Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Chrono22]

But a trend in D&D is a trend in gaming. Excluding D&D in discussions about gaming trends would be like excluding the US armed forces from discussions about global defense.

 

[Obryn]

But a trend in D&D is a trend in gaming. Excluding D&D in discussions about gaming trends would be like excluding the US armed forces from discussions about global defense.

If there's a trend in D&D, but you're not showing any evidence of a similar trend in other games, you probably shouldn't generalize the trend out to "gaming" as a whole, no matter what percentage of the gaming hobby D&D comprises.

In your example, if the U.S. Armed Forces started arming their soldiers with bunnies, saying "defense forces all around the world are arming their soldiers with bunnies" obscures the topic more than it enriches it. It'd be better and clearer just to talk about the topics for which you have actual examples or evidence rather than trying to make unjustified generalizations.

-O

 

[innerdude]

Taken on its own, 4e 1st level characters bring more of 'the awesome' than 1st level characters of previous editions. They have more than one effective HD, they have more abilities out of the gate, they have higher average ability scores. In another context, I doubt that would even be contriversial. People would be arguing how that was a feature rather than trying to deny its existance.

And for the record, I don't even necessarily consider all of that a bug. I adopted a portion of that (with different mechanics) into my own rules.

No, this is exactly right--and depending on your gaming preference, it can be a good thing, or a bad thing.

But, here's the real point--by filling a 1st-level character with more "win," this is an inherent concession to the perception that "fun" and "reward" for the individual players requires that characters must be effective in combat from the very second a campaign starts. Well, okay, but why is that any more fun than any other method? Is that inherently more "fun" or "rewarding" than a game where characters start out weaker, and must find unique and creative ways to A. either avoid combat entirely, or B. strategize in non-combat ways to maximize combat success?

As a ruleset, 4th Edition has both good and bad points, and no edition of any RPG is perfect. But I also don't think it's a pejorative to say that 4th Edition's push to have 1st-level characters be more powerful, survivable, and combat-ready may be because combat is one of the fastest, easiest ways to create short-cycle reward gratification. For many groups of players, it's a lot harder to justify that "You'll appreciate the awesomeness of your character and the plot/story/hook 3 sessions from now" (even though that's often the type of gameplay I enjoy). It's much easier to say, "You'll appreciate your character's 'combat win' here, and now, and 3 times every gaming session from here on out."

And as I stated in an earlier post, this may actually be a point in 4th Edition's favor when it comes to producing new "lifestyle" gamers and GMs. Because combat is a short-cycle reward, it doesn't take a fledgling RPG player 3 or 4 sessions to have a sense of accomplishment, and in many cases a fledgling GM can use that to his/her advantage until he/she is ready to tackle some of the longer-term world-building aspects (and this admission is from someone who doesn't really prefer the 4e rule system).

At this point, though, the question should not entirely focus on how D&D has historically set up short-cycle vs. long-cycle rewards, but rather how does any gaming mechanic in any other system do so?

For example, I would be fascinated to hear from people who play the Serenity RPG how its intrinsic player action / reward system plays out.

 

[Chrono22]

If there's a trend in D&D, but you're not showing any evidence of a similar trend in other games, you probably shouldn't generalize the trend out to "gaming" as a whole, no matter what percentage of the gaming hobby D&D comprises.

In your example, if the U.S. Armed Forces started arming their soldiers with bunnies, saying "defense forces all around the world are arming their soldiers with bunnies" obscures the topic more than it enriches it. It'd be better and clearer just to talk about the topics for which you have actual examples or evidence rather than trying to make unjustified generalizations.

-O

The thing is, your example would be a technical, literal and factual truth. The implication isn't false simply because the defense forces in question are solely American.
Instead of focusing on the minutiae of his positions in an attempt to discredit them, why not have some good faith and debate them directly?

 

[Obryn]

The thing is, your example would be a technical, literal and factual truth. The implication isn't false simply because the defense forces in question are solely American.
Instead of focusing on the minutiae of his positions in an attempt to discredit them, why not have some good faith and debate them directly?

I don't really want to derail this thread any further, so this is the last I'll say on this topic. A trend's value is predictive. In order for a trend to say something useful about the predicted course of games other than D&D, it should include data points on games other than D&D. Otherwise, any generalization of that trend to games other than D&D is unjustified, regardless of what percentage of the hobby D&D comprises. It lets us say, "D&D is moving in this direction," not "Games X, Y, and Z are moving in this direction." Saying "D&D's game design is moving in this direction, and therefore the hobby's game design is moving in this direction" doesn't add anything more to the conversation; in fact, it serves to confuse the issue by effectively ignoring all game design trends which haven't taken place in D&D.

It's okay to say we're talking about D&D. Not every discussion of D&D has to turn into an edition war.

-O

 

[awesomeocalypse]

I have to say, I don't find the argument that video games are better at delivering instant gratification and rewards than PnP to be a compelling one.

I mean, obviously they're better at providing certain kinds of gratification and rewards. Constant mechanical engagement (i.e. not needing to take turns) is a big one, as are graphics and sound. Writing a higher level on my character sheet is simply not going to be as viscerally satisfying as having holy light shine down on my character while triumphant music plays.

But I think that comparison ignores the sort of gratification and rewards that PnP actually do much better than video games. For one thing, social gratification. The social rewards of single player video games are nonexistant--when I do something awesome in Dragon Age, there's nobody there with me, benefiting from my awesomeness and congratulating or thanking me for it. Multiplayer games are inherantly more social than single player games, but are hampered by the incredibly fractured and largely anonymous nature of the internet--success in an online game may get my screenname onto a leaderboard or earn me a special title or something, but at best all I've done is marginally impress a bunch of strangers who have no idea who I really am (and, since so many people play these games, any one person's success will be both completely relative, and utterly commonplace. anyone who has ever played an MMORPG with titles quickly realizes that when everyone has an "awesome" title, they stop seeming impressive or awesome). The closest online games come to the PNP social experience are close-knit guilds, but even those are typically more anonymous than PNP, less likely to overlap with real-life social circles, and lack the visceral appeal of face-to-face interaction. Someone telling you it was awesome how you killed the dragon is nice when they do it through voicechat, but its better when they're right there telling you to your face.

PNP, on the other hand, is terrific at setting up social rewards. You're right there, playing face to face with your friends and people who actually overlap with your social circle and who know who you are. Moreover, success is typically defined in such a way that those friends will all benefit the more successful you are. Which means that each time you do something cool, although you may not get the nifty graphics, you get something that is, to my mind, even better: all of your friends cheering you on, high fiving you, and telling you how awesome you are. For an "ego-driven" gamer, what could be better?

The other form of gratification/reward that PNP is terrific at are story/setting rewards, i.e. giving your actions significance to the plot and to the world around you. Here, multiplayer games lag behind single player, for the most part--because characters share a world, even with instancing/phasing there are limits to how much any one character can change that world. And since so many people are playing, its impossible for one player or group of players to be "the heroes", because everyone is one of "the heroes". Being the savior of the world doesn't feel quite as badass when you're surrounded by thousands of people who are also world saviors. "Yeah, I know this NPC is telling me I'm terrific for killing that dragon, but if I log in with my alt he's gonna tell him the same thing". Single player games are better about this, but even they offer far less freedom to shape the world than PNP can. A PNP game can be literally shaped around its characters and everything they do, so that when they accomplish something heroic, the story and world acknowledge it and react to it. For an ego-driven gamer, saving the world is a lot cooler when you're the only one doing it and, when you do save the world, the world reacts to that and rewards you for it by treating you like the awesome hero you are. The more single player games try to simulate this, the more likely they are to become either railroady (sure you change the world, provided you do it in this one specificn way) or generic ("Thanks for saving the world [blank]. Your awesome [insert class here] powers really saved the day" isn't as cool as an interaction built around your specific character).

Basically, I think PNP are still better at providing social gratification than even the most social MMORPGs, and I think they're still better at offering up a satisfying story shaped around the protagonist's choices than even the most well-crafted single player RPG. To me, those are two powerful mechanisms of reward and gratification, and as a player who does play in part out of ego and the desire to feel awesome all the time, I find them to be significantly more appealing than the rewards offered by video games.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As a ruleset, 4th Edition has both good and bad points, and no edition of any RPG is perfect. But I also don't think it's a pejorative to say that 4th Edition's push to have 1st-level characters be more powerful, survivable, and combat-ready may be because combat is one of the fastest, easiest ways to create short-cycle reward gratification. For many groups of players, it's a lot harder to justify that "You'll appreciate the awesomeness of your character and the plot/story/hook 3 sessions from now" (even though that's often the type of gameplay I enjoy). It's much easier to say, "You'll appreciate your character's 'combat win' here, and now, and 3 times every gaming session from here on out."

Now for some players, the "short-cycle reward" nature of combat is either not inherently satisfying, or is only satisfying for a short period of time. These players want a different sense of "reward gratification." Does this mean that their playstyle is any better or worse than someone who is wholly content with a shorter term reward cycle? Of course not. But it's easy to see why a rule system--any rule system--that revolves around short-cycle rewards is going to probably lose players that want a different length/type of reward cycle.

But does a rule system that revolves around a short-cycle reward system preclude middle or long term rewards, or does it just not emphasize it? I would say that nothing prevents the system from having additional rewards cycle lengths. You will still get the short cycle "fix," but as with certain addictions those may become routine and no longer be as satisfying. As a result the game has to be able to take it to the next level, providing new and interesting challenges and rewards. If this were to hold true, then the perfect scenario for a game design company would be to start things out with the short-cycle, but over time introduce new rules, levels of complexity and suggestions for longer cycle rewards.

A more positive way of looking at this would be maturing the rules as time goes on. By doing so in supplements, the quicker, more easily-gratifying rules are still available as the "base" system, with the more comlpex aspects provided later.

When it comes to things like a new edition of an existing game, the problem comes from the players who are already at the "mature" level of play, and want the new edition to meet all of their needs and wants immediately.

 

[innerdude]

I have to say, I don't find the argument that video games are better at delivering instant gratification and rewards than PnP to be a compelling one.

I disagree, but only in the use of the word "instant" here. If you're talking about immediate, nearly instantaneous reward feedback, PnP is NEVER going to touch a video game. Ever. It just can't; the nature of a PnP game itself prevents it. There's no "Boot up in minutes and, oooooh, look at the flashy!" in pen and paper.

However--most of the ideas you posit are not what I consider to be instant gratification. They're longer-term, more intrinsic to the nature of the types of challenges that a PnP RPG can present. And to me, these are the types of rewards that can't be duplicated by short-cycle achievements (like finding "phat lewt" in a dungeon when playing Diablo).

I think what Celebrim has been saying all along, and I totally agree with him, is that the pen-and-paper gaming industry has to be careful not to sacrifice the longer-lasting, more satisfying long-term rewards simply to try and capture more of the "phat lewt" audience. Not that the demographics are mutually exclusive, mind you, only that it's going to be very difficult to satisfy both halves of the demographic totally successfully. And I also think Celebrim is right in saying that ultimately, the success or failure of the pen-and-paper RPG industry hinges on companies' ability to cater to the long-term reward cycle "lifestyle gamers," than to the short-cycle gamers.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

I disagree, but only in the use of the word "instant" here. If you're talking about immediate, nearly instantaneous reward feedback, PnP is NEVER going to touch a video game. Ever. It just can't; the nature of a PnP game itself prevents it. There's no "Boot up in minutes and, oooooh, look at the flashy!" in pen and paper.

However--most of the ideas you posit are not what I consider to be instant gratification. They're longer-term, more intrinsic to the nature of the types of challenges that a PnP RPG can present. And to me, these are the types of rewards that can't be duplicated by short-cycle achievements (like finding "phat lewt" in a dungeon when playing Diablo).

I think what Celebrim has been saying all along, and I totally agree with him, is that the pen-and-paper gaming industry has to be careful not to sacrifice the longer-lasting, more satisfying long-term rewards simply to try and capture more of the "phat lewt" audience. Not that the demographics are mutually exclusive, mind you, only that it's going to be very difficult to satisfy both halves of the demographic totally successfully. And I also think Celebrim is right in saying that ultimately, the success or failure of the pen-and-paper RPG industry hinges on companies' ability to cater to the long-term reward cycle "lifestyle gamers," than to the short-cycle gamers.

And my argument is that, unless we're literally splitting fractions of a second here, the type of gratification PNP games are good at offering can be just as "instant" as in video games. No, there's no "look at the flashy", but that isn't the only kind of instantaneous reward.

When my friends and I are in a tough combat, and I land a critical hit, it may not come with flashy images and booming sound effects...but if it makes my friends jump up and yell "w00t! way to go awesomeocalypse!", then that is a more or less instantenous reward, and to my mind, one that is considerably more of an ego boost. If I pull off a cool stunt, I may not have the satisfaction of seeing it beautifully rendered in 3d. But if the DM has one of the minions I'm fighting go "oh my god, didja see how that guy ran up the wall and flipped over the dragon? there's no way we're taking this guy, run away!" then that is a viscerally satisfying immediate reward.

I've yet to see a convincing explanation as to why the sort of rewards PNP offers for the "ego-driven gamer" are inherantly delayed or less instantaneously gratifying. I have loads of great memories of doing awesome stuff in PNP, and having the more or less instantaneous gratification of the congratulations of my friends and the respect/awe of the characters in the world. No delayed, long cycle reward required.

 

[innerdude]

So you feel that a television or computer monitor is more satisfying and powerful than ones own imagination and minds eye?

Not universally, no. I'm merely saying that depending on the desired type and speed of reward feedback, a computer game is a far more easily accessible, instantaneous, and compelling way to get that type of reward feedback than a pen-and-paper RPG is.

And Celebrim's point is that pen-and-paper RPGs often run into trouble when they try to duplicate that type of reward feedback in the same manner, frequency, and consistency as a computer RPG does. It's a hell of a lot harder for a pen-and-paper RPG to produce those levels of short-cycle reward feedback than it is for a computer game to do so.