Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Obryn]

I think it is more a case of some people never being happy with anything:

I want more tactical options! (enter conditions)
I hate conditions imposed on ME!!! ( return to simple HP attrition)
I want more tactical options!

It is the never ending loop of the perpetually dissatisfied.

That's only if you leap to the assumption that the same people are asking for both things at once.

-O

 

[ggroy]

I think it is more a case of some people never being happy with anything:

I want more tactical options! (enter conditions)
I hate conditions imposed on ME!!! ( return to simple HP attrition)
I want more tactical options!

It is the never ending loop of the perpetually dissatisfied.

This sounds very similar to the style of excuses that many hardcore alcoholics make all the time, to justify their own excessive drinking.

 

[francisca]

That's only if you leap to the assumption that the same people are asking for both things at once.

-O

It isn't a leap. From the designer/manufacturer standpoint, there is a pool of potential consumers, asking for both at the same time.

Classic example of "they".

 

[Nifft]

This sounds very similar to the style of excuses that many hardcore alcoholics make all the time, to justify their own excessive drinking.

Daddy drinks because you cry.

Cheers! -- N

 

[Celebrim]

Of the people I knew of who would fall into the rpg "ego-gamer" category back in the day, they were frequently the same ones who exhibited similar behavior when it came to video games.

At video arcades, these people would be doing stuff like kicking in the coin box, smashing the joystick, etc .... on an arcade machine, whenever their man died in the arcade video game they were playing. When they were playing a video game console at home, they would smash the joystick and/or throw it really hard across the room (sometimes making a new hole in the wall) whenever their man in the video game died.

My point is to not focus on the dysfunctionality of players. The 'ego-gamer' who applies himself to mastery of Donkey Kong is, however dysfunctional they may be out side of the game, applying himself to the game of Donkey Kong in a way that is appropriate to the game and the intended play of the game. Donkey Kong is an effective delivery system for delivering the illusion of success, and at some level that's all that the game has to offer and if you are missing that you are missing the game. My intention is to focus the discussion not on the sterotype of the 'ego gamer' but on whether a PnP game can ever really compete with Donkey Kong (or WoW) on that stage, and if so, how does it go about doing it successfully?

My ultimate contention will be to show that it can successfully compete with Donkey Kong for the ego gamer market, but not by trying to do what Donkey Kong (or Wow) does and further, that if it tries to transform itself into a game that uses the tool set of Donkey Kong (or Wow or Bejewelled Blizt or even Settlers of Cataan) that its going to fail.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Ego gamer is a loaded term.

It can mean as you described it (someone with the primary goal of "winning" an encounter).

But it can also mean the person who is so self-involved with staying true to their character's persona that they act in ways that are detrimental to the party. The coward. The thief. The backstabber. The fop that avoids combat. These can be just as bad as the player whose mentality is "Go! Go! Rush! Get phat lewts!"

People play this game for different reasons. In fact the 4e DMG is great in identifying the various reasons why people play this game, and the pros and cons of each personality type.

Achievement oriented players aren't bad.

Achievement oriented players that act like jerks are bad.

But jerks are jerks regardless of why they like to play their game.

 

[Obryn]

So, let me get this straight... You are saying that since you think you can disguish between those that want the immediate gratification of victory vs. the immediate gratification of participation, that any talk of the role of delayed gratification would be unproductive and sign of confusion on the part of the poster? In addition to the fact that I think you are hiding your terms within other terms that imply them, since 'participation' in the context you are using it implies 'successful participation' and excludes 'unsuccessful participation', I think you are very much missing the point. For one thing, it seems to me that the entire thrust of your argument makes an assumption about the nature of what it means to play an RPG that pushes the reader to accept that the point of playing an RPG is to recieve the illusion of success. Your definitions of 'participate' and 'victory' are locked into mechanical 'illusion of success' feedback loops.

What? No, not at all, and in fact I'm not even sure where you're getting that. I'm not talking about success or failure at all.

I'm talking about showing up to play a game and then actually playing in that game - that is, participating in a good portion of it, regardless of whether the party gets TPK'd or finds a long-lost artifact. The kind of participation I'm talking about includes when every single die roll comes up a 1 and the party gets slaughtered.

I'm assuming that wouldn't be either success or the illusion thereof under your definitions. IMO, if your definition of "success" is so broad as to include "playing the game" then I must admit I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

-O

 

[MichaelSomething]

Yes, you hate diamonds (players who play with the goal of achievement) and would rather play with hearts (people who play in order to socialize), spades (players who like to explore content) and maybe clubs (players who play to compete with others).

Now if only I could remember where those terms came from.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, you hate diamonds (players who play with the goal of achievement)...

Err...wrong. I think they take special handling, but I'd be an unhappy DM with no 'diamonds' (as you call them) at my table. If you had to focus on what I find difficult as a DM it is players who only have a goal, rather than multiple goals, and generally the approach I take to handling a player who exhibits focus on a single goal is to find ways to encourage them in investing in multiple goals of play and different ways to define success rather than a single one.

 

[Celebrim]

Ego gamer is a loaded term.

It can mean as you described it (someone with the primary goal of "winning" an encounter).

But it can also mean the person who is so self-involved with staying true to their character's persona that they act in ways that are detrimental to the party. The coward. The thief. The backstabber. The fop that avoids combat. These can be just as bad as the player whose mentality is "Go! Go! Rush! Get phat lewts!"

People play this game for different reasons. In fact the 4e DMG is great in identifying the various reasons why people play this game, and the pros and cons of each personality type.

Achievement oriented players aren't bad.

Achievement oriented players that act like jerks are bad.

But jerks are jerks regardless of why they like to play their game.

Please reread my post. I think you'll find we are in general agreement over all of that, and that you cover no material that I didn't cover, but that you are also missing my point.

On the other hand, I'll happily accept 'achievement oriented' as a positive term for 'ego driven'.