Pan-reward-ism

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

We have been over (and are still going over) some of this before, but I want to try a different spin on the topic. There are hardly any GNS-neutral games out there, but if we were to design one, what would it be like?

My take is that you would reward behaviour by making the player more able to engage in that behaviour. For example, by exploring, you are rewarded with the ability to explore further; by being effective, you are rewarded with the ability to be more effective; and by tackling moral issues, you are rewarded with the ability to better tackle moral issues.

My challenge is this: can one of you, or the lot of us working together, describe what this game would be like?

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Fang got some distance toward this goal with Scattershot as currently presented. I'm still pretty convinced that it drives mainly (or best?) toward Narrativism, with strong possibilities for Gamism, but not so well toward Simulationism - slippin' toward N and/or G seems way too easy at any given moment, and all it takes is a little bit.

However, that "convinced" is highly qualified by (a) the game's not being finished and (b) reading not playing.

It's mainly a matter of customizing reward systems and player-power, which in Scattershot are almost exactly the same thing.

Part of the problem, both for Scattershot and for the more general question you propose, is falling into the trap of presenting a design that's so customizable that it is, itself, nothing. d20 as such (not the OGL, not D&D3E, etc) is an example. It's not a system, it has no properties as System - it's merely a resolution mechanic and a couple of strictures that are so vague as to be meaningless, if Mutants & Mastermind is an acceptable application. Saying "it can do anything" means, "you have to design your own game system."

To the extent that Scattershot avoids this problem, it becomes more GNS focused. The interesting question is how well the game will permit actual customizing via play itself, which remains unknown.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

Hmm... okay, to narrow the discussion, assume "game" means an actual instance--a "game session", rather than an actual text. Theoretically, a text could then be made detailing the social contract permitting such play.

Scattershot was in my mind, but I want this thread to be more open than simply discussing one particular rules-set.

Later,
Grant

[clehrich]

It does seem to me that you're imagining a system that starts out neutral, but then inherently Drifts with the players' interests and foci.  The way I understand the concept in Scattershot, at least, what happens is that you sort of let the players set themselves into a groove, then make it easier for them to stay in it.  So it's not that the system is neutral, it's that it starts so.

Suppose you have some traits or skills or attributes or whatever you'd like to call them, and they're set up in such a way that more or less explicitly they have GNS priorities coded into them.  So you have a few traits the use of which will generally entail Sim, a few that entail Nar, and so on.  I'm not quite sure what those would be, but hypothetically one could design them by basing them on the goals of the GNS sets.

Now each time you use one of these, you get rewarded in it.  This encourages you to keep using it, obviously.  Because of the natural tendency toward coherence, you will tend then to use more of the related traits, building a character with a strong GNS preference.  Presumably the whole party will to some degree build together, in the name of congeniality and general popular consensus.

In the end, you have a game which is entirely coherent and distinctively marked in GNS terms.  What you don't have is a neutral game, at that point.

This sort of system facilitates the group's discovery of their GNS preferences through play, and encourages them to do so consensually.

Is this what you have in mind?  To me, that's not a hybrid, really; a hybrid would be a game that regularly demands gear-shifts, not one that naturally drifts and stays there.

Of course, I may have totally misunderstood Scattershot and your post.

[ThreeGee]

Hey Chris,

That is a good start, but what would the actual game be like? Based on your theory, give me an actual example based on three players: Sam, Gary, and Ned. They have three different preferences, so by the Nth session, their characters should be rather focused. What is that like?

Are they playing in a genre? Is there a gamemaster? What does a story turn out like? Do they swear at each other and resolve conflicts with baseball bats, rather than dice?

Gimme the details, man.

Later,
Grant

[clehrich]

Er, sorry --

what would the actual game be like?

Which game?  The Drifting game with funny traits?  Or an actual Hybrid, by my off-the-cuff definition?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Grant,

Unless I'm mistaken, neither Chris nor I am talking about a group with disparate players, in terms of GNS preferences. We were talking about a system that permits itself (or encourages) specific transition to a given mode of play that is common to the players involved.

Looking over your initial post, I don't see the stipulation that the game should support functional play specifically when the different players take it in different ways. Is that what you had in mind? 'Cause if so, I don't see it as a working possibility. It's certainly not what Scattershot does; in fact, Scattershot is predicated on consensus in terms of goals and even has a whole rules and vocabulary-set aimed at forming it.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey Ron,

I did not specify either way. If it suits you, assume the game has controls that focus the group in a particular direction. My point is that I want a description of what the game(play) would be like. It is okay if no one can even imagine such a thing as what I have described, but my challenge still stands. MUDs and LARPs have to accomodate diverse play-styles, and I have definite use for the results of this thread.

Later,
Grant

[clehrich]

Unless I'm mistaken, neither Chris nor I am talking about a group with disparate players, in terms of GNS preferences. We were talking about a system that permits itself (or encourages) specific transition to a given mode of play that is common to the players involved.

What Ron said.

[If the idea is] the game should support functional play specifically when the different players take it in different ways. .... I don't see it as a working possibility.

Funny, I actually do think it's possible, but I think everyone's got to be very flexible and willing to do a whole lot of things.  And I think a system would have to be a true Hybrid, not the self-Drifting sort of system I sketched, to handle this well.  But I suspect going on about this would be thread-hijack.

Chris

[clehrich]

Oops, x-posted.

If it suits you, assume the game has controls that focus the group in a particular direction.

No, wait.  That's just GNS coherence.  I thought you wanted something that doesn't focus the group, but that can be focused by the group.  Now I'm really lost.

Could you restate your challenge?

[ThreeGee]

Hey Chris,

You bet. Assuming a group of GNS-diverse players sit down to play game X, which rewards them individually for their play (their play being influenced by their GNS preferences), what might game X be like?

Theory is fine, but fabricating the details whole-cloth is great, too. For example, would you reward exploration with greater metagame ability to call things into existance to be explored, reward successful use of resources with increased resources, and reward focus on moral quandaries with increased metagame control? What kind of setting could take this sort of abuse without alienating the players? Etc.

Since coherence has been brought up, is there a way to do all this, and bring the game into coherence, too? What would that be like?

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Grant,

For my thoughts about this, check out the thread Can a game designer work for all three (G/N/S)?, especially my post of 10 Sep 2002 10:14 about the hypothetical players. Both M.J. and Fang provide some extensive posts after that which really lay out the issues for their respective games Multiverser and Scattershot.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

I want to thank Ron for pointing to that thread; my comments on the second page thereof will save me some typing here, but I will attempt to brief them as I expand a bit.

First, I think I should note that Ron has tagged Multiverser as a simulationist game; and I'm neither complaining nor objecting, particularly as he has said it's a particularly good one. It only surprises me, because although I do have some players who are simulationist, most of my players are very gamist and quite a few are narrativist, and I find myself supporting all three in play.

One of the things that makes Multiverser work for all three GNS modes is that it has no reward system at all. I'd like to say this was a brilliant insight on our part; I'm afraid I have to admit it was an accident, sort of. We didn't ever see a need for a reward system. To us, play is its own reward; and the more we've played, the more that appears. Simulationists find an inherent reward in exploring what has been created. Gamists find an inherent reward in overcoming the challenges they face. Narrativists find an inherent reward in facing the moral and personal issues that arise and working through them. In short, if you get what you enjoy from a game, you have been rewarded.

Rewards systems, in general, are merely reinforcement for this (and look for my comments on two pronged rewards systems if you want more on that). However, to the degree that a reward system rewards any one type of conduct, it penalizes others.

This would, I'd wager, result in the sort of approach alleged for Scattershot--that as you are rewarded for acting within the chosen mode, you are discouraged from getting outside it. That doesn't, as far as I've seen, happen in Multiverser games.

Yet I do think that even within Multiverser, the game to a large degree responds to the mode choices of the individual players, even if those mode choices conflict.

In the referenced thread, I mentioned a player who built a dam and was working on a steam engine. I think he's probably among my more simulationist players. He eventually left there and proceeded to explore the world. Sure, he got involved in a few serious battles, and enjoyed them thoroughly; but he tended to enjoy them more from the standpoint of can I devise a catapult from the materials at hand that can be used to throw flaming pitch at the enemy ship and similar ideas. There was some character attitude about wanting to beat those who were abusing him, but it never really became the reason for the game--it was just part of what it would be like if this were happening. Now, in all of this, he's been improving his engineering and related skills, and as he goes on to other worlds he takes those with him, and can continue to explore possibilities. Right now he's in a much more magical fantasy world, and is fascinated by a particular magical artifact which is being studied as a possible aid in an imminent war. He keeps it explorative, and he gets better at exploring, even though sometimes exploring means the sorts of battles and adventures that make good tales.

At the same time, I've landed a player in a world with a serious issue: the good people of this world are slavers, and have never recognized that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, they consider their slaving activities to be generous treatment of the slaves, who are primitives lifted, in the slavers' view, from the mire of their barbaric lives and given the benefits of civilization. My player is quite cognizant of the issue after less than a day of game time, and is trying to come to grips with the moral ideas (even as she wrestles with the more basic questions of how she got here and what she can do about it). This is going to be very narrativist as it unfolds. It doesn't have to be--I ran this world for someone else some time ago, a more gamist player, and his response to the prevalence of slavery was to buy a slave, tell him to consider himself more a companion free to leave whenever he wished (although leaving could be problematic, given that he'd most likely be taken for a runaway), and went about exploring other aspects of the world. A player who focuses on issues and likes that, though, invites the idea of bringing more issues into play.

The gamists are easiest. One thing they almost always do is build up their characters into at least moderately potent heroes. They vary in what that means, and how potent they wish to be, and how much variety there is in their skills, but overall they build up characters who can stand toe-to-toe against some formidable adveraries. What happens? Almost without thinking about it, referees provide challenges for these players that meet their abilities.

Why don't these player types come into conflict? The answer is almost too simple: because the game makes no effort to have them work together. From time to time they land in the same world and meet up, trade notes and war stories, sometimes teach each other things they've learned, sometimes work together on whatever appears--but even when they're in the same world, they'll often ignore each other and do what they individually want to do; and even when they work together, the disparity in play styles and abilities doesn't particularly matter. Gamists who have built powerful characters will put themselves on the front lines, with the others supporting them; narrativists will find the issues and focus on these; simulationists will explore. If it gets too hot for some character, that character probably gets killed, and he's off to another world where the others aren't particularly relevant--back to doing what he enjoys.

Yet it also happens that players who are not locked into one mode (me, for example) move between modes as situations arise. Drop me into a situation with strong moral and values questions, and I respond to them seeking resolution to the story. Face me with a challenge, and I rise to it as well as I am able. Give me something interesting, and I start to explore (I hold the record for number of times killed by experiments gone bad; the first was the explosion of a psionic weapon I was trying to build).

So in a sense it goes both ways. If you want to play in one mode exclusively, it will fit itself to that mode; if you want to switch between modes, it will move with you.

That's how I see it working.

--M. J. Young

[Jason Lee]

'K, I'll bite.

(Jason places half-baked idea into catapult for proper hurling at Grant.)

Wacky Little System:

Traits:
Pick two of the following traits, define them, and rank them using 4 points.
Traits are defined with decimal points. (2.0, 3.0, etc).  The decimal point is used for rewards.  It is assigned to N.0 at character generation.

Training (experience:  skill-esque)
   Talent (natural ability:  stat-esque)
   Drive (a goal of some kind)
   Virtue (A positive quality:  patience, hope, charity, etc)
   Vice (A negative emotion: greed, envy, hate, etc)[/list:u]

Resolution:
Add Trait + Tokens.
Resolution is all opposed.
The decimal point does not apply to resolution.
Each player gets 10 tokens and 3 actions (including defenses) per round/scene.
Tokens do not accumulate higher than 15, and actions do not acculumate higher than 5.
As many tokens as desired may be committed to a single action/task.
If it applies the Trait value is added to the numeric total of the Tokens committed to the action/task.
In an attack versus defense situation tie goes to defender.
In an attack versus attack situation a tie is a simultaneous hit.

Rewards:
Training:  Increased through learning.  Each day devoted to the practice of the Training Trait increases it by 0.1.
Talent:  Increased through use.  Each use (successful or unsuccessful) in a scene adds 0.1 to the Talent.
Drive:  Increases when the goal is quested.  Each scene the character works toward his Drive increases the Drive by 0.4.  Once accomplished the Trait may be replaced by a new one which starts at 1.0.
Virtue:  Increased with self confidence.  Each scene a Virtue is successful in resolution increases the Virtue by 0.2.
Vice:  Increased when desires are blocked.  Each scene a Vice would be triggered (the emotion that it defines happens) by an unsuccessfully resolution increases the Vice by 0.2.

Example Characters:
Sam (Explore: Char)
Vice (Rage)
Training (Weather Sorcery)

Gary (Explore: Kill Things...What is that Sit? System?  I dunno.)
Training (Soldier)
Talent (Strong)

Ned (Explore: Sit)
Drive (Free himself of the cranky second face on his stomach)
Virtue (Courage)

*****

MJ makes himself a kickin' point about not having a rewards systems at all 'cause playing is it's own reward.  After all, he's right - you don't come back to the gaming table for EXP, you come back to play.

An off-topic note:  I don't think it's really that big of a deal to make a system that stays out of the way enough that it can play all Congruent like.  But...I don't think the real nasty GNS problems have anything to do with mechanics - they're all about taste preference conflicts.

[John Kim]

Suppose you have some traits or skills or attributes or whatever you'd like to call them, and they're set up in such a way that more or less explicitly they have GNS priorities coded into them.  So you have a few traits the use of which will generally entail Sim, a few that entail Nar, and so on.  I'm not quite sure what those would be, but hypothetically one could design them by basing them on the goals of the GNS sets.  

OK, I don't claim to be an expert in GNS, but this doesn't ring true to me.  I suspect there is a reason you can't think of what those would be.  There may be stereotypes: i.e. real Narrativists play bards, real Gamists play fighters, etc.  However, I don't think that this approach really works.  A Gamist player may deliberately choose to take any character, and then try to do the best using those traits.  For example, someone who can take a blind decrepit old shaman and kick ass with him is truly worthy as a Gamist.  (Real example, as I recall.)  

Now, arguably you could come up with different Gamist and Narrativist representations of the same character, say.  However, that still seems suspect to me.  If I am playing a highly violent character, then I will probably end up using a lot of combat traits.  That doesn't mean that I'm not illuminating the question of what drives people to violence.  

Anyhow, it is at least tricky.