Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Obryn]

So far, everyone is attempting to dismiss my point by arguing against some alternate construction. Let's make it very clear. Yes, I do agree that failing a save and failing an attack are not always the same thing. However, that has never been my point. My point is that in a quite common situation, they are the same thing.

So, then, make it more concrete. I think people aren't so much trying to create alternate constructions of your thesis, as being confused because there aren't any examples. What are some recent changes in game design which indicate the designers are catering to ego-gamers at the expense of DMs?

-O

 

[Mallus]

What are some recent changes in game design which indicate the designers are catering to ego-gamers at the expense of DMs?

I'd like some concrete examples, too. I think there's something interesting to discuss here, but without examples all we have is some insightful observations by Celebrim leading to what sure as heck looks like a straw-stuffed conclusion.

I mean, whiners and sore losers we have always had with us in RPG-land. I don't see any major shifts in game design meant to appease them. That sounds silly.

What I do see are design changes vis a vis reward structures that seem to reflect a shrinking and aging player base which has less and less leisure time to devote to the hobby. For most of us, the days of 52 long gaming sessions a year are long gone. Ditto are old-school campaigns with multiple parties exploring a single persistent campaign setting, struggling for months to get a PC off 1st level.

I see this time-pressure as leading to more rapid leveling, new abilities at each level or so, more durable starting characters, fewer single rolls that can take the player out of the action for a large part of the session, less emphasis on time-intensive play elements like mapping, more reliance on big set pieces, or any of the other trends in the current game I think Celebrim is talking about, but aren't exactly sure of, since he hasn't provided enough examples.

What I don't see is the game being any easier these days. Or any less of a power-fantasy (which is always was). It is (somewhat) faster-paced. Is that what we're really talking about? Pacing? I mean, the game is about taking on a heroic persona and performing outrageous things. Is there too much of that going on nowadays and is it happening too soon?

Also, re: sore losers... my feeling is, so long as D&D relies on an authority figure whose role combines referee, player action adjudicator, and adversary (ie, the DM), there will be a few sore losers. It's not like losing at chess. When you lose at D&D, it's often because the chap with authority over you at the time says, in so many words, 'you lose'. And what makes that palatable is trusting said chap w/the authority -- which isn't sometimes the formal rules system can supply.

Some people really chafe at authority figures... even the ones wearing wolf shirts, Cheeto dust, and Viking hats...

 

[Celebrim]

So, then, make it more concrete. I think people aren't so much trying to create alternate constructions of your thesis, as being confused because there aren't any examples. What are some recent changes in game design which indicate the designers are catering to ego-gamers at the expense of DMs?

-O

I've really not want to go toward concrete examples, because I'm afraid to create an edition war.

However, the recent Chris Sims thread where he considers going from d20 to 3d6 for the expressed purpose of increasing the odds of hitting to avoid the stinging pain of failure, would be a concrete case in point. As would 4e decision to remove long term status effects, followed by complaints that the existing status effects are too burdensome. All of these threads point toward design built around the assumption that good design constitutes giving the player immediate, repetitive, and relatively assured accomplishments with as small of wait between accomplishments as possible.

 

[SKyOdin]

I think that the theory put forward in this thread is simply terrible and full of logical holes. Not to mention, it is downright insulting to a wide range of gamers.

As far as I can tell, Celebrim is saying that there exists a class of gamer called "ego gamers" who play games simply to experience the "illusion of accomplishment". Furthermore, almost all of these "ego gamers" don't really enjoy being challenged, and just want to steamroll over things with ease. These gamers are also a major source of problem players who are prone to temper tantrums. Celebrim also claims that game developers have recently been trying to cater to this group of players.

Honestly, the whole thing stinks of a thinly veiled attack on 4E's game design by fabricating a false image of 4E's intended audience.

Most of all, this entire argument is based on terminology with shaky definitions, no concrete examples, and no evidence outside of Celebrim's own perceptions. I see no reason to even accept the definition of an "ego gamer" as being a valid thing that even exists in reality.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Celebrim is putting gamers who enjoy social experiences on a higher pedestal than gamers who enjoy pure gameplay and challenge. This can be seen in the rather disparaging description of the pride someone feels in overcoming a game challenge as the "illusion of accomplishment". As someone who does pride himself in his ability to overcome difficult challenges in videogames and other kinds of games, I find that rather insulting. Being able to accomplish a difficult task in a videogame is a real accomplishment. For example, I am very proud of the fact that I beat the original Mega Man without cheating. Why? Because beating that game is hard; it took me weeks to beat the first fortress boss, and then I had to spend the rest of an entire day struggling through the final stage. The elation felt by doing something like that is very real, and is a perfectly valid reason to want to play a game.

In fact, that emotion, the elation from overcoming difficulty, is something that can't be found in forms of passive entertainment such as watching TV or reading a book. It is a key reason why many people choose to play games instead of watch movies. In a professional study done to examine the emotions people experience while playing games and why they choose to play games, this emotion was refereed to as Fiero, and was found to be the underlying emotion behind one of the four reasons people play videogames. The study can be found here:
http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf

I simply can't see how anyone can say that gamers who primarily play D&D in order to enjoy overcoming challenges are bad gamers. The idea that game companies shouldn't pursue that audience is even more nonsensical. A great game can and should appeal to all kinds of gamer, particularly a game as versatile and adjustable as D&D.

 

[Celebrim]

I see this time-pressure as leading to more rapid leveling, new abilities at each level or so, more durable starting characters, fewer single rolls that can take the player out of the action for a large part of the session, less emphasis on time-intensive play elements like mapping, more reliance on big set pieces, or any of the other trends in the current game I think Celebrim is talking about, but aren't exactly sure of, since he hasn't provided enough examples.

Those would be examples, yes. In general, I see this as a trend away from delayed gratification and toward immediate gratification. I don't have any way to prove this, but I don't believe that this trend is the result of a player base with a shrinking ability to commit time primarily because this trend in PnP gaming seems to parallel shifts in delayed gratification toward immediate gratification in other areas of gaming, larger society etc. Your theory that it has to do with something specific within the PnP community wouldn't explain the larger social trend. I'm suggesting that the PnP communities move toward all these things you list is part of a larger design trend which PnP designers are taking inspiration from.

What I don't see is the game being any easier these days. Or any less of a power-fantasy (which is always was). It is (somewhat) faster-paced. Is that what we're really talking about? Pacing?

In essence, yeah, you could think about it being an issue of pacing in that theories that require there to be minimal times between rewards are forcing on the game toward pacing where periods of failure are minimized. It's probably fairly obvious that I'm going to end up arguing that as the period of failure approaches zero length, the meaningfulness and the satisfaction of the reward is reduced to zero. The tolerance players have for reducing the failure period (or risk, as an alternate way of looking at the problem) depends on the player's personality. 'Ego Gamers'/'Achievement Driven Gamers' derive more satisfaction from the short wait period relative to gamers with different primary goals in the game, because they are in it for that immediate sense of accomplishment.

Also I'd like to argue that the smaller the period of failure, and the lower the risk, the more infrequently failure occurs, counterintuitively, the more any particular failure 'stings'. If you expect to hit 50% of the time, missing doesn't seem like an unlucky fluke. It's something you prepare yourself for. But if you expect to hit 90% of the time, missing sucks because you didn't expect failure as a possible outcome. An example of this I'm very familiar with is in Bloodbowl, where the failures when you move the Agility 4 or Agility 5 player are more frustrating than the ones when you are taking actions with the expectation that they might fail.

 

[Obryn]

I've really not want to go toward concrete examples, because I'm afraid to create an edition war.

You can make comparisons and contrasts without being edition warry. It's a matter of presentation, and making sure your presented facts aren't ... well, counterfactual.

As would 4e decision to remove long term status effects, followed by complaints that the existing status effects are too burdensome.

So... what I was using as a point of reference, and which you told me wasn't an example of what you're talking about and an entirely separate issue, actually is an example of what you're talking about?

Um. I guess I'll just refer you back to my first post on the dangers of conflating "desire to succeed" with "desire to participate" then.

-O

 

[Celebrim]

I think that the theory put forward in this thread is simply terrible and full of logical holes. Not to mention, it is downright insulting to a wide range of gamers.

I sense outrage.

As far as I can tell, Celebrim is saying that there exists a class of gamer called "ego gamers" who play games simply to experience the "illusion of accomplishment".

I believe I stated at the outset that all gamers play games principally to enjoy the 'illusion of accomplishment'. I think if you missed that much of my argument, you probably aren't reading me very closely.

Furthermore, almost all of these "ego gamers" don't really enjoy being challenged, and just want to steamroll over things with ease.

That would be the salient trait, yes.

These gamers are also a major source of problem players who are prone to temper tantrums.

Well, yes, but I was also careful to point out that they weren't the only source of problem players.

Celebrim also claims that game developers have recently been trying to cater to this group of players.

Yes. I've been seeing alot of posts lately along the lines of 'failure is bad'.

Honestly, the whole thing stinks of a thinly veiled attack on 4E's game design by fabricating a false image of 4E's intended audience.

I believe that 4e's intended audience is gamers. I believe that with varying degrees of success, they achieved that.

Most of all, this entire argument is based on terminology with shaky definitions, no concrete examples, and no evidence outside of Celebrim's own perceptions. I see no reason to even accept the definition of an "ego gamer" as being a valid thing that even exists in reality.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Celebrim is putting gamers who enjoy social experiences on a higher pedestal than gamers who enjoy pure gameplay and challenge.

In my original post I believe I made an aside specifically to state that this was not what I was saying. I am not putting other goals of play on a higher pedestal than 'achievement'. Achievement is a great goal and all of us to one extent or another are invested in it. I'm making comments on how achievements ought to be designed.

This can be seen in the rather disparaging description of the pride someone feels in overcoming a game challenge as the "illusion of accomplishment". As someone who does pride himself in his ability to overcome difficult challenges in videogames and other kinds of games, I find that rather insulting.

If you want to be insulted, I can't stop you from feeling insulted. It was not my intention, nor is it in any way my intention to disparage skillful game play. I'm a self-identified gamer and I believe all games are based on and require the 'illusion of accomplishment'. I specifically stated I wasn't disparaging game attainments. I'm quite happy to adopt terms like the 'accomplishment of illusion' or whatever would make you feel better here.

In fact, that emotion, the elation from overcoming difficulty, is something that can't be found in forms of passive entertainment such as watching TV or reading a book. It is a key reason why many people choose to play games instead of watch movies. In a professional study done to examine the emotions people experience while playing games and why they choose to play games, this emotion was refereed to as Fiero, and was found to be the underlying emotion behind one of the four reasons people play videogames. The study can be found here:
http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf

I'm fine with you calling it 'Fiero' too. As I said, I'm a self-identified 'gamer' and a passionate defender of my hobby. I play classic board games, modern board games, CCG's, card games, RPGs, video games, and sports. Do you think I'm trying to insult myself?

I simply can't see how anyone can say that gamers who primarily play D&D in order to enjoy overcoming challenges are bad gamers. The idea that game companies shouldn't pursue that audience is even more nonsensical. A great game can and should appeal to all kinds of gamer, particularly a game as versatile and adjustable as D&D.

If you can't see how anyone can say that, then step back and consider whether I actually said it.

 

[wedgeski]

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

Whether we agree or not, I'm sure it's possible to argue your case without greasing the floor with this kind of sarcasm.

 

[Garthanos]

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

Heh I knew there was a reason to keep you around! fine quote. And I dont need the kidney ... yet anyway.

 

[haakon1]

missing point is that virtually all game masters are 'lifestyle gamers', and by the very nature of game mastery, virtually all good game masters are 'lifestyle gamers'. The success of your PnP game depends on something which has no real parallel in other types of gaming. It doesn't really matter at all how many players you have; it only matters how many game masters you have. Your goal as a game creator isn't to get players. The base of players is comparitively infinite. The limited resources you are try to compete for and expand is game masters, because if you have GM's, then you'll have players.

. . .

Looking at just my own situation, when D&D chased me from there game by abandoning me . . . I've economically become my own game publishing company for the moment, WotC is locked out of my local market. I'm the 'retailer' in this equation, not even the esteemed but humble LFGS. I'm the one determining whether the product gets sold. If I don't play, they don't reach my market. If I don't buy, they don't reach my market.

Good point (I've given Celebrim too many XP's and can't give him any more right now!).

Your situation is very similar to my own. Since 4e came out, I've bought one PHB and a set of power cards from WOTC (because I'm a player in a 4e game).

For the two 3.5e campaigns I actually run, with 12 total players, there's been basically $0 in WOTC sales since 4e came out. What I've bought is Out of Print 3/3.5e material (old issues of Dungeon, old modules, etc.) and Paizo material (though slowing considerably in the Pathfinder era). That's got to be several hundred dollars in lost sales for WOTC.

But more importantly, the latest player I brought into the game -- another player called his friend and told him he HAD to come over the try it, mid-game -- hasn't been ABLE to find a 3.5e PHB, so he's borrowed one of mine (I stocked up, knowing this would happen if I kept running 3.5e). Definitely a loss of sale there for WOTC, and sadly for my FLGS, as I'm now the distributor.