Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[Nifft]

That might be the first RPG-like arcade game, but so far as I know the first RPG video game was Dungeon.

Cool. I'm not sure how I'd file that.

Gauntlet is a pretty interesting entry in this thread because it pares the video game experience of an 'RPG' down to its essentials. More later when I think about it some more.

Yeah, and it is a very early example of what we today think of as "party balance". Their Wizard had a great "daily" power, but lame At-Wills, while their Warrior was the opposite.

Also it was hella fun.

I'm not following you here. Running and cycling and the like are active. Sitting down is passive. I get that. But when I roleplay, I sit down rather than run around. So that's passive to.

Wrong. Here's a less confusing example, so you won't get confused about physical activity vs. activity of participation:
- Reading a book is passive.
- Writing a book is active.

- Watching someone play a game is passive.
- Playing a game is active.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tuft]

The OP's horror story is that attempting to cater to this style is a dead end for PNP RPGs. CRPGs will always do it better. Celebrim is calling this a mistake not because he wants the style of play eradicated. Instead he calls it a mistake to not promote what PNP games do better than CRPGs. All of the diversions in this thread about psychology are missing the point.

Can't we go forward in this thread seeking to identify PNP's strengths and what can be done to strengthen them without impacting the twitch gamer's enjoyment as well?

=PNP Strengths=

Persistent, affectable, mutable world. When you catch that mugger in the alley, He stays caught, and you don't see him repeat his mugging everytime you pass.

NPC interaction that goes beyond set selections - you can actually use arguments, logic and rethoric, instead of just select between options such as A: be diplomatic, B: be intimidating, C:ignore. (Or A: accept quest, B: ignore quest)

Can handle a curveball: "Can I make a refrigerator based on green slime? Can I open the door more sneakily if I lubricate it with a Grease spell?" You can be creative and go beyond the set parameters of the game.

Meta-game influence: You can ask your GM to add things you like, remove things you dislike, and tweak the rules to everyone's (?) satisfaction.

Tailored challenges: The DM can on his own change things to give the players what he thinks they deserve - from designing a castle in someone's favorite color on their birthday, to simply tweak the monster To-Hit upwards when the PC's AC gets out of hand.

=MMO&CRPG Strengths=

Lots of Flashy F/X.

Reasonably fast-resolved button-mashing combat without lots of math. Well, fast-resolved unless it's an CoH AV fight.

Predictable optimization against predictable, repeatable enemies. You can use your Character Builder program with exact DPS calculation to fine-tune your character, before going up against known enemies, and repeat it against exactly the same ones until you are satisfied with your tweaking. If you are the competitive type, you can compare optimizations against each others, using those predictable enemies.

Unlimited lives. That mean you can actually lose without having to start all over again - which in turn means that the fights do not have to be stacked that heavily in your favor. Well, out of habit most MMOs do stack them thataway anyway...

 

[Celebrim]

Delayed gratification and "ego gamers"

I've never heard any admirer of good music tell me that, if I'm really going to enjoy (for example) Wagner and avoid being an immature ego-listener, then I have to dilute every hour of stirring Ring Cycle with three hours of tedious Abba.

Why would it be essential, then, in RPGing, to interrupt every hour of really engaging and inspiring play with periods of nothing happening, no dice being rolled, no story being progressed, etc?

I don't know, why would it be essential? I'm curious, because so far as I know, you are the only one who has suggested such a thing.

I think you have a really bizarre understanding of what delayed gratification means if you honestly think any of that is what is being talked about here.

Since you bring up classical music, I'll go with your own self-inflicted bad analogy. Keep in mind, this is your analogy. I would have prefered not to go there. In classical music, consider the way Mussorgsky's 'Pictures at an Exhibition' builds up the listeners excitement over the course of the peice with the various Promenade sections finally leading up to a grand crescendo. Now, it would be quite possible and indeed satisfying to just listen to the promenade and crescendo movements in the peice. That's the 'big payoff' where Mussorgsky is putting his most compelling, memorable, loudest, most intense music. Taken on its own, it's still a great peice of music. But, taken in context along with the interludes leading up to it, the excitement of the peice is even greater. Mussorgsky continually wets the appetite of the hearer by foreshadowing his big finale, but then he withdraws into side themes for a while, temporarily cooling the excite. This provides delayed gratification to the listener.

Delayed gratification is not about doing nothing for a while. Delayed gratification is about not getting the 'big win' for a while so that when you do get the 'big win' its more meaningful. Every game uses delayed gratification of one sort or another. Even a game with a structure like 'God of War' which brings the awesome in the first act, has a structure that involves delayed gratification. That wetting of the appetite in act one with an epic scene, makes you greater anticipate getting back to full strength when your powers are (temporarily) lost.

Delayed gratification is about doing something with a less immediate payoff for a while so that the payoff is bigger in the end. Mechanically we might think of a delayed payoff as being, "I'll take an penalty on attacks for X rounds, so that I can get a bonus on attacks of 2X in the following round." or "If I take damage for X rounds in a row, I get a big bonus in the following round." I'm not saying that is good mechanic nor am I saying that its a good analogy for every sort of delayed, but it is at least an example of delaying gratification. Sitting around doing nothing is not an example of delayed gratification.

 

[pemerton]

Wrong. Here's a less confusing example, so you won't get confused about physical activity vs. activity of participation:
- Reading a book is passive.
- Writing a book is active.

- Watching someone play a game is passive.
- Playing a game is active.

You probably noticed that, in the post you're replying to, I suggested creativity/participation vs non-participation as helpful alternatives to the active/passive contrast. You want to use them as equivalents? Fine. I don't there's any confusion going on, but I do think we have a bit of a disagreement about the nature of aesthetic experience (ie I don't agree that it's passive - it's intellectual activity). But that's probably irrelevant to this thread.

Some players of RPGs want to act/participate by engaging the mechanics to affect the gameworld situation via their PCs. When the game impedes, in a signficant way (eg duration or degree of "miss a turn" effects) their ability to do so, their enjoyment of the game is reduced.

Other players are less conerned when this happens becase they are happy to act/participate in other ways eg by playing an NPC, by advising other players on strategy, etc. For these players, "miss a turn" mechanics don't reduce their enjoyment of the game so much, because although such mechanics affect their use of their PCs, they don't make them miss out on other sorts of turns ie the ones you can take without using your PC, such as the above-mentioned advising other players etc.

Either sort of play can probably put up with a degree of absolute non-participation (spectating).

I don't see any issue here of playing to win. I don't see any issue here of delayed gratification (ie there is nothing analogous to working all week so I can party on the weekend, or living in penury now so I can save up and by something nice in 10 years time).

 

[pemerton]

Celebrim, I think your two recent posts - about chess, and about the relationship between interlude and crescendo - are interesting, and put your OP in a somewhat different light.

You suggested that I inflicted myself with a bad analogy. I believe that you have done the same in your use of the phrase "delayed gratification". This is a notion used primarly to explain various economic and work practices that are characteristic of a modern economy. Saving (and hence, to an extent) suffering now so as to be able to afford something nice in X years time is the classic example.

There is nothing analogous to delayed gratification in listening to music with the sorts of contrasts you've described in your post. Rather, there is a type of contrast in experiences which makes the pleasure derived from one all the more powerful because of its relationship to the other. But the whole experience is still a pleasurable one. It's not as if listening to the interlude is suffering, or even an absence of pleasure.

As my posts in this thread have shown, I think that there is an explanation for the features of modern RPG design (and especially D&D 4e) that you are interested in, which does not appeal to the ego-gamer/delayed gratification notion. It is about the sort of experience that the game delivers to the participant. In talking about the ego-gamer you are correct to focus on the issue of taking pleasure in playing, but you are (in my opinion) looking at it in the wrong way.

The issue is not about wanting to shorten the reward cycle. It's about differences in what counts as rewarding (eg tactical vs operational concerns - OB/DB split vs iron rations). It's about different relationships to the PC as a vehicle for interacting with the gameworld. You haven't responded to my points about the obvious influence of indie design on 4e, but I think these are pretty crucial, because they suggest a strong alternative interpretation to the ego-gamer one that you have offered.

There is also a Ron Edwards essay that I have been reminded of by this thread:

How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own power.

Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's part to do so. The primary issue is to maintain the facade that "No one guides the planchette!" The participants must be devoted to the notion that stories don't need authors; they emerge from some ineffable confluence of Exploration per se. It's kind of a weird Illusionism perpetrated on one another, with everyone putting enormous value on maintaining the Black Curtain between them and everyone else. Typically, groups who play this way have been together for a very long time.

My call is, you get what you play for. Can you address Premise this way? Sure, on the monkeys-might-fly-out-my-butt principle. But the key to un-premeditated artistry of this sort (cutup fiction, splatter painting, cinema verite) is to know what to throw out, and role-playing does not include that option, at least not very easily. Participants in Ouija-board play do so through selective remembering. I have observed many such role-players to refer to hours of unequivocally bored and contentious play as "awesome!" given a week or two for mental editing.

What I see from such groups is the following:

•They use a highly customized house-version of a given rules-set, usually AD&D, BRP, or an early edition of Champions; many of the customized details are unrecorded.

•They employ a personalized set of subtle cues and expectations that arise out of their long-term friendships and habits of play.

•The satisfaction-moments are rare to the extent of being perhaps a yearly event. "Nothing happened tonight" is typical, but the group believes that you don't legitimately get the cherished moments any other way. Such moments are treasured and carefully repeated among them.

•Rarely, another person participates and (horrors!) actually overtly moves the planchette, or discusses how it's being moved. That person is instantly ejected, with cries of "powergamer!" and "pushy bastard!"

•They're socially isolated from other role-players, as their play is so arcane and impenetrable that no one else can easily participate. If they go to cons, they go together, stay together, and leave together. One of them buys a new game that "looks good," and they rarely if ever try it, always rejecting it when they do.

•They're socially isolated not only from gamers, but from everyone, insofar as their hobby is concerned. Forget social context; it's just these guys, aging, playing their tweaked versions of the game they discovered in high school, reminiscing about that one awesome time when character X did that awesome thing.

Ouija-board groups vary in terms of how much fun they have, and I'll leave further discussion of the phenomenon to the forums.​

4e is clearly a game for those who don't object to overtly moving the planchette.

 

[Hussar]

Celebrim, I do think Pemerton has a point here.

Since delayed gratification in the sense that you're using it doesn't mean, "suffer now to reap rewards later" but rather just means, "have a bit less fun now to reap rewards later, but have fun all the time", doesn't appealing to the ego-gamer actually help this?

I was being a bit tongue in cheek before with the idea that now everyone is a fighter, but, really, I do think there's a point in there. A fighter doesn't start slow and then get better - a fighter does what he does from the first second he hits the table. While he gets better at doing what he does, there is no real significant difference at any point in his career between what he does now and what he does later.

A caster, OTOH, changes massively throughout his career. The caster starts out very, very weak and then gets to the point where he's blowing spells every round because he has power to spare. And it also gets applied out of combat as well - all the "screw the rogue" type spells that people lament about.

It's the difference between a straight line power curve and an exponential one.

Is the new paradigm really appealing to "twitch gamers" or simply trying to ensure that you engage everyone at the table as much as possible? To end the whole "twenty minutes of fun wrapped up in four hours" that tends to characterize older games?

Or, to put it another way, is the shift in games not a recognition of a failure on the part of older games to engage players meaningfully for rather lengthy periods of time?

 

[Celebrim]

You suggested that I inflicted myself with a bad analogy. I believe that you have done the same in your use of the phrase "delayed gratification". This is a notion used primarly to explain various economic and work practices that are characteristic of a modern economy. Saving (and hence, to an extent) suffering now so as to be able to afford something nice in X years time is the classic example.

There is nothing analogous to delayed gratification in listening to music with the sorts of contrasts you've described in your post. Rather, there is a type of contrast in experiences which makes the pleasure derived from one all the more powerful because of its relationship to the other. But the whole experience is still a pleasurable one. It's not as if listening to the interlude is suffering, or even an absence of pleasure.

I reject your contrast as a post-modernist construction which suggests that anything good for us, must somehow be bad. I reject the notion that profitable work is suffering. I reject the notion that study and scholarship are suffering. I reject the notion that exercise and training are suffering. Certainly, these things don't offer the same experience of gratification that the work leads up to, and certainly they all bear with them a certain measure of challenge and difficulty, but I present that they are gratifying, satisfying and even pleasurable things in and of themselves. And therefore, I insist that they are perfectly comparable with what I've been talking about. I refuse to accept the notion that anything hard must perforce be suffering, which is the assumption of your claim and the heart and soul of the whole matter.

As my posts in this thread have shown, I think that there is an explanation for the features of modern RPG design (and especially D&D 4e) that you are interested in, which does not appeal to the ego-gamer/delayed gratification notion. It is about the sort of experience that the game delivers to the participant. In talking about the ego-gamer you are correct to focus on the issue of taking pleasure in playing, but you are (in my opinion) looking at it in the wrong way.

The issue is not about wanting to shorten the reward cycle. It's about differences in what counts as rewarding (eg tactical vs operational concerns - OB/DB split vs iron rations). It's about different relationships to the PC as a vehicle for interacting with the gameworld. You haven't responded to my points about the obvious influence of indie design on 4e, but I think these are pretty crucial, because they suggest a strong alternative interpretation to the ego-gamer one that you have offered.

I haven't responded to your points about the obvious influence of indie design on 4e, because I believe that there is no obvious influence of indie design on 4e and indeed I think it is pretty clear that 4e is wildly different in assumptions, goals, mechanics and techniques from an archetypal 'indie' game like 'Dogs in the Vineyard'. The whole notion that 4e is some sort of 'indie' game is laughable on the face of it and I don't understand why you keep trying to push such a tenuous connection.

Salient features of 'Indie' games and the larger ilk of narrativist/story centered games include things like:

1) Combat occupies no special or exalted place in the rules either as a means of resolving challenges or a elevated and special skill. In fact, physical combat may not be supported directly by the rules at all.
2) Very broad and unconstrained character creation. Players have wide latitude to define the attributes of their character and the meaning of those attributes will have in the game.
3) Fortune in the End
4) 'Alternative' fortune mechanics (other than traditional polyhedrals)
5) Either no defined setting at all beyond the nature of the characters created, or very titlely focused settings, especially wierd, provocative, or humorous settings (again defined by the sort of characters created).
6) Collaborative narration, often with concrete resources distributed to players and gamemasters alike that allow for direct narrative control, or rotating GMs.
7) Mechanical definitions and support of relationships between the character and other characters. Heavy support for resolving social drama, often to the point of having more support for resolving social combat than they have for resolving combat (or resolving them with essentially identical mechanics, see #1)

By contrast, 4e is a traditional squad based tactical fantasy RPG with heavy support for combat, tightly controlled and relatively inflexible character creation, a completely traditional GM, and otherwise completely traditional mechanics. In some ways, 4e D&D is the most 'D&Dish' version of the game ever.

Moreover, if you start looking at Indie games you'll see lots and lots of support for the sterotypical 'roleplayer' who thinks that its more mature to play characters with lots of flaws and internal conflicts and who wants to roleplay out buying a basket of apples or chatting with the neighbor as they wash their clothes in the appartment buildings basement and other low drama story centered things. What you won't find is the traditional ego fulfillment paraphenalia - loot, experience points, repetitive tactical combat, etc. By contrast, 4e is the game that has so defined down what it means to have flaws, that races no longer carry penalties to attributes and you are allowed to effectively substitute intelligence for dexterity to allow for combat optimization. I mean seriously, you think 4e has heavy Indie game influence? To complete the sterotype, you think 4e is the game that edgy, artsy, FORGE reading, flower children flocked to after the virtual demise of the WoD LARP scene? (I should note that while sterotyping here, I'm not denigrating either style of gaming as inferior nor am I suggesting my sterotype is inclusive of everyone that enjoys 'Indie' games.) Look, I know that before 4e came out, alot of people believed it would look like Donjon (especially when they heard about 'skill challenges') but I just don't see the resemblence. I don't think you could have made a less 'indie' game if you tried.

As for Ron Edwards essay, I don't want to comment on it, because my criticisms of it would probably unfortunately echo what alot of people have been saying about me. I don't see how you can quote that tripe with a straight face while simultaneously blasting me for being derogatory. I mean seriously, what's with that guy and who took a leak in his cheerios?

 

[Celebrim]

To end the whole "twenty minutes of fun wrapped up in four hours" that tends to characterize older games?

I get so sick of that crap. Seriously, what is with that? If its 20 minutes of fun wrapped up in 4 hours, why the heck is anyone still playing? I'm sorry you've had some bad DMs or bad times, but can you stop projecting on to everyone else?

Or, to put it another way, is the shift in games not a recognition of a failure on the part of older games to engage players meaningfully for rather lengthy periods of time?

To answer that question, I'd first have to accept the premise that older games weren't fun most of the time.

 

[Hussar]

I get so sick of that crap. Seriously, what is with that? If its 20 minutes of fun wrapped up in 4 hours, why the heck is anyone still playing? I'm sorry you've had some bad DMs or bad times, but can you stop projecting on to everyone else?



To answer that question, I'd first have to accept the premise that older games weren't fun most of the time.

Has nothing to do with bad DM's and everything to do with the mechanics. It's not that older games weren't fun most of the time, it's that older games forced a very traditional setup of "act on your turn, not on someone else's".

Older, traditional games spent a HUGE amount of time doing not much of anything. You sat and watched the other players doing something a whole pile. You couldn't act out of turn. Heck, going way back, you had a caller who would mediate between you and the GM, removing even your ability to really decide all your own actions.

It might be hyperbole, but, there is a grain of truth there. Older games, by delaying gratification, meant that you were spending more time not being gratified. This should be pretty obvious. If the rate of gratification is higher now, then it must have been slower before, with more time spent between points of gratification.

Thus the hyperbole of 20 minutes of fun wrapped in 4 hours. You spend a minority amount of time actively participating, and a majority of time passively watching and waiting for your turn.

One thing that more recent games have done is break out of the turn based systems that characterize many traditional games. Many games now have some sort of interrupt ability (to borrow a CCG term) that lets you "go out of turn". Many games have abilities which allow you to make someone else take an action out of turn as well. Whether it's something as simple as an Attack of Opportunity mechanic or something more complex, the idea of "wait your turn" is a good example of delayed gratification.

Since gratification doesn't equal succeeding, but rather actively participating, again, I have to ask, is this trend really a bad thing? Forcing more active participation from the players more often is a good thing isn't it?

 

[jmucchiello]

Has nothing to do with bad DM's and everything to do with the mechanics. It's not that older games weren't fun most of the time, it's that older games forced a very traditional setup of "act on your turn, not on someone else's".

Older, traditional games spent a HUGE amount of time doing not much of anything. You sat and watched the other players doing something a whole pile. You couldn't act out of turn. Heck, going way back, you had a caller who would mediate between you and the GM, removing even your ability to really decide all your own actions.

I think I've found the difference. For me, and I'm guessing other people, participation is not a function of rolling the dice, interrupting someone else or even succeeding. Take baseball as an example, I'm guessing the reasons someone likes or dislikes baseball is a play here. If you are sitting in the stands and your favorite team is at bat, you are attending the game but you are not participating. If you are sitting on the bench, due up 5th this inning while you team is at bat you are as "active" as the guy in that stands yet you are definitely participating. A guy on the bench is watching the pitcher to learn how he pitches, he paying attention to the score and who's on base and how the fielders are positioned.

The same thing happens in an RPG when it is not your turn. You can choose to goof off, go get a snack, talk to someone else at the table about your job, etc, or you can pay attention to who's turn it is, where the monsters are, what might come through the door, etc.

The difference between the role-player and baseball player is the baseball player is being paid to be member of the team and you can damn well bet if his coach or manager asks him "are you paying attention to the game?" He's going to answer yes if he doesn't want to get chewed out. As a professional, it is his job to participate regardless of whether he has his glove on or a bat in hand. The role-player is not held to the same standard the pro baseball player is without a strong social dynamic.

Thus the hyperbole of 20 minutes of fun wrapped in 4 hours. You spend a minority amount of time actively participating, and a majority of time passively watching and waiting for your turn.

Anyone posting on this board is likely capable of paying attention without needing game mechanics to keep them "engaged". And I would guess is not passively watching, waiting for his turn. Can't you observe what is happening on other players' turns while waiting for your turn? I know I'm always listening to the damage announcements from the both the DM (to figure out how much of a threat the current foe actually is) and from my fellow players (to figure out how tough the foes are). Isn't this fun?

I'm guessing it probably isn't for the casual gamer. The casual gamer is someone who doesn't live for the hobby. He doesn't read ENWorld, ever. And while he may be an excellent "team" player socially, he doesn't engage with the game when it's not his turn. This group is orthogonal to the twitch gamer of this thread but they do both benefit from rules systems that cater to twitch gaming. If there are more things to do out of turn in order to increase the twitch gamer's frequency of action, then this also helps the casual gamer stay focused on the game. As I said earlier in the thread, perhaps this observation about faster, more frequent WIN does more than just cater to the twitch gamer. In the case of "more to do during a round" it also keeps casual gamers engaged.