The Forge Archives

I enjoyed the gamist essay, but one thing Ron said puzzles me.

QuoteAnd, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual performance."

I'm not sure this is an anti-gamist response, as it is a pro-something else response (quite what that something else is, someone else might have to find the label for).

My reason for preferring the "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" arises because I have a problem with awarding different amounts to different people based on some highly subjective criteria of performance.
If I give bonuses for good roleplaying, how can I judge each person's roleplaying ability without some common understanding of what people will be judged for? What gives me the right to judge other people's ability? And in any case some of a person's roleplaying may be internal, and not visible to me? Am I just encouraging the kinds of behaviour I want to see, that I think is good for 'the game', and forcing people to play my way?
People who have a different idea of roleplaying, and may indeed be getting more enjoyment out of the game with a more passive style, could be overlooked and miss out on EP awards.

In my opinion, people who roleplay actively, or who come up with good plans and strategies, or solve problems, are likely to be doing the kinds of things they enjoy doing already, and don't need to be rewarded more for doing that than people who, say, enjoy being mostly spectators and supporters (or who might be 'bad' roleplayers in the context of the group).

Unequal awards are often rewards and punishments, and with differing ideas of what people should be rewarded or punished for, they might well encourage dysfunctional play themselves.

This is why I prefer the equal awards for all. I don't mind giving variable awards based on adventure success (to some degree, anyway), but individual variations are a no-no for me.

Hi Darren,

Lots of topics here...

-"What is good roleplaying"?

This is completely a Social Contract thing that needs to be discussed as a group.  This is GNS in action, along with bigger stuff as well.  If you're open to player input at this point, you can take into account what they want to see, turning it from a dictatorship, to a group agreement.  If the group agrees that "good roleplaying" for Call of Cthulu is to stay in character and play to genre, then you have a good idea of what to reward.  Games like Riddle of Steel, with its SAs are great in this regard, because what is rewarded is explicitly laid out in the rules for the GM and the players alike.

You may wish to also look at systems that reward non-subjectively.  Consider older versions of D&D, in which EP is solely rewarded based on how many monsters you kill and the amount of gold and treasure you bring back.  There is no subjective judgement.  Either you help kill the monster or you didn't.  Either you got X amount of gold or you didn't.  

-Subjective decisions

As a GM, you're already making subjective decisions all the time.  You decide if a given action is possible or permissible in play, and how difficult it is.  Asking, "what right have I?" is somewhat pointless at this point.

To be a bit more helpful, though, again, if the goals of play are clear with the whole group, everyone should know what they're shooting for.  The decision isn't so subjective when everyone knows what they're aiming for and why they got rewarded or not.

-Internal roleplaying/passive players

Roleplaying(in the tabletop, face to face sense) only occurs through communication.  Someone could imagine the greatest scene in their head, but if they don't communicate it, it never happened.  We don't reward actors for "how well they did in their head" nor do we applaud athletes for their great "visualizations".  

There's no possible way to assess how well someone is imagining something, so any concern about rewarding or punishing such a thing is ridiculous.  Passive players either will learn to be more active in the goals, or else just simply won't.

If the concern is folks with different ideas about what roleplaying is, that's what all that initial discussion is about.  If we all agree to play basketball, and I start tackling people, who's fault is that?  And if I start complaining that tackles aren't rewarded in basketball, again, who's at fault?

This isn't to say the decisions made are the only possible way for your group to play, but you should be able to play Paranoia and Call of Cthulu in appropriate styles, but coherently as a group just the same.

Chris

Quote from: demiurgeastarothI'm not sure this is an anti-gamist response, as it is a pro-something else response (quite what that something else is, someone else might have to find the label for).

My reason for preferring the "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" arises because I have a problem with awarding different amounts to different people based on some highly subjective criteria of performance.

Yes, but don't you see that gamists have no problem with that?  What you're proposing shuts down one of the major reasons that Gamists play at all and they're not going to appreciate what you're offering to replace it.  What you see as pro-something else is simultaneously anti-Gamist.  

As long as you're in direct opposition with Gamist modes, anything you come up with is going to be either watered-down Gamist or anti-Gamist.  In your case, it looks pretty anti-Gamist.  I think your examples are excellent support for Ron's argument, not evidence against it.

PS: This isn't to say that I disagree with the goals you propose, but I can assure that they'll conflict with a Gamist mode of play.

Quote from: jdagna

Quote from: demiurgeastarothI'm not sure this is an anti-gamist response, as it is a pro-something else response (quite what that something else is, someone else might have to find the label for).

My reason for preferring the "everyone gets a couple EPs at the end of each session" arises because I have a problem with awarding different amounts to different people based on some highly subjective criteria of performance.

Yes, but don't you see that gamists have no problem with that?  What you're proposing shuts down one of the major reasons that Gamists play at all and they're not going to appreciate what you're offering to replace it.  What you see as pro-something else is simultaneously anti-Gamist.  

Is that the case, though? I play in a D&D game, and I socialise with players in two others. In all three games, the team gets awarded identical XP (assuming their characters were involved). They still gain experience and play with new toys, and still get to Step On Up, as Ron put it.
It's possible that none of these players are gamist. It's also possible that the gamists among them are frustrated wih this approach. But I think there are lots of ways of providing that gamist thrill - granting individually variable experience is only one of them, and in my experience, one that can easily lead to corrosion of a group's enjoyment if not handled perfectly. So I'm happier avoiding that particular minefield.

Hi there,

It seems to me that we're talking about a mini-dial within Gamism - specifically, the "competition red dial" isolated within the Step On Up level. You can have lots of Step On Up (and hence Gamist play; synonyms) and not compete at this level. It seems to me that equalizing the metagame reward system is part of this approach to Gamist play.

Best,
Ron

I think there is more than one issue here.  As I see it, for Gamist play, the difference over group vs individual rewards is about team play vs competitive play.  If you want to encourage team play, then everyone's reward should be the same.  

Quote from: Bankuei-Internal roleplaying/passive players

Roleplaying(in the tabletop, face to face sense) only occurs through communication.  Someone could imagine the greatest scene in their head, but if they don't communicate it, it never happened.  We don't reward actors for "how well they did in their head" nor do we applaud athletes for their great "visualizations".  

This was brought up in the "secrets" thread as well.  Maybe I should make a standard rant about this or something, since I find this nonsensical.  It never happened regardless of whether it was said or not.  You can say that your preference is that all such secret information be communicated, but it is no more or less real for having done so.  

If someone enjoys a game based on what they imagined, then that enjoyment is real.  

Put another way, role-players are not actors.  In general, a gamer comes to the table to enjoy themselves -- whereas a professional actor is paid to give a performance which others enjoy.  [/img]

QuoteThis was brought up in the "secrets" thread as well. Maybe I should make a standard rant about this or something, since I find this nonsensical. It never happened regardless of whether it was said or not. You can say that your preference is that all such secret information be communicated, but it is no more or less real for having done so.

If someone enjoys a game based on what they imagined, then that enjoyment is real.

Sigh.  Ok, John. Yes, it never "happened".  By point of it not being communicated, it (most likely) was not imagined by the group as a whole.  Communication is the bridge from "in my head" to "Let's imagine as a group".

That being the case, we cannot concern ourselves with rewarding or failing to reward folks for what they imagine in their head that we as a group, or at least as a GM, cannot possibly know about.  

"Wow! It looks like you're having a great daydream there!  I think you're doing a great job of imagining.  Here's 200 xp!"

"Hey, I'm imagining twice as hard as he is, why are you leaving me out?"

Etc.

Chris

Quote from: BankueiOk, John. Yes, it never "happened".  By point of it not being communicated, it (most likely) was not imagined by the group as a whole.  Communication is the bridge from "in my head" to "Let's imagine as a group".  

I guess what I objected to is the implication that personal "in my head" enjoyment of the players is irrelevant.  If everyone has a lot of personal enjoyment from the game, that is fine by my book.  How much comes from communication vs internal imagining depends on the group's preferences.  

Quote from: BankueiThat being the case, we cannot concern ourselves with rewarding or failing to reward folks for what they imagine in their head that we as a group, or at least as a GM, cannot possibly know about.  

"Wow! It looks like you're having a great daydream there!  I think you're doing a great job of imagining.  Here's 200 xp!"  

Hmm.  I hadn't really considered it before, but why not?  Obviously the GM can't hand out rewards based on internal imagination -- but you could base it on player self-rating.  The players would rate themselves on their own imagining, and this is included in the reward.  

Mind you, it radically changes the meaning of the reward system if players each reward themselves instead of it being an external judgement.  However, I think that is sort of the point.  I don't like the feeling of judging someone on how good their play is.  My current system is to just give 5XP to every player who shows up for the session.  But the idea of self-rating seems interesting to try.

Darren,

It occurs to me that that gamism can be easily supported by what you are doing. Essentially, you are providing a consistent pool of resources for each player, and they use those to acheive their goals in play and mechanics. By not being the judge, you are avoiding the role of handing out player prestige. But that doesn't mean the players cannot assert this prestige themselves.

Sure subjectivity isn't that bad, but I can certainly relate to the desire not to use personal and subjective means to determine the change in respect in a given game session. Players are quite capable of doing this on their own, so there's no reason to hijack the process.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.