My point is about D&D's systemic design and the nature of the systemic gameplay it promotes. The notion that a tabletop environment is different than a virtual environment is irrelevant to my point. I am focusing on the game system: two tabletop rpgs with different systems are different in the way rules guide player decision making, even if both are tabletop games. I am talking about a quality value, that maybe its effect is different in tabletop rpgs than crpgs but nevertheless it still exist up to a certain point.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Game design: badwrongfun and D&D
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
My point is about D&D's systemic design and the nature of the systemic gameplay it promotes. The notion that a tabletop environment is different than a virtual environment is irrelevant to my point. I am focusing on the game system: two tabletop rpgs with different systems are different in the way rules guide player decision making, even if both are tabletop games. I am talking about a quality value, that maybe its effect is different in tabletop rpgs than crpgs but nevertheless it still exist up to a certain point.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Am I reading some denial here?
D&D was clearly a pioneer in exploiting the dynamics identified in the article, which I why it has been ripped off so much over the years.
Lets break this down:
The “good” parts:
Skill mastery, choice, complexity, reward. All there. An alternate reality in which to escape. Oh ya! Obviously other activities combined (some of) these things before 1974, but I don’t think anything did it quite like that. At least for that tiny part of the population that could get into it.
The “medium” part:
You might call it variable reward. I call it gambling. And for most people that is gaming. And they like it. This leads to an interesting tension in games. There are always those die-hards, who tend to be very influential, that don’t like randomness. They want games to be like chess, so their brilliant strategies can shine. Then there is the rest of us. In the forums here, there is yet another article on the “grind” in 4E. One problem with grind is time. But the other part: predictability. A lot of people feel that 4E combat is not variable enough (and as I think about it, there is also thread on how it is not deadly enough).
The “bad” part:
This is using the various bits above to condition people into stupefying repetitive behavior.
Do you find yourself sitting around, rolling dice over and over? Or (gods forbid) playing out similar melo-dramatic situations over and over?
I am exaggerating. A bit. Obviously it isn’t as bad as the examples (or playing the slots, which hooks far, far more people, but is actually sort of fun). But D&D has always been a fairly elaborate way to make rolling a d20 to hit a monster, over and over again, an interesting thing to do.
D&D was clearly a pioneer in exploiting the dynamics identified in the article, which I why it has been ripped off so much over the years.
Lets break this down:
The “good” parts:
Skill mastery, choice, complexity, reward. All there. An alternate reality in which to escape. Oh ya! Obviously other activities combined (some of) these things before 1974, but I don’t think anything did it quite like that. At least for that tiny part of the population that could get into it.
The “medium” part:
You might call it variable reward. I call it gambling. And for most people that is gaming. And they like it. This leads to an interesting tension in games. There are always those die-hards, who tend to be very influential, that don’t like randomness. They want games to be like chess, so their brilliant strategies can shine. Then there is the rest of us. In the forums here, there is yet another article on the “grind” in 4E. One problem with grind is time. But the other part: predictability. A lot of people feel that 4E combat is not variable enough (and as I think about it, there is also thread on how it is not deadly enough).
The “bad” part:
This is using the various bits above to condition people into stupefying repetitive behavior.
Do you find yourself sitting around, rolling dice over and over? Or (gods forbid) playing out similar melo-dramatic situations over and over?
I am exaggerating. A bit. Obviously it isn’t as bad as the examples (or playing the slots, which hooks far, far more people, but is actually sort of fun). But D&D has always been a fairly elaborate way to make rolling a d20 to hit a monster, over and over again, an interesting thing to do.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
This article is ignoring social aspects of games. Which are the reason people keep playing even long after they get that infinity + 1 sword. They have friends and guilds that they enjoy hanging around, or feel like they owe something too.
Actually that would fall under #1: turning the cage into home.
IMO, if the rewards of an activity are still valuable to you outside the context of the activity, then it's probably worth doing. For example, if your friendship with the other players at your table would exist beyond the game you play, that's a friendship worth having. Or if the experiences you garner in play provide you with some insights about real life, or if they teach you to think laterally.
I think the problems the OP is addressing would be solved if the game could be molded to the users' desires. And PnP RPGs have that to some degree. But it's still the case that the designer of the RPG is pushing what the intentions of play and the terms of success are. Rather, if the system forced the players to do a small amount of introspection to identify what they want out of play, alot of these pitfalls could be avoided from the start.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
It might fall under the umbrella on a tangent, but social interaction was not included in the bullet points. Then again I suppose that isn't something that game designers can create.
Last edited:
Are the people you interact with at the game table in any other way connected to your real life? If not, how can you claim that the social aspect is "real"? IMV, a relationship that can't outlive a campaign isn't a real friendship. It's just the illusion of one. Just like how the game can create the illusion of having a real life.
Just saying, you might not want to actually have a conversation with a person you go on raids with in an MMO. Same can apply to tabletop games.
Just saying, you might not want to actually have a conversation with a person you go on raids with in an MMO. Same can apply to tabletop games.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Very nice article, because it really is a summation and distillation of all human activity. Reinforcement is an extremely powerful motivator. Secondary reinforcement, where in you gain the ability to choose your own reward, is possibly the single greatest motivating factor in existence. No human is immune to it save possibly the deeply insane. This is why you see companies like Microsoft and such hiring behavior specialists and psychological engineers.
For the people that say 'Oh, it's not for the loot, it's for the social aspect' then guess what? Your 'loot' is the social aspect. Nobody is motivated by the same exact things, but find out what that thing is and you have that person for life or until their tastes change and move the goalposts. Which is why you have multiple threaded reward systems that ideally back up each other. If one doesn't appeal to you, another will. Those little NPC asides in Dragon Age? Those aren't there just as random filler or because someone thought it was cool. They're there as a secondary or tertiary line of motivation, for the people that take that as their 'loot'.
For the people that say 'Oh, it's not for the loot, it's for the social aspect' then guess what? Your 'loot' is the social aspect. Nobody is motivated by the same exact things, but find out what that thing is and you have that person for life or until their tastes change and move the goalposts. Which is why you have multiple threaded reward systems that ideally back up each other. If one doesn't appeal to you, another will. Those little NPC asides in Dragon Age? Those aren't there just as random filler or because someone thought it was cool. They're there as a secondary or tertiary line of motivation, for the people that take that as their 'loot'.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I experienced this problem too - it took quite a while before I really identified it, but whereas in previous RPGs I played for the enjoyment of the adventure, in 3e for my friends and I it seemed to become much more about 'hitting the next level'. In earlier editions it was rare enough that the adventure was the main thing, but the increased levelling rate in 3e changed that dramatically for us.
Regards,
Similar Threads
