Is it a bug, or a feature?

[Dethklok]

The job of a game designer, or a GM, is not to enforce equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunities.

No, the job of both game designers and GMs is to facilitate fun. Equality is a non-issue.

 

[Random Bystander]

No, the job of both game designers and GMs is to facilitate fun. Equality is a non-issue.

I will concede your statements to an extent; given that a subgenre of games exist, there are a small percentage of players who enjoy losing due to factors entirely outside of their control.

I will also contend on the point of gambling; most gamblers seem to believe that the game contains factors within their control, such as "luck".

 

[Argyle King]

I believe choices should be choices. If one choice is always right, what is the point to the other choices?

 

[nnms]

I think that what Random Bystander is getting at is that a power gamer is going to have ample opportunity for an enjoyment in a fair system without needing to also have obvious best choices and trap choices. And I think Johnny3D3D is right about the choices needing to be meaningful.

 

[Random Bystander]

I think that what Random Bystander is getting at is that a power gamer is going to have ample opportunity for an enjoyment in a fair system without needing to also have obvious best choices and trap choices. And I think Johnny3D3D is right about the choices needing to be meaningful.

Thank you for clarifying; in hindsight, I could have doubled the verbiage and increased the conciseness of my posts.

 

[Dethklok]

I believe choices should be choices. If one choice is always right, what is the point to the other choices?

Every time you put together a puzzle, there will be choices regarding where a piece might go. Yet, in a conventional puzzle, there is only one choice even allowed. The fun comes not from knowing where the pieces go, but from figuring out where they go, and looking with satisfaction on the finished product.

As an outsider to the powergaming phenomenon looking in, I cannot understand it intuitively. Yet, I do know that when I write a novel, or draw a picture, or design a game, the sense of listening to the work is crucial. One has to truly feel the lines of a drawing, to feel the characters in a story, to feel the flow and integration of the rules in a game. Mediocre artists do not understand this. But the creative process comes at each moment from considering the wide open space, that infinity of possibilities, and identifying from these a change or addition that the work of art needs.

And I do not see that the pleasure of powergaming must be unreachaby foreign to this process. Of course, the space is much reduced, from the infinity of possibility to what exists in the confines of a single finished game. But only by fully exploring it, by digging one's hands into the raw ore, can one pull out those gems that will allow one to defeat all others. There need not be only one such gem; there can be many. But it appears to me that finding them, knowing them, and applying them in order to defeat obstacles and win prestige is part of the challenge and the skill of powergaming.

 

[Random Bystander]

Every time you put together a puzzle, there will be choices regarding where a piece might go. Yet, in a conventional puzzle, there is only one choice even allowed. The fun comes not from knowing where the pieces go, but from figuring out where they go, and looking with satisfaction on the finished product.

As an outsider to the powergaming phenomenon looking in, I cannot understand it intuitively. Yet, I do know that when I write a novel, or draw a picture, or design a game, the sense of listening to the work is crucial. One has to truly feel the lines of a drawing, to feel the characters in a story, to feel the flow and integration of the rules in a game. Mediocre artists do not understand this. But the creative process comes at each moment from considering the wide open space, that infinity of possibilities, and identifying from these a change or addition that the work of art needs.

And I do not see that the pleasure of powergaming must be unreachaby foreign to this process. Of course, the space is much reduced, from the infinity of possibility to what exists in the confines of a single finished game. But only by fully exploring it, by digging one's hands into the raw ore, can one pull out those gems that will allow one to defeat all others. There need not be only one such gem; there can be many. But it appears to me that finding them, knowing them, and applying them in order to defeat obstacles and win prestige is part of the challenge and the skill of powergaming.

It would seem, if a game is so constructed without explicit "best choices", the power-gamer has the freedom to explore the finished piece, and find those which co-operate well. Whereas if the "best choices" are explicit, the power-gamer is locked into pre-constructed frameworks that the game designer has laid out for them. Thus, in the first case, they are free to explore the "map" that is the game rules, and find the nuggets that lie within, while in the second, many choices that would otherwise be valid have been blocked off. So the conclusion would seem to be the same; that even in a game designed for power-gaming, the best design is one which is not explicitly designed for power-gaming.

However, there is another argument that has been raised; that of deliberately making a game that is not balanced, not for the purpose of power-gaming, but to emulate. For that, I would propose that a second thread be made, as it is a different topic.

 

[Argyle King]

Every time you put together a puzzle, there will be choices regarding where a piece might go. Yet, in a conventional puzzle, there is only one choice even allowed. The fun comes not from knowing where the pieces go, but from figuring out where they go, and looking with satisfaction on the finished product.

As an outsider to the powergaming phenomenon looking in, I cannot understand it intuitively. Yet, I do know that when I write a novel, or draw a picture, or design a game, the sense of listening to the work is crucial. One has to truly feel the lines of a drawing, to feel the characters in a story, to feel the flow and integration of the rules in a game. Mediocre artists do not understand this. But the creative process comes at each moment from considering the wide open space, that infinity of possibilities, and identifying from these a change or addition that the work of art needs.

And I do not see that the pleasure of powergaming must be unreachaby foreign to this process. Of course, the space is much reduced, from the infinity of possibility to what exists in the confines of a single finished game. But only by fully exploring it, by digging one's hands into the raw ore, can one pull out those gems that will allow one to defeat all others. There need not be only one such gem; there can be many. But it appears to me that finding them, knowing them, and applying them in order to defeat obstacles and win prestige is part of the challenge and the skill of powergaming.

I'm not opposed to powergaming in theory. I'm not even really opposed to it in actual play. However, what I am opposed to is a game offering me choices which aren't honest choices. If there is one choice that everybody takes because it's so ridiculously good that none of the other choices matter, that is something which bothers. It happens sometimes, and I understand that it can be tough to realize how something you thought up will work in actual play once all of the pieces of a game are put together. That being said, I don't believe trap choices should be intentionally built into the game; such things are especially bad when it comes time to bring someone new into the game.

In my opinion, powergaming wont matter in a good game because a good game will provide enough variety to the ways you can handle an in-game problem that a character being uber in one area wont break the game because there will be times when that strict specialization will mean the same character is poorly equipped to handle a different situation.

For example, if I'm playing a rpg which supports that idea that combat solutions to a problem and non-combat solutions to a problem are equally valid, then it doesn't matter that the silver tongued bard can out-talk everyone because there are going to be situations in which he's not well suited. Likewise, the combat monster barbarian is going to be awesome in one area, but may struggle in others. In my ideal game, both of those characters can adventure with each other and both feel as though they contribute to the experience.

What I feel is bad game design is when one particular approach to problem solving trumps others, yet other options are presented as being equally valid when they -in reality- are not. If the game assumes that I'll be hacking and slashing through the vast majority of problems, and the game also makes taking that option vastly superior to other options, then I believe it's a mistake on the part of the game to try to present something like a feat which increases my attack bonus and a feat which gives me a bonus on a non-combat skill as being on equal footing. As a player, I've had frustration from games not due to my inability to make a character (I can get by well enough if my intent is to powergame,) but because I was playing a game which told me a character concept was a valid way to play a game when it actually wasn't. Such an experience is forgivable if it arises from something which was a mistake or wasn't noticed during the design of the game. It might very well bother me, but I understand that things slip through. To intentionally mislead potential players of your game by designing such things into it is something I feel is wrong.

 

[Dethklok]

It would seem, if a game is so constructed without explicit "best choices", the power-gamer has the freedom to explore the finished piece, and find those which co-operate well. Whereas if the "best choices" are explicit, the power-gamer is locked into pre-constructed frameworks that the game designer has laid out for them. Thus, in the first case, they are free to explore the "map" that is the game rules, and find the nuggets that lie within, while in the second, many choices that would otherwise be valid have been blocked off. So the conclusion would seem to be the same; that even in a game designed for power-gaming, the best design is one which is not explicitly designed for power-gaming.

Either I'm not understanding you, or you are implying that, when an imbalanced game is designed, the designers will explicitly state which powers or abilities they believe are imbalanced. Although I don't have a fixed opinion on the matter, the point I am trying to raise is that a designer could make a game with minor imbalances, not point them out (and not even be aware of them), and that such a game would be more fun for powergamers than a carefully balanced game.

I think if you look at video and computer games, you will find hordes of powergamers merrily exploiting the most game-breaking and aesthetically bankrupt strategies for the sake of victory. Some of you may be aware that the text of the Alpha version of Magic: The Gathering's timewalk originally read "opponent loses next turn," and had to be changed to "take another turn after this one" to prevent people using it and claiming suddenly that they won. At one point, regarding a video game, I accused another player of being so venal that he would be happy to push a button labelled "win" in order to win, and his response was that of course he would; why wouldn't I do the same?

I am not overly concerned with game balance as a player; as long as my choices don't feel useless, I can have fun. But powergamers appear drawn to the imbalances that they can learn about and exploit - and all gamers find interest in discussing these imbalances and whether there are workarounds, or whether changes are needed to resolve the imbalance. I suspect that the most popular RPGs would never have been so popular if they had been perfectly balanced.

 

[Random Bystander]

Either I'm not understanding you, or you are implying that, when an imbalanced game is designed, the designers will explicitly state which powers or abilities they believe are imbalanced. Although I don't have a fixed opinion on the matter, the point I am trying to raise is that a designer could make a game with minor imbalances, not point them out (and not even be aware of them), and that such a game would be more fun for powergamers than a carefully balanced game.

I think if you look at video and computer games, you will find hordes of powergamers merrily exploiting the most game-breaking and aesthetically bankrupt strategies for the sake of victory. Some of you may be aware that the text of the Alpha version of Magic: The Gathering's timewalk originally read "opponent loses next turn," and had to be changed to "take another turn after this one" to prevent people using it and claiming suddenly that they won. At one point, regarding a video game, I accused another player of being so venal that he would be happy to push a button labelled "win" in order to win, and his response was that of course he would; why wouldn't I do the same?

I am not overly concerned with game balance as a player; as long as my choices don't feel useless, I can have fun. But powergamers appear drawn to the imbalances that they can learn about and exploit - and all gamers find interest in discussing these imbalances and whether there are workarounds, or whether changes are needed to resolve the imbalance. I suspect that the most popular RPGs would never have been so popular if they had been perfectly balanced.

It seems we misunderstood each other, and are actually in agreement. A game should not be build with imbalances, but even a balanced game will have choices that work better than others, at least for the variety of play a particular person might want.