The OP doesn't sound so much like the normal meaning of "emergent phenomena", but more exploiting AI weaknesses that allows behavior that kill suspension of disbelief or verisimilitude.  However, "emergent phenomena" is a catchier phrase that program bugs.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityUnfortunately (IMNSHO), there is a sense in which the term is becoming increasingly applicable in D&D: unforeseen feat synergies, Pan-Pan the Kobold god, cetera cetera. The more the gameworld recedes beneath the rules, the more the rules exclusively define what you can do at all--the more the rules will be the site of "emergent" behavior. Emerging on a tabula rasa, to be sure.

This is a good point... truly "emergent" phenomenon in RPG rulesets used to just be called Murphy's Rules.

Quote from: XantherThe OP doesn't sound so much like the normal meaning of "emergent phenomena", but more exploiting AI weaknesses that allows behavior that kill suspension of disbelief or verisimilitude.  However, "emergent phenomena" is a catchier phrase that program bugs.

So what is the normal meaning of "emergent phenomena"?  I usually think of myself as a pretty bright guy with a reasonable vocabulary, but even after reading every message in this thread carefully, I'm still at a loss to figure out exactly what the fuck people are actually talking about.

Regular phenomenon in videogames:  People run around shooting rockets at each other.

Emergent phenomenon in videogames:  People figure out how to jump on the rockets and ride them around.

Quote from: Old GeezerSo what is the normal meaning of "emergent phenomena"?  I usually think of myself as a pretty bright guy with a reasonable vocabulary, but even after reading every message in this thread carefully, I'm still at a loss to figure out exactly what the fuck people are actually talking about.

I take it to mean a phenomena that can not be readily (or at all) predicted from the rules governing a system but which emerges from the rules of a system .  It is not an emergent phenomena when the phenomena arises from an unknown rule (computer engine bug).  

It is related in my mind to the idea of synergy, where the total is more than the sum of its parts.

It is also related in my mind to complex behaviors resulting from the interaction of simple rules, such as the behavior of social insects, the schooling of fish, etc.  

That is, simple rules like "turn to the closest fish within a 45 degree arch in front of me" may be all that one needs to get the schooling behavior you see in fish.  (That's just an example taken form some simple collection of robot rules, it may not be anything like what fish actually do).

I'd also relate it to attractors in chaos theory.

Yes, but we still don't know what the fuck riprock is talking about.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, what the fuck are you talking about?

RPGPundit

An "Emergent Phenomena" is something that happens in a system where combinations of the rules of the system produce an unexpected result.

The reason, for example, that huge schools of fish seem to act as one entity, moving in great clouds and patterns, despite the fact that fish do not communicate (except via body motion) is emergent behavior.  A tiny change in direction of one fish is picked up and copied by the nearby fish, and that effect propagates to the whole school so fast that it seems "instant" to the human observer.

In game design, we use the term "emergence" to mean that the players + the rules == unexpected results.  Emergence, by itself, is a neutral term; sometimes it produces value, sometimes it removes value, and sometimes it is value neutral.

When a game design is still "under control", that is, it can be adjusted, the designers are often able to fix the things that permit a negative value emergent behavior, while allowing things that permit a positive value emergent behavior.  Thus, after a few iterations, you can end up with a world where "neat, unexpected things" are possible, but "bad, unexpected things" are not.

The OP example of a player who figured out a non-intended use of land-mines (to scale walls) didn't produce a behavior that was a negative, and the behavior was apparently used for art (taking screen shots from locations normal users simply could not reach).  Harmless at worst, beautiful at best.  (Now, if that same user had figured out how to use the perch to do things like snipe at other characters in a way that they could not figure out what was happening or adequately respond, the game design would have to be changed to remove the thing that enabled the behavior...)

In traditional RPG design, this kind of thing used to drive designers nuts.  "Why", they would wonder, "won't people just play the damn game as intended, and quit screwing around with these things that make us write ridiculously complex rules to stop them".  However, the CCG guys embraced this concept from the outset (Richard Garfield loves this stuff).  They viewed emergent behavior as a successful path to victory; that is, figuring out how to combine things in the game to do unexpected stuff often leads to winning.  Instead of trying to squash that behavior, they tried to learn how to channel it productively.

Example:  There was a card in Magic called Chaos Orb.  Its game text read something like this:  "Throw Chaos Orb at your opponents cards.  Any card touched by Chaos Orb is destroyed".  Sounds simple; you throw the card, you see what it touches when it lands.  No biggie.  Then some bright bulb got the idea to tear the card into confetti before throwing it, effectively nuking every card on the other side of the table.  That's negative value emergent behavior.  The CCG guys responded by writing a rule that said "if you damage a card that card is destroyed and has no effect on play".  (Eventually, they stopped making cards like Chaos Orb because of other problems.)

The really classic example was cards that did damage to the player who used them as a cost of use, or a cost of maintenance.  In design, this cost was seen as a strict negative:  in other words, any time you hurt yourself is bad.  So a number of cards proliferated that did damage to their owners because the "cost" of self-damage was being used to balance the cards other, positive effects.  Then a player made a deck that combined those cards with another card effect that allowed him to redirect "self damage" to his opponent!  Suddenly, instead of being a negative, all that "self damage" became EXTRA damage to the other guy!  All those cards had to be re-evaluated in light of the idea that the thing that was perceived to make them balanced was actually an additional benefit!  Interestingly, the solution was not to change the cards, but to ban a few from competitive play (because they became ridiculously overpowered), and then pay attention in the future to those kinds of combinations when in card design to avoid repeating the mistake; which has proved more difficult in practice then in theory...

(My favorite example was an early Alpha Magic card that had game text that said essentially "when used, opponent loses next turn".  Of course, the first 10 year old who played it used that effect and triumphantly announced victory.  Against Richard.  Who grimaced.  But that's really a grammar error, not a very emergent behavior.  Still, it shows the difference in game effect from using terms with multiple meanings....)

The RPG guys are just now starting to twig to this as a potential benefit.  Assume that the players will do nutty and unexpected things with the rules, and instead of trying to stop them, try to make easy to understand "meta rules" that limit the damage of negative behavior, while allowing the positive behavior to flourish.  But there's still a strong streak of old-school Publisher Control lurking in the hearts of many RPG designers, and it is a hard thing to suppress.

The canonical example of this effect in RPGs are the people who used Portable Holes and Bags of Holding as weapons.  The whole meta-rule that you can't put an extra-dimensional effect inside another extra-dimensional effect stems from designers reacting to players doing funny things with infinite space in zero volume.

Ryan

Ryan,

So, if I understand right, it means "if the designer intended 10 ways for this rule to work, the players will think up 15 more?"

True.  But is it news?

(Genie, 10 x 10 x 10 stone cubes appearing above bad guys' heads, 1974).

Quote from: Old GeezerSo, if I understand right, it means "if the designer intended 10 ways for this rule to work, the players will think up 15 more?"

There are some games where the other 5 things became the whole point of the game.  EVE OnLine, for example, which has almost abandoned its "house story" because the emergent behavior of the player-corporations has become so much more interesting/fun than the originally intended story arc could ever have been.

Ryan

Quote from: riprockMy personal opinion is that emergent phenomena in games increase player enjoyment, make suspension-of-disbelief easier, and improve gameplay.

Two out of three ain't bad riprock. I don't see how someone exploiting the rules to do weird or game-breaking stuff as enhancing suspension of disbelief. Pun-Pun the mighty kobold may sharpen you awareness of the game's rules, and could be a blast to make, but to actually use him in play would break even D&D's taffy-like level of fantasy.

Quote from: StuartRyan D had said something earlier about Emergent phenomena in games like Second Life and Eve Online.  I figured this was a spin off of that which never really took off.

I have no idea why Riprock believes why this makes suspension of disbelief easier, and if you look at the examples of people figuring out how to "break" the game engines... I'd say it's quite the opposite.

I think I get it.  Emergent Phenomenon appears to mean that as the Players do stuff in the world the world itself changes.  So if their moral is low (I guess the computer AI is watching that?) then there are more breakables.  This is obviously related to computer games.  However, there is a carry-over concept that I suspect Ryan may be thinking of for TRPGs.   It works the same way, and probably, actually, happens all the time.  As the Players move their Characters through the World the GM changes the World to better suit what is happening.   To tie it to the OP example, if the PCs are low on energy/moral then he might make the encounter he set up earlier with lots of monsters, have fewer, less powerful ones, least the party die.   That sort of thing could be considered Emergent Phenomenon.

As to how this *might* make suspension of disbelieve easier, because all it is saying is that the GM makes up some stuff as he goes along in order to suit the situation.   So the room the PCs entered as originally written in the GM's notes includes one table, a trap door, and a poison lock treasure chest.   But the Party, being tired and wounded, instead that the room also has a table full of plates of food, goblets of wine, and richly accouted with fine cloth tapestries (which they use to bind their wounds).  That sort of thing.  So yeah, Emergent Phenomenon would help to fill in the blanks of a World as the GM goes.  Kind of like saying Improvising World Setting stuff.   Or something.    I don't think its anything earth shakingly new.   It's just a new phrase for Computer Games with a pre-existent carry-over element that ties back to GMing.   Anyway, that's my take on it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityExactly. It's just that while this may be a cause for designer celebration in video games it's always been par for the course in tabletop RPGs. "Woohoo, players are doing something in/with the gameworld I hadn't anticipated!" Well, yes. I mean, hello? Ten-foot pole?

Positive emergent phenomena have always been the best case for tabletop games, not the average situation.

The average tabletop game is hampered by a typical laundry list of problems, and aided by a typical laundry list of strengths.

IMHO the problem list includes boring stereotypes, rule disputes, railroading, etc.  The strength list IMHO includes nuanced communication.

However, I think it's fairly rare that players say, "Aha, the DM is really doing something new here," or the DM says, "Aha, the players are really adding something new to this I didn't foresee -- unexpected tactics, unexpected deep roleplay, etc."  One example might be Robilar somehow obtaining a large group of guinea pigs -- I don't know if they were chasing him, or following him -- and getting them to set off the traps in the first run of the Tomb of Horrors.  The dungeon designer was genuinely surprised by that tactic.

Negative emergent phenomena are typified by D&D characters doing things that the players think are stupid, but which are necessitated by the conventions of the game.  (For many players, ten-foot-poles are necessary, but they kill the Conan-bravery mood.  Other folks enjoy the ten-foot-pole to eleven-foot-pole arms race.) However, a lot of game slowdowns are negative emergent phenomena -- the game testers thought everyone would be able to play through the game quickly, but average players bog down and abandon play.

Positive emergent phenomena occur when the game is sufficiently well-designed that the rules elicit an unexpected piece of content.  On the tabletop, this can happen when the rules contain information that the players have not yet interacted with, and it suddenly comes to light, or when the rules contain a blank space that can be filled gracefully.

Emergent phenomena are complex phenomena which emerge in a system of simple rules.

QuoteWe all wanted to try to break the systems and see how they worked. Some guy in Deus Ex figured out that you could take a proximity mine and put it on the wall and hop up on it. It had a little lip of physics. Then you could place another one and hop up on it, then turn around, crouch, grab the first mine, and put it up higher. He would just climb out of the world that way. He'd climb the side of tall buildings that we never intended anyone to be on top of.

The game designers were using logically consistent rule design to make their game environment.  Any player had the ability to interact with the environment and get access to those logically consistent rules.  No DM was required.  No railroading was possible.

As a result, one player was able to get very deep gameplay out of the game -- his character could become a wall-climber.

Recall how many times you've tried to extend the rules -- whether as a referee or as a player.  People get bored quickly, they don't want to listen to a distracting idea, the best ideas often don't become part of tabletop play.

Currently there are gamers who could be coming up with the next great idea on the tabletop.  But they're not there.  Instead they're making new game worlds with computer games like Portal and Half-Life 2, and they're having fun doing it.

I've seen incredible creativity in the tabletop environment -- inarticulate guys who draw incredibly good character portraits.  No one ever would have known these guys had that drawing talent, if not for tabletop gaming.  Tabletop gaming has immediacy -- there's a very low barrier to entry.

Computer game design has a considerably higher barrier to entry, but it makes it much easier for others to build on the results, and so emergent phenomena are easier to point out in the computer game world.  (That doesn't prove that they're more common.  But it's easier to post a Portal gameplay video on YouTube than it is to make a stranger understand why your gaming buddy has unsung artistic talent.)

Quote from: RSDanceyIn traditional RPG design, this kind of thing used to drive designers nuts.  "Why", they would wonder, "won't people just play the damn game as intended, and quit screwing around with these things that make us write ridiculously complex rules to stop them".  However, the CCG guys embraced this concept from the outset (Richard Garfield loves this stuff).  They viewed emergent behavior as a successful path to victory; that is, figuring out how to combine things in the game to do unexpected stuff often leads to winning.  Instead of trying to squash that behavior, they tried to learn how to channel it productively.

IMHO, many TRPGs play like dysfunctional wargames.

The fact is that games are often easily breakable.  If the designer asks the players not to break them, the gameplay will often be extremely predictable and repetitive.  And for a wargame, predictable and repetitive tactics are the wrong lesson to teach!  Wargames should teach tactical innovation and flexibility.  Wargames should teach decision makers that plans do not survive first contact with the enemy.

Of course, it's much easier to be flexible and innovative in an abstract fantasy game like Magic the Gathering than it is to be flexible and innovative in a wargame.

TRPG designers are accustomed to saying, "The rules won't cover everything, we trust the referee to make reasonable judgment calls.  This won't get absurd, because the referee is responsible to intervene before it gets absurd."  That can lead to ego struggles between players and referees.

By contrast, the Garfield method is to say, "The rules are phrased logically. We don't guarantee this won't be absurd, but it should always be clear what the rules are."  This method requires no referee; if properly executed it requires no judgment calls.  

(In the case of Magic the Gathering, the unambiguous rules also entail that the game world is not as detailed as AD&D -- for highly detailed approaches, computer games have a natural advantage IMHO.  This includes not just "AAA" titles like Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines, but also MUDs.  Roleplaying in a MUD can be awfully similar to a crunchy TRPG.)

Gygax designed a game that played to his personal strengths -- poetic improvisation, fast-talking persuasion, imaginative storytelling, etc.  This blend of strengths is rare and that is why one must be an excellent DM to make AD&D work well.

Steve Jackson made a game that required fewer judgment calls but also was much less distinctive.  IMHO it requires less DMing skill than AD&D. I still run GURPS Lite, but it never inspires me.  I have to rip off more colorful, less consistent games (like Space:1889 and Etherscope) for ideas.  It does not particularly encourage positive emergent phenomena, but it is logically consistent, which discourages negative emergent phenomena.

Garfield designed a game that played to a more common strength: the ability to analyze combinations of cards logically.  It encourages positive emergent phenomena, but it's not really a TRPG.

My goal is tabletop situations that encourage initiative, lateral thinking, and positive emergent phenomena.  I think the underlying ruleset to encourage this has to be extremely consistent.  I think  logic is going to be the single most necessary player skill.  I don't plan to try to do this with fantasy worlds, but there's no reason why fantasy worlds can't be made both fun and logically consistent.

Quote from: riprock...My goal is tabletop situations that encourage initiative, lateral thinking, and positive emergent phenomena.  I think the underlying ruleset to encourage this has to be extremely consistent.  I think  logic is going to be the single most necessary player skill.  I don't plan to try to do this with fantasy worlds, but there's no reason why fantasy worlds can't be made both fun and logically consistent.

TFT may have the flavor you find lacking in GURPs, but the character advancement mechanics need a tweak for dynamic range.  I'll have to say as a Gm, and palyer, I've seen many creative uses of game components (combat strategies, spells, etc.) used in unique ways.  And also many a player or GM plan that did not survive first contact with the enemy.  

A few combat tactical options, rules that don't get in the way, and logic, as you say, IME is all that is required.  Internally consistent logical rules are a key cornerstone to deductive reasoning and positive emergent phenomena.

So are you designing a game to achieve this?  Is it to have a tactical combat component, per your reference to wargames?