Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Nifft]

Not universally, no. I'm merely saying that depending on the desired type and speed of reward feedback, a computer game is a far more easily accessible, instantaneous, and compelling way to get that type of reward feedback than a pen-and-paper RPG is.

And Celebrim's point is that pen-and-paper RPGs often run into trouble when they try to duplicate that type of reward feedback in the same manner, frequency, and consistency as a computer RPG does. It's a hell of a lot harder for a pen-and-paper RPG to produce those levels of short-cycle reward feedback than it is for a computer game to do so.

Mmm. I actually wonder about that. In a face-to-face game, a reward can be instant, and can actually precede the success(!!) (or lack of success).

In specific, I'm thinking about "get-more-dice" systems like Exalted's stunts, or "get-more-resource" systems like WFRP 3e's group token pool. Using these systems, the DM can reward you for a creative solution many times over the course of a session.

Cheers, -- N

 

[innerdude]

When my friends and I are in a tough combat, and I land a critical hit, it may not come with flashy images and booming sound effects...but if it makes my friends jump up and yell "w00t! way to go awesomeocalypse!", then that is a more or less instantenous reward, and to my mind, one that is considerably more of an ego boost. If I pull off a cool stunt, I may not have the satisfaction of seeing it beautifully rendered in 3d. But if the DM has one of the minions I'm fighting go "oh my god, didja see how that guy ran up the wall and flipped over the dragon? there's no way we're taking this guy, run away!" then that is a viscerally satisfying immediate reward.

I want to respond to your post, but I do find it interesting that when you talked about the "long term" rewards of pen-and-paper gaming, you talked about the social aspects, the world-building aspects, and the character-driven aspects. But when you wanted to talk about the "instantaneous Woot!" moments of an RPG, you talked about combat. Just an observation.

It's not necessarily the type of reward that's different between computer and PnP RPGs--it's the manner, frequency, consistency, and might I add, depth of the sense of reward that's different. If a player prefers constant, immediate, near-instantaneous reward feedback, a pen-and-paper RPG is the vastly inferior choice to a computer RPG, and that player is likely going to be frustrated when a pen-and-paper RPG isn't providing "enough" reward, and will likely try to push the game in directions that will provide those levels of reward.

For example, in my recent Star Wars Saga game, my character talked a Grand Moff out of sending an entire squad of troops to a location where I knew the rest of my party would be. And as a player, I derived 1000 times more satisfaction from that moment than from any combat fight I've ever participated in, in any RPG.

But the "reward feedback" for that moment took five or six sessions to create. The payoff for that moment took a lot more than my GM tossing a few minis on a battle mat and rolling for initiative. It took a GM willing to create interesting plot hooks, to integrate character actions into the flow of the story, it took setting up and managing an "acted role" on the fly, and then managing the consequences of the results of our interaction into the ensuing track of the campaign.

Once again, it's not about the ability of computer RPGs vs. PnP RPGs to produce the same types of "reward feedback." It's about the player's expectation of how quickly, how often, and in what degree the reward comes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Flashing lights, loud noises, and jarring motion will always, always, always win out for "reward for accomplishing a task."

It's biological. There's lizard-brain impulses at work here. They are better ways to satisfy the players' drive to succeed.

PnP RPGs can offer other rewards, and, IMO, more diverse rewards, but they can't compare to a videogame's audio-visual stimulus.

So success can't really be the point, in a PnP RPG designed to take advantage of the medium. It'll be there, but it can't be the primary goal. If the player is seeking immediate success, they will be frustrated, because it does not come as fast or as potent as the reward for pushing X until your thumbs are sore. It can't compare.

Success can and should be part of the fun of a PnP RPG, but it cannot be the main or only thing the game offers, if the game hopes to favorably compete for a player's free time with other distractions.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

I want to respond to your post, but I do find it interesting that when you talked about the "long term" rewards of pen-and-paper gaming, you talked about the social aspects, the world-building aspects, and the character-driven aspects. But when you wanted to talk about the "instantaneous Woot!" moments of an RPG, you talked about combat. Just an observation.

I think you're misunderstanding me. My original point had nothing to do with the long term rewards of pen and paper gaming. In fact, I was making the opposite point, that "story-driven" and "social" rewards can be just as instantaneously gratifying as the "ooh flashy" rewards of gaming, and I used combat to make my point, because combat is generally seen as the most immediate aspect of gaming. I don't believe that story rewards are exclusive to the longterm, I absolutely do not believe that social rewards are long term, and moreover, I don't draw a distinction between the social and story aspects of an rpg and combat. Combat is social, story can take place in combat, and the rewards of a PNP rpg can be just as instantaneous as those of a video game, albeit of a different nature. Story rewards can be longterm, multi-session dialogue...but they can also just be the DMing adapting on the fly to actions taken by characters in a way that makes them feel awesome. Social rewards can be arduously earned and codified, or they can be as simple and immediate as a high-five for a well-executed stunt. The idea that the only kind of immediate gratification available to games is either graphical or mechanical simply doesn't jive with my experience at all. Some of my favorite PNP gaming moments came in dungeon crawl oneshots with minimal overarching story, but where my character pulled off an awesome manuever that saved the day, earning me the congratulations and gratitude of my fellow party members, and affecting the encounter and world around me in a way that felt cool (which doesn't have to be some big overarching story thing--if my badassness makes my enemies run away in fear, thats an immediate story-based reward that can feel pretty gratifying).

 

[innerdude]

Mmm. I actually wonder about that. In a face-to-face game, a reward can be instant, and can actually precede the success(!!) (or lack of success).

I think this is a slight mischaracterization of the point, which is not that players cannot feel an immediate sense of success, or accomplishment, in the moment of playing a PnP RPG. This is absolutely the case, and should be the entire reason we play RPGs at all.

The actual point is that compared to a PnP RPG, a computer RPG sets up far more situations, far more rapidly, and far more consistently for a player to receive positive feedback from their actions.

Unless your GM can literally throw 10 mobs of 25 monsters each in front of you, and have your party blow through them in 30 minutes flat (like you can in WoW, Guild Wars, et.al.), then a pen-and-paper RPG simply doesn't provide as many opportunities to receive immediate reward feedback as a computer RPG does. It's just the simple truth.

(To be fair, you might actually be able to accomplish this if all the monsters were 4th Ed. minions, and the PCs were rolling insanely well, but I digress LOL).

It's not that the feedback itself is any more "immediate," or "less compelling" in one medium or the other. It's that one medium has the capacity to provide more opportunities to receive that reward feedback, and receive it faster. Thus, if as a player, your "reward feedback" loop is set to a very short amount of time between opportunities, then a pen-and-paper RPG may not be the best means of "scratching your gaming itch."

 

[innerdude]

I think you're misunderstanding me. My original point had nothing to do with the long term rewards of pen and paper gaming. In fact, I was making the opposite point, that "story-driven" and "social" rewards can be just as instantaneously gratifying as the "ooh flashy" rewards of gaming, and I used combat to make my point, because combat is generally seen as the most immediate aspect of gaming.

Aaah, okay, I see the problem here. See my response to Nifft's point. I think the confusion comes not from the idea that player satisfaction doesn't happen as immediately and rewardingly in PnP games as it does in computer RPGs.

The real point is that a computer RPG has the ability to provide far more opportunities to receive immediate feedback in the same amount of time.

 

[Ariosto]

I recall Gygax in an interview -- I think back in '76 or '77, before modules -- saying that D&D had a dominance no rival could contest because of sheer sales (300,000 units maybe, anyhow something pretty impressive). I think he chalked it up to being first to market, having not only pioneered the concept but had the field entirely to itself for a year before T&T came along.

Considering all the changes since, as well as an apparently still strong brand loyalty that I remember having extended more broadly to TSR Hobbies back in the day, I can see something to that.

On the other hand, the basic concept was a pretty brilliant success that I think influenced (and continues to influence) a lot of design in the computer-game field. That distinction has been greatly watered down not only by imitators but a trend to reverse the movement and have D&D become more like other games.

A potential problem there is that this means competing on ground where the D&D brand is the follower and someone else is the leader conceptually.

 

[Nifft]

I think this is a slight mischaracterization of the point, which is not that players cannot feel an immediate sense of success, or accomplishment, in the moment of playing a PnP RPG. This is absolutely the case, and should be the entire reason we play RPGs at all.

The actual point is that compared to a PnP RPG, a computer RPG sets up far more situations, far more rapidly, and far more consistently for a player to receive positive feedback from their actions.

Unless your GM can literally throw 10 mobs of 25 monsters each in front of you, and have your party blow through them in 30 minutes flat (like you can in WoW, Guild Wars, et.al.), then a pen-and-paper RPG simply doesn't provide as many opportunities to receive immediate reward feedback as a computer RPG does. It's just the simple truth.

See, I'm going to disagree. At some point, "dropping a monster" is no longer a meaningful accomplishment, just as "scoring a hit" isn't a meaningful accomplishment in your framework.

Computer games can only reward appropriate reactions. Face-to-face games are allowed to reward novelty. Only the latter is infinite.

It's not that the feedback itself is any more "immediate," or "less compelling" in one medium or the other. It's that one medium has the capacity to provide more opportunities to receive that reward feedback, and receive it faster. Thus, if as a player, your "reward feedback" loop is set to a very short amount of time between opportunities, then a pen-and-paper RPG may not be the best means of "scratching your gaming itch."

Ironically, I think that face-to-face gaming actually can provide faster -- and more frequent -- and even more compelling -- positive feedback.

Face-to-face gaming can give immediate rewards for creativity. IMHO this is a more rewarding kind of reward: it's an affirmation of something deeper than my skill at mastering any given system.

In any computer game I play, rewards for creativity are LONG delayed, if they're possible at all. (And they generally have to be: if you grant easy rewards for creativity in a computer game, you open the door to a lot of abuse.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Celebrim]

On the other hand, the basic concept was a pretty brilliant success that I think influenced (and continues to influence) a lot of design in the computer-game field.

D&D got an amazing amount right. I keep being tempted to fork the thread, but look at the things it got absolutely right.

Just for one, the gameplay that is described and promoted by the rules is naturally played by groups of people. I don't know how many brilliant written RPG's informed by the best modern theories and practices I've read over the years that read so well, but which, on the whole describe and promote a gameplay which is not conducive to groups and which can only be achieved as described basically by one on one sessions between the DM and player. Those games may still be played, but they are ultimately not played according to the stated intention of the designer. Its the kind of thing that is so basic that we still often don't think about it, but because of D&D's organical evolved and adapted roots it just naturally gets this spot on.

 

[wilrich]

nevermind