Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[pemerton]

Ego-gamers, in my opinion, represent a destructive side of the changing expectations in roleplaying games. I like games which work to emulate genres; Top Secret remains one of my favorite spy games, and I enjoyed a fair amount of MSH back in the day. But I don't want every game to emulate superheroes.

I don't really follow this post either.

Some people want to play a fantasy RPG (not a superhero RPG) that plays less like a squad-level traditional wargame (eg the PCs - multiple per player - and their henchmen and hirelings scout out the dungeon and then slowly take it apart, room by room and level by level) and in play is guaranteed to unfold more like an adventure story - with guaranteed dramatic highs and lows, but no meaningless protagonist death.

First, what does this desire for a gameplay experience have to do with ego?

Second, what is objectionable about designing fantasy RPG rulesets that (at least attempt to) satisfy it?

 

[FireLance]

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.

I think innerdude raises a point here that has not really been addressed so far: Would adding game elements that have a shorter action-reward cycle actually hurt the game if such game elements are not the only ones in the game? Why would their presence detract from other game elements with longer action-reward cycles?

To me, being able (or mostly able) to positively affect the outcome of a fight each round (a fairly short action-reward cycle) would not diminish the satisfaction I get from using good tactics to eventually win the fight (a slightly longer action-reward cycle) or from using good strategies to eventually accomplish a long-term campaign goal (an even longer action-reward cycle).

It seems to me that as long as a game still rewards creativity, foresight and planning, it should not matter that it also provides regular doses of encouragement on a turn-by-turn basis.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Failing can, in fact, be fun. Or at least funny. Just today my incredibly agile and sneaky halfling ranger/rogue confidently led the party on a stealthy assault across the rooftops. Athletics d20+12 = 14, Stealth d20 +10 = 11.

Yep, a 2 and a 1. Grabbed a rusty drainpipe, it broke off and i fell right onto my pet dinosaur, who yelped loudly enough to bring guards from two wards away. And since that was after two other party members failed, the skill challenge was pretty much busted and now we're gonna be in a tough fight. Would i rather have succeeded? Sure. But it definitely felt like I was participating, doing something, and being unconscious and failing to make a wake-up roll does not; there is a difference.

One of the things 4e has reinforced for me is the idea of describing and visualizing your successes and failures. The dice do what the dice do, but the encouragement to fluff out the result of your attacks and powers really makes the game come alive. To me, that's a much bigger effect of 4e than the "say yes" advice or the reduction of saveordie/ saveorsuck situations that some here interpret as "feeding the ego gamer".

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm surprised no one thought of this until now but isn't "ego-gamer" simply a new term for Munchkin?

No. Because there is nothing about the OPs description of the ego-gamer where we look down upon his desire for fast, frequent gratification. In fact, being an ego-gamer is not a permanent state. Most gamers feel this desire sometimes.

The other main difference is that the ego-gamer is looking for WIN independent of the other players. The munchkin wants more WIN than the other players. The munchkin wants to be the best. And this is why the word "ego" in ego-gamer is a misnomer but no one has come up with a better word. The ego-gamer is not selfish, merely self-involved. He doesn't become depressed when you win or I win. He only becomes depressed when he fails. If everyone at the table is rolling 20s. The ego-gamer is just has happy as if only he were rolling 20s. The munchkin would enjoy the game more if he were the only player rolling 20s.

It is unfortunate that we are using the word "ego" at all. The fast and frequent requirement make me think "twitch-gamer" might be good. But I'm sure some other misunderstanding will stem from it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It is unfortunate that we are using the word "ego" at all. The fast and frequent requirement make me think "twitch-gamer" might be good. But I'm sure some other misunderstanding will stem from it.

We could go with pavlovian gamer perhaps?

 

[Garthanos]

No. Because there is nothing about the OPs description of the ego-gamer where we look down upon his desire for fast, frequent gratification. In fact, being an ego-gamer is not a permanent state. Most gamers feel this desire sometimes.

I read the following as being exactly that.. its a fairly direct put down... its not just fast and frequent it is supposed to be "easy" to the point of being completely unearned. They don't have to think about it. Its an intellectuals put down at every step of the description.

The reason that this tended to become a problem is that the ego gamers I encountered generally defined a successful game as one where they defeated every obstacle put in front of them with as little effort as possible. Any temporary setback (like a fight they were losing), any momentary failure (like a run of bad dice), or any obstacle the DM placed in front of them (like an encounter requiring something other than a straight foward tactic), tended to be met with confusion, dismay, and often outright anger.

It sure seems to me like it is very much meant to be a horror story that these "new to D&D" design goals will build/encourage these unthinking monster gamers.

I had a player who cheated at rolls once. I attributed it to something pretty normal fear and trust issues. The games mechanics couldn't be trusted with a character which the player invested a lot emotionally in (and I was newly his GM). Sounds very human to me. I guess I could have thought he didn't want any challenges and just wanted an easy button. I think that would have been me.. applying an easy button and not trying to understand somebody else's motivations.

 

[The Shaman]

Some people want to play a fantasy RPG (not a superhero RPG) that plays less like a squad-level traditional wargame (eg the PCs - multiple per player - and their henchmen and hirelings scout out the dungeon and then slowly take it apart, room by room and level by level) and in play is guaranteed to unfold more like an adventure story - with guaranteed dramatic highs and lows, but no meaningless protagonist death.

There are an awful lot of assumptions here, hovering around the edges of a vast excluded middle.

First, what does this desire for a gameplay experience have to do with ego?

I think Celebrim pretty well covered this already, and I see no reason to belabor the point.

Second, what is objectionable about designing fantasy RPG rulesets that (at least attempt to) satisfy it?

What I find objectionable, based on my personal preferences, you mean?

 

[Celebrim]

I had a player who cheated at rolls once. I attributed it to something pretty normal fear and trust issues. The games mechanics couldn't be trusted with a character which the player invested a lot emotionally in.

LOL. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sounds very human to me.

Yes, me too.

I guess I could have thought he didn't want any challenges and just wanted an easy button.

I think I can see where you'd be tempted to think that he couldn't trust challenges to deliver the outcomes which the player invested a lot emotionally in.

I think that would have been me.. applying an easy button and not trying to understand somebody else's motivations.

Hmmmm...applicable here? I wonder.

 

[Starfox]

And didn't Laws write Rune? I've never played Rune but from what I know of it Laws certainly knows something about the ego-gamer.

I did play (in fact playtest) Rune. It five ways of horrible. I am a big Robin Laws fan, but I think Rune is a blot on his CV. The conditions under which that game was made were quite special. Lets just say that even game designers and game publishers have to pay the rent.

Ego-gamey tough? Maybe if you are the gamemaster. A game where the GM has a "budget" to spend on smacking down the player and gets rewarded for doing so is incredibly hard to balance.

 

[Starfox]

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?

As the guy who submitted the link to where gamers were being compared to caged mice, I must say I don't think its a "bad thing". I didn't post that link to deride anyone. I just wanted to point out that the topic of a shortening reward cycle had been discussed in other forums than this and on other topics than PnP games - that the idea is not so very controversial.

I found that article useful. I understand and accept that this mechanism is a part of what makes me play games - particularly my computer game of choice, City of Heroes. Having read the article gives me a greater understanding of the psychology involved, which makes me stronger and more able to see when I'm caught in the hamster wheel and going for rewards that are not really fun. Knowledge is power, and knowledge on yourself gives you power over yourself.

The article took a tendency in game design and extended it to infinity, showing it at its most extreme to illustrate a point. But it was written by gamers for gamers - people who know they have a gaming habit and trying to understand it and to master it. It was not really deriding anyone, it was just sensationalist writing (the way I read it).

I think the OP is doing the same thing; showing what he believes is a trend in gaming and trying very hard not to insult anyone by doing so.