The Death of Simulation

[pemerton]

Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it.

<snip>

Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.

I agree with what Skeptic said. Also, as soon as you have to sit out on XP, the you are (in effect) having to sacrifice fun in play in order to pursue your thematic goal. At that point, the system is neither facilitative, nor neutral, but an obstacle. And what I'm hoping for (and trying to articulate) is a notion of 4e as largely obstacle-free, and mildly facilitative, of narrativist play.

If you make decisions not according to the best strategy/guts decision available but according to the theme you want to develop, you are penalyzing yourself vs the challenge to overcome. Doing so, your chance to succeed at the quest/goal are reduced, the next level is further away, etc.

The question is - can the gamist elements be narratively unified, such that making the best thematic decision does not] disadvantage one's chance of success? If not, you are right and my theory falls over. I'm hoping that the design goal of "equally viable builds" will do the job here - that the equal gamist viability will also be coherent thematic viability.

I understand your dream to have a narratavist layer on top of D&D gamist character progression / combat rules, I had the same some years ago.

I take it that you think it's a pipe dream?

 

[Lanefan]

The reward loop idea is simple : reward players when their actions are helping them reach the goal of the game and be sure that the reward will help them pursue that goal further.

Not quite. Change "players" to "characters", however, and you're bang on.

D&D : you get XP when overcoming challenges, with XP you get levels that make you able to overcome bigger challenges up to the final ones (the campaign finale).

That is one of the most basic assumption of D&D since it's beginning, not a easy thing to change.

Here's where 1e has something to teach: you get ExP for avoiding a challenge just as if you had defeated it.

If the goal of the moment is Z and to get there your path ultimately has to go: (non-Z letters represent challenges, and it doesn't matter here about anything else; let's just assume a simple situation)

Start ==> A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E ==> Z

Then it makes no difference to anything including ExP whether you outright defeat all 5 challenges; or whether you defeat A, intentionally avoid B and C via stealth, then defeat D and E; or find ways around all 5 and go safely to Z...as long as Z gets accomplished.

As for whether a character's theme will help or harm it in actual gameplay, all I have to say is this: many's the time as a player I've found myself (or put myself) in just such a situation, that to stay in character I as player have to make a wildly sub-optimal choice - examples include a below-average-party-level Knight deliberately seeking out the toughest foe in melee where there were others better suited for it, and predictably dying; or pulling a character out of a party that I as player would prefer to stay in because there's good in-game reasons for the character to be elsewhere - and I take it as just a natural part of a roleplaying game.

Lanefan

 

[marune]

Not quite. Change "players" to "characters", however, and you're bang on.Here's where 1e has something to teach: you get ExP for avoiding a challenge just as if you had defeated it.

I'll tell you a big secret : characters doesn't exist, so you can't reward them, players do

 

[marune]

The question is - can the gamist elements be narratively unified, such that making the best thematic decision does not disadvantage one's chance of success? If not, you are right and my theory falls over. I'm hoping that the design goal of "equally viable builds" will do the job here - that the equal gamist viability will also be coherent thematic viability.

I take it that you think it's a pipe dream?

Yeah because I think this unification can't be done, but that's IMHO, IME.

However that doesn't mean you couldn't build a game with the basic idea of your theory : "tell me how you fight and I'm gonna tell you who you are".

 

[Lanefan]

I'll tell you a big secret : characters doesn't exist, so you can't reward them, players do

True. However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.

One of my biggest peeves is a DM who would give out in-game character ExP for out-of-game player actions (e.g. bringing the beer to the game or writing a 5-page backstory for a new character where none such was asked); thus you'll find me harping on the "ExP are a character reward" theme whenever the chance arises.

Lane-"I neither expect nor demand ExP for writing this post"-fan

 

[marune]

True. However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.

Do we agree if I say : players should be earning the rewards for the actions they make through their characters ?

One of my biggest peeves is a DM who would give out in-game character ExP for out-of-game player actions (e.g. bringing the beer to the game or writing a 5-page backstory for a new character where none such was asked)

I agree on that.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah because I think this unification can't be done, but that's IMHO, IME.

Fair enough. I find it easy to believe you're right. But Ron Edwards' comments on Marvel Super Heroes (and also, if to a lesser extent, Tunnels and Trolls and Champions) keep me from giving up all hope.

However that doesn't mean you couldn't build a game with the basic idea of your theory : "tell me how you fight and I'm gonna tell you who you are".

Unfortunately, that game would not have WoTC marketing it and so would have no impact on how RPGs are played (btw, I like your summary of the basic idea).

 

[pemerton]

True. However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.

That makes it sound like the pleasure in playing, for the player, is seeing their character develop within the gameworld. And that sounds to me like simulationist play. Which would then be one of the obstacles to other sorts of play that I was hoping 4e would eliminate.

 

[Lanefan]

That makes it sound like the pleasure in playing, for the player, is seeing their character develop within the gameworld. And that sounds to me like simulationist play. Which would then be one of the obstacles to other sorts of play that I was hoping 4e would eliminate.

Seeing as I seem to be simulationist all the way here, given the definitions I've been given based on what I want from a game, then it only makes sense I agree at least this far: the pleasure *partly* comes from seeing the character (and the story, and the game) develop. The rest of the pleasure comes from time spent with friends playing the game, from in-game entertainment and amusement, and from tales told round the fire in years to follow.

And if you see these as obstacles, we're on pages different enough that we're not even reading the same spellbook.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Seeing as I seem to be simulationist all the way here, given the definitions I've been given based on what I want from a game, then it only makes sense I agree at least this far: the pleasure *partly* comes from seeing the character (and the story, and the game) develop. The rest of the pleasure comes from time spent with friends playing the game, from in-game entertainment and amusement, and from tales told round the fire in years to follow.

And if you see these as obstacles, we're on pages different enough that we're not even reading the same spellbook.

Lanefan

Naturally, I don't see the social aspect as obstacles! I like hanging out with my friends as much as the next person.

The obstacles I'm talking about are those which assume that the peculiar pleasure of playing an RPG (as opposed to, say, a boardgame, which still lets me hang out with my friends) is immersion into the gameworld. I'm hoping that 4e will allow pleasure to be derived by using play to make statements about a theme - RPGing as (mostly pretty lightweight) literary/dramatic creation. The gameworld (including the PCs) is a vehicle in which this artistic activity is carried out - it's a device, not an end in itself.

Whether that's a different page or a whole different book I'm not sure!