Quertus' mega gaming model

[Quertus]

While the forums were down, I though it was a good opportunity to start working on my big'ol post of "everything gaming theory". I never finished, but I figure I'll share how far I got, and invite feedback.

Quertus' Big Post of Everything

Well, while the forums are down, I decided to start working on my "big'ol comprehensive theory of everything gaming" post.

Executive Summary

Why do we game? What do we want/get out of it? What portions of the game do - or can - feed each of these desires, which feed them best, and what fails to feed them?

The purpose of this post is to begin the discussion to develop the tools to facilitate gaming discussions centered around desire-centric stylistic differences, and to explore the difference between fulfilling and unfulfilling gaming experiences.

In other words, my thesis is founded on the idea that different gaming styles - different experiences - feed different desires, and that evaluating gaming from these root desires might prove beneficial to (developing a vocabulary for) discussing stylistic differences, and to optimizing the gaming experience overall.

Put even more simply, there's a lot of gaming theories out there. I'm particularly partial to the "8 aesthetics of gaming", as introduced by Angry (although I'm not a fan of the nomenclature "aesthetics" in this context). (EDIT: found here (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/) - thanks @Kol Korran)
But all of the various theories I've seen have been missing something, they're all incomplete. It's human nature to want to simplify things, but humans generally err on the side of oversimplifying things. My goal is to not do that. My goal is to make things as simple as they can be, yes, but no simpler. My goal is to tilt at the windmill of an all-encompassing theory of the desires that drive the gaming experience, and I invite you to join me on this quixotic quest.

These are the various motivations that I have identified from the many people I've gamed with over the past several decades (have I really been gaming for 39 years?! Sheesh.).

What do we Want?
To win
To struggle
To lose
To roflstomp
To have a good setup
To make do with what you have
To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later
To interact with rules
To interact with other people
To one-up other people
To be better than other people
To feel better about yourself
To see/evaluate the world
To cheat
To be lied to
To play by the rules
Visceral pleasure
To feel that things are fair
To feel that things are unfair
To live out a power fantasy / to feel powerful
To feel weak
To feel / for the feels
To create
To destroy
To change things
To do things you can't / won't / wouldn't do IRL
To experiment
To learn about yourself
To learn about others
To innovate
To copy
To be derivative
To lead
To follow
To boss other people around
To bully people
To act
To roleplay
To show off
To hide
Mindless "Beer & pretzels" fun
5D Wizard's Chess
To dig into details
To gloss over minutia
As an excuse to build real-world skills
Exploraton?
To work together
To accomplish something on your own
To have things that the character cares about come into conflict
Tension
Knowns
Unknowns
To know going in that…
To not know going in if/whether…
Safety
Conflict
To have a space that is safe for something
To have a space that is safe from something
To be invested in something (or not)
Immersion
Metagaming

As you may have noticed, there's a lot of potentially conflicting desires in there. The interesting thing is, people - or even one person - can successfully maintain these conflicting desires, so long as they have them at different parts of the game.

For example, I can want character creation to be trivially easy, but combat to be tactically challenging without paradox - I've just described chess ("white" vs "black" is the entirety of character creation). I can want character art to be highly creative, but gameplay to follow rigid rules… and again I've just described chess.



OK, we've got a decent list of motivations (although feel free to suggest more) - let's move on to minigames.

What are the possible Minigames?

Character creation
Character selection
Adventure creation
Adventure selection
World-building
Character growth
Character retirement
Character death
Adventure ending
Epilogue
World ending?
Recap
Meeting PCs
Meeting NPCs
Talking to PCs
Talking to NPCs
Negotiation (trade, blackmail, etc)
Romance
Combat
Facing obstacles
Research
Planning
Resource acquisition
Resource management
"Leveling up"
Picking out dice
Picking out minis
Painting minis
Character art
Naming things
Learning the system
Learning the setting
Learning the particulars of the campaign
Learning the GM
Learning the players
Problem resolution
Improving yourself
Improving the system
Improving the setting
Improving the campaign
Improving the GM
Improving the players
Building the group

I wrote those two lists pretty "stream of consciousness", except for a few entries that I felt were related to existing entries - those I added in where I felt that they fit. This hints that there are categories of things, and so I should probably try to group them by category, and come up with category labels. Broken down into categories, it might look something like this:


What do we Want?

To win
To struggle
To lose
To roflstomp
To have a good setup
To make do with what you have

To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later

To interact with rules
To play by the rules

To interact with other people

To lead
To follow
To boss other people around
To bully people
To act
To roleplay
To one-up other people
To be better than other people
To feel better about yourself
To see/evaluate the world
To cheat

Visceral pleasure

To feel that things are fair
To feel that things are unfair
To live out a power fantasy / to feel powerful
To feel weak
To feel / for the feels
To be lied to
To have things that the character cares about come into conflict
Tension

To create
To destroy
To change things
To do things you can't / won't / wouldn't do IRL
To experiment

To learn about yourself
To learn about others

To innovate
To copy
To be derivative

To show off
To hide

Mindless "Beer & pretzels" fun
5D Wizard's Chess
To dig into details
To gloss over minutia

As an excuse to build real-world skills

Exploraton?

To work together
To accomplish something on your own

Knowns
Unknowns
To know going in that…
To not know going in if/whether…
Safety
Conflict
To have a space that is safe for something
To have a space that is safe from something

To be invested in something (or not)

Immersion
Metagaming

A lot of these feel cumulative rather than in opposition; ie, chess is normally a solo cerebral activity, whereas playing group chess could have group cerebral, group social, or even solo cerebral game play elements. When you play blind, and notice that, while you get to go every 6th move on your team, the other team alternates between 7 play styles, you can add a layer of solo cerebral metagaming to the list of potential gameplay element styles.

I also had a few ideas that didn't seem to fit neatly into my "motivations/minigames" categories, but still feel important to discuss.

Misc - (I'm not sure yet where these go just yet…)

Tactics vs strategy (vs win button?)
Button pushing vs creativity
Getting buy-in
Scheming
Seeing things evolve / come to fruition
Nostalgia (within the game)
Nostalgia (outside the game)
"Void Rangering / Easter Eggs



Where are we going with this?

Now, if I were to do this right, I think that I would make a huge grid of motivations x minigames, and discuss how each does (and does not) logically interact with each other / how to feed that motivation in each minigame / what each fail state of wanting but not getting what you want out of each minigame each looks like. But that sounds like quite the Endeavor, I fear I might Burn out in a FlashFire of activity attempting it. And I certainly hope that the forums are back up before I could finish something so "plus ultra" as all that.

So, instead, I'll tackle a much smaller project, and discuss how these relate to my own gaming style, as a way to help explain what I mean by each of these phrases.

… and that, plus a few aborted attempts to explain my gaming style, is as far as I got.

Clear as mud? Suggestions how I can make this idea easier to understand? Or just questions about just what I'm trying to get across?

[Thrawn4]

While the forums were down, I though it was a good opportunity to start working on my big'ol post of "everything gaming theory". I never finished, but I figure I'll share how far I got, and invite feedback.

Quertus' Big Post of Everything

Well, while the forums are down, I decided to start working on my "big'ol comprehensive theory of everything gaming" post.

Executive Summary

Why do we game? What do we want/get out of it? What portions of the game do - or can - feed each of these desires, which feed them best, and what fails to feed them?

The purpose of this post is to begin the discussion to develop the tools to facilitate gaming discussions centered around desire-centric stylistic differences, and to explore the difference between fulfilling and unfulfilling gaming experiences.

In other words, my thesis is founded on the idea that different gaming styles - different experiences - feed different desires, and that evaluating gaming from these root desires might prove beneficial to (developing a vocabulary for) discussing stylistic differences, and to optimizing the gaming experience overall.

Put even more simply, there's a lot of gaming theories out there. I'm particularly partial to the "8 aesthetics of gaming", as introduced by Angry (although I'm not a fan of the nomenclature "aesthetics" in this context). But all of the various theories I've seen have been missing something, they're all incomplete. It's human nature to want to simplify things, but humans generally err on the side of oversimplifying things. My goal is to not do that. My goal is to make things as simple as they can be, yes, but no simpler. My goal is to tilt at the windmill of an all-encompassing theory of the desires that drive the gaming experience, and I invite you to join me on this quixotic quest.

These are the various motivations that I have identified from the many people I've gamed with over the past several decades (have I really been gaming for 39 years?! Sheesh.).

What do we Want?
To win
To struggle
To lose
To roflstomp
To have a good setup
To make do with what you have
To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later
To interact with rules
To interact with other people
To one-up other people
To be better than other people
To feel better about yourself
To see/evaluate the world
To cheat
To be lied to
To play by the rules
Visceral pleasure
To feel that things are fair
To feel that things are unfair
To live out a power fantasy / to feel powerful
To feel weak
To feel / for the feels
To create
To destroy
To change things
To do things you can't / won't / wouldn't do IRL
To experiment
To learn about yourself
To learn about others
To innovate
To copy
To be derivative
To lead
To follow
To boss other people around
To bully people
To act
To roleplay
To show off
To hide
Mindless "Beer & pretzels" fun
5D Wizard's Chess
To dig into details
To gloss over minutia
As an excuse to build real-world skills
Exploraton?
To work together
To accomplish something on your own
To have things that the character cares about come into conflict
Tension
Knowns
Unknowns
To know going in that…
To not know going in if/whether…
Safety
Conflict
To have a space that is safe for something
To have a space that is safe from something
To be invested in something (or not)
Immersion
Metagaming

As you may have noticed, there's a lot of potentially conflicting desires in there. The interesting thing is, people - or even one person - can successfully maintain these conflicting desires, so long as they have them at different parts of the game.

For example, I can want character creation to be trivially easy, but combat to be tactically challenging without paradox - I've just described chess ("white" vs "black" is the entirety of character creation). I can want character art to be highly creative, but gameplay to follow rigid rules… and again I've just described chess.



OK, we've got a decent list of motivations (although feel free to suggest more) - let's move on to minigames.

What are the possible Minigames?

Character creation
Character selection
Adventure creation
Adventure selection
World-building
Character growth
Character retirement
Character death
Adventure ending
Epilogue
World ending?
Recap
Meeting PCs
Meeting NPCs
Talking to PCs
Talking to NPCs
Negotiation (trade, blackmail, etc)
Romance
Combat
Facing obstacles
Research
Planning
Resource acquisition
Resource management
"Leveling up"
Picking out dice
Picking out minis
Painting minis
Character art
Naming things
Learning the system
Learning the setting
Learning the particulars of the campaign
Learning the GM
Learning the players
Problem resolution
Improving yourself
Improving the system
Improving the setting
Improving the campaign
Improving the GM
Improving the players
Building the group

I wrote those two lists pretty "stream of consciousness", except for a few entries that I felt were related to existing entries - those I added in where I felt that they fit. This hints that there are categories of things, and so I should probably try to group them by category, and come up with category labels. Broken down into categories, it might look something like this:


What do we Want?

To win
To struggle
To lose
To roflstomp
To have a good setup
To make do with what you have

To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later

To interact with rules
To play by the rules

To interact with other people

To lead
To follow
To boss other people around
To bully people
To act
To roleplay
To one-up other people
To be better than other people
To feel better about yourself
To see/evaluate the world
To cheat

Visceral pleasure

To feel that things are fair
To feel that things are unfair
To live out a power fantasy / to feel powerful
To feel weak
To feel / for the feels
To be lied to
To have things that the character cares about come into conflict
Tension

To create
To destroy
To change things
To do things you can't / won't / wouldn't do IRL
To experiment

To learn about yourself
To learn about others

To innovate
To copy
To be derivative

To show off
To hide

Mindless "Beer & pretzels" fun
5D Wizard's Chess
To dig into details
To gloss over minutia

As an excuse to build real-world skills

Exploraton?

To work together
To accomplish something on your own

Knowns
Unknowns
To know going in that…
To not know going in if/whether…
Safety
Conflict
To have a space that is safe for something
To have a space that is safe from something

To be invested in something (or not)

Immersion
Metagaming

A lot of these feel cumulative rather than in opposition; ie, chess is normally a solo cerebral activity, whereas playing group chess could have group cerebral, group social, or even solo cerebral game play elements. When you play blind, and notice that, while you get to go every 6th move on your team, the other team alternates between 7 play styles, you can add a layer of solo cerebral metagaming to the list of potential gameplay element styles.

I also had a few ideas that didn't seem to fit neatly into my "motivations/minigames" categories, but still feel important to discuss.

Misc - (I'm not sure yet where these go just yet…)

Tactics vs strategy (vs win button?)
Button pushing vs creativity
Getting buy-in
Scheming
Seeing things evolve / come to fruition
Nostalgia (within the game)
Nostalgia (outside the game)
"Void Rangering / Easter Eggs



Where are we going with this?

Now, if I were to do this right, I think that I would make a huge grid of motivations x minigames, and discuss how each does (and does not) logically interact with each other / how to feed that motivation in each minigame / what each fail state of wanting but not getting what you want out of each minigame each looks like. But that sounds like quite the Endeavor, I fear I might Burn out in a FlashFire of activity attempting it. And I certainly hope that the forums are back up before I could finish something so "plus ultra" as all that.

So, instead, I'll tackle a much smaller project, and discuss how these relate to my own gaming style, as a way to help explain what I mean by each of these phrases.

… and that, plus a few aborted attempts to explain my gaming style, is as far as I got.

Clear as mud? Suggestions how I can make this idea easier to understand? Or just questions about just what I'm trying to get across?

Alright, finally a new take on gaming theory :smallcool: :smallsmile:

First of all, I think your take on minigame is both to narrow and to broad. It would benefit from a short definition of what exactly a minigame is, but I also think that minigame is a little to specific to be helpful. Let me explain: Many RPGs have special mechanics dedicated to combat situations, and these could be (and I think this fits your definition) considered a minigame. Some RPGs just use the default mechanics fors combat. But there are those which just change a few details - basically the in-betweens which emphasize certain aspects without warranting the term minigame.

Second, I think your detailed account of possible motivations is a little too detailed. Let's imagine you finished this and somebody else would read it... they might be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text/details. In my opinion, your approach would benefit from clustering some of these items, thereby sacrificing details in favour of overview.
For example
To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later
--> could be summarized as "experiencing a story" / "story focus"
This might also allow you to tackle the project as it becomes more manageable. (And nothing is stop you to add more details later on if you feel that this is necessary)

[Kol Korran]

This line of thinking has been addressed before. I suggest reading upon "The 8 Aestheics of gaming". While they may not fully cover everything, they cover A LOT, and help thinking of gaming differently.

I went over most of the lists, and most can fit in the categories of the 8 aesthetics.

The angry GM has a good article explainig it. I'm posting from my cellphone, so it's hard to use the forum's code. Just copy the following:

https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

(Also read thw second part. If you don't like his style, just look for it elsewhere. It is fairly well known).

[jayem]

[ETA, this point was in fact half noticed and corrected by your third spoiler, which I guess shows how much it was needed, as without it I didn't get that far]

Something needs to happen to that motivation list.
Either by some sort of categorisation
Winning, at one extreme this includes winning massively at the other some players (may hypothetically) actively get a masochistic kick out of losing.
Challenge, at one extreme this includes facing insurmoutable odds, at the other extreme players may actively be aiming to relax.
Player growth, the player wants to feel better at something than when they started
...
From the big long detailed follow up, vol IV_ii_c we note:
A challenge that faces insurmountable odds, must by necessity include the possibility of not winning.

Or by cutting down the list, the number of players who have a 'ambition to lose', I'd imagine is very small. Losing might confirm that they really were facing insurmoutable odds (and hence put their earlier successes into future, and make that elusive ultimate win sweeter), losing may get this stupid game over and done with so I can show them how to really GM.
If you cut it down to the top 15 you'd probably still have a few directly contradictory ones (and if you don't, why force it), and quite a lot that are implicitly indirectly contradictory and clearly simultaneously held.
If you've actually got a straight up "I want to play this game because I want to lose" example mention that as proof the list isn't exhaustive (if 10% of the players you know are like that then obviously put it in the list. But at that point I think something isn't right somewhere)

[ETA, I'd still get rid of to lose, it doesn't seem right.]

[Quertus]

So, as expected, "shorten the list(s)" is a popular response. As much as I expected it, I'll just have to repeat my "every attempt has felt incomplete" and "I want to make it as short as possible - but no shorter".

It's intended to be far more… comprehensive… than other attempts. So, while I may create categories (if it ultimately makes sense to do so), the existence of those categories will in no way result in the removal of the subcategories.

Anything that feels like it should be consolidated, I'll happily discuss, and explain what differences I see between the individual elements. Doubtless, it would be clearer with even more words, explaining what everything actually means, but… that's even more words for people to read. :smalleek:


This line of thinking has been addressed before. I suggest reading upon "The 8 Aestheics of gaming". While they may not fully cover everything, they cover A LOT, and help thinking of gaming differently.

I went over most of the lists, and most can fit in the categories of the 8 aesthetics.

The angry GM has a good article explainig it. I'm posting from my cellphone, so it's hard to use the forum's code. Just copy the following:

https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

(Also read thw second part. If you don't like his style, just look for it elsewhere. It is fairly well known).

I, um, yeah… kinda said that that was my favorite. So… strongly agree?

(Although "8 kinds of fun" sounds better than his original "8 aesthetics")

Thanks for the link, btw - senility willing, I'll add it back in to the original post. :smallwink:


Alright, finally a new take on gaming theory :smallcool: :smallsmile:

First of all, I think your take on minigame is both to narrow and to broad.

Interesting.


It would benefit from a short definition of what exactly a minigame is,

Huh. Maybe. I am bad about using words loosely, and/or without defining them. … and see below.


but I also think that minigame is a little to specific to be helpful.

?


Let me explain: Many RPGs have special mechanics dedicated to combat situations, and these could be (and I think this fits your definition) considered a minigame.

Sounds right.


Some RPGs just use the default mechanics fors combat. But there are those which just change a few details - basically the in-betweens which emphasize certain aspects without warranting the term minigame.

Interesting. So, I'm not sure I have the experience with… hmmm… distinguishing the role of "mechanics" vs… "content"? And this circles back to the definition of a minigame, yes, and the need for one.

… trying to run back through decades of gaming with my senile brain, I suspect it's largely mechanics, but it's also player-dependent. It's like AI mapping software, where most AI will draw the same map / the maps will mostly be the same, but some will have a free differences. Some players engage more when the stakes are higher (or just "different"), some players engage more for combat or intrigue or investigation (even if the stakes and mechanics are the same).

So, if I had to define a minigame, I would consider it a part of the game that engages a different part of the players' brains, usually due to utilizing a different format / different mechanics, but also potentially simply due to different framing / context.


Second, I think your detailed account of possible motivations is a little too detailed. Let's imagine you finished this and somebody else would read it... they might be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text/details. In my opinion, your approach would benefit from clustering some of these items, thereby sacrificing details in favour of overview.
For example
To be told a story
To tell a story
To tell stories later
--> could be summarized as "experiencing a story" / "story focus"
This might also allow you to tackle the project as it becomes more manageable. (And nothing is stop you to add more details later on if you feel that this is necessary)

You've given a perfect example of why i *absolutely* believe that the individual details must remain separate, and not be subsumed entirely into larger categories: those are not only completely distinct elements, but some consider them almost opposites.

"Being told a story" is much more passive abnegation Participationism. "Telling a story" is much more active, player-driven. "To tell stories later" is entirely metagame.

Of course, that's from the player side. If the GM wants to be told a story, that's… player-created content / narration. If the GM wants to tell a story, that's more Railroading. Telling stories later, however, is still an entirely metagame construct.


[ETA, this point was in fact half noticed and corrected by your third spoiler, which I guess shows how much it was needed, as without it I didn't get that far]

Something needs to happen to that motivation list.
Either by some sort of categorisation
Winning, at one extreme this includes winning massively at the other some players (may hypothetically) actively get a masochistic kick out of losing.
Challenge, at one extreme this includes facing insurmoutable odds, at the other extreme players may actively be aiming to relax.
Player growth, the player wants to feel better at something than when they started
...
From the big long detailed follow up, vol IV_ii_c we note:
A challenge that faces insurmountable odds, must by necessity include the possibility of not winning.

Or by cutting down the list, the number of players who have a 'ambition to lose', I'd imagine is very small. Losing might confirm that they really were facing insurmoutable odds (and hence put their earlier successes into future, and make that elusive ultimate win sweeter), losing may get this stupid game over and done with so I can show them how to really GM.
If you cut it down to the top 15 you'd probably still have a few directly contradictory ones (and if you don't, why force it), and quite a lot that are implicitly indirectly contradictory and clearly simultaneously held.
If you've actually got a straight up "I want to play this game because I want to lose" example mention that as proof the list isn't exhaustive (if 10% of the players you know are like that then obviously put it in the list. But at that point I think something isn't right somewhere)

[ETA, I'd still get rid of to lose, it doesn't seem right.]

I'm probably missing either the forest or the trees here, but I cannot get away from this whole "losing" thing. So let's talk about that for a bit, and then we can talk about something else. Or talk about it some more, if you'd like - I'll happily keep taking about losing, if you feel they're more to discuss.

Look at OOtS. The party has failed to stop the BBEG, failed to protect their objectives, failed to stop a certain vampire, and, at times, quite literally failed at life, and had to be resurrected. Plus numerous other tactical, social, and moral failures.

Imagine if, in OOtS, instead, the party never lost. Would it be as compelling of a story? Would it be as fun of a game?

Or… Avengers (the whole 20+ movie franchise). Lots of losing going on there, from body parts to whole people to reasons for living to McGuffins.

I was actually struck (figuratively, not literally) reading through a module recently where a hero was ready to give up because he lost a single fight to a random guy he's never met before. The module expected you to convince him that the other guy cheated - he could never actually lose a fair fight. Clearly, that module writer would *never* accept "losing" as something that anyone would want a character in a game to experience; I think most of us are sufficiently accustomed to the "lose, character growth, training montage, win" sequence to not just give up on life at a single setback.

Losing definitely has its place in stories and games - and many players want that. Give them nothing but flawless victories, and they will grow bored, feel that the game is lacking. Some players actually understand that "losing" is something that they actively want, and can communicate that fact; others struggle to put it to words as effectively.

The purpose of this gaming theory - and, thereby, the purpose of this thread - is to provide the necessary vocabulary for people to be able to discuss games and gaming theory, with emphasis on communicating what things particular games either have, or are lacking. "Losing" is definitely an important element in both stories and games.

(EDIT: actually, I have something else to add: losing has a place, yes, but it doesn't go equally well in every place. For example, look at how irate some people get about the notion of "losing at character creation". That's another reason why I feel "losing" very much has a place in a comprehensive list of gaming desires - particularly one that ultimately attempts to map them to minigames (such as character creation).)

[jayem]

I'm probably missing either the forest or the trees here, but I cannot get away from this whole "losing" thing. So let's talk about that for a bit, and then we can talk about something else. Or talk about it some more, if you'd like - I'll happily keep taking about losing, if you feel they're more to discuss.


Yes, losing is an important component of a game. But you aren't wanting to lose, you are wanting to struggle, wanting to have a fair fight...
Say you'd rather lose than have an unfair fight. But (I'd contend, in the vast majority of cases) it's not that they want to lose, it's that they want the things that require them to 'not win'.
How can they fight against unsumuntable odds if they surmount them. In this case losing is a must,but I don't think they go "I want to be a loser who loses, therefore I'll achieve this"

So I'd lose the 'lose' from the list of wants. But when you talk about the the contradictions between winning and everything else. Then talk about the value of losing.

This then ties back to the character creation minigame, which of the wants of that minigame are helped by losing it and not getting the character that was in your head.
(There are potential a few, system mastery, the challenge of attempting the game with a 'failed' character)

For the few who want to lose for it's own sake (I don't know, maybe their natural talent at everything else in life is losing them friends), I think that can come under Other motivations.

[Quertus]

Yes, losing is an important component of a game. But you aren't wanting to lose, you are wanting to struggle, wanting to have a fair fight...
Say you'd rather lose than have an unfair fight. But (I'd contend, in the vast majority of cases) it's not that they want to lose, it's that they want the things that require them to 'not win'.
How can they fight against unsumuntable odds if they surmount them. In this case losing is a must,but I don't think they go "I want to be a loser who loses, therefore I'll achieve this"

So I'd lose the 'lose' from the list of wants. But when you talk about the the contradictions between winning and everything else. Then talk about the value of losing.

This then ties back to the character creation minigame, which of the wants of that minigame are helped by losing it and not getting the character that was in your head.
(There are potential a few, system mastery, the challenge of attempting the game with a 'failed' character)

For the few who want to lose for it's own sake (I don't know, maybe their natural talent at everything else in life is losing them friends), I think that can come under Other motivations.

I'm not sure that I understand all of what you said. So, let me tell you what I heard, and you tell me if that's what you meant.

1) people don't want to lose
1a) wanting a fair fight, which results in a loss, over an unfair victory, can be mistaken for "wanting to lose"
1b) wanting both a fair fight, and the deck stacked insurmountably against you, naturally results in a loss… but wanting both does not count as wanting to lose.
2) "losing" only has value in the context of contradictory desires.
3) lots of more insightful stuff than I had considered, about the value of losing at character creation - kudos!
4) really meta "didn't I say to make my stats average in the next life"-level desire for losing for its own sake.

So, how'd I do? Reading comprehension is not one of my strengths - is that close to what you wanted me to hear?

[KineticDiplomat]

I think there is also a certain meta to what people want in an RPG. If we're up front about it, it's an activity that is far more socially defining than, say, first person shooters. Fair or not, it is. And that reflects.

When we play an RPG, to some extent that informs how we play and what we want to play. Who we want to be - both in the real world and in whatever fictional setting we're in - and just as importantly who we don't want to be.

Take the classic extreme stereotype: the severely overweight, greasy, man-child with little in the way of maturity or social skills and a penchant for believing that his character is a near-real extension of himself. How does that guy want to play? And what does it say about you if you find yourself playing in the manner he plays? Are you happy with that?

I'm sure most readers can imagine this guy's behavior in their minds eye, perhaps thinking back to their own teenage years. What systems he plays, how much he powergames, if he's obsessed with how cool his character is because its a <RACE> <CLASS> <TRINKET-HOOK> combination, his reaction to things going poorly, the degree to which he wants the game to offer him easy wins of validation, how deeply he wants - perhaps even believes - mastery of rules knowledge and manipulation that makes him a game ubermensch is in a way compensation for real life. How much fun he has being Wacky-Go-Nutz-Look-How-I-Broke-The-GM, how heavily invested he gets in purely fictitious ideologies and philosophies.

I suspect most of us knew this guy at 15, maybe we were him.

And much of how you approach topics like winning and losing is a reaction to not being him while still enjoying the hobby.

[kyoryu]

This is pretty much how I've thought about games for years.

I usually use words like "techniques" or "procedures" rather than minigames, but that's still pretty damn close.

The thing is you realize that certain techniques/minigames/etc. support certain needs, while others oppose certain needs. And that certain needs oppose each other. And since the core of it is recognizing that different people are looking for different things from games, it really helps understand where people are coming from.

I think it's a very useful way of framing thinking about RPGs. I also think it's the kind of thing that will be hard to catch on, because at the end of the day it doesn't give you the "grand unified theory" feel of organizing the gaming world - instead, it shows it as the messy, cluttered space that it is.

But, like I said, it also gives you reallllly good tools for understanding games and how people react to them. That's why I now say things like "D&D 3.x is very good at doing a bunch of things I don't care about". In essence, I'm recognizing that it's a very good game for satisfying a number of needs that I simply don't have.

[kyoryu]

BTW, I disagree with "shorten the list".

The list is long. The list will be long because it's not universal, and everyone will have different needs they're looking at satisfying. Some of those will be incredibly personal.

It's probably useful to pick out some of the most common needs as a high level way of thinking about organizing thoughts, but I think that turning it into an "eight types of..." thing would be counterproductive.

[jayem]

I'm not sure that I understand all of what you said. So, let me tell you what I heard, and you tell me if that's what you meant.

1) people don't want to lose
1a) wanting a fair fight, which results in a loss, over an unfair victory, can be mistaken for "wanting to lose"
1b) wanting both a fair fight, and the deck stacked insurmountably against you, naturally results in a lossÂ… but wanting both does not count as wanting to lose.
2) "losing" only has value in the context of contradictory desires.
3) lots of more insightful stuff than I had considered, about the value of losing at character creation - kudos!
4) really meta "didn't I say to make my stats average in the next life"-level desire for losing for its own sake.

So, how'd I do? Reading comprehension is not one of my strengths - is that close to what you wanted me to hear?
Speaking/Writing clearly isn't one of mine. But basically I think we more or less got it.

1b) I wasn't necessarily thinking even as a fair fight.
2) Is a bit of an overstatement. At the least I'd want to state that it has a LOT of value in that context.
4) I half expected some stories of "players wanting to lose" as a goal (some of which I'd disbelieve I was getting the real story), I'm sure there are occasions, but rare enough that they can be dealt with bespokely.

It's definitely the one that made me think. "Oh you've thought of something and then just put it's opposite, so you get a contradiction". Which is obviously unfair.

[Quertus]

I think there is also a certain meta to what people want in an RPG. If we're up front about it, it's an activity that is far more socially defining than, say, first person shooters. Fair or not, it is. And that reflects.

Now, this is getting super meta here, but this sounds exactly like what "using my theory in practice" would sound like. :smallwink: We've got "socially defining", which at least more easily exists in RPGs than in FPSs.


When we play an RPG, to some extent that informs how we play and what we want to play. Who we want to be - both in the real world and in whatever fictional setting we're in - and just as importantly who we don't want to be.

Take the classic extreme stereotype: the severely overweight, greasy, man-child with little in the way of maturity or social skills and a penchant for believing that his character is a near-real extension of himself.

how heavily invested he gets in purely fictitious ideologies and philosophies.

I suspect most of us knew this guy at 15, maybe we were him.

And much of how you approach topics like winning and losing is a reaction to not being him while still enjoying the hobby.

While I certainly think that that's one reason to have different reactions to "losing", I don't believe that it is the only causal element for differences in that particular factor / scale. Just as I don't think which difficulty setting I select on a FPS today means that I've changed my stance on that example. In point of fact, just this past week, I replayed an old game that I've had for decades at a higher difficulty than I'd ever managed before. This change reflected personal growth in my strategies and understanding of that game, not a change in how I feel about using cheat codes or how I feel about videogame nerd stereotypes.)


This is pretty much how I've thought about games for years.

Say what?! Time and senility willing, I may need to reread some of your old posts in that light.


I usually use words like "techniques" or "procedures" rather than minigames, but that's still pretty damn close.

Do you feel that the particular nomenclature will have advantages or disadvantages?


The thing is you realize that certain techniques/minigames/etc. support certain needs, while others oppose certain needs.

… kinda. Rather, my experience is that certain approaches to certain minigames support or oppose certain needs. To use the "telling a story vs being told a story" example, a classic railroad GM approaches certain minigames very differently than one who expects the players to create the content and narrate the results of their actions. Same minigame, different approach, feeding different desires. Players who want different desires fed than are being fed be all like, "we had X, but it wasn't as satisfying as when <other GM> did X" or some such.


And that certain needs oppose each other.

Yup.


And since the core of it is recognizing that different people are looking for different things from games, it really helps understand where people are coming from.

Got it in one.


I think it's a very useful way of framing thinking about RPGs.

Awesome :smallcool:


I also think it's the kind of thing that will be hard to catch on, because at the end of the day it doesn't give you the "grand unified theory" feel of organizing the gaming world - instead, it shows it as the messy, cluttered space that it is.

Humans do like their oversimplifications. :smallannoyed:


But, like I said, it also gives you reallllly good tools for understanding games and how people react to them.

Awesome. So, since you are accustomed to thinking this way (and I really should add a call to action like this in the original post), are there any elements that you don't understand, that you think I'm missing and should add, or even that you think are wrong? Do you have any insight on my "miscellaneous" items that I had difficulty classifying?


That's why I now say things like "D&D 3.x is very good at doing a bunch of things I don't care about". In essence, I'm recognizing that it's a very good game for satisfying a number of needs that I simply don't have.

I'm too senile to remember, so… what needs do you have, that D&D doesn't fulfill? Seems like this conversation would be a good way to, uh, gently stress test the theory.


BTW, I disagree with "shorten the list".

The list is long. The list will be long because it's not universal, and everyone will have different needs they're looking at satisfying.

Got it in one. Glad you agree.


Some of those will be incredibly personal.

Now I'm curious if this is related to my "fuzzy AI boundaries" for defining minigames.


It's probably useful to pick out some of the most common needs as a high level way of thinking about organizing thoughts, but I think that turning it into an "eight types of..." thing would be counterproductive.

Maybe. Personally, I think in terms of "solving problems" (it's (nearly) my core, alla "Rise of the Guardians"), so I think of it useful for individual players to use in order to communicate the ways in which games are particularly "good" or "bad" (for them) - either when trying to fix a problem, or when trying to create a good game in the first place.


Speaking/Writing clearly isn't one of mine. But basically I think we more or less got it.

1b) I wasn't necessarily thinking even as a fair fight.
2) Is a bit of an overstatement. At the least I'd want to state that it has a LOT of value in that context.
4) I half expected some stories of "players wanting to lose" as a goal (some of which I'd disbelieve I was getting the real story), I'm sure there are occasions, but rare enough that they can be dealt with bespokely.

It's definitely the one that made me think. "Oh you've thought of something and then just put it's opposite, so you get a contradiction". Which is obviously unfair.

Ah. So that's the core of your emotional response. That's… maybe half fair? That is, when I say, "grapes are purple", my mind immediately flags grapes I've seen that aren't purple, forcing me to amend that to, "grapes are purple, unless they're green or red(ish)". So it's not that I intentionally tried to create a contradiction, so much as that, writing it "stream of consciousness", when I listed one example, all the "but that's not universal - they could want this instead" flooded in.

In this particular case, "people wanting to lose", I think that it's easier to see in certain edge cases. For example, suppose Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) attempted something physical, like picking a lock. I would want him to (usually) fail, to demonstrate why he keeps a Rogue around, or why he studied magic. If every technique by every actor was (roughly) equally successful, it removes the differentiation, the characterization of characters.

So, to address your(my?) #4, I would hope that it's actually terribly common to want to fail - more common than character classes, in fact. Anything that has "strengths" and "weaknesses" should involve failure. Or, at the very least, "lesser success", "yes, however", "no, but", etc. I'm simultaneously not so failure-adverse as to need to couch failure in non-failure terms, and… uncertain how to add such ambiguous states to my list. Despite, mind you, house-ruling in "degrees of success" to many systems.

2) fair.

1b) how about "by the rules, a fair game"?

Senility willing, at some point I'll look back, and respond more globally based on this improved understanding of your position.

[jayem]

Ah. So that's the core of your emotional response. That'sÂ… maybe half fair? That is, when I say, "grapes are purple", my mind immediately flags grapes I've seen that aren't purple, forcing me to amend that to, "grapes are purple, unless they're green or red(ish)". So it's not that I intentionally tried to create a contradiction, so much as that, writing it "stream of consciousness", when I listed one example, all the "but that's not universal - they could want this instead" flooded in.

In this particular case, "people wanting to lose", I think that it's easier to see in certain edge cases. For example, suppose Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) attempted something physical, like picking a lock. I would want him to (usually) fail, to demonstrate why he keeps a Rogue around, or why he studied magic. If every technique by every actor was (roughly) equally successful, it removes the differentiation, the characterization of characters.

Yes, I want to emphasise I've nothing against characters 'losing' as a mechanic (or possibly something else).
But if I said "I've got a great way to help Quetus lose at picking a lock while getting rid of that pesky differentiation of characters. The rogue and magic fail too", I suspect you'd be unimpressed.
---
If you show how differentiation of characters is a good goal and that it means not winning (all the time), or even just debate the difference between 'succeeding-winning' and 'power fantasy-winning'. Then I think you've got a much stronger and more interesting contradiction.

[Quertus]

Yes, I want to emphasise I've nothing against characters 'losing' as a mechanic (or possibly something else).
But if I said "I've got a great way to help Quetus lose at picking a lock while getting rid of that pesky differentiation of characters. The rogue and magic fail too", I suspect you'd be unimpressed.
---
If you show how differentiation of characters is a good goal and that it means not winning (all the time), or even just debate the difference between 'succeeding-winning' and 'power fantasy-winning'. Then I think you've got a much stronger and more interesting contradiction.

One of the things that I feared while making this list is that I might be including things at different levels - trucks, jeeps, 1964½ Mustang convertible, jets, stealth bombers, tie bombers, that tricycle I had as a kid, etc. That's why, although it's the end nodes that are actually important, I started grouping things for my own sanity, even before looking at how to make it easier for others to read. So maybe "wanting to lose" is this whole big category of things. Or maybe it's actually several identical-looking (to me) endpoints of several ideas / desires.

Now, maybe "to lose" isn't actually it's own goal, maybe it's not one of Cluedrew's "first principles". But I don't think that that necessarily matters here, unless we make it matter. Or, rather, perhaps it is important to understand the entire *chain* of reasoning: I want my Wizard to fail at "rogue skills" to differentiate him from other characters, like the Rogue. So… maybe, as complex as it is, it's still an oversimplification.

[kyoryu]

I'm too senile to remember, so… what needs do you have, that D&D doesn't fulfill? Seems like this conversation would be a good way to, uh, gently stress test the theory.

I want to have a game where "what happens" is very dependent on what the characters do. 3.x is weakly against this, because of the prep required. It's muuuch easier to do the prep in advance than pull it off on the fly.

I want scenes to flow fairly fluidly, without over-focus on hyper-optimization of moves.

I want to make a character that's in my head, without having to spend an inordinate amount of time in the optimization game.

I want a system that does not presume combat has a "special" status above non-combat situations.

I want a game where the decisions made at the table are far more important than the ones made in the character build minigame.

I explicitly want the "heroic warrior" to be, mechanically, a reasonably effective archetype.

Note that many of my desires are exactly why a lot of people do like D&D3.

Also edit: Here's a few of the things D&D3 does really well that I don't care about. This is in a way, praising D&D3, to be clear. It's just that they're things that aren't selling points to me.

Ability to act almost as a generic infrastructure within a D&D-like chassis. (While I like systems that can do everything, being in a D&D chassis has no particular value to me)

Zero-to-superhero advancement curve

"Fantasy superheroes"

Deep build systems that will reward deep and comprehensive analysis of multiple/many sources, and can reward taking "illogical' choices.

Success focusing more on build-time decisions than in-game decisions

Build systems focused on choosing from a menu of options.

Having a wide variety of mechanics depending on the character chosen.

Having a wide variety of pre-created "classes" and "races".

[KineticDiplomat]

Not to derail, but Kyoru's list is a pretty good summary of the reasons I really, truly, don't like D&D. And to tie it back to my earlier point, I find that when systems tend towards hyper-optimization of character builds with so much explicit focus on a set-piece list of spells being the key to min-maxed combat, in a system where combat is all that matters...

Well, I find those systems tend to draw people into the type of playstyle that not only don't I like as a game, but often makes me less thrilled about who I am as a person by dint of the typical behaviors at those tables.

Now, the great caveat is that a great group and a great GM can make virtually any system run amazingly and dance to whatever tune you want. But for those of use who are merely average-good, the system has an extraordinary impact on not only the game, but the social dynamic around it.

[kyoryu]

Now, the great caveat is that a great group and a great GM can make virtually any system run amazingly and dance to whatever tune you want. But for those of use who are merely average-good, the system has an extraordinary impact on not only the game, but the social dynamic around it.

Of course system matters and has an impact. And of course the table has an impact.

But why not be in a situation where the system and the table and synergistically going towards to the same outcome?

[kyoryu]

BTW, this general thought process impacts my view of what is a "good game".

A good game is one whose mechanics/techniques/etc. support a set of needs that is reasonably clear, and do not have mechanics/etc. that counter those needs.

Like, in general, a game that is designed with more or less disposable characters is well-served by having quick character creation. That kind of "high lethality, expect to create multiple characters, X-COM" kind of feel is well served with quick character creation. That make sense, right? Like, investing heavily in characters in terms of multi-hour character creation processes is kind of opposed by high character lethality, because now you've spent a loooot of time making a character just to have them die immediately, and creating a character in the middle of a session is not feasible.

So we can say that high lethality supports one set of needs, and detailed, time-consuming character creation supports a different set of needs. A game that features both of these is to a certain extent opposing itself. Some people may like this combo - people that like deadly games, but also have laaaarge amounts of time to kill between sessions - but in general these techniques/mechanics oppose each other in that they, for the most part, enable different core needs.

So a "good game" is one that is internally consistent, but if those needs aren't what I particularly care about, and it doesn't support the things I do care about, then it's just not a game I will personally enjoy.

(Note that sometimes games are designed to serve one set of needs, and fail to do so, but end up serving a totally different set of needs really well whether or not this is a well-designed game is an interesting question)

[KineticDiplomat]

@Ky

Yes. I agree. The caveat was put in because I find in any systemic discussion someone chimes in with “well, once I had a really great Group/GM who ran X and it totally worked at <Thing system is not traditionally good at> , so therefore the argument is invalidated by my outlying anecdote”

[kyoryu]

I believe that's literally a named fallacy here, or at least closely related to one.

Also a lot of times with those situations there's a strong unstated need of "I want to play D&D 3.x". Like, literally, anything other than D&D 3.x (or whatever system) is unacceptable regardless of other factors.

[Quertus]

Well, so much for *gently* stress-testing my system. :smallwink:


BTW, this general thought process impacts my view of what is a "good game".

A good game is one whose mechanics/techniques/etc. support a set of needs that is reasonably clear, and do not have mechanics/etc. that counter those needs.

Like, in general, a game that is designed with more or less disposable characters is well-served by having quick character creation. That kind of "high lethality, expect to create multiple characters, X-COM" kind of feel is well served with quick character creation. That make sense, right? Like, investing heavily in characters in terms of multi-hour character creation processes is kind of opposed by high character lethality, because now you've spent a loooot of time making a character just to have them die immediately, and creating a character in the middle of a session is not feasible.

So we can say that high lethality supports one set of needs, and detailed, time-consuming character creation supports a different set of needs. A game that features both of these is to a certain extent opposing itself. Some people may like this combo - people that like deadly games, but also have laaaarge amounts of time to kill between sessions - but in general these techniques/mechanics oppose each other in that they, for the most part, enable different core needs.

So a "good game" is one that is internally consistent, but if those needs aren't what I particularly care about, and it doesn't support the things I do care about, then it's just not a game I will personally enjoy.

(Note that sometimes games are designed to serve one set of needs, and fail to do so, but end up serving a totally different set of needs really well whether or not this is a well-designed game is an interesting question)

Hmmm… I may come at this from the exact opposite perspective? So, certain… constructs (mechanics, play styles, etc) may impose… impediments… to certain types of fun. For example, yes, "High Lethality" imposes rather strong, direct impediments to character retention & extended character arcs, strong indirect impediments to story cohesion, and moderate pushback against character attachment & character depth.

A poorly designed system, then, is one which actively deincentivizes both a thing, and all the alternatives to that thing. Or, rather, how well-designed a system is in this regard is measured by determining the total difficulty of the "path of least resistance".

Note that this is completely independent of how well *communicated* that design is.

So, yes, for example, a system that is designed to have both high Lethality and arduous character creation is likely to cause some pain. But if either of those are brought about by the playstyle, rather than intrinsic to the system, it's likely to cause the same pain.

However, such a combination of high Lethality and arduous character creation is not inherently unplayable or incoherent. Suppose, for example, that only the combat minigame is highly lethal. That could encourage players to avoid combat / seek out affirmative solutions to their problems. Or it could only be highly lethal to "brave heros", encouraging "sniveling coward" archetypes. Or it could encourage redshirt Minionmancy. Or it could encourage "Bob the 43rd - same as the previous 42 Bobs". Or… etc.

So, to get around to how I look at it backwards from your PoV, as you may have guessed, I don't look at systems as good for enabling certain elements, so much as bad for disabling them. I advocate and encourage playstyles to / enshrine systems and playstyles that have as few obstacles to overcome as possible. I also advocate seeking out those paths of least resistance - and forging ones of your own, as necessary (this is likely related to my "it is the individual's responsibility to safeguard their own fun - only you know what you find fun" stance).

So, how does my system handle your individual desires?


I want to have a game where "what happens" is very dependent on what the characters do. 3.x is weakly against this, because of the prep required. It's muuuch easier to do the prep in advance than pull it off on the fly.

Hmmm… I definitely share your style preferences here. And agree that 3e makes it difficult to create… classed NPCs with "level-appropriate" gear.

The problem is, if I may say so, purely psychological: it's simply a matter of (usually the GM) not wanting to waste content.

Well, no, it's more complex than that: it's the desire to not waste content opposing the desire to let what happens depend on what the PCs do.

Well, no, it's more complex than that: it's the tendency to pre-plan, encouraged by the system, opposing… wait, it's still more complex.

Certain things being difficult to create means that these things represent more of an investment, which the GM is less willing to throw away. These things being more arduous to make… also encourages some GMs to make them more ahead of time than they would otherwise do, further feeding the cycle. This desire to see the content used creates an impetus for more linear design, to ensure that the invested content gets used.

So, at its simplest, it's the desire for pre-planned opposing the desire for extemporaneous. Or the desire for linear vs nonlinear content.

Understanding the logic chain allows us to make appropriate changes. For example, suppose I did stat out the 12 Death Knights. I don't have to railroad the party into encountering them, let alone in prescripted encounters - I can simply have them go about their business, and let what the party does both influence their actions / results (if the party steals the McGuffin, Death Knight #7 does not create Ice 9, for example), and determine when, where, how, or even *if* they encounter any given Death Knight.

… and, I think I'll call it a Knight. :smallbiggrin: Senility willing, I'll chase my system down after it runs screaming from try wrapping my head around describing these preferences and my responses through the lens of this system.

[Lorsa]

I must agree with kyoryu that with the approach you have, abstracting your list too much would be counter-productive. In fact, I feel as though you should make it longer?

As a GM, I've long been thinking in lines of emotions. What types of emotions do people want out of the game, and how do they get them (as in, what things will generate them). I guess going from emotion to desire is a small (but nevertheless existing) step.

I've always thought being able to play on, and manipulate, emotions is one of the most important skills a GM should develop. I sometimes encounter GMs that want to have a nerve-wrecking combat meant to be really intense and exhilarating. And yet the describe the scene with the same slow, dry voice they use for other scenes, making sure they describe everything in good detail. What always surprise me is how it then surprises them that their players don't show the excitement they were looking for and complain that their players think of the combat as "too tactical". Well, you kinda shot yourself in the foot, dear GM.

I guess that is one reason why thinking in terms of "mini-games" isn't as good as "techniques" or "procedures" as kyoryu suggested. I mean, if the goal is to satisfy the player desire "exhilarating combat", what differentiates the mini-game "combat with slow, dry GM descriptions" and "combat with vivid, fast-paced GM descriptions"? To me, the "mini-game" here is combat, but there is an ocean of difference between the experiences of the two combats, even if they're identical in terms of enemies/terrain etc. What sets them apart is the GMs techniques.

In the reverse, if the desire is a "tactically challenging combat focused on making the absolute best tactical decision at every move", then vivid, fast-paced descriptions, and a GM that forces the players to make decisions within seconds would be counter-productive.

What makes this en devour so difficult, is exactly what you found Quertus. There are so many different desires, and so many different types of mini.games, techniques and whatnot, that providing an extensive list is almost impossible. What's worse, one technique might run contrary to one player's desire but not another player's, even if they're the same desire.

For example, a game that features a lot of, for lack of a better word, narrative or meta-game mechanics, might influence negatively on (for example) the immersion of one player but have no effect on the immersion experienced by another player. Even if both desire immersion.

This means that, if your theory is to make predictions, the best it can do is "for some people, narrative mechanics correlate negatively with experienced immersion". Which means that if you want to actually develop this further, you need to make essays and provide statistical analysis, so you can hone in on "X type of thing correlates positively/negatively with Y desire for Z amount of people". Perhaps even with a nice distribution function.

[Quertus]

I must agree with kyoryu that with the approach you have, abstracting your list too much would be counter-productive. In fact, I feel as though you should make it longer?

As a GM, I've long been thinking in lines of emotions. What types of emotions do people want out of the game, and how do they get them (as in, what things will generate them). I guess going from emotion to desire is a small (but nevertheless existing) step.

I've always thought being able to play on, and manipulate, emotions is one of the most important skills a GM should develop. I sometimes encounter GMs that want to have a nerve-wrecking combat meant to be really intense and exhilarating. And yet the describe the scene with the same slow, dry voice they use for other scenes, making sure they describe everything in good detail. What always surprise me is how it then surprises them that their players don't show the excitement they were looking for and complain that their players think of the combat as "too tactical". Well, you kinda shot yourself in the foot, dear GM.

I guess that is one reason why thinking in terms of "mini-games" isn't as good as "techniques" or "procedures" as kyoryu suggested. I mean, if the goal is to satisfy the player desire "exhilarating combat", what differentiates the mini-game "combat with slow, dry GM descriptions" and "combat with vivid, fast-paced GM descriptions"? To me, the "mini-game" here is combat, but there is an ocean of difference between the experiences of the two combats, even if they're identical in terms of enemies/terrain etc. What sets them apart is the GMs techniques.

In the reverse, if the desire is a "tactically challenging combat focused on making the absolute best tactical decision at every move", then vivid, fast-paced descriptions, and a GM that forces the players to make decisions within seconds would be counter-productive.

What makes this en devour so difficult, is exactly what you found Quertus. There are so many different desires, and so many different types of mini.games, techniques and whatnot, that providing an extensive list is almost impossible. What's worse, one technique might run contrary to one player's desire but not another player's, even if they're the same desire.

For example, a game that features a lot of, for lack of a better word, narrative or meta-game mechanics, might influence negatively on (for example) the immersion of one player but have no effect on the immersion experienced by another player. Even if both desire immersion.

This means that, if your theory is to make predictions, the best it can do is "for some people, narrative mechanics correlate negatively with experienced immersion". Which means that if you want to actually develop this further, you need to make essays and provide statistical analysis, so you can hone in on "X type of thing correlates positively/negatively with Y desire for Z amount of people". Perhaps even with a nice distribution function.

Wow. Just so you know, my visual is that you pounced on my system, tore it to shreds, and painted its failings on the wall in its own blood. Kudos!

So, yes, thank you for explaining why "minigames" is probably the wrong focus. Sadly, much like your very appropriate "tactical combat" reference ¹, it's a side effect of my own biases.

And, yes, it would benefit from lengthy "X cross Y" write-ups - although I believe that "fluffy descriptions" would serve better than statistical analysis. This is because I do not intend the model to be predictive (although it certainly can be, to some extent) so much as… conversational. It is intended to provide people with a vocabulary with which to analyze and discuss.

Of course, as I am seeing with the help of @kyoryu, it needs some work there, too. (Or, maybe, I just need more skill / practice at using it, but I'm not hopeful that it's that simple).

¹ I only produce tactical combat, not emotional-driven combat; difference is, I (happily) only *aim* for tactical combat.


I want to have a game where "what happens" is very dependent on what the characters do. 3.x is weakly against this, because of the prep required. It's muuuch easier to do the prep in advance than pull it off on the fly.


I want scenes to flow fairly fluidly, without over-focus on hyper-optimization of moves.

Dang. I didn't really include "pacing" / "focus / level of detail" anywhere, did I?

Also… how do I distinguish this desire from, "I just want to roll Diplomacy at him to convince him to marry the duchess, and not have to care about the fact that he's into guys"? Perhaps many of my desires, like "To dig into details" vs "To gloss over minutia" should explicitly be described as a spectrum…


I want to make a character that's in my head, without having to spend an inordinate amount of time in the optimization game.

Another time-based one.

However, in this case, we can actually remove "time", and still have a valid desire: wanting to be able to make the character that's in your head.

This is actually *huge*. Even before the dice are rolled, this is a player's first introduction to a system (pregens notwithstanding).

And this gets really tricky to discuss. At least, for me it does.

So, some genres (say, Fantasy), most of us come in with concepts, like Conan and Gandalf and Rand Al'Thor and Sinbad and Robin Hood and Hercules, that we have very clear pictures of, and want to make expies of.

The first problem is that, as a rule, we're wrong - our image of that character likely does not match the image others at the table hold, in ways that are substantial, and likely integral to our desired experience. At least, that's been my experience reading "so I want to build X in Y" threads. So, even if the designers explicitly intended to give you the experience of that very character, and even if the designers tested their system and believe that they succeeded, you can (and likely will) still believe that they failed.


I want a system that does not presume combat has a "special" status above non-combat situations.

You… want combat to use the same core mechanics (roll "Combat" against them, just like you would roll "Diplomacy" against them)? You… want combat to not have a conspicuous place on the action flowchart? You… want combat to not be the optimal solution to all problems?


I want a game where the decisions made at the table are far more important than the ones made in the character build minigame.

Very strongly feel the same, kind of. I want *both* to have *huge* impact. I want it to *mean* something that Quertus is a Wizard, just like I want it to *mean* something when he chooses to protect an enemy Dark Naga from dying (which resulted in his constant serpentine companion, decades before I was introduced to Harry Potter).

So, is my model useful for discussing this? As it stands, only indirectly - you can talk about wanting challenge, or agency, or wanting decisions to matter… but you have to make the leap yourself, to track any problems back to character creation if that's where the issue lies.


I explicitly want the "heroic warrior" to be, mechanically, a reasonably effective archetype.

Nah, I don't share this one - I want the "heroic warrior" to be, mechanically, the optimal archetype. :smallwink:

So, I guess that this could be couched in terms of challenge, and how I want "warrior" to be "easy mode", whereas you want it to not be "hard mode/nightmare difficulty".

-----

So, I'm already seeing a lot that needs some work (including changing the title from "theory" to "model" :smallredface:). Talking through all this is really helping.

I agree, humanity is too into oversimplifying (and too unwilling to look at how "messy" the things that they love really are) for this to have much chance of catching on. But my quixotic quest has already begun - it's too late to stop tilting at windmills now!

[kyoryu]

So, I guess that this could be couched in terms of challenge, and how I want "warrior" to be "easy mode", whereas you want it to not be "hard mode/nightmare difficulty".

I'd think it's more that I want it to be at least reasonably effective. I'm okay with it being "easy mode".

And "easy mode" is interesting because there's "easy mode" in terms of "it's not hard" and there's "easy mode" in terms of "there's fewer things to juggle". Not sure which you're aiming for.

But I am a huge fan of the heroic warrior. I'm okay with it being easy mode by either definition. But I want it to be at least pretty effective and viable.



This means that, if your theory is to make predictions, the best it can do is "for some people, narrative mechanics correlate negatively with experienced immersion". Which means that if you want to actually develop this further, you need to make essays and provide statistical analysis, so you can hone in on "X type of thing correlates positively/negatively with Y desire for Z amount of people". Perhaps even with a nice distribution function.

Personally, I'd just rephrase that as a second need - "I don't want narrative mechanics".

[Max_Killjoy]

Terminology nitpick -- to me, "minigame" has strong videogame connotations of a side-event that the player(s) step out of the main interface and do separately, usually not in-character but just the player interacting with some different control setup.

[Quertus]

Terminology nitpick -- to me, "minigame" has strong videogame connotations of a side-event that the player(s) step out of the main interface and do separately, usually not in-character but just the player interacting with some different control setup.

Yeah, that's *probably* (darn senility) where I got the word from, and why I think of minigames *primarily* in terms of diversity of mechanics, and only secondarily in terms of diversity of engagement.


Also edit: Here's a few of the things D&D3 does really well that I don't care about. This is in a way, praising D&D3, to be clear. It's just that they're things that aren't selling points to me.

Ability to act almost as a generic infrastructure within a D&D-like chassis. (While I like systems that can do everything, being in a D&D chassis has no particular value to me)

So, just neutral on that?

I'm… not sure the value of a chassis. Familiarity vs novelty, maybe?


Zero-to-superhero advancement curve

Personally, I like “hero to 'beyond the gods'” curves. But I'm not sure how to talk about the difference in my system.

I mean, for me, the reason is one of scope + … immersion? I'm not interested in stories of clearing rats from the sewers - I want to tell epic stories of tearing down the Wall of the Faithless, and replacing it with something better. The only value "low level" has, to me, is for things like, "establishing origin", "establishing motivation", and the like - and, if you ask me, there's plenty of time in the "hero" range for that. Because, no, I am absolutely not interested in the story of how the local level 1 peasant rat-catchers *happened* to tear down the Wall of the Faithless over their lunch break while discussing how they killed that strange 5-headed lizard thing earlier that morning, or why the local clergy was in such an uproar over it.

So, I guess that my underlying motivations are "fair game" and "epic scale", but I couldn't really guess what would cause one to want "zero to hero", or much about you just from you stating that you do *not* appreciate that curve.


Deep build systems that will reward deep and comprehensive analysis of multiple/many sources, and can reward taking "illogical' choices.

Hmmm… even being able to *be* meaningfully deeply analyzed certainly enables such desires. Actually rewarding such deep analysis… I guess either "success", or I need an explicit "do X, get treat" motivation.

I'm not sure what to make the "rewarding 'illogical' choices" bit.


Success focusing more on build-time decisions than in-game decisions

I feel I've covered this.

Also, I'd have to say that I've "failed at character creation" in most systems - this is hardly unique to 3e D&D.


Build systems focused on choosing from a menu of options.

… huh. Is this "structure vs creativity"?


Having a wide variety of mechanics depending on the character chosen.

Right. If I'm a Doctor, I should just "roll medicine"; if I'm a soldier, I just "roll combat"?

I like having dozens of MtG decks built; I like playing different characters (both mechanically and personality/outlook); I like getting access to different subsystems when playing different characters. In fact, "In the Beginning was the Command Line" has something to say about this; namely, that unique interfaces can increase attachment and engagement.

So… variety vs uniformity?


Having a wide variety of pre-created "classes" and "races".

Structure vs creativity?

[Satinavian]

Personally, I like “hero to 'beyond the gods'” curves. But I'm not sure how to talk about the difference in my system.

I mean, for me, the reason is one of scope + … immersion? I'm not interested in stories of clearing rats from the sewers - I want to tell epic stories of tearing down the Wall of the Faithless, and replacing it with something better. The only value "low level" has, to me, is for things like, "establishing origin", "establishing motivation", and the like - and, if you ask me, there's plenty of time in the "hero" range for that. Because, no, I am absolutely not interested in the story of how the local level 1 peasant rat-catchers *happened* to tear down the Wall of the Faithless over their lunch break while discussing how they killed that strange 5-headed lizard thing earlier that morning, or why the local clergy was in such an uproar over it.

So, I guess that my underlying motivations are "fair game" and "epic scale", but I couldn't really guess what would cause one to want "zero to hero", or much about you just from you stating that you do *not* appreciate that curve.I think that one is more about how much of a power curve is presented within a single game. There are many games that confirm themself to a certain power level and try to make sure that the rules work well there instead of trying to cover a large range and being kind of lackluster everywhere. There is also preference about how much a single character can grow in power within a single campaign and many people would prefer if characters don't actually change that much so that their iconic powers and weaknesses from campaign begin are still the ones from when they retire.



Hmmm… even being able to *be* meaningfully deeply analyzed certainly enables such desires. Actually rewarding such deep analysis… I guess either "success", or I need an explicit "do X, get treat" motivation.

I'm not sure what to make the "rewarding 'illogical' choices" bit.Complex rule systems always lead to complex rule interactions. More than designers ever can consider.

There are combinations that are broken. Those require a fix. And there are ones which are just quite good and tolerable, ones that are mediocre and ones that are subpar.

In most of the complex systems at least a couple of the good combinations would seem utterly silly or stupid if you were going just by the description of the elements and pretended to not know the rules. And some of the iconic combinations that supposedly often are used in the world would produce subpar results.

The game still works as long as you don't use the broken stuff. But the results are kinda grating for people who like immersion and worldbuilding. But you can't have complex rules and avoid this entirely.

[Lorsa]

Wow. Just so you know, my visual is that you pounced on my system, tore it to shreds, and painted its failings on the wall in its own blood. Kudos!

I take that as a compliment. :smallredface:



So, yes, thank you for explaining why "minigames" is probably the wrong focus. Sadly, much like your very appropriate "tactical combat" reference ¹, it's a side effect of my own biases.

We all have our biases. That's why we engage in discussions, so we can use the fact that they are different to obtain something better.



And, yes, it would benefit from lengthy "X cross Y" write-ups - although I believe that "fluffy descriptions" would serve better than statistical analysis. This is because I do not intend the model to be predictive (although it certainly can be, to some extent) so much as… conversational. It is intended to provide people with a vocabulary with which to analyze and discuss.

Ah, yes. You did write that in your original post...



The purpose of this post is to begin the discussion to develop the tools to facilitate gaming discussions centered around desire-centric stylistic differences, and to explore the difference between fulfilling and unfulfilling gaming experiences.

...but I sort of missed it. So, out of curiosity, what vocabulary do you intend to add? Can you give an example of how you imagine a conversation taking place based on your ideas, as opposed to how you imagine it would be without it?

I should also add that when I hear the word theory, then my biases take hold and think in terms of predictive models. And just imagine how awesome it would be if you could link desires to gaming procedures, with a statistical function as to how many it correlates positively or negatively for? That way, when a GM hears someone say "I like X", they know that "with Y& certainty, this will make the player happy". What's more, once we start mapping desires to procedures, we can look for overlaps. So that, if X desire is satisfied by Y procedure for player A, then desire S is satisfied by procedure P with 95% certainty. But for player B, for whom X desire is satisfied by Z procedure, then desire S is satisfied by procedure Q with 90% certainty. Or that if player C have desires X and Y, then they're 87% likely to also have desire Z.

Knowing stuff like that would be awesome, don't you think? Both as a GM, and as a game designer.

*coughs* Maybe I should let you develop your own ideas the way you see fit and not hi-jack it too much.



Dang. I didn't really include "pacing" / "focus / level of detail" anywhere, did I?

Also… how do I distinguish this desire from, "I just want to roll Diplomacy at him to convince him to marry the duchess, and not have to care about the fact that he's into guys"? Perhaps many of my desires, like "To dig into details" vs "To gloss over minutia" should explicitly be described as a spectrum…

Well, the tricky thing with desires, and stuff like pacing / level of detail is that it can depend a lot on what scenes or details we are talking about. "To dig into details" might be too broad a desire, as it might mean "to dig into game-mechanical details" and not "to dig into story / in-game world details". What I mean is that the details of how you convince someone (as opposed to abstracting it completely with a roll) is one thing whereas the details of how to build a character with efficient mechanics for diplomacy is another.

These sort of desires also change during a gaming session. For example, someone who says "I desire awesome combat", might not desire awesome combat anymore after 3 hours of only combat, and then change their mind to "I desire some tavern-slacking RP". Pacing, quite obviously, is a lot dependent on the scenes that came before and your current state of mind. Not sure how that affects your model though...

[Pelle]

Personally, I like “hero to 'beyond the gods'” curves. But I'm not sure how to talk about the difference in my system.

I mean, for me, the reason is one of scope + … immersion? I'm not interested in stories of clearing rats from the sewers - I want to tell epic stories of tearing down the Wall of the Faithless, and replacing it with something better. The only value "low level" has, to me, is for things like, "establishing origin", "establishing motivation", and the like - and, if you ask me, there's plenty of time in the "hero" range for that. Because, no, I am absolutely not interested in the story of how the local level 1 peasant rat-catchers *happened* to tear down the Wall of the Faithless over their lunch break while discussing how they killed that strange 5-headed lizard thing earlier that morning, or why the local clergy was in such an uproar over it.

So, I guess that my underlying motivations are "fair game" and "epic scale", but I couldn't really guess what would cause one to want "zero to hero", or much about you just from you stating that you do *not* appreciate that curve.


I think relatively few people explicitly want zero-to-hero (compared to the amount of people playing D&D). It's just that a lot of people love the experience of level advancement, where the incremental gains are significant and noticable. That just necessitates zero-to-hero, even though most people seems to agree on a sweet spot around mid-level power.

Not sure if you do it on purpose or not, but that rat-catching example is a poor example of what people want out of low power games. Rats are low impact in the scope of the world, so sure that's boring. Low power games are more about what has high impact in the scope of the character, though.




I'm not sure what to make the "rewarding 'illogical' choices" bit.


Perhaps, in order to build the most powerful warrior you have to pick the Mage class? I.e. unintuitive naming of abilities and mechanics wrt their concept and power.

[Lorsa]

Personally, I'd just rephrase that as a second need - "I don't want narrative mechanics".

Perhaps. However, that does not explain why they don't want them. I guess I am thinking in terms of cause and effect. Not wanting the narrative mechanics is the effect, whereas the desire for immersion (which is broken) is the cause.

This means that if it's possible to change the narrative mechanics in such a way that they still count as "narrative mechanics", but don't interfere with the player's perceived immersion, then they wouldn't have a problem with them anymore. If someone says "I don't want narrative mechanics", the obvious follow-up question is "why". This why is, in my opinion, the root desire which is important for the game.

Once the answer to "why" simply becomes "because it feels good / gives me satisfaction" or something like, then you've identified the need.

I'm not sure if I wrote this in an understandable why. Should I clarify some more? Of course, you can still disagree, and then we can discuss the benefits / drawbacks of defining the needs or desires at certain levels (on a scale from root desire to "effect" desire?).

[Max_Killjoy]

General thread comments.

I specifically don't want zero-to-godling progression, or the "hero's journey". I much prefer to know what the general "power" suits the campaign and setting, what sorts of things we'll be doing, and what sort of character I can come up with and then implement into the mechanics.

Level-based progression feels like artifice to me. But, if you're going to have levels, they have to mean something beyond "some progression happened", two characters of the same level need to be of the same general efficacy -- the two players "earned" that much XP and that level just the same, short-changing one because it's "easy mode" or "hard mode" is patently unfair to both players.

IME, just talking to some posters here and elsewhere, "narrative" means very different things to different players, so it's a hard term to use... I can refer to "narrative mechanics" in the sense that The Forge tried to push, and be inadvertently saying "mean" things about mechanics that others consider narrative but that don't fall into that Forge rubric. So instead I tend to use "story level mechanics" and "character level mechanics". And story level mechanics... I kinda hate. Perfect example is the system that has a class ability that allows the player, without any character interaction with the setting at all, to declare that some mechanical or electrical system failed or malfunctioned, because that's what the player wants to happen in the story, not because that was the result of the character's actions. Ugh. As long as the mechanic can be constructed as working through the character and their actions within the setting, I'm fine with it -- so willpower or fortune/doom or whatever don't bother me, as long as they're working through the character. But as soon as they're the player acting directly on the setting, especially in a way that requires retroactive changes, that's a no-go for me... it's one of the first things I look out for in a system, and I'll often put it down and walk away if I see it.

[kyoryu]

Perhaps. However, that does not explain why they don't want them. I guess I am thinking in terms of cause and effect. Not wanting the narrative mechanics is the effect, whereas the desire for immersion (which is broken) is the cause.

This means that if it's possible to change the narrative mechanics in such a way that they still count as "narrative mechanics", but don't interfere with the player's perceived immersion, then they wouldn't have a problem with them anymore. If someone says "I don't want narrative mechanics", the obvious follow-up question is "why". This why is, in my opinion, the root desire which is important for the game.

Once the answer to "why" simply becomes "because it feels good / gives me satisfaction" or something like, then you've identified the need.

I'm not sure if I wrote this in an understandable why. Should I clarify some more? Of course, you can still disagree, and then we can discuss the benefits / drawbacks of defining the needs or desires at certain levels (on a scale from root desire to "effect" desire?).

It's totally useful to understand that, and it's also useful to realize that why people that don't like narrative mechanics might not for multiple reasons. But for starters, I think it's super important to accept "I dont' like narrative mechanics" as a thing in and of itself.

For me, I get the immersion thing, but I think that "narrative mechanics" aren't really the problem most of the time. From experience, when I started learning Fate, it was very jarring to my immersion, because the action resolution sequence was weird in ways that it wasn't in most games. Most games use a pretty standard process: Declare action, determine defense (if applicable), find bonuses, roll, get result. Some math may change, but hte overall process is usually the same, though there might be a missing step in some games (D&D doesn't have defense, for instance)

Fate is more like "declare fictional action, determine opposition, there's no bonuses so skip that, roll, depending on result see if you want to change it and narrate more stuff, get constraints on result, and determine final result yourself."

That's.... pretty different. And it was jarring at first.

So I think that for most people, whether they realize it or not, immersion is primarily about two things: Focus on the game world (vs. abstract representations) and being in a flow state. And you can only be in a flow state when you've internalized the mechanics sufficiently that you don't think about them.

So narrative mechanics are a thing that most "immersion" players aren't used to. Their normal processes stop working. That's jarring. All of a sudden, they're thinking about the steps involved, and that kills immersion.

I do think that, given time, they could eventually internalize those steps but in many cases they don't want to (which is reasonable). They want specific things out of games, they're getting them already, so why go through a whole curve of being less satisfied in order to maybe get something that will give them what they're already getting?



IME, just talking to some posters here and elsewhere, "narrative" means very different things to different players, so it's a hard term to use...

Indeed. It's a term that means very very different things to people, and so often creates more confusion than it solves.

[Pelle]

And story level mechanics... I kinda hate. Perfect example is the system that has a class ability that allows the player, without any character interaction with the setting at all, to declare that some mechanic system failed or malfunctioned, because that's what the player wants to happen in the story, not because that was the result of the character's actions. Ugh.

Is that due to the story level mechanic being tied to the character (as class ability), or would you also mind if the players had those abilities as players more generally, not involving the characters themselves? That's a big difference to me. I can like both trad games and story games, but the mechanic above mess with the expectation of what kind of game it is.

[Lorsa]

It's totally useful to understand that, and it's also useful to realize that why people that don't like narrative mechanics might not for multiple reasons. But for starters, I think it's super important to accept "I dont' like narrative mechanics" as a thing in and of itself.

You are right, that it certainly could be a thing in and of itself. In that case, it's fairly easy to see which procedure will be detrimental to that need. It's like saying "I don't like combat". Not hard to grasp what to avoid then.

It seemed to me that the purpose of this thread was more to discuss how to link desires or needs or whatnot, with game things in a way that might not be obvious at first glance. That's why I brought up an example of how "I like immersion" might interact with certain types of rules, since that's a thing I've seen people complain about.



For me, I get the immersion thing, but I think that "narrative mechanics" aren't really the problem most of the time. From experience, when I started learning Fate, it was very jarring to my immersion, because the action resolution sequence was weird in ways that it wasn't in most games. Most games use a pretty standard process: Declare action, determine defense (if applicable), find bonuses, roll, get result. Some math may change, but hte overall process is usually the same, though there might be a missing step in some games (D&D doesn't have defense, for instance)

Fate is more like "declare fictional action, determine opposition, there's no bonuses so skip that, roll, depending on result see if you want to change it and narrate more stuff, get constraints on result, and determine final result yourself."

That's.... pretty different. And it was jarring at first.

So I think that for most people, whether they realize it or not, immersion is primarily about two things: Focus on the game world (vs. abstract representations) and being in a flow state. And you can only be in a flow state when you've internalized the mechanics sufficiently that you don't think about them.

So narrative mechanics are a thing that most "immersion" players aren't used to. Their normal processes stop working. That's jarring. All of a sudden, they're thinking about the steps involved, and that kills immersion.

I do think that, given time, they could eventually internalize those steps but in many cases they don't want to (which is reasonable). They want specific things out of games, they're getting them already, so why go through a whole curve of being less satisfied in order to maybe get something that will give them what they're already getting?

I like your analyses of what immersion might really be. Intuitively, it feels rather fitting.

Since I am in a science mode, I also see that you're making a sort of prediction. That is, that for many people, the immersion breaking is all about how used they are to certain mechanics. It's something that's worth investigating for sure, though we may need some volunteers.

Like we discussed long ago, I am not used to the type of resolution you describe that Fate has. However, I have a feeling that if I tried to learn it myself with a group that's never tried it either, we might easily run into that exact trap you're describing (that the learning curve of less satisfaction stands in the way).



Indeed. It's a term that means very very different things to people, and so often creates more confusion than it solves.

Yes, I do realize that as well. I think that's why I said something like "certain types of 'narrative mechanics'". At least that's what I meant to say.

[Cluedrew]

Quertus' Big Post of Everything

Well, while the forums are down, I decided to start working on my "big'ol comprehensive theory of everything gaming" post.You weren't kidding. On the whole this does feel like a very detailed version of the 8 aesthetics. I wonder if you could bring in the rest of MDA (Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics) to expand on it. Other than that I have no particular comment, but I just had to read it when I saw the name of the thread.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is that due to the story level mechanic being tied to the character (as class ability), or would you also mind if the players had those abilities as players more generally, not involving the characters themselves? That's a big difference to me. I can like both trad games and story games, but the mechanic above mess with the expectation of what kind of game it is.

My dislike is due to the power/ability being something that the player does to the setting directly -- often retroactively, often explained in a way that forces actions on an NPC, as way of explaining how the event came to pass -- rather than something the character does within the setting.

However, now that you mention it, I think there is also an element of dislike that arises from the fact that it's part of the character class' ability tree, which implies it's something the character does, but cannot be explained by anything the character actually does do.

[kyoryu]

My dislike is due to the power/ability being something that the player does to the setting directly -- often retroactively, often explained in a way that forces actions on an NPC, as way of explaining how the event came to pass -- rather than something the character does within the setting.

However, now that you mention it, I think there is also an element of dislike that arises from the fact that it's part of the character class' ability tree, which implies it's something the character does, but cannot be explained by anything the character actually does do.

So you're mentioning a few things there - both "retroactively changing things" and "something outside of what the character does". And it's useful to be aware that those are two things.

For instance, in Fate, you can invoke an aspect to modify a result. My preferred way to do this is what's called the ellipsis trick. It looks something like this:

GM: "Okay, the orc charges you, axe raised over his head, and takes a mighty swing at you!"
Player: "I dodge to the side!"
GM: "Okay, the Orc is making an Attack with the Fight Skill, you use Athletics in this case to Defend...." <roll roll> "Oooo, you try to slip to the side but it looks like you're just not fast enough..." (Here the GM is leaving space for more things to happen, while indicating imminent failure)
Player: <tosses Fate Point in the pile> "As an Experienced Orc Hunter, I know this move and shift my body slightly to be just out of the path of the axe...." (note the player leaving space as well)
GM: "You just barely dodge out of the way of the axe as it crashes to the ground beside you.

So this bypasses the (frequent) "let's describe what happens, and then reroll" thing that often times happens with these types of mechanics, and would presumably be less offensive?

That said, this would be an alternate player invoke:

Player: <tosses Fate Point in the pile> "As the orc puts his weight into the killing stroke, he slips on the Muddy Ground...."

Since that's the player dictating things that happen that are not character actions, presumably that would bother you for the second reason?

[Max_Killjoy]

So you're mentioning a few things there - both "retroactively changing things" and "something outside of what the character does". And it's useful to be aware that those are two things.

For instance, in Fate, you can invoke an aspect to modify a result. My preferred way to do this is what's called the ellipsis trick. It looks something like this:

GM: "Okay, the orc charges you, axe raised over his head, and takes a mighty swing at you!"
Player: "I dodge to the side!"
GM: "Okay, the Orc is making an Attack with the Fight Skill, you use Athletics in this case to Defend...." <roll roll> "Oooo, you try to slip to the side but it looks like you're just not fast enough..." (Here the GM is leaving space for more things to happen, while indicating imminent failure)
Player: <tosses Fate Point in the pile> "As an Experienced Orc Hunter, I know this move and shift my body slightly to be just out of the path of the axe...." (note the player leaving space as well)
GM: "You just barely dodge out of the way of the axe as it crashes to the ground beside you.

So this bypasses the (frequent) "let's describe what happens, and then reroll" thing that often times happens with these types of mechanics, and would presumably be less offensive?


Yes, leaving room for things to change in the moment, in a non-retroactive way, is far less irksome to me.




That said, this would be an alternate player invoke:

Player: <tosses Fate Point in the pile> "As the orc puts his weight into the killing stroke, he slips on the Muddy Ground...."

Since that's the player dictating things that happen that are not character actions, presumably that would bother you for the second reason?


Correct -- that is the player imposing something on a character not their own, utterly independent of their own character's actions within the "fictional reality".


The example I often use goes to the extreme of "As we fire up the engines on our ship and prepare to take off, the bounty hunter chasing us can't get his ship to start because he didn't have proper maintenance done on the engines last week" or "The door won't open because the lowest-bid contractor used shoddy parts" -- it's both very retroactive and very divorced from the actions of the player's character.

[kyoryu]

Correct -- that is the player imposing something on a character not their own, utterly independent of their own character's actions within the "fictional reality".

I suspected as much. That's why I think it's important to not bundle those two together.


The example I often use goes to the extreme of "As we fire up the engines on our ship and prepare to take off, the bounty hunter chasing us can't get his ship to start because he didn't have proper maintenance done on the engines last week" or "The door won't open because the lowest-bid contractor used shoddy parts" -- it's both very retroactive and very divorced from the actions of the player's character.

So Fate handles that by demanding that invokes and compels both be anchored on aspects - and you can think of aspects as things that we have learned and that have been foreshadowed.

So, in that case, the door not opening would only be legitimate if we somehow had learned previously that the base was in poor maintenance because of the contractor using shoddy parts. Think of it like a movie - we see a scene earlier in the movie where something inconsequential doesn't work, and then at the critical moment, the actually important door conveniently fails. But it doesn't break continuity from the viewer's POV because we already knew the base was in disrepair. But without the setup, that would have seemed cheap and nonsensical.

Most of Fate's "story-level" mechanics hinge upon this, so there should always be some level of continuity involved. It's still player-facing, but (to me) it's not that different from a player saying "hey, so, we know that the base is in disrepair - what's the chance that the door fails?" and then having the GM decide either that it does fail, or that it could fail and rolling a die. If the GM decides the door couldn't fail it's a flat no either way. The only difference is that in Fate, the player can move the "maybe" dial to a "yes" by paying a point.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Fate here or anything. In the context of this discussion my question is - as described above, does that still trigger the dislike reaction from you, the way your two examples did? (To be honest, I wouldn't care for those either - it's getting a little Calvinball at that point).

[Max_Killjoy]

I suspected as much. That's why I think it's important to not bundle those two together.


So Fate handles that by demanding that invokes and compels both be anchored on aspects - and you can think of aspects as things that we have learned and that have been foreshadowed.

So, in that case, the door not opening would only be legitimate if we somehow had learned previously that the base was in poor maintenance because of the contractor using shoddy parts. Think of it like a movie - we see a scene earlier in the movie where something inconsequential doesn't work, and then at the critical moment, the actually important door conveniently fails. But it doesn't break continuity from the viewer's POV because we already knew the base was in disrepair. But without the setup, that would have seemed cheap and nonsensical.

Most of Fate's "story-level" mechanics hinge upon this, so there should always be some level of continuity involved. It's still player-facing, but (to me) it's not that different from a player saying "hey, so, we know that the base is in disrepair - what's the chance that the door fails?" and then having the GM decide either that it does fail, or that it could fail and rolling a die. If the GM decides the door couldn't fail it's a flat no either way. The only difference is that in Fate, the player can move the "maybe" dial to a "yes" by paying a point.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Fate here or anything. In the context of this discussion my question is - as described above, does that still trigger the dislike reaction from you, the way your two examples did? (To be honest, I wouldn't care for those either - it's getting a little Calvinball at that point).



It's less irksome, because the explanations flow from pre-established facts and at least honor the basic character of those NPCs. The "pro's pro" or "meticulous" bounty hunter's ship can't be retroactively hit with a "he didn't do repairs" move, but the "sloppy" or "living paycheck to paycheck" bounty hunter might have ignored repairs or tried to stretch the time between repairs because the fuel was low or a payment on something was due. I think it's less irksome enough to not be enjoyment-impairing.

[kyoryu]

It's less irksome, because the explanations flow from pre-established facts and at least honor the basic character of those NPCs. The "pro's pro" or "meticulous" bounty hunter's ship can't be retroactively hit with a "he didn't do repairs" move, but the "sloppy" or "living paycheck to paycheck" bounty hunter might have ignored repairs or tried to stretch the time between repairs because the fuel was low or a payment on something was due. I think it's less irksome enough to not be enjoyment-impairing.

So, then, what I'm picking up is:

1) The retroactive stuff really annoys you
2) The player-facing stuff annoys you, but less so if it's at least a little more explicit and not coupled with the retroactive stuff.

And that's understandable, really. Ignoring continuity is jarring, and it's awful when fiction does it. That's literally why that literary device exists. Like, in the beginning of the movie you see reports (maybe in a not trustworthy source) about ninja attacks, and then when ninjas actually attack it's not as jarring.

Or, to use Guardians of the Galaxy as an example, in the beginning we can accept Star-Lord's ship being inconveniently caught up in the planetary geyser thing because we saw them before. Establishing a fact before using it to turn the plot is less jarring (even if it can on lead to predictability if not done with delicacy)

[Phhase]

Hail Quertus, fellow acolyte of creating! Nice to see this sort of thing pop up. Here's a few entry thoughts of mine:

I agree that abstractions we make should not "remove information" from the system, so to speak. "Neat" and "Usable" need not necessarily be mutually inclusive. At once, I agree that adding too many bells n' whistles also bogs down things.

My vision is, provisionally, some some of a middle ground between "vague abstraction" and "Exhaustive associative spreadsheet", like you mentioned?

Spitballing, but perhaps we should create another list (oh boy...), which describes core concepts related to the "wants"t. For example: Agency and Effort. Agency is a player's ability to change things. It's the upper limit of their personal power. Wants like "win, lose, struggle, make do" all have elements of Agency. The ability to "win" is a proof of positive Agency. Please don't misunderstand, I don't mean in terms of black and white, I mean more along the lines of, a "win" or "loss" on a per case basis has a + or -1 overall Agency value. A "loss" means that, for one reason or another, the player was prevented from achieving the desired outcome, which reflects on the overall game's Agency as the story evolves. Something else (whatever it was) had, in that instance, more agency than the player. It could be the dice, the DM, the NPCs...anything.

Effort (Or Cognitive Load, if you want), meanwhile, describes how much the players want to work for the win or loss. Players who want power fantasies don't necessarily want to put in zero effort. Conversely, players who want insurmountable odds don't necessarily want be spited by the game at every turn.

Note that Effort isn't just an in-universe concept for our purposes. Even if players want to win in-game most of the time, and without a huge amount of prep or Effort, if the system they are using to acheive these things requires them to wrestle with it, that is its own element of Effort - I'm essentially describing "I want to interact with/play by the rules" here.

If that sort of thing seems like a good idea to others, I can continue to elaborate. If I'm reinventing the wheel, I'd like to know that too.

Other than that, I just have a few miscellaneous thoughts:

-It probably goes without saying, but I think it's a good idea to stipulate that these assumptions and wants should be framed in the context of the players and DM operating in good faith with each other. "How do I stop my players from being arses" is a bit different in some ways to "How do I design my game such that both player A and player B do not come to cross purposes by virtue of personal preference" (Which may very well lead into the former question if not properly addressed, admittedly).

-For no other reason than to codify something we likely already know in a new way, I'd like to bring to light the Dwarf Fortress philosophy of "Losing is fun!" Sometimes, even if you failed to achieve something, it's still fun, for one reason or another. Remembering that is a good way to manage expectations.

Anyhow that's my caffeinated ramble.


Oh, one other thing: I'll bite. What's "Void Knighting" and is it a Runescape reference somehow?

[Quertus]

Sorry for going dark - the comments in this thread have made me… not exactly "go back to the drawing board", so much as realize how not close to fully baked this idea was. Hopefully soon, I'll come back with a more thorough response. Until then,


Oh, one other thing: I'll bite. What's "Void Knighting" and is it a Runescape reference somehow?

Much like Easter eggs, void rangering is (as I know it, at least) a videogame term. "Void rangering" occurs when a clipping error occurs, and the character ends up outside the designated map space. Or, rather, when the player attempts to explore the map from the outside. Knowing that some players liked to do this, some designers actually hid Easter eggs out in the void.