Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Dausuul]

So, although I'd like to keep a specific discussion of 4e out of it, since you keep referring back to another thread, let me address this in those terms.

In 4e, suppose you are unconscious until you make a saving throw. Each turn then, what happens to you as a player? Well, each turn you have an important task to undertake. You must throw a dice and determine if you can wake your character up from their torpid state. As a player, you are participating. However, if you fail in your save, you as a character and you as a player don't get the oppurtunity to contribute toward success.

You claim that you can fundamentally distinguish a situation where you as a player roll a die and fail to wake your character up, and you as a player roll a die and fail to hit the target. But, from a play perspective, you the player participated in the exact same amount and in the exact same way and contributed the exact same thing to the game state in both cases.

Not at all. In the first case, I as a player contributed exactly nothing. My activity could be performed by a trained monkey, and in fact I often see players of unconscious characters say, "I'm going to the bathroom/to have a cigarette/to get a beer, somebody roll for me when my turn comes around."

In the second case, I have to decide whether to attack or do something else; what type of attack to use; which enemy to attack; whether to apply any special one-shot bonuses I have lying around; et cetera, et cetera.

It is of course possible that my attack will miss after all this planning; but even then, my decision had an effect, because I could have used that round to do something other than attack--I could have run away, or maneuvered for a better position, chugged a potion, or Done Something Cool that's not covered by the rules.

To me, at least, participation means making decisions that affect the outcome. Rolling dice is not, in and of itself, participating.

(Edit: Looks like this has already been hashed out... that's what happens when you reply before reading the whole thread.)

 

[Janx]

What was the point and objective again?

victory is an illusion because the DM allows it. Check.
rolling to wake up is boring. check.
rounds where you just attack the same critter again are like rolling to wake up. check.
Players hate failing to hit or wake up. check.
Some choices aren't Choices. check.


Per the title of the OP, players like to succeed. On a per round, or per encounter, or per adventure basis, they like to feel they came out ahead.

If you got rid of attack rolls, and had them just roll damage, players would then complain about rolling low damage as the new "miss"

I'm not sure if Celebrim's talking about a new game to account for this, part of his discussion seems to be about product and marketting to WoW type players.

I'm also not sure if it's my job to fix the players who are too win-focussed, or eject them. I think that's a complex ball of worms.

 

[Garthanos]

For a campaign it may be too much, but for a single battle? If participating differently for that amount of time becomes a problem due to investment issues then perhaps the game has become far too much "sewious business" and lost some of that elusive fun that we shouldn't have to work too hard for.

I both agree and dont agree...
I only play the bad guys by intentionally losing any sense of this is me doing it ... as a player that isn't why I play ... just like some people wouldnt like the idea of using less personal abilities to influence the battle... probably the same problem. I can see how being the hand of fate choosing a flash back of the good times a fellow pc an I had to inspire a fellow willing pc into a useful frenzy could create a disconnect for some players.

 

[ggroy]

If you got rid of attack rolls, and had them just roll damage, players would then complain about rolling low damage as the new "miss"

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. The never ending spiral?

 

[Dausuul]

If we define 'participation' and 'victory' entirely in these action-reward feedback loops, its impossible to explain that. If we define 'participation' and 'victory' in ways that include social collaboration and collaborative story telling, then suddenly that begins to make sense. People were deriving enjoyment vicarously, and the excitement was greater precisely because status effects that had deprived them of actions had led them to a point where they had more invested in the scene. Failure was fun. That is not something that mechanistic theories of Pavlovian gaming can explain, but its critical to understanding how PnP games manage to deliver 'The Illusion of Accomplishment' in a way that lets them compete as modes of entertainment with Bejeweled Blizt, WoW, etc.

This is a very good point, and one to consider. The same players who get annoyed at being stunned turn after turn during a regular fight, are suddenly hanging breathlessly on every die roll (and having a blast) when half the party is unconscious and the other half is desperately fighting to pull out a victory or at least an escape, with the threat of TPK looming.

 

[The Shaman]

If you got rid of attack rolls, and had them just roll damage, players would then complain about rolling low damage as the new "miss."

Some players, definitely.

The same players who get annoyed at being stunned turn after turn during a regular fight, are suddenly hanging breathlessly on every die roll (and having a blast) when half the party is unconscious and the other half is desperately fighting to pull out a victory or at least an escape, with the threat of TPK looming.

While the latter half certainly fits my experience, I've not encountered a problem with players complaining about being bored when their characters are paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated - on the off-chance they're not running henchman or hirelings or running an opponent on behalf of the referee, mostly they're cracking jokes and kibbitzing and hoping the ghouls don't haul off their character for a snack.

Then again, I avoid systems where anything less than the most epic battle takes hours to resolve, too.

 

[wedgeski]

That shouldn't even be contriversial. I'm not sure how you could be a gamer and not have had the experience of a meaningless turn because of a dice failure.

I've had those experiences, of course I have. However, and I know this discussion is attempting to define a more general case than editions of one particular game, but my experience with 4E D&D is *dramatically* different than previous editions, and many other games entirely, and pointedly flies in the face of your supposition that an active round of combat is in "most" or "many" cases as meaningless as a save to wake up from an impotent state.

If I undertake a strategy at the table and it fails for whatever reason (unlucky dice, poor communication, incorrect assumptions, whatever), you bet it sucks, but it's a more rewarding failure than simply not waking up that turn. I'm engaging the design, working it, trying to use and exploit the tools it's given me.

Now this is a very interesting follow up to what you wrote above, because suddenly you not only agree with me <snip>

No, I can assure you I don't.

 

[Celebrim]

No, I can assure you I don't.

My apologies. The part where you restated what I'd said and then said you agreed with that confused me.

If you were to say my engagement with the *system* amounted to the same (roll a d20, add modifiers, higher is better), then I'd agree. But the game is not just the system, it's also the collaboration with your party, and your OP after all is not entitled "System Fundamentals"...

...but it's a more rewarding failure than simply not waking up that turn. [Because] I'm engaging the design, working it, trying to use and exploit the tools it's given me.

Ok, now I'm really confused. Given how much difficulty I'm having understanding your nuances, maybe its just for the best that I refrain from commenting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So its probably not a big secret that one of the attractions of gaming is that through a game you recieve the illusion of having accomplished something.

I have to disagree with this part of your reasoning. One does accomplish something by doing well at a game -- one accomplishes "doing well".

As I said in another thread, if one accepts that chess is a battlefield simulation, then winning at chess does not mean that you have won a real battle. It does, however, mean that you won at chess. That is a real accomplishment.

Getting the Gold Crown of Hoopla from the sinister dragon Hufflepup doesn't give you a real crown in the real world. But neither does it need to in order to be an accomplishment.

IOW, rpgs don't grant you the illusion of accomplishment; they grant you the accomplishment of illusions.


RC

 

[Steel_Wind]

IOW, rpgs don't grant you the illusion of accomplishment; they grant you the accomplishment of illusions.

Now our point of disagreement aside, the above line is a roll of 20 without confirmation of the crit. Almost quotable in a sig.