Classic versus learning: a computerized RPG system

[George the Flea]

Hmm, I don't think I'm particularly clear on the concepts of gamism and so forth.  I'll do some reading before I try to use them any more, since otherwise I'll just be making stuff up.  :)

For example, the PC is given a choice between killing his betrayer cousin and letting a town starve. Which does he choose? This isn't like a quest where you need to make the town happy to win, it's basically about what your PC does when given a terrible choice.

This is actually what I'm hoping to have in the game.  Some NPCs will offer quests that would naturally exclude doing other NPC's quests, and how you do a specific quest (do you kill your brother or trick him into being jailed?) will have an effect later in the game (if the brother is merely jailed, he may come into use later in the game).  Of course, this is a fairly ambitious hope, so it may not pan out.  I don't think that this is pure narrativism, but as I understand it it does implement elements of it.  On the other hand, if I have to cut something in the course of designing the game, this narrative-creating stuff will likely be one of the first things to suffer, since it's not fun to code.  Computers are not particularly good GM's when it comes to creating stuff on the fly.

Why I quit playing Clan Lord is kind of out of the scope of this discussion, but to asuage your curiosity, here's the quick and dirty version:

The system is set up so that you have to have help questing, or you'll be killed.  Everyone's really friendly (because the game is designed to bring out the cooperative, so people who aren't friendly get frustrated early on and quit playing), but there aren't all that many subscribers any more because the game's problems aren't addressed very quickly by the few overworked GMs.  Since there aren't many subscribers and absolutely no single adventuring possibilities, I would often sign on and be unable to do anything.  Additionally, to become a Mystic (the class I was interested in) is ridiculously difficult, and essentially depends purely on luck.  I was dedicated, and managed to start on the road to being a Mystic, but because I couldn't adventure on my own in order to try and find the stuff I needed to advance, I never got anywhere.  The game is essentially developed by GMs; from what I saw during my tenure I'm not sure the developer did much beyond supervise the payment system.  Because of this (and because there are very few GM's, all of whom are paid diddly squat), development on the world/engine was slow, and promised features (like sub-classes) took so long they may as well not have been in development.  Also, I enrolled in college, and didn't have time to waste on a game that didn't appear to be going anywhere.

Okay, maybe not so quick, but definitely dirty.

I think your practice system is knife edged between sim and gamism. I think you want the experience of working with a sword...all those difficult times of practicing away, of hard battles with monsters since you just weren't that adept and now today you are an adept swordsman, with a rich past full of practice, before you got to this stage. Something to think about as you swing your sword with amazing accuracy.

While someone else might leave a book on their mouse button for an hour, so they can get that dragon and make some boots out of it.

I doubt anyone would leave a book on their mouse.  This game will be fairly small in size (disregarding interior areas, underground areas, and so forth it will take roughly seven minutes real time to walk across the primary map), and will be only single player.  If it were going to be a mutliplayer game I would worry about people abusing the system, but as it is there would be no point (if the game is designed and balanced well, that is).

On the other hand, the duality is pretty clear, although I'm not particulary clear why mixing styles is bad (perhaps because I'm not particularly well aquainted with gamism theory).  What are your ideas?  I'd really like to hear them, particularly now when I'm still doing preplanning and haven't written any code.

[Tobias]

It's really old-school, but have you heard of Angband? Call it the ASCII precursor to the Elder Scrolls series. You may also know it as Moria, or Hack, or any of a group of similar games.

The reason I mention it is that there have been many different takes within it on ways it would be fun to have a guy running around, clobbering things, and growing towards the big end baddy. Some of them use skill-us-learn methods. I remember CthuluAngband (or something similar) as one of the prime ones.

There's a lot of experience, programs, and open source out there for you to look at, and possibly people to correspond with?

Try www.thangorodrim.net to get started.

[George the Flea]

Thank you Tobias!  That is definitely worth looking into, and at least on first glance Cthulu Angband looks like it might be running a system pretty similar to what I've got in mind.

[Callan S.]

Hmm, I don't think I'm particularly clear on the concepts of gamism and so forth.  I'll do some reading before I try to use them any more, since otherwise I'll just be making stuff up.  :)

Keep in mind what I say about GNS is from my understanding of it. I'm getting practical results from my understanding, but that doesn't mean it's right.

For example, the PC is given a choice between killing his betrayer cousin and letting a town starve. Which does he choose? This isn't like a quest where you need to make the town happy to win, it's basically about what your PC does when given a terrible choice.

This is actually what I'm hoping to have in the game.  Some NPCs will offer quests that would naturally exclude doing other NPC's quests, and how you do a specific quest (do you kill your brother or trick him into being jailed?)

I'm not sure you quite get what I mean, from your example. I'm certain it's not a problematic choice between killing or tricking your brother into jail. One (tricking) is clearly a better choice than the other. The only value of having the kill option would be if you wanted to explore that option and see what happens...simulationism. If you really want to go narrativist, it's not about exploring either option...it's about asking yourself deep, dark questions about what your PC would do and answer them.

For that reason, you don't need to code stuff to happen latter on in relation this choice. You really don't...you can just toss a choice like my one and even though it wont effect any single bit of the game latter, as a player you'll finish the game perhaps as a hero but think 'But damn, I wish I hadn't had to let that village starve' or 'Damn, I had to kill my betraying cousin...that was such a hard choice'.

I argued this in a thread I can't find right now. In that many seemed to think that you had to have repurcussions from such a choice, for it to be narrativist. I think that's nice to have, but it really supports a sim style game. So you don't have to dith narrativism, just ditch repurcussions from it (if you actually did implement a nar choice properly, it'll still be cool content, even without repurcussion).

Basically the nar trick is to think of two roughly equally bad choices. The wonderful part of narrativism is where, even though the choices seem equally bad, the PC is shown to believe one is less bad than the other.

Okay, maybe not so quick, but definitely dirty.

Ah, thanks. Sorry, I thought it might help me help you by my learning about your play style. But it seems more of a system screw up on their part (forced teaming, but with few subscribers).

While someone else might leave a book on their mouse button for an hour, so they can get that dragon and make some boots out of it.

I doubt anyone would leave a book on their mouse.  This game will be fairly small in size (disregarding interior areas, underground areas, and so forth it will take roughly seven minutes real time to walk across the primary map), and will be only single player.  If it were going to be a mutliplayer game I would worry about people abusing the system, but as it is there would be no point (if the game is designed and balanced well, that is).

I mean leave a book on their mouse so as to keep training up to max.
But hold on, I started posting because you mentioned hiding stats so players can't make uber characters. If it's okay for them to not abuse the system, why can't they make uber characters as well?

On the other hand, the duality is pretty clear, although I'm not particulary clear why mixing styles is bad (perhaps because I'm not particularly well aquainted with gamism theory).  What are your ideas?  I'd really like to hear them, particularly now when I'm still doing preplanning and haven't written any code.

Well, I thought you didn't want to mix styles. Mixing isn't bad...but your comment about uber characters certainly suggests it is. An uber character comes from smart combinations of choices...the area of gamist expertise. If a mix is okay, some people will just choose a guy who seems interesting (I've just started playing morrowind, and did this...mostly glazed over at all the numbers), while someone else will choose to max out their ability.

Do you want a mix? If so, the duality isn't a prob (except if you allow the book on mouse thing, its not good gamism). But I think you yourself and anyone who helps you will have probs if you have a mix in one spot, but no mixes in other spots, without a clear structure to such choices.

[HereticalFaction]

It is interesting that so many of you have been refferancing the Elder Scrolls games... The only one I played for any duration was Elder Scrolls II, and it has since been my leading example of poor CRPG design. The idea of a giant gameworld with thousands of defined locations was a good one, but since 90% of the buildings were empty and seemed to have no purpose in any quest, it just resulted in an unnecessary ammount of travelling time. Why ever some game designer felt I would enjoy making endless shorthand like passes across my mousepad in order to "swing" my weapon I shall never know.... But the real failure of this system was that the practice based levelling system left the player constrained to "set a book on their mouse button" because you had to spend several straight hours Juggling or Jumping or Tumbling if you wanted to get more HP and your charachter template included those skills...

[George the Flea]

Noon:

In that many seemed to think that you had to have repurcussions from such a choice, for it to be narrativist. I think that's nice to have, but it really supports a sim style game. So you don't have to dith narrativism, just ditch repurcussions from it (if you actually did implement a nar choice properly, it'll still be cool content, even without repurcussion).

Okay, I gotcha.  When you put it that way, then I don't think that I'm going to be focusing on narrativism much at all.  Granted, I'll be trying to create quests and a plot outline that have some difficult choices for the player, but the sort of playing that is narrativism will likely not be an active focus.  I think that really there isn't much narrativism in CRPGs at all.  A lot of the actual role playing that exists in a table top environment is lost when you sit down to play a CRPG.  Dialog is multiple choice, and there may be times when you act either for "good" or for "evil," but there isn't usually anything that really captures the variability of people's behavior.

I think that I've been misunderstanding what you were asking from the start.  When you asked whether the game would be gamist, simulationist, or whatever, I thought that you were asking for a label for the game, as opposed to what kind of playing experience the game will be shooting for.

With that in mind, I'm really not sure that the GNS model can accurately describe the different types of gaming that go on in CRPGs.  Table top and CRPGs are extremely different, particularly when talking about single player CRPGs.  I would argue that while it is possible to have a narrativist player in a table top scenario (because the GM can actively facilitate the player role-playing the character), that in a CRPG this is much less common if not completely absent.  CRPGs much more often are like interactive movies; sure the player has options about how to go about accomplishing goals, but because the game is being run by a computer (which can't do anything the programmer doesn't forsee and plan for) things are much more restricted.  The actual role playing that goes into a single player CRPG is greatly reduced or even removed as compared to a table top game.

That said, I want my game to simulate real life, or at the very least simulate the real life of characters in the game world.  Is this simulationism, or aimed at players who lean towards simulationism?  I'm not sure that it matters.

Additionally, I want the choices that the actual player makes to make a difference both on how the character develops (which influences how the character interacts with the world), and how the story develops (as shaped by quests).  As far as there being a definite strategy to playing different types of characters in order to succeed in the game world, this is a fairly gamist leaning.

I'm not sure how not allowing uber characters is indicative of not mixing styles.  My definition of an uber character would be one that is so overpowered (as far as its stats go) that it is capable of easily dealing with any threat in the game world, thus making it unneccessary for the player to make any sort of choice about how to approach problems.  That's not to say that I don't want people to be able over time to create really good characters; just that the player should not be able to leave the character alone in a room swinging a sword in order to become a combat master before fighting their first enemy.  My hope would be that the enemies and challenges would be scaled so that a character smoothly develops better and better skills as the challenges become more difficult.

This is a gameplay challenge that I will have to face later on, and has little or no relevance to designing the statistic system.  I need to keep it in mind, but dealing with the actual numbers involved will be a task for when I have a working prototype running.

I think that I'll likely have to tie a check into the skill improvement algorithm to make sure, for instance, that skill is only granted for swings that connect (or else that swings that don't connect have a reduced improvement value).  I hadn't thought about implementing something like that before; thanks for bringing it up.

Do you think that what I'm thinking of will be well mixed?  Or am I still unbalancing the game as far as appealing to people?

------------------------------
HereticalFaction:

The only one I played for any duration was Elder Scrolls II, and it has since been my leading example of poor CRPG design. The idea of a giant gameworld with thousands of defined locations was a good one, but since 90% of the buildings were empty and seemed to have no purpose in any quest, it just resulted in an unnecessary ammount of travelling time.

I hope to correct this by having a really small world in which everything will be used.  :)

the real failure of this system was that the practice based levelling system left the player constrained to "set a book on their mouse button" because you had to spend several straight hours Juggling or Jumping or Tumbling if you wanted to get more HP and your charachter template included those skills...

I'll keep that in mind.  This game will definitely take quite a lot of play testing to make sure that the gameplay difficulty advances at the same (or at least similar) rate as the character does.  I wasn't aware of those problems in Elder Scrolls II (never having played it); thanks for pointing them out.

[Callan S.]

I'm not sure how not allowing uber characters is indicative of not mixing styles. My definition of an uber character would be one that is so overpowered (as far as its stats go) that it is capable of easily dealing with any threat in the game world, thus making it unneccessary for the player to make any sort of choice about how to approach problems.

You originally suggested hiding stats so they couldn't make an uber PC, but your recent comment below...

If it were going to be a mutliplayer game I would worry about people abusing the system, but as it is there would be no point (if the game is designed and balanced well, that is).

If it's well designed and balanced, then the uber thing is not an issue. So is there any reason to hide stats?

The only reason you might do so is like in your baldurs gate example, seeing the numbers broke you out of the world (broke you out of sim) and into more of a tactical numbers exercise (gamism).

I think you could be designing in frustration with this sort of mix. You want people to make descisions, but to make them they need to know the numbers...which you hid from them. Which means they can't make descisions unless they fight against the game structure (like people counting ranks in clan lords).

Anyway, I've drifted your thread a bit. I was thinking about skills. How about something like this (a rough example, change numbers to suit). Imagine you have twenty skills with a range of one to ten. Now say you have twenty focus points.

Now, when you practice a skill, these focus points go into it and raise it. Now, here's the fun bit. Once all focus points are allocated, if you start excercising another skill, it will ask if you want to loose focus/loose interest in another skill (of your choice) and take a focus point from there to put in this practised skill.

This way they only have a limited amount of focus, but they are very flexible. If they come across a problem latter they can work on a skill to help them beat that (loosing another skill in the process).

On practising, I'd allow it up to something like level five (outside of combat), and like GTA: San andreas, you can only train a bit each day. Also, in that game you have to hit a sequence of buttons as you train. This way they have to put some work in to get something and they can only do so much of this in a day (so they train a bit, then go off and adventure).

I'd highly recommend the allowed training in a day take a unrealistically short amount of time. It is boring compared to adventure, after all.

[George the Flea]

You want people to make descisions, but to make them they need to know the numbers...which you hid from them. Which means they can't make descisions unless they fight against the game structure (like people counting ranks in clan lords).

I guess I wasn't clear.  Stats will be hidden, but there will be an indicator of comparative level.  Likely this will be done using a gradual color shift.  For example, say you start out sword skill at the amateur level.  In the character part of the inventory will be an indicator for sword skill that starts out green, and then as you get better at the skill gradually fades to yellow to represent being skilled at the weapon, and then finally fades to red to show that you are a grandmaster swordsperson (or whatever colors make sense).

This way, there's no number crunching for the player, and they have no idea what their actual stats are (numbers are hidden), but they do have an indicator to let them know where they are improving, allowing them to use certain skills they want to improve accordingly.

That's an interesting skill system you've outlined.  I like it.  I've been planning things out with one of the other people involved in the project, and here's a basic outline of how we're thinking we'll probably do things.  It's actually pretty similar to your system, but with a different way to allow players to shape their characters.

Characters start out with six attributes.  These attribute values affect initial skill levels in the default skills, how quickly any said skill can be learned, and the maximum amount of points that can go to a given skill (so if you have a high strength when you've maxed out your club skill, it will be better than someone who has maxed out their club skill but has a lower strength).  Skills increase when you use them, so if you want to be an expert swordsperson, you use a sword to solve your problems.  The game's difficulty is slanted so that practice outside of just playing through quests and stuff is largely unneccessary.  The few exceptions to this are activities such as weightlifting, which work on improving your basic attributes and will be simulated through a quick message/animation/whatever and a jump forward in time (since no one wants to actually lift weights in game).  A fatigue system makes sure that the amount of stuff that a character can do isn't too outrageous.  If a character gets too tired and it starts to negatively affect them, they can rest (which will be another jump forward in time type of thing).

Skills will improve as long as they are being used, but if the player start using different tactics (say, switches from attacking everything with swords to tossing darts), then skills that are never practiced will slowly start to lose skill points.  This sort of accomplishes the same thing as your proposed system does by allowing a player to choose different skills to be accomplished in (although if they start out in a new skill and decide its more effort than its worth, then they will probably be able to pick their old skill up without too much effort).

Think that would work?  Or should I work to make the strands of GNS stand out a little bit more?

[Callan S.]

The color shift is basically a way of hiding the statistical information. It doesn't hide it completely, but it still hiding them. That isn't a problem for sim I think, but for gamism...

I think (lots of hypothesis ahead) a big problem you might have is that you go through the game thinking your designing quests and such which support gamism, when your not (IMO).

Most computer game players are going to come to your game intending to play gamist, and grind against the style (I think) you designed it in. Eg, they will want to know their tactical options, but only see hazy color shaded factors. In other words, they are going to come in a frame of mind that doesn't appreciate the way you designed the game. Sort of like expecting MASH when going to see black hawk down, or some other missplaced expectation.

I think you need to shape play to the style your designing. Which is difficult to do unless you identify your priorities and that of (what I hypothesise) the market prepped for gamism. I'd really recommend reading the simulationist and gamist essays in the articles section. I recently read the sim one and regretted having left it till last to read, since I realised how much I love sim...and how the priorities of that are very different to gamism. For me, it was good to stop confusing sim for gamism.

[George the Flea]

I think we've reached the point where the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" have become far more hindrance than help.  First off: the words are theory to help streamline development.  However, as is noted throughout the articles on the GNS model, all three types of gameplay are highly fluid and are rarely present without attendance from the others.  If I seemed to say that I only wanted to represent one style before, it was because I was confused with the terms.  I would prefer to access the bits out of all three orientations that I enjoy.

Secondly: I cannot fathom why you insist that by not allowing people to see the exact numbers that I am crippling gamist play.  From the article "Gamism: Step On Up" dealing with the second part of the gamism definition:

The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a Challenge...Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world

Considering that the player will be using skills to accomplish goals, and that which skills to use and how to accomplish the quests is a decision which they have to strategically make, I would say that giving a comparative indication of where they are at with the skill rather than an exact number will actually make gameplay more fun.  It's a gamble; the player knows how well they've dealt with problems in the past, but will their sword skill be enough to beat the dragon?  Save the game, and give it a try.

You seem to be using the term gamism to mean painstaking strategy.  I am not creating a strategy game of any sort.  If I were trying to make the next Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron then I would be much more concerned about giving the player the option to consult explicit character stats to please the number crunchers.  However, strategizing to a certain extent to decide what skill to use in a given situation is not hard-core sit-back-and-consider-stuff-from-every-possible-angle strategizing.  And neither one is gamist at the expense of the other.

Thirdly: I suspect that the vast majority of the people who play this game will have absolutely no idea the terms "gamist" or "simulationism" exist.  They'll play the game because it happens on a college campus, which is rather novel.  Or maybe they'll hear the stats system is pretty different from other things on the market, and since what is currently on the market didn't work perfectly for them they'll download the game and give it a shot (currently planning to release it as freeware or cheap shareware so there won't even be the decision to buy it to stop people from playing it).  Thus, examining their reason for playing and trying to cater to it is important, but since the majority of the audience won't be defining themselves as gamists vs. simulationists the discussion becomes to a certain extent moot.

Fourth: I honestly don't care if this system conforms to some theoretical approach to the reason that people play games.  From my perspective, people play games because they are fun.  A cop out?  Yes, from the theoretical perspective.  However, I'll be play-testing this game pretty extensively since the development team will be very small, and so if I find something that isn't fun I'll remove or change it.  I'm certainly not indicative of everyone who will play this role playing game, but I want to program a game I enjoy; not one which some theoretical person who may not even exist will enjoy.  The theory is useful to a point, and I think we've reached that point.

Okay, I've vented enough.  :-)

Bottom line, I haven't found anything in your most recent break-down of the gamism vs. sim in my proposed system that makes changing my plans a good idea.  If you really think that I'm going to be proceeding about this the wrong way, I would welcome a more specific critique of the system.  If you can't offer a more specific critique without a good overview of what I'm planning to do, let me know and I'll post a more comprehensive look at the plan.  Or maybe it would be helpful if I defined my understanding of gamism and simulationism that I've gotten from browsing through the Forge articles.  Let me know.

Thanks for continuing to give me feedback!  As you've noticed, I'm a bit frustrated that the theory has broken down (or perhaps just that we understand it differently and may be talking at cross purposes), but I really value any commentary you can give.  I really don't want to embark on what is likely to be a two to three years (or more) project without doing a goodly amount of planning for what exactly I'm going to build.

[Callan S.]

I don't think I (in particular) can help you further. The way I refine an RPG idea is to use tools that I can measure it by and make further descisions based on those measurements. Currently I use GNS to measure stuff and talk about it in those terms.

Right now I think we could spend a whole thread together on the topic of gamism, for example, and how to measure that. Feel free to start one in the GNS forum if you want and I'll head there (quote from here, to make it easier). From what I use (and possibly, in the specific way I use it) I don't have enough of a shared foundation with you to help you.

Well, I would give individual parts of it a shot, but I'm certain that the primary thing to check with a mixed play style is that individual parts mesh with each other. Looking at a piece at a time wont help there. It'd be like looking at the spiritual attributes in The Riddle of Steel, or it's combat system, seperately. It's the way they mix that is the key to the games goal. Sorry. :(

[George the Flea]

Hey, no probem.  Thanks a lot for your help!  I've definitely gotten a goodly amount out of this ongoing discussion.  I suspect the game will be quite a bit better than it otherwise might have been thanks to discussion on the Forge.

Thanks again!

[contracycle]

Secondly: I cannot fathom why you insist that by not allowing people to see the exact numbers that I am crippling gamist play.  From the article "Gamism: Step On Up" dealing with the second part of the gamism definition:

Because it denies intelligent decisions.  If I do not have sufficient information, I cannot make informed decisions.  Thus risk becomes gambling, not strategy.

Considering that the player will be using skills to accomplish goals,

What skills?

It's a gamble; the player knows how well they've dealt with problems in the past, but will their sword skill be enough to beat the dragon?  Save the game, and give it a try.

Not everyone likes to gamble.  And gambling ids definitely not about strategy or intelligent engagements awith the problem.

Thirdly: I suspect that the vast majority of the people who play this game will have absolutely no idea the terms "gamist" or "simulationism" exist.  
...
Thus, examining their reason for playing and trying to cater to it is important, but since the majority of the audience won't be defining themselves as gamists vs. simulationists the discussion becomes to a certain extent moot.

Not in any sense.  It does not matter in the slightest what they self-identify as, any mopre than your self-identification matters to your blood group.

I really don't want to embark on what is likely to be a two to three years (or more) project without doing a goodly amount of planning for what exactly I'm going to build.

You might consider that thats exactly why people have suggested you move away fomr the useless term "fun".

[George the Flea]

Contracycle:

If you don't have the exact numbers for stats, that immediately means you're going to make stupid decisions?  I fail to see how creating a visual approximation of skill makes gaming completely based on gambling.  Of course, if you have that rare mental disease that destroys all short term memory, perhaps knowing exact numbers would help in making decisions.  Otherwise,the player will have been experiencing exactly what they can do whenever they use a skill, so I presume they will have a fairly good idea of what the character can do.  The skill level serves to show how far you have advanced in a given skill, and thus allows you to plan (a word I hesitate to use, since I don't intend people to think for hours on end before embarking on a quest or challenge) accordingly.

I'll repeat myself: this isn't a strategy game.

What skills?

Are you serious?  If you want to know what specific skills will be in the game, then you're out of luck; I'm still planning out how the gameplay system will work (the whole purpose of this topic).  If you haven't read the other posts in this topic, I'd suggest reading my first reply after the initial posting (although the planned system has changed a bit since I posted that).  Hopefully those will give you an idea how I'm thinking of organizing the stats system.

Not everyone likes to gamble. And gambling ids definitely not about strategy or intelligent engagements awith the problem.

I'm aware not everyone likes to gamble.  Not everyone likes to play CRPGs, either, but I'm still making one.  Can't please everyone.

And if I you seriously think that gambling isn't about strategy and intelligent engagements with a problem, I'd suggest you go play some poker without using any strategy or trying to engage the problem and see how long you last.

Not in any sense. It does not matter in the slightest what they self-identify as, any mopre than your self-identification matters to your blood group.

I fail to see how my blood type is in any way analogous to whether or not my audience has dissected the reason why they play role playing games.  My point was that although the GNS theory is useful to a certain extent to shape gameplay in order to cater to the audience, when the audience has no idea that GNS even exists and plays games because they find them fun making all gameplay elements strictly in line with gamist or simulationist play is pointless.  I doubt anyone who plays the final game will start it up, notice that numbers are absent, and say, "I will not play this game because I am a gamist and this does not cater to hard-core gamists because it hides its numbers!"

Thus it does matter how they self identify, because how they identify why they are playing the game influences what they will be critical of.

You might consider that thats exactly why people have suggested you move away fomr the useless term "fun".

Purely out of curiosity, which people suggested I not use the term fun?  And just to put things in perspective, I used the word "fun" exactly six times in the course of this topic, two or three of which were in an entirely different context than describing gameplay as fun.

Lastly, I'd love to see an argument why fun is a useless term, instead of a comment that is unconstructive and does me absolutely no good.  I think I've made it fairly clear where I'm currently standing on the issues that I wanted feedback on, and if you aren't going to give a good argument for why I should change my mind about those design decisions, then I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste my time with one-line responses.

Apologies if this is a bit antagonistic.  I really hate it when people don't bother to give any support for their arguments and just expect me to believe that they are right, and it makes me a bit more vitriolic than is perhaps necessary.

[M. J. Young]

I've been watching this unfold with some distress. It seems to me that a lot of misleading impressions about creative agenda theory have been bandied about, and George has come to the point where he's rejecting the entire notion because it's been poorly presented to him.

For example, there is nothing about gambling that makes it not gamist, and the use of strategy does not necessarily mean that play is gamist. Gamist merely means that your primary motivation is proving how good you are at this. Whether you prove that by carefully considered strategies or by intuitive assessment of the risks doesn't change the fact that you're in it for the glory of success.

George, if you'll permit me to address the creative agendum question for a moment, maybe I can clear up a few things.

Everyone wants to play a game that is "fun". The problem is that not everyone agrees as to what sorts of things are "fun".

In real role playing games, there seem to be three fundamental concepts of what is fun. Some people play to win, or to show off how well they can do. Some people like to explore, to do for the sake of doing, to find out what happens or what things might be like if they were different. Some people like to get very involved in moral and personal issues, and so create stories that speak to our values as players. We call those three kinds of fun gamism, simulationism, and narrativism, respectively. (This is overly simplified for space.)

The problem that arises is that people tend to focus on one kind of fun, but they don't always agree as to which that should be. Thus in a multi-player game you get conflicts of interest, as different players are attempting to derive different kinds of play from the same game--and there's only so much time in which to do it.

Computer and console role playing games are nearly always gamist. One way or another, they're about being good at the game--and that's a gamist agendum. It is difficult for a computer game to be essentially about what things are like and how they work--not impossible, but I'm not aware of any successful computer role playing game in which playing well is not at all an issue. At present there are great debates concerning whether it is even possible to imagine a computer role playing game which is about narrativist interests--in which players get to decide what sort of moral and personal issues they would like to explore through their characters, and outcomes revolve around the consequences of those choices--without a quantum leap forward in artificial intelligence. Some even doubt whether such a leap is possible, at least until machines can have human-like experiences from which to draw.

The importance of understanding these distinctions in real role playing games is the problem of design. You can, if you wish, design a game that caters to all three kinds of fun. If you do, then players will take your game and strip it to make it work for them, or it won't work. That is, simulationists (for example) will toss out everything that rewards the desire to play well or to explore issues, and merely explore the world and the characters themselves, while gamists will toss out the issues materials and focus on the strategies that make for success in the game. A group that all plays the same way will enjoy your game once they've gutted all the stuff that doesn't appeal to them. On the other hand, a group consisting of people with different ideas of what is fun will within the context of your game fight about which rules should be followed, because you've attempted to support all of them, and you can't really produce all three kinds of fun at once, at least not consistently.

A successful CRPG can benefit from this in a slightly different way. What you need to work out is exactly what it is that you think your targeted players find to be fun, and how you can provide that to a greater degree. The First Person Shooter is an excellent example. Some players particularly like beating a lot of bad guys in combat, and the FPS essentially eliminates anything that is not closely related to providing that experience. Of course, there are other appeals within gamist play (solving puzzles, for example). The CRPG's disadvantages include that it is less customizable by the end user, and that the range of types of fun that can be provided is more narrow. To take advantage of these limitations, you need to focus on exactly what it is you want to provide as a game experience, and work to exploit that.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young