Recently I discussed the grand theft auto series on RPG.net. Another poster had said that GTA was only about violence as a solution, because of the guns and car theft. He compared it to fallout where, to paraphrase "For the problems given, they also give multiple ways of solving them". Infering that the problems set out in GTA only have the solution type of violence.
Now, I disagreed and it forced me to map out exactly why. The reason is, outside of the missions, GTA doesn't actually present any problems. It does present rewards for a variety of activities. But a reward itself, does not indicate that the activity it's attached to is one of the big problems of the game you must solve. I think the other poster has assumed a reward for something always means that's what you must do (and if you must do it, then that's what the game is about).
So instead, we have rewards for a variety of activities, all of them involving risk and skill. Thinking on that for a few days, I come to the conclusive point of this post. When you have this situation, it lets the player define what THE problem of the moment is. A gamist equivalent of protagonism.
So, in GTA there are rewards for activities like delivering pizza, taxi runs, stunts, driving, etc. And I now think that in actual play, when I've pitched myself at one of these activities and the difficulty in them, as a player I am the one who's decided THIS is THE problem to solve. In another sandbox game, Mercenaries, I've felt even more in control, often choosing to take out a particular artillery base over and over, because I find it so satisfying. And because of the cash bounty for the destruction of vehicles inside, I felt that it was a meaningful activity. Thinking on it now in fact, there's another base in the game that I've hardly every assaulted for fun, and it has almost no vehicles in it (thus no cash rewards). Usually when I've blown up that base, it's been to see the georgeous graphics of all it's buildings collapsing. Because in addition I think the player not only decides what activity becomes the problem, but also what reward becomes the reward to pursue at any given time.
In roleplay, I remember years ago when friends told me they had been playing a werewolf module. They had gone through it and, what caught my breath a little bit at the time, had decided they hadn't had enough yet, so they went back through it again to clear it out. I was so used to point A to point B game play, that their making B back to A THE problem, was a thrilling concept to suddenly encounter.
And it was probably last year when a friend, who normally can't seem to help but railroad, ran a game. In this one we explored some kind of pyramid, but gave up on it when we hit a blocked, inpenatrable door. I guessed it was a railroad - he decided we weren't allowed in. So we left and...there was no force applied to us us to go get some widget to open it. We could just leave it behind, decide it's not THE problem anymore, and that was okay. I can't quite remember the rest, but I think we went and checked out what some lizard men were doing, but I still had the impression we could have left those as well. You know what it feels like when you've been sitting in a cramped positon for ages, and finally get to stand up and stretch? That's what it felt like!
I've thought of address of challenge as always taking up someone elses challenge. Like when it came to gamist design, I have been puzzling for years now about "Just what mechanics are a great challenge? The sexy challenge that'll make my game awesome!". Now I'm on a lateral plane, where I'm thinking that in designing a gamist game, challenge doesn't matter (in terms of what I'm supposed to add as a designer). Perverse, to my past design thinking. But that's because in analysing all my past play, I've always thought of what gameplay was the challenge. I didn't actually take a step back and think of how, in the first place, I had decided what the challenge was! Nor how much I had been empowered to decide that.
Any speedbumps in the idea, that I'm missing so far?
Players get to choose which choice they deem important.
Should apply to all creative agenda.
So, no problems there that I can see.
Now, someone should do a similar post on Sim.
After thinking about what you've said here, I think I've observed someone taking up the challenge of impressing the rest of the group via unique and eccentric solutions to challenges in gameplay. His efforts were obviously strained, his results were unspectacular, and he didn't impress anyone, so he was left feeling hurt without really knowing why. That the system didn't support his ideas hadn't occurred to him.
If you choose too large of a challenge, should you be disappointed when you fail? Perhaps a tenant of good "Gamist" design is that challenges are easily estimated? Thus, my friend would know when his efforts would have very little chance of obtaining spectacular results.
I think it's a bit further along down the 'choice is good' path than that. For example, it's commonly held (including here) that in gamism the GM should make up a good challenge for the player to play out. When you take into account the player needs to decide what actually is (and what isn't) the challenge, this advice is in a gamist sense actually deprotagonising. It's an ideal that disempowers the player. A narrativist equivalent would be that 'the GM should make up a good address of premise for the player to play out'.
The idea is a confronting one to me and I'd like to hear from others on it, as I think everyones said at some point "I know gamism, to run it you just need to make up a good challenge".
But this does solve a bit of a hurdle I had back in the address of challenge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16117.0) thread.
QuoteThe GM decides there is a trap with two knobs protruding from a metal box. The left one is connected directly to some explosives. If the right one is pulled a nearby door opens.
An address of conflict: The GM decides that one of the knobs has the fingerprints of people on it, while the other is clean except for a little dust on top.
Proposed dysfunction: The GM describes the situation. The player declares they will carefully prize open the front of the metal box and look inside, to see what each knob is connected to and that this will tell them which is the right one to pull.
This thread proposes a dysfunction here, because both the player AND the GM have made an address of conflict. The dysfunction coming from the RP tradition that one of them is superior to the other. That one of them is the right answer and there is someone who is fit to judge which one is right.
Let's look further into the idea that no one is fit to judge which is superior or right. This probably sounds absurd; gamism is all about peer judgement/evaluation, isn't it? But clearly, to judge (as GM) someone else address you'll have to make your own address to gauge it by. If (as GM) you say their address just wouldn't work in the game world, what if the situation was suddenly reversed? Where you become the player and they the GM (with the same situation)...and suddenly your address of conflict 'just doesn't work in the game world'. How do you feel now that the address you were so certain of before, gets put in the 'doesn't work' box? How do you think the player felt before, when his address was treated the same way?
I'm going to suggest that address of conflict actually needs to be treated in the same way as address of premise. In that, there is no 'correct' answer.
This sounds like the absolute antithesis of gamism, doesn't it? If any answer is correct, then the player will just give any old answer and where's the challenge there?
I think the answer is, is that the player, in deciding the bounds of the challenge, decides exactly what risk he takes on. This means he, if it fits his address of challenge, grants the GM judgement powers to decide factors of success involved in that address. Exactly how much judgement is up to the player. Typically the judgement rights will align with how the rules assign judgement rights. But for many reasons, there can be a great difference between rule assignment of judgement and what the player grants.
Still seems a fluid idea?
Hey ErrathofKosh,
I think that may be a seperate topic. Excuse another narrativist parralel from me, but what he's doing is like trying to make an address of premise that impresses the other players. The player is typhoid marying himself, applying force to his address in the interests of a better story/impressing the other players.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 25, 2006, 02:40:14 AM
I think it's a bit further along down the 'choice is good' path than that. For example, it's commonly held (including here) that in gamism the GM should make up a good challenge for the player to play out. When you take into account the player needs to decide what actually is (and what isn't) the challenge, this advice is in a gamist sense actually deprotagonising. It's an ideal that disempowers the player. A narrativist equivalent would be that 'the GM should make up a good address of premise for the player to play out'.
Thinking a bit more, those examples are not equivalent.
There are two components here: deciding something is a challenge, and deciding how to deal with it.
In Nar: Deciding something is a premise, and deciding how to address it.
In Sim: Deciding something is not right, and deciding how to fix it (I don't have the vocabulary to articulate this well).
Does this make sense?
Callan,
what I am saying is that all creative agenda have two important things for players to do: decide which choices are important and what are the actions they will take.
The opening post talks about selecting the challenges that are important. In Nar, the equivalent action is using flags/kicker to tell the issues you are interested in.
GM telling which premise to address is equivalent to GM telling which tactic to use.
I do not know the exact definition of protagonism. It could include both sides (selecting relevant bits and dealing with them) or addressing premise, not selecting which premise should be addressed.
Specify the problematic part(s) for more useful answer.
Hi Callan,
Deciding what is the challenge is not necessary to Gamism, whereas protagonization is necesasary to Narrativism. Deciding "what is the challenge" might be a strategic choice ("Do we attack the orcs' camp to the east, and try to split up and lure away their forces, or do we go straight for the base camp and hope to break their morale?), but it's not a key aspect of Gamism. What would be an equivalent to de-protagonization would be to deny the players the chance to make tactical decisions for themselves, whether through GM force, or by telling them the optimal strategies so they don't have to figure it out for themselves.
Chris
Hi Tommi,
The way I see it, a player can't address premise when he doesn't actually agree there is a moral issue at stake. That makes the players decision on whether it's a moral issue an essential part of an address of premise. You can't split the two up into recognition of moral issue and action chosen, as a narrativist can choose to have his PC do absolutely nothing in responce to an issue he see's, and it's still a valid address.
With gamism I'd say the two can't be split up either. The player has to agree that so and so activity is THE challenge. And by agree, I mean the player defines the challenge.
Hi Chris,
I think there's no point in a gamist player empowered to make tactical choices, when they are disinterested in the arena to begin with. It's kind of like empowering someone choose anything on the indian restaurant menu, when they wanted to eat chinese food.
The traditional advice is that "the GM should provide a 'good' challenge", which still puts the choice of the restaurant in the GM's hands.
You may be mixing up protagonist choice "What sport do I want to play" with strategic choice "What sport is THE best sport to do, out of all of the sports available?".
(Sorry to switch from food to sport, btw)
Hi Callan,
If what you are saying, "The people playing need to be on the same page as far as interest in the point of play, topic, or subject matter", that's pretty much true of all creative agendas, and all kinds of play.
That still is not the same as deprotagonization. In deprotagonization, both the GM and the player may be interested in creating a thematic event- the problem being that the GM is actively denying the player their right to input. The gamist right to input is the tactical & strategic arena- and that would be the equivalent thing to be denied.
If I come to a D&D game, and all I want to do is solve puzzles, but the GM keeps throwing fights at me, that is not a failure of the system, or the GM "deprotagonizing" me, that is just poor communication at the table about what everyone wants and expects of each other. Deprotagonization might require bad communication and social contract to happen, but bad communication and social contract does not always equal deprotagonization.
Chris
Quote from: Callan S. on March 26, 2006, 09:06:12 PM
Hi Tommi,
The way I see it, a player can't address premise when he doesn't actually agree there is a moral issue at stake. That makes the players decision on whether it's a moral issue an essential part of an address of premise. You can't split the two up into recognition of moral issue and action chosen, as a narrativist can choose to have his PC do absolutely nothing in responce to an issue he see's, and it's still a valid address.
With gamism I'd say the two can't be split up either. The player has to agree that so and so activity is THE challenge. And by agree, I mean the player defines the challenge.
I think we agree.
The matter can be split; it is possible to let players (as opposed to the GM) decide the premise, and still only have the GM address it. It is possible for GM to choose the premise, and let the players address it.
For gamism, GMs have harder time doing all the stuff, because it has traditionally been formalised. At least partially. There is, of course, puzzle gaming that amounts to "read the GM's mind". Anyway...
The two parts can be separated. It does not imply that they should be.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 26, 2006, 09:06:12 PM
Hi Chris,
I think there's no point in a gamist player empowered to make tactical choices, when they are disinterested in the arena to begin with. It's kind of like empowering someone choose anything on the indian restaurant menu, when they wanted to eat chinese food.
The traditional advice is that "the GM should provide a 'good' challenge", which still puts the choice of the restaurant in the GM's hands.
You may be mixing up protagonist choice "What sport do I want to play" with strategic choice "What sport is THE best sport to do, out of all of the sports available?".
(Sorry to switch from food to sport, btw)
Here's the way I see it...
When a group chooses a Narrativist game, they are limiting the amount and type of Premises that may be addressed. Some Narrativist games are less limiting than others, ie Dogs versus Sorceror, but as long as the game includes the Premise that the players wish to address and the GM doesn't deny the players the ability to address it, everything's fine. The "arena" is determined by the game, and the GM shouldn't deny access to any part of it. The same is true for Gamist games.
Thus, if I designed a game about gladiators dueling it out to the death in an arena, I could narrowly define the challenge. In fact, I probably wouldn't even need a GM in such a game. Thus, there would be none of the "GM must come up with a good challenge," that can be associated with deprotagonization. But, (and I think this is your original point, correct me if I'm wrong) even if I design a much more complex game with courtiers trying to gain wealth, power, or fame (all involving different contests), I think deprotagonization can be avoided, as long as the the three types of challenges are clearly defined and players are allowed to choose which one to address.
Approaching it from a different angle, I think it's bad design to come up with the mechanics and setting of game about challenges without clearly defining the types of challenges available. If I give you everything about my courtier game except for the fact that the three ways to get money are via gambling, shady business deals, or treachery, I think the game is too open-ended. If you allow the GM to decide the best ways for people to get money, you're relying on the GM to be both fair and inventive. This clouds the players vision of what exactly the choices of challenge are. If I wanted my character to be the best card-player in the land and I chose to go after the money challenge because I thought that it might include gambling, I'd be sorely disappointed to find out that the GM wouldn't allow it.
Of course, I tend to think that the biggest source of deprotagonization in the Gamist node is an uneven measure of fairness. From what I've observed, many Gamist players are not so concerned about what the challenge is as long as they have the same chance as anyone else to win. Of course, the strategy and type of game play a part in the amount of fun to be had, but I think the challenge of winning is the most important component. When someone cheats, that's when the dissatisfaction occurs.
So, from my point of view, the challenges available should be clearly defined in the game. The choice of which challenges are addressed should be firmly in all of the players' hands.
Responding to Jonathan, but it helps with other peoples posts.
Quote from: JonathanWhen a group chooses a Narrativist game, they are limiting the amount and type of Premises that may be addressed. Some Narrativist games are less limiting than others, ie Dogs versus Sorceror, but as long as the game includes the Premise that the players wish to address and the GM doesn't deny the players the ability to address it, everything's fine. The "arena" is determined by the game, and the GM shouldn't deny access to any part of it. The same is true for Gamist games.
Emphasis mine.
I think your defining the gamist arena by 'the challenges' the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges.
Try thinking of the arena being defined by the risky activities the game contains.
Now, imagine the GM looking at five of those risky activites and thinking to himself "THAT's the challenge!". While the player is looking at just three of those same activities along with two activities from another part of the arena and thinking "THAT's the challenge!".
A quick, simple example; a risky activity could be swinging a sword at an orc. The GM could think doing that ten times is 'A challenge!' while the player could think doing it five or twenty times is 'A challenge'.
So, to get symantic about it, let's seperate the word 'Challenge' from the term 'risky activity'. Because games basically don't contain challenges, just risky activities. If we keep talking just about challenges, we'll never get to how someone at the table is deciding what exactly is 'a challenge'. Further, we wont be getting onto what it's like if that someone isn't the player.
As said, I think your defining the gamist arena by 'the challenges' the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges. What I'm refering to is; when the player is denied input in deciding what constitutes a challenge to begin with.
I am with Callan.
Burning Wheel can be used to address many premises. A great many. Extremely varied. Th BITs are there to tell which the player is interested in.
Likewise, in 3rd ed D&D, one piece of advise occasionally given (in the boards or the book, I don't remember) is to give players challenges (here, mostly fights) they want. If someone takes cleave, do use hordes of opponents. Not all the time, but often enough. If someone takes talky skills, give him someone to talk to. And so on.
And it is very frustrating to not get to use those toys you get from levelling.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 28, 2006, 10:14:00 PM
Responding to Jonathan, but it helps with other peoples posts.
I think your defining the gamist arena by the challenges the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges.
Try thinking of the arena being defined by the risky activities the game contains.
Now, imagine the GM looking at five of those risky activities and thinking to himself "That's the challenge!". While the player is looking at just three of those same activities along with two activities from another part of the arena and thinking "That's the challenge!".
A quick, simple example; a risky activity could be swinging a sword at an orc. The GM could think doing that ten times is A challenge!' while the player could think doing it five or twenty times is A challenge.
So, to get semantic about it, let's separate the word Challenge from the term risky activity. Because games basically don't contain challenges, just risky activities. If we keep talking just about challenges, we'll never get to how someone at the table is deciding what exactly is A challenge. Further, we wont be getting onto what it's like if that someone isn't the player.
As said, I think your defining the gamist arena by the challenges the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges. What I'm referring to is; when the player is denied input in deciding what constitutes a challenge to begin with.
OK, I think I understand what you're getting at. Thus, what would be optimal would be a system that allows players to communicate which risky activities constituted a challenge.
I think Trollbabe illustrates player control of risky activities well - the player decides or helps to decide the scale, the pace, when the conflict ends, etc. Since I'm still working on getting my group to play it, I'm not entirely sure of this hypothesis, but it seems like instead of rewarding the player with relationships, perhaps the Gamist version would reward the player with resources...
And a question: What about games that include only one risky activity? If I design a game that involves gladiators fighting for their lives and the game only ends when the last PC wins or dies, is the risky activity equal to the challenge?
Hi Tommi,
QuoteLikewise, in 3rd ed D&D, one piece of advise occasionally given (in the boards or the book, I don't remember) is to give players challenges (here, mostly fights) they want
I think more along the lines that players should
take the challenge they want, rather than be given it. They see a challenge within the risky activities presented, then take it. A player with cleave, for example, might take up horde fights. Or he might take up a challenge that's half horde fight, half one on one fight, because he see's the challenge there as seeing if he can still handle it all, despite his investment in the cleave resource. Or something else equally complicated and practically impossible for the GM to second guess. Hell, IMO even the player often doesn't know where they will see the challenge, until it happens.
So, if the GM isn't second guessing what challenge they want, what is he doing? I've just got rough ideas at the moment.
Hi Jonathan,
Cool, weve got some common ground going!
QuoteOK, I think I understand what you're getting at. Thus, what would be optimal would be a system that allows players to communicate which risky activities constituted a challenge.
As I said to Tommi, I think they should just take, rather than tell. You know how in Dogs the player just decides if he puts his PC's life on the line? He doesn't communicate to the GM that this is what he wants and wants agreement from the GM about that. He just does it.
QuoteI think Trollbabe illustrates player control of risky activities well - the player decides or helps to decide the scale, the pace, when the conflict ends, etc. Since I'm still working on getting my group to play it, I'm not entirely sure of this hypothesis, but it seems like instead of rewarding the player with relationships, perhaps the Gamist version would reward the player with resources...
Tricky. I feel in gamism, the player should pick from what risky activities are actually there...like the challenge is already inherantly there, but just needs to be 'seen'. Rather than actually deciding variables like the scale, pace, etc.
Drawing from computer games like Grand Theft Auto or Mercenaries, a wide landscape of risky activies is one way to forfil this. Kind of the same, in that the Trollbabe is just deciding the scale or pace, while the gamist is simply picking out the activites he wants. But there's something important about the activity already being 'there', I feel.
I've said 'I feel' twice. Shoot me down! Ron would! :)
QuoteAnd a question: What about games that include only one risky activity? If I design a game that involves gladiators fighting for their lives and the game only ends when the last PC wins or dies, is the risky activity equal to the challenge?
Good question, as I think this is a bit tricky! I think in such a game, the very meta game descision as to whether to play
at all, is where the player determines if it's a challenge or not. In actual play, they don't do any more descisions like that.
In GTA or mercenaries, the wide landscape of risky activities empowers the player, IMO, to decide what is the challenge, while actually playing the game. You get a kind of 'roving' play activity, where the player is on the prowl to spot a challenge. Yes, in a way the player just decides what the challenge is. But I feel it's done at an instinctual 'I know it when I see it' level. It has to be seen, rather than the resources involved being created by the player himself. Or perhaps a player disatisfaction with telling himself all the resources involved, rather than having the input of someone else and spotting the challenge within that.
Rambling side note (ignore if this will make the thread wander): Perhaps this is something else that seperates gamism from standard system use. For example, system use in Capes can be focused and calculating. But there is no room to identify 'what' the challenge is...Capes system challenge is just as obvious as the challenge in chess. Sure, tons tactical permutation in each, but as to the main goal, obvious. The ability to declare your goal during play, to declare the challenge, is absent.
Hey Callan,
Quote from: Callan S. on March 31, 2006, 01:09:17 PMI think more along the lines that players should take the challenge they want, rather than be given it. They see a challenge within the risky activities presented, then take it.
Actually, a way that I am viewing Gamism, is that all play is a potential risk situation and that part of the Step on Up comes is derived from the players ability to assess the amount potential risk in any given situation. This assessment process is not without its own inherent risks and to a certain extent this is the realm where more "guts" are shown as at this point in play there is so little information available upon which to base further action.
On the other hand I believe that play that is heavy on the Gamble is in a sense easier to run for a GM precisely because the GM is less responsible for the outcome. Contrast this with the Crunch where the players aren't looking for a high risk, but a manageable one with a reasonably predictable outcome and the GM has to work to match the players' skills against the subjective difficulty of the Challenge.
Finally I don't believe players look for Challenge in the same way that players look for Premise in Nar play. In Gam play I believe that Challenge is defined post facto it is what the players have Stepped on Up against. We don't know what the players will Step on Up to until they have made that choice.
One question that comes to mind then, is the "crunch" GM supposed to float the difficulty and monitor the eventual outcome so as to "ensure" the result while the "gamble" GM is freer to let things ride out to their eventual conclusion?
Quote from: Callan S. on March 31, 2006, 01:09:17 PM
I think more along the lines that players should take the challenge they want, rather than be given it. They see a challenge within the risky activities presented, then take it. A player with cleave, for example, might take up horde fights. Or he might take up a challenge that's half horde fight, half one on one fight, because he see's the challenge there as seeing if he can still handle it all, despite his investment in the cleave resource. Or something else equally complicated and practically impossible for the GM to second guess. Hell, IMO even the player often doesn't know where they will see the challenge, until it happens.
I see what you're saying about the "players pick the challenge" thing; I was following it in your Rifts PBP thread as well. But the GM, at least in a pretty strong GM-sole-authority-to-introduce outside-events game (like D&D), still has to give the players something to pick. I had a Swashbuckler with Combat Reflexes in a short-lived game, who never got to use it because he never had multiple assailants to set it off. . .the party had to go into a Kobold lair to retrieve some artifact our rogue's guild sent him after, as initiation. I perked up at the thought of fighting a whole swarm of li'l nasties, and seeing if this character's engine would really hum. In the entirety of the "dungeon" (a linear tunnel with a puzzle room and two doors at the end), we fought (ready, now?) an acid slime, and a mimic. Yeah. An acid slime, and a mimic. After all this "you see the crude markings of Kobolds adorning the rough-hewn walls" shit. This was a simple matter of shitty GMing. D&D allows players to tell GMs, very clearly, in quantified terms, what challenges they wish their characters to tackle. So GMs need to give them some. The way you describe our hypothetical cleave-fighter, one gets the impression of him entering a town, seeing "one on one fights down this street," "horde-fights down that alley," "wizard duels behind the tavern," and so on. In actual practice, of course it's not going to be so neat, and even if the GM presents multiple challenge options, he's still in charge of writing the menu.
I know you did refer to this in the phrase, "risky activities
presented," but I guess I'm pointing all this out because I don't see how this invalidates Tommi's point.
Peace,
Callan,
Short version: What Joel said.
Long version: In traditional model, GM can pretty much select which potential premises/challenges the PCs face. Hence, flags.
Even in standard model the GM has harder time choosing how the premise/challenge is dealt with (which I think would be deprotagonisation). I assume that taking all the possible interesting premises/challenges away would be deprotagonising, too.
Do you disagree?
Hi Jay,
QuoteFinally I don't believe players look for Challenge in the same way that players look for Premise in Nar play. In Gam play I believe that Challenge is defined post facto it is what the players have Stepped on Up against. We don't know what the players will Step on Up to until they have made that choice.
I don't quite understand how the player isn't looking for something, but do step up to something. I can only see it that the players must have chosen that something, and to have chosen it they were on the look out for things like that.
Hi Joel,
QuoteBut the GM, at least in a pretty strong GM-sole-authority-to-introduce outside-events game (like D&D), still has to give the players something to pick.
*snip*
D&D allows players to tell GMs, very clearly, in quantified terms, what challenges they wish their characters to tackle. So GMs need to give them some. The way you describe our hypothetical cleave-fighter, one gets the impression of him entering a town, seeing "one on one fights down this street," "horde-fights down that alley," "wizard duels behind the tavern," and so on. In actual practice, of course it's not going to be so neat, and even if the GM presents multiple challenge options, he's still in charge of writing the menu.
No, that leaves some responsiblity in the GM's hands, which deprotagonises the players ability to make a bet (betting involves taking on responsiblity). When the players pick, that leaves some responsiblity with the GM. When the players take, that leaves all responsiblity with them.
Taking means a complete disinterest in the intent of the GM. He doesn't exist, as far as intent goes. Which means he can't screw up either. That also means the only person left who can screw up is...the player. Thus the player is protagonised to take responsiblity. Yay! That's a good thing! He CAN make bets now! I remember a T&T account here where the player asked "How do we feel about slavery?" to which the GM (Ron) replied "I think it's abhorent". The player in question said "I wasn't asking you, your not a player". The GM's intent was surely ignored. :) And any intent brought in with a responce to the slavery, would recieve similar disinterest. Just another risk to face because of previous choices (responsiblity taken), rather than being labeled the act of an vindictive GM (responsiblity rejected).
That leaves some question, I imagine, about 'what if the GM acts like a shit'. Well, then the game is shit, not the GM. Don't play that game. That's a harsh reality that many nar or sim designs don't have to take into account when designing, because in them the player and GM can both take on some of the responsiblity of events and it doesn't deprotagonise anyone.
Quote from: Melinglor on March 31, 2006, 10:57:20 PM
The way you describe our hypothetical cleave-fighter, one gets the impression of him entering a town, seeing "one on one fights down this street," "horde-fights down that alley," "wizard duels behind the tavern," and so on. In actual practice, of course it's not going to be so neat, and even if the GM presents multiple challenge options, he's still in charge of writing the menu.
Well, why not?
Quite a number of games use a sort of marked location on a map system, and then let the players choose what they want to investigate, whether this be venerable boardgames with inverted tokens or modern CRPG's with quest locations. The same device could be used in tabletop quite easily. Although you would not want anything too cheesy, of course, the art would be building a quest that was also entertaining and deepened the setting. And then, if you don't have the cleave ability, for example, you ignore that quest for the meanwhile and acquire it through character development and levelling, and come back to to the mission later.
The problem with such a design is the degree to which it impinges on other desires, for story and setting.
I think Callan is correct to say that it is important for the challenge to be seen. This is because the sense of triumph is dependant on our own assesment of our abilities versus the challenge; we measure our own success by the kind and degree of challenge we can handle. So there is a sense of progression and mastery from the conquest of challenges that were previously too difficult.
Jay wrote:
QuoteContrast this with the Crunch where the players aren't looking for a high risk, but a manageable one with a reasonably predictable outcome and the GM has to work to match the players' skills against the subjective difficulty of the Challenge.
...
One question that comes to mind then, is the "crunch" GM supposed to float the difficulty and monitor the eventual outcome so as to "ensure" the result while the "gamble" GM is freer to let things ride out to their eventual conclusion?
I don't think this is correct; a Crunch challenge can be just as risky, in terms of what is risked, as a Gamble. The distinction is the degree and frequency of randomness inherent to deciding outcomes. Diplomacy is pure Crunch and you can still lose the game.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 31, 2006, 01:09:17 PM
Hi Jonathan,
As I said to Tommi, I think they should just take, rather than tell. You know how in Dogs the player just decides if he puts his PC's life on the line? He doesn't communicate to the GM that this is what he wants and wants agreement from the GM about that. He just does it.
QuoteI think Trollbabe illustrates player control of risky activities well - the player decides or helps to decide the scale, the pace, when the conflict ends, etc. Since I'm still working on getting my group to play it, I'm not entirely sure of this hypothesis, but it seems like instead of rewarding the player with relationships, perhaps the Gamist version would reward the player with resources...
Tricky. I feel in gamism, the player should pick from what risky activities are actually there...like the challenge is already inherently there, but just needs to be 'seen'. Rather than actually deciding variables like the scale, pace, etc.
Drawing from computer games like Grand Theft Auto or Mercenaries, a wide landscape of risky activies is one way to fulfil this. Kind of the same, in that the Trollbabe is just deciding the scale or pace, while the gamist is simply picking out the activities he wants. But there's something important about the activity already being 'there', I feel.
I've said 'I feel' twice. Shoot me down! Ron would! :)
Some thoughts:
I think that players could either "take or tell" challenges. It reminds me of the beginning of conflict resolution, some systems have the players declare that they want a conflict, while others assume that it begins based on certain cues.
I also think that allowing the player to determine scale, pace, etc. would be reasonable in a system in which challenges were formally announced.
The risky ideas should be suggested by the setting, but they don't need to be explicitly laid out.
Here's my experience that I base these ideas on...
Often, after making D20 Star Wars or Rolemaster characters, my group will take the characters and pair off in combat. There is no need for a GM, it's definitely a challenge to see who wins the fight, and the setting is often a jointly constructed thing. I see this as a formally declared challenge with all the particulars (setting, pace, scale, etc.) being determined by the players. The setting of Star Wars or LOTR suggests certain risky activities, but no where do I remember a fight in Tolkien's books that took place on log rafts on the Anduin. I have to post that one sometime, if only for Silmenume's enjoyment (you are the one that loves Middle Earth, no?)
So, we have the GTA example of having many risky activities available. The player's choice of risky activities informs us as to the challenge he's interested in. And we have the pair-off and fight example, where the risky activities and therefore the challenge is defined by the players formally. In the first case, I think that it is important for the game designer to be aware of all the risky elements available in the setting and make sure that the characters have the ability to be created in such a way that they can challenge any combination of those elements. In the second case, the designer can present a more limit set of risky elements and thus have the characters be more defined in scope. Either way, the designer needs to make sure that the characters are tied to the risky elements in the setting. I hope that's not too obvious for me to state (I have a talent for stating the obvious).
Callan, I think I just understood what you are after.
Gamism can manifest as "Look! I am skilled/daring enough to try THIS!", so picking one's challenges is very important.
Is this it?
Callan,
I think maybe we're talking past each other or something. I totally get (or think I do) the idea of players choosing their conflicts, proactively, not just reacting to a GM's threat-of-the-week. But unless we're talking about shared setting creation, which is not an explicit part of, say, D&D, the GM is still the one in charge of introducing those challenges into play. The player cannot choose horde-fights as his challenge if the DM does not introduce any horde-fights. No matter whether the game is a railroaded linear track or a wide-open playing field, populating that field is still the GM's territory.
Yes, you could have play where players have more direct say in what is introduced into the SIS. That's definitely cool and interesting, but still is a subset of the available types of Gamist play. It sounds like you're formulating concepts for applicability to the whole spectrum of Gamist play, so I would think you'd want the ideas to relate to, for example, play with more traditional Player/GM division of labor.
Peace,
Hi Jonathan,
I think we've got some good solid shared ground between us.
QuoteEither way, the designer needs to make sure that the characters are tied to the risky elements in the setting.
How strong should that tie be between PC and risky elements? Too strong and the player is forced into particular risk engagements? Too weak and...well, I don't know, I've always thought in terms of 'the game should engage me' and those ties being too weak would defeat that. But if what I'm suggesting is true, that players should engage the game, then perhaps there just needs to be some way of allowing the player to determine the strength of those ties? I guess it'd kind of like being 'bah, boring fight, boring fight, I wont bother tying my health resource closely to their damage, - oh wait, look at this cloud castle ambush fight! Awesome, I fully link in my health to their damage!"
Hmm, I think this sort of happens in games like GTA or mercenaries. There are ways of getting health, for example, which are relatively easy to do. But in the middle of a cool fight, I haven't wanted to go off and use these because - well, they just seemed outside of the scope of the battle. What do you think? Does that tie into what you mean by scope? Or am I being too abstract?
Hi Joel,
I would agree a player who hasn't taken up responsibility does force the GM to take up responsibility in providing challenges. Contrast these two examples:
1. The player takes cleave because it just sounds cool. When he goes into play and there aren't hordes, he looks at the GM pointedly.
2. The player takes cleave, betting from the setting information that there will be hordes. When there aren't hordes in the game, the player goes "Damn! I made the wrong bet!" and kicks
himself.
The first example forces the GM to take responsibility, because the player isn't willing to make a bet on whether there will be hordes. In other words, he isn't willing to take on the possibility of disappointment (in taking the cleave feat). If the player isn't willing to be disappointed, then the GM is forced into ensuring he isn't.
In terms of the whole spectrum of gamism, 'The GM introduces the challenges' and it's reasons for existing isn't something that's part and parcel of traditional gamism, it's actually an absence of the agenda.
Hi Tommi,
QuoteGamism can manifest as "Look! I am skilled/daring enough to try THIS!", so picking one's challenges is very important.
Is this it?
Yes! If your noting that if another person (like the GM) decides to alter the details of 'THIS' after the players stated it, that players statement is being screwed with. Specifically when the other person alters the details so as to fit their prefered idea of what 'THIS' should be.
Quote from: Melinglor on April 05, 2006, 03:01:53 PM
I think maybe we're talking past each other or something. I totally get (or think I do) the idea of players choosing their conflicts, proactively, not just reacting to a GM's threat-of-the-week. But unless we're talking about shared setting creation, which is not an explicit part of, say, D&D, the GM is still the one in charge of introducing those challenges into play. The player cannot choose horde-fights as his challenge if the DM does not introduce any horde-fights. No matter whether the game is a railroaded linear track or a wide-open playing field, populating that field is still the GM's territory.
Not necessarily, there is room for a third person, the author. That is, the challenges could be determined and the field populated by a party wholly external to the local play group; acceptance of these decisions can be part of the initial social contract agreement to play This Game, much as, say, the random placement of Orcs in the board setup for Wizards Quest (6 provinces in each region, roll 2d6 until you get different numbers for each region, place 2 orc counters in those provinces.) Or, there is analogy with computer games in which the authors write the content and the local CPU executes that content for the player.
Under those circumstances the GM can fall back to a refereeing function that is more administrative than authorial.
Callan wrote
Quote
In terms of the whole spectrum of gamism, 'The GM introduces the challenges' and it's reasons for existing isn't something that's part and parcel of traditional gamism, it's actually an absence of the agenda.
Yes, consider the earlier D&D forms (basic, expert, master series), in which dungeons were rated by level, and you built up to handle them; or in the way that you might pull out of a dungeon in order to restock, or send the thief to scout and take on only those areas you thought you could handle. I recall a Dragon article on the topic of "getting out while you still have some 'bottom'", that is, when you still have some resources to expend (arrows, charges, spell slots, potions) to be sure of making your escape. There was both high visibility ("for characters levels 1-3" on the back) and 'engagement at will'.
Quote from: Callan S. on April 06, 2006, 01:04:50 AM
How strong should that tie be between PC and risky elements? Too strong and the player is forced into particular risk engagements? Too weak and...well, I don't know, I've always thought in terms of 'the game should engage me' and those ties being too weak would defeat that. But if what I'm suggesting is true, that players should engage the game, then perhaps there just needs to be some way of allowing the player to determine the strength of those ties? I guess it'd kind of like being 'bah, boring fight, boring fight, I wont bother tying my health resource closely to their damage, - oh wait, look at this cloud castle ambush fight! Awesome, I fully link in my health to their damage!"
I'm thinking that most traditional RPG's assume that the risky activities that the players are interested in involve combat, so they build a combat system that involves more detailed resolution for that activity. One idea I'm leaning toward in theory is a system that would allow players build a character with something similiar, though probably more focused. Thus, if my character was interesting in having taking cleave, whenever he was in the situation that it was appropriate for, he'd use the full resolution system. But, if he was in a situation where he just needed to use his fists, he'd use a simpler resolution mechanic. In contrast, you could have a character who took brawling, and he'd use the more complex resolution system when he was fist-fighting. Of course, using the more complex system should have a greater risk-reward associated with it. Another idea... the player could decide when to use the more detailed system (and it's attendant risk/reward) whenever he felt the inclination (which is what I think Dogs allows you to do, I'm not sure, I need to buy it). Whichever method you employed, the players would get some say in which ties to risk were the strongest. Allowing them to vary the strength of those ties would be more complex, but I'm thinking about ways to do that.
I keep thinking that Trollbabe could be an awesome Gamist engine, though I'd switch it up and call it Conman or Hustle or something where the stakes always involve getting something for the character or the character getting out of trouble. I'm really thinking about trying it that way... Thoughts?
QuoteThus, if my character was interesting in having taking cleave, whenever he was in the situation that it was appropriate for, he'd use the full resolution system.
What about if the player could decide to still use the basic resolution system with cleave? So that would mean
he would decide when the situation was appropriate for complicated system use (which also takes responsiblity off the GM to make every situation an appropriate one). Does that fit what you had in mind?
QuoteI keep thinking that Trollbabe could be an awesome Gamist engine, though I'd switch it up and call it Conman or Hustle or something where the stakes always involve getting something for the character or the character getting out of trouble. I'm really thinking about trying it that way... Thoughts?
I've also wondered about whether nar game systems could be flipped over somehow. But they always prompt some reason for any action, rather than "Why did I climb the mountain? Because it was there!" action. The issue in nar games usually has no approach vector which is not a moral question and based in the game world. All the stuff you can use in dogs seems to be about your characters mindset. In capes, there's nothing that exists in game world that you can use and all the mechanics have moral sounding tags. There's no way to touch the goal without making a statement.
General side note for the thread: I think of, damn, years I've been trying to codify 'the challenge' I wanted in a game. I've certainly enjoyed many challenges in many game formats. I'd often find one and while still in the fire of the moment go 'There, I'll use that one!". But then I'd go cold on it as it came time to just focus on that challenge...it didn't seem so hot latter on. Because basically I was looking to define my own challenge whilst playing the game - I didn't want a fixed challenge, even if it was made by me originally! I'd be applying force to my own descision about what is THE challenge.
What alot of wasted design time, because of that hurdle.
Quote from: Callan S. on April 07, 2006, 03:35:33 PM
QuoteThus, if my character was interesting in having taking cleave, whenever he was in the situation that it was appropriate for, he'd use the full resolution system.
What about if the player could decide to still use the basic resolution system with cleave? So that would mean he would decide when the situation was appropriate for complicated system use (which also takes responsiblity off the GM to make every situation an appropriate one). Does that fit what you had in mind?
QuoteI keep thinking that Trollbabe could be an awesome Gamist engine, though I'd switch it up and call it Conman or Hustle or something where the stakes always involve getting something for the character or the character getting out of trouble. I'm really thinking about trying it that way... Thoughts?
I've also wondered about whether nar game systems could be flipped over somehow. But they always prompt some reason for any action, rather than "Why did I climb the mountain? Because it was there!" action. The issue in nar games usually has no approach vector which is not a moral question and based in the game world. All the stuff you can use in dogs seems to be about your characters mindset. In capes, there's nothing that exists in game world that you can use and all the mechanics have moral sounding tags. There's no way to touch the goal without making a statement.
Yes to your "cleave" response. I think that could work as a both an in-game answer to stepping on up and as an implicit signal to the other players that the player is doing so. As for Trollbabe, I can see now that it would need some major retrofitting, to the point that only the basic mechanics would be similiar, to have it address Gamist preferences.