Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Obryn]

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".

True! But I think it's important to note that any individual player isn't necessarily asking for both at once. So, "Well, you asked for more tactical options..." it's not necessarily a valid response to a particular player who's complaining about conditions. Better might be, "Well, they asked for more tactical options..."

-O

 

[Celebrim]

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.

So, although I'd like to keep a specific discussion of 4e out of it, since you keep referring back to another thread, let me address this in those terms.

In 4e, suppose you are unconscious until you make a saving throw. Each turn then, what happens to you as a player? Well, each turn you have an important task to undertake. You must throw a dice and determine if you can wake your character up from their torpid state. As a player, you are participating. However, if you fail in your save, you as a character and you as a player don't get the oppurtunity to contribute toward success.

You claim that you can fundamentally distinguish a situation where you as a player roll a die and fail to wake your character up, and you as a player roll a die and fail to hit the target. But, from a play perspective, you the player participated in the exact same amount and in the exact same way and contributed the exact same thing to the game state in both cases. You then want to claim that the player who is unhappy with being unconscious for several rounds would be happy with missing all of their attacks for several rounds, and you know what - I have a very hard time believing that. Because while the fluff we dress the two events in is different, from a meta-perspective its the exact same degree of participation. Player roles dice; player fails at task and can take no other actions that turn. You claim you aren't talking about success or failure?

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.

I think I know exactly what you are talking about.

The kind of participation I'm talking about includes when every single die roll comes up a 1 and the party gets slaughtered.

Every single saving throw comes up a 1, and the party gets slaughtered; no freakin' difference in the actual participation level of the player.

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.

On that we are agreed. If you don't get it yet, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Obryn]

So, although I'd like to keep a specific discussion of 4e out of it, since you keep referring back to another thread, let me address this in those terms.

No, I'm fine not referring to it. I'm looking for points of reference here, and the other thread was convenient.

You claim that you can fundamentally distinguish a situation where you as a player roll a die and fail to wake your character up, and you as a player roll a die and fail to hit the target. But, from a play perspective, you the player participated in the exact same amount and in the exact same way and contributed the exact same thing to the game state in both cases.

It's all about the psychology and experience of playing a game. If I am participating (by rolling dice, saying what my character is doing, etc.) and end up failing, I am still participating meaningfully and feel like I'm participating. If I am sitting at the table and doing nothing but eating Doritos, I am not participating meaningfully in the game.

You then want to claim that the player who is unhappy with being unconscious for several rounds would be happy with missing all of their attacks for several rounds, and you know what - I have a very hard time believing that. Because while the fluff we dress the two events in is different, from a meta-perspective its the exact same degree of participation. Player roles dice; player fails at task and can take no other actions that turn. You claim you aren't talking about success or failure?

I don't really see why this would be such a leap, honestly. There's a big difference between, "I attempt something and fail" and "I attempt nothing at all." You don't experience these two circumstances differently?

I don't experience a game from the "meta-perspective" you're talking about, and I don't know anyone who does. From an experiential perspective (which should be essential when you're talking about goals and motivations), the two are completely different - in one I'm interacting with the game and the rules, and in the other I'm not.

I'm not conflating success with participation, here. You seem to be, by your arguments that participating and failing is no different from a meta-perspective from not-participating at all.

I think I know exactly what you are talking about.

Every single saving throw comes up a 1, and the party gets slaughtered; no freakin' difference in the actual participation level of the player.

Based on these two lines, I don't honestly think you do. Playing a game and losing is very, very different from not playing a game at all.

-O

 

[Barastrondo]

An interesting topic.

An additional consideration that might bear mentioning is that a player's approach to success and failure can sometimes be a learned behavior rather than an innate competitive spirit. For better or for worse, gamers have a wide variety of formative experiences. Someone who spent most of his early gaming career playing with a group where even a minor failure = death may have learned to associate all failure as unacceptable. Similarly, players who get started with lower-lethality games (which may or may not be related to system) may try riskier things because they've learned that notable failures may be interesting complications rather than an end to that character or the campaign.

So you reach an interesting quandary. Mechanics and genre conventions that are meant to encourage people to take more risks and get used to the idea that failure can be an interesting result also feed the engine of the competitive gamer who dislikes failure because he's addicted to success.

Which further emphasizes the dire need for more good game masters -- people who teach people to love gaming as a whole. To go beyond teaching players a particular set of "achievements" or "survival skills," but to emphasize what RPGs do best -- the ability to do anything.

 

[Celebrim]

It's all about the psychology and experience of playing a game. If I am participating (by rolling dice, saying what my character is doing, etc.) and end up failing, I am still participating meaningfully and feel like I'm participating. If I am sitting at the table and doing nothing but eating Doritos, I am not participating meaningfully in the game.

False contrast.

I don't really see why this would be such a leap, honestly. There's a big difference between, "I attempt something and fail" and "I attempt nothing at all." You don't experience these two circumstances differently?

False contrast.

I don't experience a game from the "meta-perspective" you're talking about, and I don't know anyone who does. From an experiential perspective (which should be essential when you're talking about goals and motivations), the two are completely different - in one I'm interacting with the game and the rules, and in the other I'm not.

Once again, on your turn, rolling one dice and failing a saving throw and on your turn rolling one dice failing in an attack are the exact same level of interaction with the game and the rules. Contrasting rolling one dice and failing with sitting back and eating doritos all session long is a logical fallacy and an attempt by you to deflect discussion of the topic.

I'm not conflating success with participation, here. You seem to be, by your arguments that participating and failing is no different from a meta-perspective from not-participating at all.

I know what I wrote. I know how what I wrote 'seems' to you, and I wish I could get you to consider what I wrote rather than the baggage you are bringing to this from your investment in arguments in other threads. I have in no way provided an example contrasting non-participation and participation. I could, but I want to get over this hurdle before making the conversation any more complicated, given that the very basic case I keep repeating is not being understood.

Based on these two lines, I don't honestly think you do. Playing a game and losing is very, very different from not playing a game at all.

I agree. However, failing a saving throw to recover round after round is not 'not playing a game at all' any more than failing an attack roll round after round is 'not playing at all'. I'm not attempting to say that either situation doesn't suck, but they suck in the exact same way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And that missing point is that virtually all game masters are 'lifestyle gamers', and by the very nature of game mastery, virtually all good game masters are 'lifestyle gamers'.

OD&D is the game for those guys. Or possibly Chivalry & Sorcery. For everyone else, there's AD&D.

D&D will always be with us, and that is a good thing. The D&D system allows the highly talented, individualistic, and imaginative hobbyist a vehicle for devising an adventure game form which is tailored to him or her and his or her group. One can take great liberties with the game and not be questioned. Likewise, the complicated and “realistic” imitators of the D&D system will always find a following amongst hobby gamers, for there will be those who seek to make adventure gaming a serious undertaking, a way of life, to which all of their thought and energy is directed with fanatical devotion. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, with its clearer and easier approach, is bound to gain more support, for most people play games, not live them—and if they can live them while enjoying play, so much the better. This is, of course, what AD&D aims to provide. So far it seems we have done it.

- Gary Gygax, Dragon #26

 

[Celebrim]

Doug: I'm really not sure where Steel Wind draws the line between 'casual gamer' and 'lifestyle gamer', and I suppose we should ask him for a precise definition lest we risk misunderstanding him too much.

For my casual definition, I'd suggest that anyone on EnWorld with more than 100 posts is probably a 'lifestyle gamer'. Anyone who is over 30 and has been playing since before they were 20 is probably a 'lifestyle gamer'. And, more importantly for my purposes, anyone that puts more than an hour per week into their gaming outside of play itself is probably a 'lifestyle gamer'.

As for you quoting of Gary, I'm not really sure how you meant it, since it seems to offer plenty of nuance that can be easily jumped on by those that would want to disagree with what I said and those that would want to agree. But as for how I'd respond to Gary himself, I'd note that Gary proposes a false delimma. He asks us to choose between playing a more complicated game and being a 'lifestyle gamer', and playing AD&D and being a more 'casual gamer'. But those are not the only options, and in particular I think history shows that AD&D was more successful at capturing both the casual gamer and 'lifestyle gamer' (however we define that) market.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's a boatload of consensus in this thread, and I'd like to commend Celebrim for a really interesting, well-reasoned OP.

So, onto specifics.

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?

I think no. Videogames are perhaps one of the best ways do deliver the illusion of achievement/success, because they reward you in so many ways. Flashing lights. Sounds. Colors. Shapes. Movement. Stories. All in reaction to you memorizing a pattern or timing your button presses quick enough. As awesome as D&D may be, it can't compete with the artificial construct of light and sound that a videogame can produce.

What I think D&D can provide is a variety of different kinds of things. Stories, and exploration, and competition, and success, all together, in a way that is intimately, specifically, reactive to individuals.

And that missing point is that virtually all game masters are 'lifestyle gamers', and by the very nature of game mastery, virtually all good game masters are 'lifestyle gamers'. The success of your PnP game depends on something which has no real parallel in other types of gaming. It doesn't really matter at all how many players you have; it only matters how many game masters you have. Your goal as a game creator isn't to get players. The base of players is comparitively infinite. The limited resources you are try to compete for and expand is game masters, because if you have GM's, then you'll have players.

Y'know, I've never heard it put that way before, but that makes total sense. You're not selling to players, you're selling to GM's, who then *make* players, which expands your market. And GM's are 'lifestyle gamers' by default. Interesting, and interesting implications for the "sense of ownership" that PnP GM's have over the system.

If I wanted the thrill of victory, I'd play something where competiveness was built in, luck was minimized, and obstacles could only be overcome by increasing my personal skill (however trivial that 'skill' might actually be) rather than by increasing arbitrary numbers on the playing peice.

Heh. Clearly, I'm not much of an achievement-seeker. That playstyle sounds too much like work to be fun to me.

 

[Hussar]

Once again, on your turn, rolling one dice and failing a saving throw and on your turn rolling one dice failing in an attack are the exact same level of interaction with the game and the rules. Contrasting rolling one dice and failing with sitting back and eating doritos all session long is a logical fallacy and an attempt by you to deflect discussion of the topic.

But, that's not ALL you do on your turn. If you are sleeping, you make one die roll and you're done. If you are up and about, you move, make your attack, possibly perform a third action, possible use an action point to perform another action, possibly are granted another action by another player, possibly perform an Opportunity Attack, and, to top it all off, you can talk in character at any point in time.

So, no, the two things are not equal. On one hand, you make a single die roll and pass to the next person. On the other, you take a full turn, plus other actions as well.

This is true regardless of edition really.

----------------

That being said, I do agree that the game has to do everything humanly possible to attract new GM's. Without GM's you have no games at all. With that in mind, what do you think WOTC could be doing that it isn't doing now to attract new GM's?

Keep in mind, one thing. Goal oriented gamers are probably the most easily satisfied. It's easier to keep that guy happy than probably any other gamer - give him a straight up challenge that isn't pixel-bitching and he's good to go. Get an entire group of them, and DMing is probably the easiest job in the world.

Couldn't you say that by creating goal oriented players, the game makes entry into DMing easier?

I would point out that earliest forms of D&D certainly moved in this direction. Basic/Expert D&D was all about go to this place, kill these things, take that treasure, go home. Wash, rinse, repeat. Basic D&D spent maybe a page on anything that wasn't directly related to kill and loot. Expert spent a bit more time, but, most of that was on designing an outdoor adventure where you would kill and loot. It wasn't until the Companion rules that you saw other real goals. And even then, the goal was pretty specific - become a lord, then an emperor then a god in the Immortals set.

In AD&D, it was kill and loot until you got enough to build your castle and get your followers. Then it was "retire that character and start again".

D&D has pretty much always catered to the goal oriented player hasn't it?

 

[Obryn]

Okeydokey. Let's go all the way back to the beginning, then.

There seems to be a rather sizable block of players and designers who believe that addressing the needs of the 'ego gamer' needs to be the overriding concern in game mastery and even game design. That is, the trend in thinking about RPGs seems to be more toward making a system and encouraging game masters to run it in a way that the players recieve a regular and uninterrupted dose of reinforcing affirmation of thier awesomeness. The trend seems to me to be toward ensuring a regular heavy dose of the illusion of success, either to reward existing players or to addict new players. It's my contention (look out, thesis coming) that contrary to the good intentions of the designers, running the game to this end or designing the system to this end (counterintuitively) chases more players from the game than it draws in and ultimately is not satisfying to even the 'ego gamers'.

I know what I wrote. I know how what I wrote 'seems' to you, and I wish I could get you to consider what I wrote rather than the baggage you are bringing to this from your investment in arguments in other threads. I have in no way provided an example contrasting non-participation and participation. I could, but I want to get over this hurdle before making the conversation any more complicated, given that the very basic case I keep repeating is not being understood.

Briefly, I think that concrete examples would really, really help here. I tried to provide one, by way of comparing it with Morrus's recent thread re: conditions and players' participation. Because that's not what you're talking about, could you please be more specific as to examples of this trend in game design?

-O