A discussion of the use of expicit goals and steps, especially for gamist play. Original post:

I agree with Noon's point. Thinking about things like Power/Evil has recently priompted this idea: why not be much more explicit about the challanges that are posed? Why not even let players choose them? Further, why use an abstract reward system when a concrete one could also be used?

To explain the last point first, the distinction I am claiming between abstract rewards and concrete rewards is the distinction between a bunch of XP and an actual change on the charsheet. That is, conventionally we award XP and allow players to spend them on whatever they want, but why not offer them what they want up front? Then you can say, this challenge carries the reward "4 levels of Swordsman skill" or something like that.

Prompted by some elements that have become standard in PC games, like checkpoint saves and explicit goal lists accessible through the game menu, such challenges could also be checkpointed up front so that the player knows what the express goals are. So the challenge associated with the above reward of 4 levels of Swordsman skill might be:

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched. Such an explicit structure would facilitate scene framing, by having clear points at which the process has developed from one stage to the next. In addition, the use of concrete rewards might prompt more discussion between player and GM as to what they want ourt of the game and their characters.

It also opens the possibility that individual players could be pursuing individual challenges that coincide or overlap, if such is even necessary - conceivably an explicit system like this could be re-integrated with open, Tourist sim in a manner reminiscent of MMORPG's.

Silmenume wrote:

Just a quick thought on the parallels between Narrativist Bangs and the idea of Gamist Bangs. What contracycle proposed seems to incorporate overtly, as in the Gamist equivalent of overtly discussed Narrativist scene framing based on Premise issues, the notion of Ron’s Go’s or “Go lengths” in the Gamism essay. Contracycle’s proposition sort of fills in the other half of the “Go length” coin. IOW’s the player’s are aware of the Go’s and can have a say in them. There may be some good stuff to be mined in this type of game design.

Silmenume has spotted on of the features of such a proposition: given that this is explicit, is visible up front, it must necessarily inform the SIS even if only tacitly; it will "leak" across from metagame into the play itself.

As mentioned above, usually we have tried to prevent this leakage but perhaps instead we should examine how we might take advantage of it. And, while this has been articulated above mostly in terms of Gamist play, I'm not sure that it would be so alien to Simmers as to be unusable. I'm less sure about Narr qand would appreciate thoughts on that. Otherwise, all comments welcome.

I have found that such rewards in games do indeed work. I use it sparingly when I see fit.

For instance, assisting a Guild in some major endeavour might end up with them training the character, resulting in maybe an extra couple of points in a skill, or they get to add it to their Class Skills (using D20 as an example) and get a couple of free points in it.

It is used in many computer games, especially CRPGs. For instance, in Lionheart there are Way Crystals (5 of them) that give you bonuses, and there's an extra if all 5 are found

contracycle wrote: Thinking about things like Power/Evil has recently priompted this idea: why not be much more explicit about the challanges that are posed? Why not even let players choose them?

Further, why use an abstract reward system when a concrete one could also be used?
...
That is, conventionally we award XP and allow players to spend them on whatever they want, but why not offer them what they want up front? Then you can say, this challenge carries the reward "4 levels of Swordsman skill" or something like that.

Prompted by some elements that have become standard in PC games, like checkpoint saves and explicit goal lists accessible through the game menu, such challenges could also be checkpointed up front so that the player knows what the express goals are. So the challenge associated with the above reward of 4 levels of Swordsman skill might be:

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched.

Such an explicit structure would facilitate scene framing, by having clear points at which the process has developed from one stage to the next.

In addition, the use of concrete rewards might prompt more discussion between player and GM as to what they want ourt of the game and their characters.

StalkingBlue wrote:
And I say "tactically" not because I'm thinking of the kind of "choice" where you have to work out which way to go has the best chances of success and which is a death trap cunningly presented by the GM. That's not what you mean when you say let's allow players to choose I think, and it's not what I mean when I say choices are a vital part of gamist play to me. We are discussing genuine choices here, I'll assume.

No matter whether it's at the level of "shall we steal the dungeon key or shall we get ourselves arrested and break out from inside instead?", or at the level of "shall we side with this town over here or with that count over there in this civil war?", I like choices and I'll evaluate them in terms of (a) how to beat each challenge presented and (b) what further challenges will follow of my choice, right away and later. And I've seen other gamist players do the same thing.

For the same reason advanced economies use money, not bartering systems? An abstract currency makes it a great deal easier to provide the player with the power to get what they want. With your suggestion the GM always stands between the player and their swordsman skill - sure, you may work to offer rewards that satisfy player preference, but at best that'll increase the need for communication and negotation.

Huh? Not at all. Your list squashes two entire gamist dimension of the princess-saving enterprise: planning the mission; and adapting to events turning out differently than you'd planned.

Why nail the players to your idea of how things ought to go? I mean, who's to say a given group is going to want to follow those steps 1 through 4? With your list to cut off all opportunities for players to come up with other solutions.

Because well, you know. No plan survives contact with the enemy. And that's half of the fun of it, if not more. When it isn't the GM lanching surprises, it's the dice interfering in the oddest ways, not even to mention that players will come up with new ideas continuously, grasping new opportunities as they arise and dodging blows to their pretty plans as they fall.

But you can have scene framing anyway, except you'll have to stay flexible and see what's happening right now and where events are going next. Define the "next item on the list" as you finish dealing with current item, i.e. the challenge at hand.

When the GM frames, just listen to the players' plan, what remains of the original one and those changes they are making as they go, and frame to the next challenge. If you want a player to frame let them know where to frame to (location and some basics of the challenge).

But with an abstract system the player's preferences are plain to see on the char sheet. We are still talking gamist play, right? And people who actually want to play that way?

Hi StalkingBlue,

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched.

Anyway, I've come to the unpleasant realisation of why it will always be seen as a trick/in game question by the GM.

It's simply the stakes involved. Your invested in your character. Assuming the games rules can make you loose your character, you can't see something as just a player choice between A or B. You'll always take your investment into account. Which means you'll always be somewhat in game, in the choice you make.

Damn!

This is stuffed! I can even see this inhibiting traditional trail blazing play, where only the GM determines the arenas. The players still have to say yes to them though. If you just want a casual game, but the stakes are raised so high you can't...you wont feel like playing. Damn, I think that's part of the loop my group is in. The investment forces you to take the whole affair so seriously! Perhaps that's why T&T has it's characters on 3x5 cards.

Hiya Callan. My name's Kerstin. It's in my sig.

Noon wrote: Anyway, I've come to the unpleasant realisation of why it will always be seen as a trick/in game question by the GM.

It's simply the stakes involved. Your invested in your character. Assuming the games rules can make you loose your character, you can't see something as just a player choice between A or B. You'll always take your investment into account. Which means you'll always be somewhat in game, in the choice you make.

If you just want a casual game, but the stakes are raised so high you can't...you wont feel like playing. Damn, I think that's part of the loop my group is in. The investment forces you to take the whole affair so seriously! Perhaps that's why T&T has it's characters on 3x5 cards.

Hi Kerstin. Sigs aren't show in the topic review box! :)

StalkingBlue wrote: Not by providing checklists for missions tactics. That has problems not only because it's stepping on player turf, but also because the players are forced into considering the likely outcome for their character from step to step.

The opposite workaround would be to introduce some mechanism that makes it harder to lose a character.

Gareth, I understand you to be saying that you as the GM in a gamist want more advance information about:

1. the individual steps of players' plans, in order to prepare for a session; and
2. a player's plans for character development so you can (I assume?) present the kinds of challenges the player would like to see.

In order to achieve that, you propose to introduce:

(a) detailed goal checklists, to be agreed with the GM before a session, which will take the players step by step through a mission;
(b) specific rewards for goals that the GM determines in consultation with the players. 

That about right?

Well, here's my point. You can possibly get closer to your goals by using the techniques you propose in a group that agrees to them, but your technniques will increase GM presence in the game and will require increased volumes of negotiation and communication (see my argument about bartering). My view is that with a flexible approach you can get the same or better results without the hassle. I've seen it done and done it.  I don't think it's particularly unusual, it's certainly not impossible. 

So what's a more flexible approach?

Ad 1:  Pre-sessio info.  I agree we want that.  In a gamist game I want to prep for challenges properly, I want to put thought and care into designing stuff that could cause players to lose characters, and when I'm a non-GM player I expect the same level and thought and care from my GM.

Yet that doesn't mean I have to have the players' plans laid out step by step for me. What I need is to know our theatre of operations, if you'll forgive the grandiose term.  So what I'll ask beforehand is, "There's a princess that needs rescuing from Count X's castle in the east, and town Y in the west appears to have been overrun by zombies. I could prep for either, any preferences or should I just choose one?"  Theatre of operations: Count X's castle, or town Y.

Let's assume we agree on the princess-in-distress. That's as much as I need to prepare the theatre and place challanges in it. I'll have the Count, some other NPCs, elite guards, the princess. With stats, goals, standard operating procedures.  Possibly non-sentient challenges (guard beasts, traps. puzzles, obstacles). Mooks of course, which don't need much prep and won't get much spotlight.  Keys and stuff of a similar level of interest don't get prep from me.

I'll sketch out roughly what the major NPCs will be doing assuming the PCs don't turn up, and how they will resond to complications. It's not completely unlike a Relationship Map, except the relationships matter less and for different reasons than in Narr play. 

The princess won't just be sitting in the dungeons forever, the Count will likely be planning the party for their wedding, or be in negotiations with foreign representatives about selling her on. Or perhaps she's in on some nefarious plan of his, or who knows but she's the bad one and he's really the one who needs protection.  The foreign representative's dragon mount has her own use for a bunch of PC adventurer's (say, to free her from this magic dragon-binding saddle and take them to a lair of treasure later).  Whatever. 

Anyway, with just:

- our agreed theatre of operations, and
- my dynamic challenges (in the sense that they have their own goals and will allow me to respond to PCs flexibly)

I'm set for whatever plans the players come up with.  No checklist needed. 

Now let me say one thing quite clearly: no computer could do this thing.  I can do it because I'm human and can respond flexibly with out scripting, and that's why when people play with me they play an RPG - whereas when they play with a computer they play computer games. Two worlds. 

This flexible approach may not be what you want if you enjoy heavier scripting, which is what your suggestions involve. Personal preference. But they aren't necessary, nor even the most efficient way of dealing with the problems you said you'd like to deal with.

Ad 2: Player's character development plans.  This one I don't even see as a problem. 

In every gamist game I've seen, every player fills a niche in the group of characters. The default exchange of questions when you join a gamist game at a Con are: "Can I play?" - "Sure, what do you want to play?" - "What do you need?"  So every somewhat experienced player will choose a concept and stick with it. Of course the swordsman's player is going to take more levels in swordsman. The rest of the group would be miffed (and rightly so) if he suddenly started taking levels in Storyteller instead, it would upset the entire balance of the group and their abilit to function as a tactical unit. Unless switching to Storyteller has been agreed among the group in advance, whih usually happens for some system-inherent reason (say, Storytellers gain strange magic powers that the group needs and someone else plays the primary swordsman anyway).  So when you see what a player is playing you know where they are headed with it - or if not, it's easy to ask and you'll hear the gist of it.  Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 


Kerstin

I think the view that this is "dictating" to the players is somewhat making mountains out of molehills.

I am not proposing that the players be heavily constrained in what they want to do, quite the opposite, I am proposing that the GM and players discuss what they want to do through this sort of device.  The proposition is that that checklist is agreed by the players and GM, not handed down ex cathedra from the GM.  The key concept is the EXPLICIT nature of the goals, not their unilateral origin.  I don't particularly care how explicit goals are negotiated or established at the moment.

It's also worth noting that a near infinite amount of gameplay can be fitted, fractal-like, between any two given explicit goals.  If I'm playing Castloe Wolfenstein, I know that I must finish this level, but I have a variety of means at my disposal - sneaky stealth stuff with the silenced Sten, sniping from range, or close in with SMG's and grenades.  Or, if I am playing Children of the Nile, my goal might be to achieve a certain population level, but all the gameplay will be in the How that question is answered - the exact methods you employ to grow the economy such that the population is sustainable.

Similarly the HOW of the assasination of the count is left unspecified.  That could be done by scaling the walls and suffocating him in his sleep, or by inveigling a position in the kitchens and poisoning his wine.  There is still a near infinite amount of action that could comprise the actual game as played, and still a vast space for player-directed choices as to what is to be done and how.  With multiple players, and characters with differeing effectivenesses, constructing a viable plan will still require planning, discussion, etc.

But what we have done is focussed the exercise not a particular route you must follow, but on the kind of goals you need to achieve.  The players, therefore, know what it is they are trying to do and can act with purpose and confidence - the GM knows what needs to be prepared and can be ready.  That seems like a win-win situation to me.  Working fromt he Sim presumption that the "edges of the board" must be invisible, or that any thing that can be conceived should be a valid option, is not necessarily a good thing, as this can IME produce a lack of direction and purpose to the point that good and bad options cannot be distinguished.

Noon wrote:
Hi Kerstin. Sigs aren't show in the topic review box! :)

I dunno. I can imagine myself being presented with contra's list by one GM, and feeling fully confident I could overwrite the whole thing and that would be fine. And I could also imagine being given that list and knowing I'm being dictated to by the GM.

I don't see a list as being a problem, unless it's at a scale the players aren't interesting in working at. For example, if players like working at the battle grid level, manouvering for best advantage and counting the squares a fire ball fills, contra's list is great. If players like to work at a larger level, skipping the manouvering and like to work at the level of kidnapping daughters rather than five foot steps, then the list is confining. However, a much more encompasing list is easy to make.

It's interesting though. Every time a different stake is set, over time the players will invest in that stake and the problem will rise again where they aren't interested in putting that stake at risk/playing.

Kerstin wrote:
That about right?

I'm set for whatever plans the players come up with.  No checklist needed. 

Now let me say one thing quite clearly: no computer could do this thing.  I can do it because I'm human and can respond flexibly with out scripting, and that's why when people play with me they play an RPG - whereas when they play with a computer they play computer games. Two worlds. 

Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 

contracycle wrote:

Whereupon the players say "Count, we were offered X to rescue this princess but if you double the money we'll be over the border by morning"

Or they say.... "If the count can blackmail X with this Princess, so can we, lets not rescue her so much as take over the counts operationr".

Neither of these may be the game you planned - all your planning is now worthless.  So what do you do? 

Well, thats precisely thr GM-intervention that you claim is undesirable; if the players mention these ideas, I drop hints that "it wouldn't be a good idea" or "they'd just hunt you down", or whatever else I can think of to re-frame the conflict back into the general direction it had been intended to go.

And yet... why even deal with that?  If I crack open Diplomacy or Risk the rules tell me exactly 1) what I have to do to win and b) how I am to go about doing that.  The very board in front of us informs play.  All I'm trying to do is formulate a method which is just as descriptive from the outset.

Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 

Asking people what they want, and then giving it to them, is not reserving any right to myself.  Thats misleading language.

Kerstin wrote:
Now I'll give you that "Double our reward and we leave" is ambiguous. It could be that the players are sabotaging the session, walking straight up the count to make their offer and ignoring the princess stuff entirely.  Although in this case, why would they have agreed to playing on the princess theatre of operations anyway? Doesn't make sense unless the players are being passive-agressive towards your trying to negotiate the plot, in which case there's some other problem that needs to be addressedtht doesn't concern us here.

And btw, just to be very clear: I'd use this ambush idea only if it makes sense in the contest of the game and if I think it's something the players would enjoy, certainly not just because I've prepared it and I'm forcing the players through my prepped material.

I'm not proposing to do that at all. I'm proposing to let go and run with what the players want. The trick is to agree and set up a theatre of operations that if the players agree to it will provide you with at least about one session's worth of play - not really very difficult to do, although sometimes events will mean that you run a bit short of material.  In which case, early session end. Compliments to the players on a job smoothly done, hand out XP and treasure.  Provide options for where across the border the PCs may be heading to define new theatre of operations.  In a game with intense enough challenges, sometimes finishing early (and knowing that this happened because you played so skilfully or grasped an opportunity) can be a reward in itself.

But we're not discussing board games here any more than we're discussing computer games. To my mind flexibility is what distinguishes RPGs from all those games. Do you disagree?

Kerstin wrote: Ad 1:  Pre-sessio info.  I agree we want that.  In a gamist game I want to prep for challenges properly, I want to put thought and care into designing stuff that could cause players to lose characters, and when I'm a non-GM player I expect the same level and thought and care from my GM.

Yet that doesn't mean I have to have the players' plans laid out step by step for me. What I need is to know our theatre of operations, if you'll forgive the grandiose term.  So what I'll ask beforehand is, "There's a princess that needs rescuing from Count X's castle in the east, and town Y in the west appears to have been overrun by zombies. I could prep for either, any preferences or should I just choose one?"  Theatre of operations: Count X's castle, or town Y.

Let's assume we agree on the princess-in-distress. That's as much as I need to prepare the theatre and place challanges in it.

1) Break into Castle Dread

1) Rescue the princess from castle dread

contracycle wrote:

And btw, just to be very clear: I'd use this ambush idea only if it makes sense in the contest of the game and if I think it's something the players would enjoy, certainly not just because I've prepared it and I'm forcing the players through my prepped material.

And for the fourth time, I have not mentioned force only agreement!  Let me make this quite clear: FORCING players doesn't work because they fight you every step of the way.  Thats why this is offered as an explicit agreement - just like it would be in almost every form of game except this one!

Noon wrote:
The only difference is in the size of the theatre.

On a side note: if presented with a wider theatre, the gamist player will be probing for the weakest spot in the challenge (it's his job)...which will most likely co-incide with where the GM is least prepared.

contracycle wrote:
It's only visible after the fact, and I want to see it before the fact.  Because it seems to me that every single element on a character sheet is a kinda statement that "I want to solve problems with this tool".  By understanding explicitly what goals they are working towards, and ehat kind of problem solving experience the player wants to have, I get that information early and can incorporate it into play directly.

For example, if I player says that their ambition is to gain 4 levels of Swordsman, I might introduce a character earlier who mocks the player for their lack of skill; and then, after they have achieved their goal, they can come back and thrash that NPC.  Thus the player not only gets the tangivble reward, but I have also established a scene in which they get to glory in that triumph - which I also foreshadowed.  Thats the kind of planning I don;t think is possible with the points-n-purchase model per se.

Kerstin wrote: What contra wants is to narrow down theatres to a size that will ensure GM control over events

Let me say first that I like the "theatre" concept that Kerstin coined and that it may prove very fruitful.  So I'm going to frame response in those terms.  I also think the discussion of concrete rewards should be shelved for the time being.

I have given a single example of how play could be planned through stages, and this carries with it an implicit theatre size, agreed.  On the other hand, I am not proposing a methodology which has any particular interest in any given theatre size whatsoever - all it does is prompt discussion and awareness of the existance of a theatre and its size.  In Legend of the Five Rings, the default campaign structure is given as the "magistrate" campaign, in which the players are sorta troubleshooters for the state.  This establishes not just the scope of the theatre - which is substantial - but also its nature: it would be substantially better to agree this among all participants before character creation begins than trying to chivvy existing characters into it.  But it also establishes what this campaign is Not - it is not a shadowlands border campaign, for example.  The types of conflicts the players can expect to encounter are different, and both GM and players can thereby coordinate their designs.  Does this constitute locking off certain play options?  Yes it does, but seeing this is agreed up front by all concerned, in the discussion of what kind of game we want to play, it remains consensual.

All I am trying to do is take these already implicit constraints and make them explicit; trying to focus the nebulously vague theatre that is "the problem" down towards "the steps by which the problem is solved".  And this is because I have wasted far too many hours of my life sitting in games in which we discussed and discussed and discussed the problem endlessly.  I have been in sessions that ran for four hours and comprised a conversation in one room due to the indecision inherent to the large theatre, and that is simply Not Fun.  It's certainly not fun for the GM who might as well not have been there, except to answer some library research questions.

Although I had not thought of it consciously till just a few minutes ago, some of this approach is inspired by discussions of the "paradox of choice".  I seem to remember someone posted an article about this some time ago but the search function has not located it.  This is the theory that too many choices are a bad thing, that too many options can create a paralysis in which it is impossible to discern the good and bad in each option because the range of consequences is incomprehensibly vast.  It seems to me that this describes exactly the sort of indecisions I have encountered in play myself. 

A review of the work in question appears here: http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/winter05/review05.shtml.htm

So as I see it, the constraint of choices may actually serve to improve the experience of play.  And thus, I think the argument to "freedom of choice" is missing the boat somewhat - it presumes a notional Best but I fear it may be faulty.  As I see it, the overt, consensual constraint of choice can serve the very useful function of coordinating the players at the table such that they all actually do get to have the fun experience they wanted to have.

In addition to what I've said about the theatre list being fine, I still have to admit there is something that I find constraining about it. I had a think about it, and I determined what I'm used to is using a large theatre as sort of director stance tool.

For example, say that I find the GM's presented problem to be unfun. I then use a large theatre to approach the problem from a different angle. The GM has to present a new problem there. If I find that one unfun, I approach from another vector. Either that or we give the GM the impression we will do this if the problem stays unfun. Essentially it tells the GM "Stop giving such a hard problem, or we'll make more work for you under the pretense that this is a wide theatre and we should be able to approach the problem any way we like"

This, rather than any direct communication that "This is just not fun. So where do we go from here?"

Contra: I feel exactly the same way about wasted prep (prep's only fun to make for me, when you think of it being used in play). But what about the difference between prep which goes to waste because play doesn't end up using it, and prep which goes to waste because the player simply says they aren't enjoying it?

With explicit goals, explicit exit conditions are needed as well? So each small theatre can be skipped (skip to the next theatre) if the players just can't agree to play in the current theatre anymore? As you note, we need their agreement with the theatre list from the start. Forcing them is futile. But even once they start playing a theatre, we still need their agreement (no exit clause would imply we don't need their agreement once play begins).

We may be on to something.  I don't know how to explain this in just a few words, so bear with me for a moment.  There's more things than the size of the theatre involved here.  Let me try and distinguish four things below: the scale of play, the goal, the theatre, and the obstacle or obstacles.  Group agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract - this is not a mention of dysfunctional play, this is mention of functional play where the GM decides these things and everyone is ok with that!) comes into all of them, but for obstacles only to some extent I think.

First, Scale. 

We agree that the scale a group operates at will vary. Scale is the "size" of the things play focusses on.  It could be room-by-room monster bashing, or it could be about taking out rulers, leading armies in a battle, taking over kingdoms. 

Scale is partly down to group agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract), partly determined by the system.

As Gareth has pointed out Legend of the Five Rings for example imposes a default scale, of being troubleshooters for the ruler. D&D 3.x imposes a need for lots of the one thing the system does well (brilliantly actually): small-group combat in which the PCs act together as a tactical unit. You can have larger overall player goals (want to become king) and missions (rescue the princess), but to get the most out of the system when you play D&D, you need to channel play towards lots of hands-down action for the PCs.

Where exactly scale is at in a particular game doesn't concern us in our discussion, except that there has to be agreement on it in the group, whether implicit or explicit.  Where there's a disconnect about scale because of miscommunication, dysfunction will happen. Where players cause a disconnect about scale to gain control over play, dysfunction will happen, no matter whether that's the GM suddenly and arbitrarily deciding that a certain door just won't open no matter what you do (to prevent the players from doing something the GM isn't ready to deal with), or a non-GM player electing to play with the scale to make life difficult for the GM (Callan's example).

Second, Goals.

There are group goals, e.g. Rescue Princess, or Fight Way Through Snarling Monsters Guarding That Door; and individual goals, e.g. Become King, Avenge Father, or Kill This Demon Over There.

There's goals of all sizes, immediate, mid-term and campaign-spanning ones. Goals must be small enough to fit inside the scale of play. This should go without saying almost: there's no room (literally) for becoming king in a room-by-room monster-bashing loot-carrying game. On the other hand at least some goals must also be big enough to satisfy the agreed scale of the group: if a group is excited about doing world-saving stuff and is sent to clear out kobold caves and city sewers week after week after week instead with no signs of things improving over a longer term, discontent is going to arise.

Individual goals are set by the player for their own PC, usually within the boundaries set by what the group likes, and of course partly determined by the scale of play. Group goals are traditionally set by the GM, "And next week we'll be playing Through the Citadel of Death", but can of course be negotiated:

"There's a princess to be rescued from evil Count X in the east or a town to be cleared of a zombie infestation in the west, any preferences or do you want me to choose what I prep for?" - "Och no, not another princess. Can't we go hunt dragons instead to I can at last get my dragonhide armour?" "Evil Count? Cool. I want to go side with him." - And negotiations might end up with the players going on a dragon hunt, to satisfy the player with the urge for dragonhide armor and to catch a live hatchling intended as a door-opening gift to the Evil Count.

Or even better the players come up with their own ideas. This happens once the players have formulated their own goals. Such as, "Hey GM. We want to start wreaking havoc against the Evil Overlord. We're not yet strong enough to tackle his stronghold but are there any targets in our region that we could attempt to do something with, to cause maximum terror?" - "Hmm... There's a fortress at that river fork over here that has an evil artifact in it. Hard to get to, easy to smash once you're there and the blast from it shattering will likely blow up half the fortress... And there's a festival coming up in this little town over here where some important functionaries are expected to put in an appearance.  Not-all-innocent bystanders (many will be evil worshippers), major evil players exposed while making speeches and somesuch. Or what kind of terror were you thinking of  inflicting? I'm sure we can come up with something if you tell me more..." 

(Both these examples are extrapolated from discussions I've seen in play.)

(Oh and btw Callan, before you ask. This isn't Sim. In negotiations about mission goals I as GM will provide that sort of colour because it carries information of tactical relevance. It's the most efficient way of getting the players in the picture of what I'm thinking the mission might involve, and of them getting me in the picture about kind of tactical challenge they find fun. Plus of course colour is always fun all in itself, no matter the CA.  But it also serves a very clear gamist purpose here.) 

When goals aren't agreed but inflicted by one side (the GM or the PC's player) against what other players want, again dysfunction will happen. And we haven't even got to the theatre yet...

Third: Theatre.

The theatre is the physical boundary in which play about a specific goal takes place. It is determined by the goal.  Rescue Princess isn't a theatre - but by saying that the princess is captive at the Count's castle, we determine the theatre of play: the castle, or possibly certain parts of it (if, say the mission is about going in and out of the dungeons through the city sewers).

The theatre has to be appropriate to the nature and size of the goal - and it has to be appropriate to the size, number and quality of the obstacles (see below) placed on the theatre.  Size really matters here.  If the theatre is very large, the PCs and obstacles may end up sloshing around helplessly without finding each other.  If the theatre is very small, you end up with a 100% linear dungeon crawl in which there is ever only one way to go and every single obstacle to be dealt with in the order they appear in. Or a single-obstacle theatre, which may make for a very cool session if the obstacle provides for a drawn-out exciting contest.

Again, explicit agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract) on what the theatre will be helps focus play, and keep play at the right size to let players breathe and expand their tactics the way they like while still letting the GM preparing properly.  It prevents players wandering "off the map" in confusion or in an unspoken display of defiance against the GM's adventure, and it gives players the certainty that they have the entire theatre to play with - no door "that just won't open no matter what you do" will arbitratily be inflicted on them in mid-play.

Callan, what you describe as being used to a "wide theatre" to outsmart the GM may be fair use of a predefined theatre, in which case it's perfectly functional play.  Or it may be unfair use of a lack of clarity on what the physical boundaries of play were supposed to be. Players do it to GMs, and GMs do it to players by stopping them short in unexpected places, with (literally or figuratively) doors that "just won't open no matter what you do"...

Speaking of doors that won't open...

Fourth: Obstacles.

Obstacles are things that the PCs encounter that provide the conflicts/tasks resolved by applying the resolution mechanics.  They provide challenges at the level of the resolution mechanics that the system provides.  This means their size is determined by the system.  Whatever the scale of play, whatever the goal and whatever the size of the theatre, the size of the obstacles depends on the system the group plays.

Yet even in very unflexible systems like D&D, there are ways for the GM to adapt obstacles to the size of the theatre.
(I'm saying "for the GM" because as much as I'm in favour of player empowerment, even considering that players might get a say in specific obstacles makes me uncomfortable. Maybe someone else can figure why, I have a blind spot of some sort here.)

Obstacles can be fixed or mobile, nonsentient or sentient. Going back to D&D for examples, a fixed, nonsentient obstacle would be a locked door. (Well, usually nonsentient anyway.)  It's overcome by kicking it down, picking the lock, using opening magic, teleporting past ("nya nya!") or similar. It can be bypassed without engaging with it in a way that triggers resolutin mechanics only if the size and setup of the theatre allows. ("Let's go out the window and freeclimb along the facade instead.") Shambling skeletons and mundane guard dogs are mobile, non-sentient obstacles. The Evil Count is a mobile, sentient obstacle.

If you want a theatre that allows the players some freedom of bypassing certain obstacles, or choosing between obstacles, you want mobile obstacles over fixed ones (because the finest locked door in the world is no use if the PCs come from another side), and more importantly you want sentient obstacles over nonsentient ones because they will give you myriad options for responding intelligently to whatever the players have their PCs do. And the best thing about this is that what's fair for the GM is fair for the non-GM players.  Guard in front of the door instead of a lock? Wait for him to wander away to relieve himself, or finish his jug of ale and fall asleep, or distract his attention, or go bribe and enlist him. Or Charm, Confuse, Dominate him if you have that sort of magic. And that's with a mere mook. With the major NPCs the tactical options become many times more interesting and complex. Not a good choice for every group, I can imagine - but again something that needs to be adapted to the tastes and needs of the group.

The trick is to know what kind of obstacles the group enjoys playing with and what degree of flexibility gives you as GM the most fun and a feeling of being well-prepared.  Sounds like this also could benefit from discussing it with non-GM players, doesn't it? My instinct of not doing it is probably wrong. Or at least partly.

Thinking back I've always found talking with players about specific obstacles after play was very fruitful. "Wow, that was one scary fight, I thought we'd never get out of there. I like it whan you set things up like that." - "It was nice but can we please have fewer traps and puzzles next time? That was getting a bit tedious there."  So I guess where my resistance to opening this up to negotiations comes in is with specific obstacles for future play. May be traditional gamer baggage, but somehow I think there's some tactics-relevant reason for it. At least for me when I've played gamist, some of the most exciting moments have been when we ran into surprises and had to adapt to them on the spot with no time to sit down and re-plan in peace.

What just occurs to me is that this is actually part of why Gareth's checklist makes me uncomfortable though. It establishes an order in which specific obstacles need to be encountered (whatever is guarding/hiding the key, the evil count, the locked door) - and not only that, but it even determines the way in which the players will have to deal with certain obstacles. Get past door? Obtain the key.  Overcome the evil count? Kill him.  It's not necessary to predetermine that, it's perfectly possible to have a door prepared and a count prepared and let the players deal with them in whatever way their tactics play out.  (Obvously it's much easier for me to get use out of a count, that moves around and responds flexibly and in tactically interesting ways, and has minions to use to boot, than out of a door that just sits there hoping to be tackled in some way and not bypassed. Can you guess that my games tend to have rather more counts than doors in them?)

My apologies for harping on your example again, Gareth, I reckon you didn't necessarily mean to have a list of specific obstacles prepared. What I'm trying to do here is simply to further illustrate my point about what obstacles are, how they matter in play and where flexibility comes in (and doesn't) in my posts above.

Kerstin

In the same way that a Narrative game sets up the premise to be explored by the players during the game, I can see that the proposition to do a similar thing for Gamism is also useful. And given the gamist focus on achievement, I can see that agreeing on the reward up front is one way of focussing minds on the challenge, and also ensuring that the prize is worth the effort.

But I think several things are being talked about here without clear delineation and there are issues to sort out between player and character. For example, agreeing the prize is not the same thing as agreeing the plan. The prize can only be agreed out of character whereas the plan is more commonly, in my experience, agreed in character. Although I can see that sticking to an OOC plan could work, I get the feeling that such a constraint might sit heavily with some players, and even if agreed by everyone, is still subject to the whims of fate. If the dice go against you and you have to retreat, regroup and try something else, how does that fit in the agreed framework?

Kerstin,

I agree!

I still want to hammer out some stuff, of course!

We agree that the scale a group operates at will vary. Scale is the "size" of the things play focusses on.

Callan, what you describe as being used to a "wide theatre" to outsmart the GM may be fair use of a predefined theatre, in which case it's perfectly functional play. Or it may be unfair use of a lack of clarity on what the physical boundaries of play were supposed to be.

I get the feeling that such a constraint might sit heavily with some players, and even if agreed by everyone, is still subject to the whims of fate. If the dice go against you and you have to retreat, regroup and try something else, how does that fit in the agreed framework?