Over in Indie Design I posted my ideas for a new project. One of my main ideas for the game is this---When you win a conflict, you win the stakes, but you generate a longterm/large-scale negative consequence (what I'm calling "Fallout"). When you lose, you lose the stakes but generate a long-term/large-scale positive consequence ("Hope").

One of the reasons for this mechanism is theorectical. We all like adversity, G N or S, right? And if we want a nice satisfying game-/story-arc, we need a build-up of adversity, right? Isn't that a big reason we play? For the chance to overcome adversity?

So let's look at DnD. You win the big boss battle, and get rewarded with a new +3 longsword. So now, battles are easier... so you end up facing less adversity... Isn't that backwards? I know that after you get the sword and go up a level, the monsters also become harder. But in the end, it's all a wash, so the amount of adversity doesn't change. But that still isn't ideal, is it?

What does everyone think of this assumption, that people want increasing adversity? And what about my conclusion, that the mechanics of a game should ideally support increasing adversity?

You're asking about opinions on what people in general want, so this will be a bit vague. That being said, most people want mastery - they want to get better at stuff so they can handle greater challenges than before. It's assumed that the challenges are out there all the time, but you can't take them all on just yet; you have to get better, and better, and better, until you're finally good enough to get a great job/kill the evil king and rule the empire/be world famous.

If this is true, a game could give people what they want by exposing many levels of adversity right from the start, and letting the players meet them in increasing order of nastiness. An obvious example: Right from the start, you know there's ancient red dragons in the world, but you're not going to seek them out until you're level 18. And you know the GM won't make them come after you before that, either.

If there's no reward for winning, there's really no point in winning. Losing would be just more profitable, all the time. If winning comes with a reward, but also with some possible counter-balancing backlash, that's another thing.

In DnD you really want to get this +3 longsword, because it will enable you to win tougher monsters and take their +5 longswords and level up, so that you could defeat tougher monsters, get +6 longsword and level up etc. etc. etc. It's mainly because of the ladder of power in DnD and most of computer CRPG - you need to get tougher, so that you could get even more tougher. It's DM's thing to gradually bring forth tougher challenges for tougher characters. And it's always possible, because there's no upper limit to character's and monstes' power - you can advance forever (or until you just get bored and want to start from scratch).

It's illusory of course, since no sane DM throws way too tough monsters on the party, and there is no point in giving them too pitiful adversaries. So eventually it turns out that you always fight with monsters balanced for your character level. Or, if DM has more simulationistic aproach, after some amount of level ups there's just no real challenge that could organically arise in the setting (only a dozen or so epic characters present in the world pose interesting challenge).

And if you are bored and really need more challenge, you can just ask your GM to increase the adversity. System which automatically increase adversity according to players performance could work for some players. But there are always some players who are just content of the more or less stable challenge level and don't need gradually increasing adversities.

In most other systems, where this ladder of power isn't as present in D&D - say in Exalted or BESM, you are on a certain power level from the begining and most of the time, you stay that powerfull, or you advance in power only slightly above starting level. It doesn't mean that sessions must start getting boring after some time. There's usually more or less stable level of advercity constantly present for the whole series. It doesn't get much easier, but it also doesn't get too hard (GMs usually avoid throwing unbeatable challenges at their players - or they do, and campaign ends in meningless total party kill). Actually, it's just like in DnD, but without the illusion of getting up the ladder.

In these systems reward usually comes in some other way than immediate increase in personal power. But some reward for winnig is always present, even if it only means that you advance the story in a way more favourable for your character. Without this reward, there's just no motivation in winning. And if there's reward in losing most of the players will be motivated to lose as often as possible.

So it's not only the matte of carrot and stick, but also of widening range of possible benefits for winning and losing and balancing it. If winning brings a reward in one aspect, but possibly also puts you back in another aspect, and same for losing, you have to weight your options for every single case. Sometimes winning brings you enough benefits to accept the price, sometimes losing is more profitable, no matter the consequences.

I must admit that I'm writing this from my gamist perspective. If losing means you step on up, and there's no possible step on up in winning, losing effectively means winning, and winnig means losing.

timfire wrote:
What does everyone think of this assumption, that people want increasing adversity? And what about my conclusion, that the mechanics of a game should ideally support increasing adversity?

Heya,

So let's look at DnD. You win the big boss battle, and get rewarded with a new +3 longsword. So now, battles are easier... so you end up facing less adversity... Isn't that backwards? I know that after you get the sword and go up a level, the monsters also become harder. But in the end, it's all a wash, so the amount of adversity doesn't change. But that still isn't ideal, is it?

You're talking negative feedback here, which makes for nicely self-correcting systems.  It's an underused design technique.  The trick, as people have correctly pointed out, is to make sure that you're not creating a perverse reward system.

I'll recommend that the easiest way to get a system where people are both driven to win and happy to lose is to provide two different kinds of rewards, which work well in synergy.  I could yammer about theoretical examples, but I'm just going to point you to Inspirations (for winning) and Story Tokens + Debt (for losing) in Capes, because it is, humility aside, the best example of the form that I know.

If you think about it, getting a +3 sword IS a loosing mechanic. Because now your going to face monsters of higher power. That's the fallout of owning a +3 sword.

Hello,

This post isn't developing the discussion much, but a look at Pace is always illuminating about the win-to-lose, lose-to-win model of game design.

Best,
Ron

Another game to check out is The Anti-Pool, a variant of James V. West's The Pool. In a nutshell, a player gambles dice from a pool to have his character succeed (or to win narration rights). If he does indeed succeed, the dice are gone. If he fails, he keeps the gambled dice and gets an extra die. So there's two different kinds of rewards and a very cool balancing mechanic.

Regards

Hal

I second Pace and the Anti-Pool as excellent examples. I've played quite a lot of Anti-Pool and I can tell you from experience that it works exactly as advertised. It's elegant, easy to learn, and easy to use.

TonyLB wrote:
You're talking negative feedback here.

Hm.

I think that, rather than liking increasing adversity, players like increasing significance, and increased (apparent) adversity is associated closely with increased significance.

I'm pretty sure that I would not at all enjoy (for instance) a game where it kept getting more harmful for my character, but all other variables remained constant; with that increased adversity I fully expect some other privilege to increase in exchange for my loss of satefy.

timfire wrote:
Over in Indie Design I posted my ideas for a new project. One of my main ideas for the game is this---When you win a conflict, you win the stakes, but you generate a longterm/large-scale negative consequence (what I'm calling "Fallout"). When you lose, you lose the stakes but generate a long-term/large-scale positive consequence ("Hope").

Hi Tim,

"Adversity" can mean a couple of things- it could mean bigger challenges, or it could mean more emotionally loaded, and in either case, people do enjoy the escalation of either.

In D&D, the monsters don't just get more hp & do more damage, they get way more special abilities that become significantly more dangerous by incapacitating characters.  Strategically, the opposition becomes more complicated, and the strategies applied do as well.

In Trollbabe, conflicts become more & more crucial as the Stakes raise, AND the characters also become more at risk when you use them for rerolls in general.  Overall, these two elements require players to become more invested in the characters, but after that happens, suddenly the mechanics become real tense moments, as players debate if they want to stop the Black Scourge Beast which will destroy the town or risk characters they've grown to love...  Similar things happen in HeroQuest when relationships are invoked in extended contests.

The reward to win cycle, actually causes folks to hit that "thing" in play quite regularly.  For D&D,  you fight to level up to fight...  but adversity still rises.  In TB, your relationships make you more effective, but as you get emotionally attached to them, the intensity of risking them rises.  In both cases, players are being rewarded to win, but also the personal kick they're getting out of it increases as well.

This isn't knocking your idea either- just showing a couple of examples of where it does work and work well.

Chris

I think you're looking at it the wrong way, timfire.  Or rather -- there are more illuminating ways to look at the situation.

The mechanic that you have sketched out marries your resolution mechanic with plot pacing.  Plot pacing may in turn be connected to adversity, but that's a secondary connection.  But the concept that "You succeed here, the plot progresses in this way; you lose here, the plot progresses in this other way" is a good foundation to work from.  Among other things, it might resolve that whole task resolution / conflict resolution nightmare by giving the playgroup actual tools with which to judge progress towards the endgame.

As for increasing adversity, I'd say that it's mostly a genre convention.  Sure, it appears in DnD, but it's not like DnD invented the concept.  The pulp fantasy serials that undergird a lot of DnD's original design had escalating adversity due to the nature of their format -- the square-jawed hero had to overcome something bigger and grander for the next book to sell.  Similarily, television serials and movie sequels delve into the same meme for the same reasons.  And needless to say, the videogames that your roleplaying game seeks to emulate also include a great deal of adversity escalation.  Just look at the numbers of hit points, mana, and damage dealt by all the baddies!  And of course, the game ends with some badguy that's powerful enough to destroy the world.  As a genre convention, I think escalating adversity should be almost fundamental to your design.

Let me first say, I agree with Chris, that adversity means different things to different people. That's why I didn't try to define it. I also think that adversity looks different across CA lines, but my assumption is that it doesn't matter.

An interesting example in my mind is DitV, which I think does support increasing adversity. In that game, as your character progresses, they become mechanically more powerful. But as they accumulate Fallout and other emotional scars, thematic choices become more difficult (adversity).

OK, now let's see, I've gotten a couple of different responses.

Marco and Troy have argued that my basic assumption is wrong. I would love to see some example from actual play where the players didn't enjoy adversity, or maybe where there was no adversity at all.

Matthijs & Shreyas have argued that the point isn't aversity per se, but rather players are after some other goal, and adversity is just the by-product. That's interesting, could you guys elaborate on that thought? But if I may, half-way thinking out loud and half-way playing devil's advocate, is it possible to reach mastery or display significance without first passing through the crucible of adversity? That would make significance/mastery the goal, and adversity the means?

Lastly, Joshua BR---I disagree that it's just pacing I'm talking about, and that it's only a genre convention. I'm thinking of just about any video game designed for solo play, and all of them that I can think of get harder as you progress. Also, if you look at any drama, the intensity of the action goes up and up until you hit the climax of the story.

Now I will mention one potential weak spot I see with my basic assumption, and that's the type of exploratory Sim play that MJ Young likes to talk about. I don't know if I've experienced that type of play, so maybe it doesn't apply to it.

timfire wrote:
Marco and Troy have argued that my basic assumption is wrong. I would love to see some example from actual play where the players didn't enjoy adversity, or maybe where there was no adversity at all.

What does everyone think of this assumption, that people want increasing adversity?

Heya,

I concur with Marco.  I never objected to Adversity as a whole, but I did object to the idea that people prefered adveristy that ratchited up as their abilities stayed stagnent.  I believe you misunderstood our statements.

Peace,

-Troy

Troy, I think your objection is correct as far as it applies to the initial post--"I know that after you get the sword and go up a level, the monsters also become harder. But in the end, it's all a wash, so the amount of adversity doesn't change."

Bankuei's comments are on the mark. I generally don't desire increased adversity relative to ability. In some contexts, though, I might desire either more complex adversity (often coupled with more complex ability) or different adversity (again, often coupled with different ability).

Tim, the notion that solo video games generally get harder as you progress is worth exploring. Yes, they do get objectively harder. Do they get relatively harder compared to ability? Often the answer is no. Many video games are really teaching you how to play as you go along: once I get to Chapter 12 of any of my favorite Bungie-designed games (Marathon, Myth, Oni), I'm way better at kicking ass than I was to begin with. While the difficulty-modulation is sometimes a bit uneven, on the whole the game stays about as difficult from the player's perspective. What does happen is the complexity of the challenge goes up--there are more types of enemies to fight, and more types of weapons and attacks to use. The enemies may also increase in numbers and individual toughness; once again this increases the complexity of the challenge to match the player's increased sophistication and resources. (Toughness can also challenge the player's increased endurance--sometimes you like a long fight.)

Adversity is a technique that aids the exploration of something interesting. A knife and fork may always be present when I enjoy a meal. Increasing the number of knives and forks I use when eating wont increase my enjoyment. They'll shred and mash the food I previously cut neatly into delectable little bits.

I have encountered cases in which the relentless scaling of adversity has been counterproductive.  Sometimes the players want to rest on their laurels and feel that they have indeed achieved something worthwhile.  If increased ability only means more dangerous foes, with the relative level staying the same as others have mentioned, then often it is hard to gain a real sense of actually having become more powerful or effective.  But I suspect this can be resolved by changing the locus or type ofproblem that is being solved, in such a way that the players have a genuine sense of "being promoted" or similar.

Short and Sweet reply here.

I'm with you Timfire. Like you said, if you look at a movie/book each scene/chapter in a rgripping/pageturner ends with the situation getting worse. You build conflict over the course of the story until you get the climax.

Look at 24 and how they amp up the conflict from episode to episode. Fight for a lead, get it just to see the badguy move further out of reach. redo. redo. redo.

I do not see why this would be undoable mechanically. I do not right now see how, but there must be some way to grab this. I think maybe DitV does this to some effect.

Or maybe in trollbabe. The GM narrates outcome in case of victory, the player in case of loss.

With DitV  style mechanics: Player wins the stakes, the GM gets a Drama (demon) dice more for the next conflict. Players loose he dosen't but the players narrate the outcome?. Drama Dice add up, until play reaches climax where the players finally get to duke it out and can maybe negate Drama dice by doing . . . someting. Victory in the climax scene lets the Gm raise the overall stakes (Trollbabe again) while loss prevents the stakes from growing.

K