Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[innerdude]

Agreed every feature so far claimed to be a catering to ego gamers has better explanations (like the desire for well described people with initial time investment leading to hardier characters) that are ignored and every incident of something not conforming to the model (like non-advancing relative chances) are similarly ignored.

I both agree and disagree. I don't think most designers' motives are to directly please "ego gamers." I think most designers want to embrace player diversity, and provide for a wide range of possible play styles, and allow players to enjoy their chosen games in a multiplicity of ways.

However, the fact that many design motivations can reasonably be attributed to motives other than "appeasing the ego gamers," doesn't necessarily mean that the designers accounted for the "law of unseen consequences."

Just because you thought that a particular gameplay style, or mode of thought/gratification/reinforcement was what you wanted to achieve, doesn't mean that it didn't have an unforeseen, or unintended effect. I think this thread has at the very least identified some evidences that D&D 4th Edition may, in fact, have had an unintended "move" towards catering to "ego gaming" styles. As has already been pointed out, the "Why Do Numbers Go Up?" and the "d20 vs 3d6" threads are evidence that some players feel that 4th Edition didn't go quite far enough in the reward/gratification cycle based on the system's inherent math probabilities.

A more interesting question might be why someone would feel the need to argue against it. If it's just an "unintended design consequence" of D&D 4e, it just means that "it is what it is." Is it necessarily a "bad thing?"

The interesting issue to me is how far does a game go into this reward/gratification "mode" or "playstyle" before it is no longer a "game we want to play," or no longer wholly resembles what we perceive to be a "role-playing game?" It's an interesting question to consider if design decisions by WotC, Paizo, White Wolf, Palladium, et. al., take this into account.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's not just D&D, everything's faster paced now. If you compare Dr Who today with Dr Who in the 70s, the earlier episodes are so slow moving, I practically find them unwatchable. And I used to love Dr Who when I was kid in the 70s.

EDIT: Though novels tend to be much longer, which scotches that theory.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Watching a movie gives you a sense of accomplishment? What, are you grinding to level up your Passive Perception skill?

A few months ago, I set myself the task of watching every Woody Allen movie. I failed to complete this relatively simple assignment but even so, when I watched some of his (rightly) less well known films from the 80s - ones with no jokes like Another Woman and September - it sure felt like a grind.

 

[Garthanos]

A more interesting question might be why someone would feel the need to argue against it. If it's just an "unintended design consequence" of D&D 4e, it just means that "it is what it is." Is it necessarily a "bad thing?"

I don't know read the posts about people who like this design being mice pressing the button faster and faster for there easy rewards and think about it a little bit. The idea is inherent in post 1 OR are we adding something out of left field?

 

[pemerton]

Just because you thought that a particular gameplay style, or mode of thought/gratification/reinforcement was what you wanted to achieve, doesn't mean that it didn't have an unforeseen, or unintended effect. I think this thread has at the very least identified some evidences that D&D 4th Edition may, in fact, have had an unintended "move" towards catering to "ego gaming" styles. As has already been pointed out, the "Why Do Numbers Go Up?" and the "d20 vs 3d6" threads are evidence that some players feel that 4th Edition didn't go quite far enough in the reward/gratification cycle based on the system's inherent math probabilities.

Alternatively, maybe they think the game is boring when they don't get to engage the mechanics and prefer a game where even if their PC is losing, they as a player still get to do things in the game.

Is wanting to play the game by engaging the mechanics to affect the fate of my PC egoistic? No one's explained to me why this is so. And I'll reiterate - games like HeroQuest are designed to bring about exactly this sort of result - all game all the time - and no one has ever suggested that they are games for egoists. Why is 4e different?

What I'm seeing here is that some people prefer traditional to modern game designs - fair enough - but are then trying to explain their preferences by appealing to a contrast between mature and egoistic gamers. I just don't buy that.

 

[pemerton]

Watching a movie can be enjoyable no matter what the protagonist is doing. If he's winning or losing, that doesn't affect my "accomplishments" -- because I achieve zero accomplishments while passively watching a movie. The enjoyment of a movie is unlike the enjoyment of a game: it's entirely passive.

I don't really agree that watching a movie is entirely passive. In my experience, if the movie is sophisticiated and interesting, then watching it involves intellectual engagement. In this respect watching a movie is like reading a book. Right now I'm reading Herman Hesse's Journey to the East- not a passive experience. Watching a typical Woody Allen movie - not a passive experience.

I also believe, from experience, that playing an RPG can also be enjoyable from moment to moment just like watching a movie. The pleasure from dealing with an intriguing and frustating villain in a game is not confined to the delayed gratification of victory. It can be the present gratification of participating in and shaping an interesting story and/or an interesting situation (tactical, narrative, whatever) at the game table.

When I think of delayed gratification, I think of marking essays and exams so I get paid next week, and so I get to move on to the more interesting part of my job. I think of saving now so I can buy something nice next week. If we move more into the realm of recreation, I think of practising scales now so I can play the instrument well in the future. But once I start playing for real, the pleasure is immediate.

I'm not an angler, but my understanding of the pleasure of angling (as opposed to survival or commercial fishing) is that there is pleasure (of a contemplative, or tactical, kind) from moment to moment - it's not mere delayed gratification of landing a fish. And I think this is probably true of most hobbies.

In the case of RPGs, unlike fishing or playing an instrument, there's very little start-up/practice time (except for the GM) and so in my view very little room for the working of delyaed gratification. A game that depends on delayed gratification - I get stunned now so I can beat the dragon on my next turn - sounds to me simply like a poorly-designed game, unless its Protestant Ethic - the Immersive Game of Weberian Historical Sociology!.

 

[innerdude]

Alternatively, maybe they think the game is boring when they don't get to engage the mechanics and prefer a game where even if their PC is losing, they as a player still get to do things in the game.

Is wanting to play the game by engaging the mechanics to affect the fate of my PC egoistic? No one's explained to me why this is so. And I'll reiterate - games like HeroQuest are designed to bring about exactly this sort of result - all game all the time - and no one has ever suggested that they are games for egoists. Why is 4e different?

What I'm seeing here is that some people prefer traditional to modern game designs - fair enough - but are then trying to explain their preferences by appealing to a contrast between mature and egoistic gamers. I just don't buy that.

Well to me, at least, the difference lies in not that the player wants to engage the mechanics, it's that they want to engage the mechanics, and expect that the mechanics will produce the effect they want (success, awesomeness, achievement, "Woot!") all the time. They're not motivated by "greater story rewards," or "long-term satisfaction of accomplishment," they just want the next critical hit, the next piece of phat lewt, the next opportunity to do "the Awesome," and get mad at anyone/anything that gets in the way of their "enjoyment."

I think a player who is willing to accept "losing" as a potential outcome, and that said outcome may actually lead to greater story rewards down the road, isn't really an "ego gamer."

 

[Nifft]

I don't really agree that watching a movie is entirely passive. In my experience, if the movie is sophisticiated and interesting, then watching it involves intellectual engagement. In this respect watching a movie is like reading a book.

"Sophisticated" (just fyi).

Reading a book is passive. So is watching baseball. You may find these things stimulating, but don't mistake stimulation for activity. Activity is when you do something.

If you honestly disagree that sitting silently on your butt in a dark room for over an hour while you stare at a screen is you being passive, then we may not have enough common concepts to discuss more complicated things.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Hussar]

It's not just D&D, everything's faster paced now. If you compare Dr Who today with Dr Who in the 70s, the earlier episodes are so slow moving, I practically find them unwatchable. And I used to love Dr Who when I was kid in the 70s.

EDIT: Though novels tend to be much longer, which scotches that theory.

Hrm, the Dr. Who thing is kinda interesting. When you go back to those old Who series, each story is about three to four hours long. They're not really TV shows, they're closer to a mini-series. While the characters may continue between each one, pretty much each is self-contained.

Then take it to the new Who. Each story is again self contained (mostly) but truncated down to about 45 minutes.

Does that mean that our attention spans are that much shorter? Are they simply trying to appeal to a broader audience? Or is it an improvement and they're realizing that the glacial pace of a lot of those old episodes were not as good as they could have been?

I really don't know.

 

[ST]

This "Ego gamer" label kinda makes me queasy. I worry it's taking the most divisive elements of the GNS debate, the part about "are you playing wrong" that I never thought the theory implied, and making that the whole point? At least with GNS there's several different methods, but this seems like an on-off switch.

Not to mention that "Ego" comes off as having a negative connotation. Maybe Accomplishment, but then again you have "Compared to what?"

I guess it's certainly an open-ended topic, but at the end you end up with a bunch of things with an "Ego" label on them and what does that tell us that we can apply to actual gaming?