Topic: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Started by: Andrew Martin
Started on: 9/5/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/5/2003 at 6:56am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
M. J. Young wrote this in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7826 :
M. J. Young wrote: Because the player actually doing the write-up of the abilities isn't playing that character, he's less tempted to push the envelope on what the character can do; and because the characters will work together as a team, he's not terribly likely to short the character's abilities.
Pushing the envelope is rewarded in conventional game systems where characters are allowed to allocate a number of their choice to the character descriptor values. The player creating their character soon realises that a higher descriptor number is better for the player, as the player is far more likely to get their way in the resolution system.
This then leads to an "arms race" between players as characters are progressively "beefed-up" with larger and larger numbers for their descriptors. This is like the "tragedy of the commons" situation, where a common resource is destroyed because the social rules of the situation rewards those that use it the most, until all players loose.
This problem is then "fixed" by limiting the numbers (or other resources) available to the players in designing their characters. This then leads to the next problem where there's a small number of descriptors, and in a group of players, most characters end up looking similar. The game system then rewards min-maxing: players are rewarded for seeking the most bang for the least points cost. Ultimately, characters then become even more similar!
So my question is: what other approaches are there in game systems where players are rewarded (individually and/or as a group) for creating diverse characters of widely differing "power levels"?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7826
On 9/5/2003 at 7:44am, John Kim wrote:
Re: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Andrew Martin wrote: So my question is: what other approaches are there in game systems where players are rewarded (individually and/or as a group) for creating diverse characters of widely differing "power levels"?
Well, the two examples that spring to mind for me are Ars Magica and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In AM, there is a large stable of PCs, each with one of three power levels: grog, companion, and mage. Each player makes one mage PC and one companion PC, while there is a pool of grog characters. This is balanced by having players rotate from session to session who is playing their mage PC or companion PC. In Buffy, there are two power levels: White Hat and Hero. White Hats are less powerful, but have twice as many Drama Points, which can be used for metagame manipulation.
Andrew Martin wrote: This then leads to an "arms race" between players as characters are progressively "beefed-up" with larger and larger numbers for their descriptors. This is like the "tragedy of the commons" situation, where a common resource is destroyed because the social rules of the situation rewards those that use it the most, until all players loose.
This problem is then "fixed" by limiting the numbers (or other resources) available to the players in designing their characters.
Hmmm. Have you experienced this arms race? Maybe a concrete example would help for me, because this doesn't match my experience. I'm not sure what common resource is being destroyed. I've played in many games where players set their own stats. I have had some balance problems, in the sense that after some play a player feels dissatisfied with her character (though those have occurred in point systems as well). But I don't think I've experienced a "tragedy of the commons".
Andrew Martin wrote: This then leads to the next problem where there's a small number of descriptors, and in a group of players, most characters end up looking similar. The game system then rewards min-maxing: players are rewarded for seeking the most bang for the least points cost. Ultimately, characters then become even more similar!
Well, not in a decent system, I would argue. Indeed, if anything my Hero System PCs have been more diverse than systemless/freeform games. (I suspect it is a result that having Hero System legality gives the player license to make a character he wouldn't dare suggest otherwise, like a miniaturized Klingon warship.)
On 9/5/2003 at 5:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
All this depends on the means that the game uses to make characters protagonists. For example, in one system the stats might be important to success in challenges like combat. It's often the case that what Andrew says is true here, that the easiest way to create a protagonist is to pump up some statistic so that the character is an effective tool for problem solving.
And then, yes, if the player resource used to build the character is limited, then the activity of assigning these resources becomes a part of future challenges in that you try to make the best tool at the time. Some creative players will handicap themselves on occasion to make the future challenges more difficult, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule, I think, and an non-min-maxed character is more likely indicative of other priorities.
But there are several problems. First, as John points out, I'm not sure what resource is being destroyed by the min/maxing. I mean, sure, if the resource is the available means to making a character a protagonist, then that's a problem. For example, if in the game described there was only one class, fighter, and the only way to be good would be to have a high strength, then there would be a problem. But given multiple strategies in the min-maxing, I see no problem. Basically all you have to do is ensure that Descriptors (to use your term) are varied, and all potentially viable choices.
Take Hero Quest, for instance (playing tomorrow, so it's on my mind), a game in which a player can select any descriptor, but they all have the same potential game effects in terms of success in conflict.
Further, there are many assumptions in the argument that can be simply changed to make the potential problem evaporate. First, a system can be designed such that extreme characters are not the most effective. In many, it's a combination of several relatively good desctiptors that makes for a potent character. In fact, if you really want to do so, you can create systems in which no min-maxing is possible. In this case, and still assuming that challenge is the goal, then the means to create a protagonist shift to playing the character well.
But that's a non-neccessary assumtion as well. That is, challenge may not be the priority. In that case, min-maxing will not occur because that's a reaction to percieved challenge (in the original theorem, one min-maxes to gain the best advantage available, IIRC).
OTOH, there are other potential problematic cases, even in non-challenge situations. In a game about creating theme, for instance, if there's really only one sort of character available to best create themes, then sharing the concept seems problematic to me.
So, I think John has it that all one has to do is to be careful. I think you may have found a potential pitfall, but one that's fairly easily avoided. Or do I have some part of your analysis incorrect?
Mike
On 9/5/2003 at 5:59pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
:: nods to Mike ::
I agree greatly with that. I was going to post my thought on my historic lack of seeing Mind Control in Hero games (Champions). Easily one of the most powerful attacks (all you need is 4x their EGO and you own them--and who has Ego Defense?)--but even though we didn't pump up our villain's Egos and even though not everyone had Ego Defense, it was almost non-existant.
And certainly there was a good share of gamism at the table (IME). So why not?
It seems to me that while a given person might like "to win" they did not want to "win that way."
In other words the most identifiably gamist rp'er was more interested in winning with Wolverine (yeah, a trend. I know) than winning with Mind Master (or whatever).
The multiple-paths to efficiency is really the big issue here. Yes, it's hard to get perfect. But impossible to make workable? I think there's a pretty wide range of 'workable' for most groups.
-Marco
On 9/5/2003 at 6:11pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Marco wrote: I think there's a pretty wide range of 'workable' for most groups.
I have seen a guy leave a group because there was another guy in the group who tended to play the exact same sorts of concepts. They both always wanted to be the stealthy ninja or thief types. Not enough room in Dodge for the both of 'em. But that was a problem with player fixation on a concept.
Mike
On 9/5/2003 at 6:42pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Well, yeah--but too, we ran a game where *all* the characters were ninjas--and they all managed to be different--and this was pre-ultra-martial-arts Hero.
So, I mean, there was enough room in there for 4-5 PC's of the same basic type (there was one guy with a 30 STR ... which I thought was goofy--but it all worked out in the end ... and the amazingly, unreasonably strong martial artist really is a genre staple too ...)
What I'm sayin' is that while toes can always get stepped on, systems can be designed to support a given archetype in multiple modes (same for gun fighters--they all ride a horse ... they all shoot a gun ... but a Hero Wild West game wouldn't just be a case of photocopying one character sheet and handing it out with a blank spot for the name).
-Marco
On 9/5/2003 at 8:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
I completely agree. It's definitely a matter of the breadth of what's being attempted. That is, if you say that players can make "any" character, then two that are similar will seem more conflicting than if you narrow the scope to just that type. Basically, in looking at the details, you can find myriad ways to differentiate characters. The details have to be empowered, however.
So in D&D, what matters is your classes. Sure, I can have a 4th level Rogue with a speech impediment, and you can have a 4th level Rogue who's dashing, but, given the system that could still be seen as treading on the same ground for providing protagonism.
OTOH, in a game about Ninja, we'll look more closely at the little differences to determine what's important. Are you the Ninja with the Rope atilities, or the one that's good with the bow?
Andrew, have we dragged this too far OT?
Mike
On 9/8/2003 at 8:37am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
John Kim wrote: Have you experienced this arms race?
Yes. With mainly gamist players. I've fallen prey to this as well.
John Kim wrote: I'm not sure what common resource is being destroyed.
It's game spotlight time mixed with character effectiveness versus NPC effectiveness.
John Kim wrote: Well, not in a decent system, I would argue.
I'd probably agree.
On 9/8/2003 at 8:39am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, in a game about Ninja, we'll look more closely at the little differences to determine what's important. Are you the Ninja with the Rope atilities, or the one that's good with the bow?
Andrew, have we dragged this too far OT?
Andrew Martin wrote:
So my question is: what other approaches are there in game systems where players are rewarded (individually and/or as a group) for creating diverse characters of widely differing "power levels"?
It's still on topic, in a way. :)
On 9/8/2003 at 3:17pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Andrew wrote: So my question is: what other approaches are there in game systems where players are rewarded (individually and/or as a group) for creating diverse characters of widely differing "power levels"?
I'm led to believe the Buffy RPG does something in this vein. It only has two rankings of characters though - white hats and fighters (slayers, vampires, etc). The fighters get more trait points and the white hats get more drama points.
*****
I've been struggling against this in our game for a while. One player sets the bar a little high, then everybody feels like they have to follow in suit. I've been known to fall prey to the escalation as well; even through I'm fully aware of the problem. Seems to be either caused by trying to keep up ("In order to participate in combat with the other characters I need at least an X in my primary combat skill") or trying to keep a sense of consistency between the characters ("My character is supposed to be a master swordsman so he has to have a higher value than so-and-so the novice.). Add 'em together and it's right irritating. It only takes one player to up the bar before it continues all the way around the table till you're either into ridiculous numbers (open ended) or pushing the edge of the scale (artificial limits).
Distributing effectiveness across different areas helps somewhat, but only somewhat. The problem isn't so much specific descriptors matching as it is general measures of effectiveness matching. When GM's start making street bums frickin' Jujitsu masters for no other reason than "I need to so it's challenging" it seriously harms my suspension of disbelief.
As far as a system cure, I haven't got a clue how to fix this. Socially though, one that helps is for players to feel somehow superior because their character is weaker. The whole "Neer-ne-neer-neer aren't I swell because my character is so wee" thing may bug the crap out of me, but that sort of superiority trip in having an inferior character is one of the things that helps keep the escalation at bay (lookin' on the bright side, I am).
I've been thinking about introducing some sort of ranking system for various areas such as training, talent and race rules - a very clear system for who's better than who and how. Stops arguments before they start and sets clear limits. Might help, might not, we'll see what happens in play testing.
I just introduced a new skill system, and took the opportunity to use a secret ballot to decide what everybody’s trait ratings should be - to rescale all the characters. I know it's only a temporary fix. Inter-player social pressure isn't as effective as I'd like it to be. Then again, I am fighting against six years of character advancement, what can I expect?
Anyway, the only thing close to a cure that comes to mind is a different way of playing. Spotlight time not determined by effectiveness, control over failure to remove the sting and make it a roleplaying opportunity instead of a loss, challenges appropriate to each individual character as opposed to the group. But, everybody has to be on board for it to work.
And now the real question...is this what you were talking about Andrew?
Wow, I'm sorta in ranty babble mode.
On 9/8/2003 at 5:00pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
On the arms-race:
Something that we consciously built into JAGS* (especially the Supers rules) was diminishing returns. Almost everything (stats, skills, powers, less so for traits--but sometimes there too) has diminishing returns in bang-for-the-buck.
Thus if someone "point-dumps" into an atribute or skill, while it may be higher than anyone else's in the groups, the more moderate characters have a good deal more currency to spread around.
Now, being relevant to the group can still be an issue (if everyones a *great* fighter and you suck and there's a lot of fighting, then during that time you won't be all that relevant)--but our intent was that this:
If you want to be really, really good at something, it'll cost you--and cost you enough that other characters who are *ballpark* as good can be medium-good at several things.
Perfect solution? No (and I certainly wouldn't suggest JAGS or a system like it as a cure for that behavior)--but it does mitigate the arms race somewhat IME.
-Marco
On 9/8/2003 at 5:19pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: Re: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Andrew Martin wrote: This problem is then "fixed" by limiting the numbers (or other resources) available to the players in designing their characters. This then leads to the next problem where there's a small number of descriptors, and in a group of players, most characters end up looking similar. The game system then rewards min-maxing: players are rewarded for seeking the most bang for the least points cost. Ultimately, characters then become even more similar!
I think point constraints (like those created by diminishing returns) are one of the things he was talking about here.
Gee, thanks for asking a hard question Andrew. :)
On 9/9/2003 at 5:44am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
cruciel wrote: And now the real question...is this what you were talking about Andrew?
Yes. Your experiences seem very familiar to me.
Marco's point about dimishing returns is good as well. I feel there could well be other ways that do a similar job, like using different number systems; having two pools of effectiveness in the game, perhaps static effectiveness and dynamic effectiveness.
Thoughts?
On 9/15/2003 at 12:54pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
Andrew Martin wrote: ...The game system then rewards min-maxing: players are rewarded for seeking the most bang for the least points cost. Ultimately, characters then become even more similar!
So my question is: what other approaches are there in game systems where players are rewarded (individually and/or as a group) for creating diverse characters of widely differing "power levels"?
This confuses me a little because ther are two things you seem to be talking about. One is diversity of abilities, the other is diversity of 'power levels'. Frankly the mention of different power levels in the last sentence surprised me since the rest of the post seemed to be just about diversity of abilities rather than diversity of ability level in a particular ability.
With regard to diversity of ability, I think that if you have a problem in the game where one kind of ability dominates, the first thing to ask is why? What is it about the setting or campaign that makes that one ability so crucial and is that realy the way you want the game to be?
If the answer is yes (the game is about fighting), then one solution is to expand the ways in which the characetrs can approach that ability, effectively splitting it into different abilities. Rather than havign one 'Close Combat' ability, have diferent abilities for Wrestling, Kung Fu, sword & shield, bo stick, etc, etc and give each of these diferent benefits and disadvantages.
The question of different power levels is different again, but I think this also comes down to diversity of abilities. Buffy has already been mentioned. In that game you could consider that the White Hat characters metagame influence is just a different kind of ability so they're not realy less powerful than the 'main character' after all. Feng Shui handles things in this way too. The 'scrappy kid' and 'Everyman Hero' may not be so obviously great at streight-up fighting, but have abilities none of the other characters can match.
ANother example fo a game that apparently has a narrow focus but stiull offers plenty of scope for varied characetrisations in Pendragon. Everyone plays a knight in shining armour, yet their differing family backgrounds and personality traits, in a game where personality and moral choice are crucial, made it simple to develop very different characters. It also did it in such a way that power level was largely an incidental consideration.
Simon Hibbs
On 9/16/2003 at 12:43am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Pushing the envelope / tragedy of the commons
What he said.
Seriously, a lot of this depends on what sort of game you're designing. I've never had any trouble playing a character who was not "as powerful" as any other character in the game; I just had to use what I had in such a way that it kept me involved. If I knew I was going to be with characters who were more powerful, I looked for some ability that would make me unique.
For example, I was asked once to join a game as a novice character with players who were all moderately high level from having played for several years. I considered the situation; what use could such characters have for a new guy, who couldn't fight as well as their wizards, or do magic as well as their fighters, as it were? Going over the options, I found that the referee had included a race of "winged folk", like flying elves. This caught my attention. Someone who could fly in a party of mostly walkers could scout easily and report conditions ahead. That would give me some value to the others.
That's really the key. What value does each character have that makes him integral to what is happening.
In The Fellowship of the Ring, who are the nine? One is a wizard; he uses a sword, but he's their main magic. Three are superb melee fighters, each a bit different; one is an archer. One is the center of all this, the only person in all of Middle Earth who can carry the ring--no skills, to speak of, no combat ability worth mentioning, tough, resilient, determined, and that's about it. One is his best friend, who helps him bear the burden of it all. The other two are opportunities for trouble to happen, resourceful in finding solutions to problems, and otherwise learning as they go. There's no balance of power. There is a balance of story. Each is important in the scheme of things, each shines in turn.
Obviously, in a gamist game, either everyone has to be equal to the challenges, or there have to be different kinds of challenges which call for different abilities to meet them so that one character can be good here and another there. In a narrativist game, you're really looking for screen time, relationship to the theme, ability to impact the story--those are really about whether the players have equal power, and not to do really with the characters at all (and why the aforementioned Buffy works: the players have equal power to impact the game, it's just given to them in different forms).
In Multiverser, there's a sense in which unequal power levels aren't important because we made them unimportant. No one cares how powerful you are, because the game adapts to you.
Of course, I'm in the camp that always tries to play smart. A large part of that is understanding what your character can do, and using that to best advantage when situations arise.
--M. J. Young