The Forge Archives

My buddy A and I are co-designing a game.  We've each run campaigns with 4 players, both have been mostly quite enjoyable, but the enjoyment has derived from rather disparate sources.

In A's game, 3 of the 4 players were engineers, who have traditionally been rules-exploiters and game-breakers, among other things.  A's game gave them nothing they could break or exploit for unfair advantages according to the rules.  However, A was sure to fill his game with complicated physical situations, and the engineers greatly enjoyed problem-solving in these.  Stuck on the second floor of a three-story wooden structure with giant rats swarming down the chimney and only furniture, fire and swords at their disposal, everyone had a great time achieving an effective solution to the dilemma.  Mostly, it worked because A had a very detailed dscription of the environment (what's the biggest chair made out of? are any parts of it hollow?), a grasp of physics no worse than his players, and had guessed correctly at an appropriate difficulty level.  At the end, players were congratulating each other for good ideas and reveling in the combo of resourcefulness and luck (die rolls were involved in fighting rats and jamming objects into small spaces) that had allowed them to escape alive.

In my game, I have one player (a med student) who wants to be important and change the world, one player (a banker) who likes killing stuff and drugging people, one player (an actor) who likes investigating things and realistically portraying a kid, and one player (a political lackey) who likes strategy.  The banker's been happiest when standing victorious atop a pile of werewolf corpses, the other players' eyes wide at his combat effectiveness.  The med student's been happiest when conferring with NPC superiors who value the results he's produced as an investigator.  The actor's been happiest when crawling down a hole and finding a tunnel coated in corrosive sludge, as well as when interacting with the politician's character, who's somewhat adopted him -- the two of them have cracked up out of game after many in-game conversations portrayed with particular flair.  The politician's most enjoyed the approval and congratulations on his successful plan to hoist the injured guy through the hole in the cave ceiling without setting off the magical alarm.

My point is that, on the subject of social rewards, here's what I've observed:

As a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

However, a poster here recently explained to me the concept and function of a rewards system (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20099.msg210319#msg210319).  "How could this possibly be a mechanical game system?" I thought.  "If one's goal is to reinforce certain social practices which one's gaming group enjoys, don't the reinforcements need to be tailored to the tastes and preferences of those specific players?  And doesn't that, by definition, rule out the mechanics of the game, which are intended for use by various types of players and groups?"

If I sound like I am naysaying years of Forge wisdom here (am I? I have no idea), that is not my intent, I am just trying to get a handle on how a lot of the new concepts I'm running into might be implemented.  (Sydney, I read that entire thread you linked (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18387.msg194369#msg194369), and did not find an answer to my question.)

Thanks,
-Dave

Your example is actually a really good one. Imagine how much easier your friend's GMing job would've been, and how much more easily other players with other GMs could've replicated the same kind of fun, if they'd been playing a game with pages of easily-referenced tables on the strength of various materials, typical household objects, ready-to-go floorplans, etc., all translated from English/metric units into game-mechanical terms designed to fit precisely with the combat, movement, and gadgeteering systems? Compare this hypothetical game -- "Physics: the Engineering," or maybe just a very detailed GURPS supplement -- to trying to get the same people to play through the same scenario in D&D, or World of Darkness: The GM would have to prep massively and wing things constantly (e.g. your friend A's "a grasp of physics no worse than his players" and his ability to "guess...at an appropriate difficulty level").

Now, that's a question of "system does matter" in general; what does that specifically have to say about reward systems? First of all, a game gives you lots of game-mechanical guidance and options for a specific way of problem-solving is definitely rewarding players who solve problems in that way. Even if character improvement isn't at issue, character survival is a hell of a reward!
Now, tie in a character-improvement system that makes you better at the chosen form of problem-solving for every time you succeed (or even try and fail) to solve a problem in that way, and you have a very powerful feedback loop.
Thus, D&D works beautifully if you enjoy fighting and killing dangerous enemies: There are lots of rules to give you interesting options on how to do it (especially in the d20 version, with all the Feats), and the more you do it the better you get at it. D&D tends to sputter when you try to do intrigue or chivalric romance, because the rules really don't tell you how in an interesting way ("Okay, roll your Charisma! Roll your Charisma again! Again! Again!") and they don't give you much of a mechanical reward for doing it, so the players and GM have to do all the work of making these activities fun with no help from the system.
So you end up relying entirely on the GM and the players having enough personal knowledge to make something up on the spot -- which can be a lot of fun, and thus a hugely powerful reward system, but a purely informal and unwritten one. We RPGers are so used to doing this to make our games work that we take it for granted, but in fact, every time we have to resort to such do-it-yourself to make the game enjoyable, that's evidence that the game designers didn't do their job.

Now, the corrolary of all this is that you can't design a game that will maximize fun for everybody. (Although people with different tastes can find areas of overlap and enjoy the same thing, if only as a change of pace). In fact, trying to include something for everyone is the best way to ensure that nobody really enjoys it -- if you don't go crazy trying to design the damn thing first. But that doesn't simply mean that every single group of gamers has to invent their own solution, because people don't vary that much: Hack & slash D&D is fun for thousands of people, hundreds of people rave about Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. etc.

In the case of your gaming group -- the "change the world" med student, the "kill and dominate" banker, the "find stuff out" actor, and the "strategist" politico -- everyone's pretty much into being competent and effective. (That doesn't mean that they wouldn't enjoy hard-driving moral dilemma games where it's taken for granted that you're powerful and the question is what you do with it, like Dogs; they've probably never been exposed to that kind of game, so there's no way to tell). So a well-designed system for them might include
(a) 3-4 different but equally viable sets of tactical options, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, in both combat (e.g. beserk attack, ambush, playing it safe, dirty tricks) and interpersonal influence & intrigue (e.g. bluff 'em, empathize & win their sympathy, irresistable logic, intimidation). This rewards your kill/dominate and investigator types by making their creative thinking about how to do their favorite activities actually count, in hard game-mechanical terms, instead of being up to "does the GM think your idea would work or not?"
(b) specific mechanics for how individual actions affect large groups and institutions, and how those larger forces then can affect individuals in turn. This is a huge reward for the "change the world" guy and "strategist," since it makes the linkage between "this cunning or noble thing I do here and now" and "the broader impact of my actions on the world" into something concrete and clearly defined, instead of (again) "does the GM think your idea would work or not?"
(c) character improvement based on risking yourself in a serious way, regardless of whether you suceed or fail (rewards for sucess are amply handled by (b) above). Whereas lots of systems effectively reward you for playing it safe and boring, this would encourage players to take risks and try interesting things, because even if they fail, they still get XPs (or whatever) that makes them better prepared to try again next time.

I fear this discussion is getting dangerously general, so before the moderators start getting antsy, I'd encourage you to ponder how this relates to your specific design goals for Lendrhald and pose specific questions in your other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113).

Quote from: David Berg on June 14, 2006, 09:46:36 PMAs a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

Rules remain unbiased, even when you become biased. I think being biased is not only likely, but key to each player/GM having fun.

Like your example with the three story structure and rats, what if the GM had a specific answer in mind - so much so, in fact, that he was pumped about the answer. And when the players all come up with their answer and high five each other, the GM just grunts and says no, it doesn't work.

That'd be crap. The common answer is for the GM to become some sort of unbiased monk, who never falls to the temptation of caring about particular stuff.

However, with rules the GM could care about a specific solution. He could look at the players solution and thinks it utterly absurd. But then they use the rules, which are unbiased. And they pull it off and the GM has this 'oh my god' moment. He could not have that moment unless he cared about another solution. And if he did care about another solution, without unbiased rules, he's simply be grunting to players 'nah, doesn't work'. Those are my thoughts.

QuoteHowever, a poster here recently explained to me the concept and function of a rewards system (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20099.msg210319#msg210319).  "How could this possibly be a mechanical game system?" I thought.  "If one's goal is to reinforce certain social practices which one's gaming group enjoys, don't the reinforcements need to be tailored to the tastes and preferences of those specific players?  And doesn't that, by definition, rule out the mechanics of the game, which are intended for use by various types of players and groups?"

Bold mine.

With chess, it reinforces practices which I don't naturally enjoy. However, at a higher level I like engaging practices that I don't normally enjoy. It's like trying new foods, not because you know you like the food that you haven't tasted yet, but because you like the whole idea of trying new foods. A game system could cater to what the group enjoys/the foods they have eaten before. But it can also cater to the desire to try new foods. This actually means making a game system which produces kind of unfamiliar results. But then again, remember how rewarding beer was, once you learnt to enjoy the bitter taste and not just see it as yuck? Again, my thoughts.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
Imagine how much easier your friend's GMing job would've been, and how much more easily other players with other GMs could've replicated the same kind of fun, if they'd been playing a game with pages of easily-referenced tables on the strength of various materials, typical household objects, ready-to-go floorplans, etc., all translated from English/metric units into game-mechanical terms designed to fit precisely with the combat, movement, and gadgeteering systems?

You are 100% correct.  If I can ever overcome the amount of boredom involved, I will create exactly that.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
a game [that] gives you lots of game-mechanical guidance and options for a specific way of problem-solving is definitely rewarding players who solve problems in that way.

Perhaps I have handicapped my system options to an enormous degree by striving for realism.  In my game, the GM's judgment of whether or not something works is intended to be predicated on, "would it work in the real world?" regardless of how much fun that determination is for a player.  It is my hope that these small-scale sacrifices in immediate fun will be outweighed by a larger-scale gain: the players will feel that the gameworld is fully functional, not just there for their benefit, and it will outlive them and the current campaign -- it's as real as imaginary worlds can be, and easy to immerse yourself in.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
D&D tends to sputter when you try to do intrigue or chivalric romance, because the rules really don't tell you how in an interesting way ("Okay, roll your Charisma! Roll your Charisma again! Again! Again!")

Your point leads me to observe: By virtue of having a combat system and not having a romance system, D&D appears more intended for fighting than loving, and attracts players with corresponding aims.  So I will take this as a reminder to focus in my material on character activities that I expect players to enjoy.

That said, I don't see how, in most of the situations I mentioned (blocking a chimney, finding a rune, killing a foe, rigging a harness, getting a nod from the emperor), the player rewards (excitement about what the character's accomplished, smiles and praise from other players) benefit much from mechanical supplementation.  ("Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!"  Which are really the important parts here?)

To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous, and to the extent that they reward anything that does not make sense in game, they're unacceptable given my realism preference.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
and they don't give you much of a mechanical reward for doing it, so the players and GM have to do all the work of making these activities fun with no help from the system.

It seems to me that a system doesn't need to encourage players to do what they already want to do (it simply can't interfere); nor does it need to make success simpler and easier (many players prefer a good challenge and need for creativity); nor does it need to make in-game success more directly rewarding for the player (see +1 to Puzzle above); nor does it need to provide consolation prizes when a character fails (it should suck to fail, for reasons of maintaining some dramatic tension).

The system needs to do a satisfactory job governing action outcomes within the gameworld, but beyond that, I don't see a need for additional rewards, direct to the players.  Does this mean that I have system-lite preferences as a gamer, or am I still missing the point on the potential uses of rewards systems for my game?

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
So you end up relying entirely on the GM and the players having enough personal knowledge to make something up on the spot . . . every time we have to resort to such do-it-yourself to make the game enjoyable, that's evidence that the game designers didn't do their job.

Maybe they didn't do their job in filling in the holes in the players' and GM's personal knowledge, but that's a matter or providing info, not systems, right?  Every time you do it yourself, that's evidence that the game designers didn't anticipate every possible scenario, right?

If Lendrhald Player A wants to push a 25-pound box on Badguy's head while Badguy's engaged in a fight with Player B, and there's no rule in the rulebook that says whether pushing a heavy box is more like drawing a sword (1 round) or lifting a water barrel (2 rounds) -- and Player B is going to get fatally impaled after the end of 1 more round, and his life depends on Player A's speed, and now the GM has to make a terrible judgment call -- is this an instance of me being a bad designer, or an instance where I get a pass for not writing a two million page rulebook?

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on June 14, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
I fear this discussion is getting dangerously general, so before the moderators start getting antsy, I'd encourage you to ponder how this relates to your specific design goals for Lendrhald and pose specific questions in your other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113).

I've done my best to keep this post as directly related to my specific game and play experiences as possible, but I will follow your suggestion shortly.  Before I leave this more general discussion, however, I'd like to see if I've understood your points. 

If your main point (beyond what I've already discussed) is that gameplay enjoyment can be enhanced by simplifying and codifying certain situations (beyond "what would your total options be in reality" and "what would work in reality"), and adding in-game or out-of-game outcomes to that situation resolution (beyond "what would the result be in reality"), then:

I get it, but don't see how I can use it in my current, reality-focused project. 

Alas, I still get the impression that I may be missing the forest for the trees...

I really appreciate your taking the time and effort to introduce me to some new concepts, and if you should tire of the exercise I shall harbor no hard fellings.  I hope this is as fun (or mentally stimulating, at least) for you as it is for me...
-Dave

Quote from: Callan S. on June 15, 2006, 02:45:43 AM
Rules remain unbiased, even when you become biased. I think being biased is not only likely, but key to each player/GM having fun.

I'm with you on that.  I wasn't intending to discuss the merits of whether to use an in-game arbitration system, only the merits of whether to use a "reward the player" system beyond reality-governed arbitration.

Quote from: Callan S. on June 15, 2006, 02:45:43 AM
A game system could cater to what the group enjoys/the foods they have eaten before. But it can also cater to the desire to try new foods. This actually means making a game system which produces kind of unfamiliar results.

Yeah, my current game is a mix of me trying to cater to what the players already like (by presenting certain obstacles), and forcing them to deal with details that enrich the world (taxes, bureaucracy, moon cycles, seasonal cycles, harsh climate, inability to afford horses and armor).  Thus far, dealing with wind, cold, poverty, and bastards in power has frustrated the characters greatly, but the players only mildly, and I am fairly confident it's added to the overall experience...

Hmm, maybe I should make official some rules I used for hypothermia, just so their presence in a rulebook accurately indicates the nature of the game...

Quote from: David Berg on June 15, 2006, 03:06:47 AMI'm with you on that.  I wasn't intending to discuss the merits of whether to use an in-game arbitration system, only the merits of whether to use a "reward the player" system beyond reality-governed arbitration.

If I understand you correctly then I'd say I think of those two things as exactly the same thing. A rule which determines damage from a fall isn't a 'in game arbitration' rule while a 'I give you a point from my pool cause you really contributed to the conflict IMO' isn't a 'reward the player' rule. To me, both reward players and both influence the game world. There's no distinction between them.

Okay, a complicated way of saying "I think I am talking about what you want". But I'll leave it if it doesn't fit.

Quote from: David Berg on June 15, 2006, 02:52:48 AM
That said, I don't see how, in most of the situations I mentioned (blocking a chimney, finding a rune, killing a foe, rigging a harness, getting a nod from the emperor), the player rewards (excitement about what the character's accomplished, smiles and praise from other players) benefit much from mechanical supplementation.  ("Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!"  Which are really the important parts here?)

To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous, and to the extent that they reward anything that does not make sense in game, they're unacceptable given my realism preference.

Hi, David,

You say, "To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous". They are not superfluous, and here's why: they indicate to everyone playing the game that the objective is to do what makes sense in-game. Without that reward, a new player to the game might misunderstand what the point of the game is. But with that reward, it's really clear: the player is rewarded for ensuring that the game world always makes sense.

Quote from: David Berg on June 15, 2006, 02:52:48 AM
It seems to me that a system doesn't need to encourage players to do what they already want to do (it simply can't interfere)...

Here is the other benefit of reward systems. Suppose that a player named Joe is the one who said, "Cool, I solved the riddle, impressed Bob, and got +1 to my Puzzle skill!" In the next session, by contrast, Joe is tired from a long day at the office (and doesn't feel like solving the riddle), and Bob is getting on his nerves for whatever reason (so Joe doesn't feel like impressing Bob). That last support, the mechanical one (+1 to Puzzle), is still there to encourage Joe to play the game. It is certainly possible that this might not be enough, but at least it's there, so it might have some benefit for Joe. Without it, though, Joe has no encouragement to play the game, because the other two rewards are supplied by Joe, not the game system.

Does that help?

Quote from: Callan S. on June 15, 2006, 06:30:40 AM
A rule which determines damage from a fall isn't a 'in game arbitration' rule while a 'I give you a point from my pool cause you really contributed to the conflict IMO' isn't a 'reward the player' rule. To me, both reward players and both influence the game world. There's no distinction between them.

Sure, saying, "You fell from 70 feet.  If that happened in the real world, you'd die.  Therefore, you die," is a type of reward system.  But I think its effect on play is rather different than a reward system that says, "On top of dying, you also get 25 Embarrassment Points, which means your party members can now loot your corpse and leave you to rot guilt-free."  See my response to Sydney (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20115.msg210383#msg210383) for a more detailed description of the distinction as I see it.

Quote from: David Berg on June 14, 2006, 09:46:36 PMAs a GM, I try to know my players, and put them in situations where they can get involved with either realistic functionalism, hidden secrets, or logistical obstacles, or other stuff, depending on what I think they'd like.  If I do a good job, a fertile ground for social rewards is established.  I have trouble imagining how something I read in a rulebook could make this process easier or more successful.

I am setting up a Burning Wheel one-shot right now that answers this kind of question, I think.

Joe can't make it to the game this week and we like to have all three players and the GM together when we play.  So, I suggested a Burning Wheel game, knowing that Bret and Bob, the two remaining players, are hungry to play it.

After a series of e-mails, we agree on the last elves who haven't gone west, left in an elven citadel, perhaps guarding something.  They have stayed out of some kind of passion or anger or vendetta, yet to be determined.

I won't know what the adventure is going to be until I see their Beliefs, which they will write during the character creation.  Their Beliefs will tell me what about this situation they are in (last of the elves on the continent) that interests them.

So, if Bob has a belief, the King of Men is a dolt who does not deserve to have his throne in our now dead queen's Shining Citadel and I will show him the error of his hubris with my arrows...bam, the game is going to be about that conflict between the King and you.

If Bret has a belief, Orcs should have been purged from the continent before the last elf leaves and I myself will kill hunt their greatest leader through the mountains, you damn well better know there will be some orc hunting.

They are roommates, so I know that they will create their beliefs together and with some direction, these Beliefs will feed into one another.

These Beliefs aren't about what the character cares about...who cares what a fictional dingus cares about?  These Beliefs are about what turns the player on.

And they get rewarded with Artha for chasing down their Beliefs and acting on them.

Other links to look at:

Deep in the Game: Flag Framing (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html")

Creating the Scenario with the Character Sheets in Front of Me (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18072.0")

A reward system can also be used to motivate the player to engage into a desired feeling or mood.

The question is: In a Lendrhald game, what is it that enforces the dark fantasy feeling? From what I can see from the description of your players, it must be you, as the GM, that 'forces' the dark feeling into the game, for the player don't seem to be the kind that naturally goes there (I may be totally wrong here, but I hope you will see my point anyway).

Now think about if you had a mechanic that in a fair way motivated the players to engage in the 'dark fantasy' feeling by rewarding them for enhance the horror and making thing more scary for their characters.

Something have to force the dark feeling into the game. The question is: should it be the GM or should it be the system?

- Anders

It seems to be the case that a lot of responsibilities that I have always figured to be the duty of a good GM are unofficial in the games I have played, but more official (or at least officially encouraged) in some other systems.  To the extent that these duties are assisted by helpful hints in some games, I say "Great!"  I like helpful hints.  Any published form of Lendrhald will certainly have helpful hints on solving physical problems, creating character backstory, and any number of methods to maintain realism.  (In A's game, he made all enemy dice rolls behind the screen, and refused to have even the most trivial "character 1 is here but 2 is not" discussions in front of character 2's player.  I don't know if you'll believe me, but I actually found it more effective than annoying!)

What I'm wondering is, when is it a good idea to turn helpful hints into system mechanics?

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 15, 2006, 01:00:25 PM
You say, "To the extent that direct-to-player mechanical rewards support doing what makes sense in-game, they seem borderline superfluous". They are not superfluous, and here's why: they indicate to everyone playing the game that the objective is to do what makes sense in-game. Without that reward, a new player to the game might misunderstand what the point of the game is. But with that reward, it's really clear: the player is rewarded for ensuring that the game world always makes sense.

A helpful hint might be effective too, but I see your point: the majority of the time, a reward system will be more effective.  It's quick to read, easy to remember, simple to understand, and motivation in itself, all benefits over, say, 40 pages of setting material.  But I think I see trade-offs that outweigh these benefits:

In Lendrhald's case, the entire setting and current resolution mechanics are designed to ensure that failing to do what makes sense in-game will get you killed.  And it's worked so far, in terms of pretty much any issue that could get you killed.  Sometimes players have done things that didn't make sense in social situations in-game, but those were issues of lack of knowledge about the setting (I blame myself for not making them read more orientation material), not issues of being disinclined to do what made sense.

The unofficial system in place is: "If you do something that doesn't make sense, the GM will inform you that those actions would appear stupid or psychotic in the gameworld, so you might want to take them back and try again in such and such fashion."  I could institute an official system of Stigma points and Marked For Death points, and give players Rewind points that they could use to remove a certain number of Stigmatized or Death-Marked moments... it would encourage players to read up on my world more... but it would also encourage meta-gamey thinking and be more jarring to the course of play than my current method...

If you're doing it for points (my Caution and Credibility went up!) rather than in-game rewards (you don't wind up lost in the woods, you don't get looked at like a moron by the guy you're pumping for info), then your head's not in the right place...  I don't want to encourage that kind of dissociation from the gameworld, and having points out there to be gained risks doing exactly that.

Does that make sense or do I just sound paranoid?

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 15, 2006, 01:00:25 PM
Joe is tired from a long day at the office (and doesn't feel like solving the riddle), and Bob is getting on his nerves for whatever reason (so Joe doesn't feel like impressing Bob). That last support, the mechanical one (+1 to Puzzle), is still there to encourage Joe to play the game. It is certainly possible that this might not be enough, but at least it's there, so it might have some benefit for Joe. Without it, though, Joe has no encouragement to play the game, because the other two rewards are supplied by Joe, not the game system.

That is an excellent summary of an important dynamic.  My game is fairly demanding on players, as they are free to pursue what interests them, with no GM coercion, and sometimes they don't really get enthused about doing whatever they'd previously decided to do, nor about picking a new course.  On those occasions, they might rather play a board game... but does that mean that I should turn my RPG into one?  If they're not interested in the in-game concerns, I'm not sure I want to lead them along with mechanical bribes...

I hope my purism doesn't leave me with an audience of one... but it hasn't thus far...

Quote from: Paka on June 15, 2006, 04:44:09 PM
These Beliefs aren't about what the character cares about...who cares what a fictional dingus cares about? These Beliefs are about what turns the player on.

This set-up sounds like a fantastic form of a helpful hint.  I'm lovin' it.  But then you say:

Quote from: Paka on June 15, 2006, 04:44:09 PM
And they get rewarded with Artha for chasing down their Beliefs and acting on them.

Huh?  What's Artha?  Does its existence and the pursuit of it really improve the game beyond the contributions of simply generating Beliefs?  (I know, I'm being impatient... I really will play Burning Wheel one of these days and find out first-hand...)

Quote from: Anders Larsen on June 15, 2006, 05:30:50 PM
Something have to force the dark feeling into the game. The question is: should it be the GM or should it be the system?

My answer would be that this job belongs to the setting.  But perhaps that isn't realistic.  Not every part of the world is dark, so in theory the players could choose to hang around in town and make friends, drink beer, chase women, trade goods, etc. 

If they did this, I would probably try to appeal to their curiosity by saying, "Some guy runs by screaming.  You see that his face looks melted, dripping unnaturally.  You've never seen anything like it."  The setting says that things like that can happen in the world.  The GM decides that it happens where the players can see it.  Perhaps a random table of setting-appropriate curiosity-arousing incidents could be included within the rules, to help out uninspired GMs.

I am having trouble thinking of how a player rewards system would produce better results.  If the world and the GM fail to arouse players' curiosity, I don't think saying, "Your Curiosity Seeker trait means you'll earn points if you check it out!" is a desirable solution.  All you wind up with is players interested in points pretending to be interested in what's going on in-game.

Judd, thanks for those links.  Those are some of the best helpful hints I've seen.  I think I'll try Chris's NPC - PC sheet idea.

By the way, is there already some Forge term that means "game elements designed to facilitate and improve play without incorporating mechanical rewards/punishments", or should I just keep saying "helpful hints"?

Warning: I use some Forge terminology ahead. But I'm new here, so I'm not entirely clear on things. If anyone sees any errors ahead, please let me know.

Quote from: David Berg on June 16, 2006, 02:22:12 AM
By the way, is there already some Forge term that means "game elements designed to facilitate and improve play without incorporating mechanical rewards/punishments", or should I just keep saying "helpful hints"?

This might sound strange, but a helpful hint is a mechanic. It's not a mechanic with numbers attached, but it's still a mechanic. Compare these samples of rules text:

1) "Each player states his character's action in initiative order."
2) "All characters must be human."
3) "Each player should state his character's action in initiative order, to avoid confusion."
4) "All characters should be human, to intensify the weirdness when meeting an Evil Threat."

#3 & 4 are probably what you're thinking of when you say "helpful hint" (if not, please let me know), but note that they are really no different from #1 & 2. All of them state how the players interact with the game world - and that's a mechanic. A group can decide to ignore #1 & 2 just as easily as they can decide to ignore #3 & 4. None of these 4 mechanics have numbers attached, which is probably what you think of when you say "mechanic", but that doesn't keep them from being mechanics.

(I think this is part of the Forge term "The Lumpley principle", which states that the system is everything that the group uses to agree to imagined events while playing. This includes not just the numbers but also flavor text in the rule book, explicit or implicit agreements between the players that were never in the rules to begin with, and so on.)

Quote from: David Berg on June 16, 2006, 01:43:57 AM
A helpful hint might be effective too, but I see your point: the majority of the time, a reward system will be more effective.  It's quick to read, easy to remember, simple to understand, and motivation in itself, all benefits over, say, 40 pages of setting material.  But I think I see trade-offs that outweigh these benefits:

In Lendrhald's case, the entire setting and current resolution mechanics are designed to ensure that failing to do what makes sense in-game will get you killed.  And it's worked so far, in terms of pretty much any issue that could get you killed.

Actually, what you just described is a reward system - again, it just doesn't have numbers attached. It goes like this: "You have a character. That character is how you interact with the game world. If this character dies, that's bad, because you can't interact with the game world any more. If you take the following game actions, you are rewarded by keeping your character alive."

Not only that, but this reward of "not getting killed" can be a very effective one - but it can't be the only one. If the system only rewards those actions that keep your character alive, then the best thing for a player to do is keep his character at home, safe and sound, which will probably be boring.

Quote from: David Berg on June 16, 2006, 01:43:57 AM
I could institute an official system of Stigma points and Marked For Death points, and give players Rewind points that they could use to remove a certain number of Stigmatized or Death-Marked moments... it would encourage players to read up on my world more... but it would also encourage meta-gamey thinking and be more jarring to the course of play than my current method...

If you're doing it for points (my Caution and Credibility went up!) rather than in-game rewards (you don't wind up lost in the woods, you don't get looked at like a moron by the guy you're pumping for info), then your head's not in the right place...  I don't want to encourage that kind of dissociation from the gameworld, and having points out there to be gained risks doing exactly that.

Does that make sense or do I just sound paranoid?

I understand what you're afraid of. You want to extend the sense of immersion, the feeling that you are really there experiencing what all these imaginary characters in imaginary situations are experiencing. And you're afraid that incorporating any form of metagame mechanics is like hitting a speed bump - you feel this lurch as you are pulled out of that dream-experience to handle the metagame mechanic.

The next bit is my personal opinion, not collected Forge wisdom. I really hope someone more knowledgable comes around and explains the collected Forge wisdom on this topic, if any.

I feel that metagame mechanics are perfectly acceptable and minimally impact the immersive experience when done right. Metagame mechanics that reward the immersive experience can be very beneficial and really get everyone on board as to the goal. ("You described that tavern really well. You get 2 Credibility points." "Cool!")

In addition, as I mentioned above, mechanics don't have to involve numbers - a checklist of things to do when describing a scene could also work well, for example. ("According to the rules, when describing a new character, I should first describe their physical appearance, then their general demeanor. So Diana the barmaid is a young woman, wearing a tight white tunic that accentuates her bodice. She smiles cheerfully, as her job requires, but there is a bit of sadness in her eyes."  Note that after a bit of practice, the first sentence becomes unnecessary because the players learn the rules.)

Finally, I feel that without them, you must rely entirely on the players and GM to supply that dream-experience - which is perfectly fine in and of itself, but if anyone is not on board, there is absolutely no way to get him on board.

If you want to rely exclusively on the players themselves, then that can certainly work - but it is now dependent exclusively on the players, and you as a game designer have no control over it.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Let me just raise a little yellow flag for everybody before Ron Edwards does:

1) This discussion is really general, and therefore it's hard to communicate clearly -- it's turning into what "RPG Theory" was before that forum got shut down for running in circles as people talked past each other.

2) David has another thread -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113.0 -- running concurrently on this same question in the specific context of his game, where people are discussing specific suggestions.

Besides the general principle that it's confusing to have two threads taking different approaches to the same topic at the same time, I think it's a lot easier to communicate the general principles in specific proposed mechanics ("mechanics" including, as Ricky said, pretty much any kind of procedure suggested in the rules, not just stuff involving numbers and dice).

I'd respectfully recommend that we all port this discussion over there (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113.0) and frame it in more specific terms, which I think would be more helpful to David. David, obviously, if you think the double-barrelled approach is helpful, stick with it, but I'd also note that as the guy who initiated this thread, you have full authority to say, "okay, done here now, thanks" whenever you want.

Ricky-

I hate to risk sounding like a dick, but I think you've misunderstood the distinction I was trying to make between one type of system ("helpful hints") and another ("metagame rewards/punishments").

With your barmaid example, you provided a good illustration of the kind of system I do like ("helpful hints"), and do not intend to discuss further in this thread.

Sydney-

I would like to keep this thread active for the moment, as I suspect there may be more useful feedback to come.  Let me do my best to encourage a Forge-approved style of discourse in bold:

People who like metagame rewards/punishments: please argue with the logic I've already put forward as to why (I suspect) they don't belong in Lendrhald.

This thread should strive toward identifying whether any kinds of metagame rewards systems are compatible with my game, and if so, what are the essential features of such systems.

Hopefully I can achieve some clarity on that, close this thread, and better pursue specific system brainstorms in the other thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113.0).

I just read a gigantic article by Ron, and I think I can now say in Forge-speak: my game's primary creative agenda is Simulationist.  It is Purist for System in that the rules attempt to represent reality and High Concept in that it is concerned with a genre (dark fantasy) and theme (Lovecraft + Anthrocentrism = doomed struggle of Man).

Ron's article on Simulationism says that it (or at least Purist for System) hasn't traditionally used metagame rewards systems, prefering systems of in-game Resources.  It seems to me that the functioning of these latter can only differ from reality insofar as my setting differs from reality.  (In Lendrhald, Human culture can't differ too much; the physical world is a more flexible matter.)

I did not find anywhere where Ron (or anyone else) discussed whether it was ever possible or desirable to use metagame rewards systems in a Simulationist game.  (If anyone knows of such a discussion, please direct me to it!)

So, let that be an entry-point into this thread for those who think better in Forge jargon.

I am a little confused about in what thread i should put this, but it is a replay to something from this tread, so here it goes.

Quote
My answer would be that this job belongs to the setting.  But perhaps that isn't realistic.  Not every part of the world is dark, so in theory the players could choose to hang around in town and make friends, drink beer, chase women, trade goods, etc.

A setting is very passive. You can use a lot of time on writing about how dark, scary, horrifying etc. the setting is, but if there is nothing or no one that will reinforce this it will never be a part of the game. You may have a very scary description of an orc, but if the GM just say "you see an orc", it will have no effect.

In many traditional rpgs it is expected that the GM will reinforce the setting, but you as the designer have no way of knowing this really will happen. My experience is that may gaming groups will play a new game the same way as they played there old game. I have many time heard descriptions of 'Call of Cthulhu' games that sounded like a dungeon crawl: "lets go kill some Old Ones!".

If I ask you what the most important part of your game is, you would guess the answer is the dark and scary elements. But if you don't enforces these elements in the system, then you can not be sure that people are using them. And if people are playing what are the most important parts of the game, it can be argued that they are not playing you game at all.

If you are completely ok with this, then I will not give you farther arguments. But if I was using a lot of time on designing a game (which I am), I would make sure that people would actually be playing that game.

Quote
I am having trouble thinking of how a player rewards system would produce better results.  If the world and the GM fail to arouse players' curiosity, I don't think saying, "Your Curiosity Seeker trait means you'll earn points if you check it out!" is a desirable solution.  All you wind up with is players interested in points pretending to be interested in what's going on in-game.

The good thing of having a system that is centred around the player, is that then the player get some control of what happen to his character. This will make the player more willing to take his character into extreme situations. A GM can only go so far in trying to push a feeling into the game, before the player get annoyed. But if the players is motivated by the system to push this feeling, they will go much farther.

I can not see how you will loose anything by this.

- Anders

Hi,

I'm just going to jump on in here, as some of the ideas and mechanisms everyone has touched on have really got me thinking. I'm new to posting to the Forge, but have been absorbing a lot of content from here for about a month.....I'll tell you, a lot of that was just burying myself in the closed forums (GNS model discussion, RPG theory, and Indie game design) and reading through the Articles, and especially the glossary and just recently dipping into the First thoughts, Actual play and Playtesting forums to get a taste of what type of current discussion goes down, and how some of the pieces of the Big Model have changed from the older stuff I'd read in the theory forums.

So as not to skew this thread out into the general, I'll focus on hitting some possible techniques that may accomplish what you have sought, or might help you design those techniques. I think the title of this thread tells me a lot. "A reward system for players, not characters" would mean that your system (by this I mean written rules, and informal social agreements ++i.e. the Lumply Principle++) should allow different mechanical interaction that affects the SIS (shared-imaginary-space), wether the player acts from an "immersed" standpoint, or acts from a player or "meta" standpoint. Lets hits some bullets while we consider what I've grasped of your expectations for the system, and see what we come up with.

• You would like time spent in "meta" or player consciousness kept to a minimum as a way to encourage the Simulationist Agenda, focusing a majority of play on "in-character" or immersive consciousness. I'd like to point out that it seems unlikely that you can eliminate one of these types of consciousness entirely. I don't think the dials go to 0% or a 100%, but have to have a fuzzy level in between, much like a probability assigned to an electron in quantum theory. So how does that inform our choice of mechanics?


• The mechanic should serve to resolve player to player or player to DM conflict about what exists in the SIS, quickly and efficiently, and then mechanically thrust the focus of play back to character to character conflict or character to setting/situation conflict. This should lead the players to want to fall back into the immersed character role, as that should logically provide the most rewarding method of resolving the in-character conflict.


• So far, we don't have an actual mechanic yet, just guidelines for designing one. Next I'd like to pull in some of the technique mentioned in this, and the other "rewards system in Lendrhald (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113.msg210901#msg210901)" thread to use in an example of creating a mechanic. If you'd prefer that I take fleshing out of specific mechanics to the other thread, just holler.


• Let's call all the content that has already been introduced into play "local" or grounded content. This content, having been introduced by the GM (with or without collaborative input from the Players !!::nods to Donjon::) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content, thus fulfilling our Simulationist Agenda. That's the important part, that content that's entering the SIS have coherence with the themes and trends already in play, such as the "dark fantansy" environment, and specifically your themes of Lovecraftian Horror, and Human vs Other. I believe that a mechanic that encourages Player/GM collaboration to decide what new content to enter into the SIS would increase player enjoyment. Also, as stated above, I think that if the amount of time spent in that collaborative phase has been kept to a minimum, and that there's a concrete method to channel that energy immediately back to "in-character" action, then you can concentrate on how the simulationism between local content plays out.


• So how do we allow the Gm and Players to collaberatively frame non-local "possible" content, and then allow that to manifest into local "in-play" content? Taking Threlicus' idea for a Coin (abstract spendable resource) system idea, and applying our above guidelines, we could say that players may spend Coins to introduce new active content into the SIS. Nay, at best, we can say that the Player spends Coins to suggest new content (a new Creepy Horror, or the location of a ruined temple, or the possibility of a meteor strike in the area, which would have nasty-reality bending side effects). You can even imagine a theoretical Play event where 3 players would actually spend coins, and list those 3 things as suggestions. How do we allow the mechanics to then assist the GM/Player collaboration/arbitration to the point that the GM then says, "OK, *this* and *this* and *this* actually happen to your characters, what do they do?"


• I think that your idea of BrainStorm Lists seems ideal to fit in here. Say we have the players use a fortune based resolution system, and roll some dice depending on how many coins they bid on the suggestion. So Player 1, who has suggested "New Horrible Monstrosity Thing" has bid 4 coins, and rolls for for 4 descriptive details from the Horrible Monstrosity Thing BS List. Or The GM may make a decision, and applies one of the rolls to the "Physical Descriptor" BS list, and the other 3 to the "Creepy Powerz" BS list. These lists have setting/theme appropriate options, and better still, mechanical explanations as to how they casually inter act with the SIS once entered into play.


• Now that the Players have spent/bid these coins, what happens to them? I would say that the GM may spend them as a resource to roll or choose new content from any of the BS Lists available. For example, while the characters find themselves venturing out to investigate the creepy ruined temple/fortress in the swamp, the DM could decide that a band of Orcs surround the area, and spend Coins to give them such descriptors as "Hunter/Killer Band", "Forge, Weapon, and Armor Technology" and "Degenerate Rites/Magic", resulting in large, macho orcs with wicked, cruel weapons and armor, painted with the blood of their sacrifices, and doing strange things in the woods in order to placate/control/draw the attention of the "New Horrible Thing" that player 1 initiated. The GM may then decide how their presence has affected the settlements in the area, based on what they'd most likely be doing.


• Now, tying this "content creation" system to the player rewards mechanic, say that each item on the Brainstorm list requires that the player spending Coins describe a specific aspect of that element of the new content, and that when done successfully, and creatively, earns him/her more Coins. Let's take the "New Horrible Thing" example. Say one of the descriptors of it that rolled up on the "Creepy Powers" list states:

  QuoteHorror has a level of mental domination that it uses to affect targeted human prey. Describe: "Reason for having/using power" Worth: 1 Coin
  OR "A situation in which the Horror has used power on an NPC." Worth 2 Coins.

  An example of the first may be: "Horror feeds on emotional pain/suffering that it has initiated, but that one human actually causes to another." One of the second may be: "The towns folk tell us of a lone figure that enters the town square each night at dusk, and cooks a human carcase over an open pit-fire, eats some of it, and then leaves it there. So far no-one has done anything about this." Depending on how you want to scale the rewards system, that last suggestion could have been worth 4 Coins, because the "Lone" figure may have been dominated to commit atrocity(2), but also the other townsfolk have been dominated to not attempt to stop it(2). Can you imagine the terror that the other players would express when the first player suggests this in order to win Coins? Why have the towns folk just "put up" with this sickening behaviour, and how far would this tendency to just "put up" with atrocity go if taken to an extreme? How are these people psychologically dealing with recognizing the absolute wrong-ness of the act they witness, yet failing at mustering up enough will to confront the perpetrator? All these can be possible lead ins to Mystery in the setting, and give ample opportunity to scare the players witless once they enter back into immersive mode in order to deal with the situation presented.


• Thus the GM/Players have collaboratively introduced creepy, Mystery laden content into the SIS, which they must then deal with directly as characters once the "Coin Bidding" cycle of the system gives way to the "Character Action Resolution" portion. I can easily see this happening when at the end of the Bidding session, the GM aggressively frames the scene, and then looks at the players and says "So what do you want to do about it?"

Wow, that was a massive post for my first time....hope you followed along.

Namaste,
Joshua AE Fontany -=- Telarus, Keeper of the Sacred Chao

Hi, David,

No worry about sounding like a dick. I've noticed that people on the Forge have the remarkable skill to argue without sounding like dicks. :-) So, per your request, we'll focus on metagame rewards exclusively. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Hi, Joshua,

Welcome to the Forge! That loud cheering sound is me wildly applauding your awesome first post. I am truly in awe. I have one question for you.

Quote
This content (snip) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content,

Emphasis mine. I think you meant to say "causal" in the bolded parts, ie. the new content and the SIS affect each other in ways that make sense for the game. Is that right?

Back to David,

I'm in agreement with Joshua and Anders. You need a metagame mechanic; without it, you are relying entirely on the players to play your game the way you envisioned it. We can sit here and give you ideas for mechanics (Joshua has some excellent ideas), but if you truly don't think you should have them, then that's the way you should go. How do you feel about this?

Hi there,

This has been a wonderful thread to read so far.

David, I appreciate the attention you've given to my essays. You probably won't be surprised to learn that after I published that essay here, an extensive series of threads was spawned about whether and how Simulationist design (of the kind we're discussing) can benefit from metagame-level rewards.

The general conclusion was that historically it hadn't happened, but theoretically it was possible and, as an idea, intriguing enough to be pursued by someone, some day, who wanted to.

As a side note .... that discussion played a certain role in the design of Universalis, as one of the co-designers, Mike Holmes, was concerned with leaving that route of play open/available for the game, rather than focusing on Narrativist conflict as the only route to enjoyment. Whether that resulted in a slightly more incoherent design, or in a slightly more productive/flexible design, is a question for the individual.

Let's focus on your own game, though. My take is this: if you do not want to include such a reward system in your game, then nothing is wrong with that, and you'll certainly have historical RPG design on your side to support that approach. I recommend, if you go this way, that you provide extensive and meaningful in-game rewards/consequences for characters; in other words, make sure that outcomes of events (individual tasks, or whole scenarios, or anything in between) are quantitatively powerful in some way.

(In the past, this has been done mainly at the smaller-grain scale of characters - specifically skill improvement. I submit this is relatively trivial and that you'd do better to increase the scale of effect.)

If you do want to include a metagame-reward system after all, but to preserve the aesthetic and procedural features that you have described, then you have moved into terra semi-cognita for RPG design - the theory can help you figure out how, there are a few game designs that offer useful clues, and people here will be interested to help you (not the least of whom is the inimitable Mike Holmes, as this is something of a Grail for him) - but no solid, done, "like this" models exist to emulate.

I would like to link to some of the older discussions I've been referencing for this post, but unfortunately, it's something of a painful hunt at the moment, and my time is short. I encourage you to browse the GNS forum, paying strict attention to dates and keeping in mind that many individuals' viewpoints often changed due to the discussions ... and that some individuals can be identified as preserving conflict for its own sake, as they feared its resolution.

Best, Ron

Hi, Ron, it's great to see you give your opinion on this.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2006, 12:30:10 PM
Let's focus on your own game, though. My take is this: if you do not want to include such a reward system in your game, then nothing is wrong with that, and you'll certainly have historical RPG design on your side to support that approach. I recommend, if you go this way, that you provide extensive and meaningful in-game rewards/consequences for characters; in other words, make sure that outcomes of events (individual tasks, or whole scenarios, or anything in between) are quantitatively powerful in some way.

(In the past, this has been done mainly at the smaller-grain scale of characters - specifically skill improvement. I submit this is relatively trivial and that you'd do better to increase the scale of effect.)

Would you care to explain these two points a bit further? Namely, 1) what is an "extensive and meaningful in-game reward/consequence for characters" and 2) how has it been done in the past ("skill improvement") and why is this trivial?

Hi Ricky,

Quotewhat is an "extensive and meaningful in-game reward/consequence for characters"

You ought to be able to answer this without any difficulty at all. You've role-played. You've played characters, and you've set up scenarios for others. What did and didn't work, or consistently or never happened, in terms of a change in or for a character?

It's not a trick question. It does, however, include a wide variety of possible answers. Which one David chooses for his game is more important than the ones I've found most satisfying in my own experience, or than you've found most satisfying in yours. Maybe you should answer to yourself and let David chew over his own answer.

Quotehow has it been done in the past ("skill improvement") and why is this trivial?

Nor is this, at least the first part, supposed to be difficult. One of the first and most widely-adopted shifts in RPG design occurred when generalized levels were discarded (in new games) and replaced by modular change. The door was mainly opened by RuneQuest, or more generally BRP. The game's resolution system was based on rolling under a percentage score. for a given skill. The rule was, if you succeeded in a skill roll during play, you then rolled to see if you could get over its score; if you did, the skill increased slightly. Every skill was treated as a separate entity, throughout the play/use of that character.

To this day, variations of this basic idea are legion. The nuances of how in-game skill or ability use determines increase in individual skills are a topic of some obsession among game designers, especially new ones. Even point-buy systems of character creation and improvement represent a modification of the basic idea.

Why would I call it trivial? Well, it wasn't trivial as a fundamental shift in RPG design considerations, or as a feature of play. It was tremendously important and has many virtues. However, as the main feature of a reward system, it's a little lacking. It tends to encourage a "retreat," on the part of the player, "into" the character sheet and his or her relationship to it, as the primary reward of play.

The corollary effect is to shift any interest in the larger scale of concerns (relationships with other characters, overall goals of play for the player, outcomes of scenarios) over to the GM to reinforce through social or even asocial methods. Social methods include attempting to fascinating everyone with the brilliance of the GM's logistic or descriptive skills; asocial methods include bullying and railroading in order to make the characters "care."

As an instructive example, I suggest studying the profound differences in reward/emphasis between the original and revised versions of the Burning Wheel. The former (I'm speaking of the text, not how its author played) was nearly entirely devoted to the nuances of skill improvement on a skill-by-skill, roll-by-roll level. The latter includes those rules, but now focuses far more strongly on the personality/goal elements of the character sheet (Beliefs, Instincts, Faith, Hate, Greed, Grief) and Artha points as the primary reward system. In the original rules, the uses & presentation of these latter elements were drier, more minor, and often verbalized toward non-reward issues of play.

Bear in mind that my previous post was directed to David. What I'm seeing in this thread is a strong desire for a solid, working reward mechanic, but also to keep it firmly embedded in the SIS (i.e. fictional concerns) rather than direct attention to the among-player interactions.

So I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component of it.

David, are you familiar with the Trust mechanic in The Mountain Witch? It may be a bit "meta" for you, but you should study it anyway, as a thought-provoker, and at the very least, an example of something that you can use as a contrast for what you want to do.

Best, Ron

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 25, 2006, 11:32:03 AM
<snip>

Hi, Joshua,

Welcome to the Forge! That loud cheering sound is me wildly applauding your awesome first post. I am truly in awe. I have one question for you.

Quote
This content (snip) will have a casual affect on the SIS and the SIS will have a casual effect on the new content,

Emphasis mine. I think you meant to say "causal" in the bolded parts, ie. the new content and the SIS affect each other in ways that make sense for the game. Is that right?
<snip>

Absolutely right Ricky. Blame it on being 4 in the morning, and just having to get all that out before going to sleep. I did spell check, but that wouldn't have caught that type of semantic error. Causal interaction, or interaction that makes sense using the metaphysics/rules of the game seems like an important element in Simulationist-driven design. This was just one possible mechanical configuration, and I think Ron really nailed it when he talked about a reward mechanic that goes above the scope of the individual character (character sheet/pieces of the character sheet). Ron also states:

QuoteWhat I'm seeing in this thread is a strong desire for a solid, working reward mechanic, but also to keep it firmly embedded in the SIS (i.e. fictional concerns) rather than direct attention to the among-player interactions.

I focused on antagonistic parts of the setting/situation in my example mechanic, but you can use the same process to introduce characters and set pieces that side with the PC's, such as fleshing out a knightly order that one of the character's belong to. I think that players that share a Simulationist CA may even get a bigger kick, and even get more attached to a setting where they can introduce elements, and then watch what the world does to them/they do to the world in a causal fashion. I think that this may also free up the GM from taking the role of the sole "CPU" of the simulation, which in other games has involved tons of prep time to come up with new elements, and then tons of "crunching" to figure out how the total set of elements, including the new ones, interact. This left the players to just focus on how their characters changed. I'd love to see a game that actually gives the players power to care about pieces of the SIS other than their characters, even if it's just, "Does this stuff I'm suggesting sound possible in this setting? If so, how do we (as a gaming group) make it probable, so that my character can interact with it (Exploration^2)," -type of "prep" work.

I'm sure other possibilities exist.

Namaste,
Joshua

Wow.  While I was out of town throwing my body at frisbees, people gave some great contributions here.  I think I'm going to take the hint and be slower to respond. 

There are a lot of ideas here where my first thought is, "Nah, that probably wouldn't work," but for the moment I'm going to try to avoid excluding anything outright unless it is categorically impossible.  Dunno if that's efficient, but:
1) as a game-designer, I do have some interest in what kind of game people want to play (if I don't use it for Lendrhald, there are still future possibilities)
2) as a GM, the idea of having players help me with prep work sounds nice

Before I take a few more days to digest and respond to recent posts, a few quick takes:

IN-GAME REWARDS

I agree with Ron that realistic (i.e. slow) skill advancement isn't a very compelling reward system, and that the following is a goal well-suited to my game:

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2006, 02:22:21 PM
I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider  than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component  of it.

I encourage further thoughts on this.

THE ROLE-PLAYING GAME and THE METAGAMING GAME

Certain parts of Joshua's suggestion look good to me in the following way:

We have one game which upholds the goals I've put forward by keeping character behavior related purely to in-game concerns rather than being partially motivated by out-of-game factors (possibly breaking immersion or getting stupid).

We have a second game which supplements the first game by allowing the players to help the GM fill the setting with stuff that is not only appropriate to the game's themes, but also relates to what the players are most interested in doing.  The "get points, spend points" system occurs independently from character actions, allowing the first game to exist as I've described it.

Practically, I envision a play session occurring in the following order: players (& GM) convene, discuss what they want, then use the system to generate some new setting*, then take food/bathroom break, then commence roleplaying.

I'm not sure if this is what Joshua intended, but I am sure that I like it from a designer and GM perspective. 

An advantage of separating metagame concerns from in-game rewards is that it accommodates various player temperaments.  Those who want to be creative and help shape the setting are encouraged to do so, and are rewarded for doing a good job with more creative power, while those who only want to play their characters are not penalized in terms of their ability to do this (although they might be bored if they show up before the food/bathroom break as described above).

A major caveat, though, regarding any system that rewards players solely in out-of-game currency: the players might not have much incentive to bother.  Personally, I think that contributing to make a setting more fun than it might otherwise have been would be incentive enough for me -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this was insufficiently concrete to motivate a lot of players (including some who like "contributing to setting" as a basic idea).


* possibly in a manner quite similar to some of Joshua's "rolls and lists" thoughts -- that seems to me like a useful direction to go in

Just to elaborate on one thought from my last post:

George Heintzelman and I were talking about ways to give the GM creative help in set-up tasks, and I realized that doing this before or after play, rather than during, wouldn't raise all the "immersion-breaker" red flags I've been mentioning. 

George had this to say on the subject:

Quote from: Threlicus
I have played many games which use this mode, albeit without any formal tools to assist. My experience is that three facts conspire to leave the bulk of the work on the GM:
1) The GM veto is always there, and is used whenever anything player-created conflicts with something previously determined by the GM. So players tend to keep their contributions within fairly strict limits.
2) Players expect the GM to create and control anything antagonistic to the PCs. Since conflict and antagonism are the heart of story (yes, even for a Simulationist. They are emergent rather than planned, but they are there), these are the elements that get the most attention.
3) Most players don't do any work away from the game table, and when they are at the game table, they want action to be happening, not talk about design.

This could be a profitable line to pursue, if you can find ways to avoid these problems. I propose to avoid them entirely by 1) not having a GM veto; 2) expecting everyone to create antagonists for everyone else and 3) doing all the setting work, including the GMs, at the game table, as part of the game.

Quote
This could be a profitable line to pursue, if you can find ways to avoid these problems. I propose to avoid them entirely by 1) not having a GM veto; 2) expecting everyone to create antagonists for everyone else and 3) doing all the setting work, including the GMs, at the game table, as part of the game.

One solution is to separate the "setup" part from the "play" part. IOW, when the whole group sits down at the table, the first part of the game is Setup: the group decides what elements (characters, situations, etc.) are going to be encountered in this session. Then once that is complete, the Play part begins: the group plays through the elements that were created in Setup.

For this model to work, a few rules have to be there:
1) As you previously stated, GM veto cannot exist. This should be ok; the primary reason for GM veto is to ensure that the players' ideas don't wreck GM prep. Under this model, though, there is no GM prep.
2) There has to be a guarantee that whatever is decided on in Setup will actually occur in Play; otherwise, players are going to be just as uninterested in Setup as if there was a GM veto.

How does that sound?

Note that the quote was from me, not David Berg. I don't think David has bought into the idea of no GM veto, at least not fully. ;)

Quote from: Ricky Donato on June 29, 2006, 09:59:54 AM
One solution is to separate the "setup" part from the "play" part. IOW, when the whole group sits down at the table, the first part of the game is Setup: the group decides what elements (characters, situations, etc.) are going to be encountered in this session. Then once that is complete, the Play part begins: the group plays through the elements that were created in Setup.

This is definitely interesting to explore. I'm a little worried that, as proposed here, it would destroy some of the fear-of-the-unknown vibe that David is aiming for, though. ("Hey, there's a mysterious Orc corpse here with strange glowing maggots crawling out of its flesh -- just like we discussed an hour ago. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!")

There's a few things I'd like to experiment with in this vein, though. Throwing ideas out now:
1) What if 'setup' phases and 'play' phases were more dynamically interspersed. Say, 1 play scene, then a setup phase (where, perhaps nothing happens?)
2) What if it were possible for proposed setting elements to remain on the table across scenes, until they have been taken off?
3) What if it were possible to 'buy out' a setting element, so it never turns up? Maybe a player could, using metagame tokens, show the level of his investment in particular ideas, increasing the cost to other players and the GM to make it never come to pass; other players could add to an investment if they also think it is cool. Something like that anyway. Presumably if an idea does not turn up but remains on the table, the cost to buy it out goes up?

Some grist for the idea mill.

George and Ricky's last two posts lead me to try to re-clarify the parameters I'm attempting to worth within:

I've spoken with my co-designer.  He doesn't want players to be able to influence the world beyond the actions of their characters.

We agree that world-invulnerability is a matter of degree.  There is no absolute and perfectly opaque reality, pre-defined down to the last atom, immune to all possible player thoughts of "that was likely put there for my benefit".  Along the scale of degree, however, you can do plenty to discourage such thoughts, and to the extent that I can, I want to.

Two places I wish to arrive at:

1) Plausible deniability for GMs.  Although the GM can never prove that something was there before PCs decided to poke it, he should be able to claim as much without that claim seeming immediately false.  This will produce the impression I'm going for (world is solid and exists in its own right) for all but the most inveterate skeptics.

2) Passive immersion in the simulation, rather than willful or complicit immersion in the simulation.  The goal is not to have the players deeply involved in some reality; the goal is to have them involved in my specific reality.  And my specific reality is not supposed to make players feel some level of control (which having creative input does), but to confront them with obstacles and opportunities that they may pursue or ignore at their own discretion, without any preconceptions of what will happen when they do so.  Just like real life. 

"This must be what the GM wants us to pursue" is an effective way to respond to the setting in most games (whether the players get to create setting material or not), but in Lendrhald the desired thought process would be more, "This looks interesting/profitable."  The GM's job is not to orchestrate a storyline (which the players will then do their best to force their characters into, as they expect that's where the fun will lie), the GM's job is to fill the world with things and see which of them the players are into.

So, what does this rule out, and what does it not rule out?

It doesn't rule out the GM talking to the players before set-up, and using their tastes to design material.

It does rule out the GM responding to player desires in a quick and/or obvious manner.

"Quick" we can get around by the GM creating material prior to one session, and using it at a subsequent session.  Or even, maybe, using something late in a long session.

"Obvious", unfortunately, leaves no room for some of the system ideas we've been discussing.  The GM can't plausibly claim something existed independent of you if you know you helped create it or in some way caused it to be there.

A remaining metagame option I see is something where points are earned, spent, traded, and/or weighed against each other to influence very general quantities, like "good stuff for PCs" and "bad stuff for PCs".  This could work as long as it never gets specific or transparent enough to lead to, "That guy!  That guy is clearly the "helpful NPC" we requested an hour ago."

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2006, 02:22:21 PM
I'm suggesting developing something like the in-game-effect features of the skill-improvement techniques I'm talking about, but having it affect fictional stuff that is wider than the character sheet, rather than a smaller component of it.

Thus phrased, I've had some trouble running with this, so here's an attempted re-formulation:

A system in which character behavior has in-game effects that reward/punish the players beyond the rewards/punishments delivered to the characters. 

For example:  A character explores a creepy tunnel.  He fails to acquire any loot, knowledge, or skill points.  However, his exploration causes a powerful monster to awaken, which proceeds to threaten the party with future vengeance and then fly away.  The characters now have one more thing to worry about, while the players have one more cool thing about the game to remember.

I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that I couldn't come up with a better example...

Not sure if my re-phrasing is actually identical to Ron's suggestion, but if it helps anyone brainstorm, then cool.

Hi there,

Actually, I'm thinking a lot less abstractly than that, in my suggestion, and not necessarily divorced so much from the characters.

David, I have another suggestion, though. This thread is wandering around because people are losing track of your game in question, and it's all getting into "ideas, ideas, my mind floats free" kind of talk.

Let's take it back to the playtest of your actual game. What exact events occurred, in the fiction, that you think would have actual results on prepping the next session? Once you list those, then I can show you what I mean.

Best, Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 29, 2006, 05:01:32 PM
Actually, I'm thinking a lot less abstractly than that, in my suggestion, and not necessarily divorced so much from the characters.

Ah, okay.  I've been viewing the current effort in terms of reconciling two abstract quantities (metagame rewards vs. my version of immersive Sim).  Before I abandon the abstract exercise entirely, I'd still like to see if anything more conclusive can be drawn than "can't think of a way to make metagame rewards work with Lendrhald" -- hopefully, either a possibility, or an absolute impossibility.

That said, I suspect that moving away from the idea of rewarding players beyond rewarding characters will make it much easier to generate a good system of rewarding players via rewarding characters.  So, let me see if I can generate a useful example here:

Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 29, 2006, 05:01:32 PM
What exact events occurred, in the fiction, that you think would have actual results on prepping the next session? Once you list those, then I can show you what I mean.

Not sure if I understand how this question relates to character rewards, so if my example is not very useful, please clarify.

In my session last night, the PCs made it into enemy territory, looking for a tunnel that would lead them into a large cavern where they could launch the next phase of their mission.  They knew there were five tunnels in a general area, and that Tunnel 1 was blocked off by a cave-in, while the Tunnel 2 was clear.  Running away from a magic-wielding daemon, they hurried into the first tunnel they came to.  After exploring it, they found the cave-in and realized they were in Tunnel 1.  Shortly thereafter, a comrade who had been touched by the daemon exploded, showering three PCs in entrails and bugs.

The original plan had been to go straight to Tunnel 2, at night, with the whole force (35 guys) healthy.  Now, the plan for next session is to dash from Tunnel 1 to Tunnel 2 in broad daylight, carrying the corpses of three guys who died fighting the daemon.

I haven't yet decided whether the daemon is intent on destroying the PCs' entire force all by itself, or whether it will report back to its kin and gather a larger opposing group.  I haven't finalized exactly how far it is from the entrance of Tunnel 1 to the entrance of Tunnel 2, where the route is visible from, and how many bad guys will be there to see the party.  I also haven't decided whether the fact that the PCs still have a little residual slime on them from the exploding guy gives the daemon any particular ability to effect them.  My decisions will be informed by a variety of factors:
1) the players have been frightened and disgusted by the daemon's powers, so I'm tempted to keep it after them
2) the players were fooled by two illusions the daemon cast (masking the presence of a big, tough monster; making it appear as if 30 more were nearby), so I'm tempted to give the players more opportunities to discover that the daemon is an illusionist (this seems preferable to them thinking "why didn't those 30 guys pursue us?  maybe Dave's being nice")
3) I only have two or three sessions left before one player leaves town, so I don't want to slow down their mission with any encounters that don't add much to the experience
4) the last session successfully put the pressure on, and I'd like to keep it on -- while they're scouting their approach route, something must be hounding or hurrying them

Also of note (maybe):
5) I liked the fact that one PC (Kristof) eagerly charged in to help others in combat (it fits his character concept well), but disliked the fact that he stayed engaged with a superior foe longer than he had to (that tends to get you killed, and he seemed oblivious to this)
6) I liked the fact that two other PCs (Rijk and Pip) played some pranks on each other, as it was roleplayed very well and added some humor
7) I liked the fact that another PC (Caius) was willing to take charge of the mission and give orders, and to do some strategic thinking, but disliked the fact that he assumed his superiors would feed the expedition, though they'd said nothing of the sort

Quote from: Telarus, KSC on June 25, 2006, 07:41:04 AM
I'm just going to jump on in here, as some of the ideas and mechanisms everyone has touched on have really got me thinking.

Joshua-

I enjoyed the way you spelled out your process in coming up with system ideas.  I've been intending to give a long, detailed response, hitting on all your bullet points, but at this point I think I'd just be repeating what I said a few posts ago (reply #29).  In short, let me say that I think your proposal to generate new, quality setting material sounds like fun, but your effort to uphold immersion doesn't go far enough for my game.  You keep metagaming short and focused on returning to play, which is nice, but you also keep the gaming (character facing SIS) -> metagaming (player adjusting SIS) -> gaming (character facing adjusted SIS) causal loop in operation, which works powerfully against the kind of SIS-experience I'm going for.

With an inspired play group, your mechanics (and George's, and anyone else's I've rejected thus far) sound like a good way to fill the world with more cool stuff... which could then be left lying around for my players to interact with in the manner I see as appropriate.  Once I finish creating some tables that reflect my desired aesthetic, maybe I'll post them here and request playtesting with this in mind.

Thanks,
-David

Cool!

Like I said, my "possible mechanic" wasn't supposed to be an immediate solution, but simply serve as an inspiration.

Have fun with the design. Glad I could help you get an idea of how to come up with the proccess. I'd like to see those tables when you finish them.

Namaste,
Telarus, KSC

Hello,

David, I'm not seeing anything in your account beyond tactical considerations of (victory vs. defeat) + (survival vs. death). It's pure Gamist strategizing, on everyone's parts, regarding a mission-based expedition, and that's that. Your musings as GM regarding what the daemon wants, and similar, are establishing further consequences and tactical setups, and not much else.

None of which is a criticism or judgment ... but it does lead to the important point that nothing about this is Simulationist. My earlier advice to you isn't relevant to this kind of play. This thread has gone on for many pages, and I think that's because you led us on a bit of a wild goose chase. The game you're playing is not the one you described earlier, and therefore we can't help you with the real game.

Here's my advice for the game you really seem to be playing:

Your rewards need to be about garnering resources (energy, hit points), protection (armor, harder-to-hit values), weaponry (greater magnitude, wider options), and if desired, meta-resolution advantages (re-rolls, etc).

Since the thread topic is about rewarding the players, and since you seem to be intent on the rewards being in-game or in-character in some way, then I suggest you offer one of the following things:

1. Win conditions. Whoever does the most important stuff well, gets called the winner. This could be killing the most critters, or it could be killing the big bad guy, or whatever.

2. Social privileges for characters. This is a little bit like what I was talking about earlier (and I now comprehend why it was making no sense to you). In this case, whoever does something well during a given session gets to negotiate with the superiors from a position of strength - in effect, dictating to you (the GM) what the superiors decree regarding issues like feeding the expedition.

You can see, I hope, that each of these represents an extreme end of the "in-game"/"meta-game" reward concepts. Each one really rewards the players, period. But the first does so explicitly with no particular relationship to causal stuff in the fiction, and the second does so implicitly, through justifying a particular shift in the status and effectiveness of the player-character in question.

Best, Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 06, 2006, 11:26:29 AM
David, I'm not seeing anything in your account beyond tactical considerations of (victory vs. defeat) + (survival vs. death). It's pure Gamist strategizing, on everyone's parts, regarding a mission-based expedition, and that's that. Your musings as GM regarding what the daemon wants, and similar, are establishing further consequences and tactical setups, and not much else.

None of which is a criticism or judgment ... but it does lead to the important point that nothing about this is Simulationist.

Running a mission-based expedition automatically makes a game Gamist?  The tactical considerations are not intended to be the inherent point of play, they're intended to reflect the real obstacles of the course the characters have chosen.  My aim is to provide realistic opportunities and consequences for character action, as part of encouraging players to immerse themselves in their characters' reality.  That's a Simulationist agenda, right?

As I said, I was unclear on where to go with your suggestion, and wasn't sure if my example was well-suited to it.  Maybe it was not.  I'll provide another one in my next post.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 06, 2006, 11:26:29 AM
The game you're playing is not the one you described earlier, and therefore we can't help you with the real game.

The game I'm playing is an attempt at the exact game I've described.  If you think my attempt is a poor match for my aims, I'd appreciate it if you'd spell out why, and suggest a better match.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 06, 2006, 11:26:29 AM
Here's my advice for the game you really seem to be playing:

Your rewards need to be about garnering resources (energy, hit points), protection (armor, harder-to-hit values), weaponry (greater magnitude, wider options), and if desired, meta-resolution advantages (re-rolls, etc).

These are all fun Gamist elements that many of my players enjoy.  Thus, to the extent that they do not distract from my agenda of immersion in my real-world-based SIS, I am inclined to use some of them. 
- You make yourself harder to hurt by getting armor, which you get by buying it, stealing it, killing someone who has it, etc. 
- You make yourself more lethal by training more with your weapons (debating between BRP-model skill advancement, handing out Character Points for showing up and playing, and some in-betweens)
- The one pure meta-mechanic is that you can permanently burn a point of a certain attribute (Luck) to change a die roll and save yourself from death.

These do not seem to me to be incompatible with a game aimed at immersing players in a potent fiction.  To the extent that they may distract players from that, I am open to ditching them, but obviously I need something better to replace them with.

If the players enjoy killing badguys, fine, and there should be rules to arbitrate this*, but the behavior I really want to encourage is a high degree of attention to and interaction with the SIS.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 06, 2006, 11:26:29 AM
2. Social privileges for characters. This is a little bit like what I was talking about earlier (and I now comprehend why it was making no sense to you). In this case, whoever does something well during a given session gets to negotiate with the superiors from a position of strength - in effect, dictating to you (the GM) what the superiors decree regarding issues like feeding the expedition.

I see some potential in this, although making a social mechanism transparent enough and deterministic enough to act as a relevant reward might also be an unrealistic immersion-breaker.  I'll come back to this after discussion of the more general issues above.


* Because the real world isn't that predictable, nor is it transparently arbitrated by a power such as the GM.

Party: Darvtok, Caius, Pip, Rijk.

On a journey to the North, the party observed a structure being built by badguys.  They met some locals and learned that this project had been going on for decades, and that it was the site of a formal human seasonal ritual.  Darvtok, a religious elder from a tradition where seasonal rituals are given huge cosmic importance, tries to convince the party that they have to stop the badguys, go to the ritual site, and purify it.

The party returns to the nearest major city, arguing about what to do.  They agree that it would be nice to kill the badguys and reclaim the site, but Caius is not convinced that there is an imminent threat, and does not want to trouble his superiors in the Imperial government for nothing.  Darvtok threatens that if nothing is done, a star will launch a destructive comet, as happend 100 years ago.  The party then goes to consult an astronomer to see if there's any evidence in the sky to back this up.

Caius goes to schedule an appointment with the Imperial Governor, but finds the man's schedule is booked.  He tells the secretary that his mission is time-sensitive, but the secretary's best help is to suggest that Caius try to trade appointments with someone.

The party goes to the astronomer's house, where he and his father are drunk, watching the sky.  After Rijk offers him water, secretly laced with stimulants, the astronomer perks up and fetches his star charts.  Caius makes small talk with the astronomer's father and discovers he is a wealthy landholder with a coming appointment with the Imperial governor.  Darvtok convinces the man to give away half of his appointment so the party can talk to the governor about a big, bad star.

The astronomer finds no particularly compelling evidence to support Darvtok's claims of imminent doom, but there are a few convenient facts that Darvtok runs with, managing to convince the party that this evidence is good enough.

On the following day, Caius meets with the governor, asking him for 150 men to attack the north, while the party slips in and "fixes" the ritual site.  The governor says no, instead offering 12 men and a limited supply budget.  The party discusses, and decides to plan a mission based on this.


My reactions:

I was glad to see that Darvtok's player used the world knowledge I'd given him, and that the other players became interested in the stars and history as a result.  I was also glad to see that the players' frustration about scheduling an appointment with the governor was directed at the goverment (via the characters), rather than at me, the GM.  I was also glad that it was a very tough call for the players whether to pursue the mission or not, as opposed to them assuming, "This is what the GM wants to run, so let's play it."  I've tailored the numbers and capabilities of the enemy somewhat for fun value, but at the moment, it seems to me that they've walked into a death trap, and unless they come up with a plan I haven't thought of, they're all going to die.  Hopefully for their sake, they can manage to "purify" the ritual site first.

The only rewards that occurred were informal, mostly in the form of players finding out more about stuff that interested them.  I somewhat facilitated this by putting the astronomer and the appointment-holder in the same room, and by making it fairly quick and painless for the party to locate an astronomer.  To be honest, though, if I'd had a good idea of "how one can find an astronomer in this particular city", which I probably should have, I would have gone with that over convenience.

Given the focus of the thread, can you go into more detail about what the players were doing in the session -- i.e. not just what the characters did, but what the players did. Ideally, I'd like you to revise and expand that session-description above going into these questions (among others that will come to mind, I'm sure):

1) What of the various arguments, discussions, and proposals were done in-character, speaking "through" the fictional characters, and which were done out-of-character, the players speaking to each other and to you directly?
2) What of the various positions advocated by various characters were actually what the player in question wanted, and which were just roleplaying flourishes? (I.e. Player X might really, really want to have a big fight scene, but because he likes playing noble paladins, he has his character argue vehemently for negotiations, in the sincere hope his character will lose the debate).
3) How much of the detail - the astromer, the governor, the appointment-holder, etc. -- already "existed" (in your GM notes, or in your mind) before the session started, and how much of it did you invent on the spot in response to the characters' inquiries -- i.e. as a reward for players showing smarts, roleplaying skills, and knowledge of your world and how it works.
4) How much did your players seem to be enjoying or interested by the hunting for information, weighing of alternatives, intriguing for appointments, etc., and how much of their attitude seemed to be "well, we've got to get this out of the way so our characters have the best chance of succeeding in the mission, which is the fun part"? In other words, did they consider this stuff their "homework" to get a reward later (e.g. exciting combat, mission success), or to be fun-in-itself and thus its own reward?

Before I respond to Sydney's questions, here's a clarification of some things about my game.  I've gotten the impression from what people have posted thus far that we're all pretty much on the same page, but perhaps it's best if I get more specific.  I tried to cover some of this in my last response to Ron, but I didn't do the greatest job of it.

1) Is Lendrhald Simulationist or Gamist?

I began using the term "Simulationist" to describe my game when I read Ron's article on that particular creative agenda.  I thought "these goals sound like my goals!" -- but I didn't compare "what I would expect to happen in a Simulationist game" to "what happens in my game."  Thinking on it now, I still don't have any particular expectation of what Simulationist play ought to look like -- I'd think that would depend entirely on what you were simulating.

What I've been simulating is an environment where, among other things, there are adventures to be had.  I've done my best not to push the PCs into any particular course of action... but thus far it's been pretty much a given that they'll pursue some form of adventure, and I admit I've been facilitating this.  The impetus varies, from money to curiosity to coercion to one PC dragging the others on a personal quest tied to his character concept.  Adventuring (in the broadest sense of the term, not just simple "win or die" treasure-hunting) seems to be a popular path to conflict, drama, and interesting stories/play, so I've seen no reason to re-think this focus.

It seems to me that any attempt to a) have interesting play, which requires some form of conflict, and b) simulate real-world workings will inherently lead to some degree of strategizing.  Players who prefer to rush in without strategizing will be at a natural disadvantage.  To the extent that this dynamic makes a game Gamist, Lendrhald is Gamist.

To the extent that allowing players to get better at tackling strategic obstacles makes a game Gamist, Lendrhald is Gamist.  (Currently, the behavior rewarded in this fashion is simply showing up and playing.)

I don't see how these Gamist elements undermine my goals of immersion (what I've been calling "my Simulationist goals") to any degree beyond what's necessary for enjoyable play.  Anyone who sees this differently, or has an idea for a type of play that seems better-suited to my goals (as expressed in short form here and much longer form elsewhere in this thread), I'd appreciate hearing your perspective.

I hope this is helpful in understanding my game for anyone misled by my previous use of Forge terminology.

2) The current system

Players play, and and are slowly given points to spend, which they generally use to get better at the things they do most in the game.  The scout buys a higher Stealth rating, the warrior buys a higher Sword skill, etc.  This system helps make things fun for the players, but it doesn't help accomplish my goals of in-game immersion and a dark mood.  I would happily replace it with a system that did all three.

3) More system-in-progress

Rules for penalizing activities due to hunger, dehydration, fatigue (strenuous exertion), lack of sleep, and intoxication.

4) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt1 (Immersion help)

Suppose a GM and some players sit down at the game table and agree that they're going for deep immersion in the Lendrhald setting.  If there is some way that a system can facilitate this, I'd like to do that.

Of course, such a system would also have to be as non-intrusive as possible, to avoid breaking immersion itself.

My co-designer and I suspect that non-number-crunching "reminders to think about X" are a good way to facilitate immersion without breaking it.  #3 above is a possible system that would remind players to think about food, water and sleep.  We'd also like players to think about other things that facilitate immersion (list below), but haven't thought of system-based ways to reward this, instead using markers like character sheet layout.

Immersion-helper concerns (character-based):
- food
- encumbrance (based on how you carry it, not just total weight -- "The pick axe won't fit in your backpack")
- what languages you know
- clothing & footwear (& states thereof - wet, ripped, etc.)
- prior mundane occupation (& skills and knowledge therefrom)

Immersion-helper concerns (non-character-based):
- which activities must be played vs. which can be "fast forwarded" through; assumptions/rules for what happens during "fast forward"
- lighting conditions

5) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt2 (Dark Atmosphere help)

Is there some way to use system to reward/encourage players to "get" the feel I want?  How? 

My only idea thus far is a Sanity score which goes down after horrific encounters.  Use of this would have to walk a fine line between being purely descriptive ("I lost a Sanity point, who cares") and being too directly practical ("Damn, now I have a minus 1 to all Will rolls").  Decent solutions are possible (list of Sanity-loss effects for GM to choose from and customize?), but I'm open to ditching this and going in some other direction entirely (or using both if they wind up being compatible).

6) The purpose of this thread

My intent was to use this thread to address #4 and #5 above with metagame rewards, if possible.  In-game rewards are an easier fit for my game in many ways, but I wanted to solicit ideas from folks here who have more experience with and perspective on metagame rewards systems than myself, in the hope of opening my eyes to things I hadn't previously considered.

However, it is beginning to seem that the most useful way to explore rewards systems for my game is to discuss in-game and meta-game options at once.  I encourage people to think meta-game first, but as long as a good exchange continues, I'm comfortable allowing this thread to drift slightly from its initial focus and subject title.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 07, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
1) What of the various arguments, discussions, and proposals were done in-character, speaking "through" the fictional characters, and which were done out-of-character, the players speaking to each other and to you directly?

Most of the time, whenever the players started speaking to each other directly, I'd interrupt and say, "Do this in character."  But there were some times when they started doing it, and these were mostly when strategizing (about ways to convince the governor their cause was legit, ways to execute a mission with 150 guys, ways to execute a mission with 12 guys).  Pretty much everything else was kept in-character.

As for speaking to me directly, it's almost always for filling in gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge.  Sometimes in advance: "Dave, my character's dealt with these politicos before, does it seem like they respond best to bluster or to cold logic?"  And sometimes when they don't like an NPC response: "Why is he rolling his eyes?  Do all weaponsmiths demand payment up front?  Dave, my character would know that!"  (Obviously, I prefer questions about the world to incorrect or convenient assumptions.)

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 07, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
2) What of the various positions advocated by various characters were actually what the player in question wanted, and which were just roleplaying flourishes? (I.e. Player X might really, really want to have a big fight scene, but because he likes playing noble paladins, he has his character argue vehemently for negotiations, in the sincere hope his character will lose the debate).

Once Darvtok's player came up with the idea of attacking the badguys and purifying the ritual site, everyone else latched onto that as the most fun option.  The characters accordingly bought Darvtok's bullshit and decided that this mission was important.  Some specifics:
- Darvtok's player used reasoning he knew to be suspect, and that was a roleplaying flourish, but he wanted to go stop badguys the same as his character.
- Caius's player is used to games with GM guidance and narrow story options; he wanted to find the thing he was "supposed to do", and was frustrated by the lack of clarity on this.  (He probably shouldn't be playing Lendrhald at all.)  His character is an obedient Imperial operative, so he roleplayed as such, refusing to lie to the Governor.  He was clearly worried, though, that his honesty would short-circuit the proper adventure.
- Pip and Rijk's players wanted to go stop badguys, but were worried about their odds of survival, so they wanted as much help from the Imperials and locals as possible.  This was generally in tune with what made sense for their characters, except that their characters might have opted a little more toward safety and less toward, "This mission isn't ideal, but let's do it anyway."

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 07, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
3) How much of the detail - the astromer, the governor, the appointment-holder, etc. -- already "existed" (in your GM notes, or in your mind) before the session started, and how much of it did you invent on the spot in response to the characters' inquiries -- i.e. as a reward for players showing smarts, roleplaying skills, and knowledge of your world and how it works.

Already existed: this city contained an astronomer, but not a world-leading expert; the governor is conservative, practical, impatient, disdainful of common folk, and his schedule is booked for weeks; the stars have no conclusive evidence that a comet is coming soon, but have some vague evidence that something bad is more likely than usual.

Made up on the spot: (a) secretary recommends an option that makes sense to me in the context of the gameworld; (b) Imperial governor finds the idea of possibly sacrificing some men palatable and sets his threshold at 12; (c) landholder and astronomer can be visited on one trip.

(a) was partially a reward for the players being invested in this course: having put a lot of thought into making their pitch to the governor, and having spent a while guessing at his eventual reaction.  It was also enabled by good-enough roleplaying in the discussion with the secretary.
(b) was partially a reward for the same reason as (a), and partially for Caius's player doing an excellent job of roleplaying the proper respect and deference to a high official.
(c) was done largely for expediency, to save myself the trouble of figuring out where different estates ought to be and how long it takes to walk between them, and to save the players the trouble of making their "let us tell you about our mission and convince you that it's serious; please help" speech twice.  This was partly informed by the answer to question #4 below.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 07, 2006, 04:47:05 PM
4) How much did your players seem to be enjoying or interested by the hunting for information, weighing of alternatives, intriguing for appointments, etc., and how much of their attitude seemed to be "well, we've got to get this out of the way so our characters have the best chance of succeeding in the mission, which is the fun part"? In other words, did they consider this stuff their "homework" to get a reward later (e.g. exciting combat, mission success), or to be fun-in-itself and thus its own reward?

This is somewhat at the heart of the dynamic between me and my current group of players.  My co-designer and I have generally approached Lendrhald as, "People who are looking for what it offers will pick it up, play it, and hopefully get what's advertised.  People who are looking for other things will play other games."  Unfortunately, the buddies I'm playtesting with would rather play superheroes and have their way with everything than be frightened and vulnerable average joes trying to make their way with the odds against them.  As such, when conflicting agendas arise, I don't know whether it's a failing of the game or whether it's just a case of the game being asked to do stuff it wasn't built for (entertain guys who love being badass).

So, with that preamble:
The players considered some of the politicking as fun, mostly whenever a positive response (the Imperial fleet commander was pretty gung-ho) presented an opportunity to get more swords for their mission.  Some of the astronomy talk was fun too, mostly when it pointed to their mission possibly being super important.  The players also enjoyed slipping uppers to drunks.  There was also a nice moment of suspense when the players awaited the harsh governor's verdict on Caius's report and request.  On the other hand, I think dealing with the secretary was no fun for anyone, the logistical planning was too open-ended and complex for most, and the cumulative delay in getting on with the mission made people feel like the game was slow.  The mission was not the only fun part, but it was definitely the focus.


Hmm, I'd figured that answering these questions would give me some insight into what to do differently, but I'm not coming up with anything new.  Just my usual "spend more time thinking about the places the party might go so I can depict them well" and "ad-lib funny stuff when players are looking bored" and "prompt players for stuff they need to do when fast-forwarding".  The desire for realism, including character self-determination, winds up deciding a lot for me.

Quote from: David Berg on July 13, 2006, 08:33:19 PM
This is somewhat at the heart of the dynamic between me and my current group of players.  My co-designer and I have generally approached Lendrhald as, "People who are looking for what it offers will pick it up, play it, and hopefully get what's advertised.  People who are looking for other things will play other games." 

I'm sorry, I may be entering this discussion late.  Or rather, I've read all of this thread and some of your previous one (Rewards system for dark, realistic fantasy (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20113)), but I don't know how long you've been talking about this one.  But this seems to be an important point.  How are you advertising it, anyway?  What is your pitch for the game that's going to draw the people who are looking for what it offers?  What does it offer thats different from say, GURPS or Unknown Armies?

Quote from: David Berg on July 13, 2006, 08:33:19 PM
On the other hand, I think dealing with the secretary was no fun for anyone, the logistical planning was too open-ended and complex for most, and the cumulative delay in getting on with the mission made people feel like the game was slow.  The mission was not the only fun part, but it was definitely the focus.

So maybe, from a pragmatic level, this is what you want a reward system for.  The parts that maybe aren't that much fun in themselves, but you consider important to creating the kind of play that you're aiming for.  I don't have any particularly good ideas for how to do that that haven't already been shot down.

You've said you considered the secretary's helpful suggestion to be "partially a reward for the players being invested in this course".  As a player, I doubt I would have seen it as such.  By making your Number One goal be having the world seem to exist independently of character actions, you're denying to your players that their behaviour can do anything like "get a helpful reaction out of the secretary".  You can't simultaneous have expectations that the world runs entirely on its own logic and has independent "reality", and that anything that happens in it counts as a reward for metagame considerations like good role-playing or maintaining immersion. 

In your own head, you may have considered the secretary's reaction a reward, but it sounds like you've gone out of your way to make sure that the players can't distinguish that from the gung-ho reaction of the fleet commander.  You haven't said whether that was a reward or just something you considered realistic for the setting;  this is the same situation your players are in.  My natural assumption is that it was pre-set as the guy's personality, and your players will assume so too.  If you're going to give players the right to be rewarded for good role-playing, or whatever, it has to be explicit when it happens.

Quote from: David Berg on July 10, 2006, 05:55:53 PM
5) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt2 (Dark Atmosphere help)
Is there some way to use system to reward/encourage players to "get" the feel I want?  How? 

Give them a mechanic by which they can "buy" a temporary advantage to help with a desperate situation, in exchange for a lasting scar -- either explicitly a physical deformity or a new psychological twitch.  "Your character can no longer stand to be touched by people," that kind of thing.

You could either require narration of in-game events to rationally justify both, or you can say: "we're playing dark fantasy, and dark powers are always ready to offer you a supernatural bargain."

I disagree with your proposed means of encouraging immersion in the character, the food etc.  Largely becuase these apply to all people in all places; what this reinforces is "I'm human" or similar at best, but it does nothing for THIS character in THIS world.  I think whatever prompts and reminders you have on the character sheet (and that is the right place for them) need to be rather more local and specific.  I like things that draw my attention top how others perceive my character, because after all I am dependant on them, via the GM, to provide suitable feedback.  Thus many of these concerns must be more public than private.  Having sufficient food is less interesting than having either peasants food or lords food.

Quote from: colin roald on July 15, 2006, 09:55:36 AM
How are you advertising it, anyway?  What is your pitch for the game that's going to draw the people who are looking for what it offers? 

I'd rather save those issues for a later thread.

Quote from: colin roald on July 15, 2006, 09:55:36 AM
So maybe, from a pragmatic level, this is what you want a reward system for.  The parts that maybe aren't that much fun in themselves, but you consider important to creating the kind of play that you're aiming for.

Makes sense.  That said, it's been hard enough trying to match up "usable Lendrhald reward system" with any "desired types of play".  If I ever wind up with a plethora of system-based incentives, then maybe I'll focus on the ones which specifically help out un-fun activities.

Quote from: colin roald on July 15, 2006, 09:55:36 AM
You've said you considered the secretary's helpful suggestion to be "partially a reward for the players being invested in this course".  As a player, I doubt I would have seen it as such . . .

Your analysis of my "rewards" as I described them is spot on.  They weren't part of any system to incentivize player behaviors, they were just a GM helping out players whose play he liked, and doing so in an invisible fashion.

My description was in response to a question from Sydney, I'm curious to see if he had a direction in mind or if he was just giving me food for thought.  (Sadly, my brain is still starving on this thread's topic.)

Quote from: colin roald on July 15, 2006, 09:55:36 AM
Give them a mechanic by which they can "buy" a temporary advantage to help with a desperate situation, in exchange for a lasting scar -- either explicitly a physical deformity or a new psychological twitch.  "Your character can no longer stand to be touched by people," that kind of thing.

Mechanics are easy, tying them to realistic play is the hard part.  Lemme take a stab at this one...  Maybe there's some sort of psychological Stress threshold, at which most people simply freak out and run/hide.  If a PC wants to perform a heroic act of will (Will roll) to push on and hold his breakdown at bay after he passes this threshold, he begins accruing Scarred points.  These points accumulate over time until the stress lessens or the PC cracks.  The resultant point total represents the depth of a permanent psychological wound, and the game provides suggestions/examples of appropriate types of Scars for each wound level.

The problem I see with this is the basic Stress threshold idea...

I'm still toying with whether to ever force involuntary psychological responses on characters.  I never want to tell a player that his character is afraid if the player ain't feelin' it.  If he is feelin' it, then I don't see a problem.  But if there's an advantage to be gained by keeping cool, I envision a lot of players making a lot of "my character's been through this kind of thing before, rotting zombies don't phase him!" arguments.

Quote from: colin roald on July 15, 2006, 09:55:36 AM
You could either require narration of in-game events to rationally justify both, or you can say: "we're playing dark fantasy, and dark powers are always ready to offer you a supernatural bargain."

This "buy help at great cost" idea has come up many times, and I like it in theory, but anyone with an idea in that vein, please go a different direction than "power from Evil". 

Due to world-balance issues, I have decided that Evil powers are never available to Men (including PCs) in any but the most extremely unique special cases (find magic item, get possessed by daemon, etc.).

Quote from: contracycle on July 17, 2006, 06:53:07 AM
I disagree with your proposed means of encouraging immersion in the character, the food etc.  Largely because these apply to all people in all places; what this reinforces is "I'm human" or similar at best, but it does nothing for THIS character in THIS world. 

Well, it separates the world of Lendrhald, in which food must be worried about and starvation is a threat, from my own daily experience, where neither of these is true.  I think a large part of getting players into the SIS is getting them out of the space they normally occupy.

Quote from: contracycle on July 17, 2006, 06:53:07 AM
I think whatever prompts and reminders you have on the character sheet (and that is the right place for them) need to be rather more local and specific.  I like things that draw my attention to how others perceive my character, because after all I am dependant on them, via the GM, to provide suitable feedback.  Thus many of these concerns must be more public than private.  Having sufficient food is less interesting than having either peasants food or lords food.

That is a great idea.  I absolutely should have had the Imperials salivating over the vikings' tasty meat and trying to trade their more practical travel rations for it... and the one rich PC should have been forced to choose between eating discretely by himself or having his meal by ogled and envied by everyone else on the mission.

Quality of boots is another thing others would likely notice... if you have nice ones, your companions might start calling dibs if you croak.

Quote from: David Berg on July 18, 2006, 04:42:49 AMYour analysis of my "rewards" as I described them is spot on.  They weren't part of any system to incentivize player behaviors, they were just a GM helping out players whose play he liked, and doing so in an invisible fashion. My description was in response to a question from Sydney...

"A GM helping out players that he liked" is a "system to incentivize player behaviors," though. It's not a formalized system, it's not encoded in written rules, and, most importantly, it lacks any structured guidance as to appropriate cause-and-effect, behavior-and-reward, which puts a very heavy burden of winging it on the GM. But it's a system nonetheless, in which you respond to a particular set of behaviors by the players in a way which rewards such behaviors, and therefore encourages more such behavior in the past.

The vast majority of published RPGs rely on the GM flying by gut instinct through this sort of thing, and it was quite a relevation for me personally when I realized that there were ways to structure it -- to allow the GM to fly with a map, compass, and radar, as it were. And it's much, much easier to do. Most "conflict resolution" systems are all about formalizing this stuff, so the GM (and, usually, the players also) know what's at stake in a given roll, and how the particular action here-and-now will influence what happens next -- whether it's through simply negotiating "if I win... but if you win..." beforehand, or something more mechanical as with the Story Tokens - Inspirations - Debt economy in Tony Lower-Basch's Capes,

If the internal consistency of your world is critically important to you, and you want to encourage people playing your game to really get into the gritty details of that world -- the misery of bad boots, the hungry envy of someone else's rations, the chills along your spine as you walk through the dark forest -- then you need to structure how your world works in some way, or else no one but you personally is ever going to be able to run the game properly.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 18, 2006, 09:17:09 AM
"A GM helping out players that he liked" is a "system to incentivize player behaviors,"

Here, invisibility is a goal in itself (to facilitate the impression of an independent world).  It is this invisibility of the "GM helps players he likes" system, not its informality, that makes this "not an incentive" in my eyes.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 18, 2006, 09:17:09 AM
If the internal consistency of your world is critically important to you, and you want to encourage people playing your game to really get into the gritty details of that world . . . then you need to structure how your world works in some way, or else no one but you personally is ever going to be able to run the game properly.

Yeah, I definitely worry about that.  I'm still hoping that as I continue to clarify various aspects of my game, someone can throw me some structure suggestions that I don't have to discard for immersion-related reasons.  Sydney, did my above response (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20115.msg212563#msg212563) to your questions about the session (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20115.msg212061#msg212061) give you any ideas?  Or at least help whittle down a sense of what directions might be possible to pursue?

Hello, Dave. Sorry to go blank on you for a week - and I'm not sure even now that I have anything brilliant to say.

What worries me is that a lot of the problems you're describing, and even some of the fixes, sound painfully familiar: the guy who wants to know what "the mission" is and feels lost because the GM won't hand it to him, people getting bored with in-character logistical planning, even your feeling compelled to shortcut the preliminaries by having two important NPCs in the same place so the players don't have to roleplay out their whole "this is why you should help us" speech twice. The fact that "the players enjoyed slipping uppers to drunks" is also a potential warning sign, actually: It seems contrary to the tone you're trying to set, a little bit of absurdist mischief, and when players take surprising glee in that kind of thing, it's often because they're frustrated and feel impotent and unable to affect the course of the game in more heroic ways. Likewise, your complaint that the players just want to kick ass and probably aren't suited for this kind of game may well be true, but it's the standard complaint of every GM who feels s/he's not getting through. To make everything harder for yourself, you're very, very committed to people only speaking in character, which whatever its benefits for immersion carries the cost of slowing everything down as players mentally "translate" what they want to say into in-game terms and struggle to find ways of expressing meta-game concerns (e.g. "I'm bored now") at all.

Plus, for a game in which your stated objective is to make the world feel real, the principal incentive-reward cycle you want to get going is for players to really, really care how your world "really works" so they can be more effective in it, and to make the GM's rewarding them for that "invisible" is self-defeating: You may avoid breaking immersion now, but you're missing a chance to encourage the players to get more invested and have more immersion later.

I'm not a big fan of immersion, so you and I are going to have different aesthetic and therefore design takes on this, but I worry that you're trying mainly to encourage immersion (what I'd prefer to think of, more broadly, as players being excited about and invested in your fictional world) by negative measures to discourage breaking immersion -- principally by not letting people talk out of character and by not revealing certain things about how the game works. Your positive measures to encourage being immersed in the first place  appear to be limited to reminding them of mundane details like bad boots, cold weather, and empty stomachs, which is great so far as it goes but hardly enough to get profound emotional commitment from your players. So, naturally, there's a fair amount of boredom, floundering, and "what do we do next, Dave?" "Well, I can't just tell you, but your characters could do [X, Y, Z]." "Uh, okay, we do X." "Okay, [mildly interesting stuff happens]." "Uh, now what?" "I can't just tell you, but..." Repeat ad infinitum.

You have to earn your players' interest first. They have to be immersed before you have to worry about breaking immersion. Right now, their interest is iffy and their immersion... well, I bet you there isn't immersion for most of them, most of the time. I'm afraid -- I don't know, but I suspect -- that you're in the position of a car designer working feverishly on anti-lock brakes, airbags, and an impact-resistant chassis without ever realizing that your engine has too few horsepower to move the car more than 5 mph. You gotta rev up that motor first.

Now, there are plenty of ways to spike player interest in a horror/adventure game without breaking immersion (although, as I said, I think you're sacrificing a lot of potential high-quality, highly invested immersion in the future for the sake of preserving low-quality, minimally invested immersion now). The time-honored one is to throw hideous freakin' monsters at the player-characters that want to eat their damn eyeballs -- unless, of course, your combat system is slow and clunky, in which case so long immersion again. Another, subtler method is the slow creep of unsettling details as your characters walk deeper and deeper in the woods/caves/ruined castle, leading to the eyeball-eaters in due course. Another, even tricker method is to do all your standard "talk to this official, work out these logistics" discussions, but to have the NPCs suddenly clam up when the players mention certain topics, or insist on certain measures being taken without offering any justification -- "Okay, well, the shortest route is along this road by the ruins of... " "No! Do not say that name!" "Uh, okay, but this road..." "No! We must take the other road!" "Uh, but it's twice as long and goes through enemy territory and is subject to frequent rockslides and..." "We must take that road! Do not speak of the other again!" "Okay, but what's wrong with the shorter road by the ruins?" "Oh, nothing. Really. More tea?"

But to do the logistical discussion step-by-step in character, or to do the whole speech to convince the NPC to help you without any dramatic condensation, is just a goddamn waste of everybody's time. That's not immersion. That's tedium. Talking in character doesn't mean you're immersed if you're thinking about what you ate last night, or whether you'll make it home in time for that cool TV show; talking out of character doesn't mean you're not immersed if fiber of your imagination is vividly intent on the fate of your fictional characters.

Sydney's logic sounds sensible to me, but with one major caveat: it depends on who's playing.  I'm not trying to turn Lendrhald into a game that'll satisfy everyone who likes any kind of dark, realistic fantasy; but rather, one that will best serve those who agree with me and my co-designer about a certain type of experience they'd like to have (see bulleted list below).

An Extreme Style of Play

My co-designer has conceived of Lendrhald not as a game that runs itself, nor as a game that the GM runs "for" the players, but rather as a game where the players decide what they want to experience, and then the game and GM allow them to have that experience in as real a way as possible (short of hallucinogens and time machines).

In a game that works that way, it generally benefits the characters to investigate what they encounter.  Knowing how a bureaucracy or monster works helps you decide on the most effective way to bribe or kill it.

It's not so much a matter of being immersed in "the world Dave made up, as Dave hopes you'd encounter it, focusing on Dave's favorite bits" -- it's more a matter of being immersed in the world your character confronts, what he sees, hears and feels, as a result of the choices he makes.  If the players choose to pursue my meta-plot secrets, that experience should be convincing and vivid; if they choose to just cut down trees and build log cabins, that experience should be convincing and vivid too.

The world includes plenty of "doing something dangerous for money" opportunities, and my co-designer's games have focused on these, pitting his players' wits against various physical obstacles and nasty monsters.  They've all gotten the point that their GM is not going to "rig" anything, so if they want to avoid death, they'd better pay attention and proceed with caution.  The GM has kept absolutely everything that is invisible to the characters equally invisible to the players (separate conversations, dice roll target numbers, etc.).  As there's been no incentive to think out of game, the players haven't much.  As for talking out of game, the players are all pretty much playing themselves, so there's no difference in in-game vs out-of-game discussion as long as it's about in-game concerns.

My co-designer has almost no interest in passing Lendrhald on to other GMs and players, so none of his stylistic choices have been turned into formal rules systems.

Is That A Game?

Perhaps what this style of play boils down to in terms of a "game package" is a handful of adventure modules and a list of "immersion do's and don't's" based on what my co-designer has found to be successful.  All our world design material would become a sort of "reference almanac to assist GM trouble-shooting".

As for my own part, as a player I'm a huge fan of some major parts of this style of play, particularly:

• I like being able to really "lose myself" in an imaginary experience
• I like learning about medieval societies (especially fictional ones, as long as they "work")
• I like problem-solving
• I like the drama of facing situations and monsters without any safety net (GM contrivance), with success or failure often hinging on luck (combat die rolls)
• I like the responsibility of deciding what course to pursue, helping "author" the subject of play rather than simply following the one lead
  

However, as a GM and designer, I'd like to have my cake and eat it too.  The friends I game with want more guidance, less problem-solving, and aren't that motivated by immersion for its own sake.  Others out there who might like a lot about my setting will currently find little to latch onto and get them stoked about playing.  So, if I can keep the game as effective as it currently is at satisfying some things I like, and at the same time make it more accessible to a wider variety of temperaments, I'd like to.

Perhaps that's simply impossible.  Most suggestions I've received to date involve some amount of "don't worry about visible contrivance, in small enough doses it's a worthy sacrifice to make for the sake of making the game more fun."  Which is clearly true for some players, possibly even most players.  But look at my list above of the qualities that make Lendrhald fun (and different than other games) for me, and see how vital a lack of visible contrivance is to all of them.

I think Sydney's points about grabbing player interest are extremely important, but the solutions that come to my mind are all informal social contract matters:

The players should find common ground on what interests them.  They should tell the GM, "When given options, the party will usually choose to pursue X kind of thing."  The GM should focus his prep work on various types of X.  And, of course, Everyone should decide whether or not Lendrhald is well-suited to what they want to play.  I think this has been the key ingredient missing from my game.

As a game designer, the best I can think to do on this front is to include with my game package "some tips for having a fun multi-player gaming experience", and a "what Lendrhald is/isn't suited for" disclaimer.

I'm still hoping that someone on the Forge will think of some systems that have potential to help me "have my cake and eat it too", and that further descriptions of my game will facilitate this.  However, I'm aware that I've greatly restricted the available options... I'm starting to lean toward creating the "module + suggestions + reference" package I described above, accepting that the audience for this is a niche within a niche within a niche, and then moving on to another project.

Dave, you'd be surprised at how much of what you consider "informal social contract matters" irreproducibly unique to a given group of people can be formalized, systematized, and replicated by other people who've never met the original creators. I'm paraphrasing Vincent Baker here, but the only thing a rulebook can actually do is provide tools to create a better social contract. Conversely, a lot of what is most toxic in badly designed games is not the mechanics at all, but insidious "GM advice" that amounts to "ignore the rules to make the results be what you expect, lie to your players to preserve the illusion of GM omniscience, punish the character of any player who defies your preconceptions, and never, ever allow honest dialogue among player about what they really like or dislike" -- and unfortunately "immersion" is used as a club in all too many of these bully-GM games.

Now, mechanics certainly matter, and even if you do decide to piggyback on an existing system -- an entirely honorable and sensible approach -- you need to make sure it at least doesn't get in the way, and at best facillitates your goals. But most important, you want to try to figure out how to distill the process you, your co-creator, and your various players have used to communicate expectations and desires about the game, guide prep, and aim play at those particular things you find fun.

Excellent examples are the playtest draft of Matt Wilson's Galactic and the playtest draft of Vincent Baker's Afraid, as well as Joshua Bishop-Roby's Full Light, Full Steam and, in a different vein, Michael Miller's With Great Power.... Earlier, less strongly structured examples are Wilson's Prime Time Adventures and Ron Edwards's seminal Sorcerer. And my personal favorite, Tony Lower-Basch's Capes, takes a radically different tack by largely (though not entirely) dispensing with collective prep at all and instead setting up a system of interlocking incentives to guide players to the desired story-structures through a kind of Adams Smith-ian "invisible hand." (Too late for me to hunt links, but all of these are heavily referenced right here on the Forge as well as Googleable).

If you can systematize whatever you're already doing, on the fly, to encourage and integrate your players' creativity into a workable creative consensus, you're golden -- and there are games already out there that prove this "mysterious GM art" can be analyzed and taught.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 31, 2006, 11:44:03 PM
Dave, you'd be surprised at how much of what you consider "informal social contract matters" irreproducibly unique to a given group of people can be formalized, systematized, and replicated by other people who've never met the original creators.

I would be.  I know I'm long overdue to try playing some of the games you listed...

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 31, 2006, 11:44:03 PM
I'm paraphrasing Vincent Baker here, but the only thing a rulebook can actually do is provide tools to create a better social contract.

Can't it also provide tools to create a worse social contract?  A lot of the ideas I've been rejecting have struck me as not without merit, but simply as doing more harm than good -- immediately helping achieve something I want in a small way, but ultimately interfering in a larger way. 

This is why, for certain issues, I recently started thinking in terms of suggestions / GM advice ("Fred, please say that in character, I think we'll all stay better immersed in the fiction") as opposed to rewards systems ("Fred, for speaking out of character, a tree falls on your character; everyone, please stay immersed and react in-game as if this were a total fluke occurrence.").

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 31, 2006, 11:44:03 PM
Conversely, a lot of what is most toxic in badly designed games is not the mechanics at all, but insidious "GM advice" that amounts to "ignore the rules to make the results be what you expect, lie to your players to preserve the illusion of GM omniscience, punish the character of any player who defies your preconceptions, and never, ever allow honest dialogue among player about what they really like or dislike" -- and unfortunately "immersion" is used as a club in all too many of these bully-GM games.

Huh.  Interesting.  I've played games where the GMs have done such things, and I agree with you that those GM behaviors are undesirable, but I've never seen the GM act that way specifically because a rulebook told him to. 

For what it's worth, the "GM advice" I'd hand out would probably discourage "ignore the rules", discourage "punish characters based on your disposition toward players", attempt to render lying unnecessary, and briefly encourage honest dialogue in passing.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on July 31, 2006, 11:44:03 PM
you want to try to figure out how to distill the process you, your co-creator, and your various players have used to communicate expectations and desires about the game, guide prep, and aim play at those particular things you find fun.
. . .
If you can systematize whatever you're already doing, on the fly, to encourage and integrate your players' creativity into a workable creative consensus, you're golden

I have been pushing my co-designer to help me think in this direction for a little while now, but each time he describes his process (which has worked somewhat better than mine), important facets seem to flat-out defy being turned into system.

Me: How do the players know that there's no safety net?
Him: They've played with me before and lost characters.
Me: What do you do when the players can't seem to pick a path to pursue?
Him: If there are any pressing concerns (such as money for next meal and night's sleep), I remind them.  Otherwise, they just have to make a decision.
Me: How do you guess what they'll want to do and prep accordingly?
Him: I've played with these guys for years, I know they like dungeon-crawls with physics problems.
Me: What if they choose to pursue something you hadn't anticipated?
Him: In any city that I'm running in, I have a good enough common-sense feel for how things work that I can wing it if I have to.  I usually have some rough maps and some names of important NPCs.
Me: How did you develop this "common-sense feel"?
Him: Through the research I did into actual history in the process of creating the game.
Me: Can you help me develop such a feel by explaining stuff to me?
Him: That'd take me forever.  Spend a week in a library.
Me: Uh...  So, anyway, if the PCs leave The Interesting Store in town and declare, "We're going next door!" you don't already know what's there?  You can just come up with something appropriate on the spot?
Him: Occasionally.  Usually, though, if I expect them to go to a store, then I'd probably define what's on either side of it and across the street from it beforehand.  And, beyond that, I'd think about what general types of places it would make sense for there to be in that area.
Me: That sounds like a lot of prep work!
Him: It is.

Hi David,

I've read the thread so far with great interest--thanks. In your first post you said:

QuoteThe system needs to do a satisfactory job governing action outcomes within the gameworld, but beyond that, I don't see a need for additional rewards, direct to the players.

Do you actually think there's anything lacking in your game? Anything you're looking to do better?

It might be productive to list these things, then to focus on whether or not there might be meta (or in-game) mechanisms to help with them.

Alternatively, it may turn out that you're actually happy with Lendrhald pretty much the way it is (happy days!). In that case any suggested changes are unlikely to give you much joy.

Quote from: David Berg on August 01, 2006, 01:49:41 AMCan't it also provide tools to create a worse social contract?

Oh, boy, can it ever. As I said, a lot of that toxic stuff is buried in the "GM advice" sections. 

QuoteThis is why, for certain issues, I recently started thinking in terms of suggestions / GM advice ("Fred, please say that in character, I think we'll all stay better immersed in the fiction") as opposed to rewards systems ("Fred, for speaking out of character, a tree falls on your character; everyone, please stay immersed and react in-game as if this were a total fluke occurrence.").

Heh. But of course reward and punishment can be a lot subtler than that -- and, most important, that "reward" and "punishment" only count in terms of the emotional response of the real people involved. What happens to their characters is only a means to that end, and often a "punishment" for the character -- loved ones kidnapped, enemies attacking -- can be a reward for the player, by making that player's story more exciting.

Generally, small, consistent, immediate incentives work a lot better than large, occasional, deferred incentives; and rewards work better than punishments (at least in a voluntary activity where you can't force people to stay...). So instead of "a tree drops on your character for speaking out of character," consider a reward mechanic where every time a player says something really cool in character, the GM -- or any other player -- can slip that player an "applause" token. Nobody has to say anything -- it's like musicians in an orchestra wiggling their feet to applaud each others' solos when their hands are full of instruments -- just slide the token over and everyone knows, "hey, that guy did something cool." Make the flipside of the rule be "you can't get an applause token for something you say out of character, even if the whole table cracks up laughing."

Once you've formalized these values, the tokens don't actually have to have any impact on the game mechanics. Sure, it'd be nice if you could trade them in for a re-roll or something, but because they're already a direct expression of social approval among the real people playing, it's not actually necessary for them to have any impact on the characters at all. Maybe at the end of a session, you see who has the biggest pile of applause tokens and name that player MVP for the night. Maybe you just point at the guy with the biggest pile and say, "Dude, you're cool. Your creativity was really on tonight. You really made things a lot of fun for the rest of us." -- because isn't that, ultimately, the thing we want to hear from our fellow roleplayers, the thing that "wow! your guy reached 20th level!" is just a coded way of saying?

QuoteI have been pushing my co-designer to help me think in this direction for a little while now, but each time he describes his process (which has worked somewhat better than mine), important facets seem to flat-out defy being turned into system.

Let me try. Apologies for the awkward line by line bit:

QuoteMe: How do the players know that there's no safety net?
Him: They've played with me before and lost characters.

All die rolls in the open -- not as a matter of "GM advice," but as a matter of hard-wired rules: if you hide rolls, you're breaking the rules. Then make the death and injury system blatantly brutal, with no safety nets, rerolls, or fudge factors. Then make it very clear in the character-creation section that (a) your guy can die any time, so better pump up {whatever scores are relevant}, and (b) your guy may still die any time, so why don't you make up a backup character right now, and here are the rules for rapidly bringing your new guy into play.

Not as good as personal experience of "dude, you killed my character!" but a pretty good stopgap.

QuoteMe: What do you do when the players can't seem to pick a path to pursue?
Him: If there are any pressing concerns (such as money for next meal and night's sleep), I remind them.  Otherwise, they just have to make a decision.

Make fatigue, hunger, exposure to the elements, etc. all into serious hardwired factors in the rules -- without being clunky and time-consuming, mind, just something like "okay, you guys are still talking? Well, I warned you: Now it's been another hour in the open, everyone take two points of frostbite damage -- yes, John, your heavy coat +1 soaks up one point of that, you only take one damage. Okay, now what do you guys want to do?"

Make it clear in the rules that if players just dither, the GM should not "pause time" indefinitely for them.

QuoteMe: How do you guess what they'll want to do and prep accordingly?
Him: I've played with these guys for years, I know they like dungeon-crawls with physics problems.

Make a "pitch" discussion, as in Prime Time Adventures, a required stage of setting up a new game. Instead of a GM saying, "hey, let's play, I have this great idea but I'm not going to tell you," explicitly require every player to request something s/he wants to see in the upcoming game -- maybe even give them points to allocate among their interests, points which turn into the GM's "budget" to "buy" world elements from a menu. Do all this before the first character is even named, entirely outside the part of the game that is played immersed.

QuoteMe: What if they choose to pursue something you hadn't anticipated?
Him: In any city that I'm running in, I have a good enough common-sense feel for how things work that I can wing it if I have to.  I usually have some rough maps and some names of important NPCs.
Me: How did you develop this "common-sense feel"?
Him: Through the research I did into actual history in the process of creating the game.
Me: Can you help me develop such a feel by explaining stuff to me?
Him: That'd take me forever.  Spend a week in a library.
Me: Uh...  So, anyway, if the PCs leave The Interesting Store in town and declare, "We're going next door!" you don't already know what's there?  You can just come up with something appropriate on the spot?
Him: Occasionally.  Usually, though, if I expect them to go to a store, then I'd probably define what's on either side of it and across the street from it beforehand.  And, beyond that, I'd think about what general types of places it would make sense for there to be in that area.

Look at Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard (of which Afraid is a derivative, more advanced in some ways but not complete). He has a page listing the typical things you'd expect to find in a small town in his setting, another page on the typical things you'd expect to find in a large town, and a quick way to randomize up stats for whole batches of nameless NPCs that you can then grab whenever you need more detail on some random person the characters run into.

Most innovative, Baker also lists all the cultural values and expectations of the setting -- men should do this, women should do that, the Mountain People and the Faithful and the corrupt Territorial Authority disagree on this. He then has an "adventure" generator, called "Town Creation," which consists of a multi-step process (off the top of my head, I think it goes: Pride, Injustice, False Doctrine, False Worship, Hate & Murder) the GM is required to run through during prep to say, "okay, one NPC violates one of these cultural values in a small way, so how does that affect one or two other NPCs in the community? How do those NPCs respond in a way that makes things worse? Okay, how does that affect a few more NPCs?" And so on until the whole place is about to collapse, unless the player-characters ride in and set things right.

Note that none of this is standard "worldbook" or "metaplot" stuff: Baker names only one town in the entire setting, the capital, and all he says about it is that there are four waterfalls in the hills above and the main temple is in the town; he names no NPCs at all. What he provides, instead, is a set of building blocks -- designed very carefully to fit together -- from which GMs can assemble appropriate bits of setting in quick pre-game prep and in-game on the fly.

Note this is also not "here's a Monster Manual and a blank map, go to it": That'd be the equivalent of dumping a lot of lego on the floor and saying "build something, anything, as long as it's really cool" -- choke time! Instead, it's as if Baker got you a set of Wild West legos (or space lego, or whatever) and handed you the box and said, "build whatever you want, all these pieces go together and suggest certain themes on which you can play infinite variations."

Quote from: charles ferguson on August 01, 2006, 02:32:07 AM
Do you actually think there's anything lacking in your game? Anything you're looking to do better?

This is one of the disadvantages of being as verbose as I've been, and letting this thread get as long as it has: crucial points can get lost easily.  I think I addressed this issue in Reply #39 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20115.msg212255#msg212255), and the answer is:

4) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt1 (Immersion help)

Suppose a GM and some players sit down at the game table and agree that they're going for deep immersion in the Lendrhald setting.  If there is some way that a system can facilitate this, I'd like to do that.

5) What I'm looking to add to the current system pt2 (Dark Atmosphere help)

Is there some way to use system to reward/encourage players to "get" the feel I want?  How?

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Generally, small, consistent, immediate incentives work a lot better than large, occasional, deferred incentives; and rewards work better than punishments

Agreed.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
consider a reward mechanic where every time a player says something really cool in character, the GM -- or any other player -- can slip that player an "applause" token. Nobody has to say anything -- it's like musicians in an orchestra wiggling their feet to applaud each others' solos when their hands are full of instruments -- just slide the token over and everyone knows, "hey, that guy did something cool." Make the flipside of the rule be "you can't get an applause token for something you say out of character, even if the whole table cracks up laughing."

I certainly don't see anything wrong with this.  My first thought, however, is,"Okay, if I'm motivated to get tokens, these tokens must be good for something..."

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Once you've formalized these values, the tokens don't actually have to have any impact on the game mechanics. Sure, it'd be nice if you could trade them in for a re-roll or something, but because they're already a direct expression of social approval among the real people playing, it's not actually necessary for them to have any impact on the characters at all.

I think this nicely addresses the subject line of this thread.  This is kind of what I was thinking of when I started suggestion a distinction between "the roleplaying game" and "the metagaming game".  The problem I ran into with that line of thought was incentive effectiveness.  You have suggested "a direct expression of social approval", in which subtle smiles and nods are replaced with (or supplemented by) subtle passing of tokens.  Is the latter really more likely to encourage players to play a certain way than the former?

I think the answer could be "yes", but that would depend on the difference between "what you can approve of with a smile" (which is anything you like) and "what you can approve of with a token" (which is codified by the game).  And supposing there's a significant difference between what people like and what's codified (i.e, what the game wants them to like), aren't you kind of screwed right off the bat?

If the players appreciate something that serves the intended purpose of the game, great; but if they don't, is the existence of a set of guidelines for when you're supposed to hand out tokens going to change that?

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Maybe at the end of a session, you see who has the biggest pile of applause tokens and name that player MVP for the night. Maybe you just point at the guy with the biggest pile and say, "Dude, you're cool.

Sounds good, but again, I worry about the incentive power there.  Maybe if being MVP gave you some sort of currency that you could use in a metagame fashion...  Something like, "Your character's backstory tie-ins move to the head of the queue."  No, the contrivance is too visible...

Ooh.  What about adjusting the Luck score?

The acceptable realm of metagame influence on Lendrhald play may be: things that are inherently arbitrary.  Wherever there is a reason why something should happen a certain way, that within-the-world logic must not be contradicted.  However, whenever world logic is mute on a subject (or impossibly complicated and conflicting), that is a time when players may spend / use their metagame earnings for their characters' benefit.

A possible system comes to mind:

The players (except for the GM) start each session with 5 "Fortune" tokens.  The rules list a few specific types of player accomplishments, which should be rewarded by one token from every other player.  Differences of opinion (Player A gives Player C a token, but Player B doesn't) are not debated during play, but are briefly jotted down by the GM.

At the end of the session, the GM reminds the players of some differences of opinion, with the option for more giving away of tokens (no takebacks, though).  So, Player A gets to tell Player B why he thinks he should give Player C another token, with the GM helping interpret the rules.

After all final token redistribution, the player with the most tokens is awarded a Fortune Point, i.e. a character-building point which must be spent on increasing his Luck score.

The Luck score determines how favorably arbitrary determinations come out for the character, and a point of Luck may be permanently sacrificed at any time to change a die roll (e.g. a failed Parry or Climb check that got you eviscerated or crushed).  Luck isn't purely positive; characters with below-average Luck will tend to have things go against them.

Now for the hard part:

Types of player accomplishments that deserve a Fortune token
- Convincingly portraying a significant emotion in-game (especially fear/horror)
- Convincingly portraying traits that are appropriate to both his character and the world (accent, gender attitudes, dislike of latrines, etc.)
- Coming up with an idea that winds up helping the party on their current mission
- Coming up with something to do that turns out to be fun for everyone
- Staying in-character for an entire session (minus food and bathroom breaks)
- Asking questions of the GM that wind up helping other players engage more with the world
- Keeping track of things the characters need to keep track of, such as food, money, clothing, the date, travel times, mapping, condition of gear, light sources, what they wipe their asses with, etc.

If the GM is the authority on the game and "gets it" better than his players, it might make some sense for him to be the one handing out tokens.  That might be a more consistent way to incentivize certain behaviors.  On the other hand, I think letting the players share resources would be more fun and positive, and eliminate "You just like the way he roleplays better than the way I roleplay!" bitterness toward the GM.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
All die rolls in the open -- not as a matter of "GM advice," but as a matter of hard-wired rules: if you hide rolls, you're breaking the rules.

Well, it's nice to demonstrate to the players that the GM isn't fudging things.  However, it's also nice to discourage the players from thinking about combat situations in terms of numbers.  Two different models:

My game:
GM: You want to attack the lizard?  Roll to hit.  What's your weapon skill?
Player: 3.
GM: Okay, you need a 9.
Player: So its weapon skill is 5?!
GM: It's hard to hit.  It moves fast.
Player: Ah, so skill 4, plus an Agility bonus.
GM: Just roll.  It needs a 5 to hit you (rolls dice right in front of player).
(Both PC and lizard land hits.  Player and GM then roll location.  Player hits head, lizard hits torso.)
GM: Okay, you needed a 9, you rolled 11, that's a 4-point wound to the head.  The lizard rolls toughness... (rolls 5 dice)
Player: It has a Toughness of 5?!
GM: Yep.  Okay, looks like it soaks the Shock.  Your turn.  Is your torso armored?
Player: Yes.  With leather.
GM: Okay, roll your armor's check vs. an Edged weapon.
Player: Lemme see... okay, 3 dice, difficulty 5... three 5s!  Yes!
GM: Okay, it needed a 5 to hit, it rolled a 5, that's 3 damage.  Your 3 successes cancel it entirely.

My co-designer's game:
GM: You want to attack the lizard?  Roll your to-hit and location dice and leave them on the table.
Player: (rolls)  Nice, a 9, to the head!
GM: (ignores player, makes some roles behind GM screen, jots a few things down, eventually looks over at player's dice, jots a few more things)  Okay, you hit it in the head nice and solid.  It's bleeding, but still standing.  It hits your torso hard, you feel it, but your armor takes it.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Then make the death and injury system blatantly brutal, with no safety nets, rerolls, or fudge factors.

Done.  Hopefully the Luck mechanism doesn't sabotage that...

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Then make it very clear in the character-creation section that (a) your guy can die any time, so better pump up {whatever scores are relevant}

Done.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
(b) your guy may still die any time, so why don't you make up a backup character right now, and here are the rules for rapidly bringing your new guy into play.

Neat idea, I like it.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Make fatigue, hunger, exposure to the elements, etc. all into serious hardwired factors in the rules

I've been working on a mechanism for this, and here's my current idea:

All characters have an Energy pool.  Normal Energy is 100 -- well fed, well rested, not sick, not injured.  The GM has guidelines for how much certain things diminish this pool.  Missing a meal drops you 10, getting only 3 hours of sleep drops you 20, spending a day in a harsh climate drops you 5, each round of combat drops you 5, limping out of a fight with 3 levels of Shock damage drops you an additional 15, etc. 

When your Energy reaches 10, you get penalties to most actions.

When your Energy reaches 0, you collapse.  Depending on why you collapsed, you may be assumed to be on the brink of starvation, or you may just need sleep.

Energy can also be spent deliberately: "I'm going to use maximum exertion to make sure I successfully climb this cliff / land this blow."  20 points will allow you to dodge/parry a hit you would have otherwise taken.  10 points will give you a +1 bonus to a physical Skill check (or combat action?).

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
something like "okay, you guys are still talking? Well, I warned you: Now it's been another hour in the open, everyone take two points of frostbite damage -- yes, John, your heavy coat +1 soaks up one point of that, you only take one damage. Okay, now what do you guys want to do?"

Make it clear in the rules that if players just dither, the GM should not "pause time" indefinitely for them.

The main reason I can think of why players want to pause time is so they can discuss something quickly, as themselves, resolve a dispute, and then go back into the game and say either:
a) we're returning to play just after our characters resolved the issue that we players just resolved out-of-game, or
b) we're returning to play right where we stopped, and will now proceed to roleplay a quick exchange that accomplishes what our out-of-game discussion accomplished

Personally, my preference would be:
c) discuss everything in game, as your characters

And, to supplement that:
d) create a character through which you can express yourself easily and quickly

But maybe that's too restrictive (some players may want to run characters with odd accents / diction)?  If so, I guess (a) and (b) should be allowed for, and your suggestion about "time is passing in-game, guys, hurry up" might demarcate the line where the potential for (b) is lost and (a) becomes a reasonable assumption.  This still doesn't sound like a system to me, just advice to inform the GM's judgment call on when to prod.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Make a "pitch" discussion, as in Prime Time Adventures, a required stage of setting up a new game. Instead of a GM saying, "hey, let's play, I have this great idea but I'm not going to tell you," explicitly require every player to request something s/he wants to see in the upcoming game

To avoid contrivance down the line, this process would have to avoid any high levels of specificity.  But yeah, I intended to recommend player input... and I guess there's no harm in making that discussion "a required stage".

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
maybe even give them points to allocate among their interests, points which turn into the GM's "budget" to "buy" world elements from a menu.

Letting the GM know what the players want is good...  Helping the GM pick/generate some Lendrhald-appropriate material to give the players what they want is good...  Are finite resources good?  I can't see that serving any purpose beyond telling the GM, "You've probably picked/generated enough material now, you can stop."

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Do all this before the first character is even named, entirely outside the part of the game that is played immersed.

Definitely.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Look at Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard (of which Afraid is a derivative, more advanced in some ways but not complete). He has a page listing the typical things you'd expect to find in a small town in his setting, another page on the typical things you'd expect to find in a large town, and a quick way to randomize up stats for whole batches of nameless NPCs . . . cultural values and expectations of the setting . . . an "adventure" generator . . . a set of building blocks -- designed very carefully to fit together -- from which GMs can assemble appropriate bits of setting in quick pre-game prep and in-game on the fly . . . "build whatever you want, all these pieces go together and suggest certain themes on which you can play infinite variations."

That's exactly what I'm hoping to create.  I'll check out that game and see how much I think Baker's tools are useful and imitable in Lendrhald.  I've played plenty of games that list cultural values and provide roll-on tables, but I've never gotten much mileage out of them.  Perhaps the central issue here is book design and ease of reference.

The central issue with Vincent Baker's "Town Creation" rules is that they're not just roll-on tables to give you disconnected elements: They're an interlocking that generates dynamically unstable situations -- situations that cannot stay still, that have to resolve somehow, and into which the player-characters -- who are dynamically unstable themselves, right? -- are thrown, because all PCs in the setting are defined as being part of a certain order of vigilante gunslinger-exorcists.

Now, I know you want a game where  "they choose to just cut down trees and build log cabins [and] that experience should be convincing and vivid too" -- but why? I mean, would you want to play that game? I'd be bored.

So you want character creation that creates characters who are driven to get entangled in horrific situations -- either it's their job, as in Baker's Dogs, or they've had some traumatic personal experience they want to get to the bottom of, as in Stolze & Tynes's Unknown Armies (cited earlier) or, I understand, Conspiracy of Shadows, or they live in a place that keeps on gettin' frickin' attacked, or ideally some combination of all three.

Then you want situation creation: in other words, you want a system for designing adventures that is every bit as tight, formalized, and step-by-step as traditional character generation. That's an area where most traditional RPGs, frankly, fall flat: "Oh, here's 10 pages of fiction and 30 pages of bizarre place names, NPCs, and backstory, you pick something, you're the freakin' GM."

And you want your dynamically unstable characters to snap tightly into the dynamically unstable situation. If your characters all have backstories like "the cruel nobles of my native province stole my father's land, ravished my sister, and drove me into exile," you give them demon-possessed nobles who oppression will destroy the realm if they are not stopped, not two peasant farmwives cursing each others' cattle. If your characters all have backstories like "I came from a small, isolated village where the ever-present menace of the dark forest slowly drove my mother mad, causing her to poison my father and sisters," then you don't give them the nobles, you give them the hex-casting farmwives, whose escalating feud will drag the whole village down into madness, crop failure, and cannibalism if they're not stopped.

Sure, your player-characters presumably wander through various villages where there's nothing wrong, and feudal domains where the lords are just and kind. Fast-forward through that. Real-life cops and doctors go weeks at a time without seeing a dead body, but TV shows about cops and doctors -- very realistic shows included -- focus on the days when somebody does risk death.


On a separate note, you'd be surprised how powerfully explicit guidance about what behaviors are good or bad can affect players, even if there's no game-mechanical bonus (e.g. "applause tokens" you can't trade in for anything). Every functional individual enjoys a wide range of different things and learns to do only a few of them at any given time in a particular activity: The same person can go to his kid's music rehearsal and clap politely, then go to the football game the next day and hoot and holler, then go to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and yell jokes and throw things at the screen, then go to a regular movie and angrily hush anyone who even asks him what's going on. There's a set of social expectations in each case -- and those aren't even written. If you write down, "these are the behaviors that are appropriate and desirable for this game," sure, some people will not play it, and that's good, because they wouldn't like it; other people will like it and will be well served by the guidance on the appropriate subset of their wide range of behaviors to display.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
The central issue with Vincent Baker's "Town Creation" rules is that they're not just roll-on tables to give you disconnected elements: They're an interlocking that generates dynamically unstable situations

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
you want a system for designing adventures that is every bit as tight, formalized, and step-by-step as traditional character generation.

That does sound way more appealing than the roll-on tables I've encountered.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
Now, I know you want a game where  "they choose to just cut down trees and build log cabins [and] that experience should be convincing and vivid too" -- but why? I mean, would you want to play that game? I'd be bored.

Er, yeah, that was a stupid example.  The point I was trying to make was, again, about visible contrivance.  For example, if I tell the GM up front, "I want to battle against my powerful step-father and his evil minions" -- or, more formally, if I write down a Belief (a la Burning Wheel) on my character sheet: "My stepfather and his endeavors are evil and should be stopped" -- then when I run into a nasty NPC I'll think, "Is this the guy the GM's sent to satisfy me?" and when I do discover he's a henchman of my father, I'll think, "The GM put him there cuz I asked for him, and I know there's Plot this way!"

I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, just cautioning against going about satisfying player desires in a way that will feel "rigged".

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
So you want character creation that creates characters who are driven to get entangled in horrific situations -- either it's their job, as in Baker's Dogs, or they've had some traumatic personal experience . . . or they live in a place that keeps on gettin' frickin' attacked

My general thought thus far has been:

Coercive individual situations (I'm cursed, my town's under attack, my family's most precious possession has been stolen) are very tough to turn into multi-player games that are fun for everyone. 

Coercive group situations are great (the PCs are the town guard of the town under attack), but often best suited for individual adventures as opposed to extended campaigns (though obviously you could set up a series of coercive adventures with the same characters). 

For extended campaigns, I've been inclined to rely on an "It's their chosen profession" angle.  The characters are risk-takers and thrill-seekers who'd rather confront danger for pay than learn a normal trade or continue to work on the family farm.  The world includes plenty of "paid adventurer" opportunities, as much of the world is unknown and the Empire is curious about what lurks beyond their borders.  The biggest advantage of this approach is that the characters' desires to encounter cool creepy shit are nicely in line with the players' desires to do the same.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
And you want your dynamically unstable characters to snap tightly into the dynamically unstable situation.

Visible contrivance again rears its head.  The situation creation tools would have to require a certain degree of complexity, and interface seamlessly with the way the world works when it's not being adventured in.  But yeah, I see no reason why that's impossible.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
Sure, your player-characters presumably wander through various villages where there's nothing wrong, and feudal domains where the lords are just and kind. Fast-forward through that. Real-life cops and doctors go weeks at a time without seeing a dead body, but TV shows about cops and doctors -- very realistic shows included -- focus on the days when somebody does risk death.

Well, purchasing food from the general store certainly doesn't need to be played through.  However, I'm leery of telling the players ahead of time what's going to be dangerous and interesting and what isn't.  If they walk into Town 1 and find it infested with daemons, I'd like them to walk into Town 2 a little antsy, and look around carefully before coming to the conclusion that nothing appears to be amiss.  At that point, though, I think some fast-forwarding does become acceptable.

Also, places bereft of threats and monsters still may have interesting cultural aspects that the players might enjoy seeing... some amount of "this is what normal life and normal people are like" definitely needs to happen somewhere... I guess that's up to the GM to guess at what's interesting and what's not... a "traditional village" should be somewhat interesting the first time you come to one in-game, but after that, identical places need not be described in detail.

I guess all these decisions could be reflected in system as well?  Maybe there could be tools for traveling games that quickly create villages, some of which are "adventuring situations" and some of which are not?

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 01, 2006, 06:08:17 PM
If you write down, "these are the behaviors that are appropriate and desirable for this game," sure, some people will not play it, and that's good, because they wouldn't like it; other people will like it and will be well served by the guidance on the appropriate subset of their wide range of behaviors to display.

Yeah, I'd rather provide some guides that are ignorable than leave players shrugging and guessing.  I just worry about relying upon some system with only marginal rewards (guys who are there to roleplay may not care about being named MVP) to enforce important design goals.  But perhaps I should just proceed with the assumption that everyone is already trying to play the game the way it's supposed to be played, and I'm just providing a set of tools, reminders, guidelines, etc. to assist in that effort.

My co-designer just proposed having players tie "bandages" around parts of their bodies where their character has an unhealed wound, just as immediate visual/tactile reminder of the characters' state.  I'm also pondering paper dolls to show "where you're carrying your stuff and whether your hands are free".

Any thoughts on my "Fortune tokens" ideas and visible vs invisible die rolls?

I'm not as disposed to worry about "visible contrivance," but even so, I think the examples you raise are workable. Of course the PC's evil, powerful father is going to send goons after him!

Likewise, I think "the players are all members of the town guard or other important local figures" is totally workable as a long-term campaign: Your model there isn't Star Trek or The Incredible Hullk, where the protagonists wander around from adventure to adventure, but Deep Space Nine, Babylon Five, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the protagonists stay put in a locale that holds some resource that all sorts of bad guys keep on trying to take over. You lose breadth of coverage across your setting, but you gain tremendous depth as the same NPCs and locales show up over and over -- allowing the players to build tremendous emotional attachment to the things you keep putting under threat.

As for hiding die rolls and so on - eh. I had a GM I very much admired who did that, in D&D; I've also found it profoundly powerful in other games to see the actual numbers line up, so you can see the cold reality of how screwed you are in a way that's hard to imagine from pure description ("It has a Toughness of 5?!" in your hypothetical example.) I'm generally in favor of putting the system in full view of the players -- but that puts a big burden on the designer to keep it simple, streamlined, and elegant. "Roll initiative, roll to hit, roll hit location, roll damage, deduct armor/toughness, determine shock etc." just does not cut it, in my opinion: You can pack almost as much detail into a lot fewer steps if you're disciplined about what's important to simulate for your purposes and what's just habits picked up from other games.

Likewise, I think giving players 100 points of Energy that you take away a few at a time is a lot of number crunching for relatively little gut-wrenching impact. The very first RPG I ever designed was utter unplayable crap, but one thing I particularly liked was that the number of dice you rolled depended on how well-rested and well-fed you were: In peak condition you got three dice, but one sleepless night or day without food took you down to two, and utter exhaustion dropped you to one. If you want your world to be scary, you can't whittle away at your players 1% at a time: They've got to realize even one screw-up is gonna HURT.

Hi David,

In my view, rewarding your players isn't about having to do things that blatantly disregard the internal consistency of your game-world. It's about deciding why players would want to play Lendlhald as opposed to some other RPG or something else entirely, and then providing concrete mechanics that gratify that.

From my reading of your examples, you consider techniques like deep immersion and in-character-only to be pivotal to your player's enjoyment of Lendhald, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is what actually jazzes your players the most. As Ron pointed out, in fact the opposite could well be true. (He's had a lot of experience at this, and he's good at it. You don't need to agree with him, but my advice is that if he makes a comment like that, it's worth your while to take a rigorous second look, and possibly a third and a fourth.)

To me, the fact that your players need to be frequently reminded (admonished?) to stay in-character suggests that this also may not be an essential fun-bringing element to them (although it obviously is to you).

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't include in Lendlhald. That's your right, and your alone.
What I'm saying is that good design (of any kind) requires that every element in it powerfully serves the whole. Every assumption must be questioned. Everything you include has to be justifed, not to me or the list moderators or anyone else, but to yourself.

"What's my aim with this design element? How well does it succeed? How does that aim further my overall design goal? What's the cost of including this element? (there's always a cost). Does this cost outweigh the benefit?"

Mark Twain said "It is the duty of every writer to search tirelessly for the most brilliant passages in everything they write, and then delete them." He's talking about the seduction of keeping things in your work solely because they please you as a writer, even though they detract from the power of your work as a whole. My own experience has shown me that the more deeply I cherish an assumption or game mechanic, the more rigorously I need to challenge it. Then, whether I keep it or discard it, my design is stronger for it.

Conspiracy Of Shadows (for example) is a game that's all about horror and atmosphere. It uses player rewards, overt metagame mechanisms, is very big on player contributions to plot and setting, and (so far as I know) has no particular emphasis on in-character-at-all-times. Despite this, there are players (& reveiwers) who think its a blast to play and accomplishes its aims admirably.

So it's certainly not the case that these things aren't suited to horror or that they must destroy suspense.

It might sound like I'm telling you not to use deep immersion or in-character-only techniques. I'm not. I'm saying that you don't need to use them, so if you do, you should do it as an informed design choice backed up by analysis and observation, not because they're an unexamined assumption about how thing have to be.

Good luck with Lendlhald,

charles

Charles-

How do my "deep immersion" and "no metagaming" emphases make Lendrhald more fun to play?  Well, for some players (including my current group), they don't.  But for the players the game is designed for (including myself and my co-creator), they're a big part of the basic appeal.  Really, they're kind of the point.

The immersion emphasis is not present just to make a horror/suspense/potent atmosphere game more fun, it's present because I think it is fun to be able to thoroughly lose myself in an utterly believable imaginary world.  All I need beyond that is for the world to be populated with people, places, things and events that I find interesting.  My version of "interesting" includes creepy monsters, complicated politics, familiar-but-unfamiliar lifestyles, and magical features of the environment (plus certain dark and horrific themes); thus, I have made it so.

If you'd like to discuss why I feel immersion is a good thing in itself, feel free to PM me.

-David

Quote from: David Berg on August 04, 2006, 02:37:00 AM
But for the players the game is designed for (including myself and my co-creator), they're a big part of the basic appeal.  Really, they're kind of the point.

Fully agreed. 

Quote from: David Berg on August 04, 2006, 02:37:00 AMI think it is fun to be able to thoroughly lose myself in an utterly believable imaginary world.

I know the feeling. And what you're described is dead-on with the school of roleplaying that Ron Edwards describes (perhaps too poetically) as "the right to dream" or (using the godawful jargon first invented on an earlier forum) "simulationism." Another term often employed is "celebration," as in celebrating a particular source material. There are lots of varieties of this "creative agenda," and "immersion" as you describe it is not a defining characteristic of all of them, by any means. Bs far as I understand it, all the varieties boil down to a love of the fiction -- the imagined world, the imagined characters, the imaged events -- for itself. At its worst, this is childish repetition, "playing house" long after the time has passed; at its best, it's a pure creative endeavor of the kind J.R.R. Tolkein devoted his life to, with the added advantage of being, not solitary, but inherently social.

The contrary school sees the fiction as a tool, a means to an end, a way for the real people playing to explore their own thoughts and values ("through a glass, darkly") and make statements about themselves, each other, and the real world. I'd put both "Narrativism" and "Gamism" in this category, albeit at opposite ends: One is about exploring the real people's values through fictional moral dilemmas and making "I care about this!" statements; the other is about exploring the real people's abilities through fictional tactical dilemmas and making "I can do this!" statements. At its worst, this becomes childish bullying with the dominant personalities in the group using the fiction as a club, like adolescents playing "truth or dare"; at its best, it's a cross between being in group therapy, team sports, and a practice-in-the-basement rock and roll band.

Personally I'm strongly of the second school, because I exercise my "right to dream" (and my "immersion") in a more solitary manner, by reading and writing fiction. You're strongly of the first. We can still appreciate each others' aesthetics, even enjoy each others' games, and give each other useful advice.

Advice such as, go read Ron Edwards's essays under "Articles" -- specifically on "Story Now," (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html) on stepping on up to the challenge, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) and especially on the 'Right to Dream' (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/), because those are considered the definitive starting point for this theory, whereas my musings above are just that, mine and musings. After that, read Edwards on why D&D isn't what you thought it was (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/) and on how game designers sabotage themselves by clinging to preconceptions and mechanics from other games that don't suit what they're trying to do (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/), with more refinements and examples of the theme in a sequel essay. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/10/)

Maybe you've read these already, but they still merit re-reading -- as "veteran" roleplayers, our preconceptions make it hard to understand what we're reading, and Edwards is often inventing his own terminology and conceptual framework as he goes along. They'd be especially useful to you in light of all our discussions in this thread, both our suggestions and your genuinely thoughtful responses and questions. I'd recommend that it's time for you to step back from the specifics of Lendrhald now, immerse yourself (pun unintended) in the general theory, and come back to your game from a new angle when you're ready.

A recent discussion with Charles leads me to believe it might help for me to clarify the following priorities:

Lendrhald is designed for players with the following disposition:

What kind of style and experience do I want?
Deeply immersed.

What kind of environment would be fun to be deeply immersed in?
A combination of medieval human culture and Lovecraftian horror.

What kind of things would be fun to do in this style and setting?
Getting involved with the dynamic human powers in the culture, crawling into the woods and down dark holes to seek out horror.  But if at a given time I feel like doing something else entirely, I want the freedom to choose.

As for system design, I think the priorities are sort of in that order:
1) System that facilitates immersion is good. 
2) System that facilitates horror (and involvement with human culture) is also good, as long as it doesn't break immersion.
3) System that makes it more fun to run dungeon-crawl missions (and to do politicking) is also good, as long as it doesn't break immersion, ruin horror, or make human society boring or lame.

In his last post (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20115.msg211945#msg211945), Ron suggested I focus on the strategic element.  I interpret his position as, more or less, "The strategy mission is what the players are doing, therefore that's what's important, and that's what you should design around and provide system for.  Your immersive horror game does not exist." 

That position, in my eyes, makes an inappropriate assumption of what Lendrhald players are at the table for.  The characters' sole objective may be to complete the mission, but the players' objectives might well be 1) to stay immersed, 2) to interact in interesting ways with the fictional environment, 3) to complete the mission -- in that order.  I know that, as a player, I take a lot less satisfaction in completing an in-game objective if I render that accomplishment "just a game" instead of really experiencing it intensely via deeply immersed play.  I'd rather achieve a vivid and striking failure than a numbers/metagaming-based success. 

(Re: the playtest Ron was responding to, those players' first priority is completing the mission.  I've torn them away from D&D, which they liked, and tried to get them to enjoy gaming the way I do (so our social contract is flimsier than any game's should be).  They are not my target audience for Lendrhald design.  Next playtest, I'll find some like-minded strangers instead of bullying my buddies.)

If immersion, horror, and dungeon-crawls all pull against each other and require incompatible system tools for optimization, and at the end of the day I wind up with a game that is very good for immersing yourself but not particularly enabling of strategy missions, then I'll certainly take that over the reverse.  I'm still hoping, though, that I can have my cake and eat it too.

Applying my hierarchy to Sydney's discussion of the various creative agendas:

1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.
2) Within being Immersionist, it has some Simulationist leanings.
3) Within being Immersionist and Simulationist, it has opportunities for Narrativist activities or Gamist activities.

For what it's worth, my co-designer has succeeded in running a game in which:
1) most of the players very much enjoyed interacting with a certain city, its people, and how it worked, and being a part of that culture (Sim)
2) many of the players enjoyed using the environment to test out thoughts and values (Nar)
3) all of the players enjoyed crawling into holes and killing shit for money (Gam)

In our view, the one common factor that contributed to all of these was the presence of a consistent world and the facilitation of immersion within it (Imm).

So, if this sounds like an incoherent design, then maybe it is indeed poorly suited for publication, but it's not unplayable.

If anyone with more design experience than myself sees that I'm attempting to do something impossible, or thinking about it in a counter-productive way, please feel free to tell me so (and why) before I spend a hundred more hours pursuing a confounding design.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 04, 2006, 03:04:22 PM
I'd recommend that it's time for you to step back from the specifics of Lendrhald now, immerse yourself (pun unintended) in the general theory, and come back to your game from a new angle when you're ready.

I'll do some of that.  (Some of Ron's articles, I admit, didn't process very smoothly the first time.)  I'll check out some new RPGs too.  At the same time, I also intend to turn many of the thoughts from this thread (and the other Lendrhald ones) into tentative systems, work on them, and see what they contribute.  So I am still in the market for system ideas and feedback, if anything occurs to anyone.

I'll offer one comment on the nature of Immersion and your desire for it.  I have no intention of turning this into a debate on immersion and offer this only in the vein of "food for thought"

There are certain elements that you enjoy when you play immersively -- emotional, psychological, whatever label we want to call them.  These elements, these responses, these feelings you get when you play are a big source (perhaps the main source) of your enjoyment in playing...at least on certain occassions when you're in an "immersive mood".

The thought I want to leave you with is that its possible to get the same elements, the same responses, the same feelings from sources OTHER than whats traditionally acknowledged as "immersive" play.  Immersive play may be the technique you use most often to reach that state of enjoyment but I'd like you to consider that you can reach the same state of enjoyment using non traditionally immersive techniques as well.

I'm specifically here NOT talking about a DIFFERENT kind of enjoyment...as in "yeah there are many ways to enjoy play and I might enjoy those other ways too form time to time, but here I'm specifically interested in enjoying immersive play".  Rather I'm talking about play that gives you essentially the same enjoyment...virtually indistinguishable...from the rush you get in immersive play...even though it might use other techniques instead of, or in addition to what you currently think of as immersion to get you there.

At first those other techniques might take you out of your familiarity zone and so disrupt your enjoyment, but I suggest that it is the lack of familiarity that causes the disruption...not the lack of immersion that did so.  Often times when we seek an immersive experience and some new mechanic (like "too much dice rolling") disrupts our play we build the chain of consequences thusly: "too much dice rolling broke my immersion and because I enjoy immersion it made play less enjoyable, therefor I don't like games with lots of dice rolls".  I believe the ACTUAL chain of consequences is: "I'm not used to that much dice rolling, and the lack of familiarity broke my immersion, and because I enjoy immersion made play less enjoyable, but over time I can get comfortable with games with lots of dice rolls and it won't bother me any more".  I firmly and vigorously believe that in most every conversation where Immersion comes up people spend lots of time making statements like the first one...when the truth is almost always closer to the second one.

The key there is that its possible to become familiar enough with these other techniques that they DON'T break your immersion and thus you can get the exact same fully immersed experience EVEN WHEN using techniques that typically are not associated with immersion (or actually are thought of as being anti-immersive).

As an example consider two groups of immersion dedicated players.  One group meets in a darkened and quiet basement room where the mood and ambiance make sliding into immersion easy for them.  The other group happens to meet in an apartment located above a commuter train line where the whole apartment shakes and rattles every 20 minutes with the passing of a train.  A member of group one goes to play with group two and concludes "all that train noise breaks immersion and keeps me from enjoying the game".  On the other hand, the members of group two, who have long become familiar with the train, experience no problem immersing whatesoever.  Clearly its not the noise that's breaking immersion, but just the relative lack of adaption to it.

My point is that ALL game mechanics are identical to this.  You can take the single most abstract, high player contact, meta gamey mechanic immaginable...and its just like that train.  With enough practice and familiarity, you can use that "immersion breaking" mechanic all day everyday without ever having the enjoyment you get from the immersion suffer.  INITIALLY when you aren't familiar with it...it will seem horrible.  But I feel very strongly that there is no such thing as a immersion breaking mechanic.  Only mechanics that have not traditionally been used by immersive players in conjunction with immersive play and are thus immersion breaking, not due to any intrinsic quality, but merely due to lack of familiarity.

The reason I bring this up at all in this thread is just to caution you to not automatically discard a mechanic possibility (and Sydney's offered several) solely because it sounds like an immersion breaking mechanic...because quite often you'd be very surprised at the type of mechanics you can become comfortable with and still enjoy being immersed.

Setting aside Ralph's train for a moment (and I get his point, I just think it's a bit of a tangent here):

Quote from: David Berg on August 04, 2006, 03:49:49 PM1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.

David, that's why you've got to go read those essays [pick one: for the first time/one more time]. There is no "Immersionist" in the model laid out by Ron Edwards -- and I'm not citing it because it's Holy Writ, I'm citing it because the combined intellectual energy of the Forge community, despite much debate over alternatives, has repeatedly returned to the "Big Model" as the only design tool that actually works, and while Ron himself says in the essays there could be a fourth "ism," no one's ever proposed one that did not, after online discussion, fold up tidily into one of the existing three. You can have several different things you do and enjoy in the course of the game without changing your "creative agenda": A few intense bouts of tactical problem-solving a session doesn't make it Gamism, a few moral dilemmas doesn't make it Narrativist, a few passages of exploring setting doesn't make it Simulationist -- you have to look at the session of play overall, particularly what the whole group enjoys, applauds, and encourages consistently. (If people consistently enjoy, applaud, and encourage incompatible things, that's "incoherence," and rarely fun).

"Immersion" operates at a different level of the model altogether than the three "creative agendas": It's what Ron calls a "technique," a particular method of interacting around the table, just as rolling lots of dice and talking in game stats is a technique. "Wait, you should be saying that in character" is just the mirror image of "oh, shut up and roll already" -- and either can be in the service of any of the three Creative Agendas. (Or of the mysterious fourth agenda if anyone ever discovers one).

So the crucial issue is not, "I enjoy immersion," but "I enjoy immersion because...." And from what you've described, you personally do not enjoy immersion primarily because it makes the in-game moral dilemmas and tactical decisions more emotionally intense -- although it does, and you're allowed to like that, without having to label yourself Gamist or Narrativist -- but, above all else, because you like to "thoroughly lose [your]self in an utterly believable imaginary world." That's the ends; immersion is just the means to that end, albeit one you find very effective and enjoyable.

Great! Knowing what you really want is a big part of the battle. Don't think of the terms as a prison you have to escape, don't think of the model as an untested hypothesis you can improve on easily by yourself, just use the tools that literally hundreds of people working over the last five years of the Forge have built for you.

And I am now way in over my head in explaining the Ron Edwards's Big Model and expecting a moderator rebuke any minute, so I am going to stop frickin' posting to let you read and think. This thread is way past the point of diminishing returns in terms of actually helping your game design.

Wait, I lied, one last post: look at Ron Edwards's painstaking discussion of these very same issues with Levi Kornelson over in this thread, happening right now. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20679.0) (But don't post in it! It's just them).

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 04, 2006, 07:13:08 PM

Quote from: David Berg on August 04, 2006, 03:49:49 PM1) First and foremost, Lendrhald is not Simulationist, Narrativist, or Gamist.  It is Immersionist.

David, that's why you've got to go read those essays . . . the combined intellectual energy of the Forge community, despite much debate over alternatives, has repeatedly returned to the "Big Model" as the only design tool that actually works

You're right, that was a dumb move, using CA terminology to describe different types of play within a game, and declaring a "technique" to be "my CA".

Or, well, it looks dumb now, after reading that thread you linked.  Great thread!  I hope Ron opens it up at some point so I can ask him some questions.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 04, 2006, 07:13:08 PM
"Immersion" operates at a different level of the model altogether than the three "creative agendas": It's what Ron calls a "technique," a particular method of interacting around the table

Hey, sometimes a "means to an end" for some people is an "end in itself" for others.

Here's a possibility.  Take one GM, one group of players, one world (set of settings), one rulebook (set of systems).  Now, keeping all of those constant, proceed to play a few sessions with a Gamist CA, then a few sessions with a Simulationist CA, then a few sessions with a Narrativist CA.  What could keep these people, in their sequence of playing what could be called 3 different games, using the same world and rulebook?  Immersion.  Whether it's defined, in this case, as a "technique" or not, it's the reason to play Lendrhald as opposed to 3 other games.

Maybe that's a hopelessly wacky example, but I don't think so.  Ron looked at my strategy mission, in which the players were motivated largely by success in pursuit of their objective, and said, "That's a Gamist game."  Well, when they succeed in their mission, go back to town, get famous, start getting treated to meals and given gifts from the coolest spots in town, meet a lot of NPCs and see how the power structure operates -- at that point, they may decide they're interested in being involved in town affairs and geography and human culture.  They may cease to fixate on their objectives, and focus more on process.  Voila!  "That's a Simulationist game."  Later, they may become embroiled in moral quandaries and focus on pursuing dramatic arcs of gain and loss, love and betrayal ("Narrativism"), until finally the story culminates in them getting kicked out of town.  Time to go spy on Orcs for money and get Gamist again.

Quote from: Sydney Freedberg on August 04, 2006, 07:13:08 PM
above all else, because you like to "thoroughly lose [your]self in an utterly believable imaginary world." That's the ends; immersion is just the means to that end, albeit one you find very effective and enjoyable.

In terms of relating this to a CA:
Simulationism, as I understand it, is usually about the fiction, and the response to the fiction.  If you're motivated to immerse yourself in playing Star Wars, it's not necessarily because you like immersion, it's because you like Star Wars.  My motivation, on the other hand, is to immerse myself in some fiction that provides the most enablers of, and fewest hindrances to, the type of immersion I enjoy.  Something where nothing seems contrived, where I don't get reminded that I'm playing a game.  Something similar in many ways to real life, but different enough to be worth the trip.  Something like Lendrhald.  But the motivating impulse is not first and foremost to be immersed in Lendrhald specifically.

Would anyone ever pick up an RPG book and say, "This design looks like a great way to facilitate my immersion in whatever the hell their world is!  Now let me see if I like the world too."?  (As opposed to, of course, "Cool world!  I wanna play it!  Now let me see if I like the system design too.")  Well, I would...

Maybe I should provide one system set aimed at immersion, and then three different supplemental ones aimed at the three CAs, and a very busy character sheet in case you wanted to play the same guy in all three modes...

Of course, designing the game around a "technique" may make it hard to satisfy any CA particularly well... in fact, this thread might prove that...

Ralph, are you talking about the difference between:
1) techniques I'm used to using to facilitate immersion vs techniques I'm not used to, but could facilitate immersion (or at least not hurt it) if I gave them a chance
or
2) getting the elements/feelings/responses I desire from immersion vs getting the elements/feelings/responses I desire from something other than immersion
or both?

I think it's #1, but I want to be sure.

Quote from: Valamir on August 04, 2006, 04:44:50 PM
I feel very strongly that there is no such thing as a immersion breaking mechanic.

There may not be any such thing as a mechanic that breaks immersion in every conceivable context.  But within a specific context, I can think of tons of mechanics that break immersion (beyond any ability I ever expect to have to will it otherwise).  Say you're playing in a world where wizards are poor and gold is scarce and every wizard has identical abilities.  This is the world, this is how it works, this has defined your immersed experience of what it's like to be there.  Your character, a typical wizard, decides to try cloning a gold coin.  The rulebook says it takes two seconds and works perfectly, with the clone indistinguishable from the original.  Boom, immersion broken.  (Or maybe the break waits a little bit until you start telling other wizards the path to easy wealth and they give all sorts of hideously stupid reasons why they've never done it before.)

The "visible contrivance" I've been fretting about in Lendrhald, admittedly, is not such a case; it's more like your noisy train.

Quote from: Valamir on August 04, 2006, 04:44:50 PM
The key there is that its possible to become familiar enough with these other techniques that they DON'T break your immersion and thus you can get the exact same fully immersed experience EVEN WHEN using techniques that typically are not associated with immersion (or actually are thought of as being anti-immersive).

I assume the motivation to bother doing this is because these techniques give you something else that you want (I'm not inclined to play over train tracks rather than in a darkened and quiet basement room just because it's possible).  Let's say they help you provide cool monsters.  So, what's the difference between saying, "Learn to remain immersed, and enjoy the easily-made monster" and saying, "Learn to make up cool monsters, and enjoy the easily-maintained immersion"?  Do you think the former is a better design strategy than the latter, despite the high priority I've placed on immersion?

Quote from: Valamir on August 04, 2006, 04:44:50 PM
The reason I bring this up at all in this thread is just to caution you to not automatically discard a mechanic possibility (and Sydney's offered several) solely because it sounds like an immersion breaking mechanic...because quite often you'd be very surprised at the type of mechanics you can become comfortable with and still enjoy being immersed.

I appreciate the word of caution.  Actually, I'm very much with you in spirit, in terms of wanting to be open to new possibilities.  Let me also say that I haven't been discarding certain system ideas just because they've sounded vaguely immersion-unfriendly, but because they've resembled actual mechanics I've found to be immersion-breakers for me in the past.

I know you said you didn't want to start an immersion discussion here.  However, if you don't mind responding to my last post (either here or via PM), I'd appreciate it, as I feel those issues are central to whether or not I can implement your general suggestion in Lendrhald (and maybe revisit some of Sydney's proposals).

Thanks,
-David

Quote from: David Berg on August 05, 2006, 07:13:57 AM

I think it's #1, but I want to be sure.

#1, yes.

QuoteThere may not be any such thing as a mechanic that breaks immersion in every conceivable context.  But within a specific context, I can think of tons of mechanics that break immersion (beyond any ability I ever expect to have to will it otherwise).  Say you're playing in a world where wizards are poor and gold is scarce and every wizard has identical abilities.  This is the world, this is how it works, this has defined your immersed experience of what it's like to be there.  Your character, a typical wizard, decides to try cloning a gold coin.  The rulebook says it takes two seconds and works perfectly, with the clone indistinguishable from the original.  Boom, immersion broken.  (Or maybe the break waits a little bit until you start telling other wizards the path to easy wealth and they give all sorts of hideously stupid reasons why they've never done it before.)

I think there's a bit of terminology difference here.  I wouldn't consider your example to be a mechanic per se.  Rather its just a setting inconsistancy...something that can be irritating to alot of people regardless of their interest in immersion.  D&D was chock full of these.  The sort of "mechanics don't inherently break immersion" thing I was referring to was the actual physical actions that the players do...in this example the looking up the rule in the rule book to run down the mechanics of how the spell works is the sort of thing that doesn't automatically break immersion just by asking players to do it.  Some groups have an obsessive desire for "rules light" or "rules transparency" or other phrases that essentially mean "keeping track of alot of rules breaks immersion".  Other groups have no such problem...agains its a question of familiarity.

QuoteI assume the motivation to bother doing this is because these techniques give you something else that you want (I'm not inclined to play over train tracks rather than in a darkened and quiet basement room just because it's possible).  Let's say they help you provide cool monsters.  So, what's the difference between saying, "Learn to remain immersed, and enjoy the easily-made monster" and saying, "Learn to make up cool monsters, and enjoy the easily-maintained immersion"?  Do you think the former is a better design strategy than the latter, despite the high priority I've placed on immersion?

I'm not sure I follow your example...but yes, there's a whole lot of things you can get as a result of broadening the techniques one is willing to try.  For example, there are whole families of techniques designed to encourage player engagement in a game.  Traditionally, player engagement has been something of a hit or miss proposition.  The GM gleans what he can from the character sheets and what he knows of the players and creates a bunch of plot hooks that he then dangles in front of the characters hoping the players will feel that their character would bite on one of them and pursue that plot thread.  There's a number of weaknesses to this technique, not the least of which is often the player may feel their character would bite even though they personally aren't all that excited by it.  But there are many other ways of reaching out and getting the player engaged directly...leaving the player then to figure out a believable reason for the character to bite.  In other words...hook the player, not the character.

A lot of these techniques require different degrees of being aware of or manipulating the "meta game"...which alot of dogmatic immersionists will dismiss out of hand as being automatically detrimental to immersion.  My belief is that meta game is not any more automatically detrimental to immersion than the train is.  Its all in what you become used to.

QuoteI appreciate the word of caution.  Actually, I'm very much with you in spirit, in terms of wanting to be open to new possibilities.  Let me also say that I haven't been discarding certain system ideas just because they've sounded vaguely immersion-unfriendly, but because they've resembled actual mechanics I've found to be immersion-breakers for me in the past.

  Good to hear.  The mechanics you've found immersion breakers in the past, was that as the result of a couple of play sessions...like the player from the basement who found the rumbling train to be an immersion breaker?  In other words, given sufficient motivation to do so, do you think you could become accustomed to being immersed in an environment that had such mechanics over time?  If so, the equation then becomes a matter of whether the advantages of being able to successfully use such mechanics in the future outweighs some number of less enjoyable games during the acclimation period.

Quote from: Valamir on August 05, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
I think there's a bit of terminology difference here.  I wouldn't consider your example to be a mechanic per se.  Rather its just a setting inconsistancy...

Well, the setting wasn't inconsistent until you looked up the rule that says, "You can clone stuff," and found no restrictions on currency.  In the course of developing Lendrhald, I've discarded a lot of fun-for-players systems (such as magic) for this reason, so the example seemed pertinent.  I guess that's not what I've been doing in this thread, though, so perhaps I should find a different example.

Quote from: Valamir on August 05, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
The sort of "mechanics don't inherently break immersion" thing I was referring to was the actual physical actions that the players do...

Sure.  I agree that dice-rolling and looking stuff up aren't insurmountable immersion-breakers.  Have I said anything to imply otherwise?

Most of my issues have been with some form of transparent contrivance.

Quote from: Valamir on August 05, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
I'm not sure I follow your example
. . .
there are many other ways of reaching out and getting the player engaged directly...

Okay, let me see if I can provide a clearer example.  Suppose I have the option of whether or not to use Metagame Mechanic Alpha in my immersive game.  Alpha is supposed to facilitate player engagement -- let's say it quickly drops desirable elements into play upon player request.  Neither Alpha nor the lack of Alpha will force my players to be immersed/not immersed, nor force them to be engaged/not engaged.  Rather, it's a matter of ease, facilitation, and degree.

If I use Alpha, then my players say, "We like being engaged, but this transparent contrivance thwarts our effort to pretend the setting is real!"  And I say, "Get used to it, learn to remain immersed anyway."

If I don't use Alpha, then my players say, "We like being immersed, but the total lack of convenience and clarity makes it hard to engage with the game!"  And I say, "Get used to it, learn to engage anyway."

In both situations, with enough positivity and dedication, the group winds up both engaged and immersed.  But, using Alpha made it relatively easy for them to be engaged and relatively hard for them to be immersed, and ditching Alpha did the reverse.

So, do I use Alpha or not?

I can see two arguments in favor of Alpha:
1) you can learn how to immerse (to whatever degree you're aiming for) despite metagaming, but you can't learn how to engage (to whatever degree you're aiming for) without Alpha or something like it
2) player engagement is more important than immersion

I definitely don't buy the first.  As for the second, I'm not sure, but I would guess this determination is specific to the game in question.  If, for my game, I decide that facilitating player immersion is more of a priority than facilitating player engagement, doesn't it make sense to kick Alpha to the curb?

Quote from: Valamir on August 05, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
The mechanics you've found immersion breakers in the past, was that as the result of a couple of play sessions...like the player from the basement who found the rumbling train to be an immersion breaker?

Most of them have been ongoing matters where I had to suspend disbelief and found that obligation onerous.  Beyond the issue of mechanics that lend themselves to breaking setting consistency (e.g. PCs doing things that others should be able to do, but don't), there's this "visible contrivance" thing.  If I use Alpha repeatedly and learn to expect that the world will meet my desires, I start losing the emotional intensity of uncertainty, and I stop feeling like this imaginary place I go to is real.  Sure, you can try to immerse yourself in something that you're aware is being made up on the spot, but my experiences in that direction have made me disinclined to bother.  I enjoy non-immersive games too, and a game using Alpha I would probably just go and play for its apparent strengths and not worry about immersion.

I guess it's possible that I would find a game that included both Alpha and some really cool immersion-facilitating systems on a shelf, read some hype from the designers, and work up the motivation to try to overcome my dislike of visible contrivance (which probably is like your train example).  Unless Alpha was really cool, though, I'd certainly opt not to use it.

If you find my logic infallible, then I guess we can stop here, and I'll see if I can create a game that is so good at facilitating immersion that I feel comfortable augmenting it with other cool systems that have the potential to be immersion-hindrances.  (I admit, that would be nice -- I'm all about having my cake and eating it too.)  If, on the other hand, I've missed a point, or drawn a conclusion that is contrary to your experience and observations, then please let me know.

Quote from: David Berg on August 05, 2006, 05:08:35 PM
So, do I use Alpha or not?

I can see two arguments in favor of Alpha:
1) you can learn how to immerse (to whatever degree you're aiming for) despite metagaming, but you can't learn how to engage (to whatever degree you're aiming for) without Alpha or something like it
2) player engagement is more important than immersion

I definitely don't buy the first.  As for the second, I'm not sure, but I would guess this determination is specific to the game in question.  If, for my game, I decide that facilitating player immersion is more of a priority than facilitating player engagement, doesn't it make sense to kick Alpha to the curb?

A very sound analysis.  I'll offer a couple of observations, but we're rapidly spiralling into a conversation that could go on for 5 pages by itself.  This is rather a 600 lb gorilla of a topic.

By player engagement I mean that the interest of the players has been captured.  Their attention is riveted to what is going on in the game...not only when its their turn in the spottlight, but throughout the game.  They're into the events of the fiction and committed to helping ensure everyone at the table is having as much fun as they are (not MORE fun...player engagement doesn't mean being a martyr after all).  I submit that if you achieve this state you have successful play and if you don't achieve this state you do not.  If you don't achieve this state then you'd be better off having spent the last few hours engaged in some other activity.  By the by I would apply this same standard to EVERY social activity that a group of friends could engage in; be it movie night, clubbing, or hosting a dinner party...simply substitute any other activity for "game" and the same statement of success applies.  Hopefully this is a statement that we can both agree on, or else there's little point in continuing to discuss immersion because our differences would be far more fundamental than that.

So, if we are in agreement that "player engagement" as I've described above is the ultimate measure of successful vs. non successful play then it follows that any set of game techniques can be evaluated by how reliably they produce such a level of engagement.  Traditionally, a common equation for roleplaying is slogging through several sessions of "blah" or mediocre play in hopes of periodically getting to moments of highly engaged payoff.  The various techniques that have been developed over the years here, and which pervade many of the game designs that are commonly thought of as "Forge games" are designed to create a new equation where players can expect to achieve those moments of highly engaged payoff on a regular and reoccuring basis -- everytime you sit down to play -- because all of the players at the table are actively working towards driving the game towards those payoffs.  This is in contrast to traditional techniques which typically hope that such moments of payoff will arrive organically through a serendipitous combination of in-game events that played out "on their own" without being actively driven towards by the players.

Of course no set of techniques is 100% reliable 100% of the time for any group...let alone for 100% of players.  So therefor it stands to reason that the more techniques you've mastered as a player, the better able you are to find the right combination of techniques for any particular moment of play.  So like a woodworker who's able to tackle a wider range of projects if he has a wider range of tools at his disposal, a roleplayer who has a wider range of tools is better equiped to craft a wider range of stories under a wider range of circumstances.  This doesn't make the player a "better" roleplayer, any more than the tools make the woodworker a better craftsman.  But it does mean that all else being equal the craftsman with the right tools for the job will turn out the better finished product more reliably. 

So to me, the choice behind your "mechanic alpha" is not so much just a binary yes or no, but a much broader question.  If your players encountered mechanic alpha in a game would they know how to use it to craft their shared imaginary space into a better experience (for them) then if they didn't have it?  If the answer is yes, then they are one step closer to having a well equipped wood working shop...even though there will be doubtless times where that particular tool is NOT the right tool for the job.  After all, knowing when NOT to use a tool is as important as knowing when to use it.

But for all of this to make sense, I need to make clear that when I say "mechanics" and "techniques" and "system" and other such terms, I'm not referring to just things that are typically though of as "rules".  I'm talking about things that go way beyond how to make a skill check, or what the area of effect of a spell is.  I'm talking about the sum total of how the human beings around the table communicate with each other during play.  How do the imaginary events of the game fiction get invented, proposed, and accepted as part of the shared imaginary space.  That entire process involves everything from what the rules say, to how players choose when to consult the rules vs. ignoring them, to who has the right to say what and when, to how in character vs. out of character discussion is handled and prioritized, to "where the buck stops" when a decision has to be rendered, to non verbal cues indicating excited engagement vs. bored disinterest.  When I say "my character crosses the room and picks up the can of peaches" there's a TON of largely invisible, largely unnoticed, and rarely discussed in game texts STUFF that has to happen between the time it first occurs to me to utter those words and the time you alter your mental picture of the game world to include the can of peaches in my character's hand.  It may happen almost instantaneously or only after an hour of rules lawyering and argueing...regardless its that STUFF that constitutes the true "system" of the game, and what Ron's articles mean when he says "system matters".  The kind of techniques I'm talking about are methods for navigating that STUFF.

To bring this back to the discussion on Immersion then.  Immersion itself is not an undesireable state to be in.  BUT many of the techniques traditionally put forth as being "immersion enhancing" effectively build artificial barriers to communication between players.  Much like having tunnel vision narrows your ability to notice and recognize what's going on around you, so too can certain highly immersive focusing techniques limit your ability to notice what is or isn't interesting your fellow players, limit your ability to recognize opportunities to contribute to your fellow player's enjoyment, and basically make all of that "STUFF" more difficult to sort through.

So with respect to your prioritizing of immersion over engagement or engagement over immersion, I don't think this is a mutually exclusive situation.  Its not immersion itself that's interferring with engagement, nor is it engagement that's interferring with immersion.  Rather its a certain subset of techniques that historically have been associated with immersion (often to the point that many think they are synonomous) that interferes with engagement, and which engagement enhancing techniques subsequently interfere with.

So the question then becomes is it honestly the IMMERSIVE experience you desire?  Or is it that particular subset of techniques that you're wedded to?

If the former then hooray.  I think, with practice, you'll find you can get all of the enjoyment you currently get through immersion even without those traditional techniques and even with embraceing the use of techniques that you haven't had total luck with in the past.

If the latter, then I'm afraid I won't have much advice or ideas for how to help you.  While I enjoy the sensation of sharing my character's thoughts and being immersed in an exciting fiction taking place in a world that seems solid and consistant, I actually rather abhor that subset of traditional "immersive supporting" techniques I mention above...which I think are actually an anchor and active obstacle to generating reliable player engagement.  AND which further I think are entirely UNNECESSARY for acheiving the satisfaction of immersing in the character / the world / or the story...but which through dogmatic repetition tend to be incorrectly held up as being critical to such an experience.

Wow, well said.  That really makes me think about the spectrum covering the extent to which a game can be involved in player enjoyment. 

On the one end, I see a sort of "emergent fun", in which the players supplement whatever the game gives them with various tools/techniques of their own, and these latter do most of the real work.  I've run a few games with no official systems whatsoever, and the guy I ran them for loved it. 

On the other end, I see a sort of "micromanaged fun", in which the game plays a persistent role in ensuring that players find their enjoyment actively enabled and assisted.  I've never played a successful version of this type of game (usually I've been better at coming up with tools and techniques to enhance my enjoyment than the game designer has), and perhaps once I've played more "Forge games" I will shift some of the priorities and emphases I've held to date.

Of course, this may or may not effect Lendrhald, which is explicitly an attempt to do a good job of enabling a style of play that I already know I like.

I will definitely re-read this post and think more on it.  For now, a few more questions:

Quote from: Valamir on August 06, 2006, 01:15:15 AM
So, if we are in agreement that "player engagement" as I've described above is the ultimate measure of successful vs. non successful play then it follows that any set of game techniques can be evaluated by how reliably they produce such a level of engagement.

We're in agreement that engaged players = successful play.  Alas, measuring that engagement, and in what situations it's been optimized, seems really tricky to me.  I agree with your statement about evaluating techniques, but only as long as "reliably" factors in both "amount of time spent at varying levels of engagement" and "degree of engagement".  I don't see enjoyment as an on/off, yes/no proposition, so I don't think it'd make sense to view engagement that way either.

Lendrhald is for players who (like me) find themselves most engaged when they can have a certain combination of:
- faith that the gameworld will always make sense and appear to exist in its own right
- control over the actions and choices of their characters
- various in-gameworld options of what to do, such that on any given day, or in any given mood, there's a very high chance that one will look appealing
- the absolute minimum distractions from immersed experience
- a vague sense that the gameworld and in-game experience have some non-random aesthetic

The tools and techniques I'm looking for are the ones that will best allow players to engage from this perspective.  (Suggestions still welcome!)

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself, but in this context I just wanted to emphasize that, for me, immersion is close to equal to engagement.  If I can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in a world like Lendrhald, the chance that I'll be engaged in play is very high.

(That said, "interesting in-gameworld options of what to do" does suggest the desirability of some type of situation-creation engine...)

Quote from: Valamir on August 06, 2006, 01:15:15 AM
it stands to reason that the more techniques you've mastered as a player, the better able you are to find the right combination of techniques for any particular moment of play.
. . .
If your players encountered mechanic alpha in a game would they know how to use it . . . ?

This seems pretty straightforward as a player.  Or as a GM familiar with his players' aptitudes and experiences.  As a designer, though, what to do?  I guess you just offer techniques that you know how to use, and hope that if players don't know how to use them, they'll be motivated to work at it until they "get it" or "make it work for them"?

Quote from: Valamir on August 06, 2006, 01:15:15 AM
So the question then becomes is it honestly the IMMERSIVE experience you desire?  Or is it that particular subset of techniques that you're wedded to?

The techniques I currently like are the ones that have seemed to me to facilitate or augment my immersive experiences in past play.  But yeah, if I found techniques that facilitated or augmented better, I'd happily ditch the old ones.

Quote from: Valamir on August 06, 2006, 01:15:15 AM
I actually rather abhor that subset of traditional "immersive supporting" techniques I mention above...which I think are actually an anchor and active obstacle to generating reliable player engagement.

I don't have much sense of what's traditional or non-traditional in immersion-focused games, as most of the immersion-focused games I've played have been built by me or a friend.  Would you mind telling me exactly which techniques you abhor?  (And also maybe how they're obstacles to player engagement?)

Quote from: David Berg on August 07, 2006, 02:44:29 AM
On the one end, I see a sort of "emergent fun", in which the players supplement whatever the game gives them with various tools/techniques of their own, and these latter do most of the real work.  I've run a few games with no official systems whatsoever, and the guy I ran them for loved it. 

Yeah, successful experiences in this vein are what led to the rise of "rules-lite" or "freeform" gaming.  What people didn't really realize, however, is that while they may have stripped away the text of a written rulebook, they were far from operating without a system.  They definitely had a system (there's no such thing as "system-less" play)...that system was all of the invisible "Stuff" I was talking about above.  The problem is that those unwritten, unarticulated systems are often the hardest to replicate because they evolved in a specific set of circumstances with a specific group of players.  The only thing that gets passed on, however, when the "rules" are released on a free website or as a short PDF, are a very limited set of mechanics that don't convey any of the REAL system that made the game successful.

QuoteOn the other end, I see a sort of "micromanaged fun", in which the game plays a persistent role in ensuring that players find their enjoyment actively enabled and assisted.  I've never played a successful version of this type of game (usually I've been better at coming up with tools and techniques to enhance my enjoyment than the game designer has), and perhaps once I've played more "Forge games" I will shift some of the priorities and emphases I've held to date.

"Forge Games" (and understand I use that term very loosely) are often "rules-lite" in the sense that there are far fewer rules in the PTA or DITV or MLWM or Sorcerer rule book than in D&D 3.5.  But the rules that are there are far more interested in articulating a standard process for dealing with the "stuff"...the true system of the game...and less interested in defining many of the things that traditional rules concern themselves with.  So its not so much "micromanaged fun" as it is a question of clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie. 

For the second of these, imagine a list of all of the many activities a GM typically has responsibility for and all of the many activities players typically have responsibility for.  For a game to take place, those activities must get done.  Many of these activities are things that don't even appear in a traditional game text...veteran gamers just do them, because they know how to do them and have been doing them since they were first shown how to roleplay. Then imagine that the activities can be mixed and matched at will, and for the most part it doesn't matter WHO performs the activity as long as the activity gets done.  When I say "where the various spheres of responsibility lie" I mean articulating the crucial activities that often go unarticulated and dividing responsibility up for those activities in any variety of ways designed to best meet the goals of a particular game

Quote
Lendrhald is for players who (like me) find themselves most engaged when they can have a certain combination of:
- faith that the gameworld will always make sense and appear to exist in its own right
- control over the actions and choices of their characters
- various in-gameworld options of what to do, such that on any given day, or in any given mood, there's a very high chance that one will look appealing
- a vague sense that the gameworld and in-game experience have some non-random aesthetic

These are fairly universal sentiments.  While there are certain games and certain goals that are exceptions, for the most part even the hardest core narrativists want worlds that make sense, are internally consistant, and have appealing choices to make.

Quote- the absolute minimum distractions from immersed experience

This is the item that my comments to-date have been focused on.  Pointing out that things that are often seen as "distractions from immersed experience" really aren't at all...or rather, really don't have to be. 

Quote
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm repeating myself, but in this context I just wanted to emphasize that, for me, immersion is close to equal to engagement.  If I can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in a world like Lendrhald, the chance that I'll be engaged in play is very high.

Quite.  And at the risk of repeating myself as well, I'll back track through some stuff I've already said just in the spirit of connecting the dots and making sure we're on the same page in terms of understanding what each other is saying.

I fully accept that if you can succeed in being thoroughly immersed in the world there is a high chance that you'll be engaged in play.  Assuming you're playing with people of similar priorities it stands to reason that if THEY can be thoroughly immersed in the world there is a high chance that they'll be engaged in play also...that's the ideal.

The catch is...what is there to ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time?   

That's where the whole "band analogy" comes in that you'll see frequently bandied about here.  You can't have three musicians totally engrossed in their own play and totally not interested in the play of their band mates and have it be successful. 

So how does one ensure that everyone is grooving on each other's play during the game and is not just focused on their own piece of the immersion?  Especially when the characters are not in the same place doing the same activity.  How does a player become totally interested in and excited about what YOUR character is doing (without breaking immersion), when his character is off somewhere else doing something else.

Some immersionists would argue that he can't...that losing focus on where his character is and what his character is doing in order to pay attention to something that doesn't involve his character automatically breaks immersion.  I, however, argue that 1) NOT paying attention and being excited about what you (as a fellow player) are doing and are excited about means you don't have player engagement happening (remember, player engagement is not about "engaging with the game" its about engaging with the other human beings at the table...just like any other social activity, its the people that matter.  and 2) that BEING excited about what you are doing and are excited about does NOT have to break immersion.

Quote
I don't have much sense of what's traditional or non-traditional in immersion-focused games, as most of the immersion-focused games I've played have been built by me or a friend.  Would you mind telling me exactly which techniques you abhor?  (And also maybe how they're obstacles to player engagement?)

Well, its not quite as simple as having a laundry list of "bad" techniques, because alot depends on a) the combination of techniques being used, not just individual ones, b) how fanatically they're applied, and c) any other techniques that actually serve to modify how their applied for a particular gaming group at a particular time.

So instead, I'll lay out my logic for evaluation, and hopefully this will make sense and you'll be able to envision for yourself the sort of techniques that could be applied in a certain way that would lead me to conclude they are obstructive to good play.

here it goes:

1) successful play requires player engagement
2) player engagement requires players to be truly interested in, excited about, and focused on what the other human beings at the table are doing as well as what you yourself are doing.
3) this then, by definition, requires a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding.  I can't tell what you as a person are feeling/enjoying if I'm completely focused in seeing only your character and only through the eyes of my character.  I can't communicate to you what I'm feeling/enjoying if I'm totally focused within my own character.
4) I do not then have the luxury of sinking so deep into my character and focusing so intently on what my character sees and knows that I lose sight of you as a person at the table (or lose sight of me as a person at the table, for that matter).

Ok, given those, it can be seen that a balance must be struck between sufficient "in character" techniques that allow us to experience the thrill of "being there", and sufficient "out of character" techniques that allow us to keep one eye on the real humans at the table...techniques I've called periodically "coming up for air".

Therefor, any technique that absolutely requires all one way and forbids the other would be those techniques that are obstacles.  Techniques that insist on "all immersion all the time" can significantly impede or even completely block intra person communication, causing the missing of cues, and body language, and leading to the breakdown of player engagement.

Similarly, any technique that absolutely requires all meta all the time can significantly impede or even completely block the immersive experience.

So my "crusade" if you will, is to point out that there can exist a balance where we can have it both ways.  That the meta doesn't automatically negate the immersion.  In fact, its been my experience that a well structured degree of meta can actually ENHANCE the immersion...by providing simple and reliable ways of moving the story from interesting immersion situation to interesting immersion situation and avoiding the flow breaking floundering that often accompanies waiting for something to happen.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
the rules that are there are far more interested in articulating a standard process for dealing with the "stuff"...the true system of the game...and less interested in defining many of the things that traditional rules concern themselves with.  So its not so much "micromanaged fun" as it is a question of clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie. 

Yeah, I definitely see a lot of potential in laying out both of these.  The reason I haven't thus far is a lack of valuable playtesting to this end.  I've yet to run a Lendrhald game with the kind of players who really ought to be playing it, so the "true system of the game" has been used in a model that I don't wish to preserve (me taking responsibility for almost everything, and verbally regulating on the players when they fail to conform to the standards I'm trying to establish).  I hope this illuminates the rather open-ended nature of my requests for system suggestions.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
When I say "where the various spheres of responsibility lie" I mean articulating the crucial activities that often go unarticulated and dividing responsibility up for those activities in any variety of ways designed to best meet the goals of a particular game

I think I'm pretty settled on handing the GM the responsibility of arbitrating how the fictional world operates (including responses to character actions (including those mediated by dice)), and I'm also pretty settled on handing the players the responsibility of choosing what the characters do 100% of the time.  But beyond that, there's probably a large amount of responsibility redistribution possible.  I'll throw out some ideas in a subsequent post.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
The catch is...what is there to ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time?   

That's where the whole "band analogy" comes in that you'll see frequently bandied about here.  You can't have three musicians totally engrossed in their own play and totally not interested in the play of their band mates and have it be successful. 

Right.  I'm a bit unclear, though, on how much of that compatibility is enabled by system and how much simply emerges from being on the same page in terms of fundamental play motives (creative agenda?).

Is "clearly laying out 1) who can say what and when, and 2) where the various spheres of responsibility lie" supposed to:
a) help everyone to agree on a creative agenda?  Or merely,
b) help them engage in play once they've agreed on a creative agenda?

I ask because, although getting people on the same page in microcosm (engaged in each other's play at any given moment) is important, it seems to be largely derived from, and vastly less important than, getting people on the same page in macrocosm (creative agenda).

Your phrasing of "ensure that you're all engaged about the same thing at the same time" leaves me unsure of whether you're discussing (a) (macrocosm), (b) (microcosm), or both.

If I understand correctly, we are presently discussing (b) (microcosm).  Which is fine, but I just want to be sure I'm not missing something.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
I, however, argue that 1) NOT paying attention and being excited about what you (as a fellow player) are doing and are excited about means you don't have player engagement happening

I'm not overly concerned about a few instances of this.  If one player is asking the GM questions about the building's structural supports while two other players are arguing with each other in-character about some ethical quandary, and the two groups are uninterested in each other while those activities persist, then whatever.

But yeah, repeated or long-lasting lack of interest in each other's play is a killer, and having tools for avoiding this sounds great to me (assuming that a shared creative agenda is not generally sufficient, in itself, to accomplish that).

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
and 2) that BEING excited about what you are doing and are excited about does NOT have to break immersion.

Sure, being excited is always good; from an immersion-focused perspective, the only question is how you act on that excitement.  Various "token awarding" ideas on this thread have been attempts to address that.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
Well, its not quite as simple as having a laundry list of "bad" techniques

Dammit!  I think best in laundry lists.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
1) successful play requires player engagement

As much as possible!

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
2) player engagement requires players to be truly interested in, excited about, and focused on what the other human beings at the table are doing

As much as possible, provided that efforts in that direction do not interfere with:

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
as well as what you yourself are doing.

I mention "interference" here only because the following remains a cause of concern:
(a) attempt to get player 1 interested in the play of player 2 -> (b) relatively hindering immersion for player 1 -> (c) player 1 losing some degree of interest in his own play

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
3) this then, by definition, requires a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding.  I can't tell what you as a person are feeling/enjoying if I'm completely focused in seeing only your character and only through the eyes of my character.  I can't communicate to you what I'm feeling/enjoying if I'm totally focused within my own character.

Agreed that "a certain level of meta game awareness, communication, and understanding" must factor in somehow...

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
4) I do not then have the luxury of sinking so deep into my character and focusing so intently on what my character sees and knows that I lose sight of you as a person at the table (or lose sight of me as a person at the table, for that matter).

...at least not for the entirety of the session.  If you are thinking "not ever", then I may disagree with that.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
Ok, given those, it can be seen that a balance must be struck between sufficient "in character" techniques that allow us to experience the thrill of "being there", and sufficient "out of character" techniques that allow us to keep one eye on the real humans at the table...techniques I've called periodically "coming up for air".

I love that phrase.  To me, it evokes a burst of totally immersed play coming to a tidy stopping point, and then everyone at the table relaxing their expressions, sipping their drinks, and going, "Niiiiice."  Then a (generally pretty brief) bit of eating and chatting about the game, and then after a certain point ("everybody ready?"), everyone dives back in.  I've never thought of formally structuring this in my games, but I'll now proceed to give it some serious thought.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
Techniques that insist on "all immersion all the time" can significantly impede or even completely block intra person communication, causing the missing of cues, and body language, and leading to the breakdown of player engagement.

Communicating in character while as immersed as possible is tricky.  "Is that facial expression on Darvtok's face, or just on the face of Darvtok's player?"  I've pondered playing in the dark to remove this uncertainty (forcing Darvtok's player to say things like "Darvtok leans forward and clenches his teeth in fury").

While I agree that "all immersion all the time" is bad, it's the "all the time" part that seems bad to me.  If you have some reasons in mind why "being as immersed as possible during designated immersion time" dictates (or strongly lends itself to) "lack of player engagement during designated immersion time", please share them with me.  Likewise if you see problems with having a "designated immersion time" in the first place.

Quote from: Valamir on August 07, 2006, 11:47:28 AM
So my "crusade" if you will, is to point out that there can exist a balance where we can have it both ways.  That the meta doesn't automatically negate the immersion.  In fact, its been my experience that a well structured degree of meta can actually ENHANCE the immersion...by providing simple and reliable ways of moving the story from interesting immersion situation to interesting immersion situation and avoiding the flow breaking floundering that often accompanies waiting for something to happen.

That sounds awesome.  Consider me a fan of the idea, and still looking for ways to make it happen in Lendrhald.  Perhaps this discussion will help me focus on coming up with some good ones.

Ideas for dividing up game responsibilities:

I'd certainly like it if the players kept track of everything pertinent to their characters -- what they've learned in-game, things their characters "would know" that the GM's already told them, what they're carrying, who's carrying what, how much money most essentials tend to cost -- and left the GM out of that entirely.  My attempts to make this happen haven't been very successful thus far, and maybe an "official" system, plus some convenient tools (columns on character sheets?) would help.

Players should also be 100% responsible for determining what their characters do.  No telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish" and the GM saying, "here's what your character does to accomplish that."  (On the other hand, telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish, would my character know anything about how best to do that beyond what I know?" and the GM saying, "Darvtok probably has a sense that..." is totally cool.)

The responsibility for putting stuff in the world that the players will enjoy interacting with has already been discussed in this thread.  I'm all for having the players involved in this to the extent that it doesn't hinder their ability to immerse themselves in the gameworld too much.  The frontrunning idea right now is for players to tell the GM the kinds of things they'd like to encounter, and the GM to make those happen a session or two later, in such a fashion that it (a) doesn't feel like a response to a request, and (b) could plausibly have happened independent of the players.  I have no system to formalize this yet.

As the determiner of "what's in the world and how it works", the GM should probably also be in charge of determining how the game rules that arbitrate in-game outcomes apply to a given situation.  The GM says, "Based on the slope and texture of the cliff, this is both a Climb skill check and a Strength attribute check," and the GM says, "Here's how thoroughly the "relatively good" result of your rolls allows you to succeed at what you attempted."

In terms of achieving consensus on physical space and positioning, my first thought is:
1) GM describes dimensions and contents of a given space
2) players describe where they want their characters to be, and how fast they wish to move
3) GM charts the whole thing on graph paper, adjusts the characters' positions each round, and after each change of position clarifies the character's situation (3 feet from X, 20 feet from Y, etc.) -- description is preferable to showing the graph paper

Hey David, I think we're definitely on the same page here.  I don't have anything really substantial to say further, and I'm heading to GenCon soon.

On your question of how much is shared Creative Agenda and how much is enabled by system, I'll say that alot CAN BE enabled by system and what isn't winds up getting left to the vagaries of social contract.  I think you'll have to experience a few Forge Games in action to see the potential of system in that direction.  Even if those games go farther afield than you're currently planning to, you'll see more of what I'm trying to say than what I could possibly explain in words.

And yes, absolutely, a few instances of people doing their own thing is in no way a game breaker.  Paying 100% attention, 100% of the time, to 100% of what's going on I doubt is even humanly possibly and probably isn't really desireable if it was.  Sounds like you have a handle on what I was getting at there.  And yes to your "as much as possible" comments as well.

QuoteI mention "interference" here only because the following remains a cause of concern:
(a) attempt to get player 1 interested in the play of player 2 -> (b) relatively hindering immersion for player 1 -> (c) player 1 losing some degree of interest in his own play

On this I'll simply say "probably not as much as you think", but again you'd have to experience that for yourself.

QuoteI love that phrase.  To me, it evokes a burst of totally immersed play coming to a tidy stopping point, and then everyone at the table relaxing their expressions, sipping their drinks, and going, "Niiiiice."

Quite (and as an aside...its precisely those moments where they say "Niiice" that Creative Agenda can be seen to be at work).  There are lots of ways to strike the balance between the immersion and meta.  For me I most often use what I'd call a "one eye on the road" sort of play technique.  Meaning, I'm pretty much continually concious of the meta game (with one "eye") while remaining quasi immersed (with the "other eye").  That's because the biggest joy for me is coming up with a story that makes me say "man if this were a movie, I'd totally go see it". 

So I can fully enjoy games that have mechanics that require players to be constantly touching the meta.  You, on the other hand, while also (I'm sure) loving your games to come out with kick ass stories, place a higher immediate priority on the immersive aspects.  So for you mechanics that require "one eye on the road" play probably aren't going to deliver that.  The "come up for air" style is probably a better sharing paradigm for you're after.

There are lots of ways you can build a "come up for air" structure into a game.  As an example you might have a game that has hard and fast scene definitions.  Within the scenes its immersive time.  Metagame mechanics do not get used "in-scene".  Between scenes however, the "come up for air" part hits and Metagame mechanics do get used.  This is when you can have players chatting with each other about what scene they want to do next ("ok, we totally need to go back to the dark wood and have the wise woman cast the bones for us"..."wait, shouldn't we report back to the king and see if he'll give us reinforcements?"..."there's no time for that we need to head out right away..." blah blah).  At this time players can award each other tokens for great play...cash in experience for some advantage...or whatever rules you have.  Then once all of that is out of the way the GM sets the stage for whatever scene is next...and back "under" you go leaving the meta stuff behind until the GM decides the scene is over.

Quote from: David Berg on August 08, 2006, 04:17:58 PM
Ideas for dividing up game responsibilities:
I'd certainly like it if the players kept track of everything pertinent to their characters -- what they've learned in-game, things their characters "would know" that the GM's already told them, what they're carrying, who's carrying what, how much money most essentials tend to cost -- and left the GM out of that entirely.  My attempts to make this happen haven't been very successful thus far, and maybe an "official" system, plus some convenient tools (columns on character sheets?) would help.

Sometimes its as simple as articulating the areas of responsibility clearly so everyone is on the same page as to expectations.  Sometimes its a matter of figuring out why people AREN'T doing it, and then structuring the game to reduce those obstacles.

Frex, maybe people just find shopping and inventory management b-o-r-i-n-g, which is why they keep trying to schlep that off onto the GM to do for them.  Well, instead of having the GM do it, or forcing players to do something they don't like, the designer can try to find ways to make the shopping and inventory less boring.

One way would be to make inventory a question of a successful roll rather than a list of items.  "do I have an axe or hatchet or something?", "is that something that a forest ranger who spends most of his life in the wilderness is likely to have?", "yeah, it'd be stupid if I didn't have one", "so make a Wilderness Surivival check vs. Wits, with a minimal success you have one, with a critical success you have an item of quality"...for example.  Another method was used by Pendragon back in the day.  You have a "kit" based on social status which essentially lists what kind of gear your character would have on him as a matter of course.  All you had to record was "Kit #5" (or whatever) and you were assumed to have whatever was standard for that.  Lots of options that get you to the same desired end point.

QuotePlayers should also be 100% responsible for determining what their characters do.  No telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish" and the GM saying, "here's what your character does to accomplish that."  (On the other hand, telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish, would my character know anything about how best to do that beyond what I know?" and the GM saying, "Darvtok probably has a sense that..." is totally cool.)

Here's where its crucial to lay this out.  Almost no traditional rule set says anything about it but its one of the most important things.

Consider, as player I say "I kill the troll with my sword"

Does this mean 1) the troll is now dead, 2) I have struck the troll a mortal wound but he may yet survive, 3) I am committed to attacking the troll even if the GM now reveals something that makes me wish I hadn't, and whether I even hit the troll let alone kill him is yet to be determined, 4) I'm merely indicating my intention to attack the troll, and if the GM says something that I don't like, I'm free to change my mind.

Any one of those is a valid possible way of interpreting "I kill the troll with my sword" and we could find examples of different games (or different groups with the same game), for each of them.  Do a search on IIEE and you'll find lots of discussion on this issue.  "players are responsible for what their characters do" is just the start.

[uote]The responsibility for putting stuff in the world that the players will enjoy interacting with has already been discussed in this thread.  I'm all for having the players involved in this to the extent that it doesn't hinder their ability to immerse themselves in the gameworld too much.  The frontrunning idea right now is for players to tell the GM the kinds of things they'd like to encounter, and the GM to make those happen a session or two later, in such a fashion that it (a) doesn't feel like a response to a request, and (b) could plausibly have happened independent of the players.  I have no system to formalize this yet.

Quote

A session or two later, or just the next scene if you liked my example above.  Also do a search on Flags (although alot of that discussion moved out into the blogosphere) for some mechanics that attempt to accomplish that.

QuoteAs the determiner of "what's in the world and how it works", the GM should probably also be in charge of determining how the game rules that arbitrate in-game outcomes apply to a given situation.  The GM says, "Based on the slope and texture of the cliff, this is both a Climb skill check and a Strength attribute check," and the GM says, "Here's how thoroughly the "relatively good" result of your rolls allows you to succeed at what you attempted."

A valid decision...but...how much do the players know before they roll?  Are they told the modifiers and then can decide to roll or not?  Do they committ to the attempt only on the basis of the GM's description and aren't told the specifics of the roll until after?  Is the roll out in the open or in secret?  All that stuff gives a very different flavor to the game, yet you'll find few traditional texts that specify one way or another.

QuoteIn terms of achieving consensus on physical space and positioning, my first thought is:
1) GM describes dimensions and contents of a given space
2) players describe where they want their characters to be, and how fast they wish to move
3) GM charts the whole thing on graph paper, adjusts the characters' positions each round, and after each change of position clarifies the character's situation (3 feet from X, 20 feet from Y, etc.) -- description is preferable to showing the graph paper

Worth playtesting.  You also might want to check out the Terrain mechanics in Riddle of Steel.  In a nut shell, all rolls are on a die pool.  Players could sacrifice some of the dice in their dice pool to use to make a "Terrain Check".  Success on the Terrain check would allow them to accomplish certain positioning effects (like facing only 1 opponent for a round, or gaining a height advantage, or blocking a doorway, or whatever).

Ralph-

It seems like we've reached a logical stopping point for this particular dialogue.  Thanks for being patient with all my questions and only-sorta-relevant thought experiments.  Beyond whatever might have been accomplished, I enjoyed the exchange.  Some quick takes on the contents of your last post:

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
alot CAN BE enabled by system and what isn't winds up getting left to the vagaries of social contract.  I think you'll have to experience a few Forge Games in action to see the potential of system in that direction.

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
Do a search on IIEE and you'll find lots of discussion on this issue.  "players are responsible for what their characters do" is just the start.

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
do a search on Flags . . . for some mechanics that attempt to accomplish that.

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
You also might want to check out the Terrain mechanics in Riddle of Steel.

I intend to pursue all these suggestions to expand my own understanding of and familiarity with a broader range of techniques.  And, in the shorter-term, I'll also ponder and confer with my co-designer regarding applying the following to Lendrhald:

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
you might have a game that has hard and fast scene definitions.  Within the scenes its immersive time . . . Between scenes however, the "come up for air" part hits and Metagame mechanics do get used.

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
Sometimes its as simple as articulating the areas of responsibility clearly so everyone is on the same page as to expectations. 

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
the designer can try to find ways to make the shopping and inventory less boring.
. . .
One way would be to make inventory a question of a successful roll rather than a list of items. 
. . .
Another method was . . . [y]ou have a "kit" based on social status which essentially lists what kind of gear your character would have on him as a matter of course.  All you had to record was "Kit #5"

Lastly, I also find the following to be a useful distillation of the issues involved in a dynamic that my co-designer and I are already working on tackling:

Quote from: Valamir on August 08, 2006, 06:40:31 PM
how much do the players know before they roll?  Are they told the modifiers and then can decide to roll or not?  Do they committ to the attempt only on the basis of the GM's description and aren't told the specifics of the roll until after?  Is the roll out in the open or in secret?  All that stuff gives a very different flavor to the game, yet you'll find few traditional texts that specify one way or another.

So, basically, thanks for all your feedback!  I'll post more on my game at a later date, after lots of reading, grappling with new techniques, and hopefully playing some different games (including Universalis).

Ps,
-David