Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Raven Crowking]

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.

pawsplay,

Why must it have some kind of rules? Aren't the purpose of those rules to moderate how a goal is met? Is there not a goal inherent in "Let's think of words starting with M", such as "Think of as many words starting with M as you can" or "Think of three words starting with M"?

Having "victory conditions" means nothing more determining how well the goal of a game is met.

"I couldn't think of any words starting with M" is a kind of loss. "I could only think of 265 words starting with M, whereas pawsplay thought of 3,758" is a kind of conditional victory. I succeeded in the overt goal, but failed to compete effectively with pawsplay.

In the cooperative game, Bus Depot Diner, the overarching goal is to feed everyone before the bus leaves. This is almost impossible, but allows for a type of complete victory. Otherwise, you win on a sliding scale based on how many people you can feed. The secondary victory condition is to do better than you did on your previous attempts.

The framework (the bus will eventually leave) is known, but the outcome (how many people you will feed before the bus leaves) is unknown.

In some cases, the victory conditions of a game are not overt. This is the case with Truth or Dare, where the goal of the game requires pretending that you do not know what the goal is in order to succeed.

It is a good rule of thumb, when examining any game, that you can uncover the goal by determining first (1) what outcomes are unknown?, and (2) what can the players influence? Answer those two questions, and not only does the nature of the game become far clearer, but that clarity usually brings with it a better understanding of the game itself (and hence better/more satisfying play).

EDIT: Example: In Scrabble, one of the unknown outcomes is "What spaces will be open on my turn?" and this is one of the things players can influence (esp. by blocking access to high-point spots that they cannot themselves use). Failure to understand this not only limits your own score, but causes you to set up your opponent so that he can get a higher score than he otherwise could. Therefore, "keep your opponent's score as low as you can" is a hidden victory condition that feeds into the main victory condition of Scrabble (have the highest score when all the tiles are used).


RC
RC

 

[pawsplay]

pawsplay,

Why must it have some kind of rules? Aren't the purpose of those rules to moderate how a goal is met? Is there not a goal inherent in "Let's think of words starting with M", such as "Think of as many words starting with M as you can" or "Think of three words starting with M"?

Sure, but having a goal is not the same thing as having victory conditions. Victory conditions imply some kind of terminal condition that wins the game.

 

[Ariosto]

However, the game, as it is written is most certainly not because there are no roles within the game. Or rather, everyone is playing the exact identical role, which amounts to the same thing.

You have the same game-mechanical options, but that's "the exact identical role" only in the same sense as playing two characters of the same class in a game like D&D, or any two characters in a game like RuneQuest.

That's a funny way to bring up the actually significant factor of role-playing. People who game in glass houses should not throw rocks at Park Place.

Don't make Homer Hippo hungry. You wouldn't like him when he's hungry.

 

[Ariosto]

The resolution of the game does not have to be affected by the players in order to have a game.

Sure, sure -- in the sense in which Bingo, Pachinko, Slot Machine, etc., are games. That's a different kind of 'gaming' for a different kind of 'gamers'. Snakes & Ladders generally falls into a different demographic culturally, but it's the same kind of thing practically.

There is nothing you can do that will prevent you from losing at Pac Man.

Oh, so is that what you meant by 'resolution'? It's pretty silly to say that one "loses" at Pac Man simply because (being human) one must eventually stop playing. That is just as true of any other undertaking! It's absurd redefinition into meaningless noise.

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.

And you're still not playing a game! The term for what you're doing is "watching a video recording".

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.

Sure. I don't think RC disagrees with you on that point. A and Z, I think, are what he would call "the framework". It does not follow, though, that any old way of getting from A to Z constitutes a game.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Each player sure. But, each character does not have a unique identity. There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next. There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place. There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars. There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail.

While a game may not have to have multiple classes to be an RPG, it does need to have multiple roles. If there is no distinction between me playing the shoe and me playing the battleship, there are no roles. Pretending I'm a slum lord, for example, does not change the game in the slightest.

Now I could add role playing rules to Monopoly. But, as I state in this thread Monopoly as written doesn't fit my criteria for an RPG.

As far as goal vs win conditions, I totally disagree. There are many, many reasons to play a game that have nothing to do with win conditions. For example, in teaching, we use role play all the time as a teaching tool. I'd certainly call it a game - we're playing shopkeeper, or, in the case of my very young students, house. My adult students engage in free form role play all the time.

That's where I'm having a problem RC. You are insisting that the only goal that makes a game really a game is a win condition. You claimed that "exploration of a philosophical point" is not a goal that allows what we're doing to be called a game. It's "shooting the breeze".

To me, using the framework of the game to explore a concept, or to reinforce teaching points, or various other activities, does count as playing a game where the goal is divorced from any win/lose conditions in the game itself.

Take Emergent Gameplay The player creates goals that have nothing to do with the framework of the game. Machinima is probably the best example I can come up with here. I'm playing Halo, for example, to make a movie. I am playing a game. But, my goals have nothing to do with the goals of the game I'm playing and beyond "Let's make an interesting movie" aren't really a win condition style goal.

 

[pawsplay]

Each player sure. But, each character does not have a unique identity.

Sure, they do. Each has a different appearance, occupies a different point in space and time, and has its own pile of money.

There is also no narrative flow from one event to the next. There is no reason why I visit Baltic Avenue after visiting Park Place. There is no reason why, after x number of squares I get 200 dollars. There is no reason why rolling 3 doubles in a row lands me in jail.

Sure, there is. It's abstract play. Nonetheless, you always go to jail after rolling three doubles, not before. You can't go around the board again until you get out of jail. Etc. The events are logically connected, and they all form part of the narrative of "getting rich and defeating the other players."

In my view, Monopoly fails in two respects. As you touched on, a game piece is not precisely an avatar. Hence, my requirement that a player act as-if their character. Second, the choice of actions are limited. You can't go backwards. You can't donate all your money to charity and seek new meaning in life. You can't sabotage the other players' properties. The game doesn't support those attempts, even in the abstract, although the presence of a GM could make it minimally possible.

 

[Hussar]

Whereas Pawsplay, I think you're splitting hairs here.

The game assumes no difference in playing the shoe or the battleship. None. There is no concept of personality attached to your playing piece. You call it "avatar", I call it role assumption. I think it's the same thing.

However, your definition of narrative flow is way off. Narrative flow presumes some degree of believability or verisimilitude. There is no narrative of why you went to jail. There is no reason beyond "I rolled 3 doubles". Within the game there is no reason, and thus no narrative.

To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG. Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day. Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?

 

[Theroc]

To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG. Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day. Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?

I don't know the rules of Vampire, but must ask: Do the rules of Vampire explicitly say you CANNOT choose to go outside? Or does it simply say you will die if you do (As with D&D vampires).

If it's the latter, the choice is still present. The former actually removes the choice by stating it violates the game rules.

And yes, I do realize that's nitpicking as instantly dying in MY mind is the same as saying you can't, unless suicide is the goal. But I believe this MIGHT be what Pawsplay was getting at with choice. The option is there, even if stupid.

 

[pawsplay]

Whereas Pawsplay, I think you're splitting hairs here.

The game assumes no difference in playing the shoe or the battleship. None. There is no concept of personality attached to your playing piece.

Basic D&D admits no differences between two fighters with identical ability scores. Mechanical differences do not constitute a personality.

You call it "avatar", I call it role assumption. I think it's the same thing.

Probably, but it hasn't stopped you from playing fast and loose with definitions. I don't know with certainty what "role assumption" means to you. I know that in my view, role assumption implies freedom of choice. Yet you do not seem to believe real choice is a prerequisite. Hence, the controversy.

However, your definition of narrative flow is way off. Narrative flow presumes some degree of believability or verisimilitude. There is no narrative of why you went to jail. There is no reason beyond "I rolled 3 doubles". Within the game there is no reason, and thus no narrative.

There was a causal event, a natural consequence, and continuity. Hence, it is a narrative. "Jail" is an imaginary place, so it's certainly not a literal depiction of events.

To me, unlimited choices is not a pre-requisite for an RPG. Heck, if I play Vampire, I cannot go outside during the day. Does that mean Vampire is no longer an RPG?

The fact that going out during the day will kill you is precisely what makes Vampire an RPG. Going outside is a meaningful choice with logical consequences. Not being able to go outside, literally, would be a characteristic of a boardgame or some kind of narrative game, not an RPG. Imagine trying to tell a story where a vampire could literally not commit suicide by exposure to sunlight, because sunlight destroys vampires who are exposed to it. No sense at all.

"Unlimited choices" is not a prerequisite for an RPG at all. Unlimited choice, singular, is. The state of being able to choose. The specific options are always, necessarily, limited. A PC should be able to take any choice, not every choice. A character cannot draw a revolver if he doesn't have one. But if he has a revolver, he can draw it unless something makes it impossible.

How is that splitting a hair? Either a player is entitled to make a choice, or they aren't. You are free to argue that an RPG does not truly require freedom of action, but I do not understand how you can argue there is no difference between a limitation of the game and a limitation imposed on a character within a story. I, personally, am not constrained in an way if my vampire cannot go out during the day, but if you say my vampire cannot commit suicide by sunbathing, you are restricting me, personally.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, but having a goal is not the same thing as having victory conditions. Victory conditions imply some kind of terminal condition that wins the game.

So, terminology aside, does that mean we agree?

Because, apart from attempting to be consistent, I am not married to terminology. You can say "VC is not a good term for what you say the term describes" and my answer is only "I don't have a better one" and "my concern is with what the term describes; we could agree to call it AstroMoose, and I would be find with that".


RC