Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[ExploderWizard]

That is only true if removal from the game ("death") is the only recognized failure condition.

I played a cooperative (non-RP) game on the July 4th weekend, called "Sentinels of the Multiverse". Each player chooses a superhero from the set, and plays cards and makes choices for that hero. All players are aligned against a non-player antagonist villain, and the environment.

It is possible for a player to run out of hit points. In this case, they are not fully removed from the game - their choices are merely shrunk down to a very short list - but they still get to choose, and have some effect on the game. *Nobody* is fully removed from play until the end of the game - so the game is won or lost not by individuals, but by all players (as is usual for cooperative games). This isn't about gameplay taking a secondary role, this game doesn't have storytelling in the RPG sense - but merely allowing everyone to continue to have amusement until the session of play ends.

Given that RPGs are largely a cooperative endeavor, there is no reason why we could not define our win and loss conditions in a similar manner. Or, as I'm fairly sure you've heard before - death is not the only negative consequence upon which we can measure success in an RPG.

I agree that not every failure needs to be fatal to make an interesting game because there is a lot more that goes into an interesting game than combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This seems like a restating of the eternal "roll-play" vs. "role-play" debate, players preferences for which will be highly subjective and, often, will be some mixture of the two (which are not mutually exclusive). Perhaps the best use for such analysis is to help people understand their own preferences and how to communicate them to other players so that everyone in the group is on the same page with what the gaming style will be.

I'm suspicious of any theory that professes to provide some useful insight about the people participating in the hobby when it does nothing more than draw an imagined line through the lot, sort everyone onto one side or the other, and proceed to talk up one side and/or disparage the other. That's what the Roll vs Role debate was, in a big way. That's what CaW vs CaS was. Heck, that's what the Edition War was.

A useful theory would likely identify more than two (or 3, like GNS) 'kinds of gamers,' and would certainly concentrate on describing them, not just contrasting and judging them.

 

[Savage Wombat]

On a related note:

Extra Credits - Choices vs. Consequences

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'm suspicious of any theory that professes to provide some useful insight about the people participating in the hobby when it does nothing more than draw an imagined line through the lot, sort everyone onto one side or the other, and proceed to talk up one side and/or disparage the other. That's what the Roll vs Role debate was, in a big way. That's what CaW vs CaS was. Heck, that's what the Edition War was.

A useful theory would likely identify more than two (or 3, like GNS) 'kinds of gamers,' and would certainly concentrate on describing them, not just contrasting and judging them.

It is entirely possible to have a discussion about play styles and campaign expectations without disparaging comments. It is, in fact, a successful requirement for enjoyable long-term gaming. Roll vs. Role isn't exactly a theory as there are indeed players of both persuasions out in the world at this very moment--and far more that use a mixture of styles (either simultaneously or differing via campaign). There is no controversy here, other than the fact that the play styles are not "vs." each other at all or that either one is better than the other. It is an objective fact that gamers have had fun playing the full spectrum and beyond. Adherents of particular styles may attempt to convince others of the advantages of their methods, and some might even be swayed to at least dabble in a different style after hearing a sound argument.

Granted, some partisans of particular editions and styles like to claim superiority of their own beliefs and attempt to use all manner of faulty reasoning to bolster their arguments. They don't do this to gain converts, they do it to feel better about themselves because, for some reason, their method of gaming has become so ingrained in their personality, that anyone who merely chooses differently is seen as insulting them. These voices have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are best ignored.

Far more common are those that favor a particular style and, through their enthusiasm for it (along with artless phrasing) seem to disparage other styles. If an author happens to leave out an "IMO" when dealing with subjective issues, it's best to mentally insert one in there and not read an honest exploration of styles as a partisan screed. We should all judge based on what is said, not on what we think is implied.

Getting back to the thread at hand, I wasn't a fan of Pulsipher's presentation. I thought it was poorly structured and lacking in details and examples, and the terminology is a bit loaded: "interesting choices" vs. "wish fulfillment". But his core concern is sound. I also think the OP's definitions of wish-fulfillment and interesting decisions are a bit all over the place [The pleasure of seeing your enemies destroyed in spectacular fashion--really? This is 100% of gamers]. But both went out of their way to state this was a subjective discussion with no right answer.

I had similar problems with the "Combat as Sport" and "Combat as War" phrasing, neither of which was a good fit for what they were supposed to represent and the unbalanced terminology between sport and war was ludicrous at best. Combat as Sport vs. Combat as Pretend War is better, but it's still not a useful approach.

I've found that Cinematic vs. Wargame is about as neutral as you can get, with the expectation that it IS a continuum with the vast majority of players, DMs and campaigns falling somewhere in the middle (the exact point of which may change from session to session). The cinematic player wants to play out the setpiece dragon battle. The wargame player wants to trump the setpiece dragon battle by inventing explosives and using them to trap the dragon in his cave. Both appeal to different parts of the brain. No one goes to see a James Bond movie in which Seal Team Six caps the villain in the first five minutes. No one reads The Art of War for the sex scenes.

The good news is that there are more game systems today than ever before, with modern technology allowing real-time play with people all over the world. It's easier now to find or run a game to your liking and it's far easier to be exposed to new ideas and new ways to play. If we aren't hitting a Golden Age of Gaming, I don't know what will do it.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've found that Cinematic vs. Wargame is about as neutral as you can get,

Don't know about "wargame" - as the wargames most players are familiar with don't allow for improvised, outside-the-box tactics. But role-playing as a whole has an ancestor in a German training exercise called "Free Kriegspiel" - which was, I understand, a wargame in-the-military-sense with a referee to adjudicate the success of things like sabotage attempts or improvised tactics.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Roll vs. Role isn't exactly a theory as there are indeed players of both persuasions out in the world at this very moment--and far more that use a mixture of styles (either simultaneously or differing via campaign). There is no controversy here, other than the fact that the play styles are not "vs." each other at all or that either one is better than the other. It is an objective fact that gamers have had fun playing the full spectrum and beyond.

Which, really, contradicts the Role vs Roll theory - that all gamers are one or the other, not both, and that Role is somehow superior. (And, hey, if that's not the theory, a whole lotta folks on the Role side of it were misrepresenting it in the 90s.)

Like I said, I have no problem with theorizing. I just question the value of us/them theories that look too much like the theorist just boosting his own ego and/or shoring up his own preconceived notions.

The good news is that there are more game systems today than ever before, with modern technology allowing real-time play with people all over the world. It's easier now to find or run a game to your liking and it's far easier to be exposed to new ideas and new ways to play. If we aren't hitting a Golden Age of Gaming, I don't know what will do it.

I guess one way in which I am a grognard traditionalist is that on-line play 'just doesn't feel like a real RPG' to me. ;(

 

[billd91]

I had similar commentary in another thread not too long ago I believe. Giving martial characters powerful, open-descriptor divinations (is it uncanny intuition or something more?) would definitely take the sunshine right out of some folks' day and turn their NOTD&D dial up to 10.

Its unfortunate because if I could recommend one thing to pure D&D GMs, it would be to diversify your perspective and toolset through GMing other games with various agendas/principles and all that comes with it. It will round out your game such that when you do go back to D&D, your experience and your players' experience will be the better for it. Even if its just to know for certain what you want to stay away from, why, and how to stay away from it. I can state unequivocally that a diverse GMing experience has improved my D&D GMing. How could it not?

I can say that playing and GMing other games has enriched my ability to run D&D as well. But I can also say it has enabled me to appreciate D&D for what it is... and appreciate other games for what they are, in contrast to each other, and choose the game I want to get the fit I want.

 

[Manbearcat]

I can say that playing and GMing other games has enriched my ability to run D&D as well. But I can also say it has enabled me to appreciate D&D for what it is... and appreciate other games for what they are, in contrast to each other, and choose the game I want to get the fit I want.

Is that the:

1) FFV Murderhoboing dudes and taking their stuff with a stable of disposable PCs, played from pawn stance or the
2) GM-Force illusionism so the rules, your action declarations, and the resolution of them don't matter because my setting and metaplot are important, ok (?) or the
3) LFQW turned up to 11ty9, Ars Magica is amateur hour, back to the dungeon errrr process sim except when it isn't, or the
4) Miniatures skirmish boardgame linked by free-form roleplay

D&D? Or something else entirely like say dungeons...and dragons...and orcs...and elves...and hit points...and armor class...and classes...and quests...and mcguffins.

EDIT - Oh and daily spells

 

[Ratskinner]

Having ruminated on the article for a few days now....I don't believe it offers any useful insight into game design or player behavior or preferences. It rests on an, IMO, false dichotomy of two sources of in-play enjoyment, and ignores or is unaware of the diversity and complexity of player preferences and behavior outside of a narrow band of...let's call it quaint...competitive environments.

Talking about "interesting decisions" is fine. Talking about "wish fulfillment" is fine. Talking about "interesting decisions" vs. "Wish fulfillment" borders on nonsensical.

 

[pemerton]

Interesting Decisions
1. Campaign choices including interactions with significant NPCs. The idea of seeking goals outside the dungeon.
2. Tactical choices while inside combat. The proper use of various abilities and powers.
3. Strategic choices. Picking when and where you want to fight your battles. Setting up an enemy prior to battle. Laying traps.
4. Puzzles & Traps. Players actively trying to solve mysteries and puzzles. Keeping notes about history and legends found in the dungeon.
5. Resource management. Thinking about the usage of scarce resources. The proper planning and packing for an adventure.

Wish Fulfillment
1. The pleasure of seeing your enemies destroyed in spectacular fashion.
2. Being viewed by the inhabitants of the setting as a great hero. Given respect.
3. Choices driven more by flavor and effect rather than tactical or strategic importance.
4. Handwaving stuff that is often kept off camera in a high cinematic movie.

<snip>

Thoughts and discussion?

As you have stated it, I don't feel the force of the contrast.

For instance, ID1 (interaction with significant NPCs) can lead to WF2 (being given respect by NPCs). ID2&5 (tactical choices involving resource management) can lead to WF1 (the pleasure of seeing your enemies destroyed in spectacular fashion). Etc.

Generalising: your "interesting decisions" describe challenges the players might have to resolve (via their PCs). Your "wish fulfilment" items 1 and 2 are outcomes.

WF4 is completely orthogonal to both - Moldvay Basic, fr instance, handwaves all time not spent in the dungeon, but almost certainly falls on the side that you are wanting to call "interesting decisions". In fact, one of the best ways to ensure a lot of interesting decisions in play is to handwave a lot of tedious stuff which, whether or not it requires decisions, doesn't require interesting decisions.

Finally, I don't understand WF3. When I try to contrast it with (say) ID1&4, I can't draw any contrast. Thus, for instance: choices about puzzles and traps are going to be driven by flavour and effect, aren't they? Eg if there is a flooding room trap, then solutions will include looking for furniture that floats (when I ran this particular scenario in my 4e game, the items of furniture in question were coffins). Or, when negotiating with important NPCs, flavour and effect are going to be very important: eg whether or not Kas will make friends with you might depend on whether or not you are an ally of Vecna.

If someone asked me to reflect on games where the players didn't have to make interesting choices, I wouldn't be thinking about games displaying your items WF1 through Wf4. I would be thinking about games where mechanics didn't matter to resolution; where the GM disregarded the players' action declarations for their PCs; where the GM railroaded some pre-written plot without regard to player desires as manifested through the play of their PCs; etc. None of which have much to do with WF1 through WF4, and most of which seem to be about the GM's wish fulfilment rather than the players'.