Rewarded for winning---backwards?

[timfire]

Let me first say, I agree with Chris, that adversity means different things to different people. That's why I didn't try to define it. I also think that adversity looks different across CA lines, but my assumption is that it doesn't matter.

An interesting example in my mind is DitV, which I think does support increasing adversity. In that game, as your character progresses, they become mechanically more powerful. But as they accumulate Fallout and other emotional scars, thematic choices become more difficult (adversity).

OK, now let's see, I've gotten a couple of different responses.

Marco and Troy have argued that my basic assumption is wrong. I would love to see some example from actual play where the players didn't enjoy adversity, or maybe where there was no adversity at all.

Matthijs & Shreyas have argued that the point isn't aversity per se, but rather players are after some other goal, and adversity is just the by-product. That's interesting, could you guys elaborate on that thought? But if I may, half-way thinking out loud and half-way playing devil's advocate, is it possible to reach mastery or display significance without first passing through the crucible of adversity? That would make significance/mastery the goal, and adversity the means?

Lastly, Joshua BR---I disagree that it's just pacing I'm talking about, and that it's only a genre convention. I'm thinking of just about any video game designed for solo play, and all of them that I can think of get harder as you progress. Also, if you look at any drama, the intensity of the action goes up and up until you hit the climax of the story.

Now I will mention one potential weak spot I see with my basic assumption, and that's the type of exploratory Sim play that MJ Young likes to talk about. I don't know if I've experienced that type of play, so maybe it doesn't apply to it.

[Marco]

Marco and Troy have argued that my basic assumption is wrong. I would love to see some example from actual play where the players didn't enjoy adversity, or maybe where there was no adversity at all.

The actual quote that I questioned:

What does everyone think of this assumption, that people want increasing adversity?

(emphasis added)

I don't think that a climax necessiarily involves "increasing" adversity in the sense you mean it. In many games I run the characters don't change much and the level of adversity is, by at least some viable measures, flat across the game. What goes up, IME, is the stakes.

I have at least one example of actual play written up here that falls into that category (probably more). You can find one here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=12061.0

-Marco

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I concur with Marco.  I never objected to Adversity as a whole, but I did object to the idea that people prefered adveristy that ratchited up as their abilities stayed stagnent.  I believe you misunderstood our statements.

Peace,

-Troy

[ewilen]

Troy, I think your objection is correct as far as it applies to the initial post--"I know that after you get the sword and go up a level, the monsters also become harder. But in the end, it's all a wash, so the amount of adversity doesn't change."

Bankuei's comments are on the mark. I generally don't desire increased adversity relative to ability. In some contexts, though, I might desire either more complex adversity (often coupled with more complex ability) or different adversity (again, often coupled with different ability).

Tim, the notion that solo video games generally get harder as you progress is worth exploring. Yes, they do get objectively harder. Do they get relatively harder compared to ability? Often the answer is no. Many video games are really teaching you how to play as you go along: once I get to Chapter 12 of any of my favorite Bungie-designed games (Marathon, Myth, Oni), I'm way better at kicking ass than I was to begin with. While the difficulty-modulation is sometimes a bit uneven, on the whole the game stays about as difficult from the player's perspective. What does happen is the complexity of the challenge goes up--there are more types of enemies to fight, and more types of weapons and attacks to use. The enemies may also increase in numbers and individual toughness; once again this increases the complexity of the challenge to match the player's increased sophistication and resources. (Toughness can also challenge the player's increased endurance--sometimes you like a long fight.)

[Callan S.]

Adversity is a technique that aids the exploration of something interesting. A knife and fork may always be present when I enjoy a meal. Increasing the number of knives and forks I use when eating wont increase my enjoyment. They'll shred and mash the food I previously cut neatly into delectable little bits.

[contracycle]

I have encountered cases in which the relentless scaling of adversity has been counterproductive.  Sometimes the players want to rest on their laurels and feel that they have indeed achieved something worthwhile.  If increased ability only means more dangerous foes, with the relative level staying the same as others have mentioned, then often it is hard to gain a real sense of actually having become more powerful or effective.  But I suspect this can be resolved by changing the locus or type ofproblem that is being solved, in such a way that the players have a genuine sense of "being promoted" or similar.

[Kaare Berg]

Short and Sweet reply here.

I'm with you Timfire. Like you said, if you look at a movie/book each scene/chapter in a rgripping/pageturner ends with the situation getting worse. You build conflict over the course of the story until you get the climax.

Look at 24 and how they amp up the conflict from episode to episode. Fight for a lead, get it just to see the badguy move further out of reach. redo. redo. redo.

I do not see why this would be undoable mechanically. I do not right now see how, but there must be some way to grab this. I think maybe DitV does this to some effect.

Or maybe in trollbabe. The GM narrates outcome in case of victory, the player in case of loss.

With DitV  style mechanics: Player wins the stakes, the GM gets a Drama (demon) dice more for the next conflict. Players loose he dosen't but the players narrate the outcome?. Drama Dice add up, until play reaches climax where the players finally get to duke it out and can maybe negate Drama dice by doing . . . someting. Victory in the climax scene lets the Gm raise the overall stakes (Trollbabe again) while loss prevents the stakes from growing.

K