Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Bluenose]

The criticism of 4e in "Why must numbers go up?" is actually directed at 4e's making things consistently about the same. See the first part of Starfox's post #76 above for a statement of this concept of "illusory accomplishment".

In other words, not creating a situation -- at high levels, as in TSR-D&D -- in which the monsters' attacks nearly always hit, whereas everyone misses most of the time at low levels, is just as much the issue.

What is wanted is a clear sense of progression, of change. The very consistency that is so central to the 4e design is under fire.

Yet the implication, quite clearly, is that 4e is less a game where attacks nearly always hit than previous editions. Which rather contradicts any suggestion that it's more suited for people who the OP defines as ego-gamers. If anything, the implication is that older editions of D&D are more suited for them.

 

[S'mon]

The key is how we use the word "accomplishment" - you use it to mean a task achieved, I use it to mean a reward garnered trough achieving said task. Yours might be better English

Yes.

Edit: Also, my use of the word is in accordance with the OP's use of it - ie 'sense of accomplishment'. Yours isn't.

 

[Woas]

Seriously, video games and other forms of entertainment do "short-cycle achievement gratification" better than pen-and-paper RPGs ever will. They're multimedia, they have lights, sounds, flashing colors, you can see your avatar on the screen with the biggest, baddest weapon, whereas in RPGs you're just imagining it.

So you feel that a television or computer monitor is more satisfying and powerful than ones own imagination and minds eye?

 

[Celebrim]

Which leads me to my next point. Using my definition of "illusion of achievement", all gaming is really about this illusion, the difference is only if we accept the illusion or not.

When 'Diablo I' came out, all my friends were playing, and taking there machines over to each others houses to play together. It was this big deal, so I picked up a copy and started playing. I found it pretty engrossing, and played each of the three classes up to wear I beat the game on Hell level.

But then I kept playing. The game was beat and there was nothing more to see or do, but I was still playing to get 'phat l00t' and kill the next mini-boss.

Then I downloaded a trainer for the game. I could give myself any thing I wanted.

I never played the game again. I never even played with my new stuff. The 'illusion of accomplishment' had been destroyed. I realized I wasn't actually doing anything any more. I played through Diablo II once with one character. I couldn't even manage to push myself to go through the game a second time. Unlike Diablo I, Diablo II had lost its dynamic elements. The game had been pared down to its action/reward essentials, and the trainer which let me get whatever I wanted had pushed me to see through that and I couldn't regain that illusion.

I don't have a problem with someone who enjoys Diablo II. I play 5-10 minutes of Bejeweled Blitz almost every night as a way to unwind and decompress. It's basically the same thing; heck, for a participation perspective, it's almost the same game. However, for me, my particular personality quirks gives me a relatively low tolerance for Diablo style games. If I get addicted to some action/reward loop, it tends to be to games where there is a higher illusion of personal skill and less investment in the character skill. Or, to put it in RPG terms, I'm not that particular sort of power gamer who enjoys the thrill of a min/maxed character wading with ease through the opposition with his degenerately powerful optimized build. I'm closer to a puzzle solver, who likes defeating the obstacles irrespective of the numbers on my character sheet.

But I've seen those players. They are the sort of players whose enjoyment of the game not only depends on playing the ubermensch, but having built a character that can defeat anything in a round or two, also cheats on the initiative throw so that they can be sure to be able to do so unhindered. I've met, not one, but several of these players over the years, as well as a few 'Teflon Billy' style gamers who get off on always beating the DM more or less fairly. And before anyone gets sidetracked again, I often enjoy playing with them. Sometimes, it's really nice both as a DM and a player to know that there is this crazy killing machine in the game that can always be counted to get the party out of whatever that's thrown at them. As I said earlier, as a DM I always prefer a mixture of power gamers, roleplayers, goofs, and puzzle solvers at the table because I like 'the whole game' and when one sort of player is missing it tends to leave a hole in the play experience. So this is not about 'roleplayers are better than roll players' or any of that crap.

 

[Garthanos]

So you feel that a television or computer monitor is more satisfying and powerful than ones own imagination and minds eye?

Well it sure is easier... but way too nailed down... I can envision my characters abilities many different ways when roleplaying (not so in WoW). 4e actively encourages players to do this ... wonder why? its something imagination games are better at.

 

[Hussar]

I guess the question becomes, for me anyway, what's too short? How do we define a too short gratification cycle?

There's another point here too - perception. Take leveling. There are people on this board who swear up and down that leveling in one edition was FAR slower than in other editions. There are others who claim that the leveling is actually pretty close. Who's right? Well, it depends on who you ask. Both are pretty solidly convinced of their own interpretations, so, it all comes down to dueling anecdotes.

I think here it comes down to very much the same. Celebrim's claims about 4e and the number of choices in a round, and the idea that it is common to have rounds where you don't move, and only make one attack option, is completely different from my experience. I'll admit, I'm pretty new to 4e, but, between two campaigns, I've participated in a dozen or so combats, spread across probably something close to 75 rounds, and I don't recall a single combat where I stood still and made a single attack roll. I'm sure it happened, but, not too often.

And, if you doubt me, here are the transcripts for at least one campaign: Raiders of Oakhurst

So, it comes down to Celebrim's perception of the problem. For which he has actually not provided any concrete proof, other than a vague feeling that he has.

I think there might be something interesting here, but, to be honest, I think it's so tightly tied up in Celebrim's own experiences, that the facts are pretty difficult to separate out.

 

[Hussar]

But I've seen those players. They are the sort of players whose enjoyment of the game not only depends on playing the ubermensch, but having built a character that can defeat anything in a round or two, also cheats on the initiative throw so that they can be sure to be able to do so unhindered. I've met, not one, but several of these players over the years, as well as a few 'Teflon Billy' style gamers who get off on always beating the DM more or less fairly. And before anyone gets sidetracked again, I often enjoy playing with them. Sometimes, it's really nice both as a DM and a player to know that there is this crazy killing machine in the game that can always be counted to get the party out of whatever that's thrown at them. As I said earlier, as a DM I always prefer a mixture of power gamers, roleplayers, goofs, and puzzle solvers at the table because I like 'the whole game' and when one sort of player is missing it tends to leave a hole in the play experience. So this is not about 'roleplayers are better than roll players' or any of that crap.

But, problem players are problem players, period. Are you actually trying to argue that this sort of player is the new target market?

 

[Celebrim]

Considering some of the arguments being made in the thread, "Why must numbers go up", where people are specifically criticising 4th edition for not creating a situation where their melee attacks are nearly always successful, it seems 4E can't possibly be the game in question.

No, it's not. Which is one of the reasons I don't want to make this an edition war.

However, while 4e is not 'that game', 4e is more in that direction than earlier editions of the game. To list just a few examples, 4e scales everything with level, 4e has no long term status effects, 4e cures pretty much everything with a single long rest, 4e tried to speed combat as a primary goal, 4e gives everyone self healing, greatly boosts power at 1st level so that everyone starts with 'the awesome' immediately, 4e 'fixes the math' (or at least attempted to do so) in the same sort of way games like Diablo fix the math (hense the complaint about 'must numbers always go up?'), 4e refreshes most of your powers on an encounter cycle, 4e tries to make everyone's turn have more options and more interaction, etc. Now, just so we don't get sidetracked again, I'm not here criticizing any of those things. That's not my focus. That's not my goal. Though I am one of the earliest 4e critics, literally launching against it from the very first preview, I have never though 4e got it all wrong. In fact, some of the sacred cow slaying forced me to rethink my own reasoning and there are somethings in my game that are 4e inspired. So let's not make this an edition war, because I'm past that now.

4e is not that game, but 4e went in that direction, and both IRL and on the boards I'm hearing increased complaints from 4e gamers that the problem is that 4e didn't go far enough in that direction. Morrus is saying, "Status's suck and they make the game unfun for the players because they force the player to actually or effectively lose a turn (extending the wait between action and reward). What can we do about that?" Chris Simms is saying, "Missing your attack sucks. In WoW you have the expectation of hitting 90% of the time, and the action/reward cycle in D&D is even slower than in WoW, so missing stings more. We need to find ways to reduce the chances of missing." Lots of players are saying, "We need to find ways to make sure that there is less slog/grind in 4e, what can we do to make each round of a long fight have more tension?"

And this thread is about examining the underlying assumptions of what makes a game 'fun', and see if there might be other ways of creating a satisfying 'illusion of accomplishment' than to continue to decrease the time involved in the action/reward loop such that PnP games better mimic popular video games.

 

[Celebrim]

But, problem players are problem players, period. Are you actually trying to argue that this sort of player is the new target market?

I'm not trying to argue that 'ego gamers' are inherently problem players at all. While I do feel that 'ego gamers' often are problem players and more often the problem player than RPGers with different vested interests in the game, I now regret even bringing that up because its got us sidetracked.

For these purposes, the ego gamer is the sort of gamer who responds emotionally most strongly in a positive way to immediate gratification in responce to their choices, and responds emotionally most strongly in a negative way when the reward that they believe they deserve is withheld. They are gamers that put an emotional stake in always winning, so that they see failure in terms of very short cycles. That is, while some gamer might be happy if the group overcomes the challenge, or defeats the adventure path, the ego gamer tends to chafe if during the challenge he even failed an attack roll.

I'm trying to argue that there is a trend in the high level thinking about RPG design that is more and more accepting of the assumption that the gratification cycle 'ego gamers' respond most strongly to relative to other types of players is the natural cycle all gamers respond most strongly too and that one of the goals in RPG design should be to maximize this gratification cycle. As a result of this thinking, I think that mainstream PnP games are trending to one degree or the other toward designs which are more heavily geared to satisfying ego gamers.

 

[Hussar]

I'll buy that Celebrim.

My next question is, why is this a bad thing?

Granted, we can take this to the extreme where the cycle is measured in miliseconds. Fine, but, let's not go there. Keep it reasonable.

Why is the previous period between challenge and reward better than now? Why is delayed gratification better?