Game Goals

[Mike Holmes]

On the subject of goals and games. I think that the definition of games is not particularly important. We want to do someting and it seems sorta gamelike, but may not be. OK, who cares? What we seem to agree on is that there are goals and that they are different for each GNS mode.


The question asked in the beginning of the thread was: do RPGs work against these goals when competition is introduced.

And I'd say to the extent that co-operation is what you want, then, yes, competitive mechanics may be detrimental, anbd vice versa. But what Fang says below also applies.

On 2001-10-29 00:45, Le Joueur wrote:
Now it sounds like your suffering from the idea that every mechanic has one-to-one specific purpose attachement.  In my opinion this is not so.  I believe there are a huge number of mechanics that lend themselves to many different goals, both within the GNS model and without.

Only when mechanics are brought together into a system can you actually address how well 'focused' they are.  At the 'is this one mechanic right for said focus' level, you can't really say anything without seeing how it all works together.  (Though I am not versed in it,) take the Pool for example, if I am not mistaken it uses a dice pool mechanic vaguely similar to the ones found in Shadowrun and Vampire: the Masquerade, yet as a whole, it is very Narrativist while the other two arguably are not.  Is the dice-pool mechanic Narrativist?  Alone you cannot say.  It can only be determined when the system is examined (and probably played) as a whole.

This is an excellent point. The Pool's pool mechanic seems Gamist on the surface, but is actually there to support the MoV mechanic which is very Narrativist. Is it cooperative? Well, the consensus amongst Narrativists seems to be that giving power to players to affect outcomes is cooperative in that as long as they feel the need to do so they can make it happen. This is actually not a very strong argument for it being positively co-operative. In fact there is a stronger negative argument which says that a player can use such power to be uncooperative, but this is less likely to be fun so why do it?

OTOH, there are probably some who state that having the story go off in all sorts of different directions can be interesting as well, and, from that POV, "cooperation" as such is to be avoided. This is the same argument for competitive games (and I'd say Gamist RPGs that promote interplayer competition; see RUNE); it's the conflict itself that creates the interesting action. And, from the Hegelian synthesis POV, it's hard to argue against.

I like both cooperation and competition. I think others do as well, which is why the concept of cooperating as a team in competing against the scenario is such an attractive mode for some. It's the same as team sports, especially in something like team cycling where it can be the team against the course.

Interesting. I just thought of an analogy. Survivor (the TV show) is an example of playing in a team against another team and against your own teammates, simultaneously. A friend of mine is developing a board game that has similarities. He got the idea from playing Republic of Rome. But his game has two countries at war. So you are on your countries team, but simultaneously trying to rise to power in that team to win the game. Cool...

Mike

[Marco]

On 2001-10-29 10:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
This is an excellent point. The Pool's pool mechanic seems Gamist on the surface, but is actually there to support the MoV mechanic which is very Narrativist. Is it cooperative? Well, the consensus amongst Narrativists seems to be that giving power to players to affect outcomes is cooperative in that as long as they feel the need to do so they can make it happen. This is actually not a very strong argument for it being positively co-operative. In fact there is a stronger negative argument which says that a player can use such power to be uncooperative, but this is less likely to be fun so why do it?

It's been my observation that people do a great deal of things that are both uncoorperative and 'not fun.' Could it be that highly cooperative players are drawn to Narrativist games (which would then produce that consensus aside from Narrativist mechanics)?

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

It's been my observation that people do a great deal of things that are both uncoorperative and 'not fun.'

In terms of RPGs these are bad players. They should not count in any discussion other than possibly to consider what might work to rtransform bad players into good ones.

Could it be that highly cooperative players are drawn to Narrativist games (which would then produce that consensus aside from Narrativist mechanics)?

Yes, but what's the difference? If the mechanics in question produce cooperation through attraction of cooperative players, or by forcing players to be cooperative, either way the end result is the same. The question is, how do these rules work with uncooperative players. I'd hazard a guess that in fact most Narrativist rules dealing with player power are, in fact, "cooperative neutral" if you will, and that if a player can take things where they like, they will do so.

But the negative argument still applies. If uncooperative plot production is not fun, then the uncooperative players will not be attracted to the system, and all you'll be left with is the cooperative players. I think that this works to an extent in practice. Many "uncooperative" players prefer the competition provided by gamist games. So you'll see them there much more often than playing Narrativist games.

Anyhow, it is interesting to consider this as a form of negative reinforcement for competitive players. That is, if you give a competitive player no framework for competition, allow them to be as successful as they like, for example, then they may (after a short period of gleefull exercise) become disenchanted. A player who likes powerful characters, for example, in a game that allows characters to be as powerful as the player wants, may find that after they make their all-powerful god-character, and destroy a few universes, that there is no challenge, and wish to move on to a game that has the competitive framework limiting them. Or, in practice, they will sense that such will happen, and never get into the game in the first place.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I should like to distinguish between "uncooperative" and "competitive" players.

Functional competition demands cooperation about the rules of engagement. No competitive game is possible if the means by which success is designated may be controlled from within the game; you end up with Calvinball. Competition with no cooperation as a foundation means nothing but a fight.

(This distinction is so well understood by actual humans in most contexts that it is often left unsaid. "KILL'EM!" people shout from the stands, with absolutely no intention whatsoever that corresponds to what they are literally saying.)

I agree with all of Mike's points, but that distinction seems completely necessary to me. It also seems to be missed or avoided in a lot of discussions about competition in role-playing.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Ron's right of course. By uncooperative, I mean merely unwilling to operate as part of the team, not wanting to operate outside the framework of the game. That is what I was trying to point out in my first statement to Marco. First we all agree to play the game within the rules. Then some players will form teams with the other players and others won't. The latter are the "uncooperative" players I refer to. This is a compleely valid way to play, and a desire that should be considered.

Players who compete amongst themselves are "uncooperative" yet may be playing within the rules of the game. Competitive in this sense would be a subset of uncooperative. Another sort would be the player who played the narrativist game just to promote his own story. Anyhow, the question in Narrativism is, if a player plays this way is that automatically disruptive to play as a whole, or can good group produced play still occur? Additionally, are there mechanics that work to make this sort of play good? I'd suggest that, perhaps the relationship map for the group would be one such mechanic. If you give everyone interrelated goals then a single player promoting only his story may help all the stories. Not my his design, but becuse the mechanic has made it so.

This is what I mean by considering the particular mechanics of a design for whether or not they promote good stroy in concert with either cooperative or uncooperative play. The same goes for the G and S goals. (Hmmmm... Uncooperative Simulationist... not even sure what that would mean... Makes characters that would have nothing to do with the other characters? hmmm...)

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

If I read you correctly, you are really referring to uncooperative CHARACTERS, not players. This is crucial.

Biggest dichotomy: uncooperative vs. cooperative PLAYERS. I think it's an issue, but not a hard one - we jettison any concern about the former and continue with our analysis only of the latter. I also want to specify that I am not talking about OBEDIENT players, relative to a GM. I am talking about cooperating in the sense that we are having a good time together.

So, given cooperative PLAYERS, we can now break them down into competitive vs. noncompetitive players. As you know, if we are talking about first priorities, this is the boundary between Gamist and non-behaviors. [This discussion in many ways is getting ahead of Gareth and me in our dicussion of Gamism at present, but for now, let's go ahead and use "competitive" without value-tags or concern with the "struggle" term.]

Completely in parallel with the above (neither in nor out of the competitive/noncompetitive issue), there is a totally different issue: cooperative vs. uncooperative CHARACTERS. Remember, we are totally within the cooperative-player box. This is the basis for the very fruitful Dickweed Character discussion that may be found on the Sorcerer forum at the Gaming Outpost, which generated the idea that a real dickweed of a character may be very valuable and enjoyable in a Narrativist game as long as the player was often in Author Stance.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

On 2001-10-29 11:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
In terms of RPGs these are bad players. They should not count in any discussion other than possibly to consider what might work to rtransform bad players into good ones.

Hell's bells, Mike, that's pretty severe. Not everyone has to play on the same team all the time. You asked if Narrativist mechanics were more cooperative and said using the power to be uncooperative wasn't fun so why would someone do it?

I guess I wasn't clear: "uncooperative" and 'not-fun' are relative (a person who would define his own actions that way *would* probably admit that they were being a bad roleplayer) and what's fun for one person often isn't fun for someone else.

But you do make exactly my point: the more 'in-team' a group enganged in mutual co-authorship is, the more successful they'll be. So I'd doubt that Narrativist games coerce cooperation--rather that they'd only appeal to groups that were mutually goal oriented (where the goal is the creation of the story).

But it's a good point: what happens to the Narrativist experience when participants *don't* agree on what the story should be like (and I'm not talking about 0-sum games like Primeval where that's the point)? I haven't played in any narrativist games, and I'm interested in trying it out--that's a serious question of mine. It seems like it'd be a possible sticking point.

-Marco

Note: you were a lot clearer in your next post. I missed that when I did this one.

[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-29 14:40 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-29 14:41 ]

[Bankuei]

I definitely believe that both cooperative and competitive gameplay can be fun, whether it is us vs. them, or an all out political struggle for a throne.  But my question focuses more on the mechanics allowing cooperative gameplay by players rather than necessarily the characters.  

Obviously cooperative Players can work with many systems to tell a story, but having good mechanics to support it is my concern.  While I love the Pool's MOV, I guess the question comes in that it seems one player is getting a significant portion of story control at crucial points.  Assuming all players have good intentions, but differing story ideas, there does become a slight competition in how its going to turn out(even if the intent is the best story possible).  

Now, I know no rules can make a "good" or "bad" story, since its based on your views of what is good or bad, but we can certainly say some rules give more freedom, and other hinder that.  Writing a story gives you complete control to the story, and you can make it "good" to your heart's content.  The fact you have multiple players contributing to the story means you cannot predict the outcome, thereby making it a game.

 I'm just wondering about some of the principles or ideas that would allow the players as a group to work cooperatively, with cooperative rules to create the story they want, without losing sponteneity or the mystery of how it will turn out.  Many games provide competitive rules for cooperative stories or reward inappropriately to actually aiding the goal of making a good story.

Bankuei

[Le Joueur]

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like).  As mentioned, a game

Not true.  All games have feedback loops to induce behaviour.  Pawns can only move forward, frex; you start at the back of the board.  RPG's have feedback loops too: "kill all the monsters and grab their stuff for XP's" being among the most iniquitous.  This is why system matters.

That's just my point.  In chess your goal is to win, obviously.  My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way.  They just aren't.  Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?"  Besides, the best games of Dungeons & Dragons I ever played was when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda.  The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like."  In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.

All games are composed of reciprocal actions.  They feature reward and penalty systems (keep playing/stop playing at simplest).  RPG's qualify.

And so do conversations.  Are you now going to tell me that every single conversation, without exception, has goals?  To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

It has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation.  Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.

Really?  Perhaps I misundretsand, would you like to exapnd on what you mean here?

Not in this thread.  Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

That's just my point.  In chess your goal is to win, obviously.  My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way.  They just aren't.  Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?"  Besides, the best games of Dungeons & Dragons I

Yes - in the risk vs. reward decision in how many dice to commit to a given decision.  Q.v. thread analysing trends in result behaviour, the inverted pool, and strategies for maximising outcome based on probability of result.

ever played was when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda.  The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like."  In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess... but at the simplest level, the very chance of success or failure in a diced model is such a loop.  Some, like Vamps humanity, are very explicit, and many, like XP's, feature the law of diminishing returns.  Character death, a very common feature, is certainly a negative feedback result (action X caused unwelcome consequence Y)

And so do conversations.  Are you now going to tell me that every single conversation, without exception, has goals?  

Yes, in essence, although the goal might be something like "confirm my membership of this community".  A prime example is the "Aint It Awful" game.  Two people have a conversation, "did you hear about X, aint it awful", "yes and then Y, aint it awful".  This can go on for up to hours, no information has been exchanged by either party, but both have had a good experience composed of reciprocal strokes whos goal is to validate each parties world view (belief system).  

This is not to say that no conversation is about transmitting data/has the goal of transmitting data - many are, especially in the technical arena.  But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

cf. Games People Play, What Do You Say After You Say Hello - Erich Berne; Game Theory & Drama Theory (which superceded Game Theory).

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Uh, OK...

Not in this thread.  Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.

Umm, doesn;t seem right to me to start a whole thread just for a clarification of one paragraph.  You appeared to mean that there is no point trying construct games deliberately; never mind.

[Le Joueur]

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

That's just my point.  In chess your goal is to win, obviously.  My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way.  They just aren't.  Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?"

Yes - in the risk vs. reward decision in how many dice to commit to a given decision.  Q.v. thread analysing trends in result behaviour, the inverted pool, and strategies for maximising outcome based on probability of result.

Except none of that tells you what you must to do.  There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.'  You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all.  That's what I have been trying to say.  Not every game has goals.

Like a ball, you can play whatever you like, with or without goals.  With chess, you have clear goals, not much choice.

when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda.  The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like."  In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...

That's the point.  My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game.  Game theory practically ceases to be relevant in many 'non-system' role-playing games and yet they are still clearly role-playing 'games,' to me this underscores how they aren't games at all, but are more like toys.

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Then we can agree to disagree at this point?

Not in this thread.  Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.

Umm, doesn't seem right to me to start a whole thread just for a clarification of one paragraph.  You appeared to mean that there is no point trying construct games deliberately; never mind.

No, I was just repeating the line I have seen so much around here (I think), that you can't really start out only with the idea of making a Narrativist game (or any other feature of Ron's theories).

Deliberately taking a game design and optimizing is for such a purpose is fine, I've just heard it said that you must bring something else to it, that you cannot start that way.  (Here I am just doing my part to carry the 'company line.')

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

Except none of that tells you what you must to do.  There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.'  You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all.  That's what I have been trying to say.  Not every game has goals.

Untrue - as I pointed out previously, the most BASIC goal is to "keep playing".  this is analagous to the real life experience of having the goal "stay alive".

Like a ball, you can play whatever you like, with or without goals.  With chess, you have clear goals, not much choice.

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...

That's the point.  My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game.  Game theory practically ceases to be relevant in many 'non-system' role-playing games and yet they are still clearly role-playing 'games,' to me this

No, it does not cease to be a game.  More precisely: the box or book you by is a toy; what you do with it is a game.  Subtely and open-ended-ness do not disqualify RPG as a game; that was precisely the point of departure which develop drama theory as an outgrowth of game theory.  As soon as you move from the abstract realm of, say, two perfect abstract prisoners and a perfect abstract prison in the Prisoners Dilemma, you get RADICALLY differebnt results from that predicted by the PD and the Iterated PD.  As the reserachers said, "we realised that we were telling stories" as soon as they broke out of the idealised realm.

Thus: an open ended game is implicitly story-like (in that it has a narrative direction).  I think that this is the very basis of RPG.

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Then we can agree to disagree at this point?

Yes, but I think you are missing a major tool for the analysis of human interaction.

[Le Joueur]

Once more with emphasis....

contracycle wrote:

Fang, stating his opinion wrote:

Except none of that tells you what you must to do.  There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.' You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all.  That's what I have been trying to say.  Not every game has goals.

Untrue - as I pointed out previously, the most BASIC goal is to "keep playing".  This is analogous to the real life experience of having the goal "stay alive".

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot [subtler] than in something like chess...

That's the point.  My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game.

No, it does not cease to be a game.

Sir, you are getting dangerously close to dictating my opinions.

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Then we can agree to disagree at this point?

Yes, but I think you are missing a major tool for the analysis of human interaction.

And I believe you are missing something in the over-generalization that everything (including "real life") is gaming.  I simply wanted to share a new and perhaps unusual opinion on what role-playing gaming might be.  And I do take offense at you attacking my opinion.  If you can't stand the polite suggestion about a different perspective than your own, I think you might need to take a break and reassess your priorities.  I believe the Forge is no place to attempt to dictate the opinions of others.

(I never said I refuted the use of game theory totally in gaming, even though that is what you imply.  My idea was that one could add perspective to one's thinking by also considering the 'toyishness' of role-playing games.)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-01 08:59 ]

[contracycle]

And I believe you are missing something in the over-generalization that everything (including "real life") is gaming.  I simply wanted to share a new and perhaps unusual opinion on what role-playing gaming might be.  And I do take offense at you attacking my opinion.  If you can't stand the

Chill, dude.  Your statement of opinion does not mandate against the expression of a counter-opinion; to do that you need your own 'board.  I have solid grounds for disagreeing with your opinion as expressed; you sound very much like you cannot stand to have an opinion challenged.

[Bankuei]

  Preview my next game:  Opinion: The Wordwar... :razz:
I'm glad to see so many different views about the subject.  

Thank you both for teaching me that I need to better define my question and ideas before sharing them. Let's agree to disagree in a civilized manner and not worry about converting each other.  I look forward to hearing more about your ideas in the future, and hopefully we learn and build from them.

Thanks for the input,

Bankuei