defenders able to stop attacks against there allies and the warlord/leader who enables the strikers).

In 4e (3e too right?) that every-bodies actions are coming simultaneously is reinforced by out of turn actions.

Positioning advantages are explicit for every character in 4e. Ignoring it is missing out and will result in inferior effectiveness. gee sounds ike the kind of thing a EG will love right? choices that he has to make that slows each round and may result in failures.

And it's too bad George is dead. We'll never find out what the 21st Century game is.

And the too bad part is because he was awesome.

 

[Garthanos]

As I said earlier in the thread, perhaps this observation about faster, more frequent WIN does more than just cater to the twitch gamer. In the case of "more to do during a round" it also keeps casual gamers engaged.

Actual real combat is not in a turn order so breaking that up is really catering to simulationists.(see that very absolutist)

So who exactly is getting catered t?

I mean increase significant choice density slows feedback it doesn't speed it up. And the more real the choices are... the less it caters to "mr unthinking easy win".

AD&D is the perfect game to addict somebody to fast "I attack" "You hit" pellet releases if that is what you want.

 

[Celebrim]

Has nothing to do with bad DM's and everything to do with the mechanics. It's not that older games weren't fun most of the time, it's that older games forced a very traditional setup of "act on your turn, not on someone else's".

We've suddenly got real time combat?

I don't have the books in front of me, but the 'Attack of Oppurtunity' concept which forms the core of the argument you are advancing here is not a new concept. It has just been formalized better than in older editions, but in older editions taking a non-combat action while threatened did draw an attack from anyone threatening you. In fact, by the time 2e came out, I'd taken this notion and formalized it into 'parries' and 'counterattacks' that looked alot like a clunky version of 3e's AoO. But even without my formalization, it's in there. You couldn't make a missile attack or quafe a potion in melee without getting attacked.

Moreover, older game systems actually in some ways did a much better job of handling simultaneous action than modern versions of D&D. Most elegantly, older versions of D&D maintained the wargame-like concept of 'phases' within the turn, so that for example, everyone made simultaneous movement during a movement phase, which was followed by everyone taking turns making attacks. In practice, this actually made the battle simulate real-time much better than 3e and post 3e's strictly turn based sequence where everyone completes a full set of actions and attacks in initiative order. So I'm not sure I agree that there has been net movement in the direction of acting out of turn, except possibly in 4e's concept of 'team play' where your actions can trigger actions in your teammates. That is new, although I'm not sure that it necessarily means you act more often since if you aren't the one who gets an additional action, it just means you are waiting longer for your turn. On the whole, I tend to think of it as a wash.

Older, traditional games spent a HUGE amount of time doing not much of anything. You sat and watched the other players doing something a whole pile. You couldn't act out of turn.

This seems like a false assertion backed up by a thin bit of evidence. The primary time in older traditional games I can remember spending a huge amount of time doing not much of anything is when we split the party - and that was only for some groups.* Most groups played a more traditional game and never split the party, and in that case I don't have the recollection you have. Splitting the party in a modern game will end up with the same passive participation phase as you watch (or not) the other members of play do their thing while waiting for yours.

*(Splitting the party in some groups became a big enough problem that in some groups I had a primary PC and several 'hench-PCs' who were the henchmen of another primary PC. This resolved what had been the increasingly big problem of waiting around watching other players do something.)

Heck, going way back, you had a caller who would mediate between you and the GM, removing even your ability to really decide all your own actions.

I go back far enough to remember when this was the suggested course of action in the rule books, but not far back enough to remember this ever being strictly enforced. And, even in the example of play in the 1e DMG, it wasn't strictly enforced and there is direct DM to non-leader player communication. So, I think that you are speaking more from theory than from actual play experience here.

It might be hyperbole, but, there is a grain of truth there. Older games, by delaying gratification, meant that you were spending more time not being gratified. This should be pretty obvious. If the rate of gratification is higher now, then it must have been slower before, with more time spent between points of gratification.

There is a grain of truth here, but I think it is more in the occurance of certain sorts of failure and the expectation of failure than in the rate of play. High level 1e play is typically much faster than high level 3e play, and I would suspect at least as fast or faster than high level 4e play because the system did not encourage so much attack modifier management, nor did you typically have as much to do on your turn so rounds typically went faster. More to do in a round vs. getting to your turn more quickly seems like a wash to me.

Thus the hyperbole of 20 minutes of fun wrapped in 4 hours. You spend a minority amount of time actively participating, and a majority of time passively watching and waiting for your turn.

I disagree. There were times when you passively participated because you were diseased, unconscious, stunned, or had been tied up because the psionic blast had driven you insane and you kept trying to gut yourself with your own sword (yes, I am speaking from experience), but that wasn't 'a majority of the time'. I don't think you are going to make much headway on the participation argument via the standard model of combat.

One thing that more recent games have done is break out of the turn based systems that characterize many traditional games. Many games now have some sort of interrupt ability (to borrow a CCG term) that lets you "go out of turn". Many games have abilities which allow you to make someone else take an action out of turn as well. Whether it's something as simple as an Attack of Opportunity mechanic or something more complex, the idea of "wait your turn" is a good example of delayed gratification.

I suppose so, but I'm not convinced there is as much progression here or that the 'interrupts' you talk about are as significant to what has changed as you seem to want to make them.

Since gratification doesn't equal succeeding, but rather actively participating, again, I have to ask, is this trend really a bad thing? Forcing more active participation from the players more often is a good thing isn't it?

I don't agree with the premise, and to the extent I agree with the conclusion it wouldn't mean that I was also validating the premise because the one doesn't to me imply the other. Actively participating in failure is less gratifying than actively participating in success (for many or most players) and even ungratifying regardless of the level of mechanical participation so I don't agree in your attempt to split the concepts. And I don't agree that there is a increased participation trend except where failure is defined down. Since I don't agree with the premises, what I think about encouraging involvement in the game doesn't much directly impact what is being discussed here.

Moreover, I think based on the argument you made here that you don't even get the whole premise of the claim "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours of play".

 

[clearstream]

You specifically do not understand ...1 its not "always" 2 it is most frequently "yes, but" and the but part is incredibly important because it encourages the yes part to be only partial and the introduction of new complications so as to progress the action/story etc.

That you think its "always" makes it sound like you are listening to rumors instead of actually reading about the concepts from the sources.

I think you bring to this discussion a more nuanced idea of what 'yes' means than perhaps exists in the more egregious examples that irk me. I looked for a few examples, and they help illustrate your point.

For instance, from Chris Perkins
'Give your players space to enhance what you create, and when they try to add to your campaign, embrace their ideas as if they were your own. Just say yes.'

Chris goes on to explain the benefits to his gameworld he feels he gained from this method. I'm not sure I could characterise Chris' 'say yes' approach as egregious.

Or take Ameron

'Let the PCs be heroic

This is a mixture of the “say yes” philosophy and the “rule of cool.” If the PC want to try something that’s a little outside of the rules and it makes sense for their character and makes sense for the moment, then I say let them try it.'

Again, I'm not sure I could characterise that as not including a virtuous 'but'.

Or another author - Mike (somebody) - criticising his DM

'The latest hotness in DMing is the “Philosophy of Yes” where the DM encourages the players to be creative. For example during the skill challenges when suggesting using a skill he said “explain to me how you use it” and instead of working with it or accepting it and using a high DC, he said “no, you can’t do that.”'

Mike talks about 'encouraging the players to be creative'. I wonder if that is what it really amounts to? Certainly arguments have become very sophisticated on the forums. A respondent to Mike bemoans that

'It appears that [the no-saying DM] sees the game as a competition between your PCs and his Monsters (or NPCs). This makes him seem like he is out to get your PCs and wants to “win” at all costs. The best way to think about this is to disbelieve it. In many sports competitions it’s all about the mental psych-out that some players hope to use against the other side – it becomes an advantage by making the opposing players lose confidence and falter.'

Really? Maybe the chosen skill just didn't apply? I often rule a skill won't work for some purpose, that doesn't make my players think I'm out to get them or want to 'win' at all cost. If I truly wanted to win, I think my players would find there is no limit to how many uber-dragons I can create However, my real point is that there is a recognised 'philosophy of yes' and I think this philosophy probably means different things to different people.

Your version sounds kind of cool; but the version taken task with is not cool.

Specifically the "none" valid you or Cerebelim have provided that even claims it... I am not going to be pulled in to proving a negative... sorry it is your responsibility if you honestly want to claim people are so much like rats.

You might look up gaming theory ... and see if you can find mention of
"the easy instant win"...without the word "dissatisfaction" next to it.

Upthread a link I like was posted by SkyOdin
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-illusion-accomplishment-10.html#post5161981

I read the paper SkyOdin rather poorly summarised. He missed out elements such as playing to beat the game or feel better about yourself. Further, it misinterprets the study to say that it represents what people choose to do: rather it represents what people respond positively to. These things are not the same, and I think a point I have been trying to make is that people who want everything to go their way indeed miss out on things that they could enjoy greatly, if only they were open to them.

Both the fiero and schadenfreude qualities described in the study contain negative as well as positive elements, and as the authors say 'People play games to change or structure their internal experiences.' In fact, the study contains very little to address the question of whether 'just tell me yes' gamers might exist, and whether they might be misguided.

I think you are defending a position I am not arguing against (and vice versa, in all likelihood). Most people would surely agree there are 'bad sports' and that some of those are characterised by always wanting to win. Unfortunately, there is a cross-over between them and 'say yes' philosophy that I feel to be problematical. This wouldn't be the first time something that is good handled correctly can become a thorn in the side of good gaming.

-vk

 

[Hussar]

Anyone posting on this board is likely capable of paying attention without needing game mechanics to keep them "engaged". And I would guess is not passively watching, waiting for his turn. Can't you observe what is happening on other players' turns while waiting for your turn? I know I'm always listening to the damage announcements from the both the DM (to figure out how much of a threat the current foe actually is) and from my fellow players (to figure out how tough the foes are). Isn't this fun?

I've found myself frequently multitasking at the table, so, I know exactly how people feel. It's not that hard to keep half an ear on things and then go off to do other stuff. Particularly when a round of combat can take upwards of fifteen minutes before my turn comes up again.

And I know for a fact, I'm not the only one.

I don't have the books in front of me, but the 'Attack of Oppurtunity' concept which forms the core of the argument you are advancing here is not a new concept. It has just been formalized better than in older editions, but in older editions taking a non-combat action while threatened did draw an attack from anyone threatening you. In fact, by the time 2e came out, I'd taken this notion and formalized it into 'parries' and 'counterattacks' that looked alot like a clunky version of 3e's AoO. But even without my formalization, it's in there. You couldn't make a missile attack or quafe a potion in melee without getting attacked.

Why did you do that? Why make up "counter attack" rules? For simulation reasons or to further engage the players or both?

While, yes, earlier D&D did have some very rudimentary AOO rules - you couldn't retreat without taking attack, the effect was to basically turn combat into bingo. I call a number and a damage, you call a number and damage, wash rinse repeat. Tactics were mostly non-existent because the mechanics didn't reward anything other than standing in one place and whacking away.

I do agree that the rudimentary mechanics were there. But it took 3e and then 4e to realize that engaging players ALL THE TIME is a good idea. You have to actively pay attention to the combat or you'll miss out on actions. In 1e or 2e, I didn't have to pay any attention, other than write down the damage I took. I wasn't EVER going to act on another player's turn, and it was extremely unlikely I'd get to act on a monster's turn. After all, how many monsters are quaffing potions in combat?

You're looking at this from a purely DM's perspective. The DM might get to roll AOO's in 1e, but the players almost never will. Very, very few mechanics exist that allow me to actively do anything on another player's turn in 1e or 2e. Even 3e is pretty limited this way. Certainly pre-4e, no other player is going to impel me to take an action on his turn.

Yet, in 4e, pretty much every class has mechanics that will impel both the monsters and the other players to take actions out of turn. Many monsters also have abilities that act out of turn.

This has been my biggest eye opening in finally playing 4e. How much attention the game forces you to pay in order to play. It is not unusual to act on other character's turns EVERY round. Not every character, of course, but, once or twice a round seems to be about average. This is a huge departure from earlier D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This seems like a false assertion backed up by a thin bit of evidence.

Keep in mind that the tactical richness of 1e meant that most players had to mull for a minute or two (at least!) prior to deciding exactly what to do! Since people have commented on this tactical richness so often, and so often said that WotC-D&D pales in comparison, it makes sense for them to argue that turns take longer in 1e.

You're probably also forgetting how long it takes to roll 1d20 in 1e. In 1e, rolling 1d20 is a labour-intensive effort, often requiring a great deal of thought and effort.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

Particularly when a round of combat can take upwards of fifteen minutes before my turn comes up again.

Ugghh. Fifteen minutes is a whole combat as far as I'm concerned. What level are you playing at or system are you using that turns take 15 minutes?

Why did you do that? Why make up "counter attack" rules? For simulation reasons or to further engage the players or both?

When I was younger, everything was a simulation reason. Greater and greater 'realism' was the holy grail of everything I was doing. If it had some other positive effect, that was not only good but expected. That it might have some negative effect hadn't yet occurred to me, and wouldn't until I switched systems in frustration and started trying to make them 'realistic'.

While, yes, earlier D&D did have some very rudimentary AOO rules - you couldn't retreat without taking attack, the effect was to basically turn combat into bingo. I call a number and a damage, you call a number and damage, wash rinse repeat. Tactics were mostly non-existent because the mechanics didn't reward anything other than standing in one place and whacking away.

Putting aside whether this is strictly true or not, it runs entirely counter to your claims about how previous editions played. If it is true that combat was 'bingo', wash rinse repeat, it should also clearly follow that no one needed to spend a long time waiting for their number to be called.

I do agree that the rudimentary mechanics were there. But it took 3e and then 4e to realize that engaging players ALL THE TIME is a good idea.

To the extent that the 'bingo' analogy is true about 1e, I find it true about 3e and largely for the same reasons would find it true about 4e.

You are looking for mechanics to reward something other than standing in one place and whacking away. My belief is that this is a very poor understanding of what tactics mean. I still believe that good encounter design trumps mechanics when it comes to encouraging tactics. On the other hand, you make a good point about mental engaugement in the scene.

You have to actively pay attention to the combat or you'll miss out on actions.

That's been happening at my table since 1e, but that is a whole other story.

Certainly pre-4e, no other player is going to impel me to take an action on his turn.

I agree that that is true and that it could potentially create greater passive involvement in the scene because of the anticipation of an unexpected oppurtunity for active involvement. On the other hand, I haven't exactly been complaining about 4e's event driven combat either and would consider that one of the aspects of 4e they 'got right' and which might be worth importing into my own rules.

This has been my biggest eye opening in finally playing 4e. How much attention the game forces you to pay in order to play. It is not unusual to act on other character's turns EVERY round. Not every character, of course, but, once or twice a round seems to be about average. This is a huge departure from earlier D&D.

Agreed in as much as it is a mechanical departure. And in and of itself, that approach doesn't bother me. Although I don't think it actually decreases the amount of time you wait between turns (on average) I do agree that it can have the positive benefit of maintaining passive participation in the scene. In fact, this would be a good example of maintaining an ego gamers participation in the scene and excitement, without taking away or defining down the possibility of failure. The sting of failure is still there, but its mitigated by the hope that something will happen soon to make up for it.