Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Garthanos]

Of course it comes off with negative connotation it is meant to... its an intellectually expressed rehashed edition war mantra... even thinking about it similar to GNS ought to induce something closer to full on belly on the floor my lunch is gone... cause that means you took a big bite.

 

[steenan]

ST
I don't think anyone here (ok, maybe someone, but a definite minority) is trying to equate gamism with ego-gaming. It's perfectly possible to play in a goal-oriented manner, focused on achievement, without any pathologies. A lot of people do it.

A gamist wants to be faced with challenges that force him to fully use his wits to overcome them. He wants the risk and feels that success is only worth something if you need to fight for it. He wants the system and GM to be fair.

An ego-gamer does not want the game to be challenging; it should only create an illusion of challenge. He won't accept any meaningful disadvantage; will become frustrated by any failure. He wants the system and GM to let him win.

It's important to remember that the line between ego gamers and the rest of the world IS NOT the line between any two systems or editions, between people who play sandboxes and these who do not, between people who dislike PC death and who like lethal combat or anything similar.

 

[Garthanos]

An ego-gamer does not want the game to be challenging; it should only create an illusion of challenge. He won't accept any meaningful disadvantage; will become frustrated by any failure. He wants the system and GM to let him win.

He is an imaginary construct contrary to evidence given by any reliable psychological study.

It's important to remember that the line between ego gamers and the rest of the world IS NOT the line between any two systems or editions, between people who play sandboxes and these who do not, between people who dislike PC death and who like lethal combat or anything similar.

The edition warring is an implied claim and a "guilt by association one" that newer game designs will attract the imaginary creature and you should avoid them if you dont want to be thought to be this rat pushing his reward button or if you dont want to attract this rat pushing the button to your table.

Pretense that it is any way civil by those upholding it ... is pretense.

 

[clearstream]

He is an imaginary construct contrary to evidence given by any reliable psychological study.

An imaginary construct? It seems to describe a kind of player that I occasionally encounter, and an approach to rules design that I sometimes notice either obliquely (as seen in some splatbook rules) or explicitly (as seen in the way some D&D writers/designers describe their approach to their work).

For example, the always say 'yes' approach. I revile this approach: a well-placed 'no' can do much good work. My players rely on me to be fair, which means I think retaining challenge and disallowing imba or monte haul actions. Yet some writers seem to feel that frustrating the player's desires must not be done. They seem to feel that the limit of interesting experience is fun, and that fun occurs only in the context of win.

What is this psychological evidence of which you speak?

-vk

 

[Xris Robin]

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.

I think that's an exception rather than a rule. Compared to when I was young (wait, when did I get old?), there's a lot more TV shows that take up a hour timeslot rather than a 30 minute one. In fact, almost everything I watch on TV these days falls under that... Bones, House, Fringe, Law and Order, NCIS. Or it seems that way to me, anyway.

 

[Garthanos]

For example, the always say 'yes' approach. I revile this approach:

You specifically do not understand ...1 its not "always" 2 it is most frequently "yes, but" and the but part is incredibly important because it encourages the yes part to be only partial and the introduction of new complications so as to progress the action/story etc.

That you think its "always" makes it sound like you are listening to rumors instead of actually reading about the concepts from the sources.

And note the first place I saw Yes, but?
It was in AD&D... "Yes, but", it was built in to hit points and how they work when you attacked a high level fighter ...hit points were the game mechanically saying yes but... and big time. There is nothing new under that sun out there.

What is this psychological evidence of which you speak?

Specifically the "none" valid you or Cerebelim have provided that even claims it... I am not going to be pulled in to proving a negative... sorry it is your responsibility if you honestly want to claim people are so much like rats.

You might look up gaming theory ... and see if you can find mention of
"the easy instant win"...without the word "dissatisfaction" next to it.


Upthread a link I like was posted by SkyOdin
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...s-illusion-accomplishment-10.html#post5161981

 

[ST]

Okay, yeah, I think I get the ego gratification concept.

I call BS on it, but I understand what they were going for, anyway.

I guess people have to find more and more involved ways to mask it when they say "My preference is better than yours".

On the other hand, are there "ego gamers"? Well, duh, of course. In this world we see lots of people every day who live their lives pretty much in service of justifying their imagined self-image. Commercials that exploit this work very well. But that's a human failing, and not really specific to gaming or a particular style of play.

 

[innerdude]

I don't think "ego gaming" is any edition, or any rule-system specific though.

The one time our group took a small diversion from D&D and tried GURPS, the gamer in our group who took to it more than anyone else was the one guy who consistently "power gamed," and to me, "power gaming" is one form (albeit an easily recognizable form) of "ego gaming."

Because GURPS is waaay more fiddly with numbers and stat assignments, he took it as a personal crusade to "break" his character, using ranged weapon combat focuses. For him, it was never about really "playing" the campaign/sessoins, it was all about getting put into situations where he could show his "awesomeness." The GURPS system fed into it; the problem was further exacerbated by the fact that the GM was totally unfamiliar with the rules system, and didn't really know how to counter it. In this context, this particular player only wanted to "enjoy" the feeling of "being awesome/accomplishment."

Now some of you may say, "Why do you let that guy play in your group?" Well, the answer is, he's a friend; I've known him for years, and the GM has too, and outside the game he's a funny, intelligent guy, but he's always been just "wired" this way when he plays RPGs. In D&D 3.x, the GM could keep it in check, for the most part, because the GM had an absolute mastery of the 3.x system. He's literally the kind of player that will have his character walk into a weapons shop, talk to the merchant, find out what the most valuable stuff in the place is, and then come back at night and either steal it, or just beat up the shopkeeper and take it.

 

[Celebrim]

On the other hand, are there "ego gamers"? Well, duh, of course. In this world we see lots of people every day who live their lives pretty much in service of justifying their imagined self-image. Commercials that exploit this work very well. But that's a human failing, and not really specific to gaming or a particular style of play.

It's amazing how much better people understand me when they don't start with the assumption that I must be throwing around veiled insults.

I don't know how many times in this thread I assert that we are all as gamers at one time or the other 'ego gamers' or 'achievement driven', that that is part of the valid fun of the game, or that I wasn't setting out to diminish the value of the 'the illusion of accomplishment'. I even said that the group dynamics on the whole are helped by having players who are more so than the average driven by the need for immediate success because otherwise, if no one is paying attention to 'winning' in the short term, it becomes more difficult to achieve longer term goals and harder for the DM to keep a story moving forward. I have certainly no way accused 'ego gaming' of being badwrongfun, except to the extent that any single motivation can - when taken out of proportion and not moderated by the needs of social gaming - be bad for the table as a whole.

Yet, for reasons of there own, some people continue to be very grumpy little thread crappers repeating the same wild accusations and slanders in one short little trolling post after the other. Geez, if you are going to disagree, at least put some effort into it, and better yet, disagree with something I actually said rather than something you want me to have said.

Mod Edit:
Folks, I should not have to remind anyone that name calling and personal attacks are not appropriate behavior. If you don't like a post, report it, and then leave it be, please.

 

[Celebrim]

The one time our group took a small diversion from D&D and tried GURPS, the gamer in our group who took to it more than anyone else was the one guy who consistently "power gamed," and to me, "power gaming" is one form (albeit an easily recognizable form) of "ego gaming."

Because GURPS is waaay more fiddly with numbers and stat assignments, he took it as a personal crusade to "break" his character, using ranged weapon combat focuses. For him, it was never about really "playing" the campaign/sessoins, it was all about getting put into situations where he could show his "awesomeness." The GURPS system fed into it; the problem was further exacerbated by the fact that the GM was totally unfamiliar with the rules system, and didn't really know how to counter it. In this context, this particular player only wanted to "enjoy" the feeling of "being awesome/accomplishment."

You are actually explaining one of the two or three most important reasons I left GURPS for D20 (after having previously left AD&D for GURPS). In practice, its point by system was worse in this regard than class based systems, which was not what I'd envisioned by opening up flexible character creation.

Now some of you may say, "Why do you let that guy play in your group?" Well, the answer is, he's a friend; I've known him for years, and the GM has too, and outside the game he's a funny, intelligent guy, but he's always been just "wired" this way when he plays RPGs.

And besides being a friend, one of the worst 'ego gamers' I've ever played with - indeed for me the archetype of the concept - was also, when he put his mind to it, one of the better roleplayers I've ever played with. He was frequently (sometimes very frequently) a problem player, but on the whole (especially taking into account his friendship) added something to the game even if there were times I wanted to strangle him.