Working on a gamist project. Fatigue at writing up mechanics. And the solution.

[Callan S.]

I'm coding a text based browser game, but with mechanics which could be used in a table top game since I'll parallel it at some point in written form.

I wanted to impart something I ran into, as I've recently dropped into coding out all the armour, charm wards, reinforced under armour and HP damage code. As well as code for getting repair materials and code for repairing.

And how I was finding it drearysome. Indeed, this is the second time I've coded this thing from the ground up - I stopped last time from...a fatigue.

The funny thing was, I was feeling fatigue here and...I repeated something I did in another part of the project (indeed in the part where you dodge enemy attacks). I made it a task doesn't just give ablative defence points - it also gave a chance at gaining further movement.

The main part is traveling as a trader, rolling 2D4 (for various reasons) for how many hours you go without an encounter (a good thing!). Traveling further means more buying/selling/mo' money.

The thing I added was a chance to gain an extra hour (if you rolled under 8 (which is most of the time)

This pleased me and...the contrast made me realise what the whole armour thing was.

It was a system, taking up both time to code and time in play, that didn't help you win. It only helped you...dun dun dun! Not lose!

Okay, it's my pet thing at the moment to raise issue with that, but roll with the experience I had here! In contrast to all that avoiding losing, the capacity to gain that extra hour from, for example, repairing gear - that is now the thing to look forward to was not repairing gear, but the chance at that extra hour/getting further/winning more. Because that's actually the big deal!

It is so much more satisfying when you put it in!

And it struck me how much I'd been hooked into this coding of not losing stuff (legacy design) - and indeed how much most of my attempted gamist roleplay, well, all the fights really did nothing to help you gain more treasure (or whatever it is that might be considered winning). It was all (by all I mean what the players put in, even if that's just putting in the effort of rolling a dice) just an avoid losing activity.

Which on a side point I imagine this great for DM's with their uber written plot - when the players don't aim for anything, there's nothing they do to get in the way of the uber pre written plot.

Back to topic; but imagine if during a fight you added it that every combat roll you made, say, on nat 15 or higher, increased the next treasure amount by 10%?

Is it just me or can you feel it come to life? The roll you're about to might just matter. Maybe 10% is a little conservative - perhaps 20% instead? (heck, I'm probably still being conservative) The feeling that you are actually on the money right now with this roll? Not latter. NOW! Actually my example leaves the treasure till latter, only giving the modifier now - I'd say you literally get the gold right now, but how does that work out simulation wise? Oh naughty simo! Anyway, what'd be even better is if you roll 15+, you get gold and XP right now! Now that is NOW! Hmmm, now I'm tempted to make a paralel between story now vs story latter and this...

Anyway, so I pitch the idea, if you happen to be making new rules or adding house rules, why not try out players actually directly advancing towards winning (on a passing roll) on all (or atleast most of) their systems use? Keeping in mind that slaying an orc does not actually do this. It merely avoids losing. Yes, we have a big ol' culture fixated on the bad assery of killin' orcs, as if that's a big deal in itself. Yet you don't win as you attempt to do that. Removing HP does not actually gain you a single damn thing (except...not losing) (caveat; perhaps in a one roll combat system that gave XP if you win, killing orcs that way would that'd qualify as rolling to win. Try it out! :) ). Or if you try and treat the traditional orc slaying as winning, then it's a head scratcher as to what gold, XP and especially level mean - just fluff? It gets to be a bit like treating taking pieces in chess as 'winning', sure you can emphasize thate - then checkmate becomes a head scratcher as to what thats all about? Checkmate becomes fluff?

Anyway, I found it striking how I could end up coding 'dont lose' mechanics and...head toward giving up continuing the project, vs how a simple advancement mechanic stuck on at the last minute made it vibrant again. So there's my story, for what it's worth.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I can see that working for some games. Thinking of bolting that onto my D&D, though, I have to say that it doesn't appeal in practice. The thing is, you don't get xp for merely showing up and rolling dice, you get it for accomplishing fictional goals.  If rolling was the rewarded thing, one would presumably attempt to maximize the rolling instead of problem-solving, and where's the game then?

Of course if your game is about rolling the dice, then that makes perfect sense. Also, there are games that use this reward mechanism for "learning by doing" and similar purposes where character progression is not a matter of performance at all. Call of Cthulhu, for example, where character development just happens as long as you get to roll dice regularly.

[Ron Edwards]

Callan, that works for me in a lot of ways. One might even pose that no reward, like treasure or whatever, is forthcoming without such successful play.

[glandis]

Callan - I see two aspects of why your change in approach might or might not spark excitement for me. One, you've taken "stuff that we do while playing" (or coding, in your case) and connected it to other parts of the mechanics and elements of the fictional situation. Great! - but details still matter. The repairing/time thing works for me. Good to hit roll = more treasure wouldn't. The second aspect is how you've engaged fundamental reward cycle stuff - and maybe that's where win vs. don't lose are either equivalent or not. If "not lose" doesn't participate in a reward cycle, it's dull and uninspiring. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to become true "win" to get into the cycle, though that would be a perfectly valid way to do it.

Eero - 1978's Runequest is the direct parent-game to Call of Cthulhu "roll and learn"; I'm not sure how to sort out what indirect (grand)parents (T&T?) might be involved.

[Callan S.]

Hi Eero,

Well, what would one call the contact point with system in regard to those goals? Figure out ideas on how to achieve the goal? Well that could come with a roll where if you roll high enough, you get XP for having spoken that idea, right now.

Also, there are games that use this reward mechanism for "learning by doing" and similar purposes where character progression is not a matter of performance at all. Call of Cthulhu, for example, where character development just happens as long as you get to roll dice regularly.

Well, you can see how CoC can end up getting played gamist, can't you? Just have to look at that mechanic with a different tilt and *bam*, it's become a slot machine!


Hi Ron,

I'm not sure I understand? Do you mean needing some kind of passing roll or passing some kind of player skill test, otherwise you get nothing? Pretty much of course! Though sometimes a 'wooden spoon' mechanic has it's place (just have to watch out for making the wooden spoon so substansive it's not wooden any more and rivals the prize for winning). Particularly if you have no 'out of the game' condition, but being in the game requires some currency to play with (and the wooden spoon provides that modicum of currency). Or am I not getting what you mean?


Hi Gordon,

Well, what do you say when you finish a game? Only that you not lost it or lost it?

Of course the traditional RPG obsfucates the question by either having no official finishing condition, or if max level is treated as a finishing condition, they put that off in the clouds where no one ever gets to. I still recommend that 'Second level is max level' campaign experiment.

On details mattering, I think it's a matter of priorities. Heck, even I feel a bit blasphemous to say it, but in gamism details come second (at best). If someones challenged you to a game but your primary concern is the details and whether they are being met to your satisfaction, well then your primary concern is the details and not the challenge laid down. In such a case that challenge given by another real person ends up a second priority (at best). Sure, the details might be derpy, but what comes first - that they said you can't win it, or only partaking of specific aesthetic criteria?

[Ron Edwards]

You understood me fine - we're agreeing.

[glandis]

Callan - Here, I'm assuming a shared enthusiasm for the challenge at hand in the first place, and then looking at whether particular enhancements spark my particular interest - details (of mechanics or whatever) matter there without trumping the overall focus, surely?

I've got a post brewing about your "2nd level is max" thing (I've tried a LOT of things in & out of D&D over the decades), but other than the reward cycle comment (maybe a mistake), I'm trying not to bring those issues to bear on the strait-forward (I think) observations here. Particularly that things that have no currency associations can become mere drudgery - I hope that's a fair implication from your post.

[Callan S.]

I didn't finish Dark Souls - the video game with some renown for difficulty. I would actually say I lost sense of direction in it (as in, toward anything in particular), and I considered really mostly dark grind and yeah, you could lose alot of what you ground when you 'died' - it was going to be mostly a bum on seat affair to beat it.

But I still can't say I beat it, nor say that it wasn't about winning (like a word processing program isn't about winning) just because of the details that bugged me. Props to those who did beat it, btw.

I think that's all I can say about details mattering.

Oh, an interesting thread popped up on the D&D Next forum by itself (I didn't post it)
What happens when you're 20th level?