Recently I discussed the grand theft auto series on RPG.net. Another poster had said that GTA was only about violence as a solution, because of the guns and car theft. He compared it to fallout where, to paraphrase "For the problems given, they also give multiple ways of solving them". Infering that the problems set out in GTA only have the solution type of violence.

Now, I disagreed and it forced me to map out exactly why. The reason is, outside of the missions, GTA doesn't actually present any problems. It does present rewards for a variety of activities. But a reward itself, does not indicate that the activity it's attached to is one of the big problems of the game you must solve. I think the other poster has assumed a reward for something always means that's what you must do (and if you must do it, then that's what the game is about).

So instead, we have rewards for a variety of activities, all of them involving risk and skill. Thinking on that for a few days, I come to the conclusive point of this post. When you have this situation, it lets the player define what THE problem of the moment is. A gamist equivalent of protagonism.

So, in GTA there are rewards for activities like delivering pizza, taxi runs, stunts, driving, etc. And I now think that in actual play, when I've pitched myself at one of these activities and the difficulty in them, as a player I am the one who's decided THIS is THE problem to solve. In another sandbox game, Mercenaries, I've felt even more in control, often choosing to take out a particular artillery base over and over, because I find it so satisfying. And because of the cash bounty for the destruction of vehicles inside, I felt that it was a meaningful activity. Thinking on it now in fact, there's another base in the game that I've hardly every assaulted for fun, and it has almost no vehicles in it (thus no cash rewards). Usually when I've blown up that base, it's been to see the georgeous graphics of all it's buildings collapsing. Because in addition I think the player not only decides what activity becomes the problem, but also what reward becomes the reward to pursue at any given time.

In roleplay, I remember years ago when friends told me they had been playing a werewolf module. They had gone through it and, what caught my breath a little bit at the time, had decided they hadn't had enough yet, so they went back through it again to clear it out. I was so used to point A to point B game play, that their making B back to A THE problem, was a thrilling concept to suddenly encounter.

And it was probably last year when a friend, who normally can't seem to help but railroad, ran a game. In this one we explored some kind of pyramid, but gave up on it when we hit a blocked, inpenatrable door. I guessed it was a railroad - he decided we weren't allowed in. So we left and...there was no force applied to us us to go get some widget to open it. We could just leave it behind, decide it's not THE problem anymore, and that was okay. I can't quite remember the rest, but I think we went and checked out what some lizard men were doing, but I still had the impression we could have left those as well. You know what it feels like when you've been sitting in a cramped positon for ages, and finally get to stand up and stretch? That's what it felt like!

I've thought of address of challenge as always taking up someone elses challenge. Like when it came to gamist design, I have been puzzling for years now about "Just what mechanics are a great challenge? The sexy challenge that'll make my game awesome!". Now I'm on a lateral plane, where I'm thinking that in designing a gamist game, challenge doesn't matter (in terms of what I'm supposed to add as a designer). Perverse, to my past design thinking. But that's because in analysing all my past play, I've always thought of what gameplay was the challenge. I didn't actually take a step back and think of how, in the first place, I had decided what the challenge was! Nor how much I had been empowered to decide that.

Any speedbumps in the idea, that I'm missing so far?

Players get to choose which choice they deem important.
Should apply to all creative agenda.

So, no problems there that I can see.

Now, someone should do a similar post on Sim.

After thinking about what you've said here, I think I've observed someone taking up the challenge of impressing the rest of the group via unique and eccentric solutions to challenges in gameplay.  His efforts were obviously strained, his results were unspectacular, and he didn't impress anyone, so he was left feeling hurt without really knowing why.  That the system didn't support his ideas hadn't occurred to him.

If you choose too large of a challenge, should you be disappointed when you fail?  Perhaps a tenant of good "Gamist" design is that challenges are easily estimated?  Thus, my friend would know when his efforts would have very little chance of obtaining spectacular results. 

I think it's a bit further along down the 'choice is good' path than that. For example, it's commonly held (including here) that in gamism the GM should make up a good challenge for the player to play out. When you take into account the player needs to decide what actually is (and what isn't) the challenge, this advice is in a gamist sense actually deprotagonising. It's an ideal that disempowers the player. A narrativist equivalent would be that 'the GM should make up a good address of premise for the player to play out'.

The idea is a confronting one to me and I'd like to hear from others on it, as I think everyones said at some point "I know gamism, to run it you just need to make up a good challenge".

But this does solve a bit of a hurdle I had back in the address of challenge thread.

The GM decides there is a trap with two knobs protruding from a metal box. The left one is connected directly to some explosives. If the right one is pulled a nearby door opens.
An address of conflict: The GM decides that one of the knobs has the fingerprints of people on it, while the other is clean except for a little dust on top.

Proposed dysfunction: The GM describes the situation. The player declares they will carefully prize open the front of the metal box and look inside, to see what each knob is connected to and that this will tell them which is the right one to pull.

This thread proposes a dysfunction here, because both the player AND the GM have made an address of conflict. The dysfunction coming from the RP tradition that one of them is superior to the other. That one of them is the right answer and there is someone who is fit to judge which one is right.

Let's look further into the idea that no one is fit to judge which is superior or right. This probably sounds absurd; gamism is all about peer judgement/evaluation, isn't it? But clearly, to judge (as GM) someone else address you'll have to make your own address to gauge it by. If (as GM) you say their address just wouldn't work in the game world, what if the situation was suddenly reversed? Where you become the player and they the GM (with the same situation)…and suddenly your address of conflict 'just doesn't work in the game world'. How do you feel now that the address you were so certain of before, gets put in the 'doesn't work' box? How do you think the player felt before, when his address was treated the same way?

I'm going to suggest that address of conflict actually needs to be treated in the same way as address of premise. In that, there is no 'correct' answer.

This sounds like the absolute antithesis of gamism, doesn't it? If any answer is correct, then the player will just give any old answer and where's the challenge there?

Callan wrote:
I think it's a bit further along down the 'choice is good' path than that. For example, it's commonly held (including here) that in gamism the GM should make up a good challenge for the player to play out. When you take into account the player needs to decide what actually is (and what isn't) the challenge, this advice is in a gamist sense actually deprotagonising. It's an ideal that disempowers the player. A narrativist equivalent would be that 'the GM should make up a good address of premise for the player to play out'.

Callan,
what I am saying is that all creative agenda have two important things for players to do: decide which choices are important and what are the actions they will take.
The opening post talks about selecting the challenges that are important. In Nar, the equivalent action is using flags/kicker to tell the issues you are interested in.
GM telling which premise to address is equivalent to GM telling which tactic to use.

I do not know the exact definition of protagonism. It could include both sides (selecting relevant bits and dealing with them) or addressing premise, not selecting which premise should be addressed.

Specify the problematic part(s) for more useful answer.

Hi Callan,

Deciding what is the challenge is not necessary to Gamism, whereas protagonization is necesasary to Narrativism.  Deciding "what is the challenge" might be a strategic choice ("Do we attack the orcs' camp to the east, and try to split up and lure away their forces, or do we go straight for the base camp and hope to break their morale?), but it's not a key aspect of Gamism.  What would be an equivalent to de-protagonization would be to deny the players the chance to make tactical decisions for themselves, whether through GM force, or by telling them the optimal strategies so they don't have to figure it out for themselves.

Chris

Hi Tommi,

The way I see it, a player can't address premise when he doesn't actually agree there is a moral issue at stake. That makes the players decision on whether it's a moral issue an essential part of an address of premise. You can't split the two up into recognition of moral issue and action chosen, as a narrativist can choose to have his PC do absolutely nothing in responce to an issue he see's, and it's still a valid address.

With gamism I'd say the two can't be split up either. The player has to agree that so and so activity is THE challenge. And by agree, I mean the player defines the challenge.

Hi Chris,

I think there's no point in a gamist player empowered to make tactical choices, when they are disinterested in the arena to begin with. It's kind of like empowering someone choose anything on the indian restaurant menu, when they wanted to eat chinese food.

The traditional advice is that "the GM should provide a 'good' challenge", which still puts the choice of the restaurant in the GM's hands.

You may be mixing up protagonist choice "What sport do I want to play" with strategic choice "What sport is THE best sport to do, out of all of the sports available?".

(Sorry to switch from food to sport, btw)

Hi Callan,

If what you are saying, "The people playing need to be on the same page as far as interest in the point of play, topic, or subject matter", that's pretty much true of all creative agendas, and all kinds of play. 

That still is not the same as deprotagonization.  In deprotagonization, both the GM and the player may be interested in creating a thematic event- the problem being that the GM is actively denying the player their right to input.  The gamist right to input is the tactical & strategic arena- and that would be the equivalent thing to be denied.

If I come to a D&D game, and all I want to do is solve puzzles, but the GM keeps throwing fights at me, that is not a failure of the system, or the GM "deprotagonizing" me, that is just poor communication at the table about what everyone wants and expects of each other.  Deprotagonization might require bad communication and social contract to happen, but bad communication and social contract does not always equal deprotagonization.

Chris

Callan wrote:
Hi Tommi,

The way I see it, a player can't address premise when he doesn't actually agree there is a moral issue at stake. That makes the players decision on whether it's a moral issue an essential part of an address of premise. You can't split the two up into recognition of moral issue and action chosen, as a narrativist can choose to have his PC do absolutely nothing in responce to an issue he see's, and it's still a valid address.

With gamism I'd say the two can't be split up either. The player has to agree that so and so activity is THE challenge. And by agree, I mean the player defines the challenge.

Callan wrote:
Hi Chris,

I think there's no point in a gamist player empowered to make tactical choices, when they are disinterested in the arena to begin with. It's kind of like empowering someone choose anything on the indian restaurant menu, when they wanted to eat chinese food.

The traditional advice is that "the GM should provide a 'good' challenge", which still puts the choice of the restaurant in the GM's hands.

You may be mixing up protagonist choice "What sport do I want to play" with strategic choice "What sport is THE best sport to do, out of all of the sports available?".

(Sorry to switch from food to sport, btw)

Responding to Jonathan, but it helps with other peoples posts.

Jonathan wrote: When a group chooses a Narrativist game, they are limiting the amount and type of Premises that may be addressed.  Some Narrativist games are less limiting than others, ie Dogs versus Sorceror, but as long as the game includes the Premise that the players wish to address and the GM doesn't deny the players the ability to address it, everything's fine.  The "arena" is determined by the game, and the GM shouldn't deny access to any part of it. The same is true for Gamist games.

I am with Callan.
Burning Wheel can be used to address many premises. A great many. Extremely varied. Th BITs are there to tell which the player is interested in.
Likewise, in 3rd ed D&D, one piece of advise occasionally given (in the boards or the book, I don't remember) is to give players challenges (here, mostly fights) they want. If someone takes cleave, do use hordes of opponents. Not all the time, but often enough. If someone takes talky skills, give him someone to talk to. And so on.

And it is very frustrating to not get to use those toys you get from levelling.

Callan wrote:
Responding to Jonathan, but it helps with other peoples posts.

I think your defining the gamist arena by the challenges the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges.

Try thinking of the arena being defined by the risky activities the game contains.

Now, imagine the GM looking at five of those risky activities and thinking to himself "That's the challenge!". While the player is looking at just three of those same activities along with two activities from another part of the arena and thinking "That's the challenge!".

A quick, simple example; a risky activity could be swinging a sword at an orc. The GM could think doing that ten times is A challenge!' while the player could think doing it five or twenty times is A challenge.

So, to get semantic about it, let's separate the word Challenge from the term risky activity. Because games basically don't contain challenges, just risky activities. If we keep talking just about challenges, we'll never get to how someone at the table is deciding what exactly is A challenge. Further, we wont be getting onto what it's like if that someone isn't the player.

As said, I think your defining the gamist arena by the challenges the game contains and stating that the player shouldn't be denied access to it's challenges. What I'm referring to is; when the player is denied input in deciding what constitutes a challenge to begin with.

Hi Tommi,

Likewise, in 3rd ed D&D, one piece of advise occasionally given (in the boards or the book, I don't remember) is to give players challenges (here, mostly fights) they want

OK, I think I understand what you're getting at.  Thus, what would be optimal would be a system that allows players to communicate which risky activities constituted a challenge.

I think Trollbabe illustrates player control of risky activities well - the player decides or helps to decide the scale, the pace, when the conflict ends, etc.  Since I'm still working on getting my group to play it, I'm not entirely sure of this hypothesis, but it seems like instead of rewarding the player with relationships, perhaps the Gamist version would reward the player with resources...

And a question:  What about games that include only one risky activity?  If I design a game that involves gladiators fighting for their lives and the game only ends when the last PC wins or dies, is the risky activity equal to the challenge?

Hey Callan,

Callan wrote: I think more along the lines that players should take the challenge they want, rather than be given it. They see a challenge within the risky activities presented, then take it.

Callan wrote:
I think more along the lines that players should take the challenge they want, rather than be given it. They see a challenge within the risky activities presented, then take it. A player with cleave, for example, might take up horde fights. Or he might take up a challenge that's half horde fight, half one on one fight, because he see's the challenge there as seeing if he can still handle it all, despite his investment in the cleave resource. Or something else equally complicated and practically impossible for the GM to second guess. Hell, IMO even the player often doesn't know where they will see the challenge, until it happens.

Callan,
Short version: What Joel said.

Long version: In traditional model, GM can pretty much select which potential premises/challenges the PCs face. Hence, flags.
Even in standard model the GM has harder time choosing how the premise/challenge is dealt with (which I think would be deprotagonisation). I assume that taking all the possible interesting premises/challenges away would be deprotagonising, too.

Do you disagree?

Hi Jay,

Finally I don’t believe players look for Challenge in the same way that players look for Premise in Nar play.  In Gam play I believe that Challenge is defined post facto it is what the players have Stepped on Up against.  We don’t know what the players will Step on Up to until they have made that choice.

But the GM, at least in a pretty strong GM-sole-authority-to-introduce outside-events game (like D&D), still has to give the players something to pick.
*snip*
D&D allows players to tell GMs, very clearly, in quantified terms, what challenges they wish their characters to tackle. So GMs need to give them some. The way you describe our hypothetical cleave-fighter, one gets the impression of him entering a town, seeing "one on one fights down this street," "horde-fights down that alley," "wizard duels behind the tavern," and so on. In actual practice, of course it's not going to be so neat, and even if the GM presents multiple challenge options, he's still in charge of writing the menu.

Melinglor wrote:
The way you describe our hypothetical cleave-fighter, one gets the impression of him entering a town, seeing "one on one fights down this street," "horde-fights down that alley," "wizard duels behind the tavern," and so on. In actual practice, of course it's not going to be so neat, and even if the GM presents multiple challenge options, he's still in charge of writing the menu.

Contrast this with the Crunch where the players aren’t looking for a high risk, but a manageable one with a reasonably predictable outcome and the GM has to work to match the players’ skills against the subjective difficulty of the Challenge.
...
One question that comes to mind then, is the “crunch” GM supposed to float the difficulty and monitor the eventual outcome so as to “ensure” the result while the “gamble” GM is freer to let things ride out to their eventual conclusion?

Callan wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

As I said to Tommi, I think they should just take, rather than tell. You know how in Dogs the player just decides if he puts his PC's life on the line? He doesn't communicate to the GM that this is what he wants and wants agreement from the GM about that. He just does it.

I think Trollbabe illustrates player control of risky activities well - the player decides or helps to decide the scale, the pace, when the conflict ends, etc.  Since I'm still working on getting my group to play it, I'm not entirely sure of this hypothesis, but it seems like instead of rewarding the player with relationships, perhaps the Gamist version would reward the player with resources...

Tricky. I feel in gamism, the player should pick from what risky activities are actually there...like the challenge is already inherently there, but just needs to be 'seen'. Rather than actually deciding variables like the scale, pace, etc.

Drawing from computer games like Grand Theft Auto or Mercenaries, a wide landscape of risky activies is one way to fulfil this. Kind of the same, in that the Trollbabe is just deciding the scale or pace, while the gamist is simply picking out the activities he wants. But there's something important about the activity already being 'there', I feel.

I've said 'I feel' twice. Shoot me down! Ron would! :)

Callan, I think I just understood what you are after.

Gamism can manifest as "Look! I am skilled/daring enough to try THIS!", so picking one's challenges is very important.
Is this it?

Callan,

I think maybe we're talking past each other or something. I totally get (or think I do) the idea of players choosing their conflicts, proactively, not just reacting to a GM's threat-of-the-week. But unless we're talking about shared setting creation, which is not an explicit part of, say, D&D, the GM is still the one in charge of introducing those challenges into play. The player cannot choose horde-fights as his challenge if the DM does not introduce any horde-fights. No matter whether the game is a railroaded linear track or a wide-open playing field, populating that field is still the GM's territory.

Yes, you could have play where players have more direct say in what is introduced into the SIS. That's definitely cool and interesting, but still is a subset of the available types of Gamist play. It sounds like you're formulating concepts for applicability to the whole spectrum of Gamist play, so I would think you'd want the ideas to relate to, for example, play with more traditional Player/GM division of labor.

Peace,

Hi Jonathan,

I think we've got some good solid shared ground between us.

Either way, the designer needs to make sure that the characters are tied to the risky elements in the setting.

Gamism can manifest as "Look! I am skilled/daring enough to try THIS!", so picking one's challenges is very important.
Is this it?

Melinglor wrote:
I think maybe we're talking past each other or something. I totally get (or think I do) the idea of players choosing their conflicts, proactively, not just reacting to a GM's threat-of-the-week. But unless we're talking about shared setting creation, which is not an explicit part of, say, D&D, the GM is still the one in charge of introducing those challenges into play. The player cannot choose horde-fights as his challenge if the DM does not introduce any horde-fights. No matter whether the game is a railroaded linear track or a wide-open playing field, populating that field is still the GM's territory.

In terms of the whole spectrum of gamism, 'The GM introduces the challenges' and it's reasons for existing isn't something that's part and parcel of traditional gamism, it's actually an absence of the agenda.

Callan wrote:
How strong should that tie be between PC and risky elements? Too strong and the player is forced into particular risk engagements? Too weak and...well, I don't know, I've always thought in terms of 'the game should engage me' and those ties being too weak would defeat that. But if what I'm suggesting is true, that players should engage the game, then perhaps there just needs to be some way of allowing the player to determine the strength of those ties? I guess it'd kind of like being 'bah, boring fight, boring fight, I wont bother tying my health resource closely to their damage, - oh wait, look at this cloud castle ambush fight! Awesome, I fully link in my health to their damage!"

Thus, if my character was interesting in having taking cleave, whenever he was in the situation that it was appropriate for, he'd use the full resolution system.

I keep thinking that Trollbabe could be an awesome Gamist engine, though I'd switch it up and call it Conman or Hustle or something where the stakes always involve getting something for the character or the character getting out of trouble.  I'm really thinking about trying it that way...  Thoughts?

General side note for the thread: I think of, damn, years I've been trying to codify 'the challenge' I wanted in a game. I've certainly enjoyed many challenges in many game formats. I'd often find one and while still in the fire of the moment go 'There, I'll use that one!". But then I'd go cold on it as it came time to just focus on that challenge...it didn't seem so hot latter on. Because basically I was looking to define my own challenge whilst playing the game - I didn't want a fixed challenge, even if it was made by me originally! I'd be applying force to my own descision about what is THE challenge.

What alot of wasted design time, because of that hurdle.

Callan wrote:

Thus, if my character was interesting in having taking cleave, whenever he was in the situation that it was appropriate for, he'd use the full resolution system.

What about if the player could decide to still use the basic resolution system with cleave? So that would mean he would decide when the situation was appropriate for complicated system use (which also takes responsiblity off the GM to make every situation an appropriate one). Does that fit what you had in mind?

I keep thinking that Trollbabe could be an awesome Gamist engine, though I'd switch it up and call it Conman or Hustle or something where the stakes always involve getting something for the character or the character getting out of trouble.  I'm really thinking about trying it that way...  Thoughts?

I've also wondered about whether nar game systems could be flipped over somehow. But they always prompt some reason for any action, rather than "Why did I climb the mountain? Because it was there!" action. The issue in nar games usually has no approach vector which is not a moral question and based in the game world. All the stuff you can use in dogs seems to be about your characters mindset. In capes, there's nothing that exists in game world that you can use and all the mechanics have moral sounding tags. There's no way to touch the goal without making a statement.