In the pursuit of shiny objects

[Callan S.]

I have an idea for keeping play in a certain type of flux, but it needs just a bit more push. Basically I'm imagining a grided map, with an objective set on it (lets say a package pick up) and the PC's starting point, which are quite some squares away from each other. Also only the area around the PC's is shown (lets say the map is cut up into larger squares and you can put down a square of the predrawn map to show it).

Okay, the idea is that on the map they can see, there are resource nodes scattered about, (to put it in stark hardcore terms, rather than pussy foot around). They are shinies, of varous types of nifty and of course, practical use. Also, when players go near them, it's pretty much rigged to reveal more map and more shiny nodes.

What I like to imagine is a player being attracted off the path to a shiny, then attracted to another shiny, and so on, until they use force of will to cease it and head to the objective (or they have drained all the nodes). This is the flux, as what nodes or sequence of nodes they will be drawn to is uncertain to me and uncertain to the player. And the uncertain sequence of adversity they run into between the nodes creates a kind of story (oh, didn't I mention there'd be something thorny between nodes). I'm using the word 'story' very lightly - I'm not refering to any agenda by using it - chasing shinies isn't anything just yet, so we don't have to get into all that anyway (though it's probably inclined to go gamist, which I have no prob with cause that's what I'll be going for anyway).

Okay, the problem: I have this horrible image in my head of the players, as soon as I finish speaking, just saying 'Okay, we go to the objective, pick it up the package and come back', without even thinking for a moment. Let me stress that that is not wrong play - it's wouldn't be wrong to use the system that way. But at the same time it is not the game play I want. The flux of play is based on the fancies of the human heart - the desire to go collect shinies (and from this we derive adversity no one knew would be faced). I'm afraid they are not going to consult their fancies, just going there and back.

In terms of solutions, seduction destroys the point. Trying to attract the players by talking stuff up or whatever after they have made their choice (to just go and come back) stops it from being flux and turns it into me trying to seduce them. That's predictable and boring - not my goal, in other words. Same goes for adding monsters or threats after they make their choice - like seduction, threatening is no good because there's no flux. If seduction or threat actually worked, then it's just me in control of the game. That's no good and a little beneath me...I deserve control of much bigger things than a mere game, bwa ha ha ha!

So I want them to consult their hearts fancy for a moment. It's okay if they consult it and then still just go there and come back anyway - a little flat, but that's the person, not the game. The main thing is that they do consult.

Writing this out has made me think about solutions - perhaps before any such choice is even offered, I loudly declare that certain types of nodes will not be available after say one hour of RL gameplay. After that, they are gone forever! Err, I say just some nodes cause I really would like to reuse the map (I also envision repeat play on the same map - makes me go 'skweee!' ). Anyway, get 'em while their hot cause otherwise you can never, ever get them!

Sorry to write that out then appear to answer myself - it's 'writing it out's fault! Different solutions and/or notification of apparent currency leaks welcomed!

[jag]

Were your players in competition with one another, this setup is easy (on a theoretical level).  Each wants to get to the objective first, but must contend with the other players.  Shinies give them more power.  Then there is a difficult strategic decision whether to rush for the objective, or pick up one or more shinies to allow them to get to the objective more easily.  Since which decision is optimal depends on the current game configuration, very rich play can result.  The boardgame RoboRally did this quite well, imo.

It seems like your players are cooperating.  However, you can still take some elements from the above.  The PCs have some goal whose intial probability of success is low and penalty for failure is high.  The shinies help them in success.  What you need to make this more than a dry exercise in min-maxing is a set of adversaries, whose actions the players need to respond to.

To construct an example on the fly, the players are rushing to the aid of a besieged city.  They alone are probably not enough, but shinies will help.  Unfortunately, the enemy has reinforcements coming, and these reinforcements also are aware of the shinies.  Or maybe a third party opposed to the others sides.  With this set up, the players can either try to beat the reinforcements to the town, or gather shinies and try to beat the reinforcements as well.  But when the reinforcements get some shinies, the players are forced to get some shinies in order to compete... etc, you get the picture.  To make it good, the adversaries should also be reacting to the players, and this can be challenging with one GM and multiple, competing, adversaries.

james

[contracycle]

A friend of mine used to have a board game which it seems to me worked similarly to your idea.  Unfortunately I forget the name, but the central idea was that each player had a hero, and victory went to the player whose hero slayed a dragon.  The dragon's lair was in the middle of the map, and there were other things (like a fairy cave) that contained resources.

Hence the tension was roughly as you describe - balancing the opportunity cost of attempting to procure power-ups against the risk of failure by making the attempt too early.

I think this would work with a single group if the odds of success were explicit.  Say at the start of the game, the central goal is displayed with a probability indicator that shows success is only 1 in 10.  Clearly thats not very good, and hence it would be prudent to go looking for some power-ups.

I like the idea of tof some kind of time-limited resource precisely so that scooping up ALL the available power-ups would take too long and hence be sub-optimal.

[Simon C]

I'm with contracycle in thinking that an elelment of competition, either between players, or between players and the GM, is going to really fire this up.  Shinies really gain lustre when you've got them and someone else doesn't.  I can see cool elements of cooperation to overcome obstacles and then competition for shinies emerging.

In some ways this reminds me of the rudimentary strategy of first-person shooter type games.  Fight with this lame pistol, or go get that big gun?  For some players, getting all the cool equipment almost becomes the point of play.  They're chasing not just winning, but winning in a particular way.  Snipers are a good example of this.

This is a cool idea.  Especially because it means you get to play with graph paper.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Even if the game is co-operative play, you still have a couple of hurdles:
1) Risk vs Reward - In other words, what chance do you have of accomplishing the actual mission if you get side tracked by a secondary objective
2) Is it worth it - Say I fail the primary objective, was getting this item worth it, if so, how?
3) Booby prizes - If after you get to the treasure chest/whatever and you roll a 1, do you get a single copper coin?
4) Traps? - Is it possibly more dangerous to go after the treasure than avoid it?
5) Will it break the game - Will the "shiney" be so snazzy as to "break" the game? If so, the GM won't allow it and you did all that work for nothing, right?

  Some players when confronted by all these possible negative outcomes will go "ninja" and get in and get out before something bad happens.
  So, your job as a designer is to either: A) make those risks fun or b) nerf those risks so that the players are encouraged to explore. There is no right/wrong answer, as long as you answer that question consistently through each step of the design process...
  Good luck man!

[Callan S.]

I had to think why for some time, but an adversary doesn't meet my goals. An adversary isn't imaginified, if I can make up a word. In opposing him you'll use your imagination about as much as he will, and frankly he'll end up doing the same. This will end up at very low to no imagination being used. Or as GM he does insist on introducing imagination, even when it's against him winning, well that's nice. But it brings up an uncomfortable question of why is he doing that if he came for competition? If you can already have what you want (competition), why bring in this imagination thing as well? And if you want imagination, why dilute it with competition?

I want imagination to be there not because someone manually introduces it, but because it's inherantly part of play and unavoidable. It's not there cause you love to imagine, it's there because it's there.

What I've described so far is a hypothesis based on play of games like Diablo, grand theft auto, mercenaries or world of warcraft - having various shiny objects around that distract and draw you. These objects are inherantly imagination based - they aren't shiny, they have some special quality your imagination has imbued them with. Without your consent, noteably - you aren't deciding something's cool, it just is cool. The lack of consent makes it unavoidable. Your not conciously introducing imaginative qualities, you just can't help yourself.

BUT. There needs to be a chance for that to happen, where that uncontrolable desire gets an opportunity to swell up and assert itself. From diablo/wow play, I think it comes from the rather unfortunate mechanic of walking speed. While your running and not doing anything, the mind starts to wander and think about nearby opportunities. I find that a bit of a 'bore them into it' mechanic, which shouldn't be perpetuated. Well, that and I can't imagine it working in table top, hehe!

On a side note: I was thinking someone might say 'oh, but you can have competition in universalis and that doesn't dilute the imaginative process'. Maybe no one would say that, but thinking about it; Universalis's (a simulationist game) system can produce competition, but not out of a desire for it. It's not conciously sought after. And that reinforces the goal of imagining. That's what I'm going for here, but the other way around: imagination introduced but not out of anyones desire for it - not conciously sought after. And that'll reinforce the goal of competition.

[contracycle]

I don't really follow.  Do you mean, like driving halfway across the map in GTA so you can get a parachute, and then driving all the way to some tall building just for the coolness of jumping off it?

[Callan S.]

I don't know - have you done that? If it's a made up example then no, I don't mean that. It would have to be an example from actual play, where you deviated from the main goal after something lead you astray.