Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Hussar]

Hobo, if it will help, I will be happy to go into Truth or Dare to some extent, and I will be happy to discuss how game play has win conditions, as well as how player choices can raise the stakes for both winners and losers. If you are willing to discuss this with an open mind, I think I can demonstrate to you why Truth or Dare is a game, and why it meets the criteria described for being a game.

In doing so, I think a better understanding of Spin the Bottle will emerge as well.

Heck, after laying out ground rules, we could actually play Truth or Dare on EN World, and if doing so does not convince you that there are victory conditions in the game, nothing will!


RC

Just a further comment on this. Man I'm verbose tonight. Sorry.

There are a plethora of games in the world whose only "win" condition is "how long can we keep this up?" I guess that is a kind of win condition, but, it's not what I think you're referring to RC. It's not a game where you really win, but, simply have degrees of losing.

If I play Pac Man for three minutes or thirty minutes, did I win at Pac Man?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Buh what? When did I assert that SA doesn't use dice?

Hussar, I really don't know how to respond to you until we parse out exactly what you are asserting.

1. The outcome of the game (but not the game framework) must be unknown for an entertainment to qualify as a game.

Do you now accept that or deny that?

2. The resolution of the outcome must be affected by the choices of the players. I.e., meaningful choices within a game must exist wherein the players' actions in-game affect the resolution of the game iteslf.

Do you now accept or deny that?

EDIT:

3. Victory conditions (goals) must exist for an entertainment to be a game, and the unknown part of the outcome must directly relate to whether or not, or to what degree, those victory conditions are met.

Do you now accept or deny that?

If you accept all three, and your only point (now) is that not all things need to be unknown, I don't know why you are arguing with me.




RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are a plethora of games in the world whose only "win" condition is "how long can we keep this up?" I guess that is a kind of win condition, but, it's not what I think you're referring to RC. It's not a game where you really win, but, simply have degrees of losing.

If I play Pac Man for three minutes or thirty minutes, did I win at Pac Man?

I believe that, upthread, in this thread or another, I described a game in which the win conditions include simply beating your previous best (Bus Depot Diner). A game can certainly have degrees of victory; victory conditions do not need to be zero-sum.

Truth or Dare is an excellent example of a game that seems very simple at first glance, but when examined closely reveals strategy, social engineering, bluff, and theory-of-consciousness elements. At a glance, the goal is "how long can we keep this up?" but when examined more closely (and certainly when actual play is examined) the game is really won on the basis of information exchange.

If a player selects "Truth", he has the option of attempting to bluff, should the question he is asked be one he does not wish to answer truthfully. Failing in this usually ends the game, and at the same time the failed bluff often reveals the truth the player was attempting to hide.

"Dare" exists as a counterpoint to "Truth", without which many people might not play. Dares typically become increasingly difficult as the game progresses for two reasons: (1) for the same reason Truths do, as outlined below, and (2) to give players increasing reason to select "Truth". Obviously, you can balk at a Dare, but doing so forfeits the game.

Truths tend to be tentative at first, because (1) players wish to have "Truth" selected, and (2) upping the ante for others automatically ups the ante for yourself as well. Moreover, players are less likely to balk with a slowly progressing degree of personal information required. I.e., sharing smaller confidences makes it easier to share larger confidences.

Note also that Dares and Truths are often intertwined, based upon what the other player actually wishes to know. Thus, selecting "Truth" might lead to "Do you like me?" while selecting "Dare" might lead to necking for five minutes alone in the closet -- the same information is conveyed either way.

Each player is also trying to limit his or her own vulnerability. Thus, if Joe wants to know if Sarah likes him, Joe might ask as a series of Truths: "Is there any boy you like?" "Do you like anyone in this room?" and "Who?" in an attempt to limit his vulnerability by admitting that he likes Sarah. Of course, he is also fencing with his answers/Dare responses, to avoid revealing the same (or other information he might not wish to reveal).

There is a reason why Truth or Dare is played mostly by adolescents, teenagers, and unattached groups of young adults. Successful play can often lead to sexual encounters (to one degree or another). Of course, successful play also generally requires that the participants pretend not to understand what the win conditions are, or what their end goals are.

----

In Pac Man, the win condition is not simply "How long can I keep this up?", but rather "What score can I achieve?" The score is there to make objective how well you did. Indeed, if you do well enough, you get to place your initials on the machine's "High Score" so everyone can see how good you are.

When you play Pac Man, the outcome of the victory conditions is unknown (i.e., you do not know what your score will be), and the outcome is directly related to the choices you make. It is, therefore, a game.

What the victory conditions (goals) are is unimportant when determining if something is a game; there must be victory conditions, however.



RC

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I really don't know how to respond to you until we parse out exactly what you are asserting.

1. The outcome of the game (but the game framework) must be unknown for an entertainment to qualify as a game.

Do you now accept that or deny that?

I disagree. ((I also assume you mean "but not the game framework)) You can certainly know the outcome of the game and still qualify as a game. I think the problem here though is you have split out game and framework.

"Get the high score" is not part of the Pac Man game. The game does not reward you in any way for getting the high score (other than perhaps posting it I suppose, but, that's not a requirement). The "framework" of pacman is that you will endlessly circle around the board, chomping dots until you lose. That's it. That is 100% known at the beginning of the game.

In the same way, a game where players can declare the game over at any point in time is still a game. I'm not sure why you separate out "framework" by which I take it you mean mechanics from the "game" which consists of the interaction of the mechanics and the players.

2. The resolution of the outcome must be affected by the choices of the players. I.e., meaningful choices within a game must exist wherein the players' actions in-game affect the resolution of the game iteslf.

Do you now accept or deny that?

I still deny that. The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game. There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man. You will lose. Every single time you play. No choices you make will change that. Yet, I would argue that Pac Man remains a game.

EDIT:

3. Victory conditions (goals) must exist for an entertainment to be a game, and the unknown part of the outcome must directly relate to whether or not, or to what degree, those victory conditions are met.

Do you now accept or deny that?

Now that I agree with. There must be some sort of goal in order to have a game. However, goal does not have to be related in any way to the resolution of a specific event within the game. If the goal is simply, "Keep it going as long as you can", then the game itself is only tangentially related to that goal. Everyone is invested in continuing the game, not because they want to resolve any specific element or condition of the game, but because they want to keep the game going. Presumably because keeping the game going is fun.

If you accept all three, and your only point (now) is that not all things need to be unknown, I don't know why you are arguing with me.

RC

Well, I think I've answered that. You seem to be fixated on the idea that there absolutely must be an unknown resolution in order to have a game. I disagree. The resolution can be known at the outset of the game, and still have a game.

Going back to the sports analogy. Sure, I might know the final score of the game, but, I can be interested in all sorts of other elements that aren't related to who actually won the game. Did someone break a record during the game? Was someone injured? How were the umpire's calls? What errors were made?

Like I said, I can play Frodo, know absolutely that I will drop the ring into the mountain, and yet still have a game between points A and Z, despite the fact that A and Z are absolutely known to me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What the victory conditions (goals) are is unimportant when determining if something is a game; there must be victory conditions, however.



RC

I would not say that this is 100% accurate. I would say that there must be victory conditions in order to determine a winner or loser of a particular game.

A non-competetive game (such as D&D) has no winner or loser and thus no victory conditions. Victory conditions cannot exist without a defined end to the game. The score in Pac Man is a measure of victory instead of merely a measure of success because when the player runs out of "lives" the game is decidedly over.

It is possible to achieve success or failure in a D&D without winning or losing. If defeating the BBEG represents ultimate success and a TPK is ultimate failure and player choices can lead to either one or to a lesser degree of either one nothing is won or lost unless the game is declared to be over by the players.

It would be possible to assign victory/loss conditions to the game in advance and the game would thus be over when and if these were met but no such conditions are part of the rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

((I also assume you mean "but not the game framework))

d'oh! EDIT: Fixed. Thanks.

You can certainly know the outcome of the game and still qualify as a game. I think the problem here though is you have split out game and framework.

Pretend for a moment that you accept my splitting out of game and framework. Do you still object?

After all, if you say "Get the high score" is not part of the Pac Man game, I could equally say "getting checkmate" is not part of chess. The game does not reward you in any way for getting checkmate (other than perhaps your winning I suppose, but, that's not a requirement).

If you agree that

The "framework" of pacman is that you will endlessly circle around the board, chomping dots until you lose. That's it. That is 100% known at the beginning of the game.​

and that your goal is to last as long as you can, doing as well as you can (what score measures), then the outcome of the goal is not known at the beginning of the game. Only the framework is.

I still deny that. The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game. There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man. You will lose. Every single time you play. No choices you make will change that. Yet, I would argue that Pac Man remains a game.

Again, though, if you accept a priori that "the resolution of the game" means how the goals of the game are resolved, and the goal of pac man is "last as long as you can, doing as well as you can", do you still deny that the the resolution must be affected by the players?

IOW, if in Pac Man the goal is to last as long as you can, it is not a game if the resolution of that goal is based on a random timer that you cannot affect.

BTW, in your SA game example, if the goal is "Keep the game going as long as you can", then offering mechanics that end the game become tantamount to agreeing that one player can walk away from a chess game in media res. Which is always true, for any game.

I would not say that this is 100% accurate. I would say that there must be victory conditions in order to determine a winner or loser of a particular game.

A non-competetive game (such as D&D) has no winner or loser and thus no victory conditions. Victory conditions cannot exist without a defined end to the game.

Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios. Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM. In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure". Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.

It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.


RC

 

[pawsplay]

Sorry, no. There is no role assumption in Monopoly. Nothing in the rules suggests that you would change your style of play based on whether you are the shoe or the battleship or the car. There are no mechanics in place whatsoever that changes the game depending on whatever role you choose.

Each player has a unique identity. They don't all move together, occupy the same space together, and so forth. I don't recall any rule that says an RPG has to have more than one character class. So to reiterate, I am fine with various definitions of RPGs, but I am not satisfied with a definition that includes Monopoly, and it's possible that a definition that excludes Monopoly might exclude other types of games as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios. Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM. In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure". Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.

It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.


RC

I think we are on the same page looking at different words. I see success as the measure you are using as victory.

 

[pawsplay]

Victory conditions in D&D (for example) relate to scenarios. Any given session of D&D might have a number of victory conditions, often selected by the players (goals) and sometimes imposed by the DM. In the original game, the victory conditions were "survive", "explore", and "get treasure". Victory was measured by XP, gp, and character level, as well as items that increase character ability to achieve the three primary goals.

It would be fair to say that any given D&D session, or any given D&D scenario (if you like, even any given D&D encounter) is a game, but the overarching and ongoing campaign is a framework for that game, rather than being a game in and of itself.


RC

I'm not convinced victory conditions are a necessary part of a game, at least in a conventional understanding of victory conditions. I think all that is necessary is for something to be done for amusement and for it to have some kind of rules. "Let's think of words starting with M" could be a game. "Let's kill orcs and win the pie" is also a game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am trying to maintain a stable nomenclature between posts to make the ideas I am attempting to express more accessible.


RC