rpg theory
xechnao:
Understood and pardon me for not having grasped the forum's requirements. The topic presented here is an attempt to bring together some observations so to seek to explain the reasons of some confusion I have perceived on the matter of immersion among players.
When there are clear objectives players will seek to fulfill them but they easily grow tired of this type of challenges. What seems to work better, from my experience, is a game that allows or rather runs on player interactions on a basis of their in-game personal relationships. Of course everyone must be able to make meaningful and powerful decisions in-game for this to have any effect. And here is where the rules are important.
A problem that I encounter with 4ed D&D for example is that its rules do not provide anything of this sort. The game's rules detail combat action but they offer little about any balances regarding the risks one takes and his expectations. It ends to be just an exercise to master the game's combat tactics and as soon as this happens lack of interest seems to prevail. I feel the same way about the various iterations of the D20 system where the goal seems to be to gain XP by killing monsters. I like action but I guess I do not like mindless repetitive action because in the end it does not feel action any more. AD&D 2e seemed to fare better in this account although there was some fatigue in implementation. Also Cadwallon has fared a lot better because of well defined systematic (inherent to the system's design) backgrounds and responsibilities the PCs come with -although there was still fatigue but because of the mechanics. But I wanted to make a point here and I think I am getting lost.My point is that I think tabletop games may benefit more from seeking game design elements found in "the sims" rather than WoW. What may happen in "the sims" IMO works better as a basis for building and enjoying storytelling in a collective way. But I do not know how I can precisely describe this from actual play. If you do understand this perhaps you could try to analyze it with examples of your playing sessions and perhaps this could help research this problematic and its solutions even further?
Vulpinoid:
I certainly agree that if Pen-and-Paper RPG had adopted elements of a computer RPG form, it would have been far more interesting to follow "The Sims" rather than "WoW".
I think the WoW model marginalizes the roleplaying community further by reinforcing certain stereotypes, while the Sims model would have opened it up a bit more.
But then again, most of the game designers around here are trying to add something interesting and dynamic to the games they are producing...pushing the envelope in one direction or another to see what flies and what crashes.
A few games already incorporate the types of elements that you see in "The Sims".
1) Skills improving with use and specific skill-oriented research (reading books, performing tasks, etc.)
2) Improving job status through acquiring a pattern of required traits
3) Playing with a character's morale levels based on the events that happen around them (bad thing happens, morale goes down; good thing happens, morale goes up)
4) Gaining power/money/status in the game for performing actions that are specifically tied to these concepts
Most of the amateur mods I've seen for "The Sims" have been simply cosmetic changes, and maybe a couple of new items or building types. The official expansion packs have added new game concepts to expand the immersive experience of the game, I'd love to see someone write up a fantasy simulation for one of the games in the series, throwing in things like racial bonuses to certain things, extra degrees of friendliness to allied races, instant enmities with opposing races....but still focusing on the development of a character within that world, rather than focusing on a grand quest or world-shattering adventure.
This kind of project isn't typically the kind of thing that gets explored here on the Forge, that form of game design requires a fairly different skill set to the one fostered here.
V
P.S. From the Forge perspective, would "The Sims" be better off called "The Nars", since it doesn't give you a pre-defined storyline and encourages players to develop their own narrative within the world that has been presented?
Ron Edwards:
mjbauer, you posted to this thread against my moderation. I do understand that you posted in good faith as part of the discussion, without intention of causing problems. I'm not scolding your intentions and you're not being put down.
However, posting against moderation does cause a problem. The sole reasons that the Forge is what it is are (a) my social-intellectual rules and (b) everyone's willingness to respect and reinforce them themselves. It's really important that when I say "Don't post," it means "don't post," not "post if you really feel like it" or "post if you happened not to read this one." Only in this atmosphere can an on-line discussion be this good for so long. Please help me and everyone else keep it that way.
And everyone, mjbauer, everybody, please continue the discussion. No need to dwell on moderation. We have actual play material to work with, so the points being made are now grounded.
xechnao, one issue I have with your ideas in this thread is that one person's repetition is another's welcome "next step." It depends vastly upon the goals of play - if you and I share the goals, and the feedback via the system and our interactions together lead to a new step (scene, event, issue, location, whatever) that lets us "do it again!" with the new materials in hand that resulted from the last step ... then it's fun!
But if we don't share the goals then your next step (a new iteration in Sims-mode play) means it's just more fooling around as far as I'm concerned until I get to put my tactics and drive into play in a stress situation. And in turn, if in such a situation, you're saying, "shoot, another stupid fight" and not even caring about how well I do in it this time ... well, here we are, not having fun playing together.
So my current take on what you're saying is that it's great and fine ... but it's also predicated on the people playing sharing the agenda for our creativity (-ies, together).
Best, Ron
xechnao:
Quote from: Vulpinoid on February 17, 2009, 02:46:18 PM
3) Playing with a character's morale levels based on the events that happen around them (bad thing happens, morale goes down; good thing happens, morale goes up)
This sounds interesting. Any actual examples? I would also like to see something around the premise of the real life strategic objectives, from the more casual ones like securing one's safety to the more "permanent" ones like the love bonds one seeks in his life.
Quote from: Vulpinoid on February 17, 2009, 02:46:18 PM
V
P.S. From the Forge perspective, would "The Sims" be better off called "The Nars", since it doesn't give you a pre-defined storyline and encourages players to develop their own narrative within the world that has been presented?
I understand what you are saying and I think that yes, it could very well be so if this is reflected by a choice of options that lie in the rules. Keywords or background choices or something like that.
xechnao:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 17, 2009, 05:22:25 PM
xechnao, one issue I have with your ideas in this thread is that one person's repetition is another's welcome "next step." It depends vastly upon the goals of play - if you and I share the goals, and the feedback via the system and our interactions together lead to a new step (scene, event, issue, location, whatever) that lets us "do it again!" with the new materials in hand that resulted from the last step ... then it's fun!
But if we don't share the goals then your next step (a new iteration in Sims-mode play) means it's just more fooling around as far as I'm concerned until I get to put my tactics and drive into play in a stress situation. And in turn, if in such a situation, you're saying, "shoot, another stupid fight" and not even caring about how well I do in it this time ... well, here we are, not having fun playing together.
But wouldn't it be more fun if we were trying to solve this conflict of interest in-game? Lets assume that your character is some dare-devil and my character is someone more cautious and for some implications well explained and covered by the rules we are bound to act together. Each one will try to influence the course of action towards his way, but whatever the course everyone has to be involved -due to prohibiting consequences- and the dynamics of their relations is still a thing to consider regarding the further course of action or even the whole story.
At least have some rules framework that allows this sort of thing. I think it could allow gameplay of sharing goal characters as easily as gameplay of situations where goals conflict.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page