Game Theory -- Can it help Game Design?

[Tobias]

xenopulse,

Someone mailed me a bunch of stuff a while ago, but I cannot find it quickly and do not have the time right now. Google for '"drama theory" game theory' might be a good start.

Have you seen:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/physics31oct03.html

?

Good luck.

[Mike Holmes]

Mendel, well said.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Game Theory can be used as some grand theory that underlies all of RPG play. Simply that it can be used very locally to note potential problems, and such. For example, the min-max theorem is known to all, though folks may not realize that this is the foundation of Game Theory (nor that the actual theorem paper is something like six hundred pages long). We all talk about break points, for example, as potentially problematic. This is a very simple use of Game Theory. What I'm saying is that we use it all the time, but we don't pay attention to the extrapolations the field makes from the more obvious material. Nash equilibria, for example, is a concept that can even be used intuitively when assessing playtests observationally.

An are where I think it's really important is figuring out when particular mechanics are "broken" because there is a discernable optimal strategy. I often see games where people present four options, of which, after short analysis, only one will ever be used (assuming that the "gamism" here supports the overall mode).

Really the only question is how far you can go with it, and where, before it begins to break down.

John, I agree that The Forge does focus on the mechanical side of Gamism, but only because, once again, you really don't design the non-mechanical side. We have and do recognize that there's a whole portion of gamism that deals with the situation of play. In fact, some games have dealt with this to some extent (like Rune) mechanically. This is not to say that one can't discuss how to put more of this sort of gamism into your play, but I've yet to see a discussion of how to put this into your design. The closest you get are discussions about how well things like challenge ratings do at measuring potential challenge.

Mike

[Erick Wujcik]

How else can we apply Game Theory to RPGs?

In my opinion, the best introduction to Game Theory can be found in a very entertaining book, "Prisoner's Dilemma" by William Poundstone... which also happens to be an anectotal biography of John von Neumann, someone with a lot to teach anyone interested in games. Here's the amazon.com link: Prisoner's Dilemma.

One of the most intriguing chapters of the book has been posted on-line: SHUBIK'S DOLLAR AUCTION: Excerpt from Prisoner's Dilemma by William Poundstone.

Read it, and then think about the 'Attribute Auction' in Amber Diceless Role-Playing. Obviously, at least in this one case, Game Theory can be an enormous help to a role-playing game designer.

Erick

[Erick Wujcik]

Game Theory has something to say about RPGs in the same sense that Newtonian physics have something to say about the Universe.  That is, as overarching analyses, they're dead wrong.  "Rational self-interest maximisers" is the RPG equivalent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics—both apply only to closed, deductionist systems, not to the RPG or Universe itself.

I have to disagree.

Here's an exchange from the 1940s that illustrates how von Neumann would have replied, when asked to define game theory.

Jacob Bronowski: "You mean, the theory of games like chess?"

John von Neumann: "No, no. Chess is not a game. Chess is a well-defined form of computation. You may not be able to work out the answers, but in theory there much be a solution, a right procedure in any position. Now real games, are not like that at all. Real life is not like that. Real life consists of bluffing, of little tactics of deception, or asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do. And that is what games are about in my theory."

I'll give you an example.  A friend's father recounted one time when he was in the military playing a war game in the field.  The group was divided into two sides who were sent out into the field to "make war."  My friend's father doubled back to the supply convoy and stole a handful of "thunderflashes," explosives designed to make a loud noise and a moderate flash, without hurting anyone.  Upon rejoining his group, they were attacked, so he hurled one, and scared the shit out of the attacking soldiers.  The Sergeant came up and demanded to know what was going on.  "I'm making use of commandeered materiel, sir!" was the reply.  "How many did you take?"  "Three, sir."  "Then give me the other two!"  He complied.  The exercise was continued, and this time the Sergeant was participating.  My friend's dad hucked another thunderflasher that he'd kept in reserve, this time right in front of the Sergeant.  When he recovered his wits, he stormed over to the soldier, "What the hell are you doing!  You said you only had three!"  "I lied, sir."

This is an excellent example... of how von Neumann would describe the point of studying game theory.

Unfortunately, all too often classes in game theory are taught by people who only understand the rudiments, and who try to define it by some of the most simple principles (such as zero-sum and non-zero-sum games), but game theory is really all about non-trivial problems, such as those found in interactions between humans, and in the very interesting, very non-trivial task of assembling role-playing rules and scenarios.

Erick

[Erick Wujcik]

Game Theory has something to say about RPGs in the same sense that Newtonian physics have something to say about the Universe.  That is, as overarching analyses, they're dead wrong.  "Rational self-interest maximisers" is the RPG equivalent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics—both apply only to closed, deductionist systems, not to the RPG or Universe itself.

I have to disagree.

Here's an exchange that illustrates how von Neumann would have replied, when asked to define game theory.

Jacob Bronowski: "You mean, the theory of games like chess?"

John von Neumann: "No, no. Chess is not a game. Chess is a well-defined form of computation. You may not be able to work out the answers, but in theory there much be a solution, a right procedure in any position. Now real games, are not like that at all. Real life is not like that. Real life consists of bluffing, of little tactics of deception, or asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do. And that is what games are about in my theory."

I'll give you an example.  A friend's father recounted one time when he was in the military playing a war game in the field.  The group was divided into two sides who were sent out into the field to "make war."  My friend's father doubled back to the supply convoy and stole a handful of "thunderflashes," explosives designed to make a loud noise and a moderate flash, without hurting anyone.  Upon rejoining his group, they were attacked, so he hurled one, and scared the shit out of the attacking soldiers.  The Sergeant came up and demanded to know what was going on.  "I'm making use of commandeered materiel, sir!" was the reply.  "How many did you take?"  "Three, sir."  "Then give me the other two!"  He complied.  The exercise was continued, and this time the Sergeant was participating.  My friend's dad hucked another thunderflasher that he'd kept in reserve, this time right in front of the Sergeant.  When he recovered his wits, he stormed over to the soldier, "What the hell are you doing!  You said you only had three!"  "I lied, sir."

This is an excellent example... of how von Neumann would describe the point of studying game theory.

Unfortunately, all too often classes in game theory are taught by people who only understand the rudiments, and who try to define it by some of the most simple principles (such as zero-sum and non-zero-sum games), but game theory is really all about non-trivial problems, such as those found in interactions between humans, and in the very interesting, very non-trivial task of assembling role-playing rules and scenarios.

Erick

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks for the excellent example of Game Theory in use, Erick. The Amber auction mechanic has always been a favorite (IMO, the best part of the game), and I'm glad to have confirmation that there are tools that can help us come up with more of such mechanics for RPGs.

Mike