The Forge Archives

So last night's Indie Net-gaming session got off to a late start (We made some Torchbearer characters, but Shreyas didn't get there til later). While we were waiting for more arrivals, Bob, JB, and I got started on some serious theory discussion. Right now JB is working on a FUDGE variant - Vanilla FUDGE - that involves using character Attributes to regulate meta-game rewards. It's his baby, so he's gonna post more about it later. Because of some similarities, we got started deconstructing this old game of mine, which had some interesting ideas, but didn't quite work.

The two big points I raised were:

1. - Meta-game Player Effectiveness (director stance) Economies

I'm always seeing people handing out Player Effectiveness as a reward for Good Role-Playing (TM). This bugs me like crazy. Who decided that player effectiveness should be some kind of cookie that you give to the players when they're good little boys and girls? Bob characterized it as the "Guess What The GM Wants" style of playing. JB's comment was: "In nearly every game I've played (mostly GURPS and FUDGE) that has a supposed metagame currency related to 'role-playing performance,' it goes unused."

I contend that the mere act of playing the game is sufficient to warrant player effectiveness.  This position relies on a foundational idea:

Meta-game player effectiveness is equivalent to director stance.

Director stance is the only way for a player to alter the imagined reality that doesn't involve working through his character. So we have two paradigms:

A - Player effectiveness as character effectiveness - The player can only affect the game world through the actions of his character.

B - Meta-game player effectiveness - The player can affect the game world independently of his character by using director stance.

My conclusion is that, to the extent that the second form of effectiveness exists in a system, the economy that controls it should be self-regulating.  I see this in good examples like Universalis, Shadows, The Pool, and Donjon. In those games, player effectiveness is an economy that is regulated exclusively by player decisions.

The second big point arises from the previous one.

2. - In a game with player effectiveness via a meta-game economy as discussed above, is there any real point in also including player effectiveness via character effectiveness?

I think this is the point Zak was trying to make with Shadows. If player influence over the game is external, we don't even need to represent the characters in system terms at all. It would be putting into the game a more limited form of what we already have.

But then there's Mike, who has a deep seated need to be able to represent the game world with the mechanics. And I kind of share that perspective with him.

JB made an interesting point here. Player effectiveness is the ability to impact story. Director power is direct. But, assuming the absense of director power, if your character encounters appropriate contexts you are effective. The example JB used was of a D&D fighter: "If I'm in a fight, I'm effective.  Even, mind you, if the character doesn't do so well!  The story is, at that time, about My Guy." His conclusion: "Contextualizing PC effectiveness is equivalent to Director power."

If the GM, set up adventures so that the PC's effectiveness is emphasied, the player is protagonized; he has effectiveness. It's still player effectiveness via character effectiveness, since the GM is the one who sets up the protagonizing situations. But it gave me the answer to the original question:

What if the meta-game player effectiveness was simply a means to contextualize your character (I.E., your director power is limited to setting up situations in which your character will be effective)? Then character effectiveness would be important. The meta-game currency would just be a doorway to protagonization. I coined the term "niche projection" to represent this idea.

So with these two big ideas firmly in mind, we started talking about how one could apply these principles to a game. I made this observation, which seemed important: "Something that hit me earlier while reading these different games is that a player can have narration rights without having director power. The GM can define the facts for the player to narrate." This split can be very useful in regulating the flow of meta-game currency.

So we did some crunching on my old Mammon / Animus system to see how the ideas could be applied. Here's what we came up with:

(Throughout this description, I use generic RPG terms like Attribute and Trait. In an actual game, something more colorful could be devised, I'm sure. :)

Characters are represented in game terms by Attributes. An attribute is basically a category of traits. Traits are binary descriptors that are either present or not present. The number of Traits that a character has in a givne Attribute determines the attribute's rating. (I've been told this is just like Story Engine.

So you might have something that looks like this:

Physical 3
   Strong
   Fast
   Eagle-eyed

In a conflict, the idea is to roll <= an attribute on 1d10. This target number can be increased by spending Karma points to activate traits. (Like, say I was shooting a bow, which uses my Physical attribute. I'd try to roll a three or less. But I could spend a Karma point to activate my Egale-eyed trait, raising the target number to 4.) Karma points can be used to activate any traits that are relevant, even ones from other attributes.

The die roll determines the outcome of the conflict (a success = favorability, a failure = disfavorability). The margin is the distance between the actual roll and the target number. In either case, the player has a choice:

If the player fails, he can either lose a number of Karma points equal to the margin, or he can narrate the scene, adding a number of concessions equal to the margin. (Concessions are facts that are not good for the character. :)

If the player succeeds, he can either gain a number of Karma points equal to the margin, or he can narrate the success adding a number of facts equal to the margin. (Whatever cool stuff he wants, in this case.)

When the player doesn't narrate (he takes or loses Karma), the GM does. The GM narrates straight results... no special cool stuff, but no special bad stuff either.

Shreyas added the idea of splitting your result between Karma and Facts, which seems to really balance out the system symmetricaly. In either case (success or failure) the player may decide to split the margin between Karma and Facts. On a failure, he can lose Karma to reduce the number of concessions he has to make. On a success, he can reduce the number of Karma he gets by adding coon facts. In both these cases the GM narrates.

So, what do you think? :)

Paganini,

Are we talking universally or is it a matter of preference?  I think your article is encumbered by not recognizing a design focus issue.

Quote from: PaganiniMeta-game Player Effectiveness (director stance) Economies

I'm always seeing people handing out Player Effectiveness as a reward for Good Role-Playing (TM). This bugs me like crazy. Who decided that player effectiveness should be some kind of cookie that you give to the players when they're good little boys and girls?

Sounds like a preference to me; is it?  In a moment you separate "player effectiveness" into two groups; do you realize that you are essentially separating two different types of games?

Quote from: PaganiniI contend that the mere act of playing the game is sufficient to warrant player effectiveness.  This position relies on a foundational idea:

Meta-game player effectiveness is equivalent to director stance.

This sounds as though it supposes that either the players are effective or they aren't.  It isn't a dichotomy; there's a continuum at work.  Most games that dole out "player effectiveness" as a reward do not totally restrict it otherwise; the reward is in addition to a 'normal' level of "player effectiveness."

Also in my readings, these rewards are the proactive embodiment of using a penalty against 'bad role-playing.'  Are you saying that bad role-playing should be rewarded simply because of participation?  What is being attempted is creating a dynamic level of "player effectiveness" based upon effective and positive participation.  Many times it doesn't read or go to work that way, but that's the mechanism I see attempted.

Quote from: PaganiniDirector stance is the only way for a player to alter the imagined reality that doesn't involve working through his character. So we have two paradigms:

A - Player effectiveness as character effectiveness - The player can only affect the game world through the actions of his character.

B - Meta-game player effectiveness - The player can affect the game world independently of his character by using director stance.

My conclusion is that, to the extent that the second form of effectiveness exists in a system, the economy that controls it should be self-regulating.  I see this in good examples like Universalis, Shadows, The Pool, and Donjon. In those games, player effectiveness is an economy that is regulated exclusively by player decisions.

All you've done here is delineate basically two different foci of game design.  I don't really see many examples of games that rely upon a focus on both "Type A effectiveness" and "Type B effectiveness."  Your samples seem entirely of the "Type B effectiveness" model, whereas the GURPS and FUDGE cases listed (especially because they're 'drifted' away from the "supposed meta-game currency related to 'role-playing performance'") are very much "Type A effectiveness."  Furthermore, in a 'single instance of gaming,' only Author stance sounds like it might combine the two.

Is there any reason that a "Type A effectiveness" game need much in the way of "Type B effectiveness?"  What about vice versa?  This question comes up a lot when I explain Scattershot's Sharing Approaches.  If you are using Self-Sovereign Sharing, your desires are other than using much, if any, "Type B effectiveness."  The reverse is also true for Gamemasterful Sharing.  We created Referential Sharing because of certain approaches created by Thematically Ambitious Approaches to primarily Avatar Approach; in order to have effective thematic impact, Avatar players often wanted to modify and control things 'within arms reach' of their character (rather than anything and everything in the game).

Because of Scattershot's design goal of being able to 'Transition', we've had to do a lot of thinking about incompatible gaming approaches.  (Mind you, that's not 'continually incompatible,' but those that can come into sharp contrast.)  That's why I'm not sure what the problem here is.  If you keep the "Type A effectiveness" out of "Type B effectiveness" games (and vice versa), what's the problem?

Are you ultimately saying that you aren't interested in purely "Type A effectiveness" games?  

Quote from: PaganiniIn a game with player effectiveness via a meta-game economy as discussed above, is there any real point in also including player effectiveness via character effectiveness?

Possibly.

Like I said earlier, rare could be the game which uses both, but would there necessarily be a problem?  In a "Type B effectiveness" game won't there ever be times where a player may elect to 'go Type A' for a while?  'Do the Actor Stance thing?'  If there is, then the answer to this question is 'yes.'  If you allow players to go into 'My Guy' mode, they will eschew meta-game effectiveness of all kinds; do you want to eliminate that from "Type B effectiveness" games?  Would they still be role-playing games?  (Hint: the jury is still out on that one.)

Quote from: PaganiniPlayer effectiveness is the ability to impact story. Director power is direct. But, assuming the absence of director power, if your character encounters appropriate contexts you are effective....

...[JB's] conclusion: "Contextualizing PC effectiveness is equivalent to Director power."

If the GM sets up adventures so that the PC's effectiveness is emphasized, the player is protagonized; he has effectiveness. It's still player effectiveness via character effectiveness, since the GM is the one who sets up the protagonizing situations. But it gave me the answer to the original question:

What if the meta-game player effectiveness was simply a means to contextualize your character (I.E., your director power is limited to setting up situations in which your character will be effective)? Then character effectiveness would be important. The meta-game currency would just be a doorway to protagonization. I coined the term "niche projection" to represent this idea.

This makes for an interesting "Type B effectiveness" game masquerading as a "Type A effectiveness" game.  Our Referential Sharing Approach works a lot like this; the player has the option (when they are the Speaker) to 'self-contextualize.'  That's one of the major differences between that and Self-Sovereign Sharing.

One question, don't you mean "...is emphazied, the character is protagonized."  After all, players cannot be the protagonists in a game can they?

Quote from: PaganiniSo with these two big ideas firmly in mind, we started talking about how one could apply these principles to a game. I made this observation, which seemed important: "Something that hit me earlier while reading these different games is that a player can have narration rights without having director power. The GM can define the facts for the player to narrate." This split can be very useful in regulating the flow of meta-game currency.

This only counts if you consider "narration rights" as the only "meta-game currency" available for players.  I include many other things in my thinking, like character creation (both player and otherwise), scene framing, background generation, advice, a lot of other Speaker/Leadership issues as well as a lot of others right on up to the edge of the 'unspoken social contract.'  Restricting meta-game control for players to simply 'narration rights' might be problematic in the overall gaming circumstance.

So ultimately it sounds more like you are coming down heavily on the side of preferring "Type B effectiveness" focused games without really saying anything more than that you don't think they mix well.  Is that it?

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le Joueur
Are we talking universally or is it a matter of preference?  I think your article is encumbered by not recognizing a design focus issue.

Fang, some of both. Read on... :)

What I'm saying is this:

Player effectiveness is "the ability to impact the imagined reality." There are two types of player effectiveness.

Type A limits player effectiveness to character effectiveness; a player may only impact the imagined reality via the actions of his character. A player is exactly as effective as his character is.

Type B does not limit player effectiveness in this way; players may directly impact the imagined reality.

The choice between type A or type B is purely preferential. Neither way is particularly better than the other, they're simply useful for different things.

However, I maintain that if a game has type B player effectiveness, it is a Bad Thing (TM) to use it as a meta-game (carrot / stick) to (enforce / reward / punish) (good / bad) role-playing.

Quote
Are you saying that bad role-playing should be rewarded simply because of participation?

Yes!

More specificaly, I'm saying that it's no one's job, especially not the GM's job, to classify player activity as "good" or "bad" role-playing. The inclusion of such a thing reinforced by the awarding or witholding of type B player effectiveness is a serious social contract danger. I'm saying that type B player effectiveness should never be dependent on the subjective judgement of a third party; it should only be dependent on the choices made by the players.

Now...

Both type A and type B *may* coexist in a game. My second question in the original post is about whether or not such coexistence is worthwhile (I.E., Is is it ever beneficial for a game with type B effectiveness to also have type A effectiveness?) When you say this:

Quote from: Fang
Is there any reason that a "Type A effectiveness" game need much in the way of "Type B effectiveness?"  What about vice versa?

You're just restating my question:

2. - In a game with player effectiveness via a meta-game economy as discussed above, is there any real point in also including player effectiveness via character effectiveness?"

I'm getting the feeling that you didn't read my whole post before responding. But that's okay, I don't mind clarifying these points.

To back up a little, here's where the question comes from: We know that both type A and type B can stand alone. Lots of games are type A only. Zak's Shadows proves that type B only will work. So the question now is about combinations.

Is it ever worthwhile to have both type A and type B in the same game?

My original inclination was to say *no.* Type A games usually only include the evil (carrot / stick) version of type B that I describe above. Type B games seem to have no need for type A effectiveness - if players can directly impact the imagined reality, they have no need of characters to do it for them. Including type A in such a game would be superfluous and unfocused.

However, my inclination was overturned by the discussion last night. If the type B effectiveness is limited in use to contextualizing characters, then it's worthwhile to have both type B and type A in the same game.

Here's how it works: players have limited type B effectiveness that they can only use to create situations that contextualize their characters (like the ability to frame mini scenes in Story Engine). The rest of the time players have to rely on their characters to impact the shared reality.

Quote
One question, don't you mean "...is emphazied, the character is protagonized."  After all, players cannot be the protagonists in a game can they?

Er, yes, character. Hehe.

Quote from: Fang

Quote from: PaganiniSo with these two big ideas firmly in mind, we started talking about how one could apply these principles to a game. I made this observation, which seemed important: "Something that hit me earlier while reading these different games is that a player can have narration rights without having director power. The GM can define the facts for the player to narrate." This split can be very useful in regulating the flow of meta-game currency.

This only counts if you consider "narration rights" as the only "meta-game currency" available for players.

Well, no. The whole idea here was that the players have a choice between two different kinds of currency: "narration rights" or "director power." Remember that these are two separate things. A player can determine the facts (director stance) without having the right to narrate them. In Donjon, in fact, if the player defines the facts, he does *not* narrate; the GM does.

Quote from: Paganini

Quote from: Le JoueurIs there any reason that a "Type A effectiveness" game need much in the way of "Type B effectiveness?"  What about vice versa?

You're just restating my question:

2. - In a game with player effectiveness via a meta-game economy as discussed above, is there any real point in also including player effectiveness via character effectiveness?"

I'm getting the feeling that you didn't read my whole post before responding. But that's okay, I don't mind clarifying these points.

I did read it, more than once, and I felt #2 was neither clear nor reflexive.  Just trying to help you pose a question I suppose.

Quote from: PaganiniIf the type B effectiveness is limited in use to contextualizing characters, then it's worthwhile to have both type B and type A in the same game.

Here's how it works: players have limited type B effectiveness that they can only use to create situations that contextualize their characters (like the ability to frame mini scenes in Story Engine). The rest of the time players have to rely on their characters to impact the shared reality.

I don't follow.  If my meta-game influence on the game is "Type B effectiveness" by being able to thrust my character into situations of better efficacy, does it really matter what the character does ("Type A effectiveness")?  Their frequency or degree of success is predominantly determined by the "contextualizing;" that makes it mostly a matter of "Type B effectiveness," not a combination.  And like I said, most "Type B effectiveness" games allow (but do not necessarily prompt) "Type A effectiveness" or "My Guy" play; how is that not a combination?

(Just as a side note, I think the "contectualizing" method of "Type B effectiveness" is absolutely brilliant and I can't wait to see if I can milk something like that out of Scattershot for some kind of post-modern or self-referential - possibly parody - Genre Expectation.)[/list:u]Fang Langford

Quote from: PaganiniType A limits player effectiveness to character effectiveness; a player may only impact the imagined reality via the actions of his character. A player is exactly as effective as his character is.

Type B does not limit player effectiveness in this way; players may directly impact the imagined reality.

I don't see these as mutually exclusive options, as they are being described.  Unless you are talking about the player specifically being deprived of the powers/rights/whatever to affect the world through character altogether, then type A is a subset of type B.  I can't really see them as alternatives.

Quote2. - In a game with player effectiveness via a meta-game economy as discussed above, is there any real point in also including player effectiveness via character effectiveness?

Do you mean: "is there any real point in also including rewards that enhance player effectiveness via character effectiveness?


Rewards based on roleplay performance are saying exactly that it is the GM's job to say what kind of character play is desirable.  Character effectiveness need not be the only way to reward "good" or "appropriate" play. This may not be useful for all games or design philosophies.  

I'm using this type of mechanic in a game about gender, where the guide is being explictly asked to reward the player for playing a cross-gender character in a non-stereotyped way.  I could have chosen other incentives, but given the sharp focus of the game (it takes place on a series of dates, has no world building aspect, or really any other venue to empower the player in) it was the most logical choice.

Quote from: paganiniThe die roll determines the outcome of the conflict (a success = favorability, a failure = disfavorability). The margin  is the distance between the actual roll and the target number. In either case, the player has a choice:

                    If the player fails, he can either lose a number of Karma points equal to the margin, or he can narrate the scene,  adding a number of concessions equal to the margin. (Concessions are facts that are not good for the character. :)

                    If the player succeeds, he can either gain a number of Karma points equal to the margin, or he can narrate the  success adding a number of facts equal to the margin. (Whatever cool stuff he wants, in this case.)

                    When the player doesn't narrate (he takes or loses Karma), the GM does. The GM narrates straight results... no  special cool stuff, but no special bad stuff either.

It seems like  you are still rewarding the player with character effectiveness, but giving them more choice in how it is implemented. Was your objection mainly based on giving the rewards based on role-playing quality?

--Emily Care

This thread is full of great stuff, and my thinking for a long while now has been in this same area.  So much to say, although I think I'm ducking your rewards question - sorry if that's the main point. . . .  Let me build from here:

Quote from: PaganiniHere's how it works: players have limited type B effectiveness that they can only use to create situations that contextualize their characters (like the ability to frame mini scenes in Story Engine). The rest of the time players have to rely on their characters to impact the shared reality.

Running with your Type B, I'll add there are LOTS of ways to limit that power.  How's this sound - a player can only use his Type B power in service of a known, stated goal.  So if you're wooing the Duke's daughter ("get Miranda to go to the play with me"), you can use Type B power to make that happen in lots of ways (create NPC's to help you, arrange for a convienent "accidental" encounter, whatever) - but that power only "counts" towards acheiving the known goal.   The group/GM can self-regulate inappropriate goals and actions not in service of the stated goal.

As far as Type A effectiveness - consider the important but subtle (at least, it seems so to me) difference between "each player directs a character who has abilities that allow that character to impact the imagined world" and "the players can impact the imagined world utilizing the abilities of their character."  Take the emphasis off the idea that the character has abilities with a particular reality in the imagined world, and put it on the fact that the player expresses his effectiveness by using the abilities.  Is that a semi-meta position regarding the character - so we have some of that contextualing power without losing the connection to charcater effectiveness?  You're a fighter attempting to acheive a goal - of course you get to use your fight abilities in that pursuit.

I hope I can back to this later,

Gordon

Fang:

No problems. On rereading #2 it does look kind of obtuse. :)

Anyway, I think you *do* follow, because using type B player effectiveness to contextualize characters is all I was talking about.

Em:

The question is not whether the two options are mutually exclusive (they aren't), but of whether or not it's useful to include both in one game.

You have to find a situation where having type B effectiveness doesn't make type A effectiveness superfluous. So, can they be made to coexist in a way that is useful? The answer is, yes, if you limit the use of type B effectiveness to contextualizing characters.

(Note: This doesn't have to be the ONLY way to do it. It's just the method that we came up with last night. I think the important thing to keep in mind when coming up with new mixes is that for type A effectiveness to be meaningful, type B effectiveness must be limited in some way. Gordon goes into this in his post. In the words of JB, "It's director stance, not god stance.")

This is an important idea, because it means that we can have a game that Mike will want to play - a game in which game-entities are defined in and act according to system terms; but also a game that contains lots of director stance.

BTW, look closely at the resolution mechanic I presented in the first post. I'm giving the players a choice between (future) character effectiveness and (instant) player effectiveness.

If your roll succeeds: Get Karma (future type A - character effectiveness) or define Cool Facts (immediate type B - Story Now!).

If your roll fails: Lose Karma or define Concessions.

Same choice, both ways. If you win, you choose between two different things that you'd like to "have." If you lose, you choose between two different things that you don't "want."

This is funny.  Nathan and I agree he'll post his design, and I'll post theory, and he posted theory, and I think I'll be posting Vanilla FUDGE tomorrow.

BTW, you may also treat "a game Mike wants to play" and "a game JB wants to play" as equivalent.  One of my other theoretical points regarding type A vs. type B effectiveness was that in a "type B" game such as Story Engine one runs a certain risk of having effectiveness of the character be kind of blah; the mechanics have no color of their own, because conflict resolution is one system only, so there's really only one kind of effectiveness.*  Or if there's a variety, it's only so that the player can contextualize the abilities/traits/whatever as a kind of mini-game.  This makes the player come up with color (or allows them to provide it, on the positive side).

I want type-B play with more crunch.  Sorcerer accomplishes this with the demon's Powers--each Power is unique.  Story Engine has magic (the traditional way of sneaking Director stance into an otherwise simmy game, IMO) fuelled by the burning of descriptors, but only some magic; in studying Hero System, I found that often, cost of a power was proportional with how "directorish" it was (not consistently by any means, but the pattern is there, I think).  Nathan and I converged in design philosophy when we both grokked that for type B to have more flavor as part of system, you apply type A effectiveness in a way that actually makes some difference.

I worry that we may be in the suburbs of El Dorado here, but we'll see.

--JB

*Edit:  an extreme example would be someone in Story Engine using their Cooking trait to influence a combat.  Probably similar to the classic problem of playing a character whose intelligence (or negotiating skill, or fast-talk or whatever) is different from the player's by a wide margin.  It seems a little unfair somehow to reward the player who's clever at contextualizing while other good players languish.  And again we have the problem of putting judgment of this stuff in the GM's lap; in Universalis, this is more or less self-managing with the Challenge mechanic.  But I digress.

Quote from: J B BellThis is funny.  Nathan and I agree he'll post his design, and I'll post theory, and he posted theory, and I think I'll be posting Vanilla FUDGE tomorrow.

Hehe, sorry JB. I really tried, honest. But I just couldn't figure out a way to present the game as a meaningful post without explaining all the important theory stuff behind it.

Ah well. I'm working on a write up for the symmetrical thing. I'm calling it Cornerstone. ;) Have made some minor change, probably post it over in Indie Design sometime in the next couple of days.