A game that optimizes for...?

[fig]

What are the rewards in gaming, specifically provided by the game itself?

The reason why I decided to design a new setting/system is because my group (we've been playing for quite a while) has grown pretty bored with a lot of what's out there (d20, GURPS, ST, Silhouette, etc.). It wasn't just the settings, but also the systems. D20 is a perfect example. Character development works like inflation. Sure, your character increases in ability, but so does everything else. The only thing that really changes is the flavor. Goblins become trolls become dragons become gods. Don't get me wrong, we're not free-formers and we all like the tactical side of gaming, but the game doesn't really change much over time.

So, now I'm working with a crunchier version of Fate as a foundation. The smaller range of abilities limits character development (at least with skills/attributes), but that's all an illusion to us anyway. Instead, I'm trying to optimize for getting something new out of a game. For example, the PCs investment in their village/town/etc. is going to be a very real part of the system and will/can even influence their own character's development. The general idea is to develop the system to manage outside the individual character. In other words, if you read d20s PHB, at least 75% of it (if not more) is filled with rules about what your character can and can't do, and not as much about what the rest of the world does.

But I digress. Before I get much deeper with this design, I think it's important that I figure out from where the actual rewards are coming. I mean, it's not going to come (much) from increases in character power/ability. I'm planning for in-game socioeconomic-type awards, but I want to do more.

So what rewards do *you* get from a game? I don't mean good times with friends, a couple of beers, etc. I mean, what rewards come from the game itself?

[casquilho]

So what rewards do *you* get from a game? I don't mean good times with friends, a couple of beers, etc. I mean, what rewards come from the game itself?

This is one of those questions for me that is very game specific. Not rule specific but game specific.

I have one friend that every game he runs is a political high drama, behind the closed door kind of game. Regardless of rules set or setting, Medieval to SciFi and everything between. In his games it is clearly political power.

In another case, I have a friend who is very tactical in his games. Again, regardless of rule set or setting, he somehow turns it into a combat skirmish feel and in his games the rewards are all about the "weapons and armor".

I believe the reward system should be designed to help promote the feel you want your game to have. If you want a politically charged game, do not reward with better combat ability and weapons. There is a good reason most D&D games return to the "dungeon crawl" mentality. The reward system is designed to promote that way of thinking.

So to be clear, the reward I want to get is one that supports the type of game we agree to play. I want my efforts and the corresponding reward to match. I look for the payoff for my character to be in line with the type of game we agree to play.

Hope that makes sense.

Daniel

[theMonk]

I agree with Daniel (if I understand his point). I think a game must be flexible enough to offer more than one kind of reward, otherwise you run the risk of only attracting one kind of player.  Many MMORPGs, for example, provide for players who like to explore or want the best gear or what to make their player the most powerful character in the game.  There are a lot of differences between MMORPGs and PnP rpgs obviously, but just as designers of the former can learn from the latter, the opposite is true.

But back to the point, I think the more specific or detailed you get, the more you restrict the GM and the players.

Just my two cents.

[masqueradeball]

What "theMonk" has to say about multiple reward systems definately make sense, but looking at it from a different angle, I'd encourage the opposite. Once you decide what you want the players to do in the game, the reward cycle should be tied very closely to getting and supporting that core activity, otherwise you create a game with no clear identity (IMO). Also remember that rewards involve more than just the mechanical benefits doled out by the rules, they also include activities that are supported by in-game content and by table-level encouragement and enthusiasm.

Have you read the Articles linked to at the top of the page or considered your game in terms of GNS? The theory stuff behind a lot of Forge talk has a lot to say about rewards and how they effect the way that people play.

Good luck with your game.

[fig]

The big question is, what does the game provide?

I have one friend that every game he runs is a political high drama, behind the closed door kind of game. Regardless of rules set or setting, Medieval to SciFi and everything between. In his games it is clearly political power.

See, this isn't provided by the game, this is provided by RP. The game is just a vehicle for RP, and it's not even necessary. I mean, if he wants to RP political drama, he can make a political drama LARP. But regardless, this reward isn't provided by the game itself, it's provided by the RP, which (as you say) is happening regardless of the game.

In another case, I have a friend who is very tactical in his games. Again, regardless of rule set or setting, he somehow turns it into a combat skirmish feel and in his games the rewards are all about the "weapons and armor".

Collecting stuff isn't too meaningful in game terms. It's just a (virtual) material manifestation of power inflation. So he has super tricked out gear? I'm sure the more/better gear he gets, the more/better gear his opponents have. This is like the Diablo syndrome. In this case, the game isn't providing a reward, just the illusion of reward.

So to be clear, the reward I want to get is one that supports the type of game we agree to play. I want my efforts and the corresponding reward to match. I look for the payoff for my character to be in line with the type of game we agree to play.

But how do you define a reward? And once you define it, what is a reward that can be provided not through social interaction (you don't need to game for that), not through RP (you can just LARP or freeform), but from the game itself.

I don't know if this will clarify anything, but I think I'm experiencing RPG existentialism.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Well in school I remember some of the most succesful campaigns were played with out a system and the reward was doing what wented (I want to be a ninja so the reward was nija stuff). We had some AD&D and used the spells and monsters but none of the rules and that generally worked better than when we actually played the game as written. I also remember playing Pendragon adn watching how the players enjoyed getting glory through marriage and and stuff rather than just killing monsters for XP. It changed the way they played.

Now of course if you get too "existential" about it then you basically ignore the argument and might as well take any setting and play it free-form. But if you want a setting then I uess the reward should be some form of empowerment. IN D&D, yes the monsters scale but players get more options, at low levels in the game s written you basically either whack the monsters or run away, later you can fly, teleport do all kinds of feats and stuff (but basically you just have more ways to whack the monsters). In more narrative games the basic principal is similar - you have more options, players can do more things as they play more.

So basically whatever you choose I think it should be something that empowers the PLAYERS (rather than the characters). That's basically what I'm doing with Creatures of Destiny (check out the Power 19) where destiny is the "maguffin" the "points" the players try to get for prizes. The prizes are all the extra powers stuff but also more narrative influence and  creative control.

Maybe you could use a "film crew model" where cplayers start out as "runners" following GM created plotlines and progress more and more to "directors" with more control over what happens. Or make it like dreaming where the GM throws stuff at them and they become more and more "lucid dreamers" (ie able to influence events) as they progress. Maybe you could make the GM role something that you have to earn (and can lose).

Just some ideas.

Daniel

[casquilho]

fig,

I am no longer sure I understand what it is you are looking for. To be clear, I do not want a Role Playing Game that does not reward role playing on one level or another.

When I look at a game to decide if I want to play it or not, I am looking for a game that supports the tone and feel the game claims to be about. That includes the reward system. I also am not interested in a game that can not tie the rewards back to the character and to the role playing aspect of the RPG.

Daniel

[Eero Tuovinen]

Fig, I think I understand where you're coming from here. I've been pondering similar things in connection with my adventure gaming initiative. I'll lay out some random ideas, if you could comment on those like you did with the others, perhaps we'll find something that rings bells for you:

In old D&D the long-term reward for the players did come in the form of qualitative changes in the nature of the game: when you got to a high enough level, you didn't go dungeon-delving anymore, you started having outdoors adventures. This was a big deal for everybody in the group! The whole thing felt different, the problems and content, both tactical and fictional, could be quite different. Then came city-based adventuring, which again was a huge leap in the structural level of activity: the dungeon adventure was all about linear advancement through a tree graph, while the wilderness adventure had you proceed on a map of indeterminately reachable locations. The city adventure didn't have a map at all, you just talked to NPCs who then opened adventure locations for you by guiding you to the right places. Very different.

In AD&D the point of getting to high levels is very clear: you get your own henchmen and get to build a castle and be a successful medieval lord! This changed the nature of play considerably and it was also a very clearly systematic reward, not "mere roleplaying"; when you got the castle, how large it was and so on depended both on character level, wealth and character class.

What those examples illustrate is the idea that "reward" in D&D-style accomplishment games is often progression, but that shouldn't be confused with leveling up. That's just modern D&D shit that's carefully balanced to bowdlerize and standardize the exercise; as you quite correctly recognize, the GM just puts a new number where the orc's attack bonus used to be and continues in nearly the same manner has he used to! The old D&D solution for getting out of that rut was to genuinely change the content and structure of the game as characters progressed: not all groups played like that, but enough did, and the instructions were there to do it if you wanted to. The "progression" was not just empty words and higher numbers like in a computer game, it meant something when combined with new fictional challenges.

Another, different approach is the one taken by many modern narrativistic roleplaying games: what would happen if, when the characters get stronger, the opposition stayed the same? Why, the characters would succeed in doing what the wanted to do, as there would be less and less resistance from the outside world, which again would open more possibilities for the characters. So in this kind of game it is actually quite enough to dole out xp and let the characters grow in power, provided that the opposition can really be overcome to bring on rewarding changes in the campaign. A poster-boy for this kind of gaming is Paul Czege's My Life with Master (and, of course, Puppetland by John Tynes) where the characters grow stronger and stronger when they are rewarded, until finally they are strong enough to take down the Master, which is a very rewarding experience. Just let the characters genuinely triumph with their powers, and the experience will be rewarding. Of course, then you have to end the game after the reward has been achieved, but isn't that a good thing?

Yet another approach is to give ablative resource rewards: what if whatever you give to the characters was strictly one-use? You could dole out lots of power, let the players use it well and tactically, and still not cause a power inflation in the longer term. Shadow of Yesterday has a great application of this in the Pool refreshment mechanics which are really just reward piled on top of reward: you get to pile on the special attacks, spending Pool like there's no tomorrow, after which you get to refresh the pool by having fun with pretty (yet, sadly fictional) girls. Very rewarding, and no danger of power inflation.

A further solution is to give characters genuine mechanical advantages that are very strongly tied into the fiction. I love playing a game where the characters start as blank slates, but after a character's wrested the Three-ring Crown with his own bloody hands from the Arcolich, he's throwing friggin' soul lightning around powered by his own mortality; the emphasis on the character's own accomplishments with their accompanying limitations and consequences makes for meaty rewards that are fun to play with and not at all meaningless number inflation. Runeslayers has a metric butload of reward mechanics, but the most striking of them for me are the heroic feats: the players get to write down crazy stuff their characters did on their adventurers, and then they get bonuses for doing similar stuff later. What's insane here is that the bonus is non-cumulative, but the number of feats is also unlimited, so characters can collect crazy lists of stuff onto their sheets.

This next idea might surprise a guy, depending on his gaming background: killing the character or retiring him might be a great reward, as might be doing other nasty things to him. The important thing to realize is that all of this reward shit is only pertinent when the player cares about the fiction and considers the events therein interesting. In the game of Dread one of the big rewards is killing your own character in a horrible manner after a slow, raising tension. Likewise in Acts of Evil, where one of the wickedest things about character advancement is a list of fetishes your character has adopted for temporary power-ups; the power-ups are long gone, but the scars remain, giving the character the depth of experience without any of the power.

Combining some of the above ideas, a very successful recipe has generally been to empower players to fulfill their agenda in the game with the reward system, allocating mechanical power directly for doing what the player wants to be doing. For example, giving out social rewards in the fiction is not "just roleplaying" when it's attached to rules-mandated, strict mechanical powers. For example, in Agon one of the prime rewards, and a very satisfactory one, are "oaths", which are simply promises that characters and NPCs make to each other for future help. Far from being "just roleplaying" these rewards carry a mechanical bite when characters are forced to fulfill their promises with some minimal mechanical support for the other character, when asked to fulfill their oath. Actually, an even better example is the under-appreciated Fastlane, a game where the most important reward are allies and connections a character can draw power from for his own purposes. The same idea is in Trollbabe, which recognizes only one form of character advancement, gaining new relationships.

Finally: let me say that I really appreciate your design goals. I want to have challengeful, tactical adventure games where character efficiency and development are much more tied into the setting and less to internal character resources.

[fig]

IN D&D, yes the monsters scale but players get more options, at low levels in the game s written you basically either whack the monsters or run away, later you can fly, teleport do all kinds of feats and stuff (but basically you just have more ways to whack the monsters). In more narrative games the basic principal is similar - you have more options, players can do more things as they play more.

So, you can *do* more, but this doesn't come from increases in BAB or higher levels (directly). It comes from having access to more abilities, or from features that create new in-game effects. I bet you could reformulate d20, strip out features that scale up as your level increases (i.e. keep HP constant, no extra damage per level for spells, etc.) and you'll have a game that is just as rewarding (assuming you think d20 is rewarding).

This reminds me of the first time I played Earthdawn. It was also my first time playing anything other than D&D. I remember my reaction when I found out that my HPs actually stayed pretty constant. At first I was put off, but it made a lot of sense when I thought about it.

So basically whatever you choose I think it should be something that empowers the PLAYERS (rather than the characters).

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the system, but if it does, the question is how? Let's say a player just wants to pretend to be a superhero, fly around, and do superhero-y stuff. Being able to do that is not a game reward, it's a social/psychological reward and/or a reward of RP. The game isn't necessary, maybe it helps legitimize the player's experience of RP, but this is not of intrinsic value to the game itself.

I am no longer sure I understand what it is you are looking for. To be clear, I do not want a Role Playing Game that does not reward role playing on one level or another.

This is not really about what each of us wants as individuals. It's about identifying separating extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of the game system. I'm particularly interested in the potential intrinsic qualities of a game system. So, a game that rewards RP (whether or not you like that kind of thing) is extrinsic.

I'll lay out some random ideas, if you could comment on those like you did with the others, perhaps we'll find something that rings bells for you:

First of all...holy friggin' awesome post!

In old D&D the long-term reward for the players did come in the form of qualitative changes in the nature of the game: when you got to a high enough level, you didn't go dungeon-delving anymore, you started having outdoors adventures.

Really? I didn't have this experience as much. This was partly because at such a low level, we wouldn't have made it through a respectably-sized dungeon. But your indication of qualitative changes is a good point. If I'm not mistaken, this somewhat equates to being able to *do* more. And this is intrinsically valuable to a game if it's the game (system) that provides this ability.

In AD&D the point of getting to high levels is very clear: you get your own henchmen and get to build a castle and be a successful medieval lord! This changed the nature of play considerably and it was also a very clearly systematic reward, not "mere roleplaying"; when you got the castle, how large it was and so on depended both on character level, wealth and character class.

And then what? So you have a castle? What more is it than a scribble on a piece of paper? The "reward" is a product of other game elements, but its actual value is not much different than a jump in BAB or more hps. It's just stuff. What the system does not account for is *doing* stuff with your stuff. More importantly, it does not provide a way for you to do *more* stuff with your stuff.

I do think it's a step in the right direction. Rather than center a ruleset around how your character functions in the "world", this takes a step toward establishing how the rest of the world can function. The idea that I'm leaning towards is that, for a game to have any intrinsic value it has to be able to account for or govern the behavior of institutions/entities/forces that the character cannot directly control, but with which they can interact.

Another, different approach is the one taken by many modern narrativistic roleplaying games: what would happen if, when the characters get stronger, the opposition stayed the same?

While this would dispel the illusion of growth, this doesn't really add any intrinsic value to the game. I do see how it can be rewarding in the end, but the gameplay itself would not necessarily be rewarding, just another step towards the actual reward.

Yet another approach is to give ablative resource rewards: what if whatever you give to the characters was strictly one-use? You could dole out lots of power, let the players use it well and tactically, and still not cause a power inflation in the longer term.

...after which you get to refresh the pool by having fun with pretty (yet, sadly fictional) girls.

I'm not totally sure how to respond to this idea, but I'll try. The refresh method in particular, seems to be more about players (virtually) realizing fantasies for which the game is just vehicle. But this can illustrate a distinction I'm trying to make. First of all, I'm assuming that this refresh comes from getting laid (in game). This is definitely RP. If that's what someone wants to do, the player doesn't need a game. Hell, s/he doesn't even need RP. The player just needs to go pub-hopping. Regardless, these rewards are derived from RP, and possibly some kind of social/psychological need. The game is irrelevant.

But the most striking of them for me are the heroic feats: the players get to write down crazy stuff their characters did on their adventurers, and then they get bonuses for doing similar stuff later.

This is also scribbling on a piece of paper. I'm sure it's great for RP, and there's the social/psychological benefits, but the game only facilitates these things.

For example, in Agon one of the prime rewards, and a very satisfactory one, are "oaths", which are simply promises that characters and NPCs make to each other for future help. Far from being "just roleplaying" these rewards carry a mechanical bite when characters are forced to fulfill their promises with some minimal mechanical support for the other character, when asked to fulfill their oath.

Now, *this* is happening within the game. Of course, it may not be "fair" to force character behavior if they refuse to live up their oaths, but a mechanic that deals with the consequences of such in-game could take care of that.

I want to have challengeful, tactical adventure games where character efficiency and development are much more tied into the setting and less to internal character resources.

I've seen a lot of games that start with players saying "I want to be X", and the game just serves to fulfill whatever the player wants to RP. The only consequences are the ones that the players are willing to accept. The game becomes irrelevant to itself, it merely legitimizes the RP. Despite all the d20 that I've played, I think it was Exalted that broke me. Having characters that were so much more powerful than regular folks, along with being able to get bonuses just because you described your action in a cool way, was just not our kind of thing (to say the least). It was a very ego driven game. My group only played two sessions before we tossed the books.

In looking at a lot of games, I'm trying to better understand the intrinsic qualities of the game itself. Underneath the RP, the social rewards, and other miscellany, there is a game happening. I'm trying to see under the facade as to what is really "there" in the game, or at least what *could* be there.

[dindenver]

Fig,
  I am pretty sure that you are simply re-discovering Creative Agenda. That is what CA is talking about. The idea that Player A is a Gamist player, he enjoys the challenge that the system provides for him. That challenge is his reward. When his GM is rocking the challenges his reward machine is firing on all cylinders. Now a game can promote/support that CA, but it cannot BE that CA. So the question for Player A is, how does your game promote/support Gamism (or Narrativism or Simulationism for other players)?
  In the end RPGs break down to a few simple activities:
Player Interaction
Role playing
Rules Interaction
Handling Time
  Which of these are you trying to dissect? Because I think they are all pretty much a part of the role playing game experience.

[fig]

First, I think the whole Gamism/Narrativism thing has become a little politicized and I'm avoiding any kind of positioning in that regard.

Now a game can promote/support that CA, but it cannot BE that CA.

How so?

That challenge is his reward.

So, this would mean that the only rewards worth having are those that present new challenges. "Leveling up" becomes irrelevant (especially if everything else levels up, also), but new game elements that open up due to leveling are rewarding.

Player Interaction
Role playing
Rules Interaction
Handling Time
  Which of these are you trying to dissect?

Out of all those, probably Rules Interaction. However, I'm not advocating a particular play style, just focusing on one element of an RPG. Because I'm focusing on system, I supposed this defaults to Gamist play styles (or maybe Sim), but not really. I mean, a system that provides rewards of intrinsic value to the system does not necessarily pigeonhole a game into a particular style.

[Grinning Moon]

...I must not be getting something. What do you mean by 'reward', as clearly you aren't using the word in the conventional sense? A lot of games offer exactly the rewards you essentially dismiss here, and it's a tough sell on the idea that they are only psuedo rewards of some kind (if that was the case, how did smashing greenskins to get cooler stuff become so popular?)

See, this isn't provided by the game, this is provided by RP. The game is just a vehicle for RP, and it's not even necessary. I mean, if he wants to RP political drama, he can make a political drama LARP. But regardless, this reward isn't provided by the game itself, it's provided by the RP, which (as you say) is happening regardless of the game.

...How is it 'not provided by the game'? If the game is vehicle, then it most certainly is providing the entertainment and rewards. You're essentially arguing that because other things can provide the same type of entertainment / reward, this particular avenue is irrelevant. Which is, of course, a rediculous statement.

Collecting stuff isn't too meaningful in game terms. It's just a (virtual) material manifestation of power inflation. So he has super tricked out gear? I'm sure the more/better gear he gets, the more/better gear his opponents have. This is like the Diablo syndrome. In this case, the game isn't providing a reward, just the illusion of reward.

This is a highly questionable, not to mention extremely subjective, statement. Try telling the many people who pull all-nighters to complete their equipment sets in Diablo or hunt for the latest and greatest drops in Hellgate: London that said items are 'not too meaningful in the game'. Or try explaining it to the average D&D pro, who is likely to scratch his head and quirk an eyebrow at the notion that equipment choices will be inconsequential for his ultra-efficient killing machine Fighter he's planning.

It's also not really accurate to simply label it as 'inflation'. It's not like the goblins suddenly get tougher as the player beefs-up their character. The act of beefing their character earns them the ability to move on to bigger and better conquests - so they do so. It's like arguing that I'm not really making more money if my earnings go from $10.00 an hour to $15.00 an hour, because I'm 'just buying more expensive things now'. You're omitting the fact that, essentially, that's the entire point.

But how do you define a reward? And once you define it, what is a reward that can be provided not through social interaction (you don't need to game for that), not through RP (you can just LARP or freeform), but from the game itself.

I don't know if this will clarify anything, but I think I'm experiencing RPG existentialism.

No, you're just making something very simple out to be extremely complex (not to mention throwing around bold statements that clearly lack any thought behind them).

Reward is simply positive reinforcement. I do something desirable and recieve something I enjoy as an incentive to continue doing it. If I feel that the incentive is worth persuing, you'll likely see me repeating the desirable action in order to continue getting the incentive.

So, you can *do* more, but this doesn't come from increases in BAB or higher levels (directly). It comes from having access to more abilities, or from features that create new in-game effects. I bet you could reformulate d20, strip out features that scale up as your level increases (i.e. keep HP constant, no extra damage per level for spells, etc.) and you'll have a game that is just as rewarding (assuming you think d20 is rewarding).quote]

Doubt it. Well, not unless you also culled most of the content from the Monster Manual, since there's hardly a point in having a bunch of monsters that players can never hope to survive encountering (and then one would have to ask if much of the incentive to play hasn't been lost?)

You also somehow want levels and level-attained feats / abilities to be mutually exclusive, when the given system clearly doesn't allow for that. So, yes, all that neat stuff does directly come from levels, since levels and level gaining is necessarily bound to them.

This reminds me of the first time I played Earthdawn. It was also my first time playing anything other than D&D. I remember my reaction when I found out that my HPs actually stayed pretty constant. At first I was put off, but it made a lot of sense when I thought about it.

They don't, actually. You just aren't thinking about it very clearly.

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the system, but if it does, the question is how? Let's say a player just wants to pretend to be a superhero, fly around, and do superhero-y stuff. Being able to do that is not a game reward, it's a social/psychological reward and/or a reward of RP. The game isn't necessary, maybe it helps legitimize the player's experience of RP, but this is not of intrinsic value to the game itself.

Using this logic, nothing should count as a reward, by virtue of the fact that there are is more than one way to obtain a reward. Yes, a game of superheroic action would most certainly be rewarding to play for someone who wanted said action. The fact that they could get their fix elsewhere is totally irrelevant.

This is not really about what each of us wants as individuals. It's about identifying separating extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of the game system. I'm particularly interested in the potential intrinsic qualities of a game system. So, a game that rewards RP (whether or not you like that kind of thing) is extrinsic.

Then you can't be talking about 'rewards' at all, because rewards by their very nature are subjective. What I find rewarding is probably not the same as what you find rewarding. I can't be rewarded 'whether or not I like it', because if I don't like it, it isn't rewarding.

And then what? So you have a castle? What more is it than a scribble on a piece of paper? The "reward" is a product of other game elements, but its actual value is not much different than a jump in BAB or more hps. It's just stuff. What the system does not account for is *doing* stuff with your stuff. More importantly, it does not provide a way for you to do *more* stuff with your stuff.

It isn't more than a scribble on some paper. Just like your character isn't. I thought you were looking for ideas on in-game rewards?

And all of those things (extra HPs, more abilities, I'm sure whatever BAB is, a new castle and some hired goons) do let you do more (in game terms. I mean... are you looking for the game to something inflate your own personal bank account or something? The whole statement you just made is downright... well, it's just fucked-up). Suddenly I can fight dragons, have my castle besieged, declare war, etc. Which is a lot more than what I can do as a Level 1 chump.

While this would dispel the illusion of growth, this doesn't really add any intrinsic value to the game. I do see how it can be rewarding in the end, but the gameplay itself would not necessarily be rewarding, just another step towards the actual reward.

...More of the same garbage I've already dealt with...

I'm not totally sure how to respond to this idea, but I'll try. The refresh method in particular, seems to be more about players (virtually) realizing fantasies for which the game is just vehicle. But this can illustrate a distinction I'm trying to make. First of all, I'm assuming that this refresh comes from getting laid (in game). This is definitely RP. If that's what someone wants to do, the player doesn't need a game. Hell, s/he doesn't even need RP. The player just needs to go pub-hopping. Regardless, these rewards are derived from RP, and possibly some kind of social/psychological need. The game is irrelevant

...And more...

This is also scribbling on a piece of paper. I'm sure it's great for RP, and there's the social/psychological benefits, but the game only facilitates these things.

...And, yes, even more. This whole 'just scribbling on paper' thing really smacks of ignorance. I mean, the entire pen and paper roleplaying world is 'just scribbling on paper' - as is illustrating, writing, painting and a variety of other rewarding tasks people choose to fill their time with.

In looking at a lot of games, I'm trying to better understand the intrinsic qualities of the game itself. Underneath the RP, the social rewards, and other miscellany, there is a game happening. I'm trying to see under the facade as to what is really "there" in the game, or at least what *could* be there.

By and large? Bell curves and probability schemes.

Oooh. Exciting stuff, eh?

Now I get it. You're trying to mystify the hobby, basically. There's something *other*, something *magical* and outside of the comprehesion of us hapless simps that lies hidden and underneath all that 'roleplaying' stuff, which really just serves as a smokescreen before what really keeps us involved in the hobby.


Buddy, get real.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Grinning Moon has directed my attention to this thread, asking for me to moderate his last post. I agree that it should be moderated. I've asked him to post, essentially moderating himself.

Everyone else: please do not reply until that happens.

Best, Ron

[fig]

I'm not sure I know what you mean, Ron, but I'm assuming that his reply in quotes was the reply that was to be moderated, and the unquoted reply was the reply you asked for. Or not? But, if that's the case, I'm just going to ignore his quoted post and consider his unquoted post, which looks like it was a correction from the original post.

If I'm (potentially) in trouble for anything, I just want to clarify the ideas on which I'm focusing in this thread. So, one day you sit down and decide to design a game. The question that I'm focusing on is, what does/can a game do? And I'm not talking about stuff like a few beers with the friends or the opportunity to RP a dwarf with an Uzi. These are things you can do and for which you don't need a game. I'm assuming the game itself has to have an intrinsic purpose or function (dependent on the design, of course). I'm trying to determine and analyze what this is.

...How is it 'not provided by the game'? If the game is vehicle, then it most certainly is providing the entertainment and rewards. You're essentially arguing that because other things can provide the same type of entertainment / reward, this particular avenue is irrelevant. Which is, of course, a rediculous statement.

Not really, a tangential question would be that if you can get the rewards without the game (i.e. rules, dice, miniatures, etc.) then what's the point of having the game? I suppose this is partially what I'm aiming towards, though I'm not saying the game is irrelevant, but what kinds of things make the game relevant?

This is a highly questionable, not to mention extremely subjective, statement. Try telling the many people who pull all-nighters to complete their equipment sets in Diablo or hunt for the latest and greatest drops in Hellgate: London that said items are 'not too meaningful in the game'.

I wouldn't say that it's meaningless, but I would question whether or not it's really rewarding. I've never heard of Hellgate, but I can talk about Diablo. Diablo is a continually perpetuating want-reward cycle. The game revolves around consumer behavior. You're always wanting an upgrade. When you get it, you get a moment of satisfaction, and then you start jonesing for the next upgrade. And it never really ends because even when you have some serious gear, you're spending 10 hours a day doing Hell-level Meph. runs to get a perfect Cool Bow of Awesomeness or something like that, which only drops about 0.0001% of the time. The importance of this is that you actually spend very little time feeling rewarded, and most of your time feeling want.

It's also not really accurate to simply label it as 'inflation'. It's not like the goblins suddenly get tougher as the player beefs-up their character. The act of beefing their character earns them the ability to move on to bigger and better conquests - so they do so. It's like arguing that I'm not really making more money if my earnings go from $10.00 an hour to $15.00 an hour, because I'm 'just buying more expensive things now'. You're omitting the fact that, essentially, that's the entire point.

First, a pay raise is totally different, not just because it's real, but because you're also not considering inflation. If I get a raise and make an extra $5,000/year, that's great. But, if my cost of living goes up (but not my standard of living), then it's not an improvement. It's just keeping me where I'm at.

Getting back to gaming, sure, you can have an easier time beating up goblins when you go up in levels, but that doesn't matter. What is getting thrown at you is still the same. When you "look behind the curtain", you see that everything is the same. Some creeps are a little stronger, some are at your level, and most are at least a little weaker. Gameplay doesn't necessarily change as a product of "getting stronger".

Not that repetition is a bad thing, if that's what players want. However, I've got the impression that changes in the game are more rewarding. For example (using d20), take Burning Hands vs. Fireball. Burning Hands is kinda weak, and Fireball is stronger. That doesn't matter in terms of damage, but what changes is how you can use it. BH fans out as a cone from the caster, and FB is a ranged spell with a circular area of effect. FB does more damage (esp. at higher levels), which decreases the value/usefulness of BH as you progress. Sure, BH is a level 1 slot and FB is level 3, so BH is a "cheaper" choice. If you converted d20 to a level-less system and standardized/balanced all the spells, it wouldn't necessarily make spellcasting less fun. In fact, it might make it more so because then BH doesn't become (as) obsolete.

No, you're just making something very simple out to be extremely complex (not to mention throwing around bold statements that clearly lack any thought behind them).

Care to elaborate on that? I'm fairly certain I've backed up any idea I've presented here with a rationale. OTOH, I believe that you're just not considering the topic at hand. While I'm not responding to your quoted post (as I assume that was what Ron was moderating), I get the impression that you're just angry about something and not really looking for discussion.

[Ron Edwards]

All right, now things are getting gummed up.

Folks, when I say "Please do not post," I mean really, do not post. Don't type, don't hit Submit, nothing. If you have a question about why, or what I really mean, or anything about the moderation, then ask in Site Discussion or send me a private message. The worst thing you can do is to post to a thread on which I've said, do not post.

Why is it the worst thing? Because the ball is in Grinning Moon's court, to post what he means, so no one has to guess. Now that you've guessed and replied, more uncertainty has been added, and glory be, we are suddenly on the internet, where no one is communicating and posts go all sorts of reactive directions.

Guys, for this thread to get anywhere constructive, I'm sayin': no one is to post here again - no one at all - until Grinning Moon re-posts his point in the courteous way that he wants to do it. Fig, your last post should be ignored by Grinning Moon, and with any luck, we can move forward with the last few posts - pretty much everything since Eero's post - being considered a detour.

If that doesn't happen for any reason, then I gotta bring down that Forge moderation people like to talk about so much. Work with me, folks - let Grinning Moon do the next posting.

Best, Ron