A game that optimizes for...?

[Grinning Moon]

Alrighty; since Ron has generously allowed me to essentially go back in time and fix what I said earlier, I'll see if I can do this right a second time:

fig: I don't understnad what you mean when you say 'reward'. It seems like you're chasing some kind of mystical element that you feel exists within gaming that keeps us going back to it.

The things you've claimed that aren't rewards, well, clearly are rewards; they're a form of positive reinforcement that keeps you doing what the game wants you to do.

So - what does the term 'reward' mean to you?

(P.S. : I apologize for holding-up this discussion for this long. I didn't have the guts to look in here or in my private messages for a day after my other post here).

[Ron Edwards]

Cool! I hope it moves forward from here, 'cause I like to talk about the distinction between reward system, which is a generalized concept, and reward mechanics, which are rules/procedures. I'm thinking that maybe this distinction can help.

Best, Ron

[fig]

I don't understnad what you mean when you say 'reward'. It seems like you're chasing some kind of mystical element that you feel exists within gaming that keeps us going back to it.

I wouldn't say mystical. When you get down to it, RPGs are all about having fun. Some of that happens through the social interaction, some of that happens through RP, and some of that happens through gameplay. I suppose I'm just trying to get at what makes system/gameplay (in particular) fun and rewarding.

[masqueradeball]

Fig, whats the difference between social interaction, "RP" and roleplay. You list these as if they are discreet elements, but I don't know that they are.

Also, let me rephrase to see if I understand what your looking for: What is it about a game's mechanics that makes it enjoyable to use them in and of themselves, irregardlss of other forms of reward that encourage's a player to continue using said mechanics. That is to say, why play (system X) as opposed to not using a system at all or using any other system? That seems to be your question, right?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Would it be useful to look at this from the viewpoint of boardgame design? It seems to me that your understanding of "game" is limited to the movement of game components within a rules framework, similar to the limitations wherein boardgames operate. Boardgame design has its own theories for reward structures, so perhaps those might prove interesting.

Apart from that I suggest thinking carefully about the real and perceived differences between different kinds of roleplaying game interactions. The gap between "RP reward" and "game reward" is not a strict line, but rather a conceptual matter of perspective between different models of understanding. You can't differentiate between those categories just based on the fiction of the game or an ulterior description. I'm not even sure if the line can be drawn in anything except personal perception and preconceptions of an individual.

[fig]

Fig, whats the difference between social interaction, "RP" and roleplay. You list these as if they are discreet elements, but I don't know that they are.

A social reward would be hanging out with a group of friends, having a few beers, and a few laughs. An RP reward would be taking a character through the story presented in the game.

What is it about a game's mechanics that makes it enjoyable to use them in and of themselves, irregardlss of other forms of reward that encourage's a player to continue using said mechanics. That is to say, why play (system X) as opposed to not using a system at all or using any other system? That seems to be your question, right?

Yeah, I think you got it right there.

Apart from that I suggest thinking carefully about the real and perceived differences between different kinds of roleplaying game interactions. The gap between "RP reward" and "game reward" is not a strict line, but rather a conceptual matter of perspective between different models of understanding. You can't differentiate between those categories just based on the fiction of the game or an ulterior description.

I don't doubt there is crossover, but I think I see each source (social, RP, and game) making different contributions to the experience.

[JoyWriter]

Well this is my first post here, so bear with me if I don't know what I'm talking about.
GNS agendas are just as abstract as anything else, but they are familiar. It is certainly valid to dig deeper and look at what components actually make them valuable. Existentialism is actually quite an appropriate word, as there are those people who feel a sense of achievement and meaning simply from collecting a set of things, and a desire for completeness in itself is not a bad one. And yet collecting things can sometimes be looked at as pointless, as people should be putting their effort into "bigger things" which are sometimes only "bigger" because of the social approval attached. In game rewards can form a similar type of joy, as they are intentionally created meaning structures, but as with collecting, either they do attach in some way to the ideals that the players hold, and so can be considered valuable, or they are just grind. Now sometimes this connection is through an illusion, where people imagine they just faced death, or it might be through actual player, rather than character experience. Now depending on how positive your view of the universe is you may have different opinions on this illusion, (which is not to say its a streight negative proportion, people who love life may love many lives) but the fact that it can wear out can be a problem. There's only so long you can think of yourself as smart because you rolled high puzzle rolls, and the same goes for every other feature of the story. Now for some people the roleplaying activity itself is just an excuse, a thing to "get back to" during lulls in conversation, but we can't have that! People should be able to use game systems to express their personality, experience fascinating/amusing/thoughtprovoking situations and test and expand their abilities and all sorts of other things (notice that that is not strict GNS, as I put half of N into S and put the other half with bits of G). Does any of this strike a resonance with you?
I'm currently trying to build a game that shifts from Hack and Slash through Strategy and Politics to Psychology, while trying to keep the original elements as it scales up. The idea is that as you gain power, your enemy becomes not sudden death, but eventually yourself and your own decisions. Basically it scales up through Maslow's Heirachy of Needs with a bit of Jung on the end, from the physical to the social to the moral to destiny and fate.
Don't denigrate "only facilitates", the fact that games help us to look at these things from a different perspective are one of the classic reasons that hypothetical situations are used in therapy. I might suggest that the reason that you disliked Exalted was not because of the roleplay, but the egoist narrative inherant in the system. It's my reservation with the wushu system as well, as being badass is not one of my ideals, and in fact it is very far from it! Now to be fair I still like to watch people taking out a floor full of mooks, because of how they do it, and that is an advantage of the description=power system, you get good descriptions. Actually that's not true, you get flowery descriptions, which are only half the fun, but they are great for getting shy people to get used to the sound of their own voice, which helps elsewhere. A better example might be my perfect mental image of Mage, where creative dodges of disbelief are the core of the day to day experience.
You also said that you can make a rewarding system without pigeonholing it, which may be true, but to some extent rules that have no consideration of the style are a bit dead, so I would suggest rules tweaks whenever you change styles, but that's a comment about generic systems that has been made much better before, so I'll leave it to someone else.

[dindenver]

OK
  I have been kicking around the idea of how I was going to contribute. I think I just want to participate and see where it goes. But before that, I just want to quickly say two things:
1) I really do think that the non-political version of GNS (the version posted here at the Forge) is answering the same question you are asking. What we are talking about is how the game mechanics/rules interact in a way that the player finds rewarding. And that sounds like the same thing to me.
2) I agree with others who have said that it might be impossible to extract the non-mechanical rewards from other more social rewards when it comes to Role Playing...
  But, that aside, here is my best attempt at participating
Rewards
Collection - By this I mean the sort of virtual or pseudo-consumerism that is supported by some games. The game has shiny toys, Artifacts, cyber-gear etc. I think that games that use these mechanics appeal to players that have the collectors bug
Character advancement - This reward depends on buy-in. It is clear you do not buy in to the concept of character advancement as a reward. But, that does not mean that it does not exist and that all other players feel the same as you. The fact is that well designed character advancement can be very rewarding
Entertainment - Some reward provided by RPGs is provided in the form of entertainment, that is just listening to the story and participating when prompted. Again, this is not every player, but some if not many
Creativity - Some players feel rewarded by a game that enables/focuses their creativity. But this is not creativity for creativities sake, it is confined, constrained and judged at the moment of creation. Few other mediums can claim that level of creative support. Again, not all players are rewarded by this act, but it is there and important to consider in game design
Accomplishment - The rules/mechanics can support the players feeling of accomplishment after finishing a virtual task by supporting the GMs ability to create engaging and rewarding situations. Again, not all players can get that sense of accomplishment from an RPG, but my guess is many can and do.
Control - RPGs are one of the few things where you have total control over something (usually the PC). It is a great diversion from reality and rewarding in its own way
Escapism - RPGs provide a break from reality, I think that is why so many successful RPGs have such byzantine mechanics, it requires you to think harder and thereby escaper further from reality.
  I don't know, there are probably more, but I thought this would be a good start on a concrete list. Maybe we can brainstorm more and eliminate others that don't fit your model...
  Sorry about the diversion in the beginning, just felt like it needed to be said. Good luck on your design!

[fig]

I might suggest that the reason that you disliked Exalted was not because of the roleplay, but the egoist narrative inherant in the system.

I totally agree. I felt that the game was basically "I want it = I get it". In general, I'm not a fan of letting narrative determine the results. If this is the case, I just don't see the point of having a "game".

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but my responses are going to blend in with my responses to dindenver a bit.

Character advancement - This reward depends on buy-in. It is clear you do not buy in to the concept of character advancement as a reward. But, that does not mean that it does not exist and that all other players feel the same as you. The fact is that well designed character advancement can be very rewarding

I'm not saying character advancement is not a reward, I'm saying that character advancement (in most systems) is not really advancement in a lot of cases. The only system that I've seen which has well-designed character advancement is Fate. In that system, you don't just keep bumping up all your stats, but you shuffle skill levels around. At the very least, it gets rid of advancement inflation. So, if you want to spend time on Firearms, then you're doing so at the expense of your Stealth skill. It makes sense. I used to be almost fluent in Spanish, but I've spend the last however-many years doing other stuff, so now I'm out of practice.

But if you take a step back, even this is not much of a solution. No matter how you change, the game is going to change to match. For example, take Unknown Armies (one of my favorite concepts). Let's say we have two PCs Jack and Jill. To keep the example simple, other than the free skills everyone gets, their only skills are Gunplay and Bluff. Now, unless the GM is a total bastard, he is not going to throw Jack and Jill into situations where they need rocket science, stealth, or ninja-sword fighting. These just aren't elements in the character skills matrix. So, they're probably going to spend a lot of time shooting guns and lying about stuff. The game imposes rules, but many of the rules actually become irrelevant when you look at the metagame. It isn't just about me not buying into character advancement. I think anyone looking at the metagame could see the same thing.

When I was a kid, I used to play "Cops and Robbers" with my friends in the neighborhood. The rules were pretty straightforward. We had squirt guns (or nerf guns or whatever), and if you got hit, you went down. A RPG is usually a lot more structured and organized (hence the system and the game), but to what purpose? The elaboration seems rather unnecessary. What makes RPGs any different than "Cops and Robbers"? Why do we sit around a table with sheets of paper describing fictional characters while rolling dice? If we want to be creative, we could just write fiction. If we want entertainment or escape, we could just play some 360 (or again, fiction). If we seek accomplishment, we could just take up a hobby where accomplishment has a real manifestation (like woodworking). The actual game doesn't -really- do any of these things. The rule system limits creativity. If I'm playing D&D, I can't just whip out an M60 and pump a dragon full of lead. Entertainment and escape? Maybe, but most of that is a product of our own creativity. Accomplishment, not really, but maybe a false sense of accomplishment. I mean, at the end of the day (or session), what do you actually have to show for it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trashing gaming or anything. My main goal at this point is philosophizing about gaming in general. I'm expecting that whatever I come up with in the end to help whatever I design later.

[masqueradeball]

I think what you have to say about accomplishment is way off. From a simple "realworld" application POV, my vocabulary is better in large part because of D&D and, later, Vampire. Math, socailising, problem solving. I learned to do all these things better because of playing RPGs. Its an excercise in effective thinking in a collaborative environment, and in general, an excellent tool for learning how to handle a variety of situations in real life. Remember that I'm using the word "tool" here for a reason, which is that you have to want to learn these things and then use them in non-RPG settings.
I think literature and video games can both be great sources of learning, as can writting your own fiction, but to say that they're better learning tools or tools of self expression is sort of missing the point. If someone wanted to watch TV to relax, and you started asking them, why not sleep or meditate or read or whatever, they'd probably answer that they felt like watching TV. So, if you ask, why are you playing an RPG in your free time, the answer would be, because I like to. Any comparison between RPG's and other possible uses of time would have to consider personal tastes, and that's about all there is to it.

[fig]

So, if you ask, why are you playing an RPG in your free time, the answer would be, because I like to.

I don't disagree with that, but a "just because" is not really a "why". I mean, we all like RPGs because we all like RPGs is just a cognitive loop.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Okay let's look at some different mediums as consumers:

Films/TV

Novels/fiction

Computer Games

RPGs

Boardgames

Arts and Crafts

Okay the first two are narrative and often have a "simulationist" aspect (iI'm really warping the old GNS model to fit fiction) in that they create an artificial reality for us to experience. They are both "passive" in that the audience is a consumer (you can critique what you consume but that's another issue)

Computer Games - This is huge categorary but if we look only at computer rpg's (the closest form) then we have some narrative control. We usually have a lot of "gamist" control, as in a lot of opportunities to compete and win or lose based on our ability to play the game. Non RPG's have no narrative control but ussually even more gamist control. SOme have virtual social interaction (online play).

Boardgames: Here we have total gamist control - we play to win and can lose. Varying degrees of luck/skill are involved. There is usually a lot of room for social interaction, especially with simple games.

RPGs. Okay so we've got some variation but there are the narrative elements (the being told a story, ie railroaded), which is usually unsatisfyingin a RPG. There's also a strong amount of narrative control. Even in non-narrative games like D&D there's still the opportunity for players to run riot with the DM's plotline in a way that readers or film viewers cannot. There's also gamist elements in varying degrees where you can win or lose. And there's simulation going on often as well. So there are various combinations of the pleasures of game-playing, storytelling and stroy consumption. Potentially this is a winning mix, though it often falls short of what it could be. That's not surprising when you consider that even novels and films often fail to entertain and their written by professionals with far less constraints than the typical GM/player group. Still the amateur storytellers have the advantage of tailoring to a much smaller audince (themselves only) and of enjoying their own creation.

The point is that if RPGS have no meaning than neither does any other form of fiction and neither does any other form of game. If RPG's often fail to hit the spot either as games or as fiction then that's a result of implementation, which is partly about game design, and partly about play groups ability (because RPG's are something you can be good at or bad at).

I'd also say that being good at something is a reward in itself.

[dindenver]

Fig,
  OK, seriously, this has to be the most negative thread I have posted to.
  Almost every answer anyone has put forward you have rejected.
  Furthermore, I feel like you have an answer you want to hear, and if that is the case, spit it out instead of making us guess what you are getting at.
  Finally, just because a reward is provided by another medium or could be provided in a better manner does not mean that other players do not see it as a reward. I think my list is a pretty good starting point. Not the end, but a beginning, unless you have an actual idea or at least a constructive criticism that leads to better or new ideas, lets start there?
  Happy hunting!

[lachek]

Fig, as I read through this thread over and over, I keep hitting these concrete points which get me thinking "yeah, right, I totally get where he's coming from!". But then you say something incredibly reductionist and you totally lose me again.

For example, I agree with and can easily address a concern like "leveling up isn't really a reward since the opposition just becomes stronger on a linear curve". Eero mentioned how in some versions of D&D, the monster's wouldn't just get stronger and the traps deadlier, but the nature of gameplay would change. This is a helluva reward, if the players are grooving on the idea of facing new forms of challenges in the game, such as killing monsters in different environs, sieging castles, leading armies and so on.

If the players don't give a hoot about that - perhaps because they're mostly interested in increasing their character's personal power relative to the fictional enemies they face, rather than their own tactical abilities - then such drastic changes will seem pointless.

But I can see why such an answer would seem useless if your core concern lie much deeper than that, as it seems to. An acquaintance of mine recently commented that he doesn't like computer games, because to him they all boil down to "connect the two dots". It is true that on an abstract level, all computer games do boil down to a binary switching game, if you ignore all the content pre-created for purpose of passive entertainment. Similarly, it is true that roleplaying game mechanics boil down to similarly simple and seemingly meaningless activities - roll the die to determine if the story goes left or right, roll the die to determine who gets to decide where the story goes, roll the die to determine if you get to increment a number on your sheet. Notably, roleplaying games - like modern computer games - have been mostly obfuscated content pre-created for purpose of passive entertainment for quite some time now, as Ron Edwards et al points out.

I have some thoughts on this, too, but I don't want to waste my time and yours with addressing a possibly non-existent question. Can I ask you to clarify what level of "reward" you're specifically concerned with? Explicit system-based and/or fictional rewards, like "stats" and "stuff"? Personal-goal type rewards, like the ones Dave (dindenver) lists? Somewhat more overarching GNS type rewards? Or rewards based on the nature of "entertainment" itself? Right now, I feel you're giving examples in the first category, people respond in the second and third, and you respond in the negative by invoking the fourth.

[fig]

OK, seriously, this has to be the most negative thread I have posted to. Almost every answer anyone has put forward you have rejected.

I'm not specifically rejecting ideas (well, not all of them).

For some of the things that were said, if we were really trying to optimize for those things (accomplishment, advancement, collection, etc.), there are much better ways to do it.

For other things, it just isn't clear as to how the game facilitates. This leads me to believe that either a) if the game does address such factors, we don't yet really understand how or b) The game does not actually do these things, but it does something else that we have yet to realize.

The point of all this is to dig deeper, and not just put stock in an idea that doesn't hold water or resign to some cognitive loop.

Fig, as I read through this thread over and over, I keep hitting these concrete points which get me thinking "yeah, right, I totally get where he's coming from!". But then you say something incredibly reductionist and you totally lose me again.

Yeah, I'm sure it's strange to get all philosophical about RPGs, and this dialog has changed a bit throughout the thread, but that's just how it goes, I guess.

Eero mentioned how in some versions of D&D, the monster's wouldn't just get stronger and the traps deadlier, but the nature of gameplay would change.

I did pick this up earlier in the thread. It seems to me that a game that changes as you progress is something of value.

Can I ask you to clarify what level of "reward" you're specifically concerned with?

I think I'm past thinking in terms of "rewards", and am now more interested in actual function/purpose vs. virtual function/purpose of the game. I mean, I do think there's something "actual" there, or else I don't think so many (if any) people would really be interested in RPGs. However, other than the game changing thing (which most games don't really do anyway), I'm not any closer to understanding what that is.

Or rewards based on the nature of "entertainment" itself?

Entertaining? That's a part of it, but not all of it. How about this? If I realize that character "advancement" really doesn't matter, that even my character's stats are essentially irrelevant, the stuff my character gathers has no value (actually or even virtually from a metagame perspective), and that the game system itself puts seemingly needless restrictions on creativity, what is an RPG (particularly the game part) really doing?