Jack7
First Post
ESSAYS ON GAME DESIGN
Essay Six: Why the World Exists
This will undoubtedly make some people angry. That is not my intent, but rather it is to express my observations and opinion about something I felt was implied in another thread. If it makes you angry then I am sorry, but my opinion still remains the same. Some will undoubtedly agree with me, some will disagree. C’est la vie.
I forked this thread from How Do you Distribute Treasure?
It occurred to me from reading that thread that within the game (considering this particular issue) you basically have two ways of looking at the World and milieu in which the characters operate.
1. The World Exists for the sake of the Characters – therefore the players present “Wish Lists” to the DM/GM, and he makes sure that the treasure they receive, assuming magical items are included in such troves, is fit for their desires and “wishes.” I imagine by extension that such a wish list can or maybe will eventually incorporate other aspects of milieu-management, such as arranging events, dungeons, political situations, and a whole host of “goodies” for the benefit of the characters. The point of existing in such a world, I suspect? – to level up of course. To become more, or maybe far more, of what you already are. The point of the game is to a large extent the mechanics of the game. By getting what you want you become what you wish and what you wish is to be stronger, bigger, badder, and more powerful as a game-character. That is to say the point of the game is the nature of the game, the world exists to service the game-character as an expression of “gamism.” In short the various accoutrements and devices and badges of heroism are distributed and “given out” as a tangible reward based upon the wishes and desires of the player. If you want the implements of heroism, those things that will assist you in being heroic, then it is the duty of the world, through the agency of the DM, to give you those things as a reward for the idea that you want to be an imaginary hero. Which leads me to the second basic way of viewing the World in an imaginary gaming universe.
2. The Characters Exist for the sake of the World – therefore the players get whatever they happen to discover and it is up to them to make the best possible use of whatever resources they encounter and can gain in order to earn their heroism. They cannot petition the World, through the agency of the DM to get whatever they “wish for” in order to facilitate their further actions. On the contrary they must gain what they gain, either intentionally, or by accident, being in effect limited to what is, not to what is wished for. This way of looking at the world is far less like a video game full of self-imposed (auto-programmed) Easter Eggs and far more like the real world. Yes, you can create things at your own expense, but there is no Santa-Clause DM/GM to whom one can avail oneself for that special, bright, shiny toy one so desperately longs for in his secret heart of hearts. (And this toy may be an item, object, device, situation, ability, or power – anything that encompasses a possession of some kind.) Because of this the world does not exist for the characters but rather the characters exist for the world, they must make use of what is offered, and they come by that due to the logical demands of what is possible from the environment around them rather than from the environment they wish to exist. This creates an entirely different dynamic of both “heroism” and “power.” Heroism is not something made evident through the “goodies” you possess or even through the power they convey upon you, but rather what you possess is “empowered” by the cleverness by which you employ it. You cannot demand the world give you things or service your needs, so therefore you must service the world in order to make best use of what you can get. The world and the DM will not bow to your demands (though the world and the DM may consider your efforts to achieve some given end or object as noble, worthy, or even of deserving assistance of some kind) and wishes so therefore you must “earn what is possible” given the particular circumstances in which you and your comrades find yourselves.
I find this a fascinating contrast in both gaming theory and in the implications of such theories.
As a personal matter I should say I find the first method and worldview immensely fascinating and even seductively alluring. I also find it, personally speaking, as a way of approaching the game, any game, or of viewing the world, any world, ugly, repulsive, petty, doomed to eventual self-absorption, and very likely to generate little else in the end than utter apathy. I can find nothing heroic in it as an ideal at all, other than the rather atrophic and shortsighted view that heroism as a game ideal is best created through raw accumulation of power. That is to say the more power you have the more potentially heroic you must naturally become because after all it is power (in the sense of raw force) which is the true measure of heroism. (And there is something at the margins to warrant a serious examination of this assumption, without power it is simply not possible to be heroic, unless of course powerlessness is a form of power, and I suspect very much that given the right conditions that statement is also very, very true. Sometimes powerlessness is the greatest form of power.)
Nevertheless the idea of the game-world existing to service the character is as repugnant to me as the idea that the real world exists to service Paris Hilton. As a matter of fact I would call this way of looking at the game as the "Modern Entertainer" View of Heroism. I am a Hero when things go the way I wish and when I get the things I want in order to assure that heroism is worth my while. It is a sort of acting out of heroism, not as an actual thing, but as a sort of stage play in which the actor becomes a shadow or mask (a persona) of the man he is supposed to be truly representing. If on the other hand heroism makes real demands on me, such as that I serve the needs of the World, rather than the other way around, well, that’s either too tough, too demanding, not profitable, or gets in the way of my fun. Or put more simply, “Fun is the point of Heroism, and so Heroism must serve my needs and wishes to be ‘gainful.’”
I personally find that an extremely shallow view of the idea of fun, heroism, gain, or profit. To be perfectly honest all I have ever seen of real heroism makes me suspect it is in fact hard, dangerous, demanding, thrilling (at times - being deadly boring at others), patience-testing, taxing, excruciating, and exhausting work. Yes, it can be fun, it can also be incredibly disgusting, disheartening, heart-breaking, lonely, back-breaking, and yet the gains and profits of it are almost immeasurable in comparison to the dearth of “goodies” you ever really receive from your “wish list,” which is usually little more than, “God I hope I survive this,” or “God, I hope they survive this.” (Which to be perfectly honest is why I fully understand the allure of the first World View - who hasn’t been in a really tight or lethal spot and thought to themselves, “if only I had what I really needed I could have saved them,” or “if only I had the power to have prevented this I could have saved them.” That is a common condition when faced with servicing the world while facing the reality of doing so with a lack of sufficient resources and/or power.)
Nevertheless you do what you can with what you have and I’ve often wondered that if I possessed every degree of power I demanded or wished in order to solve any problem I faced, if I had every resource I desired to right any wrong or injustice, would then my actions under such conditions be heroic at all? Or those of a man who by being able to bend the world to my will through a wealth of whatever I wanted or wished, more akin to King Midas. Everything I desire turns to gold, but there is no more blood to warm my future, for everything has become through contact with me the more inanimate the more I accumulate.
I know why the world exists and it is certainly not for my sake. It is hard for me to imagine a world that exists for the sake of the hero. It is also extremely hard for me to imagine a Hero who asks that the world exists for him.
There are men who ask that the world exist for them, who make ceaseless demands upon it, and who seek to have their various wishes fulfilled for their own benefit, but you don’t call such men heroes. They have another name. Another name entirely.
Essay Six: Why the World Exists
This will undoubtedly make some people angry. That is not my intent, but rather it is to express my observations and opinion about something I felt was implied in another thread. If it makes you angry then I am sorry, but my opinion still remains the same. Some will undoubtedly agree with me, some will disagree. C’est la vie.
I forked this thread from How Do you Distribute Treasure?
It occurred to me from reading that thread that within the game (considering this particular issue) you basically have two ways of looking at the World and milieu in which the characters operate.
1. The World Exists for the sake of the Characters – therefore the players present “Wish Lists” to the DM/GM, and he makes sure that the treasure they receive, assuming magical items are included in such troves, is fit for their desires and “wishes.” I imagine by extension that such a wish list can or maybe will eventually incorporate other aspects of milieu-management, such as arranging events, dungeons, political situations, and a whole host of “goodies” for the benefit of the characters. The point of existing in such a world, I suspect? – to level up of course. To become more, or maybe far more, of what you already are. The point of the game is to a large extent the mechanics of the game. By getting what you want you become what you wish and what you wish is to be stronger, bigger, badder, and more powerful as a game-character. That is to say the point of the game is the nature of the game, the world exists to service the game-character as an expression of “gamism.” In short the various accoutrements and devices and badges of heroism are distributed and “given out” as a tangible reward based upon the wishes and desires of the player. If you want the implements of heroism, those things that will assist you in being heroic, then it is the duty of the world, through the agency of the DM, to give you those things as a reward for the idea that you want to be an imaginary hero. Which leads me to the second basic way of viewing the World in an imaginary gaming universe.
2. The Characters Exist for the sake of the World – therefore the players get whatever they happen to discover and it is up to them to make the best possible use of whatever resources they encounter and can gain in order to earn their heroism. They cannot petition the World, through the agency of the DM to get whatever they “wish for” in order to facilitate their further actions. On the contrary they must gain what they gain, either intentionally, or by accident, being in effect limited to what is, not to what is wished for. This way of looking at the world is far less like a video game full of self-imposed (auto-programmed) Easter Eggs and far more like the real world. Yes, you can create things at your own expense, but there is no Santa-Clause DM/GM to whom one can avail oneself for that special, bright, shiny toy one so desperately longs for in his secret heart of hearts. (And this toy may be an item, object, device, situation, ability, or power – anything that encompasses a possession of some kind.) Because of this the world does not exist for the characters but rather the characters exist for the world, they must make use of what is offered, and they come by that due to the logical demands of what is possible from the environment around them rather than from the environment they wish to exist. This creates an entirely different dynamic of both “heroism” and “power.” Heroism is not something made evident through the “goodies” you possess or even through the power they convey upon you, but rather what you possess is “empowered” by the cleverness by which you employ it. You cannot demand the world give you things or service your needs, so therefore you must service the world in order to make best use of what you can get. The world and the DM will not bow to your demands (though the world and the DM may consider your efforts to achieve some given end or object as noble, worthy, or even of deserving assistance of some kind) and wishes so therefore you must “earn what is possible” given the particular circumstances in which you and your comrades find yourselves.
I find this a fascinating contrast in both gaming theory and in the implications of such theories.
As a personal matter I should say I find the first method and worldview immensely fascinating and even seductively alluring. I also find it, personally speaking, as a way of approaching the game, any game, or of viewing the world, any world, ugly, repulsive, petty, doomed to eventual self-absorption, and very likely to generate little else in the end than utter apathy. I can find nothing heroic in it as an ideal at all, other than the rather atrophic and shortsighted view that heroism as a game ideal is best created through raw accumulation of power. That is to say the more power you have the more potentially heroic you must naturally become because after all it is power (in the sense of raw force) which is the true measure of heroism. (And there is something at the margins to warrant a serious examination of this assumption, without power it is simply not possible to be heroic, unless of course powerlessness is a form of power, and I suspect very much that given the right conditions that statement is also very, very true. Sometimes powerlessness is the greatest form of power.)
Nevertheless the idea of the game-world existing to service the character is as repugnant to me as the idea that the real world exists to service Paris Hilton. As a matter of fact I would call this way of looking at the game as the "Modern Entertainer" View of Heroism. I am a Hero when things go the way I wish and when I get the things I want in order to assure that heroism is worth my while. It is a sort of acting out of heroism, not as an actual thing, but as a sort of stage play in which the actor becomes a shadow or mask (a persona) of the man he is supposed to be truly representing. If on the other hand heroism makes real demands on me, such as that I serve the needs of the World, rather than the other way around, well, that’s either too tough, too demanding, not profitable, or gets in the way of my fun. Or put more simply, “Fun is the point of Heroism, and so Heroism must serve my needs and wishes to be ‘gainful.’”
I personally find that an extremely shallow view of the idea of fun, heroism, gain, or profit. To be perfectly honest all I have ever seen of real heroism makes me suspect it is in fact hard, dangerous, demanding, thrilling (at times - being deadly boring at others), patience-testing, taxing, excruciating, and exhausting work. Yes, it can be fun, it can also be incredibly disgusting, disheartening, heart-breaking, lonely, back-breaking, and yet the gains and profits of it are almost immeasurable in comparison to the dearth of “goodies” you ever really receive from your “wish list,” which is usually little more than, “God I hope I survive this,” or “God, I hope they survive this.” (Which to be perfectly honest is why I fully understand the allure of the first World View - who hasn’t been in a really tight or lethal spot and thought to themselves, “if only I had what I really needed I could have saved them,” or “if only I had the power to have prevented this I could have saved them.” That is a common condition when faced with servicing the world while facing the reality of doing so with a lack of sufficient resources and/or power.)
Nevertheless you do what you can with what you have and I’ve often wondered that if I possessed every degree of power I demanded or wished in order to solve any problem I faced, if I had every resource I desired to right any wrong or injustice, would then my actions under such conditions be heroic at all? Or those of a man who by being able to bend the world to my will through a wealth of whatever I wanted or wished, more akin to King Midas. Everything I desire turns to gold, but there is no more blood to warm my future, for everything has become through contact with me the more inanimate the more I accumulate.
I know why the world exists and it is certainly not for my sake. It is hard for me to imagine a world that exists for the sake of the hero. It is also extremely hard for me to imagine a Hero who asks that the world exists for him.
There are men who ask that the world exist for them, who make ceaseless demands upon it, and who seek to have their various wishes fulfilled for their own benefit, but you don’t call such men heroes. They have another name. Another name entirely.
Last edited:
