DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

[Ahnehnois]

Most players now, especially influenced by video games and free to play video games in particular, play games to be rewarded for their participation.

I hope that's not true. Hard to know.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What do I mean when I say a different mind-set? Hobby game players then (as opposed to mass-market/party gamers) mostly played games to overcome challenges and to earn what they received. Most players now, especially influenced by video games and free to play video games in particular, play games to be rewarded for their participation. In other words, consequence-based gaming is being replaced by reward-based gaming. People play not to gain something but to receive something. A secret door is not a situation to cope with or a clever obstacle, it's a dirty trick by the GM because it interferes with rewards. The old-school movement is one reaction against the newer point of view. My old view of D&D-as-wargame doesn't fit the newer point of view *at all*.

Lewis, first, welcome this thread, that's awesome! Second, with the greatest respect, I'm afraid this is utter nonsense. Two things jump out at me, as someone who has played TT RPGs since 1988, since long, long before F2P games or video games which rewarded mere participation (which, at earliest, can be traced back to the '90s), as obviously untrue:

1) You assert that there are these two opposed gaming styles - consequence-based, and reward-based, and that there has been a move from one, to the other. Unless you are claiming that this change happened prior to 1989 (and thus cannot have involved F2P games or the like), this demonstrably false.

Many people play RPGs neither to experience strategic/tactical consequences, nor to gain rewards (magic items, levelling up, and so on), but basically because they love the social experience of RPing. The success of games like Vampire, which isn't really about either of strategic/tactical consequences, nor about rewards, but more about the experience, is incredibly clear evidence of that.

Further, even if we accepted this consequence-reward track (which I don't think we should), most gamers are going to fall somewhere in the middle.

2) You assert that playing games "for rewards" is something new, that is "replacing" consequence-based gaming. This is completely wrong, I would suggest. The first D&D group I saw which was not my own, in 1989, was entirely about rewards. It was about magic items, gold and XP. No-one was interested in RP or characters or really in the world (even things like becoming a king or whatever tended to be forgotten in the pursuit of bigger and better rewards), nor were they interested in "consequences". This was older players, playing 1E, and who had been playing it since the early '80s.

Nor was this uncommon at all - I saw, heard of and read about many groups doing the same thing - basically playing D&D as a game to rack up a score - sometimes the DM would be sort of involved in helping them rack up the score, which usually got called "Monty Haul" gaming. (In fact the vast majority of 1E and '80s RPG-only groups I came across were like this - it was 2E groups and non-D&D groups who tended to be more interested in telling a story, in my experience.)

If you got these people to play an RPG where they couldn't rack up some kind of score, they rapidly got bored.

Remember, this is in the late '80s and early '90s. Computer games back then were quite punishing, typically, and whilst score-oriented, certainly didn't reward one merely for playing, and there were virtually no F2P games in the modern sense.

3) "Secret door is a dirty trick" - This is an interesting example on two levels - first, I first heard complaints about this sort of thing from said 1E group, in 1989, and second, it only makes sense in the context of a kind of score-based game where rewards are hidden behind the door, rather than a plot-based game. I can see from your comments thirty years ago, that, then at least, you studiously objected to plot-based games (such as one centered around a pre-determined mystery, for example Trail of Cthulhu), but that doesn't mean that someone objecting to a secret door that is found merely by chance and has no clues to it's existence is "demanding rewards" - he may merely have different expectations about how RPGs work to you (as I think virtually everyone does).

So, anyway, as someone who has watched RPGs evolve since the 1980s, I really don't think there is either a consequence-reward change, nor do I think that everyone you think is playing merely for "rewards" actually is - I think you're misperceiving other motivations entirely for gaming, and ignoring really, the whole evolution of RPGs through the '90 and '00s.

 

[lewpuls]

Hobby games, not just RPGs

ruin explorer:

You've posed your answer largely in terms of (tabletop) RPGs. My statement encompasses all kinds of hobby gamers, and recognizes that video games and gamers are far more pervasive than tabletop. Of course, Tabletop RPGs are now just one of many segments even of tabletop gaming alone. (You can easily make a case that we can see, in video games, where tabletop games are going. Not good.)

Consequently most of what you've said is aimed at something I didn't say, because I'm talking about a much, much larger group.

Whereas "vidiots" are video gamers who ignore tabletop when they talk about games, I've coined the term (looking for one better) "tabledopes" for tabletoppers who ignore video games when they talk about games. Maybe (hearkening back to Muhammed Ali), "role-pa-dopes" would do for RPGers who only talk about TT RPGs when generalizing about games.

Yes, video gaming was heavily consequence-based in the 80, especially when the arcades were still strong and you could actually lose a video game (in a sense). Some of it still is. But MMOs (which are frequently RPGs) and F2Ps have led to the ascendance of reward-based gaming. I think this is more a symptom of a change in society (the entitled generation), than a cause, but who can say for sure.

Another way to put this would be that games as interesting decisions are being displaced by games as wish fulfillment. (See link to video below.)

The secret door example comes from recent 4e play, actually, and not a game I was involved in. See the comments on a blog post that "weeped for newbs", lamenting that even secret doors seem to be regarded as a "dirty GM trick" in 4th edition D&D. (I'm not being allowed to post links... so I cannot give you the reference)

No, I don't like to be led around by the nose to follow a plot some GM thinks (probably wrongly) is wonderful story-telling. I'm playing a game. If I want a good fantasy story I'll read a novel or (with certain reservations) watch a movie. Just as, if I want to learn history, I'll read a history book, not play a game.

You might listen to the following on my YouTub "Game Design" channel:
(Unfortunately I'm not being allowed to post links, so you'll have to go to youtube and search for the id)

Interesting Decisions versus Wish Fulfillment
The Evolution of Tabletop Games
Evolution of Video Games Part 1
Evolution of Video Games part 2

I've talked about this in more detail in my online video courses about game design, from which the latter three are excerpted.

Sorry I cannot post links, that is SO irritating.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]
Just an FYI that the ability to post links kicks in when your post count reaches a certain number, which I think is 10.

 

[Bluenose]

With regard specifically to secret doors, I'm quite sure that cRPGs have a variety of them. They're not necessarily in the form of a secret door, but rewards that are hard to reach for a variety of reasons are common. They're certainly not unknown in MMOs, as people who stagger around in SWtOR trying to find all the holocrons remember. You have to work out the trick to get the reward, though of course many web sites tell you how to do it.

 

[Umbran]

So, anyway, as someone who has watched RPGs evolve since the 1980s, I really don't think there is either a consequence-reward change, nor do I think that everyone you think is playing merely for "rewards" actually is - I think you're misperceiving other motivations entirely for gaming, and ignoring really, the whole evolution of RPGs through the '90 and '00s.

I tend to agree with RE here. Moreover, I think there's use of language that has the effect of "hedging" - switching the meaning of a term mid-stream.

All "play" behavior seen in animals is reward based, neurobiologically speaking. Our brains are built to give us good feelings from play, as a way of helping ensure we engage in play behavior. Down deep, the drive to get those rewards is strong.

In differentiating between "consequence" and "reward" gaming, there's some rhetorical judo going on. The person engaged in "consequence" play is made to seem somehow more virtuous, that this play style is somehow intrinsically superior. But that's only a seeming, based on the linguistic trick of emphasizing the reward in one mode, and concealing it in the other. But, make no mistake, the "consequence" gamer is just as reward driven as anyone else.

The only real difference is whether we save all the rewards for the end, or dole out the rewards in smaller doses along the way. Either mode uses the same base reward mechinisms, in terms of brain function.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

ruin explorer:

You've posed your answer largely in terms of (tabletop) RPGs. My statement encompasses all kinds of hobby gamers, and recognizes that video games and gamers are far more pervasive than tabletop. Of course, Tabletop RPGs are now just one of many segments even of tabletop gaming alone. (You can easily make a case that we can see, in video games, where tabletop games are going. Not good.)

Consequently most of what you've said is aimed at something I didn't say, because I'm talking about a much, much larger group.

I think calling video game players "hobby gamers" seriously misunderstands the prevalence of video games. Most video game players are not "hobby gamers" in any normal sense of the term.

Whereas "vidiots" are video gamers who ignore tabletop when they talk about games, I've coined the term (looking for one better) "tabledopes" for tabletoppers who ignore video games when they talk about games. Maybe (hearkening back to Muhammed Ali), "role-pa-dopes" would do for RPGers who only talk about TT RPGs when generalizing about games.

Do you think vaguely abusive and sneering generalization about huge groups of gamers somehow help discussions? Personally, my experience dictates the precise contrary.

Yes, video gaming was heavily consequence-based in the 80, especially when the arcades were still strong and you could actually lose a video game (in a sense). Some of it still is. But MMOs (which are frequently RPGs) and F2Ps have led to the ascendance of reward-based gaming. I think this is more a symptom of a change in society (the entitled generation), than a cause, but who can say for sure.

This "entitled generation" nonsense is just that. No generation in human history has been more literally "entitled" than the Baby Boomers, who are in their 60s or so now (I imagine your age is around here). This is not societal change, this is "GET OFF MY LAWN!" or "Kids today...", and Baby Boomers sneering at everyone younger than them is certainly a feature of current society.

Another way to put this would be that games as interesting decisions are being displaced by games as wish fulfillment. (See link to video below.)

That's just wrong. You could have argued it five years ago, if you limited it to video games only (not "all games"), but now? Laughably out of date and limited. Only MMORPGs (and not all of them!) fit that model well.

The secret door example comes from recent 4e play, actually, and not a game I was involved in. See the comments on a blog post that "weeped for newbs", lamenting that even secret doors seem to be regarded as a "dirty GM trick" in 4th edition D&D. (I'm not being allowed to post links... so I cannot give you the reference)

So something that's always happened in D&D also happened in 4E? And you are claiming this represents a change? Huh?

No, I don't like to be led around by the nose to follow a plot some GM thinks (probably wrongly) is wonderful story-telling. I'm playing a game. If I want a good fantasy story I'll read a novel or (with certain reservations) watch a movie. Just as, if I want to learn history, I'll read a history book, not play a game.

You appear to be unable to account for people who do want that, though. They don't fit your model.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't know about anything else but I definitely see an "easy" trend in gaming in general these days. I do believe we have an entitled generation today. And no I'm not 60. I'm in my 40's.

Prior to 3e, D&D was a hard game and death was easy. At least in many campaigns. At the launch of 3e onward the game gradually kept getting easier until we got to 4e where a competent group was practically unkillable unless the DM outright ignored anything remotely resembling the encounter rules.

When I roleplay, I definitely want a game that is "losable". I want a game that challenges the PLAYER as well as the character. Both. I want it to be tough at least in my campaign. With 3e, I had to work to keep this playstyle going. In 4e it couldn't be done. I am hopeful that 5e will give me a game I can play the way I'd like to play. I'm not foolish enough to believe that anything I say can change the general trend of our society. I just hope I can ride around the toilet long enough that I die before I go down the drain with the rest of society. And yes I have kids and I weep for their future. And yes I vote. And yes I don't have much hope.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't know about anything else but I definitely see an "easy" trend in gaming in general these days. I do believe we have an entitled generation today.

I definitely see that trend in the published game. I wonder how true it is in what people actually play.

Even with regards to the published game, I don't think it's some inexorable force, simply a trend. If anything, I expect that over time it'll pass the point where it pisses people off and there'll be a push back the other way.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I definitely see that trend in the published game. I wonder how true it is in what people actually play.

Even with regards to the published game, I don't think it's some inexorable force, simply a trend. If anything, I expect that over time it'll pass the point where it pisses people off and there'll be a push back the other way.

Consider that the concept of "4e should be more lethal" is sufficiently widespread as to have a name - "fourthcore".